Rejection of Emy's Theory of Classes

In this topic i will attempt to prove Emy's new theory of classes incorrect. Emy's theories are idealist, misinformed, and redundant. He is trying to re-invent the wheel in respect to marxism and here i will do my best to walk marxist through the incorrectness of his statements one by one. But first I am going to elaborate other recent arguments and points put up by emy.

Here is a cited argument about the "inconsistencies" of trotskyism

Quote :

Though I describe myself as a Trotskyist, I have noticed that Trotskyist theory is inconsistent and contradictory. Trotskyists do not criticize the Soviet Union for having a new class, but they do criticize it for having a bureaucratic caste on top of the workers. This criticism is not a valid criticism unless it criticizes the Soviet Union for oppressing the workers; otherwise there is nothing to complain about.

Emy is correct that Trotskyist do not acknowledge a new class in society. That is because there was no new class. After being exhausted by the civil war following the october revolution, the industry in the USSR was crashing, thus further devastating and virtually destroyed the proletariat class (which was very small to begin with)that had carried out the October Revolution to begin with. In accordance, the most conscious and revolutionary layer of the proletariat was becoming extinct because the majority of the most radical and educated marxists with pre-revolutionary experience had died on the front lines of the civil war, leaving only 2% of the communist party with pre-revolutionary experience

Quote :

cited from "Why we fought to defend the Soviet Union"
Under these conditions, a new conservative and bureaucratized layer in the party and state apparatus came to the fore, intent on preserving its relatively privileged status amid extreme poverty, scarcity and imperialist hostility. The defeat of the emerging Left Opposition by these forces at the rigged 13th Party Conference in January 1924 marked the qualitative point at which the bureaucratic caste seized political power—from then on, the people who ruled the USSR, the way the USSR was ruled and the purposes for which it was ruled all changed. This was a political counterrevolution rather than a social one, because the nascent bureaucracy hijacked the governmental apparatus but did not overturn the socialized property forms created by October. But the struggle did not end there. It took a series of bloody purges through the 1930s for the Stalin clique to consolidate its rule. Throughout, Trotsky’s Left Opposition continued the fight for authentic Bolshevism and in defense of October.

This is the "valid criticism" that acknowledges that the USSR did terrible things while also having a bureaucratic caste that does not constitute a class.

Emy goes on to say

Quote :

However, this position goes against the Marxist conception of state as an instrument of class oppression. Using this Marxist definition, the oppression by the state implies the existence of a new class. The only way out of this apparent contradiction is for Trotskyists to accept the Soviet Union as having a new class oppressing the workers, or reject altogether the Marxist definition of state.

With this understanding of the Bureaucratic caste in the USSR and understanding that this was a political revolution, not social (showing that capitalism has still been abolished, there has simply been a change in leadership for the worse) we can move on to the understanding of the state.

In chapter one of "State and Revolution"

Quote :

The state is therfore by no means a power imposed on society from the outside; just as little is it "the reality of the moral idea," "the image of reality and reason," as Hegel asserted. Rather, it is a product of society at a certain stage of development; it is the admission that this society has become entangled in an insoluble contradiction with itself, that is cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, classes with conflicting economic interests, may not consume themselves and society in sterile struggle, a power apparently standing above society becomes necessary, whose purpose is to moderate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of "order"; and this power arising out of society, but placing itself above it, and increasingly separating itself from it, is the state.

He also defines "public force" as material appendages utilized by the state, like prisons, guns, repressive institutions of all kinds

Quote :

having at their disposal the public force and the right to exact taxes, the officials now stand as organs above society.

this is the analysis of the bourgeois state

it is also stressed that a worker's state IS NOT A STATE in the proper sense of the word because of it's new characteristics and function.

Lenin writes about these characteristics and the need to suppress the bourgeoisie...

