Caesearean Socialism

[Tommy4ever]

What is it?

I saw Die Neue Zeit talking about it in a thread but after googling it I still couldn't find anything to explain what this means.

Is it basically a populist strongman dictator? If so why would the user I mentioned support it?

[Aurora]

It's just some nonsense DNZ made up, much like his 'social-proletocracy'. Try to ignore it if you can

I wouldn't have thought it was possible for jacob to get nuttier but i guess i was wrong

[Queercommie Girl]

Caesar was a statist, and while he was certainly more progressive than the elitists in Rome that fully supported the interests of the corrupt Patrician Order, he was not a populist or "socialist".

[graymouser]

Yeah, there's no such thing as Caesarian socialism. DNZ's idea is based on a misreading of a book called The Assassination of Julius Caesar and an attempt, in relative ignorance of the history of class societies, to use Caesar as a model for third world military leaders taking power.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I saw Die Neue Zeit talking about it in a thread but after googling it I still couldn't find anything to explain what this means.

Try using the Search function for this board and type "Caesarism."


Is it basically a populist strongman dictator? If so why would the user I mentioned support it?

It's more complex than that. See my Theory thread on "People's Histories."


Caesar was a statist, and while he was certainly more progressive than the elitists in Rome that fully supported the interests of the corrupt Patrician Order, he was not a populist or "socialist".


Yeah, there's no such thing as Caesarean socialism. DNZ's idea is based on a misreading of a book called The Assassination of Julius Caesar and an attempt, in relative ignorance of the history of class societies, to use Caesar as a model for third world military leaders taking power.

At an extremely basic level, it is a political triad of independent working-class political organization (NOT workers rule), urban petit-bourgeois democratism, and peasant patrimonialism. It acknowledges that the proletariat isn't demographically massive enough to press for a DOTP.

The Third World movements need not limit themselves to Breakthrough Military Coups. There can be People's War, Focoism, etc. The point is that the seizure of state power should learn from the original, genuine "March on Rome."

Economically, Caesarean Socialism is a means to make smooth the transition to the post-monetary lower phase of communist production and distribution once the DOTP takes hold.

[Tommy4ever]

DNZ:

Can you please outline exactly what you mean here rather than direct me to another thread? A copy and paste would do. :)

I'm still very confused by your idea.

[ZeroNowhere]

It's the logical progression of Mauryan parochialism, tinged with shades of Harry Conklin's views as regards the flaws of Trotskyist parsimony critiques.

If you're curious, I would refer you to this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pat-robertson-blames-t126824/index.html?t=126824) thread in order to gain a better grounding in Richterian-Gutenburgian seismology.

[RED DAVE]

What is it?

I saw Die Neue Zeit talking about it in a thread but after googling it I still couldn't find anything to explain what this means.

Is it basically a populist strongman dictator? If so why would the user I mentioned support it?Because he is laboring under severe illusions as to what socialism is, what consititutes the transition from capitalism to socialism, the nature of democracy, etc. Otherwise, all is well with him and his crackpot, harebrained, weirded-out anti-Marxist notions. :D

RED DAVE

[Crux]

DNZ:

Can you please outline exactly what you mean here rather than direct me to another thread? A copy and paste would do. :)

I'm still very confused by your idea.
Here (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/) is another fascinating text that will probably be about as helpful, interesting and relevant, possibly more.

[RED DAVE]

At an extremely basic level, it is a political triad of independent working-class political organization (NOT workers rule), urban petit-bourgeois democratism, and peasant patrimonialism. It acknowledges that the proletariat isn't demographically massive enough to press for a DOTP.I suppose it would be possible to make more mistakes in two sentences, but one would have to work at it.

(1) Any "political triad" involving the working class, the petit-bourgoisie and the peasantry would be, if not led by the working class, some form of state capitalism. Unless you're DNZ or a Maoist or Stalinist, this is exactly what you don't want: you want a workers state, led by the working class as the leading class.

(2) To posit that the working class has to be "demographically massive" in order to take power is a misconception of the notion of class power.

(3) The constant inventing of neologisms is, in US left history, the sign of a crank.



The Third World movements need not limit themselves to Breakthrough Military Coups. There can be People's War, Focoism, etc. The point is that the seizure of state power should learn from the original, genuine "March on Rome."I guess a misreading of Julius Caesar's "March on Rome" of over 2000 years ago is more valuable to DNZ than an accurate assessment of the Russian or Chinese revolutions.


RED DAVE

[Princess Luna]

The invasion of Gaul was a horrific event that resulted in the killing or enslavement of 10's of thousands of innocent people , Caesear was not a "socialist" he was a dictator who came to power by riding a wave of populism.

[Crux]

I suppose it would be possible to make more mistakes in two sentences, but one would have to work at it.

(1) Any "political triad" involving the working class, the petit-bourgoisie and the peasantry would be, if not led by the working class, some form of state capitalism. Unless you're DNZ or a Maoist or Stalinist, this is exactly what you don't want: you want a workers state, led by the working class as the leading class.

(2) To posit that the working class has to be "demographically massive" in order to take power is a misconception of the notion of class power.

(3) The constant inventing of neologisms is, in US left history, the sign of a crank.


I guess a misreading of Julius Caesar's "March on Rome" of over 2000 years ago is more valuable to DNZ than an accurate assessment of the Russian or Chinese revolutions.


RED DAVEEconomically, Caesarean Socialism is a means to make smooth the transition to the post-monetary lower phase of communist production and distribution once the DOTP takes hold.Actually, it's a form of Stalinism: state capitalism leading to private capitalism, as in Russia and China.


RED DAVE[/QUOTE]
Now you are only encouraging him!

[graymouser]

At an extremely basic level, it is a political triad of independent working-class political organization (NOT workers rule), urban petit-bourgeois democratism, and peasant patrimonialism. It acknowledges that the proletariat isn't demographically massive enough to press for a DOTP.
This is an impossible triad for many reasons. Primarily because it relies upon the petite bourgeoisie and the peasants, both of which are political forces that can be led but are not fundamentally leaders. Each of them has interests that are fundamentally separate: the urban petite bourgeois want autonomy, the peasants want land. Neither is a consistent revolutionary class, although they can follow another class - or a Bonapartist, which is really what your "Third World Caesarism" amounts to.

Moreover, the working class cannot stop half-way in the process of a revolution. This is deadly. If workers do not expropriate the bourgeoisie and nationalize the banks and means of production, the remaining bourgeoisie will eventually roll back any gains that have been made in the revolution. This also necessarily means a violent counter-revolution, of the model seen for instance in Allende's Chile. You cannot leave class questions half-settled, or compromise momentum because some guy said that you just need progressive Caesarism. The workers in third world countries need to complete the socialist revolution.

As for your pseudo-theory about demography, Marx didn't say that the German workers should wait to be an absolute majority in society, did he? In fact this is a perversion of Marxism, to claim that workers' rule can only happen when workers are a majority. As long as they are firmly leading the other remaining classes (peasantry and petite bourgeoisie), it is entirely possible for a fully democratic society to be led by the working class.

[scarletghoul]

According to Wikipedia its "a surgical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery) procedure in which one or more incisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incision) are made through a mother's abdomen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdomen) (laparotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laparotomy)) and uterus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterus) (hysterotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy)) to deliver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth) one or more babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant), or, rarely, to remove a dead fetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus)."

[Bright Banana Beard]

According to Wikipedia its "a surgical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surgery) procedure in which one or more incisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incision) are made through a mother's abdomen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abdomen) (laparotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laparotomy)) and uterus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uterus) (hysterotomy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hysterotomy)) to deliver (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Childbirth) one or more babies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant), or, rarely, to remove a dead fetus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus)."

Then... then DNZ is a baby killer STALINIST!?

[ZeroNowhere]

No, they are a Stalinist midwife.

[Crux]

No, they are a Stalinist midwife.
This seems pretty stillborn to me. At least until DNZ stop inventing words and making half-baked statements.

[Jose Gracchus]

As for your pseudo-theory about demography, Marx didn't say that the German workers should wait to be an absolute majority in society, did he? In fact this is a perversion of Marxism, to claim that workers' rule can only happen when workers are a majority. As long as they are firmly leading the other remaining classes (peasantry and petite bourgeoisie), it is entirely possible for a fully democratic society to be led by the working class.

Here's the problem. I know this passes for The Logos among Trotskyists, but quite frankly, its bullshit. I have never seen in what meaningful sense peasants, etc. are incorporated under "permanent revolution" in democratic decision-making (on the contrary, the Bolsheviks repressed their political parties, agitators, eventually sowed misguided and ineffective "class war" - using non-Marxist qualifications, I might add - between the poor and other peasants, and eventually resorted to outright, and even the constitution - which they never enacted - systemically disenfranchised rural citizens). So you get absurdities like the Bolsheviks maintaining an all-Bolshevik government by political terror (just as their narkoms who resigned in protest over a failure to make good Vizkel - that'd be some revolutionary workers there - demanding negotiations for an all-soviet-power left-wing coalition government), the Bolshevik leadership packing the CEC with some facsimile of real representation, and eventually canceling the soviets when they didn't keep returning the right delegates.

The means and exact dynamics by which the working class will "lead" the peasantry is never better explained than the means by which the peasant army is "led" by workers in the Bloc of Four Classes and New Democracy in revolutionary-peasant-populism-wearing-a-Marx-mask...I mean Maoism.

In what sense are the workers "leading" the peasants?

[Dimentio]

The invasion of Gaul was a horrific event that resulted in the killing or enslavement of 10's of thousands of innocent people , Caesear was not a "socialist" he was a dictator who came to power by riding a wave of populism.

It was 1,5 million people.

[Os Cangaceiros]

"Third World Caesarism"

ahahahahahahahaha

just when you thought you'd seen it all

[Os Cangaceiros]

Don't listen to the haters, DNZ...they know nothing of your brilliant synthesis of an ancient Roman leader and revolutionary socialism. Kautsky would be proud.

http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/thumblarge_81/1157157280W2539f.jpg

[Jose Gracchus]

It sucks how much of posts and responses in this forum consist of snide showmanship and sectarianism, rather than an attempt to at least establish some constructive lines of debate.

I think the historical basis of DNZ's "Caesarian socialism" is bunk argument-from-metaphor. Furthermore, I think its a cobbling together of historical dissimilar regimes, arbitrary class forms and dynamics unseen in history, and unlikely to be implemented. However, he does bring up a few good points on the weakness of "national liberation", "permanent revolution", and Maoism and other forms of Third World left-populism, especially rural left-populism, historically, as well as conceptual weaknesses (like the handwavium of "class leadership", which is never explained in plain English and given qualities and characteristics and dynamics by which it could be identified and recognized in the real world - what does it mean? peasant parties loaning electoral support for workers' parties in building socialism? peasants voting for worker-based parties building socialism? peasants passively non-resisting workers building socialism?). There are issues worthy of discussion, for example the revolutionary potential of classes other than strict proletarians, the dynamic between international capital and peripheral or neo-colonial economies, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is an impossible triad for many reasons. Primarily because it relies upon the petite bourgeoisie and the peasants, both of which are political forces that can be led but are not fundamentally leaders. Each of them has interests that are fundamentally separate: the urban petite bourgeois want autonomy, the peasants want land. Neither is a consistent revolutionary class, although they can follow another class - or a Bonapartist, which is really what your "Third World Caesarism" amounts to.

As Inform said, "revolutionary-peasant-populism-wearing-a-Marx-mask" proved that other classes can be in the driver's seat.


Moreover, the working class cannot stop half-way in the process of a revolution. This is deadly. If workers do not expropriate the bourgeoisie and nationalize the banks and means of production, the remaining bourgeoisie will eventually roll back any gains that have been made in the revolution.

Did you not read the new post in my Theory thread? Bank expropriation would be in order for Caesarean Socialism, along with a whole lot more stuff.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Here's the problem. I know this passes for The Logos among Trotskyists, but quite frankly, its bullshit.

I don't think they know what "The Logos" refers to, so I'll enlighten them:

"In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." (John 1:1)


eventually sowed misguided and ineffective "class war" - using non-Marxist qualifications, I might add - between the poor and other peasants

What qualifications were these, if you don't mind my asking?


even the constitution - which they never enacted - systemically disenfranchised rural citizens

Readers should note that I've commented on this unequal suffrage earlier.


eventually canceling the soviets when they didn't keep returning the right delegates

Why didn't you call a spade a spade (that is, coups d'etat as coups d'etat)? :confused:


The means and exact dynamics by which the working class will "lead" the peasantry is never better explained than the means by which the peasant army is "led" by workers in the Bloc of Four Classes and New Democracy in revolutionary-peasant-populism-wearing-a-Marx-mask...I mean Maoism.

In what sense are the workers "leading" the peasants?

Terror and cheap rhetoric. Those are the only respective answers they have.


It sucks how much of posts and responses in this forum consist of snide showmanship and sectarianism, rather than an attempt to at least establish some constructive lines of debate.

I think the historical basis of DNZ's "Caesarian socialism" is bunk argument-from-metaphor. Furthermore, I think its a cobbling together of historical dissimilar regimes, arbitrary class forms and dynamics unseen in history, and unlikely to be implemented.

I was under the impression you would say "bunk metaphor-to-argument" or "argument-from-bunk metaphor." What "arbitrary class forms and dynamics" are you referring to?

Besides, the RDDOTPP itself before 1917 was "arbitrary class forms and dynamics unseen in history and unlikely to be implemented." The same went for the separate musings of Parvus and Trotsky, too.

Funny also that Dimentio posted this in the Tribunal Assembly thread:


Sadly, DNZ's descriptions actually are quite fitting for how socialism have traditionally been established in the Third World (Nasser, Sankara, more military dictators, Chávez).

Now:


However, he does bring up a few good points on the weakness of "national liberation", "permanent revolution", and Maoism and other forms of Third World left-populism, especially rural left-populism, historically, as well as conceptual weaknesses (like the handwavium of "class leadership", which is never explained in plain English and given qualities and characteristics and dynamics by which it could be identified and recognized in the real world - what does it mean? peasant parties loaning electoral support for workers' parties in building socialism? peasants voting for worker-based parties building socialism? peasants passively non-resisting workers building socialism?). There are issues worthy of discussion, for example the revolutionary potential of classes other than strict proletarians, the dynamic between international capital and peripheral or neo-colonial economies, etc.

You can only analyze so much, but if you don't come up with structural, concrete solutions, what's the analysis worth?

If you're concerned about geopolitical isolation, then I offer left Pan-Nationalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bankruptcy-internationalismi-t144285/index.html) as a solution.

[Jose Gracchus]

I never said that. It could be true for a well-explained reason and substantiated with quality evidence, that peasant-originating movements of the guerilla form etc. may have major difficulties for this or that reason. I've not seen anyone provide that. I just would like to have a discussion for why "workers only" and how in fact would workers "lead" a majoritarian bloc composed in substantial part, by other classes. There are many viewpoints, especially between anarchists and Marxists, Maoists and other Marxists, etc. against this viewpoint. I want to have a real discussion about the infrastructure of revolutionary democracy and stuff like how cross-class relations work in revolutionary situations, and whether the peasantry or small property holders (more generally, not-primarily-wage earners) relate to revolutionary politics. I think you should justify your position as well with more than jargon, allusion, and classical metaphors.

To be honest, I think people would recieve your thesis much better if you simply said something like this:

"Look, third world nations often have revolts against the imperialist world political-economic system and comprador or neo-colonialist native capitalists along with it, but rarely do they have a clearly industrialized, independent economy to support socialist revolution. Furthermore, they often occur for parochial reasons, rather than part of broad revolutionary waves (which support deeper and more thorough revolutionary change, since classes in transition and people overthrowing oppression can more easily count on a disruption of various systems of imperialism and state repression and working-class, revolutionary solidarity). An example would be workers' resistance to support for the Whites. Anyway, rather than settle for various quick-to-compromise-with-capitalism and personality-cult, anti-workers-organizing, anti-democratic alternatives be they Maoist or Castroist-Guevaraist, alike in composition, workers perhaps could compromise with Chavez-Lukashenko-like figures who do push back decisively against imperialism, neo-colonialists, and some features of private control of economy provided this occurs in a manner whereby the independent working-class revolutionary party, may exercise organization of the working class and political autonomy from the populist anti-imperialist figure and his cross-class backing, while benefiting from its opposition to neo-colonialism. They should do this as an interim where opportunity serves, until they can count on broad revolutionary waves and international coordination with working-class internationalism - including revolution in advanced imperial capitalist states - in order to drive a thorough revolution against the capitalist system, domestically. Something not possible in isolation or "in one country", certainly not with class collaboration (Maoism, varieties of "'revisionist' Marxism-Leninism"), and not where the working class has some sort of fictitious 'leadership' role where it lies in the substantial minority of a majoritarian cross-class 'alliance'. Only international revolution permits local minorities of the working-class, organized internationally though political parties, revolutionary industrial unions, etc., to carry through socialist revolution whereby the "lower majority" of the population locally includes substantially subsistence or single-family toilers like fishermen or peasants or small capital holders."

I think that's the bottom line, and you're weighing it down with all this unnecessary jargon and confusing and even dangerous-sounding historical allusions. Also, I think one needs to substantially make the case that non-wage-earners cannot support fundamentally, socialist revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just would like to have a discussion for why "workers only" and how in fact would workers "lead" a majoritarian bloc composed in substantial part, by other classes. There are many viewpoints, especially between anarchists and Marxists, Maoists and other Marxists, etc. against this viewpoint. I want to have a real discussion about the infrastructure of revolutionary democracy and stuff like how cross-class relations work in revolutionary situations, and whether the peasantry or small property holders (more generally, not-primarily-wage earners) relate to revolutionary politics.

Cross-class relations are indeed very dirty stuff. In the most developed countries, the ideal is to have a majoritarian proletarian base but also with majoritarian support from the other "prole" classes (unproductive workers and the proper lumpenproletariat). This "bloc," mind you, is a subset of the "dispossessed classes" (in case you object to this term, it's based on David Harvey's work on accumulation by dispossession), and doesn't include coordinators.


To be honest, I think people would recieve your thesis much better if you simply said something like this

Let's just say that your paragraph should be reproduced elsewhere as well. :)


"Look, third world nations often have revolts against the imperialist world political-economic system and comprador or neo-colonialist native capitalists along with it, but rarely do they have a clearly industrialized, independent economy to support socialist revolution. Furthermore, they often occur for parochial reasons, rather than part of broad revolutionary waves (which support deeper and more thorough revolutionary change, since classes in transition and people overthrowing oppression can more easily count on a disruption of various systems of imperialism and state repression and working-class, revolutionary solidarity). An example would be workers' resistance to support for the Whites. Anyway, rather than settle for various quick-to-compromise-with-capitalism and personality-cult, anti-workers-organizing, anti-democratic alternatives be they Maoist or Castroist-Guevaraist, alike in composition, workers perhaps could compromise with Chavez-Lukashenko-like figures who do push back decisively against imperialism, neo-colonialists, and some features of private control of economy provided this occurs in a manner whereby the independent working-class revolutionary party, may exercise organization of the working class and political autonomy from the populist anti-imperialist figure and his cross-class backing, while benefiting from its opposition to neo-colonialism.

I take it that "against [...] some features of private control of economy" refers to the bourgeoisie and their ownership as a whole?


They should do this as an interim where opportunity serves, until they can count on broad revolutionary waves and international coordination with working-class internationalism - including revolution in advanced imperial capitalist states - in order to drive a thorough revolution against the capitalist system, domestically. Something not possible in isolation or "in one country"

I apologize for having added the "Pan-Nationalism" remark while you responded to an earlier version of the post, but I too think it's a matter of compromising with preferrably a whole group of Chavez-Lukashenko figures, not just one.


certainly not with class collaboration (Maoism, varieties of "'revisionist' Marxism-Leninism"), and not where the working class has some sort of fictitious 'leadership' role where it lies in the substantial minority of a majoritarian cross-class 'alliance'. Only international revolution permits local minorities of the working-class, organized internationally though political parties, revolutionary industrial unions, etc., to carry through socialist revolution whereby the "lower majority" of the population locally includes substantially subsistence or single-family toilers like fishermen or peasants or small capital holders."

I think that's the bottom line, and you're weighing it down with all this unnecessary jargon and confusing and even dangerous-sounding historical allusions. Also, I think one needs to substantially make the case that non-wage-earners cannot support fundamentally, socialist revolution.

That last part does go back to "Late Marx," beyond the Kautsky-Lenin halfway house on political vs. social revolution, by challenging the notion that non-wage-earners cannot fundamentally support the transition to the post-monetary lower phase.

There, I cut that long-sounding phrase at the end down somewhat as an alternative to "socialist revolution."

[Jose Gracchus]

What qualifications were these, if you don't mind my asking?

I'm talking about gimmickry like "Committees of the Village Poor" and the arbitrary and relativist assignment of naked quantitative criteria on the peasantry. There was no balanced or consistent approach, often local political and personal feuds could make the difference in who was being expropriated and requisitioned (or even shot). There was no objective qualifiers. The line between 'kulaks' and "middle peasantry" was arbitrary, as was between the "middle peasantry" and "lower peasantry". At least the Kronstadt Program made a principled criterion: hiring of wage labor.


Readers should note that I've commented on this unequal suffrage earlier.

It so frequently deserves recalling. One should also note that there was no regular proportional representation in the soviet system, and fair apportionment among regions and from-town-to-town. I have read before that Trotsky did work to make sure apportionment would favor the Bolsheviks, even before the Second Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies. People often also forget that this was a workers' and soliders'-only body. The Russian peasantry of all sizes was between 70-80% of the population. The Left SRs were a majority party in the Congress of Peasants' Deputies.



Why didn't you call a spade a spade (that is, coups d'etat as coups d'etat)? :confused:

I suppose forcible use of state violence to repress electoral outcomes and democratic infrastructure is a coup; a coup is usually by a force external to the current government, not by the incumbent, though the form was certainly similar.


Terror and cheap rhetoric. Those are the only respective answers they have.

I agree with this.


I was under the impression you would say "bunk metaphor-to-argument" or "argument-from-bunk metaphor." What "arbitrary class forms and dynamics" are you referring to?

For starters, the biggest problem with your model is that none of the 'fore-runner' examples really exhibit a broad and systemic relationship to your model. The Guevarist and Castroite and various people's democracy, New Democracy/BOFC, people's war, populist coups, Bolivarianism, etc. has a limited relationship to one another. There are broad and superficial similarities. But you're supposing a kind of cobbling together of highly dissimilar features (Maoist-Guevaraist tactics, Guevaraist class basis, Chavez-Putin-Lukashenko-type one-man crude populism and anti-comprador qualities) with a bunch of radical bourgeois socialist policies, it bares to repeat, have never been practiced or had any coherent political backing ever. And also positing the plausibility of a independent workers' revolutionary organization within this framework. You've dismissed the possibility that many of the left-populisms may be, fundamentally, adaptions of native capitalists to anti-colonialist popular pressures in order to co-opt and suppress them, or intrinsically and irreducibly wrapped up with origins as degenerated militarist cliques over guerrilla armies. The class nature of the regimes may be intrinsically repressive and ditto for the organizational basis of the regime (incidentally, I think this is approximately equivalent to the Trotskyist critique, though stated in plain English).


Besides, the RDDOTPP itself before 1917 was "arbitrary class forms and dynamics unseen in history and unlikely to be implemented." The same went for the separate musings of Parvus and Trotsky, too.

To be honest a lot of that is gobbledygook to me. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand what testable predictions, in discrete terms, they are making. Or what policies will be enacted, what kind of relations in practical and real-world political terms will there between the classes, what is the exact role of the workers' revolutionary party in this, etc.

Maybe you can explain in plain English.



You can only analyze so much, but if you don't come up with structural, concrete solutions, what's the analysis worth?

I just feel like you beg a lot of questions and make a lot of unjustified assumptions and leaps of logic (like my list of my confusions with "Caesarianism" thus above). I think we should resolve and demonstrate firmly the basic premises and points of contention, in clear terms that everyone can give clear and meaningful critiques and alternative explanations to. In this case, I want you to demonstrate the logical leaps and gapes in necessary proof I've outlined, because I'm skeptical. The Trotskyists et al. should also clearly explain their case, with evidence for the nature of the peasantry, exactly and in what manner will workers thus "lead" the peasantry, and what is their response to the factual policy taken toward the peasantry.


If you're concerned about geopolitical isolation, then I offer left Pan-Nationalism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bankruptcy-internationalismi-t144285/index.html) as a solution.

Its amazing the extent to which one constantly finds one speaking in basically Russia-reinactment terms, when it goes without saying the national revolution is not a very successful thing. The international coordination issue is usually handwaved off. I don't know if promoting something like "European" as an identity is necessary that good of an idea either though.

[Jose Gracchus]

Cross-class relations are indeed very dirty stuff. In the most developed countries, the ideal is to have a majoritarian proletarian base but also with majoritarian support from the other "prole" classes (unproductive workers and the proper lumpenproletariat). This "bloc," mind you, is a subset of the "dispossessed classes" (in case you object to this term, it's based on David Harvey's work on accumulation by dispossession), and doesn't include coordinators.

I just don't like jargon like Bloc of Four Classes in the first place. Why bother with it at all? And why not start a proposal from the point of view of "these non-proletarians are being subject to class repression from the international capitalists and imperial system according to David Harvey, maybe they have a political role to play beside proletarians?" Instead you start out with jargon, sectarianism against Maoists, Hoxhaists, and Trotskyists, and a confusing and seemingly highly anti-socialist pastiche of strongmen. Even if it has an internal logic to it, it certainly bad pitching.


Let's just say that your paragraph should be reproduced elsewhere as well. :)

I think we should start with unambiguous, straight-forward, supportable claims based on history and on contemporary trends, and invite a critical exchange with old methods and old claims.


I take it that "against [...] some features of private control of economy" refers to the bourgeoisie and their ownership as a whole?

I question whether your political-class model is plausible, much less if it is realistically capable of performing these revolutionary tasks.


I apologize for having added the "Pan-Nationalism" remark while you responded to an earlier version of the post, but I too think it's a matter of compromising with preferrably a whole group of Chavez-Lukashenko figures, not just one.

You mean a kind of Chavez-Morales but kind of transposed over the entire continent? A South American revolutionary populism, sovereigntism? I don't know if this model can really carry something like that through. To be honest such radical support and revolutionary accomplishments would suggest to me the workers were in a position to carry through, with other enthusiastic elements, into socialism. Large blocs of organized workers - on a continental basis - could use their organizational and economic 'monopolistic' power over industrial and commodity production, in order to carry through a program that would be more socialist in character. Furthermore, a pan-South American populist revolution I think would occur in circumstances where general global revolutionary waves are probable, in which case maybe Third World proletarians (and other revolutionary groups, to the extent they may be proven to exist) should lean toward the First World revolution.


That last part does go back to "Late Marx," beyond the Kautsky-Lenin halfway house on political vs. social revolution, by challenging the notion that non-wage-earners cannot fundamentally support the transition to the post-monetary lower phase.

Some of us don't know what all that stuff listed means. Could you give reasons and historical examples?


There, I cut that long-sounding phrase at the end down somewhat as an alternative to "socialist revolution."

Huh?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm talking about gimmickry like "Committees of the Village Poor" and the arbitrary and relativist assignment of naked quantitative criteria on the peasantry. There was no balanced or consistent approach, often local political and personal feuds could make the difference in who was being expropriated and requisitioned (or even shot). There was no objective qualifiers. The line between 'kulaks' and "middle peasantry" was arbitrary, as was between the "middle peasantry" and "lower peasantry". At least the Kronstadt Program made a principled criterion: hiring of wage labor.

I wonder why "hiring of wage labour" wasn't one of the criteria used, or at least used consistently. Surely *that* was obvious enough for expropriation, requisition, or execution.


I suppose forcible use of state violence to repress electoral outcomes and democratic infrastructure is a coup; a coup is usually by a force external to the current government, not by the incumbent, though the form was certainly similar.

Tragedy: Kornilov affair, collapse of the Provisional Government, Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918
Farce: August Coup, Soviet collapse, Yeltsin's anti-parliamentary, anti-constitutional coup d'etat of 1993


For starters, the biggest problem with your model is that none of the 'fore-runner' examples really exhibit a broad and systemic relationship to your model. The Guevarist and Castroite and various people's democracy, New Democracy/BOFC, people's war, populist coups, Bolivarianism, etc. has a limited relationship to one another. There are broad and superficial similarities.

What was that you said earlier? "Shock or brand-name value"? :D


And also positing the plausibility of a independent workers' revolutionary organization within this framework. You've dismissed the possibility that many of the left-populisms may be, fundamentally, adaptions of native capitalists to anti-colonialist popular pressures in order to co-opt and suppress them, or intrinsically and irreducibly wrapped up with origins as degenerated militarist cliques over guerrilla armies. The class nature of the regimes may be intrinsically repressive and ditto for the organizational basis of the regime (incidentally, I think this is approximately equivalent to the Trotskyist critique, though stated in plain English).

How have I dismissed them? I'm aware of the scumbag company of Peron (which S. Artesian parrots around repeatedly to try to lump him with my "'forerunner' examples" / "cobbling together of highly dissimilar features" :rolleyes: ), the Mexican honchos (parroted around to a lesser extent), and even the likes of Morales. You speak of maneuverings by "native capitalists." I speak of the continued existence of the domestic bourgeoisie as a negative on said populisms. We're on the same page here. :confused:

Your last point, if we separate the continued existence of the bourgeoisie bit, would apply to the likes of Lukashenko (as I said elsewhere).


To be honest a lot of that is gobbledygook to me. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand what testable predictions, in discrete terms, they are making. Or what policies will be enacted, what kind of relations in practical and real-world political terms will there between the classes, what is the exact role of the workers' revolutionary party in this, etc.

Revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry: temporary provisional government between the party of the proletarian demographic minority and the party of the peasantry enacting some form of radical democracy plus labour and general social legislation before the party of the proletarian demographic minority steps aside to become a party of opposition, develop "alternative culture" and other working-class bodies, etc.

The policies enacted were clear. Lenin was clear on the desire to go back into opposition ASAP. Had there been more cooperation between the Bolsheviks and Left-SRs, the urban food shortages would have been resolved with less acrimony. While the SPD sold out and provided left cover to the German war production effort, the Left-SRs could have acted in a similar-but-not-sellout manner re. encouraging the peasantry to produce surpluses for city consumption.

In plain English: There were no RDDOTPPs or revolutions for the sake of RDDOTPPs before 1917. Speaking of lack of precedents:


But you're supposing a kind of cobbling together of highly dissimilar features (Maoist-Guevaraist tactics, Guevaraist class basis, Chavez-Putin-Lukashenko-type one-man crude populism and anti-comprador qualities) with a bunch of radical bourgeois socialist policies, it bares to repeat, have never been practiced or had any coherent political backing ever.

"Dissimilar" doesn't necessarily mean "contradictory."

A Third World movement of the type I'm speaking may come to power by a populist Breakthrough Military Coup (PDPA-style or 1992 Chavez) in one country, while another such movement may come to power by a People's War in another country, while yet another such movement may come to power by Focoism in yet another country, while yet another such movement may come to power by more proletarian tactics in yet another country. It's flexibility of tactics. :blushing:

Like with the other discussion on party organization, it doesn't hurt to try. ;)




Its amazing the extent to which one constantly finds one speaking in basically Russia-reinactment terms, when it goes without saying the national revolution is not a very successful thing. The international coordination issue is usually handwaved off. I don't know if promoting something like "European" as an identity is necessary that good of an idea either though.

I am open to the possibility of a "Caesarean Socialist International" co-existing alongside an independent worker-class [I]transnational. The former would be an association of the Third World movements you and I just mentioned. Re. the "European" identity, it should be noted that Sankara was a pan-African guy. So this "international" could give the green light to a populist Breakthrough Military Coup in Country A, People's War in Country B, Focoism in Country C, or even a Mass Strike Wave Fetish in Country D (so long as said "mass strike" wave fetish is not done for the "Bloc" and not a minoritarian DOTP).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I just don't like jargon like Bloc of Four Classes in the first place. Why bother with it at all? And why not start a proposal from the point of view of "these non-proletarians are being subject to class repression from the international capitalists and imperial system according to David Harvey, maybe they have a political role to play beside proletarians?" Instead you start out with jargon, sectarianism against Maoists, Hoxhaists, and Trotskyists, and a confusing and seemingly highly anti-socialist pastiche of strongmen. Even if it has an internal logic to it, it certainly bad pitching.

You're the second person to say "pastiche" about this model, but "pastiche of strongmen" sounds a lot more humorous than the tired and tiresome "pastiche world made up of little fantasy parts of Bismarck, Caesar, Putin, Chavez, Peron [...]" :laugh: :thumbup1:

What you said is the "long form," but there should be short-form terms. Every sentence that deals with the "bloc" can't repeat your quoted intro to the subject all the time.

And how, comrade, was I "sectarian"? Re. Maoists, I will admit that all this stuff was intended as a constructive critique of their unnecessary class collaboration. Dump the "national bourgeoisie" and "comprador petit-bourgeoisie," add "independent working-class political organization," and they (or if they want, post-Maoists) are all set. :)

I don't know how Hoxhaists factor into this, other than the strongman part. :confused:

As for Trotskyists, the only "sectarian" material I came up with is that History thread citing Lars Lih. And it isn't "sectarian" to use harsh polemics unless you threaten to break away from the larger group over mere "theoretical lines."


You mean a kind of Chavez-Morales but kind of transposed over the entire continent? A South American revolutionary populism, sovereigntism?

I had Africa and the Middle East more in mind than South America, although lots of areas in South America would be relevant.


To be honest such radical support and revolutionary accomplishments would suggest to me the workers were in a position to carry through, with other enthusiastic elements, into socialism.

To add to what I said above, Africa and the Middle East clearly have proletarian demographic minorities, but there is potential for Pan-National coordination there.


Large blocs of organized workers - on a continental basis - could use their organizational and economic 'monopolistic' power over industrial and commodity production, in order to carry through a program that would be more socialist in character. Furthermore, a pan-South American populist revolution I think would occur in circumstances where general global revolutionary waves are probable, in which case maybe Third World proletarians (and other revolutionary groups, to the extent they may be proven to exist) should lean toward the First World revolution.

True, and that is why I have Africa and the Middle East more in mind.


Some of us don't know what all that stuff listed means. Could you give reasons and historical examples?

I was making a remark on your suggestion "Also, I think one needs to substantially make the case that non-wage-earners cannot support fundamentally, socialist revolution."

It is this comment of yours that echoes "Late Marx," beyond the Kautsky-Lenin halfway house on political vs. social revolution, by challenging the notion that non-wage-earners cannot fundamentally support the transition to the post-monetary lower phase.

[Halfway-house: politically revolutionary but not socially revolutionary]


Huh?

Post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production is the longer term. I shortened it to the first four words (not even factoring in Social-Abolitionism and Social Proletocracy), still in preference over "socialist revolution."

[el_chavista]

In our América, the term "democratic caesarism" was used by the apologists to the dictatorial pro-gringo governments about the middle of the XXth century, stressing the need of strong governments for our unstable politics and spiced as democratic so not to seem that fascist.

After the Marxist book "XVIII Brumaire of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte", Russian revolutionaries as Trotsky defined the bourgeois caesarism in France as Bonapartism. Trotsky also defined Stalinism as Proletarian Bonapartism.

2-3 years ago there was a discussion in Venezuela among the different Trotskist currents about Chávez's bonapartism. I remember a pro-Chávez Morenoist stating that it was a case of "positive suigeneris bonapartism" (as Trotsky defined Mexican president Lázaro Cárdenas' government), so Chávez's bonapartism is OK :lol:

[Jose Gracchus]

@Chavista: So much for their coherence. :lol:

So-- Why can the peasantry - especially the poor peasants, sharecroppers, tenants, fishermen, small craftsmen, and also perhaps lumpen - never have a revolutionary role? I understand the special character of the workers, but in practice does that not imply that the workers are a prerequisite organized constituency of revolution, if you will, not the only major component? Not the only group that matters, just a group which must be involved substantially? I am curious both for reasons that I am not sure a lot of the Marxian assumptions people lay out actually bear out in practice in real life (I guess I lean toward an anarchist view of the non-worker lower classes including rural ones, esp. the peasantry).

I'm also curious of alternatives - be they fictitious leadership of the worker minority of a ''poor peasantry/smallholder - worker alliance'' that Trotskyists always bring out, or, hitching the horse of the workers and lower classes to "national" or "patriotic" owners and old managers that the Maoists and other Third World socialisms ended up doing - Cuba, definitely Vietnam, etc. Or under the charismatic leadership of some leader-general, or some guerrilla army-party that never goes anywhere in power than collaboration with capitalists and the sliding back toward normalcy, and few glimmers of genuinely democratic revolutionary socialism to be seen anywhere on the map. I'm skeptical of them and I do think it is worth discussing what constructive criticism we could mount to reach some synthesis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In addition to my reply above, part of Macnair's video criticizing Permanent Revolution was about the male chauvinist nature of peasant societies. There was equality of private property in the most radical of them, but this egalitarianism was among the patriarchs. In the ideal scenario, the Left-SRs would have been left to mobilize peasant production, and the urban food shortages would have been solved (Macnair probably exaggerated the "subsistence production" part), but I don't think peasant production was high enough to export in exchange for industrial equipment.

In terms of labour credits, the incomes of the petty classes (productive petit-bourgeoisie on the one hand and on the other cops, proper lawyers, judges, private security guards, self-employed schmucks, etc.) depends on something circulating. Either that, or it's the barter scenario so as to facilitate unequal exchange (and generally the law of value).

All of that, more than mere private property relations, is why they can't be socially revolutionary as classes (yet I give them more accord than you do on the bourgeois property question in my Third World model).

[Die Neue Zeit]

In our América, the term "democratic caesarism" was used by the apologists to the dictatorial pro-gringo governments about the middle of the XXth century, stressing the need of strong governments for our unstable politics and spiced as democratic so not to seem that fascist.

After the Marxist book "XVIII Brumaire of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte", Russian revolutionaries as Trotsky defined the bourgeois caesarism in France as Bonapartism. Trotsky also defined Stalinism as Proletarian Bonapartism.

2-3 years ago there was a discussion in Venezuela among the different Trotskist currents about Chávez's bonapartism. I remember a pro-Chávez Morenoist stating that it was a case of "positive suigeneris bonapartism" (as Trotsky defined Mexican president Lázaro Cárdenas' government), so Chávez's bonapartism is OK :lol:

Except that one of the central points behind my People's Histories commentary is that whoever called the French regime "bourgeois Caesarism" was wrong. :(

[Apoi_Viitor]

Would Thomas Sankara qualify as a caesearean socialist?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I asked that rhetorically in a History thread of mine, since the obvious answer is No (repression of trade unions, most likely extended to workers parties).

[Apoi_Viitor]

I asked that rhetorically in a History thread of mine, since the obvious answer is No (repression of trade unions, most likely extended to workers parties).

Ok, what about Tito?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Again, I don't think there was much in the way of independent working-class political organization. The closest figure to reach Caesarean Socialism so far is probably Alexander Lukashenko, but again he's got the same problem (otherwise, a good start for him would be to do what Chavez did today by supporting Coca-Cola workers against their employer (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chavez-backs-workers-t149530/index.html)).