User Controls
Late stage capitalism
-
2017-03-19 at 4:54 PM UTCI wonder if western society is doomed to eventually decline. As long lasting as capitalist ideals and states have been, once it gets into its advanced stages, it seems to start showing what's in the cracks.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/Rosa Luxemburg
Reform or Revolution
Introduction:
At first view the title of this work may be found surprising. Can the Social-Democracy be against reforms? Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.
It is in Eduard Bernstein’s theory, presented in his articles on Problems of Socialism, Neue Zeit of 1897-98, and in his book Die Voraussetzungen des Socialismus und die Aufgaben der Sozialdemokratie[1] that we find, for the first time, the opposition of the two factors of the labour movement. His theory tends to counsel us to renounce the social transformation, the final goal of Social-Democracy and, inversely, to make of social reforms, the means of the class struggle, its aim. Bernstein himself has very clearly and characteristically formulated this viewpoint when he wrote: “The Final goal, no matter what it is, is nothing; the movement is everything.”
But since the final goal of socialism constitutes the only decisive factor distinguishing the Social-Democratic movement from bourgeois democracy and from bourgeois radicalism, the only factor transforming the entire labour movement from a vain effort to repair the capitalist order into a class struggle against this order, for the suppression of this order – the question: “Reform or Revolution?” as it is posed by Bernstein, equals for the Social-Democracy the question: “To be or not to be?” In the controversy with Bernstein and his followers, everybody in the Party ought to understand clearly it is not a question of this or that method of struggle, or the use of this or that set of tactics, but of the very existence of the Social-Democratic movement.
Upon a casual consideration of Bernstein’s theory, this may appear like an exaggeration. Does he not continually mention the Social-Democracy and its aims? Does he not repeat again and again, in very explicit language, that he too strives toward the final goal of socialism, but in another way? Does he not stress particularly that he fully approves of the present practice of the Social-Democracy?
That is all true, to be sure. It is also true that every new movement, when it first elaborates its theory and policy, begins by finding support in the preceding movement, though it may be in direct contradiction with the latter. It begins by suiting itself to the forms found at hand and by speaking the language spoken hereto. In time the new grain breaks through the old husk. The new movement finds its forms and its own language.
To expect an opposition against scientific socialism at its very beginning, to express itself clearly, fully and to the last consequence on the subject of its real content: to expect it to deny openly and bluntly the theoretic basis of the Social-Democracy – would amount to underrating the power of scientific socialism. Today he who wants to pass as a socialist, and at the same time declare war on Marxian doctrine, the most stupendous product of the human mind in the century, must begin with involuntary esteem for Marx. He must begin by acknowledging himself to be his disciple, by seeking in Marx’s own teachings the points of support for an attack on the latter, while he represents this attack as a further development of Marxian doctrine. On this account, we must, unconcerned by its outer forms, pick out the sheathed kernel of Bernstein’s theory. This is a matter of urgent necessity for the broad layers of the industrial proletariat in our Party.
No coarser insult, no baser aspersion, can be thrown against the workers than the remarks: “Theocratic controversies are only for academicians.” Some time ago Lassalle said: “Only when science and the workers, these opposite poles of society, become one, will they crush in their arms of steel all obstacles to culture.” The entire strength of the modern labour movement rests on theoretic knowledge.
But doubly important is this knowledge for the workers in the present case, because it is precisely they and their influence in the movement that are in the balance here. It is their skin that is being brought to market. The opportunist theory in the Party, the theory formulated by Bernstein, is nothing else than an unconscious attempt to assure predominance to the petty-bourgeois elements that have entered our Party, to change the policy and aims of our Party in their direction. The question of reform or revolution, of the final goal and the movement, is basically, in another form, but the question of the petty-bourgeois or proletarian character of the labour movement.
It is, therefore, in the interest of the proletarian mass of the Party to become acquainted, actively and in detail, with the present theoretic knowledge remains the privilege of a handful of “academicians” in the Party, the latter will face the danger of going astray. Only when the great mass of workers take the keen and dependable weapons of scientific socialism in their own hands, will all the petty-bourgeois inclinations, all the opportunistic currents, come to naught. The movement will then find itself on sure and firm ground. “Quantity will do it” -
2017-03-19 at 5:16 PM UTCThere is nothing "advanced" about the current state of capitalism. Crony capitalism is not capitalism. As always, the government is the problem.
-
2017-03-19 at 7:15 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie There is nothing "advanced" about the current state of capitalism. Crony capitalism is not capitalism. As always, the government is the problem.
Crony capitalism is one of several logical evolutions of true capitalism. To try to divorce the present economic climate from capitalistic policies is disingenuous.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-03-19 at 7:23 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie There is nothing "advanced" about the current state of capitalism. Crony capitalism is not capitalism. As always, the government is the problem.
So when socialists dismiss issues in, say, soviet russia or post-revolution china, as those of a deformed workers state as opposed those of a communism of socialist state do you think that's just a 100% dandy way to resolve these kind of objections? Do you perceive no issue with that tactic? Because it's the exact same thing you're doing here and I'm pretty sure I've seen you gripe about the same thing. -
2017-03-19 at 7:53 PM UTC
Originally posted by Captain Falcon Crony capitalism is one of several logical evolutions of true capitalism. To try to divorce the present economic climate from capitalistic policies is disingenuous.
No, if the government didn't exist, neither would crony capitalism.
Originally posted by Lanny So when socialists dismiss issues in, say, soviet russia or post-revolution china, as those of a deformed workers state as opposed those of a communism of socialist state do you think that's just a 100% dandy way to resolve these kind of objections? Do you perceive no issue with that tactic? Because it's the exact same thing you're doing here and I'm pretty sure I've seen you gripe about the same thing.
Feel free to make the case for "true communism" without the state. -
2017-03-19 at 9:36 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie No, if the government didn't exist, neither would crony capitalism.
No, anarcho-capitalism is not "true" capitalism. The government will always exist in some form, as will crony capitalism. Just because the government is called "the government" doesn't mean it is inherently worse than the oligarchy that will inevitably emerge from even full scale anarcho-capitalism. -
2017-03-20 at 12:16 AM UTCBolimp
-
2017-03-20 at 1:29 AM UTC
-
2017-03-21 at 5:49 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Feel free to make the case for "true communism" without the state.
I didn't say anything about "without the state". I just pointed out that dismissing failures of your ideology as not actually your ideology is a tactic that can as easily justify communism as anarcho-capitalism -
2017-03-29 at 3:56 PM UTC
-
2017-03-30 at 4:09 AM UTC
-
2017-03-30 at 4:12 AM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie No, if the government didn't exist, neither would crony capitalism.
that doesn't make sense for the same reason that anarchy doesn't make sense.
nature abhors a vacuum - power structures will form where there aren't any. to stop the formation of an anti-competitive body (ie. a government that preferences some entities over others), you would need perfect equilibrium in terms of the balance of power between the different members of the market. the moment one entity gains enough power, or multiple entities find enough common ground to make an alliance, they will begin to change the parameters of the system to their benefitThe following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2017-03-30 at 5:17 AM UTCthis isnt capitalism. this is a terminal case of corpocratic dictatorship.
-
2017-03-30 at 5:33 AM UTC
-
2017-03-30 at 9:56 AM UTC
-
2017-03-30 at 10:01 AM UTCWhenever I think of an anarchist society I think of Megaton from Fallout 3 minus the sheriff.
Would be sweet -
2017-03-30 at 10:02 AM UTCOr a tent city. Which can range from great to absolute shit, usually depending on the number of meth heads present
-
2017-03-30 at 12:19 PM UTC
-
2017-03-30 at 12:20 PM UTC
-
2017-03-30 at 12:48 PM UTC
Originally posted by Sophie Feel free to make the case for "true communism" without the state.
He can't and George Orwell already outlined why.
https://g.co/kgs/SaRxpZ
