• Welcome to ResetEra 2.0! Guests should now be able to save their dark or light theme preferences, found on the left sidebar.

Socialism |OT| The Dawn of a Red Era

OP
OP
sphagnum
Oct 25, 2017
6,591
0
The neo-Nazi accused of killing a woman in Charlottesville after driving his car into a crowd of protesters said "it doesn't fucking matter" that the victim died.

James Alex Fields referred to Heather Heyer, the woman he allegedly killed, as "that one girl who died, or whatever," according to a recording of a call he made to his mother from jail in December 2017. Fields is standing trial for premeditated murder, malicious wounding, and hit-and-run in Charlottesville.

On the call, Fields said that Heyer's mother, Susan Bro, was "one of those anti-white communists."

According to a federal indictment, Fields “promoted his belief that white people are superior to other races and peoples."

"She lost her daughter," Fields' mother, Samantha Bloom, responded.

"It doesn't fucking matter. She's a communist," Fields said.

"Stop talking like that," Bloom said.

"It isn't up for questioning. She's the enemy, mother," he replied.
Seems like an innocent man.

www.buzzfeednews.com/blakemontgomery/neo-nazi-who-allegedly-killed-heather-heyer-in
 
Does anybody have any thoughts or suggested reading on what forms of capitalist organisation (worker co-ops etc) would be most conductive to helping workers gain ideas and experience on how to organise communities and their labour in a post-capitalist society?
 
No. But a serf in 1550 England might have an idea for how 1600 England might look. And those changes they foresee and implement lay the building blocks towards capitalist organisation. (I’m not actually claiming that’s correct here, I think you know far better than me on this.)
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,211
0
Nazi Germany anti-bourgeoisie?
In as much as they associated bourgeois elements with Jews and the non Jewish bourgeoisie as unreliable to the nation state as a whole. The definition of "class enemies" of both regimes was fluid and ultimately served the will of the State which, in the end, sought to build a welfare state that benefited its primary political and ethnic constituency. The "form" of the State is less consequential as the State will centralize and decentralize and practice varying levels of authority to discipline the working class and interference to bring the capitalist class in line with the State's goals.

No. But a serf in 1550 England might have an idea for how 1600 England might look. And those changes they foresee and implement lay the building blocks towards capitalist organisation. (I’m not actually claiming that’s correct here, I think you know far better than me on this.)
Fair enough, but much of these "transitional" existences between modes of production were the result of the new class reacting to its needs and not "building" to a result based on some party line. Over the past few pages of this thread I've explained my position on the differences between the "Party Program" and the "Socialist Program".
 
Oct 28, 2017
3,459
0
20
Canada
In as much as they associated bourgeois elements with Jews and the non Jewish bourgeoisie as unreliable to the nation state as a whole. The definition of "class enemies" of both regimes was fluid and ultimately served the will of the State which, in the end, sought to build a welfare state that benefited its primary political and ethnic constituency. The "form" of the State is less consequential as the State will centralize and decentralize and practice varying levels of authority to discipline the working class and interference to bring the capitalist class in line with the State's goals.



Fair enough, but much of these "transitional" existences between modes of production were the result of the new class reacting to its needs and not "building" to a result based on some party line. Over the past few pages of this thread I've explained my position on the differences between the "Party Program" and the "Socialist Program".
They may have tried to appear as anti-bourgeois, but to them the bourgeoisie were essentially the Jews. If we refer to how they actually functioned, they were financed and supported by numerous German corporations and privatized many institutions.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,211
0
They may have tried to appear as anti-bourgeois, but to them the bourgeoisie were essentially the Jews. If we refer to how they actually functioned, they were financed and supported by numerous German corporations and privatized many institutions.
At some point in time it becomes a situation where you can understand the finer differences between the USSR State and the Fascist State and know that it isn't a 1:1 comparison, but also you eventually have to "pick nits" as well to differentiate.

In the end, the corporatist single party totalitarian state managed capital and liquidated those it opposed. The scapegoats may be different, and they may have "privatized" to various degrees, but the State and Capital never ceased to function in spite of both the Nazis and Stalinists saying they were not a Capitalist organization.

This ultimately betrays my original answer as "Stalinism" and "Nazism" are specific things to a specific time and Stalin, ultimately, was not a Nazi.

But wasn't isn't unique to the early 1900s is the ability for Capitalism to exercise various degrees of control and authoritarianism. Liberal society can devolve into "Fascist" society and come back out on the other side without an issue.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,211
0
France this past month or so is a great example of my position in this thread. Look at all of these workers and swathes of declassed petite bourgeois democratically joining together in proletarian action, not only devoid of but antagonistic towards the formal party, the defined vanguard. They are the Party, they are the Vanguard, and the only thing that stands in their way is the State and the counter revolutionary "leftists" whining about the lack of Red and Black and the absence of liquidationist "study sessions".
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,211
0
I tried googling this and got results that were confusing and sometimes contradictory. What would be considered ‘declassed’, particularly with regards to the petite bourgeois?
This is not the end all be all example, but:

My childhood friend's father owned his own local AC repair business. The 2008 recession caused him to lose it. To make use of his trade and skillset he became a regular employee of a larger, regional, AC and HVAC business.
 
This is not the end all be all example, but:

My childhood friend's father owned his own local AC repair business. The 2008 recession caused him to lose it. To make use of his trade and skillset he became a regular employee of a larger, regional, AC and HVAC business.
So it’s someone who formerly took part in the capital side of exploitation, at least to some extent, and is now on the labouring side?
 
Of course, I just wanted to be clear on terms as I hadn’t met that before.

So, when stuff like the yellow jacket protests occur, the proper course of action is to step back and support the proletariat in their demands against the state? I notice that they aren’t, like, calling for the abolishment of the French state and capital or anything, so if I as someone who professes to support them were to call for it myself, I would be therefore pushing an ideological agenda rather than the proletarian agenda?
 
OP
OP
sphagnum
Oct 25, 2017
6,591
0
I really (shamefully) haven't paid enough attention to the Yellow Jackets but it seems to me like it's a pretty haphazard movement that tosses just about everyone who doesn't like Macron into the mix from the far left to the far right. That's not to say that leftists should reject the protests because there are fascists involved in it - to do that would be to just concede the protests to the far right.

The trigger for the protests was a gas tax, not dissatisfaction with capitalism per se. Now it seems like the demands are all over the place because every side is trying to claim it for themselves, and I guess that's where the rejection of the parties comes in that you mention. But unless I've missed something I'm not sure what the revolutionary content of the protests is that would qualify its protestors as being a vanguard. Kicking out a president isn't revolutionary, revolutions require one class overturning another. I don't know if unleashing a general rage without threatening to completely overturn the socio-economic system qualifies as a vanguard. I don't mean that they have to follow some particular platform or tendency or whatever, just that I would think if the protestors get what they want and Macron steps down they're going be satisfied(ish) rather than wanting to push for a new type of democracy, socialist democracy. In that respect it doesn't remind me of May 68.

Of course the situation could always evolve.

I guess my question is what would you consider to be the determinant of a vanguard compared to just a "riot" or protest movement?
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,211
0
The French protesting is currently done so across class lines. Both the proletariat and petite bourgeois are severely negatively affected by the tax increase. If the situation were to develop into a true anti State/anti Capitalist revolt then the interclass interests will be separated and the working class could potentially agitate for its own individual interests (that of freedom from the State and Capital). But since this is, ultimately, an isolated protest and the State itself isn't particularly threatened, the abolishment of the French state is a pipe dream.

In the end, if the repeal of the tax increase and a renegotiation of wages is enough to assuage the majority of the protesting workers then we know what this situation really was: political upheaval but not social revolution.

if I as someone who professes to support them were to call for it myself, I would be therefore pushing an ideological agenda rather than the proletarian agenda?
If the demands of the people are "satisfied" to a degree that French society returns to normalcy, then someone who continues to agitate, push, etc runs risk of adventurism and opportunism.


http://pcint.org/01_Positions/01_03_en/181122_yellow-vests.htm
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,211
0
Apologies for doing a "line by line" quote/response:

That's not to say that leftists should reject the protests because there are fascists involved in it
Well, we should keep in mind that, as unfortunate as it is, "right wing proletarians" are still proletarian.

But unless I've missed something I'm not sure what the revolutionary content of the protests is that would qualify its protestors as being a vanguard.
Ultimately I don't think this is a revolutionary situation. But in this situation you can see the working class and its ability to organize at work which was the point I was hoping to get across.

I guess my question is what would you consider to be the determinant of a vanguard compared to just a "riot" or protest movement?
Without the ability to speak French and follow the situation closely I can't specifically highlight any one group or organization. That said, I don't think it would be difficult to recognize a reoccurring group/set of people/etc. Obviously the initial anarchic chaos has given way to some level of organization and the intelligence behind that organization would be the vanguard.



That said, as you mentioned:

The trigger for the protests was a gas tax
I do have a bit of schadenfreude at the backlash that some "enlightened liberals" are seeing. Their "just tax it" solution falling completely on it face...
 
Without the ability to speak French and follow the situation closely I can't specifically highlight any one group or organization. That said, I don't think it would be difficult to recognize a reoccurring group/set of people/etc. Obviously the initial anarchic chaos has given way to some level of organization and the intelligence behind that organization would be the vanguard.
So, in a hypothetical scenario where this was a revolutionary movement rather than the interclassist political one you describe, what is it that separates this intelligence from other organisations and how do we recognise that they are truly acting in the interests of the proletariat rather than themselves, setting themselves up as the new capitalist class?

I appreciate your patience with my questions btw, as I’m sure anyone could guess I’m young, both in actual age and also my entry into the proletariat, so I’m still very much learning about all this stuff and figuring myself out politically.
 
I actually can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not because of the punctuation, but Stalin certainly had a lot of policies adjacent to fascism. The economic structure was significantly different, but the authoritarian single party state, oppression of various minorities, extrajudicial violence etc. were all there. Ideological justifications underpinning it were different though.
Since Mussolini came before the 5 Year Plan you could say it was Fascist in its style, but Fascism was itself modeled after Marx-Leninism. Similar means (dictatorship of a vanguard political party with curated membership) to very different ends. The primary difference between Fascism and Marx-Leninism is economic, although Fascism was schizophrenic on its own economics as to whether Fascist economics were Managed Capitalist or Luddite-type anticapitalist like in Spain or parts of South America. A vanguard party to manage and preserve social and economic structures with a stern hand versus a vanguard party to smash them.

Edit: the one I always have fun categorizing are the Arab regimes: Saddam, Nasserism, Qaddafi-ism, which seem to have elements of both.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,211
0
So, in a hypothetical scenario where this was a revolutionary movement rather than the interclassist political one you describe, what is it that separates this intelligence from other organisations and how do we recognise that they are truly acting in the interests of the proletariat rather than themselves, setting themselves up as the new capitalist class?

I appreciate your patience with my questions btw, as I’m sure anyone could guess I’m young, both in actual age and also my entry into the proletariat, so I’m still very much learning about all this stuff and figuring myself out politically.
It's not something you can really anticipate and prepare for. Situations are unique and what may not be in the worker's interest one moment may be later, or may be part of an overall strategy or simple happenstance.

We benefit from historical perspective when it comes to prior revolutions. We have a good idea when the Russian Revolution became counter revolutionary. We have lots to learn from the Chinese Revolution's degeneration into Stalinism in spite of Mao's attempts to break from it.

It's a matter of understanding the past while forging a future. If you have the patience to go back this thread there's several discussions on the State, the Party, and my thoughts on avoiding the mistakes of the past. On one of my posts I went back and linked to some older discussions as well.

But ultimately, what we know now is that the proletarian Party and seizing State power is not sufficient. The Bourgeois State in the hands of the proletariat does not make a Proletarian State. The Revolution must be Social and transformative. As you noted, if it is not transformative and is merely political then it is merely the overturning of the old bourgeoisie for the new.
 
Yeah, I read through the entire thread before I felt confident enough to post.

Does anybody have good places to start reading up on the Russian revolution and China from that perspective of degeneration into counter-revolution? The best books?
 
Apr 16, 2018
1,513
0
this is the same forum that had a "should poor people be allowed to have dogs?" thread.

I'm just waiting until they start uniting with the fascists once the capitalist crisis intensifies further. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds, as they say. Which seems to be more and more true.
 
OP
OP
sphagnum
Oct 25, 2017
6,591
0
I've said that phrase a million times myself but the problem is that it doesn't quite work with the American definition of liberalism since that's so out of whack with the world definition of liberalism. Upper class liberals, sure, they'd go for it, but there are a lot of people in the US who consider themselves liberals or vote for the Democrats because due to FPTP they have to do so to stem the tide of blatant racism/sexism/homophobia etc. And I don't think those people, for the most part (there's always exceptions as we can easily see from some alt-right YouTubers and token GOP party members), would favor fascism. Nazism is incompatible with being a minority and most people won't want to vote themselves out of existence.

Of course, the self-limiting nature of fascism is because they are race-obsessed morons. But if fascists ever kicked their Hitler habit and started cozying up more to Mussolini, promoting corporatism with a strong civic nationalist bent, that would probably be more appealing to a wider audience. That's really not too different from social democracy except the part where you don't vote anymore.

Or you could always follow the basically-fascist guide of a country like China that's good with glitz and glamor. Prior to Xi blowing their cover they were getting pretty good at PR and hiding their atrocities. Remember all those "Good Guy China" threads?
 
OP
OP
sphagnum
Oct 25, 2017
6,591
0
Back around 2015/2016 on GAF, before Xi made his power grab, there were always threads about how China was pursuing X green technology or doing Y innovative thing and people would talk about "gee it looks like they're really on the up and up these days!". I think the CCP funding a lot of scientific projects and being seen as "responsible and stable" caused people to contrast it with the insanity going on in the US.