Was the Bolshevik Revolution a "socialist" revolution?

[robbo203]

I have already answered this point elsewhere. No it was not because its outcome was state capitalism and it is its outcome that defines the nature of a revolution.

In this thread, however, I want to look at just one specific aspect of this debate which has not really been adequately covered. Socialism (aka communism) presupposes not only a relatively developed infrastrucutre to sustain a non-market anti-statist economy; it also presupposes mass understanding and support for socialism among workers without which socialism would be completely inoperable.

Claims have been made on this site that the Russian Revolution was essentially a proletarian revolution that sought to overthrow capitalism. I dont question the fact that the participants in the revolution were largely proletarian but in a sense this is irrelevent. It is quite possible for a capitalist revolution to be carried out overwhelmingly by non-capitalist elements - workers or peasants for example. The more relevant claim is that the workers at the time of the Russian revolution sought en masse to overthrow capitalism. This is what I am questioning.

Where is the hard evidence to support this claim. I wonder? Put it this way. merely wanting to oust your capitalist employer from your place of work - and there is no doubt there was a lot of resentment among Russian workers to their capitalist bosses at the time - hardly signifies that you want to "get rid of capitalism". Workers taking over a factory does not mean it is no longer capitalism. To want to get rid of capitalism means to want put forward something positively to replace capitalism with - socialism. State capitalism is not a replacement of capitalism only a variation of capitalism.

The Socialist alternative to capitalism is a moneyless wageless stateless world community. What I want to know is how widespread was THIS idea among the Russian proletariat at the time of the Bolshevik Revolution. What evidence I have - and I dont have much - suggests this was pretty negligible. Certainly, the idea of a socialist society was current to some extent in certain limited circles . Bogdanoffs ""Short History of Economic Science" described socialism as a society without buying and selling for instance. But how far did these ideas penetrate the Russian proletariat? Lenin did not seem to think they were very prevalent and remarked at one point that if socialism had to await the development of socialist consciousness among the workers this would take 500 years (I think that was quoted in John Reeds Book Ten Days that shooked the World)

Of course even if evidence can be produced that the Russian workers were to a significant extent motivated by the idea of establishing socialism in the above (authentic) sense of the word, this would still not make the Russian revolution a socialist revolution because for one thing, most of population at the time were peasants, not workers. Also , the technological basis for socialism was still lacking.

However it would be useful to get some actual evidence of the actual extent to which Russian workers genuinely wanted to overthrow capitalism as such (as opposed to just overthrowing the capitalists) though I suspect the evidence would point to there being very little in the way of active working class support for socialism. The Bolsheviks attracted mass support not becuase of their alleged "socialism" but because of their reformist programme centred on the slogan "Peace, Land and Bread" which,in itself, was hardly incompatible with maintaining capitalism

[ComradeOm]

Resolution of the Petrograd Soviet Of Workers' And Soldiers' Deputies
25 October (Old Calender) 1917

The Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies hails the victorious revolution of the proletariat and the garrison of Petrograd. The Soviet particularly emphasises the solidarity, organisation, discipline and complete unanimity displayed by the masses in this unusually bloodless and unusually successful uprising.

It is the unshakable conviction of the Soviet that the workers' and peasants' government which will be created by the revolution, as a Soviet government, and which will ensure the urban proletariat the support of the whole mass of the poor peasantry, will firmly advance towards socialism, the only means of saving the country from the untold miseries and horrors of war.

The new workers' and peasants' government will immediately propose a just and democratic peace to all belligerent nations.

It will immediately abolish landed proprietorship and hand over the land to the peasants. It will institute workers' control over the production and distribution of goods and establish national control over the banks, at the same time transforming them into a single state enterprise.

The Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies calls on all workers and all peasants to support the workers' and peasants' revolution devotedly and with all their energy. The Soviet expresses the conviction that the urban workers, in alliance with the poor peasants, will display strict, comradely discipline and establish the strictest revolutionary order, which is essential for the victory of socialism.

The Soviet is convinced that the proletariat of the West European countries will help us to achieve a complete and lasting victory for the cause of socialism

From here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/25a.htm)

[New Tet]

Check out Deutscher's "Stalin", Trotsky's "History of the Russian Revolution" and E.H. Carr's "History of the Soviet Union" for a clue about the class nature of the October Revolution. Also, shorter analysis are available here: "The SLP & The USSR" (http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/slp_ussr.pdf) "The Nature of Soviet Society" (http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/sov_soc.pdf) "After The Revolution, Who Rules?" (http://www.slp.org/pdf/others/after_rev.pdf), all in pdf. format.

[robbo203]

Out of curiosity, pure curiosity, when and where can a revolution be "socialist" according to you?

Only the advanced first world countries? Does this mean you oppose any socialist movement in an underdeveloped country because it is essentially capitalist according to you?

I want to know how reactionary you actually are when you scratch the surface.

Dont be ridiculous. If a socialist movement is in fact a genuine socialist movement I would support it wherever it exists.

For a revolution to be a socialist presupposes two basic things.

1) that there is the technological potential to sustain a non market anti-statist economy (socialism) in the first place. Globally this potential has been around for decades and since socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism (because capitalism is itself a global system) we can say that this particular precondition has long been met

2) that there is mass understanding and support for socialism at a global level . Nowhere in the world at present is the revolutionary non-market anti statist (socialist) movement anything other than relatively small, if not negligible. but there is no reason it could not grow anywhere. However, the establishment of socialism, the successul implementation of socialist revolution, presupposes that the socialist movement has grown everywhere to a significant degree becuase socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism - it is impossoble to have socialism in one country. Therefore there cannot be a socialist revolution either in a third world country or, for that matter, a first world country without this significant global socialist presence

What I would not support is an movement that purport to be socialist but is in fact a anti working-class movement in favour of state capitalism, That is something that the reactionary pro-capitalist left such as yourself might support but not a revolutionary socialist



Any

[Tower of Bebel]

It probably was, "subjectively speaking", not a socialist revolution for the majority of the Russian population (the base of both revolution and counterrevolution). And I think that conscious marxists for that mather were sometimes very clear about that. Even the concept of democratic revolution did not always apply (the Bolsheviks being scene of both revolution and counterrevolution). But that does not diminish the task of aknowledging it's character as a revolution of the "toiling masses", and it's importance as a spark for the social revolution in Europe.

[robbo203]

Resolution of the Petrograd Soviet Of Workers' And Soldiers' Deputies
25 October (Old Calender) 1917

The Petrograd Soviet of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies hails the victorious revolution of the proletariat and the garrison of Petrograd. The Soviet particularly emphasises the solidarity, organisation, discipline and complete unanimity displayed by the masses in this unusually bloodless and unusually successful uprising.

It is the unshakable conviction of the Soviet that the workers' and peasants' government which will be created by the revolution, as a Soviet government, and which will ensure the urban proletariat the support of the whole mass of the poor peasantry, will firmly advance towards socialism, the only means of saving the country from the untold miseries and horrors of war.

The new workers' and peasants' government will immediately propose a just and democratic peace to all belligerent nations.

It will immediately abolish landed proprietorship and hand over the land to the peasants. It will institute workers' control over the production and distribution of goods and establish national control over the banks, at the same time transforming them into a single state enterprise.





Yes this doesnt really help at all. Despite the rhetoric about "advancing towards socialism" what this statement is talking about is about the new workers and peasants government adminsitering some form of capitalism. That is shown by the proposal to establish national control of the banks. In socialism there would no money capital as Marx pointed out and hence no banks

Quite apart from anything else, this still doesnt get to the point that this thread is about: what was the extent of genuine socialist consciousness among the russian working class itself. In other words, to what extent was it motivated by the desire to establish a monelyess wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. This is what I am getting at. A resolution issue by the Petrograd Soviet does not provide us with much of a clue, frankly

[ComradeOm]

Yes this doesnt really help at all. Despite the rhetoric about "advancing towards socialism" what this statement is talking about is about the new workers and peasants government adminsitering some form of capitalism. That is shown by the proposal to establish national control of the banks. In socialism there would no money capital as Marx pointed out and hence no banksThe resolution expressly states that the direction of the Soviet is towards a socialist future. It explicitly mentions "workers' control over the production and the distribution of goods" and 'the concentration of credit in the hands of the state' (to quote the Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)). It demonstrates without question that the Soviet movement was socialist in intention. Please excuse the Soviet delegates if they were unable to anticipate your expectations... although frankly I have no idea as to how anyone could possibly construe this as a call for capitalism

We know that this movement (and the soviets as institutions) were hugely popular amongst the Russian proletariat. We know that amongst the latter the Bolsheviks were by far and away the most popular party. This is borne out by both official electoral votes (in the soviets, the Petrograd Duma, Congress of Soviets, Constituent Assembly, etc) throughout 1917 and 1918. It is also displayed indirectly (or more so, depending on your perspective) through mass events such as the ballooning Bolshevik membership and the dominance of their slogans during the June marches. It takes a very short leap of logic to connect the socialism of the soviets with their popularity in the eyes of the masses. Had this not been the case, and the revolutionary nature of the soviets and Bolsheviks had not been shared by the masses, then the latter would not have supported and fought for the former


A resolution issue by the Petrograd Soviet does not provide us with much of a clue, franklyGiven the above and the fact that the Petrograd Soviet was itself an expression of the working class I think its very relevant. If that's not acceptable then I'm not sure just what you are looking for - the number of reading clubs studying Kapital in 1917 or the percentage of urban graffiti referencing dialectical materialism? Perhaps a read of Gramsci and his theories on the relationship between intellectuals and mass movements may be more useful in your case

[Pogue]

I don't think there was a 'Bolshevik' revolution. I think there was a period of working class revolt against Tsardom, which had revolutionary input from alot of sources, the main one being the Bolshevik party. The ideology of the Bolsheviks was Marxism but the various influences of certain figures with the statist ideas they had, such as Lenin and Trotsky, led to the revolution simply leading to the establishment of a new ruling class in the Bolshevik state, which took away any potential for socialism seen in the factory committees and led to state capitalism (as Lenin admitted) which led to the subsequent events. It was a workers revolution which could have led to socialism if it weren't for the attitudes of the Bolsheviks and the civil war/isolation of the country.

[PRC-UTE]

I have already answered this point elsewhere. No it was not because its outcome was state capitalism and it is its outcome that defines the nature of a revolution.

Surely we can't define the entire Soviet project by one limited period of time, the NEP years. Besides, that was partially state capitalist in only some sectors of the economy.

[robbo203]

The resolution expressly states that the direction of the Soviet is towards a socialist future. It explicitly mentions "workers' control over the production and the distribution of goods" and 'the concentration of credit in the hands of the state' (to quote the Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm)). It demonstrates without question that the Soviet movement was socialist in intention. Please excuse the Soviet delegates if they were unable to anticipate your expectations... although frankly I have no idea as to how anyone could possibly construe this as a call for capitalism

Well, no, it doesnt necesarily demonstrate that the soviet movement was socialist in intention at all. Yes, it talks about socialism but what does it mean by this "socialism". As you will be aware by now from my point of view, if it does not entail the complete elimination of commodity production it is not socialism.. What makes you so sure that in referring to advancing towards a socialist future this resolution did not really have in mind what I would call state capitalism for example?

The proposal to retain banks is in effect a proposal to retain capitalism - clearly. This is obvious for the reason I gave. In socialism (communism) money capital ceases to exists; its existence implies the existence of capitalism. Yes, the communist manifesto talked (in the section dealing with those "revolutionary reforms" in the political transition period between capitalism and communism) about the need to "concentrate credit in the hands of the state". But Marx and Engels had no illusions about this being socialism or communism. They understood well enough that it was merely about the restructuring of capitalism to aid the transition to communism (although in later prefaces to the manifesto they downgraded the significance of these reforms - see the 1872 preface in particular - and maintained that the further development of capitalism had made much of what they has written irrelevant

But in any case this is still not addressing the point of this thread. So the Petrograd Soviet issued a resolution that vaguely talked about advancing towards a socialist future. What I wanted to know was to what extent the idea of a genuine moneyless wageless stateless society had penetrated the consciousness of the Russian working class. Citing this resolution and saying the soviets were enormously popular among the workers just does not do the trick for me. Its just far too tenuous as evidence goes


We know that this movement (and the soviets as institutions) were hugely popular amongst the Russian proletariat. We know that amongst the latter the Bolsheviks were by far and away the most popular party. This is borne out by both official electoral votes (in the soviets, the Petrograd Duma, Congress of Soviets, Constituent Assembly, etc) throughout 1917 and 1918. It is also displayed indirectly (or more so, depending on your perspective) through mass events such as the ballooning Bolshevik membership and the dominance of their slogans during the June marches. It takes a very short leap of logic to connect the socialism of the soviets with their popularity in the eyes of the masses. Had this not been the case, and the revolutionary nature of the soviets and Bolsheviks had not been shared by the masses, then the latter would not have supported and fought for the former

No this just doesnt work as an argument at all. That the Bolsheviks were popular is not in dispute but was the basis of this popularity? I think you would have to agree that it was really to do with the reform programme the Bolshviks offered centred on the slogan "Peace , land and bread". The Soviets were not in themselves socialist insitutions; they were just a basic structure of decisionmaking - worker councils. Workers control of the industrial undertakings - worker co-ops if you like - are not compatible with the existence of capitalism at all. You can plausibly make a case that they are better than conventional capitalist concerns but that still does not make them "socialist". Ditto the Bolsheviks slogans you refer. Certainly the Bolsheviks did good in taking Russia out of the war but that in itself does not make the Bolsheviks socialist or the Bolshevik revolution a socialist revolution



Given the above and the fact that the Petrograd Soviet was itself an expression of the working class I think its very relevant. If that's not acceptable then I'm not sure just what you are looking for - the number of reading clubs studying Kapital in 1917 or the percentage of urban graffiti referencing dialectical materialism? Perhaps a read of Gramsci and his theories on the relationship between intellectuals and mass movements may be more useful in your case

There are just too many unsubstantiated gaps or lacunae in the chain of reasoning that connects the bald statement "Petrograd Soviet was itself an expression of the working class" with the conclusion that Russian working clas was significantly motivated by the desire to establish a moneyless wageless stateless society. For example , how representative was Petrograd of Russia as a whole? How representative was the Petrograd soviet of the workers in Petrograd? How representative was the resolution of the Petorgrad soviet of the members of the soviet? To what extent where the members of the soviet swayed by other considerations than the establishment of a socialist society to support the resolution and so on and so forth.

To be honest, I dont know quite what would constitute reliable evidence of the extent of genuine socialist consciousness in Russia in 1917 although I suspect the number of reading clubs studying Kapitakl might be slightly more reliable than a vague statement put out by the Petrograd Soviet

[Led Zeppelin]

If a socialist movement is in fact a genuine socialist movement I would support it wherever it exists.

That is the point. You believe that there has never been a socialist revolution and as a result a socialist movement in the history of mankind, and therefore oppose all of them and denounce them as "capitalist" and led by "bourgeois revolutionaries".

This makes you a reactionary in relation to those revolutions and movements. You should be proud of that since you consider them to be capitalist and bourgeois in nature, so why get upset at the label? Accept it and wear it with pride, like how that other clown wears the Kautskyite badge with pride.


For a revolution to be a socialist presupposes two basic things.

1) that there is the technological potential to sustain a non market anti-statist economy (socialism) in the first place. Globally this potential has been around for decades and since socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism (because capitalism is itself a global system) we can say that this particular precondition has long been met

So this potential only exists globally? Do you believe that a socialist revolution has to be a simultaneous global one, and that it is impossible for it to be limited to one or several nations at first?

If so, you have set a standard of acceptance for "socialism" which is unrealizable, and therefore you are doomed to denounce any socialist movement as reactionary because they do not meet it, and are realistically unable to ever do so.


2) that there is mass understanding and support for socialism at a global level . Nowhere in the world at present is the revolutionary non-market anti statist (socialist) movement anything other than relatively small, if not negligible. but there is no reason it could not grow anywhere. However, the establishment of socialism, the successul implementation of socialist revolution, presupposes that the socialist movement has grown everywhere to a significant degree becuase socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism - it is impossoble to have socialism in one country. Therefore there cannot be a socialist revolution either in a third world country or, for that matter, a first world country without this significant global socialist presence

There will never be sufficient "mass understanding and support for socialism at a global level" to satisfy your arbitrary and shallow needs. You have claimed in other threads that for a movement to be socialist, it has to have support of the majority of workers, and even more than that, that the workers should all be socialists and class-conscious.

You have claimed that for a socialist revolution to be socialist in nature, all the workers, or at least the vast majority of them, should be class-conscious active socialists.

To believe that under a capitalist system this standard is attainable is a fantasy. However, even at this you do not stop. You go further and say that this standard should be met globally!

To anyone who knows their history, this position was called economism about a century ago. The economists claimed that socialism could only exist as the objective material conditions advanced, and created it as a result. They claimed that agitating for socialism or revolution was pointless, unless you did so with the full understanding that the things you were agitating for were for educational purposes only. So when you are trying to convince a worker of socialism, you have to tell him that you believe in socialism, but that you don't believe he can bring it about until everyone else agrees with it as well.

And when will every worker or the vast majority ever be class-conscious and socialist under a capitalist system which has countless ways of disseminating bourgeois ideology? When pigs fly.

Of course in Robbo's world pigs are able to fly, so he might be confused by that.

The funny thing is though that you still claim to be a Marxist. Well go on then, mr. Marxist, why don't you quote Marx, Engels or whoever else fits your narrow limits of acceptability as a Marxist to this effect?

