Revolution in various countries

[Drace]

19. Will it be possible for this revolution to take place in one country alone?

No. By creating the world market, big industry has already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of what happens to the others.

Can someone further explain this. I don't quite understand this bit.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A socialized economy would automatically affect the conditions of other economies. For example, imagine what would occur to the American market if China's economy plummeted. From there the Europeans would fall under, and so would Japan, Latin America, and so on.

Similarly, if America's economy operated around freedom (socialism), other economies would be affected - and thus other countries would be forced to respond. Countries and businesses invest in foreign soil. They have supply and demand centered around the globe. Suppose 2% of the world could be classified as socialist. You're going to have a detrimental society if you don't woo over more of that 98%. Change has to occur on a global level. Everyone has their hand in a cookie jar.

[Drace]

So which countries would be needed in a revolution?

And, what chances do we have of overthrowing multiple governments at the same time...

[OI OI OI]

So which countries would be needed in a revolution?

We cannot choose the country for a revolution to happen there.
I would like a revolution in the US but that is highly unlikely for now given the objective conditions (standard of living of the masses basically ) and the subjective conditions (revolutionary leadership ie vanguard party). Both conditions for a revolution are absent.

Those two conditions need to be fullfilled in order for the proletariat to take power.



And, what chances do we have of overthrowing multiple governments at the same time...

There are no chances for a world revolution given the combined and uneven development.
Different conditions exist at the same time in Venezuela and Canada for example.

What could happen is revolutions in countries with the same objective conditions which will be only successfull if there is a proletarian leadership that is not reformist/treacherous and in my opinion (my Trotskyist opinion), that party has to be based on Bolshevik traditions ,ideas and methods.

So we see that the Revolution in Russia dialecticaly reinforced the revolution in
Germany . So after 1917 there was a huge leap in the conciousness of the German proletariat (and the Hungarian as well) as a result of the revolution carried out by the Russian proletariat. But why did the revolution failed in Germany? Because the second factor was missing, a capable revolutionary party to lead the movement. Unfortunately Rosa Luxemburg although being an ardent revolutionary she made serious organizational mistakes , so did the other leaders of the KPD. Of course the role of the SPD was treacherous but I shall not touch on that.

So basicaly you ve seen so far that objective conditions and subjective conditions need to exist for a revolution.

Also that a revolution in one country dialecticaly reinforces the proletariat and creates conditions for revolutions in other countries.

Of course there cannot be a simultaneous world revolution but there can be revolutions in areas with similar conditions and there can be built socialism if the conditions allow it. There can be for example socialism in Latin America as a whole but socialism in Venezuela alone cannot be built due to isolation and because of this isolation youcannot have a higher productive level than capitalism ie socialism.

I hope I made sense because its 3 in the morning :lol:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

So which countries would be needed in a revolution?

And, what chances do we have of overthrowing multiple governments at the same time...

Realize that whenever an old order is overthrown it was not from an immediate change in production. The bourgeoisie revolutions didn't occur until after the powers of Europe developed markets.

Having most of the developed countries take on socialism would probably be the best, since the developing countries would be at a disadvantage trying to cut off trade.

[gla22]

It would not have to be worldwide at first but the country would have to be either very strong or self sufficient and have a few trading partners.

[giev]

We cannot choose the country for a revolution to happen there.
I would like a revolution in the US but that is highly unlikely for now given the objective conditions (standard of living of the masses basically ) and the subjective conditions (revolutionary leadership ie vanguard party). Both conditions for a revolution are absent.

Those two conditions need to be fullfilled in order for the proletariat to take power.


Just a little pessimistic are we? If standard of living would include psychological well-being, I don't think it could be considered high at all. It is true that on the "thing-o-meter", the United States fares quite well, but to break things down in capitalistic language is pretty self-defeating. Also, I'm not completely sold on the idea of a vanguard party but I'm also not against it. Why do you think it is a necessary subjective condition?


There are no chances for a world revolution given the combined and uneven development.
Different conditions exist at the same time in Venezuela and Canada for example.

