Rep. Dennis Kucinich has betrayed his independent supporters by flip-flopping on the health insurer-care bill in the House.

He has demoted himself from a voice of national significance for Americans without a party to being just the Rep. from the 10th District of Ohio.

His reason for flipping: not to destroy the Obama presidency.
Underlying reason: to please the unions that are still hoping for Obama's support and to keep his sub-committed that gets no attention anyhow.

Comment: the unions have become gentrified. They have accomplished nothing for themselves since the Taft-Hartley Act during Pres. Truman's administration. Truman was the last Democratic president to oppose the Act. Still, the unions kiss Democratic hind and do not organize their own political party or help independent candidates.

Kucinich does not want to destroy the presidency of a war-mongering killer of innocent foreign civilians in lands we invaded. He is a killer of our own young service-people. He is a renderer, violator of the Constitution and his oath of office. He is a lackey for Wall Street. He is a continuaton of GWB. He should be humiliated and sent home as was LBJ in 1969.

Not a cynic, but I no longer support Kucinich!

He's a Democrat. He's a crumb thrown at the so called 'progressives' or 'left' side of the democratic party. Someone for the progressives to invoke when they need to rally the 'lesser of two evils' vote.

Even if he had held firm regarding this bill, would that have been meaningful, substantial in any real way?

Is he more than a sideshow?

In fact, is this whole bill any more than a sideshow? Is anything in DC more than a sideshow?

It's really just a crappy bill, like any other crappy bill, and its being touted as this huge battle of good vs evil. In reality, it supports the status quo, and it solidifies the power of the insurance industry, but on the ground it's just crumbs.

I don't mean to sound difficult, but honestly I find this whole thing baffling, including the Kucinich aspect.

Do you mean you find it baffling that anyone would have put any faith in Kucinich before this point? He does have a good voting record, from my viewpoint. I guess my cynicism has been increased a notch or two. Before his flip-flop, I thought firmness by him would have handed Obama the defeat he deserved. The consequence could have been an encouragement to a progressive Democrat to come forward in 2012 to take the POTUS nomination from Obama. Now, I don't know if that will happen. Setbacks in Iraq or Af-stan could have a similar effect. I don't like to hope for that, because they would cost us more lives: our soldiers and many innocent civilians. Far better for Obama to go down on a domestic failure! Thanks for your reply.

It's an important question.

What you mean by "setbacks?"

By "us" I mean the American people and the Iraqis and Afghans.
By "setbacks" I mean failure of the administration and our military in achieving their goals. Not clear from the context?

The reality is that even if he is a totally sincere person there is no way that he could issue s successful challenge to the status quo of the Democratic party. He is completely marginalized as it is. He plays an important role in the party - don't get me wrong - but it is only meaningful insofar as it keeps the so-called 'left' in the party folds come election time.

Keep in mind - to the Democratic party, this bill is a success. It is in line with their platform, it is in line with their ideals. Why would things have gone any different? It's a pro-corporate party, despite what it's supporters would have us believe.

I guess my question to you is, do you really believe that a 'progressive' Democrat, whatever that even means, could get the 2012 nomination and win? And then make any real difference in Washington?

And isn't it funny how the partisan-politics-obsessed got so worked up over this shitty bill? It's no accident. It's a sideshow, really, distracting from the reality in washington.

We have a tendency to 'pile on' new people since we don't get very many these days, and we scare people away. So I'd like to apologize in advance if you feel overwhelmed or attacked. We rarely bite, but we tend to be pretty straightforward. Intellectual honestly counts more than civility here.

The two demands often conflict, sometimes irreconcilably. In the present case, Kucinich could not possibly meet both demands. He made his choice, and I reproached him (by letter and email) for it. He is no longer will have a significant national following among progressives, in my view. He is just a rep from Ohio.

My belief is parallel, I think, to yours. Progressives must leave the Democrats and form their own party. In a politically naive country, fed by corporate media, forming a progressive party is very difficult. That is why, I suppose, people like Kuncinich try to fit into the Democratic Party. Sooner or later the irreconcilable demands occur, and the attempt fails - as in the present case. Conclusion: I see little chance of avoiding continued decline as a democratic republic with "liberty and justice for all".

Thanks for your replies. I am very comfortable with intellectual honesty. I believe, too, that where honesty prevails, civility is easy to maintain.

brought to the discussion. But he is a Democrat and Democrats are just as big a part of the problem as are Republicans - not a spits worth of difference between the two.

The problem with a new political party is if the new party does not call for an end to capitalism. If the new party does not call for the end of capitalism, then it is no solution to the problems the working class has - and the working class is the only class I care about. There is a class war going on, has been for a long time. We have to figure out a way to fight back or we will end up slaves all...

After WWII, a Swedish writer wrote a book called "The Middle Way". He was a sociologist of note. I googled and found several books with that title, one by a Swede, Marquis W. Childs. The book makes the case for a blending of capitalism and socialism, an accomplishment more or less in many northern European countries. In Sweden, for example, most of the GDP, perhaps 90% is from capitalistic enterprises.

Socialism has its problems, too. At worst, it becomes state domination of everything and suppression of dissent. Lesser evils include bureaucracy that is sluggish, obstructive and self-serving. You must know all this.

For any system to work, that is to prevent autocracy and domination by an elite class, educational levels have to be high and commitments to citizen participation must also be high. These qualities are not well distributed among our working-class. Unions are often dominated by an elite class, and many of our unions, today, support the Democratic Party, militarism, imperialism, and all the other evils of the duopoly. They keep their focus narrow and immediate, and their leaders are gentrified and flattered by the political leadership.

I think a mixed economy has a good chance of working where people know their history, which we generally do not, and understand the duties of citizen participation. All this is very problematical in the US, where the political system is very complicated: federal, state, local, with dozens of elected officials to track, not to mention all the regulatory agencies in every level of government.

It's a long struggle, especially in a country that goes to a new war every few years and constantly subsidizes military oppression by client regimes .

the only thing in the middle of the road is a dead opossum.

The problem being that there can be no compromising with capital, it will necessarily seek greater profits and those are always at the expense of the rest of us. The 'Middle Way' ain't nothing but a stalking horse, the benefits which many Europeans enjoyed are eroding as we speak by the demands of capital. It's like trying to cut a deal with one of those brain eating zombies, don't turn your back.

We are here to try and learn as much as we can and improve our analytical abilities (among other things). Nothing personal, but I don't think that your post, here, is very well thought out. For instance capitalism is a form of economy that is diametrically opposed to socialism and community control. You can't have a "mixed" anything with capitalism; capitalism will not share. So I am not sure how that can even work (and it certainly isn't at this point in time)...

The capitalsts seized control and power by taking production over for themselves away from the Lords or Dynasts or whomever (depending on the region). It took them at least 800 years (see the Song Dyansty as an example where they fail colossally. Also see India) In every case where there is a capitalist "insurgency" it is not a passive failure on their part but rather a violent suppression from those in power.

Our situation is no differnet and never the twains shall meet. So long as they have power we don't. So long as we try to wrest it from them, they will wreck violence at every turn to suppress it.

There simply is no middle ground, except in the most clinical sense that we can imagine one in our heads if we ignore all of the realities of history and politics and society that tell us it doesn't, won't and can't exist.

We seem to have a difference of opinion on the possibility for capitalism and socially responsible institutions to co-exist. Undoubtedly, it is a constant struggle to overcome the greed that drives capitalism and the frequently false idealism that impels socialists. I am not a student of Hegel and Marx, but they may have been correct that society is continually in struggle as each of the competing driving forces seeks ascendancy. I could not persuade you from your point of view if I tried, I am certain, and I am not sufficiently steeped in the history of social conflicts so to presume. Thank you for your sincere replies.

because I am not trying to persuade you of my own perspective. If anything I would like to "persuade" you to consider the matter for yourself. That involves ditching the "opinions". I'm not interested in opinions much so whether ours differ means very little to me.

Lets talk about what capitalism is and what socially responsbile institutions are. It may be that our "difference" is solely a matter for of factual determination.

That we can work through

Thanks for the invitation, but the subject is too broad for the sort of exchange that I am prepared to have. As you do, I have other calls on me; right now my income tax return is demanding attention - a form of slavery once upon a time made more acceptable by progressive taxation propaganda - hah!

In the course of future discussions on this forum, we shall have opportunity to explore further. For now, please excuse me.

but at some point we gotta ask if "capitalism" and "social responsibility" have anything to do with each other. I don't think they're contradictory or even mutually exclusive, I think they exist in two different universes.

And barring black hole shenanigans (trust me I know, check my name), different universes don't tend to interact.

grasp as to what capitalism actually is. Anyone who thinks that capitalism can be somehow merged with socialism or that it can be structured in such a way as to not be so...what...'capitalistic'? - doesn't understand what capitalism is.

We have had some really greatly interesting threads on the study of "Capital". You should look them up, they were very enlightening and are a terrific resource...

I also do not want this administration to achieve its goals.

I don't see how you can include the Iraqis and Afghans in "us" and want the US military to achieve its goals.

You want to step back and maybe walk through this a little more slowly?

In their capacity as soldiers they're agents of imperialism. And "our" doesn't mean "American" it means workers.

Of course soldeiers are workers (minus the generals and admirals) but don't kid yourself about what side they're on when they're dropping bombs or shooting everything in site or raiding homes looking for "insurgents"

http://www.schoolsforchiapas.org/assets/galleries/44/zapatistas011.jpg

A few points:

1) Capitalism is not just the happy face of your local petty bourgeois grocer at the local farmer's market. Capitalism is the extraction of value out of production of workers and farmers. That's all it is. It needs a strong state in order to make sure the workers accept their fate. It needs a strong state to organize its military and to produce propaganda on its behalf. It is "democratic" and "pluralist" in the sense that it lets "bankers and insurers and common people alike" all have a seat at the table--so long as the voice of the common people is nothing more than a literal formality, a gesture of polite inclusion.

2) The idea that capitalism has any relation to democracy or anti-authoritarianism is incorrect. Capitalism was born out of the Renaissance and grew up along side and in the service of despots and monarchs. It worked very well for hundred of years as a tool for authoritarian (not to mention colonialist and slave trading) oligarchs.

3) Socialism, particularly in the former USSR, is hotly contested territory with many even questioning whether or not the Soviet Union was a socialist country after the late 1920s. There is nothing, NOTHING, "inherently" anti-democratic in socialism. The reason for authoritarian socialist regimes is precisely BECAUSE socialism cannot live along side capitalism. By the late 1920s, the majority of the working class was dead from WWI (imperialist war) and a civil war funded by 13 invading capitalist nations intent on destroying the Soviet Republic. If there was international solidarity between the working class, those soldiers would have never fought. The international working class failed. It should be noted that when dockworkers in Seattle in 1919 discovered that the US was shipping arms to destroy to the Soviet revolution, US workers rose up to defend the Soviets and called a general strike.

4) With nothing left but ashes, ruins, and the remaining bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, Stalin rose to power to *defend the revolution*. Under Stalin, the USSR went from an internationalist, democratic centralist, and sexually egalitarian Republic to a nationalist, authoritarian, "family oriented" nation. Most contemporary leftists, including socialists, see Stalin as a disaster. Even still, it's important to remember that, as a whole, Stalin had less people in prison/gulags than we do in the United States.

5) Bureaucratic? Like our absurd health care system? Socialism doesn't have to be bureaucratic. And capitalism is no remedy for bureaucracy.


So what's socialism's biggest problem: it can't win without a global war against capitalists who own everything and who will stop at nothing. There will be no change without a united global working class. And we are nowhere near anything close to a genuine beginning. And our mutual destruction may occur before the change we need to survive.

That's my two cents.

Stick around, things can really jump around here some times.
That was a very good, off-the-cuff analysis and outline. The points you make about what and why the Russian Revolution had to face and fight is so often overlooked (or purposely ignored) by critics of the USSR. They literally had to fight external aggression every minute of their existence. Bravo to you...

Else, why do they talk about the "tyranny of the majority" incessantly? Else why does it always devolve into "representative" democracy which represents nothing else than a fetter between private and public interests?

Honestly, I think you're right that socialism is not "inherently" anti-democratic but I also think that we'd be alot better off focusing more on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and stop worrying so mcuh about being "fairness" and "pluralism" and all that shit. Makes us sound like hippies.

Thing about Stalin that transcends everything else is, he was the guy tasked with beating fascism. It wasn't merely a Herculean task, it was an impossibility. The Soviet Union did it anyway.

I also think you have it all wrong about "internationalist, democratic centralist, and sexually egalitarian". It was the US that was shocked that women were so prominent a part of the Red Army not the reverse.

It was the Red Army who liberated all of Eastern Europe from fascism not to mention the Popular Front.

Finally, democratic centralism? What exactly are the succession of Five Year Plans that industrialized the Soviet Union in less time than a Prius takes to uncontrollably accelerate to 90?

I actually have quite a few more quibbles, but what I really what to stress is that we can answer questions about "capitalism and social responsibility" without dredging all of this stuff up that leads to endless controversy.

Sorry running to an appointment with my lawyer so this is a little rushed.

on point but some appear as if you misread what he wrote. Also, in an exchange it is also good to bear in mind what the post is in response to - just sayin'.

I agree that too much spit is wasted on "explaining away" Stalin. He was what he was and he did what he did and he stands up pretty well in comparison to any other "leaders" of his time.

That being said...

I still think there should be a rule against introducing Stalin into conversations extraneoulsy.

I mean, if people are interested in our stuff becuase its non-sectarian and then Stalin keeps coming up..

I don't know.

I'll add a story apropos of nothing probably, but this guy in DC was at Camp Cindy all night holding a "vigil" with a few others. Some crazy Taliban supporters can up and by the next morning he was telling me that the Taliban were a benevolent and progressive organization, the West was unaware of "Taliban culture" and that the burkas were for women's protection because the Taliban valued women so highly. He also told me excitedly that "I bet you didn't know Taliban means student".

I was like "actually Taliban is the plural of Talib meaning student, and Taliban means students (of the mullah)"

He said I was just buying the Western myth and then proceeded to ask me how many Taliban I knew personally.

He knew nothing about the Pakistan connection, nothing about the fact that the Taliban know nothing of Islam or modernity or their own history.

A quick Wiki cite illustrates:


Explanation of ideology

Jamiat Ulema-e-Islam (JUI) was important to the Taliban because the "vast majority" of its rank and file and most of the leadership, (though not Mullah Omar), were Koranic students who had studied at madrassas set up for Afghan refugees, usually by the JUI. The leader of JUI, Maulana Fazal-ur-Rehman, was a political ally of Benazir Bhutto. After Bhutto became prime minister, Rehman "had access to the government, the army and the ISI," whom he influenced to help the Taliban.[63]

Journalist Ahmed Rashid suggests that the devastation and hardship of the war against the Soviet Union and the civil war that followed was another factor influencing the ideology of the Taliban.[64] The young rank and file Taliban were Koranic students in Afghan refugee camps whose teachers were often "barely literate," and did not include scholars learned in the finer points of Islamic law and history. The refugee students, brought up in a totally male society, not only had no education in mathematics, science, history or geography, but also had no traditional skills of farming, herding, or handicraft-making, nor even knowledge of their tribal and clan lineages.[64]

In such an environment, war meant employment, peace unemployment. Domination of women was an affirmation of manhood. For their leadership rigid fundamentalism was a matter not merely of principle, but of political survival. Taliban leaders "repeatedly told" Rashid "that if they gave women greater freedom or a chance to go to school, they would lose the support of their rank and file."[65]

What I'm saying is soemthing akin to elbows and assholes, man. Much of this type of conversation is circular and by people whose best talent is knowing things by halves. Its much too sweeping and abstract to mean anything and its much too charged to lead anywhere.

We can find better ways to talk about all of these things.

*Sounds to me like you've misinterpreted about 5/6 of my post. Democratic centralism is not "pluralism". Capitalist democracy argues that it's "pluralist". I was decoding "pluralism" for what it really is--the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

*The Bolsheviks legalized abortion and decriminalized homosexuality by 1920. They made forays into women's liberation within Islam. The early socialist movements in the USSR and China did more for women than has been achieved for 100 years under "capitalist democracy." (However, Stalin did reverse many of the gains by instituting "The New Soviet Family", criminalizing abortion and homosexuality.)

*Arguments about Stalin and Stalinism are healthy and not necessarily sectarian--just like any other argument.

*Democratic centralism is a Leninist mode of organizing and deciding--just like "consensus" is a mode of deciding in anarchist movements. You can't talk about building a dictatorship of the proletariat without talking about strategies and tactics. Democratic centralism isn't "a bunch of hippy talk"--unless Lenin was a hippy.

They are just what we need and the opposite is death. I will let the Kid handle his end of any discussion (he is pretty good at it). I will just say that I get why he thinks talking Stalin is a non-starter. And I get why you say that Stalin has to be dealt with. I think that we can approach this politically - as in what best serves us in the now. When Mao was writing in the mid to late '20s he almost always included Stalin in his list of Communist to follow and study - this was politically the correct thing to do. Later he mentions Stalin less and less - this, too, at the time was politically expedient. We are not moving in a vacuum, so it behooves us to choose the best avenue for our advancement - as a class. I love these "self criticisms", I agree with the Chairman that criticism of everyone's thought and everyone's actions are the pathway to class power...

Everything you write here is endlessly debateable in a way that stonewalls any deeper discssion and no one cares anymore besides. This is the same shit I hear everytime I walk by a Trot bookshop.

Talk about it to your hearts content but its bullshit.

And don't kid yourself about liberal democracy. If at one time it was "pluralist" in that it was bourgeoisie democracy (ie all/most of the bourgeoisie actually had an input) that hasn't been true in over a century (cite: Lenin). Its now unquestionably the prima facia dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, functioning only as a way to maintain capitalist relations as a whole and cater to the needs of the biggest industries (which doesn't even include the biggest companies in the biggest industries necessarily) and enforce the circulation of capital around the globe, ultimately in the only way possible, Violence.

If you just mean multi-party when you say pluralist well, yeah. But I'm not sure that means much really beyond simple rhetoric.

and because we got to DC a day early, I went to the WWII memorial that is right in front of the Lincoln Memorial. It was only completed in 2004.

Anyway, during a talk the Ranger said almost verbatim that the Soviet Union won the second world war. This is a guy who showed pictures of his dad in different theatres in the Pacific during the war.

Then he took us to one of the relief carvings that showed soldiers from the two sides meeting -- US and Soviet. And the point of that piece was to illustrate exactly how shocked the GIs were that there was a woman in the Red Army (she was pictured in the scene)

Beside the point I guess, but my complaint here is that RedStar's point 4 in the first post of this subthread about the SU going from sexually egalitarian, democratically centralist and internationalist under Lenin to the opposite under Stalin, is just so much Trot BS.

Even if it was undeniably true (obviously it wasn't a utopia in either case so you can go on infinite fault-finding expeditions) it still begs the question: so what?

Lenin's NEP actually introduced some semi-capitalist relations between cities and farms. In a vacuum you could spin that to mean whatever you wanted to suit your agenda.

But again, so what?

Rather than starting on a factual basis and working under the maxim "Objective conditions reflect objective reality" we instead are supposed to start with ideologically charged assertions that have to be unpacked before you can even start talking about them?

I said it already, we can find better ways to talk about things. If objective conditions are really a reflection of objective reality, then we can pretty much work our way through anything and it doesn't matter what our individual perceptions are or our leanings or our "learned" thoughts on the matter.

That is self-discipline and ultimately self-crticism in action. Consider the ideal of science: no matter how married to a theory they may be they are supposed to be prepared to abandon it if evidence emerges that it is unviable. I realize thats not necessarily how it always goes, but thats the ideal (lowercase I)

I am not trying to slam RedStar here so much as make sure we keep our compasses pointed in the right direction.

When we are speaking of democracy the way Lenin and Mao talked about democracy, it seems to me that "multiple parties" work against democracy. When the working class is in power why on earth would there be a need for some "other" political party. So i am not sure what is being said here - clarification would be appreciated. :)

We have to continuously view all with a critical eye. I had my son read "Enemy at the Gate", about the Battle of Stalingrad, when he was 18 or so. The thing that he talked about the most (early on in his reading) was that the Soviet Army had so many women fighting in the front lines "just like men"! I agree with you completely that the Soviets were the ones who defeated Nazi Germany and the fascist coalition (so many folks forget about Italy, Romania, Hungary, and Bulgaria), but the US "won" the war. One of the things that is so conveniently ignored when people recount "communist failures" is the numbers lost to the SU in WWII and all of the horrible destruction that the Soviets experienced. The US, on the other hand, was free to use its unscathed wealth and power to enslave half the world. Sorry, don't get me started...

I think my conversation with RedStar got tangled up because even I don't know what was being said by who there.

My initial impression was that he was trumpeting "pluralism" whatever that means. Since he followed up to say that I was mistaken, I think it was just a dead end.

The numbers are staggering

China: 20, 30, 50, 100? million in its civil war (Taiping) in the mid-1800s

9 million total in WWII, with 100,000s of continental Europeans simply being marched directly into German guns

30 million Soviets in WWII with civilains being indistinguishable from soldiers
20 million Chinese plus casualties in the Civil War (don't know the best-guess total offhand)
I forget the Japanese casualties as well, but 200,000 annihilated in a single instant at Hiroshima.

Estimated 60 million total deathtoll in the WWII

And those are just the big ones that everyone remembers, there are millions more dead in an unending string of Imperial conflicts. I am pretty sure the numbers in India are staggering as well, but I can't recall from the top of my head.

"liberty and justice for all". You can't, because it is and always has been a myth, a lie made up to placate somebody - I don't know who. "Freedom" is another lie and myth and tool of deception. All that old "American Exceptionalism" has got to go! It has to be jettisoned, right now! If there is any of it left in your make-up it will skew all of your thinking from now on. Americans are no better, no different, than anyone else anywhere, any time. Nothing about our "system" or the dirt we live on is any better or any different than anywhere else. We are not superior to anyone - never have been, never will be. The Owner class in this country is very powerful and oppress and exploit people in this country and all over the world; but all they are is more powerful - not better, not more deserving, not entitled in any way, just more powerful. Hopefully that "more powerful" label won't apply much longer...

as someone who is getting tighter on theory but still has huge holes in real history any 'Stalin' talk or whatever is actually helpful to me.

I mean, I certainly understand the idea that if I am chatting with someone IRL it's probably not going to help me make a strong case if I start with 'Hi I'm a socialist, let's talk about Stalin'.

OTOH, It's not uncommon for the person I'm talking to to bring up Stalin as a way to end the conversation. Eg socialism=Stalin=bad. So for me to read what you guys have to say about him, either in a historical sense or in a philosophical sense, it helps. I mean, I've only gotten as far as the end of 10 Days that Shook the World, so as far as I'm concerned, it's allgood, hee hee.

Really though, other people bring up Stalin so there's no need to avoid it. Shit, I'd rather discuss Stalin than Kucinich :)

Just thought I'd throw that in there. Carry on.

Me too! :)

Uncle Joe is because the enemy brings him up... constantly. And... if you have "theory", you can only talk about him in an objective context (who, which class, why, what else was happenin', etc.)... which nobody talks about. And then, it gets much worse from there... towards political purity: "new class", "bureaucracy", "social imperialism" - which as a "Marxist", you wouldn't buy in a million years about capitalism 'cept, all of a sudden talkin' like a suburban philistine is acceptable.

You guys talk about anything you like but there are a million "socialist" discussions like that goin' on all the time and 100 places to do it (try RevLeft), but there is not much more than word two on the real world today.

But, whatever... I'll start. I like his mustache.

Yeah, you are right. The thing is that invariably we get the "Stalinist!" epithet hurled at us - it has happened on this board and others a lot. And it is sometimes difficult to ignore. But please, not REVLEFT!

Yep, always get that along with 'comrade'(da!), the East Bloc environmental failings, buercocracy & 'where are they now?'. There is no historical context whatsoever.

Fuck 'em, I like his 'ride':
http://www.aviapress.com/engl/rod/rod701.jpg

Wouldn't mind getting 'tanked' with hose boys...

http://images.marketworks.com/hi/49/49296/40067two070607.jpg

!!!

Why aren't we angry at everyone else.

Dennis Kucinich was the vanguard of progressivism in the House, on the wars and on domestic issues. With his cave-in to the leadership, there is no longer a political progressivism; only a journalistic one, on the blogs and in limited other media.

Another betrayer is Alan Grayson, who had a progressive following beyond his district though a freshman rep.

All the 65+ reps who signed the letter to Pelosi declaring their steadfast opposition to Obamacare caved-in. Jane Hamsher, a fine blogger and activist (Firedoglake), had really expected the signers to remain true to their pledge. So did I.

Ralph Nader appeared on Democracy Now opposite Dennis Kucinich and politely "understood" the pressures on Kucinich. I am not that polite. The pressures were fear of not being re-elected.

We have legislators who are careerists. They do not come to Congress for a while to do their best for the nation and their districts. They come to stay. They are lawyers who do not practice law anymore; maybe they were not too good at it, or the competition was too keen. After a few terms in the House, they are rusty as lawyers and would have difficulty re-establishing their practices.

So it must be with people like Kucinich, I imagine. They are subject to party discipline, because they have nothing to fall back on if they lose an election. Too bad for them and for us!

How are we supposed to get anywhere if we can't persuade people so we can convert them to our belief system? That means being able to win arguments in polite bourgeoisie company, and that means addressing their pressing concerns about Stalin and shit and tailoring our arguments so that the beautiful people are comfortable and not offended. We don't want to scare them off or alienate potential friends and allies!

I think the mustache has to go, because it is so rough and crude and it projects the wrong image. I like the tank, though.

The purpose for people bringing up Stalin is to shut the reds up. The purpose of arguing back with people about Stalin is to accommodate bourgeoisie sensibilities. A pox on both houses.

Yes, people had hopes in Kucinich, and used that to justify having hope in the party, and used that to justify having hope in their form of activism, and used that to justify having hope in "working within the system," and used that to justify resisting those taking a more radical view, and yes, that has all come crashing down.

probably ruin his vibe or his karma or something

Many progressives thought they could work within the Party of Carter, Clinton, Obama. I don't know if that error was encouraged by Kucinich's previous record (before Obamacare). I think lack of an alternative has always been a factor in staying with the Party. My hope was that Kucinich would vote NO and suffer the consequences. He might then have tried forming a progressive party and fight whomever the Democrats put up against him. Admittedly, I have no idea what he would be up against in his Ohio 10th District, but he has been their rep for quite a few terms, now. They must think well of him in his District, I would suppose and follow him into an independent party. The difficulty may lie more in the Ohio legislature's imposition of obstacles to getting on the ballot of independents.

No matter now. Kucinich made his choice. Not many reps want to risk going back to the practice of law, I guess!

But do they see it as the inevitable outcome? It was.

coalition are not serious about their "core" ideology. When all of the gnashing of teeth and beating of breasts and the "coolness" are taken out of the equation, "Progressives" are just a milder form of Republicans. The only thing that drives "Progressives" is issues. They want reproduction rights, universal single-payer health care, maybe an end to the "drug-war", an easier immigrant policy, a smaller military budget, less foreign military adventurism, more money for education and housing and job creation, an end to the death penalty, and the list goes on. You could be a Republican and hold all of these views - many Republicans in the past have. You can certainly be a Democrat and hold these views (you will never have any success with almost any of them, but you certainly can hold them).

As long as a "political ideology" (it isn't a "movement" by any stretch) is based purely on issues and not on economics and power and recognition of class struggle, the ideology doesn't mean much at all. All of the items and issues that "Progressive" are concerned for are not unimportant and many are desirable, but they mean very little in the class war.

As is spoken here often, politics is about power - who has it and how and for what it is used. As far as I can see "Progressives" are fairly content with the status quo - they just want to do a little tweaking...

He has some power on the Oversight and Reform committee that he heads up with Issa, and has been such an impassioned and outspoken critic of everyone from Paulsen and Geithner to the far distant days when he stood alone and unopposed in a stance against the energy utilities in his home city.

I think he felt that he is the best choice for his district, How would his opposing Obama and then facing down the heavy hand of the DLC against him help anyone? That would only mean that a far more RW Dem would then hold his place.

What I don't understand however is why the 61 to 65 really strong progressive Congress people did not hold together. If they had, they might have been able to wedge some forceful Public Option into the Heath Care Reform Charade.

Both of their "bases" are played for suckers every day. The sad thing is that most of them lap it up...

it was all a neo liberal deceit...

and I will show you something that cant possibly exist.

Thing is, these crooks make the laws. There's no such thing as winning with them.

the correct quote is "There is nothing in the middle of the road but yellow stripes and dead armadillos."
--Jim Hightower, former Texas Agriculture Commissioner, and a true populist of the old school.

I've met Jim Hightower. Hell, I actually VOTED for him way back when, so I'm giving away my age.

I understand what you are saying about compromising with capital. Not so sure I understand what you mean by the "Middle Way" you criticize, European-style social democracy? I'm not sure--so, do you have a solution? I'm not trying to flame or bait or start a meltdown like what I've seen on these months-old threads, I'm just curious. I've read Das Kapital, though it's been a few years. OK, a few decades. I'm also very familiar with Russian history. Even Lenin saw that the economic system the Bolsheviks imposed did not work and rolled it back. And I certainly don't claim to have all of the answers. I do know that the current American economic system is disintegrating right now due to its own internal contradictions, and that any system based on greed always ends badly.

I see much criticism of various positions as I peruse old posts. But, I don't see many proposals of what should be done to make things better. Not saying I know what the hell should be done or how; I don't, except to wait for everything to come crashing down and hoist the Jolly Roger in the spirit of my Viking ancestors and go a-pillaging. IS there anything that can be done to avoid revolution, civil war, and whatever comes next? Frankly, I don't see anything other than that in our future. If you do, I'd love to see another alternative.

but as the resident hippie who actually listens to Lennon sing :) and hates violence, my view is that it is not looking too good right now.

Anything we try to do incrementally through politics seems to push us further right. But any revolution coming anytime soon in this country has the power of the religious right behind it. Like you I really don't see it going any other way. Unless it just keeps plodding towards complete fascism. So either way not a very good alternative.

in isolation from what WAS happening. "That was then, this is now" kinda thing. What did and did not work somewhere else and somewhen else does not necessarily mean that the same will hold true for everywhere and everywhen. Also, remember, that Marx's "Capital" is a textbook on how capitalism works - that's it. If you want to know what capitalism is and how it functions, then "Capital" is THE go-to book, period. If you want to know how to overthrow capitalism in the 21st century and establish a more human-form of society, get to writing.
You can't "make" this thing happen; you can't vote it in, you can't talk people "into" it, you can't "change" anyone's "belief" system and bring it about ---- you can only be ready when the time comes to do what needs to be done. The working class will radicalize and rise up when it does - be ready.
You need to have as good a grip on reality as you can, understand as much as you can, be a conscious, avid member of the working class and be ready. "Minutemen"? Hell, "Secondmen"!

Look at what faced Mao, Ho Chi Min, and, of course, Lenin. Every revolution has had a horrible situation to face. Every fight for the working class has been against "insurmountable odds"; but so what? What else have you got to do?

Such a common view you are expressing there.

1. "I read Marx, granted it has been a while, but I think I have a good overview of it and understanding of it - the basic idea - and I am not unsympathetic to Marxists."

2. "The Soviet experiment didn't work, and even Lenin agrees with me on that."

3. "Good old America is in trouble and is collapsing, and maybe that is inevitable and we should just sit back and enjoy the show. Aren't humans amusing?"

4. "Revolution or whatever could be a big mess, but whatever, I don't really have a dog in that fight."

5. "I am not hearing any alternative plan from anyone, just a lot of criticism."

What if we look at those as commands, as the product of a pervasive indoctrination process? Each of those statements represents something we have been told to think, and they are "cover" - reasonable sounding sweet nothings - that have been given to us so we can express - and obey - the commands while making that sound innocent, original, and benign.

1. Do not revisit Marx. You know everything you need to know there. Don't touch it if you know what is good for you.

2. Those ideas might sound attractive, but in the real world they don't work. Only fanatics and fools think otherwise, and if you persist in considering them you will be very sorry.

3. The best course is to sit back and watch. There is nothing you can do about any of this. Don't even think for a minute that there is.

4. Be reasonable. What is in any of this for you? Do you really want to get mixed up in any of this and put yourself at risk? Stay out of it.

5. Be very afraid of those radicals. Who knows what they are up to? Just ask them what their (presumably secret devious) plan is, and you will see - they will refuse to answer! Be very suspicious.

Follow those rules, and you will be OK. Violate them, or even question them, and you will pay a very stiff price. You are so over matched here you can't even imagine it. There is a world of hurt waiting for you if you get out of line.

Everything is situational, Lenin did what he had to do in order that the Revolution survive, it was a temporary expedient. You cannot change a society at the snap of the fingers, it is very new territory, just ask the Cubans. But the goal remains clearly in sight.

Otherwise what Dhal & TA said.

Each of those statements is false.

1. There isn't any "gist" of Marx that any of us have "gotten." I thought I "knew" it from my reading back in the day, but I was full of shit.

2. The Soviet experiment didn't "fail" - it is not so simple, and it was part of the ongoing global struggle. The comparative alternative systems nonsense is just that - nonsense.

3. You are involved in the struggle, we are social beings, and you are a participant. Denying that doesn't change that fact.

4. There is no way to not be mixed up in all of this. There is no such thing as neutrality, no middle ground. As time goes by, you will be forced to choose. Not by us, but by the ruling class. Eventually, even the slightest hint of non-compliance or resistance and you will be called a Marxist and hunted down and killed, no matter what you "believe." At each step, as the battle heats up, you will compromise in incremental steps, surrender more and more of your mind and integrity, with each step in that direction seemingly small and reasonable.

5. Being told to distrust radicals is sort of a grand ad hominem attack - you have been commanded to focus on the messenger rather than the message. It is your thinking that is being controlled, ideas and perceptions you are being steered away from, not people.

These false ideas then corrupt and distort all of our thinking on everything, and that has a pervasive and destructive impact on our lives and our social relationships. It cripples us intellectually, creatively, socially. The truth is that we are choosing comfort and perceived safety over risk, and then making up (or parroting things that others have made up) to explain that away and deny the truth about it.

first #2. The Soviet experiment failed. I don't think of the Soviet Union as socialist, either, certainly not after Stalin took over, anyway. Guess my point here is that just because the Soviet Union collapsed doesn't mean that socialism is a failure.

I am aware that Capital is strictly about capitalism. Marx didn't really provide any detailed prescriptions for what should follow its collapse. Capital is a critique of capitalism, and the most accurate one I know of.

As for the rest of what you said, well, you're making me think. I like that. I'm at lunch now and have to sign off and go back to work. But I will think about this.

In what way did the Soviet experiment fail, would you say?

When you say "just because the Soviet Union collapsed doesn't mean that socialism is a failure" I think you are talking about Socialism failing (or not) as an ideology, as a belief system, no? That is, being shown to be a false doctrine, a false belief system. Also, failing as a "practical alternative system."

Those ideas were pounded into all of us starting at a young age - Capitalism and Socialism as competing belief systems upon which alternative systems are based and then implemented, and which can be charted on some "spectrum."

in my readings I discovered that the Soviets were deeply concerned about whether some random person in the future would deem them to be socialist or not. They fretted about it constantly. If they hadn't all been killed or put in jail by the bourgeoisie I'm sure they would be disappointed right not to find out that message board poster spartacus had no choice but to declare the project a failure.

and it is very much 'utopian'.

A closer look, taking into account history, both near and far, what was possible and what was not, will develop a more nuanced and accurate view. It's not so much what we want but what is possible.

Eta: This was a "no point" post. Now we return to your regularly scheduled belling of the cat...

Ah well...sorry for whining...

"Selling" people on socialism is not only futile its stupid. Getting people to analyze (introspectively, their own) ideas ain't easy, especially with the crowd you get on the internet.

Its tough sledding, I know that, but it seems like we not making the progress we could be. But we're not here to indulge anybody's dipshit beliefs, either.

Have you ever read Fichte (I don't even bother asking for the most part, the looks I've gotten..)? I've dabbled, but I had a hard time getting past the decorum and formalism/schematism (but I've only gone through the stuff on MIA)

Perhaps I was rude in not properly introducing myself. I'm 52, graduated from the University of Texas with a BA in history and political science many moons ago, have lived in six states, and am a Navy veteran. Joined it in 1986 because I needed a damned job in the Reagan Recession.

My parents were New Deal Democrats who grew up in the First Great Depression. In their book, if Jesus sat on the right hand of God, Franklin Roosevelt sat on the left, though neither was particularly religious. They only went to an Episcopalian church for social status. My dad knew LBJ personally, and I met him several times.

Politically I was a Democrat for most of my life, though I was a member of the original Committees of Correspondence which helped establish what is now the Green Party back in the eighties. I was horrified by Reagan, and really thought he would start a nuclear war. Found at later from folks in Naval Intelligence(no, I wasn't in that, I was just a radar tecnnician, ET2, to be precise)that Reagan supposedly did order a pre-emptive strike against the Soviets, but nobody would second him and the military brass flat out refused. They're not suicidal, you know. Don't know whether that really happened or not, but some of the intel guys believed it.

I could see the capitalist system, freed from the restraints imposed by presidents from FDR through LBJ and even Nixon(who looks somewhat progressive compared to what we've had for the last 40 years)was marching straight towards the precipice just as Marx had predicted. I voted for Nader in 1996 and 2000, voted against Bush in 2004, and for Obama in 2008 because he conned me and millions of others into believing that he might just be FDR II and implement reforms that would stave off total collapse and revolution. I'm still a historian, and while revolutions make great subjects for study, books, and movies I know it's hell to actually live through one.

Turns out Obama's a total corporatist, or, as Mussolini would say(and he oughta know) a fascist. Totally supportive of corporate power merging with the state.

For the last few years I've considered myself a democratic socialist, though recent events in Europe are making me re-examine that position. I really don't know what I am now.

I come to political discussion boards for debate, to learn, and to have my positions challenged. I came over to PI because I've been an active member at Old Elm Tree for several months, and even have a column there. Don't know if that will last much longer due to repeated cycles of, let's just say unpleasantness if you'll allow me to use so bourgois a term(I grew up in a bourgois household, after all). I'm known there and at Political Wire as OhioGringo. I let myself get drawn into the drama going on at OET a few times, but that defeats my whole purpose of being on a discussion board. I'm not perfect.

I'm not an ex-DUer. Oh, I was there for a bit, went over PUI(Posting Under the Influence) for a few hours after Saracat begged for help in OET's Pizza Party, and was very quickly banned. Never did like DU as their prohibition against endorsing third party candidates seriously rubbed me the wrong way, so the banning didn't bother me one whit.

After recent events on OET, I went into their archives. I'd seen cryptic references to PI and the Marxist takeover or purge, as some called it, and whispered tales of some horrible PI posters such as Chlamor. I can't say I understand everything Chlamor says over here, but I saw nothing to invoke horror, here or at OET. I read hypocrisy incarnate in some of those archived OET threads, as rules of "civility" were selectively used to attack those who had positions differing from those held by, dare I use the term "ruling clique?" over there. Apparently they don't like socialists very much. Or those like myself who think the 9/11 Truther theory is paranoid fantasy.

So I lurked for awhile here and then joined. For those of you with suspicion, I am not a sock poppet. I am certainly in the red arrow part of the spectrum on PI's home page, though many of you may find me further to the right of said arrow than you are. I am not here to disrupt, but to be challenged and made to think.

Dhalgren, you made me think with your reply. I thank you for that. Our current economic system is doomed. It is simply unsustainable. Sooner or later, it must fall. By Marx's definition, I am clearly a member of the working class. I don't earn my living off of other people's labor. Sooner or later, the working class, which includes many people who believe they are middle class because of lifelong indoctrination by the capitalist media, will revolt because they have no choice. The existing system will go the way of the ancien' regime of Bourbon France. To be replaced by? I don't know. We are headed for interesting times, as the Chinese say.

I will always keep in mind one of the rules here at PI: No Whining. These are just words on a screen. I prefer at least a modicum of civility and respect, and will seldom indulge in what I consider personal attacks or condescension unless I see that thrown at me or someone else first. So. Challenge me. Make me think. Prove me wrong on some things. I'm willing to admit I'm wrong if I'm convinced. The only thing I ask in return is the reverse. My mama said "Don't dish it out if you can't take it."

I try to live by that.

Everything you say rings true for me. Thanks for the intro, and welcome aboard.

http://www.acus.org/files/images/decatur-barbary-pirates_0.preview.jpg

....

I'm Spartacus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u93bhAimFFU

I just knew this was coming.

Glad to see you over here. I was gbruno over at OET. I lasted about 29 posts I think, pretty funny.


I'm Starry here and at DU. I'm kind of a baby commie, just started reading Marx at the age of 39, just turned 40 on Tuesday. I have a lot to learn, but it is a very worthwhile task.

hope your 40th was pleasant. I am just a few years older than you and I look at aging as pretty cool now that I've survived so long.

I read Marx in high school (after hours) and couldn't figure out why we weren't doing things his way, the Manifesto spoke to me. For many years I lived in Washington DC and grew to hate politics but I still find myself talking about it quite a bit.

As I mentioned upstream I'm not one of the scholars, I'm just an average housewife. I'm your mom, your sister, your aunt, your daughter - but I do know that for there to be any real equality in this world capitalism needs to go.

:laughing: Yes, I know what happened to Spartacus and his followers unlucky enough to be captured alive by the Romans. Call me old-fashioned, but he fought and died with honor. Better death by crucifixion than life as a slave.

And the scene with Jean Simmons bathing was downright racy for 1960, along with Laurence Olivier's reference to liking both clams and oysters. :evilgrin:

I just went over to OET and read your last posts. Heh! Same pattern. Their Crisis is unmoderated until someone says something that offends their latte' liberal sensibilities. Oh, well, enough said on that subject. I've got better things to do with my time, and need to remember that.

http://www.timswineblog.com/images/resized/three-stooges_f419x307_1260321773.jpg

I've gotten a haircut since taking that picture

:getdown:

.

which, honestly, is probably LESS schematic than his Outline of the Doctrine of Knowledge (which feels like if Hegel was asked to write a syllabus to explain his philosophy).

[div class="excerpt"]The finite rational being cannot ascribe to itself a free efficacy in the sensible world without also ascribing such efficacy to others, and thus without also presupposing the existence of other finite rational beings outside of itself.
Proof

(1) (a) According to the proof conducted above (§1), the rational being cannot posit (perceive and comprehend) an object without simultaneously – in the same, undivided synthesis – ascribing an efficacy to itself.

(b) But it cannot ascribe an efficacy to itself without having posited an object upon which such efficacy is supposed to be exercised. The positing of the object as something that is determined through itself, and thus as something that constrains the rational being’s free activity, must be posited in a prior moment in time; it is only through this prior moment that the moment in which one grasps the concept of efficacy becomes the present moment.

(c) Any, act of comprehension is conditioned by a positing of the rational being’s own efficacy; and all efficacy is conditioned by – some prior act of comprehension by the rational hem,-. Therefore, every Possible moment of consciousness is conditioned by a prior moment of consciousness, and so the explanation of the possibility of consciousness already presupposes consciousness as real. Consciousness can be explained only circularly, thus it cannot be explained at all, and so it appears to be impossible.

Our task was to show how self-consciousness is possible. In response to that task, we answered: self-consciousness is possible if the rational being can – in one and the same undivided moment – ascribe an efficacy to itself and posit something in opposition to that efficacy. [/quote]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/fichte/1796/natural-right.htm

discussion with a rhetorical scholar friend of mine and Fichte will blow him out of the water (I think). I will get back to you...

Extremely bloodily violent, full frontal everything, blatant soft porn sex, but the last episode is so satisfying, especially when all the slaves joined together....
I'm not saying much lately as I'm catching up on reading...

Happy birthday. When you turn 40 all of your vices suddenly turn into being seen as virtues, or at the very least no worse than as quaint eccentricities.

That's welcome news about the vices. :grin:

It went from "are you ever going to stop being such a weirdo and cheapskate and break down and buy a TV for pete sakes?" to "wow, you have never owned a TV? Amazing! How did you do that? I probably watch far too much." From "when you gonna give up on that music and get a real job?" to "wow, still playing, eh? That's impressive." From "when are you ever gonna settle down?" to "wow, you get to travel around all over!" From "when are you gonna outgrow that commie shit and join the real world?" to "wow, still true to your principles. That is rare anymore. I admire that."

;)

I've never understood exactly what was meant by that term. Semantically, it seems to be a contradiction. Historically, a dictatorship is absolute or near-absolute power invested in one person or at most a small group. The proletariat is comprised of the vast majority of the population.

So how can the proletariat be a dictatorship? I ask this in all seriousness.

and then how it gets distributed right now? I think we can agree that is the bourgeoisie even though we can't point to a single boogieman or a shadowy board of directors or even a loose-knit conspiratorial cabal per se.

Now, if all of those tasks fall upon the society as whole, then who *dictates*? The answer is obviously the proletariat, right?

Thanks for the response.

Yes, we can agree, for the sake of argument, anyway, that the bourgeoisie determines how society produces and how right now. To my mind, maybe a few very elite factions of the bourgeoisie, but never mind that for now.

How should the proletariat dictate?

Does the proletariat vote in each, er, economic operation which they control? Do they elect representatives to decide? Or is this a matter to be determined at a later date after capitalism is overthrown? If yes to the last question, that's perfectly reasonable, and maybe necessary. Not trying to be snarky here, just trying to understand your position without any erroneous presumptions on my part.

the truth is that its the dictates of capital that they are tailing moreso than they are issuing them, and especially moreso than any impetus imparted by them (yes, there is an aspect of them not being in "control" themselves).

As for the proletariat control, the trouble is that you're asking about the mechanism in advance of the question of "how do we get there, conretely"? I don't think its a question we defer or try to sidestep so much as a "who the hell can say"? We develop as far as we can within the limits and constraints of what we can see ahead.

Obviously, most of the current apparatus of the State is going to be retained on the first day of Proletariat America (or wherever).

All I wanted to emphasize was that "dictatorship" means "who dictates" and doesn't necessarily correspond to totalitarianism (the notion of which, actually, doesn't really correspond to anything seen since the great agrarian empires of the feudal epoch)

How it works is the way the society has developed - you have to look at the whole of capitalist society to really "see" the dictatorial nature of the operation. The dictatorship of the working class would be similar in that it would be the make-up of the very fabric of the society. What will that look like? Don't know, haven't seen it yet...

Strange that people cannot see what is, as you say, a very tight dictatorship. Actually they can see that those who own more dictate to those who own less, but they see that as "right" and "natural" - even virtuous. No different then when it was seen as right and natural that transfer of power should be hereditary, or that a conqueror had the "right" to own the conquered as slaves.

When people say they want to know and cannot imagine what would come after Capitalism, it reminds me of the things people said about slavery in the early 1800's. They could not imagine, could not "see" an alternative to slavery. Would whites become slaves of Blacks? Would the white woman all be raped? Would whites be forced to marry Blacks? Would Blacks kill all the whites? Would white people have to give half their property to Blacks? Would the Blacks all go back to Africa? Would civilization collapse? Would everyone become atheists?

All of that sounds silly now, but it is really no different than the things people think today when they try to imagine an end to Capitalism.

Like "Stalin," the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" gets an inordinate amount of attention, and always has.

"Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat." - Engels

Excerpt below from "Two Months of Red Splendor: The Paris Commune and Marx' Theory of Revolution"
By Paul Dorn

The two crucial texts to understanding Marx's thinking about revolution are The Communist Manifesto and The Civil War in France. Of these, The Civil War in France is perhaps more important since it represents a mature statement of Marx' revolutionary theory. Written in the period prior to the great revolutions of 1848-49, The Communist Manifesto is primarily a theoretical anticipation - quite accurately expressed - of future revolutionary developments based upon historical research. However, The Civil War in France was written after the class struggle developed to the point that it introduced a new institution: the commune. No astute theoretician - neither utopian dreamer nor even a great materialist thinker like Marx - had imagined the commune. In fact, this new state form - the world's first workers' government - developed in spite of the influence of Blanquist conspiratorial theories and Proudhonist anti-statist anarchist ideas. The Paris Commune developed spontaneously from the process of class struggle: the need for a new political form arose and the commune was created to address it.

In their 1872 introduction to The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels acknowledged the important influence of the Paris Commune on their thinking:

[div class="excerpt"]In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that "the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes." (See The Civil War in France: Address of the General Council of the International Working Men's Association, 1871, where this point is further developed.)[/quote]

In addition, Engels would later cite the Paris Commune as an example of the dictatorship of the proletariat:

[div class="excerpt"]Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.[/quote]

Marx once wrote that among his most important contributions was his identification of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" - the working class organized as the ruling class - as the key to the transition to socialism. Should it be any surprise that Marx was tremendously inspired by the Paris Commune? Calling it "a new point of departure of world-historic importance," Marx recognized that the commune represented the first concrete manifestation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, theoretical questions only hinted at in The Communist Manifesto. What would a workers' government look like? How would it use state power to further the development of socialism? How would other classes respond to this worker's state? Why had previous revolutions failed?

The Paris Commune is the key to understanding Karl Marx' theory of revolution.

...

What lessons, then, did Marx the revolutionary draw from the experience of the Paris Commune?

The Paris Commune represented a new form of government, never before seen or imagined. In its brief existence, the commune was never avowedly socialist. Yet Marx suggested that events would force it to act in a socialist manner.

[div class="excerpt"]The multiplicity of interpretation to which the Commune has been subjected, and the multiplicity of interests which construed it in their favour, show that it was a thoroughly expansive political form, while all previous forms of government had been emphatically repressive. Its true secret was this: It was essentially a working class government, the produce of the struggle of the producing against the appropriating class, the political form at last discovered under which to work out the economical emancipation of labour.

Except on this last condition, the Communal Constitution would have been an impossibility and a delusion. The political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery. The Commune was therefore to serve as a lever for uprooting the economical foundation upon which rests the existence of classes, and therefore of class rule. With labor emancipated, every man becomes a working man, and productive labor ceases to be a class attribute.[/quote]

With its expansive political form, the Paris Commune indicated how a workers' government could negate the political functionaries and the bureaucratic layers that had blocked revolutionary efforts in the past:

[div class="excerpt"]The Commune was formed of the municipal councilors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time. Instead of continuing to be the agent of the Central Government, the police was at once stripped of its political attributes, and turned into the responsible, and at all times revocable, agent of the Commune. So were the officials of all other branches of the administration. From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman's wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government. Not only municipal administration, but the whole initiative hitherto exercised by the state was laid into the hands of the Commune. [/quote]

Using state power, the working class through the commune would uproot the means by which the bourgeoisie had maintained its dictatorship: repression and ideology.

[div class="excerpt"]The first decree of the Commune, therefore, was the suppression of the standing army, and the substitution for it of the armed people.

Having once got rid of the standing army and the police - the physical force elements of the old government - the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the "parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles. The whole of the educational institutions were opened to the people gratuitously, and at the same time cleared of all interference of church and state. Thus, not only was education made accessible to all, but science itself freed from the fetters which class prejudice and governmental force had imposed upon it.[/quote]

In a country in which the majority of citizens were peasants, how would a proletarian government win the support of rural residents? How would it gain the support of the other urban classes, such as the sizable middle class (petit bourgeois) of shopkeepers, professionals, tradesmen, etc.? The Paris Commune took several steps to win broader support and protect itself. Perhaps most attractive was the commune itself; the most democratic type of government ever seen.

[div class="excerpt"]The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.

In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.[/quote]

The highly democratic nature of the commune form of government would make it extremely efficient at performing necessary social tasks. The working class would run the "state," rather than the reverse. Without the need to repress the majority in the interests of a minority, the "state" would assume a different character, have greater legitimacy in the public perception. The commune would win middle class support by providing "good government."

[div class="excerpt]The Communal Constitution would have restored to the social body all the forces hitherto absorbed by the state parasite feeding upon, and clogging the free movement of, society. By this one act, it would have initiated the regeneration of France.

The Commune would have delivered the peasant of the blood tax - would have given him a cheap government - transformed his present blood-suckers, the notary, advocate, executor, and other judicial vampires, into salaried communal agents, elected by, and responsible to, himself. It would have freed him of the tyranny of the garde champetre, the gendarme, and the prefect; would have put enlightenment by the schoolmaster in the place of stultification by the priest. And the French peasant is, above all, a man [sic] of reckoning. He would find it extremely reasonable that the pay of the priest, instead of being extorted by the tax-gatherer, should only depend upon the spontaneous action of the parishioners' religious instinct. Such were the great immediate boons which the rule of the Commune - and that rule alone - held out to the French peasantry.[/quote]

With parts of their city occupied by Prussian soldiers, the Paris Commune would need the support of the international working class to survive.

[div class="excerpt"]If the Commune was thus the true representative of all the healthy elements of French society, and therefore the truly national government, it was, at the same time, as a working men's [sic] government, as the bold champion of the emancipation of labor, emphatically international. Within sight of that Prussian army, that had annexed to Germany two French provinces, the Commune annexed to France the working people all over the world.

The Commune admitted all foreigners to the honor of dying for an immortal cause. Between the foreign war lost by their treason, and the civil war fomented by their conspiracy with the foreign invader, the bourgeoisie had found the time to display their patriotism by organizing police hunts upon the Germans in France. The Commune made a German working man its Minister of Labor. Thiers, the bourgeoisie, the Second Empire, had continually deluded Poland by loud professions of sympathy, while in reality betraying her to, and doing the dirty work of, Russia. The Commune honored the heroic sons of Poland by placing them at the head of the defenders of Paris. And, to broadly mark the new era of history it was conscious of initiating, under the eyes of the conquering Prussians on one side, and the Bonapartist army, led by Bonapartist generals, on the other, the Commune pulled down that colossal symbol of martial glory, the Vendome Column. [/quote]

The Paris Commune also began to erode the traditional patriarchal structure of French society, allowing women greater social involvement. It was the activity of women that had launched the commune:

[div class="excerpt"]On March 18th, the soldiers were ordered by M. Thiers, the head of the reactionary government, to transport the cannon of Paris to Versailles. The milkmaids, who were on the streets before dawn, saw what was afoot and thwarted the treacherous plans of the reactionary government. They surrounded the soldiers and prevented them from carrying out Theirs' orders. Although the men had not yet come into the streets on this early morning, and although the women were not armed, they held their own. As in every real peoples' revolution, new strata of the population were awakened. This time it was the women who were to act first. When reveille was sounded, all of Paris was in the streets. Theirs' spies barely escaped with the information that it was impossible to inform on who the leaders of the uprising were, since the entire population was involved.

On the first day of the Commune, 18 March, women played a crucial role in neutralizing the troops sent by Theirs to seize the cannons of the National Guard. At Montmartre General Lecomte gave the order to fire. At this the women spoke to the soldiers: "Will you fire upon us? On your brothers? Our husbands? Our children?" Faced with this unexpected intervention, the soldiers hesitated. A warrant officer stood in front of his company and shouted: "Mutiny!" Thereupon the 88th battalion fraternized with the crowd. The soldiers arrested their general. [/quote]

The commune introduced measures to better the lot of women:

[div class="excerpt"]The Commune also saw the first growing shoots of a new sexual morality and women's emancipation. Marriage came in for strong condemnation. The Commune decreed on 10 April a pension for widows and children of `all citizens killed defending the rights of the people', whether the children were legitimate or not. This in effect meant putting the free unions common among the working-class population of Paris on an equal footing with marriage. `This decree,' said Arnould afterwards and rather hopefully, `delivered a mortal blow to the religio-monarchical institution of marriage as we see it functioning in modern society.'[/quote]

In the defense of the Paris Commune during the bourgeoisie's final assault, women showed exceptional courage. They fought on the barricades alongside the men, and were particularly effective incendiaries. Marx exclaimed about these brave Communards:

[div class="excerpt"]The real women of Paris showed again at the surface - heroic, noble, and devoted, like the women of antiquity. Working, thinking fighting, bleeding Paris - almost forgetful, in its incubation of a new society, of the Cannibals at its gates - radiant in the enthusiasm of its historic initiative![/quote]

These were some of the positive lessons drawn by Marx from the experience of the Paris Commune. The commune demonstrated many of the steps any workers' state would have to undertake in order to protect itself: the elimination of the police and army; the undermining of the bureaucracy; the appeal to other classes and the international working class; the activation of formerly marginalized sections of the populace such as women and national minorities. However, despite a heroic struggle, the Paris Commune was eventually crushed. While never hesitating to praise the positive impact the Paris Commune had on the international working class movement, Marx also drew lessons from the negative aspects.

The most important failure of the Paris Commune was its lack of relentless and decisive action against the bourgeoisie. The very magnanimity and humanity of the commune proved fatal. Only reluctantly did it use force, take hostages or keep the prisoners it captured. It had many opportunities to eliminate the threat poised by the weakened Versailles government of Thiers. The commune's hesitation allowed the bourgeoisie time to regroup, gather an army and arrange a deal with the Prussians. The commune's moderation left the way open for the vicious, vengeful retaliation the Versailles government inflicted on the workers of Paris. Marx suggested what the Communards should have done:

[div class="excerpt"]In their reluctance to continue the civil war opened by Theirs' burglarious attempt on Montmartre, the Central Committee [of the Paris Commune] made themselves, this time, guilty of a decisive mistake in not at once marching upon Versailles, then completely helpless, and thus putting an end to the conspiracies of Thiers and his Rurals.

If they [the Communards] are defeated only their "good nature" will be to blame. They should have marched at once on Versailles, after first Vinoy and then the reactionary section of the Paris National Guard had themselves retreated. The right moment was missed because of conscientious scruples. They did not want to start the civil war, as if that mischievous abortion Thiers had not already started the civil war with his attempt to disarm Paris.[/quote]

Writing his stirring address to the IWMA mere days after the event, Marx overlooked another troublesome aspect of the Paris Commune. Alex Callinicos, a leading British Marxist, writes:

[div class="excerpt"]Marx did not recognize the second weakness of the Commune. It was elected by all the male citizens of Paris, divided into separate wards. The exclusion of women, which is especially striking in the light of the magnificent role played by the working women of Paris under the Commune, was a reflection of the influence of Jacobinism on the French labour movement. Moreover, the election of representatives on a territorial basis meant that the Commune was chosen by members of all classes. Just as in bourgeois elections, all citizens were treated as equal irrespective of their class position. Normally, this formal equality conceals the real inequalities of wealth and power which undermine bourgeois democracy. In Paris under the Commune, this method of election did not have such harmful effects because most of the bourgeoisie had fled the city.[/quote]

The Paris Commune was the closest thing to a socialist revolution Marx witnessed. Why wasn't there a successful socialist revolution during Marx' life? The material conditions, the objective circumstances, were certainly favorable. Commenting on the Paris Commune with the same acuity he brought to so many political situations, Leon Trotsky wrote:

[div class="excerpt"]The proletariat grows and gathers strength together with the growth of capitalism. In this sense the development of capitalism is the development of the proletariat toward dictatorship. But the day and the hour when power goes over into the hands of the working class depends immediately not on the level of the productive forces, but on the relations of the class struggle, on the international situation, and finally, on a series of subjective factors: tradition, initiative, readiness for struggle.

