The nature of revolution

[BobKKKindle$]

"The expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of capitalism, which is what a socialist revolution is in the Marxist sense of the word, is not something that takes place after the working class has raised itself to political power, as a government policy, because this would entail that the conquest of political power can take place whilst the rule of the bourgeoisie in the economic sphere is left untouched. Rather, the political rule of the working class is born out of the seizure of the means of production, because it is in the process of seizing control of their workplaces that workers both destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, by transforming the means of production into the property of the working majority, and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.

The emergence of a workers state is therefore a spontaneous process, that signifies the culmination of working-class struggle, not an act of constitutional engineering, and cannot be separated from or situated prior to the seizure of the means of production. The convergence of the conquest of political and economic power is a particular feature of proletarian revolutions because workers do not develop their economic power or the basis of their class rule under the previous mode of production, and here a contrast can be drawn between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, whilst finding its interests constrained under feudalism, still found it possible to enrich itself, and make itself the economically dominant class, then going on, at a future point in time, to become the politically dominant class as well. In other words there was a temporal separation between the conquest of power in the economic and political spheres that cannot be applied to the proletarian revolution"

Thoughts?

[MarxSchmarx]

"The expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of capitalism, which is what a socialist revolution is in the Marxist sense of the word, is not something that takes place after the working class has raised itself to political power, as a government policy, because this would entail that the conquest of political power can take place whilst the rule of the bourgeoisie in the economic sphere is left untouched. Rather, the political rule of the working class is born out of the seizure of the means of production, because it is in the process of seizing control of their workplaces that workers both destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, by transforming the means of production into the property of the working majority, and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.

The emergence of a workers state is therefore a spontaneous process, that signifies the culmination of working-class struggle, not an act of constitutional engineering, and cannot be separated from or situated prior to the seizure of the means of production. The convergence of the conquest of political and economic power is a particular feature of proletarian revolutions because workers do not develop their economic power or the basis of their class rule under the previous mode of production, and here a contrast can be drawn between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, whilst finding its interests constrained under feudalism, still found it possible to enrich itself, and make itself the economically dominant class, then going on, at a future point in time, to become the politically dominant class as well. In other words there was a temporal separation between the conquest of power in the economic and political spheres that cannot be applied to the proletarian revolution"

Thoughts?

Easier said than done. How do we go about creating such economic pre-eminence? Through radical syndicalism? Through collaborationist unions?

Further, given the repression imposed on such economic activism, shouldn't the bourgeois state be constrained in some fashion so the army isn't sent in to crush worker's control of the means of production.

The bourgeois state is not stupid. If capitalists cease to control the means of production, the bourgeois state, which represents their interests, cannot sustain itself.



develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.

The devil, as always, is in the details. How are "centralized bodies" generated? How do we prevent genuine "administrative needs" from being equated with the desires of 50% plus 1 of the workplaces? Ultimately, until such issues are worked out, claims like these must be regarded as crafty slogans (at best) and nothing more.

[Die Neue Zeit]

BobKindles: Are you becoming a left-syndicalist like Sorel for some reason?


and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces

This strategy is time and again an ultra-left illusion. It disenfranchises retirees, the disabled, working-class homemakers, etc.


The convergence of the conquest of political and economic power is a particular feature of proletarian revolutions because workers do not develop their economic power or the basis of their class rule under the previous mode of production, and here a contrast can be drawn between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, whilst finding its interests constrained under feudalism, still found it possible to enrich itself, and make itself the economically dominant class, then going on, at a future point in time, to become the politically dominant class as well. In other words there was a temporal separation between the conquest of power in the economic and political spheres that cannot be applied to the proletarian revolution

Let's assume for a moment that the bourgeoisie did become the economically dominant class under late feudalism: the "temporal separation" that necessarily exists for the social-proletocratic revolution is the exact reverse of the quote (political before economic).

Precisely "because workers do not develop their economic power" that ruling-class political power must be captured first.

One more thing: the left-economist author here, unlike most of the left (including yourself, BobKindles), openly recognizes that the "struggle for socialism" is an economic struggle and not a "politico-political" one (the DOTP). The failure to recognize this is at the heart of the broad economism plaguing the left.

[MarxSchmarx]

Are you becoming a left-syndicalist like Sorel for some reason?



This strategy is time and again an ultra-left illusion. It disenfranchises retirees, the disabled, working-class homemakers, etc.



Let's assume for a moment that the bourgeoisie did become the economically dominant class under late feudalism: the "temporal separation" that necessarily exists for the social-proletocratic revolution is the exact reverse of the quote (political before economic).

Precisely "because workers do not develop their economic power" that ruling-class political power must be captured first.

One more thing: the left-economist author here, unlike most of the left (including yourself), openly recognizes that the "struggle for socialism" is an economic struggle and not a "politico-political" one. The failure to recognize this is at the heart of the broad economism plaguing the left.

To what extent do you reckon this appeal to "economism" is a failure of the imagination to move beyond the analogy to the bourgeoisie in late capitalism, when state power was still held by the old aristocracy?

[Die Neue Zeit]

My apologies, my post was aimed at BK and not at you.

Anyway, I don't think the bourgeoisie became the economically dominant class under late feudalism. It took the French revolution to sweep away any sort of modernization drives by the "sun" king Louis XIV. For the full accumulation by dispossession / "primitive accumulation" as bourgeois-capitalist revolution to occur, the bourgeoisie had to have significant political power. Further back, the Glorious Revolution occurred after the English Civil War.

[Rjevan]

Rather, the political rule of the working class is born out of the seizure of the means of production, because it is in the process of seizing control of their workplaces that workers both destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, by transforming the means of production into the property of the working majority, and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.
As MarxSchmarx said, how should this ever work? As long as the bourgeois state exists this theory will never be practicable, only if the working class holds political power "seizing control of their workplaces" can take place. Since the existence of capitalism is vital for the existence of the ruling class they won't ever tolerate this to happen, police and army would be sent to make a quick end to this attempt.


The emergence of a workers state is therefore a spontaneous process, that signifies the culmination of working-class struggle, not an act of constitutional engineering
This sentence would probably kill Lenin if he wasn't already dead.



Thus, socialist consciousness is something introduced into the proletarian class struggle from without and not something that arose within it spontaneously. Accordingly, the old Hainfeld programme quite rightly stated that the task of Social-Democracy is to imbue the proletariat (literally: saturate the proletariat) with the consciousness of its position and the consciousness of its task.
[...]
A fierce struggle against spontaneity was necessary, and only after such a struggle, extending over many years, was it possible, for instance, to convert the working population of Berlin from a bulwark of the progressionist party into one of the finest strongholds of Social-Democracy.

What is to be done?: Chapter II (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ii.htm)

Consequently, however much we may try to “lend the economic, struggle itself a political character”, we shall never be able to develop the political consciousness of the workers (to the level of Social-Democratic political consciousness) by keeping within the framework of the economic struggle, for that framework is too narrow.

What is to be done?: Chapter III (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/iii.htm)

The errors and miscalculatiouns of Economism and of "praising spontaneity" are dealt with in-depth in "What is to be done?".

[BobKKKindle$]

Easier said than done. How do we go about creating such economic pre-eminence? Through radical syndicalism? Through collaborationist unions?No, the point here is that the working class can't attain economic dominance under capitalism because what defines the working class and the capitalist mode of production is the immediate producers being divorced from control over the means of production and the products of their labour - when workers win economic gains (or defend their immediate interests) by taking strike action, be it through "collaborationist unions" or some other means, that does not mean that the class is making itself into the economically dominant class because these gains do not represent the class rule of the bourgeoisie being undermined or the working class extending its control over the economy. As long as capitalism exists, the proletariat will be without economic power, despite its central role in capitalist production and the enormous potential power that is possesses by virtue of this role, this reflecting the fact that it is under capitalism that mankind's alienation reaches its highest point. It is only when the working class seizes control of the means of production and establishes its own organs of class rule that it makes itself the economically dominant class, and at this point it also becomes the politically dominant class, because these organs constitute the basis of its class rule - as such no distinction can be made between economic and political rule and the conquest of power in these spheres as far as the proletarian revolution is concerned. By contrast it was possible for the bourgeoisie to become economically dominant or at least become an important social force even whilst the state was subject to the control of feudal elites, because the accumulation of capital was possible under feudalism, if only to a limited degree, and as such the bourgeoisie can be said to have become the ruling class or to have contested the position of the feudal ruling class before it conquered state power, this conquest marking the culmination of the bourgeoisie's rise.


The devil, as always, is in the details. How are "centralized bodies" generated?They arise spontaneously - workers in Russia did not create Soviets because they had read Marx or because they were told to do so by the Bolsheviks, rather it was a spontaneous outcome of their struggles, and it is in these bodies, which encompass every section of the class, in which the revolutionary party, representing the most advanced and militant section of the class, must intervene.


This strategy is time and again an ultra-left illusion. It disenfranchises retirees, the disabled, working-class homemakers, etc.There is no reason why workers would not develop additional bodies or adjust their existing bodies in some way so that they can account for these groups - nonetheless the point here is that the workers state is rooted in bodies that arise out of their struggles in the workplace and are used to exercise democratic exercise control over their workplaces and the economy, i.e. their Soviets, as such there is no institutional or conceptual distinction between the exercise of political and economic power.


Precisely "because workers do not develop their economic power" that ruling-class political power must be captured first.The point I want to convey is that the distinction between the conquest of political and economic power is not applicable to the proletarian revolution, and you seem to be falling into the same trap as those who believe that the Cuban revolution was socialist - you think that it is possible for the proletariat to be the ruling class politically, having established its own state, whilst the economy remains in capitalist hands. I bring up Cuba because in that case nationalization and the confiscation of property owned by landowners and foreign businesses only took place after Castro had established himself and his allies as the new political elite, in 1959, which in my view is incompatible with the concept of socialist revolution, because it reduces the expropriation of the bourgeoisie to something that can be carried out by government decree, instead of an organic process that is carried out without external direction, by the working class itself. This kind of view accepts that the workers state is distinct from the organs which it (the working class) uses to exercise power over the economy, and that it is the workers state - whatever form this might take, whatever its origin might be - that, having come into existence, apparently without the bourgeoisie being expropriated and capitalism abolished, then expropriates the bourgeoisie, marking the end of capitalism - I reject this view because, to state the same point once again, the bodies that comprise the workers state are the same bodies that emerge out of the struggles of the class in the workplace, these bodies being used to assert working-class control over their workplaces and the economy, and as such it is nonsensical to say that the conquest of economic power can only happen after the conquest of political power, as if it is possible for workers to overthrow the bourgeois state whilst continuing to tolerate exploitation and oppression in the workplace in just the same way as they did before, as if political power can be meaningful whilst the bourgeoisie retains control over the economy. Look to the experiences of Labour governments in the UK and you can see that even if the state is controlled by a force that is subjectively friendly to the interests of the working class it will find itself powerless to improve the interests of that class when the bourgeoisie can undermine their policies simply by calling an investment strike - no, for the proletariat, the conquest of economic and political power are two sides of the same coin, they form a dialectical unity, they are both expressed in the same institutions - Soviet power.


only if the working class holds political power "seizing control of their workplaces" can take place.As I hinted at in the above paragraph, who would be doing the expropriating in this instance? What kind of political institutions would be capable of carrying out the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, given that this conception relies on the workers state being distinct from democratic organs of power in the workplace, and having come into existence without the property of the bourgeoisie being touched, so to speak? For the Russian working class, the Soviet government's decrees on land and workers control did not enable the expropriation of the bourgeoisie because this had already happened as a result of workers taking power in their workplaces and peasants seizing their land, such that these decrees merely gave legal recognition to something that the workers had already done and nobody could do anything to stop or reverse, and the key point here is that the body that passed these decrees (the Soviet government) was not in any way distinct from the bodies that had been created as workers seized control of the means of production, it was rooted in the Soviets, which was why it was called the Soviet government. By contrast, you think of a workers state as something that is external to the Soviets, without having explained what this state is, and where it comes from. Like I said, the proletarian revolution permits no institutional, temporal, or conceptual distinction between the conquest of economic and political power.


This sentence would probably kill Lenin if he wasn't already deadMeh, Lenin's writings on spontaneity are primarily concerned with the party, and in any case WITBD needs to be read in a broader context, read this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm) to understand that issue. If we take what Lenin had to say at face value about workers only being able to develop trade union consciousness then he was proven wrong three years after the publication of WITBD when workers, in 1905, did create Soviets, despite not having read Marx or being told what to do by the Bolsheviks, thereby challenging the Tsarist state and causing the impotent bourgeoisie to side with it. Personally I think Lenin would have agreed with my concept of the conquest of economic and political power being the same for the socialist revolution because that was the course of events obeyed by the Russian experience.

There's no need to school me on what Lenin wrote, I think you're adopting a very shallow reading.

[Lyev]

"The expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of capitalism, which is what a socialist revolution is in the Marxist sense of the word, is not something that takes place after the working class has raised itself to political power, as a government policy, because this would entail that the conquest of political power can take place whilst the rule of the bourgeoisie in the economic sphere is left untouched. Rather, the political rule of the working class is born out of the seizure of the means of production, because it is in the process of seizing control of their workplaces that workers both destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, by transforming the means of production into the property of the working majority, and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.

