Did china have soviets?

[btpound]

After the CCP took power did they establish worker's soviets? If so when did they go away? Also, when did they soviets disappear in Russia, if at all. If someone has any articles are references on this topic, please post them.

[heiss93]

They attempted to organize Soviets during the civil war 1924-1934 but abandoned them after the Long March. The PRC equivalent to Soviets were People's Congresses. Other popular forms that emerged during the GPCR were People's Communes and Revolutionary Committees.

[BobKKKindle$]

There have been Soviets in China. During the May 30th Movement in 1925, an embryonic Soviet was established in the city of Canton (as it was then called, in southern China) as a result of a strike wave that involved workers in several cities (but especially in Hong Kong) and had begun as a way of showing opposition to the murder of a Chinese worker in Shanghai. This Soviet organized the feeding and housing of the strikers and also published a weekly newspaper, organized workers to conduct voluntary work such as the construction of a road from Canton to Whampoa, and set up a Workers’ College with eight extra-mural schools for adult workers and eight primary schools for their children - all of these activities being financed through the sale of seized merchandise, with the directing committee being comprised of thirteen delegates, who were responsible to a delegate conference of 800 (in a ratio of one delegate to fifty strikers) which met twice a week, all delegates being subject to instant recall. At its height, this Soviet maintained a force of several thousand uniformed and armed pickets and set up courts to deal with those breaking the regulations whilst also supporting a fleet of twelve gunboats to apprehend river smugglers, with activists being sent into the surrounding countryside to educate peasants about the Soviet's work and encourage land reform. The May 30th Movement initially had the support of the Chinese bourgeoisie as long as it was restricted to a narrow set of nationalist objectives, but as soon as the Soviet was established, the merchants of Canton called on the government to restore order and went to so far as to establish their own vigilante force in order to challenge the picket militia - this demonstrates not only the threat that the Soviet posed to Chinese capitalism but also the misguided nature of the strategy of the CPC, which was imposed by the Comintern, and involved the party subordinating itself to the KMT.

This in itself demonstrates how ripe China was for revolution in the 1920s but the defeat of the CPC in 1927 resulted in a long period of defeat for the working class, with struggles being limited to immediate economic gains, and it was not until the end of the final phase of the civil war in the 1940s that the working class began to move in a more political direction, generally after cadres had succeeded in taking control of China's urban centres but before the party centre had established control at a national level. In 1949 there were many instances of cadres at a local level spreading themselves throughout residential areas and small-scale enterprises, backing workers against management, despite orders from the leadership not to extend class struggle to the cities, with worker organizations also taking over factory management and organizing production themselves, until these struggles were ended by Liu Shaoqi, acting as a representative of the party leadership, who relocated deviant cadres to the administrative and educational sectors, or to larger state enterprises where they could be supervised properly, whilst also centralizing political organization. The first policy of the CPC as far as industrial organization was concerned was in direct opposition to these cases of worker self-mobilization, as, when the expropriation of the property of bureaucratic and comprador capitalists was carried out (and these were the only capitalists who were expropriated to begin with - the CPC was keen not to disturb the so-called "national capitalists" which was partly why they were not willing to permit working-class control of industry or to allow peasants to pursue landlords when they fled to the towns during land reform) it was initially placed under the control of KMT officials and CPC officials, who took an inventory, before being passed to a triple alliance, consisting of party-military personnel, representatives of mass organizations such as the worker pickets, and retained personnel from the old regime. This arrangement did not involve a meaningful degree of democratic control at either the local or the national level, as the manager of the factory frequently acted as president of the alliance in individual enterprises, with workers being given a consultative role only, as well as being forced to enter into arbitration when industrial disputes presented themselves.

From the above it's pretty clear that by the time it took power, the CPC was no longer a party of the working class, and 1949 was not a working-class revolution. The party's primary aim from 1949 onwards was to develop China's productive forces, which was why, when political movements that had been initiated by the party began to move beyond the party's control and in the direction of challenges to the existing distribution of economic and political power, the party leadership restored its control by coercive means - for example, when the Three-anti and Five-anti Campaigns resulted in a drop in private production, by possibly a third up to February 1952, the government's response was to reduce the fines imposed on deviant businessmen, and to offer financial help in the form of loans to those who faced difficulties, whilst also telling workers to respect the property rights of those capitalists who were willing to cooperate, including their right to hire and fire within the limits of the law.


The PRC equivalent to Soviets were People's CongressesThese bodies were not Soviets in any way, shape, or form. At every level there was no provision for instant recall or for delegates to be payed a working-class wage, and the levels above the county (i.e. lowest) level were not elected by the population as a whole but by the delegates at the lowest level, which undermined any links between voters and delegates that might otherwise have existed. The National People's Congress was supposed to meet annually, being elected every four years, but the first NPC, having been created in 1953 (i.e. four years after the creation of the regime) did not do so, rather it met only twice (in 1954 and 1956), and the second NPC met six months behind the constitutional schedule, in April 1959. The second, like the first, managed only one other session (in 1960) and the third NPC was nearly two years late (meeting from 21 December 1964 to 4 January 1965) and was not preceded by any lower level elections. The NPC did not meet for another eleven years, and when it did meet, in January 1975, the deputies were required to ratify, seven years after the event, the removal of the Lin Biao and Liu Shaoqi, indicating the minor role that the body played in relation to political developments at the national level. Most importantly, however, neither the NPC nor any of the other People's Congresses had any role in running production on a democratic basis, which is a defining feature of Soviets.

The point to keep in mind is that Soviets cannot be the creation of a party or a government, they are spontaneous creations of the working class in the heat of struggle, and the fact that the People's Congresses were created after the CPC had conquered power and that these bodies were so powerless shows that they were bureaucratic impositions, and not organs of working-class rule.


Other popular forms that emerged during the GPCR were People's Communes and Revolutionary Committees. By "People's Communes", I assume you mean the Shanghai People's Commune, because the bodies that were actually termed People's Communes were established some time before the GPCR, during the Great Leap Forward, as a way of advancing the collectivization of agriculture. I think it's too simplistic to say that the Shanghai People's Commune was a Soviet because whilst it did involve some elements of worker participation in industry and government, a closer look at how it came into being shows that it was part of an attempt to put an end to the "wind of economism" that had emerged towards the end of 1966 and which encountered opposition from the whole of the national leadership as well as local political leaders like Wang Hongwen. The commune had its leaders appointed by Beijing, and Yao Wenyuan and Zhang Chunqiao used the PLA to enforce order in the name of the commune as long it was allowed to exist by the national leadership, and at the inauguration of the new structure in early January they stressed that they had the support of the army, whilst excluding their political opponents from planning and leadership - the implication being that challenging the organization would be met with armed force. Even before the commune came into being, the rebel leaders had managed to combat economism to some degree, by taking control of the Control Office of the Shanghai Railway Bureau, and putting the railway system into action, with conductors being sought out and pressured into working, and students being mobilized to man the ticket booths and entry points to the railway platforms - once again demonstrating the unwillingness of leaders to tolerate any forms of political activity that disrupted the accumulation of capital and undermined the privileges of the ruling bureaucracy.

The very marginal elements of mass participation embodied in the commune led to it being shut down by the national leadership, with even the use of the word "commune" being forbidden from February 1967 onwards. The revolutionary committees that were established during the same period as a response to the radical phase of the Cultural Revolution were even less democratic than the commune because they divided power between cadres, the PLA, and so-called representatives of mass organizations, although in almost every case and at the provincial as well as local level the PLA and members of conservative bodies dominated the leadership. It was also during this phase of the Cultural Revolution that the PLA began to use violent tactics against the most radical workers and those who had been heavily involved in the wind of economism, by rapidly banning a large number of radical organizations, whose members were made to register with the municipal Public Security Bureau, and frequently subject to the same kind of penalties that had been used against those who had gone too far during previous campaigns, such as firing, transferring, the docking of pay, and struggle sessions.

[Devrim]

After the CCP took power did they establish worker's soviets? If so when did they go away? Also, when did they soviets disappear in Russia, if at all. If someone has any articles are references on this topic, please post them.

I think that the question misses the point completely. Soviets are not something that are set by party decree on taking state power, but a product of the working class itself during its struggle.

The fact that there weren't soviets in China in the 1940s is indicative of the fact that there wasn't a workers' revolution there.

Devrim

[btpound]

Well, there were soviets in China during the revolution and it was a worker's revolution as well. I was just wondering when they disappeared.

[Devrim]

Well, there were soviets in China during the revolution

Please could you show some evidence of this?

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since Bob has a fascination with Chinese history, I should add another perspective to the Chinese revolution of the 1920s. Unlike the Russian or German worker movements, China's worker movement got the ball rolling quite late. That's one of the reasons why the Comintern urged the CPC to be coalition partners with the Guomindang, which I think was a mistake ("loyal opposition" would have been a better position).

The CPC itself didn't develop into a mass workers' party because it didn't learn the positive lessons of the SPD model.


The point to keep in mind is that Soviets cannot be the creation of a party or a government, they are spontaneous creations of the working class in the heat of struggle


I think that the question misses the point completely. Soviets are not something that are set by party decree on taking state power, but a product of the working class itself during its struggle.

The fact that there weren't soviets in China in the 1940s is indicative of the fact that there wasn't a workers' revolution there.

Devrim

Oh really? For all this fetish of soviets, the 1917 soviets and the German equivalent were formed by political parties. :rolleyes:

The fact that there wasn't a mass workers' party in China during the 1940s is indicative of the fact that there wasn't a workers' revolution there.

[Leo]

Oh really? For all this fetish of soviets, the 1917 soviets and the German equivalent were formed by political partiesUh... no they weren't. There were political parties active within them, but no political party itself formed the soviets, nor were they formed by a group of parties.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Uh... no they weren't. There were political parties active within them, but no political party itself formed the soviets, nor were they formed by a group of parties.

Russia: Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries ("Along with the other major Russian socialist party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks led the emerging network of Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik#1917_Revolution)")

[Even council anarcho-communists like Lamanov prefer the 1905 model to the 1917 one for this reason.]

Germany: SPD and USPD ("The Workers' and Soldiers' Councils were almost entirely made up of SPD and USPD members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319#Spread_of_rev olution_to_the_whole_Empire)")

[BobKKKindle$]

Russia: Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries ("Along with the other major Russian socialist party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks led the emerging network of Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik#1917_Revolution)")

[Even council anarcho-communists like Lamanov prefer the 1905 model to the 1917 one for this reason.]

Germany: SPD and USPD ("The Workers' and Soldiers' Councils were almost entirely made up of SPD and USPD members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319#Spread_of_rev olution_to_the_whole_Empire)")

None of what you posted shows that the Soviets in those countries were created by political parties, or that Soviets can ever be anything but the creation of the working class in struggle. The necessity of Soviets being spontaneously created and not bureaucratically imposed (the latter being what you endorse) is demonstrated by the failings of the Canton Soviet in 1927, which, according to Isaacs (in H.R. Isaacs, The Tragedy of the Chinese Revolution, London 1938) was created only four days before the insurrection that the CPC was planning to carry out as a last-ditch effort to take power after the April coup, with fifteen men being selected (not elected) at a secret meeting, nine of them representing the tiny groups of workers under Communist leadership or influence, three of them representing the cadets’ regiment, and three who were supposed to represent the peasants of Guangdong. When the Soviet was declared and the insurrection launched, "the great majority" of the workers and artisans of Canton did not participate, and no general strike call was issued, with only a few handfuls of chauffeurs, printers, rickshaw coolies and some others taking up arms in support of the Soviet, whilst railway workers and river sailors continued at their jobs, transporting troops to crush the uprising, and helping KMT officials flee the city.

[Die Neue Zeit]

It doesn't matter. The national-level coordination of more local soviets can only be done by political parties. The Comintern stated that soviets tantamounted to, at best, organizational fronts for political parties.

Even the farcical "social movements" of today, when they meet en masse (World Social Forum), are coordinated by political parties.

[BobKKKindle$]

It doesn't matter. The national-level coordination of more local soviets can only be done by political parties. The Comintern stated that soviets tantamounted to, at best, organizational fronts for political parties.

Even the farcical "social movements" of today, when they meet en masse (World Social Forum), are coordinated by political parties.

Coordination is not the same as creation. Of course political parties played a key role within the Soviets once they had come into being. Their creation, however, was an act of the working class - in fact, it is/was precisely because Soviets are bodies that encompass the whole of the working class and hence contain a mixture of ideas (in much the same way as trade unions) that organized intervention is/was necessary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's not the point I'm trying to make. Polemically speaking, you're on the ultra-left "spontaneity" side and I'm on the very, very pro-party side. The creation of workers-only political bodies (i.e., restricting "voting membership" to workers only) that are both proper political parties and proper social movements simultaneously (cultural societies, sports clubs, mutual aid organizations, etc.) is also an act of the working class itself (not of the Student Left and/or tred-iunionisty with token workers in leadership positions). Why the soviet redundancy, except as an ultra-left means to con the working class into taking power prematurely?

BTW, I am in the middle of a polemic with one Steve Wallis in a series of Weekly Worker letter exchanges on the question of soviets, if you are interesting in following the debate.

