The Official Socialism/Democratic Socialism/Communism/Marxism Thread

[Mr. Somebody]

Mutual aggression from the start of the 1917 revolution. Stalin probably takes the most blame out of any individual however.

You don't believe a hybrid where people have the freedom to accumulate wealth while having a high level safety net to prevent poverty is a better solution then straight up socialism friend?

Poverty always begin the seeds for change but people are less likely to revolt when their safety net pacifies them.

 

[Tate]

You don't believe a hybrid where people have the freedom to accumulate wealth while having a high level safety net to prevent poverty is a better solution then straight up socialism friend?

I don't think social democracy is sustainable. The interests of capital inevitably overwhelm the interests of people if they're allowed to grow. You see the rolling back of these systems all over Europe. Even in vaunted Scandinavia, the far right is gaining ground.

I like social democracy, it's a good system. I'll take Clement Atlee a million times before I take Reagan. However social democracy in large part was a reaction to fear of soviet Bolshevism, now that the USSR is dead and China has gone completely capitalist, moneyed interests are bolder. Without an alternative structure of living, which for all its faults the USSR was, the myth of there being "no alternative" to modern neoliberalism is all encompassing.

I think a pure socialist system, moving to a communism, is preferable. Frankly, I think it's inevitable. Capitalism sows the seeds of its own destruction

 

[JahFocus CS]

What he has to say about the debate on "planning"

 

[JahFocus CS]

"The modern capitalist enterprise is the negation of democracy." - Wolff @ 7:38

 

[Tate]

Nihilist communism - Monsieur Dupont

Anarchist friend sent me this. Haven't read it all but it looks interesting, if depressing.

 

[CHL]

Nihilist communism - Monsieur Dupont

Anarchist friend sent me this. Haven't read it all but it looks interesting, if depressing.

Can you post your thoughts once you finish reading

 

[JahFocus CS]

Nihilist communism - Monsieur Dupont

Anarchist friend sent me this. Haven't read it all but it looks interesting, if depressing.

I haven't read it yet, but I agree with the subtitle: "optimism [the religious dogma that states there will be an ultimate triumph of good over evil]." Conscious action is required to take steps forward. If the working class doesn't establish socialism, the only alternative is barbarism. Ecological crisis is intensifying and failing to address the contradictions between labor and capital can lead to some scary futures. A regression to feudalism (or worse) isn't out of the question depending on the scale of ecological catastrophe and how much is destroyed.

 

[Tate]

I haven't read it yet, but I agree with the subtitle: "optimism [the religious dogma that states there will be an ultimate triumph of good over evil]." Conscious action is required to take steps forward. If the working class doesn't establish socialism, the only alternative is barbarism. Ecological crisis is intensifying and failing to address the contradictions between labor and capital can lead to some scary futures. A regression to feudalism (or worse) isn't out of the question depending on the scale of ecological catastrophe and how much is destroyed.

From what I've read, it's basically a repudiation of the mantra of class consciousness and the cycle of organization and failure. It seems to state early that capitalism won't collapse out of any organized high minded Marxism but from its own weight and soullessness(which is Marxian in my understanding). It will simply alienate too many for the middle to hold. But I can't speak to the text as a whole, haven't even finished half of it.

 

[JahFocus CS]

From what I've read, it's basically a repudiation of the mantra of class consciousness and the cycle of organization and failure. It seems to state early that capitalism won't collapse out of any organized high minded Marxism but from its own weight and soullessness(which is Marxian in my understanding). It will simply alienate too many for the middle to hold. But I can't speak to the text as a whole, haven't even finished half of it.

Yeah, you're right. I'm digging into it now and its the opposite of what I thought it was saying before . To some extent, I agree; no amount of theorizing is a substitute for struggle. You won't theorize your way to some magical solution. The only path is class struggle and all the lessons, losses, and victories that entails.

This was interesting:

From our experience we see the proletariat as being made up of many individuals, all different, and with just one thing shared by all of them - they have the same economic position, they all have the same functional status (labour) and all have the same economic value (wages). If general circumstances force you to work in an essential industry (and by essential we mean those industries that will make the continuation of capitalist society impossible by their absence) then you are a proletarian, this social status is not something to be fetishised, it's just a fact The working class is merely a function of the capitalist economy. We are interested in the proletariat only to the measure that the proletariat literally has in its hands the levers of capitalism's power. Only those who can be effective will be effective.

As for the left, everywhere we see unresurrectable and useless acts, which no matter the intention connect only with institutions that were formed ages ago: revolution has become, for too many, the smashing of mirrors - at the moment this is called anti-capitalism. There are no revolutionary means of connecting to society, there are no means of escaping absolute containment by institutional determinations, except in the locus of production; factory production is where society's power originates and it is the only place where it can be directly engaged for certain; outside the factories all is spectacle, all is mirrors. Every non-productive social form is more or less unreal and engaging with them in political terms is always a move into falsity. How is an anti-capitalist protester going to change the world? Bу what means exactly? We have given our formula, yes it is simplistic, it is materialistic, mechanistic even, but even so, everything in the world is made, and power derives from the control of this making, if the making is stopped then the source of this power is interrupted, that is our formula. So now let us hear the plans of the anti-capitalists, what for them is the source of capitalist power, how is ownership maintained? How are the anti-capitalists to engage the power they have theorised, and how to overthrow it? If it is a good recipe then we shall use it, if however, it begins: first take several million assorted people over the world and get them all angry about the conditions of their life, and induce them to catch a plane to some foreign city to march down the main thoroughfare, perhaps breaking a few windows, then we say this is not a good recipe but the continuation of miragic democracy by means other than the vote.

I mean, I think the issue is very basic: while there are factors that drive workers together (class interests), there are many centrifugal forces that drive workers apart (differential pay; various divisive ideologies like racism; lack of belief in oneself and one's class; etc.). The questions are can those centrifugal forces be overcome and how can they be overcome? Further, can they be overcome before the contradictions of the system create a crisis that cannot be escaped from in a forward direction (whether ecological or from developments that render most people superfluous to the production process and, therefore, unnecessary)?

Because with what these people are arguing -- that capitalism cannot be felled by the working class via conscious action -- I can only envision an apocalyptic scenario meeting what they are describing. And I don't see such a scenario as one that is conducive to establishing socialism... I think some sort of regression to a previous mode of production is more likely.

This was also interesting...

Consciousness, or overcoming the present situation with a 'strategy' or an intent to reorganise society as communism, must come at some second stage of revolution, after the conflagration, and from new material conditions. We said we agreed totally with the definition above but that we do not call it 'consciousness', we prefer the term 'interest'. In our scheme the working class act out of solidarity in opposition to capital because they must defend their interest, it is possible that the working class will never escape 'trade union' consciousness (ie. being selfish and without transformative vision), that is, they will never stop seeking to defend their interest, never get past wanting more pieces of pie. This is fine by us, it is possible that the working class could drive capitalism into collapse and effect their own erasure and never get beyond a bodily, single-minded pursuit of their own selfish interest. So long as the proletariat's demands stay within 'economic' terms, that is, so long as they remain impervious to political temptation then so long do they stay on course for naked conflict with the bourgeoisie in the factories: political demands obscure the clarity of self-interest, political compromise in times of crisis can easily be reached: it doesn't cost the owners anything, which owner lost out when workers got the vote?

EDIT: And more

Incidentally, it may seem that our formulations of how a revolution could take place are rather dystopian, a-human; certainly it gives us little pleasure to slowly erase our previously held leftist tendencies but at least our concepts are clear and lay down precise criteria. This cannot be said of most pro-revolutionaries, who get extremely vague when discussing how such-and-such of their gestures will engage with, let alone overthrow, present conditions. We would, perhaps, place more trust in pro-revolutionaries and thus in a human-based, participatory revolution, if it were not for the lamentable history of ideas-led revolutions. Pro-revolutionary practice is synonymous with rivalry, personal ambition, corruption, stupidity and failure. If the supporters of these groups did not continue to predict imminent revolution because of what they are doing and did not adopt a slavishly affirmative attitude towards their groups, and if they could maintain a sceptical and critical perspective then the meaning of themselves might amount to more than the feeble attempts to alleviate their personal experiences of alienation by universalising their rebellions and resentments. It is our lot to be bequeathed a legacy of bad acts, which forecloses the possibility of all acts. It is our personal experience that 'revolutionaries', as often as not, behave very badly in ethical terms (the surrendering of the Mayday 2001 crowd to the police in London being the latest example of losses and defeats incurred through ridiculous stunts), as if their heightened political consciousness gives them the right to neglect ordinary decency; this degeneracy is characteristic as much of anarchists as Trotskyites, anybody, in fact, who thinks they have consciousness and cannot bring themselves to reflect critically upon it. So there it is, revolution cannot be left to 'conscious' human actions and our only hope lies in the structural conflict of social forces created by capitalism/the economy - again, the blind mole tunnelling in the dark.

this reinforces what I said earlier about the apocalyptic scenario... their basic position is that things just have to be so bad that there's no other option. I mean, okay, maybe so. But planetary catastrophe or something like 90% unemployment due to automation making most people superfluous? In the latter case there could either be a basic income or simply mass murder by the bourgeoisie to eliminate people agitating for resources... I don't know.

 

[Tate]

Yeah, you're right. I'm digging into it now and its the opposite of what I thought it was saying before . To some extent, I agree; no amount of theorizing is a substitute for struggle. You won't theorize your way to some magical solution. The only path is class struggle and all the lessons, losses, and victories that entails.

This was interesting:



I mean, I think the issue is very basic: while there are factors that drive workers together (class interests), there are many centrifugal forces that drive workers apart (differential pay; various divisive ideologies like racism; lack of belief in oneself and one's class; etc.). The questions are can those centrifugal forces be overcome and how can they be overcome? Further, can they be overcome before the contradictions of the system create a crisis that cannot be escaped from in a forward direction (whether ecological or from developments that render most people superfluous to the production process and, therefore, unnecessary)?

Because with what these people are arguing -- that capitalism cannot be felled by the working class via conscious action -- I can only envision an apocalyptic scenario meeting what they are describing. And I don't see such a scenario as one that is conducive to establishing socialism... I think some sort of regression to a previous mode of production is more likely.

This was also interesting...



EDIT: And more



this reinforces what I said earlier about the apocalyptic scenario... their basic position is that things just have to be so bad that there's no other option. I mean, okay, maybe so. But planetary catastrophe or something like 90% unemployment due to automation making most people superfluous? In the latter case there could either be a basic income or simply mass murder by the bourgeoisie to eliminate people agitating for resources... I don't know.

I agree with your sentiment here. It's incredibly dark, pessimistic thinking(which, despite the austerity and bloodiness with which its portrayed, Marxist writings rarely are).

I'd like to disagree with it but it makes excellent points. Unionization hasn't led to radicalization. In fact it's been a moderating factor on labor and socdem parties. Downtrodden US and powerful European unions alike are further from socialization than they were in 1890. You see no broad class consciousness internationally. Workers like UKIP as much if not more than Labour(disregarding Labour's heresies). In the U.S. you see politicians even able to drive wedges between public and private unions.

Now we can attribute this to masterful social engineering by capital interests. But it certainly merits a discussion of whether class consciousness is a fallacy.

The point on factories vs classrooms is also thought provoking. The left has had many marvelous intellectuals over the century. Many who at length theorized and empiricized socialism. What good are they? The complexity of their work is lost upon a working man of moderate education. Now again, the bourgeoisization of worker's parties and the learning habits of the working class(something Chomsky touches on occasionally) have destroyed the leftist mindset among workers. However, was it ever there? Yes it clearly existed and we see the record, but the International broke over WW1 and radical unions were brought to heal via bribes, the soviets were left to die on the vine. So what good did education do?

The most disturbing implication is that the place of production may indeed be the only true radical locale. The neo-liberal globalization has removed production increasingly from western life. It almost implies a Maoist line of thought in that all of the first world is bourgeois. And Revolution only comes from the true bottom of the world.

It certainly comes off as apocalyptic. Maybe the final communism has always been prehistoric communism

It makes me recall Trotsky however. Trotsky states that a third of the foreign admirers of the October Revolution merely liked the idea of someone else revoting. That too many western Marxists were self satisfied and wished to avoid getting their hands dirty. Regardless of the scorn for academic theorizing in this, that's what it is. It's a manifesto on why organizing is pointless outside of exact circumstance and will fail even then.

It raises very good points, but a Leninist response would be of course; capitalists grow stronger if they operate unchecked. That's why a vanguard party of revolutionaries who operate outside of the wage system is necessary.

Overall I'm very ambivalent on this. Well written though.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

Not enough pushback on dissenting opinions here.

 

[JahFocus CS]

I still can never get over how bourgeois economics tossed the labor theory of value in the bushes as soon as Marx exposed the system

 

[JahFocus CS]

@Swavy Karl Marx, more excerpts from that piece that stuck out

The questions we have asked have been hard for us: 'How are women, organised as women, going to stop capital?' 'How are blacks, organised as blacks, going to stop capital?' 'How are women organised as workers going to stop capital?' 'How are blacks organised as workers going to stop capital?' Many theorists have tried to expand the definition of the working class to include political elements within it, thus the struggle of women by themselves for their position in the workplace is viewed positively because they are struggling 'consciously', that is, politically, for a defined political end. We, contrarily, see in this politicisation of struggle precisely the route by which it will be utilised to improve productivity, because political consciousness is precisely the factor that tricks workers into forgetting where their real power lies. Women do not harm capitalism by establishing themselves as equals to men in the workplace, blacks do not harm capitalism because they establish themselves as equals to whites; equal opportunity legislation is a source of great pride in capital's civilisation of itself, the ongoing victory of women and of blacks in this area is proclaimed by capital as its own victory, its own self-civilising progress towards a free, happy, equal society. Political demands may be satisfied under capitalist terms and used as a ground for further exploitation, this is the function of politics, and radical politics in particular.

The truth of the workers struggle against capital is not political, it is the truth of capitalism itself: the capitalist economy depends upon the exploitation of workers to reproduce itself and its conditions, therefore the workers alone, because of their centrality to the productive process, have the capacity to stop production, only they can reach past the roaring engines and press the off switch. It may seem that they would never desire to do this, and it is true they may never want to stop 'capitalism', they may never even conceptualise to themselves what capitalism is, but desire and consciousness do not come into it; the workers are forced into struggle by the very conditions in which they work, it is in their interest to go against capital because although capital is dependent on them, it is also hostile to them, that is, it is driven to cut their wages in real terms (either by redundancies, relocations, or increased productivity deals). To survive, workers have to improve or simply maintain their interest within production, so they are forced into conflict with capital, which has the opposite intention. This blind pursuit of interest, if followed to its limit, is enough to bring capital to a crisis.

We cannot escape this society while the fundamental aspects of its continuation are still functioning, we cannot come up with any real alternatives, beyond half-told dreams, until the economy comes crashing to a halt. It is the way the economy of the world works -this is not to say that it always works perfectly of course - that makes it possible for the ruling class to exercise its power. And the ruling ideas of society are the ideas of the ruling class. And in this democratic and mass world the ruling class provides us with many differing and even competing ideas. By providing us with these false opposites (globalisation/anti-globalisation, imperialism/anti-imperialism, vegan cafe/McDonalds, etc) the ruling classes can ensure that debates are kept on their terrain, that those with a sense of self-righteousness are kept busy playing the tiresome political games of good versus evil. These political movements, naturally, never threaten to destroy the economy (how could they?), they only 'threaten' to refine it or save it. History shows us that it is not movements that lead to genuinely revolutionary events, it is only complete economic failure and mismanagement If this occurs, and it was close to happening at the time of World War One, then it may be that the workers in those essential industries that keep the economy running will be forced to take them over. It is at this point that the material basis of society will have altered, and it is now that humanity has the chance to assert itself, and prevent the re-imposition of economics. Where movements are the dominant force in events one will only see a hasty replacement of effective government, a coup d'etat, one will not see the collapse of all sections of the ruling class as all these sections lose control, however temporarily, of the economy. There is a difference between the toppling of political parties in, for example, Serbia in 2001, and the turmoil in society in Europe at the end of WW1. There is a difference, for example, between the toppling of political parties in recent years in the Philippines and the limited, but very significant, events in France in 1968.

We have come to the conclusion that the useful proletariat only consist of those workers who work in the essential sectors of the economy. Those who produce things without which the economy would crumble and those who distribute things without which the economy would crumble. And these proletarians are only useful when they are actually at the point of production, that is, actually at work, whether it be working normally or preventing work through strikes and similar. We have also come to the conclusion that people will only be able to decide on new ways of living when the old ways have been broken materially. The concept of 'consciousness' is mistaken. There is no way that millions of people across the world will eventually arrive at a communist perspective and then overthrow the economy. It is common sense that permits one to come to such conclusions. It was once said that "the only true histories are those that have been written by men who have been sincere enough to speak truly about themselves." If we can look out from our own eyes and judge the world with our own feelings then we will get closer to the truth about things than in any other way. One major factor in 'revolutionary' politics is this optimism that workers will 'wake up'. But the only way workers will be considered to have 'woken up' is when they have become organised by 'revolutionary' experts, this leadership of experts will then end up killing workers the same way Lenin did. Steve Biko of South Africa was a proponent of 'consciousness-raising', and the ANC was successful in organising workers through this process, they started killing them routinely even before they got into power. These 'revolutionaries' who tell us that one day people will change their minds because they will realise the sinfulness of present society, these 'revolutionaries' are trying to make us see the world through a filter of hope, they have put common sense aside, they are offering us that same old pie in the sky that the clerics used to sell.

A recap of our perspective

(1) We do not think there is any role for class 'consciousness', that is the leadership of the working class by politically motivated groups in the revolution.

(2) We think pro-revolutionaries do have a role but it is not generally the role they award to themselves (for example, waving flags, masking their faces, travelling to international cities, exhibiting the most extreme gestures in the parade of gestures that are political demonstrations); we see one of our tasks as to inhibit those who would lead the revolution, especially those who are closest to us and claim not to want to lead; other tasks we have set ourselves are the creation of tools, tactics and perspectives for use by others in various critical events, for which we claim no intellectual property rights.

(3) Our concept of the revolution involves the working class engaging in a struggle that goes no further than maintaining its own interest. We advocate the struggle of self-interest because it cannot fail, we think if it is followed through to its end it will in itself bring capital down because this struggle is situated within production and the ownership of production is the basis of capitalist existence; if this direct struggle is not side-tracked by political mediations it will discover everything Monsieur Dupont has attempted to articulate over months and years in five minutes and many times over in many places of the world. The proletariat is organised by capital, in every place, its situation is always, everywhere, the same; in direct struggle it will always uncover the same truths, therefore any further organisation would be superfluous and potentially exploitative.

(4) Our mechanical schemes are not nineteenth century as some have argued, they are much older than that. We think the revolution will be in two stages, the first will involve the destruction of the capitalist system by the working class as it seizes production (which it might do without even formulating a desire to do so. Many factories will be occupied because many other factories are occupied - we oppose to the 'consciousness' model, the virus model, to 'intent’ we oppose infection - finally, objectively, always mechanistic even if in every instance there are many motivations and beliefs in play), the second stage of revolution will involve the participation of all humanity in its becoming human.

No way out

It was not our intention to promote alternatives to the consciousness-raising model but we have met with such (wilful) incomprehension and misinterpretation that we should conclude, for the sake of good form, by stating our continued support for pro-revolutionary positions and actions. It is absurd that we should have to make this declaration, we should not be participating as we do if we were against revolution. Vaguely, our intention is to talk to those who are able listen to us, we hope to influence only those who are already pro-revolutionary, it is our hope that if we can connect with anyone then our influence will help to curtail the mystifications that activists and experts promote. The specifics of any particular action are dependent on ability to act and the situation itself, this can be addressed in correspondence between interested groups and individuals, we have no set formula as such and we are prepared, much to the annoyance of activists, to condone the strategy of doing nothing and disengagement

This is a rather fascinating piece to me, although I do disagree with it (that doesn't mean they're wrong though...). To some extent, I see the perspective as a logical extreme of vulgar materialism, and I characterize their basic position and outlook on working class power as one of "disaster socialism" (that is, no amount of organizing or consciousness can produce socialism, only an epic crisis that results in the working class holding the means of production and socialism being the logical conclusion of that material reality).

I would say that material conditions are the single most important determinant, but in no way am I able to see how disaster socialism becomes a reality without class consciousness preceding it. They take material interests at face value as common sense. Yet, there are some pacifist people in this world who, if they were locked in a room with a person with a knife and were told they were going to be killed, would not fight. The first law of nature, self-preservation, ought to compel the person to defend themselves. They would not do what their immediate material situation demands, i.e. defend themselves. So that may be a poor comparison, but that is basically how I see it. For anything that is not literally controlled by the autonomic nervous system, I think some degree of consciousness is necessary to act and understand what you are doing.

Also, when we think about it, there are plenty of places capital has not yet hit with full effect. Aspects of our lives in the developed world are also still being commodified (social media, love, etc.). When does that end? I liken capital to a fire. If you can get a handle on it and harness it, it can be good. But that will not simply happen on its own; fire untamed burns everything down. The working class can't wait.

What do they propose workers do to defend themselves before the moment capitalism collapses (assuming it would, without conscious effort by the class)? Just take all the beatings the system offers with a smile?

 

[Gains]

Mutual aggression from the start of the 1917 revolution. Stalin probably takes the most blame out of any individual however.

fear of Bolshevik influence in the west going against US interests

 

[Tate]

@Swavy Karl Marx, more excerpts from that piece that stuck out











This is a rather fascinating piece to me, although I do disagree with it (that doesn't mean they're wrong though...). To some extent, I see the perspective as a logical extreme of vulgar materialism, and I characterize their basic position and outlook on working class power as one of "disaster socialism" (that is, no amount of organizing or consciousness can produce socialism, only an epic crisis that results in the working class holding the means of production and socialism being the logical conclusion of that material reality).

I would say that material conditions are the single most important determinant, but in no way am I able to see how disaster socialism becomes a reality without class consciousness preceding it. They take material interests at face value as common sense. Yet, there are some pacifist people in this world who, if they were locked in a room with a person with a knife and were told they were going to be killed, would not fight. The first law of nature, self-preservation, ought to compel the person to defend themselves. They would not do what their immediate material situation demands, i.e. defend themselves. So that may be a poor comparison, but that is basically how I see it. For anything that is not literally controlled by the autonomic nervous system, I think some degree of consciousness is necessary to act and understand what you are doing.

Also, when we think about it, there are plenty of places capital has not yet hit with full effect. Aspects of our lives in the developed world are also still being commodified (social media, love, etc.). When does that end? I liken capital to a fire. If you can get a handle on it and harness it, it can be good. But that will not simply happen on its own; fire untamed burns everything down. The working class can't wait.

What do they propose workers do to defend themselves before the moment capitalism collapses (assuming it would, without conscious effort by the class)? Just take all the beatings the system offers with a smile?

That's my basic beef with it as well. I need to finish it. Haven't had a chance to read it through yet