If I recall correctly, and I know I do, Marx and Engels were the ones who said that the proletariat was bourgeois in consciousness at its inception, because the class is "created" and "springs forth" (paraphrasing here, so don't demands I quote them on this with fake indignation) from bourgeois society. The ruling ideas of society are those of the ruling class.

How then can we ever challenge that? When the equilibrium of class-society is disturbed, when the system shakes and trembles, that is when the ruling ideas and their hold on the working-class are shaken, and that is when we have our opportunity to challenge them. This is the task of the "conscious element", i.e., the Marxists.

But let's just stick with what I asked of you above. Provide the quotes, or stop calling yourself a Marxist.

[robbo203]

That is the point. You believe that there has never been a socialist revolution and as a result a socialist movement in the history of mankind, and therefore oppose all of them and denounce them as "capitalist" and led by "bourgeois revolutionaries".

This makes you a reactionary in relation to those revolutions and movements. You should be proud of that since you consider them to be capitalist and bourgeois in nature, so why get upset at the label? Accept it and wear it with pride, like how that other clown wears the Kautskyite badge with pride.
.

More drivel. You seem incapable of comprehending the matter from a historical perspective. First things first. Has there ever been an authentic socialist revolution anywhere in which the preconditions for such a revlution hads been met. No there has not. Fantasists like yourself might discern a socialist revolution in every little tinpot nationalist uprising around the world that presumes to cloak itself in the rhetorc of marxian liberation. But I am a realist. I know full well that what has been established in the name of socialism is state capitalism. Probably the closest thing we got to a socialist revolution were the anarchist collectives in Spain during the civil war but this still fell well short of the mark for various reasons

Do I reject and oppose those revolutions that established capitalism in the past. Insofar as it was necessary to esablish capitalism no I dont though unlike you I am not so beguiled by the them to the extent that I call them "socialist". They awere not socialist revolutions but capitalist revolutions. Today in 2009 there is no progressive role whatsoever for a capitalist revolution at all. Only reactionaries like yourself with your head firmly stuck in the sand can believe such tosh.



So this potential only exists globally? Do you believe that a socialist revolution has to be a simultaneous global one, and that it is impossible for it to be limited to one or several nations at first?

If so, you have set a standard of acceptance for "socialism" which is unrealizable, and therefore you are doomed to denounce any socialist movement as reactionary because they do not meet it, and are realistically unable to ever do so.
.

A socialist revolution has to be carried out if not literally simultaneously across the world then in a very short space of time. It is inconceivable that you could have socialism in one country and the rest of the world deeply entrenched in capitalism. Wherever a socialist revolution breaks out first, this would necessarily imply the existence of a very substantial socialist movement elsewhere in the world. The world is becoming an increasingly intergrated and interdependent place. BY their very nature socialist ideas will penetrate everywhere once the movement gets going



There will never be sufficient "mass understanding and support for socialism at a global level" to satisfy your arbitrary and shallow needs. You have claimed in other threads that for a movement to be socialist, it has to have support of the majority of workers, and even more than that, that the workers should all be socialists and class-conscious.

You have claimed that for a socialist revolution to be socialist in nature, all the workers, or at least the vast majority of them, should be class-conscious active socialists.

To believe that under a capitalist system this standard is attainable is a fantasy. However, even at this you do not stop. You go further and say that this standard should be met globally![QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;1495575]

If you cannot have mass understanding and support for socialism then you cannot have socialism. Period. There is no getting round this argument. Of course you can chose to side with the apologists for capitalism in declaring then that socialism is impossible that the idea of mass socialist understanding is a "fantasy". That does not surprise in the least given your anti-socialist pro-capitalist sympathieis. But never say "never". Unlike you I dont have a crystal ball to predict the future. A moneyless wageless classless alternative to capitalism may well not ever come about but that doesnt mean that as a socialist I am wasting my time pursuing it. No matter how small ,the influence of socialist ideas is a beneficial one even in the dog-eat-dog world of capitalism today

[QUOTE=Led Zeppelin;1495575]
To anyone who knows their history, this position was called economism about a century ago. The economists claimed that socialism could only exist as the objective material conditions advanced, and created it as a result. They claimed that agitating for socialism or revolution was pointless, unless you did so with the full understanding that the things you were agitating for were for educational purposes only. So when you are trying to convince a worker of socialism, you have to tell him that you believe in socialism, but that you don't believe he can bring it about until everyone else agrees with it as well.

.

Well I am not one of those economists you speak of who thinks agitating for socialism is pointless. Nor do I consider that there is any need now for the further development of the "objective material conditions" to make socialism possible. The technological potential has been around for decades. What we now need to focus on is bringing consciousness in line with these material possibilities



And when will every worker or the vast majority ever be class-conscious and socialist under a capitalist system which has countless ways of disseminating bourgeois ideology? When pigs fly.


Of course in Robbo's world pigs are able to fly, so he might be confused by that..

If you feel the need to succumb to bourgeois defeatism go ahead. Dont count me in



If I recall correctly, and I know I do, Marx and Engels were the ones who said that the proletariat was bourgeois in consciousness at its inception, because the class is "created" and "springs forth" (paraphrasing here, so don't demands I quote them on this with fake indignation) from bourgeois society. The ruling ideas of society are those of the ruling class.

How then can we ever challenge that? When the equilibrium of class-society is disturbed, when the system shakes and trembles, that is when the ruling ideas and their hold on the working-class are shaken, and that is when we have our opportunity to challenge them. This is the task of the "conscious element", i.e., the Marxists.

But let's just stick with what I asked of you above. Provide the quotes, or stop calling yourself a Marxist.


Provide quotes in respect of what? Is this a catechism class? Can you not figure it out yourself without turning to holy scripture.

Yes if you want quotes there are plenty of quotes which I can fish out from individuals like Marx, Morris , Engels , Kropotkin which point out that the working class must emncipate itself, that the revolution must be a majority revolution, unlike capitalist revolutions, that workers must become socialist minded and that the process of socialist education is indispensable. But with or without the aid of such quotes this is not rocket science. Common sense tells you that you cannot have a socialist society unless people understand what it means and want it.

[Led Zeppelin]

Yes if you want quotes there are plenty of quotes which I can fish out from individuals like Marx, Morris , Engels , Kropotkin which point out that the working class must emncipate itself, that the revolution must be a majority revolution, unlike capitalist revolutions, that workers must become socialist minded and that the process of socialist education is indispensable.

The issue is not whether the working-class must emancipate itself, or whether the revolution must be a majority one (which "revolution" was ever a minority one? Do you even know what the term "revolution" means?), or even whether socialist education is indispensible.

The issue is whether the majority of the working-class can become class-conscious communists within the confines of capitalism, only to then, afterwards, proceed with overthrowing said system. The entire premise is ludicrous because if it was possible for the majority of the working-class to become class-conscious communists without a general crisis or disturbance in the equilibrium of the capitalist system and without a revolution then parliamentary democracy would indeed be truly democratic, since when we "get the majority" we can "enact law".

But according to Marx they can't, because it requires the process of revolution for this to occur:


Both for the production on a mass scale of this communist consciousness, and for the success of the cause itself, the alteration of men on a mass scale is, necessary, an alteration which can only take place in a practical movement, a revolution; this revolution is necessary, therefore, not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way, but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itself of all the muck of ages and become fitted to found society anew.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01d.htm)

Now, I have challenged you to quote Marxist theoreticians on the matter and you have complained of dogmatism and "holy scripture", all the while maintaining that you are a believer of classical Marxism. You attempt to turn Marx into a common liberal and reactionary like you are yourself.

That won't fly (just as pigs don't in the real world).

You are not a Marxist, just admit it and move on. For all I care call yourself a Kropotkinist, at least then I won't know if you're making shit up because I've never bothered to read anything by the Prince.

EDIT: I'm going to move this discussion to the thread you made in the History forum, since the subject is the same. Also to prevent further derailing of this wonderful thread.

[ComradeOm]

Well, no, it doesnt necesarily demonstrate that the soviet movement was socialist in intention at all. Yes, it talks about socialism but what does it mean by this "socialism". As you will be aware by now from my point of view, if it does not entail the complete elimination of commodity production it is not socialism.. What makes you so sure that in referring to advancing towards a socialist future this resolution did not really have in mind what I would call state capitalism for example?To be perfectly honest its pretty much an irrelevancy as to what you feel the 'correct' path to socialism entails. The emancipation of the Russian working class was the work of the working class itself. If its revolution was not 'pure' or ideologically correct enough for you then so be it

Which is completely different from your absurd charge that the Russian proletariat was stupid and had no idea what it was doing


But in any case this is still not addressing the point of this thread. So the Petrograd Soviet issued a resolution that vaguely talked about advancing towards a socialist future. What I wanted to know was to what extent the idea of a genuine moneyless wageless stateless society had penetrated the consciousness of the Russian working class. Citing this resolution and saying the soviets were enormously popular among the workers just does not do the trick for me. Its just far too tenuous as evidence goesWhat do you want? An opinion poll? We have plenty of those - see the repeated affirmations of the Bolsheviks' programme in a series of electoral tests (soviet, duma, and more) throughout 1917 and beyond! The Bolshevik political programme was marked by two main features - its call for the assumption of workers' control of the economy (in order to resolve the economic crisis) and the abolition of bourgeois government in favour of rule by democratic soviets. This was the position of the Bolshevik party from April 1917, this was the programme that they continually emphasised*, and this was banner that the masses flocked to. The idea that the latter only did because of a single slogan is absurd - the many Bolshevik slogans were part and parcel of their programme

* To quote a Bolshevik paper in run up to the August Petrograd Duma elections, "Only our party is striving for fundamental, radical changes in city government...". This was undoubtedly the case and the source of Bolshevik popularity


No this just doesnt work as an argument at all. That the Bolsheviks were popular is not in dispute but was the basis of this popularity? I think you would have to agree that it was really to do with the reform programme the Bolshviks offered centred on the slogan "Peace , land and bread"You ascribe the Bolshevik popularity to a single slogan? Why not "All Power to the Soviets" then?

As for the assertion that the Soviets were "not in themselves socialist insitutions" [sic], they were bodies formed, organised, and elected by the working class as organs of class governance. Now one could argue that there was no reason for them to automatically assume socialist policies (like those in Germany they could be subverted) but they were unquestionably proletarian bodies and anyone who argues that they were not a positive step forward and prerequisite for socialism is sorely mistaken. How many such councils have ever been formed in Britain or the US?


There are just too many unsubstantiated gaps or lacunae in the chain of reasoning that connects the bald statement "Petrograd Soviet was itself an expression of the working class" with the conclusion that Russian working clas was significantly motivated by the desire to establish a moneyless wageless stateless society. For example , how representative was Petrograd of Russia as a whole? How representative was the Petrograd soviet of the workers in Petrograd? How representative was the resolution of the Petorgrad soviet of the members of the soviet? To what extent where the members of the soviet swayed by other considerations than the establishment of a socialist society to support the resolution and so on and so forthLeaving aside the last question, which does not make much sense, the answers are as below

The Petrograd Soviet was obviously only representative of the workers in Petrograd and the soldiers of the Northern Front which which its members were drawn. Obviously given that Petrograd was both the capital and a major hub this was of some importance. Within Petrograd itself the Soviet, by October 1917, can be considered representative of the worker feeling throughout the city. The Bolsheviks had possessed a majority within the Soviet (and had done so since Sept) but also dominated a number of lesser district soviets - the Vyborg district had been passing anti-bourgeois resolutions for months was solidly Bolshevik from April. I can similarly produce resolutions from throughout 1917 from this and various other district soviets and garrison committees if you wish?

There were similar resolutions passed by the network of soviets around the Empire and there is an accurate gauge as to the relative strength of the Bolsheviks throughout the country in the Congress of Soviets held in October 1917. Here the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the largest single party and, with their allies, possessed an absolute majority in the Congress. The resolution passed by it can be seen here (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/25-26/25b.htm)

And again, the Constituent Assembly, effectively a referendum on the transfer of power to the Soviet, was conclusive in establishing that the vast majority of the Russian working class supported this revolutionary measure


To be honest, I dont know quite what would constitute reliable evidence of the extent of genuine socialist consciousness in Russia in 1917 although I suspect the number of reading clubs studying Kapitakl might be slightly more reliable than a vague statement put out by the Petrograd SovietYou would rather a count of reading clubs than a major resolution passed by the revolutionary workers and sailors of the Petrograd Soviet? Naturally :rolleyes:

[robbo203]

The issue is not whether the working-class must emancipate itself, or whether the revolution must be a majority one (which "revolution" was ever a minority one? Do you even know what the term "revolution" means?), or even whether socialist education is indispensible. The issue is whether the majority of the working-class can become class-conscious communists within the confines of capitalism, only to then, afterwards, proceed with overthrowing said system. The entire premise is ludicrous because if it was possible for the majority of the working-class to become class-conscious communists without a general crisis or disturbance in the equilibrium of the capitalist system and without a revolution then parliamentary democracy would indeed be truly democratic, since when we "get the majority" we can "enact law".".


I wonder sometimes if you even realise what you are saying. I mean lets deconstruct the above shall we? You are saying that its is quite impossible for workers to become class conscious communists within the confines of capitalism and then overthrow capitalism because becuase this would "show parliamentary would be truly democratic". Huh? What the hell has that got to do with the argument. Mind you, it should be mentioned in this connection that Marx and Engels did believe a revolutuion could be achieved by peaceful democratic means in certain countries - I think they cited Holland, England and the USA as examples)

As for the notion of a general crisis Marx was quite admanat that capitalism would not collapse (though Engels did flirt with collapsist notions for a while) and that there were no "permanent crises". Capitalism had to be got rid of by the actions of class conscious proletarians - politically. That was Marx's view. You could argue that a general crisis might aid the growth of communist consciousness as Marx did but it can never replace the need for mass communist consciousness.

Your rejection of the idea that workers must first become class consciousness and then overthrow capitalism in a majority revolution is absurd and illogical and needless to say totally at variance with the position of Marx. How is it possible to overthrow capitalism without widespread communist consciousness, without some generally accepted notion of an alternative to capitalism. Think about it. Even you must agree its a pretty dumb idea. The only way in which capitalism might disppear without the intervention of mass communist consciousness is through collpse is this is precisely what Marx specifically excluded



But according to Marx they can't, because it requires the process of revolution for this to occur:".".

The quotation doesnt say what you want it to say. On the contrary it says quite clearly that the revolution can only succeed if there has been an "alteration of men on a mass scale" in terms of their consciousness through praxis. In other words the revolution is the process , a "practical movement", by which "men" or as we would now say to "human beings" come to change their consciousness. What you are doing is conflating the revolution in this sense with the end result i.e. the actual overthrowing of capitalism. Marx is not saying capitalism has to be overthrown first in order for there to be an alteration of men on a mass scale". He is saying that alteration is what is entailed in the revolutionary transformation of society leading up to the overthrow of capitalism.


The link you provide further support this interpretation: Here's another quote from it

" a class which forms the majority of all members of society, and from which emanates the consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, the communist consciousness, which may, of course, arise among the other classes too through the contemplation of the situation of this class."

Consciousness of the necessity of a fundamental revolution, in other words, must precede the final overthrow of capitalism

[Led Zeppelin]

You are a Ferrous Cranus (http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/ferouscranus.htm). If you don't know what that is, here's a description:


Ferrous Cranus is utterly impervious to reason, persuasion and new ideas, and when engaged in battle he will not yield an inch in his position regardless of its hopelessness. Though his thrusts are decisively repulsed, his arguments crushed in every detail and his defenses demolished beyond repair he will remount the same attack again and again with only the slightest variation in tactics. Sometimes out of pure frustration Philosopher will try to explain to him the failed logistics of his situation, or Therapist will attempt to penetrate the psychological origins of his obduracy, but, ever unfathomable, Ferrous Cranus cannot be moved.

Whenever someone points out that you are wrong, you refuse to accept it and continue to cling to your position. Whenever someone cites sources and posts quotes which show that you are wrong, you nitpick them and continue to cling to your views, and even move beyond that to claim that the quotes and sources verify them. Your arguments, crushed in every detail, ridiculed, destroyed beyond repair, are repeated with only minor alterations in posting style, while the substance stays the same.

The entirety of Marx's works show that he believes the revolution itself is the process of moving towards class-consciousness of the proletariat as a whole. The entirety of his works also show a disdain for liberals and anarchists (you are a self-described "anarcho-communist" so I have no idea why you even bother defending Marx except due to some sado-masochistic desire), and a support of socialist movements regardless of whether "the majority of people supported it".

Marx for example supported the Paris Commune, which was certainly not supported by the majority of the French people, or working-class. According to your reactionary and warped logic the Paris Commune was nothing but an exercise in state-capitalism or a bourgeois revolution. But it matters not, for whatever example is brought up of Marx saying something or supporting a political position, you will find a way to worm yourself around it and accept it as verification of your own views, which actually run directly counter to it.

Ferrous Cranus, people, Ferrous Cranus. Remember that.

As for more evidence of his liberalism and reactionary positions, mixed with ignorance of history, he repeats yet another falsification:


Mind you, it should be mentioned in this connection that Marx and Engels did believe a revolutuion could be achieved by peaceful democratic means in certain countries - I think they cited Holland, England and the USA as examples)


It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a people's revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying "ready-made state machinery".

Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives — in the whole world — of Anglo-Saxon “liberty”, in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, "the precondition for every real people's revolution" is the smashing, the destruction of the "ready-made state machinery" (made and brought up to the “European”, general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17).
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm)

Talk about dogmatism and adhering to Marx's words as "holy scripture". Marx said over 100 years ago that the US and Britain could become socialist through peaceful means because there was no militarist clique and bureaucracy standing over those societies, and he still wants to follow that line disregarding the fact that the United States and Britain today are amongst the most powerful militarist imperialist states in the world!

That sums him up; A historically confused liberal.

Another show of ignorance:


As for the notion of a general crisis Marx was quite admanat that capitalism would not collapse (though Engels did flirt with collapsist notions for a while)


Since the commencement of the eighteenth century there has been no serious revolution in Europe which had not been preceded by a commercial and financial crisis.

[...]

Neither wars nor revolutions are likely to put Europe by the ears, unless in consequence of a general commercial and industrial crisis, the signal of which has, as usual, to be given by England, the representative of European industry in the market of the world.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1853/06/14.htm)

Confirming what I said before, which wasn't the caricature of it presented above about a "permanent crisis" causing the downfall of capitalism without the conscious element, i.e., class-conscious proletarians, being involved as an essential component of the process in any way, which is a reflection of Robbo's own economism:


Marx and Engels were the ones who said that the proletariat was bourgeois in consciousness at its inception, because the class is "created" and "springs forth" (paraphrasing here, so don't demands I quote them on this with fake indignation) from bourgeois society. The ruling ideas of society are those of the ruling class.

How then can we ever challenge that? When the equilibrium of class-society is disturbed, when the system shakes and trembles, that is when the ruling ideas and their hold on the working-class are shaken, and that is when we have our opportunity to challenge them. This is the task of the "conscious element", i.e., the Marxists.

That is not to say that in the meantime there is no need for political agitation or socialist education. On the contrary, it is an absolute requirement for any revolutionary socialist organization worthy of the name. The Bolshevik were masters of this, for example, and they continually stressed the importance of building the party in preparation of the social revolution. If you have not done this task sufficiently, as Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. knew, you will be left a lame duck when the moment does come to strike. If our forces are not strong enough, the bourgeois will ruthlessly crush our movement and institute a naked fascist dictatorship to save the rotten capitalist system. However to spread the myth that we can actually "win" if we start to talk to enough people about socialism or set up enough Capital reading clubs, regardless of the objective material conditions (not just in terms of advancement of the material conditions, but also their relation and interrelation to social forces and reality, under which fall economic crises, political crises etc.), we are setting ourselves up for disillusionment. If you move beyond that and denounce any movement which does not share your narrow and absurd views on the matter, and are actually engaged and involved in the class-struggle before "everyone is a communist", you put yourself on the other side of the line; on the side of the reactionaries.

But as I said before; it matters not, for whatever example is brought up of Marx saying something or supporting a political position, he will find a way to worm himself around it and accept it as verification of his own views, which actually run directly counter to them.

[redflag32]

I have already answered this point elsewhere. No it was not because its outcome was state capitalism and it is its outcome that defines the nature of a revolution.

There is no 'outcome' because society doesnt ever come to an 'end'. It is an ever changing process. You cant stop this process and come to conclusions about a certain epoch because of conditions of a later period. What if their is genuine communism in Russia in the future, does the period you once called un-socialist change because the 'outcome' has also changed? Surely it does if "it is its outcome that defines the nature of a revolution".

[robbo203]

To be perfectly honest its pretty much an irrelevancy as to what you feel the 'correct' path to socialism entails. The emancipation of the Russian working class was the work of the working class itself. If its revolution was not 'pure' or ideologically correct enough for you then so be it

Which is completely different from your absurd charge that the Russian proletariat was stupid and had no idea what it was doing

The Russian working class was not emancipated as a result of the Bolshevik revolution; it was enslaved by what became an increasing brutal state capitalist dictatorship over the proletariat which screwed the workers relentlessly in the interests of capital accumulation

I did not say the Russian proletariat was stupid. Please dont put words into my mouth which are totally unwarranted. All I maintain is that the Russian working class was by and large not socialist. Lenin himself appeared to endorse this view. Do you disagree with Lenin? " Stupidity" is a reflection on the capability of workers to grasp socialist ideas. I would never argue workers are incapable of grasping socialist ideas though a leninist might argue with Lenin that workers are only capable of reaching a trade union consciousness. But I am realistic enough to recognise that despite their capability of fully understanding socialism the workers may not actually do so at a given point in time. This hardly makes them stupid does it now?


What do you want? An opinion poll? We have plenty of those - see the repeated affirmations of the Bolsheviks' programme in a series of electoral tests (soviet, duma, and more) throughout 1917 and beyond! The Bolshevik political programme was marked by two main features - its call for the assumption of workers' control of the economy (in order to resolve the economic crisis) and the abolition of bourgeois government in favour of rule by democratic soviets. This was the position of the Bolshevik party from April 1917, this was the programme that they continually emphasised*, and this was banner that the masses flocked to. The idea that the latter only did because of a single slogan is absurd - the many Bolshevik slogans were part and parcel of their programme

But like I said - all this is completely irrelevant. It does not matter for the purposes of this thread how popular the Bolsheviks were to begin with. It is what this popularity was based on that matters. You are just grasping at straws trying to make some kind of tenuous connection between the various slogans and programmatic statements of the Bolsheviks and actual support and understanding of socialism as a moneyeless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. Even if the masses "flocked" to the Bolshevik banner of abolishing bourgeois government in favour of the rule of democratic soviets, this signifies bugger all if there is no indication of a genuine socialist consciousness behind it. You dont produce any evidence to show that such a consciousmness existed other than to suggest rather lamely "oh look it must be socialist minded because it talks here of the abolition of bourgeois government" Big deal. Well it didnt talk of the abolition of government itself. Or of getting rid of the wages system . Or buying and selling, And so on and so forth. THIS is what I am getting at. What I want is real evdience of the actual extent of a genuine socialist outlook among the Russian workers



As for the assertion that the Soviets were "not in themselves socialist insitutions" [sic], they were bodies formed, organised, and elected by the working class as organs of class governance. Now one could argue that there was no reason for them to automatically assume socialist policies (like those in Germany they could be subverted) but they were unquestionably proletarian bodies and anyone who argues that they were not a positive step forward and prerequisite for socialism is sorely mistaken. How many such councils have ever been formed in Britain or the US?

So soviets were "bodies formed, organised, and elected by the working class as organs of class governance" So what? You could say the same of the formation of the trade union movement in Britain. It still does not signify a socialist consciousness. Yes I wouldnt dispute that trade unions or indeed the soviets in their original form might be a positive step forward and even arguably a prerequisite for socialism but that STILL does not mean that are animated by a genuine socialist consciousness.



Leaving aside the last question, which does not make much sense, the answers are as below

The Petrograd Soviet was obviously only representative of the workers in Petrograd and the soldiers of the Northern Front which which its members were drawn. Obviously given that Petrograd was both the capital and a major hub this was of some importance. Within Petrograd itself the Soviet, by October 1917, can be considered representative of the worker feeling throughout the city. The Bolsheviks had possessed a majority within the Soviet (and had done so since Sept) but also dominated a number of lesser district soviets - the Vyborg district had been passing anti-bourgeois resolutions for months was solidly Bolshevik from April. I can similarly produce resolutions from throughout 1917 from this and various other district soviets and garrison committees if you wish?

There were similar resolutions passed by the network of soviets around the Empire and there is an accurate gauge as to the relative strength of the Bolsheviks throughout the country in the Congress of Soviets held in October 1917. Here the Bolsheviks were unquestionably the largest single party and, with their allies, possessed an absolute majority in the Congress. The resolution passed by it can be seen here (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/oct/25-26/25b.htm)


Again, this really is not very convincing at all. There are just too many gaps in the chain of reasoning - even in respect of the minor details. But let us assume you are correct - that Petrograd soviet was representive of elsewhere in Russia, that the Petrograd soviet was representive of worker feelings in the city, that the Resolution put out by the Soviet was representative of the views of its members (and not just its core political activists) etc etc, there is STILL the question of how to interpret this text. There is frankly nothing whatsoever in the text to indicate a desire to transcend a system of generalised commodity production, to end wage labour and so on. What you are doing is just making certain assumptions that because it uses words like "socialism" this means it must be a genuinely socialist statement of intent. I mean come on, the effing Labour Party calls itself a "socialist" party. Or at least did so until recently. Are we honour bound to accept Nu-Labour as comrades in arms just becuase they call themselves socialist. Christ even Cameron is somewhat to the left of Brown when it comes down to it. So you get my drift. Stopping focussing on the appearance, concentrate on the content




You would rather a count of reading clubs than a major resolution passed by the revolutionary workers and sailors of the Petrograd Soviet? Naturally :rolleyes:

It may have bneen a "major resolution" in relation to historical devlopments going on at the time but in terms of providing evidence as to the extent of GENUINE socialist consciousness (not state capitalist consciousness) it is not worth the paper it is written on. It is just far to vague for this purpose.

The suggestion of reading clubs was one that you made - I realise a bit tongue in cheek. Although it is hardly a reliable indicator either I guess it would probably a bit more reliable than a vague statement put forward by the Petrograd Soviet. So with that in mind perhaps you might provide some evidence of the proliferation of such reading clubs studying Kapital in pre-revolutionary Russia, eh? :rolleyes:

[Led Zeppelin]

Alright, I'm going to do something now which Robbo himself has not considered doing; apply his "theory" in practice, and see how well it fares in the realm of reality as opposed to abstraction.

I will take the historical example of Germany, covering the period 1930-33, so from the start of the decline of the Weimar Republic to the taking-over of power by the Nazi Party. This period is an excellent testing ground because it contained many elements important to the development of class-consciousness; an industrial, financial and general economic crisis, general "moral" depression of the people as a result of the outcome of World War 1, a large amount of active socialists (from all ideological tendencies), class-struggle of the highest degree reflected in the street battles, red and black associations (pro-socialists versus the pro-Nazis), etc.

So imagine yourself in the position of a revolutionary socialist living in 1930. You see the situation described above before you, and you have to act. You have to analyze the situation and based on this analysis you have to draw conclusions, and based on those conclusions you have to do something.

What would Robbo do if his "theory" and "method of analysis" was applied to this situation?

First he would analyze the situation in this manner, in accordance with his "theory":

The socialist movement does not have the support of the majority right now. The Social-Democrats and the Nazis both have more people under their sway than we do, so we have no right to oppose them, at least not actively, for that would mean that we are moving towards a state-capitalist end. After all, if we do take action without there being anyone who isn't a class-conscious communist, we are not being a legitimate socialist movement.

Then he would act in this manner, as a logical outcome of his analysis:

While there are people who are Nazis or Social-Democrats, we have no right to act in a manner that can be regarded as "revolutionary". If both of them happen to get more votes in parliament, we will have to sit and wait for our time to come. There is no doubt that after a few years of their rule the workers will see how much of a failure they are and move towards us, because during that time we would have been educating them about socialism and setting up Kapital reading clubs throughout the country. Only when finally we have convinced all of the people, or at least a vast majority of them, we can take action in a revolutionary manner.

Those "Marxists", "communists" and "socialists" who claim to represent the working-class by implementing their revolutionary ideas in a premature fashion are revisionists. They claim that the Nazis will kill us all when they come to power, but that is a fantasy. There are many people who already support us, and there are also a lot of Kapital reading clubs. They can't simply get rid of all of us.

That is absurd!

And that is what it looks like to be on the other side of the barricades when Robbo's reactionary liberal deterministic "anarcho-communism" is put in practice.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I think that, using the reasoning of Marx, Lenin, etc. it would be considered a bourgeois revolution:


If, therefore, the proletariat should overthrow the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory would be only temporary, only an episode in the service of the bourgeois revolution, so long as the material conditions which would render necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production, and consequently the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie, had not yet been created in the course of historical development. From this point of view, the Reign of Terror in France did no more than to clear away the feudal ruins from French soil by its hammer blows.


Take the great French Revolution. It is with good reason that it is called a great revolution. It did so much for the class that it served, for the bourgeoisie, that it left its imprint on the entire nineteenth century, the century which gave civilisation and culture to the whole of mankind. The great French revolutionaries served the interests of the bourgeoisie although they did not realise it for their vision was obscured by the words “liberty, equality and fraternity”; in the nineteenth century, however, what they had begun was continued, carried out piecemeal and finished in all parts of the world.

The idea being that a revolution should be characterized based on what it ultimately resulted in, regardless of what class actually made the revolution or what they set out to do.

[Tower of Bebel]

The idea being that a revolution should be characterized based on what it ultimately resulted in, regardless of what class actually made the revolution or what they set out to do.But the outcome depends on the class relations and class forces that are involved. A revolution is a specific period of time in which a struggle is fought over different outcomes. Therefor a revolution is not always a simple streight line but a complex process with its contending powers and contradictions. They bring forward elements which could be labled in many different ways. That's why the Russian revolution could in its own right be labled socialist, proletarian, peasant, democratic or bourgeois depending on the angle from which you're looking. Lenin for example changed his perspective for the Russian revolution according to the class relations he saw; not because a socialist revolution would be inevitable.

[Led Zeppelin]

I think that, using the reasoning of Marx, Lenin, etc. it would be considered a bourgeois revolution

The Lenin quote you posted doesn't have anything to do with your claim of what his "reasoning" would be.


The idea being that a revolution should be characterized based on what it ultimately resulted in, regardless of what class actually made the revolution or what they set out to do.

That's a pretty narrow method of analysis. It's like dubbing the French revolution "bourgeois" without considering the various stages it went through, from the first years led by moderate capitalists and merchants, to the middle period led by radical petty-bourgeois, and to the latter period led by the bourgeois and other reactionary forces.

We know the end result. We know that it was a bourgeois revolution at that stage. We also know that it went through various stages. We do not consider Robespierre to be the same as the Thermidorians, or Mirabeau the same as Saint Just. That's historical reductionism to the extent of ridicule.

But this is all beside the point. We are not discussing the end result of the Russian revolution here, are we? No, we are discussing in initial stage. Keeping that in mind, it would be quite ridiculous to say that the revolution was the same in that stage as it was in the end, which seems to be what you are implying.

[robbo203]

Whenever someone points out that you are wrong, you refuse to accept it and continue to cling to your position. Whenever someone cites sources and posts quotes which show that you are wrong, you nitpick them and continue to cling to your views, and even move beyond that to claim that the quotes and sources verify them. Your arguments, crushed in every detail, ridiculed, destroyed beyond repair, are repeated with only minor alterations in posting style, while the substance stays the same..

I will grant you one thing - as a political opponent you are certainly highly entertaining. The image that spings irresistably to mind is that character from The Life of Brian - you know, the guy from the People's Revolutionary Popular Front of Judea - thundering pompously from his soapbox "Your arguments, crushed in every detail, ridiculed, destroyed beyond repair..."



The entirety of Marx's works show that he believes the revolution itself is the process of moving towards class-consciousness of the proletariat as a whole. The entirety of his works also show a disdain for liberals and anarchists (you are a self-described "anarcho-communist" so I have no idea why you even bother defending Marx except due to some sado-masochistic desire), and a support of socialist movements regardless of whether "the majority of people supported it"...

Hmm. So I see you ve changed your mind now. First you say the workers can only become class conscious communist after the revolution has taken place. Now you are saying the revolution itself is the process of moving towards class-consciousness of the proletariat as a whole. In others it not completed until the workers have become communists and are then in a position to overthrow capitalism. But, hold on, thats what Ive been saying isnt it. Oh well that one small step in the right direction I guess . Just a few dozen more barmy ideas to knock out of your head and we might well be on the way to turning you into a socialist



Marx for example supported the Paris Commune, which was certainly not supported by the majority of the French people, or working-class. According to your reactionary and warped logic the Paris Commune was nothing but an exercise in state-capitalism or a bourgeois revolution. But it matters not, for whatever example is brought up of Marx saying something or supporting a political position, you will find a way to worm yourself around it and accept it as verification of your own views, which actually run directly counter to it. ...

Needless to say this is a complete and utter caricature of my view. Just because something does not enjoy majority support does not mean it is not worthy of support. I wouldnt be a communist if I thought this, would I? I would be there with you supporting capitalism in one form or another (in your case, state capitalism). But by supporting something I mean critical support not the kind of blind unthinking automaton response you seem to have in mind. There were indeed good things about the Paris Commune and I have no probem about saying that but it wasnt genuine socialism was it?. There were even some good things that the Bolsheviks did and I have given example of this already - taking Russia out of the war. But that doesnt mean that I think therefore that Russia was a socialist society. Anyone who imagines that Russia was an example of socialism evidently does not have a clue about socialism. The point is that to achieve a socialist society you have to have majority understanding of what it means and the desire to realise. There is absolutely no way around this. Socialism cannot be imposed downwards by some enlightened elite on an unknowing population. The workers have got to understand and want it. The question is do you accept this or not. I have yet to have a straight answer from you on this point given your proclivity for diversion .

Your reference to the Paris Commune is an example. Would I support the Paris Commune? It depends what you mean by "support". If I was a Parisian worker in 1971 yes I would probably be there on the barricades but I certainly would not be calling this a socialist utopia. Same goes for the Russian Revolution. If I was a worker in Petrograd I would probably be cooperating my fellow workers in the factory committes and so on and would be vigorously working to expose the capitalist agenda of the Bolsheviks and push for independent militant working class organisation - the very thing that Bolsheviks ruthlessly crushed in the end



Talk about dogmatism and adhering to Marx's words as "holy scripture". Marx said over 100 years ago that the US and Britain could become socialist through peaceful means because there was no militarist clique and bureaucracy standing over those societies, and he still wants to follow that line disregarding the fact that the United States and Britain today are amongst the most powerful militarist imperialist states in the world!...

My word , you really do want your cake and to eat it. First you accuse me of adhering dogmatically to Marx's words as "holy scripture" then you want me to admit that I am no "classical marxist". As it happens I dont adhere dogmatically to Marx; I strongly reject some of his ideas. Others I support not because they were articulated by Marx but becuase I believe they happen to be right

Now lets turn your suggestion that there is no way in which socialism could be established by peaceful democratic means becuase while Marx cited the examples of the US and Britain where this was possible 100 years, today these countries have a "militarist clique and bureaucracy" standing over them. Presumably what you are wanting to say here is that this militarist clique and bureaucracy will effectively prevent any possibility of socialism being established by peaceful democratic means. This is a very very naive view of the dynamics of modern capitalism.

The whole thruust of Marx's approach is that as capitalism develops it inadvertently requires more not less bourgeois democracy. It is no coincidence that the most advanced capitalist countries are precisely the ones cited by Marx as countries where a peaceful democratic worker revolution could occur. I actually think this whole issue of bourgeois democracy is the Achilles Heel of capitalism. On the one hand, capitalism needs more and more to rely on the rhetoric and practice of bourgeois democracy to overcome its legitimation crisis: on the other, the expanding possibilities for workers to democratically organise themselves throughout the world render it increasingly vulnerable not just to criticism but ultimately a determined communist movement intent upon overthrowing the system itself.

Of course there are still plenty of examples of state oppression around the world today but one would have to be a complete fool so blinded by dogma as to ignore what is defiinite and discernable trend away from autocratic one party dictatorships to multiparty bourgeois democracies. A simple statistical comparison will bear this out - how many one party states were there 30 years ago; how many are there left today. Of course this may not a very good indicator but it is an indicator of sorts of a deinfine trend. The collpse of the state capitalist dictatorships of eastern europe and the Soviet Union is a dramatic example of this trend but not the only one. In Latin America and Africa the trend is all moving in this directiopn helped on enormously by other developments such as the rapid expansion of the internet. It wont be long now before the Chinese state capitalist dictatroship implodes and bourgeois democracy arrives there too. You mark my words

What makes autocratic methods of capitalist regulation increasingly disadavantageous to the powers that be is that they are basically rather inefficient and costly in an an increasly competitive and globalised capitalist order and also becuase they simply dont work very well any more.bebecause of things like the internet and videos and the like. All governments rely ultimately on the acquiesecence of their populations. When the people withdraw their consent as happened in Eastern Europe there was nothing that erstwhile rulling class could to stop it. You have to ask yourself why this happened at all was so apparently easy for a dictatorship to retain its grip on power. It is actually not easy and the opportunity costs of doing so are steadily getting higher


Imagine that a genuine socialist movement begun to take off in a serious way. For a start the very consequence of such growth would be to subtly modify the whole social environment, to reinforce democratic values because the socialist movement itself can only be a democratic movement. The point is that all governments in the end must respond and accommodate themselves, to the social environment in which they operate. An envrionement that is increasingly shaped by the values of socialist democracy is an enviroment in which government themelsves will have less and less leeway to flout the wishes of the majority in the way that has been suggested here.

By the time a genuine socialist movement is a mass movement it will be far too late to do anything about it. Socialist ideas will have penetrated everywhere like a virus as it were - including, it should be said, the armed forces and the firends and relatives of those in the armed forces. And there will be nothing that the "military clique and bureaucracy " could do to stop it. If they want to stop it now is probably the best time to stop it when the socialist movement is actually pretty negligible in numbers and influence

[Led Zeppelin]

The image that spings irresistably to mind is that character from The Life of Brian - you know, thre guy from the People's Revolutionary Popular Front of Judea - thundering pompously from his soapbox "Your arguments, crushed in every detail, ridiculed, destroyed beyond repair..."

You spent all these hours to come up with that?

What a waste.


Hmm. So I see you ve changed your mind now. First you say the workers can only become class conscious communist after the revolution has taken place. Now you are saying the revolution itself is the process of moving towards class-consciousness of the proletariat as a whole.

It's called Permanent Revolution for a reason.

Try to keep up.


Now lets turn your suggestion that there is no way in which socialism could be established by peaceful democratic means becuase while Marx cited the examples of the US and Britain where this was possible 100 years, today these countries have a militarist clique and bureaucracy standing over them. Presumably what you are wanting to say here that this militarist clique and bureaucracy will effectively prevent any possibility of socialism being established by peaceful democratic means. This is a very very naive view ofd the dynamics of modern capitalism.

You are right, it is not naive at all to believe that the capitalist state will not be overthrown by a social revolution but by "peaceful democratic means".

Not naive at all (http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/COLDallende.htm).

I suppose the term "reformist" has to be added to my above list. Then again, liberalism and reformism are twins, so that wasn't a a big surprise.

Sorry to be abrupt, but I'm done here. You are a waste of time, and if your posts were made without all the pseudo-leftist rhetoric you would have been restricted by now.

[Hydro]

The point is that all governments in the end are response to the social environment in which they oiperate. An envrionement that is increasingly shaped by the values ogf socialist democracy is enviroment in which governe,ment themelsves will have less and less leewat yo flout the wishes of the majority in the way that has been suggested here.
Indeed. All the incurable reformists on this forum would do well to agitate for real socialist revolution. Even a sizable minority of revolutionary workers would have the state bending over backwards to accommodate almost any reformist whim.

[Hiero]

Dont be ridiculous. If a socialist movement is in fact a genuine socialist movement I would support it wherever it exists.

For a revolution to be a socialist presupposes two basic things.

1) that there is the technological potential to sustain a non market anti-statist economy (socialism) in the first place. Globally this potential has been around for decades and since socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism (because capitalism is itself a global system) we can say that this particular precondition has long been met

2) that there is mass understanding and support for socialism at a global level . Nowhere in the world at present is the revolutionary non-market anti statist (socialist) movement anything other than relatively small, if not negligible. but there is no reason it could not grow anywhere. However, the establishment of socialism, the successul implementation of socialist revolution, presupposes that the socialist movement has grown everywhere to a significant degree becuase socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism - it is impossoble to have socialism in one country. Therefore there cannot be a socialist revolution either in a third world country or, for that matter, a first world country without this significant global socialist presence

What I would not support is an movement that purport to be socialist but is in fact a anti working-class movement in favour of state capitalism, That is something that the reactionary pro-capitalist left such as yourself might support but not a revolutionary socialist



Any

So nothing based in reality.

You will never find a revolutionary movement where all the participants even have a socialist outlook.

[robbo203]

Sorry to be abrupt, but I'm done here. You are a waste of time, and if your posts were made without all the pseudo-leftist rhetoric you would have been restricted by now.

Oh so now I see your game. You dont like the fact that you got a bloody good drubbing so out come the veiled threats. I would have been "restricted by now" but for my leftist sounding rhetoric. Some "socialist" you are. Thank christ we are not yet living in some kind Stalinist hellhole with people like you in charge

[Led Zeppelin]

So now you also gave me a "good drubbing" and I'm a Stalinist in your world because I refuse to entertain your liberalism any further by replying.

I imagine it must be a great place to live.

Too bad reality will never conform to it. If it did we'd all have hell to pay (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1495754&postcount=19).

Also, the hypocrisy:


This argument is clearly not going to go anywhere so I think we will just have to agree to disgaree. I have better things to do with my time...

[robbo203]

Indeed. All the incurable reformists on this forum would do well to agitate for real socialist revolution. Even a sizable minority of revolutionary workers would have the state bending over backwards to accommodate almost any reformist whim.


Good point. Ironic isnt it that rejecting reformism may well turn out to be the most effective way of ensuring what reformists want

[robbo203]

There is good link to the subject which I have come across here http://wspus.org/in-depth/russia-lenin-and-state-capitalism/ Its a chapter from a book by Dave Perrin of the WSM. Interesting stuff

[Hyacinth]

For a revolution to be a socialist presupposes two basic things.

1) that there is the technological potential to sustain a non market anti-statist economy (socialism) in the first place. Globally this potential has been around for decades and since socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism (because capitalism is itself a global system) we can say that this particular precondition has long been met

2) that there is mass understanding and support for socialism at a global level . Nowhere in the world at present is the revolutionary non-market anti statist (socialist) movement anything other than relatively small, if not negligible. but there is no reason it could not grow anywhere. However, the establishment of socialism, the successul implementation of socialist revolution, presupposes that the socialist movement has grown everywhere to a significant degree becuase socialism can only be a global alternative to capitalism - it is impossoble to have socialism in one country. Therefore there cannot be a socialist revolution either in a third world country or, for that matter, a first world country without this significant global socialist presence
While I wholeheartedly agree with (1), i.e., that the technical means necessary for socialism, and at that with relative abundance and outperformance of market economies, has been around since, at least, the early 1990's (insofar as up until then we lacked the computational capacity to effectively and efficiently plan and coordinate a non-market economy). But I'm not sure of the necessity of (2), which isn't to say that I think socialism in one country viable or desirable, but only that, insofar as:

(a) the advanced industrial countries have the greatest technical means by which to most easily implement socialism, and, as such (among other reasons), are the most likely locations of socialist revolution, and

(b) the advanced industrial countires play a pivotal role in the capitalist world system...

...a successful socialist revolution in the advanced industrial countries could set the stage for successive revolutions throughout the world, even without the prior developement of mass socialist movements outside the advanced industrial countries.

[ComradeOm]

You are just grasping at straws trying to make some kind of tenuous connection between the various slogans and programmatic statements of the Bolsheviks and actual support and understanding of socialism as a moneyeless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. Even if the masses "flocked" to the Bolshevik banner of abolishing bourgeois government in favour of the rule of democratic soviets, this signifies bugger all if there is no indication of a genuine socialist consciousness behind itOkay this has gotten ridiculous. Anyone who can seriously contend that the very existence of the Soviet movement or, more specifically, that its intention to abolish bourgeois government and socialise the means of production does not constitute a socialist movement is simply either completely ignorant or completely impervious to historical reality. Not to mention having some absurd definitions as to just what socialism entails

You can provide not a shred of evidence to support your thesis that the Russian proletariat, much like lemmings, blindly followed the Bolsheviks. You went so far as to brand the programme of the latter, combining the overthrow of bourgeois government and revolutionary social change, as "reformist" and suggested that their support was due to one single slogan. You somehow find it possible to dismiss resolutions passed by militant worker bodies, that explicitly talk of "advancing towards socialism" and "instituting workers' control over the production" as "vague statements" that are not to be treated seriously

I have provided statements from both the Petrograd Soviet and All-Russian Congress of Soviets. I have offered to provide others from the local soviets and military committees. If these do not take the form of concrete political programmes (including a step-by-step action plan as to how the economy and society were to be reconfigured along socialist lines) it is because they were not that. They were declarations of intent from a revolutionary proletariat determined to create their own socialist society (not yours). That you can so blithely dismiss these and compare them to various Tory manifestos is nothing short of insulting. It reveals the degree to which you have refined your politics until it is nothing but an intellectual exercise completely divorced from historical context, class struggle, or indeed common sense

And during all this your only contribution is inane nitpicks and ridiculously narrow criteria that you would be unable to answer about today's society, never mind Russia of 1917. Or can you tell me just how many Kapital reading groups are active in the US today? In short, your perspective and analysis of the Russian Revolution is fundamentally dishonest

As a postscript Robbo, if you "were a worker in Petrograd" you'd be a Menshevik. I strongly suspect that your entire issue with the Russian Revolution boils down to the simple fact that the Russian proletariat disagreed strongly and en masse with your academic posturing

[robbo203]

Okay this has gotten ridiculous. Anyone who can seriously contend that the very existence of the Soviet movement or, more specifically, that its intention to abolish bourgeois government and socialise the means of production does not constitute a socialist movement is simply either completely ignorant or completely impervious to historical reality. Not to mention having some absurd definitions as to just what socialism entails


I see. That socialism is a non-market wageless moneyless stateless society is , according to you, "absurd". This is what socialism was widely understood to mean before people like Lenin twisted its meaning. Russian marxists like Bogdanoff defined "socialism" in his poplar textbook at the turn of the century as entailing the abolition of buying and selling. Even Stalin back in 1905 defined socialism in similar terms. Marx , Engels , William Morris and numerous all treated socialism as a synonym for communism. But according to you all of this is "absurd".

That the "Soviet movement", as you call it, claimed to want to remove bourgeois government I dont deny. But what you have yet to grasp is that in aiming to abolish bourgeois government it simply stepped into the shoes of the bourgeoise and effectively replaced one bourgeois government with another - itself. The Bolsheviks crushed independent working class organisation, organised production on hierarchical capitalist lines and assimilated the soviets to its own ruthless state capitalist agenda. This is undeniable yet you continue to romanticise the role of the soviets like they were the best thing since sliced bread. Bollocks. They became complete pawns to the state capitalist state. Many of them were not particularly democratic but run on on top-down lines. Martov very effectively demolished the whole mystique that the Bolsheviks built around the so called soviet movement and exposed it for hypocritcal cant that it is.


I have asked you several times to show me evidence of the extent of genuine socialist consciousness in the russian working class. The best you can come up with is a statement by the Petrograd Soviet which talks vaguely about "socialism". No definition of this "socialism" is provided. As I said, by this reckoning you could juist as easily claim New Labour was going to get rid of capitalism insofar as it still refers to itself as a democratic "socialist" organisation



You can provide not a shred of evidence to support your thesis that the Russian proletariat, much like lemmings, blindly followed the Bolsheviks. You went so far as to brand the programme of the latter, combining the overthrow of bourgeois government and revolutionary social change, as "reformist" and suggested that their support was due to one single slogan. You somehow find it possible to dismiss resolutions passed by militant worker bodies, that explicitly talk of "advancing towards socialism" and "instituting workers' control over the production" as "vague statements" that are not to be treated seriously

I never claimed the Russia proletariat blindly followed the Bolsheviks like lemmings - you are only unwittingly projecting your own view here when you talked of the proles "flocking" to the banner opf the Bolshies in their masses. In any case I would sau that Russian workers followed the Bolsheviks like lemmings - many workers inside and outside of the Bolsheviks opposed the direction in which the Bolsheviks were heading. The Workers Oppostion for instance. Nor did I suggest support for the reformist pro-capitalist programme of the Bolsheviks - yes pro-capitalist since even Lenin declared that Russia needed state capitalism - was centred on one single slogan "peace land and bread". This was only an illiutration of what that support was based on. As usual you are conveniently putting words into other peoples mouths to suit your own polemical purposes. And yes I do not regard vague Resolutions that talking about "advancing towards socialism" is any more indicative of genuine socialist conscious than I would, say. a labour Party conference resolution that talks about the need for "socialist management of the economy. Show me evidence to the contrary and I might believe but to date you have provided exactly zilch.


I have provided statements from both the Petrograd Soviet and All-Russian Congress of Soviets. I have offered to provide others from the local soviets and military committees. If these do not take the form of concrete political programmes (including a step-by-step action plan as to how the economy and society were to be reconfigured along socialist lines) it is because they were not that. They were declarations of intent from a revolutionary proletariat determined to create their own socialist society (not yours). That you can so blithely dismiss these and compare them to various Tory manifestos is nothing short of insulting. It reveals the degree to which you have refined your politics until it is nothing but an intellectual exercise completely divorced from historical context, class struggle, or indeed common sense

Huh? When did I compare them to Tory manifestos. I said simply even Cameron was to the left of Brown these days. Yes you keep on saying that you have provided evidence but I am still waiting for your to provide the specific evidence that all these high sounding resolutions were animated by the desire to establish a monelyess wageless stateless socialist system of society. I have certainly never denied that that the idea of such a a genuine socialist society had some currency among the Bolsheviks and the Russian workers. My main interest in this thread was in determining the extent of this which I suspect was pretty negligible. Instead of adopting such a high-handed self-righteous indignant tone with me, sneering at the such suggestion as working class reading clubs as an indicator opf socialist consciousness , you had actually set about looking constructively for the kind of hard evidence I had in mind this debate would have been a lot more productive


And during all this your only contribution is inane nitpicks and ridiculously narrow criteria that you would be unable to answer about today's society, never mind Russia of 1917. Or can you tell me just how many Kapital reading groups are active in the US today? In short, your perspective and analysis of the Russian Revolution is fundamentally dishonest

As a postscript Robbo, if you "were a worker in Petrograd" you'd be a Menshevik. I strongly suspect that your entire issue with the Russian Revolution boils down to the simple fact that the Russian proletariat disagreed strongly and en masse with your academic posturing


Dont be such a plonker ComradeOm! These are hardly "inane nitpicks". It actually matters in a very fundamental way that we understand what mean by terms like "socialism" or "communism" or "capitalism." I cannot address your point that I have been "fundamentally dishonest" in my analysis of the Russian revolution because I have not clue what you are on about. Nor I suspect do you. If you think I believe or know something differnent or at odds with what I have openly stated in this debate then lets have your evidence, please. I dont go about calling you "dishonest" just because I dont like your views

[robbo203]

While I wholeheartedly agree with (1), i.e., that the technical means necessary for socialism, and at that with relative abundance and outperformance of market economies, has been around since, at least, the early 1990's (insofar as up until then we lacked the computational capacity to effectively and efficiently plan and coordinate a non-market economy). But I'm not sure of the necessity of (2), which isn't to say that I think socialism in one country viable or desirable, but only that, insofar as:

(a) the advanced industrial countries have the greatest technical means by which to most easily implement socialism, and, as such (among other reasons), are the most likely locations of socialist revolution, and

(b) the advanced industrial countires play a pivotal role in the capitalist world system...

...a successful socialist revolution in the advanced industrial countries could set the stage for successive revolutions throughout the world, even without the prior developement of mass socialist movements outside the advanced industrial countries.

You say you are not too sure of the necessity for mass socialist consciounsess at the global level in order to establish socialism i.e. the mass understanding of what socialism basically entails and the desire to establish it. Do I take it you mean by this that it is necessary to have socialist understanding but only in the more advanced countries that "play a pivotal role in the capitalist world system" and that is it not necessary that such understanding should exist in the less advanced parts of global capitalism? If so , I would have to disagree.

Socialism has to be a global alternative to globaL capitalism. It cannot exist in one country alone and, indeed, it wont anyway because of the way in which ideas spread. Irrespective of whatever part of the world in which a socialist revolution is first successfully accomplished, the very fact that this happened would presuppose of the existence of massive socialist movement everywhere else, more or less poised to establism socialism.

If socialism is a global system that means every part of this system of global socialism has to be socialist minded in order for the system to operate at all. This is obvious when you think about it. How can you have "socialism" thrust from outside on a population that does not understand the basic rules of social behaviour relevant to a socialist society, that does not share the basic values that animate such a society. It would soon enough lead to the complete breakdown of global socialism.

The leninist/trotskyist/stalinist idea of a vanguard elite is predicated on the dogma that workers cannot achieve socialist consciousness within capitalism and that a revolution has first to happen before they can arrive at this socialist understanding. The vanguard in other words has to make a revolution on behalf of non sopcialist majority so that after the revolution the workers can more easily become socialists.

Except that it just does not work like this and indeed cannot work like this . If socialism cannot work without mass socialist understanding then a "revolution" to establish socialism in the absence of this understanding will simply not succeed no matter how determined or well meaning may be the vanguard seeking to establish socialism. You will still necessarily be stuck with capitalism and the vanquard will be stuck with administering capitalism in the only way that is possible - against the majority.

This is why socialists have always insisted on the need for mass socialist consciousness as against the leninist belief in the need for a revolutionay elite.

I will leave you with a few paragraphs from Engels 1895 introduction to Class Struggles in France which brings out this point very well and demonstrates all too clearly the massive gulf between the Marxian conception of revolution as self emancipation of working class and the Leninist conception of revolution as the act of a small vanguard



Works of Frederick Engels 1895
Introduction to Karl Marx’s
The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850
In France, where for more than a hundred years the ground has been undermined by one revolution after another, where there is not a single party which has not done its share in conspiracies, insurrections and all other revolutionary actions; in France, where, as a result, the government is by no means sure of the army and where the conditions for an insurrectionary coup de main are altogether far more favourable than in Germany — even in France the Socialists are realising more and more that no lasting victory is possible for them unless they first win over the great mass of the people, i.e. the peasants in this instance. Slow propaganda work and parliamentary activity are recognised here, too, as the immediate tasks of the party. ....

The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionaries", the "overthrowers" — we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves....


The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation.[458] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/l%20n458) And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough....

Does the reader now understand, why the ruling classes decidedly want to bring us to where the guns shoot and the sabers slash? Why they accuse us today of cowardice, because we do not betake ourselves without more ado into the street, where we are certain of defeat in advance? Why they so earnestly implore us to play for once the part of cannon fodder?
The gentlemen pour out their prayers and their challenges for nothing, for nothing at all. We are not so stupid. They might just as well demand from their enemy in the next war that he should take up his position in the line formation of old Fritz, or in the columns of whole divisions a la Wagram and Waterloo, and with the flintlock in his hands at that. If the conditions have changed in the case of war between nations, this is no less true in the case of the class struggle. The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is why socialists have always insisted on the need for mass socialist consciousness as against the leninist belief in the need for a revolutionay elite.

Only this isn't true, of course - the action of the revolutionary vanguard builds the mass socialist consciousness you speak of, builds the trust of the masses in the revolutionary party. This argument of yours, which is similar to one of those that Kautsky made and Lenin later debunked, is not only incorrect, as others, for example LZ, have shown, but also reeks of a liberal parliamentary attitude to socialism.

[robbo203]

Only this isn't true, of course - the action of the revolutionary vanguard builds the mass socialist consciousness you speak of, builds the trust of the masses in the revolutionary party. This argument of yours, which is similar to one of those that Kautsky made and Lenin later debunked, is not only incorrect, as others, for example LZ, have shown, but also reeks of a liberal parliamentary attitude to socialism.


You are talking nonsense, I am afraid, because you dont understand the point I was making. LZ stated quite clearly what his position his and this is the one that I am attacking

You have claimed that for a socialist revolution to be socialist in nature, all the workers, or at least the vast majority of them, should be class-conscious active socialists.

To believe that under a capitalist system this standard is attainable is a fantasy. However, even at this you do not stop. You go further and say that this standard should be met globally!

and


The issue is whether the majority of the working-class can become class-conscious communists within the confines of capitalism, only to then, afterwards, proceed with overthrowing said system. The entire premise is ludicrous because if it was possible for the majority of the working-class to become class-conscious communists without a general crisis or disturbance in the equilibrium of the capitalist system and without a revolution then parliamentary democracy would indeed be truly democratic, since when we "get the majority" we can "enact law".

In other words, what LZ is saying is that you FIRST have your "revolution" and THEN you - or rather the so called vanguard elite - proceed to build up the mass socialist consciousness of the workers. Not only is this an utterly patronising view of capabilities of ordinary workers but the whole theory is totally cockeyed. Without the mass socialist consciousness you simply cannot have a socialist revolution. QED. Certainly you can have a minority capitalist revolution (which is exactly what the Bolshevik revolution was) but it is utterly naive to then expect the vanguard, once it is happily ensconsed in power and having taken on the running of this new capitalist state, to somehow voluntarily relinquish the power that it exercises OVER the masses by building up the very socialist consciusness which would undermine that power. This is the BIG LIE that lies at the heart of the anti-democratic Leninist theory of the vanguard

Incidentally in what way is my view similar to Kautskys? Please elaborate with references

[Led Zeppelin]

I also said this:


That is not to say that in the meantime there is no need for political agitation or socialist education. On the contrary, it is an absolute requirement for any revolutionary socialist organization worthy of the name. The Bolshevik were masters of this, for example, and they continually stressed the importance of building the party in preparation of the social revolution. If you have not done this task sufficiently, as Marx, Engels, Lenin etc. knew, you will be left a lame duck when the moment does come to strike. If our forces are not strong enough, the bourgeois will ruthlessly crush our movement and institute a naked fascist dictatorship to save the rotten capitalist system. However to spread the myth that we can actually "win" if we start to talk to enough people about socialism or set up enough Capital reading clubs, regardless of the objective material conditions (not just in terms of advancement of the material conditions, but also their relation and interrelation to social forces and reality, under which fall economic crises, political crises etc.), we are setting ourselves up for disillusionment. If you move beyond that and denounce any movement which does not share your narrow and absurd views on the matter, and are actually engaged and involved in the class-struggle before "everyone is a communist", you put yourself on the other side of the line; on the side of the reactionaries.

And don't try to "reword" what I said, you lack the comprehension of it to do so.

Now stop dragging me into discussions. Didn't I tell you already that I was done with your reformist liberal idiocy?

Go sit and wait until there are enough Kapital reading clubs.

[Random Precision]

Thread pruned. I've trashed the numerous one-upping and spam posts by LZ, Hydro and Robbo, as well as the off-topic exchange between Hiero and Hydro. If you keep it up, I'll be forced to close the thread.

[Hyacinth]

You say you are not too sure of the necessity for mass socialist consciounsess at the global level in order to establish socialism i.e. the mass understanding of what socialism basically entails and the desire to establish it. Do I take it you mean by this that it is necessary to have socialist understanding but only in the more advanced countries that "play a pivotal role in the capitalist world system" and that is it not necessary that such understanding should exist in the less advanced parts of global capitalism? If so , I would have to disagree.

Socialism has to be a global alternative to globaL capitalism. It cannot exist in one country alone and, indeed, it wont anyway because of the way in which ideas spread. Irrespective of whatever part of the world in which a socialist revolution is first successfully accomplished, the very fact that this happened would presuppose of the existence of massive socialist movement everywhere else, more or less poised to establism socialism.
Not quite, rather I think that the victory of a socialist revolution in the advanced industrial countries could spark the development of mass socialist consciousness and movements elsewhere. Not to mention, said victory in the advanced industrial countries would also deal a huge blow to imperialism, thus preventing the advanced industrial countries from propping up capitalist regimes in the third world. It could lead to an unravelling of global capitalism.

What I'm not convinced of, though please elaborate on this point of yours, is that the success of a socialist revolution in the advanced industrial countries depends on, or presupposes, the existence of a "massive socialist movement everywhere else". What I contend, instead, is that its success could cause such socialist movements elsewhere.

[robbo203]

Not quite, rather I think that the victory of a socialist revolution in the advanced industrial countries could spark the development of mass socialist consciousness and movements elsewhere. Not to mention, said victory in the advanced industrial countries would also deal a huge blow to imperialism, thus preventing the advanced industrial countries from propping up capitalist regimes in the third world. It could lead to an unravelling of global capitalism.

What I'm not convinced of, though please elaborate on this point of yours, is that the success of a socialist revolution in the advanced industrial countries depends on, or presupposes, the existence of a "massive socialist movement everywhere else". What I contend, instead, is that its success could cause such socialist movements elsewhere.

Well, in the way you have now elaborated on your position there may not, after all, be much difference between yours and mine.

Regarding the point about the success of a socialist revolution in the advanced industrial countries depending on, or presupposing, the existence of a "massive socialist movement everywhere else, I would say this. If you agree that socialism has to be a global system, that it cannot operate in one country alone, then it would stand to reason that any marked imbalance in the spread of socialist consciousness globally would threaten the very success of a socialist revolution you refer to. The greater the imbalance, the longer the time period between this initial success and socialism being achieved elsewhere in the world, then the greater the risk this poses to those parts of the world where socialism had intially been established - if there is not a signifcant socialist movement elsewhere. Except that I cannot see that this how would be the case.

You say the initial success of socialism in the advanced countries "could cause such socialist movements elsewhere". I would put it differently - it would spur on the already substantial socialist movements elsewhere. Indeed. by your own logic why should it not be the case that long before the socialist movement in the advanced countries had achieved success its rapid gtowth there would act as a spur to the socialist movement elsewhere? In any case, I seriously doubt that we would be talking any longer in terms of kind of eurocentric perpective on events with the locomotive of the advanced countires pulling the rest of the world into socialism. By this time I suspect it will be case of socialist movements anywhere in the world each reinforcing the efforts of others everywhere else in what is afterall increasingly a global village

[Die Neue Zeit]

Only this isn't true, of course - the action of the revolutionary vanguard builds the mass socialist consciousness you speak of, builds the trust of the masses in the revolutionary party. This argument of yours, which is similar to one of those that Kautsky made and Lenin later debunked, is not only incorrect, as others, for example LZ, have shown, but also reeks of a liberal parliamentary attitude to socialism.

"The action of the revolutionary vanguard builds the mass socialist consciousness" - Bakuninist propaganda of the deed, indeed! :rolleyes:

[Yehuda Stern]

In other words, what LZ is saying is that you FIRST have your "revolution" and THEN you - or rather the so called vanguard elite - proceed to build up the mass socialist consciousness of the workers. Not only is this an utterly patronising view of capabilities of ordinary workers but the whole theory is totally cockeyed. Without the mass socialist consciousness you simply cannot have a socialist revolution. QED.I am afraid a proof at this level - i.e., merely asserting that what you are saying is correct - would earn you absolutely no points in any reasonable exam, and it certainly doesn't win you any points in this debate. And seriously, this isn't about what LZ said, so spare me the details.

By the way, it is of course correct that the proletariat must take power whenever it can and by action win the support of the working class elsewhere. The fact that you oppose this because of considerations of winning the support of the majority shows exactly that you are a liberal - you will allow a revolution once exactly 50.000001% of the population of the world supports it, and not a moment before. That is why people like you will never make a revolution, why people like Lenin are remembered to this day and Kautsky serves only as a classic prototype for renegades.

[robbo203]

I am afraid a proof at this level - i.e., merely asserting that what you are saying is correct - would earn you absolutely no points in any reasonable exam, and it certainly doesn't win you any points in this debate. And seriously, this isn't about what LZ said, so spare me the details.

By the way, it is of course correct that the proletariat must take power whenever it can and by action win the support of the working class elsewhere. The fact that you oppose this because of considerations of winning the support of the majority shows exactly that you are a liberal - you will allow a revolution once exactly 50.000001% of the population of the world supports it, and not a moment before. That is why people like you will never make a revolution, why people like Lenin are remembered to this day and Kautsky serves only as a classic prototype for renegades.


I have no idea what you are talking about in your first paragraph. From what you appear to be saying are you denying that the Leninist view is that the vanuard first has to come into power through a revolution and then only can the working class become socialist minded. Lenin himself state that if socialism depended on the working class it would only be obtained in 500 years

If insisting on the need for majority socialist understanding to establish socialism is "liberal" that would make Marx and Engels eminent liberals

[Yehuda Stern]

I have no idea what you are talking about in your first paragraph. From what you appear to be saying are you denying that the Leninist view is that the vanuard first has to come into power through a revolution and then only can the working class become socialist minded. Lenin himself state that if socialism depended on the working class it would only be obtained in 500 years

No, I was denying your silly method of proof: you asserted that mass socialist consciousness is needed for a revolution and then wrote QED. Of course, that convinces no one, even if your conclusion were correct. At any rate, please bring that quote here - I am willing to bet you are taking things out of context.


If insisting on the need for majority socialist understanding to establish socialism is "liberal" that would make Marx and Engels eminent liberals

No, this has actually been debunked several times, and you are just repeating your old lie.

[New Tet]

[...] That is why people like you will never make a revolution, why people like Lenin are remembered to this day and Kautsky serves only as a classic prototype for renegades.

Revolutions are not made, they come. Marx taught that.

Lenin did not make the Russian revolution. When the Czar was overthrown Lenin was safely in Switzerland, allegedly playing chess.

So he can't plausibly be remembered for having "made" the revolution, can he?

[ComradeOm]

Lenin did not make the Russian revolution. When the Czar was overthrown Lenin was safely in Switzerland, allegedly playing chess.

So he can't plausibly be remembered for having "made" the revolution, can he?Actually the role of the Bolsheviks in the February Revolution (http://www.revleft.com/vb/february-1917-question-t106507/index.html?t=106507) is often overlooked in history

[Yehuda Stern]

Revolutions are not made, they come. Marx taught that.

Does being such a pedant pay off for you in real life? Fine. Read "made a revolution" as "led the revolution to victory."

[robbo203]

No, I was denying your silly method of proof: you asserted that mass socialist consciousness is needed for a revolution and then wrote QED. Of course, that convinces no one, even if your conclusion were correct. At any rate, please bring that quote here - I am willing to bet you are taking things out of context..

What are you disputing? That Marx and Engels insisted on the need for mass socialist understanding first? But I have already given you evidence of this . It should in any case be obvious that you cannot operate a socialist society without people understanding what it meant and wanting it. Here are some quotes again from Engels introduction to Class Struggles in France

even in France the Socialists are realising more and more that no lasting victory is possible for them unless they first win over the great mass of the people, i.e. the peasants in this instance. Slow propaganda work and parliamentary activity are recognised here, too, as the immediate tasks of the party

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

This view is totally at variance with Lenin's elitist arrogant theory of the Vanguard. Lenin argued in What is To Be Done that workers were only capable of developing a trade union consciousness and that socialist ideas were the product of educated members of the propertied classes and the intelligentisia only. He also stated that if a revolution depended on mass working class socialist consciousness then this would take 500 years. He maintained that the "Socialist political party that is the vanguard of the working class, must not allow itself to be halted by the lack of education of the masses" Quoted in John Reeds Ten Days that Shook the World. Lenin held in other words a minority elitist view of revolution. The vanguard accomplishes the revolution supposedly in the name of the proletariat and sets about changing society from the top down. The argument is that only in a so called post revolutionary situation in which the vanguard has taken power will workers be able to develop socialist consciousness under the tutelage of this elite

In point of fact all that would happen then is what Trotsky called "substitutionism". Becuase the so called revolution would be in effect a continuation of capitalism under the vanguard, the vanguard would simply step into the shoes of the bourgeoisie, become the substitute capitalist class themselves (not that Trotsky held this view of course - Im just using his term). This is obvious. If you cannot achieve a non-market stateless socialist society without majority support for it, it follows that you are condemned to continue with capitalism. This is why Lenin's vanguard theory is implicitly capitalist and why Lenin was nothing more than a bourgeois revolutionary


No, this has actually been debunked several times, and you are just repeating your old lie.

What has been debunked? You dont express yourself very clearly. Are you saying that Marx and Engels did not insist on the need for mass socialist understanding. If so that is rubbish

[chimx]

I have already answered this point elsewhere. No it was not because its outcome was state capitalism and it is its outcome that defines the nature of a revolution.

The paris commune was not a socialist revolution? The spanish civil war was not a socialist revolution? lol. your argument is erroneous. Of course it was socialist. You may not like the ultimate outcome but to argue that it wasn't a socialist revolution is just fucking asinine.