[BobKKKindle$]

the creation of workers-only political bodies (i.e., restricting "voting membership" to workers only) that are both proper political parties and proper social movements simultaneouslyThe creation of a revolutionary party is not an act of the whole of the working class in the same way as the creation of a Soviet, though, because the basic concept of a revolutionary party is premised on the recognition that there are different levels of consciousness within the working class and that in order to win the whole of the class over to a revolutionary position it is necessary for the most advanced workers to organize themselves, this organization being the revolutionary party, and to intervene in struggles and bodies that encompass the whole of the class, such as trade unions, and, under certain conditions, Soviets. In other words, the revolutionary party is the creation of only a segment of the working class, and is not a spontaneous creation, but an organization that is created with a specific aim in mind, namely the overthrow of capitalism. I don't think I'm "pro-spontaneity", it's just that, unlike you, I think that's it's important for a revolutionary party not to seek to substitute itself for the mass action of the working class, which means that its role is always going to be limited by the intensity and form of struggle at a given point in time. I don't think revolution was possible in China after April 1927, for example, which is why the CPC was wrong to launch insurrections in Canton and Nanchang, as well as the Autumn Harvest Rising - all of these attempts simply deepened the disintegration of the party because the working class was in no position to carry out a revolution after so many of its leading militants had been butchered by the KMT in Shanghai.


Why the soviet redundancy, except as a means to con the working class into taking power prematurely?I don't know what you mean here, sorry.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The creation of a revolutionary party is not an act of the whole of the working class in the same way as the creation of a Soviet, though, because the basic concept of a revolutionary party is premised on the recognition that there are different levels of consciousness within the working class and that in order to win the whole of the class over to a revolutionary position it is necessary for the most advanced workers to organize themselves

I guess your definition of "revolutionary party" differs from mine, then. Yes, initially, this workers-only party would be a minority, but in striving to become a mass party-movement that encompasses more of the class (which has become more and more conscious) and at least the majority of the class movement, the growth becomes more of an act of the working class itself.

The point is that the party and the movement should be as identical as possible, since the party should be "the revolutionary merger of Marxism and the worker-class movement," to paraphrase Kautsky.

By the way, local soviets don't encompass workers beyond their respective localities.


it's just that, unlike you, I think that's it's important for a revolutionary party not to seek to substitute itself for the mass action of the working class, which means that its role is always going to be limited by the intensity and form of struggle at a given point in time.

Your view is that the "revolutionary" sect should remain a minority of the class AND EVEN the class movement (part of the class), like the SDKPiL of Rosa Luxemburg. Obviously I don't share this view.

If for some reason the party-movement literally encompasses the vast majority of the class movement or even the class itself, one could hardly call its actions "substitutionist."


I don't know what you mean here, sorry.

It's from Mike Macnair's argument against the slogan "All Power to the Soviets" (feel free to join the Revolutionary Strategy usergroup) ;)

[ComradeOm]

Russia: Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries ("Along with the other major Russian socialist party, the Socialist Revolutionaries, the Mensheviks led the emerging network of Soviets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menshevik#1917_Revolution)")The Mensheviks did not "lead" in the development of the soviets. Its true that the Petrograd Soviet was reconstituted under Menshevik leadership but to assume that it was the latter that lay behind its creation is to ignore what Fitzpatrick calls "the scruffy throng of workers, soldiers, and sailors, who were tramping in and out to make speeches, eat, sleep, argue, and write proclamations". It was a similar story around the country and particularly in the district soviets in which amongst the parties only the Bolsheviks later took an interest in

Any anarchist dissatisfaction with this arrangement is more likely related to their relative insignificance in these worker bodies


Germany: SPD and USPD ("The Workers' and Soldiers' Councils were almost entirely made up of SPD and USPD members (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Revolution_of_1918%E2%80%9319#Spread_of_rev olution_to_the_whole_Empire)")Not true. One of the first worker councils established in Germany, for example, was formed from workers of the Daimler plant in Stuttgart. Similarly during this early period, the Halle council was established after radical sailors and workers explicitly ignored the motions of the local USPD branch. The pattern was generally repeated across Germany with local party offices lagging behind the popular momentum. See Broue

Which is not to say of course that worker activists were not heavily involved in the establishment of these councils; this is after all to be expected from the most militant of the working class. What is certainly false however is the idea that these councils "formed by political parties"

[BobKKKindle$]

Is the OP and/or heiss93 going to continue the discussion?