What could happen is revolutions in countries with the same objective conditions which will be only successfull if there is a proletarian leadership that is not reformist/treacherous and in my opinion (my Trotskyist opinion), that party has to be based on Bolshevik traditions ,ideas and methods.
There are a lot of ideas here that I don't understand. If the proles of the world share a communal bond that isn't recognized by national boundaries, how does the development of our capitalistic enterprises (if that is the sort of development you are referring to)play a role in revolution.

If I'm right in that assumption, I think that the old idea of development along a strong path through feudalism capitalism and socialism may need some reworking. I think people have (or have potential for)a more "global consciousness" with the internet that bypasses traditional communal boundaries.



So we see that the Revolution in Russia dialecticaly reinforced the revolution in
Germany . So after 1917 there was a huge leap in the conciousness of the German proletariat (and the Hungarian as well) as a result of the revolution carried out by the Russian proletariat. But why did the revolution failed in Germany? Because the second factor was missing, a capable revolutionary party to lead the movement. Unfortunately Rosa Luxemburg although being an ardent revolutionary she made serious organizational mistakes , so did the other leaders of the KPD. Of course the role of the SPD was treacherous but I shall not touch on that.
Hasn't the scenery changed since 1917? It seems like you are recalling this in a nostalgic "if only we had done this..." tone, is that the right way to consider our current condition?


So basicaly you ve seen so far that objective conditions and subjective conditions need to exist for a revolution.

Also that a revolution in one country dialecticaly reinforces the proletariat and creates conditions for revolutions in other countries.
As I go through your post and consider your ideas, I think this is main sticking point of my questioning your answers about a revolution: you seem to respect the perceived division of the proletariat into separate groups (countries) far too much.


Of course there cannot be a simultaneous world revolution but there can be revolutions in areas with similar conditions and there can be built socialism if the conditions allow it. There can be for example socialism in Latin America as a whole but socialism in Venezuela alone cannot be built due to isolation and because of this isolation youcannot have a higher productive level than capitalism ie socialism.

I hope I made sense because its 3 in the morning :lol:To be honest, I'm very new to the collectivist point of view, having been a regular liberal through my teenhood and just recently turning 21. Anyways, looking forward to hearing your response.

[trivas7]

A socialized economy would automatically affect the conditions of other economies. For example, imagine what would occur to the American market if China's economy plummeted. From there the Europeans would fall under, and so would Japan, Latin America, and so on.

Yes. There is only one interdependent global economy.

[OI OI OI]

Just a little pessimistic are we? If standard of living would include psychological well-being, I don't think it could be considered high at all. It is true that on the "thing-o-meter", the United States fares quite well, but to break things down in capitalistic language is pretty self-defeating.

Workers wont rebel if they are depressed or stressed they will rebel if they have nothing to eat!

I am not talking in capitalistic terms.
Marx explains it simply :"Conciousness depends on the material conditions".
I don't think there are any arguments against that.

To argue that a worker that has a mercedes but he is depressed is revolutionary is just non-sense.



Also, I'm not completely sold on the idea of a vanguard party but I'm also not against it. Why do you think it is a necessary subjective condition

Although I can explain it fairly well I don't have a lot of time so I ll just give you a quote from a reliable member after a search on revleft.


Originally posted by : Bobkindles
A vanguard party organization is necessary because the consciousness of the working class is not uniform - not all workers see the world in the same way or have the same level of political consciousness. Most workers exhibit "trade-union consciousness" which means they are limited to temporary reforms within the framework of capitalism and are not able to imagine how society could be organized in a different way. The vanguard party is comprised of the most class conscious section of the working class (workers who understand how the proletariat is exploited under capitalism and recognize the need for revolutionary struggle against the bourgeois state) and exists to engage with the workers who are subject to the influence of bourgeois ideology, to enable the widespread development of class consciousness, which is a prerequisite for the overthrow of capitalism. In the absence of a vanguard party which is able to agitate and promote revolutionary ideas by intervening in workers struggles, even if the correct objective conditions for revolution exist (a high rate of unemployment, attacks on workers conditions, etc.) workers may not overthrow capitalism and may instead turn to political apathy or reactionary ideas which locate a group within the proletariat as the cause of material deprivation (for example, the immigrant population) thereby securing the power of the bourgeoisie.

The concept of the vanguard is explained more fully in Lenin's What is to be Done which is available here (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/index.htm).

