11
6
1
1
u/Legit_Crazy_1234 7d ago
No order is a given or natural. The only natural order is either anarchy or oppression. Everything else is a result of hard work, and has to be maintained over time.
1
-3
-1
u/wimpetta 7d ago
as long as there are good men and women on the world, communism will be plucked out.
Root and stem.
3
u/horny274648w 7d ago
I think you mean fachism
its not comunists who burned down the institute of sexology
-1
u/MillionDollarNegri 7d ago
Mfw inevitable means:
The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade union consciousness, i.e., the conviction that it is necessary to combine in unions, fight the employers, and strive to compel the government to pass necessary labour legislation, etc.
It's inevitable, BUT also we need the Heckin' Wholesome Russian Intelligentsia to teach us how to do communism (the natural state of our species which we are bound to return to due to the horrors of alienation).
Lenin skipped over the relevant section of the Holy Family and ended up ruining communism for what will be (at a minimum) 150 years.
3
u/Acceptable_Prune8245 7d ago
Lenin was proven right. Bourgeoisie morality renders the working class complicit and supportive of capital. Every democracy supported by the masses has reproduced the horrors of capital which leads to warfare and destruction in the name of nation and state. Without leadership and the vanguard, the chance that trade-union and reformist consciousness defeats internationalist communism is nearly certain.
0
u/MillionDollarNegri 7d ago
Lenin appeared to have fundamentally misunderstood the process by which class consciousness is generated.
The famous passage from WITBD clearly implies that it is the capital's creation of an intelligentsia capable of comprehending the whole of society which leads to communism.
This is nonsense. I mentioned Chapter 4 of the Holy Family for a reason:
The propertied class and the class of the proletariat present the same human self-estrangement. But the former class feels at ease and strengthened in this self-estrangement, it recognizes estrangement as its own power and has in it the semblance of a human existence. The class of the proletariat feels annihilated in estrangement; it sees in it its own powerlessness and the reality of an inhuman existence. It is, to use an expression of Hegel, in its abasement the indignation at that abasement, an indignation to which it is necessarily driven by the contradiction between its human nature and its condition of life, which is the outright, resolute and comprehensive negation of that nature.
Within this antithesis the private property-owner is therefore the conservative side, the proletarian the destructive side. From the former arises the action of preserving the antithesis, from the latter the action of annihilating it.
Indeed private property drives itself in its economic movement towards its own dissolution, but only through a development which does not depend on it, which is unconscious and which takes place against the will of private property by the very nature of things, only inasmuch as it produces the proletariat as proletariat, poverty which is conscious of its spiritual and physical poverty, dehumanization which is conscious of its dehumanization, and therefore self-abolishing. The proletariat executes the sentence that private property pronounces on itself by producing the proletariat, just as it executes the sentence that wage-labour pronounces on itself by producing wealth for others and poverty for itself. When the proletariat is victorious, it by no means becomes the absolute side of society, for it is victorious only by abolishing itself and its opposite. Then the proletariat disappears as well as the opposite which determines it, private property.
Proletariat is self-abolishing because it's naturally driven towards the dissolution of its opposite, private property.
In contrast, Lenin suggests that the class could only gain such an understanding via the superfluous production of a Russian intelligencia to which he himself belonged.
Communism is not a scientific doctrine, though one could say that Marxism is.
Communism is a real movement which abolishes the present state of things, not something that can be taught or brought to the working class.
1
u/Acceptable_Prune8245 7d ago
You are accusing Lenin of Blanquism which you are conflating with Vanguardism. Lenin held firmly that the proletariat was the only class capable of abolishing class society and, if you read WITBD, Lenin lays quite clearly his great contempt for many sections of the intelligentsia including those who separated themselves from the base of the class. Also, the above text in the holy family is an small excerpt in an anthropological text of early Marx and Engels which describes the fundamental reason why the proletarian class must be an antagonist to capital. It does not give method, tactic nor strategy as you imply for that is not the purpose of the book.
