Thread: The grounds of organizing the revolutionary army

Results 1 to 20 of 25

  1. #1
    Join Date Sep 2017
    Location San Jose, California
    Posts 20
    Organisation
    Unaffiliated
    Rep Power 0

    Default The grounds of organizing the revolutionary army

    There hasn't been much talk about this in the past year, despite it's extreme importance. I hope you will share your opinions on this.


    Many of us here would agree that if we truly want to stay true to our ideals of abolishing hierarchy, the army should apply in the same way that we would look upon expropriating, and transferring democracy into other places, like a factory.


    However, I'm not sure there has been any papers, theories, books, or generally any official written work that regards how anarchists should specifically militantly organize. However, there is shared agreement that the military should be generally decentralized, and have some democracy, if not total.


    I would propose local organization of militia-type units, based on trade-unions and other groups that are generally far-left leaning.


    Each of these groups, having their own respective members will be united upon similar goals, which of course is overthrowing the current system. Of course, a central system would need to be organized, for general information sharing and direction. This would take form as a military committee, in which the deputies are elected by the local militia-type units.


    Within each unit, I would hope there would be full, or close to full democracy. I'm not really in favor of having any officers, but as others may press that officers are needed to direct and advise the regular troops, they would be elected, and directly responsible to the mass of troops.


    As Orwell proved to us with his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, this will not undermine the military strength of the new revolutionary anarchist army. Although the Labor Union controlled units did have a hierarchy that wasn't elected, most of the orders were followed based on respect, not fear of disciplinary measures like practically all current armies are based off. And this of course, worked much better.


    To prove my point, I'll describe an excerpt from Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia"


    It basically starts out with several Labor-Union units deciding to attack an asylum which the Fascists were using as a fort. The plan had been to surprise-attack them to of course limit the casualties. Since the soldiers were pretty much tired of doing nothing in their trenches on the Huesca front, with the general understanding of the importance of this attack, they were fine with the orders. This attack practically failed however, due to one of the units leading the attack. That unit was commanded by a regular army officer that the government had appointed. Right before the attack began, he threw a bomb at the fortress, thus removing the surprise element. Although it's not known if this was out of trechary, or fear, the soldiers under his command promptly shot him dead.


    To conclude, I believe that it's very possible, and I would argue even better for the future revolutionary army to be organized on radical direct democratic, and unionized grounds. For this will allow for the theory to be applied not only to the civilian world, but to the revolutionary one as well.
  2. #2
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,238
    Rep Power 65

    Default

    All kinds of affinity-group-type organizing could be done on a comment-by-comment / line-by-line -type basis -- here are some database fields from my 'labor credits' model, some of which could be used for such a line-by-line approach:




    ISSUER

    AUTOMATIC TIMESTAMP UPON RECEIPT (YYYYMMDDHHMM)

    ACTIVE DATE (YYYYMMDD)

    FORMAL-ITEM REFERENCED (OR AUTOMATICALLY CREATED), IF ANY

    FORMAL-ITEM NUMERICAL INCREMENT, 001-999, PER DAY, PER UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC UNIT

    GEOGRAPHIC LEVEL INTENDED-FOR ('HSH', 'ENT', 'LCL', RGN', 'CTN', 'GBL')

    GEOGRAPHIC SOURCE UNIQUE NAME, ABBREVIATED

    FIRSTNAME_LASTNAME_BIRTHYEAR(YY)

    INDIVIDUAL'S ITEM RANKING, 0001-9999 (PER DAY)

    RANK-ITEM TYPE ('INI', 'DMN', 'PRP', 'PRJ', PDR', 'FND', 'DTI', 'LLI', 'PLP', 'ORD', 'REQ', 'SLD')

    TITLE-DESCRIPTION


    WORK ROLE NUMBER AND TITLE

    TENTATIVE OR ACTUAL HAZARD / DIFFICULTY MULTIPLIER

    ESTIMATE-OF OR ACTUAL LABOR HOURS PER SCHEDULED WORK SHIFT

    TOTAL LABOR CREDITS (MULTIPLIER TIMES HOURS)

    ACTUAL FUNDING OF LABOR CREDITS PER WORK SHIFT (FUNDING ITEM REFERENCE REQUIRED)

    SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, BEGINNING DATE & TIME

    SCHEDULED DISCRETE WORK SHIFT, ENDING DATE & TIME

    AVAILABLE-AND-SELECTED LIBERATED LABORER IDENTIFIER


    DENOMINATION

    QUANTITY, PER DENOMINATION

    TOTAL LABOR CREDITS PER DENOMINATION

    SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, BEGINNING

    SERIAL NUMBER RANGE, ENDING



    labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'






    ---


    Also:


    [16] Affinity Group Workflow Tracker






    Affinity Group Image-Based Communications Protocol






    Text as noise, hidden in image using GIMP



  3. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  4. #3
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Kansas
    Posts 11
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    wouldn't a united front of communists and anarchists be a good revolutionary army, like during the Spanish civil war
  5. #4
    Join Date Sep 2017
    Location San Jose, California
    Posts 20
    Organisation
    Unaffiliated
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Yes, but that's extremely vague. The specifics need to be considered to prevent the same thing from happening in the spanish civil war.