If you are still not sure we can have further talks on this in the future, but I think Bob did an awesome job explaining it.



There are a lot of ideas here that I don't understand. If the proles of the world share a communal bond that isn't recognized by national boundaries, how does the development of our capitalistic enterprises (if that is the sort of development you are referring to)play a role in revolution.

What communal bond I don't understand you.
There is no mystic bond between the proletariat of different countries.
The only bond there is it's getting exploited by a rich minority and thus understanding that we should have an international perspective in what we do so we can suppoert each-other as proletarians.

"Capitalism" or the industrial revolution has to be developped under workers control in backwards countries and then socialism. For more on this read Trotsky's Permanent Revolution and don't be confused with the Menshevik Stage theory. Again I can define these terms for you if you ask me to.




If I'm right in that assumption, I think that the old idea of development along a strong path through feudalism capitalism and socialism may need some reworking. I think people have (or have potential for)a more "global consciousness" with the internet that bypasses traditional communal boundaries.

I ll give you a concrete example.
Do you think a worker in the material conditions of Canada and by which I mean an average worker gives a fuck about the world even though the internet or all that shit exists and he knows about it?
Maybe he will give a fuck but he won't risk everything to help others. That is why conciousness is uneven. Material conditions affect conciousness not the internet and information, which only play a very secondary role.


Hasn't the scenery changed since 1917? It seems like you are recalling this in a nostalgic "if only we had done this..." tone, is that the right way to consider our current condition?

Are workers not exploited by capitalism?
So you mean the scenery changed and I had no idea about it? Damn I am so stupid!

On a serious note no the scene has not changed and if it has then the conditions for a revolution are far better now.

Also when I am examining history I don't do it in a nostalgic matter. If I did I would be a pathetic loser.
It is a common use amongst people though to examine history and learn from mistakes, understand which theory is good or not and improve their own theory, ideas , tactcs, methods and perspectives always according to the material conditions.

So I don't think I am being nostalgic.
I am just giving you examples from history so I can help get things more clear. If you don't want examples then just say so.


As I go through your post and consider your ideas, I think this is main sticking point of my questioning your answers about a revolution: you seem to respect the perceived division of the proletariat into separate groups (countries) far too much.

Yes because the proletariat does not exist in a vacuum.
Unfortunately we live under capitalism and the capitalistic states which have different conditions , while certain have similar conditions. Would you tell me that conciousness wise the proletariat of Venezuela is the same as the proletarian in the US? You would be a fool to say so and we both know that you are not a fool!



To be honest, I'm very new to the collectivist point of view, having been a regular liberal through my teenhood and just recently turning 21. Anyways, looking forward to hearing your response.

To tell you the truth I am very old in communist ideas. Since I was a kiddo:lol:

Yes you have to learn a lot and clarify some questions and shit but don't worry it's easier than you think.
It would be easier if you joined qan organization.
I would advise you to stick on revleft and when you feel you like one set of ideas join an organization and you will learn very fast and actualy fight for what you believe.

Also I don't think I did the greatest job explaining it and some parts might seem unclear.
I am very sorry but I did it in a hurry

[Niccolò Rossi]

What could happen is revolutions in countries with the same objective conditions which will be only successful if there is a proletarian leadership that is not reformist/treacherous and in my opinion (my Trotskyist opinion), that party has to be based on Bolshevik traditions ,ideas and methods.

So the failure of the previous revolutionary movements need only be put down to it's leadership? Well then let us replace these bad leader with good ones and we'll be set :rolleyes:


So we see that the Revolution in Russia dialecticaly reinforced the revolution in Germany

Since you've bolded the word "dialecticaly" [sic], would you care to explain exactly what you mean by this? What exactly was "dialectal" about the "reinforcement" of the revolution in Germany by the Russian?


Workers wont rebel if they are depressed or stressed they will rebel if they have nothing to eat!

On what basis do you make these claims? Does the class struggle not exist in the "First World"? Is the abolition of class and with it the abolition of capital and wage labour and the whole of commodity production not in the direct interest of all members of the working class, including those with food on the table?


Marx explains it simply :"Conciousness depends on the material conditions".
I don't think there are any arguments against that.

