What first?

[RGacky3]

Many revolutions in the past, if not most, have been primarily focused on attaining political power and then once in a political position, revolutionizing the economy and society.

I am one who thinks that it might be better to focus on revolutionizing the economy and society, ignoring the political aspect of it, and letting the political aspect follow. Which is why I think direct action against the Capitalist is way more helpful to the Socialist cause than say electing a Socialist leader, or leading a coup or reovlution against the government, or trying to attain state power, or destroy it.

Historically its generally been the opposite, what do you guys think? Direct worker action against Capitalists? Or first attack the political arm of the Capitalists and then change the system?

[La Comédie Noire]

Direct Worker's Action! Organizing striking, arming, fighting, seizing of property. We need to be a full fighting force ready to engage in war with the enforcing arm of the state.

[JazzRemington]

Why not both? I say obliterate the State and seize control of the economy via worker's councils, thereby creating what Guy Debord called the "anti-State dictatorship of the proletariat."

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's a danger to that kind of thinking. Read all about Lenin vs. the Economists (yes, the Big-E Economists of his day).

[JazzRemington]

what's that, a book? I can't find anything via google.

[Led Zeppelin]

You can't focus on economics and society first before politics, since politics dictate the course and general rule of economy in society.

If you go out and start communes in some forest it won't have any effect on society, or the economy. History has proven this, trust me, a lot of people had that idea before you.

There is however an interesting book called What Is To Be Done? (no, not the book by Lenin, I mean the novel by Chernyshevsky) in which the main female character sets up a shop and runs it along socialist principles; i.e., the workers are all given equal say in the running of things, everyone is given an equal wage according to labor performed, etc.

This shop then ends up being more succesful than capitalist run shops, and had a higher profit than the capitalist run shops. They used the profit to invest back into the shop, extending its reach until it finally became the largest shop of its kind in that part of the city.

Of course that was in a novel and it was fictional, but I can see that happening in real life on a small scale....though, only on a small scale.

A change on a grand scale would require a revolution in all aspects of society.

[BobKKKindle$]

I agree that it is impossible to clearly distinguish between these spheres of life and activity - in bourgeois society economic power allows the ruling class to exercise control over political processes such as elections and the formulation of policy, and political institutions arise from and support pre-existing economic relationships. As such, the conquest of economic power, for example, through the seizure of a factory, is a political act and yields political consequences, such as the use of 'armed bodies of men', by means of the state, a political body, to re-gain control of expropriated resources..

By focusing on 'economic' maters alone, though, I think we run the risk of only trying to attain isolated and short-term advances within the framework of the existing system - the final goal of state power and the evolution of class struggle to physical conflict must always be taken into consideration.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 10, 2007 12:44 am
There is however an interesting book called What Is To Be Done? (no, not the book by Lenin, I mean the novel by Chernyshevsky) in which the main female character sets up a shop and runs it along socialist principles; i.e., the workers are all given equal say in the running of things, everyone is given an equal wage according to labor performed, etc.

This shop then ends up being more succesful than capitalist run shops, and had a higher profit than the capitalist run shops. They used the profit to invest back into the shop, extending its reach until it finally became the largest shop of its kind in that part of the city.

Of course that was in a novel and it was fictional, but I can see that happening in real life on a small scale....though, only on a small scale.
Wasn't the premise of Chernyshevsky the reason why Lenin titled his principal attack on the Economists What Is To Be Done? in the first place? :D ;)

[partizan604]

By focusing on 'economic' maters alone, though, I think we run the risk of only trying to attain isolated and short-term advances within the framework of the existing system - the final goal of state power and the evolution of class struggle to physical conflict must always be taken into consideration.

well we can't make only economical or social revolution, and the political revolutin is the only way most of the time. we need not to distinguish the types of revolutions? but the phases of it.

1)we can, for example, at first destroy economical sphere of the current society (using massive strikes, capturing factories and markets, banks etc) then the governement won2t be able use some sums of money to fight against us.

2)we can attact directly to the political centre.

Many revolutions in the past, if not most, have been primarily focused on attaining political power and then once in a political position, revolutionizing the economy and society.

