RedMarx

A Forum
It is currently Fri Jun 23, 2017 3:33 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]



Welcome


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: 'The Democratic Mirage'
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:29 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:47 pm
Posts: 392
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 8 time
Quote:
So, yeah. Clearly a member of the ruling class.


No, but not working-class either.

Isn't that difference, between the "nervous" [middle] classes--the Jealous & Zealous petit-bourgeoisie-- and the working-class, why democracy continues to exist following proletarian revolution?

Having something to lose in terms of private property, no matter how small, generally ignites frenzied resistance; brings to mind the Bundy's fighting the Bureau of Land Management a little while ago out West, or the history of owner-operators fighting the Teamsters in the late '60s-'70s.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: 'The Democratic Mirage'
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:10 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:52 am
Posts: 13
Has thanked: 2 time
Have thanks: 0 time
The fight against the unions, all the unions, and of course the state is exactly the type of thing we should be welcoming I think, however not from the racists and misogynists you mentioned before the owner-operators (it was never their intention anywho).

Thanks again for the great conversation but I feel that we are very far off-topic by this point ahah


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 'The Democratic Mirage'
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:48 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2014 4:41 pm
Posts: 618
Has thanked: 17 time
Have thanks: 25 time
What does that mean? Welcome the fight against all the unions? Do we welcome the IAM loss at the Boeing plant yesterday? Do we welcome the decertification strategies that the bourgeoisie have deployed against unions for the past 30 years?


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 'The Democratic Mirage'
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:04 pm 
Offline
Comrade
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:13 pm
Posts: 1760
Has thanked: 275 time
Have thanks: 572 time
Dankston wrote:
Thanks again for the great conversation but I feel that we are very far off-topic by this point ahah


Rather than thinking of it as "off-topic," it may be more useful to think of it as a development to a different topic where we can further flesh out agreements and disagreements and find out why we agree and disagree on different subjects.

_________________
Creation isn't beautiful. You inspire the ugliest things.
Broletariat has been thanked by:


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 'The Democratic Mirage'
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 9:24 am 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 11:52 am
Posts: 13
Has thanked: 2 time
Have thanks: 0 time
mhou wrote:
Isn't that difference, between the "nervous" [middle] classes--the Jealous & Zealous petit-bourgeoisie-- and the working-class, why democracy continues to exist following proletarian revolution


Could you expand on this a bit mhou? Thanks a bunch.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: 'The Democratic Mirage'
PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 7:14 pm 
Offline
Comrade

Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 12:47 pm
Posts: 392
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 8 time
I have to say first that I'm baffled by your reaction to the steelhaulers reference. You're applauding what was a businessmen's cartel, a constituent element of the owner-operators in general that served as an active force in the deregulation of the trucking industry, which resulted in massive job losses and the reversal of virtually all of the material gains fought for and won by +/- half a million freight industry workers in the US over the preceding decades, leaving behind the mess that exists today-- rampant misclassification of drivers as 'independent contractors', drastic wage cuts, vastly underfunded health and pension funds (for those still covered by them), epidemic part-time and precarious status, hyper-exploitation of immigrant drivers and warehousemen, etc.

and for what reason did they do this? In the words of the organizer of the first owner-operators' organization, it was all because the regulation of the industry and the Teamsters “had strangled the healthy growth of the free enterprise system.”

You're cheering for a victory of capital over labor and the degradation in the working and living conditions of hundreds of thousands of your fellow workers.

On democracy:

Camatte developed the perspective (shown below in Marx’s critique of Hegel) into a formulation:

“Broadly speaking, one can define democracy as the behavior of humans, the organization of those who have lost their original organic unity with the community. Thus it exists during the whole period which separates primitive communism from scientific communism” – Camatte, The Democratic Mystification

Quote:
“Democracy is the truth of monarchy, monarchy is not the truth of democracy. Monarchy is necessarily democracy in contradiction with itself, whereas the monarchial moment is no contradiction within democracy. Monarchy cannot, while democracy can be understood in terms of itself In democracy none of the moments obtains a significance other than what befits it. Each is really only a moment of the whole Demos. In monarchy one part determines the character of the whole; the entire constitution must be modified according to the immutable head. Democracy is the generic constitution; monarchy is a species, and indeed a poor one. Democracy is content and form; monarchy should be only form, but it adulterates the content.

In monarchy the whole, the people, is subsumed under one of its modes of existence,. the political constitution; in democracy the constitution itself appears only as one determination, and indeed as the self-determination of the people. In monarchy we have the people of the constitution, in democracy the constitution of the people. Democracy is the resolved mystery of all constitutions. Here the constitution not only in itself, according to essence, but according to existence and actuality is returned to its real ground, actual man, the actual people, and established as its own work. The constitution appears as what it is, the free product of men. One could say that this also applies in a certain respect to constitutional monarchy; only the specific difference of democracy is that here the constitution is in general only one moment of the people's existence, that is to say the political constitution does not form the state for itself.

Hegel proceeds from the state and makes man into the subjectified state; democracy starts with man and makes the state objectified man. just as it is not religion that creates man but man who creates religion, so it is not the constitution that creates the people but the people which creates the constitution. In a certain respect democracy is to all other forms of the state what Christianity is to all other religions. Christianity is the religion kat exohin, the essence of religion, deified man under the form of a particular religion. In the same way democracy is the essence of every political constitution, socialised man under the form of a particular constitution of the state. It stands related to other constitutions as the genus to its species; only here the genus itself appears as an existent, and therefore opposed as a particular species to those existents which do not conform to the essence. Democracy relates to all other forms of the state as their Old Testament. Man does not exist because of the law but rather the law exists for the good of man. Democracy is human existence, while in the other political forms man has only legal existence. That is the fundamental difference of democracy.


--Marx, Notes for a Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right (1843)

Marx makes the determination (in 1843-44) that democracy is distinct from particular state-forms. Democracy developed with the original emergence of class society and remains a constant despite the particular state forms across past modes of production; and continues to exist until classes are abolished.

This is what I referred to in the earlier post with the quote from the Critique of the Gotha Programme: that the extinction of democracy is the abolition of classes, something which Marx tied directly to the proletarianization of humanity (the generalization of the condition of wage labor) as the concrete means by which classes are abolished and, simultaneously, democracy is rendered extinct.

Even after the revolutionary movement smashes the capitalist state and successfully suppresses the bourgeoisie, class distinctions remain.
The petit-bourgeoisie isn’t homogenous and contains a myriad of internal stratifications: like the difference between the farmer who uses my boss’ land to raise cattle and whatnot, and the Bundy family who launched an armed revolt against the Federal government over millions of dollars in unpaid fees and taxes; or, the difference between the owner-operator of a single rig that hauls steel from mills in Pittsburgh or Gary, and the guy who owns a dozen rigs for which he leases/hires drivers for hauling steel from mills in Pittsburgh or Gary.

I asked about your views on ultra-productive micro-farms because it seems to me the vast majority of subsistence food needs for the global population could be met with the expropriation of companies as diverse as Tyson, Cargill, Monsanto, Mondelez, Wal-Mart, Hormel, etc. (industrialized-concentrated agribusiness)—in other words, the same basic program of using the commanding heights of the economy as the material basis for communism—while the millions of people engaged at all levels of ‘independent’, ‘family’, 'subsistence' etc. farming contribute relatively little to meeting these needs by way of comparison in terms of productivity and volume etc.

All of which raises the question of the role of the petit-bourgeoisie in all of its diversity in the revolutionary movement for communism. Their continued existence, even if the capitalist class is liquidated, remains a locus for the regeneration of a capitalist class. If they continue to exist, so does democracy. As a result, I think they’re a bigger barrier to the End Times of capital than the bourgeoisie.

Their social prejudices, ideologies, habits and their historic position between a rock and a hard place (constantly fighting the tendency toward proletarianization while desiring to elevate to become successful capitalists) make them socially dangerous. It’s why they are prone to radical politicization: historic desperation.

I’m inclined to agree with the assessments of the communists after October 1917: the neutralization of the petit-bourgeoisie is a major task of the revolutionary movement.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 26 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Donate Now
Donate Now



Hosted by © 2017 FreeForums.org | Create a free forum | Powered by phpBB
About FreeForums | Legal | Advertise Here | Investors | Contact FreeForums.org
Report Violation

Design By Poker Bandits  

suspicion-preferred