Marxism for Super-Experts

Marx is defending his ideas as outlined in the Manifesto against criticism from Bakunin.

As far as I can tell Marx never abandoned his idea of a despotic transitional period and you certainly haven't shown that he has.

Bakunin had Marx and his followers dead to rights:

Whereas Marx's comments simply reassert his "despotic inroads" as outlined in his manifesto:

 

Is this addressed to me? It is convention to reply to challenges and mention who you are replying to. I am not a boy-o and if you call me stupid I will have to be a lot harder on you, or ignore you. I asked you a number of specific questions and you have ignored them and simply posted a long paste. Still no link either.

This is not good enough. You need to be answering my specific questions, and posting quotes relevant, preferably highlighting the most important bits.

You claim to know what you are talking about, and call me stupid, but I am in the majority, and you represent a small minority.

You have not supported anything.

This is worthless unless you explain how it negates Bolshevism, because it certainly isnt obvious. The Bolsheviks had democratic workers committees. Bear in mind also that this only lasted a few weeks.

again, I fail to see why you have posted this. Tell me how it negates Bolshevism.

again, the same question. Not that Marx says the peasants will be secondary to the workers and that it would have to lead to a national government, ie state.

why have you quoted this?

what the hell is situationalism?

And Lenin wanted the peasants on board didnt he? Three quarters of the Red Army were peasants. Lenin's slogan was bread, peace and land. Land to the peasants. This was a policy passed on the day of the revolution at the congress of soviets. In Russia, the peasants were no longer serfs but they could not afford to buy land, so to get land meant massive debts. Lenin's decree on land nationalised all land so there was no buying and selling of land, no debts for peasants:

"The right to use the land shall be accorded to all citizens of the Russian state (without distinction of sex) desiring to cultivate it by their own labour, with the help of their families, or in partnership, but only as long as they are able to cultivate it. The employment of hired labour is not permitted.

In the event of the temporary physical disability of any member of a village commune for a period of up to two years, the village commune shall be obliged to assist him for this period by collectively cultivating his land until he is again able to work.

Peasants who, owing to old age or ill-health, are permanently disabled and unable to cultivate the land personally, shall lose their right to the use of it but, in return, shall receive a pension from the state."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_on_Land

why would an ordinary peasant want to argue with that?

SUPPORT that Bolshevism was anti-Marxist revisionism. Bolshevism did not require totalitarianism, but the civil war made that inevitable. Support that Marx was opposed to central planning. He said the Paris Commune was a "rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop".

Go back to my post and answer my original questions properly.

 

so 75% of the Red Army being peasants is not involving them?

"The Bolsheviks had a lot of support from the peasants, much more than the Whites had. This was because the Whites treated the peasants very harshly in the areas they controlled. Furthermore, they had close ties with the old aristocracy, which led to even more hatred.



Peasant support for the Bolsheviks was not only a result of Lenin’s political savoir faire but also a result of the Whites political and social ineptitude. Firstly, the Whites treated the peasant class harshly, they did not see the advantage of gaining the support of the larger lower class. Further more their acceptance of allied support, allowed the Bolsheviks to portray themselves as patriotic, fighting for the rights and desires of society. “The Whites had prejudiced their cause by calling in the aid of the foreigner” . The Red Army was fighting with a new sense of patriotism, and support for the Bolsheviks’ increased. Peasant support for the Bolshevik regime was a valuable and essential factor in their success “social support was the key to power” for the Bolshevik regime in the Russian Civil War. The support of the peasants meant that the Bolsheviks had a constant supply of eager soldiers wanting to fight for the socialist cause."

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081015040748AA8KHjv

a random source, two actually, quoted on the net.



