Position of the revolutionary party after the state

[revani]

Background info first: I'm an ex anarcho-communist who got acquainted with communist ideas 4 years ago. After that, I was a leninist and kinda supported Trotsky. My background info might indicate why I'm asking this question.

The situation in USSR led me to the idea that giving much power to the party after the revolution may lead to bureaucratic state and it's hard to define 'much'. AFAIK, Trotsky offered active workers' opposition and also unions (not at first, but later, afaik). But still, having a powerful party sounds bad enough for me.

When I read Marx, I got the idea that he didn't like talking about after the revolution much, his workers' state portrait is way too vague in that manner. It's a nice approach and also gives us flexibility to not dump marxism when deciding on what to do with the party after the revolution. It's also bad because of the same reason.

I think a workers' state after the revolution is necessary to achieve full collectivization in the state. It will also help and support workers' upheavals in other countries. But I have doubts on the organization of that workers' state. My main thought on that is, can a state be ruled via trade unions only? I know that trade unions currently pose an 'economic' stance only, not politic. Can it be changed after the revolution? I think the revolutionary party should be abolished and all power should be held by trade unions.

I haven't thought on soviet type organization much. But I think the soviets in USSR was too vast and instead of that, much more smaller and local organizations led by workers should be ruling. They will be unified in the same manner as the soviet union. All decisions regarding the soviet union will be made by soviet delegates. But my thought differs from USSR in the point that deciding power of a soviet should be held by local unions only.

My thoughts are still too raw and may hold fundamental mistakes. Again, I haven't made up my mind yet. I read Lenin about this subject but I think some left commies or anarcho-syndicalists beg to differ. Can anyone share some texts that discuss over this issue?

For TL;DR people:
Can anyone share some articles about the organization of the workers' state? I read Lenin and I need to find some articles that support abolishing the party after the revolution, or at least, giving more power to the workers' unions to prevent bureaucracy.

[ckaihatsu]

The situation in USSR led me to the idea that giving much power to the party after the revolution may lead to bureaucratic state and it's hard to define 'much'.


I really find this to be a misconception rooted in the happenstance narrative of history, since the past existence of the USSR can hardly be considered to have been a full proletarian world revolution.

Unfortunately the history of the state capitalism / bureaucratic collectivism that ruled there is now the source of much political anxiety, both conferred and adopted, among revolutionaries today.





I think a workers' state after the revolution is necessary to achieve full collectivization in the state. It will also help and support workers' upheavals in other countries.


You're mixing contexts here -- which scenario is it, that the global proletarian revolution has been completed, or that there is still a country-by-country global civil war going on between the forces of capital and those of the proletariat -- ?

And, to be precise, there wouldn't be a 'workers state' *after* the revolution because there would no longer be any class division -- no workers and no owners.





[A]bolishing the party after the revolution, or at least, giving more power to the workers' unions to prevent bureaucracy.





I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism

[revani]

You're mixing contexts here -- which scenario is it, that the global proletarian revolution has been completed, or that there is still a country-by-country global civil war going on between the forces of capital and those of the proletariat -- ?
I mixed up the contexts, right. The "Revolution" I meant in the original post was not world revolution. When I said "after the revolution" I meant the end of the civil war in ONE country, and one only. For example, the USSR in mid-1920s, the civil war was over and the power was in the hands of the soviets (or bolshevik party in that case). I think clarifying that mix-up will answer most of your post.



I'm more than a little surprised that so many are so concerned about a vanguard organization's potential for "hanging onto power" after a revolution is completed. In my conceptualization the vanguard would be all about mobilizing and coordinating the various ongoing realtime aspects of a revolution in progress, most notably mass industrial union strategies and political offensives and defenses relative to the capitalists' forces.

*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

I agree, a vanguard organization might be necessary to achieve such task. But it seems to me that the party has much potential to be corrupt, especially after the local civil-war, when it holds all the power.
My question was around that subject. Can unions gain the 'vanguard' role that party is supposed to according to Lenin, after the civil war?

I agree that a vanguard party is necessary to found a workers' state, but what about after?

[ckaihatsu]

I mixed up the contexts, right. The "Revolution" I meant in the original post was not world revolution. When I said "after the revolution" I meant the end of the civil war in ONE country, and one only. For example, the USSR in mid-1920s, the civil war was over and the power was in the hands of the soviets (or bolshevik party in that case). I think clarifying that mix-up will answer most of your post.


The former USSR is, ironically, a *bad* historical phenomenon to point to for this because the Russian Revolution *did* get constrained to one country only -- it didn't successfully spread to Germany (which was far more industrialized and proletarianized at the time).

Why *shouldn't* we be talking about world revolution instead of artificially constraining ourselves to the prospect of revolution in one country only?





I agree, a vanguard organization might be necessary to achieve such task. But it seems to me that the party has much potential to be corrupt, especially after the local civil-war, when it holds all the power.
My question was around that subject. Can unions gain the 'vanguard' role that party is supposed to according to Lenin, after the civil war?

I agree that a vanguard party is necessary to found a workers' state, but what about after?


Trade unions are a feature of capitalist social relations, since they function inherently as a middleman between the interests of labor and those of capital -- they're not fully on the side of rank-and-file workers' interests, in other words.

A global proletarian revolution would render trade unionism obsolete, and the vanguard party as well, for the same reason. Again:





*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism