"Anti-vanguardism" vs. the need for "representation"

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Let us take also Kautsky’s book on parliamentarism and legislation by the people. There we find that the conclusions drawn by the Marxist theoretician coincide with the lessons learned from many years of practical experience by the workers who organised ‘spontaneously.’ Kautsky strongly protests against Rittinghausen’s primitive conception of democracy; he ridicules those who in the name of democracy demand that ‘popular newspapers shall be edited directly by the people’; he shows the need for professional journalists, parliamentarians, etc. […]" (Vladimir Lenin)



Just now I read the usual liberal crap in the Guardian newspaper about all the outrage over capitalism not spilling over into mass actions of (at least non-violent) resistance. Some poster there glorified the "middle class" (the liberal jumbling of small-business owners with that class of self-employed persons) as being the only ones capable of acting, then cited Orwell by saying that the "proles" merely stay home or vote BNP.

However, an interesting point made by anarchists on this board against vanguardism has been made: the notion of the vanguard "representing" the class as a whole. Let's face some facts, though:

1) Only a minority of workers become class conscious at the outset.
2) At the same time, a minority of non-workers, such as student elements, also adopt "revolutionary" consciousness.
3) Of #1 and #2, a lesser number have the time to organize.

4) The organized elements of #2 are not so reliable, since their perceived class politics for workers can never be strong enough. Hence, their partial rejection of Marxism from the onset by stating that class politics forms only part of the broader struggle for emancipation. Whatever identity politics, Green politics, etc. they have are stuff they are incapable of shoe-fitting into what they perceive as class politics. All the while, they vacillate on key issues.

5) The organized elements of #1, on the other hand, can realize the full potential of class politics. Even politics which address identity and the environment can be tailored to suit working-class interests specifically and even exclusively (the latter inviting charges of "classism" and "class chauvinism," especially from #4).

Aren't the struggles of #5 more or less mandated to "represent" the interests of the class as a whole, the essence of vanguardism?

[ʇsıɥɔɹɐuɐ ıɯɐbıɹo]

I kinda thought workers and students were different classes in the capitalist society? So the workers would represent themselves while the students do as well. :confused:

[Bright Banana Beard]

mmmeee0, some (not sure most or few)communist party only consist of revolutionary working class and not student as this has been for ever since Leninist.

Jacob, I thought you already know, Working class is the only class that able to drive the revolution, the student do not have strong desire to do this since 1)They lack the plight of the industry workers 2) They do not have any experience with the union and the social relationship of workers and 3)They not have strong class conscious as workers due to 1 and 2.

Or you merely educating us?

[Die Neue Zeit]

mmmeee0, some (not sure most or few)communist party only consist of revolutionary working class and not student as this has been for ever since Leninist.

Jacob, I thought you already know, Working class is the only class that able to drive the revolution, the student do not have strong desire to do this since 1)They lack the plight of the industry workers 2) They do not have any experience with the union and the social relationship of workers and 3)They not have strong class conscious as workers due to 1 and 2.

Or you merely educating us?

I was also critiquing Lenin for his inconsistency on proletarian separatism. He became a lesser renegade when he suggested letting peasants and other non-workers into the party just before his death. A similar tragedy befell his organizational role model, the SPD in Germany, in 1907 or so.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yes Father, and may Kautsky be with you.
Amen.
*The congregation stands to the tune of 'All things Bright and Kautskyian'*

Hey look, another post by HLVS which is totally ad hominem and off topic, tailored to insult Jacob (and most likely Marxists in general) rather than actually post something of value. What a surprise.




Jacob: I agree with the orginal post, however I'm not clear on your position regarding non-proletarian elements in relationship to a vanguard. Could you expand on this please:


I was also critiquing Lenin for his inconsistency on proletarian separatism. He became a lesser renegade when he suggested letting peasants and other non-workers into the party just before his death. A similar tragedy befell his organizational role model, the SPD in Germany, in 1907 or so.

[F9]

Jacob, I thought you already know, Working class is the only class that able to drive the revolution, the student do not have strong desire to do this since 1)They lack the plight of the industry workers 2) They do not have any experience with the union and the social relationship of workers and 3)They not have strong class conscious as workers due to 1 and 2.