Lenin outlines the Bolshevik's position:

Vladimir Lenin's
Alliance Between the Workers and Exploited Peasants
Nov 1917

"Touching on the question of an alliance between the Bolshevik workers and the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries, whom many peasants at present trust, I argued in my speech that this alliance can be an "honest coalition", an honest alliance, for there is no radical divergence of interests between the wage-workers and the working and exploited peasants. Socialism is fully able to meet the interests of both"

"the Bolsheviks would be obliged to abstain from voting on questions which concern purely Socialist-Revolutionary points in the land programme approved by the Second All-Russia Congress of Soviets. Such, for instance, would be the point on equal land tenure and the redistribution of land among the small holders. "

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/nov/18.htm

 

1. Situationalism - the theory that behavior is chiefly response to immediate situations.

[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/situationalism]

Bolshevik Revolution in Russia was predicated upon Lenin's poor attempt to fit Marxism, to the reality of the Russian peasant & proletariat. He responded to their sitution, and in during so with his methodology, broke with Marx.


2. How did he break with Marx. [How Bolshevism is Anti-Marxist Revisionism]

[http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.html]

[http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm]

Lenin exhalts the Soviet as the means of proletariat political expression. He hold them as Lords of communist protection and abitrators of social freedom, when in fact, Marx, through is lauding of the Paris Commune, lays bare his intentions for the prolitariat. They can achieve this themselves, universally and democratically once the revolution has succeded. In an instant, the society can transform in the organization of the Paris Commune. The Soviet, i.e. the State becomes a redundancy with its establishment only serving to recreate and then perpetuate a State Nomenklatura. The Soviet expropriates and then replaces Bourgeoise dominance by the political definitions of Leninism. The Civil War was by no means a coarcer of this Totalitarian system. By the ideologically requirements of Bolshevism, The Red Terrorism and then Totalitariansm would have nevertheless been administered without cause.

There is a cognitive difference between Marx and Lenin, and its strange how to dont see it.

PS: I mentioned the Peasantry for the purpose of showing how national "backwardness" is not sufficiant reason to blame the failure of Communism in Russia. A healthly rural proletariat can, as seen in the Paris Commune and defined by Marx, play a significant role in the revolution against capitalist modes of production.

The Paris Commune was not a rough Sketch. It was Blueprint to Marxist Revolution, and remains to be the only form whre the governmental apparatus did make slaves of the peasant or the worker.

 

"Didnt Make Slaves"

 

Marx was an authoritarian, insane idiot whose ideology has never been successfully implemented.

Major communist nations eventually turn to capitalism to pick up the pieces.

 

Those nations practiced State Socialism, which was hyper-regulated capitalism. The workers worked for, and supplied Capital for the State to sell on the Market.

They were not Communist. Which are, by Marxist definition, free and decentralized political and economic associciations.

Rightists have never understood and I have little hope for the future.

 

You have a point, but the problem is not capitalism per say, but people's lack of desire for things other than material goods. It's a culture problem, not a capitalism problem. There have been capitalist cultures in the past that were much more religious and they did just fine. Don't mix up all portions of human society into capitalism. Capitalism is a system of exchange, not a moral system.

 

lol.

Rereading what I wrote. I think I overdid it a tad bit.

Nevertheless, yes Capitialism is mode of exchange, however, to perpetuate itself it has to evicerate moral systems, such that noble ideals such as alturism and social justice are marginalized as "unrealistic" components of the Human Condition. It succeeds in this endeavor by insituting consumorism as the driving force of capitalist consolidation. Without rabid consumorism, capitalism collapses. Gluttonous desire for an infinite volume of consumor goods marginalizes ideas that cannot conform to said reality. Charity beyond bourgeois philanthropy is such an idea.

 

I see that post #76 is being completely ignored...

The bottom line is that most Marxists can't even be honest about what it is that they advocate. At least Marx had the balls to say what he meant.

 

Yeah Sorry about that. Daft Response took up my time.

It might just been down to situational interpretation. My reading of Marx's critque of the some of Bakunin's tenants actually accentuate some of the similarities between the both the transitional state as well as the prescribed social organization of a Communist society. Rather than requote just look to the quotes already posted.

 

I did look to the quotes already posted. It is clear that both young Marx and old Marx advocated for using central planning by a single authoritative body to attain the desired goals. That is counter to the claim you made in the OP.

Marx advocated for the use of forcible governmental means to attain his goals. True or false?

 

False. He advocated the dictatorship of the prolitarian which was fundamentally defined differently by Mature Max in comparison to Young Marx. This is shown by his support the ANTI AUTHORITARIAN societal organization of the Paris Commune.

