Authoritarian communists debate [Archive]

BreadBros

27th June 2007, 00:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 08:00 pm
I have had many in dept conversations with my friend over what is the difference between a ruling capitalist bourgeois and ruling class of “intellectual” vanguardist. So I am here to ask if there is actually any difference between Capitalist and or fascist and Authoritarian Communist ideological models. Other than the economic system.
I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for exactly because it focuses more on the class-aspect of past attempts at socialist states and not the authoritarian, but I think you may be interested in reading about the idea of state capitalism. Essentially the criticism runs that the socialist states of the 20th century were in their most basic facets still capitalist. In other words, the wage-labor system still existed and surplus labor was still being extracted from their labor. However, instead of economic production being separated into various distinct companies as it is in most capitalist countries, the state as a whole managed production, almost as if it were one massive corporation. Similarly, instead of being seperated into different blocs with different wages based on company employment as under capitalism, in state capitalism the working class was collectively being exploited as one whole unit. So you said "besides the economics" but I think the economics was fundamental. The ideological foundation of these states was therefore often centered around preventing the reality of the economic system from becoming a conscious critique, rather than merely trying to effectively run the economy and make it more efficient as under capitalism.

As for "the dictatorship of the proletariat": that is a term that Marx used to refer to a state of being where a society or group of people self-manage themselves and their society as happened during the Paris Commune when Parisians rebelled against their leadership. Marx used it in comparison to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" to emphasize the fact that when the bourgeois class rules society political leadership is often authoritarian or dictatorial, while when the proletariat class has overthrown capitalism society is far more free and egalitarian. The use of the term "dictatorship" is somewhat meant to convey irony - as the "dictatorship" of the proletariat is anything but. Its not the best term to use out of context, since you then have to explain yourself, but just clearing that up.

CornetJoyce

27th June 2007, 00:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:08 pm

No, as stated, I mean there is no such thing as the "dictatorship of the proletariat."
I think you may be confused with definitions.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Wikipedia) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictatorship_of_the_proletariat)

PS. I don't really like the term either because it tends to confuse people. That doesn't mean I get to suddenly decide that there's no such thing.
I think you may be confused. A dictator is not a "class" unless he's in a class by himself. No, Marx's comment on the Commune doesn't change that. He's entitled to malapropisms as well as the next guy but I don't have to adopt them. The point he was addressing was not "dictatorship" but the role of the working class in the Commune, and he could have saved everybody a lot of trouble if he had limited himself to clear prose.

Rosa Lichtenstein

27th June 2007, 00:31

Dictatorship is of course not the same a dictator.

Indeed, we speak these days of the dictatorship of the market, of the consumer, of Holywood -- without implying an individual pulling the strings.

CornetJoyce

27th June 2007, 02:45

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 26, 2007 11:31 pm
Dictatorship is of course not the same a dictator.

Indeed, we speak these days of the dictatorship of the market, of the consumer, of Holywood -- without implying an individual pulling the strings.
Nope, nobody I know speaks of any of those notions.
They may say "domination" or "monopoly" if they've been reading hip stuff but not dictatorship: they all seem to reserve that term for the bush regime.

Not that I would accept the mixed metaphor "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a valid construct in any event. The actual or potential role of the class is simply not describable in those terms. "Hegemony" suffices.

It goes without saying, of course, that dictator and dictatorship are not the same, just as dead and death are not the same' but those who are dead are generally assumed to have achieved death.

Rawthentic

27th June 2007, 03:10

Its as simple as this: a class dictatorship over another. You can call it socialism, a worker's state, working people's republic, whatever. The purpose remains.

( R )evolution

27th June 2007, 03:25

As Voz said, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be the working class majority dominating the bourgeoisie until they are eliminated. Dictator and dictatorship are two different things, dictatorship consists of domination by 1 single something, may it be a class or a single person.

Iron

27th June 2007, 04:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 09:04 pm
[
You don't understand that NOBODY ADVOCATES A DICTATORSHIP OF INTELLECTUALS!

There is no ideological difference because the ideology simply does not exist.

so vangaurdist aren't real? well fine if you want to split hairs it a ruling class of intellectuals with absolute power and no government body to question it... NOT A DICTATORSHIP!!!! IT’S A VANGAURD FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! and thank you breadbros your one of the only few who attempted to answer my question

Floyce White

27th June 2007, 04:15

Iron, the very idea of "authoritarian communist" is a straw man. There is no social/political movement for "authoritarian communism" with advocates who call themselves "authoritarian communists." There is no theory called "authoritarian communism." Thus, as we would expect, there is also no such thing as a movement for "libertarian communism." The alternative is as false as the booger man that it's supposed to replace.

In a nutshell, every assertion of the existence of a "fill-in-the-blank communism" is a hoax.

Also, in my Antiproperty articles I pointed out the pro-petty-capitalist nature of the hypothetical "dictatorship of the proletariat"/"lower stage of communism."

CornetJoyce

27th June 2007, 04:25

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 27, 2007 02:10 am
Its as simple as this: a class dictatorship over another. You can call it socialism, a worker's state, working people's republic, whatever. The purpose remains.
No disagreement over the purpose, only the conceptual mismatch. It was not a dictatorship: in fact, it was quite divided, with the military forces under three separate commands. When the Commune asked Garibaldi to take command of the national guard he said that they couldn't win that way and that a unified command was essential. "Despotism is united but you are divided" he told them.
But yes, it was a workers' state.

CornetJoyce

27th June 2007, 04:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 11:13 pm

The use of the term "dictatorship" is somewhat meant to convey irony - as the "dictatorship" of the proletariat is anything but. Its not the best term to use out of context, since you then have to explain yourself, but just clearing that up.
Now that makes sense. Thank you.

Iron

27th June 2007, 04:33

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 27, 2007 03:15 am
Iron, the very idea of "authoritarian communist" is a straw man. There is no social/political movement for "authoritarian communism" with advocates who call themselves "authoritarian communists." There is no theory called "authoritarian communism." Thus, as we would expect, there is also no such thing as a movement for "libertarian communism." The alternative is as false as the booger man that it's supposed to replace.

There might not be an “authoritarian communist” movement but Stalinist/Leninist/maoist movements does indeed advocate an authoritarian view on how a communist government should be set up, i.e. vanguards.

27th June 2007, 04:59

There might not be an “authoritarian communist” movement but Stalinist/Leninist/maoist movements does indeed advocate an authoritarian view on how a communist government should be set up, i.e. vanguards.

Lenin never advocated anything that you are stating.

bezdomni

27th June 2007, 15:43

Originally posted by Iron+June 27, 2007 03:03 am--> (Iron @ June 27, 2007 03:03 am) no
[email protected] 26, 2007 09:04 pm
[
You don't understand that NOBODY ADVOCATES A DICTATORSHIP OF INTELLECTUALS!

There is no ideological difference because the ideology simply does not exist.

so vangaurdist aren't real? well fine if you want to split hairs it a ruling class of intellectuals with absolute power and no government body to question it... NOT A DICTATORSHIP!!!! IT’S A VANGAURD FOR THE PEOPLE!!!! and thank you breadbros your one of the only few who attempted to answer my question [/b]
Uhh...no, "vanguardists" are not real. That is a made up and empty term.

However, the vanguard of the proletariat is real...and the advocacy of a party that is an armed and politicizied body made up by the vanguard of the proletariat, that has popular support from the proletariat and works only with the proletariat does exist.

Being a Marxist-Leninist-Maoist, I advocate the overthrow of capitalism under the leadership of the vanguard of the proletariat; the most radical and class-conscious section of the proletariat.

What I do not advocate is the hegemonic control by the vanguard over a post-revolutionary state, I do not advocate a petty bourgeois vanguard, I do not advocate any form of "totalitarianism" or oppression against the working class in any way.

I think you have a horrible misunderstanding of what is meant by the vanguard of the proletariat, its historical role and why it is necessary to lead a successful revolution.

But what all Marxist-Leninists ultimately want is the dictatorship of the proletariat, the end of class society and the destruction of the state.

Floyce White

28th June 2007, 02:58

Iron, I suggest that you should be more critical of the "Marxist" propaganda that "socialism is communism." The "Marxist-Leninist" method of "leaders" and "followers" has nothing to do with the struggle of the poor against the rich. The USSR was another fake, phoney, "fill-in-the-blank communism."

Iron, the way that you present the issue is itself your main obstacle to understanding the solution. Here's how I put it:

A police department is not a workers' party. A jail is not a union hall. The state and its subinstitutions always were forms of upper-class struggle against the lower class. They cannot possibly be "reformed" or "revolutionized" into being organs of lower-class struggle against the upper class.

The lower-class activists who promote the idea of a "workers' state" are the ones who have a "horrible misunderstanding"--a "misunderstanding" that was deliberately cultivated by the "low ender" capitalists to serve the property interests of these same "low ender" capitalists.

The upper-class activists who promote the idea of a "workers' state" are outright liars who want to manipulate the struggle of their enemy. On this message board or anywhere else.

Labor Shall Rule

28th June 2007, 07:03

I don't think anarchists realize this - but when they are distributing pamphlets and flyers, addressing crowds or giving speeches, presenting some sort of revolutionary goal to other working people, they can easily be considered the most advanced, class conscious section of the class; in other words, they are the revolutionary vanguard of the entire social stratum that is mobilizing and leading it foward.

What is "upper class" and "lower class"? What do these terms mean?

Who says that we want jails to replace union halls - I don't think you are examing this from a correct perspective.

Iron

28th June 2007, 20:26

Originally posted by Floyce White+June 28, 2007 01:58 am--> (Floyce White @ June 28, 2007 01:58 am)
Iron, I suggest that you should be more critical of the "Marxist" propaganda that "socialism is communism." The "Marxist-Leninist" method of "leaders" and "followers" has nothing to do with the struggle of the poor against the rich. The USSR was another fake, phoney, "fill-in-the-blank communism."
[/b]

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to with "fill-in-the-black communism" are you saying there is only one view of communism… a Marxist-Leninist view of communism. If this is what you are saying then your horrifically out of touch with reality, there are many many many different views of communism. Further more the USSR was a fake “fill-in-the-black communist” state? No they are a prefect example of how a revolution with good intentions following the vanguard/marxist/leinist/maoist idea how ever you want to put it, can be easily corrupted and become a “VANGAURD” dictatorship

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 28, 2007 01:58 am

Iron, the way that you present the issue is itself your main obstacle to understanding the solution. Here's how I put it:

A police department is not a workers' party. A jail is not a union hall. The state and its subinstitutions always were forms of upper-class struggle against the lower class. They cannot possibly be "reformed" or "revolutionized" into being organs of lower-class struggle against the upper class.

Once again I have no idea where this comment is coming from… I was asking what is the difference between having a ruling body “vanguard” with no over-sight governmental body was any different than having a ruling figurehead with no over-sight.

Floyce [email protected] 28, 2007 01:58 am

The lower-class activists who promote the idea of a "workers' state" are the ones who have a "horrible misunderstanding"--a "misunderstanding" that was deliberately cultivated by the "low ender" capitalists to serve the property interests of these same "low ender" capitalists.

The upper-class activists who promote the idea of a "workers' state" are outright liars who want to manipulate the struggle of their enemy. On this message board or anywhere else.

as RedDali asked "What is "upper class" and "lower class"? What do these terms mean?" My question exactly, the way you put it, it sounds like your condemning all other ideology other than your own to failure.

bezdomni

28th June 2007, 20:36

Further more the USSR was a fake “fill-in-the-black communist” state? No they are a prefect example of how a revolution with good intentions following the vanguard/marxist/leinist/maoist idea how ever you want to put it, can be easily corrupted and become a “VANGAURD” dictatorship.

:lol:

That old Maoist USSR....

Anyway, your claim seems to be that after the bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union, the vanguard of the proletariat seized complete economic and political power and acted as a new ruling class.

This is false on many levels.

First, the vanguard of the proletariat is the force that unleashes the proletariat in order to create revolution. In order for a revolution to be successful, the proletarian class as a whole must be armed and engaged in overthrowing capitalism.

In the Soviet Union, this is what happened. The working class as a whole took economic and state power. It wasn't just a minority of the intelligentsia that was exercising their will over the majority of people....it was the masses of people exercising their will over society!

Second, you seem to have some sort of idealist notion of "corruption". Thinking that mass movements are destroyed and corrupted by "greedy individuals" is purely contrary to the idea of historical materialism and patently absurd.

Why would the Russian communists allow a "dictator" to take over everything they had gained? If they could overthrow the czar and fight off capitalist-imperialism, then why could they not fight off the "evil dictator" Lenin?

I think you also have a horrifying misunderstanding of Marxism-Leninism. Have you actually read anything by Lenin? Or do you just believe what your history book tells you?

CornetJoyce

28th June 2007, 20:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:26 pm

as RedDali asked "What is "upper class" and "lower class"? What do these terms mean?"
How do those who are confused by the words "upper" and "lower" use stairs, not knowing which is the upper floor and which is the lower floor?

Iron

28th June 2007, 20:50

That old Maoist USSR....

Indeed Maoist Russia :blink: but no I was referring to Red China.

Anyway, your claim seems to be that after the bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union, the vanguard of the proletariat seized complete economic and political power and acted as a new ruling class.

This is false on many levels.

First, the vanguard of the proletariat is the force that unleashes the proletariat in order to create revolution. In order for a revolution to be successful, the proletarian class as a whole must be armed and engaged in overthrowing capitalism.

In the Soviet Union, this is what happened. The working class as a whole took economic and state power. It wasn't just a minority of the intelligentsia that was exercising their will over the majority of people....it was the masses of people exercising their will over society!

Second, you seem to have some sort of idealist notion of "corruption". Thinking that mass movements are destroyed and corrupted by "greedy individuals" is purely contrary to the idea of historical materialism and patently absurd.

Why would the Russian communists allow a "dictator" to take over everything they had gained? If they could overthrow the czar and fight off capitalist-imperialism, then why could they not fight off the "evil dictator" Lenin?

Lenin might not have been a dictator but Stalin which you seem to omitted in your references to greedy individuals corrupting the movement… calling him anything less than a evil dictator would be kind

I think you also have a horrifying misunderstanding of Marxism-Leninism. Have you actually read anything by Lenin? Or do you just believe what your history book tells you?

I consider my self simi-well educated on the theory behind Marxism-Leninism. And yes I have read many books dealing with Lenin, and I’ve read a good majority of the communist manifesto also. I’m talking about what there revolutions actually became not the theory behind it. Words are great, but actions speak louder.

CornetJoyce

28th June 2007, 21:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 07:50 pm

First, the vanguard of the proletariat is the force that unleashes the proletariat in order to create revolution.
Actually, the "vanguard" is the force that leashes the proletariat in order to create a revolution in which the "vanguard" becomes the new ruling class.

Rawthentic

29th June 2007, 00:55

Thats so stupid and typical, but, since I have time, I will deal with it. The vanguard is the political body of the class conscious members of the working class, I think this has been said so many times. It fights and agitates for and by the working class in all aspects of society, political, social, economic, etc. In a working class revolution, those members would be the ones leading the struggles for complete worker's control, against the counter-revolutionaries, etc.

And, how can a part of working class communists tie down the working class and then create a revolution where the working class communists become to "ruling class." Thats a bit fucking stupid, and will need more elaboration.

CornetJoyce

29th June 2007, 01:29

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 28, 2007 11:55 pm
The vanguard is the political body of the class conscious members of the working class, I think this has been said so many times.
.....
a bit fucking stupid, and will need more elaboration.
"Jesus loves you" has been said many times and it's still bullshit.

Rawthentic

29th June 2007, 01:30

Oh, you are so right, thanks for convincing me with that enlightening comment!

I now believe everything you say.

RGacky3

29th June 2007, 02:03

This (and many other conversations) goes to show how the Marxist and Lenninist monopoly over communism and communist theory over movest of the 20th century completely messed up communist thought.

Its true that nobody outright advocates a dictatorship, hell, Lenin talked about democracy, the same way the founding fathers of the United States did'nt outright advocate bourgiousie control of pretty much everything, what matters more is practice.

Lenin acted authoritarianly, whenever you can say that a person ran his government a certain way its authoritarian, because no one person should be running the government, Lenin suppressed Soviet power replaced it with Bolshevic power, which in turn he replaced with HIS power.

I think the whole idea of the dictatorsip of the prolitariat is outdated, even if simply because of the changed meaning of the word dictatorship. In theory the Vanguard should be the group of the most class concious members of the working class agitating and organising the working class, but in almost all practise its been the Vanguard using the working class for power and the Vanguard rulling over the working class, what anarchists do is try and agitate and organise the working class so that no Vanguard is needed.

The whole idea of after the revolution a dictatorship of the prolitariate against the bourgiousie is rediculous, its a theory started by stalin, continued by Mao, and was really just an excuse for purges, executions, and sending people to prison campls to consolidate power, the fact that people take it seriously is frightening.

The revolution takes property away from the Capitalist class and thus, the Capitalist class stops being the Capitalist class, people are not Innately Capitalist.

Rawthentic

29th June 2007, 02:56

This (and many other conversations) goes to show how the Marxist and Lenninist monopoly over communism and communist theory over movest of the 20th century completely messed up communist thought.
Communism is part of Marxism, I don't know what you are trying to prove.

Its true that nobody outright advocates a dictatorship, hell, Lenin talked about democracy, the same way the founding fathers of the United States did'nt outright advocate bourgiousie control of pretty much everything, what matters more is practice.
An anarchists talk beautifully about democracy and decentralization as well, but all it is chaos and corruption in practice. <_< Go home, stop using straw men.

Lenin acted authoritarianly, whenever you can say that a person ran his government a certain way its authoritarian, because no one person should be running the government, Lenin suppressed Soviet power replaced it with Bolshevic power, which in turn he replaced with HIS power.
Lenin was not a dictator, that's a simple lie. The Bolshevik Party implemented policies that placed the petty-bourgeoisie in power. I wouldn't expect you to give any sort of materialist analysis, its all idealistic and emotional for you.

I think the whole idea of the dictatorsip of the prolitariat is outdated, even if simply because of the changed meaning of the word dictatorship. In theory the Vanguard should be the group of the most class concious members of the working class agitating and organising the working class, but in almost all practise its been the Vanguard using the working class for power and the Vanguard rulling over the working class, what anarchists do is try and agitate and organise the working class so that no Vanguard is needed.
Its not outdated, its called socialism, worker's state, working people's republic, etc. You are just stupid, thats all. You have absolutely no form of materialist analysis at all, you're more like abbielives! than anything else. In practice and in theory it is the class conscious members of the working class. Thats why communists are everywhere agitating where workers are, in strikes, walkouts, protests, etc. Anarchists agitate for the same reasons communists do. They organize for the self-emancipation of the working class.

The whole idea of after the revolution a dictatorship of the prolitariate against the bourgiousie is rediculous, its a theory started by stalin, continued by Mao, and was really just an excuse for purges, executions, and sending people to prison campls to consolidate power, the fact that people take it seriously is frightening.
Its not ridiculous, its real and concrete. It is the working class armed and organized into workers councils and assemblies to protect its power. That shit about the theory started by Stalin is so stupid, all your shitty arguments fall more into the abyss:

"This Socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations." -- Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/subject/hist-mat/class-sf/ch03.htm)

"The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." -- Link (http://http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm)

I think you should just shut up, or really try to learn. Oh, and those quotes are by Karl Marx, to disprove your lies.

CornetJoyce

29th June 2007, 03:25

The "vanguard" state will return right after the Roman mass exchanges wafers for bagels. In the meantime, the working class will choose it's own "vanguard," thank you.

bezdomni

29th June 2007, 22:06

Lenin might not have been a dictator but Stalin which you seem to omitted in your references to greedy individuals corrupting the movement… calling him anything less than a evil dictator would be kind

Um..no. Stalin was elected in just the same manner as Lenin, although much of the democratic elements of the Soviet State were degenerated under Stalin's leadership. However, to blame alll of the faults and problems in the Soviet Union on Stalin would be a gross over-simplification...and to blame them on Stalin's "greed" would be an out and out lie.

Stalin made many mistakes, not because he was greedy or evil, but because he was a human who was just as capable of making mistakes as you, me, Marx or Lenin!

As Marxists, we should analyze the good things that Stalin did and criticize the mistakes that Stalin made, in order to avoid making them in the future.

To dismiss the entire Soviet Union just because Stalin did some thing that embarassed western Marxists would be idiotic, and to think that Stalin himself was responsible for every problem in the Soviet Union is simply anti-Marxist.

I consider my self simi-well educated on the theory behind Marxism-Leninism

I consider you full of shit.

And yes I have read many books dealing with Lenin, and I’ve read a good majority of the communist manifesto also.

What books have you read "dealing with Lenin"? Have you ever actually read anything by Lenin? I suspect not.

Also, reading a "good majority" of the Communist Manifesto is really not that much nor does it give you any real understanding of Marxism-Leninism. The whole thing is like eighty-something pages. Too busy to spend like an extra ten minutes to finish the whole damn thing? :P

I’m talking about what there revolutions actually became not the theory behind it. Words are great, but actions speak louder.

No, in this thread you were specifically asking for a theoretical debate among "authoritarian communists" about the role of the vanguard and the intelligentsia.

Now that your narrow world of "authoritarianism vs libetarianism" has been shattered and your ignorance of Marxism-Leninism brought to light, you are trying to change the topic.

bezdomni

29th June 2007, 22:09

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 02:25 am
The "vanguard" state will return right after the Roman mass exchanges wafers for bagels. In the meantime, the working class will choose it's own "vanguard," thank you.
That's what we've been saying the whole time.

The vanguard of the proletariat isn't some external force that is imposed upon the proletariat...it is the proletariat itself!

CornetJoyce

29th June 2007, 23:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2007 09:09 pm

The vanguard of the proletariat isn't some external force that is imposed upon the proletariat...it is the proletariat itself!
Sure, but the "theoreticians" were not the proletariat and therefore not it's "vanguard.". Not the bolsheviki, not the mensheviki, not any of them. And in the usa, those elites are not relevant at all, even if some of their writings are instructive.

Iron

29th June 2007, 23:42

Um..no. Stalin was elected in just the same manner as Lenin, although much of the democratic elements of the Soviet State were degenerated under Stalin's leadership. However, to blame alll of the faults and problems in the Soviet Union on Stalin would be a gross over-simplification...and to blame them on Stalin's "greed" would be an out and out lie.

Stalin made many mistakes, not because he was greedy or evil, but because he was a human who was just as capable of making mistakes as you, me, Marx or Lenin!

As Marxists, we should analyze the good things that Stalin did and criticize the mistakes that Stalin made, in order to avoid making them in the future.

To dismiss the entire Soviet Union just because Stalin did some thing that embarassed western Marxists would be idiotic, and to think that Stalin himself was responsible for every problem in the Soviet Union is simply anti-Marxist.

... Embarrassed Marxists... Stalin killed more people than Hitler did in his purges and work camps... Violently oppressed movements to leave the USSR such as in Lithonia and Estonia

I consider you full of shit.

thank you i'm glad your resorting to petty personal attacks

What books have you read "dealing with Lenin"? Have you ever actually read anything by Lenin? I suspect not.

Also, reading a "good majority" of the Communist Manifesto is really not that much nor does it give you any real understanding of Marxism-Leninism. The whole thing is like eighty-something pages. Too busy to spend like an extra ten minutes to finish the whole damn thing?

well accuatlly i was reading it at a friends home and plan to buy my own copy but as of yet, have not bought it. and if you consider me under read on Lenin tell me what books would you recomend for me to read to become educated to a degree that you would deem acceptable. becuase you clear consider me to be dumb and un-worhtly to debate with you at this time.

No, in this thread you were specifically asking for a theoretical debate among "authoritarian communists" about the role of the vanguard and the intelligentsia.

Now that your narrow world of "authoritarianism vs libetarianism" has been shattered and your ignorance of Marxism-Leninism brought to light, you are trying to change the topic.

yes and no, i what i was looking for was kind of an open-ended question i was looking to gain a perspective from some people of authoritarian views-points as all of the leftist i know are Anrcho-communist. yes to a degree I guess I am ignorant of Leninism/Stalinism that why I posted in the learning forum… to learn more about a view point that i knew a moderate amout about but did not fully understand, also more personal attacks?

bezdomni

30th June 2007, 05:15

... Embarrassed Marxists... Stalin killed more people than Hitler did in his purges and work camps... Violently oppressed movements to leave the USSR such as in Lithonia and Estonia

STOP BELIVING THE IDIOTBOX! Not that many people died as a result of Stalin's position as General Secretary of the CPSU. It isn't like Stalin said "I want [random person] dead." and they were killed immediately.

Stalin personally had little to do with it, as it was the entire Soviet bureaucracy that was responsible for not handling contradictions among the masses properly. Anyway, the deaths of political prisoners constitute a very small amount of deaths in the Soviet Union.

In case you didn't notice, there was a huge war that resulted in millions of Soviet people dying. Often, these deaths are blamed on Stalin. As a result of the war and bad weather conditions, famines happened and people died. Again, one can hardly blame Stalin for that.

Another thing about the "purges". A purge is not a mass political execution, it is the explusion of a large group of reactionaries, criminals or party members who grossly violate party discipline from a political party. Trotsky and the left opposition were "purged" (perhaps incorrectly) for violating democratic centralism.

I suggest you read one of the numerous threads about Stalin and reply there if you want to continue this argument.

thank you i'm glad your resorting to petty personal attacks

Your pithy sarcasm doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

well accuatlly i was reading it at a friends home and plan to buy my own copy but as of yet, have not bought it. and if you consider me under read on Lenin tell me what books would you recomend for me to read to become educated to a degree that you would deem acceptable. becuase you clear consider me to be dumb and un-worhtly to debate with you at this time.

It isn't that I don't like talking with people who aren't very well read, I just don't like talking with people who pretend to be well read but actually aren't.

A good starting place for Lenin is State and Revolution. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is really good too.

Both can be found for free online at www.marxists.org

yes and no, i what i was looking for was kind of an open-ended question i was looking to gain a perspective from some people of authoritarian views-points as all of the leftist i know are Anrcho-communist. yes to a degree I guess I am ignorant of Leninism/Stalinism that why I posted in the learning forum… to learn more about a view point that i knew a moderate amout about but did not fully understand, also more personal attacks?

