My problems with the practical aspects of marxism.

[Post-Something]

In this thread I'd like to lay out why I have decided to abandon traditional methods of revolution and socialist organisation. I'd appreciate it if members from both sides (OI and the rest of the board) would comment and help me answer these questions which I feel are some of the most important in terms of contemporary socialist thought.

To me, one of the greatest moments in history was the Paris commune. Marx described it as "self government of the producers". It was the inspiration of a lot of the European factory council movements, and I think that's about as good as it got for socialism. Russia started of in this trend as well. It was fantastic. From 1917-1918, it was an incredible experiment of participatory democracy with a pretty much illiterate population. Soviets flurished in great cities, different parties viewpoints were represented, and different issues were debated on with intensity and passion. the soviets were exemplary in the way that they put local interests in first place, but were more than capable of running large cities such as Petrograd. To the average worker this must have looked like the dawn of a new era.

When Lenin wrote "The state and revolution", it was basically just praise for the Paris commune. It talked of things like the democratisation of the army, judiciary, the election of delegates and the abolition of high offices of the state. A radical simplification of the states functions.

But this piece puzzles me. Why didn't Lenin mention anything about the revolutionary party? Was it a piece of propaganda? Was it just unfinished? I don't know, but it's quite certain that Lenin did not put democracy at the forefront of his thought.

Anyway, all the glory of 1917-1918 was destroyed when civil war broke out. Marxists explain that central command is needed here, and isolation of the soviet union promted the shift to an ever more centralised and authoritarian political system.

However, the Marxist explanation is by no means sufficient. Because next to the material conditions and circumstances, there was a more powerful ideological force. Democracy was never a central pillar of socialist revolution, it was just an optional extra. The adoption of which could be postponed in the name of war, and then endlessly after 1921.

Behind all of this is Marx' other interesting model. The dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin argued that the two models were pretty much the same, and that it was essentially the commune model. But this line of thought is flawed, because it completely ignored the ever greater role of the communist party itself - an organised and authoritarian presence which was absent in the experience of the commune.

Rosa Luxemburg seemed to have forseen where this would all end up. the Dictatorship of the party would take place of the proletariat, and the central committee would take place of the party.

Anyway, in terms of organisation, there seems to be three major flaws:

1. Power was based on an istitutional pyramid. Voters would usually just vote at the local level.

2. A stupid weigting of votes which was incompatable with democratic principles. The soviets were organised on a basis of one delegate for every 25000 inhabitants of urban centres, but one for every 125000 peasants. This was obviously done to make sure the proletarian vote was not swept away, but this system can't claim any superiority to western democratic systems.

3. Class enemies were exluded from the vote, though it was far from clear who was to identify these people and on what basis.

So what happened? Well, the solution ended up being authoritarian single party states ruled by oligarchs in the name of the masses. The exact opposite of the Paris commune.

On the other hand, the trajectory of liberal democracy has always been upwards. It has managed to guarantee greater civil and political rights to both men and women than any other political system, and also moved onto things like the welfare state. If socialism wants to stand a real chance, it has to be able to offer something superior to this, because workers now have more to lose than their chains.

Any thoughts? The most interesting ideas I've heard were from libertarian communists and post-marxists, but I'm very much interested to see what everyone here has to say.

[danyboy27]

Personally, i love social democracy, of course the problem if the main problem if that is the interferences capitalist buisness are doing with the state, but i guess nothing perfect.

i think that there is not a single system appliable everywhere, the world is too complex for that.

[BobKKKindle$]

This was obviously done to make sure the proletarian vote was not swept away, but this system can't claim any superiority to western democratic systems.This comments reveals a false notion - the idea that there is an absolute and ahistorical criterion by which we can judge different political systems in order to determine how democratic they are, and that the level of democracy determines the value of each political system. Your perspective is closely linked to one of the main mistakes that Kautsky made shortly after the Bolsheviks had seized power in 1917 in the way he responded to this event - Kautsky criticized the Bolsheviks for dismissing the Constituent Assembly, and cited this as evidence that the Bolsheviks were opposed to democracy, and that the system they had created was simply another form of dictatorship. Lenin responded to this allegation (in 'Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky') by pointing out that whenever anyone praises democracy in the abstract, or supports democracy under capitalism, we should always demand - democracy for what class? The point that Lenin was trying to make here is that all political systems, regardless of how they present themselves, are always based on the interests of the ruling class, and so the idea that a political system can ever be genuinely democratic in the sense of giving equal weight to the interests of every group within society without allowing inequalities of wealth and power to influence the political process is totally naive. The Russian Revolution was part of a process whereby the proletariat overthrew the bourgeoisie and established its own form of class rule, rooted in the workplaces, and based on collectivized ownership of the means of production. Lenin was always very clear on the fact that the post-October government was a class dictatorship, directed against the exploiters and the imperialists, and this is why the proletariat was given greater numerical weight in the Soviet elections, and the remnants of the exploiting class were deprived of the right to be part of the political process. Marxists don't call for proletarian revolution because we want to establish universal democracy - we do so because the proletariat comprises the overwhelming majority of humanity, and the bourgeoisie won't ever be willing to hand over its power and control of the economy voluntarily.


So what happened? Well, the solution ended up being authoritarian single party states ruled by oligarchs in the name of the masses.You make it seem as if this was a direct consequence of policies adopted by the Bolsheviks, and you also seem to be assuming that the revolution was a bureaucratic and undemocratic disaster right from the beginning - this is the "continuity thesis" advocated by both anarchists and bourgeois historians. In reality, the degeneration of the revolution was a product of material conditions - the Civil War of 1918-1921 meant that the proletariat was almost destroyed as a class within Russian society, as large numbers of workers, especially the most militant and class-conscious, were either killed at the front, or forced to return to their peasant villages due to intense food shortages. In this context, it was clearly impossible for the Soviets to function as effective forms of government, given that the class which had originally created and governed through the Soviets - the proletariat - had almost been destroyed. It was this, combined with the need to hire the technicians and managers who had previously served under the Tsarist regime and still sought to regain their privileged positions, that eventually lead to Soviet democracy being destroyed.

[Post-Something]

Personally, i love social democracy, of course the problem if the main problem if that is the interferences capitalist buisness are doing with the state, but i guess nothing perfect.

i think that there is not a single system appliable everywhere, the world is too complex for that.


Social democracy, for me, is the other side of the spectrum which doesn't work.

Although it seems like the obvious option, it's actually even worse. Socialism has never been realised through these kind of reforms, and what we're actually seeing is social democratic parties becomming institutionalised and less effective. As a socialist, I would say it's pretty much an outdated theory. Not once has social democracy actually achieved socialism, and in the past thirty years, it's become more and more marginalised in global politics. I really think we need something new.

So far what we've achieved from the social democrats is a praiseworthy dedication to democracy, but a sub par attmep at fighting capitalism, which is the real enemy.

And from the readical left, we've only achieved socialism without democracy, which is tyranny.

I'm looking for something which would combine the two, because I don't see them as two mutually exclusive theories.

[BobKKKindle$]

So far what we've achieved from the social democrats is a praiseworthy dedication to democracy, but a sub par attmep at fighting capitalism, which is the real enemy.In what sense have social-democrats exhibited "praiseworthy dedication" to democracy? The adherents of this ideology have historically had a major role in suppressing genuine socialist movements directed against the capitalist system and the bourgeois state - the bloody destruction of the German Revolution (including the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and her fellow members of the Spartakusbund by the Freikorps militia) in 1919 at the hands of the SPD backed by the German bourgeoisie is the most obvious example of this. In addition, social-democrat parties have also played a major role in protecting the ability of the national bourgeoisie to exploit the global periphery, by supporting the overthrow of progressive governments and backing military dictatorships - consider the support given by Harold Wilson, members of the Labour Party and British Prime Minister in the late 1960s, to the American occupation of Vietnam. These parties have consistently betrayed the working class and enforced the interests of capital - they are in no way democratic or supportive of democracy.

By the way, I don't see myself posting much in this thread, because the immature and ignorant OIers will disrupt any intelligent discussion soon enough. TomK will come along with some condescending and inane nonsense, mark my words.

[Post-Something]

This comments reveals a false notion - the idea that there is an absolute and ahistorical criterion by which we can judge different political systems in order to determine how democratic they are, and that the level of democracy determines the value of each political system. Your perspective is closely linked to one of the main mistakes that Kautsky made shortly after the Bolsheviks had seized power in 1917 in the way he responded to this event - Kautsky criticized the Bolsheviks for dismissing the Constituent Assembly, and cited this as evidence that the Bolsheviks were opposed to democracy, and that the system they had created was simply another form of dictatorship. Lenin responded to this allegation (in 'Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky') by pointing out that whenever anyone praises democracy in the abstract, or supports democracy under capitalism, we should always demand - democracy for what class? The point that Lenin was trying to make here is that all political systems, regardless of how they present themselves, are always based on the interests of the ruling class, and so the idea that a political system can ever be genuinely democratic in the sense of giving equal weight to the interests of every group within society without allowing inequalities of wealth and power to influence the political process is totally naive. The Russian Revolution was part of a process whereby the proletariat overthrew the bourgeoisie and established its own form of class rule, rooted in the workplaces, and based on collectivized ownership of the means of production. Lenin was always very clear on the fact that the post-October government was a class dictatorship, directed against the exploiters and the imperialists, and this is why the proletariat was given greater numerical weight in the Soviet elections, and the remnants of the exploiting class were deprived of the right to be part of the political process. Marxists don't call for proletarian revolution because we want to establish universal democracy - we do so because the proletariat comprises the overwhelming majority of humanity, and the bourgeoisie won't ever be willing to hand over its power and control of the economy voluntarily.

This is all good and well, but it's really not as clear cut as that. For example, in Finland, a party that wants to run a campaign must be publically funded, and state exactly where they are getting their money. By imposing monetary limitations, you reduce elections down to the core ideas being discussed. I'm not arguing that there is an objective way to compare two systems, that would be idealistic, but the ability of workers to change their lives and influence the state is greater, albeit being capitalist.


You make it seem as if this was a direct consequence of policies adopted by the Bolsheviks, and you also seem to be assuming that the revolution was a bureaucratic and undemocratic disaster right from the beginning - this is the "continuity thesis" advocated by both anarchists and bourgeois historians. In reality, the degeneration of the revolution was a product of material conditions - the Civil War of 1918-1921 meant that the proletariat was almost destroyed as a class within Russian society, as large numbers of workers, especially the most militant and class-conscious, were either killed at the front, or forced to return to their peasant villages due to intense food shortages. In this context, it was clearly impossible for the Soviets to function as effective forms of government, given that the class which had originally created and governed through the Soviets - the proletariat - had almost been destroyed. It was this, combined with the need to hire the technicians and managers who had previously served under the Tsarist regime and still sought to regain their privileged positions, that eventually lead to Soviet democracy being destroyed.Again, point taken, but I don't think this is an issue of causality. Regardless of whether it was planned or not, that was the reality, and people have to choose whether they live under an authoritarian regime, or one which they can enjoy political freedoms, despite the ills of capitalism.

If there is a certain way of diverting this, then tell me, but from what I can see, we need a new approach.

[RGacky3]

Personally, i love social democracy, of course the problem if the main problem if that is the interferences capitalist buisness are doing with the state, but i guess nothing perfect.

i think that there is not a single system appliable everywhere, the world is too complex for that.

Look at whats happening to the European economy, over the last decade or so. Social Democracy does'nt work, it maybe have worked before, but now Capitalism is so global, and Capital is so mobil, that Social Democracies are being broken down out of neccesity.

Also Bobkindles is right in his last post, at the time when Social democracy rose up in Europe revolutionary Socialism was a real threat. Social democracy pacified that. I.e. "Look the government is on your side, now don't make a fuss, just ask nicely, don't bother the bosses too much, we'll take care of you."


So far what we've achieved from the social democrats is a praiseworthy dedication to democracy, but a sub par attmep at fighting capitalism, which is the real enemy.

The real Heroes of Social-Democracy are not the Social democrats, its the radical labor unions that forced the state to be more humane.


And from the readical left, we've only achieved socialism without democracy, which is tyranny.


Anarchism. Its been done.


The Russian Revolution was part of a process whereby the proletariat overthrew the bourgeoisie and established its own form of class rule, rooted in the workplaces, and based on collectivized ownership of the means of production. Lenin was always very clear on the fact that the post-October government was a class dictatorship, directed against the exploiters and the imperialists, and this is why the proletariat was given greater numerical weight in the Soviet elections, and the remnants of the exploiting class were deprived of the right to be part of the political process. Marxists don't call for proletarian revolution because we want to establish universal democracy - we do so because the proletariat comprises the overwhelming majority of humanity, and the bourgeoisie won't ever be willing to hand over its power and control of the economy voluntarily.


This is where it gets sticky. You talk about Democracy being abstract, Leninist notions of Class and class rule are even more abstract. The fact that Lenin claimed his government was a class dictatorship means nothing, the fact is, he had very little if any accountability to the people.

Also, if the Capitalist class is deprived of their ... Capital, they are no longer Capitalists. Which means if your talking about class dictatorship and the such your basing class not on their relationship to the means of production, but your politicizing it, your basing it on ideology. Which means you turn class struggle, and class dictatorship into simply suppression of free speach, this was the time when anyone who did'nt support Bolshevik rule was considered a "class enemy," thats not working calss democracy, thats Bolshevik dictatorship.

You can't abstract the notion of "rule" and "class" without totally distorting the actual power reality.

[BobKKKindle$]

or one which they can enjoy political freedoms, despite the ills of capitalism.

This is another common misconception surrounding the Russian Revolution - the idea that Russia would have been able to transform itself into a peaceful bourgeois democracy based on a guaranteed set of political rights and the rule of law if the Bolsheviks had not taken power and established the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1917. In reality, the situation was much more complex. As the Provisional Government began to break down and lose its support base towards the end of 1917, the Bolsheviks were not the only radical force operating in Russia, as fascist gangs supporting the restoration of the monarchy collectively known as the Black Hundreds were also gaining support amongst the bourgeoisie and could have taken power and wiped out all political opposition if the Bolsheviks had not led the proletarian revolution and settled the power struggle in favour of the proletariat. Put simply, liberal democracy and peaceful economic development was simply not an option for Russia in 1917 - the only options were the open and unrestrained dictatorship of either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat.

[Post-Something]

In what sense have social-democrats exhibited "praiseworthy dedication" to democracy? The adherents of this ideology have historically had a major role in suppressing genuine socialist movements directed against the capitalist system and the bourgeois state - the bloody destruction of the German Revolution (including the murder of Rosa Luxemburg and her fellow members of the Spartakusbund by the Freikorps militia) in 1919 at the hands of the SPD backed by the German bourgeoisie is the most obvious example of this. In addition, social-democrat parties have also played a major role in protecting the ability of the national bourgeoisie to exploit the global periphery, by supporting the overthrow of progressive governments and backing military dictatorships - consider the support given by Harold Wilson, members of the Labour Party and British Prime Minister in the late 1960s, to the American occupation of Vietnam. These parties have consistently betrayed the working class and enforced the interests of capital - they are in no way democratic or supportive of democracy.

By the way, I don't see myself posting much in this thread, because the immature and ignorant OIers will disrupt any intelligent discussion soon enough. TomK will come along with some condescending and inane nonsense, mark my words.

I'm talking about the real social democracies which tried to take some of the more obscene capitalist elements out of elections, as I raised earlier. In the founding years of the second international, social democracy was dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism. Then it pursued partial reforms as gradual steps towards socialism and now it settles welfare and full employment.

[Post-Something]

This is another common misconception surrounding the Russian Revolution - the idea that Russia would have been able to transform itself into a peaceful bourgeois democracy based on a guaranteed set of political rights and the rule of law if the Bolsheviks had not taken power and established the dictatorship of the proletariat in 1917. In reality, the situation was much more complex. As the Provisional Government began to break down and lose its support base towards the end of 1917, the Bolsheviks were not the only radical force operating in Russia, as fascist gangs supporting the restoration of the monarchy collectively known as the Black Hundreds were also gaining support amongst the bourgeoisie and could have taken power and wiped out all political opposition if the Bolsheviks had not led the proletarian revolution and settled the power struggle in favour of the proletariat. Put simply, liberal democracy and peaceful economic development was simply not an option for Russia in 1917 - the only options were the open and unrestrained dictatorship of either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat.

I agree with you entirely on this point. There is no contetion here, and I have read Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution in conjunction with Lenin's view and the Mensheviks. Obviously, I think Trotsky was right, I am asking if there was a possibility of an actual socialist system arising without meeting these same problems that the Bolsheviks faced?

[BobKKKindle$]

Leninist notions of Class and class rule are even more abstractFirst of all, Lenin's understanding of class was based on Marx's arguments, and so the idea that there is some kind of class analysis unique to Lenin and not shared by the rest of the Marxist movement is wrong. Secondly, and in connection with this, Marx's class analysis is the exact opposite of abstract, as it is rooted in his materialist understanding of capitalist society and the course of historical development. For Marx, someone's class is defined by their relationship to the means of production. Marx acknowledged that all societies, with the exception of primitive communities existing before the emergence of class antagonisms, are characterized by class struggle, because they contain classes with mutually opposed and irreconcilable interests. However, the exact form of class division in each historical epoch is different, because developments in our ability to shape the world around us and satisfy our needs (otherwise known as the productive forces) lead to changes in the way production is organized, in terms of the way people interact with each other, and changes in the legal status of the working population. In a capitalist society, workers are not the direct property of someone else (as would be the case in a society based on production through slave labour) and workers are not compelled to work for any particular member of the ruling class (as in a feudal society) but can sell their labour power to whomever them like. In fact, workers are compelled to sell their labour power, because they lack access to the means of production - the process of selling labour is the definition of a proletariat, and is a materialist definition, because it is rooted in material reality - what people need to do so survive.


he had very little if any accountability to the peopleLenin was never supposed to serve as the leader of any government, because the dictatorship of the proletariat exercises its power through the collective efforts and struggles of the working class, not through the decisions of a single individual. Lenin was accountable as the leader of the Bolshevik party, and never had the right to make decisions without having the support of the majority of the central committee, despite his role as the party's most important theorist and activist, as shown by the debates surrounding the treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918.


Also, if the Capitalist class is deprived of their ... Capital, they are no longer Capitalists. If the bourgeoisie is deprived of its property, it loses its status as the ruling class, but it continues to exist as a hostile class force. In Russia, the remnants of the bourgeoisie enlisted the support of the imperialist powers and repeatedly attempted to reverse the gains of the social revolution in order to restore their own form of class rule. This is elementary.


when anyone who did'nt support Bolshevik rule was considered a "class enemy," thats not working calss democracy, thats Bolshevik dictatorship.If you knew anything about revolutionary history, you would realize that the Bolsheviks initially intended to govern as part of a coalition involving other socialist parties such as the left-wing of the SRs and even the Mensheviks, but all of these parties later withdrew from coalition government following various events that were seen to violate their aims and what they falsely saw as being in the class interests of the proletariat, such as the decision to sign a peace treaty with Germany. The Bolsheviks did not choose to govern alone, they were forced into that position by the actions of opportunist political leaders.


You can't abstract the notion of "rule" and "class" without totally distorting the actual power reality. You're going to need some more explanation.

[trivas7]

The Russian Revolution was part of a process whereby the proletariat overthrew the bourgeoisie and established its own form of class rule, rooted in the workplaces, and based on collectivized ownership of the means of production.[...]

Historically, this is nonsense. After the revolution the proletariat as a whole never held political power nor was collectivized ownership of the means of production -- by any non-statist standard -- ever implemented.


You make it seem as if this [authoritarian single party state ruled by oligarchs in the name of the masses] was a direct consequence of policies adopted by the Bolsheviks, and you also seem to be assuming that the revolution was a bureaucratic and undemocratic disaster right from the beginning - this is the "continuity thesis" advocated by both anarchists and bourgeois historians. .Indeed, this was exactly the case. After the 2nd All-Russian Congress of Soviets met in Petrograd on the 7th of November approved the revolution, moderate socialists walked out of the gathering. In Moscow Soviet authority was established only after a week of fighting, some military units remaining loyal to the Provisional Government. The first serious challenge to the Bolshevik government occurred in January 1918, when the Constituent Assembly, for which elections had been held in late autumn, finally met. The 707 members who assembled in the capital on January 18 included 370 Socialist Revolutionaries, 40 Left Socialist Revolutionaries who had split from the main party, only 170 Bolsheviks, and 34 Mensheviks, as well as not quite 100 deputies who belonged to minor parties or had no party affiliation. IOW, Socialist Revolutionaries possessed an absolute majority. But whereas previously Lenin had denounced the Provisional Government for failing to summon the Constituent Assembly, now in changed circumstances he had troops disperse the Constituent Assembly on the a.m. of the 19 of January. How do these acts in any way argue for the democratic assumption of power by the Bolsheviks?

[BobKKKindle$]

How do these acts in any way argue for the democratic assumption of power by the Bolsheviks? The decision to abolish the Constituent Assembly did not signify a desire to destroy democracy and establish a party dictatorship over the Russian proletariat, and this is why your entire argument is wrong - you have failed to show that how the facts you present support your normative assumption that the Bolsheviks wanted to establish themselves as a new political elite and prevent the working population from participating in political life. The Constituent Assembly was a bourgeois parliament, and was incapable of exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat because there were no mechanisms in place to ensure that its representatives remained in direct contact with the working class and were held accountable for their decisions. In addition, the Constituent Assembly did not distinguish between class forces, given that it was based on geographical constituency, and not rooted in the workplaces, and this allowed organizations fighting for the (petty-bourgeois) rights and interests of the peasantry such as the SRs to gain a majority and assert their authority over the proletarian organizations, including the Bolsheviks. In this context, by abolishing Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviks were eliminating the remnants of the bourgeois political system and creating the basis for the dictatorship of the proletariat - exercised through proletarian organs of political power, in the form of the Soviets. There are also grounds for assuming that the composition of the Constituent Assembly was not genuinely representative. By your own admission, the body was convened several months after the elections had taken place, but by this point the political balance of forces in Russia had changed decisively, with the parties that had remained loyal to the Provisional Government and supportive of the imperialist war losing support amongst the ranks of the proletariat, and at the same time the Bolsheviks had gained support, as the only party capable of raising a revolutionary program reflecting the needs and aspirations of the oppressed. In addition, when elections took place, there was an absence or severe shortage of polling at the war front, where the Bolsheviks would have been able to gain mass support, and so, once again, the results of the elections were not reflective.

[Source: In Defence of October, John Rees]

It's also incredibly ironic that you, as a supporter of capitalism, should accuse the Bolsheviks of being "oligarchical", given that political power in Russia today (after the restoration of capitalism - or what you see as the glorious triumph of freedom) rests in the hands of a small number of oligarchs (as they are known) who benefited from mass privatization and market reforms during the 1990s. What about democracy and freedom for the Russian working class today, Trivas?

[RGacky3]

Lenin was accountable as the leader of the Bolshevik party, and never had the right to make decisions without having the support of the majority of the central committee, despite his role as the party's most important theorist and activist, as shown by the debates surrounding the treaty of Brest Litovsk in 1918.


The Central Committee =/= The Russian people. Also, because of the very nature of Democratic Centrism, the people who have any power and the ones that fall into party lines.


In Russia, the remnants of the bourgeoisie enlisted the support of the imperialist powers and repeatedly attempted to reverse the gains of the social revolution in order to restore their own form of class rule. This is elementary.


I understand that, and no ones arguing against the Bolsheviks defending themselves in the Russian Civil war. Defending yourself from paramilitary groups of foreign powers is one thing. However, suppressing free speach and dissent in the name of class struggle is another thing. Also Anarchists, workers striking, individual peasents resisting collectivization, and the such are NOT Capitalists trying to restore class rule.


If you knew anything about revolutionary history, you would realize that the Bolsheviks initially intended to govern as part of a coalition involving other socialist parties such as the left-wing of the SRs and even the Mensheviks, but all of these parties later withdrew from coalition government following various events that were seen to violate their aims and what they falsely saw as being in the class interests of the proletariat, such as the decision to sign a peace treaty with Germany. The Bolsheviks did not choose to govern alone, they were forced into that position by the actions of opportunist political leaders.

The Bolsheviks were strong arming Soviets to keep power. Now I'm not nessesarily talking about other political parties. I'm talking about anyone. The red terror is an example of this. As far as other parties withdrawing that is just one event in the begining of the revolution, most of the suppression happened after the initial revolution when the Bolsheviks realized they did'nt have as much support throughout Russia.


You're going to need some more explanation.

Take an example, in the US political nutjobs call thinkgs "Un-American" which is an abstraction and distortion of the word "American" like not going to war is "Un-American" which is really nonsense. THe same thing is when you abstract the notion of "class" like saying workers not supporting the bolsheviks are "class enemies" or workers that strike against the bolshevisk are "class enemies" or soviets that don't support the bolsheviks are "class enemies". You end up distorting the meaninig and politicising it.

Also the notion of Rulership, the notion that the USSR was a "workers state" is an abstraction. The explenation in defense of that was that the Bolshevisk were the working class vanguard and that they ruled with working class interests, which means, it was a "workers state". Thats an abstraction because the workers as a whole did'nt have any actual direct control over the State, they were just expected to trust that the bolsheviks were doing what was best for them.

Obviously Bobkindles you have a lot more historical knowledge about the Russian Revolution and later civil war than I do. I am not saying that the Bolsheviks did'nt have the support during the revolution. What I am saying, is that after the revolution their actions were undemocratic, and repressive, and that simply having initial support does'nt give you a cart blanche to later on consolidate your own power, repress rights and murder people for political reasons.

[trivas7]

It's also incredibly ironic that you, as a supporter of capitalism, should accuse the Bolsheviks of being "oligarchical", given that political power in Russia today (after the restoration of capitalism - or what you see as the glorious triumph of freedom) rests in the hands of a small number of oligarchs (as they are known) who benefited from mass privatization and market reforms during the 1990s. What about democracy and freedom for the Russian working class today, Trivas?
I haven't assumed that the Bolsheviks wanted to establish themselves as a new political elite and prevent the working population from participating in political life.. Nor am I accusing the Bolsheviks of being "oligarchical". I've argued that the Bolsheviks didn't assume power by democratic means. You seem to be arguing that there is some extra-institutional means of legitimitizing political power. Are you seriously arguing that Bolshevik policy resulted in freedom and democracy then?

[BobKKKindle$]

I haven't assumed that the Bolsheviks wanted to establish themselves as a new political elite and prevent the working population from participating in political life.
Then why, in response to my description of the continuity thesis, specifically the allegation that the Bolsheviks were directly responsible for party dictatorship and that this existed from the beginning, in this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1362666&postcount=3) post, did you respond with: "Indeed, this was exactly the case"


I've argued that the Bolsheviks didn't assume power by democratic means. You seem to be arguing that there is some extra-institutional means of legitimitizing political powerIt's obvious from this statement that you see political legitimacy as something that can be obtained only through participating in and respecting the political process of capitalist society, especially standing for election to a bourgeois parliament such as the Constituent Assembly - hence the Bolshevik decision to disregard the results of an outdated and irrelevant bourgeois election and establish a political system based on the class interests of the proletariat is, for you, synonymous with violating political legitimacy, and coming to power by undemocratic means. This is a thoroughly bourgeois and constraining definition because it fails to acknowledge the reality of political power under capitalism (the fact that politics is shaped by class forces, especially the bourgeoisie) and implies that a revolution, regardless of whether it has the backing of the working population, will always be illegitimate, because revolutions always occur outside of, and against, the established political framework. Marxists understand political legitimacy in terms of the interests of the proletariat. For us, political institutions are legitimate insofar as they serve the class interests of the proletariat by allowing the proletariat to exercise its dictatorship over the exploiters and any hostile class forces, and democracy has meaning only insofar as it allows for the participation of the proletariat as a collective body in the administration of production and the application of class dictatorship - we do not recognize the need to extend democracy to the exploiters, nor is there a need to give equal democratic rights to the whole of the working population. This is why the Soviet elections gave precedence to the proletariat instead of allowing the peasantry to gain a majority. In this context, and from a Marxist perspective, the abolition of the Constituent Assembly was both legitimate and democratic because it secured the dictatorship of the proletariat, exercised through the Soviets, and the abolition of bourgeois democracy once and for all.

[trivas7]

Marxists understand political legitimacy in terms of the interests of the proletariat. For us, political institutions are legitimate insofar as they serve the class interests of the proletariat by allowing the proletariat to exercise its dictatorship over the exploiters and any hostile class forces, and democracy has meaning only insofar as it allows for the participation of the proletariat as a collective body in the administration of production and the application of class dictatorship
By this understanding -- aside from the Bolshevik regime -- what political regime was ever legitimate?


In this context, and from a Marxist perspective, the abolition of the Constituent Assembly was both legitimate and democratic because it secured the dictatorship of the proletariat, exercised through the Soviets, and the abolition of bourgeois democracy once and for all.IMO what was secured was nothing like what Marx had in mind (i.e., the Paris Commune). Neither did the abolition of the Constituent Assembly result in any of those things you say it did.

[BobKKKindle$]

By this understanding -- aside from the Bolshevik regime -- what political regime was ever legitimate?You're still viewing legitimacy in abstract, moralistic terms, and this shows that you do not understand the Marxist analysis of the state. Marxists do not support the dictatorship of the proletariat because we think that a state based on workers councils and democratic control of the means of production possesses a special moral identity, in the manner of Rousseau's general assembly, that the bourgeois state lacks. Our analysis of the state is rooted in class struggle, and the prospect of a communist society. For Marxists, the state is a tool - the proletariat uses the state to defend its class rule against the remnants of the ruling class in order to prevent capitalism being restored by violent means, and as soon as the resistance of the exploiters has been eliminated on a world scale there will no longer be a need for the state to exist, given that the state is always a product of class antagonisms, and consequently the state will begin to whither away, with the remaining necessary functions (law and order, for example) being handled by society as a whole. In this respect, we are opposed to the state, even the proletarian state, because the state is always a symptom of class division.


IMO what was secured was nothing like what Marx had in mind (i.e., the Paris Commune). The crucial feature of the proletarian state is that it eliminates the distinction between economic and political power, by extending state control to the means of production, and this feature existed in Russia, as the main organs of state power - the Soviets - were rooted in industrial workplaces. Russia did not exhibit the same material conditions as Paris, and unlike the Paris Commune, the Soviet government was faced with the prospect of managing an entire country in a state of economic collapse and political unrest, instead of just a single city. Given these different conditions, it would be totally naive to expect Marx's predictions of what the dictatorship of the proletariat would look like to manifest themselves exactly and perfectly in Russia, and, given the internal situation, and the external threats the Bolsheviks faced almost as soon as they had taken power, such as the invasion of the imperialist armies, what was achieved within a few years, and the extent to which Soviet democracy was upheld, was remarkable.

[trivas7]

The crucial feature of the proletarian state is that it eliminates the distinction between economic and political power, by extending state control to the means of production, and this feature existed in Russia, as the main organs of state power - the Soviets - were rooted in industrial workplaces.
Russian Soviets never exercised State power.

The Leninist antagonism to the most essential features of socialism was evident from the very start. In revolutionary Russia, Soviets and factory committees developed as instruments of struggle and liberation, with many flaws, but with a rich potential. Lenin and Trotsky, upon assuming power, immediately devoted themselves to destroying the liberatory potential of these instruments, establishing the rule of the Party, in practice its Central Committee and its Maximal Leaders -- exactly as Trotsky had predicted years earlier, as Rosa Luxembourg and other left Marxists warned at the time, and as the anarchists had always understood. Not only the masses, but even the Party must be subject to "vigilant control from above," so Trotsky held as he made the transition from revolutionary intellectual to State priest. Before seizing State power, the Bolshevik leadership adopted much of the rhetoric of people who were engaged in the revolutionary struggle from below, but their true commitments were quite different. This was evident before and became crystal clear as they assumed State power in October 1917.

[...] State priests moved at once to destroy the factory committees and to reduce the Soviets to organs of their rule. On November 3, Lenin announced in a "Draft Decree on Workers' Control" that delegates elected to exercise such control were to be "answerable to the State for the maintenance of the strictest order and discipline and for the protection of property." As the year ended, Lenin noted that "we passed from workers' control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy," which was to "replace, absorb and supersede the machinery of workers' control" (Carr). "The very idea of socialism is embodied in the concept of workers' control," one Menshevik trade unionist lamented; the Bolshevik leadership expressed the same lament in action, by demolishing the very idea of socialism. Soon Lenin was to decree that the leadership must assume "dictatorial powers" over the workers, who must accept "unquestioning submission to a single will" and "in the interests of socialism," must "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process." As Lenin and Trotsky proceeded with the militarization of labour, the transformation of the society into a labour army submitted to their single will, Lenin explained that subordination of the worker to "individual authority" is "the system which more than any other assures the best utilization of human resources" -- or as Robert McNamara expressed the same idea, "vital decision-making...must remain at the top...the real threat to democracy comes not from overmanagement, but from undermanagement"; "if it is not reason that rules man, then man falls short of his potential," and management is nothing other than the rule of reason, which keeps us free. At the same time, 'factionalism' -- i.e., any modicum of free expression and organization -- was destroyed "in the interests of socialism," as the term was redefined for their purposes by Lenin and Trotsky, who proceeded to create the basic proto-fascist structures converted by Stalin into one of the horrors of the modern age.

[BobKKKindle$]

Russian Soviets never exercised State power. The fact that your only response is to quote a page of Chomsky at me is an indication that you can't deal with any of the other points that have been raised and presumably accept that you don't understand the Marxist theory of the state. It's also ironic that you, a supporter of capitalism, should quote from a libertarian socialist (i.e. an anti-capitalist - someone who wants to violate your precious property rights) and leading critic of American imperialism. Going through an article that contains only one academic reference - a quote from Carr - is a waste of my time, but if anyone wants a more contextual and explanatory account of the October Revolution, and in particular the actions of the Bolshevik party, the following are good: In Defence of October by John Rees, The History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky, Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory by Kevin Murphy, Issac Deutscher's Trotsky biographies, and Year One of the Russian Revolution by Victor Serge. Whenever we discuss the Russian Revolution, or any other radical political movement that had a major impact on world history, it should always be remembered that anyone who has no direct experience of revolution, and evaluates events according to a set of abstract criteria based on what they think a revolution should look like, will always be able to find faults in the actions of the Bolsheviks, but approach signifies a total failure to appreciate the conditions in which the Bolsheviks were forced to operate, and the difficulties they had to confront, as the leaders of the first attempt in the history of the modern world to construct a socialist society. There will always be people like Trivas who screech and whine from the sidelines, but the genuine Marxists amongst us will recognize that the Russian Revolution is still, despite its eventual failure, and bourgeois detractors, a source of inspiration for revolutionaries throughout the world, and a proud chapter in the history of the international working class.

[trivas7]

The fact that your only response is to quote a page of Chomsky at me is an indication that you can't deal with any of the other points that have been raised and presumably accept that you don't understand the Marxist theory of the state. It's also ironic that you, a supporter of capitalism, should quote from a libertarian socialist (i.e. an anti-capitalist - someone who wants to violate your precious property rights) and leading critic of American imperialism. Going through an article that contains only one academic reference - a quote from Carr - is a waste of my time, but if anyone wants a more contextual and explanatory account of the October Revolution, and in particular the actions of the Bolshevik party, the following are good: In Defence of October by John Rees, The History of the Russian Revolution by Leon Trotsky, Revolution and Counterrevolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory by Kevin Murphy, Issac Deutscher's Trotsky biographies, and Year One of the Russian Revolution by Victor Serge. Whenever we discuss the Russian Revolution, or any other radical political movement that had a major impact on world history, it should always be remembered that anyone who has no direct experience of revolution, and evaluates events according to a set of abstract criteria based on what they think a revolution should look like, will always be able to find faults in the actions of the Bolsheviks, but approach signifies a total failure to appreciate the conditions in which the Bolsheviks were forced to operate, and the difficulties they had to confront, as the leaders of the first attempt in the history of the modern world to construct a socialist society. There will always be people like Trivas who screech and whine from the sidelines, but the genuine Marxists amongst us will recognize that the Russian Revolution is still, despite its eventual failure, and bourgeois detractors, a source of inspiration for revolutionaries throughout the world, and a proud chapter in the history of the international working class.
My interest here is history, Bob, not Marxist theory of the state. If you think you evaluate the Russian revolution sans "a set of abstract criteria" you are seriously deluded. The fact is that Lenin and the Bolsheviks set up an autocratic state not accountable to the will of the workers in those name revolution was made.

[RGacky3]

The fact that your only response is to quote a page of Chomsky at me is an indication that you can't deal with any of the other points that have been raised and presumably accept that you don't understand the Marxist theory of the state.

Understanding the USSR does NOT require understanding Marxist theory, understanding the nature of it and its effect on the people does'nt require Marxist theory. Theory does'nt change facts.


Whenever we discuss the Russian Revolution, or any other radical political movement that had a major impact on world history, it should always be remembered that anyone who has no direct experience of revolution, and evaluates events according to a set of abstract criteria based on what they think a revolution should look like, will always be able to find faults in the actions of the Bolsheviks, but approach signifies a total failure to appreciate the conditions in which the Bolsheviks were forced to operate, and the difficulties they had to confront, as the leaders of the first attempt in the history of the modern world to construct a socialist society.

It has yet to be explained to me how or why ouside forces or the conditions required and/or justified the Bolsheviks to strong arm Soviets, centralize power in the party, suppress freedom of speach and civil rights and ultimately create and authoritarian state.


Marxists do not support the dictatorship of the proletariat because we think that a state based on workers councils and democratic control of the means of production possesses a special moral identity, in the manner of Rousseau's general assembly, that the bourgeois state lacks. Our analysis of the state is rooted in class struggle, and the prospect of a communist society.

the USSR was NOT based on workers councils and democratic control of the means of production, it was perhaps in name, however real control, over Soviet Policy was in the Communist party, which had a very strict hiarchy.


For Marxists, the state is a tool - the proletariat uses the state to defend its class rule against the remnants of the ruling class in order to prevent capitalism being restored by violent means, and as soon as the resistance of the exploiters has been eliminated on a world scale there will no longer be a need for the state to exist, given that the state is always a product of class antagonisms, and consequently the state will begin to whither away, with the remaining necessary functions (law and order, for example) being handled by society as a whole. In this respect, we are opposed to the state, even the proletarian state, because the state is always a symptom of class division.


Bull, the State was used as a tool of the Bolsheviks to wield power over the people, to solidify their rule. The Bolsheviks used the State to get rid of the old ruling class so they could become the new ruling class. As long as you have a State, your going to have a select few running it, thinking its going to dissipate by itself is utopian at best. The Bolsheviks ran the USSR, and theres no way they would just give up power to be good people.


we do not recognize the need to extend democracy to the exploiters

So your ultimately saying, that having a democracy would mean that the old ruling class would be albe to vote, the "white army" say, and win the election? Even though the ruling class no longer has control over hte means of production?


. This is why the Soviet elections gave precedence to the proletariat instead of allowing the peasantry to gain a majority. In this context, and from a Marxist perspective, the abolition of the Constituent Assembly was both legitimate and democratic because it secured the dictatorship of the proletariat, exercised through the Soviets, and the abolition of bourgeois democracy once and for all.

The Bolsheviks gave precedence to the industrial proletariat because they had more support from them. Ultimately the Bolsheviks used democracy only as a way to legitimise their power they already had or intended on taking.

Stop pretending that somehow Bolshevik leaders are immune to the corruption of power and are synonimous with the "working class".

[Die Neue Zeit]

It talked of things like the democratisation of the army, judiciary, the election of delegates and the abolition of high offices of the state. A radical simplification of the states functions.

But this piece puzzles me. Why didn't Lenin mention anything about the revolutionary party? Was it a piece of propaganda? Was it just unfinished? I don't know, but it's quite certain that Lenin did not put democracy at the forefront of his thought.

Given some of his earlier work emphasizing the party as the merger of revolutionary "socialism" and the worker-class movement, I think what happened here was that Lenin thought the soviets solved the question of power for the "left" strategy of strikes and action, as opposed to the "right" strategy of coalitionism and the "center" strategy emphasizing the party-as-movement. Remember, this was at a time when most of the "center" tendency was folding to the "ultra-right" (even skipping the "center-right" of Bernstein and other evolutionary socialists who were pacifists or "mere puppies," to paraphrase Lenin).


Anyway, all the glory of 1917-1918 was destroyed when civil war broke out. Marxists explain that central command is needed here, and isolation of the soviet union promted the shift to an ever more centralised and authoritarian political system.

The continued existence of bureaucrats is unavoidable. By "Marxists," you should refer only to those who do not have the position of the historic "center" tendency.


However, the Marxist explanation is by no means sufficient. Because next to the material conditions and circumstances, there was a more powerful ideological force. Democracy was never a central pillar of socialist revolution, it was just an optional extra. The adoption of which could be postponed in the name of war, and then endlessly after 1921.

Sorry if I must disagree with you here. If some bourgeois radicals seized power in Russia, they too would have had to suspend democratic rights.


Behind all of this is Marx' other interesting model. The dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin argued that the two models were pretty much the same, and that it was essentially the commune model. But this line of thought is flawed, because it completely ignored the ever greater role of the communist party itself - an organised and authoritarian presence which was absent in the experience of the commune.

Again, the central role of the party is the fulfillment of the merger formula above. Because the civil war decimated the urban proletariat, the Bolshevik party resembled more and more a party of the illiterate peasantry, a class that if in a demographic majority demands strict hierarchy. Consider Lenin's later works on having more peasants in the party.


2. A stupid weigting of votes which was incompatable with democratic principles. The soviets were organised on a basis of one delegate for every 25000 inhabitants of urban centres, but one for every 125000 peasants. This was obviously done to make sure the proletarian vote was not swept away, but this system can't claim any superiority to western democratic systems.

3. Class enemies were excluded from the vote, though it was far from clear who was to identify these people and on what basis.


On the other hand, the trajectory of liberal democracy has always been upwards. It has managed to guarantee greater civil and political rights to both men and women than any other political system, and also moved onto things like the welfare state. If socialism wants to stand a real chance, it has to be able to offer something superior to this, because workers now have more to lose than their chains.

Any thoughts? The most interesting ideas I've heard were from libertarian communists and post-marxists, but I'm very much interested to see what everyone here has to say.

The recent trajectory of liberal "democracy" has been downwards, with the erosion of individual privacy rights, the end of the welfare state, and so on. The central feature of this liberal "democracy" has always been the combination of the democratic principle of universal suffrage with the aristocratic method of selecting persons - "elections."

[RGacky3]

The continued existence of bureaucrats is unavoidable. By "Marxists," you should refer only to those who do not have the position of the historic "center" tendency.

Who said anything about bureaucrats? Bureacrats did'nt make the USSR authoritarian, the leaders and top party officials did.


Sorry if I must disagree with you here. If some bourgeois radicals seized power in Russia, they too would have had to suspend democratic rights.

I compleatly agree with you, and they would'nt have given it back until their power was consolidated. The same way with the Bolsheviks, they only gave a little democracy back when they were the only party and they had control over society.


Because the civil war decimated the urban proletariat, the Bolshevik party resembled more and more a party of the illiterate peasantry, a class that if in a demographic majority demands strict hierarchy.

Thats rediculous, the people that were in control were the same people, stop abstracting class rule. The people making the desicions were the party leaders. Plus I don't know where your getting this idea that a urban proletariate in the USSR was 'decimated' any moreso than the peasantry.


the aristocratic method of selecting persons - "elections."

The same way the Communist Party ran elections.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Thats ridiculous, the people that were in control were the same people, stop abstracting class rule. The people making the desicions were the party leaders. Plus I don't know where your getting this idea that a urban proletariat in the USSR was 'decimated' any moreso than the peasantry.

The initial recruits into the Red Army were literate or semi-literate proletarians, and not illiterate peasants.


The same way the Communist Party ran elections.

I'm not objecting to that at all. The central issue in your agreement with my statement is one of demokratia versus radical republicanism, something which even Marx and Engels themselves failed to break from:

Against Republicanism (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/136/republicanism.html)


Before universal suffrage, before newspapers, when political discourse was restricted to an aristocratic élite, such debate was free from euphemism and hypocrisy. All politically educated men knew that democracy was dangerous, probably the worst fate that could befall a state. It meant rule by the mob, the plebs, the villains or, if you knew your Aristotle, ‘rule by the poor’. It was the tyranny of the majority, rule by mass meetings that could ride roughshod over the law, where neither person nor property was safe.

A republic stood, by contrast, for sound government. Rome, the original republic, renowned for martial prowess and sagacious laws, remained its lasting epitome. The ideal constitution it secured for the wealthy the enjoyment of their estates, secure from the depredations of tyranny or the rapine of the mob. To the plebs it gave citizenship, the right to elect their tribunes and above all the right to bear arms and fight for the glory of the republic. Legislation and executive power, in contrast, were the preserve of a political élite - the senate.

When the slaveholders and bourgeoisie of the American colonies rebelled against the crown, relying as they did on an army of free citizens, and being at the same time desirous of securing their properties, they settled upon the republican form of government that had so well served their ancient forebears. By this act they formed the die from which modern republics and republicanism have been cast.

Its keystone was election, both of the legislature and the magistracy - presidents, governors, judges. Until the early 19th century, the idea of a ‘democratic republic’ was a self-evident contradiction. A republic was the means by which the state could be secured against the danger of democracy. For democracy, it was understood, used not elections but the chaotic and almost anarchic institutions of the mass assembly or selection of officials and legislatures by lot.

Pre-bourgeois political theorists from Aristotle to Machiavelli knew its function - to give the masses the illusion of power, whilst ensuring that it remained, in reality, in the hands of the upper classes. Any person has the right to stand for election, but if a poor tradesman stands in election against a sophisticated and urbane lawyer, nine times out of ten the lawyer wins. Freely elected legislatures are almost devoid of poor men, and totally devoid of poor women. But bourgeois theorists could not be so frank. They thus retained the republican form of government, whilst telling the people ‘this is democracy’. There is no such thing as bourgeois democracy. What they call democracy is nothing of the sort - it is oligarchy, rule by the few, rule by the rich.

[RGacky3]

The initial recruits into the Red Army were literate or semi-literate proletarians, and not illiterate peasants.

Red army recruits were not running the USSR, or the communist party.

I agree that Capitalist "democracy" is'nt really democracy, but the Bolsheviks did'nt bring about democracy either, or genuine socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As long as you keep in mind random sortition, your statement about the Bolsheviks is correct; they brought in, at least initially, extreme republicanism.

[Hiero]

Understanding the USSR does NOT require understanding Marxist theory, understanding the nature of it and its effect on the people does'nt require Marxist theory. Theory does'nt change facts.

Well I would say understanding the human world you need to understand Marxism.

But in a more specific case if you want to understand the USSR you need to understand the ideology that was driving the political decisions. Otherwise you fall into the trap that you are already in and reduce all action to im/moral choices of individuals which is based on bourgeiosie idealism.

I think bobkindles highlights the marxist analysis perfectly here:


Our analysis of the state is rooted in class struggle, and the prospect of a communist society.

You however are an idealist and assume that since the Bolshevik ended up in power every action they did was to secure their own power. State power is not abstract and it only works in the interest of the social class that gave rise to the state. The actions the Bolshevik's took and later the CPSU was to create the neccassary conditions for genuine socialism, and sometimes these actions occrur before any healthy form of socialism, collectivisation, nationalisation or deomcracy can exist, as was the cases during the civil war, the NEP and Stalin's collectivsation.

This leads to the idea that Communist shouldn't act before the possibility of socialism or they should just create peasant socialism out of dirt. As is the case of the criticism of the CPN Maoist in Nepal, but that can be discussed somewhere else.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'd like to add more clarification here: the disbandment of the Constituent Assembly was perfectly democratic. The party list system used in the elections gave the Right SRs representatives on the basis of votes cast for the Left SRs.

[trivas7]

I'd like to add more clarification here: the disbandment of the Constituent Assembly was perfectly democratic.
What nonsense. In what sense did the forcible dispersion of the only political institution almost all political groups in Russia conceded was the legitimate and definitive authority in the country constitute an act of democracy? You, like Bobkindles, also seem to believe that there is a set of abstract criteria re this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did you even read the bold part, Austrian? :rolleyes:

[BobKKKindle$]

Sorry for taking so long to address these issues, PS:


By imposing monetary limitations, you reduce elections down to the core ideas being discussedThe use of monetary limitations and state provision of campaigning financing may reduce the role of campaign donations in shaping the behavior of political parties to some extent, but the fact remains that the way people vote depends primarily on the presentation of political issues and the stances of the major political parties in the media, and this, given that the media is controlled by a small number of firms which also have interests in other sectors of the economy, means that the ruling class can still exercise considerable influence over the functioning of democracy by giving more favorable coverage to pro-capitalist parties and refusing to cover the policies and opinions of other sections of the political spectrum, such as the radical left. There are also other issues to keep in mind when discussing how democracy operates under capitalism - we like to think that parliament (or the equivalent legislative body) is the center of political activity and the place where all of the most important political decisions are made and enacted, through a process of discussion and democratic voting, involving representatives who can be held accountable on a regular basis, but in reality, even though parliament is able to pass legislative proposals, the actual implementation of these proposals is handled by civil servants, who are not elected, and cannot be held accountable by the electorate. This component of the political system (the civil service) is generally comprised of people who share the class interests of the bourgeoisie because they come from the same social background and live in the same conditions, and this means that even when a government is committed to radical reform and succeeds in getting all of its proposals passed through the legislature without substantial alteration by other parties, it can still encounter opposition and find itself obstructed by the civil service, who may have access to superior information, and therefore a better bargaining position, relative to ministers operating in individual government departments. This is one of the reasons why Marx identified the elimination of the distinction between executive and legislative functions as one of the main achievements and lessons of the Paris Commune:

"The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time"

(Karl Marx, The Civil War in France: The Paris Commune)

The Marxist account of the state does not mean that politics always consists of the bourgeoisie ruthlessly applying its class interests and oppressing the proletariat with no potential for resistance and political participation by other groups within society - the state, especially when it presents itself as being democratic, is always going to face pressure from below, and will occasionally be forced to enact progressive reforms such as the creation of a minimum wage or the provision of welfare (as occurred in Britain following WW2, under Clement Atlee) if only as a means to discourage more militant forms of resistance to capitalism, and maintain the illusion of democratic accountability. If this were not the case, there would be no point in demanding reforms, or participating in reformist movements such as the abortion rights campaign in the 1960s. In addition, and especially in societies where the state is authoritarian, or has a major role in the economy, it is possible for the people who are part of the state to develop interests of their own, which may not always coincide with those of the bourgeoisie, and even wrest control of the state away from the bourgeoisie. This is the lesson Marx drew in 'The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon' as he identified that the class struggle in France had created conditions that allowed an individual to come to power and assert his authority over the rest of society, including the bourgeoisie, thereby infringing on the class interests of the bourgeoisie. This is not me interpreting Marx, as he was very explicit about this:

"It [the French bourgeoisie] apotheosized the sword; the sword rules it. It destroyed the revolutionary press; its own press has been destroyed. It placed popular meetings under police supervision; its salons are under the supervision of the police...It imposed a state of siege; a state of siege is imposed upon it...France...seems to have escaped the despotism of a class only to fall back beneath the despotism of the individual...The struggle seems to be settled in such a way that all classes, equally impotent and equally mute, fall on their knees before the rifle butt"

(Karl Marx, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon)

From this we can see that the Marxist theory of the state is not simplistic and dogmatic, and does not disregard the potential for the balance of power within the state to shift over time - it is dynamic, and appropriate for liberal democracies. For Marx, the state has qualified independence from the interests of the bourgeoisie, but is still fundamentally a bourgeois state, as a state dependent on the functioning of the capitalist economy, and will always be forced to act in the long-term class interests of the bourgeoisie in order to avoid being overthrown.

[Post-Something]

Sorry for taking so long to address these issues, PS:

The use of monetary limitations and state provision of campaigning financing may reduce the role of campaign donations in shaping the behavior of political parties to some extent, but the fact remains that the way people vote depends primarily on the presentation of political issues and the stances of the major political parties in the media, and this, given that the media is controlled by a small number of firms which also have interests in other sectors of the economy, means that the ruling class can still exercise considerable influence over the functioning of democracy by giving more favorable coverage to pro-capitalist parties and refusing to cover the policies and opinions of other sections of the political spectrum, such as the radical left. There are also other issues to keep in mind when discussing how democracy operates under capitalism - we like to think that parliament (or the equivalent legislative body) is the center of political activity and the place where all of the most important political decisions are made and enacted, through a process of discussion and democratic voting, involving representatives who can be held accountable on a regular basis, but in reality, even though parliament is able to pass legislative proposals, the actual implementation of these proposals is handled by civil servants, who are not elected, and cannot be held accountable by the electorate. This component of the political system (the civil service) is generally comprised of people who share the class interests of the bourgeoisie because they come from the same social background and live in the same conditions, and this means that even when a government is committed to radical reform and succeeds in getting all of its proposals passed through the legislature without substantial alteration by other parties, it can still encounter opposition and find itself obstructed by the civil service, who may have access to superior information, and therefore a better bargaining position, relative to ministers operating in individual government departments. This is one of the reasons why Marx identified the elimination of the distinction between executive and legislative functions as one of the main achievements and lessons of the Paris Commune:

"The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time"

(Karl Marx, The Civil War in France: The Paris Commune)

The Marxist account of the state does not mean that politics always consists of the bourgeoisie ruthlessly applying its class interests and oppressing the proletariat with no potential for resistance and political participation by other groups within society - the state, especially when it presents itself as being democratic, is always going to face pressure from below, and will occasionally be forced to enact progressive reforms such as the creation of a minimum wage or the provision of welfare (as occurred in Britain following WW2, under Clement Atlee) if only as a means to discourage more militant forms of resistance to capitalism, and maintain the illusion of democratic accountability. If this were not the case, there would be no point in demanding reforms, or participating in reformist movements such as the abortion rights campaign in the 1960s. In addition, and especially in societies where the state is authoritarian, or has a major role in the economy, it is possible for the people who are part of the state to develop interests of their own, which may not always coincide with those of the bourgeoisie, and even wrest control of the state away from the bourgeoisie. This is the lesson Marx drew in 'The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon' as he identified that the class struggle in France had created conditions that allowed an individual to come to power and assert his authority over the rest of society, including the bourgeoisie, thereby infringing on the class interests of the bourgeoisie. This is not me interpreting Marx, as he was very explicit about this:

"It [the French bourgeoisie] apotheosized the sword; the sword rules it. It destroyed the revolutionary press; its own press has been destroyed. It placed popular meetings under police supervision; its salons are under the supervision of the police...It imposed a state of siege; a state of siege is imposed upon it...France...seems to have escaped the despotism of a class only to fall back beneath the despotism of the individual...The struggle seems to be settled in such a way that all classes, equally impotent and equally mute, fall on their knees before the rifle butt"

(Karl Marx, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon)

From this we can see that the Marxist theory of the state is not simplistic and dogmatic, and does not disregard the potential for the balance of power within the state to shift over time - it is dynamic, and appropriate for liberal democracies. For Marx, the state has qualified independence from the interests of the bourgeoisie, but is still fundamentally a bourgeois state, as a state dependent on the functioning of the capitalist economy, and will always be forced to act in the long-term class interests of the bourgeoisie in order to avoid being overthrown.

Very good response. This is what I would have told myself if I were asking these questions maybe two months ago. And actually, I still agree with it almost entirely.

There's just one problem though. The results don't make any sense. Again, in Finland, the Social Democrats and the communists do consistently well in elections. Finlands' meant to be one of the most uncorrupt countries in the world, the trade unions are enormous, the newspapers are notoriously objective and was the first country to give women the vote. Furthermore, it's pretty much guaranteed that government will be a coalition government, so different interest groups do get portrayed (this is possible because of the monetary limitations I brought up earlier.)

This shows that although the state is dominated by the ruling class, it doesn't mean that lower classes don't have the ability to use it for their own good. It simply means that it is harder for them to do, due to capitalism. But these differences can be harshly softened.


Nonetheless, my central question remains unanswered, and it seems nobody has attempted to attack it directly.

[BobKKKindle$]

I'm actually reading a text on the state at the moment, PS, entitled 'What does the Ruling Class do when it rules' by Goran Therborn, a sociology professor in Sweden, in which the author investigates how the state operates in different societies (including capitalism) in terms of inputs, processes, and outputs, otherwise known as a systems approach. The book is a Marxist text, and one of the arguments he makes fairly close to the beginning is that although the state often appears to be a coherent institution with a unified set of objectives, as the orthodox Marxist view suggests, it is actually more accurate to speak in terms of state apparatuses, because the state is comprised of a number of different institutions and components, including the legislature, the military, and even individual government departments, all of which relate to society in different ways and are therefore influenced by different class forces. He argues, for example, that the armies of capitalist states have generally retained feudal traits for longer than other sections of the state such as the fiscal sector, and, particularly relevant to the issue we are discussion, that the welfare apparatus, whilst remaining fundamentally bourgeois, is affected by its close relationship with the working class. This offers a potential explanation for why the working class has, in some countries, succeeded in influencing politics and winning progressive reforms without taking revolutionary action against the state. Check it out if you can.

[BobKKKindle$]

I've been thinking a bit more about the idea that the state always operates within the context of a capitalist society, and the related notion that this imposes certain structural constraints on what the state can do, and how the state is pressured to act. In particular, we should try and be aware of the ways in which the class character of the state can shift, depending on the condition of the capitalist economy. It is possible for the state to grant concessions and involve the organizations of the working class in the political process during a period of economic growth because increases in taxation in order to raise money for the provision of social services and other forms of expenditure which benefit the working class do not lead to businesses going bankrupt, and so are generally tolerated by the bourgeoisie, especially when tax increases diminish the possibility of social unrest. However, reformist organizations such as the Labour Party always limit their political activity to reforms within the framework of the capitalist system and are always going to be opposed to any form of action directed against capitalism, and the bourgeois state through which these parties operate, especially the prospect of social revolution. This has important implications in the context of an economic recession, because the only way a government controlled by a reformist party can restore profitability and provide the conditions for prosperity is by carrying out attacks against the working class, in particular by lowering spending on welfare provision, and refusing to give support to workers in the event of a economic conflict with the bourgeoisie. This behavior springs from the logic of reformism, because the only other way an economy can escape a crisis apart from carrying out these attacks and settling the class struggle in favor of the bourgeoisie is social revolution – yet this is considered a political impossibility by reformists, and would infringe on the interests of the people who are in charge of these parties. This is particularly true in the current crisis, because the UK government has already been forced to spend more than £500 billion to bail out the financial sector, and, not only is it unclear whether this is going to be enough to prevent further banks from collapsing and demanding money from the government, it also means that the level of national debt has increased, and, in order to prevent debt from spiraling out of control, and posing a threat to the long-term position of the UK as one of the world's leading imperialist powers, and the hub of the world financial system, the government will be compelled to cut back on other spending, such as support for the productive sector of the economy, and, once again, welfare. This is a logical necessity for the bourgeois state because the logic of capitalism demands measures to restore the rate of profit – the only way the bourgeois state can survive is by enforcing these measures, and this is what makes the class character of the state much clearer during recession. There are plenty of examples from history to show that this is the case – consider the decision of the Labour Party to limit spending during the 1920s, even before the party had changed its ideology character and still had organic links with the working class.

All of this, of course, assumes that the liberal-democratic state is capable of attacking the working class. If this is not the case, and yet the working class also fails to carry out the social revolution and do what is required to end capitalism once and for all, perhaps due to the ineffectiveness of its leadership, as was the case during the 1930s when the Stalinists still held a dominant position within the labour movement, the result will not be an independent government which manages to reconcile the competing class interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by presenting a mutually agreeable solution to the crisis. As noted above, social revolution, or attacks on the working class, are the only possible options, given current economic conditions, and the nature of recessions in general. Instead, if the bourgeoisie cannot enforce its class interests within the framework of liberal democracy, it will offer its support to fascism, which, although rooted in the petty-bourgeoisie, can restore profitability by destroying workers organizations and physically eliminating the most radical section of the labour movement – trade unionists, and revolutionary socialists. The experience of the labour movement in Germany under Hitler is all the evidence we need of the hypocrisy and barbarism of the bourgeoisie when confronted with a rising revolutionary tide and the threat of being overthrown by the armed proletariat. In addition, it is during these periods of recession, when profitable outlets for capital within the imperialist core become difficult to locate, even when wages are driven down the lowest level possible, and so the bourgeois states are compelled to look to the periphery in search of means to accumulate capital, which, in turn, given that all states are seeking to enhance their imperial interests and identify opportunities for exploitation, and given that the size of the periphery is limited, gives rise to wars between the major imperialist states over the division of the world. This, once again, is proof that the autonomy of the state is merely superficial and always bound by the constraints of capitalism – in other words, this behavior is not the result of a conscious choice, or the personal desires of state officials, it arises from the logic of capitalism itself. The outcome of the crisis in the 1930s was WW2, as a result of which workers were, once again, forced to take up arms against each other in the service of their respective national bourgeoisies. The Marxist who understood the choices facing the proletariat and the nature of the state during recession most effectively was Rosa Luxemburg, so she can have the last word:

"In this hour, socialism is the only salvation for humanity. The words of the Communist Manifesto flare like a fiery menetekel above the crumbling bastions of capitalist society: Socialism or barbarism!"

[RGacky3]

Well I would say understanding the human world you need to understand Marxism.

But in a more specific case if you want to understand the USSR you need to understand the ideology that was driving the political decisions. Otherwise you fall into the trap that you are already in and reduce all action to im/moral choices of individuals which is based on bourgeiosie idealism.


Marxism helps in understanding the human world, but there are many more factors.

Its true you do need to understand Marxist theory to understand what was driving political decisions, but you also need to understand human nature, and its relation to power. You also need to understand cause and effect, judging the USSR by marxist theory is pointless unless you take into acount human natures relation the power and understand basic political causes and effects. Much of Lenins use of Marxist theory was to justify basic human power relations, the same way the US uses democracy to justify the same thing.


You however are an idealist and assume that since the Bolshevik ended up in power every action they did was to secure their own power. State power is not abstract and it only works in the interest of the social class that gave rise to the state.

No, not every action, however that is their first priority, just like EVERY SINGLE OTHER POWER STRUCTURE.


The actions the Bolshevik's took and later the CPSU was to create the neccassary conditions for genuine socialism, and sometimes these actions occrur before any healthy form of socialism, collectivisation, nationalisation or deomcracy can exist, as was the cases during the civil war, the NEP and Stalin's collectivsation.


THAT is idealism and abstract idealism, assuming that the bosleviks and only the bolsheviks are the altruistic theoritians that are not effected by human nature.

Every administration is a mix of idealism and a power struggle. The Bolsheviks were no different, but because of the nature of the beast, the fact that they were not accountable, their power took presidence. I'm not saying they genuinely wanted Socialism, the same way I don't think George Bush actually believes he's the defender of "democracy," even though his actions are more pased on geo-political dominance.


This leads to the idea that Communist shouldn't act before the possibility of socialism or they should just create peasant socialism out of dirt. As is the case of the criticism of the CPN Maoist in Nepal, but that can be discussed somewhere else.

Thats not the issue at all, the issue is authority, power, freedom and accountability, and the fact that we don't want another ruling class.


Now I, like the Leninists realize that social-democracy will get us no where, and that liberalism is a sham under Capitalism, and that the Capitalist state will always be the capitalist state and walfare systems only soften radical socialism. Unlike the Leninists, I do not belive the State can be revolutionized, evene if Capitalism is done away with, as long as there is a State, there will be a ruling class. The USSR showed us that, the Bolsheviks (although with good ideals) wanted State power, and ultimately absolute State power, and with that came the death of communism.

The reason they wanted State power was NOT because they were just power hungry (which negates the argument "so lenin was just lying"), its because they believed the only way to bring about Socialism was if they had control of the State and thus Russian Society. But power corrupts, after a while the attaining of power and keeping it because more important than the reason for it.

The way to Socialism is to dismantle ALL power.

[ComradeOm]

What nonsense. In what sense did the forcible dispersion of the only political institution almost all political groups in Russia conceded was the legitimate and definitive authority in the country constitute an act of democracy?Why do you give any weight to the opinions of "almost all political groups in Russia"?

As it was the Constituent Assembly served its purpose in establishing that the Bolsheviks enjoyed the support of virtually the entire proletariat (having supplanted the Mensheviks in this regard). For Marxists it is the support of this class that is needed, and not worrying about the political nicieties of bourgeois parliamentary democracy

[Post-Something]

I've been thinking a bit more about the idea that the state always operates within the context of a capitalist society, and the related notion that this imposes certain structural constraints on what the state can do, and how the state is pressured to act. In particular, we should try and be aware of the ways in which the class character of the state can shift, depending on the condition of the capitalist economy. It is possible for the state to grant concessions and involve the organizations of the working class in the political process during a period of economic growth because increases in taxation in order to raise money for the provision of social services and other forms of expenditure which benefit the working class do not lead to businesses going bankrupt, and so are generally tolerated by the bourgeoisie, especially when tax increases diminish the possibility of social unrest. However, reformist organizations such as the Labour Party always limit their political activity to reforms within the framework of the capitalist system and are always going to be opposed to any form of action directed against capitalism, and the bourgeois state through which these parties operate, especially the prospect of social revolution. This has important implications in the context of an economic recession, because the only way a government controlled by a reformist party can restore profitability and provide the conditions for prosperity is by carrying out attacks against the working class, in particular by lowering spending on welfare provision, and refusing to give support to workers in the event of a economic conflict with the bourgeoisie. This behavior springs from the logic of reformism, because the only other way an economy can escape a crisis apart from carrying out these attacks and settling the class struggle in favor of the bourgeoisie is social revolution – yet this is considered a political impossibility by reformists, and would infringe on the interests of the people who are in charge of these parties. This is particularly true in the current crisis, because the UK government has already been forced to spend more than £500 billion to bail out the financial sector, and, not only is it unclear whether this is going to be enough to prevent further banks from collapsing and demanding money from the government, it also means that the level of national debt has increased, and, in order to prevent debt from spiraling out of control, and posing a threat to the long-term position of the UK as one of the world's leading imperialist powers, and the hub of the world financial system, the government will be compelled to cut back on other spending, such as support for the productive sector of the economy, and, once again, welfare. This is a logical necessity for the bourgeois state because the logic of capitalism demands measures to restore the rate of profit – the only way the bourgeois state can survive is by enforcing these measures, and this is what makes the class character of the state much clearer during recession. There are plenty of examples from history to show that this is the case – consider the decision of the Labour Party to limit spending during the 1920s, even before the party had changed its ideology character and still had organic links with the working class.

All of this, of course, assumes that the liberal-democratic state is capable of attacking the working class. If this is not the case, and yet the working class also fails to carry out the social revolution and do what is required to end capitalism once and for all, perhaps due to the ineffectiveness of its leadership, as was the case during the 1930s when the Stalinists still held a dominant position within the labour movement, the result will not be an independent government which manages to reconcile the competing class interests of the bourgeoisie and the proletariat by presenting a mutually agreeable solution to the crisis. As noted above, social revolution, or attacks on the working class, are the only possible options, given current economic conditions, and the nature of recessions in general. Instead, if the bourgeoisie cannot enforce its class interests within the framework of liberal democracy, it will offer its support to fascism, which, although rooted in the petty-bourgeoisie, can restore profitability by destroying workers organizations and physically eliminating the most radical section of the labour movement – trade unionists, and revolutionary socialists. The experience of the labour movement in Germany under Hitler is all the evidence we need of the hypocrisy and barbarism of the bourgeoisie when confronted with a rising revolutionary tide and the threat of being overthrown by the armed proletariat. In addition, it is during these periods of recession, when profitable outlets for capital within the imperialist core become difficult to locate, even when wages are driven down the lowest level possible, and so the bourgeois states are compelled to look to the periphery in search of means to accumulate capital, which, in turn, given that all states are seeking to enhance their imperial interests and identify opportunities for exploitation, and given that the size of the periphery is limited, gives rise to wars between the major imperialist states over the division of the world. This, once again, is proof that the autonomy of the state is merely superficial and always bound by the constraints of capitalism – in other words, this behavior is not the result of a conscious choice, or the personal desires of state officials, it arises from the logic of capitalism itself. The outcome of the crisis in the 1930s was WW2, as a result of which workers were, once again, forced to take up arms against each other in the service of their respective national bourgeoisies. The Marxist who understood the choices facing the proletariat and the nature of the state during recession most effectively was Rosa Luxemburg, so she can have the last word:

"In this hour, socialism is the only salvation for humanity. The words of the Communist Manifesto flare like a fiery menetekel above the crumbling bastions of capitalist society: Socialism or barbarism!"

Bobkindles, again I find myself agreeing 100% with you, but I think the main issues are ones of strategy. Questions like: Can a revolution happen in a capitalist society? If so could it be successful?

But there is something that you said in the very begining, which I think might put us in the right direction:


the idea that the state always operates within the context of a capitalist society, and the related notion that this imposes certain structural constraints on what the state can do, and how the state is pressured to act.This obviously means that you cannot have a "proletarian state" within a capitalist economy. However, it is also useful to note what you wrote later on:


if the bourgeoisie cannot enforce its class interests within the framework of liberal democracy, it will offer its support to fascism, which, although rooted in the petty-bourgeoisie, can restore profitability by destroying workers organizations and physically eliminating the most radical section of the labour movement – trade unionists, and revolutionary socialists.This shows that obviously the Bourgeoisie need a state to protect their interests as well.

Ok, so far so good. Marxism has been absolutely correct, but there are also indirect forces, ie outwith the state. We now live in a world where Global hegemony has a direct influence on any prospect of successful revolution. The state has other issues to deal with rather than simply class struggle.

Take America, for example. It constitutes a "Historic Bloc". It has a huge amount of power on a global scale, which, as we know, is fundamentally linked to the economic base and thus provides the framework
for decision about the distribution of goods all over the world. It also enables analyses to go beyond a traditional Marxist focus on class, promoting an analysis of social forces that is not limited by ownership of the mean of production and can incorporate populist, cultural, religious, theoretical and other ideological movements.

We can see just how powerful America is, by looking at certain institutions and mechanisms, for example:

Economic power: Following the Second World War, US economic dominance was so great that it was able to help reconstruct post-war Western Europe via the Marshall Plan.

Military might: US defence spending continues massively to overshadow the military outlays of other societies. Substantial elements of the US armed forces are still permanently based in many areas abroad.

Post-1945 legacy: The United States had a major role in structuring post-1945 political and social systems. For example, both the German Basic Law of 1949 and Japan's 1947 constitution reflected significant US input. Both countries were subject to US influence directly through occupation forces, but also intellectually and culturally as their new governments operated under US-influenced constitutional systems.

International organisations: The US dominates key international organisations, notably NATO and the UN.

Aligning allies: The United States works hard to promote its interests by influencing how other states align or realign. For example, it has promoted Turkey's candidacy for EU membership, as a means of promoting political and economic reform.

Ideas and culture: US ideas and popular culture, from jazz to art and cinema, have infectiously spread -- rendering 'Americanisation' among the most significant and disputed phenomena of the contemporary era.

Hegemony is therefor international. Bearing all of the above in mind, we still cling onto the idea that a revolution in one country will somehow spread etc. But I think it's not that simple. If it didn't work back in 1917, it's not going to work now, because people are even more hostile to the idea and are constantly being swayed against it, plus no significant country is going to support one that doesn't align with US interests.

So, again, what serious prospects can traditional revolution offer? Because if it's useless on a global scale, it seems like wasted endevuer to me. Civil war and exterior forces will turn the party away from democratic means, and eventually, with isolation, lead to it's deterioration.


EDIT: Also, thank you very much for the recommendation, as soon as I get to the library, I'll be sure to dig the book out.

[Post-Something]

Bump.

I take it nobody sees a solution then, and we're going to use the same old tried and failed method. Oh well, I'm going to do a bit of reading over the next few months, if I find anything, then I'll post it and hopefully get a bit more discussion going. But so far nobody has actually addressed the central issue at hand.

[trivas7]

I take it nobody sees a solution then, and we're going to use the same old tried and failed method. Oh well, I'm going to do a bit of reading over the next few months, if I find anything, then I'll post it and hopefully get a bit more discussion going. But so far nobody has actually addressed the central issue at hand.
Perhaps you ought to question your premises. Why is it that all Marxist governments end up being authoritarian single party states ruled by oligarchs in the name of the masses?

[Post-Something]

Perhaps you ought to question your premises. Why is it that all Marxist governments end up being authoritarian single party states ruled by oligarchs in the name of the masses?

Me personally? I think that it's a mixture of things. If you look at the revolutions of the past, it's quite clear to me that after they are won, they have to be protected. And if this is that case, then the party will naturally demand some kind of centralisation and undermine the workers councils, to make sure that it's "done right". As soon as you get any kind of top down system, which is actually the system Lenin gave in "What is to be done?", then it will inevitably degenerate. Also, I'm even more skeptical of this working in this day in age, for the reasons I gave above.

I think if we are to ever see a socialist country the way Marx intended, it has to be an extension of what the workers have already gained in a capitalist society, and not transgress to try and find an alternative system to the Western world. I'm also quite taken by Gramsci's idea of "war of position", but to be frank, I have no idea what the solution is, which is the rationale for this thread.

All I know is that I'm really uninterested in the traditional means which we are proposing, and I'm pretty sure they won't work. For me the central appeal of Socialism is the idea of "workers democracy", and if there is no realistic chance that it will come about, then I see no reason to continue via the means Marx offered. I'm siding with the Anarchists on this one I guess, but even they don't offer a reasonable alternative. What do you think Trivas?

[KC]

As soon as you get any kind of top down system, which is actually the system Lenin gave in "What is to be done?"

Lenin didn't propose any kind of state structure in What Is To Be Done? He proposed a temporary party structure based on the situation at the time.

I suggest that you check out this pamphlet (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm) by Hal Draper on the subject, who outlines the various common misconceptions (and slander) with regards to this work.

[BobKKKindle$]

PS, centralization did not occur in Russia because the Bolsheviks saw it as being an ideological or even organizational necessity. It was an outcome of material circumstances - Lenin recognized from the beginning that the revolution (and therefore workers democracy) would only be able to survive if it spread to other, more advanced countries that would have been able to provide Russia with resources and break the imperialist encirclement of the embryonic workers state. The fact that this didn't happen meant that Russia was forced to endure a Civil War, during the course of which the working class was almost completely decimated, as workers, particularly those who had organized the seizure of the means of production and pointed the way forward to the rest of the working class, were either killed at the front, or were forced to return to their peasant villages in search of food. Consequently, the working class had almost ceased to exist in a country that had always had a predominantly peasant-based population, and those workers who were still alive were disheartened and fatigued due to the poor international situation and the physical strain of the Civil War. This meant that the Soviets, which were previously based on the mass participation of the working class, were unable to function as the basis of government power, and so the only way in which decisions could actually be made and administered effectively was by passing power to organs that were not linked to the working class and could not be held accountable for the way they acted, and many of the individuals who made decisions in this way had previously served as bureaucrats under the Tsarist regime, and so were eager to reclaim their material privileges, and had no contact with the conditions and experiences of the working population. These conditions and processes formed the basis of bureaucratization, which, once under way, was difficult to reverse, because the accumulation of power in the hands of individuals allowed the emerging bureaucratic stratum to protect its position against attempts to restore democracy in the party and the state apparatus, eventually leading to Trotsky and the other members of the Left Opposition being removed from their posts and expelled. The lesson of this sad tale is that the source of Stalinist dictatorship did not lie in the methodology or the analysis of the Bolsheviks, because Russia was a genuine workers state, if only for a short period of time, and the Bolsheviks really did represent the most advanced section of the working class - it was due to the failure of workers in other countries to follow the Bolshevik example, in many cases due to the betrayals and incompetence of their leaders.

This has always seemed very obvious to me. How can you have workers democracy if you don't have a working class?

[Post-Something]

Lenin didn't propose any kind of state structure in What Is To Be Done? He proposed a temporary party structure based on the situation at the time.

I suggest that you check out this pamphlet (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm) by Hal Draper on the subject, who outlines the various common misconceptions (and slander) with regards to this work.

I disagree with the whole notion that Democratic Centralism can work in a post-revolutionary society with hostile states surrounding it.

If it really was democratic, then the upper bodies wouldn't have as much control over the lower ones. The idea that "electiveness of all bodies of state authority from the lowest to the highest, their accountability to the people, and the obligation of lower bodies to observe the decisions of higher ones", I see as inherently authoritarian.

If democratic centralism really worked then the idea of "freedom of speech, unity of action" would have actually happened. Of course, that's brilliant in theory. I'm all for unity of action, but when the freedom of speech undermines the decision that the party wants to take, then it results in having an ice pick in your skull. It's just too open to misuse, and when there's a revolution going on, with lots of propaganda, it's quite easy to distort messages. The idea is fine for a party before the revolution, but afterwards, when the state is involved, it can become far too convoluted.

Democratic Centralism could work if the majority of the world was following a Socialist ideal. But it isn't. Wars happen, party politics comes into play, and material conditions are almost never ideal.




PS, centralization did not occur in Russia because the Bolsheviks saw it as being an ideological or even organizational necessity. It was an outcome of material circumstances - Lenin recognized from the beginning that the revolution (and therefore workers democracy) would only be able to survive if it spread to other, more advanced countries that would have been able to provide Russia with resources and break the imperialist encirclement of the embryonic workers state. The fact that this didn't happen meant that Russia was forced to endure a Civil War, during the course of which the working class was almost completely decimated, as workers, particularly those who had organized the seizure of the means of production and pointed the way forward to the rest of the working class, were either killed at the front, or were forced to return to their peasant villages in search of food. Consequently, the working class had almost ceased to exist in a country that had always had a predominantly peasant-based population, and those workers who were still alive were disheartened and fatigued due to the poor international situation and the physical strain of the Civil War. This meant that the Soviets, which were previously based on the mass participation of the working class, were unable to function as the basis of government power, and so the only way in which decisions could actually be made and administered effectively was by passing power to organs that were not linked to the working class and could not be held accountable for the way they acted, and many of the individuals who made decisions in this way had previously served as bureaucrats under the Tsarist regime, and so were eager to reclaim their material privileges, and had no contact with the conditions and experiences of the working population. These conditions and processes formed the basis of bureaucratization, which, once under way, was difficult to reverse, because the accumulation of power in the hands of individuals allowed the emerging bureaucratic stratum to protect its position against attempts to restore democracy in the party and the state apparatus, eventually leading to Trotsky and the other members of the Left Opposition being removed from their posts and expelled. The lesson of this sad tale is that the source of Stalinist dictatorship did not lie in the methodology or the analysis of the Bolsheviks, because Russia was a genuine workers state, if only for a short period of time, and the Bolsheviks really did represent the most advanced section of the working class - it was due to the failure of workers in other countries to follow the Bolshevik example, in many cases due to the betrayals and incompetence of their leaders.

This has always seemed very obvious to me. How can you have workers democracy if you don't have a working class?Ok, say I agree with you 100%, this still doesn't answer the question. The USSR failed because nobody came to it's rescue, so what are we going to do? Try again and hope someone does? Or are you saying there is something we could have done? I'm not arguing that what the Bolsheviks did was wrong, I'm arguing that what the Bolsheviks did was inevitable given their circumstance.

For me, Socialism can only succeed if the revolution spreads. But we can't rely on it spreading as we saw in the USSR, and even less now. IF the revolution spread, I would be all the way with you, believe me, the theory is sound, the Marxist analysis is the best by far. But how do we get to the position where we can actualize any of this when we live in a capitalist world? How do you make sure we don't have a nother tragedy like the USSR?

[KC]

I disagree with the whole notion that Democratic Centralism can work in a post-revolutionary society with hostile states surrounding it.

If it really was democratic, then the upper bodies wouldn't have as much control over the lower ones. The idea that "electiveness of all bodies of state authority from the lowest to the highest, their accountability to the people, and the obligation of lower bodies to observe the decisions of higher ones", I see as inherently authoritarian.

If democratic centralism really worked then the idea of "freedom of speech, unity of action" would have actually happened. Of course, that's brilliant in theory. I'm all for unity of action, but when the freedom of speech undermines the decision that the party wants to take, then it results in having an ice pick in your skull. It's just too open to misuse, and when there's a revolution going on, with lots of propaganda, it's quite easy to distort messages. The idea is fine for a party before the revolution, but afterwards, when the state is involved, it can become far too convoluted.

Democratic Centralism could work if the majority of the world was following a Socialist ideal. But it isn't. Wars happen, party politics comes into play, and material conditions are almost never ideal.

You are basically saying that "democratic centralism would work if it was democracy and not democratic centralism." What you have to keep in mind is that democratic centralism is about a balance between democracy and centralism, and that this equilibrium changes with different situations. Thus, Lenin was able to propose his "structure" in 1902 and yet have a mass party structure by the time of the revolution; the balance of forces changed, so the party structure adapted to fit those new factors.

A good illustration of this is given in the MIA definition of "democratic centralism":


A small group of soldiers under enemy fire would be ill-advised to subject their tactics to thoroughgoing discussion – total centralism is the best policy, with one of their number assuming the responsibility to issue instructions. On the other hand, a trade union deciding whether or not to accept the bosses’ offer or continue the strike can and must take as long as is necessary to ensure that every member of the strike is in agreement on what to do: consensus decision-making (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#consensus-decision-making) is the order of the day, and ‘leaders’ should take a back seat.

Thus, the degree of centralization (and democratization) shifts according to circumstances. It is this model, that is adaptable to all circumstances, that is most effective.

And with regards to it "actually happening," it did, up until the degeneration of the party, which Bob outlined in his post.

However, I think you have a distorted view of what democratic centralism actually is. This isn't your fault, of course, as most parties nowadays attempt to paint their bureaucratic sectism as "democratic centralism". This isn't democratic centralism at all but simply bureaucratically controlled microsects. Lenin outlined in Left-Wing Communism why these parties fail and continue to remain insignificant:


The first questions to arise are: how is the discipline of the proletariat’s revolutionary party maintained? How is it tested? How is it reinforced? First, by the class-consciousness of the proletarian vanguard and by its devotion to the revolution, by its tenacity, self-sacrifice and heroism. Second, by its ability to link up, maintain the closest contact, and—if you wish—merge, in certain measure, with the broadest masses of the working people—primarily with the proletariat, but also with the non-proletarian masses of working people. Third, by the correctness of the political leadership exercised by this vanguard, by the correctness of its political strategy and tactics, provided the broad masses have seen, from their own experience, that they are correct. Without these conditions, discipline in a revolutionary party really capable of being the party of the advanced class, whose mission it is to overthrow the bourgeoisie and transform the whole of society, cannot be achieved. Without these conditions, all attempts to establish discipline inevitably fall flat and end up in phrasemongering and clowning.

Draper also outlined why these "parties" fail in two articles (1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1973/xx/microsect.htm), 2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1971/alt/index.htm)).

[Post-Something]

You are basically saying that "democratic centralism would work if it was democracy and not democratic centralism." What you have to keep in mind is that democratic centralism is about a balance between democracy and centralism, and that this equilibrium changes with different situations. Thus, Lenin was able to propose his "structure" in 1902 and yet have a mass party structure by the time of the revolution; the balance of forces changed, so the party structure adapted to fit those new factors.

A good illustration of this is given in the MIA definition of "democratic centralism":



Thus, the degree of centralization (and democratization) shifts according to circumstances. It is this model, that is adaptable to all circumstances, that is most effective.

And with regards to it "actually happening," it did, up until the degeneration of the party, which Bob outlined in his post.

However, I think you have a distorted view of what democratic centralism actually is. This isn't your fault, of course, as most parties nowadays attempt to paint their bureaucratic sectism as "democratic centralism". This isn't democratic centralism at all but simply bureaucratically controlled microsects. Lenin outlined in Left-Wing Communism why these parties fail and continue to remain insignificant:



Draper also outlined why these "parties" fail in two articles (1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1973/xx/microsect.htm), 2 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1971/alt/index.htm)).

I'm going to ask you two questions, and if you answer them well enough then I will side with you that Democratic Centralism is not at fault here:

1. Who decides the balance between Centralism and Democracy? If degeneration has already started, then it looks to me like the party has the upper hand in this equation.

2. How do you stop a revolution from degenerating?

My problem is that if a revolution does fail, then it hits hardest in areas like these. If an organisation is forced into this scenario, as Bob kindly portrayed, with a system with nearly no checks and balances, then all hell can break loose. Of course, you will say one of two things: 1. the people will make sure it doesn't happen, or 2. it won't degenerate.

Well, my answer to the first is that the party has the power of the state on it's side, and my the answer to the second one, well I'm hoping to get that in your next post.

[KC]

1. Who decides the balance between Centralism and Democracy?The balance of power is decided by party membership as a whole. However, it is important to keep in mind what Lenin has said in his quote. In order for a party to be both effective and representative of its members and its class those three points must be kept in mind. This is, of course, true with democracy in general; democracy isn't democratic when those participating are uninformed or misinformed.

Parties are representations of the state of the movement as a whole, and therefore the development of the party relies on the development of the movement. It is from this basis that we can understand Lenin's remarks in their totality. It is also from this basis that we can understand why most "parties" nowadays are backwards, bureaucratic sects.


If degeneration has already started, then it looks to me like the party has the upper hand in this equation.

As Bob has pointed out, the degeneration of the party was due to the degeneration of the movement in the USSR, primarily due to the decimation of the most advanced section of the movement in the civil war.


2. How do you stop a revolution from degenerating?

This question is much too generic to answer; in the same way one could ask "how do you start a revolution?" The question is so vague that it is meaningless. It requires context.


If an organisation is forced into this scenario, as Bob kindly portrayed, with a system with nearly no checks and balances, then all hell can break loose. Of course, you will say one of two things: 1. the people will make sure it doesn't happen, or 2. it won't degenerate.

It is quite difficult to discuss this question in general, as it really is pretty much meaningless without any context. Unfortunately, it is also very difficult to discuss this with regards to a particular historical example, as well, such as the USSR. There were so many conflicting factors in play, both subjective and objective, that it's impossible to say what should have happened, as once we make a single assertion in this direction the balance of forces completely changes and from there we are in the dark. Every assertion thereupon becomes baseless speculation.

[Post-Something]

The balance of power is decided by party membership as a whole. However, it is important to keep in mind what Lenin has said in his quote. In order for a party to be both effective and representative of its members and its class those three points must be kept in mind. This is, of course, true with democracy in general; democracy isn't democratic when those participating are uninformed or misinformed.

Parties are representations of the state of the movement as a whole, and therefore the development of the party relies on the development of the movement. It is from this basis that we can understand Lenin's remarks in their totality. It is also from this basis that we can understand why most "parties" nowadays are backwards, bureaucratic sects.



As Bob has pointed out, the degeneration of the party was due to the degeneration of the movement in the USSR, primarily due to the decimation of the most advanced section of the movement in the civil war.



This question is much too generic to answer; in the same way one could ask "how do you start a revolution?" The question is so vague that it is meaningless. It requires context.



It is quite difficult to discuss this question in general, as it really is pretty much meaningless without any context. Unfortunately, it is also very difficult to discuss this with regards to a particular historical example, as well, such as the USSR. There were so many conflicting factors in play, both subjective and objective, that it's impossible to say what should have happened, as once we make a single assertion in this direction the balance of forces completely changes and from there we are in the dark. Every assertion thereupon becomes baseless speculation.

Well there you go. The central question seems to be if it is actually possible to stop a revolution from degenerating. But since there is no sure fire tactical way to prevent a movement from losing it's steam, it seems to me that it is very doubtful that it wouldn't given that most of the factors at play back then have been enlarged so much in our day in age.

I have one last question though, do you think the USSR could have actually succeeded? If so, what changes do you think would have to have been made?

[trivas7]

PS, centralization did not occur in Russia because the Bolsheviks saw it as being an ideological or even organizational necessity. It was an outcome of material circumstances - Lenin recognized from the beginning that the revolution (and therefore workers democracy) would only be able to survive if it spread to other, more advanced countries that would have been able to provide Russia with resources and break the imperialist encirclement of the embryonic workers state. The fact that this didn't happen meant that Russia was forced to endure a Civil War, during the course of which the working class was almost completely decimated, as workers, particularly those who had organized the seizure of the means of production and pointed the way forward to the rest of the working class, were either killed at the front, or were forced to return to their peasant villages in search of food.
What exactly do you mean by 'centralization' and 'material 'circumstances' here? Can you speak w/o the Marx-o-babel? Do you mean that w/ the Great October Revolution the Bolvsheviks assumed all state power to itself and that as a consequence of the civil war the decimation of the proletariat portended collectivism as state policy? If this isn't an admission of Leninism's failure, I don't know what is.

[KC]

Well there you go. The central question seems to be if it is actually possible to stop a revolution from degenerating.

You're asking for something that isn't possible; there is no set blueprint that can be applied in any situation to prevent the degeneration of any given movement; each movement develops along its own unique lines, and while we can come to some (very general) conclusions about movements in general, they won't really be very effective due to the fact that the statements would be so vague.

If such a blueprint existed it wouldn't be considered "struggle".


But since there is no sure fire tactical way to prevent a movement from losing it's steam, it seems to me that it is very doubtful that it wouldn't given that most of the factors at play back then have been enlarged so much in our day in age.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by this. Care to elaborate?

[RGacky3]

Lenin didn't propose any kind of state structure in What Is To Be Done? He proposed a temporary party structure based on the situation at the time.

I suggest that you check out this pamphlet (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm) by Hal Draper on the subject, who outlines the various common misconceptions (and slander) with regards to this work.

Of coarse its supposed to be temporary, but who's going to enforce that? The people in power?


