Social-Proletocrats out there already?! S***!

First of all, I have no established contacts whatsoever with the stranger-comrade below (yet):



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=13

At least one OTHER comrade has adopted my term elsewhere:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...41&postcount=4

Marxism, though, is a system that bases itself on the writings of Karl Marx and his lifelong friend Frederich Engels. They theoretically flipped the philosophical idealism of Georg Hegel upside down and established a philosophical system of materialism. They advocated a revolution of the workers (the proletariat) and the establishment of socialism and democracy. It was the union of the socialist movement and the proletarian movement toward democracy. Hence, Social Proletocracy. During their time, the system was called communism, but the definition of that word has changed very much since its conception and so there are a few rising groups of Marxism applying the new term because of the new definitions of communism as state capitalism or dictatorship.

I feel like I need to clarify. Marxists do not believe in God. So know that from the beginning. The systems and goals of the Social Proletocrats are sort of complicated, so I would need to start a separate thread somewhere about it.

I absolutely envy this comrade:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forum...=164970&page=2

Anyway, I enjoy the Manifesto, but it is outdated. It was even outdated by the time Marx's works had matured more. I am attempting to start a new organization in my area (the little feedback I've received has been positively astounding, that just shows the power of the system, I suppose), and am finishing up our manifesto. I think I will post that as my exposition on my beliefs when it is done.

...

Well, it isn't quite that simple, though. Marxists (typically, or at least should) argue that capitalism will scientifically give birth to social proletocracy, just as feudalism gave birth to capitalism. People are the product of their social environment, so we don't hold a person as 'evil' for holding an economic position that is necessary to be filled by someone in the current economic system, you just likely won't be revolutionary. (That isn't to say we don't have moral and ethical stances, but I will get to that some day in the future.) I will probably elaborate more on this some other time in some other place. This is still my introduction thread, so I don't want to get to into it here.

And I'm still working on Chapters 3 and 5 of The Class Struggle Revisited!

More:

http://www.christianguitar.org/forum....php?p=3213321

Anyway, here is the first chapter to the Manifesto of the Social Proletocrats that I am writing

Holy smokes! Yeah, I think he's got an incorrect rendition of the merger formula ("the union of the socialist movement and the proletarian movement toward democracy" vs. my "revolutionary merger of Marxism and the workers' movement"), but that's minor, for now.



Comrades, I need your help in completing The Class Struggle Revisited before I get left behind by the very Social-Proletocratic movement (IMO, modern revolutionary Marxism ) which I helped get going. For those who have my outline, my main concern is Chapter 3: Workers' Movements.

Holy smokes! Yeah, I think he's got an incorrect rendition of the merger formula ("the union of the socialist movement and the proletarian movement toward democracy" vs. my "revolutionary merger of Marxism and the workers' movement"), but that's minor, for now.

Sounds like more than a "minor point" to me. The former formulation sounds reformist.

^^^ Actually, the comrade corrected himself via PM to me (and the albeit-orthodox-Marxist IS organizing around this term).



Comrades, I need your help in completing The Class Struggle Revisited before I get left behind by the very Social-Proletocratic movement (IMO, modern revolutionary Marxism ) which I helped get going. For those who have my outline, my main concern is Chapter 3: Workers' Movements.

Feeling mighty important there, aren't ya?

^^^ Comrade, I know that you have aversions just because the neologism (which is supposed to resemble "social democracy" but with the obvious revolutionary emphases) doesn't roll off your tongue very well, but the sooner this multi-tendency organization gets off the ground, the better.

The only conditions that limit the multi-tendency-ness of this organization are:

1) Revolutionary (not reformist/gradual/evolutionary) extension of political democracy to socioeconomic affairs
2) Revolutionary working-class emphasis (class struggle)

3) “Pre-communist” abolition of wage slavery through full compensation of labour (Marx, Bordiga, Hekmat, etc. - as opposed to Lenin's erroneous conception of "socialism")

UPDATE TO COMRADES:

While not revealing the full content of my conversation just now with comrade Victus, he has concerns over the name and the class composition of the organization. Because Social-Proletocrats are revolutionary workers only, I have referred him back to my "United Social Labour" section in Chapter 4, and have recommended "Radical Social-Labour Democracy" (RSLDP vs. Lenin's RSDLP ).

