Understanding Dialectics and tactics

Xxxzx Xyyxyz Xxxzx at SPAMmarxists.org
Sat Sep 25 20:15:23 MDT 1999




>Charles:Socialism/Communism is the negation of class exploitative society.

  While Captialism and Socialism oppose each other, they can only be
seen as opposites abstractly, pulled from their historical context.
Capitalism is the culmination of class society, it is the height, the
greatest point of class society. Socialism is the pulling away from
class society, the breaking up and simplification of class society.
In this way, they can be seen as opposites, but this is an
abstraction.

  On the historical scale of the dialectical movement of the existance
of classes, i.e. from the development of the productive forces to the
point where seperate classes were necessary, human society began with
simplistic class distinctions. As productive forces developed, class
distinctions began to move towards more developed and accurate forms
of separation, which we continually see reach new heights in
Capitalism. This movement will come into its opposite when class
distinctions must begin to blunt, i.e. during Socialism, when the
tide towards the negation of ALL past class society begins. This will
lead to fewer and fewer class distinctions, until they can be blunted
no further, and Communism will then be possible. Class distinctions
will all-together be renounced, but at the same time will be
reaffirmed: in how tasks to the productive forces are met (i.e. in a
"kind" of class structure, everyone fufilling a role in society) and
in how the management of the productive forces can assume no definite
lines whatever, disallowing for the existance of any class structure
at all.

  Part of the reason for this misunderstanding is Marx's
misconceptions. He saw capitalism simplifying class distinctions,
when it has done the opposite and amplified them.

  Today I read that all students in US Highschools have, or are going
to have, to wear ID badges. Perhaps when they enter class, they'll
have to be scanned in, "it is easier that way." Accurate records will
here be possible to develop, further defining the correct placement
of future commodities for the great-market.

  Society as developed hitherto will no longer tolerate these
advancements under the backward system of capitalism when the further
refinement of class distinctions are no longer the way to follow the
advancing productive forces.

  The problem facing the proletariat that has developed with the
advancement of the productive forces, as we all well know, is fear
over any kind of control of the enourmously powerful productive
forces. There is a great deal of danger represented by these forces,
and so has supported the myth that they can only be properly
harnessed and controlled by the bougeois.

  Dialectics show the methods to combat this through negation: by
constantly showing that the use bourgeois use of the productive
forces is wholly irresponsible and destructive. That it is NOT a
matter of playing on proletarian fears, for it is precisely that fear
that keeps the proletarait from movement, but a matter of stating
fact, a fact that all proletariat in the advanced countries know
well, that the bourgeois use of power is backward and corrupted. This
is the contradiction, and the duty of Communist to emphasie to the
EXTREME.

  The proletarait feel powerless. They are not. There exists no power
in the world greater. How many of Communists can say this with a
straight face? How many think of nuclear power, and then, by way of
necessity, the bourgeois? How many are afraid of bourgeois power?

  A new direction in tactics are necessary to smash up fear and speak
the new language of power of the proletariat. No more dogmas, no more
nonsense. The only need we have for Marxism is to understand what and
how we must do; the idiocy of sectarianism and dogma, of who is more
Marxist than whoever else, and who can say something to the masses
that most resembles one of the "greats" is past us and dead. No
proletariat will listen to such fools anymore.

  The contradiction is clear: the proletariat have little trust in
their leaders, in the government, in politicians in general. But this
distrust is not rooted to class reasons, but instead, to political
reasons, e.g. all politicians are bad, government is inevitably
corrupt, etc.

  While the legitimacy of the present politicians and corporate
leaders has been attacked, what has not been done is any reason for
alternative; what alternative could there be when it is that
government itself that is inevitably corrupt? What we have failed to
do
  because of dogma more than anything else, is point out to the masses
on THEIR OWN TERMS, the class existance as the base of corruption.
When the proletariat can see this as easily today as they see the
despotism of government and corporate officials in general,
revolution will be again on hand.


Xxxzx









More information about the Marxism mailing list