Why the Revolution will Never Succeed - "Sigh"

[Nobody]

In every post-indusrtial Society there will never be a communist revolution. Why you may ask. Two words: air strikes. If ten million communist were to rise up in lets say France, U.S. or England, the governments would crush it quickily. Commies with AK's vs. tanks, not a pretty picture. Short of mass army defection (unlikily) or mass covert shipments of advanced weaponry (also unlikily) we cant win. Any ideas on how we could win?

[redstar2000]

Like many, you are thinking of revolution in the same way as people think about battles between armies; who has the best weaponry, the best-trained troops, the largest numbers, etc., etc.

Revolutions are not like that. If 10,000,000 communists in an advanced capitalist country rose up, the army would be useless...first, because if there were that many communists, then there would also be 20 million or more sympathizers, many of them in the army itself.

Secondly, professional soldiers tend not to obey impossible orders. Of course, you can bomb Paris or London or San Francisco into rubble (if you can find a crew willing to fly the planes or launch the missiles)...but you still have to reoccupy it and meanwhile, many of the insurgents have scattered all over the place. It is a nightmare for the ruling class...and their lackies in uniform, many of whom will quietly and discreetly demobilize themselves without bothering to inform their commanding officers.

Thirdly, and most importantly, revolutions don't depend on military strength per se. If the vast majority of the working class wishes to overthrow capitalism, they can do so by refusing to work. How long would it take to bring capitalism to its knees in such a struggle? Probably six weeks or less.

And with almost no shooting at all; wouldn't that be nice.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 9:08 pm on June 4, 2003)

[Ymir]

LevTrotsky,
That is a very pessimistic opinion and I disagree. A revolution could occur in the USA but it would have to be from the top. It would be a coup d'etat performed by professional revolutionaries.


(Edited by Ymir at 3:09 am on June 5, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

There is in my opinion one way for a revolution to succeed....and even it's highly unlikely. I will transpose a prior post for your viewing in this thread as it's theme is similar.

Ravolution will have to be attempted within US soil-as any revolutionary practises outside the US will be swiftly met and dealt with under the cloak of "combatting terrorism" to preserve "our" way of life. With the extreme rate at which capitalism is spreading (it's the fucking SARS of the political world) mass mobilisation efforts will not be enough; as we will have to start from square one. I compare it to combatting an avalanche by hurling snowballs at it. Workers in the US are under the impression they "have it made" and quite simply lack the resources and intelligence to "rise up" against their oppressors as they will be replaced from an ever increasing labour pool of "good capitalists" at the first sign of rebellion.

Given this reality and the reality of not being able to feed their families, the workers will absolutely choose to keep their heads down and eyes shut. This will lead to the only possible alternative- A massive offensive within US borders, alleviating the fear of nuclear or conventional retaliation as the capitalists themselves will be the catylists and shields...Creating a new avalanche that will pale anything they have ever witnessed. At this point the goal would be to create as much instability within the capitalist system as possible. Once this is acheived, the workers will have no choice
but to begin to mobilise. Their heads will have to come up. Their eyes will have to open . With their infrastructure in such an unstable state, the affects will formalise in the form of trading. As all the corporation's values continue to plummet, foreign investors will begin selling their investments at an alarming rate, creating a mass depression. Workers will no longer be able to "accept their fate" as slaves to capitalism. Simply because corporations will no longer be able to afford their salaries...leading to mass layoffs. The labour pool is now severely increased...but not with the usual "loyal capitalists". The majority will now be angry dissenters. these will be the new soldiers of the revolution We cannot make the error of centralising at this point. that would leave a simple target of "last effort" eradication for the now failing capitalist government. Mobilisation must be swift and broad. The movement will gain the favour of the working class at an alarming rate if we leave no alternantive for them. The education phase can now begin and unfortunately we will now have to begin dealing with subversionists appropriately. The message must now be sent to the former capitalists that the people's revolution will not be silenced.

Of course it's lacking detail...just a generalisation of what course of action will work.




(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 3:08 am on June 5, 2003)

[Marina]

That's right, Redstar. They present a face of invulnerability, but just look at the trouble they had with Iraq. And Somalia. And Vietnam. And...never mind. Also, I doubt any soldier would fire on millions of his own countrymen, destroying his own city. Two more words: economic sabotage. Very important in a struggle...

[革命者]

4 words: french strikes will increase.

[CubanFox]

Screw revolution! Violence will not win respect!

Long live democracy!

Scandanavia has proved that leftism need not be violent!

http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/d/3dflagsdotcom_denma_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/s/3dflagsdotcom_swena_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/f/3dflagsdotcom_finna_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/n/3dflagsdotcom_norwa_2fawl.gif

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

By Redstar2000
"Revolutions are not like that. If 10,000,000 communists in an advanced capitalist country rose up, the army would be useless...first, because if there were that many communists, then there would also be 20 million or more sympathizers, many of them in the army itself."

