Can we go straight to a stateless society?

[RosaRL]

here is in an interesting story that I found on http://2changetheworld.info that makes a good point about this question -


A radical professor was speaking on a panel here on the incredible changes in china during the cultural revolution.

A question was raised by a PLP supporter in the audience -- who argued that the whole enterprise of socialist revolution was a mistake, and the solution was to go straight to communism.

The speaker answered: "Look, I'm fat. you can see that. And I have been on many diets, which sometimes made some progress and then were reversed. So, I now see the light! i'm going to adopt your logic: the reason my weight loss failed is in the very idea of dieting. I'm not going to diet anymore, I'm just gonna to go STRAIGHT to thin!"

heh!

[The Feral Underclass]

Loosing weight and not having dictators tell you what to do are quite different.

What the fat man is refering to is the dictatorship of the proletariat or some such. It has been tried over and over again and failed.

Achieving communism relies on a conscious amss of workers liberating themselves. If they become conscious they can lead themselves, and there will be no need for a state or a "tranistional period."

[RosaRL]

The problem is that in previous revolutions, something happened and those revolutions were turned back, things got nasty and the oppression and exploitation re-emerged within society. The tendency is toward placing the blame on the transition period, then attempting to come up with ideas to bypass the transition itself in order to leap to a classless stateless society, and thus to attempt to skip over the possibility of counter-revolution within the period of transition. So the problem that people are trying to solve is that of restoration.

In general, the solution that they propose is to wait untill some point in the future, after a lot of ground work (and there does have to be groundwork for revolution), and when people will be ready and society will be ready to make a leap to a classless and stateless society. They feel that if we do not wait until this point then it wouldn’t be democratic, the "revolution" would be against the will of the people and thus it would be either some form of "totalitarian rule" or society would move backwards. Various forms of radical democrats, anarchists and semi-anarchists think that we can solve the problem of restoration by extending the period of preparation until the problems are solved "before the revolution starts."

This is a plan for postponing revolution forever. And that's what's wrong with it.

If you can't make revolution against capitalism, until a huge section of the people have *communist* consciousness -- you will never revolt against capitalism.

But there is a scientific approach to this, a Maoist approach to the whole question of how to get from here to there- of how to get there instead of going backwards. The problem of class contradictions itself, cannot be handled before the revolution, even with liberated areas and counter institutions because the very conditions are those of class antagonism throughout the struggle for power. Socialism is born from the contradictions of capitalism. It is a transitional society. So, these contradictions will still exist, and will have to be dealt with in a manner that will bring society closer and closer to eliminating class contradictions in society altogether. Communism (in its higher stages, classless world society) can only emerge from the contradictions of socialism. Thus both preventing restoration and advancing to Communism must proceed through the process of continuing the revolution after the seizure of power, digging up the soil from which restoration grows through a series of "Great Proletarian Cultural Revolutions".

First, to join a Maoist party you have to dedicate your life to the world-historic process of transition to communism, classless society.

Maoist parties: these are not merely parties of "socialist revolution" -- but of communist world revolution. Even the name "Revolutionary Communist Party" reflects that. And the Draft Programme is clearly written as an argument for making revolution in one country as a part of a larger, global, historic process of reaching communism. The Maoists "win people to communism" all the time. (Their name is "communist" after all, not "progressive labor" or some other thing.)

So *ideologically* the Maoists do, actively and energetically, argue for and explain the fact that oppression requires a worldwide transition to communism.

But that doesn't change the fact that you need to go from here to there, you need to go from capitalism to communism through a social process. And getting to communism means much more than winning a majority of workers to the abstract *idea* of communism.

You need to develop communist social relations, communist childhood training, communist distribution systems, communist international relations among post-revolutionary states, etc. So it is not just a matter of ideas, but of real new social relations that take a process to develop, refine, entrench, consolidate.

The idea that 5 million workers say "yeah, classless egalitarianism is a good idea" and that this is somehow enough to actually create such classless egalitarianism (all at once, in one leap) is totally idealist.

[SonofRage]

What you are failing to realize is that what you call a "plan for postponing revolution forever" is the only way we would have a legitimate revolution. You cannot force people to believe in something by calling for a "cultural revolution" after your vanguard has taken power. This would be nothing more than a false revolution.

There is nothing "scientific" about this method and constantly calling it scientific will not make it true. Frankly, as a social scientist, I find this notion kind of insulting.

[redstar2000]

The speaker answered: "Look, I'm fat. You can see that. And I have been on many diets, which sometimes made some progress and then were reversed. So, I now see the light! I'm going to adopt your logic: the reason my weight loss failed is in the very idea of dieting. I'm not going to diet anymore, I'm just gonna to go STRAIGHT to thin!"

Not a new story; in fact, I think it's even been posted here before.

It would have been more interesting if the guy had not tried to be "witty" and instead had offered a critique of the Progressive Labor Party position. The PLP, in fact, proposes to replace the state with the party. Everyone has to be in the party; everyone has to submit to the discipline of the party; and the leadership of the party is completely unaccountable--even nominally--to the membership. The PLP doesn't even bother with elections inside the party any more; the leaders are "leaders for life".

What the PLP calls "communism" is really class society by a different name.


The problem is that in previous revolutions, something happened and those revolutions were turned back, things got nasty and the oppression and exploitation re-emerged within society.

Emphasis added.

I like that. "Something happened." It sounds so...indefinite, so vague and fuzzy.

It was "just one of those things, just one of those crazy things...".


The tendency is toward placing the blame on the transition period, then attempting to come up with ideas to bypass the transition itself in order to leap to a classless stateless society, and thus to attempt to skip over the possibility of counter-revolution within the period of transition. So the problem that people are trying to solve is that of restoration.

Well, I think we can rule out divine intervention and personal demonology...so that doesn't leave many alternatives.


In general, the solution that they propose is to wait until some point in the future, after a lot of ground work (and there does have to be groundwork for revolution), and when people will be ready and society will be ready to make a leap to a classless and stateless society.

Well, they won't exactly be "waiting"...they will be doing that groundwork, explaining to people why proletarian revolution is both possible and desirable and proposing in as much detail as practical what the shape of a classless society will be like, what will have to be done to make it work, etc.

Otherwise, yes, that's the general idea.


Various forms of radical democrats, anarchists and semi-anarchists think that we can solve the problem of restoration by extending the period of preparation until the problems are solved "before the revolution starts."

That's a little bit misleading. It's not given to us to either "extend" or "shorten" the "period of preparation" for proletarian revolution. Massive revolutions, real ones, depend on material conditions far more profound than any relatively small group of people can hope to "control" or "guide". The old system reaches a period of prolonged crisis in which it can no longer function...and, if we are fortunate, the masses rise up and overthrow it.

That's not inevitable, but it's a "high probability" event. Other outcomes are possible but less probable.


This is a plan for postponing revolution forever. And that's what's wrong with it.

If you can't make revolution against capitalism, until a huge section of the people have *communist* consciousness -- you will never revolt against capitalism.

Well, as indicated, it's not a "plan" but rather a conclusion drawn from history. It's how real revolutions actually happen.

Will the people develop "communist consciousness" on their own, as a consequence of the normal functioning of capitalist society?

If Marx and Engels had never lived, would perceptive individuals have nevertheless discovered the same things as those guys did?

Does the actual day-to-day experience of being a wage-slave "generate" the "idea" of abolishing wage-slavery?

I think the answer to all three of these questions is yes!--and so did Marx and Engels.

But we could be wrong. The kind of "class for itself" consciousness that Marx and Engels predicted has been slow in arriving. It has emerged here and there, briefly and sporadically, bubbling to the surface and then subsiding back into placid "trade union consciousness" or even the muck of utterly demoralized servility.

In periods of reaction--like this one--it seems that "it will never happen" or at least it will never happen on a sufficient scale as to make any difference.

I suggest that these pessimistic impressions--and the measures of desperation that they provoke--are products of the brief life spans of individual humans. We are, to a large extent, "fixed" in our own temporal period and find it difficult to grasp the "longer" events in history. Try as we may, we almost always succumb to the temptation to think that "tomorrow" will be "sort of like today".

It won't be...at least if history is any guide.


Socialism is born from the contradictions of capitalism. It is a transitional society. So, these contradictions will still exist, and will have to be dealt with in a manner that will bring society closer and closer to eliminating class contradictions in society altogether.