3) but i think if the society is not ready for the revolution - there won't be any revolution.
we need masses to be ready - we need to start with social revolution.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 10, 2007 07:44 am
If you go out and start communes in some forest it won't have any effect on society, or the economy. History has proven this, trust me, a lot of people had that idea before you.

Thats not what I was suggesting at all.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 03:14 am
Why not both? I say obliterate the State and seize control of the economy via worker's councils, thereby creating what Guy Debord called the "anti-State dictatorship of the proletariat."
But you can't really concentrate on both, (at least I don't see how), if your busy attacking the state, either electorally or violenty, how are you gonig to be organizing workers to attack the Capitalist?

I think its important to realize that the State is really a tool of the Capitalist, and what should be done is attack the wielder of the tool, not the tool itself.

[peaccenicked]

The dialectical principle is not, either or but both.
Revolution is both economic and political, but is also a spiritual, emotional, and a desperate attempt to resolve the increasingly acute problems facing a society whose leaders and ruling class cant rule in the old way.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by RGacky3+August 10, 2007 04:07 pm--> (RGacky3 @ August 10, 2007 04:07 pm)
Led [email protected] 10, 2007 07:44 am
If you go out and start communes in some forest it won't have any effect on society, or the economy. History has proven this, trust me, a lot of people had that idea before you.

Thats not what I was suggesting at all. [/b]
Ok so how do you plan on changing the economic system? Starting "proletarian banks"?

[hajduk]

what did i will say probably you will say that i am a capitalist :D

first power we must tok in economy, why?
becouse CHE revolution is fall pece by piece becouse of bad strategy in economy....you see if we dont take control in economy then imperialists can easy corrupt politicians with blackmailing them with food,energents or money....if we tok economy we control the capitalists becouse they think only in economy way you see?

[rouchambeau]

If the state is the product of social relations (including, but not limited to the economy), then it would seem most logical to challenge the social relations and let the state "whither away". The problem with such an approach is that it ignores that the state will do everything in its power to maintain the status quo; even if that means absorbing every aspect of society into itself.

Conversely, you can focus on the state, but if one does not undermine the foundation that gives rise to the state, then no real progress has been made. The only option left is to dismantle both the ecomony and the state as a single project with a single aim--communism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Is the question whether we should seize political power, or not? Or is it it at it is more important to control the economic side of things, and worry about the political later?

Different historical epochs give rise to different kinds of states. The position of Marxism is simple - the state exists as long as it is historically necessary. In order to seize power in the economic sphere; for workers to have democratic control and ownership over the land, the mines, the railways, banking, insurance, and the main branches of industry, we need to have the highest degree of discipline and organization in order to combat the hired armed fascist bands of the capitalists. History is a process; it doesn't unfold according to your will. At best we can navigate history, try to chart a course based on our knowledge and experience, but we can't get to a stateless society by simply declaring the state to be evil. This was the difference Marx saw between himself and Bakunin - the difference between the revolution as an act of historical necessity, or as an act of pure will. Once the scarcity, backwardness, and poverty of capitalism is eliminated due to the fact that the forces that wish to preserve them are wiped out, then the state will no longer be needed. But otherwise, we can not envision getting rid of it.


"The anarchists, for their part, try to see in Stalinism the organic product, not only of Bolshevism and Marxism but of ’state socialism’ in general. They are willing to replace Bakunin’s patriarchal ’federation of free communes’ by the modern federation of free Soviets. But, as formerly, they are against centralised state power. Indeed, one branch of ’state’ Marxism, social democracy, after coming to power became an open agent of capitalism. The other gave birth to a new privileged caste. It is obvious that the source of evil lies in the state. From a wide historical viewpoint, there is a grain of truth in this reasoning. The state as an apparatus of coercion is an undoubted source of political and moral infection. This also applies, as experience has shown, to the workers’ state. Consequently it can be said that Stalinism is a product of a condition of society in which society was still unable to tear itself out of the strait-jacket of the state. But this position, contributing nothing to the elevation of Bolshevism and Marxism, characterises only the general level of mankind, and above all - the relation of forces between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Having agreed with the anarchists that the state, even the workers’ state, is the offspring of class barbarism and that real human history will begin with the abolition of the state, we have still before us in full force the question: what ways and methods will lead, ultimately, to the abolition of the state?"

