 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
I have a question for communists here, how do you plain to make communism work the next time you guys have a try at it in some country in the world, if that ever happens? How would you avoid the failings of the Soviet Union?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
I have a question for communists here, how do you plain to make communism work the next time you guys have a try at it in some country in the world, if that ever happens? How would you avoid the failings of the Soviet Union? |
That is a great question! Let me see if I can give you some answers.
The short reason that the USSR and other countries fell into despotism is that they were all under seige. The USSR was invaded and suffered terrorism from the begining to the end. Many countries suffered invasions, all suffered from terrorism. Most of the people who decry the despotism of the USSR rationalize it, however, for the Israelis. Israel has killed about 1% of the Palestinian population since 1948, a huge number (more than 30,000 people). Yet, most detractors of the left claim that Israel has to do what it has to do to protect itself. Why does Israel have this right and not the USSR?
Even in the US, we crack down on civil liberties when we feel our society is under attack. Why should countries who are under constant attack not have the same "rights?" Look at all the people who claimed that those who opposed Bush were traitors? People have been beaten, have lost their jobs, have been jailed, just for vocally disagreeing with the the "President." How much worse would it be if it was more than just 9/11, but our bridges and railways and crops and factories were also being attacked, constantly? Do you think we would not be under martial law?
So one of the answers then, is for a revolution to try and build international solidarity. If you can get the imperialists to stop attacking you, you don't have the pressure to become dictatorial. Also, if you an spread the revolution, the imperialist will have to try and put out many fires rather than concentrating simply on yours.
Answer number two is, in my mind, the necessity of building a democratic movement from the start. Many left organizations ban factionalism of any kind. This is in contradiction to the experience of most successful revolutionary groups, including the Russians and even the Bolsheviks. Multi-factional organizations are a necessity before hand. I would rather build an organization where everyone disageed with me than one where everyone did what I said (no matter how correct I am.  )
Part of it is beyond our control. The other part is just making sure we have good leadership and an educated membership who holds their leaders feet to the fire and doesn't have any fear of tossing their leaders aside if they get too upppity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
I have to disagree with Che. I think the great misinterpretation of "dictatorship of the proleteriat" was at the root of so much of the failure of "communism" as it came about. |
The twist of a phrase hasn't a damn thing to do with it. One simply needs study the actual history of the socialist movement to see where, why, and how dictatorship became part of the movement. Up until several years after the Russian Revolution, the Communist Party (and it's Bolshevik predessor) was a multifactional, democratically run party. From 1917 to 1920, there were multiple parties in the Russian Revolution. The constraction of alternate viewpoints has concrete causes: the Civil War, the contraction of the working class, the rise of the bureaucracy, etc. These physical reasons were what cause the Party to ban factions, so that the party could hold on to power until the working class could recover.
Unfortunately, the bureaucracy was able to seize power before the working class recovered, and a bureaucracy has no interest in seeing democracy. From their seat of power in Moscow, the Soviet bureuacracy was able to twist and deform all the other Communist Parties in the word to its own interests. Rather than being for the overthrown of their own governments, they became instruments of Soviet foreign policy, except in the cases of China and Vietnam (the Communist Parties both were independent), no revolution has been led by an official Communist Party.
quote:
Also, I do think that Marx's economic interpretations were wrong. While I think he was right to say that only at a certain point of production can communism come to the fore (points that none of the countries in which communism came to the fore had actually reached), he did not grasp the development of the middle class, . . . |
Partially this is the result of a mis-translation of the Communist Manifesto. In the English version, it says that the Middle Classes are continually disappeaing. The orginal German has them disappearing and being recreated. Marx died before the development of the labor aristocracy, but Engels dealt with the problem of a section of the working class becoming so comfortable that they lose interest in revolutionary politics.
Last edited by chegitz guevara on 16-06-2003 at 00:22
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Wow! Marx could not have said that the middle class would increase in size. This would go against his whole theory. |
Certainly he could have. Remember, what's important is the economic power of the class. Even if the middle classes grew, the portion of the economy dominated by the productive power of the working class grew much faster. In Russia, in 1917, for example, 5% of the population created 25% of the wealth. It is this economic power which allowed the working class to overthrow the government.
Furthermore, Marx was talking about the destruction of the old middle classes: the farmers, the small shop keepers, the artisans, etc. These classes have indeed largely disappeared. Farming, more and more, is being dominated by a small handful of agricultural companies. The independent farmer is continuing to disappear in the US. Small shop keepers have given way to chains. Artisans are put out of business by mass produced cheap products, though there is always a resurgance in periods of prosperty.
Even if, as some argue, the middle class becomes the majority of the population (which I would not argue), they are parasites off the productivity of the working class. I would, however, argue that the definition of middle class is flawed. In the US, everyone is middle class, unless you're Bill Gates or on welfare. Such a definition is so broad as to be meaningless. Many people would argue that white-collar workers are middle class. This is not true. They are simply a different part of the working class. In some ways more priveledged, but not always. Many white collar workers make less than the best paid blue collar employees.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
If white collar workers think of themselves as middle class, that is the class conciousness they will form for themselves, and the class conciousness they will act on, and be inherently anti-revolutionary.
Unless you can convince them as to why they should feel a class solidairty to "workers" they will not do the "workers revolution" any good. |
Class consciousness isn't set in stone. It ebbs and flows. In the 1930s, secretaries were unionizing. In the 1990s, computer workers were unionizing. Journalists have unions, media workers have unions, teachers have unions, government employees have unions.
In other words, you are correct.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
Let's see if this works.
English: The lower strata of the middle class--the small tradespeople, shop keeers and retired tradesmen generally, the handicraftsmen and peasant--all these sink gradually into the proletariat. . . .
German (retranslated): The previous (Die bisherige) lower strata of the middle class--the small tradespeople, shopkeepers and men of private means (rentiers), the handicraftsmen and peasant--all these sink gradually into the proletariat. . .
E: The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class, . . .
G: The lower middle classes, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle classes, . . .
So we can see from the original that Marx is talking about the previous middle classes (plural!), when he says that the middle class is disappearing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
|
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Che:
Spell is out for me. Where does it say that a new middle class will emerge from the need for skilled labor, unionization, and progressive policies? |
Where does it say it won't? Where does it say that all of the middle classes will disappear? Frankly, one can infer from Marx's use of the word previous, bisherige, that there are other existing middle classes, which are not sinking into the proletariat. Otherwise, why use the word? He also doesn't write of a single middle class, but many middle classes.
The point is, people counter-pose the growth of a large "middle class" to Marx's claim that the middle classes were disapearing. Marx made no claim that all middle clases were disappearing nor that new middle classes wouldn't appear. What he wrote, specifically, as that specific, previously existing, middle classes were disappearing. And they are.
It's kinda like saying Marx was wrong for not predicting that the moon wasn't made of green cheese. Where did ever ever say it was?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2003 16:11
|