Log in

View Full Version : October Revolution



cherx
7th November 2007, 20:25
Declaration of the ICMLPO to 90 anniversary of the October Revolution


The significance of the October Revolution today

The socialist revolution of October 1917 was an event of worldwide significance for all proletarians and oppressed peoples of the world, because, under the leadership of the communist party of Lenin, the revolutionary Russian proletariat had assumed state power by destroying the bureaucratic military machinery and overthrowing the rule of the Tsars, one of the most obsolete and oppressive monarchies in history. On 16 October 1917, the Central Committee adopted ...


Joint Declaration
October 2007

The significance of the October Revolution today


The socialist revolution of October 1917 was an event of worldwide significance for all proletarians and oppressed peoples of the world, because, under the leadership of the communist party of Lenin, the revolutionary Russian proletariat had assumed state power by destroying the bureaucratic military machinery and overthrowing the rule of the Tsars, one of the most obsolete and oppressive monarchies in history.

On 16 October 1917, the Central Committee adopted the resolution proposed by Lenin which put the armed uprising on the agenda. The uprising succeeded on 25 October 1917 (7 November according to our calendar) with the call "To the Citizens of Russia!". It was in this night that the Winter Palace of the tsars was taken.

"Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution", said Marx and so the bourgeoisie in Russia and the rest of the world trembled, not believing that the power of the workers, peasants and soldiers would prevail for long. Practice proved the contrary to be true. The workers, the peasants and the semi-proletariat in the cities and in the countryside, the intellectuals of the people, men and women, as well as the nations oppressed by imperialism and the working class and toilers in the capitalist countries, however, thought and felt completely differently: for them the October Revolution was not only possible, but also necessary. It was like a breath of fresh air in the midst of capitalist and feudal exploitation and oppression. It was a ray of hope in the midst of despair, a dream that had come true.

The power of the workers, peasants, soldiers, which began with the elimination of capitalism and the building of socialism for the first time in the history of mankind, expropriated the capitalists and big land owners and gave the estates to the peasants, established the control over production and built up a new state.

Worldwide counterrevolution against the emerging Soviet power raged; three years of civil war in which the counterrevolution at home was supported by 14 imperialist powers. However, it was the anonymous heroes, workers, peasants, soldiers and even the intellectuals who gave their lives in support of this new power and built up their armed forces, the Red Army, in this period which defeated the white army in numerous battles.

After that the Soviet peoples faced the difficult task of rebuilding a country which lay in rubbles with a people starving and living in misery, and they succeeded in getting back on their feet. These heroic deeds were accomplished in the 1930s, when they succeeded in building up cooperatives, in collectivization, industrialization and far-reaching cultural transformations.

At great sacrifice, struggling against the inheritance of tsarist mismanagement and threatened by the German fascist Reich, the dictatorship of the proletariat was able to provide the people with bread, work, housing, education, health care, land and social welfare, for all workers and toilers, both male and female. The new power put an end to unemployment and illiteracy, established the 8-hour-day and even the 5-hour-working day and involved millions of women in socialized production. These were achievements unknown to capitalism.

Proletarian democracy proved its superiority to bourgeois democracy. The broad majority of the people arose, the exploited, the oppressed, those who had been ignored - the direct producers - those who actually produce all wealth - these broad masses arose. Those who had no influence upon the decisions made by bourgeois governments began to take the political, military, cultural, economic affairs into their own hands. They began to govern. This was a revolutionary transition in the history of mankind.

Neither the 14 imperialist armies that invaded Russia during the civil war and tried to reverse the revolution, nor the fascist German armies along with those of half of Europe were able to defeat the socialist Soviet Union. Socialism was destroyed from within when in 1956, with the 20th Party Congress of the CPSU, the degenerated new bourgeoisie with a party membership book in its pocket took over power and restored capitalism.

The defeat suffered by the proletariat and its socialist state in the USSR, resulting from 20th Party Congress of the CPSU in 1956, and the restoration of capitalism, prompted Mao Tsetung to think in depth about the causes for capitalist restoration having become possible in the first socialist country. He reached the conclusion that classes, class contradictions and class struggle continue to exist in a socialist society and that these can either intensify or weaken. The whirl of this class struggle lies within the communist party, because class struggle in society is reflected there in its struggles over the line. If this party degenerates as a result of a new bourgeoisie coming to power and undergoes a process of bureaucratization, this new bourgeoisie with a party membership book in its pocket allies itself with the reactionary sectors within and outside of the state. Therefore this struggle is expressed in a struggle between two directions: the socialist and the capitalist one, as well as the one between Marxism and revisionism. Mao applied the method with which he analysed the USSR to China in order to prevent the restoration of capitalism by means of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. This was successful in the ten years between 1966 and 1976.

In 1991 the USSR broke down. This revealed the complete bankruptcy of modern revisionism. In the entire world, the bourgeoisie attempts to depict this as the destruction of socialism.

The imperialist aggressions, with US-imperialism and its allies at the head, bring forth a dramatic situation in Iraq and Afghanistan with their preventive wars and fascist laws passed under the pretext of the "anti-terror struggle". The insatiable greed with which they exploit and plunder the working-class, the oppressed peoples and nations and drive millions of people into poverty, all show the necessity of revolution and the struggle for socialism and communism even more clearly.

