Income in the dictatorship of the proletariat

75 posts / 0 new
Last post
Tagore2
Income in the dictatorship of the proletariat
Printer-friendly version

The value of the labor force is equal to the amount of work necessary for its reproduction and expansion.

But the price of labor force varies depending on the relationship between supply and demand, and above all on the measures that restrict competition as: diplomas, seniority, trade unions, immigration restrictions, numerus closus, etc.

So the distribution of income is subject to a balance of power, not just economic, that will be greatly changed with the dictatorship of the proletariat. Today, the income ratio can range from 1 to 100 and beyond. In your opinion, what should be the income ratio at the beginning of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

Assume that the (purchasing power parity) income of a maneuver is 1. What should be the income of:

  • a poor peasant (small landowner)?
  • a skilled worker?
  • a highly skilled knowledge worker (engineer, doctor)?
  • a factory director?

I would like to know what seem just and necessary to you.

LBird
Income? Or a just distribution?

Tagore2 wrote:

Assume that the (purchasing power parity) income of a maneuver is 1. What should be the income of:

  • a poor peasant (small landowner)?
  • a skilled worker?
  • a highly skilled knowledge worker (engineer, doctor)?
  • a factory director?

I would like to know what seem just and necessary to you.

There won't be any 'income' in the form of money, because production and distribution will be under the democratic control of the producers, Tagore2.

 

Tagore2
Income. Not just distribution.

No other opinion on the subject? Everyone thinks that the wage will disappear immediately after the seizure of the political power? But then the dictatorship of the proletariat is not the beginning of the revolution, but the end, since the economy is already fully "under control" ("democratic" according to LBird). Everyone fully submits to the disappearance of money, to the planning, and therefore we do not need a dictatorship, we are already in a communist society.

I personally do not think the wage and money disappear immediately, simply because we can not immediately transform the capitalist society into communism. Income and trade will continue to exist for several years, which also implies a wage differentiation.

The question I ask is: what will be the pay policy of the Communists? Who will win what, how, how much, how long and under what conditions? Since we can not really think in absolute terms, I asked the question as a ratio.

LBird
Wages and money must be destroyed immediately

Tagore2 wrote:
I personally do not think the wage and money disappear immediately...

This is a difference between us of political definition, Tagore2.

If production is not under our democratic control, it is neither Communism, dictatorship of the proletariat, nor the revolution.

If someone other than the democratic producers control social production, then it's nothing to do with workers' power.

If either 'individuals' (traders, wage-payers, bosses) or a 'political organisation' (a party), who are not under democratic control, are in command of production, then it is nothing whatsoever to do with Communism (even if the elite call it a 'transitional form').

Workers beware.

Tagore2
Vote in the soviets

To get money and wage abolished, this still should be voted in the soviets.

And for this is voted in the soviets, this must, in companies, a majority of delegates was elected expressly for this purpose.

But the proletariat will not vote for such delegates. Just because the proletariat will not saw off the branch on which it sits! Unless the "democratic control" of production and consumption ... is imposed against the will of the proletariat?

Wage and money perform economic functions that can not be replaced immediately. The wage and the money will be removed by the Soviets when another economic organization will have been established. At this time, the abolition of wage labor will be only a formality, since everyone will have already passed to the new system.

The functions performed by the wage system are:

  1. Consumption. Salary is, with other incomes, the only way to obtain consumer goods, unless dependence of income of others (children in a family for example).

  2. Supervision of work. Salary is, with other incomes, the fundamental way to control the work, for production and distribution are actually performed.

You will tell me that the revolutionary proletariat does not need to be controlled. But you forget that everyone is not the revolutionary proletariat, and some are even very hostile to the revolution. And these non-revolutionary people, how to control them? Will we systematically use violence, deport them by millions, if they do not want to work for free according to the plan? No, we will use of salary; for not to turn these tens of millions of non-revolutionaries in counter-revolutionary militants.

What the proletariat can do is:

  1. Delete individual profit and individual land income. Leave only the wages and the mixed incomes (incomes of self-employed).

  2. Establish a salary structure that reduces high salaries and increases low salaries. The wages ratio and the reduction of wages in the structure of consumption will reveal the evolution of society towards communism or backwards capitalism.

  3. Develop a communist work and consumption organization. It consists in the workforce planning (training, operating, maintaining), and in the workforce self-control.

Of course the role of the dictatorship is to push up the communist organization against all other organizations forms. But the communist organization will not grow like a mushroom overnight. It depends on intrinsic factors, but especially on the development of the class struggle, which can possibly moving back it or even destroy it.

LBird
The process of revolution?

I think we have differing views about the process of revolution, Tagore2.

The essential difference, I think, is whether the proletariat build their consciousness and relations within a failing bourgeois society, so that on the 'Great Day', money, wages, markets, employment and commodities have become a thing of the past, or whether the 'Great Day' precedes the process of abolition.

I favour the former, because I think that the revolution has to be a democratic process, involving the majority of the proletariat.

I think you favour the latter, which I don't, because it leaves consciousness in the hands of a special minority (a party).

I don't know how the special minority can come to consciousness, if the wider class can't.

The revolution has to be a mass, democratic affair, not the act of a minority with a special consciousness that is denied to the majority.

 

slothjabber
Cannot square the circle

If there is no consciousness that the 'special minority' has before the rest of the class, then how come you are a communist if the rest of the class isn't? Either it is, or you aren't, Lbird. Your static view of consciousness doesn't permit of a third possibility.

 

Of course, if you are a conscious communist in the midst of a pre-communist class, then the answer to 'how can the minority come to consciousness before the majority' is 'like this'. The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the working class. However, these are not the only ideas. Communist minorities develop by challenging the ideas of the ruling class, by critically engaging with their existence, their lives and the ideological justifications they are presented with. Communist majorities develop when huge numbers of people are doing it, rather than tiny numbers.

LBird
Class or party consciousness?

slothjabber wrote:

If there is no consciousness that the 'special minority' has before the rest of the class, then how come you are a communist if the rest of the class isn't? Either it is, or you aren't, Lbird. Your static view of consciousness doesn't permit of a third possibility.

I've said all this to you before, sj. For some reason, you won't accept my explanation. Class consciousness must be built throughout the class.

sj wrote:

Of course, if you are a conscious communist in the midst of a pre-communist class, then the answer to 'how can the minority come to consciousness before the majority' is 'like this'. The ruling ideas of any epoch are the ideas of the working class. However, these are not the only ideas. Communist minorities develop by challenging the ideas of the ruling class, by critically engaging with their existence, their lives and the ideological justifications they are presented with. Communist majorities develop when huge numbers of people are doing it, rather than tiny numbers.