The emergence of a workers state is therefore a spontaneous process, that signifies the culmination of working-class struggle, not an act of constitutional engineering, and cannot be separated from or situated prior to the seizure of the means of production. The convergence of the conquest of political and economic power is a particular feature of proletarian revolutions because workers do not develop their economic power or the basis of their class rule under the previous mode of production, and here a contrast can be drawn between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, whilst finding its interests constrained under feudalism, still found it possible to enrich itself, and make itself the economically dominant class, then going on, at a future point in time, to become the politically dominant class as well. In other words there was a temporal separation between the conquest of power in the economic and political spheres that cannot be applied to the proletarian revolution"

Thoughts?

So, basically, especially the part I put in bold, it comes down to: 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery and wield it for its own purposes', right? 'The old crap', in Marx's words, needs to actually thoroughly smashed before we actually get down to business in our post-revolutionary impatience.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, the point here is that the working class can't attain economic dominance under capitalism because what defines the working class and the capitalist mode of production is the immediate producers being divorced from control over the means of production and the products of their labour

You're confusing the capitalist mode of production with its various forms, including bourgeois society. You can have worker control of the type you described and still have an "M-C-M"-ist mode of production. That is real "state capitalism" ("monetary socialism"), not Tony Cliff's hollow stuff.


As long as capitalism exists, the proletariat will be without economic power, despite its central role in capitalist production and the enormous potential power that is possesses by virtue of this role

Correction: As long as bourgeois rule exists, the proletariat will be without economic power over the surplus value it created. The proletariat needs to "lay hold of the ready-made" capitalist processes "and wield it for its own purposes" in the transition to a mixed economy of labour credits (including the odd paper vouchers) and gift production.


They arise spontaneously - workers in Russia did not create Soviets because they had read Marx or because they were told to do so by the Bolsheviks, rather it was a spontaneous outcome of their struggles, and it is in these bodies, which encompass every section of the class, in which the revolutionary party, representing the most advanced and militant section of the class, must intervene.

You, like Leon Trotsky, Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Korsch, and Herman Gorter, downplay the necessity of genuine parties of the left being "the merger of socialism and the worker movement." On a related note:


The errors and miscalculatiouns of Economism and of "praising spontaneity" are dealt with in-depth in "What is to be done?".

Comrade, you should read Lars Lih's translation of the pamphlet and his explanation of the historical context of that book. "Economism" here refers to broad economism (because narrow economism was already discredited by then), and "spontaneity" or stikhiinost actually refers to the organizationally defeatist worship of "the self’s lack of control over the world" (Lars Lih).

Remember, Lars Lih admitted to spearheading the "Kautsky Revival." ;)

Back to Bobkindles:


There is no reason why workers would not develop additional bodies or adjust their existing bodies in some way so that they can account for these groups - nonetheless the point here is that the workers state is rooted in bodies that arise out of their struggles in the workplace and are used to exercise democratic exercise control over their workplaces and the economy, i.e. their Soviets, as such there is no institutional or conceptual distinction between the exercise of political and economic power.

Your neo-Sorelianism is most obvious here. The notion that broader bodies can grow out of workplace struggles is so absurd. That is why the factory committees were unable to supplant the Bolshevik-controlled soviets later on, and why the 1917 soviets themselves were created by political parties.

Even Daniel DeLeon did not make this mistake when thinking of how Socialist Industrial Unionism would come about.


The point I want to convey is that the distinction between the conquest of political and economic power is not applicable to the proletarian revolution, and you seem to be falling into the same trap as those who believe that the Cuban revolution was socialist - you think that it is possible for the proletariat to be the ruling class politically, having established its own state, whilst the economy remains in capitalist hands.

No I don't. I subscribe to a theory of state capitalism that is more substantive than Cliff's theory (apologies to Paul Cockshott) by being critical of the "monetary socialist" tradition that has been prevalent since Kautsky's The Social Revolution.

Nevertheless, I recognize all too well that "the power of the state is an instrument of class domination, and indeed the most powerful instrument, and that the social revolution for which the proletariat strives cannot be realized until it shall have captured political power." (Karl Kautsky, The Road to Power (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch01.htm))

[Lyev]

You're confusing the capitalist mode of production with its various forms, including bourgeois society. You can have worker control of the type you described and still have an "M-C-M"-ist mode of production. That is real "state capitalism" ("monetary socialism"), not Tony Cliff's hollow stuff.

Correction: As long as bourgeois rule exists, the proletariat will be without economic power over the surplus value it created. The proletariat needs to "lay hold of the ready-made" capitalist processes "and wield it for its own purposes" in the transition to a mixed economy of labour credits (including the odd paper vouchers) and gift production.

I think perhaps Bob's emphasis was on trying to make the transition as efficient as possible; trying to retain the least amount of capitalistic apparatus possible between capitalism and a post-revolution society. Talking about this quote: 'the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.' what exactly are we possibly looking at retaining from the old mode of production to smooth over the transition?

I think the fewer the things left over capitalism the better, totally smashing the old ways seems the only way forward for, just to be sure. Anyway if you want to keep some of the 'old crap', in Marx' words, isn't that slightly reformist? For me it harks back to Cuba, Russia and China to an extent where they tried to keep some of the old 'capitalist processes' and none of those countries really managed to get very far in progressing forward into fully-fledged communism. It seems best to be rid of as many of the old ways as possible, before the leaders of the revolution get comfortable with them, and therefore a bit negligent.

Then again, obviously there isn't a pre-packaged formula for revolutionary Marxism. Every country has it's own unique, geographic, economic, political and social conditions so everywhere is going to adopt and utilise Marxism in different ways, so I think whatever is done it will need to be done in the optimum conditions for said country.

Anyway that's my two cents, I'm not trying to argue with you though and I'm only really a beginner when it comes to theory so I'm just throwing around ideas. :)

[MarxSchmarx]

Easier said than done. How do we go about creating such economic pre-eminence? Through radical syndicalism? Through collaborationist unions?
No, the point here is that the working class can't attain economic dominance under capitalism because what defines the working class and the capitalist mode of production is the immediate producers being divorced from control over the means of production and the products of their labour - when workers win economic gains (or defend their immediate interests) by taking strike action, be it through "collaborationist unions" or some other means, that does not mean that the class is making itself into the economically dominant class because these gains do not represent the class rule of the bourgeoisie being undermined or the working class extending its control over the economy. As long as capitalism exists, the proletariat will be without economic power, despite its central role in capitalist production and the enormous potential power that is possesses by virtue of this role, this reflecting the fact that it is under capitalism that mankind's alienation reaches its highest point. It is only when the working class seizes control of the means of production and establishes its own organs of class rule that it makes itself the economically dominant class, and at this point it also becomes the politically dominant class, because these organs constitute the basis of its class rule - as such no distinction can be made between economic and political rule and the conquest of power in these spheres as far as the proletarian revolution is concerned. By contrast it was possible for the bourgeoisie to become economically dominant or at least become an important social force even whilst the state was subject to the control of feudal elites, because the accumulation of capital was possible under feudalism, if only to a limited degree, and as such the bourgeoisie can be said to have become the ruling class or to have contested the position of the feudal ruling class before it conquered state power, this conquest marking the culmination of the bourgeoisie's rise.


