>See I don't believe it is the job of communists to take state power >within a capitalist world system, because you end up doing
>the job of the bourgeoisie for them. Oh inept bourgeoisie, they don't >know how to run a country so let's take state power from
>them and show them how it's done! This is the story of bolshevism and >that's why people don't really like it anymore - it's just
>too obviously a way of thinking about how to push capitalism along >where the bourgeoisie looks uncomfortable or incapable in
>its traditional role, mainly in backward countries which call for some >kind of forced-march modernisation, particularly with
>regard to the agrarian revolution.
Um, I think you're equating what happened in Russia at the start of the last century and what happened to it recently with socialism in general, which is incorrect. Considering the state of Russia before the Revolution, that "forced-march modernization" wasn't such a bad idea if you want to be able to at least try to efficiently feed, clothe, etc. all those people over such a broad geographical area. You can hardly blame Lenin and Co. for trying in the first place. And I suspect "people (Lefties? People in general? What?) not really liking it anymore" has more to do with the fact that socialism was never very "popular" to begin with; lots of people believe(d) in it and want(ed) to make it more of a reality, but far more simply don't/didn't care that much (to quote South Park's Chef: That don't disturb me none . . . long as I get my rent paid by Friday." They think they CAN pay their rent every Friday with no problems, given the prevailing economic reality: Capitalism isn't concerned with their always being able to pay their rent; if they can't pay, then they are removed to find someone who can.) for various reasons.
>I am far from convinced that either of you really have a conception of >revolution that is different to this. I know that Patrick is
>still into some sort of variant of the good ol' national democratic >revolution (delinking, etc,), whereas James is kind of saying hey
>that's not revolution let's have a revolution. But guys what are we >talking about here? Overthrow of a >ruling class to replace it
>with another ('better') one? Overthrow of the entire world capitalist system so as to put an end to classes >or what?
>My point is that real communists should not think of taking political power under any circumstances, except >where the
>opportunity exists to abolish it permanently.
Abolish political power permanently?
>Having a revolution in SA or Zim or somewhere like that does >not constitute such a
>prospect, so let's forget it. Political power is not something we should covet.
One needs some sort of tool to enact "gross" changes (at the very least) in a society; politics is I think the most "peaceful" one available.
>What should communists do >when the opportunity
>for worldwide anti-capitalist revolution does not present itself? I think they should push for all those >things that make life better.
Um, this is a little broad. What sorts of things? Less secrecy and "emergency powers" given to the state (I approve), or just more access to more interesting commodities ("credit gratuit"?)?
>To me this is not reforming capitalism, because reforms are the job of the bourgeoisie - it's what they do >when we are making
>life impossible for them. That's our job in the longer run: we don't help them to change (implement reforms), >nor do we take
>their power away from them in order to do what they weren't able to do (revolution). What we do is to push >them as hard as
>possible for all the things we want from life and thereby make their task impossible. We should not want the!
>m to satisfy us or meet our demands; our task should be literally to make their job impossible.
So push until they say "no"? Not bad, but what then? Take over? How? (Don't think I want a blueprint on the spot; I just want some more information from you to continue the discussion) And if the "Left" pushes, and at the same time, makes the job of "reform" impossible, do you think they'll just flock to "our side?" Better by far, I think, to sell the capitalists as much rope as they can take then hang 'em with it, as a "general plan." I suspect that was, more or less, what Marx had in mind: why else praise free trade?
Todd Archer (I'M BAAAA-AAACK!)