Dictatorship FOR the Proletariat

[Die Rote Fahne]

Marxism calls for the "dictatorship of the proletariat", modernly referred to as the "socialist stage" by many today. This is basic knowledge to most Marxists. It precedes communism -- a stateless, moneyless and classless society. It is a large aspect of Marxist theory which is laid out in The Communist Manifesto. This is the stage in which the proletariat holds political power. This is opposed to the bourgeoisie holding political power (also known as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie). Such bourgeois dictatorship is what the entire planet is under right now, an inevitability of capitalism. The "dictatorship of the proletariat" means that the decisions in society are made by the proletariat in the interests of the proletariat.

What I want to note is that no communist revolution has resulted in such political power being given to the working class. A loose representation of the working class' interests in which positive things did occur, including improved working conditions, secularization, etc is all we saw. I think we can all agree to that. However, not all the worker's interests were represented. What we saw was the political power taken from the bourgeois, and given, not to the proletariat, but to the party. I refer to this form of rule as a "dictatorship FOR the proletariat". Yes, this party's intentions were to create socialism and improve the lives of the working class. However, political power was still in the hands of a minority elite. The party which represented, I use that word loosely, the interests of the working class was doing as it saw fit. Opposition was stifled and there was no democratic input on economic or social policy. With this occurring, flawed policies, reactionary policies, and often capitalistic policies were allowed to be put into place. This "dictatorship FOR the proletariat" inevitably becomes the "dictatorship OF the proletariat".

For socialism to occur, the political power MUST be in the hands of the working class. No single party can hold political power. This merely leads to authoritarianism, which leads to sectarianism, which leads to totalitarianism. That route leads to State Capitalism, not to socialism. I am not saying I am against a revolutionary party. I am saying that once the revolution occurs, that party cannot, and should not, be the only option. We must have general elections after the revolution in which worker's vote for their own, preferred, socialist programs. Without these democratic premises we cannot achieve socialism. The interests of all workers must be represented. Not the interests of some workers.

In Russia we had Lenin's Bolshevik party. I recognize them as important to the struggle against the bourgeoisie. However, the Bolsheviks many undemocratic policies were the cause of Leninism's decay into Stalinist State Capitalism. We had large opposition to Bolshevism, known as Menshevism. The mensheviks, although vocal, were not represented within governmental structure after the revolution. Nor were any of the Left Opposition. Without democratic input from the workers, such policies as Lenin's NEP, reactionary Stalinist policies, purges, and oppressive policies were put into place. I guarantee that with all worker's represented, there would have been no restriction of the press, of speech, etc.

"Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element." - Rosa Luxemburg

[¿Que?]

But how does the revolution happen?

[Die Rote Fahne]

But how does the revolution happen?

The revolution occurs through an enlightening of the working class. That's one way of putting it.

The class struggle heightens to the point that organizing and spontanaiety results in the workers revolting. The worker's learn to struggle by struggling. They learn to fight whilst fighting.

The worker's realize what they must do, and action is taken. Their liberation is not laid out. There is no "how-to" for their freedom. They simply fight and through progress they learn.

The masses become their own leaders.

[Zanthorus]

We had large opposition to Bolshevism, known as Menshevism. The mensheviks, although vocal, were not represented within governmental structure after the revolution.

Yes, because they walked out of the second All-Russia congress of Soviets, scuppering the initial plan drafted by the Menshevik Martov and supported by the Bolshevik delegates for a coalition government of all the parties represented at the congress. The Left Social-Revolutionaries retained a minority presences within Sovnarkom until they walked out over the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty because their proposal to wage a 'revolutionary war' was rejected.


Nor were any of the Left Opposition.

I'm fairly sure that Trotsky had some governmental position of one kind or another...

[IndependentCitizen]

But how does the revolution happen?

Break the chain of the media. The media gives out the impression of an meritocratic society, where hard work =$$$ which is not the truth. Unfortunately, the ruling-class ideology is being embedded into the people who will eventually abandone their class culture in pursuit of the ruling-class ideology, this false class consciousness is what we MUST stop in order to achieve the revolution of the proletariat.

To do this, we must expose the lies through the means of our own propagando, and show the working people what they're being spoon fed by our media bastards who make us believe capitalism is the only sustainable system.

So, to achieve revolution. You must beat back the beast that is the media, and start spreading the word of Marx in the working class communities, in the work place and etc.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes, because they walked out of the second All-Russia congress of Soviets, scuppering the initial plan drafted by the Menshevik Martov and supported by the Bolshevik delegates for a coalition government of all the parties represented at the congress. The Left Social-Revolutionaries retained a minority presences within Sovnarkom until they walked out over the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty because their proposal to wage a 'revolutionary war' was rejected.

And there was no effort to have democratic representation of workers who backed the mensheviks or any other socialist group.

We can't say "well they walked out, too bad for them".


I'm fairly sure that Trotsky had some governmental position of one kind or another...

Trotsky was a Bolshevik...

[ZeroNowhere]

The 'Left Opposition' refers to a group containing Trotsky while under Stalin. You may have been referring to the Workers' Opposition, although they were also 'Bolsheviks', although not necessarily happy ones (http://www.marxists.org/archive/shliapnikov/1922/appeal.htm).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, because they walked out of the second All-Russia congress of Soviets, scuppering the initial plan drafted by the Menshevik Martov and supported by the Bolshevik delegates for a coalition government of all the parties represented at the congress. The Left Social-Revolutionaries retained a minority presences within Sovnarkom until they walked out over the signing of the Brest-Litovsk treaty because their proposal to wage a 'revolutionary war' was rejected.

I'm fairly sure that Trotsky had some governmental position of one kind or another...

Martov didn't have the spine to split the Internationalists from the Defencists like the leaders of the Left SRs had with their split. :(

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

But how does the revolution happen?

Arguably, it doesn't, and "The Revolution" is some fucked up liberal baggage that we need to get past. Rather than an historic moment at which one form of society topples another and installs itself definitely in its place, we should look to ways in which a multiplicity of forms of life can drown out capitalism.
In that sense, I'm not interested in dictatorship over or of the proletariat, but the breakdown of politics all together.
Rather than answers for The Revolution and After The Revolution, I think we need to reconceptualize the party as the carrying out of communization. We need to raise questions about how to attack, and how to keep attacking - how to live collectively, and keep living collectively.
General elections are a scam - a way by which political authority can recenter itself. Insofar as political authority necessarily means the management of capital, the end result can't help but be predictable.

[Zanthorus]

We can't say "well they walked out, too bad for them".

Yes, yes we can. They didn't want to be represented in Sovnarkom and took a position against the Soviets and the overthrow of the provisional government by the MRC. Representing anti-Soviet forces in a Soviet governmnet is the height of absurdity.


Trotsky was a Bolshevik...

As was every member of what Gabriel Miasnikov called the 'Opposition of Celebrities'. Perhaps you are confused with the specific groups, but the 'Left Opposition' usually refers to the platform of the group which signed the Manifesto of the 46, which called for a more active involvement of the state in the Russian economy and an increase in internal party democracy. Practically all of the Left Opposition gave up their criticisms and went back to being loyal members of the regime after 1928 when the regime embarked on it's 'left turn' and began implementing the five year plans, apart from Trotsky who was exiled.

[∞]

I like the Luxemburg quote though,

[Paulappaul]

Representing anti-Soviet forces in a Soviet governmnet is the height of absurdity.How so? Don't Communist Parties represent the will of a people of wish the current system of Government be overthrown? Should we not allow them in Parliament? It's not absurdity, it's understanding that the current institution which may be Democratic in theory isn't in reality. They are anti - parliamentary in a parliamentary government.

The biggest problem really with the whole Soviet question is, why were Parties in the Soviets in the first place, rather then the workers themselves electing each other regardless of a party line.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Yes, yes we can. They didn't want to be represented in Sovnarkom and took a position against the Soviets and the overthrow of the provisional government by the MRC. Representing anti-Soviet forces in a Soviet governmnet is the height of absurdity.



As was every member of what Gabriel Miasnikov called the 'Opposition of Celebrities'. Perhaps you are confused with the specific groups, but the 'Left Opposition' usually refers to the platform of the group which signed the Manifesto of the 46, which called for a more active involvement of the state in the Russian economy and an increase in internal party democracy. Practically all of the Left Opposition gave up their criticisms and went back to being loyal members of the regime after 1928 when the regime embarked on it's 'left turn' and began implementing the five year plans, apart from Trotsky who was exiled.

The party of the mensheviks, etc did not want to represent the workers.

I'm talking about worker's being represented, not political parties being represented. The worker's who were not Leninist did want representation.

Yeah, left opposition was incorrect. My bad.

[fa2991]

Note that none of the "How does the revolution happen?" answers have any chance of succeeding any time soon, even if embarked upon immediately and given decades to unfurl.

Just saying.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Note that none of the "How does the revolution happen?" answers have any chance of succeeding any time soon, even if embarked upon immediately and given decades to unfurl.

Just saying.

There are moments of rupture and insurrection every day, though.
It makes one wonder if there's anything at the end of the party line, or if it just goes on forever.

[ComradeOm]

It's not absurdity, it's understanding that the current institution which may be Democratic in theory isn't in reality. They are anti - parliamentary in a parliamentary governmentExcept that a) the soviets never claimed to be parliamentary in the manner of bourgeois parliaments, and b) the Mensheviks were not expelled from the soviets until long after October. Yet it was them who rejected a place in government, they rejected seats in the CEC, and their leadership aligned themselves with the counter-revolutionaries of Krasnov et al to crush Soviet power

But why bother with any of this when we can simply condemn the Bolsheviks as undemocratic thugs?


The biggest problem really with the whole Soviet question is, why were Parties in the Soviets in the first place, rather then the workers themselves electing each other regardless of a party line.A common refrain. The reality is of course that parties in the soviets, like political parties anywhere, organically developed to represent class interests. They were most certainly not some alien element that was forced on the soviet movement, but rather a natural development once the soviets became divided between the revolutionary (Bolshevik) and non-revolutionary (Menshevik) proletariat

Which is of course something you'll miss if you view political parties exclusively as structured bodies instead of vehicles through which classes develop and further their political interests


The worker's who were not Leninist did want representationThe workers who were not "Leninist" or Menshevik were likely to be Left SR and they were represented in government

Some people forget however that the basic precept of democracy is that the party that enjoys the most support from the electorate (in this case the proletariat) has a mandate to govern. In October 1917 the Bolsheviks were by far and away the largest party at the Second Congress of Soviets, comprising, by some counts (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/a/arcs.htm), an absolute majority of the gathered delegates. This was reinforced by the elections to the Constituent Assembly which saw the Bolsheviks supplant both the Mensheviks and SRs as the unquestioned party of the Russian proletariat. So in 1917 there were, to use your terminology, few Russian workers who were not "Leninist"

[Paulappaul]

the soviets never claimed to be parliamentary in the manner of bourgeois parliaments

I never claimed that either. I said despite the failings of Bourgeois Democracy, they made great achievements over coming their processors by allowing Consent to the Rule of Law - success of this is another question.

While Soviets in theory are self expressions of the Working Proletariat's desire for Freedom and true Democracy, when subjected to a one party rule, they are worse then any bourgeois parliament.


the Mensheviks were not expelled from the soviets until long after October. Yet it was them who rejected a place in government, they rejected seats in the CEC, and their leadership aligned themselves with the counter-revolutionaries of Krasnov et al to crush Soviet power

I never talked about the Mensheviks. Only that true organs of Democracy allow consent.


A common refrain.

Alright Mr. Know it all lets get off the high horse please.


The reality is of course that parties in the soviets, like political parties anywhere, organically developed to represent class interests.

Political Parties appeared with the domination of the Bourgeois over the former ruling class and established of a liberal democracy. Parties aren't "organic" they are Social constructs to enlightened class of individuals. It represents an idelogy, that of which is of a human creation.

The Labor Party in the Uk was a result not the Working Class, like the Workers' Councils in May 68, or in Chile or in Hungary they were created by the Middle Class intelligentsia from the Fabian Society and Trade Union leaders from the Liberal Party.

Parties are not any more organic to the working class then their television sets.


They were most certainly not some alien element that was forced on the soviet movement, but rather a natural development once the soviets became divided between the revolutionary (Bolshevik) and non-revolutionary (Menshevik) proletariat

The Soviets in 1917 didn't start like the Soviets in 1905. In 1917 they were created, they weren't reactionary creations of the working class, but were constructs of the Revolutionaries as a Public form where the working class was invited to attend.

The Factory Committees and Anarcho - Syndicalist unions were more true examples of Workers' Control.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Except that a) the soviets never claimed to be parliamentary in the manner of bourgeois parliaments, and b) the Mensheviks were not expelled from the soviets until long after October. Yet it was them who rejected a place in government, they rejected seats in the CEC, and their leadership aligned themselves with the counter-revolutionaries of Krasnov et al to crush Soviet power

But why bother with any of this when we can simply condemn the Bolsheviks as undemocratic thugs?

A common refrain. The reality is of course that parties in the soviets, like political parties anywhere, organically developed to represent class interests. They were most certainly not some alien element that was forced on the soviet movement, but rather a natural development once the soviets became divided between the revolutionary (Bolshevik) and non-revolutionary (Menshevik) proletariat

Which is of course something you'll miss if you view political parties exclusively as structured bodies instead of vehicles through which classes develop and further their political interests

The workers who were not "Leninist" or Menshevik were likely to be Left SR and they were represented in government

Some people forget however that the basic precept of democracy is that the party that enjoys the most support from the electorate (in this case the proletariat) has a mandate to govern. In October 1917 the Bolsheviks were by far and away the largest party at the Second Congress of Soviets, comprising, by some counts (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/events/a/arcs.htm), an absolute majority of the gathered delegates. This was reinforced by the elections to the Constituent Assembly which saw the Bolsheviks supplant both the Mensheviks and SRs as the unquestioned party of the Russian proletariat. So in 1917 there were, to use your terminology, few Russian workers who were not "Leninist"


Yet, there were no general elections.

Could it be fear of a major shift in support that would reduce Bolshevik power in government? I think so.

[ComradeOm]

While Soviets in theory are self expressions of the Working Proletariat's desire for Freedom and true Democracy, when subjected to a one party rule, they are worse then any bourgeois parliamentAnd what of parliaments "subjected to one party rule"? Your comparison is ridiculously skewed


I never talked about the Mensheviks. Only that true organs of Democracy allow consent. And, as both Zanthorus and myself have stated, the Mensheviks placed themselves outside of the bounds of Soviet democracy. They weren't kicked out, they weren't purged, they willingly chose to absent themselves from CEC and Sovnarkom because they fundamentally disagreed with the transfer of power to the soviets. Had they done otherwise, ie had they chosen the soviets over bourgeois parliamentarianism, then of course they could have played a full and active role in Soviet government

So no, I don't see why you are condemning the soviets (which most certainly "allowed consent") for a course of action chosen by the Menshevik party

Incidentally, since you are apparently a big fan how many bourgeois parliaments would tolerate the presence of a party openly and actively engaged in an armed insurgency. I can't think of one that was half as tolerant of this as the soviets


Political Parties appeared with the domination of the Bourgeois over the former ruling class and established of a liberal democracy. Parties aren't "organic" they are Social constructs to enlightened class of individuals. It represents an idelogy, that of which is of a human creationAnd ideology does not develop naturally from class interests and material conditions? From where does it spring then?

Political parties are, to quote Gramsci, "the germs of a collective will which are striving to become universal and total". This "ideology" that you deride is in fact a common view as to how society should be run. Parties emerged and began pushing their respective class interests almost as soon as there was a forum available for them to freely do so. Obviously this is all highly subject to factors such as class conciousness but the point stands. Parties are the organisational form of class aspirations; the means by which as class, or section of a class, furthers it political objectives

Russia 1917 offers one of the best historical illustrations of this with the support for each major party dividing almost, if not entirely, down class lines. That so many flocked to the Bolshevik banner, joining up en masse and transforming the party in the process, is because their programme chimed with the revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat. Or why do you believe that the latter favoured the Bolsheviks so?


The Soviets in 1917 didn't start like the Soviets in 1905. In 1917 they were created, they weren't reactionary creations of the working class, but were constructs of the Revolutionaries as a Public form where the working class was invited to attendI'm going to assume that you meant "revolutionary creations" above

With regards 1905, that depends entirely on who you believe. Whether its Trotsky or Voline, there's little question that intellectuals were heavily involved. No more so than 1917 when, as Sukhanov describes, the establishment of the Petrograd Soviet involved a throng of workers and soldiers. Unless the proletariat was "invited" to free Gvozdev et al from the prisons and establish the soviet?

But I want to be clear here - are you suggesting that the soviets of 1917 were not democratic bodies?



The Factory Committees and Anarcho - Syndicalist unions were more true examples of Workers' Control.:D

1) I love how you distinguish the "Anarcho - Syndicalist unions" from all those other nasty, and no doubt reactionary, unions. Hooray for double standards

2) So what do you make of the fact that the factory committees were solidly Bolshevik by October 1917? In fact they were probably more "one-party" than the soviets in this regard. Not only were many prominent FC representatives Bolshevik but successive FC conferences voted for Bolshevik resolutions... despite the (minuscule) presence of syndicalists and their competing resolutions. Perhaps you should start differentiating between 'good' and 'bad' FCs as well?

I'm also curious as to how you went from the democratic credentials of the soviets to (note capitalisation) "Workers' Control". The two are not one and the same

[Paulappaul]

And what of parliaments "subjected to one party rule"?It's the same thing when it's one Party rule.


And, as both Zanthorus and myself have stated, the Mensheviks placed themselves outside of the bounds of Soviet democracy. They weren't kicked out, they weren't purged, they willingly chose to absent themselves from CEC and Sovnarkom because they fundamentally disagreed with the transfer of power to the soviets. Had they done otherwise, ie had they chosen the soviets over bourgeois parliamentarianism, then of course they could have played a full and active role in Soviet governmentI never disagreed, I stated the problem with the Soviets were that there were Parities in the first place. The most logical course of action for securing Proletarian aims was to old General Elections amongst the Proletariat absent of party will.


And ideology does not develop naturally from class interests and material conditions? From where does it spring then?Ideology doesn't come from class interests or necessarily material conditions. Go to a Child and tell him that Black people are bad and he will go up with that Mentality. Go to a child and tell him Communists are bad and he will grow up that way. Go to an Adult and tell them, Communism is great for civilization and it's in your own interest but every time it's been tried it's failed. They will believe you.


Parties are the organisational form of class aspirations; the means by which as class, or section of a class, furthers it political objectives

Yeah into a Wall. And this wasn't your original point.


That so many flocked to the Bolshevik banner, joining up en masse and transforming the party in the process, is because their programme chimed with the revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat.No doubt, it doesn't go to legitimize the Parties ability to represent class interests. Elections sway every year between Parties, the sheer amount of delegates at the Soviet Congress which didn't side with the Bolsheviks represent why a One Party rule is bad.


Or why do you believe that the latter favoured the Bolsheviks so?
No Doubt, the Bolsheviks were revolutionary and true in their cause to represent their views.


are you suggesting that the soviets of 1917 were not democratic bodies?
One Party Rule isn't Democratic.


I love how you distinguish the "Anarcho - Syndicalist unions" from all those other nasty, and no doubt reactionary, unions. Hooray for double standardsComrade Syndicat - an Anarcho -Syndicalist - corrected me for using "Industrial Unionism" as a means to describe Anarcho - Syndicalist tactics as they were "outdated". I avoid calling it any type of Unionism, other then it was under control by those were Anarcho - Syndicalist.


I'm also curious as to how you went from the democratic credentials of the soviets to (note capitalisation) "Workers' Control". The two are not one and the same Workers' Control isn't a limited concept to Economics. If I meant it to be so I would have said "Workers' Control over the means of Production" instead I said

"The Factory Committees and Anarcho - Syndicalist unions were more true examples of Workers' Control "

Meaning over both the Political and the Economic.


2) So what do you make of the fact that the factory committees were solidly Bolshevik by October 1917? In fact they were probably more "one-party" than the soviets in this regard. Not only were many prominent FC representatives Bolshevik but successive FC conferences voted for Bolshevik resolutions... despite the (minuscule) presence of syndicalists and their competing resolutions. Perhaps you should start differentiating between 'good' and 'bad' FCs as well?Following which the Factory Committees tried to create their own National Organization absent of Political Parties and Unions. Isaac Deutscher describes how the Bolsheviks used the trade unions to emasculate the committees within months after the revolution.


The Bolsheviks now called upon the trade unions to render a special service to the nascent Soviet State and to discipline the factory committees. The unions came out against the attempt of the factory committees to form a national organisation of their own. They prevented the convocation of a planned all-Russian Congress of factory committees and demanded total subordination on the part of the committees. The committees, however, were too strong to surrender altogether. Towards the end of 1917 a compromise was reached, under which the factory committees accepted a new status: They were to form the primary organisations upon which the trade unions based themselves; but, by the same token, of course, they were incorporated in the unions. Gradually they gave up the ambition to act, either locally or nationally, in opposition to the trade unions or independently of them. The unions now became the main channels through which the Government was assuming control over industry.

[ComradeOm]

Ideology doesn't come from class interests or necessarily material conditions. Go to a Child and tell him that Black people are bad and he will go up with that Mentality. Go to a child and tell him Communists are bad and he will grow up that way. Go to an Adult and tell them, Communism is great for civilization and it's in your own interest but every time it's been tried it's failed. They will believe youSo the ideas used by the ruling class to maintain their hegemony (such as racism and or anti-communism) are entirely divorced from material interests? No. You've provided three perfect examples as to how material conditions and class relations influence ideology


Yeah into a Wall. And this wasn't your original pointIt is exactly my point. What do you think I meant by "represent class interests" - staging plays to highlight injustice? Political parties are, by definition, vehicles for political expression. It is through these that a class translates its socio-economic goals into political action


Elections sway every year between Parties, the sheer amount of delegates at the Soviet Congress which didn't side with the Bolsheviks represent why a One Party rule is badYou mean less than 50%? And that's not even counting other delegates, most notably the Left SRs, who rallied to the Bolsheviks at the Congress. Tell me, in a democracy do you believe that a party that gains more than 50% of the vote has no mandate to govern? Or is the result automatically invalid because people were stupid enough to vote for a party?


One Party Rule isn't Democratic. I asked of the soviets of 1917. Or was there "One Party Rule" in, say, June 1917?


Comrade Syndicat - an Anarcho -Syndicalist - corrected me for using "Industrial Unionism" as a means to describe Anarcho - Syndicalist tactics as they were "outdated". I avoid calling it any type of Unionism, other then it was under control by those were Anarcho - SyndicalistAnd which unions were these in 1917? Almost all Russian unions practised industrial unionism but very few, certainly none of the larger ones, were "under control by those were Anarcho - Syndicalist". Most of the unions were, surprise, solidly Bolshevik in composition


Following which the Factory Committees tried to create their own National Organization absent of Political Parties and Unions. Isaac Deutscher describes how the Bolsheviks used the trade unions to emasculate the committees within months after the revolution.A topic that I've dealt with extensively in the past. Here's something from a few old posts of mine:

I guess you forgot about little affairs such as the Sixth Conference of Petrograd Factory Committees (22 to 27 Jan 1917) which voted for the amalgamation of FCs and unions? Unsurprisingly you won't find this in Brinton

Smith also details half a dozen examples in Petrograd alone where economic realities had already forced mergers between FCs and local district unions prior to this. The amalgamation with the unions was not ideal for the FCs but the idea that it was forced on them from above and in a dictatorial fashion is entirely false

...

The is assumption that there was some rivalry between the Bolsheviks and the FCs. This is almost entirely a matter of projecting ideological disputes back into history. The reality is that the most militant members of FCs were generally Bolsheviks and the most militant Bolsheviks (excluding perhaps the Military Organisation) were often FCs. In short, it is a false dichotomy to present these as competing bodies. Where there were divisions they were generally between Bolshevik trade unionists, Bolshevik soldiers, Bolshevik FCs, the various Bolshevik political organisations, etc

...

The Bolsheviks in the FCs were not party functionaries or 'entryists' but included the leading lights of the FC movement. If they had influence amongst their comrades it was the result of being the most revolutionary and the most militant sections of the workforce. The truth that you are attempting to avoid here is that no "concentrated internal campaign" was needed to convince the FCs to follow the Bolshevik line – the entire movement was already a Bolshevik stronghold

...

Another funny little fact that is often overlooked is that by late 1917/1918 the FCs themselves were largely Bolshevik strongholds. Unsurprising given that they contained many of the most militant and radical workers who were naturally attached to the Bolshevik programme. According to Smith, the First All-Russian Congress of Factory Committees (17-22 Oct 1917) was an overwhelmingly Bolshevik affair. "A majority of the delegates were Bolshevik and the congress voted overwhelmingly for Bolshevik-inspired resolutions". This is despite the presence of alternative Menshevik and anarchist resolutions. Brinton fails to mention that the Bolshevik resolution on workers control - which called for "state workers control" - was decisively passed with only eight votes against

This is only one of many occasions in which FCs endorsed Bolshevik policies and resolutions while rejecting in the process those of the anarchists. Smith has many more and I would strongly recommend his work. So any idea of some bureaucratic Bolshevik/union repressing the FCs has to factor in the fact that the latter were also solidly Bolshevik

Largely pulled from this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-one-party-t129113/index2.html?highlight=factory+committee) and this one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/taylorismi-t136407/index.html?p=1777426&highlight=factory+committee#post1777426)


...the Factory Committees tried to create their own National Organization absent of Political Parties and UnionsSurprising given that the leading members of the FCs were often themselves party members and that FC conferences had long invited party participation (including anarcho-syndicalist) in the form of resolutions and the like. So no, I reject this notion of the FCs suddenly striving to become 'apolitical' as a fantasy on your part

[Ocean Seal]

For socialism to occur, the political power MUST be in the hands of the working class. No single party can hold political power. This merely leads to authoritarianism, which leads to sectarianism, which leads to totalitarianism. That route leads to State Capitalism, not to socialism. I am not saying I am against a revolutionary party. I am saying that once the revolution occurs, that party cannot, and should not, be the only option. We must have general elections after the revolution in which worker's vote for their own, preferred, socialist programs. Without these democratic premises we cannot achieve socialism. The interests of all workers must be represented. Not the interests of some workers.



This line :thumbup1:
I think that this would be a powerful idea in the socialist struggle against capitalism.

[Kléber]

Lenin and Trotsky were open about the fact that after the repression of the left SR's, the Soviet government had become a "dictatorship of the party."

[Paulappaul]

Surprising given that the leading members of the FCs were often themselves party members and that FC conferences had long invited party participation (including anarcho-syndicalist) in the form of resolutions and the like. So no, I reject this notion of the FCs suddenly striving to become 'apolitical' as a fantasy on your part

Actually it comes from Peter Rachleff, a Professor of History at Macalester College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macalester_College).

From his piece "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution (http://libcom.org/library/soviets-factory-committees-russian-revolution-peter-rachleff)"


Out of this burst of activity came the first attempt of the factory committees to create a national organisation of their own, independent of all parties and institutions.

Frankly, I am inclined to agree with him being that he's a Professor and all and not Fantasy Writer.


So the ideas used by the ruling class to maintain their hegemony (such as racism and or anti-communism) are entirely divorced from material interests? No. You've provided three perfect examples as to how material conditions and class relations influence ideology

You can't latch on every problem of society onto the Ruling Class, it's superstitious. Racism isn't a product of the Ruling Class. Fact of the matter is, ideology can come from anywhere, the father - Son relationship is not class based.

Regardless I never denied that Material conditions and Class relations can have an affect on ideology, I said that those two don't rule out Ideology from things completely regardless of Class relations. For example, Primivativism and the Green movement completely disregards Class relations and relays on the physical conditions of the world.


Political parties are, by definition, vehicles for political expression. It is through these that a class translates its socio-economic goals into political action

Class isn't a unified set of opinions to be consolidated into a single revolutionary Party. It's vastly disjointed and vastly differing. Which is why, Council Communists like myself see Councils as a means to put forward Political Demands.


You mean less than 50%?

A number which represents thousands of Proletarians of sure opponents to Bolshevism, not mentioning the Peasants or the Workers which didn't vote and reluctant voters to Bolshevism. Does that Justify a one Party rule?


Tell me, in a democracy do you believe that a party that gains more than 50% of the vote has no mandate to govern?

The deeper question I am getting to and the one I began with is, why are Parties in Soviets?


Most of the unions were, surprise, solidly Bolshevik in composition

That's bullshit. The Mensheviks were a Dominant force in the Trade Unions Circa 1917.

[ComradeOm]

Actually it comes from Peter Rachleff, a Professor of History at Macalester College (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macalester_College).

From his piece "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution (http://libcom.org/library/soviets-factory-committees-russian-revolution-peter-rachleff)"I honestly don't know how anyone takes this shit seriously. Rachleff, like Avrich, lays out the facts and then reaches completely different conclusions. Take the below passage:


On August 7th-12th, the second conference of factory committees of Petrograd and surrounding areas took place

...

There was a consensus that the trade unions could not be used for organising and co-ordinating production. The Bolsheviks, who made up a majority of the delegates at this conference, clearly saw this Central Soviet as a body with a very different function than mere co-ordination. It should, in their view, have considerable power to make decisions concerning production and distribution, decisions which would be binding on the factory committees.[22] Many of the other delegates saw that such a body could undermine the already existing (and expanding) control of the process of production by the producers themselves, taking important decisions out of their hands. There was thus considerable ambivalence about creating this Central Soviet, which would solve the problem of co-ordination only by weakening the power of the producers themselves and their factory committees. The final resolution, which stated that "all decrees of the factory committees were ultimately dependent on the sanctions of the Central Council, and the Council could abolish any decree of the factory committees,"[23] represented a real defeat for those who opposed control of the committees by any body constituted above them. At about the same time--early August--there was an all-city conference of factory committees in Moscow. Here, too, there was an attempt made to devise a structure of co-ordination, but again in the form of a "centralisation" under the control of a regional councilNow this is supposedly to display the centralising/controlling tendencies of the Bolsheviks and the defeat of the "many" delegates with syndicalist tendencies. The message being that the Bolsheviks crushed or perverted the latter

Its really quite audacious. Let me lay the same facts out in a simpler way, stripping away the choking bias, and proposing an alternative conclusion:


A conference of FCs was held
The Bolsheviks comprised the majority of the delegates at this assembly
Both Bolshevik and anarcho-syndicalist resolutions were voted on
The final resolution was a victory for the Bolsheviks
The majority of the FC movement in Petrograd supported the Bolshevik position and affirmed this through a democratic vote. In doing so they clearly rejected opposing measures. The Petrograd FC movement can therefore be said to be Bolshevik in character

The question that Rachleff and others never consider (or resort to vague assumptions of Bolshevik duplicity when they do) is just why a supposedly syndicalist movement that strove to become non-party continually voted for Bolshevik delegates and resolutions? Time and time again it was the Bolshevik conception of 'workers control' and the FC movement that prevailed in the conferences and elections. The answer is simple - the Russian proletariat, and specifically the FC movement, was not syndicalist in character. These Bolshevik resolutions offend the ideological leanings of the likes of Brinton but were perfectly in chime with the Russian proletariat

Also note the acceptance, in the above passage, of the trade unions as primary economic bodies. This helps give lie to the notion that they were somehow forced upon the FCs


Regardless I never denied that Material conditions and Class relations can have an affect on ideology, I said that those two don't rule out Ideology from things completely regardless of Class relations. For example, Primivativism and the Green movement completely disregards Class relations and relays on the physical conditions of the world. As did National Socialism. Plenty of ideologies have claimed to have overcome class divisions; they have not. This is particularly true in Russia 1917 where all the major ideologies were explicitly rooted in class struggle


Class isn't a unified set of opinions to be consolidated into a single revolutionary Party. It's vastly disjointed and vastly differingExcept that revolutionary periods witness the increasing polarisation of society into armed camps. Previous differences fade into insignificance in the face of common class interest. This can be seen on countless occasions throughout history, typically with the emergence of a 'party of order' to defend bourgeois interests. Russia 1917 of course saw both this and the emergence of a mass revolutionary party that represented, and drew support from, the proletariat

The emergence of the Bolsheviks as by far and away the largest party in the soviets only makes sense in this context. The Bolshevik platform did not change but as the Russian proletariat became radicalised they flocked to its banner en masse


A number which represents thousands of Proletarians of sure opponents to Bolshevism, not mentioning the Peasants or the Workers which didn't vote and reluctant voters to Bolshevism. Does that Justify a one Party rule?I never suggested that the latter was desirable. What I am making clear is that in 1917 the Bolsheviks were provided with a mandate, obtained from the masses through democratic structures, to rule. Whether or not they betrayed this mandate is another question entirely. But that's democracy - the largest party wins


The deeper question I am getting to and the one I began with is, why are Parties in Soviets?As I've said, parties are a means by which a class translates its interests into political action. Russia 1917 illustrates this as in every possible forum, including FCs, party divisions asserted themselves. This should not be a surprise. The soviets, the unions, and the FCs were comprised to the most radical and revolutionary workers in Russia. They were at the forefront when it came to pushing the proletariat's demands. It is only natural that they join the parties to further their interests and enact real change

Which is why the above blathering about apolitical FCs makes no sense. The idea that there was a whole stratum of militant and revolutionary workers existing without supporting or joining a revolutionary party is complete fantasy. We know that the majority of the FC leadership were Bolshevik, it would have been truly shocking if they had not been


That's bullshit. The Mensheviks were a Dominant force in the Trade Unions Circa 1917.The Mensheviks were also the dominant force in the soviets "circa 1917" :rolleyes:

To be more specific with our dates, by the later summer 1917 (earlier for the unions and the FCs) the revolutionary tempo had quickened to the point where almost all major organs of worker power/control had passed, democratically, into the hands of the Bolsheviks. To give a specific example, relating to the unions, by May 1917 the Petrograd Congress of Trade Unions was effectively under Bolshevik control