Whilst I agree that that the working class seizing full economic control is tantamount to seizing political control, I disagree that the working class cannot, in its day to day struggles, undermine capitalist economic hegemony.

The fact of the matter is that economic transactions are a zero sum game. Even relatively trivial things, like winning concessions at the bargaining table, are really examples of fights over how the revenue of a business should be apportioned. What doesn't go to workers goes to the capitalist (either directly or to their state). To the extent that we can siphon off any of the profits for ourselves, through collective action, we decrease the amount of alienation.

Moreover, they constrain the actions the bosses can take against us. The threat of the strike shows the capitalist class that without the producing classes they are powerless. In its own way, this is exercising our power. It doesn't go as far as we wish. How could you seriously characterize it as doing nothing to reduce capitalist hegemony?



The devil, as always, is in the details. How are "centralized bodies" generated?
the point here is that the workers state is rooted in bodies that arise out of their struggles in the workplace and are used to exercise democratic exercise control over their workplaces and the economy, i.e. their Soviets, as such there is no institutional or conceptual distinction between the exercise of political and economic power.


Yes I agree. I would characterize this as "organic" rather than "spontaneous", but this is largely a semantic disagreement.

[Tribune]

My apologies, my post was aimed at BK and not at you.

Anyway, I don't think the bourgeoisie became the economically dominant class under late feudalism. It took the French revolution to sweep away any sort of modernization drives by the "sun" king Louis XIV. For the full accumulation by dispossession / "primitive accumulation" as bourgeois-capitalist revolution to occur, the bourgeoisie had to have significant political power. Further back, the Glorious Revolution occurred after the English Civil War.

Without enclosure, no British (seed) capitalism (I'm following E.M. Wood in accepting as provisionally valid the historic fact that capitalist production was cobbled together in a specific place, under specific circumstances, later adopted in France, Germany and the US, and from there imposed by force of arms and pillaging plunder over the greater portion of the earth).

Enclosure was not a specifically bourgeois set of actions (again, see Wood), although the median results of the various enclosure programs enabled urban British industrialists to monopolize a cheap labor pool, giving rise to what we now call capitalism.

Since capitalist conduct (as learned choices, as enforced laws, as habits of economic practice and obedience) did not simply "come to be" from feudal society, in a general or universal way.

British feudalists (a general term, yes) did such and such things, at such and such time, which resulted in the process of alienation now understood as Enclosure. A very specific location and period of time, a locus of behavior and choices which allowed a specific and historical (however initially uncoordinated) group of persons in England to dominate the victims of Enclosure.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Without enclosure, no British (seed) capitalism (I'm following E.M. Wood in accepting as provisionally valid the historic fact that capitalist production was cobbled together in a specific place, under specific circumstances, later adopted in France, Germany and the US, and from there imposed by force of arms and pillaging plunder over the greater portion of the earth).

Enclosure was not a specifically bourgeois set of actions (again, see Wood), although the median results of the various enclosure programs enabled urban British industrialists to monopolize a cheap labor pool, giving rise to what we now call capitalism.

Since capitalist conduct (as learned choices, as enforced laws, as habits of economic practice and obedience) did not simply "come to be" from feudal society, in a general or universal way.

British feudalists (a general term, yes) did such and such things, at such and such time, which resulted in the process of alienation now understood as Enclosure. A very specific location and period of time, a locus of behavior and choices which allowed a specific and historical (however initially uncoordinated) group of persons in England to dominate the victims of Enclosure.

With some talk of intellectual property as modern enclosure, you've reiterated that enclosure was a political act and not a mere economic one. Thanks!

[Tribune]

With some talk of intellectual property as modern enclosure, you've reiterated that enclosure was a political act and not a mere economic one. Thanks!

Perhaps. I'm loathe to separate "political" and "economic," as I understand the uses of power (this is, really, the obedience of others) depend upon the concentration of wealth.

"Power" is not a thing, not a force. What we call power is an act of submission and surrender, by one or many, to another, or others.

To understand the why and what for of these acts of submission, perhaps we need to examine how people come to submit to others; in that ( I think) it is especially noteworthy that submission is not separable from wealth, who holds it, and how they use it.

Which cannot be divisible, again in turn, from how it is produced, and how it is "owned."

[syndicat]

"The expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of capitalism, which is what a socialist revolution is in the Marxist sense of the word, is not something that takes place after the working class has raised itself to political power, as a government policy, because this would entail that the conquest of political power can take place whilst the rule of the bourgeoisie in the economic sphere is left untouched. Rather, the political rule of the working class is born out of the seizure of the means of production, because it is in the process of seizing control of their workplaces that workers both destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, by transforming the means of production into the property of the working majority, and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.


I mostly agree with this. The working class cannot liberate itself as long as it is subordinate and exploited in social production, but it can't consolidate its expropriation of the capitalists without creating new political as well as economic institutions. This is necessary because a state is, as Engels put it, a bureaucratic apparatus that stands over society because dominating and exploiting classes need a means of overall control that is not subject to direct control by the class being exploited. so the state needs to be replaced.

But if there is then direct political rule by the masses, there is no state in the sense Engels defined. So I wouldn't define the new political governance structure as a "state". Also, it's not clear the soviets are an adequate model for the new polity based on mass participation and direct democracy, for the reasons Mr Richter mentions. I think there needs to be congresses of worker delegates to develop the plans for social production, but there needs to also be some input mechanism from the people. The people in general need a means to articulate their desires for what is to be produced, what social services are provided etc. We can look at the neighborhood assemblies of the Brazilian participatory budgeting processes as suggesting a different direction. So in addition to workers taking control of the economy, there may need to be a political structure also rooted in neighborhood assemblies and maybe city-wide congresses of delegates from these assemblies. This suggests maybe a bicameral legislative system.

But parties running a state are not the way to go because this bureaucratic apparatus would simply replicate a class system of some sort, subordinating workers in social production again.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Also, it's not clear the soviets are an adequate model for the new polity based on mass participation and direct democracy, for the reasons Mr Richter mentions. I think there needs to be congresses of worker delegates to develop the plans for social production, but there needs to also be some input mechanism from the people.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/separate-economic-parliaments-t118633/index.html

The basic crux is that soviets have discriminated in favour of employed workers and against other elements of the working class (unemployed, retirees, disabled). Other than that, they don't meet frequently.

The link above suggests an alternative solution to this problem associated historically with soviets.

[syndicat]

yeah, well it wasn't clear to me what was being proposed. sounds like a state, which I would be opposed to.

[robbo203]

"The expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of capitalism, which is what a socialist revolution is in the Marxist sense of the word, is not something that takes place after the working class has raised itself to political power, as a government policy, because this would entail that the conquest of political power can take place whilst the rule of the bourgeoisie in the economic sphere is left untouched. Rather, the political rule of the working class is born out of the seizure of the means of production, because it is in the process of seizing control of their workplaces that workers both destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, by transforming the means of production into the property of the working majority, and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.

The emergence of a workers state is therefore a spontaneous process, that signifies the culmination of working-class struggle, not an act of constitutional engineering, and cannot be separated from or situated prior to the seizure of the means of production. The convergence of the conquest of political and economic power is a particular feature of proletarian revolutions because workers do not develop their economic power or the basis of their class rule under the previous mode of production, and here a contrast can be drawn between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, whilst finding its interests constrained under feudalism, still found it possible to enrich itself, and make itself the economically dominant class, then going on, at a future point in time, to become the politically dominant class as well. In other words there was a temporal separation between the conquest of power in the economic and political spheres that cannot be applied to the proletarian revolution"

Thoughts?


Yes. Its a contradiction in terms. How the hell can the workers seize hold of the means of production and yet retain their status as working class, the exploited class in capitalism (by definition). The seizure of the means of production by the workers is tantamount to the dissolution of all classes - otherwise it is simply a meaningless statement. If the working class still exists including the ridiculous notion of the so called "workers state" then you still have capitalism. Period.

[Die Neue Zeit]

yeah, well it wasn't clear to me what was being proposed. sounds like a state, which I would be opposed to.

Why is it a state? The state functions are clearly separated from everything else.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I think when we look at other examples of when workers actually did seize the means of production like in the 2 red years in Italy or even in small cases in Latin America more recently we can see the need for the political seizure of power in addition to workers taking over the means of production.

I think Lenin was wrong about spontaneity limiting the working class to "trade-unionist" consiousness, but I don't think he was wrong in the sense that without some section of advanced workers (a vanguard) calling for and arguing for the taking of political power by the working class, then reformist arguments will tend to carry the day because these are the dominant ideas in society and therefore hold a lot of sway within the class too. Workers have sized the means of production many times but this has not automatically led to full worker's power. We see this time and time again as workers spontaneously rise but then are "betrayed" by the organized reformists like the German SDP or the Italian Socialist Party after the Turin factory occupations or even by the French CP in 1968.

Even during the French Revolution, most of the revolutionary bourgeois wanted some kind of constitutional monarchy or whatnot but the more advanced bourgeois realized they had to create a new government based on the needs and interests of the bourgeois or the revolution would fall apart of be overturned by monarchist counter-revolution.

So, if I am understanding Bob's argument, I think you can't really separate these two things: the working class needs to be actively putting themselves in power on a grassroots level of taking over their workplaces and creating councils but they also have to cement their status as the ruling group in society by destroying the capitalist state and replacing it with their own organizations.

And robbo, there is no contradiction. Even when workers destroy the old ruling order, there are still going to be other semi-classes, other relationships to the means of production, in the short-term. In some places there will still be a peasantry, small business owners, lumpen, and so on. Workers will have to set up new schools and build homes for the homeless and get rid of all the inequalities and class divisions from capitalism before everyone can become part of the new ruling class (or lack thereof).

[robbo203]

And robbo, there is no contradiction. Even when workers destroy the old ruling order, there are still going to be other semi-classes, other relationships to the means of production, in the short-term. In some places there will still be a peasantry, small business owners, lumpen, and so on. Workers will have to set up new schools and build homes for the homeless and get rid of all the inequalities and class divisions from capitalism before everyone can become part of the new ruling class (or lack thereof).


Sorry, this argument just wont wash. There certainly is a contradiction. The point is, as Marx on several occassions pointed out (see for example his excellent little pamphlet Wage Labour and Capital), if there is still a working class in existence then it follows that there is also a capitalist class in existence and hence capitalism. And if there is still capitalism how how can you reasonably assert that the workers have destroyed the "old ruling order". The old ruling order order has still to be destroyed if the working class - and the wages system - is still in existence.

The problem is that many leftists are not really Marxists at all and use the term class in a more conventional sociological sense (which is not to say such usage is incorrect, only that it is inapprporiate when we are talking about the relationship to the means of production).

The elimination of capitalism - the old ruling order - necessarily means the elimination of the market and the state. This is marxian first principles. How, if you no longer have a market based economy, is it possible still to have a peasantry and small businessmen. The idea is preposterous..

[sanpal]

The elimination of capitalism - the old ruling order - necessarily means the elimination of the market and the state.

The elimination of the capitalism does not mean the elimination of the capitalist mode of production during the transition period of DOtP when the Proletarian State could practice both: capitalist mode of production in the state capitalist sector and private sector of economy, and communist sector of economy without market, money, exploitation, etc., all what you talk about.

[robbo203]

The elimination of the capitalism does not mean the elimination of the capitalist mode of production during the transition period of DOtP when the Proletarian State could practice both: capitalist mode of production in the state capitalist sector and private sector of economy, and communist sector of economy without market, money, exploitation, etc., all what you talk about.


Nope. This is just not feasible. Nor does it make much sense. How can you eliminate capitalism but not the capitalist mode of production? What I think you are trying to say is that you can have elements of two quite different socio-economic systems coexisting in time and space in a superordinate/subordinate relationship. This is quite true. Remnants of feudalism can indeed coexist with capitalism. But how is it possible for a so called proletarian state (to my way of thinking a contradiction in terms) to inaugurate such a dual model along the lines you propose with both a communist sector and a capitalist sector? Having capture state power with the intention of inaugurating a new communist world why would the proletariat consent to its continued exploitation within the capitalist sector by allowing that sector to even exist. This is to say nothing of the vexed relationship between this sector and the communist sector presumably mediated by this "proletarian state". Its a sure fire recipe for a complete substitutionism and the reassertion of capitalist hegemony

[Jimmie Higgins]

Sorry, this argument just wont wash. There certainly is a contradiction. The point is, as Marx on several occassions pointed out (see for example his excellent little pamphlet Wage Labour and Capital), if there is still a working class in existence then it follows that there is also a capitalist class in existence and hence capitalism. And if there is still capitalism how how can you reasonably assert that the workers have destroyed the "old ruling order". The old ruling order order has still to be destroyed if the working class - and the wages system - is still in existence.All your arguments are strawmen. Essentially you are trying to find some kind of ideological defense of an outdated pseudo-anarchist conception of revolution without state power. You know this is impossible so you set some kind of magical bar that everone is society must become a marxist, and then at once all decide to have a revolution. This has never happened in history and never will.

