In the circumstances of Russia, given the backward nature of the economy, plus the destruction wrought by the World War and then three years of civil war, foreign invasion and economic blockade by the West, the options narrowed very quickly. In 1921 this confronts us in all its stark reality. A sign that the workers' state was in dire trouble was the Kronstadt rebellion in March. This former centre of revolutionary zeal, previously a strong base for the Bolsheviks (now renamed as the Communist Party of the Soviet Union) became a flashpoint for all the discontents bred by three years of bitter civil war and the resulting poverty and devastation.
Now that the threat of the Whites (counter-revolutionary forces) had receded, the suffering was increasingly laid at the door of the Communist Party. The Bolsheviks' brutal crushing of the Kronstadt revolt is often held up as evidence that it was the very nature of the party that led to the Stalinist bureaucracy of the later years. A more accurate assessment is what Lenin said at the time: "The Kronstadt events were like a flash of lighting which threw more of a glare upon reality than anything else." [1]
It may be legitimate to argue that the Bolsheviks over-reacted, although it cannot be discounted that a victory for the rebellion would have opened the way to a new offensive from the Whites, who were backing it. Anarchists and others who hold up this rebellion and the Bolsheviks' response argue that this shows that the Bolsheviks were authoritarian from the start. The Kronstadt rebellion is held up as a revolutionary challenge to the Bolsheviks' totalitarian dictatorship. However the most recent archives available reveal a completely different picture. Kronstadt was no longer a stronghold of revolutionary soldiers. But the revolutionary soldiers still there actually organised against the rebellion, as did the workers on the Island. The uprising was led by pro-Tsarist generals who said openly that their call for 'soviets without Bolsheviks' was just a way of cloaking their action in the rhetoric of the revolution, that they intended taking power themselves. [2] No doubt they were able to tap into growing discontent among the layers of the population who were not steeped in the revolutionary traditions of the most advanced workers, but that does not make it legitimate. It was a rebellion with backing from counter-revolutionaries against a workers' state under siege. In early 1921 it was still possible to hope that the revolutionary movements in some Euripean countries might triumph. It would have been sheer capitulation and abandonment of the revolutionary goals for which millions had made such sacrifices to have risked the regime's survival because of the rising discontent.
The Kronstadt tragedy was, as Lenin realised, a blinding revelation of the drastic circumstances the revolution faced. It was not any part of the cause of its defeat. To argue that it was is to ignore the problem of isolation and therefore to accept the Stalinist ideology that socialism can be built in one country. And in light of the latest archival evidence it is tantamount to supporting the outright counter-revolution. Lenin spelt out what was necessary, if they were to go on to build socialism, at the Party Congress in March 1921.
'here industrial workers are in a minority, and the petty farmers are the vast majority. In such a country, the socialist revolution can triumph only on two conditions. First, if it is given timely support by a socialist revolution in one or several advanced countries ... The second condition is agreement between the proletariat, which is exercising its dictatorship, that is, holds the state power, and the majority of the peasant population.' [3]
With these two problems in mind, the Communist Party Congress, with hardly any debate or dissent, introduced what became known as the New Economic Policy (NEP) which ended grain requisitioning from the peasants. Instead, they would be taxed and able to use whatever profits they could make as they decided. In other words, it allowed the reintroduction of the market. In fact, to try to hold on with the prospect of being rescued by the international revolution, the Congress conceded virtually all of the demands of the Kronstadters except theiranti-democratic call for 'soviets without Bolsheviks.' Perhaps if the Bolsheviks had made these concessions more quickly, they could have spared the lives of those killed in the fighting that put down the rebellion. But let's be clear. If this had not led to a resurgance of the reactionaries, if it had avoided violence - none of which was inevitable - it would not have made on iota of a difference to the outcome of the revolution in the long run. Kronstadt, the reintroduction of the market, the bureaucratic degeneration of the party as it ruled over an increasingly impossible situation - none of these are the cause of the counter-revolution that engulfed them. They are the effect of the failure of the revolutions in the West and the isolation of the workers' state in Russia.
Citations:
1. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 32, p. 169.
2. Daniel Lopez and Corey Oakley, 'New facts explode anarchist myth' in Socialist Alternative, no 100, March 2006, available at www.sa.org.au. Original source at www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html
3. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol 32, p. 125.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
In Solidarity...
In Solidarity with the people of Greece, struggling against the oppression of the state and Capitalism. It is through their actions against the Fascists and the State that others across the world are being inspired to act out.
For this, we pay tribute.
R.I.P Alexis.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
The Workers' State
One of the defining points when it comes to Socialism, specifically, Marxist Socialism, has been the role of the Workers’ State. Or even beyond that, what is the Workers’ State? Through a series of debates, discussions and reading, I feel I can confidently give an analysis of the Workers’ State, or at least the idea of what the Workers’ State should be.
As with all left revolutionary groups, the results aimed for are the liberation of human beings fromm an oppressive society who maintains its control through a series of elaborate laws, ideological propaganda and the segregation of the oppressed. Namely, these groups have a tendency toward an Anti-Capitalist stance. One of the many issues that face these groups is the role of the State as it exists today, and more over, whether it can be used in the favour of the oppressed.
Well to an extent it can be. As we, the oppressed, have proven many times the State apparatus can be forced to reform its ways in our favour. Some of these reforms are equal pay for equal work, the right to welfare, the right to an education et cetera. These reforms were won through a process of necessary struggle by the oppressed. The oppressed, taking action into their own hands created large scale mass movements. These movements then sought solidarity from those outside the movement, and with this mass of people found the political strength to make demands for such things above.
However, the State as it exists today is not an ally of the oppressed, nor is it a neutral party to the goings on of the world around us. Rather, it acts in opposition the majority of the time to us. It either acts of its own accord to oppress and belittle the oppressed, or capitulates to the will of other oppressors. Some may claim that despite this, we have a democracy, and that what we must do is put good people into the legislative body to create good policy, and to tell the oppressors to get lost. This is an impossibility.
The State as it exists today is designed against us in almost every way. Its democracy is barely recognisable as a democracy. Rather, it is a dictatorship using the facade and rhetoric of democracy. This dictatorship, consisting of members of the oppressing class, bicker and debate in public forum, then tell us that this is democracy. In the same breath, they tell us that it is they who represent us. Then once every so often, usually every three or four years, they will allow us to vote, and make a choice: Do we want this oppressor? Or do we want the other? Which one bickered the best? And which one sounded like they cared the most?
This is but one fallacy of the current State. To go beyond this, we are forced to abide by a set of elaborate rules which are accompanied by a very specific ideology. That ideology is justified with supposed evidence. The ideology, of course, is that we must be told how to live and how to act. That we are too stupid to be civilised. We are told that when their laws do not exist that chaos and anarchy in its worst form takes control. (To clarify, I mean a specific type of social anarchy, the kind of anarchy portrayed in any given punk-rock promotional video. This kind of anarchy is by no means the action or the political view of most – if not all – true Anarchists.) If we are uncertain of this justification, we are given graphic images of violence, of arson, of cries of terror and distress – usually from places that dared to deny this ideology. What they do not allow us to know is that it was not those average oppressed people who caused the horrific scenes. Rather, it was a very malicious, often minority group, who exacted their violence upon those people. Be them radical terrorists, the Capitalist saboteurs or the very State which attempts to perpetrate this ideology.
Those laws imprison us, chain us to the will of those oppressors. If we do not obey them, we are punished. And often the punishment is outrageous in comparison to a crime. For example: There was a time in old London when stealing a loaf of bread could see you arrested, jailed and then shipped off to unknown lands – not at all too dissimilar to today – where for stealing an iPod, you can be arrested, have the goods confiscated, then be forced to work ‘community service’ of any amount of time (I’ve never heard of less than 60 hours), unpaid. In simple terms, this is theft being punished with slavery.
The final arm of the State which serves as a facade and aids in its justification is the violence at its command. The Police force and the Military. The Police, we are told, protect us from ourselves. They maintain order and keep us safe from our neighbours. This could be anything but the case. The Police may help little old ladies from time to time, but more often than not what the Police are doing with all their time is searching for people to lock-up. Searching for people who do not canonise to the will of the societal order they serve. This can be anything from a humble shoplifter to a person skateboarding without a helmet. They will merrily fine you, take money from you and hand it to the state. But to a greater extreme, it is their role to suppress you. At the moment you, and perhaps those around you, turn your attention to those they serve and demand something against their will, the Police are there to keep you at bay. They push you back with riot shields, blind you with tear gas, smash you with batons if you advance, and in recent times, shoot you with ‘non-lethal’ bullets, and perform the modern version of electro-shock therapy upon you.
This is not a case of civil dissidents. This is a case of your average activist, taking an opposition to the horrific proposals and actions of the State which serves as a means to oppress.
The State serves us only when we exercise our political strength in numbers and our economic strength in numbers. Through public protest and demonstration we exercise our will, and through strike wave campaigns, we force it upon them. But these steps gain us only humble reforms. Reforms which are every day being pushed back, and pushed down, until they can be hidden away and become unrecognisable in the darkness. Consider censorship, consider freedom of speech, consider welfare rights, consider health care, consider the eight hour day and consider equal pay for equal work. Consider the right to assembly. All of which have been under constant attack – especially in recent years.
Never the less we resist, we continue to try to defend our victories. However, if we capitulate to the will of reformists who believe the policy makers will save us, we’ll find ourselves starting back at square one.