'Communist majorities' must precede the 'great day'.

That's what separates my views from those who think that 'Communist minorities' can make a revolution.

If me and you can develop 'class consciousness', so can the majority of other workers.

slothjabber
evading the question

LBird wrote:

I've said all this to you before, sj. For some reason, you won't accept my explanation. Class consciousness must be built throughout the class.

...

'Communist majorities' must precede the 'great day'.

That's what separates my views from those who think that 'Communist minorities' can make a revolution.

If me and you can develop 'class consciousness', so can the majority of other workers.

 

And who are these mythical people who think 'Communist minorities' make a revolution? I think the working class makes a revolution.

 

And why don't those workers develop communist consciousness at the moment? That's the important question. There are those of us who have come to a communist consciousness. Are we special? No, just have come to particular conclusions that we think are generally applicable, because the particular circumstances that we've experienced have allowed us to reach said conclusions. Other workers, who have not lived our lives, but have lived through the same events, have reached different conclusions, or maybe not considered such political questions at all. Consciousness is not automatic. Just because we have reached a certain set of political positions doesn't mean that everyone will.

 

You aren't answer the question or advancing any arguments at all, just blindly stating your position. 'Class consciousness must be built through the class'. By whom must it be built? Why must it be built? How can it be built?

 

I'd say that the working class has to build its own consciousness. Your formulation implies that some force outside the working class educates the workers. I reject that notion as elitist. The working class educates itself, it doesn't need an intellectual elite, of you or anyone else 'teaching' it. It edicates itself by struggling in its own interests, and by examining its own situation. Not by some self-appointed guru spreading enlightenment.

 

'Communist majorities' must precede the 'great day'.

 

Assertion. A failure to understand the dynamic nature of consciousness. A failure to understand that workers can change their minds, and their mindsets. A failure to see that the working class can learn through struggling.

 

Revolution is a process not an event. It starts with some workers questioning the system, with some workers rebelling against their conditions. At some point it starts to bring in more workers. These workers evolve new ways of acting, new ways of being, in the process of struggle. This is the revolution. This is communist consciousness taking hold in the working class. Not some socialist lecturers teaching dumb workers.

LBird
Old ground re-visited

We're going over old ground, sj.

You seem to agree with most of what I say, but then conclude that I don't say that.

Why you do this, I don't know.

My position is simple: workers must develop themselves. You seem to agree, but then claim that I don't argue that.

If others understand your argument, I don't.

slothjabber
because you argue against yourself

Your argument rests on ascribing false positions to others - like, we think that a revolution is made by a minority - while your own view is a contradiction - we are elitists because you believe the working class can't make a revolution until you and other socialists have instructed it in how to be revolutionary.

 

Until you address these contradictions and falsities in your theorising, people will continue to pull you up on them.

Fred
slothjabber tells LBird:

slothjabber tells LBird: "you're argument rests on ascribing false positions to others." I think slothjabber is quite correct to say this. Nobody should indulge is ascribing false positions to others. 

LBird
Who holds the 'false position'?

Fred wrote:

slothjabber tells LBird: "you're argument rests on ascribing false positions to others." I think slothjabber is quite correct to say this. Nobody should indulge is ascribing false positions to others. 

I'm not 'ascribing false positions' to anyone, Fred.

I've always merely asked the question 'Will the revolution be made by the majority of the proletariat?'

And I've always received the answer 'No'.

That's why Tagore2 thinks that wages and money will continue after the revolution. Because for Tagore2, the majority won't have rejected wages and money as a way of producing and distributing weath.

I disagree.

If one thinks that a minority can make the revolution, then one is confronted with the problem that the majority still want wages to buy commodities, so that they can live.

Which is why it's an issue for Tagore2, but not for me. We have different views about the revolutionary process.

 

lem_
LBird

i also believe you are engaging in false rhetoric.

no offence, but you sound like a putin troll :-/

LBird
Offence taken

lem_ wrote:

i also believe you are engaging in false rhetoric.

no offence, but you sound like a putin troll :-/

If I'm a troll, why bother talking to me?

I've been nothing but polite to you, lem_.

I suppose that in your world, my 'politeness' is just another example of my 'false rhetoric'.

 

Fred
Well, for my money LBird, the

Well, for my money LBird, the revolution has to be made by a majority of the proletariat or it'll never succeed. I guess the "minority" referred to is the Party.  The Party of course can't make the revolution in its own. That is a ridiculous bourgeois notion. But the Party is produced by the class in revolutionary circumstances when class consciousness  is high and developing daily.  Those with the highest and clearest and I suppose bravest amount of proletarian consciousness will feel the need to come together in solidarity and pool all their thoughts, ideas and intuitions  together to push forward the class in its fight.  This is what I have come to believe as a result of the little experience and knowledge I have of this vital and all-absorbing subject.

And I must admit that I have received nearly all these ideas from the ICC.  Where else could I have got them from, apart from a revolutionary  organization of the working class?  Answer: nowhere.   But I haven't taken them on board uncritically but have thought about them too.  Also - and   this is very important for me - these ideas and the platform of the  ICC when I was confronted  by them, answered a sort of yearning that I'd been undergoing for years and constituted an EUREKA moment of clarity and inspiration. . And answered previously unanswerable political questions too like what is the future if any  for humanity.  

But I digress.  

In believing in the necessity of the Party as an integral part of a proletarian revolution, and the Party as essential to its success, I look back at especially the revolutionary movement in Germany 1918-21 which clearly and obviously lacked any revolutionary theoretical underpinning and grasp of the lessons of previous proletarian struggle which a Party  organization could have provided (despite comrades like Luxemburg and Liebknecht being around though they were not organised in Party style) and thus defeat was more or less  inevitable.  

LBird
Theory from party, or from class?

Fred wrote:
...revolutionary theoretical underpinning...

You apparently believe that this quality is to be found in a party.

I don't.

My experience of the SWP (and all my friends/acquaintances of all other parties) is that they won't allow the workers who they recruit to run the party.

I think that 'revolutionary theoretical underpinning' can't emerge from a party.

I think that parties smother any development of 'revolutionary theoretical underpinning'.

Only the widest possible freedom for the class itself, in opposition to centralised parties, can produce the divergence, disagreement, factionalism, critical thinking and democracy, required for the emergence of revolutionary theoretical underpinning.

There must be at least two answers to any question, and a centralised party cannot have two centres, by definition.