    There was much sectarianism during the Spanish civil war, partly leading to the popular front's downfall.
  6. #5
    Join Date Jun 2015
    Location Yorkshire, England
    Posts 7
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    im not an expert on the subject, but wouldn't the format used by the Cubans in their civil war work as from what ive read of Che's memoirs the system was extremely efficient in attacking the batista government
  7. #6
    Join Date Dec 2016
    Posts 218
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    Indeed, the only sure way to overthrow capitalist states, and replace it with 100% pure socialist states is with a war, with a war of armed radical leftists against the armed forces of capitalist states. There is really no other way


    There hasn't been much talk about this in the past year, despite it's extreme importance. I hope you will share your opinions on this.


    Many of us here would agree that if we truly want to stay true to our ideals of abolishing hierarchy, the army should apply in the same way that we would look upon expropriating, and transferring democracy into other places, like a factory.


    However, I'm not sure there has been any papers, theories, books, or generally any official written work that regards how anarchists should specifically militantly organize. However, there is shared agreement that the military should be generally decentralized, and have some democracy, if not total.


    I would propose local organization of militia-type units, based on trade-unions and other groups that are generally far-left leaning.


    Each of these groups, having their own respective members will be united upon similar goals, which of course is overthrowing the current system. Of course, a central system would need to be organized, for general information sharing and direction. This would take form as a military committee, in which the deputies are elected by the local militia-type units.


    Within each unit, I would hope there would be full, or close to full democracy. I'm not really in favor of having any officers, but as others may press that officers are needed to direct and advise the regular troops, they would be elected, and directly responsible to the mass of troops.


    As Orwell proved to us with his experiences in the Spanish Civil War, this will not undermine the military strength of the new revolutionary anarchist army. Although the Labor Union controlled units did have a hierarchy that wasn't elected, most of the orders were followed based on respect, not fear of disciplinary measures like practically all current armies are based off. And this of course, worked much better.


    To prove my point, I'll describe an excerpt from Orwell's "Homage to Catalonia"


    It basically starts out with several Labor-Union units deciding to attack an asylum which the Fascists were using as a fort. The plan had been to surprise-attack them to of course limit the casualties. Since the soldiers were pretty much tired of doing nothing in their trenches on the Huesca front, with the general understanding of the importance of this attack, they were fine with the orders. This attack practically failed however, due to one of the units leading the attack. That unit was commanded by a regular army officer that the government had appointed. Right before the attack began, he threw a bomb at the fortress, thus removing the surprise element. Although it's not known if this was out of trechary, or fear, the soldiers under his command promptly shot him dead.


    To conclude, I believe that it's very possible, and I would argue even better for the future revolutionary army to be organized on radical direct democratic, and unionized grounds. For this will allow for the theory to be applied not only to the civilian world, but to the revolutionary one as well.
    "You have to be a KAUTSKYAN on the question of organizing in "Educate, Agitate, Organize!" as opposed to "Agitate, Agitate, Agitate!" to get to the point of having a mass workers' party which can possibly pose the question of power." (Mike Macnair)
  8. #7
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Santa Croce-Florence
    Posts 15
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I would disagree friends, I think the Scandinavian states have found a perfect balance between socialism and capitalism without direct violent overthrow of the government. I do not know much about the recent history, or of how these governments developed (more research needs to be done), but I can conclude that these states have the highest recorded happiness between their citizenry and their governments (as proven by multiple studies). This Nordic model of persuading the proletariat by incentivizing them with state funded assets, which is done in a democratic system, is much more productive and efficient than the old Bolshevik model of simply overthrow and replace... Does any of this mean that I am against the revolution? Of course not. A state that does not guarantee basic human rights to its citizens is entitled to be destroyed, but modern democracy has the tools for fixing our problems far more efficiently than mobilizing militias and creating widespread devastation.
  9. #8
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,238
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    I would disagree friends, I think the Scandinavian states have found a perfect balance between socialism and capitalism without direct violent overthrow of the government. I do not know much about the recent history, or of how these governments developed (more research needs to be done), but I can conclude that these states have the highest recorded happiness between their citizenry and their governments (as proven by multiple studies). This Nordic model of persuading the proletariat by incentivizing them with state funded assets, which is done in a democratic system, is much more productive and efficient than the old Bolshevik model of simply overthrow and replace... Does any of this mean that I am against the revolution? Of course not. A state that does not guarantee basic human rights to its citizens is entitled to be destroyed, but modern democracy has the tools for fixing our problems far more efficiently than mobilizing militias and creating widespread devastation.

