Welcome to Gaia! ::

gah, that was one of the most akward sentinces ive ever read(barring, ofcourse, my own redface ), but yes, though he didnt take the theory of the permanent revolution(the history of the soviet union proved it as true!!)

and his hat has what to do with politics?(im completly ignoring who it is though, realise that.)

AWWWW Why not Fourier with the Social destiny of man!? ( j/k)

How could he have only made a reference to it? Marx was one of the creaters of communism. His works seem to explain communism rather than a mere reference to it.

The initial post here seems to be missing a point.
To "support" and agitate a communist revolution is an impossibilty;
We cannot bring it about through words nor actions - we have to wait for social evolution within capitalism to push people below the subsistence level.

If you truely want the communist revolution, you should be supporting capitalism; because people are too simple, and too easily pleased, to uprise against capitalism. It makes too many comprimises.

It can ONLY come about when it is a matter of natural selection (RE date of writing / darwin).

Think of the borgeoise and the prols as two separate species, evolving, and remember "survival of the fittest" - to evolve and survive, the B need to push the P as far as possible, without losing them (slave / master relationship). To survive, the P need to succomb to the B.
As soon as the B push P so far that they cannot survive with or without B, they will either revolt to survive, or die out.

The communist revolution requires them to be pushed below subsistence level; it needs to be global, and it needs to be devestating.

The problem is that, because people are so easily pleased, and because the B are the fitter species, the P will probably be offered a comprimise; the B will raise wages / lower prices slightly, just to keep the simple P's happy.


But anyway my point was that there's no point "supporting" a revolution until the P are below subsistence. To agitate a revolution right now, in the absolute present, will not work.

Edit: By supporting capitalism, and encouraging the exploitation of the prols, you push everything further and further towards dropping below subsistence level and thus bringing about the revolution.

Banks exploiting credit holders? support it. Don't fight for laws to prevent the exploitation; that's just the comprimise that functions as a fetishism / illusory solution.

By supporting exploitation of the prols, you will push them to the point of revolution.
By attacking and complaining about the exploitation, you are slowing down the process; and i call you a marxist, for i am a Marxian. Marxism is the now-equivalent of the young hegelians.

We need to be harsh and brutal in pushing the people to the point where they need to evolve, if communism is our ultimate goal.
Remember, we have not seen a socialist nor communist state, ever; they both require the TOTAL abolition of private property, which cannot occur without a social evolution; by which i mean total global social evolution - individual states will just die (RE survival of the fittest)

@please:

the working class, by itself, will never rise above trade union conciousness.
so to say that you need to wait for capitalism to drive wages below subsistence, is complete 1. idiocy from the political point of view -because if they can never rise above trade union conciousness, they will never be truely revolutionary-, 2. capitulation to the bourgeoisie-they will not allow wages to get below subsistence. if the proles die, who will work for them, other capitalists? thus, if wages never drop below subsistence, which they wont, you will be supporting the bourgeoisie forever-.

now i wish to ask you this: what marx have you read? im guessing the manifesto, and most likely at least the first volume of Capital. what about louis bonapart? or the civil war in france? any thing by engels? origin of the family maybe? do you even understand dialectics?

im guessing the answer is no, in fact you seem to be idealist, as you hold this idea of evolution as something disembodied, like hegel's absolute idea, which is slowly progressing through history of its own accord, that we can only influence, not actually control.
if not, then why do you not support revolution at any possible moment?
but actually throw it away to some far off future when capitalism will ceate its own destruction, as opposed to creating the means of its destruction!


the term marxian applies only to ideas, that is, what were marx's exact ideas, as opposed to the logical-or not so as the case may be- extensions of those ideas, for instance, imperialism.

i sujest you read lenin's what is to be done, the satate and revolution, the proletarian revolution and the renegade kautsky and finaly, marx's civil war in france and the peasant question in france and germany by engels.

then come back and put forth your social-darwinist reactionary ideas then!


no, not at all. those who claim to be marxist generaly claim to adhear to a MATERIALIST dialectic, not an idealist one, like all of the young hegelians, even marx's early stuff.

a communist state? that is grammaticaly incorrect. a socialist state? socialism is the intermediate stage, the 'lower stage of commuism' in which bourgeois right, elements of the bourgeois state and bourgeois property still exist at one level or another. to deny this is to deny marx's dialectic, the historical, materialist, dialectic. which is exactly what you do!

Oh yes, you mean in reference to Karl's post. Yes I agree with that. I don't support making people suffer more under a system, just so thjey can turn around, support us and ask us to help. It's cruel to begin with.

No, it's fine I guessed it since my opinion was pretty much the same.