Ask A Red V: The Five-Year Plan

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This sounds like true idealism.

Words aren't toys. They have meaning. Either use them right or don't use them at all.

I guess that's the closest to 'I don't know' we can expect. So we can stop pretending now this is a Q & a thread. Honesty is a good thing after all.

For you, I will pretend that "I don't know" you are even here.

I am going to have to recapture and reformulate what you are saying here to me so that I can be certain to understand it:

The idea of the working class creating an economic / political system fundamentally different to those produced by capitalism and moreover a system adhering to the ideas of communism, can not be discussed in its potential actual realizations because those realizations would just be ideas, at this point, and hence pointless.

No, just specific details of the nature that Hygro asked about. I gave an answer above about what you can generally expect.

Why is such agency assumed?

I can't imagine:

Spoiler :

You may say due to the common interests of the working class, unifying it and enabling it to more or less act as one person/agent (hence: agency). But as soon as the working class has more or less abolished other classes and there is only one class left, why is it assumed that such agency persist beyond the stage of class struggle?

It's material interest. They can't help it, their consciousness is shaped by it.

Or do you think that people who were once enslaved are at risk of being re-enslaved once slavery is abolished?

One of the markers of communism is the abolition of structures that enable oppression in the first place, primarily private property. It won't matter if individuals "just up and decide" to acquire wealth - there will be no basis for capitalizing it or passing it on to other people or other generations. It's not kept going by good feelings and happy thoughts and honest dealing, you know.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Are professional athletes members of the proletariat?

 

[aelf]

This sounds like true idealism.

That's not idealism. In a Hegelian context, Idealism is something else. And since we're discussing Marxist ideas, that context is very relevant, Marxism being an offshoot of Hegelianism after all.

However, there is something to be said about the base-and-superstructure model of society. Personally, I lean more towards newer schools that question this model, and I believe that cultural change is crucial and absolutely necessary for socialism and communism to take hold. That is to say, I think a cultural paradigm shift must occur to effect changes in material conditions and social relations of production that result in communism, rather than culture merely changing to suit the change in material conditions.

This is because I believe capitalism has embedded itself very firmly within our collective consciousness, such that we cannot even imagine a model for social relations that can take shape outside of it without regressing into feudalism. We only know of one way to order society and one way of getting things done because that's all we've been exposed to, and we're either quite comfortable with it or have been reduced to fatalism. We only know of selfishness or individual gain as a suitable motivator that drives human relations in the wider society. Whatever ideals we have outside of the profit motive are bound up with other things that have by-and-large been 'co-opted' by late capitalism (although not perfectly, of course), such as religion and the nation state. In order for us to even think about changing the system, we as a society have to start having different motivators that can compete with individual gain. Some might call that a change in social values.

However, what separates this thinking from Idealism is that I don't think of culture as an abstraction that is divorced from the actions of social actors or social practices. You don't just wake up with different ideas one day and start to act on them. It's a change that takes time and takes reinforcement through actions happening and material conditions changing over time. The revolution will not come all at once just because some ideas suddenly spread like wildfire. I believe there are signs that society is already slowly transforming that way, and I do believe that the capitalism of the near future might well have changed and that the free market, finance-driven orthodoxies of today would again appear universally foolish. In that sense, there is room for optimism regarding how society would be closer to a viable model of socialism in a hundred years, if things don't go south.

 

[red_elk]

That's not idealism. In a Hegelian context, Idealism is something else. And since we're discussing Marxist ideas, that context is very relevant, Marxism being an offshoot of Hegelianism after all.

However, there is something to be said about the base-and-superstructure model of society. Personally, I lean more towards newer schools that question this model, and I believe that cultural change is crucial and absolutely necessary for socialism and communism to take hold. That is to say, I think a cultural paradigm shift must occur to effect changes in material conditions and social relations of production that result in communism, rather than culture merely changing to suit the change in material conditions.

This is because I believe capitalism has embedded itself very firmly within our collective consciousness, such that we cannot even imagine a model for social relations that can take shape outside of it without regressing into feudalism. We only know of one way to order society and one way of getting things done because that's all we've been exposed to, and we're either quite comfortable with it or have been reduced to fatalism. We only know of selfishness or individual gain as a suitable motivator that drives human relations in the wider society. Whatever ideals we have outside of the profit motive are bound up with other things that have by-and-large been 'co-opted' by late capitalism (although not perfectly, of course), such as religion and the nation state. In order for us to even think about changing the system, we as a society have to start having different motivators that can compete with individual gain. Some might call that a change in social values.

However, what separates this thinking from Idealism is that I don't think of culture as an abstraction that is divorced from the actions of social actors or social practices. You don't just wake up with different ideas one day and start to act on them. It's a change that takes time and takes reinforcement through actions happening and material conditions changing over time. The revolution will not come all at once just because some ideas suddenly spread like wildfire. I believe there are signs that society is already slowly transforming that way, and I do believe that the capitalism of the near future might well have changed and that the free market, finance-driven orthodoxies of today would again appear universally foolish. In that sense, there is room for optimism regarding how society would be closer to a viable model of socialism in a hundred years, if things don't go south.

What kind of changes you expect in this sense? Should it be purely cultural development, related to people's interaction in society, ethics, morality, etc., or they will be also related to technological progress which will lead to changes in relations of production? Can you show a few examples, which you believe are signs that the society is already transforming? Would be interesting to know.

In my opinion, one example can be progress in IT technologies, which seems to be creating fundamental contradictions in profit-driven production of digital content. But you probably meant something else.

 

[_random_]

They will struggle to end capitalism. Socialism will inevitably follow as the working class assert their own class interest. There's no "convincing people" involved. They'll see it themselves, as they have in dozens of other countries.

Wait, so what's the purpose of the vanguard then?

 

[aelf]

What kind of changes you expect in this sense? Should it be purely cultural development, related to people's interaction in society, ethics, morality, etc., or they will be also related to technological progress which will lead to changes in relations of production? Can you show a few examples, which you believe are signs that the society is already transforming? Would be interesting to know.

They are related, and technological progress can sure help. I was thinking more along the lines of how some people who previously didn't have much of an opinion about macroeconomics are now incensed by the fact that banks can operate with a free hand regardless of what it would cost society - how the idea of regulation being a necessity is moving back in vogue.

In this sense, material conditions do shape culture, but a culture shift needs to happen before the transformation into socialism can occur. And, along the way, culture and material conditions shape one another bit by bit until we reach the point where we can say the necessary paradigm shift has occurred.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Wait, so what's the purpose of the vanguard then?

To focus that force into productive ends and to educate and bring together the most advanced sections of the proletariat for the purposes of making revolution at the weak spot and at the opportune moment.

Are professional athletes members of the proletariat?

I doubt they would sympathize with us, but in the strictest sense I suppose they do not control the wealth they create as must work to survive. I believe we've covered the difference between capitalist and bourgeois, proletarian and working class, before.

 

[_random_]

To focus that force into productive ends and to educate and bring together the most advanced sections of the proletariat for the purposes of making revolution at the weak spot and at the opportune moment.

How long after a revolution is the vanguard party necessary? And what's the best way to determine which sections of the proletariat are most advanced?

I doubt they would sympathize with us, but in the strictest sense I suppose they do not control the wealth they create as must work to survive. I believe we've covered the difference between capitalist and bourgeois, proletarian and working class, before.

To quote Chris Rock, "Shaq is rich. The guy who signs Shaq's checks is wealthy."

Also, I thought of "Icepicking the Kicker", which I think I'll use next time I go up against the real edgy guy with the Hitler-themed team name, since it's Stalin-related.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

How long after a revolution is the vanguard party necessary?

We'll find out I guess, won't we?

And what's the best way to determine which sections of the proletariat are most advanced?

They take an active interest in liberation from capitalism, or perceive the central elements of its contradictions clearly enough, even if not 100% consciously so (meaning they get that they're being screwed over, but perhaps haven't totally put 2 and 2 together to get that communism is the force they're looking for that can save them from that).

 

[Agent327]

We'll find out I guess, won't we?

I think we have some examples already:

- Russia: about 60 years
- China: indefinitely
- Cuba: dito.

Are professional athletes members of the proletariat?

Plotinus might term this a brilliant question.

That's not idealism. In a Hegelian context, Idealism is something else. And since we're discussing Marxist ideas, that context is very relevant, Marxism being an offshoot of Hegelianism after all.

In philosophy idealism has other meanings than the Hegelian one as well. Hegel was just the one of the later idealists.

Words aren't toys. They have meaning. Either use them right or don't use them at all.

It seems to the ML words are toys:

For you, I will pretend that "I don't know" you are even here.

Keep pretending. You're doing a good job so far.

 

[_random_]

We'll find out I guess, won't we?

Perhaps! I suppose a better question would be "How will the vanguard know when they're unnecessary, and why should we trust them to relinquish their power in such circumstances?" The criticism Agent offered seems to be a common one. Do you think the vanguard party holding onto power has been a problem in any communist states? And if so, what sorts of preventative measures could people take in future revolutions?


Also, have you read any online fiction about alternate histories featuring American communist revolutions? I discovered Reds recently, and it's a pretty entertaining read, even if it is a bit idealistic (not the way you use the word, nor in a metaphysical sense, but in the other sense. The one most people mean).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

I think we have some examples already:

Fortunately this isn't "ask an Agent327" thread.

Keep pretending. You're doing a good job so far.

Perhaps! I suppose a better question would be "How will the vanguard know when they're unnecessary, and why should we trust them to relinquish their power in such circumstances?"

There's no power being "surrendered." The Vanguard is simply the leadership of the proletariat. It's not a new class or some nonsense. The leadership is elected and can be removed by the proletariat, and if no one follows them then their claim to be vanguardists doesn't matter. The Vanguard isn't something established beforehand and then you just put it in front of a working class and expect them to follow it because they say so, it's created out of the advance sections of the proletariat during the struggle. It's a consequence of the class struggle, not an addendum to it. More than that, the only way to really stop such a leadership organization from forming is to consciously reject such an idea, like anarchists, or the Occupy movement, did (although even they showed hints of moving in that general direction by the end).

The criticism Agent offered seems to be a common one.

That's because Agent is a liberal.

Do you think the vanguard party holding onto power has been a problem in any communist states? And if so, what sorts of preventative measures could people take in future revolutions?

No I don't. As Gorbachev correctly put it, no communist country has had an ordinary day in its entire existence. From the moment they were created they faced encirclement by an enemy more powerful than them who was dedicated to destroying them.

Also, have you read any online fiction about alternate histories featuring American communist revolutions?

I've read The Iron Heel, which is about a botched revolution in America that precipitates a fascist oligarchy when the capitalists rally to crush it, but that's about it. Althist really doesn't interest me, actual history is interesting enough.

 

[Agent327]

Fortunately this isn't "ask an Agent327" thread.

That's OK, I'm not here to answer questions.

There's no power being "surrendered." The Vanguard is simply the leadership of the proletariat. It's not a new class or some nonsense. The leadership is elected and can be removed by the proletariat, and if no one follows them then their claim to be vanguardists doesn't matter. The Vanguard isn't something established beforehand and then you just put it in front of a working class and expect them to follow it because they say so, it's created out of the advance sections of the proletariat during the struggle. It's a consequence of the class struggle, not an addendum to it. More than that, the only way to really stop such a leadership organization from forming is to consciously reject such an idea, like anarchists, or the Occupy movement, did (although even they showed hints of moving in that general direction by the end).

So the vanguard of the proletariat is not a party then. Or even a party leadership. Which raises the question: what happened to the vanguards of the proleatriat in the 20th century revolutions?

That's because Agent is a liberal.

Only if you term anyone who is not marxist-leninist 'liberal'.

As Gorbachev correctly put it, no communist country has had an ordinary day in its entire existence. From the moment they were created they faced encirclement by an enemy more powerful than them who was dedicated to destroying them.

Would that include Yugoslavia? And China?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

So the vanguard of the proletariat is not a party then. Or even a party leadership. Which raises the question: what happened to the vanguards of the proleatriat in the 20th century revolutions?

I don't understand your question.

Only if you term anyone who is not marxist-leninist 'liberal'.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a liberal.

Would that include Yugoslavia? And China?

Most especially.

 

[Agent327]

I don't understand your question.

Perhaps try reading it again? It's a very clear question. Either the party was the vanguard, or it wasn't. Which leaves the question: Where was the vanguard of the proletariat?

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a liberal.

What about swans? Conservative?

Most especially.

Really? The only country your quote seems to apply to is the USSR (somewhat unsurprising coming from a Russian Communist). And the official ideology of the USSR well into the 1950s was to 'spread the world revolution'.

Yugoslavia joined the non-aligned nations, and China did quite well after ousting the Nationalists - which left the evil Capitalists powerless to do anything about Maoist China. The only thing threatening Yugoslavia was a Warsaw Pact invasion, but Stalin changed his mind. So where was this Capitalist threat in both cases?

 

[Leoreth]

No I don't. As Gorbachev correctly put it, no communist country has had an ordinary day in its entire existence. From the moment they were created they faced encirclement by an enemy more powerful than them who was dedicated to destroying them.

Does that imply that there cannot be communism unless the revolution has truly spread across the entire world? Or to put it differently, that it is meaningless to think of the existence of communism only within a certain country or geographical region?

I'm asking because your answer above implies that the existence of competing capitalist states is an extraordinary situation for communist societies ("ordinary day", "encirclement"). As I understand communist thought, capitalist states will always be hostile to communist societies. Is it impossible to consider the revolution complete even in a geographically limited region while capitalist societies exist? I know that the goal is to spread the revolution internationally, but previously I would have thought that completing it locally is a possibility.

Somewhat related to that, a couple of posts ago aelf mentioned nationalism as an idea (or historical phenomenon) that has been co-opted by capitalism. Does that mean that nationalism is an idea (originally) independent of capitalism, or is it a consequence of the capitalist model of society?

In addition, what's the general relationship between communism and nationalism these days? While orthodox communist movements are internationalist, that seems to be much less emphasized today. Do nationalist communist movements exist (both in your and in their own view of themselves), and if so, how do they work?

 

[aelf]

Somewhat related to that, a couple of posts ago aelf mentioned nationalism as an idea (or historical phenomenon) that has been co-opted by capitalism. Does that mean that nationalism is an idea (originally) independent of capitalism, or is it a consequence of the capitalist model of society?

Nationalism as we know it has its locus in the nation state. Hence, it becomes a ready tool for legitimising the state and, consequently, the rule of those who control the state. It's not exclusively a tool of capitalist states, however.

I certainly don't think nationalism is purely a consequence of the capitalist model of society. I think it suffices to say that Western nationalism was driven by some of the same historical forces that created Western capitalism, as a parallel phenomenon rather than as a product. You could perhaps say the same about China, where capitalists were instrumental is the establishment (and eventual downfall) of the Chinese nationalist movement, but it wasn't just a capitalist thing.

 

[Leoreth]

Okay, thanks. So I take it that nationalism is not inherently antithetical to communism? That it's legitimate to make use of the nation state until the state can be abolished?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Really? The only country your quote seems to apply to is the USSR (somewhat unsurprising coming from a Russian Communist). And the official ideology of the USSR well into the 1950s was to 'spread the world revolution'.

Yugoslavia joined the non-aligned nations, and China did quite well after ousting the Nationalists - which left the evil Capitalists powerless to do anything about Maoist China. The only thing threatening Yugoslavia was a Warsaw Pact invasion, but Stalin changed his mind. So where was this Capitalist threat in both cases?

Your analysis is utterly absurd. Yes, all communist countries have been encircled for their entire existence. Even China, even Yugoslavia.

Does that imply that there cannot be communism unless the revolution has truly spread across the entire world? Or to put it differently, that it is meaningless to think of the existence of communism only within a certain country or geographical region?

Yeah, probably. But remember that communism and socialism are not the same thing.

Somewhat related to that, a couple of posts ago aelf mentioned nationalism as an idea (or historical phenomenon) that has been co-opted by capitalism. Does that mean that nationalism is an idea (originally) independent of capitalism, or is it a consequence of the capitalist model of society?

As aelf said, it's a consequence of nation-states. But not all nationalisms are created equally. Nationalism that seeks to exalt one's nation above other nations is chauvinism, which is destructive, and is also the kind of nationalism that capitalism has historically tapped into. But there is also liberatory nationalism. That is the nationalism of oppressed peoples seeking to hold onto their national identity in the face of a colonizing foe, as in Ireland, or Palestine, or Kenya, or Black Power and Red Power in the US. That nationalism is an ally (hence Lenin's slogan "workers and oppressed peoples of the world, unite!"), and need never become chauvinist. In extant socialist countries this has been the norm: ethnic groups get their own autonomous regions based on population, where they can practice their own culture, speak their own language, celebrate their own holidays and rituals and practices independence of an outside imperializing culture forcing them to assimilate. And it's worked really well so far, so I see no reason to change that approach.

In addition, what's the general relationship between communism and nationalism these days? While orthodox communist movements are internationalist, that seems to be much less emphasized today. Do nationalist communist movements exist (both in your and in their own view of themselves), and if so, how do they work?

Yes, in the case of colonized peoples (Blacks, Chicanos, and Native Americans in the US and Canada, Arabs in Palestine, Kurds in Syria, Iran, Iraq, and Turkey), but seeing as there are many more independent countries than there were a hundred years ago, there is not as pressing a need for nationalist uprisings nor the need for them to embrace the power opposite their colonial overlords.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

What kind of changes you expect in this sense? Should it be purely cultural development, related to people's interaction in society, ethics, morality, etc., or they will be also related to technological progress which will lead to changes in relations of production? Can you show a few examples, which you believe are signs that the society is already transforming? Would be interesting to know.

In my opinion, one example can be progress in IT technologies, which seems to be creating fundamental contradictions in profit-driven production of digital content. But you probably meant something else.

I believe I asked something along similar lines much earlier in the thread or in one of the earlier threads. Particularly I was interested (IIRC) in whether or not the potential rapid distribution of rapid manufacturing techniques (i.e. 3D printing) would lead to the kind of revolution that communism requires where the means of production could be put in the hands of everyday people and begin to make meaningful changes to the relationship between people in capital.

I believe the answer was along the lines of 'the world isn't like Star Trek, go away'.

I thought it was an interesting and relevant question but I guess the philosophical arguments for or against communism will dominate the topic rather than potential knock-on effects of our rapid technological progress to the level that the latter isn't worth contemplating seriously.