Reform vs. Revolution

[Donut Master]

I posted this at Red-Green left, maybe you would like to read it also... it's a quick essay I wrote.



The issue of whether to favor reform or revolution as a means of effective social change continues to be a much-debated subject of the left... some would say that we'd be best off trying to win leftist canidates into office via the current electoral system. Others see this as ineffective and prefer revolutionary action, although the reformists would criticize such action as too disruptive, violent, or detrimental to the goal at hand.

My two cents?

The way I see it, it's not so simple that you can just divide this into two categories. It really depends on the situation, on the state of the country you are attempting to change.

For example, in Sweden, the politics are already very liberal. The Social Democrats control the government, although not without the support of a Green and Socialist coalition. To elect socialists/leftists into the majority of the government would not be difficult, because they already have sizeable support. The government is not as rampantly corrupt as some other capitalist nations (such as the US), and I can guess that, from what I have read, voting is not so pointless in a country like Sweden. In Sweden, reform has some degree of useful potential.

But let's look at a contrasting example: the United States. The "Empire" of capitalism, a corrupt and increasingly authoritarian government run by the intrest of big business. Money wins elections. In America, the electoral system has been so polluted by capitalism that your vote is worth almost nothing. We have only two parties. The Democrats, the supposedly "left" of the two, has been dragged so far to the center by compromise and moderation that it's platform nearly mirrors that of the Republicans. In fact, the US is really the only "first world" country without a major labor party. My point is, in the US, the system is incapable of correcting itself. Dabbling in the bourgeois political arena will get us nowhere. The only solution is communist revolution.

Unfortunately, revolution seems like a far-off possibility, because the American left is so "sleepy". There is not much support at all for revolutionary ideas, and to win this support is a very difficult compaign, especially given the fact that ALL major media stations are owned by corporate intrests... Although, revolution is often a surprising and sudden occurance... it's hard to predict when the spark of dissatisfaction with the status quo will suddenly ignite an explosive revolutionary movement.

But I live in the US, not Sweden. The future of my own country is important to me, and as I see it, the only way to better that future is revolutionary action, preferrable non-violent, although I am not against destruction of property, or the use of violence in cases of self defense.

In closing, I think the best way to sum it up is a solid point once made by Noam Chomsky: By the time we have enough support to fairly elect a leftist canidate into office, our goals will have already been accomplished.

[sc4r]

Absolutely right. Define your goals; assess the potential ways to achieve them; go with those that have the best chance of sucess (which is often a mixed strategy).

I am delighted to finally see something from RGL that appears well thought out.

[redstar2000]

It strikes me that what we should be speaking of in the advanced capitalist countries (yes, including Scandinavia) is resistance now; revolution tomorrow.

That is, what is practical now is "lots of Seattles" and "mini-Seattles" on lots of issues...disruptive and disorderly behavior that confronts every aspect of the prevailing social order.

At the same time, we should miss no opportunity to condemn outright the existing system and call for its abolition.

I don't even think it matters all that much if one uses the "correct terminology"--that is "revolution", "communism", "anarchism", etc. But the ideas behind those words must be clear and unmistakable...no weaseling or pretended harmlessness when what we propose is not only harmful but deadly to class society.

And no pretense that our enemies are "honorable but mistaken"--they are neither.

My impression is that this approach has some significant appeal in western Europe, much less in the U.K., and almost none in the United States. For a number of reasons, I think that's to be expected for a while.

Well, no one said it would be "quick and easy"...especially within the fortress of world reaction.

But IF Marx was right, it will get easier.

:cool:

[sc4r]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:49 am on July 26, 2003
It strikes me that what we should be speaking of in the advanced capitalist countries (yes, including Scandinavia) is resistance now; revolution tomorrow.

That is, what is practical now is "lots of Seattles" and "mini-Seattles" on lots of issues...disruptive and disorderly behavior that confronts every aspect of the prevailing social order.

At the same time, we should miss no opportunity to condemn outright the existing system and call for its abolition.

I don't even think it matters all that much if one uses the "correct terminology"--that is "revolution", "communism", "anarchism", etc. But the ideas behind those words must be clear and unmistakable...no weaseling or pretended harmlessness when what we propose is not only harmful but deadly to class society.

And no pretense that our enemies are "honorable but mistaken"--they are neither.

My impression is that this approach has some significant appeal in western Europe, much less in the U.K., and almost none in the United States. For a number of reasons, I think that's to be expected for a while.

