Mission Impossible: Explaining Ceasarian Socialism

[Q]

http://oi54.tinypic.com/2ltdh5.jpg

*Taperecorder starts playing*

Your mission Jim DNZ, should you decide to accept it, is to explain Ceasarian Socialism after that little debacle in the CU. Iseul, see closeup photo's in the file attached, apparently has no clue what this is, as don't many others, including me to be completely frank here.

Is is therefore imperative that you:
- Write an explanation in between 500 to 1000 words;
- Use common English, ie no neologisms or academic terms allowed;
- Use no escape clauses, such as referring to other work or threads.

As always, should you be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.

This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck.

[the last donut of the night]

let the trollfest begin

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, you spelled "Caesarean" wrong. :p The "a" goes before the "e" in the first syllable, and it's "ea" at the end.

I thought my thread "People's Histories, Blocs, and Managed Democracy Reconsidered" - oh crap, it's over 4,000 words!

I'll skip the label controversy for now and focus on the substance. It's an attempt at providing a reasonable alternative to "permanent revolution" and "new democracy." It's also an attempt at providing a reasonable strategy for the proletariat in modern countries where they aren't the majority of the population.

Deferral of DOTP via the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and "National"/"Pan-National" Petit-Bourgeoisie
Simply put, in much of the Third World the proletariat is far from being in the demographic majority, and anything less than equal suffrage (except for the possible disenfranchisement of all bourgeois and "comprador petit-bourgeois" elements) such that the regime is not led by the working class is tantamount to minoritarianism.

Greater flexibility for "March on Rome" to seize state power (People's War, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coups, plus other means)
This is related to the necessary deferral of the DOTP and its related political revolution. By the way, by "breakthrough military coups" I have Burkina Faso's Thomas Sankara and the Afghan PDPA as models. Nonetheless, greater geographic struggle is necessary than isolated nationalism.

Political triad against liberal republicanism (independent working-class political organization, urban petit-bourgeois democratism, and peasant absolutism / autocracy / patrimonialism)
Independent working-class political organization separates this new political position from the ever-reactionary Bonapartist. The combination of the latter two elements of the triad is a rejection of bourgeois oligarchy hiding under the mask of liberal republicanism ("democracy," "aristocracy," and "monarchy"). Through things like communal power, it acknowledges that the benevolent tyrant model doesn't work. After that, peasantry absolutism / autocracy / patrimonialism does indeed refer to the extent of the National (or Pan-National) Leader's control over the military, law enforcement and corrections, bureaucracy, and courts of constitutional law ("court-packing"), all against bourgeois federalism. This one person, though, whether in or out of la Presidencia, is accountable to the next point.

Compatibility of party-based "managed democracy" with pre-DOTP orthodox minimum program and applying "managed democracy" towards autocratic and bureaucratic repression of the bourgeoisie and liberal opposition up to and including autocratic sovereignty over constitutional courts but not other courts
The National Leader is the head of some party, but can be hired and fired at will by that party. The party system is inspired somewhat by the officially multi-party, Popular Front governments of Eastern Europe. The bourgeois and liberal opposition get the Lukashenko treatment, and the latter the additional Putin treatment. Politicized religious opposition gets the Bismarck treatment and then some. Meanwhile, the communal power as mentioned above, from Proudhon to Chavez, flourishes.

Economy to encompass all "steps toward socialism," all Economic Republicanism (real, Ricardian, and radical Bourgeois Socialism), and all National-Democratization (finance, energy, food production, international trade and trade policy, transport, communication infrastructure, construction, health, insurance, etc. where not covered by either "steps toward socialism" or Economic Republicanism)
By "etc." in national-democratization, I don't mean all the other sectors of the economy. There would still be room for state-aided cooperatives, shopkeepers, small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, non-industrial fishermen, etc. plus non-worker intellectuals and really self-employed schmucks (and their market-bullying guild-like organizations) to do their thing.

Possibilities for Minsky and Meidner on structural unemployment and working-class savings, respectively
This is just a side note on additional labour and social measures of a radical character. Another example would be stakeholder co-management, but on a more populist basis (becoming in essence "co-determination" without the bourgeoisie) than a working-class basis.

DOTP in between Caesarean Socialism and the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production
"The time will come [...] then it will be ridiculous to talk about “singleness of will” of the proletariat and the peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall attend directly to the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat and deal with it at greater length." (Lenin, Two Tactics)



Keep in mind that the content above would have been my final letter in the Caesarean Socialism series of letters to the Weekly Worker. :(

Source: http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html?p=2006714

[Lenina Rosenweg]

You spelled "Caesarean" wrong. :p The "a" goes before the "e" in the first syllable, and it's "ea" at the end.

I thought my thread "People's Histories, Blocs, and Managed Democracy Reconsidered" - oh crap, it's over 4,000 words!

I'll skip the label controversy for now and focus on the substance. It's an attempt at providing a reasonable alternative to "permanent revolution" and "new democracy." It's also an attempt at providing a reasonable strategy for the proletariat in modern countries where they aren't the majority of the population.

Deferral of DOTP via the Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and "National"/"Pan-National" Petit-Bourgeoisie

Dumb question but what is DOTP?


Greater flexibility for "March on Rome" to seize state power (People's War, Focoism, Breakthrough Military Coups, plus other means)
This is related to the necessary deferral of the DOTP and its related political revolution. By the way, by "breakthrough military coups" I have Burkina Faso's Thomas Sankara and the Afghan PDPA as models. Nonetheless, greater geographic struggle is necessary than isolated nationalism.Bonapartism? Military coup?


Political triad against liberal republicanism (independent working-class political organization, urban petit-bourgeois democratism, and peasant absolutism / autocracy / patrimonialism)
Independent working-class political organization separates this new political position from the ever-reactionary Bonapartist. The combination of the latter two elements of the triad is a rejection of bourgeois oligarchy hiding under the mask of liberal republicanism ("democracy," "aristocracy," and "monarchy"). Through things like communal power, it acknowledges that the benevolent tyrant model doesn't work. After that, peasantry absolutism / autocracy / patrimonialism does indeed refer to the extent of the National (or Pan-National) Leader's control over the military, law enforcement and corrections, bureaucracy, and courts of constitutional law ("court-packing"), all against bourgeois federalism. This one person, though, whether in or out of la Presidencia, is accountable to the next point.

Compatibility of party-based "managed democracy" with pre-DOTP orthodox minimum program and applying "managed democracy" towards autocratic and bureaucratic repression of the bourgeoisie and liberal opposition up to and including autocratic sovereignty over constitutional courts but not other courts
The National Leader is the head of some party, but can be hired and fired at will by that party. The party system is inspired somewhat by the officially multi-party, Popular Front governments of Eastern Europe. The bourgeois and liberal opposition get the Lukashenko treatment, and the latter the additional Putin treatment. Politicized religious opposition gets the Bismarck treatment and then some. Meanwhile, the communal power as mentioned above, from Proudhon to Chavez, flourishes.This section loses me. As I understand its a check on a bonapartist leader by worker's organisations?


Economy to encompass all "steps toward socialism," all Economic Republicanism (real, Ricardian, and radical Bourgeois Socialism), and all National-Democratization (finance, energy, food production, international trade and trade policy, transport, communication infrastructure, construction, health, insurance, etc. where not covered by either "steps toward socialism" or Economic Republicanism)
By "etc." in national-democratization, I don't mean all the other sectors of the economy. There would still be room for state-aided cooperatives, shopkeepers, small tenant farmers, sharecroppers, non-industrial fishermen, etc. plus non-worker intellectuals and really self-employed schmucks (and their market-bullying guild-like organizations) to do their thing.This means the state either nationalises the commanding heights of the economy or the commanding heights are placed under social ownership (two different concepts) while leaving room for coops and independent petty bourgeois producers. NEP?



Possibilities for Minsky and Meidner on structural unemployment and working-class savings, respectively
This is just a side note on additional labour and social measures of a radical character. Another example would be stakeholder co-management, but on a more populist basis (becoming in essence "co-determination" without the bourgeoisie) than a working-class basis.Je ne comprende pas.Co-ops would have a broader base of membership accountable to everyone involved?



As far as I understand you advocate rule (if that's the term) by the working class though a broad organisation which would have characteristics of Second International socialist parties, syndicalism, a capitalist MNC corporation, and guild socialism, possibly led by a bonapartist military leader or something similar, maybe close to Gramsci's idea of the "modern prince". Also an alternative culture would be developed though this organisation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Dumb question but what is DOTP?

Dictatorship of the proletariat


Bonapartism? Military coup?

The Bloc of Dispossessed Classes and National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie can seize power by People's War, Focoism (Che), Breakthrough Military Coups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d'état#Types_of_coups_d.27.C3.A9tat), etc. in addition to traditional tactics.


This section loses me. As I understand its a check on a bonapartist leader by worker's organisations?

Comrade, no Bonapartist leader has ever allowed independent working-class political organization. The National Leader and his strongman personality cult aren't checked by them, but by the main petit-bourgeois parties outlined in my original:

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


This means the state either nationalises the commanding heights of the economy or the commanding are placed under social ownership (two different concepts) while leaving room for coops and independent petty bourgeois producers. NEP?

"Commanding heights" is misleading.

For example, the local credit union isn't part of the "commanding heights" but I'd still nationalize or socialize the entire finance system. I think "commanding sectors" is more accurate, but that leaves out the "commanding heights" in "non-commanding sectors" [Though I'd socialize those, too.]


Je ne comprende pas.Co-ops would have a broader base of membership accountable to everyone involved?

I'm referring to a different concept:

"Stakeholder co-management": replace "workers control"? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stakeholder-co-management-t145117/index.html)


As far as I understand you advocate rule (if that's the term) by the working class though a broad organisation which would have characteristics of Second International socialist parties, syndicalism, a capitalist MNC corporation, and guild socialism, possibly led by a bonapartist military leader or something similar, maybe close to Gramsci's idea of the "modern prince". Also an alternative culture would be developed though this organisation.

Huh?

This is Third World strategy, not First World strategy. The broad organization would have the first two characteristics only. The third and beyond are Dimentio's stuff, not mine.

The "modern prince" is at the head of some petit-bourgeois party of power, whether it's a Party of Order or Party of Liberty.

Again, the managed multi-party system is explained in the People's Histories link.

[Revolutionair]

Breakthrough Military Coups (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#Types_of_coups_d.27.C3.A9tat),


a revolutionary army overthrows a traditional government and creates a new bureaucratic elite

Say what? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

The pro-Soviet PDPA took power in Afghanistan by means of a Breakthrough Military Coup.

[Revolutionair]

But isn't our aim as communists to create a classless society instead of a new class society?

[SacRedMan]

But isn't our aim as communists to create a classless society instead of a new class society?

Indeed.

[mosfeld]

Imagine in the future Ceasarean Socialist Republic of Germany, "Marx-Lenin-Mao" propaganda poster would be more like "Caesar-Kautsky-DNZ" -- "the three great teachers".

[Roach]

I think I understand what he means...

In third world countries that have a weak proletariat, or a weak communist movement, the ''exploited classes'' would rally behind a leader, perhaps a military officer and overthrown the liberal bourgeoisie more servile to the Imperialist powers and install some kind of radical Anti-Imperialist Social-Democracy with semi One party state, to some extent is pratically the Bolivarian experience brought to a higher theoretical level. It would be wrong to dismiss DNZ and have no problem with the numerous Chavez supporters in this forum. The real debate here is not between ''Ceasarian Socialism'' and Marxism, but an odd mix of new democracy and the Bolivarian Revolution against Permanent Revolution.

I could be wrong, of course.

DISCLAIM: IN NO WAY I'M A CEASARIAN SOCIALIST, MY BAD BUT YOU LOST YOUR TROLLING OPPORTUNITY.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Not just the "liberal bourgeoisie more servile to the imperialist powers," but all the bourgeoisie and all the comprador elements of the petit-bourgeoisie.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The concept is interesting but I still don't understand fully.Would "Caesarian socialism" be applicable only in the Third World? Also, wasn't this model tried and once been popular in the the Third World?

I think not enough attention is payed to why the "non-aligned movement" collapsed. From the 1950s to the early 80s or so there was an attempt, by Arab nationalist, Marxist-Leninist and other radical Third World states do create a separate space for development. This didn't work, partly because of savage assaults by US imperialism, but also because many of these states did not confront their own contradictions.

The "Darker Nations" by Vijay Prashad and "The End of the Third World" by Nigel Harris explore what happened.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

The pro-Soviet PDPA took power in Afghanistan by means of a Breakthrough Military Coup.
A socialist revolution has to be based on the working class (with the peasantry and petty bourgeois as very important allies) or its not a socialist revolution. There are no short cuts.

You do have some interesting and important ideas but I think you are making things way too complex and convoluted. The role of a socialist in this period is to do anything that will contribute to a raising of class consciousness. The class can only gain power as itself, not relying on anyone else.

Chavezand Morales are attempting an independent road of capitalist development. There is much of advantage to the working class but we cannot lean on these leaders.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The concept is interesting but I still don't understand fully.Would "Caesarian socialism" be applicable only in the Third World? Also, wasn't this model tried and once been popular in the the Third World?

Indeed, comrade, or to be more accurate only in countries where there is no proletarian demographic majority.

Parts of this model was tried many times in the Third World, but in none of the cases was there independent working-class political organization or thorough liquidation of even Mao's cherished "national bourgeoisie," let alone the comprador segments of the petit-bourgeoisie:

More Maoist than Mao: Brezhnev? (http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=434)

An interesting case study of a partial application is none other than Belarus under president Alexander Lukashenko (in my album). :)


I think not enough attention is payed to why the "non-aligned movement" collapsed. From the 1950s to the early 80s or so there was an attempt, by Arab nationalist, Marxist-Leninist and other radical Third World states do create a separate space for development. This didn't work, partly because of savage assaults by US imperialism, but also because many of these states did not confront their own contradictions.

Indeed, and again it boils down to the continued existence of the "national bourgeoisie" and comprador petit-bourgeoisie, as well as the lack of independent working-class political organization.


A socialist revolution has to be based on the working class (with the peasantry and petty bourgeois as very important allies) or its not a socialist revolution. There are no short cuts.

You're confusing "socialist revolution" with revolution aiming for the (necessarily) post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production.

[Roach]

Not just the "liberal bourgeoisie more servile to the imperialist powers," but all the bourgeoisie and all the comprador elements of the petit-bourgeoisie.


How ?

[Die Neue Zeit]

By carrying out the "socialist program" above re. wholesale nationalizations and/or societal ownership.

[Tower of Bebel]

The real debate here is not between ''Ceasarian Socialism'' and Marxism, but an odd mix of new democracy and the Bolivarian Revolution against Permanent Revolution.
Whether a revolution is "permanent" depends on the presence of a revolutionary vanguard party. Which is something Trotsky wasn't able to explain thoroughly, and which in turn explains why Trotsky joined the Bolsheviks instead of the Bolsheviks "joining" Trotsky.

Permanent Revolution means different things depending on the person who has used it (or still uses it). Yet there is some common ground. First of all, how has permanent revolution developed?

(1) Marx used it in the 1850s to point out that the workers need to advance there own interest in a revolutionary period. This idea was vindicated when the radicalised German petty bourgeoisie eventually sided with the Prussian king against the revolutionary workers in 1848.

(2) Kautsky once wrote that in Germany the anti-feudal revolution could only succeed when social democracy would implement its radical democratic programme. A revolutionary conclusion from this would be that the bourgeoisie is unable to do this and that only the proletariat can if its rules in its own interest. The opportunist interpretation would be the one of Bernstein: social democracy must create and defend a thoroughly bourgeois republic. (The latter happened to be the case with the Weimar Republic.)

(3) Trotsky said that Russian peasants would side with the Russian proletariat in revolutionary periods because the bourgeoisie was unable to rule in its own interest. The peasant class on the other hand was a devided class that needed a leading force if it wanted to advance its own interests. That leading force was to be the proletariat.

(4) In his Imperialism (f.e.) Lenin concluded that the Russian bourgeoisie was tied to the interests of the more advanced capitalist countries. It could not rule in its own way because it was small and underdeveloped. This meant tsarism would remain (as long as possible) the dominant regime in Russia. Only the working class and the peasants could overthrown such a regime.

The common ground here is the fact that the proletariat must advance its own interests at all times, must organise itself and liberate the other exploited layers by way of implementing its radical democratic programme. The Bolsheviks proved that they were able to do that.

They proved that a party based on a minority class (the working class) can change society because the working class has a democratic programme that can rally all oppressed forces, and because the global dominance of the dictatorship of capital (whether in the form of bourgeois regimes or semi-feudal regimes) puts to the fore the class struggle between capitalists and workers, and turns more and more people into (semi-)proletarians.

"Caesarean socialism" (as a vision or theory, not a type of "socialism") on the other hand does not presupose a (world) party or anything like it. At least that's what I think. Such a party, as the embodiment of the class interest of the working class, would implement the programme that the workers and peasants need or would support other revolutionary elements that want to implement certain parts of it. Such an element could be this "pan-national" petty bourgeoisie (?). Instead it advances the idea of possible routs towards change, but without a vision of how those alternative routs could develop.

[Die Neue Zeit]

They proved that a party based on a minority class (the working class) can change society because the working class has a democratic programme that can rally all oppressed forces, and because the global dominance of the dictatorship of capital (whether in the form of bourgeois regimes or semi-feudal regimes) puts to the fore the class struggle between capitalists and workers, and turns more and more people into (semi-)proletarians.

I'm skeptical about this, comrade, mainly because of the violation of equal suffrage beyond disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie (not that bourgeois states like the US are "better"). :(

The working class has a democratic program alright, but how that democratic program is implemented is the big "???"


"Caesarean socialism" (as a vision or theory, not a type of "socialism") on the other hand does not presupose a (world) party or anything like it. At least that's what I think. Such a party, as the embodiment of the class interest of the working class, would implement the programme that the workers and peasants need or would support other revolutionary elements that want to implement certain parts of it. Such an element could be this "pan-national" petty bourgeoisie (?). Instead it advances the idea of possible routs towards change, but without a vision of how those alternative routs could develop.

I've "envisioned" co-existence on a global level between the Social Proletocracy and Demarchic Commonwealth, on the one hand, and the pan-national Caesarean Socialism(s) on the other. In the former, the proletariat has an unambiguous demographic majority. In the latter, it doesn't.

The transnational Social Proletocracy within the pan-national, Third World Caesarean Socialism(s) would exist and would be an opposition party-movement, ushering in the DOTP once there is that sought-for proletarian demographic majority.

Without a vision? I mentioned People's War, Focoism, and Breakthrough Military Coups, all aspects of the original March on Rome (http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html). :confused:

[Tower of Bebel]

What the failures of radical democracy in the USSR are concerned, the Bolsheviks could not enforce it because the revolution was kept within Russian boundaries for more than a year. And after the defeat of the revolution in Europe and China the Bolsheviks had to deal with the fact that their revolution would remain within Russian boundaries. On top of that, the democratic programme was infested with misunderstandings. (Even Lenin thought the goal of the minimum programme was the "bourgeois republic". Which is, as a statement, rather borderline. What made the Bolshevik minimum bourgeois was its alliance with the peasantry.) Which partially explains the gradual shifting emphasis in the wording of the programme in the early twenties: i.e. from 'minimum' or 'immediate' demands to 'transitional' demands.

And what do you mean by co-existence? Do you mean that new 'popular' but still elite bureacracies can live togehter with genuine international - yet not intirely global (f.e. transatlantic) - working class rule? How do you explain guerilla warfare or peoples' wars when the working class minority can count on such international solidarity?

[Die Neue Zeit]

And what do you mean by co-existence? Do you mean that new 'popular' but still elite bureacracies can live togehter with genuine international - yet not intirely global (f.e. transatlantic) - working class rule? How do you explain guerilla warfare or peoples' wars when the working class minority can count on such international solidarity?

The co-existence is on a party and state basis.

On a party basis, the Caesarean Socialists would have their own "International" too, as a means of boosting pan-nationalism. There could even be more than one Caesarean Socialist "International," depending on the theme. For example:

Socialist Fatherland Party (relatively social-conservative "party of power")
Socialist Freedom Party (relatively social-liberal "party of power")
Socialist People's Party (relatively social-centrist)
Socialist Labour Party (relatively social-centrist)
Agrarian Socialist Party (relatively social-conservative)
Green Socialist Party (relatively social-liberal)
Liberation Theology Party (depending on religious affiliation)
Radical Left Party

[This is related to the "managed" multi-party system a la Eastern Europe (http://www.revleft.com/vb/elections-east-europe-t159806/index.html?p=2209535) that I wrote about.]

On a state basis, there's the Demarchic Commonwealth co-existing side by side with Third World states governed by the above.

[El Chuncho]

I think it is safe to say that DNZ has a very ''idiosyncratic'' view of socialism...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Judging from your one-liner you are either for some form of collaboration with "progressive bourgeoisie," "national bourgeoisie," etc. or for outrageous civil war between a proletarian demographic minority and a petty farmer demographic majority ("peasantry").

[Savage]

Imagine in the future Ceasarean Socialist Republic of Germany, "Marx-Lenin-Mao" propaganda poster would be more like "Caesar-Kautsky-DNZ" -- "the three great teachers".

Yes, because it would be hilarious to see a poster propagating the cult of Caesar, Kautsky, and the name of a socialist magazine. :D

[Jose Gracchus]

Judging from your one-liner you are either for some form of collaboration with "progressive bourgeoisie," "national bourgeoisie," etc. or for outrageous civil war between a proletarian demographic minority and a petty farmer demographic majority ("peasantry").

Or has been pointed out to you [by now] literally dozens of times, there is the escape of various anarcho-syndicalist programs on the poor peasantry, such as Maximov's program, and the CNT program in theory and practice in Revolutionary Spain. But I suppose this is too much "mere labor struggle" for you, so better to double-down on the low-rent populist strongmen based on deliberate misrepresentations of bad histories of middle antiquity. As has been pointed out to you endless times, perhaps there is a reason why NONE of the strongmen you list in your little pamphlet have featured working-class independence beneath them; perhaps it is because precisely their class function is to stamp out working-class independent political action with populist authoritarianism? Nah, couldn't be. That might be inconvenient.

Besides, can you point out which countries have a hypotrophic working class versus a substantial [in productive terms] nigh-pre-modern peasantry [still extant communal relations, no mechanization or motorization] on the level of Russia c. 1917 or China c. 1925-1949 anymore?

Without this, there really is no need for your weird theories. Its a hammer in search of a nail, in the Twenty-Teens.

[El Chuncho]

Judging from your one-liner you are either for some form of collaboration with "progressive bourgeoisie," "national bourgeoisie," etc. or for outrageous civil war between a proletarian demographic minority and a petty farmer demographic majority ("peasantry").

I find it a little scary that you think you can read that from my one-liner. No, I just think that Caesar was an imperialist, plain and simply. I think your views on Caesar and socialism are odd, ''unique'' if you will, not necessarily ''reactionary'' per se. :closedeyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Or has been pointed out to you literally dozens of times, there is the escape of various anarcho-syndicalist programs on the poor peasantry, such as Maximov's program, and the CNT program in theory and practice in Revolutionary Spain.

El Chuncho isn't an anarcho-syndicalist.


But I suppose this is too much "mere labor struggle" for you, so better to double-down on the low-rent populist strongmen based on deliberate misrepresentations of bad histories of middle antiquity. As has been pointed out to you endless times, perhaps there is a reason why NONE of the strongmen you list in your little pamphlet have featured working-class independence beneath them; perhaps it is because precisely their class function is to stamp out working-class independent political action with populist authoritarianism? Nah, couldn't be. That might be inconvenient.

Well, given the track record of the vast majority of anarcho-syndicalism re. "mere labour struggles," well...

Re. Maximov and Spain: I'm not discounting that at all. I have thought about this, though: the tactics of those same anarcho-syndicalist programs re. the peasantry might be a tad limited. I don't see how anarcho-syndicalists would be more receptive to Focoism or Breakthrough Military Coups. Also, you forgot lessons to be learned from Bulgaria after WWI.

I've also said before that I already recognize the points you've made about the double dagger of peasant patrimonalism (what you call "populist authoritarianism"), even if combined with urban national/pan-national petit-bourgeois democratism:


You didn't pay attention to that last part:

If the Crown for its part could ever make up its mind to the -- [b]certainly very improbable -- step of striking out a really revolutionary line and transforming itself from the monarchy of the privileged orders into a social and revolutionary people's monarchy.

[Again, I'd correct Lassalle to say "socially radical and politically revolutionary people's elected, non-hereditary, de facto monarchy."]

BTW, the so-called "little pamphlet" is already almost 150 pages. ;)


Besides, can you point out which countries have a hypotrophic working class versus a substantial [in productive terms] nigh-pre-modern peasantry [still extant communal relations, no mechanization or motorization] on the level of Russia c. 1917 or China c. 1925-1949 anymore?

Why did you qualify "no mechanization or motorization"? You can still have a proletarian demographic minority co-existing with tenant farmers and sharecroppers who have trinkets of mechanization or motorization (but definitely not enough to need hired hands, of course).

Lots of Africa, south and southeast Asia, Central America, as well as parts of South America would be my answer.

[RED DAVE]

You're confusing "socialist revolution" with revolution aiming for the (necessarily) post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production.So, basically, you oppose the Leninist/Trotskyist model of the working class leading the revolution in underdeveloped countries.

What you are advocating is the same kind of class collaboration as the Maoists are promulgating in Nepal. All your rhetoric aside, you are advocating that the working class put its weight behind the establishment of state capitalism, which you are disguising under the phrase "post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production."

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

You're really confused here. No form of state capitalism can be a "post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production."

[Lenina Rosenweg]

As I can gather DNZ's theory is sort of a modified version of Maoism combined w/"Chavezism" and the bloc party system of the DDR.In countries with a small working class power would be shared in some sort of "bloc of four classes" while reactionary bourgeoisie and comprador elements would not be destroyed so much as disenfranchised.As I understand Samir Amin (the Liberal Virus) and some other post-Maoists seem to be going in this direction.

I think DNZ wants something like Venezuala only where the comprador elites are either eliminated or somehow disenfranchised and a strong leader around which a bloc of progressive classes can rally, provides the leading role.

In my understanding of Marxism the working class and only the working class can be the focus of a revolution, with the peasantry and possible petty bourgeois layers forming a vital, but subordinate element.China and to an extent India now have a working class similar to late 19th century Europe. Even in countries with a tiny working class, the Marxist model still holds.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As I can gather DNZ's theory is sort of a modified version of Maoism combined w/"Chavezism" and the bloc party system of the DDR.In countries with a small working class power would be shared in some sort of "bloc of four classes" while reactionary bourgeoisie and comprador elements would not be destroyed so much as disenfranchised.As I understand Samir Amin (the Liberal Virus) and some other post-Maoists seem to be going in this direction.

Comrade, I go beyond any Maoist illusions in the "national" bourgeoisie. All the bourgeoisie and the comprador elements of the petit-bourgeoisie (easily identifiable by means of emigration) are destroyed via the wholesale nationalizations, not just disenfranchised.

It's great that you're the first person besides myself to raise the subject of the bloc party system in the former Soviet satellites.

[RED DAVE]

You're confusing "socialist revolution" with revolution aiming for the (necessarily) post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production.So, basically, you oppose the Leninist/Trotskyist model of the working class leading the revolution in underdeveloped countries.

What you are advocating is the same kind of class collaboration as the Maoists are promulgating in Nepal. All your rhetoric aside, you are advocating that the working class put its weight behind the establishment of state capitalism, which you are disguising under the phrase "post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production."[/quote]
You're really confused here. No form of state capitalism can be a "post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production."It's you who are confused since your form of a "post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production" doesn't and cannot exist. You are fronting for state capitalism.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

You obviously have not read Paul Cockshott's TNS, Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution, or "Late Marx" re. the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production.

[RED DAVE]

You obviously have not read Paul Cockshott's TNS, Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution, or "Late Marx" re. the post-monetary lower phase of the communist mode of production.Is this what you're referring to?

Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution (http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/english-pages/1930-fundamental-principles-of-communist-production-and-distribution-1-gic/)

If so, why bring in Cockshott? It was written in 1930, in Germany, by the Group of International Communists.

As to Marx, if you have some links on this subject, please post them.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, and Cockshott's TNS shares the same labour credits premises as the above work. Marx wrote similar remarks in the Critique of the Gotha Program and in Volume II of Capital.

It is this circulation/non-circulation distinction that has allowed me to discover a different "revolutionary subject" with respect to scrapping bourgeois private property relations in the Third World (though petit-bourgeois private property is still enshrined under Caesarean Socialism).

[ar734]

Cesarean Socialism: The forced change from a less than fully developed capitalism to socialism. As opposed to the natural birth of socialism from fully developed capitalism. Examples: Tsarist Russia to Soviet Union; Chinese Dynasty to the Communist China; Battista Cuba to Castro Cuba.

Natural birth socialism: Sweden is probably the best example, socialism still in the process of being born.

Cesarean births extremely bloody, "revolutionary," dangerous to both mother and child, "unnatural", the child is "untimely ripp'd" from the mother.

[graymouser]

Yes, and Cockshott's TNS shares the same labour credits premises as the above work. Marx wrote similar remarks in the Critique of the Gotha Program and in Volume II of Capital.

It is this circulation/non-circulation distinction that has allowed me to discover a different "revolutionary subject" with respect to scrapping bourgeois private property relations in the Third World (though petit-bourgeois private property is still enshrined under Caesarean Socialism).
To be painfully clear: are you claiming that the "national" petite bourgeoisie in the Third World is a new revolutionary subject? Also, what "circulation/non-circulation" distinction are you referring to?

[RED DAVE]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "TNS" mean. Translation?

RED DAVE

[Devrim]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "TNS" mean. Translation?

RED DAVE

It is a minor league British football team:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/Thenewsaints.png/150px-Thenewsaints.png



The New Saints of Oswestry Town & Llansantffraid Football Club (Welsh: Clwb Pêl-droed y Seintiau Newydd), also known as The New Saints or simply TNS is a full-time British Professional football club representing Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain in Montgomeryshire, Wales and Oswestry in Shropshire, England (the two places are 8 miles (13 km) apart).

Devrim

[Q]

Forgive my ignorance, but what does "TNS" mean. Translation?

RED DAVE

I believe he was referring to Towards a new socialism (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book//index.html).

[RED DAVE]

I believe he was referring to Towards a new socialism (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/%7Ecottrell/socialism_book//index.html).I think I prefer The New Saints. :D

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be painfully clear: are you claiming that the "national" petite bourgeoisie in the Third World is a new revolutionary subject? Also, what "circulation/non-circulation" distinction are you referring to?

The "national"/"pan-national" segments of the petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World, ranging from the small-business shop owners to the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers, are both socially radical and politically revolutionary, but not socially revolutionary. This applies even if many of them organize in a hypothetical Socialist Fatherland Party or Agrarian Socialist Party, the two examples of relatively social-conservative (or "Radical Center") parties in the suggested "managed" multi-party system.

"Non-capitalist development" as pursued by the Brezhnev regime and pursued by CC secretary Boris Ponomarev and academic co-thinkers like Veniamin Chirkin was a partial affirmation of this.

Re. circulation/non-circulation: see Q's post above re. the link to Paul's TNS work.

[graymouser]

The "national"/"pan-national" segments of the petit-bourgeoisie in the Third World, ranging from the small-business shop owners to the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers, are both socially radical and politically revolutionary, but not socially revolutionary. This applies even if many of them organize in a hypothetical Socialist Fatherland Party or Agrarian Socialist Party, the two examples of relatively social-conservative (or "Radical Center") parties in the suggested "managed" multi-party system.
Your emphasis on "politically revolutionary" classes indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of class politics. Marxist classes are not generally characterized as being politically revolutionary - instead, a political revolution is characterized by its reliance upon one or more classes in a Bonapartist fashion. By definition a political revolution is not one that changes the class character of the state, so the resulting "revolutionary state" would still be capitalist.

This can be seen clearly enough in the case of Bolivia, where the state run by MAS - a party whose primary base is not workers but cocaleros - remains a thoroughly bourgeois state that has now edged into neoliberal territory. Your whole conception would lead back to capitalism, regardless of whether you choose to label it "socialism" or not.


Re. circulation/non-circulation: see Q's post above re. the link to Paul's TNS work.
How could non-circulation of labor vouchers as Cockshott lays out possibly change the character of the petite bourgeoisie? I've only skimmed his model but I simply do not see what you are getting at here.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your emphasis on "politically revolutionary" classes indicates a fundamental misunderstanding of class politics.

Not at all. Confusing political revolution and social revolution, which you have done, is a strategic error.


By definition a political revolution is not one that changes the class character of the state, so the resulting "revolutionary state" would still be capitalist.


How could non-circulation of labor vouchers as Cockshott lays out possibly change the character of the petite bourgeoisie? I've only skimmed his model but I simply do not see what you are getting at here.

The social revolution aims for the abolition of generalized commodity production. Replacing money with that suggestion, in addition to scrapping labour and capital markets and socializing property relations, does that. Retaining money while socializing only the commanding heights "transitionally" doesn't do this. "Workers control" doesn't do this, either, since generalized commodity production is still there.

You're wrong about the class character of the emerging state. It is petit-bourgeois (more accurately "national/national petit-bourgeois) and not bourgeois.

Also, not only do you confuse political revolution with social revolution, you confuse political revolution with mere "regime change."

Caesarean Socialism retains generalized commodity production and petit-bourgeois private property. However, the class character of all this changes because all bourgeois property is socialized.

[Devrim]

I think I prefer The New Saints. :D

RED DAVE

Well they have as little to do with socialism as the drivel being offered up by DNZ here, but unlike his ideas do have at least some support in the working class.

Devrim

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ What's your alternative to proletarian civil war against the peasant majority? More "all power to workers councils" rhetoric?


but unlike his ideas do have at least some support in the working class

Go tell that to working-class supporters of Soviet anti-colonialism. :rolleyes:

[graymouser]

Not at all. Confusing political revolution and social revolution, which you have done, is a strategic error.
I've done no such thing. A social revolution is a change in which class is the ruling class, and a political revolution is an overthrow without this. You have clearly pictured the petite bourgeoisie as a socially revolutionary class.


The social revolution aims for the abolition of generalized commodity production. Replacing money with that suggestion, in addition to scrapping labour and capital markets and socializing property relations, does that. Retaining money while socializing only the commanding heights "transitionally" doesn't do this. "Workers control" doesn't do this, either, since generalized commodity production is still there.

You're wrong about the class character of the emerging state. It is petit-bourgeois (more accurately "national/national petit-bourgeois) and not bourgeois.

Also, not only do you confuse political revolution with social revolution, you confuse political revolution with mere "regime change."

Caesarean Socialism retains generalized commodity production and petit-bourgeois private property. However, the class character of all this changes because all bourgeois property is socialized.
Regime change is similar to but not the same as political revolution, which was epitomized in the 1848 revolution in France. The whole political system was upended but the bourgeoisie remained the leading class through Bonapartism. You are clearly reading into political revolution some content which was not at all present in Marx's work.

There is no such thing as a state of the petite bourgeoisie, a group that has no coherent interests as a class and no program as such. The two goals of the petit bourgeois are to not be crushed by the capitalists, and to become one of them. Some elements can be won over to the socialist program through the former factor, but because of the latter every state headed by the petite bourgeoisie would simply remain a bourgeois state. Asking them to limit themselves to their current status is the direct opposite of their class nature, and as such they could never lead a transition to any kind of non-capitalist society.

[Jose Gracchus]

I also have continually noticed that DNZ ignores that each of the figures he claims as inspirational - Chavez, Castro-Guevara, Lukashenko, Sankara, ad nauseum - none of them exhibited anything close to the "working-class political independence" he posits as an essential prerequisite to all this. Maybe because these type of regimes existed expressly to displace and head off working-class struggles in favor of one or another variety of strongman populism. Seems pretty elementary to me - you don't get to mix and match these features.

[Jose Gracchus]

As to "all power to the councils" < why not? Especially if they represent agricultural labor as well.

As to "civil war with the peasantry", I suggest you look into the real history of the Kronstadt rebellion. They had proposals whereby the working-class would still prohibit hired labor by farming, land-owning classes, while still opening up trade. It was to the left of the NEP. Though to be honest I don't think the Russian working class alone would have enough leverage to force through the agrarian revolution. I kind of agree with Bordiga that it has to happen before you have proper modern capitalism, much less the basis for socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I also have continually noticed that DNZ ignores that each of the figures he claims as inspirational - Chavez, Castro-Guevara, Lukashenko, Sankara, ad nauseum - none of them exhibited anything close to the "working-class political independence" he posits as an essential prerequisite to all this. Maybe because these type of regimes existed expressly to displace and head off working-class struggles in favor of one or another variety of strongman populism. Seems pretty elementary to me - you don't get to mix and match these features.

I don't ignore them at all.

You know what? It could very well be that some Third World working-class person or group of working-class persons has to volunteer ("voluntarism") re. obtaining a military background and other means of "de-classe"-ing into a "national petit-bourgeois" background. Chavez was a military instructor, for instance. (I don't subscribe to Kautsky's "de-classe" theory for "going into" the working class, which unfortunately compromises working-class independence by allowing non-worker pretenders into the party-movement, but "going out of" the working class is another story.)

Despite the original working-class background(s), such person(s) would then have to popularize any sort of "national petit-bourgeois" credentials to gain the support of the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers. That would, of course, mean that they cannot be considered to be representatives of the working class, but that's no different from the fictitious "peasant" backgrounds of many Bolsheviks. Then there's coordinator-class support to consider, one example of whom you mentioned is Lukashenko.

That's one way of "mixing and matching."


As to "all power to the councils" < why not? Especially if they represent agricultural labor as well.

If the representation of agricultural "labour" (I take it here you mean small tenant farmers and sharecroppers) has equal suffrage relative to the urban communal power, the proletarian agricultural labour, and the non-agricultural rural communal power, I'm OK with them partnering with El Presidente against oligarchy.

[RED DAVE]

You know what? It could very well be that some Third World working-class person or group of working-class persons has to volunteer ("voluntarism") re. obtaining a military background and other means of "de-classe"-ing into a "national petit-bourgeois" background. Chavez was a military instructor, for instance. (I don't subscribe to Kautsky's "de-classe" theory for "going into" the working class, which unfortunately compromises working-class independence by allowing non-worker pretenders into the party-movement, but "going out of" the working class is another story.)

Despite the original working-class background(s), such person(s) would then have to popularize any sort of "national petit-bourgeois" credentials to gain the support of the urban petit-bourgeoisie and the small tenant farmers and sharecroppers. That would, of course, mean that they cannot be considered to be representatives of the working class, but that's no different from the fictitious "peasant" backgrounds of many Bolsheviks. Then there's coordinator-class support to consider, one example of whom you mentioned is Lukashenko.

...

If the representation of agricultural "labour" (I take it here you mean small tenant farmers and sharecroppers) has equal suffrage relative to the urban communal power, the proletarian agricultural labour, and the non-agricultural rural communal power, I'm OK with them partnering with El Presidente against oligarchy.logorrhea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logorrhea_%28psychology%29)

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

I suggest you read the words more closely, because I don't know what you're talking about if you're not intending a one-line cheap shot. :confused:

[RED DAVE]

I suggest you read the words more closely, because I don't know what you're talking about if you're not intending a one-line cheap shot. :confused:I was intending a one-line cheap shot.

However, your constant use of jargon peculiar to yourself is wearying, to say the least. Is this the way you will be addressing the working class? If you ever intend to do this, I suggest that you alter your style.

If people around here have a hard time following you, imagine how it's going to come down when you take part in your first organizing drive.

RED DAVE

[RedSunRising]

Well they have as little to do with socialism as the drivel being offered up by DNZ here, but unlike his ideas do have at least some support in the working class.

Devrim

In fairness what he is coming out with sounds like left Chavezism. Which sadly does have working class in Venzuela.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Something crossed my mind re. independent working-class political organization. Going back to Inform's post:


NONE of the strongmen you list in your little pamphlet have featured working-class independence beneath them; perhaps it is because precisely their class function is to stamp out working-class independent political action with populist authoritarianism?

Bismarck was one such strongman, yet the pre-war SPD achieved independent working-class political organization in spite of the Anti-Socialist Laws.

I don't know what heuristic rule is used here, but it goes along the lines of: If it's possible to achieve something in spite of some other factor, the more it can be achieved if that same factor is on its side. The same can be said about independent Third World working-class political organization and peasant patrimonialism.

The other issue to cross my mind is the problem of economic policies designed deliberately to keep the proletariat in various Third World countries as a demographic minority. I'm not talking reactionary population control, but something more along the lines of wage subsidies, small business grants, cooperative franchise aid, and so on. Basically, they're stuff designed to keep the numbers of the "national/pan-national" petit-bourgeoisie at a certain level.

[Tim Finnegan]

I also have continually noticed that DNZ ignores that each of the figures he claims as inspirational - Chavez, Castro-Guevara, Lukashenko, Sankara, ad nauseum - none of them exhibited anything close to the "working-class political independence" he posits as an essential prerequisite to all this. Maybe because these type of regimes existed expressly to displace and head off working-class struggles in favor of one or another variety of strongman populism. Seems pretty elementary to me - you don't get to mix and match these features.
I really wish people would stop lumping in Chavez with the generic "Generalísimo de la República de Plátanos" stereotype. That's Western imperialist mythology, not an honest analysis of the actual situation in Venezeula. It really is more complex than that. :glare:

[Jose Gracchus]

How did I fit that stereotype? I listed a series of anti-imperialist figures, frequently at least somewhat ostensibly 'populist' in character, which are followed and characterized by many anti-imperialist lines as moving in some positive way toward or are already, socialism.

What is your class analysis of the Chavez regime and Venezuelan state, then?

[Tim Finnegan]

How did I fit that stereotype? I listed a series of anti-imperialist figures, frequently at least somewhat ostensibly 'populist' in character, which are followed and characterized by many anti-imperialist lines as moving in some positive way toward or are already, socialism.
Fair enough, I was conflating what you said with a more narrow-minded sort of generalisation. However, I do feel that even on RevLeft there is a tendency to be under-critical in regards to the received characterisation of Chavez as a mere populist strongman.


What is your class analysis of the Chavez regime and Venezuelan state, then?I think that the relationship between the PSUV leadership and its electoral base is a complex one, but that ultimately the Venezuelan working class is the motor of progressive change in Venezuela, rather than merely the fuel utilised by a bourgeois party. Chavez finds his political base in the workers, and particularly the lowest classes of the workers, rather than finding within in the establishment and merely using popular support to gain electoral victory; this is reflected, I would suggest, in his pursuit of various schemes- communal councils, workers' co-management, etc.- intended to bend the establishment to fit the working class, rather than the traditional social democratic approach of bending the working class to fit the establishment.

[Die Neue Zeit]

BTW, syndicat answered my question in the History forum re. the CNT in Spain. There was indeed a proletarian demographic majority during the time of the Spanish Civil War, and because of this it was possible to overcome tendencies towards peasant patrimonalism. It seems that what was meant to be an "exception" is another golden rule for proletarian demographic majorities.

This also means that there are no examples of proletarian demographic minorities and peasant and urban "national" petit-bourgeois demographic majorities in which peasant patrimonialism ("low-rent populist strongmen," their necessary "absolutist"/"autocratic" personality cults, overall military-based culture, etc.) was absent.

[Jose Gracchus]

Can we get any data on the class composition of the Venezuelan population? PSUV? PSUV voters? Ditto for Morales' Bolivia?

[black magick hustla]

what is happenin here i wanna join the tea party i had a dog named simba and the name of my mother has 6 letters and the birds are chirping outside

[danyboy27]

damn even after this clear explanation ceasarian socialism sound like a fallout new vegas faction.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Please be mindful of spelling. It is Third World Caesarean Socialism, not "Caesarian."


Can we get any data on the class composition of the Venezuelan population? PSUV? PSUV voters? Ditto for Morales' Bolivia?

All I remember is some discussion during the most recent Venezuelan elections:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/venezuelan-elections-too-t142275/index.html?t=142275


I forgot where I read/heard it now, but somewhere in these last few days I was informed that Chavez made some changes to the election rules, giving much bigger weight to the rural areas where he has traditionally a support base (something like 20k votes needed for a seat in a rural area and 400k(!) for a seat in a city area).

If that is the case, it looks to me like he actually lost majority popular support. This would be a very bad development for the Chavez "Bolivarian" revolution.


That only adds to the pressing case for implementing "managed democracy" (managed multi-party system, Putin-style):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/does-venezuela-need-t141876/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-histories-blocs-t142332/index.html

The gerrymandering occurred because he knew he couldn't get a two-thirds legislative majority.


If what Q writes is true, it's not gerrymandering, it's weighting. Gerrymandering is designing the shape of districts to favor a particular outcome. Weighting is saying some people's votes are worth more. We do both in the U.S. The votes of an individual Rhode Islander count more towards the Presidency than the votes of a New Yorker. It is patently anti-democratic, and if it's true, we should be denouncing Chavez.

Furthermore, the cities are where the proletariat is, and if votes are to be weighted, then they should be weighted towards workers, not farmers. Thus, if true, it's not only anti-democratic, but anti-socialist.

[Rafiq]

Lol, I don't think anyone has a clue about what DNZ is saying, including me.

[Zanthorus]

Perhaps Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray can give us a clue as to what 'Caeserean Socialism' involves:


While the upper classes sell the nation for a few hours of rest, and the Liberals seek to feather their nests under the Empire, a handful of men, without arms, unprotected, rise up against the still all-powerful despot. On the one hand, young men who are part of the bourgeoisie have gone over to the people, faithful children of 1789, resolved to continue the work of the Revolution; on the other hand, working men unite for the study and the conquest of the rights of labour. In vain the Empire attempts to split their forces, to seduce the working men. These see the snare, hiss the professors of Caesarian socialism, and from 1863, without journals, without a tribune, affirm themselves as a class, to the great scandal of the Liberal sycophants, maintaining that 1789 has equalized all classes- History of the Paris Commune, Prologue (Emphasis Added)

:D

[caramelpence]

^^^ Please be mindful of spelling. It is Third World Caesarean Socialism, not "Caesarian."

What do you mean "it is Third World Caesarean Socialism"? "It" doesn't have any meaningful existence outside your deluded head and, unfortunately, this discussion forum! You are just making up concepts that are crap in content and crap in their signifiers!

[Zanthorus]

"It" doesn't have any meaningful existence outside your deluded head and, unfortunately, this discussion forum!

He has written letters to the Weekly Worker outlining his views. A few of them have even been printed if I recall correctly.

[Jose Gracchus]

I've written letters to papers people actually read, and seen them printed in nice black ink for major circulations. Sadly, having letters' to the editor published does not make you a "published writer". I'm afraid I'd still pencil this in under "private fixation".

[Die Neue Zeit]

Perhaps Prosper-Olivier Lissagaray can give us a clue as to what 'Caeserean Socialism' involves:


While the upper classes sell the nation for a few hours of rest, and the Liberals seek to feather their nests under the Empire, a handful of men, without arms, unprotected, rise up against the still all-powerful despot. On the one hand, young men who are part of the bourgeoisie have gone over to the people, faithful children of 1789, resolved to continue the work of the Revolution; on the other hand, working men unite for the study and the conquest of the rights of labour. In vain the Empire attempts to split their forces, to seduce the working men. These see the snare, hiss the professors of Caesarian socialism, and from 1863, without journals, without a tribune, affirm themselves as a class, to the great scandal of the Liberal sycophants, maintaining that 1789 has equalized all classes

- History of the Paris Commune, Prologue (Emphasis Added)

:D

That paragraph is gentlemen's history garbage all because of just one word. It is on the same tragic level as Wilhelm Liebknecht's denunciation of "Caesarism." Caesar /= Bonapartes, and Gramsci was the first to discover this long before Parenti's People's History. :(

Any "Empire" is meant to be ousted by a combination of People's War (Mao), Focoism / guerrilla warfare (Guevara), and Breakthrough Military Coups (Ponomarev) - thus emulating the genuine March on Rome by the Julius Caesar of people's history (http://www.revleft.com/vb/march-rome-antecedent-t149756/index.html). :cool:


What do you mean "it is Third World Caesarean Socialism"? "It" doesn't have any meaningful existence outside your deluded head and, unfortunately, this discussion forum! You are just making up concepts that are crap in content and crap in their signifiers!

Did you even read the article People's Histories, Blocs, and Managed Democracy Reconsidered? :rolleyes:

[Jose Gracchus]

Well, I have.

And DNZ gleefully falsifies both Parenti's and Gramisci's history in one fell swoop. Why, the old Stalinists must quiver in jealousy when it comes to "gentlemen's history", there's an empty brush-off remark that puts even "social-fascism" to shame.

DNZ pays not attention to the fact that neither Mao, nor Focoism, nor Breakthrough Military Coups have ever yielded a system which tolerates working-class political independence, and that's probably because the class interests behind them are directly antagonistic towards it. His non-existent class alliance I suppose is supposed to not regard the working-class as a threat to its hegemony over the state, but it somehow very much does regard neoliberals as such, and is to neutralize them. We're lead to believe the "national petty bourgeoisie" [which is a meaningless category, as the analogy with "national bourgeoisie" does not make sense] will on its own somehow rule, and would rather rely on the independent working-class as an ally than international capital, despite every historical example to the contrary. Why this repressive machinery will not be turned against, as it always has, the national section of the international proletariat -- the most dangerous class enemy imaginable for it, since it has as its historical task nothing less than the end of generalized commodity production and establishing its own hegemony as a class in order to prepare the way for the withering of the state and communism --, is left unexplained. I suppose it simply will not be so, because then there would be no basis for this pastiche of random political elements without a shred of historical literacy, much less thoroughgoing class analysis, to sustain it.

Since the world is now over 50% urban, well over majority proletarian, and even across most of the "Global South", there are no longer any reserves of 85% nigh-medieval peasantry, producing often for subsistence, I do not see why one needs to "overcome" Maoism and Democratic Dictatorships of the Proletariat and Peasantry. Hopefully without sounding abusive, I don't think international classless, stateless socialism will germinate from from the seed of "focoist" or Maoist guerillas or military coups in Central Africa or the like. DNZ's "Caesareanism" is a hammer looking for a nail.

If implemented, which I really hope it would never be, I'm sure it would result in a populist strongman/messiah-figure dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, certainly free of "independent working-class political organization."

[ar734]

thanks for the comment on the spelling.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, I have.

And DNZ gleefully falsifies both Parenti's and Gramsci's history in one fell swoop. Why, the old Stalinists must quiver in jealousy when it comes to "gentlemen's history", there's an empty brush-off remark that puts even "social-fascism" to shame.

DNZ pays no attention to the fact that neither Mao, nor Focoism, nor Breakthrough Military Coups have ever yielded a system which tolerates working-class political independence, and that's probably because the class interests behind them are directly antagonistic towards it. His non-existent class alliance I suppose is supposed to not regard the working-class as a threat to its hegemony over the state, but it somehow very much does regard neoliberals as such, and is to neutralize them. We're led to believe the "national petty bourgeoisie" [which is a meaningless category, as the analogy with "national bourgeoisie" does not make sense] will on its own somehow rule, and would rather rely on the independent working-class as an ally than international capital, despite every historical example to the contrary. Why this repressive machinery will not be turned against, as it always has, the national section of the international proletariat -- the most dangerous class enemy imaginable for it, since it has as its historical task nothing less than the end of generalized commodity production and establishing its own hegemony as a class in order to prepare the way for the withering of the state and communism --, is left unexplained. I suppose it simply will not be so, because then there would be no basis for this pastiche of random political elements without a shred of historical literacy, much less thoroughgoing class analysis, to sustain it.

^^^ I already stated long-term problems. Third World Caesarean Socialism has a "Best Before" time limit. Once there's a proletarian demographic majority, one set of problems emerges (re. "why this repressive machinery will not be turned against..."). I also provided self criticism by mentioning preemptive state economic assistance meant to prevent the emergence of proletarian demographic majorities at the expense of the "National/Pan-National Petit-Bourgeoisie" ruling class. On the subject of authoritarianism, you didn't yet acknowledge either my SPD heuristic (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mission-impossible-explaining-t153130/index.html?p=2092206) or the persistence of peasant patrimonialism as a historical phenomenon (after I rebuffed Spain, Ukraine, and Bulgaria) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/mission-impossible-explaining-t153130/index.html?p=2093665).

Re. "international capital": Isn't that the same rhetoric the far-right uses?


Since the world is now over 50% urban, well over majority proletarian, and even across most of the "Global South"

Problem: Proletariat? Proletarii? (Proper) Lumpenproletariat (mentioned by Dimentio before he left)? Now we get into class definitions taking into account productive vs. unproductive labour. Then there's the huge swathes of urban petit-bourgeoisie to consider. This definitely means the proletariat proper would really be in the demographic minority.


If implemented, which I really hope it would never be, I'm sure it would result in a populist strongman/messiah-figure dictatorship in the bourgeois sense, certainly free of "independent working-class political organization."

Why are you discounting the role of "democracy" (such as but not limited to "full communal power") and especially the managed multi-party system hiring and firing the National/Pan-National Leader/Strongman himself (whether as El Presidente or outside that office) in the "monarchy"-"democracy" combination? Benevolent tyrant models don't work, as I've said before and as the Julius Caesar of people's history knew in relation to the Tribal Assembly.

[BTW, I forgot to mention possible economic roles for labour/works councils and co-determination within the stakeholder co-management framework, side by side with "full communal power."]

[caramelpence]

Did you even read the article People's Histories, Blocs, and Managed Democracy Reconsidered?

No, why would I? If I produced a poorly-written essay based entirely on concepts plucked out of the recesses of my own head, without any real analytical or theoretical value, would I be fair in expecting you to read it? I think not. Would you be making a good decision by reading it? Again, I think not.

[Tim Finnegan]

No, why would I?
So that your criticisms could amount to more than mere contrariness? Note how The Inform Candidate, who despite disagreeing with DNZ's idea has actually read what he has to say, and so is able to engage those ideas and offer some substantial criticism of them. You, on the other hand, have basically given us "that's stupid", which is ever so slightly less helpful than simply posting, say,

http://whyevolutionistrue.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/lenin-cat.jpg

Because at least that looks kind of like Lenin.

[caramelpence]

You, on the other hand, have basically given us "that's stupid", which is ever so slightly less helpful

I think it's very helpful, it might encourage people not to read DNZ's laughable trash when, otherwise, they might be tricked into doing so.

Would you care to read my essay on Cockshottian-Maoism-spontaneism and its implications for the bureau-national-cratic class in Military Breakout Ventures where Caesarean socialism has been subject to a cesarean section?

[Tim Finnegan]

I think it's very helpful, it might encourage people not to read DNZ's laughable trash when, otherwise, they might be tricked into doing so.
But you evidently do not plan to argue as much in any substantial form, so you're not going to get much further than preaching to the choir.
Even Popper, a man whose irrational loathing of Marx is a thing of legend, at least tried to engage with his thought, however clumsily. What liberates you from that burden?


Would you care to read my essay on Cockshottian-Maoism-spontaneism and its implications for the bureau-national-cratic class in Military Breakout Ventures where Caesarean socialism has been subject to a cesarean section?The problem with the "it sounds funny, therefore it is stupid" line is that its logical conclusion is for nobody to ever investigate Marxist thought in the first place. The only real difference between your little quip and the similar sort so often presented by smug anti-Marxists is that you've used slightly more obscure terminology, because you're further down what they would see as the rabbit hole.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Tim, the guy with his quip has no viable strategy at all for proletarian demographic minorities.

[caramelpence]

^^^ Tim, the guy with his quip has no viable strategy at all for proletarian demographic minorities.

Uh, yeah I do, haven't you read my article on Cockshottian-Maoism-spontaneism? It's a lot better than Trotskyo-democratic-economism! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Uh, yeah I do, haven't you read my article on Cockshottian-Maoism-spontaneism? It's a lot better than Trotskyo-democratic-economism! :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

I'm sure you don't have a link. :glare:

The petit-bourgeois rhetoric of "Special Interests!" could be lobbed effectively against proletarian demographic minorities who overstep their bounds.

I should add that a few days ago I posted this thread on Putin:

Russia’s Putin proposes new "popular front" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russia-s-putin-t154386/index.html)

Any National/Pan-National Leader within the managed multi-party system described in earlier posts should be like the South African presidency IIRC, maintaining the confidence of the legislature and the (governing) party he's a member of so the out-of-legislature party people really pull the strings and can hire and fire the boss at will, while having all the formal powers of a relatively strong presidency (i.e., cabinet shuffles without legislative approval, appointment of top military officials and constitutional judges without legislative approval, etc.). The content of the above news article is an exhibition of political weakness and not political strength.

[aquaruis15000]

Is this guy for real? He's taking the piss right?:laugh:

[Q]

Is this guy for real? He's taking the piss right?:laugh:

Eh, who? If you're referring to me in the OP: Yes, I was taking the piss a little ;)

[A Marxist Historian]

http://oi54.tinypic.com/2ltdh5.jpg


*Taperecorder starts playing*

Your mission Jim DNZ, should you decide to accept it, is to explain Ceasarian Socialism after that little debacle in the CU. Iseul, see closeup photo's in the file attached, apparently has no clue what this is, as don't many others, including me to be completely frank here.

Is is therefore imperative that you:
- Write an explanation in between 500 to 1000 words;
- Use common English, ie no neologisms or academic terms allowed;
- Use no escape clauses, such as referring to other work or threads.

As always, should you be caught or killed, the Secretary will disavow any knowledge of your actions.

This tape will self-destruct in five seconds. Good luck.

Well, can't be done as we all (except DNZ) know.

I think DNZ has played a useful role here on Revleft and often has much worthwhile to say--except when he gets off into his crotchet of "Caesarian Socialism," which is all too often.

I see it rather like when you have a relative who is a nice fellow in every other way, but is absolutely convinced, let us say, that the US never landed on the Moon.

Best not to argue with him about it, and hope he gets over it some day.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I just don't think Permanent Revolution was or is the right way to go. The same thing goes for New Democracy. However, being against something re. the Third World isn't enough, so I've proposed something for with *lots* of backup. :)