[Ol' Dirty]

Many revolutions in the past, if not most, have been primarily focused on attaining political power and then once in a political position, revolutionizing the economy and society.

Economic and social circumstances are politics.

[RGacky3]

Economic and social circumstances are politics.

You know waht I mean man.


Ok so how do you plan on changing the economic system? Starting "proletarian banks"?

Direct worker action, strikes, occupations, takeovers, so on and so forth.

[Rawthentic]

Direct worker action, strikes, occupations, takeovers, so on and so forth.
Ah yeah, and the capitalist state (the police, army, bureaucracy, prisons, courts) will simply sit in their asses while the workers take over the world.

Please. Like I said earlier, the proletariat needs to be strong and organized in order to counter the repressive state and make revolution,

[Ol' Dirty]

Economic and social circumstances are politics.


You know waht I mean man.

Others might not.

[Bilan]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 11, 2007 12:47 pm



Ah yeah, and the capitalist state (the police, army, bureaucracy, prisons, courts) will simply sit in their asses while the workers take over the world.

Ah yeah, like the capitalist run media, the ruling class, TNC's and the current ruling government (before) are going to stay silent while a workers political party starts to grow enormously in numbers!

[Joby]

We should defintely try to creae econmic and social progress first. The Left has very, very little chance of getting any political power if we do not show that we have spent our time in the trenches fighting for economic and social reforms. Yes, reforms, as revolution is not possible most first-world countries, and the chances of it spreading are slim to none. We must fight to move closer to a more equalitarian society any way we can.

Anyone who is waiting for the "inevitable workers revolution" is most likely not a worker and will most likely be making the same call on their deathbeads (if they don't stop being leftist when they're 25). We need to look in teh mirror and say to ourselves, "The Revolution is not coming. What can I do to help the workers today? tomorrow? years down the road?"

We should focus, as I've said before, on putting boots on the ground against the Capitalist Class. I believe a great way to start a REAL Leftist Movement, at least in America, would be to do the most logical thing: Measures that would help the lower-classes and workers Today, not after some far-off revolution. If you've done Nothing to help the worker (being online Does Not count), go to your cities soup kitchen and volunteer. Heres an idea: Buy a large amounts of pastries, set up a stand in a parking lot downtown, and distribute them under the name "Socialist for Change" along with a pamphlet or flyer. Or knock door-to-door in a slum and distribute flyers talking about police brutality and prejudice towards the poor both and the street, and thru minimum term sentencing with a protest website on it along witha catchy slogan.

Let's examine how groups such as the BPP, a socialist party, was able to rally support thru methods like these.

Basically, all I am saying if The First Step is doing something to help.

[Joby]

Oh, and a last piece of advice. Don't have the hammer and sickle flag waving or the word "communist" anywhere.

just a thought...

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Tierra y Libertad+August 11, 2007 03:52 am--> (Tierra y Libertad @ August 11, 2007 03:52 am)
Voz de la Gente [email protected] 11, 2007 12:47 pm



Ah yeah, and the capitalist state (the police, army, bureaucracy, prisons, courts) will simply sit in their asses while the workers take over the world.

Ah yeah, like the capitalist run media, the ruling class, TNC's and the current ruling government (before) are going to stay silent while a workers political party starts to grow enormously in numbers! [/b]
In a way, the legitimacy of the bourgeois order is derived from the recognition of political parties; if one is violently attacked, they would be breaking their sentimental talk of 'liberty' and 'freedom', and would lose any progressive veil that they appear to have when they face the working class. Besides, the party would not become truly revolutionary until there is a revolutionary situation; conditions lead to struggle, struggle leads to consciousness, counsciousness leads to organization, and organization leads to formal parties clarifying their demands. You are making the ridiculous notion that we could honestly fight the political power of the capitalists without the masses behind us. The party will not even 'grow' unless there is a time of social crisis with a revolutionary situation corresponding with it.

