Universal Basic Income or Class Warfare

SGR · 10-30-2020, 11:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

they call for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but that's really as specific as it gets

and dictatorship did not mean then what it does now

I'm guessing you haven't read the Communist Manifesto, at least not in full. e.g.

Quote:

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.
....
The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

~~jwb~~ · 10-30-2020, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

they call for a "dictatorship of the proletariat" but that's really as specific as it gets

and dictatorship did not mean then what it does now

You're right the German word used didn't have the same connotations as dictatorship does in English, and you're right that Marx's strict political and tactical vision is less fleshed out than his descriptions of economics, but he did spend time agitating politically and there are some basic inferences that can be made about his views on the state and it's role in the coming revolution.

I think Lenin's interpretations of Marx in State and Revolution were fairly coherent and defensible. Ultimately his rule didn't pan out the way we would like but generally speaking his intention was to try to create communism by any means necessary. I don't see how that's not a left wing ambition.

Stalin was more pragmatic and ruthless and power hungry and less concerned with ideology. He wasn't specifically right wing in any serious ideological sense he was just willing to embrace elements of the right when it suited them. He was also willing to persecute and purge right wing and moderate forces when it served him.

Lucem Ferre · 10-30-2020, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gutmensch

I had to look for the word "illiterate" after your answer.

Holy **** that's good.

SGR · 10-30-2020, 11:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by elphenor

I have it in print right here

quoted passage is a description of why Marx assumed Germany to be where the revolution would originally occur (obviously he was wrong about this)

there is not a detailing of what is to follow in Germany other than "dictatorship of the proletariat"

Marxists believe revolution is inevitably the result of capitalism (seem like he was right about this)

Perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought you were saying that their only "call to action" was that of calling for a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". If you're suggesting that their only actionable idea was a 'Dictatorship of a Proletariat', I also disagree with that.

Quote:

The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

If you're suggesting that Marx didn't get down to the minutiae of policy proposal details, then yes, I agree. Not that it really matters for our broader discussion.

Psy-Fi · 10-30-2020, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucem Ferre

Holy **** that's good.

Yeah, I got a chuckle out of that one.

~~jwb~~ · 10-30-2020, 11:54 AM

I'm also curious how elph thinks Marx was right that revolution which leads to communism is the inevitable result of capitalism.

He thought it was most likely to start in the most industrialized Western countries like France, England, Germany. When he wrote the manifesto in 1848 that was an overt call to revolutionary action and he was anticipating revolution in these countries within the coming decades.

There were attempts and those attempts failed. He was disappointed at this and died before any serious revolution happened that succeeded in bringing on a regime that was nominally in favor of communism.

Eventually those dreams largely fell flat with the collapse of the Soviet Union. China abandoned the planned economy.

And in the Western countries that he actually anticipated would trend towards communism naturally due to the working conditions in industrial capitalism, we saw some moderate labor reforms but other than that we're no closer to communism today than in 1848.

If anything we are deindustrializing and the very dynamic Marx thought would lead to communism is increasingly becoming less and less relevant in the wealthy capitalist countries.

We're tending towards a gig and service economy which lends much less weight to collective bargaining and unionization. So I'm failing to see how you think his predictions were right.

~~jwb~~ · 10-30-2020, 12:15 PM

I agree with the second part, and history would've gone very differently had the revolutionary Communists in Weimar Germany been the ones to take power instead of the Nazis.

But with the first point I guess I'm curious what events you think substantiate that claim.

OccultHawk · 10-30-2020, 12:33 PM

Quote:

We're tending towards a gig and service economy which lends much less weight to collective bargaining and unionization. So I'm failing to see how you think his predictions were right.

The demonstrations may have been about race but the arson looting and rioting are about class.

~~jwb~~ · 10-30-2020, 12:36 PM

I understand the theory I thought you were suggesting it's proven to be true in some regard.

Because it seems to me like he's right that there is a pendulum with regard to reforms etc but it doesn't swing as wide each time. Generally speaking the stakes for you and me are actually lower than the workers of 100 years ago. We've got more material comforts, better working conditions and are more complacent. So how is it we're moving closer to said revolution?

~~jwb~~ · 10-30-2020, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

The demonstrations may have been about race but the arson looting and rioting are about class.

First of all, no. There are race and class aspects to both but the broad appeal that lead to the protests which lead to the riots was about race. And it was also just a perfect environment to create such a movement with everyone going crazy from the Covid lockdowns

Second of all, I'm not saying capitalism won't have civil unrest etc pop up. We're talking about the inevitable revolution that has yet to come.

10-30-2020, 11:54 AM	#1006 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	I'm also curious how elph thinks Marx was right that revolution which leads to communism is the inevitable result of capitalism. He thought it was most likely to start in the most industrialized Western countries like France, England, Germany. When he wrote the manifesto in 1848 that was an overt call to revolutionary action and he was anticipating revolution in these countries within the coming decades. There were attempts and those attempts failed. He was disappointed at this and died before any serious revolution happened that succeeded in bringing on a regime that was nominally in favor of communism. Eventually those dreams largely fell flat with the collapse of the Soviet Union. China abandoned the planned economy. And in the Western countries that he actually anticipated would trend towards communism naturally due to the working conditions in industrial capitalism, we saw some moderate labor reforms but other than that we're no closer to communism today than in 1848. If anything we are deindustrializing and the very dynamic Marx thought would lead to communism is increasingly becoming less and less relevant in the wealthy capitalist countries. We're tending towards a gig and service economy which lends much less weight to collective bargaining and unionization. So I'm failing to see how you think his predictions were right. Last edited by jwb; 10-30-2020 at 12:00 PM.

10-30-2020, 12:15 PM	#1007 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	I agree with the second part, and history would've gone very differently had the revolutionary Communists in Weimar Germany been the ones to take power instead of the Nazis. But with the first point I guess I'm curious what events you think substantiate that claim.

10-30-2020, 12:36 PM	#1009 (permalink)
~~jwb~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2019 Posts: 4,403	I understand the theory I thought you were suggesting it's proven to be true in some regard. Because it seems to me like he's right that there is a pendulum with regard to reforms etc but it doesn't swing as wide each time. Generally speaking the stakes for you and me are actually lower than the workers of 100 years ago. We've got more material comforts, better working conditions and are more complacent. So how is it we're moving closer to said revolution?