World Republic

Uniting All People!
 
HomeHome  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  UsergroupsUsergroups  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Phrasemongering

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : 1, 2  Next
AuthorMessage
oligarch
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1643
Join date : 2008-01-31

PostSubject: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 12:45 am

Quote :
Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks effected the most orderly retreat, with the least loss to their "army", with its core best preserved, with the least significant splits (in point of depth and incurability), with the least demoralisation, and in the best condition to resume work on the broadest scale and in the most correct and energetic manner. The Bolsheviks achieved this only because they ruthlessly exposed and expelled the revolutionary phrase-mongers, those who did not wish to understand that one had to retreat, that one had to know how to retreat, and that one had absolutely to learn how to work legally in the most reactionary of parliaments, in the most reactionary of trade unions, co-operative and insurance societies and similar organisations.

Quote :
We did not proclaim a boycott of the bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, but said—and following the April (1917) Conference of our Party began to state officially in the name of the Party—that a bourgeois republic with a Constituent Assembly would be better than a bourgeois republic without a Constituent Assembly, but that a "workers’ and peasants"’ republic, a Soviet republic, would be better than any bourgeois-democratic, parliamentary republic. Without such thorough, circumspect and long preparations, we could not have achieved victory in October 1917, or have consolidated that victory.

Quote :
The Bolsheviks, boycott of the Duma in 1906 was a mistake although a minor and easily remediable one. The boycott of the Duma in 1907, 1908 and subsequent years was a most serious error and difficult to remedy...

-V.I. Lenin

Reformism is the appropriate tactic when there is no conscious, mass, Proletariat Revolutionary political current with the general economic strike as a weapon at its disposal and feels that its material conditions necessitates its use as in the case of the United States. Uprising is only acceptable after revolutionary strike, revolutionary strike is only acceptable after political strike, and political strike is only acceptable when the material conditions of both the proletariat and non-proletariat toiling masses, productive and nonproductive have led to economic strike. To consider reformism unacceptable and to advocate political strike, revolutionary strike, or uprising under any other circumstances is childish and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of Marxist tactics.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 22
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 2:01 am

The only childish thing is Leninism. Well, maybe not only but Leninism is really childish.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
oligarch
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1643
Join date : 2008-01-31

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 4:33 am

Would you care to explain?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
inkus2000
New Party Member


Posts : 541
Join date : 2008-03-31
Location : I woke up this morning and I dont know where I am.

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 6:25 am

Quote :
-V.I. Lenin

Reformism is the appropriate tactic when there is no conscious, mass, Proletariat Revolutionary political current with the general economic strike as a weapon at its disposal and feels that its material conditions necessitates its use as in the case of the United States. Uprising is only acceptable after revolutionary strike, revolutionary strike is only acceptable after political strike, and political strike is only acceptable when the material conditions of both the proletariat and non-proletariat toiling masses, productive and nonproductive have led to economic strike. To consider reformism unacceptable and to advocate political strike, revolutionary strike, or uprising under any other circumstances is childish and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of Marxist tactics.


Lenin stole my ideas !
Back to top Go down
View user profile
mononokifool
Experienced Party Member


Posts : 838
Join date : 2008-03-30
Age : 28
Location : Florida

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 7:05 am

oligarch wrote:
Quote :
Of all the defeated opposition and revolutionary parties, the Bolsheviks effected the most orderly retreat, with the least loss to their "army", with its core best preserved, with the least significant splits (in point of depth and incurability), with the least demoralisation, and in the best condition to resume work on the broadest scale and in the most correct and energetic manner. The Bolsheviks achieved this only because they ruthlessly exposed and expelled the revolutionary phrase-mongers, those who did not wish to understand that one had to retreat, that one had to know how to retreat, and that one had absolutely to learn how to work legally in the most reactionary of parliaments, in the most reactionary of trade unions, co-operative and insurance societies and similar organisations.

Quote :
We did not proclaim a boycott of the bourgeois parliament, the Constituent Assembly, but said—and following the April (1917) Conference of our Party began to state officially in the name of the Party—that a bourgeois republic with a Constituent Assembly would be better than a bourgeois republic without a Constituent Assembly, but that a "workers’ and peasants"’ republic, a Soviet republic, would be better than any bourgeois-democratic, parliamentary republic. Without such thorough, circumspect and long preparations, we could not have achieved victory in October 1917, or have consolidated that victory.