    Yeah, the *reason* Scandanavian states are higher-up on the happiness index is due to their relative *privilege* as early European imperialist countries:



    Swedish Empire

    See also: History of Sweden (1611–48), Swedish Empire, Swedish overseas colonies, Age of Liberty, Gustavian era, Sweden–Finland, and Union between Sweden and Norway

    During the 17th century Sweden emerged as a European great power. Before the emergence of the Swedish Empire, Sweden was a poor and scarcely populated country on the fringe of European civilisation, with no significant power or reputation. Sweden rose to prominence on a continental scale during the tenure of king Gustavus Adolphus, seizing territories from Russia and Poland–Lithuania in multiple conflicts, including the Thirty Years' War.

    During the Thirty Years' War, Sweden conquered approximately half of the Holy Roman states. Gustav Adolphus planned to become the new Holy Roman Emperor, ruling over a united Scandinavia and the Holy Roman states, but he died at the Battle of Lützen in 1632. After the Battle of Nördlingen, Sweden's only significant military defeat of the war, pro-Swedish sentiment among the German states faded. These German provinces excluded themselves from Swedish power one by one, leaving Sweden with only a few northern German territories: Swedish Pomerania, Bremen-Verden and Wismar.


    Stockholm in mid-17th century

    In the middle of the 17th century Sweden was the third-largest country in Europe by land area, only surpassed by Russia and Spain. Sweden reached its largest territorial extent under the rule of Charles X after the treaty of Roskilde in 1658.[40][41]

    I tend to think of the region as being 'Zero World' (as in First World, Third World, etc.), meaning that it's *preceded* all modern-day empires that have arisen since then.

    I'd be interested to hear your take on the world's *class divide* -- big deal, not-so-much, something else, what?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model
  10. #9
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Santa Croce-Florence
    Posts 15
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Interesting, but in modern history (ie post industrial world, ie anything that is closely relevant towards a discussion of revolution) I do not recall Sweden, or any other Scandinavian State being hegemonic or imperialistic. I must say that all of my perspectives are Western ones, so privilege in this sense is important to acknowledge; but compared to other Western democracies who had the same, if not more leaning in their favor, the Scandinavian States are happier. To clarify, my earlier point was that in Western Democracy we do not need violent overthrow as we have the tools to reform our government without force (Unlike, say, the Bolsheviks who had to seize the nation by force in order to be heard).

    The world class divide is a huge issue, and I understand that my ideas probably do not apply to developing states. Since globalization really took a hold in the 80's, and became entrenched in the 90's, corporations have forced developing states into a metaphorical race to the bottom by selectively investing in states with less regulation on both environmental and labor fronts.
    “soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible”
  11. #10
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,238
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    Interesting, but in modern history (ie post industrial world, ie anything that is closely relevant towards a discussion of revolution) I do not recall Sweden, or any other Scandinavian State being hegemonic or imperialistic.

    You're missing the point -- as long as a country, *any* country, remains on the market system, it will be *dependent* on market valuations, as for the commodification of labor (wages).



    Recent history

    See also: History of Sweden (1991–present)

    A bursting real estate bubble caused by inadequate controls on lending combined with an international recession and a policy switch from anti-unemployment policies to anti-inflationary policies resulted in a fiscal crisis in the early 1990s.[68] Sweden's GDP declined by around 5%. In 1992, a run on the currency caused the central bank to briefly increase interest rates to 500%.[69][70]

    The response of the government was to cut spending and institute a multitude of reforms to improve Sweden's competitiveness, among them reducing the welfare state and privatising public services and goods.

    ---



    I must say that all of my perspectives are Western ones, so privilege in this sense is important to acknowledge; but compared to other Western democracies who had the same, if not more leaning in their favor, the Scandinavian States are happier. To clarify, my earlier point was that in Western Democracy we do not need violent overthrow as we have the tools to reform our government without force (Unlike, say, the Bolsheviks who had to seize the nation by force in order to be heard).

    Again, the firmer, pre-existing basis in the current bourgeois world order is what makes Scandanavian countries more privileged, and thus happier. Instead of only looking towards Western-Civilization-elitist hegemonic cultural-imperialist standing and privileges, one should also look at the impact of *capitalism*, as for any country.