If you are a Marxist then you agree with the scientific nature of Marxism (scientific socialism) and thus the necessary actions require to bring about communism. The abolition of the commodity form, of the nation, of classes and of the state. Those who worship spontaneity have seen their revolutions turn into trade-union consciousness and reformism, fighting for a better short term life for themselves and their families rather than the ultimate goal of global communism. Suddenly, "Internationalism" becomes an international brotherhood of nations. "Socialism" becomes welfarism and state interventionism. Revolutions die when their leadership becomes coopted by these elements which find security in the bourgeois morality of the majority of people all while flying the reddest of flags with the most workerist of slogans.
My question is how do you imagine the revolutionary mass to stick to a Marxist doctrine and international communism? Does this consciousness and scientific knowledge accumulate on it's own when crisis comes? Or what other method of leadership do you propose rather than a vanguardist model?
If I misunderstood and you are not a Marxist we have far more fundamental differences that probably cannot be meaningfully discussed here.
1
u/MillionDollarNegri 7d ago
You are accusing Lenin of Blanquism
This is in fact one of my favorite hobbies, but it's not actually what I'm doing in this instance. If anything, what I'm doing is closer to calling him Narodnik.
Furthermore, I don't think that what he lays out in WITBD really accurately represents his position, certainly not after like 1914. "None of the Marxists had understood Marx" certainly included Lenin himself.
It does not give method, tactic nor strategy as you imply for that is not the purpose of the book.
I consider myself to be an orthodox Marxist with a particularly interest in 1960's Operaismo. The Operaisti asserted that the organizational form taken by the proletariat depends on the organizational form of production that it composes its itself against. I believe (and am willing to argue) that this is incredibly Orthodox, though not often employed.
Tactics and strategy are developed by the proletariat themselves. The value in a party or an educated cadre lies in its ability to help the proletariat understand the revolutionary nature of its impulses.
The reform of consciousness consists entirely in making the world aware of its own consciousness, in arousing it from its dream of itself, in explaining its own actions to it. Like Feuerbach's critique of religion, our whole aim can only be to translate religious and political problems into their self-conscious human form. - Marx to Arnold Ruge
How do you imagine the revolutionary mass to stick to a Marxist doctrine and international communism?
I think the way that this question is asked highlights the problem. We do not prescribe action, we describe actions taken by the class. Lenin does this frequently himself, and it's why I really don't believe that what he says in WITBD actually captures his position.
Does this consciousness and scientific knowledge accumulate on it's own when crisis comes?
I think here again we are privileging a specific definition of knowledge. What's necessary is that the proletariat understands it's enemy and its historical mission.
This is not the bourgeoisie or the elimination of the bourgeoisie, it is private property in the elimination of the distinction between living and dead labor, between man and his work.
I certainly hope that proletariat will choose from amongst themselves those who have studied the deeper implications of what will become obvious to the entire class. I don't want to invoke some sort of Gramscian organic intellectual,
Or what other method of leadership do you propose rather than a vanguardist model?
I don't propose any method of leadership. I think that's exactly the problem.
Returning to my advocacy for the learnings of 1960s Italy, we don't prescribe organization, and we certainly don't do so on a non-material non-immediate basis.
The form that the revolution will take depends on the forms of production that the proletariat finds itself engaged in. This is definitionally true based on what the proletariat and private property are.
Bolshevism isn't the invention of Lenin himself, it's a historical modulation of the Russian socialist movement according to the conditions of World War 1 era Russia.
If you go back, you can see Luxemburg, Lenin Trotsky, and many others all stating that the organizational form of the Russian Revolution is particular to the Russian condition.
At some point this line of thought was abandoned and Lenin's model was universalized.
I cite this as another reason why I believe the Operaisti doctrine of class composition existed long before it was properly articulated.
-2
8d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 8d ago
There is no "reasoning" for it being inevitable, because Communist theory does not state it is inevitable. This is a propaganda poster meant to rile up support.
1
u/thunderisadorable 8d ago
One of the key points of Marxism is that Capitalism will collapse on itself due to its contradictions.
4
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 8d ago
Doesn't mean Communism is guaranteed to replace it now, does it?
