Details of Trotskyism

[Haldane]

What exactly is Trotskyist political theory? I know about Leon Trotsky's history and how he was a Bolshevik-Leninist who founded the Red Army and later he began the Left Opposition to combat Stalin's authoritarian bureaucracy and censorship, but I haven't been able to find much on what Trotskyism actually is besides that it supports "permanent revolution" and opposes socialism-in-one-country. I've heard that Trotskyist ideas are often used by anarchists, Trotsky himself was critical of anarchism, so is Trotskyism more democratic than orthodox Marxian communism?

[ckaihatsu]

What exactly is Trotskyist political theory? I know about Leon Trotsky's history and how he was a Bolshevik-Leninist who founded the Red Army and later he began the Left Opposition to combat Stalin's authoritarian bureaucracy and censorship, but I haven't been able to find much on what Trotskyism actually is besides that it supports "permanent revolution" and opposes socialism-in-one-country. I've heard that Trotskyist ideas are often used by anarchists, Trotsky himself was critical of anarchism, so is Trotskyism more democratic than orthodox Marxian communism?


What you found may only amount to a few sentences in an encyclopedia entry, but in terms of historical significance Trotskyism is absolutely paramount and cutting-edge....

If you will, simply consider that, at any point in expanding our own individual dealings with the world, we may hit a 'stopping point' or 'outer limit' of extent-of-involvement. Likewise, the same goes for any sequence of mass political events, and/or historical trajectories -- at some point they have all reached a certain size, and then could grow no larger.

With this in mind, I'll argue that the ideological battle of Trotsky's revolutionary expansionism, versus Stalin's constrained socialism-in-one-country, was historically cutting-edge:





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism#Permanent_Revolution




Theory

Permanent Revolution

Main article: Permanent Revolution

In 1905, Trotsky formulated a theory that became known as the theory of Permanent Revolution. It is one of the defining characteristics of Trotskyism. Until 1905, Marxism only claimed that a revolution in a European capitalist society would lead to a socialist one. According to the original theory it was impossible for such to occur in more backward countries such as early 20th century Russia. Russia in 1905 was widely considered to have not yet established a capitalist society, but was instead largely feudal with a small, weak and almost powerless capitalist class.

The theory of Permanent Revolution addressed the question of how such feudal regimes were to be overthrown, and how socialism could be established given the lack of economic prerequisites. Trotsky argued that in Russia only the working class could overthrow feudalism and win the support of the peasantry. Furthermore, he argued that the Russian working class would not stop there. They would win its own revolution against the weak capitalist class, establish a workers' state in Russia, and appeal to the working class in the advanced capitalist countries around the world. As a result, the global working class would come to Russia's aid, and socialism could develop worldwide.


This, then, was the most *historically progressive* political position to have, given the events of the time -- anything less than Permanent Revolution would be conservative by comparison.

To your research I'll add the following:





On the political spectrum of Marxism, Trotskyists are considered to be on the left. They supported democratic rights in the USSR,[9] opposed political deals with the imperialist powers, and advocated a spreading of the revolution throughout Europe and Asia.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trotskyism


And:


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals

http://s6.postimage.org/cpkm723u5/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/cpkm723u5/)

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Trotskyism is characterised by the theory of permanent revolution, an emphasis on the international character of the revolution (a rejection of socialism in one country), the tactic of the united front (as opposed to a popular front or united front "from below"), and a particular analysis of the Soviet Union (although the details differ - Trotsky outlined a specific analysis of the Soviet Union in his work, but there were always dissident current within the movement, associated with Shachtman, James, and Cliff).

The theory of permanent revolution posits that the bourgeoisie in regions of delayed capitalist development has, due to its weakness and dependence on the imperialist bourgeoisie, lost any revolutionary potential it might have had, so that the democratic revolution in the neo-colonies and similar regions can only be led by the proletariat, supported at least for a time by petit-bourgeois masses, and must develop into the socialist revolution. This is in opposition to the stagist scheme of "first the democratic revolution led by the bourgeoisie, then the socialist revolution led by the proletariat".

(Trotsky also had an analysis of what he called the combined and uneven development of world capitalism that viewed capitalism as one global mode of production with particular regional configurations, rather than as a series of "national" modes of production.)

Opposition to the theory of socialism in one country is, I think, self-explanatory.

United fronts are temporary joint actions by workers' parties, in pursuit of a common goal. This distinguishes them from popular fronts, which are more permanent and include bourgeois parties (including "anti-imperialist united fronts", "democratic fronts" and so on).

Trotsky analysed the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers' state, where the bourgeoisie had been overthrown and the state had entered into a transitional period, but where a bureaucratic caste had assumed political power over the state. Therefore, he advocated a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy, but not a social one that would change the relations of production.

James and Cliff thought the Soviet Union was capitalist - so did Landy and others later - Shachtman thought it was "bureaucratic collectivist", which no one could make any sense of, Shachtman least of all.

I don't think Trotskyism is "more democratic than orthodox Marxism", in fact I would say it is in line with orthodox Marxism. I don't know many anarchists who refer to Trotsky - if they do, they must not have read him very carefully. I know Love and Rage were once Shachtmanites, but that's all ancient history (as are L&R for that matter).

[Brotto Rühle]

Trotskyism is characterised by the theory of permanent revolution, an emphasis on the international character of the revolution (a rejection of socialism in one country), the tactic of the united front (as opposed to a popular front or united front "from below"), and a particular analysis of the Soviet Union (although the details differ - Trotsky outlined a specific analysis of the Soviet Union in his work, but there were always dissident current within the movement, associated with Shachtman, James, and Cliff).

The theory of permanent revolution posits that the bourgeoisie in regions of delayed capitalist development has, due to its weakness and dependence on the imperialist bourgeoisie, lost any revolutionary potential it might have had, so that the democratic revolution in the neo-colonies and similar regions can only be led by the proletariat, supported at least for a time by petit-bourgeois masses, and must develop into the socialist revolution. This is in opposition to the stagist scheme of "first the democratic revolution led by the bourgeoisie, then the socialist revolution led by the proletariat".

(Trotsky also had an analysis of what he called the combined and uneven development of world capitalism that viewed capitalism as one global mode of production with particular regional configurations, rather than as a series of "national" modes of production.)

Opposition to the theory of socialism in one country is, I think, self-explanatory.

United fronts are temporary joint actions by workers' parties, in pursuit of a common goal. This distinguishes them from popular fronts, which are more permanent and include bourgeois parties (including "anti-imperialist united fronts", "democratic fronts" and so on).

Trotsky analysed the Soviet Union as a degenerated workers' state, where the bourgeoisie had been overthrown and the state had entered into a transitional period, but where a bureaucratic caste had assumed political power over the state. Therefore, he advocated a political revolution to overthrow the bureaucracy, but not a social one that would change the relations of production.

James and Cliff thought the Soviet Union was capitalist - so did Landy and others later - Shachtman thought it was "bureaucratic collectivist", which no one could make any sense of, Shachtman least of all.

I don't think Trotskyism is "more democratic than orthodox Marxism", in fact I would say it is in line with orthodox Marxism. I don't know many anarchists who refer to Trotsky - if they do, they must not have read him very carefully. I know Love and Rage were once Shachtmanites, but that's all ancient history (as are L&R for that matter).
James and Cliff viewed the USSR as capitaist for two very different reasons. The former, due to the operation of the law of value... the latter due to the proletariat not controlling the state.

[Geiseric]

James and Cliff viewed the USSR as capitaist for two very different reasons. The former, due to the operation of the law of value... the latter due to the proletariat not controlling the state.

James cannon agreed with Trotsky. You're incorrect.

[Queen Mab]

Pretty sure he means CLR James.

[RedWorker]

Trotskyism more democratic than orthodox Marxian communism?

What is undemocratic in Marxism or communism? Communism is a stateless society which forms the truest form of direct democracy. And there is nothing undemocratic or authoritarian in Marxist thought, except maybe in variants like Leninism.

[Remus Bleys]

What is undemocratic in Marxism or communism? Communism is a stateless society which forms the truest form of direct democracy. And there is nothing undemocratic or authoritarian in Marxist thought, except maybe in variants like Leninism.
“Democracy is, as I take all forms of government to be, a contradiction in itself, an untruth, nothing but hypocrisy (theology, as we Germans call it), at the bottom. Political liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible slavery; the appearance of liberty, and therefore the reality of servitude. Political equality is the same; therefore democracy, as well as every other form of government, must ultimately break to pieces: hypocrisy cannot subsist, the contradiction hidden in it must come out; we must have either a regular slavery — that is, an undisguised despotism, or real liberty, and real equality — that is, Communism.” ~ Engels
You will find the idea that communism is undemocratic from all different kinds of people, from Marx to Engels to Lenin to Bordiga to Camatte and even anarchists like Malatesta or the Communization theorists (like Dauve, who wrote a pretty good thing about this here) (https://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008).
Youre posts has nothing to do with trotskyism, considering trotskyists consider themselves a variant of leninism, but i think what exactly trotskyism is was nicely covered by Vincent West and Rae Spiegel (but enough about how i justify responding to you).

