RevLeft
Go Back   RevLeft > Blogs > Q
Register FAQ Members List RevLeft Groups Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

RevLeft Shortage Alert
RevLeft shortage alert! Current monthly donations are $22.50 below the monthly needed amount of $140. Help Revleft keep running - please subscribe for a monthly donation now!


  1. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    Building the New From Within the Old

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit View Comment
    Ah, so you're using a logical fallacy on the left to prove a point? OK.
    Precisely

    Using their logic to point to its limitations.

    Using their language so the point gets understood.
    Posted 20th April 2014 at 00:57 by Q Q is offline
  2. Old Comment
    Die Neue Zeit's Avatar

    Building the New From Within the Old

    Ah, so you're using a logical fallacy on the left to prove a point? OK.
    Posted 20th April 2014 at 00:54 by Die Neue Zeit Die Neue Zeit is offline
  3. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    Building the New From Within the Old

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit View Comment
    Comrade, that would be just a generic political crisis. Just because the old order could no longer go on in the old way doesn't mean that the political crisis at hand is revolutionary. You backtracked yourself later, and superbly I might add, in your post. Revolutionary crises may or may not be synonymous with revolutionary periods, but the former exist only within the latter.
    I suppose you mean my use of the term 'revolutionary crisis', which is indeed imprecise as it is both used for revolutionary periods as it is for crises. Much of the left is however oblivious to this distinction, so I thought it best not to dwell on it but engage in this debate on the terms that the left themselves use and then show its obvious limitations.

    But yes, of course you have a valid point. This distinction should be made.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Die Neue Zeit View Comment
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Q
    This immediately poses two issues:
    1. This takes a lot of time, decades, to build.
    2. On a purely 'political' basis, it is impossible to build such mass support, outside revolutionary times (by which time it will be too late because of point 1).
    Don't you mean during revolutionary times?
    Again, I'm waging the discussion on the left's terms. All of the spontaneist left has this idea that mass communist influence can be build during revolutionary times. As we know, this is however impossible precisely for the reason that power gaps will be filled by existing social forces. This is the reason why I put "by which time it will be too late", which was left unexplained in the post (and a little beside the main point).
    Posted 20th April 2014 at 00:34 by Q Q is offline
  4. Old Comment
    Die Neue Zeit's Avatar

    Building the New From Within the Old

    Comrade, that would be just a generic political crisis. Just because the old order could no longer go on in the old way doesn't mean that the political crisis at hand is revolutionary. You backtracked yourself later, and superbly I might add, in your post. Revolutionary crises may or may not be synonymous with revolutionary periods, but the former exist only within the latter.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Q
    This immediately poses two issues:
    1. This takes a lot of time, decades, to build.
    2. On a purely 'political' basis, it is impossible to build such mass support, outside revolutionary times (by which time it will be too late because of point 1).
    Don't you mean during revolutionary times?
    Posted 20th April 2014 at 00:18 by Die Neue Zeit Die Neue Zeit is offline
  5. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    What is "socialism", "communism" and the "DotP"?

    Comrade sanpal posted the following scheme here, a variation of mine:



    I can totally find myself agreeing here. It is a better expression it seems. The only limitation of it is that socialism appears to be standing on itself, as if it was a mode of production, instead of being the transition from the old to the new.
    Posted 25th March 2014 at 16:50 by Q Q is offline
  6. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    So, I became potentially electable

    Ok, so last Wednesday there were elections and of the contested 37 seats the SP secured 3, which is a rise from 1 in 2010

    The SP got a total of 3957 votes and I got... 16
    Posted 21st March 2014 at 18:34 by Q Q is offline
  7. Old Comment
    Mr. Mojo Risin''s Avatar

    So, I became potentially electable

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by WCOP
    Q for President!
    Security culture, comrade!
    Posted 10th March 2014 at 18:08 by Mr. Mojo Risin' Mr. Mojo Risin' is offline
  8. Old Comment
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod's Avatar

    So, I became potentially electable

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Q View Comment
    Well, the campaign is in full swing

    Elections are the 19th.
    Fantastic news, comrade! This is inspiring to hear, especially when sick in bed
    Emil for President!
    Posted 10th March 2014 at 01:15 by Workers-Control-Over-Prod Workers-Control-Over-Prod is offline
  9. Old Comment
    Posted 8th March 2014 at 19:41 by Sentinel Sentinel is online now
  10. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    So, I became potentially electable

    Well, the campaign is in full swing

    Elections are the 19th.
    Posted 8th March 2014 at 16:19 by Q Q is offline
  11. Old Comment
    Ritzy Cat's Avatar

    So, I became potentially electable

    Well It's MARCH! How is it going ?
    Posted 8th March 2014 at 15:56 by Ritzy Cat Ritzy Cat is offline
  12. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    So, I became potentially electable

