"Socialism for Dummies" - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14945691
Reformism-to-socialism is a huge misnomer, so you're having to *dodge* many problematic aspects I've raised of your own parliamentarist / gradualist approach since it's all a non-starter, and untenable. Please don't identify yourself as a 'socialist' to anyone from here on out. It'll be better for everyone.

I represent the very distinction of "socialist" that occurred in the emerging division of socialists and communists around the time of the Bolshevik revolution and afterward. You, OTOH, seem to represent the communist side of it. And I'll thank you to refrain from posturing as the "correct" one while dissing me as not being a "real" socialist.


Let's do this: Give me an overview of the strategy you advocate complete with struggles to take up immediately and then in later sequence, any cause/effect relationship there may be between the different struggles, the successive mileposts of the process, and anything else you think would help flesh it out. I may be misunderstanding your proposals and expectations.
#14947562
Senter wrote:
I represent the very distinction of "socialist" that occurred in the emerging division of socialists and communists around the time of the Bolshevik revolution and afterward. You, OTOH, seem to represent the communist side of it. And I'll thank you to refrain from posturing as the "correct" one while dissing me as not being a "real" socialist.



(Sorry for the delay -- been busy IRL.)

The distinction between socialism and communism *should* be one of timeframe, meaning that the communist stage builds on socialism's overthrow of bourgeois rule, so that everything becomes 'humanity-internal', so-to-speak.

My ongoing critique of your politics is that it's too mild -- your parliamentarism / gradualism is untenable because it presumes that pressure on the bourgeois government, for working class interests, is *sufficient* and *effective* even though working class interests are empirically diametrically *opposed* to bourgeois interests.

If any government reforms in the interests of workers *do* take place, it would be for reasons that are *external* to the bourgeois process itself -- labor organizing, strikes, shutdowns, etc. -- with the ruling class then *scrambling* to contain the damage to its power-operations by suddenly offering reforms (as FDR did) to *placate* the working class instead of allowing actions in its own interests, ultimately for direct control of social production.


Senter wrote:
Let's do this: Give me an overview of the strategy you advocate complete with struggles to take up immediately and then in later sequence, any cause/effect relationship there may be between the different struggles, the successive mileposts of the process, and anything else you think would help flesh it out. I may be misunderstanding your proposals and expectations.



The 'strategy' usually is *defensive* and *reactive* to ruling-class measures, as with any and all anti-austerity movements (like Fight for $15, etc.). WSWS.org is a good site for keeping up with news from a revolutionary-minded perspective.

In terms of 'vision', as for the ultimate communism, I have a *proposal* of my own, which you can peruse as you like. Feel free to raise critiques as well, etc.:

http://tinyurl.com/labor-credits-faq
By Senter
#14949791
ckaihatsu wrote:(Sorry for the delay -- been busy IRL.)

The distinction between socialism and communism *should* be one of timeframe, meaning that the communist stage builds on socialism's overthrow of bourgeois rule, so that everything becomes 'humanity-internal', so-to-speak.

My ongoing critique of your politics is that it's too mild -- your parliamentarism / gradualism is untenable because it presumes that pressure on the bourgeois government, for working class interests, is *sufficient* and *effective* even though working class interests are empirically diametrically *opposed* to bourgeois interests.

.......

In terms of 'vision', as for the ultimate communism, I have a *proposal* of my own, which you can peruse as you like. Feel free to raise critiques as well, etc.:

http://tinyurl.com/labor-credits-faq

I looked at your linked page. The problem I see is that first and most importantly, you have clearly invested so much time and effort figuring out how your proposed society and economy should look, be organized, and function that you will have enormous difficulty letting go of your views on any of it even if good arguments are presented. And secondly, you don't seem to have taken into consideration the fact that when an entirely new system is designed, it is impossible to foresee every issue and problem that will arise, and some will be fairly devastating to the system.

Designing a system and then imposing it on a society cannot work, therefore. That is the problem to which the communist approach has always succumbed in the end.

There also seems to be a failure among communists to realize that capitalism didn't begin with someone figuring out the entire system and then imposing it on a society. It started out in most places with a few capitalist enterprises that the feudal powers disregarded or welcomed but usually didn't ban or attack. And bit by bit the new enterprising class grew and the politics developed to benefit them. That is the "organic" approach. That is the dynamic approach.

Such an approach makes it possible to plan and develop solutions to problems and to provide for needs as they arise, not with an idealized pre-planned stroke of genius, but with practical solutions to existing issues. There will be needs for everything from financing solutions and an evolution of marketing strategies that serve the people, to political support and security arrangements. It cannot all be planned before beginning. It can best be done as needs arise. That is how capitalism developed and that is how socialism will develop too. Communist society will then take care of itself in some very distant future.
#14949820
Senter wrote:
I looked at your linked page. The problem I see is that first and most importantly, you have clearly invested so much time and effort figuring out how your proposed society and economy should look, be organized, and function that you will have enormous difficulty letting go of your views on any of it even if good arguments are presented.



Nope -- this is just an errant guess on your part.

I consciously make sure that I'm *not* being sectarian, in whatever topic of discussion, and I often use *generic* socialism- and communism-type verbiage, instead of petulantly referring to my model.

Also I'll point out that the model -- whenever you choose you understand it -- is *not* prescriptive in the least, as a 'blueprint'-type of expected formulation would be. It's not a blueprint, it's a *framework*, and the actual content of whatever would be up to those people in that kind of society, and not to me.


Senter wrote:
And secondly, you don't seem to have taken into consideration the fact that when an entirely new system is designed, it is impossible to foresee every issue and problem that will arise, and some will be fairly devastating to the system.



Okay, name one -- your formulation here is quite vague.


Senter wrote:
Designing a system and then imposing it on a society cannot work, therefore. That is the problem to which the communist approach has always succumbed in the end.



I *can't* 'impose' anything because I have *no* political power. And, among revolutionaries, I'm just one person, so sure I'd 'vote' for its implementation, but everyone else might vote for something entirely different.


Senter wrote:
There also seems to be a failure among communists to realize that capitalism didn't begin with someone figuring out the entire system and then imposing it on a society. It started out in most places with a few capitalist enterprises that the feudal powers disregarded or welcomed but usually didn't ban or attack. And bit by bit the new enterprising class grew and the politics developed to benefit them. That is the "organic" approach. That is the dynamic approach.



There's a real problem with your insistence on shaping a future revolutionary movement on the *bourgeois* revolutions of past history -- I already noted this political idiosyncracy of yours previously on this thread. I don't agree with your go-through-the-bourgeois-government-apparatus gradualist approach.


Senter wrote:
Such an approach makes it possible to plan and develop solutions to problems and to provide for needs as they arise, not with an idealized pre-planned stroke of genius, but with practical solutions to existing issues. There will be needs for everything from financing solutions and an evolution of marketing strategies that serve the people, to political support and security arrangements. It cannot all be planned before beginning. It can best be done as needs arise. That is how capitalism developed and that is how socialism will develop too. Communist society will then take care of itself in some very distant future.



You're not understanding that it's the capitalist system *itself* that needs to be done away with, through proletarian revolution. With a communist gift economy there's no need for markets or exchange values anymore because worker-controlled factories could produce and deliver *directly* to the consumer, which is a definite qualitative improvement over what we have today, a 'patchwork' of profit-seeking financiers that waste people's time and the world's resources in their attempts to be the 'middlemen' of the system, even if such faux-intermediary roles are *not* objectively needed by the producer or the consumer.
By Senter
#14950048
ckaihatsu wrote: I *can't* 'impose' anything because I have *no* political power. And, among revolutionaries, I'm just one person, so sure I'd 'vote' for its implementation, but everyone else might vote for something entirely different.

But that is irrelevant unless you can bring those others to this forum. The point is that you are advocating something and I've commented on it. As such my comments stand.


You're not understanding that it's the capitalist system *itself* that needs to be done away with, through proletarian revolution.

No, I recognize that is having been proven to be an incorrect choice.


With a communist gift economy there's no need for markets or exchange values anymore because worker-controlled factories could produce and deliver *directly* to the consumer, which is a definite qualitative improvement over what we have today, a 'patchwork' of profit-seeking financiers that waste people's time and the world's resources in their attempts to be the 'middlemen' of the system, even if such faux-intermediary roles are *not* objectively needed by the producer or the consumer.

Any discussion of a communist economy is very premature since it would naturally proceed from a stable, successful, functioning and long-term socialist economy as classes "wither away". Therefore I don't engage in such pointless discussion of theory and opinion.
#14950206
ckaihatsu wrote:
I *can't* 'impose' anything because I have *no* political power. And, among revolutionaries, I'm just one person, so sure I'd 'vote' for its implementation, but everyone else might vote for something entirely different.



Senter wrote:
But that is irrelevant unless you can bring those others to this forum. The point is that you are advocating something and I've commented on it. As such my comments stand.



You're wishing for more participants and watering-down your politics to try to be more appealing to newcomers?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not understanding that it's the capitalist system *itself* that needs to be done away with, through proletarian revolution.



Senter wrote:
No, I recognize that is having been proven to be an incorrect choice.



Capitalism was never really a *choice*, though, except perhaps to the elites -- it's just a default 'middleman' layer of exchange values / abstract valuations that gradually rose in prominence along with the role of merchants, meant to be the value go-between, between one commodity and another, including labor itself.

The difference with a *proletarian* revolution (instead of a *bourgeois*, class-based one) is that it *would* be a 'choice', on the part of millions and billions, to eliminate the class divide once and for all.

A bourgeois revolution is just new nationalist management, whereas a proletarian revolution is a willful act from the masses, so that history is no longer about *this* power-structure or *that* power-structure.


Senter wrote:
Any discussion of a communist economy is very premature since it would naturally proceed from a stable, successful, functioning and long-term socialist economy as classes "wither away". Therefore I don't engage in such pointless discussion of theory and opinion.



But what I don't understand is why you think that *any* bourgeois parliament (etc.) would just go along with its own overthrow -- these people are the most class-conscious (*ruling*-class-conscious) people in the world, and no one's going to be able to just *reform* their way through those institutions, to benefit the working class in its own, best class-antagonistic interests *against* them.
#14950208
Here, I just came across a recent article that clarifies this Stalinistic dynamic that you've been referring to:



Of perhaps the greatest significance among the published documents is the Bolshevik-Leninists’ theses on the “Fascist Coup in Germany” from April 1, 1933. (Click here to download the full Russian text.) Written just two months after Hitler was placed in power by a conspiracy at the highest echelons of the German bourgeoisie and state, it offers a sharp analysis of the origins of German fascism and the tasks facing the working class throughout Europe. The document begins by placing the rise of Nazism in the context of the crisis of world capitalism:

The state-organized counterrevolutionary coup that just occurred in Germany, the March counterrevolution, is an event of the greatest historical significance. The imperialist world war has not solved any of the contradictions of capitalist society. On the contrary, it extraordinarily intensified and deepened them, bringing them onto a higher stage… The world economic crisis has deeply shaken the foundations of capitalist society. Even an imperialist leviathan such as the USA has trembled under its blows.



The lack of opposition of the leadership of the German Communist Party to the fascist coup is only the decisive and final link in the chain of betrayals of the world revolution that international Stalinism has committed over the prolonged period of the preceding years. This betrayal of the international revolution... will go down in history along with the date of August 4, 1914 [when the German Social Democracy approved war credits for the German government.]

.... In rejecting the international permanent revolution, it [the bureaucracy] feeds the counterrevolution. The bureaucracy of the USSR has constantly cleared the way for world reaction to crush the communist movement. The USSR is isolating itself from the world proletariat just as the latter is being isolated from the proletariat of the USSR.



Historic discovery of Left Opposition manuscripts from the early 1930s

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/0 ... t-a27.html
By Senter
#14950430
ckaihatsu wrote:You're wishing for more participants and watering-down your politics to try to be more appealing to newcomers?

If you can't see that I was referring to you and your position, you have a reading problem that I can't help you with.


The difference with a *proletarian* revolution (instead of a *bourgeois*, class-based one) is that it *would* be a 'choice', on the part of millions and billions, to eliminate the class divide once and for all.

It would appear that you don't actually know what I've proposed. Can you tell me what you think it is?


But what I don't understand is why you think that *any* bourgeois parliament (etc.) would just go along with its own overthrow -- these people are the most class-conscious (*ruling*-class-conscious) people in the world, and no one's going to be able to just *reform* their way through those institutions, to benefit the working class in its own, best class-antagonistic interests *against* them.

I don't "think they would go along with" it. But I do think it is better to let them agree to the formation of businesses based on socialist principles without realizing what they're doing, in order to spread popularity for socialism among the working class and to build structures that are needed as far as can be done before any violent revolution.
By Senter
#14950432
ckaihatsu wrote:Here, I just came across a recent article that clarifies this Stalinistic dynamic that you've been referring to:

I oppose Stalin and Stalinism, and what I've advocated is not in the least represented in your quoted material.
#14950444
Senter wrote:
Designing a system and then imposing it on a society cannot work, therefore. That is the problem to which the communist approach has always succumbed in the end.



ckaihatsu wrote:
I *can't* 'impose' anything because I have *no* political power. And, among revolutionaries, I'm just one person, so sure I'd 'vote' for its implementation, but everyone else might vote for something entirely different.



Senter wrote:
But that is irrelevant unless you can bring those others to this forum. The point is that you are advocating something and I've commented on it. As such my comments stand.



ckaihatsu wrote:
You're wishing for more participants and watering-down your politics to try to be more appealing to newcomers?



Senter wrote:
If you can't see that I was referring to you and your position, you have a reading problem that I can't help you with.



I'll slow it down a bit for you:


1. You want more people at this forum.

2. You've made comments that falsely accuse me of wanting to *impose* a framework on society, which I clarified as being impossible because I have no political power and I'm just one person.


So if you're unable to *comprehend* what I'm clarifying, then just don't bother commenting, because you'd obviously rather hear yourself speak than to carry on a conversation with others.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're not understanding that it's the capitalist system *itself* that needs to be done away with, through proletarian revolution.



Senter wrote:
No, I recognize that is having been proven to be an incorrect choice.



ckaihatsu wrote:
The difference with a *proletarian* revolution (instead of a *bourgeois*, class-based one) is that it *would* be a 'choice', on the part of millions and billions, to eliminate the class divide once and for all.



Senter wrote:
It would appear that you don't actually know what I've proposed. Can you tell me what you think it is?



You're the parliamentarist / gradualist here. You think that the bourgeoisie will gladly allow the working class to somehow *reform* its way to socialism. You're mistaken.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
But what I don't understand is why you think that *any* bourgeois parliament (etc.) would just go along with its own overthrow -- these people are the most class-conscious (*ruling*-class-conscious) people in the world, and no one's going to be able to just *reform* their way through those institutions, to benefit the working class in its own, best class-antagonistic interests *against* them.



Senter wrote:
I don't "think they would go along with" it. But I do think it is better to let them agree to the formation of businesses based on socialist principles without realizing what they're doing, in order to spread popularity for socialism among the working class and to build structures that are needed as far as can be done before any violent revolution.



I'd call this a *public relations* move, at best. You can have all of the 'showcase' examples you'd like, and it may even do some political good, but ultimately these worker-managed enterprises will just be the workers *self-exploiting* their own labor power for the sake of the business' viability in the marketplace -- a non-starter regarding actual socialism.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
Here, I just came across a recent article that clarifies this Stalinistic dynamic that you've been referring to:



Senter wrote:
I oppose Stalin and Stalinism, and what I've advocated is not in the least represented in your quoted material.



Yup, I oppose Stalinism, too, and Stalin happens to be deceased.

I didn't include the material for the purpose of *addressing* your misguided politics -- it has to do with the inherent *limitations* of Stalinism.
By Senter
#14950696
ckaihatsu wrote: 1. You want more people at this forum.

Now you're inventing things based on an obvious wisecrack.


2. You've made comments that falsely accuse me of wanting to *impose* a framework on society, which I clarified as being impossible because I have no political power and I'm just one person.

OK, then since you advocate a violent revolutionary uprising, I'd say you want "others" to impose socialism on society. Is that more accurate?


So if you're unable to *comprehend* what I'm clarifying, then just don't bother commenting, because you'd obviously rather hear yourself speak than to carry on a conversation with others.

I could say the same about your level of "clarity" and your understanding of my comment that you just now described as "wanting more people on this forum".


I'd call this a *public relations* move, at best. You can have all of the 'showcase' examples you'd like, and it may even do some political good, but ultimately these worker-managed enterprises will just be the workers *self-exploiting* their own labor power for the sake of the business' viability in the marketplace -- a non-starter regarding actual socialism.

So then how long do you think it will take to 1. organize a people's party, 2. get together a "people's army" or whatever you might prefer to call it, that is sufficiently popular, organized, equipped, and trained that it would be able to successfully carry off a revolution against a very highly technologically-equipped US military, and 3. then again against the countries (Russia and/or China) that are likely to take advantage of the resulting US weakness to "own" the US? I see that as an impossible task with far too much stacked against it and taking far too long. We will be living under outright fascism by then.

And that whole process spells "instability" throughout most of it, --plus a need to have a complete, detailed, ready-made system to immediately impose to keep society functioning under a whole set of new rules that everyone will be required to follow, spelling more "instability" even when the overthrow is completed.

Please tell me what I have misrepresented here.

And while you describe my favored approach as "Stalinistic", it seems obvious that your approach is "Soviet-style" and/or "Chinese-style", and they failed.


I didn't include the material for the purpose of *addressing* your misguided politics -- it has to do with the inherent *limitations* of Stalinism.

I didn't see any relevant references in what you posted. Care to zero-in? You might present aspects of my ideas against corresponding aspects of Stalinism, one-by-one, and describe how they failed in Russia or elsewhere.

That seems Ironic since it is your approach that is so much like that of Russia on a general level.
#14950746
ckaihatsu wrote:
1. You want more people at this forum.



Senter wrote:
Now you're inventing things based on an obvious wisecrack.



"Wisecrack" -- ??

I'm going by what you previously said:


Senter wrote:
[T]hat is irrelevant unless you can bring those others to this forum.



---


ckaihatsu wrote:
2. You've made comments that falsely accuse me of wanting to *impose* a framework on society, which I clarified as being impossible because I have no political power and I'm just one person.



Senter wrote:
OK, then since you advocate a violent revolutionary uprising, I'd say you want "others" to impose socialism on society. Is that more accurate?



Shouldn't a 'socialism' thread on a 'socialism' section of this forum be the appropriate place for the *advocating* of socialism -- ? -- !

And wouldn't a revolutionary workers state that 'imposes' itself over the bourgeoisie be the appropriate politics to usher-in socialism?


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
So if you're unable to *comprehend* what I'm clarifying, then just don't bother commenting, because you'd obviously rather hear yourself speak than to carry on a conversation with others.



Senter wrote:
I could say the same about your level of "clarity" and your understanding of my comment that you just now described as "wanting more people on this forum".



I'm really not interested in *bickering* -- I've already addressed your wanting-more-people-on-this-forum, above.

If you want to talk about issues pertaining to *socialism*, then this is a good place for that, but not for one-sidedness on your part.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
I'd call this a *public relations* move, at best. You can have all of the 'showcase' examples you'd like, and it may even do some political good, but ultimately these worker-managed enterprises will just be the workers *self-exploiting* their own labor power for the sake of the business' viability in the marketplace -- a non-starter regarding actual socialism.



Senter wrote:
So then how long do you think it will take to 1. organize a people's party, 2. get together a "people's army" or whatever you might prefer to call it, that is sufficiently popular, organized, equipped, and trained that it would be able to successfully carry off a revolution against a very highly technologically-equipped US military, and 3. then again against the countries (Russia and/or China) that are likely to take advantage of the resulting US weakness to "own" the US? I see that as an impossible task with far too much stacked against it and taking far too long. We will be living under outright fascism by then.



So your politics are actually *anti*-socialism. You made it seem as though you wanted the fantasy of socialism-as-approved-by-the-bourgeoisie, but even that isn't the case at all.

You don't even understand the *material basis* for socialism -- it's because of the untenability of capitalism to even perform and sustain itself, by its own standards. Capitalism has a sour reputation of requiring *world wars* for its nation-states to resolve inter-imperialist conflicts, rather than turn production over to the world's working class. It requires the *de*-socialization of politics, in favor of hyper-exploiting the working class, to provide the realm of strengthened *exchange values* for its material-economics.

The world can do *far better*, and my labor credits framework is one model for such (https://tinyurl.com/labor-credits-faq).

Contrary to your purported 'steps', the world's working class does not have the limitations of having to adhere to bourgeois nationalist identities, and the world's proletariat has the potential of operating and producing as a single coordinated unit, something that *can't* be said about bourgeois competing nations and resulting world wars.


---


Senter wrote:
And that whole process spells "instability" throughout most of it,



You're just making shit up -- you obviously know *nothing* about class struggle, *and* you've just admitted that you're anti-socialism, so you don't even *qualify* to critique it, as though 'internally'.


Senter wrote:
--plus a need to have a complete, detailed, ready-made system to immediately impose to keep society functioning under a whole set of new rules that everyone will be required to follow, spelling more "instability" even when the overthrow is completed.



You're no *expert*, I doubt you even know what my model framework's *functioning* is, you're anti-socialism anyway, and you're just casting the whole endeavor in a negative light, arbitrarily.


Senter wrote:
Please tell me what I have misrepresented here.



I just did.


Senter wrote:
And while you describe my favored approach as "Stalinistic", it seems obvious that your approach is "Soviet-style" and/or "Chinese-style", and they failed.



Incorrect and incorrect. Your approach kowtows to the existing bourgeois ruling class, while mine -- which you don't comprehend -- is *not* constrained to the boundaries of *any* nation-state, be it Russia or China, which aren't even *close* to being socialistic, anyway.


Senter wrote:
I didn't see any relevant references in what you posted. Care to zero-in? You might present aspects of my ideas against corresponding aspects of Stalinism, one-by-one, and describe how they failed in Russia or elsewhere.

That seems Ironic since it is your approach that is so much like that of Russia on a general level.



Again you're just misstating *intentionally*, for the reasons already stated above. There's no common basis of understanding for any significant political-type discussion here.
By Senter
#14950850
At least I didn't declare that I, single-handedly, have devised a detailed and extensive strategy for successfully doing what no one has yet done.

("I have a *proposal* of my own, which you can peruse as you like.")
#14950944
Senter wrote:
At least I didn't declare that I, single-handedly, have devised a detailed and extensive strategy for successfully doing what no one has yet done.

("I have a *proposal* of my own, which you can peruse as you like.")



Why are you making it sound like it's a *bad* thing -- ?

It's actually in the *spirit* of socialism, as well, because it facilitates *planning* (instead of relying on the hands-off *market mechanism*).

The tricky part of it, actually, was finding a 'balance' between the 'hands-on', and 'hands-off' qualities -- while, in general, a socialist-type, collectivist administration would have to be more involved in day-to-day social processes, *too much* of that would entail greater numbers of (white-collar-type) administrative labor, which would inherently be specialist / elitist, detaching itself as a fixed separatist institution from the rest of society's regular everyday participation in the material-economy.

In other words, the more society relies on an institutional administration, the more that institution becomes like a separate ruling class -- which is obviously a dynamic that concerns *you*. We don't need capitalism or markets or exchange values, but we also don't want to have to make 'micro' decisions continuously over every little material-economic event, like manually 'pricing' every single item by committee, for an ill-conceived 'market socialism'.
#14951007
Senter wrote:During the period of the establishment of socialism in a capitalist country, for some time there would be socialist and capitalist enterprises operating "side-by-side". This stage is called "Democratic Socialism" or "Social Democracy". But throughout this stage the co-ops must be on guard against sliding more and more into capitalist structures as it will be constantly encouraged from all sides by "outside" capitalist influences. Unfortunately, this reversion back into capitalism is underway today in several European social-democratic countries. The economic crisis is creating an opportunity for capitalist-roaders to realize greater success.


Doesn't this highlight the economic dynamics of Capitalism, and the fact that under the capitalist 'political and military rule', such dynamics are directed to create opportunities for the 'Capitalists', and them only.

We must not be naive, if Socialism - a classless society - is our goal; we cannot possibly work with the existing system (no matter how different in our own isolated structures we act), 'hoping' that someday we will be able to ‘reform’ this society from its basis.

We cannot use the Capitalist model of ‘gaining power’ from the ruling class, as the change from Feudalism to Capitalism was a change from one type of class based society to another, i.e. not different in their cores; whilst our aim today, is creation of a society fundamentally different from all those before.

Senter wrote:And it could go either way. That is up to the workers of the co-ops largely.


Indeed it is, who is to deny that. Not through peaceful negotiations, or co-operations of any sort with the ruling class though; but through unity, organisation and consistent struggles based on and contributing to their awareness and experience of what they should be aiming for – To own the fruits of their labour.

The revolution, as 'violent', 'disorderly' and 'unideal' as it may sound; is not what the workers and the revolutionaries 'want', but unfortunately under the Capitalistic realities 'is' the only way which leads to the 'real and lasting solutions'.

Neither Marx, nor his fellow thinkers and followers; liked or wished to advocate violent revolution against the existing Bourgeoisie system, but the circumstances demanded them to do so. For Capitalism 'Profit' is and has always been 'the mighty God', and for its continuity and growth, they do 'anything' it takes; may it be blind competitions, conflict provocations, wars... You name it! We just need to look carefully to see what Capitalism truly is, and stop fantasising about ‘the ways’ to achieve Socialism.

If the workers, revolutionaries and the progressive thinkers today do not organise and ‘plan’ on how things need to be done to achieve Socialism- both, during and after the revolution; the violent uprisings will come about ‘nevertheless’, due to the deepening of the unwanted and difficult circumstances for majority of the people on the planet. And, we see that happening every day, in the different parts of the world. We see how peaceful protests, demonstrations and strikes turn violent by the police and the state militaries. But the tragedies will be created, one after another; for the lack of vision, and not knowing exactly where we should be aiming for. Such thing will make most of the movements futile, and the efforts will go down the drains…
Therefore, our efforts today, should not be on how to ‘reform’ the existing system, under the political and military rule of Capitalism; so it would somehow evolve’ ‘gradually’, because that would be and has proven to be wishing the impossible!

Senter wrote:In Marxist-Leninist theory, communism is the end-game. It is a society and economy that will be stateless and classless. There will be no state apparatus to run the country because none will be needed, and there will be no classes because the "bourgeoisie" (capitalists) will have long ago given up all hope of private enterprises. Again, in Marxian terminology, the state will have "withered away". Communism cannot be imposed, then. People cannot be forced to give up their hope for a private business with private profits so classes cannot be ended by edict. And the state apparatus cannot reasonable be dismantled and eliminated by edict or decision. it all must naturally evolve. The state and class identity must "wither away."


Sure, Marx indeed used this phrase in his writings, however; he was referring to this under ‘Socialism’, i.e. After the political and military overthrow of Capitalism, as all traces of a class based society will be eliminated; so does the need for the existence of state- it will be withered away, so to speak.

It is clear that such need (the need for state) will be gradually built up from ‘within’ a Socialist society, and certainly ‘not’ from within Capitalism. Let us not try to distort the original Marxian writings.
Here I’d like to quote two of Marx’s own writings in the years 1875 and 1852, in which he clearly identifies the need for revolution, and subsequently the dictatorship of Proletariat during the transitory Socialist stage:

“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”
(Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)

“… and now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.
Ignorant louts like Heinzen, who deny not merely the class struggle but even the existence of classes, only prove that, despite all their blood-curdling yelps and the humanitarian airs they give themselves, they regard the social conditions under which the bourgeoisie rules as the final product, the non plus ultra [highest point attainable] of history, and that they are only the servants of the bourgeoisie. And the less these louts realize the greatness and transient necessity of the bourgeois regime itself the more disgusting is their servitude….”
(Extract of a Letter from Marx to Weydemeyer, February 5, 1852)
By Senter
#14951350
Stardust wrote:Doesn't this highlight the economic dynamics of Capitalism, and the fact that under the capitalist 'political and military rule', such dynamics are directed to create opportunities for the 'Capitalists', and them only.

We must not be naive, if Socialism - a classless society - is our goal

If socialism is "the dictatorship of the proletariat", how is it "classless society"? Marx makes it clear that it is class society, but with the working class as the ruling class.


We cannot use the Capitalist model of ‘gaining power’ from the ruling class, as the change from Feudalism to Capitalism was a change from one type of class based society to another, i.e. not different in their cores; whilst our aim today, is creation of a society fundamentally different from all those before.

Our aim today is also to change from one type of class society to another. It would be as fundamentally different from capitalism as capitalism was from feudalism.


The revolution, as 'violent', 'disorderly' and 'unideal' as it may sound; is not what the workers and the revolutionaries 'want', but unfortunately under the Capitalistic realities 'is' the only way which leads to the 'real and lasting solutions'.

How do we know how it would work out unless we try it? Violent revolution didn't work in Russia, China, and elsewhere.


If the workers, revolutionaries and the progressive thinkers today do not organise and ‘plan’ on how things need to be done to achieve Socialism- both, during and after the revolution; the violent uprisings will come about ‘nevertheless’, due to the deepening of the unwanted and difficult circumstances for majority of the people on the planet. And, we see that happening every day, in the different parts of the world. We see how peaceful protests, demonstrations and strikes turn violent by the police and the state militaries. But the tragedies will be created, one after another; for the lack of vision, and not knowing exactly where we should be aiming for. Such thing will make most of the movements futile, and the efforts will go down the drains…

But unlike in the 1920s, we have no workers' organization popular and powerful enough to rally the people. Don't you see that by working to develop workers' co-ops we buy the time and presence needed to develop support, guidance, assistance, a party, and a real alternative again for the workers as we had in the 1920s? Today, bourgeois theory that destroyed the 1920s workers' movement along with bourgeois laws, will remain standing against any effort to develop a revolutionary theory of action that the working class can commit to. There are too many ingrained biases and distortions in people's minds due to such brainwashing propaganda. But actual results on the ground that serve the working class would win out over the propaganda, and a popular movement could develop again. But with only words you'll be waging an uphill battle. And if you would also advocate workers' action and fighting for workers' rights, then why would you exclude building of workers' work places?


Therefore, our efforts today, should not be on how to ‘reform’ the existing system, under the political and military rule of Capitalism; so it would somehow evolve’ ‘gradually’, because that would be and has proven to be wishing the impossible!

Proved impossible? Where, when, how?

So according to that statement, you would entirely exclude any effort for reforms. Do you really believe pure theory can win over the working class? How many of them?


Sure, Marx indeed used this phrase in his writings, however; he was referring to this under ‘Socialism’, i.e. After the political and military overthrow of Capitalism, as all traces of a class based society will be eliminated; so does the need for the existence of state- it will be withered away, so to speak.

Correct. And?


It is clear that such need (the need for state) will be gradually built up from ‘within’ a Socialist society, and certainly ‘not’ from within Capitalism. Let us not try to distort the original Marxian writings.

I didn't. I wrote what you said in somewhat different words. No distortion involved. The claim I was addressing is there to be read, and it was that socialist society is "classless", which is incorrect. And I addressed it.


Here I’d like to quote two of Marx’s own writings in the years 1875 and 1852, in which he clearly identifies the need for revolution, and subsequently the dictatorship of Proletariat during the transitory Socialist stage:

“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”
(Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, 1875)

Exactly. I am familiar with that passage. And it is what I have been arguing, but notice that in that quote, while he spoke of "revolution", he never qualified it as "violent".


“… and now as to myself, no credit is due to me for discovering the existence of classes in modern society or the struggle between them. Long before me bourgeois historians had described the historical development of this class struggle and bourgeois economists, the economic economy of the classes. What I did that was new was to prove: (1) that the existence of classes is only bound up with particular historical phases in the development of production, (2) that the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat, (3) that this dictatorship itself only constitutes the transition to the abolition of all classes and to a classless society.

Ignorant louts like Heinzen, who deny not merely the class struggle but even the existence of classes, only prove that, despite all their blood-curdling yelps and the humanitarian airs they give themselves, they regard the social conditions under which the bourgeoisie rules as the final product, the non plus ultra [highest point attainable] of history, and that they are only the servants of the bourgeoisie. And the less these louts realize the greatness and transient necessity of the bourgeois regime itself the more disgusting is their servitude….”
(Extract of a Letter from Marx to Weydemeyer, February 5, 1852)

Exactly, again. I agree with all of that and have not contradicted any of it. You seem to think I violated or contradicted something in those passages. If so, please quote me exactly and accurately.
#14951398
Senter wrote:If socialism is "the dictatorship of the proletariat", how is it "classless society"? Marx makes it clear that it is class society, but with the working class as the ruling class.


No one ever said it was.

Socialism= Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
=/=
Communism= Classless stateless society.

Books Senter, read them. :roll:
#14951538
Decky wrote:Classless stateless society.

I have a legitimate question as to what communists are actually imagining by this? When I look at that phrase and read it literally I don't see what is desirable in it. Let's break it down:

A "classless stateless society" is a common noun "society" qualified by two rather unusual adjectives "classless" and "stateless". The word "society" is pretty straightforward, easy to understand, it means simply a bunch of people who are associated with one another in some way, this is a very common thing which almost everybody has in some form. So what does "classless" mean and what does "stateless" mean in this context?

"Classless", humans are individually variable to a great extent and it is generally advangeous for people to specialise in their contributions to society so virtually any society can be fairly subjected to a taxonomic analysis which will produce "classes": warriors, merchants, labourers, criminals, priests, incels, womanisers, drunks, agitators, intellectuals, family-types, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, landlords, tenants, old, young etc... these are all common ways of classing people and there are many others too of course. Classification is somewhat arbitrary given people are individually variable but that is beside the point which is that to me a "classless" society suggests a society in which the individuals in it can't be differentiated from one another because unless people are identical then there will always be some scope for classing them in some way or another. What else could be meant by "classless"? But what would be desirable in that and is it even possible?

"Stateless", the "state" is an awkward word because it sort of has two quite different meanings, for some it is a virtual synonym with the word government and for others it means the territory over which a government rules. A stateless person would be a person who didn't have an association with any government. So would a statelss society be a society in which there was no government or a society which possessed no territory? The latter sounds like a rather terrible debility for a society. The former sounds better because governance can certainly be annoying or inconvenient and so at one time or another we all might have wished we had less rather than more government. But no governance at all? That would be literally anarchy, no rulers means no rules.

A classless stateless society sounds like a destroyed society.
Last edited by SolarCross on 06 Oct 2018 17:59, edited 1 time in total.
#14951547
I'll jump in here on this one....


SolarCross wrote:
I have a legitimate question as to what communists are actually imagining by this? When I look at that phrase and read it literally I don't see what is desirable in it. Let's break it down:

A "classless stateless society" is a common noun "society" qualified by two rather unusual adjectives "classless" and "stateless". The word "society" is pretty straightforward, easy to understand, it means simply a bunch of people who are associated with one another in some way, this is a very common thing which almost everybody has in some form.



Okay.


SolarCross wrote:
So what does "classless" mean and what does "stateless" mean in this context?

"Classless", humans are individually variable to a great extent and it is generally advangeous for people to specialise in their contributions to society so virtually any society can be fairly subjected to a taxonomic analysis which will produce "classes": warriors, merchants, labourers, criminals, priests, incels, womanisers, drunks, agitators, intellectuals, family-types, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, landlords, tenants, old, young etc... these are all common ways of classing people and there are many others too of course. Classification is somewhat arbitrary given people are individually variable but that is beside the point which is that to me a "classless" society suggests a society in which the individuals in it can't be differentiated from one another because unless people are identical then then will always be some scope for classing them in some way or another. What else could be meant by "classless"? But what would be desirable in that and is it even possible?



This is a very good topic since it emerges in political discussions fairly often -- I think *most* people will imagine a stereotyped gray-undifferentiated-mass-of-people when they hear the word 'classless'.

But 'class' is not the same thing as 'classification'. Yes, any one of us fits into a number of sociological-type social *groups*, by life-qualities (occupation, ethnicity, age, gender, beliefs, hobbies, relations, etc.), but 'class' in the *socialist* / political sense means this:



In Marxism, Marxian class theory asserts that an individual’s position within a class hierarchy is determined by his or her role in the production process, and argues that political and ideological consciousness is determined by class position.[1] A class is those who share common economic interests, are conscious of those interests, and engage in collective action which advances those interests.[2] Within Marxian class theory, the structure of the production process forms the basis of class construction.

To Marx, a class is a group with intrinsic tendencies and interests that differ from those of other groups within society, the basis of a fundamental antagonism between such groups. For example, it is in the laborer's best interest to maximize wages and benefits and in the capitalist's best interest to maximize profit at the expense of such, leading to a contradiction within the capitalist system, even if the laborers and capitalists themselves are unaware of the clash of interests.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxian_class_theory



---


So this *specific* definition is different from the meaning of 'class' as 'classification' -- I usually think of 'demographics' as an appropriate term for this kind of meaning:



Demographic analysis can cover whole societies or groups defined by criteria such as education, nationality, religion, and ethnicity. Educational institutions[2] usually treat demography as a field of sociology, though there are a number of independent demography departments.[3]

Formal demography limits its object of study to the measurement of population processes, while the broader field of social demography or population studies also analyses the relationships between economic, social, cultural, and biological processes influencing a population.[4]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography



---


SolarCross wrote:
"Stateless", the "state" is an awkward word because it sort of has two quite different meanings, for some it is a virtual synonym with the word government and for others it means the territory over which a government rules. A stateless person would be a person who didn't have an association with any government. So would a statelss society be a society in which there was no government or a society which possessed no territory? The latter sounds like a rather terrible debility for a society. The former sounds better because governance can certainly be annoying or inconvenient and so at one time or another we all might have wished we had less rather than more government. But no governance at all? That would be literally anarchy, no rulers means no rules.

A classless stateless society sounds like a destroyed society.



Good point again -- I think the simplest, quickest way to describe this would be 'The actual real-world realization of working-class revolution.'

In other words what's all the fuss about anyway, to even *have* and *use* the terms 'socialism' and 'communism'? What is it exactly that socialists and communists are *suggesting*, and even *fighting for*, with these monikers?

Basically, in my understanding, the worldwide mass abolition of the class divide, once and for all, would *necessarily* mean that all the people of the world would then 'be on the same page' because our *material interests*, as for food, shelter, education, health, etc., would be undifferentiated. It's not that everyone's *personalities*, or *personhoods*, would have to be self-sacrified for the sake of some contrived 'social peace', but rather that the *material world* would change because there would no longer be any objective social antagonisms anymore, like those currently fueled by the empirical class divide / antagonism -- racism, sexism, opportunism, nationalism, ethnicity-based superiorities, etc.

*These* days we all exist within a larger, hierarchical *power* structure, while once past capitalism, there would *no longer* be a power structure of differing and competing material interests -- everyone would *really* be 'in the same boat' and would have to work out together how humanity would 'organically' relate to the natural world, to humanity's own labor power capacities, to the existing infrastructure of factories and productive processes, etc.

At face value the terms 'classless' and 'stateless' *do* sound like *negatives*, but they're actually *positives*, because their meanings are about *reducing* existing social overhead so that society is *less encumbered* by its own management and administrative practices. For example, consider *warfare* -- if humanity could eliminate the 'overhead' of materially-destructive, competitive *warfare*, there could be more material capacity available for what people really *need* and *want*.

In such a post-revolutionary, post-class, post-state, post-capitalist context, whatever *cooperation* people could do would be purely *collectively* positive and beneficial, because the *productivity* in that context would *not* be privatized but rather would flow to as many who needed or wanted the stuff that's freely produced. It would be the mass collective equivalent of what 'working for yourself' is today for any individual who can do that kind of thing.
By Decky
#14951572
SolarCross wrote:I have a legitimate question as to what communists are actually imagining by this? When I look at that phrase and read it literally I don't see what is desirable in it. Let's break it down:

A "classless stateless society" is a common noun "society" qualified by two rather unusual adjectives "classless" and "stateless". The word "society" is pretty straightforward, easy to understand, it means simply a bunch of people who are associated with one another in some way, this is a very common thing which almost everybody has in some form. So what does "classless" mean and what does "stateless" mean in this context?

"Classless", humans are individually variable to a great extent and it is generally advangeous for people to specialise in their contributions to society so virtually any society can be fairly subjected to a taxonomic analysis which will produce "classes": warriors, merchants, labourers, criminals, priests, incels, womanisers, drunks, agitators, intellectuals, family-types, rich, poor, educated, uneducated, landlords, tenants, old, young etc... these are all common ways of classing people and there are many others too of course. Classification is somewhat arbitrary given people are individually variable but that is beside the point which is that to me a "classless" society suggests a society in which the individuals in it can't be differentiated from one another because unless people are identical then there will always be some scope for classing them in some way or another. What else could be meant by "classless"? But what would be desirable in that and is it even possible?

"Stateless", the "state" is an awkward word because it sort of has two quite different meanings, for some it is a virtual synonym with the word government and for others it means the territory over which a government rules. A stateless person would be a person who didn't have an association with any government. So would a statelss society be a society in which there was no government or a society which possessed no territory? The latter sounds like a rather terrible debility for a society. The former sounds better because governance can certainly be annoying or inconvenient and so at one time or another we all might have wished we had less rather than more government. But no governance at all? That would be literally anarchy, no rulers means no rules.

A classless stateless society sounds like a destroyed society.


The fact is that no one knows, asking someone living under the bourgeois system of liberal capitalism we have today to imagine Communism is like asking a medieval peasant to somehow precinct how society is today. Where the hell would they even start?

TIG made an absolutely amazing post about this a while ago covering everything very well and for a poster I respected I would invest the time trying to find it so I could link to it. I hope your google fu is good as you will have to find it yourself. ;)

Edit: Also the bolded part in your argument is totally disingenuous, you know exactly what Marxists mean when they say the state. :roll: If someone says a future stateless England, clearly they mean England without a state, they don't don't mean England dropping into the sea. Honestly talking to you is like talking to PoD sometimes.

No it doesn't. Nazis killed 30 Frenchmen fo[…]

The Donbas fortifications have been incredibly su[…]

@litwin is clearly an Alex Jones type conspir[…]

It is true that the Hindu's gave us nothing. But […]