Quote :

...the organ of suppression is now the majority of the population, not the minority [as it was before with the "specialized" armed body of men] and once the majority of the people itself suppresses it's oppressors, a "special force" for suppression is no longer necessary. In this sense, the state begins to whither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority, the majority can itself directly fufil all of these functions; and the more the discharge of the functions of state power devolves upon the people generally, the less need is there for the existence of this power

When taking a look at these citations, we can conclude that the state, while no longer being a state in the proper sense of the word, still serves it's purpose. While it continues to suppress the bourgeoisie and defends the socialized property against counterrevolution, the bureaucratic caste of society takes a reactionary leadership role. While it continues to maintain the worker's state, it continues to protect it's "privilege" and role of leadership in society. An accurate analogy to this condition would be labor unions in america and the relationship between the union tops and the union itself. While the workers do have an established union (workers' state) the union tops(bureaucracy) act as the reactionary leadership and steer the workers' away from class struggle and often channel their energy into the democratic party. The union tops maintain a "good" relationship with the workers and the capitalists by contenting the workers with their position and perpetuating the illusion that their way will bring change (stalinism and socialism in one country) and appease the capitalists(world bourgeoisie) by preventing further class struggle (spread of socialism). While the union tops, which are merely leaders of the workers, do not constitute a class they do serve as an extension of the bourgeoisie and serve as an obstacle to the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Bureaucratic caste of society is merely a rotten leadership of the workers which brings up the call for Political revolution to oust the bureaucracy and establish a solid workers' democracy with a large and educated proletariat.

In relation to Emy, the conclusions we have just drawn can be easily reached and understood with a THOROUGH look at marxist literature and an understanding of the state. Because he glazed over these simple details and failed to reach a Marxist conclusion he was lead to an idealist and incorrect statement about trotskyism and became dogmatic in ONE aspect of the state and failed to acknowledge the varying characteristics between a bourgeois state and worker's state and the political, not social, aspect of the counterrevolution which brought the bureaucracy to a reactionary leadership role while still maintaining the socialized propety.

While continuing to maintain his status as a Trotskyist, Emy proceeds to blame Marx' definition of a state and arrogantly declares it needs revision and this is what leads us to this whole "Emy's Theory of Classes"

they are as follows:

Quote :

1. Economic Classes: these are based on access to the means of production, the normal classes. Ex: bourgeois and proletariat.

2. Ideological Classes: these are based on ideology. They are classified into ideologies of each class. Ex: bourgeois ideology (greed) and proletariat ideology (cooperation).

3. Political Classes: these are based on action. They are classified into actions favoring each class. Ex: bourgeois action (making authoritarian laws) and proletarian action (revolting against capitalism).

Capitalism automatically establishes the proletariat class. Then, through propaganda, the vanguard gives consciousness to the proletariat, creating an ideological class of the proletariat. When this class is large enough, the level-three proletariat can be forceful enough so that the proletariat action overthrows capitalism.

This establishes socialism, which immediately abolishes level one classes, because everyone is made into a worker. However, ideological and political classes still exist, necessitating the existence of a state. The vanguard in this stage must educate the backward masses to give all of the people class consciousness (make them see that communism is the best). This abolishes level-two classes. Next what must happen is the state and the socialist labor-time economy must wither away. This only happens when people are willing to cooperate, and contribute according to their ability and take according to their need. This will abolish level-three classes and since all classes are eliminated, communism is established.

Emy's idealism leads him to make such a redundant and misinformed theory. His lack of a materialist understanding of Bourgeois rule lowers him to a point where the marxism flies over his head.