I disagree!You are representing students as been a banch of idiots not knowing whats happening.Remember that those students are the daughters/sons of the workers.Are those that are suffering too from the system, and in cases youngsters who are in need of something extra when money dont let them have it, they are oppressed by the system.They may of course not lived the the work conditions, talk to other workers, feel the boss oppression, but school nowadays dont seems to have and huge differences where teachers are the "bosses" and students the "workers" treating them like they own them...
Youth have been a major point in lots of uprisings, when in lots of them you can say they were the "vanguard", so no what you say that students dont have a strong desire to lead the revolution is false.Youth can always have the extra passion for life, the passion to get in front and ask for their rights, than the worker who knows that if s/he goes on strike s/he might loose her/his job.Workers are usually more "conservative" as they most of times have a family to take care of..Youth just waits to "explode" any moment, and its definitely a major part.If "you" dont pay attention to the youth, and you only consider your powers threw workers, then you are having a failed revolution, pretty much surely.

No, number 1 is wrong, and far from truth.Students suffer the same as the worker.Who feeds them?Whos kids are they?In what familys where they grew up?What if they are working to have extra money to go to college because family cant help them?What about the kids taht because his/her parents didnt had the economical ability was forced to eat shitty food, never entertained, lived a shitty life?You consider that "nothing"?As society and state opress the working class, the same goes for their childrens, which have to be the majority of students.

They may true be unexperienced, but when the time comes to start the revolution, you wont judge who is experienced enough.You need strenght, passion and believe in the revolution, and those are usually things you find withing the youth.So yes, number 3 fails too, they have class consiousness, they were raised in the oppression, they live it every day, they see their neighbour dying, they see wars etc etc.They dont need anything more..

All in all, i do not disagree that working class would be someway the "vanguard", but youth can never be underestimated and are almost equally important, and in some cases they can take the "lead" too.

btw hlvs please try to stay on topic please and not derail threads..!

Fuserg9:star:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hey look, another post by HLVS which is totally ad hominem and off topic, tailored to insult Jacob (and most likely Marxists in general) rather than actually post something of value. What a surprise.

Jacob: I agree with the orginal post, however I'm not clear on your position regarding non-proletarian elements in relationship to a vanguard. Could you expand on this please:

Non-proletarians cannot truly be a vanguard of the working class. The vanguard of the working class has to be workers only (not even intellectual coordinators or even "self-employed" intellectuals).

[Bright Banana Beard]

I disagree!You are representing students as been a banch of idiots not knowing whats happening.Remember that those students are the daughters/sons of the workers.Are those that are suffering too from the system, and in cases youngsters who are in need of something extra when money dont let them have it, they are oppressed by the system.They may of course not lived the the work conditions, talk to other workers, feel the boss oppression, but school nowadays dont seems to have and huge differences where teachers are the "bosses" and students the "workers" treating them like they own them... I understand their plights and objective, however student are generally lack in knowledge about industry, they can only be supporter, but non-member of vanguard party.

Youth have been a major point in lots of uprisings, when in lots of them you can say they were the "vanguard", so no what you say that students dont have a strong desire to lead the revolution is false.This may also explain why congress become bureaucrat in many revolution, simple because we are letting non-proletarian into vanguard party. We learned this error, of course. This is the case with Soviet Union and China.



Youth can always have the extra passion for life, the passion to get in front and ask for their rights, than the worker who knows that if s/he goes on strike s/he might loose her/his job.Workers are usually more "conservative" as they most of times have a family to take care of..Youth just waits to "explode" any moment, and its definitely a major part.If "you" dont pay attention to the youth, and you only consider your powers threw workers, then you are having a failed revolution, pretty much surely. That is depend on who workers, I am planning to become dentist and helps the poor, but because of my future condition, I can only assist and not participate into the automony production of the proletarian. It is the workers themselve must be liberated, not the students.


No, number 1 is wrong, and far from truth.Students suffer the same as the worker.Who feeds them?Whos kids are they?In what familys where they grew up?What if they are working to have extra money to go to college because family cant help them?What about the kids taht because his/her parents didnt had the economical ability was forced to eat shitty food, never entertained, lived a shitty life?You consider that "nothing"?As society and state opress the working class, the same goes for their childrens, which have to be the majority of students. Workers work but the students study, there is clearly a different and that can tell who know about the industry. The point is once you detach yourself from workers' plight, you really become petit-bourgeois or middle class in today standard if you make plenty of money.