Crisanto
The Proletarian Revolution

In the text from World Revolution entitled 'The Proletarian Revolution' in this link https://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_prolrevn.htm under the sub-heading 'The Revolutionary Civil War' it says:

“The collectivisation of these services would make deep inroads on the wage system. As for the direct distribution of individual articles of consumption, the total suppression of monetary forms, it is difficult to say how far this process could proceed as long as the revolution remains in one region. But we can say that we are for the maximum possible assault on the wage form, and no doubt the revolutionary workers will not be well disposed towards paying themselves wages once they have seized power (my emphasis). To be more concrete, we are in favour of measures which tend to regulate labour and distribution in social, collective terms (measures such as rationing combined with a universal obligation to work subject to the demands of the workers' councils) - rather than measures which involve a calculation of each individual contribution to social labour.”

The text discusses about wages under the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition period. I think the text is relevant in the discussion of this thread. I hope so. 

LBird
Transitional wages?

Crisanto wrote:

In the text from World Revolution entitled 'The Proletarian Revolution' in this link https://en.internationalism.org/ir/1_prolrevn.htm under the sub-heading 'The Revolutionary Civil War' it says:

....

The text discusses about wages under the dictatorship of the proletariat in the transition period. I think the text is relevant in the discussion of this thread. I hope so. 

Thanks for the link, Crisanto. I'll have a look later.

But...

There can't be any "wages under the d. of th p. in the transition period", because to have entered the 'transition period', there must have been a majority of the proletariat in active favour of it, and thus the d. of the p. will be actively suppressing wages, not paying them.

The minor regions still under bourgeois forms of socio-economic production will be quickly destroyed. Don't forget, we'll have the power of the Seventh Fleet (and the rest of the power of the collapsed core bourgeois states!) under our democratic control.

No wages, money, income or markets. They are not acceptable forms of production and distribution.

 

lem_
sorry but

LBird wrote:

lem_ wrote:

i also believe you are engaging in false rhetoric.

no offence, but you sound like a putin troll :-/

If I'm a troll, why bother talking to me?

I've been nothing but polite to you, lem_.

I suppose that in your world, my 'politeness' is just another example of my 'false rhetoric'.

 

nothing about being "impolite" - if you chronically import obviously incorrect assumptions to people, then you are either a troll, or insane.

 

 

LBird
Mad as a Communist?

lem_ wrote:

LBird wrote:

lem_ wrote:

i also believe you are engaging in false rhetoric.

no offence, but you sound like a putin troll :-/

If I'm a troll, why bother talking to me?

I've been nothing but polite to you, lem_.

I suppose that in your world, my 'politeness' is just another example of my 'false rhetoric'.

 

nothing about being "impolite" - if you chronically import obviously incorrect assumptions to people, then you are either a troll, or insane.

 

 

Thanks for calling me 'mad', lem_.

I hope that no-one ever calls you 'mad', for being polite and asking difficult questions

LBird
Transition before or after?

Crisanto, I've had a quick look at the text that you recommended.

It argues that the transition takes place after the seizure of power.

This is where we disagree.

I think that the transition takes place during the period of collapse of the dictatorship of the burgeoisie.

You can disagree with me, of course, but it's a political disagreement, not madness/trolling, as it's often derided by those religious believers in The Faith.

lem_
brother LBird...

LBird wrote:

lem_ wrote:

LBird wrote:

lem_ wrote:

i also believe you are engaging in false rhetoric.

no offence, but you sound like a putin troll :-/

If I'm a troll, why bother talking to me?

I've been nothing but polite to you, lem_.

I suppose that in your world, my 'politeness' is just another example of my 'false rhetoric'.

 

nothing about being "impolite" - if you chronically import obviously incorrect assumptions to people, then you are either a troll, or insane.

 

 

Thanks for calling me 'mad', lem_.

I hope that no-one ever calls you 'mad', for being polite and asking difficult questions

ok e.g. one, first off i didn't call you "mad", i offered you two alternatives "insanity" or "trolling"... i mean the former in an entirely comradely way [not the latter]. may i ask if you are receiving any mental health treatment ?? there's no shame in it :-)

i have already explaineed it's not cos you're impolite, or ask "difficult questions". it's because you chronically attribute false beliefs to people.

lem_
if you feel like i am

if you feel like i am bullying you by saying you are a troll or perhaps "mad" - then i'm sorry. it's highly frustrating to talk to you, i am aware that some people have already stopped using this site because of it.

i am sincerely sorry if you are "mad", i know i am.

lem_
"it's often derided by those

"it's often derided by those religious believers in The Faith" what is my The Faith, i don't remember discussing it ??

FTR i'm a lapsed Buddhist - :-)

"collapse of the dictatorship of the burgeoisie"

how can this happen without a seizure of power by the proletariat??

slothjabber
revealed communism and faulty logic

LBird wrote:

...

I'm not 'ascribing false positions' to anyone, Fred.

I've always merely asked the question 'Will the revolution be made by the majority of the proletariat?'

And I've always received the answer 'No'...

 

 

No you haven't.

 

The revolution will be made by the majority of the proleariat.

 

But we have different views of what 'the revolution' entails. To you, it is an apocalyptic religious event that comes at the end of a long period of evangelism, when the enlightened socialist minority seeks to turn the empty workers into proper socialists, having derived their revealed socialist doctrine from Darwin-knows-where, but wherever it is, it's not from the working class oh no.

 

To us, it's a process of the working class coming to consciousness by criticising its own being and place in the world, and trying to overcome the horrors of its place in capitalism by destroying the existing system and building a new society.

 

LBird wrote:

...

My experience of the SWP (and all my friends/acquaintances of all other parties) is that they won't allow the workers who they recruit to run the party.

...

 

I had a mushroom omlette once that gave me food poisoning. This of course means that any attempt to cook with eggs or mushrooms is doomed to failure.

 

I knew someone called Paul once who was a bully. This of course means that no-one called Paul could ever be nice.

 

I went to Manchester and it was sunny, which means anyone who's ever said it rains in Manchester must be a liar.

 

Judging the ICC by the standards of the SWP is not a reasonable method. If you have a particular critique of an organisation, or a critique of the notion of organisation, then make it, instead of saying 'well I know org A is shit and therefore so is org Z'. That's not an argument, it's just prejudice.

 

We can leave aside the question of whether the ICC is 'the party'; it doesn't claim to be, nor does the ICT, and even the SPGB in its more lucid moments says that it is only a component of a future world socialist party. But in some senses that's a red herring, because 'party' doesn't always mean 'thing that is formally constiuted as a party'.

 

For my view 'the party' is 'those workers who have come to communist consciousness seeking to work together'. If you are against communists trying to work together, what do you think communists should do (apart from evangelise, that is)?

