*and I'm using 'individual' in the place of worker because there should be no actual distinction.

Because we're talking revolution within a capitalist framework, and this transitional period could last for many generations, it's not simply a matter of saying these two things can be reconciled. Unlike communism that usurped feudalism we're talking an absolutely different beast.

I feel this is a hard dividing line in the socialist school of thought.
On one hand reducing suffering through charity would threaten to take agency away from those who couldn't produce for them selves. On the other empowered individuals are often compelled to act even unknowingly at the expense of others.

Group 1 can fall in to the trap of believing communism would deliver a luxury for all, despite austerity being core to communist principles. Group 2 can be utterly opposed to a democratic framework to decide outcomes, because of insularity and fear.

This transitional paradox is one of the main reasons socialism falters in the field of rhetoric where simple, straightforward and easily digestible propaganda works best. Externally I think people do perceive these contradictions and don't have the academic base to really understand it, so put it down to a fault in the system.

Sadly it seems democratic socialism has become the most publicly acceptable branding of socialism because it sticks firm to a kind of socialisty principle while making many many concessions. It depends on a great deal of moralising and attempting to grain the highground without really putting in the effort to expose the moral contradictions of capitalism.

Which is a huge flaw in it's self. As capitalists can always use their unlimited rescources to position them selves essentially wherever they want in the public consciousness. Despite this there is argument to be made that this sanatised version of socialism is what has allowed it's popularity to sustain. Equally though a socialism of vanity is just no socialism at all as it just doesn't have the means to protect it's self.

So some question:

In your mind if a communist revolution happens is it for the ends of stopping all poverty? Or would it be because you all to be empowered as individuals to express our selves to the best of our capabilities?

Do you see demsoc as a positive for socialism, a pipeline to the left...or the opposite?

How would you reconcile these conflicts and create a better brand for socialism/communism?

  • Keegs [any]
    ·
    4 years ago

    This is the primary contradiction in lower stage communism but we already have the theoretical solution to it. Through rapid development of the means of production (including the increased division of labor),

    Unless I'm misunderstanding you, the issue here would be we're already overproducing. If we're already a fully formed capitalist economy there's no use in disrupting how labour is organised, it would need to be shifted overtime but for the purposes of a sustained revolution we would immediately change how that labour is compensated.

    the revolutionary must understand as much of society as possible and try to steer its parts towards revolution.

    I like this but I find it hard to identify what that means for my self.

    • Dimmer06 [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      While we may be overproducing in some specific fields, there are many places we are not producing/developed enough (green energy and infrastructure are prime examples) especially if you begin to account for national boundaries and ending imperialism. We've also got to bring something like 15 million people into the workforce (whatever the unemployment is) while also ending one of the major inefficiencies of capitalism which is unnecessary competition, which will eliminate some jobs. We do this by further dividing labor and reducing the hours worked (which can only be done if someone is able to live on the reduced hours ergo we socialize things like medical care, education, housing, food, utilities, etc., which in turn also creates more jobs. We need to rapidly change the economy primarily for climate change but for other reasons as well and this entails further development of the means of production and division of labor even though we are significantly more advanced than the economies of Marx's time. In essence while we are a fully developed capitalist economy, the antagonistic contradictions with the capitalist economy prevent it from providing what is necessary so we must replace the capitalist economy with a socialist one and develop from there.

      As to the second part, Marx had kind of a narrow view of what the proletariat was and within his time and place it was kind of (politically) homogeneous in part due to the organization of the trade unions. Depending on your reading he also thought the proletariat was the only revolutionary class in capitalist society which history has proven incorrect. You sometimes see those ideas reiterated in leftest spaces and adhering to this position creates a problems if you're looking at democratic socialism (i.e. the DSA) in the US which is generally white and well educated (I think it tends male as well but I'm not certain about that). If you look at revolutions historically however, they are composed of multiple classes, different ideologies, and were multi-racial where that is applicable. I think Lenin excellently states what the goal should be in What is to Be Done:

      if “we” desire to be front-rank democrats, we must make it our concern to direct the thoughts of those who are dissatisfied only with conditions at the university, or in the Zemstvo, etc., to the idea that the entire political system is worthless. We must take upon ourselves the task of organising an all-round political struggle under the leadership of our Party in such a manner as to make it possible for all oppositional strata to render their fullest support to the struggle and to our Party. We must train our Social-Democratic practical workers to become political leaders, able to guide all the manifestations of this all-round struggle, able at the right time to “dictate a positive programme of action” for the aroused students, the discontented Zemstvo people, the incensed religious sects, the offended elementary schoolteachers, etc., etc.

      Now obviously we have no Zemstvo (sort of a weak regional legislature) liberals to organize but our goal should be to identify the varying sections in society and lead them to revolution however possible. That might mean working with petty bourgeoisie, lumpen-proletarians, or the dreaded PMC. That might mean convincing self described "democratic" socialists or even liberals to be revolutionary. I think we need a revolution, but things certainly aren't ready for one so working within the framework of "democratic socialism" might be useful. We just need to remember the ultimate need for revolution.