Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Misunderstanding on RevLeft

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    ubiquity
    Posts
    110
    Organisation
    not yet
    Rep Power
    0

    Unhappy Misunderstanding on RevLeft

    I have been lurking and reading quite a few post here on RevLeft and I have noticed that there is great Misunderstanding among RevLeft.

    I have been on RevLeft for some time, and I have had read a lot of Topics, so i'll just write my observations and try to clarify some things.

    To put it in rough:
    Some of you RevLefters (i'll call you New Socialist), believe that there is no country today (at present) that is Socialist. Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and stateless and therefore is oxymoron if used together with state, since state can't be socialist. You also believe that after successful revolution, state is abolished etc.

    And there are others (Old Communists) who believe that, i'll again put it in rough, that Socialism can be built in one country, that socialism is economic system. Believe that socialism is different from Communism and that Communism is endstage and Socialism is only transitional phase. They believe that in socialism there are classes and there is state which is ruled by Dictatorship of Proletariat who rules and oppresses the revionsits elements in state (ex-capitalists, bourgeoisie) with help of mechanism and tools provided by state.

    I must say that i mostly agree with (Old Communist) group. But before I end my post i have questions for the (New Socialists) group of people who believe that Socialism = Communism.

    To better Ilustrate my question Lets say:
    There is state named Lapandia, in that state, workers gain enough conscience, organize and make revolution. Is state abolished? But there are still other countries who are neighbors to Lapandio who wish to see Lapandia fail, they exploited Lapandia for years and they want to do it again and are supporting that goal. In Lapandia there are still counter-revolutionary elements, there are still people who wish to get back to the power or to gain wealth they loss. There are still some workers who are not fully conscience. There are still some workers who still hate neighbor countries/ nations or people who are different then themselves , there are still homophobes in society.

    In that case, we can clearly see we need a state to defend rights of the workers, to use its tools to drive revolution forward. It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment. Did revolution fail? Why?

    So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe? Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?

    * I would write in allready created topics/posts, i really would but sadly I'm the one of the allegedly one with the backward thinking and therfore restricted *
    “If you tremble indignation at every injustice then you are a comrade of mine.”

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Valdemar For This Useful Post:


  3. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    837
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Valdemar View Post
    Some of you RevLefters (i'll call you New Socialist), believe that there is no country today (at present) that is Socialist. Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and stateless and therefore is oxymoron, since state can't be socialist. You also believe that after successful revolution, state is abolished etc.
    Why are we the "New Socialists"? What you've just described is authentic Marxism.

    And there are others (Old Communists) who believe that, i'll again put it in rough, that Socialism can be built in one country, that socialism is economic system. Believe that socialism is different from Communism and that Communism is endstage and Socialism is only transitional phase. They believe that in socialism there are classes and there is state which is ruled by Dictatorship of Proletariat who rules and oppresses the revionsits elements in state (ex-capitalists, bourgeoisie) with help of mechanism and tools provided by state.
    "Old Communists"? How about just capitalists, since that's what they advocate.

    They don't advocate a dictatorship of the proletariat, but a dictatorship over the proletariat.

    I must say that i mostly agree with (Old Communist) group. But before I end my post i have questions for the (New Socialists) group of people who believe that Socialism = Communism.
    You do realize that socialism and communism were considered synonymous until 1917, right?

    It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment.
    You lost me here. What do you mean "look capitalist"?

    In the scenario you described, the revolution wasn't finished, and thus the state would still be necessary.

    So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe? Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?
    Not simultaneous. The revolution just has to spread before it becomes isolated and degenerates back into bourgeois tyranny.
    "All immediatists [. . .] want to get rid of society and put in its place a particular group of workers. This group they choose from the confines of one of the various prisons which constitute the bourgeois society of 'free men' i.e. the factory, the trade, the territorial or legal patch. Their entire miserable effort consists in telling the non-free, the non-citizens, the non-individuals [. . .] to envy and imitate their oppressors: be independent! free! be citizens! people! In a word: be bourgeois!" -Amadeo Bordiga, "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism"


  4. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    8,045
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Well..there is a great misunderstanding in your post.

    What you call new socialists are actually the classical, for lack of a better word, socialists. Like Marx for example. Who didnt think the state should continue to exist.'...and who do not make a distinction between socialism and communism. ...at least not in the way you describe it

    The distinction between socialism how you describe and interpet it was only made later by Marxist-Leninists...



