Since reading Rosa Luxemburg’s Reform or Revolution and discussing with my wife about it, we both got to the conclusion that a party should have its goal in their laws and executive actions to get rid of capitalism instead of making it “livable” under it, like the Northern countries.
Now, that is mostly clear to me, and I kinda also understand what Lenin spoke of in Left-wing communism (haven’t finished reading it). But how would one go about doing so?
I also recognize that having a mix of both reformist and revolutionary laws before the revolution might be advantageous and a worthy tactic to raise the class consciousness in the short term and starting to lay the foundation for the revolution on the long term. But this is very abstract and I can’t quite fully understand how this would be measured and which law would have to be reformist or revolutionary.
My interpretation of revolutionary is anything that is inherently anti-capitalist. This can either impede exploitation of a sector of the current economy (like abolishing the ability of landowners to own more than 2 homes or outright banning corporations of buying homes and subsequently appropriating their homes) or make it impossible to extract profits (collectivization of national industries and running them on non-profit basis).
Am I missing something here tho? Are there any other useful tactics or strategies to apply in the European imperial core?
I’m pretty sure I get the spirit of what you’re saying, but I think there is better terminology than this. Every state is authoritarian and communists are nothing resembling “total” control of a population at any point in history (and in fact tend to develop democratic systems with real community representation). However, AES states are clear on not letting the capitalist/imperialists/colonizers hold political power, by means of force if necessary (and some force is always necessary because the exploiting classes don’t go quietly and don’t stop waging class war just because you take power from them on one region). There is also the reaction to contend with from a people who are still mostly of the mindset of the previous system and haven’t had the value of the new system proven to them yet, including people who directly benefited from the previous way more. And inter-party struggle which doesn’t always go smoothly.
In short, dictatorship of the proletariat. We don’t need to use the wishy washy terminology of the bourgeoisie like “authoritarian” and “totalitarian”.
I’m not sure I follow you on this part. Perhaps you are referring to how China is doing things where they have capitalist characteristics but are nevertheless run by communists. If so, I’d agree regions that are behind need to develop their productive forces and that can mean taking on some capitalist characteristics under careful control of communists. On the other hand, for those of us who live in already developed capitalist regions, it isn’t quite the same thing. The capitalism is already there and it’s highly exploitative for a while now; it’s not a matter of “catching up” in that context, but of ending the exploitative model and putting the already existing productive forces toward social good.
In either case, I would insist that I am anti-capitalist. It does not mean I want to go back to feudalism. To me, it means I recognize capitalism as fundamentally exploitative and oppose it systemically as a form of power. It does not mean I oppose markets or trade, which existed before capitalism and will exist plenty after.
I acknowledge that these are terms commonly used by the bourgeoisie to naturalize the State as a neutral, non-ideological, and inevitably oppressive entity. Given the context of this conversation, and specifically here on this social network, it is clear I am referring to the Dictatorship of the Proletariat; however, even under that framework, admitting that it is effectively authoritarian and totalitarian is not wrong, because there will be no room for opposition (by any means necessary). I see no error in using such terms, as long as we understand they depend entirely on their social function (against whom and for what purpose).
I am not pointing at China specifically, although they are an excellent example to learn from, particularly regarding Special Economic Zones (SEZs). Similarly, just like the Soviet Union under the NEP (though, unfortunately, they faced external pressure that forced mass socialization and collectivization to build heavy industry and prepare for potential invasion). My main point is that I reject the ‘anti-capitalist’ stance that views the system as good or bad in a moral sense and bases its decisions on ethics rather than on a scientific and materialist analysis. We need to dialectically overcome these contradictions and harness the advancements of this system (which still sucks the blood and soul out of us) as tools for building a post-capitalist society.
I agree with you on that as well. The market is not a category inherent to capital; it existed long before it, for instance, the slave market within feudalism, and it will continue to exist after capital. The same applies to trade, distribution networks, and so forth.
Edit: I hope this has cleared things up a bit.
Maybe this article will better explain why I don’t think we should be using a term like “totalitarian” to describe what communists do / intend to do: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Totalitarianism
As far as I’m aware, it has no meaningful use among practicing communists and, in fact, has often been used as an anti-communist label applied to AES states. DotP is more clear and concrete: the working class is in charge and will, to the best of their ability, not allow those who normally exploit the working class to be the ones holding political power. Totalitarian is vague and conjures up images of mass surveillance and unfair suppression, which is not the point of working class power.
“By any means necessary” is also not what DotP is about. There are ethical lines to draw and it’s important to keep in view that there’s a difference between being understanding of harsh decisions made by AES states that were under siege (and in literal wars, such as USSR defending against Nazi Germany) vs. saying that as a general practice communists should not be discerning about the ethics of methodology and just do anything if it achieves political aims. The first one is about understanding and defending practicing communists under assault. The second one implies throwing moral scruples out the window, which has more relationship with right deviationism than it does practicing communism. Not saying that’s your intention, but that is how it reads to me, to put it in such binary terms, and I would caution against framing it in such a way.
Again, I think I understand the spirit of what you’re saying. That rejecting a tool because of a single form it takes having associations with exploitation can be a wrong path. For example, rejecting AI as a whole because of the form it takes under capitalism loses sight of the value it can provide when directed by a communist vanguard (such as what China is doing with it). Though I would still emphasize that morality and ethics do matter and scientific socialism is not without it in application. It won’t help us to try to smash all machines and return to huts or something, but we do need to be discerning on what tools are more dangerous and unethical in general, and what kind of use and form of tools is overall more safe, healthy, and empowering. This is in its way part of the harnessing of the tools. Not for abstract efficiency alone, but for empirically demonstrable social good.
Preaching about “moral scruples” is anti-revolutionary. The same way youre comparing socialist extremists to “right deviationism” is the same way Stalin has been demonized by being compared to Hitler.
Every year capitalism causes tens of millions of deaths and immeasurable suffering. The bourgeoisie has already thrown all scruples out of the window,
I’m sorry, what? What do you think the purpose of a communist revolution is for? Simply to hold power for the sake of it?
Demonizing Stalin isn’t bad because “moral scruples.” It’s bad because it’s a dishonest narrative pushed by anti-communists who are looking at mistakes or questionable decisions made by a generally honest and well-intentioned system under siege (the USSR), or straight up making up things about what it did. And then trying to make that comparable to the murderous intent and follow-through of an intentionally genocidal regime (Nazi Germany). And they do so via superficial and politically illiterate buzzwords that mean nothing about governance.
As I alluded to in my other post, I am not here to go back in time and rake AES efforts over the coals for every questionable decision they made when they were struggling to survive against assault. However, that does not mean that as as general principle, we should be promoting a view like “by any means necessary” and “make a totalitarian government.” Which is not what the (often laudable) AES efforts have done in history and is not how they accomplished such dramatic improvements in quality of life.
It would seem that some people look at the violence part of revolution and hyperfocus on that, while leaving out the part where communists tend to be principled and disciplined as an effort when they were/are successful. Hell, even Iran is principled in the middle of war and it’s not even communist; the US/israel bombed its hospitals but it did not do the same to israel. This does not mean being tolerant in the liberal sense of things or being a pushover in war (and again, using Iran as example, they are far from acting like a pushover).
So your solution to fix this is for the working class to also throw out all moral scruples??? I know revolution is no dinner party and I’m familiar with the poignant Mark Twain quote and point about terror, but come on. The context in which this is valid is that revolution is not exactly a friendly exchange of power and you won’t win it via a game of rock-paper-scissors with the bourgeoisie. That still doesn’t mean you throw out any and all sense of morality, and you would be hard-pressed to find such behavior as representative of communist revolutions in history. Are you thinking concretely about how dark no moral compass can look? Torture? Child killing? Targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure like hospitals? This is the kind of evil shit colonialism and imperialism gets up to regularly. Communists do not need to imitate that in order to have power.
Big K on the mic:
“I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice”
First of all. English is not my native lenguage so i apoligize for my broken english.
I meant that Stalin was demonized with the pretext of moral scruples, not that it was bad to demonize Stalin with the pretext of moral scruples.(tbh this lowkey dosnt make any sense)
What i was trying to get at its that the show the other cheek mentality is what leads moderates and liberals to demonizes Stalin and Mao. Wich i dont think their being dishonest about, the NKVD did do a whole lot of morbid work. Wich of they did too litte, just look at the destalinization campaing. Krushev should have been executed way before he got anywhere close to Chairman.
I dont think we should be using iran as an example of anything. They are just a convinient ally against The Fourth Reich.(the enemy of the enemy is my friend type shi)
Torture its just not worth the trouble.
Morality is based on intent: If a surgeon dismembers a patient because the patient got gangrene, hes not an evil sadistic monster. Hes a savior.(i hate that this reads like chatgpt)
I 100% believe that the end justify the means. And i think trying to keep a moral highground is damaging to the revolution.
Well this is why I use Iran as an example. Iran has conducted warfare, there is no doubt about it. They are not acting like pacifists, refusing to do violence and getting themselves massacred in the process. But they still have lines they don’t cross.
The liberal conception of moral high ground is more akin to pacifism, in my understanding of it. Though it is also kind of nonsensical and contradictory because it’s the liberals who don’t have power who most seem to preach it and the liberals who do have power definitely don’t wield it like pacifists when it comes time to enact imperialist policies and the like. Liberalism in general has a lot of self-deceit and deceit of others going on.
When I speak of morality, I am thinking more like Iran than I am thinking like Michelle Obama’s vapid “when they go low, we go high” (while her husband was ordering drone strikes).
I see no reason why revolutionaries should not exercise restraint and, in fact, among revolutionaries who do not exercise restraint, what I would expend to see is a lot of adventurist random violence that does not coherently contribute to revolutionary goals and wastes energy and resources in the process. This doesn’t mean I’m going to go preachy about every person who is being exploited and takes matters into their own hands. It does mean that I’m not going to promote conducting revolutionary goals in that way and I’m going to push back against language that suggests boundaries don’t matter.
In short, I would agree that the liberal conception of moral highground is damaging (and is more often just nonsense). I would insist, however, that there is such a thing as real moral highground and that disciplined revolutionaries are perfectly capable of practicing it and have done so at times in the past. This does not exclude conducting warfare when under attack; even liberals would usually agree that war as self-defense is morally justified. War is always going to be somewhat ugly, but it doesn’t have to be no holds barred conducted as brutally as possible to maximize civilian death and suffering as the imperialists do.
I mean if what you are getting at is that violence for the sake of violence or sadistic pleasure is wrong i 100% agree.(punctuation left the chat)
But i cant help to feel theres some sort of miscommunication in here, thats why i would like to know how you feel about Dresden.
Dresden? You mean the bombing of the German city during WWII?