Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[The Jay]

I think that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat (DotP) is not necessarily a top-down organizational structure as I thought was meant by it previously. I now think that it merely means that non-proletarians are simply excluded from the political process. This I think could be managed through a soviet type system (from my loose understanding of it, maybe Ismail could help me out here) with factory councils electing immediately re-callable representatives to the government. There are some issues that I could see arising from a system like the one I just suggested, but I would have to be more knowledgeable to work those problems out. I'm sure that I'm not the only one to have thought of this in history either. If anyone would like to critique me or add to this, please do.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's a huge mistake to make too. Retired and long-term disabled persons with nonetheless working-class backgrounds should be as entitled to political participation as the directly producing workers. The original Soviet constitution may have used the word "soviets" to describe its geographic constituencies-based system, and they may have explicitly disenfranchised "persons who employ hired labour for profit; persons living on unearned income, such as interest on capital, profits from enterprises, receipts from property, etc.; private traders and commercial middle-men; monks and ministers of religion; employees and agents of the former police, the special corps of gendarmerie and the secret political police department, as well as members of the former imperial family; persons declared insane by legal proceeding, as well as persons in ward; and persons condemned for pecuniary and infamous crimes to terms established by law or by a court decision" - but at the end of the day the only thing separating the massive soviets from parliaments was the inability of the former to meet in continuous session to at least hold executive-government bodies (Sovnarkom) to account, instead meeting once every few months at best.

So much for the rhetoric of massive soviets combining legislative and executive-administrative power.

[The Jay]

Anyone else want to give their input?

[Veovis]

I wish Marx never coined that phrase. I realize he was using the word "dictatorship" in an ironic sense to mean true democracy, but so many people have hung onto that word trying to claim that socialism is authoritarian.

[Broletariat]

Anyone else want to give their input?

FvNb0x5muno

But yea, I'm going to recommend Marx's writings on the Paris Commune for a better understanding of what he meant by DotP.

I always like to contrast the DotP with what we have today, the DotB (bourgeois, obviously).

The form is "democratic," but the content is a class dictatorship of the rich. The DotP would just have the proles ruling stead of the bourgeois, and we'll keep in mind how massive the proles are, so the form will be waay different.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

As Luxemburg wrote, it should be "a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique -- dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy."

[The Jay]

As Luxemburg wrote, it should be "a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique -- dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy."

That's what I was advocating, in different words.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Without that utmost democracy that Luxemburg discussed, there can be no class rule. There can be rule in the name of a class, but not the rule of the class itself. The term is not literally meant, as a totalitarian regime. We know that.

[The Jay]

Well it was a discovery for me. I'm pretty happy with myself for figuring it out nearly on my own, without ever having read Luxemburg and just beginning to read Marx.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well it was a discovery for me. I'm pretty happy with myself for figuring it out nearly on my own, without ever having read Luxemburg and just beginning to read Marx.

That's a good thing. It's also what led me to discover Luxemburg, was my own belief in a DotP that wasn't a literal dictatorship.

[Grenzer]

Luxembourg was a pretty good communist, but I think spontaneity is a terrible idea. That aside, there are some good and interesting ideas in her works.

Well as for the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, of course it doesn't have to be from the top down. In fact, I'd argue that by necessity it must be from the bottom up. I think history has proven this.

[Искра]

Luxembourg was a pretty good communist, but I think spontaneity is a terrible idea.
Are you aware that Russian Revolution was based also on spontaneity of working class? I mean, all revolts so far have been based upont spontaneity and spontaneity is necessary, because revolution needs to unite as much as workers possible under one goal. Also, it's quite naive to believe that Russian Revolution was achived because of strong Bolshevik party and discipline. Bolsheviks were in the mess and half of party, especially its right wing, were against revolution because they didn't believed that it was possible.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Are you aware that Russian Revolution was based also on spontaneity of working class? I mean, all revolts so far have been based upont spontaneity and spontaneity is necessary, because revolution needs to unite as much as workers possible under one goal. Also, it's quite naive to believe that Russian Revolution was achived because of strong Bolshevik party and discipline. Bolsheviks were in the mess and half of party, especially its right wing, were against revolution because they didn't believed that it was possible.

Something that reading The Mass Strike could have told him.

[Grenzer]

Are you aware that Russian Revolution was based also on spontaneity of working class? I mean, all revolts so far have been based upont spontaneity and spontaneity is necessary, because revolution needs to unite as much as workers possible under one goal. Also, it's quite naive to believe that Russian Revolution was achieved because of strong Bolshevik party and discipline. Bolsheviks were in the mess and half of party, especially its right wing, were against revolution because they didn't believed that it was possible.

You mean the spontaneous revolt of the February Revolution that resulted in a bourgeois democracy? From my understanding, Bolsheviks almost entirely organized the October Revolution on their own, with consent and aid of the working class. Without the leadership of the Bolsheviks, the October Revolution probably would have been doomed to failure. The October Revolution seemed to be more of a premeditated, planned even than a spontaneous uprising.

I agree that spontaneity is important, but what I meant more was that without a vanguard, I do not think such movements will be successful.. Vanguardism has a much better track record, at least within the context of actually making successful revolutions. Having them actually last.. not so much.

Where did you get the claim that they rejected revolution? From my understanding the Central Committee voted overwhelmingly in favor of it, with only two being against.

Perhaps I have a flawed understanding of the concept of spontaneity; but the way it had been explained to me is that the workers should not be organized in any way by a party, but rather left to their own devices in regards to making revolution. This was explained to me by a Marxist-Leninist, so it could be very skewed. I haven't had the free time to actually go through and read Luxembourg's texts yet. From your response, I can surmise that this is probably not an accurate definition.

[RedTrackWorker]

Given how people use the term dictatorship today, it can be a misleading term--but "democracy" or "democratic rule" can be just as--or more--misleading. It's a dictatorship because it is still class divided society and there is still the necessity of organized coercion. Better than the platitude democracy, let's say it calls for the greatest possible mass involvement in the direction of society.

For me, the key turning point in my understanding of the need for a dictatorship of the proletariat--i.e. organized coercion--and not just an anarchist view of destroying all state power was--being from the South as I am--trying to imagine how the workers and the oppressed could rule there, and even if the current state power were destroyed, even if you had a "majority," I do not see how you could rule without organized coercion based on the workers, poor and oppressed. I see that as a "workers' state".

Another example would be that most strikes involved in forming the key industrial unions in this country were not "democratic" in that they were not the formal expression of the will of the majority. Take the sit down strike in Flint which was what really won the CIO and made it nationally viable--it was a clear minority of workers on strike, with only the passive acceptance of the majority of workers. If there had been a vote, they might have easily lost. I think the vote after the Trotskyist-lead Teamster strike in 34 was pretty close, even though it had been a complete shut down. One could also point to the general principle that the workers' movement defends the right of assembly as a democratic right it can use to organize itself as a class to take power, but precisely for that reason, it does not let scabs exercise that right to work when they want nor fascists the right to "assemble" to prepare for their genocidal, anti-working class activities--whereas a simple "democrat" would be for the "rights" of scabs and fascists to do those things.

[Jose Gracchus]

Stripping away shibboleths, I think both class-struggle anarchists and authentically emancipatory Marxists (that is, actual Marxists, not "Marxist-Leninists") should be able to concur on a basic form and content of an immediate, post-seizure of power transitionary regime. The anarchists might quibble about organizational forms and electoral elements. Though I think while anarchists might be obsessed with organizational form half the time, a lot of Marxists really have no program today for the dictatorship of the proletariat, given the discrediting of the Kautskyist relict program of state-nationalization by way of the wage-labor prison regime that was the USSR. At best, maybe strike committees + power = socialism.

[Rooster]

The DotP implies still a class society and not strictly a socialist one. To me, it's when the mass of the population, the proletariats, have political and economic control. To get to this point may need guns and strikes and struggles but once we get to that point, with the power in the hands of the proletariat, then things should become pretty easy. It is the mass participatory democracy of the proletariat, acting in it's own interest through which it has learned through labour struggles. I don't see it as being a very minority party acting in the interest of the proletariat. That's patronising and leads to results that we have already seen.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Though I think while anarchists might be obsessed with organizational form half the time, a lot of Marxists really have no program today for the dictatorship of the proletariat, given the discrediting of the Kautskyist relic program of state-nationalization by way of the wage-labor prison regime that was the USSR. At best, maybe strike committees + power = socialism.

The basic premise behind state nationalizations (including those arising from grassroots workers pressure on the Bolsheviks) is that legal relations and a monopoly on the law cannot be ignored at all, like you have. It is the monopoly on the law that decides, for example, what is legal tender and what isn't.

At the EU level, an ECB financial services monopoly wouldn't exactly come about through "relic" nationalization, but it would definitely come about through the mechanism that is the monopoly on the law.

Here's another aspect of monopoly on the law:

http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/issue/691/13039/26-10-2011/euro-crisis-urgent-need-to-build-a-socialist-alternative


The key question in Greece is breaking with the capitalist system. Without this, living standards will fall for some time whether or not it stays with the euro.

Socialists would not oppose leaving the euro but would firmly link it to a socialist policy of bank nationalisation. In the case of a single country breaking from capitalism, a state monopoly of foreign trade and exchange controls would be necessary as a defence from the international markets until a similar movement spreads to other countries.

The more important component there is public monopoly on foreign trade, since exchange controls and capital controls more broadly can be achieved even within some Bastard Keynesian framework.

[Rafiq]

A dictatorship and 'democracy' are not contradictory.

Should the proletariat not dictate future society?

[Astarte]

What about the "true" petty bourgeoisie in the DoP? That is, small shop keepers who work for themselves, like solo, and don't employ, ie exploit the labor of others - also small peasants and farmers who work their own land while at the same time not exploiting wage labor. A lot of the pettiest of the petty bourgeoisie would support communism if they knew they would have a say in a "Soviet" for lack of better words.

[The Douche]

I like to use this quote as a definition for my understanding of the DotP:


The proletarian dictatorship is not a party programme, it is an organic consequence of the advancement of the communist tendency. And like that tendency, it manifests and grows as an unstoppable reaction to real conditions already in existence; in particular the need for any revolution to preserve and defend itself. After the overthrow of the State, the class struggle will not immediately disappear, especially in situations where the new revolutionary society is besieged by those sections of the bourgeoisie still in existence. The dictatorship of the proletariat represents the autonomous progression of a revolution to the point where it has done away with all aspects of the old regime, and is able to successfully maintain itself. This does not, however, mean sustained violence. Once achieved, an egalitarian society could by its very existence preserve the proletarian dictatorship, provided that its functions continued to be inherently non-hierarchal.

[Rafiq]

What about the "true" petty bourgeoisie in the DoP? That is, small shop keepers who work for themselves, like solo, and don't employ, ie exploit the labor of others - also small peasants and farmers who work their own land while at the same time not exploiting wage labor. A lot of the pettiest of the petty bourgeoisie would support communism if they knew they would have a say in a "Soviet" for lack of better words.

We oppose class collaboration.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

A dictatorship and 'democracy' are not contradictory.

Should the proletariat not dictate future society?
^that


and remember, if your representative is not doing what you want, remember he is supposed to always be on recall. that should fix most, if not all, of the problems

[Thirsty Crow]

^that


and remember, if your representative is not doing what you want, remember he is supposed to always be on recall. that should fix most, if not all, of the problems
And what actual political mechanisms of recall should there be? Since, you know, strikes and demonstrations have historically caught the ire of "recallable" officials.

[Die Rote Fahne]

"Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people." Rosa Luxemburg, (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm)The Russian Revolution, Chapter 8. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm)


And what actual political mechanisms of recall should there be? Since, you know, strikes and demonstrations have historically caught the ire of "recallable" officials.
I would suggest that all government officials; legislators, president, vice president and Council representatives be subject to recall by 60% vote of the constituents they fall under. This can be done through the councils themselves, with a quorum of "x" consituents.

[The Dark Side of the Moon]

basically what he said

[Adorno4498]

I haven't read much of Luxembourg, but I agree with the idea of councils, for the most part. However, I have been doubting the idea of DotP for some time. Not because I misinterpret it as dictatorship in a modern sense, or that I disagree that states serve the interests of the ruling class. But what worries me is the creation of yet another exploited class, and what I am curious about is the idea that class division is a relatively minscule part of something even bigger than economic relations: the relations of mankind and the creation of "otherness" in groups, ie scapegoating, and that man's need to classify others results in the supression of individuality, and ironically, a backlash that results in refusal to cooperate.

[tir1944]

Can some Luxembourgist explain how would Rosa's theories apply to 1917... Russia (a country that at one point didn't even have telegraph connections with its "periphery"? How did they work out in Germany and what has been learned from that historical experience?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Can some Luxembourgist explain how would Rosa's theories apply to 1917... Russia (a country that at one point didn't even have telegraph connections with its "periphery"? How did they work out in Germany and what has been learned from that historical experience?
Could you clarify a bit more? Your question is a bit vague...

[tir1944]

Ok,would Rosa's "view" of the DOTP have been a feasible way for the 1917 revolutionary Russia to take?
How did (or did it?) work in Germany?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Ok,would Rosa's "view" of the DOTP have been a feasible way for the 1917 revolutionary Russia to take?
How did (or did it?) work in Germany?Rosa had no developed theory of the DotP, just her ideas involved that it be democratic, and void of the top-down centralism of the Russian SPD/Bolsheviks.

In terms of Russia, I believe that had the Bolsheviks had took the initiative to, over time, push for the elimination of the ultra-centralism, institution of recallability, etc. it would have prevented the rise of bureaucratic capitalism (Stalinism), and achieved what the Bolsheviks originally wanted, socialism.

Luxemburg also mentioned that, under the circumstances, we could not expect Lenin and Trotsky to create the most perfect democracy.

In terms of Germany, her ideas were not put into practice. She was murdered in 1919 by the Freikorps, and the German SPD had betrayed her and international socialism in 1914 by voting for war credits, and ceasing to be an oppositionist Marxist party, and striving for elected power. There was not a successful socialist revolution there, the Spartacist Uprising was crushed, and the bourgeoisie retained power, with the SPD heading the government. We all know what happens next...

Here is her piece on the Russian Revolution (1917). (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm)

[tir1944]

Rosa had no developed theory of the DotP, just her ideas involved that it be democratic, and void of the top-down centralism of the Russian SPD/Bolsheviks.That's the problem
We have no theory and even less praxis but we have ideas and formulas which,from what we can see here at least,did not correspond to the material reality not even on paper.
Ideas...are nearly worthless in this particular context.A revolutionary Theory can be "countered" by theory and practice,not (vague) ideas.

[Adorno4498]

How come no one answers my questions? :(

[Die Rote Fahne]

That's the problem
We have no theory and even less praxis but we have ideas and formulas which,from what we can see here at least,did not correspond to the material reality not even on paper.
Ideas...are nearly worthless in this particular context.A revolutionary Theory can be "countered" by theory and practice,not (vague) ideas.

Not even Marx had a theory in regards to the DotP. He regarded the Paris Commune as a prime example at the time.

To work out a "theory" is somewhat unnecessary in my opinion. We know what the DotP is, we just need to apply it when the time arrives. The method of application needs to be democratic, replacing bourgeois parliamentarism with a proletariat form; councils and a legislative assembly (supreme council), replacing the military with a militia, etc. The methods should be subject to democratic selection by the masses of workers and soldiers, by elected representatives and platforms. One cannot simply take the lead and say "we need this and this, and because the majority disagrees, we will not have democratic rule".

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

But what worries me is the creation of yet another exploited class
How so?

[Die Rote Fahne]

How come no one answers my questions? :(

What question? Sorry.

[Adorno4498]

What question? Sorry.

Is there a possibility that this whole time, representatives of previous labouring classes have become complacent and found the need for another class to exploit? Will people always create classes? Or is stratification on at least an economic level do-away-able?
Further more, is the abolition of state necessary for socialism, contra Lenin, who claimed there needed to be a transition stage? I think the main downfall of previous socialist states has mainly been a lack of trust in the proletariat to establish class-conciousness. Thoughts?

[Comrade Jandar]

Is there a possibility that this whole time, representatives of previous labouring classes have become complacent and found the need for another class to exploit? Will people always create classes? Or is stratification on at least an economic level do-away-able?
Further more, is the abolition of state necessary for socialism, contra Lenin, who claimed there needed to be a transition stage? I think the main downfall of previous socialist states has mainly been a lack of trust in the proletariat to establish class-conciousness. Thoughts?

For the most part, class-consciousness within the proletariat is developed through material conditions. Propaganda and education of the working class goes only so far in terms of increasing it.

[Patagonia]

For the most part, class-consciousness within the proletariat is developed through material conditions. Propaganda and education of the working class goes only so far in terms of increasing it.

What do you exactly mean with that?

[Zederbaum]

Are you aware that Russian Revolution was based also on spontaneity of working class? I mean, all revolts so far have been based upont spontaneity and spontaneity is necessary, because revolution needs to unite as much as workers possible under one goal. Also, it's quite naive to believe that Russian Revolution was achived because of strong Bolshevik party and discipline. Bolsheviks were in the mess and half of party, especially its right wing, were against revolution because they didn't believed that it was possible.
Spontaneity is a fuzzy concept. In Russia, the February Revolution wasn't instigated by any Central Committee but it did emerge organically out of the synthesis of popular dissatisfaction and the political leadership of a range of political parties. That it wasn't under the direction of any one party or that few "big names" such as Lenin, Trotsky, Martov etc weren't associated with it doesn't mean that political activists such as Shliapnikov weren't in the thick of it.

The use of the word "spontaneous" by socialists often gives the impression that upsurges in class struggle occur in spite of political parties and their organisers. That may be true on occasion, but it certainly wasn't the case in 1917. The 1917 St Petersburg Soviet itself was initially proposed and organised by right-wing Mensheviks and right-wing SRs.

I'm increasingly inclined to think that the word "spontaneous" obscures more than it illuminates. A recent translation of Martov deliberately chose to use the word "elemental" rather than the usual "spontaneous" with regard to his writing on the Russian Revolution and it's useful in provoking us to think more precisely what we mean by the word. In general upsurges in popular participation are the products of long term organising and quite often behind the scenes activity of a hardened political core.


From my understanding, Bolsheviks almost entirely organized the October Revolution on their own, with consent and aid of the working class. Without the leadership of the Bolsheviks, the October Revolution probably would have been doomed to failure. The October Revolution seemed to be more of a premeditated, planned even than a spontaneous uprising.
Well there were anarchists and SRs also heavily involved, including on the Military Revolutionary Committee that directed the revolution. You're right though, that without the Bolsheviks, in particular Lenin and Trotsky, that it wouldn't have succeeded.


In terms of Germany, her ideas were not put into practice. She was murdered in 1919 by the Freikorps, and the German SPD had betrayed her and international socialism in 1914 by voting for war credits, and ceasing to be an oppositionist Marxist party, and striving for elected power. There was not a successful socialist revolution there, the Spartacist Uprising was crushed, and the bourgeoisie retained power, with the SPD heading the government.

2nd quote
The method of application needs to be democratic, replacing bourgeois parliamentarism with a proletariat form; councils and a legislative assembly (supreme council), replacing the military with a militia, etc. The methods should be subject to democratic selection by the masses of workers and soldiers, by elected representatives and platforms."

But there were workers' and soldiers' councils in Germany 1918. They just voted consistently for the majority SPD, i.e. which was led by a conservative and nationalist leadership. Why should we expect such a leadership to pursue a revolutionary socialist line?

I'm not a major fan of the choices that Lenin and Trotsky made in 1917 but they at least recognised the importance of winning the soviets over. The narrative of betrayal suffuses left explanations from anarchists to Stalinists, but it's very hard to know how much store to set by it. I can understand that view, particularly in relation to the SPD, given the nasty descent into nationalism of its right-wing faction, but the end result of the defeat of socialist alternatives was at least as much down to the failure of the socialist left, including unnecessary splitting and the launching of premature uprisings.

In any case, the intensity of struggle in the middle of a revolution can draw in masses of people into participating in politics via things like workers' councils or massive street protests. But we should remember that this involvement generally constitutes a minority and, more problematically for the long term health of the revolutionary society, ad hoc institutions such as soviets may not scale up well to governing society outside of this intense situation.

What happens when the masses retreat from very active participation in politics, irrespective of their reasons for doing so? The remaining political leaders need to be held accountable somehow. If the only mechanisms of doing so are hollowed out councils which are constructed on the basis of permanent, intense, and mass participation, then that is not necessarily any better than having a constituent assembly or revolutionary convention which have a built in tolerance for lower levels of participation.

Insofar as a federation of soviets can cope with that problem, they will, as DNZ mentioned, in effect amount to a parliament. The interlocking levels of delegation are too many for the base assemblies, if such even exist, to keep a close eye on.

There aren't any organisational short cuts to winning the majority over to the idea of socialism itself. Whether the particular form is a parliamentary republic, a federation of soviets, or a congress of syndicates is a tactical question.

Whatever the mechanics of democratic government, widespread consciousness of and support for socialist content is imperative if a Dictatorship of the Proletariat is to be useful. That includes securing democratic control of the state (or polity if we are talking to anarchists), which involves breaking the security state as well as capital's grip on the state through its bond markets. It entails beginning the reorganisation of the the economy so that there is public control of investment, promotion of workers' co-ops and an end to the extraction of surplus value by a private elite. These economic steps will take time; the greater the socialist consciousness the less time it will take, but there's no avoiding that it will take time.


Though I think while anarchists might be obsessed with organizational form half the time, a lot of Marxists really have no program today for the dictatorship of the proletariat, given the discrediting of the Kautskyist relict program of state-nationalization by way of the wage-labor prison regime that was the USSR.
It is true that few Marxist parties have a clear programme for the DotP. I'm not sure about the Kautskyist nature of the USSR's regime of state-nationalization. My reading of Kautsky, limited though it is, is that he favoured nationalisation in some areas (say the railways, land) and with limited practical effect but that for the most part he supported something akin to Schweickhart's Economic Democracy with the proviso that a Socialist Party could command sufficient support to tilt the playing field in labour's favour. That is, a lot more workers' co-ops and a lot less state micro-mananging of the economy. That's in his later writing anyway. I guess nationalisation is part of Schweickhart's model too, but it's so different to the Soviet one that it really bears very little resemblance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I like to use this quote as a definition for my understanding of the DotP:

Au contraire, the DOTP is a party-movement's entire minimum program.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Spontaneity is a fuzzy concept. In Russia, the February Revolution wasn't instigated by any Central Committee but it did emerge organically out of the synthesis of popular dissatisfaction and the political leadership of a range of political parties. That it wasn't under the direction of any one party or that few "big names" such as Lenin, Trotsky, Martov etc weren't associated with it doesn't mean that political activists such as Shliapnikov weren't in the thick of it.

The use of the word "spontaneous" by socialists often gives the impression that upsurges in class struggle occur in spite of political parties and their organisers. That may be true on occasion, but it certainly wasn't the case in 1917. The 1917 St Petersburg Soviet itself was initially proposed and organised by right-wing Mensheviks and right-wing SRs.

I'm increasingly inclined to think that the word "spontaneous" obscures more than it illuminates. A recent translation of Martov deliberately chose to use the word "elemental" rather than the usual "spontaneous" with regard to his writing on the Russian Revolution and it's useful in provoking us to think more precisely what we mean by the word. In general upsurges in popular participation are the products of long term organising and quite often behind the scenes activity of a hardened political core.

Who translated Martov? Anyway, stikhiinost is the organizationally defeatist worship of the self’s lack of control over the world.


In any case, the intensity of struggle in the middle of a revolution can draw in masses of people into participating in politics via things like workers' councils or massive street protests. But we should remember that this involvement generally constitutes a minority and, more problematically for the long term health of the revolutionary society, ad hoc institutions such as soviets may not scale up well to governing society outside of this intense situation.

Well said!


What happens when the masses retreat from very active participation in politics, irrespective of their reasons for doing so? The remaining political leaders need to be held accountable somehow.

Oh? I never considered that question of withdrawal, assuming withdrawal under a successful scenario.


If the only mechanisms of doing so are hollowed out councils which are constructed on the basis of permanent, intense, and mass participation, then that is not necessarily any better than having a constituent assembly or revolutionary convention which have a built in tolerance for lower levels of participation.

Are you suggesting, comrade, that the supreme body should be flexible in the powers it has? When mass participation ebbs up, it should appropriate executive and administrative powers, and when such ebbs down, it should function as "revolutionary parliamentarism"?


There aren't any organisational short cuts to winning the majority over to the idea of socialism itself. Whether the particular form is a parliamentary republic, a federation of soviets, or a congress of syndicates is a tactical question.

Or simply an overt party-movement structure. ;)


That includes securing democratic control of the state (or polity if we are talking to anarchists), which involves breaking the security state as well as capital's grip on the state through its bond markets.

I really, really have to incorporate the word "polity" more. However, I'm not confident about your use of the term "security state" to describe the state proper. The court system doesn't belong to the "security state," but it does belong to the state proper. Ditto with foreign affairs.

What about "sovereignty"? Coincidentally, before suverenitet was imported into the Russian language, the word for "sovereignty" was gosudarstvo, the same word used these days for the state, and derived from gosudar, or "sovereign" (in denoting authority figures).


It is true that few Marxist parties have a clear programme for the DotP. I'm not sure about the Kautskyist nature of the USSR's regime of state-nationalization. My reading of Kautsky, limited though it is, is that he favoured nationalisation in some areas (say the railways, land) and with limited practical effect but that for the most part he supported something akin to Schweickhart's Economic Democracy with the proviso that a Socialist Party could command sufficient support to tilt the playing field in labour's favour. That is, a lot more workers' co-ops and a lot less state micro-mananging of the economy. That's in his later writing anyway. I guess nationalisation is part of Schweickhart's model too, but it's so different to the Soviet one that it really bears very little resemblance.

Discounting what he wrote in The Labour Revolution and other renegade works, I *think* Kautsky favoured more extensive "state" nationalization, but he didn't write much about planning mechanisms. From those writings both the whole range of Soviet planning (material balances, directive, and indicative a la Kosygin) and traditional market socialism (not Dengism, of course) can be derived.

[Red Rosa]

I wish Marx never coined that phrase. I realize he was using the word "dictatorship" in an ironic sense to mean true democracy, but so many people have hung onto that word trying to claim that socialism is authoritarian.

He didn't coin the phrase.
He didn't use it in ironic sense. It means dictatorship towards bourgoisie and other reactionaires(and democracy among proletariat).
People should read more before using such stupid assumptions that socialism is authoritarian. It's not nuclear physics, it's quite easy to understand. All they gotta do is read.