Criticism of Marxism-Leninism [Archive]

AnonymousOne

30th June 2011, 18:07

A call to all Libertarians and Ex-Authoritarians.

I'm ex-Marxist-Leninist but still support my party because they are, for now, the biggest Left-Wing influence on the proletariat, have raised class-consciousness (especially in unions), and fought a long and proud battle for the Portuguese people, through Fascism and Bourgeois Democracy.

I was in a debate today with a comrade of the party that holds some power in the Youth-Wing. I criticized the Soviet-Union extensively, just as I criticized just about every Marxist-Leninist revolution until today. He got mighty pissed off... I won the debate to a point were he said something ridiculous ("I don't have to look at history"), after extensive criticism of the Leninist history itself.

Anyway, I would like to have a more profound criticism of Marxism-Leninism and its practical consequences.

- Criticism of the Vanguard
- Criticism of the bureaucracy
- Criticism of censorship
- Etc.

The biggest problem with censorship is that it restricts information from the people. If you're trying to make a popular movement with the people in control and making decisions, censorships is the best way to kill it. You can't expect people to make good decisions without access to information.

The other problem with censorship is that those with information now have power over those that don't.

"...free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting it's grip on public discourse has begun it's rapid slide into despotism. Beware of they who would deny you access to information, for in their heart they dream themself your master."
Commisoner Pravin-Lal, Alpha Centauri

So Marxists-Leninists essentially fail at doing what their stated aims are. You can't have, "all power to the soviets" and power to the people if you use censorship.

Rooster

30th June 2011, 18:08

There already is an extensive thread on this:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-there-such-t156113/index.html

But... just to put my boot in, marxism-leninism is an inflexible dogma. The regimes that have claimed it as their ideology seem to be plagued by revisionists and capitalist restorations.

The Man

30th June 2011, 18:12

Oh jeez... Here we go..

Sinister Cultural Marxist

30th June 2011, 18:16

Anonymous is correct.

Consider Chernobyl. The lack of free information flow was tragic, both in (a) allowing the USSR to build a ton of highly unsafe nuclear plants without either explaining their nature to the Soviet people or taking public criticism about the total lack of proper safety mechanisms and (b) ultimately preventing the informing of the people in general about the extent of the disaster.

The Soviet government operated in a way very similar to TEPCO during their disaster-first, lying about the dangers to the people, then after the disaster, failing to inform the Japanese people about the extent of the danger. This is good evidence of the USSR as a state-Capitalist society.

Communism cannot exist in a society with censorship, and censorship over time will protect corruption within the upper echelons of the "vanguard party" by hiding it from the workers, rotting it to its core. Once the people realize just how corrupt the party has become, they will see how different reality is from their censored "Pravda" press, and become cynical about the political rulers of their country, and worse, Socialist politics in general.

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 18:55

Anyone else? I found the other thread quite light on the criticism I was looking for.

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 19:01

"...free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow will soon burst with freedom and vitality, but the free nation gradually constricting it's grip on public discourse has begun it's rapid slide into despotism. Beware of they who would deny you access to information, for in their heart they dream themself your master."

Alpha Centauri? Please remember to give credit where credit's due.

Kiev Communard

30th June 2011, 19:02

Anyone else? I found the other thread quite light on the criticism I was looking for.

I would advise you to use the arguments from the following sections of the Anarchist FAQ:

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech51

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech56

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech58

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secH5.html#sech512

The sources quoted therein could also be helpful.

Rafiq

30th June 2011, 19:04

Go deeper. Talk about the economy of the USSR, how things were rationed, produced, and distributed. In other words, use a Marxist criticism.

Also, you don't have to resort to Libertarianism or Anarchism, (or shitty Trotskyism) to understand that Marxism Leninism is complete bollocks.

Don't morally criticize the Soviet Union, or Capitalism, ect. Don't say things like "There is too much authority, or statism, or whatever".

We are the Proletariat. When we gain power, we are going to be ruthlessly authoritarian, hell, even Nestor Makhno(who I admire greatly) was authoritarian.

Hebrew Hammer

30th June 2011, 19:04

Oh jeez... Here we go..

As soon as I read "ex-Authoritarians," I was like "done." :rolleyes:

Jose Gracchus

30th June 2011, 19:16

Fuck no. I'm read to start the PEOPLE'S WAR RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW. LIQUIDATE ALL ANARCHO-TROT PETIT BOURGEOIS WHITE GUARD SCUM.

Does this really require a thread? Virtually every ML you'll ever meet is on the face of it totally ignorant of history at best, and a kook historical denialist at worst. They imagine if only they repackage their Great Leaders with the right lines and marketing gimmicks vis-a-vis the working class, somehow they'll jump-start the 1910s all over again.

When that does not work, they attempt to associate themselves with Third Positionists which they would unambiguously call fascists if they were white and Western.

Dogs On Acid

30th June 2011, 19:32

Thank you for your replies! Anyone else want to contribute? :)

Bright Banana Beard

30th June 2011, 23:04

This thread is so full of shit and are taken out of context. If you knew us, we indeed do self-criticism, which is very obvious as we need to do.

Otherwise if we didn't, how the fuck do you except us to move on? People thinking they know all shit about Marxism-Leninism are so full of shit on themselves, as they only can claim the definition, not us.

In other words, you just listening to some conservative who think he knows all about Marxism. Why not ask us Marxist-Leninists group? We will be happy to provide you some answer, and yes we are divisive as fuck, but doesn't split much often on stupid shit unlike the trots did.

Blake's Baby

1st July 2011, 00:14

The Man

1st July 2011, 02:59

You didn't read the original post, did you? Stupid fucking ML thinking that you know better than other people, not only do you refuse to acknowlege history you can't even acknowlege the present.

LALALALALALALA everything is alright in MLland, it's everything/everywhere/everyone else that's wrong LALALALALALA...

I don't know much more than they average person does.. Common sense drives me, and hell, I learn everyday. I absolutely acknowledge the history of world, and how it has come to how we are today.

Plus, in 'MLland' there will always be problems.. it's sown into any type of society. Even Stalin admitted the USSR had a huge range of problems that needed to be solved. Any Marxist-Leninist who believes 'everything/everywhere/everyone else that's wrong' is wrong themselves. Marxist-Leninists have made some big mistakes in the past.. But the again, who hasn't?

Dogs On Acid

1st July 2011, 03:49

I don't know much more than they average person does.. Common sense drives me, and hell, I learn everyday. I absolutely acknowledge the history of world, and how it has come to how we are today.

Plus, in 'MLland' there will always be problems.. it's sown into any type of society. Even Stalin admitted the USSR had a huge range of problems that needed to be solved. Any Marxist-Leninist who believes 'everything/everywhere/everyone else that's wrong' is wrong themselves. Marxist-Leninists have made some big mistakes in the past.. But the again, who hasn't?

The difference is the mistakes ML's committed were fucking horrendous and only on par with ironically another authoritarian form of "socialism": Marxism-Leninism-Maoism :rolleyes:

The Man

1st July 2011, 05:26

The difference is the mistakes ML's committed were fucking horrendous and only on par with ironically another authoritarian form of "socialism": Marxism-Leninism-Maoism :rolleyes:

Please name these horrendous acts. So I can see exactly what you are talking about.

Dogs On Acid

1st July 2011, 05:30

Please name these horrendous acts. So I can see exactly what you are talking about.

:glare:

The Man

1st July 2011, 05:47

:glare:

Ugh... I'm talking about specifics.. I know acts occurred, but I want to know specifically which ones you are talking about.

AnonymousOne

1st July 2011, 06:05

Please name these horrendous acts. So I can see exactly what you are talking about.

Here's the thing. The acts don't really matter, they're horrible and atrocious but they're the result of fundamental problems in the Marxist-Leninist approach to class struggle and building a socialist state.

When you take information away from the people, you've essentially disenfranchised them that's the problem with censorship.

But it gets even worse after centralization and the vanguard party, because now people don't have any say at all.

Horrible acts happen, when leaders and governments become unaccountable to their people. Marxist-Leninist thought allows for this to happen, and we've seen the results.

Hebrew Hammer

1st July 2011, 06:22

Worker's unity ftw.

Dogs On Acid

1st July 2011, 06:34

Worker's unity ftw.

How is this post related in any way to the OP? Please refrain from off-topic discussion in the future.

A Revolutionary Tool

1st July 2011, 06:34

Worker's unity ftw.
I'm sure M-L's have a great track record of "worker's unity" amirite?

manic expression

1st July 2011, 11:40

A lot of the anti-Soviet outcries on this thread closely mirror the usual criticisms that it was a "closed society" (Eisenhower used those words to justify spy planes flying into Soviet airspace after his CIA agent got shot down) and all that. Well, of course that wasn't true...the Soviet Union opened its doors to all sorts of people to see what it had to offer. However, the USSR was faced with aggression from imperialism, and such a situation calls for some amount of secrecy. It sounds like some posters here would have preferred if the USSR published every single fact about its defensive capabilities, internal party discussions, etc. That sounds all well and good until you realize that it would be completely and ruinously irresponsible.

When you take information away from the people, you've essentially disenfranchised them that's the problem with censorship.

But it gets even worse after centralization and the vanguard party, because now people don't have any say at all.

Horrible acts happen, when leaders and governments become unaccountable to their people. Marxist-Leninist thought allows for this to happen, and we've seen the results.
You still need to be specific. Are you talking about the USSR not printing the writings of Solzhenitsyn or Sakharov? Are you talking about how the Soviet state and CPSU became very closely identified (as to make the state carry out decisions already made in the party)? If we get down to specifics, then we can have a real discussion. Saying "people don't have any say" doesn't get us there.

Consider Chernobyl. The lack of free information flow was tragic, both in (a) allowing the USSR to build a ton of highly unsafe nuclear plants without either explaining their nature to the Soviet people or taking public criticism about the total lack of proper safety mechanisms and (b) ultimately preventing the informing of the people in general about the extent of the disaster.
Well, if you ask me, it's not a good idea to throw out every bit of speculation you can get your hands on in an emergency situation. It causes unnecessary and ultimately dangerous panic. Of course there's good reason to think that Gorbachev and his gang screwed up Chernobyl royally, but a nuclear meltdown is actually a very good example of when the free flow of "information" (which would manifest itself in a web of unverified and self-contradictory reports) is not a good thing.

Threetune

1st July 2011, 14:57

Why don’t you start demystifying matters by telling us something of the substance of the debate in which you triumphed over Marxism-Leninism.
“Beware of they who would deny you access to information, for in their heart they dream themself your master."
Commisoner Pravin-Lal, Alpha Centauri”

Dogs On Acid

1st July 2011, 15:14

Off the top of my head, I criticized the Bolsheviks crushing Free Territory, the fact that ML parties seem to rot from within, the lack of Democratic Control by the workers at the workplace and distribution etc., the Capitalist reforms that every ML revolution has taken, the shitty implementation of the Vanguard, the slaughter of workers, dissidents and rival left-wing politicians, the failure to follow ML theory by the word as promised (oppression of religion), disinformation and censorship, banning of unions and stikes, etc., etc. etc....

Sixiang

1st July 2011, 18:08

A call to all Libertarians and Ex-Authoritarians.

Instead of making these threads which are directed at only a certain tendency but are open to other tendencies posting in them, why don't you make this a discussion in one of the groups? Perhaps the anarchists group, or the anarcho-communist group, or one of the other libertarian groups.

Threads like these fall too quickly to "tendency wars" and after seeing about 10 of them, I've gotten annoyed.

Dogs On Acid

1st July 2011, 18:41

Instead of making these threads which are directed at only a certain tendency but are open to other tendencies posting in them, why don't you make this a discussion in one of the groups? Perhaps the anarchists group, or the anarcho-communist group, or one of the other libertarian groups.

Threads like these fall too quickly to "tendency wars" and after seeing about 10 of them, I've gotten annoyed.

Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists are Libertarians

What the hell are you on about? This has nothing to do with RevLeft groups :laugh:

Jose Gracchus

1st July 2011, 18:57

A lot of the anti-Soviet outcries on this thread closely mirror the usual criticisms that it was a "closed society" (Eisenhower used those words to justify spy planes flying into Soviet airspace after his CIA agent got shot down) and all that. Well, of course that wasn't true...the Soviet Union opened its doors to all sorts of people to see what it had to offer. However, the USSR was faced with aggression from imperialism, and such a situation calls for some amount of secrecy. It sounds like some posters here would have preferred if the USSR published every single fact about its defensive capabilities, internal party discussions, etc. That sounds all well and good until you realize that it would be completely and ruinously irresponsible.

Bullshit, there was zero transparency because the party had no accountability to the workers. It wasn't a "workers' party" in empirical fact, only in ideological pronouncement.

You still need to be specific. Are you talking about the USSR not printing the writings of Solzhenitsyn or Sakharov? Are you talking about how the Soviet state and CPSU became very closely identified (as to make the state carry out decisions already made in the party)? If we get down to specifics, then we can have a real discussion. Saying "people don't have any say" doesn't get us there.

Sure it does. You want to obfuscate simple fact. Did the working class rank-and-file have any say-so? No.

Well, if you ask me, it's not a good idea to throw out every bit of speculation you can get your hands on in an emergency situation. It causes unnecessary and ultimately dangerous panic. Of course there's good reason to think that Gorbachev and his gang screwed up Chernobyl royally, but a nuclear meltdown is actually a very good example of when the free flow of "information" (which would manifest itself in a web of unverified and self-contradictory reports) is not a good thing.

They were much more irresponsible and capricious with the lives of Soviet workers than the Japanese bourgeois were with theirs at Fukushima Daiichi. The death toll speaks for itself. They lied about the factual readings of Geiger counters while massive clouds of fallout drifted towards innocent civilians.

Of course you would dress up anything in the most apologetic language possible if there's a red flag and the possibility of hoisting up the PSL's substitute for capital, "imperialism" as a slogan, rears its head.

manic expression

1st July 2011, 19:08

Bullshit, there was zero transparency because the party had no accountability to the workers. It wasn't a "workers' party" in empirical fact, only in ideological pronouncement.
Of course it had accountability. We'll see as much soon enough.

Sure it does. You want to obfuscate simple fact. Did the working class rank-and-file have any say-so? No.
Actually, the answer is yes. Off the top of my head, by the late 80's the SEP in the DDR had over 23% of the adult working class as members. Those members were definitely involved in political discussion and debate.

They were much more irresponsible and capricious with the lives of Soviet workers than the Japanese bourgeois were with theirs at Fukushima Daiichi. The death toll speaks for itself. They lied about the factual readings of Geiger counters while massive clouds of fallout drifted towards innocent civilians.
It's because they needed to control public reaction or risk disastrous mass panic which would have made any recovery effort unceasingly more difficult.

Of course, it's easy to suggest ruinous policy ideas when you have neither the ability nor the willingness to be held accountable for any decisions. Remember that.

Of course you would dress up anything in the most apologetic language possible if there's a black flag and the possibility of hoisting up the PSL's substitute for capital, "imperialism", rears its head.
Communists oppose imperialism. Imagine that.

Franz Fanonipants

1st July 2011, 19:12

comrades either you're m-l or bourgeois the end.

Dogs On Acid

1st July 2011, 19:16

comrades either you're m-l or bourgeois the end.

Yeah 'cos Marxism-Leninism has never had bourgeois reforms or bourgeois members :laugh:

AnonymousOne

1st July 2011, 19:19

comrades either you're m-l or bourgeois the end.

Now this is simply untrue. Unless we want to make the term bourgeois entirely useless for class analysis. People are bourgeois if they own the means of production, entirely independent from their political views.

For example, I am a member of the petit-bourgeois, if I was a M-L I would still be a member of the petit-bourgeois. The reason is because that my class is independent of my political views.

Otherwise we'd have a poor factory worker being bourgeois because he votes republican or democrat.

So please stop making class analysis entirely meaningless by using bourgeois as an insult or misapplying the term.

freya4

2nd July 2011, 02:46

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 03:58

I'm kind of new to this forum, but I sense a lot of hostility towards Marxists-Leninists. Then again, I'm not too familiar with all these sects and tendencies. Are Marxists-Leninists supposed to be different than regular Marxists?

Marx can be interpreted in many different ways. That's why there are so many different tendencies. Also Marx was only a man, not a prophet. Not everything he said has to be 100% true.

Marxism-Leninism was pretty much a complete failure throughout the 20th century. But you should study it yourself first, maybe read a few books on different tendencies and then make up your mind on which tendency you identify yourself with the most.

I used to be a Marxist-Leninist.

Hebrew Hammer

2nd July 2011, 04:14

How is this post related in any way to the OP? Please refrain from off-topic discussion in the future.

I'm sure M-L's have a great track record of "worker's unity" amirite?

I said that due to the amount of pointless bickering within this thread.

Also, judging from the responses in this thread it doesn't seem any less stupid.

"Stupid ML thinking, omgah, Marxist-Leninism-Maoism, rolllz eyez, possssh."

I'm kind of new to this forum, but I sense a lot of hostility towards Marxists-Leninists. Then again, I'm not too familiar with all these sects and tendencies. Are Marxists-Leninists supposed to be different than regular Marxists?

Depends on whom you ask, if you ask "orthodox," Marxists or Left Communists or something, they will probably say Leninism wasn't supposed to be different but it is. If you ask Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. they will probably tell you that Lenin (and Trotsky or Mao) just simply added on to Marx's theories and built upon them and so forth. The bickering you're seeing is sectarian nonsense.

Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists are Libertarians

What the hell are you on about? This has nothing to do with RevLeft groups :laugh:

There is groups for different tendencies is what he's talking about. You can start threads like this but only members of said group can respond. You could get better responses and it would probably be better off given the blah blah blah crap you're getting. For example, there is a Maoist group, I'm a member, if I want to start a thread but only want responses from Maoists or Maoist sympathizers and not responses from Anarchists or some other tendency coming in and detracting from the main subject due to ideological differences and so forth, I would start it there.

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 04:29

I said that due to the amount of pointless bickering within this thread.

Also, judging from the responses in this thread it doesn't seem any less stupid.

"Stupid ML thinking, omgah, Marxist-Leninism-Maoism, rolllz eyez, possssh."

Depends on whom you ask, if you ask "orthodox," Marxists or Left Communists or something, they will probably say Leninism wasn't supposed to be different but it is. If you ask Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. they will probably tell you that Lenin (and Trotsky or Mao) just simply added on to Marx's theories and built upon them and so forth. The bickering you're seeing is sectarian nonsense.

There is groups for different tendencies is what he's talking about. You can start threads like this but only members of said group can respond. You could get better responses and it would probably be better off given the blah blah blah crap you're getting. For example, there is a Maoist group, I'm a member, if I want to start a thread but only want responses from Maoists or Maoist sympathizers and not responses from Anarchists or some other tendency coming in and detracting from the main subject due to ideological differences and so forth, I would start it there.

But I didn't start the thread in a group so isn't it quite obvious I was referencing ideologies? ;)

Hebrew Hammer

2nd July 2011, 04:32

But I didn't start the thread in a group so isn't it quite obvious I was referencing ideologies? ;)

Alright, well that's cool or whatever, I'm just saying.

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 04:35

Alright, well that's cool or whatever, I'm just saying.

Peace ;)

Hebrew Hammer

2nd July 2011, 04:37

Peace ;)

Peace? Lol, you're funny.

freya4

2nd July 2011, 04:57

Depends on whom you ask, if you ask "orthodox," Marxists or Left Communists or something, they will probably say Leninism wasn't supposed to be different but it is. If you ask Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. they will probably tell you that Lenin (and Trotsky or Mao) just simply added on to Marx's theories and built upon them and so forth. The bickering you're seeing is sectarian nonsense.

So do Marxist-Leninists support Stalin? I hear Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist being used interchangeably.

Hebrew Hammer

2nd July 2011, 05:03

So do Marxist-Leninists support Stalin? I hear Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist being used interchangeably.

Trotskyists would disagree and say that Stalin is a meanie and didn't get Lenin and broke away from that ideaological tendency. With this being said, there are numerous Marxist-Leninist whom support Stalin and side with Stalin over Trotsky and would be what you would call 'Stalinists'. Maoists side with Stalin but not entirely.

It would be dependent upon whom exactly you ask.

MarxSchmarx

2nd July 2011, 05:08

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 05:12

So do Marxist-Leninists support Stalin? I hear Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist being used interchangeably.

Stalin worked well within the Marxist-Leninist paradigm, so he was a Marxist-Leninist.

If you agree with his actions or not, that's up to you.

Personally I don't.

Sixiang

2nd July 2011, 06:41

Anarchists and Anarcho-Communists are Libertarians

What the hell are you on about? This has nothing to do with RevLeft groups :laugh:
There are specific groups for specific tendencies here on revleft. Let me show you:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=274
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=2
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=405
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=484

Your question posed in this thread is specifically directed towards those people:

A call to all Libertarians and Ex-Authoritarians.

There have been many instances of people making threads but only directing them towards specific groups of people. The groups are there for members to discuss the tendency's ideology without other groups putting their own thoughts in. I have grown tired of these threads where people will only ask a question towards one group when you can just ask the group itself in a discussion in the group's page. So yes, this does have to do with revleft groups.

I'm kind of new to this forum, but I sense a lot of hostility towards Marxists-Leninists. Then again, I'm not too familiar with all these sects and tendencies. Are Marxists-Leninists supposed to be different than regular Marxists?
Well we do make up 2 of the top 10 largest groups on the site, including the second largest group. I'll let you define the hostility part as you like. There are a fair amount of anarchists and other critics of Marxism-Leninism on here, too.

Marx can be interpreted in many different ways. That's why there are so many different tendencies. Also Marx was only a man, not a prophet. Not everything he said has to be 100% true.

Marxism-Leninism was pretty much a complete failure throughout the 20th century. But you should study it yourself first, maybe read a few books on different tendencies and then make up your mind on which tendency you identify yourself with the most.

I used to be a Marxist-Leninist.
Yeah, nothing says failure like several successful revolutions in which the proletariat actually obtained dictatorship over the bourgeoisie and worked to industrialize, equalize, arm, educate, and all around revolutionize millions of people.

I said that due to the amount of pointless bickering within this thread.

Also, judging from the responses in this thread it doesn't seem any less stupid.

"Stupid ML thinking, omgah, Marxist-Leninism-Maoism, rolllz eyez, possssh."

Depends on whom you ask, if you ask "orthodox," Marxists or Left Communists or something, they will probably say Leninism wasn't supposed to be different but it is. If you ask Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists, etc. they will probably tell you that Lenin (and Trotsky or Mao) just simply added on to Marx's theories and built upon them and so forth. The bickering you're seeing is sectarian nonsense.

There is groups for different tendencies is what he's talking about. You can start threads like this but only members of said group can respond. You could get better responses and it would probably be better off given the blah blah blah crap you're getting. For example, there is a Maoist group, I'm a member, if I want to start a thread but only want responses from Maoists or Maoist sympathizers and not responses from Anarchists or some other tendency coming in and detracting from the main subject due to ideological differences and so forth, I would start it there.
Thank you. Well spoken.

But I didn't start the thread in a group so isn't it quite obvious I was referencing ideologies? ;)
You, the thread starter, did in fact reference not one but 2 ideologies you were specifically asking for answers from on another ideology.

And I might as well take a look at your original post:

A call to all Libertarians and Ex-Authoritarians.
There is the specific call to specific ideologies.

I'm ex-Marxist-Leninist but still support my party because they are, for now, the biggest Left-Wing influence on the proletariat, have raised class-consciousness (especially in unions), and fought a long and proud battle for the Portuguese people, through Fascism and Bourgeois Democracy.
So what are you now? And if you think that Marxism-Leninism is a failure, as you put it, then why do you attribute successes to this Marxist-Leninist movement and party?

I was in a debate today with a comrade of the party that holds some power in the Youth-Wing. I criticized the Soviet-Union extensively, just as I criticized just about every Marxist-Leninist revolution until today. He got mighty pissed off... I won the debate to a point were he said something ridiculous ("I don't have to look at history"), after extensive criticism of the Leninist history itself.
He obviously has erroneous thinking for denying the importance of looking at history, but that doesn't really disprove Marxism-Leninism, as Marx, Engels, and Lenin all specifically emphasized the importance of studying history for a movement/party to be a success.

Black Sheep

2nd July 2011, 13:43

Firstly, you'll have to decide whether you want to debate about the SU or about the ML tactics and theory.The latter is more substantial IMO.
I'll give you my take.

- Criticism of the Vanguard
The vanguard is an objective reality.MLs institutionalize its leadership explicitly,which i think is counter-effective to the goal to guarantee non-hierarchy and collective decision making.
On the contrary,the vanguard should strive to pass on the communist ideology by means of propaganda, personal example, etc, and try to make the rest of the workers "vanguard".

- Criticism of the bureaucracy
- Criticism of censorship

These are a SU phenomenon, and debating about it will get you nowhere.
Other stuff i'd propose you debate about, are democratic centralism, participation in elections, anti-imperialism mania, stance on other political parties/groups.

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 15:05

I want to debate about the ML ideology itself. The S.U. is long gone and future ML revolutions will carry very different material conditions.

If bureaucracy and censorship are S.U. phenomenon, then how come all post ML revolutionary states have inherited these aspects?

------------------------------------------------------------

Other questions for debate:

-Why do Libertarians consider Democratic Centralism Undemocratic?
-How do they view the One Party State and ban of other political parties?
-What is this anti-imperialism mania you referred to?

Kiev Communard

2nd July 2011, 16:52

So do Marxist-Leninists support Stalin? I hear Stalinist and Marxist-Leninist being used interchangeably.

This depends on the context and the political affiliation of the person(s) using such terms. For Trotskyists, Stalinist ideology represents a fundamental deviation from the principles of Marxism-Leninism and they therefore consider its exponents to be frauds, finding themselves to be "real" Leninists. At the same time, Stalinists hold a similar view on Trotskyists, regarding them as mere political centrists (i.e. neither revolutionary, nor fully reformist) for failure to "support the USSR" under Stalin's "construction of socialism" and the criticism (albeit mostly organisational one) of Stalinist bureaucracy. Finally, there are some groups of Stalinists (such as Hoxhaists and Maoists) that are critical of the late USSR (i.e. after 1956), considering it to be state-capitalist and denying Leninist credentials of then-CPSU leadership and their international supporters.

As I am not a Leninist, I do not feel obliged to subscribe to any of these positions, so I would say that both Stalinism (in its various manifestations) and Trotskyism contain different elements of original Leninist doctrine, but the "pure" Leninism is pretty much inexistent outside of some fringe Internet groups who uphold only Lenin and bash both Stalinists and Trotskyists for alleged "revisionism".

Franz Fanonipants

2nd July 2011, 18:36

Marxism-Leninism was pretty much a complete failure throughout the 20th century.

by what standards of success comrade

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 19:54

by what standards of success comrade

Successfully developing a Socialist society let alone a Communist one.

Black Sheep

2nd July 2011, 21:14

If bureaucracy and censorship are S.U. phenomenon, then how come all post ML revolutionary states have inherited these aspects?
Well the important thing is that the ML's do not support such a situation ,i mean they don't say "well these things are necessary".

You can pinpoint the relation of course, but they'll just say it's because of the material conditions, the level of education of the people, etc.

Imposter Marxist

2nd July 2011, 21:34

Hey guys(My fellow Marxist-Leninists), this is a stupid thread, but its their stupid thread. Trolling it kinda makes their lives difficult.

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 21:47

Why is criticism stupid?

Franz Fanonipants

2nd July 2011, 22:08

Successfully developing a Socialist society let alone a Communist one.

what does that mean and how did the SU or, say, Cuba, fail at that?

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 22:27

what does that mean and how did the SU or, say, Cuba, fail at that?

Well first of all because it they turned into the opposite spectrum of what we want to achieve.

-A state monopoly over the means of production instead of communal ownership.

-Patronisation of the workers, arguing that they can never exceed Union-Consciousness (I mean, WTF is up with that?)

-Dictatorship of the party opposed to dictatorship of the People.

-Wages opposed to free access of produced goods.

-Incredibly fast Capitalist-Reforms.

-Absolutely no sign of dissolution of the State, in fact the opposite, strengthening of the Bureaucracy.

-Lack of democracy from bottom-up, instead it creates a dictatorship from top-bottom.

-Crushing of other Left-Wing tendencies that fight for the same goals (historically).

-Censorship and lack of access to free-information (Cuba is an excellent example, only a handful have internet) (historically)

-Dissolution of all Marxist-Leninist regimes and return to capitalism (historically), except for Cuba (although it is swinging in that direction)

-Economical stagnation for many years (historically) in the S.U.

manic expression

2nd July 2011, 22:42

-A state monopoly over the means of production instead of communal ownership.
If the workers control the state, what's the difference?

-Patronisation of the workers, arguing that they can never exceed Union-Consciousness (I mean, WTF is up with that?)
Lenin admitted he was wrong about that after 1905 IIRC.

-Dictatorship of the party opposed to dictatorship of the People.
And what if the party is the party of the workers?

-Wages opposed to free access of produced goods.
Not necessary to socialism.

-Absolutely no sign of dissolution of the State, in fact the opposite, strengthening of the Bureaucracy.
That has to do with the lack of revolution around the world. You can't create a classless society while capitalism remains entrenched in other countries.

-Lack of democracy from bottom-up, instead it creates a dictatorship from top-bottom.
In the Soviet Union and the European socialist states, democracy was primarily carried out within the party (although outside the party in some instances). Just because it's not where you want it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

-Crushing of other Left-Wing tendencies that fight for the same goals (historically).
Like who? The Left-SRs rebelled against the Soviets.

-Censorship and lack of access to free-information (Cuba is an excellent example, only a handful have internet) (historically)
Cuba has had issues with the internet because the blockade has been successful at stopping its development. They're now beginning to expand internet accessibility...there are anti-government Cuban blogs you can read yourself, you know.

Anyway, Soviet and Cuban citizens are as well-informed and well-educated as any other at the very least. This whole flaptrap about "censorship" is completely exaggerated, and also entirely numb to the changes in state policy. The period of 1936-1956, for instance, was very different from others.

Jose Gracchus

2nd July 2011, 22:52

manic expression

2nd July 2011, 22:56

If it was the workers' party and the workers controlled the State, then how did some fraction of it magically somehow manage to divest the working class of its dictatorship in 1989-1991, and how did this originate in the material contradictions of the society under socialism?
Because worker parties can be infiltrated by anti-worker elements, careerists, etc. Because lots of revolutionary groups lose their way from anarchist to M-L and everything in between. Because the party had become too formal in its position.

Dogs On Acid

2nd July 2011, 23:02

Because worker parties can be infiltrated by anti-worker elements, careerists, etc. Because lots of revolutionary groups lose their way from anarchist to M-L and everything in between. Because the party had become too formal in its position.

Which is exactly the reason parties shouldn't have much power, or any power at all for that matter, and only serve the purpose of education and agitation.

Rooster

2nd July 2011, 23:06

Because worker parties can be infiltrated by anti-worker elements, careerists, etc.

How? How did these elements occur? Where did they come from? How does that explain the return to full capitalist restoration?

Lucretia

2nd July 2011, 23:13

If the workers control the state, what's the difference?

State control is a necessary but not sufficient condition for socialism. What is also required is actual democracy, a set of procedures by which the workers can make known and enforce their collective will. That ceased to be the case in Marxist-Leninist regimes at most not many years after they came into existence. In some instances, it was never the case at all.

One response from M-Ls might be to advocate substitutionism, where an elite bureaucratic apparatus makes supposedly enlightened decisions in the workers best interests, but we should not pretend that this is Marxism or even Leninism. Once a group separates itself from the workers as a procedurally unaccountable bureaucratic controlling class (or "caste," if you will), it doesn't just have the power to pursue its own interests at the expense of the masses. It then begins to have the interests as well.

Parliamentary democratic procedures might not be sufficient for true democracy, any more than state control alone is sufficient for socialism, but they are necessary.

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 00:22

Which is exactly the reason parties shouldn't have much power, or any power at all for that matter, and only serve the purpose of education and agitation.
Education and agitation is power. And moreover, the party played a very strong role in sustaining socialism in the USSR for so long.

How? How did these elements occur? Where did they come from? How does that explain the return to full capitalist restoration?
Careerists and non-socialists joined the party and worked their way up. They came from a lot of places. It helps explain the fall to capitalism because the only institution charged with the ability and responsibility of defending socialism was being run by a clique that didn't want to do that. The leadership of the CP basically silenced defenders of socialism, empowered racists and ultra-nationalists and capitalists...it was a huge part of the fall.

Uncle Rob

3rd July 2011, 00:36

Well first of all because it they turned into the opposite spectrum of what we want to achieve.

What spectrum are you measuring this by? Please, humor me.

-A state monopoly over the means of production instead of communal ownership.

You cannot simply leap from capitalist modes of production to communist ones. Such a criticism completely ignores the question of the state, the economy, and class society in general.

-Patronisation of the workers, arguing that they can never exceed Union-Consciousness (I mean, WTF is up with that?)

Nearly every socialist theorist has come from a class other than the proletariat. Go into any work place and you will almost never see them discuss the practical issues facing the achievement of socialism. Yes, they talk about their financial issues. Yes, they discuss the corrupt nature of the state. And yes, some of them discuss ideas which can be conceived as semi-socialist which stem precisely from their intolerably difficult position in class society. This is why the vanguard is necessary, to bring these ideas to the workers.
But for a second, let us pretent that socialist-consciousness can develop from within. Why hasn't the working class risen to claim it's rightful place as the masters of society?
Further, How does this "criticism" take into account those workers who have achieved socialist consciousness, who recognize that it doesn't come from without and who do not feel patronized by accepting the reality?

-Dictatorship of the party opposed to dictatorship of the People.

This is utter shit. This is not a class analysis. What the hell is a "dictatorship of the people"? What kind of people? Bourgeoisie people? Proletarian people? This is shallow, liberal, phrase mongering.

-Wages opposed to free access of produced goods.

Again, you cannot simply wish away the economy simply because you do not like it or you do not find it suitable for your delirious vision of socialism. The fact of the matter is that a newly born socialist country is still tied to the world economy. It must still import and export goods and raw material in order to sustain it's existence, it must still deal with currency as a social power. Not until the material conditions for that social power are eradicated can we begin to speak of the abolition of wages.

-Incredibly fast Capitalist-Reforms.

What are you talking about? What reforms?

-Absolutely no sign of dissolution of the State, in fact the opposite, strengthening of the Bureaucracy.

At first it was believed that after the capitalist class has been overthrown, the state would begin to wither away. However, what has become blatantly obvious as we reflect on the historical achievements of socialism is that the class struggle actually intensifies. Not so much so from within (although it's presence is there although not necessarily as intense or as obvious) but from without. If we understand the state as a symptom of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms then it becomes clear to us that the dictatorship of the proletariat must strengthen itself. It must have the ability to crush all those who dare challenge the workers and it must have the ability to oppress those who would seek to oppress them.
What's further; "Bureaucracy" is not a class analysis.

-Lack of democracy from bottom-up, instead it creates a dictatorship from top-bottom.

You speak of democracy as any liberal does, yet you forget to ask "Democracy for what class?" What's further; you (like every other liberal) sneer at the negative connotation you associate with the word "dictatorship" this is demonstrated by they way you present the "criticism" where "dictatorship" is treated as the negation to "democracy". But through your unyielding reluctance to accept a class analysis you fail to realize that terror is just when it is exercised by the oppressed working masses against the oppressive exploiters.

-Crushing of other Left-Wing tendencies that fight for the same goals (historically).

Only a fool who fails to see the class structure of society determines politics through the paradigm of "right" versus "left". It seems there is no end to your liberal jargon. You need to realize that not everyone who claims to be a revolutionary actually is one. For example; the SR's in Russia aided the Whites against the soviet government during the civil war. Is it so terrible they were shot and imprisoned? I'm not inclined to think so.

-Censorship and lack of access to free-information (Cuba is an excellent example, only a handful have internet) (historically)

I lol'd.

-Dissolution of all Marxist-Leninist regimes and return to capitalism (historically), except for Cuba (although it is swinging in that direction)

The restoration of capitalism was the work one the one hand of revisionist aspects and one the other hand the failure to recognize revisionism and take decisive action against it. This is a failure we have critically examined and keenly noted. Also; Cuba was never socialist.

-Economical stagnation for many years (historically) in the S.U.

This is an outright lie. If all this stagnation was taking place how do you reconcile the fact that Russia went from a backwards, primarily peasant-based economy, devastated by years of civil war to an industrial super power under Stalin's leadership? Stagnation didn't start happening until after the revisionists hijacked the economy.

I can only conclude you were either
a.) Lying about being a Marxist-Leninist
b.) You have totally renounced Marxism in favor of liberal ideology and are therefore deliberately trying to placate the working class
or c.) You are simply ignorant and need to read/get involved with the working class movement.

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 00:36

Red_Struggle

3rd July 2011, 00:42

This is why I hate revhitler.

Dogs On Acid

3rd July 2011, 00:44

Replacing old bosses with new bosses. Fuck that.

Red_Struggle

3rd July 2011, 01:18

Replacing old bosses with new bosses. Fuck that.

These "bosses" that you're speaking of and their functions didn't exceed or even compare to managers in capitalist society, where depending on that nation's/state's labor laws, you can be fired for no reason at all, make a salary that pales in comparison to your boss's, and risk being repremanded for organizing a Union.

"The new class of state managers, or "red directors" of factories, who have replaced the former capitalist owners, are mostly Communists and former workers. But by the very nature of their position they must look at industrial life from a rather different angle from that of the workers. Although they make no personal profit out of the enterprises which they manage, they are supposed to turn in a profit for the state."- Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown,
1930, p. 174

"Striking it rich" is impossible. "Keeping up with the Joneses" is bad form. Excelling the Ivanoviches in socialist competition to cut production costs, increase output, and raise profits beyond the Plan is always the order of the day. Conspicuous success in such endeavors means prizes, bonuses, honors, and fame.
This elite bears little resemblance to any known aristocracy, plutocracy, or theocracy." Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf,
1946, p. 581

"No private person may legitimately make a penny of profit out of this system of state and cooperative industry and trade, banking and transport. There are no individual shareholders in the state industrial enterprises; and the financial columns of the Russian newspapers are restricted to brief quotations of the rates of the state loans. All the
normal means of acquiring large personal fortunes are thus pretty effectively blocked up in Russia; and if there are some Nepmen, or private traders who have become ruble millionaires through lucky dealings in commerce or speculation, they are certainly neither a numerous nor a conspicuous class."
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown,
1930, p. 131

(It should be noted that this book was published in 1930, while the NEPmen and kulaks were in the process of being liquidated as a whole.)

"The new class of state managers, or "red directors" of factories, who have replaced the former capitalist owners, are mostly Communists and former workers. But by the very nature of their position they must look at industrial life from a rather different angle from= that of the workers. Although they make no personal profit out of the
enterprises which they manage, they are supposed to turn in a profit for the state."
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown,
1930, p. 174

"But the general view of the Social Democratic and Anarchist critics of the Soviet regime, that there is a deep rift between a few Communist officeholders at the top and the working masses at the bottom, is, in my opinion, distorted, exaggerated, and quite at variance with the actual facts of the Russian situation." Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown,
1930, p. 177

"On the whole the men who remain in top leadership are the ablest of the 12 million government employees. Although shouldering
more responsibility they do not receive salaries anywhere near as large as those of corporation presidents in the United States. They do receive decorations and they may have cities named after them. They are all provided with automobiles, expense accounts and good houses or apartments." Davis, Jerome. Behind Soviet Power. New York, N. Y.: The
Readers' Press, Inc., c1946, p. 39

"Even more important than these liberties is the fact that they labor not for the private profit of employers (save for the small proportion employed in private industry), but for the profit of the whole community. State industries, like private, must show a profit to keep going, but the public use of that profit robs it of the driving force of exploitation.The liberties enjoyed by workers in Russia, whether or not in unions (less than 10 percent are outside), go far beyond those of workers in other countries, not only in their participation in controlling working conditions and wages, but in the privileges they get as a class. The eight-hour day is universal in practice, alone of all countries in the
world, with a six-hour day in dangerous occupations like mining. Reduction of the eight-hour day to seven hours is already planned for all industries. Every worker gets a two-week vacation with pay, while office workers and workers in dangerous trades, get a month. No worker can be dismissed from his job without the consent of his union. His rent, his admission to places of entertainment or education, his transportation- -all these he gets at lower prices than others. When unemployed he gets a small allowance from his union, free rent, free transportation, and free admission to places of entertainment and instruction. Education and medical aid are free to all workers--or for small fees--extensive services being especially organized for and by them." - Baldwin, Roger. Liberty Under the Soviets, New York: Vanguard Press, 1928, p. 29-30

"One should keep in mind, however, that big incomes are still extremely rare. Earning power may vary in the Soviet Union, according to artistic or technical proficiency, but the extremes, as Louis Fisher has pointed out, are very close. No such "spread" is conceivable in the USSR as exists in Britain or America between say, a clerk in a factory and its owner. Among all the 165 million Russians, there are probably not ten men who earn $25,000 per year."
Gunther, John. Inside Europe. New York, London: Harper &
Brothers, c1940, p. 567

Geiseric

3rd July 2011, 01:23

Uncle Rob

3rd July 2011, 01:28

Dogs On Acid

3rd July 2011, 02:03

Red_Struggle

3rd July 2011, 02:32

Just to clear this up, in regular leninist theory the vanguard is supposed to lead the revolution but then give up their power to the workers councils, this couldn't be done in the USSR due to the reconstruction from the civil war and the overall chaos of the country

I recommend this read on how soviet democracy functioned: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 03:02

Just to clear this up, in regular leninist theory the vanguard is supposed to lead the revolution but then give up their power to the workers councils, this couldn't be done in the USSR due to the reconstruction from the civil war and the overall chaos of the country
How is this theory reconciled with the historical reality of proletarian revolution as a primarily council-lead phenomenon?

Can you please stop lying?
Why not refute his claims? Shouldn't be hard, if you have truth on your side.

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 04:44

These "bosses" that you're speaking of and their functions didn't exceed or even compare to managers in capitalist society, where depending on that nation's/state's labor laws, you can be fired for no reason at all, make a salary that pales in comparison to your boss's, and risk being repremanded for organizing a Union.

"The new class of state managers, or "red directors" of factories, who have replaced the former capitalist owners, are mostly Communists and former workers. But by the very nature of their position they must look at industrial life from a rather different angle from that of the workers. Although they make no personal profit out of the enterprises which they manage, they are supposed to turn in a profit for the state."- Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown,
1930, p. 174

"Striking it rich" is impossible. "Keeping up with the Joneses" is bad form. Excelling the Ivanoviches in socialist competition to cut production costs, increase output, and raise profits beyond the Plan is always the order of the day. Conspicuous success in such endeavors means prizes, bonuses, honors, and fame.
This elite bears little resemblance to any known aristocracy, plutocracy, or theocracy." Schuman, Frederick L. Soviet Politics. New York: A.A. Knopf,
1946, p. 581

"No private person may legitimately make a penny of profit out of this system of state and cooperative industry and trade, banking and transport. There are no individual shareholders in the state industrial enterprises; and the financial columns of the Russian newspapers are restricted to brief quotations of the rates of the state loans. All the
normal means of acquiring large personal fortunes are thus pretty effectively blocked up in Russia; and if there are some Nepmen, or private traders who have become ruble millionaires through lucky dealings in commerce or speculation, they are certainly neither a numerous nor a conspicuous class."
Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown,
1930, p. 131

what you've produced here is evidence for the existence of a new boss class. your arguments here are apologetics for this class. in effect you're saying it was okay for the working class to be dominated and exploited by the bureaucratic class because they were the "ablest" (exactly the argument that apologists for capitalism use) and sucked down an income less than the capitalists in the more extremely marketized capitalist countries (say, on the order of 4 or 5 times the earnings of an average worker).

of course, that same class soon developed envy of their counterparts in the capitalist countries, where the inequality is greater, and were able to finagle a transition to capitalism...because, as the ruling class, they had the power to do this. passivity had become the order of the day among the working class because they were merely expected to take orders from the "ablest" (as you call them) who gave the orders.

why the fuck should the working class fight a revolution for that sort of shit?

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 04:46

Can you please stop lying?

can you give arguments to show what I've said is mistaken?

Kiev Communard

3rd July 2011, 08:12

"The new class of state managers, or "red directors" of factories, who have replaced the former capitalist owners, are mostly Communists and former workers. But by the very nature of their position they must look at industrial life from a rather different angle from that of the workers. Although they make no personal profit out of the enterprises which they manage, they are supposed to turn in a profit for the state."- Chamberlin, William Henry. Soviet Russia. Boston: Little, Brown, 1930, p. 174.

Congratulations, Red Struggle, by your own choice of citations you yourself proved that bureaucratic capital and class antagonism between the workers and the controllers (and thus economic, if not juridical, owners) of means of production existed in the Stalinist USSR (as well as the Khruschevist one), and that the production was conducted for profit of external class body, not for the needs of producers themselves.

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 09:18

I recommend this read on how soviet democracy functioned: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

Try reading Pirani or Getzler, or well, any of the reputable scholarship on soviet democracy over the last 30 years.

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 09:46

1. within capitalism there is a tendency for decision-making authority and expertise related to decision-making to be concentrated into a minority. these are the people who make up the hierarchies in the state and corporations.

notice that the vanguard also involves concentration of decision-making and expertise within the social & labor movements into a minority who are to "manage" the movements.

this prefigures a bureaucratic mode of production where there is a bureaucratic class dominating and exploiting the working class.
This is one of the most cross-eyed comparisons you'll ever see. "Capitalism has concentration of decision-making and therefore anything with concentration of decision-making is just like capitalism." That would be nice, except just about every modern industrial society necessitates centralized decision-making so long as there's class conflict. If that isn't followed, then you have an inefficient and basically unsustainable form of "government" that indeed is no form of anything at all. To express the power of the working class, centralization of decision-making capabilities is entirely necessary to defend the gains of the workers from their enemies.

This is why anarchism has never been applied except for periods of general instability (ie has never gotten past the revolutionary situation), inevitably lasting a year or two at the most.

2. consistent with this, M-L parties propose nationalization of the economy, that is, state ownership and management.
State ownership and management in a state created and controlled by the workers.

3. a state is a bureaucratic apparatus of control apart from the effective control of the mass of the people. a state is part of the base of the bureaucratic class who effectively control the administration and bodies of armed force.
"The people" are clearly part of this through their participation in the vanguard party. In the DDR in the early 80's, over 23% of adult workers were members of the SEP. That's about one in four. Cuba sees a system of working-class neighborhood councils that elect representatives without any direct participation of the PCC. You cling to old cliches about socialist countries instead of looking at them honestly.

4. MLism advocates a party so that it can marshal influence behind its leaders who it aims to put into control of the state, so as to implement its program top down thru the hierarchies of the state.
It advocates a vanguard party because it's the proven method of promoting and securing the interests of the workers throughout history. The whole point of working-class revolution is to take control of the "top" so the proletariat can be the ruling class.

5. all these things indicate that MLism is really an ideology of the bureaucratic dominating class. it's not an authentic working class ideology.
:rolleyes:

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 17:26

This is one of the most cross-eyed comparisons you'll ever see. "Capitalism has concentration of decision-making and therefore anything with concentration of decision-making is just like capitalism." That would be nice, except just about every modern industrial society necessitates centralized decision-making so long as there's class conflict. If that isn't followed, then you have an inefficient and basically unsustainable form of "government" that indeed is no form of anything at all. To express the power of the working class, centralization of decision-making capabilities is entirely necessary to defend the gains of the workers from their enemies.

in case you hadn't noticed, "every modern industrial society" is a class society where the working class is dominated and exploited. and concentration of decision-making and expertise into the hands of the few means workers will be subordinate to a dominating, exploiting class. hence your statement here is a support for the "inevitable" continued existence of class society. Not only is such hierarchical concentration not "necessary to defend the working class from their enemies", it can't do that because it implies continued class subordinate & exploitation.

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 17:54

in case you hadn't noticed, "every modern industrial society" is a class society where the working class is dominated and exploited. and concentration of decision-making and expertise into the hands of the few means workers will be subordinate to a dominating, exploiting class. hence your statement here is a support for the "inevitable" continued existence of class society. Not only is such hierarchical concentration not "necessary to defend the working class from their enemies", it can't do that because it implies continued class subordinate & exploitation.
And whatever comes after capitalism will necessarily be a class society as well, only it will have to defend itself against the exploiters instead of the other way around. That is why any working-class society will bear some resemblance to those of the past...suppression is still an unavoidable reality that one has to accept. "Concentration of decision-making" (aka not having everyone vote on the specifics of a grain shipment) simply follows from this fact and thus is part of any lasting working-class state to one degree or another.

Red_Struggle

3rd July 2011, 17:56

what you've produced here is evidence for the existence of a new boss class. your arguments here are apologetics for this class. in effect you're saying it was okay for the working class to be dominated and exploited by the bureaucratic class

One more time: The directors did not constitute a "boss class", and I am not apologizing for anything, mr. genius. If you actually did read my other citations, you would at least ackowledge that workers did have a say in their workplace pertaining to management, wages, trade unions, etc.. It was not an "Us the workers vs. them the boss capitalist" style of production and management. You can keep telling yourself this, if it helps fit your pre-determined view of the USSR, but it won't change the fact that your argument mainly consists of crying "bureaucracy" because the USSR wasn't anarchist.

Congratulations, Red Struggle, by your own choice of citations you yourself proved that bureaucratic capital and class antagonism between the workers and the controllers

Same goes for you. Although it is true that the state receives a surplus under socialism (something I'm sure you'll take out of context and use against me in your reply to this argument), it was not the final recipient of this surplus, as it was during its later years. When all of that labor is putting put towards paying salaries, devloping educational and cultural centers, and raising the productive forces of that country, who do you think was the ultimate benefactor of all this toil?

Rooster

3rd July 2011, 19:04

Careerists and non-socialists joined the party and worked their way up. They came from a lot of places. It helps explain the fall to capitalism because the only institution charged with the ability and responsibility of defending socialism was being run by a clique that didn't want to do that. The leadership of the CP basically silenced defenders of socialism, empowered racists and ultra-nationalists and capitalists...it was a huge part of the fall.

I don't think that's a good enough answer. Why did people, who were supposedly living in a socialist society, let capital restoration happen? Secondly, why did people feel like there was a need to find a "career" within the party? What benefits could there be and why, again, did the majority let it happen?

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 19:18

And whatever comes after capitalism will necessarily be a class society as well,

as i said, you believe in the inevitability of workers having to do as their told, being subordinate and exploited. that's what a "class society" is.

If you actually did read my other citations, you would at least ackowledge that workers did have a say in their workplace pertaining to management, wages, trade unions, etc..

"having a say". you get that within capitalism also thru job enrichment, participative management schemes, and existence of trade unions.

you have a poverty-stricken concept of what socialism is. it is workers themselves having all the power, the power to manage production, to run the society.

since the M-L "vanguard" "knows best" in your world view, you have no problem with continued class domination.

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 21:28

I don't think that's a good enough answer. Why did people, who were supposedly living in a socialist society, let capital restoration happen? Secondly, why did people feel like there was a need to find a "career" within the party? What benefits could there be and why, again, did the majority let it happen?
Careerists aren't a new sensation, even Lenin pointed out the danger of their presence way back when no one was sure if the Bolsheviks were going to be crushed by the Whites or not. Careerists are after position, power, influence, abuse of office, etc. It wasn't prevented enough because like I said the party was too formalistic in its position, ideological commitment was weak and capitalist agents disguised their intentions. People in socialist society may fight against socialism for many reasons: personal gain, chauvinism/racism, ideological backwardness are just a few. You might as well ask why there were monarchists after 1789.

as i said, you believe in the inevitability of workers having to do as their told, being subordinate and exploited. that's what a "class society" is.
Uh, no it's not. A class society is a society with two or more classes. That means workers can be the ruling class and the bourgeoisie the overthrown class and it's a class society without any subordination or exploitation of workers.

"having a say". you get that within capitalism also thru job enrichment, participative management schemes, and existence of trade unions.It's always a marginalized, suppressed, token "say". Not at all a comparison to a society that sees a working-class vanguard holding state power.

you have a poverty-stricken concept of what socialism is. it is workers themselves having all the power, the power to manage production, to run the society.Which is why it's useful to have a vanguard party, to organize and amplify the voice and power of the workers. It's the proven method to defend the gains of the workers time and again.

since the M-L "vanguard" "knows best" in your world view, you have no problem with continued class domination.And the annoying fact that you think you know best is just something we can just ignore, I take it (along with that bothersome lesson of history that every attempted anarchist revolution hasn't been able to defend any gains for any significant amount of time)?

RED DAVE

3rd July 2011, 21:40

Careerists aren't a new sensation, even Lenin pointed out the danger of their presence way back when no one was sure if the Bolsheviks were going to be crushed by the Whites or not. Careerists are after position, power, influence, abuse of office, etc. It wasn't prevented enough because like I said the party was too formalistic in its position, ideological commitment was weak and capitalist agents disguised their intentions. People in socialist society may fight against socialism for many reasons: personal gain, chauvinism/racism, ideological backwardness are just a few. You might as well ask why there were monarchists after 1789.The question is, Comrade, how did the careerists really get ahold of the Chinese Communist Party? You say, "the party was too formalistic in its position, ideological commitment was weak and capitalist agents disguised their intentions."

Now how did that happen? How is it that the mightiest Maoist party in the world got taken over from within by a bunch of capitalist roaders? Could it be that by formulating the putrid block of four classes, a political block which included the bourgeoisie, and which gave the bourgeoisie support from withing the party, Maoism let them in from the beginning?

Let's take a parallel case, where modern Maoists, as opposed to those fossils of 25 years ago, are putting forth a Maoist program. Presumably, they have learned from China's example and will be able to avoid formalism, weak ideological commitment and expose and eliminate capitalist agents.

Nepal!

And what do we find? The exact same process as in China, accelerated. The Nepalese Maoists have not taken state power, but, instead, the various factions are falling over themselves to be part of the leadership of ... Nepalese capitalism.

RED DAVE

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 21:55

The question is, Comrade, how did the careerists really get ahold of the Chinese Communist Party? You say, "the party was too formalistic in its position, ideological commitment was weak and capitalist agents disguised their intentions."

Now how did that happen? How is it that the mightiest Maoist party in the world got taken over from within by a bunch of capitalist roaders? Could it be that by formulating the putrid block of four classes, a political block which included the bourgeoisie, and which gave the bourgeoisie support from withing the party, Maoism let them in from the beginning?
Wait, I thought we were talking about the USSR. :confused:

But at any rate, it's RevLeft so we might as well bring up a new subject (;)). The CPC's historical development is an issue that I haven't studied too closely, but what I do know is that the Cultural Revolution took a right turn at about 1970, took out some of the left-wing of the party and then failed to really get people like Deng out of power. Then after Mao's death, Deng's clique was able to retake its central position and purge out anyone who disagreed with going to market to market. Did the Four Classes contribute to it? Possibly, but then why did it take until almost 1980 for the Dengists to get control? Surely if it was purely a symptom of the Four Classes policy it wouldn't have been such a recent development, no? It would seem counter intuitive that the proletariat would be strongest at precisely the time in which the Four Classes policy yielded capitalist roaders in power.

Let's take a parallel case, where modern Maoists, as opposed to those fossils of 25 years ago, are putting forth a Maoist program. Presumably, they have learned from China's example and will be able to avoid formalism, weak ideological commitment and expose and eliminate capitalist agents.

Nepal!

And what do we find? The exact same process as in China, accelerated. The Nepalese Maoists have not taken state power, but, instead, the various factions are falling over themselves to be part of the leadership of ... Nepalese capitalism.
How precise an analysis of a situation that hasn't yet fully unfolded. :rolleyes: I'm glad you've been able to see into the future. So when do we finally get flying cars?

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 21:56

Uh, no it's not. A class society is a society with two or more classes. That means workers can be the ruling class and the the bourgeoisie the overthrown class and it's a class society without any subordination or exploitation of workers.

you're confused as to what a class is. a capitalist class exists when there is a class who own the means of production, hire the managers, can sell their means of production, and have the legal right to all the revenue from sale of commodities.

if the working class has seized the means of production and built a system of popular power, based on their democratic control over the society en masse, then there is no capitalist class. there may be people around who used to be capitalists or used to be managers. but their power in the system of social production has been taken away from them. hence they are no longer a separate class.

hence there is no longer a division into classes. the class system is the power arrangement where the immediate producers are subject to the power and exploitation of a dominating, exploiting class. without this antagonistic separation into opposed groups based on who controls production and the proceeds from production, there is no longer a class system.

It's always a marginalized, suppressed, token "say".

but that is what you are proposing. because you are not proposing that the working class actually collectively have power. you're proposing that a separate group, the vanguard party, control things through a hiearchical state machine.

Not at all a comparison to a society that sees a working-class vanguard holding state power.

i don't disagree that there is, in some sense, a "vanguard" within the working class. this is those who are more active, have developed leadership skills, have developed more understanding of the system, want to see changes etc.

the size and character of this section of the class is not static. working class self-liberation implies that leadership skills and knowledge about the system and aspirations for liberation have to become more widespread in the working class.

but it is not any minority that takes power but the class as a whole. to suppose that some self-defined "vanguard" is to take power is substitutionist and tends inevitably to lead to the consolidation of a new bureaucratic dominating, exploiting class.

Which is why it's useful to have a vanguard party, to organize and amplify the voice and power of the workers. It's the proven method to defend the gains of the workers time and again.

actually a proven method for creating bureaucratic class dominated regimes and police states.

And the annoying fact that you think you know best is just something we can just ignore

i present facts and arguments. i don't ask anyone to just take my authority.

Dogs On Acid

3rd July 2011, 22:01

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 22:04

you're confused as to what a class is. a capitalist class exists when there is a class who own the means of production, hire the managers, can sell their means of production, and have the legal right to all the revenue from sale of commodities.

if the working class has seized the means of production and built a system of popular power, based on their democratic control over the society en masse, then there is no capitalist class. there may be people around who used to be capitalists or used to be managers. but their power in the system of social production has been taken away from them. hence they are no longer a separate class.
Not only does the capitalist class persist outside of the borders of socialism (that is, the countries in which the working class has established state power), but the capitalist class persists as an illegalized class. They have no power in production or in the state, sure, but they don't disappear into thin air, and they continue to try to impose their interests upon the workers. They will infiltrate, agitate, sabotage and more to destroy socialism...and more importantly, they have historically. Any way you slice it, class differences and the resulting suppression are part of socialism.

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 22:07

The question is, why did the workers in the Soviet Union let Capitalist reforms take place?

If as you say, the workers were the ones in power in the Soviet Union, why would they not revolt against reformism, de-stalinization, and introduction of Capitalism.They did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoqvSch9Q1g). But by that time, it was too little, too late.

Destalinization happened over 30 years prior.

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 22:09

Why even bother? Its obvious manic expression's knowledge of the history of the Russian Revolution does not emanate from any scholarship on the topic, but tired PSL cut-outs. It reads like a bunch of bad apologetics from the 1920s. The party was somehow "infiltrated" with "opportunist elements" or "careerists" yadda yadda (read: no material analysis).

The Russian Revolution in Retreat 1920-24: Soviet Workers and the New Communist Elite demonstrates clearly that the working class, especially its most advanced and active elements, became separated from the party and especially its leadership, at least as early as 1920, that the workers became fully politically and managerially expropriated, and that a new ruling class coalesced around the party leadership by the mid 1920s.

syndicat

3rd July 2011, 22:10

Not only does the capitalist class persist outside of the borders of socialism (that is, the countries in which the working class has established state power), but the capitalist class persists as an illegalized class. They have no power in production or in the state, sure, but they don't disappear into thin air, and they continue to try to impose their interests upon the workers. They will infiltrate, agitate, sabotage and more to destroy socialism...and more importantly, they have historically. Any way you slice it, class differences and the resulting suppression are part of socialism. Today 21:01Not only does the capitalist class persist outside of the borders of socialism (that is, the countries in which the working class has established state power), but the capitalist class persists as an illegalized class. They have no power in production or in the state, sure, but they don't disappear into thin air, and they continue to try to impose their interests upon the workers. They will infiltrate, agitate, sabotage and more to destroy socialism...and more importantly, they have historically. Any way you slice it, class differences and the resulting suppression are part of socialism.

They no longer exist as a class within the revolutionary territory, which is the relevant issue as to what the class character of that society is.

If individuals who are former capitalists try to sabotage or whatever, they are not doing so as people who are currently capitalists but who aspire to re-institute such a system. hence it doesn't show that the revolutionary territory is internally a class society. moreover it is possible for the working class to deal with this without setting up the appratus of a police state.

and the obsession with suppressing the counter-revolution has long been the excuse given to the creation of totalitarian police states...and taking away the rights of the working class opposition.

Dogs On Acid

3rd July 2011, 22:13

They did (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoqvSch9Q1g). But by that time, it was too little, too late.

Destalinization happened over 30 years prior.

So it took the workers 30 years to realize that Capitalism was reintroduced? That's ridiculous...

They either:

1) Didn't have a proper understanding of the Capitalist system due to disinformation by the State, and consequently didn't detect the nature of the reforms.

2) Were lied to and controlled by post-Stalin party leaders, which means it's dangerous to have a party controlling the workers. It can turn into a Bourgeois party in a small period of time whilst it waves a fake flag.

Also if the majority of the workers were pro-communist (as they should of been), why didn't they coup Yeltsin? Why didn't another Revolution occur?

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 22:19

They no longer exist as a class within the revolutionary territory, which is the relevant issue as to what the class character of that society is.
So they just all disappear? Is that how this is supposed to work?

If individuals who are former capitalists try to sabotage or whatever, they are not doing so as people who are currently capitalists but who aspire to re-institute such a system. hence it doesn't show that the revolutionary territory is internally a class society. moreover it is possible for the working class to deal with this without setting up the appratus of a police state.
They are very much "currently capitalists" in ideology if nothing else. Further, they inevitably work in concert with very "current capitalists" in capitalist countries as well. So what do you call someone who seeks to establish themselves as a property-owning capitalist, but can't due to working-class gains, and so tries to destroy the worker state with support from other capitalists in order to make good their objective?

and the obsession with suppressing the counter-revolution has long been the excuse given to the creation of totalitarian police states...and taking away the rights of the working class opposition.
It's an "obsession" that successfully prevented counterrevolution for years and years...and defended working-class rights in the process.

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 22:21

So it took the workers 30 years to realize that Capitalism was reintroduced? That's ridiculous...
What are you talking about? We're talking about the fall of socialism in the late 80's and early 90's. That clip was from 1993.

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 22:23

They are very much "currently capitalists" in ideology if nothing else. Further, they inevitably work in concert with very "current capitalists" in capitalist countries as well. So what do you call someone who seeks to establish themselves as a property-owning capitalist, but can't due to working-class gains, and so tries to destroy the worker state with support from other capitalists in order to make good their objective

Where did these people come from in the USSR after 70 years?

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 22:25

Dogs On Acid

3rd July 2011, 22:28

^^

After so many years of Socialism and purges and censorship of Capitalist media and so on... How was there still a Capitalist following?

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 22:29

Where did these people come from in the USSR after 70 years?
From storks with baskets. Where did French monarchists come from in 1898? The ideas of reaction will always win some sway so long as their preferred order draws breath.

Franz Fanonipants

3rd July 2011, 22:31

Whats interesting to me is that so much of the criticisms of M-Lism and the SU by "Leftists" sound suspiciously a lot like reactionary criticisms of the same.

Dogs On Acid

3rd July 2011, 22:33

From storks with baskets. Where did French monarchists come from in 1898? The ideas of reaction will always win some sway so long as their preferred order draws breath.

That's not the point, in a fresh post-revolution society of course there will be a Capitalist following. But after so many new generations taught in Socialist schools and supposedly fluent in Marxism, where the fuck did Capitalists spawn from?

The answer is: whatever group of people that had access to foreign influence and had the ability to talk to Capitalists and travel to Bourgeois countries, i.e., the top party members.

Whats interesting to me is that so much of the criticisms of M-Lism and the SU by "Leftists" sound suspiciously a lot like reactionary criticisms of the same.

Everything that argues against Marxism-Leninism is reactionary and bourgeois to Marxist-Leninists :rolleyes:

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 22:36

From storks with baskets. Where did French monarchists come from in 1898? The ideas of reaction will always win some sway so long as their preferred order draws breath.
Latter-day French monarchists never actually pursued a return to feudal social relations, though, so that analogy doesn't really follow- at least, unless your suggesting that the "capitalist roaders" sought nothing more than a return to liberal parliamentarianism, and only toppled "socialism" by accident? :rolleyes:

Whats interesting to me is that so much of the criticisms of M-Lism and the SU by "Leftists" sound suspiciously a lot like reactionary criticisms of the same.
And a milk snake looks like a coral snake; what's your point?

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 22:51

Latter-day French monarchists never actually pursued a return to feudal social relations, though, so that analogy doesn't really follow- at least, unless your suggesting that the "capitalist roaders" sought nothing more than a return to liberal parliamentarianism, and only toppled "socialism" by accident? :rolleyes:
Feudal social relations had been torn asunder greatly by 1788 (through the sharp reduction of noble privilege and centralization of all power to the king) and definitely by 1847 and yet a king sat on the throne in both years.

And a milk snake looks like a coral snake; what's your point?
What if they hiss and bite the same?

That's not the point, in a fresh post-revolution society of course there will be a Capitalist following. But after so many new generations taught in Socialist schools and supposedly fluent in Marxism, where the fuck did Capitalists spawn from?
So Soviet propaganda wasn't good enough? Kids weren't taught Marxism in school to a sufficient level? Is that your argument? It was the teachers' fault?

The answer is: whatever group of people that had access to foreign influence and had the ability to talk to Capitalists and travel to Bourgeois countries, i.e., the top party members.
Actually, no. Not nearly all of the anti-Soviet reactionaries came from the ranks of the party leadership. Their enablers came from there but that's another story. Is it your argument that a foreign diplomat of a socialist country will always be bourgeois? After all, they have access to foreign influence and talk to capitalists and travel to bourgeois countries as part of their job...

Tim Finnegan

3rd July 2011, 23:05

Feudal social relations had been torn asunder greatly by 1788 (through the sharp reduction of noble privilege and centralization of all power to the king) and definitely by 1847 and yet a king sat on the throne in both years.
Well, yes, because the monarchy is a political institution, not a social formation. That was my point.

(Although I'd disagree on 1788. Feudal relations had certainly been weakened by various reforms, but certainly not undone; there was nothing in itself anti-feudal about the concentration of monarchical power.)

What if they hiss and bite the same?Most snakes hiss and bite the same. That's not a very productive extension of my analogy.

Desperado

3rd July 2011, 23:17

Because worker parties can be infiltrated by anti-worker elements, careerists, etc. Because lots of revolutionary groups lose their way from anarchist to M-L and everything in between. Because the party had become too formal in its position.

Good ol' Marxist materialist class analysis you got there.

Jose Gracchus

3rd July 2011, 23:22

Ah yes, because all scholarship on the topic concludes that the anarchists were nice and pure-hearted, and that the Reds were mean bullies. I'd like to hear more about your "scholarship", actually.

You can use the search function; I've cited Pirani at length throughout my posting record.

Pirani is not an anarchist, and does not claim that all of the pressures on the Russian Revolution can be boiled down to sterile questions of "hierarchy" or "parties". In fact he attempts to show how the most conscious, political, and organized groups of workers attempted to build political parties, or to control them, while fending off the reconstitution of a social power alien to and antagonistic to it; in fact, this seems exactly the core concept of "vanguardism". I would say that the Bolsheviks left the vanguard, rather than the vanguard leaving the workers, somehow.

From storks with baskets. Where did French monarchists come from in 1898? The ideas of reaction will always win some sway so long as their preferred order draws breath.

An idiotic comparison. Social and political activity outside the regulation of a bureaucratized center had not been impossible and subject to repression for 70 years, and no point did monarchists in the late 1800s have any credible program or intention of overturning the capitalist mode of production, but only to style an aesthetically more monarchistic mask for it.

There was no true feudal powers or feudal production by 1898. The capitalist mode of production had triumphed as the dominant mode globally by then.

manic expression

3rd July 2011, 23:46

Well, yes, because the monarchy is a political institution, not a social formation. That was my point.

(Although I'd disagree on 1788. Feudal relations had certainly been weakened by various reforms, but certainly not undone; there was nothing in itself anti-feudal about the concentration of monarchical power.)
Royalty does comprise a class...kings don't make most of their money owning factories, or at least not usually.

Most snakes hiss and bite the same. That's not a very productive extension of my analogy.
Kind of my point.

Good ol' Marxist materialist class analysis you got there.
Once we establish the class basis of a society, then it's only reasonable to look at other factors, else we submit to vulgar economism. After all, men make their own history...but not as they like it. We should address the first and second parts of that fact.

You can use the search function; I've cited Pirani at length throughout my posting record.
So Pirani is the first and last word of your fabled "scholarship". I note your varied and diverse range of historians.

Pirani is not an anarchist, and does not claim that all of the pressures on the Russian Revolution can be boiled down to sterile questions of "hierarchy" or "parties". In fact he attempts to show how the most conscious, political, and organized groups of workers attempted to build political parties, or to control them, while fending off the reconstitution of a social power alien to and antagonistic to it; in fact, this seems exactly the core concept of "vanguardism". I would say that the Bolsheviks left the vanguard, rather than the vanguard leaving the workers, somehow.
And I wonder how this Pirani character so categorically terms Bolshevik workers as being neither conscious nor political nor organized. How truly scholarly of him.

An idiotic comparison. Social and political activity outside the regulation of a bureaucratized center had not been impossible and subject to repression for 70 years, and no point did monarchists in the late 1800s have any credible program or intention of overturning the capitalist mode of production, but only to style an aesthetically more monarchistic mask for it.
Social and political activity was possible outside of the "bureaucratized center" (social activity was impossible? I wonder how people went on dates). We know this because Sakharov was sitting around in Gorky penning his precious essays for the Nobel committee. The capitalists in 1985 didn't have a credible program either, and none of the reactionaries had any clue the USSR was about to fall.

There was no true feudal powers or feudal production by 1898. The capitalist mode of production had triumphed as the dominant mode globally by then.
Yes, due to events outside of France...

Franz Fanonipants

3rd July 2011, 23:46

Everything that argues against Marxism-Leninism is reactionary and bourgeois to Marxist-Leninists :rolleyes:

well yeah, that's what i'm saying

Desperado

3rd July 2011, 23:54

Once we establish the class basis of a society, then it's only reasonable to look at other factors, else we submit to vulgar economism. After all, men make their own history...but not as they like it. We should address the first and second parts of that fact.

Of course. But squint as I might and I couldn't find any mention of class in your post. Care to enlighten on the class basis of infiltration of workers parties in a (supposedly) post-class society?

Jose Gracchus

4th July 2011, 00:01

So Pirani is the first and last word of your fabled "scholarship". I note your varied and diverse range of historians.

No, we could discuss Rex Wade, Rabinowitch, or Getzler. But I have provided at least some mention, some evidence, some historian. What have you provided, you smarmy shit? As if your attempt to pass the buck on supporting unjustified claims from he who has provided NONE and would probably have a hard time finding even ONE, to he who has provided is not obvious to any observer.

And I wonder how this Pirani character so categorically terms Bolshevik workers as being neither conscious nor political nor organized. How truly scholarly of him.

Actually, if you read the book, he argues Bolshevik workers were increasingly excluded within the party from meaningful participation, and this "tops v. ranks" (the Bolshevik workers' word-choice, not mine, not Pirani's) was a central issue of intra-party debate in 1921-1923, by which time the party workers had lost, and the party leadership had become the agent of alien class power.

So, as usual, you're simply a fucking moron.

Social and political activity was possible outside of the "bureaucratized center" (social activity was impossible? I wonder how people went on dates).

Don't be cute. You know exactly what I am talking about. If you criticized the party leadership in a public, social way, and the Cheka/GPU/OGPU/NKVD/MVD/MGB/KGB found out, depending on the period and who you were, you might end up in a box, making rocks into little rocks in Siberia, or lose your job and housing. Not exactly the best way to engender worker participation in governance and social decision-making. Of course you're a self-righteous clueless American activist, and I live with a former Soviet citizen who actually lived through the 1990s depression instead of just talking about how terrible it is how it has been related to them via YouTube videos. Imagine that.

Repressions were often most intensely and hysterically directed at the working class and poor peasantry, as these were the groups which the party's mystical timeless claim to power rested upon, and whose independent or spontaneous action would undermine by virtue of existing, the right of the party leadership to conduct state policy in a closed fashion.

Tell me, by what mechanism did Soviet factory workers exercise meaningful control over shopfloor conditions, their community, and the content of state policy in 1928, 1935, 1950, 1960? Any of the above.

We know this because Sakharov was sitting around in Gorky penning his precious essays for the Nobel committee. The capitalists in 1985 didn't have a credible program either, and none of the reactionaries had any clue the USSR was about to fall.

No, I'm talking about the fact my girlfriend's mother was told to inform on her parents gossiping about party leaders in the family home, and denied access to literature. I don't see why if you want to know why Nietzsche was a reactionary, the workers could not be trusted to read for themselves.

And no, you're right, the party right was hoping to get something like a Deng outcome (which, had they succeeded, and red flags waved around a de facto conventional capitalist state like China, you'd find something to "critically support"). Specifically they were hoping to rework the USSR as an oil-and-gas rentier state for world capitalism. They were not very good at it, and underestimated the national question problems the USSR would suffer if any political openness (especially while the working-class remained socially subject) would engender. In fact this was presaged by some authors looking at Soviet demographics, both inside and outside the USSR, as early as the 1960s.

Yes, due to events outside of France...

My point is that aside from the most superficial comparison, there is no relation between the items you offered as analogy for the secret capitalists, characterized by their ideological commitments (idealism triumphing over materialism once more in your low-rent Marxism at third hand) festering secretly and unable to organize in the fashion of French monarchists throughout the 19th century.

Tim Finnegan

4th July 2011, 00:02

Royalty does comprise a class...kings don't make most of their money owning factories, or at least not usually.
Royalty are members of whatever ruling class happens to exist at the time; the British royal family, for example, are entirely bourgeois, both through their own property and investments, and through their institutional subsidisation by the bourgeois states. Similarly, monarchy, a political-ceremonial institution, exists within the context of the social formation of the ear; that some feudal monarchies accumulated a significant degree of power is of no more removes the section of the aristocracy occupying the monarchy from feudalism than a corporate monopoly removes a section of the bourgeoisie from capitalism.

Kind of my point.
So your point is that superficially similar things are superficially similar? That's not a particularly helpful contribution to the topic.

Dogs On Acid

4th July 2011, 00:41

I love this thread.

syndicat

4th July 2011, 05:09

They are very much "currently capitalists" in ideology if nothing else.

so, the class position of someone is determined by their ideology, not their ownership of means of production or power over workers in social production?

Pretty Flaco

4th July 2011, 05:23

My largest criticism of Marxism-Leninism is that it doesn't seek to empower the working class. Every M-L oriented government has not been a collective of the working class fighting for working class interests, but a collective of the party fighting for supposed working class interests.

"The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself."

el_chavista

4th July 2011, 09:08

It seems that the vanguard has two times. A glorious time driving the masses to seizing power and a nefarious time replacing the previous ruling class (even by election of representatives=oligarchic "democracy"). And the avant-gardists in power can claim that they are just exerting this power according to the rather blurry Marxist concept of the DoT. Here is how the search for real, direct, extreme democracy is lost of sight as a fraction of the labor movement becomes a new ruling layer of bureaucrats and future capitalist restorers.

manic expression

4th July 2011, 11:16

Of course. But squint as I might and I couldn't find any mention of class in your post. Care to enlighten on the class basis of infiltration of workers parties in a (supposedly) post-class society?
The Soviet Union wasn't supposed to be "post-class". Socialism is a class society and thus there is class conflict. As I've outlined, bourgeois reactionaries don't disappear into thin air after the revolution, and instead get support from imperialists abroad to try to destroy the gains of the workers. These came to be the forces that tore down European socialism, with implied approval and sanction from the traitors in the CP.

My largest criticism of Marxism-Leninism is that it doesn't seek to empower the working class. Every M-L oriented government has not been a collective of the working class fighting for working class interests, but a collective of the party fighting for supposed working class interests.
This is a common misinterpretation of Marxism-Leninism. The point is that the vanguard party is made up of the most politically conscious and advanced workers and revolutionaries...it's part of the working class. You can't have the whole of the working class doing everything because inevitably some will be better public speakers, more militant, etc. Even in anarchist revolutions, a vanguard appears. What's the trouble in organizing this vanguard into a strong party?

so, the class position of someone is determined by their ideology, not their ownership of means of production or power over workers in social production?
Their allegiances are so determined. Or do you think workers aren't ever supporters of capitalism?

No one owned the means of production or held power over workers in social production in the Soviet Union because those relations had been abolished. That's how socialism works.

Royalty are members of whatever ruling class happens to exist at the time; the British royal family, for example, are entirely bourgeois, both through their own property and investments, and through their institutional subsidisation by the bourgeois states. Similarly, monarchy, a political-ceremonial institution, exists within the context of the social formation of the ear; that some feudal monarchies accumulated a significant degree of power is of no more removes the section of the aristocracy occupying the monarchy from feudalism than a corporate monopoly removes a section of the bourgeoisie from capitalism.
They aren't entirely bourgeois, else they wouldn't be the head of state of Britain just by virtue of their bloodline.

So your point is that superficially similar things are superficially similar? That's not a particularly helpful contribution to the topic.
A snake doesn't bite superficially, does it?

manic expression

4th July 2011, 12:10

No, we could discuss Rex Wade, Rabinowitch, or Getzler. But I have provided at least some mention, some evidence, some historian. What have you provided, you smarmy shit? As if your attempt to pass the buck on supporting unjustified claims from he who has provided NONE and would probably have a hard time finding even ONE, to he who has provided is not obvious to any observer.
We could discuss them, but we aren't, are we? In case you forgot, this is about your scholarship. It's not exactly an overwhelming bit of historical data when calling me names is the best you can do.

Actually, if you read the book, he argues Bolshevik workers were increasingly excluded within the party from meaningful participation, and this "tops v. ranks" (the Bolshevik workers' word-choice, not mine, not Pirani's) was a central issue of intra-party debate in 1921-1923, by which time the party workers had lost, and the party leadership had become the agent of alien class power.Hogwash. Why, then, was the leadership made up of workers? I'm trying to find the list now...ComradeOm posts it every now and then.

So, as usual, you're simply a fucking moron.Translation: "I'm out of ultra-left BS to peddle, so this is what I'll settle on."

Don't be cute. You know exactly what I am talking about. If you criticized the party leadership in a public, social way, and the Cheka/GPU/OGPU/NKVD/MVD/MGB/KGB found out, depending on the period and who you were, you might end up in a box, making rocks into little rocks in Siberia, or lose your job and housing. Not exactly the best way to engender worker participation in governance and social decision-making. Of course you're a self-righteous clueless American activist, and I live with a former Soviet citizen who actually lived through the 1990s depression instead of just talking about how terrible it is how it has been related to them via YouTube videos. Imagine that.I'm not being cute, I'm being fair to the historical record. After 1956, very few people were faced with capital punishment for speaking out against party leadership. In fact, treatment of dissidents from that point on is largely markedly better than how dissidents are treated in Russia today. That aside, the vanguard party was in a precocious position from the early 1930's into the 40's, and such a policy, while not ideal, contributed to the advancement of socialism and the interests of the workers not only in the USSR but in Europe as well. The purges were at times (aka Yezhovschina) entirely fallacious, yes, but the implementation of a wrong-headed policy does not an entire society condemn.

The interesting thing is how you retreat liberal-like to blanket accusations once it comes to anything related to state suppression. It probably hasn't occurred to you that the 1930's purges started with reviewing cadre documents and doing background checks, in which an alarming number of former kulaks were found to have made their way into the party. After the killing of Kirov it snowballed out of control. But no, much better to say that it was some diabolical mustache-twirling plan conceived and carried out by Stalin. Now your historical outlook, with the same subtle nuance of a Bollywood movie, becomes all the clearer.

Oh, you're living with someone who drew breath in the USSR once and therefore you know more about it? That's nice. I guess that makes me an expert on Spain. Maybe if I live with a Japanese person I'll know everything about the Tokugawa Shogunate!

Repressions were often most intensely and hysterically directed at the working class and poor peasantry, as these were the groups which the party's mystical timeless claim to power rested upon, and whose independent or spontaneous action would undermine by virtue of existing, the right of the party leadership to conduct state policy in a closed fashion."Repressions"? You'll have to be a bit more specific than that, scholar. To take one of your examples in the case of the peasantry, the collectivization of 1932-1935 was a tough solution to a tough problem (a problem exacerbated by waiting too long), and essentially an inevitable issue if the USSR wanted to have collective property relations. Of course it could have been carried out in a more efficient and cooperative manner, but it was the first time anyone had attempted such a feat and so mistakes and miscalculations were unavoidable. This, though, is lost on those who would rather play Monday Morning Revolutionary than deal with history honestly.

Tell me, by what mechanism did Soviet factory workers exercise meaningful control over shopfloor conditions, their community, and the content of state policy in 1928, 1935, 1950, 1960? Any of the above.The vanguard party appointed managers through the processes of democratic centralism, who duly looked over factory conditions, etc. State policy and community control were decided through the same.

No, I'm talking about the fact my girlfriend's mother was told to inform on her parents gossiping about party leaders in the family home, and denied access to literature. I don't see why if you want to know why Nietzsche was a reactionary, the workers could not be trusted to read for themselves.So good of you to defend the sanctity of family life. Of course, if the situation were different and there were anti-anarchists talking ill of anarchist representatives in your imagined commune, you'd trip over yourself to do the same. As for Nietzsche, perhaps it was an overreaction but his philosophies arguably contributed indirectly to millions of deaths, so yeah. I'm not the biggest fan of the Soviet system of censorship but it wasn't some arbitrary denial of literature like you make it out to be. In fact, the USSR's educational policies brought literature to far more workers than any other society before or since. The classics (of many countries, I remember seeing one family that had in their entire wall of Soviet-printed books one novel by the author Марк Твен) were made incredibly accessible and promoted very much to working-class families. Try thinking about that before you badmouth Soviet socialism to score petty ideological points.

And no, you're right, the party right was hoping to get something like a Deng outcome (which, had they succeeded, and red flags waved around a de facto conventional capitalist state like China, you'd find something to "critically support"). Specifically they were hoping to rework the USSR as an oil-and-gas rentier state for world capitalism. They were not very good at it, and underestimated the national question problems the USSR would suffer if any political openness (especially while the working-class remained socially subject) would engender. In fact this was presaged by some authors looking at Soviet demographics, both inside and outside the USSR, as early as the 1960s.And here come the counterfactuals. More of your mythical "scholarship" at work? I should not that your argument is so persuasive...they were trying to be like China but they weren't good at it. Yep, like a missed penalty kick, the Soviet bureaucracy screwed it up and so threw up their hands and called it a day. In light of this stunning analysis, I trust you'll have the good sense to not try to give me a cheap shot about lacking materialism. Oh, well imagine that...

My point is that aside from the most superficial comparison, there is no relation between the items you offered as analogy for the secret capitalists, characterized by their ideological commitments (idealism triumphing over materialism once more in your low-rent Marxism at third hand) festering secretly and unable to organize in the fashion of French monarchists throughout the 19th century.And I quote:

Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole.

Since I doubt you can comprehend that without help, I'll have to explain to you that it shows us that political allegiances and ideology can cross class lines. Just as a bourgeois can become part of the revolutionary movement, so too can a worker hold reactionary ideas, whether stemming from bigoted nationalism or personal ambition or whatever else. Backed up by imperialist support, these elements become all the more entrenched in their counterrevolutionary positions.

It is to be expected, then, that backwards reactionaries and careerists in a vanguard party would try to work with such capitalist elements within the socialist society. Thus we have two poles of counterrevolution, one within the party and one without it. Combined with a formalism of the party (that is a lack of real involvement in wider working-class political activity) and a resulting disconnection of the proletariat from political affairs, counterrevolution was made possible. Gorbachev and his clique tolerated and even promoted Yeltsin and his clique (among others) and silenced voices in favor of defending socialism. That's when the fall began.

But keep telling yourself that the only people who ideologically support capitalism are factory-owning capitalists if it makes you feel better.

Dogs On Acid

4th July 2011, 14:59

As for Nietzsche, perhaps it was an overreaction but his philosophies arguably contributed indirectly to millions of deaths, so yeah.

m3hjv-2bBlw

syndicat

4th July 2011, 17:22

Not only that put the power to make all decisions and carry them out needs to be so focuses. We need to hammer on this again and again as a counter-voice to the bureaucratic bullshit that passes for socialism around here.

don't be ridiculous. ever hear of "one-man management"? by spring of 1918 Lenin and Trotsky were beating the drum for this. They wanted to eliminate any remaining collective management situations...and these were all gone by 1920. Ever hear about Trotsky's militarization of the railways in 1920? he thought this was a great solution for the whole of industry.

in 1921 the trade union base of the CP tried to get worker-elected boards set up. but Shliapnikov, a trade union bureaucrat who was an advocate of this, did not challenge the existence of the hierarchy of supervisors and engineers and such. and the elected worker management boards were vehemently opposed by Lenin and Trotsky and were defeated.

by the late '20s a system had become entrenched of a managerial hierarchy with professional engineers and such as advisors, just like in corporations under capitalism. This whole apparatus was in turn subordinate to the Gosplan elite planners and party apparatchiks.

within the Soviet Union workers were an entirely subordinate and exploited class. in the early '30s under the first Five Year Plans wages declined as this bureaucratic apparatus was solidified. You can read about this in Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution".

the dominating, exploiting class in the USSR was made up of party apparatchiks, elite Gosplan planners, industrial managers, military and police brass (25 percent of GNP went to the military). this was the class that engineered the transition to capitalism. You can read about this class and their role in the transition to capitalism in "Revolution from Above."

Jose Gracchus

4th July 2011, 18:33

Hogwash. Why, then, was the leadership made up of workers? I'm trying to find the list now...ComradeOm posts it every now and then.

He also said this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2019059&postcount=38):

Only if by "essentially" you mean "not at all". In the USSR there was no worker control of either the factory floor or the higher state organs. The last traces of the former disappeared with the introduction of the Stalinist economy, the latter probably didn't survive 1918. This had not been rectified by 1991. Anyone who believes that democratic principles prevailed in the USSR is either delusional or naive in the extreme

More later.

Red_Struggle

4th July 2011, 18:41

The question is, why did the workers in the Soviet Union let Capitalist reforms take place?

There were a series of revolts, like the ones mentioned in Georgia, along with workers protesting the price hike of bread and meat in the 50s under Khruschev. But isntead of the state negotiating and listening to workers, they just shot at them. Weapons were used against the people twice: in 1956 in Tbilisi and in 1962 in Novocherkassk.Under Brezhnev the only case of street disturbance that I know of was in 1968 in Chimkent,and police didn't use armed force.

syndicat

4th July 2011, 19:56

The vanguard party appointed managers through the processes of democratic centralism, who duly looked over factory conditions, etc. State policy and community control were decided through the same.

in other words, the workers had no power and were subordinate to the elite of managers, planners, military & police hierarchy, party apparatchiks.

for you this system of class domination & exploitation was "socialism". why the fuck should workers today carry thru a revolution just to change bosses?

Dogs On Acid

4th July 2011, 21:28

in other words, the workers had no power and were subordinate to the elite of managers, planners, military & police hierarchy, party apparatchiks.

for you this system of class domination & exploitation was "socialism". why the fuck should workers today carry thru a revolution just to change bosses?

They usually don't want to, and is probably one of the reasons why most are so afraid of "communism", they associate it to authority and oppression of Marxism-Leninism.

manic expression

4th July 2011, 22:26

He also said this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2019059&postcount=38):
Good thing, then, that I wasn't citing the whole of his RevLeft post history. You know history...the thing you ignore.

in other words, the workers had no power and were subordinate to the elite of managers, planners, military & police hierarchy, party apparatchiks.
Of course the workers had power...who do you think made up the cadre and leadership of the party? Who, then, do you think controlled the military and police and planning committees and managers? You can't put 1 and 2 together because you're too interested in spouting your pre-concocted ideological spiel.

for you this system of class domination & exploitation was "socialism". why the fuck should workers today carry thru a revolution just to change bosses?
Because workers will be the bosses...that's the whole point of socialism.

Meanwhile, you want them to lie down and merely hope the bourgeoisie doesn't try to destroy their revolutionary gains.

Rooster

4th July 2011, 22:42

I'm so sorry.... living with cretinism must be really difficult....

Good thing, then, that I wasn't citing the whole of his RevLeft post history. You know history...the thing you ignore.

Yeah, who cares about history! Lets just pick and choose certain parts of it!

Of course the workers had power...who do you think made up the cadre and leadership of the party? Who, then, do you think controlled the military and police and planning committees and managers? You can't put 1 and 2 together because you're too interested in spouting your pre-concocted ideological spiel.

That's inane. Who do you think make up the rank and file of any government? Who do you think control the police? Do you think capitalists are behind all the curtains directing the world?

Because workers will be the bosses...that's the whole point of socialism.

Uh, no it isn't. We're trying to get rid of having bosses. And it's interesting that you use the word worker here instead of the historically defined proletariat, you know, one that's based on a class analysis instead of just a vague and generalised term.

Meanwhile, you want them to lie down and merely hope the bourgeoisie doesn't try to destroy their revolutionary gains.

As compared to making them lie down while the captains of the ship steam full ahead to capitalist restoration whilst working hand in hand with bourgeois governments and capitalists?

manic expression

4th July 2011, 23:00

Yeah, who cares about history! Lets just pick and choose certain parts of it!
And when did I do that?

That's inane. Who do you think make up the rank and file of any government? Who do you think control the police? Do you think capitalists are behind all the curtains directing the world?I think capitalists are directing the capitalist world. Actually, I know capitalists are directing the capitalist world.

Out of curiosity, who do you think runs the capitalist world? The Ghost of Christmas' Past?

Uh, no it isn't. We're trying to get rid of having bosses. And it's interesting that you use the word worker here instead of the historically defined proletariat, you know, one that's based on a class analysis instead of just a vague and generalised term.Know what the hammer and sickle symbolizes? It's funny how anarchists complain about how supposedly anti-peasant the Bolsheviks were, and then they complain that Marxism-Leninism depends too much on the peasantry. Funny. Anyway, "worker" is quite well accepted as meaning "proletarian" in many contexts, including the way I've used it here.

And yes, the point is to make workers (here meaning proletarians and peasants) the new bosses. If you don't do that, you won't do anything at all.

As compared to making them lie down while the captains of the ship steam full ahead to capitalist restoration whilst working hand in hand with bourgeois governments and capitalists?Just goes to show: Don't give up the ship.

syndicat

5th July 2011, 01:43

Of course the workers had power...who do you think made up the cadre and leadership of the party? Who, then, do you think controlled the military and police and planning committees and managers? You can't put 1 and 2 together because you're too interested in spouting your pre-concocted ideological spiel.

you have little conception of class. if there is a hierarchy of bosses and their advisors and elite planners making the decisions, then there is a dominating class and the workers are subordinate to them.

the Bolshevik party in 1917 had many working class members, but much of its leadership was from the capitalist, bureaucratic and small business classes. Lenin had an inheritance from his wealthy mother's estate that enabled him to live without working.

but the party itself was hierarchical, internal dissent was not allowed (after 1921), and the leaders were very much in control, not only of the party, but also of the state. during the first five year plan in late '20s large numbers of worker and peasant party members were put thru a crash program in universities to prepare them to take over the management and engineering and planning positions, to replace the managers and engineers inherited from the capitalist era. it was a kind of "upward mobility" program for loyal members of the party...putting them into the positions of the bureaucratic class. this is covered in Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution".

for the workers to control the party leaders and management...how would they do that? did they have independent unions they controlled? No, unions were to be transmission belts of the party, orders were from top down, not bottom up.

again, you really have little conception of what class is.

Ilyich

5th July 2011, 01:58

Criticism of the Vanguard:

In vanguardism, "professional revolutionaries," not a class conscious proletariat, revolts and establishes a dictatorship of the proletariat.

In theory, the vanguard-controlled state then governs in the interest of the proletariat while educating the proletariat and preparing them to inherit the socialist government. The vanguard then dissolves.

This theory has failed everywhere Leninism has been tried. The vanguard does not relinquish its authority and the socialist state degenerates into state capitalism and collapses.

Instead the role of the revolutionary party should be to educate the proletariat and foster before the collapse of capitalism so the socialist revolution can be driven by a class conscious proletariat.

Geiseric

5th July 2011, 02:08

The professional revolutionaries don't take up the entire party though, they are simply members of the workers or revolters who use up all their spare time aside from their efforts to simply live and gain a source of income to furthering the proletariats intrests, with as you said educating the working class and engaging in activities to build class consiousness. It isn't just an inner circle of well off people who have meetings to determine the parties actions, it can be anybody who works tirelessly to aid the party and the working class.

RED DAVE

5th July 2011, 04:36

Of course the workers had powerDid they?

Who do you think made up the cadre and leadership of the party?By 1928, the bureaucracy.

Who, then, do you think controlled the military and police and planning committees and managers?The state, which was controlled by the bureaucracy.

Show us, concretely, the institutions of workers control.

RED DAVE

Mr. Cervantes

5th July 2011, 05:27

In Leninist communism there will still be leaders and managers.

The point is that even with that they will not be treated or viewed differently from the workers whom they lead.

I don't think any collective society could function without some form of leadership.

syndicat

5th July 2011, 06:51

In Leninist communism there will still be leaders and managers.

The point is that even with that they will not be treated or view differently from the workers whom they lead.

I don't think any collective society could function without some form of leadership.

boy, talk about a slippery slope to hell. from the fact that some may be more active or more committed or whatever we then reach the conclusion there must be bosses. that's what it means to say there will be managers. the present capitalist bosses are the "leaders of the production process". and that's the sense MLs want their party to be "leaders" of the working class.

Das war einmal

5th July 2011, 07:58

Of course, it's easy to suggest ruinous policy ideas when you have neither the ability nor the willingness to be held accountable for any decisions. Remember that.Basically this, it hits the nail on the head and points out why it does not help your own cause. So far Anarchist still fail to convince with portrayed illusions how things should have been. The gross of the reactions here is all 'captain hindsight-esque', not taking into consideration that much of the Leninist work was in fact the first attempt of establishing an alternative for capitalism.

AnonymousOne first post is actually one of the more constructive ways of criticizing, I wholeheartedly agree that censure should be avoided as much as possible.

Dogs On Acid

5th July 2011, 08:15

Basically this, it hits the nail on the head and points out why it does not help your own cause. So far Anarchist still fail to convince with portrayed illusions how things should have been. The gross of the reactions here is all 'captain hindsight-esque', not taking into consideration that much of the Leninist work was in fact the first attempt of establishing an alternative for capitalism.

Paris Commune?

Jose Gracchus

5th July 2011, 08:19

I think its ridiculous that people think the workers and peasants of Russia got some magical formula from Lenin and that was the magical key that led them to organize a soviet movement and turn against the bourgeois state and its designs in an attempted social revolution.

Das war einmal

5th July 2011, 08:22

Paris Commune?

Fair enough, first attempt on a massive scale and longer duration then.

flobdob

5th July 2011, 08:49

Bullshit, there was zero transparency because the party had no accountability to the workers. It wasn't a "workers' party" in empirical fact, only in ideological pronouncement.

Using rhetoric and presenting no facts - talk about "ideological pronouncement"!

Contrary to what you (and the bourgeois media, who you seem to parrot on just about every issue) like to say, the USSR did in fact have "accountability" to thw workers - just as you would expect any socialist state to. An established formal political structure lent the working class influence at the most basic level - with use of secret ballots and around 99% turnout, with most debate happening at the nomination stage, which occured at meetings of workers and the mass organistions. Anyone had the right to propose or oppose a candidate - and in some cases this happened en masse, as in the 1965 election which saw 208 candidates for local soviets rejected at the final stage of the process. Far from being stocked with the nasty "state capitalists" like some here would have us believe, popular participation played an essential role. A classic example would be the People's Control Commissions, which inspected enterprises and institutions to expose abuses. In 1975-6 9.4 million people, mostly volunteers, were working on these bodies, with state authority given to their investigations. Same applied at the major bodies of state; in 1972-3 42% of positions in the Supreme Soviet were held by workers.

That's only on the level of formal political institutions, too.

Sure it does. You want to obfuscate simple fact. Did the working class rank-and-file have any say-so? No.

You might want to revise that last sentence. Aside from the stuff above, there were thousands of ways in which working class participation was formalised into Soviet life. These included through formal political participation in the legislative bodies of state, the trade union movement, workers and mass organisations, and so on. Hell, even the mass media, painted to be a grey amorphous mass that simply waved in CPSU "propaganda", was a vehicle for mass participation. All mass media institutions (eg Pravda, Izvestia, etc) had letters departments, which were in constant use - in 1970 Pravda handled about 360,000 letters a year, and Izvestia 500,000. These all were legally required to be processed; if complaints, suggestions or grievances were recieved, the would be sent to government agencies and were forced to be responded to within 15 days. Through the mass media workers had extensive chances to report on problems - it was common, for example, for Pravda to report on injustices, inefficiencies and corruption. Indeed, through them some of the major public discussions were had - for example, the issue of Kruschev's higher education reforms in the 1950s, the environmental issues in Lake Baikal, the role of the Communist Party in the military and so on.

And anyway, just who was the Communist Party? As manic_expression pointed out of the DDR, they were rooted in the working class (it must be recalled that the DDR had a multiparty system, so workers were distributed into other parties too - realistically meaning that the figure given grossly underestimates the involvement in political process across all parties).

In 1976, 41.6% of members of the CPSU were manual workers (inc. those on state farms), 13.9% were peasants on collective farms, and 44.5% were white collar workers and intelligensia. In terms of relative change, this wasn't much different from 1924, where 44% were manual workers, 28.8% peasants and 27.2% white collar workers/intelligensia. When you look at the phenomenal social changes brought in by socialist development, this isnt too much of a suprise - indeed, in 1976 this meant that membership of manual workers was underrepresented by a factor of just 0.69. It's worth noting that in 1971-6 manual workers composed 57.6% of all new party members. Within the party itself, they had important political say, right to the highest level; of the 360 full and candidate CC members in 1966, 27% were children of manual labourers, 35% of peasants, 12% of non manual workers and for the other 26% no information was available (most of these were at lower level and largerly included people from poorer backgrounds). This means that in formal terms at least 2/3 of the CC members were from working class/peasant backgrounds, and likely even more.

But hey, don't let any of this stop you on your anti-Soviet ramblings!

caramelpence

5th July 2011, 10:50

Contrary to what you (and the bourgeois media, who you seem to parrot on just about every issue) like to say, the USSR did in fact have "accountability" to thw workers...

What you neglect to mention is that, when candidates were nominated, at meetings of bodies like trade unions and collective farms, their nomination did not automatically result in their names being entered onto the ballot paper. Instead, they then had to be considered at the constituency pre-election meetings, which were comprised of the representatives of organizations like the party and trade union, in order to decide whether that nominated candidate was worthy of being included on the ballot - this not only meant that candidates who did not receive the support of state and party officials could be forced to withdraw their nominations, or have their nominations withdrawn by the bodies that had originally selected them, it also introduced a degree of auto-limitation, whereby, at the initial stage, when nominations were put forward, bodies and individuals only nominated those individuals who were likely to be accepted by the officials who were present at the pre-election meetings. It was through the pre-election meetings that officials ensured that only one candidate was put forward for election in each constituency rather than there being genuine competition or debate between rival candidates before the election, these meetings also deciding how to raise support for the candidate in order to ensure their successful election - as such, the only way that voters could actually register their opposition to the single candidate was either through abstention or by crossing out the name of the candidate on the ballot paper. Moreover, whilst the ballot was formally secret, it was actually possible to determine who was opposed to the single candidate because the most obvious reason that someone would have for entering the voting booths that were provided at polling stations was to cross off the name of the candidate, given that simply dropping the ballot into the box would signify a positive vote for the candidate, and for that reason the voting process was not really secret all - the lack of secrecy being one reason behind the high statistical support for the single candidates on offer, and the relatively small number of candidates who were rejected at each election.

So actually, the voting process was not democratic, it was penetrated by the power and interests of the party and state elites. As for the other alleged forms of mass participation you mentioned, the overwhelming scholarly consensus even amongst academics who are classed as proponents of a revisionist approach is that these examples were largely tokenistic rather than genuinely participatory. When it comes to the regime's search for popular input in relation to the restriction of abortion under Stalin, for example, Fitzpatrick, who is a leading revisionist historian, makes clear that, because the draft of the law represented the government's own position, there were pressures on individuals to limit their opposition to the law, resulting in meetings that were formal and unproductive rather than sites of passionate debate, with the final law being effectively the same as the draft legislation, despite there being some voices of concern, if not outright opposition. The clearest evidence against the Soviet Union embodying real democracy is not the actual functioning of the polity whilst it existed, however, it is the fact that, when the Soviet Union fell, there was a total lack of meaningful resistance or struggle on the part of the working class. Surely it would have been otherwise, had there been something really worth defending in the Soviet Union's institutional structures and social organization? The same is true of the arrest of the Gang of Four in China in 1976 - a lack of working-class resistance, despite the supposed innovations of the Cultural Revolution.

manic expression

5th July 2011, 12:48

Did they?
Do you ask rhetorical questions for no reason?

By 1928, the bureaucracy.
The bureaucracy was controlled by the party, not the other way around. Plus, much of the bureaucracy was made up of workers who had entered into the working-class government. Of course, very little actually changed between 1924 and 1928 aside from the political defeat of Trotsky (not as much by Stalin as by Zinoviev and Bukharin, IIRC), so that begs the question as to why you´re using that as the time in which the revolution was "betrayed".

Show us, concretely, the institutions of workers control.
The organs of the party were precisely that, just as they were before 1928.

So actually, the voting process was not democratic, it was penetrated by the power and interests of the party and state elites.
Yeah, there should have been a rule against party members having anything to do with elections...that would be true democracy! :rolleyes:

you have little conception of class. if there is a hierarchy of bosses and their advisors and elite planners making the decisions, then there is a dominating class and the workers are subordinate to them.
Um, no. Class does not revolve around making decisions, class revolves around production. You lost this argument in the 19th Century.

the Bolshevik party in 1917 had many working class members, but much of its leadership was from the capitalist, bureaucratic and small business classes. Lenin had an inheritance from his wealthy mother's estate that enabled him to live without working.
That is an objectively untrue piece of slander. Lenin was one of the few among the Bolshevik leadership who wasnt from a working-class background, and his dedication to the Revolution made him more than a legitimate leader of that Revolution.

but the party itself was hierarchical, internal dissent was not allowed (after 1921), and the leaders were very much in control, not only of the party, but also of the state. during the first five year plan in late '20s large numbers of worker and peasant party members were put thru a crash program in universities to prepare them to take over the management and engineering and planning positions, to replace the managers and engineers inherited from the capitalist era. it was a kind of "upward mobility" program for loyal members of the party...putting them into the positions of the bureaucratic class. this is covered in Sheila Fitzpatrick's "The Russian Revolution".
Well, democratic centralism is a party of any successful party, so I do not see why the Bolsheviks (who helped define the principle) would be any different. The Bolsheviks controlled the state only because every other party had gone against the Soviets and against the Revolution...the Bolsheviks were left as the last standing. It was neither by design nor by choice.

for the workers to control the party leaders and management...how would they do that? did they have independent unions they controlled? No, unions were to be transmission belts of the party, orders were from top down, not bottom up.
Orders from people who were chosen from the bottom-up.

again, you really have little conception of what class is.
Your conception of class is this: Decisions = ruling class

...Which is as anti-materialist as it is laughable. Of course you would oppose socialism...as soon as Lenin decided he wanted borscht for lunch without submitting the decision to a countrywide referendum, he became in your warped mind a member of the "ruling class".

caramelpence

5th July 2011, 13:14

Yeah, there should have been a rule against party members having anything to do with elections...that would be true democracy!

It wasn't just that party members had something to do with elections, it was that there was a complete lack of autonomy and political pluralism when it came to who people were able to vote for, due to the decisive role of the pre-election meetings, and their composition. How can you honestly see a system as democratic when that system involves elections being effectively controlled and managed by a select group of individuals who are already in positions of relative power and privilege? The candidacy commissions play an analogous role, in terms of their anti-democratic effect, in the Cuban political system. A meaningfully democratic system would mean voters being able to nominate candidates without those candidates having to be approved by a supervisory body, and would also mean voters being able to subject the multiple candidates arising from the nomination process to vigorous examination, in order to test the ability of individual candidates to represent their views and to put voters in a position to make informed and autonomous choices.

manic expression

5th July 2011, 14:05

It wasn't just that party members had something to do with elections, it was that there was a complete lack of autonomy and political pluralism when it came to who people were able to vote for, due to the decisive role of the pre-election meetings, and their composition. How can you honestly see a system as democratic when that system involves elections being effectively controlled and managed by a select group of individuals who are already in positions of relative power and privilege? The candidacy commissions play an analogous role, in terms of their anti-democratic effect, in the Cuban political system. A meaningfully democratic system would mean voters being able to nominate candidates without those candidates having to be approved by a supervisory body, and would also mean voters being able to subject the multiple candidates arising from the nomination process to vigorous examination, in order to test the ability of individual candidates to represent their views and to put voters in a position to make informed and autonomous choices.
Since you assert this was/is so omnipotent and commonplace, it should be easy for you to find an example of a genuinely working-class candidate being suppressed by either the Soviet or Cuban election systems. The way you describe it, candidates should be getting rejected by these committees all the time.

Or...what is far more likely and factual, such systems were merely designed to offer a second line of defense against fraud and disruption. Unless you have no problem having those public, local electoral meetings disrupted by every anti-socialist Tom Dick and Harry who only want to cause trouble (which would be entirely feasible if not for the committee you cited), then the system in place is entirely necessary to ensuring a democratic working-class society.

caramelpence

5th July 2011, 14:27

Since you assert this was/is so omnipotent and commonplace, it should be easy for you to find an example of a genuinely working-class candidate being suppressed by either the Soviet or Cuban election systems. The way you describe it, candidates should be getting rejected by these committees all the time.

Or...what is far more likely and factual, such systems were merely designed to offer a second line of defense against fraud and disruption. Unless you have no problem having those public, local electoral meetings disrupted by every anti-socialist Tom Dick and Harry who only want to cause trouble (which would be entirely feasible if not for the committee you cited), then the system in place is entirely necessary to ensuring a democratic working-class society.

What do you mean by a "genuinely working-class candidate"? I don't understand how there could possibly be a working class (let alone some individuals who are "genuinely working-class" and some who are not) in an emergent communist or socialist society, given that the existence of a working class, defined by its lack of ownership over the means of production, combined with an ability to freely sell its labour power, is internal to the capitalist mode of production. This is a highly problematic use of terminology on your part.

More importantly, the issue isn't only the "suppression" of nominees, in the sense of some nominations being rejected, the issue is that these structures - the pre-election meetings in the Soviet Union, and the candidacy commissions in the Cuban system - created pressures that favoured the nomination of only those individuals whose political views were such that they were likely to be accepted by the party and state officials who controlled the final content of the ballot paper. I don't actually know of any in-depth studies for either country that look at exactly how many nominations were turned down or which examine the dynamic of auto-limitation in an empirical manner, and I'd be interested in any you can point to, but in the Soviet Union (if not Cuba) it is significant that the actual elections only involved one candidate, so unless there was only ever one nomination at the first stage of the process in each constituency, which seems unlikely, there must have been cases of some nominations being turned down, in order to avoid political competition. As for the rationale behind these structures, to say that they were designed to guard against "fraud and deception" begs the question of where all these fraudsters and tricksters came from, and also raises the issue of why the mass of voters in each constituency were so unqualified to judge candidates that it was necessary to have a set of state and party officials making these decisions on their behalf. Surely, if the mass of ordinary producers were actually committed to their socialist state, and if they had the opportunity to examine the candidates in a pluralistic political environment, it would have been easy for them to determine which individuals would have been able to fight for their interests and which were careerists or imperialist spies, or whatever? This is assuming that they were liable to nominate fraudsters and tricksters in the first place. What makes you so sure that the party and state officials were in a better position to make these decisions, given that it was precisely these officials who were, amongst other groups, targeted during Stalin's purges, and who enriched themselves through the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1990s?

RED DAVE

5th July 2011, 15:03

There were a series of revolts, like the ones mentioned in Georgia, along with workers protesting the price hike of bread and meat in the 50s under Khruschev. But isntead of the state negotiating and listening to workers, they just shot at them. Weapons were used against the people twice: in 1956 in Tbilisi and in 1962 in Novocherkassk.Under Brezhnev the only case of street disturbance that I know of was in 1968 in Chimkent,and police didn't use armed force.This is all small scale. This question is: why didn't the workers protest against the onslaught of private capitalism? Because, in terms of the fundamental exploitative relationship, nothing changed. They were screwed under state capitalism, and now they're screwed under private capitalism.

Think about how the workers fought to retain the Soviet system during the Civil War, and the difference becomes plain. Think about the struggles in the party in the 1920s and the difference becomes plain. Think about the purges and the difference becomes plain.

The USSR wasn't a workers state, so the workers did not defend it.

RED DAVE

Ilyich

5th July 2011, 15:43

[The vanguard party] isn't just an inner circle of well off people who have meetings to determine the parties actions, it can be anybody who works tirelessly to aid the party and the working class.

I have read Lenin's What Is to Be Done? and I realize that the structure of the vanguard party is, in theory, not an inner circle of well off people. However, we have been shown time and time again that the vanguard becomes an inner circle almost immediately after taking power.

syndicat

5th July 2011, 15:51

All mass media institutions (eg Pravda, Izvestia, etc) had letters departments, which were in constant use

the newspapers in the USA publish hundreds of thousands of letters a year, imagine that! this shows this country really is a democracy based on real participation! {not}

dave:
Show us, concretely, the institutions of workers control.
manic:
The organs of the party were precisely that, just as they were before 1928.

this only shows you don't know what workers control is. Workers control, if it had existed in the USSR, would mean that there would have been assemblies of workers, invoked on their own say so, in the workplaces, and they would have had the ultimate power of decision-making in the workplaces & industry in general, and they would have elected the coordinating or administrative committees, held congresses or conventions to map out plans for their industries and so forth.

no such thing happened in the USSR. insead you had the elite planners of Gosplan handing down orders to plant managers who were the people who had the actual control in the workplaces. the workers were expected to obey.

the party was the political organ of the bureaucratic class that dominated and exploited the working class...having their own private shops, special housing, and incomes at least 4 times greater than workers...reflecting their dominant class position.

take a look at "Revolution from Above." this is a very clearly written analysis of the transition from state bureaucratic system to capitalism. it talks about who the ruling class were: plant managers, political apparatchiks, army & navy & police officer hierarchy, elite Gosplan planners. their attachment to "socialism" was mere figleaf by the '80s, they had an entirely cynical attitude towards the state centralist system they'd inherited. they saw their chance to switch to something that might make them rich, so they did.

the workers didn't self-mobilize because they no longer had any tradition or practice of that. apathy and fatalism were the order of the day as far as working class consciousness is concered, because that's what you get when workers are excluded from decision-making.

manic expression

5th July 2011, 18:22

What do you mean by a "genuinely working-class candidate"?
One who represents the interests of the working class. It's quite a simple quarry, but perhaps you aren't providing us with any examples because you can't. Fine then, I'll make it easier for you: show me one example of a candidate being rejected by such a committee. Just one.

More importantly, the issue isn't only the "suppression" of nominees, in the sense of some nominations being rejected,
Um, no, that's exactly what the issue is...you're the one who brought it up in the first place. If you want to change the subject, that's another thing.

the issue is that these structures - the pre-election meetings in the Soviet Union, and the candidacy commissions in the Cuban system - created pressures that favoured the nomination of only those individuals whose political views were such that they were likely to be accepted by the party and state officials who controlled the final content of the ballot paper.
So these systems put in place more opportunities for working-class participation, pre-election meetings (and this is a bad thing how? Does your imaginary anarchist commune prohibit any meetings before elections or something?) or commissions that act as a deterrent to any would-be disruptor of the very local and very public nomination meetings in Cuba, and you're opposing it? Why? Because the results aren't results you like? Because there aren't enough non-party members in the Cuban Assembly?

You have no rubric of opposition other than "the party shouldn't have anything to do with elections", which is as anti-democratic as it is a superficial excuse.

I don't actually know of any in-depth studies for either country that look at exactly how many nominations were turned down or which examine the dynamic of auto-limitation in an empirical manner, and I'd be interested in any you can point to, but in the Soviet Union (if not Cuba) it is significant that the actual elections only involved one candidate,
Cuba has a one-candidate electoral system and it's extremely democratic. That's because by the time a candidate is up for the yes-or-no vote, that's actually the second round, with the first round being the actual nomination of the candidate through open, public and local meetings done in each community. In reality, it's a confirmation of the democratic decision of each district. That makes it more thoroughly democratic. The PCC has no part in this process. The candidate committee you mentioned exists only to make sure that no group can go to these meetings, disrupt them and then cause problems and/or nominate someone against the democratic wishes of the community.

As for your idea that nominations are turned down, this isn't how it works. Various nominees for the candidacy are proposed and voted on. This revolves not around campaigns (ie people using influence to sway people) but one-page summaries of each nominee's background and views. Most of the districts are local enough that just about everyone knows every nominee from their everyday life.

So, really, we see that this electoral process is fully democratic system of working-class control.

this only shows you don't know what workers control is. Workers control, if it had existed in the USSR, would mean that there would have been assemblies of workers, invoked on their own say so, in the workplaces, and they would have had the ultimate power of decision-making in the workplaces & industry in general, and they would have elected the coordinating or administrative committees, held congresses or conventions to map out plans for their industries and so forth.
You mean the Soviets? Yeah, they elected the Bolsheviks, and the only other pro-Soviet parties revolted against the authority of the workers' councils. After that point, the Bolsheviks and the Soviets were essentially intertwined, but not by the choice or by the design of the Bolsheviks.

This isn't the first time you've ignored the inconvenient facts of history. That's probably because you have no argument against them.

no such thing happened in the USSR. insead you had the elite planners of Gosplan handing down orders to plant managers who were the people who had the actual control in the workplaces. the workers were expected to obey.
Gosplan was controlled by the party through democratic centralism.

the party was the political organ of the bureaucratic class that dominated and exploited the working class...having their own private shops, special housing, and incomes at least 4 times greater than workers...reflecting their dominant class position.
Such income disparity was a side-effect of NEP, which was eventually ended by the party in order to further the Revolution and the construction of socialism.

take a look at "Revolution from Above." this is a very clearly written analysis of the transition from state bureaucratic system to capitalism. it talks about who the ruling class were: plant managers, political apparatchiks, army & navy & police officer hierarchy, elite Gosplan planners. their attachment to "socialism" was mere figleaf by the '80s, they had an entirely cynical attitude towards the state centralist system they'd inherited. they saw their chance to switch to something that might make them rich, so they did.
:lol: Yes, people who make decisions are a ruling class. Apply that to the Paris Commune and see how far you get.

the workers didn't self-mobilize because they no longer had any tradition or practice of that. apathy and fatalism were the order of the day as far as working class consciousness is concered, because that's what you get when workers are excluded from decision-making.
Except they weren't, as shown by the amount of wide participation in the policies made through the vanguard party.

RED DAVE

5th July 2011, 18:22

Let's take a parallel case, where modern Maoists, as opposed to those fossils of 25 years ago, are putting forth a Maoist program. Presumably, they have learned from China's example and will be able to avoid formalism, weak ideological commitment and expose and eliminate capitalist agents.

Nepal!

And what do we find? The exact same process as in China, accelerated. The Nepalese Maoists have not taken state power, but, instead, the various factions are falling over themselves to be part of the leadership of ... Nepalese capitalism.
How precise an analysis of a situation that hasn't yet fully unfolded. :rolleyes: I'm glad you've been able to see into the future. So when do we finally get flying cars?Let's see:

(1) The Maoist strategy of people's war failed, leaving a stale-mate.

(2) This led to the establishment of a bourgeois parliamentary republic in Nepal.

(3) The Maoists, after a ceasefire with the Royal Nepali Army, have proceeded to liquidate their own forces.

(4) The maoists employed the strategy of a general strike not to overthrow the government but to force the resignation of a prime minister.

(5) Having held the prime ministership of the bourgeois republic for a brief time (prior to (4) above), the Maoists have now settled down as one party in a bourgeois coalition government.

(6) The UCPN(M) has now split into at least three factions, each headed by a former leader of the party, none of which is a revolutionary faction.

I would say that the direction of the unfolding of the situation in Nepal is quite clear and was equally clear over a year ago.

RED DAVE

syndicat

5th July 2011, 19:44

me:
this only shows you don't know what workers control is. Workers control, if it had existed in the USSR, would mean that there would have been assemblies of workers, invoked on their own say so, in the workplaces, and they would have had the ultimate power of decision-making in the workplaces & industry in general, and they would have elected the coordinating or administrative committees, held congresses or conventions to map out plans for their industries and so forth.
manic:
You mean the Soviets? Yeah, they elected the Bolsheviks, and the only other pro-Soviet parties revolted against the authority of the workers' councils. After that point, the Bolsheviks and the Soviets were essentially intertwined, but not by the choice or by the design of the Bolsheviks.

again, you don't know what you're talking about. the soviets were the local government bodies. they were not an organization in workplaces for the control of the work there.

moreover, in the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks overthrew many of the soviets (in at least 19 cities) when the Bolsheviks lost a majority in the election and SRs and Left-Mensheviks were elected. they used military force to rule. then they abolished the right of workers to build political organizations that would organize independent of the CP. and in 1921 they carried this to its logical conclusion, banning dissent in the party.

the soviets were essentially dead, mere instruments of the party, after 1918.

Gosplan was controlled by the party through democratic centralism.

well, they were nominally subordinate to the party apparatchiks, yes. but the party was a body that represented the interests of the bureaucratic class. a bureaucracy rules in a kind of collective fashion. a key institution of the party was komsomol, the party youth organization. in their study of the Soviet elite in "Revolution from Above", they point out that the members of the bureaucratic elite had in common a background in komsomol in their youth, as this enabled them to enter the old boy network through which people got jobs in the various parts of the bureaucracy.

Such income disparity was a side-effect of NEP, which was eventually ended by the party in order to further the Revolution and the construction of socialism.

bullshit. i was talking about the level of inequality in the '60s-'80s period. the major wage differentials throughout a hierarchized economy was particularly enhanced during the first five year plans in the early '30s. Sheila Fitzpatrick discusses this in "The Russian Revolution".

Yes, people who make decisions are a ruling class. Apply that to the Paris Commune and see how far you get.

you seem to be ignoring the fact that they made decisions that were imposed on the workers who were expected to obey. that's what you get in a class system.

Geiseric

5th July 2011, 19:57

me:
manic:

again, you don't know what you're talking about. the soviets were the local government bodies. they were not an organization in workplaces for the control of the work there.

moreover, in the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks overthrew many of the soviets (in at least 19 cities) when the Bolsheviks lost a majority in the election and SRs and Left-Mensheviks were elected. they used military force to rule. then they abolished the right of workers to build political organizations that would organize independent of the CP. and in 1921 they carried this to its logical conclusion, banning dissent in the party.

the soviets were essentially dead, mere instruments of the party, after 1918.

well, they were nominally subordinate to the party apparatchiks, yes. but the party was a body that represented the interests of the bureaucratic class. a bureaucracy rules in a kind of collective fashion. a key institution of the party was komsomol, the party youth organization. in their study of the Soviet elite in "Revolution from Above", they point out that the members of the bureaucratic elite had in common a background in komsomol in their youth, as this enabled them to enter the old boy network through which people got jobs in the various parts of the bureaucracy.

bullshit. i was talking about the level of inequality in the '60s-'80s period. the major wage differentials throughout a hierarchized economy was particularly enhanced during the first five year plans in the early '30s. Sheila Fitzpatrick discusses this in "The Russian Revolution".

you seem to be ignoring the fact that they made decisions that were imposed on the workers who were expected to obey. that's what you get in a class system.

Well syndicat, do you think that the reds would have beaten the whites in the civil war had they not controlled the russian state? Many of the Left Mensheviks and SR's were basically telling the people, "we'll give you bread if you vote for us." when everybody was starving. They were making ultraleft demands that the country couldn't handle, and were taking an oppurtunity of the mess of the civil war, and disdain over everything going on to garner support for themselves. That's how I see the situation, they weren't necessarily trying to restore capitalism or anything else the stalinists accuse people of, they were just playing politics.

Basically people were starving so much that in some cases cannibalism was seen so they would say alive. The food was unattainable, and what it looks like to me is that the Mensheviks and SR's were taking oppurtunity of the starving simply to get in power, by saying we'll stop the starvation! Nothing shows that had they been in state power, they wouldn't have done the exact same thing.

syndicat

5th July 2011, 20:24

Well syndicat, do you think that the reds would have beaten the whites in the civil war had they not controlled the russian state? Many of the Left Mensheviks and SR's were basically telling the people, "we'll give you bread if you vote for us." when everybody was starving. They were making ultraleft demands that the country couldn't handle, and were taking an oppurtunity of the mess of the civil war, and disdain over everything going on to garner support for themselves. That's how I see the situation, they weren't necessarily trying to restore capitalism or anything else the stalinists accuse people of, they were just playing politics.

Well syndicat, do you think that the reds would have beaten the whites in the civil war had they not controlled the russian state? Many of the Left Mensheviks and SR's were basically telling the people, "we'll give you bread if you vote for us." when everybody was starving. They were making ultraleft demands that the country couldn't handle, and were taking an oppurtunity of the mess of the civil war, and disdain over everything going on to garner support for themselves. That's how I see the situation, they weren't necessarily trying to restore capitalism or anything else the stalinists accuse people of, they were just playing politics.

you seem to not recognize that what socialism is supposed to be about is power for the working class...not some political group that claims it rules in their interests.

if by building up a hierarchical party-army, bureaucracy over workers in production, and totalitarian methods of control (like shooting workers in Feb 1921 when they struck, banning worker political organizations), the Communists laid the basis for a bureaucratic class system, this means they laid the basis for the defeat of the revolution, that is, the defeat of the working class.

could the masses have beat the whites without doing that? yes. they could have built up the workers militia...a system they used the first few months to defend the revolution, they could have propelled the takeovers of production by workers so workers would have a real sense of having something to lose if they lost the fight.

Geiseric

5th July 2011, 20:45

But the workers were 5 percent of the population, I would assume most of the dissent was in the country side. I mean obviously what they did was terrible, but the mentality of all the communists was that if they lost, they would all be executed by the tsars. I believe that at the moment of the civil war, the suppression was TO A POINT necessary. Full democracy would have hampered the war effort because of intra party rivalries, who would be more concerned with retaining power than winning the war. If the anarcho syndicallists took power in spain llike the bolsheviks did in russia, i believe they would have won. As trotsky said, "the means justify the end as long as the end is justifiable of the means." Obviously shooting at the workers was terrible, but for the greater good of the world revolution they needed to secure russia as its first outpost.

syndicat

5th July 2011, 21:03

QUOTE]But the workers were 5 percent of the population, I would assume most of the dissent was in the country side.[/QUOTE]

absolutely not. working class was more like 10 percent. half the peasantry were illiterate and were focused on their local villages. the opposition was mainly among the workers because they had more power to affect things, being located in cities and in centers of production, and they were literate, unlike the peasants.

there were two forms of opposition. a minority supported the whites. but they soon discredited themselves in the countryside by bringing back the hated landlords.

the main opposition was in the worker-based Left political organizations, such as the Left-Mensheviks, syndicalists, maximalists. Left SRs and the Makhnovist movement in Ukraine had both worker & peasant support.

the overthrow of soviets by the Communists was in cities. the Left-Mensheviks had little peasant support. Left-Mensheviks and Left-SRs won a majority in many soviet elections in spring of 1918.

Obviously shooting at the workers was terrible, but for the greater good of the world revolution they needed to secure russia as its first outpost.

you're pathetic. "greater good" of the bureaucratic class, as it turned out. you can't empower workers by denying them power. so you obviously do not think of socialism as power of the working class in production and society.

Geiseric

5th July 2011, 21:16

I 100 percent, totally believe in giving the workers power. However Russia was different, a state was needed in order to win the war and resist imperialism. by the way, i do believe that the soviets should have gotten power after the war. However I was speculating that a national government is more capible of waging a war, a strong TEMPORARY state, than the village workers councils and the smaller soviets. Again i'm advocating for a TEMPORARY STATE TO WIN THE WAR. After the war all other demands can be met. Sorry if i seemed vague and stalinist before, but I can't see a confederation of peasents villages and fully democratic workers councils capible of winning the war. We saw in Catalonia that instead of several different factions with seperate intrests waging more or less different campaigns isn't a good way to do things. Please i'm trying to learn this stuff so don't call me pathetic.

syndicat

5th July 2011, 21:37

We saw in Catalonia that instead of several different factions with seperate intrests waging more or less different campaigns isn't a good way to do things. Please i'm trying to learn this stuff so don't call me pathetic.

on the last sentence, sorry if i'm rude. i'm too used to arguing with MLs arround here.

in Catalonia the problem was the splitting up of the militias into separate party & union militias. it was the Left parties that insisted on this. the CNT proposed a unified people's militia and congresses and defense councils that would unite the working class left. but this was opposed by the Communists & Socialists.

Geiseric

6th July 2011, 02:13

Was its opposition mostly from PSUC and the Liberal Government? Or was it also from POUM, UGT, or any other smaller parties?

syndicat

6th July 2011, 03:47

the issue was replacing the central Republican state. the POUM was only significant in Catalonia. opposition was from the PSOE which controlled the UGT executive, but also from the PCE which was a growing faction in UGT. PSUC was merely the section of PCE in Catalonia.

caramelpence

6th July 2011, 04:56

One who represents the interests of the working class

My concern, though, is why you think there would be a working class in a socialist society. A working class presupposes a capitalist class and the social relation that is capital, and socialism is supposed to be the society of the associated producers, in which the working class has abolished itself.

It's quite a simple quarry, but perhaps you aren't providing us with any examples because you can't. Fine then, I'll make it easier for you: show me one example of a candidate being rejected by such a committee. Just one.

You seem to be putting forward quite a contradictory argument. On the one hand, by asking for cases of nominations actually being rejected, you are suggesting that bodies like the candidacy commissions and the pre-election meetings did not play that important a role, in that they did not reject nominations on a regular basis, and therefore did not have an anti-democratic impact. On the other hand, you have also argued that these bodies constitute an effective means by which the party can intervene in the electoral process and that they were necessary, due to the need to prevent the nomination process from being disrupted or undermined in some vague way. You cannot really make both of these arguments at once. Either you think that these bodies did not prevent elections from being a grassroots or democratic process, in which case it is not clear why they would ever need to exist, or you think that they did intervene through the rejection of nominations, and that their interventions were necessary and legitimate. In fact, this is not the only part of your account that is contradictory. You accuse me of not wanting the party to have a role in the electoral process as if that's self-evidently a bad thing. But then you also allege that the PCC has no role in the candidacy commissions, in order to support your view that the Cuban electoral system is in fact democratic. Again, you cannot have it both ways - either you argue that the party does and should have a role in the process, or you argue that the party does not, even whilst the candidacy commissions retain their role, and that this is a good thing. As for evidence, I've already pointed to the fact that elections in both the Soviet Union and Cuba for their respective national legislative bodies only ever involved one single candidate in each constituency, rather than being genuinely contested, and what that shows is either that some nominations were rejected by the relevant body or that the presence of these bodies introduced a dynamic of auto-limitation whereby it was decided to only nominate one candidate to begin with. If you have any more detailed case studies, you should point to them, as this is not really one of my specialist areas. The most basic issue for me is that having single-candidate elections is not healthy in a socialist society - in order for voters to be able to make informed choices and hold their representatives accountable, it is necessary that there be debate between rival candidates, and you don't get that by only having one candidate, selected by a higher body, and by only letting voters make judgements on the basis of a written biography.

Moreover, I don't think you've really given a convincing rationale for the existence of these bodies. You say that it would otherwise be possible for alleged tricksters to disrupt the electoral process by putting forward their own nominations, but at the same time you allege that the nominations themselves are the product of popular vote, in which case it would presumably be quite difficult for these tricksters to gain enough support to get nominated in the first place. Even if they were nominated, you haven't explained why it would be so hard for voters to be able to reject them and why they instead need to have their options limited. All in all, I think you're pretty confused.

Mr. Cervantes

6th July 2011, 08:36

boy, talk about a slippery slope to hell. from the fact that some may be more active or more committed or whatever we then reach the conclusion there must be bosses. that's what it means to say there will be managers. the present capitalist bosses are the "leaders of the production process". and that's the sense MLs want their party to be "leaders" of the working class.

It seems like a slippery slope until you come to understand what the vanguard is in place for.

The key is that there is no differentiation from that of the leaders and managers towards the workers. Atleast that is how I understand it so far.

Redklok: Fair enough, first attempt on a massive scale and longer duration then.

Running a small commune is much more simpler in comparison to a overcrowded overpopulated nation. Large population densities complicates things.

This is why some level of leadership and management is necessary. Anarchists haven't presented a valuable alternative with today's population dynamics.

manic expression

6th July 2011, 13:55

I would say that the direction of the unfolding of the situation in Nepal is quite clear and was equally clear over a year ago.
Again, it's an ongoing process. If you made an analysis of the Bolsheviks in 1911 it wouldn't look too flattering either. It's important we show solidarity with our comrades instead of sectarian sniping.

again, you don't know what you're talking about. the soviets were the local government bodies. they were not an organization in workplaces for the control of the work there.
The Soviets were worker councils that did take authority over workplaces. Hair-splitting won't help you out of this.

moreover, in the spring of 1918 the Bolsheviks overthrew many of the soviets (in at least 19 cities) when the Bolsheviks lost a majority in the election and SRs and Left-Mensheviks were elected. they used military force to rule. then they abolished the right of workers to build political organizations that would organize independent of the CP. and in 1921 they carried this to its logical conclusion, banning dissent in the party.

the soviets were essentially dead, mere instruments of the party, after 1918.
And yet in January of 1918 the Bolsheviks more than half of the delegates to the Congress of the Soviets. After that point the Mensheviks and Left-SRs turned on the Soviets and openly revolted against Soviet authority, necessitating the defense that eventually suppressed their threat to the Revolution. This, in effect, left the Bolsheviks as the only pro-Soviet faction in the whole of the country, and so the decisions of the party and the Soviets became one. This was neither by desire nor by design, but by the counterrevolutionary path taken by other groups.

well, they were nominally subordinate to the party apparatchiks, yes. but the party was a body that represented the interests of the bureaucratic class. a bureaucracy rules in a kind of collective fashion. a key institution of the party was komsomol, the party youth organization. in their study of the Soviet elite in "Revolution from Above", they point out that the members of the bureaucratic elite had in common a background in komsomol in their youth, as this enabled them to enter the old boy network through which people got jobs in the various parts of the bureaucracy.
So, in other words, the vanguard party was in control of the state and the economy. That's what socialism is: workers controlling the state and the economy. As I explained above, the one-party situation of the USSR was a circumstance of the historical course of the Revolution and not of some grand design by Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

The "old boy network" you mention is a good example of what every working-class party should and must do: involve the youth in revolutionary activities and then bring them into positions of responsibility as they gain more experience. You go on and on about the Bolsheviks representing "the bureaucracy", but bureaucracies do not exist in vacuums, they are necessary instruments of any modern state; in this case, the bureaucracy was a very necessary instrument of the workers as they constructed socialism. That you concede the bureaucracy was under the authority of the party proves this.

bullshit. i was talking about the level of inequality in the '60s-'80s period. the major wage differentials throughout a hierarchized economy was particularly enhanced during the first five year plans in the early '30s. Sheila Fitzpatrick discusses this in "The Russian Revolution".
Wage inequality, though, does not contradict socialism. Or do you think everyone should get exactly the same?

you seem to be ignoring the fact that they made decisions that were imposed on the workers who were expected to obey. that's what you get in a class system.
Why should people be allowed to undermine the decisions made by a worker state? It's tantamount to defying the working class itself. Decisions were not "imposed", they were discussed and debated and arrived to after democratic mechanisms played their part. That's working-class democracy.

My concern, though, is why you think there would be a working class in a socialist society.
Because socialism is a class society. The bourgeoisie, within and without the borders of established workers' state power, continues to exist, and so the institutions of any socialist society must reflect that reality.

You seem to be putting forward quite a contradictory argument. On the one hand, by asking for cases of nominations actually being rejected, you are suggesting that bodies like the candidacy commissions and the pre-election meetings did not play that important a role, in that they did not reject nominations on a regular basis, and therefore did not have an anti-democratic impact. On the other hand, you have also argued that these bodies constitute an effective means by which the party can intervene in the electoral process and that they were necessary, due to the need to prevent the nomination process from being disrupted or undermined in some vague way. You cannot really make both of these arguments at once.
Just because they aren't frequently used doesn't mean they're unimportant, and instead it reveals their real role: safeguards to protect working-class democracy. Candidates in Cuba aren't getting rejected by these committees merely because they aren't PCC-approved...that's not what the committees are there for. We know this because there are, at this very moment, delegates the National Assembly who aren't PCC members.

So yes, they aren't used much at all, because their role is to be a process of redress in the case of clear disruption and anti-democratic activity. However, that's why they're effective, not only as a potential safeguard but also as a proactive discouragement for disruption.

Moreover, I don't think you've really given a convincing rationale for the existence of these bodies. You say that it would otherwise be possible for alleged tricksters to disrupt the electoral process by putting forward their own nominations, but at the same time you allege that the nominations themselves are the product of popular vote, in which case it would presumably be quite difficult for these tricksters to gain enough support to get nominated in the first place.
Let's say every pro-imperialist in Havana goes to one district's meeting (a district most of them don't live in...remember these meetings are completely open and public, even to non-Cubans), intimidates anyone who doesn't agree with them, holds a sham "popular vote" after they push everyone out and then claims that their preferred nominee won. Well, what are we to do? The committee, in that case, would review the facts and say that it wasn't a valid nomination, rejecting the candidate on those grounds.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 14:34

The Soviets were worker councils that did take authority over workplaces. Hair-splitting won't help you out of this.
Not directly; that was the zavkoms and fabkoms. They were separate bodies with separate origins; during the revolution they played an approximately syndicalist role, but afterwards were neutered by the Bolshevik state, even losing their title of "factory/plant committee" and becoming a mere "trade union committee" ("profkom").

BlackMarx

6th July 2011, 15:14

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 15:32

Marxist-Leninism is a doctrine that is inherently tyrannical. Lenin had no conception of 'separation of powers' and didn't bother to create any of the necessary institutions to create checks and balances when him and the Bolsheviks created the USSR.
You don't think that maybe the error of the Bolsheviks lay in suppressing independent soviet activity, and thus working class activity not vetted by the party leadership, rather than in failing to construct a slightly redder version of the United States government? :confused:

Zanthorus

6th July 2011, 15:51

Marxist-Leninism is a doctrine that is inherently tyrannical. Lenin had no conception of 'separation of powers' and didn't bother to create any of the necessary institutions to create checks and balances when him and the Bolsheviks created the USSR.

Yeah, by this reasoning Anarchism is just as likely to lead to a USSR-type social formation as any Leninist party...

S.Artesian

6th July 2011, 16:08

Marxist-Leninism is a doctrine that is inherently tyrannical. Lenin had no conception of 'separation of powers' and didn't bother to create any of the necessary institutions to create checks and balances when him and the Bolsheviks created the USSR.

Well......so much for history and material conditions. We might as well say the Paris Commune was inherently tyrannical because it combined the parliamentary and the executive powers in one body.

I would think that the proletarian revolution has to abolish the "separation of powers" as it is the organization of the class for breaking up the old "separated, but unified" power of the bourgeoisie and replacing it with the conscious expression of the working class as the class that can and must introduce truly social production, or production for society.

The bourgeois "separation of powers" is nothing but an expression of classwide domination of capital that needs to present itself as something other than the exclusive preserve of capitalist property owners.

Rooster

6th July 2011, 17:19

Wage inequality, though, does not contradict socialism. Or do you think everyone should get exactly the same?

The wages point to a (compulsive) division of labour though. The issue isn't about nominal wages, but the real wages between the workers and the bureaucratic caste. The workers could not exchange their labour-power for large amounts of other commodities, something that the ruling strata could through their access to closed shops and goods. Ask anyone who lived in the Eastern block and they'll tell you the one thing they did a lot was queue for stuff. This disparity points to the social relations of the labour process. One group worked for low real wages while another group could sit back and take advantage of that labour.

Franz Fanonipants

6th July 2011, 17:20

syndicat

6th July 2011, 17:26

And yet in January of 1918 the Bolsheviks more than half of the delegates to the Congress of the Soviets. After that point the Mensheviks and Left-SRs turned on the Soviets and openly revolted against Soviet authority, necessitating the defense that eventually suppressed their threat to the Revolution.

at the Peasant Congress in Nov 1917 the Bolsheviks were a minority. the Left SRs were the majority. when the peasant congress and the congress of worker & soldier delegates were merged, the Bolsheviks packed the merged congress with large numbers of bureaucrats...in violation of the soviet principle of direct election. also, the peasantry was under-represented relative to its numbers. that's the only way the CP (as it was called after Mar 1918) could have a majority.

the Left Mensheviks, maximalists and syndicalists never engaged in any armed revolt against soviet authority. yet they were repressed by the cheka and many were thrown into prison.

The Soviets were worker councils that did take authority over workplaces.

they may have "had authority over workplaces" in the way that a city government does. but they were not organizations in workplaces to manage those workplaces. they were the local governments. you're completely ignorant of the structure of soviet society it seems.

So, in other words, the vanguard party was in control of the state and the economy. That's what socialism is: workers controlling the state and the economy

you're confused. the party was the organization of the elite bureaucratic class. for the workers to control the society they would need to have directly democratic bodies such as assemblies in workplaces, and elected delegate bodies accountable to the rank and file, through which they would actually make the decisions over work and over the affairs of the society. instead workers were merely expected to obey orders. they were subordinate to managers and planners and political apparatchiks. and the hierarchical CP was the party of this bureaucratic class because they controlled it.

manic expression

6th July 2011, 17:56

at the Peasant Congress in Nov 1917 the Bolsheviks were a minority. the Left SRs were the majority. when the peasant congress and the congress of worker & soldier delegates were merged, the Bolsheviks packed the merged congress with large numbers of bureaucrats...in violation of the soviet principle of direct election. also, the peasantry was under-represented relative to its numbers. that's the only way the CP (as it was called after Mar 1918) could have a majority.

the Left Mensheviks, maximalists and syndicalists never engaged in any armed revolt against soviet authority. yet they were repressed by the cheka and many were thrown into prison.
You're arbitrarily calling delegates "bureaucrats" to try to overwrite a Bolshevik majority. Why?

Also...the Left Mensheviks, IIRC, didn't break with the right wing of the party, and so they were organizationally the same as those who were openly calling for counterrevolution. Their suppression was entirely appropriate given the circumstances.

they may have "had authority over workplaces" in the way that a city government does. but they were not organizations in workplaces to manage those workplaces. they were the local governments. you're completely ignorant of the structure of soviet society it seems.They were workers' councils. That and nothing but that is the substance of the matter.

you're confused. the party was the organization of the elite bureaucratic class. for the workers to control the society they would need to have directly democratic bodies such as assemblies in workplaces, and elected delegate bodies accountable to the rank and file, through which they would actually make the decisions over work and over the affairs of the society. instead workers were merely expected to obey orders. they were subordinate to managers and planners and political apparatchiks. and the hierarchical CP was the party of this bureaucratic class because they controlled it.The Soviets were such assemblies: the self-organization of the workers to control the means of production. Just because they didn't meet in the exact latitude and longitude you wanted them to means nothing. Those assemblies supported the Bolsheviks, and in the course of the Revolution the Bolsheviks ended up virtually the only party in support of Soviet authority. The Bolsheviks, for their part, were not a "bureaucratic" class at all, they were led almost exclusively by workers who then took up posts in the new worker state (according to you, though, as soon as anyone decides on their favorite color without full elections, then they're horrible "bureaucrats"). As you noted before, the party continued to be based in the working class after that point, bringing young workers into the movement, giving them experience before giving them positions of responsibility within the worker state. That's how socialism is built, not with platitudes but with workers taking control of society.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 18:15

They were workers' councils. That and nothing but that is the substance of the matter.
"Workers' council" is a very loose term, and doesn't necessarily imply factory-floor democracy. That was, again, represented by the zavkoms and fabkoms, a different set of institutions. Try to pay attention.

manic expression

6th July 2011, 18:33

"Workers' council" is a very loose term, and doesn't necessarily imply factory-floor democracy. That was, again, represented by the zavkoms and fabkoms, a different set of institutions. Try to pay attention.
This is not about loose terms but about loose arguments. The matter is fully straightforward: the working class took control over the means of production through the Soviets. Thus, workers were controlling their own society. Do you deny that the Soviets represented working-class control over the means of production? Do you deny that the Soviets were organizations of and for working-class power? This is not even an academic dispute, indeed it is not even an elementary one...it is petty hair-splitting.

RED DAVE

6th July 2011, 18:38

[Th]e working class took control over the means of production through the Soviets.And lost it during and after the civil war thanks to the rise of the bureaucracy, headed by Stalin.

Thus, workers were controlling their own society.For a brief few years.

Do you deny that the Soviets represented working-class control over the means of production?Do you deny that the bureaucracy was running the show by 1928?

Do you deny that the Soviets were organizations of and for working-class power? This is not even an academic dispute, indeed it is not even an elementary one...it is petty hair-splitting.But it is indeed irrelevant as the soviets were out of the loop by the mid-1920s.

RED DAVE

manic expression

6th July 2011, 18:46

And lost it during and after the civil war thanks to the rise of the bureaucracy, headed by Stalin.
Yes, the all-powerful Stalin of 1921. :rolleyes:

Do you deny that the bureaucracy was running the show by 1928?
I deny it because it's a false assertion. The party was running the bureaucracy, and so any "show" run by the bureaucracy was under the auspices of the party.

But it is indeed irrelevant as the soviets were out of the loop by the mid-1920s.
They weren't out of the loop, they were simply aligned with the decisions of the party since 1918. Of course the Bolsheviks didn't seek this, but that's how it turned out.

RedMarxist

6th July 2011, 18:49

you guys should read the re flag: a history of communism. It very well explains the rise of Stalin and his bureaucracy in the 20's and 30's

As for Lenin, he ruthlessly shot down people who made up the assemblies with his "Red Guard", tools of the Bolsheviks. Eventually he had them completely disbanded through brute force. I think the workers lost control of society long before Stalin came along

Lenin was and always will be a dictator. I think shooting your own people is one of the sickest things you can do. Why do people admire him?

So Lenin, the supposed founder of socialism in Russia, destroyed the very fabric of socialist/communistic democracy in Russia at the time. Thanks to him, Countless people think Communism is an evil dictatorship hell bent on destroying capitalism.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 19:05

This is not about loose terms but about loose arguments. The matter is fully straightforward: the working class took control over the means of production through the Soviets. Thus, workers were controlling their own society. Do you deny that the Soviets represented working-class control over the means of production? Do you deny that the Soviets were organizations of and for working-class power? This is not even an academic dispute, indeed it is not even an elementary one...it is petty hair-splitting.
You're conflating political power with direct control of production. The two are not the same, as Marx was at pains to make clear when discussing the Paris Commune.

Lenin was and always will be a dictator.
Not as such; Lenin did not wield nearly the individual power that many- both detractors and supporters- attribute to him, most of which was in fact invested in the party apparatus, particularly the Central Committee. Political power didn't become invested in one individual until Stalin, and, even then, still not to quite the extent that is widely perceived; the attempt to project it backwards onto Lenin is, from detractors, an attempt to caricature him as a Robespierrian tyrant, and, from supporters, to validate some nonsensical line of succession from him to their heir of choice.

However, you are correct that the Bolshevik party-dictatorship represented a negation of independent working class power; even the most sympathetic individual can only reasonably argue that this was a necessary evil brought about by circumstances, and only a fool can argue that it did not happen at all.

syndicat

6th July 2011, 19:12

You're arbitrarily calling delegates "bureaucrats" to try to overwrite a Bolshevik majority. Why?

again, you don't know what you're talking about. the Bolsheviks got union bureaucrats and other paid officials of organizations such as soldier organizations added. the soviet principle had been that you had to be elected as a delegate.

Also...the Left Mensheviks, IIRC, didn't break with the right wing of the party,[/QUOTE]

bullshit. the Left Menshevik majority expelled the right Mensheviks when they enaged in the armed revolt in the summer of 1918.

syndicat

6th July 2011, 19:18

They were workers' councils. That and nothing but that is the substance of the matter.

except that the rules did not prevent members of affluent intelligentsia from running for election to soviets. Lenin and Martov were both nominated as candidates at factories.

The Soviets were such assemblies: the self-organization of the workers to control the means of production.

they were no such thing. they did not deal with issues of running workplaces. they were local city governments that mainly dealt with political issues. many of the soviets of 1917, formed initially by the Mensheviks, were very top down...controlled by their executive committees, which were made up mainly of members of the intelligentsia, party stalwarts. they tended to treat the plenary meetings of delegates as a mere rubber stamp. see "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution" by labor historican Pete Rachleff.

and anyway, the CP overthrew soviet elections when they failed to return CP majorities in the spring of 1918. then they ruled locally thru military force via Revolutionary Military Committees.

manic:
[Th]e working class took control over the means of production through the Soviets.

dave:
And lost it during and after the civil war thanks to the rise of the bureaucracy, headed by Stalin.

manic and dave are both wrong. workers did seize control of production in roughly 400 enterprises during the 1917-18 period. very often they did so against the wishes of the Bolshevik leadership. when the Kronstadt soviet voted to seize all land, houses and businesses and estalish worker assemblies and committees to manage them in Jan 1918, the Bolshevik and Menshevik delegates voted "no". but the maximalist-syndicalist alliance was dominant in that soviet and that's why it passed. see Kronstadt 1917-21 by Israel Getzler.

by early 1918, however, Lenin and Trotsky were beating the drum for "one-man management" -- appointment of bosses from above. the statist central planning body, Supreme Council for National Economy, had been set up in Nov 1917, and was appointed entirely from above, with trade union bureaucrats, party leaders and managers and engineers. During 1918 subordinate councils for industries and regions under this body were set up. Lenin adamantly insisted that workers could not elect more than 1/3 of the people on these councils. After nationalization of the economy in the summer of 1918, under "war communism", gradually the collectively run workplaces were changed to managers appointed from above, and the collective management of workplaces was gone throughout the economy by 1920. see Maurice Brinton "The Bolsheviks and Workers Control" for this depressing history.

RedMarxist

6th July 2011, 19:44

does anyone here agree that if the revolution happened in say, France, it would be more democratic? The advanced industry furthermore would make it so rapid industrialization would be utterly pointless, saving lives.

Being a stronger nation, it could spread revolution easier to nations such as Britain, Germany, etc. Their tradition of democracy, coupled with a variation of the soviets, would make it harder for someone like Stalin to seize power.

Also, Wasn't Leninism a direct result of Russia being backwards and surrounded by enemies? Lenin mad the famous quote: "Indeed, Liberty is so precious that it Must Be Rationed"? or something along those lines

Leninism was also not so abnormal, as it was thrust upon a people used to Tsarist dictatorship, so A party ruling everything would not be so out of place

Lenin was a dictator. What do you call murdering your own people to suppress democracy? With his own orders to give the go ahead to commit murder against the Soviets?

I'm so sick of people telling me COMMUNISM = BRUTAL DICTATORSHIP KILLING FIELDS, CULTURAL REVOLUTION ETC. DERP DERP!

I read the book First they Killed my Father, written by a survivor of the killing fields. Its very powerful. Anyways, she says in an interview that she thinks Pol Pot thought he was really helping the people, but she is not sure.

She's part of an anti-communist group operating in Cambodia I think. I'm not against her decision, after all what she went through was horrible...but I wish the Soviets could have defeated the Bolsheviks still.

S.Artesian

6th July 2011, 22:23

by early 1918, however, Lenin and Trotsky were beating the drum for "one-man management" -- appointment of bosses from above. the statist central planning body, Supreme Council for National Economy, had been set up in Nov 1917, and was appointed entirely from above, with trade union bureaucrats, party leaders and managers and engineers. During 1918 subordinate councils for industries and regions under this body were set up. Lenin adamantly insisted that workers could not elect more than 1/3 of the people on these councils. After nationalization of the economy in the summer of 1918, under "war communism", gradually the collectively run workplaces were changed to managers appointed from above, and the collective management of workplaces was gone throughout the economy by 1920. see Maurice Brinton "The Bolsheviks and Workers Control" for this depressing history.

All too true, unfortunately.

manic expression

6th July 2011, 22:39

You're conflating political power with direct control of production. The two are not the same, as Marx was at pains to make clear when discussing the Paris Commune.
We should speak plainly here...the Soviets did not, in your view, represent working-class control of the means of production?

except that the rules did not prevent members of affluent intelligentsia from running for election to soviets. Lenin and Martov were both nominated as candidates at factories.
Damn those workers for voting in non-anarchists like they were supposed to. I mean really, the gall of some people... :rolleyes:

they were no such thing. they did not deal with issues of running workplaces. they were local city governments that mainly dealt with political issues. many of the soviets of 1917, formed initially by the Mensheviks, were very top down...controlled by their executive committees, which were made up mainly of members of the intelligentsia, party stalwarts. they tended to treat the plenary meetings of delegates as a mere rubber stamp. see "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution" by labor historican Pete Rachleff.
Where do you think factory managers came from? They just pulled people's names out of a hat and those were made the managers?

And again, most of what you're saying is that you don't like it when workers elect people you don't agree with. "Intelligentsia, party stalwarts" might as well read "people who don't endorse every plank of my platform". It takes a special kind of arrogance to oppose the fruits of working-class democracy and then proclaim yourself a champion of precisely that.

and anyway, the CP overthrew soviet elections when they failed to return CP majorities in the spring of 1918. then they ruled locally thru military force via Revolutionary Military Committees.
Then please explain how the Bolsheviks won majorities in the Third (441 out of 707), Fourth (795 out of 1,232) and Fifth (773 out of 1,164) Congresses of the Soviets in 1918.

by early 1918, however, Lenin and Trotsky were beating the drum for "one-man management" -- appointment of bosses from above.
Again you stand in willful denial of facts in order to serve your sectarian interests. Managers were appointed "from above"...but the democratic centralism of the party and the working-class democracy of the Soviets ensured that it was a process in which the workers had the first and last and in between words. But you think none of it matters because some workers didn't vote the way you wanted them to.

Tim Finnegan

6th July 2011, 22:53

Damn those workers for voting in non-anarchists like they were supposed to. I mean really, the gall of some people... :rolleyes:
He makes a reference to class, and you turn it into an issue of ideology? That's incredibly dishonest.

We should speak plainly here...the Soviets did not, in your view, represent working-class control of the means of production?No, nor should they have done; that was not their purpose. That was what the fabzavkoms were for.

syndicat

6th July 2011, 23:00

Damn those workers for voting in non-anarchists like they were supposed to. I mean really, the gall of some people... :rolleyes:I thought the soviets were supposed to be an expression of working class power, not like "bourgeois democracy" where members of the dominating classes can get elected through their superior organization, money, education etc.

Where do you think factory managers came from? Tthey were appointed from above by the state leaders. they were certainly not elected by workers.

And again, most of what you're saying is that you don't like it when workers elect people you don't agree with. "Intelligentsia, party stalwarts" might as well read "people who don't endorse every plank of my platform". It takes a special kind of arrogance to oppose the fruits of working-class democracy and then proclaim yourself a champion of precisely that.it's about workers having power over production. you are opposed to that...in keeping with ML practice. for workers to have control over production, they have to have their own independent movement that they control, and they have to take over the complete management power in the workplaces and industries, with control residing in their own meetings, election of their own delegate-workers etc. it's about real worker power.

you don't believe in that. you believe in appointment of bosses by the party-state, that is, you believe in the power of the bureaucratic class.

Then please explain how the Bolsheviks won majorities in the Third (441 out of 707), Fourth (795 out of 1,232) and Fifth (773 out of 1,164) Congresses of the Soviets in 1918.it's called "packing", using the cheka to prevent other worker organizations from holding meetings, etc.

He makes a reference to class, and you turn it into an issue of ideology? That's incredibly dishonest.this is not an uncommon trait among ML party hacks in my experience. dishonesty as a conscious method was often practiced by the CP.

Paulappaul

6th July 2011, 23:12

Let me jump on some things,

We should speak plainly here...the Soviets did not, in your view, represent working-class control of the means of production?No again I think as Finnegan has said, you are conflating Political Power with Economic Democracy, the two which are not always the same. By that logic we can say that the Venezuelan Socialist Party being legimately a workers' party by simply being in office means Workers' Control over the means of production.

Furthermore, there is a difference between Representation and Direct Control. Under the logic that the former represents the later we can say any State Run Institution inherently implies Workers' Control.

Just because in face value the Bolsheviks could say (which they didn't, they openly admitted the workers didn't have control") there was Workers' Control, just because Communists represent Workers' Control, does not simply make it true.

And again, most of what you're saying is that you don't like it when workers elect people you don't agree with. "Intelligentsia, party stalwarts" might as well read "people who don't endorse every plank of my platform". It takes a special kind of arrogance to oppose the fruits of working-class democracy and then proclaim yourself a champion of precisely that.The Difference is over whether or not the Intelligentsia and Party Stewards are legitimately members of the working class and should have a say in affairs that are not there own.

BlackMarx

7th July 2011, 08:32

haha bro did you just ask your civics/gov. teacher about the "problem" with marxism or what
Well if you look at the history of 20th century Communism, they all devolved into fiercely authoritarian states. The court system, the military and all of the institutions of Communist governments were controlled by the party. How can the ruling party be checked if it doesn't answer to anyone else and if its judge/legislator/executor? This is basic political science. I don't like capitalism as much as anyone else, but liberal democracy for a time gives a realm of freedom to people that didn't exist in previous systems and did not exist in Communist states. If socialism is going to be a viable alternative, it cannot be built on vanguardistic one party states that think their grasping of power justifies their rules. Ever heard of the social contract?

RED DAVE

7th July 2011, 12:12

Let's see:

(1) The Maoist strategy of people's war failed, leaving a stale-mate.

(2) This led to the establishment of a bourgeois parliamentary republic in Nepal.

(3) The Maoists, after a ceasefire with the Royal Nepali Army, have proceeded to liquidate their own forces.

(4) The maoists employed the strategy of a general strike not to overthrow the government but to force the resignation of a prime minister.

(5) Having held the prime ministership of the bourgeois republic for a brief time (prior to (4) above), the Maoists have now settled down as one party in a bourgeois coalition government.

(6) The UCPN(M) has now split into at least three factions, each headed by a former leader of the party, none of which is a revolutionary faction.

I would say that the direction of the unfolding of the situation in Nepal is quite clear and was equally clear over a year ago.

Again, it's an ongoing process.Indeed it is, but that says nothing. All of existence is an ongoing process. The question is: in which direction is the process unfolding. In the case of he Nepalese Maoists, it is clear that this direction is antithetical to Marxism.

If you made an analysis of the Bolsheviks in 1911 it wouldn't look too flattering either.You better be a little more specific. In any event the Bolsheviks did not assume the prime ministership of a bourgeois government.

It's important we show solidarity with our comrades instead of sectarian sniping.If you think that a political party that is participating in a government that is presiding over a fully capitalist society is your comrade, welcome to them.

RED DAVE

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 16:01

is it at all possible for a second people's war to be waged in Nepal? Wishful thinking I know, but the PLA doesn't seem to want to give in their guns tot he NA.

So, Red Dave, I'm curious. Do you think Marxist-Leninism has failed? what about Maoism?

If yes/no, then what do you think about the NPA and Naxals and their chances for success, being led by MAOIST CP's an all?

S.Artesian

7th July 2011, 16:36

this is not an uncommon trait among ML party hacks in my experience. dishonesty as a conscious method was often practiced by the CP.

Again, all too true, unfortunately.

Tim Finnegan

7th July 2011, 16:43

So, Red Dave, I'm curious. Do you think Marxist-Leninism has failed? what about Maoism?

If yes/no, then what do you think about the NPA and Naxals and their chances for success, being led by MAOIST CP's an all?
I wouldn't read too much into the nominally "Maoist" orientation of the Naxalites. For the most part, they're just indigenous peasants fighting to preserve what little scrap of livelihood they have, rather than pursuing any revolutionary program; it just so happens that the Maoists are the only ones around with both the capacity to organise regional movements and (I will give them this) the guts to do so. There's nothing any more essentially Maoist about the movement than there was Jacobin about the Irish Rebellion of 1798.

Well if you look at the history of 20th century Communism, they all devolved into fiercely authoritarian states. The court system, the military and all of the institutions of Communist governments were controlled by the party. How can the ruling party be checked if it doesn't answer to anyone else and if its judge/legislator/executor? This is basic political science. I don't like capitalism as much as anyone else, but liberal democracy for a time gives a realm of freedom to people that didn't exist in previous systems and did not exist in Communist states. If socialism is going to be a viable alternative, it cannot be built on vanguardistic one party states that think their grasping of power justifies their rules. Ever heard of the social contract?
The problem there wasn't the concentration of power within the party-state, it was the party-state itself. The solution was to realise Lenin's proclamation of "all power to the Soviets", with or without the old goat, not to retreat into parliamentarianism. Remember, one of the highest pieces of praise that Marx has for the Paris Commune is that it remade the communal council as a "working assembly", that is, as an executive-legislative body directly controlled by the working class. Division of powers within a bureaucratic state, even if arguably preferable, do not constitute workers' power.

Edit: The relevant extract, from The Civil War In France, ch.5:

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 16:56

If the Soviet councils had survived, could they still coexist amongst the party in Russia?

Can the party lead the councils democratically, serving as a unifier?

Or is Leninism inherently autocratic?

and one more thing-Was Lenin against democracy, or did he just see autocracy as a necessary evil?

RED DAVE

7th July 2011, 16:58

is it at all possible for a second people's war to be waged in Nepal?Almost certainly not.

Wishful thinking I know, but the PLA doesn't seem to want to give in their guns tot he NA.They have been confined in camps for years, playing little or no part in the political scene. They are slowly being phased out. The party leaders are even abandoning the us of PLA fighters as their personal guards.

So, Red Dave, I'm curious. Do you think Marxist-Leninism has failed? what about Maoism?Maoism is a flavor of Marxism-Leninism. Both have failed.

A year ago, at the time of the general strike, Maoists on this board were slandering anyone who claimed that the UCPN(M) was selling out, claiming that Prachanda & Co. were the baddest motherfuckers around and just itching to complete the revolution. Now the sell-out is so obvious that there is no credible defense being made.

If yes/no, then what do you think about the NPA and Naxals and their chances for success, being led by MAOIST CP's an all?I think that Tim Finnegan, above, makes the basic statement.

RED DAVE

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 17:00

S.Artesian

7th July 2011, 17:04

If it failed, then why do so many people adhere to Leninism? there are a ton of old and new Leninist parties world wide.

Is Lenin still important to study? I'm reading the state and revolution right now.

The Russian Revolution is still important to study, in its advance and retreat, the Bolsheviks' role in both is important to study.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 17:08

but why do people refuse to acknowledge the failure of Leninism? there are tons of ML parties out their as well as supporters-why?

And, if the Indian/Filipino revolutions succeed in the near future, will their be democracy like they claim.

Lucretia

7th July 2011, 17:11

If it failed, then why do so many people adhere to Leninism? there are a ton of old and new Leninist parties world wide.

Is Lenin still important to study? I'm reading the state and revolution right now.

Of course Lenin is still important to study. But you have to disentangle Leninism, the ideas of Lenin, from the ideology of "Marxism-Leninism" (Stalinism, Maoism) propagated by apologists of some of the most tyrannical regimes of the twentieth century.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 17:13

I'm still confused about one other thing. If Lenin talks about democracy and How Marx was for it, then why did he establish a autocratic regime led by a CP?

syndicat

7th July 2011, 17:23

but why do people refuse to acknowledge the failure of Leninism?

you mean, why do Leninists refuse to recognize the failure of Leninism?

Leninism has lost its ability to appeal to large numbers of people. Leninist parties don't have the size or importance they once did.

But the old mythologies about the Russian revolution are still propagated by some people...that the working class did actually hold power there (tho Leninists disagree as to when it was lost).

Leninism also provides ostensible answers to some of the questions that revolutionaries must face.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 17:32

Well, I should rephrase it. Was Lenin Against democracy and worker's freedoms such as control of industry?

Rooster

7th July 2011, 17:35

I'm still confused about one other thing. If Lenin talks about democracy and How Marx was for it, then why did he establish a autocratic regime led by a CP?

That would require a material analysis! I don't think Lenin or any of the other Bolsheviks at the time said that the USSR was socialist and that they're main aim was to (in light of the failure of a helpful revolution in Germany) hold out and build up productive forces, etc, until revolution could spread. Marxist-Leninists just think that this dictatorial system was socialism. In any case, the failures of what they were hoping for kinda lead the Bolshevik party down into that alley.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 18:01

so if the German, Italian, and Hungarian revolutions succeeded, then would there be genuine democracy under Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia?

If you heard about it, I'm modding a game called darkest hour, made by paradox entertainment. The mod is called A World To Win. :)

in it, the nations listed above are still dictatorships, Russia is led by Stalin from Moscow of course. Germany, Hungary, and Italy are all led by oppressive CP's. Well, Italy is more democratic, with worker control of industry. How accurate is this?

I portrayed all these nations based on my current knowledge of Communism, the oppressive nature of MLism, and the rise of Stalin to power. Would Stalin/Lenin suppress democracy still in this alternate History

The NEP still goes ahead, despite three successful European revolutions and the fall of Poland to the Soviets. Is that accurate or hogwash? Stalin is more interventionist, and socialism in one country does not exist.

Mao gets more support from the USSR, and so does the American communists, led by the CPUSA, while revolution is fostered throughout the Third World, with an earlier Vietnamese War thanks to French national socialism.

Hitler sees the Free German Socialist Republic is an illegitimate state and rules from Vienna, vowing to seize northern Germany from the Reds. Mosley rules Britain with his BUF Party.

BlackMarx

7th July 2011, 18:25

The problem there wasn't the concentration of power within the party-state, it was the party-state itself. The solution was to realise Lenin's proclamation of "all power to the Soviets", with or without the old goat, not to retreat into parliamentarianism. Remember, one of the highest pieces of praise that Marx has for the Paris Commune is that it remade the communal council as a "working assembly", that is, as an executive-legislative body directly controlled by the working class. Division of powers within a bureaucratic state, even if arguably preferable, do not constitute workers' power. You raise a good point there comrade!

Lucretia

7th July 2011, 19:41

I'm still confused about one other thing. If Lenin talks about democracy and How Marx was for it, then why did he establish a autocratic regime led by a CP?

You need to do some reading in the history of the Russian Revolution, and of Lenin's political thought. The way you ask the question implies that it's a historical fact that Lenin was advocating for, and succeeded in establishing, an elite cadre of communist party members to exercise dictatorial rule over the masses. This is not what Lenin was fighting for, it's not what he thought he had established, and it's not what he actually established. The October revolution was highly democratic. Read Alexander Rabinowitch's books about the revolution in Petrograd and Kevin Murphy's microhistory of workers' control of a Moscow iron works factory, Revolution and Counterrevolution.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 19:50

i know all about he Russian rev. Yes, it was highly democratic. Lenin took it all away in exchange for order and control.

So in a way, could you argue Leninism is a success

Hebrew Hammer

7th July 2011, 19:59

Why do people admire him?

Cappies gon' hate.

Thanks to him, Countless people think Communism is an evil dictatorship hell bent on destroying capitalism.

It is?

Lucretia

7th July 2011, 20:24

i know all about he Russian rev. Yes, it was highly democratic. Lenin took it all away in exchange for order and control.

So in a way, could you argue Leninism is a success

Sorry, but if you think "Lenin took it all away in exchange for order and control," then you don't know all about the 1917 revolutions in Russia. Start off by doing those readings I suggested, instead of assuming your own omniscience.

This is exactly what people were warning you against in the other thread. Don't be "that guy" who won't shut up about radical communist politics, while not really knowing that much about it.

RedMarxist

7th July 2011, 20:30

sorry.

So do you think it succeed or failed 100%?

It'd be depressing if it did.:crying:

manic expression

7th July 2011, 22:16

He makes a reference to class, and you turn it into an issue of ideology? That's incredibly dishonest.
He insinuated that workers shouldn't have voted for Lenin simply by virtue of what class he was born into. Not only is that dishonest, it's incredibly stupid and has no place in revolutionary thought.

And yes, it is about ideology from the first word to the last. Do I hear any ringing condemnations of Bakunin for being born into nobility? No, no I don't, at all...neither now nor soon nor recently. So it is very much about ideology.

No, nor should they have done; that was not their purpose. That was what the fabzavkoms were for.
How do you square this with the historical record, which shows Soviet authority over production? Further, why shouldn't working-class councils take control of the means of production?

I thought the soviets were supposed to be an expression of working class power, not like "bourgeois democracy" where members of the dominating classes can get elected through their superior organization, money, education etc.
What abject foolishness. Bourgeois "democracy" has to do with gaining the backing of the capitalist class and carrying out their will. Are you saying that's what happened when Lenin was elected by the Soviets? If so, then how did that occur? Again, speak plain or don't speak at all.

FYI by admitting that that the Bolsheviks were a superior revolutionary force in terms of organization and education, you admit that they were a working-class vanguard and therefore the working-class party that was pushing forth the interests of the workers.

they were appointed from above by the state leaders. they were certainly not elected by workers.
And the state leaders were elected by...

The workers. There we go.

it's about workers having power over production. you are opposed to that...in keeping with ML practice. for workers to have control over production, they have to have their own independent movement that they control, and they have to take over the complete management power in the workplaces and industries, with control residing in their own meetings, election of their own delegate-workers etc. it's about real worker power.

you don't believe in that. you believe in appointment of bosses by the party-state, that is, you believe in the power of the bureaucratic class.
Workers did have power over production through the establishment and defense of Soviet power, which represented working-class control over the means of production. Those same working-class organs of power supported and elected the Bolsheviks through working-class democracy...precisely because the Bolsheviks proved they were the vanguard of the workers. Through the Soviets and the vanguard party (which was the leading party of that independent working-class movement you keep pontificating about), the workers had control over production.

And how do you respond to these facts? With abstract platitudes, ignoring the lessons of history.

it's called "packing", using the cheka to prevent other worker organizations from holding meetings, etc.
Wrong. Try again:

Please explain how the Bolsheviks won majorities in the Third (441 out of 707), Fourth (795 out of 1,232) and Fifth (773 out of 1,164) Congresses of the Soviets in 1918.

No again I think as Finnegan has said, you are conflating Political Power with Economic Democracy, the two which are not always the same.
Not always the same, of course. But in the case of the Soviets, which were the product of self-organization of the workers, was it not the case? The Soviets did, during the course of the Revolution, take authority over economic matters as much as political ones. They were directing production and thus shop floors, and they were at this very time the same form of working-class democracy as they were when they were first organized. So how, then, is it not "economic democracy"?

You better be a little more specific. In any event the Bolsheviks did not assume the prime ministership of a bourgeois government.
They entered into the organs of a bourgeois government. Care to use that as an excuse for denunciation?

If you think that a political party that is participating in a government that is presiding over a fully capitalist society is your comrade, welcome to them.
Like the Communards?

Lucretia

7th July 2011, 22:28

sorry.

So do you think it succeed or failed 100%?

It'd be depressing if it did.:crying:

Very few things succeed or fail 100%, and in the case of revolutions it would be silly to attribute failure entirely to the realm of ideas.

Tim Finnegan

7th July 2011, 22:40

He insinuated that workers shouldn't have voted for Lenin simply by virtue of what class he was born into. Not only is that dishonest, it's incredibly stupid and has no place in revolutionary thought.
Then you either misinterpret him tremendously, or, as I suggest, are being very honest. What he said was that the political manoeuvring of the Bolsheviks lead to the disproportionate appointment of intellectuals and bureaucrats as soviet delegates, which, combined with the increasing hegemony of those elements on the party, lead to the loss of a truly working class character amongst the party leadership; Lenin was merely an widely-recognised example.

And yes, it is about ideology from the first word to the last. Do I hear any ringing condemnations of Bakunin for being born into nobility? No, no I don't, at all...neither now nor soon nor recently. So it is very much about ideology.Did Bakunin take over a country?

How do you square this with the historical record, which shows Soviet authority over production?The soviets had, in some instances, indirect control of production in their capacity as municipal governments (I'll not bother humouring you by pretending that this lasted much past 1918), but they didn't constitute a direct and democrat control of workplaces by their workers. That was what the fabzavkoms were for, at least in those instances were the workers' carried out the proper expropriations without waiting for some party bureaucrat to turn up and install himself as the new boss.

Further, why shouldn't working-class councils take control of the means of production?It's cute that you really think that you have the wits to trick me into saying something which you can use against me, but I'll have to disappoint you and say: They should. There is simply more than one kind of workers' council, and these were not the kind which are properly considered to represent direct control over the means of production. Again, that role was fulfilled by the factory committees, the zavkoms and fabkoms.

Like the Communards?But just last week your were claiming that the Paris Commune represented a socialist society! Are you genuinely this inconsistent, or are you just a pathological liar? :confused:

Paulappaul

7th July 2011, 23:18

Not always the same, of course. But in the case of the Soviets, which were the product of self-organization of the workers, was it not the case? The Soviets did, during the course of the Revolution, take authority over economic matters as much as political ones. They were directing production and thus shop floors, and they were at this very time the same form of working-class democracy as they were when they were first organized. So how, then, is it not "economic democracy"?

The Soviets were not consistent in their organization until the Bolsheviks came along. In the "revolution" the Soviets were everything from city councils representing Workers Geographically, to forums for revolutionaries, to the ideal Workers' Councils that Libertarian Socialists have in mind. The later was in minority. The real organs of Workers' Control were as you already know, the Factory Committees.

However these Committees were organized in fashion wherein they watched over by the Cheka and consisted of a council of Workers, Party Representatives and the so called "Specialists" from the unions and upper strata of workers who they themselves

RED DAVE

8th July 2011, 05:22

If it failed, then why do so many people adhere to Leninism? there are a ton of old and new Leninist parties world wide.There's also a ton of new religions around. Go figure.

Is Lenin still important to study? I'm reading the state and revolution right now.The study of Lenin's works and actions are crucial to any Marxist's education.

RED DAVE

syndicat

8th July 2011, 05:27

FYI by admitting that that the Bolsheviks were a superior revolutionary force in terms of organization and education, you admit that they were a working-class vanguard and therefore the working-class party that was pushing forth the interests of the workers.

doesn't follow at all. superior educations tends to be a characteristic of the bureaucratic class and of the more affluent generally.

RED DAVE

8th July 2011, 05:33

Workers did have power over productionHow?

through the establishment and defense of Soviet power, which represented working-class control over the means of production.What you are assuming is that what you are calling "Soviet power" is, in fact, identical to "working-class control over the means of production." But this is not necessarily the case, and it was not the case. Bureaucratic control over the economy was established extremely quickly due to the exigencies of the civil war, which might be justified. But this control was never relinquished.

Those same working-class organs of power supported and elected the Bolsheviks through working-class democracy...precisely because the Bolsheviks proved they were the vanguard of the workers. Through the Soviets and the vanguard party (which was the leading party of that independent working-class movement you keep pontificating about), the workers had control over production.What you are saying is that any workers control over production was indirect through the work of the Bolshevik Party. Then at the very moment that the party no longer represented the workers, which was evident by the mid-1920s and finalized by the end of the 1920s, the workers no longer had control.

And how do you respond to these facts? With abstract platitudes, ignoring the lessons of history.Do you really believe that all through the regime of Stalin, from about 1928 till his death, the working class controlled production?

You better be a little more specific. In any event the Bolsheviks did not assume the prime ministership of a bourgeois government.
They entered into the organs of a bourgeois government. Care to use that as an excuse for denunciation?What are you talking about? Are ou talking about the Bolshevik delegates to the Duma? They were persecuted by the government, under constant threat of arrest, excluded from the proceedings, and they were there to disrupt the bourgeois government and make socialist propaganda, not to support and build the bourgeois state like the Nepalese Maoists are doing.

RED DAVE

DaringMehring

8th July 2011, 05:48

What are you talking about? Are ou talking about the Bolshevik delegates to the Duma? They were persecuted by the government, under constant threat of arrest, excluded from the proceedings, and they were there to disrupt the bourgeois government and make socialist propaganda, not to support and build the bourgeois state like the Nepalese Maoists are doing.

RED DAVE

This is a really crucial point that I think a lot of socialist newbies fail to appreciate.

The point was not to show how they the Bolsheviks could run the capitalist state more humanely if only they had the power. That is a pipe-dream that has led any (nominally) socialist group attempting it down to hell. It is yet another reason why various "official" CPs ended up as shills for Social Democracy.

The point of the Bolsheviks involvement in the Duma, was to agitate against the institution they had been elected to; to expose and obstruct it, and to promote their revolutionary views from a big stage.

manic expression

8th July 2011, 16:37

Then you either misinterpret him tremendously, or, as I suggest, are being very honest. What he said was that the political manoeuvring of the Bolsheviks lead to the disproportionate appointment of intellectuals and bureaucrats as soviet delegates, which, combined with the increasing hegemony of those elements on the party, lead to the loss of a truly working class character amongst the party leadership; Lenin was merely an widely-recognised example.
Then excuse me for pressing him on his utterly stupid example. Perhaps I should have addressed the many examples he didn't bring up. :rolleyes:

Did Bakunin take over a country?
When did Lenin "take over a country"? He was supported and elected by the Soviets. Further, the point you make has nothing to do with the issue.

The soviets had, in some instances, indirect control of production in their capacity as municipal governments (I'll not bother humouring you by pretending that this lasted much past 1918), but they didn't constitute a direct and democrat control of workplaces by their workers. That was what the fabzavkoms were for, at least in those instances were the workers' carried out the proper expropriations without waiting for some party bureaucrat to turn up and install himself as the new boss.
The "party bureaucrat" didn't just ride into down, tie up his horse and then take over a factory, and you'd have to be completely ignorant of the Russian Revolution to think as much. No, those managers were put in place by the authority of the Soviets. This was 100% necessary during the Civil War and the rebuilding of the country after that conflict.

It's cute that you really think that you have the wits to trick me into saying something which you can use against me, but I'll have to disappoint you and say: They should. There is simply more than one kind of workers' council, and these were not the kind which are properly considered to represent direct control over the means of production. Again, that role was fulfilled by the factory committees, the zavkoms and fabkoms.
It wasn't a trick. The Soviets were working-class councils and so I simply wanted to clarify what you thought of them. Now, if you think there should have been a different set-up of the Soviets, I respect that, but I would add that it wasn't like the Bolsheviks designed the system...it was the product of working-class self-organization. Factory committees are something I'm for as well...but if the committee includes workers from 3 factories instead of just 1, then is that such a great disparity as to warrant your objection?

But just last week your were claiming that the Paris Commune represented a socialist society! Are you genuinely this inconsistent, or are you just a pathological liar? :confused:
Please post this instance, because I must have made a mistake. I hold the Paris Commune to be a seminal example of working-class control over society, but that does not automatically translate into being socialist, it's the first step towards that goal. That's why I (hope that I) haven't stated that Russia in 1918 was socialist.

And please refrain from calling me a liar if you can't back it up.

The study of Lenin's works and actions are crucial to any Marxist's education.
You forgot the whole "putting them into practice" thing, which is a fitting enough summary of your position.

How?
Soviets. Look them up sometime.

What you are assuming is that what you are calling "Soviet power" is, in fact, identical to "working-class control over the means of production." But this is not necessarily the case, and it was not the case. Bureaucratic control over the economy was established extremely quickly due to the exigencies of the civil war, which might be justified. But this control was never relinquished.
:lol: The system put in place by the Soviets and the Bolsheviks wasn't relinquished because it would have been ruinous to the Revolution to do so. The "exigencies of the civil war" didn't disappear into thin air after the last battle was fought. More to the point, the system didn't contradict working-class control. Working-class democracy, within and without the party, directed and controlled production.

What you are saying is that any workers control over production was indirect through the work of the Bolshevik Party. Then at the very moment that the party no longer represented the workers, which was evident by the mid-1920s and finalized by the end of the 1920s, the workers no longer had control.
Working-class control and the Bolshevik party were one in the same. This, for the tenth time, was neither by the design nor desire of the Bolsheviks, but by the course of the Revolution and the defense of Soviet authority. The Bolsheviks were left last standing in support of the Soviets, and so the two became intertwined. But you would blame the Bolsheviks for this, and further condemn them for it. Pathetic.

Do you really believe that all through the regime of Stalin, from about 1928 till his death, the working class controlled production?
How materialist that your conception of history obsesses entirely with a "regime", whose beginning you cannot define and whose end you identify with the death of one man. Anyway, yes. The Bolsheviks didn't stop being the vanguard just because someone you disagree with came into a position of power. Not only is that excessively sectarian, it's boundlessly petty.

What are you talking about? Are ou talking about the Bolshevik delegates to the Duma? They were persecuted by the government, under constant threat of arrest, excluded from the proceedings, and they were there to disrupt the bourgeois government and make socialist propaganda, not to support and build the bourgeois state like the Nepalese Maoists are doing.
I'm glad you've found a way to read the minds of so many Nepalese Maoists. What are they planning on eating for breakfast tomorrow?

manic expression

8th July 2011, 16:52

The Soviets were not consistent in their organization until the Bolsheviks came along. In the "revolution" the Soviets were everything from city councils representing Workers Geographically, to forums for revolutionaries, to the ideal Workers' Councils that Libertarian Socialists have in mind. The later was in minority. The real organs of Workers' Control were as you already know, the Factory Committees.
Understood. However, would you not agree that all these forms, in one way or another, represented working-class power?

However these Committees were organized in fashion wherein they watched over by the Cheka and consisted of a council of Workers, Party Representatives and the so called "Specialists" from the unions and upper strata of workers who they themselves
"Watched over" in what way? To be honest, I don't think revolutionaries monitoring what happens during a revolution to be a terrible thing. After all, the Cheka were the same people who captured the real-life model for James Bond, who was trying to enter Russia in order to undermine the Soviets. I think every revolution, Marxist or anarchist or otherwise, will have some method of defending itself. Making sure the Soviets were protected counts as part of this.

But more importantly, did the Cheka ever go into a Soviet meeting and force everyone at gunpoint to vote for the Bolsheviks? There seems to be a very vague assertion that the Bolsheviks didn't play by some rulebook during this period, but absolutely no one has been able to put a finger on what or how or when or where.

doesn't follow at all. superior educations tends to be a characteristic of the bureaucratic class and of the more affluent generally.
I'll give you the most advantageous example you could hope for: how was Stalin "characteristic of the bureaucratic class and of the more affluent generally"? Did he get PoliSci classes from his cobbler father or something?

Paulappaul

9th July 2011, 08:54

Understood. However, would you not agree that all these forms, in one way or another, represented working-class power?

Once again Manic, there is a difference between Representation and Actuality. We represent the principles of Workers' Control, of Communism, however that doesn't necessarily actuate it. I would agree that yes, the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks and all the Representatives in the Soviets in someway believed in Workers' Control and were therefor the foremost representatives, however did the Workers' actually control? History has shown No.

"Watched over" in what way? To be honest, I don't think revolutionaries monitoring what happens during a revolution to be a terrible thing.

There is documented accounts of the Workers being watched over by in decision making by the Cheka, which weren't revolutionaries. The Cheka consisted of Lumpenproletarian Criminals who resisted the Line of the Bolsheviks. The famous account detailed by Victor Serge was when Lenin pardoned 200 Anarchists and yet the Cheka executed them. When Serge asked them why, they said it was there job to monitor and maintain the revolution from opportunistic elements.

But more importantly, did the Cheka ever go into a Soviet meeting and force everyone at gunpoint to vote for the Bolsheviks?

Ofcourse not. I am not conflating the Cheka with the Bolsheviks or everything bad in Russian Society with the Bolsheviks. I think being a Mass Party which constituted more Classes then just the Working Class there were naturally opportunistic elements which leaked out despite the supposed purity of the leadership.

Comrade Crow

9th July 2011, 08:57

I think this quote from Kafka sums this all up proper:

"The Revolution evaporates and leaves behind only the slime of a new bureaucracy. The chains of tormented mankind are made out of red tape."-Franz Kafka.

Jose Gracchus

9th July 2011, 09:06

He insinuated that workers shouldn't have voted for Lenin simply by virtue of what class he was born into. Not only is that dishonest,

not what dishonest means bro

manic expression

9th July 2011, 12:43

Once again Manic, there is a difference between Representation and Actuality. We represent the principles of Workers' Control, of Communism, however that doesn't necessarily actuate it. I would agree that yes, the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks and all the Representatives in the Soviets in someway believed in Workers' Control and were therefor the foremost representatives, however did the Workers' actually control? History has shown No.
I have to disagree and say that yes, the workers did actually control society through their own organs of self-organization. I think genuine representation isn't something to condemn, as we can't expect the whole of the working-class to vote on everything in the midst of a civil war. To this end, the Soviets voted for the Bolsheviks and Left-SRs primarily, and after the Left-SRs were implicated in an anti-Soviet revolt, the Bolsheviks were left with the full support of the Soviets. I respect that you don't see it in the same way, but nevertheless it's something I can't conclude otherwise.

There is documented accounts of the Workers being watched over by in decision making by the Cheka, which weren't revolutionaries. The Cheka consisted of Lumpenproletarian Criminals who resisted the Line of the Bolsheviks. The famous account detailed by Victor Serge was when Lenin pardoned 200 Anarchists and yet the Cheka executed them. When Serge asked them why, they said it was there job to monitor and maintain the revolution from opportunistic elements.
That is unfortunate, tragic and unacceptable of course. However, two things don't follow. First, the Cheka were revolutionaries because they were supporting and defending the Revolution. If not for them, imperialist agents would have been swarming like wasps all around Russia. Second, none of this demonstrates how the Cheka were somehow stopping working-class power across the country. They proved overzealous and clearly wrong in some cases, but the Soviets were not generally disrupted by their actions, no?

Ofcourse not. I am not conflating the Cheka with the Bolsheviks or everything bad in Russian Society with the Bolsheviks. I think being a Mass Party which constituted more Classes then just the Working Class there were naturally opportunistic elements which leaked out despite the supposed purity of the leadership.
OK, but if I might add one thing, the Bolsheviks were vastly proletarian, with some leaders from peasant backgrounds and a few from upper-class backgrounds. I don't think the inclusion of a few people who weren't born into the proletariat determines the character of the party, as that would be overly deterministic.

not what dishonest means bro
Only if you ignore that the same poster isn't condemning Bakunin for the same thing, dawg.

RED DAVE

9th July 2011, 13:49

I'll leave the Russian stuff aside for the moment. Others are kicking manic expression's ass quite efficiently in that area.

What are you talking about? Are [y]ou talking about the Bolshevik delegates to the Duma? They were persecuted by the government, under constant threat of arrest, excluded from the proceedings, and they were there to disrupt the bourgeois government and make socialist propaganda, not to support and build the bourgeois state like the Nepalese Maoists are doing.
I'm glad you've found a way to read the minds of so many Nepalese Maoists. What are they planning on eating for breakfast tomorrow?Here is a typical Nepalese breakfast, doubtless similar to what UCPN(M) members of the Nepalese parliament eat. :D

http://i53.tinypic.com/105sciq.jpg

None of us has the capacity to read minds. What I am doing is observing the actual work of the Nepalese Maoists. They have entered into a bourgeois government, a capitalist government. This is undeniable and tells us that, one more time, ML leads to capitalism.

A year ago, the UCPN(M) was the poster child for ML: peoples army, general strike, all the good stuff. However, it was pointed out, by others and myself, that all the actions of the Nepalese Maoists, had to do with gaining influence and control over a capitalist government. None of it had anything to do, rhetoric aside, with workers power or alleviating the lot of the peasantry.

We were told by the resident ML apologists that all this was really the establishment of a New Democracy, whatever the fuck that was. However, in the ensuing months, even that rhetoric is gone. The party has split into at least three factions, none of which have any serious criticism of each other, all of which are engaged in power struggles within the party based on parliamentary maneuvering.

RED DAVE

robbo203

9th July 2011, 13:53

The Soviet Union wasn't supposed to be "post-class". Socialism is a class society and thus there is class conflict. As I've outlined, bourgeois reactionaries don't disappear into thin air after the revolution, and instead get support from imperialists abroad to try to destroy the gains of the workers. These came to be the forces that tore down European socialism, with implied approval and sanction from the traitors in the CP.

------------------

No one owned the means of production or held power over workers in social production in the Soviet Union because those relations had been abolished. That's how socialism works.

Spot the contradiction!

The SU wasnt a post class society since ..ehem.. "socialism" is still a class society (a leninist definition of "socialism", not a marxist one, BTW)

But what is a class society? It is a society in which different groups of people have differing relationships to the means of production in terms of owning/controlling those means. It is incoherent and illogical to talk of there being a working class without implying the existence of a bourgeoise/capitalist class and vice versa

The "bourgeois reactionaries", we are informed, didnt disappear into thin air after the revolution, but instead got "support from imperialists abroad to try to destroy the gains of the workers". So the bourgeois still existed it seems and therefore, by definition, still owned the means of production through which they exploited the workers. After all, if they didnt own the means of production, they wouldnt be members of the bourgeosie, would they? They would be ex-members of the bourgeoise (or members of the ex-bourgeoisie) - and this "socialism" that was supposed to have existed in the SU could no longer logically be described as a "class society" which we informed it must be because, well, thats how our resident leninist define "socialism"

If "socialism" must be a class society then it follows it must have classes and therefore it must have one group of individuals owning the means of production to the exclusion of others. Othewise it cannot be a "class society". Thats logical , innit?

But hang on a moment - now we are told

No one owned the means of production or held power over workers in social production in the Soviet Union because those relations had been abolished. That's how socialism works

Talk about being confused or what! :rolleyes:

Thirsty Crow

9th July 2011, 14:02

If "socialism" must be a class society then it follows it must have classes and therefore it must have one group of individuals owning the means of production to the exclusion of others.
Comrade, what you cannot understand is the analytical brilliance and creativity of Marxism-Leninism which stipulates then historical possibility and indeed existence of...non-antagonistic classes.

manic expression

9th July 2011, 14:25

I'll leave the Russian stuff aside for the moment. Others are kicking manic expression's ass quite efficiently in that area.
So you're illiterate when it comes to history and political discussion. Unsurprising. Thanks for the concession.

None of us has the capacity to read minds. What I am doing is observing the actual work of the Nepalese Maoists.
No, what you're doing is trying to tell us what the Nepalese Maoists are inevitably, unquestionably going to do, even when you admit you can't do that.

Spot the contradiction!

The SU wasnt a post class society since ..ehem.. "socialism" is still a class society (a leninist definition of "socialism", not a marxist one, BTW)

But what is a class society? It is a society in which different groups of people have differing relationships to the means of production in terms of owning/controlling those means. It is incoherent and illogical to talk of there being a working class without implying the existence of a bourgeoise/capitalist class and vice versa

The "bourgeois reactionaries", we are informed, didnt disappear into thin air after the revolution, but instead got "support from imperialists abroad to try to destroy the gains of the workers". So the bourgeois still existed it seems and therefore, by definition, still owned the means of production through which they exploited the workers. After all, if they didnt own the means of production, they wouldnt be members of the bourgeosie, would they? They would be ex-members of the bourgeoise (or members of the ex-bourgeoisie) - and this "socialism" that was supposed to have existed in the SU could no longer logically be described as a "class society" which we informed it must be because, well, thats how our resident leninist define "socialism"

If "socialism" must be a class society then it follows it must have classes and therefore it must have one group of individuals owning the means of production to the exclusion of others. Othewise it cannot be a "class society". Thats logical , innit?

But hang on a moment - now we are told

No one owned the means of production or held power over workers in social production in the Soviet Union because those relations had been abolished. That's how socialism works

Talk about being confused or what! :rolleyes:
The context of that clearly refers to a lack of private ownership of the means of production. Private property is abolished and collective ownership of the working class is established.

Well, there goes your "contradiction", taken care of in two sentences. Back to the drawing board you go. :lol:

RED DAVE

9th July 2011, 15:10

I'll leave the Russian stuff aside for the moment. Others are kicking manic expression's ass quite efficiently in that area.
So you're illiterate when it comes to history and political discussion. Unsurprising. Thanks for the concession.I am far from illiterate with regard to history or discussion, and what I said was that I would "leave the Russian stuff aside" as others are dealing with you quite well. You have lied about what I said.

None of us has the capacity to read minds. What I am doing is observing the actual work of the Nepalese Maoists.
No, what you're doing is trying to tell us what the Nepalese Maoists are inevitably, unquestionably going to do, even when you admit you can't do that.What I have done, quite simply, is point out what the Maoists are doing.

(A) Prachanda assumed the prime ministership of a bourgeois government.

(B) The Maoists are part of the current bourgeois government.

(C) The party has split into three factions.

(D) Not one of these factions has any serious notion of either appealing directly to the working class or restarting the peoples war.

Maoism in the 21st Century.

RED DAVE

robbo203

9th July 2011, 15:23

The context of that clearly refers to a lack of private ownership of the means of production. Private property is abolished and collective ownership of the working class is established.

Well, there goes your "contradiction", taken care of in two sentences. Back to the drawing board you go. :lol:

My, what a clever little boy you are and so quick off the mark!

Problem is .. ahem ... you havent actually addressed the argument at all , merely slid around as is your wont

Private ownership is abolished under socialism, you say, and collective ownership of (I think you mean "by") the working class is established. But if collective ownership of the means of productiuon is established how can this possibly be a class society. You were the one, I would remind you, who was insisting that socialism is a "class socety". Where, in this class society that is "socialism" do the capitalists or "bourgeoise" fit into the picture as a class?

If the capitalists exists as a class and you have said they did or would under "socialism" that means they must exercise actual ownership over the means of production to the exclusion of the workers. Thats how you define the "capitalist class" is it not. By their ownership of the means of production as a class. If they dont exercise this exclusive or sectional ownership there is no capitalist class

So if the capitalist class exists that means there must, by definition, be private ownership of the means of production . That. in turn, means these means of production cannot possibly be "collectively owned". You cannot have it both ways . You cannot have your cake and eat it.

Either the capitalist class exists in which case there cannot sensibly be be said to exist collective ownership of the means of production or there is collective ownership in which there cannot sensibly be said to exist a capitalist class.

So which one is it?

manic expression

9th July 2011, 15:47

I am far from illiterate with regard to history or discussion, and what I said was that I would "leave the Russian stuff aside" as others are dealing with you quite well. You have lied about what I said.
Don't be sore that you had to duck out of an argument, especially one you are either unwilling or unable to address honestly.

What I have done, quite simply, is point out what the Maoists are doing.

(A) Prachanda assumed the prime ministership of a bourgeois government.

(B) The Maoists are part of the current bourgeois government.
Participation in bourgeois government has been done by just about every genuine working-class party that can...the Bolsheviks included.

(C) The party has split into three factions.
Splits happen all the time in the left. So what?

(D) Not one of these factions has any serious notion of either appealing directly to the working class or restarting the peoples war.
What do you call the Bandh?

Maoism in the 21st Century.
Your jealousy is hilarious.

My, what a clever little boy you are and so quick off the mark!
It's hardly "clever" to point out the elementary to a fool.

Either the capitalist class exists in which case there cannot sensibly be be said to exist collective ownership of the means of production or there is collective ownership in which there cannot sensibly be said to exist a capitalist class.
False dichotomy. The capitalist class not only continues to exist in a legal and empowered form outside of the borders of working-class control, but the capitalist class continues as anti-socialist agents within those same borders in the form of criminals, black marketeers and the like. Thus, those forces must be fought. You're trying to say that if the workers control society in one country, then there can't possibly be another class in existence...in other words, you think the capitalist class disappears into thin air. That makes absolutely no sense. Please note that this has already been dealt with earlier in the thread.

Again, this is all very simple stuff. Were you a socialist, none of my explanations would be necessary. After all, there is no greater an encouragement to misunderstand the necessary aspects of socialism than opposition to precisely that.

Revolutionair

9th July 2011, 16:43

It must be really confusing to be a Leninist. So there is no capital, but there are capitalists? :blink:

Revolutionair

9th July 2011, 16:46

manic expression

9th July 2011, 17:05

1. They are a part of a socialist society.
2. This means that society is socialist (how else can you live in a socialist society)
3. There are still capitalists.
4. So there still is capital.
5. Socialism is a form of capitalism?
5 Must be true if all of the above of is true. To operate within the borders of a society as a capitalist, means that the rule of capital is still present within said borders.
That's a false line of logic. Using the exact same reasoning, you could call 14th Century France a "form of capitalism", which is of course a stupid thing to say. As for capitalists in socialist society, like I said they take up positions on the margins of society as criminals and black marketeers since their mode of production is illegalized. The main point is that the expropriators don't disappear as soon as they're expropriated.

"Let the non-party members tremble in fear at the sight of a Stalinist revolution."
Well, it seems to be the only kind of revolution around, so tremble all you like if you hate socialism.

Revolutionair

9th July 2011, 17:06

What is your definition of capitalism, and what is your definition of a capitalist?

Revolutionair

9th July 2011, 17:08

Well, it seems to be the only kind of revolution around, so tremble all you like if you hate socialism.

The socialism that is synonymous with communism AKA a classless and stateless society, or the socialism that is somehow filled with capitalists and has a strong authoritarian one-party state with a large force of secret police spies?

robbo203

9th July 2011, 18:18

False dichotomy. The capitalist class not only continues to exist in a legal and empowered form outside of the borders of working-class control, but the capitalist class continues as anti-socialist agents within those same borders in the form of criminals, black marketeers and the like. Thus, those forces must be fought. You're trying to say that if the workers control society in one country, then there can't possibly be another class in existence...in other words, you think the capitalist class disappears into thin air. That makes absolutely no sense. Please note that this has already been dealt with earlier in the thread.

Again, this is all very simple stuff. Were you a socialist, none of my explanations would be necessary. After all, there is no greater an encouragement to misunderstand the necessary aspects of socialism than opposition to precisely that.

You are digging yourself into ever deeper hole and making yourself look even more ridiculous in the process if that is possible.

I repeat the simple point which you and your pea brain seem not to have comrehended. If the capitalist class exists in your so called "socialist society" it can only exist by vityue of the that it posesses capital. Heres a clue which even a dullard like yourself might be able to wrap your mind around. Where do you think the term "capitalist class" comes from, eh? Thats right! From the term "capital". A capitalist is someone who possesses sufficient capital to live upon without having to sell their labour power to an employer.

Now pay attention and listen up . If a capitalist class exists as you contend it does in a socialist society that can only mean that there exists in socialism, according to you, a class that possesses capital, a class that therefore has ownership of the mean of production

But, according to you, the Soviet Union was "socialist" and "No one owned the means of production or held power over workers in social production in the Soviet Union because those relations had been abolished. That's how socialism works."

But if no one owns the means of production in socialism then how can you possibly have a capitalist class in socialism that owns the means of production and, in fact, is defined by the very fact it possesses capital i.e. exercise economic ownership of the means of production?

What you might want to say, as I have suggested earlier, is that there are ex-capitalists in socialism. That would be quite acceptable and you might even be able to construct a half plausible argument that these ex capitalists would want to see capitalism retored and so need suppressing". What you cannot say, however, is that there are or would be, extant capitalists in socialism because that would flatly contradict your own claim that no one owns the means of production in socialism. If you cant see this then you are even dumber than i thought. If no owns the means of production there cannot be any capitalists owning the means of production.

Problem is that you have nailed your colours to the mast and have so tied yourself up in knots by claiming that "socialism is still a class society" and still therefore has a capitalist class that you cannot extricate yoursellf from the logical absurdity to which you have succumbed . Not without losing face, that is, and you're a cocky little bugger - ain't ya? - so you are not going to willingly countenance that fact that you may just have screwed up big time on this point

And then you have the nerve to say this is all simple stuff. Simple enough for you not to comprehend elementary logic, it seems

Revolutionair

9th July 2011, 18:35

The main point is that the expropriators don't disappear as soon as they're expropriated.

But you MUST agree that the capitalists, are no longer capitalists, since they don't have any capital anymore.

Revolutionair

9th July 2011, 18:39

Robbo, although I agree with you, you might want to edit out some of the more demeaning parts of your post.

Realize that only through mutual respect and solidarity among the groups that make up our political sector can we realize our common goals.

robbo203

9th July 2011, 18:51

Robbo, although I agree with you, you might want to edit out some of the more demeaning parts of your post.

Fair enough. It just pisses me off when you find yourself the butt of a gratuitous insult such as "It's hardly "clever" to point out the elementary to a fool" . But,yes , I guess I shouldn't rise to the bait.

I'll take a deep breath in future and make myself a nice cup of tea when needlessly provoked :)

manic expression

9th July 2011, 19:11

What is your definition of capitalism, and what is your definition of a capitalist?
In brief, private ownership of the (industrial) means of production. Wage labor, commodity production, the capitalist state, imperialism and more all follow from this.

But you MUST agree that the capitalists, are no longer capitalists, since they don't have any capital anymore.
Illegalized capitalists pushed into marginal, black market roles are still capitalists, and those are the avenues through which they survive. Plus, oftentimes they also get capital from the support of foreign capitalists. We have no problem saying that the families of capitalists are themselves capitalist because they're dependent on that position in the capitalist mode of production...so why would we say anything different for anti-socialist agents who get financial support from all kinds of capitalist sources?

Robbo, although I agree with you, you might want to edit out some of the more demeaning parts of your post.Then there won't be any of his posts left at all. :lol:

I repeat the simple point which you and your pea brain seem not to have comrehended. If the capitalist class exists in your so called "socialist society" it can only exist by vityue of the that it posesses capital. Heres a clue which even a dullard like yourself might be able to wrap your mind around. Where do you think the term "capitalist class" comes from, eh? Thats right! From the term "capital". A capitalist is someone who possesses sufficient capital to live upon without having to sell their labour power to an employer.
Again you're not listening, so I'll just repeat myself:

The capitalist class not only continues to exist in a legal and empowered form outside of the borders of working-class control, but the capitalist class continues as anti-socialist agents within those same borders in the form of criminals, black marketeers and the like. Thus, those forces must be fought. You're trying to say that if the workers control society in one country, then there can't possibly be another class in existence...in other words, you think the capitalist class disappears into thin air. That makes absolutely no sense. Please note that this has already been dealt with earlier in the thread.

Now pay attention and listen up . If a capitalist class exists as you contend it does in a socialist society that can only mean that there exists in socialism, according to you, a class that possesses capital, a class that therefore has ownership of the mean of productionOutside of the borders of working-class control, yes. Within those borders, the class only survives in illegal and marginal roles, supported by capitalists outside of socialism.

What you might want to say, as I have suggested earlier, is that there are ex-capitalists in socialism.Then how do we explain black marketeers and those who work for capitalist states as anti-socialist agents? How do you explain the outside influence of capitalist forces? You don't explain them because they don't fit into your imaginary world of five-minute communism. As I said, there's no greater motivation to misunderstand socialism than a disinterest in socialism.

Problem is that you have nailed your colours to the mast and have so tied yourself up in knots by claiming that "socialism is still a class society" and still therefore has a capitalist class that you cannot extricate yoursellf from the logical absurdity to which you have succumbed . Not without losing face, that is, and you're a cocky little bugger - ain't ya? - so you are not going to willingly countenance that fact that you may just have screwed up big time on this point

And then you have the nerve to say this is all simple stuff. Simple enough for you not to comprehend elementary logic, it seemsSomeone's getting frustrated by the facts. :lol: If only temper tantrums counted as arguments, perhaps then you could boast of offering one.

Paulappaul

9th July 2011, 19:24

I think genuine representation isn't something to condemn, as we can't expect the whole of the working-class to vote on everything in the midst of a civil war.

I agree with this, the conditions of the civil war in some places required a break in principles.

I have to disagree and say that yes, the workers did actually control society through their own organs of self-organization.

I have intended on pointing out to you, that these were not unanimously organs of self organization. We had a tendency to make Spontaneity and Self Organization synonymous with one other forgetting the actual character of the "Self Organization" itself. Which I have said to be a mix mash of Forums for Revolutionaries, Committees for Specialists and Top Down Soviet Structures.

First, the Cheka were revolutionaries because they were supporting and defending the Revolution. If not for them, imperialist agents would have been swarming like wasps all around Russia. Second, none of this demonstrates how the Cheka were somehow stopping working-class power across the country. They proved overzealous and clearly wrong in some cases, but the Soviets were not generally disrupted by their actions, no?

Despite some of the Cheka's proletarian background it shows that they were corrupt and what they claimed to represent was thrown out the window when they had the power of the state at their back. I don't want to sound like an Anarchist, but it something we should consider in the future. These so called Revolutionaries in the face of the revolution lost all sight of what it meant. I recongize the importance of having an armed force aganist Imperialism however, your point it taken to this extent.

As to your second point, the Cheka following the Kronstadt affair was around to watch over Soviet and Factory Committee proceedings. To this effect I think Syndicat (or whoever said this) when says Cheka was forcing people to vote a certain way is false. At least in the pre 1921 years I would maintain that a large section of the working class was Bolshevik.

the Bolsheviks were vastly proletarian, with some leaders from peasant backgrounds and a few from upper-class backgrounds. I don't think the inclusion of a few people who weren't born into the proletariat determines the character of the party, as that would be overly deterministic.

The Bolsheviks were the state. The State representing and constituting all the elements of society. If the Bolsheviks were authentically proletarian it would have been the dictatorship of the smallest minority for which the Revolutionary Peasants and Bourgeois would have overthrown. Even the character of the workers were those who fresh to Industrial society from the fields that their forefathers had tended to for thousands of years. And in the Post Civil War period these workers returned to these fields. By this time only the smallest minority of workers were left, and these consisted of those upper strata Union officials who were in ranks with the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks from the beginning.

Rooster

9th July 2011, 19:53

In brief, private ownership of the (industrial) means of production. Wage labor, commodity production, the capitalist state, imperialism and more all follow from this.

Was there not wage labour and commodity production in the USSR? :confused:

Illegalized capitalists pushed into marginal, black market roles are still capitalists, and those are the avenues through which they survive.

Which capitalists? Weren't all of the capitalist classes removed when Stalin proclaimed socialism? :confused:

Plus, oftentimes they also get capital from the support of foreign capitalists.

But a capitalist still has to accumlate capital otherwise other capitalists won't invest. Are you saying that capitalists existed in the USSR who owned means of production? :confused:

We have no problem saying that the families of capitalists are themselves capitalist because they're dependent on that position in the capitalist mode of production...so why would we say anything different for anti-socialist agents who get financial support from all kinds of capitalist sources?

So to be a capitalist you have to "In brief, [own] private ownership of the (industrial) means of production". How does this make the family members capitalist? :confused: If you're just saying they get financial support then wouldn't that mean any family where only the father worked were anti-socialist? :confused:

The capitalist class not only continues to exist in a legal and empowered form outside of the borders of working-class control,

So the USSR legally allowed capitalists to operate then? :confused: So they did exist within the borders of working-class control if the state allowed them to? :confused:

but the capitalist class continues as anti-socialist agents within those same borders in the form of criminals, black marketeers and the like.

Why would they need to operate on the black market if being a capitalist is legal? :confused:

Thus, those forces must be fought.

But they were made legal.... :confused:

You're trying to say that if the workers control society in one country, then there can't possibly be another class in existence...in other words, you think the capitalist class disappears into thin air. That makes absolutely no sense.

How can you be a capitalist in a state where there is no "private ownership of the (industrial) means of production. Wage labor, commodity production"? :confused: Is it becauase you said they exist legally? :confused:

Outside of the borders of working-class control, yes. Within those borders, the class only survives in illegal and marginal roles, supported by capitalists outside of socialism.

You just said otherwise with the legal stuff :confused:

God, you're boring. :(

manic expression

9th July 2011, 22:03

You raise some very important points, Paulappaul, I'll get to a response soon.

Was there not wage labour and commodity production in the USSR? :confused:
No, there were neither. Generalized commodity production is an impossibility if no one can privately hire workers (ie buy their labor) or own factories and the like.

Which capitalists? Weren't all of the capitalist classes removed when Stalin proclaimed socialism? :confused:Did he proclaim that?

But a capitalist still has to accumlate capital otherwise other capitalists won't invest. Are you saying that capitalists existed in the USSR who owned means of production? :confused:Support from capitalists for political purposes.

So to be a capitalist you have to "In brief, [own] private ownership of the (industrial) means of production". How does this make the family members capitalist? :confused: If you're just saying they get financial support then wouldn't that mean any family where only the father worked were anti-socialist? :confused:Read what I wrote again.

So the USSR legally allowed capitalists to operate then? :confused: So they did exist within the borders of working-class control if the state allowed them to? :confused:Read what I wrote again.

Why would they need to operate on the black market if being a capitalist is legal? :confused:They weren't legal.

But they were made legal.... :confused:No, they weren't. I said as much previously.

How can you be a capitalist in a state where there is no "private ownership of the (industrial) means of production. Wage labor, commodity production"? :confused: Is it becauase you said they exist legally? :confused:No, it's because they exist through illegal activity.

You just said otherwise with the legal stuff :confused:No, you're just not reading what I wrote. Try again.

God, you're boring. :(When I have to repeat myself to people who refuse to read what I write, then yeah, it can be boring at times.

RED DAVE

9th July 2011, 22:33

The Bolsheviks were the state. The State representing and constituting all the elements of society. If the Bolsheviks were authentically proletarian it would have been the dictatorship of the smallest minority for which the Revolutionary Peasants and Bourgeois would have overthrown. Even the character of the workers were those who fresh to Industrial society from the fields that their forefathers had tended to for thousands of years. And in the Post Civil War period these workers returned to these fields. By this time only the smallest minority of workers were left, and these consisted of those upper strata Union officials who were in ranks with the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks from the beginning.To which we have to add the results of the so-called Lenin Levy.

Under this program, after the death of Lenin, the tens of thousands of new members were recruited into the party whose ranks had been vastly depleted by the civil war. As has been pointed out by others, these were people, workers, peasants and bureaucrats, with little of no political experience, who lacked either the guts or the political intelligence to join the party before or during the revolution or the civil war.

This was the base of Stalinism within the Bolshevik Party.

RED DAVE

Jose Gracchus

9th July 2011, 22:42

No, there were neither. Generalized commodity production is an impossibility if no one can privately hire workers (ie buy their labor) or own factories and the like.

Show me where this is located in Marx's writings.

Revolutionair

9th July 2011, 22:52

1. What keeps the state from hiring workers?
2. I thought the state bought the labor when the state paid the wage? Didn't the workers in the USSR receive a wage?

Also:

What is your definition of capitalism, and what is your definition of a capitalist?

You answered the first question:

In brief, private ownership of the (industrial) means of production. Wage labor, commodity production, the capitalist state, imperialism and more all follow from this.

But you did not answer my second question. So, what is your definition of a capitalist. If the answer is: a man or woman who owns capital, then how can capitalists exist when there is no capital?

DaringMehring

9th July 2011, 22:59

Participation in bourgeois government has been done by just about every genuine working-class party that can...the Bolsheviks included.

Leaving aside all other parts of this thread, this statement is very misleading. The Bolshevik "participation" in the Duma was not constructive, but obstructive and propagandistic. They did not propose legislation, or try to acquire and weird power within the framework of the capitalist state of Russia's sham Duma. What "Bolshevik legislation" was there? What respect for or interest in playing the game of bourgeois democracy did Lenin have? Please.

Now lets name the, to use your words, "genuine working-class parties" that do or have participated in these parliaments, making blocs with other parties, proposing legislation and doing deals to try to get it through, and so on. The PCF, PCE, etc.? Labor & the SPD? The JCP? Who are you talking about... because I don't see any "genuine working-class party" doing those things. I see fakers, the naive, sell-outs, and ready-made bureaucrats.

Don't misrepresent the Bolsheviks and their methods, and try to lift up the fakers by associating them with the Bolshevik's success, which came by rejecting and overthrowing the Provisional Government. Rejecting and overthrowing the new, non-Tsarist bourgeois democratic parliament, one that even pretended to be revolutionary, and was filled with self-styled working class parties eg the Mensheviks and SRs. They overthrew it. Don't pretend they and the PCF, CPN(M), etc. are anything like the same thing.

Agent Equality

9th July 2011, 23:08

Honestly I think the vanguard party was stupid to keep. It was fine since Russia was mainly uneducated peasants but as it went on the party would have no longer been needed. This allowed those who would want to rule over the people and destroy the revolution to do these things.

You cannot deny history or the fact that under the marxist-leninist regimes, the people were not in control of many things, and they were quite unhappy under these regimes.

It has been tried for nearly a century and simply has not worked effectively. I can't see any way people would think that it would somehow work after all of the failures.

Albert Einstein once said "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

We have seen the results of Marxist-Leninist regimes and to try and do it again but expecting it to work this time would be just that, insanity.

Barry

9th July 2011, 23:31

Comrades we have to of course take historical elements into account, although I consider myself a Marxist-Leninist however I consider that there were mistakes made by Lenin. One of the 1st of these is that Marx's writings state that russia could only effectively develop socialism with a already established socialist country in one of the countries that were industrialised in Capitalism. Lenin's writings are great but again the bolshevik party was as such a product of Imperial russia not trusting those outside the organisation, this continued following the revolution.
Lenin's decision to himself begin the dictatorship of the poletariat may have worked had he lived long enough to put in place a democratic frame work sadly the civil war and his death delayed this purpose and lead to Stalin obtaining power. We have to see that Lenins doctorine was not near completed before his death and was abandoned by Stalin as such the Soviet Union following Lenin's death ceased to become a Marxist-Leninist state.
For Marxist-Leninism to work it has to be followed closely as well as adapted as such for the modern world, we also have to look at the problem that although there has existed "Marxist-Leninist" states do these truly follow the writngs of Marx and lenin or attempt to change these into a policy to be aligned with nationalism which again can cause contradictions

RED DAVE

10th July 2011, 00:16

I am far from illiterate with regard to history or discussion, and what I said was that I would "leave the Russian stuff aside" as others are dealing with you quite well. You have lied about what I said.
Don't be sore that you had to duck out of an argument, especially one you are either unwilling or unable to address honestly.Please! The day that I can't handle an argument with a Maoist, I'll join the fucking Tea Party.

What I have done, quite simply, is point out what the Maoists are doing.

(A) Prachanda assumed the prime ministership of a bourgeois government.

(B) The Maoists are part of the current bourgeois government.
Participation in bourgeois government has been done by just about every genuine working-class party that can...the Bolsheviks included.Bullshit. Give me some examples.

As to the Bolsheviks, you ignored my point above. The Bolsheviks participated in the Tsarist Duma in order to disrupt the government and make propaganda. It was the Mensheviks and the SRs who participated in the bourgeois government.

The Nepalese maoists are actively participating in the bourgeois government of Nepal. They are helping to build full-blown capitalism. they are aiding and abetting in the exploitation of the working class and the peasantry.

(C) The party has split into three factions.

Splits happen all the time in the left. So what?Sure they do. But this split involves a fracturing of the party into three reformist factions, each one led by one of the three major leaders of the party, and not one of which is worth shit.

(D) Not one of these factions has any serious notion of either appealing directly to the working class or restarting the peoples war.
What do you call the Bandh?The bandh of 14 months ago was an action of the the party as a whole and not any of its factions. it's purpose was strictly reformist: it attempted to force the resignation of a bourgeois prime minister, who was replaced by another bourgeois prime minister.

Maoism, one of the tendencies within ML, has completely abandoned any form of revolutionary politics in Nepal. It's a complete sell-out.

RED DAVE

syndicat

10th July 2011, 04:10

manic:
Workers did have power over production through the establishment and defense of Soviet power, which represented working-class control over the means of production.control over production means control over the immediate planning and carrying out out of their work and authority over the workplace.

during the revolution (1917 to early-1918) in some hundreds of workplaces the workers expropriated the capitalists and set up a collective system of their own control. this was based on replacing the old management with the shop committee, which was elected by the worker assemblies, which also dealt with other matters as well.

all of this was ended by 1920. "one-man management" replaced it. the workers were now subject to bosses not elected by them but appointed from above. a whole bureaucratic apparatus of planning was created.

the fact that workers had elected delegates to the soviet congress in Oct 1917, which allowed the Bolsheviks to organize a narrow governing committee which Lenin was head of, does not show that workers were able to exercize any effective day to day control over that government.

the fact that sovnarkom by spring of 1918 was ruling by decree and not consulting the large body of congress delegates (the CEC) that was supposed to be the nominal legislature, shows a rapid deterioration towards party dictatorship, which was also expressed in the CP's overthrow of numerous soviets in the spring of 1918, when the CP lost its majority in the elections to the soviets. so obviusly if workers voting for soviet delegates could be overthrown by force by the party, what does that say about workers having real power?

and, anyway, there were not worker controlled bodies in the workplaces after 1920 that workers directly controlled and thru which they could control the productive activity. instead they were subordinate to a hierarchy of managers, engineers and planners.

altho Dave says it was "the exigencies of the civil war" that brought this about I don't buy that argument. workers self-management could be maintained in a civil war, and would encourage greater productivity as workers would feel they had something real to fight for.

RedMarxist

10th July 2011, 04:18

if I may join this discussion? I'd like to ask: Was Lenin a dictator in the true sense of the word, or was it the party that gradually became a dictatorship ?

if it was the party that became the dictatorship, and from what we've seen from the usurpation of democracy over time during the civil war, is it impossible for Leninism to have democracy?

twenty percent tip

10th July 2011, 04:21

my cricketism is thatcapitalism is stillhere despitye allthe marxism-leninism youcould uever want andthen some. its a leninbuffet out here for jeds sakes:blink:

twenty percent tip

10th July 2011, 04:24

"if I may join this discussion?"

you may not.:lol::wub:

RedMarxist

10th July 2011, 04:45

sorry if i lack experience. better go gain some more xp so i can level up my leninist class.

robbo203

10th July 2011, 09:26

Again you're not listening, so I'll just repeat myself:

The capitalist class not only continues to exist in a legal and empowered form outside of the borders of working-class control, but the capitalist class continues as anti-socialist agents within those same borders in the form of criminals, black marketeers and the like. Thus, those forces must be fought. You're trying to say that if the workers control society in one country, then there can't possibly be another class in existence...in other words, you think the capitalist class disappears into thin air. That makes absolutely no sense. Please note that this has already been dealt with earlier in the thread.

Outside of the borders of working-class control, yes. Within those borders, the class only survives in illegal and marginal roles, supported by capitalists outside of socialism..

So lets consider this claim. You have been forced to concede that if a capitalist class exists in your so called socialist society this must mean that there exists in socialism a class that has ownership that has ownership of the mean of production to the exclusion of the workers - this in contradiction to your earlier claim that in socialism "no one owns the means the production". Except that now you say that this capitalist class "only survives in illegal and marginal roles, supported by capitalists outside of socialism"

Is this claim plausible? Not in the least

To begin with, illlegal private ownership of the mean of production is still de facto private ownership of the means of production. So its not true, even on your own highly contrived terms, that within what you call "socialism" no one owns the means of production. Some do even if they own it illegally. In fact in the state capitalist regime that was the Soviet Union which you hold up as an example of "socialism", the black market was massive and all pervasive. Whatever its legal status, there is no way in which it could be done away with and the authorities knew this full well. There is moreover considerable evidence of close links between sections of the Soviet ruling class and the Russian mafia. "You scratch my back and I will scratch yours" is the expression that springs to mind

Secondly you have to ask yourself how or why a capitalist class could even continue to survive in a socialist society. It survives because there exists in such society - according to you at any rate - a market, buying and selling. The purpose of capitalist-motivated production is to realise a profit though the sale of commodities on a market. That presupposes the existence of a market in the first place.

Now you have claimed that in socialism no one owns the means of production. Well, as any Marxist will tell you, the mode of distribution is governed or determined by the mode of production. If there is no one owning the means of production it follows that products resulting from production cannot be bought and sold, cannot be exchanged. Exchange is after all an exchange of property rights to what is being exchanged. By what right to you assert ownership over some product that has been priduced by means that are commonly owned by all?

So there can be no market in socialism and that means there can be no black market either. If logically speaking there is common ownership - or no ownership - of the means of production that can only mean individuals having direct access to the goods produced and there is simply no way in which one might be induced to buy something when one can appropriate it directly. Common ownership of the means of production destroys the very basis upon which a market - any market - exists

Which brings me neatly to my thrird point. What you call "socialism" is actually state capitalism, pure and simple. This is why it is a class based society, not becuase the capitalists exists as some residual and fugitive antisocial force that strives to undermine the system from without but rather because that class is at the very helm of the so called socialist regime and takes the form of a state capitalist class.. This class effectively owns and controls the means of production, not through western style de jure entitlement to private stockholdings but, rather, through its direct and complete control of the state apparatus which decisively determines the allocation of the economic surplus

As Fred Engels put it:

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

In point of fact I find it curious that some people still insist that a capitalist class can only exist if there exists the de jure legal right for individuals to privately possess capital. This is an idealist conception of the mode of production which attempts to explain the latter in terms of its legal superstrucutre. In the above work, Engels refuted this claim by pointing out the way capitalism had evolved from the stereotypical prototype of the individual capitalist owning his or her own business through joint stock companieis and trustification to capitalist state ownership of the means of production. In the Soviet Union which you call "socialist" , capitalism mainly took this last form

Which brings me to my final point. If a working class exists in "socialism" it can only exist by virtue of the fact that it is separated from the means of production and has therefore to sell its labour power to those who effectively owns those means - whether that be private capitalists or the state (for which read the state capitalist class that controls the said state). There is no such thing as a working class that exists in splendid isolation; it must be organically linked to the existence of another class - namely, the capitalist class. Like Marx said wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa.

Stalin's absurd claim in the 1930s that in the soviet union there were only two classes - the workers and the peasants - was about as incoherent and anti-marxist as it gets and unfortunately generations of naive leftists - of which you are a prime example - have been suckered since into succumbing to the same ridiculous logic underlying this preposterous claim