LBird
The party and one-way transmission

Have you ever heard of 'discussion', slothjabber?

Crisanto
Dictatorship of the proletariat = political power

LBird wrote:

I think that the transition takes place during the period of collapse of the dictatorship of the burgeoisie.

The proletariat cannot begin the transition to communism if it has no political power (dictatorship of the proletariat). Of course the seizure of power by the working class certainly commence when the dictatorship of the bourgeisie collapse through workers' revolution. It is unfortunately unimaginable if the class upon the victory of the revolution (overthrowing bourgeois rule) will not establish its own class dictatorship. 

And by the way, the topic I suppose is about 'Income in the DOP'.

slothjabber
how to discuss

LBird wrote:

Have you ever heard of 'discussion', slothjabber?

 

Your point?

 

If you disagree with my characterisation of your positions, feel free to demonstrate what I've misunderstood or misrpresented (if you think I'm lying, rather than that your positions are 1-contradictory or 2-badly explained).

 

You can also show where, for example, the ICC or its supporters say that the revolution is the work of the party not the working class. Or, you can admit that isn't what the ICC and its supporters say, and we can move on.

 

What demonstrates bad faith on your part is claiming that the ICC and its supporters say something that is the opposite of what they do say.

LBird
Burn the witch!

slothjabber wrote:
...demostrates bad faith on your part...

Yeah, as usual, 'political disagreement' is not simply 'political disagreement', but 'bad faith'.

You'll accuse me next of being 'evil' and a heretic.

lem_
absurd - you only just

absurd - you only just complained about my "Faith" - doesn't matter if you capitalize it dude/tte. You're putin us on...

LBird
The cart before the horse?

Crisanto wrote:

LBird wrote:

I think that the transition takes place during the period of collapse of the dictatorship of the burgeoisie.

The proletariat cannot begin the transition to communism if it has no political power (dictatorship of the proletariat).

This is a political belief that I don't share, Crisanto.

I think the d. of the p. comes at the end of transition (defined as the process of collapse of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie).

I think that the 'transition to communism' must begin within capitalism, and develop and deepen as the bourgeoisie weakens.

It must begin with ideas critical of capitalism spreading widely, even amongst the ever more uncertain bourgeosie. Theory will determine practice.

Practice by non-Communists will not lead to Communist ideas.

Tagore2
Kindness, dictatorship and planning.

You are much too rough with Lbird. If LBird wish remove salary system immediately after the seizure of power, it's because this comrade fear that a minority takes the power for itself and destroy the revolution. This concern is fully justified, as evidenced by the example of the USSR.

In addition, when Lbird says that the theoretical consciousness can not emerge from a party, he is right in 99% of cases. The overwhelming majority of the parties are intended to limit the development of the consciousness, sometimes to prevent it completely.

Finally, it is obvious we can develop our conscience by means other than the party: by reading and experience. So Lbird is not entirely wrong on this point either.

In discussion, you must not search only this is wrong in the speech of your opponent, but also this is right. Conversely, you need to recognize that someone who is wrong can still find something wrong in your reasoning. Do not answer right away, for not having judgment cut-and-dried.

For return to the topic:

Communist planning, or complete abolition of wage labor, do not only depend on the class conscience, but also on an entire physical infrastructure, on education and on economic relationships that do not exist at the time of the seizure of power. That is why the proletariat takes power: to build the communist planning. It is obviously not possible to build the communist planning while the bourgeoisie is still in power!

However, after the seizure of power, the class struggle do not disappear, but worsens. In the throes of civil war, many will seek to pull through by any means, including anticommunist means: black market, illegal (wage) labor, corruption and even betrayal of the proletarian cause. The proletariat will have to maintain an iron dictatorship (war communism), but also perform the compromises (wage labor, wage ratio) necessary to prevent the disintegration of the society and keep control on it. And in peace, others seek to regain their privileges taking advantage of the fatigue of the proletariat, and using the weapons of dictatorship against the proletariat itself.

Remember this Marx's quote:

Quote:
Art. I. The aim of the association is the downfall of all the privileged classes, and the subjection of these classes to the dictatorship of the proletariat by maintaining the revolution in permanence until the realization of Communism, which is the final form of organization of human society.

Status of the World League of Revolutionary Communists


The permanent revolution! The revolution does not stop until communism conquers the world. The dictatorship of the proletariat is only the beginning of the revolution, long before the communism, the moment when the proletariat has not defeated neither militarily, nor economically! The moment when the struggle began on all fronts and when no problem is solved.

PS: stop personal dispute.

slothjabber
not grasping the point

LBird wrote:

slothjabber wrote:
...demostrates bad faith on your part...

Yeah, as usual, 'political disagreement' is not simply 'political disagreement', but 'bad faith'.

You'll accuse me next of being 'evil' and a heretic.

 

It's not 'political disagreement' when you tell lies about other people's positions. It's just telling lies.

 

Tagore2 wrote:

You are much too rough with Lbird. If LBird wish remove salary system immediately after the seizure of power, it's because this comrade fear that a minority takes the power for itself and destroy the revolution. This concern is fully justified, as evidenced by the example of the USSR...

 

I'm not certain that anyone other than yourself thinks this is the point under discussion.

 

Tagore2 wrote:
...

In addition, when Lbird says that the theoretical consciousness can not emerge from a party, he is right in 99% of cases. The overwhelming majority of the parties are intended to limit the development of the consciousness, sometimes to prevent it completely.

Finally, it is obvious we can develop our conscience by means other than the party: by reading and experience. So Lbird is not entirely wrong on this point either...

 

And yet, Lbird argues that the working class cannot develop its consciousness except through instruction by socialists. He doesn't call that 'the party', but I do. Lbird believes that conscious communists are the only source of consciousness. He doesn't, however, ever explain where this consciousness came from.

LBird
Read the original, not the translation

Any comrades who want to know what I think, would be well advised to read what I write, and ignore slothjabber's 'translation'.

If anyone doesn't understand what I'm saying, ask me for clarification.

lem_
yeh !!!

LBird wrote:

Any comrades who want to know what I think, would be well advised to read what I write, and ignore slothjabber's 'translation'.

If anyone doesn't understand what I'm saying, ask me for clarification.

please do address it - point by puint !

on this thread...

LBird
Legitimate political disagreement

Tagore2 wrote:

If LBird wish remove salary system immediately after the seizure of power, it's because this comrade fear that a minority takes the power for itself and destroy the revolution. This concern is fully justified, as evidenced by the example of the USSR.

Tagore2, the key political issue to be realised is that I argue that 'the seizure of power' comes after the 'salary system' is already breaking down.

