What Is The 'land, Peace And Bread' Of Our Time?

[Comrade Krell]

Lenin himself and Leninist generally was credited as rallying such popular support as the 'Majority' because of the realism and use of short-term applicable tactics to achieve goals in the struggle. How were the Bolsheviks able to identify themselves as the solution to the material conditions of the populace? I would describe it by the term 'Identity through Activity', through activity and the provocation of the masses to crisis and action created the atmosphere necessary for the political revolutionaries (the communists) to channel their Marxist theory into real applicability to the material conditions of the populace. Leninism itself, just as Marxism, it's analysis of reality and the solutions to such problems to be found in reality. So thus the alliance of the peasants as an intermediary class as allies to the revolutionary proletariat was envisaged as a tactical weapon against the 'bourgeoisized' peasant kulaks. One can easily make the conclusion that in the first world, especially America, revolution can only come from the urban proletariat as the rural people have so shrunk in the face of proletarianization.

The workers in this way must see liberation as the only way out, the failure of reformism and a distant dream of the 'New Deal' must be exposed as a fraud. The failure of organized labor through the US, either through reformism to the State or obliteration by right-wing governments, is thus a profound tactical opportunity. Only through the provocation of crisis and action can such proletariat support be gained. Any Communist party must fundamentally reject the Utopian line that workers themselves must become active socialists, all that they must do in engage in such direct mass action and mobilization. Dogmatism is death, and the role of the professional revolutionary and communist is simple, non-sectarian and organizing a coherent organized challenge to bourgeois authority wherever tactics best enable it to prevail.

Revolution can only come from a minority of revolutionaries who can organize the workers in such a direction, the Utopian line of the 'whole people rising up' is a naive and politically dangerous position which goes against all practical experience and reality.

Mao once said 'political power comes from the barrel of a gun', and more generally this is absolutely correct, power and the projection of real power, and the power of the working class, comes from the direct action and activity to enhance that power.

Marxism as a word is nothing, and any true meaning and validity to theory can only come through direct action.

So the point of this thread by me is simple, what is the 'Land, peace and bread' of our time? How can the active Communists provoke such a response, on what political issues, real action and so on can professional revolutionaries best challenge the bourgeois dictatorship in the world at this time?

[PRC-UTE]

Great post!

I've wondered exactly the same question before. One problem facing much of the world is access to clean water, and that would logically be a priority after successful revolution, as would healthcare.

Unfortunately the demand for peace is still very relevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Revolution can only come from a minority of revolutionaries who can organize the workers in such a direction, the Utopian line of the 'whole people rising up' is a naive and politically dangerous position which goes against all practical experience and reality.

Actually, I think this is a reductionist argument (substitutionism). The vanguard party cannot make the revolution itself. The workers cannot spontaneously rise up tomorrow, either. It is the education (SPD) and organization (Bolsheviks) of the workers that can only be performed by the vanguard party that enables the revolution. Again, processes, not people.

[Hence my thread on anarchism and anti-vanguardism]


The Bolsheviks, the Russian Revolution, and Substitutionism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bolsheviks-russian-revolution-t77140/index.html) by Random Precision

[Which is an RM double-post of Lenin, Trotsky and "Substitutionism" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenin-trotsky-and-t77127/index.html)]

[rouchambeau]

Revolution can only come from a minority of revolutionaries who can organize the workers in such a direction, the Utopian line of the 'whole people rising up' is a naive and politically dangerous position which goes against all practical experience and reality.
Could you elaborate on that. It's not clear what sort of experiences you are going on about.

[BobKKKindle$]

The demand for "bread" does not literally mean giving the people bread, it is symbolic for general economic wellbeing, ensuring that people have access to the goods they need to survive. In a modern context this can mean providing healthcare. Many people remain without access to treatment, and so are dying of diseases that could be cured, because health care is a commodity, and so is only available to those who have sufficient money to pay for it, in countries where government provision does not exist.


Revolution can only come from a minority of revolutionaries who can organize the workers in such a direction, the Utopian line of the 'whole people rising up' is a naive and politically dangerous position which goes against all practical experience and reality.

