When i said Utopia I wasn't speaking literally. I was using it figuratively.

Utopia being ideally how I think society should run

I realize that perfection is impossible through human effort

I know that it is always used figuratively. It is like most metaphors, away of explaining something that is not concrete.

Still building a Utopia is a challenge I'm willing to accept

i am a staunch opponent of a one party state.

the main idea i see written about here to support the idea of a one party state is that of smashing bourgeois thought after a revolution by not allowing capitalist supporters into politics. *however, if their was a mass revolution, as it should be, then, wouldnt the masses not want capitalist politics in their government? *i mean, they, the majority, just overthrew capitalism. *they are not going to vote in new capitalist to oppress them again. *feoric writes that the capitalist "would be very powerful, and dangerous" because they could "fool the working class" back into capitalism. *i read that as the working class is too stupid to recognize their oppressors, and will vote them back into power. *i think the people that just lead their own revolution would be able to recognize their oppressors and the people who want to give them a better life.

also, it seems as though many people here want to force socialism onto people. *for example, feoric says that although a revolution may happen, the people may not want socialism, but merely want to change the "current state of things". *well, is socialism, and eventual communism, going to be successful in a society that did not want it to begin with? *this is an attempt to force people into the beginning stages of socialism, and will only lead to an ephemeral state of socialism. *this idea of forcing socialism on the people is, in my eyes, an opportunistic thought: "force it upon them when they are in disarray" says the party leader. *if the people dont want it, and are forced to live in it, the state will not last. *the proletariat, as a class have to want it, not any minority vanguard that forces it upon the people by not allowing them to choose what they want.

the people should be able to choose from whoever they want to help with governance after a revolution. *if they want to dismantle the old system of capitalism and replace it with a different capitalism, then that is what they should do. *if they want to replace it with socialism, then they should do it. *why are so many people not giving the people a chance to choose for themselves? *are we so vanguard that we know better then those stupid workers and should decide their life for them? *they decide their own path, not any party.

"Freedom" for "pro-capitalist politicians and politics" is, in my view, a very bad idea.

Why? *Because they are the class enemy. *If they get back into power, they will imprison and/or kill us.

Of course, we are not "gods"...if the same mass uprising that overthrew capitalism returns again to re-establish capitalism, we can't stop that from happening.

But I do not see that we are under any obligation to "play fair" with those who have never played fair with us...or to show them any "mercy" at all, any more than they have ever showed any "mercy" to the working class.

What if "some" workers were pro-capitalist? *They'd be very unhappy. *Too bad. * Their only option would be to vote for the "least radical" of the communist candidates for office. *Tough!

The change from one social order to another--revolution--is not "a dinner party", as Mao famously quipped. * It is a war between contending classes that lasts for decades at least. *The recently-overthrown ruling class will begin scheming at once to return to power; why should we do anything to help them do that?

This is not a matter of Leninist vanguardism; *I do not propose that a communist elite decide upon and impose repressive measures against capitalist ideology on its own initiative.

But we can certainly stand up in the public assemblies of the working class and advocate repressive measures against capitalist ideology. *If those assemblies agree with such proposals, then where is the harm...except to the ideas of the old ruling class?

The phrase "workers' democracy" has two words in it and both are equally important. *We do not "owe" the old ruling class and their supporters any democratic rights at all. * They are not "honorable opponents" who "deserve our respect"--they are (or were and hope to be again) murderous blood-sucking vampires who have fully earned our relentless hatred.

The consequences of half-hearted measures can be seen in the aftermath of the American bourgeois revolution of 1860-65; *the former slaves suffered and continue to suffer to this day many forms of oppression and exploitation that originated in the days of slavery. *Had the new bourgeois regime in Washington relentlessly persecuted every manifestation of the old order in the South following Lee's surrender, things would have been much different. * As it was, a kind of de facto slavery continued to exist in the South for another century.

There is absolutely no legitimate reason to put up with that crap.

That is why you make a legislature.


While I'm not a big fan of American politics, the "founding fathers" hit the nail on the head with checks and balances.



Three seperate bodies so one doesn't hold all the power.


If a socialist nation has that type of govt. Then no party can ever really rule

"This is not a matter of Leninist vanguardism; *I do not propose that a communist elite decide upon and impose repressive measures against capitalist ideology on its own initiative.

But we can certainly stand up in the public assemblies of the working class and advocate repressive measures against capitalist ideology." - Redstarr2000

i think we have a slight misunderstanding here, and i blame myself for not being completely clear in my original post. *if the revolution were tomorrow, believe me, i would be in the workplace advocating that we replace capitalism with socialism. *i would be there advocating that socialism be put into place. *i would be there.

however, using your analogy of the US civil war, would it have been ok for the slaves to then rise to power, stand over their former oppressors and oppress them just as badly as they were oppressed before? *however justified it seems, i still dont think that it is right. *what would that have created? *it would have created an oppressed minority that would be willing to do anything to get back into power. *they are now at a dissadvantage of power. *i propose that we make them equals, not a new oppressed and oppressor. *that way their numerical minority will have only the power of its numbers, and not of economic power. *

yes, workers democracy does have two words to the phrase. *but when a worker is not yet ready to put socialism in place, do they cease to be a worker? *no, they are still a machinist, or a mechanic, etc. *they are still workers. *as you say: "if the same mass uprising that overthrew capitalism returns again to re-establish capitalism, we can't stop that from happening." *that is essentially what i was trying to get across. *we cannot force this thought upon people, we can advocate it, teach it, agitate it, etc., but we have to let them chose for themselves. *it is my belief that if we do force this thought upon people, and force them into socialism that things may work for a brief period of time, but i dont want a brief socialist state, i want the beginning of the international socialist revolution.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 9:26 am on June 17, 2003)

...however, using your analogy of the US civil war, would it have been ok for the slaves to then rise to power, stand over their former oppressors and oppress them just as badly as they were oppressed before? *however justified it seems, i still dont think that it is right.