If you have not caught on yet of what I am talking about, I am talking about specifically the social relations of Capitalist society. The oppressing class, the Capitalist class, who by means of mass murder, colonisation in the period leading up to the dominion of Capitalism and through oppressive state arms, seize control over all means of subsistence. All productive forces are in the hands of this oppressive class. The oppressed, the working class, those whose backs Capitalist Society rests upon, who necessarily are disenfranchised and stripped of their connection to products of their labour to create the oppressing class. The State, which serves as a secondary Capitalist venture, however ‘socialises’ itself in order to turn a profit. It too competes as the lone Capitalist might, however it goes further. To coin the term ‘[...]the highest form of Capitalism.’ The Capitalist State has developed Imperialism. Capitalism in its most brutal and darkest form. (This opinion is debatable. I would amount the state to being just as horrific as I do free market Capitalism.)
Through the process of struggle, Socialists say, the Working Class must rise. In fact, many revolutionary thinkers will align themselves to this train of thought. It is necessary for the oppressed to rise to the same level of the oppressors in order to defeat them. Now I could go into details about how the working class would rise to this point, however, it will consume too much time and space, and as this is a long article, I would rather just provide further reading at the end.
Socialists say that in the heat of struggle, for a Revolution to be successful, an opposition to the Capitalist State must be created. It is called the Workers’ State, and it is nothing like the Capitalist State.
The Workers’ State is by its sheer nature, by the conditions it is created in, true democracy. Consisting of a series of committees or councils, these groups created by the workers themselves, consisting of workers themselves, electing delegates, representatives, who have no greater power or wealth than the workers their represent, who are able to be repealed at any time if they do not act in the way expected of them. These councils are a symbol of workers’ united power, of workers’ ability to organise themselves in such a way that all the needs of their comrades can be met, and so that they can defend themselves efficiently and swiftly as a unified whole.
Why is it that a Socialist says it is necessary to create the Workers’ State?
With the overthrow of the Capitalist State, and with it the ideology of Capitalism, with the overthrow of Capitalism itself, a power vacuum is create. What occurs then, is various other powers attempt to fill that vacuum. Consider the varying forces at the time of this vacuum’s creation. The reformists, the Capitalist counter-revolutionaries, the Totalitarians and let us not forget the Free Market itself. Let us theorise that the working class has not created its own organised power (as we have seen many times in the past), let us assume that once the revolt is complete, and the over throw is complete, that these other forces capitalise on the situation, quickly we have a fight amongst outside forces vying for dominance and the support of those who revolted, and with no one there to oppose them in an organised fashion, they have no resistance to reinstalling themselves, or recreating the ruling class.
This is why the Workers’ State is necessary. In this period of time, while other forces which oppose democracy and working class liberation exist, it is necessary for the working class to recognise the need for themselves to fill this void. Merely returning home does not fill this void. It is necessary for the working class to acknowledge their own power, and make clear to other forces, “This is our will!” lest those other forces assume the rhetoric of “We serve you! Trust us!” which all too often has been proven quite convincing.
With the installation of the Workers’ State, other forces now have no option other than to capitulate to the will of the Workers’ State, or to outright oppose it. And we have seen this outright opposition before, as well as the forced capitulation.
With this new power, the Workers’ State, the working class can strip back the wealth accumulated by the Capitalist state and by the Capitalist themselves. It can voice its will upon the world, and as the majority would undoubtedly support it – as it is them – go unrivalled. Its mere existence strips the power from the Capitalist state, makes its legislation irrelevant, and provides a coherent body for defending against the violent arms it has monopolised.
This state reorganises the mode of production to that of human need instead of profit and accumulation of capital. The boss, the manager and the owner are now irrelevant, as all the means of production are centralised and redistributed to the working class. Production now creates what is needed, and what is fairly wanted by the working class. Distribution is now performed without limitation, goods and services are now distributed on the basis of need, and are given at no cost. Distribution occurs freely with only one string attached: The resources which are used to produce must be replenished.
Is the Workers’ State totalitarian?
Admittedly, yes. However it is not a totalitarian oppressive force which exploits and belittles the vast majority of people. To coin the term “Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Working Class)” the new workers’ state serves one true purpose: To suppress forces which oppose workers’ power, and to suppress those who would re-enslave the masses. However, do not let this statement fool you into believing it to be undemocratic, or against equality. This totalitarian dictatorship of the vast majority, returns the former ruling class to the position they were in when they were born: no more than a human being with equal value and opportunity to other human beings.
At what point does this Workers’ State ‘wither away?’
At the point in which no other oppressive force exists. With the absence of counter-revolutionaries, without anyone else to fill any vacuums, the role of the Workers’ State becomes unnecessary, and therefore is discarded.
It is the role of the state to suppress. That can be admitted. However there is a hefty difference between the suppression, or rather, oppression of the Capitalist state as opposed to the Workers’ State. The state exists because there is such an irreconcilable struggle between existing classes that there must be an institution, an apparatus existing to suppress the lesser class.
The workers state is different in that, rather than oppressing many to create a ruling minority, it suppresses the ruling minority and maintains the level of ruling class for the majority. Once these classes no longer exist. Once it is only worker, the state has no justifiable reason for existing, it has no substance or purpose, and as stated, dissolves.
The Workers’ State is no longer a Workers’ State at the point where power is centralised into a restricted portion of that organised body. It is no longer the Workers’ State if the delegates / representatives have no accountability. And it is no longer a Workers’ State if it is not the Workers themselves who control it. (This statement is made against those persons who would try to make out that the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, or Cuba might be Workers’ States.)
Depending on your political views, you may or may not disagree. However, as a Socialist I will say that it is absolutely necessary for this vastly different state apparatus to be formed at the time of successful revolution. And it is required only as long as there are forces capable of seizing dominion over the working class in existence. I do not aim to allow the creation of a minority dictatorship such as the USSR (Stalinist), or the Chinese Communists (Maoist). I aim to see the majority dictatorship of equality, freedom and dignity. Of the self-emancipation of the working class.
A final note.
I could very well be wrong in my analysis. I could be mislead somewhere. I am only human. My expressed views are not the same views of every Socialist, nor are they the same views of every Revolutionary Socialist. However, this is my interpretation of the Workers’ State based on what I have been given. And it is my understanding that this form of State is the only justifiable one, as all others are oppressive and designed to enslave rather than liberate.
Readings:
Rather than list several individual readings I will point you in the direction of a handy website. This website has plenty of works, you need only look for them.
http://www.marxists.org/
As with all left revolutionary groups, the results aimed for are the liberation of human beings fromm an oppressive society who maintains its control through a series of elaborate laws, ideological propaganda and the segregation of the oppressed. Namely, these groups have a tendency toward an Anti-Capitalist stance. One of the many issues that face these groups is the role of the State as it exists today, and more over, whether it can be used in the favour of the oppressed.
Well to an extent it can be. As we, the oppressed, have proven many times the State apparatus can be forced to reform its ways in our favour. Some of these reforms are equal pay for equal work, the right to welfare, the right to an education et cetera. These reforms were won through a process of necessary struggle by the oppressed. The oppressed, taking action into their own hands created large scale mass movements. These movements then sought solidarity from those outside the movement, and with this mass of people found the political strength to make demands for such things above.
However, the State as it exists today is not an ally of the oppressed, nor is it a neutral party to the goings on of the world around us. Rather, it acts in opposition the majority of the time to us. It either acts of its own accord to oppress and belittle the oppressed, or capitulates to the will of other oppressors. Some may claim that despite this, we have a democracy, and that what we must do is put good people into the legislative body to create good policy, and to tell the oppressors to get lost. This is an impossibility.
The State as it exists today is designed against us in almost every way. Its democracy is barely recognisable as a democracy. Rather, it is a dictatorship using the facade and rhetoric of democracy. This dictatorship, consisting of members of the oppressing class, bicker and debate in public forum, then tell us that this is democracy. In the same breath, they tell us that it is they who represent us. Then once every so often, usually every three or four years, they will allow us to vote, and make a choice: Do we want this oppressor? Or do we want the other? Which one bickered the best? And which one sounded like they cared the most?
This is but one fallacy of the current State. To go beyond this, we are forced to abide by a set of elaborate rules which are accompanied by a very specific ideology. That ideology is justified with supposed evidence. The ideology, of course, is that we must be told how to live and how to act. That we are too stupid to be civilised. We are told that when their laws do not exist that chaos and anarchy in its worst form takes control. (To clarify, I mean a specific type of social anarchy, the kind of anarchy portrayed in any given punk-rock promotional video. This kind of anarchy is by no means the action or the political view of most – if not all – true Anarchists.) If we are uncertain of this justification, we are given graphic images of violence, of arson, of cries of terror and distress – usually from places that dared to deny this ideology. What they do not allow us to know is that it was not those average oppressed people who caused the horrific scenes. Rather, it was a very malicious, often minority group, who exacted their violence upon those people. Be them radical terrorists, the Capitalist saboteurs or the very State which attempts to perpetrate this ideology.
Those laws imprison us, chain us to the will of those oppressors. If we do not obey them, we are punished. And often the punishment is outrageous in comparison to a crime. For example: There was a time in old London when stealing a loaf of bread could see you arrested, jailed and then shipped off to unknown lands – not at all too dissimilar to today – where for stealing an iPod, you can be arrested, have the goods confiscated, then be forced to work ‘community service’ of any amount of time (I’ve never heard of less than 60 hours), unpaid. In simple terms, this is theft being punished with slavery.