Boy, an uprising of that size would be tasty on my 40 million population island (UK)...
Altho it's probably decades or maybe even centuries before the british Government gets cheeky enough to incite people into an insurgence.
Does anyone remember the petrol crisis?
Who here thinks that had it gone further a revolution would have occurred?

[Blackberry]

Quote: from CubanFox on 9:17 am on June 5, 2003
Screw revolution! Violence will not win respect!

Long live democracy!

Scandanavia has proved that leftism need not be violent!

http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/d/3dflagsdotcom_denma_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/s/3dflagsdotcom_swena_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/f/3dflagsdotcom_finna_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/n/3dflagsdotcom_norwa_2fawl.gif


Soft capitalism is what I call it.

[革命者]

Quote: from CubanFox on 10:17 am on June 5, 2003
Screw revolution! Violence will not win respect!

Long live democracy!

Scandanavia has proved that leftism need not be violent!

http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/d/3dflagsdotcom_denma_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/s/3dflagsdotcom_swena_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/f/3dflagsdotcom_finna_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/n/3dflagsdotcom_norwa_2fawl.gif
fake capitalism that's what I call it.

[Ian]

All Nations: Hallucinations

Sweden or whatever is only a nicer form of capitalism, but the fact is that the state is still a state used to repress the underclasses.


Enough of the fucking Flag-waving bullshit, ask any comrades from scandenavia, it is not that much better!

[Sabocat]

Quote: from Scotty on 3:56 pm on June 5, 2003

Quote: from CubanFox on 10:17 am on June 5, 2003
Screw revolution! Violence will not win respect!

Long live democracy!

Scandanavia has proved that leftism need not be violent!

http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/d/3dflagsdotcom_denma_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/s/3dflagsdotcom_swena_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/f/3dflagsdotcom_finna_2fawl.gif
http://www.3dflags.net/assets/XV21AE/gif/2/n/3dflagsdotcom_norwa_2fawl.gif
fake capitalism that's what I call it.



socialism light.

[Sandanista]

Nah the only way to revolution is if the workers unite together, form one massive trade unions, unlike the TUC which has other unions affilitated to it, and instead of the electricians against the carpentes, they work together for the common goal, SOCIALISM!!!

[Nobody]

Someone mentioned a coup. This is what would happen. A couple hundred commies attack major targets in the capital city. Take some hostages, heck maybe even the leader. Oh look, here come the commandos guns blazing. All the Commies are dead, maybe even the leader. But that action would destory the left. All leaders, maybe even members of the CP are arrested, people disown the CP, even if they were once active. In one blow the Lefist movement is set back a hundred years. Coups without the army don't work, look at the attempt in Venzuala.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from LevTrosky on 1:07 am on June 5, 2003
In every post-indusrtial Society there will never be a communist revolution. Why you may ask. Two words: air strikes. If ten million communist were to rise up in lets say France, U.S. or England, the governments would crush it quickily. Commies with AK's vs. tanks, not a pretty picture. Short of mass army defection (unlikily) or mass covert shipments of advanced weaponry (also unlikily) we cant win. Any ideas on how we could win?


How many times must I tell you people about the mental revolution?

Listen next time damn it

[Anonymous]

Scandinavia is practically communist.

[Nobody]

What's a mental revolution? How would that change the country? Would it topple the government?

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from LevTrosky on 12:10 am on June 6, 2003
What's a mental revolution? How would that change the country? Would it topple the government?


no it would reform the govt.

[Nobody]

How would it reform the Government?

[Vinny Rafarino]

The workers will not unite. Why? Because they do not care. Andy why should they? It's much easire to tell the homeless man "fuck off, go get a job" than it is to make homlessness and hunger obsolete. The answer is clear. give the workers no option force their hand so to speak. The sheep will gather when the right dog is herding them and once they are herded, control is simple. You all may think me as hard-lined but at least I can comfortably say that results positive results would be likely. Or perhaps you all would be happy with a simple "commieland" portion of Dysneyland...I hear they got bang up red-chocolate covered bananas there.

[Dirty Commie]

The people would realize the truth, and elect a fair government.

[Lardlad95]

Quote: from LevTrosky on 1:14 am on June 6, 2003
How would it reform the Government?


Democratic Socialism...look it up

[redstar2000]

The answer is clear. give the workers no option, force their hand so to speak. The sheep will gather when the right dog is herding them and once they are herded, control is simple. -- Comrade RAF.

Isn't it a shame that some so-called "leftists" think that only thing really wrong with the ruling class is that they weren't born in it? A historical oversight, by the way, that they clearly intend to rectify at the first opportunity.

If the workers are "sheep", then why not become a capitalist? What do "sheep" really "deserve" but to be sheared, killed, and eaten? What is the real difference between a "communist" or "socialist" who sees himself "herding" workers and any capitalist politician or, for that matter, advertising executive?

