How can Communism work if not entirely voluntary?

[tehpevis]

The name says it all.

One flaw I've seen in the idea of a communist world, and world revolution, is that there will always be reactionary forces and people who disagree with you. The main flaw is almost always that a revolutionary or national leader sees the solution to this problem in the extermination of reactionists, and Red Terror. My solution is instead to have a 'breakaway republic' similar to the CNT-FAI which is entirely voluntary, and a "Social Contract" to work towards the common good actually works.

Thoughts?

[red cat]

Isn't it a bit early to predict the existence of such forces under communism? We haven't yet seen the social contradictions in the stages closely preceding communism.

[tehpevis]

It's not so much a complete prediction as the events as they are. As of now, frankly, people are stupid and can't comprehend the meaning of "Communism" beyond "Atheist Dictatorship".

[red cat]

It's not so much a complete prediction as the events as they are. As of now, frankly, people are stupid and can't comprehend the meaning of "Communism" beyond "Atheist Dictatorship".

True. But still.. it seems a bit idealistic to talk about things so far away.

[Muzk]

Leninism is "red-fascism", although Lenin said it would be stupid to compare them both, since red fascism is for the working class against the rulers(class enemies), whereas the normal fascism is done by the rulers to oppress the workers


btw this thread sucks

[gorillafuck]

Leninism is "red-fascism", although Lenin said it would be stupid to compare them both, since red fascism is for the working class against the rulers (class enemies), whereas the normal fascism is done by the rulers to oppress the workers
That's not the only reason why they're stupid to compare. They're stupid to compare because fascism is capitalist, extraordinarily nationalist, and extraordinarily racist as three basic tenets of it. "Red Fascism" doesn't make any sense as a term because it's none of those things. The only thing Leninism has in common with fascism is that historically they have been been authoritarian.

[Muzk]

That's not the only reason why they're stupid to compare. They're stupid to compare because fascism is capitalist, extraordinarily nationalist, and extraordinarily racist as three basic tenets of it. "Red Fascism" doesn't make any sense as a term because it's none of those things. The only thing Leninism has in common with fascism is that historically they have been been authoritarian.


and oppressive to so called class enemies

[ArrowLance]

Reactionary forces are harmful to humanity and should be exterminated, at least in the sense of removing them from a place where they can do harm until they are otherwise 'cured.'

[gorillafuck]

and oppressive to so called class enemies
That doesn't make the term red fascism any more applicable, or anyone who believes in expropriating the bourgeois private property (everyone on this site) would be a fascist.

[tehpevis]

Reactionary forces are harmful to humanity and should be exterminated, at least in the sense of removing them from a place where they can do harm until they are otherwise 'cured.'

Campaigns of Extermination and Re-Education reek of authoritarianism to me.

[Axle]

After the American Revolution, there were some people who were still loyal to the British Empire and disagreed with breaking away from it. They were not locked up or hunted down and killed, but given an offer to simply leave if they didn't like the idea of the new country...and tens of thousands of people did leave.

Those people would have been the equivalent of reactionaries in the American Revolution, and their treatment should serve as somewhat of a guide as to what to do with the reactionaries of our own.

Clearly there will be differences since we're talking about what will eventually become a world-wide economic system, not national soverignty. As communism spreads across the world, there will be fewer and fewer reactionaries as they're forced to accept communism; just like how capitalism spread around the world and we've all had to accept that.


EDIT: What I'm suggesting here is what could be done after a revolution takes place, because I'm sure we all have a realistic view of what has to happen during a revolution.

[Spawn of Stalin]

Then how best to solve the problem of counter-revolution? Maybe we could all form a line along the border holding placards, and if the counter-revolutionaries advance we could defeat them with non-violence. Revolution ain't a pretty thing, but the society it gives birth to is.

[Axle]

Then how best to solve the problem of counter-revolution? Maybe we could all form a line along the border holding placards, and if the counter-revolutionaries advance we could defeat them with non-violence. Revolution ain't a pretty thing, but the society it gives birth to is.

Doesn't it go without saying that any violent counter-revolution would need to be forcefully put down?

Reactionaries can lead to a counter-revolution, but the two aren't necessarily one in the same.

[proudcomrade]

Campaigns of Extermination and Re-Education reek of authoritarianism to me.

You say "authoritarianism" like it's a bad thing.

[Lyev]

You say "authoritarianism" like it's a bad thing.

authoritarianism is a bad thing, right? Unless you're being sarcastic...?