The final arm of the State which serves as a facade and aids in its justification is the violence at its command. The Police force and the Military. The Police, we are told, protect us from ourselves. They maintain order and keep us safe from our neighbours. This could be anything but the case. The Police may help little old ladies from time to time, but more often than not what the Police are doing with all their time is searching for people to lock-up. Searching for people who do not canonise to the will of the societal order they serve. This can be anything from a humble shoplifter to a person skateboarding without a helmet. They will merrily fine you, take money from you and hand it to the state. But to a greater extreme, it is their role to suppress you. At the moment you, and perhaps those around you, turn your attention to those they serve and demand something against their will, the Police are there to keep you at bay. They push you back with riot shields, blind you with tear gas, smash you with batons if you advance, and in recent times, shoot you with ‘non-lethal’ bullets, and perform the modern version of electro-shock therapy upon you.
This is not a case of civil dissidents. This is a case of your average activist, taking an opposition to the horrific proposals and actions of the State which serves as a means to oppress.
The State serves us only when we exercise our political strength in numbers and our economic strength in numbers. Through public protest and demonstration we exercise our will, and through strike wave campaigns, we force it upon them. But these steps gain us only humble reforms. Reforms which are every day being pushed back, and pushed down, until they can be hidden away and become unrecognisable in the darkness. Consider censorship, consider freedom of speech, consider welfare rights, consider health care, consider the eight hour day and consider equal pay for equal work. Consider the right to assembly. All of which have been under constant attack – especially in recent years.
Never the less we resist, we continue to try to defend our victories. However, if we capitulate to the will of reformists who believe the policy makers will save us, we’ll find ourselves starting back at square one.
If you have not caught on yet of what I am talking about, I am talking about specifically the social relations of Capitalist society. The oppressing class, the Capitalist class, who by means of mass murder, colonisation in the period leading up to the dominion of Capitalism and through oppressive state arms, seize control over all means of subsistence. All productive forces are in the hands of this oppressive class. The oppressed, the working class, those whose backs Capitalist Society rests upon, who necessarily are disenfranchised and stripped of their connection to products of their labour to create the oppressing class. The State, which serves as a secondary Capitalist venture, however ‘socialises’ itself in order to turn a profit. It too competes as the lone Capitalist might, however it goes further. To coin the term ‘[...]the highest form of Capitalism.’ The Capitalist State has developed Imperialism. Capitalism in its most brutal and darkest form. (This opinion is debatable. I would amount the state to being just as horrific as I do free market Capitalism.)
Through the process of struggle, Socialists say, the Working Class must rise. In fact, many revolutionary thinkers will align themselves to this train of thought. It is necessary for the oppressed to rise to the same level of the oppressors in order to defeat them. Now I could go into details about how the working class would rise to this point, however, it will consume too much time and space, and as this is a long article, I would rather just provide further reading at the end.
Socialists say that in the heat of struggle, for a Revolution to be successful, an opposition to the Capitalist State must be created. It is called the Workers’ State, and it is nothing like the Capitalist State.
The Workers’ State is by its sheer nature, by the conditions it is created in, true democracy. Consisting of a series of committees or councils, these groups created by the workers themselves, consisting of workers themselves, electing delegates, representatives, who have no greater power or wealth than the workers their represent, who are able to be repealed at any time if they do not act in the way expected of them. These councils are a symbol of workers’ united power, of workers’ ability to organise themselves in such a way that all the needs of their comrades can be met, and so that they can defend themselves efficiently and swiftly as a unified whole.
Why is it that a Socialist says it is necessary to create the Workers’ State?
With the overthrow of the Capitalist State, and with it the ideology of Capitalism, with the overthrow of Capitalism itself, a power vacuum is create. What occurs then, is various other powers attempt to fill that vacuum. Consider the varying forces at the time of this vacuum’s creation. The reformists, the Capitalist counter-revolutionaries, the Totalitarians and let us not forget the Free Market itself. Let us theorise that the working class has not created its own organised power (as we have seen many times in the past), let us assume that once the revolt is complete, and the over throw is complete, that these other forces capitalise on the situation, quickly we have a fight amongst outside forces vying for dominance and the support of those who revolted, and with no one there to oppose them in an organised fashion, they have no resistance to reinstalling themselves, or recreating the ruling class.
This is why the Workers’ State is necessary. In this period of time, while other forces which oppose democracy and working class liberation exist, it is necessary for the working class to recognise the need for themselves to fill this void. Merely returning home does not fill this void. It is necessary for the working class to acknowledge their own power, and make clear to other forces, “This is our will!” lest those other forces assume the rhetoric of “We serve you! Trust us!” which all too often has been proven quite convincing.
With the installation of the Workers’ State, other forces now have no option other than to capitulate to the will of the Workers’ State, or to outright oppose it. And we have seen this outright opposition before, as well as the forced capitulation.
With this new power, the Workers’ State, the working class can strip back the wealth accumulated by the Capitalist state and by the Capitalist themselves. It can voice its will upon the world, and as the majority would undoubtedly support it – as it is them – go unrivalled. Its mere existence strips the power from the Capitalist state, makes its legislation irrelevant, and provides a coherent body for defending against the violent arms it has monopolised.
This state reorganises the mode of production to that of human need instead of profit and accumulation of capital. The boss, the manager and the owner are now irrelevant, as all the means of production are centralised and redistributed to the working class. Production now creates what is needed, and what is fairly wanted by the working class. Distribution is now performed without limitation, goods and services are now distributed on the basis of need, and are given at no cost. Distribution occurs freely with only one string attached: The resources which are used to produce must be replenished.
Is the Workers’ State totalitarian?
Admittedly, yes. However it is not a totalitarian oppressive force which exploits and belittles the vast majority of people. To coin the term “Dictatorship of the Proletariat (Working Class)” the new workers’ state serves one true purpose: To suppress forces which oppose workers’ power, and to suppress those who would re-enslave the masses. However, do not let this statement fool you into believing it to be undemocratic, or against equality. This totalitarian dictatorship of the vast majority, returns the former ruling class to the position they were in when they were born: no more than a human being with equal value and opportunity to other human beings.
At what point does this Workers’ State ‘wither away?’
At the point in which no other oppressive force exists. With the absence of counter-revolutionaries, without anyone else to fill any vacuums, the role of the Workers’ State becomes unnecessary, and therefore is discarded.
It is the role of the state to suppress. That can be admitted. However there is a hefty difference between the suppression, or rather, oppression of the Capitalist state as opposed to the Workers’ State. The state exists because there is such an irreconcilable struggle between existing classes that there must be an institution, an apparatus existing to suppress the lesser class.
The workers state is different in that, rather than oppressing many to create a ruling minority, it suppresses the ruling minority and maintains the level of ruling class for the majority. Once these classes no longer exist. Once it is only worker, the state has no justifiable reason for existing, it has no substance or purpose, and as stated, dissolves.
The Workers’ State is no longer a Workers’ State at the point where power is centralised into a restricted portion of that organised body. It is no longer the Workers’ State if the delegates / representatives have no accountability. And it is no longer a Workers’ State if it is not the Workers themselves who control it. (This statement is made against those persons who would try to make out that the USSR, or China, or Venezuela, or Cuba might be Workers’ States.)
Depending on your political views, you may or may not disagree. However, as a Socialist I will say that it is absolutely necessary for this vastly different state apparatus to be formed at the time of successful revolution. And it is required only as long as there are forces capable of seizing dominion over the working class in existence. I do not aim to allow the creation of a minority dictatorship such as the USSR (Stalinist), or the Chinese Communists (Maoist). I aim to see the majority dictatorship of equality, freedom and dignity. Of the self-emancipation of the working class.
A final note.
I could very well be wrong in my analysis. I could be mislead somewhere. I am only human. My expressed views are not the same views of every Socialist, nor are they the same views of every Revolutionary Socialist. However, this is my interpretation of the Workers’ State based on what I have been given. And it is my understanding that this form of State is the only justifiable one, as all others are oppressive and designed to enslave rather than liberate.
Readings:
Rather than list several individual readings I will point you in the direction of a handy website. This website has plenty of works, you need only look for them.
http://www.marxists.org/
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Fuck hope, Let's make change!
One of our talented comrades created this poster piece - which in its simplicity I think puts out a very concrete message that smashes through the soft political stance of many of our fellow organisations and political parties.
Fuck hope, Let's make change!
Thursday, October 30, 2008
The Alternative to Capitalism
When you get involved in leftist politics, all to often you are confronted with the horrors of Capitalism. Even before that, for many of us, exposure to these horrors has forced us into disillusionment, distain, anger at the world around us. We talk frequently as the enlightened - not to sound too big in ourselves. Pointing out the barbarism, the contradictions and so forth. However what of the alternative?
For so many, an alternative is never seen. For many, an alternative seems too far away to grasp. So the purpose of this addition to this blog is to talk about Socialism - the only viable, though by no means permanent, alternative to Capitalism.
I'm not going to talk about Social Democratic policy, or a Reformist road to achieve Socialism. I'm going to be talking about what I consider the only viable method to achieve Socialism - The emancipation of the working class - and thereby, all of humanity.
The Capitalist system, in all its contradictions, all its horrors, creates its own grave, and grave digger. The Working Class. Where there may have been many classes before, Capitalism concentrated all persons into two Classes - Those that exploit - The Capitalist Class, and those that are exploited - The Working class. The Capitalist class rely almost entirely on the Working Class to use their capital. As through this relation, through this mode of production, exchange value is created. Never the less, the Capitalist Class must always try to maximise profit, to increase unendingly its own Capital. One of the most fundamental ways of doing this, is to pay its working class less for its commodity - Labour power/time.