The balance of power is decided by party membership as a whole. However, it is important to keep in mind what Lenin has said in his quote. In order for a party to be both effective and representative of its members and its class those three points must be kept in mind. This is, of course, true with democracy in general; democracy isn't democratic when those participating are uninformed or misinformed.

Parties are representations of the state of the movement as a whole, and therefore the development of the party relies on the development of the movement. It is from this basis that we can understand Lenin's remarks in their totality. It is also from this basis that we can understand why most "parties" nowadays are backwards, bureaucratic sects.


That is just a theory, there was no ways to enforce that, ultimately it was the party officials deciding how much democracy there was, and when you have that its not democracy at all. Leninist leaders always "listen to the poeple and follow them" but they don't HAVE to do that, ultimately they are in control.


There were so many conflicting factors in play, both subjective and objective, that it's impossible to say what should have happened, as once we make a single assertion in this direction the balance of forces completely changes and from there we are in the dark. Every assertion thereupon becomes baseless speculation.

You can work with principles. Thats what revolutions should be based on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Me personally? I think that it's a mixture of things. If you look at the revolutions of the past, it's quite clear to me that after they are won, they have to be protected. And if this is that case, then the party will naturally demand some kind of centralisation and undermine the workers councils, to make sure that it's "done right". As soon as you get any kind of top down system, which is actually the system Lenin gave in "What is to be done?", then it will inevitably degenerate. Also, I'm even more skeptical of this working in this day in age, for the reasons I gave above.

I think if we are to ever see a socialist country the way Marx intended, it has to be an extension of what the workers have already gained in a capitalist society, and not transgress to try and find an alternative system to the Western world. I'm also quite taken by Gramsci's idea of "war of position", but to be frank, I have no idea what the solution is, which is the rationale for this thread.

All I know is that I'm really uninterested in the traditional means which we are proposing, and I'm pretty sure they won't work. For me the central appeal of Socialism is the idea of "workers democracy", and if there is no realistic chance that it will come about, then I see no reason to continue via the means Marx offered. I'm siding with the Anarchists on this one I guess, but even they don't offer a reasonable alternative. What do you think Trivas?

First of all, why are you asking a hardline Austrian for opinions?

Second, please keep in mind our discussion on demarchic centralism. The party-movement system advocated in WITBD was an attempt to implement as much of the SPD model as possible within the Russian Empire. The shortcomings of modern "social movements" and the current deficit of political activism even by ideological liberals and ideological conservatives in the establishment indicates that the fetish for individualism - the basis of decentralization and extending all the way to "I'm not a party member, but I want this, that, and that" - just does not work. A new worker-class movement needs centralization and overall internal discipline, hence the party-movement (not traditional electoral groupings, but centralized, disciplined movements that pose the question of power).

Third, demarchy is already an affront to "liberal democracy," since it dispenses with elections and judges altogether (in the latter case replacing them with sovereign commoner juries).

[Post-Something]

First of all, why are you asking a hardline Austrian for opinions?

Second, please keep in mind our discussion on demarchic centralism. The party-movement system advocated in WITBD was an attempt to implement as much of the SPD model as possible within the Russian Empire. The shortcomings of modern "social movements" and the current deficit of political activism even by ideological liberals and ideological conservatives in the establishment indicates that the fetish for individualism - the basis of decentralization and extending all the way to "I'm not a party member, but I want this, that, and that" - just does not work. A new worker-class movement needs centralization, hence the party-movement (not traditional electoral groupings, but centralized movements that pose the question of power).

Third, demarchy is already an affront to "liberal democracy," since it dispenses with elections and judges altogether (in the latter case replacing them with sovereign commoner juries).

First of all, Trivas questioned my premise, so I thought I'd ask his opinion on the whole issue, since he seemed to just slip in and out of debate.

Secondly, Bobkindles and KC both addressed the issue quite well. Centralisation is really not the problem, it's simply that if a revolution degenerates, it affects a system with little checks and balances much harder, and a centralised system becomes too lop sided. See Bobkindles post to see what I'm talking about.

Thirdly, Demarchy is a brilliant idea, and I did do a bit of reading into it after we spoke, but I'm not sure if it could work on anything higher than a local level. My reasoning for this is such:

A group chosen via sortition could represent a small community to an accurate degree, and would be a far quicker way to resolve issues etc, however, the main attraction of delegates to higher bodies is that they are chosen and recallable. The workers choosing who they want to represent them is an important part democracy because it demands some sort of trust and agreement.

But at a local level, I think a commune should be able to choose between having some sort of Demarchical system or that which was adopted during the early years of the soviet union. I think that Demarchy is a very good way of speeding things up, and I could see it working actually.

In all honesty, the main issue I'm still pondering is whether a revolution can actually succeed or not. If a country does have a revolution, what steps should it take to stop it from going in the direction the soviet union did? How do you stop a degeneration process when there are so many factors which could directly harm the movement, such as civil war and being surrounded by hostile states? It just seems like a very big risk to take in this day in age.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Fair enough (re. #1 and #2)


Thirdly, Demarchy is a brilliant idea, and I did do a bit of reading into it after we spoke, but I'm not sure if it could work on anything higher than a local level. My reasoning for this is such:

A group chosen via sortition could represent a small community to an accurate degree, and would be a far quicker way to resolve issues etc, however, the main attraction of delegates to higher bodies is that they are chosen and recallable. The workers choosing who they want to represent them is an important part democracy because it demands some sort of trust and agreement.

The problem of regularly electing delegates to higher bodies, a central but unfulfilled demand of the Chartists, is that the time spent on conducting such elections (deciding which politician "really served the interests" of the constituency) could have been better spent by rather informed masses on deciding major legislation themselves (which can be as easy as "Yes" or "No"). Also, laws crafted by professional politicians tend not to be comprehensible to ordinary folks, and can contain loopholes.


In all honesty, the main issue I'm still pondering is whether a revolution can actually succeed or not. If a country does have a revolution, what steps should it take to stop it from going in the direction the soviet union did? How do you stop a degeneration process when there are so many factors which could directly harm the movement, such as civil war and being surrounded by hostile states? It just seems like a very big risk to take in this day in age.

There has to be a distinction between repression of certain non-workers and repression of workers. The former is crucial, but depending on the situation, can range from mere disenfranchisement to firing squads. Although you are right to raise the latter concern, human history is made by whole groups taking proportionately big risks in their respective "days and ages."

[Post-Something]

The problem of regularly electing delegates to higher bodies, a central but unfulfilled demand of the Chartists, is that the time spent on conducting such elections (deciding which politician "really served the interests" of the constituency) could have been better spent by rather informed masses on deciding major legislation themselves (which can be as easy as "Yes" or "No"). Also, laws crafted by professional politicians tend not to be comprehensible to ordinary folks, and can contain loopholes.

Yes, thats true, but consider this hypothetical scenario:

Commune A has a natural disaster and needs aid and resources quickly. the Surrounding communes have the three options we've discussed to help commune A:

1. Either everyone in the surrounding communes votes on what should be done, and wastes lots of time in doing so.

2. An organisation consisting of delegates already elected to take care of these issues takes care of it.

3. The system of demarchy is put into play, and an organisation is put together at random.

The problem with number one is obvious. It's a disaster and quick responses are needed. My problem with number three is that lots of the information and statistics being used may be too difficult to be able to grasp and act upon in the face of an emergency. If you apply this analogy to a political context, I think there are other issues which you would need to take into consideration as well. There are certain positions which would need to be elected.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hmmm. Cockshott mentioned that, in Ancient Greece, elections were reserved for military officials and what not:

http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/openp.htm

"Only where skill was essential, as with military commanders, was election considered safe. The contrast with our political and military system could not be more striking."

Your emergency scenario may indeed warrant mass elections, but in the sense that Roman senators elected short-term dictators to handle specific crises. On the other hand, there would already exist a relevant council or two consisting of folks selected by lot some time in the past that takes care of the crises as part of a broader mandate (say, public safety).

[Post-Something]

Hmmm. Cockshott mentioned that, in Ancient Greece, elections were reserved for military officials and what not:

http://reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/openp.htm

"Only where skill was essential, as with military commanders, was election considered safe. The contrast with our political and military system could not be more striking."

Your emergency scenario may indeed warrant mass elections, but in the sense that Roman senators elected short-term dictators to handle specific crises. On the other hand, there would already exist a relevant council or two consisting of folks selected by lot some time in the past that takes care of the crises as part of a broader mandate (say, public safety).

Well, you know, maybe you're right. Perhaps Demarchy is the most efficient way to organise society. I don't really mind, it seems to me that a commune should be able to freely choose what method of organisation they see fit. My only problem is how to get there.

By the way, do you think that a system where the legislative, executive and judicial powers are seperated on each level of society would be a good way of combatting bureaucratisation? The rationale is that it would forcibly spread out power, and be a development on Liberal Democracy. And if so, what would this mean for the position of the party in society?

I understand that if a system is going to degenerate, it will, but at least, this could hold it off a little?

[Die Neue Zeit]

My previous formulation of the "democracy question" explicitly stated the absence of judicial review. Again, after having read more into the distinction between judges and juries, it may be alright to have sovereign juries do the "checks and balances" on those making the laws (but still, no professional judges whatsoever).

As for the legislative and the executive, major legislation and what not may be put before the mass assemblies in a plebiscite. However, minor legislation and regular administration would have to be a combined function of statistically representative bodies, in similar fashion to the Paris Commune.

As for the party, I'm of the dual opinion of having a true class-party-state (in contrast with what Moshe Lewin calls a "no-party state" (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/745/38543)) and keeping party members with full voting rights (within the party) out of administrative affairs (http://proletarism.proletarism.ru/hm_2_4.shtml). The ideological qualification for random sortition, then, would be "members not on the party's full membership registry."

[Post-Something]

My previous formulation of the "democracy question" explicitly stated the absence of judicial review. Again, after having read more into the distinction between judges and juries, it may be alright to have sovereign juries do the "checks and balances" on those making the laws (but still, no professional judges whatsoever).

As for the legislative and the executive, major legislation and what not may be put before the mass assemblies in a plebiscite. However, minor legislation and regular administration would have to be a combined function of statistically representative bodies, in similar fashion to the Paris Commune.

As for the party, I'm of the dual opinion of having a true mass-party-state (in contrast with what Moshe Lewin calls a "no-party state" (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/745/38543)) and keeping party members with full voting rights (within the party) out of administrative affairs (http://proletarism.proletarism.ru/hm_2_4.shtml), with that "mass party" encompassing most workers already. The demarchic qualification would be for party members not on the party's full membership registry.

Hmm, that's interesting and clears a lot up. Although I'll have to look into your first paragraph in a bit more depth. You'll be pleased to know however, that I've started reading some of Kautsky's work on "two fundamentally distinct methods, that of democracy and that of dictatorship" in "The Dictatorship of the Proletariat". I think I'm also going to read "The Class Struggle" afterwards, because I think Lenin evaded a lot of the points Kautsky was making. Anyway, I'll report after I've read everything.

[trivas7]

As for the legislative and the executive, major legislation and what not may be put before the mass assemblies in a plebiscite. However, minor legislation and regular administration would have to be a combined function of statistically representative bodies, in similar fashion to the Paris Commune.

As for the party, I'm of the dual opinion of having a true class-party-state (in contrast with what Moshe Lewin calls a "no-party state" (http://www.greenleft.org.au/2008/745/38543)) and keeping party members with full voting rights (within the party) out of administrative affairs (http://proletarism.proletarism.ru/hm_2_4.shtml). The ideological qualification for random sortition, then, would be "members not on the party's full membership registry."
My, it must be fun to build castles in the air, imposter! (I used to play w/ dolls as a child.)

[RGacky3]

but in the sense that Roman senators elected short-term dictators to handle specific crises. On the other hand, there would already exist a relevant council or two consisting of folks selected by lot some time in the past that takes care of the crises as part of a broader mandate (say, public safety).

How did that work out?


Centralisation is really not the problem, it's simply that if a revolution degenerates, it affects a system with little checks and balances much harder, and a centralised system becomes too lop sided. See Bobkindles post to see what I'm talking about.


That is the problem, and with centralization its bound to degenerate because too few people have too much power.


How do you stop a degeneration process when there are so many factors which could directly harm the movement, such as civil war and being surrounded by hostile states? It just seems like a very big risk to take in this day in age.

There is'nt any evidence that I konw of that shows that centralization protects a revolution any more so than decentralization in a hostile enviroment. Both situations require mass support. Once you centralize power ultimately you've taken a peoples revolution and put it in the power of a few people who may or may not use the power honorably, and remember power corrupts.


There has to be a distinction between repression of certain non-workers and repression of workers. The former is crucial, but depending on the situation, can range from mere disenfranchisement to firing squads. Although you are right to raise the latter concern, human history is made by whole groups taking proportionately big risks in their respective "days and ages."

In a post revolutionary situation, who are these non-workers? They are either, the unemployed, criminals or actual counter revolutionary combatents, another than that who are the non-workers? Or are you, like the bolsheviks, deciding peoples 'class' based on party/political loyalty.