- Capitalism and Alternatives -

There will be no 'class enemies' because there will be no classes.

Posted by: NJ ( DSA, MA, USA ) on February 09, 19100 at 23:25:53:

In Reply to: nope posted by Piper on February 09, 19100 at 14:09:13:

: : : :
: : : : : Piper: Cut the crap Krasny I know you support despotism as a form of revolution. You could not in good conscience call yourself a Marxist if you didn't.

: : : : WHAT?! What sort of shit is this? Marxism has come to power many times democratically and through the ballot box, and in noen of these places did it resort to despotism once it was there. Nicaragau and Chile are only two of the best known examples. This is extremely disingenuous and such a reactionary statement that it puts Frenchy to shame.
: : : : Marxism is about ENDIng the despotism of the capitalists, and then about destroying teh state itself. You know that as well as me. So stop trying to psychoanalyze and make sweeping statements about Marxism and/or Communism.

: : : Piper: Ever heard of the dictatorship of the proletariat?

: : : "between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the State can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat"

: : : ('Critique of the Gotha Programme')

: : : This is a marxist doctrine.

: : the dictatorship of the proletariat means true democracy; it means a state in which privileges, wealth, etc. are IGNORED, and the democratic will of the people is the only authority that matters (hence ythe term 'dictatorship'. 'Dictatorship of teh proletariat" means, if you parse the phrase, "unchallenged rule (dictatorship) by the people (proletariat)", which is what democracy is supposed to mean.

: : Or do you not believe in democracy?

: : I;'m no Marxist, but even I can see that marxism is all about democracy, and has nothing to do with dictatorship.

: Piper: It's called a dictatorship because it will be used to suppress the proletariat's class enemies. That is blatantly despotism and clearly not rule by the people. This fits in with Marx's general conception of law and politics as 'merely the orgainised power of one class for oppressing another' (communist Manifesto).

Do away with property and there will BE no bourgosis for the proletariat to 'oppress'. As if what socialist people'
d democracies do could be called 'oppression', in any rational sense of the word. Don't you get it? There can be no 'class enemies', because there will be no 'classes'. People always seem to assume that the class tsruggle will be a long, drawn out, and violent one. But that isn't true. It can be near-instantanoeus, and it will only be as violent as the reactionaries choose to make it. If the labor activists, African American leaders and other leaders of popular progressive forces seized the United States Congress tomorrow and declared a state of emergency, they could then pass a sweeping law that nationalized 80-90% of the private property in America. This would effectively break the back of capitalism in America, without killing or 'oppressing' anyone. Unless of course you think depriving people of productive private property is 'oppression'. In which case, capiatlism 'oppresses' people every day by stealing from them the value of their labor.

I'll tell YOU what is NOT 'rule by the people'. A system in which an elite writes laws in their favor and uses sanctimonious phrases like 'free enterprise' to protect their tyrannical dominion. Rule by the people means that the peopel RULE, i.e. they pass laws that everyone is required to obey. If capitalists break these laws, they are criminals and should be deal with as criminals.

A 'despotism of the people' is an oxymoron.

Follow Ups:

The Debating Room Post a Followup