    You happen to be mixing-up 'means' and 'ends' -- if you're so against the violent overthrow of capitalism, is it so as to maintain the status-quo privileged social / geopolitical status of the Scandanavian countries? Why are you so defensive of private property relations in general, and why should the means of mass industrial production, and therefore of social *reproduction*, be in private hands when the cost of such is giving implicit kickbacks ('profit') to the private owners of these mass-productive capacities (factories) -- ?



    The world class divide is a huge issue, and I understand that my ideas probably do not apply to developing states.

    If you're so unconcerned with 'developing' (Third-World) states, then what *should* (proactively) be done about them? They're the states that are definitely *not* benefitting from the capitalist dynamic, being neocolonies of the West, and all you have to offer is the so-called 'free-market' mantra / propaganda, which *isn't helping* those internationally indebted countries.



    Since globalization really took a hold in the 80's, and became entrenched in the 90's,

    Globalization goes back to the 15th century (1492), with new lanes of commercial shipping and colonization arising out of Europe.



    corporations have forced developing states into a metaphorical race to the bottom by selectively investing in states with less regulation on both environmental and labor fronts.

    Correct -- it's called 'neocolonization', thanks to the profit system's expropriation of surplus labor value and raw-material natural resources from the earth.
  12. #11
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Santa Croce-Florence
    Posts 15
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I was in the middle of typing a heated response, sat back and realized I was late for an appointment, and rushed out of the room.
    Came back and read the anger of my words, I apologize if I come off as abrasive but there are a lot of right wingers in the South and they become hard to deal with.

    Anyways, I agree that with a sentient species which is more socially evolved than us we could live in a society where the economy is not capitalist. But our dependence on wages is due to the fact that people need to feed themselves,and their families--they need: clothes, shelter, warmth, and humanity--and at the end of the day, each of the aforementioned commodities is finite. All luxuries on Earth, apart from non-rival non-excludable forms of luxury such as public radio, are finite.
    The problem is the finite system. You are looking at this all the wrong way friend.
    Why limit ourselves to the finite system?
    The Classical Protectionist order revolves around protecting the assets of one's own nation to limit scarcity
    The Classical Liberal order revolves around scarcity and desperate needs. In weakness, all states must cling together.
    The Classical Socialist order revolves around the fact that there is scarcity, so therefor the state should centrally plan assets as it is more efficient than free-market capitalism.
    The Classical Marxist order revolves around fact that the proletariat, the everyman and everywoman, has always been left out of the benefits of their hard work and toil. The Marxists also believe that the world is in plenty and that it is the Capitalist of the classical liberal order who has enforced scarcity upon the world, which is in some part true.

    But our planet is finite.
    Listen to the environmentalists if anyone, we only have one Earth, and I'm sure you have heard the claim that if everyone consumed as much as the average American, we would need four times the natural materials present on the Earth.
    The answer isn't depravity and scarcity, as all other classical thought suggests. The answer is simple, and we have been
    gazing,
    admiring,
    and dreaming about all of it for as long as we could think.
    Cogito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore I am-Rene Descartes.

    No friend, the answer is not to live in scarcity but rather it is to evolve our tactics that have always worked and to include the entire species. We are by nature nomadic, as a species we must take to the stars to maintain our lifestyles, and extend privilege to everyone.
    The problem is getting to the point where people don't hate each other first.
    The road to utopia is a hard one though, and a wise Prince will foster both love and fear.
    “soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible”
  13. #12
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,238
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    I was in the middle of typing a heated response, sat back and realized I was late for an appointment, and rushed out of the room.
    Came back and read the anger of my words, I apologize if I come off as abrasive but there are a lot of right wingers in the South and they become hard to deal with.

    Anyways, I agree that with a sentient species which is more socially evolved than us we could live in a society where the economy is not capitalist. But our dependence on wages is due to the fact that people need to feed themselves,and their families--they need: clothes, shelter, warmth, and humanity--and at the end of the day, each of the aforementioned commodities is finite. All luxuries on Earth, apart from non-rival non-excludable forms of luxury such as public radio, are finite.

    So you're effectively *blaming the victim* -- as though our species could potentially be 'more socially evolved' and 'could live in a society where the economy is not capitalist', but, oh, it's the workers' *dependence on wages* that prevents us all from being more 'evolved'.

    The reason workers are dependent on wages is because there's no other realistic choice -- wages is the only share / participation that workers get in the capitalist economy, and it's at the cost of being exploited and oppressed, by the imperialistic hegemonic capitalist *state*.

    You're making it sound as though labor power *has* to be commodified, but it *doesn't* -- if workers had control over their-own / our-own labor, accompanying land and equipment, and resulting social production.



