Lenin's "vanguard party"?

[l'Enfermé]

Everyone around here takes it for granted that the "vanguard party" is an invention of Lenin(even though the notion of a vanguard, i.e the most advanced portion of the working class, goes back as far as the Communist Manifesto (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1403573&postcount=10), and was taken up by the likes of Kautsky before Lenin ever appeared on the scene), don't they? But does Lenin ever actually use the term, at all? I don't know how many hours I have spent reading Lenin and I never stumbled on a single "vanguard party"(Партия-авангард). I just searched through the last 2 volumes of his collected writings(1917-1923), and I didn't find a single "vanguard party". Not even in "What Is To Be Done?" is there a single reference to the "vanguard party", and WITBD is supposed to be the work where the brilliant Lenin invented the notion of the vanguard party and cleared the way for communist revolution, according to Stalinists, or according to Anarchists and semi-Anarchists(ultra-lefts and such), WITBD is the work where the devious Lenin the elitist intellectual(who treated the workers with so much contempt!) invented the vanguard party in order to demolish independent working class organization and subjugate all revolutionary activity to his watchful eye and the watchful eye of his fellow intellectuals-bureaucrats, and also something about the left-wing of capital and state-capitalism and Kronstadt and and bla bla bla bla.

Does anyone actually know of a single instance where Lenin uses the term "vanguard party"?

[Ravachol]

Who attributes the notion of vanguardism to Lenin? If anything, Blanqui's conception of 'revolution' predates Lenin and is most definitely 'vanguardist' in nature. There's also a huge difference between what composes the 'vanguard' (organic or not) and the notion of a vanguard party.

[Ilyich]

To the best of my knowledge, Lenin never used the term 'vanguard party' much himself. But, then again, Marx never made much use of 'historical meterialism' or dialectical meterialism' either. Lenin certainly did not create the concept of the vanguard party; he may not have even used the term. Still, Lenin developed the concept to the point where our modern understanding of it was created by him.

[prolcon]

I'm pretty sure the idea of the vanguard party exists within Marx's writings, but I would agree that the Leninist conception of it is what we typically mean when we say "vanguard party."

[Le Socialiste]

Lenin's conception of the party took into account the unevenness of working-class consciousness, and was rather dialectical in its analysis of the party's relationship with the broader class. The vanguard in this instance refers only to the 'most advanced' sections of the class, concentrated politically and organizationally in a manner that best utilizes and advances their collective perspective. Of course, Stalinism would later redefine this notion along substitutionist lines, rendering it a topdown, undemocratically centralized entity. I'm still unsure as to whether Lenin actually used the term 'vanguard party', however.

[prolcon]

Of course, Stalinism would later redefine this notion along substitutionist lines, rendering it a topdown, undemocratically centralized entity.

I would love, love to see any kind of evidence that Stalin himself reorganized the party to make it undemocratic. Frankly, I've seen evidence to the exact contrary.

[l'Enfermé]

^Comrade prolcon, if you be so kind to look at this, you will find that during the Stalin era, inner-party democracy was dismantled:

http://i.imgur.com/CUfmi.png


Who attributes the notion of vanguardism to Lenin? If anything, Blanqui's conception of 'revolution' predates Lenin and is most definitely 'vanguardist' in nature. There's also a huge difference between what composes the 'vanguard' (organic or not) and the notion of a vanguard party.
Who is talking of "vanguardism"(another word I didn't find in Lenin's writings)? I'm talking about the "vanguard party". Blanqui has little to do with this seeing as how Blanqui died well before an institutional understanding of what a political party is began to be developed. Blanqui's era was the era of political clubs, secret-societies and conspiracies, not of political parties. The Blanquist (youth) movement of the 1860s, which culminated in the Paris Commune, was not a party, so it couldn't possible have been a "vanguard party", though when the Blanquists returned in 1879, after the pardon of the Communards, and built another movement in the 1880s(which collapsed in the next decade), that was more like a proper political party, albeit Blanqui wouldn't have approved of this "Blanquist" movement.

[prolcon]

What the image I was directed to shows me is not very much besides the frequency with which certain organizations met. It does not show me in what ways power was centralized or that Stalin was personally responsible for this centralization, which is, as you may recall, what I fucking asked for.

Again, I don't see anything that demonstrates Stalin was personally endeavoring to dismantle democracy within the party and the Union, and, in fact, I see things that suggest the exact opposite.

[Le Socialiste]

Haven't you just described most existing left orgs?

While many organizations have gone down similar paths, this is not an inevitability.

[Le Socialiste]

What the image I was directed to shows me is not very much besides the frequency with which certain organizations met. It does not show me in what ways power was centralized or that Stalin was personally responsible for this centralization, which is, as you may recall, what I fucking asked for.

Again, I don't see anything that demonstrates Stalin was personally endeavoring to dismantle democracy within the party and the Union, and, in fact, I see things that suggest the exact opposite.

Okay, what things did Stalin do to suggest the "exact opposite?"

While Stalin isn't wholly responsible for the party's degeneration (a number of different factors were responsible for that), he did preside over this shift. It wasn't Stalin himself that transformed the Bolsheviks into substitutionists, but a variety of things, including political/economic isolation, civil war, foreign intervention, a ruined economy and the collapse of the Russian working-class that forced the party to pursue the course it did. I think it's fair to argue that if it wasn't Stalin, someone else would've enacted many of the same exact policies (perhaps with some minor differences). That said, Stalin was that person - so again, what exactly did he do to 'democratize' the party?

[l'Enfermé]

What the image I was directed to shows me is not very much besides the frequency with which certain organizations met. It does not show me in what ways power was centralized or that Stalin was personally responsible for this centralization, which is, as you may recall, what I fucking asked for.

Again, I don't see anything that demonstrates Stalin was personally endeavoring to dismantle democracy within the party and the Union, and, in fact, I see things that suggest the exact opposite.
If you're too stupid to comprehend a single simple table, or too lazy to try to, perhaps you shouldn't bother trying to derail this thread into another Stalin thread.

[prolcon]

Okay, what things did Stalin do to suggest the "exact opposite?"

Plenty, but the most major of which is Stalin's support of the Constitution's allowance for challenged, secret ballots, in the face of opposition by party members who felt ballots ought to be open. Stalin is also pretty famous for working to minimize bureaucracy in the party and being defeated on most of his attempted reforms. Whether or not you find Grover Furr credible, Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform is an interesting read.

Your other paragraph waffles on the role Stalin played in anti-democratic endeavors and merely reiterates the first question, so I'm not going to bother responding to it specifically.

[l'Enfermé]

I make a thread asking whether or not Lenin ever said anything about a "vanguard party", and it degenerates into something about Stalin and finally Grover fucking Furr is mentioned. All we need now is some Hoxha quotes, bunker jokes, something about Bordigist hipsterism, and we've got us another thread abortion. :(

[prolcon]

I just love how easy RevLefters make it for themselves to dismiss other posters' positions completely out of hand without any kind of honest intellectual effort.

[prolcon]

If you're too stupid to comprehend a single simple table, or too lazy to try to, perhaps you shouldn't bother trying to derail this thread into another Stalin thread.

Stay classy, comrade. The only way anyone could possibly disagree with you is if they're stupid.

[GoddessCleoLover]

While Lenin was alive the Bolsheviks held a Party Congress every year. Thirteen years elapsed between the 18th and 19th Party Congresses. 'Nuff said.

[prolcon]

'Nuff said.

Not really, because otherwise it sounds like all we've determined is "Lenin good, Stalin bad," and that's not really ever going to help us.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Not really, because otherwise it sounds like all we've determined is "Lenin good, Stalin bad," and that's not really ever going to help us.

I noticed that you avoided my substantive point.

[prolcon]

I noticed that you avoided my substantive point.

Um, no?

Sorry, but I really didn't: when Lenin was in power, certain agencies met with frequency. When Stalin was in power, they didn't meet with the same frequency. I'm saying we need a lot more information before we've learned anything that will help us in the future.

[Le Socialiste]

How do you explain Stalin's traditionalist (one would say reactionary) views on women, the family, and homosexuality - views that were translated into and implemented as party policy by the late '20s/early '30s? By effectively reversing the gains of women and other oppressed groups made in the early years of the revolution, Stalin limited accessibility and participation in the party (and society by extension). How does this fit in with your assertion that Stalin attempted to reform the party into a democratic body? After all, it was Stalin who said women should take pride in their 'womanhood' (read: ability to reproduce) as a patriotic duty to their country, and Stalin who pushed for the reimplementation of Article 21 that made homosexuality a criminal offense, punishable with up to five years in prison. I'm just curious as to how these factor into your broader argument.

Edit - This all said, I agree with l'Enferme. Let's not have this thread degenerate into all the other threads we've had to endure recently. I should probably take responsibility, since I was the one who made the point about Stalinism and its interpretation of the party.

[GoddessCleoLover]

So you obviously believe that the party is merely an "agency" of its leadership rather than vice versa. You have revealed much more than you suppose in that post.

[blake 3:17]

Who is talking of "vanguardism"(another word I didn't find in Lenin's writings)? I'm talking about the "vanguard party". Blanqui has little to do with this seeing as how Blanqui died well before an institutional understanding of what a political party is began to be developed. Blanqui's era was the era of political clubs, secret-societies and conspiracies, not of political parties. The Blanquist (youth) movement of the 1860s, which culminated in the Paris Commune, was not a party, so it couldn't possible have been a "vanguard party", though when the Blanquists returned in 1879, after the pardon of the Communards, and built another movement in the 1880s(which collapsed in the next decade), that was more like a proper political party, albeit Blanqui wouldn't have approved of this "Blanquist" movement.

The RSDLP was conspiratorial in its methods. It had to be. Russia had no democratic institutions and the Mensheviks, the Bund, and the Bolsheviks could only use illegal methods to do any of their work.

I think it very useful to consider its military origins: "The vanguard is the leading part of an advancing military formation. It has a number of functions, including seeking out the enemy and securing ground in advance of the main force." Rather than something which is simply directed from a centre, a vanguard participates and fights in spaces of flux and change and needs to constantly improvise. In this sense Lenin as vanguardist makes sense -- stay committed to principle, but improvise, adapt and learn from changing conditions. In the course of actual social struggle, one is constantly confronted with dilemmas that one couldn't imagine beforehand.

Relying on a static theory or a static group of theoreticians is a recipe for failure. Successful movements for social change always create new problems. Does this mean that we do nothing until we're absolutely guaranteed a perfect victory?

[prolcon]

So you obviously believe that the party is merely an "agency" of its leadership rather than vice versa. You have revealed much more than you suppose in that post.

Not even close, but nice try.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I haven't tried anything, Prolcon. You have revealed a great deal, perhaps more than you intended.:D

[prolcon]

I haven't tried anything, Prolcon. You have revealed a great deal, perhaps more than you intended.:D

Let's look at what I said then.


... [W]hen Lenin was in power, certain agencies met with frequency. When Stalin was in power, they didn't meet with the same frequency. I'm saying we need a lot more information before we've learned anything that will help us in the future.

Explain what this reveals about me, again? Use different words than you used the first time; I shouldn't have to say it, but people around here have a tendency to repeat themselves verbatim when asked to explain themselves.

[GoddessCleoLover]

You stated that the party was a mere agency of its leadership, rather than vice versa. You justified a dictatorial party leadership and repudiated democratic centralism.

[l'Enfermé]

The RSDLP was conspiratorial in its methods. It had to be. Russia had no democratic institutions and the Mensheviks, the Bund, and the Bolsheviks could only use illegal methods to do any of their work.

I think it very useful to consider its military origins: "The vanguard is the leading part of an advancing military formation. It has a number of functions, including seeking out the enemy and securing ground in advance of the main force." Rather than something which is simply directed from a centre, a vanguard participates and fights in spaces of flux and change and needs to constantly improvise. In this sense Lenin as vanguardist makes sense -- stay committed to principle, but improvise, adapt and learn from changing conditions. In the course of actual social struggle, one is constantly confronted with dilemmas that one couldn't imagine beforehand.

Relying on a static theory or a static group of theoreticians is a recipe for failure. Successful movements for social change always create new problems. Does this mean that we do nothing until we're absolutely guaranteed a perfect victory?
The problem with calling it conspiratorial is that the Russia word and the English one have different connotations. The Bolsheviks did speak of "conspiracy"(konspiratsiya), yes, but by "conspiracy" it was meant conducting illegal party work without getting caught, getting the socialist message to as many workers without having comrades sent to Siberia. In English, by conspiracy we would understand things like cabals, intrigue, coups, overthrowing the government, etc, but the Russian word for all this "zagovor". Lars Lih goes over this actually. The Bolsheviks were "conspiratorial" in their methods, but only in that positive sense, not the negative zagovor one. In French too, "conspiration", we understand it to be something like the Gunpowder Treason Plot or something, but the Bolsheviks were not conspiratorial in that way.

[prolcon]

You stated that the party was a mere agency of its leadership, rather than vice versa. You justified a dictatorial party leadership and repudiated democratic centralism.

I did neither of those things. I said that, when Lenin was around, some agencies met with a frequency with which they did not meet when Stalin was around.

Listen, I know you're absolutely desperate to make me into a fascist, because then you get to "win" whatever you think this is, but I'm gonna have to ask you behave yourself, for fuck's sake.

[Q]

*ahum*

Just emphasizing to keep this on topic please.

As to the OP: I actually have no idea where the term is used. Good question.

It may be a retronym: To describe afterwards how the Bolsheviks developed which, as we now know, has much to do with the myth that WITBD was a 'building block' of Bolshevism.

If that is the case, we may want to reassess the whole use of the term 'vanguard party'.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Prolcon, you may think that you are another Stalin, but you don't have the power to order me around, or icepick me, or send me to Kolyma or anything else.

[Le Socialiste]

*ahum*

Just emphasizing to keep this on topic please.

As to the OP: I actually have no idea where the term is used. Good question.

It may be a retronym: To describe afterwards how the Bolsheviks developed which, as we now know, has much to do with the myth that WITBD was a 'building block' of Bolshevism.

If that is the case, we may want to reassess the whole use of the term 'vanguard party'.

How so, exactly, and for what purpose?

[prolcon]

Prolcon, you may think that you are another Stalin, but you don't have the power to order me around, or icepick me, or send me to Kolyma or anything else.

Case en point. I'm not going to be suckered into your crap anymore.

As for the vanguard party, again, I don't think those specific words were ever used by Engels or Marx, and I don't know that Lenin used the term either, although we tend to think of the Bolshevik method of the vanguard party when we use the term.

[Q]

How so, exactly, and for what purpose?

If the term started life to mean a mythified group of conspirators, called the Bolsheviks, that were led by an infallible leadership (as much of the far left sees itself, incidentally) and since we now actually relearn the true history of the Bolsheviks as a movement based in the Second International Marxist Center tradition, in which the whole term 'vanguard party' apparently took no part... Then yes, it may be useful to reassess its use.

[Ostrinski]

What about the original term, the very loathed "mass party" :D?

[Let's Get Free]

For Lenin, the "Vanguard Party" were an enlightened minority of socialists who would capture power in advance of the majority becoming socialists and, from this position of power, would somehow steer society in a "socialist" direction and create an environment more conducive to the growth of socialist ideas.

[GoddessCleoLover]

What about the original term, the very loathed "mass party" :D?

Not loathed on my point. A revolutionary mass party is what is most desirable for a revolution.

[Ostrinski]

If the term started life to mean a mythified group of conspirators, called the Bolsheviks, that were led by an infallible leadership (as much of the far left sees itself, incidentally) and since we now actually relearn the true history of the Bolsheviks as a movement based in the Second International Marxist Center tradition, in which the whole term 'vanguard party' apparently took no part... Then yes, it may be useful to reassess its use.And furthermore, not only should we take to task those that use the term "vanguardist" in a negative light (which it would appear are its origins) but also take to task those that seek to use the term in a positive light, i.e. the Leninists that are more than eager to try and reclaim it as a positive part of organizational strategy.

[GoddessCleoLover]

For Lenin, the "Vanguard Party" were an enlightened minority of socialists who would capture power in advance of the majority becoming socialists and, from this position of power, would somehow steer society in a "socialist" direction and create an environment more conducive to the growth of socialist ideas.

Lenin believed in mass action, but his successors not so much.

[Ostrinski]

For Lenin, the "Vanguard Party" were an enlightened minority of socialists who would capture power in advance of the majority becoming socialists and, from this position of power, would somehow steer society in a "socialist" direction and create an environment more conducive to the growth of socialist ideas.And here you're just perpetuating the very caricature that is being put on trial here without providing any text or quote from Lenin or other Bolsheviks to show why this proposal put forward by comrade L'Enferme is illegitimate.

[prolcon]

For Lenin, the "Vanguard Party" were an enlightened minority of socialists who would capture power in advance of the majority becoming socialists and, from this position of power, would somehow steer society in a "socialist" direction and create an environment more conducive to the growth of socialist ideas.