Let us defend the right of coalition for Marxist-Leninist, communist parties. Let us take a stand for the revolutionary liberation struggle and the right of self-determination of the peoples against imperialism and neo-colonialism!

Let us celebrate the anniversary of the October Revolution together and let us launch together an offensive of genuine socialism against the distortions of imperialist historians.

Today the struggles of the workers and the peoples against exploitation and oppression are increasing on an international level, increasingly shoulder to shoulder with the Marxist-Leninist parties. The worldwide search for an alternative to capitalism cannot be overlooked. That is why the imperialists are launching a campaign of anticommunism with anger, hate and lies. Against better judgement, the millions of victims of the two invasions of the imperialist armies in Russia are being depicted as victims of communism in this filthy campaign. The same applies to those who starved as a result of these invasions and the legacy of the Tsars. Their goal is to destroy the high regard of socialism and to rob the people of their future.

Today, 90 years after the victory of October, when we regard the process of revolutionary construction, we are obliged to evaluate what has occurred in order to draw conclusions for a new upswing in the struggle for genuine socialism. This celebration serves to show that socialism is superior to capitalism, to assimilate its progressive lessons and to correct mistakes, so that one day, the proletariat in the entire world, together with all the masses who are exploited and oppressed by reactionary capitalists and imperialists, will overthrow imperialism and build up socialism in the entire world, and that one day, the people can say that "the earth is the most beautiful paradise of humanity."

The Joint Coordinating Group (JCG) of the International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations (ICMLPO) calls up to signing the declaration. It is possible to sign only single points or paragraphs . Contact: JCG, PO 13 10 58, D -70068 Stuttgart, Germany, Fax: ## 49-711- 99 79 571, E - Mail: [email protected] - www.icmlpo.de

Signatories up till now (2.11.07): Revolutionary Communist Party of Argentina (PCR); Party of the "Committee to Support Resistance - for Communism" (CARC), Italy; Communist Party of Columbia-Maoist (PCC-M); Revolutionary Organization Congo; Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD), Workers' Party (Partija Rada), Serbia.

Tower of Bebel
7th November 2007, 23:56
Looks like the USSR before the death of Stalin was like heaven.

RbG
8th November 2007, 02:32
:blush: If only another revolution like the one from 1917 could happen in the u.s. That would be a dream. One day though ;)

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 02:42
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:32 am
:blush: If only another revolution like the one from 1917 could happen in the u.s. That would be a dream. One day though ;)
Not until the third world unites and crushes every capitalist visage can a proletarian revolution start in a bourgeois nation. :huh:

Axel1917
8th November 2007, 06:18
Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 08, 2007 02:42 am--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 08, 2007 02:42 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 02:32 am
:blush: If only another revolution like the one from 1917 could happen in the u.s. That would be a dream. One day though ;)
Not until the third world unites and crushes every capitalist visage can a proletarian revolution start in a bourgeois nation. :huh: [/b]
That isn't what happened with Germany shortly after the October Revolution. It may be easier for a revolution to start in a Third World country, given the utter inability of the bourgeoisie of those nations to carry out even the basic bourgeois-democratic tasks, but sharpening developments can change the situation very quickly in the First World. The class contradictions are very sharp in the USA, and this time, there isn't a massive postwar boom to give people illusions of capitalism "delivering the goods." It has a long way to go, but we can already seen a fermentation in the USA that has been developing during the past few years, and with nothing but living standard cuts and a shoddy healthcare system as promises for the future, the situation in the USA can change very quickly. The revolutionary flames that are flaring up in Latin America would greatly accelerate things in the USA as well, given that these revolutions succeed in eliminating capitalism.

Not to mention that the transition to socialism cannot be made without the effort of at least several advanced nations, as Lenin pointed out.

There have been revolutionary situations in nations in nations that were not Third World (Spain, France, Germany, to name some.) in the 20th Century. They were derailed due to shoddy leadership.

Even if a revolutionary wave starts in the Third World, the revolutionary sparks can quickly ignite First World nations before other Third World ones, as was proven by the revolutionary events in Germany shortly after the October Revolution.

Bilan
8th November 2007, 08:15
Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 08, 2007 12:42 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 08, 2007 12:42 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 02:32 am
:blush: If only another revolution like the one from 1917 could happen in the u.s. That would be a dream. One day though ;)
Not until the third world unites and crushes every capitalist visage can a proletarian revolution start in a bourgeois nation. :huh: [/b]
Borinnnng.

If a revolution occurred in the developed world, such as the United States, the movement to communism would be much faster, for it is the developed world who exerts the most military dominance, so whilst the capitalists still control the military and political influence across the world, the success of a global revolution starting in the third world aint very high.
Hope I explained that well.

sanpal
8th November 2007, 09:57
It seems to someone that the October Revolution was started and was finished in 1917? And was not successful with collapse of the USSR?
No! The revolutionary process with its mistakes and achievements is going! Till now.

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 17:28
Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 08, 2007 08:15 am--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 08, 2007 08:15 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 12:42 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 02:32 am
:blush: If only another revolution like the one from 1917 could happen in the u.s. That would be a dream. One day though ;)
Not until the third world unites and crushes every capitalist visage can a proletarian revolution start in a bourgeois nation. :huh:
Borinnnng.

