The Problem With Marxist Theory

[ComradeBadger]

Marxist theory is by and large based on a major premise:

The fact that revolution is by and large based upon class struggle, and the primary motivation for people to revolt is a realisation of class consciousness.

This is in fact, quite untrue- the Marxist interpretation of the British Civil War is of a battle between an emerging middle class, and the traditional aristocracy. However, both sides featured members of both the borgeoise and the aristocracy - underlying local conditions were of a higher consideration than an 'us against them' mentality.

To take another revolution - the French revolution, taken as another class struggle by the Marxists. However, revisionist theory sees it in a number of phases:

The first phase, the Lawyers revolution, then the second phase, that of the sans culottes taking violent control, and subsequently enforcing their ideals on the rural poor. Surely the rural and urban poor would have a connection due to the fact that they belong to the same class?

[EDIT] The Russian revolution was also due to the below factors, as opposed to the Bolsheviks having a large support base[/EDIT]


Revolutions happen due to two main factors:

The state undergoing a crisis of legitimacy (i.e. a failure in some part of the second system)
The politics of bread (i.e. the people are going hungry - and this cannot be solved)

Opinions?

 

[Solaris]

I would agree with you on Russia, although the Bolsheviks did have support from the peasntry, alot of people were ignorant of what they stood for, and had no crasp of communism or what it meant. These meant that the Party became very internal, appointing fellow party members ect. with very little recruitment from the peasntry class. Am I right in thinking that the russian revolution was rather spontanious, and so the people were revolitng more against the Tsars rather than for a new communism state.


In a future revolution people must be fully aware of what will happen before hand, we need workers councils set up, so they can immediatly take charge after the revolution. We need to take transitional demands to the working classes.

 

[kirovman]

I don't think we should be having revolutions if we can help it. A lot of people will die unnecessarily.

 

[Sulkdodds]

QFE without quotes.

Solaris, revolution will never happen unless things are as ****ed up or crazy as they were in Russia towards the final days. Hell, things were pity ****ed-up and crazy in 1905 and the revolution failed then. The only place I can think of right now where a communist revolution might succeed is Somalia, and it'd more than likely be led by some utter ****s.

 

[kirovman]

The working class in Britain aren't exactly crying out for revolution.

They're scratching their arses, drinking cups of tea, chatting on their mobile phones, while fixing boilers in houses, earning £50 an hour.

The "working class" have never had it better, in this country at least.

 

[clarky003]

History lesson, revolutions usually always happen. The oil supported economy that keeps us all quaintly happy in the system cant go on like this forever, look how tense and stressful it is out there, is it getting better?.

Our global resources we need for modern life continue to dwindle. Id like to be hopeful about it, but whatever happens its almost predictable there will be a major (most likely fueled by economic reasons) threshold to cross where some drastic global changes will occur.

 

[kirovman]

However, Britain passed through a lot of time without revolution, as Europe was in anarchy.
And we didn't even like Cromwell, so restored the Monarchy soon after.

Although seeking a non oil-dependant solution is worrying.

 

[clarky003]

Lets just cross our fingers and hope we have the right kind of resolve to deal with it.

 

[Solaris]

QFE without quotes.

Solaris, revolution will never happen unless things are as ****ed up or crazy as they were in Russia towards the final days. Hell, things were pity ****ed-up and crazy in 1905 and the revolution failed then. The only place I can think of right now where a communist revolution might succeed is Somalia, and it'd more than likely be led by some utter ****s.

It needent be violent or sparked by desperation.

 

[kirovman]

It needent be violent or sparked by desperation.

What... like an "Industrial Revolution", or "Information Revolution"?

 

[Solaris]

Just an overhall of the current state and replacement by a socialistic democracy, not that hard when you think about it.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

In the original Civilisation game, Democracy was better than Communism.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[kirovman]

But why, is the question.

In the original Civilisation game, Democracy was better than Communism.

Civ4 does not directly have communism... although civic traits associated would be state property, bureaucracy and Nationhood. I suppose.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

The original's still the best.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Sulkdodds]

It needent be violent or sparked by desperation.

For the purposes of it actually happening, in the real world, it...uh, needeth.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

The problem with Marxist theory? Solaris supports it.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Pajari]

I would agree with you on Russia, although the Bolsheviks did have support from the peasntry, alot of people were ignorant of what they stood for, and had no crasp of communism or what it meant. These meant that the Party became very internal, appointing fellow party members ect. with very little recruitment from the peasntry class. Am I right in thinking that the russian revolution was rather spontanious, and so the people were revolitng more against the Tsars rather than for a new communism state.

The Russian peasant in 1917 was most likely a card-carrying member of the Socialist Revolutionary party, which had existed as a moderate (but still left-leaning) underground party since well before the 1905 revolution. The initial stage of the October Revolution was concentrated entirely in the cities, and it was only in the later civil war period that they expanded their reach to the peasants. Most of the SR's eventually broke away from the Bolsheviks, after partnering with them early-on during the February Revolution. The peasants never really agreed with Lenin's ideas or his methods, but it was forced on them all the same.

And communism, in a far purer form than the Soviet Union ever practiced, was the mainstay of economic life for the vast majority of peasants for hundreds of years preceding the October Revolution. The communist system wasn't Marx's communism, it was more comparable to the Israeli kibbutz's, but it was still all over the place.

Lenin was a firm believer in a small group of preofessionals- that's why he never recruited many people into his inner circle, preferring to raise large groups of auxilaries to do the dirty work. The one thing Lenin was competent at was revolution, and he realized that its a science that only a few are competent to practice. That's why he never recruited from outside the party.

In a future revolution people must be fully aware of what will happen before hand, we need workers councils set up, so they can immediatly take charge after the revolution. We need to take transitional demands to the working classes.

Does this imply that the working classes are still oppressed and that another revolution is nessecary?

Also, violent revolution is by its very nature disorganized and irrational- a smooth transition of power can only result from a peaceful, slow evolution. Everything else is either short-lived or a frightful waste of human life, and in some cases both.

EDIT FOR MARXIST THEORY: The problem with Marx is that he forcsed on nebulous, abstract concepts that would never have worked even if all of his preconditions were met.

Marx's view of money is a perfect example. He viewed money not as a nessecary medium of exchange in any economy, but as 'crystallized labor', another device devised by the capitalist dogs attempting to divide the worker from the product of his labor. He advocated getting rid of it and relying entirely on the state to distribute goods and services, allowing no room for personal property or enterprise. The problem is that all economies need a medium of exchange to make the transferring of goods and services even remotely simple, and you can't simply rely on the all-knowing state to instantly and without the slightest amount of incompetence dispense everything the people could ever need without having to pay for any of it.

Marx focused a lot on the concepts, but forgot about the execution. In the end his concepts were bunk because of it anyway.

 

[Lemonking]

weg mit dem Judeo Bolschewismus!!!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

QFE without quotes.

Solaris, revolution will never happen unless things are as ****ed up or crazy as they were in Russia towards the final days. Hell, things were pity ****ed-up and crazy in 1905 and the revolution failed then. The only place I can think of right now where a communist revolution might succeed is Somalia, and it'd more than likely be led by some utter ****s.

Not even there because the region is filled with Islamic fundamentalism, which runs strongly against Communism.

weg mit dem Judeo Bolschewismus!!!

Häßlich Wörter. Die Juden sind Commies nicht.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

Technocracy > Communism. Let's talk about that instead.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Destroyer.Sam]

What... like an "Industrial Revolution", or "Information Revolution"?

I lol'ed.

Revolution is really just renewing the cycle of power. It's like a game of CSS, where there is one guy with an AWP against ten guys with Mac 10's. The AWP'er totally wtf pwns everyone over and over again, then someone with a Mac 10 buys admin, bans AWPs and the original AWPer, then when he gets bored, unblocks AWPs to him and himself only. Then he wtf pwns everyone, and it just keeps goin on and on. The technicalities of this parallel are obviously in flaw, but you know what I'm saying.