Juxtaposing that to some of the points that Bakunin there are various similarities. For instance, the hamlet sized economic and political organization of the Paris Commune.

 

Look back to your post #59. You quoted Marx saying,

"It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened."​

You are simply denying Marx's own words.

Are you sure that you are a Marxist at all?

 

"It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened."

This happens when the workers themselves, much like the Paris Commune, sieze upon the means of production thus rending the state superfluous. Therefore, it would render the governmental mechanisms of prolitariat dictatoriship uncessary.

 

Which is no different than the "despotic inroads" outlined in the Manifesto that you denied earlier. Indeed, Marx was defending these "inroads" against criticism from Bakunin.

 

"Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore,which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production."

Siezing the means of production consitutes the despotic and polemic inroads to a revolutionary restructing of society. Your interpretation of Bourgeois State structure is being applied to fundmentally Anti-State affirmations of Mature Marx doctrines.

 

"Siezing the means of production consitutes the despotic and polemic inroads to a revolutionary restructing of society."

This is what you've been trying to deny all along. This cannot be done without a despotic government. Plain and simple.

That quote you used in the exact same one I originally put forth, the same one that you claimed Marx reneged on even though his later words only reassert that exact same idea.

 

No, that is your assumptions and most like based on Bourgieos forms of state hegemony.

It can and does constitute a unified siezure of the MEANS of production. Manufacturing plants, Resource Depots, Mines, etc.

It does not require a totalitarian siezure of poltical power. That is an affirmation of Boleshevism.

 

My assumptions? I am merely accepting Marx for what he said,

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.

These measures will of course be different in different countries.

Nevertheless in the most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.

3. Abolition of all right of inheritance.

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.

6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.

8. Equal liability of all to labour. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c., &c.​

See how this discussion has come full circle? I originally quoted that and asked how you can reconcile it with your faulty view of what Marxism is. You then claimed that Marx reneged on those assertions and supplied quotes from "mature" Marx that defended those very ideas. Finally, you came back in post #92 and actually quoted a part of the excerpt above to somehow show that this wasn't what Marx was saying. Unbelievable.

You may be fooling yourself but don't think for a second that anyone else is going to take your word over Marx's as to what Marxism actually entails.

 

Again, as contemporary academics it is important to infer and analyze the writings of those come before us. Thats the point of research my friend. You obviously come from a fundamentally un-learned postion and again, this is something I cannot help you with. All I can do is plead for you to read something past one page of Manifesto and see if you can wake up to reality. Other than that, I shake your hand and send you on your way.

 

Your Questions are cyclical as I have already refuted Young Marx in comparison to Mature Marx and yet here you are bringing up the Manifesto again.

I grow bored of this game your playing

 

So you say, I hope you are gonna explain how. Let's see.

Let me just stop you there. To call Bolshevism anti-Marxist is very strong, you are not just saying they made mistakes or in your cosy hindsight you think you could have done better, you are saying that the Bosheviks were deliberately doing the opposite of what Marx would have, to foil any chance of communism. Stalinism could be called anti-Marxist, but this is ludicrous, or at least a ginormous claim I doubt you can back up.

[http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.html]

link doesnt work by the way, I had to track the quote down, here is a working link hopefully

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm

[http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm]

another link that doesnt work, please paste them properly

http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm


Lenin exhalts the Soviet as the means of proletariat political expression. He hold them as Lords of communist protection and abitrators of social freedom, when in fact, Marx, through is lauding of the Paris Commune, lays bare his intentions for the prolitariat. They can achieve this themselves, universally and democratically once the revolution has succeded. In an instant, the society can transform in the organization of the Paris Commune. The Soviet, i.e. the State becomes a redundancy with its establishment only serving to recreate and then perpetuate a State Nomenklatura. The Soviet expropriates and then replaces Bourgeoise dominance by the political definitions of Leninism. The Civil War was by no means a coarcer of this Totalitarian system. By the ideologically requirements of Bolshevism, The Red Terrorism and then Totalitariansm would have nevertheless been administered without cause.