Quote :
The Bolsheviks, boycott of the Duma in 1906 was a mistake although a minor and easily remediable one. The boycott of the Duma in 1907, 1908 and subsequent years was a most serious error and difficult to remedy...

-V.I. Lenin

Reformism is the appropriate tactic when there is no conscious, mass, Proletariat Revolutionary political current with the general economic strike as a weapon at its disposal and feels that its material conditions necessitates its use as in the case of the United States. Uprising is only acceptable after revolutionary strike, revolutionary strike is only acceptable after political strike, and political strike is only acceptable when the material conditions of both the proletariat and non-proletariat toiling masses, productive and nonproductive have led to economic strike. To consider reformism unacceptable and to advocate political strike, revolutionary strike, or uprising under any other circumstances is childish and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of Marxist tactics.
So then trying to get elected and voting is against what he said, that is against a political strike right?

_________________
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 7:10 am

...And who the hell told you i was a marxist? I understand Marxist tactics. I just, as well, deny them. I'm at a net cafe and cannot reply in depth at the moment. I may see to it monday if time allows.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 7:12 am

what is this quote from?
Back to top Go down
oligarch
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1643
Join date : 2008-01-31

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 11:04 am

Quote :
I understand Marxist tactics. I just, as well, deny them.

Anarchistic revolutions which do not yeild the same results as Marxist revolutions. They are failure prone to failure.

Quote :
So then trying to get elected and voting is against what he said, that is against a political strike right?

Yes, but only when the prerequisites for political strike have been met.

Shabazz Freeman wrote:
what is this quote from?

'Left-Wing' Communism an Infantile Disorder
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 22
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 4:28 pm

Leninism is infantile because:

support for national liberation
support of reforms
support of trade unions
support of vanguardism
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 7:51 pm

are you implying that the only path is reformism at present?
Back to top Go down
inkus2000
New Party Member


Posts : 541
Join date : 2008-03-31
Location : I woke up this morning and I dont know where I am.

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 9:48 pm

Shabazz Freeman wrote:
are you implying that the only path is reformism at present?


I think many nations have the proper conditions for planning revolution today -

The US ? I don't think so. not now anyway
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Sun May 11, 2008 10:22 pm

reformism without any talk of socialism and the class line will inevitably drive the workers right into capitalism and the revolution will be even farther.

Workers must have no illusions in the capitalist courts and form a party SEPARATE from capitalist parties to truly fight for workers rights and needs.

If the path oligarch is suggesting is voting for the dems or greens then we have a problem
Back to top Go down
oligarch
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1643
Join date : 2008-01-31

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Mon May 12, 2008 3:54 am

Shabazz Freeman wrote:
reformism without any talk of socialism and the class line will inevitably drive the workers right into capitalism and the revolution will be even farther.

Workers must have no illusions in the capitalist courts and form a party SEPARATE from capitalist parties to truly fight for workers rights and needs.

If the path oligarch is suggesting is voting for the dems or greens then we have a problem

There is no reason that a worker's party can not vote for reform and as there is no such party in the United States with the means or capacity to push for reform on its own, the Democrats, Greens, and independents are the only option. We do not surrender to these bandits so that we might share in their loot, but so they will be be caught and brought to justice.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Mon May 12, 2008 9:04 pm

Quote :
Anarchistic revolutions which do not yeild the same results as Marxist revolutions. They are failure prone to failure.

I take it you meant to say something like 'anarchist revolutions which do not yeild the same results as marxist revolutions are prone to failure'.

Every revolution is prone to failure, marxist or not. It comes with the territory. Now, if you're trying to bash on anarchist theory on revolution, then by all means, elaborate.

You've done a great job quoting Lenin so far, but you still haven't shown us why we are infantile. Your argument so far seems to be 'because Lenin says so'.

oligarch wrote:
Reformism is the appropriate tactic when there is no conscious, mass, Proletariat Revolutionary political current

Tactic? To what end? It is not a way to create a "proletariat revolutionary" political current, so what do you think is its purpose?

Quote :
with the general economic strike as a weapon at its disposal and feels that its material conditions necessitates its use as in the case of the United States.