[Bilan]

In a way, the legitimacy of the bourgeois order is derived from the recognition of political parties; if one is violently attacked, they would be breaking their sentimental talk of 'liberty' and 'freedom', and would lose any progressive veil that they appear to have when they face the working class.


Who said anything about violence?
The ruling class isn't going to openly and violently repress a political party in the West without using other means first. The main being propaganda, obviously.

Anyway, the point I was making was that a party won't necessarily be any more successful than an organization, such as a militant workers unions, or whatever.
And it was a response to Voz's post, which was just as over simplified.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 10, 2007 09:37 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 10, 2007 09:37 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:07 pm

Led [email protected] 10, 2007 07:44 am
If you go out and start communes in some forest it won't have any effect on society, or the economy. History has proven this, trust me, a lot of people had that idea before you.

Thats not what I was suggesting at all.
Ok so how do you plan on changing the economic system? Starting "proletarian banks"? [/b]
Just look up the term "credit unions" and how they&#39;ve affected Canadian and American society. <_<

EDIT: Since a few replies below mistook what I said above, I intended the remark above to be sarcastic. :(

[hajduk]

Originally posted by Hammer+August 11, 2007 01:55 pm--> (Hammer @ August 11, 2007 01:55 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 10, 2007 09:37 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 04:07 pm

Led [email protected] 10, 2007 07:44 am
If you go out and start communes in some forest it won&#39;t have any effect on society, or the economy. History has proven this, trust me, a lot of people had that idea before you.

Thats not what I was suggesting at all.
Ok so how do you plan on changing the economic system? Starting "proletarian banks"?
Just look up the term "credit unions" and how they&#39;ve affected Canadian and American society. <_< [/b]
yeah there is always a way how we can fuck up the capitalist, just think on economy way becouse economy is the main goal for us and for them, if we whant to make revolution

[RGacky3]

Ah yeah, and the capitalist state (the police, army, bureaucracy, prisons, courts) will simply sit in their asses while the workers take over the world.

Please. Like I said earlier, the proletariat needs to be strong and organized in order to counter the repressive state and make revolution,

Of coarse, but if we concentrate on State power the Bourgeousie will always have the upper hand, remember the State exists because of the Bourgeousie, and because of them, why go for the hand, when you could go for the head. of coarse the hand will hit you, but if your going for the hand it will hit you any way and keep hitting you, if you go for the head it will hit you, but not for long.


Oh, and a last piece of advice. Don&#39;t have the hammer and sickle flag waving or the word "communist" anywhere.

just a thought...

Exactly, Communists might want to put their symbolic pride and romantasism a side for a bit :P

[Rawthentic]

Of coarse, but if we concentrate on State power the Bourgeousie will always have the upper hand, remember the State exists because of the Bourgeousie, and because of them, why go for the hand, when you could go for the head. of coarse the hand will hit you, but if your going for the hand it will hit you any way and keep hitting you, if you go for the head it will hit you, but not for long.
:huh:

The state is the "hand" that will beat you and never hesitate to murder millions.

[Joby]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 12, 2007 01:16 am
The state is the "hand" that will beat you and never hesitate to murder millions.
I doubt they would murder vast numbers in America, but if someeone was murdered by the police in America, which has, of course, happened before, it&#39;s our job to get the truth out.

YouTube motherfuckas&#39;

If they are trying to murder our leaders, it&#39;s probably a good sign. A sign that we have real legitamacy and have become a real threat to their base.


now, if we were south of the border trying to start some shit...well, just pray they don&#39;t use the gas....

[Hiero]

Maoist and other Communist with armed wings (FARC for example) create what is called liberated zones. These areas are created untill the workers and peasants have defeated the bourgeois state. They create their own economy (confiscate land from bourgeois and feudal lords), create their own laws, create transport networks and have a different style of eduction. Though these areas create their own political power, it is done without real political power that enables a class to control a country.

[Rawthentic]

And it was a response to Voz&#39;s post, which was just as over simplified.
It wasnt simplified, when the workers take over the means of production and attempt a seizure of power, the ruling class will use whatever means necessary.