Firstly, could you please cite that quotation.

Secondly, there is of course nothing necessarily "wrong" with the above formulation (albeit very simplistic), but their is when you misinterpret it as you have. For example nationalism and even religion are ideological barriers to class consciousness when grasped by the masses. So obviously class consciousness is also influenced by ideology and the ruling ideas of society. Of course we could go on to say that these are themselves in turn based on particular material conditions, but so long as you equate "material conditions" with "living conditions" as you do, you will off course skip over such details.


To argue that a worker that has a mercedes but he is depressed is revolutionary is just non-sense.

To argue that just because a worker owns a particular item you equate with the ruling class, they are not a potential revolutionary force despite the abolition of class and capitalist relations of production being in their direct interest as a solution to their exploitation and alienation is beyond non-sense.


Do you think a worker in the material conditions of Canada and by which I mean an average worker gives a fuck about the world even though the internet or all that shit exists and he knows about it?

I think a worker in the material conditions of Canada and by which I mean an average worker who's labour is exploited and alienated does give a fuck about their own interests and the interests of their class internationally so long as ruling ideology does not bind them to a "false consciousness"


Are workers not exploited by capitalism?

No, they have Mercedes now...


So you mean the scenery changed and I had no idea about it? Damn I am so stupid!

On a serious note no the scene has not changed and if it has then the conditions for a revolution are far better now.

You, who above claimed that the material conditions in a country like Canada today have changed so as to make the realisation of socialism unrealistic here claim that the "scene has not changed" and that "the conditions for revolution are much better now". So which is it?

[OI OI OI]

So the failure of the previous revolutionary movements need only be put down to it's leadership? Well then let us replace these bad leader with good ones and we'll be set http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_rolleyes.gif

As Trotsky explained: "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership"

I was talking to this Brazilian guy (he s not a Trot) and he was explaining to me how in Brazil the CP was saying oh we need to build capitalism , the revolution is not on the agenda, when there were conditions for revolution.
This is called the Stage theory.
The leadership of the proletariat which historicaly in the 20th century was mostly Stalinist betrayed the proletariat in numerous occassions .
Of course the reformist leadership has done equal damage to the movement.

In Quebec in 1972 the workers could have taken power but due to the mistakes of the leadership they didn't. Same in France in '68 etc etc.
The proletarian leadership has betrayed the proletariat in so many occassions.
You cannot blame the workers. They have fought like heros during the 20th century.
What they lacked was a revolutionary leadership with the right methods,ideas,tactics and perspectives .




Since you've bolded the word "dialecticaly" [sic], would you care to explain exactly what you mean by this? What exactly was "dialectal" about the "reinforcement" of the revolution in Germany by the Russian?


Not linear but with leaps, bounds and busts and with an interelationship.



On what basis do you make these claims? Does the class struggle not exist in the "First World"? Is the abolition of class and with it the abolition of capital and wage labour and the whole of commodity production not in the direct interest of all members of the working class, including those with food on the table?

Did I talk about class struggle or revolution?
Class struggle exists even in Luxemburg.
But revolutionary conditions wont come because of stress and psychological depression but because of the material conditions...
Or else there would be a world revolution already .




To argue that just because a worker owns a particular item you equate with the ruling class, they are not a potential revolutionary force despite the abolition of class and capitalist relations of production being in their direct interest as a solution to their exploitation and alienation is beyond non-sense.


It was just a simplistic example.

The example was aimed to show how the labour aristocracy is not revolutionary at the moment.
And I say at the moment because it is obvious from your post that you see things staticaly.
Even though technicaly the labour aristocracy gets exploited they have no interest in overthrowing capitalism in the first world.



I think a worker in the material conditions of Canada and by which I mean an average worker who's labour is exploited and alienated does give a fuck about their own interests and the interests of their class internationally so long as ruling ideology does not bind them to a "false consciousness"

Have you seen the average worker in Canada?
He makes 25$ an hour.
Thats the mean wage which is close to the average wage.
This person owns a house ,has 2-3 cars etc etc. That is the average worker. I live in Canada and I see him every day.
This worker will not have a revolutionary conciousness and he will not give a fuck about what is happenning in the world right now at this moment .