In fact, that process of the breaking down of wages, income and the market, will be one the drivers leading to a proletarian seizure of power. Why keep it going, afterwards?

You might disagree with my political analysis, and we can debate it further, but it is a legitimate stance for a Communist to take, and is not a sign of 'madness' or 'trolling', as some others have alleged.

Crisanto
Reality and fantasy

”I argue that 'the seizure of power' comes after the 'salary system' is already breaking down.
In fact, that process of the breaking down of wages, income and the market, will be one the drivers leading to a proletarian seizure of power.” - LBird

Is breaking down of wages, income, market the same as abolishing them? I don’t think so. There are ‘breaking downs’ of wages, income (becoming lower vis-a-vis ‘real wage’, ‘real income’) in the history of capitalism but they’re still there, they did not disappear.

Or is LBird believes that wages, income, market will disappear on their own? How? If not, then there must be a class that must collectively act to abolish them. And that class cannot abolish them if it has no political power. Or can the working class abolish them without seizing power first? How?

Lastly, how can there be a dictatorship of the proletariat without political power? Is there a dictatorship of the proletariat without the working class controlling the political institutions? Or the political institutions could be abolished at once upon the “breakdown of bourgeois rule”?

Bakunin advocates a society without the state immediately after the breakdown of bourgeois rule (or after the victorious revolution). Khmer Rouge immediately “abolished” money and market after they seize power.

Sometimes it is hard to identify reality from fantasy especially if one is blinded that the latter is the former.

LBird
Does political disagreement imply fantasising?

So now I'm either a troll, a madman or a fantasist?

Is this what passes for political discussion?

slothjabber
not interested

LBird wrote:

So now I'm either a troll, a madman or a fantasist?

Is this what passes for political discussion?

 

But you're not interested in political discussion, which is why you won't discuss. You just make up strawmen to attack, and don't explain your own positions; then you claim others are misrepresenting you, but don't explain how.

 

Why not answer some questions? Why not defend the idea that the working class is incapable of coming to a socialist consciousness without a body of socialist ideologues teaching them? You've said it before; why won't you admit it, and defend it now?

 

Why not explain what you think is so bad about communists seeking to work together? You are opposed to 'parties' but your reason for this is 'oh the SWP was awful and some of my friends say their experiences were awful too'. How does this relate to the ICC, or other groups of the Communist Left, or other 'ultra-left' groups? What does this say about parties as a whole? What does it mean for how communists should or shouldn't organise? In the past you've been very keen to sepertate 'party communists' from 'non-party-communists' but when pressed to explain all you've said is that the 'party communists' and the 'non-party communists' should gang up on non-communist workers and drive them from the workers' councils. Care to explain that?

 

If you do, we can have a 'political discussion'. If you don't, it's difficult to know what you even mean by 'political discussion' because you won't discuss your positions.

LBird
No time wasters, please!

slothjabber, I've wasted hours of my time on you previously, so I won't be trying, fruitlessly, once again.

I had higher hopes of Crisanto, but abuse seems to be the regular method, rather than discussion. Ah well, my hopes are pinned now on Tagore2...

slothjabber
not interested

So, you're not interested in political discussion?

 

And you claim this is everyone else's fault.

MH
LBird wrote: I had higher

LBird wrote:

I had higher hopes of Crisanto, but abuse seems to be the regular method, rather than discussion.

Crisanto wrote:

Is breaking down of wages, income, market the same as abolishing them? I don’t think so. There are ‘breaking downs’ of wages, income (becoming lower vis-a-vis ‘real wage’, ‘real income’) in the history of capitalism but they’re still there, they did not disappear.

Or is LBird believes that wages, income, market will disappear on their own? How? If not, then there must be a class that must collectively act to abolish them. And that class cannot abolish them if it has no political power. Or can the working class abolish them without seizing power first? How?

Lastly, how can there be a dictatorship of the proletariat without political power? Is there a dictatorship of the proletariat without the working class controlling the political institutions? Or the political institutions could be abolished at once upon the “breakdown of bourgeois rule”?

Bakunin advocates a society without the state immediately after the breakdown of bourgeois rule (or after the victorious revolution). Khmer Rouge immediately “abolished” money and market after they seize power.

Sometimes it is hard to identify reality from fantasy especially if one is blinded that the latter is the former.

Where is the abuse here? In fact s/he has zeroed in on the central question you need to answer: what do you mean when you say wage labour and the capitalist market would “break down” prior to a seizure of political power by the proletariat?

LBird
International Communist Fantasy

MH wrote:
Where is the abuse here?

Are you a fantasist, too, MH?

Or isn't it abuse to say that a comrade's political opinion is 'fantasy'?

If it isn't, why aren't your opinions opposed to mine also 'fantasy'?

Is this any way to conduct a political discussion?

That any opposition to the party line is 'fantasy'?

Crisanto
Questions not accusations

My apology if LBird feel that I'm accusing him of fantasising. Perhaps I should be clear enough by putting a question mark in the title 'Reality and fantasy'. My last paragraph is intended for Bakunin and the Khmer Rouge. Or perhaps I'm wrong that Bakunin and the Khmer Rouge were not fantasising but just having political disagreement with what I/we believe (or with Marx/Engels)?
Or maybe I'm the one having fantasies about dictatorship of the proletariat as seizure of power by the working class? That before the working class could proceed to implement its political-'economic' goals it must seize power first? That in the transition between capitalism and communism there is also struggle to abolish wages, money, market?
So which comes first, abolition of wages, income, market or seizure of power by the working class? 

LBird
Which comes first? Transition or Dictatorship of Proletariat?

Crisanto wrote:

My apology if LBird feel that I'm accusing him of fantasising. Perhaps I should be clear enough by putting a question mark in the title 'Reality and fantasy'. My last paragraph is intended for Bakunin and the Khmer Rouge. Or perhaps I'm wrong that Bakunin and the Khmer Rouge were not fantasising but just having political disagreement with what I/we believe (or with Marx/Engels)?
Or maybe I'm the one having fantasies about dictatorship of the proletariat as seizure of power by the working class? That before the working class could proceed to implement its political-'economic' goals it must seize power first? That in the transition between capitalism and communism there is also struggle to abolish wages, money, market?

Apologies accepted, Crisanto.

The disagreement is about the relation between 'transition' and 'd of p'.

For me, the order is 't' then 'd'.

For you, the order is 'd' then 't'.

The former implies mass class consciousness prior to seizure.

The latter implies minority class consciousness prior to seizure.

The former, in my opinion, follows Marx, with the active force being the class.

