Marxist FAQ: Vanguardism

What is meant by "vanguardism?" The idea of vanguardism conjures among some a scene of a small group of people sitting around a table plotting to do evil deeds under the guise of communism. This could not be farther from the truth. When we speak of the "vanguard" we are talking about a group of class conscious individuals who have dedicated themselves to bringing about the revolution. This group could be small but that would likely not work out. A successful vanguard would need to be quite large and have the ability to rally the proletariat behind it.

So why the emphasis on a dedicated group? Can't the proletariat spontaneously rise on its own? The average worker should not be counted on to rise up in revolution. They are more concerned with daily survival than political activity. It falls to dedicated proletarian revolutionaries to make preparations for the revolution. This dedicated group would be comprised of those members of the proletariat who have decided to make an active stand against the inequalities of the capitalist system.

Then what are the responsibilities of the vanguard? First and foremost is their duty to educate the proletariat and make them aware of the oppression they face on a daily basis under capitalism. Many in the proletariat are so focused on the basics of survival or are so ingrained with capitalist propaganda that they either do not know they are being oppressed or don't have the time or energy to care. The vanguard has a responsibility to raise their awareness to the inequity around them. The second duty of the vanguard is to lead the proletariat towards revolution. This is an extension of the first duty. By raising the proletariat's awareness they move the proletariat towards collective action. Once the proletariat reaches its breaking point the vanguard will perform its next, and potentially last, duty: to lead the proletarian revolution. The revolution will be a trying time and the slightest misstep could derail the entire revolution. An experienced cadre of revolutionaries will be necessary for the success of the revolution. The vanguard will organize and direct the actions of the proletariat towards capitalism's weakest points and ensure the swift demolition of the capitalist system.

Following the success of the revolution the vanguard will no longer be necessary. However, the proletariat may ask the vanguard to form the beginning leadership of the new proletarian democracy due to their experience and knowledge. If that is the case then the vanguard will have one final duty: to faithfully, rapidly, and democratically lead society down the road to socialism and eventually communism. As society moves towards communism the whole of society will become politically aware and will become members of the "vanguard." At that point the vanguard will vanish and instead we will have socialist and then communist society.

I cannot stress enough the importance of the vanguard. It will ensure the effective education and leadership of the proletariat. No socialist revolution has ever succeeded without a vanguard. The largest socialist and communist movements around the globe are vanguardist. If you are a Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, or Maoist then you are, by your very ideological nature, a vanguardist. Those Marxists who are not vanguardists are waiting in vain for the proletariat to rise spontaneously in revolution. The problem with this "spontaneous revolution" is that it is a utopian fantasy. The proletariat, without proper leadership and direction, will either be placated by Capitalism with luxuries and petty concessions like we see in the West or brutally oppressed as we see in the developing world. Without the active work of vanguardists to keep the movement going, the socialist movement would be either appeased into lethargy or oppressed into submission. Without vanguardism the revolution is doomed to failure.

Lenin on the Necessity of a Worker's State and Vanguard Leadership

"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to

crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the

petty bourgeoisie, and semi­proletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy

By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming

power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the

teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without

the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. By contrast, the opportunism now prevailing trains the

members of the workers' party to be the representatives of the better­paid workers, who lose touch with the

masses, "get along" fairly well under capitalism, and sell their birthright for a mass of pottage, i.e., renounce

their role as revolutionary leaders of the people against the bourgeoisie.

Marx's theory of "the state, i.e., the proletariat organized as the ruling class", is inseparably bound up with

the whole of his doctrine of the revolutionary role of the proletariat in history. The culmination of this rule

is the proletarian dictatorship, the political rule of the proletariat."

The State and Revolution

by V.I. Lenin

Debates on Soviet Revisionism

The Soviet Union looms large over the entirety of the Socialist movement. For 74 years it was the primary source most people looked to for their idea of what Socialism was supposed to be. However, even its status as a Socialist state is called into question by many on the left. I am here to offer my take on the history of the USSR. I will try to offer an objective view of the criticisms of the USSR but naturally my opinions about these criticisms will be included. This will be a Marxist-oriented critique and I am making a point to exclude Bourgeois, Fascist, and Liberal criticisms of the Soviet Union. Those criticisms are widely known and available and form the basis of how most people in the West understand the USSR. I will state that most of those non-Marxist criticisms are based on lies spread by the Nazis and Cold War propaganda used in an effort to undermine both the USSR and Socialism. As such, most non-Marxist criticism of the USSR cannot constitute a reliable source of accurate criticism. Would you trust an oil company to form an accurate statement on climate change? That is the same as trusting a Capitalist to form an accurate critique of Socialism. The Capitalist has too much skin in the game to be trusted with truthfully criticizing a Socialist State.

Most leftists, and certainly all tendencies that descend from Leninism, will usually divide the history of the USSR into various periods. The debate and inevitable points of contention stem from how the different currents within the left view these various periods. The most common point of contention, and the point that I will focus on, is whether or when the USSR became revisionist.

To begin, what is revisionism? Revisionists are those Marxists who have "revised" their interpretations of Marx's writings in such a way as to remove the revolutionary nature from Marxism. One example that is commonly mentioned on the left is that of democratic socialism. Democratic socialists moved away from the idea of revolution in favor of reforming capitalism into socialism from within bourgeois democracy. This is viewed by almost all on the far left as revisionist, although democratic socialists prefer to call it "reformist" socialism. A further point among these discussions of Soviet revisionism are whether the leaders of the USSR adhered to Leninism or revised Lenin. This leads to a further divide within Leninism itself on the nature of the Soviet Union.

First, we must begin with the revolution itself. Naturally all groups that descend from Leninism (which includes Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists or "Stalinists", Maoists, and Hoxhaists) believe that the revolution was not revisionist. However, many on what is termed the "Ultra-Left" (Luxemburgists, Council Communists, Libertarian Communists, and Anarchists) believe that since the revolution was led by a vanguard then that alone constitutes revisionism. These groups tend to believe that only the spontaneous rising of the entire proletariat in a decentralized movement would constitute a proper revolution. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that these tendencies have never led a successful revolution because these decentralized movements usually fail to follow through with establishing a workers' state or never have a significant enough following to even mount a revolution in the first place. Only Leninist-style vanguard revolutions have ever succeeded in establishing workers' states.

Next we move to Lenin and the NEP period in Soviet history. I will skip over the Russian Civil War period because it is my belief that everything in that period was done under emergency conditions. Instead I will judge Lenin and his legacy  by what he and the Communist Party did once they gained total control over the Soviet Union. Lenin championed the NEP, or New Economic Policy, after the Civil War as a way to reinvigorate the economy, which was on the brink of collapse. Lenin himself described the NEP as State Capitalism. Under the NEP the Soviets implemented a mixed economy where small enterprises could be privately owned. This was an effort to encourage economic growth while ensuring that the State remained in charge of the important national industries. The goal of the NEP was to allow for a future transition to socialism when the economy had been properly developed. Many on the left, again mostly among the ultra-left, hold that because there was not an immediate implementation of Socialism then the USSR had become revisionist. I believe this to be a naive assumption that focuses more on appeals to ideological purists rather than the pragmatic necessities of real life. Following the Russian Civil War the Soviets needed to rebuild the economy and State Capitalism is the best method to achieve that goal especially given the situation in the USSR at the time.

Following Lenin's death there was a period of joint rule by numerous individuals in the Communist Party. Each of these individuals was jockeying to become the ultimate leader of both the Party and the State. This period saw a continuation of the NEP and should be judged in accordance with that period. This interregnum ended with the ascension of Stalin to the leadership of the State and the Party and the exile of Leon Trotsky.

The Stalin period was the most explosive period of Soviet history both in terms of economic development and contention among Marxists. Stalin led the USSR in the greatest period of rapid economic growth ever witnessed in the world. Stalin took the Soviet Union from an agrarian society to become the second largest industrial economy in the world in less than a generation. Stalin collectivized agriculture which single-handedly ended famine in the USSR after over a millenia where famines occurred every five years. The Stalin period also saw the failure of the spread of revolution across the world thus leaving the Soviet Union as the only workers' state in existence capable of self-reliance. This failure of the spread of revolution forced the Soviets to focus more on internal development. This focus on internal development, along with Stalin's purge of Trotskyists, opportunists, and fascist collaborators from the Communist Party, forms the center of the ideological battle between the tendencies within Leninism. First you have "Stalinists," Maoists, and Hoxhaists who hold up Stalin as the last true Socialist leader of the USSR. They praise Stalin's actions as not only necessary given the situation in the USSR and the world at the time but also as the proper way to develop the USSR and move it towards Socialism. Next you have Trotskyists who believe that Stalin betrayed the Revolution by bureaucratizing the USSR, throwing out the "Old Bolsheviks," and failing to spread the Revolution out of Russia. Some Trotskyists hold that at that point the USSR became a "degenerated workers' state" and could only be saved by a revolution that swept the world and replaced bureaucratic Stalinism with Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution." Finally you have the ultra-left who were still opposed to the very nature of the Soviet State since the Revolution. All Stalin's rule did for them was confirm that the Soviets had become bureaucratic, elitist, and undemocratic further degenerating the revolution.

Finally, we have the post-Stalin period. This period, which lasted from the death of Stalin to the fall of the USSR, is usually lumped together by all sides of the revisionism debate. The other accepted starting point for this period would be the "Secret Speech" by Khrushchev. Khrushchev made a speech to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party where he outlined the "crimes" of Stalin and his cohorts, especially Beria. This speech was made in a secret meeting in the middle of the night where stenographers were not permitted to take notes on what was said, although the contents of the speech was later made public. Many at the meeting could not believe what they were hearing but refused to speak up in defense of Stalin for fear of reprisals from Khrushchev's allies. At this point Khrushchev had cemented his position of power and used it to lash out against his political enemies who were also attempting to gain control of the Party. Most of those opposed to Khrushchev were former officials in Stalin's government and seen to many as friends of Stalin and his ideas. This made it politically expedient for Khrushchev to speak against these other leaders because their association with Stalin could be used to keep them out of positions of power. Following the speech, however, many of those enemies of Khrushchev were arrested and executed for their part in Stalin's administration. Almost all major currents of Marxism, with the notable exception of the orthodox members of the post-Stalin Communist Party of the Soviet Union, describe the post-Stalin Soviet Union as revisionist at best and outright Capitalist at worst. This is because at that point the bureaucratic opportunists within the Communist Party had cemented control over the Party and the State. They slowly but systematically removed all vestiges of revolutionary fervor from the Party and instead implemented a policy of entrenched bureaucratism and cronyism. The economy continued to be dominated by heavy industry with little emphasis on consumer goods or services. This would directly lead to the Brezhnev Stagnation which was a 20 year period of economic stagnation that almost toppled the USSR on its own. The failure of the Soviet leadership in this period to reform the economy in the direction of Socialism and away from State Capitalism is, in my opinion, what led to the failure of the Soviet economy to keep pace with the West. The period ended with the fall of the Soviet Union following the "reforms" of Gorbachev that had the effect of returning the Soviet Union to Bourgeois Democracy and Capitalism. The political collapse of the USSR was inevitable following the liberalization of the economy by Gorbachev. All true Communists and Socialists hold that Gorbachev was at best a Liberal sympathizer and at worst a Bourgeois infiltrator. To see just how deep the infiltration by Liberal sympathizers and bourgeois infiltrators was in the Communist Party one must only look at the political positions adopted by many former Communists after the fall of the USSR. For example, Yeltsin, first President of the Russian Federation and former Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR (a very prestigious position), upon becoming President aggressively pushed for the privatization of the Russian economy. Failure to take any regulatory action in favor of laissez-faire economics directly led to the rise of the current Oligarchic Capitalism that reigns in Russia today. Yeltsin and Gorbachev are but two of the worst examples of what can happen when revisionism is allowed to take hold in the Socialist movement. But it should surprise no one when you look at how rotten to the core the USSR had become, especially during the Gorbachev era. Only old, hard line Communists maintain that the post-Stalin era was not revisionist and that position was most likely only held because of their desire to use the Communist Party as legitimacy for their corrupt rule over Soviet society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum

I would just like to clarify my use of the term "Socialist State." Some language purists may take offence to my use of this term because there has never been a truly Socialist state and I would agree with that statement. However, when I use the term "Socialist State" I am referring to any country that describes itself as "Socialist." Today this would include China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and Laos. My use of this term does not imply that I believe that they are Socialist in practice, only that they are socialist in name. I use the term "Socialist State" in order to separate those countries that have declared themselves Socialist from countries that are still obviously Capitalist. While these states may practice Capitalism there remains the hope that should revolution sweep the world they could be counted on to join the new Socialist order readily.

About the Alliance between Workers and Peasants

There is much contention in Marxist theoretical circles about the potential for a revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. Many in the West may be confused about this debate because they believe that there is no such thing as "the Peasantry" anymore. That certainly is the case in all the developed countries of Europe and North America. However, a peasantry of sorts does exist in the developing world.

How can we define people as peasants when feudalism no longer exists? We much shape our answer around how peasantry functioned. In the feudal era, peasants were subsistence farmers who owed a share of their crops to their feudal lord in return for protection and a place to live and farm. Modern peasantry is similar but with a subtle difference. Modern peasants are subsistence farmers who either own their land but the plot is too small to form a profitable commercial operation or, more commonly, who rent their land from a larger landowner in exchange for either money rent or rent in the form of a portion of their crop earnings. This makes modern peasantry virtually the same as medieval peasantry, minus the religiously motivated hierarchy of feudalism.

So, how does the existence of modern peasantry matter to Marxists? The simple conclusion is that these modern peasants make logical allies for the revolutionary proletariat in places where the proletariat is not large. In fact, the Marxist school of Maoism believes that in unindustrialized states only an alliance between the Proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow capitalism. This notion makes sense.

If it makes so much sense then why is there contention between Marxists on this issue? Most of the disagreement stems from the idea that only the proletariat can be revolutionary in character. What does that mean? Basically, it is a tenant of Marxism that the proletariat is oppressed in a special way by Capitalism, namely by being alienated from the fruits of their labor, and that means that only the proletariat can be truly revolutionary. Other groups can join the revolution but they would not be considered fundamentally revolutionary. This assertion makes sense but following it dogmatically can reduce the chances for revolution in underdeveloped areas to nearly zero. This is because in underdeveloped economies the proletariat may form a small majority of the population.

Besides this theoretical disagreement, what other reasons would Marxists have to oppose an alliance with the peasantry? Because the peasantry is not fundamentally revolutionary, the fear is that if they were to be allies in a revolution then they would extort concessions from the proletariat that would not benefit the development of Socialism. One example concerns land reform. Collectivization is the fundamental form of agricultural organization in a Socialist society. Peasants would be vehemently opposed to collectivization and would instead press the proletariat to enact land redistribution. While not inherently counter-revolutionary, this can hold back Socialist development because land redistribution would enable to peasants to become petty bourgeois landowners and allow the continued existence of market economics in agriculture. This is but one of numerous examples.

Despite all of this, it is my belief that the positives outweigh the negatives in many instances regarding the alliance between peasants and the proletariat. This is because in  undeveloped economies the only hope for revolution may be in the alliance between workers and peasants. The proletariat must always be careful to maintain the revolutionary character of society but some concession may be necessary to facilitate revolution. However, given the proper path of economic development towards industrialization some concession are not necessarily a bad thing. The uneven development of Capitalism around the world all but necessitates the alliance in some areas because there are likely to always to be places in the world where the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat. Without the alliance of workers and peasants those areas may never see revolution.

From State Capitalism to Communism

Since I last wrote on the Marxist case in favor of State Capitalism as a transitional stage between Capitalism and Socialism, I have decided to write what I consider to be the logical progression that would follow from the early establishment of State Capitalism in a proletarian democracy through to Communism.

Under State Capitalism in its early stages the State would have to hold absolute control over the direction of the economy. This would likely take the form of some kind of central planning body. This body would set production goals and prioritize distribution of goods and services to different areas. The primary goal of this central body would be the ensure that all people get the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.) in high enough quantities to enable them to live a secure existence. Once that goal has been achieved the State would begin to use its central planning power to increase the productive capacity of all goods and services in a effort to move society towards post-scarcity. Socialism, by its very nature, requires the existence of post-scarcity in order to thrive. Karl Marx admitted in his own writings that Socialism could only work in highly industrialized societies because of both the need for the majority of the population to be proletarian and the necessity of the economy to be able to adequately provide for the people through high productive output.

As State Capitalism wanes in its usefulness, Socialism will, as said earlier, emerge when either a post-scarcity or nearly post-scarcity society has been achieved. Under Socialism the proletariat will directly take over the management and distribution of goods and services. How exactly this would function can be only speculated because we in the present time are not anywhere near post-scarcity and do not know what such a society could even look like. Trying to envision a post-scarcity society is, for us, like a feudal lord in the 12th century trying to envision modern capitalist society. Even if we can see hints of what that new society may look like, the future will be so radically different from today that we are nothing better than fortune tellers gazing into a crystal ball. No matter the details, the primary goal of the Socialist system will be to progress society towards Communism. As society moves through post-scarcity people will realize that it is no longer necessary to accumulate goods. Because the proletariat will control distribution, overconsumption will be mitigated through societal controls. However, as we move through post-scarcity these controls will cease being necessary. People will come to understand that should they need something, they need only go and get it. Because everything will be so freely available people will eventually stop hoarding goods. Most likely such a post-scarcity society will also be so highly automated that manual labor will be virtually eliminated. This will enable people to pursue science, philosophy, art or anything else free from the constraints of wage labor. At this point society will likely have moved through Socialism and on to Communism.

Socialism, like State Capitalism, will still require the existence of the State in some form. However, the Socialist State will have a much reduced role in managing the economy or maybe even no role. The key role of the Socialist State will be preventing the reemergence of Capitalism. As the proletariat takes the reins of economic management there may be some opportunists or former capitalists that will try to use the newly decentralized economy to reestablish Capitalism even if only on a local level. The State will therefore have to act as an agent of revolution in order to protect Socialism from these opportunists. Eventually, however, economic progress and automation will be so great, and goods so readily available, that people will so no need to pay for goods and so Capitalism will have no mechanism to maintain its existence. Prices would be so low that the accumulation of wealth and capital would be impossible and serve on the purpose of personal vanity. After society moves into post-scarcity and the threat of the reemergence of Capitalism is gone the State will cease to have a true function other than providing political unity. Even in a Communist society there may be some form of central deliberative body but it would probably have little function other than to keep the people of the world united on a political level.

This whole description is, by its nature, speculative. We cannot know what the future will hold. We also cannot know how Capitalism will end. If there is not a political revolution installing a Socialist party into power then it is likely the eventually Capitalism will cease to exist naturally. As we have seen over the course of its existence, Capitalism is always seeking to increase its own productive capacity. Eventually Capitalism will have increased the industrial capabilities of society to such a point that there will be no need for people to purchase anything due to such a ready abundance of goods. Once that happens Capitalism will crumble on its own because it will lose the ability to accumulate capital in such an oversaturated economy.

The Marxist Argument in Favor of State Capitalism

Following the Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin stated that he believed that the State should take on the functions of the capitalists by planning and directing the economy. Lenin himself called this state ownership of the means of production State Capitalism but he did not mean it in the slanderous sense that the term carries among Marxists today. Today, many Marxists use the term to deride the policies of Stalin and as the beginning point of their criticism of the Soviet Union. I believe that State Capitalism can in fact be a good method for the eventual development of Socialism and then Communism.

First, what is State Capitalism? State Capitalism is, put simply, the State ownership of the means of production. In a proletarian democracy the State is in the service of the proletariat and so in this way under State Capitalism the proletariat owns the means of production through the State by proxy. This however should be distinguished from State Capitalism under a bourgeois democracy where the State would instead be owned by the capitalists. For this reason, State Capitalism would only be desirable under proletarian democracy. Thus State Capitalism holds a precarious position because of the role it can play depending on the ruling political organization.

Next, why is State Capitalism good in proletarian democracy? Following a successful revolution it will be necessary for the new socialist state to set priorities for the redistribution of wealth and commodities as a way to ensure that the needs of the proletariat are met and to ensure the destruction of the capitalist class. These goal cannot be quickly achieved without centralized direction of some kind. Therefore, the ownership of the means of productions through the State is advisable. While the direct ownership of the means of production by the proletariat would be able to achieve the same goal, it would be less efficient because of the disjointed nature of the redistribution in such a decentralized system. In the event of a peaceful transition away from Capitalism, State Capitalism would be the most logical step. This would most likely be in the form of the nationalization of all industries. The State would then become the guarantor of the proletariat's need and work to redistribute wealth in the economy.

All of this is not to say that State Capitalism is Socialism, it is not. However, State Capitalism is in my opinion like Socialism in that it can be a transitional stage on the way to Communism. As the wealth in the economy is redistributed, the capitalist class is destroyed, and the needs and wants of the proletariat satisfactorily met the system would need to transition to Socialism, or the direct ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. This would remove the State from its role as economic planner and in its place the proletariat would directly assume the role of managing the production and distribution of goods and services. The State could then transition to being a kind of watchdog to ensure that Capitalism does not reemerge. As the proletariat more efficiently distributes goods and services, the State would no longer have any need to exist. This would lead to the State ceasing to exist and would finally usher in true Communism.

I feel that I must state again that State Capitalism is not meant as an end state, a necessity, or even necessarily desirable. My intention is to show that State Capitalism under a proletarian democracy could be used to speed up the transition to Socialism or at least to ensure that such a transition happened efficiently. Too often State Capitalism is described as Capitalism with a Marxist face. Instead we should try ad view it as one of many possible tools in the transition from Capitalism to Communism.

I also fell the need to describe some of the potential pitfalls of State Capitalism. We can learn much from the failure of State Capitalism in the the Soviet Union and China. In the USSR we saw the State latch on to its role as economic planner and refused to give up its status. This led to the entrenchment of the state bureaucracy and the eventual failure of the USSR due to economic stagnation and poor management. The opposite has happened in China. Because State Capitalism in China failed to properly industrialize the nation, when the US came knocking with offers to build factories on the condition that corporations be allowed to run them, the Chinese jumped on the opportunity. This ushered in the end of State Capitalism in China and the restoration of true Capitalism. Both of these examples can occur under State Capitalism given enough time and so a rapid transition from State Capitalism to Socialism in a necessity. However, given these potential problems, it is still my belief that effective use of State Capitalism can be used as a way to transition from Capitalism to Socialism efficiently. By using the State to direct all of the economic powers of society towards increased production we could move into a post-scarcity society in which Socialism can thrive. In fact it has often been noted by many Marxist theorists that without the proper level of economic development Socialism is doomed to fail. State Capitalism can be the engine that drives that development.

I would like to counter some possible criticism stemming from the belief that I am trying to assert a more or less gradual change from Capitalism to Socialism. Rather, my emphasis in using State Capitalism is that it much be coupled with rapid and radical changes in economic conditions. Failure to do so could result in the entrenchment of State Capitalism as in the USSR or the reversal of the revolution and the reemergence of Capitalism as we have seen in China. I would also like to say that I am not saying the State Capitalism must be implemented. If in the course of the revolution it becomes apparent that a direct transition to Socialism is possible then by all means that is the more favorable route. But given the current distribution of wealth across the globe it is my belief that some period of State Capitalism would be necessary in order to bring those less developed parts of the world up to a modern standard of living. By using the State as the engine of this process we could quickly usher in a new age for humanity where no person is forced to go without the basic necessities of life simply because of the economic conditions where they live.

Ferguson Movement Isn't Just About Ferguson Anymore

There has been a lot of hate going around the internet about people's reactions to the events in Ferguson. Almost all the negative attention is coming from white people who have little to no social interactions with people of color and seem utterly unable to understand where all the anger is coming from. As an example, yesterday a few players on the St. Louis Rams football team raised their hands in the "hands up" gesture that has been adopted by the Ferguson protesters during their pre-game entry. There was immediately a strong negative reaction from the police union and many white fans who took offence to the gesture. The reaction to such a public show of support for the protesters is telling of the views of different sectors of our society. Most leftists and people of color were quick to show support for the gesture while the negative reactions was almost exclusively from whites. Most negative reactions come in the form of a statement like this, "Why are you showing support for a thug who robbed a store and attacked a police officer?" This statement is loaded in many ways because it focuses squarely on the events surrounding Michael Brown's death and is loaded with racial stereotypes about black youths. In the days following the death of Michael Brown it became evident that regardless of the actual events in Ferguson, the protest movement that was rising was focusing more on the issues of police militarization, police brutality, and racially motivated police practices than just on the events in Ferguson. This is why I say that the Ferguson Movement is bigger than Ferguson itself. These are issues that are deeply rooted in our police and our criminal justice system. Police are regularly allowed to use brutal measures with people of color in order to ensure their "compliance" while if similar treatment were used in white communities there would be an uprising. It is telling of the deep rooted nature of these issues that minority communities have not acted sooner. They have been so terrified and forced into submission by the police and our judicial system that it took a tragic and explosive situation to rouse them out of their oppression.

Basically what I'm trying to say is that people who are against what is happening in Ferguson need to look past the events themselves to see the bigger picture. This isn't about Darren Wilson or Michael Brown anymore, it is a debate over the role and actions of our nation's law enforcement community, especially in communities of color. Until the detractors can see past the surface of the situation they will never understand why the protesters are so motivated and willing to confront the police. This isn't just about Ferguson, it's about America.

We live in a state of de facto apartheid where minorities are brutally oppressed by the police, have little hope for a good education in their underfunded schools, and are destined to a life of poverty because of a total lack of opportunity for good paying jobs in their own communities. The most depressing aspect in all of this is that many whites refuse to even acknowledge that these problems exist. When whites look at communities of color they choose to see the crime and gangs rather than the systemic failure on the part of society to alleviate the roots causes of problems in minority communities. Instead of providing better education and good job opportunities, whites focus on increasing policing and giving minority criminals harsh prison sentences. We will never be able to solve the inequalities between whites and minorities without addressing the root causes of inequality. "Better policing" and "tough on crime" approaches only have the effect of glossing over the problems rather than actually fixing the problems in those communities.

Celebrating the Birth of Friedrich Engels

Friedrich Engels

November 28th, 1820 – August 5th, 1895

Beloved friend of Karl Marx, Great Theoretician, and Tireless Revolutionary

About the Ferguson Decision

Well we have witnessed yet another incident of the racist way in which justice is administered in this nation. People of color are arrested on a massive scale for petty crimes and sentenced to long prison terms. Meanwhile, the white officer who was charged to protect that community shot an unarmed black teenager and was allowed to go free without even so much as a trial. There is a popular phrase used in the media and legal circles that a prosecutor could "try a sandwich" because of the influence that they have over the evidence that is presented to grand juries. The simple fact that the grand jury chose not to bring the case to trial shows that the prosecutor either ignored his basic power to sway the grand jury to any particular side or actively tried to argue in favor of the officer's actions. It is almost unheard of for a grand jury to be given such an independent hand to investigate. The duty of the prosecutor is to work as an advocate in favor of prosecution no matter who the subject of the trial would be. The St. Louis County Prosecutor has vacated this basic requirement of his office. Say what you want about the guilt or innocence of Office Wilson, the case deserved to go to trial where we could see the judicial process in action. Instead we saw the Prosecutor use the Grand Jury as the de facto trial where the innocence or guilt of Officer Wilson was decided in secret, away from the public eye, and without the proper due process of law.

In the wake of this horrible injustice we are confronted with the fact that people of color are valued as being of lower worth than white lives in our society. Hundreds of innocent minorities are shot dead by police with no recourse for the victims' families. We have seen that the police of this country know they can act with impunity against anyone who raises their voice in protest to police brutality. Peaceful protests of all kinds have been met with tear gas and riot gear. How can we have a peaceful dialog when protests are met with violence and repression? John F Kennedy once said that "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable." We are seeing a build up to that violent revolution because EVERY DAY people who seek change are met with violence. EVERY DAY those working to improve the system from within are met with resistance from entrenched corruption. EVERY DAY we see that in our so-called democracy people are confronted by the reality of our police state. A day of reckoning is coming where those in power will no longer be able to use violence as a means to repress us. We have tried the peaceful route and it has shown to be a fruitless endeavor. If we continue to have our needs ignored and our rights squashed, the powers that be should not be surprised when the peaceful demonstrations turn into a violent uprising. I am not a supporter of violence but when you prevent people from having any peaceful recourse for their grievances, the only remaining option for them to have their voices heard is through rebellion.

Reagan did not end the Cold War

Today marks the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, an event heralded by conservatives and liberals alike as the beginning of the end of communism. I would like to address one of the largest fallacies related to the end of the Cold War.

Ronald Reagan Ended the Cold War

Many conservatives who try to hold up Ronald Reagan as some sort of Cold War capitalist saint try to paint Reagan as one of driving forces behind the collapse of communism and the Berlin Wall in particular. They try to hold up his "Tear Down This Wall" speech as the impetus for tearing down the wall and that is a gross exaggeration. First of all that speech was made in 1987 and was just another in a long line of speeches made by Western leaders that viewed the Berlin Wall as a symbol of communist tyranny. The "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech made by John F Kennedy was another speech in the same vein. Second, there were many reasons why the East German government decided to allow the demolition of the wall, all of which were motivated by internal problems. Third, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall, while a potent symbolic gesture, did not cause the subsequent fall of the communist governments in Eastern Europe.

Claims that Reagan ended the Cold War usually hinge on the idea that his constant pressure on the Soviet Bloc led to its internal collapse. While the Soviet Bloc did collapse from internal problems, Reagan was not the cause for this. The Soviet Bloc collapsed because of economic stagnation due to poor management by selfish leaders that couldn't see past their own self interest. They constantly set poor economic targets, liberalized the economy, and refused to allow the socialist system to work properly. Had the Soviet leadership permitted the proper kind of industrial development they could have prevented what was known as the Brezhnev Stagnation. The USSR could have blown past the US in scientific development had they been permitted to properly pursue scientific research. They could have had much more access to consumer goods had proper measures been taken to allow for the development of those industries along with other sectors of the economy.

Another factor that resulted in the collapse of communism was that the USSR was involved in a military debacle in Afghanistan that lasted a decade that further destabilized that nation in much the same way as the Vietnam War effected the US. Almost 10,000 soviet soldiers died in that conflict and it led to mass distrust by Soviet citizens against their government.

The final collapse came when the leaders of the Soviet Bloc countries, let by the USSR, allowed open elections. There had been enough simmering anger against those selfish regimes that most countries immediately took the opportunity to oust those leaders from power. It must be remembered that the USSR led the way on this and had Gorbachev not allowed free elections in the USSR then the rest of the Warsaw Pact would have done the same. It is now quite well known that Gorbachev was not actually a communist but a closet liberal masquerading as a communist. He may not have been actively seeking the downfall of the USSR but was perfectly accepting of the idea of allowing elections that would likely result in the removal of the communists from power. Because of the weak economy and distrust caused by the Afghan War, most Soviet citizens were exited by the possibility to vote against the Communist Party of the USSR. The election of Boris Yeltsin only cemented the end of the Communist Party with the election of a conservative to lead Russia. Yeltsin's actions following the army coup only showed his true colors. When Yeltsin decreed that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was now illegal he openly placed himself against communism. Yeltsin's rise to power was the last nail in the coffin of the Soviet Bloc.

Almost all the factors that contributed to the collapse of communist countries in Eastern Europe were internal in nature and had nothing to do with Reagan or American foreign policies. They had great economic stagnation, a hated war, and political destabilization, none of these factors were directly caused by the US. Certainly US policy exacerbated these problems through espionage and direct aid to Afghanis fighting the Soviets (one fun fact we Americans like to forget is that Reagan is directly responsible for the rise of Osama bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda because he actively provided bin Laden, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda with weapons to fight the Soviets without making provisions to prevent them taking political power after the Soviets left. In this way Reagan is indirectly responsible for 9/11 but you won't hear any conservative make any mention of that) but more than likely the Soviet Bloc would have collapsed of its own accord. Even had free elections been prohibited in the USSR it is evident that the military would not have accepted the leadership of Gorbachev and would have moved to seize power itself leading to a military dictatorship or some other political system that did not involve leadership by the Communist Party.

Just as a side note I would like to include that most of the actual collapses occurred during the presidency of George H.W. Bush but you don't see anyone trying to give him credit for the collapse of communism. This entire narrative surrounding Reagan and the fall of communism is an attempt to sanctify him and put him up on a pedestal as the perfect modern conservative President that cemented the hegemony of the United States.

Looking Past Election Day

Well yesterday the forces of reaction and repression won a resounding victory in the US elections. We will be faced for at least the next two years by a Congress that will work tirelessly to restrict the rights of women and minorities, give tax breaks to millionaires and corporations, and refuse to help the working class. All I can say to my fellow Americans is that you have brought this upon yourself. All those leftists and liberals who refuse, for one random reason or another, to vote against these forces of reaction have allowed them to win. All those people who don't care about politics until the State comes smashing in their door or restricting their rights are equally, if not more, to blame. We have a culture of mass political apathy in this country. We only seem to care when we are placed in the crosshairs by our government.

Young people in particular need to get their heads out of their asses and go make their voices heard. I am 24 and I have no problem saying that most people in my generation could give two shits less about politics. Sure we have issues we care about just like anyone else, but we systematically refuse to act on those beliefs. The Millenial generation is the largest and most left-leaning generation in American history, and yet we don't vote. If we have a 70% turnout rate (comparable to our older and much more conservative parents and grandparents) then we could single-handedly change the course of elections. But instead we are more worried about going to parties, sleeping in, and browsing the internet. 27.4 percent of the population is between the ages of 18 and 35 and yet we only account for roughly 15% of people who turn out to vote in an election and that's in years with Presidential elections. Voters are disproportionally old, white, and male and so their much more conservative views are more strongly represented in our elected officials. This information should not be new to anyone who has studies elections in the slightest.

What frustrates me the most about the fact that my fellow Millenials refuse to vote is that we have the most to lose by not voting. We are strongly effected by political decisions made in Washington in which we take no active interest. Take for example student debt. Until 2005 most student loan debt was dischargable in bankruptcy. In 2005 Congress decided, in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, that students should be held accountable for our debt even if we will never be able to pay it back despite the fact that almost all other forms of debt can be discharged in bankruptcy. Today this means that the 1 trillion dollars in current student loan debt can never be discharged and we will forced to pay it back in full even if that means garnishing our wages for the entirety of our lives. This is a political decision that we are directly effected by and yet we refuse to mobilize over. If we as a generation decided to march on Washington and demand that our debt be treated the same as every other kind of debt we could change the law. But instead we are so focused on the here and now that we don't even realize the crushing weight of our student loans until years after we graduate and suddenly find ourselves unable to pay back our debt. We are the most heavily indebted generation in American history and most of us haven't even gotten into the workforce yet. Unless we as a generation decide to act on this issue then we will see another Great Depression caused by our inability to spend money in the economy because we will be more concerned with paying back our huge debts. Keep in mind the current status of student loan debt results from the decades long push by parents, schools, and society at large that "college is the only way to get ahead" and so college, and the massive expenses it entails, have been billed to us as an utter necessity of life. I didn't intend to go on a tirade about student loans (that is a whole series of posts on its own) but it is just one of a million possible examples of what can happen when we refuse to vote.


So for the next two years we get to look forward to more of the same from Congress. I would love to see them get all conservative crazy just so the American people can see just how bad the beast they elected can be. The only saving grace is that the Presidency is still out of Republican hands so hopefully nothing too bad gets through. We just have to hope and pray that 2016 isn't as bad as 2014.

Concerning the Ebola Outbreak

Since this topic has been consuming our news cycles in one way or another for the past few months I feel the need to offer my views on the matter. I will ignore the actual human crisis of the outbreak because that is a given and has been covered by news outlets with great depth. Instead I will offer a criticism of the developed world's response to the crisis.

Ever since the Ebola outbreak began, the developed world, which I will refer to as "the West" from here on, has had a stance of distanced concern. However, despite their concern, which is mostly of the economic kind, we have seen little to no actual aid until we saw cases arrive in our respective nations. The US had refused to send any aid of real significance until an African man was admitted to a hospital in Texas. This slow response stems from the inherently racist policies of the US which disregard the developing world unless events in those nations have a profound economic effect on the US or result in the US public getting scared shitless. In the current case the only reason that we seem to care now is that we have seen a case on US soil and the apathetic people of the US are finally screaming bloody murder about "outbreaks."

Everyone must realize that this problem has been going on for a while now and had more drastic aid been given earlier then the outbreak in Western Africa could have been contained before it became a real problem. Instead the international community, led by the West, has systematically ignored the deaths of thousands of Africans because they are considered to not be important by Western leaders. If this outbreak had initially happened in the US or Western Europe you can be guaranteed that it would have been stopped before hitting 100 confirmed cases. Instead we have seen the death toll rise above 4000 and little has been done in the form of considerable amounts of aid. The only nation that has offered considerable aid thus far has been Cuba which sent 165 doctors to help care for Ebola patients and that aid was sent over a month ago back when no body in the West seemed to care about sending more aid.

How can we in the West claim to be compassionate about helping people when in the midst of this crisis we have only sent aid to help a few Western doctors. Even if we as individuals have great compassion for the people affected by this crisis we have not shown much impetus to try to get our governments to help those in the effected areas and those who have raised cries to send aid have had their message fall on deaf ears. It is telling when the US Congress has started discussions about enacting a travel ban before we have begun discussions to send substantial aid.

Repost: Anti-Israel Does Not Equal Anti-Jew

I have encountered many individuals who seem misguided in their opinions of me and my beliefs. One major point of contention with these people tends to be my views on Israel. It is my firm belief that over the past forty years the state of Israel has systematically committed war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide against the Palestinian people. Every credible legal authority in the West has concluded that Israel constantly breaches international law regarding "settlements" in Palestinian lands. The settlement policy on its own constitutes genocide. In every conflict since the 1970s Israel disproportionately kills civilians in their military campaigns through "collateral damage" (we need only look at the most recent Israeli attack on the Gaza Strip for evidence of this). If Israel were a signatory of the International Criminal Court then they would undoubtedly have leaders regularly on trial for their actions. Let me include the internationally recognized definition of genocide as agreed to by the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide (of which Israel is one of the original signatories):

"Article II:  In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

• (a) Killing members of the group;
• (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
• (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
• (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
• (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Article III:  The following acts shall be punishable:

• (a) Genocide;
• (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide;
• (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide;
• (d) Attempt to commit genocide;
• (e) Complicity in genocide. "

I charge that the state of Israel is guilty of genocide based on points a, b, and c of what defines genocide and a, b, d, and e of acts punishable as genocide.

Killing members of the group:

Israel kills Palestinians all the time, and often for trivial reasons. Palestinians show up to protest the Israeli occupation, they get shot. Palestinain children venture too close to an Israeli area, they get shot. Palestinians are regularly killed by the Isreali Defence Force all the time. And that does not include the targeted killings of women and children in UN run facilities during the most recent conflict in Gaza which is a blatant affront to international conduct in war.

Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group:

Well I'd say this includes death but Israel also has systematically blockaded supplies from reaching the West Bank and Gaza Strip which has led to poverty and starvation on a mass scale. Israel has also prevented Palestinian fishermen from fishing in bountiful waters that territoriality belong to Gaza thus preventing the Palestinian people from being able to provide for themselves. Countless Palestinians die from lack of medical care and starvation. When Israel occupied the Palestinian territories, they implicitly took it upon themselves that by controlling the territory that they would be responsible for the well being of the Palestinian people. They have failed on a systematic level to take care of the Palestinians. At the same time they have denied the Palestinian people the ability to form their own state capable of providing for them. This double edged blade means that Israel, both actively and passively, is causing harm and mental distress to every Palestinian in the occupied territories.

Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part:

As stated previously, the blockade of Palestinian lands has had the effect, or at least the intent, of debilitating the Palestinian people into a state whereby the Israelis can get anything that they want out of the Palestinians. The state of Israel believes that since the God gave them the land of Israel that they, and only they, are entitled to it. Anyone else is simply there by the grace of the Israeli state to serve, in one manner or another, the Israeli people. Implicit in this goal is the unstated goal of removing the Palestinian people from land that they have lived in for millennia.

Acts punishable as genocide:

Genocide:

The above actions, at least in my mind and the minds of many others, constitute a full blown genocide. Maybe not as calculated and deliberate as the Holocaust, but still just as evil in its outcome.

Conspiracy to commit genocide:

By undertaking the actions it has already taken, the state of Israel can be said to have conspired to commit genocide in order to gain their "Promised Land" from the "invading" Palestinian peoples.

Attempt to commit genocide:

By actually undertaking their conspired activities and killing and forcibly taking land from the Palestinians, the state of Israel have attempted, whether actively or indirectly, to commit genocide.

Complicity in genocide:

At the very least, by not preventing their own armed forces and radical religious elements from committing genocidal acts against the Palestinians, the state of Israel has been complicit in the genocidal acts committed by those sections of their society without punishing them or forcing them to stop their heinous activities.

For all of these reason it is my earnest belief that the state of Israel is a criminal state whose leaders should be tried for numerous crimes.

Now for the clarification. My beliefs about the state of Israel does not make me anti-Semitic. I know and am friends with many Jews. They are wonderful people. Their faith is beautiful and has a prominent place in the history of western civilization's development. Jews have had many crimes committed against them because of their faith both in modern times and in the past. I sympathize with all the victims of the Holocaust and cry every time I think of the horrible things done to the Jews by the Germans in the name of "racial purity." No one can deny that the Holocaust was the single most horrible thing committed by man against his fellow man. I also know that not all people in Israel agree with the actions their government is taking against the Palestinians and I urge them to continue their fight against injustice in their country. My anger and hatred is directed only against those leaders of the state of Israel, and those elements of Israeli society, that actively push for the destruction of the Palestinian people in order to form a "perfect Israel." It is my belief that too often the Israeli right uses the Holocaust as a crutch to try and remove blame for their own actions and sometimes even justify their actions. The minute you claim to be against the Israeli, or even more alarmingly for the Israeli right for the Palestinians, they label you an anti-Semite who wishes to renew the Holocaust and that is simply not true. If the state of Israel went out tomorrow and tore down all their settlements in the West Bank and the wall along their border, removed their troops from Palestinian lands, and gave the Palestinian people the right to form an independent nation then I would have nothing to complain about. The problem I have is that Israel is doing exactly the opposite. They oppress the Palestinian people at every turn and in every way possible. Until the Israeli state ends its policy of genocide and oppression I, as a Marxist, cannot and will not, under any circumstance, support the Israeli state. I urge the Palestinian people to continue their fight for freedom and justice and I also urge the people of Israel to fight the against the injustices being committed in their names. We must work to end all oppression, wherever it manifests itself.

Repost: Marxist FAQ: Dictatorship of the Proletariat

There has been much confusion among non-Marxists when the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is mentioned. Most people believe that this means dictatorship in the modern sense of an oppressive system led from the top down by one leader or a small group of leaders and they point to the use of the word "dictatorship" as their proof. However I am here to clear up that confusion. The phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" was coined at a time before the rise of the modern dictatorship and as such has lost the contextual meaning that the phrase meant when the phrase was coined in the 19th century. When the phrase began to be used, "dictatorship" meant absolute leadership. Thus the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" meant the absolute leadership of the proletariat. In practice however I think that the modern equivalent phrase should be "proletarian democracy" and I will use that phrase in the future.

Proletarian democracy is what Marxists are truly trying to establish. But what is proletarian democracy? In proletarian democracy the State operates on a democratic basis with the caveat that the proletariat is the only class that is allowed to participate. This is in contrast with modern liberal democracy where all classes are permitted to participate. Now is usually the point where liberals and conservatives alike cry out in terror "but you are quashing freedom!" In reality, no we are not. By only allowing the proletariat to participate who is truly being left out: the small group of wealthy people who don't have to work at a job to ensure their livelihood. By removing the influence of the wealthy we can finally realize true democracy. Today the rich contribute to political campaigns and corrupt our political system to the core. By removing their influence we remove the corrupting influence of money in politics. This is not the only part of proletarian democracy for if it was then all we must do to institute proletarian democracy would be to do away with private financing of campaigns. Proletarian democracy would also prevent the rich from being able to be elected or seeking election. This ensures that the proletariat is represented in government by itself. Only by totally removing the wealthy from the political process at all levels can we achieve proletarian democracy. But again this is not all because this political system would be further coupled with the socialist ownership of the means of production. These three prongs together not only take away the influence of the wealthy but eventually ensures that they will become members of the proletariat as well. When there are no rich people left then proletarian democracy becomes true democracy in every sense of the word.

There are numerous schools of thought as to what a proletarian democracy would actually look like. Some view it as a single-party state led by a vanguard party. Some view it as a popular front of all leftist groups banding together to ensure leftist consensus and prevent the emergence of a ruling elite. Others of the more anarchist persuasion would do away with the State entirely and have proletarian democracy on a purely informal basis and only at the local level with participation being voluntary. There have been numerous attempted experiments in proletarian democracy but none has proved to be successful due to the corrupting influences of bureaucratism and the outside influence of capitalism upon socialist states. These influences have the effect of degrading proletarian democracy into bureaucratic, elitist systems that reward party loyalty and loyalty to the State over proletarian democratic initiative. Only when the world is transformed into a world of socialism will we truly be able to begin the great experiment in proletarian democracy.

Repost: Liberal Democracy is Bourgeois Dictatorship

So for a long while I have been contemplating the nature of our democracy.  This question goes back to the very beginnings of my becoming aware of politics. While I have undergone a major shift in my political thinking over the years, my pursuit for understanding of liberal democracy has continued. As of late I have been rereading many of the works by Marx and Lenin (most notably the Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx and Engels and The State and Revolution by Lenin) and have been philosophically confronted with the opposing forces constantly at work within democracy and how those forces effect our democracy.

In many different works, and in may different ways, Marxists of all tendencies have stated that liberal, or bourgeois, democracy is in fact a dictatorship of the bourgeois over the rest of society. While there are some reformist socialists who disagree with this sentiment, the majority of Marxists would agree with the aforementioned assessment. I am inclined to agree with my fellow Marxists and here are my reasons:

1. Liberal democracy is a shade pulled over the eyes of the masses in order to hide or obscure the true nature of the "democracy."
2. The capitalist system, by its very nature, prevents the emergence of true democracy.
3. If true democracy were to exist, the capitalist system would collapse.
4. Because of the previous statement, capitalists will never allow society, no matter how liberal, to become fully democratic because that would entail them losing all of their influence over politics and state power.

I will now address and explain my reasons one by one.

Liberal democracy is a shade pulled over the eyes of the masses in order to hide or obscure the true nature of the "democracy." This is most likely to be the most difficult to understand and most resisted reason anyone would believe Marxist assertions on the nature of democracy. Why, the doubters and deniers say, if democracy is a hollow shell are we allowed to vote? Isn't the very fact that there are free and open elections enough evidence that liberal democracy is true democracy? I will answer these questions with another question: what defines "democracy?" Democracy is Greek for "rule of the masses." This means that if you are going to say you are a democracy then the masses must rule. But in a liberal, bourgeois democracy the masses do not rule. Rule is carried out by economic and political elites who make decisions that effect everyone with little or no input from the average person. Every so many years a few, mostly rich, individuals stand in front of large crowds of people saying "elect me and I will do X, Y, and Z in your name" and for some reason we believe them.

The vast majority of the actions undertaken by our elected officials serve only their own interests or the interests of their wealthy financiers. I would ask any person to come up with a single piece of substantial legislation recently that has helped only regular people. If just one rich person or company or corporation is aided then the legislation is automatically disqualified from consideration. I say this because even in the most seemingly populist legislation there are articles and provisions that directly or indirectly aid those in power at the expense of the average person. Want a tax break for Walmart so they can "create jobs", you are supporting the bourgeois by allowing them to pay lower taxes. Want to make a sales tax to pay for new road construction, you are indirectly hurting millions of people who live paycheck to paycheck who are hurt by sales taxes on a hugely unproportional level compared to the rich.

Democracy serves only as a means to legitimize the rule of the wealthy. Look at any legislature in a liberal democracy and you will see a mass of individuals who are wealthy. Not a single member of the US Congress lives under the poverty line. Compare this to the fact that 16% of the US population live in families that earn less than $27,000 a year. A US Congressperson earns $174,000 per year. No matter how you try to justify that, you are left with the fact that this automatically places our political leaders into the echelons of the wealthy elite while the vast majority of Americans are left in the dust. I don't know about you but I don't trust some rich person, no matter how well intended they are in their actions, to devise welfare policy that in no way effects them or their family. They will go at the task with at best an earnest interest, and more commonly a distanced concern. But that does not negate the fact they since they are not living day to day they have no idea what a person living in poverty is faced with. I was baffled by  a story recently where a Congress person attempted to live on minimum wage (he failed within a couple weeks by the way) and how that level of political theater was applauded by the liberal left. Unless that congressman was literally forced to live on minimum wage with no out then he has no idea what stresses are involved in that kind of life and his actions only further prove that the elite of our society put on these charades to distract us from the fact that it us, not them, who are left to live in poverty.

What does this have to do with legitimizing the bourgeois dictatorship? By putting up with these antics and then later going to the ballot box and voting for those fools, we tell them "you pretending to be one of us is okay. We don't mind the fact that you are rich and rule over us with little regard for what actually happens to us on a daily basis." For by voting in elections we legitimize the system as a whole. One popular tactic of resistance movements of all kinds across the globe is to boycott elections. By driving down voter turnout you can point to the system and say "that system is so rotten to the core that the people don't even believe it is worth voting." If you continue voting in elections in the bourgeois dictatorship that is our political system, you simply boost the statistics that say that the system is acceptable enough that you bothered to come and vote. Not voting, in an organized fashion, is an effective way to delegitimize a particular political process and single it out as an unjust system.

The capitalist system, by its very nature, prevents the emergence of true democracy. This in not immediately noticeable but is easily described. By its very nature capitalism forces all entities in existence to seek money in order to operate. To gain this money entities must sell products or services. In a democracy the most precious commodity is information. Information can make or break a politician's career. So, in order to control the flow of information, the wealthy elite use their wealth, in the form of both direct ownership and advertisements, to control what news makes it on to the front page. Despite what journalists tell you, when the New York Times is presented with a particularly juicy piece of info they don't necessarily publish it immediately. Should the Times have one of their biggest sponsors come up to them and say "if you publish story X then we will pull our advertisement funding"  you can bet the Times will take note and bury the story. This prevents the adequate dissemination of information. Without full access to information the voting public is unable to see the entire story and this will directly lead to them voting without all necessary information.

If true democracy were to exist, the capitalist system would collapse. I say this because it is obvious. If the masses were allowed unlimited access to all information and were then still permitted to vote, they would immediately sweep all of the elites out of power. While we are not permitted to see everything our government is doing in our name, Edward Snowden gave us a good glimpse into that world and everyone who actually took the time to look and see what was being done by our government was immediately appalled. Being granted similar access to everything would lead to the immediate collapse of our political and economic system. The masses would immediately remove all elites from their positions of authority and replace them with ordinary people. These people would immediately try to stop the heinous things that happen every day but go ignored by our rich overlords. Almost overnight we could end poverty, starvation, homelessness, and all other societal ills if we weren't being oppressed by the very elements in our government and society that receive economic and political gains by keeping people poor and oppressed.

Because of the previous statement, capitalists will never allow society, no matter how liberal, to become fully democratic because that would entail them losing all of their influence over politics and state power. This is because they have every reason to prevent us from exercising our true will through democracy. They limit the choices to a few sides that they can stand. Democrats and Republicans alike only reinforce capitalism just in different ways. While the elites would love to simply establish a dictatorship and rule over us directly they are smart enough to realize that by allowing us to vote for their specially selected minions they give an air of legitimacy to their clandestine reign over us. Should a real threat to liberal democracy emerge from the left they will not hesitate to end our faux democracy so they can ensure that they remain in their position over us and there will be many misguided souls among the masses who will side with the bourgeois both out of self interest and misplaced trust.

I recently read The Iron Heel by Jack London for the first time and was amazed at how similar the world of his book (which was based off of the world pre-World War I) and the world of today are. We see gross inequality on a daily basis, the smashing of unions, and destitution for the poor. The events that London posits in which the ruling classes use their influence to eventually end democracy following the initial success of a leftist movement is exactly what would happen should events like those in the book actually occur. First the bourgeois would refuse to accept the victory of the left. Next they would seek to turn the people against the left by making them seem like a force that would bring down society. And then when they are at their weakest and about to lose control, the bourgeois would launch their financial assault and bring the world to its knees. In the wake of this crisis they would take every last freedom from us in exchange for loosening their grasp on financing and allowing us to work in their factories and offices for wages that barely prevent workers from starving on a daily basis while working 10 to 14 hour days. We would be kept down with all the force they could muster. People would be executed on the spot simply for disobeying an order or daring to speak out against injustice. We would then be slaves to them in all but name. Only after that darkest hour for the human race would we eventually see the true end of capitalism, because out of that horrible darkness the people would rise with a fury the capitalists didn't even think possible to break the chains of capitalist oppression. Only then will we see the end of poverty, disease, racism, sexism, and all other injustices that plague humanity. Only then will we truly be free.

Repost: All Wages are Subject to Wage Theft

Wage theft: the illegal withholding of wages or the denial of benefits that are rightfully owed to an employee. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wage_theft)

By its very nature the capitalist system of economics performs wage theft against all workers. If you don't believe me then ask yourself this simple question: How much money did the company you work for just make off your labor compared to how much they paid you for your labor? If that answer is anything more than zero then you are subject to the inherent wage theft present in capitalism.

I work for a testing company. We administer tests to individuals seeking to be doctors, accountants, teachers, and an indescribably large number of others. My wife, being a teacher, had to take the PRAXIS test to get her certification. This test cost her $150 for four hours of her time. When I am administering this test I make $9 and hour adding up to $36 and my coworker (only two of us work at the same time) made the same. That means to administer my wife's test earned my company $78. My testing center has 12 seats which are full almost all day. In that four hour period if all the seats are full that means my company gained $1728 in four hours of testing. Since they only have to pay us essentially for administering only one of the tests, all the tests after the first one are pure profit. The average cost of electricity required to run the testing stations is around $400 a month. Rent on the facility is roughly $3000 a month meaning that fixed expenses on for the same four hour time period are roughly $20. This puts total profit for my company in a four hour period of simply PRAXIS tests (and trust me most of the tests cost A LOT more than the PRAXIS) at $1708.