Before i respond to this, please clarify what you mean by "general economic strike". Are you speaking literally or about something Lenin labelled as such. And if you are speaking literally, what do you mean by 'general'?

Quote :
Uprising is only acceptable after revolutionary strike, revolutionary strike is only acceptable after political strike, and political strike is only acceptable when the material conditions of both the proletariat and non-proletariat toiling masses, productive and nonproductive have led to economic strike.

And how do you tie reform into this? Only after this do you say anything about reform, but you have yet to show how reform is to be used to these ends.

Quote :
To consider reformism unacceptable and to advocate political strike, revolutionary strike, or uprising under any other circumstances is childish and demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of Marxist tactics.

... Still you have left reform to the side, not clarifying how it can be a tool to make or advocate political strike or revolutionary strike. And, if anything, it is detrimental to your first step of economic strike. There is no need for economic strike if the working class is granted its reforms. So how do you expect to end capitalism if your reforms act as an enemy to economic strike, which, according to you, is the only acceptable way to begin on the path to revolution (which is the only way to end capitalism)?

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
oligarch
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1643
Join date : 2008-01-31

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 2:41 am

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:


I take it you meant to say something like 'anarchist revolutions which do not yeild the same results as marxist revolutions are prone to failure'.

Every revolution is prone to failure, marxist or not. It comes with the territory. Now, if you're trying to bash on anarchist theory on revolution, then by all means, elaborate.

Non-Marxist revolutionary tactics are not as scientific and are therefore inferior.


Quote :

Tactic? To what end? It is not a way to create a "proletariat revolutionary" political current, so what do you think is its purpose?

Consciousness arises from material conditions, the purpose is of course the advancement of the working class.

Quote :
...please clarify what you mean by "general economic strike". Are you speaking literally or about something Lenin labelled as such. And if you are speaking literally, what do you mean by 'general'?

By economic strike I mean general strike in its traditional sense.


Quote :
And how do you tie reform into this? Only after this do you say anything about reform, but you have yet to show how reform is to be used to these ends.

Reformism is the appropriate tactic unless the prerequisites for political strike have been met. This relies on the consciousness of the revolutionary class.


Quote :
... Still you have left reform to the side, not clarifying how it can be a tool to make or advocate political strike or revolutionary strike.

It need not be. You make the mistake of assuming that revolution is the only means to a revolutionary end.

Quote :
And, if anything, it is detrimental to your first step of economic strike. There is no need for economic strike if the working class is granted its reforms.

Are you suggesting that the material conditions of the working class must be deliberately deteriorated by both the ruling class and revolutionaries? Economic strike is not necessary if the means of production may simply be appropriated from the capitalist class without need for revolutionary strike or uprising through revolutionary democracy. The socialist worker need only regard himself an active participant in world politics. Take for example Chavez's recent nationalization of a major steel firm(a revolutionary end) which has been done legally within the framework of a bourgeois democratic republic through a democratic revolution(reformism). Do you condemn the Bolivarian Revolution simply because it is reformist?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 22
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 3:32 am

Olriac you still haven't said why this:
Quote :
Uprising is only acceptable after revolutionary strike, revolutionary strike is only acceptable after political strike, and political strike is only acceptable when the material conditions of both the proletariat and non-proletariat toiling masses, productive and nonproductive have led to economic strike.
implies reformism.

Quote :
Non-Marxist revolutionary tactics are not as scientific and are therefore inferior.
What are the Marxist tactics you are talking about and what are the nonscientific tactics you are talking about?

Quote :
Consciousness arises from material conditions, the purpose is of course the advancement of the working class.

How does it advance the working class and how does it raise consciousness?

Quote :
Reformism is the appropriate tactic unless the prerequisites for political strike have been met. This relies on the consciousness of the revolutionary class.
What is a political strike?

Quote :
It need not be. You make the mistake of assuming that revolution is the only means to a revolutionary end.
What leads to a revolution is the material conditions changing which creates class consciousness which maix a revolution.

Quote :
if the means of production may simply be appropriated from the capitalist class without need for revolutionary strike or uprising through revolutionary democracy
But olriac surely you know this can not happen

Quote :
Take for example Chavez's recent nationalization of a major steel firm(a revolutionary end) which has been done legally within the framework of a bourgeois democratic republic through a democratic revolution(reformism).
So it's becoming state capitalist. So?