There are many reasons for the 20th century failure of the communist project, but I submit that this sort of intolerable arrogance toward the working class has to be one of the big reasons!

What worker with half a brain would stick his/her neck out for a new boss?

RAF, of course, is a member of the Communist Party USA, an utterly wretched outfit that hasn't been seriously interested in working class revolution since, hell, 1933 or something like that. They've been supporting the Democratic Party since 1953.

But to one Leninist tradition they've remained faithful...an insufferable contempt for the class they are "supposed" to serve. And "serve" them they do, roasted with garlic and oregano. What else do you do with sheep?

As to Scandinavia, those countries have been "history's lucky winners" in the 20th century; an unusually rational capitalist class combined with Social Democratic parties eager to win reforms and willing to abandon any socialist goals resulted in "capitalism with a human face"...sort of.

But the competitive pressures of the international capitalist class are "eating away" at that mask; things are going to get worse there, too.

Social Democracy did as well there as that particular political tendency has ever done anywhere; but their day is clearly over. They will put up some uneven resistance to the assault on working class interests, but I think they are incapable of going over to a revolutionary outlook. Those are capitalist countries; if Marx was right, then communist revolution will come to Scandinavia.

The suggestion that socialism could be peacefully "voted in" as a consequence of bourgeois elections may have been credible prior to 1914; since then, there's really been no excuse for such illusions.

Except, perhaps, a really bad memory.

:cool:

[Vinny Rafarino]

I will get to all of your babblings later RS.

You really need to read all of my post before replying. I have told you numerous times. If you recall from the previous thread I stated I am a member of the Communist party. I have had many affiliations over several continents over the years...but NEVER the american communist party...

YOU ARE ALL OPINION AND NO FACT REDSTAR.

EDIT:
I also find it amusing that you follow me around to attempt to belittle me. No chance sir. You are no where near smart enough.(

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 6:16 am on June 6, 2003)

[redstar2000]

If you recall from the previous thread I stated I am a member of the Communist party. I have had many affiliations over several continents over the years...but NEVER the american communist party...

Sometimes, a reasonable assumption turns out to be unreasonable after all. Your references to being a member of the "cp" combined with your stalwart defense of the U.S. Department of Justice made it reasonable, in my view, to assume that you were referring to the American Communist Party...there's no other group here that is called that.

It was an honest error but it was an error and I apoligize to you for making it.

One small order of crow, please.

:cool:

PS: I stand by everything else in the post!

[Vinny Rafarino]

I have a tough time getting you sometimes. In one sentence you apologise for the error. (no other recourse was acceptable as this was an obvious error)

THEN you make another attempt to belittle me. As I said, you are not smart enough. In no way would you ever rattle me. I find you laughable.

Stalwart defense....right. Whatever makes you happy mate.


If you spent more time researching your posts in place of following me around you would appear smarter because now your posts are simply trivial.

Again sir, grow up.

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 6:42 am on June 6, 2003)

[Vinny Rafarino]

No I can get to responding to all of your post Redstar.

Isn't it a shame that some so-called "leftists" think that only thing really wrong with the ruling class is that they weren't born in it? A historical oversight, by the way, that they clearly intend to rectify at the first opportunity.

I could easily make a rash judgement as you have and say I've been a "leftist" since you were in diapers. However I don't know your age so I won't. I must however point out that you have no idea what I have accomplished for the movement over the years, nor would I ever tell you.

If the workers are "sheep", then why not become a capitalist? What do "sheep" really "deserve" but to be sheared, killed, and eaten? What is the real difference between a "communist" or "socialist" who sees himself "herding" workers and any capitalist politician or, for that matter, advertising executive?

If you still fantasize about the workers suddenly banding together in revolution you are sadly mistaken considering the average IQ in the USA is 100 or below.
You have two choices RS do what is necessary to advance the movement or be quiet, hit another gaming convention and leave the real work to the men.

There are many reasons for the 20th century failure of the communist project, but I submit that this sort of intolerable arrogance toward the working class has to be one of the big reasons!

I do believe the early movements were very succssful. Only to be undermined by subversionist "leftists" who do not have the stomach for politics. Disgraceful.

But to one Leninist tradition they've remained faithful...an insufferable contempt for the class they are "supposed" to serve. And "serve" them they do, roasted with garlic and oregano. What else do you do with sheep?

Ragardless of how witty this joke was (it was a good joke) The point remains the same. To use archaic words...The 'Vanguard" are a reality. Some are indeed smarter than others. Soldiers are neccessary as the "vanguard" are too valuable. Are you one of the sheep RS? Or are you one of the "vanguard"?

As to Scandinavia, those countries have been "history's lucky winners" in the 20th century; an unusually rational capitalist class combined with Social Democratic parties eager to win reforms and willing to abandon any socialist goals resulted in "capitalism with a human face"...sort of.
But the competitive pressures of the international capitalist class are "eating away" at that mask; things are going to get worse there, too.
Social Democracy did as well there as that particular political tendency has ever done anywhere; but their day is clearly over. They will put up some uneven resistance to the assault on working class interests, but I think they are incapable of going over to a revolutionary outlook. Those are capitalist countries; if Marx was right, then communist revolution will come to Scandinavia.

