[CounterChaos]

Proletariat control over the means of production is the only thing required for socialism.

I always believed that the proletariat is 'guided' by a state that controls the means of production. What you state in my opinion is communism not socialism by any definition that I am aware. Socialism does however have different meanings and applications in the minds eye of many. The above statement could easily be construed to mean the act of accomplishing or to achieve an end in a general sense...I do have trouble with the "is the only thing required" part...

[ingliz]

"No national revolution has ever introduced socialism nor abolished capitalism. Nor does such a possibility exist. Economically, the national revolution cannot establish anything more than state capitalism [The "revolutionary-democratic" state]. But as Lenin himself noted, state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat is radically different from state capitalism under the rule of the bourgeoisie."

Nicked from a neo-Trotskyite rant, the rest is rubbish, but this seems sound enough.

[CounterChaos]

...That probably could have been simplified by him saying...Education matters...Did Lenin have that reasoning?

[ingliz]

Did Lenin have the same reasoning?

I will let you decide, maybe, maybe not, but he seemed to see some merit in Plekhanov's argument even if he thought it academic and unhelpful.

In the context of Kerensky's bourgeois revolution, what could have been:

[This is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the socialist state, but the "revolutionary-democratic" state,] the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.

We know he thought his revolution wasn't Kerensky's, though, we know that.

[CounterChaos]

Well, Lenin was a bit pessimistic by what he saw in the proletariat of the time I think...Not living then or understanding what their desires or aspirations were first hand limits my understanding of their needs. Today we see a large segment of society up in arms-vocal about issues etc. At the same time we see workers happily trudging along content on paying their union dues and letting their managers do their thinking and deciding for them...We see this (active-inactive) from all spectrum's...It was a very different time then-a simple time. I would think that Lenin probably didn't have much faith in the proletariat being anything other than selfish.

@ingliz...After re-reading the above, I realize I didn't clarify my thought....I really don't have a lot of respect for Lenin for three reasons...1. political suppression...2. promotion of violence....3. using the proletariat as a means to an end....I do admire the Paris Commune though, so I guess that makes me bias... ..Cheers

Oh, a last thought...Stalin...Do you think Stalin would have been, without Lenin?...Perversions of Marxism in my opinion...


Socialism will never be as a result of revolution, but rather as a product of reason. ~Sandori~

I don't believe in welfare, but I do believe in all fairing well. ~Sandori~

[ingliz]

Socialism will never be as a result of revolution, but rather as a product of reason

Bollocks!

1. political suppression...2. promotion of violence....3. using the proletariat as a means to an end

Revolution is the most authoritarian thing there is. Either anti-authoritarians, such as you, don't know what they're talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion; or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the movement of the proletariat. In either case they serve the reaction.

[CounterChaos]

You're right...I am anti-authoritarian and I'm also a pacifist. I don't feel however that I have betrayed anything or that I serve the reaction...So what does that make me then a traitor? Am I to be shot, or worse red carded

I happen to believe Lenin knew enough of the character of man to understand selfishness and he didn't care...Maybe because he was selfish too? (watch you blood pressure on this one its rise is not good for you)

I happen to have a very different vision of Socialism. I believe that if we are to survive as a species then the inevitability of Socialism is certain. I happen to believe that humans have the ability of reason and that our combined histories will one day be respected as one.

I "do" admire the Paris Commune. I am not going to pick up a weapon to TAKE anything...Only in self defense....Period.

Question: Do you consider Social Democrats the enemy?


I don't believe in welfare, but I do believe in all fairing well. ~Sandori~

[ingliz]

I "do" admire the Paris Commune...

Please, correct me if I am wrong but didn't the communards take up arms against the National Assembly in Versailles?

You would not have had a "Paris Commune" to admire if they hadn't - The Paris Commune would not have lasted a single day without making use of the authority of the armed people. I would reproach it for not having used it freely enough.

[CounterChaos]

I would reproach it for not having used it freely enough.

That's my point...They made a choice to stop the violence (well, were prodded), to not be seen in a negative light...Yes, it came at a cost politically...But to me that is human reason at one of its finest hours....Marx was furious...


ingliz, I really don't understand why you think "force of arms" (especially in this age of such enlightenment) is so important; especially when there are other peaceful avenues of approach. Actually a lot of headway has already been accomplished in the United States and Europe to include many parts of Asia..Yes, there is a long way to go...Is it the "I want it now syndrome?""I want to see it in my lifetime attitude?"..I don't get it.

[ingliz]

to me that is human reason at one of its finest hours

Magnanimous muddled idealism more like.

Instead of destroying its enemies it sought to exert moral influence on them. Instead of setting about expropriating the expropriators, it allowed itself to be led astray by Proudhonist dreams of establishing a just capitalism.

ingliz, I really don't understand why...

Liberals don't.