Although, I agree, for true communism to work it has to entirely voluntary, ie. 'the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority'. For me, communism must be 'in the interest of the immense majority'. I think a minority forcing there beliefs on another strata of society is wrong, and must be avoided. What's more is I think 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself', in Engels words. The conditions a revolution creates can't simply be handed down to the masses by a small minority acting on behalf of the masses. Communists and the proletariat must be absolutely integrated; 'The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.' (< this quote is directly from the Manifesto itself). I don't really agree with Guevara when he said 'The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.'

[proudcomrade]

authoritarianism is a bad thing, right? Unless you're being sarcastic...?

Although, I agree, for true communism to work it has to entirely voluntary, ie. 'the proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority'. For me, communism must be 'in the interest of the immense majority'. I think a minority forcing there beliefs on another strata of society is wrong, and must be avoided. What's more is I think 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself', in Engels words. The conditions a revolution creates can't simply be handed down to the masses by a small minority acting on behalf of the masses. Communists and the proletariat must be absolutely integrated; 'The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.' (< this quote is directly from the Manifesto itself). I don't really agree with Guevara when he said 'The revolution is not an apple that falls when it is ripe. You have to make it fall.'


Hi, I actually did mean it genuinely. I do agree with strict Marxist-Leninist practice and with the existence of a vanguard for the first couple of generations after the revolution. I think that allowing the workers absolute (or close to it) freedom is dangerous to the workers themselves, because, unfortunately, there is always a risk of individuals or small groups turning against what is best for the whole people. While I do not believe that people are intrinsically stupid or greedy, I do believe that human shortcomings can be exploited by the few who are out to sabotage the people for their own gain. I do feel that it is justified to protect the entire people by keeping counterrevolution checked. Also, to keep alternates in place for the Party is vital, lest the ideal of representation by and for the workers get ruined if a few untrustworthy individuals should get corrupted (IMO, a key mistake of the USSR- it literally rotted from within when nobody kept after the internal-corruption problem). Plus, at the earliest stages before a revolution, there will be those who will fight against it even if it is in their best interest that the revolution happen- like in the case of the USA, where we have marginalized and medically-indigent displaced former factory workers all hopped up on Glenn Beck, storming around threatening a rightist revolution all because of the President. Scary stuff, and not something that should be allowed to do its own thing- am I making sense?

I think that sometimes, what we commonly consider to be freedom, paradoxically ends up breeding just the opposite.

[Lyev]

Hi, I actually did mean it genuinely. I do agree with strict Marxist-Leninist practice and with the existence of a vanguard for the first couple of generations after the revolution. I think that allowing the workers absolute (or close to it) freedom is dangerous to the workers themselves, because, unfortunately, there is always a risk of individuals or small groups turning against what is best for the whole people.

I think that sometimes, what we commonly consider to be freedom, paradoxically ends up breeding just the opposite.

What do you mean 'allowing the workers'? No is allowing the workers anything cos the workers will do what they want in a revolution; the revolution is in the name of workers, carried out by the workers. There should be nothing in Marxism of a small minority being a slight tier above the workers, checking out what they're doing and telling them what to do. I'll repeat the quote 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.' There is absolutely no one else involved, for me anyway. It seems kind of patronising for a vanguard to look upon the proletariat and 'tell them what to do because the vanguard knows best', or whatever. At least, that's my opinion.

[ckaihatsu]

What do you mean 'allowing the workers'? No is allowing the workers anything cos the workers will do what they want in a revolution; the revolution is in the name of workers, carried out by the workers. There should be nothing in Marxism of a small minority being a slight tier above the workers, checking out what they're doing and telling them what to do. I'll repeat the quote 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.' There is absolutely no one else involved, for me anyway. It seems kind of patronising for a vanguard to look upon the proletariat and 'tell them what to do because the vanguard knows best', or whatever. At least, that's my opinion.


There's a very good discussion about vanguardism at this thread:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguardism-t117736/index.html


I think we need to conceive of a vanguard as being a politically organized force that *represents* the *best interests* of the workers in the political arena and in general society -- in a non-revolutionary period such as right now, even the few of us who are active here on RevLeft and/or active in revolutionary politics elsewhere can be considered to be a vanguard of sorts....

The bourgeois culture has thoroughly conditioned us with the specter of Stalinism to be skeptical and even suspicious of *any* grassroots organization that makes the slightest claim to power or authority on behalf of workers. This is really unfortunate, because the working class *deserves* any and all genuine and accurate political representation that may exist -- any and all efforts for better wages, benefits, self-determination, and control of the means of mass production.