Provocation, actually. My hope is it will get you to read something before you start making assumptions again. ;)

bezdomni

30th June 2007, 05:18

Originally posted by CornetJoyce+June 29, 2007 10:07 pm--> (CornetJoyce @ June 29, 2007 10:07 pm)
[email protected] 29, 2007 09:09 pm

The vanguard of the proletariat isn't some external force that is imposed upon the proletariat...it is the proletariat itself!
Sure, but the "theoreticians" were not the proletariat and therefore not it's "vanguard.". Not the bolsheviki, not the mensheviki, not any of them. And in the usa, those elites are not relevant at all, even if some of their writings are instructive. [/b]
Who says theoreticians can't be proletarian?

Anyway, the vanguard of the proletariat isn't exclusively a bunch of theoreticians. It is an organization of militants that agitate among the masses and create the conditions for a revolutionary situation.

It isn't the post-revolutionary de facto totalitarian regime. It is the most dedicated and most class conscious section of the proletariat that leads the rest of the working class to revolution. Nothing more, nothing less.

CornetJoyce

30th June 2007, 05:42

The bolshevik high command was no more proletarian than a midwestern chamber of commerce.

bezdomni

30th June 2007, 15:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:42 am
The bolshevik high command was no more proletarian than a midwestern chamber of commerce.
:lol:

"High command"? Where did you pull that term out of?

gilhyle

30th June 2007, 16:28

Is there a diffierence between a dictatorial government that is fascist and one like that in the USSR ?

Yes there is. I make a distinction between the form of Government and the class nature of the State. That allows me to say that a fascist dictatorship within a capitalist state, ultimately uses its dicatotorial power in defence of capitalism, while even when captured by a dictatorial elite, a Government like that which existed in the USSR remained the government of a workers State.

The former is fundamentally reactionary, while the latter retains the potential to be progressive (notwithstandnding that the elite which has seized the Government might even desire the restoration of capitalism).

Thus I find a way to understand this most painful reality of the twentieth century.

Iron

2nd July 2007, 04:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 04:15 am

... Embarrassed Marxists... Stalin killed more people than Hitler did in his purges and work camps... Violently oppressed movements to leave the USSR such as in Lithonia and Estonia

STOP BELIVING THE IDIOTBOX! Not that many people died as a result of Stalin's position as General Secretary of the CPSU. It isn't like Stalin said "I want [random person] dead." and they were killed immediately.

Stalin personally had little to do with it, as it was the entire Soviet bureaucracy that was responsible for not handling contradictions among the masses properly. Anyway, the deaths of political prisoners constitute a very small amount of deaths in the Soviet Union.

In case you didn't notice, there was a huge war that resulted in millions of Soviet people dying. Often, these deaths are blamed on Stalin. As a result of the war and bad weather conditions, famines happened and people died. Again, one can hardly blame Stalin for that.

Another thing about the "purges". A purge is not a mass political execution, it is the explusion of a large group of reactionaries, criminals or party members who grossly violate party discipline from a political party. Trotsky and the left opposition were "purged" (perhaps incorrectly) for violating democratic centralism.

I suggest you read one of the numerous threads about Stalin and reply there if you want to continue this argument.

thank you i'm glad your resorting to petty personal attacks

Your pithy sarcasm doesn't change the fact that you have no idea what you are talking about.

well accuatlly i was reading it at a friends home and plan to buy my own copy but as of yet, have not bought it. and if you consider me under read on Lenin tell me what books would you recomend for me to read to become educated to a degree that you would deem acceptable. becuase you clear consider me to be dumb and un-worhtly to debate with you at this time.

It isn't that I don't like talking with people who aren't very well read, I just don't like talking with people who pretend to be well read but actually aren't.

A good starting place for Lenin is State and Revolution. Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism is really good too.

Both can be found for free online at www.marxists.org

yes and no, i what i was looking for was kind of an open-ended question i was looking to gain a perspective from some people of authoritarian views-points as all of the leftist i know are Anrcho-communist. yes to a degree I guess I am ignorant of Leninism/Stalinism that why I posted in the learning forum… to learn more about a view point that i knew a moderate amout about but did not fully understand, also more personal attacks?

Provocation, actually. My hope is it will get you to read something before you start making assumptions again. ;)
true this thread is not the place to aruge about Stalin. though i maintain my comments about him. i do not conisder what i have said to be assumptions. you are making assumptions, just becuase i do not belive in a vanguard i have no idea what i am talking about. but i will read the books you recommed no the less.

bezdomni

2nd July 2007, 04:16

just becuase i do not belive in a vanguard i have no idea what i am talking about.

That isn't what I said.

You have no idea what you are talking about, therefore you do not understand what the vanguard of the proletariat is and consequently cannot make an adequate analysis of it.

but i will read the books you recommed no the less.

Readers are leaders!

wake_up

5th July 2007, 05:13

CornetJoyce

5th July 2007, 05:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:13 am

Hello, well look for one thing, in a capitalist system there is the dictatorship of the upper classes against the majority of people. There is not such a thing as a 1 man dictatorship. That is impossible. I don't understand how come anti-scientific US opposition attacks Bush so much, it's Bush this or Bush that. But Bush is not the root of the problem, it is capitalism, the root of the problem. Of course we gotta take out neocons out of power and throw them into the atlantic ocean where they belong, but what there exist in reality is a conspiracy of the upper-castes of society in capitalist system exploiting thru a legal-system the middle working classes and the lower-classes. That's what exists in this satanic capitalist system

Wake_Up
A dictator is precisely one person. The Roman senate appointed dictators in emergencies, vesting them with the power of the senate for 6 months or a year, but they had to account to the senate at the end of the dictatorship. The "emergencies" grew more and more frequent until the dictatorship became the imperial office.

Floyce White

12th July 2007, 02:27

There seems to be very sharp disagreement on the meaning of "vanguard." As I see it, "vanguard" is just the English word of Norman French origin that means the same as the French term "avant garde." It means those persons who do something shortly before many more people do the same thing. The term comes from military jargon, where a "forward guard" is a body that marches a little ways ahead of the main body of soldiers. The vanguard is "in the lead," but doesn't "exercise leadership" in the sense of being higher than other soldiers in the chain of command. Both the vanguard and the main body get their orders from officers. The word "vanguard" only very loosely implies an association between the few early doers and the many later doers.

Similarly, the political activists who take an action before many others--they are not always a significant contributing cause of later actions. The actions of the vanguard encourages others to act, but the vanguard isn't a directing "force" that "leashes" or "unleashes" others.

"Marxism" is no different from other versions of "leaderism." "Leaderists" use dogma and fallacious arguments as plausible "theory" to excuse whatever opportunism they decide to do today. "Marxists" mangle and massage word meanings all the time. To them, "vanguard" means whatever they want it to mean at that time. We cannot take seriously the propaganda of various "Marxist" sects.

BTW, I often post that "upper class" consists of the families who claim to own things used by others, and the "lower class" consists of the families who do not.

RGacky3

15th July 2007, 00:24

Communism is part of Marxism, I don't know what you are trying to prove.

Really? So Marx invented Communism, and no Communism exists outside Marx?

An anarchists talk beautifully about democracy and decentralization as well, but all it is chaos and corruption in practice. <_< Go home, stop using straw men.

Really? So during the Spanish Revolution the Anarchist controlled areas were all chaos and corruption? Is That so?

Lenin was not a dictator, that's a simple lie. The Bolshevik Party implemented policies that placed the petty-bourgeoisie in power. I wouldn't expect you to give any sort of materialist analysis, its all idealistic and emotional for you.

Depends how you define a dictator, his whim was able to change policy, the NEP, War Communism, and so on were changed by him and his party directly without democratic proccess. In what way did the Bolshevik party implement policies that placed the petty-bourgeoisie in power? unless the Bolshevik Party WAS petty bourgeoisie to begin with I don't see historically how that worked, because the Bolshevik Party soon after the revolution consolidated power.

Its not outdated, its called socialism, worker's state, working people's republic, etc. You are just stupid, thats all. You have absolutely no form of materialist analysis at all, you're more like abbielives! than anything else. In practice and in theory it is the class conscious members of the working class. Thats why communists are everywhere agitating where workers are, in strikes, walkouts, protests, etc. Anarchists agitate for the same reasons communists do. They organize for the self-emancipation of the working class.

The difference is Communists look to lead the Workers, Anarchists look for workers to lead themselves, BIG BIG difference. When I say its outdated I mean the term is outdated, use the word Socialism, or Workers state, more people will understand what it means, stop sticking to Marxist dogma, I mean you use the word Materialist analysis and a lot of Marxists use that word just throwing it around without actually thinking what they are saying.

Its not ridiculous, its real and concrete. It is the working class armed and organized into workers councils and assemblies to protect its power. That shit about the theory started by Stalin is so stupid, all your shitty arguments fall more into the abyss:

Is that what happend in the USSR and Mao's Russia? What happened there is real and concrete. Stalin and Mao were the ones pushing the idea of a post revolution class struggle the most, and it should be clear why, you talk about being concrete, but instead you just talk about what 'should' happen and what the theory says rather than what actually happens almost everytime the theory is put in practice. Think about it, if a Socialist government takes over the state, including its army, who's it protecting it against? The dispossesed ruling class? Doubtfully because there are very few of them? Outside foces? Maybe, Internal dissent from working people who do not like being ruled over who say essencially "If the stick that beats us is called the people's stick it does'nt make a difference, the stick still beats us", generally, that is the case, its used to consolidate power and control of the new ruling class, look at the history of leninst states, including lenins own, lets talk concrete, not what people wrote, what people did.

BobKKKindle$

15th July 2007, 07:14

Depends how you define a dictator, his whim was able to change policy, the NEP, War Communism, and so on were changed by him and his party directly without democratic proccess

You are denying historical facts - Lenin was not able to exercise absolute power, but instead had to explain his policies and viewpoints to the central committee and other bodies of power such as Sovnarkom before a vote took place. Lenin also recognized the growing power of the bureaucracy following the civil war and indicated in his testament that this tendency should be recognized and dealt with in order to avoid the dengeneration of the revolution. This is shown by the following extract:

"If we take Moscow," he said, "with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and if we take the huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can be truthfully said that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth, they are not directing, they are being directed." (Works, vol. 33, page 288)

In the future, before you make assertive and absurd statements, try reading up on what actually happened.

The difference is Communists look to lead the Workers, Anarchists look for workers to lead themselves

What do you mean by 'lead'? As a previous poster noted, passing out political material in a public space could be described as 'leadership' because in that capacity one has a higher level of revolutionary class consciousness and is intervening in the lives of ordinary workers in order to develop their consciousness. So Anarchists could also be said to 'lead' the workers.

You also make a false distinction between 'Communists' and 'Workers' - this is false because the vanguard is the most class conscious section of the proletariat organsied as a formal political body - your language suggests you consider the proletariat to be a single homogenous bloc whereas in reality this is clearly not the case!

Think about it, if a Socialist government takes over the state, including its army, who's it protecting it against? The dispossesed ruling class? Doubtfully because there are very few of them? Outside foces?

Very few of them? Let's have some empirical evidence - after the October Revolution the new workers' state was alsmost destroyed because of the armed campaign and struggles that were initiated by the former ruling class and the failure of revolutions to occur in other countries meant that the russian bourgeoisie was also supported by armed forces from other countries. This is precisely the reason a state is necessary after the revolution!

The state arises from the irreconciliability of class antagonisms, and classes still exist (even if workers have control of the means of production) and class struggle has reached the greatest form of intensity possible (in the form of armed conflict) and therefore a state must exist! Or, as Mao put it:

"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests" "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship" (June 30, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 418.

Chicano Shamrock

15th July 2007, 07:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 12:22 pm
That is true... but that doesn’t answer my question. is there any difference between the political systems, a fascist dictatorship/corporate corrupted democracy or a vanguardist dictatorship. Either way there is a group that tells the people what’s “best” for them.
There is no way you will get a "Communist" to answer that. Most are stubborn to the point where they don't question what they believe. If they have it in their minds that somehow their revolution will be different than the proven results of the theory than that's what they will stick to.

The better question is what is the difference between faith in religion and faith in Communisms ability to bring about a worker's state if neither have proof?

Iron

15th July 2007, 19:24

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 15, 2007 06:50 am
The better question is what is the difference between faith in religion and faith in Communisms ability to bring about a worker's state if neither have proof?
Neither Have proof yet both bring hope, thats the main reason I think people believe in either one

Rawthentic

15th July 2007, 19:32

Revolution will be fundamentally the same, regardless of what anyone says. The proletariat will smash the capitalist state and it will create its own to safeguard its gains. Period.

Iron

15th July 2007, 20:15

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 15, 2007 06:32 pm
Revolution will be fundamentally the same, regardless of what anyone says. The proletariat will smash the capitalist state and it will create its own to safeguard its gains. Period.
so your saying Stalinist is the same as anarchists. :blink:

Labor Shall Rule

15th July 2007, 21:19

Originally posted by Iron+July 15, 2007 07:15 pm--> (Iron @ July 15, 2007 07:15 pm)
Voz de la Gente [email protected] 15, 2007 06:32 pm
Revolution will be fundamentally the same, regardless of what anyone says. The proletariat will smash the capitalist state and it will create its own to safeguard its gains. Period.
so your saying Stalinist is the same as anarchists. :blink: [/b]
:blink: What? I think he is saying that the workers will create their own organization to suppress the counterrevolutionaries?

Iron

15th July 2007, 21:43

Originally posted by RedDali+July 15, 2007 08:19 pm--> (RedDali @ July 15, 2007 08:19 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:15 pm

Voz de la Gente [email protected] 15, 2007 06:32 pm
Revolution will be fundamentally the same, regardless of what anyone says. The proletariat will smash the capitalist state and it will create its own to safeguard its gains. Period.
so your saying Stalinist is the same as anarchists. :blink:
:blink: What? I think he is saying that the workers will create their own organization to suppress the counterrevolutionaries? [/b]
I sure hope so

bezdomni

16th July 2007, 05:26

Originally posted by Chicano Shamrock+July 15, 2007 06:50 am--> (Chicano Shamrock @ July 15, 2007 06:50 am)
[email protected] 26, 2007 12:22 pm
That is true... but that doesn’t answer my question. is there any difference between the political systems, a fascist dictatorship/corporate corrupted democracy or a vanguardist dictatorship. Either way there is a group that tells the people what’s “best” for them.
There is no way you will get a "Communist" to answer that. Most are stubborn to the point where they don't question what they believe. If they have it in their minds that somehow their revolution will be different than the proven results of the theory than that's what they will stick to.

The better question is what is the difference between faith in religion and faith in Communisms ability to bring about a worker's state if neither have proof? [/b]
Communist revolution has a basis in material reality, whereas god doesn't. That's the fundamental difference.

Unless you see no difference between Capital and the bible, this should really be quite obvious. There is no "faith" involved with socialism.

so your saying Stalinist is the same as anarchists.

I am a "Stalinist" (although I'd never use that to describe myself, because Stalinism isn't an ideology) and I get along very well with anarchists. In fact, an anarchist gave me a cigarette earlier today. :)

We have the same end goals; a stateless and classless society free of oppression and exploitation.

xskater11x

16th July 2007, 06:20

It is true there is no proof that communism can truly bring a workers' state, but along tha same lines as what SovietPants said, there is actual material proof that communism is entirely possible, or, at leasts the components needed for communism are actually there.

I do not see any components for any of the theorized Gods anywhere, besides the ones created by the theorists themselves.

Iron

17th July 2007, 02:19

Originally posted by SovietPants+--> (SovietPants) Communist revolution has a basis in material reality, whereas god doesn't. That's the fundamental difference.

Unless you see no difference between Capital and the bible, this should really be quite obvious. There is no "faith" involved with socialism.[/b]

what? whats the difference in between putting your faith in a god figure and put your faith in the idea of socialism. faith is not always related to religion.

SovietPants
I am a "Stalinist" (although I'd never use that to describe myself, because Stalinism isn't an ideology) and I get along very well with anarchists. In fact, an anarchist gave me a cigarette earlier today. smile.gif

We have the same end goals; a stateless and classless society free of oppression and exploitation.

well then you must be an incredible liberal "Stalinist" because usually Stalinist or people that believe in Stalin idea have very authoritarian view about how a classless society should be set up and are at odd with anarchists, just by definition. "Stalinist don't believe in statelessness as Stalin took steps to strengthen the state, though you will most likely argue this".

Black Cross

17th July 2007, 02:49

Originally posted by Iron+July 17, 2007 01:19 am--> (Iron @ July 17, 2007 01:19 am)
SovietPants
Communist revolution has a basis in material reality, whereas god doesn't. That's the fundamental difference.

Unless you see no difference between Capital and the bible, this should really be quite obvious. There is no "faith" involved with socialism.

what? whats the difference in between putting your faith in a god figure and put your faith in the idea of socialism. faith is not always related to religion.

[/b]
Why did you post your question after you already got an answer? Not only that, but your question is with regards to the answer.

The difference between faith in god and faith in socialism is reality. Socialism has existed, and there is proof; no one has yet to prove that god exists.

And I don't really think that it's faith in socialism as much as faith in ourselves to run a country better than the capitalists. We just use socialism as a channel to become free of opression. So it's more of a question like: Faith in God, or faith in ourselves? I would choose myself and my comrades over some maybe-existent diety any day.

RGacky3

17th July 2007, 04:04

You are denying historical facts - Lenin was not able to exercise absolute power, but instead had to explain his policies and viewpoints to the central committee and other bodies of power such as Sovnarkom before a vote took place. Lenin also recognized the growing power of the bureaucracy following the civil war and indicated in his testament that this tendency should be recognized and dealt with in order to avoid the dengeneration of the revolution. This is shown by the following extract:

"If we take Moscow," he said, "with its 4,700 Communists in responsible positions, and if we take the huge bureaucratic machine, that gigantic heap, we must ask: who is directing whom? I doubt very much whether it can be truthfully said that the Communists are directing that heap. To tell the truth, they are not directing, they are being directed." (Works, vol. 33, page 288)

In the future, before you make assertive and absurd statements, try reading up on what actually happened.

It was a top down approach, the top made decisions which were rubber stamped by the lower entities, denying that is absolute fantasy, I've read about the Russian Revolution and the USSR, the top made sure the people below them were loyal, adn the people below them made sure to keep their positions by being loyal and rubber stamping the tops desicions, so if you want to be specific sure there was somewhat of a democracy but in reality, it was pretty much a dictatorship of a few people over a vast nation.

I don't really know what Marxists mean when they talk about bureaucracy, if what they are talking about is the vast government, then yeah that was a slight problem because of the centralized nature of the USSR, to get to the top it had to go through a lot of channels and that causes inefficiencies, but a bureaucracy will come up ANY time a small centralized group tries to control something big, thats not what I"m arguing, I don't think a Centralized group should be allowed to control anything.

What do you mean by 'lead'? As a previous poster noted, passing out political material in a public space could be described as 'leadership' because in that capacity one has a higher level of revolutionary class consciousness and is intervening in the lives of ordinary workers in order to develop their consciousness. So Anarchists could also be said to 'lead' the workers.

You also make a false distinction between 'Communists' and 'Workers' - this is false because the vanguard is the most class conscious section of the proletariat organsied as a formal political body - your language suggests you consider the proletariat to be a single homogenous bloc whereas in reality this is clearly not the case!

Sure an Anarchist making speaches and handing out pamphlets can be considered leading, thats not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about someone claiming too, and enforcing authority over people.

In theory the Vanguard is the most class conscious section of the proletariat, but historically that has rarely been the case, and anyway, if the Vanguard is an actual party, a formal group (Which I believe most marxists/leninists call for) who gets to decide who is "Class Conscious" Enough, obviously Lenin thought anyone but the Bolshevics were not Class Conscious enough, and your right, the proletariat is NOT a simgle homogenous bloc, thus no one should claim to know what is best for the proletariat, no one should should look to have authority over them claiming its for "their own good".

Very few of them? Let's have some empirical evidence - after the October Revolution the new workers' state was alsmost destroyed because of the armed campaign and struggles that were initiated by the former ruling class and the failure of revolutions to occur in other countries meant that the russian bourgeoisie was also supported by armed forces from other countries. This is precisely the reason a state is necessary after the revolution!

The state arises from the irreconciliability of class antagonisms, and classes still exist (even if workers have control of the means of production) and class struggle has reached the greatest form of intensity possible (in the form of armed conflict) and therefore a state must exist! Or, as Mao put it:

"Don't you want to abolish state power?" Yes, we do, but not right now. We cannot do it yet. Why? Because imperialism still exists, because domestic reaction still exists, because classes still exist in our country. Our present task is to strengthen the people's state apparatus - mainly the people's army, the people's police and the people's courts - in order to consolidate national defense and protect the people's interests" "On the People's Democratic Dictatorship" (June 30, 1949), Selected Works, Vol. IV, p. 418.

Wars are different than Police Fores, yes the USSR delt with a civil war RIGHT AFTER the revolution, infact before the revolution was really over, but think about after that, how much of the police force, the Cheka, the KGB, and NKVD and so on, were used against external threats, and how much were used against internal dissent, I'm pretty confident that a large portion of it was used against internal dissent, origionally against both dissident prolitariat, peasents, pette bourgiousie, and displaced Capitalists (which were few in Number), and then just pretty much against the workers and peasents.

I have to disagree that classes still exist after the working class takes over, after that there are Former Capitalists, who are probably bitter, but they are no longer a class, and no longer constitute a threat, unless strongly supported from outside forces, which is a completely different issue.

You bring up Mao, look at what the Cultural revolution brought, the idea that classes still exist after a revolution, what had to happen is the idea of being a bourgiousie had nothing to do with actually being a Capitalist, just not conforming fast enough, and historically thats what happend.

bezdomni

17th July 2007, 04:31

well then you must be an incredible liberal "Stalinist" because usually Stalinist or people that believe in Stalin idea have very authoritarian view about how a classless society should be set up and are at odd with anarchists, just by definition. "Stalinist don't believe in statelessness as Stalin took steps to strengthen the state, though you will most likely argue this".

No person who is truly a communist would uphold everything that Stalin did as being the best way forward for the proletarian movement. He made lots of mistakes and quite frankly fucked up a lot. However, Stalin was ultimately a progressive leader of the Soviet Union and, if nothing else, was instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

Maoists criticize and learn from mistakes of the past, as opposed to completely dismissing the entire history of the Soviet Union as being "authoritarian stalinism".

The idea of a "liberal stalinist" is kind of offensive. lol

RGacky3

17th July 2007, 05:58

I don't think Stalin messed up at all, I think he did exactly what he intended, he intended to consolidate power for himself, and he did a very good job at that.

bezdomni

17th July 2007, 15:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:58 am
I don't think Stalin messed up at all, I think he did exactly what he intended, he intended to consolidate power for himself, and he did a very good job at that.
Why did he intend to consolidate power for himself and why did the masses of people allow it?

Oh wait, there's absolutely no material basis for that petty-bourgeois idealist nonsense.

Rawthentic

17th July 2007, 17:51

Why did he intend to consolidate power for himself and why did the masses of people allow it?

I dont think thats a fair analogy SP. It would be like justifying Bush because he got "voted" in and the masses of people allowing it.

I hardly think that the working class had a voice in allowing Stalin purge the ranks of the Party and consolidate himself.

Iron

17th July 2007, 20:43

Originally posted by sovietpants+--> (sovietpants)No person who is truly a communist would uphold everything that Stalin did as being the best way forward for the proletarian movement. He made lots of mistakes and quite frankly fucked up a lot. However, Stalin was ultimately a progressive leader of the Soviet Union and, if nothing else, was instrumental in the defeat of fascism.

Maoists criticize and learn from mistakes of the past, as opposed to completely dismissing the entire history of the Soviet Union as being "authoritarian stalinism".

The idea of a "liberal stalinist" is kind of offensive. lol [/b]

personally I find anyone who upholds Stalin at all offensive. And name one thing Stalin did that prompted progress. the US and British imperialists were instrumental in defeating fascist also this does not make them progressive. so i view Stalin as an enemy of any "true" communist.

sovietpants
Why did he intend to consolidate power for himself and why did the masses of people allow it?

Oh wait, there's absolutely no material basis for that petty-bourgeois idealist nonsense.

There is actually proof of this... saying Stalin consolidated power for him self is not bourgeois nonsense though the capitalist might have demonized him. He made mistakes? I cause the mass genocide of political disorients more than a mistake also he created basically a military police state.

bezdomni

18th July 2007, 00:03

I dont think thats a fair analogy SP. It would be like justifying Bush because he got "voted" in and the masses of people allowing it.

Unless you think the Soviet Union in 1924 was a bourgeois imperialist dictatorship like the US, then your analogy is incorrect because you cannot compare an election in the dictatorship of the proletariat to an election under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

I hardly think that the working class had a voice in allowing Stalin purge the ranks of the Party and consolidate himself.

The Party consolidated Stalin's leadership in the CPSU. It's not like he invoked divine rights or something.

And yes, I agree that the political executions and bureaucratization of the Soviet State were huge mistakes that ultimately ended up hurting the proletariat - but that doesn't take away the overwhelmingly progressive and socialist nature of the Soviet Union.

personally I find anyone who upholds Stalin at all offensive.

Then you find the majority of revolutionaries in the world to be offensive.

Shows where your loyalties lie.

And name one thing Stalin did that prompted progress

Industrialization, drastic increase in lifespan and quality of living, collectivization of agriculture, breakthroughs in science, medicine and engineering, the struggle against imperialism and fascism, combating religion, vastly increasing the literacy rate and improving education....

Not to mention simply maintaining socialism in a world dominated by imperialism, along with the defeat of fascism.

the US and British imperialists were instrumental in defeating fascist also this does not make them progressive.

Actually, it does make them more progressive than nazi germany.

so i view Stalin as an enemy of any "true" communist.

Who, in your opinion, is a "true communist?"

There is actually proof of this... saying Stalin consolidated power for him self is not bourgeois nonsense though the capitalist might have demonized him.

Yes it is, it takes the bourgeois western idealist "great men of history" analysis as opposed to a marxist materialist analysis.

People simply do not consoldiate power "for themselves". Political power always belongs to a class, not an individual.

I cause the mass genocide of political disorients more than a mistake also he created basically a military police state.

lol executing and imprisoning political dissidents isn't "genocide", although it is really fucked up.

You will get no argument from me that the Soviet Union was somewhat militarized and that Stalin's leadership made some horrible mistakes. Although you have to understand that the militarization was the result of an impending Nazi invasion and consistent American aggression.

The NKVD and that stuff was really fucked up.

Rawthentic

18th July 2007, 00:14

Unless you think the Soviet Union in 1924 was a bourgeois imperialist dictatorship like the US, then your analogy is incorrect because you cannot compare an election in the dictatorship of the proletariat to an election under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
Yes, elections are different under the DoP.

But the difference between you and I is that I don't refer 1924 Russia as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

RedStaredRevolution

18th July 2007, 00:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 07:03 pm
Industrialization, drastic increase in lifespan and quality of living, collectivization of agriculture, breakthroughs in science, medicine and engineering, the struggle against imperialism and fascism, combating religion, vastly increasing the literacy rate and improving education....
ya thats not saying much as most of those things have been accomplished by many many capitalist countries and about half of them also occured in nazi germany, which doesnt make any of those good at all.

Iron

18th July 2007, 01:11

Originally posted by sovietpants+--> (sovietpants)Unless you think the Soviet Union in 1924 was a bourgeois imperialist dictatorship like the US, then your analogy is incorrect because you cannot compare an election in the dictatorship of the proletariat to an election under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.[/b]

Yes maybe the early Soviet Union might have be alright but as a whole it was not

Originally posted by sovietpants+--> (sovietpants)The Party consolidated Stalin's leadership in the CPSU. It's not like he invoked divine rights or something.

And yes, I agree that the political executions and bureaucratization of the Soviet State were huge mistakes that ultimately ended up hurting the proletariat - but that doesn't take away the overwhelmingly progressive and socialist nature of the Soviet Union.[/b]

no the soviet union in essence was state capitalism

Originally posted by sovietpants
Then you find the majority of revolutionaries in the world to be offensive.

Shows where your loyalties lie.

my loyalties lie with the people not a horrible dictator and his so called progress

Originally posted by sovietpants
Industrialization, drastic increase in lifespan and quality of living, collectivization of agriculture, breakthroughs in science, medicine and engineering, the struggle against imperialism and fascism, combating religion, vastly increasing the literacy rate and improving education....

Not to mention simply maintaining socialism in a world dominated by imperialism, along with the defeat of fascism.

RedStaredRevolution nailed it

Originally posted by sovietpants
Actually, it does make them more progressive than nazi germany.

wow that much more progressive

[email protected]
Who, in your opinion, is a "true communist?"

people who accuatly aim for stateless classless society

sovietpants
lol executing and imprisoning political dissidents isn't "genocide", although it is really fucked up.

You will get no argument from me that the Soviet Union was somewhat militarized and that Stalin's leadership made some horrible mistakes. Although you have to understand that the militarization was the result of an impending Nazi invasion and consistent American aggression.

The NKVD and that stuff was really fucked up.

and for these horrible mistakes, greatly out weight the little if any progress he made

RGacky3

18th July 2007, 03:11

Why did he intend to consolidate power for himself and why did the masses of people allow it?

Oh wait, there's absolutely no material basis for that petty-bourgeois idealist nonsense.

Enough with the freaking Marxist Lingo, try and make sense, the "MATERIAL" basis, for this "PETTY-BOURGEOUIS" nonsense, is that he killed millions of dissidents, made sure only those loyal to him were in any position of authority, and set up a parinoid system of fear, where one either had to prove himself loyal or be labeled as an enemy, thats how it happened. Why did the masses allow it? Why do they allow it anytime? Why did the masses in Germany allow hitler, in Uganda Idi Amin, and so on and so forth.

Unless you think the Soviet Union in 1924 was a bourgeois imperialist dictatorship like the US, then your analogy is incorrect because you cannot compare an election in the dictatorship of the proletariat to an election under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Yes I can I'd venture to say that the United States electoral system was more fair and free than the Soviet one, the Soviet one had one party, and only certain people were allowed to run, hell it turned into only one person, the election only consisted of communist party memebers who would elect a Party Congress, who would elect a Central committee, who would elect a politburo, who would elect the General Secretary (Stalin), there never was a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in the USSR, there was a "Dictatorship of the Bolshevics."

You cannot treat the things that happend in the USSR as just "Bad Mistakes" They were not bad mistakes, they were (and are) Inherent in the Leninist - Vanguardist system, as shown by pretty much every leninist state in history, having similar situations to varying degrees. They were not Mistakes either, they were intentionally done for specific reasons, power.

bezdomni

18th July 2007, 16:56

Originally posted by RedStaredRevolution+July 17, 2007 11:47 pm--> (RedStaredRevolution @ July 17, 2007 11:47 pm)
[email protected] 17, 2007 07:03 pm
Industrialization, drastic increase in lifespan and quality of living, collectivization of agriculture, breakthroughs in science, medicine and engineering, the struggle against imperialism and fascism, combating religion, vastly increasing the literacy rate and improving education....
ya thats not saying much as most of those things have been accomplished by many many capitalist countries and about half of them also occured in nazi germany, which doesnt make any of those good at all. [/b]
The last one (the bit about maintaining socialism as a major force in world politics) was the most important.

I'll reply to the other objections later. I have to be at work soon and simply do not have the time right now.

I will ask though, Rgacky, are you saying Marxists don't make sense? Why can't I take a Marxist materialist analysis and simultaneously make sense?

bezdomni

19th July 2007, 00:24

no the soviet union in essence was state capitalism

Was not.

(See? I can make baseless claims too!)

my loyalties lie with the people not a horrible dictator and his so called progress

Hate to break it to you, but most revolutionaries (like...radicals with guns that actually are engaged in revolutions) uphold the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership as being socialist.

So unless you think the PCP, PCC, CPN(M), CPI, and dozens of other revolutionary communist parties with popular support are not "the people" - then I'd live with the fact that Stalin is a respected person in the majority of the third world communist movement.

wow that much more progressive

Yeah...believe it or not capitalism is less reactionary than fascism.

Or is that not black and white enough for you?

people who accuatly aim for stateless classless society

So...Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao....

and for these horrible mistakes, greatly out weight the little if any progress he made

If you cannot see the huge amounts of social progress made in the Soviet Union then you are absolutely fucking blind.

It wasn't perfect, but it was the first time socialism had ever been successfully implemented. The Soviets had no real historical basis to learn from, they had no past leaders or events to look at for ideas about what would work and what would.

Every revolutionary movement will have excesses and mistakes. Some of the mistakes may be horrible, but not as horrible as capitalism and nowhere near a horrible as fascism. The creation of a better world, a world fit for humans where all people have a future to look forward to, is entirely worth the mistakes of the past.

Enough with the freaking Marxist Lingo, try and make sense, the "MATERIAL" basis, for this "PETTY-BOURGEOUIS" nonsense, is that he killed millions of dissidents, made sure only those loyal to him were in any position of authority, and set up a parinoid system of fear, where one either had to prove himself loyal or be labeled as an enemy, thats how it happened. Why did the masses allow it? Why do they allow it anytime? Why did the masses in Germany allow hitler, in Uganda Idi Amin, and so on and so forth.

Sorry, but I am not going to stop being a Marxist just because you disagree with my analysis or don't like that I use Marx's words.

Stalin didn't personally go out and shoot millions of dissidents just because he was a really evil person and hated people to disagree with him. It's not like his programme was I'M PARANOID AND CRAZY AND WANT TO KILL DISSIDENTS and the politburo applauded for hours or something.

When you really consider the whole "Stalin was a paranoid lunatic who hated disagreement" analysis, it's quite absurd and certainly runs contrary to marxist materialism.

Sorry, but the Soviet state was a functional socialist state that became heavily bureaucratized because of inner-contradictions in the CPSU and Stalin's (among others) inability to handle these contradictions properly. It wasn't a "paranoid system of fear" (although it sounds like a good premise for an entertaining constitution...) as you'd like to claim.

Bureaucratization is a problem and must be struggled against. Mao summed this up in his critique of Stalin...but I've forgotten the name of the essay. If you are really interested, I'll try to find it for you and PM it your way.

The masses "allowed" what happened to happen because there was no real viable alternative. Life, for the proletariat, was generally better than it had ever been. It was mostly party members and the intelligentsia that had to really worry about what they said. Of course, a socialist society shouldn't have anyone worrying about what they say - but the war with Nazi Germany and U.S. imperialist aggression are not things one can just brush off easily.

Stalin's leadership is fundamentally different than Hitler's (or any other non-socialist leader) because Stalin was elected to a leadership position of a Communist Party in a Socialist country. There was a completely different class character and force behind it, and therefore, the two cannot be compared at all.

There's still more to reply to, but I am busy as fuck today and will have to hold off a little bit more.

Iron

19th July 2007, 03:01

Originally posted by sovietpants+--> (sovietpants)Was not.

(See? I can make baseless claims too!)[/b]

Don't be Childist about this

Originally posted by sovietpants+--> (sovietpants)Hate to break it to you, but most revolutionaries (like...radicals with guns that actually are engaged in revolutions) uphold the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership as being socialist.

So unless you think the PCP, PCC, CPN(M), CPI, and dozens of other revolutionary communist parties with popular support are not "the people" - then I'd live with the fact that Stalin is a respected person in the majority of the third world communist movement[/b]

And this makes his mistakes any less?

Originally posted by sovietpants
Yeah...believe it or not capitalism is less reactionary than fascism.

Or is that not black and white enough for you

Just becuase its better than fasict doesn't make it an acceptable form of society. well capitalism is beter than fasicm guess we should all fight for cappies :wacko:

[email protected]
So...Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao....

marx, engels, lenin yes. stalin and mao not soo much how do they aim for stateless society when after 60 and 85 years they never got red of the state it only gained power...

sovietpants
If you cannot see the huge amounts of social progress made in the Soviet Union then you are absolutely fucking blind.

It wasn't perfect, but it was the first time socialism had ever been successfully implemented. The Soviets had no real historical basis to learn from, they had no past leaders or events to look at for ideas about what would work and what would.

Every revolutionary movement will have excesses and mistakes. Some of the mistakes may be horrible, but not as horrible as capitalism and nowhere near a horrible as fascism. The creation of a better world, a world fit for humans where all people have a future to look forward to, is entirely worth the mistakes of the past.

You still haven't proved to me that Stalin made any progress that out weight the "mistakes" Ends can not justify the means and vise versa. and just because its the 1st example of socialism Does not make it a good example of a socialist society. no revolutionary movement shouldn't execute political dissidents and rig elections these are not mistakes, these are actions of an oppressive government.

RGacky3

19th July 2007, 07:06

I will ask though, Rgacky, are you saying Marxists don't make sense? Why can't I take a Marxist materialist analysis and simultaneously make sense?

Yes you can, but why not do it from an honest viewpoint rather than looking through everything threw Marxist glasses, which can twist things around a lot, and over simplify them.

Stalin didn't personally go out and shoot millions of dissidents just because he was a really evil person and hated people to disagree with him. It's not like his programme was I'M PARANOID AND CRAZY AND WANT TO KILL DISSIDENTS and the politburo applauded for hours or something.

What I ment was that his system made the citizends Paranoid, worrying about being arrested, fear of being treated as a dissident, I never said that Stalin was crazy, obviously he did'nt run around saying I'm crazy and want to kill all dissidents, and he did'nt personally shoot them, he sign their death warrents, Stalin created a system, not constitutionally, where dissidency was punishable by death or being deported to a Gulag, (dissidency is not the same as treason, like working directly for Nazis or Imperialists as a spy or something), that had nothing to do with the bureaocracy, that was Stalin and the politburos doing. BTW, what do you mean EXACTLY, when you say it runs contrary to Marxist Materialism, its history.

Stalin's leadership is fundamentally different than Hitler's (or any other non-socialist leader) because Stalin was elected to a leadership position of a Communist Party in a Socialist country. There was a completely different class character and force behind it, and therefore, the two cannot be compared at all.

Yes it can be, when hitler was elected, there were many opponents, and opponent parties, all the people could vote, not just party members, and he was voted directly, not through 3 or 4 party organs, the members of which were carefully screened. There definity was a different class characted, in Germany there was the Capitalist class and the working class, in the USSR there was the Working class and the Bolshevic elite class.

Yeah...believe it or not capitalism is less reactionary than fascism.

Or is that not black and white enough for you?

Theres another problem I have with Marxist dogma, reactionary and progressive are entirely subjective concepts.

Every revolutionary movement will have excesses and mistakes. Some of the mistakes may be horrible, but not as horrible as capitalism and nowhere near a horrible as fascism. The creation of a better world, a world fit for humans where all people have a future to look forward to, is entirely worth the mistakes of the past.

like I said, the killings and Gulags were not mistakes, the same way sweatshops and death squads are not mistakes.

BTW, I am kind of interested in that essay by Mao, I'd like to take a look at it.

Floyce White

20th July 2007, 01:52

RGacky3: "In what way did the Bolshevik party implement policies that placed the petty-bourgeoisie in power? Unless the Bolshevik Party WAS petty bourgeoisie to begin with I don't see historically how that worked, because the Bolshevik Party soon after the revolution consolidated power."

The Minority Faction of the Political Bureau of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party partially accomplished the anti-feudal, capitalist revolution in February. The Majority Faction completed the capitalist revolution in October. Then it created the Commissariat--presided over by Lenin himself--to shut down the soviets. The Bolsheviks handed some factories back to private ownership that had been under workers' control, and declared that most of the very large workplaces were state property and not privately owned by big capitalists. Worker management of capitalism was replaced with one-man management--a method that is especially useful for petty capitalists without the resources to hire labor-management specialists to oversee worker-management schemes. The Bolsheviks instituted the NEP that caused explosive growth of small business through loans and credits and contracts with the public sector. The name of this bourgeois-radical party was changed to "Communist Party," but worker opposition to petty-capitalist membership and domination of the Party hierarchy was suppressed and expelled.

As others have said, the Political Bureau was entirely composed of persons of petty-capitalist family origin--Minority Faction and Majority Faction alike. They were capitalist class BEFORE they created and joined these parties. They were capitalist class BEFORE they created and ruled states. Movements within the upper, propertied class create states to protect and develop their method of property ownership and trade. The lower, dispossessed class has no property and does not fight for a state to defend the system of possession and dispossession. The state is not a method/goal of the struggle against capitalism. The state is a method/goal of the struggle for capitalism. Socialist propaganda about a "workers' state," "dictatorship of the proletariat," or a "lower order of communism" are just anti-communist rhetoric.

Marx was an anti-communist--as his class background created. Same with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Mao, Castro, and other "leader" figures. Being determines consciousness. Persons of capitalist-class family background do not have working-class consciousness and do not have the ability to recognize what is communism and what is not.

Labor Shall Rule

20th July 2007, 02:33

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 20, 2007 12:52 am
Marx was an anti-communist--as his class background created. Same with Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Tito, Mao, Castro, and other "leader" figures. Being determines consciousness. Persons of capitalist-class family background do not have working-class consciousness and do not have the ability to recognize what is communism and what is not.
:wacko:

RedStaredRevolution

20th July 2007, 02:50

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 19, 2007 08:52 pm
Persons of capitalist-class family background do not have working-class consciousness and do not have the ability to recognize what is communism and what is not.
Floyce White what the hell are you talking about. Your class doesnt always determine your politics. I bet you there are plenty of people on this forum who come from middle to upper class families and are still communists. Not just working class people can be communist. Same goes with all those people that you named. While I agree that most of them are counter-revolutionaries its not because they came from "capitalist class families".

RGacky3

22nd July 2007, 22:50

RGacky3: "In what way did the Bolshevik party implement policies that placed the petty-bourgeoisie in power? Unless the Bolshevik Party WAS petty bourgeoisie to begin with I don't see historically how that worked, because the Bolshevik Party soon after the revolution consolidated power."

I did'nt say that they did, before the revolution Bolsheviks came from various backgrounds, from "petty-Bourgeouisie" backgrounds from working class backgrounds, professionals and so on, the Bolshevics did'nt put a class in power, they but THEMSELVES in power.

The Minority Faction of the Political Bureau of the Russian Social-Democratic Labor Party partially accomplished the anti-feudal, capitalist revolution in February. The Majority Faction completed the capitalist revolution in October. Then it created the Commissariat--presided over by Lenin himself--to shut down the soviets. The Bolsheviks handed some factories back to private ownership that had been under workers' control, and declared that most of the very large workplaces were state property and not privately owned by big capitalists. Worker management of capitalism was replaced with one-man management--a method that is especially useful for petty capitalists without the resources to hire labor-management specialists to oversee worker-management schemes. The Bolsheviks instituted the NEP that caused explosive growth of small business through loans and credits and contracts with the public sector. The name of this bourgeois-radical party was changed to "Communist Party," but worker opposition to petty-capitalist membership and domination of the Party hierarchy was suppressed and expelled.

There was no Capitalist anti-feudal revolution in febuary, there was a revolution that caused the Aristocracy and the Monarchy to make changes, but things are not that simple, I hav'nt read anywhere about the Bolsheviks taking worker owned factories to private hands, I've heard about them allowing small time private production, and taking worker owned factories into State hands but never what you claim, I'd like a source, or something, or where you read that.

[/QUOTE]Being determines consciousness. Persons of capitalist-class family background do not have working-class consciousness and do not have the ability to recognize what is communism and what is not.
[QUOTE]

That is plainly untrue, many working-class people do not have "working-class" consciousness, and many upper class people do, its not as black and white as you see it, things arn't that simple, Society is very complex and cannot be put into a formula.

Rawthentic

22nd July 2007, 23:08

RGacky, you are an idealist. "Upper class people" cannot hold a working class consciousness, only working class people can. Being determines conscious, not the other way around.

Iron

23rd July 2007, 17:47

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 22, 2007 10:08 pm
RGacky, you are an idealist. "Upper class people" cannot hold a working class consciousness, only working class people can. Being determines conscious, not the other way around.
no, anyone can have class consiousness. it is just rarer for members of the upper class to have class consiousness. it is only the rarer for them becuase they do not have direct exposer to the working class life style this does not mean all of them will be blind to explotaition of the working class.

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 17:53

Well duh, they can know about it, but to have a proletarian line means you have to live that proletarian reality. Its part of historical materialism.

Labor Shall Rule

23rd July 2007, 18:03

How does this upper class obtain class consciousness? Do they participate in strikes, picketing, and whatnot?

Iron

23rd July 2007, 18:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:03 pm
How does this upper class obtain class consciousness? Do they participate in strikes, picketing, and whatnot?
whats to stop them from doing just that?

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 18:44

Well, I sure as hell would be interested to see a capitalist protesting alongside workers.

bezdomni

23rd July 2007, 22:35

Originally posted by Iron+July 23, 2007 05:42 pm--> (Iron @ July 23, 2007 05:42 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:03 pm
How does this upper class obtain class consciousness? Do they participate in strikes, picketing, and whatnot?
whats to stop them from doing just that? [/b]
lol how could a bourgeois strike against the factory he owns?

"I AM BEING UNFAIR! DOWN WITH ME!"

bezdomni

23rd July 2007, 22:35

Originally posted by Iron+July 23, 2007 05:42 pm--> (Iron @ July 23, 2007 05:42 pm)
[email protected] 23, 2007 05:03 pm
How does this upper class obtain class consciousness? Do they participate in strikes, picketing, and whatnot?
whats to stop them from doing just that?[/b]
lol how could a bourgeois strike against the factory he owns?

"I AM BEING UNFAIR! DOWN WITH ME!"

Iron

23rd July 2007, 22:52

Originally posted by SovietPants+July 23, 2007 09:35 pm--> (SovietPants @ July 23, 2007 09:35 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 05:42 pm

[email protected] 23, 2007 05:03 pm
How does this upper class obtain class consciousness? Do they participate in strikes, picketing, and whatnot?
whats to stop them from doing just that?
lol how could a bourgeois strike against the factory he owns?

"I AM BEING UNFAIR! DOWN WITH ME!" [/b]
a petty bourgeois could, but not all people of the upper class own a factor and could indeed join a strike.

Rawthentic

23rd July 2007, 23:00

Thats just hypothetical and stupid, even if it happened, it would be insignificant.

Iron

24th July 2007, 00:03

Its just stupid to gerneralize.

RNK

24th July 2007, 01:02

Yes I can I'd venture to say that the United States electoral system was more fair and free than the Soviet one, the Soviet one had one party, and only certain people were allowed to run

Here we go with the "oh my god, only one party!" bullshit. Grow up.

This western reliance on "political parties" is a joke. Political parties are the most powerful political tool, besides money, that the bourgeois have; their creation was a necessary tool to pool even more money behind a single bourgeois ideological line, monopolize power and force politics to become this gang-land bullshit where you vote on the merits of a person's party rather than the merit of the person itself. What happens if parties disappear and become superfluous? What if you had to actually get to know your candidates before voting for them?! Oh noes!

Floyce White

24th July 2007, 03:23

RedStaredRevolution: "Your class doesnt always determine your politics. I bet you there are plenty of people on this forum who come from middle to upper class families and are still communists. Not just working class people can be communist."

You "bet?" That might be a good idea at Del Mar or Saratoga, but not in a discussion of political theory. I already made substantial argument to the contrary in my Antiproperty (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html) essays and in several threads on this message board. If you intend to try to defend that viewpoint, please read what I and others have said to the contrary so that we won't be rehashing old material.

RGacky3: "...the Bolsheviks didn't put a class in power, they put THEMSELVES in power."

The very concept of power expressly asserts that there is an upper class who uses violence to rule over others. The existence of power is itself proof that the upper class exists and is "in power" already. The capitalist revolution was a conflict between factions of the upper class. It was not merely a shallow dispute among professional politicians of the various parties.

RGacky3: "There was no capitalist, anti-feudal revolution in Febuary..."

The capitalist revolution in Russia took the form of many periods of "reforms," the 1905 Revolution, the two 1917 revolutions, and the dispossession of semi-feudal big landlords in the '20s and '30s. It did not all happen at one fell swoop anywhere in the world. Even so, the change from the domination of one method of property trade to another method requires a political revolution. In Russia, that revolution occured in two parts.

RGacky3: "Society is very complex and cannot be put into a formula."

Complex issues stop being complex when methods are developed to identify and describe their parts.

Iron: "...this does not mean all of them [capitalists] will be blind to explotaition of the working class."

They are not blind to it. They are the ones doing it.

RedStaredRevolution

24th July 2007, 17:15

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 23, 2007 10:23 pm
You "bet?" That might be a good idea at Del Mar or Saratoga, but not in a discussion of political theory.
Fine how about out of the communists i know personally, about half of them come from middle or upper class familes, myself included (middle class). the point i am trying to make is that people do not decided on how they will view the world politically by what kind of family they are born into. even though that does have some influence on it, its not the only determining factor. and you may try and come back at me with those bullshit essays but persoanlly i think i trust real world experiences with the kind of people im talking about (commies from cappie families) more.

Iron

24th July 2007, 17:59

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 24, 2007 02:23 am
Iron: "...this does not mean all of them [capitalists] will be blind to explotaition of the working class."

They are not blind to it. They are the ones doing it.
You did not say capitalists you said upper class.

praxicoide

24th July 2007, 19:27

How can I be upper class without taking advantage of the exploitation of man by man?

Upper, middle and lower class are foreign terms to Marxist analysis, anyways. It gives the idea of quantitative steps from one end to the other, hiding class divisions.

Floyce White

25th July 2007, 04:26

RedStaredRevolution: "...i trust real world experiences..."

Look at my grey beard. Notice that I started writing after I was 40 and already had over 20 years of political experience. You are not the only person with experience. Several regulars on this message board have read and discussed for many years and take the effort of translating their experiences into written theory. I am not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to someone who blows off serious inquiry as "poo poo."

This is real basic stuff. The word "upper" is not "the same as" the word "lower." Upper-class activists and their upper-class activism are not "the same as" lower-class activists and activism.

Iron: "You did not say capitalists you said upper class."

The all-pervasive dominance of the money economy allows for no other type of upper-class being but capitalist.

praxicoide: "Upper, middle and lower class are foreign terms to Marxist analysis, anyways."

Since any type of "leader-ism" is dogmatism in theory that excuses opportunism in practice, I couldn't care less if self-professed "Marx-ists" don't like terminology that exposes the shortcomings of their analyses.

BTW, there is no such thing as "middle class." That is pseudo-class propaganda to excuse the existence and oppression of the upper class.

praxicoide: "How can I be upper class without taking advantage of the exploitation of man by man?"

The basic unit of class is the family--not the individual. Some petty bourgeois intervene in the struggles of the working class, and plead that they as individuals are of a different class than their families.

(That's one of those tired old tricks you get used to hearing and exposing when you actually have enough real-world experience to express the issue as a theory/formula.)

praxicoide

25th July 2007, 18:21

I don't want to get into semantics, but there's a reason why people speak of Marxian and Marxist. The first to emphasize that it is Marx's thought, the second is the movement begun by Marx. The fact that some have opted to select certain quotes from Marx to justify whatever theory or position, should not undermine the movement.

Next, I don't know what "shortcomings" you refer to. If no upper class is anything but capitalist, why not use the proper term for it and avoid the confusing "upper class" denomination? (used by sociologists by separating people by income, number of windows or presence of x number of appliances in their home).

Finally, your assertion that there is no middle class means that you lump them with the upper class, correct?

One is left to wonder then, what happens with petty bourgeois, both the small traders and intellectual labor (intellectual not understood as academics, but as used for surveillance of the production process or other non productive activities: technicians, engineers, service sector, office workers, etc).

If you start to group them by income, then you tear this group apart and arbitrarily assign some to the "lower class" and some to the "upper class" on a trivial criteria.

I'm sure you know, the "intellectual" can consist in nothing more than practices that separate them from the working class. They, however are in turn exploited and do not directly extract pluslabor. The petty bourgeois can side either with the bourgeois or with the working class depending on circumstances. To ignore or reject this can have harmful effects on the movement.

The important issue here is to accept an alliance with petty bourgeois elements (but never bourgeois) with the clear understanding that it is a workers movement and therefore, the worker's interests is the only ones that matters. Any liberal deformations brought by petty bourgeois are to be immediately identified and denounced.

RGacky3

25th July 2007, 20:23

The Question was raised a couple times about an upperclass man having a working class counciousness, first of all many upperclass men are not directly involved in exploitation, many of them are either disconnected by it through the corporate hiearchy, or they are professionals, who make their living doing financial work, i.e. moving money, most stockholders don't see themselves as exploiting, most workers don't see stockholders as exploiting either, so a stockholding proffessional can sympethise with a working class movement and even join it, it happens ALL THE TIME.

