How do you think it will happen?

[Pogue]

How do you guys think, and be really specific, because obviously this depends on your strain of communism, how do you think the revolution, or whatever its called when it happens, will happen? When do you think it will happen (50 years, after a major reccesion etc)? And what can we do to try and help make it happen?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Besides recommending that you read The Road to Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/index.htm) on MIA, I think it will come during an era of "civilized" electronic warfare (with devices that can "destroy" any electrical equipment between a microwave and a computer).

[Pogue]

What and why, is all I can say to that, Jacob. :confused:

[Pogue]

And that text was written in 1909. Things have changed a bit in 99 years, don't you feel?

[Sam_b]

And that text was written in 1909. Things have changed a bit in 99 years, don't you feel?

I think the Communist Manifesto is still relevant today, and it was written in 1848. Wouldn't you agree?

[Devrim]

To us, the mass strike is the opening of the revolutionary period.
Devrim

[Led Zeppelin]

Jacob's response basically shows why every serious person here should ignore his posts.

[Holden Caulfield]

Jacob's response basically shows why every serious person here should ignore his posts.

hahaha:thumbup1:

[rosa-rl]

There has to be a revolutionary crisis in society and government before there can be a revolution. Many different factors could bring this on. These things include but are not limited to increased government repression, dangerous wars, economic crisis and so on. Most likely more than one thing will be the impetus and it has to be accompanied by mass resistance.

There also has to be a revolutionary organization that can lead and turn the mass resistance into organized rebellion. Right now we don't have that really.

[Pogue]

I think the Communist Manifesto is still relevant today, and it was written in 1848. Wouldn't you agree?

No, I wouldn't, because it's hard to understand and out-dated. It's a historical text, not something I'd tell someone to read if I wanted to educate them about communism. Most people would find it illegible.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob's response basically shows why every serious person here should ignore his posts.

Why are the prospects of electronic warfare not "serious"? :rolleyes:

[JimmyJazz]

Why are the prospects of electronic warfare not "serious"? :rolleyes:

The problem is not showing that electronic warfare is serious, but that a million other things are less serious and/or imminent.

[La Comédie Noire]

A serious drop in first world worker's standards of living, an ineffective and often times brutal goverment, and a lost imperialist war or two just for further disillusionment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem is not showing that electronic warfare is serious, but that a million other things are less serious and/or imminent.

Sorry, it's just that I saw this show on TV documenting U$ and other imperialist countries' buildup of electronic warfare weaponry. No imperialist side wants a nuclear war and lots of people dead, so "How 'bout "just" a war that targets each other's electronic equipment - military or civilian?" is the mentality.

I'm not sure that imperialist warfare will have much of an impact until it becomes inter-imperialist on the basis above (and on the basis of depleted resources such as oil and fresh water).

[Hyacinth]

Certain material preconditions need to be met for the mere possibility of both socialism and communism. In the case of socialism, i.e. a non-market planned economy, I think that we have the technical means to implement such a system today. Those technical means being computers.

The problem for economic planning in the 20th century, and prior, was the lack of sufficient data gathering and processing capability (which was pointed out, correctly, during the economic calculation debate in the 1930's). The economic planners in the Soviet bloc, and other countries that tried to imitate Soviet-style planning, had to rely on market mechanisms (overtly or covertly) due to lack of the data processing and gathering capability (i.e. due to lack of sufficiently powerful computers). It is because of this reliance on market mechanisms, combined with the extraction of surplus value from workers, and lack of workers' control of the means of production, that resulted in these systems being properly classified as state capitalist. This, in some ways, was an inevitable outcome of socialist experiments in the 20th century, especially during the early part of the 20th century, due to the lack of the necessary material means by which to effect planning.

Today, conversely, we have the means by which to plan an economy (in fact, large corporations are already using the same methods that for market forecasting and for predicting consumer behavior). What we would need is a model of the economy in order to be able to properly plan it. While constructing an appropriate model, a model which would be quite complex, is a difficult task, it is not insurmountable.

The current crisis in capitalism offers an excellent opportunity to agitate for change, and, unlike before, I think that the left can and must offer a positive vision of how it would do things differently economically (as well as politically). So, in short, I think that with the right political movement and if a revolution were to occur today or tomorrow or in the near future, we could build a socialist society.

Communism, conversely, I think is a bit more difficult, since it depends on what one means by it (as the OP correctly recognizes). I will deal with it primarily in economic terms. I usually contrast it with socialism in that I think socialism is an economic system that operates under scarcity, or relative scarcity, whereas communism would operate under abundance, or relative abundance. The question of when a communist society becomes possible then becomes a question of when we can effect economic abundance.

On this question I am of two minds. On the one hand I think that with respect to many products we can already create abundance (abundance here being defined not in terms of satisfying unlimited wants, which is absurd, but rather in terms of consumption; we have abundance of a good or service when we can produce enough of that good or service to satisfy consumption). That is to say, the present means of production, in conjunction with proper planning, is capable of producing sufficient goods/services to satisfy consumption. Now, due to the nature of capitalism, and the production of commodities, i.e. goods and services for sale on the market for a profit, capitalism structurally creates artificial scarcity. In some sectors of the economy it is quite easy to see that this is the case, the most obvious example being information (which can be duplicated ad infinitum at no cost given the existence of the infrastructure to distribute the data). Whether or not the same holds for other, more material, goods is an empirical question which I'm not prepared to answer. This will be answered once we produce the correct models of the economy. The productive power of our means of production will determine how quickly we can transition to a post-scarcity economy, i.e. how quickly we can transition to communism.

