Ben Seattle
2nd April 2010, 16:54
Hi folks,
Here are some basic principles which will help us to better understand what workers' rule will be like following the overthrow of bourgeois rule--in particular as it relates to the need for the free flow of information and a possible short period of revolutionary martial law in difficult conditions. I used the word "socialism" in the title of this post, but I generally avoid that word (because it is understood in so many different and inaccurate ways) and advocate instead the use of the word proletarism (http://proletarism.com).
What follows below are excerpts from a polemic on my blog dealing with the "crisis of theory" that has paralyzed the revolutionary movement. The full post is here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=884. Readers who find this useful may also be interested in two related articles of mine: A scenario for the overthrow of bourgeois rule in the U.S. (http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_03_content.htm) and Politics, Economics & the Mass Media when the Working Class Runs the Show (http://struggle.net/ALDS/essay_153_content.htm).
I must warn readers with low-bandwidth connections that the excerpts below include a lot of graphics. I have reduced three of the graphics to quarter-size but a few hundred kilobytes remain. Low-bandwidth readers may wish to temporarily turn-off graphics in their browser to more easily read this post.
-- Ben
[...]
A losing struggle against the internet
The problem with Eric’s view of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is that a state which finds it necessary to suppress the right to speech and organization is a state that is afraid of the free flow of political opinion.
We can see how this works today in countries like Iran, China and North Korea, all of which are engaged in a struggle (hopeless in the long run) against the actions of the masses to make their views known and to organize in defense of their material interests.
Of course, Iran, China and North Korea are repressive societies with corrupt elites while the “DoP” (as Eric imagines it) is (supposedly) a totally different kind of society. But, if so, why must we picture this society (supposedly totally different) as being afraid of the free flow of information?
I have crystalized this contradiction in Eric’s thinking into a question I call the Joseph Green Evasionist Challenge. Here it is:
If the rule of the working class enjoys
the stable support of the majority of
society—then why would it need to
suppress the free flow of information?
[...]
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/fear_of_information_small.gif
To view fullsize click here:
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/fear_of_information.gif
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/internet_2008_small.gif
To view fullsize click here:
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/internet_2008.gif (http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/internet_2008.gif)
[...]
We must confront the ideological needs of activists.
Not fit for human consumption
The goal of the revolutionary and progressive movements in a country like the U.S. must be workers’ rule. Not workers’ rule in Russia 90 years ago—but workers’ rule in this country in this century.
This goal belongs at the center of our movement. With this goal, the revolutionary movement will be deserving of the attention of activists everywhere. Without this goal, there can be no revolutionary movement.
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/bow_and_arrow_small.gif
To view full-size click here:
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/bow_and_arrow.gif
And as long as this goal is identified with a society that is afraid of the free flow of information (ie: a police state) it is an idea that is not fit for human consumption.
[...]
(1) the nature of democratic rights under workers’ rule is
the most important theoretical question of our time and
(2) as a serious activist, you have the ability to contribute
to a decisive resolution to this most important of
all theoretical questions.
If I had this magic ability to rouse you from your slumber, I would draw your attention to two of the principles which are essential to understanding this theoretical question.
(1) The point where everything changes
The first of these essential principles is simple:
Following the overthrow of bourgeois rule, a point will come where everything changes. This will be a point where quantity changes into quality.
We see this in life all around us. When the temperature of water rises, for example, above 212 degrees farenheit, the water changes form from liquid to gas. In physics this is usually called a “phase transition”. In the arcane (and sometimes alienating) jargon of the cargo cults, this is called a “nodal point”. In more current language (related more to competition in the business world) it is often called a “tipping point” (after a recent popular book by that name). It doesn’t make any difference what we call it. It is a point where what comes after is different, in a big way, from what came before.
After the overthrow of bourgeois rule, the point will come when the revolutionary government enjoys the stable support of the majority of the working class and population.
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/point_of_change.gif
Before this point is reached, the revolutionary government is likely to be focused mainly on its survival.
After this point is reached, the rule of the working class will be secure and the focus will be on things like economic and social development and international assistance.
Before this point is reached, the revolutionary government will be in danger of being overthrown and may need to suppress (or limit) the basic democratic rights of speech and organization.
After this is point is reached, workers’ rule will be secure and there will be no need to suppress the free flow of information that will be essential for both: (1) economic development and (2) the process of drawing the working class and masses into running every sphere of public life (ie: culture, politics, economics, etc).
Note 1: It is possible that this point of change will come immediately, at the time when bourgeois rule is overthrown. This would be what we would hope for: that the revolutionary government enjoys stable popular support from the beginning. This situation would be far more likely if bourgeois rule is overthrown in more favorable conditions (ie: without a civil war or external war of a kind that destroys large amounts of necessary infrastructure and plunges large parts of the population into starvation and misery). But, for now, this is tangential to what we need to understand. We can simply conclude, for now, that the working class and masses make history, but not in conditions of their choosing.
Note 2: The graphic above is essentially a simplified version of the timeline (see below) that I created for my reply to you. You had complained that it was too complex, so made it easier to understand.
http://struggle.net/ben/2009/images/timeline_of_transition.gif
(2) Truth is always concrete
The second essential principle is that “truth is always concrete”. This is the most important principle that materialists use to understand anything.
This principle means that when we study anything, we must begin with the most concrete (ie: “lower”) material facts and, only after understanding these facts and factors (and how these factors influence one another; how the development of one factor conditions and determines the development of another, etc) will we be able to understand the more abstract (ie: “higher”) aspects of what we want to understand.
Some examples:
(1) In order to understand an ecosystem—you must understand many of the component species in it—and their interactions (ie: more foxes will lead to fewer rabbits, more rabbits lead to fewer of the plants that rabbits eat, etc).
(2) Similarly, in order to understand the life of a colony of bees, you must understand at least a little about an individual bee.
(3) A third example comes from biochemistry: before you can understand how a particular protein functions, you must understand key things about the smaller molecular groups or atoms that make up the protein (ie: some groups are attracted to polar molecules like water while some are repelled by polar molecules).
How does this principle apply to our study of democratic rights under workers’ rule?
In order to understand how the working class will run society after the overthrow of bourgeois rule—we must understand (ie: at a more “atomic” or concrete level) the democratic rights of individual workers. Just as their can be no colonies of bees without individual bees nor proteins without atoms—neither can the working class control everything in society if the individual workers do not have the right to free speech and organization.
This principle is more clear if we look at an intermediate level between concrete and abstract: the large number of independent organizations that will exist under workers’ rule.
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/tiers.gif
These independent organizations will be the means by which the workers self-organize and focus public opinion and social resources on problems to be solved in the spheres of politics, economics, culture and technology.
Independent organizations cannot exist
without free speech rights
These independent organizations will not be able to exist if workers do not have the right to create them or if the “revolutionary government” is afraid of the free flow of information and attempts to suppress this free flow.
The reason for this is simple: oppositional politics will always (ie: “automatically”) flow into and find expression through the vehicle of independent organizations in conditions where “political space” does not exist where it can express itself more directly.
It therefore follows from this, as night follows day, that the need to suppress oppositional politics inevitably leads to the need to suppress all independent organizations.
This is why, for example, the Soviet government was compelled to suppress independent organizations in the early 1920’s (ie: after the civil war and in the period in which Lenin was alive). This also appears to be why the corrupt Chinese state was compelled to suppress the Falun Gong (ie: what started as a somewhat apolitical organization centered on healthy exercize became a conduit for oppositional politics because it was one of the few independent organizations that was allowed to exist).
Here are some basic principles which will help us to better understand what workers' rule will be like following the overthrow of bourgeois rule--in particular as it relates to the need for the free flow of information and a possible short period of revolutionary martial law in difficult conditions. I used the word "socialism" in the title of this post, but I generally avoid that word (because it is understood in so many different and inaccurate ways) and advocate instead the use of the word proletarism (http://proletarism.com).
What follows below are excerpts from a polemic on my blog dealing with the "crisis of theory" that has paralyzed the revolutionary movement. The full post is here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=884. Readers who find this useful may also be interested in two related articles of mine: A scenario for the overthrow of bourgeois rule in the U.S. (http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_03_content.htm) and Politics, Economics & the Mass Media when the Working Class Runs the Show (http://struggle.net/ALDS/essay_153_content.htm).
I must warn readers with low-bandwidth connections that the excerpts below include a lot of graphics. I have reduced three of the graphics to quarter-size but a few hundred kilobytes remain. Low-bandwidth readers may wish to temporarily turn-off graphics in their browser to more easily read this post.
-- Ben
[...]
A losing struggle against the internet
The problem with Eric’s view of the “dictatorship of the proletariat” is that a state which finds it necessary to suppress the right to speech and organization is a state that is afraid of the free flow of political opinion.
We can see how this works today in countries like Iran, China and North Korea, all of which are engaged in a struggle (hopeless in the long run) against the actions of the masses to make their views known and to organize in defense of their material interests.
Of course, Iran, China and North Korea are repressive societies with corrupt elites while the “DoP” (as Eric imagines it) is (supposedly) a totally different kind of society. But, if so, why must we picture this society (supposedly totally different) as being afraid of the free flow of information?
I have crystalized this contradiction in Eric’s thinking into a question I call the Joseph Green Evasionist Challenge. Here it is:
If the rule of the working class enjoys
the stable support of the majority of
society—then why would it need to
suppress the free flow of information?
[...]
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/fear_of_information_small.gif
To view fullsize click here:
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/fear_of_information.gif
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/internet_2008_small.gif
To view fullsize click here:
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/internet_2008.gif (http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/internet_2008.gif)
[...]
We must confront the ideological needs of activists.
Not fit for human consumption
The goal of the revolutionary and progressive movements in a country like the U.S. must be workers’ rule. Not workers’ rule in Russia 90 years ago—but workers’ rule in this country in this century.
This goal belongs at the center of our movement. With this goal, the revolutionary movement will be deserving of the attention of activists everywhere. Without this goal, there can be no revolutionary movement.
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/bow_and_arrow_small.gif
To view full-size click here:
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/bow_and_arrow.gif
And as long as this goal is identified with a society that is afraid of the free flow of information (ie: a police state) it is an idea that is not fit for human consumption.
[...]
(1) the nature of democratic rights under workers’ rule is
the most important theoretical question of our time and
(2) as a serious activist, you have the ability to contribute
to a decisive resolution to this most important of
all theoretical questions.
If I had this magic ability to rouse you from your slumber, I would draw your attention to two of the principles which are essential to understanding this theoretical question.
(1) The point where everything changes
The first of these essential principles is simple:
Following the overthrow of bourgeois rule, a point will come where everything changes. This will be a point where quantity changes into quality.
We see this in life all around us. When the temperature of water rises, for example, above 212 degrees farenheit, the water changes form from liquid to gas. In physics this is usually called a “phase transition”. In the arcane (and sometimes alienating) jargon of the cargo cults, this is called a “nodal point”. In more current language (related more to competition in the business world) it is often called a “tipping point” (after a recent popular book by that name). It doesn’t make any difference what we call it. It is a point where what comes after is different, in a big way, from what came before.
After the overthrow of bourgeois rule, the point will come when the revolutionary government enjoys the stable support of the majority of the working class and population.
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/point_of_change.gif
Before this point is reached, the revolutionary government is likely to be focused mainly on its survival.
After this point is reached, the rule of the working class will be secure and the focus will be on things like economic and social development and international assistance.
Before this point is reached, the revolutionary government will be in danger of being overthrown and may need to suppress (or limit) the basic democratic rights of speech and organization.
After this is point is reached, workers’ rule will be secure and there will be no need to suppress the free flow of information that will be essential for both: (1) economic development and (2) the process of drawing the working class and masses into running every sphere of public life (ie: culture, politics, economics, etc).
Note 1: It is possible that this point of change will come immediately, at the time when bourgeois rule is overthrown. This would be what we would hope for: that the revolutionary government enjoys stable popular support from the beginning. This situation would be far more likely if bourgeois rule is overthrown in more favorable conditions (ie: without a civil war or external war of a kind that destroys large amounts of necessary infrastructure and plunges large parts of the population into starvation and misery). But, for now, this is tangential to what we need to understand. We can simply conclude, for now, that the working class and masses make history, but not in conditions of their choosing.
Note 2: The graphic above is essentially a simplified version of the timeline (see below) that I created for my reply to you. You had complained that it was too complex, so made it easier to understand.
http://struggle.net/ben/2009/images/timeline_of_transition.gif
(2) Truth is always concrete
The second essential principle is that “truth is always concrete”. This is the most important principle that materialists use to understand anything.
This principle means that when we study anything, we must begin with the most concrete (ie: “lower”) material facts and, only after understanding these facts and factors (and how these factors influence one another; how the development of one factor conditions and determines the development of another, etc) will we be able to understand the more abstract (ie: “higher”) aspects of what we want to understand.
Some examples:
(1) In order to understand an ecosystem—you must understand many of the component species in it—and their interactions (ie: more foxes will lead to fewer rabbits, more rabbits lead to fewer of the plants that rabbits eat, etc).
(2) Similarly, in order to understand the life of a colony of bees, you must understand at least a little about an individual bee.
(3) A third example comes from biochemistry: before you can understand how a particular protein functions, you must understand key things about the smaller molecular groups or atoms that make up the protein (ie: some groups are attracted to polar molecules like water while some are repelled by polar molecules).
How does this principle apply to our study of democratic rights under workers’ rule?
In order to understand how the working class will run society after the overthrow of bourgeois rule—we must understand (ie: at a more “atomic” or concrete level) the democratic rights of individual workers. Just as their can be no colonies of bees without individual bees nor proteins without atoms—neither can the working class control everything in society if the individual workers do not have the right to free speech and organization.
This principle is more clear if we look at an intermediate level between concrete and abstract: the large number of independent organizations that will exist under workers’ rule.
http://struggle.net/ben/2010/images/tiers.gif
These independent organizations will be the means by which the workers self-organize and focus public opinion and social resources on problems to be solved in the spheres of politics, economics, culture and technology.
Independent organizations cannot exist
without free speech rights
These independent organizations will not be able to exist if workers do not have the right to create them or if the “revolutionary government” is afraid of the free flow of information and attempts to suppress this free flow.
The reason for this is simple: oppositional politics will always (ie: “automatically”) flow into and find expression through the vehicle of independent organizations in conditions where “political space” does not exist where it can express itself more directly.
It therefore follows from this, as night follows day, that the need to suppress oppositional politics inevitably leads to the need to suppress all independent organizations.
This is why, for example, the Soviet government was compelled to suppress independent organizations in the early 1920’s (ie: after the civil war and in the period in which Lenin was alive). This also appears to be why the corrupt Chinese state was compelled to suppress the Falun Gong (ie: what started as a somewhat apolitical organization centered on healthy exercize became a conduit for oppositional politics because it was one of the few independent organizations that was allowed to exist).