If a revolution occurred in the developed world, such as the United States, the movement to communism would be much faster, for it is the developed world who exerts the most military dominance, so whilst the capitalists still control the military and political influence across the world, the success of a global revolution starting in the third world aint very high.
Hope I explained that well. [/b]
You expect the imperialists to cast off imperialism (from which they profit) to spread communism around the world by conquest and imperialism? Forgive me, but I don't see how THAT would ever happen. The capitalist countries today are no longer exploited, they have become the exploiters. Much has changed since the industrial revolution, America and Europe now possess only bourgeoisie, very few proletariat still live there.

IronColumn
8th November 2007, 17:32
You've replaced a class analysis with a national analysis. How profound. The similarities to Mussolini's talk about "proletarian nations" would be disturbing if Leninists weren't so bankrupt already.

Marsella
8th November 2007, 17:32
The capitalist countries today are no longer exploited, they have become the exploiters. Much has changed since the industrial revolution, America and Europe now possess only bourgeoisie, very few proletariat still live there.

:lol:

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 18:12
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:32 pm
You've replaced a class analysis with a national analysis. How profound. The similarities to Mussolini's talk about "proletarian nations" would be disturbing if Leninists weren't so bankrupt already.
When a nationalist war of aggression is waged, it is only correct to draw upon the class contradiction and establish who is being exploited and who is exploiting. The people behind the war machine of the United States are in favour of exploiting the third world, and should thus be treated as the bourgeoisie.

Devrim
8th November 2007, 18:20
Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 08, 2007 06:12 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 08, 2007 06:12 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:32 pm
You've replaced a class analysis with a national analysis. How profound. The similarities to Mussolini's talk about "proletarian nations" would be disturbing if Leninists weren't so bankrupt already.
When a nationalist war of aggression is waged, it is only correct to draw upon the class contradiction and establish who is being exploited and who is exploiting. The people behind the war machine of the United States are in favour of exploiting the third world, and should thus be treated as the bourgeoisie. [/b]
IronColumn is completely right here. Look at the talk of 'bourgeois nations' in the previous post:

PigmerikanMao
Not until the third world unites and crushes every capitalist visage can a proletarian revolution start in a bourgeois nation. :huh:

Does that imply that there are 'proletarian nations'? I think we have all heard that before.

Devrim

Marsella
8th November 2007, 18:42
The people behind the war machine of the United States are in favour of exploiting the third world, and should thus be treated as the bourgeoisie.

Personal ideas or values have nothing to do with what class you are in. Although certain classes have certain ideals. You cannot 'will' yourself out of your class.

Would the Bourgeoisie become proletariat if they started advocating armed revolution?! (Not that they would)

What you are doing is applying a moral definition to proletariat (as good) and bourgeoisie (as bad).

It is fundamentally flawed.

Edit:

And what proof do you have that the proletariat are non-existent or are very small in USA and Europe?

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 18:57
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:42 pm

The people behind the war machine of the United States are in favour of exploiting the third world, and should thus be treated as the bourgeoisie.

Personal ideas or values have nothing to do with what class you are in. Although certain classes have certain ideals. You cannot 'will' yourself out of your class.

Would the Bourgeoisie become proletariat if they started advocating armed revolution?! (Not that they would)

What you are doing is applying a moral definition to proletariat (as good) and bourgeoisie (as bad).

It is fundamentally flawed.

Edit:

And what proof do you have that the proletariat are non-existent or are very small in USA and Europe?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s

Pigmerikkkans are not exploited, they benefit from the bourgeois global exploitation headed by the United States government. Because the workers support this nationalist entity, because they profit from the exploitation the the poor, they are bourgeois. There can be a bourgeois nation, however there are no proletarian nations, the proletariat exists everywhere except a purely bourgeois nation.
Are there any Pigmerikkkans that live on less than a dollar a day? Not a large majority.
I'm not bringing their morals into check- I'm pointing out that while they profit from the suffering of the many, they stay silent for their own gain. sounds like the bourgeoisie to me.

blackstone
8th November 2007, 18:58
Much has changed since the industrial revolution, America and Europe now possess only bourgeoisie, very few proletariat still live there.

I'm bourgeoisie,now? Didn't get that memo.

*runs to bank to cash in*

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 19:02
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 06:58 pm

Much has changed since the industrial revolution, America and Europe now possess only bourgeoisie, very few proletariat still live there.

I'm bourgeoisie,now? Didn't get that memo.

*runs to bank to cash in*
Have fun watching your TVs and eating your McDonalds! :D

black magick hustla
8th November 2007, 19:07
jesus fucking christ, when are we going to stop getting these MIM clowns.

Marsella
8th November 2007, 19:10
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgZ5k2n8k4s

You gave me a Mickey Meowist youtube propaganda video to prove that there are no proletarians in America!

This is probably the funniest thing I have ever seen on this site! :lol:


Pigmerikkkans are not exploited, they benefit from the bourgeois global exploitation headed by the United States government.

No!

Workers are exploited in America, just as in any other country.

The fact that their capitalists engage in imperialist endeavours does not change this.