Thats just hypothetical and stupid, even if it happened, it would be insignificant.

Not at all, it happens all the time, and its very significant.

Complex issues stop being complex when methods are developed to identify and describe their parts.

Unless those methods generalize things and leave out extreamly important factors, and treat humans as if they were machines.

You "bet?" That might be a good idea at Del Mar or Saratoga, but not in a discussion of political theory. I already made substantial argument to the contrary in my Antiproperty essays and in several threads on this message board. If you intend to try to defend that viewpoint, please read what I and others have said to the contrary so that we won't be rehashing old material.

Look at reality, you people say I'm being idealistic, but I"m not idealistic at all, it happens all the time, hell my father is a proffessional that makes great money, I am a member of the IWW, and a draftsman/designer, and things like that happen all the time, I'm sure many members here are from wealthy or middle class (You know what I mean) backgrounds and yet have a working class counciousness, and at the same time many working class people do not have class conciousness and believe in a Capitalist system.

To keep pushing your theory that Class conciousness is completely dependant on Class and wealth is to ignore reality, or make the assumption that all those Socialist activists from wealthy or middle class backgrounds are simply lieing and are out for their own good, and if your assuming that I suppose your assuming I'm not really a Socailist and I'm just a Capitalist in Socialists clothing.

And like I said Class is not at all so clear cut, is a wealthy lawer a Capitalist? is a worker who owns a lot of stock a Capitalist? is a manager a Capitalist? its not black and white.

RGacky3

25th July 2007, 20:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 12:02 am

Yes I can I'd venture to say that the United States electoral system was more fair and free than the Soviet one, the Soviet one had one party, and only certain people were allowed to run

Here we go with the "oh my god, only one party!" bullshit. Grow up.

This western reliance on "political parties" is a joke. Political parties are the most powerful political tool, besides money, that the bourgeois have; their creation was a necessary tool to pool even more money behind a single bourgeois ideological line, monopolize power and force politics to become this gang-land bullshit where you vote on the merits of a person's party rather than the merit of the person itself. What happens if parties disappear and become superfluous? What if you had to actually get to know your candidates before voting for them?! Oh noes!
I'm not saying that the United States is a democracy or even close to a just system, but look at the Soviet system? Was it better?

Floyce White

27th July 2007, 01:55

praxicoide: "Next, I don't know what 'shortcomings' you refer to. If no upper class is anything but capitalist, why not use the proper term for it and avoid the confusing 'upper class' denomination (used by sociologists by separating people by income, number of windows or presence of x number of appliances in their home)?"

"Upper class" always was the proper term for them. "Capitalist class" is shorthand to refer to the faction of the upper class who use capitalism as their method of property ownership and exchange AS OPPOSED TO the land tenure of the feudalists.

Many small-scale capitalists have day jobs for wages or salaries. Many small-scale capitalists do work in their own businesses. They are truly workers, but are proprietors nonetheless. Many activists of families with small businesses misrepresent themselves and their ideas as "working class." To minimize the effect of their deliberate muddling, it is better to use the terms "lower class" and "upper class."

I point out that Marx was of upper-class family origins. It makes perfect sense that petty bourgeois such as himself would either not understand the enormous potential for confusion, or would be amenable to it.

There is nothing wrong with using sociological terminology when we are having a sociological discussion. The semantical issues will not go away by surrendering in that arena. In fact, asking others to not do semantical struggle is itself a defense of class society.

praxicoide: "Finally, your assertion that there is no middle class means that you lump them with the upper class, correct?"

Use your own good sense. If there is no such thing, it does not exist to be lumped in with anything.

praxicoide: "If you start to group them by income, then you tear this group apart and arbitrarily assign some to the 'lower class' and some to the 'upper class' on a trivial criteria. . . .

"The important issue here is to accept an alliance with petty bourgeois elements (but never bourgeois) with the clear understanding that it is a workers movement and therefore, the worker's interests is the only ones that matters. Any liberal deformations brought by petty bourgeois are to be immediately identified and denounced."

I frequently post that the upper class consists of those families who claim to own things used by others, and the lower class consists of those families who do not. The two groups are mutually hostile, as I explained:

What role do capitalists have in the self-organization of the working class? None. How can it be the self-organization of the working class if capitalists are involved? It cannot be. This simple logic has no apparent flaws and is confronted by roundabout contortions. Some argue that communism does not come from the self-organization of the working class. In this series of articles, I show that the movement of the poor is undermined by the intervention of the rich. Without self-organization, capitalist-led dual-class alliances use liberalism to divide and conquer working-class activists. Capitalist-led workers’ revolts help small capitalists replace big capitalists as the ruling exploiters. Any compromise on the principle of workers’ self-organization condemns humanity to another generation of class warfare.

Another way to attack the self-organization of the working class is to define classes as something other than property classes. In this way, capitalists can pretend to be working-class people and can continue to infiltrate workers’ groups and prevent self-organization. For example, classes could be defined by occupation. Butcher, baker, candlestick maker--all are forms of work, so all doers of work are supposedly working class. Managers, executives, and “the bosses” are seen as “real” capitalists. If the butcher also owns a rent house, we are told to ignore it. Of course, the butcher’s tenants are still exploited. They continue to rent according to the conditions dictated by property owners. The tenants pay off the mortgage and the landlord gets the deed. The landlord then takes out another mortgage and uses it to buy yet another rent house. The family of the butcher inherits the property and continues the cycle of capital circulation and accumulation. The tenants are exploited in exactly the same way regardless of whether the rent house is sold to a bank, a management company, a government agency, a co-op, or a family. The relation of landlord to tenant is a social relation of violence. It is a form of capitalist rule. To tell tenants that some landlords are their friends and allies is to betray the struggles of hundreds of millions of working-class families who have small landlords, small employers, or buy from small merchants. The kicker is that this method also looks at ownership to determine whether a “real” (big) capitalist is “really” exploiting tenants. Defining classes by occupation has such glaring flaws as to be a way of disguising capitalist relations rather than exposing them. As long as the landlord, employer, merchant, or investor can successfully hide the extent of his family’s business activity, he can use definition of classes by what-little-you-know-about-his-occupation to suppress your struggle against his capitalism.

Since occupation is usually a source of income, defining classes by occupation is a subset of defining classes by amount of income. Small capitalists generally do not take high incomes from their business activity--capital is circulated rather than being consumed. The income from rental properties is zero, so the occupation of being a landlord seems insignificant compared to the income from any day job. Defining classes by income intentionally overlooks the accumulation of assets. This dishonest method further disunites the working class by profiling and stereotyping people with very little income as a “lumpenproletariat” or “underclass” of “bums,” “criminals,” and “welfare mothers.” These loathsome and vile labels go hand-in-hand with the racism, anti-foreigner bigotry, and superiority trips that increased their unemployment and lowered their wages in the first place. Besides the long-term underemployed, other non-income-earning occupations such as “student” or “retired” are posers for this method, which cultivates the mystique of individual “classlessness” or nihilistically slams all human relations as “exploitation.”

(No Compromise With Capitalism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A16), March 1, 2002.)

RGacky3: "...I'm sure many members here are from wealthy...backgrounds and yet have a working-class consciousness, and at the same time many working-class people do not have class consciousness..."

There is no such thing as "proof by assertion." It also proves nothing to set up your assertion as a pair of opposites.

RGacky3: "...is a worker who owns a lot of stock a capitalist?"

Occupation does not define class. Having a pension fund does not define class. I frequently post that the upper class consists of those families who claim to own things used by others, and the lower class consists of those families who do not.

From the point of view of the lower class, it IS black and white. It IS clear cut. From the point of view of the upper class, words mean whatever they want them to mean. A compromise can be negotiated on anything. To them, it's just business.

bezdomni

27th July 2007, 02:13

Originally posted by RGacky3+July 25, 2007 07:25 pm--> (RGacky3 @ July 25, 2007 07:25 pm)
[email protected] 24, 2007 12:02 am

Yes I can I'd venture to say that the United States electoral system was more fair and free than the Soviet one, the Soviet one had one party, and only certain people were allowed to run

Here we go with the "oh my god, only one party!" bullshit. Grow up.

This western reliance on "political parties" is a joke. Political parties are the most powerful political tool, besides money, that the bourgeois have; their creation was a necessary tool to pool even more money behind a single bourgeois ideological line, monopolize power and force politics to become this gang-land bullshit where you vote on the merits of a person's party rather than the merit of the person itself. What happens if parties disappear and become superfluous? What if you had to actually get to know your candidates before voting for them?! Oh noes!
I'm not saying that the United States is a democracy or even close to a just system, but look at the Soviet system? Was it better? [/b]
Yes.

Iron

28th July 2007, 01:05

Originally posted by SovietPants+July 27, 2007 01:13 am--> (SovietPants @ July 27, 2007 01:13 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 25, 2007 07:25 pm

[email protected] 24, 2007 12:02 am

Yes I can I'd venture to say that the United States electoral system was more fair and free than the Soviet one, the Soviet one had one party, and only certain people were allowed to run

Here we go with the "oh my god, only one party!" bullshit. Grow up.

This western reliance on "political parties" is a joke. Political parties are the most powerful political tool, besides money, that the bourgeois have; their creation was a necessary tool to pool even more money behind a single bourgeois ideological line, monopolize power and force politics to become this gang-land bullshit where you vote on the merits of a person's party rather than the merit of the person itself. What happens if parties disappear and become superfluous? What if you had to actually get to know your candidates before voting for them?! Oh noes!
I'm not saying that the United States is a democracy or even close to a just system, but look at the Soviet system? Was it better?
Yes. [/b]
can you provide any proof of your assertion?

bezdomni

28th July 2007, 21:25

Dictatorship of the Proletariat > Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

I've already explained it and then you started whining about Stalin and disregarded the bulk of content in my posts.

This is the most circular and haphazard discussion I have ever participated in...:rolleyes:

RGacky3

29th July 2007, 06:10

Soviet Pants thats a great formula, but let me put it to you this way, I am openly an Anarchist in the United States, I can say whatever I want and not be put in prison, and if I am the Feds have to do it in secret without other branches of government knowing, I can organize unions freely and strike freely, in the USSR I could'nt, in the United States I have more than one person to vote for if I choose to vote, in many states in the USSR you had one person to vote for and you HAD to vote, in the USSR you claim to have had a dictatorshp of the prolitariate, but really it was a dictatorship over the prolitariate, (as it is in the United States, but I am less directly repressed here), in the United States I can read whatever I want, watch whatever I want, and say whatever I want, in the USSR you could not.

Floyd White, the problem with your class analysis is just that simply many of the people you talk about don't assosiate themselves the way you classify them, things arnt' that simple, for example a factory manager does'nt claim to own the machines in the factory, niether does the boss, even the CEO completely, the stockholders do, but really many of the stockholders could be pension funds owned by working class people, many times the ownership of something is in a Corporations name, which is 'owned' by many people, Capitalism has developed so much that its no longer, Capitalist-Worker, Landowner-Peasent, there are many differetn levels, many different types of exploitation. For example a sweatshop owner exploits the worker, but he himself is bleed dry by Nike, so he's exploited by Nike, Nike in turn is responsible to its stockholders, who are the real owners, so who's the Capitalist? Things arn't clear cut like that, Class is more general and vague than many Marxists would like to think.

There is no such thing as "proof by assertion." It also proves nothing to set up your assertion as a pair of opposites.

So ummm, am I wrong in what I said? Or are you just spitting out meaningless philisophical crap, was what I said wrong?

From the point of view of the lower class, it IS black and white. It IS clear cut. From the point of view of the upper class, words mean whatever they want them to mean. A compromise can be negotiated on anything. To them, it's just business.

So I guess you've asked them huh?

Iron

30th July 2007, 03:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 08:25 pm
Dictatorship of the Proletariat > Dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

I've already explained it and then you started whining about Stalin and disregarded the bulk of content in my posts.

This is the most circular and haphazard discussion I have ever participated in...:rolleyes:
Except the USSR was a Dictatorship of the Bolshevik not the Proletariat, and as of yet you have not proved otherwise. though it was an improvement over Tzarist Russia. the gulags and Political repressions far out weight the improvements. Stalin was non-progressive I’m just saying the method of action he took were, less than good.

Labor Shall Rule

30th July 2007, 07:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 02:46 am
Except the USSR was a Dictatorship of the Bolshevik not the Proletariat, and as of yet you have not proved otherwise. though it was an improvement over Tzarist Russia. the gulags and Political repressions far out weight the improvements. Stalin was non-progressive I’m just saying the method of action he took were, less than good.
I have provided arguments that suggested otherwise.

Moving living standards forward considerably, increasing literacy and the infant mortality rate on a massive scale, providing free healthcare and education, industrializing the country, and granting rights to women, homosexuals, and oppressed minorities is easily outweighed by gulags and political repressions, of course. :rolleyes:

Iron

30th July 2007, 16:39

Originally posted by RedDali+July 30, 2007 06:35 am--> (RedDali @ July 30, 2007 06:35 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 02:46 am
Except the USSR was a Dictatorship of the Bolshevik not the Proletariat, and as of yet you have not proved otherwise. though it was an improvement over Tzarist Russia. the gulags and Political repressions far out weight the improvements. Stalin was non-progressive I’m just saying the method of action he took were, less than good.
I have provided arguments that suggested otherwise.

Moving living standards forward considerably, increasing literacy and the infant mortality rate on a massive scale, providing free healthcare and education, industrializing the country, and granting rights to women, homosexuals, and oppressed minorities is easily outweighed by gulags and political repressions, of course. :rolleyes: [/b]
well then that’s were we disagree I would rather live in a hell hole and be politically free then live in utopia with political repression.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin < what I live my life by :)

RedStaredRevolution

30th July 2007, 16:58

Originally posted by RedDali+July 30, 2007 02:35 am--> (RedDali @ July 30, 2007 02:35 am)
[email protected] 30, 2007 02:46 am
Except the USSR was a Dictatorship of the Bolshevik not the Proletariat, and as of yet you have not proved otherwise. though it was an improvement over Tzarist Russia. the gulags and Political repressions far out weight the improvements. Stalin was non-progressive I’m just saying the method of action he took were, less than good.
I have provided arguments that suggested otherwise.

Moving living standards forward considerably, increasing literacy and the infant mortality rate on a massive scale, providing free healthcare and education, industrializing the country, and granting rights to women, homosexuals, and oppressed minorities is easily outweighed by gulags and political repressions, of course. :rolleyes:[/b]
i thought stalin was a hugely against homosexuality...

The Author

30th July 2007, 18:11

People seem to forget about the dialectical nature of the contradictions between the relations of production and the productive forces (some are foolish enough to dismiss dialectics as they have no understanding of the logic behind this philosophy). When there are crises in overproduction, elements of the petit-bourgeois and peasant class are forcefully dragged into the proletarian class. A decline in their material status and degradation as a class tends to radicalize these leftovers. Most are the ones to spark off the political consciousness which the proletariat takes and develops to the conclusion in their vanguard.

People seem to think that once you are born into a class, you have the "blue blood" of that class. Almost like a sense of racism here. Class is important, but actions are important too, and when someone's state of being changes (their class background is altered in their lives) their outlook on life will change as well.

Regarding the remarks of the Soviet Union, it's the same old tired bullshit. Millions did not die under a "totalitarian regime," those of you who say so are blindly reading propaganda from the pens of discontented kulak landowners and capitalists who were booted from the socialist camp. The bureaucracy is a result of the capitalist encirclement. Some of you will say, "well, that's grounds for permanent revolution." But that doesn't acknowledge the class struggle of the Soviet proletariat and poor peasantry to build socialism in their country, as a means of weakening imperialism as it could not at the time get its filthy hands on Soviet land, labor and resources, and thus the construction of socialism helped strengthen internationalism. People say there was a lack of democracy, but then they don't know anything about the political infrastructure of the society they are criticizing- they have read way too many polemics. They think the purges only came from the top, but this is false, it was a mass popular campaign to root out the enemies of socialism. The "leader" supposedly "consolidated power," yet this "leader" offered his resignation as General Secretary three times: after the death of Lenin, in the early 1930s in the hopes of having Kirov take over, and finally in 1952. They say the Great Leap Forward was manmade disaster and not the result of natural weather conditions, they say the Cultural Revolution was the personal power struggle of another "leader," that human rights were supposedly not respected.

Iron

30th July 2007, 18:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 05:11 pm
Regarding the remarks of the Soviet Union, it's the same old tired bullshit. Millions did not die under a "totalitarian regime," those of you who say so are blindly reading propaganda from the pens of discontented kulak landowners and capitalists who were booted from the socialist camp. The bureaucracy is a result of the capitalist encirclement. Some of you will say, "well, that's grounds for permanent revolution." But that doesn't acknowledge the class struggle of the Soviet proletariat and poor peasantry to build socialism in their country, as a means of weakening imperialism as it could not at the time get its filthy hands on Soviet land, labor and resources, and thus the construction of socialism helped strengthen internationalism. People say there was a lack of democracy, but then they don't know anything about the political infrastructure of the society they are criticizing- they have read way too many polemics. They think the purges only came from the top, but this is false, it was a mass popular campaign to root out the enemies of socialism. The "leader" supposedly "consolidated power," yet this "leader" offered his resignation as General Secretary three times: after the death of Lenin, in the early 1930s in the hopes of having Kirov take over, and finally in 1952. They say the Great Leap Forward was manmade disaster and not the result of natural weather conditions, they say the Cultural Revolution was the personal power struggle of another "leader," that human rights were supposedly not respected.
And your blindly reading into the soviet propaganda. as for the weakening of imperialism... the USSR was a very Imperialistic power. Poland, Lithonia, Estonia, Georgia, Ukraine come to mind. as for the so called "popular mass executions" they did come for the top and even if he did not order them he had to approved them either way the gulags were a Stalinist atrocity. Stalin offered to resign, do you honestly believe these offers were sincere? If so then why didn’t he? I’m not disregarding the class struggle that took place I believe they made huge leaps over TZARIST RUSSIA an almost feudal society.

Labor Shall Rule

30th July 2007, 19:15

Benjamen Franklin is not correct. Considering that the Founding Fathers confiscated the estates of the loyalists, and deported them by the hundreds of thousands, it's clear that Franklin wasn't even staying true to his statement anyway. If you like liberalism, I suggest you find a board for that ideal, because we do not submit ourselves to a moralist philosophy of bourgeois ideology; if we run by the rules that they established, which they never follow themselves, then we will reach a dead-end. They have never respected neither "safety" or "freedom", and if we muse ourselves with sentimental talk of liberty while circumstances show that our enemies threaten to wipe us out, we will be destroyed.

I honestly think that many workers would rather of lived in a country in which their livelihood was ensured; in which they received a breakfast every morning, where their children were watched and advised while they work, where criminal practices hardly exist, where they have access to free healthcare and education, where they have a comfortable housing block to go back to, and where individuals of difference are not segregated or murdered, instead of being restricted of all of those in a capitalist country, and while struggling to attain those things within the context of that framework, they would be branded a radical and a criminal, and find themselves in a dead-end. You have to keep in mind, the social prerequisites were already established in the Soviet Union, a political revolution that would of ousted the bureaucracy which derived it's legitimacy in conceding to these demands of the workers in the first place was all that was needed to construct socialist relations within that country.

Stalin did illegalize homosexuality, but Lenin legalized it. But who cares anyway? Stalin was the gravedigger of the revolution, while Lenin was the revolutionary opposite.

bezdomni

30th July 2007, 20:15

I am openly an Anarchist in the United States, I can say whatever I want and not be put in prison, and if I am the Feds have to do it in secret without other branches of government knowing, I can organize unions freely and strike freely,

Congratulations, you live in an imperialist country that grants some civil liberties (that can be revokd at any time) in order to buy off its working class.

So do I.

The problem is that the U.S. lives off of the exploitation of the majority of the world and a large section of its own internal colonies (immigrant workers, black proletarians...)

The actual proletariat in the U.S. gets fired at the mention of the word union, they get deported if they go on strike or are at the wrong place at the wrong time...they work well over 8 hours a day and make well under minimum wage, they get shot by police for no reason other than the color of their skin. They are not given the educational resources to learn to read or write or attain a higher education and are given no time to organize politically and thus are given little ability to actually say what they want because they are not able to make deep inquiries into matter of political economy.

That is why it is the task of a communist party to reach out to the masses, to organize among the masses, to raise the consciousness of the workers above a trade-union consciousness (every worker knows capitalism sucks...it is just rare for them to come to revoltionary conclusions on their own) and to recruit the workers into the ranks of a revolutinary party.

The labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeoisie have ample opportunity in countries like the U.S. to make use of their freedoms...but the proletariat in the U.S. is definitely an oppressed group.

in the USSR I could'nt, in the United States I have more than one person to vote for if I choose to vote,

This shows an OVERWHELMING ignorance about the structure of democracy in the Soviet Union and the complete lack of democracy in the U.S.

Sure, you can vote for tweedledum or tweedledee in the U.S. - but they are still BOURGEOIS POLITICIANS that will act in the interests of the BOURGEOISIE. In the Soviet Union, there was only one party but there were different tendencies within the party and different officials to elect.

There were more differences between two people in the CPSU than there are between the two parties in the U.S.

in the USSR you claim to have had a dictatorshp of the prolitariate, but really it was a dictatorship over the prolitariate, (as it is in the United States, but I am less directly repressed here), in the United States I can read whatever I want, watch whatever I want, and say whatever I want, in the USSR you could not.

What you fail to realize is that the MASSES OF PEOPLE in the world cannot read, watch, hear or say what they want because they are OPPRESSED BY CAPITALIST-IMPERIALISM.

While there were severe problems in the Soviet Union (due to a bureaucratized legal system), there was at least not the exploitation of the proletariat and generally civil liberties were upheld in the U.S.S.R.

However, you have to realize that socialism, at its core, relies on the class nature of the state and economy as opposed to the civil liberties that are granted to the people. The two really do go hand-in-hand, but just because some books might have been baned in the U.S.S.R. doesn't mean it wasn't fundamentally a proletarian socialist state.

This "dictatorship over the proeltariat by the bolsheviks" line is absolute nonsense and has no basis in materialism. The bolsheviki were made up the proletariat, had a proletarian line and therefore had to represent the interests of the proletariat.

And anyway, the people were in charge of electing party officials and local state officials. I don't have the time or energy to go completely into the democratic structure of the CPSU or the Soviet State, but it can be easily looked up online and I emphatically recommend that you do so.

Stalin did illegalize homosexuality

Only in a sort of strange way...but those laws were not enforced and there were many openly homosexual members of the CPSU.

It was definitely a better atmosphere for homosexuals in the U.S.S.R. in 1950 than it was in the U.S.

The same goes for women, ethnic minorities, workers, communists (obviously), non-christians, writers and scientists.

You can't compare the U.S. of today to the Soviet Union of the past. If this was 1920, you wouldn't be able to openly organize or be an anarchist/communist in the U.S. and would find much more comradely arms in the Soviet Union.

RGacky3

31st July 2007, 03:05

Congratulations, you live in an imperialist country that grants some civil liberties (that can be revokd at any time) in order to buy off its working class.

They tried revoking it many times but it was shot down many times, in the end they had to resort to spying and under the radar sabotage, which means that government agencies have to act almost like underground groups, that is history.

The problem is that the U.S. lives off of the exploitation of the majority of the world and a large section of its own internal colonies (immigrant workers, black proletarians...)

So did the USSR, the USSR lived off the backs of its own workers and vassel states.

The actual proletariat in the U.S. gets fired at the mention of the word union, they get deported if they go on strike or are at the wrong place at the wrong time...they work well over 8 hours a day and make well under minimum wage, they get shot by police for no reason other than the color of their skin. They are not given the educational resources to learn to read or write or attain a higher education and are given no time to organize politically and thus are given little ability to actually say what they want because they are not able to make deep inquiries into matter of political economy.

I agree, I'm not defending any of that, but compare it for a second to the Soviet Union, was that any better? the United States represses economically, the Soviet Union repressed formally, politically and economically.

The labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeoisie have ample opportunity in countries like the U.S. to make use of their freedoms...but the proletariat in the U.S. is definitely an oppressed group.

The Prolitariat is an oppressed group, as is the so-called labor aristocracy, they just happend to be in a better position because of A: Circumstance, B: Struggle or C: The Labor Market.

This shows an OVERWHELMING ignorance about the structure of democracy in the Soviet Union and the complete lack of democracy in the U.S.

Sure, you can vote for tweedledum or tweedledee in the U.S. - but they are still BOURGEOIS POLITICIANS that will act in the interests of the BOURGEOISIE. In the Soviet Union, there was only one party but there were different tendencies within the party and different officials to elect.

There were more differences between two people in the CPSU than there are between the two parties in the U.S.

I know the structure of democracy in the Soviet Union, and it is clear the way it was designed, to keep post-revolutionary power structures in place, i.e. the bolshevic control, I agree that in the use its Bourgeouis Politicians that will of caorse act in the interests of the Bourgeouisie, not in all cases, but generally that is the case (due to the system, not always due to the person), in the Soviet Union it was Bolshevic Politicians acting in the interests of Bolshevic power, and sure tehre were different tendencies in the party, there are different tendencies in the Democratic and republican parties, hell much more varied thant the bolshevic, you know why? Because Stalin made damn sure that anyone with other tendencies (say Trodskiate or really any other type of Socialist) was either out of any station of power, dead, or in a camp, thats history my friend, also contrary to your suggestion many if not most of the important elections were limited to the Party Congress and Politburo, the Legal government had very little power, and even then there was usually only one candidate, that also is history.

Sure due to economic situations many are not free to exercise their freedoms, but at least they have them legally, in the USSR, they had none.

I honestly think that many workers would rather of lived in a country in which their livelihood was ensured; in which they received a breakfast every morning, where their children were watched and advised while they work, where criminal practices hardly exist, where they have access to free healthcare and education, where they have a comfortable housing block to go back to, and where individuals of difference are not segregated or murdered, instead of being restricted of all of those in a capitalist country, and while struggling to attain those things within the context of that framework, they would be branded a radical and a criminal, and find themselves in a dead-end. You have to keep in mind, the social prerequisites were already established in the Soviet Union, a political revolution that would of ousted the bureaucracy which derived it's legitimacy in conceding to these demands of the workers in the first place was all that was needed to construct socialist relations within that country.