Well, no one said it would be "quick and easy"...especially within the fortress of world reaction.

But IF Marx was right, it will get easier.

:cool:

If I had to single out just one of the many false justifications you imply for your position, for particular criticisism it would be that one.

You are not remotely in accord with Marx's thinking on method. And you must know this. It puts the integrity of anything else you say on the subject into question.

As it happens I think you are grossly wrong too about the nature of the opposition. Some of them are indeed neither honourable nor mistaken but downright malicious and self serving. Most however are not; They are at worst complacent and ill informed.

Your way polarises opposition. An awesomely bad strategy for a movement which is marginalised anyway.

You actually prime the guns of those who want to specifically shoot us down; provide them with the ammunition they need to convince others of our unrealistic thinking.

This puts it in context :If I were arguing on behalf of Communism; presenting its case; trying to win over new recruits or even just trying to get the truth about it understood; I would rather have 1/2 doz extreme Right wingers chipping in than to have you do so. You'd be the kiss of death for it. I'd actually have to try and explain you away as an aberrant nutter.

Call people enemies, let alone imply they have no honour or honesty and thats what they quickly become.

'If you wish to take a fortress with a mighty army you may besiege it and assault it. If you wish to do so with a small company you must infiltrate and attack from within'

Nor is it I suspect a majestic strategy to try raising a mighty army from within the ranks of the opponent while declaring that they are all infidels. The best you can hope for is to be ignored; more likely you'll be detected and then crushed before you achieve anything.

All of your strategy is actually predicated on the basis that 'the enemy' will make no real attempt to oppose you; yet you actually make great noise about how deadly earnest and determined the enemy is to do so.

It makes no sense.

The enemy Comrades is Capitalism, not 'capitalists'. With few exceptions 'capitalists' are merely hired mercenaries in the pay of Capitalism. But there are lots of them and they wont desert just because you promise them equality with peasants or because you threaten them with enforced equality in 500 years time. They'll laugh at you if you are lucky.

Nor is there any reason to think their masters will stop paying them. Why should they?

In fact lets get a bit more accurate. The enemy strategy is not actually Capitalism either. If it were there would be some hope that it might actually allow itself to spiral out of control and marginalise so many people that it had no supporters left. But it isn't; the oppositions strategy is not 'Capitalism' but 'Liberal democracy'; that is a much better organised and flexible opponent. One that does have the capacity to moderate its actions in order to ensure its sucess.

Dont be confused. RS's Ideas MIGHT (only might) work against Capitalism; they have no chance against Liberal Democracy.



(Edited by sc4r at 1:18 pm on July 26, 2003)

[redstar2000]

You are not remotely in accord with Marx's thinking on method.

Perhaps not, but saying it doesn't make it so. Karl is not around to give his opinion on current matters, so we have to struggle along as best we can.

As it happens I think you are grossly wrong too about the nature of the opposition. Some of them are indeed neither honourable nor mistaken but downright malicious and self serving. Most however are not; They are at worst complacent and ill informed.

Perhaps you know them better than I.(!)

I think it makes better sense to treat them as conscious enemies of the working class...for one thing, that minimizes the chances of betrayal by a rich "friend". We won't have any.

And for another and much more important reason, their actual personal characteristics are irrelevant...they are constrained by the "laws" of capitalism to act "as if they were" our conscious enemies, regardless of their loving attitudes towards dogs and small children.

Your way polarises opposition.

Yes, it does! That's the point!

Call people enemies, let alone imply they have no honour or honesty and thats what they quickly become.

Perhaps a bit of history-reading would help you; the capitalist class has been the enemies of the working class for a long, long time.

'If you wish to take a fortress with a mighty army you may besiege it and assault it. If you wish to do so with a small company you must infiltrate and attack from within'

Is that relevant to anything? If it supposed to be a metaphor for class society, it is a very poor one.

Granted, I use it when I say that the United States is "the fortress of world reaction" because it does have a clearly military reference. But your seeming suggestion that a small group of revolutionaries can "infiltrate" the centers of power and destroy them is ludicrous...it sounds like silly quasi-Leninist coup fantasizing.

Maybe you mean something else by that...???

Nor is it I suspect a majestic strategy to try raising a mighty army from within the ranks of the opponent while declaring that they are all infidels.

Where have I ever suggested "raising a mighty army" from the capitalist class?

Were you sober when you wrote that?

