| Theory |
|
"Dictatorship of the Proletriat"? September 7, 2003 by RedStar2000 |
The arguments over this unfortunate phrase are almost "theological" in their obscurity...and intensity. What did Marx and Engels "really mean" by "dictatorship of the proletariat"?
In the most literal sense, they clearly meant to draw a parallel with "bourgeois democracy"--a dictatorship of the capitalist class.
Unfortunately, it gets more complicated. Although the dictatorship of the proletariat is, like all states, an organ of class rule...it is nevertheless "no longer a state in the proper sense of the word" because proletarian revolution abolishes classes. Without classes, an organ of class rule is superfluous.
So is the dictatorship of the proletariat a "state" or not? The best answer is "sort of" but "not exactly". Most unsatisfactory!
Upon this ambiguous foundation, the 20th century Leninists erected something they called "socialism" and a "dictatorship of the proletariat"--a form of class society in which the means of production were owned and managed by the state apparatus itself. The capitalist class was indeed abolished, but an elite of state officials--the leaders of the Leninist vanguard party--emerged to perform the same functions as the old capitalist class.
Whatever Marx and Engels had in mind, it does not seem likely that this was it. Nevertheless, for most people, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" calls to mind, like it or not, the era of Lenin and Stalin.
For that reason, it is quite possible and even likely that the phrase will disappear from revolutionary vocabulary. Before it does, here are some posts that discuss what lies behind the phrase...the shape of post-revolutionary society.
=================================================
quote:
How will the GDP of a nation be supported and increased at at least 5% each year as this is the necessary "bottom line" factor economically to not only continue with economic stability but also provide the necessary means to establish the technological, industrial and social advancement necessary to advance your culture and society into a stateless environment.
A GDP growth rate of 5% per year is a figure drawn from someone's rectal orifice, of course. In fact "GDP" (Gross Domestic Product) is a bourgeois artifact itself--a measurement of certain kinds of economic activity...it has no "objective" reality in itself, though it partially reflects objective reality.
So, let's rephrase it in sensible terms: what will happen economically after a proletarian revolution?
In "my" scenario, the transition to communist society begins at once...perhaps with some very basic measures:
1. Public Transit is now free.
2. Water, Gas, Electricity are now free.
3. Basic Foodstuffs (probably distributed from warehouse-type distribution centers) are now free.
4. Residential rents are abolished; home mortgages are dissolved.
5. Rationing is introduced to cope with local shortages.
6. All of the major corporations become the temporary "property" of the workers at those corporations; all socially useless or harmful production is curtailed or abolished at once and resources are re-directed toward socially useful production.
7. Efforts begin at once to restore regional circulation of necessary goods and subsequently expanded into national and international circulation...but overall, the transit of goods will probably decrease markedly in communist society; most things that you use, eat, wear, etc. will probably be locally produced.
8. Temporary collectives of various sizes will be created, modified, and even abolished to accomplish temporary economic purposes...there will be a great deal of "trial and error" in the years and even decades immediately following proletarian revolution. We will learn what it takes to make communist society "work" over a period of time.
9. All such collectives, of course, must be controlled by the workers who take part in them. Gradually, they will probably come under the control of even larger collectives...but the principle of rank-and-file working class control is not negotiable.
Things will be very different economically (and in other ways) than they are now...a point that is lost on reformists and Leninists alike.
quote:
Please explain how a policy that relies completely on dogma that goes against all logic of popular human behavior will support an entire nation's need for food, housing, electricity, education, etc.
This is a "rhetorical" question, of course, as there is no such thing as the "logic of popular human behavior". It reflects the sheepherder's infatuation with bourgeois "evolutionary psychology"...a pseudo-science of recent origins invented to "explain" (justify) capitalist society. I highly recommend Alas, Poor Darwin--Arguments Against Evolutionary Psychology, edited by Hilary & Stephen Rose, as a refreshing antidote to such trash.
quote:
Please tell me how any person in their right minds would actually support a national or global function that has no ability to provide the proletariat with even the most basic human services that are completely necessary for civilisation.
In other words, put the workers in charge of things and "everything will go to hell".