These statements are well thought out AND accurate. There is nothing I could add to them. Not that it means much to you but I commend you for this one.

The suggestion that socialism could be peacefully "voted in" as a consequence of bourgeois elections may have been credible prior to 1914; since then, there's really been no excuse for such illusions.

Except, perhaps, a really bad memory.

Again, well thought out and accurate. You indeed closed the post with strength.

[El Che]

Good post Redstar2000. I agree with everything except this:

"The suggestion that socialism could be peacefully "voted in" as a consequence of bourgeois elections may have been credible prior to 1914; since then, there's really been no excuse for such illusions."

It`s really a shame because I actually like most of your politics. It`s about the only thing you lack. I understand you are "old school" but it`s a new day and age we are living in, we have to get involved in the democratic structures in our societies and fight for our ideas (as well as for equal fighting chances, i.e political party finance laws, etc) there. At least thats my view.

Imagine, if you will, that Socialists, worthy of that name, actually achive acceptance for their ideas in advanced Capitalist nations... Do you realise what bourgeois reactionary forces would have to do to stop something like that? You`re an American, what do you think the American people would do if it`s goverment turned against them and openly tried to impose tyranny?

Such a state of siege, successful or not, would be the biggest thing since the french revolution. I urge you to reconsider the potential of such political maneuvers.

(Edited by El Che at 2:43 pm on June 6, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Whoops, RAF, you did it again.

There's this...

If you still fantasize about the workers suddenly banding together in revolution you are sadly mistaken considering the average IQ in the USA is 100 or below.

And then there's this...

You have two choices RS do what is necessary to advance the movement or be quiet, hit another gaming convention and leave the real work to the men.

And, finally this...

The 'Vanguard" are a reality. Some are indeed smarter than others. Soldiers are neccessary as the "vanguard" are too valuable. Are you one of the sheep RS?

Now, let's translate this into ordinary terms and see exactly what RAF is saying.

1. The idea of workers spontaneously uniting to make revolution is "fantasy". (I guess historical examples of this "fantasy" are "out of order" in this discussion.)

2. Because the "average" IQ in the USA is "100 or below". Well, the tests are actually designed to produce that result. In fact, they have to be revised every few years to make that happen, otherwise test results wouldn't be comparable. I won't even start a discussion on how such tests are the "scientific" equivalent of palm-reading.

3. "...leaving the real work to men." Such a manly sentiment...it sounds like something from one of those nostalgic World War II films, or maybe a John Wayne western. Men do "real work", women have babies, and boys play games. That's certainly a lot simpler and easier to understand than class analysis, isn't it?

4. "Some are indeed smarter than others." Yes, I've noticed that. However, I've also noticed that people who make this point have either already disqualified themselves or will do so in the remainder of their posts.

I always wonder, when people make this kind of statement, just what consequences they would wish to flow from acceptance of this fact. Should "smart people" have the automatic right to rule the "dummies"? Perhaps own them as slaves? Kill and eat them?

These days, you never know.

"Soldiers are necessary as the vanguard are too valuable." From the above, I assume "soldiers" are the "dummies" and the "valuable vanguard" are the "smart" "men". Now tell me, does this picture of a "revolution" fill your heart with a burning desire "to be a part of it all"?

Are you willing to risk "taking a bullet", hell, even breaking a fingernail, for this pile of shit?

Are you one of the sheep RS?

The worst kind, RAF, one who very much wishes to acquire a taste for roast shepherd.

From El Che: but it`s a new day and age we are living in, we have to get involved in the democratic structures in our societies and fight for our ideas (as well as for equal fighting chances, i.e political party finance laws, etc) there.

As I've said to others who've made this argument, go ahead and try this again if you wish (it is an idea that is far older than I am). But I can tell you with almost mathematical precision how it will turn out. You will gain actual political clout in inverse proportion to the degree of change you wish to implement. In other words, if you want to make only modest reforms to capitalism, you have a reasonable chance of a successful political career in bourgeois electoral politics. If you want major changes (never mind socialism), you will be lucky to win a seat on the Berkeley City Council.

Why? In a phrase, those "democratic institutions" that you speak of are not democratic. They have the appearance of popular sovereignity...but no serious opposition from a real left will ever be permitted to, for example, capture a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. There are many legal ways to stop that from happening...but, hell, if all else failed, they'd cheat.

Sad to say, but there's another mathematical equation that also comes into play here. A person's committment to radical political change declines in direct proportion to the number of years they spend in bourgeois electoral politics. The longer you do that stuff, the less radical you become, the more co-opted you become, and the more corrupt you become. Everyone who starts down that road thinks "it won't happen to me."

But it does.

