Whom ever it was who thought of "social proletocracy" has no grasp of language

[the-red-under-the-bed]

the apparent thinking behind the name of the "new ideology" social proletocracy is apparently (to quote victuss mortuum)

"It was the union of the socialist movement and the proletarian movement toward democracy. Hence, Social Proletocracy."

Ok. while yes thats all well and good, and all three of those movements are all good and definately united, Social Proletocracy as a word to symbolise the amalgamation of those movements doesnt make sense...

This is because democracy is a greek word which is made up of two words, demos, meaning "people" and cratos(i think not sure what the exact word is) meaning rule. So democracy means the rule of the people.

by taking the social from socilaist, prolet from proletarian and ocracy from democracy and making Social Proletocracy, that would really mean the socialist rule of the working class.

Thats still a pretty awesome thing, and a decent name, but it just doesnt mean Socialist/Proletarian/Democrat like what was intended.

[RedAnarchist]

That would be a RevLeft member, Jacob Richter
(http://www.revleft.com/vb/../member.php?u=13895)

[the-red-under-the-bed]

well i really dont mean any offense to mr richter, but if he is trying to carve out a socialist current, he had best think about that.

its better having a friendly critizism on rev left then building a revolutionary current for 15 years and then finding out your name is flawed.

[RNK]

Owned.

[Raúl Duke]

socialist rule of the working class.I think Richter really meant that when he talked about social proletocracy instead of that

Socialist/Proletarian/Democrat amalgamation concept.

Sounds interesting but maybe a greek-based word for workers should be used instead of proletarian which I think is a roman-based word so to fit with the -cracy thing.

Also the social, for socialist, part might be redundant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First of all, I have a RevMarx thread on this subject, and you should note that I personally corrected the comrade (yes, an albeit ortho-Marxist comrade):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocrats-out-t77459/index.html

[Social proletocracy = revolutionary merger of Marxism and the workers' movement]



Second, I was inspired into creating this by two things:

1) Abandoning "double-duth words" like "DOTP," "socialist," and "communist" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/great-betrayals-dumping-t77143/index.html);
2) Bebel's conception of "social democracy" - but just fixing up the blatant class ambiguity and the need for proletocracy to get past wage slavery.



[P.S. - Feel free to join the RevMarx group when you've got 50 posts or more. ;) ]



I think Richter really meant that when he talked about social proletocracy instead of that

Socialist/Proletarian/Democrat amalgamation concept.

"Socialist proletarian democracy," actually (per my sig). However, you are right: the three contractions enable "social proletocracy" to be much more than just "socialist proletarian democracy." The absence of demos addresses Bordiga's critiques of the status-quo connotations of democracy (ie, liberal/bourgeois democracy).


Also the social, for socialist, part might be redundant.

Not at all. There's a huge difference between ordinary proletocracy (DOTP) and social proletocracy. As a concept, social proletocracy combines three things:

1) Socioeconomic democracy (the original "social democracy" of extending political democracy to economic affairs);
2) The working-class emphasis of #1 above (1 + 2 = proletocracy / rule of the working class);

3) The need to define "socialism" as being past worker-controlled "state-capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people" (read: get rid of wage slavery and institute labour-time economics).


that would really mean the socialist rule of the working class

That's basically #3 above. :)


but if he is trying to carve out a socialist current, he had best think about that.

No, I'm not (you'll note that Victus is doing the organizing somewhere in the US, while I'm just helping out).

[the-red-under-the-bed]

well to be honest im still not convinced.

like mate in your sig, "as its revolutionary goal, socialist proletarian democracy - SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1070928&postcount=8)! "

although you justify it elsewhere, essentially you keep comming back to the amalgamation thing, which is flawed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, there is a ton of talk amongst Marxists regarding "socialist democracy" and "proletarian democracy." You might as well join the RevMarx group, since talk abounds there regarding my work-in-progress. [The relevant chapter is Chapter 5.]

[the-red-under-the-bed]

and well to be honest again, this work in progress thing is a bit of a wank.

If you are trying to have some serious ideological impact on the left, you need to be actively involve in left circles.

Do you really anything anything you write will be of any significance, if it is restrained to rev left?

especially when you admitt that your not doing any form of organising and are not actively involved in the struggle, no matter what you wirte, it has no credibility because its void from practice and reality.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I am lending a key hand to the start-up organization (Manifesto, program, etc.). :p

[the-red-under-the-bed]

ok, but your not actually involved in anything.

