Question for ICC members

135 posts / 0 new
Last post
proletarian.
Offline
Joined: 15-08-11
Mar 5 2015 18:29
Quote:

So the ex-peasants etc. will be proletarians because they can't go to full communism before the world does, in that they'll be a part of the world commune just like the other workers, and they'll cease to be proletarians when the proletariat finally manages to abolish itself as well as all the other classes as classes.

If we're not in communism or moving towards it, you know what we'll be in? Capitalism. And with the working class running it it will soon become The Party. It seems all too familiar if you ask me.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 5 2015 18:50
Quote:
If we're not in communism or moving towards it, you know what we'll be in? Capitalism.

Actually, I'm pretty sure what I've described is moving towards communism but yes, it is the period of transition from capitalism in particular and class society in general, to communism.

Quote:
And with the working class running it it will soon become The Party. It seems all too familiar if you ask me.

How exactly does it seem familiar? Where did the working class turn into the Party before? What does that even mean?

If you mean that the working class in Russia became the RCP(b) or the CPSU because it was running things and this was the reason behind Stalinism, then I'm afraid your arguement is not much different from the common line equating the marxist concept of DotP with Stalinism and blaming the whole thing on "the horrors of communism".

Intifada1988
Offline
Joined: 13-09-07
Mar 6 2015 05:03

Why even respond to the dilettantism in some of these posts?

Leo raised some crucial points, but at the same time (mistakenly) generalized a whole group of people, and then all you anarchists who love the political correctness of identity politics flipped out and here we are bickering with each other 4 pages on...

There is always an exception to the rule!

There are peasants in the mountains of India who would love to drink beer with you (and your lady friend) as you all run naked through never ending fields of massive cannabis plants.

Conservative Islamic Turkish peasants...you knew what you signed up for going there, I'm sure.

Intifada1988
Offline
Joined: 13-09-07
Mar 6 2015 05:08

What is the difference between an agricultural laborer vs. peasant in the 21st century?

Makhno vs. the Bolsheviks...(Leo, could you please link to Lenin and Trotsky's discussions you mentioned?)

And finally the question of agriculture during the period of transition. "Big Ag" as it exists today is completely unsustainable. Workers will need to learn how to farm, there's really no way around it.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 6 2015 10:24

"I'm sorry, but I think you're misremembering. The Tambov rebellion started in 1920, and the Red Army started attacking it in June 1921. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tambov_Rebellion)

Antonov himself wasn't killed either in 1920 or 1921 but in 1922. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Antonov_%28politician%29)

Also, I don't think we can say the Makhnovist movement developed because of "war communism", though this is nevertheless mostly a fair point about the Antonov movement."

You are of course quite right about Antonov. At the time I was abroad with only a few minutes of internet time when I hastily sent my message ( I'd been drinking too, which is not a wise thing to when engaging in argument! Tut! Tut!). That does not negate my statement that war communism produced the various peasant movements and the incipient Third Revolution. as regards Sapozhkov and other commanders of the Army of Truth, they came predominantly from a peasant background and were supported by the mass of the local peasant population. See
http://www.katesharpleylibrary.net/cz8x9d

As regards the Antonov movement being spared until 1921, this was because the Red Army was tied down with the war with Poland and with Wrangel and had nothing to do with introduction of NEP.. As soon as that was over, Tukhachevsky as a Red Army commander roved with extreme prejudice against the Tambov region, employing poison gas and summary executions and setting up 7 concentration camps, with the internment of at least 50,000 people. These tactics resulted in a severe depopulation of the Tambov region. This is an example,of the dangers of seeing the countryside as the enemy of the revolution and instead of winning over the mass of the peasantry ( and noone isdenying that there was and is a class stratification among the peasants but one that was falsely over-accentuated by the Bolsheviks) alienating them through brutal and misdirected food requisitioning and reprisals. As Bakunin pointed out: "“All those who really take the social revolution to heart must deplore that fatal separation that exists between the proletariat of the towns and the countryside. All their efforts must be directed to destroying it, because we must all be conscious of this – that as much as the workers of the land, the peasants, have not given a hand to the workers of the town, for a common revolutionary action, all the revolutionary efforts of the towns will be condemned to inevitable fiascos. The whole revolutionary question is there; it must be resolved, or else perish”Bakunin, from The Complete Works “On German Pan-Germanism”.

Battlescarred
Offline
Joined: 27-02-06
Mar 6 2015 11:17

"..... a Lassallean quotation of the first water: "relative to which" (the working class) "all other classes are only one reactionary mass."

In the Communist Manifesto it is said:

"Of all the classes that stand face-to-face with the bourgeoisie today, the proletariat alone is a really revolutionary class. The other classes decay and finally disappear in the face of modern industry; the proletariat is its special and essential product."

The bourgeoisie is here conceived as a revolutionary class -- as the bearer of large-scale industry -- relative to the feudal lords and the lower middle class, who desire to maintain all social positions that are the creation of obsolete modes of production. thus, they do not form together with the bourgeoisie "only one reactionary mass".

On the other hand, the proletariat is revolutionary relative to the bourgeoisie because, having itself grown up on the basis of large-scale industry, it strives to strip off from production the capitalist character that the bourgeoisie seeks to perpetuate. But the Manifesto adds that the "lower middle class" is becoming revolutionary "in view of [its] impending transfer to the proletariat".

From this point of view, therefore, it is again nonsense to say that it, together with the bourgeoisie, and with the feudal lords into the bargain, "form only one reactionary mass" relative to the working class.

Has one proclaimed to the artisan, small manufacturers, etc., and peasants during the last elections: Relative to us, you, together with the bourgeoisie and feudal lords, form one reactionary mass?"

Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 6 2015 17:23
Quote:
Leo raised some crucial points, but at the same time (mistakenly) generalized a whole group of people

I don't think I generalized all peasants, since I said I expect some peasants to prefer communism to owning their own land. My experience with the peasantry goes too much beyond having met a few French peasants in my life, after all and I think I've expressed quite openly that I love some of them on a personal level. I even drank with some of them, as Islamist as the countryside here is.

Rather, I think, the reaction I got was that I didn't see the peasants as proletarian, I pointed out that the traditional country-side is often totally reactionary and that I said people who prefer to be land-owners will be excluded from the workers councils.

Of course, I'm always willing to evaluate any criticism of my positions and welcome it if I agree with it, but in this case, I think what I'm being criticised for is simply defending the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I may have been a bit provocative in my tone but I have no regrets: I have no tolerance for any sort of populism, be it Kemalist, Stalinist, Islamist, anarchist or communizationist.

Quote:
There are peasants in the mountains of India who would love to drink beer with you (and your lady friend) as you all run naked through never ending fields of massive cannabis plants.

Yes, I'm sure. India is a lucky country for having bhang as a national beverage. Mountain peasants tend to be more open minded for some reason.

Then again, I imagine there are thousands of villages in India where everyone and I mean literally everyone, excuses rape in one way or the other. I don't think there are cities like that anywhere in the world.

Quote:
There is always an exception to the rule!

Yes, always.

Quote:
Conservative Islamic Turkish peasants...you knew what you signed up for going there, I'm sure.

You never know before you experience it, and it certainly is an experience. As I said I drank with some of them. I heard stories of the sons of very conservative Islamic Turkish peasants robbing the houses in the village and taking dumps in the living room as well.

Personally, I quite like spending time in the countryside, though unfortunately I do miss "civilization" (mainly the internet) in a few days. In fact, only a few weeks ago I spent almost week in the deep, though luckily not central Anatolian, countryside where the nearest outpost of civilization was about a forty minute walk, to feed the dogs and the chicken of a relative who was away. We didn't have electricity half the time, we had only semi-powered electricity when we had it and the water didn't run in either case. We had to walk to the bus stop in the wild countryside under snow when we were going back. Nevertheless, I quite enjoyed staying there. My relative was kind enough to buy some red meat for us when we stayed there, which is a commodity we can't afford normally. That was certainly a plus. Also, both me and my wife really enjoy being able to see the starts when we look at the sky.

Quote:
Makhno vs. the Bolsheviks...(Leo, could you please link to Lenin and Trotsky's discussions you mentioned?)

It's mentioned by Avrich, one of the best anarchist historians, here:

http://books.google.com.tr/books?id=hOd0-HITuhEC&pg=PA111&dq=%22anarchis...

Quote:
"..... a Lassallean quotation of the first water: "relative to which" (the working class) "all other classes are only one reactionary mass."

Battlescarred, if all you can resort to is demogogically putting words in my mouth, I think you should stick to what you said about not discussing with me. I'll certainly be happier. I'm not really interested in having any discussion with a bitter, boring old man like you who says nothing beyond a reflection of his prejudices.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 6 2015 16:57
Quote:
I'm not really interested in having any discussion with a bitter, boring old man

Leo, calm your arse down mate.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Mar 6 2015 17:07

Anarchism isn't populist. I don't have to prove that here.

You said, "Rather, I think, the reaction I got was that I didn't see the peasants as proletarian, I pointed out that the traditional country-side is often totally reactionary and that I said people who prefer to be land-owners will be excluded from the workers councils." Really? The reaction you got was the perception of you holding the view that members of "non-exploited and non-exploiting" classes, giving up their class positions, expressing, in words and action, support for communism, couldn't join the revolution because they were coming from those class positions, because they were all sorts of things you introduced.

Obviously, you clarified your position and we actually have agreements on this. But now it seems you are being dishonest as to how people are reacting to your position or implying that some of us are advocating populism.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 6 2015 17:21
Quote:
Leo, calm your arse down mate.

I am calm, plasmatelly, but you're a hypocrit. I didn't see you telling anyone to calm down when I was called a "smug, condescending git of a Bolshevik" or, when I was trolled. I don't have to like Battlescarred, I can find him bitter, I can find him boring, I don't have to be interested in having a discussion with him. At least I didn't restort to insulting him.

So please excuse me if I don't give a single fuck about you warning me to calm my arse down.

Quote:
Anarchism isn't populist. I don't have to prove that here.

No, I don't think it is either, not necessarily anyway. Anarchists can be populist though. Not being an anarchist myself, it is not for me but for the revolutionary anarchists to claim or not claim these people aren't anarchists. I know some revolutionary anarchist comrades who, for example, refuse to categorize any self-proclaimed anarchist as not being one despite vastly differentiating themselves from the anarchist movement as a whole, because they don't consider doing so in line with their anarchist principles. I don't agree with them, but it is a principled position.

In any case, unsurprisingly, I consider the largest misfortune of anarchism to be identified with people such as Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin and Durruti rather than people like Dejacque, the Haymarket martrys, Malatesta, Goldman and Berneri.

Quote:
The reaction you got was the perception of you holding the view that members of "non-exploited and non-exploiting" classes, giving up their class positions, expressing, in words and action, support for communism, couldn't join the revolution because they were coming from those class positions, because they were all sorts of things you introduced.

I'm sorry but I never held any view as such. I was merely explaining why I thought the peasants were more likely to prefer having a land of their own rather than give up their class position.

Quote:
Obviously, you clarified your position and we actually have agreements on this.

With you, yes.

Quote:
that some of us are advocating populism.

I didn't have you or others who initially objected to what I was saying and came to see that it wasn't as horrible as they thought later on after calm discussion in mind.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 6 2015 17:28

Leo - has everything got to be a point scoring exercise with you? Yeah, maybe I am a hypocrit for not piping up when Battlescarred said those things, maybe I should have, etc etc.
Point is now, you are getting a bit nasty - which is a shame, as you and Battlesarred have the potential of having a bloody interesting discussion here.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 6 2015 17:55
Quote:
Leo - has everything got to be a point scoring exercise with you? Yeah, maybe I am a hypocrit for not piping up when Battlescarred said those things, maybe I should have, etc etc.

I'll leave all that to your conscience.

Quote:
Point is now, you are getting a bit nasty

I don't think so. I'm as nasty as I generally am but I didn't insult anyone nor did I lose my temper. I used to. I was much more violent and angry on the internet in the past when I was younger, and behaved much worse to people than Battlescarred has been to me. I don't remember being particularly nasty to him but perhaps I was.

Quote:
which is a shame, as you and Battlesarred have the potential of having a bloody interesting discussion here.

Not when he's putting words into my mouth.

I had interesting discussions with many people on this thread, including people who initially disagred with me or still do so. I don't enjoy discussing with someone so prejudiced and abusive towards me as Battlescarred. I don't think I have an obligation to.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 6 2015 18:01

Fuck it! Tarwater - pass the lentil soup hombre, I'm going into melt down.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Mar 6 2015 18:16
Leo wrote:
Not being an anarchist myself, it is not for me but for the revolutionary anarchists to claim or not claim these people aren't anarchists. I know some revolutionary anarchist comrades who, for example, refuse to categorize any self-proclaimed anarchist as not being one despite vastly differentiating themselves from the anarchist movement as a whole, because they don't consider doing so in line with their anarchist principles. I don't agree with them, but it is a principled position.

The Dalai Lama claims he is a Marxist. Should I go to you or any other self-identified marxist "to claim or not claim" him as a Marxist? No! The burden is on me in this case to objectively understand "Marxism" historically and all the tendencies that adopted that label, and see for myself that the Dalai Lama is no Marxist-Leninist, or council communist, or ICC brand of marxism. Maybe he's a self-styled marxist?

The point is, its up to you to objectively understand what class struggle anarchism is and what it is not, before criticizing it. So particular anarchists don't always hold the correct anarchist position on every issue. Rather than "claiming or not claiming" those particular anarchists, maybe it would be better to see where those particular anarchists depart from the "correct" class struggle anarchism. But in order to do that, one has to know what the latter is, which can only be delineated through an objective study of its history as a movement.

"This particular anarchist held this [view], therefore it must be a sign of the weaknesses ("individualistic nature", "petty bourgeois-ness") of anarchism" is one of the tactics used against anarchism by many Marxists including the ICC. Should I do the same, and claim that the views held by the Dalai Lama is a sign of the bankruptcy of Marxism of any particular sort?

Leo wrote:
I know some revolutionary anarchist comrades who, for example, refuse to categorize...

In fact, the use of class struggle anarchism is used to distinguish it from "mutualist", "individualist", "primitivist", "capitalist", "insurrectionist" tendencies masquerading as anarchism.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 6 2015 18:37
Quote:
The Dalai Lama claims he is a Marxist. Should I go to you or any other self-identified marxist "to claim or not claim" him as a Marxist? No! The burden is on me in this case to objectively understand "Marxism" historically and all the tendencies that adopted that label, and see for myself that the Dalai Lama is no Marxist-Leninist, or council communist, or ICC brand of marxism. Maybe he's a self-styled marxist?

All that's up to you. Yet marxism, at least, has managed to draw the line excluding those self-identifying as such who'd gone to the enemy line. Evidence? Compare the marxist public opinion on Kautsky with the anarchist one on Kropotkin.

Quote:
The point is, its up to you to objectively understand what class struggle anarchism is and what it is not, before criticizing it.

Yes, I have my understanding of it, though I recognize it's my subjective understanding since I claim no dominion over the truth. I have a political criteria for deciding whether I see this or that anarchist as a comrade or not. Yet I can't draw the historical line for anarchism as someone who isn't an anarchist. Only the anarchists who I see as comrades can. I can criticize them for not doing so, I think doing this is within my rights.

Quote:
"This particular anarchist held this [view], therefore it must be a sign of the weaknesses ("individualistic nature", "petty bourgeois-ness") of anarchism" is one of the tactics used against anarchism by many Marxists including the ICC.

It is, and it is also a line I disagree with. I don't defend the ICC's position on anarchism that it is characteristically petty-bourgeois and I think it contradicts seeing some anarchists as revolutionary, internationalist anarchists.

I think the historical lines are more blurred within anarchism but I think revolutionary anarchism existed pretty much from the beginning. Thus I'm not making judgements about anarchism as a whole. My point is merely that I can't, as a marxist, draw that line for the revolutionary anarchists despite seeing many of them as comrades. I can only draw up a personal - or organizational - criteria of which anarchists I or my organization see as comrades, but I have no intention of forcing drawing a historical line based on this criteria on anarchism as a whole. I think it should be done, but it should be done by anarchists, not marxists.

Quote:
In fact, the use of class struggle anarchism is used to distinguish it from "mutualist", "individualist", "primitivist", "capitalist" tendencies masquerading as anarchism.