If you use your imagination, and a little intellectualism, we can easily see the conflicting interests, objectively, between both classes. And it is this objective factor that creates what is called Class Struggle.
Socialism, to be created in its entirety, requires maturity of this struggle. It requires the working class, and the capitalist class, to be at war with each other. It sounds pretty dire, I know.
By War, I do not mean open warfare where the classes form armies and go head to head. I mean the working class attacking the fundamental core of the Capitalist system through their maturing struggle. Challenging the economic strength of the Capitalist - by withholding their Labour Power. Challenging the political strength of the Capitalist, by assembling in defiance of their will, and Challenging the ideology which justifies the Capitalist Class's existence, by destroying the prejudices and contradictory ideas in the heat of struggle - in the objective push toward a unified, coherent working class movement.
Though this mature struggle, a working class revolution can form. And with appropriate leadership - as there was in the 1917 Russian Revolution, and in the leadership of the Paris Commune of the 19th century, the working class can progress to the point of complete dissatisfaction with the Capitalist society formerly controlling them. They denounce the ideology, no longer recognise their society, and create the foundations for society anew.
But what is Socialist Society? What does the alternative look like? In the simplest terms, Democratic. There is but one fundamental, concrete factor we can all be sure of when it comes to what a Socialist Society looks like, true democracy. Where every person has a say, where elected representatives are no more powerful than the workers around them, and are held accountable for every move they make. Where workers democratically organise themselves, and produce for the needs of their fellow human beings, instead of for exploitative personal gain. This is the transitional product of working class movements coming to fruition under circumstances honed and tempered to their emancipation.
From this, it is clear we can see, that what Lenin, Trotsky, Marx and Engels, Luxemburg, etc fought and died for was not the Totalitarian dictatorships of Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia.
From this we see Socialism is not a government above the rest. Rather that it is united, free and equal, working class power. Where the majority rule, and the formerly ruling class minority become no more powerful than the people they once forced into subservience.
Beyond this, we cannot say what Socialist Society will look like. To speculate above and beyond democratic decision would be to remove ourselves from that ideal of true democracy, that democracy of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The point is that this is an alternative, that is achievable. It may be vague, and we may only have one sure thing to count on - provided our cards play out right, and we make it, but it already becomes better than the society of the Capitalist. And what's better, is that we would decide how it is run, what it entails. We would decide based on what we needed and wanted. What was just, and right by all humanity.
The Socialist alternative is democracy. Freedom. Equality.
We work for all, we feed all.
For so many, an alternative is never seen. For many, an alternative seems too far away to grasp. So the purpose of this addition to this blog is to talk about Socialism - the only viable, though by no means permanent, alternative to Capitalism.
I'm not going to talk about Social Democratic policy, or a Reformist road to achieve Socialism. I'm going to be talking about what I consider the only viable method to achieve Socialism - The emancipation of the working class - and thereby, all of humanity.
The Capitalist system, in all its contradictions, all its horrors, creates its own grave, and grave digger. The Working Class. Where there may have been many classes before, Capitalism concentrated all persons into two Classes - Those that exploit - The Capitalist Class, and those that are exploited - The Working class. The Capitalist class rely almost entirely on the Working Class to use their capital. As through this relation, through this mode of production, exchange value is created. Never the less, the Capitalist Class must always try to maximise profit, to increase unendingly its own Capital. One of the most fundamental ways of doing this, is to pay its working class less for its commodity - Labour power/time.
If you use your imagination, and a little intellectualism, we can easily see the conflicting interests, objectively, between both classes. And it is this objective factor that creates what is called Class Struggle.
Socialism, to be created in its entirety, requires maturity of this struggle. It requires the working class, and the capitalist class, to be at war with each other. It sounds pretty dire, I know.
By War, I do not mean open warfare where the classes form armies and go head to head. I mean the working class attacking the fundamental core of the Capitalist system through their maturing struggle. Challenging the economic strength of the Capitalist - by withholding their Labour Power. Challenging the political strength of the Capitalist, by assembling in defiance of their will, and Challenging the ideology which justifies the Capitalist Class's existence, by destroying the prejudices and contradictory ideas in the heat of struggle - in the objective push toward a unified, coherent working class movement.
Though this mature struggle, a working class revolution can form. And with appropriate leadership - as there was in the 1917 Russian Revolution, and in the leadership of the Paris Commune of the 19th century, the working class can progress to the point of complete dissatisfaction with the Capitalist society formerly controlling them. They denounce the ideology, no longer recognise their society, and create the foundations for society anew.
But what is Socialist Society? What does the alternative look like? In the simplest terms, Democratic. There is but one fundamental, concrete factor we can all be sure of when it comes to what a Socialist Society looks like, true democracy. Where every person has a say, where elected representatives are no more powerful than the workers around them, and are held accountable for every move they make. Where workers democratically organise themselves, and produce for the needs of their fellow human beings, instead of for exploitative personal gain. This is the transitional product of working class movements coming to fruition under circumstances honed and tempered to their emancipation.
From this, it is clear we can see, that what Lenin, Trotsky, Marx and Engels, Luxemburg, etc fought and died for was not the Totalitarian dictatorships of Maoist China, or Stalinist Russia.
From this we see Socialism is not a government above the rest. Rather that it is united, free and equal, working class power. Where the majority rule, and the formerly ruling class minority become no more powerful than the people they once forced into subservience.
Beyond this, we cannot say what Socialist Society will look like. To speculate above and beyond democratic decision would be to remove ourselves from that ideal of true democracy, that democracy of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
The point is that this is an alternative, that is achievable. It may be vague, and we may only have one sure thing to count on - provided our cards play out right, and we make it, but it already becomes better than the society of the Capitalist. And what's better, is that we would decide how it is run, what it entails. We would decide based on what we needed and wanted. What was just, and right by all humanity.
The Socialist alternative is democracy. Freedom. Equality.
We work for all, we feed all.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Even the Socialist can be Socially Ideological...
Time and time again, despite all the talk about fixing the world, I have conversed with other socialists and found their positions on one particular group of people sub-par, or at worst, disgusting. To think that with all the talk about despotism, and the poor of the world that they can so easily think so little of the same people they set out to inevitably save.
The struggle for workers’ power is as much the struggle for the lumpen. Those of the lowest socio-economic level, not just the working poor, but the poor who have become despot and homeless, those that have become unable to access any means of subsistence. These are people who know, at the forefront of their minds, more consistently than the entirety of the working class, the destruction that Capitalism creates. Though, they may not call it Capitalism. They may call it big business, rich people, profiteers of the slums, bosses etc. Objectively, this point of view is no less than that of the Worker, the fundamental difference is that whilst Workers have a means of subsistence (though minor), the poorest of the poor have none. Their struggles are not minor struggles, minor defiance against bosses – their struggles are struggles for their lives. Their ability to exist, not even to live (as to live, you need to be able to enjoy your life – at least in this context), just to exist. Their entire lives are built up brooding over hostilities toward the rich and powerful. The ones who have the means to save them, however do not. And they know just as quickly as any other why: Corporate, ruling class self-interest is more important than the interests of the many. This is the status quo of thought amongst the poor.
So to clear something up, how do I know this? Well, I’m one of them. Or was. Not only was I one of them, I was one of them for more than half of my life. My friends are them. My friends’ friends are them. Their parents are them, and their parents’ parents were them. Junkies, thugs, petty criminals, homeless, and despot.
Amidst those I know now, those Socialists I’ve conversed with, become friends with, become loyal to – I have to say the majority can be considered relatively middle class. They have no objective material factors pushing them toward Socialist politics, rather, it seems almost much more subjective, as if it were a choice they made for moral reasons. I however was pushed toward these politics for objective reasons. Not because I thought it was a good idea, rather, because I know it is a necessary idea, first hand.
When I speak to them about the poor, I have received opinions that the poor are useless, can’t be relied on (to some extent is true when talking about Socialist politics), the overall face-value of the opinion is negative – that is, until those people have to speak with those poor, despot people – and discover once again just how horrible the poor life really is.
I find the most disgusting part of it, is the negative view of the poor by Socialists. These are people the Socialist is supposed to be speaking for (to some extent). To be saying “Look! These people live this way because Capitalism can’t give them a home, or food, or clean water! It pushes people to poverty! And once there, they rarely get out! Capitalism forces people to look for ideological escapes, such as drug and alcohol abuse! It leaves us with but two enjoyments – Sex and intoxication – and even then they attack those last remaining loves!”
However, when these things are said, once everyone goes back to their lives to continue the good fight, the poor become a thorn in their side somehow. The person they don’t want to associate with. The people they dislike – not because they are scumbags, but because they just don’t help.
Well this is me saying that the poor of the world are a stronger fighting force than we all think. I understand that the only collective that can lead a Revolution is the working class, and that it is the working class we need to convince as they hold economic and political power. However – if the poorest of the poor can see uprising, and can taste change, they fight for it harder, and longer than any other. The poor are the martyrs of struggle, the poor are the special operatives of struggle, far more astute, far more militant and far tougher in struggle than most workers.
So don’t discredit them so easily. Aim to convince those of the lowest level of the same politics you would a worker.
