Left-Wing Revolution and the Middle Class

[G. Adams]

Quote by: arielmessenger because it was based originally on religious commitment, e.g., Acts 3:44,45 "Now all who believed were together, and had all things in common, and sold their possessions and goods, and divided them among all, as anyone had need." Marx took this as the basis for his "From each according their ability, to each according to their need." but Marx ruined the socialist ethic by divorcing it from religious commitment and tying it to militant commitment. You just cannot force people to share without building up resentments in non-religious committed folks. Guns only work to keep a militant socialist system working until people just get too fed up with the lack of freedom militant socialism entails. I am a social change activist who's social philosophy is "Communitarian" as opposed to Socialist. While both are economic/political programs based on shared material resources, Communitarianism is a free choice for those who do link spiritual values with sharing material goods and services but there is no hierarchy of government to enforce that material sharing. It's a voluntary commitment and therefore much stronger as one can see in the continuing success of communitarian socialist societies like the Mennonites and Amish whose commitment to sharing is based on religious belief. Meanwhile, the militant socialists failed to win the hearts and minds of their constituents over the long term because you cannot force the sharing ethic without religious commitment.

That's not Marxism at all. Marx's argument is a scientific and historical one. He argued that the shape of society was based around the organisation of the means of production. During the feudal epoch each person worked the land of a lord/baron/appropriate title, who had it for giving fealty and service to a king. This was the most efficient method available with the technology available. As technology improved and cities grew, the capitalist epoch was born. Here individuals owned their own property and made money from them, this being the most efficient method of production at the time. In the transitory period between capitalism and socialism, capitalism drive for profit through the means of production created large factories. It was Marx's supposition that capitalism would become unable to meet the needs of this new society of a large, condensed working class and that the strife it caused would bring an upheaval, and the workers would form a more efficient system of production, socialism.

Marx wasn't advocating violent rebellion, he said violent rebellion was historically inevitable. That's a hefty difference. He didn't say we would have socialist communities through force, but because they would be neccesary.

He was wrong of course, didn't forsee the rise of the middle class and technologies ability to replace the manual laborer to a large extent. That's why he failed, because we didn't all become one big working class with a tiny elite. We still have a multi layered society as we have always done and always will.

[Gods_Mercenary]

He also assumed that the working class was self aware and well defined, which it's not, it even tends to be somewhat more conservative.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary He also assumed that the working class was self aware and well defined, which it's not, it even tends to be somewhat more conservative.

Well he assumed that the working class would become self aware, which it won't, rather than them already being so. I agree with you about the working class being conservative. The working class historically goes with stability unless riled up by a middle class, be it the preachers, the lawyers, the students, businessmen or academics.

[arielmessenger]

He relied on bullying tactics at meetings to get his way and his communist ideology of the "ends justifying the means" forever paved the way for power politics to rule any Communist revolution. He never understood that it does take a religious commitment to establish an egalitarian society. You can't force sharing.

Ironically, the very communist societies Marx condemned as "unscientific" and "utopian" are the ones that have lasted and prospered while his militant socialism has utterly failed.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: arielmessenger He relied on bullying tactics at meetings to get his way and his communist ideology of the "ends justifying the means" forever paved the way for power politics to rule any Communist revolution. He never understood that it does take a religious commitment to establish an egalitarian society. You can't force sharing. Ironically, the very communist societies Marx condemned as "unscientific" and "utopian" are the ones that have lasted and prospered while his militant socialism has utterly failed.

Oh he certainly was a bully, and a lazy layabout living off Engels hospitality. However this is not what he advocates for communism, rather that a situation demanding force would occur.

Religion could only work to produce a truely egalitarian society when it uses force. Not neccesarily force of arms, but mental indoctrination. Egalitarianism, unless temporary or simply coincidental, is not possible without limiting freedom.

[leftcider]

Quote by: Gods_Mercenary He also assumed that the working class was self aware and well defined, which it's not, it even tends to be somewhat more conservative.

This varies on which income brackets you choose to define as working class, but in the US the lowest income bracket tend to go for the more left wing party (Democrats). In the 2004 elections, the lowest income bracket broke most in Kerry's favor (63%), with Kerry's declining as income increased and equalizing at the 50k/yr income bracket. Bush won every income bracket above that:
CNN.com Election 2004

This seems to counter the common stereotype of the "limousine liberal" for the left-leaning voter, although of course the leadership of the Democratic Party is still quite wealthy. I'd be curious to see the statistics on more left wing parties (greens, socialists, etc.) and where their [small] base of support lies.