In a country which is economically more backward, the proletariat can come to power sooner that in an advanced capitalist country. In 1871 it consciously "took into its own hands the direction of public affairs" in petty-bourgeois Paris - to be sure, only for two months, but it did not take power even for an hour in the large-scale capitalist centers of England and the United States. The idea that the proletarian dictatorship is somehow automatically dependent on the technical forces and means of the country represents a prejudice of an extremely simplified "economic" materialism. Such a viewpoint has nothing in common with Marxism.[/quote]

Perhaps the most important lesson of the Paris Commune was suggest by Marx and developed further by later revolutionaries such as Lenin, Luxembourg and Trotsky. Marx described the problem both in his criticism of the leadership of the commune and in the following:

[div class="excerpt"]In every revolution there intrude, at the side of its true agents, men of different stamp; some of them survivors of and devotees to past revolutions, without insight into the present movement, but preserving popular influence by their known honesty and courage, or by the sheer force of tradition; others mere brawlers who, by dint of repeating year after year the same set of stereotyped declarations against the government of the day, have sneaked into the reputation of revolutionists of the first water. After March 18, some such men did also turn up, and in some cases contrived to play pre-eminent parts. As far as their power went, they hampered the real action of the working class, exactly as men of that sort have hampered the full development of every previous revolution. They are an unavoidable evil: with time they are shaken off; but time was not allowed to the Commune.[/quote]
In short, the political immaturity of the working class prevented a successful revolution in the 19th century. The proletariat hadn't - and hasn't yet - created the political leadership needed for a successful worker's revolution. Creating such a political leadership was the project Marx pursued throughout his life, both as an activist and as a theoretician. Objective conditions frequently present revolutionary opportunities. Yet without political leadership that advocates socialism, that instills class consciousness, that understands the history of political struggle and the necessity for decisive action (including revolutionary terror) against the bourgeoisie, any revolutionary movement will fail to create socialism. [24] Historically the most important missing element of socialist revolution has been the subjective factor: the revolutionary socialist party. While it had some members in key positions of the Paris Commune, the International Working Men's Association was not yet the revolutionary party needed for a successful transition to socialism. It lacked the theoretical clarity, critical mass and organic connection to the working class necessary to lead events.

A revolutionary party cannot be created in the midst of civil war, armed occupation, social chaos, economic disruption. Long before a revolutionary situation arises, the party needs to develop its theory, test it in practice and gain credibility among the working class. When it begins to fight against the bosses, the working class looks for ideas to advance its struggle. Without a legitimate revolutionary working class party, these workers will often be tempted to follow the well-meaning, charlatan "[people] of a different stamp" Marx described above. However, if a revolutionary party has established itself in advance of the struggle, gaining sufficient size and the respect of workers, it can lead the fight to a successful conclusion: socialism.

Leon Trotsky elaborated on this lesson from the experience of the Paris Commune:

[div class="excerpt"]The proletariat of Paris did not have such a party. The bourgeois socialists with whom the Commune swarmed, raised their eyes to heaven, waited for a miracle or else a prophetic word, hesitated, and during that time the masses groped about and lost their heads because of the indecision of some and the fantasy of others. The result was that the revolution broke out in their midst, too late, and Paris was encircled. Six months elapsed before the proletariat had reestablished in its memory the lessons of past revolutions, of battles of yore, of the reiterated betrayals of democracy - and it seized power.

These six months proved to be an irreparable loss. If the centralized party of revolutionary action had been found at the head of the proletariat of France in September 1870, the whole history of France and with it the whole history of humanity would have taken another direction.[/quote]

Marx' theory of revolution was derived from this understanding. The demise of capitalism is inevitable, but there is no certainty as to when. Capitalism has been able to hobble along only because of the political immaturity of its future gravediggers. The one consistent feature of Marx' life, from the time before The Communist Manifesto until his death, was his attempt both theoretically and practically - as a person of thought and a person of action - to hasten the political development of the proletariat.

http://www.runmuki.com/paul/writing/marx.html

I am trying the minimalist approach so its good to have someone else filling in some of the gaps too

I am trying the minimalist approach so its good to have someone else filling in some of the gaps too

The Paris Commune makes for a good "picture," and it looks like the Old Man thought so, too.

Interesting commentary there that relates to "representative democracy" and also to the gaggle of legal functionaries that liberals think are so essential.

"The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents."

There is a true "representative" described. Contrast that to what we call a "representative" here.

"The Commune would have delivered the peasant of the blood tax - would have given him a cheap government - transformed his present blood-suckers, the notary, advocate, executor, and other judicial vampires, into salaried communal agents, elected by, and responsible to, himself."

I hope people will read that, because it is very powerful. It is "revolutionary" - a radical departure from how we now think of government - but yet immediately understandable - we can easily relate to it.

Imagine we were a tribe journeying into new regions. We encounter another tribe. We may elect a representative to go speak to that other tribe for us with a "mandat imperatif." (Of course! What else?)

Now, would we expect that representative to then rule over us, have power over us? Be paid more, become wealthy? Make up his own ideas as to what to say to the other tribe, at odds with his "mandat imperatif?" Would we expect him to prosper as a result of his association with the other tribe disproportionately to the rest of us? Would we expect him to advocate for the needs or desires of the other tribe, to us or to them?? Of course not. We would then no longer call that person a "representative" - we would call him a "traitor."

Yet that is exactly the situation we now have, and that we call "representative democracy."

Very nice.

that could easily have been perceived as an opening to a typical canned ideological attack. It makes sense that existing institutional structures would be used by the new political power after any revolutionary change, at least at first. After the American revolution, existing colonial parliaments were retained in form if not in composition. When the Visigoths and Franks found themselves in charge of Romanized populations, they kept the old bureaucratic forms of the collapsed Empire more or less intact, at least at first.

Ludwig Wittgenstein said that how words are used determines their meaning, that there is no inherent or absolute or Platonic Ideal of a meaning behind any word. By showing me how you use the term "dictatorship" in this particular context, you enabled me to understand what you mean when you use it, thereby preventing future misunderstandings. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" makes much more sense now. Thanks.

topic, alone - I second Starry's request. Good stuff...

Man, "The Paris Commune and Marx," I haven't thought about that in decades; obviously way too long. And old Trotsky was spot on in that last quote, wasn't he? Without leadership and direction, without organization, a revolutionary movement that otherwise might succeed will ultimately be crushed by the authorities or co-opted by others who don't share many of their basic interests but want themselves to become the new authorities.

I think the latter could be applied to the American Revolution and its aftermath as well as the Paris Commune, though of course I realize there were many differences.

I will check out your link. Again, thanks to you and others for taking the time to thoughtfully answer my questions, and for challenging me to think.

[div class="excerpt"]Kucinich to liberals: Vote or cede to the ‘forces of nihilism’

WASHINGTON – As Democrats fear a wave of losses in next Tuesday's elections, due in part to a lack of enthusiasm within their base, one progressive champion made an impassioned plea for liberals to head to the polls and and vote.

"We can get out there and make our voices heard, or we can let the forces of nihilism take over," Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) told Raw Story in an exclusive interview late Tuesday afternoon.

The Cleveland Democrat warned liberals that a Republican takeover of the House of Representatives – a likely scenario, according to election experts – could surrender the levers of power to "megalomaniacal neoconservatives who are more in need of mental attention."

"There's no question about it," he said. "We have to vote."

Kucinich, a seven-term congressman whose seat is in no danger, sympathized with progressives who are disenchanted with the Democratic Party, but insisted they must "work within the system" to achieve the results they want, arguing that tuning out wasn't a better solution.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2010/10/kucinich-liberals-vote-cede-forces-nihilism/
[/quote]

So tell me Kooch, tell me about all of those 'progressive' achievements....

I didn't even know that Chernyshevsky was on the ballot.

I might have voted for him.

http://www.realc.emory.edu/russian/DOSTOEVSKY/chernyshevsky.jpg

Do you figure that after all his years in and around the "movement", that Kooch still doesn't know what a "Nihilist" is?

How do these people spend their time?

A shallow man, I doubt he even thought about going 'there', even to find out what it's about. To think I supported the swine in 04, though at that time he talked the New Deal pretty good. I got higher standards now.

And it is just an embarrassment now...