Results 21 to 40 of 48
But it actually doesn't...
What the fuck are you talking about?
Last edited by The Feral Underclass; 9th July 2013 at 09:17.
Blanquism is the idea that a small group of people would commit the Revolution. I hardly doubt anytime soon all of the proletariat would gain class consciousness, but I am sure that soon enough, a big enough minority will gain class consciousness to make a Revolution feasible.
That is what you deal with, not everyone is going to open their eyes to socialism right away, many will want to go back to Capitalism, but the sooner we ditch capitalism, the better.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
This is still perfectly compatible with capitalism. Communism has not existed until the workplace itself is destroyed.
I would contend that a revolution isn't really a revolution if it involves a minority.
In any case, how do you envision such a coup d'etat taking place? Do you imagine you can just storm Parliament? What is the objectives of this minority? What do they seek to achieve?
The point I was trying to get across to you in my original post is that social transformation or revolution (whatever you want to call it) isn't just something that just happens. It's a process.
I have not suggested that the proletariat would become class conscious "any time soon," in fact what I was saying was the complete opposite of that -- that the process happens through struggle over time.
Right away when? You are constructing some kind of historical time-line that doesn't really make any sense to me. What does "right away" mean? At what period of history are you talking about? What does "opening their eyes" actually mean? How do you achieve all this?
Just to be clear, my questions are not rhetorical, I am directly asking you for answers.
And your solution to achieving that is having some, as of yet, inexplicable minority coup d'etat? And then what? What happens next?
First question: How did Lenin take over Russia? How did Napoleon take over France?
The objective is what I laid out earlier. Did you read my post?
Right after the blanquist Revolution. You acheive this by putting them in a situation that is like communism, a world of worker self management, and of lowered inequality. Show them how superior that is. And a reworking of education to favor our collectivist past (which isn't really that unfair, objectivity is unfortunately a myth, might as well use the bias for an advantage)... again did you read my first post?
It is better to transition to communism then to wait for people to wake up and implement full communism themselves. Obviously the second option is better. I just think the sooner we get away from capitalism the better, and by any means necessary.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
First we have a successful revolution in a country or several. Local governments become direct democracy, the provincial legislators are directly elected by the people, the provincial legislator elect national legislators who elect the heads of state and government. These countries start building socialism (socialism in one country) and work together to spread socialism around the globe. Then when the whole world is socialist we build towards communism with the people gaining authority over greater areas provincial, then national, then communism.
Socialism in one country is the building of socialism while spreading socialism just to clear that up. As for a vanguard party they would both exist and rule as the sole party though those loyal to the revolution may also run as independents in elections.
Because people can't elect their own national legislators, heads of state or government?
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
I'm just fallowing democratic centralism.
Why? Whats so good about it?
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
It's how we slowly dissolve from a socialist state to classless communism by having the people gain complete control over those areas of autonomy.
It ensures complete democracy and efficiency.
Segui il tuo corso e lascia dir le genti.
Socialism resides entirely in the revolutionary negation of the capitalist ENTERPRISE, not in granting the enterprise to the factory workers.
- Bordiga
Except no. Do you believe in a single party state? Do you believe in all discussion is over after a decision is made, with no dissent at all? If so, then that is *not* autonomous rule, that is dictatorship of the party, and on top of that, dictatorship of the party boss over the party.
How is not directly electing those in charge of your fate give the people complete autonomy?
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
I've already stated but I'll try to make it simple this time.
Provincial legislators are elected by the people similar to most modern "democracies" the party is the only legal party though they are not garented seats in the legislater. So the Provincial legislators elect the national legislators who as mentioned do not have to be a member of the party. Then the national legislater elects the head of state/ government.
So you are suggesting you want to stage a military coup? So your plan to achieve communism is to find some sympathetic soldiers and officers and stage a coup?
How do you overcome the police, organised fascists and the armed forces?
So essentially you want to impose communism on people?
I'm sorry, I have absolutely no idea what this is supposed to mean.
But what you think isn't really what's important, is it?
We all "think" that getting rid of capitalism sooner rather than later would be better, but what you are suggesting just won't work. Aside from the fact you still haven't identified who this minority are, you also haven't identified how you intend to actually seize political power or contend with the massive state apparatus that would stop you? You've told us that you want to seize political power through a military coup, but how do you think that is actually going to happen?
Like I keep saying, a communist revolution isn't an event, it's a process. That process can't start just because you have seized the state through a military coup (not that this would be in any way possible). The process can only exist if the working class are engaged in economic struggle.
In Leninist theory, "Democratic Centralism" is something that only applies to the internal affairs of political parties. It is not a principle meant to be used for all aspects of the 'workers state.'
Why is that superior? Is the proletariat too stupid to elect national legislators?
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
The point is that it is necessary in the building of communism.
I want the population of the proletariat that has actually gained class consciousness to stage this coup. Thats how you deal with it. The minority of the proletariat that has class consciousness. Thats how the power is seized.
I want to impose a version of communism light. You cant impose full communism, thats impossible. I want to impose a version of socialism that still has a form of capital, so they (everyone else) can get used to it.
What you say isnt really that important either. I thought this was a discussion board.
What this means is you rework the education system to favor communism, especially by emphasizing the collectivism humanity has shown throughout all time.
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
How do they become class conscious?
And how does it deal with police and the armed forces, as well as the masses of people who are not class conscious and whom want your "revolution" to fail?
How then do you deal with the natural reaction from people who will take issue with having this forced upon them?
Why do you need to stage a coup for this? Why not just get elected?
You missed the point I'm making. Again.
I am not saying that what you think isn't important, I am saying that your motivation: "I think it is better to get rid of capitalism sooner rather than later" isn't a crucial part of understanding how we achieve social transformation.
Just thinking something isn't grounds for actualising a strategy to create communism. There has to be some deeper understanding of the nature of struggle, the nature of capitalism and the state and ultimately the nature of how you achieve communism.
Things you appear not to have an understanding of.
Good luck.
Are you saying certain people aren't already class conscious? There is a minority that is close to that already
Superior arms. Do you not think that a minority has imposed its will against a resistant majority before? After a while, people will like it better. I give it a couple years before genuine democracy would get reestablished, or rather, established.
Let them be against it, as long as they aren't destructive. If they are, fuck 'em, lock them in a prison.
Because its to radical?
And what is your solution? Wait around until capitalism starts to collapse in on itself? That has been a strategy for quite some time now, hasn't it?
"We must flee from Time, we must create a life that is feminine and human - it is these imperative objectives that must guide us in this world heavy with catastrophes."
Jacques Camatte, Echos from the Past
"For example, to say that the relation between industrial capital and the class of the wage workers is expressed in precisely the same way in Belgium and Thailand, and that the praxis of their respective struggles should be established without taking into account in either of the two cases the factors of race or nationality, does not mean you are an extremist, but it means in effect that you have understood nothing of Marxism."
Amadeo Bordiga, Factors of Race and Nation in the Marxist Analysis