I think it would be interesting if you took a step back and thought about how your comments on the subject and others' comments on the subject differ, particularly with regards to depth of analysis.

[Let's Get Free]

And here you're just perpetuating the very caricature that is being put on trial here without providing any text or quote from Lenin or other Bolsheviks to show why this proposal put forward by comrade L'Enferme is illegitimate.

You or I can quote Lenin all we want but what relevance does any of that have if what they actually did was something entirely different?

[blake 3:17]

Not really, because otherwise it sounds like all we've determined is "Lenin good, Stalin bad," and that's not really ever going to help us.

The discussion wasn't about the merits of Stalin or Lenin -- it was Lenin in reference to terminology about vanguards, the vanguard party, and vanguardism.

While I don't agree with it entirely, this pamphlet by Charlie Post and Kit Adam Wainer and published by Solidarity has some good ideas about the problems and possibilities of "the vanguard" in American politics: http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/sot

I think the Popular Front was a much more complex phenomenon than than the authors acknowledge.

[prolcon]

The discussion wasn't about the merits of Stalin or Lenin -- it was Lenin in reference to terminology about vanguards, the vanguard party, and vanguardism.

I can appreciate that this wasn't the intent of the thread, but I was responding to an individual post. In any case, I'll check out your link.

[Ostrinski]

You or I can quote Lenin all we want but what relevance does any of that have if what they actually did was something entirely different?This thread was created with the intention of investigating the origin of the terms vanguard, vanguardism, and vanguard party and how they relate to Lenin. As L'Enferme noted, both the ultra leftists and Leninists are not hesitant to tell you that the term and concept come from Lenin, yet nowhere in his writings can these terms be found.

There are plenty of other threads that have the perfect atmosphere for the setting up of and tearing down of the various caricatures of the history of the Bolsheviks and Russian Revolution but this one is designated to contesting the popular myth surrounding this issue of the terminology here.

So yes, the direct texts of Lenin matter a whole bunch since they are precisely what are being discussed.

[Let's Get Free]

This thread was created with the intention of investigating the origin of the terms vanguard, vanguardism, and vanguard party and how they relate to Lenin. As L'Enferme noted, both the ultra leftists and Leninists are not hesitant to tell you that the term and concept come from Lenin, yet nowhere in his writings can these terms be found.

There are plenty of other threads that have the perfect atmosphere for the setting up of and tearing down of the various caricatures of the history of the Bolsheviks and Russian Revolution but this one is designated to contesting the popular myth surrounding this issue of the terminology here.

So yes, the direct texts of Lenin matter a whole bunch since they are precisely what are being discussed.

Lenin may not have used the term "vanguard party," but he at least approved of a party dictatorship, and even one of a single person, which was spelled out clearly in a speech he made (On Economic Reconstruction) on the 31 March 1920:
"Now we are repeating what was approved by the Central EC two years ago . . . Namely, that the Soviet Socialist Democracy (sic!) is in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of a class is at best realized by a Dictator who sometimes will accomplish more by himself and is frequently more needed" (Lenin:Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 89. First Russian Edition).

[Ostrinski]

Lenin may not have used the term "vanguard party," but he at least approved of a party dictatorship, and even one of a single person, which was spelled out clearly in a speech he made (On Economic Reconstruction) on the 31 March 1920:
"Now we are repeating what was approved by the Central EC two years ago . . . Namely, that the Soviet Socialist Democracy (sic!) is in no way inconsistent with the rule and dictatorship of one person; that the will of a class is at best realized by a Dictator who sometimes will accomplish more by himself and is frequently more needed" (Lenin:Collected Works, Vol. 17, p. 89. First Russian Edition).Cool. Make a new thread about it so as to not derail this one.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Perhaps Lenin can be excused on account of the exigencies of the Russian Civil War, but frankly Lenin had certain authoritarian tendencies.

[Le Socialiste]

For Lenin, the "Vanguard Party" were an enlightened minority of socialists who would capture power in advance of the majority becoming socialists and, from this position of power, would somehow steer society in a "socialist" direction and create an environment more conducive to the growth of socialist ideas.

Not necessarily. Lenin referred to the role of the party as an entity seeking to raise the consciousness of the masses, so as to - as Chris Harman puts it in "Party and Class" - "enable them to act truly independently." The organization works to "be a party of the masses not only in name," to "get ever wider masses to share in all party affairs, steadily to elevate them from political indifference to protest and struggle..." (Lenin). Lenin argued that the point of the party wasn't to win power on behalf of the workers, but to provide political and organizational clarity, to make the case for revolutionary socialism via active engagement with working-class organizations and communities.

Lenin often referred to the self-emancipative activities of the working-class, stating that in such times the party is to provide a guiding leadership. This isn't an elitist, or substitutionist, notion, but an acknowledgement of the party's importance in relation to mass movements. The party doesn't come in and take over, it instead puts forward the theoretical and tactical basis upon which the movement can be built and strengthened. Trotsky summed it up perfectly when he compared the movement of the masses to the steam in a piston box: "Without a guiding organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston box. But nevertheless, what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

[prolcon]

Not necessarily. Lenin referred to the role of the party as an entity seeking to raise the consciousness of the masses, so as to - as Chris Harman puts it in "Party and Class" - "enable them to act truly independently." The organization works to "be a party of the masses not only in name," to "get ever wider masses to share in all party affairs, steadily to elevate them from political indifference to protest and struggle..." (Lenin). Lenin argued that the point of the party wasn't to win power on behalf of the workers, but to provide political and organizational clarity, to make the case for revolutionary socialism via active engagement with working-class organizations and communities.

Lenin often referred to the self-emancipative activities of the working-class, stating that in such times the party is to provide a guiding leadership. This isn't an elitist, or substitutionist, notion, but an acknowledgement of the party's importance in relation to mass movements. The party doesn't come in and take over, it instead puts forward the theoretical and tactical basis upon which the movement can be built and strengthened. Trotsky summed it up perfectly when he compared the movement of the masses to the steam in a piston box: "Without a guiding organization, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston box. But nevertheless, what moves things is not the piston or the box, but the steam."

See, Gladiator, this was what I was talking about.

[Let's Get Free]

Not necessarily. Lenin referred to the role of the party as an entity seeking to raise the consciousness of the masses, so as to - as Chris Harman puts it in "Party and Class" - "enable them to act truly independently." The organization works to "be a party of the masses not only in name," to "get ever wider masses to share in all party affairs, steadily to elevate them from political indifference to protest and struggle..." (Lenin). Lenin argued that the point of the party wasn't to win power on behalf of the workers, but to provide political and organizational clarity, to make the case for revolutionary socialism via active engagement with working-class organizations and communities.

It's funny, because the Bolsheviks had started to gerrymander and disband soviets even before the start of the civil war. They did so because they were starting to lose elections and, to hold onto power, they simply destroyed the soviets as independent working class organs.


Lenin often referred to the self-emancipative activities of the working-class, stating that in such times the party is to provide a guiding leadership. This isn't an elitist, or substitutionist, notion, but an acknowledgement of the party's importance in relation to mass movements. The party doesn't come in and take over, it instead puts forward the theoretical and tactical basis upon which the movement can be built and strengthened.

But political power was exercised mainly through a dictatorship of the Bolshevik party and vanguard, with all forms of democracy restricted from the very first months. It's true that in the early years there were progressive, humane laws in various spheres. (To what extent they were observed is another question.) But the main trends were negative: further curtailment of democratic rights and freedoms, consolidation of the one-party system, secret police repression even within the ruling party, formation of a hierarchy of officials appointed from above.

[Le Socialiste]

You or I can quote Lenin all we want but what relevance does any of that have if what they actually did was something entirely different?

Keep in mind Lenin and the Bolsheviks were forced - on more than one occasion - to abandon certain ideas or policies based on shifting material conditions within Russia and the rest of Europe. The Bolsheviks, on the whole, readily acknowledged that without the success of revolution(s) worldwide the revolution in Russia would fall apart. None of them could have predicted everything that was to follow. The civil war decimated the national economy and the working-class, eroding much of what enabled the party to grow as an organic body consisting of workers, intellectuals, and other segments of society. The mass base in which it had its roots was more or less gone, divorcing the Bolsheviks from what few remained. The ensuing period of isolation and reaction (one could even say counterrevolution) removed the party from its class basis, resulting in its degeneracy and eventual consolidation under a newly emergent ruling-class - of which Stalin was a representative.

I find it increasingly hard to believe Lenin and the Bolsheviks went into this thinking about or intending to do what I've outlined above. To say otherwise is, I think, lacking in contextual and/or historical evidence.

[prolcon]

I think LeSocialiste is off base calling Stalin personally representative of an emergent ruling class (although himself harboring reactionary attitudes, I find that the emergent bourgeoisie could be better represented by Khrushchev and his successors), but the rest of his analysis is absolutely spot on.

[ind_com]

In 'What is to be done?', Lenin repeatedly talked about a party becoming the vanguard of revolutionary forces. It becomes very clear through the text what he meant by a vanguard or what Leninists mean by a vanguard-party. If you are looking for Lenin's use of the exact term, look up his critique of Larin in 'The crisis of Menshevism'. The first paragraph reads:

The contrast which Larin draws between an apparatus-party and a vanguard-party, or, in other words, between a party of fighters against the police and a party of class-conscious political fighters, seems profound and permeated with the “pure proletarian” spirit. In actual fact, however, it is the very same intellectualist opportunism as the analogous contrast drawn in 1899-1901 by the supporters of Rabochaya Mysl and the Akimovites.

[prolcon]

Well, there you go.

[l'Enfermé]

In 'What is to be done?', Lenin repeatedly talked about a party becoming the vanguard of revolutionary forces. It becomes very clear through the text what he meant by a vanguard or what Leninists mean by a vanguard-party. If you are looking for Lenin's use of the exact term, look up his critique of Larin in 'The crisis of Menshevism'. The first paragraph reads:

The contrast which Larin draws between an apparatus-party and a vanguard-party, or, in other words, between a party of fighters against the police and a party of class-conscious political fighters, seems profound and permeated with the “pure proletarian” spirit. In actual fact, however, it is the very same intellectualist opportunism as the analogous contrast drawn in 1899-1901 by the supporters of Rabochaya Mysl and the Akimovites.
This is very interesting, thanks for digging that up comrade. This is from a 1906 article for "Proletariy", called "Menshevism's Crisis"(КРИЗИС МЕНЬШЕВИЗМА), from volume 14 of his collected writings and it's also available on the MIA(but they translated it as "Crisis in Menshevism). Here's the link. (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1906/crimensh/iii.htm#v11pp65-353)

Lenin mentions the "vanguard-party"(partiya-avangard in Russian) twice. After the part you quoted, a few paragraphs down, there's also this:


On the other hand, the composition of the politically guiding vanguard of every class, the proletariat included, also depends both on the position of this class and on the principal form of its struggle. Larin complains, for example, that young workers predominate in our Party, that we have few married workers, and that they leave the Party. This complaint of a Russian opportunist reminds me of a passage in one of Engels’s works (I think it is in The Housing Question, Zur Wohnungsfrage). Retorting to some fatuous bourgeois professor, a German Cadet, Engels wrote: is it not natural that youth should predominate in our Party, the revolutionary party? We are the party of the future, and the future belongs to the youth. We are a party of innovators, and it is always the youth that most eagerly follows the innovators. We are a party that is waging a self-sacrificing struggle against the old rottenness, and youth is always the first to undertake a self-sacrificing struggle.

No, let us leave it to the Cadets to collect the “tired” old men of thirty, revolutionaries who have “grown wise”, and renegades from Social-Democracy. We shall, always be a party of the youth of the advanced class!

Larin himself blurts out a frank admission why he regrets the loss of the married men who are tired of the struggle. If we were to collect a good number of these tired men into the Party, that would make it “somewhat sluggish, putting a brake on political adventures” (p. 18).

Now, that’s better,, good Larin! Why dissemble and deceive yourself. What you want is not a vanguard-party, but a rearguard-party, so that it will be rather more sluggish. You should have said so frankly.

It looks like Lenin's meaning of "partiya-vanguard" is very much different from the meaning of various Stalinists, Trotskyists, Ultra-Lefts, Anarchists, and so on.

I'm currently going through all the 55 volumes of the 5th edition of Lenin's collected works(1961-1981 edition), and I'm not having any luck in finding any mentions of a "vanguard party" at all besides this article from the winter of 1906.

[l'Enfermé]

Oh, and yeah, comrade ind_com: you have been deceived by the various common myths that surround WITBD and "Leninism". I recommend you check out Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered. (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC)

[GoddessCleoLover]

I agree with l'Enferme that Lenin's use of the term "vanguard party" contains no connotation of the type of party developed by the Comintern or later by the Fourth International.

[l'Enfermé]

So if "vanguard party" is such a rare occurrence in Lenin's writings, much harder to spot than a Bigfoot, do any comrades around here know who popularized this term?

(also I'm still searching through the PDFs, if I find more mentions of "vanguard-party" I will post them here)

[blake 3:17]

I agree with l'Enferme that Lenin's use of the term "vanguard party" contains no connotation of the type of party developed by the Comintern or later by the Fourth International.

We may be mixing apples with oranges here, but there were extremely effective political formations of the vanguard type affiliated with the Third and Fourth Internationals.

Most often revolutionaries who were part of these international organizations did their best work in social movements.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I take your point Blake 3:17, but IMO revolutionary formations could have been and could be much more effective but for the bureaucratic centralism that existed in both the Third and Fourth Internationals. With respect to the Third International, the notorious changes in line were extremely costly to CPs with respect to their efforts to build credible political parties. Regarding the Fourth International, Trotsky too was guilting of dictating policies to local organizations thereby stunting their growth. A prime case in point would be Trotsky's failure to support Andres Nin in promoting the POUM at the time of the Spanish Civil War. Trotsky's my way or the highway attitude resulted in sects rather than mass parties.

[blake 3:17]

There are some very interesting contradictions here. While a ruin on some fronts, Third Period Stalinism AND the Popular Front were very successful in the US South. Communists were widely known as the strongest opponents of racism and Jim Crow.

As a long time Trotskyist, I have NEVER EVER understood Trotsky's position on the POUM. I think his position was completely sectarian.

Where both Stalinists and Trotskyists have played the most positive role, have been where the deviated from leadership commands. But!!! the weird thing is that ex-CP and ex-FIers have played really really creative and positive roles in social movements. Often people have broken with their parties because of movement demands, but they wouldn't have played the roles they did without having been members of those parties.

Similar things could be said about both Maoists and Anarchists. They generally weren't part of international grouping as well (supposedly) organized as CPers or Trots.

When I joined the USFI, I was joining the socialist-feminist and regroupment tendencies within it.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As a long time Trotskyist, I have NEVER EVER understood Trotsky's position on the POUM. I think his position was completely sectarian.I always thought it was on the basis of their avoidance of trying to argue for an independant revolutionary course within the UGT and CNT which left them suceptable to supporting the Popular Front either by avoiding political conflicts with them, or just lack of any alternative in the fight against Franco.

[robbo203]

Here's something that makes for an interesting read - Sects and Vanguards In Labor Movement - Jonathan Ayres (1939)

http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/sects-and-vanguards-labor-movement-jonathan-ayres-1939

[Jimmie Higgins]

Here's something that makes for an interesting read - Sects and Vanguards In Labor Movement - Jonathan Ayres (1939)

http://theoryandpractice.org.uk/library/sects-and-vanguards-labor-movement-jonathan-ayres-1939

If you mean "interesting" euphamistically, then yes, yes it is interesting.

I've never heard of anyone locating the source of Stalinism in Bakunin. Equating anarchism, trotskyism, and bolshevism with fascism is pretty weak though. It's a pretty historically and theorhetically poor attempt to explain the counter-revolutionary behavior of the USSR in the 1930s and not much more than that IMO.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Drawing a Stalin-Bakunin nexus seems to demonstrate more imagination than logic.

[l'Enfermé]

It's as bullocks as Chomsky's groundbreaking discovery that Fascism, Corporations and Bolshevism all arose from Hegel's philosophy. :rolleyes:

[l'Enfermé]

So I went through Trotsky's stuff and also Stalin's collected works, and no "vanguard party" either. Dammit, can someone please, I beg you, please, just tell me, who the heck came up with this term or popularized it? Dammit.

[Geiseric]

The whole problem with the spanish civil war was the leftists were in the provisional bourgeois government, which the right opposition in Poum were pushing the whole party into doing. It formed with Nin's left oppositon and the ICO right opposition, who were opportunists, and even supported the early purges, and participating in the popular front.

[Noa Rodman]

Indeed the term vanguard usually designates the role of the proletariat in the revolution. Koba makes the following point (re: Non-Proletarian Parties);


The first important amendment was moved by Comrade Martov. He demanded that the words "proletariat as the vanguard" be substituted for the words "proletariat as the leader of the revolution." In support of his amendment he said that the word "vanguard" expressed the idea more precisely. He was answered by Comrade Alexinsky who said that it was not a matter of precision, but of the two opposite points of view that were reflected in this, for "vanguard" and "leader" are two totally different concepts. To be the vanguard (the advanced detachment) means fighting in the front ranks, occupying the points most heavily under fire, shedding one's blood, but at the same time being led by others, in this case by the bourgeois democrats; the vanguard never leads the general struggle, the vanguard is always led. On the other hand, to be a leader means not only fighting in the front ranks but also leading the general struggle, directing it towards its goal. We Bolsheviks do not want the proletariat to be led by the bourgeois democrats, we want the proletariat itself to lead the whole struggle of the people and direct it towards the democratic republic. As a result, Martov's amendment was defeated.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1907/06/20_2.htm

[robbo203]

Who attributes the notion of vanguardism to Lenin? If anything, Blanqui's conception of 'revolution' predates Lenin and is most definitely 'vanguardist' in nature. There's also a huge difference between what composes the 'vanguard' (organic or not) and the notion of a vanguard party.


Here is an instance where Lenin quite clearly spells out what is meant by the theory of vanguardism - from The Second Congress Of The Communist International published in 1920:


On the other hand, the idea, common among the old parties and the old leaders of the Second International, that the majority of the exploited toilers can achieve complete clarity of socialist consciousness and firm socialist convictions and character under capitalist slavery, under the yoke of the bourgeoisie (which assumes an infinite variety of forms that become more subtle and at the same time more brutal and ruthless the higher the cultural level in a given capitalist country) is also idealisation of capitalism and of bourgeois democracy, as well as deception of the workers. In fact, it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary class, overthrows the exploiters, suppresses them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and-immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalists—it is only after this, and only in the actual process of an acute class struggle, that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised around the proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weaknesses engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers.
(http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/04.htm)

The argument is clear. The vanguard seizes power on behalf of the non socialist majority, "ovethrows the exploiters" (allegedly) and sets about educating the "masses of the toilers" into socialist consciousness.


To say that this would be a recipe for disaster would be an understatement. The vanguard, having got rid of the old exploiters will simply be come the new exploiters. Why? Because without a majority wanting and understanding socialism beforehand you can't have socialism. Therefore by default you will have capitalism. Therefore, the vanguard will simply be taking over the management of capitalism and you can't run capitalism without exploiting wage labour. Therefore the vanguard will become the new exploiting ruling class and the interests and ideology of this class will shift decisively from wanting to establish a classless socialist society to preserving its own privileged ruling class status. No ruiling class has ever voluntarily relinquished power of its own accord and the Lenin's vanguard will be no different

When are people going to understand that "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme). There is simply no way some elitist patronising leninist vanguard can emancipate them from above

[Red Enemy]

Here is an instance where Lenin quite clearly spells out what is meant by the theory of vanguardism - from The Second Congress Of The Communist International published in 1920:


On the other hand, the idea, common among the old parties and the old leaders of the Second International, that the majority of the exploited toilers can achieve complete clarity of socialist consciousness and firm socialist convictions and character under capitalist slavery, under the yoke of the bourgeoisie (which assumes an infinite variety of forms that become more subtle and at the same time more brutal and ruthless the higher the cultural level in a given capitalist country) is also idealisation of capitalism and of bourgeois democracy, as well as deception of the workers. In fact, it is only after the vanguard of the proletariat, supported by the whole or the majority of this, the only revolutionary class, overthrows the exploiters, suppresses them, emancipates the exploited from their state of slavery and-immediately improves their conditions of life at the expense of the expropriated capitalists—it is only after this, and only in the actual process of an acute class struggle, that the masses of the toilers and exploited can be educated, trained and organised around the proletariat under whose influence and guidance, they can get rid of the selfishness, disunity, vices and weaknesses engendered by private property; only then will they be converted into a free union of free workers.
(http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1920/jul/04.htm)

The argument is clear. The vanguard seizes power on behalf of the non socialist majority, "ovethrows the exploiters" (allegedly) and sets about educating the "masses of the toilers" into socialist consciousness.
He mentions that the vanguard needs the support of the majority of the proletariat. Without it, the vanguard can do nothing. The vanguard are jsut the socialist minded among the majority, the communists are, as Marx says, "...practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

Again, the context of the vanguard being that the proletariat comes to power, but the vanguard leads it.


To say that this would be a recipe for disaster would be an understatement. The vanguard, having got rid of the old exploiters will simply be come the new exploiters. Why? Because without a majority wanting and understanding socialism beforehand you can't have socialism. Hence, as Lenin says, the masses will be educated under the DOTP.


Therefore by default you will have capitalism.The proletariat is the ruling class in capitalism?


Therefore, the vanguard will simply be taking over the management of capitalism and you can't run capitalism without exploiting wage labour.The vanguard doesn't take state power, the entire working class does.


Therefore the vanguard will become the new exploiting ruling class and the interests and ideology of this class will shift decisively from wanting to establish a classless socialist society to preserving its own privileged ruling class status.Not if the workers councils are in control.


When are people going to understand that "The emancipation of the working class must be the act of the workers themselves" (Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme). There is simply no way some elitist patronising leninist vanguard can emancipate them from aboveThe vanguard is a part of the working class, remember that.

Perhaps you should read Chapter II of the Communsit Manifesto.

[robbo203]

He mentions that the vanguard needs the support of the majority of the proletariat. Without it, the vanguard can do nothing. The vanguard are jsut the socialist minded among the majority, the communists are, as Marx says, "...practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."


Yes the vanguard will need the support of the proletariat to get into power - just as any political party needs the support of the proletariat to get into power. Mrs Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's electoral victories were based on mass proletarian support. You are not telling me anything new here.

How will the vanguard get the support of the working class? By advancing a programme of reforms to attract the voters. Thats what all politicians do. To promise to run capitalism in the interests oif the masses. Thats what your vanguard will do too. It cant be that they will try to attract that support on the basis of establishing a socialist society since you have already admitted that that proletariat are not socialist minded and will only be educated into socialist consciousness once the vanguard gets into power. The vanguard will therefore have to pander to the pro-capitalist sentiments of the masses in order to get into power



Again, the context of the vanguard being that the proletariat comes to power, but the vanguard leads it.

This is woolly in the extreme. How does the proletariat "come to power"? What does this actually mean in practice? Its all too easy to hide behind bland verbal formulas that essentially mean nothing.

The proletariat which is by defintion the exploited class in capitalism will, in order to continue existing as a proletariat, need to continue being exploited - otherwise it is not a proletariat! And this exploited proletariat is ,you say - the ruling class! A ruling class that allows itself to be exploited by a class over which it supposely rules. Some ruling class, huh?



The vanguard doesn't take state power, the entire working class does.

How does the "entire working class take state power" . Please explain. What exactly does this mean? Even Lenin didnt seem to think this was possible

But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm_




The vanguard is a part of the working class, remember that..


It might well have started out as part of the working class - many capitalist politicians began their long climb up the greasey pole as members of the working class - but, once in power, you can bet your bottom dollar it will pretty soon separate and detach itself from the working class and constitute itaself as a new ruling class opposed to the working class. Thats what bappened in Russia, dont forget. An utterly parasitic and extremely privileged state capitalist ruling class holding the reins of state power - the red bourgeoisie - who cynically exploited that power to advance their own class interests against those of the workers, all the while pretending they were leading to the workers to communism.

What happened? The Red Fat Cats - the heirs of Lenin's glorious Vanguard Party - were the very people who precipitated the collapse of the pseudo socialist Soviet Union and opted instead for corporate capitalism. So much for your vanguard guiding the workers to socialist consciousness !

[Red Enemy]

Yes the vanguard will need the support of the proletariat to get into power - just as any political party needs the support of the proletariat to get into power. Mrs Thatcher's and Ronald Reagan's electoral victories were based on mass proletarian support. You are not telling me anything new here.I was unaware that the "elections" of these people were done through insurrection, and the workers councils holding political power.

Thank you for the lesson.


How will the vanguard get the support of the working class? By advancing a programme of reforms to attract the voters. Thats what all politicians do. To promise to run capitalism in the interests oif the masses.Strawman. Again, capitalism is not run by a small group, but being abolished by the masses themselves.


Thats what your vanguard will do too. It cant be that they will try to attract that support on the basis of establishing a socialist society since you have already admitted that that proletariat are not socialist minded and will only be educated into socialist consciousness once the vanguard gets into power. The vanguard will therefore have to pander to the pro-capitalist sentiments of the masses in order to get into powerI'm not a Leninist, nor do I support his idea of vanguard. I am actually undecided on the matter.


This is woolly in the extreme. How does the proletariat "come to power"? What does this actually mean in practice? Its all too easy to hide behind bland verbal formulas that essentially mean nothing. When the most advanced section of the proletariat, the Communists, overthrow the bourgeois state and in it's place put workers' councils.


The proletariat which is by defintion the exploited class in capitalism will, in order to continue existing as a proletariat, need to continue being exploited - otherwise it is not a proletariat! And this exploited proletariat is ,you say - the ruling class! A ruling class that allows itself to be exploited by a class over which it supposely rules. Some ruling class, huh? You use semantics as the core of your argument.


How does the "entire working class take state power" . Please explain. What exactly does this mean? Even Lenin didnt seem to think this was possible

But the dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of that class, because in all capitalist countries (and not only over here, in one of the most backward) the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts (by imperialism in some countries) that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard that has absorbed the revolutionary energy of the class. The whole is like an arrangement of cogwheels.
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/dec/30.htm_
TO be fair, I was incorrect to say "entirety", because there will be counter-revolutionary proletariat.

However, the class conscious workers will take political power, in the form of workers councils.


It might well have started out as part of the working class - many capitalist politicians began their long climb up the greasey pole as members of the working class - but, once in power, you can bet your bottom dollar it will pretty soon separate and detach itself from the working class and constitute itaself as a new ruling class opposed to the working class. Thats what bappened in Russia, dont forget. Again, ignoring material conditions.


An utterly parasitic and extremely privileged state capitalist ruling class holding the reins of state power - the red bourgeoisie - who cynically exploited that power to advance their own class interests against those of the workers, all the while pretending they were leading to the workers to communism. Yes, because the workers councils lost control in Russia, and that + material conditions = state capitalism.


What happened? The Red Fat Cats - the heirs of Lenin's glorious Vanguard Party - were the very people who precipitated the collapse of the pseudo socialist Soviet Union and opted instead for corporate capitalism. So much for your vanguard guiding the workers to socialist consciousness !Material conditions, again.

[subcp]

"“the most advanced and most conscious fraction . . . the organizing and political force which leads the proletariat and the semi-proletariat by the right road" - Communist International (1st or 2nd Congress, forget which). The communist minority as the most advanced, politically conscious sections of the proletariat, a party of a new type, Gorter's "a party in name only, and the last party there will ever be." Bordiga stayed true to these conceptions; his Fundamental Theses from 1951 is a clear example of this.

Why is the word vanguard a particular problem as a term of description? But there isn't necessarily a monopoly on the term 'vanguard'.

[robbo203]

I was unaware that the "elections" of these people were done through insurrection, and the workers councils holding political power.

Thank you for the lesson.

Is besides the point isnt it? Thatcher & co got into power through proletarian support by offering a programme of reforms. Your vanguard Party would have to do likewise. You might not want to get into power via elections - although personally I think you are lving in cloud cuckoo land if you think workers in this day and age are going to opt for "insurrection" - but you still need to get their support ,dont you? and how you are going to get that if not by offering reforms - i.e. reformism - as opposed to socialism to a non socialist proletariat? In any case, if you had mass support why would you need then to engage in an "insurrection" and what chance do you think you have against a well armed capitalist state?




Strawman. Again, capitalism is not run by a small group, but being abolished by the masses themselves.

But you just said the masses are not socialist and for which reason a DOTP has to be set up . How can capitalism be abolished if the workers are not socialist? You may say you want to guide them towards socialist consciousness after set up your DOTP But in the meantime your DOTP will be running capitalism will it not?



You use semantics as the core of your argument.


I take that to mean you dont really have any counterargument to the point that it is sheer folly to characterise the exploited class in society (the proletariat) as being, at the same time, the ruling class. Here's a handy tip
for studying history - ruling classes in history tend to do ther exploiting rather get exploited which is what will happen to the proletariat simply by virtue of the fact that it is the proletariat - the exploited class in capitalism



TO be fair, I was incorrect to say "entirety", because there will be counter-revolutionary proletariat.

However, the class conscious workers will take political power, in the form of workers councils.

What if they chose not to? What if they prefer instead to take political power via parliamentary means, for example. Who are you to say they should not?





Again, ignoring material conditions.


How am I ignoring material conditions by pointing out that the strategy oif vanguardism as set out by Lenin in the quote I gave resulted in the vanguard transmogrifying in to a new state capitalist ruling class. Actually I am being the materialist here and it the naive idealists who are the ones who tend to deny that if you opt to administer a capitalist system - as a DOTP would have to - then you will increasingly become detached from the working class and end up opposing this class. The practical exigencies of running capitalism will force this outcome upon your vanguard, whether it likes it or not. Czpitalism can only be run in the interest of capital not wage labour and you will end up supporting capital by the very fact of having to administer capitalism




Yes, because the workers councils lost control in Russia, and that + material conditions = state capitalism.
.

Well there you are then - so workers councils are not quite the big deal they are cracked out to be after all!! Its just sad that so many on the left seem to make a festish out of the forms of organisation while ignoring the content

[Red Enemy]

Is besides the point isnt it? Thatcher & co got into power through proletarian support by offering a programme of reforms.Yes, and I can recall their maximum programme as well. I am so sad that the communist Thatcher and Reagan betrayed the proletariat like that!

The Thatcherite and Reaganite workers councils were just too weak!


Your vanguard Party would have to do likewise.Not if the vanguard party is not in power. What do you say to council communists who oppose a vanguard party? Or Marxist-Humanists who oppose a vanguard party? They both support the idea of a DOTP.


You might not want to get into power via elections - although personally I think you are lving in cloud cuckoo land if you think workers in this day and age are going to opt for "insurrection"My head is in the clouds...Yes...go run in your elections. Let me know how that works out for you.

Engels referred to your lot as "parliamentary cretins".

Wait, what if you run in the USA, and not in parliamentary elections, that might be even better!


- but you still need to get their support ,dont you?Yes.


and how you are going to get that if not by offering reformsStruggling for reforms side by side with them. As I am a part of them.


- i.e. reformismNo, reformism is the idea that you can reform your way into socialism. No revolution is needed, just winning an election and introducing reforms. No oppressing of the bourgeoisie, just using bourgeois law to introduce "socialist" reforms.


- as opposed to socialism to a non socialist proletariat?You don't "offer" socialism. I can't give them socialism. They have to do it themselves. I offer them the knowledge of what socialism is. I offer them the steps necessary to take political power, and abolish capitalism.

If you consider expropriation of the bourgeoisie, abolition of wage labour, and all that to be mere "reforms", then you are an idiot.


In any case, if you had mass support why would you need then to engage in an "insurrection" and what chance do you think you have against a well armed capitalist state? Well, the "insurrection" of the Bolsheviks went quite bloodlessly, with no shots fired, I believe.

You can't take and use the bourgeois state in the interests of the proletariat. You have to destroy it. A few examples of destroying it:

- Disarming and dismissing the police force, all military officers and non-proletarian soldiers.

- Abolition of the parliament/congress/senate and takeover of their functions by workers' and soldiers' councils, and the latters' committees and organs.

- elections to said councils

- Abolition of all differences in rank, all orders and titles. Complete legal and social equality of the sexes.

- Expropriation of all dynastic wealth and income for the collectivity, the expropriation of major industry

And many more can be suggested.


But you just said the masses are not socialist and for which reason a DOTP has to be set up . How can capitalism be abolished if the workers are not socialist?The DOTP is a part of the struggle, the struggle is what educates the workers first, socialists come second. The process of the abolition is an education as well, at which point (at the final point of abolition, when capitalism has been done away with in totality, the vast majority will then be socialists.

As the prevailing ideas of any society are those of the ruling class, when the proletariat becomes the ruling class, then those ideas will become the prevailing ones: socialism being the idea.


You may say you want to guide them towards socialist consciousness after set up your DOTP But in the meantime your DOTP will be running capitalism will it not? Abolishing capitalism, actually.

Running capitalism is impossible when you are expropriating the bourgeoisie, having workers councils (the workers themselves) in charge of production, eliminating pieces of the capitalist mode of production.


What if they chose not to? What if they prefer instead to take political power via parliamentary means, for example. Who are you to say they should not?I don't say they shouldn't, I say they can't.


How am I ignoring material conditions by pointing out that the strategy oif vanguardism as set out by Lenin in the quote I gave resulted in the vanguard transmogrifying in to a new state capitalist ruling class. Actually I am being the materialist here and it the naive idealists who are the ones who tend to deny that if you opt to administer a capitalist system - as a DOTP would have to - then you will increasingly become detached from the working class and end up opposing this class. The practical exigencies of running capitalism will force this outcome upon your vanguard, whether it likes it or not. Czpitalism can only be run in the interest of capital not wage labour and you will end up supporting capital by the very fact of having to administer capitalismYes, vanguardism and the idea of the DOTP was the failure of Russian socialism.

Nevermind famine, civil war, failed world revolution, world war, backward nature of Russian capital, isolation, mistakes, etc.


Well there you are then - so workers councils are not quite the big deal they are cracked out to be after all!! Its just sad that so many on the left seem to make a festish out of the forms of organisation while ignoring the contentThe problems that arose were again, a result of material conditions.

The peasantry was the majority in Russia, and this is the part of acknowledgment the backward nature of Russian capital. The nature of the majority was in the interests of the peasants, and although the Bolsheviks tried to fight in the interests of socialism, they were forced to appease to the peasantry (see the Bolshevik agrarian plan, and NEP as examples). Who were becomming the majority in the councils, and the Bolsheviks resorted to taking power for themselves.

A good phrase I heard was: "the workers of Russia's cities are caught between the Hammer of world imperialism and the Anvil of the peasant redistribution"

This is a point not lost by Lenin, but Lenin sought world revolution to save Russia from, well, itself.

Material conditions.

Now, stop using Soviet Russia as THE example of a DOTP. Remember, it was a dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What about the original term, the very loathed "mass party" :D?

Nah, the neologism party-movement is more in touch with present times. :cool:

[robbo203]

Yes, and I can recall their maximum programme as well. I am so sad that the communist Thatcher and Reagan betrayed the proletariat like that!

LOL and so too will your vanguard! It too will have to gain the support of the non socialist majority on non-socialist reformist grounds, In short it will have to pander to the pro-capitalist sentiments of workers in order to get into power. Only then, according to you, can workers gain socialist consciousness under the gudance of said vanguard. One infers from this there is no point in even mentioning socialism or the maximum programme before such an eventuality. This incidentally is the same flawed logic that applied to the parties of the Second International epitomised by the SPD. What happened? The minimum programme simply squeezed out the maximum and all thought of socialist revolution receded like the Cheshire cats grim. Exactly the same fate will await you if you ever got the chance to get within sniffing range of the corrdors of power which is most unlikely



Not if the vanguard party is not in power.


Huh? Now youve lost me completely. So are you now saying your vanguard will not be making reformist demands as a way of getting into power - in which case how does it gain the support of workers to get into power? Please explain. It cant be as a result of promoting the idea of a socialist society because, as you point out, that will have to wait till your vanguard gets into power. So how does it get into power for which as as you say it needs support ? How does it get this support? On what basis does it attract this support?




What do you say to council communists who oppose a vanguard party? Or Marxist-Humanists who oppose a vanguard party? They both support the idea of a DOTP.

I would say "one out of two correct; you could do better";)



Engels referred to your lot as "parliamentary cretins".


Engels also said this which is worth a read:

The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionaries", the "overthrowers" — we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves....

The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough....

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

(Works of Frederick Engels 1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s
The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 - my emphasis in bold )


And Marx too was far more flexible on the matter than some on the Left today who have this fetishistic attitude towards workers councils and the like while dogmatically ruling as totally out of the question any thought of engaging in any kind of electoral strategy

But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm




Struggling for reforms side by side with them. As I am a part of them.


So you have now admitted that you will in fact be engaged in reformist activity as a means to gaining power. You will in short be giving assent and credibility to the non-revolutiuonary idea that you can mend capitalism rather than end capitalism. By engaging in reformist activity you will seeking to put pressure on capitalist governments and capitalist political parties. lobbying them to to introduce this political measure or enact that peice of legislation. Do you see this as being compatible with a revolutionary perspective?




No, reformism is the idea that you can reform your way into socialism. No revolution is needed, just winning an election and introducing reforms. No oppressing of the bourgeoisie, just using bourgeois law to introduce "socialist" reforms.

No this is not refromism. You are confusing reformism with Fabian gradualism. Liberals and conservatives have also historically been reformist - though in the present climate of economic retrenchment reformism has more or less dead for the time being. David Camerons talk of the "Big Society" sounds refromist but is just empty rhetoric





You don't "offer" socialism. I can't give them socialism. They have to do it themselves. I offer them the knowledge of what socialism is. I offer them the steps necessary to take political power, and abolish capitalism.

I know you cant give people socialism - that my whole point and what I have been banging on about!. It why I oppose the theory of vanguardism which is predicated on the utterly false and dangerous belief that the majority can somehow be emancipated by the enlightened minority



If you consider expropriation of the bourgeoisie, abolition of wage labour, and all that to be mere "reforms", then you are an idiot..


No those things are not reforms - obviously. But this is not what you are proposing to workers while you are not yet in power - is it? . You have admitted yourself that you will be struggling for reforms. You wont be saying to the workers "lets abolish the wages system!" because according to you the workers will not be receptive to such ideas unless and until you, the vanguard, are in power and give them guidance in such matters

Not to be funny about it, but I think your whole perspective is a complete mish mash which hasn't been thought out at all, frankly

[l'Enfermé]

^You don't seem to understand what "reformism", in the context of "far-left" revolutionary politics means. It's the notion that the capitalist mode of production can evolve into a socialist one through a gradual process of peaceful reform(i.e peaceful parliamentary activity à la Bernstein), with no "anarchic", "disruptive", "violent", etc., etc., revolutions required.

[Dave B]

As opposed to the;



……….notion that the state capitalist mode of production can evolve into a socialist one through a gradual process of peaceful reform……..?
Actually at least in terms of the phrase mongering Lenin’s own State Capitalist

‘Road to Socialism’

it seems to have had its origins in Otto Bauers own 1915? Pro State capitalist pamphlet;

‘The Road to Socialism’

Not read it just ‘heard’ about it.

Apparently it was a Hilferding version of ‘Organised Capitalism’.

One could understand perhaps Lenin’s reluctance to confess the plagiarism.

[robbo203]

^You don't seem to understand what "reformism", in the context of "far-left" revolutionary politics means. It's the notion that the capitalist mode of production can evolve into a socialist one through a gradual process of peaceful reform(i.e peaceful parliamentary activity à la Bernstein), with no "anarchic", "disruptive", "violent", etc., etc., revolutions required.


No you misunderstand. Reformism is more than just this particular narrow gloss you put on it which as I said is specifically gradualism - the idea that you can evolve gradually towards socialism. Reformism also applies to explicitly non-socialist attempts to legislate or enact measures that seek to ameliorate or address certain problems that arise under capitalism and which are not in any sense motivated by the desire to establish socialism. In the area of welfare legislation, for instance, explicitly non-socialist (as opposed to pseudo socialist) political parties and governments have often been actively reformist. Quintin Hogg - later Lord Hailsham - of the Tory Party famously said in 1943 in connection with the Beveridge report about setting up the welfare state in Britain: 'We must give them reforms or they will give us revolution."

[l'Enfermé]

^I'm sorry robbo, but I'm afraid you can't change the meaning of such important conceptions like "reformism".

And no, I didn't say that reformism is the idea that "you can evolve gradually towards socialism". I said that reformism is the notion that the advance from capitalism to socialism will be a gradual process of peaceful reform-oriented parliamentary activity. "Gradualism", by the way, is a compromise between exactly this reformism and Communist/Anarchist revolutionism.

[Red Enemy]

LOL and so too will your vanguard! It too will have to gain the support of the non socialist majority on non-socialist reformist grounds, In short it will have to pander to the pro-capitalist sentiments of workers in order to get into power. Only then, according to you, can workers gain socialist consciousness under the gudance of said vanguard. One infers from this there is no point in even mentioning socialism or the maximum programme before such an eventuality. This incidentally is the same flawed logic that applied to the parties of the Second International epitomised by the SPD. What happened? The minimum programme simply squeezed out the maximum and all thought of socialist revolution receded like the Cheshire cats grim. Exactly the same fate will await you if you ever got the chance to get within sniffing range of the corrdors of power which is most unlikelyThe SPD was a reformist party...a reformist, and opportunist, anti-marxist party (by the time they were elected). The struggle for, and institution of, reforms come hand in hand with the overthrow of the bourgeois state.

As well, it's not the vanguard party who promises to deliver, it's the working class themselves who has to deliver the reforms - (say the 6 hour work day, living wage, etc. - which would be reforms achieved at the hands of the workers under their proletariat dictatorship)

As well, the reforms the "vanguard party" offer, are to be fought for in the streets, not in the parliament. It is the struggle, again, that we care for.


Huh? Now youve lost me completely. So are you now saying your vanguard will not be making reformist demands as a way of getting into power - in which case how does it gain the support of workers to get into power? In the struggle for reforms the working class grows class conscious, aware of it's strength, aware of the nature of capitalism, and if there is a truly proletariat organization which can offer the knowledge of the overthrow of the system, history shows they will seek out their interests.


Please explain. It cant be as a result of promoting the idea of a socialist society because, as you point out, that will have to wait till your vanguard gets into power. Until the WORKING CLASS gets into power (not a minority in their interests).


So how does it get into power for which as as you say it needs support ? How does it get this support? On what basis does it attract this support?Class struggle, information, propaganda.


I would say "one out of two correct; you could do better";)
Not what I meant. You express the DOTP as if it goes hand in hand with a vanguard party, and a vanguard being the rulers. Incorrect.


Engels also said this which is worth a read:

The irony of world history turns everything upside down. We, the "revolutionaries", the "overthrowers" — we are thriving far better on legal methods than on illegal methods and overthrow. The parties of order, as they call themselves, are perishing under the legal conditions created by themselves....

The franchise has been, in the words of the French Marxist programme, transformé de moyen de duperie qu'il a été jusquici en instrument d'emancipation — transformed by them from a means of deception, which it was before, into an instrument of emancipation. And if universal suffrage had offered no other advantage than that it allowed us to count our numbers every three years; that by the regularly established, unexpectedly rapid rise in our vote it increased in equal measure the workers’ certainty of victory and the dismay of their opponents, and so became our best means of propaganda; that it accurately informed us of our own strength and that of all opposing parties, and thereby provided us with a measure of proportion second to none for our actions, safeguarding us from untimely timidity as much as from untimely foolhardiness — if this had been the only advantage we gained from the suffrage, it would still have been much more than enough....

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

(Works of Frederick Engels 1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s
The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 - my emphasis in bold )


And Marx too was far more flexible on the matter than some on the Left today who have this fetishistic attitude towards workers councils and the like while dogmatically ruling as totally out of the question any thought of engaging in any kind of electoral strategy

But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same.

You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means.http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

Did you know that the Russian revolution was, relatively, peaceful?

Insurrection doesn't need to be violent :)

Let's read some more quotes of Marx and Engels:

"Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character," - Communist Manifesto

"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions." - Communist Manifesto


of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past.Agreed :)


So you have now admitted that you will in fact be engaged in reformist activity as a means to gaining power.No, reformists promise reforms in parliament, with the notion of subduing the workers. Revolutionaries fight for "reforms", side by side with the proletariat, in the streets.


You will in short be giving assent and credibility to the non-revolutiuonary idea that you can mend capitalism rather than end capitalism.Strawman here, a strawman there.

Robbo, come on, you can do better.

You know I am opposed to "reformism". Reformists don't fight in the streets for reforms. Unlike reformists, I also don't believe capitalism can be mended, nor do I advocate that the bourgeoisie will keep reforms in place in times of crisis.


By engaging in reformist activity you will seeking to put pressure on capitalist governments and capitalist political parties. lobbying them to to introduce this political measure or enact that peice of legislation. Do you see this as being compatible with a revolutionary perspective?As Rosa Luxemburg said:

" Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms? Certainly not. The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim." (Emphasis mine)


No this is not refromism. You are confusing reformism with Fabian gradualism. Liberals and conservatives have also historically been reformist - though in the present climate of economic retrenchment reformism has more or less dead for the time being. David Camerons talk of the "Big Society" sounds refromist but is just empty rhetoricYou should give "Reform or Revolution" a read.


I know you cant give people socialism - that my whole point and what I have been banging on about!. It why I oppose the theory of vanguardism which is predicated on the utterly false and dangerous belief that the majority can somehow be emancipated by the enlightened minorityThe vanguard doesn't give the people socialism. It guides them in the struggle, and (as the vanguard of an army) is still apart of the working class, with the same interests.


No those things are not reforms - obviously. But this is not what you are proposing to workers while you are not yet in power - is it?Yes, it is.


You have admitted yourself that you will be struggling for reforms.Struggling, yes. The struggle is the great teacher.


You wont be saying to the workers "lets abolish the wages system!" because according to you the workers will not be receptive to such ideas unless and until you, the vanguard, are in power and give them guidance in such mattersYes I will. Whether they are receptive or not. The goal is to promote it, and win the workers to it.


Not to be funny about it, but I think your whole perspective is a complete mish mash which hasn't been thought out at all, franklyYou don't know my perspective, as you have clearly demonstrated by you completely inaccurate analysis of it.

[Red Enemy]

As opposed to the;

Actually at least in terms of the phrase mongering Lenin’s own State Capitalist

‘Road to Socialism’

it seems to have had its origins in Otto Bauers own 1915? Pro State capitalist pamphlet;

‘The Road to Socialism’

Not read it just ‘heard’ about it.

Apparently it was a Hilferding version of ‘Organised Capitalism’.

One could understand perhaps Lenin’s reluctance to confess the plagiarism.
First, stop using obnoxious spacing and font size.

Second, "state capitalism" (in the context of a DOTP), is a step toward socialism.

[Geiseric]

First, stop using obnoxious spacing and font size.

Second, "state capitalism" (in the context of a DOTP), is a step toward socialism.

Believe me we've been over this with him a few times. I gave up.

[robbo203]

^I'm sorry robbo, but I'm afraid you can't change the meaning of such important conceptions like "reformism".

And no, I didn't say that reformism is the idea that "you can evolve gradually towards socialism". I said that reformism is the notion that the advance from capitalism to socialism will be a gradual process of peaceful reform-oriented parliamentary activity. "Gradualism", by the way, is a compromise between exactly this reformism and Communist/Anarchist revolutionism.

I am not changing the meaning of the term reformism. I am trying to tell you that there are at least two different meanings. A point which you dont seem to have taken on board.

I am well aware of the specific meaning of reformism you cite. Your distinction between this and gradualism is a distinction without a difference. Mandel, for instance, uses reformism in the sense that you use it and quite rightly labels it gradualist - contrary to your idea that gradualism is some sort of compromise term

Reformism is the illusion that a gradual dismantling of the power of Capital is possible. First of all you nationalise 20 per cent, then 30 per cent, then 50 per cent, then 60 per cent of capitalist property. In this way the economic power of Capital is dissolved little by little. You take from the bourgeoisie first of all a big city, then two municipalities, then the majority in Parliament, then the power to dictate teaching programmes, then the majority of the circulation of newspapers, then the control of the municipal police, then the power to choose the majority of top civil servants, magistrates and officers: the political power of Capital will just fade away.

Reformism is therefore essentially gradualist. ("The nature of social-democratic reformism" International Viewpoint Oct 1993)


However that is one definfiiton of reformnism but there are others too as this article by Stan Parker points out

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/2000s/2002/no-1171-march-2002/reformism-or-socialism

Marxist.Org defines refromism thus

Reformists are politically between revolutionaries and reactionaries; they are revolutionary in the sense that they want to change laws and institutions to adhere to emerging social-relations. They are reactionary in the sense that they want to maintain the present social system, keeping intact the present class structure, and maintaining their own power within that structure.

Note that phrase "maintaining the present social system". This contradicts your claim that reformism is the notion that the "capitalist mode of production can evolve into a socialist one through a gradual process of peaceful reform(i.e peaceful parliamentary activity à la Bernstein)". That is NOT maintaining the present social system, is it? It is rather seekling to modify it to the extent that it is gradually replaced by a different social system - socialism.

There are numerous examples of the use of reformism in this sense - that is to say, the advocacy and enactment of reforms through parliament that are not NOT motivated in any sense by the desire to establish socialism , either in the short or long term. Lord Hailsham, the Tory Peer, whose remark I quoted - 'We must give them reforms or they will give us revolution" - was essentially taking up a REFORMIST position. He was saying that there was a need for the state to address certain problems - in this content the problem of workers' welfare - which, if did not, could lead to revolution i.e. a transformation in the nature of society.. He was asserting in other words that capitalism need to be reformed - not done away with - in order to prevent workers becoming revolutionary minded.

That is reformism just as much as the pretensions of Bernstein to reform capitalsim in a manner that paved the way to socialism

[robbo203]

First, stop using obnoxious spacing and font size.

Second, "state capitalism" (in the context of a DOTP), is a step toward socialism.

Not quite true. Lenin also said "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people". He was distinguishing between two kinds of state capitalism - one operated in the interests of the bourgeoisie (it is this one that would be a "step toward socialism" compared to private capitalism), the other operated in the interests of the whole people (allegedly) which would be "socialism"

However, state capitalism - however you define it - is still a variant of capitalism as the name itself suggests - so Lenin in calling "socialism" a variant of capitalism was directly contradicting everything that Marxists had hitherto understood about capitalism and socialism

[l'Enfermé]

^No. No, no, no. Enough of that. Most of your arguments, funnily enough, are based on taking Lenin's words out of context or exploiting what he said or wrote in speech or pamphlet directed at semi-illiterate workers - obviously, the theoretical points had to be dumbed down.

You are quoting a pamphlet written by Lenin in 1917, while he was hiding in Finland following the July Days, called The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It. Obviously, you didn't read it. If you did, you would understand the meaning(or maybe you do understand the meaning, perhaps you are merely being dishonest - I don't know). The "socialism is state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people" passage is found in the end. This is the whole thing:


What has been said so far may easily arouse the following objection on the part of a reader who has been brought up on the current opportunist ideas of the Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks. Most measures described here, he may say, are already in effect socialist and not democratic measures!

This current objection, one that is usually raised (in one form or another) in the bourgeois, Socialist-Revolutionary and Menshevik press, is a reactionary defence of backward capitalism, a defence decked out in a Struvean garb. It seems to say that we are not ripe for socialism, that it is too early to "introduce" socialism, that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution and therefore we must be the menials of the bourgeoisie (although the great bourgeois revolutionaries in France 125 years ago made their revolution a great revolution by exercising terror against all oppressors, landowners and capitalists alike!).

The pseudo-Marxist lackeys of the bourgeoisie, who have been joined by the Socialist-Revolutionaries and who argue in this way, do not understand (as an examination of the theoretical basis of their opinion shows) what imperialism is, what capitalist monopoly is, what the state is, and what revolutionary democracy is. For anyone who understands this is bound to admit that there can be no advance except towards socialism.

Everybody talks about imperialism. But imperialism is merely monopoly capitalism.

That capitalism in Russia has also become monopoly capitalism is sufficiently attested by the examples of the Produgol, the Prodamet, the Sugar Syndicate, etc. This Sugar Syndicate is an object-lesson in the way monopoly capitalism develops into state-monopoly capitalism.

And what is the state? It is an organisation of the ruling class — in Germany, for instance, of the Junkers and capitalists. And therefore what the German Plekhanovs (Scheidemann, Lensch, and others) call "war-time socialism" is in fact war-time state-monopoly capitalism, or, to put it more simply and clearly, war-time penal servitude for the workers and war-time protection for capitalist profits.

Now try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state- monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step, and more than one step, towards socialism!

For if a huge capitalist undertaking becomes a monopoly, it means that it serves the whole nation. If it has become a state monopoly, it means that the state (i.e., the armed organisation of the population, the workers and peasants above all, provided there is revolutionary democracy) directs the whole undertaking. In whose interest?

Either in the interest of the landowners and capitalists, in which case we have not a revolutionary-democratic, but a reactionary-bureaucratic state, an imperialist republic.

Or in the interest of revolutionary democracy—and then it is a step towards socialism.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.

Either we have to be revolutionary democrats in fact, in which case we must not fear to take steps towards socialism. Or we fear to take steps towards socialism, condemn them in the Plekhanov, Dan or Chernov way, by arguing that our revolution is a bourgeois revolution, that socialism cannot be “introduced”, etc., in which case we inevitably sink to the level of Kerensky, Milyukov and Kornilov, i.e., we in a reactionary-bureaucratic way suppress the “revolutionary-democratic” aspirations of the workers and peasants.

There is no middle course.

And therein lies the fundamental contradiction of our revolution.

It is impossible to stand still in history in general, and in war-time in particular. We must either advance or retreat. It is impossible in twentieth-century Russia, which has won a republic and democracy in a revolutionary way, to go forward without advancing towards socialism, without taking steps towards it (steps conditioned and determined by the level of technology and culture: large-scale machine production cannot be “introduced” in peasant agriculture nor abolished in the sugar industry).

But to fear to advance means retreating—which the Kerenskys, to the delight of the Milyukovs and Plekhanovs, and with the foolish assistance of the Tseretelis and Chernovs, are actually doing.

The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism.

Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.

* *
*
Our Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks approach the question of socialism in a doctrinaire way, from the standpoint of a doctrine learnt by heart but poorly understood. They picture socialism as some remote, unknown and dim future.

But socialism is now gazing at us from all the windows of modern capitalism; socialism is outlined directly, practically, by every important measure that constitutes a forward step on the basis of this modern capitalism.

What is universal labour conscription?

It is a step forward on the basis of modern monopoly capitalism, a step towards the regulation of economic life as a whole, in accordance with a certain general plan, a step towards the economy of national labour and towards the prevention of its senseless wastage by capitalism.

In Germany it is the Junkers (landowners) and capitalists who are introducing universal labour conscription, and therefore it inevitably becomes war-time penal servitude for the workers.

But take the same institution and think over its significance in a revolutionary-democratic state. Universal labour conscription, introduced, regulated and directed by the Soviets of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies, will still not be socialism, but it will no longer be capitalism. It will be a tremendous step towards socialism, a step from which, if complete democracy is preserved, there can no longer be any retreat back to capitalism, without unparalleled violence being committed against the masses.

1 - Lenin's central point is not that "state-capitalism=good", which you imply it is. Not at all. His central point is to attack the traitors and cravens who caution to restrain the "revolutionary-democratic" aspirations of the workers, to attack the "socialists"(be they self-proclaimed Marxists or Social-Revolutionaries) who wish to constrain the development of the Russian Revolution by saying it cannot be anything but a bourgeois revolution, and say that because of this, the socialists must serve as the lackeys of the capitalists and the workers must subordinate their revolutionary ambitions to the wishes of the bourgeoisie. They say, "it's too early for socialism, we are not ripe for socialism, we must subjugate ourselves to the bourgeoisie!", and Lenin replies, "no, that is false, imperialism and the war have signaled the eve of socialist revolution, the sole way forward is to socialism".

2 - You say that a state-monopoly capitalism operated in the interests of the bourgeoisie is what Lenin claims is a "step towards socialism". This is another one of your lies. Lenin says that state-monopoly capitalism under a revolutionary-democratic state(a state which "abolishes all privilege" and introduces the "fullest democracy in a revolutionary way", a state of workers and peasants) is a step towards socialism. He says that a state-monopoly capitalism, operated in the interests of the bourgeoisie(and landowners) is a "reactionary-bureacratic state, an imperialist republic". Anyone that read the pamphlet would know this. Since you pretend to be an expert on all things Bolshevik, and quote this pamphlet everywhere, we can't but help assuming that when you write, "He was distinguishing between two kinds of state capitalism - one operated in the interests of the bourgeoisie (it is this one that would be a "step toward socialism" compared to private capitalism), the other operated in the interests of the whole people (allegedly) which would be "socialism", you're just being dishonest, and not ignorant.

3 - Lenin didn't say "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people", Lenin said "For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". You can't just redact the most important part of the quote and pretend that your bastardized version is Lenin's real opinion.

4 - Lenin did not equate socialism to state-capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism. This is another one of your lies, which, frankly, are getting rather annoying. In The Impending Catastrophe and How To Combat It, an obscure pamphlet, written in 1917, Lenin says that socialism is state-monopoly capitalism that has ceased to be state-capitalist monopoly. This is a very crude and awkward way of putting. Instead, let's see what Lenin has to say in another work written in 1917. A pretty important one, probably the most important theoretical work written by Lenin during the last 7 or 8 years of his life. I'm talking about The State and Revolution. What does Lenin say of Socialism in TSAR(lol, Czar)? He says, in Chapter 5, that the First Phase of Communist Society, which, he says, in his time, is usually called "socialism"(to contrast it with the "higher stage of communism" - pure communism), is a class-less society, where the means of production are common property. What does he say about "state-monopoly capitalism"? In Chapter 4, in no unclear terms, he says that the the assertion that state-monopoly capitalism is "state-socialism" is a "erroneous bourgeois-reformist" and that under state-monopoly capitalism "we still remain under capitalism--at its new stage, it is true, but still capitalism, without a doubt".

So, yeah, I think it's pretty clear that you have no real idea about Lenin's position, re. state-monopoly capitalism, or socialism, or most other things.

[Red Enemy]

Not quite true. Lenin also said "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people". He was distinguishing between two kinds of state capitalism - one operated in the interests of the bourgeoisie (it is this one that would be a "step toward socialism" compared to private capitalism), the other operated in the interests of the whole people (allegedly) which would be "socialism"

However, state capitalism - however you define it - is still a variant of capitalism as the name itself suggests - so Lenin in calling "socialism" a variant of capitalism was directly contradicting everything that Marxists had hitherto understood about capitalism and socialismSo, your argument is semantics.

Thank you for clarifying.

Had Lenin said "State Proletarian Monopoly", you wouldn't be going around whining that Lenin said anything.

[robbo203]

So, yeah, I think it's pretty clear that you have no real idea about Lenin's position, re. state-monopoly capitalism, or socialism, or most other things.


It is amusing seeing you trying to wriggle your way out of the plain fact which anyone with half an ounce of sense would instantly recognise was the case - that Lenin was clearly and unequivocally equating socialism with state capitalism - or at least a form of state capitalism. The fact that he appended to his statement "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people", the phrase "and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly" does not alter in any way. shape or form the fact that, for him, in this passage socialism IS merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the the interests of the whole people. A state capitalist monopoly of this nature is STILL state capitalism of a knd and therefore is STILL a form of capitalism. Lenin also said incidentally A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? October 1, 1917 Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 87-136). That should drive home the point regarding Lenins conception of "socialism"!



I realise logic is not your forte but even you must surely see what Lenin is doing here . Or perhaps not. Perhaps youve got your head stuck so far up your arse you cannot even see something so blindingly obvious as this. Still never mind.

BTW the bit about state capitalist monopoly allegedly run in the interests of the whole people - what lenin calls "socialism" - not being a capitalist monopoly any longer can best be understood in the light of the distinction Lenin makes between monopoly capitalism and state monopoly capitalism - that is when the state takes over the monopoly

The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism.


Thats all it means but you are reading into something that doesnt exist

So you say :

" Lenin didn't say "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people", Lenin said "For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly".


Its hilarious. First you say Lenin didnt say that sentence Ive put in bold and then you say he did!. Which is it? You are truly a clown of the first order.

And to cap it all you then say Lenin did not equate socialism to state-capitalism or state-monopoly capitalism. This is another one of your lies, which, frankly, are getting rather annoying. Ouch!

Perhaps you might care to explain what Lenin was actually talking aboiut when he said socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people :laugh::laugh:

Oh yeah and as for the reference to state capitalism run in the interests of the bourgeoisie here's what Lenin had to say on the subject of German state capitalism

While the revolution in Germany is still slow in “coming forth”, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, without hesitating to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm

'nuff said!

[Art Vandelay]

No matter how many times he's been asked I've still yet to see Robbo answer the question of what happens when revolution breaks out in an isolated area. You've claimed that as soon as the capitalists are expropriated, the bourgeoisie and proletariat have been abolished (as well as capitalism) due to the fact that they only exist, as a class, in relation to the capitalist mode of production. Therefor you either (a) posit for the entire world proletariat to amass socialist class consciousness in some wave which sweeps the globe at the same time and therefor instantaneous proletarian revolution, or (b) a form of socialism in one country. Those are the only two options and there is no escaping that.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I realize that this is a bit off topic, but given that people are discussing state capitalism as a transitional phase to socialism, I feel it is relevant.

[blake 3:17]

^I'm sorry robbo, but I'm afraid you can't change the meaning of such important conceptions like "reformism".

And no, I didn't say that reformism is the idea that "you can evolve gradually towards socialism". I said that reformism is the notion that the advance from capitalism to socialism will be a gradual process of peaceful reform-oriented parliamentary activity. "Gradualism", by the way, is a compromise between exactly this reformism and Communist/Anarchist revolutionism.

From what I understand of Bernstein, was that he proposed scientifically that there would be a coming together of co-ops and unions which would somehow starve the capitalists out. Or just replace them. I actually really want to study his thought -- I'm overfamiliar with the Luxemburg/Kautsky/Lenin attacks on him, he was a pacifist, and he was queer.

The exact distinctions between genuine reformism (not Clinton/Blair crap), gradualism, centrism and revolutionary politics get very very blurred when you're actually doing them. There are theoretical lines (which I hear too much of) and there are practical lines. In movement work I've met many very sincere and very dedicated reformists, gradualists, and centrists who were much more committed to doing the base work, following through on basic tasks, supporting unpopular and sometimes criminalized causes than most "revolutionaries" would do or ever did do. I know revolutionaries who are bound very deeply in gradualist, reformist, centrist causes that it would make absolutely no sense for them to more revolutionier than thou on anyone.

These are realities.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Bernstein suggested that cartels and trusts would naturally do the trick, if I remember Louis Proyect's comments on the subject.

[Art Vandelay]

Hmm it almost sounds like Bernstein was perhaps rehashing some old Proudhon garbage.

[blake 3:17]

Hmm it almost sounds like Bernstein was perhaps rehashing some old Proudhon garbage.

From what I get it was a bit more corporatist than Proudhon. In terms of understanding pre World War 2 German Marxism and anarchism is that Germany industrialized very very very rapidly.

The closest comparisons would be Japan and Russia? Correct me if I'm wrong.

For both the poor peasantry, the not so poor peasantry, and many parts of the urban middle strata, German industrial capitalism was a disaster.

The two great thinkers on the subject were Heidegger and Benjamin -- one chose Nazism and the other chose Communism. There are real affinities between their thought, and some of the Left which is pro-Benjamin is I think unfairly harsh to Heidegger. His essay on technology is a masterpiece and his idea of Dasein is really worthwhile. Benjamin is, ultimately, way more interesting, richer in humour and irony, and much more engaged with Modernity.

[robbo203]

No matter how many times he's been asked I've still yet to see Robbo answer the question of what happens when revolution breaks out in an isolated area. You've claimed that as soon as the capitalists are expropriated, the bourgeoisie and proletariat have been abolished (as well as capitalism) due to the fact that they only exist, as a class, in relation to the capitalist mode of production. Therefor you either (a) posit for the entire world proletariat to amass socialist class consciousness in some wave which sweeps the globe at the same time and therefor instantaneous proletarian revolution, or (b) a form of socialism in one country. Those are the only two options and there is no escaping that.




I have answered this question again and again and again. I tire of having to explain myself yet again. Go back to my exchanges with Blakes Baby where I discuss the matter in detail. I do not subscribe to the notion of instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution nor do I subscribe to the notion of socialism in one country. You only think these are the only two possibilities because you havent opened up your mind to a third possibility. Ive explained what that possibility is and why it is NOT comparable at all to the statist idea of socialism in one country



I realize that this is a bit off topic, but given that people are discussing state capitalism as a transitional phase to socialism, I feel it is relevant.

State capitalism is NOT a transitional phase to socialism. Period. When are people going to wake up and smell the coffee. State capitalism is a dead end. Its dead as a dodo, kaput - at least from the point of view of facilitating socialism. In fact it is a formidable obstacle to socialism ideologically speaking. FFS we have had the whole long experience of the Soviet state capitalism to draw upon and some people here still haven't learnt the lesson. State capitalism leads nowhere except perhaps to corporate capitalism which is precisely what the Red Fat Cats in the old Soviet Union opted for - unless you are talking about the chinese version of state capitalism (read Ian Bremmer on this) which is probably the only viable form of state capitalism in global capitalism today. But then chinese style state capitalism is barely distinguishable from corporate capitalism anyway.

[Red Enemy]

I have answered this question again and again and again. I tire of having to explain myself yet again. Go back to my exchanges with Blakes Baby where I discuss the matter in detail. I do not subscribe to the notion of instantaneous worldwide socialist revolution nor do I subscribe to the notion of socialism in one country. You only think these are the only two possibilities because you havent opened up your mind to a third possibility. Ive explained what that possibility is and why it is NOT comparable at all to the statist idea of socialism in one country
"Non-statist" socialism in one country is also NOT POSSIBLE.

[robbo203]

"Non-statist" socialism in one country is also NOT POSSIBLE.

Non-statist" socialism in one country is a countradiction in terms - the point I was trying to make - since the existence of a country implies a state. What you are trying to say is not possible is in fact the only likely way in which socialism is ever going to take effect - through the domino model of revolution based on a worldwide wave of socialist consciousness even if it is to some extent unevenly manifested (hence the domino effect)


Setting up so called proletarian dictatorships to administer state run capitalism in the context of a non socialist majority who have yet to become socialists is an absolute dead end and simply a recipe for new capitalist ruling class to emerge - the vanguard

As Engels said

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

(Works of Frederick Engels 1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s
The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 - my emphasis in bold )

[Thirsty Crow]

Of course, Stalinism would later redefine this notion along substitutionist lines, rendering it a topdown, undemocratically centralized entity.
Though, I would argue that the practical and concrete development of substitutionism (one glaring example is the ban on intra-party factions in 1921) predates Stalinism which turned this practice, itself also a contingent result of the concrete, chaotic conditions of war and counter-revolution to an extent, into principle.

[Red Enemy]

Non-statist" socialism in one country is a countradiction in terms - the point I was trying to make - since the existence of a country implies a state. What you are trying to say is not possible is in fact the only likely way in which socialism is ever going to take effect - through the domino model of revolution based on a worldwide wave of socialist consciousness even if it is to some extent unevenly manifested (hence the domino effect). The existence of a country does not, in fact, "imply a state".

Let us say it in simple terms:

Socialism in one isolated area in the world, be it half of Quebec and part of new york and Ontario together, or Eastern Russia and Northern China together, Or one province or state in a nation, or multiple provinces or states, is impossible.

Again, you continue to ignore the basis of the argumentation against "socialism in one _______". Socialism has to be global.


Setting up so called proletarian dictatorships to administer state run capitalism in the context of a non socialist majority who have yet to become socialists is an absolute dead end and simply a recipe for new capitalist ruling class to emerge - the vanguardAgain, we get to this old canard. You keep repeating yourself, and when refuted, you ignore the posts and keep on repeating.

It gets rather annoying to the rest of us. One can look at it like this (this is just hypothetical, and for the sake of argument):

Prior to DOTP, just about to take state power, working class population only:

35% socialist consciousness (a minority by numbers - They are the members of the vanguard party - Communist Party of Lithunia, for instance)
45% Class conscious, but not yet socialists. (17% are in support of the CPL but not members, 28% in support of social democratic party lithuania i.e. reformism)
20% Reactionary/not class conscious (in support of the capitalist regime, military, fascists, etc.)

That makes 80% of the working class at least class conscious but not necessarily socialists. Look at the numbers, and 52% are in favour of the CPL program - seizure of state power, workers councils, socialism, without all 52% being Marxian socialists. A "passive support", if you will.

The proletariat dictatorship does not "administer capitalism". It destroys it. Doing so by expropriating the bourgeoisie, organizing the economy and society. Again, you keep suggesting that the vanguard will always, no matter what, be in charge of the state in a proletarian dictatorship. The vanguard will rule everything, will become a new class, blah blah blah blah blah.

How many times do I have to say that: NO, YOU GIT, THE WORKING CLASS IS IN CHARGE, THROUGH WORKERS COUNCILS.

You have no answer to council communists, who oppose the vanguard party, but not the DOTP.


As Engels said

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

(Works of Frederick Engels 1895 Introduction to Karl Marx’s
The Class Struggles in France 1848 to 1850 - my emphasis in bold )Engels' quote is an attack on Blanquism.

You must remember, the vanguard leads conscious masses - as a part of the masses. So, your concept of vanguard is wrong.

[nihilust]

from the manifesto... "The Communists, therefore, are, on the one hand, practically the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement. The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat"

[robbo203]

The existence of a country does not, in fact, "imply a state".

I think you ll find that it does - unless, of course, you can cite an instance of a country that did not entail a state





Let us say it in simple terms:

Socialism in one isolated area in the world, be it half of Quebec and part of new york and Ontario together, or Eastern Russia and Northern China together, Or one province or state in a nation, or multiple provinces or states, is impossible.

Again, you continue to ignore the basis of the argumentation against "socialism in one _______". Socialism has to be global.

And you, friend, continue to ignore the point that has been constantly made. Socialism WILL be global but it has to start somewhere albeit in a constrained form to begin with. It starts somewhere and. most crucially, in the context of a growing worldwide socialist movement which will support, sustain and provide solidarity with whatever part of the world where it is first formally introduced



Again, we get to this old canard. You keep repeating yourself, and when refuted, you ignore the posts and keep on repeating.

Dont flatter yourself. On the contrary if any one has been comprehensively refuted it is you and yours who seem intent on closing your minds to the devastating consequences that will assuredly happen once you take on the administration of capitalism in the guize of state capitalism . It can only lead to betrayal, substititionism and the rapid decline of the global socialist movement in utter disarray and disillusionment




It gets rather annoying to the rest of us. One can look at it like this (this is just hypothetical, and for the sake of argument):

Prior to DOTP, just about to take state power, working class population only:

35% socialist consciousness (a minority by numbers - They are the members of the vanguard party - Communist Party of Lithunia, for instance)
45% Class conscious, but not yet socialists. (17% are in support of the CPL but not members, 28% in support of social democratic party lithuania i.e. reformism)
20% Reactionary/not class conscious (in support of the capitalist regime, military, fascists, etc.)

That makes 80% of the working class at least class conscious but not necessarily socialists. Look at the numbers, and 52% are in favour of the CPL program - seizure of state power, workers councils, socialism, without all 52% being Marxian socialists. A "passive support", if you will.


This is a recipe for disaster. So the so called dictatorship of the proletariat is esbalished i.e. state capitalism. What will happen? Since state capitalism is a form of capitalism and capitalism cannot possibly be operated in the interests of the working class then those who seek to enforce state capitalism, even with the best of intentions, will soon enough find themselves at odds with working class. Those socialists in the so called vanguard who wanted socialism rather than state capiltalism (which because they are socialist, they will know is not in the interests of the working class) will likewise soon enough find themsleves at odds with the new state capitalist government (aka DOTP so called). The reactionaries will of course capitalise on the ensuing chaos as workers get increasingly disenchanted with the so called proletarian dictatorship supposedly set up in their name and will increasingly fall prey to reactionary sentiments and hanker after the old days when another form of capitalism prevailed. It will all end in tears, believe me




The proletariat dictatorship does not "administer capitalism". It destroys it. Doing so by expropriating the bourgeoisie, organizing the economy and society. Again, you keep suggesting that the vanguard will always, no matter what, be in charge of the state in a proletarian dictatorship. The vanguard will rule everything, will become a new class, blah blah blah blah blah.

How many times do I have to say that: NO, YOU GIT, THE WORKING CLASS IS IN CHARGE, THROUGH WORKERS COUNCILS.


Lets spell it out again for you since you obviously seem a bit slow on the uptake. If the working class exist then so must the bourgeoisie - yes? They are after all, two side of the same coin. If the the bourgeosie has been exprorporated then the bourgeoisie can no longer exists since the bourgeoise only exists in relation to the capital they possess which has supposedly been expropriated from them. However if the bourgeoisie no longer exist then NEITHER DO THE PROLETARIAT as the class in capitalism that is exploited by the bourgeosie. This is so blindingly obvious I cannot imagine for the life of me how you cannot see it

And of course if the working class no longer exist how in heavens name can "the working class be in charge" , huh? Even the very idea of the working class (being the exploited class in capitalism by definition) "being in charge" is is utterly daft. Its like saying the slaves were in charge of a system of chattel clevery, Thats a rather silly thing to say would you not agree?

You may claim that the proletarian dictatorship does not seek to "administer capitalism" but destroy it. However as long as the proletarian dictatorship exists then so too does capitalism. I dont think even you are so dumb as to believe that immediately after the proletarioan dictorship has been set up it abolihses capitalism and hence itself. In theory almost every one I know who supports the dotty idea of a DOTP accepts that it refers to a transitonal period during which capitalism is quite clearly "administered".

And there, you see, is the rub as they say. Administering capitalism means siding with the interests of capital against wage labour and thats exactly what the so called proletarian dictatorship will be forced to even though its heart beats with most purest and most noble of intentions. Only rank idealists and political daydreamers like your good self can believe otherwise. The material imperatives of running capitalism will soon enough destroy those goods intentions and turn the noble heart of the proletarian dictatooship into a cycnical and self seeking machine that will seek ever more devious and ruthless ways of exploiting the proletariat in the name of the proletariat



You have no answer to council communists, who oppose the vanguard party, but not the DOTP.

Ive just answered it ;)




Engels' quote is an attack on Blanquism.

You must remember, the vanguard leads conscious
masses - as a part of the masses. So, your concept of vanguard is wrong.


Engels said "The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past" Your hypothetical scenario posists a minority of socialist - 35% - what you call the vanbguard - leading the non socialist working class majority in a revolution. I think that exactly describes the situation Engels rightly said we should avoid

[Art Vandelay]

And you, friend, continue to ignore the point that has been constantly made. Socialism WILL be global but it has to start somewhere albeit in a constrained form to begin with. It starts somewhere and. most crucially, in the context of a growing worldwide socialist movement which will support, sustain and provide solidarity with whatever part of the world where it is first formally introduced

Quit tap dancing around the issue and just admit Robbo; you're a supporter of socialism in one country (or if you'd prefer in an isolated area). Now obviously this doesn't contain the same connotations as M-L's SIOC, but its just equally as absurd. I'm not going to spend my time digging through some old huge thread, when your politics are quite clear to anyone reading them. You're just being dishonest at this point, if you continue to deny your support for socialism in an isolated area; even if it just means at the start of the revolution, before it spreads.

[robbo203]

Quit tap dancing around the issue and just admit Robbo; you're a supporter of socialism in one country (or if you'd prefer in an isolated area). Now obviously this doesn't contain the same connotations as M-L's SIOC, but its just equally as absurd. I'm not going to spend my time digging through some old huge thread, when your politics are quite clear to anyone reading them. You're just being dishonest at this point, if you continue to deny your support for socialism in an isolated area; even if it just means at the start of the revolution, before it spreads.

What on earth are you gabbling on about now. Youve read what Ive writen and even quoted what I have written and now your are wanting me to "admit" what Ive written! FFS. Ive said plainly and clearly socialism starts somewhere, not everywhere at once, but that this is not compatible with the statist concept of socialism in one country for the reasons given. What more do you want?

Whats the song called ? Ah yes - "Bring on the clowns". There seems to be a whole bloody troop of them here on Revleft!

[Art Vandelay]

What on earth are you gabbling on about now. Youve read what Ive writen and even quoted what I have written and now your are wanting me to "admit" what Ive written! FFS. Ive said plainly and clearly socialism starts somewhere, not everywhere at once, but that this is not compatible with the statist concept of socialism in one country for the reasons given. What more do you want?

Whats the song called ? Ah yes - "Bring on the clowns". There seems to be a whole bloody troop of them here on Revleft!

No yeah I'm the clown. Not the person claiming that socialism (which is stateless) can exist in an isolated area of the world. You have no conception of what a state is and other than you and your minion coup d'etat, everyone sees that conviction for what it is: absurd.

[blake 3:17]

Non-statist" socialism in one country is a countradiction in terms - the point I was trying to make - since the existence of a country implies a state.


I'd question that. Within parts of the Americas, Africa, and Asia, (and I guess thinking about it, Europe), there are nations which are either stateless or...

The prime example I can think of is Chiapas, Mexico.

Tom Flanagan (info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_(political_scientist) ) has, in the past, attacked aboriginal peoples in Canada and parts of the US as Sibero-Americans and the grounds he has attacked them on was their relative statelessness -- no jails, no prisons, no standing armies, no police. He recognizes the Incan and Mayan, historically, as nations because they had these hierarchies.

A lot of people I know refused to read his despicable book First Nations, Second Thoughts but I found invaluable in terms of describing exactly what I oppose. I'd actually highly recommend it, but only on the basis that I've told you I think it is wrong.

On the wikipedia page I linked to above he'll be described as a Conservative, but in his written work he is emphatic that he is a classic liberal. Which he is.

His conception is that of Locke's -- one of normative rules of territory, property, social position, legalistic BS up your ears etc.

His more recent escapades have involved forming alliances with certain portions of the native chiefs and people with Indian Status, to help sell off the land as individual proprietors, and a screw the collective mode of thinking and doing.

[Red Enemy]

I think you ll find that it does - unless, of course, you can cite an instance of a country that did not entail a stateI believe Blake's Baby has some points made on that, below.

However, I continued to say "in an isolated area".


And you, friend, continue to ignore the point that has been constantly made. Socialism WILL be global but it has to start somewhere albeit in a constrained form to begin with.It can only start when the proletariat becomes the ruling class worldwide.


It starts somewhere and. most crucially, in the context of a growing worldwide socialist movement which will support, sustain and provide solidarity with whatever part of the world where it is first formally introducedAgain, how can it sustain itself, how can there be no bourgeoisie or proletariat in one area, but everywhere else there is?

inb4: "Go read my conversation with Blake Baby"


Dont flatter yourself. On the contrary if any one has been comprehensively refuted it is you and yours who seem intent on closing your minds to the devastating consequences that will assuredly happen once you take on the administration of capitalism in the guize of state capitalism . It can only lead to betrayal, substititionism and the rapid decline of the global socialist movement in utter disarray and disillusionment It's so funny how you keep repeating yourself, over...and over...and over.

The DOTP is abolishing capitalism. Not running it. How can "substitutionism" occur when the proletariat is the ruling class?


This is a recipe for disaster. So the so called dictatorship of the proletariat is esbalished i.e. state capitalism. It doesn't "establish state capitalism".

State capitalism was a step forward for Russia in 1918 you fucking tool.


What will happen? Since state capitalism is a form of capitalism and capitalism cannot possibly be operated in the interests of the working class then those who seek to enforce state capitalism, even with the best of intentions, will soon enough find themselves at odds with working class. The point is not to "operate it in the interests of the working class". It's to abolish it.


Those socialists in the so called vanguard who wanted socialism rather than state capiltalism (which because they are socialist, they will know is not in the interests of the working class) will likewise soon enough find themsleves at odds with the new state capitalist government (aka DOTP so called).So, the working class will start exploiting itself?


The reactionaries will of course capitalise on the ensuing chaos as workers get increasingly disenchanted with the so called proletarian dictatorship supposedly set up in their name and will increasingly fall prey to reactionary sentiments and hanker after the old days when another form of capitalism prevailed.Again, you COMPLETELY and utterly ignore material conditions that surrounded Russia. It's getting tedious to debate with you, because you ignore material conditions as the reason why what happened in Russia happened. No, "the only factor was the dreaded DOTP idea!!!!!!" you say.


Lets spell it out again for you since you obviously seem a bit slow on the uptake. If the working class exist then so must the bourgeoisie - yes?Yes.


They are after all, two side of the same coin. If the the bourgeosie has been exprorporated then the bourgeoisie can no longer exists since the bourgeoise only exists in relation to the capital they possess which has supposedly been expropriated from them.The DOTP is a part of a PROCESS. The bourgeoisie are expropriated, and this isn't in an instant. hey will hold onto their mines, will hold onto their dams, and will fight against the proletariat state.


However if the bourgeoisie no longer exist then NEITHER DO THE PROLETARIAT as the class in capitalism that is exploited by the bourgeosie. This is so blindingly obvious I cannot imagine for the life of me how you cannot see itI agree...

The bourgeoisie still exist in the DOTP. No longer the ruling class however. Hence political power being in the hands of the proletariat. At which point, they begin to dismantle, as possible, the capitalist system. This will include expropriating the bourgeoisie as quickly as possible


And of course if the working class no longer exist how in heavens name can "the working class be in charge" , huh? Even the very idea of the working class (being the exploited class in capitalism by definition) "being in charge" is is utterly daft. Its like saying the slaves were in charge of a system of chattel clevery, Thats a rather silly thing to say would you not agree?I'm getting my doubts you have ever read anything marx has written on the subject.


You may claim that the proletarian dictatorship does not seek to "administer capitalism" but destroy it. However as long as the proletarian dictatorship exists then so too does capitalism.Okay, sure. Again, you show that the "capitalist mode of production" is your be all, end all, definition of capitalism.


I dont think even you are so dumb as to believe that immediately after the proletarioan dictorship has been set up it abolihses capitalism and hence itself.Never said that :)


In theory almost every one I know who supports the dotty idea of a DOTP accepts that it refers to a transitonal period during which capitalism is quite clearly "administered".Do they? Surely, you have the sources and quotes to prove me wrong on that?


And there, you see, is the rub as they say. Administering capitalism means siding with the interests of capital against wage labour and thats exactly what the so called proletarian dictatorship will be forced to even though its heart beats with most purest and most noble of intentions.You do not explain WHY or HOW the proletarian dictatorship will begin to operate capitalism in the favour of the bourgoeisie?