The latter, in my opinion, follows Lenin, with the active force being the party.

I'm not a Leninist, so I think that mass class consciousness is required.

This is a valid opinion for a Communist to hold.

Crisanto
Please spell out

Could you please spell out what is 't' and 'd' LBird? I'm not good at initials. Sorry.

Crisanto
If....

"The disagreement is about the relation between 'transition' and 'd of p'.

For me, the order is 't' then 'd'.

For you, the order is 'd' then 't'.

The former implies mass class consciousness prior to seizure.

The latter implies minority class consciousness prior to seizure.

The former, in my opinion, follows Marx, with the active force being the class.

The latter, in my opinion, follows Lenin, with the active force being the party.

I'm not a Leninist, so I think that mass class consciousness is required.

This is a valid opinion for a Communist to hold." - LBird

If 't' is the transition period and 'd' is DOP, then I think you misunderstood my point even the ICC text on the Proletarian Revolution. DOP will only exist in the transition period. It's not 'd' then 't' but 'd' in 't'.
Neither the ICC (ICC is not leninist but some still insist that it is) nor the advocates of the necessity of the party belittle the crucial and primary role of 'mass class consciousness' in establishing the DOP and in building communism. And I think there are threads here discussing about party, class consciousness and the likes in which you and other posters here had a debate. 

LBird
Who is the active force?

Crisanto wrote:

If 't' is the transition period and 'd' is DOP, then I think you misunderstood my point even the ICC text on the Proletarian Revolution. DOP will only exist in the transition period. It's not 'd' then 't' but 'd' in 't'.
Neither the ICC (ICC is not leninist but some still insist that it is) nor the advocates of the necessity of the party belittle the crucial and primary role of 'mass class consciousness' in establishing the DOP and in building communism. And I think there are threads here discussing about party, class consciousness and the likes in which you and other posters here had a debate. 

Even if you place 'd' in 't', I disagree.

The transition to mass class consciousness must take place prior to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Otherwise, 'who' imposes the dictatorship?

Only the class conscious proletariat can impose its dictatorship. This is Marx's position.

The belief that a party can impose 'a' dictatorship, and then proceed to make the class conscious, is Leninism.

I'm not a Leninist. 

 

slothjabber
Marx and Lenin

LBird wrote:
...

The transition to mass class consciousness must take place prior to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Otherwise, 'who' imposes the dictatorship?

Only the class conscious proletariat can impose its dictatorship. This is Marx's position.

The belief that a party can impose 'a' dictatorship, and then proceed to make the class conscious, is Leninism.

I'm not a Leninist. 

 

 

The working class imposes the revolutionary dictatorship. The idea that it is a 'party' dictatorship is the idea that you hold Lbird, that the communists must drive the non-communists from the workers councils. This is Leninism of the most degenerate sort.

 

The idea that a cadre of socialist intellectuals who have conjoured socialism out of their heads and must teach it to clod-like workers is also a pretty abject version of Leninism, and that is also your position.

 

The position of everyone else here - as I understand it at least - is that the working class is capable of creatively building socialist theory and a socialist society. You do not beleive this, however. You think socialism is the gift of the intelligensia.

 

Remind me who's the Leninist again.

MH
LBird you still haven’t

LBird you still haven’t answered the original question posed to you by Crisanto:

What do you mean when you say wage labour and the capitalist market would “break down” prior to a seizure of political power by the proletariat?

i.e. what are the mechanisms that would cause this to happen?

Also, I think you are confusing the term ‘transition’. I think Crisanto is referring to the period of transition from capitalism to communism, which would begin only after the seizure of political power by the proletariat, whereas you are referring to a 'transition to mass consciousness':

The transition to mass class consciousness must take place prior to the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Yes, this is an assertion we can probably agree on.

But a transition to mass consciousness is not the same as a transition to communism and it still leaves unanswered the question of how this transition takes place in your vision of a proletarian revolution: what needs to happen for this to take place? 

LBird
Definitions?

MH wrote:

Also, I think you are confusing the term ‘transition’. I think Crisanto is referring to the period of transition from capitalism to communism, which would begin only after the seizure of political power by the proletariat, whereas you are referring to a 'transition to mass consciousness':

The transition to mass class consciousness must take place prior to the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Yes, this is an assertion we can probably agree on.

But a transition to mass consciousness is not the same as a transition to communism and it still leaves unanswered the question of how this transition takes place in your vision of a proletarian revolution: what needs to happen for this to take place? 

But this is precisely where we disagree, on definition, MH.

To me, the 'transition' is both to mass conciousness and communism, not one or the other.

That is, ideal and material factors together. Theory and practice.

Perhaps one key thing which you might be missing - I think that capitalism will weaken, at the same time as we are strengthening. Prior to the seizure of political power, many of the bourgeoisie will have come over to us. The failings of capitalism will have become apparent to many, even those who benefit, but who can also see the problems ahead.

MH
Evidence?

LBird wrote:

Perhaps one key thing which you might be missing - I think that capitalism will weaken, at the same time as we are strengthening. Prior to the seizure of political power, many of the bourgeoisie will have come over to us. The failings of capitalism will have become apparent to many, even those who benefit, but who can also see the problems ahead.

Well that’s certainly an optimistic scenario but it just raises more questions. For a start, do you have any historical evidence at all to support it?

In particular, do you have any evidence to support your belief that the bourgeoisie will “come over to us”? 

When has an exploiting class ever given up power voluntarily? Why should the capitalist class act any differently?

 

 

 

LBird
Optimism?

MH wrote:

LBird wrote:

Perhaps one key thing which you might be missing - I think that capitalism will weaken, at the same time as we are strengthening. Prior to the seizure of political power, many of the bourgeoisie will have come over to us. The failings of capitalism will have become apparent to many, even those who benefit, but who can also see the problems ahead.

Well that’s certainly an optimistic scenario but it just raises more questions. For a start, do you have any historical evidence at all to support it?

In particular, do you have any evidence to support your belief that the bourgeoisie will “come over to us”? 

When has an exploiting class ever given up power voluntarily? Why should the capitalist class act any differently?

Since there isn't a historical example of a transition to socialism, there can't be any evidence. We're all guessing, MH. But we know that a Leninist Party doesn't work.

I didn't say that 'the bourgeoisie will come over to us' as a class, but that some individuals/groups will. It has been common knowledge since Aristotle that a unified ruling class cannot be defeated.

I don't think that the capitalists will 'give up power voluntarily'. I think that they will be severely weakened by the failings of capitalism. And that there has to be an alternative emerging, growing in strength and support, both ideologically and organisationally.

 

Tagore2
The content, the form and the end.