The workers had other fears in the USSR, like if their neighbor would anonymously turn them in for something, for being alleged anti-revolutionaries, remember they have these thinks in places like Sweeden as well, but sweeden does'nt send people to gulags, or punish people for something they say.

The Bureaucracy was'nt the problem at all, it was the Communist Party elites that wanted to hold onto power, historically how many people in the "Bureaucracy" ordered death lists, Gulags, political repression, destruction of Workers movements and Unions and so on. You can't just blaim the Bureaucracy.

Instead of attacking Ben Franklin, just pretend Iron said it and not him :P, if he lived it or not does'nt make a difference, no ones defending him, they are defending that idea, that he mentioned.

Rawthentic

31st July 2007, 17:19

Your last two paragraphs I might not disagree with (but thats irrelevant), the point is that what ever caused the counter-revolution, it has absolutely nothing to do with what you call "Leninism" or the nature of the Bolshevik Party; it had to do with mistakes that the Party allowed, the extremely adverse material conditions that I'm sure you have heard of now.

RGacky3

31st July 2007, 21:15

I think thats an absolute copout because. in every bolshevic/leninst style revolution the exact same conditions arose (to lesser or greater extent), so it cannot simply be mistakes or material conditions, unless you are willing to say that the exact same mistakes and the exact same adverse material conditions were there in EVERY OTHER LENINST REVOLUTOIN.

Rawthentic

31st July 2007, 21:39

I think thats an absolute copout because. in every bolshevic/leninst style revolution the exact same conditions arose (to lesser or greater extent),
This is so much bullshit, its silly. In my opinion, there has only been one working class revolution, and that is October 1917.

And what is a "Leninist" revolution and how does it differ from a working class revolution?

:lol: :lol: :lol:

RedStaredRevolution

31st July 2007, 22:12

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 31, 2007 04:39 pm

I think thats an absolute copout because. in every bolshevic/leninst style revolution the exact same conditions arose (to lesser or greater extent),
This is so much bullshit, its silly. In my opinion, there has only been one working class revolution, and that is October 1917.

And what is a "Leninist" revolution and how does it differ from a working class revolution?

:lol: :lol: :lol:
One that doesnt follow Lenin's idea of how a revolution should be run. Lenin doesnt have a monopoly on ideas of rebvolution.

Rawthentic

31st July 2007, 22:16

Well, that was a smashing criticism, really :lol: .

Again: what is a "Leninist revolution" and how is it different from proletarian revolution?

No one hear says or thinks that a dead man has a monopoly on revolution, but his theories will always come up to the forefront when workers are struggling for liberation.

And don't bother responding unless you can respond to that question, otherwise, you are just trolling around.

Iron

31st July 2007, 22:40

Benjamen Franklin is not correct. Considering that the Founding Fathers confiscated the estates of the loyalists, and deported them by the hundreds of thousands, it's clear that Franklin wasn't even staying true to his statement anyway.

Just because Benjamin Franklin did not follow it doesn't no take away from the meaning! Freedom > Safety "be that job wise, physically, etc"

If you like liberalism, I suggest you find a board for that ideal, because we do not submit ourselves to a moralist philosophy of bourgeois ideology;

I quote one American politician and I’m a liberal :D

if we run by the rules that they established, which they never follow themselves, then we will reach a dead-end. They have never respected neither "safety" or "freedom", and if we muse ourselves with sentimental talk of liberty while circumstances show that our enemies threaten to wipe us out, we will be destroyed.

Just because they do not respected freedom does not mean we should not. Sentimental talk about liberty? is that the whole point of a revolution, to provide LIBERTY and SOLIDARITY to the working man.

I honestly think that many workers would rather of lived in a country in which their livelihood was ensured; in which they received a breakfast every morning, where their children were watched and advised while they work, where criminal practices hardly exist, where they have access to free healthcare and education, where they have a comfortable housing block to go back to

But without freedom none of this matter, any fascist faction could archive all of this and take away freedoms as well

and where individuals of difference are not segregated or murdered, instead of being restricted of all of those in a capitalist country,

Well you said if your not a true commie you get kick out of the socialist camp, or if you’re a cappie you get kicked out… that sounds some what segregated… and murder.. the working camps and the purges…

and while struggling to attain those things within the context of that framework, they would be branded a radical and a criminal, and find themselves in a dead-end. You have to keep in mind, the social prerequisites were already established in the Soviet Union, a political revolution that would of ousted the bureaucracy which derived it's legitimacy in conceding to these demands of the workers in the first place was all that was needed to construct socialist relations within that country.

but it didn't...the bureaucracy stayed

RedStaredRevolution

31st July 2007, 22:52

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 31, 2007 05:16 pm
Well, that was a smashing criticism, really :lol: .

Again: what is a "Leninist revolution" and how is it different from proletarian revolution?

No one hear says or thinks that a dead man has a monopoly on revolution, but his theories will always come up to the forefront when workers are struggling for liberation.

And don't bother responding unless you can respond to that question, otherwise, you are just trolling around.
fine if your going to be an ass, then i'll strictly answer your question. A lennist revolution would be a revolution run by how lenin said things should work (its not that hard to get). it is different from a true proletarian revolution because in a leninist revolution some arbitrary part of "intellectuals" would be in charge and in the other the workers would be in charge and make the descions. and i know your just going to come back and say "oh but the party is the most class conscious section of the proletariate", so im going to make it clear that when i say "the proletariate are in charge" i mean all of it, not just a small part of it.

Rawthentic

31st July 2007, 23:01

Thats stupid, Lenin, like Marx, said things would be run by the entire proletariat as a class, but the class conscious communist workers would be in the leadership, that is something natural. Its called the dictatorship of the proletariat, and is run and controlled by worker's councils.

RedStaredRevolution

31st July 2007, 23:16

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 31, 2007 06:01 pm
Thats stupid, Lenin, like Marx, said things would be run by the entire proletariat as a class, but the class conscious communist workers would be in the leadership, that is something natural. Its called the dictatorship of the proletariat, and is run and controlled by worker's councils.
And do you really think that that was the case in the USSR?

RGacky3

31st July 2007, 23:56

This is so much bullshit, its silly. In my opinion, there has only been one working class revolution, and that is October 1917.

And what is a "Leninist" revolution and how does it differ from a working class revolution?

That does'nt answer any question, if Lenin did it right, and it was ruined by 'Material Conditions' and 'Mistakes' how come the same thing happened in all other revolutions that followed suit? A Working class revolution is a very broad broad term, a Leninist revolution is one that follows the ideas and framework of Lenin, its like asking how does a Marxist Leninist Maoist differ from a Socialist :P.

Thats stupid, Lenin, like Marx, said things would be run by the entire proletariat as a class, but the class conscious communist workers would be in the leadership, that is something natural. Its called the dictatorship of the proletariat, and is run and controlled by worker's councils.

I will second what redstaredrevolution said, who cares what Lenin said, was that the case at all? If so how?

No one hear says or thinks that a dead man has a monopoly on revolution, but his theories will always come up to the forefront when workers are struggling for liberation.

Says who?

Rawthentic

1st August 2007, 00:06

That does'nt answer any question, if Lenin did it right, and it was ruined by 'Material Conditions' and 'Mistakes' how come the same thing happened in all other revolutions that followed suit? A Working class revolution is a very broad broad term, a Leninist revolution is one that follows the ideas and framework of Lenin, its like asking how does a Marxist Leninist Maoist differ from a Socialist tongue.gif.
You are saying that in Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and other countries that underwent "revolution" the working class seized political power through their soviets (worker's councils)?

I will second what redstaredrevolution said, who cares what Lenin said, was that the case at all? If so how?
I can tell you only read bourgeois historians. Yes, the working class seized political power in October 1917, and the Bolshevik Party was in the leadership. This does not mean that the Party was a totalitarian machine, but that it was leadership that the Russian proletariat had chosen and elected (yes elections are different under socialism than under capitalism). The worker's were in power, they controlled and composed the organs of state power: soviets.

Says who?
Ask the workers who have occupied their factories in Venezuela or Brazil. Maybe also the armed struggles in Nepal, Philippines, or India.

bezdomni

2nd August 2007, 16:14

Says who?

Lots of communists with guns.

RGacky3

2nd August 2007, 18:15

You are saying that in Cuba, China, Vietnam, North Korea, and other countries that underwent "revolution" the working class seized political power through their soviets (worker's councils)?

Ok, then why did Lenin take away Soviet Power, and why was it never returned? Also what gave Lenin the authority to take away Soviety Power? What I'm saying is that Lenin was never about Soviet Power, he was about bolshevic power.

This does not mean that the Party was a totalitarian machine, but that it was leadership that the Russian proletariat had chosen and elected (yes elections are different under socialism than under capitalism). The worker's were in power, they controlled and composed the organs of state power: soviets.

Give me a break, the Bolshevics consolidated power by force, eletions that were not in their favor were invalidated, other parties were destroyed, soviet power was secondary to bolshevic power, Bolshevics used force to gain control, they assualted and attacked other Socialist parties, so yeah, electiosn are different under bolshevic socialism.

Ask the workers who have occupied their factories in Venezuela or Brazil. Maybe also the armed struggles in Nepal, Philippines, or India.

Is that the case? Is that always?

Lots of communists with guns.

Communists with guns don't have a monopoly on the workers movement, in fact they are on the decline, and have been for the last 15 or so years.

Rawthentic

2nd August 2007, 18:59

Ok, then why did Lenin take away Soviet Power, and why was it never returned? Also what gave Lenin the authority to take away Soviety Power? What I'm saying is that Lenin was never about Soviet Power, he was about bolshevic power.
The Bolshevik Party did erode the power of the soviets, but why? Well, one could very well start off with the introduction of 'taylorism' or one man-management of industry in 1919 (I think thats the year) which transferred power at the base of production from the proletariat to the petty-bourgeoisie (managers, functionaries, bureaucrats, etc). This had to do with the fact that the Bolshevik Party revised on Marxian theory by not completely expropriating the petty-bourgeoisie, and, in fact, some section of the old Tsarist bureaucracy were left in tact, and those old Tsarist officials returned to pre-Revolutionary positions when the Bolsheviks started implementing such policies. In fact, the Bolshevik Party left parts of the old petty-bourgeoisie untouched, such as the upper echelons of the trade unions.

Lenin was always for soviet power, before the revolution he was the one that always stood steadfast against the Mensheviks who said that the proletariat should "wait" so that capitalism could grow and Russia become developed. He was the one that always stressed, contrary to the Mensheviks, that the soviets were capable organs of proletarian state power (I'm talking about the materialist view of the state, fuck your definition) and that the capitalist state should and must be dismantled, experiences he got of course from Marx and the Paris Commune.

Soviet Power was never returned because the working class was in a state of frenzy, of confusion. Imagine being the first working class in power and then having to deal with isolation, civil war, the first World War, semi-feudalism, the relatively small size of their class, amongst other things. Another important factor was that the class conscious communist workers had been sent to the front to fight the Whites and were killed, and this of course hurt proletarian self-management.

Give me a break, the Bolshevics consolidated power by force, eletions that were not in their favor were invalidated, other parties were destroyed, soviet power was secondary to bolshevic power, Bolshevics used force to gain control, they assualted and attacked other Socialist parties, so yeah, electiosn are different under bolshevic socialism.
Really? The working class did not elect them to leadership? "Bolshevik socialism" :lol: :D , what a great comeback, really!!

Is that the case? Is that always?
Haha, yes it is. At least in today's workers struggles, which I am sure you have never had part in. But at least research the struggles in Venezuela and southern Asia.

Communists with guns don't have a monopoly on the workers movement, in fact they are on the decline, and have been for the last 15 or so years.
Who is talking about having a monopoly on the worker's movement? Just admit that your bullshit got refuted.

RGacky3

2nd August 2007, 19:50

Well, one could very well start off with the introduction of 'taylorism' or one man-management of industry in 1919 (I think thats the year) which transferred power at the base of production from the proletariat to the petty-bourgeoisie (managers, functionaries, bureaucrats, etc). This had to do with the fact that the Bolshevik Party revised on Marxian theory by not completely expropriating the petty-bourgeoisie, and, in fact, some section of the old Tsarist bureaucracy were left in tact, and those old Tsarist officials returned to pre-Revolutionary positions when the Bolsheviks started implementing such policies. In fact, the Bolshevik Party left parts of the old petty-bourgeoisie untouched, such as the upper echelons of the trade unions.

From the Marx I've read it does'nt seam like he was for completely expropiating the petty-bourgeoisie at all. So what they did was out of fear of the "petty-bourgeoisie" taking leading positions in the Soviets, (which I don't know of any evidence that they did that, or that it was even leading to that, and it does'nt make sense that it would happen seeing as the Soviets were Democratic workers Councils). Really what they were doing was undermining Soviet self-determination and replacing with with Bolshevic Authority, if it really was the case that the petty-bourgeoisie was trying to take over, the Soviets should have been strengthened and encouraged to deal with it themselves, which they could have easily done, but the fact was that the Bolshevics were afraid of democracy.

Lenin was always for soviet power, before the revolution he was the one that always stood steadfast against the Mensheviks who said that the proletariat should "wait" so that capitalism could grow and Russia become developed. He was the one that always stressed, contrary to the Mensheviks, that the soviets were capable organs of proletarian state power (I'm talking about the materialist view of the state, fuck your definition) and that the capitalist state should and must be dismantled, experiences he got of course from Marx and the Paris Commune.

Lenin wanted to go straight to Socialism, but that does'nt mean he wanted soviet Democracy, and that shows by his actions, he dismantled teh capitalist state, but he did'nt replace it with a workers democracy, he replaced it with a bolshevic state, and may have given lip service to soviet power, but in reality he had little respect for the soviets autonomy and that shows through his actions.

Really? The working class did not elect them to leadership? "Bolshevik socialism" , what a great comeback, really!!

Its history, power was taken through a coup, and Bolshevik authority was always above Soviet Authority, and that was enforced through violence, which is why all other parties were attacked. Soviet authority was only valid if the Bolshevics were in the leadership, thats history.

Haha, yes it is. At least in today's workers struggles, which I am sure you have never had part in. But at least research the struggles in Venezuela and southern Asia.

Notice I said "Always", Many Many workers movements have nothing to do with Lenin and his ideas.

Rawthentic

2nd August 2007, 20:03

From the Marx I've read it does'nt seam like he was for completely expropiating the petty-bourgeoisie at all. So what they did was out of fear of the "petty-bourgeoisie" taking leading positions in the Soviets, (which I don't know of any evidence that they did that, or that it was even leading to that, and it does'nt make sense that it would happen seeing as the Soviets were Democratic workers Councils). Really what they were doing was undermining Soviet self-determination and replacing with with Bolshevic Authority, if it really was the case that the petty-bourgeoisie was trying to take over, the Soviets should have been strengthened and encouraged to deal with it themselves, which they could have easily done, but the fact was that the Bolshevics were afraid of democracy.
You don't know shit about Marx then. I never said that what they did was out of "fear" I said some of their mistakes and policies allowed the petty-bourgeoisie to regain state power. Dude come on. "The Bolsheviks were afraid of democracy?" when they were the ones that instituted immediate recall of officials and universal suffrage? The rest is just blah blah.

Lenin wanted to go straight to Socialism, but that does'nt mean he wanted soviet Democracy, and that shows by his actions, he dismantled teh capitalist state, but he did'nt replace it with a workers democracy, he replaced it with a bolshevic state, and may have given lip service to soviet power, but in reality he had little respect for the soviets autonomy and that shows through his actions.

No he didn't, that just shows how stupid about Marx and Lenin you really are. Lenin understood that Russia was a country that was materially unstable of supporting socialism, and that there would have to be periods of transition towards socialism, such as differing types of state capitalism under worker's control. The bourgeois state was shattered, and the soviets along with the Bolshevik leadership constituted the new proletarian state. Sorry, but those are facts.

Its history, power was taken through a coup, and Bolshevik authority was always above Soviet Authority, and that was enforced through violence, which is why all other parties were attacked. Soviet authority was only valid if the Bolshevics were in the leadership, thats history.
Here is another historical fact: had there never been a Bolshevik Party, there would have never been a proletarian revolution. The Bolshevik Party was one that organized the majority of the proletariat around its program and enabled the empowered proletariat to seize state power.

Notice I said "Always", Many Many workers movements have nothing to do with Lenin and his ideas.
Name one important or significant worker's struggle in the last decade that did not.

RGacky3

2nd August 2007, 21:35

I never said that what they did was out of "fear" I said some of their mistakes and policies allowed the petty-bourgeoisie to regain state power.

You never said that I said that, and history says that. The Petty Bourgeoisie never gained state power, they never had it to begin with and then never had it after the revolution, it was the Bolshevics that had the power, and the things they did to consolidate their own power were not mistakes, they were intentional.

understood that Russia was a country that was materially unstable of supporting socialism, and that there would have to be periods of transition towards socialism, such as differing types of state capitalism under worker's control. The bourgeois state was shattered, and the soviets along with the Bolshevik leadership constituted the new proletarian state.

I don't recall ever hearing of Lenin talking about 'State Capitalism', and if its state capitalism under worker's control its not Capitalism is it? Its Socialism, but what Lenin caused was not worker control, it was Bolshevic control, when you talk about the Soviets along with Bolshevic Leadership, its like talking about the Working Class of America along with Capitalist and State leadership, difference is only in name, and claimed idealogy.

[/QUOTE]had there never been a Bolshevik Party, there would have never been a proletarian revolution. The Bolshevik Party was one that organized the majority of the proletariat around its program and enabled the empowered proletariat to seize state power.

Along with the Social-Demorcats, the Menshevics, many other Socialist parties, the Jewish Bund Union, the Anarchists, the Soviets themselves. The Bolshevic Pary organized the proletariat around its program and USED them so that the Bolshevics could seize state power, the Bolshevics did'nt put the workers in control, they took the control away from the workers.

Name one important or significant worker's struggle in the last decade that did not. [QUOTE]

Spanish Revolution, Hungarian Revolution, Zapatistas, the Mexican revolution (First one), Ukranian revolution, Paris 1968 uprising, the Argentenian Worker takeovers, the Uprising in San Salvador Atenco and Oaxaca, and many General Strikes, as well as more.

RGacky3

2nd August 2007, 21:43

Also let me ask this, specifically (meaning specific actions) what 'Mistakes' were made in the USSR which stoped it from becoming a true Workers State, and how were these 'Mistakes' Unintentional?

bezdomni

2nd August 2007, 21:58

Your assertion that a political party and the individuals that make up its leadership can hold state power devoid class interests is absurd and runs entirely contrary to Marxist materialism.

Rawthentic

2nd August 2007, 22:02

You never said that I said that, and history says that. The Petty Bourgeoisie never gained state power, they never had it to begin with and then never had it after the revolution, it was the Bolshevics that had the power, and the things they did to consolidate their own power were not mistakes, they were intentional.
No, I am not going over this again, the Bolshevik Party is not a class (do you know what a social class is?), they put the petty-bourgeois in power. Period.

I don't recall ever hearing of Lenin talking about 'State Capitalism', and if its state capitalism under worker's control its not Capitalism is it? Its Socialism, but what Lenin caused was not worker control, it was Bolshevic control, when you talk about the Soviets along with Bolshevic Leadership, its like talking about the Working Class of America along with Capitalist and State leadership, difference is only in name, and claimed idealogy.

Yes, there are remnants of capitalism under socialism, they dont all of a sudden poof away when the proletariat comes to power. Lenin did not cause anything, stop being idealistic, history is not made by figureheads.

You are a silly kid to compare soviet power and Bolshevik leadership to imperialist America under capitalist class control. All your silly arguments go to shit with you saying that.

The Bolshevic Pary organized the proletariat around its program and USED them so that the Bolshevics could seize state power, the Bolshevics did'nt put the workers in control, they took the control away from the workers.
The Bolsheviks were the ones that turned out to be right and have the correct methods to organize the working class, also basing itself on the correct principles of Marxism and materialism. The Bolsheviks did not put the workers in control, the workers put themselves in control, and the Bolsheviks were the revolutionary leadership that helped build the world's first (and only imo) worker's state.

Spanish Revolution, Hungarian Revolution, Zapatistas, the Mexican revolution (First one), Ukranian revolution, Paris 1968 uprising, the Argentenian Worker takeovers, the Uprising in San Salvador Atenco and Oaxaca, and many General Strikes, as well as more.
Ay pendejo, look at what I said:
Name one important or significant worker's struggle in the last decade that did not.

Oh, and by the way, the Hungarian workers were communists, they adhered to Marx and Lenin's theories and wanted to fight Stalinism and state capitalism. You honestly think that there were anarkiddies or stupid utopians? Ha, they wanted to seize state power through their Worker's Councils and form a real worker's state.

Also let me ask this, specifically (meaning specific actions) what 'Mistakes' were made in the USSR which stoped it from becoming a true Workers State, and how were these 'Mistakes' Unintentional?
Let me ask you this: do poor people steal because they are naturally evil or because they are hungry and need to eat.

If you have any intelligence that should answer it, as well as reading up on the Russian Revolution, Marx, Engels, and Lenin, since its clear you have never done that.

Iron

3rd August 2007, 04:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:58 pm
Your assertion that a political party and the individuals that make up its leadership can hold state power devoid class interests is absurd and runs entirely contrary to Marxist materialism.
no one in the state could EVER want to take power for them self. because counter-revolutionarys are just a myth.

bezdomni

3rd August 2007, 16:08

I don't think you understand what a counterrevolutionary is.

No one in a democratic organization (ie, communist party) could possibly take power for themself because in order to do that, they would have to have constant popular support. Usually people who are "just in it for themselves" end up alienating everybody else and will get voted out in a flash.

Anyway, every person who has political power has their roots in class society. No ruler exists in a vaccum - there is always a bigger force behind them.

RGacky3

3rd August 2007, 18:11

No, I am not going over this again, the Bolshevik Party is not a class (do you know what a social class is?), they put the petty-bourgeois in power. Period.

But they acted as one, they acted in their own interest, they were not workers, they were politicians, thus they became a seperate class. I'm talking about the Bolshevic leaders here.

Yes, there are remnants of capitalism under socialism, they dont all of a sudden poof away when the proletariat comes to power. Lenin did not cause anything, stop being idealistic, history is not made by figureheads.

You are a silly kid to compare soviet power and Bolshevik leadership to imperialist America under capitalist class control. All your silly arguments go to shit with you saying that.

Lenin as far as I know never t alked about 'State Capitalism' and he was trying to build a form of Socialism, which is exactly what i was talking about,

[/QUOTE]Lenin understood that Russia was a country that was materially unstable of supporting socialism, and that there would have to be periods of transition towards socialism, such as differing types of state capitalism under worker's control.

That is what I was responding to, Lenin was trying to build Socialism. Not all History is made by figureheads, but when that figurehead has the authority to throw people in prison, execute them, decide national policy, determine who else has authority, destroy institutions (Such as Unions and other Parties), then that figurehead can determine quite a lot about history, at least the political and economic history.

Why is Comparing Bolshevic Leadership to Imerpialist American Leadership silly? Of coarse america is Under Capitalist Class control, but even that being the Case what Society was more free? I'll compare it because Bolshevism consideres it self a SOcialist Alternative, so you must compare them.

The Bolsheviks were the ones that turned out to be right and have the correct methods to organize the working class, also basing itself on the correct principles of Marxism and materialism. The Bolsheviks did not put the workers in control, the workers put themselves in control, and the Bolsheviks were the revolutionary leadership that helped build the world's first (and only imo) worker's state.

You keep repeating that, but for some reason the Bolshevics turned what could have been a workers state into a Bolshevic state, that was'nt a mistake, and the bolshevics had intended that, they did'nt want the workers in control, they wanted themseves in control, so who came out on top. Its not a matter of being right or not, its a matter of intentions, and history. The Bolshevics knew what they wanted and they got it, What I'm saying is the Society they built was not at all free or democratic and because of that was a poor example of Socialism.

QUOTE

Also let me ask this, specifically (meaning specific actions) what 'Mistakes' were made in the USSR which stoped it from becoming a true Workers State, and how were these 'Mistakes' Unintentional?

Let me ask you this: do poor people steal because they are naturally evil or because they are hungry and need to eat.

If you have any intelligence that should answer it, as well as reading up on the Russian Revolution, Marx, Engels, and Lenin, since its clear you have never done that. [QUOTE]

Because they Need to eat. Difference is Power isn't a Human need, the Bolshevics were not naturally evil, no more naturally evil than American Capitalists or American Politicians, just .... we'll say .... pragmatic, I'm not saying the Bolshevics were bad, but that the Bolshevic system was bad.

So again I ask, that question, What were the Actions, how were they mistakes, and how did they stop the USSR from becoming a true Workers state, how were they unintentional.

The Motivations behind them are the motivations behind American Capitalists and Politicians. They need to remain in power, they need to answer to their superiors, they need to advance, and they are not attached to the consequences their policies make.

Rawthentic

3rd August 2007, 18:48

But they acted as one, they acted in their own interest, they were not workers, they were politicians, thus they became a seperate class. I'm talking about the Bolshevic leaders here.
The Bolsheviks are not a class. You dont even know what a social class is!

Lenin as far as I know never t alked about 'State Capitalism' and he was trying to build a form of Socialism, which is exactly what i was talking about,
Then fuck off and study Lenin before using straw men to criticize him.

The Bolshevics knew what they wanted and they got it, What I'm saying is the Society they built was not at all free or democratic and because of that was a poor example of Socialism.
So, for all the years that the Bolshevik Party stood side by side the proletarians and urged them to create soviets because they knew that they were viable organs of state power, that whole time it was an evil conspiracy so that the Bolsheviks could become an evil tyrannical power?

Because they Need to eat. Difference is Power isn't a Human need, the Bolshevics were not naturally evil, no more naturally evil than American Capitalists or American Politicians, just .... we'll say .... pragmatic, I'm not saying the Bolshevics were bad, but that the Bolshevic system was bad.

So again I ask, that question, What were the Actions, how were they mistakes, and how did they stop the USSR from becoming a true Workers state, how were they unintentional.