[RGacky3]

Without the Means of Production, the ruling class is&#39;nt really the ruling class anymore, after that what motive does the state have for destroying the revolution? They people they used to serve now have no power, they have no Capital.

[Rawthentic]

Of course, their economic base has been taken away, but what about their political one? The state is still there, and still in their hands, and ready to make a killing, literally.

[RGacky3]

Political power is Dependant on Economic power.

[Raúl Duke]

Political power is Dependant on Economic power.

QFT

Without its base the state will lose power. Who&#39;ll be making their guns/bullets/etc?
Who&#39;ll provide them logistics/supplies?
ETC.

Without us they&#39;re nothing. If a large amount of the population went to fight for the revolution by taking over the "means of production" and other necessary stuff where could the bourgeoisie and the state get the stuff they need to remain in control?

Who said the working class couldn&#39;t be armed either?

And wheter the force is directed at the economic base or the political base the State will still try and make a killing; Unless you plan to do reformist politics (in which we seen where that goes) or a coup by a small group (and didn&#39;t Marx had something to say against that? After all the Blanquists were all for coup d&#39;Etats)

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 06:50 am
Political power is Dependant on Economic power.
And economic power is dependent on the political power...

To say simply they are not mutually exclusive. One is dependent on the other and one cannot wield one without the other.

[Raúl Duke]

To say simply they are not mutually exclusive. One is dependent on the other and one cannot wield one without the other.

If this were the case, which I think it might be possible, than the best option is to do both simultaneously.

[RGacky3]

Difference is Political power primarily exists for economic power, that its purpose, not the other way around, economic power does&#39;nt exist FOR political power.

[RGacky3]

Difference is Political power primarily exists for economic power, that its purpose, not the other way around, economic power does&#39;nt exist FOR political power. With out the Capitalist the State does&#39;nt really have a good reason to do anything.

I&#39;m not saying we should struggle against the State, against political power, but it should definately be secondary.

[Rawthentic]

I&#39;m not saying we should struggle against the State, against political power, but it should definately be secondary.


Well all revolutionaries I know (including anarchists) see the state as the main thing to be fought against under capitalism, since its destruction is the principal thing that dictates whether there is a revolution or not.

[RGacky3]

Ok, but I think it should be the other way around because of the reasons I stated.

[rouchambeau]

Ok, but I think it should be the other way around because of the reasons I stated.

But do you think that revolution is possible as long as the state stands?

[Severian]

Originally posted by RGacky3+August 13, 2007 09:03 pm--> (RGacky3 @ August 13, 2007 09:03 pm) Without the Means of Production, the ruling class is&#39;nt really the ruling class anymore, [/b]
Yes, so why do you think the capitalists, and their state, will just sit by and let you take the means of production away from them?

Spend a little time in any real economic struggle and you&#39;ll find the cops, courts, etc, are right on top of you from the start.

Now often the class struggle does start with economic issues, so I guess it is starting with the "head" as you call it in some sense. But you can&#39;t continue with that without dealing with the "hand", state repression.


after that what motive does the state have for destroying the revolution?

To preserve their own privileges, for a start. The generals, top bureaucrats, etc., have a highly privileged way of life that&#39;s totally tied up with the private capitalists - heck many of &#39;em have extensive private investments of their own.

And with military force they can retake control of whatever economic assets they need for the operation of their military force.

Look at Pinochet&#39;s coup for example. The reformist parties and union leaderships told workers to resist in the factories, and many did, with armed factory occupations. Well, the army went around and destroyed them piecemeal. It was a bloodbath.

All political questions in the modern world are ultimately settled by military force.

Now there is a legitimate tactical question of what to start with. But like all tactical questions that depends on time, and place. The particular way the struggle develops, the consciousness of working people in that situation.

You can&#39;t decree the answer in advance, carve it in stone - the real class struggle has a way of ignoring that kind of Commandment.

You say "historically" its started with the political side, if that was true you might want to learn from history. But really, it&#39;s more complicated - the Russian Revolution for example involved a lot of economic struggles before the seizure of political power.

