The governmental form of worker-class rule: ("Class") War Cabinets?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Time again, ad hoc assemblies have proven incapable of timely public policymaking. They either:

1) Chat too much - bourgeois "parliamentary cretinism" (see Nepal); or
2) Don't chat enough to scrutinize governments and generally hold them to account - "working delegates" who go back to non-political jobs, moonlighting by any other name and regardless of class background, and don't meet a lot for political purposes.

Some time ago, I posted a topic on Old Bolshevism's call for a Revolutionary Provisional Government and noted potential similarities with pre-constitutional arrangements by Mao and Castro (http://revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-provisional-government-t163083/index.html) during the substitution of bourgeois-led development with popular-class development ("revolutionary-democratic dictatorship"). Though this call was lost with the formal arrangement between Sovnarkom and the soviets, the formulation and implementation of the Workers' Decrees are a trace of this old call.

Some time ago, I also posted on Equality By Lot about statistically representative expert bodies (like Defense administration being run by randomly-selected military instructors, military historians, and veterans - or Labour administration being run by randomly-selected labour economists, labour statisticians, labour historians, labour paralegals, and trade unionists). These bodies "could perhaps actually be randomly-selected collegia topping up government ministries themselves (http://equalitybylot.wordpress.com/2012/08/09/exclusions/)."

After some further reflection, I've arrived at the possibility of contemporary worker-class rule, the more politically incorrect "dictatorship of the proletariat," have its most effective form under some kind of war cabinet, more accurately a revolutionary-period, class-based war-and-martial-law cabinet. While the broader deliberative bodies discuss things during the immediate years of class rule, the cabinet puts into effect timely public policymaking, including contemporary variations inspired by the historical Workers' Decrees. The relationship between the broader deliberative bodies and the cabinet would, admittedly, not be unlike that between legislatures and comparatively strong presidential systems (http://www.revleft.com/vb/comparative-presidential-systems-t166053/index.html), with the cabinet collectively exercising "el presidente/la presidencia"-style power.

Note: This would be a macro-scale, societal implementation of what the Paris Commune almost did to save itself (http://www.revleft.com/vb/paris-commune-inspirational-t155624/index.html), via a Committee of Public Safety.

[alkemest]

Mmmm not to shit on your parade, but the ONLY time I could see this working would be in a time of revolution. The problem that arises is that, and I think history bears this out, that any creation of an unaccountable, or relatively unaccountable, vanguard seems to inevitable lead to totalitarianism or an authoritarian state with the justification being something along the lines of the 'struggle' isn't over, blahblahblah more bullshit. It always ends with the people being oppressed and exploited in a manner even WORSE than that of their capitalist counterparts, and I think Trotsky would agree with me, at least to a degree.
Now, if you have real examples of when a revolutionary vanguard actually adhered to the will of the people, or 'withered away', well, I'm all ears.
Until then, let me propose an alternative method to a vanguard party, since I do believe that eventually one must be constructed.
In today's interconnected world, we can instantly communicate with anyone, anywhere, at any time we choose. Governments can smash servers, block communications, but if you have half a sense of technological inclination, you can figure out back doors. Anyhow, I bring that up to say that the revolutionary potential of the people is much greater than it has ever been, not just here, but in the exploited third world. If we are to succeed in any revolution, peaceful or otherwise, we must abandon the old vanguard model of dragging people along, and adopt a new model of vanguardism. This model MUST arise out of the people to bear any source of legitimacy, unless we are to put ideology above the will of the people, thus subverting the basic tenants of socialism. The new vanguard must be democratically selected by the people from small scale councils and organizations all across the country, all communicating with each other in organized, technologically modern ways. From these councils, a truly legitimate revolutionary vanguard can be formed to either seek to reform, forcibly reform, or perhaps engage in a popular full on revolution. However, the prerequisite of popular support must be met, otherwise any revolutionary force will necessarily be defeated, and this is where shit gets hard, because right now we have to be educating people on all this and convincing them to come to the left, which is no small matter, but I'm convinced it's the only way to realistically enact change in the first world. The third world is a completely different story, older notions of the vanguard may indeed still be relative, but I would argue that without accountable democracy, any vanguard will devolve rather quickly into tyranny. Why exchange one tyrant for another?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Alkemest, perhaps I should have titled the subject "the immediate governmental" form to stress the immediacy of the matter. In my RPG discussion, I had a time limit of five years or so for the DOTP to have more "normalized" forms.