Regarding the content, I think all the arguments have been put forward and everyone can elaborate his own opinion. Further discussion would essentially repeat the same arguments, which is not necessary.

Regarding the form, the problem is not that some have made some mistakes (we do it every day), the problem is that others have outbid until the discussion degenerates.

I do not discuss it here because it is not the subject. However here is another thread dealing with the question. I hope you will find it funny…

Crisanto
Unanswered questions or disagreed answers?

"Perhaps one key thing which you might be missing - I think that capitalism will weaken, at the same time as we are strengthening. Prior to the seizure of political power, many of the bourgeoisie will have come over to us. The failings of capitalism will have become apparent to many, even those who benefit, but who can also see the problems ahead." - LBird

In decadence, capitalism is weakening but the working class is basically not strengthening though not yet completely defeated or surrendered.
The maoists also believe that once their armed strenght reach a certain point the bourgeoisie will ‘surrenders’ and ‘cooperate’ with them. That’s why one of their principles is ‘united front’. But I’m not saying that you’re thinking like a maoist LBird.
On the other hand, there is a possibility that both the contending parties will be ruined as stated in the Communist Manifesto.

Also, I think you are confusing the term ‘transition’. I think Crisanto is referring to the period of transition from capitalism to communism, which would begin only after the seizure of political power by the proletariat, whereas you are referring to a 'transition to mass consciousness':

“The transition to mass class consciousness must take place prior to the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

Yes, this is an assertion we can probably agree on.

But a transition to mass consciousness is not the same as a transition to communism and it still leaves unanswered the question of how this transition takes place in your vision of a proletarian revolution: what needs to happen for this to take place?” - MH

Thanks for the help MH in expounding what I mean.

Back to the topic. So what now on the question of wages, income in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat? (LBird has different definition of the DOP compared to the ICC and other comrades here...I hope my understanding is correct). One profound difference is (correct me if I’m wrong LBird): for LBird DOP is not seizure of power but commence before the seizure of power. Also he said that the transition from capitalism to communism can be implemented even before the proletariat seizes power which means for me, before the bourgeois state destroyed. As of how, he did not elaborate yet.

If LBird is correct then the working class must implement its program on wages before it seizes power? How? Or perhaps for LBird the bourgeois state is destroyed but the conscious mass of workers will not seize power but implement its program on wages first? 

 

LBird
End of wages

Crisanto wrote:

Back to the topic. So what now on the question of wages, income in the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat? (LBird has different definition of the DOP compared to the ICC and other comrades here...I hope my understanding is correct). One profound difference is (correct me if I’m wrong LBird): for LBird DOP is not seizure of power but commence before the seizure of power. Also he said that the transition from capitalism to communism can be implemented even before the proletariat seizes power which means for me, before the bourgeois state destroyed. As of how, he did not elaborate yet.

If LBird is correct then the working class must implement its program on wages before it seizes power? How? Or perhaps for LBird the bourgeois state is destroyed but the conscious mass of workers will not seize power but implement its program on wages first? 

No, the DOP begins with the seizure of 'political power'.

But the transition precedes the DOP.

I think that the difference between us rests upon our understandings of 'power'.

I think that culture, ideology, beliefs, morals, etc. can begin to change within the proletariat before the seizure of polical power. That is, there are other forms of power than naked political power

I think that the transition towards Communism begins within capitalism. The proletariat grow stronger, and the bougeoisie grow weaker.

Clearly, on this reading of the process of transition, 'wages' will have already been established as a fundamental cause of our problems, and with the DOP, 'wages' will be abolished.

Why would workers, who have just carried out a seizure of political power, allow bosses, wages and incomes to continue, when the majority know already that wages must be abolished?

Demogorgon
What Marx Said

Marx wrote:
for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
LBird
Good Quote!

Demogorgon wrote:

Marx wrote:
for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.

Yes, you're correct, Demogorgon.

The 'revolution' is the process of the proletariat coming to class consciousness, of the majority of workers preparing themselves for the seizure of power.

The DOTP will follow the seizure, and the process of 'revolution' will be properly completed, by the destruction of any pockets of bourgeois production that remain.

Marx continually emphasises 'mass scale', not a 'cadre party', as did Lenin.

Marx also specifically says 'class overthrowing', not 'party overthowing', as did Lenin.

Thanks for your comradely help.

Demogorgon
Which, of course, is the

Which, of course, is the ICC's position: the class takes power, not the party.

However, it's worth pointing out that the revolution itself is essentially the implementation of the DOTP and the organs required will - based on historical precedent - quite probably be in existence before the revolution. The workers in Russia created the soviets before the insurrection and the workers in Germany created the councils before the insurrection that ... well, never quite happened.

Consciousness is another matter. The workers created the councils and soviets as weapons in the immediate struggle. The Russian Revolution began as a protest against the price of bread; the German through a simple desire on the part of the sailor at Kiel to not want to die in a useless gesture. They did not begin with the intention of revolution - at all - but the struggle took on a revolutionary dimension as the workers formed organs that threatened the bourgeois structure of power. To begin with, in Russia certainly, the workers weren't even aware of the significance of what they had done.

Incidentally, in Russia, it was Lenin's current that argued for "all power to the soviets" in the face of opposition from the parties who dominated the soviets at that time (the Mensheviks and SRs), not to mention many of the Bolsheviks who were far more enthusiastic about the factory committees where the Bolsheviks had more influence.

Again, as the quote above demonstrates (and the little potted history above) mass struggles precede mass consciousness. The role of revolutionaries is not primarily to organise struggles or even revolutions;  nor is to serve as an exclusive reservoir of consciousness in an otherwise inert class; but to push forward the process towards mass consciousness as far as a particular struggle allows. Again, to quote Marx: "We merely show the world what it is really fighting for, and consciousness is something that it has to acquire, even if it does not want to. The reform of consciousness consists only in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in awakening it out of its dream about itself, in explaining to it the meaning of its own actions."

Incredibly, the early Soviets didn't even exclude the bourgeoisie! And, indeed, there was organised representation in the Petrograd Soviet from middle-class strata: the Union of Professional Men (lawyers and doctors, etc.)! It wasn't until February 1918 that rules were established definitely excluding the bourgeoisie from participation in the Soviets.

In Germany matters were different as both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie learned from their mistakes in Russia. Although, unfortunately, it was the bourgeoisie that learned the lessons better and turned them back against the workers: the revolutionary Rosa Luxemberg was not allowed to speak at the National Congress by the bourgeois SPD because ... she wasn't a worker!

LBird
Struggle leads to consciousness, or the reverse?