To my knowledge, it is also used by the platformists who constantly support wars of national liberation and differ from Trotskyists only in their disagreement on Kronstadt. A good effort, but I don't think it draws the historical line.

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 6 2015 18:41
Quote:
To my knowledge, it is also used by the platformists who constantly support wars of national liberation and differ from Trotskyists only in their disagreement on Kronstadt. A good effort, but I don't think it draws the historical line.

Leo, you're a clever lad, but ffs what in gods name are you talking about here?

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 6 2015 18:45

Don't platformists call themselves class struggle anarchists? I haven't seen any anarchist text categorically saying they aren't anarchists or class struggle anarchists for supporting national liberation wars, critically or uncritically.

I do think the distinction between class struggle anarchism and other sorts of anarchism is a good effort, but I don't think it draws the historical line I'm talking about.

By the way, where is this thread going?

plasmatelly's picture
plasmatelly
Offline
Joined: 16-05-11
Mar 6 2015 18:52

At Leo - It's going nowhere. My point is that the Platform doesn't call for national liberation, furthermore (and I don't use that word often) anarchism is a branch of socialism - there is only class struggle anarchism, all else is made up in the bath tub bullshit.

Agent of the International's picture
Agent of the In...
Offline
Joined: 17-08-12
Mar 6 2015 19:36

Yeah, this thread is far from the original discussion, for the most part.

And I don't think we need a debate on platformism.

But I disagree with your suggestion of the need to draw a (universal) historical line, of (universally) categorizing historical figures, and that marxism have accomplished to do so for itself, when in reality it did so on the basis of creating untold numbers of sects, some with good ideas, some with entirely bad ideas presenting themselves as the "one and only true Marxism".

But that's just me. So we can agree to disagree, and just end the thread here. smile

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Mar 7 2015 00:19

Thanks for the replies... don't have time to read them or respond right now, but I'm not going to take nearly as long as last time! I plan to for tomorrow.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Mar 7 2015 19:29

admittedly I am certainly old, and possibly boring, myself, but I have got to know Battlescarred a bit better personally in the last few years, and I don't find him bitter or boring. This thread began as a serious question but the atmosphere has deteriorated and become personalised in the last couple of pages.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Mar 7 2015 23:15
Leo wrote:
Quote:
Leo, calm your arse down mate.

I am calm, plasmatelly, but you're a hypocrit. I didn't see you telling anyone to calm down when I was called a "smug, condescending git of a Bolshevik" or, when I was trolled.

I hope you’re not accusing me of trolling you Leo dudey. I may have had a few drinks in a previous exchange but don’t go trying that. I very straightforwardly replied to your pathetic scramble to gain some imaginary upper hand in your blatant attempt to disguise your feeble grasp of what I was saying (and of logic in general) by your use of a periphrastic historical narrative within a circulating ‘Red’ herring: ‘The Bolshevik Party’s dead good’ ‘Why’s that Leo?’ ‘’Cause the sailors didn’t break the ice and some of the Red Army went over to the sailors’ ‘Why did these things happen Leo?’ ‘’Cause the Bolshevik Party’s dead good’. If you couldn’t think of a reply that’s fair enough. But please don’t try to cloak your inability by insinuating that I live under a fucking bridge.

plasmatelly wrote:
Leo, you're a clever lad, but ffs what in gods name are you talking about here?

I agree with the second clause of this statement but not the first, for the following reason (amongst others):

Leo wrote:
I think the historical lines are more blurred within anarchism but I think revolutionary anarchism existed pretty much from the beginning. Thus I'm not making judgements about anarchism as a whole. My point is merely that I can't, as a marxist, draw that line for the revolutionary anarchists despite seeing many of them as comrades. I can only draw up a personal - or organizational - criteria of which anarchists I or my organization see as comrades, but I have no intention of forcing drawing a historical line based on this criteria on anarchism as a whole. I think it should be done, but it should be done by anarchists, not marxists.

If you were wondering what periphrastic meant look no further. I think that passage could have been written more intelligently by almost any eight-year-old. Now Leo mate, please don’t attempt to deny it, you have clearly taken great pains over many years to overlay any intellectual facility you ever possessed with such weight of ideology and dogma that your faculties have atrophied for lack of use and oxygen. There’s no mistaking all the tell-tale signs. On the other hand, Battlescarred is one of the most knowledgeable and incisive anarchist communists I have ever come across, alive or dead, in print or in person, so it’s no wonder he’s a little impatient with you. I on the other hand, being a lesser person, find you mildly amusing. I’ve honestly tried to take you seriously but I just can’t. You’re too dull.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Mar 7 2015 23:32

Going a bit out of order here

Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
This presupposes that the overwhelming majority of the proletariat have revolutionary consciousness, and that they along with those who join them from other classes (by giving up those class positions, and are for communism), dominate those institutions.

This might seem like a naive question, (and I hope others will give their opinion/answer to this question, too), but what exactly does it mean for them to give up their class position? What do they have to do? For example, would peasants have to collectivize their land? Or could they work an individual piece of land as long as they didn’t exchange their produce for money, but distributed it for free? (along with being entitled to receive their needs for free) A petite bourgeois person (peasant or not) isn't defined by working alone, but by owning capital which they use to make money. If the peasant isn't an owner, but is just enjoying their "use rights" to the land, and isn't making money, then isn't their class position already abolished, even if they work a family sized piece of land?

Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
In the here and now, all organisations organized around immediate issues, seeking concessions from capital and the state, should be class based, excluding “non-exploiting, non-exploited classes”. During the revolutionary process, these organisations should be open and inclusive to all those giving up their class positions and fighting for a world communist society.

This could pose problems. For example, a friend in another city was part of trying to do neighborhood organizing in a few small buildings owned by the same landlord that was trying all sorts of dirty tricks to push tenants out so the buildings could be gentrified. These tenants were low-income, but there was at least one self-employed person active in the struggle (out of about 20 people), and no doubt there were others in the buildings. It would have been divisive to the campaign to say, “Jim is PB, he shouldn’t be part of this, he needs to go.” The other tenants wouldn’t have supported that decision. And in that context it wouldn’t even make sense, since the class struggle was against a landlord and wasn’t work related.

On the other hand, I can also see why non-prole inclusion could become a problem if things went beyond the level of local struggles and started federating and dealing with wider class issues. But I’m not sure how that could be dealt with, practically. Suddenly, people who’d been struggling alongside proles in neighborhood struggles would be told to back away? Doesn’t seem this would fly.

I think this is why many revolutionaries don’t want to include delegates from neighborhood assemblies in any federations or councils.

Personally, I’m not really sure what’s best here.

boomerang wrote:
This raises the question: Would working class people be excluded if they didn't support the stated revolutionary aims?

Agent of the Fifth International wrote:
If anything, they may exclude themselves. The whole point of the mass organisations would be to carry out a social revolution, created by a revolutionary conscious proletariat. All of this presupposes that the proletariat, or at least the overwhelming majority of the class, have revolutionary consciousness.

I doubt if they'd exclude themselves. Likely, workers councils would form before explicitly revolutionary aims became popular, because probably they'd first be used to coordinate strikes that had pretty reformist goals. As revolutionary goals did become more popular, I think the reformists would be more likely to struggle for influence within the councils than they'd be to leave.

Again, I'm not saying this is grounds for exclusion. I think we'd resolve this by the struggle for ideas, and just have to hope for the best.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Mar 7 2015 23:48
Leo wrote:
I have no tolerance for any sort of populism, be it Kemalist, Stalinist, Islamist, anarchist or communizationist.

Hi Leo. So, just wondering, how are you defining populism?

I thought populism was about building a movement of ALL classes, including those who are exploiters of labor. I wouldn't think that wanting to include non-exploiting classes while still excluding capitalists, would be populist.

Also, why do you consider communisation (the theory) populist?

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 8 2015 00:31
factvalue wrote:
I hope you’re not accusing me of trolling you Leo

Indeed I am accusing you of trolling. As far as I can see that's all you've done in this thread and I have no interest in having any contact or discussion with you.

plasmatelly wrote:
My point is that the Platform doesn't call for national liberation

No, certainly that's true. I was talking about contemporary platformism rather than the historical platform.

agentofthefifthinternational wrote:
Yeah, this thread is far from the original discussion, for the most part.

And I don't think we need a debate on platformism.

But I disagree with your suggestion of the need to draw a (universal) historical line, of (universally) categorizing historical figures, and that marxism have accomplished to do so for itself, when in reality it did so on the basis of creating untold numbers of sects, some with good ideas, some with entirely bad ideas presenting themselves as the "one and only true Marxism".

But that's just me. So we can agree to disagree, and just end the thread here.

Fair enough, and yes the practice of marxism, and by that I mean what I consider genuine marxism, is not beyond criticism either but for different reasons. Also I'm not talking about "one and only true marxism" either - in fact I think any revolutionary organization let alone revolutionary theory needs to be heterogeneous. There does need to be some basic, historical class lines though.

Alf wrote:
admittedly I am certainly old, and possibly boring

I never thought you were boring Alf, or bitter.

Quote:
but I have got to know Battlescarred a bit better personally in the last few years, and I don't find him bitter or boring

He's been quite bitter to me and I eventually got bored of him putting words in my mouth.

boomerang wrote:
Hi Leo. So, just wondering, how are you defining populism?

I thought populism was about building a movement of ALL classes, including those who are exploiters of labor. I wouldn't think that wanting to include non-exploiting classes while still excluding capitalists, would be populist.

I think I'd include calling for a popular movement of different classes even if the exploiting classes are excluded.

Quote:
Also, why do you consider communisation (the theory) populist?

I don't. Some variants of it, like Dauve and Nesic, seem alright and not populist at all, despite the fact that I nevertheless do have disagreements with them. Others, like TC, in their rejection of the proletariat, I think open the door to a de facto populism. As I said I don't consider anarchism to be necessarily populist either.

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Mar 8 2015 00:54
Leo wrote:
factvalue wrote:
I hope you’re not accusing me of trolling you Leo

Indeed I am accusing you of trolling. As far as I can see that's all you've done in this thread and I have no interest in having any contact or discussion with you.

Shocker. Well I can't say I blame you. Indeed I thank you for not wasting any more of my time. I suppose some part of you must know that even for a Bolshevik fellow traveller, you're inordinately dull-witted and disingenuous. Your opinion would remain fixed so no genuine debate would be possible.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Mar 8 2015 00:59

Thanks Leo. Would be interested to hear your opinion on my first question in #114. (And anyone else's opinion!)

factvalue
Offline
Joined: 29-03-11
Mar 8 2015 01:15

If a peasant works land to produce for the commune's needs this is not fundamentally different from working commune lands, just as if the peasant was living in a separate home rather than in a collective home, this would not constitute a serious violation of communism. I would personally prefer to live and work collectively but I would be uncomfortable with imposing this on others.

boomerang
Offline
Joined: 20-01-14
Mar 8 2015 01:38

This is how I see it too... but maybe I'm missing something.

Leo
Offline
Joined: 16-07-06
Mar 8 2015 14:36
Quote:
This might seem like a naive question, (and I hope others will give their opinion/answer to this question, too), but what exactly does it mean for them to give up their class position? What do they have to do? For example, would peasants have to collectivize their land? Or could they work an individual piece of land as long as they didn’t exchange their produce for money, but distributed it for free? (along with being entitled to receive their needs for free) A petite bourgeois person (peasant or not) isn't defined by working alone, but by owning capital which they use to make money. If the peasant isn't an owner, but is just enjoying their "use rights" to the land, and isn't making money, then isn't their class position already abolished, even if they work a family sized piece of land?

Yes, I'd say they'd have to collectivize their land to give up their class position but I think they should do so only voluntarily and shouldn't and can't be forced to do so. So if they choose to work their land individually, and live on their land on their own, they should be allowed to do so. Does doing that mean they own the land? Yes, it kind of does. I think inheritance rights or family property are out of the question (anyone can live together but they can't hire workers or exploit family labor) but once an individual has his or her land, the commune will have to respect their individual property right and, y'know, not just go there and tear down the place. Obviously they won't have the right to shoot down anyone for tresspassing. Yet, and I think this is where the crucial point is, we can't expect them to distribute their products for free and they definately won't want to do so. Asking for that is just a step behind coming and forcing them to give their products for free. Since I hope the money form will be abolished relatively early on, I imagine the individual land owners will form co-ops and bargain with the commune on what they will trade, how much they'll trade of it and what they will get in return.