Cuba socialist?

[Land Of Upright Men]

I was told Cuba no longer focuses on producing for itself, but relies on tourism and cane to sell to foreign buyers, how can Cuba be socialist, if it bans Cubans from the beaches, sells its sugar and fruit, and whores its beautifull land, to western tourists?

There is an open black market, and even though we hear time and time again, workers state, how do the workers control their own destiny?

Life isnt perfect, and nothings perfect, but we on the left, seem to ignore the beauracracy and reforms, aswell as the fact workers are not in control, then, if we cannot defend it any further, we go, well, the united states does this, as if, if one imperialist prick does something, it aliviates the responsibility a workers state has to give more and more power to the workers.

Are their any hopes for an end to reforms and the implementing of a workers state?

Cheers

[Nolan]

I've come to the conclusion that the working class in no way, shape, or form holds political power in Cuba. It is a for-state-profit, capitalist system. The things you mentioned are only symptoms of the problem. Corruption pervades every level of Cuban society.

Why? I think the main reason is that it is copied directly from the Soviet model.

These things won't stop until there is some kind of successful Tiananmen-square type protests from the workers and the current revisionist clique is ousted from power.

[Uppercut]

Like Red America said, the Cuban economy is run more in line with how the Soviet economy was managed during the Kosygin reform. From what I can tell, this is more Fidel and the revisionists' doing, rather than Che, who emphasized industrialization in order to make Cuba's economy more independent.

[Land Of Upright Men]

The government has compromised due to blockade, embargo, and the collapse of its allies, and buyers of cane and giver of parts for industrial production.

But, this is wrong, compromise never achieved anything.

If the people were given power through councils, they would not have chosen reform, I have always thought fidel was a fidelista, not a communist, or a leninist, just a fidelist, he is revolutionary when it suits him, then he is smoking cigars with cops the next day.

when can we tell leaders to fuck off and lead ourselves, yes some will be eleted to become quasi leaders, but they will be servants of the people, not rulers.

[graymouser]

It's a bureaucratically degenerated workers state, degenerate from birth. Unlike the Soviet Union there was never an element of actual workers' democracy in Cuba (soviets) but at the same time the economy is organized on proletarian forms - collective ownership of the means of production, central planning of the economy and state monopoly on foreign trade. These are the Comintern's criteria for a workers state. And Cuba has done impressive things with its health care system, while remaining Stalinist.

Now, tourism and a shadow economy (black market) are symptoms of the ill health of that workers' state, and Cuba will probably see outright restoration, although the PCC leadership may have to wait for Fidel and Raul to die before they can go ahead with it. But right now Cuba is a poor country where the mechanisms of the workers' state alleviate some of the worst problems poverty brings. Under restoration, it will become simply a poor country in the Caribbean.

[Nolan]

Cuba is not "stalinist."

[graymouser]

Cuba is not "stalinist."
Yeah, that's what Socialist Action always tells me too, but they're pro-Cuban Trots. The bureaucratic caste ruling Cuba copied the Russian economy, which underwent no fundamental change in social relations between 1953 and the 1960s when Cuba was consolidating its economic regime. Specific policies changed, sometimes significantly, but the USSR - and by extension Cuba - remained under the thumb of a bureaucracy, consolidated in a Communist Party, which controlled a state that had the three crucial elements of a workers state that I mentioned above. Moreover, the PCC came about by means of a traditional Stalinist party (which, I know, magically became revisionist along with the rest of the ex-Comintern parties after Stalin died).

In terms of practical politics they may not have upheld Stalin but the social relationship between the working class and the bureaucratic caste is the same, and that is the sociological definition of Stalinism in power.

[Land Of Upright Men]

is there any hope for cuba, or is it reform after reform until the restoration of capital?

I heard a young maoist was expected to replace the fidels, who is anti revisionist, is this true, or merely rumor?

The thing is, even though cuba defends itself from gringos, it does nothing to spread socialism, though fidel did allow guerrillas to train in cuba then go to places like Nicuagra and Argentina, which both failed, this was only permitted because che saw the need for the revolution to spread, not fidels marxism.

Isolation cannot breed succes for the proletariat, spreading the cause is a must, otherwise we just see an endless wall of beauracracy.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

is there any hope for cuba, or is it reform after reform until the restoration of capital?

I heard a young maoist was expected to replace the fidels, who is anti revisionist, is this true, or merely rumor?

It could go either way, and it is highly dependent on what happens outside Cuba. What is sure though is that socialism's only hope is if it is consciously built by the masses of working people in society, not just by having a few good leaders.


The thing is, even though cuba defends itself from gringos, it does nothing to spread socialism, though fidel did allow guerrillas to train in cuba then go to places like Nicuagra and Argentina, which both failed, this was only permitted because che saw the need for the revolution to spread, not fidels marxism.

Don't forget Cuba's aid in national liberation struggles in Angola and Nambia. Also, Cuba's doctors are all over Latin America, subsidizing medical school for poor people even from the US if they promise to help those who need their help the most. After the recent earthquake in Haiti, Cuba gave more medical aid than the US and other imperialist countries and even already had something like 400 medical personnel in Haiti when it happened. Cuba's internationalism is well-documented. Could more be done? Probably, but Cuba standing as an example of resistance doesn't come out of no where.

[The Vegan Marxist]

It's a degenerated worker's state in Cuba like graymouser stated. That does not mean it's capitalist. Just because problems begin arising in a workers state, that doesn't mean it's capitalist. You use the term "capitalist" like it's some kind of cuss word. Whenever they hit you, you automatically call them a capitalist. There's no need for these remarks. At best, one could say that Cuba is on a road to capitalism, but to state that they're now capitalist is completely misleading.

[McCroskey]

He is revolutionary when it suits him, then he is smoking cigars with cops the next day.

So to be a true revolutionary, he must oppose Cuban police? Or must he dismantle all public order forces in Cuba? :confused:

By the way, Fidel gave up smoking a long time ago...

[fa2991]

Cuba isn't a socialist state or a workers state. It's a sort of uneven mixture of radical democratic socialism (European style, as in "Workers get a basically fair shake, but aren't actually in power") and the rhetoric and tactics of Marxism-Leninism.

There may or may not be hope - it all depends how the government handles things when the embargo finally disappears and Cuba becomes a more well-off country. Will it be able to reel in the growing private sector in Cuba, or will private industry further hijack the government? It's all up in the air at this point.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Cuba isn't a socialist state or a workers state. It's a sort of uneven mixture of radical democratic socialism (European style, as in "Workers get a basically fair shake, but aren't actually in power") and the rhetoric and tactics of Marxism-Leninism.

There may or may not be hope - it all depends how the government handles things when the embargo finally disappears and Cuba becomes a more well-off country. Will it be able to reel in the growing private sector in Cuba, or will private industry further hijack the government? It's all up in the air at this point.

Why does this make Cuba non-Socialist?

Socialism is defined as the collective - mostly public - ownership of the means of production. In which, if you look at Cuba, the means of production is, of the majority, collectively owned by the public through the State. It's either or, as in - it's either capitalist, in which then the means of production is privately owned, which is not what we see in Cuba, & if it's socialist, then the means of production is publicly owned, which is what we see in Cuba. Just because there's some capitalist production present in Cuba does not make it any less Socialist.

[fa2991]

Why does this make Cuba non-Socialist?

Well, was Labour England socialist? Are other European countries with social democratic governments like, say, Sweden? Cuba is like one of those countries on a larger scale - state directed industry, free health, free education, etc., but workers don't own, direct, or control the MOP. Not socialist. From what I've read, even Venezuela, with its social democratic government, has given more control to workers than Cuba.

Cuba has a benevolent state and a fairer industrial set up than most, but it's not worker-controlled.

Cuba just has many pretensions and tactics common in other M-L states, layered over that social democracy, like cheap housing, heavy police presence, excessive jail sentences, state-controlled media, "committees for the defense of the revolution," strict limits on emigration, M-L rhetoric, etc., but these don't make it socialist either.

EDIT: :D You added a lot more to your post while I was typing this. I'll respond to the rest of your post momentarily.

[fa2991]

Socialism is defined as the collective - mostly public - ownership of the means of production. In which, if you look at Cuba, the means of production is, of the majority, collectively owned by the public through the State. It's either or, as in - it's either capitalist, in which then the means of production is privately owned, which is not what we see in Cuba, & if it's socialist, then the means of production is publicly owned, which is what we see in Cuba. Just because there's some capitalist production present in Cuba does not make it any less Socialist.

I don't say it's not socialist because of the presence of private industry, but because, in Cuba at least, I don't think "the state controls industry" means "the workers control industry." Workers, to my knowledge, interact with workplaces, bosses, and the industry the same way they might in a capitalist economy, though most industry isn't privately owned.

[graymouser]

Cuba isn't a socialist state or a workers state. It's a sort of uneven mixture of radical democratic socialism (European style, as in "Workers get a basically fair shake, but aren't actually in power") and the rhetoric and tactics of Marxism-Leninism.
There are four criteria of a workers' state as per the Comintern: workers' democracy, nationalized control of industry, central planning of the economy, and a state monopoly on foreign trade. What other concrete economic criteria would you postulate for a workers' state? The degenerated workers' state is the only theory that has managed to explain why there are states with the latter three criteria, lacking only workers' democracy, that nonetheless see tremendous gains from the nationalized economy. It's also the only theory that explains why things in Russia and other countries went to hell as soon as they went away from this mode of production.

[fa2991]

There are four criteria of a workers' state as per the Comintern: workers' democracy, nationalized control of industry, central planning of the economy, and a state monopoly on foreign trade. What other concrete economic criteria would you postulate for a workers' state?

I don't see workers' democracy in Cuba, as regards industry. Cuba has never had anything resembling soviets or other instruments of workers' control. Maybe the National Assembly is elected, but that's parliamentary democracy, not workers' democracy. Hence I don't consider it a socialist state.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, was Labour England socialist? Are other European countries with social democratic governments like, say, Sweden?


No, because Labour England & Sweden, despite their social democratic reforms, are still capitalist due to the means of production still privately owned. The difference between them & us is that they have a bit more worker's rights than here in the States, given their social democratic stance. But when compared to Cuba, the means of production is not privately owned, meaning it's not under Capitalism. If it's not under Capitalism, then what is it under? And please don't bring up the "state-capitalism" rhetoric. It must only be Socialist through a degenerated workers state.

[fa2991]

No, because Labour England & Sweden, despite their social democratic reforms, are still capitalist due to the means of production still privately owned. The difference between them & us is that they have a bit more worker's rights than here in the States, given their social democratic stance. But when compared to Cuba, the means of production is not privately owned, meaning it's not under Capitalism. If it's not under Capitalism, then what is it under?


It must only be Socialist through a degenerated workers state.

There is middle ground between "capitalists control everything" and "the people control everything." Cuba, like a lot of M-L states, lies in that middle ground. Maybe it's necessary for them to be in that middle ground for the purposes of quickly developing the nation. You tell me.

But it's not socialist.


And please don't bring up the "state-capitalism" rhetoric.

Think better of me than that, comrade. Would I have a Fidel quote in my signature if I thought Cuba was state capitalist? :lol: I don't see evidence that Cuba's politicians benefit disproportionately from the industry compared to common workers or exploit workers for their own gain, so of course "state capitalism" would be wholly inapplicable. That's a term that gets thrown around far too much in my opinion.

[graymouser]

I don't see workers' democracy in Cuba, as regards industry. Cuba has never had anything resembling soviets or other instruments of workers' control. Maybe the National Assembly is elected, but that's parliamentary democracy, not workers' democracy. Hence I don't consider it a socialist state.
Yes, as I was clear about above, Cuba has never had workers' democracy. I don't consider it a socialist state but rather a degenerate workers' state, in which the property forms are proletarian but workers' democracy has never existed. And in fact - the property forms really have benefited the proletariat, Cuba is actually quite well off for a small, poor Caribbean nation.

The thing is, you aren't dealing with the fact that the actual relations of property are those of a collectivized state, albeit one where the government rules by force over the workers, rather than those of a capitalist state where the workers confront capitalist firms in the process of production. The creation of workers' democracy in Cuba would still require a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucratic caste, but the workers would have a tremendous basis for collectivized property and not go through a second social revolution.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But it's not socialist. Then what is it? There is no middle ground, comrade. There's either:


means of production is completely privately owned with no public ownership within any sector of the economy, making it capitalist;
majority of the means of production being privately owned with some public ownership within some sector of the economy, still makes it capitalist under a Marxist analysis;
means of production is completely publicly owned with no private ownership within any sector of the economy, making it socialist;
majority of the means of production being publicly owned with some private ownership within some sector of the economy, still makes it socialist under a Marxist analysis.



Think better of me than that, comrade. Would I have a Fidel quote in my signature if I thought Cuba was state capitalist? :lol: I don't see evidence that Cuba's politicians benefit disproportionately from the industry compared to common workers or exploit workers for their own gain, so of course "state capitalism" would be wholly inapplicable. That's a term that gets thrown around far too much in my opinion.

Then I apologize. Though, take note that I didn't accuse you of saying it, but I'm just making sure I'm clear on that subject, because, like you stated, the term is thrown around too much within this forum.

[fa2991]

Yes, as I was clear about above, Cuba has never had workers' democracy. I don't consider it a socialist state but rather a degenerate workers' state, in which the property forms are proletarian but workers' democracy has never existed. And in fact - the property forms really have benefited the proletariat, Cuba is actually quite well off for a small, poor Caribbean nation.

The thing is, you aren't dealing with the fact that the actual relations of property are those of a collectivized state, albeit one where the government rules by force over the workers, rather than those of a capitalist state where the workers confront capitalist firms in the process of production. The creation of workers' democracy in Cuba would still require a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucratic caste, but the workers would have a tremendous basis for collectivized property and not go through a second social revolution.

I'm not saying there aren't elements that could be found in socialist countries, or that the relations of property aren't non-capitalistic, but for me workers' democracy is the defining element in determining when or not a state is socialist or worker controlled.

I think we're just in disagreement because you're using Trotskyist terminology like "degenerate workers' state," and, not being a Trotskyist, I take "workers state" in its literal sense, meaning a state controlled by the workers, degenerate or not. From my perspective, Cuba is not socialist or a worker's state. Looking through Trotsky's glasses, you would of course view such things differently than I.

[fa2991]

Then what is it? There is no middle ground, comrade. There's either:


means of production is completely privately owned with no public ownership within any sector of the economy, making it capitalist;
majority of the means of production being privately owned with some public ownership within some sector of the economy, still makes it capitalist under a Marxist analysis;
means of production is completely publicly owned with no private ownership within any sector of the economy, making it socialist;
majority of the means of production being publicly owned with some private ownership within some sector of the economy, still makes it socialist under a Marxist analysis.

I believe there is. I'm big on councils or soviets or however you want to term workplace democracy, so I think that an absence of private ownership but no worker's control is only half the recipe for socialism:

Private ownership, private control - Capitalism
State ownership, state control - Middle ground
State/Public ownership, worker's control - Socialism

State control doesn't equate to public or worker's control, in my book at least.

[The Vegan Marxist]

[/LIST]
I believe there is. I'm big on councils or soviets or however you want to term workplace democracy, so I think that an absence of private ownership but no worker's control is only half the recipe for socialism:

Private ownership, private control - Capitalism
State ownership, state control - Middle ground
State/Public ownership, worker's control - Socialism

State control doesn't equate to public or worker's control, in my book at least.

Well, as I've stated before, I'm clearly in disagreement with you. But I'm not here to force you in changing your beliefs, just stating the facts & how you take it is up to you. I would actually like for you to read this great materialist analysis on Socialism. It's a really good read:

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/socialism-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat/

[graymouser]

I'm not saying there aren't elements that could be found in socialist countries, or that the relations of property aren't non-capitalistic, but for me workers' democracy is the defining element in determining when or not a state is socialist or worker controlled.

I think we're just in disagreement because you're using Trotskyist terminology like "degenerate workers' state," and, not being a Trotskyist, I take "workers state" in its literal sense, meaning a state controlled by the workers, degenerate or not. From my perspective, Cuba is not socialist or a worker's state. Looking through Trotsky's glasses, you would of course view such things differently than I.
Well, sociologically, what else do you see it as? I'm genuinely curious here, because the term Trotsky used was not just a political curse word but reflected both the property relations and the politics of the USSR (and in present-day Cuba). Saying it's in a "middle ground" doesn't quite make sense, when the workers' state is precisely the middle ground, a transitional state form between capitalism and socialism.

[fa2991]

Well, as I've stated before, I'm clearly in disagreement with you. But I'm not here to force you in changing your beliefs, just stating the facts & how you take it is up to you. I would actually like for you to read this great materialist analysis on Socialism. It's a really good read:

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/socialism-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat/

I'll give it a read. The M-L is probably the only site I've ever read that says "LONG LIVE THE UNIVERSAL CONTRIBUTIONS OF COMRADE JOSEPH STALIN" on the sidebar that actually has pretty good articles. :D


the workers' state is precisely the middle ground, a transitional state form between capitalism and socialism.

Are you here using "socialism" to mean "communism"?

[The Vegan Marxist]

Are you here using "socialism" to mean "communism"?

Whether or not he is or not, I would say Socialism is the middle ground between capitalism to communism. There is no middle ground between capitalism & socialism.

[fa2991]

Whether or not he is or not, I would say Socialism is the middle ground between capitalism to communism. There is no middle ground between capitalism & socialism.

So there's no way for a country to be neither capitalist or socialist but have some characteristics of both systems?

[The Vegan Marxist]

So there's no way for a country to be neither capitalist or socialist but have some characteristics of both systems?

It's either capitalist; capitalist with minority socialist sectors; socialist, or socialist with minority capitalist sectors. As a matter of fact, if we had a socialist economy with no capitalism whatsoever, that's actually implying that there's no presence of neither the bourgeois or bourgeoisie, so if I'm correct, then we could just call that Communism.

[fa2991]

It's either capitalist; capitalist with minority socialist sectors; socialist, or socialist with minority capitalist sectors. As a matter of fact, if we had a socialist economy with no capitalism whatsoever, that's actually implying that there's no presence of neither the bourgeois or bourgeoisie, so if I'm correct, then we could just call that Communism.

So, for you, the absorption of most private property into the state is enough to constitute socialism?

[The Vegan Marxist]

So, for you, the absorption of most private property into the state is enough to constitute socialism?

If the private property is nationalized through the State, as we see in Cuba, then yes, it's safe to say, as long as the means of production is majority owned publicly, to call Cuba Socialist:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. ~Communist Manifesto

[fa2991]

If the private property is nationalized through the State, as we see in Cuba, then yes, it's safe to say, as long as the means of production is majority owned publicly, to call Cuba Socialist:

In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property. ~Communist Manifesto

My contention is simply that state property isn't necessarily public property, and that, if this is true, then Cuba's MOP aren't publicly owned just because they're state owned.

I don't define socialism from a strict Marxist perspective as just the stage after capitalism falls - how could one tell if an anarchist society was socialist or not, for example, since there can be no state property, except by looking for workers' democracy? To me, public/worker's control is the common characteristic of all socialism, not mere nationalization.

This calls to mind a recent HT article: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=23362

[The Vegan Marxist]

My contention is simply that state property isn't necessarily public property, and that, if this is true, then Cuba's MOP aren't publicly owned just because they're state owned.

I don't define socialism from a strict Marxist perspective as just the stage after capitalism falls - how could one tell if an anarchist society was socialist or not, for example, since there can be no state property, except by looking for workers' democracy? To me, public/worker's control is the common goal of all socialism, not mere nationalization.

This calls to mind a recent HT article: http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=23362

Publicly owned & State owned can mean the same thing as long as the means of production is publicly owned of the majority. In an anarchist society, since there is no State, we'd have to solely base it on whether it's publicly owned a different way.

We have to ask ourselves if the majority of Cuba's means of production is privately owned. If not, then one can only conclude that it, in one way or another, is Socialist.

[fa2991]

Publicly owned & State owned can mean the same thing as long as the means of production is publicly owned of the majority. In an anarchist society, since there is no State, we'd have to solely base it on whether it's publicly owned a different way.

But it's not. It's owned and operated by the state, which is a parliament with a very strong executive that (I assume cooperatively) plan the economy. The state does not = the public.

[The Vegan Marxist]

But it's not. It's owned and operated by the state, which is a parliament with a very strong executive that centrally plan the economy. The state does not = the public.

That doesn't mean it's not Socialism. As long as the means of production is owned collectively, then it's still Socialism, not Capitalism. Also, that article seems to claim a presence of capitalist exploitation in Cuba, which is untrue. And to respond to that article, I already provided the link to you. Hope you read it soon.

[fa2991]

That doesn't mean it's not Socialism. As long as the means of production is owned collectively, then it's still Socialism, not Capitalism.

It keeps coming back to that issue of defining "collective" and "public." Is the parliament the same as the collective 11,000,000 workers of Cuba? Is Raul Castro a living embodiment of the public? They manage the economy instead of the workers directly.

What control do the workers have over their economy besides electing these officials every once and a while, and maybe talking to a boss or manager, as they would in a capitalist economy?

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Publicly owned & State owned can mean the same thing as long as the means of production is publicly owned of the majority.

But how do you show that the means of production are publicly owned by the majority if they are completely controlled by a bureaucracy, if the members of that bureaucracy are chosen by the bureauracy, and not by the public to begin with?

I can't say I know enough about how the whole thing works in Cuba: perhaps the workers do control the bureaucracy to some extent (though this has never been demonstrated to me). I don't consider a state like North Korea to be a socialist entity in any way, because it's obvious that the workers there don't actually control anything -- but to what extent the same is true of Cuba merely happens to be beyond my knowledge at this point.

Still, it makes sense to distinguish between workers and professional bureaucrats. State economic planning is an enormous and difficult task, and thus necessarily relies on some kind of professional bureaucracy -- so the bureaucracy itself isn't the whole of the dilemma. It's really about whether the bureaucracy is ultimately responsible to the workers, or whether it rules according to its own interests.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Engels states this on the Principles of Communism:

Question 14 : What kind of a new social order will this have to be?


Answer : Above all, it will generally have to take the running of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole, that is, for the common account, according to a common plan and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals has private property as its inevitable result, and since competition is merely the manner and form in which industry is run by individual private owners, it follows that private property cannot be separated from the individual management of industry and from competition. Hence, private property will also have to be abolished, and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement — in a word, the so-called communal ownership of goods. In fact, the abolition of private property is the shortest and most significant way to characterize the transformation of the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry, and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

What this is basically saying is that the means of production must be collectively owned for there to be Socialism.

Now, according to Karl Marx, economics is the motor of history (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article282). Chapter 1 of the 1936 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm), it was stated by Marxists that:


ARTICLE 4. The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute’ the economic foundation of the U.S.S.R.

This is initially giving out the same assertion of the means of production needing to be collectively owned. Meaning either owned by the state as the organization of the whole working people; owned by cooperative associations; or owned by collective farms.

[fa2991]

But how do you show that the means of production are publicly owned by the majority if they are completely controlled by a bureaucracy, if the members of that bureaucracy are chosen by the bureauracy, and not by the public to begin with?

I can't say I know enough about how the whole thing works in Cuba: perhaps the workers do control the bureaucracy to some extent (though this has never been demonstrated to me). I don't consider a state like North Korea to be a socialist entity in any way, because it's obvious that the workers there don't actually control anything -- but to what extent the same is true of Cuba merely happens to be beyond my knowledge at this point.

Still, it makes sense to distinguish between workers and professional bureaucrats. State economic planning is an enormous and difficult task, and thus necessarily relies on some kind of professional bureaucracy -- so the bureaucracy itself isn't the whole of the dilemma. It's really about whether the bureaucracy is ultimately responsible to the workers, or whether it rules according to its own interests.

Well, the Assembly is elected in a fashion similar to that in any other parliamentary system, and they're supposedly recallable, but I've never heard of this actually happening. I've heard that the assembly elects the president - Raul now - but I've never been given proof of this. It's also unclear who in the government has the planning role specifically. In any case, it's not the workers.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Well, the Assembly is elected in a fashion similar to that in any other parliamentary system, and they're supposedly recallable, but I've never heard of this actually happening. I've heard that the assembly elects the president - Raul now - but I've never been given proof of this. It's also unclear who in the government has the planning role specifically. In any case, it's not the workers.

This is odd. You say it's unclear who has the planning role, but then re-assert yourself with claims that it's not the workers. So do you know or not know? :confused:

[fa2991]

This is odd. You say it's unclear who has the planning role, but then re-assert yourself with claims that it's not the workers. So do you know or not know? :confused:

Well, it's some faction of the bureaucracy, of course, I just meant that I couldn't give you their names or job titles if prompted. :lol: I'm unsure of the balance of power between the assembly and the executive as far as the planning goes.

[The Vegan Marxist]

If the State is operating for the interests of the people of Cuba, can we still call it a bureaucracy though? I mean, there's no evidence whatsoever that the Cuban State is exploiting the working class. In fact, with the little capitalist markets present in Cuba, the government has made sure that they're not able to exploit the workers. The family-based capitalist markets, such as the restaurants, along with the self-employed jobs such as the barbershops & taxi services are forbidden from hiring other workers for them to exploit.

[Charles Xavier]

Wow horrible answers by people who don't actually read into socialist theory and just spew slogans around. Cuba is definitely socialist. Who says Tourism is not an industry? It works the same way as any other industry. Cuba is an Island with some natural resources but not a heck of a lot where it would make sense firing up production, its export trade is limited due to a US Embargo with prohibits companies from even using a screw in their product from Cuba to be sold to the US. Cuba isn't perfect, its a developing country, it has been under siege since day 1 and continues to face immense economic hardships brought it it by the US empire.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Wow horrible answers by people who don't actually read into socialist theory and just spew slogans around. Cuba is definitely socialist. Who says Tourism is not an industry? It works the same way as any other industry. Cuba is an Island with some natural resources but not a heck of a lot where it would make sense firing up production, its export trade is limited due to a US Embargo with prohibits companies from even using a screw in their product from Cuba to be sold to the US. Cuba isn't perfect, its a developing country, it has been under siege since day 1 and continues to face immense economic hardships brought it it by the US empire.

As I've explained as well, I couldn't agree more. Though, could you at least explain in your own sense the reasons behind why Cuba is socialist, just so we don't have to embark on another senseless debate about it later on.

[Charles Xavier]

As I've explained as well, I couldn't agree more. Though, could you at least explain in your own sense the reasons behind why Cuba is socialist, just so we don't have to embark on another senseless debate about it later on.

Cuba is socialist because the working class controls the state. It has the rule of the working class.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

If the State is operating for the interests of the people of Cuba, can we still call it a bureaucracy though? I mean, there's no evidence whatsoever that the Cuban State is exploiting the working class. In fact, with the little capitalist markets present in Cuba, the government has made sure that they're not able to exploit the workers. The family-based capitalist markets, such as the restaurants, along with the self-employed jobs such as the barbershops & taxi services are forbidden from hiring other workers for them to exploit.

A state can be economically progressive without being a socialist state. In my view, if the workers don't control a state, then the state isn't workers' state. And if the state isn't a workers' state, it can't be socialist.

Where capitalists are absent and property is in the hands of the state, the workers still generate profits -- profits that are still taken from these workers as individuals. The difference is that the profits generated under state control are now pumped into the state, and can be used for progressive purposes. However, they can also be used to enrich the ruling bureaucrats. And without workers' control over the state (and the state's bureaucrats), it is the bureaucrats who get to have the final say.

A state can be undemocratic, yet progressive from an economic point of view. In that case, its progressivism genuinely deserves praise. But it's difficult to imagine that such a state adheres to socialism -- the workers' control of the means of production.

[The Vegan Marxist]

A state can be economically progressive without being a socialist state. In my view, if the workers don't control a state, then the state isn't workers' state. And if the state isn't a workers' state, it can't be socialist.

Where capitalists are absent and property is in the hands of the state, the workers still generate profits -- profits that are still taken from these workers as individuals. The difference is that the profits generated under state control are now pumped into the state, and can be used for progressive purposes. However, they can also be used to enrich the ruling bureaucrats. And without workers' control over the state (and the state's bureaucrats), it is the bureaucrats who get to have the final say.

A state can be undemocratic, yet progressive from an economic point of view. In that case, its progressivism genuinely deserves praise. But it's difficult to imagine that such a state adheres to socialism -- the workers' control of the means of production.

Yet, I've seen no evidence brought forth where these profits have been used to enrich the ruling "bureaucrats".

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Yet, I've seen no evidence brought forth where these profits have been used to enrich the ruling "bureaucrats".

I never suggested that they were. I think Cuba happens to be doing quite well for its circumstances, and I very much admire Fidel. However, I would like evidence that it's actually socialist -- it may be socialist, but I haven't come across that evidence.

Again, the criterion is merely to what extent the working class (rather than the Party) controls the system. If the working people are in charge of the bureaucrats, then Cuba is a socialist country.

[robbo203]

Why does this make Cuba non-Socialist?

Socialism is defined as the collective - mostly public - ownership of the means of production. In which, if you look at Cuba, the means of production is, of the majority, collectively owned by the public through the State. It's either or, as in - it's either capitalist, in which then the means of production is privately owned, which is not what we see in Cuba, & if it's socialist, then the means of production is publicly owned, which is what we see in Cuba. Just because there's some capitalist production present in Cuba does not make it any less Socialist.


No. Socialism (traditionally a synonym for communism) is defined as the common ownership of the means of production and therefore necessarily entails the elimination of all forms of economic exchange. Notably commodity production and wage labour (in which the dispossessed class sells its labour power in exchange for a wage). "Public ownership " is a complete misnomer. It is state ownership and state ownership is 100% compatible with capitalism.

I really wish people on this list would get this straight once and for all. So many here hold ideas about socialism which are as wishy washy and ill conceived as the Liberals they claim to oppose and it is not surprising that their outlook converges with these self same liberals in thinking that countries like Cuba are somehow "socialist". It demonstrates a total misunderstanding of Marxism theory.

Once again might I refer to that wonderful quote from Fred Engels

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. Socialism Utopian and Scientific

So please digest this quote and consider what it entails. I think if you understood what was being said here there is no way you could come up with such a patently nonsensical claim like Cuba being a socialist state. There is no such thing as a socialist state. Period.

[robbo203]

Cuba is socialist because the working class controls the state. It has the rule of the working class.

The working class is by defintion the exploited class in capitalism. So the exploited class in capitalism according to you controls the state that runs a system that allows the working class to be exploited.

What sort of incoherent nonsense is this???

[The Vegan Marxist]

No. Socialism (traditionally a synonym for communism) is defined as the common ownership of the means of production and therefore necessarily entails the elimination of all forms of economic exchange. Notably commodity production and wage labour (in which the dispossessed class sells its labour power in exchange for a wage). "Public ownership " is a complete misnomer. It is state ownership and state ownership is 100% compatible with capitalism.

I really wish people on this list would get this straight once and for all. So many here hold ideas about socialism which are as wishy washy and ill conceived as the Liberals they claim to oppose and it is not surprising that their outlook converges with these self same liberals in thinking that countries like Cuba are somehow "socialist". It demonstrates a total misunderstanding of Marxism theory.

Once again might I refer to that wonderful quote from Fred Engels

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. Socialism Utopian and Scientific

So please digest this quote and consider what it entails. I think if you understood what was being said here there is no way you could come up with such a patently nonsensical claim like Cuba being a socialist state. There is no such thing as a socialist state. Period.

And I would disagree wholeheartedly that the Cuban State is the bourgeois state. I see no evidence of this whatsoever.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Once again might I refer to that wonderful quote from Fred Engels

The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine, the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of the productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage workers - proletarians. The capitalist relationship is not done away with. Socialism Utopian and Scientific

So please digest this quote and consider what it entails. I think if you understood what was being said here there is no way you could come up with such a patently nonsensical claim like Cuba being a socialist state. There is no such thing as a socialist state. Period.

So -- putting Cuba aside for the moment -- you hold that if the workers democratically control the state, there still is exploitation?

And would the workers be exploiting themselves? (I find it absurd.)

[The Vegan Marxist]

No. Socialism (traditionally a synonym for communism) is defined as the common ownership of the means of production and therefore necessarily entails the elimination of all forms of economic exchange. Notably commodity production and wage labour (in which the dispossessed class sells its labour power in exchange for a wage). "Public ownership " is a complete misnomer. It is state ownership and state ownership is 100% compatible with capitalism.


So you take on the ideal that the State, no matter who is of control over it, is inevitably Capitalist? Even if the workers run the State, or at least is of the interests of the workers? I think your anarchist-like lines are a bit un-Marxist to say the least.

I only used a bit of what one used to help clarify the reason why, whether worker owned or collectively owned through the State, it remains as a socialist system:


Marx’s concept of socialism was more developed and more materialistic than earlier concepts. It involved a much clearer statement of, how, for instance, the rules of distribution would work in socialism. Most importantly, of course, it involved a practical route to socialism. But by socialism Marx still meant a society based on the common ownership of the means of production. Thus we have the following from the Communist Manifesto:


In this sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.

And from Engels’s Principles of Communism we get:


Question 14 : What kind of a new social order will this have to be?

Answer : Above all, it will generally have to take the running of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole, that is, for the common account, according to a common plan and with the participation of all members of society. It will, in other words, abolish competition and replace it with association. Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals has private property as its inevitable result, and since competition is merely the manner and form in which industry is run by individual private owners, it follows that private property cannot be separated from the individual management of industry and from competition. Hence, private property will also have to be abolished, and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement — in a word, the so-called communal ownership of goods. In fact, the abolition of private property is the shortest and most significant way to characterize the transformation of the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry, and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.

Thus, socialism at its base means the collective ownership of the means of production. Of course, to Marxists this concept brings on its heels many, many other improvements, but the economic reorganization of society is the foundation of the other changes. And the Marxist concept of socialism has indeed been followed by socialist societies.

Chapter 1 of the 1936 Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1936/12/05.htm) — the so-called Stalin Constitution — is entitled “the Organization of Soviet Society.” Marx wrote that economics is the motor of history. As is appropriate in a constitution written by Marxists, most of this chapter deals with the economic organization of Soviet society. Article four of that Chaper reads:


ARTICLE 4. The socialist system of economy and the socialist ownership of the means and instruments of production firmly established as a result of the abolition of the capitalist system of economy, the abrogation of private ownership of the means and instruments of production and the abolition of the exploitation of man by man, constitute’ the economic foundation of the U.S.S.R.

The same chapter goes on to explain that generally the means of production are to be collectively owned. This means either owned by the state as the organization of the whole working people; owned by cooperative associations; or owned by collective farms. The right of individuals to own furnishings and personal effects and even to leave these to their heirs is protected, but only very limited private ownership of the means of production is allowed:


ARTICLE 9. Alongside the socialist system of economy, which is the predominant form of economy in the U.S.S.R., the law permits the small private economy of individual peasants and handicraftsman based on their personal labor and precluding the exploitation of the labor of others

Even at that, the Stalin Constitution recognizes that private ownership of the means of production, even by small producers working on their own or in a family farm, is not socialist.

This Constitution came into force in 1936, nineteen years after the seizure of power in Russia, and is a set of rules for a country in which socialism is firmly in place.

Similar rules apply today in Cuba. Recently, the capitalist press has made much of the new rules allowing barbers to cut hair on their own account in Cuba. Others in Cuba run restaurants or drive taxis as a sort of small business. But neither barbers nor anyone else in Cuba is allowed to employ anyone to work for them. In short, although some private small production exists, the exploitation of man by man is banned in Cuba, and the law is stringently enforced.

Thus, the concept of socialism was greatly deepened by Marx, but it was not invented by Marx, and what Marx meant by socialism, is, at base, much the same as what many earlier thinkers meant by it. Of course, we have to keep in mind that no socialist of the utopian dreamer or reformist stripe has ever succeeded in establishing a lasting socialist society.

http://marxistleninist.wordpress.com/2010/05/18/socialism-and-the-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat/

[AK]

Just because there's some capitalist production present in Cuba does not make it any less Socialist.
Um, yeah, it actually does make a society "less socialist" (although the idea that Cuba was ever socialist is debatable) if some production is conducted in a capitalist way - unless you think 49% of industry can be owned by private owners and the economic system can still be called "socialist" (which is the vibe I seem to be getting from you).

EDIT: Oh shit, you actually do believe that:

majority of the means of production being publicly owned with some private ownership within some sector of the economy, still makes it socialist under a Marxist analysis.
I don't know about you, but if there are still elements of capitalist social relations in your "socialist" society, I would consider it to be a failed revolution.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Um, yeah, it actually does make a society "less socialist" (although the idea that Cuba was ever socialist is debatable) if some production is conducted in a capitalist way - unless you think 49% of industry can be owned by private owners and the economic system can still be called "socialist" (which is the vibe I seem to be getting from you).

EDIT: Oh shit, you actually do believe that:

I don't know about you, but if there are still elements of capitalist social relations in your "socialist" society, I would consider it to be a failed revolution.

Through socialism, the bourgeoisie remain - meaning some form of capitalism remains. This is a gradual process to eliminate, but it's still there nonetheless.

[AK]

So you take on the ideal that the State, no matter who is of control over it, is inevitably Capitalist? Even if the workers run the State, or at least is of the interests of the workers? I think your anarchist-like lines are a bit un-Marxist to say the least.
We're a bit un-Leninist. I would say that there could never be such a thing as a workers' state - because the mode of production which has created the current social order (capitalism) has been completely abolished and no-one is lower than the workers under the new system (I don't see how the working class could create a class-based society that is based on workers' control of the means of production). Therefore, class divisions would not exist and neither would a state.

Secondly, "if it is at least run in the interests of the workers" is utter bullshit. Sure, the new ruling class could carry out many policies which are worker-friendly, but this ignores the fact that individual workers have their own individual interests and opinions as well - and a small ruling clique in power is hardly going to take in to account each of their views. A state that is only "run in the interests of the workers" can never be considered socialist - it ignores the social inequality that arises from material factors and also fails to take into account the fact that the primary function of the state is to preserve to status quo (and that includes primarily protecting the interests of the ruling class by generally being a repressive motherfucker to the working class). This is why genuine workers' democracy is so important.

[AK]

Through socialism, the bourgeoisie remain - meaning some form of capitalism remains. This is a gradual process to eliminate, but it's still there nonetheless.
But the bourgeoisie are expropriated and ridded of their own class status. They could have reactionary ideas, but it doesn't change the fact that expropriated capitalists are members of the working class (or, assuming you're in to my way of thinking, they would be classless - but reactionary nonetheless).

[robbo203]

So -- putting Cuba aside for the moment -- you hold that if the workers democratically control the state, there still is exploitation?

And would the workers be exploiting themselves? (I find it absurd.)

I agree it is absurd. That is why I think the whole idea of the "workers state" is absurd. It makes no sense at all. If the working class exist then by definition they exist as the exploited class in capitalism meaning they are exploited by a capitalist class. You cannot have a working class without a capitalist class. The idea is nonsensical in Marxian terms. So if a state exists that allows a capitalist class to exploit a working class how can it possibly be called a "workers" state. Think about it. Not only that - the very idea of a "workers state means you still have capitalism (the working class being an economic category peculiar to capitalism) and you cannot run capitalism in any other way than in the interests of the capitalist class, can you?

If the workers democratically took control of the state there can only be one logical path that makes any sense at all - that they immediately abolish class society altogether. No messying around with some so called transitional period. Get rid of the class society and you immediately get rid of your status as an exploited class. With class society gone, the state too disappears being essentially an instrument of class rule. There is no "workers state" becuase there is neither a working class nor a state.

If you dont accept this argument then you are left with only logical conclusion - that you are left a working class and hence a capitalist class that by definition exploits this class and has the full support of a state that allows this to happen however much it might pretend to be a "workers state"

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

I agree it is absurd. That is why I think the whole idea of the "workers state" is absurd. It makes no sense at all.

Are you serious?


If the working class exist then by definition they exist as the exploited class in capitalism meaning they are exploited by a capitalist class. You cannot have a working class without a capitalist class. The idea is nonsensical in Marxian terms.

But Marxism demands that the workers seize control of the state. I don't find the idea incoherent at all, and don't see why that really would entail a contradiction. So I believe that you're are abusing these concepts.


So if a state exists that allows a capitalist class to exploit a working class how can it possibly be called a "workers" state. Think about it. Not only that - the very idea of a "workers state means you still have capitalism (the working class being an economic category peculiar to capitalism) and you cannot run capitalism in any other way than in the interests of the capitalist class, can you?

There wouldn't be a capitalist class in a democratically-run workers' state. Let's take some kind of syndicalist scenario where the workers are simply running a particular factory. They all get together and democratically elect somebody to run this, somebody else to run that -- or they just pick a director that they approve of.

Surely you see that this isn't capitalism? Well, why not apply this kind of model to the state?


If the workers democratically took control of the state there can only be one logical path that makes any sense at all - that they immediately abolish class society altogether. No messying around with some so called transitional period. Get rid of the class society and you immediately get rid of your status as an exploited class. With class society gone, the state too disappears being essentially an instrument of class rule. There is no "workers state" becuase there is neither a working class nor a state.

Then you are completely contradicting Marxism, which sees the transitional period as a necessity.

The traditional Marxist view isn't that the working class is exploited because it's working in factories -- because doing some kind of necessary work will always be essential to human existence. It's that the workers are exploited because of the antagonism between them and the people dominating them (the capitalists). Remove that dominance and give workers control -- and you're abolishing the class contradictions of capitalist society. (The workers cannot be exploiting themselves.)

A classless society cannot mean abolishing work. It only means that the old class distinctions are no longer applicable -- no?


If you dont accept this argument then you are left with only logical conclusion - that you are left a working class and hence a capitalist class that by definition exploits this class and has the full support of a state that allows this to happen however much it might pretend to be a "workers state"

Why would there be a capitalist class? If merely by definition, perhaps it's your definitions that should be corrected.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I agree it is absurd. That is why I think the whole idea of the "workers state" is absurd. It makes no sense at all. If the working class exist then by definition they exist as the exploited class in capitalism meaning they are exploited by a capitalist class. You cannot have a working class without a capitalist class. The idea is nonsensical in Marxian terms.

After there is a revolution, there will remain bourgeoisie elements. This is Marxism 101. This is where the working class is defined in contradiction from the bourgeoisie, who are upholders of the remains of a capitalist class. If you fail to see this, & rather constitute it as being an absurd action, then you're going against Marxism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I agree it is absurd. That is why I think the whole idea of the "workers state" is absurd. It makes no sense at all. If the working class exist then by definition they exist as the exploited class in capitalism meaning they are exploited by a capitalist class. You cannot have a working class without a capitalist class. The idea is nonsensical in Marxian terms. So if a state exists that allows a capitalist class to exploit a working class how can it possibly be called a "workers" state. Think about it. Not only that - the very idea of a "workers state means you still have capitalism (the working class being an economic category peculiar to capitalism) and you cannot run capitalism in any other way than in the interests of the capitalist class, can you?

If the workers democratically took control of the state there can only be one logical path that makes any sense at all - that they immediately abolish class society altogether. No messying around with some so called transitional period. Get rid of the class society and you immediately get rid of your status as an exploited class. With class society gone, the state too disappears being essentially an instrument of class rule. There is no "workers state" becuase there is neither a working class nor a state.

If you dont accept this argument then you are left with only logical conclusion - that you are left a working class and hence a capitalist class that by definition exploits this class and has the full support of a state that allows this to happen however much it might pretend to be a "workers state"

Basically, these are all classic criticisms that for years, Anarchists thinkers have levied against Marxist thought. Ignore all of the "BUT THATS NOT WHAT MARXISM SAYS" comments. There never was, nor will there ever be a "temporary" or "transitional" state.

[The] State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class: a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class. And finally, when all the other classes have exhausted themselves, the State then becomes the patrimony of the bureaucratic class and then falls—or, if you will, rises—to the position of a machine. - Bakunin

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

[The] State has always been the patrimony of some privileged class: a priestly class, an aristocratic class, a bourgeois class. And finally, when all the other classes have exhausted themselves, the State then becomes the patrimony of the bureaucratic class and then falls—or, if you will, rises—to the position of a machine. - Bakunin

Well, if you take that kind of view as the starting assumption, then yes. Marxists do not. It is an assumption that can never properly be demonstrated to hold true in every circumstance -- for how can a bureaucracy that is subordinated to the people actually assume a domineering role? But all anarchists rule out such a possibility.

How can the proletariat of any single country defeat the bourgeoisie and then immediately proceed to abolish the state? You will immediately be put down by the reactionaries. The working class must first seize at least a majority of the globe.

It is historically demonstrated that every attempt to implement anarchism has failed because it was easily defeated by superior military forces.

Abolish the state, and you will immediately be invaded by reactionary armies. How do you fight them back? Do you expect to create a decent society among working-class guerrillas hiding out in the forests, jungles, and mountains?

[robbo203]

But Marxism demands that the workers seize control of the state. I don't find the idea incoherent at all, and don't see why that really would entail a contradiction. So I believe that you're are abusing these concepts.
.


You are not attending to what I said. I did not rule out the need for the workers movement to democratically capture the state to abolish capitalism. My point was quite a different one. Once political power is captured class relations must go without delay. If you linger with a class based society then you need to understand that such a society cannot possibly be run in the interests of the exploited class. THAT is the contradiction I was referring to. In short, the idea that the working class can somehow operate a class-ased society in its own interests when the working class is by definition the exploited class in capitalism





There wouldn't be a capitalist class in a democratically-run workers' state. Let's take some kind of syndicalist scenario where the workers are simply running a particular factory. They all get together and democratically elect somebody to run this, somebody else to run that -- or they just pick a director that they approve of .

Do you not grasp the simple point I am making? What does a workers state mean if not that the working class (supposedly) hold power? So it presupposes a working class, does it not? But the existence of a working class presupposes the existence of a capitalist class does it not?. How on earth can you have a working class and not a capitalist class? The idea is utterly absurd. Marx made the point that wage labour presupposes capital and capital presupposes wage labour. So the existence of a working class must imply the existence of a capitalist class and, as we know, the relation between them is necessarily an exploitative one with the latter exploiting the former. Even the existence of a state itself must imply the existence of class society since states are esentially insturments of class rule. And if you have a class society that means you have exploitation. Who then is doing the exploiting in your "workers state"?



Surely you see that this isn't capitalism? Well, why not apply this kind of model to the state?

.
How can it not be capitalism if you have a working class and therefore a capitalist class? How can it not be a class based society if you have a state?



Then you are completely contradicting Marxism, which sees the transitional period as a necessity. .

Yes I know. I have said many times before on this froum that I disgree with Marx's forumlation of a transitional period although to be fair to Marx he did not claim that this was a different kind of society. I think the logic of what he was saying was that the transitional period would still be within a framework of a capitalist soceity albeit with the workers ensconsed in power. I think Marx's argument was ill conceived and incoherent. I prefer to locate the transtional period BEFORE the capture of political power by the workers and not AFTER.



The traditional Marxist view isn't that the working class is exploited because it's working in factories -- because doing some kind of necessary work will always be essential to human existence. It's that the workers are exploited because of the antagonism between them and the people dominating them (the capitalists). Remove that dominance and give workers control -- and you're abolishing the class contradictions of capitalist society. (The workers cannot be exploiting themselves.)
.

Yes but cant you understand that if you remove the capitalist from the scene you must ipso facto abolish the working class as well. The two go together. There will be no working class in a classless society. There wont be "workers" in that sense. All there will be is people who will no longer relate to each in class terms. They will of course engage i n work but they will not be workers but rather emancipated human beings


A classless society cannot mean abolishing work. It only means that the old class distinctions are no longer applicable -- no?.

Who said anything about abolishing work? It is an absurd inference on your part. It is surely is pretty obvious that in talking about "workers" we are talking about a class category of capitalism. We are not talking about "people who do work". If that is what you mean by workers then i would suggest it has absolutely no bearing on the question of the "workers state" . The workers state is clearly a class based construction since ther state itself is an instrument of class rule. So you are completely contradiucting yourself in using the term "worker" in the classless sense of just someone who does work and using worker as a class category in conjunction with the concept of the state - the so called workers state




Why would there be a capitalist class? If merely by definition, perhaps it's your definitions that should be corrected.

On the contrary as I have just demonstrated above its your definition that needs to be corrected. Your theoretical postion is fundamentally confused and contradictory

[AK]

Abolish the state, and you will immediately be invaded by reactionary armies. How do you fight them back? Do you expect to create a decent society among working-class guerrillas hiding out in the forests, jungles, and mountains?
trololololol working class guerillas hiding in the mountains :laugh:
My god, you are stupid.

Guns, tanks, jets, bombers, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines =/= the state.

The state is an instrument that one class users to rule over others (since there shouldn't be any class system after the revolution, there would be no state), not necessarily something which - if it exists - suddenly creates and maintains order and stability in society.

Besides, even if your great "workers' state" existed like you say it will, does it not have the same chances of being invaded by the imperialist powers? Remember Russia? 14 foreign armies all treating the Russian cities and countryside like their own backyard? There was a state then, too.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Wladiwostok_Parade_1918.jpg

[Apoi_Viitor]

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci514

WHO WILL DEFEND US IF THERES NO STATE?

[robbo203]

How can the proletariat of any single country defeat the bourgeoisie and then immediately proceed to abolish the state? You will immediately be put down by the reactionaries. The working class must first seize at least a majority of the globe.

It is historically demonstrated that every attempt to implement anarchism has failed because it was easily defeated by superior military forces.

Abolish the state, and you will immediately be invaded by reactionary armies. How do you fight them back? Do you expect to create a decent society among working-class guerrillas hiding out in the forests, jungles, and mountains?


Do you seriously imagine for one moment that a genuine communist movement, standing unambiguously for the abolition of class society and the state ,would not be a global phenomenon?

By the time the movement is a mass movement in any one part of the world, it will be pretty sizeable everywhere else. Thats how ideas spread and in our global village, national boundaries are no obstacle to their spread. With the growth of the movement everywhere, "reactionary" ideas everywhere will ipso facto be on the retreat. Two totally different sets of ideas cannot both flourish in the same soil. The whole social climate of opinion will have altered irrevocably by the time global communism is on the threshold of becoming a reality.

Residual capitalist states will have neither the power nor even the will to stop this process. It is is historically naive and indeed utterly idealist to suppose that any military action in the form of invasion can just happen like that without reference to the social conditions pertaining in the invading country. Such actions need to be legitimised and in a social climate which will be decisively hostile to capitalism this is a non starter. Not only that, communist ideas will by then have penetrated everywhere including the armed forces. That the armed forces are not immune to the wider social influences was well demonstrated in the case of the Bolshevik Revolution. Even though that revolution turned out (unavoidably) to be a capitalist revolution that established state capitalism as the previaling order this does not negate the basic point Im making.

The spectre of reactionary armies instantly invading parts of the world that have gone communist is a complete chimera without any foundation at all. People who raise this spectre only so becuase they do not fully grasp what is required for a genuine communist revolution to suceed. It is not at all comparable to some bourgeois national liberation struggle. We are talking about a qualitatively different kind of phenomenon altogether based upon global class consciousness and global class unity.

[robbo203]

After there is a revolution, there will remain bourgeoisie elements. This is Marxism 101. This is where the working class is defined in contradiction from the bourgeoisie, who are upholders of the remains of a capitalist class. If you fail to see this, & rather constitute it as being an absurd action, then you're going against Marxism.


On the contrary, after a communist revolution there can be no bourgeoisie nor indeed working class. If such classes still exist in any shape or form then the revolution has not yet been consummated; it has still to be carried out. THIS is basic marxism not the illogical postion you are adopting

[The Vegan Marxist]

On the contrary, after a communist revolution there can be no bourgeoisie nor indeed working class. If such classes still exist in any shape or form then the revolution has not yet been consummated; it has still to be carried out. THIS is basic marxism not the illogical postion you are adopting

The bourgeois state must first be abolished through violent revolution. After this, there remains bourgeoisie elements, in which, in contradiction, define the working class. From here, the workers hold the state as the new ruling class - a Proletarian state. From here, we of course know is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", in which will bring forth Communism through the withering of the Proletarian state. This is Marxism.

“As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency." ~Friedrich Engels

[AK]

The bourgeois state must first be abolished through violent revolution. After this, there remains bourgeoisie elements, in which, in contradiction, define the working class. From here, the workers hold the state as the new ruling class - a Proletarian state. From here, we of course know is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", in which will bring forth Communism through the withering of the Proletarian state. This is Marxism.
You're ignoring everything robbo has said. A state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system. So will there be a class system in your "socialism"? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this happens? Since you seem so sure that social class relations can whither away without being tampered or altered, you must be delighted to explain how this is.

[The Vegan Marxist]

You're ignoring everything robbo has said. A state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system. So will there be a class system in your "socialism"? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this happens? Since you seem so sure that social class relations can whither away without being tampered or altered, you must be delighted to explain how this is.

Yes, the workers become the new ruling class, in which, through the Proletarian state, oppress those bourgeoisie elements until there is no class left. So yes, through the process from capitalism to communism - Socialism - there still exists a class system. I know it's hard for you anarchists to understand, so try not to take it personally.

[AK]

Yes, the workers become the new ruling class, in which, through the Proletarian state, oppress those bourgeoisie elements until there is no class left. So yes, through the process from capitalism to communism - Socialism - there still exists a class system. I know it's hard for you anarchists to understand, so try not to take it personally.
If class is the result of material factors, surely class can disappear altogether as soon as those material factors are altered in the right way? Foolishly, you think otherwise.

[The Vegan Marxist]

If class is the result of material factors, surely class can disappear altogether as soon as those material factors are altered in the right way? Foolishly, you think otherwise.

Yeah, that's why the material factors that took place during the Spanish Revolution worked out so well. :rolleyes:

[robbo203]

The bourgeois state must first be abolished through violent revolution. After this, there remains bourgeoisie elements, in which, in contradiction, define the working class. From here, the workers hold the state as the new ruling class - a Proletarian state. From here, we of course know is the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", in which will bring forth Communism through the withering of the Proletarian state. This is Marxism.

“As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency." ~Friedrich Engels

I think you are confused on several counts here.

I accept that Marx and Engels envisaged the possibility of a political transition period called the "dictatorship of the proletariat" . I disagree with this idea strongly and have said so many times. I do not however accept that M & E equated the DOTP with socialism or anything like that. Leninists may do this but in so doing they depart radically from
M & E.

This is what I was getting at in my earlier point about what marxism is reallyt about. You made the claim that after the revolution "there will remain bourgeoisie elements" . This is incorrect. After the revolution there will be neither a bourgeoisie or a working class. You do not understand what is meant by a revolution if you can say what you said. A revolution means a fundamental change in the basis of society. If classes still exist how can you say there has been a fundamental change? In fact strictly speaking a so called proletarian state will be completely compatible with capitalism since the capitalist class structure will remain intact. In short, a socialist revolution will still not yet have taken place, changing fundamentally the economic basis of society to one of common ownership of the means of living and hence abolishing classes

One final point - why do you insist on the need for a revolution to be violent? You quote Engels but in fact Engels was pretty optimistic about the prospects of peaceful change. See his 1895 preface to Class Struggles in France

[Apoi_Viitor]

You're ignoring everything robbo has said. A state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system. So will there be a class system in your "socialism"? Also, how does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? What is the method in which this happens? Since you seem so sure that social class relations can whither away without being tampered or altered, you must be delighted to explain how this is.

Taken from the Anarchists FAQ (This shit always comes in handy)

"For anarchists the state, government, means "the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 41] For Marxists, the state is "an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another." [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 274] That these definitions are in conflict is clear and unless this difference is made explicit, anarchist opposition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be clearly understood."

If by creation of a "state", he means control in the hands of the working class majority - that would be what Anarchists refer to as abolishing the state. However, if by state, he means creation of a revolutionary vanguard party, then we have a whole different story....

[robbo203]

Yes, the workers become the new ruling class, in which, through the Proletarian state, oppress those bourgeoisie elements until there is no class left. So yes, through the process from capitalism to communism - Socialism - there still exists a class system. I know it's hard for you anarchists to understand, so try not to take it personally.

Two points

Firstly, the idea that socialism is an intermediate class-based system between capitalism and communism has got absolutely nothing to do with Marxism. This is a Leninist invention! In fact Lenin was highly confused on the subject of socialism altogether, equating it at one point with Marx's lower phase of communism. But Marx's lower phase of communism was clearly a classless society based on the common ownership of the means of production. In fact, Marx specifically said so in his Critique of the Gotha Programme. So if socialism, according to lenin, equated with the lower phase of communism which was classless how could Lenin also claim socialism was a class based system?

Secondly, you make this extraordinary claim without so much as batting an eyelid that the workers will "become the new ruling class, in which, through the Proletarian state, oppress those bourgeoisie elements until there is no class left". You are just not thinking clearly here. How are workers, who are by definition the exploited class in capitalism, going to "oppress their exploiters"? How? how? how? Ive ask this gawd knows how many times but I get no answer at all from you Leninists. None whatsoever. Why?

The point is that if the workers are in a position to "oppress the capitalists" then why on earth would they want to remain exploited by these capitalists for one second longer? Why would they not simply abolish exploitation and class society altogether? What is it with this masochistic notion that we will have power over the capitalist but allow them still to exploit us? It seems to me there is only one logical conclusion to draw from this whole dotty concept of the so called proletarian state and that is that it will simply be yet another capitalist state supporting the right of capitalists to exploit the workers - for neither the working class nor the capitalist class could exist without the latter exploiting the former - and all the while pretending to represent the interests of said workers.

In fact, it looks to me much more like a state run by the kind of political party that the Labour party used to have pretensions to being whenb it was goping through its early workerist phase, That was before these class traitors got a taste for quaffing champagne with the bourgeoisie.
So, as far as I am concerned - stuff the so called proletarian state! Its a vipers nest of delusion and deceit and if you go down that particular road you will only end up in a capitalist cul de sac

[chuzhoi]

Cuba is socialist. It is part of socialist civilization and thanks to that american people hate it.
In Cuba workers and normal people have chance to live. Conditions of life not only distingush from other countries Latin America but are better for majority of cuban citizens.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

You are not attending to what I said. I did not rule out the need for the workers movement to democratically capture the state to abolish capitalism. My point was quite a different one. Once political power is captured class relations must go without delay. If you linger with a class based society then you need to understand that such a society cannot possibly be run in the interests of the exploited class. THAT is the contradiction I was referring to. In short, the idea that the working class can somehow operate a class-ased society in its own interests when the working class is by definition the exploited class in capitalism.

Robbo, I see where the misunderstanding is: in word choice.

The workers capture the state and proceed to abolish class-based society. Once they do so, there is no longer a working-class and a capitalist class. It's simply a classless society, although I would not call it a stateless society. What one would fairly call a "state" -- though not a state like the traditional bourgeois state -- would still exist for some time. (It can wither away to an extent, and it will wither away completely when all of its functions are performed by civil society.)

That state would be a "workers' state" only in the sense that it would be supported by surplus value from wage labour, although this surplus value would then be redistributed among the people on a basis of need -- and the state role in organizing production and distribution would produce it a fundamentally different arrangement from capitalist society, wouldn't it?

I used "workers' state" to describe this kind of classless society, even though there aren't any workers in the sense of people who form a separate class exploited by capitalists. Perhaps "classless state" is better applicable as a term for this, but it does not seem to be used widely.


Do you not grasp the simple point I am making? What does a workers state mean if not that the working class (supposedly) hold power? So it presupposes a working class, does it not? But the existence of a working class presupposes the existence of a capitalist class does it not?. How on earth can you have a working class and not a capitalist class? The idea is utterly absurd. Marx made the point that wage labour presupposes capital and capital presupposes wage labour.

Post-revolution, there would be wage labor and a state, one of whose roles would involve economic planning. The surplus value of wage labor would be appropriated by the state, which would be (or sooner-or-later become) a completely democratically-run institution. The profits kept by the capitalist for his own needs would now belong to our classless society as a whole -- so there would be no reason to speak of any exploitation going on. (As I originally highlighted, the idea of a democratically-run socialist society exploiting itself is absurd, since you can never self-exploit.)


So the existence of a working class must imply the existence of a capitalist class and, as we know, the relation between them is necessarily an exploitative one with the latter exploiting the former. Even the existence of a state itself must imply the existence of class society since states are esentially insturments of class rule. And if you have a class society that means you have exploitation. Who then is doing the exploiting in your "workers state"?

No. The state was created as an instrument of class rule, but it has other functions, and I do not see why we should do away with the term "state" once we abolish capitalism. (The state's functions would include not only defense and economic planning, but resolving individual and group conflicts of interest, which remain even when we abolish class.)

On the other hand, so long as the state is democratically-run, it should be possible to abolish class exploitation without abolishing wage labor.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

trololololol working class guerillas hiding in the mountains :laugh:

Ha. Ha. Ha. The joke's on you...


My god, you are stupid.

Your mom.


Guns, tanks, jets, bombers, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines =/= the state.

You see what kind of brilliant debater you really are, Comrade AK? I never said "tanks, jets, bombers, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines = the state."

However, the state is pretty effective at organizing and coordinating the production and use of them. (Remember Bolshevism?)


The state is an instrument that one class users to rule over others (since there shouldn't be any class system after the revolution, there would be no state), not necessarily something which - if it exists - suddenly creates and maintains order and stability in society.

The state is an instrument that one class uses to rule over another class in bourgeois society, but the word can refer to any organized body that possesses the ability to use force and other methods in order to make others carry out its will. It is an apparatus for getting things done when there is a situation involving conflicts of interests, and in a society without classes can still be used by one dominant section of the population (the majority in a democratic state) against another (the minority in a democratic state).

Conflicts and clashes, external and internal, can arise for various reasons. Even without distinctions of class.


Besides, even if your great "workers' state" existed like you say it will, does it not have the same chances of being invaded by the imperialist powers? Remember Russia? 14 foreign armies all treating the Russian cities and countryside like their own backyard? There was a state then, too.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f3/Wladiwostok_Parade_1918.jpg

Nice picture. Vladivostok? Crimea?

See, the Bolsheviks, who organized their power on the basis of a state, became extremely effective. That, I would venture, would be why they were able to fight back and defeat all of their opponents.

Which is a lot more than one can say about the anarchists in places like Spain and Ukraine.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Do you seriously imagine for one moment that a genuine communist movement, standing unambiguously for the abolition of class society and the state ,would not be a global phenomenon?

A genuine communist movement will undoubtedly be a global phenomenon, but doesn't history teach us that the revolution will most likely not be global?

My reasons for saying so are quite elementary, so perhaps you could shed some further light. Societies develop in somewhat different directions, by different means, and at different rates. On a political level, they also exist under different systems. Some nations are exploited by imperialism, some nations are imperialists. Some are much more exploited, some far less so. Some bourgeois states are left-wing-liberal and some are extremely reactionary; some are relatively popular, some quite unpopular.

The bourgeoisie doesn't sit idly while we attempt to foment revolution. It actively promotes reactionary ideas. The ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, and even the minds of plenty of workers are polluted by divisive and pro-ruling class attitudes. Are people on the brink of a revolutionary situation supposed to wait while the political class consciousness of the majority of the entire global proletariat catches up with them?

Even if a "global revolution" could somehow commence in all places and simultaneously, who is to say that it will succeed everywhere at once? What do you do if your revolution, say, succeeds in Australia and some other places, and fails everywhere else?

Is it not worth considering that the revolution, even if it succeeds in places like Britain and America, could well have to remain isolated for quite some time? Surely the state will not completely wither away in that scenario?

[AK]

Yeah, that's why the material factors that took place during the Spanish Revolution worked out so well. :rolleyes:
It would be foolish of you to think that I think that Revolutionary Spain was a prime example of an anarchist society. There was still social hierarchy that could be observed, and there was not enough focus on taking back the means of production - instead, it was focused primarily on fighting fascism (hence why it is most commonly referred to as the Spanish Civil War).

[AK]

Taken from the Anarchists FAQ (This shit always comes in handy)

"For anarchists the state, government, means "the delegation of power, that is the abdication of initiative and sovereignty of all into the hands of a few." [Malatesta, Anarchy, p. 41] For Marxists, the state is "an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another." [Lenin, Op. Cit., p. 274] That these definitions are in conflict is clear and unless this difference is made explicit, anarchist opposition to the "dictatorship of the proletariat" cannot be clearly understood."

If by creation of a "state", he means control in the hands of the working class majority - that would be what Anarchists refer to as abolishing the state. However, if by state, he means creation of a revolutionary vanguard party, then we have a whole different story....
I use a Marxist definition of the state, as it is still compatible with anarchism and is essential for an understanding of class struggle.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I use a Marxist definition of the state, as it is still compatible with anarchism and is essential for an understanding of class struggle.

:confused:

The Anarchist's take on the State is not compatible with the Marxist's take on the State. And when I say Marxist, I mean the analysis by both Marx & Engels.

[Apoi_Viitor]

I use a Marxist definition of the state, as it is still compatible with anarchism and is essential for an understanding of class struggle.

Hmm. Care to explain?

[AK]

You see what kind of brilliant debater you really are, Comrade AK? I never said "tanks, jets, bombers, battleships, aircraft carriers, submarines = the state."

Abolish the state, and you will immediately be invaded by reactionary armies. How do you fight them back? Do you expect to create a decent society among working-class guerrillas hiding out in the forests, jungles, and mountains?
This implies that your understanding of the state is that it necessarily equals military co-ordination and superior military technology.


However, the state is pretty effective at organizing and coordinating the production and use of them. (Remember Bolshevism?)
Yes, I do remember that class-based society ruled by a Bolshevik clique which became organised as the ruling class.


The state is an instrument that one class uses to rule over another class in bourgeois society,
So the state is only used by one class to rule over others within Bourgeois society? What about feudalism? Asiatic society?


but the word can refer to any organized body that possesses the ability to use force and other methods in order to make others carry out its will. It is an apparatus for getting things done when there is a situation involving conflicts of interests, and in a society without classes can still be used by one dominant section of the population (the majority in a democratic state) against another (the minority in a democratic state).
This sounds an awful lot like the outright failure of the definition of the state given by Max Weber. It also contradicts with a basic Marxist understanding of the state (as one of the points you made was that the state can exist in a classless society - so how exactly do we attain our goal of a global, stateless, classless society?).


Conflicts and clashes, external and internal, can arise for various reasons. Even without distinctions of class.
Yes, but social division that is not class-based has always been artificially created by a ruling class to further its interests in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Remember institutional racism? Patriarchy? Organised religion?

Although I'm not sure that what you just said had anything to do with anything we were discussing.


Nice picture. Vladivostok? Crimea?

See, the Bolsheviks, who organized their power on the basis of a state, became extremely effective. That, I would venture, would be why they were able to fight back and defeat all of their opponents.
The state =/= military power. The state is a body which is used by a ruling class (which necessarily entails social classes). The existence of a state had nothing to do with the victory of the Bolsheviks. Pure manpower and fire-power wins wars - not the existence of power concentrated into the hands of a few.


Which is a lot more than one can say about the anarchists in places like Spain and Ukraine.

It would be foolish of you to think that I think that Revolutionary Spain was a prime example of an anarchist society. There was still social hierarchy that could be observed, and there was not enough focus on taking back the means of production - instead, it was focused primarily on fighting fascism (hence why it is most commonly referred to as the Spanish Civil War).
Much of the above also applies to the Makhnovists.

[AK]

:confused:

The Anarchist's take on the State is not compatible with the Marxist's take on the State. And when I say Marxist, I mean the analysis by both Marx & Engels.
The entity used by one class to rule over others? It is necessary for a class-struggle anarchist such as myself to use that definition to understand the historic and present function of the state and what our revolution must do to bring it down.

[The Vegan Marxist]

The entity used by one class to rule over others? It is necessary for a class-struggle anarchist such as myself to use that definition to understand the historic and present function of the state and what our revolution must do to bring it down.

The State is not just one separate being though. As laid out by both Marx & Engels, there is the bourgeois state, & then there's the proletarian state. Yes, there must be a ruling class for both, & said ruling class are in the need to oppress whatever antagonistic class there is. Though, when it comes to Anarchism, the State is seen as only one State no matter who the ruling class is & must be abolished immediately. This is not the understanding of the State as laid out through Marxism.

[AK]

The State is not just one separate being though. As laid out by both Marx & Engels, there is the bourgeois state, & then there's the proletarian state. Yes, there must be a ruling class for both, & said ruling class are in the need to oppress whatever antagonistic class there is.
Antagonistic classes under socialism? If you have supposedly created a mode of production which does not divide society into classes, then I must ask; why would there be antagonistic classes?

If you say the Bourgeoisie, you would be wrong because the Bourgeoisie would not exist as a class of their own any more. They would simply be classless reactionaries that yearn for the days of capitalism. Sorry for this presumption, many MLs and MLMs have tried to tell me that the Bourgeoisie exist as a separate class even after their overthrow and expropriation.


Though, when it comes to Anarchism, the State is seen as only one State no matter who the ruling class is & must be abolished immediately. This is not the understanding of the State as laid out through Marxism.
Of course the state must be abolished immediately - done so by the overthrow of the current ruling class and class-based society itself.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Antagonistic classes under socialism? If you have supposedly created a mode of production which does not divide society into classes, then I must ask; why would there be antagonistic classes?

If you say the Bourgeoisie, you would be wrong because the Bourgeoisie would not exist as a class of their own any more. They would simply be classless reactionaries that yearn for the days of capitalism. Sorry for this presumption, many MLs and MLMs have tried to tell me that the Bourgeoisie exist as a separate class even after their overthrow and expropriation.


Of course the state must be abolished immediately - done so by the overthrow of the current ruling class and class-based society itself.

You continue to use the same revisionist derogatory [yes, revisionist, since you claim to go by the lines of Marxism, but completely disregard it's revolutionary character]. These lines of anarchism have completely failed & has no history to uphold said beliefs. There's no need to further this debate, because it's only repeating the same statements over & over again.

[chegitz guevara]

The Cuban Revolution occurred as a result of a massive general strike, which was made possible because the July 26th movement had successfully destabilized the Cuban state.

Following the exile of Batista, a situation of dual power arose in Cuba, with the old bourgeoisie democracy attempting to reassert itself, while the masses of Cubans began marching in the streets, demanding Castro take power, while asserting their own power in the work places. Newspaper workers would place notices about articles they felt were untrue, notifying the public of their suspicions, workers seized control of the utilities, etc.

Finally, Castro and the July 26th movement took power after six months.

It may not have been a carbon copy of the Bolshevik Revolution, but that was a workers revolution.

As to the rest: http://monthlyreview.org/100401levins.php

Cuba is not socialist, since it is an isolated island in a world of imperialism, but it's as close as can be under the circumstances.

[The Vegan Marxist]

^ Although I would disagree with the claim that Cuba is not socialist, I agree with the majority of what you said. What we saw was a workers revolution, allowing Castro to take power.

[AK]

You continue to use the same revisionist derogatory [yes, revisionist, since you claim to go by the lines of Marxism, but completely disregard it's revolutionary character]. These lines of anarchism have completely failed & has no history to uphold said beliefs. There's no need to further this debate, because it's only repeating the same statements over & over again.
What are "these lines of anarchism"? Why do you resort to saying they have "failed" when your great workers' states are among the most spectacular failures in history (a complete transformation back to capitalism)?

[The Vegan Marxist]

What are "these lines of anarchism"? Why do you resort to saying they have "failed" when your great workers' states are among the most spectacular failures in history (a complete transformation back to capitalism)?

:confused:

If you consider places like Cuba as a failure, then you're more confused than I thought (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/cuban-truth-against-the-lies/).

[AK]

:confused:

If you consider places like Cuba as a failure, then you're more confused than I thought (http://redantliberationarmy.wordpress.com/2010/06/02/cuban-truth-against-the-lies/).
I consider places like Cuba to be failures because they have class distinctions within their societies.

*Cuba is ranked #1 in literacy rate, coming to almost 100% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vZW4ud2lraXBlZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpL0xpc3Rfb2 ZfY291bnRyaWVzX2J5X2xpdGVyYWN5X3JhdGU=).
*Although the U.S. has a higher life expectancy rate than Cuba by .66 (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwczovL3d3dy5jaWEuZ292L2xpYnJhcnkvcHVibGljYX Rpb25zL3RoZS13b3JsZC1mYWN0Ym9vay9yYW5rb3JkZXIvMjEw MnJhbmsuaHRtbA==), rating the U.S. at 78.11, & Cuba at 77.45, Cuba before the revolution was at 58.8 on life expectancy rate (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LnVuaWNlZi5vcmcvaW5mb2J5Y291bnRyeS 9jdWJhX3N0YXRpc3RpY3MuaHRtbA==), meaning it went up almost 20 years of life expectancy when Fidel Castro became president of Cuba.
*Cuba has an infant mortality rate of only 5.1 (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vZW4ud2lraXBlZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpL0xpc3Rfb2 ZfY291bnRyaWVzX2J5X2luZmFudF9tb3J0YWxpdHlfcmF0ZQ== ), compared to the U.S. where it’s infant mortality rate is 6.3. Another known fact of this was that, before Fidel Castro became president, the infant mortality rate of Cuba was at 60 deaths per 1000 births (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LndvcmtlcnMub3JnLzIwMDkvd29ybGQvY3 ViYV8wOTE3Lw==).
*When it comes to human poverty, Cuba is ranked at 4.1% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmhlbGxvY3ViYS5jYS9jb21wYXJlLnBocA ==), compared to the U.S. where it is ranked at 12% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3Lm5hdGlvbm1hc3Rlci5jb20vZ3JhcGgvZW NvX3BvcF9iZWxfcG92X2xpbi1lY29ub215LXBvcHVsYXRpb24t YmVsb3ctcG92ZXJ0eS1saW5l).
*If one was to look at the person per doctor rate all around the world, you would find Cuba to be leading the world with a rate of 170, where as the U.S. is at 390 (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vc3RyYW5nZW1hcHMud29yZHByZXNzLmNvbS8yMD A3LzEwLzE3LzE4NS10aGUtZG9jdG9yc3BhdGllbnRzLW1hcC1v Zi10aGUtd29ybGQv).
*The proportion of births that are attended to by skilled health personnel in Cuba is at a remarkable 100% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3Lmdsb2JhbGhlYWx0aGZhY3RzLm9yZy90b3 BpYy5qc3A/aT03Nw==), where as the U.S., although remarkable as well, is at 99%.
*The unemployment rate by country has shown that Cuba is at 1.8% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vZW4ud2lraXBlZGlhLm9yZy93aWtpL0xpc3Rfb2 ZfY291bnRyaWVzX2J5X3VuZW1wbG95bWVudF9yYXRl), while the U.S. remains at 10%, & is growing due to the economic failures taking part in this country.
*Inflation rates in Cuba are at 3.4% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwczovL3d3dy5jaWEuZ292L2xpYnJhcnkvcHVibGljYX Rpb25zL3RoZS13b3JsZC1mYWN0Ym9vay9maWVsZHMvMjA5Mi5o dG1s), leading the U.S. by .4%, where as it is at 3.8%.
*Although the U.S. is leading in improved sanitation rates with an astounding 100%, Cuba is drawing close to the U.S. with an improved sanitation rate of 98% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vbWRncy51bi5vcmcvdW5zZC9tZGcvU2VyaWVzRG V0YWlsLmFzcHg/c3JpZD02Njg=).
*When it comes to percentage of women holding parliamentary seats, which I find to be one of the most important issues of equality today, Cuba is ranked #4 at a percentage of 43.2% (http://www.msplinks.com/MDFodHRwOi8vd3d3LmlwdS5vcmcvd21uLWUvY2xhc3NpZi5odG 0=). Where as the U.S. is tied with Turkmenistan at rank #71 with a percentage of 16.8%.
None of these are explicitly socialist at all. They are merely indicative of a generous government with progressive policies.

As for the high percentage of women holding parliamentary seats; this just indicates the fact that parliamentary "democracy" is used - which implies a ruling class. Do you not see where I'm getting at?

Maybe, if direct democracy were the only system used and control of the economy was entirely in the hands of the workers, I would actually support Cuba for being a classless society and the embodiment of our goal. But it is not.

[chegitz guevara]

Socialism still has class distinctions. Communism has no classes.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I consider places like Cuba to be failures because they have class distinctions within their societies.

None of these are explicitly socialist at all. They are merely indicative of a generous government with progressive policies.

As for the high percentage of women holding parliamentary seats; this just indicates the fact that parliamentary "democracy" is used - which implies a ruling class. Do you not see where I'm getting at?

Maybe, if direct democracy were the only system used and control of the economy was entirely in the hands of the workers, I would actually support Cuba for being a classless society and the embodiment of our goal. But it is not.

Didn't say these were reasons why they were socialist, but rather how Cuba is far from a failure when it comes to Cuba, itself, in comparison to those of the rest of the world - including the US. And yes, there is a ruling class, & that is of the proletarian. When there is a State, there is a ruling class. And until we reach to Communism, there will remain class distinctions, & that includes within Socialism.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

This implies that your understanding of the state is that it necessarily equals military co-ordination and superior military technology.

It doesn't "equal" military co-ordination and superior military technology; however, the state is an apparatus that can very effectively produce weapons, recruit soldiers, and coordinate military forces.

I'm merely stating that the state is quite an effective instrument in that respect.


Yes, I do remember that class-based society ruled by a Bolshevik clique which became organised as the ruling class.

Yes, it eventually became an oligarchic ruling class because the bureaucracy remained in a place indefinitely as the infallible ruler of the masses.

The Bolsheviks should have gradually democratized the party, reined in the power of the bureaucracy, and made the party into a real instrument of the people. They should have transferred more and more of that power into the hands of the people in order to fully attain the aims of the revolution.


So the state is only used by one class to rule over others within Bourgeois society? What about feudalism? Asiatic society?

No, why are you even asking me this? The only thing I said was that "the state is an instrument that one class uses to rule over another class in bourgeois society" -- "in bourgeois society" was inserted as one example. The traditional "state" obviously exists and has the same role in feudal society, etc.


This sounds an awful lot like the outright failure of the definition of the state given by Max Weber. It also contradicts with a basic Marxist understanding of the state (as one of the points you made was that the state can exist in a classless society - so how exactly do we attain our goal of a global, stateless, classless society?)

I can't help if it sounds like Weber's failed definition of the state to you. I draw a sharp distinction between the idea of "the state" as found in bourgeois-dominated society -- or any state in class-based society -- and the state after the revolution and abolition of class differences. When class distinctions are done away with, the state is no longer an instrument of a ruling class separate from the rest of society. From that point on, the word "state" is merely left as a name for the administrative apparatus used for the organization of society by the majority of the people. (A reactionary or irrational minority of the people may well persist in its delusions long after the abolition of class differences; it's self-evident from this that not every antagonism will be done away with, but merely the most important ones -- the ones based upon class differences.)


Yes, but social division that is not class-based has always been artificially created by a ruling class to further its interests in a divide-and-conquer strategy. Remember institutional racism? Patriarchy? Organised religion?

In other words, you are attempting to make the argument that all conflicts between competing interests will completely cease once class society is abolished, if I understand your point correctly? The answer is no: there will be potential for conflict as long as there remain objects to conflict over. Not every conflict is based on class or ideologies derived from class or class-based antagonisms, although I do agree that institutional forms of oppression like racism and patriarchy are based on class.


Although I'm not sure that what you just said had anything to do with anything we were discussing.

Feel free to drop it if need be.


The state =/= military power.

Again: nowhere did I ever subscribe to that simplistic formula. The insinuation is a straw man.


The state is a body which is used by a ruling class (which necessarily entails social classes).

Should we just move away from arguments about words? The reason why we're having this dispute is because I'm not using the term "state" as narrowly as you are using it. You're turning it into a dispute of words. Let's try to focus on the concepts, and how they function in the real world.

If you do not approve of the term "state" for designating the administration of a classless society, let's just call it "the-state-like-administrative-apparatus-of-classless-society." Please demonstrate why classless society cannot make use of the-state-like-administrative-apparatus-of-classless-society. I've sketched out how classless society can use something like the-state-like-administrative-apparatus-of-classless-society earlier in the thread, so please use something other than your objection to the word "state" in order to contradict what I have outlined.


The existence of a state had nothing to do with the victory of the Bolsheviks. Pure manpower and fire-power wins wars - not the existence of power concentrated into the hands of a few.

Yes -- although control over the state facilitates the ability to command both manpower and firepower.


It would be foolish of you to think that I think that Revolutionary Spain was a prime example of an anarchist society.

Okay. It would be foolish of you to think that the Revolutionary Russia was a prime example of society as the Bolsheviks wanted it.


There was still social hierarchy that could be observed, and there was not enough focus on taking back the means of production - instead, it was focused primarily on fighting fascism (hence why it is most commonly referred to as the Spanish Civil War).

Bolshevik Russia didn't rise up in the most ideal of conditions, and also made a number of mistakes.

[AK]

Socialism still has class distinctions. Communism has no classes.

Didn't say these were reasons why they were socialist, but rather how Cuba is far from a failure when it comes to Cuba, itself, in comparison to those of the rest of the world - including the US. And yes, there is a ruling class, & that is of the proletarian. When there is a State, there is a ruling class. And until we reach to Communism, there will remain class distinctions, & that includes within Socialism.
People have time and time again failed to explain to me how class distinctions will go away during Leninist socialism. Also, it begs the question as to what classes remain in socialism - which begs the question; if the working class has brought about a new mode of production that does not maintain class-based social relations, why has the revolution maintained a class system?

[robbo203]

A genuine communist movement will undoubtedly be a global phenomenon, but doesn't history teach us that the revolution will most likely not be global?

My reasons for saying so are quite elementary, so perhaps you could shed some further light. Societies develop in somewhat different directions, by different means, and at different rates. On a political level, they also exist under different systems. Some nations are exploited by imperialism, some nations are imperialists. Some are much more exploited, some far less so. Some bourgeois states are left-wing-liberal and some are extremely reactionary; some are relatively popular, some quite unpopular.

The bourgeoisie doesn't sit idly while we attempt to foment revolution. It actively promotes reactionary ideas. The ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, and even the minds of plenty of workers are polluted by divisive and pro-ruling class attitudes. Are people on the brink of a revolutionary situation supposed to wait while the political class consciousness of the majority of the entire global proletariat catches up with them?

Even if a "global revolution" could somehow commence in all places and simultaneously, who is to say that it will succeed everywhere at once? What do you do if your revolution, say, succeeds in Australia and some other places, and fails everywhere else?

Is it not worth considering that the revolution, even if it succeeds in places like Britain and America, could well have to remain isolated for quite some time? Surely the state will not completely wither away in that scenario?

Your whole argument from start to finish ignores one simple elementary fact - that a communist revolution is something that is qualitatively different from any previous revolutions. You cannot use a bougeois revolution as the template for a communist one. The Communist Manifesto put this well:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

So for a genuine communist revolution (standing for the abolition of the state and class society) to break out anywhere presupposes the majority of the population are communist minded. And if the majority in one part of the world ae communist minded then how could it be remotely possible that at the very least a substantial proportion of the population elsewhere would not also be communist minded?

Remember, the communist revolution is a self conscious movement. It is based on an awareness - on class consciousness - that springs from the material conditions of capitalism itself - which since Marx's today has become a globalised system. Workers everywhere face a similar set of constraints. The working class in China is at last beginning to offer serious resistance to the state capitalist regime and its buddies in big business. If it can happen there it can happen anywhere. Also, the technology of telecommunications today means that ideas can be disseminated in an instant from one corner of the world to the other. We have become a global village. There are comrades in Africa - in places like Uganda and the Gambia - who I am personally in touch with me who are fully aware communists and who are organising to bring about a moneyless wageless stateless communist society. Do not asssume workers in the so called Third World are somehow backward

The world communist movement is and will be no respecter of capitalist national boundaries. As the movement grows it will proactively work to reduce spatial inequalities in the spread of socialist ideas. It is in the interests of the movement that is should so so.

Finally you talk about the bourgeosie not sitting idly by while we attempt to foment revolution. It actively promotes reactionary ideas. The ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, and even the minds of plenty of workers are polluted by divisive and pro-ruling class attitudes.

Of course. But you are presenting here a too static a view of the revolutionary process. The ruling ideas are indeed the ideas of the ruling class but that does not mean those ideas cannot be challenged and overtunred. If that were the case then there would never have been a revolution in history if the rulers were able to assert a vice like grip of the population via the dissemination of ideas. Marx was only describing a tendency not a law and he was certainly not suggesting fatalistically that the ruling class cannot be challenged becuase its ideas are hegemonically entrenched.

So yes the bourgoisie will endeavour to resist the spread of communist ideas but what of it ? We know this already. By the time the movement is a substantial one the writing will be on the wall anyway. They can resist all they like but it will be far too late. In fact, I would suggest that the form of bourgeois resistance to the spread of communist ideas will not be to promote increasingly reactionary ideas but the exact opposite. It will more and more try to appease and buy off the communists movement even to the extent of appropriating some of its ideas.

As I said before two completely contradictory set of ideas cannot both flourish in the same soil. One must give way to the other. The spread of communism will irrevocably modify the entire social climate that will make it increasingly impossible for reactionary chauvinist ideas to get a look in. Such ideas will die out as a natural consequence of the spread of communist ideas

[robbo203]

People have time and time again failed to explain to me how class distinctions will go away during Leninist socialism. Also, it begs the question as to what classes remain in socialism - which begs the question; if the working class has brought about a new mode of production that does not maintain class-based social relations, why has the revolution maintained a class system?


This I think is an absoutely central point in the critique of Leninist theory. You cannot operate a class based society in the interests of the exploited class and the working class is by definition exploited class in capitalism. To suggest that the exploited class can somehow entrench itself as a new ruling class - other than in the specific narrow formal sense of capturing political power - is just ludicrous. But capturing political power must and can only mean the dissolution of class society THEN AND THERE. If the workers have captured political power then they have the power to end their exploited status - surely? To suggest they would want to continue being exploited by remaining wage workers (as implied in that ridiculous construction called the "proletarian state") is ahistorical idealist nonsense.

The Leninists have no answer to this argument whatoseover, wriggle as they might in the face of it. And it shows

[robbo203]

Socialism still has class distinctions. Communism has no classes.

This is a Leninist distinction, not a marxist one. Us anti-Leninist Marxists reject it completely. Socialism and communism traditionally meant the same thing for Marxists and indeed anarchist comrades

One further point - if Lenin thought socialism would still entail class divisions why did he contradict himself at one point by equating socialism with Marx's lower phase of communism which manifestly was a classless society based on common ownership of the means of production?

[scarletghoul]

People have time and time again failed to explain to me how class distinctions will go away during Leninist socialism. Also, it begs the question as to what classes remain in socialism - which begs the question; if the working class has brought about a new mode of production that does not maintain class-based social relations, why has the revolution maintained a class system?
You're quite right; in a properly worker-controlled society there would be no functioning bourgeoisie. However, remnants of the reactionary classes will remain. The bourgeois order is more than just a narrow social relation, it is a whole ideological and cultural superstructure. So in addition to the former bourgeois individuals you will also have a lot of capitalist/bourgeois mentality to deal with. Unless we crush bourgeois ideology and culture, capitalism will survive and return. You can't just change the economic relations and expect socialism to exist fully formed and capable of standing on its own. It will take generations for a proletarian ideology/culture to take root and fully bloom, for the proletariat to conquer the bourgeoisie in every sphere of life. Until this happens the bourgeoisie, even without existing as a tangible economic class, will haunt us as a reactionary spectre and the class war will rage on.. This is why the workers need a state, at first.

That, and the threat of external intervention.

[AK]

You're quite right; in a properly worker-controlled society there would be no functioning bourgeoisie. However, remnants of the reactionary classes will remain.
You're right. But they are not organised as a social class anymore, they are classless reactionaries who want the old system back.

[robbo203]

You're quite right; in a properly worker-controlled society there would be no functioning bourgeoisie. However, remnants of the reactionary classes will remain. The bourgeois order is more than just a narrow social relation, it is a whole ideological and cultural superstructure. So in addition to the former bourgeois individuals you will also have a lot of capitalist/bourgeois mentality to deal with. Unless we crush bourgeois ideology and culture, capitalism will survive and return. You can't just change the economic relations and expect socialism to exist fully formed and capable of standing on its own. It will take generations for a proletarian ideology/culture to take root and fully bloom, for the proletariat to conquer the bourgeoisie in every sphere of life. Until this happens the bourgeoisie, even without existing as a tangible economic class, will haunt us as a reactionary spectre and the class war will rage on.. This is why the workers need a state, at first.

That, and the threat of external intervention.


This typifies the utter confusion that is rife in Leninist-type explanations

In a "properly worker-controlled society there would be no functioning bourgeoisie" you say. But if there are no functioninig bourgeoisie how can there be a working class? The working class exists only by virtue of the borgeoise exploiting it. You then compound your confusion by asserting that "remnants of the reactionary classes will remain". But you just that the bourgeois will not exist as a tangible economic class!

Of course the bourgeos order is more than just the economic classes upon which it is based. There may even be some ideological hangover from the bourgeois epoch though to suggest this is going to a serious issue when the communist revolution presupposes a massive sweeping and worldwide change in social outlook, is questionable.

But even assuming some ex-capitalists and some ex-workers in a communist society still exhibited a degree of bourgeois ideology, how on earth does this justify the nonsensical idea of a a so called workers state to combat such ideas. The very idea of a state presupposes the existence of classes which you have seemingly admitted will not exist. If anything the existence of a state will help to fortify this class ideology rather than diminish it

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Your whole argument from start to finish ignores one simple elementary fact - that a communist revolution is something that is qualitatively different from any previous revolutions. You cannot use a bougeois revolution as the template for a communist one. The Communist Manifesto put this well:

All previous historical movements were movements of minorities, or in the interest of minorities. The proletarian movement is the self-conscious, independent movement of the immense majority, in the interest of the immense majority (Chapter 1. "Bourgeois and Proletarians" Manifesto of the Communist Party 1848)

So for a genuine communist revolution (standing for the abolition of the state and class society) to break out anywhere presupposes the majority of the population are communist minded. And if the majority in one part of the world ae communist minded then how could it be remotely possible that at the very least a substantial proportion of the population elsewhere would not also be communist minded?

Remember, the communist revolution is a self conscious movement. It is based on an awareness - on class consciousness - that springs from the material conditions of capitalism itself - which since Marx's today has become a globalised system.

Sure: Marx and Engels did expect a revolution by a communist majority to break out in the more developed world, and it is a set of predictions made in 1848. The early Marxists actually believed that European industrial workers would grow more and more impoverished. Engels and Marx expected a successful revolution to break out in their lifetimes.

On the whole, Marx and Engels were quite right; their advancement of historical materialism and their analysis of things like class, exploitation, and so forth were so brilliant that even non-Marxists now make use of them. But they were human thinkers and they were not impeccable soothsayers.

And the idea that the majority of the population has to become communist-minded before a successful socialist-led revolution actually takes place is not self-evident. A vanguard party representing the interests of the more-or-less apolitical masses would be a movement "ïn the interest of the immense majority." In fact, a vanguard seizing and transforming the state can lead to the development of general communist-mindedness.

Of course, a truly socialist society will not be built unless the vanguard eventually cedes power to the majority. If it cannot or will not do that, the revolutionary process will remain incomplete.


The working class in China is at last beginning to offer serious resistance to the state capitalist regime and its buddies in big business. If it can happen there it can happen anywhere.Don't you believe that it is happening in China because the workers there happen to be more oppressed than workers in America or Canada?

Let's say that a majority of Chinese workers are now ready to overthrow the ruling class; workers in Canada, America, and Europe are still extremely far from doing that. Should the Chinese stay put and do something more peaceful? Should they take part in the trade union struggle, or should they fight for more "progressive" capitalism? Should they just fight for mere reforms -- when simply seizing power and building their own society would be far better for them? And what if not an absolute majority, but 30%-40% of the workers are communists, and well-positioned to throw off the current government and capitalists?

For that matter, what should the Bolsheviks have done in 1917 -- put up a loyal opposition to Kerensky? Or overthrow him, withdraw from World War I, and continue to permit the bourgeoisie to accumulate capital?

I do happen to think that common ownership of the means of production would be desirable to have -- even if the expected revolution isn't nearly as ready to proceed elsewhere as one would wish it were. (Of course, what I envision is a genuinely democratic society, not an oligarchic despotism of some bureaucracy.)


There are comrades in Africa - in places like Uganda and the Gambia - who I am personally in touch with me who are fully aware communists and who are organising to bring about a moneyless wageless stateless communist society. Do not asssume workers in the so called Third World are somehow backward.Third World workers are and have been just as good as any workers, and I have no desire to make use of any assumptions that cannot be justified. Workers in less developed conditions are much more revolutionary -- the only problem is that many more obstacles would stand in their way. (An economically underdeveloped nation will have a hard time of creating productive forces that can match those of developed capitalism.)
Finally you talk about the bourgeosie not sitting idly by while we attempt to foment revolution. It actively promotes reactionary ideas. The ruling ideas of every epoch are the ideas of the ruling class, and even the minds of plenty of workers are polluted by divisive and pro-ruling class attitudes.

Of course. But you are presenting here a too static a view of the revolutionary process. The ruling ideas are indeed the ideas of the ruling class but that does not mean those ideas cannot be challenged and overtunred. If that were the case then there would never have been a revolution in history if the rulers were able to assert a vice like grip of the population via the dissemination of ideas. Marx was only describing a tendency not a law and he was certainly not suggesting fatalistically that the ruling class cannot be challenged becuase its ideas are hegemonically entrenched.Dominant ideas can be challenged, and I am willing to agree with you that that is the description of a tendency. But it is certainly a very powerful tendency.

[AK]

They should have transferred more and more of that power into the hands of the people in order to fully attain the aims of the revolution.
Agreed.


No, why are you even asking me this? The only thing I said was that "the state is an instrument that one class uses to rule over another class in bourgeois society" -- "in bourgeois society" was inserted as one example. The traditional "state" obviously exists and has the same role in feudal society, etc.
I misread.


I can't help if it sounds like Weber's failed definition of the state to you. I draw a sharp distinction between the idea of "the state" as found in bourgeois-dominated society -- or any state in class-based society -- and the state after the revolution and abolition of class differences. When class distinctions are done away with, the state is no longer an instrument of a ruling class separate from the rest of society. From that point on, the word "state" is merely left as a name for the administrative apparatus used for the organization of society by the majority of the people. (A reactionary or irrational minority of the people may well persist in its delusions long after the abolition of class differences; it's self-evident from this that not every antagonism will be done away with, but merely the most important ones -- the ones based upon class differences.)
Well then we best not use that name because it creates confusion - especially in a society where we are supposed to have abolished the state.


In other words, you are attempting to make the argument that all conflicts between competing interests will completely cease once class society is abolished, if I understand your point correctly? The answer is no: there will be potential for conflict as long as there remain objects to conflict over. Not every conflict is based on class or ideologies derived from class or class-based antagonisms, although I do agree that institutional forms of oppression like racism and patriarchy are based on class.
"Objects to conflict over". So you agree that war is solely for the purpose of economic gain? Why would workers choose to fight over land or resources when it is freely accessible to them in a socialist society?

The only "naturally" occurring divisions in society that have been propagated by ruling classes to advance their own agendas have been classes themselves. I can't think of any social strata that have been naturally occurring. Can you?


Again: nowhere did I ever subscribe to that simplistic formula. The insinuation is a straw man.
So why do you insist that, when the state (as an instrument of class rule) is abolished, we will have anarchist working class guerrillas hiding in the mountains? I insinuate such things because you leave me no other choice but to do so.


Should we just move away from arguments about words? The reason why we're having this dispute is because I'm not using the term "state" as narrowly as you are using it. You're turning it into a dispute of words. Let's try to focus on the concepts, and how they function in the real world.
Narrowly? The thing is, we are communists, and we are not meant to give such central concepts as the state different meanings when we please.


If you do not approve of the term "state" for designating the administration of a classless society, let's just call it "the-state-like-administrative-apparatus-of-classless-society."
I don't approve of using the term "state" to define the government of a classless society because (and I want to make it clear to you) a state necessitates class-based society, therefore the government of a classless society must not be called a state. Communists want to abolish the state and classes. Yet you don't.


Please demonstrate why classless society cannot make use of the-state-like-administrative-apparatus-of-classless-society. I've sketched out how classless society can use something like the-state-like-administrative-apparatus-of-classless-society earlier in the thread, so please use something other than your objection to the word "state" in order to contradict what I have outlined.
The current state-apparatus is not designed to accommodate democratic rule (unless someone considers parliamentary democracy to be democratic - in which case they're a nutter); only a few hundred decision-makers (which makes it separate from direct control by the masses) - and it is a hierarchical structure that concentrates power in the hands of a few individuals.


Yes -- although control over the state facilitates the ability to command both manpower and firepower.
But that control is centred on a small class. You can have co-ordination without the usage of a top-down command structure.


Okay. It would be foolish of you to think that the Revolutionary Russia was a prime example of society as the Bolsheviks wanted it.

Bolshevik Russia didn't rise up in the most ideal of conditions, and also made a number of mistakes.
Yet we've got this crazy lot who acknowledge that but then support the USSR up to whenever their tendency dictates as if it were a great model of a post-revolutionary society.

Sorry if I gave you shitty answers at the beginning. I started from the bottom up and got tired.

[RadioRaheem84]

I consider places like Cuba to be failures because they have class distinctions within their societies.
None of these are explicitly socialist at all. They are merely indicative of a generous government with progressive policies.

As for the high percentage of women holding parliamentary seats; this just indicates the fact that parliamentary "democracy" is used - which implies a ruling class. Do you not see where I'm getting at?

Maybe, if direct democracy were the only system used and control of the economy was entirely in the hands of the workers, I would actually support Cuba for being a classless society and the embodiment of our goal. But it is not.. I really dislike the dismissive attitude of many Anarchists toward gains made by Cuba and other socialist countries. No offense to you comrade but it reminds me a bit of when Michael Parenti was snubbed by an anarchist who mocked him for being sentimental over the communist babies who were fed by the socialist states.

Cuba's gains are remarkable from where they were pre Revolution and they still didn't give them up after the fall of the USSR.

[Barry Lyndon]

. I really dislike the dismissive attitude of many Anarchists toward gains made by Cuba and other socialist countries. No offense to you comrade but it reminds me a bit of when Michael Parenti was snubbed by an anarchist who mocked him for being sentimental over the communist babies who were fed by the socialist states.

Cuba's gains are remarkable from where they were pre Revolution and they still didn't give them up after the fall of the USSR.

My main beef with many anarchists and 'libertarian' socialists is that they are never able to explain what they would do differently then revolutionaries in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, & Venezuela under the same circumstances. How would a decentralized society run only by autonomous workers communes with a minimal police force and no military defend itself in the face of economic and military siege imposed on it by hostile capitalist powers? Barring a simultaneous worldwide revolution, this is a reality that any revolution has to contend with.

One of the only concrete examples of an anarchist society in modern history- Anarchist Catalonia- lasted the better part of three years before it was crushed by Franco's armies. The anarchist experiments in Korea and the Ukraine met similar fates. The failure of these revolutions was precisely because they were unable to defend themselves from outside aggression and internal subversion.

I challenge any anarchist to provide evidence that their society can work in the real world, with EVIDENCE and concrete examples, not abstract theorizing and vague homilies about 'anti-authoritarianism'. Just attacking a society on the grounds that it doesn't measure up to a communist utopia, without giving a counterexample, doesn't cut it in my book. I mean, I could talk about heaven, and then criticize Cuba based on that abstract conception. Basically, it's just bullshit. The only reason that anarchists are able to appear so pure in comparison to Leninists is because they are untainted by their ideology being put into practice.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I challenge any anarchist to provide evidence that their society can work in the real world, with EVIDENCE and concrete examples, not abstract theorizing and vague homilies about 'anti-authoritarianism'.

They won't & instead ask us the same question. And when we answer them, they'll then denounce it as merely "State-Capitalist" - which is an abused & failed term anyways - and this'll continue no matter what. Leave them be. There's no use trying to debate them.

[fa2991]

They won't & instead ask us the same question. And when we answer them, they'll then denounce it as merely "State-Capitalist" - which is an abused & failed term anyways - and this'll continue no matter what. Leave them be. There's no use trying to debate them.

:rolleyes: Grow up. Sectarian bullshit is for children.

[The Vegan Marxist]

:rolleyes: Grow up. Sectarian bullshit is for children.

Grow up? This is out of experience on this question, which has been asked numerously within this forum. Ask any of the Marxist-Leninists on this forum their experience with this question.

[RadioRaheem84]

Well there is a tendency among anarchists to compare exisiting socities to an ideal one. When compared, reality comes off as a poor second.
The reality is that Cuba has done the very best it could under it's circumstances.

[fa2991]

One of the only concrete examples of an anarchist society in modern history- Anarchist Catalonia- lasted the better part of three years before it was crushed by Franco's armies. The anarchist experiments in Korea and the Ukraine met similar fates. The failure of these revolutions was precisely because they were unable to defend themselves from outside aggression and internal subversion. The M-Ls in that war were defeated by the fascists, too. The fascists were just stronger militarily, given the extensive Nazi/Italy/Portugal support.

Anarchism doesn't often manifest itself in mass movements, so it can be harder to see what it looks like and what it's problems are because when it appears it's usually a smaller or isolated movement.


The failure of the Soviet Bloc was precisely because they were unable to defend themselves from outside aggression and internal subversion. Fixed.

How is it that when M-L fails in the face of war, subversion, or ideological failures, it's because of "revisionism" and "imperialism," but when the same thing happens to anarchism...


I challenge any anarchist to provide evidence that their society can work in the real world, with EVIDENCE and concrete examples, not abstract theorizing and vague homilies about 'anti-authoritarianism'. Just attacking a society on the grounds that it doesn't measure up to a communist utopia, without giving a counterexample, doesn't cut it in my book. I mean, I could talk about heaven, and then criticize Cuba based on that abstract conception. Basically, it's just bullshit. The only reason that anarchists are able to appear so pure in comparison to Leninists is because they are untainted by their ideology being put into practice. :rolleyes: Anarchists have concrete criticisms of Cuba, for example. They don't say "It's not utopia!" They say things like "There's no free press," "The internet is censored," "There are no soviets or councils," "Prison sentences are way too long," "All of our anarchist comrades, some of whom fought in the July 26 movement, were suppressed or exiled" etc....

Many would accuse Castro of being a dictatorial tyrant, but I don't go that far.

[fa2991]

Well there is a tendency among anarchists to compare exisiting socities to an ideal one. When compared, reality comes off as a poor second.
The reality is that Cuba has done the very best it could under it's circumstances.

Not to ideal communism, but to a concrete notion of how pre-communist socialism should look. For example, when Emma Goldman criticized Russia for having an elaborate class system and not socializing property, was she complaining that it wasn't utopia, or was she criticizing the Stalinist implementation of "socialism"?

It's bullshit the way some M-Ls suggest that every time an M-L revolution completely fails to create socialism that it could never, possibly be the leadership's fault. It's always an abstract as stupid as the ones you accuse us of - "imperialism" was present in the Soviet Union, therefore workers shouldn't control the MOP. :rolleyes:

[AK]

. I really dislike the dismissive attitude of many Anarchists toward gains made by Cuba and other socialist countries. No offense to you comrade but it reminds me a bit of when Michael Parenti was snubbed by an anarchist who mocked him for being sentimental over the communist babies who were fed by the socialist states.

Cuba's gains are remarkable from where they were pre Revolution and they still didn't give them up after the fall of the USSR.
I'm not denying it; Cuba is one of the most successful states in the world and a great place to live - but it doesn't mean that workers have direct and full control of the economy and government. Hell, Australia has been a great place to live - but it's far from socialist.

[AK]

My main beef with many anarchists and 'libertarian' socialists is that they are never able to explain what they would do differently then revolutionaries in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Nicaragua, & Venezuela under the same circumstances. How would a decentralized society run only by autonomous workers communes with a minimal police force and no military defend itself in the face of economic and military siege imposed on it by hostile capitalist powers? Barring a simultaneous worldwide revolution, this is a reality that any revolution has to contend with.
Why do you assume that the workers would not have the means to defend themselves during a revolution? We don't intend to abolish tanks and guns simply because they had been used by soldiers under the command of Bourgeois military commanders. We need to use all means necessary to secure a genuine communist revolution. That doesn't include transferring decision-making power into the hands of the upper cadre of the party.


One of the only concrete examples of an anarchist society in modern history- Anarchist Catalonia- lasted the better part of three years before it was crushed by Franco's armies. The anarchist experiments in Korea and the Ukraine met similar fates. The failure of these revolutions was precisely because they were unable to defend themselves from outside aggression and internal subversion.
It is not the fault of newly-established social structures like many of you would have us believe, but rather, it is simply a problem to do with manpower and firepower (think about it - it wasn't a social condition or capitalist infiltration that destroyed Spain and Ukraine, but military conflict). The RSFSR could defend itself from capitalist imperialism during the Civil War, Poland during the Russo-Polish War and Germany during the Second World War due to its large military. You've even mentioned it yourself that it was Franco's army that caused a shitstorm in Spain - not any infiltration by capitalists. If there had been a Bolshevik revolution in a country the size of Spain, the raw manpower and firepower needed in those conditions would not be available and your revolution wouldn't stand a chance.


I challenge any anarchist to provide evidence that their society can work in the real world, with EVIDENCE and concrete examples, not abstract theorizing and vague homilies about 'anti-authoritarianism'. Just attacking a society on the grounds that it doesn't measure up to a communist utopia, without giving a counterexample, doesn't cut it in my book. I mean, I could talk about heaven, and then criticize Cuba based on that abstract conception. Basically, it's just bullshit. The only reason that anarchists are able to appear so pure in comparison to Leninists is because they are untainted by their ideology being put into practice.
You demand that we produce evidence that an anarchist society can work. Why couldn't it? And why do we have to produce evidence (for an as of yet unattained goal - we are well aware of this fact) when you haven't forged a society where the workers have direct and full control of the economy and government, either?

Besides, it's not a utopia if we examine the cause and effect relationships that are the driving force behind capitalism and then alter the causes to change the effects. It can be realised - it's just that our message hasn't reached the working class yet.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I'm not denying it; Cuba is one of the most successful states in the world and a great place to live - but it doesn't mean that workers have direct and full control of the economy and government. Hell, Australia has been a great place to live - but it's far from socialist.

Australia's means of production is also, of the majority, privately owned. Where in Cuba, the majority of the means of production is collectively - mostly public - owned between the working class & the State. So I don't really see a comparison here.

[AK]

Australia's means of production is also, of the majority, privately owned. Where in Cuba, the majority of the means of production is collectively - mostly public - owned between the working class & the State. So I don't really see a comparison here.
Do the workers have direct control over all aspects of the economy? I didn't think so. Cuba's achievements are remarkable for a country in its position (political and economic isolation), but I would not consider it to be socialist. The fact that the state has pretty much a monopoly means that there aren't individual capitalists who run around destroying the place and screwing over the workers in the name of the "free market" does make it better than Australia though.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Do the workers have direct control over all aspects of the economy? I didn't think so. Cuba's achievements are remarkable for a country in its position (political and economic isolation), but I would not consider it to be socialist. The fact that the state has pretty much a monopoly means that there aren't individual capitalists who run around destroying the place and screwing over the workers in the name of the "free market" does make it better than Australia though.

Does the lack of complete elimination of capitalist industries mean a country can't be considered Socialist though? If anything, I would still consider it Socialist as long as the majority of the means of production is publicly owned, & a minority of it being privately owned. Socialism is a process, in my opinion. But yes, Socialist or not, Cuba has done a great amount of work for its people, given the position it's in right now.

[AK]

Does the lack of complete elimination of capitalist industries mean a country can't be considered Socialist though? If anything, I would still consider it Socialist as long as the majority of the means of production is publicly owned, & a minority of it being privately owned. Socialism is a process, in my opinion.
I don't buy into the idea that a society can be considered socialist even if just the majority of the economy is socialist. Socialism must be distinct from other modes of production (like how a communist revolution must be different to Bourgeois and feudal revolutions, which acted in the interests of a minority) in that it must have no vestiges of capitalism at all. It is next to impossible to operate a system of labour vouchers or a gift economy alongside a monetary system anyway. Besides, communist revolution will involve pretty much all workers, so there is a very little chance of any capitalist enterprise remaining after the revolution (especially since any remaining propertied capitalists would most likely flee).

But yes, Socialist or not, Cuba has done a great amount of work for its people, given the position it's in right now.
Indeed.

[The Vegan Marxist]

I don't buy into the idea that a society can be considered socialist even if just the majority of the economy is socialist. Socialism must be distinct from other modes of production (like how a communist revolution must be different to Bourgeois and feudal revolutions, which acted in the interests of a minority) in that it must have no vestiges of capitalism at all. It is next to impossible to operate a system of labour vouchers or a gift economy alongside a monetary system anyway. Besides, communist revolution will involve pretty much all workers, so there is a very little chance of any capitalist enterprise remaining after the revolution (especially since any remaining propertied capitalists would most likely flee).

Is there not a contradiction in the modes of production when we compare places like Cuba with Venezuela?

In Cuba, the majority of the means of production is collectively owned, with a minority of capitalist production. Whereas Venezuela (although on a socialist road) the majority of the means of production is still privately owned, with a minority of socialist production.

When we see an economy with the majority of the means of production being privatized with some socialist production as a minority, we'd still consider it Capitalist. So why not call a country socialist if the majority of the means of production is collectively owned with some capitalist production as a minority?

[AK]

Is there not a contradiction in the modes of production when we compare places like Cuba with Venezuela?

In Cuba, the majority of the means of production is collectively owned, with a minority of capitalist production. Whereas Venezuela (although on a socialist road) the majority of the means of production is still privately owned, with a minority of socialist production.

When we see an economy with the majority of the means of production being privatized with some socialist production as a minority, we'd still consider it Capitalist. So why not call a country socialist if the majority of the means of production is collectively owned with some capitalist production as a minority?
Alright, let me rephrase: it is possible (although hopefully no-one here finds the scenario to be acceptable in the long-term) for there to be a socialist mode of production (however ambiguous the term is) alongside a minority capitalist mode of production. However, this scenario is very unlikely in future workers' revolutions (chances are nearly the entire working class will be involved as today's technology means that revolution and news can and often does spread very quickly - causing most, if not all, capitalists to be expropriated) and I personally wouldn't jump to call such a society "socialist" (how do you have some classless workers and some working class workers in the same state, anyway?).

[The Vegan Marxist]

Alright, let me rephrase: it is possible (although hopefully no-one here finds the scenario to be acceptable in the long-term) for there to be a socialist mode of production (however ambiguous the term is) alongside a minority capitalist mode of production. However, this scenario is very unlikely in future workers' revolutions (chances are nearly the entire working class will be involved as today's technology means that revolution and news can and often does spread very quickly - causing most, if not all, capitalists to be expropriated) and I personally wouldn't jump to call such a society "socialist" (how do you have some classless workers and some working class workers in the same state, anyway?).

Well of course future worker's revolutions probably won't have to resort to such, possibly. But again, like we both can agree, Cuba is in a special position right now where there's certain limitations needing to be partaken upon for the economy to remain running. It's unfortunate, but it must happen. So given the circumstances, Cuba can still be considered Socialist in my opinion.

[Charles Xavier]

The working class is by defintion the exploited class in capitalism. So the exploited class in capitalism according to you controls the state that runs a system that allows the working class to be exploited.

What sort of incoherent nonsense is this???

The proletariat is defined by its relation to production, not whether they have state power or not. Just because the working class has state power does not mean it is no longer the working class. They are still wage earners, they do not derive individual profit from their workplaces.

[Thirsty Crow]

The proletariat is defined by its relation to production, not whether they have state power or not. Just because the working class has state power does not mean it is no longer the working class. They are still wage earners, they do not derive individual profit from their workplaces.
And who pays them their wages? Who decides the investment of the surplus (wages necessarily entail surplus value)?
Let me elaborate by an example...we have a member of the petite bourgeiosie, who is an owner of a small enterprise, and who has exactly the same "wage" as his employees...but he effectively owns the means of production and has the sole power to decide how to deal with accumulated capital. And does the fact that he pays his own wages mean he is in a position even remotely similar to that of his employees, i.e. proletarians?

What I'm trying to say is that capitalism is a system, a global one to be precise...whereas prototypical socioeconomic relations and forms of capitalist ownership have historically developed before what we know as the coming of bourgeois societies (i.e. the coming of bourgeois rule by means of a class-based apparatus of managment of social and economic matters - the bourgeois state), capitalism itself was dependant upon its globalization and it is fully esablished only when it is global.
The very same holds true for socialism as well.
And that is not to say that Cuba does not provide examples of a progressive kind of political and social organization. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to see the island reintegrated within the capitalist system since I do think the existing state of affair offers the Cuban working class more dignity and material well being than this proposed outcome.

[robbo203]

The proletariat is defined by its relation to production, not whether they have state power or not. Just because the working class has state power does not mean it is no longer the working class. They are still wage earners, they do not derive individual profit from their workplaces.

Youve missed my point completely, havent you?

If the working class gained control of state power why would they want to remain exploited? Like you said the proletariat is defined by "its relation to the means of production" which means that it is essentially alienated from the means of production and has therefore to sell it abilities to a capitalist class in exchange for a wage and in the process of producing commodites is necessarily exploited by the capitalists.

If the proletariat gained state power and remained a proletariat rather than abolished its own existence as a class all this would mean is that this class would continue to allow itself to be exploited. After all, that is what is meant by the proletariat or working class - it is the exploited class in capitalism. So the so called "workers state" would actually be a capitalist state pretending to represent the interests of the workers who would continue to be exploited - by definition. If they werent exploited then there would not a proletaiat and hence there could not be such a thing as a proletarian state. Its a contradiction in terms. It implies capitalism can be run in the interests of the exploited class and not in the interests of the exploiting class which is totally absurd


The only reason for capturing the state is to immediately abolish all class distinctions. If you dont do that you are still left with capitalism and with the unrequited need to organise a socialist revoilution. Nothing fundamental would have changed

[Charles Xavier]

And who pays them their wages? Who decides the investment of the surplus (wages necessarily entail surplus value)?
Let me elaborate by an example...we have a member of the petite bourgeiosie, who is an owner of a small enterprise, and who has exactly the same "wage" as his employees...but he effectively owns the means of production and has the sole power to decide how to deal with accumulated capital. And does the fact that he pays his own wages mean he is in a position even remotely similar to that of his employees, i.e. proletarians?

What I'm trying to say is that capitalism is a system, a global one to be precise...whereas prototypical socioeconomic relations and forms of capitalist ownership have historically developed before what we know as the coming of bourgeois societies (i.e. the coming of bourgeois rule by means of a class-based apparatus of managment of social and economic matters - the bourgeois state), capitalism itself was dependant upon its globalization and it is fully esablished only when it is global.
The very same holds true for socialism as well.
And that is not to say that Cuba does not provide examples of a progressive kind of political and social organization. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't like to see the island reintegrated within the capitalist system since I do think the existing state of affair offers the Cuban working class more dignity and material well being than this proposed outcome.

The ruling class is the working class, under socialism it does not automatically mean there will be no social classes. And whos to say managers are bourgeoisie? My manager at my work is certainly not bourgeoisie, they do not own the building, they do not individually profit from their position. They earn a wage, they do a job, they are exploited. It only means the class that calls the shots is the working class. And please don't use stupid terms like globalization, thats a bullshit meaningless term.

There has always been under different epochs of human political developements previous forms of social relations and advanced forms of social relations. When Slave society was dominate, primitative communist societies and even fuedal societies were around. When Fuedalism was the dominate social system, Slave societies still existed, Primitative communist societies still existed and capitalist societies began to develop. When Capitalism society became the dominate economic systems, Slave society still exists, socialism began to come around, fuedalism still exists and though not as common, primitive communist societies still exist throughout the world, and socialism was established in several parts of the world. and a combination of these societies exist to varying degrees throughout the world.

[Thirsty Crow]

The ruling class is the working class, under socialism it does not automatically mean there will be no social classes. So how are social classes determined? By various groups' relation to the means of production? And if socialism entails the elimination of private property, and its resulting relations of production and broader social relations these produce, and the establishment of social ownership of the means of production, what is the basis on which one could distinguish social classes?
And if you are talking about a specific transitional period during which a nominally socialist country or bloc of nominally socialist countries are faced with the threat of capitalist imperialists - what then is the basis on which one could distinguish social classes, given that private property has been outlawed/abolished?
And whos to say managers are bourgeoisie? My manager at my work is certainly not bourgeoisie, they do not own the building, they do not individually profit from their position. They earn a wage, they do a job, they are exploited. It only means the class that calls the shots is the working class. You didn't understand my example properly.
I said that this member of the petite bourgeoisie OWNS the company, i.e. the means of production. He is recognized by law as the sole owner. And still pays himself the same wage out of the accumulated capital.
And please don't use stupid terms like globalization, thats a bullshit meaningless term.
I thought that you may misunderstand the referent of this term.
I was refering to political and economic processes which began to take place in the 19th century. Globalized capitalism=imperialism (which boils down to the broadening of specifically capitalist economic and political formation, e.g. by means of the early "free trade" policies and imperialist conquest).
In this sense, I think that capitalism has become "global" or "globalized" long before the era of proclaimed "globalization".


When Capitalism society became the dominate economic systems, Slave society still exists, socialism began to come around, fuedalism still exists and though not as common, primitive communist societies still exist throughout the world, and socialism was established in several parts of the world. and a combination of these societies exist to varying degrees throughout the world.
You're forgetting one thing: capitalist socioeconomic formation is inherently expansive. Feudalism and slave labour based societies, or what was left of these, scattered along the planet, cannot and did not coexist with capitalism, unless they are established on a miniscule basis which does not function as an impediment to the process of capital accumulation.
And I would like a contemporary example of this combination of the before mentioned types of societies.

[robbo203]

And the idea that the majority of the population has to become communist-minded before a successful socialist-led revolution actually takes place is not self-evident. A vanguard party representing the interests of the more-or-less apolitical masses would be a movement "ïn the interest of the immense majority." In fact, a vanguard seizing and transforming the state can lead to the development of general communist-mindedness.

Of course, a truly socialist society will not be built unless the vanguard eventually cedes power to the majority. If it cannot or will not do that, the revolutionary process will remain incomplete.
.

There are a few other points in your post which I would like to have taken up but in the interests of brevity will confine myself to just the above.
To me, this sums up the utter fallacy of vanguardism but, to your credit, you have at least got the basic point about vanguardism more or less correct - that it involves capturing power by a minority acting supposedly in the interests of the immense majority. Many on this list dont understand what vanguardism actually means

That this can expedite the movement towards communism is completely false. Quite the opposite is the case. It guarantees the emergence of a new ruling class whose interests will inevitably become diametrically opposed to those of the immense majority. Like all ruling classes in history they will stand opposed to the idea of a classless society that would strip them of their inordinate power and wealth

A moneyless wageless stateless society cannot function at all without the great majority understanding what all this implies for them and desiring it. So in the absence of this majority understanding and support for communism you are left with - the status quo In other words, capitalism!

The minority having taken over the administration of capitalism are necessarily going to be drawn into pursuing the imperatives involved in running a capitalist system. They are necessarily going to have to put profit above human needs. They are necessarily going to have to seek ways of expediting the accumulation of capitalism out of surplus value. They are necessarily going to have to compel workers to tighten their belts in order to make industry leaner and more competitive in ther global market. And so on and so forth.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The glorious vanguard of the CPSU or elements within it were foremost in bringing about the end of the Soviet state capitalist regime in what has been dubbed a "revolution from above". (See David Kotz (with Fred Weir) in Revolution from Above: Demise of the Soviet System, Routledge; London 1997). Some amongst the high ranking members of the pseudo "communist" party of the Soviet Union were latter to morph into some of the fabulously wealthy oligarchs of modern day Russia. There is a lesson to be learnt from that. That any kind of vanguardist approach can only result in entranching class society

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Well then we best not use that name because it creates confusion - especially in a society where we are supposed to have abolished the state.

The state isn't supposed to be "abolished" -- at least if we're correctly applying Marxist terminology to the proletarian state. That state is supposed to "wither away," which is an important distinction. The bourgeois state is the state that is abolished by the revolution -- the proletarian state "withers away." It isn't immediately abolished when we expropriate the last capitalist; it is "abolished" only in the sense that it disappears at the end of the withering-away process, and this triumphant "abolition" presupposes the termination of politics.

But if political life as something separate from the direct adminstration of things by the people still exists, why speak of the state as abolished or already withered away? You can, of course, simply expropriate the last capitalist and proclaim that you've abolished the state by doing that, but this won't make any of the institutions comprising the proletarian state disappear of their own accord. If so, why talk about something that withers away?

The same apparatus that was initially christened "the proletarian state" continues to exist -- from the common-sense vantage point that there still is an apparatus run by a professional set of functionaries carrying out certain roles. While administration remains indirect -- e.g., while it is still directly carried by a professional political body -- we have a very "state-like" political life still going on.

In other words, the apparatus initially brought into being to consolidate control over society by the proletariat -- the proletarian state -- completely withers away only once the general consciousness (rooted in the material conditions of society) permits the people to take a much more direct role in running society. And that's when the old hierarchical structure at last disappears.

Until that point, the people will democratically (albeit indirectly) exercise their power through a professional political apparatus; there would be little sense in us inventing a new term for that basically state-like apparatus. The role of that apparatus, once classes are abolished, will be the transformation of society in the interests of the people.

The chief reason for resorting that is that the administration of society cannot simply be carried out by everyone right away. (If a majority of the population is obviously competent at administrative role, you obviously don't need a vanguard or a state after the last capitalists are expropriated.) The leading role of the leadership consequently falls to a communist-minded vanguard that is capable of carrying out political and economic administration. (In order to prevent the vanguard bureaucrats from forming a privileged caste or a new class, transparency and certain democratic mechanisms must exist to correct failures and shortcomings of the vanguard in relations to its political mission.)

If we agree and choose to look at things this way, the end of the state will be the end of the bureaucratic administrators as a separate apparatus (as a professional political body). Once the direction and administration of society can be carried out democratically and effectively by society as a whole, "political life" as such -- the last remaining vestiges of the state -- will obviously cease to exist.


"Objects to conflict over". So you agree that war is solely for the purpose of economic gain? Why would workers choose to fight over land or resources when it is freely accessible to them in a socialist society?

I definitely agree that wars exist for economic gain. But how can everything be freely available to everyone unless all scarcity has been eliminated? You first have to get to a perfect communist society -- a society that is both egalitarian and highly effective at satisfying any reasonable material demand. The idea that merely getting rid of the economic contradiction between the exploiters and the exploited suffices to establish a society that will be free of conflict is an incredibly naive position to hold.

The basic needs of everybody will be satisfied under a socialist system that is set up to take care of those needs from the beginning, but neither conflict between competing interests nor the desire to restore capitalism among some elements of the population will disappear immediately because of that kind of arrangement. Hence, conflict will exist.


So why do you insist that, when the state (as an instrument of class rule) is abolished, we will have anarchist working class guerrillas hiding in the mountains? I insinuate such things because you leave me no other choice but to do so.

Well, doesn't anarchism demand the abolition of the state during the revolution, rather than after it? In other words, you cannot even have a proletarian state to bring the revolution to its natural end.

So, we already agree that states originate in order to strengthen the hand of the ruling class by political means -- presumably, you don't dispute that it makes sense to describe the proletarian state as a centralized political apparatus that comes into being in order to terminate bourgeois-proletarian class relations altogether. (Communist Manifesto: "The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class...")

What non-state form of organization for effectively running things once control over the means of production begins to be assumed by the proletariat would you propose instead? In what ways would you expect it differ from a proletarian state?


Narrowly? The thing is, we are communists, and we are not meant to give such central concepts as the state different meanings when we please.

I do see the traditional (e.g. bourgeois, feudal, etc.) state as an instrument of class rule, and when the proletariat (or the proletariat's vanguard) takes over the state, the designation "state" denotes the apparatus of proletarian (or vanguard) class rule.

Since this apparatus doesn't disappear when it expropriates the last bourgeois, there is a natural reason for speaking of the "state" as persisting even when classes divisions are eliminated. In economic terms, this hierarchical apparatus can only finally and completely wither away only when scarcity does, since scarcity implies the possibility of capitalist restoration.


I don't approve of using the term "state" to define the government of a classless society because (and I want to make it clear to you) a state necessitates class-based society, therefore the government of a classless society must not be called a state. Communists want to abolish the state and classes. Yet you don't.

This is a rather weak assumption on your part. I obviously want to see classes abolished. I don't want the state to be "abolished" when classes are -- I want to see it "withering away" as the vanguard carries out its historic role. As an institution that exploits one class for the benefit of another, the state is already "abolished" with the successful expropriation of the last bourgeois. But its basic apparatus remains in place until the masses can effectively exercise power without that apparatus -- and that state of affairs isn't immediately brought into being with the mere abolition of class distinctions.


But that control is centred on a small class. You can have co-ordination without the usage of a top-down command structure.

But a highly-centralized, top-down command structure works exceptionally well during wartime, if history has anything to say about that.


Yet we've got this crazy lot who acknowledge that but then support the USSR up to whenever their tendency dictates as if it were a great model of a post-revolutionary society.

I see the vanguard model as pretty effective at smashing the bourgeoisie. I thus do not see why Lenin's ideas should be scrapped altogether just because a number of serious mistakes were later made by the bureaucracy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Robbo203: I do like your posts, I must say, for their honesty, idealism and genuine intellectual credibility, sometimes.

But here I feel you are wholly wrong, with regards to Cuba.

What do you think would happen if, in 1959, having deposed the Batista regime, the Castro regime then set about dismantling the state? They'd have had no answer to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It is pretty ridiculous to attack the Cuban state as Capitalist, degenerative or deformed.

I was in Cuba a few months ago and I'd summarise the situation as thus:

There are indeed problems, mainly economic, on the island. There is a high level of combined poverty amongst the populace and many people are not happy at the moment with the results of 'Socialist' policy right now.
However, many people understand that the wholly illegal, immoral and completely unethical American embargo is the reason for many food/services/goods shortages.

It is difficult to say what sort of society Cuba would be if it was politically unopposed.
However, the truth is that Cuba is threatened daily by the most powerful country in the world just 90 miles from its border, and as such certain defensive measures must be taken. We must remember that such offensive threats are not only militaristic, but economic and political as well. As such, Cuba has a right to defend itself.

When you think that the Americans have more political prisoners in Cuba than the Cuban state has, you begin to have an idea of the relative lack of 'evil' that exists in the Cuban political circles.

Whilst Cuba has the problems (relative) of nepotism (only clear in the 'handover' between Fidel and Raul) and the odd mumblings of corruption (although I saw first hand just a few months ago the intimate link between local politicians and the populace), it does a superb job of managing a mainly collective economy in the face of Capitalist US aggression.

It must be supported - despite its imperfections - in the fact of imperialism. It is Cuba or nothing for me, internationally.

[robbo203]

Robbo203: I do like your posts, I must say, for their honesty, idealism and genuine intellectual credibility, sometimes.

But here I feel you are wholly wrong, with regards to Cuba.

What do you think would happen if, in 1959, having deposed the Batista regime, the Castro regime then set about dismantling the state? They'd have had no answer to the Bay of Pigs invasion.

It is pretty ridiculous to attack the Cuban state as Capitalist, degenerative or deformed..

Welll, this is an argument that I was going to tackle in relation to an earlier post by Barry Lyndon. He made much the same point about the Bolsheviks - what would critics of the Bolsheviks have done in the same circumstances? So Ill answer your point by way of answering his.

The short answer is that there are some things that they could have done or had the power to influence and there are somethings they could really do nothing about. In saying this Im minded here of Plekhanov's excellent little pamphlet The Role of the Individual in History which sets out a kind of structural or layered framework of histrical possibilities in much the same way as I am doing here.

There where several things the Bolsheviks could do and did do. On the positive side they took Russia out of the war which will always stand to their credit. Socialists at the time praised the Bolsheviks for this action which contrasted so sharply with the treacherous class collaboration of the parties of the Second International http://wspus.org/in-depth/russia-lenin-and-state-capitalism/ However there were also things that the Bolsheviks could and did do which cannot but be viewed negatively. The erosion of democracy which began even prior to the civil war - routinely cited by Leninists as an excuse for Bolshevik policiy - is a striking example of this.

On the other hand, there were things that the Bolsheviks could not and did not do. There was no way they could introduce a socialist society. Neither the necessary mass socialist consciousness nor a developed infrastructure was in place to enable this to happen. All the Bolsheviks could do was to forge ahead with developing capitalism.

Lenin admitted that state capitalism would be a step forward but the problem with Lenin was that he sought to redefine socialism in such a way that it came to be viewed as almost an imperceptible outgrowth or development out of state capitalism. This create enromous confusion. Nonsensically he talked of the Big Banks comprising nine tenths of the socialist apparatus for example. The idea that you could have banks in a socialist society would have been laughed out of court by socialists a decade earlier.

In my view Lenin was trying to link the socialist project with the incompatible historical project of developing state capitalism in a way that did much to set back the whole movement for a fundamentally different kind of society. The legacy of leninism shows in remarks such as yours when you say It is pretty ridiculous to attack the Cuban state as Capitalist, degenerative or deformed. Anyone with any grasp of what capitalism and socialism is about would recognise that this is nonsense. Clearly Cuba is a capitalist society. Commodity production prevails. Generalised wage labour prevails. Such things are proof postive of the existence of capitalism but Leninists today have lost touch with a marxian understanding of what capitalism and socialism is about.

So to get back to your main point - what would socialists have done under the circumstances. Well some things could have been differently done but in essence the only option would have been likewise to develop capitalism. The question is whether it would have been wise to link this project with the historical aim of socialism in the way that Lanin sought to do. With hindsight I would say no.

At a personal level, I would say it would have been better for socialists to resist taking power and to organise independently outisde of the state to keep the credibility and integrity of a genuine socialist movement intact. The entire history of the Soviet Union since then proves this very point.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

So to get back to your main point - what would socialists have done under the circumstances. Well some things could have been differently done but in essence the only option would have been likewise to develop capitalism. The question is whether it would have been wise to link this project with the historical aim of socialism in the way that Lanin sought to do. With hindsight I would say no.

At a personal level, I would say it would have been better for socialists to resist taking power and to organise independently outisde of the state to keep the credibility and integrity of a genuine socialist movement intact. The entire history of the Soviet Union since then proves this very point.

And that's the biggest problem with the recipe, as I already gathered from one post that you made a few days back. The one that called for a successful revolution on a global scale...

You are against a revolution anywhere. Until most of the proletariat is on our side -- until the proletariat worldwide is on our side! Worldwide success!

See, one fine day we'll all just build a perfect stateless world without money, vanguards, transitions, red tape, strong reaction, and so forth. We simply have to try hard enough and not give in to Lenin's useless thought. We'll make a paradise from pole to pole.

And let's try to abstain from all kinds of ineffective stuff until we get there -- especially where there's potential for a vanguard party. They break a lot of stuff, enthrone the bureaucrats, and create classes because they exploit workers. Their legacies still hold us back -- but will not when we teach the workers about real communism.

The glorious Revolution will occur on Doomsday, when the world explodes.

[robbo203]

And that's the biggest problem with the recipe, as I already gathered from one post that you made a few days back. The one that called for a successful revolution on a global scale...

You are against a revolution anywhere. Until most of the proletariat is on our side -- until the proletariat worldwide is on our side! Worldwide success!

See, one fine day we'll all just build a perfect stateless world without money, vanguards, transitions, red tape, strong reaction, and so forth. We simply have to try hard enough and not give in to Lenin's useless thought. We'll make a paradise from pole to pole.

And let's try to abstain from all kinds of ineffective stuff until we get there -- especially where there's potential for a vanguard party. They break a lot of stuff, enthrone the bureaucrats, and create classes because they exploit workers. Their legacies still hold us back -- but will not when we teach the workers about real communism.

The glorious Revolution will occur on Doomsday, when the world explodes.

Once again you are totally missing the point. Vanguardism, if you followed my argument at all, is the idea that a small minority can somehow capture power on behalf of the great majority in order to emancipate them (as opposed to them emancipating themselves) is dangerous folly and utterly naive. That that minority will assuredly become a new ruling class you can be absolutely certain. This is clearly what happened in the Soviet Union and only political ostriches with their heads firmly implanted in the soil can deny this.

Frederick Engels makes this very point in a wonderful passage from his Peasant War in Germany. which vanguardists everywhere should read and inwardly digest.



The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch06.htm)

This could well describe Lenin. At any rate it makes my point for me. You cannot have a socialist revolution until the great majority want and understand it. QED. Wriggle as you might there is simply no getting around this point.

The question is what is one to do in the absence of majority support and understanding. My argument is that one should not even attempt to seize power. Banish the thought completely. The idea of sezing power under these circumstances would be self defeating. You will become like the leader of the extreme party mentioned by Engels - the tool of an alien class. You have missed this point completely and portray my position being one of abstentionism. This is misleading. It is actually one of hard headed realism. I am not suggesting being inactive either. I am suggesting being active and organising outside of government rather than assuming the power of government. If you seize power prematurely you can kiss goodbye to your socialist pretensions


Regarding your other point about the worldwide nature of a socialist revolution, you say

You are against a revolution anywhere. Until most of the proletariat is on our side -- until the proletariat worldwide is on our side! Worldwide success

No Im not against a "revolutiuon anywhere". My point was quite different. If you have a revolution anywhere that implies that the great majority there want and understand socialism. If that is the case then it is inconceviable that at the same you would not also have elsewhere huge numbers of workers who likewise understand and want socialism (aka communism). It is in the nature of socialist movement that its ideas will develop more or less evenly across the world. Marx makes this very point in The German Ideology


And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism


I would qualify Marx's remarks by saying

1) I dont think it is anymore a question of the "dominant peoples" (developed world) but rather of the working class acting globally

2) I dont think we have to envisage socialism being established literally "simultaneously" and all at once. Revolution can break out first in some part of the world but the logic of what I have been saying is that this would imply the other parts of the world would not be far behind in mounting a revolution too. In short the establishment of socialism worldwide would happen over a comparatively short space of time and conform to a kind of domino effect pattern

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Welll, this is an argument that I was going to tackle in relation to an earlier post by Barry Lyndon. He made much the same point about the Bolsheviks - what would critics of the Bolsheviks have done in the same circumstances? So Ill answer your point by way of answering his.

The short answer is that there are some things that they could have done or had the power to influence and there are somethings they could really do nothing about. In saying this Im minded here of Plekhanov's excellent little pamphlet The Role of the Individual in History which sets out a kind of structural or layered framework of histrical possibilities in much the same way as I am doing here.

There where several things the Bolsheviks could do and did do. On the positive side they took Russia out of the war which will always stand to their credit. Socialists at the time praised the Bolsheviks for this action which contrasted so sharply with the treacherous class collaboration of the parties of the Second International http://wspus.org/in-depth/russia-lenin-and-state-capitalism/ However there were also things that the Bolsheviks could and did do which cannot but be viewed negatively. The erosion of democracy which began even prior to the civil war - routinely cited by Leninists as an excuse for Bolshevik policiy - is a striking example of this.

On the other hand, there were things that the Bolsheviks could not and did not do. There was no way they could introduce a socialist society. Neither the necessary mass socialist consciousness nor a developed infrastructure was in place to enable this to happen. All the Bolsheviks could do was to forge ahead with developing capitalism.

Lenin admitted that state capitalism would be a step forward but the problem with Lenin was that he sought to redefine socialism in such a way that it came to be viewed as almost an imperceptible outgrowth or development out of state capitalism. This create enromous confusion. Nonsensically he talked of the Big Banks comprising nine tenths of the socialist apparatus for example. The idea that you could have banks in a socialist society would have been laughed out of court by socialists a decade earlier.

In my view Lenin was trying to link the socialist project with the incompatible historical project of developing state capitalism in a way that did much to set back the whole movement for a fundamentally different kind of society. The legacy of leninism shows in remarks such as yours when you say It is pretty ridiculous to attack the Cuban state as Capitalist, degenerative or deformed. Anyone with any grasp of what capitalism and socialism is about would recognise that this is nonsense. Clearly Cuba is a capitalist society. Commodity production prevails. Generalised wage labour prevails. Such things are proof postive of the existence of capitalism but Leninists today have lost touch with a marxian understanding of what capitalism and socialism is about.

So to get back to your main point - what would socialists have done under the circumstances. Well some things could have been differently done but in essence the only option would have been likewise to develop capitalism. The question is whether it would have been wise to link this project with the historical aim of socialism in the way that Lanin sought to do. With hindsight I would say no.

At a personal level, I would say it would have been better for socialists to resist taking power and to organise independently outisde of the state to keep the credibility and integrity of a genuine socialist movement intact. The entire history of the Soviet Union since then proves this very point.

I won't argue with you on the point RE: Bolshevism as i'm not a Leninist and feel there is/was a fundamental difference between the dogmatically Marxist-Leninist nature of the Russian Revolution and the more pragmatic, flexible Cuban Revolution.

Given your last paragraph, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on this one. Different ideologies we hold mean we draw different conclusions on the subject. For me, the Cuban Revolution has been a relative success, given the terror of the Batista government, it's provided veritable gains for workers in many fields, even if (due mainly to external factors, but also due to some internal mistakes) it has not been the Socialist utopia that some might like to think.

It is progress, put it that way.

[Comrade Marxist Bro]

Once again you are totally missing the point. Vanguardism, if you followed my argument at all, is the idea that a small minority can somehow capture power on behalf of the great majority in order to emancipate them (as opposed to them emancipating themselves) is dangerous folly and utterly naive. That that minority will assuredly become a new ruling class you can be absolutely certain. This is clearly what happened in the Soviet Union and only political ostriches with their heads firmly implanted in the soil can deny this.

Frederick Engels makes this very point in a wonderful passage from his Peasant War in Germany. which vanguardists everywhere should read and inwardly digest.



The worst thing that can befall a leader of an extreme party is to be compelled to take over a government in an epoch when the movement is not yet ripe for the domination of the class which he represents and for the realisation of the measures which that domination would imply. What he can do depends not upon his will but upon the sharpness of the clash of interests between the various classes, and upon the degree of development of the material means of existence, the relations of production and means of communication upon which the clash of interests of the classes is based every time. What he ought to do, what his party demands of him, again depends not upon him, or upon the degree of development of the class struggle and its conditions. He is bound to his doctrines and the demands hitherto propounded which do not emanate from the interrelations of the social classes at a given moment, or from the more or less accidental level of relations of production and means of communication, but from his more or less penetrating insight into the general result of the social and political movement. Thus he necessarily finds himself in a dilemma. What he can do is in contrast to all his actions as hitherto practised, to all his principles and to the present interests of his party; what he ought to do cannot be achieved. In a word, he is compelled to represent not his party or his class, but the class for whom conditions are ripe for domination. In the interests of the movement itself, he is compelled to defend the interests of an alien class, and to feed his own class with phrases and promises, with the assertion that the interests of that alien class are their own interests. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/peasant-war-germany/ch06.htm)

This could well describe Lenin. At any rate it makes my point for me. You cannot have a socialist revolution until the great majority want and understand it. QED. Wriggle as you might there is simply no getting around this point.

Yes, we know the general reasons for the USSR's failure. It was an isolated state with a small working class at the outset. Moreover, the Bolsheviks did not adequately prepare to run the state on the basis of the vanguard party prior to the Revolution. They did not expect the reactionary peasant and White-Guardist resistance that actually occured in many parts of the Empire, and they were confident that the revolutions in the West would turn out successfully -- and that the revolutionaries in Germany, etc. would be able to receive assistance from the USSR, which could not actually happen because of the Red Army's failure at Warsaw, given the unexpected support of Pilsudski's nationalism from the hitherto socialist-leaning Polish population. All this is history: the Bolsheviks initially did not expect to have to create socialism in one country, and when the party did accept that course, nobody could really have foreknown the overall level of hardships and sacrifices that the Soviet people would have to undergo in the fast-paced course of catching up with the West in the 1930s.

That at least most of the harsh measures that were adopted by the USSR were taken on account of these circumstances is pretty much accepted by everybody who looks at the USSR's history -- especially those looking at it from a Marxist point of view. There was no way that Russia could have built a "libertarian socialism." But you go further than this: you say that carrying out the revolution was not even worth it, because the bureaucratic system of administration over collective property in the USSR was actually state capitalism, and that such state capitalism is even worse than private capitalism.

You further deduce that brutal "state capitalism" must be worse than private capitalism wherever there is a state organized along the Leninist vanguard model.

Why?

Isn't Cuba, for instance, a Leninist kind of system? But where are the horrors of the Castro government? Now, Cuba is by no means an ideal society -- not least because of the American embargo against the island. It may compare favorably with much of the Third World, but relative to the U.S. and even Mexico, it's quite poor. Yet, even with the embargo, it has succeeded in satisfying the people's most fundamental needs. (And where does capitalist economy manage solve problems like that?) Everyone has a place to live and something to eat. People have medicine and can go to school. And where is the brutal repression? Where are the brutal Gulags and where is the Cuban Great Purge? How many millions of dissidents does Cuba even have, aside from the expropriated capitalists and Batista-lovers who chose to move to Miami? Something like 40 locked-up reactionaries in jails right now? A bit higher -- something like 100, if I'm grossly underestimating?

We could, of course, suppose that some "progressive" social-democratic party could simply have come to power through the ballot-box after Batista's overthrow and introduced reforms in favor of universal literacy, housing, and healthcare, but there is no guarantee that a) such a social-democratic would have come to power, and b) that these social democrats would not have compromised away most of their agenda, as social democrats usually do. The Cuban revolution has carried all of this out. Wasn't the revolution -- bureaucratized, degenerate, state capitalist or whatever else -- worth it from at least that point view?

And this kind of progress is worse than private capitalism, and it has set the radical left back?


The question is what is one to do in the absence of majority support and understanding. My argument is that one should not even attempt to seize power. Banish the thought completely. The idea of sezing power under these circumstances would be self defeating. You will become like the leader of the extreme party mentioned by Engels - the tool of an alien class. You have missed this point completely and portray my position being one of abstentionism. This is misleading. It is actually one of hard headed realism. I am not suggesting being inactive either. I am suggesting being active and organising outside of government rather than assuming the power of government. If you seize power prematurely you can kiss goodbye to your socialist pretensions

The problem is that your position either boils down to staying out of politics altogether, or pushing for progressive changes through reformist candidates while also organizing outside of government. These are essentially the same insofar as reformism can only reform capitalism; from that angle, your movement for "real" socialism will really stand outside of the political process. But the anarchists have always stood outside of the political process; if that's such an effective strategy, why is there nothing to show for it in the real world? How much closer to achieving socialism has that fundamentally anarchist strategy really gotten us since the first stirrings of the anarchists' ideas in the 1800s?


Regarding your other point about the worldwide nature of a socialist revolution, you say

You are against a revolution anywhere. Until most of the proletariat is on our side -- until the proletariat worldwide is on our side! Worldwide success

No Im not against a "revolutiuon anywhere". My point was quite different. If you have a revolution anywhere that implies that the great majority there want and understand socialism. If that is the case then it is inconceviable that at the same you would not also have elsewhere huge numbers of workers who likewise understand and want socialism (aka communism). It is in the nature of socialist movement that its ideas will develop more or less evenly across the world.

But there hasn't been any significant growth in the socialist movement in the United States since the early part of the 20th century. According to what you wrote, what this implies is that there has more or less been little or no progress for the socialist movement worldwide.


Marx makes this very point in The German Ideology

And, on the other hand, this development of productive forces (which itself implies the actual empirical existence of men in their world-historical, instead of local, being) is an absolutely necessary practical premise because without it want is merely made general, and with destitution the struggle for necessities and all the old filthy business would necessarily be reproduced; and furthermore, because only with this universal development of productive forces is a universal intercourse between men established, which produces in all nations simultaneously the phenomenon of the "propertyless" mass (universal competition), makes each nation dependent on the revolutions of the others, and finally has put world-historical, empirically universal individuals in place of local ones. Without this, (1) communism could only exist as a local event; (2) the forces of intercourse themselves could not have developed as universal, hence intolerable powers: they would have remained home-bred conditions surrounded by superstition; and (3) each extension of intercourse would abolish local communism. Empirically, communism is only possible as the act of the dominant peoples "all at once" and simultaneously, which presupposes the universal development of productive forces and the world intercourse bound up with communism

And Marx is correct. He correctly saw that communism will really only be in place when it develops worldwide.

But that does not mean that socialist construction should be put off until a more-or-less worldwide overthrow of capitalism can take place. You write that in a revolutionary situation "it [would be] inconceviable that at the same you would not also have elsewhere huge numbers of workers who likewise understand and want socialism."

But it is conceivable, Robbo. The world does not develop evenly. And neither does the global proletariat's consciousness of the class struggle.

The fact that we now live in a "globalized village" (as you've been putting it) and that we now have access to better modes of communication has not changed this fact yet. The idea that capitalism will permit the proletariat to become one well-coordinate whole is ahistorical. And it is probably an exceptionally grand case of wishful thinking.


I would qualify Marx's remarks by saying

1) I dont think it is anymore a question of the "dominant peoples" (developed world) but rather of the working class acting globally

2) I dont think we have to envisage socialism being established literally "simultaneously" and all at once. Revolution can break out first in some part of the world but the logic of what I have been saying is that this would imply the other parts of the world would not be far behind in mounting a revolution too. In short the establishment of socialism worldwide would happen over a comparatively short space of time and conform to a kind of domino effect pattern

But this is qualification is still essentially the same as asking for the socialist revolution to begin everywhere and simultaneously. You see it as essential that the revolution succeeds on a global scale, which necessitates that the proletariat should not launch the revolution until it's more or less certain that it will quickly succeed eveywhere. The problem with that, again, is that it implies that any "premature" revolution by Leninists, no matter how successful at developing class consciousness and improving the lives of the working people, is supposed to be frowned upon as a vicious setback for the "real" left (your left)...

[robbo203]

That at least most of the harsh measures that were adopted by the USSR were taken on account of these circumstances is pretty much accepted by everybody who looks at the USSR's history -- especially those looking at it from a Marxist point of view. There was no way that Russia could have built a "libertarian socialism." But you go further than this: you say that carrying out the revolution was not even worth it, because the bureaucratic system of administration over collective property in the USSR was actually state capitalism, and that such state capitalism is even worse than private capitalism.


The Bolsheviks had no option but to carry out a capitalist revolution. That much I accept although many leftists still think this was not the case and that it was in fact a socialist revolution that happened though they will then go on to justify the increasingly authoritarian and anti-working class policies of the Bolsheviks on the grounds that latter had "no option" but to push ahead with these policies. According to this argument they chose to have a socialist revolution but they did not freely chose such policies; these were forced on them by circumstances like the civil war.

I would say on the contrary - they were forced by circumstances to carry out a capitalist revolution and that some of things they did subsequently were both unnecessary (they did not have to to do them) and quite unacceptable. I must correct you on one point. I did not say carrying out a revolution was "not even worth it". I said seizing power when the conditions are not ripe for socialism means in the end you will gravitate towards an anti-socialist position in the very process of running capitalism as happened with the Bolsheviks. Hence my quote from Engels work on the Peasant War




You further deduce that brutal "state capitalism" must be worse than private capitalism wherever there is a state organized along the Leninist vanguard model.

Why?


Well I dont think I made any such deduction but, as it happens, in some respects - not all - yes I do think state capitalism is even worse than private capitalism. This is because, all things being equal, it concentrates power in the hands of the capitalist state and enables the latter to carry out its anti-working class policies more ruthlessly and effectively. Needless to say that does not mean I welcome private capitalism at all. I oppose all forms of capitalism . Period.






Isn't Cuba, for instance, a Leninist kind of system? But where are the horrors of the Castro government? Now, Cuba is by no means an ideal society -- not least because of the American embargo against the island. It may compare favorably with much of the Third World, but relative to the U.S. and even Mexico, it's quite poor. Yet, even with the embargo, it has succeeded in satisfying the people's most fundamental needs. (And where does capitalist economy manage solve problems like that?) Everyone has a place to live and something to eat. People have medicine and can go to school. And where is the brutal repression? Where are the brutal Gulags and where is the Cuban Great Purge? How many millions of dissidents does Cuba even have, aside from the expropriated capitalists and Batista-lovers who chose to move to Miami? Something like 40 locked-up reactionaries in jails right now? A bit higher -- something like 100, if I'm grossly underestimating?

I have never denied that in some respects the achievements of Cuba have been remarkable, comparatively speaking, particularly given the embargo. But lets not over-glamorise the situation. For example, yes, people have housing but as you may know, much of the housing stock is pretty grim and run down. My partner has friends in Cuba with whom she communicates fairly regularly and from what I can gather life is far from a bed of roses for ordinary Cubans. Nor is it a democratic society. Lets not kid ourselves. It is a top down authoritarian state capitalist regime in which opposition to the regime is muffled and repressed though I grant it is not as bad as is sometimes made out in the liberal press



We could, of course, suppose that some "progressive" social-democratic party could simply have come to power through the ballot-box after Batista's overthrow and introduced reforms in favor of universal literacy, housing, and healthcare, but there is no guarantee that a) such a social-democratic would have come to power, and b) that these social democrats would not have compromised away most of their agenda, as social democrats usually do. The Cuban revolution has carried all of this out. Wasn't the revolution -- bureaucratized, degenerate, state capitalist or whatever else -- worth it from at least that point view?


Even accepting your claims for the sake of argument, what exactly are you driving it here? Let me put this starkly with another example. After the Second World War the Labour Party came to power in Britain on the promise of sweeping reforms. The Beveridge Report recommended radical reorganisation of the system of welfare which led to institutionalisation of the Welfare state under Labour and a comprehensive system of health care known as the national Health System (NHS). Now, of course, the principle of free health care is a good one as I recognise but one would have to be exceedingly naive to imagine that the NHS was introduced as a result of some great humanitarian surge amongst the ranks of the capitalists touched by the plight of the workers. The Beveridge Report actually enjoyed cross-party support even from a number of Tory industrialists who recognised that it would be a more efficient way of running capitalism. And the fact that we dont pay for healthcare does not mean that there is not a cost involved which will inevitably affect the nominal wages that workers receive in exchange for the sale of their labour power as the Labour theory of value suggests.

My point is this (sorry about the slight detour above). Does the fact that the Labour Party made it its business to present itsaelf as the great promoter and defender of the NHS (the reality was quite different) mean that the principle of free health care per se requires us to support the Labour party? No, of course it doesnt . The labour party is a capitalist party intent upon administering capitalism and the only way in which it can be administered is in the in the interests of capital, not wage labour. Whatever benefits wage labour receives is incidental to, and dependent upon, the need to make a profit.

I look upon the situation in Cuba is the same way. Yes, there are some comparatively good things about Cuba but this does not translate into the need to support the regime. Still less does it justify calling the regime socialist. As has been said many times before on this list Cuba is not some kind of socialist utopia. Its just another capitalist society. Its time some on the Left recognised this.



And this kind of progress is worse than private capitalism, and it has set the radical left back?




Only insofar as the radical left allows itself to be ensnared by the illusion that Cuba is some kind of socialist paradise worth fighting for and in the process postponing indefinitely the struggle for a genuine socialist society



The problem is that your position either boils down to staying out of politics altogether, or pushing for progressive changes through reformist candidates while also organizing outside of government. These are essentially the same insofar as reformism can only reform capitalism; from that angle, your movement for "real" socialism will really stand outside of the political process. But the anarchists have always stood outside of the political process; if that's such an effective strategy, why is there nothing to show for it in the real world?

You couldnt be more wrong here. What you are essentially advocating is reformism in the belief that it entails some kind of progressive dynamic which will lead us somewhere closer to achieving a socialist society. In fact all the historical evdience shows that your progressive changes lead to the abandonment of revolutionary socialism and the cooption of erstwhile revolutionary socialists into capitalism

In any case it is nonsense to suggest that revolutionary socialism means "standing outside of the political process". This a terribly mechanical not to say narrow minded, concept of what the political process actually is . The political process is not something that is confined to machinations of politicians in the corridors of power



How much closer to achieving socialism has that fundamentally anarchist strategy really gotten us since the first stirrings of the anarchists' ideas in the 1800s?

How much closer would the working class movement be to achieving socialism if it had not bween sidetracked into supprting refromism or state capitalist revolution? Much much closer, I would suggest







Yes and for the reasons cited above

[QUOTE=Comrade Marxist Bro;1851339]
And Marx is correct. He correctly saw that communism will really only be in place when it develops worldwide.

But that does not mean that socialist construction should be put off until a more-or-less worldwide overthrow of capitalism can take place. You write that in a revolutionary situation "it [would be] inconceviable that at the same you would not also have elsewhere huge numbers of workers who likewise understand and want socialism."

But it is conceivable, Robbo. The world does not develop evenly. And neither does the global proletariat's consciousness of the class struggle.

But youre missing the point arenet you. The global proletariat has not developed a genuine communist outlook in a way that would allow you to test this hypothesis. Nowhere is a genuine communist consciousness - the deisre to establish an stateless classless moneyless alternative to capitalism - a seriously significant phenomenon. Marx made a distinction between the class in itself and the class for itself (Poverty of Philosphy). We are a long way still from the kind of consciousness grounded in the concept of a class for itself. That kind of revolutionary consciouness is one that will be no respecter of national boundaries. There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that it will develop unevenly just becuase capitalism itself has historically developed unevenly - though with China now vying with the US for the position of top dog in global capitalism even this dogma might become questionable.



The fact that we now live in a "globalized village" (as you've been putting it) and that we now have access to better modes of communication has not changed this fact yet. The idea that capitalism will permit the proletariat to become one well-coordinate whole is ahistorical. And it is probably an exceptionally grand case of wishful thinking.


Why is it "ahistorical". This assumes that what I am talking is something that has a historical precedent which is not the case. Capitalism has never been threatened yet by a worldwide communist movement. Not even remotely. Besides capitalism is just a system , a set of economic relations. It doesnt "do" anything. It is economic and politcal actors that
do things in the real world. What power will they have to stop a movement of millions?


But this is qualification is still essentially the same as asking for the socialist revolution to begin everywhere and simultaneously. You see it as essential that the revolution succeeds on a global scale, which necessitates that the proletariat should not launch the revolution until it's more or less certain that it will quickly succeed eveywhere. The problem with that, again, is that it implies that any "premature" revolution by Leninists, no matter how successful at developing class consciousness and improving the lives of the working people, is supposed to be frowned upon as a vicious setback for the "real" left (your left)...

The point is that a premature revolution can only ever be a capitalist revolutiuon in these terms. If you accept that then consider what logically follows from this proposition - A leninist state administering capitalism. Now there is only one way you can adminsiter capilatism and that is in the interests of capital. Which means inevitably your leninist state will come to work against the interests of wage labour. This is axiomatic and has been born out time and time again by the facts of history.

So yes - what is the point of socialists wanting to launch a premature revolution which cannot bring about socialism. Sure it will guarantee capitalism if thats what you want and arguably there muight have once been a reason for fomenting a capitalist revolution decades ago but not today in a world of global capitalism. Point is though that if you want to embark on a capitalist revolution be prepared to embrace the ideology and the practical policies that go with it. Be prepared to sharpen your knife for when it comes to stabbing the workers in the back while all the while pretending to advance their interests

[4 Leaf Clover]

this is quite correct criticizm of Cuban political system , but im afraid Cuba's are backing down under embargo pressure . Its a bit discouraging that there is no will for holding up in the struggle but maybe it will change once again people's anger with current global political mainstream comes at its peak