/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12444059]

If the party and political hierarchy is abolished during the process of revolution, who'd react in case of a counter-revolution?

Wouldn't you always need a force that keeps these kind of things down?
Also once communism is established, how do you keep people from forming a new class system? (like a bureaucratic one as opposed to a monetary one - you know... like the thing that happened in basically all the states applying this booklet).

This ideology seems pretty dumb to be honest.

[Anonymous No.12444091]

idk why you're pointing at marx and Engels like they're some sort of anarchists, marxists and especially marxist-leninists emphasize the importance of a vanguard party to lead the revolution and counteract anti-revolutionary forces

[Anonymous No.12444099]

Marx thought he was dealing in inevitablities

[Anonymous No.12444104]

>>12444091
I recommend reading the manifesto then.
Abolishing the party and political hierarchy is very clearly stated in the second chapter.

[Anonymous No.12444131]

>>12444104
that is the ultimate goal of communuism yes, but only anarchists believe that this can be achieved straight after the fall of capitalism. you misunderstood the entire thing

[Anonymous No.12444138]

>>12444104
also the manifesto is like a tiny tiny part of marxist literature, he generally doesnt talk much abouthow to achieve communism but rather spends a lot of time analyzing and criticizing capitalism from a social and economic viewpoint

[Anonymous No.12444157]

>>12444059
I'm going to pretend (god help me) for a moment that you aren't just using this as a pretense to fallaciously dismiss the all the justifiable criticisms Marx makes of the contradictions in liberal democratic capitalist political economy, as well as the contributions he and Engels made to our conception of anthropology.
>If the party and political hierarchy is abolished during the process of revolution
Firstly, it's unlikely Marx had any intention of abolishing hierarchy, and if this is the case he never stated that. The idea of "abolishing hierarchy" is mostly an Anarchical, Foucaultian idea. What Marx wanted, which he very specifically described in the 800 page review and critique of political economy known as Capital, was to abolish economic exploitation.
>Wouldn't you always need a force that keeps these kind of things down?
This is precisely what Marx noted from his studies on the French revolution during both the 18th and 19th centuries. Which is why he specifically denounced Anarchism and advocated a worker's state. (which he called "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" in Critique of the Gotha Programme, a pamphlet which to me is much more insightful into his actual ideology than the Manifesto he created for a contemporary political party). even beforehand, he was highly critical of Proudhonian Anarchism due to the economic contradictions of banking and currency it allowed to persist.
>Also once communism is established, how do you keep people from forming a new class system?
well, the idea is basically that there would be no demand to do so. why enslave other people if you already have everything you need? something that could easily be achieved in a technologically productive society such as our own. and I don't mean the consumerist conception of "need", I mean basic emotional attachment and sustenance.
>(like a bureaucratic one as opposed to a monetary one - you know... like the thing that happened in basically all the states applying this booklet).
the "class system" in those societies (if you can even call it that) were still directly monetary and capitalist. it's not like they had any intention of being otherwise. Marx specifically advocated a worker-controlled state where remnants of capitalist ideology persisted. none of them, however, actually abolished banking or money, which seems to be a consistent problem and something actually worth critiquing. (this is one of the reasons I do not call myself a Marxist, but on the other hand I wouldn't say I subscribe to uncritical pro-capitalist "end of history" neoconservatism either)

[Anonymous No.12444175]

>>12444138
That's not even true. The whole second chapter is literally a point by point explanation of the steps that have to be implemented.

>you misunderstood the entire thing

Even if you wait for full on communism and don't abolish the party "straight away", you still face the same issues.

>>12444157
Wouldn't all of that eventually lead to a form of authoritarianism like leninism?
I suppose you wouldn't be able to vote that "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" out of office.

[Anonymous No.12444204]

>>12444175
>Wouldn't all of that eventually lead to a form of authoritarianism like leninism?
I recommend you drop this notion of "authoritarian" vs "freedom" when it comes to politics. a fascist would tell you he is more free crack the bones of immigrants in what you might call an authoritarian state. a slave owner would tell you he is freer to own slaves in the Confederate States. If you're talking about freedom of speech that's another thing, but I don't believe authoritarian vs libertarian exists as an actual spectrum. emancipation is intrinsically deemed "authoritarian".
>I suppose you wouldn't be able to vote that "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" out of office.
Marx didn't care very much about the form of government that was implemented, his study was mostly economic, which is clearly one of his shortcomings.

[Anonymous No.12444260]

Communism is a vague eschatological prophecy. Thinking how it would work it's useless because It didn't happened yet.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.12444276]

>>12444059
Haven't gotten to him yet, sorry to say, but I believe Bookchin might have the answers you're looking.
Anyone read The Next Revolution yet?

[Anonymous No.12444295]

>>12444059
unironically the only way to make communism work is doing a dictatorship and "big brother" government, Human beans are complex shit.

[Anonymous No.12444302]

>>12444059
>who'd react in case of a counter-revolution?

Why would a counter-revolution happen in a system that is more efficient, more fair and more equal and richer than capitalism?

The whole premise is that a large part of social conflict and war is precisely because of the inequality produced by capitalism and it's insistence on zero-sum games, which communism is supposed to be a solution to.

[Anonymous No.12445394]

>>12444059
>If the party and political hierarchy is abolished during the process of revolution, who'd react in case of a counter-revolution?
Well this answer differs depending on who you ask. For Marx it seems that in the "Critique of the Gotha Program" that there is supposed to be a transition phase before "communism" (an economic stage of society defined by total abundance and such) where there would necessitate a dictatorship of the proletariat until society can reach its apex. Keep in mind that "dictatorship" and "party" and such are vague - for example dictatorship doesn't mean an authoritarian state in 19th century english, it means "to dictate" as in the proletariat ought to have class dominance in society for this transition period. How this is achieved varies in interpretation among all marxists.

>Also once communism is established, how do you keep people from forming a new class system?
The idea is supposed to be that society forms in response to the productive power of society - if you read up on his theory of history (probably the most rich part of his philosophy imo even if its flawed) it will explain why this is impossible. For example who's to stop us from creating feudal economic relations in the 21st century? Well its not who is to stop us per say, but rather that at this stage in economic history it would be irrelevant and a hinderance to our society if we adopted relations that are suited to a completely different economic reality. Likewise marx thinks that under communism this would hold true - how could we have bourgeois private property if there was absolute abundance of all resources, "from each according to their ability to each according to their need"?

Hope that maybe explains a bit. This book is a bad intro to his theories desu and if you wanna get what he's saying you need to read about historical materialism. I would reccomend Elster's book "An Introduction to Marx"

[Anonymous No.12445422]

>>12444302
Yeah, I've never understood why Marxists assume humans have any sense and would just cease the search for power.

[Anonymous No.12445481]

>>12445422
Well, if you examine what people actually desire it's very rarely power for its own sake, it's power to do something specific, like conquer land, or gain more resources.