The mensheviks were far more foundational to the soviets. After the revolution the bolsheviks immediately went to centralize the hierarchy and weaken the autonomy of soviets. But yeah even bolsheviks are marxists, so there is a level of respect for the worker. I simply dont believe that they would in future actually push for the policy of workers owning their means of production and being able to be autonomous.
Well with mensheviks they did not want to be the bourgeois though. I dont know how you mean that they would create the capitalist relations. I think they simply saw capitalism as a necessary middle step and opposed bolsheviks in thinking that industrialization should be carried out after the socialist revolution.
In the marxs case capitalism does forge the proletariat through exploitation. The function of capitalist is to produce workers separated from their means of production. He also attributes inevitable centralization to capitalism and, because hes humanist, he goes to imply that when the majority of exploited workers becomes large enough, the system must undergo a revolution. His argument in my view makes sense precisely as a critique of capitalism.
i still disagree with the broad correctness. Here i side with the bolsheviks, because i still prefer their ideas on industrialization to those of stalin. Yeah i take back the comparison to tsar, sorry. I could nitpick about how in specific locations in specific periods I would be right, but overall i still would be wrong. I take that back.
Well with mensheviks they did not want to be the bourgeois though. I dont know how you mean that they would create the capitalist relations. I think they simply saw capitalism as a necessary middle step and opposed bolsheviks in thinking that industrialization should be carried out after the socialist revolution.
While you don’t believe that Bolsheviks would push for workers owning the means of production, you have no problem believing that capitalism would magically turn into communism. Despite a century of evidence to the contrary.
His argument in my view makes sense precisely as a critique of capitalism.
That is the only way his argument make sense, and that’s precisely why it’s no logical for Marxists to pursue capitalism. However, now that we have more historical evidence, it’s clear that Marx vastly underestimated the resilience of the capitalist system, and the levels of exploitation the workers will put with under it.
Not magically i think unionization is paramount to the revolution. The evidence could be interpreted as you do. The european nations are indeed good counterexample to marx. Germany before nazis, france in the 1968, partially greece, but there us just invaded. That being said this does not discourage democratic unionization and strikes. They are still effective we just have to adapt so that they remain effective. I think that as the exploitation will increase like now in the us, workers will feel the class struggle and recognize that they cannot remain idle. The organizers then I would prefer to be revolutionary marxists instead of just revolutionaries. Maybe we use the word differently, by marxists here i mean that workers owning the means of prod. is their main goal.
Nobody is arguing against unionization and strikes though. What’s being said is that these things alone are demonstrably insufficient to overthrow capitalism. The only approach that has been shown to work reliably is the one Bolsheviks pursued. By Marxists, I mean people who have genuine understanding of material dialectics and are able to apply this understanding to the current material conditions to produce the desired results. Marxism is a framework for understanding the world.
So you regard the situation in russia after 1905 or maybe even before as comparable to what either today capitalism is, or back then was? I think that first of all since russia back then was not even industrialized for any future revolutions we are essentially forced to accept marxs framework. We are not overthrowing monarchy. Also russia back then was so incredibly disorganized and non resilient that modern comparison in developed countries is very difficult. And when you say that bolshevism proved itself as good at overthrowing capitalism, my point is partially also that it wasnt exactly much capitalist like, what russia was back then. Otherwise there would be barely any difference between mensheviks and bolsheviks, since the bourgeois revolution wouldbt be needed.
Korea and vietnam would be simmilar, china as far as industrialization goes.
i dont think that we are going to be overthrowing weak poorly managed monarchies. I think that the revolution against capitalism in future will be more simmilar to marxs writing. But i also think that after that the framework of material conditions will be understood even by regular workers.
So you regard the situation in russia after 1905 or maybe even before as comparable to what either today capitalism is, or back then was?
I’m pointing out the historical fact that the labor in Russia was sufficiently class conscious to carry out the revolution which disproves your thesis that further capitalist development was necessary.
And when you say that bolshevism proved itself as good at overthrowing capitalism, my point is partially also that it wasnt exactly much capitalist like, what russia was back then.
I don’t even know what point you’re attempting to make here. What stage of capitalist development Russia was at is utterly irrelevant. The actual problem was that the means of production were privately owned, and the goal of a socialist revolution is to put the ownership in the hands of the working majority. That’s precisely what Bolsheviks did.
i dont think that we are going to be overthrowing weak poorly managed monarchies. I think that the revolution against capitalism in future will be more simmilar to marxs writing. But i also think that after that the framework of material conditions will be understood even by regular workers.
The workers in the west are far more educated today than they were a century ago. The levels of literacy are far high, access to information is much more readily available, and so on. Yet, despite that, the revolutionary potential in the west is entirely absent. It’s quite clear that the framework for understanding material conditions doesn’t just spontaneously appear among the workers. As Bolsheviks correctly understood, a socialist revolution requires a professional vanguard of revolutionaries to organize the workers.
Yes it was a revolution against a preindustrial and mostly feudal monarchy. It baffles me how you want to infer something about how this would work against a late capitalist industrialized system.
The point of capitalist development is relevant to a historical materialist. I hope that we will agree that the hierarchy of owbership is radically different under feudal monarchy and developed industrialized capitalism. The means of production were in the hands of the state controlled by the party, controlled by the central committee or politburo. I would prefer if they were not only in the hands of the workers, but also in their control. I dont think that the workers appreciated under stalins decision for example that they had to give out more grain than they produced. Means of production were truly only in their hands, not control.
Well lets not forget western history. A materialist may expect this consciousness during crises and unions to rise in numbers. 1960s for example. In the us very large part of the population simply democratically and actively opposed in no small part their current material conditions and chose to not adhere to the capitalist line. Yes the fbi crushed many of these movements, but they very much emerged democrstically, from the material conditions. Assault the workforce, you will get dissent.
I partially agree, but this is common to all marxists, that this dissent needs to be organized, but in my view theres little need for the specific form of a vanguard party.
Yes it was a revolution against a preindustrial and mostly feudal monarchy. It baffles me how you want to infer something about how this would work against a late capitalist industrialized system.
It baffles me how you can’t understand how the exact same principles apply to a late stage capitalist system.
I hope that we will agree that the hierarchy of owbership is radically different under feudal monarchy and developed industrialized capitalism.
Do elaborate on that because what people are realizing is the exact opposite, hence people like Varoufakis now using terms such as technofeudalism.
The means of production were in the hands of the state controlled by the party, controlled by the central committee or politburo.
The party represents the working majority, and it’s clear primitive organization simply does not scale. It is not possible for large numbers of people to coordinate effectively without central planning organs. There’s a reason these structures evolve in every human society as it scale. Not only that, but we see the same thing happening in nature as well with complex organisms evolving things like the nervous system and the brain. It’s an efficient solution to the problem of coordination.
I dont think that the workers appreciated under stalins decision for example that they had to give out more grain than they produced. Means of production were truly only in their hands, not control.
I don’t think you appreciate that redistribution of resources at scale avoided local hoarding and prevented famines. In fact, the famine in the 30s was in large parts caused by kulaks hoarding cattle and grain.
Well lets not forget western history. A materialist may expect this consciousness during crises and unions to rise in numbers. 1960s for example. In the us very large part of the population simply democratically and actively opposed in no small part their current material conditions and chose to not adhere to the capitalist line. Yes the fbi crushed many of these movements, but they very much emerged democrstically, from the material conditions. Assault the workforce, you will get dissent.
And the movement FBI had to crush were very much organized along Bolshevik principles which proves my point. Black Panthers were explicitly a Marxist Leninist movement.
I partially agree, but this is common to all marxists, that this dissent needs to be organized, but in my view theres little need for the specific form of a vanguard party.
And this sort of view is precisely where there are no serious movements in the west.
Well again you provide no historical proof against a industrialized capitalist system. Trying to argue that it will work the same is the opposite of mhistorical materialism.
Ok here I dont know where to begin. Well lets beginwoth capitalism. Why was the bourgeois revolution so violent precisely against feudal lords. If the structure is the same why were their estates privatized in sich a manner? Why did feudalist system not develop industries? Why is marxs critique not applied to feudalism also, when they could be used interchangebly. You use some wording that yannis has used and try to claim that pretty much all marxists and even most economists dont understand what they talk about.
i agree with the scaling argument. Thats why the soviets and factory committees were founded, so that they could be what controlls the production as informed and effective as possible.
Yes these hierarchies evolve in ant colonies for example. You know the workers do what they must and will die if the colony chooses so. I must admit that i fail to see the relevancy. A worst social darwinist could use such an argument.
Yet weirdly enough, despite the scapegoat of kulaks, the worst year of the famine coincided with the worst yield. And the famine was most pronounced in the argricultural regions. Note that this would not have happened if the regional soviets were in control, because they would know the yield. Centralization is effective, just not when it comes to knowing information that is decentralized. Then it becomes incredibly uninformed. Again note that this has nothing to do with workers controlling their production. Giving away more grain than you produce was an example of how marxist these policies and organization were.
Some were, many werent. Actually the most populous ones, the largest ones, were definitely not.
Again without proof. Counterexamples: during the 1930s crisis the unions in us were incredibly strong, 1960s and i guess crises in general.
The mensheviks were far more foundational to the soviets. After the revolution the bolsheviks immediately went to centralize the hierarchy and weaken the autonomy of soviets. But yeah even bolsheviks are marxists, so there is a level of respect for the worker. I simply dont believe that they would in future actually push for the policy of workers owning their means of production and being able to be autonomous.
Well with mensheviks they did not want to be the bourgeois though. I dont know how you mean that they would create the capitalist relations. I think they simply saw capitalism as a necessary middle step and opposed bolsheviks in thinking that industrialization should be carried out after the socialist revolution.
In the marxs case capitalism does forge the proletariat through exploitation. The function of capitalist is to produce workers separated from their means of production. He also attributes inevitable centralization to capitalism and, because hes humanist, he goes to imply that when the majority of exploited workers becomes large enough, the system must undergo a revolution. His argument in my view makes sense precisely as a critique of capitalism.
i still disagree with the broad correctness. Here i side with the bolsheviks, because i still prefer their ideas on industrialization to those of stalin. Yeah i take back the comparison to tsar, sorry. I could nitpick about how in specific locations in specific periods I would be right, but overall i still would be wrong. I take that back.
While you don’t believe that Bolsheviks would push for workers owning the means of production, you have no problem believing that capitalism would magically turn into communism. Despite a century of evidence to the contrary.
That is the only way his argument make sense, and that’s precisely why it’s no logical for Marxists to pursue capitalism. However, now that we have more historical evidence, it’s clear that Marx vastly underestimated the resilience of the capitalist system, and the levels of exploitation the workers will put with under it.
Not magically i think unionization is paramount to the revolution. The evidence could be interpreted as you do. The european nations are indeed good counterexample to marx. Germany before nazis, france in the 1968, partially greece, but there us just invaded. That being said this does not discourage democratic unionization and strikes. They are still effective we just have to adapt so that they remain effective. I think that as the exploitation will increase like now in the us, workers will feel the class struggle and recognize that they cannot remain idle. The organizers then I would prefer to be revolutionary marxists instead of just revolutionaries. Maybe we use the word differently, by marxists here i mean that workers owning the means of prod. is their main goal.
Nobody is arguing against unionization and strikes though. What’s being said is that these things alone are demonstrably insufficient to overthrow capitalism. The only approach that has been shown to work reliably is the one Bolsheviks pursued. By Marxists, I mean people who have genuine understanding of material dialectics and are able to apply this understanding to the current material conditions to produce the desired results. Marxism is a framework for understanding the world.
So you regard the situation in russia after 1905 or maybe even before as comparable to what either today capitalism is, or back then was? I think that first of all since russia back then was not even industrialized for any future revolutions we are essentially forced to accept marxs framework. We are not overthrowing monarchy. Also russia back then was so incredibly disorganized and non resilient that modern comparison in developed countries is very difficult. And when you say that bolshevism proved itself as good at overthrowing capitalism, my point is partially also that it wasnt exactly much capitalist like, what russia was back then. Otherwise there would be barely any difference between mensheviks and bolsheviks, since the bourgeois revolution wouldbt be needed.
Korea and vietnam would be simmilar, china as far as industrialization goes.
i dont think that we are going to be overthrowing weak poorly managed monarchies. I think that the revolution against capitalism in future will be more simmilar to marxs writing. But i also think that after that the framework of material conditions will be understood even by regular workers.
I’m pointing out the historical fact that the labor in Russia was sufficiently class conscious to carry out the revolution which disproves your thesis that further capitalist development was necessary.
I don’t even know what point you’re attempting to make here. What stage of capitalist development Russia was at is utterly irrelevant. The actual problem was that the means of production were privately owned, and the goal of a socialist revolution is to put the ownership in the hands of the working majority. That’s precisely what Bolsheviks did.
The workers in the west are far more educated today than they were a century ago. The levels of literacy are far high, access to information is much more readily available, and so on. Yet, despite that, the revolutionary potential in the west is entirely absent. It’s quite clear that the framework for understanding material conditions doesn’t just spontaneously appear among the workers. As Bolsheviks correctly understood, a socialist revolution requires a professional vanguard of revolutionaries to organize the workers.
Yes it was a revolution against a preindustrial and mostly feudal monarchy. It baffles me how you want to infer something about how this would work against a late capitalist industrialized system.
The point of capitalist development is relevant to a historical materialist. I hope that we will agree that the hierarchy of owbership is radically different under feudal monarchy and developed industrialized capitalism. The means of production were in the hands of the state controlled by the party, controlled by the central committee or politburo. I would prefer if they were not only in the hands of the workers, but also in their control. I dont think that the workers appreciated under stalins decision for example that they had to give out more grain than they produced. Means of production were truly only in their hands, not control.
Well lets not forget western history. A materialist may expect this consciousness during crises and unions to rise in numbers. 1960s for example. In the us very large part of the population simply democratically and actively opposed in no small part their current material conditions and chose to not adhere to the capitalist line. Yes the fbi crushed many of these movements, but they very much emerged democrstically, from the material conditions. Assault the workforce, you will get dissent.
I partially agree, but this is common to all marxists, that this dissent needs to be organized, but in my view theres little need for the specific form of a vanguard party.
It baffles me how you can’t understand how the exact same principles apply to a late stage capitalist system.
Do elaborate on that because what people are realizing is the exact opposite, hence people like Varoufakis now using terms such as technofeudalism.
The party represents the working majority, and it’s clear primitive organization simply does not scale. It is not possible for large numbers of people to coordinate effectively without central planning organs. There’s a reason these structures evolve in every human society as it scale. Not only that, but we see the same thing happening in nature as well with complex organisms evolving things like the nervous system and the brain. It’s an efficient solution to the problem of coordination.
I don’t think you appreciate that redistribution of resources at scale avoided local hoarding and prevented famines. In fact, the famine in the 30s was in large parts caused by kulaks hoarding cattle and grain.
And the movement FBI had to crush were very much organized along Bolshevik principles which proves my point. Black Panthers were explicitly a Marxist Leninist movement.
And this sort of view is precisely where there are no serious movements in the west.
Well again you provide no historical proof against a industrialized capitalist system. Trying to argue that it will work the same is the opposite of mhistorical materialism.
Ok here I dont know where to begin. Well lets beginwoth capitalism. Why was the bourgeois revolution so violent precisely against feudal lords. If the structure is the same why were their estates privatized in sich a manner? Why did feudalist system not develop industries? Why is marxs critique not applied to feudalism also, when they could be used interchangebly. You use some wording that yannis has used and try to claim that pretty much all marxists and even most economists dont understand what they talk about.
i agree with the scaling argument. Thats why the soviets and factory committees were founded, so that they could be what controlls the production as informed and effective as possible. Yes these hierarchies evolve in ant colonies for example. You know the workers do what they must and will die if the colony chooses so. I must admit that i fail to see the relevancy. A worst social darwinist could use such an argument.
Yet weirdly enough, despite the scapegoat of kulaks, the worst year of the famine coincided with the worst yield. And the famine was most pronounced in the argricultural regions. Note that this would not have happened if the regional soviets were in control, because they would know the yield. Centralization is effective, just not when it comes to knowing information that is decentralized. Then it becomes incredibly uninformed. Again note that this has nothing to do with workers controlling their production. Giving away more grain than you produce was an example of how marxist these policies and organization were.
Some were, many werent. Actually the most populous ones, the largest ones, were definitely not.
Again without proof. Counterexamples: during the 1930s crisis the unions in us were incredibly strong, 1960s and i guess crises in general.