Your writing a program, for someone else, who you dont even know or where they are or what exactly they are doing, to interpret.

im sorry, but thats not starting an organisation or a current of political thought, thats being a hack on the internet

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'm not writing their manifesto or program (Victus and his group are doing that). I am providing commentary on them and discussing actively with the group. Once they get a good read of my so-called "hack's wank," they'll get a clearer picture.

BTW, Lenin during exile was a "hack"/"litterateur" (whose most notable "wank" was Imperialism: THSOC), and so were Marx and Engels after the dissolution of the First International. :p


Thats still a pretty awesome thing, and a decent name, but it just doesnt mean Socialist/Proletarian/Democrat like what was intended.

I have a conciliatory suggestion: why not stop this petty squabble between the two of us and help promote the "Social Proletocracy" idea (official definition: socioeconomic democracy, workers' rule over such, and the need for full compensation of labour through labour-time economics) in or with Victus's organization, like I'm doing or in a greater capacity?

[Entrails Konfetti]

Yeah, I can make stuff up too and call it a breakthrough.

It's irritating!

God, you're almost like Floyce White or Ben Seatle.
"We think we've got clever monikers and/or spiritual sounding names, listen to us".
"I wear a dinner jacket".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It is neither a "breakthrough" nor a "new ideology." It is merely a neologism, but with significant qualitative aspects that need emphasis.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Or ecclecticism without understanding the whole of the theories you borrow from.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ On the contrary, I have read and re-read both Kautsky's The Class Struggle and Lenin's Our Immediate Task - among tons of other works (both historical and current) - in the course of my theoretical development.

Then again, since you're a left-communist, I don't expect you to understand, much less accept, the four "corrupting" merger formulas (political socialism or Marxism on one side and the workers' labour movement or the broad workers' movement on the other).

[Entrails Konfetti]

I can't see how Bordiga and Luxemburg are compatable with Kautsky or Connoly, other than what they want: A classless society with means of production in common.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Proletocracy" as a contraction addresses Bordiga's albeit reductionist criticisms of the class-ambiguous word "democracy." The prefix "social" refers to the abolition of wage slavery (alas, none of the major revolutionary Marxists of the day were social-proletocrats).


However, you are right: the three contractions enable "social proletocracy" to be much more than just "socialist proletarian democracy." The absence of demos addresses Bordiga's critiques of the status-quo connotations of democracy (ie, liberal/bourgeois democracy).



In other aspects, be creative (an international social-proletocratic party)!

[Entrails Konfetti]

And Bordiga would agree with you?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Of course not. He was reductionist in extending his criticisms of bourgeois democracy (which were/are valid) to proletarian democracy. Also, organic centralism as a rule for decision-making is reductionist (as if "enlightened individuals" alone can lead the class struggle :rolleyes: ), as well.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1108866&postcount=23
http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-action-freedom-t74836/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1113479&postcount=3

[Entrails Konfetti]

You can throw around "reductionist" all you like.
But the point is you can't brigde theories together that are diametrically opposed to each other, which do not share common ground in their compositions.

[Le Libérer]

and well to be honest again, this work in progress thing is a bit of a wank. You may think so, but there are enough members of revmarx group wanting to discuss it. JR has offered you an invite to discuss it there.
If you choose not to, then I'm moving this thread to theory, because it doesnt really fit in chit chat.

[the-red-under-the-bed]

Lenin went into exile only when his actions made it impossible for him to remain within Russia. Same sort of stories with marx ect.

It was his revolutionary activities that made him an exile, and then he was forced into a more observational role. (from abroad, but he was still very active in education and administration ect, not purely theory).

Same sort of stories with marx ect.

[RedDawn]

Whom ever it was who thought of "social proletocracy" has no grasp of language

Yeah, I totally agree. "social proletocracy" is just plain ugly. I can just imagine selling newspapers now:

Me: Hey, have checked out "The Prolecrat?" Its an anti-war, anti-corporate, social proletocracy newspaper!
Worker: What?

Yea. I give up with the jokes. But it just sounds fuckin' dumb. Richter, you have some good points but I just can't bare the name.

Plus, WTF is with the upside-down Kautsky?

[Bilan]

I love how there is this broad 'the worker' everyone refers to as, if its some sort of half-witted moron, and who understands nothing, and has no time for anything.

I think Richter plays with names to much, but RedDawn, your counter argument is just silly.

And furthermore, if someone was to say 'What?' do you say 'Oh nothing...' or do you explain what it is, and what it means? If you do the former, than I assume your party would be struggling, because Marxism is hardly understood in America by the non-political worker.

[Led Zeppelin]

BTW, Lenin during exile was a "hack"/"litterateur" (whose most notable "wank" was Imperialism: THSOC), and so were Marx and Engels after the dissolution of the First International.

No offense but you're no Lenin, Marx or Engels, which is what I think what the-red-under-the-bed's point is.

I don't believe you have enough of a understanding of Marxism to be a Lenin, Marx or Engels, so I don't believe that when you make up new terms anyone will take notice of it, besides a few people that I can count on my hands, or one hand.

I don't mean to ridicule or offend you, I am merely telling you the objective truth of the matter.

If you want to be like Lenin, Marx or Engels (and I want to stress the term "like" here), then I suggest you do what they did and get active in the revolutionary movement and gain experience and knowledge through your direct participation in the movement and through your continued study of Marxism.

Then, when you have the ability to be even remotely like them, people will take notice of you through your writings and activity. This is how Lenin, Marx and Engels gained a reputation.

It is highly unlikely that you will be succesful in this, because many many many more able people than you have tried and failed to get a widespread reputation as a "authority on Marxism" (not a lot of people have heard of Hal Draper for example), so don't get your hopes up too much.

[Vanguard1917]

Jacob's signature:



REVOLUTIONARY MARXISM:

1) SURMOUNTS REDUCTIONISM, revisionism, and sectarianism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/internal-challenges-revolutionary-t70556/index.html);
2) Has, as its minimum goal, the revolutionary MERGER OF MARXISM AND THE WORKERS' MOVEMENT (http://www.revleft.com/vb/merge-marxism-workers-t70141/index.html); and
3) Has, as its revolutionary goal, the socialist rule of the working class - SOCIAL PROLETOCRACY (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1070928&postcount=8)!


But the 'revolutionary goal' of Marxism is not 'the socialist rule of the working class', is it? The goal of Marxism is a communist society: where state rule doesn't exist and classes - including the working class itself - have been abolished.

How do you account for the un-Marxist workerism in your idea of 'social proletocracy'?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I am referring to the old "maximum program" of revolution. There are three goals in the "maximum program" (or, should I say, three revolutionary demands): the DOTP, socialism, and communism.

Furthermore, I'm not sure the party will continue to exist during the proper "socialist" (read: social-proletocratic) mode of production.


It is highly unlikely that you will be succesful in this, because many many many more able people than you have tried and failed to get a widespread reputation as a "authority on Marxism" (not a lot of people have heard of Hal Draper for example), so don't get your hopes up too much.

Trying is better than modern Marxism continuing to have no modern "authority." :( On the other hand, I don't think I would be a good theorist in regards to outlining a modern theory of imperialism / macro-capitalism. At best, I aspire to be on the same level as the "obscure" Bebel (but that's good enough, since he too dumped the "double-duth" word "communist").


I don't believe you have enough of a understanding of Marxism to be a Lenin, Marx or Engels, so I don't believe that when you make up new terms anyone will take notice of it, besides a few people that I can count on my hands, or one hand.

So says a subscriber to Trotskyist revisionism (read my huge list of references in the CC) :glare:

[KC]

God, you're almost like Floyce White or Ben Seatle.
"We think we've got clever monikers and/or spiritual sounding names, listen to us".
"I wear a dinner jacket".

:laugh: This was HILARIOUS. I love you EK.


^^^ On the contrary, I have read and re-read both Kautsky's The Class Struggle and Lenin's Our Immediate Task - among tons of other works (both historical and current) - in the course of my theoretical development.

Yeah, but you're not active at all in the struggle, apparently. You can't learn everything from books.

[Dros]

The OP is correct.

It is an absurd name for a (seemingly) absurd ideology.

[RedDawn]

PTT: Well, you could actually substitute "Worker" with "student" or "capitalist" or "professor" or "lumpen-prole."


If you tried to explain Social Proletocracy on the street, I assume people would just assume you were flat nuts. I don't think Richter is nuts, but his name sure sucks eggs.

[RedDawn]

God, you're almost like Floyce White or Ben Seatle.
"We think we've got clever monikers and/or spiritual sounding names, listen to us".
"I wear a dinner jacket".

Oh yea, fuckin' brilliant BTW.

