Isn't it a bit early to predict the existence of such forces under communism? We haven't yet seen the social contradictions in the stages closely preceding communism.
Results 1 to 20 of 45
How can Communism work if not entirely voluntary?
The name says it all.
One flaw I've seen in the idea of a communist world, and world revolution, is that there will always be reactionary forces and people who disagree with you. The main flaw is almost always that a revolutionary or national leader sees the solution to this problem in the extermination of reactionists, and Red Terror. My solution is instead to have a 'breakaway republic' similar to the CNT-FAI which is entirely voluntary, and a "Social Contract" to work towards the common good actually works.
Thoughts?
"It'd take 32000 pot brownies to overdose. And you'd need to serve it all in a span of 15 minutes. Not entirely impossible, but chances are that you're not going to."
- Tunizcha, of the NationStates forums.
"The worst ninja ever wears a bright orange jumpsuit. The best ninja ever wears a bright orange jumpsuit and still manages to be stealthy."
- Me.
Isn't it a bit early to predict the existence of such forces under communism? We haven't yet seen the social contradictions in the stages closely preceding communism.
It's not so much a complete prediction as the events as they are. As of now, frankly, people are stupid and can't comprehend the meaning of "Communism" beyond "Atheist Dictatorship".
"It'd take 32000 pot brownies to overdose. And you'd need to serve it all in a span of 15 minutes. Not entirely impossible, but chances are that you're not going to."
- Tunizcha, of the NationStates forums.
"The worst ninja ever wears a bright orange jumpsuit. The best ninja ever wears a bright orange jumpsuit and still manages to be stealthy."
- Me.
True. But still.. it seems a bit idealistic to talk about things so far away.
Leninism is "red-fascism", although Lenin said it would be stupid to compare them both, since red fascism is for the working class against the rulers(class enemies), whereas the normal fascism is done by the rulers to oppress the workers
btw this thread sucks
That's not the only reason why they're stupid to compare. They're stupid to compare because fascism is capitalist, extraordinarily nationalist, and extraordinarily racist as three basic tenets of it. "Red Fascism" doesn't make any sense as a term because it's none of those things. The only thing Leninism has in common with fascism is that historically they have been been authoritarian.
and oppressive to so called class enemies
Reactionary forces are harmful to humanity and should be exterminated, at least in the sense of removing them from a place where they can do harm until they are otherwise 'cured.'
[FONT=System][FONT=Arial][FONT=Impact][FONT=Arial Narrow]"A “mass” organ? We totally fail to understand what kind of animal this is. Do you mean to say we must descend to a lower level, from the advanced workers to the mass, that we must write more simply and closer to life? Do you mean to say our aim is to descend closer to the “mass” instead of raising this already stirring mass to the level of an organized political movement?" --V.I. Lenin
[/FONT] [FONT=Arial Narrow]"The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers." [/FONT]
[/FONT] [/FONT][/FONT]
That doesn't make the term red fascism any more applicable, or anyone who believes in expropriating the bourgeois private property (everyone on this site) would be a fascist.
Campaigns of Extermination and Re-Education reek of authoritarianism to me.
"It'd take 32000 pot brownies to overdose. And you'd need to serve it all in a span of 15 minutes. Not entirely impossible, but chances are that you're not going to."
- Tunizcha, of the NationStates forums.
"The worst ninja ever wears a bright orange jumpsuit. The best ninja ever wears a bright orange jumpsuit and still manages to be stealthy."
- Me.
After the American Revolution, there were some people who were still loyal to the British Empire and disagreed with breaking away from it. They were not locked up or hunted down and killed, but given an offer to simply leave if they didn't like the idea of the new country...and tens of thousands of people did leave.
Those people would have been the equivalent of reactionaries in the American Revolution, and their treatment should serve as somewhat of a guide as to what to do with the reactionaries of our own.
Clearly there will be differences since we're talking about what will eventually become a world-wide economic system, not national soverignty. As communism spreads across the world, there will be fewer and fewer reactionaries as they're forced to accept communism; just like how capitalism spread around the world and we've all had to accept that.
EDIT: What I'm suggesting here is what could be done after a revolution takes place, because I'm sure we all have a realistic view of what has to happen during a revolution.
Last edited by Axle; 24th October 2009 at 19:28.
Then how best to solve the problem of counter-revolution? Maybe we could all form a line along the border holding placards, and if the counter-revolutionaries advance we could defeat them with non-violence. Revolution ain't a pretty thing, but the society it gives birth to is.
Doesn't it go without saying that any violent counter-revolution would need to be forcefully put down?
Reactionaries can lead to a counter-revolution, but the two aren't necessarily one in the same.
You say "authoritarianism" like it's a bad thing.
Vodka is a sometimes food.
authoritarianism is a bad thing, right? Unless you're being sarcastic...?