Of course, these statistics are without race factored into them. Blacks, and to a lesser extent, Hispanics, break strongly to the Democrats, and are on average lower income, so that may skew the statistics.

[leftcider]

Quote by: G. Adams Not neccesarily force of arms, but mental indoctrination. Egalitarianism, unless temporary or simply coincidental, is not possible without limiting freedom.

Where would you draw the line between "indoctrination" and people simply choosing Communitarian values? Some people don't value a "freedom" in regards to property accumulation, and would rather live in an egalitarian fashion without it. If that's the way they want to live, that's fine by me, and I don't see it as necessarily being a case of indoctrination.

There have been many cases of voluntary, egalitarian communities of the non-religious variety such as Israeli Kibbutzes (now state-supported), anarchist squats, etc.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: leftcider Where would you draw the line between "indoctrination" and people simply choosing Communitarian values? Some people don't value a "freedom" in regards to property accumulation, and would rather live in an egalitarian fashion without it. If that's the way they want to live, that's fine by me, and I don't see it as necessarily being a case of indoctrination. There have been many cases of voluntary, egalitarian communities of the non-religious variety such as Israeli Kibbutzes (now state-supported), anarchist squats, etc.

This was in regards to a religious egalitarian society. I don't see how it could remain stable and egalitarian, once a second generation is raised, without having those children thoroughly indoctrinated.

When I said egalitarian I did say "truely" egalitarian. The kibbutzes had seniors in the leadership role, and as someone once even "eventually all the communes had leaders". A leadership role is natural as people have different talents and attributes, it is inevitable some will rise to a respected position that is, perhaps not in name but in role, a leader.

Hell, look amongst your own circle of friends. If it is a regular group there will be someone, or perhaps 2 or three if it's a big group, that generally take a lead amongst the group. These are the ones that organise the group and act as lynch pins. You can see it in the unconscious behaviour of people. When the group is walking down the street and a leader, without saying where they are going, turns to cross, everyone follows.

[arielmessenger]

"Religion could only work to produce a truely egalitarian society when it uses force. Not neccesarily force of arms, but mental indoctrination. Egalitarianism, unless temporary or simply coincidental, is not possible without limiting freedom."

"Mental indoctrination" seems to be your very loaded term for what is usually described as socially acceptable behavior, good citizenship, obeying the rules of society, etc.

Religious communitarian societies do not use force but they do use "mental indoctrination" just like all societies do. The difference is religious commitment without which people are prone to social statistics, i.e., the bell curve where at the ends you get either rigid conformity or anti-social behavior. Religious beliefs strongly instilled throughout the religious society circumvents this type of behavior distribution.

Does religious behavior contradict individual freedom? Oh, yes, but when it's all done on a strictly voluntary basis, i.e., no one's compelled to join a religious society, where's the lack of freedom? You don't like it-you quit or are booted out.

When I was active in the communal movement in the early '70's, we were in contact with Israeli kibbutzim and often cited their methods of egalitarian communitarianism but even then there were growing signs that the 2nd and 3rd generations of kibbutz children were leaving the egalitarian kibbutzim for life in the "real" world of general Israeli society. Our counterculture generation saw the same phenomena, e.g., both my kids were raised in their formative years in communal living situations but both rejected that lifestyle and now are part of the American middle class. Again, religious commitment is stronger and that's why Amish and Mennonites do not lose very many children to regular society. Israeli kibbutzim had a lot of atheists just as Israeli Jewish society does. Can't force the ethic of sharing without religious commitment.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: arielmessenger Does religious behavior contradict individual freedom? Oh, yes, but when it's all done on a strictly voluntary basis, i.e., no one's compelled to join a religious society, where's the lack of freedom? You don't like it-you quit or are booted out.

This is the point I'm making. When it's imposed upon children strongly, it is indoctrination. And in order to get the best chances that they remain within the community once they mature requires such strong indoctrination. I don't object to someone teaching the myths of their religion to their children, and going through the rituals and so forth. That's not force, that's an open introduction and education. But when the "fire and brimstone" element aspect is introduced to the child, which exists only to scare them into belief, then it becomes force.

Moreover, you point out that the children left by their own volition. So the commune movement isn't succeeding in it's original purpose of paving way for a new kind of world. Rather, your seems to be a communal retreat. That is highly admirable, I'd consider moving to such an establishment of my own faith. But it's not the stable, long term commune that much of the movement aimed for.