Results 21 to 40 of 41
I'm merely reviving a central tenant of Old Bolshevism (calling itself "revolutionary social democracy") with regards to the relationship between a proletarian demographic minority and a petit-bourgeois demographic majority.
Politico-ideological independence for the working class /= class rule.
Last edited by Die Neue Zeit; 5th November 2011 at 08:19.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
as i see it, reading several of your threads, you just look for an excuse to abandon the proletariat and finally become a advocate of the petit bourgeoisie you so desire. cause lets face it, with your "tactics" the proletariat will never gain a victory and always be the slave of either the bourgeoisie or the petit-bourgeoisie.
All i want is a Marxist Hunk.
It is true that labor produces for the rich wonderful things – but for the worker it produces privation. It produces palaces – but for the worker, hovels. It produces beauty – but for the worker, deformity. It replaces labor by machines, but it throws one section of the workers back into barbarous types of labor and it turns the other section into a machine. It produces intelligence – but for the worker, stupidity, cretinism.
Wer hat uns verraten? Sozialdemokraten!
Hardly. Why do you think I stated that the First World petit-bourgeoisie are reactionary to the point of being part of One Reactionary Mass?
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
DNZ, why not class rule of the proletariat and the peasantry? And proletarianization of the peasantry.
“How in the hell could a man enjoy being awakened at 6:30 a.m. by an alarm clock, leap out of bed, dress, force-feed, shit, piss, brush teeth and hair, and fight traffic to get to a place where essentially you made lots of money for somebody else and were asked to be grateful for the opportunity to do so?” Charles Bukowski, Factotum
"In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, as 'right-to-work.' It provides no 'rights' and no 'works.' Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining... We demand this fraud be stopped." MLK
-fka Redbrother
Lenin's formula was flexible enough to allow the class rule of the peasantry and proletariat (note the order, which takes demographic realities into account), along with proletarianization of the peasantry.
The latter can occur if the Third World regime draws public policy-makers and administrators from the ranks of the peasantry, and then these peasant elements decide on an aggressive economic development program upon seeing the former "national" bourgeoisie's political bankruptcy in this area.
More broadly, and in today's conditions, the demographic majority includes the "socioeconomically patriotic" elements of the urban petit-bourgeoisie.
Last edited by Die Neue Zeit; 5th November 2011 at 08:18.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
Can you imagine the Maoists in power? Goddamn, the whole country will be going to hell.. They'd run the place like the mafia.
Clearly this board is doing something wrong.
At least Maoists have the decency to not outright talk shit about workers, whereas you pounce on the opportunity.
Jose.....can you not see that those of us in the world suffering under national attack might want to seize back sovereignty. The wheel that grinds"local" and "independent" economy and society... must be combated. It can hardly be ignored. Workers and yes peasants must work and produce. They also have a duty to protect patrimony in their seas, forests and in the earth. The mining company or indeed loggers have such an abysmal history. Their methods have changed little since gold was found in the Black Hills or the California of 1848.
Del Monte he say yes...WELL THE PEOPLE ARE SAYING NO. Heavens knows where they got the ideas from but here they are descending on these hyenas and in minutes the security are disarmed and expensive equipment destroyed. I have come across these partizans at one of their road blocks. Disciplined and most polite...they alerted me to the fact there was an operation ahead...and for our safety it was best if we waited or turned back. We were encouraged to continue planting rice...not get swept up in eco fuel projects. Or indeed banana...it was OK by me and wifey...besides the fools who did have watched the price drop like a stone. This country has already become a net importer of rice. We have never been taxed by the partizans...I have developed a nose for when a medical or dentist is in attendance. There is no hint at what goes on in town on the progressive front. Salvaging is enough reason not to ask questions...I have actually known a state killer. Believe me, Wifey was the first to put 2+2 together..he left our lodgings in a hurry and went to next province. HE AND 2 others had gone to kill someone..after the deed 2 went back, lingering doubt he was dead. Meanwhile a police major from next town, shopping, thinking they were criminals pulled a gun and shot one of them dead, before being killed himself. It was all hushed up ...the army paid the police widow....it never happened as they say here..............
The fog of war and of course as the very old saying goes"the first casualty of war, is truth"....inhibits me from pontificating on their struggle....anyhow...it's their business...not mine.
Except that Lenin's formula was the exact opposite of yours. He advocated "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry. So your "demographic realities" are at odds with Lenin's. In addition, the Bolsheviks finally adopted a dictatorship of the proletariat, the notion advocated by Trotsky.
Whatever that means. (Watch. DNZ will probably start a round on this to avoid the fact that he just contradicted Lenin.)
This is one more slightly concealed formula for state capitalism. Notice the key role of the working class in this description.
You just love those "socioeconomically patriotic" elements of the urban petit-bourgeoisie. In fact, to you they're more important than the poletariat as you constantly mention that they have to be part of your "demographic majority" fantasy.
The notion that the working class , when it is not a numerical majority, can be the leading class of a revolution, is alien to you. Of course you neglect that fact that your precious petit-bourgeoisie is the grave digger of socialist revolution if it is in the leadership. See Nepal if you doubt this.
RED DAVE
Last edited by RED DAVE; 5th November 2011 at 13:58.
DNZ why would you promote a bourgeois revolution if that stage can be avoided all together ?
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
Because he obviously supports Bourgeois or more specifically Petit-Bourgeois control of society and keeping the Proletariat in their place at the bottom. He is simply at this point trying to cover up how anti-Revolutionary he is in order to be able to still promote his ideas that the Proletariat must remain on the bottom of the hierarchical structure of a revolution.
