Mikhail and Hodj's Political Thread

hodj_sl said:

Which is it chuckle fuck? Violence is reprehensible, inhumane and not part of Marx's literature, or violence is a necessary condition of the revolution?

Click to expand...

Violence is almost assuredlya step, not the first. But violence doesn't mean brutalizing and terrorizing the populace you're trying to set free. It doesn't mean forcing them into labor camps and, due to that brutal andnon-communisticpolicy, silencing and assassinating dissidents.

What itdoesmean is violence against those who take up arms, and refuse to accept the changing of society as it goes along with the changing of productive forces shaping it. The old guard, so to speak, who want to keep the existing social relations because it benefits them. In any epoch, they will not submit to those changing productive forces and will do anything in their power to oppress them. Their biggest tool is no longer violence, however, but propaganda to ensure people remain ignorant of their roles as a productive force in society. It will only come to violence nearly at the end, again when the boiler tips over and the propaganda outlets are no longer effective. You saw aslight hintof that with the tea party sabotaging legislative process due to a socialistic policy.

My opinion is that it will eventually lead to violence of the very wealthy with the majority, once the antagonisms reach an extreme point, but it's a long time coming. If we further enact more socialistic policy and take real legislative power away from the capitalists, you may start to see the beginnings of it there also. They don't want existing social relations to be replaced with new ones, and the violence to keep it in place will come assuredly.

Well, I guess I will see what Dumar has in mind for post#2 on this subject, but I am a bit disillusioned atm. I was expecting some sort of "keep implementing socialist policies, keep up more and more progressive taxes and slowly even out the distribution of wealth". Education followed by hoping for a revolt against the elites sounds extremely dangerous and self-destructive. Also very unlikely to happen and even if it would, I see it much more likely to lead to a french revolution, Pol Pot or Mao.

Maybe I simply misunderstand, and instead education is the first step followed by something more peaceful. I await post #2.

Trollface_sl said:

communism will never work, just on the basis of absolute nature of humanity.

Click to expand...

My esteemed and well-respected comrade, need I remind you the education in store should you continue to speak of the Party in such a manner?

khalid_sl said:

Well, I guess I will see what Dumar has in mind for post#2 on this subject, but I am a bit disillusioned atm. I was expecting some sort of "keep implementing socialist policies, keep up more and more progressive taxes and slowly even out the distribution of wealth". Education followed by hoping for a revolt against the elites sounds extremely dangerous and self-destructive. Also very unlikely to happen and even if it would, I see it much more likely to lead to a french revolution, Pol Pot or Mao.

Maybe I simply misunderstand, and instead education is the first step followed by something more peaceful. I await post #2.

Click to expand...

That's a lot of post #2, but educating people is very, or most, important.

Araysar, why was I dragged here? I was living a peaceful life in General and Sports.

hodj_sl said:

Dumar serious question:

Click to expand...

You're not understanding the historical process that takes place. Society changes in relation to changes in productive forces. Revolution doesn't just spring up randomly. Cleetus and Jamal won't be knocking just because they want to or were told. A rearranging of social relations takes place, and during that rearranging, lots of people have a vested interest in that not occurring, from kings, lords to plutocrats, politicians, and Wall Street executives. These people want society to stayas isbecause the socioeconomic structures in place currently, in whatever time we're talking about, benefits that class of people the most at the expense of others. This leads to violence at the boiler tip, and this violence is categorized as a revolution because it's the last step of a complete overthrow of old social relations: social relations that were put in place due to how production occurred in the old system now being discarded.

For example, take energy. If or when solar or wind energy reaches a point that sustains all major populations around the globe indefinitely, there is some class antagonism that will take place - because people have a vested interest in the current production conditions that constitute power (coal, nuclear, etc), especially those of the oil industry. Take that one example and apply it to every sphere of social relations of production at the same time - every single industry will and does get transformed. This is what tips over to revolution. Lobbying and propaganda can only go so far, and once it works no longer, that's when you'll see hints of manipulating the legislative process or outright violence.

Compare to the other scenario: if the current mathematical trends continue as they have with capital accumulation. The wealthy will continue to use their wealth to get wealthier, and when another crisis in capitalism pops up due to, as I said before, that wealth transforming limits into barriers to overcome (and overcoming them), then people will be more disenfranchised, the propaganda will ramp up (99% of the poor have refrigerators omg) until it no longer works, violence ensues.

The first one is more a pure Marxian scenario, but both are due to class antagonisms.