Capitalism vs Capitalism

[Cossack]

Hail people of Revleft!

I've been wondering for sometime now about our fight the "class struggle". Perhaps it would be better if we did nothing at all hmm? Capitalism is bound to collapse on itself sooner or later and this means by us being communists in a capitalist society were actually helping the capitalists. Sure we spread some dis content here and there sure we gain a few members to out various parties etc etc, but in the end if communism lifts it's hand more then that dosen't it help capitalism? Heres an example, lets say the C.P.U.S.A runs a canned food drive in New York. Now sure that means a lot of hungry people get food in their bellies which is a nice thing, but it also makes them more content with how they're living which hurts the chances of a revolution.

Perhaps by not acting at all or by just acting to strike further malcontentedness into the populace would be more effective correct?

[Plagueround]

It's an often argued point around here.
My feeling is this. Charity and reform will only go so far. If they are relied on with no other action or awareness you have done nothing but patch a few holes on a rapidly sinking ship. These actions don't solve the problem and, as you said, they have the potential for people to mistakenly think the bourgeoisie cares about them and the system works.
However, I cannot support a movement that claims to have the solution to starving, poverty, war, and bigotry if it ignores or supports these things in hopes they will be able to seize control quicker. If we stand by and do nothing to aid the people we want to make things better for, what have we accomplished by hiding in the shadows waiting for our turn...other than reinforcing the stereotype that communists are subversive and sneaky people?

[Cossack]

It's an often argued point around here.
My feeling is this. Charity and reform will only go so far. If they are relied on with no other action or awareness you have done nothing but patch a few holes on a rapidly sinking ship. These actions don't solve the problem and, as you said, they have the potential for people to mistakenly think the bourgeoisie cares about them and the system works.
However, I cannot support a movement that claims to have the solution to starving, poverty, war, and bigotry if it ignores or supports these things in hopes they will be able to seize control quicker. If we stand by and do nothing to aid the people we want to make things better for, what have we accomplished by hiding in the shadows waiting for our turn...other than reinforcing the stereotype that communists are subversive and sneaky people?

Very true, but if it's in the best interest of us to help the working class then by not helping them now and helping them when the revolution comes then the revolution would come faster and be more successful which means by not helping them now we help them sooner and more effectively in the future.

[Incendiarism]

No, organizing in any form generates interest. By not helping you are destroying the revolutionary potential of not only those who are not privy to these ideals, but also yourself.

This is a deeply contested point in anarchism today, a huge shift between those who have basically adopted ridiculous fatalist viewpoints, and those who actively work to bring the struggle to a wider audience. If you feel that organizing is a waste of time - even just a bit, and for the sake of the future - you might as well not call yourself an anarchist, socialist, communist...

Now, you can argue that our actions may support the free market in some way, but the free market is simply a condition that we are thrust into and do not accept. A condition that must be abolished through raising awareness, and last I checked, apathy has no place there. We do not necessarily abide by it nor accept it, thus it is necessary to fight against it. There is nothing revolutionary in perpetuating it, is there?

I can see where you are coming from, but it really doesn't hurt to pamphlet and hopefully fish in some new sucke- err, comrades.

[Hawksarepointless]

I concur with the belief that us, as true leftists, must act, but I believe the change must come slowly, gradually building to the point when the state abolishes itself, rather than one large precipitated event.

Revolutions generally fail.

[RoterAnarchie]

Let the world polarize and then let it escalate into a marxist revolution?
It's possible... Isn't that how the nazi's came to power?

[bluerev002]

Naturally yes,

in theory that would be correct and it is true that it would spark greater discontent. What you are getting at is something that states around the world realized and implemented the "passifier" effect were they give pitty welfare checks to shut up the masses. In essence can food drives, clothes drives, etc. are somewhat the same thing.

But let us realize that in doing so you have created stupid starving masses too incompitent to even comprehend any form of revolution. Remember that a democracy cannot succeed if the majority is incompetent. What I propose is massive education. A thorough education that will allow the people to realize how they've been cheated for so long. This is a new form of revolution of our time, the bloodless revolution.

[Cossack]

But let us realize that in doing so you have created stupid starving masses too incompitent to even comprehend any form of revolution. Remember that a democracy cannot succeed if the majority is incompetent. What I propose is massive education.

Thats why we have "The temporary dictatorship of the working class"

[bluerev002]

which is never temporary enough, but that's another discussion all together.

But it does not benefit anyone, much less the new leaders of this revolution, to have incompetent masses making up their population. For one such masses would want fast changes that are at times unrealistic. For another in this globalized times we need educated people NOW.

Also it is not very ethical. For one you leave people starving for your own agenda under the excuse that, in the end, it's for their own good. And also you are allowing for them to be dumbed down in order for the new party take advantage of their desperate needs for food and education. Not to say that they are getting it under this system but I truly believe that strong change can come by moving up (an argument that goes back to the Revolution vs. Reform debate we've had so man times in this forum).

But truly it is far more complex today than it used to be. It is harder to attempt for a controlled, contained experiment such as this one. We speak in international terms these days I believe, so I again emphasize the need for international education.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

If history is motional, as Marx believed, and capitalism starts to deteriorate, it will be impossible for people to not respond - certainly contradictory with Marxism.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Problem is Marxism is wrong. The collapse is never determined to happen, capitalism had and will reinvent itself in the necessary manner to survive. A fascist movement is more likely than a marxist movement. From birth we are socialized into obedient and hierarchical individuals with rather anti communistic habits. The only way to convince people of the cause for revolution is to show its relevance in their everyday lives through struggle. Struggle shows folk that they have power and that a different world is possible. Its a school for the working class, so that they can build a new society in the shell of the old and get rid of the "cop in their head." Just hoping for collapse will not do anything. The workers will be unprepared to organize against capital and will fall back on their old habits, like supporting fascists.