Of course it was impossible to take full control of the means of production first because - the capitalist state ain&#39;t gonna stand by and allow that. But there were various factory occupations and partial workers&#39; control and whatnot. Struggles in which it became apparent to everyone that it was necessary to take on the state.

I notice a lot of liberal illusions come out the second this kind of thing is floated:

Originally posted by [email protected]
Just look up the term "credit unions" and how they&#39;ve affected Canadian and American society.

The answer is, Very little. I belong to a credit union and it&#39;s just a bank with slightly better terms.


Joby

I doubt they would murder vast numbers in America, but if someeone was murdered by the police in America, which has, of course, happened before, it&#39;s our job to get the truth out.

YouTube motherfuckas&#39;

Those who live by illusions will die of disappointment...Ludlow Massacre? (http://www.sangres.com/history/coalfieldwar01.htm) West Virginia Mine War (http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1974/5/1974_5_58.shtml)? The suppression of slave rebellions? Heck they even sent troops to break up protesting veterans, the Bonus Marchers in...1931?

More than once, presidents have ordered the army to seize railroads and other industries in order to prevent strikes....

And what we&#39;ve seen so far is just a tiny taste of what Uncle Sam will do to survive.

they&#39;ve murdered vast numbers all over the world, obviously they&#39;ll do anything they can when the stakes are even higher here. Public embarassment (YouTube, heh) will not stop them.

This is for all the marbles, their very existence as a privileged group. The system will be fighting for its life and will not stop at anything. That&#39;s been seen in history, all over the world, all kinds of ruling classes are even more ruthless against "their own people" as Uncle Sam likes to say about Saddam Hussein.

They may have bigger problems with soldier loyalty than when it was it&#39;s a matter of killing "their own people"....but that brings us back to politics, taking their army away from them, the whole thing the Bolsheviks did better than anyone.

[Saint Street Revolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:04 am
Many revolutions in the past, if not most, have been primarily focused on attaining political power and then once in a political position, revolutionizing the economy and society.

I am one who thinks that it might be better to focus on revolutionizing the economy and society, ignoring the political aspect of it, and letting the political aspect follow. Which is why I think direct action against the Capitalist is way more helpful to the Socialist cause than say electing a Socialist leader, or leading a coup or reovlution against the government, or trying to attain state power, or destroy it.

Historically its generally been the opposite, what do you guys think? Direct worker action against Capitalists? Or first attack the political arm of the Capitalists and then change the system?
I&#39;m one for Direct Action and Overthrowing, but that&#39;s because I&#39;m an Anarchist and as apathy maybe loves to tell, Anarchists have more fun :D

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Grandma [email protected] 18, 2007 04:15 pm
Anarchists have more fun :D
And that&#39;s why they&#39;re woefully ineffective in regards to their "revolutionary" strategy, because of a lack of structural analysis. :P

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Severian+August 18, 2007 04:04 pm--> (Severian &#064; August 18, 2007 04:04 pm)
Hammer
Just look up the term "credit unions" and how they&#39;ve affected Canadian and American society.

The answer is, Very little. I belong to a credit union and it&#39;s just a bank with slightly better terms. [/b]
Please note the context of my posts in this thread. I was being sarcastic with the remark (hence the <_< smilie afterwards).

I said these earlier in this thread:


There&#39;s a danger to that kind of thinking. Read all about Lenin vs. the Economists (yes, the Big-E Economists of his day).


Wasn&#39;t the premise of Chernyshevsky the reason why Lenin titled his principal attack on the Economists What Is To Be Done? in the first place?

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:13 pm

Ok, but I think it should be the other way around because of the reasons I stated.

But do you think that revolution is possible as long as the state stands?
Not fully, of coarse not, but I believe that our priorities should first be with the Ecnomic powers i.e. the Capitalists, and I also believe that once those are taken out the States function will be done away with so getting rid of it won&#39;t be that hard.


Yes, so why do you think the capitalists, and their state, will just sit by and let you take the means of production away from them?

Probably not, but they won&#39;t have a choice :P, thats what a revolution is all about, I&#39;m saying attack the Capitalists directly not their state, and if the Capitalists loose their means of production, they won&#39;t have any sway over the State any more, so theres not much they can do.