[CounterChaos]

Liberals don't

If I was to disagree with you on this, then we would both be wrong...Have a nice revolution...Peace

[ihofidel]

Anything that would prop up Maoism (without mentioning) while discrediting Leninism. That is the theme of Sandori's everyday posts. I am not stupid.

[Potemkin]

"No national revolution has ever introduced socialism nor abolished capitalism. Nor does such a possibility exist. Economically, the national revolution cannot establish anything more than state capitalism [The "revolutionary-democratic" state]. But as Lenin himself noted, state capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat is radically different from state capitalism under the rule of the bourgeoisie."

Nicked from a neo-Trotskyite rant, the rest is rubbish, but this seems sound enough.

Indeed it is. In fact, it's almost exactly what Lenin himself said. Immediately following the October Revolution, Lenin explicitly denied that he was trying to 'build socialism' in Russia. Instead, he was trying to build state capitalism in Russia as the necessary and sufficient condition for socialism, and bluntly said so on several occasions.

[CounterChaos]

Instead, he was trying to build state capitalism in Russia as the necessary and sufficient condition for socialism, and bluntly said so on several occasions.

Jeez..This sounds very close to my line of thinking on the inevitability.

Hypothetical questions, assuming communism takes hold under your definitions:

1. How does the proletariat maintain control, by threat of arms exclusive?

2. What arguments or powers does the bourgeoisie have in decision making; or, are they restricted to intellectual reasoning, scientific evidence gathering and implementation exclusively?

3. If a want of the proletariat is forced, is it tested under practical application? If so, who decides the results?

Thanks

[ingliz]

assuming communism takes hold

1. How does the proletariat maintain control, by threat of arms exclusive?

There is no "proletariat" in a communist society.

2. What arguments or powers does the bourgeoisie have in decision making; or, are they restricted to intellectual reasoning, scientific evidence gathering and implementation exclusively?

There is no "bourgeoisie" in a communist society.

3. If a want of the proletariat is forced, is it tested under practical application? If so, who decides the results?

See 1.

A Communist society is classless

If you meant "assuming the revolution was successful":

1. "The man who repudiates terrorism in principle – i.e., repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed
counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship. The man who
repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat repudiates the Socialist revolution, and digs the grave of Socialism." (Trotsky, "Terrorism and Communism")

2. "The Labour State considers itself empowered to send every worker to the place where his work is necessary." (Trotsky, "The Militarisation of Labour")

3. "Only a political party of the working class, i.e., a Communist party, is capable of uniting, educating and organising such a vanguard of the proletariat and the whole mass of working people, a vanguard which alone is able to resist the inevitable petty-bourgeois vacillations of this mass, the inevitable traditions and relapses of trade-union narrowness or trade-unionist prejudices amidst the proletariat, i.e., to lead the proletariat politically and through it to lead all the masses of the working people." (Lenin, "Works," Vol. 32, 4th Russian Edition)

[CounterChaos]

ingliz..That was very helpful thanks and I have another question...

Is the Party representative of "all" levels of society, or restricted to the intellectuals exclusive?

1. "The man who repudiates terrorism in principle – i.e., repudiates measures of suppression and intimidation towards determined and armed counter-revolution, must reject all idea of the political supremacy of the working class and its revolutionary dictatorship. The man who repudiates the dictatorship of the proletariat repudiates the Socialist revolution, and digs the grave of Socialism." (Trotsky, Terrorism and Communism)

That was powerful and really made me think...So thus the creation of The Party. OK I see that.. I have one more question that is probably my greatest concern.

Why then does the Party members have an unequal/better standard of living than that of the workers?

Thanks

[ingliz]

Is the Party representative of "all" levels of society, or restricted to the intellectuals exclusive?

The Party is representative of "all" levels of society

The Soviet state is organised and functions on the principle of democratic centralism, namely the electiveness of all bodies of state authority from the lowest to the highest, their accountability to the people, and the obligation of lower bodies to observe the decisions of higher ones. Democratic centralism combines central leadership with local initiative and creative activity and with the responsibility of the each state body and official for the work entrusted to them.

Why then does the Party members have an unequal/better standard of living than that of the workers?

Why not? Socialism is not communism.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.

[Khalq]

But ideally they wouldn't be paid more than the wages of a skilled worker. We wouldn't want some overpaid complacent clique disconnected from reality, would we? Ideally ...

[CounterChaos]

Why not? Socialism is not communism.

Quote:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his work. ...

..Sneaky ..."From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." ...

This is why I prefer to be Utopian. In this age of such scientific enlightenment, I can envision a super computers programming fulfilling the role of the Party....

I have a need to live in a society where equal standards of living is guaranteed, where individual freedom of expression is respected, where the results of your artistic, innovative labors are shared by all. A society where man does not forsake the responsibility to his brother, for want of fulfilling his competitive needs.

[Khalq]

A computer is a tool. It can greatly help with the organization and planing process. But that's only the technical role the Party (or planing organ) usually fulfills. The Party has other, human-related political tasks, most important during the revolution and socialist transition.