    The problem is the finite system. You are looking at this all the wrong way friend.
    Why limit ourselves to the finite system?
    The Classical Protectionist order revolves around protecting the assets of one's own nation to limit scarcity
    The Classical Liberal order revolves around scarcity and desperate needs. In weakness, all states must cling together.
    The Classical Socialist order revolves around the fact that there is scarcity, so therefor the state should centrally plan assets as it is more efficient than free-market capitalism.
    The Classical Marxist order revolves around fact that the proletariat, the everyman and everywoman, has always been left out of the benefits of their hard work and toil. The Marxists also believe that the world is in plenty and that it is the Capitalist of the classical liberal order who has enforced scarcity upon the world, which is in some part true.

    But our planet is finite.
    Listen to the environmentalists if anyone, we only have one Earth, and I'm sure you have heard the claim that if everyone consumed as much as the average American, we would need four times the natural materials present on the Earth.
    The answer isn't depravity and scarcity, as all other classical thought suggests. The answer is simple, and we have been
    gazing,
    admiring,
    and dreaming about all of it for as long as we could think.
    Cogito Ergo Sum, I think, therefore I am-Rene Descartes.

    No friend, the answer is not to live in scarcity but rather it is to evolve our tactics that have always worked and to include the entire species. We are by nature nomadic, as a species we must take to the stars to maintain our lifestyles, and extend privilege to everyone.
    The problem is getting to the point where people don't hate each other first.
    The road to utopia is a hard one though, and a wise Prince will foster both love and fear.

    More rhetoric -- you're touting the status-quo, technocratic line, which can't address the 'huge issue' (your wording) of the class divide, to aim at a *human-needs* / post-commodity socio-political-material approach.


    [10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy



  14. #13
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Santa Croce-Florence
    Posts 15
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I'm blaming the victim by addressing the fact that the current system exists? Great.
    It's all great and all to talk from your lofty Marxist perspective, but what is your realistic solution?
    How would you fix every problem in the current system? Because I can tell you one thing, most everyone here agrees one what we want, we just don't quite agree on how to get there
    I'm paraphrasing but Marx himself stated that we have to work within the current capitalist system in order to make sure that we can transition into communism.
    Sitting down and declaring that we no longer need wages doesn't work, that's how everyone dies of starvation.
    Revolution doesn't work because human beings corrupt it.
    Democracy is slow, and takes a few steps backwards every now and then (and is corruptible), but overall we are better off today than yesterday.
    Last time I checked, most people don't want to shed blood over what the hell the economic structure is...maybe that is because of capitalist manipulation, but that doesn't stop the fact that the communists who scream for revolution only alienate the rest of us who are trying to fix shit instead of just *****ing about it and trying to push revolution.
    The rest of us are going to keep existing in the system, keep fixing shit, and keep sending our kids to school because I prefer that reality than one of total destruction.
    A few years ago, I would have agreed with you that we needed to overthrow the current system, and replace all of it.
    Then I realized that we don't even have popular support for public healthcare in this country.

    In an ideal world, I'm sure we would agree; but in the reality that we actually live in, I disagree because I think incrementalism is the only thing that has worked.
    Just as a person does not learn how to walk on their first day, a species does not understand enlightenment until it takes the correct steps towards it. Learning is not something that happens instantly.
    Capitalism is just a stepping stone on the path to enlightenment, may that be in the form of communism or something after.

    When I stated that we were not socially evolved, that was in the context of understanding. The common person must learn and that takes generations for people to realize that they have been downtrodden. Until we have an educated majority though, we (the common person) won't realize we are being oppressed, so education needs to be the first step.

    If one asked constructive questions in the other thread, then perhaps one would have learned that, as curiosity is the hardest barrier to overcome.
    “soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible”
  15. #14
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,238
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    Anyways, I agree that with a sentient species which is more socially evolved than us we could live in a society where the economy is not capitalist. But our dependence on wages is due to the fact that people need to feed themselves,and their families--they need: clothes, shelter, warmth, and humanity--and at the end of the day, each of the aforementioned commodities is finite. All luxuries on Earth, apart from non-rival non-excludable forms of luxury such as public radio, are finite.


    So you're effectively *blaming the victim* -- as though our species could potentially be 'more socially evolved' and 'could live in a society where the economy is not capitalist', but, oh, it's the workers' *dependence on wages* that prevents us all from being more 'evolved'.

    The reason workers are dependent on wages is because there's no other realistic choice -- wages is the only share / participation that workers get in the capitalist economy, and it's at the cost of being exploited and oppressed, by the imperialistic hegemonic capitalist *state*.