Spend a little time in any real economic struggle and you&#39;ll find the cops, courts, etc, are right on top of you from the start.

Now often the class struggle does start with economic issues, so I guess it is starting with the "head" as you call it in some sense. But you can&#39;t continue with that without dealing with the "hand", state repression.

Of coarse, you have to defend youreslf from the hand, but attack the head, sure the cops and courts are there, but you have to remember they are the weapon, not the wielder, I"m not saying ignore the state, you can&#39;t do taht because the state won&#39;t ignore you, I&#39;m saying concentrate on attacking the Capitalist not the state, of coarse you have to defend yourself though.


Look at Pinochet&#39;s coup for example. The reformist parties and union leaderships told workers to resist in the factories, and many did, with armed factory occupations. Well, the army went around and destroyed them piecemeal. It was a bloodbath.

Good Point.


To preserve their own privileges, for a start. The generals, top bureaucrats, etc., have a highly privileged way of life that&#39;s totally tied up with the private capitalists - heck many of &#39;em have extensive private investments of their own.

Also a good point, but their economic power is just a small part of the pie. But I&#39;ll have to think about that, but then how does that show that focusing on the State is better than focusing on the Capitalist, theres problems with both but I think when you concentrate on the Capitalist first the problems are a bit easier.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 11:56 am
But I&#39;ll have to think about that, but then how does that show that focusing on the State is better than focusing on the Capitalist,
As I said in my last post "first" is a tactical question. I gave reasons for that.

But you&#39;d better realize that workers are not going to get control of the means of production without dealing with the bosses&#39; state along the way.

[anarchist912]

Originally posted by Voz de la Gente [email protected] 17, 2007 09:29 pm
Well all revolutionaries I know (including anarchists) see the state as the main thing to be fought against under capitalism, since its destruction is the principal thing that dictates whether there is a revolution or not.
I call myself an anarchist, but i think the important thing to "fight" (i dont like the word fight here, lets say change) is the individual.

I think no "system" will truly work, if its not supported by every single human. So my ultimate aim would be, to get mankind to a level, were every single person has started to question "everything" including themselves.
If humanity reaches this state, then either the system doesnt fucking matter anymore or the "best" system will automatically emerge.

If youve found this ideal for yourself, the next step of course would be finding the way of reaching this ideal. (Im still working on this. :D )
Of course this process would also involve preventing the state (their leaders, economy & society) from destroying what you&#39;ve reached so far and maybe even from destroying you.
But I think the essential moment (in reaching this ideal) is "education".. via education you can not only manipulate people to believe what you want them to believe, but also manipulate them to believe, what they want to believe. Understandable?

I dont know how you can intervene into education.. its run by the state of course.
Establish Alternative Schools? Then maybe only the problem of financing it was left. The schools should be free of cost of course.

Change the minds..

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by anarchist912

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on which arises a legal and political superstructure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness. At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production or – this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms – with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces these relations turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The changes in the economic foundation lead sooner or later to the transformation of the whole immense superstructure.

In studying such transformations it is always necessary to distinguish between the material transformation of the economic conditions of production, which can be determined with the precision of natural science, and the legal, political, religious, artistic or philosophic – in short, ideological forms in which men become conscious of this conflict and fight it out. Just as one does not judge an individual by what he thinks about himself, so one cannot judge such a period of transformation by its consciousness, but, on the contrary, this consciousness must be explained from the contradictions of material life, from the conflict existing between the social forces of production and the relations of production. No social order is ever destroyed before all the productive forces for which it is sufficient have been developed, and new superior relations of production never replace older ones before the material conditions for their existence have matured within the framework of the old society.

Mankind thus inevitably sets itself only such tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will always show that the problem itself arises only when the material conditions for its solution are already present or at least in the course of formation. In broad outline, the Asiatic, ancient,[A] feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production may be designated as epochs marking progress in the economic development of society. The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals&#39; social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory of human society accordingly closes with this social formation.