Because the workers support this nationalist entity, because they profit from the exploitation the the poor, they are bourgeois. There can be a bourgeois nation, however there are no proletarian nations, the proletariat exists everywhere except a purely bourgeois nation.

1. How to workers support this nationalist entity?

2. How does this change their class, which is a fundamental economic concern not an idealistic one?


Are there any Pigmerikkkans that live on less than a dollar a day? Not a large majority.

You do know that the amount paid has nothing to do with being a proletarian right?

Here's a bit of Marxism for you: a capitalist will only pay a worker a wage that is less than the value of the goods he or she creates.

Being in 'AmeriKKKa' does not change this.


I'm not bringing their morals into check- I'm pointing out that while they profit from the suffering of the many, they stay silent for their own gain. sounds like the bourgeoisie to me.

No, you rely on simple anti-American slogans.

That is not anti-imperialism.

And silence is never consent you philistine!

Where do you live out of interest? :lol:

Devrim
8th November 2007, 19:16
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:02 pm
Have fun watching your TVs and eating your McDonalds! :D
They just get more, and more superb. Don't the Maoists have TVs now? Is that bourgeois?
Devrim

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 19:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:07 pm
jesus fucking christ, when are we going to stop getting these MIM clowns.
never! muahahahahahaha!!!
MIM is supreme!!! :P

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 19:18
Originally posted by devrimankara+November 08, 2007 07:16 pm--> (devrimankara @ November 08, 2007 07:16 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 07:02 pm
Have fun watching your TVs and eating your McDonalds! :D
They just get more, and more superb. Don't the Maoists have TVs now? Is that bourgeois?
Devrim [/b]
lots of people have TVs now, i was just using it as an exaple of abundant material weath. :huh:

Bilan
8th November 2007, 19:29
Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 09, 2007 05:02 am--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 09, 2007 05:02 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 06:58 pm

Much has changed since the industrial revolution, America and Europe now possess only bourgeoisie, very few proletariat still live there.

I'm bourgeoisie,now? Didn't get that memo.

*runs to bank to cash in*
Have fun watching your TVs and eating your McDonalds! :D [/b]
If that's your definition of bourgeois you've got some serious issues, mate.


Are there any Pigmerikkkans that live on less than a dollar a day?

What random garbage!
Since when is it a competition?

Johnny: Hey! Hey Chuck! I'm more exploited than you!
Chuck: Aw, chum buckets! Am I bourgeois now?
Johnny: Yeah, you make 3.50, you filthy bourgeois knob.

Fact is, the American proletariat is huge, and there are no bourgeois nations; to claim this is absurd. Why? Because it shows you don't have a fucking clue on what "bourgeois" or the "bourgeoisie" is, and are indeed, resorting to nationalist arguments - many of which are sounding awfully familiar (as pointed out already) - rather than class analysis.

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 19:31
Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 08, 2007 07:29 pm--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 08, 2007 07:29 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:02 am

[email protected] 08, 2007 06:58 pm

Much has changed since the industrial revolution, America and Europe now possess only bourgeoisie, very few proletariat still live there.

I'm bourgeoisie,now? Didn't get that memo.

*runs to bank to cash in*
Have fun watching your TVs and eating your McDonalds! :D
If that's your definition of bourgeois you've got some serious issues, mate.


Are there any Pigmerikkkans that live on less than a dollar a day?

What random garbage!
Since when is it a competition?

Johnny: Hey! Hey Chuck! I'm more exploited than you!
Chuck: Aw, chum buckets! Am I bourgeois now?
Johnny: Yeah, you make 3.50, you filthy bourgeois knob.

Fact is, the American proletariat is huge, and there are no bourgeois nations; to claim this is absurd. Why? Because it shows you don't have a fucking clue on what "bourgeois" or the "bourgeoisie" is, and are indeed, resorting to nationalist arguments - many of which are sounding awfully familiar (as pointed out already) - rather than class analysis. [/b]
Well if you're so intelligent and enlightened, why don't you tell me what a bourgeois is. :rolleyes:

Psy
8th November 2007, 19:33
Most Americans also are in increasing greater debt, they borrowed from the capitalists to buy these products.

Herman
8th November 2007, 19:33
Johnny: Hey! Hey Chuck! I'm more exploited than you!
Chuck: Aw, chum buckets! Am I bourgeois now?
Johnny: Yeah, you make 3.50, you filthy bourgeois knob.

HAHAHAHAHA!!

This completely cracked me up!

Marsella
8th November 2007, 19:36
Well if you're so intelligent and enlightened, why don't you tell me what a bourgeois is. rolleyes.gif

By bourgeoisie is meant the class of modern capitalists, owners of the means of social production and employers of wage labor.

By proletariat, the class of modern wage laborers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labor power in order to live.

Straight from the Communist Manifesto (http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/classics/manifesto.html)

PigmerikanMao
8th November 2007, 19:53
fuck this- im going back to opposing ideologies! :angry:

Psy
8th November 2007, 20:09
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:53 pm
fuck this- im going back to opposing ideologies! :angry:
You fail to look that there is a class system within the USA, that within the USA you see a class that owns the bulk of capital and another class that sells their labor to the owning class. Also that you have growing unequal distribution of wealth within the USA.

jacobin1949
8th November 2007, 20:44
I don't see how you can oppose pre-Stalin Russia and hate post-Mao China. Deng's China is basically a return to NEP.