[Comrade Rage]

Plus, WTF is with the upside-down Kautsky?:laugh:Has to do with turning Kautsky's theories on their head similar to how Hegel's theories were turned on their head.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ At least you're learning something and willing to learn more, CC. ;)





“Social Democracy is not confined to simple service to the working-class movement: it represents ‘the combination of socialism and the working-class movement’ (to use Karl Kautsky’s definition which repeats the basic ideas of the Communist Manifesto); the task of Social Democracy is to bring definite socialist ideals to the spontaneous working-class movement, to connect this movement with socialist convictions that should attain the level of contemporary science, to connect it with the regular political struggle for democracy as a means of achieving socialism—in a word, to fuse this spontaneous movement into one indestructible whole with the activity of the revolutionary party.” (Vladimir Lenin)



The quote above reiterates Kautsky’s words from The Class Struggle as quoted at the end of Chapter 3, and explains why German Marxism took the form of classical “social democracy” – the extension of political democracy to socioeconomic affairs. In spite of the problems mentioned in Chapter 4, the Russian Marxist theoretician Boris Kagarlitsky had this to say regarding both classical “social democracy” and a crises of theory faced by modern Marxists:

This explosive mixture really did shake the world [...] When Marx's ideas became the ideology of the workers' movement they underwent a transformation, and became Marxism.

[...]

In the post-war period this link was severed.

Marxism has indeed suffered a historic defeat. However, this did not come at the end of the 1980s when the Berlin Wall fell, but much earlier, when theory again became detached and isolated from the movement. This did not happen only in the East with the founding of Stalinist 'Marxism-Leninism.' As early as the 1930s Marxism in the West became the province of academic circles, while for social democracy and the communist parties the general 'classical' formulae remained no more than dead letters.

In the 1990s the rituals were discarded. This was easy because it had been a long time since anyone had given any thought to their meaning. We returned to the starting point, when theory and the mass movement were quite disconnected. But the two are not separated by an insurmountable wall. The fact that a significant layer of workers has only a very dim notion of socialist ideas does not mean that these ideas should not be propagated.

Marxists are left with the unenviable task of going beyond merely repeating the respective “merger” achievements of Marx and of the 19th-century social-democrats. Marx was able to unite political socialism with the workers’ labour movement with his ideas, and his immediate theoretical successors, most notably Kautsky, were able to unite his ideas with the expanding workers’ movement, thus creating what is known today as “Marxism” (in spite of the overly negative remarks by Cyril Smith as quoted in Chapter 1). Unfortunately, this “Marxism” itself, not just political socialism, proved historically to be quite detachable from the workers’ movement, not the least of which is because of its vulnerability to reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism. This is where revolutionary Marxism – the revolutionary merger of both the entire workers’ movement and a “Marxism” purged of reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism – comes into play.

Language and the Working Class

“The socialist project has to be translated into a language that people understand. This is not the language, cultivated by Western intellectuals, of postmodernist radicalism and multiculturalism. It is the simple, blunt language of classical Marxism.” (Boris Kagarlitsky)

The Marxist Antonio Gramsci formulated the concept of cultural hegemony. With this, he was able to explain the failure of past workers’ revolutions: the absorption of the ruling-class perspectives by the masses of workers. This absorption came about through compulsory schooling, mass media, popular culture, and even language.

Take, for example, the “double-duth” notion of a “dictatorship of the proletariat.” Said Hugo Chavez, “We know that one of Karl Marx's proposals was precisely that of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but that is not viable [...]” In spite of the blatantly reformist context of this quote (since Chavez is an outright reformist), the Venezuelan president had an unintentional point. Marx, for all his colossal efforts to unite political socialism with the workers’ labour movement of his time, scrambled to rebut Blanqui’s conception of “dictatorship” (by a highly organized elite of secretive conspirators) with the “dictatorship of the proletariat” – and counterposed it with the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” – without properly understanding the Roman application of that very old word.

Shortly after the foundation of the Roman Republic, it was realized that, in spite of the establishment of the two-consul system, there were times whereupon unaccountable power had to be concentrated in the hands of a single person. This realization led to the creation of the Roman dictatorship, which usually functioned rei gerendae causa (“for the matter to be done”), usually revolving around the preservation of the republican order, even against elements that desired “dictatorship” in the modern sense. Moreover, this dictatorship was limited to six months, and those who held this office resigned upon fulfilling the purpose of the dictatorship. All was well until Sulla and especially Julius Caesar came along, whereupon the Roman dictatorship was transformed to become synonymous with the modern understanding of the word: tyranny.

Notwithstanding the individualistic connotations of that word in this classical sense, in Marx’s formulation of the pre-socialist “dictatorship of the proletariat,” it can be said that such “dictatorship” has the feature of impermanence. However, the “dictatorship of the bourgeoisie” does not have this temporary feature.

Nowadays, Marxists of various tendencies promote the notions of “workers’ rule” and “proletarian democracy” in order to avoid the negative connotations of Marx’s “double-duth” concept, especially with the passing of the revisionist “Marxist-Leninist” regimes and the grossly revisionist legacy left behind by the founders of “Marxism-Leninism: “Comrade” Stalin and his gang. However, how can that be translated into an ideology like classical social democracy but without class ambiguities?

As noted at the end of Chapter 4, words like “proletarism” do not emphasize the revolutionary demand for the rule of society by the working class. The Greek word for “rule” is kratos, and when combined with the Greek word for “people” – demos – the result is “democracy.” Therefore, at least one new term needs to be adopted by revolutionary Marxists – those Marxists who consciously promote the specific merger above – as a replacement for the “double-duth” notion of a “dictatorship of the proletariat” (in this chapter, two distinct terms are proposed, the second being for “socialism”): proletocracy.



REFERENCES:

Our Immediate Task by Vladimir Lenin [http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1899/articles/arg3oit.htm#v04pp64h-215]

New Realism, New Barbarism: Socialist Theory in the Era of Globalization by Boris Kagarlitsky [http://books.google.ca/books?id=SoTII6zqwq4C&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r]

Language, Marxism, and Gramsci [http://www.revleft.com/vb/language-marxism-and-t76133/index.html]

"Marxism-Leninism": anti-Leninist, reductionist, and grossly revisionist [http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html]

[RedDawn]

Richter, you can explain "proletocracy" all you want, its just an even worse word than "objectivism" or "utilitarianism." They sound like crap.

[KC]

Not to mention that neologism itself is a bunch of crap.

[Led Zeppelin]

Trying is better than modern Marxism continuing to have no modern "authority." :( On the other hand, I don't think I would be a good theorist in regards to outlining a modern theory of imperialism / macro-capitalism. At best, I aspire to be on the same level as the "obscure" Bebel (but that's good enough, since he too dumped the "double-duth" word "communist").

Bebel? Maybe another Ben Seattle or Floyce White, but I highly doubt a Bebel.


So says a subscriber to Trotskyist revisionism (read my huge list of references in the CC) :glare:

See this is exactly why I said what I did. You say Trotskyism is "revisionism", while I doubt you've ever read anything by Trotsky besides some quotes you found in some articles written by others - so from second-hand sources. That's not studying the matter and coming to an independent conclusion, that's reading biased material and coming to a biased conclusion.

And once again, I meant no offense by what I said, so don't take it the wrong way.

[BobKKKindle$]

JR, what actual additions have you or any of the writers from which you seem to draw inspiration made to Marxism? Do you actually have any coherent theoretical ideas which you can add? It seems that your current is based on using new words to describe concepts which have already been explained and developed by others - and the words which you do use (for example, "proletocracy") are aesthetically vulgar, and you rarely explain what you mean when you use terms like "merger" which feature prominently in your posts.

The problem with the left is not that the words we use are not suitable, but that we are too divided along ideological lines, and that we do not have the resources to engage with the workers and promote our ideas - these are the problems that we should focus on, instead of concerning ourselves with trivial tasks such as whether one term is better than another. This project is based on a failure to correctly identify the problems we face as socialists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Richter, you can explain "proletocracy" all you want, its just an even worse word than "objectivism" or "utilitarianism." They sound like crap.


Not to mention that neologism itself is a bunch of crap.


and the words which you do use (for example, "proletocracy") are aesthetically vulgar

So then, why are the "aesthetically vulgar" neologisms "corporatocracy" and "parecon" (a contraction) connecting with anti-globalization folks? :glare:

[Moreover, why have a few comrades caught on to my stuff? :p ]




JR, what actual additions have you or any of the writers from which you seem to draw inspiration made to Marxism?

I'm taking the "merger" formula - which for some reason you specifically can't seem to get - to the next level, given the materialistic problems outlined in my WIP portion above. Read the Lenin quote at the beginning, which explains his particular "merger" formula.


Do you actually have any coherent theoretical ideas which you can add?

Read my Article Submissions and my CC thread on The Class Struggle Revisited, my WIP.




The problem with the left is not that the words we use are not suitable, but that we are too divided along ideological lines, and that we do not have the resources to engage with the workers and promote our ideas

Why are you reducing the "problem" to modern circle-ism? Again, if you read my WIP, I outline far more problems than just modern circle-ism.

[chegitz guevara]

:confused: What's wrong with dinner jackets? I think mine makes me look particularly dapper.

Proletocracy is definitely an ugly word. It doesn't roll off the tongue and isn't as easy to say as, for example, antidisestablishmentarianism. Still, it's better than Ben Seattle's Proletarist. I like revolutionary Marxist.

I do think Comrade Richter's a little arrogant to assume he alone has the right to define a word others started using independently of him.

[More Fire for the People]

"social proletocracy" is just another name for proletarian democracy, radical workers' democracy, democracy of the oppressed, etc., etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, as I'll explain later on in further sections of Chapter 5, that's not the case. Both an anarchist (first page) and a comrade (through PM) had constructive problems with the seemingly repetitive prefix "social" in "social proletocracy." "Proletocracy" by itself is what you've said above, but there's a special meaning for the prefix "social."

[BTW, "proletarian democrat" or "proletarian democratist" doesn't roll off the tongue like "proletocrat" does. ;) ]

And now, an affirmative comment in pof-300:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/2001


I'm not too bright, but I am patient. Sooner or later, Jacob was bound to say something that I understood well enough to agree with. In languages where the term "dictatorship" has the meaning and connotations he indicated in his discussion of the original Roman term (certainly English, probably French, I'm ignorant of others), a substitute term for d of p like proletocracy (technically rule of the propertyless) would, in fact, clarify the content of the concept. Like most of us, I am tired of immediately explaining that the "d" in the "d of p" doesn't really mean what it's plain meaning to most workers means. While a verbal formulation does not in itself accomplish the "rooting" of Marxist theory within its own proper class, clarity certainly helps.

[Zurdito]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come across as a philistine, but I don't get what is at all novel about the idea of merging the workers movement with the revolutionary socialist movement. isn't that just...marxism? what do you think other branches of marxism claim to do?

It seems like a very basic idea covered up with grand terminology: jargon.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Unfortunately, most Marxists have practically forgotten this concept, first found in Kautsky's The Class Struggle (albeit with an erroneous parliamentary formulation), then reiterated but taken to a higher by Lenin in Our Immediate Task, then "rediscovered" by Boris Kagarlitsky as quoted on Page 2 of this thread, then discussed again by myself (but with a different take):

Multiple merger formulas? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/multiple-merger-formulas-t77061/index.html)


Unfortunately, this “Marxism” itself, not just political socialism, proved historically to be quite detachable from the workers’ movement, not the least of which is because of its vulnerability to reductionism, revisionism, and sectarianism.

Case in point: Western academic Marxism.

[RedDawn]

Richter,

Many people on these forums are more involved with worker's movements as trade-unionists than you are. If anything, your lack of involvement in a working class organization makes you more of an academic Marxist than almost anyone on this board.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ How can I be working in a trade union when my workplace isn't unionized? :glare: [Oh, and I am involved in a startup working-class organization.]

Or is this yet another case of traditional-schematist (reductionist) failure to attack the line and not the author? :rolleyes:

[MarxSchmarx]

I don't get what is at all novel about the idea of merging the workers movement with the revolutionary socialist movement. isn't that just...marxism? what do you think other branches of marxism claim to do?


Well I think part of the problem is in the "claim" part. In most of the world neither mainstream trade-unions nor marxist groups seem to have much use beyond lipservice for each other.

The marxist groups persistently fail at organizing large, multi-trade unions, and having been a union member for many years, I find the union leadership has an extremely class collaborationist agenda.

Classical Marxism has proven itself woefully inadequate to address this problem. Fresh thinking on this problem couldn't hurt, and JR is correct in bringing this problem up.

[RedDawn]

Richter,
What organization is that?

My point is that Marxism is useless without a working class organization to work out of. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all headed up working class organizations. We can theorize all we want, but without plugging that into an organization, we might as well be jacking off.

Schmarx,

Classical Marxism has not proven itself woefully inadequate. Marxist agitation in the trade unions helped the North win the American Civil War after the Emancipation Proclamation. Marxist agitation in the trade unions stopped World War I.

The question is not whether it is inadequate or not, but it is merely a question of consciousness. Back then, the working class was more amenable to that kind of Marxist agitation because of the material conditions they experienced. Now it is a differnt story. We came out of a period not 18 years ago when bourgeois democracy and a totalitarian worker's state were the only games in town.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ RedDawn, I don't know where in the US Comrade Victus is based. A lot of details need to be sorted out. All I know is that the workers-only organization's name will have the term "Social-Proletocratic."


We can theorize all we want, but without plugging that into an organization, we might as well be jacking off.

Have you not considered the possibility that too much emphasis on practical matters leaves no room for further theoretical development? Look at all the Trot groups out there. As much as I disagree with the Hoxhaists' vehement anti-Trotskyism, they are right in calling Trot papers "crap" (Page 2) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/trot-papers-crap-t76507/index2.html) for saying "Stalinism this" and "Stalinism that," with some papers even promoting reformist BS (IMT).




Well I think part of the problem is in the "claim" part. In most of the world neither mainstream trade-unions nor marxist groups seem to have much use beyond lipservice for each other.

The marxist groups persistently fail at organizing large, multi-trade unions, and having been a union member for many years, I find the union leadership has an extremely class collaborationist agenda.

Classical Marxism has proven itself woefully inadequate to address this problem. Fresh thinking on this problem couldn't hurt, and JR is correct in bringing this problem up.

Correct, comrade. That is why we need a mass organization in the US along the lines of the party of August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and KARL KAUTSKY (ie, the true founder of "Marxism," who synthesized the true "four classics" - to borrow Stalinist phraseology - of Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, August Bebel, and Wilhelm Liebknecht). When I wrote my USL article, I wasn't yet exposed to that reformist "Socioeconomic Democracy" website that went a step further than Marx's minimum demand for progressive taxation. (http://www.centersds.com/)

Now, it seems that Social-Proletocrats like the four of us (you, me, Victus, and even the OP) could use that SeD term, although starting up a separate Social-Proletocratic organization to spread awareness of our neologism before potentially dissolving into the larger, "German" (as opposed to the idiotic Belgian Soc-Dem experience, as Rakunin pointed out) organization helps.

[RedDawn]

Richter,

I don't know who Victus is, the point is what working class organization are YOU in?

Actually, the CWI as far as I see, rarely invokes the ghost of Stalinism and only uses it when necessary. We don't just toss the term around willy-nilly. It is stupid that you would listen to the Hoxhaists of all people, who are dumb enough to think you are a left-communist.

Furthermore, they don't once mention any CWI publication. Oh, and Ricther, this would be a good place to accuse me of reductionism and sectarianism.


That is why we need a mass organization in the US along the lines of the party of August Bebel, Wilhelm Liebknecht, and KARL KAUTSKY (ie, the true founder of "Marxism,"

So what, you want to recreate the failure of the 2nd International!?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So what, you want to recreate the failure of the 2nd International!?

http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-lenin.shtml


Lenin and Kautsky: The final chapter

By Lars Lih

TODAY I would like to bring to your attention the results of some recent research I have carried out on the topic of Lenin’s relation to Karl Kautsky in the last decade of Lenin’s life, that is, from 1914 to 1924. I will first explain the question I wanted to answer, then describe the way I set out to answer it, and finally summarize the answer I came up with.

Who was Karl Kautsky? From Engels’ death in 1895 to the outbreak of World War I in 1914, he was the most influential Marxist theorist in the world. He was not the official theoretician of the Second International or even the German Social Democratic Party, and he often took a critical or even oppositional attitude to official decisions. He was rather the spokesman of the German party’s Marxist wing and the most influential voice of the party “radicals” until around 1910, when a split developed among the radicals.

What was Lenin’s attitude toward Kautsky? Up to 1909, it was extremely admiring and intense. From 1910 to 1914, Lenin’s attitude became much more wary. After 1914, when Kautsky took a centrist position on the war and refused to split with the majority leadership, Lenin’s attitude became extremely negative, and remained so until the end.

The question arises, how did Lenin after 1914 regard his own earlier admiration for Kautsky? When you change your mind radically about some person or thing, you enter into a period of cognitive dissonance between your present beliefs and your earlier beliefs. There are two different ways to reduce the tension that arises from having two very divergent opinions about the same object. In the case before us, Lenin could decide:

a. Kautsky has changed, that is: Kautsky is now acting a way totally different from the way he acted before. In other words, Kautsky is a renegade.

b. I have changed, that is: I, Lenin, now realize that I was wrong, that my earlier admiration was a mistake. In other words, the scale has fallen from Lenin’s eyes.

These are the two possibilities. Which description of Lenin’s post-1914 attitude is supported by the evidence? Before telling you, I would like to respond to two questions that might have occurred to you. Why is this issue of any interest? Why isn’t the answer obvious?



In a word, no. I do not want a repeat of the infectuous Belgian Social-Democratic experience as Rakunin pointed out in my "Plain Proletocracy" article. I do, however, think that the German experience is much more relevant to the US than the Russian experience, although it must be emphasized that autonomous revolutionary organization - something lacking in the German experience until it was too late - is needed.

That is why I am helping with the formation of the world's first social-proletocratic organization (courtesy of Victus (http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3209918&postcount=30)).