Although, I agree, for true communism to work it has to entirely voluntary, ie. 'the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority'. For me, communism must be 'in the interest of the immense majority'. I think a minority forcing there beliefs on another strata of society is wrong, and must be avoided. What's more is I think 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself', in Engels words. The conditions a revolution creates can't simply be handed down to the masses by a small minority acting on behalf of the masses. Communists and the proletariat must be absolutely integrated; 'The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.' (< this quote is directly from the Manifesto itself). I don't really agree with Guevara when he said 'The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.'
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew
Hi, I actually did mean it genuinely. I do agree with strict Marxist-Leninist practice and with the existence of a vanguard for the first couple of generations after the revolution. I think that allowing the workers absolute (or close to it) freedom is dangerous to the workers themselves, because, unfortunately, there is always a risk of individuals or small groups turning against what is best for the whole people. While I do not believe that people are intrinsically stupid or greedy, I do believe that human shortcomings can be exploited by the few who are out to sabotage the people for their own gain. I do feel that it is justified to protect the entire people by keeping counterrevolution checked. Also, to keep alternates in place for the Party is vital, lest the ideal of representation by and for the workers get ruined if a few untrustworthy individuals should get corrupted (IMO, a key mistake of the USSR- it literally rotted from within when nobody kept after the internal-corruption problem). Plus, at the earliest stages before a revolution, there will be those who will fight against it even if it is in their best interest that the revolution happen- like in the case of the USA, where we have marginalized and medically-indigent displaced former factory workers all hopped up on Glenn Beck, storming around threatening a rightist revolution all because of the President. Scary stuff, and not something that should be allowed to do its own thing- am I making sense?
I think that sometimes, what we commonly consider to be freedom, paradoxically ends up breeding just the opposite.
Vodka is a sometimes food.
What do you mean 'allowing the workers'? No is allowing the workers anything cos the workers will do what they want in a revolution; the revolution is in the name of workers, carried out by the workers. There should be nothing in Marxism of a small minority being a slight tier above the workers, checking out what they're doing and telling them what to do. I'll repeat the quote 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.' There is absolutely no one else involved, for me anyway. It seems kind of patronising for a vanguard to look upon the proletariat and 'tell them what to do because the vanguard knows best', or whatever. At least, that's my opinion.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew
revolutionary criteria
There's a very good discussion about vanguardism at this thread:
http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguardis...736/index.html
I think we need to conceive of a vanguard as being a politically organized force that *represents* the *best interests* of the workers in the political arena and in general society -- in a non-revolutionary period such as right now, even the few of us who are active here on RevLeft and/or active in revolutionary politics elsewhere can be considered to be a vanguard of sorts....
The bourgeois culture has thoroughly conditioned us with the specter of Stalinism to be skeptical and even suspicious of *any* grassroots organization that makes the slightest claim to power or authority on behalf of workers. This is really unfortunate, because the working class *deserves* any and all genuine and accurate political representation that may exist -- any and all efforts for better wages, benefits, self-determination, and control of the means of mass production.
Especially at this preliminary stage in the worldwide revolutionary class struggle I don't think there is any good reason for general mistrust or succumbing to the politics of suspicion and intrigues. We would do better to *each* be better at *recognizing* which personalities and organizations are *consistently* speaking out for the working class' best interests. In this way the vanguard, such as it may be, can be geographically dispersed, culturally diverse, and collectively self-aware.
A vanguard would *not* be about *micro-managing* the workers, as the (Stalinistic) misconception goes -- rather it would be akin to a mass political culture that is large and strong enough to *defeat* the *bourgeois* political mindset and culture at every step. A successful vanguard could effectively *overcome* the bourgeois (private-property-respecting) worldview that we've *all* internalized to varying degrees.
Once the ideology of ownership -- like the now-discredited ideology of racial superiority -- has been cast off in the majority public opinion then all of society will generally open up to what workers do best -- utilizing the tools that they know, but now in service for themselves, collectively, without having to follow financial dictates or fork over their efforts to private ownership in return for trivial wages just to be able to live.
Chris
--
--
___
RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162
Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/
3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com
MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu
CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u
A degree of authority is perfectly acceptable if you ask me, the job of the state should be to take care of people and if there have to be a few rules in place in order to allow the state to succeed then it's for the better really. Establishing libertarian states will just send us in circles until the human race is extinct, the libertarian capitalists will essentially be able to do what they want, and before you know it the workers will be in the same position they were after the Industrial Revolution.
Okay, but why have a vanguard of communists when we can have communists as part of, and integrated into, the workers movement? I'll say it again; 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.' I don't believe a decent revolution is simply given to the workers, by people from above. I suppose if the vanguard doesn't have anymore power than, and are equal to the proletariat then fine. But there mustn't be any divide between the vanguard and 'the immense majority'. It's something you'd have to be careful over, for sure.
Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew
