Workers control VS Centralisation

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

After the fall of a capitalist regime, those charged with "implementing socialism" (for lack of a better term) would be faced with only two options, that I can imagine. Just as the title states, either, through centralization,by a transitional government of some sort, or through immediate workers control. While I am not too certain on this topic, I would hope that given a genuine workers revolution, the proletariat would then inherit the means of production.
Could someone maybe offer a little insight on the topic, or suggest some reading?

By no means am I trying to entice a sectarian shit-storm, so lets keep it somewhat civil. ;)

[daft punk]

You ideally want both. The thing about a decent party is it can bring organisation, democracy, plus it should have a better idea of what needs doing on the national scale.

For example in Russia the workers controlled the factories, but it was the Bolsheviks who made the revolution, created the Red Army, nationalised the banks and so on.

Their problem was that it was an isolated backward country facing civil war, outside intervention, it inherited WW1, and there was a famine.

Overall these factors meant socialism was impossible. It was worth a try, but on their own they had no chance.

[The Jay]

I would think that for there to be a socialist revolution, the proletariat would need to have a socialistic class-consciousness by definition. I don't think that central planning would be necessary to educate the masses in any significant way because they would have already supported a socialist revolution. Due to this I would think that the means of production could be turned directly over to democratically organized workers.

[Ostrinski]

The purpose of central planning is not to educate workers, it is to better organize the production of basic necessities and things you need a lot of. There is also no reason why central planning can't be done democratically, this is a false dichotomy.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Well centralization doesn't have to occur alongside a transitional government. The dictatorship of the proletarian, envisioned by Marx, would operate in a very decentralized and direct democratic way, through something like a council system.

[The Jay]

The purpose of central planning is not to educate workers, it is to better organize the production of basic necessities and things you need a lot of. There is also no reason why central planning can't be done democratically, this is a false dichotomy.

I know that Central Planning is not to educate, but I did falsely equate it with a Leninist style Vanguard. Oops.

I think that it is possible for central planning to be democratic but I don't see the point if direct democracy/councils can do the same job without much of the perceived risks.

Do you know what I'm saying here?

[The Jay]

Well centralization doesn't have to occur alongside a transitional government. The dictatorship of the proletarian, envisioned by Marx, would operate in a very decentralized and direct democratic way, through something like a council system.

Not only did you beat me to it but you took away the rep. How mean! Lol I'm just messing with you. I agree with what you said.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I know that Central Planning is not to educate, but I did falsely equate it with a Leninist style Vanguard. Oops.

I think that it is possible for central planning to be democratic but I don't see the point if direct democracy/councils can do the same job without much of the perceived risks.

Do you know what I'm saying here?

Well, the planning could occur through the councils and the council system.
Pat Devine's book Democracy and Economic Planning is something to check out.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Not only did you beat me to it but you took away the rep. How mean! Lol I'm just messing with you. I agree with what you said.

lol:D:cool:

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

My inference on both centralization and workers council is tantamount. Who provides the regulation is a different story, either state control or workers council. If the state is democratic and the sway is with the people, then the workers would control the means of production democratically.

[Ostrinski]

I know that Central Planning is not to educate, but I did falsely equate it with a Leninist style Vanguard. Oops.

I think that it is possible for central planning to be democratic but I don't see the point if direct democracy/councils can do the same job without much of the perceived risks.

Do you know what I'm saying here?Council autonomy is an awful idea for industry that needs to reach a massive scale of the population.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Council autonomy is an awful idea for industry that needs to reach a massive scale of the population.

Agreed. The workers and their councils can run the factory democratically and planning can be done through them democratically, but overall autonomy between industry that needs to reach a massive scale of the population is a horrible idea and these industries need to work in unison.

[The Jay]

Agreed. The workers and their councils can run the factory democratically and planning can be done through them democratically, but overall autonomy between industry that needs to reach a massive scale of the population is a horrible idea and these industries need to work in unison.

Why not select delegates from the factories to decide how to produce collectively based upon consumption reports from different localities?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Why not select delegates from the factories to decide how to produce collectively based upon consumption reports from different localities?

I don't think that anyone was arguing against that approach. I think that Brospierre meant that council autonomy where the workplaces would work in a planned way but independent of each other would be a bad idea for industries that need to reach a massive amount of the population. Correct me if I am wrong on my interpretation of your post, Brospierre.

[x359594]

Why not select delegates from the factories to decide how to produce collectively based upon consumption reports from different localities?

Absolutely. Since production is a transactional relationship consumption needs of necessity have to be taken into consideration.

I don't think it's a "one size fits all" situation; centalization will be appropriate in some regions and not in others. The problem is to determine the right mix.

[The Jay]

I don't think that anyone was arguing against that approach. I think that Brospierre meant that council autonomy where the workplaces would work in a planned way but independent of each other would be a bad idea for industries that need to reach a massive amount of the population. Correct me if I am wrong on my interpretation of your post, Brospierre.

That's not what I thought he was saying but he may be wrong. If he does not object to my newest question's implication then I don't understand why he would call it such a bad idea. If I'm wrong about it Brospierre, I apologize.

[Ostrinski]

Why not select delegates from the factories to decide how to produce collectively based upon consumption reports from different localities?That's essentially what democratic central planning entails.

[The Jay]

That's essentially what democratic central planning entails.

I did not know that, I thought that you were advocating the authoritarian kind, which surprised me. I fully agree with you. I was just confused.

[Anderson]

It will be centralized control by the party (vanguard of the proletariat) after victory of revolution.

And the new instruments of power will not be created after the victory of revolution.
They take shape and develop under the leadership of party before the revolution when the working people rise against the ruling classes.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

It will be centralized control by the party (vanguard of the proletariat) after victory of revolution.

And the new instruments of power will not be created after the victory of revolution.
They take shape and develop under the leadership of party before the revolution when the working people rise against the ruling classes.

So we are replacing working class action with that of the party, like Rosa Luxembourg warned against? So it will be a dictatorship of the party over the proletariat instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat? We have to trust the party to do everything for us?

[Anderson]

Party is made up of the advanced sections of working class.

Working class needs the party to exercise its dictatorship.

Does it sound better?:)

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Party is made up of the advanced sections of working class.

Working class needs the party to exercise its dictatorship.

Does it sound better?:)

Better, but I am still weary of parties, personally.

[x359594]

Party is made up of the advanced sections of working class. Working class needs the party to exercise its dictatorship.

The bother with the "party" is that there isn't just one. There are several parties each claiming to be made of the advanced sections of the working class.

In practice, among the socialist parties of the last two centuries, there's been a plurality of petty bourgeois professionals running them although they claimed they were acting in the interests of the working class, the working class being too backward to act for itself.

[Rafiq]

One of the main reasons the Bolsheviks ripped power from the Soviets was that the Soviets didn't provide themselves useful in administrating mass regions, or even a single large city.

It saddens me Leftists haven't taken this historical fact into account when calling for "Council power". Especially in a world of seven billion, I can't even articulate how any individual would suggest it be administrated decentrally. That is, of course, unless they want us to experience a return to Feudal slave society.

[x359594]

...It saddens me Leftists haven't taken this historical fact into account when calling for "Council power". Especially in a world of seven billion, I can't even articulate how any individual would suggest it be administrated decentrally. That is, of course, unless they want us to experience a return to Feudal slave society.

First, the historical account is now out of date (because of cybernetics and mass communication,) and second, it's not an either/or question, rather it's finding the proper mix of centralized and decentralized decision making.

[Tim Cornelis]

One of the main reasons the Bolsheviks ripped power from the Soviets was that the Soviets didn't provide themselves useful in administrating mass regions, or even a single large city.

It strikes me as odd that you would point out that those advocating decentralisation have no learned from history, yet you cite the example of the centralisation as pursued by the Bolsheviks to prove your point.

Centralisation is an awful idea, it necessarily entails a top-down approach. If the workers recognise the need for something, they will organise in accordance with it using mandated and recallable delegates whereas centralised planning entails imposing an economic plan on the factories and workplaces, albeit the latter being self-managed through a workers' council.

Mind you that decentralisation does not mean each town or ward functioning on its own or independently. Federalism, as opposed to centralisation, suffices in organising the economy, allocation, distribution, on a large scale.

[Rafiq]

First, the historical account is now out of date (because of cybernetics and mass communication,) and second, it's not an either/or question, rather it's finding the proper mix of centralized and decentralized decision making.

It isn't at all out of date. How do you suppose Somalia etc.be administrated?

And it isn't our job to "find" anything. That is a job of the future champions of the revolution. But we can easily see the absurdity of global decentralization without asserting any type of blueprint.

[Tim Finnegan]

One of the main reasons the Bolsheviks ripped power from the Soviets was that the Soviets didn't provide themselves useful in administrating mass regions, or even a single large city.

It saddens me Leftists haven't taken this historical fact into account when calling for "Council power". Especially in a world of seven billion, I can't even articulate how any individual would suggest it be administrated decentrally. That is, of course, unless they want us to experience a return to Feudal slave society.
Yes, yes, you don't understand the first thing about historical materialism, we get it.

[x359594]

...And it isn't our job to "find" anything. That is a job of the future champions of the revolution...

Don't put words in my mouth. Please re-read my post more carefully.

[Rafiq]

Yes, yes, you don't understand the first thing about historical materialism, we get it.

And you think Historical materialism is what? What world are you living in? How in any way was that post contradictory to HM? Or would you just admit your talking out of your ass...

It's totally in par with historical materialism.

[Rafiq]

Goti i'll respond shortly. All posts I need to double quote can't be addressed on tapatalk

[Grenzer]

I think what Rafiq is trying to say is that trying to have a decentralized economy immediately after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie would be disastrous; perhaps even disastrous to the level of wreaking such havoc that society temporarily reverts to pre-capitalist mode of production. Who knows if it could get that bad, but he may be right.

I would agree with Rafiq that trying to begin with a decentralized economy would be absolutely catastrophic. No one has any idea how to efficiently manage a decentralized economy, and because there is no accountability as there would be with a centralized economy, thinks could get ridiculously fucked up pretty quickly, like certain areas reverting to capitalism or some such. Centralization has its own issues, but immediately trying to jump into a federalized system seems like a quick recipe for disaster.

[Tim Finnegan]

And you think Historical materialism is what? What world are you living in? How in any way was that post contradictory to HM? Or would you just admit your talking out of your ass...

It's totally in par with historical materialism.
Could you point me to exactly where Marx discusses the possibility of going "backwards" into "feudal slave society"? On the face of it, the very suggestion seems contrary to everything he ever wrote on pre-capitalist social formations, but it's only fair to give you a chance to contradict me.

[Rafiq]

Could you point me to exactly where Marx discusses the possibility of going "backwards" into "feudal slave society"? On the face of it, the very suggestion seems contrary to everything he ever wrote on pre-capitalist social formations, but it's only fair to give you a chance to contradict me.

It's very possible for capitalism to revert to a previous state of affairs, saying otherwise is contradictory to HM. History is not this straight path going forward, you know. That's "Young Marx" bull shit (like his humanism).

If society, globally, were to become decentralized, from the Atlantic Coast to the Yellow sea, a reaction is to be assured.

There must be a strong, powerful higher order that would assure the interests of all regions do not conflict, that a reaction be put down. What, do you think Historical Materialism = History is always going forward on a path to glorious Utopia of sitting on your ass smoking a blunt?

That's Idealism, actually. Marx pointed out that the concept of material conditions just "adjusting themselves" to communism in the way you describe is not only impossible, it contradicts his conception of communism.

[Rafiq]

Could you point me to exactly where Marx discusses the possibility of going "backwards" into "feudal slave society"? On the face of it, the very suggestion seems contrary to everything he ever wrote on pre-capitalist social formations, but it's only fair to give you a chance to contradict me.

Also, there is no "backwards" and "forwards". If we destroy capitalism and decentralize globally, Hell on Earth is assured.

[Tim Finnegan]

So "no"?

[Thirsty Crow]

And you think Historical materialism is what? What world are you living in? How in any way was that post contradictory to HM? Or would you just admit your talking out of your ass...

It's totally in par with historical materialism.
Well fisrt of all, feudalism is in its basis something other than slavery - so a term like "feudal slave society" is an oxymoron in fact.
Secondly, it would be great if you were able to substantiate your ramblings with some arguments as to just how would workers' control via workplace committees and soviets (and actually you fail to understand how soviets enable integration into larger political units and that they are not antithetical to centralization; anyway, it would also be nice if you could substantiate the assertion of the alleged basic inefficiency of soviets during the early years of USSR), what you think represents a decentralization, actually bring about a social formation based on the relations of personal dependency and an appropriation of surplus labour in the form of agricultural surplus directly extorted from direct producers.

[x359594]

I think what Rafiq is trying to say is that trying to have a decentralized economy immediately after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie would be disastrous...

If that's what he's trying to say, then he's probably right. But eventually decision making must return to the shop floor in consultation with consumers to set out put. Workers of course would set their own hours and shifts.

[x359594]

The closest real world example of complete self-management of industry by workers under conditions of socialized rather than private ownership of capital was the Yugoslav system of workers' councils in the 1950s and 1960s. But even in that case there was a heavy layer of bureaucracy involved.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well fisrt of all, feudalism is in its basis something other than slavery - so a term like "feudal slave society" is an oxymoron in fact.
Secondly, it would be great if you were able to substantiate your ramblings with some arguments as to just how would workers' control via workplace committees and soviets (and actually you fail to understand how soviets enable integration into larger political units and that they are not antithetical to centralization; anyway, it would also be nice if you could substantiate the assertion of the alleged basic inefficiency of soviets during the early years of USSR), what you think represents a decentralization, actually bring about a social formation based on the relations of personal dependency and an appropriation of surplus labour in the form of agricultural surplus directly extorted from direct producers.
It's probably because I'm a liberal ultra-leftist who can shut the hell up. It generally is.

[JeVousAimeGuillotine]

I think it is a common misconception that every instance of centralized power has to be equated to the Bolsheviks. We all know that the Bolsheviks had their flaws (some of us being more critical than others), but it was a very important vanguard party for the history of socialism in a global sense. Without the Soviet Union, we would have no real data on the success of socialist policies. Apart from that, centralized authority does not come from giving power to the state, but by forming soviets for the purpose of preventing an organic composition. It is a fairly simple concept, if you ask me. The majority of our resources won't go towards imperialist wars or paying off vast amounts of debt. Rather, the majority of our resources will go towards providing for the common good of our people. If you ask me, I say that requires intelligent economists and mathematicians and social scientists to come up with efficient ways to accommodate the entirety of the socialist nation.

Once you realize that centralized power is not always an authoritarian presence, it is easier to accept.

[x359594]

...The majority of our resources won't go towards imperialist wars or paying off vast amounts of debt. Rather, the majority of our resources will go towards providing for the common good of our people. If you ask me, I say that requires intelligent economists and mathematicians and social scientists to come up with efficient ways to accommodate the entirety of the socialist nation.

In other words, a new ruling class of experts. The idea of scientists and experts as custodians of society was first put forward by Comte. This combination would tend towards the dictatorship of intellectuals and bureaucrats, justified as acting on behalf of the proletariat.

This thread was framed as workers' control versus centralization, and I wonder if that isn't a false dichotomy. Any actual society will have centralized functions that could well be under workers' control. The inhabitants of the nascent socialist society will have to determine the mix of centralized and decentralized administration, but in all cases the new organs of production and distribution must be under the control of the producers and consumers, and not a new elite claiming to act in their name.

[Grenzer]

In other words, a new ruling class of experts. The idea of scientists and experts as custodians of society was first put forward by Comte. This combination would tend towards the dictatorship of intellectuals and bureaucrats, justified as acting on behalf of the proletariat.

This thread was framed as workers' control versus centralization, and I wonder if that isn't a false dichotomy. Any actual society will have centralized functions that could well be under workers' control. The inhabitants of the nascent socialist society will have to determine the mix of centralized and decentralized administration, but in all cases the new organs of production and distribution must be under the control of the producers and consumers, and not a new elite claiming to act in their name.

Some people seem to have a real fetish for technocracy around here. I'm curious as to why they don't realize the contradiction that this has with classless society; or maybe they do know, in which case they aren't really socialists at all.

You are right about the thread subject, but it seems to have shifted to more of a debate in regards to decentralization vs. centralization. It seems to primarily boil down to a question of efficacy; and whether an individual worker's ability to organize production is more important than the ability for the workers to organize production collectively as a class. Or rather, whether the workers can be considered to be able to organize production at the collective level without the ability to do so at an individual level.

[x359594]

...It seems to primarily boil down to a question of efficacy; and whether an individual worker's ability to organize production is more important than the ability for the workers to organize production collectively as a class. Or rather, whether the workers can be considered to be able to organize production at the collective level without the ability to do so at an individual level.

I agree. We only have a few historical examples to go by, the previously mentioned Yugoslavian workers' councils and the short-lived collectives during the Spanish Revolution. Edit: and the workers' councils of Turin during the strike wave of 1919-1920.

[Thirsty Crow]

I agree. We only have a few historical examples to go by, the previously mentioned Yugoslavian workers' councils and the short-lived collectives during the Spanish Revolution. Edit: and the workers' councils of Turin during the strike wave of 1919-1920.
I seriously doubt that YUgoslav self-management can be taken as a historical example since it rperesented a capitalis, market economy which fostered competition between separate enterprises.
And generally, I think there is merit to this whole approach of historical examples only in that it enables us to examine to concrete, technical details of organization, and not in the sense of there being a roadmap towards a classless future based on what went on earlier in history.

[daft punk]

It strikes me as odd that you would point out that those advocating decentralisation have no learned from history, yet you cite the example of the centralisation as pursued by the Bolsheviks to prove your point.


Why? The Russian revolution was the closest the world's working class has ever got to socialism. It was the greatest event in world history.



Centralisation is an awful idea, it necessarily entails a top-down approach.

why? The people at the top can be elected. They have to act in the interests of the people, unless they go Stalinist. Even Uncle Joe had to act in the interests of the people to some extent.



If the workers recognise the need for something, they will organise in accordance with it using mandated and recallable delegates

Which is what Trots call for




whereas centralised planning entails imposing an economic plan on the factories and workplaces, albeit the latter being self-managed through a workers' council.

why imposing? The soviets can vote on central policy. Let me give you an example. The government gets some experts to draw up a provisional plan to make the electricity green and sustainable. They explain the reasons and the costs to the people. The people could vote to ratify it, either directly or through delegates. It doesnt just need to be the elected government deciding outright. Also you can have the electricity board comprised of elected people from the public, the electricity industry, and the government. They make the day to day national decisions. Additionally you can have innovation boards to plan changes, again comprising of relevant delegates. The public or soviets would only vote directly on something big of course or you would never get anything done.

Electricity needs to be linked to other forms of energy and to things like public transport. Not only nationally but internationally. Local planning will be on the details like tram routes or siting wind turbines.










Mind you that decentralisation does not mean each town or ward functioning on its own or independently. Federalism, as opposed to centralisation, suffices in organising the economy, allocation, distribution, on a large scale.

Nothing wrong with federalism in principle, but you need national bodies too. You need a national electricity board of directors, as per my example above, for example.

Ultimately there would be no countries, but you would still need regions to plan things like energy. So countries might still exist just for breaking the world into manageable chunks. For instance the UK would have a railways board or whatever, to coordinate all the trains on our island. In the USA it might be national and state.

[x359594]

...I think there is merit to this whole approach of historical examples only in that it enables us to examine to concrete, technical details of organization, and not in the sense of there being a roadmap towards a classless future based on what went on earlier in history.

Well, the idea is to look for uniformities between different iterations of workers' control (if there are any) and use them for constructing a hypothesis.

[Tavarisch_Mike]

Im for a way more decentralized society. All attempts (according to the 'classic') bolshevik one, has effectivly destroyed democratic elements and ppls oppurtunity to participate in society. The once that live in a particular area and will be affected by decitions should be the once that controls the decitions. Ofcourse, as many have pointed out, when it comes to, for example, organazing production thats vital for the masses, then we have to got to have a higher instance where elected representants can gather and make a plan.

[honest john's firing squad]

all this debate over forms of organisation, yet not a word about content. y'all are missing the point. the whole aim of our class' revolution is to destroy the old capitalist mode of production and establish in its place a communist mode of production, by abolishing wage-labour, production for profit, etc. -- and whether production under this communist mode takes a "centralised" or a "decentralised" form is pretty much an entirely different matter for debate and/or speculation. besides, different forms of organisation become necessary in accordance to different material conditions. the precise material conditions that would give rise to a "decentralised" economy, for example, are pretty much unknown to me, probably because i'm not a psychic and i don't know shit about managing entire industries.

[x359594]

...the precise material conditions that would give rise to a "decentralised" economy, for example, are pretty much unknown to me, probably because i'm not a psychic and i don't know shit about managing entire industries.

Get a job in a manufacturing industry and map your workplace. It's the first step in organizing. Once you have a map of the workplace you'll have a handle on how an entire industry is managed under capitalism, and it's from where we are that sets the conditions of where we'll go and how we'll get there.

[ckaihatsu]

After the fall of a capitalist regime, those charged with "implementing socialism" (for lack of a better term) would be faced with only two options, that I can imagine. Just as the title states, either, through centralization,by a transitional government of some sort, or through immediate workers control. While I am not too certain on this topic, I would hope that given a genuine workers revolution, the proletariat would then inherit the means of production.
Could someone maybe offer a little insight on the topic, or suggest some reading?

By no means am I trying to entice a sectarian shit-storm, so lets keep it somewhat civil. ;)


I think the only real difference in practice between 'centralization', 'immediate workers control', and 'transitional government of some sort' is the *pace* at which each can be accomplished, from most-desired to less-desired. So, if the insurrection isn't going so hot there might at some point have to be a 'dual power' situation in which a 'transitional government of some sort' aids the revolutionary proletariat in getting over the hump and finishing the revolution. Better, of course, would be immediate workers control, but without centralization, ultimately, there would inevitably be lack of large-scale coordination, resulting in a lack of economies of scale, and therefore duplication of effort.





I don't think it's a "one size fits all" situation; centalization will be appropriate in some regions and not in others. The problem is to determine the right mix.


The flipside to a stochastically-organized system of production is the inherent "denial-of-revolution" to areas and peoples that are part of the "decentralized" areas. Just as we wouldn't want to force anyone to remain living in the countryside today if they wanted to live in a city, we shouldn't advocate a post-capitalist political system that isn't willing to bring revolutionary participation and benefits to *all* the workers / peoples of the world in a consistent way.





[T]he thread subject [...] seems to have shifted to more of a debate in regards to decentralization vs. centralization. It seems to primarily boil down to a question of efficacy; and whether an individual worker's ability to organize production is more important than the ability for the workers to organize production collectively as a class. Or rather, whether the workers can be considered to be able to organize production at the collective level without the ability to do so at an individual level.


This is *another* false dichotomy -- one based on a spurious mixing of scales of magnitude. It's presented as a problematic of "autonomy-vs.-centralization", but in practice we *know* that broad centralized policy is *not* going to move all workers in lock-step like marionettes:





[E]ventually decision making must return to the shop floor in consultation with consumers to set out put. Workers of course would set their own hours and shifts.


(Centralization can be bottom-up, and it's meant to *generalize* the best possible practices based on broad-scale similarities from various localities, for the sake of efficiency and consistency.)





[T]he soviets can vote on central policy. Let me give you an example. The government gets some experts to draw up a provisional plan to make the electricity green and sustainable. They explain the reasons and the costs to the people. The people could vote to ratify it, either directly or through delegates. It doesnt just need to be the elected government deciding outright. Also you can have the electricity board comprised of elected people from the public, the electricity industry, and the government. They make the day to day national decisions. Additionally you can have innovation boards to plan changes, again comprising of relevant delegates. The public or soviets would only vote directly on something big of course or you would never get anything done.





4. Ends -- Flat, all-inclusive mode of participation at all levels without delegated representatives




[In] this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.




Given that people make *points* on any of a number of *issues*, which may comprise some larger *topics* -- and these fall into some general *themes*, or *categories* -- wouldn't this very discussion-board format of RevLeft be altogether suitable for a massively parallel (ground-level) political participation among all those concerned, particularly workers, for *all scales* of political implementation -- ?

I think there's conventionally been a kind of lingering anxiety over the political "workload" that would confront any regular person who would work *and* wish to have active, impacting participation in real-world policy, along the lines of the examples you've provided for this thread's discussion.

But I'll note that, for any given concrete issue, not everyone would *necessarily* find the material need to individually weigh in with a distinct proposal of their own -- as I think we've seen here from our own regular participation at RevLeft, it's often the case that a simple press of the 'Thanks' button is all that's needed in many cases where a comrade has *already* put forth the words that we would have said ourselves, thereby relieving us from the task of writing that sentiment ourselves.

Would concrete issues at higher, more-generalized levels be so different, so inaccessible to the regular, affected person on the ground? Wouldn't the information gathered within such an appropriate thread of discussion "clue everyone in" as the overall situation at that level -- say, from the participants of several different countries -- ?

I'll ask if delegated representatives *are* really required anymore when our current political vehicle, the Internet-based discussion board, can facilitate massively participatory, though orderly and topic-specific conversations, across all ranges of geography and scales of populations.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://postimage.org/image/35ru6ztic/

[Rafiq]

Well fisrt of all, feudalism is in its basis something other than slavery - so a term like "feudal slave society"

Historically, there have been many cases where there was a sort of transitional mixture between Feudalism and Slavery. Most noticeably in Eastern Asia.

The emphasis of "Slave Society" was put in as I'd imagine a hell hole where human trafficking is in mass abundance, etc.

You know, with world crime the way it is now, I doubt a decentralized mode of disturbing power is going to somehow make them disappear, none the less fully rid us of Global Capitalism in order to do so.


is an oxymoron in fact.


Not necessarily, no.


Secondly, it would be great if you were able to substantiate your ramblings with some arguments as to just how would workers' control via workplace committees and soviets (and actually you fail to understand how soviets enable integration into larger political units and that they are not antithetical to centralization; anyway, it would also be nice if you could substantiate the assertion of the alleged basic inefficiency of soviets during the early years of USSR),

While I agree the Soviets could, to some extent, be useful, they cannot provide a base for supreme executive power. The Soviets were extremely inefficient in the midst of the civil war, which is precisely why they were done away with, unless you adhere to the Bourgeois mythology, that "Power corrupts", which it would appear the chomskyans here do.

Especially in the chaotic world we live in today, of seven billion, surly a massive war will follow any sort of revolution. And, sorry to say, in this world of seven billion, centralized state is going to be of absolute necessity, at least for a short period of time.

You must have illuions if you think our planet could be organized decentrally.



what you think represents a decentralization, actually bring about a social formation based on the relations of personal dependency and an appropriation of surplus labour in the form of agricultural surplus directly extorted from direct producers.


What, is this what you think decentralization will create? That's foolish. There is no need of evidence or studies to validate this, it's common sense.

[Rafiq]

It strikes me as odd that you would point out that those advocating decentralisation have no learned from history, yet you cite the example of the centralisation as pursued by the Bolsheviks to prove your point.

The Centralization of power had absolutely nothing to do with the dissolution of the proletarian state and the retention of the capitalist mode of production. If anything, any tiny remnant of Proletarian dictatorship was kept in place via the centralization of power on behalf of the Bolsheviks.

Have we not gone through this before?

Anarchists believed the failure of the Russian revolution, since today, to be an ideological victory on behalf of their forefathers. Little do they know that any Marxist would have been able to predict the failure of the Bolshevik revolution the minute the German Revolution failed. Is it a coincidence that the Bolsheviks started to align themselves with Bourgeois movements across the globe, only one year after the death of Luxemburg?

But, you will probably say, did they not rip power from the Soviets as early as 1918?

Alas, this was, if anything, just a demonstration of the inefficiency of the Soviets to administrate mass regions and mobilize the country for war against counter revolution (Though Ironically, the counter revolution would follow not on behalf of Denkin, but on behalf of the vanguard itself, in a matter of years). The Proletarian dictatorship was still enact.

In these conditions, only a fool would suggest power to decentralized councils account for the war against the counter revolution. Even the Anarchist types, and Makhno comes to mind, had to operate on a strict authoritarian-statist basis in order to mobilize against the counterrevolution.

So we can establish that in the midst of counter revolution, strong centralization is required. But I will even go as far as to say even when the counter revolution is dead and gone, although of course, more "Power" could be distributed among the administered regions, a strong central base is required to keep them all bundled up under a Neutral and greater force.


Centralisation is an awful idea, it necessarily entails a top-down approach.

Which is of absolute necessity on a planet of seven billion.


If the workers recognise the need for something, they will organise in accordance with it using mandated and recallable delegates

What "need" do you say? I hate talking about Future Utopia, but how does the use of delegetes contradcit a centralized command economy? Could these delegetes not take the socalled "Needs" to the Centralized higher power?

Of course, there needs to be a sort of twisted "Federalism", in which power is to some extent "Decentralized" locally and up to the point where it could administrate certain regions, however, a top down approach in which a higher centralized state will always have the ability to over ride the decentralized powers.

What I am arguing against is Decentralization as a supreme executive base post revolution


whereas centralised planning entails imposing an economic plan on the factories and workplaces, albeit the latter being self-managed through a workers' council.


And Worker's councils have been inefficient in planning mass projects and administrating as a base for whole economies. Such is a unfortunate fact that the Left has not come into terms with, not yet at least.

I don't mind localized "Worker's councils", though it's just plain unrealistic to assert they be held accountable for mass regions, solely and directly by workers. Any sort of Council power must be a lesser power in the face of the centralized power.


Mind you that decentralisation does not mean each town or ward functioning on its own or independently.

But such would be result of dependence on the very miserable assertion that each town or ward will be compliant and have interest which would not conflict with the interests of any other town or ward.


Federalism, as opposed to centralisation, suffices in organising the economy, allocation, distribution, on a large scale.


What you are talking about is confederation, not Federalism. Federalism retains a higher centralized power.

These are all issues that will have to be addressed around revolution time, no? I'm sure this will all have to adjust accordingly to the material conditions ofa post revolution. It's kind of a useless discussion, you know.

But in all, historically we have seen Soviets are incompetent in representing the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Was it not Anarchist Spain, of which fell to the counter revolution? Why were they not able to have the organizational skills to hoard off the enemy? It is because, (Unlike their Makhnovist fathers) did not adopt the Bolshevik method.

[Rafiq]

If that's what he's trying to say, then he's probably right. But eventually decision making must return to the shop floor in consultation with consumers to set out put. Workers of course would set their own hours and shifts.

Yes, yes, I hope you're correct. All I am asserting is that brute Authoritarianism would be of absolute necessity following a proletarian revolution and dictatorship. Whether it becomes possible for what you mentioned after the counter revolution is defeated (Which I highly doubt), time will tell. Really, it just sounds like sizzle, and I don't for the most part find it realistic. For one, what makes you think a "Shop" would exist? Such assertions are petty bourgeois (Though, not suprising from a Chomskyan).

[Rafiq]

I agree. We only have a few historical examples to go by, the previously mentioned Yugoslavian workers' councils and the short-lived collectives during the Spanish Revolution. Edit: and the workers' councils of Turin during the strike wave of 1919-1920.

Oh my, this is fucking laughable. The "Worker's Councils" in Yugoslavia were agents of capital, and petty bourgeois entities. The retention of the capitalist mode of production, the market, and at the same time "Worker's Control via councils" or "Co opts" would make them simply petty bourgeois entities and at that, class enemies.

This really draws the line between the Scientific Socialists and the Utopians. It is not about Worker's control. It is about the destruction of the capitalist mode of production, which does not contradict workers control.

The capitalist mode of production carries inherent systemic contradictions (which were realized in Yugoslavia, especially) which no form of "Management" can repress or avoid, deal with, etc.

And those same collectives in the "Spanish revolution", were also petty bourgeois entities which could not even mobolize and crush the counter revolution because they were too busy living in their libertarian fairy world, i.e. They would not even adopt the strategically successful military tactics because they were "Authoritarian". To them, their ideology was more important than the protection of the revolution itself. Yes, yes, I know what you will say: But the very act of establishing this authoritarianism is in the process the destruction of the revolution internally

yet for this there is no evidence. Cite the Bolshevik revolution once more, please, I'm eager to reply. Because it's failure had nothing to do with Authoritarianism.

[x359594]

..For one, what makes you think a "Shop" would exist? ...

In an immediate post-revolutionary situation factories and workshops will of necessity have to provide the necessities of life. Maybe in some distant future production will be organized differently, so that factories and workshops become a thing of the past.

[x359594]

Oh my, this is fucking laughable...

Laughter is healthy. Sauld camarada!

[Revolution starts with U]

It was the greatest event in world history.


.

Even greater than writing, without which we wouldn't even have a history!

Where's my palm... i have a face to put into it.

[Revolution starts with U]

This really draws the line between the Scientific Socialists and the Utopians. It is not about Worker's control. It is about the destruction of the capitalist mode of production, which does not contradict workers control.

.

I don't get what you're saying here... as a socialist you're cool with feudalism as long as it destroys the capitalist mode of production? Or only anti-capitalism that "does not contradict workers control" is what socialism is all about.
If the latter... does this not assume that it is both anti-capitalism AND worker control advocacy that makes one a socialist?

[x359594]

...Centralization can be bottom-up, and it's meant to *generalize* the best possible practices based on broad-scale similarities from various localities, for the sake of efficiency and consistency...

Absolutely. That's why the question is a false dichotomy.

[Rafiq]

I don't get what you're saying here... as a socialist you're cool with feudalism as long as it destroys the capitalist mode of production? Or only anti-capitalism that "does not contradict workers control" is what socialism is all about.
If the latter... does this not assume that it is both anti-capitalism AND worker control advocacy that makes one a socialist?

No, no. Abolishing capitalism on behalf of the proletariat is of absolute necessitu.

But the end goal is not workers control. Keep in mind I am not being literal, I am reffering to Workers "MANAGING"entities. This isn't the end goal of a socialist. Because the capitalist mode of production can persist at the same time workers (or petty bourgeois, in this case) manage things. A worker(s) owning a *buisness* is impossible, as they would become petite bourgeios in nature.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Tim Finnegan]

That's a bit reductionist. The petty bourgeois represent/ed a particular historical phenomenon, not just anything that doesn't fit into the neat little boxes of "ze vorkers" and "ze kapitalists". (That's why Marx is so specific, in his writings on France 1848-51, to distinguish between the peasantry and the urban petty bourgois, despite both of them representing a strata of commercial petty-proprietors.) Any stratum of self-managing workers that emerged would be something historically particular, not just another actualisation of these superhistorical Platonic ideal-classes you seem to be invoking, so to call it "petty bourgeois" is as inappropriate as calling it an "industrial peasantry". At best it can serve as a loose analogy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Historically, there have been many cases where there was a sort of transitional mixture between Feudalism and Slavery. Most noticeably in Eastern Asia.I don't know much about historical social formations in this part of the world so feel free to provide some information and sources.


The emphasis of "Slave Society" was put in as I'd imagine a hell hole where human trafficking is in mass abundance, etc. Then you could have said that and refrain from pretentiously using terms which have nothing to do with this. I know that analogies are hard to resist sometimes, but c'mon, feudal slave society is taking it too far.


You know, with world crime the way it is now, I doubt a decentralized mode of disturbing power is going to somehow make them disappear, none the less fully rid us of Global Capitalism in order to do so. So, in your mind the problem of crime is to be solved not primarily by transforming the social relations of production, but rather by repression which somehow necessitates a "centralized mode of distributing power" (I assume you meant "distributing"), but you didn't even explain how is that centralization different from supposed decentralization, and neither have you actually explained why crime necessitates such a centralized mode of distributing power.


While I agree the Soviets could, to some extent, be useful, they cannot provide a base for supreme executive power. The Soviets were extremely inefficient in the midst of the civil war, which is precisely why they were done away with, unless you adhere to the Bourgeois mythology, that "Power corrupts", which it would appear the chomskyans here do.

Especially in the chaotic world we live in today, of seven billion, surly a massive war will follow any sort of revolution. And, sorry to say, in this world of seven billion, centralized state is going to be of absolute necessity, at least for a short period of time.

You must have illuions if you think our planet could be organized decentrally. Maybe you didn't understand what I said.
My illusions and the chaotic world of seven billion are irrelevant here.
I asked for evidence and argument in relation to your mere assertion with regard to the actual, historical soviets. You merely repeated this assertion. Do you understand what constitutes evidence and a substantiated argument?
But your very confused indeed, which is clear from this:


What, is this what you think decentralization will create? That's foolish. There is no need of evidence or studies to validate this, it's common sense.
...which relates to the part of my post where I talk about feudalism. So, again, you think that actual feudal relations of production might come about as a result of a wrong policy of decentralization after the borugeois state is smashed?

[Rafiq]

I don't know much about historical social formations in this part of the world so feel free to provide some information and sources.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy#Slavery

This.


Then you could have said that and refrain from pretentiously using terms which have nothing to do with this. I know that analogies are hard to resist sometimes, but c'mon, feudal slave society is taking it too far.


Perhaps the terms were abused. Though, it's good now we are on the same page as to what I meant.


So, in your mind the problem of crime is to be solved not primarily by transforming the social relations of production, but rather by repression which somehow necessitates a "centralized mode of distributing power"

Not by any means. Crime is, of course, a direct result of social relations in production. But, none the less, my point was that decentralized mode of power would lack the capability to fully rid us of these social relations, i.e. the remnants of the capitalist mode of production and capitalist society. Only Centralized Authoritarianism can give us the totality of revolutionary destruction, to assure us that all remnants of the former order are destroyed and abolish. Without this Terror, we will live away in the rotting remnants of capitalism, without the necessary discipline and organization to truly replace the capitalist mode of production, none the less prevent mass scale battles and conflicts over resources.


(I assume you meant "distributing"), but you didn't even explain how is that centralization different from supposed decentralization,

Decentralization I'd imagine would be the rule of independent and autonomous communities in which all decisions to said community are made by the community itself, and not a higher entity.

Centralization, on the other hand, is almost self explanatory, mass scale command economic planning, in which communities do not rule themselves to the fullest extent.

They are both pretty self explanatory. Do not misunderstand me, I am not trying to formulate some silly structured debate between "Balancing out" what would be better, I am merely pointing out something which should be obvious to most.


and neither have you actually explained why crime necessitates such a centralized mode of distributing power.


As I said, Centralized Authoritarianism is going to be required to Terrorize and liquidate all the remnants of the old order, i.e. Crime bosses, Mafias, of which are armed, Militias, reactionary Military organizations (Militias, or, for a more recent example the LRA, if you will). Authoritarian power structure is inevitable. It is either the class enemy rules or the proletariat does. To simply decentralize would bring about their Authority, their will.

to quote Mao, we abolish the gun, with the gun.

Centralization of course, might never be abolished. I am no fortune teller.

A force is necessary to be stronger than all other forces, to assure they do not undermine the proletarian dictatorship.



Maybe you didn't understand what I said.
My illusions and the chaotic world of seven billion are irrelevant here.
I asked for evidence and argument in relation to your mere assertion with regard to the actual, historical soviets.

Why then, do you believe they were ripped of power? The German revolution failed in 1919, the classic Left Communist line (which I concur) is that the failure of the revolution was a direct result of it's isolation. Though it's full and direct isolation was not assured until 1919. If I go digging, surly I can find my source, though I can't do that (Studies and all).


You merely repeated this assertion. Do you understand what constitutes evidence and a substantiated argument?
But your very confused indeed, which is clear from this:


See above.


...which relates to the part of my post where I talk about feudalism. So, again, you think that actual feudal relations of production might come about as a result of a wrong policy of decentralization after the borugeois state is smashed?


It is possible, yes. Perhaps a new form of social relations may come about, something worse than capitalism. If you did not know, Marx and Engels emphasized that their line on (Primitive Communism, Then Slave Society, Feudalism, and then Capitalism) was not a "grand theory of history". That is not what constitutes as Historical Materialism. History, to them, was by no means "Always going forward". Perhaps that is why Tim said I don't know anything about Historical Materialism, when, on the contrary, (And Ironically) it is him who doesn't know anything about it.

Of course, exact Feudal relations are not assured. But, as you know, a lot of the world is still living in feudalism, so in some places it could be similar. In other places, something else.

[Rafiq]

That's a bit reductionist. The petty bourgeois represent/ed a particular historical phenomenon, not just anything that doesn't fit into the neat little boxes of "ze vorkers" and "ze kapitalists". (That's why Marx is so specific, in his writings on France 1848-51, to distinguish between the peasantry and the urban petty bourgois, despite both of them representing a strata of commercial petty-proprietors.) Any stratum of self-managing workers that emerged would be something historically particular, not just another actualisation of these superhistorical Platonic ideal-classes you seem to be invoking, so to call it "petty bourgeois" is as inappropriate as calling it an "industrial peasantry". At best it can serve as a loose analogy.

Nonsense. This is similiar to stating the Soviet Union didn't retain the capitalist mode of production because "The class relations emerged historically particular".

You're divulging from a scientific mode of thought. What is petite bourgeois is petite bourgeois, what is capital is capital, regardless of how "Soft" or "democratic" they are, regardless of whether they are draped in Red. We do not call proletarians Industrial Peasantry as their existence signified the destruction of Feudalism, and Feudalism in itself has no industry, i.e. Yes, of course the Peasantry were a thing of the past in that they were a previous historical phenomena, but there is more to it. What we define as the Feudal mode of production was not persistent in the capitalist mode of productions, therefore all social relations from Feudalism had to be disregarded as a thing of the past. However, we define the capitalist mode of production as something very specific, which could exist in a different form (Worker's management of small businesses).

Tell me, do you even know what constitutes as the capitalist mode of production? What distinguished what we would call a Peasant from a Proletarian was beyond just "Looking different", their function, not in petty management or "Oppressed" state of affairs, but what defines them.

A proletarian must constantly rent out his labor. A Peasant, on the contrary, does not have to rent out his own labor, does not work for a wage, etc.

A petite bourgeosie are:



Petit-Bourgeoisie, lit., “little city-folk” – the small business people, sometimes extended to include the professional middle-class and better-off farmers.


It is the Peasantry which can be called the Petite Bourgeoisie, and as such they are. And in doing so, "Worker Managed businesses" in nature would be petite bourgeois in nature, as they carry all of the qualifications for what scientifically defines a petite bourgeois, contrary to (Peasant vs. Proletarian) as scientifically, they are defined very differently. A Worker's cooperative is just as petite bourgeois as Uncle Joe's hardware store.

Class is defined by relations to the mode of production (Not management techniques of said relation), not by their "Moral character" or the magnitude of how "Democratic" they are.

[Thirsty Crow]

As I said, Centralized Authoritarianism is going to be required to Terrorize and liquidate all the remnants of the old order, i.e. Crime bosses, Mafias, of which are armed, Militias, reactionary Military organizations (Militias, or, for a more recent example the LRA, if you will). Authoritarian power structure is inevitable.
Again, you fail to prove your point.
To make it easy for you, and in correspondence to how you frame the problem of decentralization and centralization, not even those who argue for a decentralization deny the necessiry for political integration into larger units. And it is precisely the problem how to organize this integration that is the crux of the issue, far from it being obvious and self-explanatory as you say. No matter how cool it sounds to spin notions such as "the totality of revolutionary destruction", the fact remains that without an explanation this represents a demagoguery of kind.
With regard to organized crime and repression, you still haven't shown why a decentralized power structure as you define it would be unable to deal with such phenomena, or even why the model you propose would function better. There is no argument here, but assertions.

Again, with regard to soviets, you brought the issue up, you explain it. I merely note that you did no such thing, but you indeed do claim something. Now substantiate it and go dig up a source or two (though it's surprising that you can't even remember reading about it in an article or a book which you would be able to bring up in debate).

[Thirsty Crow]

An this pearl of wisdom:



It is possible, yes. Perhaps a new form of social relations may come about, something worse than capitalism. If you did not know, Marx and Engels emphasized that their line on (Primitive Communism, Then Slave Society, Feudalism, and then Capitalism) was not a "grand theory of history". That is not what constitutes as Historical Materialism. History, to them, was by no means "Always going forward". Perhaps that is why Tim said I don't know anything about Historical Materialism, when, on the contrary, (And Ironically) it is him who doesn't know anything about it. The only way that such relations of production might come about as a result of a workers' social revolution is some unforseen natural disaster. There simply is no class in a society in revolutionary turmoil of this kind that could uphold the program of feudal relations of personal dependency. What you're essentially saying here is that in the absence of material necessity to organize social production in such a way (I really can't see how would decentralization bring about such a necessity) certain social phenomena like organized crime would be able to propell the social dynamic in such a way. But as we've seen, this rests on false premises (especially that of an autunomous commune not being able to enagage in repression). The only other possible explanation would be to postulate the possibility of a certain feudal-reactionary ideology taking hold, somehow reintroducing the notions of nobility by birth and duties of serfs in its full material impact. I say this is bullshit precisely because there is definitely no necessity for such a development. It's a fantasy, not historical materialism, and no matter how much you babble about Marx (sure, I agree that Marx did not hold a teleological view of history as linear progression towards a predetermined goal), the fact is that this silly view, born probably out of the sheer love of Authoritarianism (and corresponding need to demonize what you perceive as an opposing position), does not correspond to historical materialism.


Of course, exact Feudal relations are not assured. But, as you know, a lot of the world is still living in feudalism, so in some places it could be similar. In other places, something else.
And this is a cop-out. It's not that excatly this kind of social relations could take place, but something else fairly similar to it, right?
As far as your reference to this whole lot of the feudal world nowadays, I'm not sure what you're talking about, so you could again provide examples. Anyway, this cannot constitute an argument in favour of your assertion since I somehow think that these feudal parts of the world didn't come about as a result of a workers' social revolution (smashing the bourgeois state, abolition of capitalist social relations of production).

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

I would say, given what historical examples that we do have such as the Soviet Union and others, the centralization of the means of production in terms of state centralization negates worker's control and would pervert and retard the revolution.

[Rafiq]

Again, you fail to prove your point.
To make it easy for you, and in correspondence to how you frame the problem of decentralization and centralization, not even those who argue for a decentralization deny the necessiry for political integration into larger units.

Indeed, but they oppose a centralized power that would act as a Neutral force in administrating and regulating these units, which would make the very concept of Political Integration into large units impossible.


And it is precisely the problem how to organize this integration that is the crux of the issue, far from it being obvious and self-explanatory as you say.

It is pretty self explanatory that "Bottom top" decentralized mode of organization can't function in a world of over seven billion human beings.



No matter how cool it sounds to spin notions such as "the totality of revolutionary destruction", the fact remains that without an explanation this represents a demagoguery of kind.

The several Bourgeois revolutions were very violent in total in that capital expanded to all corners of society and took a hold of it, in doing so destroying Feudalism completely. And I ask this: Do you really believe that a decentralized mode of organization will carry this same potential?

Totality of Revolutionary destruction means complete terror upon the enemies of the revolution, the remnants of the old order (Via secret police, etc. etc.). The organization required to carry this out simply isn't at hand with decentralization, as decentralization of power would have to be under the pressupposion that Power itself is fully under the control of hte Proletariat to destroy in the first place. With Crime, etc. You're basically giving them an opening for total class dictatorship on behalf of a new Bourgeoisie. If not for the Bolshevik terror, the likes of the White counter revolution would have immediately taken power, as shown when the Bolsheviks were "Soft" on Authority, thousands of proletarians were massacred.


With regard to organized crime and repression, you still haven't shown why a decentralized power structure as you define it would be unable to deal with such phenomena,

That Decentralized power structure would simply not be as powerful as the remnants of former Drug Lords, and massive Mafias and Militias. Centralized power will also be able to act as a Neutral force in dealing with such problems in each region accordingly, i.e. In order to deal with problems on the bottom, you can not operate "From the bottom".


or even why the model you propose would function better. There is no argument here, but assertions.


Is it not obvious? A centralized power structure would not just be better functioning against the remnants of Crime, but of all Bourgeois society, of the capitalist mode of production, of the distribution of resources, of settling land disputes, of settling disputes in general, etc.



Again, with regard to soviets, you brought the issue up, you explain it. I merely note that you did no such thing, but you indeed do claim something. Now substantiate it and go dig up a source or two (though it's surprising that you can't even remember reading about it in an article or a book which you would be able to bring up in debate).

I want to ask you a question(which you were never able to respond to): Why do you think the Soviets were done away with, as Left Communist, when the revolution was isolated only after 1919?

Why were thousands of proletarians massacred by the counter revolution, and why was it only after the "Harsh, Authoritarian" policies where the Bolsheviks sought victory and semi stability?

This is where we get the position from. By common sense. One doesn't require an Article or a book by an external factor to discover why they were done away with (They were innefficient), it was common sense. I could provide you links on works by Lenin (I don't know if you will except them) and I could provide you links in regards to the state of the counter revolution while the Soviets had full executive power.

But these aren't articles or books created on "Why the Soviets were inefficient". Who would waste their time with that? It's obvious, you may as well make a book on "Why there were no airplanes in Feudalism".

[x359594]

...It is pretty self explanatory that "Bottom top" decentralized mode of organization can't function in a world of over seven billion human beings....

Not to everyone.

[x359594]

...Cite the Bolshevik revolution once more, please, I'm eager to reply. Because it's failure had nothing to do with Authoritarianism.

I'll give it a shot. The explanation for the Bolshevik’s success lies precisely in small size of the working class. It was not only small but was concentrated in a few urban areas, not mature in its experience of open debate and legally free association (as the German working class was,) which made the Bolshevik political strategy of a centralized party feasible. It was not this small working class that gave the depth of support to the Bolsheviks. That would hardly have been enough. It was the peasantry, both in the countryside and in soldiers’ uniforms, which supported the Bolsheviks.

One way to look at the nature of the Revolution would be to see who gained from it, whose entitlements changed most dramatically as a result. If we do this, it is striking how uneven the gains were between peasants and workers. The peasants immediately gained land; the number of landless declined and the number of small holders and middle peasants increased. The peasantry had no reason to doubt that the White armies would take away their newly won land. Now that they had their land (which fundamentally improved wealth distribution in the countryside,) the peasantry’s struggle with the government was about the amount of food they could sell and the price at which they could sell it. During the years 1918 to 1920, the government tried to force delivery of food grains to the army and cities. The army was provided for, but as far as the cities were concerned, the public distribution system did not provide even the bulk of even the reduced ration. It was the open market in the cities, and the workers’ private attempts at foraging in the countryside near the cities, which provisioned the towns. The peasants successfully held out by reducing their plantings, by stockpiling food and so on, until the end of the civil war, when the policy of compulsory delivery was abandoned. By 1921 the peasantry had successfully translated their support for the Bolsheviks into real economic gains: private landownership on a wide scale, and a free market in food grains.

This was in stark contrast to the workers' position. Despite the claim that it the workers' state, the workers did not gain in either economic or political terms. The decree to establish workers' control in factories was passed soon after the Revolution. Yet after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in February 1918, the workers began to lose their special position. One-man management was favored over workers' control, and factory committees were disbanded by the end of1918. The workers' right to manage industries - either at factory level, or through trade unions at a central level - was never again conceded. A last attempt on behalf of trade unions was made by the Workers' Opposition March 1921, but this was defeated.


The workers also suffered a considerable reduction in their trade-union privileges. In the celebrated debate on trade unions in 1921, Lenin's compromise won against the syndicalist view of workers' opposition and Trotsky's proposal to militarize the unions. Yet early in the new year of 1922, unions were statized, as Trotsky had proposed. The working class was nationalized by the Bolsheviks.





In terms of income, the workers suffered inasmuch as by 1922-23 their real wage was only 50 per cent of its 1913 level. There was growing unemployment and closure of factories in the 1918-23 period. While workers who were Party members identified strongly with the state, and even manned the second-rank offices, there was a decline in workers' membership of the Bolshevik Party. The workers' many grievances came to a head in early 1921, and culminated in the revolt of the sailors in the Kronstadt. But while peasant resistance led to concessions to the peasantry, the workers' resistance led to further control of urban areas by the Party. After the debate on unions at the 10th Party Congress in March 1921, dissidence was outlawed and the Workers' Opposition banned. The small size of the proletariat made it easy for the Bolsheviks to crush any resistance. The peasants won because there were more of them.


Thus an examination of who gained and who lost from the Revolution would show that the peasants definitely gained what they wanted, and they increased their gains subsequently until by 1921 they had everything they wanted, namely land and a free market for food grains. They still lacked any industrial goods they could spend their money on; nevertheless, their gains were solid. The growth of the bureaucracy in the government and the Party obviously benefited the urban middle class, which had not necessarily supported the Bolsheviks, but knew from long experience how to turn almost any situation to their advantage. The workers were the one group which lost massively all the time, while they were being told that it was a dictatorship of the proletariat. Their loss was not onlv temporary, not only confined to the civil war. They did not make up their gains under the NEP (New Economic Policy), either. They did not gain because they had no numerical strength. Their concentration in a few urban areas did not help -- partly because of the rapid drop in employment after June 1918, and partly because it was precisely this concentration which made it easier for the Bolsheviks to control them through their trade unions and their Party branches.

There is no reason to attribute cynicism to the Bolsheviks. They were convinced that they represented the working class, which was in the vanguard of the Revolution. They had always operated on behalf of the workers, though with little machinery for continuous consultation. Before coming to power, they knew from their support in strikes, lockouts, and so on, how strong their support was. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks' first priority was to retain power and consolidate the Party at all costs. Their majority on October 26 1917 gave them their mandate for ever. They sincerely thought that they represented the workers until, in the course of the civil war, the working class was decimated by war and economic decline. In 1921 the Bolsheviks found that they were leading a workers’ movement with no workers, but they were used to working without continuous feedback, without elections and all of their paraphernalia. So they carried on after 1921. The Party became a party of apparatchiks who formed the bulk of the membership. No subsequent event could alter this basic transformation, and even as the working class disintegrated before their very eyes they never wavered in their belief that they led a workers' state.

[Rafiq]

The only way that such relations of production might come about as a result of a workers' social revolution is some unforseen natural disaster.

It is indeed would turn into a disastor should a decentralized mode of organization take hold globally. Though, I know this will never happen, as I am a Materialist and I find it hard to believe that that a revolution can even occur with such a disgustingly obscure mentality, with lack of organization, etc.


There simply is no class in a society in revolutionary turmoil of this kind that could uphold the program of feudal relations of personal dependency.

:rolleyes:

No one is suggesting that an exact representation of Feudal relations will take hold, again, it is possible, though, unlikely for the entire globe. We can look at a country like the Congo to see what such would have in store for humanity. Then you will say But I thought you Said Feudal Slavery! Now Congo! Man, I don't understand that he was just implying it would be a cluster fuck of a disaster!

By the way, what happened to Slavery and Feudalism being antithetical? I linked you a source.. No reply..


What you're essentially saying here is that in the absence of material necessity to organize social production in such a way (I really can't see how would decentralization bring about such a necessity)

Let's cut the bull shit, really. Powdering such an obscure and disastrous concept with any sort of complexity is really pathetic on your behalf. First off, let's take a look at what you just said.

Apparently, I implied that "In the absence of Material necessity to organize social production in such a way, certain social phenomena like organized crime would be able to propel the social dynamic in such a way"

This makes sense. Then you went on saying "I really can't see how decentralization would bring about such a necessity".

This is pathetic. Of course decentralization will not bring about this necessity, because decentralization does not represent the necessity to counter organized crime, i.e. You are under the presupposion that a revolution would be organically decentralized and that it would all of a sudden become a necessity for Centralization. This is a false premise on your behalf. The very existence of such phenomena of Organized crime, of reactionary military groups, etc. Would necessitate centralization as common sense, not as something that would be fully realized after the attempts of decentralization.



But as we've seen, this rests on false premises (especially that of an autunomous commune not being able to enagage in repression).


All Autunomous communes historically have been innefficient fighting against the counter revolution. Especially Spain.

Even if we oppose Makhno's free territory was something of this nature (When in reality it was just as Bolshevist as any where else) it still wasn't efficient in countering the Bolsheviks, whom were much more organized.

So yes, Autonomous communes who do not engage in severe authoritarian discipline from above, contrary to organizations that do, will be mercilessly crushed by the counter revolution. The Bolsheviks were not morons and were not about to let that happen (Even though they would become the real Counter revolution, only several years to come, for reasons external from this).


The only other possible explanation would be to postulate the possibility of a certain feudal-reactionary ideology taking hold,

Not "Ideology", but Feudal Forces (Such as the Afghan Taliban).

It does not stop at Feudal reactionaries. We are talking about all Bourgeois organizations, currently, and their remnants after the revolution. All of these forces should be taken account in your little scenario. It is not as if after a revolution everything will be peaceful and quiet, despite the "improbable chance that some Feudal reactionary Ideology taking hold". That's ludicrous, if you hold such a position perhaps getting "Out" more would be of suggestion on by behalf.


somehow reintroducing the notions of nobility by birth and duties of serfs in its full material impact. I say this is bullshit precisely because there is definitely no necessity for such a development.

For such an exact developement, of course. You are, though, ignoring all of the other forces of counter revolution.

Do not put words in my mouth, I am not merely implying that Feudalism would in exact come back, I am implying all forms of counter revolution could threaten the proletarian dictatorship.

There wasn't a necessity for the White Army, there wasn't a necessity for Franco, either? What the hell are you trying to say? Necessity on whose behalf? I'm sure Afghan Landlords would find it of great necessity, I'm sure Feudal remnants across the globe would find it of absolute necessity. Really, it's a week argument you're spouting out. It doesn't even mean anything. Material conditions will necessitate this, as they have in the past, in Feudal countries experiencing socialist developement or revolution (Russia).


It's a fantasy, not historical materialism,

The real disgusting fantasy is to deploy Historical Materialism as a means of defending one's own ideology. The real fantasy is assuming Material conditions, from Congo to Cambodia are going to magically adjust themselves to Communism. That is the real fantasy antithetical to Historical Materialism.


and no matter how much you babble about Marx (sure, I agree that Marx did not hold a teleological view of history as linear progression towards a predetermined goal),

I am going to do a lot of "Babbling" about Marx, whom was one of the fore founders of Historical Materialism. What, you expect to make an argument in favor of Historical Materialism and then dismiss talking of it's architect as "Babbling"? Marx has everything to do with this.


the fact is that this silly view, born probably out of the sheer love of Authoritarianism (and corresponding need to demonize what you perceive as an opposing position),

Authoritarianism for me is non existent. I merely use the term as a means of countering Libertarianism, shock value, etc. What I am asserting is necessary, though, would be deemed as very Authoritarian by those who recognize the term.

I don't love Authoritarianism, really. I wish we could all have revolution and then sit on our asses, smoke pot, have total control directly through democratic means over material conditions and do fuck all. I wish I was wrong, I promise. But I am a Materialist, not because I think it sounds cool, but because without it, there is no way of interperating and understanding the social phenomena around us in a proper manner.


does not correspond to historical materialism.


Under the presupposion that I want material conditions to "Adjust" to Authoritarianism because I "Love it". Such isn't a valid claim, if anything, Slander.

though, it does seem that you want material conditions to adjust to this.. This Libertarianism, of which you are the one guilty of deviating from Historical Materialism.


And this is a cop-out. It's not that excatly this kind of social relations could take place, but something else fairly similar to it, right?

It isn't a cop out, you're just a moron who can't properly interperate another persons post. This whole post you made was made under the assumption that I asserted "We will get Feudalism no matter what". I said it is one of the many horrific possibilities. It doesn't even have to be similar, it could range from restoration of Capitalism, a New Slave Society, or a new form of social relations worse than both.

Even after the counter revolution is done and dealt with, there still will be several problems that must be dealt with beyond the grasp of Decentralized Autonomous Communes. Of course, after the counter revolution is defeated, I don't believe any of the former "Ideologies" will be relevant, as a Materialist I perceive them as a direct reflection of class, and how can such take a hold when there is no class? We do not know. I am no fortune teller, I can't tell you if classless society is garunteed, but I will assert that any counter revolution cannot be dealt with in this Libertarian matter.


As far as your reference to this whole lot of the feudal world nowadays, I'm not sure what you're talking about, so you could again provide examples.

Oh, Like Afghanistan, Cambodia, parts of India (Other parts of South Asia), and a shit ton of others which I could go on naming forever? Do you really think Feudalism is some how dead? Eurocentric, at best.


Anyway, this cannot constitute an argument in favour of your assertion since I somehow think that these feudal parts of the world didn't come about as a result of a workers' social revolution(smashing the bourgeois state, abolition of capitalist social relations of production).

Under the presupposion that what you are suggesting will even have the capability to abolish capitalist social relations of production (which, by the way, do not even exist in some of those countries). So this is what it comes down to, isn't it? The point is this: there is no Worker to bring us a proletarian social revolution in many countries, so how you intend on organizing those countries in a Decentralized matter in favor of the Proletarian Dictatorship is fucking beyond me.

[Rafiq]

I would say, given what historical examples that we do have such as the Soviet Union and others, the centralization of the means of production in terms of state centralization negates worker's control and would pervert and retard the revolution.

But it was state centralization that were the only options to even preserve a fraction of the "Worker's control" experienced after 1917. It's failure is far from the fact that "state centralization" occurred.

[andyx1205]

The purpose of central planning is not to educate workers, it is to better organize the production of basic necessities and things you need a lot of. There is also no reason why central planning can't be done democratically, this is a false dichotomy.

It can be done democratically, but we need to be careful. We know what happened with the Bolsheviks, absolute tyranny and state oppression. It's a risk, a minority running things can do good (enlightened Vanguard/Leninism) but what happens when Lenin dies and Stalin takes over?

IMO we need a form of decentralized socialism, NOT centralized. A federated decentralized state with democracy being the very essence of society. There will obviously be a necessary hierarchy, it is necessary for efficient communication and for facing crises,etc but it will need to be democratic with power going up not power going down.

I agree with you that central planning can be done democratically, in a decentralized form of real socialism...as long as the hierarchical bureaucracy is accountable and democratic. It was only natural for Leninism to lead to Stalinism, the totalitarian tendencies existed within Lenin.

What I'm trying to say is there a difference between accountable centralization and unaccountable centralization.

I recommend this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYQb0fthNfI

20th century Communism (capital C) was an absolute failure, as noted by David Harvey, Slavoj Zizek, and others. We need a new communism for the 21st century. Unfortunately there is no sufficiently formulated new communism yet which represents a failure of the modern Left. Looking to Marx to solve this problem won't help because he barely talked about what a communist (lower stage of communism and then the higher stage of communism) society would look like.

[Rafiq]

I'll give it a shot. The explanation for the Bolshevik’s success lies precisely in small size of the working class.

That's absurd. If anything, it signifies their failure. You cannot sustain a proletarian dictatorship smoothly with a tiny proletariat.


It was not only small but was concentrated in a few urban areas, not mature in its experience of open debate and legally free association

:laugh: Are you kidding me? They certainly were very experienced in all of these things, it just so happens they realized these had to be dumped when thousands started to get butchered by the Counter revolution.


(as the German working class was,) which made the Bolshevik political strategy of a centralized party feasible.

What made it feasible was the brute Organization and Discipline within the Bolshevik party, the abandonment of illusions, i.e. They weren't afraid to get their hands dirty and "toughen up".


It was not this small working class that gave the depth of support to the Bolsheviks. That would hardly have been enough.

You're right, it was the Soldiers. This Small Working class, of course, did give a tremendous amount of support to the Bolsheviks. And Soldiers, by definition, were Proletarians.


It was the peasantry, both in the countryside and in soldiers’ uniforms, which supported the Bolsheviks.


Emphasis on the Soldiers. A large portion of the peasantry sided with the counter revolution or the Mensheviks. After all, the Soviets were not really intended to be for the Peasantry.


One way to look at the nature of the Revolution would be to see who gained from it, whose entitlements changed most dramatically as a result. If we do this, it is striking how uneven the gains were between peasants and workers.

The Bolsheviks represented the interests of the Proletariat, not the Peasantry. They had to satisfy the Peasantry in the greatest way possible.


The peasants immediately gained land; the number of landless declined and the number of small holders and middle peasants increased. The peasantry had no reason to doubt that the White armies would take away their newly won land. Now that they had their land (which fundamentally improved wealth distribution in the countryside,) the peasantry’s struggle with the government was about the amount of food they could sell and the price at which they could sell it.

Which, if given their way, would have been an unquestionable defeat on behalf of the Bolsheviks, and the White armies would have certainty won. There is no time for Property rights in times of counter revolution. The grain was necessary, and had to be taken forcefully (which, even then didn't prevent famine).


During the years 1918 to 1920, the government tried to force delivery of food grains to the army and cities. The army was provided for, but as far as the cities were concerned, the public distribution system did not provide even the bulk of even the reduced ration. It was the open market in the cities, and the workers’ private attempts at foraging in the countryside near the cities, which provisioned the towns. The peasants successfully held out by reducing their plantings, by stockpiling food and so on, until the end of the civil war, when the policy of compulsory delivery was abandoned. By 1921 the peasantry had successfully translated their support for the Bolsheviks into real economic gains: private landownership on a wide scale, and a free market in food grains.

What are you going on about? You are stating facts, but you are not stating the reason for these facts. There is nothing they could have done otherwise, it was of absolute necessity. The revolution by then was Isolated and marked for death.


This was in stark contrast to the workers' position. Despite the claim that it the workers' state, the workers did not gain in either economic or political terms.

That's foolish. By the time you are mentioning the Worker's state was gone, the revolution was isolated and the Bolsheviks had to slowly dismantle it. And how could they have done this? Simply because the Workers were a minority in the country.


The decree to establish workers' control in factories was passed soon after the Revolution. Yet after the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in February 1918, the workers began to lose their special position.

I'm glad you brought this up. This was entirely due to the fact that Worker's control of the factory was not efficient in producing supplies, weapons, food, etc. for the War effort against the counter revolution. All vehicles of the economy were mobilized against the counter revolution at this time, not the development of the Russian economy.

I recall once a Russian Man, who was, A Communist and an Anti Stalinist, old fellow (Not old enough to experience the Russian revolution, of course) tell me how his elders spoke of nearly no production taking place, i.e. It was at this time when rapid production and mobilization was of absolute necessity, which simply could not be carried out on the basis of "Worker's direct control". Such is a very complicated and time consuming mode of operation.


One-man management was favored over workers' control, and factory committees were disbanded by the end of1918.

Again, these policies were not enacted for no reason. They were enacted as a means of mobilizing the masses against the vast counter revolution, and production in general.


The workers' right to manage industries - either at factory level, or through trade unions at a central level - was never again conceded.

:laugh:

Even in 1930, under Stalinism, worker's managed factories in several ways. It is not as simplistic as what you are suggesting, for example, only supreme exectuve power was removed from the Soviets, where it was unnecessary, Workers did have control in managing their workplace and lives in general.


A last attempt on behalf of trade unions was made by the Workers' Opposition March 1921, but this was defeated.

This is fucking ridiculous. You're jumping from 1917 to 1921, as if nothing fucking occurred between then. Did you mention the isolation of the revolution, shit head?

By 1921 it was impossible for Russia to operate on the basis of Worker's dictatorship forever, and we saw a slow degeneration in commense.

Was it not in 1919 where the German Revolution was defeated?

We Marxist "Authoritarians" have always stated that the spreading of the revolution to the Industrialized countries is of absolute necessity for any Workers state to survive without degenerating into the capitalist mode of production. Such is even the position of the most "Libertarian" of Left Communists.

You are trying to paint this fantasy in which everything was okay until the evil Bolsheviks ripped power from the Workers for no apparent reason other than their own Self fulfillment (which relies on Bourgeois concepts such as power corrupting, that the Bolsheviks had no class character, etc.), not taking into a account the several factors going on in this period, namely the invasion of Russia on behalf of the world's most powerful 17 countries, or the Isolation of the Russian Revolution starting in 1919 which furtherly forced the Bolsheviks to make friends internationally, namely with the Kemalists in Turkey and various Afghan Nationalists.

No, no, continue to say that it was done because Centralizing Authority is baaad and means workers lose control because power corrupts.



The workers also suffered a considerable reduction in their trade-union privileges. In the celebrated debate on trade unions in 1921, Lenin's compromise won against the syndicalist view of workers' opposition and Trotsky's proposal to militarize the unions.

See above.


Yet early in the new year of 1922, unions were statized, as Trotsky had proposed. The working class was nationalized by the Bolsheviks.


Bingo, no one is arguing that the Workers revolution was on it's way into degeneration in 1922, we are arguing as to how this happened in the periods of 1917-192X, of which apparently you have not provided us. You have provided us with the actions of the Bolsheviks, but no explanation as to why they took such a coarse of action.

Of course, though, the working class was never "Nationalized". This is all too simplistic, for one, by that time Worker's still had a tremendous amount of power which you are seemingly ignoring.


In terms of income, the workers suffered inasmuch as by 1922-23 their real wage was only 50 per cent of its 1913 level.

Becuase World War one never happened and the Russian Civil War never happened, right?

Really, give me a fucking break. 50% is still a fucking lot after World War one and the Russian Civil War.

You are giving us facts (Like Chomsky tries to do) yet you aren't giving us a reasoning as to why they were carried out, why those facts exist. Do you think the wages of the workers were low for no fucking reason?



There was growing unemployment and closure of factories in the 1918-23 period.

There was also a very deadly and explosive civil war. You're Idealism bleeds through any attempt you make to give us an explanation for anything. Why was there growing unemployment? Why was there closure of factories? For no fucking reason?


While workers who were Party members identified strongly with the state, and even manned the second-rank offices, there was a decline in workers' membership of the Bolshevik Party.

I'd like to see evidence for this so called rapid decline in Worker's membership of the Bolshevik party, and I need to know the years as well.


The workers' many grievances came to a head in early 1921, and culminated in the revolt of the sailors in the Kronstadt.

Again, see all the way above. You keep repeating the same shit and it's getting tiresome. You are not giving us an explanation of why the Bolshevik revolution failed. You are merely giving us little snips of part of the failure and degeneration (some of which is terribly inaccurate).


But while peasant resistance led to concessions to the peasantry, the workers' resistance led to further control of urban areas by the Party.

This was not due to "Worker's resistance", this was due to finding more efficient ways in managing the Russian situation.


After the debate on unions at the 10th Party Congress in March 1921, dissidence was outlawed and the Workers' Opposition banned.

Oh, hey there post 1919 isolation, good to see you again!

Have you ever considered the Bolsheviks were in the middle of a fucking war?


The small size of the proletariat made it easy for the Bolsheviks to crush any resistance. The peasants won because there were more of them.


Who were the Bolsheviks? Do you really think they had no class background? They were a Proletarian party, and found it necessary to put measures restricting the very freedom of their own class in order to preserve it's own dictatorship

This of course would not be possible, with an isolated revolution and the inability to surpass the capitalist mode of production.


Thus an examination of who gained and who lost from the Revolution would show that the peasants definitely gained what they wanted, and they increased their gains subsequently until by 1921 they had everything they wanted, namely land and a free market for food grains.

The Bolsheviks as a force were, up to a point not something external from the Proletariat. Part of protecting the proletarian dictatorship meant giving the Peasantry what they wanted. It is not as if they were some external force trying to win the favor of both the Peasantry and the Proletariat, they were a party of the proletariat, trying to keep the Peasantry satisfied, for if they would fail in doing so, they (the peasantry) would have been easily won over by the counter revolution, whom, by the way, were a threat to the proletarian dictatorship.

It was never about a favoring of the Peasantry. It was always about protecting the Proletarian dictatorship, whom the Bolsheviks were agents of, and part of this protection meant winning the support of the peasantry and offering them what the counter revolution could never.

You also fail once more in accounting for the isolation of the Revolution, which was really the deciding factor in it's victory or it's degeneration.

Tell me, do you really think the Bolsheviks had no class character? Do you really think they were a bunch of evil bastards? I'm sure if this was the case they would have formed a very powerful crime syndicate, which by the way would not have been hard by any means considering the situation in Russia.


They still lacked any industrial goods they could spend their money on; nevertheless, their gains were solid. The growth of the bureaucracy in the government and the Party obviously benefited the urban middle class,

Ah, cool Bourgeois rationalism.

Sorry, the "Middle Class" doesn't exist. You'd have to be more specific. Again, you also fail to account for why there was bureaucracy, what material conditions necessitated all of these things in regards to the Bolsheviks?


which had not necessarily supported the Bolsheviks, but knew from long experience how to turn almost any situation to their advantage.

Stop talking out of your ass. We know very well this isn't true, we know very well there was not this group called "The middle class" whom had a real solid collective interest.


The workers were the one group which lost massively all the time, while they were being told that it was a dictatorship of the proletariat.

It was a proletarian dictatorship, and their loss at the same time was the price they had to pay for their non achievable victory. Again, it all goes back to whether the revolution would have spread, and it did not, such would guarantee Isolation. Lenin did acknowledge this and had no illusions, he knew what a shit situation he was in.

it is like Oedipus, while at the same time the dictatorship was trying to prevent it's own destiny (It's destruction) it was merely for filling this destruction by the very same acts in which they perceived to be protecting it. This is how Materialism works, such a massive historical change occurred not intentionally, not because the Bolsheviks were "Bad men", but because material conditions were generated which assured the failure of the revolution, which were beyond the control of any conscience being.


Their loss was not onlv temporary, not only confined to the civil war. They did not make up their gains under the NEP (New Economic Policy), either.

The NEP was instilled to compensate for the damages of the war. I tell you, it would never have happened if the German revolution in 1919 would have been successful. It was the Geramn Proletariat who failed in adopting such strict "Authoritarian" measures in securing the revolution, it was them who failed in adopting democratic centrism which was a contributing factor to their failure. How Ironic is it, when they (Libertarians) blame democratic centrism for the failure when in fact the real failure was the inability of the proletariat elsewhere to adopt it, as it could not survive isolated.

Really, it's not hard to miss (The failed German revolution).




They did not gain because they had no numerical strength.

You do realize that the Bolsheviks had been surviving this minority all along. The question is not: "Why were the Proletariat unable to fight the Bolsheviks?"

The Question is why did the Bolsheviks adopt the policies they did? For what reason? Why were the Bolsheviks unable to preserve the proletarian revolution, to protect the revolution?

Say, have you any Idea what the Bolsheviks were?


Their concentration in a few urban areas did not help -- partly because of the rapid drop in employment after June 1918

After a fucking World War and the start of a Civil War, you expect glorious economic prosperity? Is your head in your ass? (I shouldn't even be asking, I can already tell).


, and partly because it was precisely this concentration which made it easier for the Bolsheviks to control them through their trade unions and their Party branches.

The Bolsheviks did not "Control" the proletariat. They served them and were controlled by the Proletarian. Not directly by Proletarians, but by the higher class consciousness of what a Proletarian is. As I mentioned, the very acts of trying to save the revolution eventually (after 1919) were the rockets of it's degeneration, of course not intentional, but indirect. There is nothing the Bolsheviks could have done at that point.


There is no reason to attribute cynicism to the Bolsheviks. They were convinced that they represented the working class, which was in the vanguard of the Revolution.

They did represent the Working class, and the majority of the Working class supported them.


They had always operated on behalf of the workers, though with little machinery for continuous consultation. Before coming to power, they knew from their support in strikes, lockouts, and so on, how strong their support was. After the Revolution, the Bolsheviks' first priority was to retain power and consolidate the Party at all costs.

And what did this party represent? The Proletarian dictatorship and the Revolution itself! They were not separate from the Proletariat. The Bolsheviks have always been the embodiment of the Russian proletariat's interests, up to a point.

The Party never developed as an external interest in terms of class, they sought not to retain their own power (This is ridiculous) but the revolution and the proletariat whom they were serving.


Their majority on October 26 1917 gave them their mandate for ever. They sincerely thought that they represented the workers until, in the course of the civil war, the working class was decimated by war and economic decline.

More precisely the isolation of 1919. Had the revolutions spread, there would be no Civil War, no powers to invade and assist the Counter Revolution.

It was not as if the Bolsheviks "tricked" the working class into supporting them and later betraying them. Such a conclusion can only come about through a Bourgeois mode of thinking. The Bolsheviks existed not to retain the power of a state external from other classes, but to retain the power of a Proletarian State, and part of this was sacrificing the supreme executive power of a specific way in which proletarians administrated things. Such was done in order to save any last remnant of the revolution, of which without such measures they would have been squashed as early as 1918. This was foreseeable. Of course today when we look back we know that "So what, the revolution was bound to failure anyway!". Of this, the Bolsheviks had no clue. No clue of whether the revolution would spread (high hopes it does, for them). Without this spreading of the revolution, a proletarian dictatorship lasting would be impossible.


In 1921 the Bolsheviks found that they were leading a workers’ movement with no workers, but they were used to working without continuous feedback, without elections and all of their paraphernalia. So they carried on after 1921.

No, the Bolsheviks found they were not leading a movement, but were in a position of state power, in control of a country that was isolated, war torn, with a proletarian minority that wasn't industrialized, having to focus on stupid things like producing shoes, as majority of people didn't have any. Small things like that, which the capitalist mode of production was sometimes necessary, was a reflection of their situation.


The Party became a party of apparatchiks who formed the bulk of the membership. No subsequent event could alter this basic transformation, and even as the working class disintegrated before their very eyes they never wavered in their belief that they led a workers' state.

Lenin, on the contrary, knew of the horrible situation he was in in 1924 and literally did not have much of a solution. The Bolsheviks, on the contrary, were the Cynical ones, they had no illusions.


Now, this was a very shit post on your behalf. I'm undoubtedly disappointed. You didn't tell me why the Bolshevik revolution failed, you just attempted to explain how it did (And failed at that).

We all know that the Bolsheviks adopted things like the NEP, suppressed Krodstat, i.e. I want to debate in regards to why they did those things, what necessitated them on their behalf?

Now, I'm waiting for an argument in which you will say the Bolsheviks were group of greedy men (Like Chomsky Sais) who wanted dictatorship and power because they were corrupt and evil who, fuck, I don't know, worshiped Satan and ate babies. Come on, let's here it "The Bolsheviks just wanted to secure their own power because they liked power". Fucking Idealism, right there, the very thought of a party with no class base is absurd. There is no such thing as a person who is "Power hungry". All political factions serve a class interest, when it comes down to it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

But it was state centralization that were the only options to even preserve a fraction of the "Worker's control" experienced after 1917. It's failure is far from the fact that "state centralization" occurred.

State centralization was not the only option to preserve the revolution further it's not the sole factor that lead to the ultimate failure of the 1917 revolution but it is one of the big contributing factors that took control of the means of production out of the hands of the proletariat.

[Rafiq]

State centralization was not the only option to preserve the revolution further

Indeed it was, and even the likes of Anarchists, i.e. Nestor Makhno took measures that were arguably more "Authoritarian" than the Bolsheviks to protect their little revolution. Unsurprisingly, though, you don't see a lot of Anarchists criticize them.


it's not the sole factor that lead to the ultimate failure of the 1917 revolution

It isn't a factor at all, actually, if anything it was a small chance that perhaps the revolution could survive. Indeed it did, and the Bolsheviks survived the counter revolution. It's too bad, though, by the time that was over the revolution was already Isolated and the Bolsheviks were faced with a question: What are we to do now? Of course, they were to make friends internationally, with several factions of the Bourgeoisie. These were contributing factors to the failure of the revolution, though nothing to do with "State centralization".


but it is one of the big contributing factors that took control of the means of production out of the hands of the proletariat.



Means of production "Out of the hands of the proletariat" doesn't mean anything. What, do you mean manage, or own by name? What does it mean to own? The retention of the capitalist mode of production and the very essence of owning (private property) was the signifier of it's failure, not some nonsense about abandoning "democracy".

[x359594]

...Now, I'm waiting for an argument in which you will say the Bolsheviks were group of greedy men (Like Chomsky Sais) who wanted dictatorship and power because they were corrupt and evil...

That was answered in the last paragraph of my post.

I'll try to return to the discussion soon. I had some down time on the job but it's come to an end for now. Still, it's always a source of satisfaction to put something over on the boss, especially given that I'm stealing his time debating revolution!

[Rafiq]

That was answered in the last paragraph of my post.

No, you did not so much give us the class character of the Bolsheviks as you did automatically post under the presupposion that they were originally "evil" and that the revolution failed because the proletariat was too small to fight back against them. You didn't tell us how the Bolsheviks magically "Started to want to control the Proletariat", as if they were something external from the Proletariat.


I'll try to return to the discussion soon. I had some down time on the job but it's come to an end for now. Still, it's always a source of satisfaction to put something over on the boss, especially given that I'm stealing his time debating revolution!


I understand, take your time. I get busy a lot too in which I only have the time to post days later.

[Revolution starts with U]

No, no. Abolishing capitalism on behalf of the proletariat is of absolute necessitu.

But the end goal is not workers control. Keep in mind I am not being literal, I am reffering to Workers "MANAGING"entities. This isn't the end goal of a socialist. Because the capitalist mode of production can persist at the same time workers (or petty bourgeois, in this case) manage things. A worker(s) owning a *buisness* is impossible, as they would become petite bourgeios in nature.



I agree with this.

[Thirsty Crow]

Indeed, but they oppose a centralized power that would act as a Neutral force in administrating and regulating these units, which would make the very concept of Political Integration into large units impossible. What? You're making no sense. How does a political integration into larger units become impossible? Because there is no "Neutral force"?


It is pretty self explanatory that "Bottom top" decentralized mode of organization can't function in a world of over seven billion human beings. Nothing is self-explanatory. Maybe for the those of the weak mind who'd rather not to question their prejudice and beliefs.


The several Bourgeois revolutions were very violent in total in that capital expanded to all corners of society and took a hold of it, in doing so destroying Feudalism completely. And I ask this: Do you really believe that a decentralized mode of organization will carry this same potential? If you're asking me whether I support the formation of a party-state alongside a political monopoly and command over workers at the workplace as part of a one-man management - no, I don't support that.


Totality of Revolutionary destruction means complete terror upon the enemies of the revolution, the remnants of the old order (Via secret police, etc. etc.). The organization required to carry this out simply isn't at hand with decentralization, as decentralization of power would have to be under the pressupposion that Power itself is fully under the control of hte Proletariat to destroy in the first place.What? You're extremely incoherent.
What is wrong with practical and actual full control of power by the proletariat itself, through its own institutions of political rule?


With Crime, etc. You're basically giving them an opening for total class dictatorship on behalf of a new Bourgeoisie. I know you're very confused and have no idea what you're talking about, don't you worry.
But would you mind explaining it a bit, who's that new bourgeoisie and how are they being given an opening for total class dictatorship? I guess this relates to this organized crime. It's ridiculous how you can peddle this bullshit without ever resorting to examine it critically and back it up.


That Decentralized power structure would simply not be as powerful as the remnants of former Drug Lords, and massive Mafias and Militias. Centralized power will also be able to act as a Neutral force in dealing with such problems in each region accordingly, i.e. In order to deal with problems on the bottom, you can not operate "From the bottom". You know, this will probably bew the last of our little exchange, at least from me. You proved definitely that you don't understand the concept of evidence in relation to your ramblings. An unsubstantiated argument is not an argument - it is an assertion. And how to communicate with such a person who obviously thinks that rehashing cool sounding phrases and repeating mere opinions is what it takes when someone asks for a solid argument? Communication is practically impossible in that way, especially if that person is also a weird fanatic fetishizing violence.


Is it not obvious? A centralized power structure would not just be better functioning against the remnants of Crime, but of all Bourgeois society, of the capitalist mode of production, of the distribution of resources, of settling land disputes, of settling disputes in general, etc. Okay, it's obvious.


I want to ask you a question(which you were never able to respond to): Why do you think the Soviets were done away with, as Left Communist, when the revolution was isolated only after 1919? I'm not interested in this debate. I asked you a concrete question which you are unable to respond to since you brought it up, so stop shifting the argument.
In brief, as far as I'm concerned, efficiency had nothing to do with the Soviets which returned non-Bolshevik majorities and were extinguished afterwards. We can take this, as well as the gradual constitution of the party-state (which was actually also a matter of ideological confusion inherited from the Second International) and the elimination of other proletarian currents, which all cannot be viewed without the context of armed conflict with the Whites and international isolation of the revolution. But to deny the historical responsibility of the Bolshevik Party is just ridiculous. Now you can proceed to construct your favorite straw man, the liberal power corrupts argument.


This is where we get the position from. By common sense. One doesn't require an Article or a book by an external factor to discover why they were done away with (They were innefficient), it was common sense. I could provide you links on works by Lenin (I don't know if you will except them) and I could provide you links in regards to the state of the counter revolution while the Soviets had full executive power
You know what you're actually saying here? You're saying that you can be as ignorant as you want with regard to a complex historical event and that this mystical common sense will somehow guide you to a correct understanding of it. Can you actually understand that this is your position?


But these aren't articles or books created on "Why the Soviets were inefficient". Who would waste their time with that? It's obvious, you may as well make a book on "Why there were no airplanes in Feudalism".
You're quite funny in your arrogant ignorance. Though, while I think about it, it's actually more sad than funny.


It is indeed would turn into a disastor should a decentralized mode of organization take hold globally. Though, I know this will never happen, as I am a Materialist and I find it hard to believe that that a revolution can even occur with such a disgustingly obscure mentality, with lack of organization, etc. Do you have reading problems or something? I said natural disaster.
As for the rest of your little rant, what's there to say actually. Disgustingly obscure mentality you say. Lack of organization. Okay.




:rolleyes:
No one is suggesting that an exact representation of Feudal relations will take hold, again, it is possible, though, unlikely for the entire globe. We can look at a country like the Congo to see what such would have in store for humanity. Then you will say But I thought you Said Feudal Slavery! Now Congo! Man, I don't understand that he was just implying it would be a cluster fuck of a disaster! It's easier to babble about clusterfucks than to engage in class analysis, that much is clear.


By the way, what happened to Slavery and Feudalism being antithetical? I linked you a source.. No reply.. Well, they are different historical modes of production. Would you like to contest that?



Let's cut the bull shit, really. Powdering such an obscure and disastrous concept with any sort of complexity is really pathetic on your behalf. First off, let's take a look at what you just said. What? Little less rhetoric and phrasemongering and little more clarity maybe?


Apparently, I implied that "In the absence of Material necessity to organize social production in such a way, certain social phenomena like organized crime would be able to propel the social dynamic in such a way"

This makes sense. Then you went on saying "I really can't see how decentralization would bring about such a necessity".
What is pathetic are your reading skills.
Go back and read the post again as this is not what I wrote.
The last quote about decentralization relates to material necessity to organize social production in line with feudal social relations.



This is pathetic. Of course decentralization will not bring about this necessity, because decentralization does not represent the necessity to counter organized crime, i.e.
What? Again this? You do actually know that you're pulling this out of your arse?


You are under the presupposion that a revolution would be organically decentralized and that it would all of a sudden become a necessity for Centralization. This is a false premise on your behalf. The very existence of such phenomena of Organized crime, of reactionary military groups, etc. Would necessitate centralization as common sense, not as something that would be fully realized after the attempts of decentralization. Yeah, okay, whatever. I have no idea what you're talking about, but okay.


All Autunomous communes historically have been innefficient fighting against the counter revolution. Especially Spain. Oh that's precious.
I don't doubt for a moment that you have no idea about the counter-revolution in Spain and that all you've got is that fabulous common sense of yours. And again, this kind of simplistic reduction of a complex historical situation to a quasi-argument against one form of political power as a possibility is just ridiculous. For starters, you can try to wrap your head around the fact that it was the bourgeois standing army of the Republic that was defeated by Franco's forces, and not some imaginary autonomous communes' militia.




So yes, Autonomous communes who do not engage in severe authoritarian discipline from above, contrary to organizations that do, will be mercilessly crushed by the counter revolution. The Bolsheviks were not morons and were not about to let that happen (Even though they would become the real Counter revolution, only several years to come, for reasons external from this).Those reasons were not external to this.



It does not stop at Feudal reactionaries. We are talking about all Bourgeois organizations, currently, and their remnants after the revolution. All of these forces should be taken account in your little scenario. It is not as if after a revolution everything will be peaceful and quiet, despite the "improbable chance that some Feudal reactionary Ideology taking hold". That's ludicrous, if you hold such a position perhaps getting "Out" more would be of suggestion on by behalf. But then again, you talked about feudal slavery.




For such an exact developement, of course. You are, though, ignoring all of the other forces of counter revolution. I am, because the problem you brought up is quite specific. I have no problem with merciless repression of organized cojnter-revolution.


Do not put words in my mouth, I am not merely implying that Feudalism would in exact come back, I am implying all forms of counter revolution could threaten the proletarian dictatorship. Okay.


There wasn't a necessity for the White Army, there wasn't a necessity for Franco, either? What the hell are you trying to say? Necessity on whose behalf? I'm sure Afghan Landlords would find it of great necessity, I'm sure Feudal remnants across the globe would find it of absolute necessity. Really, it's a week argument you're spouting out. It doesn't even mean anything. Material conditions will necessitate this, as they have in the past, in Feudal countries experiencing socialist developement or revolution (Russia).I'm simply trying to say that material necessity for feudal social relations doesn't exist.


The real disgusting fantasy is to deploy Historical Materialism as a means of defending one's own ideology. The real fantasy is assuming Material conditions, from Congo to Cambodia are going to magically adjust themselves to Communism. That is the real fantasy antithetical to Historical Materialism. Okay. And this is relevant how?




I am going to do a lot of "Babbling" about Marx, whom was one of the fore founders of Historical Materialism. What, you expect to make an argument in favor of Historical Materialism and then dismiss talking of it's architect as "Babbling"? Marx has everything to do with this. Yes, but you don't have anything to do with Marx as you constantly demonstrate.


Authoritarianism for me is non existent. I merely use the term as a means of countering Libertarianism, shock value, etc. What I am asserting is necessary, though, would be deemed as very Authoritarian by those who recognize the term. I don't care what the class enemy would deem authoritarian.


I don't love Authoritarianism, really. I wish we could all have revolution and then sit on our asses, smoke pot, have total control directly through democratic means over material conditions and do fuck all. I wish I was wrong, I promise. But I am a Materialist, not because I think it sounds cool, but because without it, there is no way of interperating and understanding the social phenomena around us in a proper manner. Yes, I agree.




Under the presupposion that I want material conditions to "Adjust" to Authoritarianism because I "Love it". Such isn't a valid claim, if anything, Slander. Did I say so somewhere? No, I didn't.


though, it does seem that you want material conditions to adjust to this.. This Libertarianism, of which you are the one guilty of deviating from Historical Materialism. And I neither said this. But I'm glad that you're so into this whole judgement thing. I am guilty of deviating from historical materialism. Sounds like a perfect indictment worthy of a Moscow trial.


It isn't a cop out, you're just a moron who can't properly interperate another persons post. This whole post you made was made under the assumption that I asserted "We will get Feudalism no matter what". I said it is one of the many horrific possibilities. It doesn't even have to be similar, it could range from restoration of Capitalism, a New Slave Society, or a new form of social relations worse than both. People usually cannot interpret incoherent ramblings.
And maybe this counter-revolution could take the form of oppressive alien lizards finally revealing themselves to humanity and declaring them all spiritual drones or something. Yes, the possibilities are endless, a new slave society is a permanent possibility no matter how the productive forces develop.


Even after the counter revolution is done and dealt with, there still will be several problems that must be dealt with beyond the grasp of Decentralized Autonomous Communes. Of course, after the counter revolution is defeated, I don't believe any of the former "Ideologies" will be relevant, as a Materialist I perceive them as a direct reflection of class, and how can such take a hold when there is no class? We do not know. I am no fortune teller, I can't tell you if classless society is garunteed, but I will assert that any counter revolution cannot be dealt with in this Libertarian matter. Yes, you can do that all day long, and that's what you've been doing so far - asserting stuff.


Oh, Like Afghanistan, Cambodia, parts of India (Other parts of South Asia), and a shit ton of others which I could go on naming forever? Do you really think Feudalism is some how dead? Eurocentric, at best. Go on.
But I don't think feudalism is "dead". I know that capital is the dominant social relation of production.




Under the presupposion that what you are suggesting will even have the capability to abolish capitalist social relations of production (which, by the way, do not even exist in some of those countries). So this is what it comes down to, isn't it? The point is this: there is no Worker to bring us a proletarian social revolution in many countries, so how you intend on organizing those countries in a Decentralized matter in favor of the Proletarian Dictatorship is fucking beyond me.
There are no workers in Afghanistan and Cambodia?

[Tim Finnegan]

I didn't actually understand who or what the majority of Rafiq's meandering spiel (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2420348&postcount=65) was directed towards, so I figured that I'll just skip to what I think is the crux of the matter...


Class is defined by relations to the mode of production

This is positivism, not Marxism. It's a interpretation of Marx drawn primarily from Capital, in ignorance of the fact that the text does not represent the theoretical culmination of his thought, but rather a specific project, "A Critique of Political Economy", for which he sets aside the historical ontology in which his theories were developed, and adopts the ontology of a bourgeois empiricist.

As such, this interpretation treats class as a question of the relationship between people and things, rather than between people, the things being assumed to exist as things (i.e. as capital) ontologically prior to being brought together with people. This means that class itself becomes something ontologically prior to- indeed, the condition of- capitalist social relations, rather than as something relational, which is to say something that exists only insofar as it is a constituent of capitalist social relations.
This leads to the understanding of social class as a series of essentially pre-historical Types which precede any particular actualisation of that Type.

Within this interpretation, the "petty bourgeoisie" ceases to be understood as an historical phenomenon particular to and bound up with the development of primitive market economies, and becomes an essence that can manifest in any market society, whenever somebody happens to possess an owner-operator relationship to capital. This leads to a description of self-managing workers as "petty bourgeois", as the 21st century actualisation of the same pre-historical Type seen among the tradesmen of 17th century London or the street vendors of 19th century Shanghai, without any reference to the actual social relationships which the individuals constituting these self-managed firms actually participate in.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Note, I'm not as well versed as you and I'm new but I'll give it a go.


Indeed it was, and even the likes of Anarchists, i.e. Nestor Makhno took measures that were arguably more "Authoritarian" than the Bolsheviks to protect their little revolution. Unsurprisingly, though, you don't see a lot of Anarchists criticize them.

Care to elaborate on how the measures took by Makhno and the Black army were more authoritarian than those taken by the Bolsheviks?


It isn't a factor at all, actually, if anything it was a small chance that perhaps the revolution could survive. Indeed it did, and the Bolsheviks survived the counter revolution. It's too bad, though, by the time that was over the revolution was already Isolated and the Bolsheviks were faced with a question: What are we to do now? Of course, they were to make friends internationally, with several factions of the Bourgeoisie. These were contributing factors to the failure of the revolution, though nothing to do with "State centralization".

Isolation was part of it, yeah, so was the fact that the Soviets were never anything but capitalist in terms of economic policy. I would say the revolution failed way before the close of the 'counter-revolution.' I would again say, state centralization is completely a factor considering the Soviet Union became state capitalist and despite this parliamentary nonsense the worker's never had control over the means of production or the products of their own labour, as this was controlled by the state and it's bureaucrats.

Further, how can 'state centralization' safeguard a revolution but can not at all (even hypothetically) be a factor in the over-all failure of one?


Means of production "Out of the hands of the proletariat" doesn't mean anything. What, do you mean manage, or own by name? What does it mean to own? The retention of the capitalist mode of production and the very essence of owning (private property) was the signifier of it's failure, not some nonsense about abandoning "democracy".

Of course I mean manage, not own, that goes without saying further the retention of the capitalist mode of production is exactly what I was getting at.

I also, never mentioned anything about the abandoning of democracy rather I am specifically talking about the effects of state centralization in terms of worker's control, which arguably the Soviets never achieved (genuinely) which I have argued that it was due to this.

[Rafiq]

What? You're making no sense. How does a political integration into larger units become impossible? Because there is no "Neutral force"?

Precisely because there isn't what we could call a "Neutral force" to administrate and organize this type of integration.


Nothing is self-explanatory. Maybe for the those of the weak mind who'd rather not to question their prejudice and beliefs.


Nothing is self explanatory? That's quite an assertion, there. I would say, for example, that it is self explanatory that Hitler didn't secretly masturbate to photos of Stalin without diverging into what we can call "Hard evidence". We could provide examples on such a matter, and point out historical facts which would deem such an act as unlikely.


If you're asking me whether I support the formation of a party-state alongside a political monopoly and command over workers at the workplace as part of a one-man management - no, I don't support that.


If such is necessary to satisfy the revolution, so be it.

What do you mean a "Political Monopoly". You mean a party state being the political monopoly?

Again, I'm not a fortune teller, but I think it's quite obvious that a bottom up mode of organization isn't going to work in a world of Seven Billion.

And, again, I didn't ask you if you supported anything, I asked you:


The several Bourgeois revolutions were very violent in total in that capital expanded to all corners of society and took a hold of it, in doing so destroying Feudalism completely. And I ask this: Do you really believe that a decentralized mode of organization will carry this same potential?


Capitalism must be crushed entirely, as the Bourgeois mode of production. There is nothing to worry about in regards to a single party state when it is taking part in the total and merciless destruction of Bourgeois society. Evidently, this wasn't the case in Bolshevik Russia (The Revolution's Isolation was the determining cause and factor of this). Citing the Bolshevik Revolution simply isn't going to hold up.


What? You're extremely incoherent.
What is wrong with practical and actual full control of power by the proletariat itself, through its own institutions of political rule?


I don't have any ethical qualms with "Practical and actual full control of power by the proletariat itself, through its own institutions of political rule". What is problematic is what is really meant by this: A complete direct form of control, without delegecy?

Whether this be the case or not, the problem with your statement is not that I deem it "wrong", I simply remain pessimistic that this simplistic (and appealing to the ears at that) blueprint cannot account as a base for administrating the entire Earth, and crushing (Potential as well) counter revolution. Because really, what do you mean by this? Look deep into yourself. Do not think of this as some kind of abstract society which operates in the realm of something other, think of this as something very real as an assertion, look around you, the massively populated urban areas, the mass regions in which billions dwell across the planet. All of this, you claim, a decentralized "Direct control" model will have the ability to account for, the ability to organize and mobilize against the counter revolution.


I know you're very confused and have no idea what you're talking about, don't you worry.


Such an assertion wreaks of intellectual weakness and ideological desperation, a last resort in your attacks.

You really are just talking out of your ass now, are you not? I know, I know, my words are not absorbed well from your point of view, you want to retain this Idealist mode of thinking in which all of the factors of Earth, which even some of the most Authoritarian of states have trouble administrating, will simply dissapear if we resort to a decentralized mode of organization in which the direct control of humans will rule in the reconstruction and reorganization of Capitalism itself, the total destruction of capitalism.


But would you mind explaining it a bit, who's that new bourgeoisie and how are they being given an opening for total class dictatorship?

It isn't particularly hard to understand that a new Bourgeoisie is quite easy to be established by several factions, all of which stink of the old society. Not a new Bourgeoisie in the sense of a totally new Bourgeoisie with relations different from the Classical Bourgeoisie, no, just different individuals and factions of Bourgeois ideology.


I guess this relates to this organized crime.

It isn't just organized crime. The remnants of the former ruling class will be very active both militantly and ideologically.


It's ridiculous how you can peddle this bullshit without ever resorting to examine it critically and back it up.


Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss my post and actually attempt at some critical analysis itself. It sais enough that you, a self proclaimed Marxist is so naive to think that seven billion people can be not only organized, but each and every one of them take part in the systemic destruction of capitalism and construction of socialism, the organization of their own selves in mass numbers. Absurd.


You know, this will probably bew the last of our little exchange, at least from me.

I doubt that. You, like Ismail, will get upset, challenged at best, and reply to this once more, out of sheer stubbornness. It's almost pathetic. When Ismail told me in another thread that "He's done talking to me", I replied simply with "No, you're not, you're going to reply to this and do the exact same thing". And what a surprise, he did.

And you will be no different.


You proved definitely that you don't understand the concept of evidence in relation to your ramblings.

What have I said that requires evidence that is not common, or at the least can not be realized without a dose of critical thought?


An unsubstantiated argument is not an argument - it is an assertion.

An assertion which you have such a problem addressing, other than saying "No, I need links and books on subjects that no one will write as they are common sense".


And how to communicate with such a person who obviously thinks that rehashing cool sounding phrases and repeating mere opinions is what it takes when someone asks for a solid argument?

If you think they "Sound cool", that's your business, not mine. This is not how I structure my arguments, not by any means.


Communication is practically impossible in that way, especially if that person is also a weird fanatic fetishizing violence.


So you also believe I fetishize violence, wonderful. I think you merely have a hard time addressing my posts, perhaps because maybe, somewhere deep down you know that there is at the least a grain of truth in the assertion that a decentralized mode of organization cannot account for the entire planet?


Okay, it's obvious.


How is it not? The only argument one could make is through Bourgeois Liberal means, i.e. "Power will corrupt".


I'm not interested in this debate. I asked you a concrete question which you are unable to respond to since you brought it up, so stop shifting the argument.


And this is not a new debate, it has everything to do with you asking "Have evidence as to how the Soviets were innefficient"?

I asked you a simple question:


I want to ask you a question(which you were never able to respond to): Why do you think the Soviets were done away with, as Left Communist, when the revolution was isolated only after 1919?


You have demanded evidence for the assertion that the Soviets were inefficient, yet there are no other explanations other than "Power corrupts" that would explain to us why they were done away with in 1918. So, perhaps it's time to renounce your Marxist views once and for all (It is, after all, much easier to debate with an Anarchist on the subject).


In brief, as far as I'm concerned, efficiency had nothing to do with the Soviets which returned non-Bolshevik majorities and were extinguished afterwards.

The "Non Bolshevik" majorities, had it their way, would do away with the proletarian revolution and have them squashed by the Counter Revolution. They were inefficient in that they were uncooperative, and there was no time for bullshit.

So it had everything to do with efficiency. Unless of course, you will attempt to make an Argument that the October Revolution in itself was not a proletarian one in class character (which would then force you to renounce your left communist views)..

Really, this thread is bringing about some Ideological questions you should be pondering upon, no?


We can take this, as well as the gradual constitution of the party-state

Which happened for no reason?


(which was actually also a matter of ideological confusion inherited from the Second International)

This wasn't a matter of Ideological conclusion. The Bolsheviks were the only force to ever bring about proletarian revolution and were the most powerful force in defending it and organizing Russia. The Pre-War SPD method proved very efficient. It was, ironically, only problematic when the Spartacist Uprising in Germany failed (Which, by the way, failed in adopting the pre war SPD policies on mass scale).


and the elimination of other proletarian currents, which all cannot be viewed without the context of armed conflict with the Whites

So is it so much to say that they were inefficient in dealing with the problem with the Whites? Dare I say, inefficient in addressing the counter revolution in general?


and international isolation of the revolution.


You're wrong. I vigorously asserted that the revolution was not Isolated until after 1919. The Bolsheviks were stripped of supreme power in 1918.


But to deny the historical responsibility of the Bolshevik Party is just ridiculous. Now you can proceed to construct your favorite straw man, the liberal power corrupts argument.


Because you know very well that's exactly the argument you deployed, of course, draped in Red cloth.

And that bit about the Bolsheviks being "responsible" is dependent on the notion that they had a choice, that they could have done otherwise in favor of their class interest, but decided not to for X purpose. You have not given this purpose, so this requires no serious analysis. So, what were their other options and can you give me some evidence (Something you are so keen in demanding) to say that should the Bolsheviks had done X, it would have been better, stripping them of their offense.

This is antithetical to Historical Materialism, which clearly shows us that the actions of individuals are direct reflections of social relations.


You know what you're actually saying here? You're saying that you can be as ignorant as you want with regard to a complex historical event and that this mystical common sense

We are talking about something specific. Was it common sense the Bolsheviks wanted to use guns against the enemy instead of bananas?


will somehow guide you to a correct understanding of it. Can you actually understand that this is your position?


No, but I can certainly understand it's a weak argument on your behalf.


You're quite funny in your arrogant ignorance. Though, while I think about it, it's actually more sad than funny.


The stench of desperation on your behalf is so blatantly obvious I don't even think you are trying anymore.

Up to the point where you can't even address my posts and instead try to substitute it with slander.


Do you have reading problems or something? I said natural disaster.


And quite evidently you didn't make this clear. What on Earth are you talking about?


As for the rest of your little rant, what's there to say actually.

You can in turn enlighten me as to why you think it would even be possible to liquidate the bourgeois classes and smash the bourgeois state with such a poor mode of organization.


Disgustingly obscure mentality you say. Lack of organization. Okay.


Poor thing, you can't even respond.


It's easier to babble about clusterfucks than to engage in class analysis, that much is clear.


Why is it so hard to comprehend that what I meant disaster in general which could range in a variety of outcomes as a result of class relations? Of course it is a class analysis, but I'm not a fortune teller and such an outcome can vary.


Well, they are different historical modes of production. Would you like to contest that?


I did, indeed admit they were different modes of production. I continued to say that there has existed a transitional mixture between the two. You denied this, and demanded I give you evidence, as I did. And then you seemed to have shut your mouth in regards to the subject.


What? Little less rhetoric and phrasemongering and little more clarity maybe?


You're taking a ridiculous and unrealistic concept and trying to sugar coat it with some kind of complexity. Seriously, drop the bullshit. You're being pretentious.


What is pathetic are your reading skills.
Go back and read the post again as this is not what I wrote.


It's exactly what you wrote.


The last quote about decentralization relates to material necessity to organize social production in line with feudal social relations.


No, that's a lie. The bit you made was referring to dealing with organized crime, not just the bringing about of feudal social relations, which I asserted would be unlikely in many parts of the world.



What? Again this? You do actually know that you're pulling this out of your arse?


You said that in the absence of material necessity to organize social production in such a way, certain social phenomena like organized crime would be able to propel the social dynamic in such a way.

I read this as that in the abscence of what I was reffering to (Centralized mode of organization) organized crime would be able to have the upper hand and take hold of the system.

And then, I said that decentralized mode of organization does not represent the necessity to counter organized crime, you said decentralization wouldn't bring about such a social necessity (Centralization) but that is under the pressuposion that decentralization would be something natural, something already a given that would later have to be abolished. I said this was bullshit.

I understood you also could have been referring to organized crime creating Feudal Social relations, though, I didn't want to address this as it's a straw man, something I never said. As if "Organized Crime would create exact Feudal social relations" is something I ever fucking said.


Yeah, okay, whatever. I have no idea what you're talking about, but okay.


That's because you're a moron.


Oh that's precious.
I don't doubt for a moment that you have no idea about the counter-revolution in Spain and that all you've got is that fabulous common sense of yours.

In Homage to Catalonia, even Orwell specifically mentioned the inefficiency of how the Anarchists organized the military, etc.



And again, this kind of simplistic reduction of a complex historical situation to a quasi-argument against one form of political power as a possibility is just ridiculous.

If the communes were efficient, they would have had the capability to hoard of the counter revolution which was threatening their very existence.


For starters, you can try to wrap your head around the fact that it was the bourgeois standing army of the Republic that was defeated by Franco's forces, and not some imaginary autonomous communes' militia.

And why were these Communes so reliant on the Bourgeois military to secure their own existence? Why were they later destroyed by Franco?

The Bolsheviks had no one. Yet they hoarded off the counter revolution and the allied powers.


Those reasons were not external to this.


Oh really? So you're going to admit that the Bolsheviks suddenly became Authoritarian monsters (in 1918, before any isolation) and that is why the revolution failed, because they weren't "Moral" enough, and not because the revolution isolated?

Perhaps it's time to question your Left Communist convictions. The Bolsheviks mobilizing the masses against the counter revolution had absolutely nothing to do with the failure of the October Revolution, if anything, (Say, should the German revolution had succeeded) it would have guaranteed it's victory.


But then again, you talked about feudal slavery.


I used to think it was just Ismail who made up things in order to sustain an argument, but I'm questioning my understanding of Idealists of all nature, now...

The issue of "Feudal Slavery" was addressed about Two posts ago, and it saddens me you keep bringing it up. This is something which doesn't require even mediocre skills to comprehend: The counter revolution could vary from several factions and former deposed classes with ambitions which could range from just about anything.


I am, because the problem you brought up is quite specific.

You're foolish, I mentioned it as one of the possibilities, it did not require any serious, critical analysis.


I have no problem with merciless repression of organized cojnter-revolution.


Great to fucking hear you don't have any ethical qualms with repression of organized counter revolution, really, that is something :rolleyes:. Though, I don't give a fuck about your moral views, we are asking this: Is it even possible for a decentralized mode of organization to carry this act out?

Apparently you don't know the difference between having the capability, the organized efficiency and what you have a "Problem" with or what you "accept" as okay. We need much more than just your blessings to smash the counter revolution, Menocchio. We need a force more powerful than the counter revolution, more organized, with the ability to do so. It is not as if it is a given we can destroy them and the question is dependent on whether we deem it moral or not.

No, we need a very disciplined and powerful structure which could carry such a thing out (Something like the Cheka could help, or, Kontrazzvedka, if you will :rolleyes:).

And the point is this: A decentralized mode of organization globally in a world of seven billion, a world of chaos, would not sustain the strategic possibility in hoarding off the former ruling class and crushing all counter revolution.


Okay.

Wonderful, so now you acknowledge what I meant, after many lines of horse shit.


I'm simply trying to say that material necessity for feudal social relations doesn't exist.


That's a very serious assertoin, there. For one, what do you mean material necessity? It is of material necessity for Feudal Ruling classes in countries like Afghanistan to retain their class power, in doing so the bringing about of Feudal Social relations (Assuming they were deposed of magically).

You really are abusing terms you have no Idea of. Material Necessity varies, it varies to different factions and classes. I'm sure Autonomous Communes don't find it necessary to introduce Feudal Social relations, of course, this is a given. Though, factions that do (And by the way, this is only in some countries) could threaten these communes, and what I am getting at is this: Will they have the ability to address these factions? The answer, is a simple no.


Okay. And this is relevant how?


Because you and Timmy are using terms like "Historical Materialism", "Material Necessity", etc. which have nothing to do with Materialism in the way you are using them, but more so as a means of defending your own absurd political convictions.


Yes, but you don't have anything to do with Marx as you constantly demonstrate.


I have nothing to do with Marx, when you neglect Historical Materialism in order to sustain your absurd Utopian Fantasies about Direct control by every individual on Earth (Seven billion people?).



I don't care what the class enemy would deem authoritarian.


Than, by this, Libertarians are class enemies, because I was referring to them.


Yes, I agree.


Your posts would say otherwise.


Did I say so somewhere? No, I didn't.


Yes, you asserted I "Love" Authoritarianism and that I am basing my political views on my "Love" for Authoritarianism and not because of my recognizing of several material forces and my understanding of Historical Materialism.


And I neither said this. But I'm glad that you're so into this whole judgement thing.

You didn't directly say it, of course. But I think we can come to the conclusion that, whether you want to consciously admit this or not, it is something very active in your ideological unconsciousness. You said you want a Decentralized mode of organization. Such a desire would require several illusions about our world.


I am guilty of deviating from historical materialism. Sounds like a perfect indictment worthy of a Moscow trial.


Yes, yes go cry about it. You are guilty of deviating from Historical Materialism. This is an "Intellectual" (Not even) argument, not a trial in which you are to receive a punishment (Other than making an ass out of yourself, of course).


People usually cannot interpret incoherent ramblings.

Maybe then, you should stop talking out of your ass if you can't interperate my post. Here's a thought: Maybe you deem it as an incoherent rambling because you cannot interpret it?


And maybe this counter-revolution could take the form of oppressive alien lizards finally revealing themselves to humanity and declaring them all spiritual drones or something.

So, according to you there is only one possibility as to what the counter revolution could look like.


Yes, the possibilities are endless, a new slave society is a permanent possibility no matter how the productive forces develop.


We are talking about today. And yes, a new slave society is a possibility. I am saying it is possible for the productive forces to mutate in such a way in which it is possible.


Yes, you can do that all day long, and that's what you've been doing so far - asserting stuff.


Glad to know you don't understand the post.


Go on.


To name some for a second, right off the spot, Nepal, several parts of the African continent, parts of Yemen, parts of South America (Where only a rural peasantry are dominant). You get the Idea. I won't go into specific countries because this is pointless. Or could you prove me otherwise?


But I don't think feudalism is "dead". I know that capital is the dominant social relation of production.


But quite evidently, for most of the third world, the proletariat does not constitute as a majority. So, it isn't dominant everywhere completely.




There are no workers in Afghanistan and Cambodia?


In Afghanistan, you will find some in Kabul, but for the most part, no, they do not exist as a majority that could constitute as a dominant form of social relations. So even here, the fact you support a proletarian dictatorship means you support Authoritarianism in Afghanistan and Cambodia.

[Rafiq]

I didn't actually understand who or what the majority of Rafiq's meandering spiel (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2420348&postcount=65) was directed towards, so I figured that I'll just skip to what I think is the crux of the matter...

All of it was directed towards you, so until you respond to it, you stand in agreement. You cannot pick and choose which part of the post you want to respond to, if you are going to respond to it, respond to all of it, otherwise, you tell us you agree with it.




This is positivism, not Marxism. It's a interpretation of Marx drawn primarily from Capital,

And Capital is the ultimate work by Marx which gives us a definition of class, etc.

You're just a Bourgeois rationalist, is all.


in ignorance of the fact that the text does not represent the theoretical culmination of his thought, but rather a specific project, "A Critique of Political Economy", for which he sets aside the historical ontology in which his theories were developed, and adopts the ontology of a bourgeois empiricist.

It does represent the theoretical culmination of his thought, on interpretating Capitalist society.


As such, this interpretation treats class as a question of the relationship between people and things, rather than between people, the things being assumed to exist as things (i.e. as capital) ontologically prior to being brought together with people.

I said mode of production, not means of production. The mode of production includes both "Things" and "Class"

Christ, obviously you don't fucking understand materialism, or what the rule of capital means. Humans act on behalf of things, not just on behalf of each other.


This means that class itself becomes something ontologically prior to- indeed, the condition of- capitalist social relations, rather than as something relational, which is to say something that exists only insofar as it is a constituent of capitalist social relations.

Class, to you, did not exist before capitalist social relations? This is just pretentious shit. How is defining class as relations to the capitalist mode of production antithetical to the understanding that capitalist social relations formed only after a certain class from Feudal Social relations took power? It is not.




This leads to the understanding of social class as a series of essentially pre-historical Types which precede any particular actualisation of that Type.


Yes, yes, you don't understand not only class, but the origins of the capitalist mode of production. Stop with the pretentious shit and get to the point.


Within this interpretation, the "petty bourgeoisie" ceases to be understood as an historical phenomenon particular to and bound up with the development of primitive market economies, and becomes an essence that can manifest in any market society,

So long as the retention of capital exists. You presuppose a Market Society can exist without the capitalist mode of production, or at the least the transition to a Market society from the capitalist mode of production is even possible!

Fucking ludicrious. The Petite Bourgeoisie is a class specific only to capitalism, so when I say that Workers owning and managing businesses would be petty bourgeois, it is under the notion that the very existence of a business signifies the retention of the capitalist mode of production.


whenever somebody happens to possess an owner-operator relationship to capital. This leads to a description of self-managing workers as "petty bourgeois", as the 21st century actualisation of the same pre-historical Type seen among the tradesmen of 17th century London or the street vendors of 19th century Shanghai,

What exactly is pre historical about this? Obviously you don't have the slightest grasp of a scientific understanding of class, and resort to several pressuposions only found in Bourgeois Rationalism.


without any reference to the actual social relationships which the individuals constituting these self-managed firms actually participate in.


Bingo!

Let me ask you a question, Timmy. With you abanding the strict scientific defintiion of class, who are you to define what a social relationship is?

For example, if a Boss runs a factory with Workers, yet, he only receives pay slightly higher than his workers, gives them a shit ton of breaks, etc., Who are you to call him Bourgeois, when, this is just as much of a different social relationship from the very term Bourgeois (relationship) than workers together democratically cooperating in managing a business is from Petite Bourgeois social relations?

What you are talking abut is not a social relationship, it is not a material condition. You will define the condition as Bourgeois for mere moral reasons, i.e. the presupossion that: "It is Immoral to run a business outside of democratic means". This, by default, must adopt the classical liberalist mode of thinking, and of course it's ethical framework. From this, not only are you not a Marxist, you are a counter revolutionary in nature.

You're an Ethical Socialist, and a Bourgeois rationalist.

[Rafiq]

Care to elaborate on how the measures took by Makhno and the Black army were more authoritarian than those taken by the Bolsheviks?

Well, for a quick read: http://www.isreview.org/issues/53/makhno.shtml

Even excluding this, Makhno set up a Secret Police organization (The Kontrazvedka) and Free Territory was ran in a Militarist-Command style way, with the Military (Black Army) being the supreme hegemonial force, ultimately commanding all of the communes (Or Commune) no matter what.



Isolation was part of it, yeah, so was the fact that the Soviets were never anything but capitalist in terms of economic policy.

You confuse me. What do you mean by the "Soviets"? Do you mean the Soviets as Councils, or Soviets as Bolsheviks? Anyway, the capitalist mode of production at the time could not have simply been abolished in the midst of war, especially when you need the support of the Peasantry. Though, in Nature, the Bolsheviks were an opposing force to capital and sought the dictatorship of the proletariat, to destroy the capitalist mode of production. Evidently, they could not do this, because the revolution isolated.


I would say the revolution failed way before the close of the 'counter-revolution.'

The Counter Revolution became active long before you think. For example, Massacres of Workers took place in late 1917-Early 1918, and it was only in 1918 (March) when Anarchists say the revolution "Failed". And, this was during the treaty of Brest Litovsk, which signified the allied invasion of Russia.

What you would "say" is far from reality.


I would again say, state centralization is completely a factor considering the Soviet Union became state capitalist

State Capitalist, as in the State somewhat cooperating with bourgeois classes in managing capital, than, yes, though "state capitalist" as in the Bolsheviks becoming the Bourgeoisie (and not a representative) is unscientific garbage. State Centralization was a step away from the capitalist mode of production, not towards.


and despite this parliamentary nonsense the worker's never had control over the means of production

This isn't how capitalism is defined, you know. It is not about Worker's management, it is about the destruction of the Bourgeois classes, and Worker's dictatorship, which doesn't simply mean management over production.

Anyway, Russia never had the conditions in which your anarchist fantasies could be realized on behalf of the Bolsheviks, sorry. To simply denounce them right away and at the same time dismiss all of the material forces and factors that ran amok is not only stupid, it is counter revolutionary.


or the products of their own labour, as this was controlled by the state and it's bureaucrats.


Vague. What time period are you referring to? For one, you could argue that up to a point the State itself was the embodiment of the Proletarian classes interest, and not of the Peasantry. Really, it's nonsense what you are asserting. The Counter Revolution could not have been dealt with by direct democratic means, sorry.


Further, how can 'state centralization' safeguard a revolution but can not at all (even hypothetically) be a factor in the over-all failure of one?

Because as a Marxist I do not adhere to the concept that "Power corrupts". For one, all states represent the interests of some class. In the Bolsheviks case, the Proletarian class. So, the centralization of the state would mean to you what? That the representatives would get greedy, and corrupt? For what? This is far from the case. Today, the Bourgeois State is Centralized in places yet does not conflict with the interest of the class it represents.

State centralization cannot be a factor in the failure of the revolution, because "State Centralization" doesn't mean anything unless you be specific. For one, an effect of the revolutions isolation was the retention of the capitalist mode of production and the degeneration of the actual revolution, with the proletarian class becoming instruments of capital. This was not a matter of choice, the very act of retaining the capitalist mode of production is opening the door for capital to devour society as a whole. The State, then served capital, and you know the story.

So long as the State serves the Bourgeois class, it has nothing to do with the revolution. But if an even more Authoritarian state serves the proletarian class, I fail to see how any sort of degeneration could happen, so long as the revolution were to spread to an industrialized country.


Of course I mean manage, not own, that goes without saying further the retention of the capitalist mode of production is exactly what I was getting at.

Right, well, who "Manages" the means of production is not a deciding factor in whether capitalism is retained. The Mode of Production is the deciding factor, not the Means of Production (Which are merely a factor in the mode of production).

I
also, never mentioned anything about the abandoning of democracy rather I am specifically talking about the effects of state centralization in terms of worker's control,

1. State Centralization happens for a Reason

2. How do you define Workers control?

For one, a Mob rule's interest which is forfilled by the centralized state is very possible, and would not lead to conflict.

What if I replace your sentence with this: I am specifically talking about the effects of state centralization in terms of the Capitalist's control.

Why does (today) the centralized state not come into conflict with the interests of the Bourgeoisie? Why today, does the state not "Corrupt" and in itself become an interest external from all classes?


which arguably the Soviets never achieved (genuinely)

But they did, it was only during the threat of the counter revolution where it was deemed necessary to mobilize the country on a mass scale, part of this meant abandoning the slow and inefficient process of "Worker's democratic control".


which I have argued that it was due to this.


And why do you think State Centralization occurred? You, like many other Libertarians, tell me only what happened, but not why... Here's a hint: the actions of all individuals, are always a direct response to material conditions (Especially individuals in a representative power).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Planning does not have to be done centrally. It's an absolute misnomer that a planned economy = centralised means of production in the hands of the national bureaucracy.

[Tim Finnegan]

blah blah blah
I forgot that you are pathologically incapable of debating like a normal human being. My mistake.

[seventeethdecember2016]

I forgot that you are pathologically incapable of debating like a normal human being. My mistake.
Rafiq wrote thousands of words, yet you decided to dwell on just three... Wow...

Rafiq, I'd like to thank you for the time you've spent tying all that out. Just know that some people appreciate all the time you put into your thoughtful comments.

[Tim Finnegan]

His first act is to denounce me as "bourgeois rationalist", whatever the fuck that means, and then he proceeded to pull my post into tiny little chunks so that he could respond to each tattered sentence fragment with what amounts to "nuh-uh!", peppered with some frankly vacuous comments about "science", and concludes with the inexplicable claim that my criticism of his mangled unMarxism was simply ethical (or moral; he doesn't seem to know the difference), despite what I actually wrote being wholly concerned with the ontological. If that's what you consider "thoughtful" then you either have been or need to be smacked round the head with something heavy.

(Edit: Also, he used the word "feudal" with a straight face. Nobody with the slightest grasp of history has done that for years.)

[Rafiq]

I forgot that you are pathologically incapable of debating like a normal human being. My mistake.

I'm incapable of debating like a "normal human being"(Whatever that means) when you've not even the ability to address a post, which was addressing your previous bull shit post?

How can you even call yourself a Marxist? A pinnacle of Bourgeois Rationalism is their unscientific understanding of class, which it would seem you adhere to. The Slave owners whom were nice ot their slaves, dressed their slaves like themselves, I suppose, are stripped of their title as slave owners, because apparently we understand class as some kind of moral character, no?

[Rafiq]

His first act is to denounce me as "bourgeois rationalist", whatever the fuck that means,

It isn't uncommon for so-called "Marxists" to adhere to Bourgeois rationalism while at the same time not actually knowing it.

Here, for you, may be a good read: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/lukacs1.htm

Of course I'm not the biggest fan of Lukacs, but none the less it's a good read.

You're conception of class, you're accusations of "Reductionism" (Marxism is reductionist, by the way, and there is nothing negative about that).


and then he proceeded to pull my post into tiny little chunks so that he could respond to each tattered sentence fragment with what amounts to "nuh-uh!"

I like to dissect the posts of my opponents little by little, to show them their own bull shit. If you have a problem with that, I suggest not posting on this site.


, peppered with some frankly vacuous comments about "science", and concludes with the inexplicable claim that my criticism of his mangled unMarxism

You accuse me of not being a Marxist, when your understanding of class does not go beyond ethical judgements on management?


was simply ethical (or moral; he doesn't seem to know the difference),

It was completely Ethical, and yes, Moral as well.


despite what I actually wrote being wholly concerned with the ontological.

Which was, in nature just pretentious shit, Bourgeois-Idelaist pretentious shit, at that.


If that's what you consider "thoughtful" then you either have been or need to be smacked round the head with something heavy.

Just because you're wrong doesn't mean you have to physically hurt someone. Perhaps you should think twice before making yourself look like the Jackass that you are, should you want to avoid ridicule.


(Edit: Also, he used the word "feudal" with a straight face. Nobody with the slightest grasp of history has done that for years.)


Who is "Nobody"? Your band of Humanist scum?

[Anderson]

So we are replacing working class action with that of the party, like Rosa Luxembourg warned against? So it will be a dictatorship of the party over the proletariat instead of a dictatorship of the proletariat? We have to trust the party to do everything for us?

Party represents the advanced sections of proletariat, unless of course if it has been infiltrated by bourgeois elements.

[Tim Finnegan]

blah blah blah
See, he did it again! Can't just respond like an adult, has to break everything down in meaningless little chunks so he can strut around in front of them like he's achieved something rather than actually offer a substantive response. How the fuck am I supposed to discuss class theory with somebody like that?

(Also, lol "humanist scum".)


Party represents the advanced sections of proletariat, unless of course if it has been infiltrated by bourgeois elements.
If it can be "infiltrated by bourgeois elements", then it wasn't worth shit to begin with.

[Rafiq]

See, he did it again!


I like to dissect the posts of my opponents little by little, to show them their own bull shit. If you have a problem with that, I suggest not posting on this site.


So what, now you're just going to ignore the entire content of my post because you don't like the style in which I respond to yours? A clear sign of desperation, indeed.



Can't just respond like an adult,

The reason I respond in this manner is that I'm not going to let anything you say that isn't valid slide. You're asserting quite a lot of baseless statements, which in turn lead to the assertion of other statements only able to exist with the presupposion of the previous statement.

Should I destroy your first, than comes tumbling down your second.

Sorry, time, I'm not going to put your whole post into a giant chunk and start numbering off my arguments with (1. 2. 3.).

If you have a problem, get the fuck out of here and stop responding to my posts. The fact that you respond to a part of it and not the rest, with such passion, really signifies to me that the part you didn't respond to you are either unable to respond to, or agree with.


has to break everything down in meaningless little chunks so he can strut around in front of them like he's achieved something rather than actually offer a substantive response.

Do you think you, anywhere in this thread, have offered a substantative response? All of your posts were pretentious, and smug.


How the fuck am I supposed to discuss class theory with somebody like that?


Well, you can't discuss class theory with someone like me because your arguments were destroyed. I'm sorry, Tim, I'm not going to structure this debate in your favor. I debate only in a concrete manner, i.e. If you're going to make a massive paragraph solely consisting of your pretentious ramblings than I will dissect it one by one in response.


(Also, lol "humanist scum".)


That's what you are.

[Tim Finnegan]

That was a joke, right? I make a two-sentence complaint about how he breaks things down too far, and he breaks it into five separate pieces. That has to be a joke.

[Revolution starts with U]

If people cannot be bottom up organized at 7 billion, they can not be bottom up organized at 7 total. Society is an abstract collectivization of individual actors. If it works on a micro-social level, it must be able to work on a macro level. For what is the difference between 700 people and 7 billion? More actors, that is all.

In short, if you don't support a bottom up revolution, you don't support proletarian emancipation and rule.

... and this isn't even getting into the "slippery slope" angle of putting an elite class in charge of protecting against class domination.

[Rafiq]

That was a joke, right? I make a two-sentence complaint about how he breaks things down too far, and he breaks it into five separate pieces. That has to be a joke.

Awwww How cute, the little fuck gave me a neg rep... As if neg repping me will grant you the necessary debating skills to actually... Engage in a debate!

Wow, Tim! You've asserted a lot in this thread and have fell flat on your face for each assertion, and here you stand, full of shit. You have no place in this thread anymore, Tim. Fuck off and die now.

[x359594]

This is your moderator speaking:

Rafiq and Tim Finnegan drop the personal attacks.

[Tim Finnegan]

I think that it's unfair to pose my and Rafiq's comments as equivalent, given that I've simply been criticising his posting style, while he's declared me to be "scum" who should "fuck off and die". I acknowledge that Americans are by nature a boisterous lot, so the subtle distinction in tone may not appear quite as significant to you as it does to me, but none the less I think that it is only fair to recognise that it does exist.

[x359594]

...I acknowledge that Americans are by nature a boisterous lot, so the subtle distinction in tone may not appear quite as significant to you as it does to me, but none the less I think that it is only fair to recognise that it does exist.

Point taken Tim. Rafiq has crossed the line with his last post, and my intention was to caution you not to respond in kind.

[Rafiq]

Point taken Tim. Rafiq has crossed the line with his last post, and my intention was to caution you not to respond in kind.

Oh shut it with this nonsense. Looking back a few pages, it then doesn't become difficult that Tim was originally the one to insult me. I care not for his "European" sensitivity. His was equally insulting.

And you, I know for a fact you're taking sides here, considering you're both Liberalists, and you're obviously stand in agreement with his views.

[Rafiq]

I think that it's unfair to pose my and Rafiq's comments as equivalent, given that I've simply been criticising his posting style,

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2423877&postcount=88

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2424715&postcount=91

You're a smug bastard. The kind only Liberals possess.


while he's declared me to be "scum" who should "fuck off and die".

Aww, are your feelings hurt?


I acknowledge that Americans are by nature a boisterous lot,

And this, this is nothing more than elitism.


so the subtle distinction in tone may not appear quite as significant to you as it does to me, but none the less I think that it is only fair to recognise that it does exist.

You were just as much engaging in personal attacks as I was, I'm just not a smug bastard.

[Rafiq]

Inb4 Waaaaaaa! He divided my post into segments! I just want to shove my clusterfuck of text down his throat! Waaa! Why can't he just accept it, or at the least respond to it in a manner in which he presupposes a lot of bull shit in a passive manner! Waaa!

[Tim Finnegan]

(I only want to address one point, for the sake of other posters rather than for Rafiq, who can believe whatever suits him.)

And this, this is nothing more than elitism.
It was intended ironically, but I suppose it may have been a bit deadpan. No offence was intended.

[x359594]

...And you, I know for a fact you're taking sides here, considering you're both Liberalists, and you're obviously stand in agreement with his views.

On the contrary. My objection is to your language and your apparent emotional immaturity.

Given that this thread has degenerated into nothing more than name calling I'm going to close it as of now.