The struggle for workers’ power is as much the struggle for the lumpen. Those of the lowest socio-economic level, not just the working poor, but the poor who have become despot and homeless, those that have become unable to access any means of subsistence. These are people who know, at the forefront of their minds, more consistently than the entirety of the working class, the destruction that Capitalism creates. Though, they may not call it Capitalism. They may call it big business, rich people, profiteers of the slums, bosses etc. Objectively, this point of view is no less than that of the Worker, the fundamental difference is that whilst Workers have a means of subsistence (though minor), the poorest of the poor have none. Their struggles are not minor struggles, minor defiance against bosses – their struggles are struggles for their lives. Their ability to exist, not even to live (as to live, you need to be able to enjoy your life – at least in this context), just to exist. Their entire lives are built up brooding over hostilities toward the rich and powerful. The ones who have the means to save them, however do not. And they know just as quickly as any other why: Corporate, ruling class self-interest is more important than the interests of the many. This is the status quo of thought amongst the poor.
So to clear something up, how do I know this? Well, I’m one of them. Or was. Not only was I one of them, I was one of them for more than half of my life. My friends are them. My friends’ friends are them. Their parents are them, and their parents’ parents were them. Junkies, thugs, petty criminals, homeless, and despot.
Amidst those I know now, those Socialists I’ve conversed with, become friends with, become loyal to – I have to say the majority can be considered relatively middle class. They have no objective material factors pushing them toward Socialist politics, rather, it seems almost much more subjective, as if it were a choice they made for moral reasons. I however was pushed toward these politics for objective reasons. Not because I thought it was a good idea, rather, because I know it is a necessary idea, first hand.
When I speak to them about the poor, I have received opinions that the poor are useless, can’t be relied on (to some extent is true when talking about Socialist politics), the overall face-value of the opinion is negative – that is, until those people have to speak with those poor, despot people – and discover once again just how horrible the poor life really is.
I find the most disgusting part of it, is the negative view of the poor by Socialists. These are people the Socialist is supposed to be speaking for (to some extent). To be saying “Look! These people live this way because Capitalism can’t give them a home, or food, or clean water! It pushes people to poverty! And once there, they rarely get out! Capitalism forces people to look for ideological escapes, such as drug and alcohol abuse! It leaves us with but two enjoyments – Sex and intoxication – and even then they attack those last remaining loves!”
However, when these things are said, once everyone goes back to their lives to continue the good fight, the poor become a thorn in their side somehow. The person they don’t want to associate with. The people they dislike – not because they are scumbags, but because they just don’t help.
Well this is me saying that the poor of the world are a stronger fighting force than we all think. I understand that the only collective that can lead a Revolution is the working class, and that it is the working class we need to convince as they hold economic and political power. However – if the poorest of the poor can see uprising, and can taste change, they fight for it harder, and longer than any other. The poor are the martyrs of struggle, the poor are the special operatives of struggle, far more astute, far more militant and far tougher in struggle than most workers.
So don’t discredit them so easily. Aim to convince those of the lowest level of the same politics you would a worker.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
An Analysis of the Capitalist Crisis - What of the working class?
In recent times, it has become (to some of us) all to clear that the Financial, and subsequently Capitalist crisis is going to have a grave impact on the working class. It will send millions into joblessness, force many more into further despotism. It will further concentrate capital, and centralise capital, already we see the slandering of socialism by U.S media, so that when this crisis is over, the blame can once again be pointed at Socialism. So that once again the Libertarian can avoid the pointed finger, and maintain their straw-men arguments with Mises theory. On the other hand it will also undermine libertarian ideology. It will change to some extent the balance of power in the global economy.
But what wont it do? First of all, it will not spark revolutionary movements for the most part, and if any are sparked, they will not have socialist leadership. And I think that this is something I particularly want to talk about. So I will leave the rest to our respective imaginations and focus on this point.
As much as I want it to happen, it wont. But why? You would think that after all of this rhetoric, of forces pushing workers to fight back, that they would, right? Well here’s the thing. It’s not actually that simple. Material factors, though pushing toward a fight, do not guarantee that a fight will be waged or even won.
Working class consciousness is probably one of the more important material factors. The state of much of the western world today is in a grand imbalance. It is so varied, it is impossible to map out even the most vague of statistic graphs to reflect it. There is equilibrium to some extent. Just as many workers align to the right as they do the left. And most, if not all workers still believe that either a revolution can’t work, or wont happen. Many workers share the ideology of the bourgeoisie, and many more are merely disillusioned and see no alternative, thereby merely shrug their shoulders and return to work.
Another important factor is that it is too late. There is no revolutionary leadership with credibility. Nor are there any even visible revolutionary parties in existence today. This crisis will only push workers deeper into the dungeon, and it’s pretty pitch black down there.
Workers are not mobilising as they should be in order to accelerate a movement toward revolutionary politics. Already there are 18 million homes vacant in the U.S, and many more in other advanced western blocs, billions on bailouts, and not a single demonstration of movement forming in opposition. There is a third world war going on, and there is barely a movement to combat that either.
Right now, objectively, the working class is not of form to take on the ruling class any time soon. It is still in the stages of immature struggle. This crisis will not propel the working class into mass action. This is a fact that is a little hard to bite into, for many of us. But now is not the time to be disillusioned.
What will happen, is that the working classes consciousness will be increased, if only marginally. There will be an activation of a working class vanguard, militant workers who will remember the lessons this crisis will teach them. And when socialist revolutionaries are present on the other end, offering an alternative to the ideas of Capitalism, those workers will be much easier to convince.
Just as in 1905, a revolution failed, the 2008 capitalist crisis will not breed a victory. However, that is not to say that in 2020, there will be no uprising. On the other end of this crisis we will have a battle hardened bunch, ready to fight, les they experience the same horror again in the future.
So I have written this up briefly to say, do not jump too far ahead of the working class. They are not ready yet. They will be, some time soon. But today is not the day. What we need to be doing now is building our organisations up. We need to be gaining credibility. Becoming larger, becoming stronger. We need to be practising our arguments and flooding the ears of the many with propaganda which opposes the voice of the few. And when the next crisis hits, there may be the possibility of a counter-attack.
But what wont it do? First of all, it will not spark revolutionary movements for the most part, and if any are sparked, they will not have socialist leadership. And I think that this is something I particularly want to talk about. So I will leave the rest to our respective imaginations and focus on this point.
As much as I want it to happen, it wont. But why? You would think that after all of this rhetoric, of forces pushing workers to fight back, that they would, right? Well here’s the thing. It’s not actually that simple. Material factors, though pushing toward a fight, do not guarantee that a fight will be waged or even won.
Working class consciousness is probably one of the more important material factors. The state of much of the western world today is in a grand imbalance. It is so varied, it is impossible to map out even the most vague of statistic graphs to reflect it. There is equilibrium to some extent. Just as many workers align to the right as they do the left. And most, if not all workers still believe that either a revolution can’t work, or wont happen. Many workers share the ideology of the bourgeoisie, and many more are merely disillusioned and see no alternative, thereby merely shrug their shoulders and return to work.
Another important factor is that it is too late. There is no revolutionary leadership with credibility. Nor are there any even visible revolutionary parties in existence today. This crisis will only push workers deeper into the dungeon, and it’s pretty pitch black down there.
Workers are not mobilising as they should be in order to accelerate a movement toward revolutionary politics. Already there are 18 million homes vacant in the U.S, and many more in other advanced western blocs, billions on bailouts, and not a single demonstration of movement forming in opposition. There is a third world war going on, and there is barely a movement to combat that either.
Right now, objectively, the working class is not of form to take on the ruling class any time soon. It is still in the stages of immature struggle. This crisis will not propel the working class into mass action. This is a fact that is a little hard to bite into, for many of us. But now is not the time to be disillusioned.
What will happen, is that the working classes consciousness will be increased, if only marginally. There will be an activation of a working class vanguard, militant workers who will remember the lessons this crisis will teach them. And when socialist revolutionaries are present on the other end, offering an alternative to the ideas of Capitalism, those workers will be much easier to convince.
Just as in 1905, a revolution failed, the 2008 capitalist crisis will not breed a victory. However, that is not to say that in 2020, there will be no uprising. On the other end of this crisis we will have a battle hardened bunch, ready to fight, les they experience the same horror again in the future.
So I have written this up briefly to say, do not jump too far ahead of the working class. They are not ready yet. They will be, some time soon. But today is not the day. What we need to be doing now is building our organisations up. We need to be gaining credibility. Becoming larger, becoming stronger. We need to be practising our arguments and flooding the ears of the many with propaganda which opposes the voice of the few. And when the next crisis hits, there may be the possibility of a counter-attack.
Reform and Reformism
To those who have spent time listening to different arguments between Socialists, the idea of Reform can seem like a fairly beat down topic. To many, those who are critical and revolutionary give off an air of anti-reform. However, more than often this is not the case. It is a misconception, of no fault to the person misconceiving. It is a product of non-clarification. And so this article will try to clarify, and ensure that no one gets an obscured message.
It is fundamental to understand what Reform is, first and foremost. Reform, or Amendment, is when a piece of legislation is changed or dissolved. One reform, for example, was when Women and Blacks won the right to vote. Another reform is the 8 hour day. These are reforms which we working class members fought for and won. Other reforms; Work Choices (in Australia), Goods and Services Tax, Carbon Trading Schemes and Anti-Terror laws (Such as the U.S Patriot Act), which are handed down by the State.
Already we can see a fundamental difference between reforms we have fought for, and reforms given to us through policy of the top-down parliamentarian. As we can see, there is always a string attached in the interests of the State. There is always a string attached in the interest of profits for big business, or there is a string attached which says, “This will not actually change anything. This is to save face, and we do not mind because the costs for this reform will be passed on to the workers/taxpayers.”
A good reform is one that is forced. Through demonstration, or workers’ strikes, the State and/or Bosses are backed into a corner, and must concede our demand. A bad reform is one where we are completely cut out of the loop, and it is spoon fed to us, whether it is dog-poo puree or not.
