Morpheus
23rd November 2003, 07:35
Authoritarian Socialism: A Geriatric Disorder
by Morpheus
Although Authoritarian Socialists [1] like to portray themselves as advocates of a radically egalitarian and democratic society, reality is somewhat different. One cannot have centralized planning, or any other form of economic hierarchy, and a classless society. Attempts to establish so-called "workers’ states" inevitably results in the establishment of a new ruling class over the workers. The Communist Manifesto is really a manifesto of state-capitalism. The "conquest of political power by the proletariat" in practice really means the conquest of state power by a political party or group of leaders that claims to represent the proletariat. Upon taking power that party then ends up waging war against and subjugating the proletariat, establishing itself as a new ruling class.
The economic program put forth by Marxists [2] is essentially state-capitalism. The Manifesto says, "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state." This is a proscription for what is now known as a centrally planned economy. Implementing this policy will never, and has never, liberated the working class but instead replaces one set of exploiters with a new set.
In a centrally planned economy, instead of decisions being made by the producers themselves decisions are made by a small group of centralized planners in Moscow (or Washington or London or some other city). The workers are disempowered, deprived of control of their own lives, and forced to submit to these planners. Material conditions have a huge impact on a person’s consciousness, behavior, and material interests. Individuals are shaped by the institutions they are a part of, the position they occupy in those institutions and the social relationships they have with others. Since they are in different conditions then the workers these bureaucrats will tend to end up with different consciousness and material interests. There's no reason to expect them to act in the workers’ interests, and since they have different material interests then the workers the planning class will come into conflict with the workers (a conflict called class struggle). This happens even if your bureaucrats are elected workers, as, once elected, they are no longer workers but bureaucrats. Thus the actual rulers are not workers but bureaucrats who end up constituting a new ruling class that exploits the proletariat just as the previous ruling class did. It doesn't matter whether this is applied in a single isolated country, a third of the globe or the entire world - this is inherent in the nature of a centrally planned economy.
Instead of centralized planning we should implement a classless society based on self-management. All workplaces should be placed under the control of those who work in them. Consensus and/or direct democracy (or a combination of the two) would be used to make decisions. Everyone should have an equal say in all decisions that involve them. Worker assemblies can form networks with each other so as to coordinate production, thereby forming confederations of worker assemblies. This would be based on decentralized direct democracy with decision-making power resting in the hands of ordinary people. The worker committees and federations formed by anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Revolution are one way this could be done.
Establishing a state controlled by the proletariat, and/or the majority of the population, is not possible and attempts to do so always leads to the formation of a new group of exploiters to replace the old ones. There has never been an attempt to establish a workers’ state that has not done this (as predicted by anarchists 150 years ago). Marxists like to talk about "historical forces" but they actually ignore a good chunk of history, the predicted results of their revolutions degenerating into dictatorial tyrannies being a prime example.
Although cloaked in democratic rhetoric, after coming to power Lenin and Trotsky both came to the conclusion that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is really a one party state - which they equated with working class rule. Lenin said, "When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party ... we say ‘Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position." [3] He generalized this claim to apply to all countries (not just Russia) arguing that "the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organization embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts ... that an organization taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard." [4] In "Ultra-Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" he continued this theme, "the mere presentation of the question, namely, ‘dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?’ -- testifies to the most incredible and hopeless confusion of mind." [5] He continued this theme, claiming that "after two and a half years of Communist rule we stood before the entire world and said at the Communist International that the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible in any other way but through the dictatorship of the Communist Party."
Trotsky agreed, stating several years after the Russian Revolution that, "if there is one question which basically not only does not require revision but does not so much as admit the thought of revision, it is the question of the dictatorship of the party." [6] He defended, "the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realized only through the dictatorship of the party." [7] "The revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution ... abstractly speaking, it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be replaced by the ‘dictatorship’ of the whole toiling people without any party, but this presupposes such a high level of political development among the masses that it can never be achieved under capitalist conditions." Referring to the Workers Opposition, a Bolshevik faction that wanted to introduce more democracy into Soviet Russia following the end of the civil war (and was quickly purged), Trotsky warned, "They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers’ right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers’ democracy! ... The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship ... regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class ... The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers’ democracy." [8]
There is no evidence to indicate that Lenin, Trotsky or any other mainstream Bolshevik leaders regretted the loss of democracy and workers' power or even referred to these losses it as a retreat (as Lenin did when War Communism was replaced by the NEP). The idea that a one party dictatorship means the rule of the working class is simply ludicrous. There is no reason why such a dictatorship would magically obey the workers and in all likelihood it will pursue the interests of it’s leaders, suppressing opposition (as was done in Soviet Russia and nearly every other one-party state in history). In a one-party state the leaders of the party make most major decisions, not the working class. Hence, it is not the rule of the workers but of a small elite. By implemented a one-party state Lenin & Trotsky destroyed any possibility of the working class running Russian society.
Of course, theoretically one could advocate a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is not a one-party state but takes some other form. A multi-party state similar to the so-called "liberal democracies" in West Europe and the United States (but without private property) could be proposed, but such a multi-party state would still be an instrument of minority rule (as they are presently) even with socialist politicians running things. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" along such lines would not be compatible with Leninism (since Lenin explicitly advocated a one-party state), but it could be compatible with other forms of authoritarian socialism. While Marx did claim that "Between capitalist and communist society there lies ... a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." [9] a minority of his followers claim that this does not have to be a one-party state and Marx himself was rather vague on what form this dictatorship would take. Nonetheless, there is no form of the state--neither monarchical, one-party, multi-party nor any other - which would allow the working class to control it.
The structure of states makes it impossible for it to be anything other then an organ of minority rule. The state is an organization with a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence. It is a centralized rule-making body that stands "above" society and uses various armed bodies of people and coercive institutions (courts, prisons, etc.) to force people to obey it. It is an organ of class rule that cannot be used to abolish classes. How are the workers supposed to maintain control of an organization standing "above" society with it's own specialized armed forces and maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence? It's not possible - the state is the one with a monopoly on violence and could use that monopoly to ignore what the proletariat want and order them around - effectively forming a new ruling class over the proletariat.
All states have three characteristics:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature;
3) A hierarchical and authoritarian nature - centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.
All states have historically had these characteristics. Such an organization inevitably becomes part of a ruling elite. If a group has a monopoly of force it can easily establish itself as ruler over the rest of the proletariat, even if that organization is initially made up proletarians. The hierarchical nature of the state insures that this will be the rule of a small elite. No organization should have a monopoly or near-monopoly on force. The state maintains armed bodies of people with a top down authoritarian chain of command that control the population and coerce it into obeying the orders of those on the top of the chain of command. This is always a form of minority rule because it is that minority on the top of the chain of command who makes the decisions and thus controls the rest of the population.
One idea for the proletariat to control the state is making representatives recallable in order to keep control of the state by the proletariat. There are a number of problems with this. First, the state by definition has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The politicians can simply use that monopoly to disregard recall and public opinion in situations where it gets in their way. This is precisely what the Bolsheviks did when they were recalled in the Spring of 1918; Soviets that voted the wrong way were simply disbanded. The methods used don't need to be that crude, there are much subtler ways to manipulate the electorate. There are many states today in which representatives can be recalled, but that does not mean the proletariat are the rulers or change the capitalist nature of those states.
A deeper problem is that society is still divided into a group of order givers and order takers. The "workers' parliament" (or politburo or council of people's commissars etc.) gives orders, the rest of the population obeys. The workers do not come up with and implement their own plans and projects, but instead elect a tiny group of leaders who make the decisions for them. The workers aren't really running society in this case, a small group of representatives are. Actual decision-making power lies not with the workers but with that small group of leaders. The majority of workers don't actually make the decisions but are instead reduced to choosing their masters. When the "workers' parliament" (or legislature or council of people's commissars etc.) is making the decisions the working class is not.
In all states there is a division between rulers and ruled; between those who give orders and those who obey them. By it’s very nature the state divides a population into rulers and ruled. As Malatesta said:
"A government, that is a group of people entrusted with making the laws and empowered to use the collective power to oblige each individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to extend its powers, to be beyond public control, to impose its own policies and to give priority to special interests. Having been put in a privileged position, the government is already at odds with the people whose strength it disposes of." [10]
Furthermore, representative democracy (even with recallable representatives) is self-refuting. If the workers are capable of running society then we don't need a state at all; we can dispense with the state and have the direct self-rule of the masses. If workers are capable of deciding whether the decisions of a representative are good or bad, and thus deciding on whether or not to vote for or recall them then they are capable of directly making those decisions themselves. "for recall to work the population must be in a position to judge 'the questions of the day' in order to evaluate the actions of their representatives. ... Simply put, whoever is competent enough to pick their masters is competent to govern themselves and whoever is able to recall their representative is able to decide on 'the questions of the day' directly and explicitly mandate them. Thus, if recall is possible, so is self-management" [11] and the state is not needed. "The very theory of [representative democracy] contains its own negation. If the entire people were truly sovereign there would no longer be either government or governed; the sovereign would be reduced to nothing; the state would have no raison d'etre, would be identical with ssociety and disappear into industrial organization." [12]
If the workers are the ruling class, as the Communist Manifesto advocates, who are they to rule over? If the capitalists still exist then the workers do not rule because the capitalists have the power in the boss/worker relationship. If there are no capitalists then everyone rules. But if everyone rules then no one rules and there is no state.
The myth of the "good state" is a popular one among leftists, but in reality every state throughout history has been founded on the blood of the poor (even "socialist" ones). Liberalism and Authoritarian Socialism both share a common theme in that they establish systems of minority rule and claim that this system of minority rule is actually majority rule; that the rulers aren't really the rulers. With Liberalism they claim that under their state "the people" rule but the wealthy (and corrupt politicians) actually rule; with Marxism they claim that under their state "the proletariat" rule but actually the party (or the leaders of the party) rule.
Most Marxists claim that a state is necessary to prevent the capitalists from using violence to launch a counterrevolution and force us back into capitalism. A state is not necessary to prevent this; there are many other ways to do so. First off, after an anarchist revolution there wouldn’t be any capitalists. The working class would directly seize the means of production and a self-managed classless economy implemented. The capitalist class would then cease to exist. Capitalists could not attempt to launch a counterrevolution because there would be no capitalists. Former capitalists and other reactionaries could theoretically attempt to launch a counterrevolution. This could be stopped with the same means used to overthrow capitalism and the state--direct action. This includes, but is not limited to, civil disobedience, strikes, insurrections, street fighting, etc. If necessary the population could be armed and decentralized networks or confederations of democratic militias formed to engage in guerilla warfare against the reactionary forces. The later was implemented by Anarchists in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution and were successful in defeating the Germans, Austrians, Ukrainian nationalists and several white armies despite being massively out gunned. Unfortunately, after the civil war was over the Bolsheviks stabbed them in the back and used their vastly superior resources to conquer the Ukraine. They then implemented a reign of terror and violently suppressed all opposition, [13] showing how counterrevolutionary "workers' states" really are..
Many Marxists define the state as "the organization of violence for the suppression of some class" [14] (or something similar to this) and, based on this, claim that the above measures constitute a "state." This is a common Marxist fallacy whereby Marxists play with the definition of words to make two very different things seem the same. This definition is overly broad. To equate a confederation of community assemblies or a decentralized network of militias with the centralized states created by all Marxists when they get in power is pure nonsense. The state is more than merely an instrument of force used by one class against other class(es). If two workers punch their boss there is force being used against a different class, but that does not mean that those two workers suddenly become a state. If a boss beats up an employee he is not magically transformed into a state, even though he is using force against a different class. To equate _all_ use of force between classes with a state is pure sophistry. Marxists generally do not have a good understanding of the state; this definition is not based on any kind of empirical analysis of the state but is plucked out of thin air to suit their political agenda. When Marxists attempt to make an empirical analysis of the state they often end up acknowledging this and coming close to the anarchist view of the state but refuse to see the political implications. For example, in "The Family, Private Property and the State" Fredrick Engels differentiates between the state (which he describes as a public power placed "above" society with its own armed bodies of men and coercive institutions) and the "self-acting armed organization of the population." It is precisely the "self-acting armed organization of the population" which is advocated by anarchists [15] as a means of defeating violent counterrevolutionaries!
The main problem with Authoritarian Socialism is that the forms of organization they advocate are simply incompatible with the goals they claim to advocate. They claim to believe in an egalitarian & democratic society based on the participation of everyone yet desire social structures - hierarchy, states, centralism, etc. - which are incompatible with these goals. Authoritarian Socialism, especially in its Leninist form, is really a philosophy advocating the rule of a small burueaucratic elite who use egalitarian rhetoric to justify their rule.
Notes
1. The term ‘authoritarian socialism’ refers to all forms of socialism which seek to use the state to abolish capitalism
2. I am referring to mainstream Marxists here. Those Libertarian Marxists who agree with anarchists on the abolition of the state are excluded from this critique.
3. Lenin’s Collected Works, vol. 29, p.535
4. Collected Works vol. 32, p. 21
5. Left-Wing Communism, p. 26
6. Leon Trotsky Speaks, p, 158
7. Platform of the Opposition, p. 62
8. 10th Party Congress
9. Critique of the Gotha Program
10. Anarchy P. 34
11. Anarcho, "A few comments on on 'Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy: A review by Chris Gray" http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/Bakuni...n_critique.html (http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/Bakunin_critique.html)
12. Guerin, Anarchism P. 17
13. See "The History of the Makhnovist Movement" by Peter Arishnov
14. Essential Works of Lenin, p. 287
15. With the exception of anarcho-pacifists, who believe that only non-violent means (civil disobedience, etc.) should be used to resist counterrevolutionaries. If such means are sufficient to defeat counterrevolutionaries it would be preferable, but if not I believe workers are justified in using force to defend ourselves.
by Morpheus
Although Authoritarian Socialists [1] like to portray themselves as advocates of a radically egalitarian and democratic society, reality is somewhat different. One cannot have centralized planning, or any other form of economic hierarchy, and a classless society. Attempts to establish so-called "workers’ states" inevitably results in the establishment of a new ruling class over the workers. The Communist Manifesto is really a manifesto of state-capitalism. The "conquest of political power by the proletariat" in practice really means the conquest of state power by a political party or group of leaders that claims to represent the proletariat. Upon taking power that party then ends up waging war against and subjugating the proletariat, establishing itself as a new ruling class.
The economic program put forth by Marxists [2] is essentially state-capitalism. The Manifesto says, "the proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state." This is a proscription for what is now known as a centrally planned economy. Implementing this policy will never, and has never, liberated the working class but instead replaces one set of exploiters with a new set.
In a centrally planned economy, instead of decisions being made by the producers themselves decisions are made by a small group of centralized planners in Moscow (or Washington or London or some other city). The workers are disempowered, deprived of control of their own lives, and forced to submit to these planners. Material conditions have a huge impact on a person’s consciousness, behavior, and material interests. Individuals are shaped by the institutions they are a part of, the position they occupy in those institutions and the social relationships they have with others. Since they are in different conditions then the workers these bureaucrats will tend to end up with different consciousness and material interests. There's no reason to expect them to act in the workers’ interests, and since they have different material interests then the workers the planning class will come into conflict with the workers (a conflict called class struggle). This happens even if your bureaucrats are elected workers, as, once elected, they are no longer workers but bureaucrats. Thus the actual rulers are not workers but bureaucrats who end up constituting a new ruling class that exploits the proletariat just as the previous ruling class did. It doesn't matter whether this is applied in a single isolated country, a third of the globe or the entire world - this is inherent in the nature of a centrally planned economy.
Instead of centralized planning we should implement a classless society based on self-management. All workplaces should be placed under the control of those who work in them. Consensus and/or direct democracy (or a combination of the two) would be used to make decisions. Everyone should have an equal say in all decisions that involve them. Worker assemblies can form networks with each other so as to coordinate production, thereby forming confederations of worker assemblies. This would be based on decentralized direct democracy with decision-making power resting in the hands of ordinary people. The worker committees and federations formed by anarcho-syndicalists during the Spanish Revolution are one way this could be done.
Establishing a state controlled by the proletariat, and/or the majority of the population, is not possible and attempts to do so always leads to the formation of a new group of exploiters to replace the old ones. There has never been an attempt to establish a workers’ state that has not done this (as predicted by anarchists 150 years ago). Marxists like to talk about "historical forces" but they actually ignore a good chunk of history, the predicted results of their revolutions degenerating into dictatorial tyrannies being a prime example.
Although cloaked in democratic rhetoric, after coming to power Lenin and Trotsky both came to the conclusion that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is really a one party state - which they equated with working class rule. Lenin said, "When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party ... we say ‘Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position." [3] He generalized this claim to apply to all countries (not just Russia) arguing that "the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organization embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts ... that an organization taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard." [4] In "Ultra-Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" he continued this theme, "the mere presentation of the question, namely, ‘dictatorship of the Party or dictatorship of the class, dictatorship (Party) of the leaders or dictatorship (Party) of the masses?’ -- testifies to the most incredible and hopeless confusion of mind." [5] He continued this theme, claiming that "after two and a half years of Communist rule we stood before the entire world and said at the Communist International that the dictatorship of the proletariat is impossible in any other way but through the dictatorship of the Communist Party."
Trotsky agreed, stating several years after the Russian Revolution that, "if there is one question which basically not only does not require revision but does not so much as admit the thought of revision, it is the question of the dictatorship of the party." [6] He defended, "the Leninist principle, inviolable for every Bolshevik, that the dictatorship of the proletariat is and can be realized only through the dictatorship of the party." [7] "The revolutionary party (vanguard) which renounces its own dictatorship surrenders the masses to the counter-revolution ... abstractly speaking, it would be very well if the party dictatorship could be replaced by the ‘dictatorship’ of the whole toiling people without any party, but this presupposes such a high level of political development among the masses that it can never be achieved under capitalist conditions." Referring to the Workers Opposition, a Bolshevik faction that wanted to introduce more democracy into Soviet Russia following the end of the civil war (and was quickly purged), Trotsky warned, "They have come out with dangerous slogans. They have made a fetish of democratic principles. They have placed the workers’ right to elect representatives above the party. As if the Party were not entitled to assert its dictatorship even if that dictatorship clashed with the passing moods of the workers’ democracy! ... The Party is obliged to maintain its dictatorship ... regardless of temporary vacillations even in the working class ... The dictatorship does not base itself at every moment on the formal principle of a workers’ democracy." [8]
There is no evidence to indicate that Lenin, Trotsky or any other mainstream Bolshevik leaders regretted the loss of democracy and workers' power or even referred to these losses it as a retreat (as Lenin did when War Communism was replaced by the NEP). The idea that a one party dictatorship means the rule of the working class is simply ludicrous. There is no reason why such a dictatorship would magically obey the workers and in all likelihood it will pursue the interests of it’s leaders, suppressing opposition (as was done in Soviet Russia and nearly every other one-party state in history). In a one-party state the leaders of the party make most major decisions, not the working class. Hence, it is not the rule of the workers but of a small elite. By implemented a one-party state Lenin & Trotsky destroyed any possibility of the working class running Russian society.
Of course, theoretically one could advocate a "dictatorship of the proletariat" which is not a one-party state but takes some other form. A multi-party state similar to the so-called "liberal democracies" in West Europe and the United States (but without private property) could be proposed, but such a multi-party state would still be an instrument of minority rule (as they are presently) even with socialist politicians running things. A "dictatorship of the proletariat" along such lines would not be compatible with Leninism (since Lenin explicitly advocated a one-party state), but it could be compatible with other forms of authoritarian socialism. While Marx did claim that "Between capitalist and communist society there lies ... a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." [9] a minority of his followers claim that this does not have to be a one-party state and Marx himself was rather vague on what form this dictatorship would take. Nonetheless, there is no form of the state--neither monarchical, one-party, multi-party nor any other - which would allow the working class to control it.
The structure of states makes it impossible for it to be anything other then an organ of minority rule. The state is an organization with a monopoly (or near-monopoly) on the legitimate use of violence. It is a centralized rule-making body that stands "above" society and uses various armed bodies of people and coercive institutions (courts, prisons, etc.) to force people to obey it. It is an organ of class rule that cannot be used to abolish classes. How are the workers supposed to maintain control of an organization standing "above" society with it's own specialized armed forces and maintaining a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence? It's not possible - the state is the one with a monopoly on violence and could use that monopoly to ignore what the proletariat want and order them around - effectively forming a new ruling class over the proletariat.
All states have three characteristics:
1) A "monopoly of violence" in a given territorial area;
2) This violence having a "professional," institutional nature;
3) A hierarchical and authoritarian nature - centralisation of power and initiative into the hands of a few.
All states have historically had these characteristics. Such an organization inevitably becomes part of a ruling elite. If a group has a monopoly of force it can easily establish itself as ruler over the rest of the proletariat, even if that organization is initially made up proletarians. The hierarchical nature of the state insures that this will be the rule of a small elite. No organization should have a monopoly or near-monopoly on force. The state maintains armed bodies of people with a top down authoritarian chain of command that control the population and coerce it into obeying the orders of those on the top of the chain of command. This is always a form of minority rule because it is that minority on the top of the chain of command who makes the decisions and thus controls the rest of the population.
One idea for the proletariat to control the state is making representatives recallable in order to keep control of the state by the proletariat. There are a number of problems with this. First, the state by definition has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence. The politicians can simply use that monopoly to disregard recall and public opinion in situations where it gets in their way. This is precisely what the Bolsheviks did when they were recalled in the Spring of 1918; Soviets that voted the wrong way were simply disbanded. The methods used don't need to be that crude, there are much subtler ways to manipulate the electorate. There are many states today in which representatives can be recalled, but that does not mean the proletariat are the rulers or change the capitalist nature of those states.
A deeper problem is that society is still divided into a group of order givers and order takers. The "workers' parliament" (or politburo or council of people's commissars etc.) gives orders, the rest of the population obeys. The workers do not come up with and implement their own plans and projects, but instead elect a tiny group of leaders who make the decisions for them. The workers aren't really running society in this case, a small group of representatives are. Actual decision-making power lies not with the workers but with that small group of leaders. The majority of workers don't actually make the decisions but are instead reduced to choosing their masters. When the "workers' parliament" (or legislature or council of people's commissars etc.) is making the decisions the working class is not.
In all states there is a division between rulers and ruled; between those who give orders and those who obey them. By it’s very nature the state divides a population into rulers and ruled. As Malatesta said:
"A government, that is a group of people entrusted with making the laws and empowered to use the collective power to oblige each individual to obey them, is already a privileged class and cut off from the people. As any constituted body would do, it will instinctively seek to extend its powers, to be beyond public control, to impose its own policies and to give priority to special interests. Having been put in a privileged position, the government is already at odds with the people whose strength it disposes of." [10]
Furthermore, representative democracy (even with recallable representatives) is self-refuting. If the workers are capable of running society then we don't need a state at all; we can dispense with the state and have the direct self-rule of the masses. If workers are capable of deciding whether the decisions of a representative are good or bad, and thus deciding on whether or not to vote for or recall them then they are capable of directly making those decisions themselves. "for recall to work the population must be in a position to judge 'the questions of the day' in order to evaluate the actions of their representatives. ... Simply put, whoever is competent enough to pick their masters is competent to govern themselves and whoever is able to recall their representative is able to decide on 'the questions of the day' directly and explicitly mandate them. Thus, if recall is possible, so is self-management" [11] and the state is not needed. "The very theory of [representative democracy] contains its own negation. If the entire people were truly sovereign there would no longer be either government or governed; the sovereign would be reduced to nothing; the state would have no raison d'etre, would be identical with ssociety and disappear into industrial organization." [12]
If the workers are the ruling class, as the Communist Manifesto advocates, who are they to rule over? If the capitalists still exist then the workers do not rule because the capitalists have the power in the boss/worker relationship. If there are no capitalists then everyone rules. But if everyone rules then no one rules and there is no state.
The myth of the "good state" is a popular one among leftists, but in reality every state throughout history has been founded on the blood of the poor (even "socialist" ones). Liberalism and Authoritarian Socialism both share a common theme in that they establish systems of minority rule and claim that this system of minority rule is actually majority rule; that the rulers aren't really the rulers. With Liberalism they claim that under their state "the people" rule but the wealthy (and corrupt politicians) actually rule; with Marxism they claim that under their state "the proletariat" rule but actually the party (or the leaders of the party) rule.
Most Marxists claim that a state is necessary to prevent the capitalists from using violence to launch a counterrevolution and force us back into capitalism. A state is not necessary to prevent this; there are many other ways to do so. First off, after an anarchist revolution there wouldn’t be any capitalists. The working class would directly seize the means of production and a self-managed classless economy implemented. The capitalist class would then cease to exist. Capitalists could not attempt to launch a counterrevolution because there would be no capitalists. Former capitalists and other reactionaries could theoretically attempt to launch a counterrevolution. This could be stopped with the same means used to overthrow capitalism and the state--direct action. This includes, but is not limited to, civil disobedience, strikes, insurrections, street fighting, etc. If necessary the population could be armed and decentralized networks or confederations of democratic militias formed to engage in guerilla warfare against the reactionary forces. The later was implemented by Anarchists in the Ukraine during the Russian Revolution and were successful in defeating the Germans, Austrians, Ukrainian nationalists and several white armies despite being massively out gunned. Unfortunately, after the civil war was over the Bolsheviks stabbed them in the back and used their vastly superior resources to conquer the Ukraine. They then implemented a reign of terror and violently suppressed all opposition, [13] showing how counterrevolutionary "workers' states" really are..
Many Marxists define the state as "the organization of violence for the suppression of some class" [14] (or something similar to this) and, based on this, claim that the above measures constitute a "state." This is a common Marxist fallacy whereby Marxists play with the definition of words to make two very different things seem the same. This definition is overly broad. To equate a confederation of community assemblies or a decentralized network of militias with the centralized states created by all Marxists when they get in power is pure nonsense. The state is more than merely an instrument of force used by one class against other class(es). If two workers punch their boss there is force being used against a different class, but that does not mean that those two workers suddenly become a state. If a boss beats up an employee he is not magically transformed into a state, even though he is using force against a different class. To equate _all_ use of force between classes with a state is pure sophistry. Marxists generally do not have a good understanding of the state; this definition is not based on any kind of empirical analysis of the state but is plucked out of thin air to suit their political agenda. When Marxists attempt to make an empirical analysis of the state they often end up acknowledging this and coming close to the anarchist view of the state but refuse to see the political implications. For example, in "The Family, Private Property and the State" Fredrick Engels differentiates between the state (which he describes as a public power placed "above" society with its own armed bodies of men and coercive institutions) and the "self-acting armed organization of the population." It is precisely the "self-acting armed organization of the population" which is advocated by anarchists [15] as a means of defeating violent counterrevolutionaries!
The main problem with Authoritarian Socialism is that the forms of organization they advocate are simply incompatible with the goals they claim to advocate. They claim to believe in an egalitarian & democratic society based on the participation of everyone yet desire social structures - hierarchy, states, centralism, etc. - which are incompatible with these goals. Authoritarian Socialism, especially in its Leninist form, is really a philosophy advocating the rule of a small burueaucratic elite who use egalitarian rhetoric to justify their rule.
Notes
1. The term ‘authoritarian socialism’ refers to all forms of socialism which seek to use the state to abolish capitalism
2. I am referring to mainstream Marxists here. Those Libertarian Marxists who agree with anarchists on the abolition of the state are excluded from this critique.
3. Lenin’s Collected Works, vol. 29, p.535
4. Collected Works vol. 32, p. 21
5. Left-Wing Communism, p. 26
6. Leon Trotsky Speaks, p, 158
7. Platform of the Opposition, p. 62
8. 10th Party Congress
9. Critique of the Gotha Program
10. Anarchy P. 34
11. Anarcho, "A few comments on on 'Bakunin's Statism and Anarchy: A review by Chris Gray" http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/Bakuni...n_critique.html (http://anarchism.ws/writers/anarcho/Bakunin_critique.html)
12. Guerin, Anarchism P. 17
13. See "The History of the Makhnovist Movement" by Peter Arishnov
14. Essential Works of Lenin, p. 287
15. With the exception of anarcho-pacifists, who believe that only non-violent means (civil disobedience, etc.) should be used to resist counterrevolutionaries. If such means are sufficient to defeat counterrevolutionaries it would be preferable, but if not I believe workers are justified in using force to defend ourselves.