Marxist revolutionary theory - let's learn more

[mcbigski]

<Probably going broader than country specific politics, so starting a new thread, but mods gonna mod if one wants to merge it elsewhere>

The basic MO of the revolutionary seems to be to make the current situation worse, so that people are willing to try something else.  Or, if I have the vernacular right, heighten the contradictions inherent in the system.

Then agitate a class of people to form the backbone of the revolution.  Initially, this was supposed to be the working class, but apparently a full fridge, high speed internet, and a few weeks vacation every year is inimical to radical tendencies.  Again, if I have the vernacular right, this is False Consciousness.  But no matter, the revolutionary can sow division and conflict and create their own broader revolutionary class.

Let's assume the Marxists are successful insofar as they are able to light up a conflagration that over throws the existing order.  I have a practical and a moral question, each related somewhat, I think.

Practically, how is the revolution going to be pro-socialist rather than just merely anti-establishment?  To me it looks something like:

1.  Wreck whatever you must to foment revolution.

2.  ????

3.  Redistribute profit equally.

It seems like every time it's been tried, it always defaults into coercion, killing fields, Holodomor, re-education camps, gulags, reigns of terror, mass murder and/or intimidation.  And whatever pretensions towards equality are mouthed, fundamentally there's a strong man killing people to enforce the new order.  Again, I'm a bit hazy on my Marxist theory, but at some point the proletariat is supposed to take over and then eventually wither away.  But which Marxist revolutions have even gotten to that point where the proletariat takes over?  Looks like big men all the way down from here.  What is supposed to happen in Step 2, and why has is always seemed to go off the rails?

As for the moral question, if almost no one actually wants a Marxist revolution without Marxists going around crapping on everything first, how does a Marxist justify his revolution?  It seems to me like there's an almost religious belief that the future will be better once the revolution comes, but if the only way to make your system look acceptable is to sabotage something that's actually working better, how is that justifiable morally?  I'm guessing the answer according to doctrine is false consciousness again, but not really sure.  

Really though, if Marxism is so spiffy, how come it hasn't been arising spontaneously where there is freedom of speech and some degree of democratic process?  What peaceful Marxist revolutions have there been that maybe I'm not aware of?

 

[Free Northman Reborn]

Certainly the right forum to pose this question in. Go straight into the den of Marxist sympathisers itself.

[A True Kaniggit]

Hey. I need some advice on a hypothetical here. Too lazy to make my own thread right now, and after six hours this one doesn't seem to be getting much use. So it seems available.

Let's say I live in a country with a two party system.

1. One party is made up of the rich, and the idiotic bigots (people who thought owning other human beings was a good idea) the rich use to stay in power. To keep lower taxes on the rich. You know. For more money.

2. The other party is made up of the minorities of the country who are being oppressed, along with anyone else who possesses the ability for self introspection and has a conscious.

So let's say I make between $80,000-$120,000 a year.  How much of an asshole must I be to support the first party for my own financial gain, instead of doing the right thing and supporting the second party that only wants equal rights for all citizens? 

I must be a fairly big asshole, right?

[sologdin]

everything in the opening post is incorrect. 

[A True Kaniggit]

4 minutes ago, sologdin said:

everything in the opening post is incorrect. 

Master Luke! You survived?

https://youtu.be/2sRS1dwCotw

I’m glad you’re still around to spread your wisdom. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

15 minutes ago, sologdin said:

everything in the opening post is incorrect. 

Marx believed revolution would foster social change.  He laid a very broad “direction” he saw history move in.  I don’t know that he ever advocated an “accelerationist” perspective that the OP seems to postulate but are there not Marxists who do propose such a path?

In other words could you, who are much better read in Marxist theory than I am please offer the correct perspective, if as you say, “everything in the opening post is incorrect”?

Thanks.

[Jo498]

That revolutionary movements and (post)revolutionary phases are dominated by "strong men" and often very brutal measures seems a feature of most revolutions, regardless of the actual political stance of the revolutionaries. One might find a few milder ones in history but mostly this seems a feature of any revolutionary political change and aftermath.

[Inkdaub]

Surely mcbigsky isn't implying that capitalism is peaceful?

[Gorn]

Can anyone cite a single actual historical Marxist revolution where previous "acceleration"/"wrecking" was done by Marxists themselves? In every single example I can think of (France in 1871, Russia in 1917, Germany in 1917, Hungary in 1918, China in 1927, Yugoslavia in 1941, Greece in 1946 , Vietnam in 1946...), the "wrecking" was done by failures of the previous regime, and Marxist revolution was a purely opportunistic action (often accompanied by major divisions among its leadership as to whether it's a correct move).

Here are some peaceful Marxist revolutions from history: 1936 Spanish elections, 1936 French elections, 1945 UK general elections, 1970 Chilean elections, 1974 Carnation Revolution in Portugal, 1981 French presidential elections, 1981 Greek elections, 1998 Venezuelan elections, 2005 Bolivian elections, 2006 Nicaraguan elections...

[A wilding]

1 minute ago, Gorn said:

1945 UK general elections

That is a ... pretty broad interpretation of Marxism.

[DMC]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Marx believed revolution would foster social change.

Isn't this statement pretty tautological?  Don't all revolutions foster social change?

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

That is a ... pretty broad interpretation of Marxism.

Right?  Clem Attlee was a Marxist?

[Gorn]

1 hour ago, A wilding said:

That is a ... pretty broad interpretation of Marxism.

When a party which includes the following in their constitution and declared aims:

Quote

To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

... proceeds to nationalize major sectors of economy (hospitals, mines, aviation, railways, steel production, gas utilities, electric utilities, telecoms...), how else would you call it?

[DMC]

4 minutes ago, Gorn said:

how else would you call it?

The post-war institution of the welfare state.

[Gorn]

Just now, DMC said:

The post-war institution of the welfare state.

Welfare state and nationalization are two entirely unrelated concepts, which often get mistaken for each other.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Welfare state and nationalization are two entirely unrelated concepts, which often get mistaken for each other.

No they aren't.  Building the welfare state is nationalizing certain industries - like health care, education, and housing - while maintaining a mixed economy.  Nobody serious considers the 1945 Labour party Marxist.

[Gorn]

1 minute ago, DMC said:

No they aren't.  Building the welfare state is nationalizing certain industries - like health care, education, and housing - while maintaining a mixed economy.  Nobody serious considers the 1945 Labour party Marxist.

The concept of worker-owned means of production is inherently Marxist. And welfare state doesn't require mixed economy - it can be state-financed through taxes with 100% private ownership of economy. Which is why it was historically implemented by conservatives, christian democrats, and even fascists.

[Hereward]

The Labour government of 1945 was properly socialist, and was influenced by Marxist thought, and had Marxist MPs, but Christian socialism was a far more important influence.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Gorn said:

And welfare state doesn't require mixed economy - it can be state-financed through taxes with 100% private ownership of economy.

I don't know how you nationalize the health care industry - a key pillar of the welfare state - with 100% private ownership of the economy.  Just doing a quick google, the 1945 Labour elections are referred to as establishing the welfare state here, here, here, and here.  Please show me who refers to it as a Marxist revolution.  John Maynard Keynes and William Beveridge were not Marxists.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

44 minutes ago, DMC said:

Isn't this statement pretty tautological?  Don't all revolutions foster social change?

Not entirely.  Revolution isn’t the only mechanism to promote social change.  Marx thought revolution would be the mechanism for social change not some other mechanism which was the point I was inelegantly attempting to make.

[DMC]

14 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Marx thought revolution would be the mechanism for social change not some other mechanism which was the point I was inelegantly attempting to make.

Ah fair enough.  Indeed, while revolution necessarily leads to social change (which is how I read it), social change obviously does not have to be achieved through revolution.