Every capitalist would agree.
quote:
Wages will indeed be increased however the majority of the surplus value created from trading goods and commodities will have to be used to operate the new socialist state. There is no other way to pay for the heavy cost associated with the social programmes that will create a classless society in conjunction with the devolution of the free market enterprise model that places said surplus value in the pockets of the elite.
In theory, this "socialist state" just collects surplus value and re-distributes it in the form of a social product. In practice, some of it "sticks" to the hands of the people doing the re-distribution...and they become corrupt and then they become a new capitalist class.
At least, that's what has happened every time it's been tried.
quote:
Surplus value does indeed mostly go to providing the necessary funds to make a socialist state exist, however the way the masses keep the government in line is by owning the means of production. If the government fails to maintain the appropriate levels of socialist decency, the proletariat ceases to work, effectively shutting down the economy. You can argue that the government will "force" the working class to work but that argument is flawed.
Where is the flaw? Isn't that what happened?
quote:
The masses have just won a revolution against the most oppressive structure on the planet and as the peoples support is required to revolt, it is logical to assume that the people will have no problem counter-revolting against any state that strays from the path. Given their recent experience with revolution, one must assume that this new revolt would be even easier to conduct than the prior.
It might be "logical", but it certainly didn't happen in the USSR. Quite the contrary, by the mid-1920s (after several years of the NEP--certainly a "betrayal" of the "socialist decencies"!), the Russian working class was utterly demoralized and apathetic. Their reaction to the so-called "titanic struggle" between Stalin and Trotsky, given front-page coverage in the Russian media, was one of total indifference.
It seems to me that the experience of participating in a great revolutionary upheaval only to find that all the old shit has returned does not inspire fresh revolutionary enthusiasm but instead breeds hopelessness and depression.
Historically, genuine mass revolution is a "once-in-a-lifetime" experience; it is extraordinarily rare to even live long enough for two such events to occur, much less to be physically and mentally able to participate in both of them.
quote:
In essence it would be political suicide to go against the masses. No governmental body is that stupid. Remember, these people are the leaders of the revolution...they spent their entire lives fighting for this cause.
Bah! There are many ways for any government to pretend to "serve" the masses while, in fact, exploiting and oppressing them. We see it all the time.
As to "lifetime dedication", what does that mean in reality? Do we say at a certain point "Comrade X has spent Y number of years in the movement, therefore it is impossible for him to betray the revolution or even make a really serious mistake."?
Your "past record", if negative, weighs heavily against you. Your "past record", if positive, is neutral.
No one can legitimately appeal for support on the basis of "hey, trust me, have I ever let you down?". That might be a sound basis for extending someone a (small) personal loan...but only a fool would treat serious political questions in such a careless fashion.
Forget "trust"...keep the power in the hands of the working class itself. You are always free to extend a respectful hearing to a veteran revolutionary...but never forget that the power of decision must remain in your hands and the hands of your class.
quote:
The people will be expected to be completely politically aware and will be immediately expected to revolt upon any wrongdoings by the vanguard. We know this and understand it. It's pure logic.
Again, it may be "logical" but turned out in practice to be otherwise. And, when you stop and think about it, why should the working class have to overthrow one corrupt "vanguard" after another?
Wouldn't it be easier just to make one proletarian revolution, establish communism, and move on?
quote:
Why is it so hard for you to think that there are educated members of the vanguard that will defend the people with every last breath!?
Experience!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Redstar, don't you think that it's a tad unrealistic to expect the workers to assume direct power right after the revolution? Obviously, the working class will have influence over the government, as they will be the owners and operators of the means of production.
No, I don't think it's the least bit "unrealistic"...in fact, I don't think you can even have a proletarian revolution where that doesn't happen.
The historical record suggests (Russia, Spain) that wide sectors of the working class tried to exercise real power, only to be thwarted by ambitious and tightly-organized minorities who "know what's best" for the class as a whole...or at least think they do and are quite willing to murder anyone who thinks otherwise.
This is actually a symptom of the backwardness of the working class of the 20th century.
What has to be grasped is that the working class of then (or now) is not the working class that will make proletarian revolution and harvest its benefits.
Class consciousness will be enormously more advanced than ever before in history. The general level of knowledge will be far greater. The working class will be far more prepared to rule than has ever been the case before.
