Workers' State [Archive]

Lyev

12th December 2010, 22:29

That's from The Communist Manifesto. I would say that's a decent general overview.Some of those are still relevant today, for example, free education and abolition of the right of inheritance, but the "10 planks", as they are often referred to, need to historically contextualised. They were drawn up by Marx and Engels in light of the 1848-49 revolutions that swept across Europe shortly before they wrote the CM. I think the failure of these uprisings was largely what prompted them to write it actually. From the 1872 preface to the communist manifesto:
However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated.I don't think the 10 planks are really a guide or whatever for 'how a workers state should be run' - I think they're more a list of programmatic demands.

I can't be bothered to write anymore stuff, just be careful using the phrase 'workers' state'; the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism in the Leninist sense) is not a seperate mode of production: it exists under capitalism. Read this; http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

Zanthorus

12th December 2010, 22:47

They were drawn up by Marx and Engels in light of the 1848-49 revolutions that swept across Europe shortly before they wrote the CM. I think the failure of these uprisings was largely what prompted them to write it actually.

Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto because they were commissioned to write it by the second congress of the Communist League in December 1847. Marx finished the Manifesto in February 1848, just as news was reaching Prussia that the French had revolted. It's difficult to see how they could've drawn up the demands on the basis of experience of a series of revolutions that had only just begun when they were writing them.

robbo203

12th December 2010, 22:47

I can't be bothered to write anymore stuff, just be careful using the phrase 'workers' state'; the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism in the Leninist sense) is not a seperate mode of production: it exists under capitalism. Read this; http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html

I think we should scrap the whole idea of a so called workers state or the "dictatorship of the proletariat" for the reasons given here - from the the thread on the DOTP. Its just nonsense on stilts and utterly incoherent as a concept

Well lets look at this "semi-anarchist rubbish we accept from SPGB dogmatists like robbo203" shall we? (Although I should say Zanthorus has already put a foot wrong here since Im not actually a member of the SPGB and nor am i strictly an anarchist despite my anarchist tendencies ;))

First off - what is the proletariat or working class? I think we can broadly accept Engels' definition in the 1888 preface to the Communist Manifesto as being "that class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live". Thus is a relative statement obviously since it is possible for workers to have some capital to invest but still be economically compelled to sell their labour power.

Next, lets consider this - what does it mean that workers have little or no capital to live upon and therefore must sell their labour power in order to live? Well, to begin with, who exactly do their sell their labour power to? Obviously the capitalist class. And what characterises the capitalist class is that this class possesses capital which the workers dont by and large. The workers are, in other words, separated from the means of productiuon which are monopolised by the capitalist class. Im sure even Zanthorus will agree that I am not being dogmatic in asserting this. He only has to do some research to discover for himself that the distribution of financial assets is grossly skewed in favour of a tiny minority.

So assuming he agrees with this what does that signify? It means that the working class being separated from the means of production are in a highly vulnerabable position of having to depend on the capitalists for a job. In the course of being employed by the capitalists the workers produce a greater value than the value of the wage they receive. In other words, the worker is exploited and it is condition of his employment that he be exploited. Nothing controversial about what Ive said so far. Its all elementary stuff - the ABC of Marxism. But now it starts to get interesting...

Zanthorus commences by resorting to a familiar sleight of hand. No, he says, workers are not personally subordinated by the capitalists "Relationships of personal domination" are what characterise pre-capitalist social formations. What makes capitalism unique , he asserts , is "the replacement of relations of personal dependence by relations of material dependence, the domination of things over man.". One might well wonder whether Zanthorus thinks class matters at all. This is bourgeois sociology, not Marxism.

The issue is not the personal dependence of workers on individal capitalists but rather of class dependence due to the fact that one class owns the means of production and the other does not. Of course it is quite true, and I wouldnt wanted to deny it, that there is a domination of things over man in capitalsim but to suggest that this domination is not organically linked to the domination of one class over another is utterly absurd, Capital as indeed an abstract mpersonal force operating within capitalist society but capital is also concentrated in the hands of distinct class - a point Zanthorus conveniently forgets.

Now lets look at this concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat". I think we can all agree with Hal Drapers' point that, by "dictatorship", Marx meant not some kind of political tyranny in the modern sense of the word "dictatorship" but, rather, a situation in which the interests or wishes of one group or class prevails over another. In the case of the DOTP, what is being suggested is that the interests of the workers should prevail over capitalists. In other words, that interests of the exploited majority should prevail of the small minority that exploits this majority.

Clearly this is an utterly ludicrous notion. How can the interests of the exploited class prevail over those of the exploiting class? It makes no sense at all. One tends to find that if I am exploiting you that my interest must be prevailing over yours otherwise I would not be in a position to exploit you, wold I now? . My ability to exploit you is thus indicative of the fact that the situation is one in which my interests essentially prevail of yours.

So it is with the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Wage labour, which is what workers depend on, presupposes capital as any good marxist would know and therefore of course capitalism. So what Zanthorus is seriously asking us to believe is that you can have capitalism operating in the interest of the workers, the exploted majority, since this dictatorship of the proletariat implies the existence of capitalism. You would have thought that if the majority were in a position to dictate terms to the capitalists they would also be in a position to get rid of a capitalist system in which they are exploited along with the capitalist class that exploits them. But, no, not a bit of it. Zanthorus insist that we must put our hairshirts on , keep our shackles intact and go through yet another version of capitalism in the form of dictatorship of the proletariait even if logically this can only ever amount to a dictatorship over the proletariat - the proletariat being a proletariat by virtue of being dictated to

Then Zanthorus introduces another odd sleight of hand:

The proletariat is defined not as the class which is subordinated to the bourgeoisie, but as the class whose labour-power is a commodity which is bought and sold on the market. This buying and selling can just as easily be performed by the workers' acting as their own collective capitalist in the form of a co-operative enterprise

Well lets look at Zanthorus' pie-in-the-sky utopian version of capitalism from which the capitalists as a class have apparently been banished. One has to ask what the hell, in that case, is the point of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" when the capitalists no longer exist as a class to be dictated to? "We are all capitalists now" is the sentiment that seems to animate this idealistic capitalist utopia and its frankly not that far removed from Mrs Thatchers "property owning democracy" or Mr Blair's wet dream of the "Stakeholder society". Workers are asked to the postpoine implementation of a genuine communist society for the sake of what? The dubious pleasure of being able to exploit themselves as "their own collective capitalist"? Come off it!

I am reminded here of what one of the characters in Three men in a boat said: "if everybody is somebody then nobody is anybody". Zanthorous would have us believe that the capitalists as a class can disappear but the workers as a class can still remain intact. In so doing he reveals his position to be one completely opposed to Marxism on this matter. Marx in Wage Labour and Capital told it as it is: "Thus capital presupposes wage-labour and wage-labour presupposes capital. They mutually condition one another; they mutually bring each other into existence". If the capitalists disappear as a class then so too must the working class and it is incoherent and illogical to say that you can have one without the other.

Afterall, how does Zanthorus define a "capitalist" if it is not someone who possesses capital. If the capitalist is such a person then a worker can only be meaningfully defined in contradistinction to a capitalist as someone who does NOT own capital to live upon. But in Zanthorus' capitalist utopia called the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, he confidently assures us it would be fully possible for workers' to act as their own collective capitailst in the form of a co-operative enterprise. In which case, they would own the capital and might just as easily be called "capitalists" as "workers".

The logical implication of that is that you could just as easily call this arrangement a dictatorship of the capitalists as a dictatorship of the proletariat. It seems completely arbitrary to call it the latter when as we have seen capital and wage labour are two sides of the same coin.

No, sorry, but the whole concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a peice of utter nonsense from start to finish. It is incoherent illogical bilge and was one of the most serious errors of judgement made by Marx in my opinion. That said, I am obviously speaking here with benefit of hindsight knowing that this simple lilttle phrase to which Marx probably did not attach that much importance, has derailed and deluded generations of Leftists like Zanthorus since it was first penned.

ZeroNowhere

13th December 2010, 08:15

Lyev

13th December 2010, 20:06

Marx and Engels wrote the Communist Manifesto because they were commissioned to write it by the second congress of the Communist League in December 1847. Marx finished the Manifesto in February 1848, just as news was reaching Prussia that the French had revolted. It's difficult to see how they could've drawn up the demands on the basis of experience of a series of revolutions that had only just begun when they were writing them.:blushing: You got me there. I just saw that the manifesto was written in 1848 and kinda assumed it had to with the revolts and whatnot that were going on at the same time. Maybe I read somewhere a while ago that they were very much relevant for those uprisings; not written because of them.

Lyev

13th December 2010, 20:25

I think we should scrap the whole idea of a so called workers state or the "dictatorship of the proletariat" for the reasons given here - from the the thread on the DOTP. Its just nonsense on stilts and utterly incoherent as a conceptYour qualms with Zanthorus are similar to those that Bakunin had with Marx, I think. Have you ever come across the Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm)? I don't think that the conception of proletarian dictatorship is internally inconsistent or contradictory. In response to Bakunin asking what Marx means when he talks about "the proletariat organised as the ruling class", the latter remarked:
It means that so long as the other classes, especially the capitalist class, still exists, so long as the proletariat struggles with it (for when it attains government power its enemies and the old organization of society have not yet vanished), it must employ forcible means, hence governmental means. It is itself still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared and must forcibly be either removed out of the way or transformed, this transformation process being forcibly hastened.

syndicat

13th December 2010, 21:13

It may well be fun for Marxist fundamentalists to go back to the Master to see what he originally intended, but that's not necessarily what actual Marxist parties have meant in practice by "dictatorship of the proletariat." After all, the various Communist states claimed to be "dictatorship of the proletariat" and Trotsky in later years sort of went along with this, saying that state ownership in the USSR was an inherently "proletarian property form."

The piece in the link posted by L. claims that Marx advocated "direct democracy" but in fact there is nothing in any of the quotes that justifies this claim. Marx never talked about the importance of assemblies at the base having control, such as worker assemblies in workplaces or neighborhood assemblies, whereas this has been a central theme in social anarchism/anarcho-syndicalism. In his pamphlet on the Paris revolt in 1871 Marx does mention the "imperative mandate" but without talking about what this meant to the workers of Paris.

This idea had been first put forward by the radical artisan movement in the Paris neighborhood assemblies ("sections") and especially in the writings of Jean Varlet, president of one of the more radical sections and a major proponent and theorist and pamphleteer of direct democracy in the French revolution.

in one of the insurrections of the masses during the French revolution the old Commune (city council), controlled by the capitalists, was overthrown and replaced by a delegate committee, closely controlled by the section assemblies. The revolt in Paris in 1871 followed this pattern of the earlier French revolution.

But Marxist political organizations never took up this theme of direct participation by the masses. You might say that direct democracy is implied by Marx's reply to Bakunin in that little known work quoted in that piece. That all the millions of German workers would participate in government through the governance of their communities. But "participate" in what way? Directly thru assemblies or through elections of deputies? Marx never clearly advocates mass assemblies as the base unit of working class governance.

Also, Marxists are inconsistent when they say that the mere collective organization of coercsion by the overall governance system makes a state. That's because this is inconsistent with the view that states first come to be through the emergence of class society and did not exist in pre-class tribal societies. But organized capacity for coercsion was in fact clearly present in pre-state societies, such as the Iroquois Confederacy, as when they organized war to protect their lands against invading tribes.

Zanthorus

13th December 2010, 22:29

The piece in the link posted by L. claims that Marx advocated "direct democracy" but in fact there is nothing in any of the quotes that justifies this claim.

Hegel gives the proper reason last. The deputies of civil society constitute themselves into an assembly, and only this assembly is the actual political existence and will of civil society. The separation of the political state from civil society appears as the separation of the deputies from their mandators. From itself, society delegates to its political existence only the elements.

The contradiction appears two-fold:

1. Formal. The delegates of civil society are a society whose members are connected by the form of instruction or commission with those who commission them. They are formally commissioned, but once they are actual they are no longer commissioned. They are supposed to be delegates, and they are not.- Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right

syndicat

13th December 2010, 22:47

and your point is? There is nothing in the quoted passage that clearly advocates direct democracy. the Paris sectional assemblies played a key role in both the 1789-94 revolution and the Paris revolt of 1871. if Marx had regarded this as important, why does he never talk about assemblies explicitly?

Lyev

14th December 2010, 20:34

The Erfurt program and the RSDLP's 1903 program (based heavily on the former) advocated direct democracy quite clearly I think.
2. Direct legislation by the people through the rights of proposal and rejection. Self-determination and self-government of the people in Reich, state, province, and municipality. Election by the people of magistrates, who are answerable and liable to them. Annual voting of taxes.

3. Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army. Determination by the popular assembly on questions of war and peace. Settlement of all international disputes by arbitration.http://www.marxists.org/history/international/social-democracy/1891/erfurt-program.htm

syndicat

15th December 2010, 18:41

Originally Posted by Erfurt
2. Direct legislation by the people through the rights of proposal and rejection. Self-determination and self-government of the people in Reich, state, province, and municipality. Election by the people of magistrates, who are answerable and liable to them. Annual voting of taxes.

3. Education of all to bear arms. Militia in the place of the standing army. Determination by the popular assembly on questions of war and peace. Settlement of all international disputes by arbitration.

"popular assembly" in point 3 refers to the legislature...that is, a body of representatives. point 2 seems to advocate referedum or plebiscite but this is not the same as direct, participatory democracy of assemblies where people directly discuss, debate, deliberate and then vote in light of that. the bit about "annual voting of taxes" also refers to representatives.

robbo203

15th December 2010, 23:11

Your qualms with Zanthorus are similar to those that Bakunin had with Marx, I think. Have you ever come across the Conspectus of Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm)? I don't think that the conception of proletarian dictatorship is internally inconsistent or contradictory. In response to Bakunin asking what Marx means when he talks about "the proletariat organised as the ruling class", the latter remarked:

TO be honest I think Marx was somewhat employing weasel words here. There is a real conceptual problem which cannot be got around by saying that the proletariat must use "forrcible" or "governmental" means against the capitalist class. In fact Marx himself admits that in this period of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the proletariat is itself "still a class and the economic conditions from which the class struggle and the existence of classes derive have still not disappeared" So in effect you have an exploited class using governmental means which fall short of getting rid of the class that exploits it and by virtue of which it continuies to exist as an exploited class. In other words the proletariat allows itself to continue to be exploited despite having political power to end exploitation which is completely absurd.

Zanthorus' idea of a kind of classless capitalism with workers merely selling labour power to themselves as a kind of collective capitalist in the form of cooperatives is equally absurd. Even this were possible it would mean everyone would be both a capitalist and worker. There would in effect no longer be any classes. So what the hell would be the point of a dictatroship of the proletariat? There would be no proletaiat since there are no other class by which the proletariat can be defined in contradistinction to. And who would this non existent proletariat be exercising a dictatorship over when there is no longer a capitalist class either?

Sixiang

16th December 2010, 02:02

Some of those are still relevant today, for example, free education and abolition of the right of inheritance, but the "10 planks", as they are often referred to, need to historically contextualised. They were drawn up by Marx and Engels in light of the 1848-49 revolutions that swept across Europe shortly before they wrote the CM. I think the failure of these uprisings was largely what prompted them to write it actually. From the 1872 preface to the communist manifesto:I don't think the 10 planks are really a guide or whatever for 'how a workers state should be run' - I think they're more a list of programmatic demands.

I can't be bothered to write anymore stuff, just be careful using the phrase 'workers' state'; the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism in the Leninist sense) is not a seperate mode of production: it exists under capitalism. Read this; http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html
You're absolutely right. I agree with you. We need to apply these things to historical context and the specific situations at hand.

S.Artesian

16th December 2010, 02:26

Sixiang

16th December 2010, 02:29

Rafiq

16th December 2010, 02:52

in most advanced countries, the following will be pretty generally applicable.

1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, &c, &c.

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does this mean?

Zanthorus

17th December 2010, 13:35

...in effect you have an exploited class using governmental means which fall short of getting rid of the class that exploits it and by virtue of which it continuies to exist as an exploited class. In other words the proletariat allows itself to continue to be exploited despite having political power to end exploitation which is completely absurd.

I am not going to reply to your rather lengthier critique of what I posted earlier, as I don't really have the energy to continue. I think the basic problem is that we both have substantially different ideas of what the proletariat is. For you, it seems that the proletariat is simply anyone subordinated by individual capitalists. For me, the proletariat consists of anyone who sells their labour for a wage, whose labour-power is a commodity. For you, it seems that all the working-class has to do is get rid of the physical incarnations of the capitalists, and capital will be done for. For me, capital can only be destroyed through the destruction of commodity production and market relations. This seems to be why you think it will be so incredibly simple to just get rid of capitalism once the workers' have power, while I do not. I would like to point out that the logical conclusion of your argument is that socialism would exist if workers' managed firms in a competing marketplace, as in various 'market socialist' schemas. My positing of a hypothetical in which such a situation existed was to show that such would not be socialism, but it would be if we accepted that the working-class was merely those subject to personal domination by the capitalist class. It was not an advocacy of such a schema.

Now putting this aside, you advocate a concrete alternative in the form of the socialist movement abolishing commodity relations before coming to power. I would like to point out that first of all this does not prove that the DotP is 'senseless', merely unnecessary. However, it completely ignores the role of the state in perpetuating such relations, in the manner of the utopian socialists. Such projects like Owen's New Harmony have failed practically every time they have been attempted. The logical conclusion is that before the abolition of commodity relations can begin, the workers' must disarm the state apparatus through the capture of political power.

robbo203

18th December 2010, 12:31

I am not going to reply to your rather lengthier critique of what I posted earlier, as I don't really have the energy to continue. I think the basic problem is that we both have substantially different ideas of what the proletariat is. For you, it seems that the proletariat is simply anyone subordinated by individual capitalists. For me, the proletariat consists of anyone who sells their labour for a wage, whose labour-power is a commodity. For you, it seems that all the working-class has to do is get rid of the physical incarnations of the capitalists, and capital will be done for. For me, capital can only be destroyed through the destruction of commodity production and market relations. This seems to be why you think it will be so incredibly simple to just get rid of capitalism once the workers' have power, while I do not. I would like to point out that the logical conclusion of your argument is that socialism would exist if workers' managed firms in a competing marketplace, as in various 'market socialist' schemas. My positing of a hypothetical in which such a situation existed was to show that such would not be socialism, but it would be if we accepted that the working-class was merely those subject to personal domination by the capitalist class. It was not an advocacy of such a schema.
.

The above contains a lot of quite misleading statements. For example , I dont say " the proletariat is simply anyone subordinated by individual capitalists". Individuals capitalists are neither here nor there. The proletariat can be subordinated by the state (and, by extension, the state capitalist class as well). The point is that what essentially defines the proletariat is its separation from the means of production and therefore its dependence upon wage labour through it is exploited by the capitalist class.

Nor do I say "all the working-class has to do is get rid of the physical incarnations of the capitalists, and capital will be done for" You say that for you "capital can only be destroyed through the destruction of commodity production and market relations". My real position is actually combines both of these statements so there is less disagreement between us than you suppose. It is actually central to my position that if you dont detroy commodity production and market relations you will continue to have a capitalist class. That is a strong argument for saying there was a capitalist class in the Soviet Union.... because commodity production and market relations continued. The idea that planning was somehow counterposed to market relations is misleading. What soviet planners sought to plan was precisely market relations as Bettelheim has pointed out. A regulated market economy is still a market economy.

And of course the following comment of yours is so way off the mark that I utterly puzzled as to how your could ever have come up with it

I would like to point out that the logical conclusion of your argument is that socialism would exist if workers' managed firms in a competing marketplace, as in various 'market socialist' schemas.

That is quite nonsensical. Market socialism is an oxymoron as Ive time and time again argued. If you have buying and selling in any shape or form you do not have socialism, socialism precludes this.

My criticism of your defence of the flawed and incoherent concept of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" was to follow through your argument to its logical absurdity. In effect you were saying it was possible to have a dictatroship of the proletariat if workers sold their own labour power to themselves as their own "collective capitalist". This is nonsense becuase you would no longer be talking then of a proletariat then if these supposed workers owned the means of production and also becuase if they owned the means of production how could you sensibly talk of there being a separate capitalist class over which the workers exercised their "dictatorship"

Now putting this aside, you advocate a concrete alternative in the form of the socialist movement abolishing commodity relations before coming to power. I would like to point out that first of all this does not prove that the DotP is 'senseless', merely unnecessary. However, it completely ignores the role of the state in perpetuating such relations, in the manner of the utopian socialists. Such projects like Owen's New Harmony have failed practically every time they have been attempted. The logical conclusion is that before the abolition of commodity relations can begin, the workers' must disarm the state apparatus through the capture of political power.

Again you are making misleading statements about my position. I do not claim that commodity relationships can be abolished before the socialist movement took political power. If i did there would be no point in taking power, would there? I am making a relative statement here - that the opportunity and scope for transcending the commodity relationship will expand with the growth of the socialist movement itself but complete transcendence of the commodity relationship will only happen once the socialist movement capture power and abolish capitalism.

The reference to utopian socialists is a red herring. My argument is quite different. I am saying that as the socialist movement movement grows, it creates a social environment in which opportunities to transcend the commodity relationship expand which, in turn, reciporcally feed into the growth of the movement itself. This is a much more realistic and coherent conception of a transitional phase which locates such a phase within capitalism and not (illogically) between capitalism and communism as Marx would have it

Zanthorus

19th December 2010, 15:45

...if they [the workers'] owned the means of production how could you sensibly talk of there being a separate capitalist class over which the workers exercised their "dictatorship"

This assumes that there are only two classes, capitalists and workers, and that the dictatorship of the latter must inevitably be a dictatorship over the former. Unfortunately, capitalism has not actually divided everyone into two neatly defined opposing camps, the intermediate strata between capitalists and workers such as small business owners and the self-employed still exist and have interests antithetical to the achievment of a democratically planned economy.

...the opportunity and scope for transcending the commodity relationship will expand with the growth of the socialist movement itself

In other words market relationships are going to be slowly eroded and transnational corporations broken up before the working-class takes state power. In other words the capitalists are just going to nicely co-operate with the workers without the latter needing to resort to the use of force, the intermediate strata are going to give up their positions and integrate into the socialised economy without any incentives being laid down by policies enacted by the transitional state, in other words, we have here a plain and simple Proudhonist conception of the transition from capitalism to socialism. You call my (And Marx's) ideas on the transition from capitalism to communism 'illogical', 'incoherent' and other such slurs, all the while invoking the Orthodox Marxist 'stagist' theory of history to label the Russian revolution as a capitalist revolution, all the while espousing a Proudhonist theory of transition, one which differs from Proudhon only in the fact that right at the end the working-class will peacefully and democratically take political power from the capitalists. At least from where I'm standing, the only incoherency and illogicality here is the eclectic tapestry of Anarchism, Proudhonism and Menshevism that you've concocted for yourself.

robbo203

19th December 2010, 21:49

This assumes that there are only two classes, capitalists and workers, and that the dictatorship of the latter must inevitably be a dictatorship over the former. Unfortunately, capitalism has not actually divided everyone into two neatly defined opposing camps, the intermediate strata between capitalists and workers such as small business owners and the self-employed still exist and have interests antithetical to the achievment of a democratically planned economy..

I grant there is a grey area between the capitalist class and the working class - though the great bulk of the self employed would fall into the working class in my view which constitutes probably 95% + of the population However this in no way salvages the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat which which at root is utterly illogical and incoherent.

You have not answered the simple question I have raised time and time again - how can a class which is by definition an exploited class be said to rule over the class which exploits it? It makes no sense at all. If the former is in a position to rule over the latter then it is in a position to get rid of the latter without further ado.

Your one attempt to get round this problem has been to posit a frankly romantic and idealistic notion of a kind of classless capitalism in which workers sell their labour power to themselves as their "own collective capitalists" in the form of cooperatives. But this doesnt help your case either. Because if everyone is both a worker and a capitalist in your scenario then there is no way you can differentiate people into classes. In which case , bang goes the idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat since there is no proletariat to dictate and no capitalist class to be dictated to

In other words market relationships are going to be slowly eroded and transnational corporations broken up before the working-class takes state power. In other words the capitalists are just going to nicely co-operate with the workers without the latter needing to resort to the use of force, the intermediate strata are going to give up their positions and integrate into the socialised economy without any incentives being laid down by policies enacted by the transitional state, in other words, we have here a plain and simple Proudhonist conception of the transition from capitalism to socialism. You call my (And Marx's) ideas on the transition from capitalism to communism 'illogical', 'incoherent' and other such slurs, all the while invoking the Orthodox Marxist 'stagist' theory of history to label the Russian revolution as a capitalist revolution, all the while espousing a Proudhonist theory of transition, one which differs from Proudhon only in the fact that right at the end the working-class will peacefully and democratically take political power from the capitalists. At least from where I'm standing, the only incoherency and illogicality here is the eclectic tapestry of Anarchism, Proudhonism and Menshevism that you've concocted for yourself.

I did not say multinational corporations would be broken up before the conquest of political power by the working class. These are your words not mine. I said merely that the opportunities for transcending the commodity relationship will expand with the growth of the socialsit movement and its impact on the the social climate. I had much more in mind things like intentional communities , mutual aid projects, LETS, freecycle and so on. I am surprised you pour scorn on this given your thoughts on the propespects of cooperatives. I full accept that the commanding heights of the capitalist economy as represented by big multinational companies and the like would continue on until the end and for this reason the idea of a transitional phase within capitalism would needed to be complemented by the traditional marxian approach of capturing the state to abolish capitalism

Zanthorus

19th December 2010, 22:17

Jazzhands

19th December 2010, 22:29

Excuse my ignorance, but what exactly does this mean?

Simple. If you rebel against the proletarian state, you get your property taken away. If you try to leave the proletarian state, you get your property taken away. Doesn't mean I agree with it, just what he said.

Although I can sort of understand the justification one could make for this. If the wealth in a society belongs collectively to the proletariat, the individual's wealth is also made owned by the proletariat. So if you leave the proletarian community with your wealth, you basically steal from the proletariat. It's a way to keep proletarian wealth in proletarian hands.

The other half is more obvious. If you take violent action against the proletarian power, that's a crime. Taking away property is the punishment. Also, it makes sure that proletarian property is not used against proletarian power.

S.Artesian

19th December 2010, 22:49

Wait a minute-- isn't there a transition period here, when the new society emerges from its womb in the old society and bears all the marks of its birth passage?

Isn't there some period where a DOTP is required to a) basically suppress the bourgeoise, fight a civil war, more or less; and b) finish the work of expropriation that the seizure of power by the new organs of workers democracy simply initiates and c) provide some rational allocation of resources until such time as productivity of labor has banished scarcity completely?

None of this implies "vanguard" "rigidity" "blind obedience" but it does amount to the imposition of determinations made by the proletariat over all of society; determinations essential to the proletariat being able to do away with itself as the proletariat.

robbo203

19th December 2010, 23:24

Well, if you think the self-employed are part of the working-class, then you need to go back and read Das Kapital, since one of the points developed their is that one of the key foundations of capitalist production is collective labour, labour by a number of workers in tandem. The self-employed as such definitely do not engage in collective labour. On the other hand there is the phenomenon of false self-employment, and such false self-employed people do engage in collective labour, but that's somewhat besides the point. .

I think Marx and Engels defined the working class as (to quote Engels) "that class of modern wage labourers who, having no means of production of their own, are reduced to selling their labour power in order to live (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm) . The great bulk of the self employed would definitely fall into this category. They may not sell their labour power directly to an employer but they sell their labour power nevertheless and even you have said that this makes them proletarian. I would say, however, that it is necessary but not sufficient grounds for calling someone a proletarian (see below)

Speaking personally I am actually a self emplyed gardener. All I own are a few tools - chainsaw, strimmer and various garden implements. I am 100% working class. The crucial point that Engels saying is making is that the working class do not own sufficient capital and are therefore are compelled to sell their labour power - not just that they sell their labour power . Most workers have some capital - perhaps some savings in bank or post office - but it is not enough to live on. They must work as I must work becuase there is no way I could even afford to take an employee to use by my pitiful collection of tools and still make a profit out of him or her

The point is that you envisage the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessarily the dicatorship of the proletariat over the capitalist class and not the dictatorship of the proletariat over the non-exploiting strata which it wins over to it's side throught various policies encouraging them to abandon their current mode of existence and integrate into the social production apparatus, the point is that this is one of the reasons which Marx gave for the dictatorship of the proletariat in opposition to the Bakuninist critique which you parrot, the point is that you haven't addressed this point. .

But this still doesnt get round the problem I posed at the start, does it? The existence of a proletariat must imply the eixtence of a a capitalist class. Why? Becuase if the proletariat is defined by its separation from , or non ownership of ,the means of production that means there must be some other class that owns these means of production. This is called the capitalist class. So the idea of dictorship of the proletatait must mean a non owning exploited class dictating to an owning and exploiting class which is absurd, The question of social production is ssentially irrelevant to this argument about class relations. That belonds to another argument altogether.

You continue to make the conceptual confusion that the proletariat exists in antagonistic relationship to a class of capitalists, rather than to capital itself. The proletariat does not dissapear by getting rid of the factory bosses, it dissapears by it's wage-labour ceasing to be a commodity on the marketplace, by the resolution of the contradiction within capitalism between social labour and private labour, between socialised production and individual appropriation, by the abolition of the market and commodity production..

But you cannot have capital without a capitalist class and you cannot have gnerealised wage labour with out a working class, I oerfectly agree with you that the proletariat "does not dissapear by getting rid of the factory bosses" but I would say the boss class itself would not disappear unless you get rid of wage labour itself. It would simply reappear in another form - for instance as a state capitalist class in the Soviet Union. Moreover if hypothetically you were to get rid of the boss class then you would ipso facto get of of the proletariat as well since what this means is that the people who work in industry are no longer proletarians they are no longer separated from the means of production but co-own it

And again, I do not advocate some mythical society of co-operative producers as the transition between capitalism and communism. My point with the example was to show that in such a situation the basic facets of capitalism would still exist despite the non-existence of any class of individual capitalists, that capitalism is not defined by the existence of such a class, but by the basic antagonism between the individual and the social, between private labour and social labour. That this contradictory character of labour under capitalism as both private and social is reflected in what forms one of the basic fact of capitalist production, that the social relations of the individuals within capitalist society become independent of them and stand over them as a force dominating them. Until the complete abolition of market relations it still makes sense to speak of the proletariat as a class and hence the dictatorship of this class...

This is what you said in response to my point about the absurdity of an exploited class dictating to an exploiting class....

The proletariat is defined not as the class which is subordinated to the bourgeoisie, but as the class whose labour-power is a commodity which is bought and sold on the market. This buying and selling can just as easily be performed by the workers' acting as their own collective capitalist in the form of a co-operative enterprise

The definite implication of this is that the dictatorship of the proletariat could take the form of workers acting as their own collective capitalist with a distinct capitalist class no longer in existence. My point is how then can the people who work in these cooperative enterprises be called proletarians if they are no longer separated from the means of production? To that you respond that they are still proletarians because they still sell thier labour power on the market. But to whom do they sell this labour power. To themselves you reply as their own collective capitalist. So what you are effectively saying is that they are exercising a dictatorship over themselves which simply makes no snese

Zanthorus

19th December 2010, 23:31

syndicat

20th December 2010, 00:07

Isn't there some period where a DOTP is required to a) basically suppress the bourgeoise, fight a civil war, more or less; and b) finish the work of expropriation that the seizure of power by the new organs of workers democracy simply initiates and c) provide some rational allocation of resources until such time as productivity of labor has banished scarcity completely?

i think many Marxists seem to think of this "transition" as a period where a "workers party" controls a state...in reality the leaders of this party as states are hierarchical structures, with administrators, experts, militiary officer corps, police, etc. the idea is that the capitalists still have ownership of the means of production for a time but "the workers" are...somehow...using this "state" to wrest away the means of production.

thus in the fall of 1917 Lenin assumed that the capitalists would continue for some time to own the means of production. the point to his "workers control" decree was for shop stewards committees and other in shop organizations to act as a "check" on management, to prevent capitalist sabotage during this "transition" period.

but this is entirely the wrong way to conceive of the "transition". the revolution has to be a process from below where the workers themselves directly seize control of the means of production, and workers in the old state, including military people, defy the old leaders. so the capitalists are eliminated as a class...that is, their class power is eliminated...as part of the very revolutionary transition itself, part of the process of creating the new institutions of working class power.

the idea that a state hanging in the air with workers still subordinate to the bosses is somehow a basis for creating socialism is a very top-down, "from above" way of conceiving of the transition.

Lyev

20th December 2010, 00:42

i think many Marxists seem to think of this "transition" as a period where a "workers party" controls a state...in reality the leaders of this party as states are hierarchical structures, with administrators, experts, militiary officer corps, police, etc. the idea is that the capitalists still have ownership of the means of production for a time but "the workers" are...somehow...using this "state" to wrest away the means of production.

thus in the fall of 1917 Lenin assumed that the capitalists would continue for some time to own the means of production. the point to his "workers control" decree was for shop stewards committees and other in shop organizations to act as a "check" on management, to prevent capitalist sabotage during this "transition" period.

but this is entirely the wrong way to conceive of the "transition". the revolution has to be a process from below where the workers themselves directly seize control of the means of production, and workers in the old state, including military people, defy the old leaders. so the capitalists are eliminated as a class...that is, their class power is eliminated...as part of the very revolutionary transition itself, part of the process of creating the new institutions of working class power.

the idea that a state hanging in the air with workers still subordinate to the bosses is somehow a basis for creating socialism is a very top-down, "from above" way of conceiving of the transition.Many Marxists also hasten to stress that Lenin's conception of a 'transitional period', of the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat, was somewhat flawed. I think this conception of the "lower stage of communism" - socialism in the Leninist sense - as a very distinct and separate political stage, a separate mode of production, lying between class society and communism, comes from a misreading of the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Lenin, in reading this text, conflates the terms "transition" and "transformation", it seems. In The State and Revolution, Lenin says that the "transition" from capitalist society to a communist one is "impossible without a 'political transition period'". This may seem slightly pedantic and merely semantic, but the distinction between transformation and transition is quite important here. Marx originally stated that, between capitalist society and communist society "there lies a period of revolutionary transformation" (emphasis mine). There is also another important point to make when discussing Marx's views of the dictatorship of the proletariat. He uses the word 'state' with two very different meanings. In the first instance, he can often use it to refer to the bourgeois state machinery opposed to civil society. On the other hand, the word can often be a sort of shorthand for when the organised proletariat have conquered political power. For example, this second definition is used in the Communist Manifesto when Marx says the "proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class".

syndicat

20th December 2010, 01:05

refer to the organised proletariat have conquered political power, for example this second definition is used in the Communist Manifesto when Marx says the "proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class".

what does "using its political supremacy" mean? also, centralizing all instrucments of production in the hands of the state -- a hierarchical administrative apparatus -- is going to empower that administrative elite. this is very different than conceiving of the workers themselves seizing the means of production and building directly their own organizations to run it.

S.Artesian

20th December 2010, 01:13

Pravda Soyuz

20th December 2010, 02:27

I would nationalize industry. This would prevent foreign capitalists from exploiting your nation. Cuba did this, and America was pissed.....:thumbup1:

Comrade_Stalin

20th December 2010, 05:24

I would nationalize industry. This would prevent foreign capitalists from exploiting your nation. Cuba did this, and America was pissed.....:thumbup1:

I would nationalize all the means of production, and give everone who wish for a job, a job. But that me.

Comrade_Stalin

20th December 2010, 05:26

But this still doesnt get round the problem I posed at the start, does it? The existence of a proletariat must imply the eixtence of a a capitalist class. Why? Becuase if the proletariat is defined by its separation from , or non ownership of ,the means of production that means there must be some other class that owns these means of production. This is called the capitalist class. So the idea of dictorship of the proletatait must mean a non owning exploited class dictating to an owning and exploiting class which is absurd, The question of social production is ssentially irrelevant to this argument about class relations. That belonds to another argument altogether.

Like I said before, your mind is already made up , and no matter what I say or someone else does, you will always view the "dictorship of the proletatait" as bad.

robbo203

20th December 2010, 07:17

Like I said before, your mind is already made up , and no matter what I say or someone else does, you will always view the "dictorship of the proletatait" as bad.

I dont think it is "bad", i just think it is illogical. Once the working class to cite Marx has won the "battle of democracy" and captured political power whats the point in continuing to be an exploited class? When we reach that point the outlook of workers will already be socialist. They are certainly not going to put up with allowing themselves to continue being exploited, are they now? . That means they will want to get rid of capitalism without any further ado. So there will be no proletariat to do the dictating and no capitalists to be dictated to. Thats logical!

robbo203

20th December 2010, 08:07

Again, you fail to comprehend the basic fact of capitalist production, the conflict between social and private labour. I reccomend you go back and read chapter three of Engels Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, where he details it pretty clearly. What the proletarians in co-operatives sell their labour-power to is not themselves as individuals, but the co-operative as a collective entity. The capitalist is the collective entity comprised by the workers' of the co-operative. Unless of course you think a society of co-operatives would be socialism, which would follow from your understanding of what the working-class is.

It is not a conflict between social labour and private labour that Engels is talking about. It is a conflict between social labour and private ownership or appropriation. I think you have misread Engels. He refers to incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation. Private labour only enters the picture insofar as private appropriation seems to have corresponded historically with private appropriation of the product but it is not with private labour as such that social labour is in conflict with but rather with the form of appropriation associated with private labour . The point is that this form of appropriation remains while private labour itself has steadily shrunk. This is where the real conflict lies - between private appropriation and social labour

On cooperatives I am not quite sure what your point is. Yes I get the idea that it is to the cooperative as a collectuive identity that workers sell their labour power to but insofar as they are part of this collective identity and share in ownership of it they must also be to an extent "capitalists" in the same way that capitalists remain capitalists in a joint stock company despite the stock be held jointly.

I dont equate cooperatives with socialism. Coperatives to me usually signify attempts by groups of workers within a capitalist environment to band togther to obtain a living by producing or selling commodities on the market without submitting to a boss class. I generally favour cooperatives but they dont amount to examples of "socialism"

Lyev

20th December 2010, 14:14

what does "using its political supremacy" mean? also, centralizing all instrucments of production in the hands of the state -- a hierarchical administrative apparatus -- is going to empower that administrative elite. this is very different than conceiving of the workers themselves seizing the means of production and building directly their own organizations to run it.Well, just a paragraph previous, Marx talks about this concept. I'll give the quote in full, with some little extra parts:
The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

[...]

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.From what I know, this is all tied into Marx's critique of Hegel, or his "critique of politics", where Marx develops his own radical conception of direct democracy. In other words, proletarian democracy. In writing about the Paris commune, and in works like The Civil War in France, this idea is discussed quite thoroughly. Instead of "deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people" (emphasis mine). In the same text, Marx discusses how the working class can superscede representative, bourgeois democracy:
The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.On the flip side, there is contradiction with class society - there is a divergence in interests between the "deputies and their electors". The latter simply elects, every four or five years, the former, who often have opposed class interests to their electors, to represent them in parliament on their behalf. "Society simply deputes elements of itself to become its political existence". Anyway, in short, I think what achieving political supremacy means, what "winning the battle for democracy" means, is that workers have developed to a point in their militancy and consciousness that they decide limited democracy in the political sphere, in parliament, election of corrupt careerist politicians that represent the interests of capital and private property, is contrary to their best interests. They make a clear decision to extend democracy into the economic sphere - into workplaces, factories, offices etc.; to overcome man's self-estrangement, his alienation from the means of production hitherto controlled by a privileged few. After winning the political battle for democracy, the next stage is social revolution.

And on the point of centralisation in the hands of the state, as I said in my previous post, in this context, the word 'state' does not mean what it usually means - an instrument of bourgeois, hierarchical rule. It means the proletariat organised as the ruling class, where classes, and therefore the state, cease to exist in the proper sense. This is where the working class uses general means of coercion to enforce its aims, to keep under control a hostile bourgeoisie. Sorry to quote long passages of Marx, but this is a useful polemic between Bakunin and Marx, concerning the nature of dictatorship of the proletariat, where it is quite clear that the latter does not stand for the Blanquist insurrection of a small political sect.
If there is a state [gosudarstvo], then there is unavoidably domination [gospodstvo], and consequently slavery. Domination without slavery, open or veiled, is unthinkable -- this is why we are enemies of the state.

What does it mean, the proletariat organized as ruling class?

It means that the proletariat, instead of struggling sectionally against the economically privileged class, has attained a sufficient strength and organization to employ general means of coercion in this struggle. It can however only use such economic means as abolish its own character as salariat, hence as class. With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared.

Will the entire proletariat perhaps stand at the head of the government?

In a trade union, for example, does the whole union form its executive committee? Will all division of labour in the factory, and the various functions that correspond to this, cease? And in Bakunin's constitution, will all 'from bottom to top' be 'at the top'? Then there will certainly be no one 'at the bottom'. Will all members of the commune simultaneously manage the interests of its territory? Then there will be no distinction between commune and territory.

The Germans number around forty million. Will for example all forty million be member of the government?

Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.And, yes, Marx stood for centralisation, but as Engels once remarked, "It seems to me that the phrases 'authority' and centralization are much abused." In other words, the word 'centralisation' carries with often very authoritarian connotations, especially for anarchists. But in this context I think centralisation of the means of production refers to society - where the rule of the bourgeoisie has been done away with - united in a common plan. A common assocation of "free and equal producers". Marxists advocate democracy and decision-making from below.

Zanthorus

20th December 2010, 17:19

He refers to incompatibility of socialized production with capitalistic appropriation.

Private, capitalistic appropriation? You mean that the labour process is carried on for the account of private individuals or entities? You mean precisely that labour is private labour? I've read Engels thanks, he says exactly what I said he says. All you've revealed is your inability to understand what is meant but private labour. Whatever the case, the point I was making was that the conflict between individuals and their social relations is typified by the conflict between the individual workers of the co-operative and the co-operative as collective capitalist, that these co-operatives are quite unambiguously capitalist enterprises, that therefore overthrowing capitalism is not just a matter of getting rid of a class of individuals but of capital itself, whose production is engendered by the existence of generalised commodity production. My point is essentially the same point that Marx made in the Paris Manuscripts that "even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist." My point is that you fail to comprehend this point, and that your failure to comprehend it constitutes the source of your confusion over the alleged 'illogicality' of the political rule of the working-class.

On cooperatives I am not quite sure what your point is.

My point is that the specific character of capitalism is not the existence of an identifiable class of capitalists, but the existence of generalised commodity production and hence capital, which the capitalists, wether individual or collective, merely act as representatives of. From this it follows that it is not just a matter of overthrowing class but of abolishing the market and commodity production, which cannot be simply be 'done' in the blink of an eye because the majority wants it to. All your confusion stems from comprehending the basic fact that capitalism is at root generalised commodity production, and the end of capitalism is synonymous with the end of commodity production.

syndicat

20th December 2010, 18:04

L:

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

[...]

We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

again, the problem is that Marx is talking about controlling a state. not about workers taking over and directly running industry.

From what I know, this is all tied into Marx's critique of Hegel, or his "critique of politics", where Marx develops his own radical conception of direct democracy.

in fact Marx never talks about direct democracy.

universal suffrage was to serve the people

you emphasize this as if you think this refers to direct democracy. it does not. we have universal suffrage in the USA now. we don't have direct democracy.

And on the point of centralisation in the hands of the state, as I said in my previous post, in this context, the word 'state' does not mean what it usually means - an instrument of bourgeois, hierarchical rule. It means the proletariat organised as the ruling class, where classes, and therefore the state, cease to exist in the proper sense. This is where the working class uses general means of coercion to enforce its aims, to keep under control a hostile bourgeoisie.

again, the picture that comes from this is of a state, controlled by a "workers party", in a situation where the capitalists still own the means of production, and thus "need to be kept under control." this is what Lenin conceived of in the fall of 1917. he believed the capitalists would continue in their ownership of the means of production for some time, and worker organizations were needed to "check" management.

this can only lead to power being concentrated in a bureaucratic elite apart from the workers. the revolutionary process itself, to be a process of liberation from class subordination and exploitation, must involve the workers directly seizing all the power to run the places where they work, expropriating the capitalists and removing the managerial hierarchy from power...not some ridiculous idea of "checking" the capitalists or managers.

direct democracy means the face to face democracy of assemblies....in neighborhoods, in workplaces. Marxists in the past never emphasized this.

Zanthorus

20th December 2010, 18:46

What syndicat's argument basically amounts to is the following - first of all take a definition of the state which is not held by Marx, second of all, impute this definition to every use of the word 'state' by Marx, thirdly use this projection to discredit Marx. It appears that little has changed since the days of Bakunin. Speaking of whom:

Abolition of classes, ranks, and privileges; absolute equality of political rights for all men and women; universal suffrage.

[...]

Immediate direct election of all judicial and civil functionaries as well as representatives (national, provincial, and communal delegates) by the universal suffrage of both sexes.

[...]

The provincial parliament will ratify or reject all policies and measures of the provincial administration which will, of course, be elected by universal suffrage.- Bakunin, Revolutionary Catechism

Looks like Marx wasn't the only one talking about universal suffrage.

syndicat

20th December 2010, 19:21

first of all take a definition of the state which is not held by Marx, second of all, impute this definition to every use of the word 'state' by Marx, thirdly use this projection to discredit Marx. It appears that little has changed since the days of Bakunin.

in other words you're not able to refute my contention that Marx and orthodox Marxist parties never advocated direct, face-to-face democracy of assemblies as essential to working class power. This was itself one of the key political differences between anarcho-syndicalism and orthodox Marxism. The emphasis on direct, participatory democracy was one of the key contributions of the libertarian socialist left.

and, note, I wasn't arguing against "universal suffrage" so your Bakunin quote is irrelevant. And in any case I don't define my politics as "Bakuninism".

Thirsty Crow

20th December 2010, 20:18

in fact Marx never talks about direct democracy.

How do you reconcile this opinion with the part of Marx-Bakunin polemic where Marx says the following:

Certainly! Since the whole thing begins with the self-government of the commune.

Do you think that "self-government of the commune" amounts to something different than "direct democracy"? Or do you think that "self-government" would be logically subordinated to the higher bodies controlled by the Party?

Or do you think maybe, to take one of your formulations quite literally, that not enough emphasis is put on this issue, which leaves room for ambiguities and potential legitimation of practices which have nothing to do with the practice of direct proletarian power over society and production?

It seems to me that these three are the only logical possibilities.

syndicat

20th December 2010, 20:56

Do you think that "self-government of the commune" amounts to something different than "direct democracy"? Or do you think that "self-government" would be logically subordinated to the higher bodies controlled by the Party?

you're stretching. the present elective regime in the USA is often said to be a form of "self-government." In other words, if the voters elect representatives, this can be called "self-government." so, no, it does not imply direct democracy. in other words, the phrase "self-government" is consistent with the existence of a state. it's a common feature of liberal discourse.

what i was talking about, to repeat, is the face-to-face democracy of assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods so workers and residents directly participate in making the rules & decisions themselves.

in the Paris uprising in 1871, there was a revival of the neighborhood "section" assemblies but Marx doesn't talk about this in "The Civil War in France." these sectional assemblies were the crucial venue for the lower class uprisings and assertion in the French revolution of 1789-94, and they re-appeared in the 1871 uprising.

Zanthorus

20th December 2010, 21:18

and, note, I wasn't arguing against "universal suffrage" so your Bakunin quote is irrelevant.

I don't think it is, since the measures Bakunin proposes are broadly similar to those advocated by Marx at this time. The point about election of judicial and civil functionaries by universal suffrage is the same point brought out by Marx in The Civil War in France, for example, or in his critique of the civil service bureaucracy in A Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, the latter of which was written 1843 no less. You can say that in retrospect Marx's vision was inadequate, but you can't really point to any alternatives being proposed at the time along the same lines as what you advocate, since Bakunin advocated broadly the same thing. And in fact Marx was ahead of Bakunin in this respect.

I do think there is a somewhat unspoken assumption here that face-to-face direct democracy by assemblies is a desirable method of organising society. You criticise the Bolsheviks for re-introducing specialists into industry, but at the time Russia was in economic collapse and the existing system of workers' control of industry was making things worse. I do think there is a real problem of specialisation, since there are clearly tasks in society which require specialist knowledge and training, and that criticising the specialists as a 'bureaucratic class' and advocating control of workplaces requiring such knowledge directly by workers is just skipping over the problem. Similar problems are extant in fields like political administration or the armed forces. I do think there is something to be said for elected and recallable representatives as opposed to direct democracy, and that you are being highly dogmatic in asserting your own syndicalist vision as the only possible version of the self-emancipation of the working-class.

Thirsty Crow

20th December 2010, 21:28

I do think there is a real problem of specialisation, since there are clearly tasks in society which require specialist knowledge and training, and that criticising the specialists as a 'bureaucratic class' and advocating control of workplaces requiring such knowledge directly by workers is just skipping over the problem.
Theoretically, shouldn't this situation be amenable to amelioration by the measure of comprehensive education of all those willing to acquire such skills?

Zanthorus

20th December 2010, 22:05

Theoretically, shouldn't this situation be amenable to amelioration by the measure of comprehensive education of all those willing to acquire such skills?

Even if we assume that this is a practical solution, the problem still remains that unless you manage to implement this measure (Which, concretely, would require a good deal of people going off to learn things which are absolutely irrelevant to the jobs they want to do) prior to the working-class taking political-administrative power, then the problem of how to operate without specialists is going to be one which arises in any immediately post-revolutionary situation. This is the problem which the Bolsheviks stumbled across, that for the working-class to directly control industry requires that the workers have the same knowledge as the specialists, but precisely because of their position as workers they are denied access to specialist training: "The misfortune of the working class lies in the fact, that it has always been in the position of an oppressed class. This fact has reflected itself everywhere – not only, in its educational level but also in the fact that it has not the experience and usage in administration that the ruling class possesses and transmits through its schools, universities, and the like. Nothing of all this does the working class possess, all this it must attain. Once it has come into power, it must look upon the old apparatus of state as an apparatus of class oppression. But at the same time it must draw out of this apparatus all the valuable specialized elements which it needs for technical work, put them into the proper places, and use these elements to heighten its proletarian class-power. This, Comrades, is the task that confronts us in all its vastness." (Trotsky, Work Discipline and Order to Save the Socialist Soviet Republic)

I should point out that I don't have any definite opinion on this subject, but from what I've read about the Russian revolution it was a serious problem and not just a matter of the Bolsheviks being representatives of the 'bureaucratic class', maybe reading up on the history of the Spanish Civil War will give some insights into the solution.

Die Neue Zeit

21st December 2010, 00:40

The more militant rhetoric against "workers control" was made by those representing the rising coordinator class, while those in the center probably weren't such representatives.

I do think there is something to be said for elected and recallable representatives as opposed to direct democracy

Why elect?

syndicat

21st December 2010, 02:13

I do think there is something to be said for elected and recallable representatives as opposed to direct democracy, and that you are being highly dogmatic in asserting your own syndicalist vision as the only possible version of the self-emancipation of the working-class.

this is the proverbial pot calling the kettle black, as far as dogmatism is concerned. you are nothing if not a dogmatist.

and the direct power of the working class in production must mean exactly that, not power of a bureaucratic layer of managers and "professionals". elected or not. the example of both Yugoslav fake "self-management" and Mondragon cooperaties (which at least do have annual assemblies) indicates the limits of election...in both cases you have domination of the bureaucratic class and subordination of workers.

and your constant harping about Bakunin ignores the fact that the libertarian socialist left does define its politics in reference to Bakunin. people are not constantly going back to the Old Man the way Marxists do with Marx.

S.Artesian

21st December 2010, 02:40

and your constant harping about Bakunin ignores the fact that the libertarian socialist left does define its politics in reference to Bakunin. people are not constantly going back to the Old Man the way Marxists do with Marx.

That might just be because had a better grasp of the dynamics, conflicts, reproduction of capital and could explain how and why capital became the barrier to its own accumulation.

syndicat

21st December 2010, 02:42

That might just be because had a better grasp of the dynamics, conflicts, reproduction of capital and could explain how and why capital became the barrier to its own accumulation.

but Bakunin admitted that much himself. he was an activist, not a theorist. both marxists and anarchists have had a tendency to blow the differences between Bakunin and Marx out of proportion. but theory has to evolve in reaction to the test of experience. always looking back to the 19th century Holy Writ is a recipe for dogmatism and sterility.

S.Artesian

21st December 2010, 02:49

but Bakunin admitted that much himself. he was an activist, not a theorist. both marxists and anarchists have had a tendency to blow the differences between Bakunin and Marx out of proportion. but theory has to evolve in reaction to the test of experience. always looking back to the 19th century Holy Writ is a recipe for dogmatism and sterility.

You assume what you oppose-- that Marx's analysis of capital is [1] tainted, diminished, obsolete by its age [2] Marxists regard Marx's work as a Holy Writ rather than both the most penetrating, revealing critique of capital and illumination of the immanent force for its abolition.

Citing Marx is not a bad thing, you know, when it comes to trying to sort through how accumulation manifests itself.

syndicat

21st December 2010, 03:44

I'm not opposed to studying Marx. that's what I did when I was learning about socialism and the critique of capitalism. i agree with Marx on a variety of things, but also disagree with orthodox Marxist organizations on a number of things. But i think one needs critical thinking to sort through these ideas and decide which is of value in terms of understanding and explaining. Also, Marx's language is obsolete. What we need is the ability to talk about these ideas in contemporary language, in the conversational language that people use. the world has changed a great deal since the Old Man was alive.

Thirsty Crow

21st December 2010, 10:16

you're stretching. the present elective regime in the USA is often said to be a form of "self-government." In other words, if the voters elect representatives, this can be called "self-government." so, no, it does not imply direct democracy. in other words, the phrase "self-government" is consistent with the existence of a state. it's a common feature of liberal discourse.I think you are missing the point that there is considerable difference between liberalism and liberalism. In other words, I wouldn't say that such reference is a universal common feature of liberal discourse. But that is not so important.

What is important is the conditions under which the "representatives" work. As far as I can recall, Marx did in fact commend the base controlling its "representatives" (the right of immediate recall) which also presupposes a general political activity at this level, which could easily take the form of base, "face-to-face" assemblies.

what i was talking about, to repeat, is the face-to-face democracy of assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods so workers and residents directly participate in making the rules & decisions themselves.I do not understand wyh do you so anthitetically oppose the function of representatives, or we could even consider them delegate, and the base assemblies. I think that there would be considerable practical difficulties in relying solely on the latter, but its functioning (base assemblies') is IMO crucial in exercising ultimate control over public decision making process.

In oher words, I seriously doubt that it would be necessary or practical to convene in a large public hall every week in order to discuss certain matters.

in the Paris uprising in 1871, there was a revival of the neighborhood "section" assemblies but Marx doesn't talk about this in "The Civil War in France." these sectional assemblies were the crucial venue for the lower class uprisings and assertion in the French revolution of 1789-94, and they re-appeared in the 1871 uprising.
Noted.
However, I do have a problem with persistent insistence on the inherently "statist" character of Marx's concrete politics. First of all, I do not think the evidence is conclusive. It is highly problematic and lacking in some crucial aspects. For example, your argument that somehow he is covertly employing rhetorical devices pertinent to the liberal discourse seems...very problematic. I cannot even imagine what kind of process of proving this would take.
Furthermore, I can sense an implicit danger of playing into the hands of conservatives who argue that from the very beginning the communist/socialist movement had an aim of creating a formation such as USSR.

But that's a wholly dofferent ball game.

Tavarisch_Mike

21st December 2010, 14:08

I think that the workers/neighborhood councils would be the base and the actual decission makers, frome there they will form communes which frome there will form the workers state (im just describing it very roughly and simpel now).
For decissions that requires a higher instance, representatives will be elected. Here i think there is a problem betwen the de-centralization and centralization, the thing with a workers state is that it should be more de-centralized giving the power to the people, however when it comes to sharing the resources some sort of central planing is necessary to make sure that evry commune gets theire equal share, same goes for the workers militia and peoples red army. Back to the representatives, that they have been elected doesnt mean that they are in charge as soon someone neglect theire duty theire mandate can been taken back, also some sort of routatin system would be good to make sure corruption start to evolve or that some one will make 'carreer'.

This is good basics for a workers state imo, but we have to remeber that there is no "packet" that will fit all states regarding theire circumstances and that when they are carried out thats not the end they will continue to develope.

syndicat

21st December 2010, 17:47

I do not understand wyh do you so anthitetically oppose the function of representatives, or we could even consider them delegate, and the base assemblies. I think that there would be considerable practical difficulties in relying solely on the latter, but its functioning (base assemblies') is IMO crucial in exercising ultimate control over public decision making process.

I didn't say we have to rely solely on base assemblies. What I am arguing for is that there need to be base assemblies, and these need to be not merely nominal but a real site of participation and decision-making by the base, in workplaces and assemblies. the working class is not empowered unless it has some significant sphere of say where it gets to call the shots.

Also, the assemblies are critical for controlling delegates. This is part of what makes the difference between "delegates" and "representatives"...and thus between a non-state form of governance and a state.

And Marx and traditional Marxist organizations never placed any emphasis on direct participation by the rank and file in making the decisions via assemblies. Instead they tended to be fixated on a party running a state. I believe this is what Marx meant by the working class "winning the battle of democracy."

Thirsty Crow

21st December 2010, 19:49

I didn't say we have to rely solely on base assemblies. What I am arguing for is that there need to be base assemblies, and these need to be not merely nominal but a real site of participation and decision-making by the base, in workplaces and assemblies. the working class is not empowered unless it has some significant sphere of say where it gets to call the shots.

Also, the assemblies are critical for controlling delegates. This is part of what makes the difference between "delegates" and "representatives"...and thus between a non-state form of governance and a state.

And Marx and traditional Marxist organizations never placed any emphasis on direct participation by the rank and file in making the decisions via assemblies. Instead they tended to be fixated on a party running a state. I believe this is what Marx meant by the working class "winning the battle of democracy."

The first two paragraphs are something I agree with wholeheartedly.
The last one is more dubious, in the sense that I do not possess enough information to make an informed decision over such a sensitive issue. I also suspect that your view may be biased, but once again - I cannot confirm any of this, so it remains on the level of doubt and slight suspicion.

syndicat

22nd December 2010, 18:27

We should go back to the original question: "How would it be run?" There's no detailed plan drawn up by Marx on how it would be run. We know, and Marx is quite clear, on what it has to accomplish-- but the actual mediation, the how?-- Marx was explicit in not wanting to speculate on that.

And we don't have to speculate on that. Workers' revolts have show us how things will be run with the organization of councils in and around the workplace; in around districts and neighborhoods [raion soviets in Russia, FEJUVE in El Alto, Bolivia]; the cordones industriales in Chile.

How would it be run? By the workers. After that, I'm happy to say I don't know, but finding out is going to be half the fun, mistakes and all. it's also a way for people to come to see the illegitimacy and injustice of capitalist/statist society.

I know this was Marx's view and the traditional view among Marxists. And I think it is badly mistaken. If there has not been a discussion about the alternative broadlly within the working class, then people will not have learned about the various pitfalls and the various arguments pro and con, and they will be more easily snowed by leaders who have spent the time working out their own ideas. this idea also fits in with a vanguardist view that these sorts of decisions are for a vanguard party to make.

I think it is necessary to put forward, to argue for, workers assemblies and neighborhood assemblies, and direct worker management of production, workers taking over management of production in a revolution, so that these ideas have broad support in the working class. the idea is to encourage a debate, to encourage people to have ideas about a different way of organizing society.

also, to the extent people have a clear enough idea of the alternative to know that it is workable, this will tend to stregthen their opposition to capitalism.

S.Artesian

22nd December 2010, 19:42

I know this was Marx's view and the traditional view among Marxists. And I think it is badly mistaken. If there has not been a discussion about the alternative broadlly within the working class, then people will not have learned about the various pitfalls and the various arguments pro and con, and they will be more easily snowed by leaders who have spent the time working out their own ideas. this idea also fits in with a vanguardist view that these sorts of decisions are for a vanguard party to make.

I think it is necessary to put forward, to argue for, workers assemblies and neighborhood assemblies, and direct worker management of production, workers taking over management of production in a revolution, so that these ideas have broad support in the working class. the idea is to encourage a debate, to encourage people to have ideas about a different way of organizing society.

also, to the extent people have a clear enough idea of the alternative to know that it is workable, this will tend to stregthen their opposition to capitalism.

Nothing I've said opposes that discussion-- and I indicated that such assemblies will be established in the course of the struggle. All I'm saying is I don't know how it will be run

I think the discussion is fine. Abstracted from the assemblies themselves, however it can become an exercise

syndicat

22nd December 2010, 21:13

Nothing I've said opposes that discussion-- and I indicated that such assemblies will be established in the course of the struggle. All I'm saying is I don't know how it will be run

I think the discussion is fine. Abstracted from the assemblies themselves, however it can become an exercise

not sure what your last sentence means.

it's true we can't predict what will happen exactly. this will depend upon the actual course of debates and struggles and movement development, the issues around which struggle gets fought, and the particular political dynamic. all of which is quite contingent.

that said, i'm not entirely sure what you mean by "I don't know how it will be run." do you mean we can't predict or work out in advance the exact details? or that we just can't predict the course of events? i would say "yes" to both of these questions.

S.Artesian

22nd December 2010, 23:14

not sure what your last sentence means.

it's true we can't predict what will happen exactly. this will depend upon the actual course of debates and struggles and movement development, the issues around which struggle gets fought, and the particular political dynamic. all of which is quite contingent.

that said, i'm not entirely sure what you mean by "I don't know how it will be run." do you mean we can't predict or work out in advance the exact details? or that we just can't predict the course of events? i would say "yes" to both of these questions.

Yes to both questions.

Pravda Soyuz

18th January 2011, 21:47

nationalize? Hell yeah!

ExUnoDisceOmnes

18th January 2011, 22:06

On the issue of dictatorship of the proletariat... I think that the concept is very similar to the concept behind the withering away of the state.

First, let's quickly look at the withering away of the state. Engels wrote:

The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight.Essentially, we see that the state withers away because it's purpose for existing no longer exists.

The dictatorship of the proletariat does something very similar and is interwoven with the withering away of the state. Yes, the dictatorship of the proletariat exists within capitalism, but at the same time it is the reason why capitalism falls away. When the majority takes control and makes it so that it can no longer be exploited by the minority, what happens to the motive of the minority to remain the minority? IT CEASES TO EXIST. With this removal of motive and distinguishing attribute, the minority joins the rest of the population, removing the dominant social class. Yes, it reverses the system so that the minority is now exploited, but by doing this it abolishes the minority. Social class is abolished. No one is being exploited at all.

Yes, you may question the validity of the dictatorship of the proletariat. I agree that it is merely another form of capitalism. But by and through it's existence, it abolishes those distinguishing factors of capitalism, destroying the system from the bottom up. That is why I support the dictatorship of the proletariat. It facilitates the abolition of those attributes of capitalism that we all abhor, and in doing so is an essential facet of revolution, changing the entire social and economic structure of capitalism and moving it towards socialism.