[robbo203]

The paris commune was not a socialist revolution? The spanish civil war was not a socialist revolution? lol. your argument is erroneous. Of course it was socialist. You may not like the ultimate outcome but to argue that it wasn't a socialist revolution is just fucking asinine.

Really? And what sort of asinine argument is this that you have presented here to support your conclusion. Where is your evidence to say that what you call a socialist revolution is in fact a socialist revolution, eh? Becuase someone choses to call it that?

I have no idea what you have in mind when you talk about "socialism". My guess is that you probably are thinking of some or other variant of what I would call state capitalism. To me socialism stands for a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. This is what socialism was widely understood to mean prior to Lenin changing the meaning of the term.

By that understanding, the Paris Commune and the Spanish Civil war were clearly not "socialist revolutions" as you wildly claim. Certainly the anarchist collectives in the latter - or at least some of them - incarnated the socialist principle of free distribution and volunteer labour - so there was a socialistic element there but overwhelmingly the republican cause was a bourgeois cause in which the great majority of individuals who rallied to it could hardly be called genuine "socialists". In the main they wanted some form of social democracy or alternatively stalinism

And yes the outcome of a revolution is essentially what defines the nature of the revolution. That stands to reason. Marx was clear on this point when he argued:
If the proletariat destroys the political rule of the bourgeosie, that will only be a temporary victory, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in 1794, so long as in the course of history, in its movement, the material conditions are not yet created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and thus the definitive overthrow of bourgeois political rule ("Moralising Criticism and Critical Morality" , 1847 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/10/31.htm)

[chimx]

I have no idea what you have in mind when you talk about "socialism". My guess is that you probably are thinking of some or other variant of what I would call state capitalism. To me socialism stands for a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. This is what socialism was widely understood to mean prior to Lenin changing the meaning of the term.

lol! I suggest you read the communist manifesto.

[robbo203]

lol! I suggest you read the communist manifesto.


Ive read the Communist Manifesto - not once, but several times over the years . What of it? What exactly is your point?

[Yehuda Stern]

What are you disputing? That Marx and Engels insisted on the need for mass socialist understanding first? But I have already given you evidence of this

You haven't. You only now attempt to, and fail:


even in France the Socialists are realising more and more that no lasting victory is possible for them unless they first win over the great mass of the people

Sure, obviously no lasting victory is possible without mass support. The question is how to win this mass support. The answer is to go forward with the revolution whenever possible, not wait until 5.00001% supports you and the capitalists wait patiently to let you get stronger.


This view is totally at variance with Lenin's elitist arrogant theory of the Vanguard. Lenin argued in What is To Be Done that workers were only capable of developing a trade union consciousness and that socialist ideas were the product of educated members of the propertied classes and the intelligentisia only.

Like I just posted in another thread, this is indeed an elitist outlook, which Lenin adopted under the influence of Kautsky, and which he changed radically after the 1905 revolution.


What has been debunked?

What hasn't, really? I suppose the real answer is nothing, since you have proven nothing, therefore nothing was ever there for me to debunk.

[Pogue]

lol! I suggest you read the communist manifesto.

Actually Marx used socialis and communism to mean the same thing, its a Leninist creation to refer to the transitionary period as socialism, not a Marxist one.

[PRC-UTE]

Actually Marx used socialis and communism to mean the same thing, its a Leninist creation to refer to the transitionary period as socialism, not a Marxist one.

Marx spoke of higher and lower stages, however, the lower stage being the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the higher stages being guided by the maxim 'by each according to ability...'. Well, you all know the rest.

[Pogue]

Yes, but he didn't refer to the DOTP as socialism.

If dictatorship didn't have the connotations it has I think it'd be an accurate term to use.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx spoke of higher and lower stages, however, the lower stage being the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the higher stages being guided by the maxim 'by each according to ability...'. Well, you all know the rest.Um, he said that the DotP was the political form corresponding to the proletarian revolution, which was the transformation from capitalism to communism. As such, it exists only under capitalism. The initial stage of communism was not in any way capitalist. Marx was quite clear on this (other than calling it a "communist society"), for example, saying, "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor." He also compares it to commodity exchange in a way implying that there is no longer any. He does identify the presence of 'bourgeois right', but states that, "[the initial phase] recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege." The right is only 'bourgeois' in being equal to unequal individuals, but, unlike in capitalism where they are unequal along class lines, here everyone is a worker. In fact, it's quite similar to his earlier formulation that, "With labour emancipated, every man becomes a workingman, and productive labour ceases to be a class attribute." Labour emancipated, but still under capitalism?

[chimx]

Ive read the Communist Manifesto - not once, but several times over the years . What of it? What exactly is your point?

If you read that simple little piece of early-Marxist literature, you would have a more comfortable understanding of the historical usage of the term "socialism". Perhaps you wouldn't speak so authoritatively on matters you are clearly ignorant of.

[Yehuda Stern]

Yes, but he didn't refer to the DOTP as socialism.

Yes, but the DOTP isn't socialism in modern use either. It describes the workers' states that are created after the revolution but before it is victorious worldwide, like the USSR was until the late 1930s. I understand your confusion, though, as many Stalinists and even some Trotskyists blur or deny that there are any differences between the two.

[Led Zeppelin]

I've already dealt with ZeroNowhere's quote juggling and his misunderstanding of the role material conditions and specifically the development of the economic revolution plays in the transition from capitalism to "the higher phase of communism" here: Distinction between socialism and communism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/distinction-between-socialism-t104147/index.html?t=104147)

As for why the USSR was called the USSR, i.e., Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, we can look to Lenin for an answer:


No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order.
Link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

[x359594]

"No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order. "

History shows that Lenin was wrong since the USSR went from state capitalism to monopoly capitalism and ceased to exist as a political entity in the process.

[chimx]

History shows that Lenin was wrong since the USSR went from state capitalism to monopoly capitalism and ceased to exist as a political entity in the process.

Lenin was wrong because the USSR wasn't a political entity? That doesn't make sense on multiple levels.

[PRC-UTE]

"No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Socialist Soviet Republic implies the determination of Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the new economic system is recognised as a socialist order. "

History shows that Lenin was wrong since the USSR went from state capitalism to monopoly capitalism and ceased to exist as a political entity in the process.

Do you see that the polemics have gone so far that they have a tenuous connection with reality at this point?

I got so sick of reading leftist polemics about the USSR that I had to turn to other works like Sheila Fitzpatrick's work on the history of the Russian Revolution to find out what actually happened and what went wrong.

[x359594]

...I had to turn to other works like Sheila Fitzpatrick's work on the history of the Russian Revolution to find out what actually happened and what went wrong.

Something did go wrong, no? The USSR no longer exists. What happened? What is Fitzpatrick's explanation for this? My interest is genuine.

[x359594]

Lenin was wrong because the USSR wasn't a political entity? That doesn't make sense on multiple levels.

My hypothesis was that Lenin was wrong because the state he helped to create reverted to capitalism, and furthermore ceased to exist as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

I certainly welcome your thoughts on how Lenin's theories and actions may or may not have contributed to the ultimate break up of the USSR.

[KC]

My hypothesis was that Lenin was wrong because the state he helped to create reverted to capitalism

In that case every single revolutionary leftist ideology is wrong because they have not succeeded in creating a classless stateless society. Bourgeois liberalism has had enormous success; why don't you become one of those?

[x359594]

...Bourgeois liberalism has had enormous success; why don't you become one of those?

Well comrade, I'm a wage earner for one thing, and I proposed a hypothesis that I hope to see disproved after the manner of Occam's Razor.

[robbo203]

Sure, obviously no lasting victory is possible without mass support. The question is how to win this mass support. The answer is to go forward with the revolution whenever possible, not wait until 5.00001% supports you and the capitalists wait patiently to let you get stronger..


You forgot to look through the rest of the quote and in particular this:

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul].

This is saying quite clearly that you do not go ahead with a revolution where you only have a small conscious minority. You wait until you have the majority consciously on your side. Only then can you accomplish a revolution.

If you try and mount a revolution when you still only have a minority what you will end up with is either a bloodbath followed by vicious reaction or, in the very very remote possibility that you succeed, you will simply find yourself stepping into the shoes of the capitalist government you have just overthrown and having to adminster capitalism inevitability against the interest of the unconscious majority who are not ready for socialism. You will become, in short, just another capitalist government

[PRC-UTE]

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul].


And you believe the revolutions in Russia fit this description?

Now I have an idea of why so much you say makes no sense.

[rosie]

I know Rosa Luxemburg supported the Bolsheviks, and she states in Reform or Revolution that in order for socialism to ACTUALLY work, it needs to be in place the world over, and not just in spots. So I would say, based on her work, the Bolsheviks were attempting to promote a world wide socialist revolution. Now, I am in no way learned in the Bolshevik revolution or much of Russian history. I am only replying on what I do know and what my own opinions are. If I am wrong, please feel free to correct me (I would thank you very much).

[chimx]

I certainly welcome your thoughts on how Lenin's theories and actions may or may not have contributed to the ultimate break up of the USSR.

The early Soviet states' exclusionary nature when dealing with other socialist parties and groups, while perhaps justified in the short term for certain groups, probably had a long term consequence of aiding the buildup of the USSR's bureaucracy and economically stagnant atmosphere.

[Dave B]

On post 69 when it comes to;



‘Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul].’


And the revolutions in Russia not fitting this description.

Then one would have thought that it should have included, or the workers should have grasped, some concept in ‘body and soul’ about what ‘communist labour’ was.

Lenin himself thought otherwise, but anyway at least he had some idea about what communism was;


FROM THE DESTRUCTION OF THE OLD SOCIAL SYSTEM TO THE CREATION OF THE NEW




Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas;

it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good -- labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale.



http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/DOCN20.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/DOCN20.html)

[robbo203]

And you believe the revolutions in Russia fit this description?

Now I have an idea of why so much you say makes no sense.

If you mean by this do I believe the Russian Revolution was not a socialist revolution then, yes, emphatically I do not believe it was a socialist revolution. The quotation from Engels was referring to a socialist revolution. It was saying that in order to successfully complete a socialist revolution you had to have mass socialist understanding. No such mass socialist understanding existed in Russia in 1917. There was conciousness obviously but not socialist consciousness. The actions of the Russian proletariat - who incidentally were a small minority of the Russian population anyway - were emphatically not impelled by the desire to create a moneyless , wageless classless society. They were impelled by negative reasons of disliking the exploitation they suffered under the bourgeosie (which would soon be greatly magnified by the gross exploitation of the Stalin regime) but merely reacting against the effects of the system does not make your a revolutionary socialist!!! You have to have something positive put in the place of capitalism and all the evidence suggests that the workers en masse were not thinking in terms of a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism ; they were thinking in terms of modifying capitalism (whether or not you miscall it "socialism") along reformist lines.

This is the unpalatable fact which Leninists prefer to ignore in their romanticisation of the events surrounding the Russian revolution

[Nwoye]

If you mean by this do I believe the Russian Revolution was not a socialist revolution then, yes, emphatically I do not believe it was a socialist revolution. The quotation from Engels was referring to a socialist revolution. It was saying that in order to successfully complete a socialist revolution you had to have mass socialist understanding. No such mass socialist understanding existed in Russia in 1917. There was conciousness obviously but not socialist consciousness. The actions of the Russian proletariat - who incidentally were a small minority of the Russian population anyway - were emphatically not impelled by the desire to create a moneyless , wageless classless society. They were impelled by negative reasons of disliking the exploitation they suffered under the bourgeosie (which would soon be greatly magnified by the gross exploitation of the Stalin regime) but merely reacting against the effects of the system does not make your a revolutionary socialist!!! You have to have something positive put in the place of capitalism and all the evidence suggests that the workers en masse were not thinking in terms of a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism ; they were thinking in terms of modifying capitalism (whether or not you miscall it "socialism") along reformist lines.

This is the unpalatable fact which Leninists prefer to ignore in their romanticisation of the events surrounding the Russian revolution
I am not a Leninist nor even a supporter of the USSR but to deny that a spontaneous and revolutionary socialist movement took place in Russia in 1917 is simply stupid. In early 1917 workers all over Russia began to organize themselves into factory committees, the goals of which were to exhibit control over factory management.

Factory and Shop Committees, Workers' Councils and Councils of Elders appear in every major industrial centre of European Russia. From the onset, their demands are not limited to wages or hours but challenge many managerial prerogatives. In several instances Factory Committees were set up because the previous owners or managers had disappeared during the February turmoil. Most of those who later drifted back were allowed to resume their positions - but had to accept the Factory Committees. "The proletariat" wrote Pankratova "without legislative sanction, started simultaneously to create all its organisations: soviets of workers' deputies, trade unions and Factory Committees". A tremendous working class pressure was developing all over Russia.In Spring 1917 factory committees began organizing together and forming plans for worker action. The Kharkov Conference of Factory Committees proposed that these committees should immediately become:
"organs of the Revolution... aiming at consolidating its victories. The Factory Committees must take over production, protect it, develop it. They must fix wages, look after hygiene, control the technical quality of products, decree all internal factory regulations and determine solutions to all conflicts."And so on... During 1917 and beyond workers organized themselves and formed revolutionary institutions which were meant to challenge the existing capitalist order - and they did.

[robbo203]

I am not a Leninist nor even a supporter of the USSR but to deny that a spontaneous and revolutionary socialist movement took place in Russia in 1917 is simply stupid. In early 1917 workers all over Russia began to organize themselves into factory committees, the goals of which were to exhibit control over factory management..

I do not deny that workers all over Russia began to "organize themselves into factory committees, the goals of which were to exhibit control over factory management" What I deny emphatically is that this constitued a genuine socialist movement. Worker control over factory management is NOT socialism. If this were the case you could then argue that, say, Mondragon is an example of socialism. Its is clearly not. The problem is we might be talking at cross purposes. I do not know what your defintion of socialism is but I am operating with the generally understood definition of the word that prevailed prior to Lenin twisting its meaning, as a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. There is no evidence of widespread understanding among the Russian proletariat of what socialism in this sense meant or the desire to establish it. Some of the Bolsheviks did have an understanding of what genuine socialism meant but they were a distinct minority. If you have evidence to the contrary let us hear it. Ive asked for such evidence before but all I have ever got are references to some vague proclamation by this or that Soviet condemning "capitalism". That simply wont do as hard evidence



In Spring 1917 factory committees began organizing together and forming plans for worker action. The Kharkov Conference of Factory Committees proposed that these committees should immediately become:Originally Posted by Maurice Brinton
"organs of the Revolution... aiming at consolidating its victories. The Factory Committees must take over production, protect it, develop it. They must fix wages, look after hygiene, control the technical quality of products, decree all internal factory regulations and determine solutions to all conflicts."
And so on... During 1917 and beyond workers organized themselves and formed revolutionary institutions which were meant to challenge the existing capitalist order - and they did.

Brinton's quote exactly proves my point for me!! It is an open admission that the factory committees were created with the perpetuation of a system of wage labour in mind . In other words capitalism. They did not challenge the existing capitalist order but were simply intended as an organisational modification of that order. Of course, they were foredoomed. In 1918 Taylorism and "one man" management was reintroduced (despite Lenin's earlier misgivings) as a way of imposing "iron discipline" on the labour force and boost labour productivity in line with the Bolshevik's emerging state capitalist agenda. With the onset of the civil war the Bolsheviks were able to get away with the impostion of various other anti-worker measures because,for many Russian workers, the prospect of the White army triumphing was even less palatable. The trade unions were absorbed into the state apparatus and in 1920 the power of the workers councils in the factories was officially abolished.

The Russian revolution was not a socialist revolution and the proof of the pudding is to be found in the eating of it. The tragedy is that many Russian workers vaguely believed at some basic level that it would lead to a society run in their interest but - and this is my point - since by and large they did not have a clear conception of what such a society would be i.e. socialism - they were left utterly vulnerable to the depredations of the new ruling capitalist class in the shape of the so called "communist" party and the imposition of state capitalism

[ComradeOm]

I am not a Leninist nor even a supporter of the USSR but to deny that a spontaneous and revolutionary socialist movement took place in Russia in 1917 is simply stupidDon't bother. Robbo is of the opinion that a movement cannot be considered socialist unless every worker is armed with copies of Kapital and carrying placards explaining the transformation of surplus-profit into ground rent

[Pogue]

I'd say the factory committees were the most promising display of socialism in Russia actually. They were better than the Soviets. They even tried to federate nationallity, which would have formed the basis for a worker run society, but sadly the Bolsheviks repressed them.

[robbo203]

Don't bother. Robbo is of the opinion that a movement cannot be considered socialist unless every worker is armed with copies of Kapital and carrying placards explaining the transformation of surplus-profit into ground rent

Now now ComradeOm - lets not reduce this discussion to gross caricaturisation. The idea of a producing simply for use and not for sale on the market, of cooperating voluntarily and not on the basis of wage labour is a fairly simple and straightforward one well within the capacity of any worker to grasp without recourse to Capital. But the plain fact of the matter is that the great majority of Russian workers in 1917 were not thinking along these lines and of course the Russian working class at the time was in any case still a small minority of the population.

Why can you simply not accept this fact - even Lenin did - and stop romanticising a revolution which by your own admission failed. Despite the commendable militancy of the workers it was clearly not informed by a genuine socialist outlook. Not by a long way.

[Nwoye]

I do not deny that workers all over Russia began to "organize themselves into factory committees, the goals of which were to exhibit control over factory management" What I deny emphatically is that this constitued a genuine socialist movement. Worker control over factory management is NOT socialism. If this were the case you could then argue that, say, Mondragon is an example of socialism. Its is clearly not. The problem is we might be talking at cross purposes.
What? What is it? What is socialism if not the collectivization and democratic control of the means of production?


I do not know what your defintion of socialism is but I am operating with the generally understood definition of the word that prevailed prior to Lenin twisting its meaning, as a moneyless wageless stateless alternative to capitalism. There is no evidence of widespread understanding among the Russian proletariat of what socialism in this sense meant or the desire to establish it.
Whence came this definition of socialism? What is your justification of this interpretation of what the transition to socialism will entail?


Some of the Bolsheviks did have an understanding of what genuine socialism meant but they were a distinct minority. If you have evidence to the contrary let us hear it. Ive asked for such evidence before but all I have ever got are references to some vague proclamation by this or that Soviet condemning "capitalism". That simply wont do as hard evidence.
Evidence of what? It doesn't matter what the Bolsheviks thought. We're talking about the nature of the October Revolution (and the labor movement which led to it).


Brinton's quote exactly proves my point for me!! It is an open admission that the factory committees were created with the perpetuation of a system of wage labour in mind . In other words capitalism. They did not challenge the existing capitalist order but were simply intended as an organisational modification of that order.
Brinton repeatedly mentions in that pamphlet (and I believe I quoted it in my original post) that the factory committees were created as and were designed to be revolutionary institutions of the working class. Their expressed role in the worker struggle was to establish worker control over production and the management of the factories - a fairly basic and essential first step in acheiving socialism. You could argue that the committee movement was reformist in that it developed within the capitalist system of private property (working with factory owners, seeking legitimization from the state, etc) but its goals were expressedly those of a revolutionary socialist nature.


Of course, they were foredoomed. In 1918 Taylorism and "one man" management was reintroduced (despite Lenin's earlier misgivings) as a way of imposing "iron discipline" on the labour force and boost labour productivity in line with the Bolshevik's emerging state capitalist agenda. With the onset of the civil war the Bolsheviks were able to get away with the impostion of various other anti-worker measures because,for many Russian workers, the prospect of the White army triumphing was even less palatable. The trade unions were absorbed into the state apparatus and in 1920 the power of the workers councils in the factories was officially abolished.
I'm not going to defend the Bolsheviks or their Labor policies - that's not the point of this thread. What we're discussing here is whether or not the worker uprising which took place in 1917 was a genuinely socialist or genuinely communist one.


The Russian revolution was not a socialist revolution and the proof of the pudding is to be found in the eating of it. The tragedy is that many Russian workers vaguely believed at some basic level that it would lead to a society run in their interest but - and this is my point - since by and large they did not have a clear conception of what such a society would be i.e. socialism - they were left utterly vulnerable to the depredations of the new ruling capitalist class in the shape of the so called "communist" party and the imposition of state capitalism
this is just a bunch of vague and unfounded generalities. Let's stick to the point - the 1917 Russian Revolution.

[robbo203]

What? What is it? What is socialism if not the collectivization and democratic control of the means of production?.

Well, for staters, its a lot more than just that . It entails the complete abolition of commodity production, the elimination of all wage labour and the production of goods and services directly for use.




Whence came this definition of socialism? What is your justification of this interpretation of what the transition to socialism will entail?
.

This definition of socialism was widespread and generally accepted prior to the first world war. Nearly everyone accepted that socialism would be a society without money, wages, buying and selling - Engels , Kropotkin, Morris , Kautsky and numerous others. From our vantage point today it is difficult to appreciate just how general this understanding of the term socialism was since our vision is clouded by a history of so called "socialist" regimes none of which eliminated these basic features of capitalism .The term was used more or less as a synonym for communism. In Russia this too was the accepted usage. Bogdanoff in his Short History of Economic Science talked of socialism being the "highest stage of society we can conceive of" in which there is no production for the market. This became an important text in Bolshevik circles. Even Stalin talked of socialism being a society without money or wages in the early 1900s

All this changed when Lenin started to modify the definition of socialism to account for the very obvious fact that there was no socialism in Russia and indeed could not be as people like Plekhanov had pointed out




Evidence of what? It doesn't matter what the Bolsheviks thought. We're talking about the nature of the October Revolution (and the labor movement which led to it). .

What i am interested is evidence of the extent of genuine socialist consciousness among the working class itself i.e. consciousness informed by the desire to establish socialism in the sense I have described it above. I am less concerned with what the Bolsheviks themselves thought. There is frankly no evidence at all that socialist consciousness in this sense was widespread among the workers. Yes there is plenty of evidence of worker militancy and workers wanting to take over factories and run them themselves but this does not constitute socialism. In fact I remember reading a contemporary report from an anarchist in 1918 which expressed concerned at the tendency towards parochialism among the factory committees placing their factory above others. Ill will try and fish out the reference



Brinton repeatedly mentions in that pamphlet (and I believe I quoted it in my original post) that the factory committees were created as and were designed to be revolutionary institutions of the working class. Their expressed role in the worker struggle was to establish worker control over production and the management of the factories - a fairly basic and essential first step in acheiving socialism. You could argue that the committee movement was reformist in that it developed within the capitalist system of private property (working with factory owners, seeking legitimization from the state, etc) but its goals were expressedly those of a revolutionary socialist nature..

No this is where we disagree profoundly. There is no evidence that even the goals of the committee movement were were "expressedly those of a revolutionary socialist nature". If you have such evidence I would be most interested to hear this and if it does exist I might well have to modify my views of the Russian Revolution and accept that it had a socialist component despite being a capitalist revolution. But to me mere worker control of the means of production is still fully compatible with capitalist relations of propduction. This is not to say it is not a good thing. I am not saying the workers were wrong to set up factory committees in Russia in 1917. All I am saying is that we should not entertain illusions about the nature of worker control or self management. In fact I would argue it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Anyone who has studied the genesis of an organisation like the Mondragon cooperative in Northern Spain will see how it is moved away- inevitably - from its original ideals and become more and more like a conventional capitalist corporation (it now controls a chain of Eroski supermarkets throughout Spain). Exactly the same tendency would manifest itself in Russia in the long run had the factory committees been allowed to operate. But of course the Bolsheviks intervened and imposed one man management on the factories which were nationalised as part of the emerging state capitalist order



I'm not going to defend the Bolsheviks or their Labor policies - that's not the point of this thread. What we're discussing here is whether or not the worker uprising which took place in 1917 was a genuinely socialist or genuinely communist one.
.

I appreciate the fact that you are making a distinction here between what the workers themselves were doing and the Bolsheviks own designs. But even so, I think you are wrong. The factory takeovers no more consitituted a genuine socialist or communist revolution than the takeover of land owned by the big landowners by peasants. The crucial thing is what becomes of the factories and the land once it is taken over. In a sense it is irrelevant who owns or controls the means of production if the relations of production are still capitalist in nature. Sooner or later the tendency will be for these means to becoming increasing concentrated. The Bolsheviks merely short circuited the process by nationalising the factories. The tiny elite who controlled the state became the de facto owners of the means of production but if the factories had been left to go their own way the net result would be much the same except that you would have private capitalism rather than state capitalism

[Nwoye]

Well, for staters, its a lot more than just that . It entails the complete abolition of commodity production, the elimination of all wage labour and the production of goods and services directly for use. This definition of socialism was widespread and generally accepted prior to the first world war. Nearly everyone accepted that socialism would be a society without money, wages, buying and selling - Engels , Kropotkin, Morris , Kautsky and numerous others. From our vantage point today it is difficult to appreciate just how general this understanding of the term socialism was since our vision is clouded by a history of so called "socialist" regimes none of which eliminated these basic features of capitalism .The term was used more or less as a synonym for communism. In Russia this too was the accepted usage. Bogdanoff in his Short History of Economic Science talked of socialism being the "highest stage of society we can conceive of" in which there is no production for the market. This became an important text in Bolshevik circles. Even Stalin talked of socialism being a society without money or wages in the early 1900s

All this changed when Lenin started to modify the definition of socialism to account for the very obvious fact that there was no socialism in Russia and indeed could not be as people like Plekhanov had pointed out
I would appreciate some historical references for this.

Also, as I reiterate below, we don't know what the Bolsheviks or Russian workers were thinking during 1917. We just know that they created factory committees to control factory production and organized into soviets to influence (and late control) the state. And I think you would agree that these are inherently socialist measures, regardless of whether or not money or the wage system is abolished.


What i am interested is evidence of the extent of genuine socialist consciousness among the working class itself i.e. consciousness informed by the desire to establish socialism in the sense I have described it above. I am less concerned with what the Bolsheviks themselves thought. There is frankly no evidence at all that socialist consciousness in this sense was widespread among the workers. Yes there is plenty of evidence of worker militancy and workers wanting to take over factories and run them themselves but this does not constitute socialism. In fact I remember reading a contemporary report from an anarchist in 1918 which expressed concerned at the tendency towards parochialism among the factory committees placing their factory above others. Ill will try and fish out the referenceI don't see how it's possible for us to somehow read the minds of people in 1917 Russia. All we can go by is the actions they took and the arguments they made. And going by these factors, we know that the Russian proletariat took measures to collectivize production and place it in control of the workers.


No this is where we disagree profoundly. There is no evidence that even the goals of the committee movement were were "expressedly those of a revolutionary socialist nature". If you have such evidence I would be most interested to hear this and if it does exist I might well have to modify my views of the Russian Revolution and accept that it had a socialist component despite being a capitalist revolution. Well I cited twice the Conference of Kharkov Factory Committees where it was stated that these new committees should be "organs of the revolution". I've also cited several quotes where the committees expressed their desire to take control of production and the everyday tasks of the factories. As for them being revolutionary socialist institutions, numerous outside sources lauded them as being instruments of the working class against capitalism, including none other than Lenin himself.

But to me mere worker control of the means of production is still fully compatible with capitalist relations of production. This is not to say it is not a good thing. I am not saying the workers were wrong to set up factory committees in Russia in 1917. All I am saying is that we should not entertain illusions about the nature of worker control or self management. In fact I would argue it contains the seeds of its own destruction. Anyone who has studied the genesis of an organisation like the Mondragon cooperative in Northern Spain will see how it is moved away- inevitably - from its original ideals and become more and more like a conventional capitalist corporation (it now controls a chain of Eroski supermarkets throughout Spain). Exactly the same tendency would manifest itself in Russia in the long run had the factory committees been allowed to operate. But of course the Bolsheviks intervened and imposed one man management on the factories which were nationalised as part of the emerging state capitalist orderI don't see how this bold part is possible, considering (I expand on this below) that capitalism is the separation of producers from production, and socialism is the abolition of this separation.


I appreciate the fact that you are making a distinction here between what the workers themselves were doing and the Bolsheviks own designs. But even so, I think you are wrong. The factory takeovers no more consitituted a genuine socialist or communist revolution than the takeover of land owned by the big landowners by peasants. The crucial thing is what becomes of the factories and the land once it is taken over. In a sense it is irrelevant who owns or controls the means of production if the relations of production are still capitalist in nature. Sooner or later the tendency will be for these means to becoming increasing concentrated.Insofar as the determinant of capitalism is "the separation of the producers from production", putting an end to this separation (instituting worker control over production) would constitute an end to capitalism. And if it isn't capitalism, what is it? Well production has been collectivized is being democratically controlled. Even if money still existed or the wage system still existed, how else would you describe this system other than socialist?

And this is what the factory committees did or were at least in the process of doing - putting an end to the separation of producers from production.


The Bolsheviks merely short circuited the process by nationalising the factories. The tiny elite who controlled the state became the de facto owners of the means of production but if the factories had been left to go their own way the net result would be much the same except that you would have private capitalism rather than state capitalismagain I'm just not going to defend or even address the actions taken by the Bolsheviks regarding economic policy - it's simply not relevant.

[robbo203]

I would appreciate some historical references for this..

You could try a rather good but somewhat dated SPGB pamphlet as follows: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/Russia1917to67/index.html

I see it refers to Bogdanoff's text which I slightly misquoted


Also, as I reiterate below, we don't know what the Bolsheviks or Russian workers were thinking during 1917. We just know that they created factory committees to control factory production and organized into soviets to influence (and late control) the state. And I think you would agree that these are inherently socialist measures, regardless of whether or not money or the wage system is abolished..

Well no like i said I dont regard them as "inherently" socialist measures which is not to say that I dont support workers attempts to take over production on self management lines. But it is still not socialism if production is geared to the market. However it might aid the development of socialist consciousness but that is a different thing from saying it is itself socialist


I don't see how it's possible for us to somehow read the minds of people in 1917 Russia. All we can go by is the actions they took and the arguments they made. And going by these factors, we know that the Russian proletariat took measures to collectivize production and place it in control of the workers. ..

Obviously we cannot read the minds of the participants in the Bolshevik revolution but there must be some objective evidence of the extent of genuine socialist conciousness i.e. the desire for a wageless moneyless and stateless alternative to capitalism. As far as we can ascertain there was very little evidence of this and even people like Lenin acknowledged this




Well I cited twice the Conference of Kharkov Factory Committees where it was stated that these new committees should be "organs of the revolution". I've also cited several quotes where the committees expressed their desire to take control of production and the everyday tasks of the factories. As for them being revolutionary socialist institutions, numerous outside sources lauded them as being instruments of the working class against capitalism, including none other than Lenin himself.
I don't see how this bold part is possible, considering (I expand on this below) that capitalism is the separation of producers from production, and socialism is the abolition of this separation...

Yes but all of these high sounding resolutions and proclamations by this or that Conference do not signify much unless there is an explicit and clear commitment to the abolition of the wage system and the institition of production solely for use and not the market. Ive had the argument with ComradeOm. He cited various statements by various Soviets such as the Petrograd Soviet. In fact he is on even weaker ground than you are because the Soviets themselves unlike the factory committees were not particularly democratic organs for the most part and tended to be organised on a top down basis. So any resoluituions passed by them might not even be reflective of the wider membership of these soviets. Its just not acceptable as hard evidence of socialist consciousness to cite references to desire on the part of workers to take over the means of production for reasons which I will elaborate on below




Insofar as the determinant of capitalism is "the separation of the producers from production", putting an end to this separation (instituting worker control over production) would constitute an end to capitalism. And if it isn't capitalism, what is it? Well production has been collectivized is being democratically controlled. Even if money still existed or the wage system still existed, how else would you describe this system other than socialist?And this is what the factory committees did or were at least in the process of doing - putting an end to the separation of producers from production....

I disagree fundamentally with this analysis. At a theoretical level it is highly questionable: its not so much capitalists that are the problem as capital itself. Workers can boot out the individual capitalists but they still have to confront the impersonal power of capital. Workers control of the means of production does not eliminate the separation of the producers from production as internalise this contradiction within the framework of the worker controlled factory. The fact that the worker still needs to sell his or her labour power to the worker controlled industry is indicative of this. Think about it. Any form of economic exchange implies the existence of owners and non owners. Exchange is the transfer of ownership rights over the thing be exchanged from one party to the other in the transaction. This applies equally to wages. Wages are the price of the worker's labour power. The worker sells his or her labour power to the employer who then makes use of it to generate surplus value and thereby accumulate capital. It is no different with the worker controlled industry to whom the individual worker sells his or her labour power and is therefore no longer the owner of it. The worker is split down the middle, so to speak, into employer and employee each with their contradictory needs in much the same way as Marx talked of the self-exploitation of the peasant . In the long run this is, as I have argued a fundamentally unstable set up - the tendency will be for control to slip out of the hands of the majority and worker controlled enterprises to conform more and more to the conventional capitalist model of the firm. Look at Mondragon if you doubt that. The point is that workers controlling an enterpriise does not make that enterrpise any the less a capitalist enterprise if it has to compete in the market for profit in order to survive.

It is the larger economic environment in which worker controlled enterprises are enmeshed that determines their character. Even if the Bolsheviks with their state capitalist agenda had let the factory committes go ahead with their plans for direct worker management of the economy the result would still have been capitalism. But as I said this does not mean this would not have been preferable to what subsequently happened in Russia. Worker control of factories is not socialist but at least it would have been much preferable to the authoritarian state capitalist control that the Bolsheviks installed

[robbo203]

Talking of Mondragon here is a peice I came across which is a bit of an eye opener

http://libcom.org/forums/news/mondragon-capitalists-exploitation-repression-poland-20072008

The lesson is to be wary of talk of many of these so called worker controlled enterprises. Ultimately they are controlled by the imperatives of capitalism

[Dave B]

Actually in Sedrox’s first quote from Robbo in post 81, Robbo is quite correct on both essential points. In that the idea of communism being about voluntary labour, money-less society and the abolition of the wages system etc was commonly understood at the beginning of the 20th century.

As to sources or supporting facts etc he has probably used the ones I gave and recently robbed my own material as usual. (just joking Robbo)
Post 10

http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolishing-monetary-system-t113897/index.html (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolishing-monetary-system-t113897/index.html)

On Stalin also understanding at one point in time what socialism was; he is also quite correct, but that is also pretty hackneyed material in the SPGB.

Actually Joe did a quite impressive job on it in an extremely readable, unpretentious, and in many ways commendable pamphlet. As might be expected from one of the few members of the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party who wasn’t a member of the bourgeois intelligentsia.

J. V. Stalin, ANARCHISM or SOCIALISM?, 1907

Part III

http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html#c3 (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/AS07.html)

On what the workers were actually thinking in 1917, well I don’t think that has been done properly yet. But there is supposed to be a good book covering a later period on that below, but I have not read it.

http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/ (http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/)

There is also some fascinating material collected by Lockhart who was gathering information for British intelligence around 1918 and from the British intelligence and foreign office archives in general. Although due to the perspective you have pick your way through it a bit.


