Marxism and the Peasantry

[papaspace]

How did Marx think that the revolutionary proletariat should deal with the peasantry, or the remnant of the peasantry? Did he think that the proletarian led state ("dictatorship of the proletariat") should forcibly wrest their property too?

Please provide citations if possible.

[Jimmie Higgins]

How did Marx think that the revolutionary proletariat should deal with the peasantry, or the remnant of the peasantry? Did he think that the proletarian led state ("dictatorship of the proletariat") should forcibly wrest their property too?

Please provide citations if possible.

What property do the peasantry own? Isn't the definition of a peasant serf someone who works land controlled by a lord and has no land of their own?

At any rate here are a few lines about peasants and private property from the communist Manifesto.


The distinguishing feature of Communism is not the abolition of property generally, but the abolition of bourgeois property. But modern bourgeois private property is the final and most complete expression of the system of producing and appropriating products, that is based on class antagonisms, on the exploitation of the many by the few.


We Communists have been reproached with the desire of abolishing the right of personally acquiring property as the fruit of a man’s own labour, which property is alleged to be the groundwork of all personal freedom, activity and independence.

Hard-won, self-acquired, self-earned property! Do you mean the property of petty artisan and of the small peasant, a form of property that preceded the bourgeois form? There is no need to abolish that; the development of industry has to a great extent already destroyed it, and is still destroying it daily. This last point is even more true in our day than in Marx's. The pesantry doesn't really exist - where small farming of that kind still exists, it's been turned into tenant farming or some other mix of some older feudal style features and capitalist features (rent to the landowner rather than a tax taken by the noble). In the Stalinist countries where they forcibly collectivized land, the regular capitalists in the US and other places accomplished the same thing through banks taking family farms as large-scale agribusiness became the dominant farm producers. So for the most part poor-farm laborers are now workers, not peasants. If they do manage to be an independant small producer, then they are probably in debt to their John Deer hat in debt and can be won to support a working class revolution if workers fight for the elimination of debts. So rather than loosing property, poor farmers would actually gain control over the land they have farmed and their labor they put into it.

I don't know if Marx spoke about this but Lenin and Gramsci among others believed that non-working class people who are not from the ruling class need to be won over by workers to the view that a socialist society run by the working class will ultimately be in their interests too. In the Russian Revolution where the majority of the population were actually peasants, they were won to support the revolution because they were promised their land and the end of the landlord system.

In most places today I think the bigger issue will be workers convincing small shop-owners and professionals to support working class rule. I think teachers and doctors and nurses and so on can be easily won to supporting the working class because they now have to deal with a lot of problems shared by the proles that the professionals' positions in society allowed them to avoid (increases in the pace of work, wage fights and so on). Shop owners are faced with debt and taxes and competition from huge corporations so I think many of them can also be won-over since a working class revolution would get rid of their debts and allow the family shop to not have to exploit their own labor as much as they currently do in order to compete with corporations.

[papaspace]

AFAIK the number of peasants who owned the land they worked during Marx's time was not at all insignificant.

In the quotes you provided from the Communist Manifesto Marx treats the peasantry as a dead class (as regards the proletarian revolution) that isn't really needed to be dealt with since it is being destroyed daily.

However in other places Marx does see a need to deal with the peasantry. For example, in the Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy he wrote:


Where the peasant exists in the mass as private proprietor, where he even forms a more or less considerable majority, as in all states of the west European continent, where he has not disappeared and been replaced by the agricultural wage-labourer, as in England, the following cases apply: either he hinders each workers' revolution, makes a wreck of it, as he has formerly done in France, or the proletariat (for the peasant proprietor does not belong to the proletariat, and even where his condition is proletarian, he believes himself not to) must as government take measures through which the peasant finds his condition immediately improved, so as to win him for the revolution; measures which will at least provide the possibility of easing the transition from private ownership of land to collective ownership, so that the peasant arrives at this of his own accord, from economic reasons. It must not hit the peasant over the head, as it would e.g. by proclaiming the abolition of the right of inheritance or the abolition of his property. The latter is only possible where the capitalist tenant farmer has forced out the peasants, and where the true cultivator is just as good a proletarian, a wage-labourer, as is the town worker, and so has immediately, not just indirectly, the very same interests as him. Still less should small-holding property be strengthened, by the enlargement of the peasant allotment simply through peasant annexation of the larger estates, as in Bakunin's revolutionary campaign.

But even this does not make the policy the victorious proletariat should have regarding the peasantry very clear...

[Jimmie Higgins]

AFAIK the number of peasants who owned the land they worked during Marx's time was not at all insignificant.Worldwide no in England, yes. Today, yes. While Marx was not always correct his argument about the capitalist mode of production displacing the traditional peasant turned out to be a very accurate observation. As I said, there are very few places where the peasantry really exists. In many places large-scale agribusiness has displaced individual producers as well as peasants and even in less developed capitalist countries, the traditional peasantry has been turned into renters or agricultural wage-workers.


In the quotes you provided from the Communist Manifesto Marx treats the peasantry as a dead class (as regards the proletarian revolution) that isn't really needed to be dealt with since it is being destroyed daily.Yes, more true now than in Marx's day. As I understand it, his view was that the peasantry could not carry through with a revolution in their own interests like the proletariat can and therefore this group needs to be won to supporting the working class. The Paris Commune tried to reach out and gain support from the peasants and the Russian Revolution actually forged an alliance. I think these experiences back up what Marx suggested could happen and show how people might deal with a similar situation in the future.


However in other places Marx does see a need to deal with the peasantry. For example, in the Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy he wrote:

But even this does not make the policy the victorious proletariat should have regarding the peasantry very clear...Artisans, professionals, and peasants have their own class interests, but they are also incapable of creating a really different way of running society based on these interests. They are kind of a grey area in capitalist society and because they are in-between two oppositional classes they can be won to supporting one side or another. If I understand that quote out of context, he seems to be arguing that rather than workers forcibly collectivizing farming against the will of the peasantry, they should allow the peasant to continue the individual production while lifting the burdens on them caused by capitalism (that would mean probably debt forgiveness and land reform and so on). As workers transform the main means of production in society from a capitalist basis to a cooperative democratic basis it will become increasingly clear to the independent producers that working collectively is much more efficient and labor-saving for them as individuals and so they will begin to gravitate more towards collective production.

Again, I don't think this applies to most places in the world right now, but I think land reform, an end to rent and debt would win tenant-farmers and family farms to support the workers. I think in many places this view of wining other smaller classes to the support of working class hegemony of society can be applied to professionals and family shops. Workers could win support because educational debt owed by people going to medical school would be eliminated, small shops would not have to play by the rules dictated to them by huge corporations (what family shop owners are fans of what Wal-Mart is doing to their business). If the revolution succeeds and workers have a stable democratic and cooperative system in place, then shop owners would be in the position where they could either remain self-run or, if they wanted to expand, they could open up and take on partners (since no one would sell their labor anymore) and effectively the shop would become a cooperative and eventually integrated into the new system and in effect be like any of the workplaces taken over by workers.

[Thirsty Crow]

Artisans, professionals, and peasants have their own class interests, but they are also incapable of creating a really different way of running society based on these interests.
Since you've included teachers in the "field" of professionals, I don't see how a secondary school teacher, for instance, who does not possess capital and is therefore forced o sell his labour, could have class interests which are not in fact the interests of the prolatariat as a whole.
Personally, I will probably end up teaching in secondary school and I really do not see how my own interest would differ from that of a miner or a worker on an car assembly line. I do not possess capital and I, as well as those people, must earn a living by selling my labour power, the only difference being the actual minutiae of working conditions within the sectors involved (as well as the employer).
Could you elaborate on this?

[Zanthorus]

How did Marx think that the revolutionary proletariat should deal with the peasantry, or the remnant of the peasantry?

Marx and Engels actually originally envisioned the 'rule of the working-class' (The phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was not used until 1850) in less advanced countries as being a coalition of the working-class, peasantry and urban petit-bourgeoisie, a coalition in which the working-class would be able to rule indirectly as the most organised class.


What is the task of the German democratic press? To demonstrate the necessity for democracy by the worthlessness of the present government, which by and large represents the nobility, by the inadequacy of the constitutional system that brings the bourgeoisie to the helm, by the impossibility of the people helping itself so long as it does not have political power. Its task is to reveal the oppression of the proletarians, small peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie, for in Germany these constitute the “people”, by the bureaucracy, the nobility and the bourgeoisie; how not only political but above all social oppression has come about, and by what means it can be eliminated; its task is to show that the conquest of political power by the proletarians, small peasants and urban petty bourgeoisie is the first condition for the application of these means.- Engels, The Communists and Karl Heinzen



— 18 —
What will be the course of this revolution?Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat. Direct in England, where the proletarians are already a majority of the people. Indirect in France and Germany, where the majority of the people consists not only of proletarians, but also of small peasants and petty bourgeois who are in the process of falling into the proletariat, who are more and more dependent in all their political interests on the proletariat, and who must, therefore, soon adapt to the demands of the proletariat.- Engels, The Principles of Communism


It is to the interest of the German proletariat, the petty bourgeoisie and the small peasants to support these demands with all possible energy. Only by the realisation of these demands will the millions in Germany, who have hitherto been exploited by a handful of persons and whom the exploiters would like to keep in further subjection, win the rights and attain to that power to which they are entitled as the producers of all wealth.- Marx, Engels, Schapper, Bauer, Moll & Wolff, Demands of the Comunist Party in Germany


It is self-evident that the working class cannot leave its emancipation either to the capitalists and big landowners, its opponents and exploiters, or to the petty bourgeois and small peasants, who, being stifled by competition on the part of the big exploiters, have no choice but’ to join either their ranks or those of the workers.- Engels, A Critique of the Draft Social-Democratic Program of 1891

The aformentioned Demands of the Communist Party in Germany also contains a series of points designed to appease the demands of the peasantry:


6. All feudal obligations, dues, corvées, tithes etc., which have hitherto weighed upon the rural population, shall be abolished without compensation.

7. Princely and other feudal estates, together with mines, pits, and so forth, shall become the property of the state. The estates shall be cultivated on a large scale and with the most up-to-date scientific devices in the interests of the whole of society.

8. Mortgages on peasant lands shall be declared the property of the state. Interest on such mortgages shall be paid by the peasants to the state.

9. In localities where the tenant system is developed, the land rent or the quit-rent shall be paid to the state as a tax.

The measures specified in Nos. 6, 7, 8 and 9 are to be adopted in order to reduce the communal and other burdens hitherto imposed upon the peasants and small tenant farmers without curtailing the means available for defraying state expenses and without imperilling production.


Did he think that the proletarian led state ("dictatorship of the proletariat") should forcibly wrest their property too?

I've never read anything like that in Marx. Engels position at least is relatively clear:


Secondly, it is just as evident that when we are in possession of state power, we shall not even think of forcibly expropriating the small peasants (regardless of whether with or without compensation), as we shall have to do in the case of the big landowners. Our task relative to the small peasant consists, in the first place, in effecting a transition of his private enterprise and private possession to cooperative ones, not forcibly but by dint of example and the proffer of social assistance for this purpose. And then, of course, we shall have ample means of showing to the small peasant prospective advantages that must be obvious to him even today...

[...]

Neither now, nor at any time in the future, can we promise the small-holding peasants to preserve their individual property and individual enterprise against the overwhelming power of capitalist production. We can only promise then that we shall not interfere in their property relations by force, against their will.- Engels, The Peasant Question in France and Germany

[Jimmie Higgins]

Since you've included teachers in the "field" of professionals, I don't see how a secondary school teacher, for instance, who does not possess capital and is therefore forced o sell his labour, could have class interests which are not in fact the interests of the prolatariat as a whole.
Personally, I will probably end up teaching in secondary school and I really do not see how my own interest would differ from that of a miner or a worker on an car assembly line. I do not possess capital and I, as well as those people, must earn a living by selling my labour power, the only difference being the actual minutiae of working conditions within the sectors involved (as well as the employer).
Could you elaborate on this?I totally agree, teachers are working class. I guess strictly they wouldn't be proles, but working class in interests never the less.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx and Engels actually originally envisioned the 'rule of the working-class' (The phrase 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was not used until 1850) in less advanced countries as being a coalition of the working-class, peasantry and urban petit-bourgeoisie, a coalition in which the working-class would be able to rule indirectly as the most organised class.Technically speaking, what they generally meant in referring to the dominance of the proletariat at the time was essentially as expressed in this: "Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat." In the latter case, the petit-bourgeoisie and peasants would eventually be forced to support the demands of the proletariat; this does not seem to comprise a 'coalition' as such, as the dominance of the proletariat here simply means its demands having majority support, and less to do with forms of organization. Hence, in the first quote Engels equated demonstating the necessity for conquest of political power by the three classes (the petit-bourgeoisie forming the democrats at the time) to demonstrating the necessity for democracy, which is necessary for the forcing through of the demands of the proletariat.

[S.Artesian]

Big difference between peasantry and serfs; during feudal times, and not just in England, significant numbers of peasants owned their own land. After the conquest of Latin America by Spain, and even more so after independence, significant numbers of indigenous agricultural producers were transformed from collective, communal producers into small, individual producers, to their own detriment and the detriment of the indigenous villages as a whole.

How did Marx expect to deal with them? He expected that in dealing with democratic questions-- the social issue of the immiseration of the peasantry, its expropriation by large landlords, by the state through subsidies to large producers, regressive taxes, would be focused upon, and that the proletariat would oppose the expropriators of the peasantry.

In anticipating the socialist revolution, he thought the peasantry would no longer exist as distinct class, capable of reproducing the terms of its social existence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The political point, though, is a case where class coalitions might actually be a good idea. Engels contradicts himself between Principles of Communism and and The Peasant War in Germany, swinging from a precedent of the RDDOTPP to a precedent of "permanent revolution" (underestimating the political if not social capacity of the non-proletarian "working classes").

[S.Artesian]

The political point, though, is a case where class coalitions might actually be a good idea. Engels contradicts himself between Principles of Communism and and The Peasant War in Germany, swinging from a precedent of the RDDOTPP to a precedent of "permanent revolution" (underestimating the political if not social capacity of the non-proletarian "working classes").

Why is that a contradiction, and not simply and evolution of thought based on the expanded reproduction and development of capitalism?

The contradiction is, as it must be in material analysis, internal to dynamic, the process-- in this case the contradiction is the "revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry." That is a contradiction in itself and gets resolved through its overcoming by, in this the "permanent revolution."

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Permanent revolution" arises without the usual political contempt for the non-proletarian "working classes" only if the RDDOTPP realizes Adam Smith's and other bourgeois idealizations of industrialization (i.e., no accumulation by dispossession, development solely because people from the countryside find work in the cities to be more economically gainful than rural labour).

Through this idealized economic development, the non-proletarian "working classes" become a smaller and smaller minority.

[S.Artesian]

"Permanent revolution" arises without the usual political contempt for the non-proletarian "working classes" only if the RDDOTPP realizes Adam Smith's and other bourgeois idealizations of industrialization (i.e., no accumulation by dispossession, development solely because people from the countryside find work in the cities to be more economically gainful than rural labour).

Through this idealized economic development, the non-proletarian "working classes" become a smaller and smaller minority.

What are you talking about? What contempt? Like the contempt Marx displayed when he wrote of the idiocy of rural life? This has nothing to do with contempt, or with some horseshit about accumulation without dispossession, since dispossession is the creation of the proletariat.

It has everything to do with the uneven and combined development of capitalism and what class can organize production beyond the limits of private property.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The ironic triumph of 'old Bolshevism' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ironic-triumph-old-t145495/index.html)


What contempt?

You should know what I'm talking about. For example, look at the political support for Chavez from the rural poor and the liberal opposition from urban trade union fat cats! Look at the political support for the SRs from the peasantry! You dismiss those as "the idiocy of rural life"?

Note to comrade Zanthorus: I think the difference between Lenin and Trotsky, in spite of Lih's article, re. their 1917 position on the peasantry is that, while the former banked on the workers being "the most organised class" (assuming some peasant passivity after land reform due to perceived intra-peasant class struggle), Trotsky - courtesy of his contempt for the political potential of the peasantry - was open to the idea of unequal suffrage and other measures aimed at explicitly disenfranchising the peasantry. Certainly this view of his was tragically reflected in the weight given to urban soviets at the expense of rural ones, yet the worker-peasant alliance held. :(

I have a question for you, though: Can something like People's War, Focoism, etc. be a valid Third World strategy flowing from what you said and quoted above?

[S.Artesian]

The ironic triumph of 'old Bolshevism' (http://www.revleft.com/vb/ironic-triumph-old-t145495/index.html)



You should know what I'm talking about. For example, look at the political support for Chavez from the rural poor and the opposition from urban trade union fat cats! Look at the political support for the SRs from the peasantry! You dismiss those as "the idiocy of rural life"?

Note to comrade Zanthorus: I think the difference between Lenin and Trotsky, in spite of Lih's article, re. their 1917 position on the peasantry is that, while the former banked on the workers being "the most organised class" (assuming some peasant passivity after land reform due to perceived intra-peasant class struggle), Trotsky - courtesy of his contempt for the political potential of the peasantry - was open to the idea of unequal suffrage and other measures aimed at explicitly disenfranchising the peasantry. Certainly this view of his was tragically reflected in the weight given to urban soviets at the expense of rural ones, yet the worker-peasant alliance held. :(

I have a question for you, though: Can something like People's War, Focoism, etc. be a valid Third World strategy flowing from what you said and quoted above?

Hey, I don't mean to be a prick but if you knew what you were talking about, I'd know what you were talking about. But really, I don't think you do.

You prove that when you try and take Marx's statement about the conditions of rural life, the misery and brutality of a) subsistence production and b) landless labor, as evidence of my "contempt for the peasantry."

Support for Chavez from the rural poor is not from a "peasantry." If you knew what you were talking about you would know that neither share-croppers nor landless rural laborers are a peasantry.

Political potential of the peasantry-- again you might benefit from some study of the history you think you know-- the rural soviets were very weak and exercised almost no control over rural production and, in particular, the exchanges between city and countryside in 1919 Russia.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hey, I don't mean to be a prick but if you knew what you were talking about, I'd know what you were talking about. But really, I don't think you do.

You prove that when you try and take Marx's statement about the conditions of rural life, the misery and brutality of a) subsistence production and b) landless labor, as evidence of my "contempt for the peasantry."

Support for Chavez from the rural poor is not from a "peasantry." If you knew what you were talking about you would know that neither share-croppers nor landless rural laborers are a peasantry.

The basic idea is that we're talking about a rural petit-bourgeoisie here, not some rural working class (landless rural laborers). You know, folks who own small agricultural land?


Political potential of the peasantry-- again you might benefit from some study of the history you think you know-- the rural soviets were very weak and exercised almost no control over rural production and, in particular, the exchanges between city and countryside in 1919 Russia.

Cause or effect? Cause of the lower weight of rural soviets, or effect of such?

[Zanthorus]

The political point, though, is a case where class coalitions might actually be a good idea.

Actually, I agree with ZeroNowhere that the term 'coalition' is misleading. Engels clearly talks about the government of the urban petty bourgeoisie, peasantry and working-class as a form of the rule of the working-class ('Dictatorship of the proletariat'). If anything, this would support Trotsky's contention in The Permanent Revolution, that it is not a question of which classes form the government which decides wether or not a regime is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but which class leads the way and determines state policy.


(underestimating the political if not social capacity of the non-proletarian "working classes").

I will take some notes on The Russian Civil War and then start a thread on this. Mawdsley studies the role of the peasantry during the revolution and concludes that although there were isolated incidents of peasant revolt, the peasantry could never act in a coherent fashion as a class, had no alternative form of political administration to impose on Russia (The All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Peasants' Deputies was characterised by factional infighting and squabbling among the SR leadership factions), and hence was not politically revolutionary.


Note to comrade Zanthorus: I think the difference between Lenin and Trotsky, in spite of Lih's article, re. their 1917 position on the peasantry is that, while the former banked on the workers being "the most organised class" (assuming some peasant passivity after land reform due to perceived intra-peasant class struggle), Trotsky - courtesy of his contempt for the political potential of the peasantry - was open to the idea of unequal suffrage and other measures aimed at explicitly disenfranchising the peasantry.

Well, I've never seen anything by Trotsky advocating the political disenfranchisement of the Peasantry. What I've read so far leads me to support Trotsky's own view of his differences with Lenin, namely that it was a question of which class would form the dominant power in government and dictate policy. Lenin pretty clearly says in 1905 that during the period of the revolutionary provisional government it will be impossible for the Social-Democrats to have a majority in government, and that the government would instead comprise of all the diverse groups of revolutionary democracy.

[4 Leaf Clover]

Well i think typical "peasantry" is a bit unfit for 21 century. Yes , small agricultural plantations are quite often seen round the world , but that's not the future. We need to make difference between Land owners , and those who work on it. Those who work on it , need to get liberated from their owners. Through the collectivization of agriculture, classic peasantry gets the same status as a worker. Of course , modernizing agricultural technique , getting towns and countryside closer , is a step forward to emancipating the peasantry

[S.Artesian]

The basic idea is that we're talking about a rural petit-bourgeoisie here, not some rural working class (landless rural laborers). You know, folks who own small agricultural land?

Yeah, I know what a peasantry is. One question is if you do when you talk about the support Chavez gets from the rural poor and then conflate the rural poor with a peasantry. Little bid of study of Venezuela would show you how historically and currently minimal a true peasantry has been.

But why worry about history when it's easier to parrot the crap about "contempt for the peasantry."

Cause or effect? WTF? The rural soviets were weak, truly incapable of organizing production because of the nature of the peasantry, of individual proprietor subsistence base, or subsistence plus surplus based production.

Hence the attempts, theories, discussions, to organize co-operatives, distinctly capitalist type organizations operating to generate efficiencies in distribution as a transition to generating the efficiencies in production that would mean the "withering away" of the peasantry.

You can read about this stuff if you're really interested... oh what's that guy's name? Chayanov? Yeah, that's it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, I agree with ZeroNowhere that the term 'coalition' is misleading. Engels clearly talks about the government of the urban petty bourgeoisie, peasantry and working-class as a form of the rule of the working-class ('Dictatorship of the proletariat'). If anything, this would support Trotsky's contention in The Permanent Revolution, that it is not a question of which classes form the government which decides wether or not a regime is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but which class leads the way and determines state policy.

That sounds too much like Cliff's musings on "deflected permanent revolution," as applied to Cuba. It's basically saying the working class determined state policy while other classes formed the government.


I will take some notes on The Russian Civil War and then start a thread on this. Mawdsley studies the role of the peasantry during the revolution and concludes that although there were isolated incidents of peasant revolt, the peasantry could never act in a coherent fashion as a class, had no alternative form of political administration to impose on Russia (The All-Russia Congress of Soviets of Peasants' Deputies was characterised by factional infighting and squabbling among the SR leadership factions), and hence was not politically revolutionary.

At least now there's going to be real debate. For too many years the side of Mawdsley had the privilege of beating a piñata or strawman without receiving any punches. I'm just surprised Lars Lih flipped on Lenin and went as far as he did in the Old Bolshevism discussion, because the "steps toward socialism" stuff wasn't dismissive of small landowners (here Lih flips), and given the notoriety of the Old Bolshevik troika.

Anyway, as I asked S. Artesian, were any weaknesses in the peasant soviets the cause of the constitutional weighting, or the effect of them (not to mention, in this peasant-specific case, the Bolshevik coups d'etat against soviets that returned Left-SR majorities)?

One could in fact argue that the letter (if not substance) of political administration established during 1936 ("Stalin Constitution") was the preferred peasant form of political administration. The Supreme Soviet was elected on universal suffrage and indirect elections were scrapped.

[ZeroNowhere]

Actually, I agree with ZeroNowhere that the term 'coalition' is misleading. Engels clearly talks about the government of the urban petty bourgeoisie, peasantry and working-class as a form of the rule of the working-class ('Dictatorship of the proletariat'). If anything, this would support Trotsky's contention in The Permanent Revolution, that it is not a question of which classes form the government which decides wether or not a regime is the dictatorship of the proletariat, but which class leads the way and determines state policy.
In fact, I'm not sure that Engels necessarily implies this either. Recall that Engels, by dominance of the proletariat, meant simply a democratic constitution of the state. This is distinct, I think, from Marx's later 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. Recall that, at the time, they viewed the enforcement of the interests of the proletariat as necessarily leading to further inroads (the basis of the ten planks) until the proletariat were forced to abolish capital itself. The point was that the peasants and petit-bourgeoisie would be forced to line up behind these measures (and recall, the three together would form the majority in the country, which is why Engels views the winning of democracy as the first step here), and yet in doing so would further the development of the proletariat until the latter could abolish capital. In fact, at the time Marx and Engels were specifically working to move the proletariat away from the measures of the petit-bourgeoisie and into an independent opposition, to force the petit-bourgeoisie to undermine themselves, essentially.

So, for example, Marx refers to the petit-bourgeois democrats as the party, "whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory." As such:


The destruction of the bourgeois democrats’ influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible – these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.

Also:


As soon as the new governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin. If the workers are to be able to forcibly oppose the democratic petty bourgeois it is essential above all for them to be independently organized and centralized in clubs. At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers’ clubs under a directorate established at the movement’s center of operations. The speedy organization of at least provincial connections between the workers’ clubs is one of the prime requirements for the strengthening and development of the workers’ party; the immediate result of the overthrow of the existing governments will be the election of a national representative body. Here the proletariat must take care: 1) that by sharp practices local authorities and government commissioners do not, under any pretext whatsoever, exclude any section of workers; 2) that workers’ candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates. As far as possible they should be League members and their election should be pursued by all possible means. Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

And:


As soon as such an enemy has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties will coincide for the moment and an association of momentary expedience will arise spontaneously in the future, as it has in the past. It goes without saying that in the bloody conflicts to come, as in all others, it will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. As in the past, so in the coming struggle also, the petty bourgeoisie, to a man, will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, to return to work and to prevent so-called excesses, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. It does not lie within the power of the workers to prevent the petty-bourgeois democrats from doing this; but it does lie within their power to make it as difficult as possible for the petty bourgeoisie to use its power against the armed proletariat, and to dictate such conditions to them that the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier.

As such, it's not so much a matter of class collaboration as of the working class on the one hand being able to "force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of the existing social order as possible" in order "to disturb its regular functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise themselves" (emphasis mine, this reflects the first quote above), but also that, "They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy."

Hence, essentially the proletariat cannot allow the petit-bourgeoisie in power, but rather democracy is only the first movement, the conquering of which must bring them into conflict with the petit-bourgeoisie, and hence their constitution as an independent party opposed to that of the petit-bourgeoisie if they are to succeed. Indeed, they must "forcefully and threateningly [...] oppose" the petit-bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, they are in alliance with it for the moment, as the third quote suggests, against the forces of reaction, and for the conquest of democracy, but the actual 'coming into power' of the working class requires opposition to the petit-bourgeoisie, and indeed:


Alongside the new official governments they must simultaneously establish their own revolutionary workers’ governments, either in the form of local executive committees and councils or through workers’ clubs or committees, so that the bourgeois-democratic governments not only immediately lost the support of the workers but find themselves from the very beginning supervised and threatened by authorities behind which stand the whole mass of the workers. In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers’ suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself.

While the petit-bourgeoisie are presently allies with the proletariat in the struggle for democracy, due to their common character as oppressed classes, this does not mean that the proletariat can simply allow the others to come to power and hope to do so themselves. The petit-bourgeoisie, in fighting for democracy, are therefore forced to fight in the interests of the proletariat, but on victory the two will once again become necessarily opposed. On the other hand, any alliances made during the struggle itself will require no special organization, and essentially simply be a natural consequence of a common struggle; the point is that precisely through all this, the intent is not to bring the proletariat into alliance with the petit-bourgeoisie, but rather to make sure that it is consistently opposed to them even as they are allies, so that as soon as the thing is over, they will oppose the attempts of the petit-bourgeoisie to simply calm down and go back to work, and will rather "Far from opposing the so-called excesses – instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated – the workers’ party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction. During and after the struggle the workers must at every opportunity put forward their own demands against those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democratic bourgeoisie sets about taking over the government. They must achieve these guarantees by force if necessary, and generally make sure that the new rulers commit themselves to all possible concessions and promises – the surest means of compromising them."

And, in fact, after the struggle, the first point of conflict will be the fact that the petit-bourgeoisie will seek to ally with the peasants, whereas the proletariat must oppose them, and rather join in common cause with the rural proletariat: "Just as the democrats ally themselves with the peasants, the workers must ally themselves with the rural proletariat."

Finally, it should be clear that the conquest of democracy itself is not equivalent to what Marx would call the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', which rather is incompatible with the power of the petit-bourgeoisie in government, so that, as described above, the working class must build its own political parties, put up its own candidates, and, "Alongside the new official governments they must simultaneously establish their own revolutionary workers’ governments." I don't think that there is any real departure between what Engels said about democracy and the conception which Marx goes into more detail about above; in both cases, the proletariat's dominance presupposes the existence of democracy, but on the other hand after that they must fight to wrest the government power from the petit-bourgeoisie and bring it into their own, as otherwise we will simply have the assertion of the interests of the petit-bourgeoisie and peasants; rather, the petit-bourgeoisie and peasants will only line up behind the proletariat if the proletariat in fact wrest the government from them, so that the only way of opposing reactionary forces is to submit to the proletariat and to support their candidates, as it were to support the lesser evil.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That is very much consistent with my anti-bourgeois position on "managed democracy" in the Third World.


"They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy."

1) The line between purchasing and immediate expropriation gets blurred when one considers tax-to-nationalize schemes or something like the Meidner plan.
2) Isn't a "proportional tax" reactionary? It's for a flat tax by any other name. How exactly was it "progressive" back then?

[S.Artesian]

That is very much consistent with my anti-bourgeois position on "managed democracy" in the Third World.



1) The line between purchasing and immediate expropriation gets blurred when one considers tax-to-nationalize schemes or something like the Meidner plan.
2) Isn't a "proportional tax" reactionary? It's for a flat tax by any other name. How exactly was it "progressive" back then?

But very much inconsistent with, and in opposition to, your accusations of unMarxist type "contempt for the peasantry" on the part of those adhering to the distinctly Marxist analysis of permanent revolution.

[S.Artesian]

Anyway, as I asked S. Artesian, were any weaknesses in the peasant soviets the cause of the constitutional weighting, or the effect of them (not to mention, in this peasant-specific case, the Bolshevik coups d'etat against soviets that returned Left-SR majorities)?

One could in fact argue that the letter (if not substance) of political administration established during 1936 ("Stalin Constitution") was the preferred peasant form of political administration. The Supreme Soviet was elected on universal suffrage and indirect elections were scrapped.

I was referring to the weakness of the rural soviets in the period up to and directly following the overthrow of the PRG-- had nothing to do with constitutional weighting.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But very much inconsistent with, and in opposition to, your accusations of unMarxist type "contempt for the peasantry" on the part of those adhering to the distinctly Marxist analysis of permanent revolution.

ZeroNowhere's Third World argument is stage-ist. There, the DOTP comes about after anti-bourgeois and "national" but "petit-bourgeois"/non-worker democratism via the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie, of which I propose a policy combination of the Julius Caesar of people's history (military culture of sorts), Proudhon (communal power), Lassalle (state-aid coops), Bismarck (moral measures), and Putin (harassing liberal and other bourgeois opposition):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html

In all this, the worker-class must maintain its own independent organizations, from the first-stage Bloc struggle to the second-stage battle against the anti-bourgeois and "national" but non-worker Bloc forces.

[ZeroNowhere]

I was not aware that I had made a 'Third World argument'.

[S.Artesian]

I was not aware that I had made a 'Third World argument'.

You didn't. DNZ OTOH is. And what a stage--he only left out Louis Bonaparte, Juan Peron, and various Ayatollahs from his central committee of goons, clowns, and thugs.

Perhaps we should clear up this issue of "stages." The permanent revolution is better called a telescoped revolution. It is not that "stages" don't occur, but that the duration of stages is compressed; that the "democratic" stage has the life-span of the mayfly in that the democratic stage is incapable of seizing the property of the economy [and the properties of an economy] and even attempting the resolution of the conflict between means and relations of production that drives the revolution.

As a consequence the "democratic" stage gives way either to counterrevolution or extension and transformation of the revolution itself into a social revolution.

The latter requires that no support be afforded to the "interim" stage by the organizations of the working class-- no support to governments of Bismarcks, Lassalles, Putins, Morales etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You didn't. DNZ OTOH is. And what a stage--he only left out Louis Bonaparte, Juan Peron, and various Ayatollahs from his central committee of goons, clowns, and thugs.

[...]

The latter requires that no support be afforded to the "interim" stage by the organizations of the working class-- no support to governments of Bismarcks, Lassalles, Putins, Morales etc etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum.

In the third reference link within that thread, I more or less implied that Caesarism as redefined by Parenti is fundamentally different from Bonapartism redefined, despite the common phenomenon of the state being "above" all classes. Bonapartism came not from Louis Bonaparte but from Napoleon Bonaparte himself, and this Bonapartism is a reaction against revolutionary change. The whole lot you mention in your first paragraph are Bonapartists. Caesarism, OTOH, comes from the progressive side, and I only mentioned Bismarck for things like his commendable, anti-Catholic Kulturkampf.

In my counter to permanent revolution within the Third World, I am suggesting a thoroughly anti-bourgeois but Caesarean route, courtesy of frontism with the representatives of the "nationals" among small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, small shopkeepers, artisans, etc. - acting like the "goons, clowns, and thugs" you write of (because, as Mike Macnair noted, that is the political culture of the "peasantry").

The problem is that, at the moment, there is no Caesarean policy combination to speak of. Without this, inevitably "the 'democratic' stage gives way [...] to counterrevolution."

"Cheerleading" support should only be given to that Caesarean policy combination ousting the bourgeoisie and comprador petit-bourgeoisie (a.k.a. Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie), regardless of what form the ousting takes (Caesarean "march on Rome," people's war, Focoism, PDPA-style military coups like in 1970s Afghanistan, general/mass strikes, etc.).

[S.Artesian]

In the third reference link within that thread, I more or less implied that Caesarism as redefined by Parenti is fundamentally different from Bonapartism redefined, despite the common phenomenon of the state being "above" all classes. Bonapartism came not from Louis Bonaparte but from Napoleon Bonaparte himself, and this Bonapartism is a reaction against revolutionary change. The whole lot you mention in your first paragraph are Bonapartists. Caesarism, OTOH, comes from the progressive side, and I only mentioned Bismarck for things like his commendable, anti-Catholic Kulturkampf.

In my counter to permanent revolution within the Third World, I am suggesting a thoroughly anti-bourgeois but Caesarean route, courtesy of frontism with the representatives of the "nationals" among small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, small shopkeepers, artisans, etc. - acting like the "goons, clowns, and thugs" you write of (because, as Mike Macnair noted, that is the political culture of the "peasantry").

The problem is that, at the moment, there is no Caesarean policy combination to speak of. Without this, inevitably "the 'democratic' stage gives way [...] to counterrevolution."

"Cheerleading" support should only be given to that Caesarean policy combination ousting the bourgeoisie and comprador petit-bourgeoisie, regardless of what form the ousting takes (Caesarean "march on Rome," people's war, Focoism, general/mass strikes, etc.).

Right, "cheerleading support," which means lining up behind the Perons, the Kirchners, Villoreal, the MFA in Portugal, maybe even a Vargas?

Yes, indeed Bonapartism's origin is in Napoleon's bringing the revolution to an end, imposing order. And that differs from Bismarck how? In that Bismarck pre-empted the revolution. That Bismarck represents the first launch of corporatism from the runway of capitalism. Only.

That differs from Peron's justicialista corporatism, dismantling every and any independent organization of workers, how?

That differs from the holy alliance of trade union bureaucracies, death squads, and the man on horseback how?

Maybe you haven't been paying attention, but there's no ousting of the bourgeoisie and the comprador petit-bourgeoisie in any of that.

Give us a break, as we say on this side; Do us a favor as our English comrades say on the other side.

You can twist and turn this all you want, but in the end all you have is the same tangled mess that goes by the names of "popular unity" "government of national salvation" ad infinitum ad nauseum

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Perons, Kirchners, etc. don't have that Caesarean policy combination or Bloc in mind, so why do you think I'm somehow advocating support for them? Chavez's "anti-bourgeois" declaration, which I quoted, was rhetorical, so I haven't sided with the regime, though in my Politics thread he might be starting to grow Putin's spine re. foreign NGOs.

I apologize for not linking to the Macnair video, but here it is on permanent revolution, with the relevant quote afterward:

http://vimeo.com/14808875


It's true that the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes. But it's not true that, because the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes, it cannot find political representation or act in support of autonomous peasant goals, that is to say, patriarchalism, the setting up of an absolute ruler, a cult of personality whether it's of Lenin or Saddam Hussein or Robert Mugabe.

Again, it's the Caesarean policy combination and Bloc that count, not rhetoric here and there. Call me "idealistic" if you like, but Julius Caesar was on the verge of scrapping the senatorial class when he was assassinated.

In my commentary, the "setting up of an absolute ruler, a cult of personality" via the National Leader is deliberately illusory. I was advocating "managed democracy" along party lines.

[S.Artesian]

The Perons, Kirchners, etc. don't have that Caesarean policy combination, so why do you think I'm somehow advocating support for them? Chavez's "anti-bourgeois" declaration, which I quoted, was rhetorical, so I haven't sided with the regime, though in my Politics thread he might be starting to grow Putin's spine re. foreign NGOs.

I apologize for not linking to the Macnair video, but here it is on permanent revolution, with the relevant quote afterward:

http://vimeo.com/14808875



Again, it's the policy combination that counts, not rhetoric here and there. Julius Caesar was on the verge of scrapping the senatorial class when he was assassinated.

In my commentary, the "setting up of an absolute ruler, a cult of personality" via the National Leader is deliberately illusory. I was advocating "managed democracy" along party lines.

And exactly what do you get with this Mugabe, this Putin, this whatever? Besides declining living standards, or violent oscillations in living standards, and attacks on any organization presenting a working class based opposition?

Again its class that counts, and class program, not somebody's momentary policy infatuation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mugabe and Putin are on one side, while the Julius Caesar of people's history and the Caesarean policy combination / Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie are on another. Why do you still conflate Bonapartism with Caesarism, my opposition to the former with my conditional support for the latter?

Perhaps you should finally post a comment or two in the People's History thread.

[S.Artesian]

Mugabe and Putin are on one side, while the Julius Caesar of people's history and the Caesarean policy combination / Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie are on another. Why do you still conflate Bonapartism with Caesarism, my opposition to the former with my conditional support for the latter?

Perhaps you should finally post a comment or two in the People's History thread.

Because you're the one making ambiguous remarks about Putin and Mugabe, not me. Excuse me if in the 21st century, I think the distinction between Caesarism and Bonapartism is a bit more than just a little bit archaic.

Maybe it's time for you to finally give up this conflation of permanent revolution with "contempt for the peasantry," when there is no such contempt.

Bet you won't, though.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Just a lingvistic question, dont many use the term 'peasents' on farm labours? Thoose who work the land and dont own it. In that case its clear, they proles, but many land owning farmers would also have more to gain with socialism, even if they are considered petite bourgeousie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Excuse me if in the 21st century, I think the distinction between Caesarism and Bonapartism is a bit more than just a little bit archaic.

A revival of the former in the Third World, with the aim of "marches on Rome" sparking more intense class struggle in the more developed countries, is a progressive step.


Maybe it's time for you to finally give up this conflation of permanent revolution with "contempt for the peasantry," when there is no such contempt.

Bet you won't, though.

Didn't you read what the ex-Trotskyist comrade Macnair said?

"But it's not true that, because the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes, it cannot find political representation or act in support of autonomous peasant goals..."

Saying that it's "true" is the contempt for the small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, artisans, etc. which "permanent revolution" in the Trotskyist incarnation has.

On this I think that Macnair, Stalin are I on the same page:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm


Trotskyism is the theory of "permanent" (uninterrupted) revolution. But what is permanent revolution in its Trotskyist interpretation? It is revolution that fails to take the poor peasantry into account as a [politically] revolutionary force. Trotsky's "permanent" revolution is, as Lenin said, "skipping" the peasant movement, "playing at the seizure of power." Why is it dangerous? Because such a revolution, if an attempt had been made to bring it about, would inevitably have ended in failure, for it would have divorced from the Russian proletariat its ally, the poor peasantry. This explains the struggle that Leninism has been waging against Trotskyism ever since 1905.

How does Trotsky appraise Leninism from the standpoint of this struggle? He regards it as a theory that possesses "anti-revolutionary features." What is this indignant opinion about Leninism based on? On the fact that, at the proper time, Leninism advocated and upheld the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

But Trotsky does not confine himself to this indignant opinion. He goes further and asserts: "The entire edifice of Leninism at the present time is built on lies and falsification and bears within itself the poisonous elements of its own decay" (see Trotsky's letter to Chkheidze, 1913). As you see, we have before us two opposite lines.

[I quote this despite Stalin's Popular Front antics and its further refinement by Mao's "national bourgeoisie" crap, and also despite comrade Macnair's own hostility towards the politics of the Third World non-proletarian "working classes."]

[Die Neue Zeit]

From the "Third Periodist" Programme of the Communist International (transcribed by none other than Macnair ;) ):

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/ch04.htm


Countries with a medium development of capitalism (Spain, Portugal, Poland, Hungary, the Balkan countries, etc.), having numerous survivals of semi-feudal relationships in agriculture, possessing, to a certain extent, the material pre-requisites for socialist construction, and in which the bourgeois-democratic reforms have not yet been completed. In some of these countries a process of more or less rapid development from bourgeois democratic revolution to socialist revolution is possible. In others, there may be types of proletarian revolution which will have a large number of bourgeois-democratic tasks to fulfil. Hence, in these countries, the dictatorship of the proletariat may not come about at once, but in the process of transition from the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry to the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat. Where the revolution develops directly as a proletarian revolution it is presumed that the proletariat exercises leadership over a broad agrarian peasant movement. In general, the agrarian revolution plays a most important part in these countries, and in some cases a decisive role :-in the process of expropriating large landed property a considerable portion of the confiscated land is placed at the disposal of the peasantry; the volume of market relations prevailing after the victory of the proletariat is considerable; the task of organising the peasantry along co-operative lines and later, of combining them in production, occupies an important place among the tasks of socialist construction. The rate of this construction is relatively slow.

Colonial and semi-colonial countries (China, India, etc.) and dependent countries (Argentine, Brazil, etc.), have the rudiments of and in some cases a considerably developed industry-in the majority of cases inadequate for independent socialist construction-with feudal medieval relationships, or “Asiatic mode of production” relationships prevailing in their economies and in their political superstructures. In these the principal industrial, commercial and banking enterprises, the principal means of transport, the large landed estates (latifundia), plantations, etc., are concentrated in the hands of foreign imperialist groups. The principal task in such countries is, on the one hand, to fight against the feudal and pre-capitalist forms of exploitation, and to develop systematically the peasant agrarian revolution; on the other hand, to fight against foreign imperialism for national independence. As a rule, transition to the dictatorship of the proletariat in these countries will be possible only through a series of preparatory stages, as the outcome of a whole period of transformation of bourgeois-democratic revolution into socialist revolution, while in the majority of cases, successful socialist construction will be possible only if direct support is obtained from the countries in which the proletarian dictatorship is established.

In still more backward countries (as in some parts of Africa) where there are no wage workers or very few, where the majority of the population still lives in tribal conditions, where survivals of primitive tribal forms still exist, where the national bourgeoisie is almost non-existent, where the primary role of foreign imperialism is that of military occupation and usurpation of land, the central task is to fight for national independence. Victorious national uprisings in these countries may open the way for their direct development towards socialism and their avoidance of the stage of capitalism, provided real and powerful assistance is rendered them by the countries in which the proletarian dictatorship is established.


The special conditions of the revolutionary struggle prevailing in colonial and semi-colonial countries, the inevitably long period of struggle required for the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry and for the transformation of this dictatorship into the dictatorship of the proletariat, and, finally, the decisive importance of the national aspects of the struggle, impose upon the Communist Parties of these countries a number of special tasks, which are preparatory stages to the general tasks of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Communist International considers the following to be the most important of these special tasks:

(1) To overthrow the rule of foreign imperialism, of the feudal rulers and of the landlord bureaucracy.
(2) To establish the democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry on a Soviet basis.
(3) Complete national independence and national unification,
(4) Annulment of State debts.
(5) Nationalisation of large-scale enterprises (industrial, transport, banking and others) owned by the imperialists.
(6) The confiscation of landlord, church and monastery lands. The nationalisation of all the land.
(7) Introduction of the 8-hour day.
(8) The organisation of revolutionary workers’ and peasants’ armies.

http://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/6th-congress/ch06.htm


The achievement of the dictatorship of the proletariat presupposes also that the proletariat acquires leadership of wide sections of the toi1ing masses. To accomplish this the Communist Party must extend its influence over the masses of the urban and rural poor, over the lower strata of the intelligentsia, and over the so-called “small man,” i.e., the petty-bourgeois strata generally. It is particularly important that work be carried on for the purpose of extending the Party’s influence over the peasantry. The Communist Party must secure for itself the whole-hearted support of that stratum of the rural population that stands closest to the proletariat, i.e., the agricultural labourers and the rural poor. To this end the agricultural labourers must be organised in separate organisations; all possible support must be given them in their struggles against the rural bourgeoisie, and strenuous work must be carried on among the small allotment farmers and small peasants. In regard to the middle strata of the peasantry in developed capitalist countries, the Communist Parties must conduct a policy to secure their neutrality. The fulfilment of all these tasks by the proletariat-the champion of the interests of the whole people and the leader of the broad masses in their struggle against the oppression of finance capital-is an essential condition precedent for the victorious Communist revolution.

[S.Artesian]

A revival of the former in the Third World, with the aim of "marches on Rome" sparking more intense class struggle in the more developed countries, is a progressive step.



Didn't you read what the ex-Trotskyist comrade Macnair said?

"But it's not true that, because the peasantry is forced to decide between the fundamental classes, it cannot find political representation or act in support of autonomous peasant goals..."

Saying that it's "true" is the contempt for the small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, artisans, etc. which "permanent revolution" in the Trotskyist incarnation has.

On this I think that Macnair, Stalin are I on the same page:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/11_19.htm



[I quote this despite Stalin's Popular Front antics and its further refinement by Mao's "national bourgeoisie" crap, and also despite comrade Macnair's own hostility towards the politics of the Third World non-proletarian "working classes."]

Bullshit. From top to bottom. Macnair and Stalin and you on the same page? Priceless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One-liner cries of "bullshit" and "priceless" don't help your "non-contempt" argument.

[S.Artesian]

One-liner cries of "bullshit" and "priceless" don't help your "non-contempt" argument.

The point is you haven't provided any evidence for "contempt" for the peasantry in any part of the theory, or practice, of permanent, or continuous, or telescoped revolution. Not a shred.

How does recognizing the inability of the peasantry to fundamentally transform the social relations of production, which have developed in tandem and as a consequence of the international expansion of capitalism, amount to contempt?

I would advise you to look at the history of the Mexican Revolution, a true agrarian class war. Look closely at a revolution that carried on in greater or lesser manifestations for 30 years, and how incapable that peasant revolt was of transforming economy, the class relations of Mexico.

But rather than provide a single bit of concrete evidence of a)contempt for the peasantry or b) evidence of the peasantry being able to act independently in its own class interests you treat us to more accusations without such evidence.

Consequently, bullshit is the appropriate reply.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The point is you haven't provided any evidence for "contempt" for the peasantry in any part of the theory, or practice, of permanent, or continuous, or telescoped revolution. Not a shred.

How does recognizing the inability of the peasantry to fundamentally transform the social relations of production, which have developed in tandem and as a consequence of the international expansion of capitalism, amount to contempt?

You confuse the political with the social. Again.

I mentioned the theoretical evidence courtesy of Macnair and Stalin, and the practical evidence in the form of SR history and constitutional weighting.

Oh, and I also wrote a positive argument (Third World Caesarism) in addition to my negative argument (against permanent revolution).

[S.Artesian]

You confuse the political with the social. Again.

I mentioned the theoretical evidence courtesy of Macnair and Stalin, and the practical evidence in the form of SR history and constitutional weighting.

Oh, and I also wrote a positive argument (Third World Caesarism) in addition to my negative argument (against permanent revolution).

And there's not a shred of evidence in any of that for your contention-- as as for your 3rd World Caesarism-- get real; there isn't any, and there isn't going to be any.

There is no confusion of political and social-- you, again, seek to ignore the social by obscuring it with some completely artificial "political" mumbo-jumbo.

[bretty]

Worldwide no in England, yes. Today, yes. While Marx was not always correct his argument about the capitalist mode of production displacing the traditional peasant turned out to be a very accurate observation. As I said, there are very few places where the peasantry really exists. In many places large-scale agribusiness has displaced individual producers as well as peasants and even in less developed capitalist countries, the traditional peasantry has been turned into renters or agricultural wage-workers.



This isn't really true, while I agree that modern capitalism has displaced the peasantry, there is still large quantities of peasantry living in different forms of feudal and semi-feudal organizations. In the case of India, the 'dying fields' is a documentary discussing the suicides from land owners who have been lent money they can't pay back and will therefore lose their land. These are contemporary land owning peasantry that are not an insignificant population. In fact large Maoist and Marxist struggles in India are based around these sort of developments. However you're right in that their displacement is continually happening, my example of India is a perfect one to witness this transformation.

-B

[Die Neue Zeit]

And there's not a shred of evidence in any of that for your contention-- as as for your 3rd World Caesarism-- get real; there isn't any, and there isn't going to be any.

Back in the mid 1900s, "get real, there isn't any democratic revolution to the end" (see Old Bolshevism History thread), "and there isn't going to be any."


There is no confusion of political and social-- you, again, seek to ignore the social by obscuring it with some completely artificial "political" mumbo-jumbo.

Every class struggle is a political struggle.

[S.Artesian]

Back in the mid 1900s, "get real, there isn't any democratic revolution to the end" (see Old Bolshevism History thread), "and there isn't going to be any."

And exactly where has there been that democratic revolution?




Every class struggle is a political struggle.

Every revolution is a social revolution. Any revolutionary struggle that does not address the social issue, i.e. the organization of the means of production, of property, and the relation of labor to property, fails.

So much Caeserism, Putinism, etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

[S.Artesian]

This isn't really true, while I agree that modern capitalism has displaced the peasantry, there is still large quantities of peasantry living in different forms of feudal and semi-feudal organizations. In the case of India, the 'dying fields' is a documentary discussing the suicides from land owners who have been lent money they can't pay back and will therefore lose their land. These are contemporary land owning peasantry that are not an insignificant population. In fact large Maoist and Marxist struggles in India are based around these sort of developments. However you're right in that their displacement is continually happening, my example of India is a perfect one to witness this transformation.

-B

Be that as it may, exactly what revolutionary power does this peasantry have as a peasantry in opposition to Indian capitalism? What ability does this peasantry have to act independently and transform all of India's economic and social relations to alleviate exploitation and immiseration.

Those are the issues, not whether or not the peasantry exists, whether it's exploited, poor, poorer, or not so poor.

[bretty]

Be that as it may, exactly what revolutionary power does this peasantry have as a peasantry in opposition to Indian capitalism? What ability does this peasantry have to act independently and transform all of India's economic and social relations to alleviate exploitation and immiseration.

Those are the issues, not whether or not the peasantry exists, whether it's exploited, poor, poorer, or not so poor.

I would say in the contemporary context it has just as much power or more as the working class, considering most of the labour force is informal. The farmers and landless labourers have been increasingly organizing against the acquisition of their land. In fact India has claimed these armed groups and the organized communities pose the greatest internal risk to India.

-B

[S.Artesian]

I would say in the contemporary context it has just as much power or more as the working class, considering most of the labour force is informal. The farmers and landless labourers have been increasingly organizing against the acquisition of their land. In fact India has claimed these armed groups and the organized communities pose the greatest internal risk to India.

-B

Let me put this another way: what new mode of production is the peasantry capable of establishing based on its already existing economic position?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Every revolution is a social revolution. Any revolutionary struggle that does not address the social issue, i.e. the organization of the means of production, of property, and the relation of labor to property, fails.

So much Caeserism, Putinism, etc etc ad infinitum ad nauseum.

That's why I paired class struggle with social revolution but termed them separately. :D

[S.Artesian]

That's why I paired class struggle with social revolution but termed them separately. :D

Yeah, but that's where "permanent revolution" comes in-- to find the connections, the transitions, the mediations between the two-- and those mediations are in those direct, distinct, embryonic organizations of class rule-- like the FEJUVEs of El Alto in Bolivia-- not in Caesarism, or the popular/populist frontism you endorse, and try to burnish by claiming the telescoped revolution contains "contempt" for the peasantry.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The communal councils in Venezuela are a better model, and fit nicely with a Third World Caesarian framework. In classical literature, this would be legislative-administrative democracy working with executive autocracy - a kind of Anti-Republican "social contract" that's opposed to the "benevolent tyrant" model - against all claimants to "aristocracy" (open claimants or disguised ones like Bourgeois Republicanism). In the case of Venezuela, however, the full potential for the two parties has yet to be reached.

Oh yeah, it's communitarian populist frontism (no bourgeois "communitarians" or "libertarian" populists), not any form of popular frontism.

[S.Artesian]

The communal councils in Venezuela are a better model, and fit nicely with a Third World Caesarian framework. In classical literature, this would be legislative-administrative democracy working with executive autocracy - a kind of Anti-Republican "social contract" that's opposed to the "benevolent tyrant" model - against all claimants to "aristocracy" (open claimants or disguised ones like Bourgeois Republicanism). In the case of Venezuela, however, the full potential for the two parties has yet to be reached.

Oh yeah, it's communitarian populist frontism (no bourgeois "communitarians" or "libertarian" populists), not any form of popular frontism.


Glad to see you accept that it is the mediations, those embryonic organs of class rule that the telescoped revolution emphasizes, as the agent of change. So so much for the "contempt for the peasantry."

As for this:

"In classical literature, this would be legislative-administrative democracy working with executive autocracy - a kind of Anti-Republican "social contract" that's opposed to the "benevolent tyrant" model - against all claimants to "aristocracy" (open claimants or disguised ones like Bourgeois Republicanism)."

I think you're overdoing it a bit. Similar councils existed at the time of Allende's Popular Unity. When push came to shove-- and push always comes to shove, the working with the "executive" went out the window, and the councils found themselves battling the UP govt in order to defend themselves from counter-assaults of the bourgeoisie.

You should really read about the Unidad Popular in Chile, quite instructive on how destructive the UP, and in particular the PCP were of the possibility for revolution.

[bretty]

Let me put this another way: what new mode of production is the peasantry capable of establishing based on its already existing economic position?

Well that's a tough question for anyone to answer since i'd be speculating on political and economic development but considering Nepal has managed progressive changes in a largely feudal context don't you think similar gains are possible, yet unlikely, in India and subsequently in other situations? I'm not suggesting they can do it alone, the initial disagreement was over the existence and significance of peasants worldwide.

-B

[S.Artesian]

Well that's a tough question for anyone to answer since i'd be speculating on political and economic development but considering Nepal has managed progressive changes in a largely feudal context don't you think similar gains are possible, yet unlikely, in India and subsequently in other situations? I'm not suggesting they can do it alone, the initial disagreement was over the existence and significance of peasants worldwide.

-B

I think most anything is possible, and most things are unlikely, but they process in Nepal is highly unstable, and the situation in Nepal can end in defeat for the rural poor.

Yes, a peasantry exists in some countries, no argument about that from me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Glad to see you accept that it is the mediations, those embryonic organs of class rule that the telescoped revolution emphasizes, as the agent of change. So so much for the "contempt for the peasantry."

The communal councils aren't exclusively workers councils. Oh, and the notion of "embryonic organs of class struggle" is just a euphemism for more council shams.


As for this:

"In classical literature, this would be legislative-administrative democracy working with executive autocracy - a kind of Anti-Republican "social contract" that's opposed to the "benevolent tyrant" model - against all claimants to "aristocracy" (open claimants or disguised ones like Bourgeois Republicanism)."

I think you're overdoing it a bit. Similar councils existed at the time of Allende's Popular Unity.

Popular Unity might have been communitarian, but because of being popular it sure as hell wasn't populist. The Allende office didn't deal more strongly with the bourgeoisie, and within the executive there wasn't enough emphasis on "neo-patrimonialism."


When push came to shove-- and push always comes to shove, the working with the "executive" went out the window, and the councils found themselves battling the UP govt in order to defend themselves from counter-assaults of the bourgeoisie.

I have no doubt that the struggle for the DOTP will at some point clash with the existing structures of my proposed Third World Managed Democracy / Caesarism / Communitarian Populist Front. I just think that the non-proletarian "working classes" have greater potential for "democratic revolution through to the end" and at least radical social reform than some tred-iunionisty scum.

[S.Artesian]

The communal councils aren't exclusively workers councils. Oh, and the notion of "embryonic organs of class struggle" is just a euphemism for more council shams.



Popular Unity might have been communitarian, but because of being popular it sure as hell wasn't populist. The Allende office didn't deal more strongly with the bourgeoisie, and within the executive there wasn't enough emphasis on "neo-patrimonialism."



I have no doubt that the struggle for the DOTP will at some point clash with the existing structures of my proposed Third World Managed Democracy / Caesarism / Communitarian Populist Front. I just think that the non-proletarian "working classes" have greater potential for "democratic revolution through to the end" and social reform than some tred-iunionisty scum.


WTF? Communitarian Populist Front-- non-proletarian working masses have greater potential for "democratic revolution through to the end"-- and what end is it? Oh.. here it's "social reform."

Exactly where has a struggle unfolded like that? Putin's Russia? Democratic revolution, social reform-- are you fucking kidding me?

Where has the "democratic revolution" for social reform, as opposed to social revolution for expropriation of the means of production, produced anything other than defeat for the "working masses" proletarian and non-proletarian?

What fucking planet are you on, because it doesn't sound like planet earth to me.

Managed democracy my ass. The only thing that will be managed is the handing over of power to counter-revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

WTF? Communitarian Populist Front-- non-proletarian working masses have greater potential for "democratic revolution through to the end"-- and what end is it? Oh.. here it's "social reform."

I corrected my post above - "radical social reform."


Managed democracy my ass. The only thing that will be managed is the handing over of power to counter-revolution.

The managed part is the intimidation, haranguing, etc. of the bourgeoisie and its liberal fellow travellers.

[S.Artesian]

I corrected my post above - "radical social reform."



The managed part is the intimidation, haranguing, etc. of the bourgeoisie and its liberal fellow travellers.

Oh yeah, that's worked so well in the past; intimidated the bourgeoisie right into submission.

Right, "cede us your property, your power, or we're going to harangue the shit out of you."

I can see it now, women and children crying, men in custom-tailored suits pleading "Please, not that, not the haranguing. Anything but haranguing."

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was referring to "goonish" and "thuggish" Putinism against bourgeois-liberal political organization. Cut off applicable foreign NGO funding (my Politics thread), make the registration process arbitrarily long or short depending on the party (long for the bourgeois-liberal opposition), set up "Potemkin" parties, resort to open political intimidation, etc.

Third World Caesarism / Managed Democracy, again: Julius Caesar of people's history ("marches on Rome" / PDPA-style military coups / Focoism / "people's war" plus radical measures against private bourgeois wealth plus intra-executive neopatrimonialism), Proudhon ("democratic" communal power), Lassalle (state-aided coops), Bismarck (Kulturkampf), and Putin (against liberal opposition).

[S.Artesian]

I was referring to "goonish" and "thuggish" Putinism against bourgeois-liberal political organization. Cut off applicable foreign NGO funding (my Politics thread), make the registration process arbitrarily long or short depending on the party (long for the bourgeois-liberal opposition), set up "Potemkin" parties, resort to open political intimidation, etc.

Third World Caesarism / Managed Democracy, again: Julius Caesar of people's history ("marches on Rome" / PDPA-style military coups / Focoism / "people's war" plus radical measures against private bourgeois wealth plus intra-executive neopatrimonialism), Proudhon ("democratic" communal power), Lassalle (state-aided coops), Bismarck (Kulturkampf), and Putin (against liberal opposition).

Yeah... an when he's using all those goons and thugs to do all those things.. and then those unimpressed proletarian workers--you know the ones losing their jobs in the auto plants, or the ones whose kids are growing up next to lead and nickel smelters... when those workers go on strike, and those same goons and thugs get turned against them...

Then what do you say? Do you give the old mantra about Caesarism, managed democracy, focoism (!), coops, circuses, and coupons for cut rate cigarets?

You think that's how this is going to go down?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah... and when he's using all those goons and thugs to do all those things.. and then those unimpressed proletarian workers--you know the ones losing their jobs in the auto plants, or the ones whose kids are growing up next to lead and nickel smelters... when those workers go on strike, and those same goons and thugs get turned against them...

1) That's where the second stage comes in against the National Leader and his apparatus.
2) If there's no full leadership commitment to Caesarism (which includes thoroughly anti-bourgeois politics), then the two-stage suggestion doesn't apply, does it?

[S.Artesian]

1) That's where the second stage comes in against the National Leader and his apparatus.
2) If there's no full leadership commitment to Caesarism, then the two-stage suggestion doesn't apply, does it?


It doesn't work like that. You don't get to any "second stage" once you've hitched your wagon to the horse with the man on its back , even if he's in a chariot rather than on the horse directly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did you read the last part of my article? It encompasses a roughly four-party system that makes possible the move to a second stage.

[S.Artesian]

I read your article in the Peoples' History thread. And in essence, you know what I think? You're putting all your chips on a very singular and peculiar event-- the assassination of a radical, popular figure, to make the "leap" to a struggle for power.

Re: the assessment of Julius Caesar-- bottom line, there is no such thing as a dictatorship on behalf of the proletariat. Any such inter-mediation will be swept away. The only way for the working classes to do the sweeping is through organization independent of the would be Caesar.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I disagreed with Parenti's stretch of things, and I did stress independent organization as well ("the fourth party"). Just because there is independent organization doesn't mean one can't work with other political actors in society.


You're putting all your chips on a very singular and peculiar event-- the assassination of a radical, popular figure, to make the "leap" to a struggle for power.

Nowhere did I write there that the National Leader had to be assassinated. :confused: I only stated why Caesar himself was assassinated, and didn't mention what would happen after the establishment of the first stage. The National Leader might be assassinated later on, or he might well, as you pointed out, turn out to be a reactionary (anti-bourgeois but then turning increasingly anti-proletarian to preserve the rule of the "national" petit-bourgeoisie and other non-proletarian "working classes").

[S.Artesian]

I disagreed with Parenti's stretch of things, and I did stress independent organization as well ("the fourth party"). Just because there is independent organization doesn't mean one can't work with other political actors in society.



Nowhere did I write there that the National Leader had to be assassinated. :confused: I only stated why Caesar himself was assassinated, and didn't mention what would happen after the establishment of the first stage. The National Leader might be assassinated later on, or he might well, as you pointed out, turn out to be a reactionary (anti-bourgeois but then turning increasingly anti-proletarian to preserve the rule of the "national" petit-bourgeoisie and other non-proletarian "working classes").

Right on both counts-- you propose a 4th party, one that is capable of, and engages in, cheerleading support for the little Caesar. That doesn't count as independent in my book. Independence means independent organization, putting forth an independent program, and not engaging in any cheerleading support for "interim" populist or populitarian governments.

As of the assassination issue- it's not Caesar that mights me infer that such an act is necessary to "galvanize" the non-proletarian classes to power-- it is your citing of Chavez's quote contemplating his own possible eradication.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right on both counts-- you propose a 4th party, one that is capable of, and engages in, cheerleading support for the little Caesar. That doesn't count as independent in my book. Independence means independent organization, putting forth an independent program, and not engaging in any cheerleading support for "interim" populist or populitarian governments.

You just tempted me to order a Little Caesar's pizza, but thankfully I resisted. :p

There is an independent organization with an independent program. There's a huge difference between "cheerleading" as part of a communitarian populist front and actually entering into a coalition government.


As of the assassination issue- it's not Caesar that makes me infer that such an act is necessary to "galvanize" the non-proletarian classes to power-- it is your citing of Chavez's quote contemplating his own possible eradication.

As I said in that article, Chavez's quote is on the level of rhetoric already above the practice of Maoism. He just needs to fine tune it to weed out the comprador petit-bourgeoisie.

Where did you get the idea that the assassination would lead to Stage 1? The Caesar figure "marches on Rome" because of action by the rest of the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie. Once Stage 1 is consolidated, some opportunistic blokes might decide to maintain the anti-bourgeois stuff but turn against the workers. If the Caesar figure doesn't follow this, s/he gets axed, and the result is either a new revolution (Stage 2) or a more hostile regime in between Caesarism and Bonapartism (keeping in mind that the latter doesn't mind having the bourgeoisie around).

[S.Artesian]

You just tempted me to order a Little Caesar's pizza, but thankfully I resisted. :p

That's what friends are for.


There is an independent organization with an independent program. There's a huge difference between "cheerleading" as part of a communitarian populist front and actually entering into a coalition government.

Ever the optimist, you are.




Where did you get the idea that the assassination would lead to Stage 1? The Caesar figure "marches on Rome" because of action by the rest of the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National Petit-Bourgeoisie. Once Stage 1 is consolidated, some opportunistic blokes might decide to maintain the bourgeois stuff but turn against the workers. If the Caesar figure doesn't follow this, s/he gets axed, and the result is either a new revolution (Stage 2) or a more hostile regime in between Caesarism and Bonapartism (keeping in mind that the latter doesn't mind having the bourgeoisie around).


Look what you just wrote-- it's not stage 1 I was referring, it was precisely that-- stage 2. What even precipitates the either/or-- why it's little Caesar getting the unkindest cuts of all.

I don't think that's a real strategy for taking power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Either that, or there's the remote possibility of the Caesar figure becoming a revolutionary but also surviving the ordeal. ;)