They may true be unexperienced, but when the time comes to start the revolution, you wont judge who is experienced enough.You need strenght, passion and believe in the revolution, and those are usually things you find withing the youth.So yes, number 3 fails too, they have class consiousness, they were raised in the oppression, they live it every day, they see their neighbour dying, they see wars etc etc.They dont need anything more.. There is nothing wrong that students see through it, as I explained above, they will certainly be helpful in our case, but when it come to autonomy for the mean of production and militant, it mainly the proletarians.

-BR:hammersickle:

[Dimentio]

I kinda thought workers and students were different classes in the capitalist society? So the workers would represent themselves while the students do as well. :confused:

I would'nt call the students a class. Most students have an upper-middle class background, while a minority has upper class background or working class background.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is depend on who workers, I am planning to become dentist and helps the poor, but because of my future condition, I can only assist and not participate into the automony production of the proletarian. It is the workers themselve must be liberated, not the students.

Dentists tend to be either petit-bourgeois or coordinators (without one's own dental business), indeed.

However, Engels did suggest the separate formation of rev-socialist petit-bourgeois and rev-socialist coordinator "party-movements" for non-workers who wish to be in "party-movement" politics, complete with their own recreational clubs, singing groups, cultural societies, etc. just like the pre-war SPD.

[Rawthentic]

They may true be unexperienced, but when the time comes to start the revolution, you wont judge who is experienced enough.You need strenght, passion and believe in the revolution, and those are usually things you find withing the youth.So yes, number 3 fails too, they have class consiousness, they were raised in the oppression, they live it every day, they see their neighbour dying, they see wars etc etc.They dont need anything more..
I'm glad this was brought up. It's so incredibly wrong.

The people, oppressed people in general, do have an understanding of their conditions. We don't need to tell them about police brutality, fucked up education, prison systems, poverty, etc. The problem lies in the fact that their understanding isn't systematic, coherent, and critical in a way that can allow them to consistently critique reality and engage in it (to transform it). Their understanding is many times episodic and choppy.

This is why there is a central need for revolutionaries to unite with people in struggle in order to help bridge their understanding from a more disjointed one to a more synthesized and coherent one. This has nothing to do with treating working people as ignorants. It has everything to do with understanding their thinking, conditions, and the need to develop a higher understanding of the world in order to change it.

Your view would have us not challenge the understanding of the people as it is (and therefore make it impossible to critically engage in revolutionary social transformation). We are revolutionaries. As Lenin said, we are tribunes of the people and our role lies in exposing the nature of the system in a way that is not above the people or below them, but with them.

In other words, we are not tailists (we dont simply support and tail what the ppl think and demand at a certain moment - even when they perceive it is in their interests) and we are not commandists (we do not, as revolutionaries, create programs or lead struggles in a way that is too far ahead of the understanding of the people, a mistake that would put is in a paternalistic and ultimately oppressive position). We are revolutionaries, united with the people in all their struggles, but firm in the need to raise their sights towards a critical consciousness.

Ever read Antonio Gramsci, the italian communist jailed during the Mussolini era? I'd recommend looking him up.

[MilitantWorker]

What makes the working class a distinct class is its relationship to the means of production. The only way workers make a living is by selling their ability to work.

When I was a student, at one point in time I had a job, was taking night classes and paying my way through it all, along with other bills..my point is the line can obviously get blurred. but generally you shouldn't lump people into categories like "the people" or "the students" because its not scientific, and if its not scientific its not Marxist.

The people could be many things-- they could be unemployed, they could be drug dealers or corporate execs, they could be nurses or janitors. Same goes for students-- they come from many different backgrounds, are studying many different things, and will have many different paths of trajection. If someone has a two or four year degree here in the US, they could be skilled workers, or they could be professionals. once again the line gets blurred.

This is, I think, a part of the hegemony of the dominate class/ideology and the type of thing which makes it harder for workers to develop revolutionary perspectives and consciousness.

But generally, if you work full time in order to make it by, if you have a boss rather than being someones boss, you are most likely a worker. If you work out of the house as a craftsmen or contractor, if you run a store and employ people, if you sell weed full-time, you are not a worker.

The division of labor can also muddy up the water for workers in terms of developing consciousness. Teachers, Healthcare professionals, and people in similar positions have mental, yet laborious jobs and I would argue that they too are workers. Other occupations that are more mental then manual include lawyers, audio and video technicians and engineers, software programmers, etc which can also get complicated. I wouldn't look too far into this complication, though, because I feel like......these tendencies come more from humanities general scientific advancement than capitalism's progressiveness.

Anyways, on the original subject. I hate the word vanguard. I mean, if you read it in Lenin or other places, look into it. Its possible that it could be bias (in favor of Bolshevism) translation. This whole conception that the working class needs representation in order to overthrow the capitalist sytem is falsely founded. The only representation workers need is self-representation. The idea that communists and intellectuals come from "outside the class" is also false. We all know how Lenin quotes Kautsky in WITBD (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm):


The vehicle of science is not the proletariat, but the bourgeois intelligentsia [K. K.’s italics]: it was in the minds of individual members of this stratum that modern socialism originated, and it was they who communicated it to the more intellectually developed proletarians who, in their turn, introduce it into the proletarian class struggle where conditions allow that to be done. Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without [von Aussen Hineingetragenes] and not something that arose within it spontaneously [urwüchsig].

Basically, on this question I would point everyone to "The 'Renegade' Kautsky and his Disciple Lenin" (http://libcom.org/library/renegade-kautsky-disciple-lenin-dauve) by Jean Barrot. He argues that socialist consciousness is not the product of an individuals mind, but instead the product of the class struggle in general. The idea that it needs to be "introduced" or "taught" from "without" is false. With support from the communists, workers will develop this consciousness in their own capacity. Not "spontaneously" like some assert, but instead as a result of the decline of capitalism and the heightening of class conflict due to this crisis.

[F9]

I'm glad this was brought up. It's so incredibly wrong.

The people, oppressed people in general, do have an understanding of their conditions. We don't need to tell them about police brutality, fucked up education, prison systems, poverty, etc. The problem lies in the fact that their understanding isn't systematic, coherent, and critical in a way that can allow them to consistently critique reality and engage in it (to transform it). Their understanding is many times episodic and choppy.

This is why there is a central need for revolutionaries to unite with people in struggle in order to help bridge their understanding from a more disjointed one to a more synthesized and coherent one. This has nothing to do with treating working people as ignorants. It has everything to do with understanding their thinking, conditions, and the need to develop a higher understanding of the world in order to change it.

Your view would have us not challenge the understanding of the people as it is (and therefore make it impossible to critically engage in revolutionary social transformation). We are revolutionaries. As Lenin said, we are tribunes of the people and our role lies in exposing the nature of the system in a way that is not above the people or below them, but with them.

In other words, we are not tailists (we dont simply support and tail what the ppl think and demand at a certain moment - even when they perceive it is in their interests) and we are not commandists (we do not, as revolutionaries, create programs or lead struggles in a way that is too far ahead of the understanding of the people, a mistake that would put is in a paternalistic and ultimately oppressive position). We are revolutionaries, united with the people in all their struggles, but firm in the need to raise their sights towards a critical consciousness.

Ever read Antonio Gramsci, the italian communist jailed during the Mussolini era? I'd recommend looking him up.

I cant see why im so incredibly wrong, especially when i find lots of your "arguments" correct.
I never said that people are totally social consensus, nor that they are totally aware of the goals of a revolution etc etc.I was mainly pointing out that students arent that ignorant, and that when people say that workers and only workers will make, organize revolution etc, and they dont give the necessary attention to the youth they are failing., as the youth has strong powers, which of course need some "cultivation".

No havent read that, though the name isnt something strange to me, i cant remember from where i know him, but i can be sure that i havent read such book.Maybe when find time, and end with what i have look it up..

Fuserg9:star:

[Rawthentic]

fuserg9:

what did you mean by this:


They may true be unexperienced, but when the time comes to start the revolution, you wont judge who is experienced enough.You need strenght, passion and believe in the revolution, and those are usually things you find withing the youth.So yes, number 3 fails too, they have class consiousness, they were raised in the oppression, they live it every day, they see their neighbour dying, they see wars etc etc.They dont need anything more..

[F9]

fuserg9:

what did you mean by this:

I was trying to "explain" to BR that the distinction between workers and students isnt so big, and that students are a major importance to be "used" for the revolution.

Fuserg9:star:

[Rawthentic]

What I got from that paragraph was that you were saying how students don't need to engage in political struggle in order to raise their understanding; that their consciousness doesn't need critical engagement in reality because their perceptual understanding is enough. And this is where I critiqued you.

To Intifada:

the reason many communists and revolutionaries use the word "the people" is because a socialist revolution won't just be composed of workers. Any and all revolutions will always be composed of a multi alliance of classes (although in our case, we need the leadership of the proletariat). For example, a socialist revolution needs to unite and include (depending on concrete conditions) the peasantry, intellectuals (building socialism requires scientists, doctors, engineers, etc), sections of the petty-bourgeoisie, lumpen, and even national bourgeoisie (in some cases). Reality is so much more complex and dynamic to be accounted for in the simple and dogmatic "workers vs bosses" conception.