Most, if not all, Parliamentary parties have a concerntration of bad reform under their belts. The problem with Parliamentarians is that their interests are the same as those of the ones who maintain dominion. The ones who control the global economy. This is why we see a constant right leaning favor toward Big Business instead of the ‘little person.'
To understand why, you need to understand that the State was never a third party, neutral party. It was always their party. It cannot be our party because we did not create it. And more over, the existence of such a third party simply means; that there is irreconcilable class warfare that must be mediated. And we all know that if it served our interests, we certainly would not keep the enemy alive and kicking. Unfortunately for the enemy, it just so happens they require us. We however, do not require them. (Further reading on the State – The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State by Fredrick Engels.)
On to Reformism. Reformism is a particular political ideology that suggests that (particularly with Reformist/Democratic Socialists), those whose interests are apparently being served, need not participate. Reformism requires, rather, that those interested parties not participate. Reformist Parties are parties who do not see the need to mobilise a mass of people. They do not see the need to activate the class consciousness of the working class. Instead, due to their reluctance to (much of the time) even deal with the working class, they attempt to subdue it. For the working class to mobilise, the Reformist must lose ground. For the reformist attempts to represent the working class, whilst attempting to convince capital that it should be at the top. – Here we need to point out that it is impossible for any party to rise to the top, and maintain leadership of parliament if it does not serve the interests of Capital. We have seen the results of a haphazard ability to serve capital before, and it ends with sackings and military coups – So again, not a chance. Thereby, it is either predetermined by the party, or is inevitable that a reformist party will in the end serve capital. Alternatively, rather than serve capital, they may attempt to control it as Stalin and Mao did. Regardless, Reformist politics are incapable of bringing an end to Capitalism, as they have not the mettel to challenge the system. They do not point out its contradictions any more than they do praise them. They do not militantly oppose the system, and as such do not inspire workers to oppose the system either.
So now it is about the right time to explain the position of the Revolutionaries. There are some revolutionary parties which do jump to an absolute, resolute, non-reform stand-point. Many of these groups believe they can create a movement out of thin-air. Or that they can inspire workers without having any victories intermediately. Obviously, these people are full of shit.
A revolutionary socialist organisation, with the right politics, will understand that reform is an important piece to the puzzle of working class consciousness. These organisations and parties understand that it is imperative that reform be won. That workers are convinced to fight for them. As we can see in recent times, with no fighting force, with no opposition visable to the majority, many workers become disillusioned, or if they become militant, their efforts become scattered, disperse and are wasted. The momentum is not kept. This is largely the fault of Trade Unions not being willing to oppose business. This is also partially due to attacks on workers rights and unions since the 60s.
The goal of the Revolutionary is to refine that collective class consciousness through struggle. And one of the best ways to refine it is by agitating toward reform in favor of workers. We however, do not claim ‘vote!’ as the Trade Union leaders had during an anti-Howard’s Work Choices campaign in Australia leading up to the 2007 election. We say, “Fight!” I have not been to a demonstration where my organisation has not yelled at the top of our lungs and thusly agitated others to do so too, “How are we gonna get it?! Fight for it!”
Time and time again, we have seen that revolutionary organisations, with good politics have been able to agitate some of the most spectacular demonstrations in the past century. And we have seen that the only way to achieve good, quality reforms is through revolutionary political agitation.
It is only through this means, that revolution becomes possible. By agitating for a fight that can be won, baby steps, which then become strides. The problem with reformism is that its means become its ends. It is non-sustainable. It relies on the Capitalist political structure, it cuts out the strongest economic and political force which opposes the bourgeoisie by its own interests, and it does not have the means to fight against attacks on reforms won (as shown time and time again by labor governments across the world, by communist parties across the world, and by the democratic parties across the world.)
If this has clarified anything, I hope at the least it is my own stand point. I hope that this piece clarifies why I oppose the Communist governments of Venezuela, or Cuba. Of parties asking for our vote instead of asking for our raised fists. Democratic Socialists, Counter-revolutionaries who use revolutionary rhetoric, Centrists, Left-leaning right wing ‘workers’ parties.’ The lot of them be damned. I oppose them because they do not represent the majority. They do not represent international socialism. I oppose them because they would just as quickly defeat a working class uprising as the beougeoisie scumbags who oppress and exploit us already.
So let’s fight on, for reform, and for revolution! And while we’re at it, let’s destroy reformism in the process.
It is fundamental to understand what Reform is, first and foremost. Reform, or Amendment, is when a piece of legislation is changed or dissolved. One reform, for example, was when Women and Blacks won the right to vote. Another reform is the 8 hour day. These are reforms which we working class members fought for and won. Other reforms; Work Choices (in Australia), Goods and Services Tax, Carbon Trading Schemes and Anti-Terror laws (Such as the U.S Patriot Act), which are handed down by the State.
Already we can see a fundamental difference between reforms we have fought for, and reforms given to us through policy of the top-down parliamentarian. As we can see, there is always a string attached in the interests of the State. There is always a string attached in the interest of profits for big business, or there is a string attached which says, “This will not actually change anything. This is to save face, and we do not mind because the costs for this reform will be passed on to the workers/taxpayers.”
A good reform is one that is forced. Through demonstration, or workers’ strikes, the State and/or Bosses are backed into a corner, and must concede our demand. A bad reform is one where we are completely cut out of the loop, and it is spoon fed to us, whether it is dog-poo puree or not.
Most, if not all, Parliamentary parties have a concerntration of bad reform under their belts. The problem with Parliamentarians is that their interests are the same as those of the ones who maintain dominion. The ones who control the global economy. This is why we see a constant right leaning favor toward Big Business instead of the ‘little person.'
To understand why, you need to understand that the State was never a third party, neutral party. It was always their party. It cannot be our party because we did not create it. And more over, the existence of such a third party simply means; that there is irreconcilable class warfare that must be mediated. And we all know that if it served our interests, we certainly would not keep the enemy alive and kicking. Unfortunately for the enemy, it just so happens they require us. We however, do not require them. (Further reading on the State – The State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin, The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State by Fredrick Engels.)
On to Reformism. Reformism is a particular political ideology that suggests that (particularly with Reformist/Democratic Socialists), those whose interests are apparently being served, need not participate. Reformism requires, rather, that those interested parties not participate. Reformist Parties are parties who do not see the need to mobilise a mass of people. They do not see the need to activate the class consciousness of the working class. Instead, due to their reluctance to (much of the time) even deal with the working class, they attempt to subdue it. For the working class to mobilise, the Reformist must lose ground. For the reformist attempts to represent the working class, whilst attempting to convince capital that it should be at the top. – Here we need to point out that it is impossible for any party to rise to the top, and maintain leadership of parliament if it does not serve the interests of Capital. We have seen the results of a haphazard ability to serve capital before, and it ends with sackings and military coups – So again, not a chance. Thereby, it is either predetermined by the party, or is inevitable that a reformist party will in the end serve capital. Alternatively, rather than serve capital, they may attempt to control it as Stalin and Mao did. Regardless, Reformist politics are incapable of bringing an end to Capitalism, as they have not the mettel to challenge the system. They do not point out its contradictions any more than they do praise them. They do not militantly oppose the system, and as such do not inspire workers to oppose the system either.
So now it is about the right time to explain the position of the Revolutionaries. There are some revolutionary parties which do jump to an absolute, resolute, non-reform stand-point. Many of these groups believe they can create a movement out of thin-air. Or that they can inspire workers without having any victories intermediately. Obviously, these people are full of shit.
A revolutionary socialist organisation, with the right politics, will understand that reform is an important piece to the puzzle of working class consciousness. These organisations and parties understand that it is imperative that reform be won. That workers are convinced to fight for them. As we can see in recent times, with no fighting force, with no opposition visable to the majority, many workers become disillusioned, or if they become militant, their efforts become scattered, disperse and are wasted. The momentum is not kept. This is largely the fault of Trade Unions not being willing to oppose business. This is also partially due to attacks on workers rights and unions since the 60s.
The goal of the Revolutionary is to refine that collective class consciousness through struggle. And one of the best ways to refine it is by agitating toward reform in favor of workers. We however, do not claim ‘vote!’ as the Trade Union leaders had during an anti-Howard’s Work Choices campaign in Australia leading up to the 2007 election. We say, “Fight!” I have not been to a demonstration where my organisation has not yelled at the top of our lungs and thusly agitated others to do so too, “How are we gonna get it?! Fight for it!”
Time and time again, we have seen that revolutionary organisations, with good politics have been able to agitate some of the most spectacular demonstrations in the past century. And we have seen that the only way to achieve good, quality reforms is through revolutionary political agitation.
It is only through this means, that revolution becomes possible. By agitating for a fight that can be won, baby steps, which then become strides. The problem with reformism is that its means become its ends. It is non-sustainable. It relies on the Capitalist political structure, it cuts out the strongest economic and political force which opposes the bourgeoisie by its own interests, and it does not have the means to fight against attacks on reforms won (as shown time and time again by labor governments across the world, by communist parties across the world, and by the democratic parties across the world.)
If this has clarified anything, I hope at the least it is my own stand point. I hope that this piece clarifies why I oppose the Communist governments of Venezuela, or Cuba. Of parties asking for our vote instead of asking for our raised fists. Democratic Socialists, Counter-revolutionaries who use revolutionary rhetoric, Centrists, Left-leaning right wing ‘workers’ parties.’ The lot of them be damned. I oppose them because they do not represent the majority. They do not represent international socialism. I oppose them because they would just as quickly defeat a working class uprising as the beougeoisie scumbags who oppress and exploit us already.
