What do the various tendencies consider the liberation of the proletariat to be?

[ad novum orbem]

The defining class relationship in capitalism is the bourgeois/proletarian one. Owners and non-owners, employers and employees, a propertied class and an unpropertied class. I'm pretty sure everyone here understands the basic arrangement: The proletariat does not control (own) the material resources required to sustain its own existence and must seek to sell its labor power to the bourgeoisie who do. In the process, and as part of the deal, the proletariat works with the property of the bourgeoisie to produce value for the bourgeoisie, who then returns to the proletariat only the minimum amount necessary to keep the process going (which can be quite low, depending on the conditions of the labor market); the remainder then becomes not only the personal income of the owner(s), but also serves to replenish the material elements of the particular enterprise and if circumstances allow, a possible increase in capital for the owner(s). Thus, the labor of the proletariat produces the very capital that it must sell itself to the bourgeoisie to use in the first place, in order to maintain it's own existence. How convenient...

My question is: What do the various tendencies percieve as being the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat?

To be a little more precise, if a tendency advocates authoritative central planning (for instance), how does that translate into a liberation of the proletariat? If the labor of an unpropertied class still produces and maintains capital that is to be controlled by others (in this case the assets controlled by a central planning body), then doesn't the proletariat technically still exist, as well as the possibility of exploitation?

[Revolution starts with U]

Yes, which is why you often hear the USSR referred to as a "degenerated worker's state," a "state capitalist dictatorship," or "a bloody hell hole that set socialism back 100 years."

We all pretty much define the liberation of the working class as a classless and stateless society of free and voluntary labor and social relations, managed democratically by working people. Where the disagreements come in is how to get there.

The various Marxist-Leninists (MLs) and other so-called "authoritarian" (even tho we are all authoritarian, because we believe in the authority of the working class) tendencies tend to see a more transitional phase happening post revolution. They don't really like the working class, see. They think they know better. So they seek a sort-of Platonic socialism where the philophers of communism run the state, until the state magically "whithers away" because people, I don't know, start liking being ruled or something.

Anarchists and libertarian believe in a more organic development where the state is abolished immediately post-revolution. They don't really like the working class, and think they know better... but they don't really like themselves either, so they don't trust a vanguard to not make itself the new ruling class; bureaucratic collectivism, they call it. They seek a sort-of fantasy novel type system where people just magically start agreeing with each other about just about everything.

I believe the best I can do is advocate full scale revolt and the establishment of workplace democracy, and general leftist social relations. If the worker's state is too "authoritarian" it will collapse from within, too "libertarian" and it will collapse from without. Reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries must be checked, but too much repression and violence fosters discontent, and so fosters distrust of the whole system. Beyond that, the world is out of my control.

[Night Ripper]

The proletariat does not control (own) the material resources required to sustain its own existence and must seek to sell its labor power to the bourgeoisie who do.

Being a farmer requires vast amounts of wealth? I'm pretty sure you can survive on your own if you really want to. I think that kind of lifestyle isn't comfortable enough though. It's easier to chant mantras about the proles.

[Bronco]

Anarchists and libertarian believe in a more organic development where the state is abolished immediately post-revolution. They don't really like the working class, and think they know better... but they don't really like themselves either, so they don't trust a vanguard to not make itself the new ruling class; bureaucratic collectivism, they call it. They seek a sort-of fantasy novel type system where people just magically start agreeing with each other about just about everything.


So you're saying on the one hand that Anarchists "don't like" and "don't trust" anyone yet you then say that they believe everyone will agree on everything? I don't know why you're separating Anarchists from the working class either, Anarchism is a working class movement

[Revolution starts with U]

So you're saying on the one hand that Anarchists "don't like" and "don't trust" anyone yet you then say that they believe everyone will agree on everything? I don't know why you're separating Anarchists from the working class either, Anarchism is a working class movement

:blink:

First, I did no such thing as seperate anarchism from the working class. I just said all socialists think they know better than the working class (because they sometimes do know better than large chunks. Look at all the reactionaries that are in it.) It's called a joke. Just go with it :lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

Being a farmer requires vast amounts of wealth? I'm pretty sure you can survive on your own if you really want to. I think that kind of lifestyle isn't comfortable enough though. It's easier to chant mantras about the proles.

Running away from the system and going backwards is no way to destroy the bondage of present class society. We're industrialists, techno-futurists. We don't care about the capital being used. We care about the arrangements of power relations in current society and who they favor.

[thriller]

The defining class relationship in capitalism is the bourgeois/proletarian one. Owners and non-owners, employers and employees, a propertied class and an unpropertied class. I'm pretty sure everyone here understands the basic arrangement: The proletariat does not control (own) the material resources required to sustain its own existence and must seek to sell its labor power to the bourgeoisie who do. In the process, and as part of the deal, the proletariat works with the property of the bourgeoisie to produce value for the bourgeoisie, who then returns to the proletariat only the minimum amount necessary to keep the process going (which can be quite low, depending on the conditions of the labor market); the remainder then becomes not only the personal income of the owner(s), but also serves to replenish the material elements of the particular enterprise and if circumstances allow, a possible increase in capital for the owner(s). Thus, the labor of the proletariat produces the very capital that it must sell itself to the bourgeoisie to use in the first place, in order to maintain it's own existence. How convenient...

My question is: What do the various tendencies percieve as being the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat?

To be a little more precise, if a tendency advocates authoritative central planning (for instance), how does that translate into a liberation of the proletariat? If the labor of an unpropertied class still produces and maintains capital that is to be controlled by others (in this case the assets controlled by a central planning body), then doesn't the proletariat technically still exist, as well as the possibility of exploitation?

Well I follow the dictatorship OF the proletariat, which means that the workers would be the dominant class for a little while. This would occur by workers taking direct control over their workplace. Once those who don't work (the bourgeoisie) find a workplace to democratically join, the state really is no longer needed. I believe in direct democracy and a worker-run economy. So as long as the majority of the working class controls the way the means of production are used, I think shit's going swell.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Being a farmer requires vast amounts of wealth? I'm pretty sure you can survive on your own if you really want to. I think that kind of lifestyle isn't comfortable enough though. It's easier to chant mantras about the proles.

Ha, farmers don't survive on their own very well. Family farming is a marginal part of agricultural production in places like the US, they have been displaced by agribusiness and those who haven't probably owe lots of money to banks.

Apologists from capitalism like to chant mantras about the marginal parts of the economy - small shops and family farms (when the US has the 14th worst success rate of major countries for small businesses meanwhile Walmart is the richest company in the world).

[Night Ripper]

Ha, farmers don't survive on their own very well.

Very well? Do you think you are owed a life of luxury?

[Revolution starts with U]

You often skip over all the meaningful parts of posts looking for that one bit you have a predetermined answer for, which you no doubtedly read on the Mises forums or something... don't you?

Don't answer. It's a rhetorical question. I already know the answer (yes) by watching you post.

[Bronco]

:blink:

First, I did no such thing as seperate anarchism from the working class. I just said all socialists think they know better than the working class (because they sometimes do know better than large chunks. Look at all the reactionaries that are in it.) It's called a joke. Just go with it :lol:

Hmm ok, maybe I misunderstood

[Jimmie Higgins]

Ha, farmers don't survive on their own very well. Very well? Do you think you are owed a life of luxury?What do you mean by luxury?

By "not very well" I didn't mean they wear old jeans and don't have nice or expensive things. By "not very well" I meant that independent farms have been failing and in decline and being replaced by agribusiness for just short of 100 years. The idea that well if you don't like wage-labor, somehow you can train yourself to learn farming skills, gather up the money for the land, equipment, seed, and then build a shelter and then somehow support yourself when people who do have those skills, land, and connections with established markets and so on are FAILING... well it's a total farce!

As far as what I am "owed"? Nothing. I'm owed by this system the same thing a group of hostages is owed by their kidnapper. The system doesn't owe me shit, but I will fight to push the system back on its heels in the hope of turning the tables, breaking their hold over us, and ultimately liberating ourselves.

[Night Ripper]

By "not very well" I meant that independent farms have been failing and in decline and being replaced by agribusiness for just short of 100 years.

That's because they are trying to maximize profits, not survive. That has nothing to do with whether or not it's still possible to live off the land.

[Leftsolidarity]

Ignore the troll please.

I am interested in the actual topic of the thread.

[Night Ripper]

Ignore the troll please.

I am interested in the actual topic of the thread.

Sorry for getting off topic.

[NGNM85]

..(even tho we are all authoritarian, ...etc.

Speak for yourself. Anarchism and authoritarianism are fundamentally incompatible. One asserts that authority is always, inherently justified, the other asserts that authority is never, inherently, justified.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm using authoritarian in the sense of "believing in the authority of class rule." Specifically, all socialists, libertarain or otherwise, believe in the authority of the rule of the working class.

Someone has to have the authority to stop rapers from raping. Nobody has any natural right to stop a rapist, so we must use the authority of a class rule; specifically working class rule.

[Ostrinski]

We all have the same perception of what liberation is. Tendencies develop because of disagreements on how we get there.

And yes, exerting your will on someone else is in and of itself authoritarian. Anarchists believe in authoritarianism just as much as the next, it's central authoritarianism that's in question.

[NGNM85]

I'm using authoritarian in the sense of "believing in the authority of class rule." Specifically, all socialists, libertarain or otherwise, believe in the authority of the rule of the working class.

Again; speak for yourself.


Someone has to have the authority to stop rapers from raping. Nobody has any natural right to stop a rapist,..

So says you. I disagree, as, I think, any sensible person should.


...so we must use the authority of a class rule; specifically working class rule.

Classes emerge from exploitive, and oppressive institutions. I would seek to dismantle (or replace, etc.) those institutions.

[NGNM85]

We all have the same perception of what liberation is. Tendencies develop because of disagreements on how we get there.

I don't think so. Not only are we, obviously, divergent on the question of means, I'm not even certain we all have the same ends in mind.


And yes, exerting your will on someone else is in and of itself authoritarian.

No, that's exercising authority. Authority can be just, or it can be unjust. Again; the difference between Anarchists, and authoritarians, concerns the question as to whether, or not authority is ever inherently justified. As far as Anarchism is concerned; it is never inherently justified.


Anarchists believe in authoritarianism just as much as the next, it's central authoritarianism that's in question.

See above.

[Revolution starts with U]

Again; speak for yourself.



So says you. I disagree, as, I think, any sensible person should.



Classes emerge from exploitive, and oppressive institutions. I would seek to dismantle (or replace, etc.) those institutions.

I am, and can only speak for myself. You can disagree with reality all you want, it doesn't change anything. Someone must maintin authority in society; anarchy doesn't mean no rules. Communism is the maintenance of working class authority, the class that makes up the vast majority of the population, thereby de jure making class antagonisms obsolete. Classes emerge from the seperation of labor, class antagonisms emerge from exploitive and oppressive institutions. Every leftist seeks to dismantle them and thereby end class antagonisms.

au·thor·i·ty/əˈTHôritē/


Noun:

The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates".
The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another

Authority; someone has to have it.

[Leftsolidarity]

I am, and can only speak for myself. You can disagree with reality all you want, it doesn't change anything. Someone must maintin authority in society; anarchy doesn't mean no rules. Communism is the maintenance of working class authority, the class that makes up the vast majority of the population, thereby de jure making class antagonisms obsolete. Classes emerge from the seperation of labor, class antagonisms emerge from exploitive and oppressive institutions. Every leftist seeks to dismantle them and thereby end class antagonisms.

au·thor·i·ty/əˈTHôritē/



Noun:

The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates".
The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another
Authority; someone has to have it.

While I do agree about your point about authority. I want to say that there are no classes in a communist society so it would not be the authority of 1 class. Unless we're getting into the left communist vs. Leninist stages of communism thing. Which I really don't feel like getting into.

[kouchpotato]

\XDFGHJ KGFTAxvghjkifdz\zsdfrzsxdsxdez\sdfrsz\zsfgh']\rwqa1w3ed4yu[
]tfsASDFGHJK/

[NGNM85]

I am, and can only speak for myself.

Not when you make these sweeping statements about what all Socialists want. That isn't to say that there aren't areas of consensus. However; there are a number of consistent Socialists, such as myself, who would disagree with some of what you said.


You can disagree with reality all you want, it doesn't change anything. Someone must maintin authority in society; anarchy doesn't mean no rules. ...
au·thor·i·ty/əˈTHôritē/



Noun:

The power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience: "he had absolute authority over his subordinates".
The right to act in a specified way, delegated from one person or organization to another
Authority; someone has to have it.

I agree, completely. In fact, I said as much.


Communism is the maintenance of working class authority, the class that makes up the vast majority of the population, thereby de jure making class antagonisms obsolete. Classes emerge from the seperation of labor, class antagonisms emerge from exploitive and oppressive institutions. Every leftist seeks to dismantle them and thereby end class antagonisms.

This is what I would disagree with. To paraphrase what you said; every Socialist (The Left is bigger than Socialism.) seeks to dismantle the inequality that arises from exploitive, and oppressive institutions. That is the solution, not by inverting oppressive institutions, but dismantling, and replacing them. Also; the rule of the working class is a bogus agenda because, in actuality, it amounts to the dictatorship of the party, because it is not the working class, collectively, exercising authority, but, rather, a very small, elite clique of professional revolutionaries, who, profess to act on their behalf. The goal should not to be to create our own institutions of oppression, but to build an entirely new paradigm.

[ad novum orbem]

I believe the best I can do is advocate full scale revolt and the establishment of workplace democracy, and general leftist social relations.

That is in line with my own thinking, but as power boils down to ownership, the question (for me) regarding workplace democracy is who controls the capital? If the working class is to be liberated, then it seems obvious that they themselves must have power (ownership) over the capital that their own labor creates. That immediately gets blasted as being private property, but how else can workers truly be emancipated if they aren't allowed control the result of their own labor?

Similarly, if the workers control their own capital and processes, then some kind of market mechanism must exist to serve as a source of producer information (in lieu of control by an external coordinators), I see that as simply being Marx's free association of producers, but lots of people flatly reject individuals or groups of individuals (enterprises) owning their own MoP, as well as market mechanisms of any kind. We can't have our cake and eat it too. It's very frustrating. I don't think the main problem of capitalism is private MoP, but private minority control of MoP appropriated coercively from the labor of others.

[ad novum orbem]

Being a farmer requires vast amounts of wealth? I'm pretty sure you can survive on your own if you really want to. I think that kind of lifestyle isn't comfortable enough though. It's easier to chant mantras about the proles.

Where does the land come from? Where do the tools and implements come from? If you own them yourself and use them to maintain your livelihood, then you aren't a member of the proletariat. Proles don't possess productive property, or at the very least, not in quantities sufficient to live on.

[Leftsolidarity]

Also; the rule of the working class is a bogus agenda because, in actuality, it amounts to the dictatorship of the party, because it is not the working class, collectively, exercising authority, but, rather, a very small, elite clique of professional revolutionaries, who, profess to act on their behalf. The goal should not to be to create our own institutions of oppression, but to build an entirely new paradigm.

Which would still be the rule of the working class.....

Unless you are arguing that the people should hold no authority to say that individuals cannot own private property, this is most likely just semantics.

[Ostrinski]

This is what I would disagree with. To paraphrase what you said; every Socialist (The Left is bigger than Socialism.) seeks to dismantle the inequality that arises from exploitive, and oppressive institutions. That is the solution, not by inverting oppressive institutions, but dismantling, and replacing them.And how do you suppose we "dismantle" inequality? With force. With authoritarian measures, by exercising class authority. If you don't think that the property owners that you're expropriating won't view your acts as authoritarian then you're kidding yourself. Your dichotomy between "dismantle" and "invert" is a false one. Every revolution is an inversion of class power. This inversion is the means by which we achieve mentioned dismantlement. Your idealism negates an understanding of history.


Also; the rule of the working class is a bogus agendaSo you're not a socialist then.


because, in actuality, it amounts to the dictatorship of the party, because it is not the working class, collectively, exercising authority, but, rather, a very small, elite clique of professional revolutionaries, who, profess to act on their behalf. The goal should not to be to create our own institutions of oppression, but to build an entirely new paradigm.Your one size fits all approach on the question of societal transition is just an ideal, with very little relation to reality. The answers to the question of organization will vary in relation to the conditions of the revolutionary situation. For shit's sake, we don't build a whole new societal paradigm because we feel like it, it develops through the evolution of institutional and social conditions.

[NGNM85]

Which would still be the rule of the working class.....

No, it wouldn’t. It would merely be the exchange of one autocracy, for another (possibly worse) one.


Unless you are arguing that the people should hold no authority to say that individuals cannot own private property, this is most likely just semantics.

No, it isn’t. I’m saying that not only is the goal of Socialism to realize a freer, more egalitarian society, but that the process of achieving that goal must be conducted in a democratic, Libertarian fashion.

[NGNM85]

And how do you suppose we "dismantle" inequality? With force. With authoritarian measures, by exercising class authority.

Again; there’s a fundamental difference between authority, and authoritarianism.

Tactics are dictated by circumstances, which are always changing. A Libertarian movement in Beijing would find itself in different circumstances than a similarly oriented movement in Des Moines, or Manchester. There’s no magic answer, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. There are just a handful of guiding principles.


If you don't think that the property owners that you're expropriating won't view your acts as authoritarian then you're kidding yourself. Your dichotomy between "dismantle" and "invert" is a false one. Every revolution is an inversion of class power. This inversion is the means by which we achieve mentioned dismantlement. Your idealism negates an understanding of history.

This is mostly just boilerplate rhetoric.

No, there’s a fundamental difference. The former simply replaces the old institutions of oppression, for new institutions of oppression. The latter creates a new, freer, more egalitarian society out of the shell of the old one.


So you're not a socialist then.

That’s absolutely false. That isn’t a sufficient condition of Socialism.


Your one size fits all approach on the question of societal transition is just an ideal, with very little relation to reality. The answers to the question of organization will vary in relation to the conditions of the revolutionary situation.

That’s pretty close to what I’ve said. However; again; such a movement can only succeed if it is carried out in a democratic, Libertarian fashion.


For shit's sake, we don't build a whole new societal paradigm because we feel like it, it develops through the evolution of institutional and social conditions.

The primary reason is because it is unjust to oppress, or exploit human beings in such a fashion. This is the very real moral authority of Socialism.

[Leftsolidarity]

No, it wouldn’t. It would merely be the exchange of one autocracy, for another (possibly worse) one.



No, it isn’t. I’m saying that not only is the goal of Socialism to realize a freer, more egalitarian society, but that the process of achieving that goal must be conducted in a democratic, Libertarian fashion.

No, those are just buzzwords that have no implication in the real world.

"Working class rule" is the realization of democratic principles for a class of people who have never been in control of their own lives. You simply keep repeating the words "Libertarian", "democratic", "egalitarian", etc. These are buzzwords.

-----

Are you or are you not saying that the people should hold no power to stop individuals from holding private property?

[RGacky3]

For most socialists, generally, it is that everyone has a say in the economic aspects of their lives, and that, that say, is not tied to wealth, its democratic.

[bcbm]

Do you think you are owed a life of luxury?

yes, absolutely.


What do the various tendencies percieve as being the conditions for the liberation of the proletariat?

the task of the proletariat is to abolish itself.

[NGNM85]

No, those are just buzzwords that have no implication in the real world.

"Working class rule" is the realization of democratic principles for a class of people who have never been in control of their own lives. You simply keep repeating the words "Libertarian", "democratic", "egalitarian", etc. These are buzzwords.

No, they aren’t. There’s a fundamental philosophical, and practical difference. There’s a world of difference between workers’ democracy, real socialism, and the creation of some kind of dictatorship of the party.


Are you or are you not saying that the people should hold no power to stop individuals from holding private property?


Again; there’s a fundamental difference between authority, and authoritarianism. Authority is simply inevitable, and unavoidable. However; authority should never be considered to be inherently justified, (The definition of authoritarianism.) It should be continually subject to a burden of proof as to it’s legitimacy. It should also be distributed across society, and be accountable to the public, as opposed to being concentrated in a tiny clique of elites. To do so would simply create new institutions of oppression, which is not an improvement. It might be even worse.

[Leftsolidarity]

No, they aren’t. There’s a fundamental philosophical, and practical difference. There’s a world of difference between workers’ democracy, real socialism, and the creation of some kind of dictatorship of the party.




Again; there’s a fundamental difference between authority, and authoritarianism. Authority is simply inevitable, and unavoidable. However; authority should never be considered to be inherently justified, (The definition of authoritarianism.) It should be continually subject to a burden of proof as to it’s legitimacy. It should also be distributed across society, and be accountable to the public, as opposed to being concentrated in a tiny clique of elites. To do so would simply create new institutions of oppression, which is not an improvement. It might be even worse.

Once again, that would still be working class rule.

[NGNM85]

Once again, that would still be working class rule.

That depends an awful lot on what, exactly, you mean by 'rule.' Also; once the means of production are publicly owned, and government is decentralized into a federation of nested councils, classes should cease to exist.

[Leftsolidarity]

That depends an awful lot on what, exactly, you mean by 'rule.' Also; once the means of production are publicly owned, and government is decentralized into a federation of nested councils, classes should cease to exist.

The state is formed because of classes. So to say that the de-centralization of the state would get rid of classes would be to say that you can get rid of the root cause by getting rid of the side effects.

Once you get rid of classes THEN the state will cease to exist.

[DinodudeEpic]

Liberation of the proletariat (the social relationship as a wage worker.) would come through the same method as the liberation of slaves and serfs. Namely the abolition of the offending institutions. In this case, corporations would be abolish. (Corporations meaning any undemocratic business.)

[Leftsolidarity]

Liberation of the proletariat (the social relationship as a wage worker.) would come through the same method as the liberation of slaves and serfs. Namely the abolition of the offending institutions. In this case, corporations would be abolish. (Corporations meaning any undemocratic business.)

All privately owned property would be in offending institution wouldn't you say?

[Rafiq]

The liberation of the proletariat is their conquest of state domination and their emancipation from bourgeois society.

[blake 3:17]

To the OP

The end to the beggining.

[Rooster]

Classes emerge from exploitive, and oppressive institutions.

No they don't. What you're implying is that an institution that creates a class can be created for that class before that class exists.

[Ostrinski]

Again; there’s a fundamental difference between authority, and authoritarianism.The one is a thing, the other describes social relations. You can rearrange words all you want, but the fact of the matter is that if you would even set up any means of protecting the socialist transition from counter-revolution, you would be establishing a de facto state. So it doesn't really matter anyway, because you're just being semantic. You're playing with words, not debating a theory.


Tactics are dictated by circumstances, which are always changing. A Libertarian movement in Beijing would find itself in different circumstances than a similarly oriented movement in Des Moines, or Manchester. There’s no magic answer, there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. There are just a handful of guiding principles.Of course political strategy will vary according to the material conditions which give rise to its manifestation, meaning your spontaneous anti-organizationist zealotry isn't going to work in every context.




This is mostly just boilerplate rhetoric.

No, there’s a fundamental difference. The former simply replaces the old institutions of oppression, for new institutions of oppression. The latter creates a new, freer, more egalitarian society out of the shell of the old one.And you honestly don't think new institutions of oppression aren't going to be necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie? We're talking about the most versatile, pragmatic, and adaptable ruling class in all of history. The class with exponentially more capacity to shift its program in response to any disagreeable conditional changes than the nobles and lords could have dreamed of. The class that continuously revolutionizes the fabric of social relations and institutional conditions, and by extension our entire social experience - and you expect them to lay down their class power once a bunch of factories are seized and general assemblies emerge? You really don't think we have to seize political power? Think. Just try to.


That’s pretty close to what I’ve said. However; again; such a movement can only succeed if it is carried out in a democratic, Libertarian fashion.You're negating yourself. "Organizational methods will vary, but the only method that should be used is a libertarian method. You can have any color, as long as its black." Organizational methods don't vary because different people want different organizational methods, they vary because various methods are necessary in relation to the context of the revolutionary situation.


The primary reason is because it is unjust to oppress, or exploit human beings in such a fashion. This is the very real moral authority of Socialism.Not everyone shares your idealism or how you perceive "justice" or "liberty." Socialism only has a moral authority if you're a proletarian. If you're a bourgeois, capitalism has a moral authority, since the bourgeoisie are oppressed under socialism in relation to their social function in a capitalist economy, just as the proletariat are oppressed under capitalism in relation to their social function in a socialist economy.

[ad novum orbem]

To the OP

The end to the beggining.

That's pretty deep if I take your meaning correctly, that the barbarism phase of human history (the beginning) ends with the liberation of the proletariat? If I got that right, then I largely agree with you.

But I'm trying to understand the differing ways of thinking about what constitutes an actual emancipation. I guess, more specifically, I'm trying to understand the idea that a centrally planned command economy does the trick. Even if the proletariat were to rise up and seize control of the productive resources of society (natural and man made property), if they then concentrate power over those resources in the hands of a central authority, then they haven't actually liberated themselves, they've just taken power away from the capitalist class and given it to a bureaucratic coordinator class instead.

It's always seemed to me that a true and actual emancipation can only occur through developing some kind of methodology (rules of the game, laws) in which every member of society participating in the activity of creating and distributing the social product not only has a say in that activity (some form of workplace democracy), but also has "ownership" (if you will) of that portion of the social product that functions as the capital resources (tomorrows means of production) that their own labor creates. Every participant has to control ("own") the portion of the society's capital assets commensurate with their ongoing contribution to the economic process, if they don't then someone else is owning it for them (as is the case in capitalism and in a command economy), and that gives those external owners power to exploit for personal gain.

The only way to insure "free association" and prevent exploitation is for everyone to control the result of their own labor, right? That's the part about authoritarian forms of socialism that I'm not grasping very well. I can't get past the fact that the proletariat still exists.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Genuine institutions of workers' democracies within both the workplace and the overall formulation of economic policy are necessary to prevent the ascension of a "new class" of exploiters. I am not sure it would be feasible for workers' as individuals to exercise individual ownership of the fruits of their production. At the very least, though, the working class through its representative institutions ought to be the decision makers.