    You're making it sound as though labor power *has* to be commodified, but it *doesn't* -- if workers had control over their-own / our-own labor, accompanying land and equipment, and resulting social production.


    I'm blaming the victim by addressing the fact that the current system exists? Great.

    Well, just read what you initially wrote, above, and then read my response -- since you're not addressing the class divide / class struggle, your responses take the status quo situation as being the empirical working *context* for your critiques. Yes, people need to feed themselves, and also need clothes, shelter, warmth, humanity, etc., but your take on this fact of life is that 'each of the aforementioned [resources] is finite'. This response of yours doesn't deal with *political economy* whatsoever, because even though these materials are finite, the more-pressing issue is 'Is it enough for everyone?'

    We know that there is sufficient *production* (of food, etc.) to fulfill everyone's basic needs, but the extant problem is one of *distribution*. Those who are *victimized* by capitalism -- your 'common man' formulation from the other thread -- do have *numbers* on their / our side, but are still being victimized by the system as it currently exists. The only possible conclusion here, then, is that it's the current *system* that enables this victimization of the working class, and needs to be done away with, in favor of workers controlling their own work (and the land and equipment that assists their work).



    It's all great and all to talk from your lofty Marxist perspective, but what is your realistic solution?

    I've now said it numerous times -- go back and see what you overlooked. The workers themselves / ourselves need to be in control of all aspects of the social production process, at all times.



    How would you fix every problem in the current system? Because I can tell you one thing, most everyone here agrees one what we want, we just don't quite agree on how to get there

    No, I *don't* agree with your purported political aims and goals -- I am *against* the use of *any* market exchanges, any exchange-values, and any private ownership of the means of mass industrial production.

    The system *can't* be 'fixed', because it's structured to only benefit the expropriating ruling class. The bourgeois ruling class market system of capitalism has to be *done away with*, so that the ones doing the actual work, the workers, can be the ones to benefit from their / our own efforts, without exception.



    I'm paraphrasing but Marx himself stated that we have to work within the current capitalist system in order to make sure that we can transition into communism.

    Now you're trying to front as a Marxist-Leninist stagist -- spreading yourself too thin, I'd say.



    Sitting down and declaring that we no longer need wages doesn't work, that's how everyone dies of starvation.
    Revolution doesn't work because human beings corrupt it.

    These *aren't* truisms -- your revolutionary pessimism, or outright dismissiveness, is just your own opinion and you've stopped trying to provide any reasoning for it.



    Democracy is slow, and takes a few steps backwards every now and then (and is corruptible), but overall we are better off today than yesterday.

    What about *workers democracy* -- ! Over their own / our own labor efforts and its products -- ?



    Last time I checked, most people don't want to shed blood over what the hell the economic structure is...maybe that is because of capitalist manipulation, but that doesn't stop the fact that the communists who scream for revolution only alienate the rest of us who are trying to fix shit instead of just *****ing about it and trying to push revolution.

    Again, there's no 'fixing' something that is structured *against* the working class by design. Can't you see that a dollar of revenue cannot go to *both* the ownership class *and* the working class -- ?


    [11] Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends






    ---



    The rest of us are going to keep existing in the system, keep fixing shit, and keep sending our kids to school because I prefer that reality than one of total destruction.

    Now you're putting words in my mouth -- I *never* have advocated for your mythical, purported 'total destruction'.



    A few years ago, I would have agreed with you that we needed to overthrow the current system, and replace all of it.
    Then I realized that we don't even have popular support for public healthcare in this country.

    Bullshit -- do people generally have medical needs or don't they -- ?



    In an ideal world, I'm sure we would agree; but in the reality that we actually live in, I disagree because I think incrementalism is the only thing that has worked.

    Incrementalism towards *what*, though, according to your playbook?



    Just as a person does not learn how to walk on their first day, a species does not understand enlightenment until it takes the correct steps towards it. Learning is not something that happens instantly.
    Capitalism is just a stepping stone on the path to enlightenment, may that be in the form of communism or something after.

    So should we be *aiming* for communism, or not?



    When I stated that we were not socially evolved, that was in the context of understanding. The common person must learn and that takes generations for people to realize that they have been downtrodden. Until we have an educated majority though, we (the common person) won't realize we are being oppressed, so education needs to be the first step.

    If one asked constructive questions in the other thread, then perhaps one would have learned that, as curiosity is the hardest barrier to overcome.

