Results 21 to 40 of 77
If we follow Marx, revolutions are driven by historical necessity, not by theories. A revolutionary work class determines its own course, it doesn't simply enact the schema of this-or-that dead theorist.
The ideas that they choose to implement in their own course, however, will inevitably by guided by some type(s) of ideologies though, so they'd still be guided by a mixture of ideas from the past, just with new innovations most likely.
FKA Chomsssssssky, Skwisgaar, The Employer Destroyer, skybutton
History has shown otherwise
Only vaguely. The working class can be divided into three subsets, the political engaged section, the semi-political section, and the apolitical section. The majority of workers is semi-political, and only cares for politics insofar it affects his or her life or society. They don't care about in depth theoretical explorations as we on this forum do. Hence, they will hold "Trotskyist" views -- only a minority will. Ideology and theory may matter insofar the working class chooses to follow a political party that best responds to its wishes and integrates their demand best into the revolutionary struggle -- and conversely, the communist party ought to participate in soviets and other organs of workers' power to keep them on the revolutionary path. Ultimately, however, the workers' councils will direct the course of the revolution irrespective of ready-made political theories.
As for the initial question, I would support any social revolution which involves the formation of sovereign workers' councils and organs, irrespective of what tendency has become the leading one, Marxism-Leninism or otherwise. A Marxist-Leninist revolution would enjoy my critical support and I would, by agitating within the workers' councils, to push it further to the left, beyond workers' management of capital. I anticipate, however, that the Marxist-Leninist Communist Party may chose to disallow the participation of ultra-left elements once or if they become too influential, at which point they have become counter-revolutionary and I would, needless to say, no longer support them. In other words, once the workers' councils lose their sovereignty I cease my support.
pew pew pew
Marxism encompasses all correct revolutionary theory; its a fact that class conscious working class people need to organize and agitate the working class once it's in a revolutionary period. But Marxists also have to commit to advancing transitional demands during the process when class conscious is rising.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
I'm not in a "sect" and I wouldn't support a "sect" for anything.
Apenas um rapaz latino americano apoiado por mais de 50 mil manos
Yes then I'd support a revolution to throw out the tendency in charge in favor of workers democracy if for whatever reason a revolution was facilitated by a minority 'revolutionary' sect without a broad working class effort. Lets say Lenin headed a revolution not in Russia but Germany. Once power, the state, was in the hands of workers all "revolutionaries" be damned. The DOTP needs no dictators. This couldn't happen in Russia because they had to play capitalist in order to develop the nation. They needed state power in the control of a minority party class in order to guide progress which is why I don't support revolutions in undeveloped regions. No more China's. No more North Korea's. No more Vietnam's. No more Russia. Workers ourselves need to make it happen in regions where worker democracy can hit the ground running. Forget Trotsky. Forget Lenin. Forget Mao. Forget Stalin. It's 2013.
Hey now. I'm a proud Marxist-Leninist-MaoistRebelNewsist. We're a small yet very ambitious tendency.
"Phil Spector is haunting Europe." - Karl Marx
You're a MTW and haven't been restricted yet? And they say the moderators are paranoid Hoxhaist Stalinists...
I would not support a revolution that sees dictatorship of the proletariat as an end rather than a means. But that's my bourgeois self talking again I suppose.
But the problem arises when you believe that the revolution has become counter-revolutionary.
“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
this thread is revleft
How can an individual be "class conscious"? Class consciousness is by definition a collective self-consciousness.
What makes you think the "ideas from the past" will be those derived from formal theory, and not from more practical experience? From what I can tell, the sort of "past ideas" that tend to surface in revolutionary periods derived from past experiences of self-activity and struggle, not from books of theory.
Stay on topic please.this thread is revleft
You and i are class conscious. Working class members of hate Groups however do not.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
No, again, class consciousness is by definition the collective self-consciousness of the organised working class in struggle. It's not some Zen enlightenment that you reach after reading your hundredth radical pamphlet. It's a matter of practical consciousness, not just holding this-or-that set of political opinions.
While it is true that the revolution itself is not a product of an ideology it is also true that ideology takes the revolution at some point of it through a party/syndicate/directory/parliament and I think that was what the OP meant with his question. Supporting or not the revolution depends on how you see it. What may be revolutionary for me may be reactionary for you.
Only if your concept of democracy is equal to bourgeois democracy.History has shown otherwise
Lets also forget Marx, Engels or Bakunin. After all we are in 2013 and not in the XIX Century.
Na. I'd say use the pre 1917 theorists and other, not so sectarian, post 1917 theorists as a foundation to interpret modern material conditions.
This question is sort of a silly thought experiment, isn't it? Any future socialist revolutions might be guided by principles closer to one tendency or group than those of another, but revolutions are made by classes, not sects or tendencies. Having said that, I have full confidence that if a tendency's ideas have proven so effective that they have guided the working class to the brink of victory, you had better damn believe that, if those ideas differed from mine, I would re-evaluate them. I happen to think that certain principles have historically proven time and again not to advance the working-class struggle for socialist revolution, so I don't subscribe to those principles or ideas (and why I think that when revolutions do occur, they'll be based on the ideas and principles I do currently hold). But again, all principles are provisional and must be borne out by practice.
Agreed. Worshiping figures of the past should be strictly reserved for reactionaries.
Was this a joke or are you reinforcing both his point and mine?
Let's forget Herodotus and Hippocrates while we're at it. Marx and engels were the closest things to geniuses that we've experienced in this millennium and nobody i repeat nobody has contributed a fraction as much to communist theory as they.
For student organizing in california, join this group!
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1036
http://socialistorganizer.org/
"[I]t’s hard to keep potent historical truths bottled up forever. New data repositories are uncovered. New, less ideological, generations of historians grow up. In the late 1980s and before, Ann Druyan and I would routinely smuggle copies of Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution into the USSR—so our colleagues could know a little about their own political beginnings.”
--Carl Sagan
