Does a "Statist" DotP Betray our Principals?

[JPSartre12]

Comrades, this is a thought that I've had for a while now, and I'll like some input.

Once we stage our revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat, we'll have to do whatever we must to save the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie from regaining their status as class ruler. We accept this. However, I feel as if we could use the justification "well, material circumstances dictate that we have to do X, Y, or Z to save the revolution, so let's do it" to institute a series of harsh, police-state like policies in an attempt to hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements that will remain.

Perhaps I'm sounding like an ideological purist when I say this, but I think that the revolution should be about proletarian liberation, and that instituting a new mode of oppression (even if we think it is material justifiable) runs in direct opposition to our intended goal of liberation.

There will be some things that material conditions will dictate that we do to save the revolution - sure. But at what point do we stop and look at ourselves in the mirror and honestly say that we've taken it to far, and that we've created a police-like, statist, oppressive organ that's just as bad (if not worse than) the bourgeois state?

I don't want any bashing that people are "betraying the revolution" by questioning it. How do we know when we've gone to far? What are your thoughts on this?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Once we stage our revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat, we'll have to do whatever we must to save the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie from regaining their status as class ruler. We accept this. However, I feel as if we could use the justification "well, material circumstances dictate that we have to do X, Y, or Z to save the revolution, so let's do it" to institute a series of harsh, police-state like policies in an attempt to hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements that will remain.

Communism is about taking measures to "hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements." What the revolution is not about, however, is doing that to former bourgeois individuals unless they form into counter-revolutionary armies or something (at which point we use force). Take a look at this. http://socialistworker.org/2012/04/06/do-the-ends-justify-the-means


Perhaps I'm sounding like an ideological purist when I say this, but I think that the revolution should be about proletarian liberation, and that instituting a new mode of oppression (even if we think it is material justifiable) runs in direct opposition to our intended goal of liberation.

This is true only if we ignore the fact that the state is an organ of class rule. If the proletariat seizes state power, destroys the bourgeois dictatorship, and establishes it's own dictatorship then the "oppression" would fall on violent counter-revolutionaries and not the revolutionary and liberated proletariat. Again, though, our goal is to use the state to abolish the state. This is not the goal of the bourgeois dictatorship.

[Comrades Unite!]

I feel that if the Bourgeois form into Counter-Revolutionary groups then we must press down on them, But you are correct we can't let it turn into a system of oppression for ALL people ala USSR.

[RedHammer]

Once we stage our revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat, we'll have to do whatever we must to save the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie from regaining their status as class ruler. We accept this. However, I feel as if we could use the justification "well, material circumstances dictate that we have to do X, Y, or Z to save the revolution, so let's do it" to institute a series of harsh, police-state like policies in an attempt to hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements that will remain.

All the more reason to have broad involvement from the masses in some form of local democracy. We also need to get rid of opportunists who put their self-interest before the revolution.


Perhaps I'm sounding like an ideological purist when I say this, but I think that the revolution should be about proletarian liberation, and that instituting a new mode of oppression (even if we think it is material justifiable) runs in direct opposition to our intended goal of liberation. Well, oppression upon whom? We certainly must suppress with ruthless force the elements of counter-revolution, fascism, and anything else that threatens proletarian liberation. Force is force. It can be used for "good"; remember, a revolution is an authoritarian act.

I do agree that we must guarantee that the working class, the masses, are in charge. I'm confident we will be able to do this. We have previous examples to learn from, and we also have: the internet! And other information technologies.

Still, we shouldn't label all former capitalists as enemies immediately. Give them the chance to join us.

[The_Red_Spark]

I think this is an important subject to discuss and it is important to spend time pondering. I often think about it and feel this is why it is important to have democratic institutions that consist of proletarian elements and not just a bureaucracy consisting of the vanguard. It is important to have more than one train of thought within the party and society in general as well.

I think the USSR went wrong when it was purged of intra-party opposition under Stalin because it formed a runaway train that was never really contained or restrained. This created the absence of, and the prosecution of, any criticisms against a ruling bureaucratic elite that operated at its own discretion and at times without restraint. The ends does not always justify the means. Sometimes that kind of thought results in a gradually widening fracture and an eventual complete divide between a State and its people. This often happens even when the state operates in a manner that it believes is in the peoples best interest, or in the best interest of Socialism. That is present even in bourgeois states like the US and was present in the former USSR. It is often a difficult wound to recover from and normally ends in a slow steady bleeding out of the State

There must be a transitional plan in place that has an established set of specific pre-conditions and a proposed flexible timetable for a transfer from one point to another as Socialism is constructed in full. It would be another series of progressive periods reminiscent of Lenin's war communism period to NEP etc etc. Not a direct copy but similar to this idea and concept of periods of progression to eventual Socialsim.

I think that the first period should be one consisting of vanguardist bureaucratic rule, working with the proletariat, that will guard against counter revolution that will certainly come without a doubt. This will be the establishment of TDoP. However this should not be mere mimicry of the Soviet Union though it may share similar ideas and programs. On this there can be no doubt.