Karl himself recognised that workers control over and ownership of the means of production wasn’t the be all and end all of communist or non capitalistic production in his assessment of co-operative factories, at the end of;


Capital Vol. III Part V, Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise. Interest-Bearing Capital, Chapter 27. The Role of Credit in Capitalist Production




"The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour."


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm)


How these things can go pear shaped might be illustrated below after a quick google search;


http://www.anarkismo.net/article/9414 (http://www.anarkismo.net/article/9414)

Actually Engels predicted this kind of thing in anti Duhring when Duhring was proposing a kind of co-operatively owned commune type system.

Find it for yourself.


What democratically controlled or workplace factory committee controlled production in one country within the framework of a buying and selling market orientated wage labour type system would look like would of course have been interesting.


There did appear at one point that something like that was about to develop in Yugoslavia in the 1950’s but it died an early death apparently.


It did play a brief part in the state capitalist debate with Ernst ‘Moonie’ Mandel and Milovan Djilas and Edward Kardelj;


http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1951/06/statecap.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1951/06/statecap.htm)

[robbo203]

A
On what the workers were actually thinking in 1917, well I don’t think that has been done properly yet. But there is supposed to be a good book covering a later period on that below, but I have not read it.

http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/ (http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/)

There is also some fascinating material collected by Lockhart who was gathering information for British intelligence around 1918 and from the British intelligence and foreign office archives in general. Although due to the perspective you have pick your way through it a bit.

Dave

You mention Simon Pirani 's book on the Russian Revolution. Well , I clicked on one of the links to various talks he has givenand came up with this snippet of information http://www.revolutioninretreat.com/article906.pdf

The party and party politics
In the next part of the talk, I will say something about the party, about how it changed in the first
few years after the civil war, and about the new relationships it established with workers after NEP
was introduced in 1921.
Let’s think about the type of organisation that the party was. If, before the revolution, it was a
network of underground worker activists and intellectuals, and, in 1917, large numbers of workers
and soldiers flooded into its ranks, by 1920 it had changed again. It was a party literally steeled on
the fields of battle in the civil war. A survey of party members in September 1920 found that, in
Moscow, out of every ten party members, five had joined in the last year, that is, 1919-20; three had
joined between the October revolution and August 1919; one during 1917; and one before that.
Nationally, 89% of party members were male, and of these, 70% had completed military training,
mostly at the front.
Those who joined the party before the revolution, and whose ideas about socialism were formed by
reading Marx and other classics, were in a small minority. Most of the members had read a few
pamphlets by Engels or Kautsky, at best. In view of how things turned out after the civil war, and
the rapidity with which a party-state elite coalesced inside the Bolshevik party, it is worth drawing
attention to the strong streak of statist socialism that existed among these members. Senior
Bolsheviks complained that one of the most popular books among these "civil war communists"
was Looking Backward, by the right-wing American socialist writer Edward Bellamy, which
depicted a socialist future where workers were marshalled like bees in a hive by a tight-knit elite.

Its not much to go on I know and it doesnt really give a real indication of the extent of genuine socialist consciousness outside of the Bolshevik Party itself but it is interesting nevertheless

[Nwoye]

You could try a rather good but somewhat dated SPGB pamphlet as follows: http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/Russia1917to67/index.html

I see it refers to Bogdanoff's text which I slightly misquoted
grazie.


Well no like i said I dont regard them as "inherently" socialist measures which is not to say that I dont support workers attempts to take over production on self management lines. But it is still not socialism if production is geared to the market. However it might aid the development of socialist consciousness but that is a different thing from saying it is itself socialistI don't want to be repeating the same arguments so I'll return to this later in the post.


Obviously we cannot read the minds of the participants in the Bolshevik revolution but there must be some objective evidence of the extent of genuine socialist conciousness i.e. the desire for a wageless moneyless and stateless alternative to capitalism. As far as we can ascertain there was very little evidence of this and even people like Lenin acknowledged this I think that evidence comes from the actions take by the workers themselves. We know what actions they took, and we are currently discussing whether or not they constituted socialism.


Yes but all of these high sounding resolutions and proclamations by this or that Conference do not signify much unless there is an explicit and clear commitment to the abolition of the wage system and the institition of production solely for use and not the market. Ive had the argument with ComradeOm. He cited various statements by various Soviets such as the Petrograd Soviet. In fact he is on even weaker ground than you are because the Soviets themselves unlike the factory committees were not particularly democratic organs for the most part and tended to be organised on a top down basis. So any resoluituions passed by them might not even be reflective of the wider membership of these soviets. Its just not acceptable as hard evidence of socialist consciousness to cite references to desire on the part of workers to take over the means of production for reasons which I will elaborate on belowI just don't know what you consider hard evidence then. I mean if there is a factory committee or a soviet council saying "we are trying to institute worker control and a social revolution", then our next step should be analyzing whether their actions meet their words. Well these institutions did most certainly overthrow the liberal bourgeois government of the day; they did institute worker control of production; and they did consolidate state power in their own hands (this changed drastically of course but that's a debate for another time). What we're left with is arguing over whether or not their actions were revolutionary or socialist in nature.


I disagree fundamentally with this analysis. At a theoretical level it is highly questionable: its not so much capitalists that are the problem as capital itself. Workers can boot out the individual capitalists but they still have to confront the impersonal power of capital. Workers control of the means of production does not eliminate the separation of the producers from production as internalise this contradiction within the framework of the worker controlled factory. The fact that the worker still needs to sell his or her labour power to the worker controlled industry is indicative of this. Think about it. Any form of economic exchange implies the existence of owners and non owners. Exchange is the transfer of ownership rights over the thing be exchanged from one party to the other in the transaction. This applies equally to wages. Wages are the price of the worker's labour power. The worker sells his or her labour power to the employer who then makes use of it to generate surplus value and thereby accumulate capital. It is no different with the worker controlled industry to whom the individual worker sells his or her labour power and is therefore no longer the owner of it. The worker is split down the middle, so to speak, into employer and employee each with their contradictory needs in much the same way as Marx talked of the self-exploitation of the peasant. /QUOTE]
This is certainly a legitimate critique of the wage system, but I fail to see how any other method of organization was possible at such a time in Russia's history. Certainly the abolition of wage labor is a desirable end goal but in a position of scarcity, the only organization system that makes sense is one where workers remunerated according to work (with various safety nets and programs set in place to promote material equality). And this is essentially what the russian proletariat was working towards - worker controlled production for need and the control of the state by soviet councils. Now you voiced your (legitimate) concerns with a system based on wages, but completely abolishing the existence of remuneration based on labor is not integral to socialism, otherwise you would have to completely disregard Bakunin's economic theories as capitalist... or something.

[QUOTE]In the long run this is, as I have argued a fundamentally unstable set up - the tendency will be for control to slip out of the hands of the majority and worker controlled enterprises to conform more and more to the conventional capitalist model of the firm. Look at Mondragon if you doubt that. The point is that workers controlling an enterpriise does not make that enterrpise any the less a capitalist enterprise if it has to compete in the market for profit in order to survive.

It is the larger economic environment in which worker controlled enterprises are enmeshed that determines their character. Even if the Bolsheviks with their state capitalist agenda had let the factory committes go ahead with their plans for direct worker management of the economy the result would still have been capitalism. But as I said this does not mean this would not have been preferable to what subsequently happened in Russia. Worker control of factories is not socialist but at least it would have been much preferable to the authoritarian state capitalist control that the Bolsheviks installed
I'll read that article from LibCom you posted, as it seems interesting. That being said, this seems more like a condemnation of market socialist approaches then a critique of the October Revolution.

[robbo203]

I just don't know what you consider hard evidence then. I mean if there is a factory committee or a soviet council saying "we are trying to institute worker control and a social revolution", then our next step should be analyzing whether their actions meet their words. Well these institutions did most certainly overthrow the liberal bourgeois government of the day; they did institute worker control of production; and they did consolidate state power in their own hands (this changed drastically of course but that's a debate for another time). What we're left with is arguing over whether or not their actions were revolutionary or socialist in nature.
.
Precisely. My point is that they are not in themselves revolutionary or socialist - they emphatically did not overturn the capitalist basis of production which continued to be dominated by the need to produce commodities for sale on a market - but they might possibly be construed as helpful in fostering the kind of consciousness essential to the establishment of a genuine non-market socialist society. Except of course that the Bolsheviks came along and systematically destroyed the possibility of any kind of worker control by insisting on one-man management and the the nationalisation of the means of production - state capitalism



This is certainly a legitimate critique of the wage system, but I fail to see how any other method of organization was possible at such a time in Russia's history. Certainly the abolition of wage labor is a desirable end goal but in a position of scarcity, the only organization system that makes sense is one where workers remunerated according to work (with various safety nets and programs set in place to promote material equality). And this is essentially what the russian proletariat was working towards - worker controlled production for need and the control of the state by soviet councils. Now you voiced your (legitimate) concerns with a system based on wages, but completely abolishing the existence of remuneration based on labor is not integral to socialism, otherwise you would have to completely disregard Bakunin's economic theories as capitalist... or something .
Well you see, I take it as read that socialism means the abolition of the wages system among other things - since the wage labour-capital relation lies at the very heart of capitalism - and, given this, I would absolutely agree with you that this simply was not on the cards in Russia at the time. It was economically far too backward and there was no really significant desire among the Russian proletariat as far as I can determine to get rid of the wages system. Without mass socialist consciousness and a relatively developed infrastructure you simply cannot introduce socialism.

This is my take on it. But you say completely abolishing the existence of remuneration based on labor (by which I take you mean wage labour not labour vouchers ) is not integral to socialism. I would have to disagree but then what we are basically arguing about is how we define socialism. In other words, a mere word. Ok forget about the word, concentrate simply on what the word is supposed to signify. I would still maintain that there was little support for the idea of a society without money without wages without a state and where production was organised on the basis of common ownership and democratic of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth. Would you not agree with this and would you not concur that such an objective was a desirable one for revolutuonaries to aspire to?

[Nwoye]

robbo you and i simply disagree on the fundamental definition of socialism, and what a socialist society would entail. You seem to be of the opinion that socialism and communism are interchangeable, while I agree with the more popular interpretation of socialism as simply a system of collectivized production. That's kind of an unbridgeable gap. I wanted to make one point though:


I would absolutely agree with you that this simply was not on the cards in Russia at the time. It was economically far too backward and there was no really significant desire among the Russian proletariat as far as I can determine to get rid of the wages system. Without mass socialist consciousness and a relatively developed infrastructure you simply cannot introduce socialism.The point I was trying to make was that it's unrealistic to expect any movement to simply abolish the wage system and commodity production overnight. No matter the circumstances, it's impossible to just say "okay, we're going to communism... now!" and expect liberal bourgeois society to just crumble and transform into the communist "end of history" we all want so badly. This is the reason we must approach the transformation step by step, where each step represents another encroachment on the "rights" of the privileged bourgeois minority. And during the Russian Revolution the workers were fighting for these first steps - the abolition of private property, the collectivization of production, worker control of the workplace, the dismantling of the existing state and establishment of a new one geared toward protecting the working class' interests, etc. I won't argue with you that it went awry (for various reasons), but the fact is that there was a spontaneous and revolutionary movement among the working class.

[robbo203]

robbo you and i simply disagree on the fundamental definition of socialism, and what a socialist society would entail. You seem to be of the opinion that socialism and communism are interchangeable, while I agree with the more popular interpretation of socialism as simply a system of collectivized production. That's kind of an unbridgeable gap. .

OK thats fair enough. To me the word in and of itself is not important. All I am saying is that historically, before the first world war, "socialism" and "communism" were generally held to be synonyms. This was certainly the case in the classical Marxian tradition. The differentiation of these terms was essentially accomplished by Lenin. He could see that socialism in its original sense was simply not on the cards in Russia so he adapted the word to suit his own political purposes because of the "pulling power" of the word itself . State capitalist Russia was redefined as being a "socialist society" en route to "communism". This was an absolutely fatal deception that did enormous damage to the revolutionary movement in my opinion and set back the communist cause by decades. Because it sucked generations of no doubt well meaning and sincere leftists into siding with the struggle to establish and maintain what was afterall simply a statist version of capitalism. We are now in a position to see with the benefit of hindsight that this was a massive error and that it effectively railroaded millions of people down what was a complete dead end, a cul de sac. The road to socialism via state capitalism leads nowhere but to state capitalism itself. It is a completely false trail. There were revolutuionaries even at the time of Bolshevik capitalist revolution who warned that this would happen. But instead of learning from history many leftists, and we see them on this site, continuing to intone the same old tired mantras, continue to bury their head in the sand and ignore the lessons of history. If state capitalism was the way to go, the Soviet Union would still be around and we would by now have seen it approaching communism as Kruschev claimed it would. In fact, the Soviet Union was steadily moving towards openly embracing the market (though, of course, it was always based on market relations)


I wanted to make one point though:

The point I was trying to make was that it's unrealistic to expect any movement to simply abolish the wage system and commodity production overnight. No matter the circumstances, it's impossible to just say "okay, we're going to communism... now!" and expect liberal bourgeois society to just crumble and transform into the communist "end of history" we all want so badly. This is the reason we must approach the transformation step by step, where each step represents another encroachment on the "rights" of the privileged bourgeois minority. And during the Russian Revolution the workers were fighting for these first steps - the abolition of private property, the collectivization of production, worker control of the workplace, the dismantling of the existing state and establishment of a new one geared toward protecting the working class' interests, etc. I won't argue with you that it went awry (for various reasons), but the fact is that there was a spontaneous and revolutionary movement among the working class.

I agree that the revolutionary process is not going to suddenly happen overnight. But I think you have to be careful about how you look at this. What is massively important for the revolution to succeed is the growth of genuine socialist consciousness among the workers . The leninist vanguard strategy of capturing power in advance of mass socialist consciousness is and has demonstrably proven to be an absolute disaster. It only leads to the vanguard maintaining capitalism and therefore running it against the interests of the workers who becuase they lack socialist consciousness cannot yet establish socialism. So the vanguard becomes in effect the new ruling class that stands in the way of establishing socialism becuase it benefits from the continued exploitation of the workers in whose name it rules

On no account must we go down this road. All this leninist baggage must be thrown overboard. Facilitating the growth of a genuine socialist consciousness among workers NOW is the key to any genuinely revolutionary strategy.

I have no doubt that in the run up to the complete transformation of society from a capitalist to a socialist one the kind of anarcho-syndicalist methods you espouse will have an important role. So will other methods like the creation of intentional communities. However we must learn from what went wrong in the Bolshevik revolution. You put your finger on the problem when you say " during the Russian Revolution the workers were fighting for these first steps - the abolition of private property, the collectivization of production, worker control of the workplace, the dismantling of the existing state and establishment of a new one geared toward protecting the working class' interests". It is this last bit that is the problem- the establishment of a new state geared towards protecting the workers interest. This is a recipe for the complete and utter cooption of worker councils into capitalism. We have to at all costs avoid this

One final thing . Although I say the process leading up to the transformation of society is a complicated and gradual one, the actual formal changeover so to speak by its very nature cannot be. Think about it. You cannot just phase out money. You either have a monetary system or you dont. You cannot get rid of it by , say, reducing the amount of notes and coins in circulation. It doesnt work like that. The elimination of money has to be by it very nature sudden. Marx and Engels referred to the communist revolution as being the most "radical rupture" from traditional property relations and this is what lies behind such a remark

So in a sense the abolition of the wages system and money will of necessity be something that is literally accomplished overnight or at once although obviously in the full light of socialist consciousness. But that revolutionary act presupposes a series of preceding steps as you rightly point out, that lead up to it

[Devrim]

Well you see, I take it as read that socialism means the abolition of the wages system among other things - since the wage labour-capital relation lies at the very heart of capitalism - and, given this, I would absolutely agree with you that this simply was not on the cards in Russia at the time. It was economically far too backward and there was no really significant desire among the Russian proletariat as far as I can determine to get rid of the wages system. Without mass socialist consciousness and a relatively developed infrastructure you simply cannot introduce socialism.

This position is a sort of Menshevism really, isn't it? We diagree with this. Socialism can not be developed in one country, and it was not the specific conditions in Russia, but the world wide development of capital, which was important. The revolution had to be international in order to succsed, and could have, if succesfully, relied on the more developed economies of Europe in an economic sense.

Interestingly enough, many council communists later adopted this sort of analysis.

The impossiblist current though (Is 'world in common' impossibilist?) held these ideas at the time if I am correct.

Devrim

[robbo203]

This position is a sort of Menshevism really, isn't it? We diagree with this. Socialism can not be developed in one country, and it was not the specific conditions in Russia, but the world wide development of capital, which was important. The revolution had to be international in order to succsed, and could have, if succesfully, relied on the more developed economies of Europe in an economic sense.

Interestingly enough, many council communists later adopted this sort of analysis.

The impossiblist current though (Is 'world in common' impossibilist?) held these ideas at the time if I am correct.

Devrim

I would say that it is broadly the Marxist position irrespective of whether or not the Mensheviks concurred. There is plenty of evidence in Marx and Engels that they considered that socialism (or communism) presupposed mass working class socialist consciousness and a relatively developed infrastructure. The fact that it needs to be a worldwide revolution is an elaboration on these two basic preconditions in my view

World in common is a loose grouping of people in the non market anto-statist sector and includes quite a spectrum of views within this basic framework