    So how, then, should we be 'educating' the 'common person' about their 'downtroddenness'?
  16. #15
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Santa Croce-Florence
    Posts 15
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Let me clarify before I go any further(I will further elaborate on my ideas later, but I have work soon so I must go toil for the state), yes I am advocating for communism to be the end game. I think it is the perfect system for the perfect species, but until we are intellectually perfect we need a form of transitional government and economy that will bring us there. Hence, my focus on education and ending inequality within the working class before we can seize the means of production from the privileged class.
    “soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible”
  17. #16
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Santa Croce-Florence
    Posts 15
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    So now that we can both say that our end goal is achieving "The workers themselves / ourselves [being] in control of all aspects of the social production process, at all times." I think this is a noble pursuit, and a just end goal, but I think there are barriers in human understanding that we have to cross in order for all of our brothers and sisters to see the same vision.
    Much as if we brought a person from a thousand years ago to present day, their brains would not be able to compute the materials, let alone the ideas of today--the people of today have not yet accepted the good will of socialism and communism.
    America has a history of removing far left elements with force and social pressure, using economic backhandness with things like black-lists, so perhaps we should allow the normal people to learn over time how their corporate masters have abused them, I am merely trying to give a framework for the populous revolution as a majority is the only true authority to govern over the sovereignty of the state, the state in turn has its duty in protecting the minorities. Until the general public learns, no wholehearted peoples revolution will come--and when change does come, it will likely be at the polls anyways, because most people just want to live peacefully without conflict or strife.

    So I'm gonna be honest, the graphics have not been that helpful, a nice explanation would help me understand why my theory of transitional democratic government is more harmful than revolution. I understand that the workers are having their labor extorted and used to make corporate profit, but I don't understand why we should tear apart perfectly working system and instead just spread privilege. Would this not net more utility by allowing workers/citizens to choose their own paths while also allowing the state to steer the way for educating the next generation who maybe evolved enough to fully grasp communism. We have to nurture communism with a gradual set of reforms and incremental changes.
    To clarify my earlier point of total destruction, let me say that I never said or implicated that you wanted total destruction; however, if a violent revolution were to occur in America, don't you think this would spell the end of the world as the American government would hold the world at ransom in order to stay in control. In essence, the American government could turn its nuclear umbrella around on the world and tell the revolution to back off, because there is no point of ruling over a pile of bloody ashes.
    Futurism offers a transitional mindset so our species can have the right conditions to evolve our minds.
    “soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible”
  18. #17
    Join Date Sep 2017
    Location San Jose, California
    Posts 20
    Organisation
    Unaffiliated
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    I doubt the American government would hold the world at ransom. It's a common misconception that the capitalists that run the US are the most powerful.

    Although the US may be the home of capitalism at the moment, it isn't in the capitalist favor to start their dystopia now.
  19. #18
    Join Date Apr 2018
    Location Santa Croce-Florence
    Posts 15
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    You don't think the current government, with Trump being the shining figure head of all of it, would hold all of us at ransom to maintain the current capitalist world order?
    I think you are also mistaking force with coercion. The threat of nuclear annihilation is enough to make most people back off from open rebellion, why make dystopia when you can do exactly what the capitalists have always done, and that is peel away the least devote members of the revolution with scare tactics. If it came down to the point of brinkmanship between the US government and the rebellion, I think Trump is mentally unfit, he would make a fault and cause world destruction, or at least annihilation of most of the Western hemisphere.
    “soyez réalistes, demandez l'impossible”
  20. #19
    Join Date Dec 2003
    Location Oakland, California
    Posts 8,141
    Rep Power 164

    Default The grounds of organizing the revolutionary army

    So now that we can both say that our end goal is achieving "The workers themselves / ourselves [being] in control of all aspects of the social production process, at all times." I think this is a noble pursuit, and a just end goal, but I think there are barriers in human understanding that we have to cross in order for all of our brothers and sisters to see the same vision.
    [COLOR=#4d4d4d]Much as if we brought a person from a thousand years ago to present day, their brains would not be able to compute the materials, let alone the ideas of today--the people of today have not yet accepted the good will of socialism and communism.
    It’s not an ends, it [class self-emancipation] is the necessary means to achieve democracy and move towards a liberated communist way of living and reproducing ourselves.

    If people can not conceptualize communism it is because they can not see communism. If they can not see communism it’s because they have not seen their power in the functioning of society and therefore can not see their potential power in making society function differently.

    Is the US a threat? Sure, but Trump can’t literally “push a button”. US military officials threatened to disobey if Trump called for a nuclear strike. But who pushes the buttons and pilots the planes and drones for the generals, who keeps all that equipment running? People who grew up around or know workers in their families and so on. Would they turn their guns on the generals, refuse orders, turn equipment over for democratic means and self-defense? IDK, but a mass revolutionary movement involving millions of workers has a shot at it if history is a guide.