Quote :
Do you condemn the Bolivarian Revolution simply because it is reformist?
DEpends on what you mean by condemn. I do not think socialism can be achieved without destroying bourgeois democracy and replacing it with proletarian democracy, and neither did vladimir lenin and you know it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 4:35 am

oligarch wrote:
Non-Marxist revolutionary tactics are not as scientific and are therefore inferior.

Science = superiority? Ya, and trying to make a blueprint for revolutionary action, revolution, and transition has worked wonders so far.

Quote :
Quote :

Tactic? To what end? It is not a way to create a "proletariat revolutionary" political current, so what do you think is its purpose?

Consciousness arises from material conditions, the purpose is of course the advancement of the working class.

I am for reform that makes clearer the lines between classes. These are reforms that destroy the line between races, sexes, sexual orientation, etc., thus making those oppressed by the capitalist system more likely to view things along class lines rather than racial or gender oriented lines, etc. But economic reforms only make the people more docile, less willing to rise up.

Quote :
By economic strike I mean general strike in its traditional sense.

Then i hold that economic reform is a detriment to gaining a revolutionary situation by your standards.

Quote :
Quote :
And how do you tie reform into this? Only after this do you say anything about reform, but you have yet to show how reform is to be used to these ends.

Reformism is the appropriate tactic unless the prerequisites for political strike have been met. This relies on the consciousness of the revolutionary class.

That doesn't answer my question. Why don't you try again.

Quote :
Quote :
... Still you have left reform to the side, not clarifying how it can be a tool to make or advocate political strike or revolutionary strike.

It need not be. You make the mistake of assuming that revolution is the only means to a revolutionary end.

I've made no mistake in this regard. Revolution is the only way to dismantle capitalism. Reform, by its very nature and definition, can only work within the scope of the status quo system, or capitalism. If you think otherwise, you need to explain your position; there's absolutely no way i will just take your word for it.

Quote :
Are you suggesting that the material conditions of the working class must be deliberately deteriorated by both the ruling class and revolutionaries?

No.

Quote :
Economic strike is not necessary if the means of production may simply be appropriated from the capitalist class without need for revolutionary strike or uprising through revolutionary democracy.

Then that isn't a reformist act. It has ascended to a revolutionary act; the means of production is no longer capitalist, but socialist.

Quote :
The socialist worker need only regard himself an active participant in world politics. Take for example Chavez's recent nationalization of a major steel firm(a revolutionary end) which has been done legally within the framework of a bourgeois democratic republic through a democratic revolution(reformism).

Well which is it? It can't be revolutionary and reformist. Besides, i would hardly call this a revolutionary end. Nationalizing doesn't mean it's the workers', it just means it's not the individual capitalist's.

Quote :
Do you condemn the Bolivarian Revolution simply because it is reformist?

... I'm an anarhcist. That should be all you need to answer that question. If Chavez succeeds, wonderful; if not, it won't be a surprise.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
oligarch
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1643
Join date : 2008-01-31

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 8:30 am

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I am for reform that makes clearer the lines between classes. These are reforms that destroy the line between races, sexes, sexual orientation, etc., thus making those oppressed by the capitalist system more likely to view things along class lines rather than racial or gender oriented lines, etc. But economic reforms only make the people more docile, less willing to rise up.

In the example I gave, the steel workers demanded that the firm be nationalized and they succeeded through state means. I fail to see how this blurs distinction between classes much less genders.

Quote :

I've made no mistake in this regard. Revolution is the only way to dismantle capitalism. Reform, by its very nature and definition, can only work within the scope of the status quo system, or capitalism. If you think otherwise, you need to explain your position; there's absolutely no way i will just take your word for it.

Do you consider a democratic revolution 'revolutionary' enough to dismantle capitalism?

Quote :

Then that isn't a reformist act. It has ascended to a revolutionary act; the means of production is no longer capitalist, but socialist.

Radical reform is necessary for the kind of democratic revolution that can appropriate the means production.

Quote :

Well which is it? It can't be revolutionary and reformist. Besides, i would hardly call this a revolutionary end. Nationalizing doesn't mean it's the workers', it just means it's not the individual capitalist's.