Maybe I don't understand, maybe I'm making a straw man of your argument. But if I am understanding correctly, this position is ridiculously mechanical. In fact if I understand your arguments about revolution correctly, the main job of your organization would be arguing to radical workers to cool it down and not take over the means of production in their industries because not all workers and not all classes have developed socialist consciousness yet. Of course some coordination is necessary so there can be the most unity possible, but it seems like the bar is set so high that all revolutionary situations will always come up short in your view and should be told to demobilized until everyone has a chance to read some Marx and agree on a series of points or something.

In all likelihood, the future working class revolutions will look more like the revolts we have seen in the past. The ruling ideas of our age are capitalist ideas (as Marx said) and so to expect everyone to be a conscious revolutionary beforehand is just idealism. Likely, people will act before they analyze - they will take over the means of production somewhat spontaneously but also unevenly and in an uncoordinated way. In the French Revolution, the king was imprisoned before the bourgeoisie even had a conscious understanding of the need for a republic.


The problem is that many leftists are not really Marxists at all and use the term class in a more conventional sociological sense (which is not to say such usage is incorrect, only that it is inapprporiate when we are talking about the relationship to the means of production). Another strawman - I was not talking about classes in terms of some kind of arbitrary wage scale or whatnot.


The elimination of capitalism - the old ruling order - necessarily means the elimination of the market and the state. This is marxian first principles.Yes the CAPITALIST state must be destroyed by the working class. However the elimination of the vast majority of capitalist relations of production does not (IN THE SHORT TERM) create a blank social slate on which the (former) working class can build a stateless classless society. State power will be needed by (former) workers in the short term in order to cement in the results of taking over the means of production as well as rally other semi-classes behind a new social order based on (former) worker's control of production. When resources have been used to even out development throught all regions and so on, then whatever organizational bodies that the (former) working class used to smash the remaining inequalites of capitalism are no longer needed and, like all unnecissary work, can be jetisoned... hence the transitional (former) worker's state (i.e. organizational structures for coordinating the needs of the [former] working class) can wither away and lead to communism.


How, if you no longer have a market based economy, is it possible still to have a peasantry and small businessmen. The idea is preposterous..What's preposterous is the idea that workers will take over production and ALL capitalists, petite-bourgoise farmers, or shop owners will suddenly forget their own class interests and a lifetime of accepting ruling class ideas. What's preposterous is thinking that capitalism, a system built on inequality and regional differences in development, can just disappear overnight into a society without undevenly developed regions and all the other shit from class society.

[sanpal]

How can you eliminate capitalism but not the capitalist mode of production?
Capitalism can be eliminated by the change of political power. There is the difference in political scheme: whether bourgeoisie is a ruling class or proletariat is a ruling class, who make rules, and whose interests are protected. The Proletarian State is not capitalism. It is Socialism - Proletarian Socialism, where interests of the majority who are the working people are protected.
Economy is only the way (the tool) of production and distribution of goods or needs or services between members of society. The economy can be based on the market/money system and have capitalist mode of production or it can be based on the non-market / moneyless system and has communist mode of production.
The market/money economy is "nutrient medium" for exploitation of the working class. What distinguish the Proletarian State from the Bourgeois State is the profit turned to the benefit of the majority, i.e. to the working people in the Proletarian State though both bourgeois and proletarian States use capitalist mode of production.
But it's known from marxism that the nationalization, the state property doesn't resolve conflict between labour and capital, so it's needed "communization" i.e. creation and developing communist relations in the production process, hence it's needed creation and developing communist sector of economy beside market sector. (for example on the one side of the street there is an enterprise as the state property and with the wages for workers, and on the other side of the street there is an enterprise where the workers decided to have it as common property and where they practice communist relations, i.e. selfgoverning.).
So you see that the transition from the capitalist mode of production to the communist mode of production is the process which is prolonged through time, and there is no possibility to solve it by the society as a whole (by one stroke) - Gravedigger well shows your idealistic view on it.
Though Gravedigger himself didn't illustrate any model of the transition from capitalism into communism.
There is a risk for him to fall into duhringism (stalinism) if not to separate capitalist/state capitalist sector of economy from the communist sector but to attempt gradually to adapt the monetary system for functioning of the moneyless economy.


But how is it possible for a so called proletarian state (to my way of thinking a contradiction in terms) ...

There is no contradiction in terms: the Proletarian State which use capitalist mode of production and wages has class of the proletariat, proletariat is in power. What's the problem?


Having capture state power with the intention of inaugurating a new communist world why would the proletariat consent to its continued exploitation within the capitalist sector by allowing that sector to even exist.

Elementary prudence when a worker is responsible for his/her family, children, etc. and he/she decides to wait for a while under wages system to look what success would have another comrades in communist sector and join them later.


This is to say nothing of the vexed relationship between this sector and the communist sector presumably mediated by this "proletarian state".

Nobody (except Rosa) expels dialectical materialism from marxism. Contradictions between two modes of production move the society forward toward communism.


Its a sure fire recipe for a complete substitutionism and the reassertion of capitalist hegemony

Nope. The history confirms that stalinism a la Duhring is the best recipe for the reassertion of capitalist hegemony

[robbo203]

All your arguments are strawmen. Essentially you are trying to find some kind of ideological defense of an outdated pseudo-anarchist conception of revolution without state power. You know this is impossible so you set some kind of magical bar that everone is society must become a marxist, and then at once all decide to have a revolution. This has never happened in history and never will. .


That is not my position at all. Are you getting me confused with someone else possibly? In the first place I do quite definitely see the need to democratically capture state power in order to establish communism/socialism. It is not necessary that everyone should be a communist or socialist but what is essential, certainly, is that a significant majority should be. Of course this hasnt happened in history which is why we have not yet had communism or socialism yet. But that is not to say it will never happen, does it now?



Maybe I don't understand, maybe I'm making a straw man of your argument. But if I am understanding correctly, this position is ridiculously mechanical. In fact if I understand your arguments about revolution correctly, the main job of your organization would be arguing to radical workers to cool it down and not take over the means of production in their industries because not all workers and not all classes have developed socialist consciousness yet. Of course some coordination is necessary so there can be the most unity possible, but it seems like the bar is set so high that all revolutionary situations will always come up short in your view and should be told to demobilized until everyone has a chance to read some Marx and agree on a series of points or something..

This is an absurd caricature of my position. You dont have to read, or even heard of, Marx to be a communist but Marx did have some useful things to say on the subject including the tragedy that is likely to befall any organisation that seeks to establish communism before the conditions are ready for it. Both Marx and Engels were fully aware of the need for the working class to be consciously aware and supportive of the communist goal before a revolution could be successfully implemented. They lambasted elitists in the German SDP who considered that thet workers were too ignorant to understand socialism and that this was something better left to "intellectuals".
I am certainly not opposed to workers taking over the means of production perhaps in the form of worker coops but I have no illusions that this would be tantamount to socialism or communism. The fact remains - until a majority want and understand socialism/communism you wont get it




In all likelihood, the future working class revolutions will look more like the revolts we have seen in the past. The ruling ideas of our age are capitalist ideas (as Marx said) and so to expect everyone to be a conscious revolutionary beforehand is just idealism. Likely, people will act before they analyze - they will take over the means of production somewhat spontaneously but also unevenly and in an uncoordinated way. In the French Revolution, the king was imprisoned before the bourgeoisie even had a conscious understanding of the need for a republic..

Actually, the exact oppsoite is true. If you dont have a majority of workers who are communist minded then there is no way you can possibly have communism. QED. It is idealist to think you can get round this point, that you can somehow bypass the absolutely essential precondition of a communist revolution - mass communist consciousness

Of course it is possible people may act before they analyse in the way you suggest but if their actions do not lead on to mass communist consciousness and then on towards accomplishing a genuine communist revolution, these actions will simply be co-opted by capitalism. Nothing much will come of them. Mere anti-capitalist revolt is not enough



Yes the CAPITALIST state must be destroyed by the working class. However the elimination of the vast majority of capitalist relations of production does not (IN THE SHORT TERM) create a blank social slate on which the (former) working class can build a stateless classless society. State power will be needed by (former) workers in the short term in order to cement in the results of taking over the means of production as well as rally other semi-classes behind a new social order based on (former) worker's control of production. When resources have been used to even out development throught all regions and so on, then whatever organizational bodies that the (former) working class used to smash the remaining inequalites of capitalism are no longer needed and, like all unnecissary work, can be jetisoned... hence the transitional (former) worker's state (i.e. organizational structures for coordinating the needs of the [former] working class) can wither away and lead to communism..


This is very confused. You talked about the former working class. So what exactly are the people who used to be the working class, now.? Are they classless or not? If they are not, what class are they? If they are, then how can there still be capitalists if there are no workers? Capitalists and workers are organically linked as class categories. You cannot have one without the other...



What's preposterous is the idea that workers will take over production and ALL capitalists, petite-bourgoise farmers, or shop owners will suddenly forget their own class interests and a lifetime of accepting ruling class ideas. What's preposterous is thinking that capitalism, a system built on inequality and regional differences in development, can just disappear overnight into a society without undevenly developed regions and all the other shit from class society.

No thats not what I said. What I said is that once the workers take over the means of production then this is tanstomount to the ending of all capitalist relations at a stroke. This incidentally was the view of Marx and Engels too. The communist revolution is qualitatively different from all over revolutions they argued. If the take over of the means of production does not end capitalist relations of production and hence eliminate all classes then you still have capitalism - by definition. It doesnt matter if it is a supposedly working class government declaring that the means of production now belong to the workers. This government will simply step into the shoes of the esrtwhile capitalists and become the national capitalist write large because you cannot have workers without capitalists and vice versa.

The communist revolution means the decisive end of class society and all classes. Its means the self abolition of working class and with it its mirror image, the capitalist class or else it is not a communist revolution at all. All it will mean is installing yet another capitalist government in power albeit one on the far left. Capitalism will soon bring this government to heel and soon enough it will demanding sacrifices from the worker to make the economy more competitive in the global market ertc etc. All left wing governments inevitably end up like those they supposedly oppose whlst they were in the oppostion


What I find curious is that you should talk about the former working class yet still say it is preposterous that "ALL capitalists, petite-bourgoise farmers, or shop owners will suddenly forget their own class interests and a lifetime of accepting ruling class ideas. Surely you should say here all former capitalists, former petit-bourgeois farmers and former shop owners. Will these former capitalists et al "suddenly forget their own class interests and a lifetime of accepting ruling class ideas". No, but only if you qualify this by referring to these as their former class interests. Since they will now be living in a classless their identity as capitalists et al will dissolve along with the (former) working class. And of course long before this revolutionary act happens society will be in the process of changing anyway as communist ideas took hold - even if I might say so among members of the capitalist class

[Jimmie Higgins]

That is not my position at all. Are you getting me confused with someone else possibly?My apologies, I guess so.


In the first place I do quite definitely see the need to democratically capture state power in order to establish communism/socialism. It is not necessary that everyone should be a communist or socialist but what is essential, certainly, is that a significant majority should be. Agreed.


This is very confused. You talked about the former working class. So what exactly are the people who used to be the working class, now.? Are they classless or not? If they are not, what class are they? If they are, then how can there still be capitalists if there are no workers? Capitalists and workers are organically linked as class categories. You cannot have one without the other...Yes, but this is a very mechanical and mathematical way of looking at it. I guess you would say the working class is the "ruling class" because, in my view workers will need to convince large sections of the small shop-owners, lumpen, and so on that "working class" leadership of society leading to a communist society is preferable to capitalism and the old order of society.


What I said is that once the workers take over the means of production then this is tanstomount to the ending of all capitalist relations at a stroke.And what I am arguing is that this is most likely going to happen unevenly due to the unevenness of society under capitalism. This is why a "working class/new ruling class" "state" will be needed to create a new hegemony around the idea of support for the former working class in bringing about a communist society.


It doesnt matter if it is a supposedly working class government declaring that the means of production now belong to the workers. This government will simply step into the shoes of the esrtwhile capitalists and become the national capitalist write large because you cannot have workers without capitalists and vice versa. No, I am argueing that workers at the point of production need to take over and run things but because this will happen unevenly, they will also need to set up some kind of organization for the administration of their interests... a state. This will cement-in the gains in the places where worker's power is established while also allowing development of schools and infrastructure where needed.


What I find curious is that you should talk about the former working class yet still say it is preposterous that "ALL capitalists, petite-bourgoise farmers, or shop owners will suddenly forget their own class interests and a lifetime of accepting ruling class ideas. Surely you should say here all former capitalists, former petit-bourgeois farmers and former shop owners. Will these former capitalists et al "suddenly forget their own class interests and a lifetime of accepting ruling class ideas". No, but only if you qualify this by referring to these as their former class interests. Since they will now be living in a classless their identity as capitalists et al will dissolve along with the (former) working class. And of course long before this revolutionary act happens society will be in the process of changing anyway as communist ideas took hold - even if I might say so among members of the capitalist classSemantics don't create material reality - can you seriously not see the argument I'm making?

Yes, they are living in a new society, but they are just going to lay down? Even though these FORMER semi-classes will likely be pretty marginal and not have social power that they once had we are still talking about many many millions of people. How does the victorious working class deal with this situation in your view? How does the former working class establish communism right after capitalism without some kind of transition where the working class evens out the uneven production of capitalism and convinces former semi-classes to support the project and so on?

[sanpal]

Yes, they are living in a new society, but they are just going to lay down? Even though these FORMER semi-classes will likely be pretty marginal and not have social power that they once had we are still talking about many many millions of people. How does the victorious working class deal with this situation in your view? How does the former working class establish communism right after capitalism without some kind of transition where the working class evens out the uneven production of capitalism and convinces former semi-classes to support the project and so on?

Robbo203, the answer could be found in two sectors' economy of the transition period, couldn't it?;)

[robbo203]

Yes, but this is a very mechanical and mathematical way of looking at it. I guess you would say the working class is the "ruling class" because, in my view workers will need to convince large sections of the small shop-owners, lumpen, and so on that "working class" leadership of society leading to a communist society is preferable to capitalism and the old order of society.


No its not a mechanical or mathematical way of looking at things. Its simply logical. If the working class exists then ipso facto you still have capitalism which means you still have to accomplish a revolution. For the working class to become the ruling class and yet still somehow continue to exist as a working class is a contradiction in terms since capitalism cannot possibly be run in the interests of the workers. You are confusing two things. Of course the workers will "need to convince large sections of the small shop-owners, lumpen, etc" but this conviction will grow with the growth of the communist movement prior to the capture of political power and the elimination of all classes



And what I am arguing is that this is most likely going to happen unevenly due to the unevenness of society under capitalism. This is why a "working class/new ruling class" "state" will be needed to create a new hegemony around the idea of support for the former working class in bringing about a communist society.


But this is plainly wrong and I suspect you sense this already. Hence your equivocation around the idea of the "former working class" and the need for a "working class/new ruling class". You cannot seeem to make up your mind whether at this point the working class exists or whether it is former i.e. non existent.

Anyway, I reject the idea that communist ideas will manifest themselves unevenly. This is not a view that Marx and engels held incidentally. I think once the movement grows significantly the uneveness manifest at the start will more and more decline. Come the revolution there will be very little in the way of uneveness. This is the way in which ideas spread particularly in these days of rapid global communication. The global communist movement itself will of course also be proactively directing its energies at parts of the world were it may not be so much of a force to even out imbalances


No, I am argueing that workers at the point of production need to take over and run things but because this will happen unevenly, they will also need to set up some kind of organization for the administration of their interests... a state. This will cement-in the gains in the places where worker's power is established while also allowing development of schools and infrastructure where needed.


Set up a state??? Hold on here, I thought we agreed that the revolution would involve capturing the state and instituting communism with you obviously thinking this could not happen all at one. Now you want to set up one. What? In competition with the existing state?


Yes, they are living in a new society, but they are just going to lay down? Even though these FORMER semi-classes will likely be pretty marginal and not have social power that they once had we are still talking about many many millions of people. How does the victorious working class deal with this situation in your view? How does the former working class establish communism right after capitalism without some kind of transition where the working class evens out the uneven production of capitalism and convinces former semi-classes to support the project and so on?

But this is not the point. The point is that they are no longer actual capitalists in an existential sense becuase the capital-wage labour relation as been done away with. There are no more capitalists or workers - just people. What you are talking about is the problem of a recalcitrant minority not accepting the new way of doing things. I grant this may be a problem but these people are not going to just suddenly wake up and say "oh shit, look what these communists have gone and done. They have democratically gone and set up a communist society". The point is that a few years before the revolution happens everyone will know what communism is about, how it will be achieved and so on. Even the capitalists. Yes they (or some of them , others like Engels might join the revolutionary movement) might resist the idea but communism is not going to creep up on them like a thief at night to paraphrase an expression. Communism will be part of everyone's social expectations for the near future and when the vast majority make it plain that they want it, the residiual minority will for the most see that there is no point in resisting the will of the majority. The handful of lunatics that might want to forcibly resist communism would of course be overwhelmed and restrained by force if necessary

[LeninistKing]

Hey my friend, a lot of factors cause or lead people to become more revolutionary and more awaken. For example in the USA there is not a revolutionary objective situation yet. But i think that in the year 2011 to 2013 americans will necessarily will have to become socialists. Because i think that socialism as an ideology is already becoming mainstream ideology. There will even be movies about socialism in the near future. There will be more bank frauds, more bank collapses, more unemployment, more pain, more hunger and more suffering. People just won't be able to endure the levels of mental-depression caused by the capitalist system anymore.

.




"The expropriation of the bourgeoisie and the abolition of capitalism, which is what a socialist revolution is in the Marxist sense of the word, is not something that takes place after the working class has raised itself to political power, as a government policy, because this would entail that the conquest of political power can take place whilst the rule of the bourgeoisie in the economic sphere is left untouched. Rather, the political rule of the working class is born out of the seizure of the means of production, because it is in the process of seizing control of their workplaces that workers both destroy the bourgeoisie as a class, by transforming the means of production into the property of the working majority, and also develop the institutions that form the basis of their state, in the form of Soviets, which, whilst initially being located in individual workplaces, then generate more centralized bodies in order to meet the administrative needs of the class.

The emergence of a workers state is therefore a spontaneous process, that signifies the culmination of working-class struggle, not an act of constitutional engineering, and cannot be separated from or situated prior to the seizure of the means of production. The convergence of the conquest of political and economic power is a particular feature of proletarian revolutions because workers do not develop their economic power or the basis of their class rule under the previous mode of production, and here a contrast can be drawn between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, as the bourgeoisie, whilst finding its interests constrained under feudalism, still found it possible to enrich itself, and make itself the economically dominant class, then going on, at a future point in time, to become the politically dominant class as well. In other words there was a temporal separation between the conquest of power in the economic and political spheres that cannot be applied to the proletarian revolution"

Thoughts?

[ellipsis]

I don't know if I agree that once workers seize the means of production, the revolution can take place, and not before. I find it improbable that all means of production will be seized spontaneously. I think that this is a very important first step, together with many other first steps.