Succesful Anarchism is a State!

[ContrarianLemming]

I don't know If you've ever gotton this before yourself, but more "mainstream" folks like libruls and cons give this critcism to me a good bit

Basically it goes like this, in explaining a what a succesful anarchist society would like like i usually get into the "Confederation of councils and delegates" the "charter" the "National congress of delegates" for the confeeration" and the "Confederal Militia" coordinated by the locals.
To which i receive the reply; "Well that sounds an awful lot like a state!"

any help?

[revolution inaction]

a state is a hiararciacly set of organisations which enforces the rule of a minority over the population, not simply any large scale organisation.

[bricolage]

I think a lot of it gets down to semantics and the number of varying ways that state can be defined. To be honest I'm not really concerned whether people want to call something a state or call it something else. It is what it is.

[ContrarianLemming]

a state is a hiararciacly set of organisations which enforces the rule of a minority over the population, not simply any large scale organisation.

What Mass Media loving patriotic american is going to accept that though? I agree with it, but I'd like a better way to convince em

[#FF0000]

I don't know If you've ever gotton this before yourself, but more "mainstream" folks like libruls and cons give this critcism to me a good bit

Basically it goes like this, in explaining a what a succesful anarchist society would like like i usually get into the "Confederation of councils and delegates" the "charter" the "National congress of delegates" for the confeeration" and the "Confederal Militia" coordinated by the locals.
To which i receive the reply; "Well that sounds an awful lot like a state!"

any help?

IMO, it is a state and arguing otherwise is just semantics, which is why I'm not an anarchist anymore.

But the anarchist answer is that it is not a state because it is not hierarchical.

[ContrarianLemming]

IMO, it is a state and arguing otherwise is just semantics, which is why I'm not an anarchist anymore.

But the anarchist answer is that it is not a state because it is not hierarchical.

You stopped being an anarhcist for semantics?

[RebelDog]

IMO, it is a state and arguing otherwise is just semantics, which is why I'm not an anarchist anymore.

But the anarchist answer is that it is not a state because it is not hierarchical.

One can argue anything is semantics. Its not heirarchical and it also does not enforce class-rule. If there are no classes then there is no state. We need workers militias to ensure there can be no return to a class-society and to control anti-social elements. That is not a state, its the producers and communities protecting themselves and their right to freely organise, control and participate in production, distribution and community life.

[GPDP]

IMO, it is a state and arguing otherwise is just semantics, which is why I'm not an anarchist anymore.

But the anarchist answer is that it is not a state because it is not hierarchical.

I think the better term would be "government" rather than state. If it does not enforce class rule and does not serve the interests of a hierarchical minority, then it's not a state. If it is still an organ for the administration of society, however, it would still constitute a government, and contesting that is, IMO, arguing over semantics.

[Raightning]

The best anarchist answer to give is that a state is an artificial construct that derives its power from controlling those below it; anarchist government is an entirely organic one that derives all power from below. It is of and for the people, not over them.

More specifically, in a capitalist society, the state can derive its power from itself - the most blatant example of this are defence and intelligence 'services'. It is not transparent nor accountable. In anarchism, all 'governing' bodies derive their power from the people and the people alone. They are entirely amalgamated with society; a state is not.

[Black Sheep]

Marxists and anarchists define the state differently.
The thread's title is correct, if you use the word 'state' in the marxist sense.

[Jimmie Higgins]

One can argue anything is semantics. Its not heirarchical and it also does not enforce class-rule. ... We need workers militias to ensure there can be no return to a class-society and to control anti-social elements.You are contradicting yourself here. Militias to to ensure that there is no return pf a minority ruling class is enforcing class-rule - just the class rule of the majority class.


That is not a state, its the producers and communities protecting themselves and their right to freely organise, control and participate in production, distribution and community life.Again, this is one class enforcing its will on all of society and therefore the Marxist definition of a state.


If there are no classes then there is no state.Agreed.

[Bonobo1917]

I've been thinking about this a lot, and yes, such a structure has ELEMENTS of what a state usually does: make regutions for society, and enforcing them. That is, the structure exercises state power, in a sense.

Still, here we see the people making regulations for themselves, together. People are not ruled, they rule themselves. So that characteristic of any state - enforcing rules upon society, from above, in the interest ofa ruling minirity - is lacking. This is what makes it different from a state. 'State power' and state are NOT entirely synonymous, I think.

One might say: this federation of workers' councils etcetera, this "Commune of Communes" as I have seen it described, exercises the power usually exrcised by staten; but, becuase it is non-hierarhical and not exexercising the rule of a minority class over (a)n exploited majority class(es), it is a form of governance - a self-governing structure -that is NOT itself a state. Am I making any sense whatsoever? :cool:

[Jimmie Higgins]

If a state is simply an administrative organ with a top-down hierarchy, then are corporations and the military states within nation-states?

[#FF0000]

One can argue anything is semantics. Its not heirarchical and it also does not enforce class-rule. If there are no classes then there is no state. We need workers militias to ensure there can be no return to a class-society and to control anti-social elements. That is not a state, its the producers and communities protecting themselves and their right to freely organise, control and participate in production, distribution and community life.

That's strange because that sounds exactly like a state enforcing class rule, minus the hierarchical thing, which I don't believe can work unless you're operating on nothing but 100% consensus.

[#FF0000]

If a state is simply an administrative organ with a top-down hierarchy, then are corporations and the military states within nation-states?

No. States have militaries.

[Jimmie Higgins]

No. States have militaries.Yes, it was a rhetorical question. If hierarchy, not class is the determining factor of "state-hood" then a boarding school could be a mini-state, a corporation is a mini-state and so on.

I've been up all night, so it made sense to me, but maybe it doesn't make sense or maybe (most likely) I'm not understanding how people are defining a non-Marxian understanding of a state in this thread.

As I think of it, anarchy/communism is not a state because the working class has previously been able to take power and abolish class differences and therefore the basis of states.

[GPDP]

Yes, it was a rhetorical question. If hierarchy, not class is the determining factor of "state-hood" then a boarding school could be a mini-state, a corporation is a mini-state and so on.

I've been up all night, so it made sense to me, but maybe it doesn't make sense or maybe (most likely) I'm not understanding how people are defining a non-Marxian understanding of a state in this thread.

I'm of the understanding that anarchists usually employ a more or less Weberian view of the state as an entity holding a monopoly on violent force within a given geographical area.

[revolution inaction]

You are contradicting yourself here. Militias to to ensure that there is no return pf a minority ruling class is enforcing class-rule - just the class rule of the majority class.
.
no because in a anarchist society there are no classes.

[Zanthorus]

Well it's a form of government yes. It's not a form of state though, at least not a state as defined by the classical anarchists:


The State is the external constitution of the social power.

By this external constitution of its power and sovereignty, the people does not govern itself; now one individual, now several, by a title either elective or hereditary, are charged with governing it, with managing its affairs, with negotiating and compromising in its name; in a word, with performing all the acts of a father of a family, a guardian, a manager, or a proxy, furnished with a general, absolute, and irrevocable power of attorney.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/pjproudhon/resistance-to-the-revolution


The State is, as I have said, a voracious abstraction of the life of the people; but in order for an abstraction to come into being, develop and continue to exist in the real world, there must be a real collective body interested in its existence. This cannot be the great mass of the people, since they are precisely its victims; it must be a privileged body, the sacerdotal body of the State, the governing and political class that is to the State what the sacerdotal class of religion, the priesthood, is to the Church.

And what do we really see in all of history? The State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class, whether sacerdotal, noble, or bourgeois, and, in the end, when all the other classes have been used up, of a bureaucratic class. The State descends or rises up, depending upon how you look at it, into the condition of a machine. It is absolutely necessary for its welfare that there be some privileged class interested in its existence.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bakunin/works/1869/program-letters.htm


Let us, first of all, be agreed as to what we.wish to include by the term `the State'.

There is, of course, the German school which takes pleasure in confusing State with Society. This confusion is to be found among the best German thinkers and many of the French who cannot visualize Society without a concentration of the State; and it is for this reason that anarchists are generally upbraided for wanting to destroy society' and of advocating a return to `the permanent war of each against all'.

However to argue in this way is to overlook altogether the advances made in the domain of history in the past thirty or so years; it is to overlook the fact that Man lived in Societies for thousands of years before the State had been heard of. It is to forget that so far as Europe is concerned the State is of recent origin - it barely goes back to the sixteenth century; and finally, it is to ignore that the most glorious periods in Man's history are those in which civil liberties and communal life had not yet been destroyed by the State, and in which large numbers of people lived in communes and free federations.

The State is only one of the forms assumed by society in the course of history. Why then make no distinction between what is permanent and what is accidental?

On the other hand the State has also been confused with Government. Since there can be no State without government, it has sometimes been said that what one must aim at is the absence of government and not the abolition of the State.

However, it seems to me that State and government are two concepts of a different order. The State idea means something quite different from the idea of government. It not only includes the existence of a power situated above society, but also of a territorial concentration as well as the concentration in the hands of a few of many functions in the life of societies. It implies some new relationships between members of society which did not exist before the formation of the State. A whole mechanism of legislation and of policing has to be developed in order to subject some classes to the domination of others.

http://libcom.org/library/state-its-historic-role-1-peter-kropotkin

Democratic forms of popular self-governance are compatible with the anarchist definition of state. We can argue wether this is the "correct" definition of a "state" however to use another definition and try to argue against anarchism from that position for being inconsistent would be a strawman.

EDIT:


I'm of the understanding that anarchists usually employ a more or less Weberian view of the state as an entity holding a monopoly on violent force within a given geographical area.

Well I don't. I think the state is an institution of power situated above society which allows elites to order that society and the expense of the general populus. Corporations are just as much a part of the state as the congress and senate and "anarcho"-capitalism which abolishes the weberian monopoly on force style state just instigates a new more brutal form of state.

[revolution inaction]

I think the better term would be "government" rather than state. If it does not enforce class rule and does not serve the interests of a hierarchical minority, then it's not a state. If it is still an organ for the administration of society, however, it would still constitute a government, and contesting that is, IMO, arguing over semantics.

i would't call it a govenment because i think a government is something that rules over people, not a system for people to coordinad between them selves. although it probeble doesn't matter

[GPDP]

i would't call it a govenment because i think a government is something that rules over people, not a system for people to coordinad between them selves. although it probeble doesn't matter

Alright, then, how about democratic governance? That seems to be a more palatable word.

Actually, let's stop this before I start feeling like Jacob Richter.

[Jimmie Higgins]

no because in a anarchist society there are no classes.Then whose interests is the militia protecting - and from what opposing interests?

If there are no classes, then there is anarchy/communism; and so no class antagonism means no need for one class to protect and maintain their order of society (workers or bosses order). Anarchy won't need a militia to protect the new set-up of society because there wouldn't be people with opposing class interests trying to undo that social arrangement.

[Zanthorus]

Then whose interests is the militia protecting - and from what opposing interests?

Er, it's protecting the interests of people who don't like being stabbed to death by people with pschological problems from those who like stabbing people to death because they have pscyhological problems.

I hope you don't actually think that all crime is committed because of material interests.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think as Barabbas said a lot of these arguments are to do with semantics. We do believe in forms of government and I don't really care what you call it. We are Anarchists because we want workers control of the means of production and decentralised power whereby we will have federations of autonomous workers councils representing each community/borough/region.

[syndicat]

Usually liberals and Right-libertarians use Weber's concept of a state: the institution that has a monopoly on the use of legitimate violence in a territory. Anarchists can't accept this definition or they will be self-contradictory. Marxists usually do not accept the Weber definition either but sometimes they do...there is no one "Marxist concept of the state" because Marxists say different things and use different criteria on different occasions, as far as I can see.

However, if we look at what Engels says in "The Origin of Private Property, Family and the State", what he says there is also said by many social anarchists. He says that the state is an apparatus of social control that rules over society and has been separated out from control by the mass of the people. He says this type of governance system arose in response to the emergence of class society. That's because if governance were performed or controlled directly by the people, as it would be in tribal society, there would be nothing to protect the wealth and exploitative practices of the dominating classes.

So this means that there is a more general concept that state, which we can call governance. This is the making and enforcing of the basic rules in a society and adjudicating or solving disputes between members of society. No society is viable without governance in this sense.

The state is a particular historical form of governance institution. Within the sphere of social governance it concentrates decision-making authiority and knowledge into the hands of a few, that is, it is a hierarchical institution. It's not hierarchy per se that makes it a state but being a hierarchical form of governance, that is, an institution for governance separate from direct popular control.

The state is also inherently an institution for the benefit of a dominating and exploiting class. The state bureaucracy is itself a key location of the bureaucratic class, and the massive growth of the state in the corporate era of capitalism has also beefed up the size of the bureaucratic class.

Hence since the state is inherently an institution of dominating and exploiting classes, it's not possible for it to be wielded by the working class. This is where the disagreement with Marxism comes in.

So, let's consider the form of governance advocated by social anarchism and syndicalism. This would mean that the working class had seized the means of production and were instituting worker self-management in social production, and to consolidate their evicting the dominating classes, they also must create institutions of overall social self-management, that is, institutions of governance. Again, by governance I mean institutions through which the people make and enforce the rules and settle disputes in society. In a libertarian socialist society the governance system would be based on the base assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces, and the elected delegate or coordinating committees there, and then there would be federal organizations for governance over larger territories, such as a federation throughout a city, a region, a nation, and these federations would have their congresses or conferences of delegates and elect coordinating committees, and for defense of the revolutionary social order would have a militia under the tight control of the mass direct democracy of the population.

So the question is whether this is a state. Now, it's not a hierarchical form of governance. There is no bureaucratic apparatus. All workplaces are run by the workers...including the various public services, such as post office, schools, health services etc.

It's true that this structure of social self-management, of self-governance, would have coercive powers. If people tried to reinstitute wage slavery, they could be forcibly prevented, as doing that would be illegal.

Marxists sometimes argue that it is the ability of the governance institution to engage in coercion that makes it a state. This is confusionist. That's because even in a tribal society where, according to Engels there is no state, they would have means of coercion. Someone who was a regular violator of their rules could be banished or physically punished.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Er, it's protecting the interests of people who don't like being stabbed to death by people with pschological problems from those who like stabbing people to death because they have pscyhological problems.

I hope you don't actually think that all crime is committed because of material interests.I think that workers will figure out a better way to deal with anti-social or unstable individuals than to have a fucking militia to deal with them! How is a militia supposed to stop random violent acts? Posts at every bar and every housing complex and neighborhood street? That's a police state, and I don't think that's what workers fighting for communism/anarchy would want to set up.

I hope you don't think the role of cops and the military in capitalism is anything other than an organized force to protect ruling class interests and capitalist society.

If workers feel the need to have a militia to defend the post-revolutionary order, then the function of that force is to enforce the class will of the new working class order over society: so it's the dictatorship of the proletariat. When class antagonisms are gone, there would be no need to defend the order of society from class interests opposed to that society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It's true that this structure of social self-management, of self-governance, would have coercive powers. If people tried to reinstitute wage slavery, they could be forcibly prevented, as doing that would be illegal.

Marxists sometimes argue that it is the ability of the governance institution to engage in coercion that makes it a state. This is confusionist. That's because even in a tribal society where, according to Engels there is no state, they would have means of coercion. Someone who was a regular violator of their rules could be banished or physically punished.It's not the use of coercive force, it's the projection of one set of class interests onto the rest of society - so this includes repressive forces of the state like cops and the military as well as the more subtle ways the ruling class projects its hegemony like establishment churches and universities.

In pre-class society communism coercion is not used to enforce one particular set of class interests over a different class interest because there are no meaningful class differences. It would be the will of the majority over an individual or based on what's best for the tribe, not the rulers of the tribe or the social structure of the tribe. In all class-societies, the state is used to enforce/justify/project the particular structure of society. So in feudalism, caste was rigidly enforced to keep that class order stable, in capitalism cops and the legal system are there to maintain private property and the order of the system.


Hence since the state is inherently an institution of dominating and exploiting classes, it's not possible for it to be wielded by the working class. This is where the disagreement with Marxism comes in.But what you describe below is exactly what I would call the Dictatorship of the proletariet:

So, let's consider the form of governance advocated by social anarchism and syndicalism. This would mean that the working class had seized the means of production and were instituting worker self-management in social production, and to consolidate their evicting the dominating classes, they also must create institutions of overall social self-management, that is, institutions of governance. Again, by governance I mean institutions through which the people make and enforce the rules and settle disputes in society. In a libertarian socialist society the governance system would be based on the base assemblies in neighborhoods and workplaces, and the elected delegate or coordinating committees there, and then there would be federal organizations for governance over larger territories, such as a federation throughout a city, a region, a nation, and these federations would have their congresses or conferences of delegates and elect coordinating committees, and for defense of the revolutionary social order would have a militia under the tight control of the mass direct democracy of the population.This is not much different than what Lenin talked about (defending the anarchist arguments and arguing against the reformist view) in State and Revolution.

So I don't really think there is that much difference between post-revolution society as you describe it and I see it. So I think it is largely a semantic argument. The real differences between "revolution from below" marxists and anarchists is how do we get there - i.e. the question of party.

[syndicat]

It's not the use of coercive force, it's the projection of one set of class interests onto the rest of society - so this includes repressive forces of the state like cops and the military as well as the more subtle ways the ruling class projects its hegemony like establishment churches and universities.



I don't think that is sufficient for a governance structure to be a state. I would say it has to be a hierarchical apparatus, apart from mass control.

In any event, in the sort of structure of social self-management I described, there would no longer be a division of society into separate classes, because the revolutionary process eliminates the ownership of the capitalists, eliminates the managerial hierarchies of the corporations and the state.

I suppose you could say that it is the working class that drives the process of transformation, and thus projects its class interests through the new power it has achieved.

But a process isn't an ongoing institution. And a state isn't a process but an institution.

[syndicat]

This is not much different than what Lenin talked about (defending the anarchist arguments and arguing against the reformist view) in State and Revolution.


I would have to disagree. In "State and Revolution" Lenin gave the German post office -- a bureaucratic, hierarchical institution -- as a model for socialism. In fact he says nothing in that book about how workplaces would be run...including in the public services.

In "Before Stalinism" Sam Farber points out that Russian Marxism, in both its Menshevik and Bolshevik forms, never put any emphasis on actual participation in decision making by ordinary working class people. Their focus was on elections to government and especially control of the central government.

You can see this in the argument that Trotsky used to defend both top down management of the Red Army by czarist officers and also one-man management in industry. He said the "workers state" was workers power by analogy with a trade union: Just as electing the leaders is workers power so the election of the Bolsheviks in the soviet elections in fall 1917 is "workers power." This means that, like the Mensheviks, he saw no need for worker meetings to run unions. In fact the Russian unions were highly centralized, with power in the national executive committees.

It seems to me quite clear from actual behavior from Oct 1917 on into 1918 that the Bolshevik leaders certainly did NOT share the same idea as the libertarian socialists. They did in fact have in mind building a hierarchical apparatus...because that's exactly what they did, beginning with the setting up the Supreme Council for National Economy to manage the whole Russian economy top down in Nov 1917.

The fundamental differences between the libertarian socialists and Leninism were brought out clearly all along the line in practice during the Russian revolution. In the big city soviets set up by the Mensheviks, as in St Petersburg and Moscow, power was concentrated in a small group at the top, and the plenaries of delegates were treated as a rubber stamp, a mere talking shop. The Bolsheviks simply took over the centralized structure of soviets once they got control in fall of 1917. By comparison, the Kronstadt Soviet, as described in detail by Israel Getzler in "Kronstadt 1917-21", the rank and file delegates were really in control, and did the actual discussions and decision-making. The executive commmittee merely carried out their instructions. And in Kronstadt the libertarian Left was in control, the Bolsheviks were in opposition.

The contrast was brought again at the First All-Russian Trade Union Congress in Jan 1918 when the libertarian socialist delegates backed the proposal of the shop committee movement for a national shop committee congress to plan and coordinate the Russian economy from below. This was opposed by both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and thus defeated. The Bolsheviks preferred the topdown, statist approach of the Supreme Council for National Economy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But a process isn't an ongoing institution. And a state isn't a process but an institution.

The capitalist state disproves this - it comes in many forms and has changed greatly as the needs of the ruling class has changed. Unlike a "socialist state" run by workers, the capitalists have increased the size of the state and the beurocracy over time. Police forces are and invention of the industrial era for example.

I don't think it's governance alone that makes something a state it's the projection of class interests. So immediately after the revolution would be the time when "a state" would need to be developed by workers to handle the changes in society and protect itself from a USSR style internal-counter-revolution, external counter-revolution from the old ruling class, or other threats to worker's power. Since it's a majority class, it's not in working class interests to have a beurocratic arm that is seperate from people (Capitalism needs this because it needs a layer of protection from popular demands).

And so once workers have established their rule there will be less need for state-functions. This is most obvious in terms of a militia or whatever to protect from immediate counter-revolution. Obviously, once workers have a firm grasp on production, then this threat becomes less of a factor and the militia is not needed. But this goes for all sorts of administrative tasks as well which would be needed by workers at first, but less needed as class differences are eliminated.

[syndicat]

I don't think it's governance alone that makes something a state it's the projection of class interests.

I didn't say "governance alone" makes for a state. I think I was very clear in stating that under pre-class tribal societies there was governance but no state. To repeat the point that you overlook: A state has to be a form of governance that is based on hierarchical structures where decision-making and expertise are concentrated into minorities, who then issue orders through their managerial chains of command. This bureaucratic structure is required in order to separate control of governance from the masses.


And so once workers have established their rule there will be less need for state-functions. This is most obvious in terms of a militia or whatever to protect from immediate counter-revolution. Obviously, once workers have a firm grasp on production, then this threat becomes less of a factor and the militia is not needed. But this goes for all sorts of administrative tasks as well which would be needed by workers at first, but less needed as class differences are eliminated.

First of all, the democratically controlled militia that the worker mass organizations create in a revolutionary situation is not a "state function." Having a means to defeat armed gangs and external enemies is a governance function. But governance isn't necessarly through a state, and isn't thru a state if it's direct social self-management by the working class majority in a situation of revolutionary transition.

What "administrative functions" are going to be "needed at first" and later not needed? I can't see any basis for asserting this. If you create bureaucratic, administrative layers, like the Russian state bureaucracy created under the Bolshevik regime, you're creating the basis of a new bureaucratic class. And, as a Marxist, you should know that no dominating class gives up its power voluntarily.

Workers "having a grasp on production" is itself one of the very first revolutionary tasks, and has to be created directly by workers, taking over en masse the means of production, and evicting the old managerial bureaucracy. This has to be part and parcel of creating a socialist system. You don't have an authentic proletarian revolution without this.

[ContrarianLemming]

hats off to syndicat, fantastic, all good responses.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I would have to disagree. In "State and Revolution" Lenin gave the German post office -- a bureaucratic, hierarchical institution -- as a model for socialism. In fact he says nothing in that book about how workplaces would be run...including in the public services.I guess that's why they book is called "State and Revolution" and not "Production and Revolution".

In other words, you're changing the subject: we are talking about "governance". I was not saying how WORKPLACES should be run, taking over production and soviets and other councils are a given, I thought you understood this. "State and Revolution" is about governance and so keeping the "administration" and "governance" positions subordinate to the workers is one of the major points of the book. And in this respect, the argument you were making is essentially the same as the one made by Lenin except he calls this "proletarian democracy" as opposed to "bourgeois democracy" and he says this is a "state" whereas you call this "governance"

Also it's disingenuous to say that a German post-office is what Lenin was saying socialism would be like out of context. He was taking an anti-socialist jibe and flipping it. If I remember correctly, he says something like: "A smarmy critic once said that socialism would be like the post office". His point was not that the post-office is socialist in that it is a top down government run system, but that it is a coordinated centralized effort - a branch of a mauch larger system. He says monopoly is making all businesses like this (and it has) and coordinating things would be one of the early tasks of a worker-run society.

Considering that he spent previous chapters talking about keeping representatives tied to the working class and not above it (instant recall of officials, workingman's wages for officials, and representatives, transparent decision-making, and reducing administrative tasks to carrying out democratic will of workers) I don't think he was arguing that the post-office as it stands in social relations is "socialism".


It seems to me quite clear from actual behavior from Oct 1917 on into 1918 that the Bolshevik leaders certainly did NOT share the same idea as the libertarian socialists. They did in fact have in mind building a hierarchical apparatus...because that's exactly what they did, beginning with the setting up the Supreme Council for National Economy to manage the whole Russian economy top down in Nov 1917.Are we talking about theory or about a failed revolution? We both know that socialism failed in Russia and so to use theory when it's convenient and then switch to the failures of the Russian revolution is not productive to this discussion. If you wish to start another thread on how and why you think he Russian Revolution failed, then please do so.

Your argument is like saying I have a theory for an airship that flies perfectly - jets crash, so jets can't fly as well as my airship.


The contrast was brought again at the First All-Russian Trade Union Congress in Jan 1918 when the libertarian socialist delegates backed the proposal of the shop committee movement for a national shop committee congress to plan and coordinate the Russian economy from below. This was opposed by both Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, and thus defeated. The Bolsheviks preferred the topdown, statist approach of the Supreme Council for National Economy.If you want to talk about central-planning vs decentralized, fine. I think that this is more or less necessary based on the economy. A lot more things have been centralized now by trends in capitalism and so I don't think workers in a future revolution will need to create as much coordination in industries as Lenin thought that Russian workers needed. But if centralization is democratically done and representatives are accountable, then I support centralization in the economy as the best way to collectively make decisions on production.

But all of this is way beyond the main point: governance done in the interests of protecting or setting up a society in the interests of the working class, in marxist terms, is a state. It can be centralized or decentralized, it can use worker's representatives (re-callable and accountable) or it can use mass voting or some other way for workers to make decisions. I think workers will set up various models depending on what the conditions of their industry or region are, but the end result is the same: workers projecting their interests onto the rest of society.

Again, i think a semantic argument is being made: "governance" or the "state" is not important - worker's power is. The main difference between people in my traddition and people who are thinking about this along your lines is how do we get to that point. I'm a "Leninist" because I think that organizing revolutionaries is the most effective way to get there, but on the issue of governance, we essentially agree, just not on the name.

[Agnapostate]

Anarchism is a reasonably well-defined ideology, but not one with substantial academic literature behind it. Most people will drag in their misconceptions if you use more "alarming" rhetoric. Speaking of overthrowing the state and living in "an anarchist society" will inevitably conjure images of chaos and disorder, and bring in contentions that everything will collapse...if there's anything that even exists in such conditions to begin with.

Yet speaking of "decentralizing our political structure more" and "transferring many federal and corporate powers to grassroots assemblies" is fully compatible with the other statement, yet will often draw agreement! It's all about semantics.

[Jimmie Higgins]

What "administrative functions" are going to be "needed at first" and later not needed? I can't see any basis for asserting this.Are there currently enough schools in rural New Mexico? Are there enough Hospitals in central LA (none, since they all closed while I was still living in LA). What about transportation - won't workers have to make big decisions about planning hosing an transportation and industry based on their needs rather than the demands of capital or a beurorcacy?

Hmm, so workers are going to need special positions empowered to try and make up for a low of the inequalities of capitalism at first, but as the new order of society takes hold, these kinds of decisions require less effort on the parts of workers and so many of these decisions can be made based on projected future needs rather than immediate needs right after the revolution.

In order to make sure that these administrative positions do not become the basis for a new unaccountable again, it takes worker's democracy - a state (or system of governance as you call it) set up to protect the majority rule system and prevents capitalists from coming back or bureaucrats eroding worker's power from inside.


If you create bureaucratic, administrative layers, like the Russian state bureaucracy created under the Bolshevik regime, you're creating the basis of a new bureaucratic class. And, as a Marxist, you should know that no dominating class gives up its power voluntarily.In Russia, the new bureaucratic class largely came from the old bureaucratic class who the Bolsheviks brought into administrative positions due to the shakiness of worker's power and the Bolsheviks increasingly subsituting themselves for the class. So administration in the abstract wasn't the problem, an overall lack of worker's power was the problem of the Russian Revolution.



And so once workers have established their rule there will be less need for state-functions. This is most obvious in terms of a militia or whatever to protect from immediate counter-revolution. Obviously, once workers have a firm grasp on production, then this threat becomes less of a factor and the militia is not needed. But this goes for all sorts of administrative tasks as well which would be needed by workers at first, but less needed as class differences are eliminated.Workers "having a grasp on production" is itself one of the very first revolutionary tasks, and has to be created directly by workers, taking over en masse the means of production, and evicting the old managerial bureaucracy. This has to be part and parcel of creating a socialist system. You don't have an authentic proletarian revolution without this.Right, I didn't mean to imply otherwise - "grasp on production" was not meant as "seize production" which is obviously the first thing. I guess I meant as worker-rule becomes more solid. If there is threat of counter-revolution, then obviously worker's power is not yet secure, but if there is no threat then worker's power is secure and the need for a militia no longer exists. It is the same for other immediate needs during transition and workers will have to set up a new system to protect their interests at first, but this becomes less needed as class antagonism is eliminated and worker's interests gradually become just plain human interests and the need for special structures to project and protect worker-rule will become less necessary: anarchism/communism.

[ContrarianLemming]

Anarchism is a reasonably well-defined ideology, but not one with substantial academic literature behind it. Most people will drag in their misconceptions if you use more "alarming" rhetoric. Speaking of overthrowing the state and living in "an anarchist society" will inevitably conjure images of chaos and disorder, and bring in contentions that everything will collapse...if there's anything that even exists in such conditions to begin with.

Yet speaking of "decentralizing our political structure more" and "transferring many federal and corporate powers to grassroots assemblies" is fully compatible with the other statement, yet will often draw agreement! It's all about semantics.

I fully agree as most do I'm sure, this is why I rarely introduce myself as an "anarchist" i often say that I'm a "syndicalist" which often makes people curious and i explain how I want a de-centralized regional form of socialism, workplace democracy and proxy representation etc, which people often like, I am often careful to leave out the words "anarchist" and "communist"

[Jimmie Higgins]

I fully agree as most do I'm sure, this is why I rarely introduce myself as an "anarchist" i often say that I'm a "syndicalist" which often makes people curious and i explain how I want a de-centralized regional form of socialism, workplace democracy and proxy representation etc, which people often like, I am often careful to leave out the words "anarchist" and "communist"Aww, people are going to call you that anyway comrade:lol:. I understand what you mean though, still I think it's better to be open and defend the working-class anarchist traditions and the revolution from below communist traditions.

[syndicat]

Are we talking about theory or about a failed revolution? We both know that socialism failed in Russia and so to use theory when it's convenient and then switch to the failures of the Russian revolution is not productive to this discussion. If you wish to start another thread on how and why you think he Russian Revolution failed, then please do so.


well, i think this is a bit disingenuous as people in your tradition always tout the "workers rule" that supposedly occurred, if only briefly, in the Russian revolution...as Alan Maass does for example in "The Case for Socialism." After all why would anyone be a "Leninist" if they're not prepared to defend the Bolshevik legacy? and what is that legacy if not practice?

And how are we to understand Lenin's "theory" if it has no bearing on practice? People in your tradition continually claim that the soviets represented "worker rule" in Russia. And as Pete Rachleff's article "Soviets and factory commitees in the Russian revolution" makes clear, this is not a plausible claim as a generalization. The St. Petersburg Soviet was radically different from the Kronstadt soviet and the libertarian socialists were dominant in the latter and the Mensheviks, and later Bolsheivks, were dominant in the former.

As Sam Farber (a member of Solidarity, not an anarchist) says, the Bolsheviks lacked a focus on developing participation of ordinary people in making the decisions, or controlling things in their daily lives, whether it be their neighborhoods or their workplaces. Their focus was on gaining control of the executive positions of government...and these always organized in a top-down way, not effectively controlled by the mass of the working people...and this is surely evidence in favor of what Farber says.

At no time in the Russian revolution did Lenin or Trotsky ever advocate direct workers self-managment of production. Moreover, when the St. Petersburg regional soviet of factory committees put out its manual for workers control, advocating that Lenin's weak notion of "control" (mere checking on managment) should be gone past, to expropriation and worker collective management, the Bolsheviks opposed this.

Now, you say that I'm changing the subject when I talk about workers management but this is completely wrong. It's wrong because what is the state? Does the state have employees who manage things? Railways, post offices, schools. And if there is to be direct worker management, it must apply here as well. When the Bolsheviks set up the Council of People's Comissars, one of the first acts was to disband the soviet of postal workers, who had taken over control of the postal system, telling them they now had to obey the orders of their new boss, the commissar in charge of posts.

I'm quite familiar with "your tradition." In the '70s my friends in International Socialists nearly recruited me to that organization and i've followed its two successor organizations, Solidarity and ISO, fairly closely since. And I think it is clear that these organizations advocate a state in the sense I've defined it, an organization that would be a hierarchical form of governance. Just as Trotsky argued that a hierarchical structure could be a form of workers power. And it is my position that workers would not be able to control it.

to say that the differences are merely semantic hides the fact that your tradition has never advocated self-management either of workplaces or social sefl-management, that is, governance basing itself on the direct democracy of assemblies at the base.


Again, i think a semantic argument is being made: "governance" or the "state" is not important - worker's power is. The main difference between people in my traddition and people who are thinking about this along your lines is how do we get to that point. I'm a "Leninist" because I think that organizing revolutionaries is the most effective way to get there, but on the issue of governance, we essentially agree, just not on the name.

And this may be a mistaken description of the differences, depending on what you mean by "organizing revolutionaries". If you mean organizing them into a party to take state power, we disagree as we believe that inevitably be a hierarchical form of governance, and hence not a form of workers power. If you mean creating a revolutionary oranization to have influence within the class and exert a form of leadership, we don't differ on that. For us the issue isn't the existence or leadership of the revolutionary organization, but that it is thru the mass organizations that the working class liberates itself, not thru a party.

[Agnapostate]

I fully agree as most do I'm sure, this is why I rarely introduce myself as an "anarchist" i often say that I'm a "syndicalist" which often makes people curious and i explain how I want a de-centralized regional form of socialism, workplace democracy and proxy representation etc, which people often like, I am often careful to leave out the words "anarchist" and "communist"

One of the concerns I do have about this strategy, however, is that it obfuscates long-term political knowledge, since it doesn't encourage people to learn the appropriate meanings of "anarchism," "socialism," "communism," etc.

[Jimmie Higgins]

well, i think this is a bit disingenuous as people in your tradition always tout the "workers rule" that supposedly occurred, if only briefly, in the Russian revolution...as Alan Maass does for example in "The Case for Socialism." After all why would anyone be a "Leninist" if they're not prepared to defend the Bolshevik legacy? and what is that legacy if not practice?Ad hominum - you can't defend that there is no difference between the Marxist definition of a state and the "governance" system you propose and so you have spent the bulk of your last few posts saying that the Russian Revolution failed (a point that I agree with) and now you are deflecting the debate to a question of what do Leninists or specific traditions like the IS consider a state to be. What are we talking about here, the state and its social function (that's what I thought) or the Russian Revolution? No wait, now we are talking about the ISO?

But Ok, I'll bite.

Since you are so familiar with ISO politics then you know that no one in the group defends any other so-called socialist country as an example of socialism. For the Russian Revolution, we point to it as an example of what potentially can be accomplished, but we do not think that the possibility for socialism in Russia lasted more than a few months or a year before objective conditions (the most important aspect) coupled with subjective conditions (problems in the bolsheviks) sent the revolution onto a different path. Soviets and workers revolution in Russia as well as the organizing during the Paris Commune provide us valuable lessons (both positive and negative).


And how are we to understand Lenin's "theory" if it has no bearing on practice? People in your tradition continually claim that the soviets represented "worker rule" in Russia. Yes soviets did potentially. We also argue that the lack of worker's rule led to substitution of the party for the class and this eventually allowed a vehicle for the counter-revolution.

So we agree, the most fundamental part of a working class revolution is the self-conscious leadership of the working class.


And as Pete Rachleff's article "Soviets and factory commitees in the Russian revolution" makes clear, this is not a plausible claim as a generalization. The St. Petersburg Soviet was radically different from the Kronstadt soviet and the libertarian socialists were dominant in the latter and the Mensheviks, and later Bolsheivks, were dominant in the former.Have you read "Revolution and Counter Revolution: Class Struggle in a Moscow Metal Factory"? If so, PM me because I'd be interested to hear your take.


As Sam Farber (a member of Solidarity, not an anarchistYes, I'm aware; I've met him and he has spoken at many ISO conferences.
says, the Bolsheviks lacked a focus on developing participation of ordinary people in making the decisions, or controlling things in their daily lives, whether it be their neighborhoods or their workplaces. Their focus was on gaining control of the executive positions of government...and these always organized in a top-down way, not effectively controlled by the mass of the working people...and this is surely evidence in favor of what Farber says.I've only read what he's written on Cuba, but I'm sure this is well researched too.

But this seems to contradict your argument that the state inherently creates top-down hierarchies and bureaucracies and that the Russian Revolution is an example of that in effect. But if the Bolsheviks were always trying to put themselves at the head of the movement to control it from there, then it's not a "worker's state" that's the problem, but trying to create socialism from above that's the problem. I agree with that. However, I'm not sure I buy that the Bolsheviks simply never encouraged or worked organizing with rank and file workers, I'd have to read the Farber book you are talking about. A lot of their maneuvering, they justified by argueing that they had to confront the menshiviks who were trying to convince the soviets to defer to the Parliament whereas the Bolsheviks argued for rule from the Soviets.


I think it is clear that these organizations advocate a state in the sense I've defined it, an organization that would be a hierarchical form of governance. Just as Trotsky argued that a hierarchical structure could be a form of workers power. And it is my position that workers would not be able to control it. We constantly argue that nationalization of the economy is NOT socialism without worker's power. So yes, I argue that the best way imo for worker's to run production is to have democraticlly accountable central planning of the economy. And for tasks that do require administration or elected representatives that these positions are re-callable by simply a majority vote at any time it is called for and seconded: a "lower-archy" if you will.


to say that the differences are merely semantic hides the fact that your tradition has never advocated self-management either of workplaces or social sefl-management, that is, governance basing itself on the direct democracy of assemblies at the base.Even if this argument is true, (which it is not since we call for workplace councils to be the base of governance), it would still be a semantic argument because even if workers set-up some horizontal system of "govenence", according to a Maxist definition of a state as a (coercive) system where one class projects its interests over the whole of society, then this "governance" is still a state. If workers are trying to solidify worker's power and are reshaping society for those ends, then it is the working class using it's own new system to make sure that other class interests can't come and take that away in some form or another. This could mean a militia, it might mean certain guaranteed rights, it might mean locking up some of the old capitalists and their supporters, but its still the working class collectively dictating over the wold of society - a state. The reason that a worker's state in theory would not need to be oppressive and alienating to popular will is because this state would be run by the majority, so unlike capitalists who need an unaccountable beurocracy, the workers would need the most democratic and most accountable "governance" ever seen.


And this may be a mistaken description of the differences, depending on what you mean by "organizing revolutionaries". If you mean organizing them into a party to take state power, we disagree as we believe that inevitably be a hierarchical form of governance, and hence not a form of workers power. If you mean creating a revolutionary oranization to have influence within the class and exert a form of leadership, we don't differ on that. For us the issue isn't the existence or leadership of the revolutionary organization, but that it is thru the mass organizations that the working class liberates itself, not thru a party.No, once again, we largely agree. A revolutionary vanguard imo exists regardless of weather it is organized or even calls itself a vanguard. So trade-union militant revolutionaries as well as syndicalists are all people would would be part of the vanguard weather they form a vanguard party or not. Unlike what many Stalinists and old-school Trotskyists argue, the party is not and should not be the kernal of a new state; the class in general are the ones who lead the revolution and the ones that collectively come up with the new structures to defend their gains.

[syndicat]

me:

well, i think this is a bit disingenuous as people in your tradition always tout the "workers rule" that supposedly occurred, if only briefly, in the Russian revolution...as Alan Maass does for example in "The Case for Socialism." After all why would anyone be a "Leninist" if they're not prepared to defend the Bolshevik legacy? and what is that legacy if not practice?

you:

Ad hominum - you can't defend that there is no difference between the Marxist definition of a state and the "governance" system you propose and so you have spent the bulk of your last few posts saying that the Russian Revolution failed (a point that I agree with) and now you are deflecting the debate to a question of what do Leninists or specific traditions like the IS consider a state to be. What are we talking about here, the state and its social function (that's what I thought) or the Russian Revolution? No wait, now we are talking about the ISO?

An "ad hominem" would mean that I'm arguing that traits of you are somehow relevant here, which I'm not doing. You seem to me to be an intelligent and honest person. It's not personal.

I disagree that the definition you gave is either an adequate definition of what a state is or of the Marxist concept. I've quoted Engels. Engels says that a state is an apparatus separate from the control of the mass of the people. It is not simply an organization of direct decision-making and control by the people, as, say, a tribal assembly would have been. The state has to be a hierarchical form of governance in order for it to be able to defend the dominant class against the immediate producers.

Social anarchists usually agree with this part of Engels' analysis. We then draw the conclusion that "proletarian state" is a contradiction in terms.

I don't think there is a single consistent "Marxist concept of the state." Marxists quote different formulas on different occasions. The ability to use coercive violence is always a possibility for any form of governance, not just a state. Also, I don't think the definition you gave is a full acccount of what Leninist organizations propose for a "workers state."

Thus trotting out your definition is a kind of red herring. Sure, there is some description Marxists sometimes use to describe the state consistent with what libertarian socialists propose, but there are also other ideas about the state that Leninists have that are inconsistent. My objection to your formula is that it doesn't seem to me to be sufficient as a characterization of what Leninists propose, or what people in your tendency have in mind.


Since you are so familiar with ISO politics then you know that no one in the group defends any other so-called socialist country as an example of socialism. For the Russian Revolution, we point to it as an example of what potentially can be accomplished, but we do not think that the possibility for socialism in Russia lasted more than a few months or a year before objective conditions (the most important aspect) coupled with subjective conditions (problems in the bolsheviks) sent the revolution onto a different path. Soviets and workers revolution in Russia as well as the organizing during the Paris Commune provide us valuable lessons (both positive and negative).

Yes, I've not disputed the fact that you all agree with my tendency that some sort of bureaucratic dominating class came out of that situation, and began to congeal relatively quickly after October 1917. Where I think we differ is in our explanation of that fact.

me:
And how are we to understand Lenin's "theory" if it has no bearing on practice? People in your tradition continually claim that the soviets represented "worker rule" in Russia.


Yes soviets did potentially. We also argue that the lack of worker's rule led to substitution of the party for the class and this eventually allowed a vehicle for the counter-revolution.

But people in your tendency, such as Alan Maass, don't just say that workers rule was a potential of the soviets...we wouldn't disagree on that point. That's why the Russian libertarian left supported the October revolution despite their criticisms of top down soviets dominated by party leaders from the intelligentsia (mainly), as opposed to the more grassroots kind of soviet in Kronstadt.

rather, what people in your tendency say is that workers did actualy rule, at least for awhile. the question is: what about the Council of People's Commissars? that was set up by the Bolsheviks, with the approval of the Soviet Congress at a moment when they had a majority. what was that? it's relationship to the working class seems like a hierarchical structure, as evidenced by the Supreme Council of National Economy, and so on.

I don't think the Council of People's Commissars represtented "workers rule" because it was in no way controllable in practice by the working class base, such as the soviets.

me:
the Bolsheviks lacked a focus on developing participation of ordinary people in making the decisions, or controlling things in their daily lives, whether it be their neighborhoods or their workplaces. Their focus was on gaining control of the executive positions of government...and these always organized in a top-down way, not effectively controlled by the mass of the working people...and this is surely evidence in favor of what Farber says.


you:
But this seems to contradict your argument that the state inherently creates top-down hierarchies and bureaucracies and that the Russian Revolution is an example of that in effect. But if the Bolsheviks were always trying to put themselves at the head of the movement to control it from there, then it's not a "worker's state" that's the problem, but trying to create socialism from above that's the problem. I agree with that. However, I'm not sure I buy that the Bolsheviks simply never encouraged or worked organizing with rank and file workers, I'd have to read the Farber book you are talking about. A lot of their maneuvering, they justified by argueing that they had to confront the menshiviks who were trying to convince the soviets to defer to the Parliament whereas the Bolsheviks argued for rule from the Soviets.

My view is that authentic socialism can only be created from below. But Lenin said that "only from below" is an "anarchist slogan." So apparently Lenin was not against "creating socialism from above". It's just that the power to do that had to be created from below, via a mass working class movement, to smash the old state machine. The problem, as I see it, is that the Bolsheviks were tending to use the mass movement as a trampoline to jump themselves into control of a hierarchical government structure. Otherwise we have a hard time understanding why they did create a hierarchical government structure.


We constantly argue that nationalization of the economy is NOT socialism without worker's power. So yes, I argue that the best way imo for worker's to run production is to have democraticlly accountable central planning of the economy. And for tasks that do require administration or elected representatives that these positions are re-callable by simply a majority vote at any time it is called for and seconded: a "lower-archy" if you will.


Well, this is a problem. First, nationalization refers to state ownership and management. Second, "workers control" is a very weak notion. Lenin's "workers control" decree in Nov 1917 only gave workers the right to check or veto management....rights they'd already acheived via direct action. This is not the same thing as workers self-management.

Third, "central planning" is inherently inconsistent with workers self-management. That's because decisions about the running of workplaces involve many decisions that affect workers more than others, so it violates their self-management to have a regime that imposes plans and decisions on them. Moreover, central planning will inevitably tend to lead to a managerial hierarchy because the central planning agency will want to have managers on site to ensure their decisions are carried out. This is why Lenin and Trotsky were consistent when they advocated one-man management after creating the Supreme Council of National Economy.

Fourth, central planning has no way of obtaining the necessary information about capacities of workers and workplaces because it lacks the tacit knowledge...practical knowledge...that workers themselves possess. This is a problem that economists have a better handle on nowadays.

And it can't obtain accurate knowledge about people's preferences for products and services either. This is discussed by Robin Hahnel in "Economic Justice and Democracy" and other writings.

What's required, in order for workers and communities to have a realm of autonomy to make participation and self-management meaningful, is to have a way for communities to plan their own proposals for what they want produced, and for workers to make their own plans for production. What then needs to occur is to have a system for back and forth negotiation, using tallies of demand and supply, to get workers and communities to adjust their local plans so as to fit together.


No, once again, we largely agree. A revolutionary vanguard imo exists regardless of weather it is organized or even calls itself a vanguard. So trade-union militant revolutionaries as well as syndicalists are all people would would be part of the vanguard weather they form a vanguard party or not. Unlike what many Stalinists and old-school Trotskyists argue, the party is not and should not be the kernal of a new state; the class in general are the ones who lead the revolution and the ones that collectively come up with the new structures to defend their gains.


okay, we agree on that point, and that's an important agreement.

[Jimmie Higgins]

An "ad hominem" would mean that I'm arguing that traits of you are somehow relevant here, which I'm not doing. You seem to me to be an intelligent and honest person. It's not personal.

Heh, ok, maybe I'm throwing around some fancy Latin that I don't quite know how to use:blushing: (you can take back the "intelligent" part:D). I didn't mean it was personal or that I took it personally - just that it was arguments outside the subject of the debate... non sequiter? No, that doesn't work either.

At any rate, my problem was that we are comparing a failed example of theory (the Bolsheviks in Russia) with the ideal situation with Anarchism. To be a fair comparison of ideas then it must be the theory vs. the theory. Personally while I feel the subjective problems could have been different and maybe helped hold things together longer, I don't think there was much that either anarchists or Bolsheviks could have done subjectively to make the Revolution succeed ultimately in isolation. People like Lenin again and again repeated that what they were doing was not their ideal situation and that the problems of a broken working class, lack of advanced industry, and isolation would preclude socialism. They certainly made mistakes and miscalculations - especially when viewed from our perspective where we can see how the hierarchy they created was easily picked up and used by counter-revolution.

But like I said, this becomes a "why did the Russian Revolution fail?" argument, not one about the nature of the state or non-state, specifically is any organized coercive system to promote working class will a state or does it have to be a top-down hierarchy.

As for central planning, I think this would be the best way for workers to organize production - as long as it is accountable - for the exact reason it allows all workers to have some practical say in setting larger priorities. As I conceptualize it, worker's power in the workplace is a precondition for any of the rest. So workplaces would already be organized at work-sites with any "managers" being elected and re-callable... or simple majority vote and no "managers". Representatives from workplaces or industries would then be elected to take the collective demands or requests or proposals to larger industry councils or regional councils so that conflicts between workers in different sectors could be worked out. Perhaps big decisions would have to be then re-ratified by the workers back at the different sites, but I think generally these decisions should be known about beforehand before workers empower a representative to vote for them. Transparency and recallability would be important parts of the process because any representatives really need to be simply representing the workers who sent them, not making deals or otherwise alienated from the class.

I prefer this to more horizontal systems I've heard from marxist and anarchist comrades because each level of the inverted hierarchy would need to be fully accountable whereas a more localized system of accountability would simply be less efficient and imo create more possibilities for miscommunications or potentially intractable disagreements between workers in different parts of the economy. This would be most important in places and industries that are not as developed - in many industries most of the organizing would simply be getting rid of all the inefficient bs of capitalist production (sorry claims dept., sorry legal dept., sorry management, sorry advertisers, sorry board of this or that) but not much other organizing would be needed - so maybe in these industries, workers wouldn't need to have as much industry-wide organizing or would have to work things out with councils of shipping workers or raw-materials producers.

But if there was workers power and workplace democracy, then the form that we organize ourselves is secondary. If I felt that more central planning was needed, then I would agitate for that and argue why that would work better, or vica-versa.

But guess what, it would still meet the marxist definition of a state!:lol: Admit it, you're just a statist! Well actually, neither of us are because weather we call it governance or a "worker's state" the point is the same - structures to preserve and defend worker's power until the last reminents of class antagonisms are gone and then even those structures would largely become redundant.


And it can't obtain accurate knowledge about people's preferences for products and services either. This is discussed by Robin Hahnel in "Economic Justice and Democracy" and other writings.But I think this is where central planning could be useful because all different worker's priorities could be considered together - so the demands from retail stores and grocers and so on can be prioritized. Centralization as I see it can't be from decrees or 5 year plans with production quotas, its more of having a central place to see what needs and wants are and being able to prioritize them.

Anyway, I'll have to check "Economic Justice and Democracy" out, I haven't read it, but that's an important point.

[syndicat]

this becomes a "why did the Russian Revolution fail?" argument,

but it's hard to avoid this because we can't really see what abstract rhetoric means except in practice. as I said, why "Leninism"? surely the cachet of Leninism historically has been based on the claim that the Russian revolution was for a time "successful"...and that's what libertarian socialists deny of course.


As for central planning, I think this would be the best way for workers to organize production - as long as it is accountable - for the exact reason it allows all workers to have some practical say in setting larger priorities. As I conceptualize it, worker's power in the workplace is a precondition for any of the rest. So workplaces would already be organized at work-sites with any "managers" being elected and re-callable... or simple majority vote and no "managers". Representatives from workplaces or industries would then be elected to take the collective demands or requests or proposals to larger industry councils or regional councils so that conflicts between workers in different sectors could be worked out. Perhaps big decisions would have to be then re-ratified by the workers back at the different sites, but I think generally these decisions should be known about beforehand before workers empower a representative to vote for them. Transparency and recallability would be important parts of the process because any representatives really need to be simply representing the workers who sent them, not making deals or otherwise alienated from the class.


First off, you're assuming that workers would run the economy. How do the desires and priorities of the entire adult population enter into the picture? How do residents have a say over their communities?

But, mainly, the problem is that there is only a relatively small number of decisions that affects everyone roughly equally. There are many, many decisions that affect particular subgroups of the population much more. That's why central planning will violate self-management.

Moreover, unless workers have something they control directly, the result will tend to be passivity. Your proposal is thus a recipe for passivity with the decisions being passed up to others to make.

Should everyone in the country have the same amount of say over how your local hospital is run? Or should the people that work in it have the main say, and also people in the local community having more say than people a thousand miles away?

Thus I think there needs to be a dual governance structure for a socialist society. I think there needs to be neighborhood councils that are based on assemblies of the residents, to make proposals about they want for their neighborhood, and via congresses of delegates from across the city, make proposals for their whole city. These would be the avenue for proposals about public services, like health care, public transit, education, housing, etc.

And there needs to be governance bodies rooted in the worker assemblies and elected councils in workplaces. And they can make their own proposals about their industry.

The regional or national bodies shouldn't really have power over things other than what pertains to that large of an area, such as defense or a transportation network.

But the main problem with central planning is that it will destroy self-management at the local level, in the workplaces, in communities, and will tend to generate a bureaucratic class. Although your proposal seems to be about workers running the economy, it will turn out that this isn't going to be the result. For that, workers in the various industries have to have a realm of autonomy, where they are controlling their own self-activity.

It's not that I disagree with there being something like the structure you propose. It's just that I think there needs to be also the "free municipalities", as the Spanish syndicalists called them, the residence-based bodies, and a process of interaction to develop plans, and working up plans from below, not thru concentrating decision making into "one big meeting." The one big meeting idea won't be efficient. It won't be efficient because it won't be able to find out real social costs and real consumer preferences.

It will work only for making proposals for large scale infrastructural projects, such as the power grid or a high speed train network, or for defense and geopolitical sorts of issues.