[Emphasis Mine]

Source (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/preface.htm)

[anarchist912]

Man you have just posted a walking example of Idealism.
Im am aware of the fact, that this is pure Idealism. I was talking of an ideal.. i dont see the problem.. why shouldn&#39;t we go for that ideal?
For me, there is no comparable solution between the status quo and "my" ideal.



Look Ideas don&#39;t come from the skies. Men have ideals because it is based on their experience.
I dont think that men have ideals, because they are based on their experience.. but yes, our ideals, are mainly based on "our" experience.
(Big parts of our experiences consist of experiencing experiences (e.g. media ;) ) or are at least being coloured by our imprint or imprinters)
As long as we live in the same world, chances are, that we make similar experiences. In my eyes, not the experiences themselves, but the way we perceive (with our subjective, selective percipience) and how we understand and interpret the experiences counts.
Now I think we both agree in the point, that for one standpoint there exactly exists one appropriate truth.
Conclusion: If the same experiences are made and everyone draws the right conclusions, there will in infinitude exist total consensus.



Nothing could be practically done to change the minds of the people. Even in a small village every individual has different opinions on different issues and changing that itself is next to impossible. Imagine changing the minds of billions who inhabit the Planet Earth.
Yes thats what i imagine.. :) almost..
The older one gets, the more "deadlocked" he gets usually (aim is to have people, that never get deadlocked). So the older one gets, the more energy is needed to change his mind. Even I, great idealist, think there is a point were its subjective not worth it investing that energy.
But its easy to grow up "Overmen". (ger. = Übermensch)*, as Nietzsche calls them.



We can sit and hypothesise how we can change the world in this site, but to make an impact in the world we have to act.
thats what i realised, too.


If you want to change the world in to a better one the one and only possible way is to fight for it.
what do you understand by the term "fighting"?


And in my opinion you are not aware of how the society had changed from Hunter-Gatherer society to the one present now. It did not by Changing the "Mind" of the individual members of the society but by the changing conditions which determines the "Mind".
You&#39;re definitely right. We cannot be aware of the reasons for change exactly, except when we go through the same developement.. to be nitpicking :).
Of course its circumstances (=conditions) that influence. But changing mind works by changing conditions. And someone who tries to change you mind, is part of the condition. :)
Can we define what kind of conditions changed the Hunter-Gatherer society?
I think this change was an unconscious one. But&#33; we have indeed developed (at least a little bit :blush: ).. And that is were i think is the point.. Mankind now should be able to change conciously&#33;


I think this one might help you.
I tried to understand it, but as english is not my motherlanguage there are some (too many words) that i dont know. So if you tell me more exactly where those lines are written, I&#39;ll try to get it in the original language, that i also speak natively.


*For some of nietzsche&#39;s literature covering his "overmen", maybe one would like to read e.g. "Thus Spake Zarathustra" ( http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=..._TP3RXE#PPR8,M1 (http://books.google.de/books?hl=de&lr=&id=v5DFOleeTeAC&oi=fnd&pg=PR7&dq=zarathustra&ots=GoM7JkXv6K&sig=yBHkoO1pVfb8LlZ5Xj7O_TP3RXE#PPR8,M1) )
.. its also available in german (via http://scholar.google.com/)

[rouchambeau]

Im am aware of the fact, that this is pure Idealism. I was talking of an ideal.. i dont see the problem.. why shouldn&#39;t we go for that ideal?
No, no, no. He is talking of a different kind of idealism. The kind that is the opposite of materialism. Your method is about changing the way people think and then having those thoughts change society--that&#39;s what idealism is. What he is criticizing is your notion that idealism is the means by which society changes or even functions.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by anarchist912
I tried to understand it, but as english is not my motherlanguage there are some (too many words) that i dont know. So if you tell me more exactly where those lines are written, I&#39;ll try to get it in the original language, that i also speak natively.

My guess is you are a native German Speaker which is shortened as DE(Deustch)

Here (http://www.mlwerke.de/me/me13/me13_007.htm).Though I am not sure that this is exactly the right one. I got that from the Multi Lingual Index of Marxist Internet Archive.

On the opther points you have raised I would just repeat rouchambeau&#39;s reply.