Quick Question - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
By proud communist
#13738190
Well its implied in most of his works that the "gap" between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will grow until the working class rises to dismantle the bourgeois oppression of the working class
The proletariat goes through various stages of development. With its birth begins its struggle with the bourgeoisie. At first the contest is carried on by individual labourers, then by the workpeople of a factory, then by the operative of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them. They direct their attacks not against the bourgeois conditions of production, but against the instruments of production themselves; they destroy imported wares that compete with their labour, they smash to pieces machinery, they set factories ablaze, they seek to restore by force the vanished status of the workman of the Middle Ages.
from the manifesto
By Chill
#13738222
Or to make people believe in his theory and thus believe in his country's ideology?
User avatar
By Dagoth Ur
#13738227
The ClockworkRat wrote:Where did Marx say that communism is inevitable?I was under the impression that he never said as much, and the implication that he did came from misinterpretation and lies against his theory in order to discredit it.


I don't know of anywhere he explicitly states it but considering a. all history is the history of class struggle, which leads to b. socialism, which in turn leads to c. Communism or the highest order of socialism. It's like saying Imperialism is inevitable in the early days of capitalism.
By Fitzcarraldo
#13738259
Where did Marx say that communism is inevitable?


He doesn't; nor did he believe that the "working class" itself would create socialism on its own spontaneity.
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13739369
Marx does think that the demise of capitalism is inevitable and that the bourgeoisie and the bourgeois mode of production creates the conditions for socialism and, more specifically, the conditions and means for workers too appropriate all means of production. I think, however, that Marx presents this condition more as the inevitability of barbarism unless the workers take up their position as the new agents of revolutionary change in history and set the stage for rational distribution. This is why we get the famous mantra: "Socialism or Barbarism".

I do think, however, that there are many sections in Marx's writings and his contemporaries that suggest the inevitability of socialism -- this is only because Marx has suggested a scientific account of historical and social change -- one which predicts future social outcomes (a hallmark of any science). Marx predicts socialism, in this sense. However, Marx's more central prediction consists in the degeneration of capitalist production (because of its internal contradictions). Still, if socialism were to fail and barbarism rein, this would present some difficulties with Marx's analysis since he is committed to the idea that capitalist production has set up the conditions for social progress. In any case, however, most of us would take a stark degeneration of capitalist production as a confirmation of Marx's analysis.
User avatar
By The Clockwork Rat
#13739414
Going by his analysis being scientific, it would therefore not be amiss to say that he predicted socialism with a high degree of confidence rather than absolutely inevitable.

I personally see that "unless" as being extremely key; it is the sticking point of the entire argument since people are easy to sway and capitalism has a vastly greater resource base to research and develop new propaganda technologies.
By Fitzcarraldo
#13739431
Vera Politica is probably most correct. Marx predicted that capitalism would run its course, if you will, but not necessarily be replaced by communism. I am, however, interested on what you mean by 'barbarism' - incidentally, the most primitive of social formations was the commune.

I will quote Paul Sweezy from The Transition to Socialism, who has some insight into this question I believe:

It is easy to cite dozens of passages from the works of Marx and Engels affirming the revolutionary role of the proletariat in the overthrow of capitalism. I have not, however, found any which are specifically addressed to the question of the proletariat's ability or readiness to build a socialist society; and at least some of their formulations, especially those which analyze the effects of the division of labor on the worker, clearly imply a negative evalution pf the proletariat's qualifications.

...As I indicated earlier [that he used to believe in the spontaneity of socialism within the working class, Fitz.], I used to think that this was indeed their view but an effot to prove it convinced me I was wrong. Not only does one look in vain for specific statements attributing revolutionary socialist spontaneism to the proletariat, but the lifelong practice of the two men would be incomphrensible if they had held such a view of the proletariat.
User avatar
By ozone
#13744628
If one is to read the Communist Manifesto of Marx, he would be quick to compare and conclude that what happened in Russia on October 17, 1921 was the exact blueprint that Marx envisioned in his manifesto. Complete nationalization of all industries, land and dwellings. Complete collectivization thereby ending his recommened solution in the Manisfeto to the problems of crisis in capitalism and exploitation with "Workers of the worlds unite. YOu have nothing to lose but your chains".
User avatar
By Vera Politica
#13745608
ozone wrote:If one is to read the Communist Manifesto of Marx, he would be quick to compare and conclude that what happened in Russia on October 17, 1921 was the exact blueprint that Marx envisioned in his manifesto. Complete nationalization of all industries, land and dwellings. Complete collectivization thereby ending his recommened solution in the Manisfeto to the problems of crisis in capitalism and exploitation with "Workers of the worlds unite. YOu have nothing to lose but your chains".


Sure, but the manifesto was a political call to arms written in Marx's early period. Marxism is largely the social and economic analysis from his mature period.
User avatar
By ozone
#13746023
He was selectively specific and so are modern day Marxists like Jose Maria Sison, Fidel Castro and Raul that the correct interpretation of marxism and application is the "complete nationalization of all means of production including land". I am not disputing them. I am giving them credibility..The Leninist centralist economy shall resolve all existing contradictions between masters and workers. Instead of discrediting the type of economy why not improve it?

You mean that hospital that was in fact hit by a r[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I don't know who are you are referring to, but th[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Find Someone Who Loves You Like Israel Loves Att[…]

Hmmm, it the Ukraine aid package is all over mains[…]