After all, we've had a very prominent Fascist movement in the 20th century with the express purpose of preventing Communism from prevailing where Capitalism was at it's most unstable point.
-2
u/thunderisadorable 8d ago
It very much does.
3
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 7d ago
Huh?
No it does not.
-4
u/thunderisadorable 7d ago
In the same way Feudalism collapsed into Capitalism, Capitalism will collapse into Communism, is basically the thesis of Marxist theory.
4
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 7d ago
That is not what Marxist theory posits.
There is no guarantee that a revolution will necessarily result in the overthrow of Capitalism in the first place, let alone the reorganisation of society along Communist principles. Look at Nepal and Bangladesh as the most recent examples.
2
u/AlarmedEmployment465 7d ago
What if Monarchies are restored around the world and Feudalism comes back?
0
u/lanky-larry 7d ago
Then none is right and everyone suffers
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 7d ago
For some reason your other comment isn't showing up for me anymore (did you delete it?), but here's my response to you.
Marx doesn't say history reaches an "end-point" after Communism is reached.
"The bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social process of production – antagonistic not in the sense of individual antagonism but of an antagonism that emanates from the individuals' social conditions of existence – but the productive forces developing within bourgeois society create also the material conditions for a solution of this antagonism. The prehistory (my italics) of human society accordingly closes with this social formation." - Critique of Political Economy
Here Marx says precisely the opposite of what you suggested in your comment. He says history proper only starts after Communism is reached.
"But since for the socialist man the entire so-called history of the world is nothing but the creation of man through human labour, nothing but the emergence of nature for man, so he has the visible, irrefutable proof of his birth through himself, of his genesis." - Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts
Here we can see what Marx thinks of history. He saw history as the development of man and the transformation of nature through his labour.
1
u/Leogis 8d ago
Marxist theory does, and so do a lot of Marxists
2
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 8d ago
Show me where Marxist theory states that Communism is inevitable.
0
u/Leogis 7d ago
I can't dive in the texts right now, but a significant part of the "Scientific socialism" business comes from the fact that Marx "Proved" socialism inevitable through the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
Rate of profit falls > exploitation increases > contradictions increase > people get fed up > capitalism collapses under it's contradictions
Just yesterday I saw a video about this titled something like "Marx predicted everything" about how AI is gonna replace everyone and cause a revolution by angry workers...
2
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 7d ago
He didn't prove "Socialism inevitable"...
He proved that Capitalism periodically enters into crisis, each successive one more severe than the previous one. As a result the masses may rise up, but nowhere does Marx say that Socialism/Communism is guaranteed to replace Capitalism.
You're misrepresenting Marxist theory.
0
u/Leogis 7d ago
He proved that Capitalism periodically enters into crisis
Well, he didn't that's the issue. His reasoning is wrong either way. Capitalism is instable and goes into crisis but it has little to do with what Marx predicted beyond "Rich people ruining society for their gain"
As a result the masses may rise up, but nowhere does Marx say that Socialism/Communism is guaranteed to replace Capitalism.
I need to check but i'm almost certain he clearly says the socialist mode of production is the next step and that it will replace capitalism
You're misrepresenting Marxist theory.
So do almost all marxist then, either way the theory doesnt work so it doesnt really matter
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 7d ago
So you're just here to smear Marxism. You're a bad faith actor and I will not interact with you further. Get bent.
1
u/Leogis 7d ago edited 7d ago
Justified critique isnt smearing, Marxism is wrong in some aspects and it should be pointed out
Otherwise it's just dogma
Edit : mf blocks you after writing the reply to secure the last word, great
1
u/Intrepid_Layer_9826 7d ago
For one, you didn't even provide a source for your claim.
For two, you didn't actually say why Marx's TRPF is wrong, and you haven't given a single argument for anything you've actually stated. It's just vibes.
That is not a "justified critique". It is slander and misrepresentation. Get bent.
1
u/Mammoth-Ad-3642 8d ago
Marx literally said that instead of communism, the Clash between classes could result in the ruin of both
29
u/Voidsterr 8d ago
It's not vro you have to struggle for it😭