peaccenicked
23rd June 2002, 03:20
Democracy is the rule of the majority over the minority.
This is not the goal of communism.
From the 'Manifesto'.
"The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all''
This abolishes the majority and the minority, and supposes a voluntarily reached universal concensus.
This is the abandoment of vertical structures of power.
Marxists believe that this cannot be done under the confines of capitalism as it is definable as the rule of the minority over the majority. Even if this rule is held by universal suffrage to be majority rule. The plain fact is that many workers vote against their class interests.
Hence there is the problem of transition.
from Marx's letter to Weydemeyer dated March 5, 1852. This letter, among other things, contains the following remarkable observation:
"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Produktion), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
It was only the horrid experience of the Russian Revolution that dissassemled Socialism and democracy both democracy is the way to win the class struggle and to effect the transition. The Bolsheviks were painfully aware of this.
However, the main point is that Marxists cannot procede without winning the battle of democracy, The bolseviks lost it and the anarchists smirk throwing it back on Marx.
Organisation is the only weapon of the proletariat. Anarchists claim to know this. However they give us very little on what organisation entails.
Here we have Bakunin
''Bakunin considered it essential that revolutionaries organise and influence the masses. As he put it, "the chief aim and purpose of this organisation" is to "help the people towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 191].
So self determination and the struugle for equality, some how automatically leads to Statelessness. There are branches of this such as federalism.How does that relate to self determinition? Nowadays, we can introduce networking. How does that lead to self determination?
It is seems very obvious to me that we need to fix our goals on smashing the capitalist state. The whole point
that Marx makes is that we acheive self determination
in the struggle for it.
Politically that is about in the immediate gaining majority support for a socialist programme.
Is this achievable without vertical structures with an organisation. Who is to stand in elections and is he/she automatically power mad.
Or do we stand back and propagate self determination and consensus in the here and now? The road to revolution one by one.
The abnegation of politics leaves power in the hands of the capitalists. What are the anarchists playing at? Saving their reputations for themselves!
This is not the goal of communism.
From the 'Manifesto'.
"The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all''
This abolishes the majority and the minority, and supposes a voluntarily reached universal concensus.
This is the abandoment of vertical structures of power.
Marxists believe that this cannot be done under the confines of capitalism as it is definable as the rule of the minority over the majority. Even if this rule is held by universal suffrage to be majority rule. The plain fact is that many workers vote against their class interests.
Hence there is the problem of transition.
from Marx's letter to Weydemeyer dated March 5, 1852. This letter, among other things, contains the following remarkable observation:
"And now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic anatomy of classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with the particular, historical phases in the development of production (historische Entwicklungsphasen der Produktion), (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society."
It was only the horrid experience of the Russian Revolution that dissassemled Socialism and democracy both democracy is the way to win the class struggle and to effect the transition. The Bolsheviks were painfully aware of this.
However, the main point is that Marxists cannot procede without winning the battle of democracy, The bolseviks lost it and the anarchists smirk throwing it back on Marx.
Organisation is the only weapon of the proletariat. Anarchists claim to know this. However they give us very little on what organisation entails.
Here we have Bakunin
''Bakunin considered it essential that revolutionaries organise and influence the masses. As he put it, "the chief aim and purpose of this organisation" is to "help the people towards self-determination on the lines of the most complete equality." [Michael Bakunin: Selected Writings, p. 191].
So self determination and the struugle for equality, some how automatically leads to Statelessness. There are branches of this such as federalism.How does that relate to self determinition? Nowadays, we can introduce networking. How does that lead to self determination?
It is seems very obvious to me that we need to fix our goals on smashing the capitalist state. The whole point
that Marx makes is that we acheive self determination
in the struggle for it.
Politically that is about in the immediate gaining majority support for a socialist programme.
Is this achievable without vertical structures with an organisation. Who is to stand in elections and is he/she automatically power mad.
Or do we stand back and propagate self determination and consensus in the here and now? The road to revolution one by one.
The abnegation of politics leaves power in the hands of the capitalists. What are the anarchists playing at? Saving their reputations for themselves!