All of your strategy is actually predicated on the basis that 'the enemy' will make no real attempt to oppose you; yet you actually make great noise about how deadly earnest and determined the enemy is to do so.

It makes no sense.

Neither do those two statements; I don't even understand what you're talking about.

With few exceptions 'capitalists' are merely hired mercenaries in the pay of Capitalism.

And another astounding and incomprehensible statement...unless you're referring to the army/police--which are mercenaries and which are certainly our enemies. Do you mean that most capitalists are not really capitalists but just "hired guns"?

What a weird idea!

But it isn't; the opposition's strategy is not 'Capitalism' but 'Liberal democracy'; that is a much better organised and flexible opponent. One that does have the capacity to moderate its actions in order to ensure its sucess.

Capitalism is not a "strategy"...it's a form of class society. "Liberal democracy" is not a "strategy"...it's a political form of capitalist class rule; a way to structure a state apparatus to give the appearance of democracy while keeping all substantive decisions in the hands of respected and trusted members of the capitalist class.

Certainly it has the capacity to moderate its actions...but that does not ensure "success". History offers no guarantees, remember? That goes for them as well as us.

Dont be confused. RS's Ideas MIGHT (only might) work against Capitalism; they have no chance against Liberal Democracy.

Yes, I daresay that as things get "heated", your "Liberal Democracy" will bestir itself and offer a few "reforms" (which you will be delighted to accept, no doubt).

Do you think we communists or those that we have roused to resistance will be fooled by that shit?

Really???

:cool:

PS: Trivia: If I were arguing on behalf of Communism; presenting its case; trying to win over new recruits or even just trying to get the truth about it understood; I would rather have 1/2 doz extreme Right wingers chipping in than to have you do so. You'd be the kiss of death for it. I'd actually have to try and explain you away as an aberrant nutter.

I can understand your desire for my absence in such a situation; I would "blow your cover". Interestingly enough, I did get an extreme right-wing reaction to my views in Opposing Ideologies once...as I recall, he (kelvin?) said something to the effect that redstar2000 actually admits all the weaknesses in the communist position and just goes on. I "think" there was a faint tone of grudging "respect" there...

[sc4r]

Oh for christs sake! You wonder why people get pissed with you when you write with such deliberately contrived 'misunderstanding'? Pull the other one.

Nobody who has the slightest familiarity with Marx's writing can possibly fail to be aware that he saw Communism arising from a prolonged interim state of socialism. You suggest going straight to communism. To pretend you dont know this is breathtaking in its audacity and deceit.

Yes I suspect I know both Capitalist owners and workers very much better than you.

Who are you going to treat as enemies? Everyone who owns any share in any 'means of production'? thats something like 80% of the people in the UK, maybe more.

Which is my point. Your 'enemies' dont exist as recognisable people. Are you going to declare your peculiar version of 'revolutionary opposition' (book meetings) on everyone? or anyone above a cerain income level? what ? You dont know do you - you are hoping it 'sorta becomes obvious'. Yeah, as if!

If you declare that all capitalists are your enemies then something like 70% of the USA population will be totally sure you mean them, another 20% will think you might, and will be quite sure that you are a jealous twat. In the UK I'd estimate that the figures today are probably 50% and 30% respectively., and growing.

No matter what way you look at it you've declared that your 'popular movement' is virulently dismissive of well over half the population and is actually quite abusive about them.

You've lost your chance of majority support before you even start. Which leaves you way, way short of the almost universal support you actually need.

You my friend are mired in the socio economic realities of 1850. Things have changed.

Which is exactly why you fail to realise that any recruiting you do in the first world has to be from people who are to some extent part of the 'capitalist class.' Marx's clear class divisions simply dont exist today in the first world.

Test it - How many even here are 'workers' with no savings of any sort, No mortgage, No bank account, No pension fund ? How many of the non teen visitors even actually own businesses or commercial property of some sort? or expect to ? or have parents who do (a very relieable indicator to what they themselves will actually do, far more reliable than what they say right now)?

Get real RS. If you are campaigning for 19th century type workers you missed the boat by 100 years, there are very few left in the developed world.
.
.
.
Jeeze - could you really not work out that 'the fortress' stands for the liberal democratic society we live in and that the small company is socialism?

I dont believe you.
.
.
.
As for the twatting silly misdirections about strategy etc. :

Yes mate I did notice that Liberal democracy is an economic and political system. And that Capitalism is a part of that system.

And opposition to your ideas will be based upon what can be done by people working within those systems. They'll call you non democratic, They'll put minimum wage laws in place, They'll maybe outlaw you as terrorists, They'll legislate for trade protection, Impose trade sanctions and blocs to ensure we conytinue to get a good deal from the rest of the world, They'll control the media which will repeat that you are a jealous scumbag, They'll insitute union laws and repeal them according to whatever works best at the time, They'll clain other peoples oil rights as their own, They'll make it possible for ordinary people to purchase their own homes (then anipulate the finance laws so many dont actually end up doing so), They'll import exotic fruits and persuade people that Big Macs are the epitony of desire... I can go on almost forever if I choose what it amount to is that they will isolate you and try to persuade most people that they are in fact highly privilged, and they will keep them somewhat priviliged compared to the rest of the world. Your total crisis in the first world wont happen. And if by a miracle it did all that would happen is that a different breed of liberal democrats ( or even perhaps the Fascists) would promise to put it right while leaving you still waiting eagerly in the wings.

Thats as close to being something that could be descrtibed as a strategy within which to work as anything you are ever likely to find. Capitalism would not allow for some of those tactics, because it does not include the explicit possibility of legislating economic conditions.

Just once in a while try arguing with what someone is trying to communicate not with whatever dumbassed interpretation you feel you can most easily deal with.

Y, Y,Y I'm opposing you because I'm in favour of Liberal reforms.

Like fuck I am. If you must argue at least argue with what I say, not by implying I am what I say I am not.

[redstar2000]

Nobody who has the slightest familiarity with Marx's writing can possibly fail to be aware that he saw Communism arising from a prolonged interim state of socialism. You suggest going straight to communism. To pretend you dont know this is breathtaking in its audacity and deceit.

Once again, saying it does not make it so. Marx did speak of a "lower" and "higher" stage of communism with regard to distribution of the social product...but even in his own time, he always spoke, to the best of my knowledge, as if the dictatorship of the proletariat meant exactly that...a quasi-state that existed only for the purpose of wiping out the last resistance of the old ruling class and would thereafter begin to "wither away" at once.

What you refer to is, of course, the Leninist-Stalinist-Trotskyist-Maoist innovation that was tried unsuccessfully in the 20th century...the "prolonged interim socialist state" which, it turned out, never led to communism but, instead, back to capitalism.

Who are you going to treat as enemies? Everyone who owns any share in any 'means of production'? thats something like 80% of the people in the UK, maybe more.

As I recall, this particular reformist rubbish first surfaced back in the late 1950s under the name "people's capitalism". The thesis asserts that because people have a material interest of some kind in the capitalist system (usually a pension or a private home), they will no longer see it as an enemy.

Of course, most people don't really "own" a private dwelling; they own a small piece of one (like maybe one room)...the bank or mortgage company owns the rest. Likewise, their privately-funded pension plans (particularly if in the form of common stocks) exist only on paper and can be wiped out at any moment...as the poor sods at Enron found out last year. And, of course, a growing number of people are being shunted into temporary (often part-time) jobs as corporations down-size and out-source...which means no pensions or home ownership at all.

The idea that this flim-flam is some kind of insurmountable "barrier" to revolutionary class consciousness is just reformist wishful thinking. The idea that "people's capitalism" represents a significant change in class society is just nonsense...those huge accumulations of electronic "wealth" are and will remain firmly under the control of the real capitalist class.

Marx's clear class divisions simply dont exist today in the first world.

This from the chap who says that I have "deceitfully" departed from Marxist methodology.

The vast majority of people in the "first world" live by selling their labor-power to the capitalist class. They're workers.

Yes mate I did notice that Liberal democracy is an economic and political system. And that Capitalism is a part of that system.

No, that's still muddled up. "Liberal democracy" is not an "economic" system; the economic system is capitalism. "Liberal democracy" is a political system put into place to make decisions by and for the capitalist class as a whole while giving the appearance of popular sovereignity.

And opposition to your ideas will be based upon what can be done by people working within those systems. They'll call you non democratic, They'll put minimum wage laws in place, They'll maybe outlaw you as terrorists, They'll blah, blah, blah...

Yes, truly the ruling class is "all-powerful" and can "never" be defeated by revolutionary opposition.

Reformists generally have far more respect towards (and fear of) the ruling class than revolutionaries. That's one of the reasons why they're reformists.

Your total crisis in the first world won't happen. And if by a miracle it did all that would happen is that a different breed of liberal democrats (or even perhaps the Fascists) would promise to put it right while leaving you still waiting eagerly in the wings.

So, says the reformist, Marx was wrong. But even if, by a "miracle", he was right, he was "still wrong" because the fascists will take over. Whatever happens, says the reformist, the capitalists will win. The only thing to do is infiltrate, try for a few reforms here and there, go real slow so you don't scare the ruling class into fascism, etc., etc., etc.

Such pathetic servility.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:30 pm on July 26, 2003)

[sc4r]

How does anyone ever stay polite with you.

Regretably I dont have the time to deal with every one of your misdirections, evasions, and plain ignorance. Its a lot quicker for you to create tangled rubbish than it is for me to try and painfully unravel it.

So I'm going to have to do just one before I have to break off for the fortnight.

You know perfectly well that I know what Liberal democracy is. If[/b] I had inadvertantly said 'economic system' all it would convey is that I didnt have my 'avoid nitpicking *****s' head on at the time I wrote it. Nothing I said would lead anyone to think I was talking only of economic systems in isolation from political and social ones. Exactly the reverse.

But what I actually fucking well said was 'economic and political system' anyway; i.e the whole package. If you seriously think that a liberal democracy can ever imply a system whose economic component is not basically capitalism then go ahead explain that system. It does not exist because that is what Liberal democracy means.

In fact you seem to be implying that 'liberal democracy' is only the political part of a combined system called... What Redstar? Whats the combined thing called according to you ? come on come on.

No, there isnt one is there? because 'Liberal democracy' is the combined concept.

I even explicitly said 'capitalism is part of that system' THE FUCKING ECONOMIC COMPONENT.

Now in your ignorance you may like to think that Capitalism only ever means the economic component of of a socio economic package. But it aint so. Nor for that matter do you yourself commonly use it only that way.

In point of fact (since we are nitpicking) it doesnt even quite make sense to talk of an economic system as being entirely separate from its political context. If there was not a law (made and enforced by the political system*) to say for example how property rights were to be maintained and enforced then those rights could not be traded.

Now as to the substance of your comment (which if you were not so up yourself could have been made equally well without ever mentioning anything connected to the preceding) :

RS [i]"Liberal democracy" is a political system put into place to make decisions by and for the capitalist class as a whole while giving the appearance of popular sovereignity. "

Well actually no thats not even fully valid as a conjecture. Liberalism pre-dates the appearance of any significant class of capitalists. And was originally intended to combat conservatism in the shape of the feudal aristocracy.

Libreal Democracy merely means liberalism with a democratic process also attached to it. In practise it always also means representative democracy (though even exactly what representative democracy means has of course changed over time, originally it enfranchised only property owners).

So having disposed of the immense amount of BS and disinformation you manage to pack into just 50 words we finally deal with the gist of your comment.

And the answer to that is that while democracy within liberalism almost certainly was not institituted to do what you say (unless of course you are claiming that the workers it was giving the appearance of popular sovreignty to were property owners - somewhat of a strange claim if you are. I should check what the required property level was) it nevertheless now pretty much does have that effect.

So fucking what ? Who is disputing it ?

.







*dont even attempt to think of saying 'ahha its the judiciary that enforces it. You will surely die of an overdose of nitpickery.

[redstar2000]

How does anyone ever stay polite with you.

I can't recall you ever being "polite" with anyone...who disputed your "expertise" at any rate.

It's a lot quicker for you to create tangled rubbish than it is for me to try and painfully unravel it.

Yes, you think I am a "bad boy", I understand.

You know perfectly well that I know what Liberal democracy is.

No, I actually have no idea what you "know" about anything. I've seen you claim that you know all sorts of things...even to the point of being able to "evaluate" proposals that you admit you don't understand.

Insofar as you have actually chosen to reveal "what you know", all I have seen is a muddle; a mixture of bourgeois political "science", semi-Marxist terminology, post-modernist "biz speak", etc.

In addition to which you display a remarkable amnesia about your own posts. Your latest goes on at incredible length to end up admitting that "liberal democracy" is exactly what I said it was (putting aside the historical debate for another time): this is what it is now.

"Liberal democracy" is a political system put into place to make decisions by and for the capitalist class as a whole while giving the appearance of popular sovereignity.

And you ask: who is disputing it?

You are, in these words...

RS's Ideas MIGHT (only might) work against Capitalism; they have no chance against Liberal Democracy.

The obvious inference is that "Liberal Democracy" is a different system than capitalism...even though you now wish to incorporate capitalism as the "economic component" of "Liberal Democracy".

So are we talking two systems or one?

If you wish to elevate a political aspect of capitalism to primary (verbal) importance--calling it "Liberal Democracy" with the understanding that capitalism is understood to be included in that--that's "ok" with me...though as a Marxist, my understanding is that capitalism is the primary designation of present-day society and that "liberal democracy" is only one of its possible political forms.

But if we accept your "revised" definition of "Liberal Democracy" as a capitalist system, then your statement that my ideas "have no chance" collapses. They "might work" after all.

And I can't help but add that for one who demands incredible detail from me on "how communism would actually work in the future", you seem quite vague and fuzzy about the present.

That's not a good sign.

:cool:

[sc4r]

You are unbelievable.

Your ability to ignore parts of what is being said is one I have only ever seen surpassed in the most rabid type of USA supporter.

To repeat :

Liberal democracy is a socio economic system incoporating an economic sub-system usually described as Capitalism.

Capitalism may also mean a socio-economic system (which in this case also includes, rather confusingly, the same economic sub-system as in Liberal Democracy, and itself known also, of course, as Capitalism)*

Capitalism the socio economic system virtually dispenses with democracy.

Now when one is talking of Socialism bieng opposed by a society and one says 'Capitalism is one type of opposition' - there are only two halfway intelligent interpretations of what the word means :

1) It can mean the socio-economic 'Capitalism'
2) It can actually mean Liberal Democracy (since while this is not technically correct its a very common usage, one that RS frequently himself adopts).

And if one says 'Its worse to be opposed by Liberal Democracy than by capitalism'. There can be no possible doubt which of the two socio-economic 'definions' of Capitalism is being used.

Nor can there be much doubt that it is isn't the economic component 'Capitalism' that is bieng referred to (no one would generally say something as blindingly obvious (and odd) as 'A car is faster than the engine alone'.

The bit about 'odd' is also germaine becasue just as an engine would never normally be said to enter races sans transmission, wheels, etc. etc. An economic system could not normally be said to oppose anything since it is animated by no conscious purpose.

Not for the first time Redstar you are word chopping, looking for ways to win an argument based on semantics; and bieng thoroughly selective in a quite dishonest way about what you you choose to report.

Its easy for you to get away with this (just as its not too difficult for your right wing equivalents to do so when they say that Stalinism=Socialism=Communism) etc.) because the whole terminology of politics is so amazingly convoluted and context dependent.

But thats all you are doing getting away with it. And you use this confusion to rubbish other ideas while promoting your own. Which is dishonest, and really says more than anything else just how suspicious anybody ought to be of your actual idea.

If I'd had this sort of conversation with you once, I'd say you were possibly just confused (it would not exactly be hard to get confused by terminology and context). Or that there had been a misunderstanding. But it isnt once, it is perhaps 50 times, often making the same correction over and over and over in different ways.

And of course it takes vastly more effort for me to explain (as in the above) than it does for you to simply assert. Which means that for every error you actually get pulled up on there are perhaps 5 or even 10 more which go unremarked.

I'll close by asking anybody readng this to once again think about Redstars assertion that Marx may not have predicted a socialist transition en route to Communism. To say this is an unorthodox reading of Marx is to understae it massively. Redstar flat cannot be unaware of this, yet he denies it.

He's been consistenty denouncing me as a reformist too. This also he gets away with because there is just enough confusion about the precise meaning of the word, and enough complexity in my ideas that he can find a way to seemingly make it fit if he is selective in what he talks about.

Make no mistake it's intended as a denouncement (and an insult). Its far easier for him to do that than to argue with the ideas themselves.

The 'expertise' I supposedly claim is another example of a bit of very selective and distorted reporting. I actually said I have probably more expertise than most here in doing one particular thing (evaluating systems); And even that was said only as part of an attempt to try and find an active way to cool this feud (an offer rejected by RS BTW).


* This socio economic Capitalism is itself virtually indistinguishable from what was orginally called Liberalism (not Liberal democracy).

(Edited by sc4r at 9:13 am on July 27, 2003)

[sc4r]

As I recall, this particular reformist rubbish {in response to - Who are you going to treat as enemies? Everyone who owns any share in any 'means of production'? thats something like 80% of the people in the UK, maybe more.}
first surfaced back in the late 1950s under the name "people's capitalism". The thesis asserts that because people have a material interest of some kind in the capitalist system (usually a pension or a private home), they will no longer see it as an enemy.

Of course, most people don't really "own" a private dwelling; they own a small piece of one (like maybe one room)...the bank or mortgage company owns the rest. Likewise, their privately-funded pension plans (particularly if in the form of common stocks) exist only on paper and can be wiped out at any moment...as the poor sods at Enron found out last year. And, of course, a growing number of people are being shunted into temporary (often part-time) jobs as corporations down-size and out-source...which means no pensions or home ownership at all.

The idea that this flim-flam is some kind of insurmountable "barrier" to revolutionary class consciousness is just reformist wishful thinking. The idea that "people's capitalism" represents a significant change in class society is just nonsense...those huge accumulations of electronic "wealth" are and will remain firmly under the control of the real capitalist class.


It is not just electronic wealth. It is actual wealth, most of the people who are paying mortgages do expect to end up owning their hones.

And it is not the fact of home ownership that is specially relevant here anyway - Its the fact of deliberate participation in a capitalist mechanism for benefit. The fact of openly coming to a quite deliberate accomodation with it, and being happy, even proud of having done so.

But even more striking is particpation in the investment side of things. AS anyone who has saving in a bank, building society, pension plan, trust fund, or any one of those sorts of financial plans does. There one is not merely particpating, one is benefitting from a capitalist investment and in a capitalist way.

This is definitely not the type of existence Marx was envisaging when he talked of his proletariat. You can see how badly the categorisation sits when you recall one of Marx's frequently used descriptive words for his proletariat.- 'Labourers'.

We normally say 'worker' and it allows us to mentally hide from the fact that very few of todays 'workers' in the west would be recognised by Marx as whom he was talking about. Say 'Labourer' though and the deception becomes harder to keep up.

It makes no odds to what we are discussing whether these people are REALLY Capitalists or whether they are being decieved (I'd say they were for instance). Still less is it relevant that they might lose out (all capitalists have to accept that risk). The relevant point is that they wont think or behave as is they belong to a proletariat class; because in a very real sense they are nothing like the people Marx assigned to that 'class'

This has fuck all to do with reformism. Its an evaluation of whether you can realistically expect to find supporters for your ideas in the way you think you can. Back in 1900 you would have, in 1920 you still would have, by 1970 it was becoming less and less clear, and today you'll struggle very hard to find more than ahandful who really fit both your definition and your attitudes. I
in fact the only people who are close to having the sort of desparate existence Marx was postulating are the unemployed and of course migrant workers.

I.m hald expecting to hear you come out with your usual exposition of how you must wait until conditions are as you predict they will become before anything significant can be done. To my ears this sounds like an astonishing piece of double think (one of many); where you profess undying devotion to communism, say you want it, say you dont really want conditions for people to become bad; then say that if they dont you see no reason to push for socialism.

All of which really adds up to wanting socialism only contingently. Which to me is definitely not the attitute of a devoted revolutionary.


(Edited by sc4r at 12:45 pm on July 27, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Liberal democracy is a socio economic system incoporating an economic sub-system usually described as Capitalism.

Capitalism may also mean a socio-economic system (which in this case also includes, rather confusingly, the same economic sub-system as in Liberal Democracy, and itself known also, of course, as Capitalism)

Capitalism the socio-economic system virtually dispenses with democracy.

The reason I have to do so much "word-chopping" with your posts is that they consist of nearly impenetrable forests of verbiage. I try my best to hack my way through to some kind of clear meaning...and if I fail, I submit it might well be because the task is beyond my capabilities...or anyone's.

Look at that last sentence in the above quote, for example. What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Literally, it's wrong. Modern capitalism, the "socio-economic system", usually does operate with a bourgeois democratic political system--what you call "Liberal Democracy".

Perhaps this time you mean that "Liberal Democracy" is not really democratic so in that sense "capitalism dispenses with democracy".

Well, yeah, so...???

I'll close by asking anybody reading this to once again think about Redstar's assertion that Marx may not have predicted a socialist transition en route to Communism. To say this is an unorthodox reading of Marx is to understate it massively. Redstar flat cannot be unaware of this, yet he denies it.

That my reading of Marx is "unorthodox" by Social Democratic/Leninist standards of "orthodoxy" is not only something I've never denied but have boasted of.