[Tjis]

This may also explain why congress become bureaucrat in many revolution, simple because we are letting non-proletarian into vanguard party. We learned this error, of course. This is the case with Soviet Union and China.
"Boohoo, our revolutions failed!" -"I know! Lets blame it on the students! They're way less working class than us!"
Fuck that.

The problem is not perceived non-working class elements in those vanguard, the problem is that the ideas those vanguards proposed allowed bureaucracies to happen.

[Bright Banana Beard]

"Boohoo, our revolutions failed!" -"I know! Lets blame it on the students! They're way less working class than us!"
Fuck that. It is was never a matter of "more important". It is a matter of who is better poised to lead a thorough socialist revolution. Do you want petit-bourgeois or some student to leads them, or let the working class decided for themselves who should lead them?


The problem is not perceived non-working class elements in those vanguard, I disagree, Working class themselves can only bring socialist revolution. Allowing bourgeois or petit-bourgeois had been done many time and it proved to be making the revolution less socialistic and more populistic.


the problem is that the ideas those vanguards proposed allowed bureaucracies to happen. "Those" vanguard in earliest days also allowed other students, peasant, petit-bourgeois to become part of it, explaining why bureaucracies happen.

Prairie Fire explained it better why it have to consider a working class and not student or petit-bourgeois. http://www.revleft.com/vb/makes-worker-more-t110840/index.html?t=110840

[Tjis]

It is was never a matter of "more important". It is a matter of who is better poised to lead a thorough socialist revolution. Do you want petit-bourgeois or some student to leads them, or let the working class decided for themselves who should lead them?
I don't want people to lead at all, I want ideas to lead. Specifically, communist anarchist ideas. And anyone can proclaim them, including us "petit-bourgeois" students (do I hate that word! As if we don't have to work to pay for our studies, as if we suddenly become another type of human being as soon as we enter a university).


I disagree, Working class themselves can only bring socialist revolution. Allowing bourgeois or petit-bourgeois had been done many time and it proved to be making the revolution less socialistic and more populistic.
And students are not working class? Of course there are those that come from very rich families, but there are plenty of students coming from working class or lower middle class backgrounds too. Especially in countries where people get a state scholarship that lowers the cost of studying (as is the case here). And after we're done studying, many of us will get a wage slave job. Sure, it might be a better paid wage slave job but the underlying relations are still the same.


"Those" vanguard in earliest days also allowed other students, peasant, petit-bourgeois to become part of it, explaining why bureaucracies happen.
No, that doesn't explain it at all. If such a vanguard allows such a bureaucracy to exist in the first place, then something is wrong with its core ideology.

[Bright Banana Beard]

I don't want people to lead at all, I want ideas to lead. Specifically, communist anarchist ideas. And anyone can proclaim them, including us "petit-bourgeois" students (do I hate that word! As if we don't have to work to pay for our studies, as if we suddenly become another type of human being as soon as we enter a university).Then who will lead the ideas?



And students are not working class? Of course there are those that come from very rich families, but there are plenty of students coming from working class or lower middle class backgrounds too. Especially in countries where people get a state scholarship that lowers the cost of studying (as is the case here). And after we're done studying, many of us will get a wage slave job. Sure, it might be a better paid wage slave job but the underlying relations are still the same. Students do not yet sell their labour nor work in today standard, but the workers does. There is clearly a different between them, but students will end up as working class, bourgeois, or petit-bourgeois. This is why the working class must leads the revolution, not petit-bourgeois, lumpen or students.



No, that doesn't explain it at all. If such a vanguard allows such a bureaucracy to exist in the first place, then something is wrong with its core ideology.Vanguard does not equate to bureaucracy. If the working class want it, then will you support it? Otherwise you will be against the working class.

[Tjis]

Then who will lead the ideas?
Anyone can have ideas and proclaim them.
I personally would like to see a big federation of anarchist organizations to proclaim communist anarchist ideas. You can call this a vanguard if you like, as long as you realize that it's never the intention of such a federation to rule or control anything.


Students do not yet sell their labour nor work in today standard, but the workers does. There is clearly a different between them, but students will end up as working class, bourgeois, or petit-bourgeois. This is why the working class must leads the revolution, not petit-bourgeois, lumpen or students.
I work. Part-time when I have classes, full-time in holidays. This is the case for many students who don't have a rich family prepared to pay everything for them (which is the majority of the students around).


Vanguard does not equate to bureaucracy.
That's right. Vanguard with students or ex-students in it doesn't equate to bureaucracy either. Vanguard with authoritarian centralist ideas does equate to bureaucracy, and it doesn't matter if there are students in such a vanguard or not.


If the working class want it, then will you support it? Otherwise you will be against the working class.
"Either with us or against us!". Bullshit. I support the working class (I consider myself working class too, even if you don't consider me to be working class), but I will never support any authority.

[Bright Banana Beard]

"Either with us or against us!". Bullshit. I support the working class (I consider myself working class too, even if you don't consider me to be working class), but I will never support any authority.
It is not about that however, if working class want them, why should they not allowed to?

[Tjis]

It is not about that however, if working class want them, why should they not allowed to?
You say it as if I'd have any influence in the matter. If the working class wants it, then it will happen, no matter what I think of it.
Which is why I think that any organization who proclaim anti-capitalist ideas should also promote anti-authoritarian ideas and promote structures that don't need a hierarchy of command to work. The reason I want that is because I think bureaucracies and authority are a bad thing. I'd also think that in the hypothetical case that the entire working class except for me was united in the idea that we need a class of bureaucrats to take care of things for us. And I hope it'll never get that far.

[Die Neue Zeit]

BR, there has to be a bureaucracy of some sort. Otherwise, you can't have a mass party, and thus the working class not constituted "into a political party distinct from and opposed to all non-worker parties" (Marx).

Bureaucracy isn't the problem. Holding the bureaucracy accountable to the rank and file is. That is why elections should be scrapped, and bureaucrats selected by lot for short terms (while still subject to recall).

As for non-workers, it was a bit of a tragedy that the leading elements of the Bolsheviks themselves weren't workers. These days, though, I'm sure workers are capable of absorbing enough knowledge so as not to rely on intellectual elements - other than those who are proper professional workers (accountants, nurses, teachers, etc.).

[Bright Banana Beard]

BR, there has to be a bureaucracy of some sort. Otherwise, you can't have a mass party, and thus the working class not constituted "into a political party distinct from and opposed to all non-worker parties" (Marx).

Bureaucracy isn't the problem. Holding the bureaucracy accountable to the rank and file is. That is why elections should be scrapped, and bureaucrats selected by lot for short terms (while still subject to recall).

As for non-workers, it was a bit of a tragedy that the leading elements of the Bolsheviks themselves weren't workers. These days, though, I'm sure workers are capable of absorbing enough knowledge so as not to rely on intellectual elements - other than those who are proper professional workers (accountants, nurses, teachers, etc.). I am not against bureaucracy, but I am merely skeptical of letting petit-bourgeois or lumpen to lead the vanguard. I am sure workers will know who they can trust or not, but we will always need to stand vigilant to the change to ensure the working class is leading the revolution.

[Tower of Bebel]

BR, there has to be a bureaucracy of some sort. Otherwise, you can't have a mass party, and thus the working class not constituted "into a political party distinct from and opposed to all non-worker parties" (Marx).

Bureaucracy isn't the problem. Holding the bureaucracy accountable to the rank and file is. That is why elections should be scrapped, and bureaucrats selected by lot for short terms (while still subject to recall).

As for non-workers, it was a bit of a tragedy that the leading elements of the Bolsheviks themselves weren't workers. These days, though, I'm sure workers are capable of absorbing enough knowledge so as not to rely on intellectual elements - other than those who are proper professional workers (accountants, nurses, teachers, etc.).
Isn't bureaucracy without the "cratein" (rule/government) just ... bureau .. or administration? Don't you mean: the working class cannot do without administration? Btw, a problem within a party like the SPD were the "intellectualized" workers. Workers who adopted other interests (that of intellectuals) through promotion within the party (in party relations); even though they stayed workers in their social (outer party) relations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Isn't bureaucracy without the "cratein" (rule/government) just ... bureau .. or administration? Don't you mean: the working class cannot do without administration? Btw, a problem within a party like the SPD were the "intellectualized" workers. Workers who adopted other interests (that of intellectuals) through promotion within the party (in party relations); even though they stayed workers in their social (outer party) relations.

Thanks for clarification on administration. I'll also have to think about your remarks on intellectuals in the SPD.