Basically both USSR and PRC faced extreme stress from first imperialists, then Nazis then American imperialism so had to adapt extreme measures. But once the imminent threat was gone China was allowed to return to Lenin's 1920s policies.

Axel1917
9th November 2007, 05:43
Johnny: Hey! Hey Chuck! I'm more exploited than you!
Chuck: Aw, chum buckets! Am I bourgeois now?
Johnny: Yeah, you make 3.50, you filthy bourgeois knob.

Even I thought that was funny. :lol:


MIM is supreme!!!

Supreme in the categories of crass stupidity and anti-communism!

Marsella
9th November 2007, 05:48
Johnny: Hey! Hey Chuck! I'm more exploited than you!
Chuck: Aw, chum buckets! Am I bourgeois now?
Johnny: Yeah, you make 3.50, you filthy bourgeois knob.

It's far more funny if you imagine it in an Australian yobbo accent! :lol:

Chuck: Strewth, crikey, heavens above, I better tell me missus that I've climbed up the social ladder.

Devrim
9th November 2007, 05:56
Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 08, 2007 07:18 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 08, 2007 07:18 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 07:16 pm

[email protected] 08, 2007 07:02 pm
Have fun watching your TVs and eating your McDonalds! :D
They just get more, and more superb. Don't the Maoists have TVs now? Is that bourgeois?
Devrim
lots of people have TVs now, i was just using it as an exaple of abundant material weath. :huh: [/b]
Yes, I wear shoes as well as having a TV. My father had to carry his to school, but I wear them even when I am walking in the street. We eat meat about twice a week too.

We are so bourgeois.

Devrim

darktidus
9th November 2007, 18:47
Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:32 pm
You've replaced a class analysis with a national analysis. How profound. The similarities to Mussolini's talk about "proletarian nations" would be disturbing if Leninists weren't so bankrupt already.
A beautiful post that is without doubt correct.

Also, Axel 1917, the 1936-39 Spanish revolution failed because of 'shoddy leadership'? It failed due to sabotage by the Soviet Union, and moreover, because of the military intervention of what were to become the Axis powers.

syndicat
9th November 2007, 20:27
some maoist:
Pigmerikkkans are not exploited, they benefit from the bourgeois global exploitation headed by the United States government.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the fact cited. Exploitation occurs when some people receive an unearned income from THEIR power over others in social production. The American working class consists of those who (1) must sell their ability to work to employers to live, (2) are subordinate to management power in social production, (3) do not control other workers or the running of the process of social production. Depending on exactly how you define it, it's between 60 and 75% of the population in the U.S. They are exploited because capital owners and the coordinator class cadres they hire (managers, top professionals) get an unearned income due to this control over the working class. The capitalists' income is unearned since they do no work effort as capitalists, and the coordinator class gets an income way more than warranted by their actual work effort due to the power they have in social production.

The American working class can't be exploiters of workers in the third world since there are no institutions that give them power over those workers in social production in 3rd world countries.

A relatively small fraction of the capital invested in the advanced capitalist countries derives from past exploitation of the third world. Most derives from exploitation of the working classes in the advanced countries. For example, most foreign investment by American multi-nationals is in other advanced capitalist countries, and this is true of big companies based in the other core capitalist countries.

Now, it might be argued that an American "middle class standard of living" is unsupportable for the entire working population of the world, and I think this is true. But most American workers have no such standard of living. Since 1972 the real wage in the USA has fallen 20%, and is now lower than in a number of European countries. Workers in the USA are forced to work more hours per year than workers in any other advanced capitalist country.



Because the workers support this nationalist entity, because they profit from the exploitation the the poor, they are bourgeois.

Whether someone is exploited or a part of the proletarian class is not determined by what their current level of consciousness or political views may be.



There can be a bourgeois nation,

You've completely abandoned Marxism in saying this.



however there are no proletarian nations, the proletariat exists everywhere except a purely bourgeois nation.
Are there any Pigmerikkkans that live on less than a dollar a day? Not a large majority.

The attempt to define class by income level is a characteristic feature of bourgeois sociology. But income levels can be divided into an infinite number, so any choice of an income level as determining a class level is arbitrary.


I'm not bringing their morals into check- I'm pointing out that while they profit from the suffering of the many, they stay silent for their own gain. sounds like the bourgeoisie to me.

Ignores the power of the American capitalist elite -- the most powerful ruling class in history -- and its systematic attacks on workers over the past several decades, and in particular suppression of unions and strikes, thus strongly discouraging workers from taking actions against their employers. Despite this a majority of U.S. workers say they favor unionism, so how is it that they have been unable to make this sentiment a reality?

Besides, your critique is a moral critique. You're defining "bourgoeis" in terms of actions you disapprove of. This is characteristic of Maoist idealism. For example, in the '50s the Maoist leadership in China said the USSR had become capitalist because the ideas of the leaders changed after Stalin's death.

Or, to take another example, Avakian says that after the Maoist revolution, state repression, hierarchical management authority etc will be necessary for quite a long time, but somehow this leadership, due to its commitment to communist ideas, will eventually give up its power to the working class. This is also a mistaken idealist notion, that ideas can determine modes of production. It ignores the basic materialist concept that a ruling elite will pursue its own class interests, and will change its ideas to justify its continuing power, for example, by changing the meaning of "socialism" to justify rule by a bureaucratic elite.

And, in case you didn't know, McDonalds tends to be patronized primarily by the working class because it's cheap. At my local McDonalds i see mainly poor and working class people of color. People with money tend to go to chi-chi restaurants.

bolshevik butcher
9th November 2007, 21:35
Originally posted by darktidus+November 09, 2007 06:47 pm--> (darktidus @ November 09, 2007 06:47 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 05:32 pm
You've replaced a class analysis with a national analysis. How profound. The similarities to Mussolini's talk about "proletarian nations" would be disturbing if Leninists weren't so bankrupt already.
A beautiful post that is without doubt correct.
[/b]
Now come on, frankly grow up. You've both just posted this in a thread in which just about every self declared Leninist in it has debunked this trolls theory as ridiculous and entirely incorrect. Every active Leninist I can think of and Leninist oragnisation I know of that actually does things, so that's MIM out, in the first world is unsurprisingly agitating for a first world revolution. I expect you knowt his fine well though and have opted once agian for petty sectarianism.

Marsella
9th November 2007, 21:42
I don't think that anyone from above is a Leninist, apart from Axel1917 perhaps.

Why is it sectarian to attack Leninism (although it may have been done in a petty way and in a thread not dealing with it) but okay to attack the MIM?

bolshevik butcher
9th November 2007, 23:38
Rakunin and Red Herman are too. It's sectarian because its a false slander. It suggests that somehow Leninists don't fight for revolutions in the impeirlaist world which is simply a lie, where as MIM by its own admission does not.

Marsella
9th November 2007, 23:55
I meant in response to PigmerikanMao, and all Red Herman did was laugh :P

Where has MIM claimed that they do not fight for revolutions in the 'imperialist' world?

I am just interested.

bolshevik butcher
9th November 2007, 23:59
I don't have their material to hand right now but I think the call for America to be made one big Gulag and call for revolutionary third world invasions of the imperialist world suffices to explain their refusal to fight for reovlutions of the working class in imperialist countries.

Herman
10th November 2007, 00:03
and all Red Herman did was laugh

But it was a leninist laugh! :o

Just to add a bit, even if it's not much, it is silly, foolish and very ignorant to say that American workers, or workers from any other country living in the so called "First world", aren't exploited. Really, the arrogance of the really fanatical maoists on this issue is outstanding.

Yes, they get paid more, that is the result of extra profit which the capitalist can give to the worker to keep him down and quiet. The worker however is still thorougly exploited, compared to the other sections of society.

There is nothing marxist in saying that a working class doesn't exist in a capitalist society, no matter how developed or lenient it is!

PigmerikanMao
10th November 2007, 03:41
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:27 pm
And, in case you didn't know, McDonalds tends to be patronized primarily by the working class because it's cheap. At my local McDonalds i see mainly poor and working class people of color. People with money tend to go to chi-chi restaurants.
I admit defeat on this point and this point alone. :mellow:

Rawthentic
10th November 2007, 04:30
Besides, your critique is a moral critique. You're defining "bourgoeis" in terms of actions you disapprove of. This is characteristic of Maoist idealism. For example, in the '50s the Maoist leadership in China said the USSR had become capitalist because the ideas of the leaders changed after Stalin's death.

Or, to take another example, Avakian says that after the Maoist revolution, state repression, hierarchical management authority etc will be necessary for quite a long time, but somehow this leadership, due to its commitment to communist ideas, will eventually give up its power to the working class. This is also a mistaken idealist notion, that ideas can determine modes of production. It ignores the basic materialist concept that a ruling elite will pursue its own class interests, and will change its ideas to justify its continuing power, for example, by changing the meaning of "socialism" to justify rule by a bureaucratic elite.
What do you mean by "Maoist idealism?" Please elaborate. The Maoist position is that the Soviet Union abandoned socialism because the leadership took on lines and policies that led back to capitalism. Straw man argument on your part.

Straw man (again, surprisingly). Avakian says, as materialists do, that state repression indeed will exist, but in a completely different upside down context relative to capitalism. This means the repression of counter-revolutionaries and those who want to bring the system back. A communist vanguard will be absolutely necessary in socialist society, not only in defending the revolution, but in pointing the necessary way forward as the vanguard of the proletariat (and peasantry depending on the nation). This 'ruling elite' is not separate from the working class; its leadership is made possible because of the revolution they led that made by the working classes. All leadership and institutions are based on classes, not some abstract, separate sense.

Socialism bears all the birthmarks and garbage from capitalism, and there needs to be a social process under socialism to overcome all that. As if it all disappeared into thin air when socialism came (and you accuse others of idealism). :lol:

Devrim
10th November 2007, 07:15
Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 10, 2007 03:41 am--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 10, 2007 03:41 am)
[email protected] 09, 2007 08:27 pm
And, in case you didn't know, McDonalds tends to be patronized primarily by the working class because it's cheap. At my local McDonalds i see mainly poor and working class people of color. People with money tend to go to chi-chi restaurants.
I admit defeat on this point and this point alone. :mellow: [/b]
Actually, in our country it is relatively expensive are full of well dressed Middle class people. I have seen them in the west, and know what you mean. I just wonder if all those people who like to be seen there here have too.
Devrim

Bilan
10th November 2007, 08:18
Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:48 pm

Johnny: Hey! Hey Chuck! I'm more exploited than you!
Chuck: Aw, chum buckets! Am I bourgeois now?
Johnny: Yeah, you make 3.50, you filthy bourgeois knob.

It's far more funny if you imagine it in an Australian yobbo accent! :lol:

Chuck: Strewth, crikey, heavens above, I better tell me missus that I've climbed up the social ladder.
Haha! :lol: :lol:

вор в законе
10th November 2007, 11:00
More like the October coup d'état.

Wanted Man
10th November 2007, 12:35
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2007 12:00 pm
More like the October coup d'état.
Yes, we've heard that one before. There was no revolution, those evil bolshies just quietly overthrew the legitimate ruler of Russia, the Tsar, who was much better than those damn Lennies. How dare they overthrow a legitimate state? Fuck the state, anarchy!

Bilan
10th November 2007, 12:42
Originally posted by Van Binsbergen+November 10, 2007 10:35 pm--> (Van Binsbergen @ November 10, 2007 10:35 pm)
Red [email protected] 10, 2007 12:00 pm
More like the October coup d'état.
Yes, we've heard that one before. There was no revolution, those evil bolshies just quietly overthrew the legitimate ruler of Russia, the Tsar, who was much better than those damn Lennies. How dare they overthrow a legitimate state? Fuck the state, anarchy! [/b]
No soup for you.

PigmerikanMao
10th November 2007, 13:00
Originally posted by Red Brigade+--> (Red Brigade) More like the October coup d'état. [/b]
Umm... I don't think it can be called a coup d'etat, the Bolsheviks would have to have been a legitimate part of the Russian government. It was still a revolution, but it was just a very short one (if you don't include the following civil war) because they had the majority of support as well as such a large membership.


Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected]
No soup for you.
He still gets his bread though, right? :o


bolshevik butcher
I have a big butt. :P
Stay on topic man, stay on topic. :D

вор в законе
10th November 2007, 13:26
I am not saying that the Bolsheviks did a bad thing. It was a progressive move.

вор в законе
10th November 2007, 13:29
Oh and Van Binsbergen. The Bolsheviks didn't overthrew the Tsar in October.. : )

Bilan
10th November 2007, 13:56
Originally posted by PigmerikanMao+November 10, 2007 11:00 pm--> (PigmerikanMao @ November 10, 2007 11:00 pm)
Proper Tea is Theft
No soup for you.
He still gets his bread though, right? :o
[/b]
Nope. He gets a spoon and an empty bowl with a mirror at the bottom. Nothing more.

PigmerikanMao
10th November 2007, 15:30
Originally posted by Red [email protected] 10, 2007 01:26 pm
I am not saying that the Bolsheviks did a bad thing. It was a progressive move.
A coup d'etat isn't always a bad thing, I just don't think it should be called that.

Tower of Bebel
10th November 2007, 19:51
It wasn't a coup. The Bolsheviks had no power at that time, they only had support. The soviets were in power, but lost it during the civil war.

Axel1917
10th November 2007, 22:07
Originally posted by darktidus+November 09, 2007 06:47 pm--> (darktidus @ November 09, 2007 06:47 pm)
[email protected] 08, 2007 05:32 pm
You've replaced a class analysis with a national analysis. How profound. The similarities to Mussolini's talk about "proletarian nations" would be disturbing if Leninists weren't so bankrupt already.
A beautiful post that is without doubt correct.

Also, Axel 1917, the 1936-39 Spanish revolution failed because of 'shoddy leadership'? It failed due to sabotage by the Soviet Union, and moreover, because of the military intervention of what were to become the Axis powers. [/b]
The leadership also played a poor role, as the POUM was centrist and did not work in the CNT.

The anarchists failed to seize power when they could have, in effect, voluntarily leaving power in the hands of the bourgeoisie. They also had gotten scared away by the idea of weapons being withheld by the USSR. They could have easily avoided this problem by continuing to step up revolutionary measures in face of Stalinist threats, while constantly exposing Stalin, in effect, forcing him to openly choose between the revolutionaries and Franco. Trotsky also noted that there were civilian plants sitting around that could have easily been converted to war production. The Bolsheviks did not enjoy foreign support with arms, but it managed to topple capitalism nonetheless.

Yes, it is an irrefutable fact that Stalin was sabotaging the revolution, and there was later military intervention, but had the leadership had a correct approach, the revolution could have succeeded, with a chance of spreading, preventing WWII, and spreading to the USSR itself and ending Stalinism.

Labor Shall Rule
11th November 2007, 14:00
It could be historically refered to as a "coup" due to its conspirational character, but that doesn't mean that it didn't enjoy a high level of support from the most discontented section of the working class.

A majority of the Soviets, based in the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Central Asia all adopted resolutions, demanding for the Petrograd Soviet to seize power. A majority of the trade unions and factory committees also voted in favor of taking control. It was, therefore, a democratic decision determined by the workers through their own organs of political power.