Of course conditions change and I can see them changing (slowly but steadily downwards) and this will have an effect on his/her conciousness.

Again I am not implying that the workers in North American are not revolutionary.
What I am saying is that they are not revolutionary at the moment and they ahve no interest in overthrowing capitalism even if we flood them with information and even if it was possible to explain to all of them how they get exploited they would still not be revolutionary at the moment.



No, they have Mercedes now...

You re fairly good in taking things out of context. Bravo!


You, who above claimed that the material conditions in a country like Canada today have changed so as to make the realisation of socialism unrealistic here claim that the "scene has not changed" and that "the conditions for revolution are much better now". So which is it?

Again revolution in Canada is unrealistic at the moment.
But conditions for a succesfull revolution in general , in the world are far better than they were in 1917.
The percentage of the proletariat in every country has increased and there is a region (SA) with countries that have almsot identical objective conditions and where the "permanent revolution" has found its more fruitfull conditions.
Also Europe has a great potential also.
And with the discreditation of Stalinism and the collapse if the USSR finaly there is a chance that we will get a true revolutionary leadership.




Firstly, could you please cite that quotation.

Secondly, there is of course nothing necessarily "wrong" with the above formulation (albeit very simplistic), but their is when you misinterpret it as you have. For example nationalism and even religion are ideological barriers to class consciousness when grasped by the masses. So obviously class consciousness is also influenced by ideology and the ruling ideas of society. Of course we could go on to say that these are themselves in turn based on particular material conditions, but so long as you equate "material conditions" with "living conditions" as you do, you will off course skip over such details.


Nationalism and religion will be wiped out in revolutionary conditions or rendered incapable of resisting .

Because in revolutionary conditions peoples conciousness moves by leaps and bounds .

Also about the quote I cannot give a citation and it was an approximation on what Marx said (I was in a hurry when I wrote the post)

[Yehuda Stern]

Not linear but with leaps, bounds and busts and with an interelationship.

That's the most clarifying you'll get from a follower of Alan Woods!

[OI OI OI]

That's the most clarifying you'll get from a follower of Alan Woods!

Why do you keep attacking the IMT man?
You seem more focused into attacking the IMT than doing anything else in this forum seriously.

Try to build your own sect of a handful of "revolutionaries" , but wait you can't because you don't have the right ideas,methods,traditions, tactics and perspectives.

No wonder your sect is so tiny

Also I am not a follower of Alan Woods. I am not a dog.
I agree with the ideas put forwards by Marx,Lenin, Engels and Trotsky and I belong to one of the few internationals who upholds them .

Now hide in your leftist ghetto that supports reactionaries like Hezbollah

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ As much as I have beefs with IMT, Yehuda is a sectarian extraordinaire.

[OI OI OI]

^^^ As much as I have beefs with IMT, Yehuda is a sectarian extraordinaire.



Yes he is.
I ve heard some stories from trusted comrades that have met him and they are not so good but I won't post them because I won't fall into the low level of attacking people personaly.
After a random search of his sect though I found some things on the internet which I can post .

look at how pathetic they are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Workers_League

and this, although it contains slanders about the IMT , matches with the description I got from comrades


The tiny sect in that was affiliated with the British Chavistas(:lol:), the former Militant tendency now led by Alan Woods, left the Marxist Tendency and now supports "Arab workers' revolution" and shouts "All Israel is occupied territory". They call themselves the international Socialist League. They are standing for… military defense to the Hamas, or "united front with the Hamas". I sometimes wonder if those people are actually insane. This is the heritage of those who broke with authentic Trotskyism and allied with the mishmash of centrism and sectarianism. By the way, the former Israeli Grantites were for… joining the Israeli Labor party whilst insisting that David Ben-Gurion was a Bolshevik during 1919-1923.

http://www.workersliberty.org/story/2008/02/25/update-left-israel

[Yehuda Stern]

Now hide in your leftist ghetto that supports reactionaries like Hezbollah

I'll go that, while you go hide in your not-so-leftist ghetto which supports Zionism.

And tell Alan to rescript you. Your rhetoric is even worse than usual.


I ve heard some stories from trusted comrades that have met him and they are not so good but I won't post them because I won't fall into the low level of attacking people personaly.

