Quote from: Scarlett86 on February 17, 2011, 01:01:48 AM
I think Leninism relates more to what you speak of after that. Left-Marxism, which was the predominate Marxist camp prior to Lenin, would argue for egalitarian workers councils and the dialectic between servant and master would be done away with - therefore, nobody "replaces" them. This DID happen under Lenin, with the bourgeoisie being replaced by a beaurocratic class. The key is doing away with the master/servant dialectic altogether.
Yes, but I will argue that a class structured society is innate to humans. It is innate because of our tendency to live within mulitskilled, specialist communities. I will further argue that, even prior to the establishment of the settled community, when humans lived in their feral state, there was specialisation and therefore class. This was based upon certain individuals, excelling in some tasks, therefore taking a lead role.
The Paris Commune is an intresting annalogy, but if I may, I will cite, what I suggest is, a similar example. Great Britain during WW2. During this time there was a remarkable and often nostalgic period of social unity. But that unity was characterised by a common threat and a unifying emotion of patriotism. The rudimets of communial property existed. Food was distributed according to some sembalance of need. Living space was frequently shared.
Now the reason I suggest this is equivalent to the Paris Commune is that both existed because of the common threat. They succeeded while the common threat existed. They produced a remarkable period of social unity, albeit, very different in character.
Granted, the Paris Commune was destroyed by invading, reactionary forces, though that was inevitable. The fabled infighting between the anarchists and the socialist was inevitable as the deminse of the Commune became apparent.
But more importantly, these periods of social cohesion were a consequence of common threat. Humans, by their nature, are divided, by aspiration and character. Mao saw this and proposed prepetual revolution which led to the chaos of the Cultural Revolution. He believed that human behavior could be reconstructed, based upon a morally aware, intellectually strong elite. With revolution being perpetual, the elite could b replaced as more capable elite emerged. The continual change would prevent the emergence of powerful sections within society, so elimating class.
I have to take some issue with your assessment of Lenin. He was a Marxist socialist, but his revolution was percieved to have failed because he thought that society could be rebuilt from the point of industrialisation. Mao, in the late 40s, at least, believed that society could be rebuilt from the point of agriculture. Pol Pot, believed that society needed to be rebuilt from the point of civilisation itself.
It was only Mao that had an opportuity to attempt reconstrution of human behaviour. That failed, because of his assumption that morality is innate in humans.
Now I have to say that my personal feeling is that morality is innate, though I have little real evidence for this. But morality is not an intellectual concept, it is emotional, based upon empathy. Empathy is almost absent is some people, and in the majority where it is present, it is fluid. The empathy that the British people felt toward their fellows, during WW2 was not extended to those they believed to be their enemy. The empathy that most Transgender people may feel toward their fellows, is difficult to extend to those that don't have empathy toward us.
Marxism, as it is commonly precieved, fails because it hasn't taken full account of the fluid nature of empathy.
However, I will also suggest that Marx is widely misunderstood, by Marxists and their detractors alike. Marx's more important contribution was his realisation that human society is in a continual state of evolution. Indeed, I've noticed that historians, of almost every perspective, seem to take this notion for granted. It should be said though, that some historians claim not beable to see, nor understand this concept at all.
I suggest that the objective of this societial evoluition is the quest for individualism. A point were, each individual can live according to their own personal morality and self expression.
Humans began in a feral state. This developed, over several million years into a culture that moved according to natural needs. This is the feral nature. This culture was divided between male and female. This occured because of the differing abilities and needs of the two sexes. Males can hunt and defend. But only females can make babies.
Observations of existing feral communities suggest that females tended to gather plants. Indeed, in most, it is only females that do this. From this, I suggest, came the first major intellectual step forward in human society, when females began to cultivate plants. From this began agriculture. Simultainously, males began to capture herds of prey animals to avoid the rigors of the hunt.
From this began settled communities. The second major intellectual step.
Settled communities attracted immigration. Feral communities, seeking to join. From this, developed a social hierarchy. Marx described this point.
The first settled communities seem to have emerged about 40,000 years ago. Being hierarchial, the elite dictated the culture to their own advantage. The entire history of humanity, from that point, is of individual humans struggling for self expression.
The emergence of various cults, which has occured repeatedly, over the period, have sought to impose upon the society, the aspirations of some individuals, upon others. The struggle for supremacy. This has led to a continual shifting of ruling classes, aristocricy. The ordinary people are tools to be commanded by the changing aristocricy.
There appears to be evidence of a general social desire to establish individual self expression since ancient times. But one of the earliest, in the context of my own society, (and yours), was the Peasant's Revolt. Here, the mass of the people demanded a society based upon a single social class, under the rule of a king. It failed, of course. But this was the third intellectual step. The rejection of aristocriticism.
Aristocricism was defeated in 1918. It remains as a remant in all societies. But the unquestioned submission of ordinary people, to the innate superiority of an aristocratic class has gone. Respect for these remants is necessary resepct for authority. The position of the aristocracy is mutually agreed to be by consent, rather than right.
The fourth intellectual step is individualism. It began in the demand and expectation, of ordinary people, to participate in social management. The attitude that, no class has an innate right to manage others. This has been called democracy.
But it has expanded. Social management is developing into a vision of necessity. Individuals are expecting the freedom to express themselves according to their own choices, rather than the values of their social managers. Social management is tolerated where it can been generally acknowleged as necessary for the function of society. Individual aspiration and ambition is paramount.
The problems that exist now are the struggle to adapt society management to curtail the ambitions of those that seek to impose their own vision. In so doing, destroy individualism.
While aristocratism survived, it relied upon appointed administrators. In the two most intellectually advanced human societies, Europe and SE Asia, this developed into two competing influences. These influences differed in the manner in which they proposed to deal with emerging problems and issues.
In Europe these were recognised as conservative and progressive. The conservatives sought to maintain established principals, but more importantly, to confront issues with reference to ther preception of the past. The progressives sought to seek out and pursue progress and to confront issues by seeking adaptation and compromise.
In SE Asia, the two competing forces were recognised as the preception of ordinary people as being essentially good, or essentially bad. The former believed in strong government, to punish the wayward, while the latter believed the wayward should be left to their own devices, so they will learn for themselves the eror of their ways and imporve their own lot.
With the demise of aristocratism, these two forces remain and have developed into competing forces seeking to undermine individualism. We can term the first as nazism. They seek to establish a ruling elite, based upon consensus. They are essentially related to the old progressives. The second we can term fascism. They seek to establish a culture based upon their preceptions of the idealism of theri historical culture.
The struggle of ordinary people for individualism isn't over. But our principal foes now are these two remanants. The principal fascist forces are currently seeking their interpertations of religion to enforce their will. The Islamists, the Christian Fundimentalists are the two most influential. But in Africa, there are major problems from groups seeking to re-establish their claims of a traditional African culture. Each of these make specious claims about traditional practices and seek to eliminate aspirations that go against them. It also regards those that it doesn't accept or recognise as being legitmate for conversion or elimination.
Nazism has developed into a seemingly progressive movement which actively promotes a reconstruction of society. But again, based upon a hierarchy. It too is intolerate of individualism. Though its justification of repression is the vaguries of the decions of the ruling elite. It also seeks to eliminate its precieved opponents. Though lacking the claims of traditional morality, it teds to be more vicious.
Examples of this are Marxism, Zionism, but also some other rather more incidious movements such as contemporary feminism.
