"All power to the workers militia"? On workers paramilitary orgs / paramilitias [Archive]

Die Neue Zeit

30th July 2012, 04:12

To start off, I'd like to ask this question: Is "All power to the workers militia" more feasible for government than "All power to workers councils"?

Here's some earlier discussion on the subject:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/organization-party-movements-t160008/index.html

I must thank both CPGB comrade Nick Rogers for his article [over a year] ago on the Paris Commune (http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.html), and comrade Psy for his fleshed-out posts on his "revolutionary army" concept, for it gave me further insight into the strengths and weaknesses of various forms of workers institutions and other workers organizations.

The Paris Commune was very much an interplay between the more petit-bourgeois Communal Council and the more proletarian National Guard, and I mean this in terms of their respective class content. The eventual ineptitude of the former, from the Bank of France question to the lack of political oversight over the National Guard itself (by means of installing deputies for political work) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-oversight-over-t157827/index.html) to the very late formation of the Committee of Public Safety, suggests the presence of comprador elements amongst the Parisian petit bourgeoisie:

My initial thoughts upon reading this article was that the Commune could have been saved... had the central committee of the National Guard itself become the Committee of Public Safety (read: breakthrough military coup) that the squabblers didn't form until it was too late.

I mean, it was the military actions of the National Guard itself that led to the Paris Commune in the first place! Now:

By staying dormant till they are needed and starting with non-lethal force so at the start they would just be like the Black Bloc just better organized leaving their firearms at home. As a revolutionary situation leads to a uprising the vanguard has to make the call when to take up arms to repel attempts by the bourgeois state to restore bourgeois order, this should be at a point where the revolutionary army can open its doors to recruits and quickly increase its size to match and eventually exceed the numbers of the bourgeoisie forces also the revolutionary situation has created a revolutionary authority parallel to bourgeois authority.

There are long-term pitfalls of the "revolutionary army only" model. Already it's embedded in the words "the vanguard." It conflicts with "a massive armed proletarian army like the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense but scaling it up far more and for the entire proletariat not just a oppressed minority" and "a revolutionary army with hundreds of millions of troops."

Mass political support is needed before a revolutionary situation.

In the short term, workers paramilitary organizations / paramilitias (more than mere "militias") are more capable of handling immediate political issues, during and outside a revolutionary situation, than non-party councils (as opposed to Military Revolutionary Committees) or traditional syndicates ever could, and without the influence of some party-movement. The bureaucratic processes of workers paramilitary organizations / paramilitias, such as when deployed for alternative culture and other social work, help in this regard. However, the requirement of strict centralization is another long-term deficiency.

In the long term the revolutionary army would be obsolete as it its function would no longer be necessary as there would be no capitalist resistance. The whole bureaucracy of the revolutionary army just collapsed as it no longer can justify its own existence to the society supply it.

In a Visitor Message:

On their own, they are more capable of handling immediate political issues, during and outside a revolutionary situation, than non-party councils. Since the base soviets themselves passed less than a handful of decrees, (from a more "ad hoc" perspective) only Milrevkoms, Sovnarkoms, and the base paramilitaries themselves are really necessary.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-communists-t167709/index.html

The working class, because it is a class of associated producers, and has common interests, is stronger when it's united. The committees that DNZ rightly refers to, and indeed the paramilitary groups that are the source of interest here, need to be subordianted to... something. That is the soviet, the expression, the forum, the assembly, of the working class, not a party sub-committee or a factory committee.

No, I'm not arguing in favour of any system being "every factory a state." The base paramilitaries I have in mind are inspired by the Paris Commune's National Guard but taken to a societal level, also by the Russian Red Guards but without any party influence. So it's like the paramilitary organizations organized by the Cuban revolutionaries (then separate from the Communist Party of Cuba), or like the Civil War-era People's Liberation Army but without party influence, in either case with a much more decidedly working-class orientation.

Brosa Luxemburg

30th July 2012, 04:44

To start off, I'd like to ask this question: Is "All power to the workers militia" more feasible for government than "All power to workers councils"?

Well, the fact remains that the workers' militia could be accountable to the workers' councils (or vice versa) but I think both would be necessary organs of proletariat rule in the first world.

Your insistence that workers' militias are capable of handling a situation faster than councils, syndicates, etc. is very interesting, and I think essentially correct, but I think that these militias, just like the councils, have a great potential to allow very reactionary elements in. Because of this, and because of the power that these militias would have, I think that these militias should be restrictive. While containing hopefully a majority of the class, outright reactionary elements should be banned and for an armed "vigilante" force I don't think that this should be negotiable.

I was also wondering why, DNZ, you think that these militias should not have any party influence at all?

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

30th July 2012, 04:45

Originally Posted by NZ:
[workers paramilitary orgs] without any party influence

Sounds very stupid. As much power to the party as possible, it's a revolution, not a kindergarten party.

Die Neue Zeit

30th July 2012, 05:02

Well, the fact remains that the workers' militia could be accountable to the workers' councils (or vice versa) but I think both would be necessary organs of proletariat rule in the first world.

Your insistence that workers' militias are capable of handling a situation faster than councils, syndicates, etc. is very interesting, and I think essentially correct, but I think that these militias, just like the councils, have a great potential to allow very reactionary elements in. Because of this, and because of the power that these militias would have, I think that these militias should be restrictive. While containing hopefully a majority of the class, outright reactionary elements should be banned and for an armed "vigilante" force I don't think that this should be negotiable.

I was also wondering why, DNZ, you think that these militias should not have any party influence at all?

Not at all, comrade. I tried to pose a third alternative to the usual party-vs-councils exchange, and tried to re-frame the debate into a party-vs-militia exchange, leaving ad hoc councils to the wayside.

If you read my posted reply to Blake's Baby in that thread, I stated there that there are only "two viable forms of sustainable workers organization."

My pandering on the party question was based on lots of people loving organization but not parties, so I posed this. It's interesting you posed the possibility of councils being accountable to the workers militia, because in my exchange, any councils formed would be internal organs of either the party-movement or the militia.

Brosa Luxemburg

30th July 2012, 05:28

My pandering on the party question was based on lots of people loving organization but not parties, so I posed this.

It's funny that the people who are "anti-party" tend to support "organizations" that would be characteristic of a party.

It's interesting you posed the possibility of councils being accountable to the workers militia, because in my exchange, any councils formed would be internal organs of either the party-movement or the militia.

Well, I disagree. I do not think that workers' councils should exist within the party or militia, but be an independent force of proletariat rule. While these organs may be subordinated to one or the other, for example, they should be "independent" of each other (not in a sense of autonomy but in a sense of separate organs so that each organ may specialize in a certain area. While they may overlap, they would each carry out certain tasks).

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th July 2012, 09:17

Sounds very stupid. As much power to the party as possible, it's a revolution, not a kindergarten party.

Call it stupid and use a distortion of an old Mao cliche. Very good.

I don't think the issue of a kindergarten party really is relevant at all here, but yeah, let's fuck democracy, fuck the workers and give as much power to the party as possible, because let's face it, it's been a raving success in the numerous historical examples of such actions hasn't it?

This is typical of this sort of attitude on the left that used to be typical of the Labour Party in the late 80s/early 90s, called 'one last heave'. In the absence of any real original thought and organic to-and-fro of ideas, some put their eggs in the basket of the 'inevitable' failure of Capitalism and that simply by being there, and re-hashing the failed ideas of old, the party will this time lead us to glorious Socialism.

This is not material thinking, it is lazy and rooted in out-of-date thought that ignores the material conditions of today.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th July 2012, 09:25

To the issue at hand, Brosa Luxemburg is absolutely right to advise that workers' militias are restrictive organs, since they do indeed have massive potential to become reactionary elements, to supersede democratic workers' organs and to abstract their own interests from those of the wider working class.

But how can be have a situation where there is a counter-revolution brewing, the might of capital is staging one last stand and we want to have a situation where newly empowered workers [civilians], presumably in the form of political councils, control a militia of other workers; a militia that needs to be both strong enough to repel counter-revolution, but weak enough that it can be controlled by civilian workers and disbanded in an instant, should the political will of the wider working class - and conditions on the ground - require it?

Do we have an overlap between the membership of workers' councils and workers' militias? This would seem to solve the problem of diverging class interests, but could this then end up creating a 'superbody' that subsumes both the politically administrative councils, and the inevitable bureaucracy of a military body, into a party-esque organ of power?

Or do we have separate membership? Which would technically allow easier control of militias by the councils, but should civil war ensue [and necessitate the expansion of the militias into a quasi-standing army-type organisation] or any prolonged situation of military warfare, then it would be quite easy for the interests of the militias to become divergent from those of the wider working class.

I have to add at the end, that if the revolution is organic and has overwhelming majority support of the working class at large, then this situation will become much easier to handle since the scope of counter-revolution becomes smaller. I know, however, that a lot of 'leftists' advocate premature grabbing of power by some vanguard vehicle, which alienates many elements of the working class [those we might call the 'middle class' now, who are not petit bourgeois] and the petit bourgeoisie, and all of the lumpen elements since often strict social methods of control are invoked upon the seizure of state power by a vanguard vehicle. This inevitably leads to encirclement and I won't go on to describe the negative effects of this upon the revolutionary potential of any conscious movement of the working class.

Grenzer

30th July 2012, 09:58

Tim Cornelis

30th July 2012, 10:54

Die Neue Zeit

30th July 2012, 15:06

I think you're kind of missing the point here. "democratic workers' organs"(I'm going to assume you mean councils) have just as much of a potential as being a vehicle for reaction as the workers' militia described here.