Things change.
quote:
But what you suggest will actually lead to the proletariat's loss of power, since without a central government there will be a lack of equality and unity, not to mention it will be impossible to quickly and successfully suppress the bourgeoisie as well as to accomplish many other goals of marxism.
Failure is always a possibility. There are no guarantees in history. But if you abandon what you really want in order to "save the revolution" then you have already lost!
Let the old ruling class defeat us, if they can...we shall not defeat ourselves.
I agree there will definitely not be either unity or equality at the beginning; what there will be are honest attempts to achieve those things on the basis of the democratic will of the working class.
Revolution, as Engels observed, is an authoritarian act. No one should pretend that even in the days and weeks immediately following proletarian revolution that force will not be used, and not just against the old bourgeoisie.
There will almost certainly be a minority of the working class itself that, while favoring the revolution in general terms, will also see it as an opportunity to "set themselves up" as an privileged elite with special powers, luxuries, etc. They will have to be compelled to abandon those ambitions, by any means necessary.
I do not expect racism or sexism to be a significant factor after the revolution...nevertheless, there will almost certainly be "pockets" of racist/sexist opposition, and they must be dealt with in a forceful manner.
Along with the old bourgeoisie, we will probably find a significant number of religious counter-revolutionaries. A vigorous struggle against the symbols of religion in public life should demoralize most of them...but the hard-core will have to be handled the same way other active counter-revolutionaries are handled.
The main thing is that every measure we take to "defend" the revolution must be carefully evaluated as to its potential for undermining and destroying the revolution.
One of the prominent leaders of fascism said back in the 1930s "In order for our enemies to defeat us, they must become like us."
That's a trap we can avoid...and must!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Redstar every single political party would happily promise FREE everything, as you do. Provided, of course, they never had to deliver. If they had to do it, they'd have to address the question posed. Not HOW MUCH CAN YOU PROMISE (answer anything you like) but WHAT CAN YOU DELIVER and crucially WHY WHY WHY, HOW , HOW , HOW.
It's the latter bits that require a bit more than rhetoric and dogma.
We are not talking of what would be nice, but of what can be achieved. Care to demonstrate your budget? roughly? at all ?
Even if my "crystal ball" were functioning and I could answer such ridiculous--and rhetorical--questions, why should I bother?
The Leninists say, in very obscure and allegorical words, that they will "make" their system work at gunpoint.
Well, that's been tried and it didn't work so good after all.
You reformists just want to add a "socialist" gloss to wage-slavery and smugly point out that, after all, we "know" that wage-slavery "works."
Yes, you have, no doubt, hard-drives full of very "practical" plans...for a slightly more humane version of what we have now!
Thus, no matter how "practical" the measures that I or any real communist might advocate, you would dismiss them with a wave of your hand.
They don't conform to the paradigm of wage-slavery..."and are therefore impossible". Next thing you know, you'll be falling back on "evolutionary psychology".
I very much doubt if anyone will bother with formal "budgets" even in the earliest years of communist society. When currency is abolished altogether, the word itself will become archaic...are you intimately familiar with all the technical terms that existed in the feudal economy?
Do you even care? Does anyone?
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Do you think that right after we win the revolution classes will just somehow disappear, Redstar?
Obviously not. That is, to be precise, with the immediate abolition of corporate property and the confiscation of great fortunes, the bourgeoisie will technically no longer exist...but their class attitudes will remain.
I suspect the most protracted and difficult struggle in post-revolutionary society will be against the petty-bourgeoisie...particularly in agriculture. We're not talking about peasants here; we're talking about "modern Kulaks" who could cause considerable difficulties for the proletariat, both material and ideological.
quote:
As long as there are classes, a state is necessary.
What assumptions are you hiding under that "innocent" five-letter word?
Examine them carefully; decide what you really want!
quote:
The working class will not be manipulated by the government because they will be the leading class, they will have ownership of the means of production and therefore complete influence over a revolutionary government.
But that did not happen. Whatever you might possibly mean by the phrase "complete influence over a revolutionary government", the working class in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, Vietnam, Cuba, etc. did not have it.
In fact they had as little to say about the important decisions in society as we do in capitalist society...as close to zero as makes no difference.
On what grounds can you assert that "next time" things will be any different? The Leninists here (mostly) agree that workers are "sheep" that need to be "herded". What they propose in fact is a different kind of wage-slavery...in which the government (and their party) will be the bosses.
How do "sheep" go about "influencing shepherds"?
quote:
Makes more sense to me than anarchism, eh?
I sense a bit of concern on your part that unless you endorse a "state", the Leninists will call you "an anarchist" (horrors!)
Rest easy. The Leninist formula--"petty-bourgeois anarchist"--comes as easily from their limited political vocabulary as "this program has performed an illegal operation and will shut down" comes from a Windows© operating system.
It doesn't really mean anything significant; most of them couldn't tell the difference between anarchism and rheumatism.
To them, anyone who denies their claim to power is "a petty-bourgeois anarchist".
Poo!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Your main point about Leninism resulting in wage slavery has already been disproven in my previous post, you must not have caught that part.
You not only did not disprove anything but you did not even mention wage-slavery in your previous post.
The Leninist version of "socialism" does not abolish wage-slavery; it merely makes the state the owner--in practice--of the means of production. (I'm ignoring the formal or legal definition of "ownership" here, as we know how little formalities or legalities amount to when it comes to power.).
When you, as a worker, are compelled to work for wages, find someone who will give you part of their wages, or die--you are a wage-slave, period.
And now, with groaning reluctance, we must turn to the "sheep-herder"...
quote:
I suppose again you were not clear as to the fact we are talking about socialism not communism.
Quite the contrary, I was well aware of the fact that you were talking about your "new", "improved" and "revolutionary" version of wage-slavery.
I was proposing an alternative...though I didn't really expect anything resembling serious consideration of that alternative from you.
You did not disappoint me.
quote:
Where does the 5% number come from? I calculated it myself based on past economic models and Okun's law.
Woo hoo! Okun's law!! Bringing out the heavy artillery!!!
Ok, folks, don't be intimidated by that kind of silliness. That "law" is a statistical relationship between economic growth in a capitalist country and official unemployment figures and shows a modest correlation between the two...over the last 40 years or so. It just puts a number on something that is obvious: when capitalist economies grow, unemployment declines.
Bourgeois economists get sexually excited when one of their formulas actually holds up for more than a few years...hence "law".
But it is as I thought: the sheep-herder doesn't really understand what "GDP" is, what it includes and excludes, what degree of confidence can reasonably be placed in official statistics...
and so he pulled a number out of his ass.
quote:
Just try and operate a socialist or even communist society under conditions that capitalism still controls the international market and therefore value and see what happens. Your pretty little "society" would not last a month in reality.
Are you saying here that even your version of "socialism" is "impossible in one country"? Are you flirting with (brace yourself!) Trotskyism?
Probably not, eh? But your deification of the international marketplace is an interesting strand of thought for one who purports to be a "communist".
I see absolutely no reason why an economically advanced communist society cannot flourish, regardless of the economic systems in other countries.
But I also expect proletarian revolution in a number if not most advanced capitalist societies to occur within a few years of each other at most...so the difficulties that you anticipate (whatever they might be) will not be significant.
quote:
Good god, you are an absolute windbag. All bullshit and no substance, typical anarchist drivel;
How will you provide the necessary funds in a socialist environment to pay for free public transportation?
How will you pay for free utilities in a socialist environment?
How will you pay for free food services? How will production be gauged? How will distribution be gauged and carried out? How will you counter over-supply? What procedures will you use to assess these problems and how the fuck will you pay for the solutions while maintaining an economy that won't fucking collapse in a week?....Wow simple fucking questions you dodged in your "fine" post of bullshit.
This is a sheep-herder who thinks that if you yell at the sheep loud enough, then they'll obey him.
Meanwhile, note that his questions can all be summarized: "how will you pay for it?"
It is as relevant as a feudal lord asking a 15th century merchant: "but how will you create and maintain loyalty?"
Personal, sworn loyalty was part of the "social glue" that held feudal society together. Capitalist society has no need of it, therefore it has disappeared.
The concept of "payment" is crucial in capitalist society. Communist society has no need for it...it will disappear into the history books.
Resources will be allocated according to need in communist society...something quite literally "unthinkable" to both Leninists and reformists.
quote:
Shortages!! What the hell is wrong with you? You think for one minute that the masses are going to put up with "shortages" and rationing in this fucking millennium! this is not 1920!
I know I'm yielding to the temptation of "vulgar" Marxism here...but doesn't this question sort of hint at a fairly comfortable position in present-day class society for our sheep-herder?
Under capitalism, for many millions of people, shortages are a way of life. Class society does ration...if you don't have the money, you don't get any.
We will make sure that everyone gets a reasonably equal share of the goodies...by rationing. I think the "masses" will not only "put up with that" but will demand it.
quote:
And what is to be done in those "trial and error" years without a means to stabalise and grow the economy?
The economy will grow in some respects and shrink in others. It will become more stable in some ways and less in others.
The sub-text of your statement is: without you in charge, the "sheep" will hopelessly fuck up everything.
We'll see.
quote:
RS is the perfect textbook example of absurd utopian idealism. In other words, useless BULLSHIT.
That's Leninspeak for "disrespectful of authority".
quote:
Listening to windbags like this fool here will only serve one thing; Redstar2000's enormous ego.
More Leninspeak--means the same thing.
quote:
Keep plodding away at your little fantasy world mate.
Count on it!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Through what means will the working class wield their power, Redstar, if there is no government?
The absence of a "strong centralized state" does not mean that there will be no public bodies that will perform the useful functions that we now associate with "government".
In the earliest days of the Russian revolution, there were "soviets"--congresses of deputies elected by workers, soldiers, and peasants--as well as "factory committees"--elected directly from the shop floors. There were even federations of such groups.
Lenin and the Bolsheviks--with Stalin and Trotsky both in agreement--put a stop to this "ultra-democratic" "infantile leftism" in the period 1918-1921. The civil war was a "good excuse" but I think they would have done it anyway. The Bolsheviks really believed in their own "mystique"...that only they could run things and the workers were a bunch of dumb sheep that had to be herded "for their own good".
It seems to me most likely--at the present time--that something like the soviets and the factory committees will be the public authorities in early communist society.
But how things will evolve from there is, I believe, impossible to predict.
I hope you will note, at least in passing, the sheep-herder's "explanation" for the collapse of the USSR...the "devil" Khrushchev dunnit!
The same Khrushchev who was, of course, a close and valued associate of one J.V. Stalin, "practitioner" of "Marxism"-Leninism.
The "devil" theory of history was discarded by most bourgeois historians in the first half of the 20th century...at least the reputable ones. Leninists cling to it out of desperation...the humiliation of having to admit that the whole Leninist paradigm was flawed from the beginning is "too much to bear".
Life can be so disappointing.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 4, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You propose to abolish modern economy in one fated "swoop" yet you cannot describe how this can be accomplished.
Not exactly; I propose to "abolish" modern bourgeois economy over a very brief period of time, a few years at most.
How? By substituting communist economic production and distribution for capitalist economic production and distribution.
Will this result in over-production of some things and under-production of other things? Of course it will. Will it be a "mess"? Quite likely.
Can people learn from experience how to make it work? Absolutely!
quote:
You always forget that I too want to abolish the concept of wages, I simply have an economic and political plan that will make these goals achievable.
No you don't. All your "plan" does is create a slight variant of capitalism...all the basic features of a market economy are still present, most especially including a corrupt political elite that appropriates a portion of the surplus for its own luxurious consumption.
All versions of "socialism" that retain the market, wage-slavery, etc. are almost certain to devolve back into monopoly capitalism. Call it "Redstar's law", if you like.
What you really promise is that you will be so "dedicated" as to refrain from using your political monopoly to grab a disproportionate share of the goodies.
Well, you may be...but it's a lead pipe cinch that your co-rulers won't.
That's the lesson of history!
quote:
You can't SEE it because you don't know fuck all about economics.
It is true that my knowledge of bourgeois economics is not that of one trained in the "profession". Judging by the incoherent muddle that you posted in the "state capitalist" thread, you're in the same boat! (You didn't even bother to distinguish between real GDP and nominal GDP.)
Be that as it may, your suggestion that a communist economy would only grow at a very small rate and might even shrink is irrelevant. "Grow or die!" is a law of capitalism...not communism.
Economic "growth" is just one of the factors that communist economists will take into consideration...and not necessarily the most important one, either.
One of the core values of bourgeois ideology is that the more "stuff" you have, the better life "is"...or, "the guy who dies with the most toys wins."
You are just as intoxicated with this vision as Bill Gates; you think that unless there is rapid economic growth (more stuff), "socialism" is a waste of time and we should all "start saving to buy a Porsche".
In a communist society, production of luxury automobiles will be discontinued--a decrease in GDP. Horrors!
Horrible indeed, if you are a bourgeois. Communists have different priorities.
quote:
What a prick you are.
The sheep-herder and the reformist agree!
Do I get some kind of prize for creating unity on the so-called "left"?
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 5, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Now, Redstar, if we are to place the power directly in the hands of the working class, would it not be more effective towards equality if it involves a central government, as opposed to having only local "committees" and "soviets" as you suggest?
It might be "more effective" but there's a rather nasty trade-off involved. A "strong centralized state", even one that is "controlled" by democratic "representatives" of the working class, has a marked tendency to institutionalize itself...which is just another way of saying that the people at the top of that hierarchy grow to like it up there.
After a while, it seems "natural" to them that they should make decisions "for the good" of the working class. They even start creating a "mystique" about themselves as "crucial" to the victory of the revolution, as "indispensable" men, etc. Next thing you know, the printing presses are rolling...with photographs of these pompous twits (suitable for framing).
Let's turn the question around and ask it another way: are there certain functions that it would be useful to have centralized?
Sure there are. It would be useful to have a central data collection agency for all production and consumption data...so that people everywhere could know at any moment how the entire society was doing--and make informed decisions about their local and regional affairs.
Other practical functions could be usefully centralized in the same way...every municipality or commune does not need its own air controller, its own inter-city passenger train, its own weather-forecasting supercomputer, etc.
Data collection and distribution--and even interpretation--might well be centralized temporarily or permanently. What is crucial to prevent is the creation of a "political center of gravity"...a place where a small number of people make sweeping decisions affecting the entire society and then enforce (or attempt to enforce) those decisions by the threat or use of military force.
That's a state...in the worst sense of the word--an emerging organ of class rule.
Once you see that, the ballgame is over.
We lost!
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 5, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
How will the workers organize themselves into these committees and soviets?
How do people engage in spontaneous activities now?
How do you and your friends organize a picnic, help someone move to a new apartment, or have a demonstration?
Yes, there are sometimes, even often, temporary "leaders"...people who "take the initiative" and say "why don't we do this?".
If someone develops a pattern of coming up with good suggestions on a regular basis, we begin to look to that person "out of habit".
I don't think there's anything "wrong" with that...until it becomes institutionalized. Until, somehow, that person with the good suggestions is now giving orders. And he's got some goons to back him up.
That's a disaster whether it happens in one small workplace or the totality of revolutionary society.
What we communists should be promoting now is an "ethic" that is totally hostile to "order-givers", no matter who they are.
I expect the revolutionary process will involve many of what the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists referred to as "influential militants"...people who come up with "good ideas" for how to organize communist society.
You can call them "leaders" if you like...the point is that their "power" is only the power of persuasion. It is unacceptable that they should give an order...no matter how "good" that order might "be".
quote:
Explain how things will fall into place without the help of a revolutionary vanguard?
Very raggedly, at first. People will probably have many conflicting ideas about the best way to set up a communist society...and they will struggle with each other over these ideas.
That is to be expected. After all, when you look at bourgeois revolutions, the new ruling class was far from unified on how to set things up and run them...they struggled with each other over the best way to do things.
Why should it be any different for the working class?
The Leninists, of course, already have a "model" ready to "put into place" (impose by violence against the working class). It will look more or less like the USSR under Stalin.
And it will "work"...there's no question about that. Central economic planning backed by military power is a "workable" system.
But unless you plan to be part of the ruling elite, it's a pile of shit to live in...no significant improvement on what we have now.
Not only is it not worth a revolution; it's not even worth a vote.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 6, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
You overlook the fact that there are no "general laws of economics"; there are specific economic laws that apply to each particular version of class society.
For example, capitalism has abolished the economic laws of both feudalism and chattel slavery.
Communist revolution, in abolishing class society altogether, abolishes its "economic laws" as well.
Stalin's Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR, which I read back in 1965, discusses the problems of his version of class society. As I recall, he pointed out that class contradictions grow stronger with the passing of time in his "socialism"--a perceptive remark: that's what happens in all forms of class society.
But Stalin's remarks are, of course, irrelevant to classless society.
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Posted at Che-Lives on September 6, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
You are talking of "abolishing" economic laws; you cannot do so. They are laws independent of the will of man. Purely. You can learn about them, study them, etc., and perfect them in the best interests of society; but at no time can you "abolish" them.
Yes, but man did not abolish these things, the evolution of [the] economy did.
If you want to say it this way: the rise of capitalism in North America made the southern economy based on slave labor no longer viable; instead of saying it this way: the United States congress in 1865 adopted an amendment to the constitution prohibiting chattel slavery -- that's "ok" with me.
You are word-splitting; the fact of the matter is that the economic laws of the slave economy were abolished along with slavery itself.
"Economic laws" do not exist "out there" like the laws of physics or chemistry...they don't have an "objective existence".
They are derivatives of the particular kind of society that exists, its level of technological development, its means of production, its relations of production (classes), etc.
Since, with Marx, I do not expect proletarian revolution until "the productive possibilities of capitalism are exhausted", I am thereby also saying that the establishment of classless society has, as one of its consequences, the abolition of the economic laws of capitalism.
quote:
You are probably the most utopian person I’ve ever met on a message board.
Alas, poor Leninist. Whenever faced with the stark vision of classless society, they recoil like a vampire seeing a cross. "It's impossible" they scream and run back to their coffins.
That's because they intend to use the laws of capitalism for their own benefit. As masters of a gargantuan state-apparatus that owns everyone's labor-power, they look forward with considerable anticipation to being a new ruling class.
Far from abolishing wage-slavery, they intend to make it even more rigorous than it already is...as the historical experience of both Russia and China demonstrate.
All for "our own good", of course. And "someday", they promise, they will "step down" and "introduce communism". And the lamb will lie down with the lion, and the skies will darken with flying pigs, etc., etc., etc.
quote:
Why do you say this? Stalin makes a spot on analysis of Marxist analysis of economic law. Are you dodging the point I made or are you just a moron?
I already said that Stalin's analysis of "economic laws" were relevant only to his version of class society...and consequently of no interest at all to communists.
Who's the "moron"?
--------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 7, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Economic laws exist externally from mankind, as Stalin says, independent of the "will of man".
Well, if HE said it, then it "must" be true.
Seriously, does this nonsense "require" a response?
The whole fucking point of proletarian revolution is that humans become conscious agents of history instead of being victims of "incomprehensible forces".
Stalin, as the ruler of a class society could no more think outside of the laws of a class society than you can.
Except he had a good excuse; you don't!
quote:
I think you are what Stalin would call a communist which would "disgrace themselves". You are a utopianist, pure and simple.
Why should I give a rat's ass about Stalin's hypothetical opinion of me?
As to your opinion, of course I am a "utopianist"--I refuse to submit to your "new", "improved", "revolutionary" brand of wage-slavery.
And I cordially invite you to take your "economic laws" which are supposed to "compel" me to "follow your leadership" and stick them where the sun never shines!
quote:
Watch: He’s going to go off into a tangent, which has nothing to do with the scientific analysis of economic law which I am trying to have...
Scientific? You?
I very much doubt that you would understand the scientific method if you tripped over it and fell on your face. Certainly your failure to distinguish between the economic laws of bourgeois class society--including its Leninist variants--and the characteristics of communism strongly suggest that you and science are total strangers.
quote:
So now "socialism" is completely obsolete?
Yes!
quote:
Learning from the successes of the great USSR is obsolete?
YES!
quote:
Of no interest to Communists?
YES! YES! YES! At last, you begin to "get it".
Communists are interested in communism. What you have to offer is something entirely different and, in fact, no real improvement on what we already have.
quote:
...who continues to dodge all talk of Stalin’s economic basics presented in the work I have put forth.
Yes, the instruction manuals written by dinosaurs are of no interest to me.
I am a mammal.
------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on September 7, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
========================================= |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| Religion is evil, not people.
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 3 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