Demogorgon wrote:
...mass struggles precede mass consciousness...

It's arguable that this is not what Marx says or means.

In fact, if anything, history shows that 'mass struggles' happen all the time, and have never yet produced 'mass consciousness'.

If 'mass struggles' take place under the influence of bourgeois ideology,then the result is inevitably 'bourgeois consciousness' and reformism. The German Revolution ended with the SPD, not the KPD, in charge.

However, if we follow the method of 'theory and practice', then we would expect it to be necessary to develop and spread Communist ideas prior to any 'mass struggle'. Thus, the coming mass struggle in 'practice' will be driven by revolutionary, not reformist, 'theory'.

I think we have to win the 'battle of ideas' prior to any attempt at revolution, which is to have any hope of success.

The role of class conscious workers must be to spread Communist ideas, and help develop workers' organisations where workers themselves democratically control those organisations.

This, to me, is the complete opposite to Lenin's theory and practice.

 

slothjabber
Marx and Lenin

Unfortunately, you understand neither Marx nor Lenin.

 

Marx argued that the working class comes to consciousness through the revolution, through its own actions of going beyond what is; this is what the ICC and its supporters have been saying all along, and what you vociferously disagree with.

 

Lenin, following Kautsky, claims that the working class needs to have socialist consciousness brought to it because it cannot develop it on its own, which is your position, Lbird.

 

So, who is the Leninist?

lem_
Tagore2 wrote: You are much

Tagore2 wrote:

You are much too rough with Lbird. If LBird wish remove salary system immediately after the seizure of power, it's because this comrade fear that a minority takes the power for itself and destroy the revolution. This concern is fully justified, as evidenced by the example of the USSR.

concerns about the counter revolution are justified, it's not clear to me that it can't happen without a salary system, or why LBird thinks that the absence of a salary system might go any way to preventing it. i assumed that the russian revolution was botched when the soviets lost political power - what has that got to do with salaries?

Quote:
So now I'm either a troll, a madman or a fantasist?
these seem like the best explanation of your behaviour, yes. Your method of discussion is bizarre - you consistently fail to addresss contradictions in your interactions and beliefs... this is a basic failure of "politeness", and points to either a deliberate attempt to confuse [troll] to confusion [madman] or both [fantasist].
LBird
The Gospel, according to sj

slothjabber wrote:

Unfortunately, you understand neither Marx nor Lenin.

There's always one, isn't there?

Why can't you have a discussion about differences of political opinion, sj, without insults?

I've been pleased that, on this thread, MH, Demogorgon and Crisanto have engaged with someone who doesn't agree with their perspective, ie. me, in an entirely comradely fashion.

We might have our diferences about whether the sequence is Transition-DOTP or DOTP-Transition, Theory-Practice or Practice-Theory, Consciousness-Activity or Activity-Consciousness, but we've kept it to a healthy discussion.

Well, sj, forgive me I don't bother to engage with you - I've wasted my time before, doing just that.

One point, though... congratulations that you alone understand Marx, because every other worker that I've met doesn't. If any thinker ever was opaque and still requires discussion, it is Marx.

 

LBird
Apostle of sj

lem_ wrote:

LBird wrote:
So now I'm either a troll, a madman or a fantasist?
these seem like the best explanation of your behaviour, yes. Your method of discussion is bizarre - you consistently fail to addresss contradictions in your interactions and beliefs... this is a basic failure of "politeness", and points to either a deliberate attempt to confuse [troll] to confusion [madman] or both [fantasist].

You need to stop apeing sj's method, lem_.

lem_
ok so let me see if i got

ok so let me see if i got this right:

1. communist ideology will increase not thru struggle but the radicalisation of more and more workers through the efforts of a minority of militants.

2. this is the "transition" to communism.

3. an organic outcome of that is then when consciousness is ripe, the working class will seize political and economic power, abolishing all salaries.

4. the majority of the world will then finish the job by quashing any remaining bourgeois pockets: communism...

i'm not saying it's incoherent, but it seems very hetrodox and uses terms like "transition" in novel ways.

aside from that i think the main problem is with the assertion that workers will come to full consciousness without struggle - indeed that it is highly in-organic to assume that consciousness is a response not to ones own activity but some kind of awareness of capitalism in the abstract.

also, it seems to assume that the messy business of economic power will be a matter of on / off - of a few pockets of resistance here and there but otherwise absolute ascendancy of the class. if the factory A is under bourgeois control, why think there will be no resistance to workers power in proletarian controlled factories B and C? whether or not that means that salaries would exist in B and C.

so i also think that 1 and 4 are really incomplete.

lem_
you need to stop trolling -

you need to stop trolling - nothing about method, i'm exasperated by your unwillingness to do anything coherently except restate your own idiosyncratic views.

slothjabber
once more and again

LBird]</p> <p>[quote=slothjabber wrote:
...

There's always one, isn't there?

Why can't you have a discussion about differences of political opinion, sj, without insults?...

Well, sj, forgive me I don't bother to engage with you - I've wasted my time before, doing just that.

One point, though... congratulations that you alone understand Marx, because every other worker that I've met doesn't. If any thinker ever was opaque and still requires discussion, it is Marx.

 

So because I was rude enough to challenge your claim to understanding, whatever I said must be untrue.

 

You've called everyone who uses this forum a 'Leninist' and 'a conservative' and that's OK.

 

But showing why you're a Leninist means that I'm out of order.

 

It's hardly surprising that 'every other worker' you've ever met doesn't understand Marx. If your socialist evangelical elite (which only consists of you, as you don't think communists should work together) has been spreading the 'enlightenment' that we see here, the confusions would abound, I'd imagine.

 

Meanwhile, the political discussion that you refuse to engage in sometimes, just sometimes, leads to clarification.

LBird
Discussion was good while it lasted

lem_ wrote:

aside from that i think the main problem is with the assertion that workers will come to full consciousness without struggle

Since I didn't assert that, lem_, you must be talking to a poster of your own imagination.

lem_
WRT salaries i think that the

WRT salaries i think that the immediate abolition of them could just create confusion... even if it were practically possible, it could be a panacea - suggesting that alienation had (in places) already been completely turned over. there's more to communism - the working class must destroy itself. right? it finding sustenance without a salary isn't enough to do that, there must be a radical change to consciousness that isn't simply "class consciousness".

anyway, that's just my two cents.

LBird
Not 'troll' again - at least be more imaginative

lem_ wrote:

you need to stop trolling - nothing about method, i'm exasperated by your unwillingness to do anything coherently except restate your own idiosyncratic views.

You need to use your eyes, read, and make some attempt to understand.

Pages