Once this period comes to it's conclusion a more open and more democratic period is needed and a planned transition on a specific timetable should take place. This period should be one where the proletariat is incorporated more and more in democratic form. As I said before, in order for this period to be implemented it will need to have specific set of established pre-conditions that are openly presented and defined to the proletariat and society in advance. This allows the proletariat to have an ability to strive toward the second period and the ability to provide solutions to meet the preset conditions and demands. It also allows society the ability to demand a transition once the conditions are met, or an open democratic debate with the bureaucratic vanguard on whether the new society is actually ready for the transition to the next period.

This period of vanguard bureaucracy should not exclude forms of democracy, workers councils, or proletariat input and consent. It must be balanced in consideration and proportion to the desires and needs of the people as well as the direct need to transition into Socialism. Transgressions against the proletariat cannot take place in the manner that was seen inside the Soviet Union. The need to drag society forward by the nose must be well tempered or the end result will be that the State will be another means of class control by an unpopular bureaucracy that is seen as against the people as opposed to for the people as it intends to be. This is the seed of destruction that will create a disintegration or necessitate suppression; which will cascade until the State is overthrown.

[JPSartre12]

Communism is about taking measures to "hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements." What the revolution is not about, however, is doing that to former bourgeois individuals unless they form into counter-revolutionary armies or something (at which point we use force). Take a look at this. http://socialistworker.org/2012/04/06/do-the-ends-justify-the-means

This is true only if we ignore the fact that the state is an organ of class rule. If the proletariat seizes state power, destroys the bourgeois dictatorship, and establishes it's own dictatorship then the "oppression" would fall on violent counter-revolutionaries and not the revolutionary and liberated proletariat. Again, though, our goal is to use the state to abolish the state. This is not the goal of the bourgeois dictatorship.

Thanks Brosa! That's an awesome link :lol:
I'm just concerned that our revolution / DotP will institute anti-bourgeois tactics that may hurt those who aren't bourgeois, that some of the proletariat will get caught in the revolutionary vs anti-revolutionary cross-fire.


I feel that if the Bourgeois form into Counter-Revolutionary groups then we must press down on them, But you are correct we can't let it turn into a system of oppression for ALL people ala USSR.

Exactly, Unite. That's sort of what I'm worried about. I have reservations that the tactics that we put in place to secure socialism will cause more damage (even to our own movement) than we expect.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Thanks Brosa! That's an awesome link :lol:
I'm just concerned that our revolution / DotP will institute anti-bourgeois tactics that may hurt those who aren't bourgeois

It just might do that so. I think what you are focusing on is extraordinary measures that have been used in very abnormal situations. While we can expect counter-revolutionary violence against the revolution, no one could have seen the massive counter-revolutionary campaign that faced the Bolsheviks after they came to power in the October revolution (such as the invasion of 14 countries). In that situation, Red Terror was the only option that could have saved the revolution. Things like "red terror" are measures to only be taken in very specific situations where there is no other option because such measures have the ability to harm the revolutionary proletariat, even if necessary.


that some of the proletariat will get caught in the revolutionary vs anti-revolutionary cross-fire.

They will no matter what.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Comrades, this is a thought that I've had for a while now, and I'll like some input.

Once we stage our revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat, we'll have to do whatever we must to save the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie from regaining their status as class ruler. We accept this. However, I feel as if we could use the justification "well, material circumstances dictate that we have to do X, Y, or Z to save the revolution, so let's do it" to institute a series of harsh, police-state like policies in an attempt to hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements that will remain.

Perhaps I'm sounding like an ideological purist when I say this, but I think that the revolution should be about proletarian liberation, and that instituting a new mode of oppression (even if we think it is material justifiable) runs in direct opposition to our intended goal of liberation.

There will be some things that material conditions will dictate that we do to save the revolution - sure. But at what point do we stop and look at ourselves in the mirror and honestly say that we've taken it to far, and that we've created a police-like, statist, oppressive organ that's just as bad (if not worse than) the bourgeois state?

I don't want any bashing that people are "betraying the revolution" by questioning it. How do we know when we've gone to far? What are your thoughts on this?

1. Revolution is not 'staged', it is a process, and the culmination of that process is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the politically conscious proletariat.

2. Whilst I disagree with the sort of State-led society that became the dogmatic norm in the 20th Century Socialist experiments, you must really dispel any notion that revolution, and the period post-revolution, will be anything other than a period of turmoil, upheaval and the most authoritarian assertion of class rule. In real terms, this does NOT mean the dissolution of democracy, it merely means that democracy and 'liberty' will be denied to counter-revolutionary elements, or the remnants of the bourgeoisie. The working class, however, and all who wish to participate in post-Capitalist society, should be privy to all the democracy they could wish for.

I get the feeling (and this is not an ad hominem attack, merely an observation) from some of your posts that you don't quite understand the mechanics of how a revolution may actually come about and what it may entail. I suggest you head over to www.marxists.org and read some old texts by Marx and Engels to just get you started, and perhaps some works by Lenin, Luxemburg, Stalin, Trotsky and some of the other players involved in revolutions in the 20th century, just to get a better idea of what revolution in practice actually entails.

[JPSartre12]

1. Revolution is not 'staged', it is a process, and the culmination of that process is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the politically conscious proletariat.

Of course, comrade!


2. Whilst I disagree with the sort of State-led society that became the dogmatic norm in the 20th Century Socialist experiments, you must really dispel any notion that revolution, and the period post-revolution, will be anything other than a period of turmoil, upheaval and the most authoritarian assertion of class rule. In real terms, this does NOT mean the dissolution of democracy, it merely means that democracy and 'liberty' will be denied to counter-revolutionary elements, or the remnants of the bourgeoisie. The working class, however, and all who wish to participate in post-Capitalist society, should be privy to all the democracy they could wish for.

Right. When I think of a revolution, I logically know that's going to be much different than what happened in the beginning with Russia (different material conditions, etc), but that's the image that jumps to my mind. I'm expecting to be more along the lines of the Paris Commune than a statist mess.


I get the feeling (and this is not an ad hominem attack, merely an observation) from some of your posts that you don't quite understand the mechanics of how a revolution may actually come about and what it may entail. I suggest you head over to www.marxists.org and read some old texts by Marx and Engels to just get you started, and perhaps some works by Lenin, Luxemburg, Stalin, Trotsky and some of the other players involved in revolutions in the 20th century, just to get a better idea of what revolution in practice actually entails.

Thanks for the input comrade, but I've already read most of that .... I have enough Marxist lit to build a fort with :lol: I'm a democratic socialist, though, so revolutionary theory is still a bit fuzzy for me and I'm not sure on the specifics of how it would be brought about. Oh, I get the concepts and the theory, but I'm not sure how material conditions would dictate they should be played out.

[Ocean Seal]

The revolution has neither principals nor principles.

[blake 3:17]

The single best piece of writing (in my opinion) is the USFI's document The dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy. I read it first in the 90s and have reread a few times in recent years and thinks it holds up very very well. This portion is clear on the issue.


IV. One-party and multi-party systems
Without full freedom to organise political groups, tendencies, and parties, no full flowering of democratic rights and freedoms for the toiling masses is possible under the dictatorship of the proletariat. By their free vote, the workers and poor peasants indicate themselves what parties they want to be part of the soviet system. In that sense, the freedom of organisation of different groups, tendencies, and parties is a precondition for the exercise of political power by the working class. "The democratisation of the soviets is impossible without legalisation of soviet parties." (Transitional Programme of the Fourth International.) Without such freedom, unrestrained by ideological restrictions, there can be no genuine, democratically elected workers’ councils, nor the exercise of real power by such workers’ councils.

Restrictions of that freedom would not be restrictions of the political rights of the class enemy but restrictions of the political rights of the proletariat. That freedom is likewise a precondition for the working class collectively as a class arriving at a common or at least a majority viewpoint on the innumerable problems of tactics, strategy, and even theory (programme) that are involved in the titanic task of building a classless society under the leadership of the traditionally oppressed, exploited, and downtrodden masses. Unless there is freedom to organise political groups, tendencies, and parties, there can be no real socialist democracy.

Revolutionary Marxists reject the substitutionist, paternalistic, elitist, and bureaucratic deviation from Marxism that sees the socialist revolution, the conquest of state power, and the wielding of state power under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a task of the revolutionary party acting "in the name" of the class or, in the best of cases, "with the support of" the class.

If the dictatorship of the proletariat is to mean what the very words say, and what the theoretical tradition of both Marx and Lenin explicitly contain, i.e., the rule of the working class as a class (of the "associated producers"); if the emancipation of the proletariat can be achieved only through the activity of the proletariat itself and not through a passive proletariat being "educated" for emancipation by benevolent and enlightened revolutionary administrators, then it is obvious that the leading role of the revolutionary party both in the conquest of power and in the building of a classless society can only consist of leading the mass activity of the class politically, of winning political hegemony in a class that is increasingly engaged in independent activity, of struggling within the class for majority support for its proposals, through political and not administrative or repressive means.

Under the dictatorship of the proletariat in its complete form, state power is exercised by democratically elected workers’ councils. The revolutionary party fights for a correct political line and or political leadership within these workers’ councils, not to substitute itself to them. Party and state remain entirely separate and distinct entities. But genuinely representative, democratically elected workers’ councils can exist only if the masses have the right to elect whomever they want without distinction, and without restrictive preconditions as to the ideological or political convictions of the elected delegates. (This does not apply, of course, to parties engaged in armed struggle against the workers state, i.e., to conditions of civil war, or to conditions of the revolutionary crisis and armed insurrection itself, to which this resolution refers in a later point). Likewise, workers’ councils can function democratically only if all the elected delegates enjoy the right to form groups, tendencies, and parties, to have access to the mass media, to present their different platforms before the masses, and to have them debated and tested by experience. Any restriction of party affiliation restricts the freedom of the proletariat to exercise political power, i.e., restricts workers’ democracy, which would be contrary to the historical interests of the working class, to the need to consolidate workers’ power, to the interests of world revolution and of building socialism.