    Now...as to the situation of Lapandia. Why would we need a state to defend the right of the workers? Explain to me that the existence of counter revolutionaries immediately leads to the conclusion that there needs to be a state.


    Also I would like to point out that according to a lot of what you call "new" socialists...there can not be a socialism in one country. So the question you are asking is answered with a simple: there will be no communism/socialism in Lapandia until it becomes internationalist and a self sufficient area of the globe has had its revolution. Untill then it is either stuck in the earliest phases of the DOPT or in some bastardised form of capitalism like market socialism or state capitalism.

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to PhoenixAsh For This Useful Post:


  6. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,002
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Try using the term "non-pragmatic, idealistic ultra-leftists" instead of "New Socialists."

  7. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Vyacheslav Brolotov For This Useful Post:


  8. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,002
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Don't let the ultra-leftists bully you into thinking their ideology is superior and classical, while ours is capitalist and evil.

  9. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Vyacheslav Brolotov For This Useful Post:


  10. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    837
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Commistar View Post
    Try using the term "non-pragmatic, idealistic ultra-leftists" instead of "New Socialists."
    Well, at least we are socialists.

    And I'm pretty sure that blaming "REVISIONISTS!!" when confronted with the countless historical failures of Marxism-Leninism is a lot more idealistic than looking at the material conditions that led to these failures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Commistar View Post
    Don't let the ultra-leftists bully you into thinking their ideology is superior and classical, while ours is capitalist and evil.
    It's not evil. It's just a bourgeois ideology.
    "All immediatists [. . .] want to get rid of society and put in its place a particular group of workers. This group they choose from the confines of one of the various prisons which constitute the bourgeois society of 'free men' i.e. the factory, the trade, the territorial or legal patch. Their entire miserable effort consists in telling the non-free, the non-citizens, the non-individuals [. . .] to envy and imitate their oppressors: be independent! free! be citizens! people! In a word: be bourgeois!" -Amadeo Bordiga, "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism"

  11. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Caj For This Useful Post:


  12. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    734
    Organisation
    Sympathizer of CPGB-PCC, WPA
    Blog Entries
    3
    Rep Power
    15

    Default

    As much as I'd like to say otherwise, Valdemar is right. Unfortunately just granting everyone absolute freedom immediately does not cure all social ills, and on the contrary leaves the revolution exposed to the threat of capitalist restoration. The communist 'base' (relations of production) requires the support of a corresponding 'superstructure' (culture, social institutions) in order to survive, as is true in any society. (Feudalism needed the Catholic religion to maintain its system of distribution of wealth to the Aristocracies across Europe.)

  13. #8
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Training Camp No. 4
    Posts
    1,029
    Organisation
    Proleterrorist Liberation Front
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    We're supposed to sit around singing Kumbaya while we wait for a world-wide revolution, or at least, a revolution that can spread. However, Stalin pointed out in The Foundations of Leninism:

    Where will the revolution begin? Where, in what country, can the front of capital be pierced first?

    Where industry is more developed, where the proletarian constitutes the majority, where the proletariat constitutes the majority, where the there is more culture, where there is more democracy-that was the reply usually given formerly.

    No, objects the Leninist theory of revolution, not necessarily where industry is more developed, and so forth. The front of capital will be pierced where the chain of imperialism is weakest, for the proletarian revolution is the result of the breaking of the chain of the world imperialist front at its weakest link; and it may turn out that the country which has started the revolution, which has made a breach in the front of capital, is less developed in a capitalist sense than other, more developed, countries, which have, however, remained within the framework of capitalism.
    Getting a world-wide revolution to spread from somewhere that Imperialism is at its weakest to a highly developed capitalist country is almost impossible. However, we don't object to a worldwide revolution; but we aren't utopians either.
    FKA Red Godfather

  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Zealot For This Useful Post:


  15. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    3,637
    Organisation
    The 4th International
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    40

    Default

    It isn't impossible, you tool, it nearly happened! They had to end the world war because things were becoming so dangerous back at home, and the capitalists were threatened internally! They wouldn't need the Freikorps if Germany wasn't on the verge of revolution, and the Stalinist party WAS ultraleft, even with 3,600,000 votes in the Reichstag, when they called the Social Dems "Social Fascists," and ruined any chance for a working class united front against fascism.