:cool:

[Anonymous]

Quote: from COMRADE RAF on 1:15 am on June 6, 2003
The answer is clear. give the workers no option force their hand so to speak.

Your a very very scary man. I can always depend on you to feed my worst fears of communism.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Now, let's translate this into ordinary terms and see exactly what RAF is saying.

I did not know that my views needed any translation RS. It is very obvious that I lean much further to the left than most of our comrades here. I actually admit it rather than hide behind semantics in fear of making a MOD angry.

Well, the tests are actually designed to produce that result. In fact, they have to be revised every few years to make that happen, otherwise test results wouldn't be comparable. I won't even start a discussion on how such tests are the "scientific" equivalent of palm-reading.

Yet another conspiracy contrived by comrade RS.


Such a manly sentiment...it sounds like something from one of those nostalgic World War II films, or maybe a John Wayne western. Men do "real work", women have babies, and boys play games. That's certainly a lot simpler and easier to understand than class analysis, isn't it?

Take my statements in any context you wish RS. I've already told you I really don't care.

"Some are indeed smarter than others." Yes, I've noticed that. However, I've also noticed that people who make this point have either already disqualified themselves or will do so in the remainder of their posts.

Good try at getting me upset. Will not happen RS.

I always wonder, when people make this kind of statement, just what consequences they would wish to flow from acceptance of this fact. Should "smart people" have the automatic right to rule the "dummies"? Perhaps own them as slaves? Kill and eat them?

RS, you would then prefer to have politically inept or even incompetent individuals running your party?

Are you willing to risk "taking a bullet", hell, even breaking a fingernail, for this pile of shit?

I do believe I have made comrade RS angry. I've been called worse by greater people comrade. This does not upset me in the slightest.

The worst kind, RAF, one who very much wishes to acquire a taste for roast shepherd.

It appears that we may be able to make a good RAF soldier for the revolution out of you yet. Harness that anger comrade!

[El Che]

Redstar2000,

Your reply is somewhat lacking in that it offers very little in the way of objective argumentation and very much in the way of subjective postulation and futurology.

"You will gain actual political clout in inverse proportion to the degree of change you wish to implement."

While this may be true, in a very general, inductive kind of way, it does not rule out that today`s radical ideas can become tomorrow`s common sense. If we were to take Redstar2000`s word for it - on how things go down and will go down - this still does not mean that no Socialist progress is possible, it just means it is slow.~

But fast, slow or not at all; wheres the argument? Is it that if we can not, in an unrigged democratic system, get the majority to legitimize the changes we want we should go over the majority? No, that is not the answer Redstar2000 would rather give, so his only way out is undermine the legitimacy of existing Democratic systems in Capitalist societies (for the sake of argument lets restrict our selves to the US and Europe). He has to do this at any cost or his whole edifice crumbles.

"Why? In a phrase, those "democratic institutions" that you speak of are not democratic. They have the appearance of popular sovereignity...but no serious opposition from a real left will ever be permitted to, for example, capture a majority of the U.S. House of Representatives. There are many legal ways to stop that from happening...but, hell, if all else failed, they'd cheat."

1. "[won`t]be permitted to"

2. "There are many legal ways to stop"

3. "they'd cheat"

1 and 3 are quite simply subjective prediction. You can give past examples where these things have happened but the fact ramains that this is not an honest argument. Why? because we must take your word for it that they will change the rules of the game if Socialists start winning it.

In nº 2 you speak of laws, laws that exist here and now, that prevent the "appearance" of Democracy from being or becoming the reality of Democracy. Thats concrete, thats an argument. Show me what you are talking about.


"Sad to say, but there's another mathematical equation that also comes into play here. A person's committment to radical political change declines in direct proportion to the number of years they spend in bourgeois electoral politics. The longer you do that stuff, the less radical you become, the more co-opted you become, and the more corrupt you become. Everyone who starts down that road thinks "it won't happen to me.""

This is really just an unnecessary paragraph which I shouldn`t even be commenting on. It`s validity is once again compromised by the fact that it`s a subjective opinion and it`s just a polite way for Redstar2000 to tell me that I`m being a bad boy and that if I continue down this road I`ll end up selling my ideals for acceptance and/or power. Thanks but no thanks just stick to the point please.


Regrads.

[redstar2000]

Is it that if we can not, in an unrigged democratic system, get the majority to legitimize the changes we want we should go over the majority?

Clearly not, as I have said many times. The way the working class majority rises to power, if it is to happen at all, is completely outside of the "legitimate" institutions of the bourgeoisie. Paris in 1871 and Paris again in 1968 point the way: you don't win bourgeois elections, you seize power and smash the old bourgeois state machinery (or not, depending on how determined you really are).

The role of communists is to teach working people that they have both the right and the power to do that whenever they wish.

In the eyes of a class conscious worker, all of the institutions and nearly all of the practices of bourgeois society have zero legitimacy.

Of course, the number of class conscious workers is quite small, essentially insignificant, in the U.S. In Europe, the picture is somewhat brighter, from what I've read.

He has to do this [undermine the legitimacy of existing democratic institutions] at any cost or his whole edifice crumbles.

And not just mine. If I'm wrong, then so are Marx and Engels. I think all the historical evidence supports the three of us (:biggrin:)...but history may be more complicated than we think.

Why? because we must take your word for it that they will change the rules of the game if Socialists start winning it.

Is there any reason to think otherwise? You admit yourself that they have done so in the past. There are not many "iron laws" of history, but one of them certainly is "if it has happened, then it can happen".

Do you wish to assert that the capitalist class has changed its nature? That they have become "men of honor" who will "behave decently" and "accept the will of the majority"? On what grounds would you make this astounding assertion?

In nº 2 you speak of laws, laws that exist here and now, that prevent the "appearance" of Democracy from being or becoming the reality of Democracy. Thats concrete, thats an argument. Show me what you are talking about.

Thinking how a capitalist would think does not come "easy" for us, but here are some ways I would do it if I were in their shoes...

Have my Democratic Party lackies and my Republican Party lackies nominate the same guy to run against the "socialist".

Run a massive advertising campaign two or three weeks prior to the election threatening a "strike of capital" if the "socialist" is elected; e.g., "don't bother coming to work Wednesday morning if the "socialist" is elected because we are closing down and your job is down the toilet".

Have both the Department of Justice and the Internal Revenue Service launch massive and well-publicized "investigations" of the "socialist"...who will be"thought" to "possibly" be "involved" in illegal drugs, child pornography, tax evasion, and failure to pay parking tickets...whatever will be useful. If necessary, seize the "socialist" party's funds and records as "evidence".

Hire someone to come forward and claim that the "socialist" candidate raped/molested that person years ago.

And so on. And like I say: if those don't work, cheat. Rig the outcome in whatever way seems most practical; purging voter rolls is a good way to do it without looking bad.

and it`s just a polite way for Redstar2000 to tell me that I`m being a bad boy...

Not "bad", just foolish. And at least, as you recognized, I was trying to be polite about it.

Not that it ever does any good.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 12:05 am on June 7, 2003)

[El Che]

Redstar2k,

"The way the working class majority rises to power, if it is to happen at all, is completely outside of the "legitimate" institutions of the bourgeoisie."

This is a contradiction in terms. The legitimate institutions in question - Democratic system - are not "of the bourgeoisie", they simply are. They are off all of us, they are of society and further more they are indeed legitimate if they are truely Democratic.

In my country there is a constituion that sets out the fundamental laws of my society. There is a separation of judicial, legislative and executive power. The elected parliament passes the laws, the elected goverment runs things within the constraints of the law and the courts pass judgement. That, basically, is the legal, institutional, organisational, functional reality. There is nothing, anywhere, that says Socialists can`t become goverment, that says Socialists can`t have a majority in parliament. That only exists in your head.

Redstar, its not just about introducing socialist change, its also about always respecting the fundamental rules of Democracy. Its about acknowledge that if the majority does not wan`t Socialism then, now and forever, there is nothing you can (should) do about it. You don`t sieze or smash anything, you let the people decide what is to be done. And you protect their right to do just that whether what they want is Socialism or not. That is the only coherent position.

"In the eyes of a class conscious worker, all of the institutions and nearly all of the practices of bourgeois society have zero legitimacy."

Again, nothing has any legitimacy because it is "bourgeois". I don`t know what you`re talking about Redstar2000. Unless you specify what exactly is bourgeois and in what sense, I have to inform you that what you are saying is not supported by reality.

All the Democratic institutions should be inpartial and should belong to the people, to the citizens. If they don`t and if they aint, I`m going to be very pissed off.

"Do you wish to assert that the capitalist class has changed its nature? That they have become "men of honor" who will "behave decently" and "accept the will of the majority"? On what grounds would you make this astounding assertion?"

No, I wish to assert that the Capitalist class doesn`t have a choice in the matter. They have to shut up and accept what the majority rules because thats what is in the law, thats the fundamental principal our societies operate on.

In my last post I asked you for formal, legal, constitutional evidence to support your claim that there is infact no real Democracy, your claim that the majority does not rule and that all the institutions of my country are infact a facade. I`ll let everyone make up their own minds about what you came up with.

(Edited by El Che at 1:25 am on June 8, 2003)


(Edited by El Che at 1:43 am on June 8, 2003)

[canikickit]

Well, I thought that what Redstar came up with was pretty good.
But I do think people should vote. I don't really know about in the US, but I don't see any particular reason why not. For the sake of half an hour of your day, you might as well try and get the lesser of two evils out of power; as much as possible.

I don't know Redstar's stance on non-electoral politics; such as voting on divorce and abortion and so forth. I defintiely take part in that type of carry on.

The only reason against elections is that people could become appeased. Redstar, do you think it must "get worse before it gets better"? Where is the line, does it have to keep getting worse until the people rise up? Is that the idea?

[Vinny Rafarino]

The only reason against elections is that people could become appeased. Redstar, do you think it must "get worse before it gets better"? Where is the line, does it have to keep getting worse until the people rise up? Is that the idea?

Good question Kickit. How long do you wait for the people to open their eys RS? I already know you do not condone forcing their hand so what do you suggest?

[redstar2000]

Well, looks another can of worms on the menu...

This is a contradiction in terms. The legitimate institutions in question - Democratic system - are not "of the bourgeoisie", they simply are. They are off all of us, they are of society and further more they are indeed legitimate if they are truely Democratic.

Nothing simply is. Everything has a history.

The modern capitalist state came into existence through struggle with the old feudal/clerical aristocracy. It was intended from the very beginning to be a tool of the capitalist class.

Over the last couple of centuries, it has become a remarkably sophisticated tool...giving the appearance of popular soverignity while never letting the "people" decide anything of substance.

There are so many instances of a bourgeois "democratic" government making decisions directly contrary to popular opinion that it would take another entire server just to list them. I cannot believe that you know nothing at all of what has taken place in the last century on this planet; you are reading the label on the package without ever actually looking inside the box to see what's there.

In my country there is a constituion that sets out the fundamental laws of my society. There is a separation of judicial, legislative and executive power. The elected parliament passes the laws, the elected goverment runs things within the constraints of the law and the courts pass judgement. That, basically, is the legal, institutional, organisational, functional reality. There is nothing, anywhere, that says Socialists can`t become goverment, that says Socialists can`t have a majority in parliament.

Remember the Weimar Republic? They had all that stuff too. When the capitalist class decided that its usefulness had come to an end, they got rid of the whole thing with all the regret you'd have for throwing away an empty beer can.

Would you like to suggest that "they don't do things like that any more"?

No, I wish to assert that the Capitalist class doesn`t have a choice in the matter. They have to shut up and accept what the majority rules because thats what is in the law, thats the fundamental principal our societies operate on.

No, the fundamental principle that your society (and mine) operates on is more or less absolute rule by the capitalist class and the subjugation of all other portions of the population. The "law" is a set of useful pieces of paper to be preserved, modified, or discarded as the interests of the capitalist class dictates.

I have little choice but to conclude, El Che, that you are completely unfamiliar with Marxist analysis or that you have rejected it in favor of some early bourgeois liberal theory (utilitarianism, perhaps?).

As a non-Marxist "socialist", you are under no obligation to pay any attention to class at all. You can be "for" socialism for humanitarian or even theological reasons; you can do this or refuse to do that based entirely on whatever happens to please your mood of the moment and can be appropriately "pissed off" whenever the capitalist class shows its real hand.

But, in my view, it's all just a big waste.

=======================

For the sake of half an hour of your day, you might as well try and get the lesser of two evils out of power; as much as possible.

Well, you have a choice here. You can spend a lot of time and energy trying to figure out who exactly is the "lesser of two evils" or you can flip a coin. Since none of us have received the gift of prophecy, you're really just guessing on the basic of meaningless campaign rhetoric. Guess away or not, it makes no difference. The real decisions of substance are made in corporate boardrooms...where you don't get to vote.

do you think it must "get worse before it gets better"? Where is the line, does it have to keep getting worse until the people rise up? Is that the idea?

What is "worse"--that's what we don't know and can't predict. It seems to be a subjective feeling that has a very distant and enormously complex relationship to actual material conditions.

You can point to a lot of instances in history where it seems as if people "ought" to have rebelled...and didn't. And then there's Paris in May 1968...why did almost the entire French working class pay attention to a bunch of radical kids (the "Situationists"...) in a period of relative prosperity?

So we communists can tell people what they could do if they wished...but when they will wish it and how they will choose to carry things out is, thus far, beyond our abilities to ascertain.

Certainly the mechanical "predictions" of the Leninists are just silly; anything they get right is a matter of pure chance.

I do think that it is safe to predict that the material conditions of the working class will continue to deteriorate for the rest of this century, slowly or quickly depending on many variables. That "ought" to increase the probability of communist revolution in western Europe...but we'll see.

How long do you wait for the people to open their eys RS?

As long as it takes. And we don't have to passively "wait", of course. There are many things taking place or that could reasonably take place in present times which might encourage some "eye-opening". It seems to me that the place for communists to be is in struggles that are or might soon become outside the "legitimate" (ritual) forms of controversy in bourgeois society.

There could be lots of fruitful discussions of particular struggles within this framework without wasting time and energy on that which is already known to be useless.

It needs to be emphasized that we communists are outsiders. It is not "legitimacy" or "respectability" for ourselves or our ideas that we seek, it is the awakening of our class to the knowledge that it is and will always remain "outside" of bourgeois society...and that it need not accept this forever or even another day, if it so wishes.

Tough job, isn't it?

:cool:

[El Che]

Well, I think that concludes our little exchange. Both our positions are abundantly clear. One of us is living in a fantasy world though.

I tell you what I see around me, I tell you the formal reality. You tell me that what I show you is fake. When I ask you to back up your claims you do not, in my judgement, provide conclusive evidence. You say there will be a coup d`état, you say capital will go on strike and Socialists will be defamed, you tell me that if I don`t agree with you I can`t call my self a Marxist.

Such is life. Thank you for your time.

[canikickit]

Well, you have a choice here. You can spend a lot of time and energy trying to figure out who exactly is the "lesser of two evils" or you can flip a coin. Since none of us have received the gift of prophecy, you're really just guessing on the basic of meaningless campaign rhetoric. Guess away or not, it makes no difference. The real decisions of substance are made in corporate boardrooms...where you don't get to vote.

Well, I do agree Redstar. But I also think that it's not so simple. We know that its always going to be "shit", but vox did cite some examples of how under Bush, the economy (and poor people) have suffered greater than under the likes of Clinton.

Okay here's a quote from "the Muckraker's live journal":

"The International Association of Machinists has compiled a list of job creation from Truman on. Here's how it stacks up:

Truman First Term: 60,000 jobs gained per month

Truman Second Term: 113,000 jobs gained per month

Eisenhower First Term: 58,000 jobs gained per month

Eisenhower Second Term: 15,000 jobs gained per month

Kennedy: 122,000 jobs gained per month

Johnson: 206,000 jobs gained per month

Nixon First Term: 129,000 jobs gained per month

Nixon/Ford : 105,000 jobs gained per month

Carter: 218,000 jobs gained per month

Reagan First Term: 109,000 jobs gained per month

Reagan Second Term: 224,000 jobs gained per month

G. Bush: 52,000 jobs gained per month

Clinton First Term: 242,000 jobs gained per month

Clinton Second Term: 235,000 jobs gained per month

G.W. Bush : 69,000 jobs LOST per month

Yep, Bush is the first president since Hoover in which jobs were actually lost. Depression is in the air, and George W. Bush is the man responsible for it."


I don't dream of making "real change" through electing the right man to do the job. But I know from experience that certain policiesintroduced by the more "establishment" parties in Ireland are not as worker friendly as the more left wing parties' policies.

[Loknar]

Bush's first year in office was under Clintons budget. Before 9-11 drainand even when CLinton was in office the stock market and economy was heading down the. Also 9-11 really screwed us up and we are still recovering from it.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Fucking republicans...Always blaming the liberals...Please Loknar provide facts as to how Clinton's 2001 budget is responsible. I have BOTH the 2001 AND Dubya's 2004 budget sitting on my desk...Bush's reads like a fucking comic book...It's actually filled with pictures! You know...Dubya waving the flag....Dubya kissing babies...Dubya "rallying" the Troops to kick the shite out 'o the ragheads, theres even one in conjunction with dubya's "claim" to crack down on CEOs. (an obvious fake by the way...it actually has a guy in a black suit wearing sunglasses leading away a downtrodden yuppie....I'll include it in my next post...it's bang-up) I used to hear all these yanquee republicans claiming that the balanced budget and surplus, thriving economy and low unemployment (lowest in 30 years under Clinton) was part of Reagan's "10 year plan"
Fucking twats...They actually believe what they spout is true. It's truly amazing how low the overall IQ is for the republican party. Before you bother to begin babbling Loknar, these reports I'm speaking of are the ACTUAL reports from the US government's website.

[Vinny Rafarino]

It's a .PDF file...I don't know how to crop it as a .gif...So here's the link...It will take you right to the Dept. of Justice section of the 2004 budget...Scroll down to page 188 (it's only a couple pages down) the picture is pure comedy.

http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/p...get/justice.pdf (http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2004/pdf/budget/justice.pdf)

(Edited by COMRADE RAF at 1:21 am on June 9, 2003)

[Loknar]

OMCRAD

Even while Clinton was in office the economy started a decline. A budget is made out annually, Bush's first year was still under Clintons budget.

[redstar2000]

Yep, Bush is the first president since Hoover in which jobs were actually lost. Depression is in the air, and George W. Bush is the man responsible for it. -- vox

This is what I wrote (on May 9th) in response...

"It is something of a tradition in American politics to hold the current occupant of the White House responsible for whatever happens to be taking place in the economy.

This is not only un-Marxist but extremely misleading as well. The factors that govern the ebb and flow of capitalism as well as its long term tendencies have little or nothing to do with the parade of ambitious personalities in bourgeois politics."

Nothing has happened in the meantime to change my mind.

But it's difficult to avoid laughing at the idea that U.S. presidents "create" or "destroy" jobs...except for their personal friends and associates, of course. The ruling class and the laws of its free market make those decisions...without regard to who happens to be getting a blowjob in the oval office.

:cool: