Welcome to Gaia! ::

Hey, did I ever say Labor were any good? Nooo. It's all same-same. (See, this is why the Australian parliament is useless. xD) I could go on all day about the flaws of the structures of the major parties... INCLUDING Rudd symbolically moving the Labor party even closer to the Libs' leader-centric style by picking his cabinet.

ANYWAY. Both of them are enemies of the working class, despite Labor's ties to unions... because Labor hasn't really decided to fix the damage done to industrial relations (let alone trying to improve it). So yeah, I'm not saying they're any better. xD

One thing that really shows what the Labor Parties are is the fact that all of them oppose privatisation.

Last week on stateline (of course, the NSW one), there was a story about the NSWALP privatising gaols.

The screws union was complaining about it and all other s**t.

But the thing is this: Hw did the party leadership get out of the 'non-privatisation' clause?

wonderful legalistic interpretation saying they were not privatising it at all, but outsourcing the labour (the buildings and such were still state-owned).

Yeah. Legalistic wriggling is how they get out of this. Not having a vote among the membership over whether to change the clause...

I think we can do both- I have a habit of doing that, taking two ideas and melding them.

We can have a revolution, but without violence. My plan for this hinges on quick action, but involves no deaths. We start by gathering comrades (not in one area, I mean, we inform the masses and get the majority of the public to join us.) Then, when we have enough of the population, we stop accepting currency and we simply keep doing our jobs. This way, all of the production gets done, and everything keeps running. The capitlaists will make no profit, and will then realize that their money holds no value- They will no longer have control over the workers and will fall down to equals. They will then either join us in labor, or starve in their pride.

This plan works by eliminating the means of control- Our need for money. If enough workers continue to work without money to guide them and validate them, we will throw the entire economic system off balance until it collapses and force a post-currency labor system of Communism and equality.

We are not some ******** anarchists. Our understanding (and I am talking of a very limited group here, at most; me, maybe Rob and Kot and in some parts Tank) is that One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz, that 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.'

n the last paragraph of the preface to the First English edition of Capital, Engels says this:
Surely, at such a moment, the voice ought to be heard of a man whose whole theory is the result of a life-long study of the economic history and condition of England, and whom that study has led to the conclusion that, at least in Europe, England is the only country where the inevitable social revolution might be effected entirely by peaceful and legal means. He certainly never forgot to add that he hardly expected the English ruling classes to submit, without a "pro-slavery rebellion," to this peaceful and legal revolution.

Now these are important points to make, aside from your rather odd position on money which I find rather anarchist, in that it attempts to do away with a major part of social life in one act.

What do the above quotes mean, though?

The first is saying that we cannot just attempt to take control of the ready made organs of power: The councils and parliaments and executive branches of the bourgeois state.
The proletariat needs its own that correspond to its class position and interests.

The second quote is saying that in the extremely limited context[pre-imperialist England] in which Marx thought the proletariat could do that, he recognised that the ruling classes would not accept that and would rebel from the lawful authority.

This here is the key:
The seizure of power will most likely be rather pleasant, as that on a cold night in October was. The violence will come after when the bourgeoisie refuse to accept the rule of the proletariat and fight against the workers' state.

Then we will have to bring out the Red Guards and the ******** guillotine!

A nice read on this subject is Lenin's State and Revolution.

See, I asked you to check out Lenin's State and Revolution. I provided a link. You have plainly not looked.

And now I have to try and explain...
Why do people make me do this? I suck at ******** hell.


And you are clearly missing the value money has as an accounting tool in the early stages after the revolution when things have not gotten so great as to enable the complete dismissal of currency:

"What we have to deal with here [in analyzing the programme of the workers' party] is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

What you are asking for is not just a decisive break with capitalism, but the complete doing away with all the differences between capitalism and communism in one night.

What you are asking for, at first sight, appears similar to the following:
The means of production are no longer the private property of individuals. The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labor which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it.
Except this certificate is nothing other than money!

You say there will be a surplus that will mean we don't need to use money.
This is true, but not immediately after the revolution.

Why? If only for the fact that we will have the current means of production to work with.

Say the conditions were ripe for the working class to sieze power in the US in 6 months... How would you ensure this super-abundance?
The US has been deindustrialised and what little industry is left will be dedicated to expanding it.
There will not be super-abundance, but a shortage!

This scenario assumes neither the American bourgeoisie nor any foreign powers try to destroy the workers power.

But what if they do? You would have to fight, and that would mean that not only is your industry dedicated to building industry, and not serving the interests of the consumer but that it is not even yet serving industry, but is serving the war!

Renewal of what little industry there is will have to wait because guns are WAY more urgent.

So we see here that there is no chance to get rid of money straight away.

You're really missing the point comrade. The workers do not own the ability to create enough abundance before the revolution occurs. Even if the workers did just stop accepting wages and continued to work the factories there would be no abundance for the simple fact that their just isn't enough industry. Not only would it not put the industry in the hands of the working class but it would also reduce them to slavery! You must look at the past comrade in order to gain some idea of the future. Never has an economic system been simply "dropped" and it will not be simply "dropped" in the future.

Louis, you are right. Everytime there is an emergence of a Revolutionary government, other governments that held ties with it become Reactionary, and vise versa. It's a constant struggle.

I agree with Seraph when she says that we can drop currency altogether. Why would we NEED something so...Slow as money? If everyone works and s**t is made, then we don't really need money. Maybe something like an identification card to tell if someone is abusing the system, but I think that money really gets in the way. If we are all equal in status, then what happens to the man who hoards his money his entire life then gobbles up everything he can reach when he's 60?

My views:

Violence in the revolution= non violance would be favored, but sometimes violent conflict is the only way.

we get to communism if the movement is big enough, have a real revolution for it. untill then we must take it slow. not everyone can see what we see comrads.

What part will the party play in the preparation for the revolution?
how we will modify the current system to make it better (what and why we are fighting the revolution) and more productive for everyone to be equaly employed, housed, and given the basics of necessitys. all of this should be done by the government for the most part. Im not the traditional communist, where everything is controled by the government, but at least they provide everybody with what they need, and if they wish, the individual person could modify what they have.



What part will the party play in the revolution?
Centralizing our ideals and fighting for our convictions, but if you require more from me then keep reading.... CEO's of companys would be exacuted with all the wealth spread equily to all his lesser employee's. Building modern, adiquite housing to get homeless off the streets. And i could go on and on but i dont mean to bore you all.

Gun control= im in favor of the right to bare arms.

Nuclear weapons= should be desposed of entirely by all nations that have wasted there time and money on building there own destruction.

Tibet= ah, no comment.

Class struggle= when we can find a way where everyone can be satisfyed for the most part, class struggle will always continue between rich and poor. employer and employee.