The Motivations behind them are the motivations behind American Capitalists and Politicians. They need to remain in power, they need to answer to their superiors, they need to advance, and they are not attached to the consequences their policies make.
I am not talking about power you moron. All the policies, no matter how wrong they were and how horrible the results, were responses to the adverse material conditions facing the young worker's state. They were seen as necessary steps in the struggle to keep socialism alive. I don't expect you to understand the relationship between that and material conditions, but at least try.

Morpheus

3rd August 2007, 19:17

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 03, 2007 05:48 pm
All the policies, no matter how wrong they were and how horrible the results, were responses to the adverse material conditions facing the young worker's state.
The decision to create a state wasn't, that was ideologically motivated. Had the Bolsheviks been anarchists a different structure would have been set up. The first thing they did was set up the council of people's commissars (SOVNARKOM). This was a council of (IIRC) 12 people which was initially at the head of the government and held power over the general population, with both legislative and executive powers. It proceeded to create all the normal attributes of a state. It set up bureaucracies to carry out its commands, created police (Cheka) to enforce its commands, attempted to established a monopoly of violence by disbanding the military-revolutionary committees and put in place other hierarchical institutions. This created a defacto ruling class of the government bureaucracy - the top levels of these hierarchical institutions - over the workers & peasants. When a council of 12 people make the decisions the workers & peasants do not. You could object that the council was (indirectly) elected by the workers & peasants through the soviet congress but that doesn't change the fact that those 12 people made government decisions - and thus held power - while the workers didn't. Bourgeois democracies have elections too, that doesn't mean the workers control them. Even though elections may change the specific politicians at the top, the underlying bureaucrats aren't elected and stay in power regardless of who wins the elections. They can even void elections (through coup or other means) if the elections go the wrong way. The bolshevik state - this set of bureaucratic institutions - gained greater power over the workers & peasants than they had over the state. When the bolsheviks lost soviet election after soviet election in the spring & summer of 1918 (before the civil war began) they simply used their monopoly of violence to disband the soviets and then create new ones with rigged elections.

Lenin was well meaning, but all states - even ones set up by great revolutionaries - are inherently forms of minority rule.

bezdomni

3rd August 2007, 20:42

Rgacky - FOR FUCK'S SAKE! Learn how to use the quote button!

Rawthentic

3rd August 2007, 20:56

Lenin was well meaning, but all states - even ones set up by great revolutionaries - are inherently forms of minority rule.
I agree with everything except this. A state is an organ of class rule, thats the materialist definition.

I assume you are using the anarchist one.

RGacky3

3rd August 2007, 23:26

The Bolsheviks are not a class. You dont even know what a social class is!

You said that before, but I just explained how they became one, so why not respond to that? It seams to me that your mind is stuck in this Materialist Marxist box and anything outside the box you just can't comprehend, why not answer what I"m saying honestly, the Bolshevics became a class when they took state power, they were not working class, they became RULING class, why? Because they ruled over the working class.

Then fuck off and study Lenin before using straw men to criticize him

Well did he? Am I wrong?

So, for all the years that the Bolshevik Party stood side by side the proletarians and urged them to create soviets because they knew that they were viable organs of state power, that whole time it was an evil conspiracy so that the Bolsheviks could become an evil tyrannical power?

I did'nt say that did I, respond to what I said. I never said that Bolsheviks were bad people, but the Bolshevic Ideology, as well as the centralization of authority, naturally led to what happend, it was inherent.

I am not talking about power you moron. All the policies, no matter how wrong they were and how horrible the results, were responses to the adverse material conditions facing the young worker's state. They were seen as necessary steps in the struggle to keep socialism alive. I don't expect you to understand the relationship between that and material conditions, but at least try.

Of coarse its about power, if they did'nt have power they would'nt have the authority to make the policies in the first place would they? It was'nt material conditions, because first of all most of the leadership of the Bolshevics were very ditached from the material conditions around (naturally), the motivations behind their policies, or any policies when it comes from a ruling class is exacly what I mentioned before.

Rawthentic

4th August 2007, 03:18

It seams to me that your mind is stuck in this Materialist Marxist box and anything outside the box you just can't comprehend, why not answer what I"m saying honestly, the Bolshevics became a class when they took state power, they were not working class, they became RULING class, why? Because they ruled over the working class.
Silly kid. Historical materialism is opposed to idealism, like the kind of idealistic thought you use. Materialism is not a static method. The Bolshevik Party was not a social class, but it did put back the petty-bourgeoisie into power, which is a social class. I am not going over this again, you clearly dont know what a social class is.

Well did he? Am I wrong?
Lets just say you dont understand Lenin. And yes, you are wrong.

It was'nt material conditions, because first of all most of the leadership of the Bolshevics were very ditached from the material conditions around (naturally), the motivations behind their policies, or any policies when it comes from a ruling class is exacly what I mentioned before.
How can human beings be detached from material conditions??!! :wacko:

Do something for yourself, for fuck's sake.

bezdomni

4th August 2007, 03:38

Rgacky, I will say it again - You do not understand what a "social class" is, that is the origin of the majority of the disagreement in this thread.

You seem to think, for some reason, that a class is any group of people that hold state power.

Obviously, that isn't what a social class is and therefore your analysis is doomed from the start.

RGacky3

5th August 2007, 01:44

Silly kid. Historical materialism is opposed to idealism, like the kind of idealistic thought you use. Materialism is not a static method. The Bolshevik Party was not a social class, but it did put back the petty-bourgeoisie into power, which is a social class. I am not going over this again, you clearly dont know what a social class is.

But Historical Materialism does'nt explain EVERYTHING, and it misses a lot of things, its a tool but not an end all of all historical analysis.

Ok so the Bolshevic party was NOT a social class, but lets think of this, were they producers? Were they Workers? No they were Politicians, Policy Makers, ok so they were not working class, so then were they part of any class? Who knows, all I know is that simply by the fact that they held authority over the working classes, puts them in a different social condition, so now then EXPLAIN TO ME PLEASE how the Bolshevic party was not a seperate class, and how was the petty-bourgeoisie put into power?

If this is an argument about definition of class I'll used a differnt term, they were of a different social condition, simply by the fact that they held political and economic authority.

Lets just say you dont understand Lenin. And yes, you are wrong.

Ahhhh so Lenin DID talk about a Society having to go through State Capitalism before Socialism, where was that?

How can human beings be detached from material conditions??!!

Do something for yourself, for fuck's sake.

Very Very Easily, the same way CEOs are detached from the effects their desicions have on poor people, when your in an office and you have things to worry about like maintaining order, authority, production, keeping society going, you can easily be detached from the effects your political desicions make, obviously this is only possible if you have political authority to begin with, of which I am opposed. THATS how you can be detached, not so difficult, it happens all the time.

Rawthentic

5th August 2007, 04:17

No they were Politicians, Policy Makers, ok so they were not working class, so then were they part of any class? Who knows, all I know is that simply by the fact that they held authority over the working classes, puts them in a different social condition, so now then EXPLAIN TO ME PLEASE how the Bolshevic party was not a seperate class, and how was the petty-bourgeoisie put into power?
Just let me remind you that the Bolshevik Party was composed of a large majority of proletarians, of which ceased later on, but thats beside that point.

And look at my post where I describe how the petty-bourgeoisie was put in power (which then became the de-facto bourgeoisie after the Stalinist counter-revolution). Its in this thread, I ain't typing all that up again.

Ahhhh so Lenin DID talk about a Society having to go through State Capitalism before Socialism, where was that?
Look it up on the Marxists Internet Archive, or go to Communist Voice (http://www.communistvoice.org) for an in-depth explanation of state-capitalism under worker's control. One thing to keep in mind is that historical stages cannot be skipped, but they can be accelerated.

Very Very Easily, the same way CEOs are detached from the effects their desicions have on poor people, when your in an office and you have things to worry about like maintaining order, authority, production, keeping society going, you can easily be detached from the effects your political desicions make, obviously this is only possible if you have political authority to begin with, of which I am opposed. THATS how you can be detached, not so difficult, it happens all the time.
That does not mean that they are detached from material conditions, you are speaking of something else.

RGacky3

5th August 2007, 20:18

Just let me remind you that the Bolshevik Party was composed of a large majority of proletarians, of which ceased later on, but thats beside that point.

The Democratic and Republican parties are composed of a large major Proletarians too. But the Bolshevik elite, just by the fact that they were policy makers and not workers, were not proletarians, they were in a different social condition (If you don't want to call it a class).

And look at my post where I describe how the petty-bourgeoisie was put in power (which then became the de-facto bourgeoisie after the Stalinist counter-revolution). Its in this thread, I ain't typing all that up again.

I've read that post, but it does'nt answer the question because the whole time the Bolshevics were still in control of the policies, sure there were Managers in industry and the such, but the Bolshevic Elite was always in control, and it was'nt the so called petty-bourgeoisie that did the purges, political repression, killings, prison camps, elimination of dissident parties, and consolidation of power, no it was the Bolshevic elite.

Look it up on the Marxists Internet Archive, or go to Communist Voice for an in-depth explanation of state-capitalism under worker's control. One thing to keep in mind is that historical stages cannot be skipped, but they can be accelerated.

I would look it up but I'd have to siphen through pages and pages of Lanins works in order to find him talking about state-Capitalism, I'm looking for Lenins mention of State Capitalism having to come before Socialism.

That does not mean that they are detached from material conditions, you are speaking of something else.

Well thats what I'm talking about, lets say they are Detached from real Conditions, Material ones, I'm talking real terms here not Marxist Lingo, The Bolshevic Elite ( as well as the Capitalist Elite) are Dethached from the Social and material Conditions that their policies cause.

Rawthentic

5th August 2007, 22:14

The Democratic and Republican parties are composed of a large major Proletarians too. But the Bolshevik elite, just by the fact that they were policy makers and not workers, were not proletarians, they were in a different social condition (If you don't want to call it a class).
Get outta here. The Bolshevik Party was a communist party that represented the interests of the proletariat. Until the counter-revolution.

I've read that post, but it does'nt answer the question because the whole time the Bolshevics were still in control of the policies, sure there were Managers in industry and the such, but the Bolshevic Elite was always in control, and it was'nt the so called petty-bourgeoisie that did the purges, political repression, killings, prison camps, elimination of dissident parties, and consolidation of power, no it was the Bolshevic elite.
Silly kid. Thats like saying that the policy makers of the Democratic Party are not of any class. They are part of the capitalist class, just like the Bolshevik Party was of the petty-bourgeoisie during that transformation.

Well thats what I'm talking about, lets say they are Detached from real Conditions, Material ones, I'm talking real terms here not Marxist Lingo, The Bolshevic Elite ( as well as the Capitalist Elite) are Dethached from the Social and material Conditions that their policies cause.
'Marxist Lingo" :lol: :D . You make me crack up, seriously. What you are trying to say is that the policies that the Bolsheviks used were most hurtful to the proletarians, which is true. But you of course don't know what policies or why they hurt the proles, your whole argument is based on the "Bolshevik elite."

RGacky3

6th August 2007, 07:56

Get outta here. The Bolshevik Party was a communist party that represented the interests of the proletariat. Until the counter-revolution.

So they said, the Demoracts say the same thing, they say they look out for Working America, does'nt mean anything, sure the Bolsheviks did many things for the Working class Russians, but their main concern, like any Ruling Elite, was their own power and stability.

Silly kid. Thats like saying that the policy makers of the Democratic Party are not of any class. They are part of the capitalist class, just like the Bolshevik Party was of the petty-bourgeoisie during that transformation.

Many Policy Makers are part of the Capitalist class because they are business owners, large stock holders, CEOs and the such, some are Professionals, many if not most are Professional Politicians, meaning thats all they do, which puts then in a different class than Capitalists, because they do not own/control means of production or enterprise, they are policy makers, they are politicians, just like the Bolshevics, was the Bolshevik party Elite Professionals, shop owners, self-employed people after the Revolution when they were in power? Or were they Politicians, Policy Makers and Rulers, unlike American Politicians, which must bow to Capitalist power, and exists very much for Capitalist power, the Bolsheviks only had their own power to worry about.

'Marxist Lingo" . You make me crack up, seriously. What you are trying to say is that the policies that the Bolsheviks used were most hurtful to the proletarians, which is true. But you of course don't know what policies or why they hurt the proles, your whole argument is based on the "Bolshevik elite."

What I'm saying is that the Bolshevik elite (You know what I mean when I say that), were out for themselves, their own power, and the general public was secondary to that, sometimes the things they did were hurtful (Gulags, killings, State Terror, political repression, attacking Unions and other Workers Organizations) Other things were good (Universal Healthcare, full employment and so on), but the fact is, when it comes down to it, their motivations, their interests, were the same as any other ruling class in the past.

And they were detached from their hurtful policies, just like any other ruling class would be, not because they want to be, just because when a small group is making decisions that effect millions of people, there is no way not to be detached.

Rawthentic

6th August 2007, 17:09

So they said, the Demoracts say the same thing, they say they look out for Working America, does'nt mean anything, sure the Bolsheviks did many things for the Working class Russians, but their main concern, like any Ruling Elite, was their own power and stability.
So, like, I said, the entire time before the Revolution the Bolshevik Party that always stood next to the revolutionary proletariat and emphasized their need to break with capitalism was all an evil despotic power conspiracy?

Theres a difference between a Party that calls for socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat and a party that sucks Bush's dick. Get your facts straight.

which puts then in a different class than Capitalists, because they do not own/control means of production or enterprise, they are policy makers, they are politicians, just like the Bolshevics, was the Bolshevik party Elite Professionals, shop owners, self-employed people after the Revolution when they were in power?
They represent the capitalist class if they don't directly own the means of production, this isnt that hard to grasp.

And they were detached from their hurtful policies, just like any other ruling class would be, not because they want to be, just because when a small group is making decisions that effect millions of people, there is no way not to be detached.
You are definitely confused. What you are saying is that the consequences of their policies hurt the oppressed, not themselves. This does not mean that they are detached from material conditions, thats a complete absurdity. There are material conditions that determine what their outlook is on life, why they got to their positions of privilege, etc. Being determines consciousness, not the other way around. Stop being an idealist.

RGacky3

7th August 2007, 01:23

They represent the capitalist class if they don't directly own the means of production, this isnt that hard to grasp.

They don't 'represent' the Capitalist class, they are used by the Capitalist class for their own means, why? Because the Capitalist class has power of them. Did the working class have power over the Bolshevik Elite? Or Vise Versa.

So, like, I said, the entire time before the Revolution the Bolshevik Party that always stood next to the revolutionary proletariat and emphasized their need to break with capitalism was all an evil despotic power conspiracy?

No not at all, but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Bolsheviks power was pretty extensive, and once they Had Power they were intent on holding it and consolidating it, same as any other rulling class no matter what their ideals.

You are definitely confused. What you are saying is that the consequences of their policies hurt the oppressed, not themselves. This does not mean that they are detached from material conditions, thats a complete absurdity. There are material conditions that determine what their outlook is on life, why they got to their positions of privilege, etc. Being determines consciousness, not the other way around. Stop being an idealist.

What I"m saying is that they were detached from the effects of their policies, which is exactly the case, I don't see how thats being and idealist.

Rawthentic

7th August 2007, 04:09

They don't 'represent' the Capitalist class, they are used by the Capitalist class for their own means, why? Because the Capitalist class has power of them. Did the working class have power over the Bolshevik Elite? Or Vise Versa.
No, you are really confused. Bourgeois politicians represent and work in the interests of the bourgeois system. Simple as that.

No not at all, but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Bolsheviks power was pretty extensive, and once they Had Power they were intent on holding it and consolidating it, same as any other rulling class no matter what their ideals.
Wait a second, are you saying this is how ruling classes consolidate themselves? Because you are waaay wrong. Ruling classes come to power through the seizure of the means of production and state power. Like I said, stop playing your idealist morality game here.

What I"m saying is that they were detached from the effects of their policies, which is exactly the case, I don't see how thats being and idealist.
And what the fuck is this supposed to prove?

cenv

7th August 2007, 06:26

No not at all, but power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, and the Bolsheviks power was pretty extensive, and once they Had Power they were intent on holding it and consolidating it, same as any other rulling class no matter what their ideals.
It's not a matter of being "corrupt." What matters is who's in power to begin with.

No, you are really confused. Bourgeois politicians represent and work in the interests of the bourgeois system. Simple as that.
It's not as "simple as that." By saying it is, you're doing what you warn everyone else not to do: turning Marxism into a dogma. There are material reasons that bourgeois politicians represent the interests of the bourgeoisie. While I may not agree with everything he's saying, RGacky3 is taking a stab at what those reasons are. You could at least have the courtesy to refute his points if you're going to tell him he's "really confused."

Ruling classes come to power through the seizure of the means of production and state power. Like I said, stop playing your idealist morality game here.
The Bolsheviks ultimately seized both the means of production and state power. His analysis may be simplistic, but it's not idealist.

Rawthentic

7th August 2007, 17:00

It's not as "simple as that." By saying it is, you're doing what you warn everyone else not to do: turning Marxism into a dogma. There are material reasons that bourgeois politicians represent the interests of the bourgeoisie. While I may not agree with everything he's saying, RGacky3 is taking a stab at what those reasons are. You could at least have the courtesy to refute his points if you're going to tell him he's "really confused."
It does not make Marxism a dogma (nice try though), where did you get that from (hmm...) ? RGacky is not taking a stab at what those reasons are, he seems to think that power corrupts and that thats how ruling classes come to power. I could explain because politicians need to be millionaires and have corporate sponsors, etc., etc., or he could take a look at bourgeois politics around him and have him prove me right.

The Bolsheviks ultimately seized both the means of production and state power. His analysis may be simplistic, but it's not idealist.
Well, not quite, although I see your point. It was the newly reconstituted state-bourgeoisie, for which the Bolshevik Party worked in the interests of.

RGacky3

8th August 2007, 07:15

he seems to think that power corrupts and that thats how ruling classes come to power. I could explain because politicians need to be millionaires and have corporate sponsors, etc., etc., or he could take a look at bourgeois politics around him and have him prove me right.

Ruling Classes come to power with various means, in the United States its primarily money, capital, and exploitation, in the USSR it was simply Violence and Centralization. I'm not at all saying the Ruling Classes in the United States are not corrupt, the Capitalists don't even pretend (They Gotta look out for the Bottom Line), the Political puppets try not look corrupt but the fact is they dont' have a choice but to bow to Capital.

The USSR had a different situation, Through Violence they took complete power of the State and Economy, and simply through that fact to hold on to power, they had to be pragmatic, and they had no problem with it.

Well, not quite, although I see your point. It was the newly reconstituted state-bourgeoisie, for which the Bolshevik Party worked in the interests of.

Who was the State-Bourgeoisie? If not the Bolshevik elite themselves, and how were they, the State-Bourgeoisie (I suppose the equivilent to the Capitalist Bourgeoisie to whome the political powers must bow too), above the Bolshevik elite?

It's not a matter of being "corrupt." What matters is who's in power to begin with.

You give a poor, working class man with strong ethics absolute power he's almost garanteed to become corrupted. Which is why I'm not saying Lenin was a bad person at all, his ideas and the way power was consolidated nessesarily led to what happend, it was'nt a mistake.

Rawthentic

8th August 2007, 16:32

Ruling Classes come to power with various means, in the United States its primarily money, capital, and exploitation, in the USSR it was simply Violence and Centralization. I'm not at all saying the Ruling Classes in the United States are not corrupt, the Capitalists don't even pretend (They Gotta look out for the Bottom Line), the Political puppets try not look corrupt but the fact is they dont' have a choice but to bow to Capital.
The US ruling class did not consolidate itself that way. Ever hear of the American Revolution? Yeah, thats it, George Washington and the whole "founding fathers." That was America's bourgeois revolution.

Who was the State-Bourgeoisie? If not the Bolshevik elite themselves, and how were they, the State-Bourgeoisie (I suppose the equivilent to the Capitalist Bourgeoisie to whome the political powers must bow too), above the Bolshevik elite?
Those who entirely controlled the state and the means of production. Shit, thats like asking who the bourgeoisie is in the United States. Sorry, I can't name them. The ruling class was not the "Bolshevik elite" (and you keep sounding more stupid every time you say it) it was the class they represented.

You give a poor, working class man with strong ethics absolute power he's almost garanteed to become corrupted. Which is why I'm not saying Lenin was a bad person at all, his ideas and the way power was consolidated nessesarily led to what happend, it was'nt a mistake.
There you go with your morality game.

And how did Lenin's ideas lead to what happened in Russia? I have the feeling you have never read Lenin.

cenv

8th August 2007, 20:43

Sorry, I can't name them. The ruling class was not the "Bolshevik elite" (and you keep sounding more stupid every time you say it) it was the class they represented.
Elaborate. What class did they represent? What made that class the ruling class?

RGacky3

8th August 2007, 21:09

Those who entirely controlled the state and the means of production. Shit, thats like asking who the bourgeoisie is in the United States. Sorry, I can't name them. The ruling class was not the "Bolshevik elite" (and you keep sounding more stupid every time you say it) it was the class they represented.

Those who entirely contorlled the state and the means of production WERE the Bolshevik elite, and you know exactly what I mean when I say that, the Bolshevik elite did'nt represent that class, they WERE that class.

The US ruling class did not consolidate itself that way. Ever hear of the American Revolution? Yeah, thats it, George Washington and the whole "founding fathers." That was America's bourgeois revolution.

THe US revolution was not a Social revolution it was a political one, it changed the political rulership of the United States, but always above the Political power in any Capitalist country is the Economic power, and that economic power did'nt consolidate its power through political revolutions (That may of helped a lot), they did it through economic means with the help of the political powers, i.e. America was ruled by the Capitalist and Landowning classes before and after the revolutoin.

Rawthentic

9th August 2007, 00:31

Those who entirely contorlled the state and the means of production WERE the Bolshevik elite, and you know exactly what I mean when I say that, the Bolshevik elite did'nt represent that class, they WERE that class.
So let me ask: are the Democrats and Republicans the ones that have complete control over the means of production, or do they represent the ones who do?

THe US revolution was not a Social revolution it was a political one, it changed the political rulership of the United States, but always above the Political power in any Capitalist country is the Economic power, and that economic power did'nt consolidate its power through political revolutions (That may of helped a lot), they did it through economic means with the help of the political powers, i.e. America was ruled by the Capitalist and Landowning classes before and after the revolutoin.
This doesn't make any sense. Please explain.

Elaborate. What class did they represent? What made that class the ruling class?
The Bolshevik Party represented the bourgeoisie. That same bourgeoisie that evolved from the petty-bourgeoisie that the Bolsheviks put in power through the introduction of taylorism, NEP, War Communism etc.

Have you read Miles' article in the new WR on this? It basically sums up my position.

Joby

9th August 2007, 00:52

On the original topic, I believe that only if a majority of people want the revolution and would benefit from it should it take place politically.

We should focus on economic and social revolutions first, before we even begin to tackle a political revolution. It's not like the democratic or republican systems of government on the west are bad in theory, it's that they have been bought out and the system is now oiled only by money. The first steps in the revolution should be to break this control.

This can not be done violently at this point. It's never been done in a first world country, and the prospects of any violent movement geting out of the basement or smoky college dorm room are slim to none.

We should, instead of offering dozens of "authoritarian internet parties," work to create alternative food sources, health clinics, and schools in the ghetto, were people need them most. If all you've done is debate why you would make the best leader in the "ineveitable revolution" online ( :rolleyes: ), I suggest you find out were your cities soup kitchens are. Get you're left-leaning friends to volunteer with you.

For all the debate we've done on here, how much more successfull would we be if we set up a makeshift cafe in a parking lot of a low-class neighborhhod, and served free breakfast? Arranged for volunteers to keep it running, with real proletariat support (the kind of people who can't afford to get online) to expand it over time?

It's these kinds of ways we could build a real solidarity movement, not some idealistic "vanguard of the proletariat." Then, and only then, would you have a real political base to build off of, like the BPP in Oakland or Chicago in the 1960s. And it's only through these kinds of actions that you're really going to cause, like the aforementioned BPP did, real government worry and the opportunity to present a case for solidarity against the ruling class.

The Left thus far has failed. Let's stop all of his hypothetical, off-in-the-distance nonsense and bring it back.

We can take a step to break corporate control. Let's take the power back as soon as possible by offering the workers something better to work for.

RGacky3

9th August 2007, 02:17

So let me ask: are the Democrats and Republicans the ones that have complete control over the means of production, or do they represent the ones who do?

They do not 'represent' the Capitalists, they are a tool of them. Difference is, the Bolsheviks had direct control over the means of production.

QUOTE

THe US revolution was not a Social revolution it was a political one, it changed the political rulership of the United States, but always above the Political power in any Capitalist country is the Economic power, and that economic power did'nt consolidate its power through political revolutions (That may of helped a lot), they did it through economic means with the help of the political powers, i.e. America was ruled by the Capitalist and Landowning classes before and after the revolutoin.

This doesn't make any sense. Please explain.

A political revolution is different than a social one, the social structure of America stayed the same after the revolution, the only thing that changed was the political authority.

The Bolshevik Party represented the bourgeoisie. That same bourgeoisie that evolved from the petty-bourgeoisie that the Bolsheviks put in power through the introduction of taylorism, NEP, War Communism etc.

But the Bolshevik Party was alwasy in control, they never had to answer to the so called Bourgeoisie (Which never existed in Russia) or Petty-Bourgeoisie (Which never held any power), you can say they represented them but in all truth the Bolshevik elite was always in control, they never had to answer to any one.

The AMerican Political class has to answer to the Capitalists.

Rawthentic

9th August 2007, 03:34

They do not 'represent' the Capitalists, they are a tool of them. Difference is, the Bolsheviks had direct control over the means of production.
You could say they are both. But anyway, the Bolsheviks controlling the means of production directly proves nothing.

But the Bolshevik Party was alwasy in control, they never had to answer to the so called Bourgeoisie (Which never existed in Russia) or Petty-Bourgeoisie (Which never held any power), you can say they represented them but in all truth the Bolshevik elite was always in control, they never had to answer to any one.
Thats simply false; a disgusting misinformed lie. How do you think there was a proletariat then that came to power? Looks like you don't know what the petty-bourgeoisie is:

From the Manifesto:
"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, fluctuating between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen." - The Communist Manifesto

In a sense, the petty-bourgeoisie are the "middle men" like the functionaries, bureaucrats, "specialists", etc., and also small capitalists, just not in the case for Russia. These are the people that regained state power through the implementation of taylorism, NEP, War Communism, etc. Also take into account how sections of the old tsarist state were not destroyed, like the upper echelons of the trade unions.

cenv

9th August 2007, 04:27

The Bolshevik Party represented the bourgeoisie. That same bourgeoisie that evolved from the petty-bourgeoisie that the Bolsheviks put in power through the introduction of taylorism, NEP, War Communism etc.