[RedWorker]

So? Engels there is criticizing governments using representative democracy. Does that mean communism is undemocratic? No. Communism is the purest form of democracy that exists.

My post is relevant to this discussion because I was addressing something which was said in the original post. Additionally, it is also relevant to Trotskyism by extension. "Justify responding to me"? Have I even asked for a reply from you? :laugh:

[Remus Bleys]

So? Engels there is criticizing governments using representative democracy. Does that mean communism is undemocratic? No. Communism is the purest form of democracy that exists.
What does that even mean, communism is the purest form of democracy that exists?
Engels is not stating Representative democracy is a contradiction, but democracy itself is. Communism is the abolition of the distinction of the general and the particular, democracy is the result of the general and the particular being distinct. There is a reason why all states have used democracy. The bourgeois revolutions praised democracy, and established a more or less democratic state (and all the modern day liberals with their nonsensical direct democracy). You want to change the form, a voting mechanism, not the situations that create them. The idea that democracy = communism is both idealist in that it presupposes that it is what people think, not what they do, that matters and it is completely ridiculous in that the majority of people aren't communists. Rosa Luxemburg noted that democracy was not a principle, but rather was simply a method, not an eternal principle, but rather the content of a movement determined if its form was to be supported or not.
In fact democracy = class society (in either a decaying class society or a forming democracy). All states used democracy, from the ancient greeks to the aristocrats to the liberal-bourgeoisie to the fascist (even proletarian dictatorship will from time to time resort to democracy, though this would be extremely temporary and will negate itself in a very short, limited amount of time). Democracy is based of the need to compromise the particular with the general - ie it is a way of resolving conflicting differences. In communism, the interests of the individual are the same as the interests of the whole - the material base of democracy withers away.

My post is relevant to this discussion because I was addressing something which was said in the original post. Additionally, it is also relevant to Trotskyism by extension. "Justify responding to me"? What kind of arrogant sentence is that? What am I, "subhuman scum" which does not deserve a response? Have I even asked for a reply from you? :laugh:I'm "justifying responding to you" in a way because your post was completely off topic. You weren't responding to the OP you were simply making a statement that Communism was democratic, and for what? edit: kinda telling you took up more space trying to insult me (a very shitty insult, I might add) rather than making an argument. All you've done is assert that communism is democratic - no source, no citations, no reasoning - just bullshit

[PhoenixAsh]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/trotskyism-study-guide-t178800/index.html?p=2580696#post2580696

No self respecting Anarchist would use Trostkyist idea's as a subset to define Anarchism and basically Trotskyism is antithetical to Anarchism

[ckaihatsu]

From another, recent thread:





[M]y understanding is that politics and/or democracy is simply what happens when there's *scarcity* involved, and so democracy can be *supplanted* just by ensuring that everything needed is supplied in abundance -- *this* is the paradigm that's far more in-line with modern (industrialized) reality, rather than one of sprawling byzantine power structures to be penetrated and rationalized by a mass democracy.

I think we tend to be conditioned into the 'civil society' or 'town hall' mindset, where all issues there boil down to some complicated drama between two local people, reaching back years or decades, over something-or-other.

Into this social context, we, the larger body of enlightened minds, are supposed to use 'democracy' to overcome all past logjams, making the meeting room *glow* with our collective wisdom and rightful public proclamations. And, by extension, this 'democracy' could eventually solve the world's festering problems, if only enough people would take the time out of their personal schedules to show up to such town hall meetings on a regular basis.

In contrast, we *should* be dealing with the *industrialized* world that we've been born into, and look to what *material* solutions may exist for rationalizing *production* -- this is what's at-stake, since tool-aided labor can fully provide for the necessities of life and living.

So, in this sense, all matters of production are *beyond* 'democracy', since there doesn't *need* to be a consensus on what human beings require to live -- what counts is the actual *fulfillment* of these well-known outstanding needs.

[Red Shaker]

If you read Kevin Anderson's book Marx at the Margins, you will see that Marx was discussing the possibility of revolution in Russia before Trotsky was born.

[DOOM]

Do these famous theories of Trotsky and Stalin actually have a theoretical foundation? like, any reasoning for why they think, their path is the best and all others are shit and revisionary

[Brotto Rühle]

James cannon agreed with Trotsky. You're incorrect.
CLR James...

[Thirsty Crow]

Communism is the abolition of the distinction of the general and the particular, democracy is the result of the general and the particular being distinct. What does this even mean? How do you abolish a distinction like that?

[Geiseric]

What does this even mean? How do you abolish a distinction like that?

He also claims that "democracy = class society". Which is questionable to say the least.

[Haldane]

So what's the difference between Marxist democracy and representative democracy like we have in countries like the US today, besides the fact that it won't be controlled behind the scenes by corporations and plutocrats with super PACs like Karl Rove? How can democracy exist in a one-party state like the Soviet Union where political dissidents were censored, deported, or assassinated? I'm asking these questions mainly because I read the Communist Manifesto and liked it but I'm just wondering how exactly a nation could be classless with equal opportunity for all and yet still give individuals the inalienable rights they deserve.

[ckaihatsu]

So what's the difference between Marxist democracy and representative democracy like we have in countries like the US today, besides the fact that it won't be controlled behind the scenes by corporations and plutocrats with super PACs like Karl Rove? How can democracy exist in a one-party state like the Soviet Union where political dissidents were censored, deported, or assassinated? I'm asking these questions mainly because I read the Communist Manifesto and liked it but I'm just wondering how exactly a nation could be classless with equal opportunity for all and yet still give individuals the inalienable rights they deserve.


Let me put it this way -- if all of today's artificial scarcity could be / were done away with, what exactly could there be disagreements about -- ? -- (!)

Would people have any material reasons for disputes over food -- ? No? How about regarding housing -- ? (Etc.)

Really, there'd be nothing of critical importance *left* to have a 'democracy' *for* -- for once humanity could plan and cooperate on a sheerly *discretionary* basis, once everyone's basic human needs have been provided-for.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

What does that even mean, communism is the purest form of democracy that exists?
Engels is not stating Representative democracy is a contradiction, but democracy itself is. Communism is the abolition of the distinction of the general and the particular, democracy is the result of the general and the particular being distinct. There is a reason why all states have used democracy. The bourgeois revolutions praised democracy, and established a more or less democratic state (and all the modern day liberals with their nonsensical direct democracy). You want to change the form, a voting mechanism, not the situations that create them. The idea that democracy = communism is both idealist in that it presupposes that it is what people think, not what they do, that matters and it is completely ridiculous in that the majority of people aren't communists. Rosa Luxemburg noted that democracy was not a principle, but rather was simply a method, not an eternal principle, but rather the content of a movement determined if its form was to be supported or not.
In fact democracy = class society (in either a decaying class society or a forming democracy). All states used democracy, from the ancient greeks to the aristocrats to the liberal-bourgeoisie to the fascist (even proletarian dictatorship will from time to time resort to democracy, though this would be extremely temporary and will negate itself in a very short, limited amount of time). Democracy is based of the need to compromise the particular with the general - ie it is a way of resolving conflicting differences. In communism, the interests of the individual are the same as the interests of the whole - the material base of democracy withers away.
I'm "justifying responding to you" in a way because your post was completely off topic. You weren't responding to the OP you were simply making a statement that Communism was democratic, and for what? edit: kinda telling you took up more space trying to insult me (a very shitty insult, I might add) rather than making an argument. All you've done is assert that communism is democratic - no source, no citations, no reasoning - just bullshit

I'm pretty sure he means democracy as in direct democracy in the workplace.

[RedWorker]

How can democracy exist in a one-party state like the Soviet Union where political dissidents were censored, deported, or assassinated? I'm asking these questions mainly because I read the Communist Manifesto

Soviet Union was not communist and possibly not even socialist (depends on interpretation; see state capitalism). There's nothing in the Communist Manifesto which calls for the establishment of a fucked up society like the aforementioned, rather it upholds democracy and people's rights.


Let me put it this way -- if all of today's artificial scarcity could be / were done away with, what exactly could there be disagreements about -- ? -- (!)

Silly idealism, and disputes about goods are not everything.

[Remus Bleys]

I'm pretty sure he means democracy as in direct democracy in the workplace.
So? What does this even mean? The workers of x locality in x industry democratically decide or workers of x locality all decide or the workers in y decide or all workers everywhere decide? This vague work place democracy stuff is still part of what I am criticizing

What does this even mean? How do you abolish a distinction like that? I didn't see this earlier and I apologize for it. I didn't make myself clear enough and assumed you guys knew what I meant, which is, admittedly stupid of me.
That is the particular and general in regards to economic/material interests. Communism will obviously contain an "individuality" and differences between different people. What I mean is economic/political interests. Communism is the abolition of politics and the complete economic change of a cooperative society based on mutual need and not some class interest, so I don't think I have to go much further into an elaboration of what i meant by that.

[ckaihatsu]

Let me put it this way -- if all of today's artificial scarcity could be / were done away with, what exactly could there be disagreements about -- ? -- (!)

