Originally posted by Live for the
[email protected] 29, 2007 10:18 pm
Saying that this is so, doesn't make it true. You have yet to support any of these claims with any evidence at all.
Russia and China.
. Socialist society implies the organization by people themselves of every aspect of their social life. The establishment of socialism therefore entails the immediate abolition of the fundamental division of society into a stratum of order-givers and a mass of order-takers and a framework that will enable people to control their own lives, and pursue lives as determined by them, based on their emancipation from class oppression.
And you honestly think that the abolition of mental and manual labor will spread out into thin air and we will all dance? No. As Marx said, socialism bears the "birthmarks" of capitalism, and we must deal with those contradictions and work through them. You can't honestly say that just because the proletariat is in power that all of a sudden there is no state or forms of oppression. Guess what? They still exist. And will keep doing so until material conditions dictate it. Thats my Marxists are materialists and understand the need for a transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that works through and puts an end to all forms of oppression.
There were many successful anarchist columns during the Spanish Civil War, such as the Durruti Column and Iron Column.
I fail to remember where the proletariat seized power in Spain.
[QUOTE]
As I stated, in another thread, a society that is hierarchal is much more susceptible to counter-revolution and restoration of capitalism than a non-hierarchal one.
And as I've shown repeatedly, this is a load of bullshit. Socialism is not communism, if that were the case, then I would ignore materialism and become a anarchist. Socialism still has commodity production, and, as Marx showed, regenerates capitalism and the capitalist class. In all socialist societies there will communist leadership (with the support of the masses of course or else they wouldnt be leaders) and in the wake of struggle, especially under the acute class struggle under socialism, take up lines that resemble bourgeois ideology instead of communist ideology.
There will be hierarchy under socialism, and racism, and the division of labor, but in a whole different context because society, and the proletariat in particular, struggles to put an end to it in the only way they can (when they have state power) on the road to communism.
Russia and China.
Russia and China are textbook cases of restoration due to interior "attacks". So try again.
And you honestly think that the abolition of mental and manual labor will spread out into thin air and we will all dance? No. As Marx said, socialism bears the "birthmarks" of capitalism, and we must deal with those contradictions and work through them. You can't honestly say that just because the proletariat is in power that all of a sudden there is no state or forms of oppression. Guess what? They still exist. And will keep doing so until material conditions dictate it. Thats my Marxists are materialists and understand the need for a transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that works through and puts an end to all forms of oppression.
I never claimed such a thing. In fact, if you had read the links I posted earlier in this thread, you would see they never claim such a thing neither. So where did you get this idea from? Since you have a preoccupation with things spreading into "thin air", maybe that's where you pulled it out from.
The society we are talking about is not communism, which supposes total freedom, the complete control by people over all their own activities, the absence of any constraint, total abundance -- and human beings of a totally different kind.
The society we are talking about is socialism, and socialism is the only transitional society between a regime of exploitation and communism...The transition to communism is only possible if exploitation is immediately abolished, for otherwise, exploitation continues and feeds on itself. The abolition of exploitation is only possible when every separate stratum of order-givers ceases to exist, for in modern societies it is the division into order-givers and order-takers which is at the root of exploitation. The abolition of a separate managerial apparatus means workers' management in all sectors of social activity. Workers' management is only possible through new institutions embodying the direct democracy of the producers (the Councils). Workers' management can only be consolidated and enlarged insofar as it attacks the deepest roots of alienation in all fields and primarily in the realm of work.
In their essence, these views closely coincide with Marx's ideas on the subject. Marx only considered one kind of transitional society between capitalism and communism, which he called indifferently 'dictatorship of the proletariat' or 'lower stage of communism'. For him, this society implied an end to exploitation and 'to a separate state apparatus.
Worker's Councils and the Economics of Self-Managed Society
http://anonym.to/?http://www.lust-for-life...ndEconomics.htm (http://anonym.to/?http://www.lust-for-life.org/Lust-For-Life/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics/WorkersCouncilsAndEconomics.htm)
So, as you can see, the pamphlet obviously knows and understands the need for a transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that works through and puts an end to all forms of oppression.
I fail to remember where the proletariat seized power in Spain.
Well, I'm not to blame for your bad memory.
And as I've shown repeatedly, this is a load of bullshit. Socialism is not communism, if that were the case, then I would ignore materialism and become a anarchist. Socialism still has commodity production, and, as Marx showed, regenerates capitalism and the capitalist class. In all socialist societies there will communist leadership (with the support of the masses of course or else they wouldnt be leaders) and in the wake of struggle, especially under the acute class struggle under socialism, take up lines that resemble bourgeois ideology instead of communist ideology.
There will be hierarchy under socialism, and racism, and the division of labor, but in a whole different context because society, and the proletariat in particular, struggles to put an end to it in the only way they can (when they have state power) on the road to communism.
First, I never said or claimed socialism is communism. Nor, did i dismiss the threat in this transitional society of the restoration of division of labor, coercion, hierarchy and capitalism.
Elimination of the class system is not merely a formal process of expropriation and creation of a new organization. Job definitions need to be re-thought, power equalized through learning new skills and workers taking over tasks formerly done by "professionals." Ingrained habits of giving and obeying orders need to be broken down. Because the new system inherits differences in skills, education and habits from hierarchical systems of power, there is a danger of expertise and decision-making being re-consolidated into some new hierarchy. Perhaps the union organization - separate from the structure of self-management of the industry - was needed to look out for the interests of the workers in the course of this process of transition.
- Workers Power and the Spanish Revolution - Tom Wetzel
In all socialist societies where there is communist leadership and in the wake of struggle, especially under the acute class struggle under socialism, take up lines that resemble bourgeois ideology instead of communist ideology.
I like that rendition better. If by communist leadership you mean vanguard party whom has authority on all spheres, i reject your thesis. Now, if you mean there will be communist leaders and there will be communist followers, but both have the ability to influence decisions in proportion in which they are affected by it, then cool.
Otherwise, As i said, I don't disagree that there will be racism, homophobia, sexism, division of labor under socialism, it's a transitional period for a reason.
Cheers