The days in which I would have cared for what Jacob Richter, members of the IMT (who?), or the Zionist AWL have to say about me or my group are far, far away in the past, if they ever did exist.

Just wondering, by the way, if you don't want to make personal attacks, why did you say you have heard (or in your words, "ve heard") "not so good" stories about me? Wouldn't it just be easier to not go there? Or maybe you're just lying and hope someone would believe you?

[OI OI OI]

Just wondering, by the way, if you don't want to make personal attacks, why did you say you have heard (or in your words, "ve heard") "not so good" stories about me? Wouldn't it just be easier to not go there? Or maybe you're just lying and hope someone would believe you?

I am not lying and sane people on the board will know that.

Your group has ridiculus positions for a trotskyist group if it can be characterized a group since it is so tiny.

You have been characterized as a bunch of insane people by the left of Israel and rightfuly so.
I brought the thing up in the first place , because I got so indignant with your sectarianism and your slander against the IMT.
And it is slander , not criticism .

I ve read tons of your bullshit on this board. Enough is enough with your slander.

[Niccolò Rossi]

But revolutionary conditions wont come because of stress and psychological depression but because of the material conditions...
Or else there would be a world revolution already.


Above you claimed that the failure of the revolutionary movement is nothing more than the failure of it's leadership. Here however you claim that it is the material conditions themselves which are holding back the realisation of socialism. So, which is it?


And I say at the moment because it is obvious from your post that you see things staticaly.

What exactly is "static" about my perspective?


Even though technicaly the labour aristocracy gets exploited they have no interest in overthrowing capitalism in the first world.

Why not? Doesn't their interest in the destruction of capitalism logically follow from the fact that they are exploited and alienated in their present existence?
Of course conditions change and I can see them changing (slowly but steadily downwards) and this will have an effect on his/her conciousness.

Does it follow then that self-described revolutionaries should be actively working against the direct interest of "First World" workers by supporting the removal of workers' rights, engaging in acts of sabotage such as cutting power to cities, vandalising shops and all sorts of activity which will actively damage the living conditions of workers so as to perpetuate the appearance of a mass class consciousness? After all if they aren't revolutionary and can't become so under the current conditions why not create them?


What I am saying is that they are not revolutionary at the moment and they ahve no interest in overthrowing capitalism even if we flood them with information and even if it was possible to explain to all of them how they get exploited they would still not be revolutionary at the moment.

Again this makes no sense. The "average worker" in the "First World" has a direct interest in the abolition of class and the social relations of capitalism.


The percentage of the proletariat in every country has increased

What statistics do you have which back up this assertion? If anything your claims above about the labour aristocracy run counter to this trend.


Nationalism and religion will be wiped out in revolutionary conditions or rendered incapable of resisting.

On what basis do you make this claim?


Because in revolutionary conditions peoples conciousness moves by leaps and bounds.

Yes, yes we've all heard it before but again what does that actually mean and what evidence do you have to support it?


Also about the quote I cannot give a citation and it was an approximation on what Marx said (I was in a hurry when I wrote the post)

Well then would you care to provide a source from which you made you "approximation"?

[Yehuda Stern]

IDOM, I think your little bluff has been exposed. Slandering me and my comrades is easy from afar, but what's certain is that you are either lying, or that some Zionist leftists (that IMTers are very chummy with) "ve" been feeding you lies (is that Alan's new decree? Give up the first two letters of "have"? You've been pretty consistent with it).

[OI OI OI]

Above you claimed that the failure of the revolutionary movement is nothing more than the failure of it's leadership. Here however you claim that it is the material conditions themselves which are holding back the realisation of socialism. So, which is it?

I was refering to different historical periods and in different situations in this period. Although we can see the same trend in countries with material conditions for revolution.
You ask which is it? Have you ever considered that it might be both or one at a time? I really don't get your "argument"




What exactly is "static" about my perspective?

That you don't see conditions as changing.
I said that the proletariat in the First World is not revolutionary now.
That does not mean that they are never revolutionary as you accused me of saying...




Why not? Doesn't their interest in the destruction of capitalism logically follow from the fact that they are exploited and alienated in their present existence?