Especially at this preliminary stage in the worldwide revolutionary class struggle I don't think there is any good reason for general mistrust or succumbing to the politics of suspicion and intrigues. We would do better to *each* be better at *recognizing* which personalities and organizations are *consistently* speaking out for the working class' best interests. In this way the vanguard, such as it may be, can be geographically dispersed, culturally diverse, and collectively self-aware.

A vanguard would *not* be about *micro-managing* the workers, as the (Stalinistic) misconception goes -- rather it would be akin to a mass political culture that is large and strong enough to *defeat* the *bourgeois* political mindset and culture at every step. A successful vanguard could effectively *overcome* the bourgeois (private-property-respecting) worldview that we've *all* internalized to varying degrees.

Once the ideology of ownership -- like the now-discredited ideology of racial superiority -- has been cast off in the majority public opinion then all of society will generally open up to what workers do best -- utilizing the tools that they know, but now in service for themselves, collectively, without having to follow financial dictates or fork over their efforts to private ownership in return for trivial wages just to be able to live.


Chris



--

--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[Spawn of Stalin]

A degree of authority is perfectly acceptable if you ask me, the job of the state should be to take care of people and if there have to be a few rules in place in order to allow the state to succeed then it's for the better really. Establishing libertarian states will just send us in circles until the human race is extinct, the libertarian capitalists will essentially be able to do what they want, and before you know it the workers will be in the same position they were after the Industrial Revolution.

[Lyev]

Okay, but why have a vanguard of communists when we can have communists as part of, and integrated into, the workers movement? I'll say it again; 'the emancipation of the working class must be the act of the working class itself.' I don't believe a decent revolution is simply given to the workers, by people from above. I suppose if the vanguard doesn't have anymore power than, and are equal to the proletariat then fine. But there mustn't be any divide between the vanguard and 'the immense majority'. It's something you'd have to be careful over, for sure.

[robbo203]

Hi, I actually did mean it genuinely. I do agree with strict Marxist-Leninist practice and with the existence of a vanguard for the first couple of generations after the revolution. I think that allowing the workers absolute (or close to it) freedom is dangerous to the workers themselves, because, unfortunately, there is always a risk of individuals or small groups turning against what is best for the whole people. .


That is exactly what the so called vanguard party does. It mutates into a new ruling class that inevitably acts against the interests of the proletariat in whose name it brazenly presumes to govern . It becomes over time the conservative bastion of capitalism and the very capitalist values it once claimed to oppose. And the members of this new ruling class cynically accumulate power and wealth for themselves at the expense of the many who are brutalised and exploited in the name of communism or socialism of all things

[mikelepore]

I think the phrase "entirely voluntary" is strange here. Nothing is ever unanimous. If seventy percent of the people want a new bridge to cross a stream, then the thirty percent who wanted to avoid the new bridge will have to go away disappointed and possibly miserable. So what? The outcome must be binary - we can't both adopt any new policy, and also not adopt that new policy, at the same time. Class divided society versus classless society - this choice is binary. The workers' revolution will be justified when the majority want it, and there is no requirement to do anything more for those who didn't want it. Suppose that those who want the workers' revolution win by majority rule. If those who voted "no revolution" are unhappy about it, let them take anti-depressant drugs, but they deserve no further consideration.

[Zanthorus]

I don't see why the workers can't organise through the unions or other organisations (Mahkno's Platform suggestion might be something to consider) to crush reaction themselves rather than relying on a vanguard to do it for them.

[ckaihatsu]

I don't see why the workers can't organise through the unions or other organisations (Mahkno's Platform suggestion might be something to consider) to crush reaction themselves rather than relying on a vanguard to do it for them.


Relying *entirely* on a vanguard would be substitutionism.

[ArrowLance]

Campaigns of Extermination and Re-Education reek of authoritarianism to me.

'Authoritarian' or not, it must be.

[Cohacq]

Arrowlance: Why must it be? Why can't the workers just organise themselves without someone at the top telling them what to do?

[chegitz guevara]

I don't see why the workers can't organise through the unions or other organisations (Mahkno's Platform suggestion might be something to consider) to crush reaction themselves rather than relying on a vanguard to do it for them.

By definition, that would be the vanguard. The vanguard is not something apart from the working class. It is the most politically aware, most active, most militant section of that class. If the workers are capable of organizing through unions or other organizations (political parties?), then they have vanguard organizations.

[Zanthorus]

By definition, that would be the vanguard. The vanguard is not something apart from the working class. It is the most politically aware, most active, most militant section of that class. If the workers are capable of organizing through unions or other organizations (political parties?), then they have vanguard organizations.

That sounds fine to me, of course a Marxist/Leninist 'Vanguard' would probably try and take hold of the reigns of power whereas an anarchist Platform would organise people against them but that's a whole other debate.

[tehpevis]

'Authoritarian' or not, it must be.

Something must be, but not anything on the scale of barbarity as a practical holocaust for the reactionaries. Keep in mind that something intended to eliminate any particular group only tends to strengthen it. The Israeli assault on Gaza strengthened Gaza's resolve against Israel; the Spanish Inquisition seeded resistance against the Church; the Haymarket Massacre contributed to our political views. Nothing can be completely exterminated, and if we were to take a course of action involving the killing and re-educating of reactionaries, that would only give more people the idea that we're the caricature of a "Communist" as a genocidal dictator rather than a true Communist representing the interests of the working class.

[ArrowLance]

Arrowlance: Why must it be? Why can't the workers just organise themselves without someone at the top telling them what to do?
You completely misunderstand the situation. We want the workers at the top, and so we have to remove the reactionaries and bourgeoisie.

[ArrowLance]

Something must be, but not anything on the scale of barbarity as a practical holocaust for the reactionaries. Keep in mind that something intended to eliminate any particular group only tends to strengthen it. The Israeli assault on Gaza strengthened Gaza's resolve against Israel; the Spanish Inquisition seeded resistance against the Church; the Haymarket Massacre contributed to our political views. Nothing can be completely exterminated, and if we were to take a course of action involving the killing and re-educating of reactionaries, that would only give more people the idea that we're the caricature of a "Communist" as a genocidal dictator rather than a true Communist representing the interests of the working class.

Removing reactionaries is in the interest of the working class. If we allowed the bourgeoisie and co. to run around without restriction, the revolution would be betrayed. They, the bourgeoisie accompanied by the higher technical personnel, have an enormous advantage over the proletariat. The state exists to deal with class conflict, we must use it to aid the proletariat by removing and hindering the reactionaries.

[tehpevis]

Removing reactionaries is in the interest of the working class. If we allowed the bourgeoisie and co. to run around without restriction, the revolution would be betrayed. They, the bourgeoisie accompanied by the higher technical personnel, have an enormous advantage over the proletariat. The state exists to deal with class conflict, we must use it to aid the proletariat by removing and hindering the reactionaries.

True, the removal of reactionaries and bourgeoisie is absolutely necessary. However, this must be done with much care and, dare I say, Morality. Think "Abortion" as compared to "Kill it with Fire".

Then, having the State intervene in said removal of reactionary forces only serves to increase its power, and then, with the addition of some bits of corruption and money, we've got the rise of Stalin all over again. Even with the working class in power in the government, a man's social background does nothing to restrain him when faced with the prospect of ultimate power. As Bakunin, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong on this one), said, "Place a Worker on the throne of all the Russias, and soon he will become worse than the Czar himself".

[ArrowLance]

True, the removal of reactionaries and bourgeoisie is absolutely necessary. However, this must be done with much care and, dare I say, Morality. Think "Abortion" as compared to "Kill it with Fire".

Then, having the State intervene in said removal of reactionary forces only serves to increase its power, and then, with the addition of some bits of corruption and money, we've got the rise of Stalin all over again. Even with the working class in power in the government, a man's social background does nothing to restrain him when faced with the prospect of ultimate power. As Bakunin, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong on this one), said, "Place a Worker on the throne of all the Russias, and soon he will become worse than the Czar himself".

After revolution the state is made into a tool of the proletariat. There is no other way to really remove the reactionaries. We don't need to worry about state power when the state is in the hands of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie will not back down, as a class they will fight to their last breath. They will always have the advantage if we do not use the state as a weapon.

[Pogue]

comrade joe has a good answer to this question

[tehpevis]

After revolution the state is made into a tool of the proletariat. There is no other way to really remove the reactionaries. We don't need to worry about state power when the state is in the hands of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie will not back down, as a class they will fight to their last breath. They will always have the advantage if we do not use the state as a weapon.