I suppose the answer would depend on what your phrase "oppress them just as badly" actually means.

Do you mean that all the slave-owners would be made into slaves themselves? *Or simply driven out of the South altogether? *Or executed for treason?

The first option was unavailable, due to the public propaganda concerning the cause of the war. *The second and/or the third options could have been implemented...and perhaps should have been implemented.

I actually had less ruthless proposals in mind: *1. The break-up of all properties held by slave-owners and redistribution of the land to the former slaves; *2. *The denial of the franchise and the right to hold public office or public employment of any kind to a former slave-owner; 3. *The abolition of all laws that denied full public equality to the former slaves.

Things like that...intended to keep the former slave-owners and their supporters out of power forever. *

what would that have created? *it would have created an oppressed minority that would be willing to do anything to get back into power.

Well, they already were that, at least in their own eyes. *And by 1876, they did get back into power in the South and did constitute a major reactionary force in American politics up through the 1960s.

In fact, the christian-fundamentalist supporters of George W. Bush are the distant political descendents of the old slave-owning class...some of them (perhaps many of them) still believe in the "divine origins" of "racial superiority".

Would it be "right" for us to take a stern and even ruthless approach to our defeated class enemy? *

I very much think it would be. *Why? *Imagine the magnitude of human suffering if those bastards somehow got back into power...and imagine how we would feel if it happened through our own sloppiness and carelessness, or our own "ethical qualms" about what needed to be done.

To employ a different analogy, revolution is not a sporting event, a game that ends with a final score, and everyone can shake hands afterwards. *The "game" lasts for generations and proclaiming "final victory" is an act of incomparable foolishness.

Yes, there will be a "point of no return" that, when passed, will make the restoration of capitalism literally inconceivable. * But we have no idea at this point when that will be.

Why take unnecessary chances?

That is why you make a legislature. *While I'm not a big fan of American politics, the "founding fathers" hit the nail on the head with checks and balances. *Three seperate bodies so one doesn't hold all the power. *If a socialist nation has that type of govt. Then no party can ever really rule.

I'm not sure I understand this, but I do understand the "checks and balances theory". *It was devised by the merchants, big landowners, and slaveowners in Philadelphia to make sure that popular sovereignity could be effectively frustrated if it ever "got out of hand" and threatened the real interests of the "propertied classes".

Marxists hold the opposite view; *that such political institutions as may be established must be designed in such a way that it is impossible to frustrate the will of the working class.

*

I actually had less ruthless proposals in mind: *1. The break-up of all properties held by slave-owners and redistribution of the land to the former slaves; *2. *The denial of the franchise and the right to hold public office or public employment of any kind to a former slave-owner; 3. *The abolition of all laws that denied full public equality to the former slaves.

Options one and three are things i would do for sure, no doubt. *however, as since, if i remember correctly, *the vast majority of people in the south were not slave owners. *therefore, they would not be able to win any public office. *the reason they were able to do that in the south was because of anti-black voter laws. *if those were not in place, how many ex-slaves would have voted for their former master? *not many. *what would have been the chance of a former slave owner to come to power? *i would say none. *given the full redistribution of land, and full political equality, the power of each person would have been equal, thus *putting the power in the numerical majority: not the ex-slave owners.

I very much think it would be. *Why? *Imagine the magnitude of human suffering if those bastards somehow got back into power...and imagine how we would feel if it happened through our own sloppiness and carelessness, or our own "ethical qualms" about what needed to be done.

To employ a different analogy, revolution is not a sporting event, a game that ends with a final score, and everyone can shake hands afterwards. *The "game" lasts for generations and proclaiming "final victory" is an act of incomparable foolishness.

great point. *i guess my major fear in this tactic is that a numerical minority of supporters of socialism will force the majority of people to succumb to socialist thought. *in my eyes, that is an unacceptable idea. *on the other hand, if the vast majority of people are for socialism, then why not allow these ex-capitalist to try to get elected, it will keep them busy so that they arent doing other mischievous things. *besides, if a vast majority are in favor of socialism, the ex-oppressors will have no chance at winning, just like the ex-slave holders.

(Edited by abstractmentality at 10:38 am on June 18, 2003)

"They are not "honorable opponents" who "deserve our respect"--they are (or were and hope to be again) murderous blood-sucking vampires who have fully earned our relentless hatred."

It shouldn't be up to the ruling majority to decide who is an "honorable opponent." *Everyone should have equal opportunity to voice their opinions(fairly), and they shouldn't be suppressed or repressed in anyway no matter how disagreeable you find their views to be. *If the socialist/communist system is the true system for the people, then it should have no problem beating out the flawed ideas and ideals of dissenting parties in fair debate(with facts and reasoning).

All you're doing is giving the dissidents more "proof of injustice" when you suppress them.

Why give them the chance you may ask? *To prove them wrong time and time again.

(Edited by 187 at 6:13 am on June 29, 2003)