I began my talk with the question: did Lenin solve his inevitable cognitive dissonance by seeing the post-1914 Kautsky as a renegade (Kautsky changed) or by admitting that the scales fell from his own eyes (Lenin changed). The answer given to us by the database is unambiguous: Lenin felt that Kautsky had changed, not himself. He saw no reason to abandon the outlook he had shared with Kautsky just at the time when, in his eyes, events had justified it completely.

And that is why I am writing The Class Struggle Revisited, because Lenin failed to criticize Kautsky's parliamentary reductionism that was present in the original merger formula (Chapter 5 of The Class Struggle). Read my "Plain Proletocracy" thread's second post, "Problems with Social Democracy."

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1141725&postcount=3

[RedDawn]

That is why I am helping with the formation of the world's first social-proletocratic organization (courtesy of Victus (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.christianguitar.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3209918&postcount=30)).

So what, you're gonna start the revolution of social proletocracy on a Christian guitar forum?!

[MarxSchmarx]

The question is not whether it is inadequate or not, but it is merely a question of consciousness. Back then, the working class was more amenable to that kind of Marxist agitation because of the material conditions they experienced. Now it is a differnt story. We came out of a period not 18 years ago when bourgeois democracy and a totalitarian worker's state were the only games in town.

So why do you think "consciousness" has become such a thorn for many workers? Even Gramsci could not have anticipated the power of TV commercials.

Moreover, I think most Marxist circles (well almost all Leninist) are fairly correct in their interpretation and understanding of their cannon. However, there is a lot of stuff in that literature that simply fails address the concerns of workers today. I think the differences are qualitatively different from 150 years ago(e.g., the material conditions point you raise - few in the global north starve anymore). There comes a time when we need to rethink what we have been doing wrong, and amend our situation as needs be. The alternative seems to me to "blame the workers" and adopt a very fatalistic outlook.

[RedDawn]

Blame the workers is hardly the answer.

I think the conditions will become similar as they did in the past and consciousness will rise up again.

This comes from a myriad of factors, such as:
1. Hegemonic Warfare
2. Newfound Poverty
3. Collapse of Stalinism
4. Arrogance of the Bourgeoisie

[Die Neue Zeit]

Social Proletocracy, Marx, and Lenin's theoretical mistakes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/social-proletocracy-marx-t80882/index.html)

[Tower of Bebel]

The Roman conception of Proletarian/t doesn't mean worker or working class either. A definition would be "poverty/an impoverished person that reproduces".

(in agricultural societies poverty was concidered as having bad luck, while in industrial societies poverty was more "artificial". Whoever became poor in the Ancient Régime had no future compared to others (as he was the only one with no means of production) and therefor he could/would not reproduce; as it was immoral to do otherwise. But after the bourgeois revolutions capitalists deliberatly kept wages as low as possible and many were deprived of there means of production. Therefor poverty under capitalism was not just bad luck. It was social, it was inevitable. It was not just an individual, it was a whole class that became poor. Therefor having no future, no means of production, became a feauture of a whole social class and therefor poor people reproduced anyway; as it wasn't immoral anymore to do so.
That's why industrial capitalism created a proletariat as in the Roman or Latin definition.)

Today's Western working class is not "proletarian" as in the Roman sense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, if you want a war over "double-duth words" ( :D ), especially Latin-derived ones (since you read my comments on the word "dictatorship"), by all means suggest the Latin word for labourer. ;)


Sounds interesting but maybe a greek-based word for workers should be used instead of proletarian which I think is a roman-based word so to fit with the -cracy thing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergatocracy


Ergatocracy is a type of government dominated by the labour and solidarities similar to communist beliefs. It is a government ruled by the working class. The Greek stem 'erg', means work and 'cracy,' means government.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lane-ernest/1939/dawn-dusk/ch06.htm


No reference to this epochal period of working class progress would be complete without mention of a book, “Creative Revolution – A Study of Communist Ergatocracy,” by Eden and Cedar Paul.

Published in 1920, it threw down a challenge to a startled and smug world, which sensationally shook lethargic sleepers – dreamers of an empty day – out of their slumbers. Ergatocracy was a new word, coined to meet and explain the new role of the Russian workers – meaning “workers’ rule,” as distinct from the old shibboleth, “democracy.”

:D

[Seriously, though, I chose the particular Latin-based part-word "proleto" because it's more recognizable politically - due to its heavily Marxist connotations - than the Greek-based part-word "ergato" (although I could be wrong here). Besides, "corporatocracy" has the Latin-based part-word "corporato." ;) ]

[Hyacinth]

Today's Western working class is not "proletarian" as in the Roman sense.
Indeed not, but the term has come to be incorporated into English where it no longer has its Roman sense. It is now used, except perhaps by Classicists, to refer to the working class.