Proletarian Revolution

[CornixPes II]

I thought Marx was clear the proletarian would rise up on their own.

Yes, but how can the proletarian simply collectively rise up? Surely, in the absence of a hive mind or united consciousness, the only way for the people to embrace marxism is through a forced period of enlightenment or revolution?

They would rise up if the conditions actually became that bad.
In the US that critical mass was around late 19th century.
After that conditions improved so why revolt?

You used the word 'revolt'. I am agreeing with you insofar that the proletarian does have a window of opportunity when the conditions reach critical mass, but they still cannot readily accept the new Marxist ideology without striking out together and defeating those that are in power (in this case, the fat cats at the top of the high rises). What I am saying is, this ideology is only achievable through revolution, which will mean many casulties in the ranks of those that Marxists seek to protect.

Some of what you describe may be necessary but the so called "fat cats" at the "top" will be starved out. They are only there as long as the workers keep shipping them the massive resources that permit their lifestyles. They are nothing without the people and they know that.

The state and the corporation have no power that we do not give to them. Simply withdraw that consent on a large scale and the state and the corporation crumble.

I find this a somewhat simplistic view. The corporations and the government have capital. And yes, the very idea of capital will be stamped out, but a revolution is not achievable without it. In the long process which must take place to instate a form of communism capital will still be useful and if the fat-cats work fast enough, which they will, they will be able to secure land and assets which they can assert their dominance with. Capital is a much more essential lifeforce now than it was 60 years ago.

What is this capital you speak of? Is it something you can eat to ease the hunger pains? Can I lay my head on capital as a pillow to go to sleep at night?

If the means of production are seized by the people, the capitalists have nothing.

Capital does not equal means of production.

This may have been true in neoclassical economics, a set of conceptual explanations for markets that existed when Marx was putting pen to paper, but it is not true any more. Capital is money and assets, and in the process of a proletarian revolution they will still hold meaning (albeit progressively decreasing value) which can be used to secure power. Capital will not be completely devalued over night. It is the glue that holds the economic infrastructure of the modern world together. Without the means of production it WILL wither and dry up, but it exists as a seperate entity.

[Natapoc]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

[CornixPes II]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

[Alsatian Knights]

Dear NSG,

Today I was walking through London and I saw some posters; the infamous picture of Karl Marx and his crazy beard caught my eye. I stopped and looked, expecting it to be nothing more than an extreme socialist pressure group going on another tyrade against capitalism by protesting at their local library. I was right, it was a protest against capitalism, but this group was different. They appear to have done away with the political dialectics and were actually trying to advocate and promote a proletarian revolution.

My response was laughter, but not because I am politically adverse to the Marxist viewpoint. Do people actually think that a social revolution can work? Why do they stand up and promote this ridiculousness? Now, I am what I think is generally viewed as centrist, and I have what I believe to be a realistic understanding of the world. In this understanding, I can NEVER see the complex infrastructure and behavioural programming of a capitalist society suddenly breaking down and becoming all about the 'collective ownership'. How can they not see that a proletarian revolution will cost many of the lives they seek to empower?

Help me understand this NSG.

So in other words, they were actively undermining the British Government...

[Natapoc]

So in other words, they were actively undermining the British Government...

Is that against the law or something?

[A Rightist Puppet]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

[Natapoc]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

Where does the food come from to feed their kids? Is it the capitalists who supply it or is it the workers who work tirelessly on the farms?

If it is the capitalists then you are right: It is hopeless and I'm just going to give up and become a ruthless CEO of some big polluting evil corporation.

But if it is the workers who are infact harvesting, storing, and otherwise building up the food supply every year then the capitalists only maintain an illusion of power and which they can only hold onto as long as that illusion is accepted as fact by a sufficient percentage of the people.

So which is it?

[CornixPes II]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

What I am saying is that people won't give up feeding their kids to 'help society'. Capitalism is the way things work, to change that will mean making heavy sacrifices.

[CornixPes II]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

Where does the food come from to feed their kids? Is it the capitalists who supply it or is it the workers who work tirelessly on the farms?

If it is the capitalists then you are right: It is hopeless and I'm just going to give up and become a ruthless CEO of some big polluting evil corporation.

But if it is the workers who are infact harvesting, storing, and otherwise building up the food supply every year then the capitalists only maintain an illusion of power and which they can only hold onto as long as that illusion is accepted as fact by a sufficient percentage of the people.

So which is it?

What about the people who make boxes? Are their families going to eat cardboard? Yes, farmers can just start using their resources for their own benefit, but not everyone is in that kind of position. There are office works who deal soley in intangible goods - where are they going to be in the socialist revolution? Money will depreciate, I'm not denying that, and so will the other resources, but it will still hold enough value for the capitalists at the top to stockpile and gain power through land and other assets.

[New Mitanni]

Dear NSG,

Today I was walking through London and I saw some posters; the infamous picture of Karl Marx and his crazy beard caught my eye. I stopped and looked, expecting it to be nothing more than an extreme socialist pressure group going on another tyrade against capitalism by protesting at their local library. I was right, it was a protest against capitalism, but this group was different. They appear to have done away with the political dialectics and were actually trying to advocate and promote a proletarian revolution.

My response was laughter, but not because I am politically adverse to the Marxist viewpoint. Do people actually think that a social revolution can work? Why do they stand up and promote this ridiculousness? Now, I am what I think is generally viewed as centrist, and I have what I believe to be a realistic understanding of the world. In this understanding, I can NEVER see the complex infrastructure and behavioural programming of a capitalist society suddenly breaking down and becoming all about the 'collective ownership'. How can they not see that a proletarian revolution will cost many of the lives they seek to empower?

Help me understand this NSG.

Because Marxism is all about seizing power, not about helping those poor pitiful proles.

[Alsatian Knights]

So in other words, they were actively undermining the British Government...

Is that against the law or something?

Well in the US if you undermine US Policy in any shape or form they raid your house at 1 in the morning and drag you off to a Super Max Prison till a trail date.

[Natapoc]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

Where does the food come from to feed their kids? Is it the capitalists who supply it or is it the workers who work tirelessly on the farms?

If it is the capitalists then you are right: It is hopeless and I'm just going to give up and become a ruthless CEO of some big polluting evil corporation.

But if it is the workers who are infact harvesting, storing, and otherwise building up the food supply every year then the capitalists only maintain an illusion of power and which they can only hold onto as long as that illusion is accepted as fact by a sufficient percentage of the people.

So which is it?

What about the people who make boxes? Are their families going to eat cardboard? Yes, farmers can just start using their resources for their own benefit, but not everyone is in that kind of position. There are office works who deal soley in intangible goods - where are they going to be in the socialist revolution? Money will depreciate, I'm not denying that, and so will the other resources, but it will still hold enough value for the capitalists at the top to stockpile and gain power through land and other assets.

Of course not. The farm workers know exactly who makes the boxes that are used to box up the products of their labor. The capitalist would need to call his or her secretary to find out but no: the worker on the farm knows that the boxes required come from factory xyz in city k. The farm worker knows the workers of the shipping company that picks up the boxes and sends them out to where they need to go.

The important thing is to create a foundation, a social structure underneath or above the current one.

Property is theft. The capitalist can claim to have ownership of as much property as he or she desires but it does not change anything. "Buying" more property does not entitle the capitalist to it.

[CornixPes II]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

Where does the food come from to feed their kids? Is it the capitalists who supply it or is it the workers who work tirelessly on the farms?

If it is the capitalists then you are right: It is hopeless and I'm just going to give up and become a ruthless CEO of some big polluting evil corporation.

But if it is the workers who are infact harvesting, storing, and otherwise building up the food supply every year then the capitalists only maintain an illusion of power and which they can only hold onto as long as that illusion is accepted as fact by a sufficient percentage of the people.

So which is it?

What about the people who make boxes? Are their families going to eat cardboard? Yes, farmers can just start using their resources for their own benefit, but not everyone is in that kind of position. There are office works who deal soley in intangible goods - where are they going to be in the socialist revolution? Money will depreciate, I'm not denying that, and so will the other resources, but it will still hold enough value for the capitalists at the top to stockpile and gain power through land and other assets.

Of course not. The farm workers know exactly who makes the boxes that are used to box up the products of their labor. The capitalist would need to call his or her secretary to find out but no: the worker on the farm knows that the boxes required come from factory xyz in city k. The farm worker knows the workers of the shipping company that picks up the boxes and sends them out to where they need to go.

The important thing is to create a foundation, a social structure underneath or above the current one.