Objectively I never said anything against that....
Subjectively for the workers themselves they have not reached those conclusions in the first world because there are no material conditions of revolution yet......
What are we arguing about ?

Does it follow then that self-described revolutionaries should be actively working against the direct interest of "First World" workers by supporting the removal of workers' rights, engaging in acts of sabotage such as cutting power to cities, vandalising shops and all sorts of activity which will actively damage the living conditions of workers so as to perpetuate the appearance of a mass class consciousness? After all if they aren't revolutionary and can't become so under the current conditions why not create them?

As revolutionaries we always fight for the betterment of the conditions of the working class while we have the maximum program of revolution.
Saying that there are no material conditions for revolution at this moment does not mean that we support reaction. It is just an observation for those of us who don't live inside a box, but have contact with the outside world...

We dont need to support reaction anyways to bring the necessary material conditions for revolution. Capitalism is pretty good at it:lol:




Again this makes no sense. The "average worker" in the "First World" has a direct interest in the abolition of class and the social relations of capitalism.

Yes according to the advanced layers of the workers which are a tiny minority.
A worker does not see it that way.
Have you ever even talked to a worker?:lol:




What statistics do you have which back up this assertion? If anything your claims above about the labour aristocracy run counter to this trend.


Why is all the world , first world ? I really don't understand your logic.
The percentage of the proletariat has increased due to the development of capitalism(although not complete) in the rest of the world in the last 100 years...
Also to be part of "the labour aristocracy" does not mean that you are not a member of the proletariat and if conditions change you won't be revolutionary.




On what basis do you make this claim?

Historical experience.




Yes, yes we've all heard it before but again what does that actually mean and what evidence do you have to support it?

Do I need evidence for that? Fine!
People in Russia in 1905 (the proletariat) went marching to the czar with a priest on their head singing songs about the little father and asking him to change their living conditions.
That was the beggining of the revolutionary conditions which were pretty backwards.
A few months later we had war in the cities and the country between the proletariat and the reaction.




Well then would you care to provide a source from which you made you "approximation"?

Why would I need a quote for something so simple and obvious that every concious marxist understands as true?

I really don't understand why you make arguments about obvious things....
You seem like you are arguing for the sake of arguing,

[OI OI OI]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../images/icons/icon1.gif

IDOM, I think your little bluff has been exposed. Slandering me and my comrades is easy from afar, but what's certain is that you are either lying, or that some Zionist leftists (that IMTers are very chummy with) "ve" been feeding you lies

How was my bluff exposed?
Do you really want me to make a public personal attack against that little insane rich little dwarf which you call comrade?
No I wont name you guys and I won;t attack further on a personal level.

And how is it being Zionist if you support the alliance between Jewish and Palestinian workers against capitalism?
You call them colonists . Fine.
But can't you draw the class line between the colonists?

Theres a similar situation in Canada and virtualy all of the Americans.
According to your line we should agitate for sending back all the settlers working class or not , white or asian or whatever and the creation of an Amerindian State from Alaska to Patagonia.
Which is simply idiotic .

[Niccolò Rossi]

Have you ever considered that it might be both or one at a time?

No I haven't. The reason for this I thought was quite clear: "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership". I think this fairly effectively rules out your claim that it is both.


Saying that there are no material conditions for revolution at this moment does not mean that we support reaction.

Why not? If as you assert, consciousness is motivated by the existing material conditions then shouldn't your logic follow that "revolutionaries" should push forward the possibility of revolution by "creating the conditions necessary"?



Again this makes no sense. The "average worker" in the "First World" has a direct interest in the abolition of class and the social relations of capitalism.
Yes according to the advanced layers of the workers which are a tiny minority.
A worker does not see it that way.
Have you ever even talked to a worker?:lol:

What does any of this mean and how does this in any way respond to my point? What is "according to the advanced layers of the workers"? What does a worker "not see that way"? What does me every talking to a worker have to do with anything?

I agree your point that there is a difference between having particular class interests and see and acting upon those interests, between objective interests and subjective interests. However, what you did was blur that line when you claimed (My emphasis added):


What I am saying is that they are not revolutionary at the moment and they ahve no interest in overthrowing capitalism even if we flood them with information and even if it was possible to explain to all of them how they get exploited they would still not be revolutionary at the moment.


Why is all the world , first world ?

I never made that claim.


The percentage of the proletariat has increased due to the development of capitalism(although not complete) in the rest of the world in the last 100 years...

Me thinks you have misunderstood my objection. Either way I'll leave the point there, there is nothing your answer has to offer me.


Historical experience.

Thanks for the explanation...


Why would I need a quote for something so simple and obvious that every concious marxist understands as true?

So you've gone from quoting Marx, to approximating Marx, to just shunning evidence all together by claiming the point your making is stupidly obvious. Very well done.

Anyway, I'll agree with you that there is no point going on. I've got nothing more to prove and you nothing more to offer.

[Yehuda Stern]

Well, but you keep throwing off little personal zingers at ass. Maybe you're lying, maybe you're a bit chickenshit, probably a bit of both. I would bet good money, though, that you're too cowardly to ever say these things to my face.

[OI OI OI]

No I haven't. The reason for this I thought was quite clear: "The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of revolutionary leadership". I think this fairly effectively rules out your claim that it is both.

I think you misunderstand the quote.
He said that when material conditions are here for revolution the crisis of the proletariat is reduced to the crisis of its leadership. Of course in Canada for example even though if we had the "reincarnation of Lenin' as a leader we would not have revolution because there are no material conditions for that. Stop arguing about everything .





Why not? If as you assert, consciousness is motivated by the existing material conditions then shouldn't your logic follow that "revolutionaries" should push forward the possibility of revolution by "creating the conditions necessary"?


They would not be revolutionaries anymore if they did so. They would be reactionaries. We lleave that to capitalism. Our focus is improving the conditions of proletarian existence because it is in our interests as members of the proletarian class.

We are not idealist petit-bourgeois revolutionaries. We are workers.


What does any of this mean and how does this in any way respond to my point? What is "according to the advanced layers of the workers"? What does a worker "not see that way"? What does me every talking to a worker have to do with anything?
There are different layers of the working class. If you fail to understand that you are an alien





So you've gone from quoting Marx, to approximating Marx, to just shunning evidence all together by claiming the point your making is stupidly obvious. Very well done.


Why isn't the point obvious? To I have to have a book with marx's quotes in order to prove shit that is obvious? Grow up please.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think you misunderstand the quote.
He said that when material conditions are here for revolution the crisis of the proletariat is reduced to the crisis of its leadership.

I misunderstand the quote?
All talk to the effect that historical conditions have not yet “ripened” for socialism is the product of ignorance or conscious deception. The objective prerequisites for the proletarian revolution have not only “ripened”; they have begun to get somewhat rotten. Without a socialist revolution, in the next historical period at that, a catastrophe threatens the whole culture of mankind. The turn is now to the proletariat, i.e., chiefly to its revolutionary vanguard. The historical crisis of mankind is reduced to the crisis of the revolutionary leadership. - Trotsky, The Transitional Programme
He said the material conditions for revolution are here, and if anything overdue. If you claim the material conditions are not here, then you are contradicting Trotsky (not that that's necessarily a bad thing, considering the dogmatism of so many Trots even unable to concede that conditions have changed since WWII)


Stop arguing about everything.

My humble apologises. I'm just not really good with the whole dogmatism thing, you know. Maybe it's just the "ruthless criticism of everything existing" getting to my head.


There are different layers of the working class. If you fail to understand that you are an alien

No I understand the stratification of the working class and their varying practical revolutionary potential. What I don't understand is your English.


Why isn't the point obvious? To I have to have a book with marx's quotes in order to prove shit that is obvious?No you don't have to. The point I'm trying to make is cite your sources. Don't quote Marx unless you want to provide evidence of that quotation.

The line you where originally after may have been:

The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production. - The German Ideology, Part I. A

It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness - Preface to A Contribution to the Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy

Even if this is the case, I don't believe either can be "translated" to "Material Conditions determine Consciousness"

Now could we please let this thread die.

[OI OI OI]

Ok I will just provide you with the quote you so much longed for.I will respond to the rest later as I have no time right now.

"It is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness" Karl Marx, The German Ideology XXIX. 263)


EDIT: HA!
You provided me with the quote and I didn't even see it. And yes it could be translated to that