Obviously such rights will not be recognised for parties, groups or individuals involved in a civil war or armed actions against the workers state. Neither do such freedoms include the right to organise actions or demonstrations of a racist character or in favour of national or ethnic oppression.

In no way does the Marxist theory of the state entail the concept that a one-party system is a necessary precondition or feature of workers’ power, a workers state, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. In no theoretical document of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky, and in no programmatic document of the Third International under Lenin, did such a proposal of a one party system ever appear. The theories developed later on, such as the crude Stalinist theory that throughout history social classes have always been represented by a single party, are historically wrong and serve only as apologies for the monopoly of political power usurped by the Soviet bureaucracy and its ideological heirs in other bureaucratised workers states, a monopoly based upon the political expropriation of the working class.

History - including the convulsions in the People’s Republic of China, in Poland, Yugoslavia, Grenada and Nicaragua - has on the contrary confirmed the correctness of Trotsky’s position that "classes are heterogeneous; they are torn by inner antagonisms, and arrive at the solution of common problems no otherwise than through an inner struggle of tendencies, groups and parties.... An example of only one party corresponding to one class is’ not to be found in the whole course of political history - provided, of course, you do not take the police appearance for the reality." (The Revolution Betrayed, p. 267.) This was true for the bourgeoisie under feudalism. It is true for the working class under capitalism. It will remain true for the working class under the dictatorship of the proletariat and in the process of building socialism.

If one says that only parties and organisations that have no bourgeois (or petty-bourgeois?) programme or ideology, or are not "engaged in anti-socialist or anti-soviet propaganda and/or agitation" are to be legalised, how is one to determine the dividing line? Will parties with a majority of working-class members but with a bourgeois ideology be forbidden? How can such a position be reconciled with free elections for workers’ councils? What is the dividing line between "bourgeois programme" and "reformist ideology"? Must reformist parties then be forbidden as well? Will social democracy be suppressed?

It is unavoidable that on the basis of historical traditions, reformist influence will continue to survive in the working class of many countries for a long period. That survival will not be shortened by administrative repression; on the contrary, such repression will tend to strengthen it. The best way to fight against reformist illusions and ideas is through the combination of ideological struggle and the creation of the material conditions for the disappearance of these illusions. Such a struggle would lose much of its efficacy under conditions of administrative repression and lack of free debate and exchange of ideas.

If the revolutionary party agitates for the suppression of social democratic or other reformist formations, it will be a thousand times more difficult to maintain freedom of tendencies and toleration of factions within its own ranks. The political heterogeneity of the working class would then inevitably tend to reflect itself within the single party.

Thus, the real alternative is not either freedom for those with a genuine socialist programme (who ideologically and programmatically support the soviet system) or freedom for all political parties. The real choice is: either genuine workers’ democracy with the right of the toiling masses to elect whomever they want to the soviets and freedom of political organisation of all those who abide by the soviet constitution in practice (including those who do not ideologically support the soviet system), or a decisive restriction of these political rights of the working class itself, with all the consequences flowing there from. Systematic restriction of political parties leads to systematic restriction of freedom within the revolutionary vanguard party itself.

Full document: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article921

[jookyle]

What would you prefer? To get rid of the state from day one so that any counter-revolutionaries and right wing opportunists just get some guns and start taking land for their own? Or other capitalist nations to just roll in take claim to the land which no longer holds a political(nations-state) border?

[JPSartre12]

What would you prefer? To get rid of the state from day one so that any counter-revolutionaries and right wing opportunists just get some guns and start taking land for their own? Or other capitalist nations to just roll in take claim to the land which no longer holds a political(nations-state) border?

Haha when you put it that way it's much more convincing ;)

[campesino]

@blake 3:17

what is the point of having multiple parties?

I would prefer a party that administer the organization of production, and the Soviets be the rulers of the party/state administration. Soviets would be people's assembly where all people vote and participate and would control the security apparatus.

the role of the party before and during the revolution is to create the conditions for socialism, after the revolution it would be a technocratic group that administers the social organizations, but receives directives from the soviets, and would not have any armed forces under its administration.

[Art Vandelay]

1. Revolution is not 'staged', it is a process, and the culmination of that process is the overthrow of the bourgeoisie by the politically conscious proletariat.

2. Whilst I disagree with the sort of State-led society that became the dogmatic norm in the 20th Century Socialist experiments, you must really dispel any notion that revolution, and the period post-revolution, will be anything other than a period of turmoil, upheaval and the most authoritarian assertion of class rule. In real terms, this does NOT mean the dissolution of democracy, it merely means that democracy and 'liberty' will be denied to counter-revolutionary elements, or the remnants of the bourgeoisie. The working class, however, and all who wish to participate in post-Capitalist society, should be privy to all the democracy they could wish for.

I get the feeling (and this is not an ad hominem attack, merely an observation) from some of your posts that you don't quite understand the mechanics of how a revolution may actually come about and what it may entail. I suggest you head over to www.marxists.org and read some old texts by Marx and Engels to just get you started, and perhaps some works by Lenin, Luxemburg, Stalin, Trotsky and some of the other players involved in revolutions in the 20th century, just to get a better idea of what revolution in practice actually entails.

My only point of contention comrade, is that while perhaps past revolutions have concluded with the seizure of class hegemony, the process which will be the proletarian revolution will culminate with the proletarian class abolishing itself.

[Art Vandelay]

Of course, comrade!

See my post above, I feel that was an inadequate description of the conclusion of the proletarian revolution.


Right. When I think of a revolution, I logically know that's going to be much different than what happened in the beginning with Russia (different material conditions, etc), but that's the image that jumps to my mind. I'm expecting to be more along the lines of the Paris Commune than a statist mess.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "statist mess?" The Paris Commune, was indeed statist; regardless of what Bakunin may have tried to tell you.


Thanks for the input comrade, but I've already read most of that .... I have enough Marxist lit to build a fort with :lol: I'm a democratic socialist, though, so revolutionary theory is still a bit fuzzy for me and I'm not sure on the specifics of how it would be brought about. Oh, I get the concepts and the theory, but I'm not sure how material conditions would dictate they should be played out.

Sounds like your a reformist.

As for your moral qualms about instituting whatever measure needed to save the revolution, I will point you in the direction of the anti-moralist Sergey Nechayev:


The revolutionary despises public opinion. He despises and hates the existing social morality in all its manifestations. For him, morality is everything which contributes to the triumph of the revolution. Immoral and criminal is everything that stands in its way.

Sergey Nechayev; The Revolutionary Catechism, 1869.

[The_Red_Spark]

Has anyone read my post? I would appreciate a critique of any kind. I feel like it has been overlooked due to it's length and I am curious as to how others feel about it. I want the communities veteran members to critique it and help me on theory.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

My only point of contention comrade, is that while perhaps past revolutions have concluded with the seizure of class hegemony, the process which will be the proletarian revolution will culminate with the proletarian class abolishing itself.

Probably we're only disagreeing with semantics, but I think it would be to our advantage to end the 'revolutionary' stage as quickly as possible after the economic and political expropriation of the bourgeois class; that would lead to the self-abolition of the proletarian class in the quickest possible way, I believe.

But yeah, we don't disagree fundamentally here, so let's not :)

[Art Vandelay]

I think this is an important subject to discuss and it is important to spend time pondering. I often think about it and feel this is why it is important to have democratic institutions that consist of proletarian elements and not just a bureaucracy consisting of the vanguard. It is important to have more than one train of thought within the party and society in general as well.

Undoubtedly comrade; While I am far from a "board veteran" and wouldn't really consider myself one to be able to help others with "theory," since you asked, I'll do my best.


I think the USSR went wrong when it was purged of intra-party opposition under Stalin because it formed a runaway train that was never really contained or restrained. This created the absence of, and the prosecution of, any criticisms against a ruling bureaucratic elite that operated at its own discretion and at times without restraint.

While I agree with much of what you say (ie: lack of intra party democracy, unchecked bureaucracy, etc...) I find the premise (this is where the USSR "went wrong," if what you meant by that was, caused the degeneration of the revolution) to be faulty. I think it needs to be stressed the revolution was doomed once it failed to spread. Higher levels of workers control or higher levels of intra party democracy, would not have changed anything, under the peculiar material circumstances that the October revolution found itself in.


The ends does not always justify the means.

The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end. - L.T.


Sometimes that kind of thought results in a gradually widening fracture and an eventual complete divide between a State and its people. This often happens even when the state operates in a manner that it believes is in the peoples best interest, or in the best interest of Socialism. That is present even in bourgeois states like the US and was present in the former USSR. It is often a difficult wound to recover from and normally ends in a slow steady bleeding out of the State

I think that this is wrong and shows a misunderstanding about what exactly a "state" is. The state is an organ of class rule, it is the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony. The state simply acts in accordance with the interests of the class which is in control. The interests of the state cannot diverge from the interests of its populace, since they were never one in the same.


There must be a transitional plan in place that has an established set of specific pre-conditions and a proposed flexible timetable for a transfer from one point to another as Socialism is constructed in full. It would be another series of progressive periods reminiscent of Lenin's war communism period to NEP etc etc. Not a direct copy but similar to this idea and concept of periods of progression to eventual Socialsim.

Unfortunately, since we don't know the material conditions which the revolution will take place, we cannot be sure of what measures will be necessary. Chances are no proletarian revolution in the 21st century will resemble the October revolution.


I think that the first period should be one consisting of vanguardist bureaucratic rule, working with the proletariat, that will guard against counter revolution that will certainly come without a doubt. This will be the establishment of TDoP. However this should not be mere mimicry of the Soviet Union though it may share similar ideas and programs. On this there can be no doubt.

Once again, see above. Although perhaps DNZ's recent thread's "All power to the workers miliata" and "do you support a one party state?" would be of interest to you since they contain a certain amount of hypotheticals regarding a potential revolutionary situation.


Once this period comes to it's conclusion a more open and more democratic period is needed and a planned transition on a specific timetable should take place. This period should be one where the proletariat is incorporated more and more in democratic form. As I said before, in order for this period to be implemented it will need to have specific set of established pre-conditions that are openly presented and defined to the proletariat and society in advance. This allows the proletariat to have an ability to strive toward the second period and the ability to provide solutions to meet the preset conditions and demands. It also allows society the ability to demand a transition once the conditions are met, or an open democratic debate with the bureaucratic vanguard on whether the new society is actually ready for the transition to the next period.

Once again I feel like what you are saying here is that for some reason we need to plan on when the state will be abolished or else it will result in some sort of 'totalitarian beauracracy," similar to what happened in the USSR. Once again I feel like this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is and what would be required for its abolisment. Since a state is an organ of class rule (as a stated above), all that is needed for the state to whither away, is the proletarian class to fufill its historical task of abolishing itself (along with all other classes). Since there will be no more classes, there will also be no more state, since the state is an organ of class rule. Perhaps this sounds redundant, but I am purporsely repeating myself for effect here.


This period of vanguard bureaucracy should not exclude forms of democracy, workers councils, or proletariat input and consent. It must be balanced in consideration and proportion to the desires and needs of the people as well as the direct need to transition into Socialism. Transgressions against the proletariat cannot take place in the manner that was seen inside the Soviet Union. The need to drag society forward by the nose must be well tempered or the end result will be that the State will be another means of class control by an unpopular bureaucracy that is seen as against the people as opposed to for the people as it intends to be. This is the seed of destruction that will create a disintegration or necessitate suppression; which will cascade until the State is overthrown.

While, obviously I agree that there needs to be necessary input from the proletarian class during the dotp, I must stress that I hope you do not go down the same road as many of our "marxist" comrades who fetishize workers councils (as I once did).

Anyways I would be willing to continue on this discussion if you wish, since you seem genuinely curious and I don't' mind attempting to stop comrades from following down the same political road which I took; but for the time being I will leave it at this since I am drunk and want to go play madden.

[Rusty Shackleford]

I feel that if the Bourgeois form into Counter-Revolutionary groups then we must press down on them, But you are correct we can't let it turn into a system of oppression for ALL people ala USSR.
USSR was so oppressive that when people of historically oppressed nations in the USSR (during the Tsarist times) were in favor of maintaining the Union, the heads of the CPSU dismantle it.

[Art Vandelay]

USSR was so oppressive that when people of historically oppressed nations in the USSR (during the Tsarist times) were in favor of maintaining the Union, the heads of the CPSU dismantle it.

That is not a good argument and you should know it. I am not saying I agree with the quote that you are responding too, just merely that a better argument can be put forth.

[Rusty Shackleford]

That is not a good argument and you should know it. I am not saying I agree with the quote that you are responding too, just merely that a better argument can be put forth.
I'm being a smart ass and I've been drinking and you should know it. I am not saying I agree with the response that you are making, just merely that I have no fucks to give right now.

[Art Vandelay]

Im being snarky and ive been drinking and you should know it. I am not saying I agree with the response that you are making, just merely that I have no fucks to give right now.

ditto ;)

[Le Socialiste]

Once we stage our revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat, we'll have to do whatever we must to save the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie from regaining their status as class ruler. We accept this.

Revolutions aren't staged; they're the culmination of a variety of driving factors resulting in the upending of the old or present ordering of society. But you've been told why this phrasing is wrong, so I needn't continue. ;)


However, I feel as if we could use the justification "well, material circumstances dictate that we have to do X, Y, or Z to save the revolution, so let's do it" to institute a series of harsh, police-state like policies in an attempt to hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements that will remain.

"Material circumstances" isn't just a hollow term thrown out as a way of justifying anything. It's very much bound up in how one should properly analyze any given social ordering of society, along with all its political and economic baggage. It's a means of assessment, not something Marx or anyone else magically pulled out of the air.


Perhaps I'm sounding like an ideological purist when I say this, but I think that the revolution should be about proletarian liberation, and that instituting a new mode of oppression (even if we think it is material justifiable) runs in direct opposition to our intended goal of liberation.

There will be some things that material conditions will dictate that we do to save the revolution - sure. But at what point do we stop and look at ourselves in the mirror and honestly say that we've taken it to far, and that we've created a police-like, statist, oppressive organ that's just as bad (if not worse than) the bourgeois state?

The state initially arose as a means by which the dominant, ascendant class could achieve and maintain its political and cultural hegemony; the state's role in a revolutionary situation, then, is the suppression and subjugation of the ruling financial and political interests that previously dominated the great mass of society. Will this expression of the DotP be turned on those who technically constitute part of its class? Inevitably, as some will either consciously or reactively side with the bourgeoisie. This needn't turn into some "witch hunt," or degenerate into a, as you called it, police-state. Remember, the dictatorship is anything but in the sense that it is the transitional voice and organ of the proletariat operating from below. It does not distance or separate itself from the working-class; it must be the theoretical, organizational, and consciously heightened expression of the working-class.

We've been over this before I think, but ultimately we have only past experiences and our understanding of them to guide us forward. The initial stages of the Russian revolution were relatively bloodless, spiraling into violence and bloodshed as the propertied ruling interests initiated a wave of reaction, terror, and conflict. It was dependent, however, on the realization of victories on the part of the working-class abroad, and while many great things came from it, the revolution - crippled by civil war and isolation - succumbed to the degenerative state that followed. If you have any moral qualms about what follows the revolution, I suggest you don't let them guide your understanding of it. Because while morals are great and all, they make for crappy theory. Concerns surrounding "statism", while understandable, must be understood within both its historical and present contexts. The state will be a necessary instrument for the establishment and eventual triumph of the working-class over bourgeois hegemony, for the reordering and democratization (in a purely technical and instrumental sense) of society's social and productive means.

This will be the state's purpose, and once it has fulfilled it to the fullest possible extent, it will be of no further use. Its future is and will be partly dependent on the success of the growing revolutionary situation worldwide, without which it cannot properly function and play the role prescribed to it.

[A Marxist Historian]

Comrades, this is a thought that I've had for a while now, and I'll like some input.

Once we stage our revolution to overthrow the capitalist system and institute a dictatorship of the proletariat, we'll have to do whatever we must to save the revolution and prevent the bourgeoisie from regaining their status as class ruler. We accept this. However, I feel as if we could use the justification "well, material circumstances dictate that we have to do X, Y, or Z to save the revolution, so let's do it" to institute a series of harsh, police-state like policies in an attempt to hunt down, prosecute, and eliminate all bourgeois elements that will remain.

Perhaps I'm sounding like an ideological purist when I say this, but I think that the revolution should be about proletarian liberation, and that instituting a new mode of oppression (even if we think it is material justifiable) runs in direct opposition to our intended goal of liberation.

There will be some things that material conditions will dictate that we do to save the revolution - sure. But at what point do we stop and look at ourselves in the mirror and honestly say that we've taken it to far, and that we've created a police-like, statist, oppressive organ that's just as bad (if not worse than) the bourgeois state?

I don't want any bashing that people are "betraying the revolution" by questioning it. How do we know when we've gone to far? What are your thoughts on this?

Certainly repression can get out of hand, during the actual revolution Lenin thought so at times, and so for that matter did Felix Dzherzhinskii. Such is life. And there's no way you can draw up a little recipe in advance as to when things have gotten too far, that has to be judged on the spot in the particular circumstances, which are impossible to predict.

But how could a proletarian state be worse than a bourgeois state? Only if you think that the proletariat is worse than the bourgeoisie. I beg to differ.

Actually, the whole title of this thread is a logical contradiction. Any state is "statist" by definition, and the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

See my post above, I feel that was an inadequate description of the conclusion of the proletarian revolution.

Perhaps you can explain what you mean by "statist mess?" The Paris Commune, was indeed statist; regardless of what Bakunin may have tried to tell you.

Sounds like your a reformist.

As for your moral qualms about instituting whatever measure needed to save the revolution, I will point you in the direction of the anti-moralist Sergey Nechayev:

Sergey Nechayev; The Revolutionary Catechism, 1869.

Nechayev? Marx thought Nechayev was, quite simply, scum.

Anyone who is willing to ignore basic revolutionary morality to the extent of Nechayev, including advocating mass murder, lying to the workers, turning other radicals you find inconvenient over to the cops, etc. etc., is a clear and present danger to the revolutionary movement and the working class, to be dealt with, as Malcolm X put it, "by any means necessary."

Morality is extremely important to the revolutionary movement. That is why Felix Dzherzhinskii, the supreme moralist of the movement, was appointed to head the Cheka. Against his own wishes of course.

-M.H.-

[The_Red_Spark]

Undoubtedly comrade; While I am far from a "board veteran" and wouldn't really consider myself one to be able to help others with "theory," since you asked, I'll do my best. You are very humble and this is an excellent trait in my opinion. I do value your insight to a high degree. I find it thought inspiring when I read your posts and I appreciate your time, willingness to teach, and patience with my limited ability in the application of theory.




While I agree with much of what you say (ie: lack of intra party democracy, unchecked bureaucracy, etc...) I find the premise (this is where the USSR "went wrong," if what you meant by that was, caused the degeneration of the revolution) to be faulty. I think it needs to be stressed the revolution was doomed once it failed to spread. Higher levels of workers control or higher levels of intra party democracy, would not have changed anything, under the peculiar material circumstances that the October revolution found itself in.I fully agree with your point on the predominant reason for the failure of the USSR. On this there can be no doubt. What I meant in my post was that the USSR failed to spread revolution throughout Europe because of the domination of the CP by the policy of the Troika first and then the single mind and will of Stalin. This made SioC an inflexible, dogmatic, formal policy, and without any real opposition. This sealed their fate though it should be rightly considered a less serious flaw than the failure to foster a world revolution.




The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end. - L.T.
This is an excellent quote and one that I had never heard until today. It is very suggestive of tempered response and not an application without consideration of the validity of the end result.



I think that this is wrong and shows a misunderstanding about what exactly a "state" is. The state is an organ of class rule, it is the institution through which a class exerts its hegemony. The state simply acts in accordance with the interests of the class which is in control. The interests of the state cannot diverge from the interests of its populace, since they were never one in the same.
Agreed!!! Thank you for clarification here. This is a good example of why I sought out critique and refinement. This is a necessary part of fully grasping theory. Without discussion with others it stays stagnant and unrefined.



Unfortunately, since we don't know the material conditions which the revolution will take place, we cannot be sure of what measures will be necessary. Chances are no proletarian revolution in the 21st century will resemble the October revolution.
I agree that the likelihood of a recurrence of The October Revolution is extremely doubtful. However, I think that we must have a highly flexible plan, at least in outline, that will help provide an initial infrastructure to work from. We must also use a high degree of transparency to avoid any misunderstandings on the part of the proletarian worker and exposure to provocations, by bourgeois elements at home and abroad, that will ultimately seek to promote the idea that the DotP is a permanent dictatorial institution that will be a mimicry of the USSR. This will certainly be used against us as it is now. However this may or may not apply in full context to a future revolution. It really is hard to say what material conditions will entail.



Once again, see above. Although perhaps DNZ's recent thread's "All power to the workers miliata" and "do you support a one party state?" would be of interest to you since they contain a certain amount of hypotheticals regarding a potential revolutionary situation.
Thank you for sharing this with me. I would definitely like to look into these two threads. I think it is important to have ideas developed to some extent so that we are not completely unprepared to take the helm if the material conditions develop the situation to that degree. A disorganized and undeveloped attempt will end in a successful counter revolution. On this account I feel there should be no doubt.



Once again I feel like what you are saying here is that for some reason we need to plan on when the state will be abolished or else it will result in some sort of 'totalitarian beauracracy," similar to what happened in the USSR. Once again I feel like this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a state is and what would be required for its abolisment. Since a state is an organ of class rule (as a stated above), all that is needed for the state to whither away, is the proletarian class to fufill its historical task of abolishing itself (along with all other classes). Since there will be no more classes, there will also be no more state, since the state is an organ of class rule. Perhaps this sounds redundant, but I am purporsely repeating myself for effect here.
While I agree with some of this I also feel that there will not be an instantaneous transfer of power from DotP to the highest level of Communism. There will certainly be an interim period that will have to entail a transition into the DotP and go through a slow transition to outright Communism.

Once this State is created it has a potential to take the path of history that is all too common with State instruments of class control. By this I mean the nature of all States to seek to remain firm as a somewhat self interested power structure. All States thus far have demonstrated this tendency that once in power they seek to maintain their power above all else. This can result in a fracture between the bureaucratic state and whatever class they represent.

In most cases it is bourgeois government and the bourgeois class itself; but the same can be said of 'workers states', irregardless of the fact that they can be rightly called 'deformed workers states'. This may be a deviation from traditional Marxist theory but I believe it applies throughout history. I am open to criticism on this issue and I am interested in hearing how this could be an incorrect interpretation and understanding of the State and its actions.



While, obviously I agree that there needs to be necessary input from the proletarian class during the dotp, I must stress that I hope you do not go down the same road as many of our "marxist" comrades who fetishize workers councils (as I once did).
I can honestly say I feel that workers councils can create an element of cumbersome, awkward, and chaotic disorganization and a disorganized bureaucratic monstrosity that is unable to effectively make decisions and implement them in a timely manner. Despite this concession I do think this can be implemented in some form due to new technology that will allow a greater degree of democracy in the workforce and elsewhere.

This is something that will have to be done gradually, in moderation, and only implemented to a specific degree that is both effective and efficient. If done too quickly and too widespread it will potentially result in a hindrance to production and decision making that will be inefficient and highly ineffective. I hope you will reply to this piece here in particular so that I can benefit from your take on this.


Anyways I would be willing to continue on this discussion if you wish, since you seem genuinely curious and I don't' mind attempting to stop comrades from following down the same political road which I took; but for the time being I will leave it at this since I am drunk and want to go play madden.
I am grateful that you are willing to take the time to help me on this. I am genuinely curious and crave help in developing my understanding. One can only get so much from reading texts independently. I need to get some polish to enable me to adequately and accurately apply Marxist theory.

I can certainly understand the call of Madden as well. LOL I get those calls to action too. Take care comrade and I look forward to your next post.

[blake 3:17]

@blake 3:17

what is the point of having multiple parties?

I would prefer a party that administer the organization of production, and the Soviets be the rulers of the party/state administration. Soviets would be people's assembly where all people vote and participate and would control the security apparatus.

the role of the party before and during the revolution is to create the conditions for socialism, after the revolution it would be a technocratic group that administers the social organizations, but receives directives from the soviets, and would not have any armed forces under its administration.

There are a few reasons. One is simply that one party states are by necessity undemocratic. Bans on parties and factions may seem necessary in the midst of crisis, but they depoliticize the class base. The big decisions have been made by bureaucratic cliques and factions, without opposing perspectives being discussed publicly, and decided on collectively.

The other big thing is that working class is heterogenous, objectively and subjectively, on many different fronts, and that there is a need for some kind of representative democracy to mediate those differences.

While I get the appeal of what you're proposing, I can't see how an undemocratic administration will not develop its own interests or be forced into making decisions it isn't empowered to make.

I hope that makes sense.