    Besides, I’m a little skeptical about the idea that the ruling class would be that fatalistic in the face of an ongoing social revolution. If they destroyed a city, then they are basically giving up any chance at regaining a foothold elsewhere. They would more likely want to slaughter revolutionaries and strikers and blame them for the bloodshed. They loose any remaining hope for hegemony if they go further than that. A defeated ruling class that had stored secret nukes might be more a threat because they’d have nothing to loose.
  21. #20
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 15,238
    Rep Power 65

    Default


    Let me clarify before I go any further(I will further elaborate on my ideas later, but I have work soon so I must go toil for the state), yes I am advocating for communism to be the end game. I think it is the perfect system for the perfect species, but until we are intellectually perfect we need a form of transitional government and economy that will bring us there. Hence, my focus on education and ending inequality within the working class before we can seize the means of production from the privileged class.

    I'm sorry, but this is an ill-formed objective -- do you really think that bringing athletes' and actors' salaries down to a more-average level should be a working-class priority? You've voluntarily stepped into a catch-22 of your own making, because you can't level salaries / wages while the capitalist market system still exists, and you can't *remove* capitalism if a certain section of the workforce (corporate-union bosses) *blockades* working class self-activity, as for higher wages and benefits, and for collective self-rule in the workplace.



    So now that we can both say that our end goal is achieving "The workers themselves / ourselves [being] in control of all aspects of the social production process, at all times." I think this is a noble pursuit, and a just end goal, but I think there are barriers in human understanding that we have to cross in order for all of our brothers and sisters to see the same vision.

    I'll go so far as to assert that this is why we're active here on RevLeft.



    Much as if we brought a person from a thousand years ago to present day, their brains would not be able to compute the materials, let alone the ideas of today--the people of today have not yet accepted the good will of socialism and communism.

    To be precise, socialism and communism are *not* about some vague, contextless 'good will' -- it's all about nationalizing / socializing the social-productive processes away from rewarding private wealth at public expense.



    America has a history of removing far left elements with force and social pressure, using economic backhandness with things like black-lists, so perhaps we should allow the normal people to learn over time how their corporate masters have abused them, I am merely trying to give a framework for the populous revolution as a majority is the only true authority to govern over the sovereignty of the state, the state in turn has its duty in protecting the minorities.

    What 'framework' have you given here -- ??

    That



    [T]he Scandinavian states have found a perfect balance between socialism and capitalism without direct violent overthrow of the government.

    -- ?

    I'll pass -- you're too willing to capitulate to capitalist political power.



    Until the general public learns, no wholehearted peoples revolution will come--and when change does come, it will likely be at the polls anyways, because most people just want to live peacefully without conflict or strife.

    How can people 'live peacefully' when their labor value is being robbed by capitalists hour after hour, endlessly -- ?



    So I'm gonna be honest, the graphics have not been that helpful, a nice explanation would help me understand why my theory of transitional democratic government is more harmful than revolution. I understand that the workers are having their labor extorted and used to make corporate profit, but I don't understand why we should tear apart perfectly working system

    How is capitalism a 'perfectly working system' -- ?



    and instead just spread privilege. Would this not net more utility by allowing workers/citizens to choose their own paths while also allowing the state to steer the way for educating the next generation who maybe evolved enough to fully grasp communism. We have to nurture communism with a gradual set of reforms and incremental changes.
    To clarify my earlier point of total destruction, let me say that I never said or implicated that you wanted total destruction; however, if a violent revolution were to occur in America, don't you think this would spell the end of the world as the American government would hold the world at ransom in order to stay in control. In essence, the American government could turn its nuclear umbrella around on the world and tell the revolution to back off, because there is no point of ruling over a pile of bloody ashes.

    Why are you so presumptuous -- ?

    You don't understand, your contentions aside, that, by definition, a working class revolution would *politicize* / re-politicize / re-educate most people so that their sentiments are no longer with the maintenance of the profit system.

    If there's a broad base of sentiment for revolution, then it's *gonna happen*, and such would even extend up into existing law-enforcement and military hierarchies, re-politicizing them *against* any elitist entrenchments and threats from above.



    Futurism offers a transitional mindset so our species can have the right conditions to evolve our minds.

    You're being unclear -- what would happen politically under your purported 'futurism'?

Similar Threads

  1. News From The Philippine Revolution
    By The Vegan Marxist in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 382
    Last Post: 14th October 2017, 03:10
  2. How Nonviolence Protects the State.
    By PhoenixAsh in forum RevLeft Articles
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 21st April 2014, 22:34
  3. The Makhno File
    By A Marxist Historian in forum RevLeft Articles
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 15th July 2011, 23:30
  4. popular front for the liberation of palestine
    By red-palestine in forum Cultural
    Replies: 163
    Last Post: 10th January 2009, 03:51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts