A great Marx quote

[bootleg42]

"No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation"

-Karl Marx, Interview in the Chicago Tribune, January 5 1879

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:37 am
"No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation"

-Karl Marx, Interview in the Chicago Tribune, January 5 1879
really? he said that?
anyone know if there was ever anything recorded by marx?

[bootleg42]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/m...rx/79_01_05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm)

The whole interview^^^

The whole statement:


The reporter: “In a lecture lately upon the subject, he said, ‘Karl Marx is credited now with saying that, in the United States, and in Great Britain, and perhaps in France, a reform of labor will occur without bloody revolution, but that blood must be shed in Germany, and in Russia, and in Italy, and in Austria.’”

Marx: “No socialist,” remarked the Doctor, smiling, “need predict that there will be a bloody revolution in Russia, Germany, Austria, and possibly Italy if the Italians keep on in the policy they are now pursuing. The deeds of the French Revolution may be enacted again in those countries. That is apparent to any political student. But those revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation”.


He's basically trying to put down "socialism from above" which we may know today as Leninism and Maoism.

[R_P_A_S]

good stuff man. I didnt knoe American news papers had interviewed marx. for some reason I always feel that Marx existed in an other world.

[Marsella]

During my visit to Dr. Marx, I alluded to the platform given by J.C. Bancroft Davis in his official report of 1877 as the clearest and most concise exposition of socialism that I had seen. He said it was taken from the report of the socialist reunion at Gotha, Germany, in May, 1875. The translation was incorrect, he said, and he Volunteered Corrections which I append as he dictated:

First: Universal, direct, and secret suffrage for all males over twenty years, for all elections, municipal and state.

Second: Direct legislation by the people. War and peace to be made by direct popular vote.

Third: Universal obligation to militia duty. No standing army.

Fourth: Abolition of all special legislation regarding press laws and public meetings.

Fifth: Legal remedies free of expense. Legal proceedings to be conducted by the people.

Sixth: Education to be by the state – general, obligatory, and free. Freedom of science and religion.

Seventh: All indirect taxes to be abolished. Money to be raised for state and municipal purposes by direct progressive income tax.

Eighth: Freedom of combination among the working classes.

Ninth: The legal day of labor for men to be defined. The work of women to be limited, and that of children to be abolished.

Tenth: Sanitary laws for the protection of life and health of laborers, and regulation of their dwelling and places of labor, to be enforced by persons selected by them.

Eleventh: Suitable provision respecting prison labor. In Mr. Bancroft Davis’ report there is

Very interesting indeed.

And also:


“Two things,” he returned. “Socialists have shown the general universal struggle between capital and labor – The Cosmopolitan Chapter in one word – and consequently tried to bring about an understanding between the workmen in the different countries, which became more necessary as the capitalists became more cosmopolitan in hiring labor, pitting foreign against native labor not only in America, but in England, France, and Germany. International relations sprang up at once between workingmen in the three different countries, showing that socialism was not merely a local, but an international problem, to be solved by the international action of workmen. The working classes move spontaneously, without knowing what the ends of the movement will be. The socialists invent no movement, but merely tell the workmen what its character and its ends will be.”


“No socialist,” remarked the Doctor, smiling, “need predict that there will be a bloody revolution in Russia, Germany, Austria, and possibly Italy if the Italians keep on in the policy they are now pursuing. The deeds of the French Revolution may be enacted again in those countries. That is apparent to any political student. But those revolutions will be made by the majority. No revolution can be made by a party, but By a Nation”.

Chicago Tribune Interview. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/bio/media/marx/79_01_05.htm)

[Marsella]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 07:26 pm
good stuff man. I didnt knoe American news papers had interviewed marx. for some reason I always feel that Marx existed in an other world.
I think he actually wrote for an American newspaper, the name of which escapes me.


anyone know if there was ever anything recorded by marx?

I very much doubt it. :(

[Dros]

Of course, this is something no Leninist would disagree with. Remember, the role of the Vanguard party is to lead the nation's proletariat in revolution. So many people forget this fact aswell. The party does not carry out the revolution. It organizes it.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Remember, the role of the Vanguard party is to lead the nation's proletariat in revolution.


The party does not carry out the revolution. It organizes it.

In theory.


So many people forget this fact aswell.

Yes. And unfortunately, especially those who uphold the vanguard model.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

bootleg:


He's basically trying to put down "socialism from above" which we may know today as Leninism and Maoism.

Stalinism and Maoism, certainly --, but not Leninism:

http://isj.org.uk/index.php4?id=218

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 09:54 am
He's basically trying to put down "socialism from above" which we may know today as Leninism and Maoism.
Wrong. Leninism is about the liberation of the proletariat by the working classes themselves. As drosera99 said:


Remember, the role of the Vanguard party is to lead the nation's proletariat in revolution. So many people forget this fact aswell. The party does not carry out the revolution. It organizes it.

The vanguard party is not the whole of the revolution by any stretch of the imagination, and to assert as much is simply misrepresentation.

Karl Marx's Camel

The vanguard party, by definition, will follow its class interests in practice. A vanguard party made up of the working class will fight in the interests of its own class; this is a basic materialist conclusion. Furthermore, this is not untested theory (unlike most revolutionary programs) but a proven method for organization of revolution.

[The Author]

"Marxism differs from all primitive forms of socialism by not binding the movement to any one particular form of struggle. It recognises the most varied forms of struggle; and it does not "concoct" them, but only generalises, organises, gives conscious expression to those forms of struggle of the revolutionary classes which arise of themselves in the course of the movement. Absolutely hostile to all abstract formulas and to all doctrinaire recipes, Marxism demands an attentive attitude to the mass struggle in progress, which, as the movement develops, as the class-consciousness of the masses grows, as economic and political crises become acute, continually gives rise to new and more varied methods of defence and attack. Marxism, therefore, positively does not reject any form of struggle. Under no circumstances does Marxism confine itself to the forms of struggle possible and in existence at the given moment only, recognising as it does that new forms of struggle, unknown to the participants of the given period, inevitably arise as the given social situation changes. In this respect Marxism learns, if we may so express it, from mass practice, and makes no claim whatever to teach the masses forms of struggle invented by "systematisers" in the seclusion of their studies...Marxism demands an absolutely historical examination of the question of the forms of struggle. To treat this question apart from the concrete historical situation betrays a failure to understand the rudiments of dialectical materialism. At different stages of economic evolution, depending on differences in political, national-cultural, living and other conditions, different forms of struggle come to the fore and become the principal forms of struggle; and in connection with this, the secondary, auxiliary forms of struggle undergo change in their turn. To attempt to answer yes or no to the question whether any particular means of struggle should be used, without making a detailed examination of the concrete situation of the given movement at the given stage of its development, means completely to abandon the Marxist position."

--V.I. Lenin, Guerrilla Warfare (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/GW06.html)

[Dros]

You can say all you want about Mao (and I'm sure you will) but Maoism is not "socialism from above". In fact, Mao actively encouraged the masses of people to be active in socialism even when that manifested its self by contradicting the party (the GPCR).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

D:


You can say all you want about Mao (and I'm sure you will) but Maoism is not "socialism from above". In fact, Mao actively encouraged the masses of people to be active in socialism even when that manifested its self by contradicting the party (the GPCR).

And you can bleat all you like for all the good it will do.

-----------------------------------------

Criticise Some Things Sometimes: great quote; too bad Stalin and Mao dumped on Leninism from a great height, though.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 03:50 am
You can say all you want about Mao (and I'm sure you will) but Maoism is not "socialism from above". In fact, Mao actively encouraged the masses of people to be active in socialism even when that manifested its self by contradicting the party (the GPCR).
What a contradiction!!! In socialism, the masses of people would be active in socialism without any figure telling them to be. In fact, if they're not active in it to begin with, socialism doesn't happen, which means that original attempt was "socialism from above".

[Dros]

In socialism, the masses of people would be active

They were.


without any figure telling them to be. In fact, if they're not active in it, socialism falls, which means that original attempt was "socialism from above".

Wait a minute. Explain this to me again. The fact that Mao envisioned and fought for a society that engaged and involved the masses means that he didn't engage and involve the masses? Good job.

The masses were involved from the beginning. Mao fostered that (unlike other leaders). He even believed that the masses should be encouraged in contradicting his own party.

Mao didn't "tell" or dictate to the masses. He supported their attempt to correct defects within the party and the socialist government.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, in China, the masses were all spectators, subsequently dictated over:

http://www.marxists.de/china/hore/index.htm

http://www.marxists.de/china/harris/index.htm

[spartan]

Leninism and Maoism isnt Socialism from above, rather it is Socialism from below with the purpose of establishing an above :P

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Spartan, I think you have to distinguish Leninism from Maoism; the former is about the self-emancipation of the working class, the latter is effectively a dictatorship over the working class, who play no role in their own emanciaption, other than apllaud Mao (or some other leader) and his clique from the sidelines, who 'teach' them the right thoughts, since they are so 'backward'.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/196...souls/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 03:02 am

During my visit to Dr. Marx, I alluded to the platform given by J.C. Bancroft Davis in his official report of 1877 as the clearest and most concise exposition of socialism that I had seen. He said it was taken from the report of the socialist reunion at Gotha, Germany, in May, 1875. The translation was incorrect, he said, and he Volunteered Corrections which I append as he dictated:

First: Universal, direct, and secret suffrage for all males over twenty years, for all elections, municipal and state.
Historically, that has become incompatible with workers' democracy. Reactionary elements, including the ousted propertied classes, should be disenfranchised (so much for universal elections). Organs of workers' power should be "chained": lower organs of workers' power are the only ones who should elect higher organs (so much for direct elections).

I'm still questioning the need for secret balloting in all elections (while it may be needed in lower organs, I still think that a mere "show of hands" would suffice for higher organs).



Second: Direct legislation by the people. War and peace to be made by direct popular vote.

That, alas, nullifies the purpose of having organs of workers' power.

[Marsella]

Historically, that has become incompatible with workers' democracy. Reactionary elements, including the ousted propertied classes, should be disenfranchised (so much for universal elections).

That would be correct if not for the fact that the propertied class would no longer exist in a communist society, nor would revolutionary workers vote for them.

It would be a bit like slaves overthrowing their masters and then electing them. Illogical is it not?


Organs of workers' power should be "chained": lower organs of workers' power are the only ones who should elect higher organs (so much for direct elections).

That assertion depends on whether you think that there should be higher organs.

And what would be the benefit of having higher organs which were not elected, or rather elected by lower organs?

That seems to be what we currently have in most parliaments of the world; civilians elect a parliament and a parliament elects a prime minister or forms coalitions.

Why should we support that?

If we are to elect representatives at all, then it should be in the most direct way to the workers. Workers should be able to immediately withdrawal a representative. How would they do so when the higher organs are not elected by the workers, but by representatives of the workers?


I'm still questioning the need for secret balloting in all elections (while it may be needed in lower organs, I still think that a mere "show of hands" would suffice for higher organs).

Who knows. I haven't read the benefits and disadvantages of a secret ballot. To me, everything should be as transparent as possible.

What I was really trying to get at was why Marx emphasized 'Universal, direct, and secret suffrage for all males over twenty years, for all elections, municipal and state.'

Why just males? :wacko:


That, alas, nullifies the purpose of having organs of workers' power.

I'm not sure what you are getting at, but I could have a stab at what Marx was getting at.

Direct legislation meant not abdicating to an authority to decide matters, but workers democratically deciding what is to be done. To be a working body rather than a parliamentary body.

That is direct legislation.

Would it nullify organs of power? Perhaps. But would that not be a good thing?

Which would you rather have: workers deciding themselves what is to be done in their respective workplaces and communities, or elected bodies deciding what is to be done?

One seems a lot more direct to myself, least prone to any sort of corruption and more responsive to what workers actually want.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

In terms of Leninism- the whole purpose of the vanguard was to "enrage the proletariat" or rather raise class-consciousness among proletarians. This isn't merely "socialism from above" as it is promoting activity among the proletariat majority. That is not a means for an elitist revolution, but instead the means for uniting the working class people and educating them on the conditions of bourgeois society- as a means for revolutionary progress. That is not socialism from "above" but from below.

[More Fire for the People]

The communist party cannot make a revolution. That is a fact. It was a fact in 1871, in 1917, in 1968, etc. In turn, it is the masses that revolutionize the party — from insurgent intellectuals to a combined movement of party-members and the masses. In effect it is the nightshade of the nation that makes a revolution — the aggregate of dispossessed person with nothing to lose: proletarians, lumpenproletarians, poor peasants, indigenous persons and ‘savages’, working class intellectuals (social workers, teachers, and nurses), etc. Often these folks one-up socialist organizations by practicing programmes without knowledge of them. The role of the party is to listen, and listen hard: ears wide, mouths shut. And then take those voices, whimpers, guttural screams, and convert them into pigments. Then take those pigments and paint a mural of the lives on the night side. To let every child of dispossession know that they are not alone.

[Xiao Banfa]

I haven't read the benefits and disadvantages of a secret ballot. To me, everything should be as transparent as possible.

You should think before you type, you're taking transparency to ridiculous extremes as well as confusing transparency for different reasons.

The reason ballots are secret is so that voters can have some confidentiality about who they vote for.

The reason the voting record of members of higher organs should be in the open is so the voters can know the voting record of the executive they vote for.

[RedKnight]

Originally posted by Martov+December 23, 2007 10:03 am--> (Martov @ December 23, 2007 10:03 am)
[email protected] 23, 2007 07:26 pm
good stuff man. I didnt knoe American news papers had interviewed marx. for some reason I always feel that Marx existed in an other world.
I think he actually wrote for an American newspaper, the name of which escapes me.


anyone know if there was ever anything recorded by marx?

I very much doubt it. :( [/b]
He wrote for the New York Tribune (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Tribune).

[kromando33]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 24, 2007 04:16 pm
Spartan, I think you have to distinguish Leninism from Maoism; the former is about the self-emancipation of the working class, the latter is effectively a dictatorship over the working class, who play no role in their own emanciaption, other than apllaud Mao (or some other leader) and his clique from the sidelines, who 'teach' them the right thoughts, since they are so 'backward'.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/196...souls/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1966/twosouls/index.htm)

http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm
I'll never get over the naive idealism of the anti-ML crowd, but just to get some facts straight - the Russian peasantry before the revolution was backward, the illiteracy and ignorance brought on by the domination of religion and blind nationalism caused it. Most Russian peasants believed that the Japanese defeated the Russians because they transformed into diseases and went into the Russian soldiers. You idealists, Trots etc need to look at reality for a change, that is after all what material dialectical Marxism is all about. The only way the revolution could work was by Lenin's vanguard party of professional revolutionaries, the educated intellectuals who could put revolutionary principles into formats the common peasants could understand and respond it. Leninism is Marxism in essence because it analyzed material reality and practically made solutions to the problem.

This is where Marxism-Leninism differs from the naive stupidity of the 'New left', who dogmatically and opportunistically cling to their Hegelian utopias and don't try to build socialism in a practical way based on the realities of the situation of the working class revolutionary movement. These ideo-spiritual fantasies of the left ensure these 'leftists' stay in their little study-groups or factions, criticize 'authoritarianism' but yet do nothing to build on the science Marx and Engels bequeathed to us. Trots for example will never try for revolution, they will desperately conform to bourgeois political structures such as parliaments and congresses, and do not understand that the current system (the dictatorship of the bourgeois) exists only to protect that class, the only way forward is for us socialists to overthrow that dictatorship and establish our own proletarian one.

In contradiction these measures are needed, because trying to create a utopia overnight always turns into reactionism.

I suggest everyone read this. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 10:35 pm

Historically, that has become incompatible with workers' democracy. Reactionary elements, including the ousted propertied classes, should be disenfranchised (so much for universal elections).

That would be correct if not for the fact that the propertied class would no longer exist in a communist society, nor would revolutionary workers vote for them.

It would be a bit like slaves overthrowing their masters and then electing them. Illogical is it not?
^^^ But Marx in that interview was talking about socialism. IMO, what he was talking about could also be extended to the preceding "proletocratic" stamocap society.



Organs of workers' power should be "chained": lower organs of workers' power are the only ones who should elect higher organs (so much for direct elections).

That assertion depends on whether you think that there should be higher organs.

And what would be the benefit of having higher organs which were not elected, or rather elected by lower organs?

That seems to be what we currently have in most parliaments of the world; civilians elect a parliament and a parliament elects a prime minister or forms coalitions.

I wasn't referring to the legislature electing the executive/administation (even though Sovnarkom was elected by the Congress per se), but lower legislatures electing higher ones (the Congress being elected by the lower soviets).


Why should we support that?

If we are to elect representatives at all, then it should be in the most direct way to the workers.

There is some rather good Trotskyist criticism of this. After all, Russia had this for the first time in 1936. Besides, there's the issue of accountability: if direct elections are held, how can the higher organs be accountable to lower ones whenever the latter helps implement the decisions of the former?

[Unless you&#39;re overly biased towards de-centralization <_< ]


Workers should be able to immediately withdrawal a representative. How would they do so when the higher organs are not elected by the workers, but by representatives of the workers?

Example: law and order. The highest organ is trying to pass a guideline bill on law and order for society. Lower organs are waiting to pass similar laws reflecting more local circumstances. However, some local organ doesn&#39;t like the guideline bill because of a key error unnoticed by all the other organs. Where&#39;s the accountability when that local organ can&#39;t take the highest organ to account? <_<

Unless you&#39;re a federalist (and I&#39;ve come about to vehemently oppose any sort of "socialist federalism," given historical experiences), in which each level deals with different stuff...



Anyhow, you should consider the material I posted in this thread (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65207).