Marsella
11th November 2007, 14:17
A majority of the Soviets, based in the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Central Asia all adopted resolutions, demanding for the Petrograd Soviet to seize power.

So it was a majority coup?

Do you have a source to prove those resolutions?

Didn't the command come from the Military Revolutionary Committee (which I think was headed by Trotsky), without the approval of the Petrograd Soviet?

In other words, they took power and then informed the Petrograd Soviet?

Led Zeppelin
11th November 2007, 14:24
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:17 pm

A majority of the Soviets, based in the Urals, the Donbas, the Central Industrial region, the Ukraine, Belorussia, and Central Asia all adopted resolutions, demanding for the Petrograd Soviet to seize power.

So it was a majority coup?

Do you have a source to prove those resolutions?

Didn't the command come from the Revolutionary Military Council or the appropriate body, without the approval of the Petrograd Soviet?

In other words, they took power and then informed the Petrograd Soviet?
The Military-Revolutionary Committee was part of the Petersburg Soviet, and the head of the Petersburg Soviet was Trotsky.

I'm sure the Bolsheviks told him about the taking of state-power...actually he was heavily involved in the planning and carrying out of it.

Marsella
11th November 2007, 14:29
The Military-Revolutionary Committee was part of the Petersburg Soviet, and the head of the Petersburg Soviet was Trotsky.

I'm sure the Bolsheviks told him about the taking of state-power...actually he was heavily involved in the planning and carrying out of it.

But my point still being that MRC took its own initiative, encouraged by the Bolshevik Party which nonetheless had a majority in the seats.

I was just under the impression that the Bolsheviks didn't want the Petrograd Soviet to know, in fear of opposition to it.

Edit: And how were the Soviet members elected? Via district or workplace or...?

Led Zeppelin
11th November 2007, 14:37
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:29 pm

The Military-Revolutionary Committee was part of the Petersburg Soviet, and the head of the Petersburg Soviet was Trotsky.

I'm sure the Bolsheviks told him about the taking of state-power...actually he was heavily involved in the planning and carrying out of it.

But my point still being that MRC took its own initiative, encouraged by the Bolshevik Party which nonetheless had a majority in the seats.

I was just under the impression that the Bolsheviks didn't want the Petrograd Soviet to know, in fear of opposition to it.
Well then you were wrong. The head of the Soviet was involved in the whole plan.

When you take your anti-Bolshevism to such extreme lengths such assumptions will come to you on more than one occasion, even though they have no basis in historic reality.

I suggest you first read on the situation from different sources before forming judgements on it. I recommend John Reeds Ten Days That Shook The World and Trotsky's The History of the Russian Revolution and History of the Russian Revolution to Brest-Litovsk.

Labor Shall Rule
11th November 2007, 17:17
Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:17 pm
Do you have a source to prove those resolutions?

Didn't the command come from the Military Revolutionary Committee (which I think was headed by Trotsky), without the approval of the Petrograd Soviet?

In other words, they took power and then informed the Petrograd Soviet?
My sources are Victoria Bonnell’s Roots of Rebellion, The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, The Russian Revolution by Vintage Books, and Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution.

After Kornilov, it was clear that there was a present threat to the state of soviet power. Kaledin was already smashing trade unions and murdering socialists in the Don region, and the Cadets and Right Socialist Revolutionaries were actively funding and tactically assisting him so he could "spread his good intentions all the way to the Red Capital," as Victor Chernov put it. Rodzyanko was on the verge of marching into Petrograd, and this time, with the assistance of the British army. So, it was clearly a preemptive attack in defense of soviet power, rather than an aggressive move on the part of authoritarian malcontents.

The delegates were elected by their locality. If you are interested in knowing more, I would recommend this:

Soviets in Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm)

PigmerikanMao
11th November 2007, 17:26
Tee Hee! I like starting arguments and then watching people tear eachother's heads off about them. :lol:
(Is that what trolling is?) :huh:

Marsella
11th November 2007, 17:57
Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+November 12, 2007 02:47 am--> (Labor Shall Rule @ November 12, 2007 02:47 am)
[email protected] 11, 2007 02:17 pm
Do you have a source to prove those resolutions?

Didn't the command come from the Military Revolutionary Committee (which I think was headed by Trotsky), without the approval of the Petrograd Soviet?

In other words, they took power and then informed the Petrograd Soviet?
My sources are Victoria Bonnell’s Roots of Rebellion, The Great Soviet Encyclopedia, The Russian Revolution by Vintage Books, and Leon Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution.

After Kornilov, it was clear that there was a present threat to the state of soviet power. Kaledin was already smashing trade unions and murdering socialists in the Don region, and the Cadets and Right Socialist Revolutionaries were actively funding and tactically assisting him so he could "spread his good intentions all the way to the Red Capital," as Victor Chernov put it. Rodzyanko was on the verge of marching into Petrograd, and this time, with the assistance of the British army. So, it was clearly a preemptive attack in defense of soviet power, rather than an aggressive move on the part of authoritarian malcontents.

The delegates were elected by their locality. If you are interested in knowing more, I would recommend this:

Soviets in Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/reed/1918/soviets.htm) [/b]
Thankyou for the references and link.