I'm sure that nationalizing major industry, reducing the work day to 6 hours, putting workers councils in charge of things is "in the interests of capital".


Only rank idealists and political daydreamers like your good self can believe otherwise.I follow a long line of "idealists and political daydreamers" like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Pannekoek, and many many more :)


The material imperatives of running capitalism will soon enough destroy those goods intentions and turn the noble heart of the proletarian dictatooship into a cycnical and self seeking machine that will seek ever more devious and ruthless ways of exploiting the proletariat in the name of the proletariatNot if revolution occurs worldwide relatively quickly (as it would following the collapse of the American bourgeoisie, for instance).

I agree that the DOTP is not sustainable, indefinite creature.


Ive just answered it ;)Nope. You don't explain HOW.


Engels said "The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past" Your hypothetical scenario posists a minority of socialist - 35% - what you call the vanbguard - leading the non socialist working class majority in a revolution. I think that exactly describes the situation Engels rightly said we should avoidThe non socialist are conscious though.

When Engels' says "unconcious" he is referring to those who are not class conscious.

Blanqui, for instance, was a conspirator, who wished to overthrow the state without the masses support. Perhaps you have never read up on Blanqui?

NOTE: Robbo, you have made me think in our discussion, and because of it, I am starting a thread dedicated to the discussion of the DOTP in "Theory". You have made me look back and think critically on the DOTP, and I mean that seriously, and would appreciate you participation in the new thread.

[robbo203]

I believe Blake's Baby has some points made on that, below.

However, I continued to say "in an isolated area".

It can only start when the proletariat becomes the ruling class worldwide.

Again, how can it sustain itself, how can there be no bourgeoisie or proletariat in one area, but everywhere else there is?

inb4: "Go read my conversation with Blake Baby"

It's so funny how you keep repeating yourself, over...and over...and over.

The DOTP is abolishing capitalism. Not running it. How can "substitutionism" occur when the proletariat is the ruling class?

It doesn't "establish state capitalism".

State capitalism was a step forward for Russia in 1918 you fucking tool.

The point is not to "operate it in the interests of the working class". It's to abolish it.

So, the working class will start exploiting itself?

Again, you COMPLETELY and utterly ignore material conditions that surrounded Russia. It's getting tedious to debate with you, because you ignore material conditions as the reason why what happened in Russia happened. No, "the only factor was the dreaded DOTP idea!!!!!!" you say.

Yes.

The DOTP is a part of a PROCESS. The bourgeoisie are expropriated, and this isn't in an instant. hey will hold onto their mines, will hold onto their dams, and will fight against the proletariat state.

I agree...

The bourgeoisie still exist in the DOTP. No longer the ruling class however. Hence political power being in the hands of the proletariat. At which point, they begin to dismantle, as possible, the capitalist system. This will include expropriating the bourgeoisie as quickly as possible

I'm getting my doubts you have ever read anything marx has written on the subject.

Okay, sure. Again, you show that the "capitalist mode of production" is your be all, end all, definition of capitalism.

Never said that :)

Do they? Surely, you have the sources and quotes to prove me wrong on that?

You do not explain WHY or HOW the proletarian dictatorship will begin to operate capitalism in the favour of the bourgoeisie?

I'm sure that nationalizing major industry, reducing the work day to 6 hours, putting workers councils in charge of things is "in the interests of capital".

I follow a long line of "idealists and political daydreamers" like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxemburg, Bordiga, Pannekoek, and many many more :)

Not if revolution occurs worldwide relatively quickly (as it would following the collapse of the American bourgeoisie, for instance).

I agree that the DOTP is not sustainable, indefinite creature.

Nope. You don't explain HOW.

The non socialist are conscious though.

When Engels' says "unconcious" he is referring to those who are not class conscious.

Blanqui, for instance, was a conspirator, who wished to overthrow the state without the masses support. Perhaps you have never read up on Blanqui?

NOTE: Robbo, you have made me think in our discussion, and because of it, I am starting a thread dedicated to the discussion of the DOTP in "Theory". You have made me look back and think critically on the DOTP, and I mean that seriously, and would appreciate you participation in the new thread.


See this is the problem. You lot accuse me of repeating myself over and over again and there is some truth in the accusation since evidently in your case and that of your ideological allies, the penny stubbornly refuses to drop. I dont like having to repeat myself over and over again and I try to slightly vary the form in which such repetition is made in the hope that a breakthrough might happen but it just doesnt seem to work. Dont ask me why. Still one can but try and I suppose a justification for trying is that helps to refine one's own arguments

The weaknoess of your argumenbt is evidenced by your puerile attempt to insult which is, frankly, water off a ducks back mnate: "you fucking tool." "I'm getting my doubts you have ever read anything marx has written on the subject." Yeah well Im as hard as nails and impervious to insults so Im not gonna lose any sleep over it. Actually on that last point Ive almost certainly read a lot more Marx than you evidently and have made it clear that I disagree with him on the matter in question. Disagreeing with him doesnt mean you havent read him. I think his idea of dictatorship of the proletariat is fundamentally incoherent and have said so many times as you know

Not content to insult me - by all means continue to do so if you feel it brightens up your existence - you are not above misrepresenting me too
So, for example, you say:

It's getting tedious to debate with you, because you ignore material conditions as the reason why what happened in Russia happened. No, "the only factor was the dreaded DOTP idea!!!!!!" you say.


Perhaps you would care to point out where I said such a thing. And since I do not believe the DOTP is a realisable concept it cannot logically be the case that the implementation of DOTP is the reason for what happened in Russia and the disastrous setback for socialism that it represented., I certainly do not deny the impact of material conditions on what happened. all I have denied was that that there was some sort of mass mandate for a genuine socialist society in Russia at the time. There clearly was not and only deluded fools can think otherwise


I wont imitate the point-by-point format you seem to prefer which I find "bitty" and irritating since its disrupts the flow of the argument. I will only draw attention to one or two salient points in your argument which demonstrate once again that you simply do not have a clue


Take for instance this "The DOTP is abolishing capitalism. Not running it." Well now - lets look at this seemingly innocuous statement. The point is that unless and until you actually have abolished capitalism you still have capitalism - yes? . I mean thats pretty obvious innit? So what does "abolishging capitalism" actually mean then in that case? Not a lot except to indicate the intention to possibly abolish capitalism eventually, sometime in the future., You say abolishing capitalism is a "process" . Thats sounds very learned and sociological but it means sweet FA in the face of the simpe material fact that you still have capitalism in the meanwhile and all that that entails

So while you are in the process of pretending to abolish capitalism you still have capitalism and you still therefore have to "run it". Now comes the interesting part of the argument and please pay attention (something which you dont seem to be in the habit of doing). If you dont grasp this point you will never learn. You say: How can "substitutionism" occur when the proletariat is the ruling class?

Let me spell it out for you: the very idea that a proletariat can become a "ruling class" is an illusion, a chimera, a deception. It can't happen. It never will happen. If you cant see this you NEVER will understand why the DOTP is simply not a coherent or sustainable concept at all. It is impossible - I repeat , IMPOSSIBLE - for an exploited suybject class to become a ruing class that rules over the very class that continues to exploit it. The very idea is preposterous.

If a proletariat sezie power it can ONLY be to abolish its own existence as an exploited class and not to play a game of musical chairs with the bourgeosie to see which class can act as a ruling class. You say "The bourgeoisie are expropriated, and this isn't in an instant. they will hold onto their mines, will hold onto their dams, and will fight against the proletariat state." Cant you see the contradiction staring you in the face? The bourgeoisie have clearly not been expropriated while they continue to hold onto their mines etc. They continue to exist as a bourgeosie and by defintion they only can exist under capitalism by virtue of the fact that they are in possession of the means of prodiction to the exclusion fo the proletariat which you say will somehow rule over them


Now we come to the next crucial step in the argument. What does "expropriation" consist in? Expropriation consists in taking the means of production out of the hands of one class in society and making it the common property of EVERYONE. When the means of production are the common property of all there can be no proletariat - or bourgeosie. Do you understand this point? And do you understand what follows from it? If the proletariat continues to exist this can ONLY signify its continued separation from the means of production and continuing compulsion this imposes on proletarians to sell their labour power to the bourgeoise for a wage or salary

So a dictatorship of the proletariat signifies the continuation of capitalism however much you try to cover up this fact with the comfortably vague illusion that you are "in the process" of "abolishing capitalism". Actually even if the individual private owners of capital holiding onto their own mines and dams etc were are expropriated under a system of compulsory nationalisation of which you like the left wing of capital generally favour , capitalism will still remain utterly unscathed by virtue of the simple fact that a proletariat will still remain and therefore by implication a bourgeosie to whom they sell their labour power. That by defintion is what a proletariat is.

You have already agreed with this so you are no position whatsoever to deny it . When I said "Lets spell it out again for you since you obviously seem a bit slow on the uptake. If the working class exist then so must the bourgeoisie - yes? " you said "yes". So if the working class continue to exist after the means of prpduction have bveen nationalised - state capitalism - that means by implication that a functional bourgeoiie continues to exists since you cannot have a bourgeosie without a proletariat and vice versa

So who will the bourgeoise be in that case id the private individual capitalist have been dispossed of their ownership of the means of production - exprproraited. The answer is the state - or more concretely , those who control the state. This is where your new bourgeosie will emerge to replace the old bourgeosie as surely as night follows day. This will be the state bourgeoisie, the state capitalists.

This is where the utter naivete of your whole argument shines through
You say "so, the working class will start exploiting itself?". Nope. It wont be the working class that will exploiting itself, it will be the state or those who control the state, the state bourgeosie who you have already conceded must exist if the working class exists. You cannot sensibly talk of a working class that is not exploiited. So who else would exploit it but the state (and the new state bourgeosie who control and operate the state) to which the workers sell their labour power

This why inevitably - I repeat INEVITABLY - the so called DOTP will lead to substitionism. There is absolutely no getting around this.

Yet you continue to pile up confusion upon confusion

You say

"The bourgeoisie still exist in the DOTP. No longer the ruling class however. Hence political power being in the hands of the proletariat. At which point, they begin to dismantle, as possible, the capitalist system."



But, no, this is totally wrong. If the individual private bourgeosie, for want of a better term, have been exproproiated by having their property nationalised and the proletariat continue to exist under the guise of a so called DOTP then a bourgeoise class must still exist and this logically must be based on the control exercised this class via the state. In other worlds the bourgeosie far from being evcited from state power will be rec onstiutied at the very centre of state power. In other words the bouregosie class would still be the ruling class except that it would rule directly through the state and not indirectly through political representatives - politicians - as largely the case now

Here is precisely where the inevitable drift towards substitutionism will occur. It is simply not possible, or indeed even meangingful to talk of a proletaiat holding state power. This is another of those verbal formulas you use that mean nothing. In functional terms the state can only be operated and adminitered by a few. By its very nature it is a hierachical structure which privileges the few who have access to the levers of power over the many over which such power is exercised. How does Joe Bloggs the plumber or Sue Craggs the school dinner lady down the road excercise state power. Like so many on the left youve got your head up in the clouds in the abstract relam of arcane 19th century political theories that have no relevance today


Your state capitalist government which will come into being once you set up your pseudo "proletarian dictatorship" - and dont deny it since you explicitly advocate the nationisation of "major industry" under this DOTP of yours - will not only be obliged to run capitalism in the only way in which it can be run - against the interests of wage workers - but will ALSO find itself drawn into competition with other state capitalist pseudo proletarian dictatoships in the scramble for global markets and access to resources

Before long , all thoughts of establishing socialism will disappear like the cheshire cats grin and I have the solid empirical case study in the form of the whole disastrous history of the Soviet Union - disastrous from the point of view of advancing the socialist movement - to back up my argument. You on the other hand, have not a single shred of empirical evidence to back up yours except to piously talk about the DOTP being a process of abolishing capitalism which means nothing more than the vain pretence that somehow at some point in the vague indefinite future maybe, just maybe, we might get round to abolishing capitalism finally.

Yeah, well weve all heard that one before and anyone who does not treat such a claim with a large dose of salt that it deserves is a naive buffoon

[robbo203]

I'd question that. Within parts of the Americas, Africa, and Asia, (and I guess thinking about it, Europe), there are nations which are either stateless or...

The prime example I can think of is Chiapas, Mexico.

Tom Flanagan (info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Flanagan_(political_scientist) ) has, in the past, attacked aboriginal peoples in Canada and parts of the US as Sibero-Americans and the grounds he has attacked them on was their relative statelessness -- no jails, no prisons, no standing armies, no police. He recognizes the Incan and Mayan, historically, as nations because they had these hierarchies.

A lot of people I know refused to read his despicable book First Nations, Second Thoughts but I found invaluable in terms of describing exactly what I oppose. I'd actually highly recommend it, but only on the basis that I've told you I think it is wrong.

On the wikipedia page I linked to above he'll be described as a Conservative, but in his written work he is emphatic that he is a classic liberal. Which he is.

His conception is that of Locke's -- one of normative rules of territory, property, social position, legalistic BS up your ears etc.

His more recent escapades have involved forming alliances with certain portions of the native chiefs and people with Indian Status, to help sell off the land as individual proprietors, and a screw the collective mode of thinking and doing.

An interesting argument though I dont really buy it. It overlooks Hegels point about nations being entities in search of their own state. Parts of the world that you mention may be considered nations without a state but that does not mean that they are not subject to a state; it simply means they do not wish to be subject to this imposed state and would prefer to have their own instead. Afterall every square inch of the globe is subject to the authority of some state or other.

I am familar with this argument that seeks to conceptually sever the idea of the nation from that of the state The early 20th century German anarchist, Gustav Landauer. once commented that "if I want to transform patriotism then I do not proceed in the slightest against the fine fact of the nation...but against the mixing up of the nation and the state" (Charles B Maurer, Call to revolution: the mystical anarchism of Gustav Landauer, Detroit , Wayne State University Press, 1971, p.263).

I think he was confusing "nation" with community. The attribution of nationhood to communities is a retrogressive reinterpretation of history through the prism of nationalist ideology, in my view, and an attempt to "naturalise" the nation as an organic outgrowth of people living together in a particular time and place


In any case, this point, though interesting, does not materially affect my main argument - that what i am talking about has nothing to do with the Stalinist concept of "socialism in one country" which most definitely entails a state and is nothing other than a system of state run capitalism

[Red Enemy]

The weaknoess of your argumenbt is evidenced by your puerile attempt to insult which is, frankly, water off a ducks back mnate: "you fucking tool." "I'm getting my doubts you have ever read anything marx has written on the subject." Yeah well Im as hard as nails and impervious to insults so Im not gonna lose any sleep over it. Actually on that last point Ive almost certainly read a lot more Marx than you evidently and have made it clear that I disagree with him on the matter in question. Disagreeing with him doesnt mean you havent read him. I think his idea of dictatorship of the proletariat is fundamentally incoherent and have said so many times as you know.With no real explanation as to why, except for pointing to Russia and saying "Look! Russia is the proof I need that the DOTP will not work!". Yet, when the explanation, done in Marxian fashion (discussing material conditions) is given to you, it is ignored.


Not content to insult me - by all means continue to do so if you feel it brightens up your existence - you are not above misrepresenting me tooAre you whining that I insulted you? I thought you were impervious, comrade Gortex.


So, for example, you say:

It's getting tedious to debate with you, because you ignore material conditions as the reason why what happened in Russia happened. No, "the only factor was the dreaded DOTP idea!!!!!!" you say.


Perhaps you would care to point out where I said such a thing. And since I do not believe the DOTP is a realisable concept it cannot logically be the case that the implementation of DOTP is the reason for what happened in Russia and the disastrous setback for socialism that it represented., I certainly do not deny the impact of material conditions on what happened. all I have denied was that that there was some sort of mass mandate for a genuine socialist society in Russia at the time. There clearly was not and only deluded fools can think otherwiseThis brings me to another point which you continuously refuse to acknowledge:

HOW can there be a socialist mass mandate from within capitalism - bourgeois still the ruling class? Oh, I know, does the worker stop working and getting money to buy stuff for a few months, starving themself and their family, so they can read Marx and Engels?

EXPLAIN HOW!



Take for instance this "The DOTP is abolishing capitalism. Not running it." Well now - lets look at this seemingly innocuous statement. The point is that unless and until you actually have abolished capitalism you still have capitalism - yes?Yes...


I mean thats pretty obvious innit? So what does "abolishging capitalism" actually mean then in that case? Not a lot except to indicate the intention to possibly abolish capitalism eventually, sometime in the future., You say abolishing capitalism is a "process" . Thats sounds very learned and sociological but it means sweet FA in the face of the simpe material fact that you still have capitalism in the meanwhile and all that that entailsCapitalism IS a global system, which cannot be abolished in a single area.

So yes, I'll give it to you, in a sense the proletarian dictatorship will have to "administer" capitalism. However, the relations to production are fundamentally different at that point in the dotp. There is no longer private accumulation of capital, the workers themselves are in control of production, there can be no private owners of the means of production. In effect, the proletariat class democratically decides how to do things.

You do not explain to anyone HOW this new ruling class emerges, you just go into "strawman mode" and say "the minority who rules in the DOTP...blah blah". Yet, there is no minority who rules. It is not the class in totality, but it is not a minority. Do you believe that the majority of the population (let us say 10 million out of 17 million for arguments sake) in a nation, can become bourgeoisie? Surely, you can provide the dialectical argumentation for that.

I bring you back to your constant reference to "vanguards" and the Bolsheviks. The Russian example is not analogous to a dotp in advanced capitalism, where different material conditions prevail. Yet, you continue to critique the dotp in terms synonomous with critiques of the Russian situation.

So while you are in the process of pretending to abolish capitalism you still have capitalism and you still therefore have to "run it". Now comes the interesting part of the argument and please pay attention (something which you dont seem to be in the habit of doing). If you dont grasp this point you will never learn. You say: How can "substitutionism" occur when the proletariat is the ruling class?


Let me spell it out for you: the very idea that a proletariat can become a "ruling class" is an illusion, a chimera, a deception. It can't happen. It never will happen. If you cant see this you NEVER will understand why the DOTP is simply not a coherent or sustainable concept at all. It is impossible - I repeat , IMPOSSIBLE - for an exploited suybject class to become a ruing class that rules over the very class that continues to exploit it. The very idea is preposterous.The bourgeoisie do not continue to exploit it. Do you understand the concept of exploitation in the Marxist sense? About surplus value being taken by the bourgeoisie? The DOTP is this surplus value being taken, at the will of the proletariat, to be used for himself.


If a proletariat sezie power it can ONLY be to abolish its own existence as an exploited class and not to play a game of musical chairs with the bourgeosie to see which class can act as a ruling class. You say "The bourgeoisie are expropriated, and this isn't in an instant. they will hold onto their mines, will hold onto their dams, and will fight against the proletariat state." Cant you see the contradiction staring you in the face? The bourgeoisie have clearly not been expropriated while they continue to hold onto their mines etc. They continue to exist as a bourgeosie and by defintion they only can exist under capitalism by virtue of the fact that they are in possession of the means of prodiction to the exclusion fo the proletariat which you say will somehow rule over themExpropriation CAN either be an immediate thing, if the bourgeoisie relinquish it, or it can be a process.


Now we come to the next crucial step in the argument. What does "expropriation" consist in? Expropriation consists in taking the means of production out of the hands of one class in society and making it the common property of EVERYONE. Wrong. Unlessy ou presume the bourgeoisie decides "Hey, I'm okay with that, I wont fight back!"


When the means of production are the common property of all there can be no proletariat - or bourgeosie. Do you understand this point? And do you understand what follows from it? If the proletariat continues to exist this can ONLY signify its continued separation from the means of production and continuing compulsion this imposes on proletarians to sell their labour power to the bourgeoise for a wage or salaryYes :)

Which is why in a DOTP, the means of production are not common property, but proletariat property.

Those who have yet to join the proletariat, such as the dispossessed bourgeoisie, will fight to overthrow the proletariat and restore the old order based on bourgeois legality of their "ownership".


So a dictatorship of the proletariat signifies the continuation of capitalism however much you try to cover up this fact with the comfortably vague illusion that you are "in the process" of "abolishing capitalism".I didn't know capitalism had the proletariat in charge. Or the means of production under proletariat control.


Actually even if the individual private owners of capital holiding onto their own mines and dams etc were are expropriated under a system of compulsory nationalisation of which you like the left wing of capital generally favourThis old canard again, the "left wing of capital". I do enjoy it.


capitalism will still remain utterly unscathed by virtue of the simple fact that a proletariat will still remain and therefore by implication a bourgeosie to whom they sell their labour power. That by defintion is what a proletariat is. So, if Marx had named classes differently in the DOTP, you would no longer have an issue.


You have already agreed with this so you are no position whatsoever to deny it . When I said "Lets spell it out again for you since you obviously seem a bit slow on the uptake. If the working class exist then so must the bourgeoisie - yes? " you said "yes". So if the working class continue to exist after the means of prpduction have bveen nationalised - state capitalism - that means by implication that a functional bourgeoiie continues to exists since you cannot have a bourgeosie without a proletariat and vice versaAgain, ignoring my argument and returning to your "fetal position", aka The Russian example.


So who will the bourgeoise be in that case id the private individual capitalist have been dispossed of their ownership of the means of production - exprproraited. The answer is the state - or more concretely , those who control the state. This is where your new bourgeosie will emerge to replace the old bourgeosie as surely as night follows day. This will be the state bourgeoisie, the state capitalists.YES! A BREAKTHROUGH.

WHO CONTROLS THE STATE? THE PROELTARIAT AS A CLASS!

SO, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THE NEW BOURGEOISIE WILL EMERGE, BUT IT WILL BE THE ENTIRE PROLETARIAT!

You are a genious, sir.


This is where the utter naivete of your whole argument shines through
You say "so, the working class will start exploiting itself?". Nope. It wont be the working class that will exploiting itself, it will be the state or those who control the state, the state bourgeosie who you have already conceded must exist if the working class exists. You cannot sensibly talk of a working class that is not exploiited. So who else would exploit it but the state (and the new state bourgeosie who control and operate the state) to which the workers sell their labour powerAgain, ignoring my arugment.

The state is controlled by the proletariat as a class. Not by the delegates, not by the vanguard party. By the class.


This why inevitably - I repeat INEVITABLY - the so called DOTP will lead to substitionism. There is absolutely no getting around this.
Refuted by your lack of reading my position....or, rahter, your ignoring my position.


You say

"The bourgeoisie still exist in the DOTP. No longer the ruling class however. Hence political power being in the hands of the proletariat. At which point, they begin to dismantle, as possible, the capitalist system."



But, no, this is totally wrong. If the individual private bourgeosie, for want of a better term, have been exproproiated by having their property nationalised and the proletariat continue to exist under the guise of a so called DOTP then a bourgeoise class must still exist and this logically must be based on the control exercised this class via the state. In other worlds the bourgeosie far from being evcited from state power will be rec onstiutied at the very centre of state power. In other words the bouregosie class would still be the ruling class except that it would rule directly through the state and not indirectly through political representatives - politicians - as largely the case nowThe bourgeoisie do still exist, as a global class. The national bourgeoisie, in the DOTP nation, exist as a dispossessed class, holding to their bourgeois legality, which professes them as the "owners" of the MoP. They may not be extracting surplus value, or running things in their mine, construction company, or whatever, but they hold claim to the ownership.


Here is precisely where the inevitable drift towards substitutionism will occur. It is simply not possible, or indeed even meangingful to talk of a proletaiat holding state power.You fail to explain.


This is another of those verbal formulas you use that mean nothing. In functional terms the state can only be operated and adminitered by a few. Administered? You mean, a few will have to act as delegates?


By its very nature it is a hierachical structure which privileges the few who have access to the levers of power over the many over which such power is exercised.No, because the proeltariat will make the decisions through their councils. Elections will be held every so often (3 months seems appropriate). The delegates have no more power than those who chose them allow. What we have is instant recallability. The second he does something out of step with what the proletariat want, he/she is recalled.


How does Joe Bloggs the plumber or Sue Craggs the school dinner lady down the road excercise state power.Workers councils.


Like so many on the left youve got your head up in the clouds in the abstract relam of arcane 19th century political theories that have no relevance today:wub:


Your state capitalist governmentAgain, a misnomer, as you revert to your anti-Leninist stance, and use the russian example.


which will come into being once you set up your pseudo "proletarian dictatorship"It won't be "pseudo".


- and dont deny it since you explicitly advocate the nationisation of "major industry" under this DOTP of yoursNationalization, sure, I'm fine with it. Because the state is controlled by the class, not by a few. So the means of production are put into the hands of the class itself, and not in the hands of "the state"...because the class is the state.


- will not only be obliged to run capitalism in the only way in which it can be run - against the interests of wage workersSo, abolition of capitalism is not in the interest of the working class. Gotcha.


- but will ALSO find itself drawn into competition with other state capitalist pseudo proletarian dictatoships in the scramble for global markets and access to resourcesHow so, do go on to explain this.


Before long , all thoughts of establishing socialism will disappear like the cheshire cats grin and I have the solid empirical case study in the form of the whole disastrous history of the Soviet Union - disastrous from the point of view of advancing the socialist movement - to back up my argument.Again....this again...how many times do you have to revert to the russian example?


You on the other hand, have not a single shred of empirical evidence to back up yours except to piously talk about the DOTP being a process of abolishing capitalism which means nothing more than the vain pretence that somehow at some point in the vague indefinite future maybe, just maybe, we might get round to abolishing capitalism finally. Sure, I don't. Just as I don't have a single shred of empirical evidence that socialism can exist, or will exist.

[robbo203]

With no real explanation as to why, except for pointing to Russia and saying "Look! Russia is the proof I need that the DOTP will not work!". Yet, when the explanation, done in Marxian fashion (discussing material conditions) is given to you, it is ignored.

ETC ETC ETC

.


Ill keep this relatively short (ha!) and snappy - as I said before I dont really like the line by line format which breaks up the flow of the argument.

Just to get one thing out of the way - Im not "whining" at your puerile attempts at insulting me . I couldnt really care a toss what you think of me. Im concenred with the argument and thats it

As to your argument, well, there is nothing much new in this latest diatribe of yours that has not already been adequately dealt with and disposed of . Just a point of correction though - I'm not say that what happened in Russia shows the the DOTP cannot work - though I can see how you might have interpreted what I said thus. My profuse apologies for giving that impression in that case. If you were perceptive enough to follow the logic of my argument you would realise that what I am saying is that the very idea of a DOTP is unrealisable. An exploited class cannot be at the same time a ruling class and vice versa. Consequently a DOTP could NOT have existed in Russia becuase a DOTP can never exist

What I was getting at is that state capitalism existed in Russia.and it is that that proved a disaster from a socialist viewpoint. State capitalism does not necessitate a DOTP but insofar as a DOTP necessitates tate capitalism and you have suggested that it would , it too would prove a disaster for that reason

Then there is selection of eminently unmarxist comments of yours on the subject of class relations under the DOTP. I mean check this out What a load of absolute gibberish!


"in a DOTP, the means of production are not common property, but proletariat property"

What? So the bourgeosie and the proletariat have swapped roles and the former are now the dispossessed proletariat??

The bourgeoisie do not continue to exploit it. Do you understand the concept of exploitation in the Marxist sense? About surplus value being taken by the bourgeoisie? The DOTP is this surplus value being taken, at the will of the proletariat, to be used for himself.


I like this one. Surplus value "in the marxian sense" is the difference between the value of the workers' wage and the value of the goods and services they produce and this numpty asks me whether I understand ther Marxian concept of exploitation. How can it be surplus value iif it is used by the workers themselves


and finally (although I could go on but will resist the temptation....)

The bourgeoisie do still exist, as a global class. The national bourgeoisie, in the DOTP nation, exist as a dispossessed class, holding to their bourgeois legality, which professes them as the "owners" of the MoP. They may not be extracting surplus value, or running things in their mine, construction company, or whatever, but they hold claim to the ownership.


Ah right, I see. So the bourgeosie dont actually exist - they are dispossed remember - but they still "claim" to exist. Claiming to exist as a member of the bourgeolsise therefore makes you a member og the boruegosise in the same way that claiming to be King Henry VIII makes you King Henry VIII Yeah right - very compelling argument that . Try to put a little more effort into your attempt to come accross as slightly more move convincing next time.

I realise you are trying to prove that the DOTP is a credible idea because it depends on the existence of a proletariat which in turn depends on the existence of a bourgeoisie, But if the bourgeosie are dispossed they cant exist and therefore neither can the proletariat. You cant have your cake and eat it. Either the bourgeosie have been dispossessed in which case there can be no DOTP (becuase there is no proletariat ) or they have NOT been dispossed in which case they are still exploiting the proletariat and it is a dictatroship of the bourgeoise and not of the proletariat. Either way you've lost the argument !!

And finally, since youve put it in nice big bold letters I can can hardly avoid the question you raise as follow:

HOW can there be a socialist mass mandate from within capitalism - bourgeois still the ruling class



Well its quite simple really . There is class struggle in capitalism. Socialist ideas spring out of class struggle. These ideas are developed and promotedm amongst other things, via a socialist political party or organisation. This political party grows to the point at which it attacts majority support i.e a mass mandate for socialism and accordingly, democratically captures state power to implements that mandate. And we are home and dry

Nah, it cant happen, I hear you say . The capitalist wont allow it. They will brainwash the workers into thinking the present state of things is the best of all possible worlds. Well, even if they could do that -and only wacky conspiracy theorists can entertain such fatalistic baloney. - stop and think for one moement where that leaves your whole aergument


If the bourgeoisie is "still the ruling class", how on earth do you think they are going to allow the proletariat to seize power to set up a so called DOTP?. If they can prevent a mandate for socialism being reached then they can sure as hell prevent a DOTP from ever being established. End of story

[Red Enemy]

I win
My dearest robbo,

You have won me over to your view of thinking.

Could you now explain to me:

HOW class is abolished in an isolated area?
WHY the bourgeoisie would not fight back? Try to overthrow the new "socialist" area?
WHY the international bourgeoisie would "barter" with you, and allow you to exist?
HOW does the "vast majority" become socialists before any overthrow of the capitalist order?

[robbo203]

My dearest robbo,

You have won me over to your view of thinking.



Thats alright old chap, perfectly understandable...;)



Could you now explain to me:

HOW class is abolished in an isolated area?
WHY the bourgeoisie would not fight back? Try to overthrow the new "socialist" area?
WHY the international bourgeoisie would "barter" with you, and allow you to exist?
HOW does the "vast majority" become socialists before any overthrow of the capitalist order?


Indeed


How is class abolished in an isolated area? Well it wont be "isolated" in the sense that a socialist movement will be a global movement . So where a significant majority of socialists is reached in one part of the world this very likely presupposes that in other parts of the world socialists are well on the way to becoming majorities as well. It is important to remember this because this has relevance to the other questions you ask. In my view - though others might disagree with this - the attainment of a significant socialist majority wherever it happens first. is likely to express itself in the democratic capture of the state by a socialist political party followed by the immediate abolition of capitalism and hence the dismantling of the state itself. The electoral approach with a socialist political party standing for socialism and nothing but is I think the most convenient and practical way to bring about and coordinate the social transformation. (See my previous discussion on the need for some kind of "switchover" mechanism)

WHY the bourgeoisie would not fight back? Try to overthrow the new "socialist" area? They might try but frankly by then it would be far too late to do anything about it. When the writing is on the wall ,thats it - your game is up! Look at the manner in which the various state capitalist regimes collapsed in the face of people power at the end of the 80s. The growth of the socialist movement everywhere would be a process of incremental social transformation . This is important to bear in mind. The whole political climate would be radically transformed by the penetration of socialist consciousness everywhere including, incidentally, the armed forces. The residual capitalist states on the eve of capitalism are more than likely to be weak vacillating shadows of their former selves and most likely liberal or social democratic regimes trying desparately to buy the workers off with reforms. The legitimacy of the whole capitalist order would by then have been seriously undermined and this will be reflected in the diminished authority of those residual capitalist states

Why the international bourgeoisie would "barter" with you, and allow you to exist? The international bourgeosie are not some monolithic bloc. We must get away from this conspiratorial view of capitalist politics. Capitalists are not only at odds with the workers but also with each other! The global division of labour, as it has evolved, means that they would require the products and raw materials that originate in your area just as you would require things from them. While, I am sure, once global socialism is reached through the domino collapse of residual capitalist states there will far less of the kind of wasteful coals-to-newcastle type economic flows we see today and a much stonger emphasis on self siufficiency, we have to deal with the immediate situation we will have inherited. Barter I think is the only logical way in which in economic dealings between the residual capitalist states and the expanding free zone of socialism can be conducted. There is incidentally a precedent for this in the early post war barter arrangments between the state capitalist soviet bloc and western corporations - dubbed "vodka cola" deals


How does the "vast majority" become socialists before any overthrow of the capitalist order Socialist ideas arise out of the class struggle and are amplified and disseminated by the organisation of workers into socialist political parties and groups. Capitalist propaganda certainly strives to block the growth of socialist ideas but capitalist propaganda faces a formidable foe in the shape of material reality. Once the socialist movement reaches a certain critical threshold i am convinced it will grow expontially and in an unstoppable fashion as the idea of a moneyless wageless stateless world catches on and spreads like wildfire

I hope this satisfactorily answers your various questions ;)