State capitalism is a necessary component in the transition to socialism.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 9:32 am

oligarch wrote:
Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I am for reform that makes clearer the lines between classes. These are reforms that destroy the line between races, sexes, sexual orientation, etc., thus making those oppressed by the capitalist system more likely to view things along class lines rather than racial or gender oriented lines, etc. But economic reforms only make the people more docile, less willing to rise up.

In the example I gave, the steel workers demanded that the firm be nationalized and they succeeded through state means. I fail to see how this blurs distinction between classes much less genders.

Yes but their gains are within the confines of capitalism and are not extended to the aim of socialist revolution. They remain bound to "bigger slice of the pie" politics and fail to become revolutionary therefore inevitably becoming reformists that only strengthen capitalism by looking to the bosses and state as their only means of accomplishing goals. The state is not neutral it is the tool of the bourgeoisie and reforms are only given by the ruling class to avoid great class struggle or a potentially revolutionary situation and reforms can, will, and have been taken back the moment it can be done. If the Proletariat is confined to merely debating with the bosses for higher wages. Placing a steel factory in the hands of the capitalist state is merely giving the state direct control over the profit system which will not be utilized for the workers but will be utilized by the bourgeoisie. The steel mills were "nationalized" because it could be done without economic devastation. The ruling class "compromised" this fact because it would make the workers believe in state neutrality, which does not exist. Without revolutionary politics workers (at the fault of people like oligarch) believe that capitalism can be fully reformed and the state can be democratically won over when their very nature is to protect private means of production and uphold the exploitation of workers. As long as we are quoting lenin

"The state is, therefore, by no means a power forced on society from without; just as little is it 'the reality of the ethical idea', 'the image and reality of reason', as Hegel maintains. 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 it has split into irreconcilable antagonisms which it is powerless to dispel. But in order that these antagonisms, these classes with conflicting economic interests, might not consume themselves and society in fruitless struggle, it became necessary to have a power, seemingly standing above society, that would alleviate the conflict and keep it within the bounds of 'order'; and this power, arisen out of society but placing itself above it, and alienating itself more and more from it, is the state." (Pp.177-78, sixth edition)[1]

This expresses with perfect clarity the basic idea of Marxism with regard to the historical role and the meaning of the state. The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable. he state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.

It is on this most important and fundamental point that the distortion of Marxism, proceeding along two main lines, begins.

On the one hand, the bourgeois, and particularly the petty-bourgeois, ideologists, compelled under the weight of indisputable historical facts to admit that the state only exists where there are class antagonisms and a class struggle, “correct” Marx in such a way as to make it appear that the state is an organ for the reconciliation of classes. According to Marx, the state could neither have arisen nor maintained itself had it been possible to reconcile classes. From what the petty-bourgeois and philistine professors and publicists say, with quite frequent and benevolent references to Marx, it appears that the state does reconcile classes. According to Marx, the state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of “order”, which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between classes. In the opinion of the petty-bourgeois politicians, however, order means the reconciliation of classes, and not the oppression of one class by another; to alleviate the conflict means reconciling classes and not depriving the oppressed classes of definite means and methods of struggle to overthrow the oppressors. "

the last paragraph describes your ideology.

Quote :

I've made no mistake in this regard. Revolution is the only way to dismantle capitalism. Reform, by its very nature and definition, can only work within the scope of the status quo system, or capitalism. If you think otherwise, you need to explain your position; there's absolutely no way i will just take your word for it.

Do you consider a democratic revolution 'revolutionary' enough to dismantle capitalism?

You cannot democratically convince the bourgeoisie to hand over it's private property, privileged status in society, it's rule over the proletariat, and democratically smash the state's apparatus. To think otherwise is utopian.

another lenin quote
" Fifthly, the same work of Engels', whose arguments about the withering away of the state everyone remembers, also contains an argument of the significance of violent revolution. Engels' historical analysis of its role becomes a veritable panegyric on violent revolution. This, “no one remembers". It is not done in modern socialist parties to talk or even think about the significance of this idea, and it plays no part whatever in their daily propaganda and agitation among the people. And yet it is inseparably bound up with the 'withering away" of the state into one harmonious whole.

Here is Engels' argument:

“...That force, however, plays yet another role [other than that of a diabolical power] in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms — of this there is not a word in Herr Duhring. It is only with sighs and groans that he admits the possibility that force will perhaps be necessary for the overthrow of an economy based on exploitation — unfortunately, because all use of force demoralizes, he says, the person who uses it. And this in Germany, where a violent collision — which may, after all, be forced on the people — would at least have the advantage of wiping out the servility which has penetrated the nation's mentality following the humiliation of the Thirty Years' War.[4] And this person's mode of thought — dull, insipid, and impotent — presumes to impose itself on the most revolutionary party that history has ever known! (p.193, third German edition, Part II, end of Chap.IV)

How can this panegyric on violent revolution, which Engels insistently brought to the attention of the German Social-Democrats between 1878 and 1894, i.e., right up to the time of his death, be combined with the theory of the 'withering away" of the state to form a single theory?

Usually the two are combined by means of eclecticism, by an unprincipled or sophistic selection made arbitrarily (or to please the powers that be) of first one, then another argument, and in 99 cases out of 100, if not more, it is the idea of the “withering away” that is placed in the forefront. Dialectics are replaced by eclecticism — this is the most usual, the most wide-spread practice to be met with in present-day official Social-Democratic literature in relation to Marxism. This sort of substitution is, of course, nothing new; it was observed even in the history of classical Greek philosophy. In falsifying Marxism in opportunist fashion, the substitution of eclecticism for dialectics is the easiest way of deceiving the people. It gives an illusory satisfaction; it seems to take into account all sides of the process, all trends of development, all the conflicting influences, and so forth, whereas in reality it provides no integral and revolutionary conception of the process of social development at all.

We have already said above, and shall show more fully later, that the theory of Marx and Engels of the inevitability of a violent revolution refers to the bourgeois state. The latter cannot be superseded by the proletarian state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) through the process of 'withering away", but, as a general rule, only through a violent revolution. The panegyric Engels sang in its honor, and which fully corresponds to Marx's repeated statements (see the concluding passages of The Poverty of Philosophy[5] and the Communist Manifesto,[6] with their proud and open proclamation of the inevitability of a violent revolution; see what Marx wrote nearly 30 years later, in criticizing the Gotha Programme of 1875,[7] when he mercilessly castigated the opportunist character of that programme) — this panegyric is by no means a mere “impulse”, a mere declamation or a polemical sally. The necessity of systematically imbuing the masses with this and precisely this view of violent revolution lies at the root of the entire theory of Marx and Engels. The betrayal of their theory by the now prevailing social-chauvinist and Kautskyite trends expresses itself strikingly in both these trends ignoring such propaganda and agitation. "
Back to top Go down
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: part 2   Tue May 13, 2008 9:32 am

Quote :

Then that isn't a reformist act. It has ascended to a revolutionary act; the means of production is no longer capitalist, but socialist.

Radical reform is necessary for the kind of democratic revolution that can appropriate the means production.

you cannot expropriate the bourgeoisie democratically
I have no clue where you got your conclusion from but the boycott was a political strike which lead to armed insurrection i.e. socialist revolution, which was largely due to the maturity the workers gained from the party. Political strike was achieved because class antagonisms became acute and clear, thus bringing about class consciousness and discontent for the provisional government which was one of dual power(Soviets vs. Capitalists which were whipping peasants into world war at the time) and because class struggle was so clear between the two dueling powers, the birth of the slogan "All power to the soviets" came into being. Not "soviets must not take state power" which was the stance of social democrats and the mensheviks which became opponents of the revolution and class betrayers. Such Political maturity was attained by the working class because the party frequently placed out in the open, not blindly saying that you must go to the bourgeois state to save you and achieve revolution.

lenin
" To decide once every few years which members of the ruling class is to repress and crush the people through parliament--this is the real essence of bourgeois parliamentarism, not only in parliamentary- constitutional monarchies, but also in the most democratic republics.

But if we deal with the question of the state, and if we consider parliamentarism as one of the institutions of the state, from the point of view of the tasks of the proletariat in this field, what is the way out of parliamentarism? How can it be dispensed with?

Once again, we must say: the lessons of Marx, based on the study of the Commune, have been so completely forgotten that the present-day "Social-Democrat" (i.e., present-day traitor to socialism) really cannot understand any criticism of parliamentarism other than anarchist or reactionary criticism. "

Quote :

Well which is it? It can't be revolutionary and reformist. Besides, i would hardly call this a revolutionary end. Nationalizing doesn't mean it's the workers', it just means it's not the individual capitalist's.

State capitalism is a necessary component in the transition to socialism.[/quote]

are you freaking kidding me?
Trotsky's quotes
"We often seek salvation from unfamiliar phenomena in familiar terms. An attempt has been made to conceal the enigma of the Soviet regime by calling it “state capitalism.” This term has the advantage that nobody knows exactly what it means. The term “state capitalism” originally arose to designate all the phenomena which arise when a bourgeois state takes direct charge of the means of transport or of industrial enterprises. The very necessity of such measures is one of the signs that the productive forces have outgrown capitalism and are bringing it to a partial self-negation in practice. But the outworn system, along with its elements of self-negation, continues to exist as a capitalist system.

Theoretically, to be sure, it is possible to conceive a situation in which the bourgeoisie as a whole constitutes itself a stock company which, by means of its state, administers the whole national economy. The economic laws of such a regime would present no mysteries. A single capitalist, as is well known, receives in the form of profit, not that part of the surplus value which is directly created by the workers of his own enterprise, but a share of the combined surplus value created throughout the country proportionate to the amount of his own capital. Under an integral “state capitalism”, this law of the equal rate of profit would be realized, not by devious routes – that is, competition among different capitals – but immediately and directly through state bookkeeping. Such a regime never existed, however, and, because of profound contradictions among the proprietors themselves, never will exist – the more so since, in its quality of universal repository of capitalist property, the state would be too tempting an object for social revolution.

During the war, and especially during the experiments in fascist economy, the term “state capitalism” has oftenest been understood to mean a system of state interference and regulation. The French employ a much more suitable term for this etatism. There are undoubtedly points of contact between state capitalism and “state-ism”, but taken as systems they are opposite rather than identical. State capitalism means the substitution of state property for private property, and for that very reason remains partial in character. State-ism, no matter where in Italy, Mussolini, in Germany, Hitler, in America, Roosevelt, or in France, Leon Blum – means state intervention on the basis of private property, and with the goal of preserving it. Whatever be the programs of the government, stateism inevitably leads to a transfer of the damages of the decaying system from strong shoulders to weak. It “rescues” the small proprietor from complete ruin only to the extent that his existence is necessary for the preservation of big property. The planned measures of stateism are dictated not by the demands of a development of the productive forces, but by a concern for the preservation of private property at the expense of the productive forces, which are in revolt against it. State-ism means applying brakes to the development of technique, supporting unviable enterprises, perpetuating parasitic social strata. In a word, state-ism is completely reactionary in character.

The words of Mussolini: “Three-fourths of Italian economy, industrial and agricultural, is in the hands of the state” (May 26, 1934), are not to be taken literally. The fascist state is not an owner of enterprises, but only an intermediary between their owners. These two things are not identical. Popolo d’Italia says on this subject: “The corporative state directs and integrates the economy, but does not run it (‘dirige e porta alla unita l’economia, ma non fa l’economia, non gestisce’), which, with a monopoly of production, would be nothing but collectivism.” (June 11, 1936) Toward the peasants and small proprietors in general, the fascist bureaucracy takes the attitude of a threatening lord and master. Toward the capitalist magnates, that of a first plenipotentiury. “The corporative state,” correctly writes the Italian Marxist, Feroci, “is nothing but the sales clerk of monopoly capital ... Mussolini takes upon the state the whole risk of the enterprises, leaving to the industrialists the profits of exploitation.” And Hitler in this respect follows in the steps of Mussolini. The limits of the planning principle, as well as its real content, are determined by the class dependence of the fascist state. It is not a question of increasing the power of man over nature in the interests of society, but of exploiting society in the interests of the few. “If I desired,” boasts Mussolini, “to establish in Italy – which really has not happened – state capitalism or state socialism, I should possess today all the necessary and adequate objective conditions.” All except one: the expropriation of the class of capitalists. In order to realize this condition, fascism would have to go over to the other side of the barricades – “which really has not happened” to quote the hasty assurance of Mussolini, and, of course, will not happen. To expropriate the capitalists would require other forces, other cadres and other leaders.