No.The "dem.dict. of the prol. and peas." is a transitional,bourgeois phase,that comes before the (socialist) dictatorship of the proletariat.
Yes, our revolution is a bourgeois revolution as long as we march with the peasants as a whole
http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...bservience.htm
Again, I have stated that, in reality, Old Bolshevism prevailed. Lenin didn't write "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat supported by the peasantry."
Proletarian demographic minorities, while an independent but non-ruling class, don't have to be passive under such a Third World Caesarean Socialist regime. In fact, they can be at the vanguard of the vigilante, paramilitia/paramilitary, security, and civil-administrative "goons and thugs" (S. Artesian) sent by the regime to liquidate all the "national" bourgeoisie and all the compradors amongst the petit-bourgeoisie.
In response to your first sentence: that's Third World reality. In response to your second: the likes of Devrim already said that the urban petit-bourgeoisie is typically outnumbered by proletarian demographic minorities. However, when combined with the rural petit-bourgeoisie (i.e., the peasantry), the sum is the demographic majority.
I'm just acknowledging historical lessons against such fantastic illusions.
I did write "Nationalistic or more optimally pan-nationalistic petit-bourgeoisie" for a reason. The Indian subcontinent needs Pan-Indian political leadership from the "socioeconomically patriotic" parts of its rural and urban petit-bourgeoisie, spanning from Pakistan to Bangladesh and from Sri Lanka to Nepal itself.
Last edited by Die Neue Zeit; 5th November 2011 at 16:56.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
You're misconstruing my words. You obviously don't value equal suffrage or other basic democratic principles much.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
A DoP supposes one does not support that unless you really want class enemies having a say or control over various apparatuses which I assume you do. Class Enemies deserve no say in the DoP and shall never have a voice until they are liquidated as a class alongside all classes.
With class collaboration you end up with situations like Nepal.
What happens is that a state remains in order to still be able to govern and that state apparatus will eventually be taken over by bourgeois forces.
Its in the interest of the proletariat to throw out all of the bourgeois and govern in their own name no matter how many peasants petite-bourgeois or what have you there are.
Either the proles are strong enough to overthrow capitalism or they are not but anything less then the end of capitalism is a defeat.
You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror...
Originally Posted by RED DAVEWhat prevailed was "permanent revolution," the notion associated with Trotsky.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
Originally Posted by RED DAVE(1) There is no such thing as a "Third World Caesarean Socialist regime." I don't know where you came up with this garbage-dump of a concept, but you had best send in back from whence it came.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
(2) You are positing some form of socialism in which the working class is not running the economy. One more time, you are talking about your favorite form of society: state capitalism or, as some call it, stalinism. You try to cover it up with nonsense like "independent but non-ruling class," but it's clear you're talking about stalinism. (Watch to see if down the line DNZ tries to quibble about whether or not Stalin should be associated, really, with state capitalism.)
What you are saying is that the working class should do the dirty work for the petit-bourgeoisie but not be the ruling class. This is really disgusting.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
Originally Posted by RED DAVEWhat reality? That there's a petit-bourgeoisie in so-called third world countries capable of being the ruling class for awhile? No shit, Sherlock. That's called stalinism or state capitalism. And lately, if Nepal is any example, there ain't even any room for that. Globalization may well have obviated a crucial role for the petit-bourgeoisie.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
So fucking what? Either you favor class rule of the working class or class rule of some other class. You obviously favor class rule of the petit-bourgeoisie. Basically, at best, you're a Menshevik.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
Originally Posted by RED DAVEWhat you are acknowledging is (a) according to you the Bolsheviks were wrong; (b) the Maoists in, say, Nepal, were right; (c) you are indeed on the other side of the class line from the proletariat.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
Originally Posted by RED DAVEAnd the reason is to cover your class collaborationist, anti-working class politics.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
Classes, dude, in Marxism, dude, are not, defined by their political attitudes, dude. They are defined by their relationship to the means of production. There is, in the Marxist scheme of things, no fundamental class difference between nationalist, non-nationalist, pan-nationaist or reactionary sections of the petit-bourgeoisie. They are all part of the same class. Portions of this class may, to serve its own interest, ally with the working class, but, in the end, this alliance must be run by the working class always under the understanding that it leads to a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Again, you are mistaking a political distinction for a class distinction. In any event, you are advocating class rule over the working class.Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit
Why don't you quietly and gracefully move to OI where you belong?
RED DAVE
Last edited by RED DAVE; 5th November 2011 at 23:40.
This should be basic Marxism but so many people have forgotten this.
Equal suffrage /= universal suffrage. The latter is where you have the bourgeoisie able to vote and be elected.
Equal suffrage is about making sure no individual legally entitled to participate in the political processes has greater influence on the policy-making and administrative processes than another. The crudest manifestations of equal suffrage are one-man-one-vote and proportional representation (as opposed to district-based elections).
Despite Soviet Russia discriminating against the peasantry electorally (urban vs. rural soviets), the bureaucracy responsible for forced collectivization was stacked in the main with those from peasant backgrounds. Now, unless you consider the peasantry to be a class enemy, then that's a different story.
Again, equal suffrage /= universal suffrage. Neither the renegade Kautsky nor Lenin polemicized against one another in 1918 on the question of equal suffrage between a worker and a peasant. If there are nine peasants and one worker in a group of ten, the weight of peasant votes vs. worker votes should be nine-to-one.
"A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the Second International (which again was only partly centrist)." (Tjis, class-struggle anarchist)
"A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles [...] and social services [...] and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education." (Tim Cornelis, left-communist)