Historical experience directly supports the idea that the liberation of the working class only occur through the action of that class, it cannot be imposed from above by a group which claims to possess authority. When the Bolsheviks took power, they had majority control of all the urban Soviets, and so were acting with the support of the workers, not an isolated faction.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Revolution can only come from a minority of revolutionaries who can organize the workers in such a direction, the Utopian line of the 'whole people rising up' is a naive and politically dangerous position which goes against all practical experience and reality.I too have a major problem with this statement in all it's elitism and reductionism.

Jacob makes a very important point against the substitutionism of the party for the class itself. The idea that revolution is solely determined by the party and it's ability to lead the working class can have dangerous results. The revolution must be the action of the proletariat, not of the party in it's interests, since the revolution can not come from above and be handed down to the workers. This idea reeks of both "great men in history" and Blanquism.

The revolution is not just an issue of theory and organisation, it is fundamentally a question of the material conditions of society. Certain material conditions can and do produce class consciousness and waves of revolutionary sentiment, this is at the heart of Marxism. However this is not to say, like anti-vanguardist, we aught to worship spontaneity based on the material conditions.

There are also those ideological conditions that need to be considered. Gramsci made a major development in Marxist theory with his concept of "Cultural Hegemony". It is this concept that makes spontaneity largely redundant, as it necessitates organisation and education in order to break down the ideological barriers to revolution.

This is why the OP is mistaken in his comment. No "Vanguard" can organise a revolution without the complimentary material conditions. Theory that is plucked out of the clouds and force fed to an unready world with unconditioned masses is completely and utterly useless.

To your writing as a whole I have a further problem related to my comment above. You are right in the sense that without a connection with the real material conditions, a revolutionary theory is nothing.

You, however, make a fundamental error. If the "revolutionary theory" is to be of any purpose and usefulness at all it can not just come down from the clouds and the realm of ideas and latch itself to the real existing material conditions in order to help produce a revolution. Theory itself is nothing but an outgrowth of the material conditions of society. If it is anything but, I'm afraid that something so stale must be thrown away as the garbage it is. A revolutionary theory must be tied naturally the interests and conditions of the working class, if it has the option of tying itself to the needs and desires of the working class, then it has no right be be called a revolutionary theory!

Despite my problems with your post, i must commend you on it's over all aim, despite it's shortsightedness.

[Hit The North]

How can the active Communists provoke such a response, on what political issues, real action and so on can professional revolutionaries best challenge the bourgeois dictatorship in the world at this time?

There are many demands we can raise which exposes the weakness and corruption of the system. We can raise slogans to end imperialist war in the middle east; to end starvation in the under-developed countries; to demand redistribution of wealth and resources. None of these demands can be met by the bourgeoisie and all of them expose the limitations of their system.

But it is only when the majority of the working class find these conditions (& a thousand others) intolerable and the system is in crisis that these slogans can rally resistance. We are all at the mercy of material events. The crisis in Russia - which could not be resolved within the framework of bourgeois politics - presented the objective conditions which made the connection between shrewd revolutionary slogans and proletarian class consciousness possible. In times when class consciousness is not on the march, not even the most brilliant revolutionary propaganda will convince the masses to put their boots on.

[Hyacinth]

But it is only when the majority of the working class find these conditions (& a thousand others) intolerable and the system is in crisis that these slogans can rally resistance. We are all at the mercy of material events. The crisis in Russia - which could not be resolved within the framework of bourgeois politics - presented the objective conditions which made the connection between shrewd revolutionary slogans and proletarian class consciousness possible. In times when class consciousness is not on the march, not even the most brilliant revolutionary propaganda will convince the masses to put their boots on.Very apt. Part of the problem of any “peace, land, and bread” platforms is that they aren’t truly revolutionary in themselves. All of these demands can potentially be met within the context of capitalism (at least for the time being). The workers have to want more than just improvements in their material well-being, they have to want to be free, they have to want to take political power into their own hands. Either that, or capitalism has to be unable to meet the material demands of the workers.

Though I would go still further and add that a mere demand for a change in material conditions isn’t enough. Capitalism, as you say, has to be unable to meet such demands. But, moreover, the worker’s have to also be prepared to do things for themselves, to walk on their own two feet, so to speak. Otherwise this leaves room open for the possibility of authoritarianism, perhaps a more benevolent authoritarianism than we have now, but nevertheless authoritarianism.

[MarxSchmarx]

The demand for "bread" does not literally mean giving the people bread, it is symbolic for general economic wellbeing, ensuring that people have access to the goods they need to survive. In a modern context this can mean providing healthcare. Many people remain without access to treatment, and so are dying of diseases that could be cured, because health care is a commodity, and so is only available to those who have sufficient money to pay for it, in countries where government provision does not exist.Ditto with the land thing. It is basically a euphemism for a way to make one's livelihood, on one's own terms. We need to find a more concise phrase than "worker's self management", and that's what the "land" demand was there for.

Having said this, literal land bread and peace would be a start. Or for that matter, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ How about the neologism "social proletocracy"? It compresses at least three concepts:

1) Socioeconomic democracy (as Kagarlitsky noted, "democracy" should be "social-democratic" and not "bourgeois-democratic," but he didn't put enough emphasis on the "economic" part);
2) The working-class emphasis of #1 (a modern way of saying "dictatorship of the proletariat"); and
3) The need to move beyond mere "proletocracy" - including that notorious example of "state-capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people" - and into a system that fully compensates one's labour (hence your remark regarding the "land" demand ;) ).

[Devrim]

I've wondered exactly the same question before. One problem facing much of the world is access to clean water, and that would logically be a priority after successful revolution, as would healthcare.

Yes, access to clean water would be nice. We have water problems every summer, one day on, one day off for a few months, and even when it is on you wouldn't drink it.

It is not as if we live in some 'Hicksville' either. Ankara is the fourth biggest city in Europe.

Devrim

[Devrim]

The demand for "bread" does not literally mean giving the people bread, it is symbolic for general economic wellbeing, ensuring that people have access to the goods they need to survive.


Ditto with the land thing. It is basically a euphemism for a way to make one's livelihood, on one's own terms.

I don't think so. They were demanding bread for the working class who were starving in the cities, and land for the peasantry. They weren't symbolic at all. They were literal.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

At least one OTHER comrade has adopted my term elsewhere:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=164970


Marxism, though, is a system that bases itself on the writings of Karl Marx and his lifelong friend Frederich Engels. They theoretically flipped the philosophical idealism of Georg Hegel upside down and established a philosophical system of materialism. They advocated a revolution of the workers (the proletariat) and the establishment of socialism and democracy. It was the union of the socialist movement and the proletarian movement toward democracy. Hence, Social Proletocracy. During their time, the system was called communism, but the definition of that word has changed very much since its conception and so there are a few rising groups of Marxism applying the new term because of the new definitions of communism as state capitalism or dictatorship.

I feel like I need to clarify. Marxists do not believe in God. So know that from the beginning. The systems and goals of the Social Proletocrats are sort of complicated, so I would need to start a separate thread somewhere about it.

I absolutely envy this comrade:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showthread.php?t=164970&page=2


Anyway, I enjoy the Manifesto, but it is outdated. It was even outdated by the time Marx's works had matured more. I am attempted to start a new organization in my area (the little feedback I've received has been positively astounding, that just shows the power of the system, I suppose), and am finishing up our manifesto. I think I will post that as my exposition on my beliefs when it is done.

...

Well, it isn't quite that simple, though. Marxists (typically, or at least should) argue that capitalism will scientifically give birth to social proletocracy, just as feudalism gave birth to capitalism. People are the product of their social environment, so we don't hold a person as 'evil' for holding an economic position that is necessary to be filled by someone in the current economic system, you just likely won't be revolutionary. (That isn't to say we don't have moral and ethical stances, but I will get to that some day in the future.) I will probably elaborate more on this some other time in some other place. This is still my introduction thread, so I don't want to get to into it here.