There is a cognitive difference between Marx and Lenin, and its strange how to dont see it.

PS: I mentioned the Peasantry for the purpose of showing how national "backwardness" is not sufficiant reason to blame the failure of Communism in Russia. A healthly rural proletariat can, as seen in the Paris Commune and defined by Marx, play a significant role in the revolution against capitalist modes of production.

The Paris Commune was not a rough Sketch. It was Blueprint to Marxist Revolution, and remains to be the only form whre the governmental apparatus did make slaves of the peasant or the worker.[/QUOTE]

still no spell check I see. Not very professional you know.

Well, sorry but Russia was not Paris. Russia was a massive backward country and Paris a relatively modern city, which had its bourgeois revolution a long time earlier.

You still havent convinced me, i dont really know what your point is.

What is so different between the soviets and the Paris commune? The soviets were democratic bodies which spontaneously sprang up among the workers, and Lenin said all power to the soviets before the Bolsheviks had a majority in them.

It is rubbish to say that the Bolsheviks would have administered the Red Terror without cause. In the first half of 1918, just 22 people were executed by the Red side. This was in a huge backward country stuck in a war that had killed 3 million Russians, and overthrown Tsarism and capitalism in two revolutions. The civil war hadnt started, and politics was peaceful, democratic, with plenty of debate.

Marx always said that the peasantry would only be able to play a supporting role. In fact Marx though socialist revolution would start in advanced countries, and with good reason - he knew socialism was much less likely to be possible in a backward country.

But later the Reds faced attack from the Whites. Churchill talked of an ‘the anti-Soviet crusade of 14 nations’. 200,000 foreign troops helped the Whites. Of course the Bolsheviks had to defend the revolution (Red Terror, started in September 191. Right SRs had been murdering Bolshevik leaders, and Lenin had been shot. "The Bolsheviks lost their majority in the Baku soviet, where Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries welcomed British troops to ‘establish democracy’. Contrary to the mythology, the Bolshevik leaders peacefully resigned – but were then arrested and executed on the order of the British general, W Thompson." (source)

In the summer of 1918, Mensheviks and SRs took part in massacres of Bolsheviks.

The red terror was publicly declared, it was no secret. It was self defence, defence of the revolution. The Whites were brutal, and were killing all the Jews. "Werth estimates that 150,000 people were killed in the anti-semitic pogroms conducted by Denikin’s troops in 1919."

 

Marx's criticism of capitalism relies on the long-dead labor theory of value, many of the modern proponents ignore the fact that economics is not a zero-sum game, and it still relies on the use of violent force to take property that has been exchanged peacefully and voluntarily. Marxism will always require some sort of tyranny to enforce its view of property. Collective ownership has to have something to enforce it.

 

You seem to have it stuck in your head that my world revolves around convincing you.

It doesnt.

However, in response to your rectification of Soviet power...

Party Vanguard-ism is a poltical affirmation of Marxist-Leninism, hence, the need to apply it to "backward" & "uneducated" nations. Yet, the preponderance of Totalitarian Socialism, i.e. State Socialism, breeds from said poltical affirmations.

[History Can Speak For Its Self]

Marx, without re-quoting, inplicitly states that the Proletariat, as seen in the ideological success of the Paris Commune, can infact, with the help the Rural Proletariat, sieze upon the means of production without said Vanguard Party.

The Soviet organization of the government, post-revolurition & pre-Civil War was a representative body that laid the frame work of a Soviet State Apparatus.


Article On of the 1918 Soviet Constitution

http://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/government/constitution/1918/article1.htm


Leninism, with out Civil Provocation, had established the means to a Totalitarian dictatorship as well as the perpetuation of the State.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik]

When the Mensheviks sided with the Whites, all be it nievely, they were only attempting to stave off Lenin's attempts at Marxist-Revisionism in the case of Soviet Political Organization. [Small Soviet Central Bodies]

Ultimately, the people do not need a party elite to effectivily protract a revolution. They can do so themselves, without the need to Seize and establish a perpetual State Dictatorship

The Paris Commune emoddies the model of Marxist Revolution. though necessity requires it to be on a global scale.