This $1708 under socialism would be required to be redistributed to me and my coworkers since we are the only reason the money was earned in the first place. But instead, under capitalism, all that money is put into the hands of the company in order to pay dividends and pay the exorbitant salaries and bonuses of the company's executives (and I personally know one of the executives and, while a great guy, he definitely has no financial need for all of the money he earns). Meanwhile me and my coworkers earn a yearly wage that is below the poverty line and most of us have to get government aid in order to survive.

So next time you perform a task at work just remember this: As long as you are working under capitalism you are not getting the wage you truly deserve.

Repost: Marxist FAQ, Part IV

Here is Part 4 of my FAQ series. Today I will focus on the role of the communist movement in capitalist and socialist society and discuss the different theories regarding the development and spread of socialist revolution with an emphasis on the Theory of Permanent Revolution as advanced by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as advocated by Joseph Stalin. This particular FAQ is also focused on many aspects of the Leninist trend of thought in Marxism of which Leninism is but one of many trends.

Before I go on I feel I must say a few things about Stalin because many people hear his name and immediately dismiss anything he may have done or said. Yes, Stalin was a dictator who ruled the USSR with a strong hand (although he certainly didn't lead the USSR without the help of a dedicated group of close advisers). Yes, he led a government that persecuted many political rivals to a large extent by sending them to execution or the gulag. However, we must view his actions through the lens of history. Stalin emerged as the leader of the USSR at a time when it was being challenged on an existential level by almost all of Europe's other nations and by internal threats that wanted noting better than to unravel the revolution. This led Stalin to look inside the USSR for threats that he viewed as direct challenges to the very existence of socialism in the USSR. Say what you want about Stalin's actions, but his motives were entire logical and thought out with great precision. He had solid ideological reasons for pursuing internal enemies. Strong arguments can be made that had Stalin not sought to remove those internal threats during the 1930s then the USSR may very well have surrendered in the early days of World War II due to internal conflicts. This outcome would have most likely resulted in the triumph of Hitler in that war which would have had profound consequences today. So before you go and dismiss Stalin's ideas out of hand realize that you can look at his ideas and agree with the ideas without agreeing with the actions Stalin took as a leader.

What is the role of the communist movement in capitalist society?

In a capitalist society the communist movement exists to educate the proletariat and move it towards socialist revolution. A communist movement in capitalist society takes the form of a communist political party that will act as the vanguard of the proletariat in leading the revolution. During the revolution the vanguard will lead the proletariat in the revolution as will help the proletariat to establish a socialist society.

What is meant by a "vanguard"?

The communist vanguard is an advanced group that draws the rest of the proletariat towards revolution. Because most members of the proletariat, either because of lack of education, interest, or other reasons, are not politically active then it is up to the most politically active and class-conscious members of the proletariat to be called upon to lead the other members of the proletariat. This group is not separate from the proletariat but rather emerges naturally from the alienation and societal development associated with the development of capitalism.

What is the role of the communist movement after the revolution has established socialism?

After the revolution the communist movement, in the form of the vanguard, will continue to lead society towards communism. The vanguard may take many forms at this point but it will most likely be a political party of some form that adheres to communist ideology. It will be the duty of this party and state organs to work to expand socialism, prevent the return of capitalism, and move society towards communism.

What are the major theories of socialist development?

There are two main currents in modern revolutionary communism and those are the Theory of Permanent Revolution that was advanced by Leon Trotsky and Socialism in One Country as advocated by Joseph Stalin. There are numerous other theories but they are mostly associated with smaller communist groups that have not had major followings for some time.

What is the Theory of Permanent Revolution?

Permanent Revolution is the theory advanced by Leon Trotsky that states that, in short, not all capitalist societies will become advanced like the nations of Europe and North America and as such the proletariat of those countries must ally with the peasantry to lead a revolution before the full development of capitalism. I will now dissect the various parts of this theory.

The first part of the theory revolves around the idea of uneven development in capitalism. This means that some countries, because of how capitalism develops, will never see the huge productive forces that advanced capitalist societies have. Examples would be nations in Sub-Saharan Africa. These nations are exploited by capitalists mostly on the basis of their resources and so capitalists see no need to develop the industrial powers of those countries. This means that the majority of people in those countries will never be in the industrial proletariat, but rather will be peasants who work the land to produce resource.

Next the theory posits that because of this uneven development the proletariat of those countries must work to begin a socialist revolution with the peasantry because otherwise their society will never develop fully to naturally have a socialist revolution. In this situation the proletariat would initiate a bourgeois revolution to institute democracy and then proceed with a "permanent revolution" and then move directly into socialist revolution.

What are the problems with Permanent Revolution?

First, the theory splits the world up on on a very trivial basis into "developed" and "undeveloped". Most nations develop on a known trajectory from primitive communism (tribalism), slavery, feudalism, and then capitalism. Most of the world right now is in what would be the early stages of capitalism. Therefore, Trotsky saying that some nations simply will not develop proper capitalism has no factual evidence. We need only look at India and China to see that eventually all nations eventually develop industrial capitalism given enough time.

Second, the Theory does not allow for the proper development to take place and forces revolution upon societies that are not yet ready to properly implement socialism. This leads to problems like those in Vietnam where the nation in nominally socialist but, because of improper development, functions more along the lines of state capitalism where the state replaces the bourgeoisie but capitalism as the primary system is retained. This leads to a corruption of communist theory and eventually to the situation observed in China where capitalism is the order of the day but ruled under the guise of false communism.

Third, because of the problems in the second point, the proletariat should not work with the peasantry if possible because it will lead, in cases where the peasantry greatly outnumbers the proletariat, to improper development where society will focus on agricultural development over industrial development. In my view socialist revolution in unprepared societies can only be undertaken when supported from another socialist state that has properly developed socialism.

What is Socialism in One Country?

Socialism in One Country is the theory advanced by Joseph Stalin and is a retort of the Theory of Permanent Revolution. It is a theory that came into existence because of the situation that emerged in Russia following the failure of socialist revolutions in Europe following World War One. Socialism in One Country states that in the event that revolution fails to spread quickly then it is the duty of those states that establish socialism in their country to develop internally and work to spread the revolution after socialism has been established fully. Only by having a fully developed socialist base can the revolution be spread to other nations. This program of internal development and later expansion should be predicated on the condition that socialism has failed to sweep across the world in a brief period of time. Should revolution spread across the globe quickly then Socialism in One Country would not be necessary and would in fact be detrimental.

Socialism in One Country does not describe a mindset where socialism is considered victorious when only one or a few nations establish socialism. Rather it says that should the revolution fail to sweep the world quickly then those societies where socialism has been established should grow socialism internally until socialism has been victorious across the globe. Therefore victory of socialism in one country is totally separate from the total victory of socialism across the globe.

Socialism in One Country is not as rigid as Permanent Revolution because it allows for nations to develop socialism at a pace that is consistent with their own level of development. Socialist states do have a duty to spread the revolution but they are not deemed failures should they fail to spread the revolution as they would be graded under Permanent Revolution Theory. Permanent Revolution Theory also requires socialism to spread across the globe simultaneously, or roughly simultaneously, while failure to do so will result in socialist states degrading over time because of the failure of world revolution, Socialism in One Country does not have this constraint.

What are the problems with Socialism in One Country?

While I view it as the most complete theory of socialist development it is not without its flaws. First it does not always make it a goal to spread socialism at the fastest pace but is accepting of a slower, more deliberate spread of socialism and for this reason it can be seen as advocating a more complacent, less revolutionary stance on socialist development. Second, it is purely meant as a theory of necessity and as such does not have the urgency and completeness of being a universal theory. Third, the main reason that Trotskyists try to deride the theory is by claiming that Socialism in One Country is a "Stalinist" attempt to remove the revolutionary aspect from communism and while that is certainly a possible criticism I dismiss it as naive and driven by sectarianism.

_________________________

Well that is not as complete an overview as I would like but it is a basic description of the two theories.