Log in

View Full Version : "Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism" by Gregory Maximoff and Its Significance



Kiev Communard
16th March 2011, 17:56
Recently I have stumbled upon the magnificent book that has greatly increased my opinion of anarcho-syndicalists. Sure, some of their organizations exhibit certain "a-political" tendencies that may inhibit the articulation of their positive program and impede their participation in the political class struggle (the Platformist anarchists are much better in this role) but in the essence the idea of economic re-organization of the society envisaged by classic anarcho-syndicalism (and such "Marxist-Syndicalist" currents as De Leonism and Workers' Opposition in Russia) seems far superior to the Orthodox Marxism of the Second International with its statism that was unfortunately uncritically absorbed by Bolsheviks.

As libcom.org (http://libcom.org/) kindly informs, Gregory Petrovich Maximoff (or Maximov, as we the Eastern Slavs spell our names in Latin letters :D) "was born on November 10, 1893, in the Russian village of Mitushino, province of Smolensk. After studying for the priesthood, he realised this was not his vocation and went to St. Petersburg, where he graduated as an agronomist at the Agricultural Academy in 1915. He joined the revolutionary movement, while a student, was an active propagandist and, after the 1917 revolution, joined the Red Army".

Due to his differences with Bolsheviks he was arrested, and even sentenced to death, but released after the intervention by the local workers' organizations. Later he was an editor of Golos Trouda (Voice of Labour) and Novy Golos Trouda (New Voice of Labour), prominent anarcho-syndicalist papers of the Russian Revolution. After his arrest after Kronstadt Rebellion he was eventually exiled from Soviet Russia and settled in Chicago. His most prominent works include Constructive Anarchism (1952), The Political Philosophy of Bakunin - Scientific Anarchism (1953) and, especially in my view, Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism , the book excerpts of which I would like to cite now, for the comrades - both Marxist and Anarchist - to debate.

The whole book can be reached here (http://libcom.org/library/program-anarcho-syndicalism-g-p-maximoff), while the most interesting chapters dealing with the economic organization of the Communist society are quoted in this post.




From Section 1, The Economy: Chapter 1, The Manufacturing Industry

...In accordance with Revolutionary experience in Russia, the organizational apparatus of syndicalized production must rely on the simplest forms of association, which are intimate and intelligible to the workers; associations rooted in the Revolution and ready to leave production to the direct administration of the workers themselves, e.g. factory-management committees charged with organizing the workers' control of, plants in each locality.

In the interests of the successful realization of Communism in industry, arid of the smooth functioning and efficiency of each production process, as well as to prevent the chance of seizure of individual enterprises for the exclusive private use of those who work there, a system of unification will have to be established. This unification, without destroying the freedom of individual sections, will provide the necessary technical, statistical and administrative links to join all industries and production into one organic whole. (Kropotkin, page 23).

This system has the following categories:

1. The Self-Administered Factory -- producers' commune.
2. The Production Associations of factory communes.
3. The Union of Productive Associations.
4. The General Congress of Labor (Council of People's Economy and Culture).

Production, organized along these lines, will be administered on the principles of committee direction, of broad public control through the general utilization of the principle of the right to recall delegates. As to internal order, the principle of self-discipline will remove the need for all manner of disciplinary institutions.

As the experience of Russia has shown, the task of increasing productivity and the scientific organization of production will demand, as long as the working masses lack scientific and technical knowledge, a broadminded and comprehensive utilization of the technical intelligentsia who will remain as a legacy of the Capitalist structure. Even though the majority of this intelligentsia is immersed in bourgeois tendencies, the interests of the Revolution nevertheless demand that their rights should in no way be limited: equality for all is necessary from the first day of the social upheaval.

Since there is no possibility of immediately establishing full Communism in consumption on the principle: "'to each according to his needs," a number of practical steps will be necessary to lead to its realization.

The first of these is the establishment of the principle: "equal shares for all." Equal sharing, in accordance with increasing production in Syndicalist industry must, little by little, become the normal rule, and gradually facilitate the approach to realizing the axiom: to each according to his needs.

The criterion of the equal share must be the minimum necessary for subsistence, with supplementary allowances for dependents. The size of the ration will grow with the increase in wealth of the national commune. As for handicraft, home industries and small scale industry, the Anarcho-Syndicalists, rejecting the idea of their compulsory integration into large-scale production, will implement the principle of co-operation, granting them full opportunity and freedom of initiative. The Anarcho-Syndicalists strive only for the association of the scattered efforts of individual craftsmen and small enterprises through free cooperatives adapted to their needs, so that they may utilize all the advantages of science and technology....

From Chapter 2. Basic Industry

...The fate of Communism depends to a great extent on agriculture. At the same time, agriculture is the most difficult field for communization. Here the positive aspect of Capitalism, which consists in the mechanization of production and the socialization of labor, is insignificant. For that reason agriculture, in the technical and organizational sense, is the most retarded branch of production. Tens of millions of agricultural units present an unorganized, individualistic, small-ownership element which, apart from its technological backwardness, is an obstacle in the path of Communism which will be difficult to surmount. This fact is tremendously important, since the forms of land ownership and the technique of land cultivation are an indication of the extent and the character of the social reorganization that is possible in a given time.

Capitalism, by uniting individual producers in one enterprise, socializes labor and in this way prepares the ground for the socialization of ownership which inevitably leads to a communization of production. It creates a prototype of the Communist form of organizing labor and ownership -- the factory as the free producer-consumer commune of the future. In manufacturing and in some branches of the primary industries, capitalism has thus already prepared the ground for Communism and the syndicalization of industry by the expropriation of capitalists and the State -- today the imperative and the only feasible solution to the workingman's problem. Socialized labor facilitates this transition to communist 'ownership by way of syndicalization.

The story is far different in agriculture. Here the socializing force of capitalism is insignificant; the small-scale peasant farm is the predominant type of agricultural organization, in which individual ownership and individualized labor are inevitable components. This important fact renders the process of transition of agriculture to communism the opposite to that of industry.

In industry collective labor leads inevitably, through expropriation to collective ownership. In agriculture, collective ownership will lead to collective labor.

Collective ownership in agriculture does not, however, by itself imply collective labor which, in the primitive management conditions of an agricultural economy based on tens of millions of scattered peasant farms, could not to any considerable extent change the conditions necessary for successful production. Collective ownership will lead to collective labor only through a conversion from extensive to intensive agriculture, and a mechanization of farming, replacing the primitive methods of cultivation by those which, by their nature, demand the unification of the working efforts of several members of an agricultural commune. But, since communal habits cannot be altered by decree, and since their transformation depends on the gradual aggregation of insignificant changes, the socialization of labor which would complete the communisation of agriculture will take a considerable period.

...The communization of agriculture, in other words, has two aspects whose emergence does not coincide entirely in terms of time. Hence the Anarcho-Syndicalist program for the communization of agriculture falls into two sections: socialization of land and socialization of labor.

1. Socialization of Land.
1. Complete abolition of ownership in land -- individual, group, co-operative, communal, municipal or State. The land is public property.

2. The fact of socialization will withdraw land from the commodity market; no-one will have the right to buy, sell or rent land or to draw unearned income from it. Everyone will have to work it by personal or co-operative effort.

3. Everyone will have an equal right to an equal area of land and to apply his labor freely to it.

4. The general form of land utilization, and the area to be available for each person's use, will be determined by a National Congress of the Association of Peasant Communes which will form part of the general Confederation of Labor.

5. As in the various branches of industry which will be under the management of the Trade Unions concerned, the land, land management, resettlement and all agricultural matters must be in the hands of the Association of Peasant Communes.

2. Socialization of Labor

1. The socialization of land is an essential precondition for the socialization of labor which would complete the process of communization of agriculture. Only where labor and ownership are both socialized, does die product of labor also become socialized, i.e. full communism becomes a reality.

2. The society that emerges from the Revolution, after it has socialized the manufacturing and in part the basic industries, must seek the methods which will place the agricultural population on an equal, or almost equal, footing with the urban population, since an absence of equilibrium favoring the latter might result in a spontaneous flow of the agricultural population into the cities, which in turn would result in great economic difficulties and the disorganization of the production apparatus.

3. Full harmony of the agricultural regime with the regime of socialized industry is possible only with communism in agriculture. Therefore the organization of farming communes must be on the agenda from the first days of the Revolution.

Proceeding to the organization of communism in agriculture, Anarcho-Syndicalists see progress neither in the destruction of the small peasant farms nor in the establishment of mammoth economic units, and they consider compulsory general labor service a reactionary phenomenon. Instead, they aim at the co-ordination of the labor efforts of small units on a voluntary basis, compatible with the freedom of both the individual and the collectives.

The economic forms of these units would be: (a) co-operative, as most accessible to the consciousness and level of development of the majority of the agricultural population, which in general will be unable to relinquish economic individualism, or (b) communistic, in the form of free agricultural communes which will form part of the entire communistic economy in the same manner and on the same conditions as do the factories.

4. In the interests of efficient production the agricultural communes must not be too large. A normal-sized example would be an association of ten peasant farms of average productive capacity, not including the households, which should remain separate. Depending on varying local conditions the agricultural communes might, and would, consist also of unified settlements, not broken up into farms, as well as of co-operatives.

5. In this manner agriculture in the Transition Period would be run by three fundamental types of economic organization: la) individual, (b) co-operative, and (c) communistic. The predominant type during the first period would doubtless be the individual unit.

6. To make certain that the individual forms of agricultural economy are removed speedily and successfully, thus transforming the entire country into one producer-consumer commune, methods must be sought which by their nature would propel the individualistic elements logically and inevitably on to the path of communism and thus remove the corrupting influences of the individualistic system of agriculture on the socialized economy. These methods should not only lessen the discord between two i ontrasting economic systems, but also establish the harmony essential to the normal development of the process of socializing labor and agriculture. The objective conditions dictate two types of method: (A) a system of offensive measures and (B) a system of defensive measures.

1. System of offensive measures, i.e. measures of direct action towards hastening the socialization of labor in agriculture, consisting of:

1. Socialization without exception of all agricultural units in which labor is already socialized by the process of production itself, owing to mechanization. The inclusion of these units in the general system of communistic economy on the same conditions as the factories.

2. Socialization of all enterprises engaged in the processing of agricultural products and their inclusion in the system of communistic economy on the same conditions as other processing industries.

3. Socialization and co-operation in those branches of agriculture which are closely bound with processing industries, such as sugar, textile, wine, tobacco, etc. and the incorporation of the agricultural communes concerned into the general system of the communistic economy.

4. Socialization of large-scale flour mills and creameries, with their inclusion into the general system of the communistic economy, and the establishment of co-operatives among small flour mills and creameries.

5. Organization of associations for the common cultivation of land.

6. Establishment of new agricultural settlements on the basis of full communism, with their inclusion into the general system of the communistic economy, as well as the organization of new settlements on the basis of associations for the common cultivation of the land.

7. Industrialization of agriculture, i.e. unification of agriculture with industry, by means of the erection in appropriate agricultural areas of industrial enterprises processing agricultural products -- i.e. textiles, sugar, fruit and vegetable canning, tobacco, beer, wine and spirits, starch and molasses, rope and twine, etc. The establishment of composite agro-industrial units, with the industrial enterprise in the center, which, by virtue oi their organization of labor and the connection of the industrial enterprise with the suppliers of raw materials, will be of the following types:

1. Communistic industrial enterprises of the usual kind cooperating with the surrounding individualistic agricultural units on the basis of commercial book-keeping, like the Russian creamery producer co-operatives.

2. Composite agro-industrial units -- as a link in the general communistic economic chain -- which will work seasonally and whose industrial workers will take part in agriculture during the periods of most intensive field labor and whose farm workers will work in industry during the periods of inactivity on the land.

3. Composite units working continuously, where the fields surrounding the enterprise, together with the enterprise itself, are united and labor is organized in such a way that eath member, taking his turn, works definite hours daily in the field\nd in the factory.

2. System of Defensive Measures, i.e. measures of integrating the millions of individualistic units and their reciprocal activities with the communistic economy of the country, consisting primarily of the comprehensive permeation of the system of individualistic units by various types of co-operatives -- credit co-operatives, producers' and subsidiary co-operatives.

The system of defensive measures will belong to the Transition Period and all institutions established in connection therewith will afterwards gradually disappear or will be converted into institutions of the free producer-consumer communes. Hence the co-operatives of the Transition Period cannot be copies of those developing within the limits of the capitalist structure. The interests of the transition to communism demand internal organizational unity, and the fulfillment of complex functions by local collectivities which will be united in their diversity through the process of federalization.

The tasks of the peasant co-operatives in the Transition Period will be to provide the sole liaison between the communistic economy of the country in general and the individualistic agricultural units which it surrounds, to organize for these two divergent economic systems the true and natural financial exchange process, and to convert themselves gradually into the distributing agencies of a unified labor commune.

From Chapter 3. Public Service Industries

VIII. Accountancy -- Banks and Finances.

Accountancy and statistics are very important functions in the proper regulation of relations between production and consumption. Only with the help of statistical data is it possible to determine their necessary equilibrium, and to institute a suitable distribution and exchange organization. Indeed, without statistical data an economic order is impossible. Statistics, therefore, form a vital public service, whose technical discharge will be entrusted to the Central Statistical Bureau at the Bank for Cash-and-Goods Credit, consisting of the directly concerned public services and particularly the services for distribution and exchange.

All existing banks will be socialized and will merge with the Bank for Cash-and-Goods Credit. This, in addition to its statistical functions, will perform all the usual banking operations which, of course, will change in accordance with the new economic structure of the country. The Bank will be the organic liaison between the communistic economy and the individualistic units, particularly the agricultural units, as well as with the individualist world abroad. In the latter case, it will act as the bank for foreign trade.

In the sphere of internal exchange, the bank will be one of the most powerful weapons of communism, influencing individualistic units in the desired direction by means of material and financial credit without interest for the improvement of each unit and the mechanization of farming, which will result in the socialization of rural labor -- the necessary prerequisite for the socialization of agriculture.

The socialization of banks and accountancy must be achieved by their syndicalization, i.e. these public services will be transferred to the management of the workers who operate them, and will be incorporated into the general communistic economic system. With the strengthening of communism, labor will be industrialized and ruralized as in other public services, i.e. it will gradually be organized on the principle of integration.

Money, as a concrete symbol of expended labor, the greatest part of which is now concentrated by means of exploitation in the hands of a few capitalists and States, must be socialized. The socialization of money, i.e. the return to society of the fruits of expended labor, will be possible only in the form of its abolition, without any compensation. The abolition of the monetary token of the old regime is one of the first tasks of the social revolution.

It will be impossible, however, to abolish money entirely in the Transition Period, since some functions, which are dependent on money now, will still continue to operate, even though their dangerous aspects will be removed. Money will vanish of itself during the gradual approach to a system of fully matured Communism which will replace exchange by distribution. But in the Transition Period, owing to the co-existence of communism with individualism, the exchange of goods cannot be eliminated entirely. And since the main function of money is that of a medium of exchange -- the most convenient medium of exchange -- it will not be possible to do without it during this phase.

In the beginning, because of the practical impossibility of introducing labor money (whose value is based on the working day) the communistic economy will have to recognize gold coins, and will have to be guided in their exchange by the values inherited from capitalism. This will apply particularly to foreign trade. In internal exchange, owing to the socialization of a large part of industry, which will provide the opportunity of determining the scale of production, it will be possible to set prices and to assure their stability in a scientific manner.

During the Transition Period, money cannot become a threat of the establishment of inequality and exploitation because -- in view of the socialization of all means of production and transportation and the socialization of labor and its products in all branches of industry except agriculture -- it will lose the power it had in capitalist society, namely, the power to become capital. Cash could not be lent on interest, hence there will be no room for financial capital. All tools and means of production, being socialized, will not be subject either to sale or purchase; hence there will be no room for industrial capital. The discontinuance of hired labor will remove the possibility of hoarding capital by the appropriation of surplus values; the replacement of the private tradesman by the co-operatives and the establishment of direct exchange on the mixed material-financial principle between the communistic and the individualistic economy will remove the possibility of money turning into trading capital. Thus during the Transition Period, in which everything will be socialized, but all will not be communized, money will exist only as a standard of value and a means of simplifying the process of natural exchange between the different systems of economic equality.

Depending on the stabilization of society after the social upheaval, greater preference will be given to natural exchange in the principle of barter values, and thus the usefulness of money as a standard will decline. The gradual transition of agriculture to communism will further decrease the role of money, and the supercession of exchange by distribution will finally eliminate it in a perfectly natural manner.



As you can see, this book provides a lot of interesting insights in the possible ways of making of the economy of Communist society, and though the author belongs to the historical Anarcho-Syndicalism (being one of its most important militants, by the way), it would be undoubtedly useful to revolutionary and libertarian Marxists as well.

Die Neue Zeit
18th March 2011, 02:18
Recently I have stumbled upon the magnificent book that has greatly increased my opinion of anarcho-syndicalists. Sure, some of their organizations exhibit certain "a-political" tendencies that may inhibit the articulation of their positive program and impede their participation in the political class struggle (the Platformist anarchists are much better in this role) but in the essence the idea of economic re-organization of the society envisaged by classic anarcho-syndicalism (and such "Marxist-Syndicalist" currents as De Leonism and Workers' Opposition in Russia) seems far superior to the Orthodox Marxism of the Second International with its statism that was unfortunately uncritically absorbed by Bolsheviks.

[...]

The whole book can be reached here (http://libcom.org/library/program-anarcho-syndicalism-g-p-maximoff), while the most interesting chapters dealing with the economic organization of the Communist society are quoted in this post.

As you can see, this book provides a lot of interesting insights in the possible ways of making of the economy of Communist society, and though the author belongs to the historical Anarcho-Syndicalism (being one of its most important militants, by the way), it would be undoubtedly useful to revolutionary and libertarian Marxists as well.

Just to summarize, is this an outline for a maximum program or for a directional / genuinely transitional program?

I'd like to know what's their equivalent for more state-oriented transitions, as outlined here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/participatory-economics-khrushchev-t150768/index.html?p=2036600) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-economic-miracle-t145560/index.html?p=1941324).

Kiev Communard
18th March 2011, 10:22
Just to summarize, is this an outline for a maximum program or for a directional / genuinely transitional program?

I'd like to know what's their equivalent for more state-oriented transitions, as outlined here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/participatory-economics-khrushchev-t150768/index.html?p=2036600) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/chinese-economic-miracle-t145560/index.html?p=1941324).

Well, as Maximov obviously mentions "Transitional Period" (unlike some of the more utopian currents of Anarcho-Communism), there could be some similarities between his ideas and pareconist views. However, he seems to be much more realistic than Albert and Hahnel on the organization of economy and consumption and, unlike them, takes into account the problems of foreign trade, the relations with "individualist" enterprises in the agriculture, etc.

As to his views on the political organization after the revolution, it is actually fairly similar to the model espoused by the leaders of Paris Commune, and seems to be rather compatible with the libertarian Marxism's ideas (such as those of council communists of Pannekoekian current for instance).

Die Neue Zeit
18th March 2011, 14:37
So would the syndicalist organization or equivalent be the one to enforce Meidnerism, be in a position to purchase at "fair market value" enterprises with high book value but extremely low-to-zero market capitalization (as in the case of bankruptcy periods), and so on?

Jose Gracchus
19th March 2011, 02:21
Well, as Maximov obviously mentions "Transitional Period" (unlike some of the more utopian currents of Anarcho-Communism), there could be some similarities between his ideas and pareconist views. However, he seems to be much more realistic than Albert and Hahnel on the organization of economy and consumption and, unlike them, takes into account the problems of foreign trade, the relations with "individualist" enterprises in the agriculture, etc.

As to his views on the political organization after the revolution, it is actually fairly similar to the model espoused by the leaders of Paris Commune, and seems to be rather compatible with the libertarian Marxism's ideas (such as those of council communists of Pannekoekian current for instance).

Could you clarify these in greater detail? This stuff is my bread and butter and sounds fascinating? Any comparison or contrast with the "Toilers' Republic" concepts the Kronstadt libertarians came up with? Or the CNT's Zaragosa Program? (Laid out by syndicat here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-cnt-have-t64200/index6.html?highlight=national+congress)).

Kiev Communard
20th March 2011, 09:40
So would the syndicalist organization or equivalent be the one to enforce Meidnerism, be in a position to purchase at "fair market value" enterprises with high book value but extremely low-to-zero market capitalization (as in the case of bankruptcy periods), and so on?

As far as I may guess from the articles of your draft Constitution of the Workers' Polity, there is nothing that would preclude "exercising eminent domain immediately on private enterprises with socially useful property but with market capitalization deflated to non-existence or near it, such as during declarations of bankruptcy" within the framework of Maximov's model in cases where the full socialization is for some reasons (such as entrenched positions of petty-bourgeois small property) temporarily inopportune. However, I am more inclined to agree with Maximov in stating that private (in this case, individual) production of petty bourgeois character could be allowed only for agriculture, while in artisan production the measures for facilitating the creation of socialized co-operatives should be gradually enacted from the very beginning of the social revolution.

As to expropriation through special income taxation, here you and Maximov actually find themselves in agreement, except that Maximov was evidently talking about petty-bourgeois workshops (inducing them to enter co-operatives in such a way), while you are probably meaning some larger private enterprises in still underdeveloped countries/branches of industry. Again, everything depends on concrete circumstances. Concerning Meidnerism, I think that the introduction of the plans of fiscal and monetary policies to ensure that aggregate demand for goods and services is kept below the full employment level as a way of reducing wage-cost pressures is necessary only in the context of generalized commodity production, with its peculiar laws of motion that Swedish Keynesian capitalism naturally never managed to escape. On the other hand, the provisions for retraining is a must to make workers able to change occupations, thus eroding the social division of labour.

I hope this clarifies my position on the issues you have mentioned.

Kiev Communard
20th March 2011, 09:46
Could you clarify these in greater detail? This stuff is my bread and butter and sounds fascinating? Any comparison or contrast with the "Toilers' Republic" concepts the Kronstadt libertarians came up with? Or the CNT's Zaragosa Program? (Laid out by syndicat here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-cnt-have-t64200/index6.html?highlight=national+congress)).

The programme of Kronstadt was too undeveloped and somewhat naive to break decisively with both state socialism of then-time Bolsheviks and with "market socialism" of SRs/Mensheviks. The rebels were quite confused, not having able to devise a coherent and viable programme to challenge both these fake "alternatives", and that was one of the reasons for their failure to spark workers' uprising in Petrograd.

The Zaragoza Programme, on the other hand, is rather well-defined, and there is much to learn from it, but some naive localist elements inherent in it (introduced mainly by Urales / Puente current) make it inferior to that expounded by Maximov.

Die Neue Zeit
20th March 2011, 16:21
I absolutely love this programmatic discussion!


As far as I may guess from the articles of your draft Constitution of the Workers' Polity

You're supposed to first scream hysterically "You're an eccentrist Stalinist and social-democrat, especially the former!" or something, like Red Dave does. ;)


Concerning Meidnerism, I think that the introduction of the plans of fiscal and monetary policies to ensure that aggregate demand for goods and services is kept below the full employment level as a way of reducing wage-cost pressures is necessary only in the context of generalized commodity production, with its peculiar laws of motion that Swedish Keynesian capitalism naturally never managed to escape. On the other hand, the provisions for retraining is a must to make workers able to change occupations, thus eroding the social division of labour.

I hope this clarifies my position on the issues you have mentioned.

My apologies. When I wrote of Meidnerism, I wasn't writing about Keynesian full employment or whatever, but about:

Article 9-a(b)
Towards Exclusively Public Purposes, Compensation and Capital Flight (PCSSR work-in-progress)
National-Democratization, Health-Industrial Complexes, and Comprehensive Workers Insurance (http://www.revleft.com/vb/national-democratization-health-t144740/index.html?p=1921381&highlight=meidner) (you even posted here :D )

It's the proposal that's similar to tax-to-nationalize, except that the proceeds and shares go to worker funds and not state coffers.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/parallel-economies-constantinism-t146882/index.html?p=1965337


The increase of real social savings and investment by first means of mandatory and significant redistributions of annual business profits, by private enterprises with more workers than a defined threshold, as non-tradable and superior voting shares to be held by geographically organised worker funds.

[Meidner: The respective specifics are twenty percent of business profits - and no net loss rebates, the exact opposite of “privatize the gains, socialize the losses” bailouts - fifty employees, and regional and not union-level organization of wage-earner funds.]

RED DAVE
20th March 2011, 17:15
May as well toss this into the mix:

The Transitional Program - by Leon Trotsky (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/tp/index.htm)

RED DAVE

Black Sheep
20th March 2011, 17:49
Is there a pdf available?
(or book in english/greek)

Kiev Communard
20th March 2011, 20:09
Is there a pdf available?
(or book in english/greek)

Yes, it is ;)

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/pdfs/a4/Grigori_Petrovitch_Maximov__Programme_of_Anarcho-Syndicalism_a4.pdf

Jose Gracchus
21st March 2011, 07:24
Well, as Maximov obviously mentions "Transitional Period" (unlike some of the more utopian currents of Anarcho-Communism), there could be some similarities between his ideas and pareconist views. However, he seems to be much more realistic than Albert and Hahnel on the organization of economy and consumption and, unlike them, takes into account the problems of foreign trade, the relations with "individualist" enterprises in the agriculture, etc.

Interesting, could you indulge and detail your pareconist criticism and contrast with Maximov's program?


As to his views on the political organization after the revolution, it is actually fairly similar to the model espoused by the leaders of Paris Commune, and seems to be rather compatible with the libertarian Marxism's ideas (such as those of council communists of Pannekoekian current for instance).

Could you indulge me in specifics? How does this differ in major outline from the summary of the Zaragoza Program outlined by syndicat, or State and Revolution, or the Soviet Constitution of 1918? How exactly did the Communards see it coming together? I've never heard a comprehensive Communard program or model explained. For that matter, how the actual Commune functionally elected/controlled its delegates, etc., either. I've only read The Civil War in France. Or Pannekoek for that instance? I've never heard the Pannekoekian council communist program explained, and how it differed from historical soviets or handled the question of parties and activists/militants.


The programme of Kronstadt was too undeveloped and somewhat naive to break decisively with both state socialism of then-time Bolsheviks and with "market socialism" of SRs/Mensheviks. The rebels were quite confused, not having able to devise a coherent and viable programme to challenge both these fake "alternatives", and that was one of the reasons for their failure to spark workers' uprising in Petrograd.

Agreed. However, there were militants and activists in the Kronstadt Soviet (notably different from the Petrograd Soviet in that it was authentically controlled by base assemblies and worker/serviceman activists) aligned with the Union of Socialist Revolutionaries-Marximalists who did call for a "Toilers' Republic" in 1917 with a concept of soviet government closer to their own soviet writ large than what the Bolsheviks preferred.


The Zaragoza Programme, on the other hand, is rather well-defined, and there is much to learn from it, but some naive localist elements inherent in it (introduced mainly by Urales / Puente current) make it inferior to that expounded by Maximov.

Could you be more specific? What are the 'localist' elements? How does Maximov's model differ from the outline of the Zaragoza Program? I'm afraid I'm woefully under-educated about the specific nature and qualities of these different libertarian programs (not to mention I'm sure I'd like to share them and cite them myself!). I read the brief section of "political sphere" in the link provided, but it was less specific than syndicat's outline. I'm left stumped, unless I missed something.

What about workplace/industrial constituencies versus geographic/community ones? Economic versus political organization? How are parties' control over institutions to be limited as manifested in the Russian and German workers' councils? Spetsy and civil servants by-passed, duplicated, coordinated, or what?

Paulappaul
21st March 2011, 21:10
As to his views on the political organization after the revolution, it is actually fairly similar to the model espoused by the leaders of Paris Commune, and seems to be rather compatible with the libertarian Marxism's ideas (such as those of council communists of Pannekoekian current for instance).
I've never heard the Pannekoekian council communist program explained, and how it differed from historical soviets or handled the question of parties and activists/militants.

I've never heard a comprehensive Communard program or model explained. For that matter, how the actual Commune functionally elected/controlled its delegates, etc., either. I've only read The Civil War in France. Anarchist - Syndicalism is often compared to Council Communism. From as long back as the first conferences of the Third International with Bordiga and as recent as Noam Chomsky calling them "Indistinguishable". Looking at just tactics and Transitional society we see them at opposite ends. What is similar between alot of these far-left currents, Deleonism, Anarchist - Syndicalism and Council Communism is there critique. For all three of these currents, they were critical of Reformism in its two forms, by Trade Unions and through Parliamentary Socialism. The Unions in their view had become quite bureaucratic and capitalist in nature. No longer were they rested in revolutionary principles, but more in their own self-satisfaction. Parliamentary Reformism fell flat on the realities of Capitalism, unable to make any great changes and ultimately distracted the Proletariat.

For the American Socialist Labor Party and for the "Deleonists" the solution was in Industrial Unions. What differed such unions from Trade Unions was that they were founded on the principle of "one big union" but more importantly that they were created to challenge the Capitalist on its "two fields": the Economic and Political. Economic through a Union and Political through a Party. It was called the "General Lockout of the Capitalist Class". In such a lockout, simultaneously, following the Socialist majority at the ballot box, the Party would declare a Socialist Republic and would be backed up by a nationwide General Strike as to cut of the Capitalist Class from their two fields. From there, the dictatorship of the proletariat would be established and nation’s capital would rest in Chicago (the founding place of the IWW). Society would be organized along trade unions by the Bona Fide union of labor - the IWW. Every Trade would elect a representative to a local trade’s council, regional trade’s council and Nation Wide trades Council who would then elect a representative to an all trades union council.

Deleon was a romantic, it's what gained him the title of "best theoretician since Marx" and gained his party a place in Labor history. The IWW paid little attention to Deleon. When the IWW kicked the Deleonists out and basically the entire Detroit IWW branch out, they founded the Workers' International Industrial Union. The principle tactic of which was pacifism and using strikes as a means to get votes. The Union died out in the mid 1920's.

The Industrial Workers' of the World in contrast to the Deleonists ballot vote saw the solution in the "Industrial Vote". With the rejection of Political parties, but still necessitating the battle along a political field, the Industrial vote was the election of a Union upon a Revolutionary Program. They saw this as basically the same as the election of a Political party, only more radical and efficient. Instead of two organizations caring different memberships, the Union was both Political and Economic at the same time. It was for this reason that Big Billy Haywood saw the Political party as irrelevant, as already the IWW carries its practical purpose. The Big thing that separated the IWW from other Anarchist Syndicalist organizations was the question of Federalism. The IWW was not Federalist, but Centralist.

The Council Communists would reject both the Deleonist and Anarchist Syndicalist line. While Bordiga was no Council Communist, his position on the question of Parliament was the same as the Council Communists, only put better. For Bordiga the System of Communist Representation was in the Soviet System, because it was a genuine Class organizations wherein the vote was only extended to those of the Working Class, whereas Parliament extend the vote to all classes and could not be an organ of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

In Pannekoek's pamphlet on Trade Unionism he critiqued the IWW's concept of Industrial Unionism for not having the capability of challenging the State. This was because the Union form compelled them against only the Capitalists as Bosses of production, not as a class and not as masters of society at large. They had no means to challenge the State. The election of a Union upon a Revolutionary Program was a sign of Political Consciousness, but could not carry it like a Party theoretically could in Parliament. I would tack on to this that the Union form is compelled towards economic measures and not Political.

The Earliest Council Communists would solve the “Political question” by the creation of Communist Workers’ Parties. Such parties would by the “unflinching compass towards Communism”. They would be the guide of the Workers’ Councils towards their Dictatorship. The job of militants was therefor in mostly in agitation, discussion and coordination inside the “Factory Organizations” present all over Europe. The foremost of these Communist Workers’ Parties was the German KAPD. It saw its purpose in the German factory councils as “unflagging propaganda as well as putting forward the slogans of the struggle. The Revolutionary cadres in the factory become the mobile arm of the party […] complying with the dictatorship from bellow” As the revolutionary situation went on in Germany, workers’ became more and more critical of parties and unions after their betrayal by the SPD. Otto Ruhle an organizer for the KAPD’s affiliate the AAUD (a “Workers’ Union” modeled closely to the IWW) stood as the main voice of these Workers and called for the local branches of the KAPD to collapse and merge into the AAUD and form a unitary organization. This was called the AAU-E; it saw itself as the “unitary political and economic organization of the proletariat”. It differed from the IWW in that it stood chiefly for the Council system and that it was a federation of party branches, student councils, community councils and Factory councils. Its chief tenet was the destruction of all Political parties and Unions what they called the “principle obstacles standing the way of the unification of the proletarian class”. The AAU-E would become larger then both the KAPD and the AAUD’s membership in 1922, all three organizations would remain much larger than the official Communist Party sponsored by the Third international. Paul Mattick would comment that despite the membership difference and all the rhetoric, the two organizations – the KAPD and the AAU-E – were basically the same, the only difference being in leaders. Pannekoek would lean more towards the AAU-E, but remain at distance from both organizations. He was none the less a member of the Dutch Communist Workers’ Party.

Later Council Communists would reject the party form. Paul Mattick emigrating from Germany to America joined the IWW and formed a small group of Council Communists in it. The IWW after all was the main union of Immigrant Workers, so it was easy for Mattick to find German Workers familiar with the KAPD, AAUD and AAU-E. He formed United Workers Party out of a quasi – Left Communist party the Proletarian Party of America. This party stressed educational societies and “proletarian universities”. They formed large publication units as well. Matticks party soon changed its name to Council Communists, then to Groups of Council Communists and as an affiliate to the Council Communist International. The Group abandoned the Party form. They stressed instead, Spontaneous Strikes which could lead to the formation of Workers’ Councils. The event of Hungary 56 and May 68 brought a resurgence of Council Communist texts which stressed the ability of Councils to be both Political and Economic at the same time. This came from Rosa Luxemburg’s theory of Mass Strikes, wherein Workers’ Associations would force both Political and Economic Measures.

The main problem that Council Communists faced was what Otto Ruhle faced decades before. How to destroy parties and unions which themselves are parts of the Capitalist system? The events of May 68 and of Chile and everywhere where Workers’ Councils have appeared the Parties and Unions have always stood in their way and prevented them from pushing the revolution one step forward. The main solution was in spontaneity and self – emancipation of the working class. Militants were at once a center piece for Council Communist theory, but now they had taken on a lessor and lessor role. They were now for the purpose of simple agitation and propaganda.

What was theorized as a system which would follow the revolution was a System of Workers’ Councils. Pannekoek theorized that following a revolution where the world was in ruins, there was be a definite need for a Proletarian State comprised of Workers’ Councils. The Council Communists were against the Wage System first and foremost. They stressed less the industrial aspect of the Council system and more the Community aspect of the Council System. Factories would elect a delegate to a City Council first. Much like the Paris Commune, which intended to be a smaller unit of a larger centralized Commune of France, these city councils were for the management for their own affairs and for the carrying out of the demands of larger Councils. City Councils would elect to regional and National Councils. Corresponding to this, Councils dealing with the process of production would form to manage themselves. The Council system as Pankhurst would theorize was for “the organization and co-ordination of each industry and social activity; 2. For the linking together of all industries and social activities.

The network of committees of delegates which makes up the framework of the Soviets and links the many productive groups, and also individual producers should not be regarded as a rigid, cast-iron machinery, but as a convenient means of transacting necessary business, a practical method of inter-organisation which gives everyone the opportunity of a voice in social management. The members of a community are dependent upon each other. The cotton spinning mill is operated by a number of groups of workers practising various crafts. The workers in the spinning mill are dependent for the execution of their work on the cotton growers, the railwaymen, the mariners, and the dockers, who provide them with the raw material of their trade. They are dependent on machine makers, miners, electricians and others for the machinery of spinning and the power to run it, and on the weaver, the bleacher, the dyer, the printer, the garment worker and upholsterer to complete the work they have begun. In order that the spinners may do their work they are also dependent on builders, decorators, furniture makers, food producers, garment makers, and innumerable others whose labours are necessary to maintain them in health and efficiency.

At present it is the employer who directs, the merchant who co-ordinates and distributes social production. When capitalism is destroyed another medium of direction, co-ordination and distribution must be discovered, the productive processes must not fall into chaos. The Soviets will supply the necessary medium of co-ordination and direction; but they must become a medium of convenience, not of compulsion; otherwise there can be no genuine Communism.”

I hope this answers some of your questions comrade. I hope the distinction between Anarchist - Syndicalism and Council Communism is clear enough; If not, I can I can elaborate.

syndicat
21st March 2011, 21:34
So would the syndicalist organization or equivalent be the one to enforce Meidnerism, be in a position to purchase at "fair market value" enterprises with high book value but extremely low-to-zero market capitalization (as in the case of bankruptcy periods), and so on?


more of your irrelevant babbling. syndicalism has nothing in common with the Meidner Plan, which would have merely made workers stock holders in capitalist corporations, whose managerial hierarchy would have been left in place. Libertarian syndicalism doesn't propose electing politicians to buy the companies for us, but proposes that the working class en mass seize the means of production.

syndicat
21st March 2011, 21:48
The Zaragoza Programme, on the other hand, is rather well-defined, and there is much to learn from it, but some naive localist elements inherent in it (introduced mainly by Urales / Puente current) make it inferior to that expounded by Maximov.

this is probably a reference to the advocacy of free municipalities. The issue isn't "localism" tho. Spanish anarcho-syndicalism didn't advocate self-sufficient communities or anything like that.

Maximov's program is similar to the program of Rocker in his book "Anarcho-syndicalism" and is derived from the early 1900s conception of the revolutionary transformation via the organized working class, organized through a movement based on the worker assemblies in the workplaces.

A fatal weakness of this proposal is that would disenfranchise those members of the working class who are not currently working in the social economy (that is, workplaces where members of households make things for other households, as distinguished from household production). in the early 20th century, this would have meant continued subordination of women to men.

moreover, you're incorrect when you attribute advocacy of free municipalities to the rural Isaac Puente anarchists. in the '20s Joan Peiro, a major theoretician of Spanish syndicalism, pointed up the danger of the unions becoming bogged down in bargaining and fighting the individual employer and not dealing with broader questions that face working people. He believed this could lead to a conservatizing and bureaucratizing of the CNT movement. that's why he advocated a neighborhood form of organization, to supplement the revolutionary unions. this type of organization became the basis of both the rent strike in Barcelona in 1931 and the neighborhood defense groups of the CNT.

thus in the 1936 program of the CNT they advocated a dual goverance structure for society: worker industrial federations (based on the worker assemblies) would take over management of industries, and would be responsible for overall economic plannning via worker congresses. but there would also be neighborhood & village assemblies of residents...the "free municipalities". these also would have meetings of delegates over broader regions. these would be responsible for developing the consumer side of self-management, that is, these would be the channel for people & communities to put in requests to the production system for what they want produced.

this program was modified in early Sept 1936 in their proposal for regional and national defense councils, which would be elected by the worker congresses. these would be responsible for defense of the revolution, and would oversee and direct a unified people's militia....the revolutionary people's army. these would effectively be a proletarian government.

Paulappaul
21st March 2011, 22:30
Syndicat: Would you care to comment your thoughts on this?

KAPD report on the Third Congress of the Third International (1921):


We devoted our greatest efforts to the second task mentioned above (establishing an opposition). In the course of our discussions with the delegations from Bulgaria, Mexico, Spain, Luxembourg, England, Glasgow, the Bulgarian Group and the IWW (Industrial Workers of the World), it became clear that we share some points in common with all these groups. The “Bulgarian Lefts” are closest to our positions. Their understanding of the Mexican situation is exactly the same as ours. The Bulgarian organizations are not actual “unions”, but coordinating bodies composed of syndicalists, anarchists and shop stewards. The relation between these organizations and the party is more or less such as we have tried to achieve: it is the party which directs the movement. After the Bulgarian comrades, it was the Spanish comrades [CNT] whose positions were closest to ours. They understood us perfectly. There is just one problem: the concept of the need for a political organization has yet to be generally accepted in Spain; but it is gaining ground. The comrades find themselves beyond trade unionism, on the road to communism. Their organization has 1,100,000 members: approximately 50% of all the organized workers in Spain.


What is this Political Organisation within the CNT? The FAI? Was there any Political organization gaining ground at all?

Die Neue Zeit
22nd March 2011, 03:23
more of your irrelevant babbling. syndicalism has nothing in common with the Meidner Plan, which would have merely made workers stock holders in capitalist corporations, whose managerial hierarchy would have been left in place. Libertarian syndicalism doesn't propose electing politicians to buy the companies for us, but proposes that the working class en mass seize the means of production.

Not at all. One set of routes is explicitly political (Meidner, tax-to-nationalize, eminent domain on big enterprises with excessively low market capitalization, organized expropriations), while raw syndicalism is anti-political (mere spontaneous expropriations). The transition, while primarily economic, must be as fully political as possible.

The Meidner Plan was/is a huge step up from mere "pension fund socialism," because the main immediate beneficiaries are the workers as a whole and not mere sections.

Jose Gracchus
22nd March 2011, 04:41
You fail to get it - the workers themselves need to be directly involved directly in the process of laying their hands on the means of production and general coercion. Not spectators while DER ARBEIT PARTEI has some bureaucratic financier process the workers maybe read about DER ARBEIT PARTEI paper. Otherwise, there is no fundamental change in social relations and consciousness.

Die Neue Zeit
22nd March 2011, 05:13
^^^ First note: It's Die Arbeiterpartei. Note the -er after Arbeit and the joining into one word. ;)

Anyway, I have directional or genuinely transitional eggs in multiple baskets, no? :confused:

Matching the transnational mobility of labour with the establishment of a transnationally entrenched bill of workers’ political and economic rights, and with the realization of a globalized and upward equal standard of living for equal work based on real purchasing power parity, thus allowing real freedom of movement through instant legalization and open borders, and thereby precluding the extreme exploitation of immigrants

[Union-sponsored labour organizations]

Legally considering all workplaces as being unionized for the purposes of political strikes and even syndicalist strikes, regardless of the presence or absence of formal unionization in each workplace

[Possibility of raw syndicalism during the DOTP - "involved directly in the process of laying their hands on the means of production and general coercion" - and not before]

Enabling the full replacement of the hiring of labour for small-business profit by cooperative production, and also society’s cooperative production of goods and services to be regulated by cooperatives under their common plans

[Cooperative route - again "involved directly in the process of laying their hands on the means of production"]

Extending litigation rights to include class-action lawsuits and speedy judgements against all non-workers who appropriate surplus value atop any economic rent applied towards exclusively public purposes

[Resolution of legal disputes - again "involved directly..."]



How many baskets do the ultra-statists and raw syndicalists, meanwhile, actually have, other than direct expropriation? Two (eminent domain on deflated market values, and tax-to-nationalize) and one (One Big Mass/General Strike), respectively, which don't make for a diversified approach.

Jose Gracchus
22nd March 2011, 19:22
What's wrong with direct expropriation or socialization? I thought that was the...uh...point of revolutionary leftism.

RED DAVE
23rd March 2011, 02:22
Extending litigation rights to include class-action lawsuits ... .Do you really think that class-action lawsuits are going to be an important feature of socialism?

RED DAVE

syndicat
23rd March 2011, 02:36
What is this Political Organisation within the CNT? The FAI? Was there any Political organization gaining ground at all?

Not in the sense quoted, of an organization to "direct" the labor movement. That was a key reason why the CNT rejected the Third International. The ComIntern conceived of the unions as a mere transmission belt of the party.

There were two political organizations in early phases of development in the CNT in that period. on the one hand, in 1918 there was the formation of a federation of anarchist groups. later in 1927 this would morph into the FAI. there was also a minority tendency in the CNT after 1917 who could be called "communist-syndicalists". these were people in the CNT who admired the Bolsheviks and believed that a party of this kind was needed, but who still believed in syndicalist values of direct worker democracy and direct militancy. this tendency in Catalonia included Nin and Maurin. the syndicalist-communist group in Catalonia in the '20s was the Workers Federation of Catalonia and the Balearic Islands, which was a predecessor of the POUM.

in the years right after World War 1 there were "syndicalist-communist" groups like this in some other countries...in France and elsewhere. but in most places they eventually became orthodox Leninists. but the Maurin/Nin group in Catalonia did not go quite that far down that path.

Die Neue Zeit
23rd March 2011, 04:57
What's wrong with direct expropriation or socialization? I thought that was the...uh...point of revolutionary leftism.

For all his faults, Gramsci said that the socialization process under the DOTP could be protracted. Kautsky wrote of tax-to-nationalize in The Social Revolution to suggest the possibility of a similarly timed process (no major Marxist critiqued that work back then). In any event, we shouldn't rely on just one approach as the be-all-and-end-all.


Do you really think that class-action lawsuits are going to be an important feature of socialism?

RED DAVE

Comrade Cockshott said that a key feature for a transition to socialism in the European Union would have to include labour-value-based class-action lawsuits.

RED DAVE
23rd March 2011, 05:09
For all his faults, Gramsci said that the socialization process under the DOTP could be protracted.Somehow, I don't think that what he meant is what you mean. Gramsci said, ’(t)he dictatorship of the proletariat has to resolve the same problems as the bourgeois state: internal and external state.(...) The proletariat is little trained in the art of governing and leading; the bourgeoisie will put up a bitter resistance to the socialist state, whether overt or concealed, violent or passive..." This has nothing to do with your social democratic bilge.


Kautsky wrote of tax-to-nationalize in The Social Revolution to suggest the possibility of a similarly timed process (no major Marxist critiqued that work back then). In any event, we shouldn't rely on just one approach as the be-all-and-end-all.Kautsky should be used for toilet paper, but be careful because he might infect comrade's asses. Maybe Kautsky should have figured a way to tax the German ruling class into stopping WWI.


Comrade Cockshott said that a key feature for a transition to socialism in the European Union would have to include labour-value-based class-action lawsuits.Cockshott doesn't know the difference between socialism and bourgeois democracy, and, I suspect, neither do you if you believe junk like this.

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit
23rd March 2011, 05:17
Somehow, I don't think that what he meant is what you mean. Gramsci said, ’(t)he dictatorship of the proletariat has to resolve the same problems as the bourgeois state: internal and external state.(...) The proletariat is little trained in the art of governing and leading; the bourgeoisie will put up a bitter resistance to the socialist state, whether overt or concealed, violent or passive..." This has nothing to do with your social democratic bilge.

I'm sure I had another quote of his in mind, with respect to the economic transition.


Kautsky should be used for toilet paper, but be careful because he might infect comrade's asses. Maybe Kautsky should have figured a way to tax the German ruling class into stopping WWI.

Yes, because Trotskyism's civil war with the peasantry, New Leftism's identity fetishes, etc. have all worked out, haven't they? :rolleyes:


Cockshott doesn't know the difference between socialism and bourgeois democracy, and, I suspect, neither do you if you believe junk like this.

RED DAVE

Gee, if I said "the geographic space of today's European Union," that would be a tad too long. :glare:

RED DAVE
23rd March 2011, 06:02
I'm sure I had another quote of his in mind, with respect to the economic transition.(1) Why don't you find it then? (2) Are you making a distinction between economic transition and political transition, because under the dictatorship of the proletariat they're going to be pretty much the same.


Yes, because Trotskyism's civil war with the peasantry, New Leftism's identity fetishes, etc. have all worked out, haven't they? :rolleyes:Re Trotsky: a slander. Re the New Left: irrelevant. Pretty typical for you.


Gee, if I said "the geographic space of today's European Union," that would be a tad too long. :glare:Gee, if this remark made some sense, I might be able to answer it. Meanwhile, we're tuck with the giggle that you and Cockshott think that class-action suits will be a feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Who, pray tell, are the workers going to sue?

RED DAVE

Die Neue Zeit
25th March 2011, 03:00
Back to what Inform said, here's a new Weekly Worker article on the subject:

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004327


The former owners should in principle only be compensated to the extent that failure to compensate them will leave pensioners or people with disabilities in hardship. (Non-pensioners who have been living on investment income can get jobs.) That said, the extent of compensation is at the end of the day a tactical question: at one end, it may be appropriate to expropriate without any compensation in order to punish attempts by individual capitalists to coerce the majority; at the other, in some cases generosity may be desirable for political reasons.

However, I'd probably put "generosity" in quotes, because tax-to-nationalize, Meidnerism, eminent domain on zero market capitalization of otherwise valuable enterprises, etc. are all expropriation by other routes.

Jose Gracchus
25th March 2011, 07:52
I think you're trolling this topic, to be honest. The title of OP is "Program of Anarcho-Syndicalism" (though RED DAVE is a Trotskyist, I think his conception of direct workers' power is at least credible to the topic to be discussed), and you're trying to de-rail it into off-topic discussions of reformist compensation to people whose very claim to ownership is the essence of exploitation. Why would they be willing to take compensation? Total workers' control of the financial system will mean large reservoirs of money will become useless anyway. I think its clear your conception of revolution is some unrealistic thing where representatives of DER ARBEITPARTEI (this is an indication of sarcasm, not serious) will hash it out in bourgeois courtrooms. The moment the capitalist class perceived itself to be in general existential risk, it will retaliate with all at its disposal.

Die Neue Zeit
25th March 2011, 14:53
I don't troll the threads of comrades, but if I have unintentionally done so, then my apologies to comrade Kiev.

BTW, the "representatives of Die Arbeiterpartei" aren't expected to hash out for worker compensation in bourgeois courts. The class-action lawsuits suggested by comrade Cockshott are of a directional or genuinely transitional nature for the proletariat (as opposed to even Caesarean Socialism).

Jose Gracchus
27th March 2011, 02:08
I think expanding a workers' bill of rights of something is of limited utility in accomplished socialism, if I'm following what you're saying on "not bourgeois courts". The real importance of legal reform in proletarian power is the withdrawal of any legal protection for private property.

Die Neue Zeit
27th March 2011, 03:03
What I meant is that only the DOTP can facilitate the transnational workers' bill of political and economic rights, the separate topic of class-action lawsuits (Chapter 2), and of course remove legal protection for private property (Appendix plus Macnair). My questions in this discussion pertain to directional or genuinely transitional measures which cannot be enacted by non-worker classes, as opposed to the cheap transitory sloganeering that Red Dave presented (anything derived from the Krichevskii-Trotsky agitational model).

Jose Gracchus
27th March 2011, 04:32
What defines 'directional' and 'genuinely transitional'? What 'transitory' sloganeering did RED DAVE present?

BTW: I wish you would not treat every discussion as an opportunity to hock your own WIP, it can distract as well as be confusing for readers who are not well-acquainted with it (including myself, when I was a lurker).

Die Neue Zeit
27th March 2011, 04:44
My apologies. As I said above, directional or genuinely transitional measures are those specific measures which keep the basic principles "consciously in view" but cannot be achieved except through the DOTP. For example, a Third World Caesarean Socialist regime could withdraw legal protection for all bourgeois property in the midst of a nationalization drive, but not for private property in general (because the national "red" petit-bourgeoisie are calling the shots). :D

Contrast this with Trotsky's "sliding scale of wages" on the level of trade union disputes (that is, it's not political at all by dealing directly with the state). Even a public employer of last resort for consumer services is more radical than, say, the "slogan for public works," yet I place this as a threshold reform. Picket militias (again, there's no political character) are no match for full freedom of class-strugglist assembly and association, yet Trotsky called them "transitional."

From all these emerge factory committees, expropriation of the top such-and-such, "defense of democratic rights" (as opposed to advancing them), and the formation of soviets for hardcore Trotskyist agitationists to con the workers to power.

But really, Trotsky's method is the same economism as the one derided by Lenin with respect to Boris Krichevskii's slippery slope: attempting to grow political struggles out of mere labour disputes.



P.S. - A much older version of one of my critiques of Trotsky can be found here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/transitional-demands-t93441/index.html

Jose Gracchus
27th March 2011, 05:26
I mean, Trotsky's politics suck. He made a living riding other more successful politics into periods of relative success. Maybe his theory has something going for it.