    Nothing much to update. Elections are in March next year. Campaign hasn't started yet.
    Posted 29th November 2013 at 23:58 by Q Q is offline
  13. Old Comment
    Posted 29th November 2013 at 23:33 by Mr. Mojo Risin' Mr. Mojo Risin' is offline
  14. Old Comment
    Mr. Mojo Risin''s Avatar

    So, I became potentially electable

    Remember: no entering coalitions! Good luck!
    Posted 10th November 2013 at 09:31 by Mr. Mojo Risin' Mr. Mojo Risin' is offline
  15. Old Comment
    Posted 8th November 2013 at 18:47 by Comrade Jacob Comrade Jacob is offline
  16. Old Comment
    AmilcarCabral's Avatar

    An address to the "general strikists"

    Yeah you are right, even professor political scientist and writter Dr. Webster Tarpley (who is not even a marxist) says that protests is for wimps and that taking power, seizing state-power should be, the real goal, the real objective, it is the real deal of the oppressed
    Posted 8th November 2013 at 17:30 by AmilcarCabral AmilcarCabral is offline
  17. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    What is "socialism", "communism" and the "DotP"?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Brutus View Comment
    Would I be correct in saying that socialism is just a way if managing capital?
    No. Socialism is a form of class struggle, be it after the working class has taken political power and started making structural changes in the economy.

    Then again, in a way it is managing capital. In the same way that choking someone is managing someones life.
    Posted 4th October 2013 at 15:47 by Q Q is offline
  18. Old Comment
    Mr. Mojo Risin''s Avatar

    What is "socialism", "communism" and the "DotP"?

    Would I be correct in saying that socialism is just a way if managing capital?
    Posted 4th October 2013 at 15:16 by Mr. Mojo Risin' Mr. Mojo Risin' is offline
  19. Old Comment
    Q's Avatar

    What is "socialism", "communism" and the "DotP"?

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Subvert and Destroy View Comment
    In saying this, you are breaking from Marx.


    Seriously, yawn. If that is your critique, then please get out.

    But since I hear this 'argument' a lot, I'll have to reply to it I suppose. So here goes:

    1. As I said in this thread:

    Quote:
    I'm a Marxist, which is a scientific method. There is a squable between scientists about definitions all the time. What matters here is the argument, the theses, used. What does not matter is that a certain definition is correct because someone used it in a certain way. That is not science, but dogma and cultism.
    To use his words from a different context: If what youare saying is Marxism then I am no Marxist.

    2. There is no such thing as a coherent Marx theory on communism. We all know that he had a coherent theory on capital (and even that remained unfinished), but where did he write on communism? Ok, we have the Critique on the Gotha programme, where he spends a few lines on the subject, but how many other places are there? The scarce letter here or there maybe?

    But what does he say in Gotha? Let's have a look. In chapter 1 he begins introducing the "phases" of communism:

    Quote:
    But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.



    In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly -- only then then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!
    And.... That's it. That's the only place Marx ever mentions the "phases" communism. Replace my "socialism" and "communism" with, respectively the "lower phase" and "higher phase" of communism and it appears that I don't disagree much with Marx after all.

    But let's look further. In chapter 1 Marx also talks (from "What we have to deal with here..." on) about how the character of work changes under the the lower stage of communism. I again agree and don't see how this contradicts with anything I've said. Marx simply doesn't mention the petit-bourgeoisie or middle strata here and talks solely about the working class in power.

    Now, in chapter 4 we get a few more lines:
    Quote:
    The question then arises: What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word 'people' with the word 'state'.


    Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.


    Now the program does not deal with this nor with the future state of communist society.
    Marx is not clarifying here if he talks about the "lower phase" or the "higher phase" of communism here, but apparently there is a "future state of communist society". Now, with the assumption* that Marx actually did see (the higher stage of) communism as a stateless/classless society, this could be interpreted as him talking about the "lower phase" of communism, which I called socialism in the diagram.

    So, with this in mind, where exactly do I "break" with Marx? I find myself to be pretty close to his view as far as I can see. Perhaps, just maybe, Marx didn't share your juvenile maximalist views as you may have thought?

    Again I reach out to the Talmudian socialists to educate me. It could well be that I'm wrong, yet I haven't seen anything that would say so.



    * I could actually only find a single mention of "stateless" in the complete Marx & Engels archive on MIA, which can safely be considered not relevant. Engels of course did write about it, saying the state "dies out". Again, no contradictions with what I've said. Then there is of course chapter in the Manifesto which says:

    Quote:
    When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
    This, again, emphasises my points made about the transition.
    Posted 4th October 2013 at 08:38 by Q Q is offline
  20. Old Comment
    Rae Spiegel's Avatar

    What is "socialism", "communism" and the "DotP"?

    In saying this, you are breaking from Marx.
    Posted 4th October 2013 at 00:11 by Rae Spiegel Rae Spiegel is offline

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:43.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.