Capitalism is the dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, Democracy for the bourgeoisie, and is carried out by the capitalist state. The Bourgeoisie cannot make profit, and thus rule economically without the state in place. This confirms what i cited before in regard to the state coming to existence to prevent both classes from destroying each other. This designates the state as a tool against class struggle and forces the proletariat to submit to the bourgeoisie and thus allow the bourgeoisie to make profit and survive as the ruling class. The state, in accordance with bourgeois ideology (which is reinforced by the family) and the illusion of universal suffrage all serve as tools to obscure the class line and keep the workers from achieving class consciousness. Class consciousness of the proletariat indefinitely means great class struggle and ultimately the overthrow of capitalism, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, and the abolition of exploitation of labor and private property. The Bourgeoisie understands this and that is why suppressing the workers and preventing them from achieving consciousness is of the utmost importance.

For socialism to be achieved you need the overthrow of capitalism and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat (Workers' democracy) when Emy only defines socialism as the former. Class Consciousness of the workers combined with the marxist program of a workers' vanguard does establish both though.

Emy's concern lies in the fact that he believes that everyone will immediately become the proletariat socialism. This confirms my assertion that he fails to understand marxism because once all people become workers, a classless society has been achieved and THAT is communism, not socialism. I digress, his concern was that if this were true, then why the need for a state? Certainly a the state characterized as a bourgeois state by lenin would definitely be a concern, but a workers state is not identical. As listed above it is made up of the workers themselves, NOT specialized armed force of men sitting atop society. This state would be in existence for the purpose of defending against counterrevolution within society, WHICH LIES IN THE CONVERTED CAPITALISTS that wish to have their rule re-established and the world bourgeoisie (which will continue to exist until communism is reached) not ideas within established proletariat and the purpose of defending workers' RIGHTS AGAINST REACTIONARY ATTITUDES and will help to achieve equality( which are the product of religion and bourgeois ideology. While this ideology seems to be in accordance with Emy's theory, this actually comes from a failure to achieve true class consciousness and a class struggle perspective)

Again i stress that it is idealist to designate bourgeois ideology as a "class" as Emy is beause this idealogy is TRANSCLASS, meaning that both the proletariat and bourgeoisie can have the same beliefs. It is not a matter of defeating the bourgeois ideology "class" within every person, it is a matter of defeating the bourgeoisie itself that brought into existence that ideology that is TRANSCLASS. An example of "transclass" would be the oppression of blacks and whites, while both are found in both MARXIST classes, it is impossible to revolt against males or whites because whites and males are not the cause of their oppression and cannot be designated as an "oppressor". While many try to launch a campaign against sexism or racism as an ideal, both parties fail to acknowledge the material reality that has created the situation (capitalism). Just like the ideology of the bourgeoisie permeating through both classes, you cannot launch a campaining against greed, only the material reality that breeds it (capitalism). The emancipation of the Proletariat is not a matter of ideals, as Emy asserts, it is a matter of of opening their eyes to MATERIALIST REALITY thus rendering Emy's campaign to give the proletariat a NEW ideology utterly incorrect. With these Material realities acknowledged and abolished, the basis for reactionary attitudes within the working people are abolished.

This brings us to Emy's third idealist "class" which is that of politics. I find this "class" the most poisonous and and incorrect of them all. Socialist revolution is the most authoritarian action in existence. The Dictatorship of the proletariat and the soviet system will be needed until a classless society is achieved and a state of abundance is reached, not the idealist belief that reaching communism is merely a matter of changing peoples belief system and ideologies. True marxists identify the material reality that breeds different actions and beliefs. Marxists say "being determines consciousness" and Emy's failure to identify this "being" or reality as the root of these fictional "classes" he has created totally alienate him from marxism and make him an idealist thinker.

To end i want to put stress on the fact that all of Emy's questions and concerns could have been addressed by taking a thorough look at marxist literature and exposure to class struggle. This entire charade he has embarked on is a direct result of his radically idealist and oversimplified understanding of marxism.

Emy failed to see the big picture i guess is a summary of all of this...

@ Emy

i'm attacking your politics, not you.

DEAL WITH THE GRAMMAR!

I am working on my counterpulleemik as we speak.

oh god did you even read the whole thing?

qite a post there

Quote :

oh god did you even read the whole thing?

Lol I haven't really started yet. I might not finish today because I have a history project that I havent started on yet.

i don't suggest posting it before reading it.

If you have decided that you are going to disagree before reading it then i have no respect for you

i read it. Its idealism. Its a misunderstanding of "not a state in the proper sense". But I will adress it lator.

are you kidding?

I'm writing it now i have about a page done in size 12 times new roman.

I'm refuse to follow this. Pankake is NOT a better theoretician that Marx, Lenin,or Trotsky and never will be. I therefore suggest that he either cease to claim he is or remove himself from the gene pool for the greater good of humanity.

but...

but...

i put so much work into it...

oligarch wrote:

I'm refuse to follow this. Pankake is NOT a better theoretician that Marx, Lenin,or Trotsky and never will be. I therefore suggest that he either cease to claim he is or remove himself from the gene pool for the greater good of humanity.

Yes, I agree, the world has had enough pankakes.

I don't claim I am better. If I see farther, it is only because I stand on the shoulders of giants.

i used to defend you....

*shakes head*

Quote :

1. Economic Classes: these are based on access to the means of production, the normal classes. Ex: bourgeois and proletariat.

2. Ideological Classes: these are based on ideology. They are classified into ideologies of each class. Ex: bourgeois ideology (greed) and proletariat ideology (cooperation).

3. Political Classes: these are based on action. They are classified into actions favoring each class. Ex: bourgeois action (making authoritarian laws) and proletarian action (revolting against capitalism).

Capitalism automatically establishes the proletariat class. Then, through propaganda, the vanguard gives consciousness to the proletariat, creating an ideological class of the proletariat. When this class is large enough, the level-three proletariat can be forceful enough so that the proletariat action overthrows capitalism.

This establishes socialism, which immediately abolishes level one classes, because everyone is made into a worker. However, ideological and political classes still exist, necessitating the existence of a state. The vanguard in this stage must educate the backward masses to give all of the people class consciousness (make them see that communism is the best). This abolishes level-two classes. Next what must happen is the state and the socialist labor-time economy must wither away. This only happens when people are willing to cooperate, and contribute according to their ability and take according to their need. This will abolish level-three classes and since all classes are eliminated, communism is established.

I agree with shabaz freeman

inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

1. Economic Classes: these are based on access to the means of production, the normal classes. Ex: bourgeois and proletariat.

2. Ideological Classes: these are based on ideology. They are classified into ideologies of each class. Ex: bourgeois ideology (greed) and proletariat ideology (cooperation).

3. Political Classes: these are based on action. They are classified into actions favoring each class. Ex: bourgeois action (making authoritarian laws) and proletarian action (revolting against capitalism).

Capitalism automatically establishes the proletariat class. Then, through propaganda, the vanguard gives consciousness to the proletariat, creating an ideological class of the proletariat. When this class is large enough, the level-three proletariat can be forceful enough so that the proletariat action overthrows capitalism.

This establishes socialism, which immediately abolishes level one classes, because everyone is made into a worker. However, ideological and political classes still exist, necessitating the existence of a state. The vanguard in this stage must educate the backward masses to give all of the people class consciousness (make them see that communism is the best). This abolishes level-two classes. Next what must happen is the state and the socialist labor-time economy must wither away. This only happens when people are willing to cooperate, and contribute according to their ability and take according to their need. This will abolish level-three classes and since all classes are eliminated, communism is established.

I agree with shabaz freeman

but...that's emy's argument

Quote :

I agree with shabaz freeman

but...that's emy's argument[/quote][/quote]

yes I know, i disagree with it

inkus2000 wrote:

Quote :

I agree with shabaz freeman

but...that's emy's argument

[/quote]

yes I know, i disagree with it[/quote]

ok i am just clarifying

Quit lying inkus you know you agreed with it until you realized you were agreeing with me, then you quickly changed to be on the loser's side. Fine.