I assert that the totality of Marx's work (and Engels' as well) says nothing about any lengthy "transition periods"...though I have not, of course, committed all of the things they wrote to memory, and it's therefore possible that a scrap or fragment might be produced to contradict my reading.

But if my "unorthodoxy" about Marx makes you nervous (and why would you care?), consider this: even if Marx did predict a lengthy transition period between capitalism and communism, that could be wrong. Perhaps such a prediction would have made "a kind of sense" in 1850 or 1875 but now be obsolete.

Since you are already "on record" as declaring that proletarian revolution is "obsolete", what do you care what communists think about the matter?

We normally say 'worker' and it allows us to mentally hide from the fact that very few of today's 'workers' in the west would be recognised by Marx as whom he was talking about.

Technically, Marx spoke of "productive workers" as those who sell their labour power to capital and the surplus value that is generated goes to augment capital.

Thus, he would exclude the vast army of public employees that exist today from his technical definition...even though a great many of them share the same conditions and experiences as all other workers do.

He would doubtless also exclude many "white collar" workers that are not directly involved in producing a good or service for sale in the marketplace...even though many of them also share common conditions and experiences with productive workers.

My hypothesis is a simple one: the pressures on the capitalist enterprise to "reduce labor costs" is unrelenting...and the consequence must be the one that Marx predicted, the deterioration of the conditions of the working class. I think this is already beginning to happen; you dispute that. But even if I am "wrong" now, I won't be...IF Marx was right.

I certainly don't dispute your contention that millions of workers--most workers, perhaps--accept for the present the capitalist system and even identify with it.

Historically, is that a permanent or a temporary situation?

As a reformist, you assume it's permanent. As a Marxist, I assume it's temporary. Time will show who is right.

I'm half expecting to hear you come out with your usual exposition of how you must wait until conditions are as you predict they will become before anything significant can be done. To my ears this sounds like an astonishing piece of double think (one of many); where you profess undying devotion to communism, say you want it, say you dont really want conditions for people to become bad; then say that if they don't you see no reason to push for socialism.

All of which really adds up to wanting socialism only contingently. Which to me is definitely not the attitude of a devoted revolutionary.

This is the third or fourth time I've heard this and I still don't really grasp it. Marxists do not "want" things to "get worse"...it's what capitalism does.

If I have suggested that the possibilities of proletarian revolution are "limited" until material conditions change for the worse, that is an observation...not the consequence of a "sadistic" desire to see people suffer.

Like most reformists, you confuse "desire" with reality; you think that simply "wanting" things to "get better" will suffice to make that happen...if you can just think of the right "plan".

But the convergence of social events that make proletarian revolution a realistic possibility is not a matter of either desire or planning.

:cool:

[Bianconero]

"The way I see it, it's not so simple that you can just divide this into two categories. It really depends on the situation, on the state of the country you are attempting to change.

For example, in Sweden, the politics are already very liberal. The Social Democrats control the government, although not without the support of a Green and Socialist coalition. To elect socialists/leftists into the majority of the government would not be difficult, because they already have sizeable support. The government is not as rampantly corrupt as some other capitalist nations (such as the US), and I can guess that, from what I have read, voting is not so pointless in a country like Sweden. In Sweden, reform has some degree of useful potential."

You talk about Sweden like one socialist country. In fact, Sweden is a social - chauvinist (copyright comrade Uljanov) country. Sweden has private property, Sweden has corporations, Sweden takes profit from US exploitation of the "third" world.

I don't see what's so positive about countries like Sweden at all. Their ruling class is exploiting the workers of other countries and giving 0,0001 percent of the profit they make to their workers so that they don't revolt. What's so positive about that?

Sweden's workers take the money their ruling class steals from Indonesia etc.

This is a fact, deal with it. Coming back to that old Revolution/Reform debate, only uneducated "leftists" will call for reform. I live in a country that has a similar history as Sweden. Social Democats have corrupted the proletariat, by playing a reactionary role. They support corporations, they don't see or don't want to see that their corporations are fighting the proletariat elsewhere.

Only revolution will change these facts.

[Morpheus]

[quote]I in fact the only people who are close to having the sort of desparate existence Marx was postulating are the unemployed and of course migrant workers. [quote]

And the "third world" proletariat, who are vast in numbers and greatly outnumber the first world workers (a large percentage of which are basically a global "aristocracy of labor").