The first concentration of the means of production in the hands of the state to occur in history was achieved by the proletariat with the method of social revolution, and not by capitalists with the method of state trustification. Our brief analysis is sufficient to show how absurd are the attempts to identify capitalist state-ism with the Soviet system. The former is reactionary, the latter progressive.
"

state capitalism is by no means a necessary trait of the transition to socialism...

the CPUSA slanders marxism

quote whore against that

lol
Back to top Go down
Black_Cross
Chairman of the WR Committee


Posts : 1702
Join date : 2008-04-04
Age : 28
Location : Sisyphean Hell

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 10:37 pm

oligarch wrote:
Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

I am for reform that makes clearer the lines between classes. These are reforms that destroy the line between races, sexes, sexual orientation, etc., thus making those oppressed by the capitalist system more likely to view things along class lines rather than racial or gender oriented lines, etc. But economic reforms only make the people more docile, less willing to rise up.

In the example I gave, the steel workers demanded that the firm be nationalized and they succeeded through state means. I fail to see how this blurs distinction between classes much less genders.

That's what you thought i was saying? I'll try to make myself clearer. I was not saying that reforms (like economic ones) that do not shatter racial and sexual boundaries (etc.) blur the lines of class antagonisms. I merely meant to say that ones that do shatter racial and sexual boundaries (etc.) make clearer the class antagonisms, allowing people to begin to see things along class lines rather than racial, sexual, sexual orientation lines. On the other hand, economic reforms, though they do not blur class lines, simply have no pragmatic use in revolutionary tactics.

Quote :
Do you consider a democratic revolution 'revolutionary' enough to dismantle capitalism?

And by democratic revolution you are again refering to reform? If that is the case then no, because it cannot be both reformist and revolutionary; that is an oxymoronic falsehood.

If that is not what you meant, please clarify.

Quote :
Quote :
Then that isn't a reformist act. It has ascended to a revolutionary act; the means of production is no longer capitalist, but socialist.

Radical reform is necessary for the kind of democratic revolution that can appropriate the means production.

Should i feel compelled to respond to this? It doesn't seem to be on track with what i said.

I'll say this; there may well be reform within a revolution, this i don't deny. But there is, as i meant to say within what you quoted, no way for reform to be revolutionary. It is one or the other, not both. You are merely pointing out that "democratic revolution" needs reform.

And just calling it 'radical' doesn't mean it is also revolutionary.

Quote :
Quote :
Well which is it? It can't be revolutionary and reformist. Besides, i would hardly call this a revolutionary end. Nationalizing doesn't mean it's the workers', it just means it's not the individual capitalist's.

State capitalism is a necessary component in the transition to socialism.

A transition into socialism? By this you mean a transition into a transitional state, i assume. Not that i give a crap about the socialist transition, you know, being an anarchist and all, but even if i were a marxist, i would not venture so far to say that state capitalism is ever necessary for anything.

I'd like to know how you came to this conclusion.

_________________
"A market economy must comprise all elements of industry including labor, land and money [...] But labor and land are no other than the human beings themselves of which every society consists and the natural surroundings in which it exists. To include them in the market mechanism means to subordinate the substance of society itself."
--Karl Polanyi--
Back to top Go down
View user profile
inkus2000
New Party Member


Posts : 541
Join date : 2008-03-31
Location : I woke up this morning and I dont know where I am.

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 10:49 pm

.


Last edited by inkus2000 on Tue May 13, 2008 11:07 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top Go down
View user profile
inkus2000
New Party Member


Posts : 541
Join date : 2008-03-31
Location : I woke up this morning and I dont know where I am.

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 10:54 pm

.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Watermelon
ZEK in siberian gulag


Posts : 2650
Join date : 2008-04-05
Age : 22
Location : springfield, il

PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Tue May 13, 2008 11:25 pm

He came to the conclusion that state capitalism is necessary by reading Lenin.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Guest
Guest



PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Wed May 14, 2008 12:25 am

by distorting lenin and picking out what followes his own reformist beliefs
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Phrasemongering   Today at 11:11 pm

Back to top Go down
 
Phrasemongering
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 1 of 2Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
World Republic :: Capitol of the World Republic :: Red Square-
Jump to: