Lenin versus Marx on the State

[robbo203]

May 1970 Socialist Standard http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/articles/

MANY PEOPLE assume that Marx believed the working class would only be able to
come to power by smashing the State in a violent uprising. They do not realise
that this was Lenin's view and one which tried to pass off as Marx's in his
dishonest pamphlet The State and Revolution. [1]

Marx's theory of the State is quite clear. When the early communist communities
under which mankind originally lived broke up into class societies, a new social
institution to protect the interests of the dominant class was needed. This
institution was the State, which is essentially an armed centre of social
control. The class that controls the State is thereby able to control also
society, in the end by force of arms ; it is the ruling class. In the course of
history the State has been controlled by various classes — Ancient slaveowners,
feudal barons and, now, modern capitalists. Today's subject class, the workers,
can only achieve its freedom by itself winning control of the State and using it
to abolish class society by establishing the common ownership and democratic
control of the means of production. With the end of classes the need for a
State, as the special social organ of coercion, also disappears. The classless
society of Socialism has no State, but simply a democratic administrative centre
for settling social affairs.

Throughout his political life Marx insisted that the working class must capture
the State before trying to establish Socialism and that Socialism would be a
society without a State.

In the early days Marx expected that the workers would only be able to win power
in a violent insurrection. In the 1840's this was not an unreasonable
proposition. Universal suffrage existed hardly anywhere and the insurrection —
barricades, street-fighting, the seizure of public buildings — was a method used
even by capitalist politicians. Marx later realised that universal suffrage was
an alternative method the workers might be able to use in their struggle to win
State power. In 1872 in a speech at the Hague, where the congress of the First
International was being held, Marx commented that he thought the workers might
be able to achieve power peacefully in America, Britain and perhaps Holland [2]
— countries where they made up a majority of the voters. In 1880 a French
Workers' Party was founded. Its manifesto had been drafted in Marx's study and
spoke of turning universal suffrage from a fraud into "an agent of emancipation"
[3]. Engels in his Introduction to Marx's Class Struggles in France [4] (an
account of French politics from 1848 to 1850) explains how he and Marx came to
regard the insurrection behind barricades as an obsolete weapon for the working
class and goes on to show how universal suffrage could be much more effective.

Marx, then, left open the question of how the working class would win State
power and did not rule out the possibility of their winning control of the State
by peaceful means.

As to what the working class should do with the State once they had won control
of it, Marx always insisted that they should immediately establish a democratic
republic. After the Paris Commune of 1871 he declared that the workers would
have to make other, more radical changes in the structure of the State before
they could use it to establish Socialism.

The Paris Commune was an ultra-democratic regime set up by patriotic elements
after France's defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. After the French Revolution
Napoleon had built up a vast bureaucratic and administratively centralised State
machine in France. This had remained intact throughout the 19th century despite
the insurrections of 1830 and 1848. Only one regime — the Paris Commune— had
tried to replace it. This attempt greatly impressed Marx and led him to argue
that the workers, once they had won State power, should immediately go on to
break up this kind of bureaucratic State apparatus that had grown up too in many
other European countries.

In his private letters and notes Marx sometimes referred to the period during
which the workers would be using State power to establish Socialism as "the
dictatorship of the proletariat". This has often been misunderstood to mean that
he advocated dictatorship in the sense this word is generally understood today.
In fact, in Marx's day, the word meant little more than "government" and, as we
saw, Marx advocated that while under the control of the working class (or
"proletariat") the State should be made democratic. [5]

Marx views can be summarised:

1. The working class must first, either peacefully or violently, win control of
the State.
2. Then they must make it completely democratic, and,
3. Use it to dispossess the capitalists and establish the common ownership and
democratic control of the means of production.
4. This done, there would no longer be any need for the State, which
consequently would cease to exist in Socialism.

Marx's views were distorted in two opposing ways. First, by some Social
Democrats who made him stand for a gradual, peaceful transition to Socialism by
means of social reform measures passed by parliament. Secondly, by Lenin.

When Lenin returned to Russia in April 1917 after the overthrow of the Tsar he
began to advocate that his party, the Bolsheviks, should aim to seize power in
the near future. He knew that they could only do this in a violent uprising.
Forced into hiding in August and September he wrote this pamplet The State and
Revolution in which he distorted Marx's views so as to justify in Marxist terms
the Bolsheviks' planned insurrection.

Lenin's basic distortion is to take Marx's statements about the need to break up
Napoleon's bureaucratic State machine after the workers had won power and to
argue that he was referring to the State generally. This made Marx appear to say
that the State should be smashed by the working class before they could win, or
while they were winning power.

Lenin quotes Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte and emphasises a
passage which reads "All revolutions perfected this machine instead of smashing
it" (our emphasis), clearly a reference to a particular State apparatus; in this
case the centralised French State. But see what Lenin makes Marx say:


. . . all the revolutions which have occurred up to now perfected the state
machine, whereas it must be broken, smashed, (p. 45, our emphasis).


Another example occurs in Chapter III where Lenin quotes from one of Marx's
letters (to Kugelmann, 12 April 1871). In it Marx is saying that the passage
from The Eighteenth Brumaire just discussed means that it was essential for
"every real people's revolution on the Continent" not "to transfer the
bureaucratic-military machine from one hand to another, but to smash it".
Lenin inserts the word "state" into Marx's "the bureaucratic-military machine"
and uses the phrase "bureaucratic-military state machine" in the rest of the
Chapter as if this is what Marx had written.

Again, Lenin quotes Marx's statement that "the working class cannot simply lay
hold of the ready-made machinery and wield it for its own purposes" and says:


Marx's idea is that the working class must break up, smash the 'ready-made
state machinery', and not confine Itself merely to laying hold of it (p. 59).


Taken quite literally, this is true. Marx did advocate that parts of the old
State should be broken up. The real question, however, is when he advocated this
should be done: Was it before or after the working class had won State power?

Lenin argues that Marx meant "before". Engels, on the other hand, made it quite
clear that Marx meant "after". Engels was specifically asked about this passage
from Marx and replied:


It is simply a question of showing that the victorious proletariat must
first refashion the old bureaucratic, administratively centralised state power
before it can use it for its own purposes (Letter to Bernstein, 1 Jan. 1884 our
emphasis) [6]


In fact, Lenin later (Chapter IV) himself quotes 'passages from Engels'
Introduction to Marx Civil War in France which show that Marx was talking about
what the workers should do after, rather than before, they had won power:


From the very outset the Commune was compelled to recognise that the working
class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old state machine;
that . . . this working class must ... do away with all the old repressive
machinery previously used against it itself ... (p. 123, our emphasis).


and,



... the state is nothing but a machine for the suppression of one class by
another . . . and at best an evil inherited by the proletariat after its
victorious struggle for class supremacy, whose worst sides the victorious
proletariat, just like the Commune, cannot avoid having to lop off at once as
much as possible ... (p. 127, our emphasis).


Oddly enough, in Chapter VI Lenin, on three occasions, formulates Marx's views
so as to mean that the bureaucratic-military parts of the State must be smashed
after the workers have won power [7]. This is all the more confusing in that
only a few pages away Lenin had accused Kautsky of admitting "the possibility of
power being seized without destroying the state machine" (p. 171, our emphasis).
Lenin confused the two separate issues of breaking up the old bureaucratic state
machine and how the working class could come to win control of that machine. It
suggests that Lenin, when he makes statements like:


Marx meant that the working class must smash, break, shatter . . . the whole
state machine (p. 169).


and,


From 1852 to 1891, for forty years, Marx and Engels taught the proletariat
that it must smash the state machine (p. 170).



he means his readers to think Marx's view to be that the State must be smashed
by the working class while seizing power. This would mean that Marx thought a
peaceful capture of State power impossible. Quite apart from Engels' clear
explanation, the fact that Marx did not rule out this possibility is in itself
sufficient to disprove Lenin's distortion. Marx would have seen no contradiction
between the working class winning power peacefully and then later smashing the
bureaucratic-military machine.

There are a number of other distortions in Lenin's pamphlet which we will
briefly record.

In that part of Anti-Duhring later published as Socialism, Utopian and
Scientific, Engels in the course of describing the establishment of Socialism
wrote:


The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production in
the first instance into state property. But in doing this, it ... abolishes . .
. the state as state.


Despite the fact that Engels goes on to explain this (that the State, as a means
of class oppression, becomes unnecessary when it has become the representative
of the whole community as it would after thus ending class property), Lenin
makes the absurd claim that "Engels speaks here of the proletarian revolution
'abolishing' the bourgeois state . . ." (p. 28)

Lenin describes as "this panegyric on violent revolution" (p. 33) another
passage from Anti-Duhring where Engels writes about the role of "force" in
history. Here Lenin disguises the fact that Marx and Engels understood by
"force" not necessarily and exclusively "violent insurrection" but also the mere
exercise of State power, whether accompanied by violence or not.

Lenin quotes (p. 96) from an article in an Italian journal without making it
clear that the passage he reproduces is not really Marx's own words, but Marx's
summary in heavily sarcastic terms of the arguments that might be used to refute
a pacifist anarchist [8].

Again, Lenin quotes (p. 113) a passage from Engels' criticism of the German
Social Democrats' 1891 programme where he says that "the democratic republic ...
is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat", (our
emphasis). This did not fit in with Lenin's views so he argues that Engels only
meant that the democratic republic was "the nearest approach to the dictatorship
of the proletariat" (our emphasis).

Finally, in Chapter V Lenin makes a false distinction between Socialism and
Communism in a bid to prove that, according to Marx, the State would not finally
disappear till "Communism" and so would still exist under "Socialism". Marx and
Engels in fact made no distinction between Socialism and Communism ; they were
terms they used interchangeably to refer to future classless, Stateless society
based on social or common ownership [9].

Lenin's The State and Revolution is not, as it claims, a re-statement of Marx's
theory of the State but a gross distortion of it.

A.L.B. Socialist Standard April 1970

notes
[1]. All references in this article are to the Foreign Languages Publishing
House, Moscow, edition. Where Lenin quotes Marx or Engels these too are given as
in this edition.
[2]. Karl Marx and the British Labour Movement, by Henry Collins and Chimen
Abramsky (1965), p.265.
[3]. Karl Marx Textes, ed. Jean Kanapa, Editias Socialis (Paris), pp. 486-7.
[4]. Marx Engels Selected Works Vol. I, FLPM. pp. 118-139.
[5]. Marx .and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, by Hal Draper, New Politics
Vol. I, No. 4. 1962.
[6]. Marx Engels Selected Correspondence, FLPM, p. 440.
[7]. For instance (our emphasis): "The workers, having conquered political
power, will smash the old bureaucratic apparatus." (p. 175) and Marxist
"recognise that after the proletariat has
conquered political power it must utterly destroy the old state machine . . ."
(p. 180) The third instance is on p. 181.
[8]. Draper, p. 101.
[9]. Lenin twists Marxism, Socialist Standard September 1969

[Lyev]

We've had discussions on this sort of topic before, but, in Lenin's defence, I think it important to bear in mind that he would not have had such important works as The Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right or Critical Notes on "The King of Prussia and Social Reform" when writing the State and Revolution. These texts hold many important ideas that help us gain a fuller, more comprehensive understanding of Marx's conception of the bourgeois state. Some of the earlier works of Marx - of which these are an example - were published posthumously in the '30s. Not that I am totally uncritical of Lenin, but maybe you should consider that factor before claiming he "twist[ed]" Marxism.

[ComradeOm]

Lenin's The State and Revolution is not, as it claims, a re-statement of Marx's theory of the State but a gross distortion of itHeretic! Next thing you'll be claiming that its homoiousios, not homoousios (http://www.xefer.com/2002/10/iota) :mad:

[TC]

Asking what Marx's view of the state was is a little like asking what the Bible's view of sex is - he wrote so much for so many different audiences over such a long span of time that you can cherry pick quotations and sources (which, I might add, the article did an especially poor job of as it is desperately under-sourced, uses few sources, quotes them rarely, and more or less appears to make things up as it goes along, as well as avoiding all of Marx's principle writings - and the methodology is poor as it jumps between early marx and late marx after having trying to validate late marx as canonical) to support multiple conflicting conclusions.

Moreover the very definition of the word "state" is debatable and varies.

[Tower of Bebel]

The context of Russia 1917 must be taken into account. Most of the pamphlet is a polemic against socialists who'd give support to the bourgeoisie rather than take state power themselves. His proposal is to smash bourgeois institutions and let the Soviets take power. Of course this is wrong in the absolute sense as the soviets were not able to take up state power as a whole. Eventually the party substitued its rule for that of the class. But in context of the ongoing struggle between revolution and reaction Lenin was quite right. The soviets had to get rid of the bourgeoisie and their respective means of oppression.

The democratic republic is not simply a form of state. It stands for a set of principles, the genuine content of proletarian state rule. In practice these principle could take up any form. Yet it's a myth to think that everywhere and everytime the proletariat will rule under the same form. The soviet system for example is a specific form born out of specific circumstances (contradictions). Moreover, you cannot understand the soviet system of 1917 without the policies stemming from the SRs and Mensheviks that kept it alive, or the soviets of 1918 without the influence of Bolshevik policies.

[mykittyhasaboner]

The WSM and the SPGB are the worst kind of "socialists". There like the Mensheviks with an outstanding century of historical hindsight, yet still cling to positions which were long ago demolished. These people could use a nice long group reading of Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[Tower of Bebel]

Btw, the question of before and after is formulated in some sort of absolute of defined sense, but you cannot simply set a deadline that would determine how much time the state has got left.

[robbo203]

The WSM and the SPGB are the worst kind of "socialists". There like the Mensheviks with an outstanding century of historical hindsight, yet still cling to positions which were long ago demolished. These people could use a nice long group reading of Critique of the Gotha Programme.


Im not a member of the WSM but as a critique this is frankly pathetic. What "positions" do they hold which were long ago "demolished"? The very vagueness of your charges suggests an unfamilarity with the subject you are talking about. I have own criticisms of the WSM but, by and large, I would say they have been far more right than they have been wrong. You should read Dave Perrin's excellent book on the SPGB

Incidentally, to any others who have contributed to this thread, I am not the author of the OP article in question; I merely posted it. If people have criticims of the article I wish they would concretely relate it to the actual text rather than hearsay or, for that matter, their own opinions on Lenin versus Marx on the state.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Views like the following:


noted, in 1918, that the Bolshevik Revolution was not socialist. Had earlier, long noted that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution. This is basically Menshevism.

The rest of the WSM's, or by extension the SPGB, erreonous ideas seem to be very idealistic and, like i mentioned before, completely absent of any historical lessons. For example, their advocation of a "peaceful democratic revolution" is at best naive, and at worst completely ignorant.

Another very bothersome aspect of their "principles" is their lack of distinctive defintion of "socialism". For all the talk of common ownership and "production for use" the actual program of the party says nothing of how to abolish the current economy in favor of said types of ownership and production. Unless i'm just not seeing where it's written.


claims that socialism will, and must, be a wageless, moneyless, worldwide society of common (not state) ownership and democratic control of the means of wealth production and distribution.
claims that socialism will be a sharp break with capitalism with no "transition period" or gradual implementation of socialism (although socialism will be a dynamic, changing society once it is established).
claims that there can be no state in a socialist society.
claims that there can be no classes in a socialist society.
promotes only socialism, and as an immediate goal.
Socialism in the 20th century was known as those societies where the rule of capital was overthrown, but had not yet abolished class, markets and the state. Such a situation is inevitable after any revolution, because the conquering of political power at first does nothing to change the economy--therefore, some kind of "implementation" is necessary. How else will common ownership and planned production be introduced? Will the stars and planets align at just the right moment for all of this to happen? No document from the SPGB tackles this question in any serious manner.





seeks election to facilitate the elimination of capitalism by the vast majority of socialists, not to govern capitalism.



opposes any vanguardist approach, minority-led movements, and leadership, as inherently undemocratic (among other negative things).
promotes a peaceful democratic revolution, achieved through force of numbers and understanding.
neither promotes, nor opposes, reforms to capitalism.

This is just contradictory. How can you on one hand, oppose reforms to capitalism, yet advocate the tactics of reformists which can only possibly succeed in doing just that? The passage posted in the OP talks about how Marx advocated the abolishment of a beaurucratic state apparatus, yet the same party is advocating that their electorate should join this apparatus. i wonder if the SPGB understands that elections in bourgeois parliaments are inherently "minority led" and "undemocratic".

[robbo203]

Views like the following:

This is basically Menshevism.

This confirms what i thought. You dont understand the SPGB's position at all. Incidentally, it not "menshevism" to say that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution. Even Lenin himself stated in Two Tactics

The degree of economic development of Russia (an objective condition) and the degree of class consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat (a subjective condition inseparably connected with the objective condition) make the immediate complete emancipation of the working class impossible. Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois nature of the democratic revolution which is now taking place; only the most naive optimists can forget how little as yet the masses of the workers are informed about the aims of Socialism and about the methods of achieving it .


Here, at least, lenin was in conformity with the Marxian position and it is only naive idealists like yourself - apparently - who could imagine that Russia in 1917 was "ready" for a socialist revolution to bring about a socialism.



The rest of the WSM's, or by extension the SPGB, erreonous ideas seem to be very idealistic and, like i mentioned before, completely absent of any historical lessons. For example, their advocation of a "peaceful democratic revolution" is at best naive, and at worst completely ignorant.


Insofar as I can penetrate through this fog of confusion you seem to be saying that the SPGB is "idealist" for advocating peaceful democratic revolution. Really? Marx and Engels also envisaged this possibility. Were they idealists too in your book? But, hey, lets not disabuse you of your ..ahem...firm convictions that the only way to overthrow the state is by violent undemocratic methods. Go ahead and see how far you get taking on the might of the state with your toy pop gun and then come back and tell us who is being an "idealist" :rolleyes:



Another very bothersome aspect of their "principles" is their lack of distinctive defintion of "socialism". For all the talk of common ownership and "production for use" the actual program of the party says nothing of how to abolish the current economy in favor of said types of ownership and production. Unless i'm just not seeing where it's written.

Oh for friggin hells sake - there are literally tons and tons of statements from the SPGB which clearly state what socialism is about. I cannot believe anybody who has even bothered to do the basic research could come out with this bunk

There are entire pamhlets given over to explaining the nature of socialism. Try these for a size:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/SAAPA.html
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/fcts.pdf



Socialism in the 20th century was known as those societies where the rule of capital was overthrown, but had not yet abolished class, markets and the state. Such a situation is inevitable after any revolution, because the conquering of political power at first does nothing to change the economy--therefore, some kind of "implementation" is necessary. How else will common ownership and planned production be introduced? Will the stars and planets align at just the right moment for all of this to happen? No document from the SPGB tackles this question in any serious manner.



Thats becuase you havent bothered to read any document from the SPGB - quite evidently. The SPGB's perspective is a Marxian one. Socialism can
only come about when the productive forces are sufficiently developed and when a significant majority of the workers are socialist minded. This is made abundantly clear in its literature

The notion that the rule of capital has been overthrown though markets classes and the state have remained, is incoherent gibberish frankly. Even the most elementary scrutiny of this statement will reveal this to be the case. For example, if classes have not been abolished you still have a capitalist class and therefore capital. How can capital possibly function within the dyadic wage labour-capital relation except as the dominant or determining factor. How can capital exist without exploiting wage labour?. Engels made the point that:


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


Note that expression - the capitalist relationship is brought to a head. The various state capitalist regimes you allude to around the world that claim to have "overthrown the rule of capital" have in fact been the means by which the rule of capital has been facilitated, enhanced and even hastened



. How can you on one hand, oppose reforms to capitalism, yet advocate the tactics of reformists which can only possibly succeed in doing just that? The passage posted in the OP talks about how Marx advocated the abolishment of a beaurucratic state apparatus, yet the same party is advocating that their electorate should join this apparatus. i wonder if the SPGB understands that elections in bourgeois parliaments are inherently "minority led" and "undemocratic".


You clearly dont understand the SPGB at all and this shows. Firstly the SPGB does not "oppose refoms". It opposes reformism which is the advocacy of reforms. Secondly you havent got a clue about what is meant by reformism or refroms in this context. Reforms are measures enacted by the state to expedite the administration of capitalism i.e. they are directed at ameliorating the socio economic problems thrown up by capitalism. The parliamentary method advocated by the SPGB, Marx and Engels (who advocated winning the battle of democracy in the communist manifesto) is not in itself "reformist". Its what you do with political power once you have captured it that makes you a reformist or not. The SPGB do not seek to refrom capitalism but to abolish it completely

Seriously, you need to get hold of Dave Perrin's book on the SPGB if you want to have an informed discussion on the subject. Here's the title
The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics, Economics and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party (2000, Bridge Books, Wrexham)

[ZeroNowhere]

To be honest, I think that this article is probably inferior as regards the state to Buick's article on the transitional state myth (http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/english-pages/1975-the-myth-of-the-transitional-society-buick/). The article quoted in the first post of this thread does have some valid points, but doesn't seem to actually say all that much, ultimately. In either case, Marx certainly did have an essentially unified analysis of the state throughout, both in his 'early' and 'late' stages (the whole distinction as commonly made is mostly mythical, though), and as such it's perfectly reasonable to talk about Marx's view of the state, as for example in David Adam's brilliant recent article (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) for the Marxist-Humanist Initiative.

[ComradeOm]

Incidentally, to any others who have contributed to this thread, I am not the author of the OP article in question; I merely posted it. If people have criticims of the article I wish they would concretely relate it to the actual text rather than hearsay or, for that matter, their own opinions on Lenin versus Marx on the state.I think my post is perfectly clear but, if necessary, I'll spell it out

I think that this article is a disgrace. It is one of the worst displays of pedantry and semantic nitpicking that I've seen for some time. Not only is it equally dishonest as anything it criticises - if Marx's theories, note plural, of the state were as clear as it makes out then we would not be having this discussion - but it is disgustingly reverent and dogmatic in its treatment of Marx and his writings. There are many grounds on which to criticise Lenin but to do so on the basis of a superior translation or reading of some selected quotes is nothing short of shameful. Apparently the truth is to be solely divined from the scriptures of Saint Karl. Yet all bow to the WSM and SPGB - the true and unsullied heirs of Marx, based on their own infallible readings!

Yeah, I can't even keep the sarcasm out. What this brings to mind, particularly the absurd section on the Brumaire, is one of those ridiculously obscure religious doctrinal disputes that starts over a tiny dot in some religious text. Does it translate as virgins or 'white raisins'? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5) This is exactly the sort of semantic nonsense that's given socialists a bad name for so long

[Victus Mortuum]

There are grounds to criticize both Marx and Lenin regarding their stances on the state at different times in their lives. Of course they didn't have the same perspective. They lived in different countries in different time periods. How much more so for us. We should be working on arguing and developing through struggle our own position on the state for our own time.

Perhaps it's time to say that it's okay to support some of the bourgeois legislation if it is in favor of limiting the power of the state against the working class (such as pro-labor organizing laws etc.) given the sorry state of labor laws (at least in the U.S.)

Perhaps it's time to say that trying to win elections within the bourgeois parliamentary system is a completely hopeless means of real change at this time - and that localized neighborhood, workplace, and school democracy and organization is the way to go given that we don't have much mass organization right now.

[LibertarianSocialist1]

Marx was not an ultra-left.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx was not a troll.

[robbo203]

I think my post is perfectly clear but, if necessary, I'll spell it out

I think that this article is a disgrace. It is one of the worst displays of pedantry and semantic nitpicking that I've seen for some time. Not only is it equally dishonest as anything it criticises - if Marx's theories, note plural, of the state were as clear as it makes out then we would not be having this discussion - but it is disgustingly reverent and dogmatic in its treatment of Marx and his writings. There are many grounds on which to criticise Lenin but to do so on the basis of a superior translation or reading of some selected quotes is nothing short of shameful. Apparently the truth is to be solely divined from the scriptures of Saint Karl. Yet all bow to the WSM and SPGB - the true and unsullied heirs of Marx, based on their own infallible readings!

Yeah, I can't even keep the sarcasm out. What this brings to mind, particularly the absurd section on the Brumaire, is one of those ridiculously obscure religious doctrinal disputes that starts over a tiny dot in some religious text. Does it translate as virgins or 'white raisins'? (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2002/jan/12/books.guardianreview5) This is exactly the sort of semantic nonsense that's given socialists a bad name for so long


Oh come on now - arent you being just a wee bit OTT here? Perhaps you need to read the article again instead of haughtily dismissing it out of hand like some snotty know-all. Being a little more specific in your criticisms might also help.

I find your comments on the SPGB a little amusing to say the least. So you reckon it considers the "truth is to be solely divined from the scriptures of Saint Karl". Odd that, because I can think of quite a mumber of issues on which the SPGB is sharply critical of Marx. Indeed it criticises aspects of Marx's thought which ironically many on the Left do not even question. Like his support for certain national liberation struggles and his concept of of the dictatorship of the proletariat, for instance. So much for being "disgustingly reverent".:rolleyes:

Whats your beef with the SPGB anyway? Of course they arent perfect - who is? - but hell bells! credit where credit is due. The SPGB are, at least, rock solid when it comes to the socialist basics and that is more than you can say of quite a number of other organisations who style themselves as "socialist". Have you perchance had a brush with the SPGB in the past and come off the worse for it?. That would certainly seem to account for the venom in your tone. But do please feel free to tell us in your own words if you are so inclined..:D

[LibertarianSocialist1]

Saying that Marx was not an ultra-left is trolling to you?

[mykittyhasaboner]

This confirms what i thought. You dont understand the SPGB's position at all. Incidentally, it not "menshevism" to say that Russia was not ready for a socialist revolution. Even Lenin himself stated in Two Tactics

The degree of economic development of Russia (an objective condition) and the degree of class consciousness and organisation of the broad masses of the proletariat (a subjective condition inseparably connected with the objective condition) make the immediate complete emancipation of the working class impossible. Only the most ignorant people can ignore the bourgeois nature of the democratic revolution which is now taking place; only the most naive optimists can forget how little as yet the masses of the workers are informed about the aims of Socialism and about the methods of achieving it .


Here, at least, lenin was in conformity with the Marxian position and it is only naive idealists like yourself - apparently - who could imagine that Russia in 1917 was "ready" for a socialist revolution to bring about a socialism.


This is a document from 1905 during that revolution, not the revolutions of 1917.

Talking about how the working class must be "ready" for a socialist revolution is very vague and often misleading. The working class must at the right opportunity attempt to take power--this was the case after the bourgeois revolution in March, with the allied poor peasantry of course.



Insofar as I can penetrate through this fog of confusion you seem to be saying that the SPGB is "idealist" for advocating peaceful democratic revolution. Really?Absolutely. The working class cannot even demonstrate on the streets without state repression.


Marx and Engels also envisaged this possibility. Were they idealists too in your book?Perhaps they were. However it must be noted that Marx was talking about England and the US when he noted the possibility of attaining certain goals by peaceful means, owing to the differences in institutions from country to country. If i recall correctly, he mentioned that it would be impossible for this to happen in France for example.

It also must be noted that Marx and Engels recognized revolution as a very authoritarian and forceful act--as history has proven, time and time again.


But, hey, lets not disabuse you of your ..ahem...firm convictions that the only way to overthrow the state is by violent undemocratic methods.Mass violence against the state is more democratic than trying to "overthrow capitalism" by electing assholes to parliamentary positions.


Go ahead and see how far you get taking on the might of the state with your toy pop gun and then come back and tell us who is being an "idealist" :rolleyes:Your contempt for workers who resort to violence in the face of the far more repressive violence of the state is evident here.



Oh for friggin hells sake - there are literally tons and tons of statements from the SPGB which clearly state what socialism is about. I cannot believe anybody who has even bothered to do the basic research could come out with this bunk

There are entire pamhlets given over to explaining the nature of socialism. Try these for a size:

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/SAAPA.html
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pdf/fcts.pdfPosting these articles merely proves my point. The WSM or SPGB doesn't really have a concrete idea of how to abolish the market and remaining classes after the seizure of political power. Sorry, but all the pamphlets in the world crying out for "common ownership" won't do. A proposition for the development of value based economics in place of the market is probably the most important aspect of a socialist political economy, at least if we take Marx's view. These documents don't even begin to thouroughly address such issues.


Thats becuase you havent bothered to read any document from the SPGB - quite evidently. The SPGB's perspective is a Marxian one. Socialism can
only come about when the productive forces are sufficiently developed and when a significant majority of the workers are socialist minded. This is made abundantly clear in its literatureIt's also abundantly clear that A) the productive forces will never be "developed" to a degree capable of sustaining a socialist society without first seizing political power and eliminating the bourgeoisie. B) The majority of workers will never be "socialist minded" while the bourgeoisie is still the ruling class.

I've read the documents you presented and nothing really comes close to a comprehensive program for a transition to socialist political economy. This owes to a few theoretical problems. Mainly, as you claim, that socialism can only come about with the development of productive forces, and when workers are "socialist minded". This is idealistic tripe of the highest order. If those are your requirements for socialism then you really need to reevaluate what you are advocating. i would say that for socialism to come about: political power must be in the hands of the working class, the wage relation must be eliminated, and a transition to planned, value based economics must be enacted. Once all of this is finished, then we can talk about communism or the "higher phase".

A proper (at the very least, in comaprison with the ideas of the WSM) political economy for todays situation had been proposed in the context of the EU back in February 2010. This was written by P. Cockshott (http://www.puk.de/en/nhp/1032-left-reformation-and-proposals-for-a-socialist-eu.html), and the most relevant parts i will quote:


The proposals put forward were a significant break both from traditional western social democracy and from its eastern variant. Instead of seeing the transition to socialism as being something that was to be achieved by nationalisation of industry within the confines of the nation state, the focus was on:


The assertion of positive rights for labour against capital.
Radical monetary policies.
A programme for participatory democracy at the European Union level.

It was proposed that the Euro be tied to labour time. Currently the Euro is equivalent to the value created by about 2 mins of labour. It was proposed that the European Central Bank be put under the direction of a value policy committee – similar in some ways to Brown’s monetary policy committee, except that it would be made up of economists nominated by the parliament plus lay members chosen as a citizens jury by lot. German economists Bartsch and Stamher presented interesting accounts of how they were working on complete national accounts in terms of labour time.
Once the value of the Euro had been stabilised in terms of time, the Euro notes would have their time content printed on them. This would immediately raise the question in the minds of European workers: why am I only being paid 20 or 30 mins for each hour I work? The issue of exploitation would rise to the top of the political agenda.


Instead of firms being nationalised, which raises all sorts of issues relating to expropriation or compensation, I feel the focus should be on directly abolishing wage slavery in a manner analogous to the abolition of slavery in the USA by the 13th amendment. It was suggested that we should aim for a European constitutional right not be exploited. If employees were being paid less than the full value added by their labour, trades unions should have a legal right to claim the difference back from the employers.


Whilst this would make all firms unprofitable, they would not be unviable from the point of view of their then principle stakeholders – their employees. To relieve firms of the burden of debt, there should be general debt amnesty affection all public and private debt other than banks obligation to private depositors up to a maximum of 30K euro. The vast majority of private depositors hold much less than this. The rentier class, who hold millions in deposits would, on the other hand , face the euthansia of which Keynes spoke.


Alongside this were proposals to shift the tax basis of the EU from regressive indirect taxes to progressive taxes on income and property provided that such tax changes were passed by EU wide referenda.

Whilst the downplaying of nationalisation is a break with the Marxist tradition that dates from the 2nd International, it is arguably a return to the ideas that Marx himself had prior to the establishment of that international.

Marx criticised the tendency in German socialism that relied on state aid. He argued for an economy in which labour accounts would replace money. The measures proposed in Berlin are very influenced by that, and also arguably by the economic ideas of the Dutch council Left (http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm) of the 1920s. The aim is the abolition of the wage relation. That comes first, once that is achieved the associated producers can move voluntarily to a planned economy accross Europe.The WSM also claims that there is "one working class world wide". This is true, but only from a reductionist perspective. The working class of France or the US is not the same as the working class of China and Tunisia. Different policies must be undertaken in different locations--as part of capitalisms law of "uneven and combined development"--meaning the workers have different starting points world wide. The WSM fails to understand this, and sort of applies the same "program" without distinctive reigonal differences.




The notion that the rule of capital has been overthrown though markets classes and the state have remained, is incoherent gibberish frankly.The "rule of capital" refers to the bourgeoisie. The rule of labor refers to political power of the working class. i'm sorry if you fail to understand that overthrowing the capitalist class does nothing to change political economy initially. This is the main problem with these idealist conceptions of socialism. Political power in the hands of the workers is the tool with which socialist foundations can be created.


Even the most elementary scrutiny of this statement will reveal this to be the case. For example, if classes have not been abolished you still have a capitalist class and therefore capital.You know there are other classes besides the working class and the bourgeoisie--especially when we are talking of historical societies such as the Soviet Union and China.


How can capital possibly function within the dyadic wage labour-capital relation except as the dominant or determining factor. How can capital exist without exploiting wage labour?. Engels made the point that:


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


Note that expression - the capitalist relationship is brought to a head. The various state capitalist regimes you allude to around the world that claim to have "overthrown the rule of capital" have in fact been the means by which the rule of capital has been facilitated, enhanced and even hastened You can apply quotes from Engels talking about bourgeois states to proletarian states (which did not even exist at the time) all you want, but the point remains unmade.




You clearly dont understand the SPGB at all and this shows. Firstly the SPGB does not "oppose refoms". It opposes reformism which is the advocacy of reforms. Secondly you havent got a clue about what is meant by reformism or refroms in this context. Reforms are measures enacted by the state to expedite the administration of capitalism i.e. they are directed at ameliorating the socio economic problems thrown up by capitalism. The parliamentary method advocated by the SPGB, Marx and Engels (who advocated winning the battle of democracy in the communist manifesto) is not in itself "reformist". Its what you do with political power once you have captured it that makes you a reformist or not. The SPGB do not seek to refrom capitalism but to abolish it completelyWinning the "battle of democracy" implies overthrowing the capitalist state and replacing it with a more democratic state structure. This is the first issue of a revolution, the issue of democracy.

How you hope to win the battle of democracy within bourgeois parliaments is alien to me, and quite frankly, any sort of realistic possibility. It is so clear that the working class has nothing to gain from joining the bourgeois state appartus that i'm not even going to begin criticizing such a view.


Seriously, you need to get hold of Dave Perrin's book on the SPGB if you want to have an informed discussion on the subject. Here's the title
The Socialist Party of Great Britain: Politics, Economics and Britain's Oldest Socialist Party (2000, Bridge Books, Wrexham)i'll pass. There cannot be much more for the socialist party to offer the workers of Britain if they do not understand how to elevate the position of the working class to that of the ruling class. There is no other way to build socialism.

[Zanthorus]

I love how the SPGB have this tendency on the one hand to pose as ultra-orthodox Marxists (Usually extremely unsuccesfully I might add), and on the other to reject everything by Marx and Engels which doesn't fit in with their own particular line. So on the on the one hand they reject the Russian revolution on the basis of a rigid 'stageist' theory of historical evolution, and on the other hand they reject any and all immediate practical struggles as 'reformist' and reduce themselves to a propaganda sect which does nothing besides agitate for communism with free-access distribution. This is the same organisation which refers to the ICC and ICT as 'Leninist' organisations. I really find it difficult to take them or their 'orthodox' posturing at all seriously.

[robbo203]

I love how the SPGB have this tendency on the one hand to pose as ultra-orthodox Marxists (Usually extremely unsuccesfully I might add), and on the other to reject everything by Marx and Engels which doesn't fit in with their own particular line..

Well, at least it points to the fact that they are not dogmatically wedded to everything Marx and Engels have to say - contrary to what some people on this list seem to think. Thats surely a good thing . isnt it? Being discriminating. Not too sure that the SPGB would describe themselves as "ultra-orthodox Marxists". What makes you think this, out of curiosity?



So on the on the one hand they reject the Russian revolution on the basis of a rigid 'stageist' theory of historical evolution, and on the other hand they reject any and all immediate practical struggles as 'reformist' and reduce themselves to a propaganda sect which does nothing besides agitate for communism with free-access distribution. .


Thats news to me. Last I checked the SPGB very clearly stated that theur fully support immediate practical struggles in the industrial field through militant trade unionism. Many SPGBers are or have been themselves militant trade unionists Industrual struggle is not the same thing as reforms, however - measures enacted by the state. The SPGB doers not oppose reforms as such but refromism or the advocacy of reforms which, by seeking to mend capitalism, contradicts the revolutionary goal of ending capitalism

Ive done some historical resaearch on the SPGB and there is plenty of stuff there to back up my argument. There is an interesting series of articles written for the Socialist Standard by one of their early members A E Jacomb way back in 1911/2 ,would you believe it, on "The socialist and trade unionism. The situation reviewed". Here's an interesting excerpt from it


Now our opponents tell us that trade unions and strikes are no good because when a victory is obtained the law of wages " . . . sharp racks to pinch and peel" and so reduce things to the old level.
This deduction can only be drawn from half-understood theories. While it is true that all their struggle in the labour-market cannot raise the workers’ remuneration above the line fluctuating about the subsistence level, while it is true that any alteration of that subsistence level must, if maintained, result in a corresponding and nullifying intensification of the exploiting system, it is true also that the struggle must be made.
With all the workers’ struggles, say our critics, the economic laws decide that their enjoyment of the wealth produced shall be determined by the necessary cost of subsistence. But they forget to say what would happen without the struggle.
If higher wages are answered by speeding-up and improved methods of production, the tendency toward this is always present. Machinery and methods develop with stationary or even falling wages. If every vestige of the workers’ power of resistance was blotted out, so that the only limit to plunder was the physical law that a given amount of food can only produce a given amount of energy, still the means of production would tend to develop, because though that given amount of food could never be made to produce more than a given amount of energy, that energy may be made, by improved methods, to create a greater amount of wealth.
To cease to struggle, therefore, is no means of escaping from the tyrant competition of machinery. On the other hand, to cease the struggle is to reduce human labour-power even below the commodity status. The labour-power of the wage-slave is no more than a commodity because of the wage-slave’s propertyless condition; it is no less than a commodity because he has a power of resistance. Why is the labour-power of a horse not a commodity? Simply because the horse has no power of resistance. The wage-slave owns his labour-power. He is free to take it into the market and fight for the best price for it. The horse does not own his labour-power, hence it is he and not his labour-power who is the commodity. In this respect the chattel slave and the horse are alike, and the fact is reflected in the remarkably similar treatment accorded to both.http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/PreWW1/11iTrade%20Unionism.rtf (http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/PreWW1/11iTrade%20Unionism.rtf)


It always amazes me how incredibly misinformed many on the Left are about the SPGB. I dont know where they get their ideas from about the SPGB but it is certainly not from the horses mouth. Its a pity because the SPGB does have a huge wealth of experience behind it and revolutionaries today are cutting off their noses to spite their faces by snubbing it

[robbo203]

This is a document from 1905 during that revolution, not the revolutions of 1917. .

True but this doesnt alter the fact that Lenin not think the population were ready for socialism in 1917 either. I just used his 1905 quote becuase it was a pretty full one which explained well the preconditions of socialism. In April 1917 at the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P he said "We cannot be for "introducing" socialism—this would be the height of absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in Russia are peasants, small farmers who can have no idea of socialism". A month later he was saying that the "proletariat and semi proletariat", had "never been socialist, nor has it the slightest idea about socialism, it is only just awakening to political life (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/7thconf/24c.htm). Even after the October revolution, in an addresss to trade unionists in June 1918 Lenin pointed out "there are many...who are not enlightened socialists and cannot be such because they have to slave in the factories and they have neither the time nor the opportunity to become socialists (Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 466). And in another speech, this time at the Second All-Russia Congress Of Commissars For Labour May 22, 1918 he frankly admitted "We know how small is the section of advanced and politically conscious workers in Russia



Talking about how the working class must be "ready" for a socialist revolution is very vague and often misleading. The working class must at the right opportunity attempt to take power--this was the case after the bourgeois revolution in March, with the allied poor peasantry of course..

There is nothing particularly vague about talking about how the workers must be ready for socialism. It simply means they must broadly grasp what socialism means - a moneyless wageless stateless commonwealth - and that they should desire such an arrangement. If the working class take power without "being ready" for socialism then there can only be one outcome - capitalism. They will have actually carried out a revolution on behalf of the capitalist class. They would have helped install the rule of capital


Absolutely. The working class cannot even demonstrate on the streets without state repression. ..


Sure there is a degree of state repression but demonstrations still happen dont they? And you can be pretty sure that state repression will be ratcheted up several notches if you attempted to violently overthrow it. But how does this advance your argument that it is somehow "idealist" to prefer peaceful democratic methods. By that logic it mnist even more idealist to ovethrow the modern state by force. You dont stand a snowballs chance; it would just be suidcidal folly on a grand scale and a totally unnecessary waste of working class lives.



Perhaps they were. However it must be noted that Marx was talking about England and the US when he noted the possibility of attaining certain goals by peaceful means, owing to the differences in institutions from country to country. If i recall correctly, he mentioned that it would be impossible for this to happen in France for example .

Yes and do you think the situation in France now is the same as it was then? Can workers in rance vote today? Can they hold demonstrations? Can they publish communist newpapers and journals. What is you point?



It also must be noted that Marx and Engels recognized revolution as a very authoritarian and forceful act--as history has proven, time and time again. ..

I dont think he meant by "force"quite what you have in mind. Its the same with Marx's idea of dictatorship of the proletariat. The form of that was to be a democratic republic





Mass violence against the state is more democratic than trying to "overthrow capitalism" by electing assholes to parliamentary positions.
..

I dont advocate electing assholes to power to represent me. I actually oppose representative democracy but this is not to be conflated with using the electoral machinery to strip the capitalists of their class monopoly.

Nor do I think it is true that mass violence is more democratic. Actually quite the opposite. Violent methods if they are to stand any chance of sucess require an authoritarian chain of command but then I am not sure what your view on that would be given that you think revolutions are "authoritarian"


Your contempt for workers who resort to violence in the face of the far more repressive violence of the state is evident here.
..

I dont have contempt for workers who resort to violence. Truth be told I can even sort of understand what motivates them to do it. We are all human and subject to emotional outbursts of anger. My point is simply that I think they are mistaken in how they go about changing the situation. Im not ruling out the possibility of violence but violence hardly ever helps . Lets be brutally frank about this. We should strive to eliminate violence or reduce it to an absolute minimum


Posting these articles merely proves my point. The WSM or SPGB doesn't really have a concrete idea of how to abolish the market and remaining classes after the seizure of political power. Sorry, but all the pamphlets in the world crying out for "common ownership" won't do. A proposition for the development of value based economics in place of the market is probably the most important aspect of a socialist political economy, at least if we take Marx's view. These documents don't even begin to thouroughly address such issues. ..

Well I think you grossly misunderstand where the WSM or SPGB are coming from. They make it pretty plain that they are not there to bring about socialism for you. They are only a vehicle for workers to use to bring about socialism and once socialism is established the WSM or SPGB go out of existence. One thing they do insist on and quite rightly is that unless and until a majority want and understand socialism you cant have socialism. The capture of state power is signifies the readiness of the population for socialism and the green light to go ahead with declaring the means of production common property. How else would you propose to do this?


It's also abundantly clear that A) the productive forces will never be "developed" to a degree capable of sustaining a socialist society without first seizing political power and eliminating the bourgeoisie. B) The majority of workers will never be "socialist minded" while the bourgeoisie is still the ruling class...

Well then if you really believed this there would be no point in being a socialist would there? Socialism would be impossible. You can't eliminate the bourgeoisie without the workers being ready for a socialist alternative in which the bourgeoisie and the workers no longer exist as classes. But youve just claimed here that majority of workers will never be "socialist minded" while the bourgeoisie is still the ruling class. If they are not socialist minded they are hardly going to be disposed to overthrow bourgeoisise as a ruling class are they now. So youve sort of painted yourself into a corner havent you?

Besides dont you think it is being just a wee bit dogmatic and fatalistic to say they worklers will never become socialists unbder bourgeois rule. Presumably you regard yourself as a socialist. So what makes you think you are so special that you can be a socialist but not other others. Isnt that slightly arrogant?




I've read the documents you presented and nothing really comes close to a comprehensive program for a transition to socialist political economy. This owes to a few theoretical problems. Mainly, as you claim, that socialism can only come about with the development of productive forces, and when workers are "socialist minded". This is idealistic tripe of the highest order. If those are your requirements for socialism then you really need to reevaluate what you are advocating. i would say that for socialism to come about: political power must be in the hands of the working class, the wage relation must be eliminated, and a transition to planned, value based economics must be enacted. Once all of this is finished, then we can talk about communism or the "higher phase"..

How is it "idealistic tripe of the highest order" that socialism can only come about with the development of productive forces, and when workers are "socialist minded". Like many leftists you throw around this word " "idealist" in slapdash fashion without seemingly understanding what it means. I really have no idea what to infer from your comments what would NOT be "idealist" as a preconfition for socialism to happen




A proper (at the very least, in comaprison with the ideas of the WSM) political economy for todays situation had been proposed in the context of the EU back in February 2010. This was written by P. Cockshott (http://www.puk.de/en/nhp/1032-left-reformation-and-proposals-for-a-socialist-eu.html), and the most relevant parts i will quote:"..


Well if Cockshott's rather feeble mish mash of state capitalist reforms grabs you then by all means go ahead and promote them. They are not my cup of tea but whatever takes your fancy...





The WSM also claims that there is "one working class world wide". This is true, but only from a reductionist perspective. The working class of France or the US is not the same as the working class of China and Tunisia. Different policies must be undertaken in different locations--as part of capitalisms law of "uneven and combined development"--meaning the workers have different starting points world wide. The WSM fails to understand this, and sort of applies the same "program" without distinctive reigonal differences..

I think this is a case of you running out of negative things to say about the WSM and having to invent some more. Your arguments are getting desparately thin at this point. Have you ever even read any of their stuff I wonder? Some of their analyses of regional struggles of wage labour against the boss class have struck me as quite impressive and insightful -particularly in recent years. Have a glance at their journal, the Socialist Standard http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/





The "rule of capital" refers to the bourgeoisie. The rule of labor refers to political power of the working class. i'm sorry if you fail to understand that overthrowing the capitalist class does nothing to change political economy initially. This is the main problem with these idealist conceptions of socialism. Political power in the hands of the workers is the tool with which socialist foundations can be created...

Ahem, let me point out to you what seems to have escaped your notice entirely - that the capitalist class can only exist by exploiting the working class and that the rule of capital consists precisely in this ability to exploit workers and hence appropriate surplus value out of which futher capital is accumulated. If you dont change the political economy of capitalism then ipso facto you haven't overthrown the capitalist class whose interests must prevail in this economy If the wage labour-capital relation still exists then so too must the rule of capital.

When you talk about the rule of labour what you basically mean is a sort of more radical version of a Labour Government which makes lots of noises about "squeezing the rich till the pips squeak" (Dennis Healeys phrase) and defending workers rights but in the end having to kow tow, as they all do, to the biog capitalist institutions like the IMF and the World Bank. A government pretending to implement the rule of labour will end up viciously attacking the working class as every Labour government has done. You can guarantee that.

Im not interested in the idea of the working class supposedly dominating or ruling over the the capitalist class which is an absurd idea anyway. Im interested only in getting rid of the working class along with the capitalist class altogether. That is what any revolutionary worth their salt could ever want

[Die Neue Zeit]

Perhaps it's time to say that it's okay to support some of the bourgeois legislation if it is in favor of limiting the power of the state against the working class (such as pro-labor organizing laws etc.) given the sorry state of labor laws (at least in the U.S.)

Perhaps it's time to say that trying to win elections within the bourgeois parliamentary system is a completely hopeless means of real change at this time - and that localized neighborhood, workplace, and school democracy and organization is the way to go given that we don't have much mass organization right now.

That, however, does not justify abstentionism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

True but this doesnt alter the fact that Lenin not think the population were ready for socialism in 1917 either. I just used his 1905 quote becuase it was a pretty full one which explained well the preconditions of socialism. In April 1917 at the Seventh (April) All-Russia Conference of the R.S.D.L.P he said "We cannot be for "introducing" socialism—this would be the height of absurdity. We must preach socialism. The majority of the population in Russia are peasants, small farmers who can have no idea of socialism". A month later he was saying that the "proletariat and semi proletariat", had "never been socialist, nor has it the slightest idea about socialism, it is only just awakening to political life (http://www.marxists.org/archive/leni...thconf/24c.htm). Even after the October revolution, in an addresss to trade unionists in June 1918 Lenin pointed out "there are many...who are not enlightened socialists and cannot be such because they have to slave in the factories and they have neither the time nor the opportunity to become socialists (Lenin, Ibid, Vol. 27 page 466). And in another speech, this time at the Second All-Russia Congress Of Commissars For Labour May 22, 1918 he frankly admitted "We know how small is the section of advanced and politically conscious workers in Russia
This is all very pedantic, if i may say so. Certainly, one can herald a few quotes from Lenin and recite objective facts regarding the development of the productive forces and the consciousness of the population to prove that Russia and neigbhoring countries weren't "ready" for a full implementation of socialism owing to a lack of necessary "preconditions". My point in arguing against the notion that is brought up by the WSM in claiming that in 1918 Russia wasn't ready for socialism, is tantamount to saying that the proleteriat and peasantry shouldn't have taken power and developed society on it's own terms, rather the development of the "preconditions" for socialism must be done with the bourgeoisie. That is a Menshevik position, and it was proven wrong, as the development of the Soviet Union was performed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which eliminated the captialist and kulak classes.


Sure there is a degree of state repression but demonstrations still happen dont they? And you can be pretty sure that state repression will be ratcheted up several notches if you attempted to violently overthrow it. But how does this advance your argument that it is somehow "idealist" to prefer peaceful democratic methods. By that logic it mnist even more idealist to ovethrow the modern state by force. You dont stand a snowballs chance; it would just be suidcidal folly on a grand scale and a totally unnecessary waste of working class lives.It is not idealist to prefer peaceful methods, it is preferable, but that is not the world we live in. Peaceful methods must be exhausted before workers become militant, and that pretty much always happens. It is idealistic to think that revolutions can take place "peacefully". One needs only to open any serious historical work to see otherwise.

Also, you assume that "peaceful" methods are inherently democratic merely because you are fighting with words and political rhetoric rather than phyiscally attacking others. i don't think this is the case. There is nothing more democratic than workers taking up arms and defending what ever ground they have in the struggle, be it a single factory or an entire nation, imo. Advocating socialism through parliamentary means is not democratic at all, seeing as how modern parliaments are based on the exclusion of normal people from political discourse. At least in some violent method of class struggle, workers have a say, in some kind of fashion or another.

Moreover, you assume that the use of violence is suicidal because workers cannot take on the state on conventional terms--but the very advantage the working class holds is not that they have more effecient and effective means of harming or killing others, it is because their acts of violence are unconventional and social in nature that they have a greater effect than some pigs repressing a protest. If a group of workers occupy a factory, throw the boss out on the street, defend their ground with slingshots, rocks and cocktails then that is a far greater victory than a parlimentary debate about socialism or a "peaceful" demonstration.



Yes and do you think the situation in France now is the same as it was then? Can workers in rance vote today? Can they hold demonstrations? Can they publish communist newpapers and journals. What is you point?My point is that despite the ability to vote, voting for this or that candidate in bourgeois parliaments changes nothing.

My point is that holding demonstrations, while valiant and a show of force, are usually repressed and defeated unless defended with violence.

My point is that communist newspapers and journals can be an effective means of propaganda and education, but are only a small part of a social movement.

Eventually, workers will have to defend themselves from either state repression or bourgeois counter revolution.

If Marx thought that an entire social revolution could be done peacefully without any sort of violence, then he and everyone who agrees with him is wrong. Social revolutions happen when the state is weak anyways....


I dont think he meant by "force"quite what you have in mind. Its the same with Marx's idea of dictatorship of the proletariat. The form of that was to be a democratic republic
A) You are assuming you know what "i have in mind".

B) A "democratic republic" is not sufficient for the dictatorship of the proletariat.


I dont advocate electing assholes to power to represent me. I actually oppose representative democracy but this is not to be conflated with using the electoral machinery to strip the capitalists of their class monopoly.That is impossible.


Nor do I think it is true that mass violence is more democratic. Actually quite the opposite. Violent methods if they are to stand any chance of sucess require an authoritarian chain of command but then I am not sure what your view on that would be given that you think revolutions are "authoritarian"
Revolutions are authoritarian, (remember our friend Freidrich saying so?) and a chain of command is essential for military operations. However why violence in the context of class struggle or all out revolution/civil war is more democratic than parliamentarism is simple; because it implies the proletariat acting as a class, fighting for it's interests.

Electing candidates who like to talk about socialism to bourgeois politicos is not any more democratic than that.



I dont have contempt for workers who resort to violence. Truth be told I can even sort of understand what motivates them to do it. We are all human and subject to emotional outbursts of anger.Workers resort to violence because of "emotional outbursts of anger"? For fucks sake, do you know what it's like when imperialists invade your home and kill everyone or strikes are brutally suppressed? Thankfully i've never experienced such repression, but i would imagine that it is very stressful and frightening. i'd say responding with violence in such cases is far more logical than emotional, however emotional it may be.


My point is simply that I think they are mistaken in how they go about changing the situation. Im not ruling out the possibility of violence but violence hardly ever helps . Lets be brutally frank about this. We should strive to eliminate violence or reduce it to an absolute minimumOf course, ideally, people don't want violence to take place. Except we don't live in and ideal world. It's really quite simple...



Well I think you grossly misunderstand where the WSM or SPGB are coming from. They make it pretty plain that they are not there to bring about socialism for you. They are only a vehicle for workers to use to bring about socialism and once socialism is established the WSM or SPGB go out of existence. One thing they do insist on and quite rightly is that unless and until a majority want and understand socialism you cant have socialism. The capture of state power is signifies the readiness of the population for socialism and the green light to go ahead with declaring the means of production common property. How else would you propose to do this?
So their theoretical proposals regarding the establishment of socialism is merely "it will only happen when the majority wants it". Great for the WSM. That's not going to help the working class embark on proper political economic policies once power is seized.

i would say that the capturing of state power signifies that the most advanced section of the working class has lead a social movement capable of toppling the state. it doesn't matter if that movement contains less than 50% of all workers because the majority of workers cannot possibly grasp the qualities of socialism and common property until the smokescreen of bourgeois politics is done away with.



Well then if you really believed this there would be no point in being a socialist would there? Socialism would be impossible.No, socialism is possible only once the bourgoeisie is over thrown, and only then can "the majority" of workers develop the political maturity to rule as a class, and gear society towards the abolition of antagonistic classes, and their self abolition as the working class.





You can't eliminate the bourgeoisie without the workers being ready for a socialist alternative in which the bourgeoisie and the workers no longer exist as classes.You (and for that matter, the WSM) need to define what you mean by "ready". i'm quite sick of trying to figure out what you mean by it. If it means some rigid misapplication of the "theory of productive forces" and "socialist minded" then you can save it.


But youve just claimed here that majority of workers will never be "socialist minded" while the bourgeoisie is still the ruling class.Of course, the politics of the ruling class is always the most prevalent in society. This is basic Marxism.



If they are not socialist minded they are hardly going to be disposed to overthrow bourgeoisise as a ruling class are they now. So youve sort of painted yourself into a corner havent you?No, you assume that the precondition for revolution is "the majority must be socialist minded" which is idealist, and it's through this narrow lens of idealistic requirements that you perceive my argument. The preconditions for revolution is that the state is in a relatively weak position (as a result of popular opposition and/or suffering war loses) and that there is a politically capable socialist movement which can take the place of the bourgeois state. This does not require "the majority" of workers being "socialist minded". Whatever that means.




Besides dont you think it is being just a wee bit dogmatic and fatalistic to say they worklers will never become socialists unbder bourgeois rule.
Don't you think it is fatalistic if you think revolution will never take place until everyone is "socialist minded?"

i never said "workers will never become socialists", don't fuck with what i'm saying.



Presumably you regard yourself as a socialist. So what makes you think you are so special that you can be a socialist but not other others. Isnt that slightly arrogant?Clearly, you have missed the point.


How is it "idealistic tripe of the highest order" that socialism can only come about with the development of productive forces, and when workers are "socialist minded".
Because the "development of productive forces" does not happen evenly and only implies that the contradition of the working and owning classes will intensify and grow. It does not imply that a social movement is capable of taking power. It is deterministic to think socialism will magically come about when the productive forces are devloped, along with workers being "socialist minded". "Socialist minded" workers does not guarentee that such workers are effectively organized, have a proper critique of capital and theory of revolution.



Like many leftists you throw around this word " "idealist" in slapdash fashion without seemingly understanding what it means. I really have no idea what to infer from your comments what would NOT be "idealist" as a preconfition for socialism to happenIt wouldn't be idealist if 'socialists' like yourself and the WSM actually laid out a theory of how the working class can take power in a concrete way and specified what kind of political and economic policies should be undertaken after workers take power. Its idealist because all the WSM does is seemingly propagandize for communism and explain Marx's critique of capitalism in simple words. This is not bad in itself, but it's not enough and it sort of reeks of intellectualism rather than a "vehicle" for struggle.



Well if Cockshott's rather feeble mish mash of state capitalist reforms grabs you then by all means go ahead and promote them. They are not my cup of tea but whatever takes your fancy...
i don't like how the document does not specify how such changes were to be enacted politically, but we can infer that such policies would be a result of a social movement taking power within the confines of the EU. The really great part of the document is that it concretely and specifically states what kind radical monetary policies would be undertaken in order to shift from a market/price economy to a value economy, what kind of political forms (representative and selection by lot) would be introduced, and that rather than nationalizing industries a set of positive rights of labor against capital should become law in order to eliminate the wage relation.

That is far more than "state capitalism" but hey, why should expect any other kind of response from you.....



I think this is a case of you running out of negative things to say about the WSM and having to invent some more.The SPGB clearly thinks that if there is only "one working class world wide" as they state on their website. They do not specify that the working class, upon taking power, have different kinds of insitutions to keep and different ones to abolish. Their one size fits all program (if you could even call it a political program) does not offer any clear idea about how worker's movments in different parts of the world would differ from one another before and after taking power.

i certainly did not make any of it up.


Your arguments are getting desparately thin at this point. Have you ever even read any of their stuff I wonder? Some of their analyses of regional struggles of wage labour against the boss class have struck me as quite impressive and insightful -particularly in recent years. Have a glance at their journal, the Socialist Standard http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/This is your idea of "analyisis" of reigonal struggles?

For one, i only see articles pertaining to Britain, and their conclusisions are obviously more useless propaganidizing.

The analysis of cuts against students for example isn't particularly bad though, but it's used as another opportunity to propaganidze the same basic "capitalism sucks, we need socialism". If that's all the WSM and SPGB wants to do then fine, but they will never be capable of leading any socialist movement.



Ahem, let me point out to you what seems to have escaped your notice entirely - that the capitalist class can only exist by exploiting the working class and that the rule of capital consists precisely in this ability to exploit workers and hence appropriate surplus value out of which futher capital is accumulated. My, my, what a brilliant observation.


If you dont change the political economy of capitalism then ipso facto you haven't overthrown the capitalist classStop right there, the goal is to change the political economy of society. This can only be done defeating the political rule of the bourgeoisie, dismantling their state, and creating a dictatorship of the proletariat in place of the old dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This is simple Marxism, and more elaborately the politics of Lenin. Only then can the owning class be totally overthrown and stripped of their position in society.



whose interests must prevail in this economy If the wage labour-capital relation still exists then so too must the rule of capital.Like i said before, the social revolution in which the proletariat takes the place of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class does nothing to change the political economy of society at first. Revolution does not abolish capitalism. Revolution is what allows the workers to transform society on their own terms and therefore get rid of the bourgeoisie's state and private functions. This means an implementation of socialist planning after revolution. But of course, socialism can't be implemented because only the working class can magically create socialism through parliamentary elections.


When you talk about the rule of labour what you basically mean is a sort of more radical version of a Labour Government which makes lots of noises about "squeezing the rich till the pips squeak" (Dennis Healeys phrase) and defending workers rights but in the end having to kow tow, as they all do, to the biog capitalist institutions like the IMF and the World Bank.Um, no i don't. The rule of labor means a revolutionary state apparutus built and run by the working class, and asserting rights for labor against capital until capital is abolished through implementation of socialist economic planning.



A government pretending to implement the rule of labour will end up viciously attacking the working class as every Labour government has done. You can guarantee that.You can talk about governments pretending to implement the rule of workers all you want, but im not talking about pretending.


Im not interested in the idea of the working class supposedly dominating or ruling over the the capitalist class which is an absurd idea anyway. Im interested only in getting rid of the working class along with the capitalist class altogether. That is what any revolutionary worth their salt could ever want The latter necessarily implies the former. What other reason is their for revolution? Oh yeah i forgot, "to abolish capitalism, bro". That's about as far as you and the SPGB are going to get theoretically.

[Victus Mortuum]

That, however, does not justify abstentionism.

Especially at the local level. If nothing else, voting to prevent the farthest of the rights getting into office at a larger level seems to be a justifiable position.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, I'm still for spoiled ballot campaigns at all levels. I certainly hope you aren't advocating a "vote Democratic" line like Chomsky and the CP-USA.

[Victus Mortuum]

Actually, I'm still for spoiled ballot campaigns at all levels. I certainly hope you aren't advocating a "vote Democratic" line like Chomsky and the CP-USA.

Only if the republicans were pushing for extremely dangerous ultra-right legislation and the democrats were all strongly opposed. In those rare circumstances, I might advocate defensive voting - I am still not sure how I feel about it though. It's something I need to think more about and discuss more about. But no, I don't support voting for social democratic parties usually.

As for local legislation, there are Referendum Propositions in my city that I encourage people to go and vote on - as this at least begins to encourage direct democratic participation.

[Jose Gracchus]

Actually, I'm still for spoiled ballot campaigns at all levels. I certainly hope you aren't advocating a "vote Democratic" line like Chomsky and the CP-USA.

That's never going to mean shit or be ever judged by your average worker-voter as a worthwhile use of his time and energy...and single vote. The U.S. constitutional system restricts participation to the the two "parties" (financing and propaganda committees under a constellation of bourgeois-funded PACs, actually).

To be honest I've never heard any argument against tactical voting in the existing American reality that sounded like something other than abstract theoretical nonsense. Its a Duverger's Law system par excellence.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Only if the republicans were pushing for extremely dangerous ultra-right legislation and the democrats were all strongly opposed. In those rare circumstances, I might advocate defensive voting - I am still not sure how I feel about it though. It's something I need to think more about and discuss more about. But no, I don't support voting for social democratic parties usually.

As for local legislation, there are Referendum Propositions in my city that I encourage people to go and vote on - as this at least begins to encourage direct democratic participation.

I should have been clearer: by local spoilage I meant in the context of local elections and not local referenda.


That's never going to mean shit or be ever judged by your average worker-voter as a worthwhile use of his time and energy...and single vote. The U.S. constitutional system restricts participation to the the two "parties" (financing and propaganda committees under a constellation of bourgeois-funded PACs, actually).

To be honest I've never heard any argument against tactical voting in the existing American reality that sounded like something other than abstract theoretical nonsense. Its a Duverger's Law system par excellence.

Well, the Republican party did eventually send the Federalists packing, didn't it?

The one argument in favour of tactical voting that I can think of is if electronic voting stations don't allow spoiled ballots, and if there are no immediate paper voting alternatives to having to vote in those stations.

[Jose Gracchus]

That is a Menshevik position, and it was proven wrong, as the development of the Soviet Union was performed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which eliminated the captialist and kulak classes.

Not to nitpick, but honestly in what shape or form was the USSR a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' by the time of the "liquidation of the kulaks as a class" other than say-so? What evidence do you have to substantiate this view? In what sense were the kulaks a proper class?

It was a class society, but the proletariat was not the ruling class.


Also, you assume that "peaceful" methods are inherently democratic merely because you are fighting with words and political rhetoric rather than phyiscally attacking others. i don't think this is the case. There is nothing more democratic than workers taking up arms and defending what ever ground they have in the struggle, be it a single factory or an entire nation, imo. Advocating socialism through parliamentary means is not democratic at all, seeing as how modern parliaments are based on the exclusion of normal people from political discourse. At least in some violent method of class struggle, workers have a say, in some kind of fashion or another.

So you're against the proletariat organizing as a class through political parties, and entering the electoral arena in any sense until the arrival of revolutionary opportunity? Could you clarify?

And while I agree broadly with your point (typically, I ask people if the Union armies 'authoritarian-ly' freeing slaves in the Confederacy was not an essentially substantive democratic act), I think it is indisputable that violence and especially organized violence is typically a feature which represses majoritarian and participative social elements, and therefore is directly a - perhaps necessary, but nonetheless dangerous - challenge to workers' power. Thusfar violence extended to non-proletarian parties, individuals, and groups has often advanced to the point where a single proletarian (or more accurately, decliningly proletarian) party or group organizes violence against proletarians and other proletarian groups or organizations.

This has historically been a considerable problem for workers' power and socialism, and to not even bother to mention it I think is careless.


Moreover, you assume that the use of violence is suicidal because workers cannot take on the state on conventional terms--but the very advantage the working class holds is not that they have more effecient and effective means of harming or killing others, it is because their acts of violence are unconventional and social in nature that they have a greater effect than some pigs repressing a protest. If a group of workers occupy a factory, throw the boss out on the street, defend their ground with slingshots, rocks and cocktails then that is a far greater victory than a parlimentary debate about socialism or a "peaceful" demonstration.

And for the sacrifical-lamb workers, if this is a premature point of revolt? I also think you insufficiently consider the need - should the revolution be successful - the need to co-opt or somehow substitute particular non-proletarian or repressive elements of the bourgeois state society. For example, civil servants and bureaucrats (the Cheka was originally founded, in fact, to oppose attempts by the government bureaucracy and civil servants to resist by various means, implementation of soviet government: the realization of the Council of People's Commissars as the provisional revolutionary government) in order to operate socialist governance, especially in the immediate aftermath, and also the Armed Forces. I would go so far as to say without significant splintering between reaction and revolution within these key sectors of the state apparatus of general coercion, there will be no revolution.


My point is that despite the ability to vote, voting for this or that candidate in bourgeois parliaments changes nothing.

My point is that holding demonstrations, while valiant and a show of force, are usually repressed and defeated unless defended with violence.

My point is that communist newspapers and journals can be an effective means of propaganda and education, but are only a small part of a social movement.

Eventually, workers will have to defend themselves from either state repression or bourgeois counter revolution.

Agreed.


If Marx thought that an entire social revolution could be done peacefully without any sort of violence, then he and everyone who agrees with him is wrong. Social revolutions happen when the state is weak anyways....
A) You are assuming you know what "i have in mind".

B) A "democratic republic" is not sufficient for the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But it is necessary. Necessary, but not sufficient. What is the dictatorship of the proletariat but, the very workers' government of the revolutionary democratic republic where participatory democratic forms of the mass, conscious proletariat transform the relations of production, and lead to the withering of the state?


Revolutions are authoritarian, (remember our friend Freidrich saying so?) and a chain of command is essential for military operations. However why violence in the context of class struggle or all out revolution/civil war is more democratic than parliamentarism is simple; because it implies the proletariat acting as a class, fighting for it's interests.

Military command hierarchies cannot be the basis of socially revolutionary transformation, by definition. The Bolsheviks and the workers and peasants were not briefly brought to revolutionary victory in Russia because the party provided a military command apparatus. In many ways, that apparatus contributed to the arresting, and progressive degeneration of the revolution.


Workers resort to violence because of "emotional outbursts of anger"? For fucks sake, do you know what it's like when imperialists invade your home and kill everyone or strikes are brutally suppressed? Thankfully i've never experienced such repression, but i would imagine that it is very stressful and frightening. i'd say responding with violence in such cases is far more logical than emotional, however emotional it may be.

Of course, ideally, people don't want violence to take place. Except we don't live in and ideal world. It's really quite simple...

So their theoretical proposals regarding the establishment of socialism is merely "it will only happen when the majority wants it". Great for the WSM. That's not going to help the working class embark on proper political economic policies once power is seized.

Broadly agreed. I'm for majoritarianism all the way, but really existing revolutions have always been, and almost certainly will be, thoroughly more complicated than in essence, a scenario where a mass referendum could replace the struggle. That's silly. Workers started off protesting the King and Tsar against war and ruinous policy hoping for amelioration, and ended up with the republic and soviet power, respectively.


i would say that the capturing of state power signifies that the most advanced section of the working class has lead a social movement capable of toppling the state. it doesn't matter if that movement contains less than 50% of all workers because the majority of workers cannot possibly grasp the qualities of socialism and common property until the smokescreen of bourgeois politics is done away with.

This is slippery. In what sense can a workers' revolution involve a substitution of the empirical proletariat by an arbitrarily-dubbed 'advanced section'? The social revolution can be accomplished by classes with particular relations to production becoming a class for itself and struggling thoroughly against the bourgeois state. You're taking a robbo abstraction (it should basically be as easy as referendum), and providing your own abstraction in opposition.

I think this is highly-misleading. I agree the struggle will certainly begin with limited striving toward socialism and revolution, but in the process the mass of the population comes over to revolution. Perhaps they cannot articulate Marxian political economy, but they come to support revolution in its form manifested organically (soviet power in Russia, for example).

I agree broadly, but you're simplifying the issue of a class-for-itself into a mere set of programmatic tasks which are axiomatically democratic, no matter the means or mass support, because they are the correct lines for socialism. That's not the self-emancipation of the working class. Its also nonsense, because a social revolution will not be possible where the proletariat's "advanced sections" have not won over the mass of society to essentially revolutionary positions (like soviet power). Otherwise no revolution has occurred. Revolution and a coup by elements who carry out purportedly socialist policies are two different things.


No, socialism is possible only once the bourgoeisie is over thrown, and only then can "the majority" of workers develop the political maturity to rule as a class, and gear society towards the abolition of antagonistic classes, and their self abolition as the working class.

To be honest this just sounds like special pleading for why the unchallengeable rule of a single purportedly proletarian party's leadership is to be identified with social revolution and socialism.


You (and for that matter, the WSM) need to define what you mean by "ready". i'm quite sick of trying to figure out what you mean by it. If it means some rigid misapplication of the "theory of productive forces" and "socialist minded" then you can save it.

While robbo has not justified his position, you have also failed to prove that the productive forces - in Marxism, a considerable factor to be sure - were mature enough for a socialist revolution. I think there may be something to that view.


Of course, the politics of the ruling class is always the most prevalent in society. This is basic Marxism.

So is the fact that the emancipation of the proletariat is a task for the proletariat itself. And that means the empirical, really existing proletariat. Not some set of programmatic tasks that are declared to be objectively the proletariat's interests, which it is not invited to challenge.


No, you assume that the precondition for revolution is "the majority must be socialist minded" which is idealist, and it's through this narrow lens of idealistic requirements that you perceive my argument. The preconditions for revolution is that the state is in a relatively weak position (as a result of popular opposition and/or suffering war loses) and that there is a politically capable socialist movement which can take the place of the bourgeois state. This does not require "the majority" of workers being "socialist minded". Whatever that means.

You yourself in your own way reduce revolution to a set of programmatic tasks, and then take robbo to task for the selfsame.


Don't you think it is fatalistic if you think revolution will never take place until everyone is "socialist minded?"

i never said "workers will never become socialists", don't fuck with what i'm saying.

Clearly, you have missed the point.

Because the "development of productive forces" does not happen evenly and only implies that the contradition of the working and owning classes will intensify and grow. It does not imply that a social movement is capable of taking power. It is deterministic to think socialism will magically come about when the productive forces are devloped, along with workers being "socialist minded". "Socialist minded" workers does not guarentee that such workers are effectively organized, have a proper critique of capital and theory of revolution.

The idea that revolutionary theory approximates scientific precision and authority is, I'm sorry to say, laughable. We can't predict with any certainty the exact preconditions for successful socialist revolution, but we can generate approximate areas of concern and various conditions that seem universal, and suggest that these be given special emphasis in the prolonged struggle toward revolution. But it is hardly a matter of who has the right 'theory' or 'organization'. To be honest that sounds like special pleading for how some party's divine right to rule because it alone has the objectively correct lines. That concept, as far as I know, is unknown to Marxism.


It wouldn't be idealist if 'socialists' like yourself and the WSM actually laid out a theory of how the working class can take power in a concrete way and specified what kind of political and economic policies should be undertaken after workers take power. Its idealist because all the WSM does is seemingly propagandize for communism and explain Marx's critique of capitalism in simple words. This is not bad in itself, but it's not enough and it sort of reeks of intellectualism rather than a "vehicle" for struggle.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

i
don't like how the document does not specify how such changes were to be enacted politically, but we can infer that such policies would be a result of a social movement taking power within the confines of the EU. The really great part of the document is that it concretely and specifically states what kind radical monetary policies would be undertaken in order to shift from a market/price economy to a value economy, what kind of political forms (representative and selection by lot) would be introduced, and that rather than nationalizing industries a set of positive rights of labor against capital should become law in order to eliminate the wage relation.

Agreed. Whatever one wishes to say, it is at least clear and concise and - courageously and constructively, I might add - bears itself to critique.

Agree with most of the rest, so I'll skip down...


Stop right there, the goal is to change the political economy of society. This can only be done defeating the political rule of the bourgeoisie, dismantling their state, and creating a dictatorship of the proletariat in place of the old dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. This is simple Marxism, and more elaborately the politics of Lenin. Only then can the owning class be totally overthrown and stripped of their position in society.

I agree with the primacy of a full economic-political class struggle, where certain conditions ascertained from history must be met before capital can be said to have been repressed and communism progressed toward. Though I hardly think this is solely a province of Marxism-Leninism.


Like i said before, the social revolution in which the proletariat takes the place of the bourgeoisie as the ruling class does nothing to change the political economy of society at first. Revolution does not abolish capitalism. Revolution is what allows the workers to transform society on their own terms and therefore get rid of the bourgeoisie's state and private functions. This means an implementation of socialist planning after revolution. But of course, socialism can't be implemented because only the working class can magically create socialism through parliamentary elections.

I think in principle, a real workers' revolution by essence represses the class features of bourgeois state society. We should develop the economic science to help the proletarian revolution produce these productive changes, but I pretty much believe this is part-and-parcel of a class-for-itself carrying out a social revolution, by definition.


Um, no i don't. The rule of labor means a revolutionary state apparutus built and run by the working class, and asserting rights for labor against capital until capital is abolished through implementation of socialist economic planning.

I think you mean the 'workers in power' as a vague sound-out is hollow. Clearly the market must be eliminated in favor of planning-for-use as the democratic will of the producers.

[Jose Gracchus]

Well, the Republican party did eventually send the Federalists packing, didn't it?

I know, but that is in essence the only case of an insurgent third party coming to power and displacing one of the old two constitutionally-mandated parties.

The American Civil War, though having socially revolutionary leanings and elements, was not a proper version of that. The political features included extensive inter-regionalist conflict, which helped provide the Republicans with thorough bourgeois state allies and a safe zone of development. These features will not be available as a 'bridge' to successful electoral competition in any conceivable scenario for workers' revolution.

Though the bourgeois state is the bourgeois state, the American constitutional and electoral features, apart from the awesome overpower of its ideological apparatus (which is truthfully one of the principal U.S. exports and major obstacles to class consciousness; thus the average American is much more thoroughly propagandized if one considers probable 'marketing-advertising-media' spending-per-citizen compared to other bourgeois states), make the American bourgeois state much less favorable 'terrain' for the class war than other bourgeois states. I would go so far as to say that by mature bourgeois-democratic standards and features, the U.S. is primitive and regressive in significant ways, especially from the perspective of labor rights and working class political and social development. Most of the time it seems 'bourgeois-democratic' revolutionary tasks are identified with construction of a democratic republic and basic civil and political libertarianism. However, perhaps it should also be judged by the proportionality of the electoral features, the practical freedom to form a party or association for political purposes (particularly regarding labor here), and other measures of democratic progress. In other words, the U.S. by much more subtle and thorough means has highly restricted the possibility of even bourgeois and left-reformist labor politics. The 'breakthrough' of labor politically is arguably most limited in the United States.


The one argument in favour of tactical voting that I can think of is if electronic voting stations don't allow spoiled ballots, and if there are no immediate paper voting alternatives to having to vote in those stations.

I mean what return-on-electoral-investment is there in spoilage for the average working person. It is clear as day if you're a public sector worker that Democratic gubernatorial administrations have more tender mercies than Republican ones. How will spoilage be realized as meaningful uses of the vote? How will this in any plausible fashion meaningfully help the growth of a socialist alternative?

[Die Neue Zeit]

These features will not be available as a 'bridge' to successful electoral competition in any conceivable scenario for workers' revolution.

Though the bourgeois state is the bourgeois state, the American constitutional and electoral features, apart from the awesome overpower of its ideological apparatus (which is truthfully one of the principal U.S. exports and major obstacles to class consciousness; thus the average American is much more thoroughly propagandized if one considers probable 'marketing-advertising-media' spending-per-citizen compared to other bourgeois states), make the American bourgeois state much less favorable 'terrain' for the class war than other bourgeois states. I would go so far as to say that by mature bourgeois-democratic standards and features, the U.S. is primitive and regressive in significant ways, especially from the perspective of labor rights and working class political and social development. Most of the time it seems 'bourgeois-democratic' revolutionary tasks are identified with construction of a democratic republic and basic civil and political libertarianism. However, perhaps it should also be judged by the proportionality of the electoral features, the practical freedom to form a party or association for political purposes (particularly regarding labor here), and other measures of democratic progress. In other words, the U.S. by much more subtle and thorough means has highly restricted the possibility of even bourgeois and left-reformist labor politics. The 'breakthrough' of labor politically is arguably most limited in the United States.

And that's why only a declining minority of eligible voters vote in the first place.


I mean what return-on-electoral-investment is there in spoilage for the average working person. It is clear as day if you're a public sector worker that Democratic gubernatorial administrations have more tender mercies than Republican ones. How will spoilage be realized as meaningful uses of the vote? How will this in any plausible fashion meaningfully help the growth of a socialist alternative?

It is an expression of contempt for the electoral system, is it not? It helps break the arrogant notion of "you can't complain if you don't vote."

I'm not saying that spoilage is the be-all-and-end-all. Much less than half of the political support (not electoral) needed from the working class comes from spoiled votes.

Good rebuttal of mykitty there. :thumbup1:

NOTE to mykittyhasaboner: By "majority political support," both of us mean honest voting membership, or Citizenship, in the party itself as the best means of gauging this.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think that there is an obvious "breakthrough"-"breakout" problem for the far left in mass politics in the last couple decades. That's an overall problem of organization, strategy, and politics that is very broad and general, and a task confronting us as we examine the terrain of class struggle and historical trends of the contemporary era looking forward. That said, I think for deeply-held structural reasons (and additional negative factors which will impede a revolutionary class movement in particular) any insurgent movement or group or organizing that expects in any substantial way to enter into direct competition with the state-mandated "parties" will face an extreme uphill climb. It is actually worse today than it was in the last substantive era of attempted third party insurgents which was in the 1880s-1912. During this era of intense class struggle, the built-in constitutional-electoral constraints were buttressed by increased statutory barriers to third-party entry. There's been substantial attacks by courts as well. There's also a number of other extrinsic factors in party government which have evolved since then to detriment of insurgent parties having to do with media and financing. American history shows a real nasty graveyard of insurgent third parties. Maurice Duverger figured out the bottom line ages ago. Sometimes, honestly, I think any political movement interested in electoral activity needs to find a way to rollback Duverger's Law through implementing PR, instant run-off elections, parliamentarism via constitutional amendments or something.

I don't agree with that. I think majoritarian political support is something which is hard to pin down to a formula, but definitely something to be sought - certainly something less than 'referenda' or 'parliamentary'-possible levels of political consciousness, which will never happen in a real situation.

The Russian Revolution was a broad act by the masses. It certainly had majority support and activity in the revolutionary classes. It was certainly not the product of top-down 'command hierarchies'. The Civil War was fought that way, and it was retained in the post-Civil War peace. The trouble was the Russian Revolution occurred in a geopolitical context that was basically hopeless for any coherent political squaring of the revolutionary circle. I don't see how any revolutionary majoritarian consensus can maneuver successfully through the problem of ending the war, and the collapse of the army. These are substantial problems. The extreme deprivation of the economic dislocations and revolutionary isolation are also exogenous factors through which the most liberatory of social upheavals is unlikely to come out unscathed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sometimes, honestly, I think any political movement interested in electoral activity needs to find a way to rollback Duverger's Law through implementing PR, instant run-off elections, parliamentarism via constitutional amendments or something.

Did you check out my new thread on political consciousness?


I don't agree with that. I think majoritarian political support is something which is hard to pin down to a formula, but definitely something to be sought - certainly something less than 'referenda' or 'parliamentary'-possible levels of political consciousness, which will never happen in a real situation.

Comrade, I did say "best means of gauging this" because I too think that it shouldn't be pursued as the exclusive means to the detriment of others. The problem with the WSM's approach is that it does not exact commitment from the individual worker who proclaims support for the WSM program. They just drop their vote in the ballot box and that's it.

[Paul Cockshott]

Well if Cockshott's rather feeble mish mash of state capitalist reforms grabs you then by all means go ahead and promote them. They are not my cup of tea but whatever takes your fancy...


How on earth Robert thinks this is a state capitalist programme is beyond me. It is explicitly directed against the idea that socialism strategy should be based on the state nationalising production. If you want to categorise it, it is more of a syndicalist programme since its immediate economic programme amounts to workers cooperatives. Its political programme is 100% in line with your original posting about aiming for a radically democratic republic and reconstructing the state on the basis of direct democracy.

[robbo203]

This is all very pedantic, if i may say so. Certainly, one can herald a few quotes from Lenin and recite objective facts regarding the development of the productive forces and the consciousness of the population to prove that Russia and neigbhoring countries weren't "ready" for a full implementation of socialism owing to a lack of necessary "preconditions". My point in arguing against the notion that is brought up by the WSM in claiming that in 1918 Russia wasn't ready for socialism, is tantamount to saying that the proleteriat and peasantry shouldn't have taken power and developed society on it's own terms, rather the development of the "preconditions" for socialism must be done with the bourgeoisie. That is a Menshevik position, and it was proven wrong, as the development of the Soviet Union was performed by a dictatorship of the proletariat, which eliminated the captialist and kulak classes..


Firstly it was you who responded to the Lenin quote from 1905 (saying that the Russian workers were not ready for socialism) by pointing out that that was 1905 not 1917. When I then demonstrated that in 1917 Lenin still thought the Russian workers were not ready you compalin that Im pedantic. :rolleyes:

Secondly, Im not primarily concerned about whether or not the workers should or should not have "taken power" in Russia in 1917. Whether or not they did does not alter the simple fact that you seem determined to avoid at all cost that there is no way that they or anyone else could have introduced socialism. No way at all. The only option was the development of capitalism. Thatm however, does not at all imply a Menshevik position. It is quite possible to refuse to side politically or ideologically with the capitalist class even while recognising that for the time being socialism is not on the cards. But if you took power and became a govenrment then of course you would be forced in these circumstances to develop capitalism. You would have to make decisions that would ultimately have to favour the interests of capital.


Thirdly the subsequent development of the Soviet union along state capitalist lines (just as Lenin had urged) proved the very point I am making. Contrary to your ridiculous claim that what was instituted in the SU was a "dictatorship of the proletariat" what was actually instituted was a pretty oppressive dictatorship over the proletariat exercised by a newly emergent state capitalist class which, morever, oversaw, according to Nove, one of the harshest regressions in working class living standards anywhere. Incidentally even Lenin admitted that it was not the working class that exercised the dictatorship, but the vanguard. He held that view that the working class were incapable of exercising a DOTP
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm)



It is not idealist to prefer peaceful methods, it is preferable, but that is not the world we live in. Peaceful methods must be exhausted before workers become militant, and that pretty much always happens. It is idealistic to think that revolutions can take place "peacefully". One needs only to open any serious historical work to see otherwise.
.

Youve changed your tune havent you?. Having been caught with your theoretical pants down you're now saying "It is not idealist to prefer peaceful methods, it is preferable" . But when I asked you whether the
SPGB is "idealist" for advocating peaceful democratic revolution you said "Absolutely". Note I did not say the SPGB claims the revolution would be peaceful and democratic -merely that it advocates peaceful and democratic methods (precisely becuase they are "preferable"). In fact the position of the SPGB is that force would be used if required - it does not consider itself to be a "pacifist" organisation - but then you wouldnt have known that - would you? - because really you know next to nothing about the SPGB for all your affectations to the contrary.

In my view, and probably the SPGB's view as well, the bigger the socialist movement the less likely is there to be violence. Which is not to rule out the possibility of violence altogether. However, when the writing is on the wall, and when even the military had been penetrated by socialist consciousnness, it is more than likely that the capitalists will just throw in the towel. Look what happened with the collapse of state capitalist regimes in Eastern Europe. The only exception seems to have been Rumania where I recall there were about 2-3000 people killed



Also, you assume that "peaceful" methods are inherently democratic merely because you are fighting with words and political rhetoric rather than phyiscally attacking others. i don't think this is the case. There is nothing more democratic than workers taking up arms and defending what ever ground they have in the struggle, be it a single factory or an entire nation, imo. Advocating socialism through parliamentary means is not democratic at all, seeing as how modern parliaments are based on the exclusion of normal people from political discourse. At least in some violent method of class struggle, workers have a say, in some kind of fashion or another. .

You ignore what I said in my previous post. Violence necesitates authoritarian and hence undemocratic methods of organisation. It requires a hierarchical chain of command to be effectively implemented. Your comments on using parliamentary means are equally poorly conceived since you dont seem to grasp that the proposal to use parliamentary means does not at all have to entail making use of parliament in the way capitalist political parties use it. The SPGB for example does not advocate representative democracy at all- it advocates delegative democacy where delegates elected to parliament are directly under the control of the socialist movement itself and are there for one purpose only and not to adminster capitalism. Have a look at its recent pamphlet http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/pamphlets/Parliament_Pamphlet_update_09.pdf


Moreover, you assume that the use of violence is suicidal because workers cannot take on the state on conventional terms--but the very advantage the working class holds is not that they have more effecient and effective means of harming or killing others, it is because their acts of violence are unconventional and social in nature that they have a greater effect than some pigs repressing a protest. If a group of workers occupy a factory, throw the boss out on the street, defend their ground with slingshots, rocks and cocktails then that is a far greater victory than a parlimentary debate about socialism or a "peaceful" demonstration..

Dont be silly. How is a group of workers occupying a factory going to usher in socialism, eh? Im not myself opposed to worker takeovers and in fact favour various forms of direct action such as squatting but lets be realistic here. We are talking about changing an entire social system. If workers are not willing to vote for socialism then they are hardly going to risk their lives taking on the state to establishg socialism are they?


My point is that despite the ability to vote, voting for this or that candidate in bourgeois parliaments changes nothing. ..

Absolutely. But that is not what is being claimed. It is the consciousness behind the vote that is all important. In itself the election of a socialist delegate to parliament signifies very little





So their theoretical proposals regarding the establishment of socialism is merely "it will only happen when the majority wants it". Great for the WSM. That's not going to help the working class embark on proper political economic policies once power is seized..

Once power is seized I would imagine any socialist would want capitalism scrapped and the means of production made common property. Why is that not a "proper political economic policy"? Ah but I forget - you really want to hang on to capitalism to give yourself the opportunity to implement these "proper political economic policies" for adminsitering capitalism in the interests of the workers:rolleyes:


i would say that the capturing of state power signifies that the most advanced section of the working class has lead a social movement capable of toppling the state. it doesn't matter if that movement contains less than 50% of all workers because the majority of workers cannot possibly grasp the qualities of socialism and common property until the smokescreen of bourgeois politics is done away with.


No, socialism is possible only once the bourgoeisie is over thrown, and only then can "the majority" of workers develop the political maturity to rule as a class, and gear society towards the abolition of antagonistic classes, and their self abolition as the working class..

If socialism can only happen when the majority of workers want and understand it then it follows logically that if you dont have that majority you are lumbered with capitalism. If you are lumbered with capitalism then, equally logically, you have not overthrown the bourgeois or to be more precise the interests of capital. Capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital and if you take power without a majority wanting socialism this means you will be forced to comply with the interests of capital In aligning yourself with the interests of capital you will then yourself become an obstacle to the realisation of socialism. This is precisely what happened in the Soviet Union.

Twist and turn, duck and dive as you might , you cannot escape the logic of this argument. Without having a socialist majority before you capture power you will only end up using that power against the majority in whose interests you claim to have acted. That is absolutely inevitable


.


This is your idea of "analyisis" of reigonal struggles?

For one, i only see articles pertaining to Britain, and their conclusisions are obviously more useless propaganidizing.

The analysis of cuts against students for example isn't particularly bad though, but it's used as another opportunity to propaganidze the same basic "capitalism sucks, we need socialism". If that's all the WSM and SPGB wants to do then fine, but they will never be capable of leading any socialist movement..

The SPGB opposes the principle of political leadership but that aside I gave you the link to the Socialist standard http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/ more with the idea that you could look through the back issues at leisure to find whatever example of an analysis of a "regional struggle" that might interest you. This months SS admittedly doesnt have much in the way of such an analysis but there are plenty of other issues that have

[Die Neue Zeit]

How on earth Robert thinks this is a state capitalist programme is beyond me. It is explicitly directed against the idea that socialism strategy should be based on the state nationalising production. If you want to categorise it, it is more of a syndicalist programme since its immediate economic programme amounts to workers cooperatives. Its political programme is 100% in line with your original posting about aiming for a radically democratic republic and reconstructing the state on the basis of direct democracy.

How does a more cooperative approach deal with today's "precariat"? They float from job to job, and cooperatives are usually based on full-time employment.

This is a question I'll direct at Boffy's Blog in due course.

[Paul Cockshott]

It has to be a transitional stage to a fully planned economy. The cooperative system does not guarantee full employment in the absence of planning and the establishment of public marketing boards that can afford to take the hit of losses on sales of some items to ensure all output is sold.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Does not guarantee full employment": Not even with an employer-of-last-resort program as suggested by Schweickart in my Economics thread critiquing his recent lapsing?

I'm much more concerned about the lack of "workplace democracy" if the bulk of workers move from job to job. That, as opposed to more potential for stakeholder co-management and systemic collective worker management if one goes the State route or the One Big Syndicate route.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

While he did have confusions in regard to the "smashing of the state," he didn't deny that Marx held the possibility of the proletariat "peacefully" capturing state power. In fact, only a few lines after a line which this piece quotes he says:


It is interesting to note, in particular, two points in the above-quoted argument of Marx. First, he restricts his conclusion to the Continent. This was understandable in 1871, when Britain was still the model of a purely capitalist country, but without a militarist clique and, to a considerable degree, without a bureaucracy. Marx therefore excluded Britain, where a revolution, even a people's revolution, then seemed possible, and indeed was possible, without the precondition of destroying "ready-made state machinery".
Today, in 1917, at the time of the first great imperialist war, this restriction made by Marx is no longer valid. Both Britain and America, the biggest and the last representatives -- in the whole world -- of Anglo-Saxon "liberty", in the sense that they had no militarist cliques and bureaucracy, have completely sunk into the all-European filthy, bloody morass of bureaucratic-military institutions which subordinate everything to themselves, and suppress everything. Today, in Britain and America, too, "the precondition for every real people's revolution" is the smashing, the destruction of the "ready-made state machinery" (made and brought up to the "European", general imperialist, perfection in those countries in the years 1914-17).


And from "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky":


First subterfuge. “That Marx in this case did not have in mind a form of government is proved by the fact that he was of the opinion that in Britain and America the transition might take place peacefully, i.e., in a democratic way.” ... Further, was there in the seventies anything which made England and America exceptional in regard to what we are now discussing? It will be obvious to anyone at all familiar with the requirements of science in regard to the problems of history that this question must be put. To fail to put it is tantamount to falsifying science, to engaging in sophistry. And, the question having been put, there can be no doubt as to the reply: the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat is violence against the bourgeoisie; and the necessity of such violence is particularly called for, as Marx and Engels have repeatedly explained in detail (especially in The Civil War in France and in the preface to it), by the existence of militarism and a bureaucracy. But it is precisely these institutions that were non-existent in Britain and America in the seventies, when Marx made his observations (they do exist in Britain and in America now)!
Kautsky has to resort to trickery literally at every step to cover up his apostasy!


This isn't surprising given that the SPGBs approach to Lenin has always been to rip quotes out of context while ignoring everything else he said.

[Left HanDeD]

Lenin himself, wasn't a communist n'or a socialist. He was a dictator, who worked in the name of socialism- or marxism. He thinks that workers are too stupid to manage without a one strong leader.

[KC]

Lenin himself, wasn't a communist n'or a socialist. He was a dictator, who worked in the name of socialism- or marxism. He thinks that workers are too stupid to manage without a one strong leader.

Obvious troll is obvious

[Paul Cockshott]

". Maurice Duverger figured out the bottom line ages ago. Sometimes, honestly, I think any political movement interested in electoral activity needs to find a way to rollback Duverger's Law through implementing PR, instant run-off elections, parliamentarism via constitutional amendments or something."

I would have thought that the left in the US has to make a new constitution the key aim. If you accept the existing slaveholder's constitution there is no progress to be made.
You have to camaign for a new constitution that replaces senate and congress by sortition based peoples assemblies, the same thing at state level, the abolition of the judiciary and the presidency and governors and the supremacy of the assemblies. Courts should be run by the juries rather than the judges, and there should be no unrepresentative supreme court.

[RED DAVE]

". Maurice Duverger figured out the bottom line ages ago. Sometimes, honestly, I think any political movement interested in electoral activity needs to find a way to rollback Duverger's Law through implementing PR, instant run-off elections, parliamentarism via constitutional amendments or something."That's because we are not "interested in electoral activity,' except as an expression of protest.


I would have thought that the left in the US has to make a new constitution the key aim.How about making socialism the key aim.


If you accept the existing slaveholder's constitution there is no progress to be made.That's true, and that's why we don't "accept" it, we aim to overthrow the system that is concretized in it.


You have to camaign for a new constitutionWhy would we do that when we can "campaign" for socialism.


that replaces senate and congress by sortition based peoples assemblies, the same thing at state level, the abolition of the judiciary and the presidency and governors and the supremacy of the assemblies. Courts should be run by the juries rather than the judges, and there should be no unrepresentative supreme court.Uhh, Comrade, why should we in the USA campaign and spend huge amounts of effort on achieving structural reform of the bourgeois state as you are suggesting. What those of us who are committed to revolutionary politics do is work within the working class to build up a revolutionary movement for the overthrow of that state. We don't need a new constitution, we need a revolution.

RED DAVE

[Paul Cockshott]

Yes. And in such a revolution would a new constitution not be created?

[RED DAVE]

Uhh, Comrade, why should we in the USA campaign and spend huge amounts of effort on achieving structural reform of the bourgeois state as you are suggesting. What those of us who are committed to revolutionary politics do is work within the working class to build up a revolutionary movement for the overthrow of that state. We don't need a new constitution, we need a revolution.
Yes. And in such a revolution would a new constitution not be created?The promulgation of a revolutionary constitution will be a distinct afterthought after the establishment of a working class regime.

Why do you bring up a new constitution as a "key aim"? You brought us some similar nonsense previously about the European Parliament, if my memory servies me:


[W]e argue that it is necessary for the labour movements
of Europe to take on board their own democratic version of European
internationalism, since neither the technocrats of the EU itself nor the
propertied classes of Europe are capable of doing this.http://www.revleft.com/vb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=2020777

All of this crap is social democracy with an academic face, with nothing to do with working class overthrow of capitalism.
RED DAVE

[syndicat]

Why would we do that when we can "campaign" for socialism.



i would have to agree with Dave here. we will need eventually to break the constitution because it's a roadblock to the creation of a self-managed socialist social arrangement. the details of the constitution will depend upon what the aims of the revolution are, and how the movement decides on the specific details to implement that.

"campaigning for socialism" does require that we lay out and discuss enough of the structure so that people can get a real sense of what it is we're fighting for and why it would be liberating and worth fighting for, and to have a sense that it would work. but too much detail can get in the way.

[RED DAVE]

Why would we do that when we can "campaign" for socialism.
i would have to agree with Dave here.:D


we will need eventually to break the constitution because it's a roadblock to the creation of a self-managed socialist social arrangement. the details of the constitution will depend upon what the aims of the revolution are, and how the movement decides on the specific details to implement that.:thumbup1:


"campaigning for socialism" does require that we lay out and discuss enough of the structure so that people can get a real sense of what it is we're fighting for and why it would be liberating and worth fighting for, and to have a sense that it would work. but too much detail can get in the way.The actual amount of explanation, explication, etc., will be worked out in practice. We need to avoid what I call the "utopian fallacy" on the one hand and some kind of reductionism on the other.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

The actual amount of explanation, explication, etc., will be worked out in practice.

well, we need to work on it now becauss we are trying to build a socialist movement now. maybe that's where we differ.

[RED DAVE]

The actual amount of explanation, explication, etc., will be worked out in practice. We need to avoid what I call the "utopian fallacy" on the one hand and some kind of reductionism on the other.
well, we need to work on it now becauss we are trying to build a socialist movement now. maybe that's where we differ.So what are your ideas or the ideas or your tendency as to the form of (1) workers control at the workplace level; (2) workers control of levels above that: work location (factory, store, airport, etc.); (3) regional, national and international levels. And (4) how will this be integrated with non-workplace venues, such as communities?

Again, it's my opinion that to try to answer this in any detail is utopianism. I have never seen any person or group do it "in advance" that didn't sound like a bureaucratic nightmare.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

So what are your ideas or the ideas or your tendency as to the form of (1) workers control at the workplace level; (2) workers control of levels above that: work location (factory, store, airport, etc.); (3) regional, national and international levels. And (4) how will this be integrated with non-workplace venues, such as communities?



i suppose it depends on what you mean by "detail".

1. we advocate generalized self-management. that is, in the various areas of decision-making the decisions are made by the people who are affected by the decisions. but people are affected by decisions to varying degrees. nonetheless, we can say that there are always groups of people who are affected most in a certain area and roughly equally...the people who work in a particular workplace, who live in a particular neighborhood, who live in a particular city. so we can say there should be what I call "units of self-management." this would be where the basis of real control lies with the face to face democracy of the assemblies there.

so worker assemblies are the basis of workers self-management. delegates are elected from the assemblies for things like coordinating council for that workplace or for delegates to attend conventions for the workers in that industry or a region wide workers congress. but there are some decisions affecting the use of the means of production that do affect others...possible enviro effects, the nature of the product, etc, and there will need to be a way to make the workers assemblies accountable in these areas to the relevant larger social grouping.

the workers movement that brings about the change needs to work on re-designing the jobs so as to eliminate the relative concentration of the decision-making authhority and expertise into the hands of a few, and re-integrate decision-making and expertise with the physical doing of the work to ensure that all jobs have elements of the skill, expertise and decision-making participation involved in production, so as to dismantle the basis of the bureaucratic class.

as far as location of workplaces and the like, that is getting into too much detail.

4. accountability of production to communities in regard to enviro issues, nature of the product and the like. the answer here, for us, lies in the neighborhood assemblies, and congresses of delegates from the neighborhoods for a wider area such as a city or metro region.

this brings me to the issue of what i call the "dual governance model." this can be found in the program of Spanish anarcho-syndicalism in the '30s. self-management includes self-management of decisions about consumption such as what we want to be available in the way of public goods and services, such as education, health care, public transit, enviro defense.

the development of participatory planning in this area can appropriately begin with the neighborhood assemblies, and proposals can be sent then to congresses that cover wider regions as appropriate. the neighborhood and village assemblies are the appropriate place for decision-making to start in regard to like permissible levels of pollutants. to prevent people being polluted on, they need to have the power to control the use of the enviro commons. workers have this power at work, through their control over the development of the technologies that would be in use there.

any system of self-management needs to scale up to cover wide regions such as a region, nation or continent. this can be done via congresses of delegates elected from the base assemblies. I would say that there needs to always be the option of people being able to force a decision to be sent back to the base assemblies for discussion and vote, if it is an important or controversial issue. this is part of preventing the emergence of a separate political class not controlled by the mass of the people.

any armed body used to defend the revolution, such as a miilitia, needs to be very directly controlled by, and accountable to, this system of assemblies and delegate congresses.

I would also argue that the dual governance model has the advantage that it would enable a system of decentralized participatory planning, which amounts to a system of negotiated coordination between people as residents, citizens, consumers and people as workers/producers. i think this is preferable to a system of central planning that concentrates all decision making about the economy into a single body.