And speaking of "measures of desperation", this is exactly to what I refer. These folks believe that "communist consciousness" is not an emergent property of capitalist society but must rather be artificially imposed on the "stupefied masses"..."for their own good", of course.

They "mean well"--at least the ordinary members undoubtedly do. But looking at present reality, they can't see anything changing "for the better" unless they "make it happen". The "sweep" and "magnitude" of historical change is something that they've never really grasped.

The most they can see is a "better form" of class society, somewhat more "humane", less grossly exploitative, less openly racist and sexist, etc.

"From" there, they think, we can go "on" to communism...even though that never happened in practice.

"Something happened" to prevent it.


First, to join a Maoist party you have to dedicate your life to the world-historic process of transition to communism, classless society.

It's a plus if you can do without sleep...indefinitely.

One should always be deeply suspicious of those who advocate the "Aztec theory" of political activity--you know, where you drape yourself on the altar of history and cut out your heart "for the revolution".

Revolutionary politics is not a religion and doesn't require self-immolation.

It does require, though, that "you keep your head about you".


The Maoists "win people to communism" all the time.

Curious, since that's not what they actually plan to implement. Their first project is socialism...a form of class society.

Whatever they are "winning" people to, I don't think it's communism.


The idea that 5 million workers say "yeah, classless egalitarianism is a good idea" and that this is somehow enough to actually create such classless egalitarianism (all at once, in one leap) is totally idealist.

No more so than creating "socialism" or anything else. The actual kind of classless egalitarianism that they might create would depend greatly on the material conditions that they found themselves in; many countries in the world today are simply too backward and underdeveloped to sustain a communist society.

But that too is changing. Capitalism is relentless in spreading into every corner of the world, shoving aside all the old pre-capitalist social formations. The material conditions for communist society continue to develop and even accelerate as capitalism ages.

And with that, of course, comes the growth of communist consciousness...even if we can't see it yet, it's there, digging away at the foundations of capitalist society.

And when real proletarian revolution "suddenly" emerges "to everyone's surprise", we'll be able to echo Marx: "Well dug, old mole."

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

I'd just like to state that we arent even ready to start the evolutionary process to a stateless society

[redstar2000]

I'd just like to state that we aren't even ready to start the evolutionary process to a stateless society.

And I'd just like to ask why you would say that?

Try to be as specific as possible in your answer.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Bad Grrrl Agro]

with out a power structure chaos would grip the nation

[redstar2000]

without a power structure chaos would grip the nation

So?

What do you mean "power structure"?

What do you mean "chaos"?

What do you mean "nation"?

I don't mean to sound "harsh", but let's see an actual argument here...not just flippant, off-the-cuff remarks.

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[bombeverything]

Yes, please elaborate.

[Don't Change Your Name]

The example of the fat man is ridiculous. If you arent losing fat over a long time it's because the diet is useless. If you check the history of "Communist" government you'll see that in fact there wasnt any progress with "the diet".

Why do you have to lie to yourself? I mean, if people doesn't make the revolution or want to engage into it maybe it's because the aren't attracted into it. This might explain why nowadays communism is seen as a "totalitarian authoritarian tyrannical" ideology. People doesn't get power. And if they don't, how can they expect to have progress, a happiness and good living standards if their old exploiters are replaced by a set of intellectuals who think they are the only ones able to do things the right way and control everything thinking that the only way is their way? That creates a new class, as it was already discussed millions of times. The worst thing people can do is letting their lives be controlled by a minority who doesn't even allow them to have a bit of power over their lives!

It's true that people is exploited. It's true that they don't really care too much. But are we just going to get power and impose something on them or are we going to let them realize of the exploitation?
Are we going to see once again how "the communist wall is taken down and liberty and democracy reach Eastern Europe" or are we going to make people rise up from the mediocre, corrupt and useless establishment?

Of course you can't just say "state is over" because people isn't prepared. But by making them live all their lives under an authoritarian rule you will make them depend on that rule. They won't practice their power skills and they won't learn to manage the issues from their daily life if such things are controlled by someone else. And of course they won't under the capitalist system because they are so dependant on the establishment...

So I believe the only option is deleting the exploitation for once and for all but doing so with and for the people. What will happen then? That's hard to predict. However I can tell you this if that situation finally happens: Be responsible, do the right things, be careful of the opportunists, have an open mind, good luck.
That's all.