The only difference, of course, is that the workers militia is a more sustainable organ of class rule than some ad hoc council or assembly. :)

But how can be have a situation where there is a counter-revolution brewing, the might of capital is staging one last stand and we want to have a situation where newly empowered workers [civilians], presumably in the form of political councils, control a militia of other workers; a militia that needs to be both strong enough to repel counter-revolution, but weak enough that it can be controlled by civilian workers and disbanded in an instant, should the political will of the wider working class - and conditions on the ground - require it?

The Paris Commune's National Guard was more than strong enough by the numbers, but its Central Committee ceded too much management to the Communal Council, and said council was too indecisive.

This would seem to solve the problem of diverging class interests, but could this then end up creating a 'superbody' that subsumes both the politically administrative councils, and the inevitable bureaucracy of a military body, into a party-esque organ of power?

It all goes back to the question of sustainable organs of class rule, doesn't it?

Ravachol

30th July 2012, 15:22

The only difference, of course, is that the workers militia is a more sustainable organ of class rule than some ad hoc council or assembly. :)

Yes, a more sustainable form of self-managed capitalism. The working class can never become the dominant class without abolishing class society (and thus itself) all together. Everything else is the last bulwark of bourgeois society masquerading as the "workers' state" or "self-mangement".

Brosa Luxemburg

30th July 2012, 16:53

But how can be have a situation where there is a counter-revolution brewing, the might of capital is staging one last stand and we want to have a situation where newly empowered workers [civilians], presumably in the form of political councils, control a militia of other workers; a militia that needs to be both strong enough to repel counter-revolution, but weak enough that it can be controlled by civilian workers and disbanded in an instant, should the political will of the wider working class - and conditions on the ground - require it?

Well, you could take this route or having the councils control the militia. This, like you said, would subordinate these militias to the wider proletariat population. This population, even being the vehicle of revolution, can contain highly reactionary elements. This should be frankly admitted. Now, this could be the preferable set-up, but it could also be a horrible idea. I would argue that these militias should be subordinated to the party (which at this time would of course contain a majority of the class) because the requirements to party membership would naturally exclude reactionary and counter-revolutionary elements. When dealing with any armed group with institutional support I don't think that this should be negotiable.

Do we have an overlap between the membership of workers' councils and workers' militias? This would seem to solve the problem of diverging class interests, but could this then end up creating a 'superbody' that subsumes both the politically administrative councils, and the inevitable bureaucracy of a military body, into a party-esque organ of power?

I wouldn't see a problem of an overlap of membership. This could result in a "superbody" but I don't think that this would naturally become a bureaucratic military machine like you seem to think. I think this is based on some faulty cause and effect logic (maybe I just read it wrong though?:confused:).

Or do we have separate membership? Which would technically allow easier control of militias by the councils, but should civil war ensue [and necessitate the expansion of the militias into a quasi-standing army-type organisation] or any prolonged situation of military warfare, then it would be quite easy for the interests of the militias to become divergent from those of the wider working class.

If this route is taken, I do not think that it would diverge from the interests of the working class if it was subordinated to the proletariat party and if it was fighting to defend their revolution.

I have to add at the end, that if the revolution is organic and has overwhelming majority support of the working class at large, then this situation will become much easier to handle since the scope of counter-revolution becomes smaller.

Of course. :)

I know, however, that a lot of 'leftists' advocate premature grabbing of power by some vanguard vehicle, which alienates many elements of the working class [those we might call the 'middle class' now, who are not petit bourgeois] and the petit bourgeoisie, and all of the lumpen elements since often strict social methods of control are invoked upon the seizure of state power by a vanguard vehicle. This inevitably leads to encirclement and I won't go on to describe the negative effects of this upon the revolutionary potential of any conscious movement of the working class.

This is a whole different discussion for another thread, honestly.

Brosa Luxemburg

30th July 2012, 16:56

Positivist

30th July 2012, 17:43

The conflict of worker council vs. worker paramilitia ignores the overlap between the two. A militia, by its very nature is a "part time" affiliation. This is what distinguishes an army from a militia. An army is an association of professional combatants. This is important because the workers paramilitiants will still be workers, and correspondingly their interests will remain those of the wider, inactive proletariat.

I'll expand on what I'm trying to say here later, right now I'm tired. For purposes of summarization and clarification, my point is that "all powers to the workers paramilitias" is superior to "all power to the workers councils" because the militias are still composed of workers, with workers' interests, but are more sustainable, efficient, and can be closed to reactonary elements.

Lenina Rosenweg

30th July 2012, 17:44

In an actual revolutionary situation no one can predict or prescribe how things will turn out. Periodization won't work. We do know that in actual revolutionary or pre-revolutionary situations-Russia 1917, Spain, Chile, and elsewhere worker's councils or some self organisations of the working class formed. In the revolutions that failed, they failed because of a failing in the test of arms or in the case of Spain a lack of worker's democracy.

Militias by themselves are not democratic. They must be democratic to carry though a class struggle, otherwise they devolve into warlordism-Syria, Iraq, Sudan, many other places.

The Jay

30th July 2012, 17:46

Comrade #138672

30th July 2012, 18:18

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 19:18

To start off, I'd like to ask this question: Is "All power to the workers militia" more feasible for government than "All power to workers councils"?

Have you ever served in the military? Have you ever marched in a disciplined military unit carrying a rifle or a side arm?

Have you ever been to a military boot camp?

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 20:02

Have you ever served in the military? Have you ever marched in a disciplined military unit carrying a rifle or a side arm?

Have you ever been to a military boot camp?

Thanks for attempting to derail the thread.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 20:03

Thanks for attempting to derail the thread.

How do my questions 'derail' the thread?

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 20:05

I agree. You would only be replacing the old classes with new classes. That defeats the purpose of a classless society. At least to me it does.

A class isn't something that you can just "replace." What is being discussed is the dictatorship of the proletariat, not a classless society. The dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the very fact that classes still exist,ie: The proletariat must suppress the remnants of bourgeois society.

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 20:10

I am not comfortable with a ruling body that I'm not a part of. If a workers' militia were to have more power than something like workers' councils then one would have to be a militiaman to be a part of the real government. It would seem to me that giving significant powers to a military would be setting up something just as bad as a coordinator or bourgeois class.

Not at all; the party (being a mass movement) would still be the primary form of government (if I have understood correctly that is) and would contain a majority of the proletariat. The whole point is that workers councils can be less efficient than workers militias, on top of the fact that they have the ability to allow reactionary elements into decision making positions. The workers militias, given that they are the armed body of the proletariat, would thus have to be under the control of the party, given that restrictions on membership would ensure reactionary elements could not use the militias to their own ends. What is being discussed, I believe, is not a ban on workers councils, but, perhaps, a larger role for workers militias (in future revolutionary situations) than one would have thought.

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 20:12

How do my questions 'derail' the thread?

DNZ's past military background, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to the topic being discussed; his personal life is none of your business.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 20:17

DNZ's past military background, or lack thereof, is irrelevant to the topic being discussed; his personal life is none of your business.

Let him speak for himself.

Anyway, I'm not trying to find out anything about his/her personal life other than to establish the extent of their military experience.

Anyone who presumes to offer military solutions to problems ought to be able show how much they understand military questions.

I take this opportunity to ask you (since you seem to give this question a great deal of importance): How much military experience do you have?

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 20:21

Let him speak for himself.

Anyway, I'm not trying to find out anything about his/her personal life other than to establish the extent of their military experience.

Anyone who presumes to offer military solutions to problems ought to be able show how much they understand military questions.

I take this opportunity to ask you (since you seem to give this question a great deal of importance): How much military experience do you have?

None.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 20:23

None.

In that case you're not really qualified to give an informed opinion about militias, are you?

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 20:26

In that case you're not really qualified to give an informed opinion about militias, are you?

I guess none of us have ever had any experience in governance; so we should stop attempting to figure out what were going to do after the seizure of state power as well.

Comrade #138672

30th July 2012, 20:28

A class isn't something that you can just "replace." What is being discussed is the dictatorship of the proletariat, not a classless society. The dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the very fact that classes still exist,ie: The proletariat must suppress the remnants of bourgeois society.Yes, but aren't you giving extra power to the militia, which in effect creates a new class distinction within the proletariat? That seems even bad for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 20:35

I guess none of us have ever had any experience in governance; so we should stop attempting to figure out what were going to do after the seizure of state power as well.

That is correct.

One way to obtain experience in governance is to either form or join a political organization that uses parliamentary procedures to democratically conduct its business.

Thus one develops the necessary skills to help govern democratic organizations.

I'll be very honest with you: I don't believe that it's 100% necessary to have military experience to be a good militant or even a good military commander. Leon Trotsky had none when he founded and became the leader of the Red Army--perhaps the greatest proletarian/peasant army in history.

But then, Trotsky was Trotsky, and he did inherit an already made army with the end of WWI.

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 20:44

That is correct.

One way to obtain experience in governance is to either form or join a political organization that uses parliamentary procedures to democratically conduct its business.

Thus one develops the necessary skills to help govern democratic organizations.

I'll be very honest with you: I don't believe that it's 100% necessary to have military experience to be a good militant or even a good military commander. Leon Trotsky had none when he founded and became the leader of the Red Army--perhaps the greatest proletarian/peasant army in history.

But then, Trotsky was Trotsky, and he did inherit an already made army with the end of WWI.

So then what was the point in bringing any of this up?

We both agree that simply because one doesn't have a military background, doesn't mean that one cannot be a good militant or even (in some extreme cases) a good military commander; thus DNZ's theories should be debated on their merit and not on whether or not he has any past military experience (as I stated earlier, when I said it was irrelevant and that you were derailing the thread).

So far you have succeeded in derailing this thread as we have been talking about things which are irrelevant (as I demonstrated above) and which you have just confirmed to indeed be irrelevant. Now to get this thread going back in a productive direction, your next post should deal only with merit and substance of what DNZ has proposed, which so far you seem either incapable or uninterested in doing.

Edit: Wecandobetter, I responded to you in your visitor messages, in an attempt to not derail this thread any further, which frankly has been an interesting and good discussion.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 21:05

So then what was the point in bringing any of this up?

Because none of here is Trotsky. And because the tendency in this thread is to emit grandiose opinions about a subject of which you have no direct knowledge.

We both agree that simply because one doesn't have a military background, doesn't mean that one cannot be a good militant or even (in some extreme cases) a good military commander; thus DNZ's theories should be debated on their merit and not on whether or not he has any past military experience (as I stated earlier, when I said it was irrelevant and that you were derailing the thread).

It's not irrelevant to want to know the extent of someone's military understanding, someone who is pontificating about militias and the such.

So far you have succeeded in derailing this thread as we have been talking about things which are irrelevant (as I demonstrated above) and which you have just confirmed to indeed be irrelevant. Now to get this thread going back in a productive direction, your next post should deal only with merit and substance of what DNZ has proposed, which so far you seem either incapable or uninterested in doing.

Stop exaggerating. If anything, I'm doing the moderator's work by establishing some relevant facts before you go marching around the coffee table with your toy guns.

Positivist

30th July 2012, 21:10

Yes, but aren't you giving extra power to the militia, which in effect creates a new class distinction within the proletariat? That seems even bad for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Class consists of an objective relation to the process of production. As I suggested earlier, participating in a militia is not the equivalent of participating in an army. Militiamen will still be proletarians, just active, militant proletarians less prone to reaction, and collaboration with remnants of the bourgiose.

Positivist

30th July 2012, 21:14

Because none of here is Trotsky.

I hope this is a joke. Tell me Book'O Dead, was Trotsky some sort of super-human which we all may only gawk at and admire? I'll stop right here so to avoid any further derailing of this thread, as this is a good topic, and doesn't deserve such bullshit.

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 21:15

Because none of here is Trotsky. And because the tendency in this thread is to emit grandiose opinions about a subject of which you have no direct knowledge.

It's not irrelevant to want to know the extent of someone's military understanding, someone who is pontificating about militias and the such.

Stop exaggerating. If anything, I'm doing the moderator's work by establishing some relevant facts before you go marching around the coffee table with your toy guns.

I am no longer responding to you, seeing as how you are incapable or unwilling to discuss the topic.

Now to get this thread going back in a productive direction, your next post should deal only with merit and substance of what DNZ has proposed, which so far you seem either incapable or uninterested in doing.

Edit: For once we see exactly what the stagnant left lacks, new ideas and theories. Too many of us are simply content to regurgitate the same old shit that so and so said a hundred years ago. This is not to say that we cannot learn from the past and that the Marxists who preceded us did not make valuable contribution to Marxism, but simply that we must continue the process. Here we have DNZ, attempting to do just what the left needs (regardless of whether or not you agree with him, the effort is commendable) and somehow the discussion degenerates into the same old historical talking points about Trotsky. We all know the history of fucking Leon Trotsky and what he did with the Red Army following the October revolution and during the civil war. If you want to talk about Trotsky, feel free to start your own thread in the history section. The discussion we are attempting to have here is one of much more importance and one that (given this is exactly what the left needs) I don't appreciate (And I am sure DNZ doesn't either given that, from what I can tell, he puts much thought and effort into his threads) you derailing. Now please drop it, as I am attempting to be civil about this and am frankly losing my patience. Sadly without realizing it, Book O'Dead, has illuminated a symptom of the left which needs to be combated if we are to make any practical contributions to Marxist thought. We need to ask ourselves exactly what Lenin did: What needs to be done?

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 21:20

I hope this is a joke. Tell me Book'O Dead, was Trotsky some sort of super-human which we all may only gawk at and admire? I'll stop right here so to avoid any further derailing of this thread, as this is a good topic, and doesn't deserve such bullshit.

Trotsky was no Superman but he was an extraordinary man who took personal command of the Red Army and helped shape it into a formidable fighting force. Proof of his prowess is the fact that he had almost no previous military experience to speak of.

He is to be admired for that and much much more.

There is a serious problem in a discussion about militias and workers' armies when no mention is made of the history of proletarian military action, wouldn't you agree?

The Jay

30th July 2012, 21:31

Not at all; the party (being a mass movement) would still be the primary form of government (if I have understood correctly that is) and would contain a majority of the proletariat. The whole point is that workers councils can be less efficient than workers militias, on top of the fact that they have the ability to allow reactionary elements into decision making positions. The workers militias, given that they are the armed body of the proletariat, would thus have to be under the control of the party, given that restrictions on membership would ensure reactionary elements could not use the militias to their own ends. What is being discussed, I believe, is not a ban on workers councils, but, perhaps, a larger role for workers militias (in future revolutionary situations) than one would have thought.

The concept of a workers' militia does not necessarily mean that it would be under the direction or control of a party. You're making specific assumptions on a general topic I think. I have been a bit lax in my studies of theory in favor of current events, but am I right in thinking that this is a more bordgist view? If so once I finish my current events books I'll be able to get a much better idea of what you are referring. For now, I'm not convinced of the idea and implications of the OP.

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 21:36

The concept of a workers' militia does not necessarily mean that it would be under the direction or control of a party. You're making specific assumptions on a general topic I think. I have been a bit lax in my studies of theory in favor of current events, but am I right in thinking that this is a more bordgist view? If so once I finish my current events books I'll be able to get a much better idea of what you are referring. For now, I'm not convinced of the idea and implications of the OP.

I have never heard of any of these proposals before and, honestly, I think that they are not bordigist, but originated from DNZ. But I do believe that DNZ clarified that the militias would be under direct control of the party, for the reasons I stated above, ie: reactionary elements cannot be allowed to wield the workers militia for their own purposes, therefor the workers militias will need to be under control of the party (as opposed to workers councils, where reactionary elements have the ability to participate) where strict membership requirements exist.

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 21:42

I have never heard of any of these proposals before [...]

That's why they seem "new" to you.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

30th July 2012, 21:46

Call it stupid and use a distortion of an old Mao cliche. Very good.

I don't think the issue of a kindergarten party really is relevant at all here, but yeah, let's fuck democracy, (1) fuck the workers and give as much power to the party as possible, because let's face it, it's been a raving success in the numerous historical examples of such actions hasn't it?

This is typical of this sort of attitude on the left that used to be typical of the Labour Party in the late 80s/early 90s, called 'one last heave'. In the absence of any real original thought and organic to-and-fro of ideas, some put their eggs in the basket of (2)the 'inevitable' failure of Capitalism and that simply by being there, and re-hashing the failed ideas of old, the party will this time lead us to glorious Socialism.

This is not material thinking, it is lazy and rooted in (3) out-of-date thought that ignores the material conditions of today.

(1) No, "fuck all the workers" that are not yet class conscious. I don't want your liberalist bourgeois perception of "democracy" meaning everyone (regardless of their ideological positions) has a say. I only want democracy among already class conscious workers, within the party, during a revolution that is.

(2) The collapse of Capital is a historical inevitability.

(3) Yes, what are the material conditions of today? We stand in front of a reactionary capitalism and have no large working class movement in the west while the self-destruction of this neo-liberal system and further social collapse is near. How many workers are class conscious today? Not a lot, and i do not plan on supporting any ultra-leftist experiments in the name of "democracy" in which opportunists get their way. "A Voting Ticket does not Feed the Hungry"

Book O'Dead

30th July 2012, 21:50

I think that participants in this argument owe it to themselves to read more about what other, wiser people had to say regarding the topic at hand:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/subject/war.htm

Ravachol

30th July 2012, 21:58

(1) No, "fuck all the workers" that are not yet class conscious. I don't want your liberalist bourgeois perception of "democracy" meaning everyone (regardless of their ideological positions) has a say. I only want democracy among already class conscious workers, within the party, during a revolution that is.

You seem to confuse class consciousness with the particular political line you cheerlead for. I assume all workers' self-organisations and revolutionary groups which strive to abolish capital but refuse to bend the knee to 'the party' are to be disregarded as 'liberal bourgeois' leftovers as well?

(2) The collapse of Capital is a historical inevitability.

The only historically inevitable collapse of Capital is it's final sigh, it's final breath belching with black smoke as it devours the earth. Humanity and any possibility at communism will be wiped out if it's up to Capital to reach it's full limits before 'the revolution' arrives.

As Anton Pannekoek (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1934/collapse.htm) pointed out:

The workers’ movement has not to expect a final catastrophe, but many catastrophes, political — like wars, and economic — like the crises which repeatedly break out, sometimes regularly, sometimes irregularly, but which on the whole, with the growing size of capitalism, become more and more devastating. So the illusions and tendencies to tranquillity of the proletariat will repeatedly collapse, and sharp and deep class struggles will break out. It appears to be a contradiction that the present crisis, deeper and more devastating than any previous one, has not shown signs of the awakening of the proletarian revolution. But the removal of old illusions is its first great task: on the other hand, the illusion of making capitalism bearable by means of reforms obtained through Social Democratic parliamentary politics and trade union action and, on the other, the illusion that capitalism can be overthrown in assault under the leadership of a revolution-bringing Communist Party. The working class itself, as a whole, must conduct the struggle, but, while the bourgeoisie is already building up its power more and more solidly, the working class has yet to make itself familiar with the new forms of struggle. Severe struggles are bound to take place. And should the present crisis abate, new crises and new struggles will arise. In these struggles the working class will develop its strength to struggle, will discover its aims, will train itself, will make itself independent and learn to take into its hands its own destiny, viz., social production itself. In this process the destruction of capitalism is achieved. The self-emancipation of the proletariat is the collapse of capitalism.

Per Levy

30th July 2012, 22:05

Not a lot, and i do not plan on supporting any ultra-leftist experiments in the name of "democracy" in which opportunists get their way.

in other words you support a party concept that has allready shown that it attracts opportunists that, since you dont want a "democratic" party, wont be accountable once they are in power?

(1) No, "fuck all the workers" that are not yet class conscious. I don't want your liberalist bourgeois perception of "democracy" meaning everyone (regardless of their ideological positions) has a say. I only want democracy among already class conscious workers, within the party, during a revolution that is.

mmh this brings me to other questions, since you're in the sdaj, the youthgroup marxist-leninist dkp, who is ideological right to be in the party you wish for, are anachists allowed are they ideological accepted, are trots accepted, left coms and so on and so forth? and what do you view as class concious? i've seen it to much arround here that a worker is only seen as class concious when said worker agrees with the views of the poster.

Art Vandelay

30th July 2012, 22:17

in other words you support a party concept that has allready shown that it attracts opportunists that, since you dont want a "democratic" party, wont be accountable once they are in power?

The party will indeed be democratic, ie: democratic centralist. What we (I am assuming I can speak for both WCOP and myself on this matter) are arguing against is holding up the liberal notion of democracy, as if it is some absolute principle which must be followed, regardless of material conditions.

mmh this brings me to other questions, since you're in the sdaj, the youthgroup marxist-leninist dkp, who is ideological right to be in the party you wish for, are anachists allowed are they ideological accepted, are trots accepted, left coms and so on and so forth? and what do you view as class concious? i've seen it to much arround here that a worker is only seen as class concious when said worker agrees with the views of the poster.

I know nothing about the party that WCOP is in, he can address that himself; but party in the orthodox Marxist sense would indeed consist of differing tendencies. To paraphrase Comrade Q from another thread, I don't see why I wouldn't be able to be in a party with Trotskyists, Maoists, or Anarchists for that reason, as long as they agreed to the party program. We indeed need the right to dissent, disagree and discuss among ourselves and openly in the party, however we also need unity in action.

Brosa Luxemburg

30th July 2012, 22:39

but am I right in thinking that this is a more bordgist view?

This isn't really a discussion of any theoretical stance. It is just a general discussion of different structures and how they would operate. Some Bordigists, Trotskyists, Stalinists, etc. might agree, others might disagree.

Brosa Luxemburg

30th July 2012, 22:44

Yes, but aren't you giving extra power to the militia, which in effect creates a new class distinction within the proletariat? That seems even bad for a dictatorship of the proletariat.

I think you aren't understanding correctly what is being discussed here. It is not about giving the militias more/less power but exactly what there role should be and their relationship with other organs of proletariat rule.

Brosa Luxemburg

30th July 2012, 22:52

Also, is it possible to get this thread back on track? I mean, I know discussing the way the party works is cool and all, and in some sense is relevant to this thread, but this thread is about something else entirely.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

30th July 2012, 23:23

in other words you support a party concept that has allready shown that it attracts opportunists that, since you dont want a "democratic" party, wont be accountable once they are in power?

mmh this brings me to other questions, since you're in the sdaj, the youthgroup marxist-leninist dkp, who is ideological right to be in the party you wish for, are anachists allowed are they ideological accepted, are trots accepted, left coms and so on and so forth? and what do you view as class concious? i've seen it to much arround here that a worker is only seen as class concious when said worker agrees with the views of the poster.

No, i actually wrote
I only want democracy among already class conscious workers, within the party.

If any fellow revolutionaries advocate revisionist ideas, then they these must necessarily be discussed before they enter the party. I don't think anarchists believe in parties anyway, so, that sort of dispels that argument. Regarding Trotskyists, it seem to me that many of these kind of labels are "protectionist" labels of individuals as they think it will help them have a better image in the view of workers. I am against sectarianism, so if persons are open to Marxism and advocate its anti-revisionist interpretation, then i don't see any problems. But if persons advocate policies on idealist principles, such as anarchists, i take issue with that since the point of a revolution is to take power.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th July 2012, 23:35

Yes, you're clearly not a sectarian.

A fine democrat, too. Your revolution will be for the class conscious workers who subscribe to your version of anti-revisionist 'Marxism'.

A popular revolution it will not be. :rolleyes:

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th July 2012, 23:40

(1) No, "fuck all the workers" that are not yet class conscious. I don't want your liberalist bourgeois perception of "democracy" meaning everyone (regardless of their ideological positions) has a say. I only want democracy among already class conscious workers, within the party, during a revolution that is.

(2) The collapse of Capital is a historical inevitability.

(3) Yes, what are the material conditions of today? We stand in front of a reactionary capitalism and have no large working class movement in the west while the self-destruction of this neo-liberal system and further social collapse is near. How many workers are class conscious today? Not a lot, and i do not plan on supporting any ultra-leftist experiments in the name of "democracy" in which opportunists get their way. "A Voting Ticket does not Feed the Hungry"

1. You don't seem to understand democracy. You want dictatorship, I want working class Socialist democracy. By saying 'fuck all the workers who aren't class conscious', you stop fighting a class war and start fighting a bourgeois war yourself; an ideological war for state power. No Socialist would fuck any worker over for the sake of petty ideology. So yeah, call me 'liberal' and 'bourgeois' all you like, it only goes to show you up for what you are, a phony Socialist.

2. We will agree to disagree on the nature of History. . You the 'Economist', me the Historian.

3. You seem to think that whether some little sect party is ultra-left or your sort of politics makes any sort of difference. The past few decades have shown the irrelevance and decline in important and influence of the party. Capitalism will die - and Socialism will become - when the working class as a mass becomes a politically conscious group united against Capitalism. I honestly don't think you understand the first thing about the working class, nor Socialism, judging from your anti-worker posts like this one.

Brosa Luxemburg

31st July 2012, 00:14

Peoples' War

31st July 2012, 01:31

Have you ever served in the military? Have you ever marched in a disciplined military unit carrying a rifle or a side arm?

Have you ever been to a military boot camp?
Suggesting that a proletariat militia will be based on command-authority of officers, cadavar discipline and the system of military justice; as opposed to voluntary discipline, and elections of officers with right of recall.

My question to DNZ would be, how would this militia, who's going to be very occupied with other things, and need to be at the ready in case of counter revolution, etc. going to put their time into formulating ideas, and studying situations, electing officials, and voting on issues? I mean, do council delegates have so much free time that they are going to be able to be in the militia as well?

The soldiers have their representation, in soldiers councils, who also have delegates in the supreme council.

I mean, the militia would be voluntary, not elected. On that basis, anyone could go ahead and "represent", as opposed to a soviet where workers elect their delegate to the supreme council, who elect their "commissars" if you will.

Art Vandelay

31st July 2012, 02:11

So, to get this thread back on track....

I think that we need to expand on what the roles of such militias would be before, during, and after a revolutionary situation (specifically in the first world). Here are some general ideas, without going to much into detail.

Before: They should act as a group that could defend the proletariat from abusive police actions and to help in creating an alternative culture (thinking of the Black Panthers here).

I much liked the idea of the militias being a non-lethal force during a pre-revolutionary situation, ie: similar to what the black bloc does, however with better goals in mind. Instead of just petty property destruction, they could organize mass looting's where grocery stores are plundered and the products distributed for free among the needy (all I got off of the top of my head).

During: Help fight for the victory of the revolution. (I think that this needs to be expanded upon).

I think that during the revolution, they would take on a roll similar to that of the Red Guards or National Guard (paris commune).

After: Suppress the revolution from violent counter-revolutionaries and help with fixing immediate problems that need attention. (Here, I am thinking of the example of the Bolsheviks during the civil war were a group of voluntary workers would go to fix certain things that needed immediate attention for the civil war effort).

I quite like this idea; I think that they could also take on a form of "policing" if you will, but it would have nothing to do with "policing" nowadays but rather of armed workers self defense of communities.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

31st July 2012, 02:55

Suggesting that a proletariat militia will be based on command-authority of officers, cadavar discipline and the system of military justice; as opposed to voluntary discipline, and elections of officers with right of recall.

Locally i agree with you, there is no real need for any kind of large hierarchy. But if we start talking regionally, state-wide, nationally... centralizing the military command to the workers party will be a necessity. I recommend reading "The Falcons of the Kremlin; Soviet Military Might 1917-1986", it is a good account of the problems that the revolutionaries and above all Lenin, faced in wanting to create a real People's Army and eventually forced the Bolsheviks to use old Czarist Generals in light of these practical difficulties. Building a People's Army is a long term goal, in the short term this is impractical, if not outright dangerous.

Brosa Luxemburg

31st July 2012, 02:58

I much liked the idea of the militias being a non-lethal force during a pre-revolutionary situation, ie: similar to what the black bloc does, however with better goals in mind. Instead of just petty property destruction, they could organize mass looting's where grocery stores are plundered and the products distributed for free among the needy (all I got off of the top of my head).

That is a good idea as well. I think that this would gain the sympathy of many people much more than just breaking a bank window, which seems childish to many.

I think that during the revolution, they would take on a roll similar to that of the Red Guards or National Guard (paris commune).

Of course.

I quite like this idea; I think that they could also take on a form of "policing" if you will, but it would have nothing to do with "policing" nowadays but rather of armed workers self defense of communities.

That's a good idea. This could be the like a "common police" type organ, which would be much more popular than the "professional police" we know today.

Brosa Luxemburg

31st July 2012, 03:01

Building a People's Army is a long term goal, in the short term this is impractical, if not outright dangerous.

I was wondering if you could expand on this point. Also, what should be the short term goal?

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

31st July 2012, 03:23

I was wondering if you could expand on this point. Also, what should be the short term goal?

Well, Russia under the Bolshevik government had its period of 1917 to 1921 (i believe) under Soviet control. The resistance to the foreign invasions of 1918 were first countered by soldiers councils who elected their officers. These officers are said to have had disagreements because of their varying ideological background, i.e. the democracy in the councils was a form of bourgeois democracy, a popularity contest in many cases so it seems (as well in Bavarian Soviet Republic soldiers' councils; Hitler was voted as an Officer for a short stint after his return from WW1 due to his oral capability in the Bavarian Soviet Republic even though he talked about nationalism during international revolution...).

The short term goal is not under any kind of ideological control i believe. The "short term" as in revolutionary insurrectionist period is one of the masses, where workers take over their workplaces and (at least in my recalling of reading about the Soviet Bavarian Republic) organized workers militias at their workplaces. But these were very miniscual. What it came down to in the end was that the Munich KPD (communist party) was eventually the driving force towards armed overthrow of the bourgeois reformist-SPD central committee.

In the end I am of the opinion that any serious militia, armed organization of workers will first be organized through a cataclysm, as in the case of the Bavarian Soviet Republic it was a right-wing coup that made it possible for the KPD to mobilize its workers to recruit for "the Red Army". The formation of any serious armed workers' organization was caused by a cataclysm of the right-wing coup, and the distribution of weapons to large scale formation happened mainly due to this event. The propagation of the formation of a Red Army happened within hours, and the many small workers workplace militias were brought to the Red Army cause through certain communists propagating this formation. Without the formation of the Red Army by the KPD of Bavaria, nothing would have been possible (in that revolution). The Red Army then went on to form Red Guards as well that served as a heavy people's police police presence, but the "military" Red Army was of course organized centrally later when the Soviet Republic was forced into battle 39,000 mercenary troops. The final battle was lost in Dachau where hundreds of Red Army soldiers were executed by the White forces.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

31st July 2012, 03:27

What i mean to say with a genuine people's, self organized Army being a "long term" goal, is that it is an ideal. All kinds of Ideals we might have do not fit in revolutions. It is though a good ideal and a good point to work towards, though it will (in my opinion) take an already communist society to have real democracy; in which there are no more counter revolutionary elements.

Ocean Seal

31st July 2012, 03:34

The militia doesn't have power, only in crises would they naturally have the capability of taking it. I personally find that the militia could become its own terror organization (which could obviously be good or bad), but that we shouldn't have high hopes for it.

Die Neue Zeit

31st July 2012, 04:46

Reminds me of the wackos of the Marxist-Leninist Workers' Party in the United States whom say:
“giving priority to the Army is the perfect mode of politics in the present times … a mode of leadership which solves all problems arising in the revolution. Our revolutionary philosophy is that the army is precisely the party, people, and state.”

EDIT: Wait, did I just cite North Korean propaganda thinking it was from some American party? It seems so.I think you might have misread what we are discussing. We aren't talking about the "Juche", the army is the revolution, etc. but discussing the necessary armed proletariat apparatuses that would obviously necessitate themselves after the initial act of revolution, their structure, etc.

Damn, comrade, I almost bit on Tim's bait re. the Paris Commune; "to the National Guard... the National Guard is precisely the people, the Commune, the movement" or something! :D

I am not comfortable with a ruling body that I'm not a part of. If a workers' militia were to have more power than something like workers' councils then one would have to be a militiaman to be a part of the real government. It would seem to me that giving significant powers to a military would be setting up something just as bad as a coordinator or bourgeois class.

Isn't that the point of universal military service, though? Although veterans would have more informal clout on a per individual basis, everyone would get a two-fold opportunity in terms of carrots and sticks.

As for workers councils, they might not be very different in terms of disenfranchising other workers. If they are comprised mainly by workplace committees federating themselves, retirees and the disabled will be disenfranchised.

Not at all; the party (being a mass movement) would still be the primary form of government (if I have understood correctly that is) and would contain a majority of the proletariat. The whole point is that workers councils can be less efficient than workers militias, on top of the fact that they have the ability to allow reactionary elements into decision making positions. The workers militias, given that they are the armed body of the proletariat, would thus have to be under the control of the party, given that restrictions on membership would ensure reactionary elements could not use the militias to their own ends. What is being discussed, I believe, is not a ban on workers councils, but, perhaps, a larger role for workers militias (in future revolutionary situations) than one would have thought.

If there are to be non-party councils, my opinion is that they should by statute have the explicitly secondary role that the People's Consultative Conference has in today's PRC relative to the National People's Congress. They should play second fiddle to the internal party councils that are merely renamed party committees (i.e., central workers councils, executive workers councils, etc.). They shouldn't even have the rubber-stamping role of Supreme Soviets.

As for this thread, I was suggesting that, even without any party-movement oversight, "All power to the workers militia" is far more governance-ready than "All power to workers councils." Positivist summarized this point above, too.

Die Neue Zeit

31st July 2012, 05:19

I personally find that the militia could become its own terror organization (which could obviously be good or bad), but that we shouldn't have high hopes for it.

That's quite blunt, I must admit.

Suggesting that a proletariat militia will be based on command-authority of officers, cadavar discipline and the system of military justice; as opposed to voluntary discipline, and elections of officers with right of recall.

My question to DNZ would be, how would this militia, who's going to be very occupied with other things, and need to be at the ready in case of counter revolution, etc. going to put their time into formulating ideas, and studying situations, electing officials, and voting on issues? I mean, do council delegates have so much free time that they are going to be able to be in the militia as well?

Current professional armed forces have military schools. The workers [para]militia would have [para]militia schools, policy "think tanks," etc. of their own.

I'm against elections. I'm for random selections as much as possible instead.

The soldiers have their representation, in soldiers councils, who also have delegates in the supreme council.

You are assuming the typical scenario of militia subordination to council. The workers [para]militia could have politically representative organs leading all the way to the top, but to be frank the top organs would be a collective junta by another name.

paramilitary dictatorship of the proletariat, after all. It's only fitting that I mention the word junta.]

A Marxist Historian

31st July 2012, 20:35

A Marxist Historian

31st July 2012, 21:00

Suggesting that a proletariat militia will be based on command-authority of officers, cadavar discipline and the system of military justice; as opposed to voluntary discipline, and elections of officers with right of recall.

My question to DNZ would be, how would this militia, who's going to be very occupied with other things, and need to be at the ready in case of counter revolution, etc. going to put their time into formulating ideas, and studying situations, electing officials, and voting on issues? I mean, do council delegates have so much free time that they are going to be able to be in the militia as well?

The soldiers have their representation, in soldiers councils, who also have delegates in the supreme council.

I mean, the militia would be voluntary, not elected. On that basis, anyone could go ahead and "represent", as opposed to a soviet where workers elect their delegate to the supreme council, who elect their "commissars" if you will.

Yes, this is what a workers militia should be, operating on the elective principle as an organ of workers democracy, and you are putting your finger on many of the problems involved with a workers militia as the governing body of a workers state.

Indeed, this is exactly why in Paris in 1871 the Central Committee of the Paris National Guard allowed the Paris Commune to run things--which turned out to be a mistake, as too damn many compromising moderate socialists, Proudhonists and just plain petty bourgeois Republicans were elected to it and they didn't even seize the banks, as Marx pointed out.

He even characterized holding elections for the Commune as a mistake, writing (I am paraphrasing here) that the National Guard should have carried out revolutionary business first and worried about elections later.

The Paris Commune was an organ of workers rule--but not a very good or effective one, whose mistakes Russian revolutionaries devoted a lot of attention to learning from. Workers councils, Soviets, were and are a much superior form.

Workers militias with elected officers, like the Red Guards in revolutionary Russia, are a transitional form useful when overthrowing the capitalist state. Once a workers state is established, they need to be replaced by a proper Red Army, which, like any other army, cannot operate on an elective principle to be an effective miltary force if war vs. capitalist armies is on the agenda.

So the Red Guards dissolved, its best organized units with the most combat experience incorporated into the Red Army, others into the Cheka,
which Red Guardsmen were the backbone of.

For those who want the full story, I highly recommend Rex Wade's book, "Red Guards and Workers' Militias in the Russian Revolution." One of the best books by a recent historian about the Russian Revolution, period.

http://www.amazon.com/Guards-Workers-Militias-Russian-Revolution/dp/0804711674

-M.H.-

A Marxist Historian

31st July 2012, 21:06

That's quite blunt, I must admit.

Current professional armed forces have military schools. The workers [para]militia would have [para]militia schools, policy "think tanks," etc. of their own.

I'm against elections. I'm for random selections as much as possible instead.

You are assuming the typical scenario of militia subordination to council. The workers [para]militia could have politically representative organs leading all the way to the top, but to be frank the top organs would be a collective junta by another name.

paramilitary dictatorship of the proletariat, after all. It's only fitting that I mention the word junta.]

Random selections? That is just about the worst possible method for selecting commanders for any military unit.

Well, not the worst possible, you have the English army during WWI, which deliberately selected the generals who got the most English soldiers killed while losing battles, as that proved how fearless they were or something.

And then you have all those armies of absolute monarchies where the way you got to be an officer was to buy the position...

Election of commanders, with all its problems, is certainly a vastly better method than randow selection!

-M.H.-

Positivist

1st August 2012, 00:54

I think what is important to do now is define what a paramilitia, and paramilitiamen would be.

My understanding of the paramilitias are that they are the active segment of the proletariat. They are the workers who actively accept responsibility to defend, and expand the revolutionary mission, as well as to provide aid to flailing proletarians.

My understanding of the paramilitiamen is that, as those accepting of, and willing to take up such responsibilities and engagements, they wre the most revolutionary of the proletarians, and those least susceptible to collaboration.

As for the issue of proletarians not physically able to conduct military operations, the nature of the paramilitary that I describe above is not exclusively militaristic. It is essentially a mass organization of the class conscious proletarians actively supporting the revolutionary cause in a centralized, sustainable manner.

Die Neue Zeit

1st August 2012, 05:17

Random selections? That is just about the worst possible method for selecting commanders for any military unit.

Well, not the worst possible, you have the English army during WWI, which deliberately selected the generals who got the most English soldiers killed while losing battles, as that proved how fearless they were or something.

And then you have all those armies of absolute monarchies where the way you got to be an officer was to buy the position...

Election of commanders, with all its problems, is certainly a vastly better method than random selection!

-M.H.-

Why? By random selection, I referred to the family of methods of selection, not just the most prominent one. I recall you reading my posts on demarchy, but also recall telling you about stratified sampling. Stratified sampling should be the specific method for the random selection of commanders. That way, some criteria can be established to fetter out military incompetents.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

1st August 2012, 06:51

I have not paid any attention to the question workers' militias until now, thank you for your post MH, will see if i can get the book.

A Marxist Historian

1st August 2012, 20:21

Why? By random selection, I referred to the family of methods of selection, not just the most prominent one. I recall you reading my posts on demarchy, but also recall telling you about stratified sampling. Stratified sampling should be the specific method for the random selection of commanders. That way, some criteria can be established to fetter out military incompetents.

Keeping out the worst incompetents is a step forward, but not enough.

During the buildup to the actual revolution, the elective principle is best, as the soldiers themselves are pretty fair judges of military competence, but what is most important is loyalty to the cause and reliabilty. Which the working class itself has to be the ultimate judge of, and is the best judge when it is in a revolutionary mood.

But once a workers state is established, and has to defend itself against other bourgeois states, and, not irrelevantly, as certain backflow in class consciousness develops in the working class as a new state of society does not automatically mean the country automatically becoming a land of milk and honey, military skill, knowledge and training become key, and the most advanced elements of the working class have to watch over the military experts whose loyalty to the working class is inevitably questionable.

So commanders should be chosen by one criterion and one only, military ability and competence. The rank and file soldier is a better judge of this than random selection of any sort, but if he hasn't spent years at some West Point or other, he still isn't the best judge. And, all too often, may be tempted to vote for the officer least likely to get him killed, once the initial revolutionary fervor starts to wear off.

And you have to have the commissar watching over him and countersigning his (or her these days) orders, just in case. Appointed from above by central institions of workers democracy.

That was the model of Trotsky's Red Army, and a perfectly good one.

-M.H.-

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st August 2012, 23:27

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2012, 04:20

Keeping out the worst incompetents is a step forward, but not enough.

During the buildup to the actual revolution, the elective principle is best, as the soldiers themselves are pretty fair judges of military competence, but what is most important is loyalty to the cause and reliabilty. Which the working class itself has to be the ultimate judge of, and is the best judge when it is in a revolutionary mood.

The problem is that the elective principle has time and again been used for purposes other than basic politics. "Politicking" on the basis of personal familiarity isn't the basis for competency selection.

And, all too often, may be tempted to vote for the officer least likely to get him killed, once the initial revolutionary fervor starts to wear off.

And you have to have the commissar watching over him and countersigning his (or her these days) orders, just in case. Appointed from above by central institions of workers democracy.

That was the model of Trotsky's Red Army, and a perfectly good one.

Personally, I prefer the application of random selection towards some sort of nomenclature system. Out-of-topic insomuch as there is a ruling party-movement, military commanders should be randomly selected from CPSU-like nomenclatures derived from Administrative Organs departments of the ruling party-movement. The political officers can, on the other hand, be randomly selected from CPSU-like nomenclatures derived from Main Political Administrations of the aforementioned party-movement.

DNZ - have you not considered that your considerable body of work on demarchy and random is rendered largely useless (or to be more polite, unusable) in practice, since it is impossible to tell of the material conditions during/post any future revolution, and thus impossible to tell what the political consciousness of the working class will lead to.

Though wasn't it you who once referred to yourself as a 'proletarian who had excelled yourself due to your advanced intellectual development'? :confused:

I just explained how random selection could be applied practically. The organizing left should simply get over its phobias towards the nomenclature system pioneered by the pre-war SPD and refined by the CPSU (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pre-war-spd-t154872/index.html).

Art Vandelay

2nd August 2012, 07:16

DNZ - have you not considered that your considerable body of work on demarchy and random is rendered largely useless (or to be more polite, unusable) in practice, since it is impossible to tell of the material conditions during/post any future revolution, and thus impossible to tell what the political consciousness of the working class will lead to.

Could the same literally not have been said about any Marxist theoretician?

Though wasn't it you who once referred to yourself as a 'proletarian who had excelled yourself due to your advanced intellectual development'? :confused:

As far as intellectual or theoretical knowledge, especially concerning politics, I would say that DNZ has an "advanced intellectual development" as far as the average prole goes.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd August 2012, 08:06

I just explained how random selection could be applied practically. The organizing left should simply get over its phobias towards the nomenclature system pioneered by the pre-war SPD and refined by the CPSU (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pre-war-spd-t154872/index.html).

You're missing the point. Not many people in the organising left have any interest in re-hashing Social Democracy or much of Bolshevism, in terms of its party bureaucracy, probably its greatest failure.

And the wider working class are certainly, even after becoming politically conscious, not going to want to re-hash the party that sold the German revolution down the river, nor the party that ruled the USSR for 75 years.

For all your theorising, you simply fail to grasp the social sensitivities of history, the effect of propaganda and, even more worryingly, the basic mood amongst ordinary folk.

It's staggering. It's like you've locked yourself in a theoretical cocoon and have dreamt up all these warped theories, failing to account for what the potential wishes of ordinary workers might be.

Perhaps you should leave the theoretic drivel for a bit and do some organising, it might inform your theory a bit more.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd August 2012, 08:10

Could the same literally not have been said about any Marxist theoretician?

As far as intellectual or theoretical knowledge, especially concerning politics, I would say that DNZ has an "advanced intellectual development" as far as the average prole goes.

Knowledge of some political obscurities, perhaps. But intellectual development? I'm not that fond of calling someone out via ad hominem, but DNZs 'theories' are wack. Totally uninformed by modern day reality, out of touch, misguided, naive.

Combining a raft of neologisms and nice formatting into lengthly posts doesn't necessarily mean the content is there and sadly, in DNZs case, the content certainly isn't.

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2012, 15:05

You're missing the point. Not many people in the organising left have any interest in re-hashing Social Democracy or much of Bolshevism, in terms of its party bureaucracy, probably its greatest failure.

And any alternatives to tackling and mastering bureaucracy as process have ended up time and again as abject failures. What's your point?

And the wider working class are certainly, even after becoming politically conscious

You've got to be joking here, right?

For all your theorising, you simply fail to grasp the social sensitivities of history, the effect of propaganda and, even more worryingly, the basic mood amongst ordinary folk.

The truth hurts. Hard points need to be delivered, over and above "sensitivities."

A Marxist Historian

3rd August 2012, 02:19

The problem is that the elective principle has time and again been used for purposes other than basic politics. "Politicking" on the basis of personal familiarity isn't the basis for competency selection.

True, but it's a hell of a lot better than rolling the dice and hoping for the best!

I am reminded of the old aphorism that democracy is the worst possible system--except for all the others.

Personally, I prefer the application of random selection towards some sort of nomenclature system. Out-of-topic insomuch as there is a ruling party-movement, military commanders should be randomly selected from CPSU-like nomenclatures derived from Administrative Organs departments of the ruling party-movement. The political officers can, on the other hand, be randomly selected from CPSU-like nomenclatures derived from Main Political Administrations of the aforementioned party-movement.

I just explained how random selection could be applied practically. The organizing left should simply get over its phobias towards the nomenclature system pioneered by the pre-war SPD and refined by the CPSU (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pre-war-spd-t154872/index.html).

Oy!

For those who don't know, the "nomenklatura" or nomenclature system is the system that the CPSU lived by till its dying day. I don't know if it was pioneered by Scheidemann and Noske in the SPD, wouldn't be surprised.

But it was the system that General Secretary Stalin introduced when he took over the party apparatus in 1922, shortly before Lenin died. It was perfected and finalized in the 1930s by ORPO, the Central Committee department in charge of such things, in the 1930s.

It was headed by Nicholas Yezhov, till he got transferred to the NKVD, with results universally considered horrifying, even by the most dog-loyal of ultra-Stalinists. The real work in most commissariats was usually done by the deputy, Malenkov, who took the job over when Yezhov moved on to, um, better things...

Anyone who doesn't have a "phobia" for that system is, well, let us just say not leerning the lessons of history.

-M.H.-

Psy

3rd August 2012, 03:19

black magick hustla

3rd August 2012, 04:05

there hasn't been significant "workers' militias" since 1936, this thread is useless.

Brosa Luxemburg

3rd August 2012, 04:12

there hasn't been significant "workers' militias" since 1936, this thread is useless.

Communism has never existed, so I guess it is useless to fight for it?

I don't mean to sound hostile (like I know the above does) but it is the same logic. Now, if you were to say that workers' militias are useless, use examples from the past, and show how they apply today an support your argument that way, that is a whole different story.

I don't mean to sound like a paternalistic dick or anything, just sayin'.

Positivist

3rd August 2012, 04:17

You're missing the point. Not many people in the organising left have any interest in re-hashing Social Democracy or much of Bolshevism, in terms of its party bureaucracy, probably its greatest failure.

And the wider working class are certainly, even after becoming politically conscious, not going to want to re-hash the party that sold the German revolution down the river, nor the party that ruled the USSR for 75 years.

For all your theorising, you simply fail to grasp the social sensitivities of history, the effect of propaganda and, even more worryingly, the basic mood amongst ordinary folk.

It's staggering. It's like you've locked yourself in a theoretical cocoon and have dreamt up all these warped theories, failing to account for what the potential wishes of ordinary workers might be.

Perhaps you should leave the theoretic drivel for a bit and do some organising, it might inform your theory a bit more.

Adopting a method of organization upheld by a particular party =/= historical defence of that particular party.

"Historical sensitivities" will be illicited through say something like defending Stalin, but they will certainly not be instigated by adopting a particular policy of Stalin. (Now that is not to say that certain policies wont illicit other forms of reaction, but without the specific historical reference "historical sensitivities" will not be triggered.

Really your argument is reduced to that you disagree with the form of organization proposed by DNZ and rather than attacking the substance of the organizational method, you have resorted to citing popular opposition to historical factions which claimed the same or similar form of organization as your defense.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd August 2012, 04:46

For those who don't know, the "nomenklatura" or nomenclature system is the system that the CPSU lived by till its dying day. I don't know if it was pioneered by Scheidemann and Noske in the SPD, wouldn't be surprised.

Nope, it was pioneered when the SPD started to have full-timers, in the early 1900s.

But it was the system that General Secretary Stalin introduced when he took over the party apparatus in 1922, shortly before Lenin died. It was perfected and finalized in the 1930s by ORPO, the Central Committee department in charge of such things, in the 1930s.

Abbreviation for?

The real work in most commissariats was usually done by the deputy, Malenkov, who took the job over when Yezhov moved on to, um, better things...

Anyone who doesn't have a "phobia" for that system is, well, let us just say not leerning the lessons of history.

Check out Moshe Lewin's [i]Rebuilding the Soviet Nomenklatura.

Simply put, nomenclatures / lists identify those personnel who are competent enough to fill particular positions, both leading candidates and backups.

In 21st century parlance, one could call this a "human resources database," but one that describes the competencies of each employee listed. The two-edged sword of a database lies in using key words.

Relating this to stratified sampling, the database can extract from the population those "sampling units" or personnel that are qualified for some particular job (based on competency test results, recorded interview observations, etc.), and to minimize personalized "politicking" the appointee can be randomly selected from amongst the candidates. The lists of all the extractions made before the final random selections would be nothing more than nomenclatures by any other name.

What's wrong with that process?

A system based on meritocracy would be better where officers are promoted and demoted just based on solely their performance, the only issue would be setting the criteria to judge officer performance.

Comrade, performance can very much be factored into the stratified sampling process.

With a proper criteria military incompetents would be quickly demoted as they incompetence would make computers drive their name lower and lower down the list of people suited for leadership till if bad enough computers automatically remove the incompetents name from the list.

That's exactly what I said above re. HR databases. Anyway, you do mention nomenclatures by any other name ("lists"), so kudos on grasping the fundamentals of nomenclatures. :cool:

Psy

3rd August 2012, 11:30

Comrade, performance can very much be factored into the stratified sampling process.

Yet why do you need to sample when you have enough data that you already have prioritized the order of promotion? Thus instead of there being a weighted lottery of sorts to choose leadership it is down to a ranking system.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd August 2012, 14:51

Yet why do you need to sample when you have enough data that you already have prioritized the order of promotion? Thus instead of there being a weighted lottery of sorts to choose leadership it is down to a ranking system.

What if the candidates are equally competent?

Psy

4th August 2012, 00:00

What if the candidates are equally competent?
Odds are there is another position somewhere that one of them can be transferred to, or the position can be shared by the two thus reducing the necessary labor for either.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

4th August 2012, 15:43

Who compiles the data though, Psy?

Does this not lead to an overly bureaucratic (and perhaps technocratic, if the data compilation and analysis job is a very technical one) state of affairs?

Psy

4th August 2012, 16:31

Who compiles the data though, Psy?

Does this not lead to an overly bureaucratic (and perhaps technocratic, if the data compilation and analysis job is a very technical one) state of affairs?
Humans don't compile data anymore, computers do that. It is just a problem of quantifying so it be plugged into mathematically formulas ran on computers.

What this does is automate a chunk of the labor that goes into filling key positions, it also changes how snap decisions are made. For you are a astronaut in a tin can in space, do you want to listen to a democratic decision by all the workers of a space program, or do want to listen to experts that have have come a democratic decision outside the rest of the labor of the space program?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

4th August 2012, 18:55

Psy

6th August 2012, 14:58

Most positions - such as filling workplace or political positions - do not require the insane amount of technical nous needed for a space mission, though.

In those cases, which are the overwhelming number of cases, surely we'd rather be democratic than technocratic about the decision making process?
You are looking at the current positions and how things get done now. What I'm suggesting is that when people vote for say the construction of a bridge it comes down to structural engineers to design and figure out how to build it.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

6th August 2012, 19:33

You are looking at the current positions and how things get done now. What I'm suggesting is that when people vote for say the construction of a bridge it comes down to structural engineers to design and figure out how to build it.

I understand your point and clearly don't disagree with your particular example, but what about the vast swathe of jobs and professions which, whilst not unskilled, are not so specialist as to exclude the layman.

I'm thinking of semi-skilled manual and non-manual labour in particular.

A Marxist Historian

7th August 2012, 21:38

...Abbreviation for?

The usual English transliteration for the Russian full name is the Department of Leading Party Organs (of the Central Committee). Created in 1934 with Yezhov in charge and Malenkov as his deputy. It succeeded the previous Department of Higher Personnel. Technically a subordinate body of the Control Commission, a body that had become almost irrelevant by the 1930s, as its theoretical original function of a check on bureaucracy and misdeeds no longer existed.

It kept the files on who was a nomenclaturchik and who wasn't, and drew up purge lists. Became effectively the most important subdivision of the party leadership during the Great Terror, implemented by NKVD head and former ORPO head Yezhov, in collaboration with his former deputy Malenkov, in charge of ORPO during the Great Terror.

Check out Moshe Lewin's [I]Rebuilding the Soviet Nomenklatura.

Simply put, nomenclatures / lists identify those personnel who are competent enough to fill particular positions, both leading candidates and backups.

In 21st century parlance, one could call this a "human resources database," but one that describes the competencies of each employee listed. The two-edged sword of a database lies in using key words.

Relating this to stratified sampling, the database can extract from the population those "sampling units" or personnel that are qualified for some particular job (based on competency test results, recorded interview observations, etc.), and to minimize personalized "politicking" the appointee can be randomly selected from amongst the candidates. The lists of all the extractions made before the final random selections would be nothing more than nomenclatures by any other name.

What's wrong with that process?...

:cool:

What's wrong with the process is that it replaced elections from below within the party with selection from above. The method that Stalin introduced when he became General Secretary of the party in 1922.

Organizationally speaking, this was at the micro level how Leninism became Stalinism.

Though I must say the idea of random selection for important jobs has never occurred to anyone before, reason being that it is an incredibly bad idea on almost every possible level.

F'rexample, somebody has to have their finger on the nuclear button. You really want to determine that by random selection? If so, better start digging fallout shelters...

-M.H.-

Psy

7th August 2012, 23:22

I understand your point and clearly don't disagree with your particular example, but what about the vast swathe of jobs and professions which, whilst not unskilled, are not so specialist as to exclude the layman.

I'm thinking of semi-skilled manual and non-manual labour in particular.
It is capitalism that created these semi-skilled workers through alienation of the production process as capitalists reduce workers to simple cogs in the production process. I don't see why a workers society would alienate workers in the same way.

I think in a workers society you'd only see semi-skilled workers in young workers that simply lack the experience of the older workers. For example when it comes to physically building said bridge, you'd have the workers new to construction work and the older workers that have gained experience over years of construction (thus it is out these older workers you'd find a foreman to lead the shift).

Revolutionair

8th August 2012, 01:28

The only difference, of course, is that the workers militia is a more sustainable organ of class rule than some ad hoc council or assembly. :)

This is a very good point.

The Paris Commune's National Guard was more than strong enough by the numbers, but its Central Committee ceded too much management to the Communal Council, and said council was too indecisive.

Could you explain this some more? Sorry if you had already clarified, I'm quickly scimming through the thread.

Die Neue Zeit

8th August 2012, 04:29

Could you explain this some more? Sorry if you had already clarified, I'm quickly scimming through the thread.

Here's the original Weekly Worker article on the Paris Commune: http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.html

Before the Paris Commune's noted activity, there was a breakdown that led to the National Guard stationed in Paris to take over. The Central Committee of this National Guard could have ruled Paris by itself, but instead called for elections to a Communal Council. This Communal Council passed the kind of stuff Marx wrote about in his political works.

However, on strategic matters, this council was quite inept that the Central Committee later on threatened a coup. It never happened, though in its dying days the Communal Council did form a Committee of Public Safety.

The tragedy here was that the CC did NOT carry through a breakthrough military coup, did NOT become itself the city's Committee of Public Safety, did NOT grab the emergency powers need to save the city.

Die Neue Zeit

8th August 2012, 04:38

The usual English transliteration for the Russian full name is the Department of Leading Party Organs (of the Central Committee).

Now I remember that name, but I just never remembered that it had that ORPO abbreviation.

Created in 1934 with Yezhov in charge and Malenkov as his deputy. It succeeded the previous Department of Higher Personnel. Technically a subordinate body of the Control Commission, a body that had become almost irrelevant by the 1930s, as its theoretical original function of a check on bureaucracy and misdeeds no longer existed.

You're confusing me here. One moment you're saying it was subordinate to the Central Committee, and the next you're saying it was subordinated to the Central Control Commission? :confused:

It kept the files on who was a nomenclaturchik and who wasn't, and drew up purge lists. Became effectively the most important subdivision of the party leadership during the Great Terror, implemented by NKVD head and former ORPO head Yezhov, in collaboration with his former deputy Malenkov, in charge of ORPO during the Great Terror.

Though I must say the idea of random selection for important jobs has never occurred to anyone before, reason being that it is an incredibly bad idea on almost every possible level.

I just showed you exactly how it isn't a bad idea. :confused:

F'rexample, somebody has to have their finger on the nuclear button. You really want to determine that by random selection? If so, better start digging fallout shelters...

I just told you that other competencies would have to be factored into the stratified sampling process. That would definitely apply, for example, for the leadership figure holding the workers' "briefcase."

A Marxist Historian

10th August 2012, 22:01

Now I remember that name, but I just never remembered that it had that ORPO abbreviation.

You're confusing me here. One moment you're saying it was subordinate to the Central Committee, and the next you're saying it was subordinated to the Central Control Commission? :confused:

The organizational chain of command was revolving rapidly in the '30s. I think ORPO moved back and forth technically speaking between the two, and may even have been under both at the same time.

Not that it mattered. Orders came from the top, with Stalin's clique and on important matters Stalin personally giving the orders, regardless of how the organizational pyramid chart looked from one month to the next.

I just showed you exactly how it isn't a bad idea. :confused:

I just told you that other competencies would have to be factored into the stratified sampling process. That would definitely apply, for example, for the leadership figure holding the workers' "briefcase."

Mm, point taken, I was being a bit simplistic there.

But still, it's a bad idea whose worst consequences you are trying to remove by "stratified sampling," which simply adulterates the lottery principle with a dollop of arbitrary authoritarianism from the top, since it's the bosses who decide who is competent and who isn't.

-M.H.-

Die Neue Zeit

11th August 2012, 19:26

But still, it's a bad idea whose worst consequences you are trying to remove by "stratified sampling," which simply adulterates the lottery principle with a dollop of arbitrary authoritarianism from the top, since it's the bosses who decide who is competent and who isn't.

Skill and merit-based selection isn't an authoritarian concept, though. However, you might be interested in this discussion and what I've posted here:

http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/exclusions/

Peoples' War

11th August 2012, 19:41

Skill and merit-based selection isn't an authoritarian concept, though.
No, but it's anti-democratic, and completely disenfranchises the workers, who are supposed to be deciding and running things. Instead, a bunch of randomly selected intelligentsia (which is what i assume you are proposing) become council delegates, and make decisions.

What "skill and merit" should one have to be in the raffle for council delegate? Where does the right of recall play a role? If it doesn't, then certainly that raises quite a few concerns.

This whole idea of random selection is absurd, and full of flaws.

Die Neue Zeit

11th August 2012, 19:47

No, but it's anti-democratic, and completely disenfranchises the workers, who are supposed to be deciding and running things. Instead, a bunch of randomly selected intelligentsia (which is what i assume you are proposing) become council delegates, and make decisions.

Where did you get the notion of intellectuals becoming council delegates? I didn't write much about councils, other than sharp critiques of them, in this thread. For administrative positions per se, stratified sampling would simply fill them based on skills and merit.

What "skill and merit" should one have to be in the raffle for council delegate? Where does the right of recall play a role? If it doesn't, then certainly that raises quite a few concerns.

There should be certain skills and merits for workers to be eligible for positions in proper workers councils (that is, internal party-movement committees by another name), that also distinguish political competency from "politicking."

This whole idea of random selection is absurd, and full of flaws.

The elective principle / principle of elections is itself oligarchic, not democratic.

A Marxist Historian

12th August 2012, 05:46

Where did you get the notion of intellectuals becoming council delegates? I didn't write much about councils, other than sharp critiques of them, in this thread. For administrative positions per se, stratified sampling would simply fill them based on skills and merit.

Is there a system which exists where, in theory at least, positions are not filled based on skills and merit? I can't even think of one--except of course random selection.

The question is always, who decides who has the skills and who has the merit. Do you do it democratically or what? And computerizing the whole thing, as with "stratified selection," just means you get a new problem--computer glitches. Reminds me of the old computer mantra, "garbage in, garbage out." Somebody has to type into the computer what somebody's level of competency is, and that is not only arbitrary, but all too subject to typos, hard disc crashes and whatnot.

There should be certain skills and merits for workers to be eligible for positions in proper workers councils (that is, internal party-movement committees by another name), that also distinguish political competency from "politicking."

Yes indeed, there should. And by and large, workers are not thrilled at the idea of electing incompetents to run their organizations. They certainly never were in the unions I have participated in, why would they feel any differently in workers councils?

Granted, you can have incompetents coming to the fore through politicking, but any sort of "nomenklatura" system is the farthest thing from a barrier to that. It means that, instead of incompetents occasionally being picked because they are popular, you get incompetents picked all the time because they are buddies of the apparatchiks running the nomenklatura system.

In the USSR, you had a certain amount of protection from this under Stalin, due to Stalin's fondness for standing incompetents up against a wall and shooting them. But after the Khrushchev reforms, incompetents in high places became more and more of a problem, especially under Brezhnev.

The elective principle / principle of elections is itself oligarchic, not democratic.

Quite false. Oligarchy is a democratic system among the elite of society, classically (and here I mean classically in the literal ancient Greek sense as well as the usual) where the aristocrats, not the monarch, make the decisions.

In Russia, an oligarchic system would be if the oligarchs, not Putin, made the decisions, for example. In other words, pretty much as things were under Yeltsin.

-M.H.-

Die Neue Zeit

12th August 2012, 19:01

Is there a system which exists where, in theory at least, positions are not filled based on skills and merit? I can't even think of one--except of course random selection.

Elections. Even in theory, the elective principle can be used to fill positions based on nepotism (who simply knows who), tribalism (support based on other relatives' support), and so on. Just look at mainstream electoral campaigns.

The question is always, who decides who has the skills and who has the merit. Do you do it democratically or what?

Democracy and bureaucracy aren't incompatible. Physicist positions, for example, have obvious skill sets that can be agreed upon beforehand.

And computerizing the whole thing, as with "stratified selection," just means you get a new problem--computer glitches. Reminds me of the old computer mantra, "garbage in, garbage out." Somebody has to type into the computer what somebody's level of competency is, and that is not only arbitrary, but all too subject to typos, hard disc crashes and whatnot.

Manual records can be burned, tampered, and so on, but let me ask an objective but rhetorical question: how secure were the Soviet nomenclatures / lists? [Quite secure]

And by and large, workers are not thrilled at the idea of electing incompetents to run their organizations.

Gross incompetents, yes, but the elective principle doesn't in theory even appoint the most skilled person.

Granted, you can have incompetents coming to the fore through politicking, but any sort of "nomenklatura" system is the farthest thing from a barrier to that. It means that, instead of incompetents occasionally being picked because they are popular, you get incompetents picked all the time because they are buddies of the apparatchiks running the nomenklatura system.

Blame Sverdlov for that, not Stalin. Stalin emulated much of Sverdlov's connections-based appointments system. Unlike Krestinsky and his "rational bureaucracy" approach, Sverdlov didn't keep much in the way of records, and appointments were based on who knew who.

There were complaints about Krestinsky's approach, though, as noted in Gerald Easter's book here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/sverdlov-vs-lenin-t151054/index.html?p=2060381

In the USSR, you had a certain amount of protection from this under Stalin, due to Stalin's fondness for standing incompetents up against a wall and shooting them. But after the Khrushchev reforms, incompetents in high places became more and more of a problem, especially under Brezhnev.

I'm not contesting this at all.

Quite false. Oligarchy is a democratic system among the elite of society, classically (and here I mean classically in the literal ancient Greek sense as well as the usual) where the aristocrats, not the monarch, make the decisions.

You'll have to provide more than that to refute Aristotle's contention about elections vs. random selection.

P.S. - The Equality By Lot blog comments are going smoothly. Another term you should consider is "short list."