I hope that the productive capacity of our means of production is sufficient for a relatively swift transition to abudnance, but, as mentioned previously, this is an empirical question that I cannot answer.

If it is the case that it is not, then I think continual development of the means of production will eventually resolve this problem. As to what technology exactly will help us attain this, that depends largely on what good or service we are talking about. With respect to energy abundance fusion power plans would go a long way toward creating that, or the construction of solar energy collectors in orbit, etc. Nanotechnology would also go a long way to solving nearly all issues of scarcity (provided it actually can work in the science fiction like manner that it has been portrayed as working), etc. I really don't have many specifics to add to this, I'm not an engieer, but I'm sure all of you can think of your favourite science fiction examples.

[rosa-rl]

I do not believe that we can transition from socialism to communism just through abundance - by developing production. Its going to take the transformation of the thinking of the masses as well. Revolution occurs in the superstructure and is carried over to the economic base.

As a side note the abundance cannot be something that is reached by exploiting others or it is social imperialism.. not saying you believe this...just a point.

Also, communism can not be reached in just one or a few countries, it has to happen on a global scale after socialism has been reached globally because of the pressures of capitalist imperialism that continue to have an effect on the socialist countries.

[Comrada J]

If I could predict the future I'd tell you. Although I personally think left-solidarity will be a prerequisite. If the current situations continues to deteriorate people may become more class conscious but this doesn't always happen, unfortunately. But that'll be our chance.


I think it will come during an era of "civilized" electronic warfare (with devices that can "destroy" any electrical equipment between a microwave and a computer).
The doomsday scheme from mgs2 much?

[OI OI OI]

No, I wouldn't, because it's hard to understand and out-dated. It's a historical text, not something I'd tell someone to read if I wanted to educate them about communism. Most people would find it illegible.

Just because you can't understand the communist manifesto that doesn't make it outdated.

If you actualy read it carefully you will underrstand that it is very relevant .

That if you are a serious revolutionary and not a left-leaning kiddo.

Now about how will the revolution happen that we don't know.

It all depends on the conditions in which it will happen, which means if the bourgeoisie can react and how will they react etc.

There might be a civil war, there might be a bloodless uprising we don't know.

but for it to be a socialist revolution we know for sure that this will happen.

The bourgeois state will be abolished(as i said it doesn't matter how), workers councils will be established and the workers will democraticaly control them.

The property of the bourgeoisie will be nationalized under workers control.

Workers militias will be established for the defenced of the socialist nation from external and internal enemies and they will be subject to the democratic control of the workers.

[Vendetta]

I don't know how it will happen; I just want to get it moving.

[Hyacinth]

I do not believe that we can transition from socialism to communism just through abundance - by developing production. Its going to take the transformation of the thinking of the masses as well. Revolution occurs in the superstructure and is carried over to the economic base.

As a side note the abundance cannot be something that is reached by exploiting others or it is social imperialism.. not saying you believe this...just a point.

Also, communism can not be reached in just one or a few countries, it has to happen on a global scale after socialism has been reached globally because of the pressures of capitalist imperialism that continue to have an effect on the socialist countries.
I took it for granted in my analysis that there would be democratic control of the means of production, but I think that you are correct to point out that the sort of economic system that we are talking about when we talk of communism or socialism cannot be founded upon exploitation.

That having been said, I do take issue with what you say re: the interaction of the superstructure and base of society. I would maintain that the base is primary; no matter what people want one cannot bring about communism or socialism if the technical material means don't exist for it. But, more importantly, the changes in the base are what will bring about the changes in a superstructure, which in turn will result in changes in the base. That is to say, the failure of the capitalist mode of production will be what will motivate the masses to overthrow capitalism, and this in turn will result in a change in the relations of production. Though I don't think we really disagree on this point, I'm just spelling it out in greater detail.

[Bilan]

to us, the mass strike is the opening of the revolutionary period.
Devrim

qft
I'd just like to add that the occurrence of the mass strike could be due to anything - it could even be very soon.
Though, there is no certainty, ever, of when it will occur.

[Devrim]

Yes, it could happen anytime. In itself it is not a guarantee of revolution. There were mass strikes in Poland (1980) and Iran (1979), which didn't lead to (workers') revolution. Without the mass strike though there can be no perspective for communism.
Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about civil disobedience like in the Civil Rights movement? That's a more pacifistic form of the mass strike, no?

[Tower of Bebel]

IMO we need the mass strike and a world working class party at the same time.

[Devrim]

IMO we need the mass strike and a world working class party at the same time.

I agree that we need a world party. The question is how it develops.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

That simultaneously transnational, social-revolutionary, class-strugglist, and working-class-only “party” of at least the vast majority of the working class CANNOT develop only during the revolutionary period (the typical left-communist and Trotskyist position). It has to be built on a "voluntarist" basis NOW.

Although I wrote of the mass strike as being part and parcel of the revolutionary process, if the above party is built soon enough, I'm not sure the mass strike would be a good idea, simply because workers should occupy the workplaces and prevent the bosses and their non-prole goons from entering. The disabling of an entire economy would mean food shortages and shortages of other key goods and services.

[Devrim]

What about civil disobedience like in the Civil Rights movement? That's a more pacifistic form of the mass strike, no?

No, not at all.

Devrim

[RadicalRadical]

I think that it is an unpredictable thing, we cannot say whether it will happen in a week, a month, a year, ten years, fifty years, etc. I do not believe that it is necessarily guaranteed, for if we keep waiting without doing anything ourselves it might never come.