It has the same meaning as "social proletocracy" (emphasis on class, plus going beyond "labour democracy" by advocating full compensation of labour), except that prospective lawyers (from "Class #2") like Ron Burgundy, prospective coordinators (probably like myself), etc. would be allowed to join. It's just because a "proletarian democrat" (proletocrat) implies both an ideological position (the socioeconomic rule of the working class) and a proletarian class background.



http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...2&postcount=15

I e-mailed a comrade regarding my new concept of building a mass party holding the umbrella position of "radical social-labour democracy." In this umbrella are three specific positions:

1) "Radical United Social Labour": per Kautsky, the "union of the labour movement and socialism" (so here we're talking about both Marxist and non-Marxist socialism, as well as the workers' labour movement - and not an expanded workers' movement encompassing cultural organizations, sports clubs, soviets, workplace committees, etc.)

[This position can be held by proles - manual, clerical, or professional - and non-proles, and this is where the pareconists fit within]

2) "Radical labour democracy": Ordinary proletocrats and non-workers upholding the ordinary proletocratic position ("Lenin-socialists"), who realize that the workers' movement must be expanded to workers' organizations beyond labour unions

3) "Radical social-labour democracy": Social-proletocrats and non-workers upholding the social-proletocratic position



Rest assured, the experience I don't want repeated is the BELGIAN experience (in this day and age, having elements of the "left wing" of the US Democratic or Canadian Liberal parties as members of the organization for Radical Social-Labour Democracy ).

While not revealing the full content of my conversation just now with comrade Victus, he has concerns over the name and the class composition of the organization. Because Social-Proletocrats are revolutionary workers only, I have referred him back to my "United Social Labour" section in Chapter 4, and have recommended "Radical Social-Labour Democracy."

No offense, but have you entered a syllable/hyphen contest or something? It all seems a little confusing.

I think I'll just call it Richterism for the time being.

[However, I am serious in regards to actual organization. I am trying to get as many revolutionary-Marxist comrades in this usergroup and outside RevLeft to connect with the Social-Proletocratic / Social-Labour-Democrat comrade ASAP.]

No offense, but have you entered a syllable/hyphen contest or something? It all seems a little confusing.

I think I'll just call it Richterism for the time being.

The problem is that "Richterism" is a subset of an overall trend that's been going on for at least a 13 years. Revolutionary Marxism encapsulates the idea exactly, I think.

^^^ Care to elaborate, comrade? Or are you referring to what Comrade MarxSchmarx said in a Theory thread (on anarchism)?

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

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

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

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

What I was refering to was a rethinking of the Marxist tradition, going back to our origins and trying to figure out what went wrong. You are, one in a long line of comrades, who have not merely been grappling with this problem, but coming to similar conclusions.

This is in no way saying that your work is unimportant or reinventing the wheel.I think you do a great job at colating and propagandizing these ideas.

I must squeal out the fact that CommunistLeague has definitely upped the neologism ante today. The discussion has revolved primarily around "common" as a more appropriate prefix than "social." Various terms popped up.

Commonocracy: This ties in with the thread on Rosa Luxemburg's concept of democracy. However, this also implies "rule by the common people."

Common ergatocracy: I've been very hesitant to use the term "social ergatocracy," even though it is, on the surface, the same as "social proletocracy." On less revolutionary matters, "proletocracy" is explicitly Marxist by conveying a sense of class militancy. However, towards the end, even as the proletariat abolishes itself as a social class (the main criticism levelled at social proletocracy, notwithstanding the merger of social-abolitionism and proletocracy as the counter-argument), people still have to work in a social-ergatocratic society. The prefix "common," when combined with abolitionism and/or ergatocracy, should retain the Marxist overtones, especially with the former.

Still I think the proletariat doesn't need a neologism. Eventually it will be up to the proletariat ('s international communist party) to decide whether it wants to adopt a neologism.