Property is theft. The capitalist can claim to have ownership of as much property as he or she desires but it does not change anything. "Buying" more property does not entitle the capitalist to it.

You're basing your argument on the flow of information, which can not be generalised. Of course the guy at the top knows where various activities in his organisations occur. And just because the farmers know where the boxers live doesn't mean they're all going to share. People are utility maximising, they look after themselves. It is built in. The existence of capital will depreciate and so will the idea of 'ownership', I agree with you. But this is not an immediate occurance. Capitalism exists in the heart and mind of these workers, it's how they have lived ever since they could stand on their own two feet. They will sooner look after themselves than worry about everyone else - there will be no mystical social sub-structure, only Benthamite self-maximisation.

[A Rightist Puppet]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

Where does the food come from to feed their kids? Is it the capitalists who supply it or is it the workers who work tirelessly on the farms?

If it is the capitalists then you are right: It is hopeless and I'm just going to give up and become a ruthless CEO of some big polluting evil corporation.

But if it is the workers who are infact harvesting, storing, and otherwise building up the food supply every year then the capitalists only maintain an illusion of power and which they can only hold onto as long as that illusion is accepted as fact by a sufficient percentage of the people.

So which is it?

Oh dear, not one of your types.

I can, literally, not think of something so utterly illogical as seeking a progressive revolution, through rural farming.

You understand, farmers are usually the conservatives, right?

[Natapoc]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

Where does the food come from to feed their kids? Is it the capitalists who supply it or is it the workers who work tirelessly on the farms?

If it is the capitalists then you are right: It is hopeless and I'm just going to give up and become a ruthless CEO of some big polluting evil corporation.

But if it is the workers who are infact harvesting, storing, and otherwise building up the food supply every year then the capitalists only maintain an illusion of power and which they can only hold onto as long as that illusion is accepted as fact by a sufficient percentage of the people.

So which is it?

What about the people who make boxes? Are their families going to eat cardboard? Yes, farmers can just start using their resources for their own benefit, but not everyone is in that kind of position. There are office works who deal soley in intangible goods - where are they going to be in the socialist revolution? Money will depreciate, I'm not denying that, and so will the other resources, but it will still hold enough value for the capitalists at the top to stockpile and gain power through land and other assets.

Of course not. The farm workers know exactly who makes the boxes that are used to box up the products of their labor. The capitalist would need to call his or her secretary to find out but no: the worker on the farm knows that the boxes required come from factory xyz in city k. The farm worker knows the workers of the shipping company that picks up the boxes and sends them out to where they need to go.

The important thing is to create a foundation, a social structure underneath or above the current one.

Property is theft. The capitalist can claim to have ownership of as much property as he or she desires but it does not change anything. "Buying" more property does not entitle the capitalist to it.

You're basing your argument on the flow of information, which can not be generalised. Of course the guy at the top knows where various activities in his organisations occur. And just because the farmers know where the boxers live doesn't mean they're all going to share. People are utility maximising, they look after themselves. It is built in. The existence of capital will depreciate and so will the idea of 'ownership', I agree with you. But this is not an immediate occurance. Capitalism exists in the heart and mind of these workers, it's how they have lived ever since they could stand on their own two feet. They will sooner look after themselves than worry about everyone else - there will be no mystical social sub-structure, only Benthamite self-maximisation.

I think the problem here is you are thinking that the revolution will be an instant thing somehow without the consent of the proletariat. That it will be a sort of top-down manufactured revolution. I don't see it happening that way.

There will be no proper revolution unless it is lead by the proletariat. In that case your argument that "Capitalism exists in the heart and mind of these workers" will no longer be true. People change. I also disagree with you that people have a natural tendency to horde more than they need to extract some benefit over others. While capitalism encourages this behavior I don't think it is natural.

That is not what I've seen of humans in my life. Most people will give even of things they themselves need to help you and don't have any problem at all giving things that they don't need. If you were to walk into a small town in say, northern africa, and you go knock on someones door at random and say: I'm a visitor to this town and I have nothing. Would you give me something to eat?

Most will give to you expecting nothing in return. Even the ones who have almost nothing to eat themselves.

[A Rightist Puppet]

States are built on violence. Violence is something the state understands much better than we do. They have countless killing machines and thousands of years of practice in using violence to oppress, torture, and kill anyone who opposes them.

For the people to use violence against the state in its strength would be as unwise as it would be for a white belt in karate to challenge a sixth Dan. We must use our strengths, not our weaknesses to oppose the state and the capitalists. Using our weakness (violence) against them except in a few carefully chosen ways would result in failure.

So the state knows how to use violence, they know how to be destructive. What don't they know how to do that the people do? The answer to this question is the way of a peaceful revolution.

How exactly would a peaceful revolution work? Who will listen to them? People still need to feed their families, they still need to work, so the capitalists still get their money. They can do all the shouting that they want but nothing will change.

Yeah, all those suckers, so hung up about feeding their kids. What posers.

What I am saying is that people won't give up feeding their kids to 'help society'. Capitalism is the way things work, to change that will mean making heavy sacrifices.

Well, of course not, there's not that many people with the genetic defect you're looking for.

[CornixPes II]

I think the problem here is you are thinking that the revolution will be an instant thing somehow without the consent of the proletariat. That it will be a sort of top-down manufactured revolution. I don't see it happening that way.

I've been saying the exact opposite! The revolution cannot be an instant phenomenon because the capitalist structure is too robust! I have not once, in any of my posts, suggested that a revolution would occur from anyone other than the proletariat. Have I not just spent the last few hours arguing that that top will resist? Yes, I have.

Look, I am not presenting a case that there is no good in Humanity, because there is. I am simply saying that people, on the whole, are self-maximising because of the environment they have been brought up in. A proletariat revolution will not occur because 100% of the population has decided communism is the best way, it might be because 10% have slowly warmed to the idea. Therefore, it is a long and arduous process of getting the rest of the state to understand that, and while this opinion propagates and the value of capital decreases, there WILL be people hoarding.

[Natapoc]

I think the problem here is you are thinking that the revolution will be an instant thing somehow without the consent of the proletariat. That it will be a sort of top-down manufactured revolution. I don't see it happening that way.

I've been saying the exact opposite! The revolution cannot be an instant phenomenon because the capitalist structure is too robust! I have not once, in any of my posts, suggested that a revolution would occur from anyone other than the proletariat. Have I not just spent the last few hours arguing that that top will resist? Yes, I have.

Look, I am not presenting a case that there is no good in Humanity, because there is. I am simply saying that people, on the whole, are self-maximising because of the environment they have been brought up in. A proletariat revolution will not occur because 100% of the population has decided communism is the best way, it might be because 10% have slowly warmed to the idea. Therefore, it is a long and arduous process of getting the rest of the state to understand that, and while this opinion propagates and the value of capital decreases, there WILL be people hoarding.

Sorry it sounded like you were implying that it would be the only way. I think we are all struggling with different ideas about how to abolish capitalism. I think it is important to note that the idea can be something supported by the majority of the people without any action yet being taken. In other words if one wakes up in the morning and suddenly dislikes capitalism it does not mean that he or she will instantly act on it.

Until the majority of the people (not just 10%) want this I don't think it can happen on a large scale. This is why I feel we must build parallel institutions to prove that the ideas work. Have you ever heard of the federation of egalitarian communities? http://www.thefec.org/

This is an example of what we must build but much more and within the cities also.

[CornixPes II]

I think the problem here is you are thinking that the revolution will be an instant thing somehow without the consent of the proletariat. That it will be a sort of top-down manufactured revolution. I don't see it happening that way.

I've been saying the exact opposite! The revolution cannot be an instant phenomenon because the capitalist structure is too robust! I have not once, in any of my posts, suggested that a revolution would occur from anyone other than the proletariat. Have I not just spent the last few hours arguing that that top will resist? Yes, I have.

Look, I am not presenting a case that there is no good in Humanity, because there is. I am simply saying that people, on the whole, are self-maximising because of the environment they have been brought up in. A proletariat revolution will not occur because 100% of the population has decided communism is the best way, it might be because 10% have slowly warmed to the idea. Therefore, it is a long and arduous process of getting the rest of the state to understand that, and while this opinion propagates and the value of capital decreases, there WILL be people hoarding.

Sorry it sounded like you were implying that it would be the only way. I think we are all struggling with different ideas about how to abolish capitalism. I think it is important to note that the idea can be something supported by the majority of the people without any action yet being taken. In other words if one wakes up in the morning and suddenly dislikes capitalism it does not mean that he or she will instantly act on it.

Until the majority of the people (not just 10%) want this I don't think it can happen on a large scale. This is why I feel we must build parallel institutions to prove that the ideas work. Have you ever heard of the federation of egalitarian communities? http://www.thefec.org/

This is an example of what we must build but much more and within the cities also.

My original post states that I'm actually centrist; I don't want communism, I don't want total conservative capitalism, I like a balance and I feel that is realistic. I do, however, see your point and understand your viewpoint. I still think that the capitalist structure of the modern West is too deep-rooted to be up-rooted by a revolution - peaceful or otherwise.

[Korintar]

I think the problem here is you are thinking that the revolution will be an instant thing somehow without the consent of the proletariat. That it will be a sort of top-down manufactured revolution. I don't see it happening that way.

I've been saying the exact opposite! The revolution cannot be an instant phenomenon because the capitalist structure is too robust! I have not once, in any of my posts, suggested that a revolution would occur from anyone other than the proletariat. Have I not just spent the last few hours arguing that that top will resist? Yes, I have.

Look, I am not presenting a case that there is no good in Humanity, because there is. I am simply saying that people, on the whole, are self-maximising because of the environment they have been brought up in. A proletariat revolution will not occur because 100% of the population has decided communism is the best way, it might be because 10% have slowly warmed to the idea. Therefore, it is a long and arduous process of getting the rest of the state to understand that, and while this opinion propagates and the value of capital decreases, there WILL be people hoarding.

Sorry it sounded like you were implying that it would be the only way. I think we are all struggling with different ideas about how to abolish capitalism. I think it is important to note that the idea can be something supported by the majority of the people without any action yet being taken. In other words if one wakes up in the morning and suddenly dislikes capitalism it does not mean that he or she will instantly act on it.

Until the majority of the people (not just 10%) want this I don't think it can happen on a large scale. This is why I feel we must build parallel institutions to prove that the ideas work. Have you ever heard of the federation of egalitarian communities? http://www.thefec.org/

This is an example of what we must build but much more and within the cities also.

I think I already posted something like that on this thread, middle of page 1, in fact.

[Natapoc]

I think the problem here is you are thinking that the revolution will be an instant thing somehow without the consent of the proletariat. That it will be a sort of top-down manufactured revolution. I don't see it happening that way.

I've been saying the exact opposite! The revolution cannot be an instant phenomenon because the capitalist structure is too robust! I have not once, in any of my posts, suggested that a revolution would occur from anyone other than the proletariat. Have I not just spent the last few hours arguing that that top will resist? Yes, I have.

Look, I am not presenting a case that there is no good in Humanity, because there is. I am simply saying that people, on the whole, are self-maximising because of the environment they have been brought up in. A proletariat revolution will not occur because 100% of the population has decided communism is the best way, it might be because 10% have slowly warmed to the idea. Therefore, it is a long and arduous process of getting the rest of the state to understand that, and while this opinion propagates and the value of capital decreases, there WILL be people hoarding.

Sorry it sounded like you were implying that it would be the only way. I think we are all struggling with different ideas about how to abolish capitalism. I think it is important to note that the idea can be something supported by the majority of the people without any action yet being taken. In other words if one wakes up in the morning and suddenly dislikes capitalism it does not mean that he or she will instantly act on it.

Until the majority of the people (not just 10%) want this I don't think it can happen on a large scale. This is why I feel we must build parallel institutions to prove that the ideas work. Have you ever heard of the federation of egalitarian communities? http://www.thefec.org/

This is an example of what we must build but much more and within the cities also.

I think I already posted something like that on this thread, middle of page 1, in fact.

Yes you did What do you think of thefec.org? If twin oaks were all vegan I think I'd be very tempted to join.

[Rotting Corpse]

My response was laughter, but not because I am politically adverse to the Marxist viewpoint. Do people actually think that a social revolution can work?

I think you miss the point. I think Slavoj Zizek puts it well when he says
"In a proper revolutionary breakthrough, the utopian future is neither simply fully realized, present, nor simply evoked as a distant promise which justified present violence -it is rather as if, in a unique suspension of temporality, in the short-circuit between the present and the future, we are — as if by Grace — for a brief time allowed to act AS IF the utopian future is (not yet fully here, but) already at hand, just there to be grabbed. Revolution is not experienced as a present hardship we have to endure for the happiness and freedom of the future generations, but as the present hardship over which this future happiness and freedom already cast their shadow — in it, we already are free while fighting for freedom, we already are happy while fighting for happiness, no matter how difficult the circumstances. Revolution is not a Merleau-Pontian wager, an act suspended in the futur anterieur, to be legitimized or delegitimized by the long term outcome of the present acts; it is as it were its own ontological proof, an immediate index of its own truth."

You can't force egalitarianism any more than you can force love.

Sure you can. Love is chemicals.

[Korintar]

I think the problem here is you are thinking that the revolution will be an instant thing somehow without the consent of the proletariat. That it will be a sort of top-down manufactured revolution. I don't see it happening that way.

I've been saying the exact opposite! The revolution cannot be an instant phenomenon because the capitalist structure is too robust! I have not once, in any of my posts, suggested that a revolution would occur from anyone other than the proletariat. Have I not just spent the last few hours arguing that that top will resist? Yes, I have.

Look, I am not presenting a case that there is no good in Humanity, because there is. I am simply saying that people, on the whole, are self-maximising because of the environment they have been brought up in. A proletariat revolution will not occur because 100% of the population has decided communism is the best way, it might be because 10% have slowly warmed to the idea. Therefore, it is a long and arduous process of getting the rest of the state to understand that, and while this opinion propagates and the value of capital decreases, there WILL be people hoarding.

Sorry it sounded like you were implying that it would be the only way. I think we are all struggling with different ideas about how to abolish capitalism. I think it is important to note that the idea can be something supported by the majority of the people without any action yet being taken. In other words if one wakes up in the morning and suddenly dislikes capitalism it does not mean that he or she will instantly act on it.

Until the majority of the people (not just 10%) want this I don't think it can happen on a large scale. This is why I feel we must build parallel institutions to prove that the ideas work. Have you ever heard of the federation of egalitarian communities? http://www.thefec.org/

This is an example of what we must build but much more and within the cities also.

I think I already posted something like that on this thread, middle of page 1, in fact.

Yes you did What do you think of thefec.org? If twin oaks were all vegan I think I'd be very tempted to join.

I like the idea, although I am definitely not a vegetarian. There are several interesting communities out there. It would be interesting if one could be set up on the scale of at least a small rural town (say 600 people) thus having its own schools, churches, clinics, and cooperatives- a fully functioning city, in other words, possibly with a community owned farm or two nearby, making it self sufficient. I find that many of the intentional communities are too small in scale to develop a proof of concept. You can point to various institutions and say, "here is our ideas in action." but they are not fully integrated into a single functioning unit in the here and now that you can go to and be involved with like a city.

[Avenio]

I like the idea, although I am definitely not a vegetarian. There are several interesting communities out there. It would be interesting if one could be set up on the scale of at least a small rural town (say 600 people) thus having its own schools, churches, clinics, and cooperatives- a fully functioning city, in other words, possibly with a community owned farm or two nearby, making it self sufficient. I find that many of the intentional communities are too small in scale to develop a proof of concept. You can point to various institutions and say, "here is our ideas in action." but they are not fully integrated into a single functioning unit in the here and now that you can go to and be involved with like a city.

I'm not sure about this, so don't quote me on it, but I think a small community of people near where I live do something similar. From what I remember, they live on a small island in the Georgia Strait, and provide for all of their electricity, food, water and other ammenities, and even travelling to the island is carbon-free, as you have to basically kayak there. It's definitely a great idea, and I'd like to move there after I retire, but it's not somewhere I'd like to spend my entire adult life. Which, is in itself, the main problem with communes; they just don't appeal to the general populace, who, after decades of cars, television and frozen pizza, just wouldn't be able to handle farming for a living.

That's why, as I believe was stated earlier, the revolution must occur democratically and gradually, with the participation of the entire society. These sort of things never work when rushed, and the general populace would rebel if we started outlawing everything, or putting high restrictions on the economy.

[Pope Joan]

When I contemplate the American proletariat, I see Nascar fans.

They wear cowboy hats or truckers' caps, carry a beer around with them everywhere, and never complete a sentence without a "F***".

Sure it's a totally unfair stereotype, but still...

Isn't there enough truth in that picture to make you wonder why anybody would ever dream of recruiting them for any revolution, other than perhaps a fascist one?