So let’s fight on, for reform, and for revolution! And while we’re at it, let’s destroy reformism in the process.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
A call to action?
It seems in the world of 'post-modernity,' of pseudo-sociology, action can be constituted by its most literal meaning; To merely act. To be in motion. To bring paper to pen. To have a box ticked after entering a polling booth.
In talking about action, I wish to fundamentally discredit such meager motions as being truly actions to benefit human beings. I will not claim 'our society' as the society we live in exists not by our devices, but by the devices of the capitalist, of the bourgeoisie. And thereby, it most definitely is not our society.
Capitalism. The dominant mode of production. The globalised system of the relations between commodity, price, production and worker - exploitation, oppression and accumulation.
Through competitive market economics, the tragic play is on view for all of us. Capitalist versus capitalist, Capitalist bloc versus Capitalist bloc, Imperialist versus imperialist and Rulers versus their subordinates, the Working Class.
Libertarians, Conservatives, the Right and the ruling Centrists (or the parliamentary Left Wing), would each have us believe that Capitalism is evolved. That it is somehow the pinnacle of human development. That it saves lives, breeds happiness and shits roses. Then in the same breath, we will be forced to work hours unnecessarily, then we lose those jobs, then we lose our homes, then we are expected to hand over our pittance for the goods we created. They would have us believe they are necessary. We need them, without them, we will have nothing...
And yet, despite this all-too-often proved truth of Capitalism, it is claimed that all one has to do is merely to vote. Yes, vote. But do not vote because it will change anything. If voting could make real change, why do we still suffer needlessly? Any party that asks for your vote has but one, and only one interest; Running Capitalism.
Some parties such as the Democratic Socialists will claim that mere legislative change will solve the problem, that by reforming capitalism, they can subdue its nature.
Before I point out why that is bullshit, I'll just name some reformist parties that had a root in the working class before becoming a fledged reformist party.
- The Labor Party and Trades Unions of the United States (pre-lincoln) became the republican party.
- The Australian Labour Party which now continues the howard legacy (though they have amended it to their own interests.)
- The Mensheviks who were some of the first non-Bolsheviks to flock to the Stalinist Dictatorship.
- The German SPD, which had a hand in the slaughter of the revolutionaries and other disagreeable persons. (Rosa Luxemburg and her collaborators namely.)
- The Communist Party, world-wide since Stalin, which Sabotaged workers revolutions everywhere from China, to Australia, to Europe to Iran, to Italy and so forth.
And no, this is not due to bad leadership. It is in the nature of reformism to pander to Capitalism. Or in the case of the State-capitalist dictatorships of China and Russia, Italy, Cuba, Venezuela etc. to create their own ruling class.
Recognise, that reformism is not equipped to create fundamental change in society, as it does not fundamentally challenge it. Those parties above had either not recognised their failings, or had from the very beginning intended to seize their own interests.
So, do not vote for change, do not rely on the legislative process of the Bourgeoisie to change society for you. It will never happen that way. Every legislation in your favour today was won through hard struggles, by the Women's Lib movement, Black rights movements, the Australian Shearers, the Trade Unions, the Peace movement against vietnam, Student movements. Each one of them pushed in the direction of socialist politics, rather, it was because of socialist political influence that those groups were able to coherently fight the battles waged.
Vote to give yourself a fighting chance. To keep the worst one out.
So what then constitutes action for the better? A fundamental challenge to Capitalism. How? Challenge its mode of production, its political system, its ability to control the dominant ideas of society. Strikes, demonstrations, propaganda.
True action is to stand up, to raise a fist and to shout, "No more!" to gather arms, and block their advance. Even more-of-the-same-Obama digs his own grave with this truth. "Hold me accountable!" he says, "Luther wouldn't vote for me!" - Luther would have protested Obama for not representing the interests of black americans, just as no other does.
Now is just as great a time to act as ever. Not by voting, but by going to your friends, neighbours, strangers and discussing the reasons why. Convince them to do the same, join a union, join a revolutionary socialist organisation. Becomne an activist and try to draw others in with you, with the right politics. Politics of empowerment, of liberation, of emancipation.
And when the time comes, raise a fist high, a red flag over your shoulder and march!
That is real action...
In talking about action, I wish to fundamentally discredit such meager motions as being truly actions to benefit human beings. I will not claim 'our society' as the society we live in exists not by our devices, but by the devices of the capitalist, of the bourgeoisie. And thereby, it most definitely is not our society.
Capitalism. The dominant mode of production. The globalised system of the relations between commodity, price, production and worker - exploitation, oppression and accumulation.
Through competitive market economics, the tragic play is on view for all of us. Capitalist versus capitalist, Capitalist bloc versus Capitalist bloc, Imperialist versus imperialist and Rulers versus their subordinates, the Working Class.
Libertarians, Conservatives, the Right and the ruling Centrists (or the parliamentary Left Wing), would each have us believe that Capitalism is evolved. That it is somehow the pinnacle of human development. That it saves lives, breeds happiness and shits roses. Then in the same breath, we will be forced to work hours unnecessarily, then we lose those jobs, then we lose our homes, then we are expected to hand over our pittance for the goods we created. They would have us believe they are necessary. We need them, without them, we will have nothing...
And yet, despite this all-too-often proved truth of Capitalism, it is claimed that all one has to do is merely to vote. Yes, vote. But do not vote because it will change anything. If voting could make real change, why do we still suffer needlessly? Any party that asks for your vote has but one, and only one interest; Running Capitalism.
Some parties such as the Democratic Socialists will claim that mere legislative change will solve the problem, that by reforming capitalism, they can subdue its nature.
Before I point out why that is bullshit, I'll just name some reformist parties that had a root in the working class before becoming a fledged reformist party.
- The Labor Party and Trades Unions of the United States (pre-lincoln) became the republican party.
- The Australian Labour Party which now continues the howard legacy (though they have amended it to their own interests.)
- The Mensheviks who were some of the first non-Bolsheviks to flock to the Stalinist Dictatorship.
- The German SPD, which had a hand in the slaughter of the revolutionaries and other disagreeable persons. (Rosa Luxemburg and her collaborators namely.)
- The Communist Party, world-wide since Stalin, which Sabotaged workers revolutions everywhere from China, to Australia, to Europe to Iran, to Italy and so forth.
And no, this is not due to bad leadership. It is in the nature of reformism to pander to Capitalism. Or in the case of the State-capitalist dictatorships of China and Russia, Italy, Cuba, Venezuela etc. to create their own ruling class.
Recognise, that reformism is not equipped to create fundamental change in society, as it does not fundamentally challenge it. Those parties above had either not recognised their failings, or had from the very beginning intended to seize their own interests.
So, do not vote for change, do not rely on the legislative process of the Bourgeoisie to change society for you. It will never happen that way. Every legislation in your favour today was won through hard struggles, by the Women's Lib movement, Black rights movements, the Australian Shearers, the Trade Unions, the Peace movement against vietnam, Student movements. Each one of them pushed in the direction of socialist politics, rather, it was because of socialist political influence that those groups were able to coherently fight the battles waged.
Vote to give yourself a fighting chance. To keep the worst one out.
So what then constitutes action for the better? A fundamental challenge to Capitalism. How? Challenge its mode of production, its political system, its ability to control the dominant ideas of society. Strikes, demonstrations, propaganda.
True action is to stand up, to raise a fist and to shout, "No more!" to gather arms, and block their advance. Even more-of-the-same-Obama digs his own grave with this truth. "Hold me accountable!" he says, "Luther wouldn't vote for me!" - Luther would have protested Obama for not representing the interests of black americans, just as no other does.
Now is just as great a time to act as ever. Not by voting, but by going to your friends, neighbours, strangers and discussing the reasons why. Convince them to do the same, join a union, join a revolutionary socialist organisation. Becomne an activist and try to draw others in with you, with the right politics. Politics of empowerment, of liberation, of emancipation.
And when the time comes, raise a fist high, a red flag over your shoulder and march!
That is real action...
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Tenets of Socialism - Trotsky and Lenin - Why so important?
Since becoming a Socialist, it has become blatantly obvious just how many different views of Socialism there are. From the right-wing bias representation of Stalinism or Maoism to the centrist politics of Democratic Socialism and of course, my affiliation, Revolutionary (Marxist) Socialism.
Amidst all of these Socialisms, there is one underlying - underpinning factor. One which dictates from the word go, which Socialism is true Socialism, and which Socialism stands a chance in the face of Globalised Capitalism.
Their tenets. Obvious answer, surely. But many do not see their tenets as so important. For example, if you go and speak to a Democratic Socialist, more often than not they will say things along the lines of, "We should all just work together." for these types of people (not limited to Democratic Socialists), there is little understanding of the importance of your political structure, of your tenets. For Socialism, your tenets are a break or make factor.
Let us step back a century. The First and Second Internationals. Organisations designed to form a collective of international workers groups, trade unions, socialists and communists, anarchists and other independant parties took positions. However to start as bluntly as I can, the reason these internationals ultimately did not succeed in their purpose was due to objective factors, but much - particularly with the First International, could be attributed to the tenets and politics of each individual organisation.
Where Marx and Engels wished to create international Socialism - by fighting with the Workers of the world, others did not. Reformist parties opted to support war, to support the Bourgeoisie, or failing that, not take a stand in complete opposition (as is the nature of all reformist parties). The Anarchists of the time sought to seize beuracratic control over the International, forming secret organisation within the larger organisation, dedicating themselves to creating their own form of dictatorship. (That is not to say Anarchists do this now - in fact, most anarchists do the opposite. This is said merely to point out the counter-positions of the tenets of parties within.)
So even from the earliest days of organised Socialism, we can see clearly how much of a role the separate tenets have in making or breaking cooperatives and individual organisations alike.
When we peek at today, we see reformist parties vying for legislative reform, to a system that cannot be fundamentally reformed. We see revolutionary parties trying to create their own revolution, ahead of the mentality of the working class (an important objective factor) and then you have those who subscribe to the tenets of - as marx called it - True Socialism. Those parties who understand the need to stay with the Workers, to create a Vanguard organisation, which organises the most advanced sections of the working class, and places them at the bosom, at the heart of struggle to agitate revolt.
It is clear, from those brief descriptions, that these parties, these organisations cannot co-exist side by side, sacrificing each other's tenets for the sake of unity amongst themselves. Simply put, not only does it cause a deep wedge in the politics of Socialism, it obscures them. It is this sacrificial attempt which has aided in the liberal rights ability to obscure the tenets of Socialism. To convince the working class that Socialism is Maoism, or Stalinism. To convince them that State-Capitalism is Socialism, and that Socialism kills people, thereby true Capitalism is the only method of running society and production.
If there are comments or questions, feel free to comment on this blog post. But for now, moving right along...
Leninism and Trotskyism. It is safe to say that Democratic Socialists do not follow any of the tenets of Marxist socialism, so there is no need to speak of them at all in this section. Amidst Revolutionary Organisations, the use of Leninist and Trotskyist tenets is somewhat of a gamble. Many organisations identify specifically with Trotsky, to avoid scrutiny over Stalinist Propaganda about Lenin, and to ensure that people know they oppose Stalinism and Maoism. Others on the other hand, completely oppose Leninism. Some even oppose Trotskyism.
So to this one has to ask, why? To clear things up - Lenin was not a dictator. I want to keep this as short as possible, so in depth analysis will have to wait. To claim that Lenin was a dictator, is to discredit the objective factors of the revolution of 1917. To discredit evidential facts, chronology of the revolution, and to neglect the opposition Lenin had to Stalin from the beginning. It is to neglect the role of the working class and the fight for the workers' and their soviets to seize power. It neglects decrees made after the non-violent/non-coup take over of power by the Soviets, All land to the peasantry. - Workers' absolute control over industry. - Homosexuality, Incest and Adultery are no longer crimes. - Divorce free, at any time, regardless of whether both parties agree. - Free abortions at the request of any woman who wishes it.
But this is less about what Lenin had done with the Bolsheviks, and more about the lessons he passed on. To abandon the tenets Lenin had set - Internationalism, an analysis of the capitalist state reiterating Engels and more, is to cut out an entire, important section of Socialist tradition. These lessons cannot be abandoned, for without them the Socialist plays a dangerous game during Revolutionary struggle.
The same goes for Trotskyism. It is thanks to trotskyism that we revolutionary organisations exist today. It is thanks to his on-going fight (for which he paid the heftiest price) that we now have the analysis of state-capitalism, we have proof that Stalin and Mao were not socialists, that their dictatorships were not Socialist, and that the true tenets of Socialism have always been International, working class revolution. The overthrow of Capitalism.
This is my first article, one Revolutionary Socialist to the rest of the Socialists out there. If I've made mistakes, if I'm confusing, please let me know. If you disagree, by all means voice your opinions.
I'll finish up by saying that it was thanks to these great revolutionaries that we have the right arguments to make, that we have the right political structure, and that we consistently have been the only driving force to push for more concessions, to push for victories for the movements that have surfaced in the world. From the Women's Lib movement, to Black Rights, to Workers' rights.
To win, we must fight. To win, we cannot pander to the Capitalist. To win, we must keep our minds ahead of the majority, and our mouths speaking behind them. The push for the final battle, the inevitable battle.
Quick note: History of the Russian Revolution (Trotsky) - The Communist Manifesto (Marx / Engels) - The State and Revolution (Lenin) - The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (Engels) - State Capitalism in Russia (Tony Cliff) - Reform or Revolution (Rosa Luxemburg) - All worth reading.
Amidst all of these Socialisms, there is one underlying - underpinning factor. One which dictates from the word go, which Socialism is true Socialism, and which Socialism stands a chance in the face of Globalised Capitalism.
Their tenets. Obvious answer, surely. But many do not see their tenets as so important. For example, if you go and speak to a Democratic Socialist, more often than not they will say things along the lines of, "We should all just work together." for these types of people (not limited to Democratic Socialists), there is little understanding of the importance of your political structure, of your tenets. For Socialism, your tenets are a break or make factor.
Let us step back a century. The First and Second Internationals. Organisations designed to form a collective of international workers groups, trade unions, socialists and communists, anarchists and other independant parties took positions. However to start as bluntly as I can, the reason these internationals ultimately did not succeed in their purpose was due to objective factors, but much - particularly with the First International, could be attributed to the tenets and politics of each individual organisation.
Where Marx and Engels wished to create international Socialism - by fighting with the Workers of the world, others did not. Reformist parties opted to support war, to support the Bourgeoisie, or failing that, not take a stand in complete opposition (as is the nature of all reformist parties). The Anarchists of the time sought to seize beuracratic control over the International, forming secret organisation within the larger organisation, dedicating themselves to creating their own form of dictatorship. (That is not to say Anarchists do this now - in fact, most anarchists do the opposite. This is said merely to point out the counter-positions of the tenets of parties within.)
So even from the earliest days of organised Socialism, we can see clearly how much of a role the separate tenets have in making or breaking cooperatives and individual organisations alike.
When we peek at today, we see reformist parties vying for legislative reform, to a system that cannot be fundamentally reformed. We see revolutionary parties trying to create their own revolution, ahead of the mentality of the working class (an important objective factor) and then you have those who subscribe to the tenets of - as marx called it - True Socialism. Those parties who understand the need to stay with the Workers, to create a Vanguard organisation, which organises the most advanced sections of the working class, and places them at the bosom, at the heart of struggle to agitate revolt.
It is clear, from those brief descriptions, that these parties, these organisations cannot co-exist side by side, sacrificing each other's tenets for the sake of unity amongst themselves. Simply put, not only does it cause a deep wedge in the politics of Socialism, it obscures them. It is this sacrificial attempt which has aided in the liberal rights ability to obscure the tenets of Socialism. To convince the working class that Socialism is Maoism, or Stalinism. To convince them that State-Capitalism is Socialism, and that Socialism kills people, thereby true Capitalism is the only method of running society and production.
If there are comments or questions, feel free to comment on this blog post. But for now, moving right along...
Leninism and Trotskyism. It is safe to say that Democratic Socialists do not follow any of the tenets of Marxist socialism, so there is no need to speak of them at all in this section. Amidst Revolutionary Organisations, the use of Leninist and Trotskyist tenets is somewhat of a gamble. Many organisations identify specifically with Trotsky, to avoid scrutiny over Stalinist Propaganda about Lenin, and to ensure that people know they oppose Stalinism and Maoism. Others on the other hand, completely oppose Leninism. Some even oppose Trotskyism.
So to this one has to ask, why? To clear things up - Lenin was not a dictator. I want to keep this as short as possible, so in depth analysis will have to wait. To claim that Lenin was a dictator, is to discredit the objective factors of the revolution of 1917. To discredit evidential facts, chronology of the revolution, and to neglect the opposition Lenin had to Stalin from the beginning. It is to neglect the role of the working class and the fight for the workers' and their soviets to seize power. It neglects decrees made after the non-violent/non-coup take over of power by the Soviets, All land to the peasantry. - Workers' absolute control over industry. - Homosexuality, Incest and Adultery are no longer crimes. - Divorce free, at any time, regardless of whether both parties agree. - Free abortions at the request of any woman who wishes it.
But this is less about what Lenin had done with the Bolsheviks, and more about the lessons he passed on. To abandon the tenets Lenin had set - Internationalism, an analysis of the capitalist state reiterating Engels and more, is to cut out an entire, important section of Socialist tradition. These lessons cannot be abandoned, for without them the Socialist plays a dangerous game during Revolutionary struggle.
The same goes for Trotskyism. It is thanks to trotskyism that we revolutionary organisations exist today. It is thanks to his on-going fight (for which he paid the heftiest price) that we now have the analysis of state-capitalism, we have proof that Stalin and Mao were not socialists, that their dictatorships were not Socialist, and that the true tenets of Socialism have always been International, working class revolution. The overthrow of Capitalism.
This is my first article, one Revolutionary Socialist to the rest of the Socialists out there. If I've made mistakes, if I'm confusing, please let me know. If you disagree, by all means voice your opinions.
I'll finish up by saying that it was thanks to these great revolutionaries that we have the right arguments to make, that we have the right political structure, and that we consistently have been the only driving force to push for more concessions, to push for victories for the movements that have surfaced in the world. From the Women's Lib movement, to Black Rights, to Workers' rights.
To win, we must fight. To win, we cannot pander to the Capitalist. To win, we must keep our minds ahead of the majority, and our mouths speaking behind them. The push for the final battle, the inevitable battle.
Quick note: History of the Russian Revolution (Trotsky) - The Communist Manifesto (Marx / Engels) - The State and Revolution (Lenin) - The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State (Engels) - State Capitalism in Russia (Tony Cliff) - Reform or Revolution (Rosa Luxemburg) - All worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)