The state didn't "represent" the ruling class. The state bureaucracy was the ruling class. That's why it's called "state capitalism."

But the Bolshevik Party was alwasy in control, they never had to answer to the so called Bourgeoisie (Which never existed in Russia) or Petty-Bourgeoisie (Which never held any power), you can say they represented them but in all truth the Bolshevik elite was always in control, they never had to answer to any one.
If you take a class-based approach instead of just talking about an "elite" that was in control, you'll notice that the ruling class was comprised of bureaucrats, top professionals, and so on. This group of people would typically fall under the label of the "petty-bourgeoisie."

We should focus on economic and social revolutions first, before we even begin to tackle a political revolution. It's not like the democratic or republican systems of government on the west are bad in theory, it's that they have been bought out and the system is now oiled only by money. The first steps in the revolution should be to break this control.
Social and political revolution are inseparable. You can't overthrow capitalism without smashing the bourgeois state.

Rawthentic

9th August 2007, 16:54

The state didn't "represent" the ruling class. The state bureaucracy was the ruling class. That's why it's called "state capitalism."
Definitely agree here.

RGacky3

9th August 2007, 17:05

If you take a class-based approach instead of just talking about an "elite" that was in control, you'll notice that the ruling class was comprised of bureaucrats, top professionals, and so on. This group of people would typically fall under the label of the "petty-bourgeoisie."

The rulling class also happend to be (not by mistake), high memebers of the Bolshevik party, and thats what gave them the authority, also, once they gained that authority and started working as politicians, they were not petty-bourgeoisie anymore, they are of the political ruling class.

Social and political revolution are inseparable. You can't overthrow capitalism without smashing the bourgeois state.

Thats your opinoin, I believe Social revolution comes first, but it IS possible to have a political revolution without a Social one, the AMerican revolution is an example of this.

You could say they are both. But anyway, the Bolsheviks controlling the means of production directly proves nothing.

It prooves that teh Bolsheviks replace the Russian Ruling class with themselves, they WERE the ruling class, they did'nt represent the ruling class, they themselves were both the Political and Economic ruling class.

Thats simply false; a disgusting misinformed lie. How do you think there was a proletariat then that came to power? Looks like you don't know what the petty-bourgeoisie is:

We've gone over this already, the proletariat did'nt come to power, maybe for a short period of time, but as soon as the bolsheviks could, they took power for themselves.

I don't understand why you guys fight the idea that the rulling class consists of those who have authority, those who had ulimate authority in the USSR were not the beaurocrats, they were not the managers, they were not shop owners, they were the Bolshevik ruling class, the so called "Petit-Bourgeoisie" Was always, subordinate to the ruling class, which means they Petit-Bourgeoisie was never in power, the Bolsheviks were the whole time.

Rawthentic

10th August 2007, 03:42

The rulling class also happend to be (not by mistake), high memebers of the Bolshevik party, and thats what gave them the authority, also, once they gained that authority and started working as politicians, they were not petty-bourgeoisie anymore, they are of the political ruling class.
Dude, you are literally saying that the Party members were divorced from capitalist class relations.

Thats your opinoin, I believe Social revolution comes first, but it IS possible to have a political revolution without a Social one, the AMerican revolution is an example of this.
Thats not cenv's opinion, that was an objective statement he made. The American revolution was the transformation from a somewhat feudal mode of production to the capitalist one.

It prooves that teh Bolsheviks replace the Russian Ruling class with themselves, they WERE the ruling class, they did'nt represent the ruling class, they themselves were both the Political and Economic ruling class.
And...?

I don't understand why you guys fight the idea that the rulling class consists of those who have authority, those who had ulimate authority in the USSR were not the beaurocrats, they were not the managers, they were not shop owners, they were the Bolshevik ruling class, the so called "Petit-Bourgeoisie" Was always, subordinate to the ruling class, which means they Petit-Bourgeoisie was never in power, the Bolsheviks were the whole time.
Human beings cannot be divorced from class relations, the Party was composed of petty-bourgeois bureaucrats and some proletarians.

cenv

10th August 2007, 06:05

Thats your opinoin, I believe Social revolution comes first, but it IS possible to have a political revolution without a Social one, the AMerican revolution is an example of this.
I don't see how you intend to abolish capitalist social relations without smashing the central organ of bourgeois power: the bourgeois state.

RGacky3

10th August 2007, 17:02

I don't see how you intend to abolish capitalist social relations without smashing the central organ of bourgeois power: the bourgeois state.

Without Capitalis, the State would be somewhat of a lame duck and easier to get rid of, I'm saying that the revolution should be SOcial and Economic first.

Dude, you are literally saying that the Party members were divorced from capitalist class relations.

I am literally saying that Party members, whatever their class background stopped being that class when they got into political power, because then their job was a political one.

Thats not cenv's opinion, that was an objective statement he made. The American revolution was the transformation from a somewhat feudal mode of production to the capitalist one.

Thats simply historically not true, the revolution did'nt chagne the mode of production or the social system at all. it was'nt a Social or economic revolution it was 100% political.

It prooves that teh Bolsheviks replace the Russian Ruling class with themselves, they WERE the ruling class, they did'nt represent the ruling class, they themselves were both the Political and Economic ruling class.

And...?

Well that kind of was my point all along :P, but you seamed to fight the idea that the Bolsheviks were the ruling class.

Human beings cannot be divorced from class relations, the Party was composed of petty-bourgeois bureaucrats and some proletarians.

A dictator is a dictator, an ologarchy is an ologarchy, it does'nt matter what class background they happend to have, i.e. if an American president comes from a working class background of a Capitalist background, the system doe'snt change, its still the same thing.

Rawthentic

11th August 2007, 00:26

Without Capitalis, the State would be somewhat of a lame duck and easier to get rid of, I'm saying that the revolution should be SOcial and Economic first.
The task of all anti-capitalist revolutionaries is first the destruction of the bourgeois state for that is the linchpin of capitalism, it is what enforces capitalist class rule.

But I mean, if you can't accept this simple fact, good luck in the future with the bigger stuff.

I am literally saying that Party members, whatever their class background stopped being that class when they got into political power, because then their job was a political one.
Wrong, they were and represented the ruling bourgeois class. Like I said, human beings cannot be divorced from class relations.

I am literally saying that Party members, whatever their class background stopped being that class when they got into political power, because then their job was a political one.
And who's talking about the system changing? If there is an American president that was working class, he then becomes bourgeois, he doesn't just lose touch with all class relations, thats silly.

RGacky3

11th August 2007, 02:45

And who's talking about the system changing? If there is an American president that was working class, he then becomes bourgeois, he doesn't just lose touch with all class relations, thats silly.

EXACTLY, and Bolshevik leaders that became politicians became the new ruling class of the USSR, not bourgeois, not proletariat, not petty bourgeois, they became Bolshevik rulers.

The task of all anti-capitalist revolutionaries is first the destruction of the bourgeois state for that is the linchpin of capitalism, it is what enforces capitalist class rule.

No its not, unless you explain why thats the only way to it, and the best way.

Wrong, they were and represented the ruling bourgeois class. Like I said, human beings cannot be divorced from class relations.

You've said this many times, there were not bourgeois in the USSR, it was State run, and the State was run by the Bolshevik elite, plain and simple.

Rawthentic

11th August 2007, 03:43

EXACTLY, and Bolshevik leaders that became politicians became the new ruling class of the USSR, not bourgeois, not proletariat, not petty bourgeois, they became Bolshevik rulers.
Hang on, I am trying hard not to laugh.

Since it is clear you are saying that the Bolshevik leaders represented a new class under capitalism, different from capitalists, petty-bourgeoisie, and proletarians. To be a new class, obviously, it will have to have a new relationship to the means of production that the prior three do not cover.

Good luck.

No its not, unless you explain why thats the only way to it, and the best way.
Theres no such thing as the "best way", if it isnt done this way, there will be no revolution, plain and simple. You can't challenge that, so I just suggest you leave it at that.

But because I am patient, I will explain to you. If the capitalist state exists, so does capitalism. It is the fortress of capitalism, and, if it is not destroyed, will keep the capitalist ruling class in its place. Destroying the state is always a tactical question and the first order of business for the proletariat. If it does not smash the state and create its own, revolutionizing the economy and society is not possible.

You've said this many times, there were not bourgeois in the USSR, it was State run, and the State was run by the Bolshevik elite, plain and simple.
It was the state-bourgeoisie, now shut your face. Unless you can scientifically prove that the Bolshevik Party was a new class in capitalist relations, which, just so you know, would have to be a global class as well.

So, please prove:

1) How the Bolshevik leaders created a new relation under capitalism and;

2)How this class was global.

The Feral Underclass

11th August 2007, 10:02

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 11, 2007 03:43 am
To be a new class, obviously, it will have to have a new relationship to the means of production that the prior three do not cover.
Well, they did. They administrated it. They became a bureaucratic class. They didn't own the means of production, they controlled it.

The Feral Underclass

11th August 2007, 10:05

Originally posted by @--
To be a new class, obviously, it will have to have a new relationship to the means of production that the prior three do not co
Well, they did. They administrated it. They became a bureaucratic class. They didn't own the means of production, they controlled it.

Labor Shall Rule

11th August 2007, 10:27

Oh god, the sectarianism never stops on this board.

The Feral Underclass

11th August 2007, 11:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 10:27 am
Oh god, the sectarianism never stops on this board.
It's not sectarianism. It's the truth.

RGacky3

11th August 2007, 23:12

Oh god, the sectarianism never stops on this board.

Its healthy debate, and good questions. Unfortunately Voz de la Gente Trabajadora needs to have an attitude and try and be condesending, rather than just treat this as a discussion.

Since it is clear you are saying that the Bolshevik leaders represented a new class under capitalism, different from capitalists, petty-bourgeoisie, and proletarians. To be a new class, obviously, it will have to have a new relationship to the means of production that the prior three do not cover. [QUOTE]

As soon as the Bolsheviks could they took control of the political and economic power, so yeah, they were new class, and even if you want to but them in the Capitalist class, they alwasy were that, you say they represented the proletarian class, but that could only be the case if they proletarian class directly elected them from amung themselves, and mandated them authority, which they did'nt, niether did the petty bourgeoisie, the Bolsheviks TOOK power and gave themselves authority.

But because I am patient, I will explain to you. If the capitalist state exists, so does capitalism. It is the fortress of capitalism, and, if it is not destroyed, will keep the capitalist ruling class in its place. Destroying the state is always a tactical question and the first order of business for the proletariat. If it does not smash the state and create its own, revolutionizing the economy and society is not possible.

But Capitalism is waht gives the state authority, without Capitalism the State has no reason to exist, if you attack Capitalism directly and not its tool, the State would have not reason to exist in its present form, so its not the ONLY way, governments have been over thrown by revolutions starting with general strikes and workplace takeovers.

It was the state-bourgeoisie, now shut your face. Unless you can scientifically prove that the Bolshevik Party was a new class in capitalist relations, which, just so you know, would have to be a global class as well[QUOTE]

don't get an ulcer man :P, if you want to call it State-Bourgeoisie thats fine, but either way, as son as they could, the Bolsheviks replaced the old ruling class and became the new one, whatever you want to call it, and that was my point all along, and I don't want a ruling class :P, and with a State thats inevitable.

Rawthentic

12th August 2007, 02:05

Well, they did. They administrated it. They became a bureaucratic class. They didn't own the means of production, they controlled it.
That bureaucratic class is the petty-bourgeoisie, that should answer RGacky here:

As soon as the Bolsheviks could they took control of the political and economic power, so yeah, they were new class, and even if you want to but them in the Capitalist class, they alwasy were that, you say they represented the proletarian class, but that could only be the case if they proletarian class directly elected them from amung themselves, and mandated them authority, which they did'nt, niether did the petty bourgeoisie, the Bolsheviks TOOK power and gave themselves authority.
Oh, and the proletarian class at first did elect them, and were even subject to immediate recall.

But Capitalism is waht gives the state authority, without Capitalism the State has no reason to exist, if you attack Capitalism directly and not its tool, the State would have not reason to exist in its present form, so its not the ONLY way, governments have been over thrown by revolutions starting with general strikes and workplace takeovers.
Nah. Capitalism is class society, as long as there are classes, there will be a state. If that state is not smashed as a part of a revolutionary goal, classes will never be done away with. Period.

don't get an ulcer man tongue.gif, if you want to call it State-Bourgeoisie thats fine, but either way, as son as they could, the Bolsheviks replaced the old ruling class and became the new one, whatever you want to call it, and that was my point all along, and I don't want a ruling class tongue.gif, and with a State thats inevitable.
Your idealist shit is funny, thats all. You don't even know what a social class is. Wow.

The Feral Underclass

12th August 2007, 08:45

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 12, 2007 02:05 am

Well, they did. They administrated it. They became a bureaucratic class. They didn't own the means of production, they controlled it.
That bureaucratic class is the petty-bourgeoisie
Sections of the petty-bourgeoisie can work within the means of production without owning it or being exploited by it, but the bureaucratic lass actually controlled the means of production, rather than simply operated it.

RGacky3

12th August 2007, 18:35

Your idealist shit is funny, thats all. You don't even know what a social class is. Wow.

Yeah, I'm sure it is gut wrenchingly funny. I don't even know what a Social class is Wow, yeah, Amazing, ok, now why don't you explain how I was wrong in saying that the Bolsheviks replaced the old ruling class and took political and economic control, and enforced it through threat of violence, and how simply by the existence of a State there will be a ruling class.

Nah. Capitalism is class society, as long as there are classes, there will be a state. If that state is not smashed as a part of a revolutionary goal, classes will never be done away with. Period.

So you are for getting rid of the state during the revolution? Good, I agree, you cannot have a state with genuine Socialism, you have to get rid of it, we agree on something high five.

Oh, and the proletarian class at first did elect them, and were even subject to immediate recall.

Really? the proletarian class as a whole directly elected the members of the Central Committee and the Politburo? Lenin was elected by the Proletarian class as a whole to be their undisputed leader? Thats news to me.

That bureaucratic class is the petty-bourgeoisie, that should answer RGacky here:

What are you talking about??? so the Bolshevik Elite that were controling both the economy and the political sphere were really small shop owners and self-employed types? Hmmm, its funny because that small group of 'petty-bourgeoisie' actually had more authority than most big time Capitalists could ever dream of. You can call the Bolshevik leadership whatever you want, you can call them lumpen-proletariate if you'd like, it does'nt change who they were, what they did, and the amount of authority they had.

Rawthentic

14th August 2007, 03:39

Yeah, I'm sure it is gut wrenchingly funny. I don't even know what a Social class is Wow, yeah, Amazing, ok, now why don't you explain how I was wrong in saying that the Bolsheviks replaced the old ruling class and took political and economic control, and enforced it through threat of violence, and how simply by the existence of a State there will be a ruling class.
Then, please do explain what a social class is.

And there will always exist a state as long as social classes exist, but I can't expect you to make that connection.

So you are for getting rid of the state during the revolution? Good, I agree, you cannot have a state with genuine Socialism, you have to get rid of it, we agree on something high five
Post-revolutionary society is still a class society. I was talking about smashing the capitalist state, to be replaced by a worker's one.

And after all, the correct definition of the state is a violent organ of class rule.

So you are for getting rid of the state during the revolution? Good, I agree, you cannot have a state with genuine Socialism, you have to get rid of it, we agree on something high five
No, I think I will call them what they really were.

RGacky3

14th August 2007, 04:13

And there will always exist a state as long as social classes exist, but I can't expect you to make that connection.

THere were Social Classes way before States, But that was before Karl Marx so I guess that does'nt count :P.

Post-revolutionary society is still a class society. I was talking about smashing the capitalist state, to be replaced by a worker's one.

And after all, the correct definition of the state is a violent organ of class rule.

I don't believe post-reovlutionary society shoudl still be a calss Society, what the bolsheviks did was not make a workers state, they made a Bolshevik state which they called a workers state, let me ask you this, if the workers are in the vast majority (Which they are now and were then), what would be the use of a Workers State? The fact is the new Ruling class (The Bolsheviks) only changed the form of exploitation and oppression against the people, they did'nt end it, or even try (You don't really have to TRY, you just don't do it :P).

Rawthentic

14th August 2007, 04:48

THere were Social Classes way before States, But that was before Karl Marx so I guess that does'nt count
No there werent, that just goes to show how little you understand the relationship between states and classes. When there are social classes, the dominant class enforces its rule through its state (armed bodies that protect property).

And whats that about Marx? Or is it just another typical ignorant comment of yours?

I don't believe post-reovlutionary society shoudl still be a calss Society, what the bolsheviks did was not make a workers state, they made a Bolshevik state which they called a workers state, let me ask you this, if the workers are in the vast majority (Which they are now and were then), what would be the use of a Workers State? The fact is the new Ruling class (The Bolsheviks) only changed the form of exploitation and oppression against the people, they did'nt end it, or even try (You don't really have to TRY, you just don't do it tongue.gif
I don't care whether you "believe it" or not, post-revolutionary society, the one that the workers create after they win the revolution, is a class society. Are you seriously suggesting that social classes disappear after the revolution?

The difference is that the proletariat is in power and exerts it over their ex-oppressors who will fight to the death to reclaim their power.

Rawthentic

14th August 2007, 04:49

RGacky3

14th August 2007, 05:51

No there werent, that just goes to show how little you understand the relationship between states and classes. When there are social classes, the dominant class enforces its rule through its state (armed bodies that protect property).

And whats that about Marx? Or is it just another typical ignorant comment of yours?

A State is different from an Army, so let me ask you, after the Collapse of the Roman Empire and before Kingdoms got established, who was the State, the fact was there was no stable state, nobles are not states, even when kings got around for many of them their power was very limited and their land not really under their control rather the control of their vassels, its not as simple as you think.

I don't care whether you "believe it" or not, post-revolutionary society, the one that the workers create after they win the revolution, is a class society. Are you seriously suggesting that social classes disappear after the revolution?

Thats our goal, there is not only ONE post-revolutionary society. Who says it must be a class society?

The difference is that the proletariat is in power and exerts it over their ex-oppressors who will fight to the death to reclaim their power.

I guess the Mensheviks, Anarchists, Social-Demoracats, and basically any one else that was non-compliant were ex-oppressors huh?

Rawthentic

14th August 2007, 17:39

A State is different from an Army, so let me ask you, after the Collapse of the Roman Empire and before Kingdoms got established, who was the State, the fact was there was no stable state, nobles are not states, even when kings got around for many of them their power was very limited and their land not really under their control rather the control of their vassels, its not as simple as you think.
An army is part of the capitalist state, like the US Army that does the bidding and enforces US imperialism around the world.

Thats our goal, there is not only ONE post-revolutionary society. Who says it must be a class society?
It would be nice if we could create a class society overnight or right after the revolution, but thats simply materially impossible and utopian. Thats why there must be a transitional period where the proletariat develops material conditions to a point where classlessness is possible.

I guess the Mensheviks, Anarchists, Social-Demoracats, and basically any one else that was non-compliant were ex-oppressors huh?
Of course, all those who said that the soviets were incapable of becoming organs of proletarian class power.

cenv

14th August 2007, 20:33

Of course, all those who said that the soviets were incapable of becoming organs of proletarian class power.
The anarchists "said that the soviets were incapable of becoming organs of proletarian class power"? Who told you that?

Rawthentic

14th August 2007, 20:51

My bad, I was referring to the Mensheviks and the Social-Democrats.

RGacky3

14th August 2007, 21:19

QUOTE
A State is different from an Army, so let me ask you, after the Collapse of the Roman Empire and before Kingdoms got established, who was the State, the fact was there was no stable state, nobles are not states, even when kings got around for many of them their power was very limited and their land not really under their control rather the control of their vassels, its not as simple as you think.

An army is part of the capitalist state, like the US Army that does the bidding and enforces US imperialism around the world.

I'm not denying that, your missing my point, my point is that there have been many times classs systems without states, the feudal period is a good example of that.

It would be nice if we could create a class society overnight or right after the revolution, but thats simply materially impossible and utopian. Thats why there must be a transitional period where the proletariat develops material conditions to a point where classlessness is possible.

Why? Says who? When the existing ruling classes are overthrown who becomes the new one? I say no one, (which is perfectly feasable, the Zapatistas did it, the CNT-FAI did it, the Ukrianian Makhnovists did it to name a few, the problem is not that there was no other choice than the Bolsheviks becoming the ruling authority, its that the Bolsheviks wanted that power.

Of course, all those who said that the soviets were incapable of becoming organs of proletarian class power.

You missed my question, does that make them ex oppressors? If so how?

Rawthentic

14th August 2007, 22:33

I'm not denying that, your missing my point, my point is that there have been many times classs systems without states, the feudal period is a good example of that.
There has never been a class society without a state, and you didnt prove that feudal society did not have the armed and repressive institutions that enforced the ruling feudal class' power.

Why? Says who? When the existing ruling classes are overthrown who becomes the new one? I say no one, (which is perfectly feasable, the Zapatistas did it, the CNT-FAI did it, the Ukrianian Makhnovists did it to name a few, the problem is not that there was no other choice than the Bolsheviks becoming the ruling authority, its that the Bolsheviks wanted that power.

When the capitalist class is overthrown, the working class becomes the ruling class. The Zapatistas have not overthrown the capitalist class, neither did the CNT-FAI (in fact they shied away from a proletarian seizure of power).

The point is that before communism can become a material reality, capitalism must be done away with worldwide and the proletariat must develop the socialist mode of production to a point where it is possible, and where the remnants of the old capitalist classes are destroyed.

RGacky3

17th August 2007, 02:16

There has never been a class society without a state, and you didnt prove that feudal society did not have the armed and repressive institutions that enforced the ruling feudal class' power.

For Much of History in many countires during the Feudal Period, there was no standing army, and there was no institutionalized State, there were nobles, and even Kings, but their authority was'nt over a State, it was over their vassels, and sometimes (if not most of the time), the authority lines were blurred.

When the capitalist class is overthrown, the working class becomes the ruling class. The Zapatistas have not overthrown the capitalist class, neither did the CNT-FAI (in fact they shied away from a proletarian seizure of power).

They did in their respective areas.

The point is that before communism can become a material reality, capitalism must be done away with worldwide and the proletariat must develop the socialist mode of production to a point where it is possible, and where the remnants of the old capitalist classes are destroyed.

Thats your theory, the Socialistic mode of production is the same as any other mode of production, the difference is who controls it. You claim I don't unserstand Social Classes, but you have this idea that after Capitalism is taken out, after the economy is in public hands, there will still be Capitalists? What do they have secret factories with secret wage-slaves? Your being very doctrinal about this and not practical (I.e. you just repet Marxist dogma, you don't explain how it is in the real work.)

Rawthentic

17th August 2007, 04:52

For Much of History in many countires during the Feudal Period, there was no standing army, and there was no institutionalized State, there were nobles, and even Kings, but their authority was'nt over a State, it was over their vassels, and sometimes (if not most of the time), the authority lines were blurred.
How exactly do you think the feudal class maintained power?

Was it subliminal?

They did in their respective areas.
Thats something you will have to prove, which you wont be able to because even the anarchists wont agree that capitalism was overthrown in those regions.

Thats your theory, the Socialistic mode of production is the same as any other mode of production, the difference is who controls it. You claim I don't unserstand Social Classes, but you have this idea that after Capitalism is taken out, after the economy is in public hands, there will still be Capitalists? What do they have secret factories with secret wage-slaves? Your being very doctrinal about this and not practical (I.e. you just repet Marxist dogma, you don't explain how it is in the real work.)
Thats reality, not my theory. When the capitalists are booted in one country, you dont think that the rest of the world capitalists powers will aid in counter-revolution to bring the worker's state down? In that one country where capitalism is overthrown, capitalists will not be, but in the rest of the world there will, and this is where it becomes necessary to create structures that will protect worker's democracy, while always calling for international revolution, the only thing that can aid that one country.

Marxism is not a dogma, you don't even understand it.

RGacky3

17th August 2007, 06:49

How exactly do you think the feudal class maintained power?

Was it subliminal?

First of all, look at History, Historically seaking for much of the time there was not 'State,' Feudal power started because Peasents needed protection and Warrior types (who later became nobles and knights) provided that protection, the feudal class mained power because they had the weapons, and the 'devine' right, also because of traditions, and the such, but just because the nobles had the weapons does'nt mean that there was a 'State', because there was no specific 'State'.

Thats something you will have to prove, which you wont be able to because even the anarchists wont agree that capitalism was overthrown in those regions.

Ok we'lk ask this, in those areas is there wage slavery? are there owners and workers? No, is the work and ownership communal? Yes, ok, Good enough for me :P.

Thats reality, not my theory. When the capitalists are booted in one country, you dont think that the rest of the world capitalists powers will aid in counter-revolution to bring the worker's state down? In that one country where capitalism is overthrown, capitalists will not be, but in the rest of the world there will, and this is where it becomes necessary to create structures that will protect worker's democracy, while always calling for international revolution, the only thing that can aid that one country.

Marxism is not a dogma, you don't even understand it.

I don't disagree that a Worker's Democracy (in the real sense of the word) might have to be defended, infact probably will have to be defened, although desurable it is not 100% neccessary to call for an international revolution. That does'nt mean however that Capitalism cannot be overthrown in one country, and that if that happens ALL the WORLDS Capitalist powers MUST attack, I'll go back to the Zapatistas, was there an international attack on them? No, why? Bad PR, too much money involved, there could be a number of reasons, the world is'nt as black and white as you think, and Capitalist states are not ONLY driven by the desire to keep class dominance.

I'm not saying Marxism is a dogma in itself, but anything can be treated as a Dogma.

Also the Worker's Democracy in Russia (which it had for a bit in the begining) was attacked viciously by the Bolsheviks, most of the whites attacks were against the Bolsheviks, what killed workers Democracy in Russia was the Bolshevik coup.

Rawthentic

17th August 2007, 15:28

I don't disagree that a Worker's Democracy (in the real sense of the word) might have to be defended, infact probably will have to be defened, although desurable it is not 100% neccessary to call for an international revolution. That does'nt mean however that Capitalism cannot be overthrown in one country, and that if that happens ALL the WORLDS Capitalist powers MUST attack, I'll go back to the Zapatistas, was there an international attack on them? No, why? Bad PR, too much money involved, there could be a number of reasons, the world is'nt as black and white as you think, and Capitalist states are not ONLY driven by the desire to keep class dominance
If there is no international revolution, a single revolution will be defeated, Russia being the main example. The worlds powers never attacked the Zapatistas because they never overthrew capitalism.

Ok we'lk ask this, in those areas is there wage slavery? are there owners and workers? No, is the work and ownership communal? Yes, ok, Good enough for me
Yes, yes, no.

Also the Worker's Democracy in Russia (which it had for a bit in the begining) was attacked viciously by the Bolsheviks, most of the whites attacks were against the Bolsheviks, what killed workers Democracy in Russia was the Bolshevik coup.
Ah yeah, even though the Bolsheviks always advocated for soviet power to replace capitalist and feudal power. It was not a coup, thats silly.

RGacky3

17th August 2007, 20:15

QUOTE

Ok we'lk ask this, in those areas is there wage slavery? are there owners and workers? No, is the work and ownership communal? Yes, ok, Good enough for me

Yes, yes, no.

umm, no your wrong buddy.

Ah yeah, even though the Bolsheviks always advocated for soviet power to replace capitalist and feudal power. It was not a coup, thats silly.

What they advocated, and what they did were 2 different things, they supported soviet power as long as they had control over it.

If there is no international revolution, a single revolution will be defeated, Russia being the main example. The worlds powers never attacked the Zapatistas because they never overthrew capitalism.

Just because it happend in Russia does'nt mean its inevitable.

Rawthentic

17th August 2007, 22:26

umm, no your wrong buddy.
You will have to prove it then. Good luck with that.

What they advocated, and what they did were 2 different things, they supported soviet power as long as they had control over it.

Of course, it was an evil conspiracy. <_< The Bolshevik Party was the one that organized the working class into becoming the first ruling class in history.

Just because it happend in Russia does'nt mean its inevitable.
A revolution is international or it is defeated. Period.

RGacky3

18th August 2007, 00:00

You will have to prove it then. Good luck with that.

http://www.struggle.ws/mexico/comment/andrew_diff_feb01.html

Theres one.

Of course, it was an evil conspiracy. The Bolshevik Party was the one that organized the working class into becoming the first ruling class in history.

I never said it was a conspiracy did I, when politicians say one thing and do another is it conspiracy? No, its just them doing what they have to do to maintain authority, the working class never was the ruling class, the bolsheviks were, unless you have some proof otherwise, prooving that the working class in Russia actually had control over their own work places and communities, and the Bolsheviks encouraged this.

A revolution is international or it is defeated. Period.

Says you.

Iron

18th August 2007, 01:35

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 09:26 pm
Of course, it was an evil conspiracy. <_< The Bolshevik Party was the one that organized the working class into becoming the first ruling class in history.

:lol: :lol: prove they put the workers into power and not the Bolsheviks.

bezdomni

18th August 2007, 03:32

Iron, arguing with you is a sisyphian task. You make an assertion, get proven wrong and then make the assertion all over again.

If you are too thick to realize that the bolshevik revolution was a proletarian revolution and that the soviet union was a socialist state...then I am not going to waste my time with you and I recommend that Voz de La Gente Trabajadora do the same.

You need to approach this with an open mind, and learn to accept that your bourgeois history teacher has been lying to you this whole time.

And also...it's your job to prove that the bolsheviks formed their own class that took power away from the proletariat, not our job to prove that the bolsheviks DIDN'T form their own class.

You can't prove negatives. It's simple logic. I can't prove that the bolsheviks *weren't* a class anymore than you can prove that you *aren't* a witch.

RGacky3

19th August 2007, 18:36

You guys ask to Proove things a lot, these things are not things you can proove perse like prooving the earth is round, its like asking to proove that the United States government is Capitalist run, you can'td do it with a scientific formula you can just observe, look at actions and motivations and draw conclusions, i.e. I can't PROOVE that the republicans wanted to get rid of the excise tax only to benefit the super rich, but its pretty clear.

[/QUOTE]If you are too thick to realize that the bolshevik revolution was a proletarian revolution and that the soviet union was a socialist state...then I am not going to waste my time with you and I recommend that Voz de La Gente Trabajadora do the same.

The thing is the Bolshevik revolution being a propetarian revolution is not a clear cut piece of history, its still debated, many people, myself included, feel that the Bolsheviks stole the revolution, perhaps in the begining it was a proletarian revolution, I'll give you that, but later on it was stolen, thats what we are debating and I don't believe its a waste of time at all, because it helps us think about things at the core and examine history, causes, effects, motivations and the such, and revolutoinary history is relevent to today. I also am not saying that the Soviet Union was'nt a Socialist state, but not ALL socialist states are good genuine ones, the same way not ALL democratic states are good ones and genuine.

You need to approach this with an open mind, and learn to accept that your bourgeois history teacher has been lying to you this whole time.

Your right we do have to approach this with an open mind and not take our history from only one place, you also have to realize that generally the way history is told is not by lying but just choosing with facts to put in, the point is too look at the whole picture and try get underneath it, I believe you guys also need to approach this with an open mind and not put all your trust in Marxist philosophy but rather use Marxist philosophy as, one way to see things, or part of a bigger picture, not the whole picture.

And also...it's your job to prove that the bolsheviks formed their own class that took power away from the proletariat, not our job to prove that the bolsheviks DIDN'T form their own class.[QUOTE]

I've done that in other posts, laid out how that happend and why their actions took away power from the proletariat, its not your job to show how the bolsheviks did'nt form their own class, its your job to show how the Bolsheviks actually were subserviant, to the proletariat, i.e. show that the BOlsheviks put the people in control rather than themselves.

Iron

21st August 2007, 03:15

As of yet you have NOT said anything to prove that the Bolshevik, represented the proletarians. Most of your argument has been either I don't full under stand Leninism and Stalinist, or I’m too dumb to realize that the history I have been taught is wrong. I will admit my early augments seem some what un-educated even to me now, since I have learned a great deal since then.

Iron, arguing with you is a sisyphian task. You make an assertion, get proven wrong and then make the assertion all over again.

If you are too thick to realize that the bolshevik revolution was a proletarian revolution and that the soviet union was a socialist state...then I am not going to waste my time with you and I recommend that Voz de La Gente Trabajadora do the same.

You need to approach this with an open mind, and learn to accept that your bourgeois history teacher has been lying to you this whole time.

And also...it's your job to prove that the bolsheviks formed their own class that took power away from the proletariat, not our job to prove that the bolsheviks DIDN'T form their own class.

You can't prove negatives. It's simple logic. I can't prove that the bolsheviks *weren't* a class anymore than you can prove that you *aren't* a witch.

Back to the bit about Bolsheviks revolution was a proletarian revolution I never said at least to my knowledge that it wasn’t, or at least that not what I meant. I said that the authoritarianism invoked by Leninism and Stalinism cause an erosion of the democratic structures of the USSR. And lead to many violations of public freedoms and eventually downright oligarch with the Bolsheviks at its head. I will admit that EVEN Stalin had his progressive moment, and even the Bolsheviks system was a huge improvement Tsarist Russia. With the former statement sustained, using this logic that Stalin made great progress in the social and economic sectors, all he asks is that some of useless freedoms like right to dissent are taken away. With this mind set I could easily justify Hitler actions or Bush’s actions in Iraq. Please note that I am not dismissing the Russian revolution not in the least. I am pointing out the inherent evils in authoritarianism and centralization of power.

Rhino Thunder Pants

21st August 2007, 03:23

I think you will find if you know your history behind a group of anarchist already had a system running and when they refused to join blosheviks they blosheviks said okay then we will take it by force. So the only reason its still in debate because the truth is being hidden by the goverment and for you lot to be so naive and look beyond, because ofcourse the goverment would never lie to us......

RGacky3

22nd August 2007, 19:54

As of yet you have NOT said anything to prove that the Bolshevik, represented the proletarians. Most of your argument has been either I don't full under stand Leninism and Stalinist, or I’m too dumb to realize that the history I have been taught is wrong.

That seams to be their tactic, just tell us how dumb we are, make assertions like "The Bolshevics represented the proletariat" Without backing it up, or saying how they did, and expect us just to take it as fact, then when we don't just tell us to read Lenin or something :P. You can't just say the Bolsheviks represented the working class because they said they did, you have to show how they did, and how they were accountable to the working class.

I am pointing out the inherent evils in authoritarianism and centralization of power.

Exactly, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

bezdomni

22nd August 2007, 21:00

As of yet you have NOT said anything to prove that the Bolshevik, represented the proletarians.

In the Soviet Union, this is what happened. The working class as a whole took economic and state power. It wasn't just a minority of the intelligentsia that was exercising their will over the majority of people....it was the masses of people exercising their will over society!

Industrialization, drastic increase in lifespan and quality of living, collectivization of agriculture, breakthroughs in science, medicine and engineering, the struggle against imperialism and fascism, combating religion, vastly increasing the literacy rate and improving education....

Also, Iron, you claimed that "the soviet union was in essence state capitalism."

However, you have done nothing to prove that statement. What evidence do you have to suggest that the Soviet state was extracting surplus value from the labor of the proletariat in the USSR? It would be quite hard to prove that, considering the proletariat controlled the means of production and the state in the USSR untl the coup by khrushev in the 50s.

Voz and I have done much more to prove that the USSR was socialist than you have done to prove it was state capitalist.

But since we have still done nothing to prove anything...how would you like us to prove it? Primary source documents that tell of workers controlling factories? Examples of women's liberation? Empowerment of oppressed nations? Documents explaining how elections worked in the Soviet Union?

What do you want? (Other than to change the topic every time you get proven wrong).

RGacky3

22nd August 2007, 23:24

What evidence do you have to suggest that the Soviet state was extracting surplus value from the labor of the proletariat in the USSR?

I mean Capitalist in the sense that the workers were working for a wage, they were paid per their labor, the Bolshevik leadership chose their pay, the Bolshevik leadership also decided what would be produced and what workers would do, not the workers themselves, so it was in a sense Capitalist in that workers were working for a higher up and being paid by a higher up.

It would be quite hard to prove that, considering the proletariat controlled the means of production and the state in the USSR untl the coup by khrushev in the 50s.

How so? So your saying that the Bolshevik leadership did'nt control the means of production? They did'nt wield authority over the proletariat? The proletariat was not subservient to the Bolsheviks? The fact is all of History shows that the proletariat in the USSR was subservient to the Bolsheviks who wielder authority over them backed up by the threat of violence. I doubt you are disputing that history.

bezdomni

23rd August 2007, 17:26

I mean Capitalist in the sense that the workers were working for a wage, they were paid per their labor,

I don't think you understand what socialism is....

the Bolshevik leadership chose their pay
First, prove this assertion; and second, define what "bolshevik leadership"; and third, tell me why a planned economy (by the proletariat) is undesirable.

the Bolshevik leadership also decided what would be produced and what workers would do, not the workers themselves,
It's called a planned economy.

It's kind of like...a really important part of socialism.

You are using the word "bolshevik leadership" in a really stupid way. The officials who did economic planning were elected from local soviets and in the factories by the people who worked and lived there and were subject to immediate recall.

Sorry that they didn't all get around every night and come to a consensus...but when you have imperialist countries surrounding you and counterrevolution all over, and a significant amount of the population doesn't have access to things they desperately need - consensus is not really an issue.

Capitalist in that workers were working for a higher up and being paid by a higher up.

That's not what capitalism is.

How so? So your saying that the Bolshevik leadership did'nt control the means of production?
Yes. The proletariat controlled the means of production.

The fact is all of History shows that the proletariat in the USSR was subservient to the Bolsheviks who wielder authority over them backed up by the threat of violence.

Actually that is not a fact of history, but rather a horrible lie of history with no factual basis whatsoever.

The Bolsheviks were MADE UP OF the proletariat and received OVERWHELMING SUPPORT from the proletariat. If you read any historical accounts from Russia at the time that weren't written by imperialists or counterrevolutionaries, you will notice that there is an incredibly excited feeling about the revolution and that people for once are beginning to feel good about the course of history.

The bolshevik revolution was an inspriation to workers and peasants all over the world, because it was the first time workers and peasants have ever been in power.

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Article One: Declaration of Rights of the Laboring and Exploited People (http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article1.htm)

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Article Three: Organization of the Soviet Power (http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article3.htm)

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Article Four: The Right to Vote. (http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article4.htm)

Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - Article Five: The Budget (Regarding the planned economy) (http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article5.htm)

The Soviet Union - Facts, Descriptions and Statistics: 1917-1929 (http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/index.htm)

Floyce White

24th August 2007, 06:35

SovietPants: "You can't prove negatives. It's simple logic."

No, it's a self-disproving assertion.

SovietPants: "I can't prove that the Bolsheviks weren't a class..."

Sure you can. "Is not equal to" is a valid mathematical and logical operator, same as "is equal to."

RGacky3

25th August 2007, 19:25

First, prove this assertion; and second, define what "bolshevik leadership"; and third, tell me why a planned economy (by the proletariat) is undesirable

Well am I wrong, who choose the pay for the workers in the USSR? When I say
Bolshevik Leadership I mean mean people in the Central Committee, the Politburo, the General Secretary, those types. I never said a planned economy by the proletariat is undesirable, What I am saying is a planned economy by a few Bolshevik elites, a few Capitalist Big Dogs, or any other unaccountable authoritarian group.

It's called a planned economy.

It's kind of like...a really important part of socialism.

You are using the word "bolshevik leadership" in a really stupid way. The officials who did economic planning were elected from local soviets and in the factories by the people who worked and lived there and were subject to immediate recall.

Sorry that they didn't all get around every night and come to a consensus...but when you have imperialist countries surrounding you and counterrevolution all over, and a significant amount of the population doesn't have access to things they desperately need - consensus is not really an issue.

The Officials who did economic planning were all Bolsheviks, and were approved first and formost by the Bolshevik Leadership, other parties were purged, and Soviets who did not elect Bolsheviks were placed under their authority by force. In the USSR the people were accountable to the Leadership, not the other way around, and when you have a system like Democratic Centralism that is bound to happen.

You talk about Counter revolutoin and the such, but the majority of the violence of the red terror, and the purges and the Gulags were not against former Capitalists, they were against poor workers, and other Socialists.

QUOTE
Capitalist in that workers were working for a higher up and being paid by a higher up.

That's not what capitalism is.

Thats a big part of it, and the big part that I am highly against and that Socialism is supposed to aleviate.

Yes. The proletariat controlled the means of production.

HOW? Through the Bolsheviks? Directly? How so (please answer Historically not theoretically)?

Actually that is not a fact of history, but rather a horrible lie of history with no factual basis whatsoever.

The Bolsheviks were MADE UP OF the proletariat and received OVERWHELMING SUPPORT from the proletariat. If you read any historical accounts from Russia at the time that weren't written by imperialists or counterrevolutionaries, you will notice that there is an incredibly excited feeling about the revolution and that people for once are beginning to feel good about the course of history.

The bolshevik revolution was an inspriation to workers and peasants all over the world, because it was the first time workers and peasants have ever been in power.

Not all of the Bolsheviks were made up of the proletariat, and that does'nt prove anything because the majority of the Democrats are also made up of proletariat.
Of coarse there was an excited feeling about the revolution, theres an excited feeling in any revolution, there was an excited feeling in the french french revolutoin, look how that turned out. The workers and peasants had their power taken away by the Bolsheviks, or 'centralized', to show that the peasents and workers were in power you have to show how the peasents and workers actually had authority over the bolsheviks and the state, not the other way around.

bezdomni

26th August 2007, 19:11

Do you think before you type things out?

What I am saying is a planned economy by a few Bolshevik elites, a few Capitalist Big Dogs, or any other unaccountable authoritarian group.

Good strawman. That isn't what happened, and that isn't what anybody advocates.

Read the links I gave you (specifically the article from the soviet constiution about the economy). I don't want to go over the socialist nature of the soviet economy every time I make a post in this thread. It's fucking absurd. At least come up with something new for a change.

Care to prove that the Soviet economy was planned by only a few bolshevik ultra-authoritarian high command elites that were completely unaccountable to the masses (even though they were subject to immediate recall from the people who elected them). Or is that more of your anti-communist dogma?

The Officials who did economic planning were all Bolsheviks,

Most elected officials were Party members. What's your point? Would you prefer capitalists doing economic planning?

and were approved first and formost by the Bolshevik Leadership

It's not like every single person admitted to the CPSU had direct approval from Lenin or Stalin. Most people admitted to the party were voted in by local party branches, as is done in pretty much every communist party in the world.

You seem to not understand how communist parties work, or what is implied by being a member of a specific party.

In order to have a position in the party, a person would have to be voted to that position by other party members. In order to have a position in the state, a person would have to be voted into that position from the people who vote in their local soviet...and in order to hold a "higher" position, they would have to be elected to that as well. And like I have said, EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE SOVIET UNION WAS SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL FROM THE ELECTORATE. That was something that is ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY!

Also, it's not like being General Secretary or a member of the Politburo of the Central Committee was a walk in the park. These people were pretty much all active revolutionaries before and during 1917, served time in prison and/or exile because of their political tendencies, had to deal with innumerable problems and actual threats on their life from other political factions, state organizations and in a revolutionary situation.

Really, being a revolutionary leader isn't all fun and games. There isn't even really economic incentive, as all state and party officials who were doing political or state work "full-time" received only the same pay as any other worker in the Soviet Union.

In the USSR the people were accountable to the Leadership, not the other way around
Prove it.

and when you have a system like Democratic Centralism that is bound to happen.
Democratic Centralism is a means of organizing a party...and has really no influence whatsoever in state policy.

I don't even know why you bring this up, other than you probably also don't understand what democratic centralism is.

You talk about Counter revolutoin and the such, but the majority of the violence of the red terror, and the purges and the Gulags were not against former Capitalists, they were against poor workers, and other Socialists.

Prove it.

Thats a big part of it, and the big part that I am highly against and that Socialism is supposed to aleviate.
Capitalism (and socialism) are dependent on ownership of production and the logical conseqences of this.

Communists are not for empowering the proeltariat because they are "ohsopoor workers" or some sort of deified force. The proeltariat needs to be empowered because it is the only class in history capable of smashing class society and liberating humanity as a whole.

HOW? Through the Bolsheviks? Directly? How so (please answer Historically not theoretically)?

Through the soviets.

Not all of the Bolsheviks were made up of the proletariat

So?

he majority of the Democrats are also made up of proletariat.
Uh, no. Perhaps a significant number of people who VOTE for democrats are proletarian...but I can guarantee you that there is NOT A SINGLE PROLETARIAN who has ever truly hoped to hold any state position in the U.S.

RGacky3

26th August 2007, 20:12

I don't give much weight to the Soviet Constitution, it also gauranteed freedom of speach, religion, assembally and so on, but how closely were those followed?

Care to prove that the Soviet economy was planned by only a few bolshevik ultra-authoritarian high command elites that were completely unaccountable to the masses (even though they were subject to immediate recall from the people who elected them). Or is that more of your anti-communist dogma?

It has nothing to do with Dogma simply History, the politburo was subject to immediate recall by Soviet Citizens? Thats news to me, and even if that were the case, it would take a lot of Balls for a Russian to ask for a recall of Lenin, seeing as, counter-revolutionaries were being killed.

Most elected officials were Party members. What's your point? Would you prefer capitalists doing economic planning?

No not at all, but the fact that all government positions were controlled by Party Members, and were approved by the party says something. Unless of coarse eveyone in the USSR completely agreed with the Bolsheviks and their Brand of Socialism, and they just happend to elect Party Members even though there choice was not limited to party members, but that was'nt the case.

It's not like every single person admitted to the CPSU had direct approval from Lenin or Stalin. Most people admitted to the party were voted in by local party branches, as is done in pretty much every communist party in the world.

No but the people who had any authority did have approval, being a member of the CPSU does'nt mean anything, being part of the Central Committee or the Politburo does, and even that is'nt secure, remember what happened an the very rare times the Central Committee decided against Stalin? Purges.

And like I have said, EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL IN THE SOVIET UNION WAS SUBJECT TO IMMEDIATE RECALL FROM THE ELECTORATE. That was something that is ABSOLUTELY UNPRECEDENTED IN THE ENTIRE HISTORY OF DEMOCRACY!

Of coarse, its the Same way here in California, but it does'nt mean much, because anyone with authority was accountable to the higher ups first, and the electorates choices were limited to what the higher ups in the party allowed them.

Democratic Centralism is a means of organizing a party...and has really no influence whatsoever in state policy.

I don't even know why you bring this up, other than you probably also don't understand what democratic centralism is.

Yes but in the USSR the Party was the one that MADE the State Policy.

The fact is the USSR was not a democracy, no more than the United States is a Democracy, because the Communist Party (more specifically the politburo) ran things, not the formal government, the same way the Capitalists run things in the United States.

bezdomni

26th August 2007, 20:38

I don't give much weight to the Soviet Constitution, it also gauranteed freedom of speach, religion, assembally and so on, but how closely were those followed?

http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article2.htm

These guarantees were followed very closely. On occasion, they were perhaps violated...but the U.S. violates its own constitution all of the time, and that doesn't make it any less capitalist. Why can't the Soviet Union violate its own constitution a few times and no longer be a structurally socialist state?

Corruption, or lack thereof, doesn't determine political economy - but is rather a result of political economy. There would be less corruption under socialism (and there definitely was less corruption in the USSR than there was in the contemporary U.S.), because there is a smaller material basis for corruption - but the fact that corruption exists doesn't change the structure of a country's political economy.

Thats news to me, and even if that were the case, it would take a lot of Balls for a Russian to ask for a recall of Lenin, seeing as, counter-revolutionaries were being killed.
No shit it is news to you, because you believe and re-state bourgeois lies about the Soviet Union.

I am sure many people asked for Lenin to be recalled...but he wasn't because Lenin had overwhelming popular support in the party and among the people.

And about counterrevolutionaries - what the fuck do you propose to do with them? Have them over for tea?

No not at all, but the fact that all government positions were controlled by Party Members, and were approved by the party says something. Unless of coarse eveyone in the USSR completely agreed with the Bolsheviks and their Brand of Socialism, and they just happend to elect Party Members even though there choice was not limited to party members, but that was'nt the case.

Huh? You seem to be operating under the mistaken idea that you have to be in complete agreement with a party in order to be a member of it.

The general idea is committment to revolution and the masses of people - not to party line or leadership. From the birth of communism, we have encouraged CRITICISM OF OURSELVES just as much as we have demanded criticism of the capitalists. This is because Marxism is a science, and there is always room for disagreement in science!

Marxists have no reason to fear the truth - it is on our side!

No but the people who had any authority did have approval, being a member of the CPSU does'nt mean anything, being part of the Central Committee or the Politburo does, and even that is'nt secure, remember what happened an the very rare times the Central Committee decided against Stalin? Purges.

Being a member of the CC or Politburo just means you have been elected at the national congress to a position on either committee because you have done a lot of work for socialism and that you have a very sophisticated understanding of how best to go about creating or maintaing socialism.

The CC wasn't purged for disagreeing with Stalin...many members were purged from violating democratic centralism, committing crimes or otherwise undermining socialism in the USSR. If you want to discuss the purges or Stalin though, do it in one of the many threads that we already have about it. It's a tired subject and I will not allow you to change the focus of this argument yet again.

Of coarse, its the Same way here in California, but it does'nt mean much, because anyone with authority was accountable to the higher ups first, and the electorates choices were limited to what the higher ups in the party allowed them.

There is a major and fundamental difference between the structure of the Soviet Union and the state of california.

Especially the Soviet Union in the 1900s and the state of California in the new millenium.

Yes but in the USSR the Party was the one that MADE the State Policy.
Not so.

Soviet Union Information Bureau desciption of Government (http://marxists.org/history/ussr/government/1928/sufds/ch02.htm)

Oh, and how about all of those baseless and untrue statements you previously made that I asked you to prove? Do you care to prove them, or are you going to run away with your tail between your legs?

Like I said, Marxists aren't afraid of the truth. Are you?

RGacky3

27th August 2007, 17:31

These guarantees were followed very closely. On occasion, they were perhaps violated...but the U.S. violates its own constitution all of the time, and that doesn't make it any less capitalist. Why can't the Soviet Union violate its own constitution a few times and no longer be a structurally socialist state?

Corruption, or lack thereof, doesn't determine political economy - but is rather a result of political economy. There would be less corruption under socialism (and there definitely was less corruption in the USSR than there was in the contemporary U.S.), because there is a smaller material basis for corruption - but the fact that corruption exists doesn't change the structure of a country's political economy.

I'm sorry man, but historically that is simply incorrect, the right of assembally, religion, freedom of speach were violented institutionally, it had nothing to do with corruption, its not like people in the Governmetn were taking money or something, the governmetn itself was repressing all opposition.

No shit it is news to you, because you believe and re-state bourgeois lies about the Soviet Union.

I am sure many people asked for Lenin to be recalled...but he wasn't because Lenin had overwhelming popular support in the party and among the people.

And about counterrevolutionaries - what the fuck do you propose to do with them? Have them over for tea?

I believe History. There were some that were against Lenins aurhority, the Mensheviks, the Anarchists, the Social-Democrats, and other socialists, even some bolsheviks, and we all know what happend to them. Plus you have to remember Lenin was the leader of the Bolshevik Party, his authority was over the Bolshevik party formally, not the USSR, which means that any accountability was to the Bolsheviks, not the russian people.

Your last sentance made me smile :) .

From the birth of communism, we have encouraged CRITICISM OF OURSELVES just as much as we have demanded criticism of the capitalists.

Hmm, is'nt the point of Democratic Centrism that once a desicion is made the whole party is to uphold it?

Being a member of the CC or Politburo just means you have been elected at the national congress to a position on either committee because you have done a lot of work for socialism and that you have a very sophisticated understanding of how best to go about creating or maintaing socialism.

Thats a very idealistic way of looking at it, Politics in the USSR was not magically different than politics anywhere else, it was still a power struggle. IT was more of a Piramid too, the Congress elected CC members, who then elected the Politburo.

The thing is your arguing against history, or at least the majority of historians accounts of history. The Communist party made political desicions which were then rubber stamped by the Formal Government.