Whoever controls the state is unimportant, the State is very similar to the Bourgeois in that it will do all it can to expand its power. I'm not preaching "The Government is out to get you", but Government Power is very dangerous. You give the impression that the Proletariat will control the State; this can only be done through direct democracy. In all other cases, the State will control the Proletariat.

[ckaihatsu]

'Authoritarian' or not, it must be.





Nothing can be completely exterminated, and if we were to take a course of action involving the killing and re-educating of reactionaries, that would only give more people the idea that we're the caricature of a "Communist" as a genocidal dictator rather than a true Communist representing the interests of the working class.


My conception of genuine, broadly recognized political power is the authority to create, staff, and dissolve *job positions*, independently of the assets and resources (and position compensation) surrounding said positions. (Of course some positions carry greater political power, or societal impact, with them than others.)

- In a corrupt (capitalist) context this would be called 'patronage'.

- In a period of revolt and uprisings this would be called 'revolutionary'.

- In a worker-liberated post-capitalist society this would be called 'bottom-up labor administration over collectivized assets and resources'.

Anarchist skepticism and mistrust is unfounded, because what's critical is how the workers' administration(s) is set-up in the first place -- it *must* be a local-industrial-workplace nexus, bottom-up, non-privileged grouping with just enough formalism to make for clear communications and common understandings / agreements. By this point the vanguard-led class struggle against the bourgeoisie would (arguably) have achieved the revolution, and so there would be no further basis for its function. Workers would know *how* to administer their own local workplaces and so would not *require* a top-down micro-managing authority to tell them how to setup their own workplaces.

[tehpevis]

Anarchist skepticism and mistrust is unfounded, because what's critical is how the workers' administration(s) is set-up in the first place -- it *must* be a local-industrial-workplace nexus, bottom-up, non-privileged grouping with just enough formalism to make for clear communications and common understandings / agreements. By this point the vanguard-led class struggle against the bourgeoisie would (arguably) have achieved the revolution, and so there would be no further basis for its function. Workers would know *how* to administer their own local workplaces and so would not *require* a top-down micro-managing authority to tell them how to setup their own workplaces.

Exactly my idea of an Ideal government. However, such a system, over a large area, couldn't work, and will go the way of the Pre-Constitution American Confederacy ("Revised"). That system would work beautifully on a small scale, almost to the point of it being more a large group of politically oriented types rather than a true government.

[ArrowLance]

Whoever controls the state is unimportant, the State is very similar to the Bourgeois in that it will do all it can to expand its power. I'm not preaching "The Government is out to get you", but Government Power is very dangerous. You give the impression that the Proletariat will control the State; this can only be done through direct democracy. In all other cases, the State will control the Proletariat.

You talk about democracy, what do you mean? 'Democracy' is no good to the proletariat when it is of the bourgeoisie. We have to remove the bourgeoisie from power completely, this includes whatever 'democracy' there is.

If the state is of the proletariat then we want it to have power, or else we are limiting the power of the proletariat and therefore defending the bourgeoisie.

[ArrowLance]

Arrowlance: Why must it be? Why can't the workers just organise themselves without someone at the top telling them what to do?

The question is a bit loaded, the proletariat will be at the top, so they are organizing themselves. But they need guidance.

The proletariat have a large disadvantage to the bourgeoisie. They lack the education to organize and run industry and labour. They have much less money (as money can not 'just be done away with' after the revolution). The bourgeoisie have connections with the higher technical personnel. The state must exist to give the proletariat an advantage.

If some liberal anarchist wants to label the proletariat using the state as a tool as authoritarian, so what, it's just their label. The content of the product under 'that' label I must condone, encourage, and support.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

That's not the only reason why they're stupid to compare. They're stupid to compare because fascism is capitalist, extraordinarily nationalist, and extraordinarily racist as three basic tenets of it. "Red Fascism" doesn't make any sense as a term because it's none of those things. The only thing Leninism has in common with fascism is that historically they have been been authoritarian.

Actually, fascism is a mix of capitalism and socialism. Kinda like the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union was pretty nationalistic too... (As are Cuba, North Korea, etc, etc)

I guess the definition of "red fascism" could be fascism without the racism.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

As opposed to the liberal, peace-loving, freedom paradise of America?

:laugh:

Actually, as opposed to REAL leftism/communism.

[tehpevis]

You talk about democracy, what do you mean? 'Democracy' is no good to the proletariat when it is of the bourgeoisie. We have to remove the bourgeoisie from power completely, this includes whatever 'democracy' there is.

If the state is of the proletariat then we want it to have power, or else we are limiting the power of the proletariat and therefore defending the bourgeoisie.

You're confusing Bourgeois Parliamentarian Republicanism with true Democracy (Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Rule by the People. Sound familiar?)

[ArrowLance]

You're confusing Bourgeois Parliamentarian Republicanism with true Democracy (Dictatorship of the Proletariat, Rule by the People. Sound familiar?)

As Lenin explained, 'true democracy' is a loaded term. The bourgeoisie approve of so called 'true democracy.' The bourgeoisie dominate in 'true democracy.' What we need is workers democracy, and that can only be done when the reactionaries are removed with the bourgeoisie.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.conelrad.com/sovietamerica/images/isthistomorrow_bg_081505.gifBooo be scared of communism.


It's hard to tell which side is winning that, the Fistfight That Decides It All -- that's just bad journalism...!


x D

[ckaihatsu]

You give the impression that the Proletariat will control the State; this can only be done through direct democracy. In all other cases, the State will control the Proletariat.


( 'Direct democracy' is an anarchist term meaning "workers' collective control of their immediate workplace environment(s)". )





You talk about democracy, what do you mean? 'Democracy' is no good to the proletariat when it is of the bourgeoisie. We have to remove the bourgeoisie from power completely, this includes whatever 'democracy' there is.

If the state is of the proletariat then we want it to have power, or else we are limiting the power of the proletariat and therefore defending the bourgeoisie.


I *like* to think that this classic anarchism vs. Marxism schism is simply a difference of *focus*, that of micro vs. macro, respectively. But I just can't accept the profound anxiety and mistrust of the anarchist position that the proletariat would be inherently *unable* to correctly wield its control over the state as a means of undoing the bourgeoisie. It's certainly understandable and appreciable that there's a concern about a vanguard "staying too long" in a specialized position of coordinating the revolution against the capitalists, but I maintain that once the capitalist enemy is overthrown and scattered the general proletariat population will be freed up to refocus their energies in self-determined ways, at their localities.

Consider how much of our political attention is taken up with keeping tabs on the atrocities created by the bourgeoisie, *at the international level* -- with this "political overhead" removed there would only be the self-activity of the workers wherever they're at. Even a class-war-victorious vanguard would not be able to surreptitiously "command" enough political capital to become an elitist, privileged layer of its own, against the masses, if the revolution was truly worldwide and won full control over the assets and resources that we see today (or better). Simply put, a post-revolution vanguard in a classless society would be absolutely *extraneous* and any claims to power could easily go unheeded by the world's then-self-liberated population.





My conception of genuine, broadly recognized political power is the authority to create, staff, and dissolve *job positions*, independently of the assets and resources (and position compensation) surrounding said positions. (Of course some positions carry greater political power, or societal impact, with them than others.)

- In a corrupt (capitalist) context this would be called 'patronage'.

- In a period of revolt and uprisings this would be called 'revolutionary'.

- In a worker-liberated post-capitalist society this would be called 'bottom-up labor administration over collectivized assets and resources'.

Anarchist skepticism and mistrust is unfounded, because what's critical is how the workers' administration(s) is set-up in the first place -- it *must* be a local-industrial-workplace nexus, bottom-up, non-privileged grouping with just enough formalism to make for clear communications and common understandings / agreements. By this point the vanguard-led class struggle against the bourgeoisie would (arguably) have achieved the revolution, and so there would be no further basis for its function. Workers would know *how* to administer their own local workplaces and so would not *require* a top-down micro-managing authority to tell them how to setup their own workplaces.





Exactly my idea of an Ideal government. However, such a system, over a large area, couldn't work, and will go the way of the Pre-Constitution American Confederacy ("Revised"). That system would work beautifully on a small scale, almost to the point of it being more a large group of politically oriented types rather than a true government.


Well, I'm glad to support all workers' self-determination, whether at a local scale or greater, but I just *can't* condone the stubborness of the anarchist position to stick to a strategy of strictly ground-level activity. Perhaps, given a revolutionary development, the elitist elements *could* very well just *dissolve* in the sea of massive numbers that the proletariat has on its side, but, barring such a clean, decisive politicization of the working class, we would have to deal with a more *subtle* balance of power, one in which the middle ground, or state, would have to be battled over.

It's on this *intermediate* situation that I would *not* want to see revolutionary elements *shying away* from authoritative, authoritarian moves towards taking state power. Any reluctance to do so could be catastrophic, lasting, and unforgivable.