    Before Germany, Comintern took an ultra menshevist path in China, when the CCP was made subservient to Chaing Kai Shek, who was a member of Comintern!
    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

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Geiseric For This Useful Post:


  17. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida or Puerto Rico
    Posts
    3,233
    Organisation
    Sympathizer of: IWW, NEFAC, AFED, RAAN
    Rep Power
    41

    Default

    Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and stateless
    That's a rather simplistic, even "Strawman" view of so-called "new socialists" which are for the most part not new but have been around since the 19th century in one form or another.

    They don't exactly argue that socialism is "classless" exactly (there's still the working class, but no capitalist class; slowly their position of working class begins to fade due t the non-existence/displacement of the bourgeoisie and the phasing out of capitalist economic relations: accumulative currencies/capital/cash, etc which will occur post-revolution as we begin to move towards communism out of the shell of the forms of old classist society), although a state-less one yes (or one with a state, if by state one means an arrangement that is rhetorically "the dictatorship of the working class" stamping out the remaining vestiges of capitalism within society, rebuilding, and working towards communism; but not a state that involves a group of people, whether an alleged 'vanguard of the working class' or not, placed in a position over the working class as a whole and with a different relation to the productive forces/politically than the working class).
    "My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay

    "if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm

    "Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie

    "The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus

  18. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    3,637
    Organisation
    The 4th International
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    40

    Default

    This guy is a troll. Ignore.
    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

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Geiseric For This Useful Post:


  20. #12
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod's Avatar
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod is offline Libertarian-Authoritarianist Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California
    Posts
    1,421
    Organisation
    IWW (Industrial Workers of the World)
    Blog Entries
    21
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Syd Barrett View Post
    It isn't impossible, you tool, it nearly happened! They had to end the world war because things were becoming so dangerous back at home, and the capitalists were threatened internally! They wouldn't need the Freikorps if Germany wasn't on the verge of revolution, and the Stalinist party WAS ultraleft, even with 3,600,000 votes in the Reichstag, when they called the Social Dems "Social Fascists," and ruined any chance for a working class united front against fascism.

    Before Germany, Comintern took an ultra menshevist path in China, when the CCP was made subservient to Chaing Kai Shek, who was a member of Comintern!
    Well the reason the "Stalinists" took an "ultra-left" position is because the German Social-Democrats had done Everything to keep the bourgeoisie alive during the period of 1919-1923, they had gone directly against the working class of germany and were collaborative with the fascists, that makes sense seeing as they had the same goal: Keep the capitalist system. The KPD was the only party that called for national Antifascist action in the Reichstag while the Social-Democrats played the nationalist game with the Nazis, "reforming".
    "It is necessary for Communists to enter into contradiction with the consciousness of the masses. . . The problem with these Transitional programs and transitional demands, which don't enter into any contradiction with the consciousness of the masses, or try to trick the masses into entering into the class struggle, create soviets - [is that] it winds up as common-or-garden reformism or economism." - Mike Macnair, on the necessity of the Minimum and Maximum communist party Program.

    "You're lucky. You have a faith. Even if it's only Karl Marx" - Richard Burton

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to Workers-Control-Over-Prod For This Useful Post:


  22. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Knoxville, Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    351
    Organisation
    Socialist Party of the USA
    Rep Power
    0

    Default

    Well my friend most people in USA, in Greece, in Nigeria, in Pakistan, in Haiti, in many countries of Africa are living a hell on earth. And most leftists shouldn't really care about labels right now. What we should really care is about uniting all leftist parties into large leftist fronts in each country of this world. As a vehicle to get out of poverty, health care denial, and the hell of bills, taxes, dollar devaluation, currency-devaluations, the destruction of real salaries, destruction of real wages which leads to hunger in even working class households, and many many other problems like wars, police-terrorism, mood disorders, mental depression, sadness, emotional pain and existential vacuum in millions and millions of humans. Psychologic and emotional pain is a lot worse than physical pain.


    Thanks


    .



    Quote Originally Posted by Valdemar View Post
    I have been lurking and reading quite a few post here on RevLeft and I have noticed that there is great Misunderstanding among RevLeft.

    I have been on RevLeft for some time, and I have had read a lot of Topics, so i'll just write my observations and try to clarify some things.

    To put it in rough:
    Some of you RevLefters (i'll call you New Socialist), believe that there is no country today (at present) that is Socialist. Those who believe that, have tendency to believe that Socialism is same as Communism. You believe that Socialism is classless and stateless and therefore is oxymoron if used together with state, since state can't be socialist. You also believe that after successful revolution, state is abolished etc.

    And there are others (Old Communists) who believe that, i'll again put it in rough, that Socialism can be built in one country, that socialism is economic system. Believe that socialism is different from Communism and that Communism is endstage and Socialism is only transitional phase. They believe that in socialism there are classes and there is state which is ruled by Dictatorship of Proletariat who rules and oppresses the revionsits elements in state (ex-capitalists, bourgeoisie) with help of mechanism and tools provided by state.

    I must say that i mostly agree with (Old Communist) group. But before I end my post i have questions for the (New Socialists) group of people who believe that Socialism = Communism.

    To better Ilustrate my question Lets say:
    There is state named Lapandia, in that state, workers gain enough conscience, organize and make revolution. Is state abolished? But there are still other countries who are neighbors to Lapandio who wish to see Lapandia fail, they exploited Lapandia for years and they want to do it again and are supporting that goal. In Lapandia there are still counter-revolutionary elements, there are still people who wish to get back to the power or to gain wealth they loss. There are still some workers who are not fully conscience. There are still some workers who still hate neighbor countries/ nations or people who are different then themselves , there are still homophobes in society.

    In that case, we can clearly see we need a state to defend rights of the workers, to use its tools to drive revolution forward. It might happened that Lapandia needs to adjust to the current environment and make economic changes that might look capitalist in order to survive in hostile environment. Did revolution fail? Why?

    So in New Socialists thinking, only way of the revolution is simultaneous socialist revolution around globe? Only in that case i MIGHT see state abolished and of course people would need to gain full conscience so that there would be no backward thinking?

    * I would write in allready created topics/posts, i really would but sadly I'm the one of the allegedly one with the backward thinking and therfore restricted *

  23. #14
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod's Avatar
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod is offline Libertarian-Authoritarianist Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California
    Posts
    1,421
    Organisation
    IWW (Industrial Workers of the World)
    Blog Entries
    21
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    ...And one should note that it was Noske and the rest of the German SPD that gave the orders and edged on the murders of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.
    "It is necessary for Communists to enter into contradiction with the consciousness of the masses. . . The problem with these Transitional programs and transitional demands, which don't enter into any contradiction with the consciousness of the masses, or try to trick the masses into entering into the class struggle, create soviets - [is that] it winds up as common-or-garden reformism or economism." - Mike Macnair, on the necessity of the Minimum and Maximum communist party Program.

    "You're lucky. You have a faith. Even if it's only Karl Marx" - Richard Burton

  24. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    837
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raúl Duke View Post
    They don't exactly argue that socialism is "classless" exactly (there's still the working class, but no capitalist class; slowly their position of working class begins to fade due t the non-existence/displacement of the bourgeoisie and the phasing out of capitalist economic relations: accumulative currencies/capital/cash, etc which will occur post-revolution as we begin to move towards communism out of the shell of the forms of old classist society), although a state-less one yes (or one with a state, if by state one means an arrangement that is rhetorically "the dictatorship of the working class" stamping out the remaining vestiges of capitalism within society, rebuilding, and working towards communism; but not a state that involves a group of people, whether an alleged 'vanguard of the working class' or not, placed in a position over the working class as a whole and with a different relation to the productive forces/politically than the working class).
    I've got to disagree with you here. As Marx said, the existence of the proletariat is defined by and presupposes the corresponding existence of the bourgeoisie. The workers control the means of production, not in socialism, which is classless, but during the dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the "revolutionary transformation" of capitalism into socialism. Once the entirety of the MoP are held in common, there are no longer classes (including the working class), the state "withers away", and socialism begins.
    "All immediatists [. . .] want to get rid of society and put in its place a particular group of workers. This group they choose from the confines of one of the various prisons which constitute the bourgeois society of 'free men' i.e. the factory, the trade, the territorial or legal patch. Their entire miserable effort consists in telling the non-free, the non-citizens, the non-individuals [. . .] to envy and imitate their oppressors: be independent! free! be citizens! people! In a word: be bourgeois!" -Amadeo Bordiga, "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism"

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to Caj For This Useful Post:


  26. #16
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida or Puerto Rico
    Posts
    3,233
    Organisation
    Sympathizer of: IWW, NEFAC, AFED, RAAN
    Rep Power
    41

    Default

    I agree with you in essence, thus why I myself am wondering of why we even bother to make the difference between socialism and communism; since in both the working class is in control and the bourgeoisie is displaced/non-existent. However, I'm calling the DotP a socialist period (workers are in control of the means of production, working to do away with the vestiges of capital such as accumulative money) while the socialism you speak of as communism.

    The only reason I make the difference is that certain forms of capital might still be in used under socialism/DotP although we're working to do away with them (thus putting the relation between working class and capital/capitalist economic relations itself, particularly labor paid in salary/wage & money; although we could already cultivate non-capital based forms of labor remuneration pre-revolution and during revolution, I've heard of an example of this occurring in Greece right now.). I'm not disagreeing with Marx per se, just that I've seen people still state that a working class exists in socialism despite that the bourgeoisie/elites don't.
    "My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay

    "if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm

    "Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie

    "The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus

  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Raúl Duke For This Useful Post:


  28. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    837
    Rep Power
    25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Raúl Duke View Post
    I agree with you in essence, thus why I myself am wondering of why we even bother to make the difference between socialism and communism;
    I don't. The act of doing so is of Leninist origin.
    "All immediatists [. . .] want to get rid of society and put in its place a particular group of workers. This group they choose from the confines of one of the various prisons which constitute the bourgeois society of 'free men' i.e. the factory, the trade, the territorial or legal patch. Their entire miserable effort consists in telling the non-free, the non-citizens, the non-individuals [. . .] to envy and imitate their oppressors: be independent! free! be citizens! people! In a word: be bourgeois!" -Amadeo Bordiga, "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism"

  29. The Following User Says Thank You to Caj For This Useful Post:


  30. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    san fransisco
    Posts
    3,637
    Organisation
    The 4th International
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    40

    Default

    There were huge strike waves and a radicalising base in the SPD that was leaving the party and either going to the Communists or the Nazis, because the SPD was so unpopular with the working class.

    Your example of the SPD supporting the murders is a strawman, and i'm not even going to argue it. The deaths were some of the worst blows to the German working class in decades, and I doubt that the SPD rank and file supported the Freikorps.

    The politics taken in Germany contradict entirely the Chinese model of what the Stalinists did, as well as the disastrous Popular Front strategy with Liberals that was done in Spain and France, meaning that there wasn't any Leninist theory behind it, but the fSU supported whoever seemed like they would be most favorable to the foreign policy of the U.S.S.R.
    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

  31. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Florida or Puerto Rico
    Posts
    3,233
    Organisation
    Sympathizer of: IWW, NEFAC, AFED, RAAN
    Rep Power
    41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caj View Post
    I don't. The act of doing so is of Leninist origin.
    I thought it was a Marxist one; although the Leninists have historically used the difference to put in place something un-socialist (no disrespect intended to my Leninist friends ).
    "My heart sings for you both. Imagine it singing. la la la la."- Hannah Kay

    "if you keep calling average working people idiots i am sure they will be more apt to listen to what you have to say. "-bcbm

    "Sometimes false consciousness can be more destructive than apathy, just like how sometimes, doing nothing is actually better than doing the wrong thing."- Robocommie

    "The ruling class would tremble, and the revolution would be all but assured." -Explosive Situation, on the Revleft Merry Prankster bus

  32. #20
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod's Avatar
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod is offline Libertarian-Authoritarianist Supporter
    Forum Moderator
    Global Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Santa Cruz, California
    Posts
    1,421
    Organisation
    IWW (Industrial Workers of the World)
    Blog Entries
    21
    Rep Power
    29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Caj View Post
    Once the entirety of the MoP are held in common, there are no longer classes
    I disagree very much. Classes are not formed solely by whether one owns property or not, but also what the organisation of prodution is. So in socialism i do not understand why the proletariat cannot become the ruling class and select its subsumed classes of production process and non-classes. This sahould be the struggle of socialism IMO, the fight for the "Dictatorship of the proletariat" in making everyone subservient to the producers of material wealth. Then when the productive forces are heightened and the gap between think and hand work is closed, then there can be the beginning of talk about a truly "classless society" where everyone rules. Socialism to Communism.
    "It is necessary for Communists to enter into contradiction with the consciousness of the masses. . . The problem with these Transitional programs and transitional demands, which don't enter into any contradiction with the consciousness of the masses, or try to trick the masses into entering into the class struggle, create soviets - [is that] it winds up as common-or-garden reformism or economism." - Mike Macnair, on the necessity of the Minimum and Maximum communist party Program.

    "You're lucky. You have a faith. Even if it's only Karl Marx" - Richard Burton

Similar Threads

  1. hello revleft
    By anonymousj in forum Introductions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 1st March 2011, 07:24

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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