Would people have any material reasons for disputes over food -- ? No? How about regarding housing -- ? (Etc.)

Really, there'd be nothing of critical importance *left* to have a 'democracy' *for* -- for once humanity could plan and cooperate on a sheerly *discretionary* basis, once everyone's basic human needs have been provided-for.





Silly idealism, and disputes about goods are not everything.


No, it's *not* idealism -- please don't blame *my* words for your lack of understanding.

As things stand these days, we -- everyone in humanity -- is *alienated* from others, from themselves, from their labor, and from the products of their labor. (Offhand -- see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation)

We haven't even gotten to the point of implementing and utilizing our common-sense rationality, on all of society and its functioning, including mass production. Instead we continue to drive blindly, ignoring the market's vast dark side and the road it takes us down.

It's obviously possible to arrange the world's material affairs on a much more sound, humane basis, and doing so would eliminate most, if not all, conflicts that today are rooted in the *competition* of various private interests.

[RedWorker]

It's obviously possible to arrange the world's material affairs on a much more sound, humane basis, and doing so would eliminate most, if not all, conflicts that today are rooted in the *competition* of various private interests.

I agree with that, but you were suggesting that 1) all goods can be made abundant in the near future - false, today everyone could have food and housing, but definitely NOT all goods neither now or in the near future and 2) disputes limit themselves to goods. If you weren't saying that all goods can be abundant, then how does that end good-related disputes? It could end disputes related to food and housing, but not other goods.

[Haldane]

Let me put it this way -- if all of today's artificial scarcity could be / were done away with, what exactly could there be disagreements about -- ? -- (!)

Would people have any material reasons for disputes over food -- ? No? How about regarding housing -- ? (Etc.)

Really, there'd be nothing of critical importance *left* to have a 'democracy' *for* -- for once humanity could plan and cooperate on a sheerly *discretionary* basis, once everyone's basic human needs have been provided-for.
That sounds a little idealistic and utopian. Not all disputes are directly related to resources and who controls them; they can revolve around human rights, freedom of the press, etc. How could a governing body in which no dissenting opinions and therefore no checks and balances be prevented from amassing totalitarian control over everything?


Soviet Union was not communist and possibly not even socialist (depends on interpretation; see state capitalism). There's nothing in the Communist Manifesto which calls for the establishment of a fucked up society like the aforementioned, rather it upholds democracy and people's rights.



Silly idealism, and disputes about goods are not everything.
Then what society in history would you describe as communist? Or has "no truly communist society ever been tried in history" and we are to descend into a "no true scotsman" debate? I'm still a leftist, but lately I've been drifting away from Engels, Marx, and Trotsky back to my former favorite revolutionaries Paine, Jefferson, and Madison.

[ckaihatsu]

I agree with that, but you were suggesting that 1) all goods can be made abundant in the near future - false, today everyone could have food and housing, but definitely NOT all goods neither now or in the near future and 2) disputes limit themselves to goods. If you weren't saying that all goods can be abundant, then how does that end good-related disputes? It could end disputes related to food and housing, but not other goods.


I have *never* indicated that all goods could be made abundant in the *near future* -- rather, producing abundantly is what's at-stake, given our existing capacities for mass production.

If you're going to posit a scenario of *scarcity* for specific item(s) then I would just suggest that production be increased to cover that gap, as soon as possible.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

So? What does this even mean? The workers of x locality in x industry democratically decide or workers of x locality all decide or the workers in y decide or all workers everywhere decide? This vague work place democracy stuff is still part of what I am criticizing
I didn't see this earlier and I apologize for it. I didn't make myself clear enough and assumed you guys knew what I meant, which is, admittedly stupid of me.
That is the particular and general in regards to economic/material interests. Communism will obviously contain an "individuality" and differences between different people. What I mean is economic/political interests. Communism is the abolition of politics and the complete economic change of a cooperative society based on mutual need and not some class interest, so I don't think I have to go much further into an elaboration of what i meant by that.

Why do you make it vague?
Workers of an x factory vote for things that affect them.
How is that vague?

[Remus Bleys]

Why do you make it vague?
Workers of an x factory vote for things that affect them.
How is that vague?
It is vague in that it is a very different thing to have Workers of X location vote for something than say to have all the workers of the world vote on something (and not to mention the stupidity and ineffectiveness of that - it would truly be preposterous to say the least) but if you have one simple workplace constitute one body that is completely decentralized for your democratist demands of complete self management and of the workers of workplace x being the sole people who have a say on what goes on in workplace x, not only do you affirm the division of labor, but how is this any different than prodhounism?

[ckaihatsu]

all the workers of the world vote on something




(and not to mention the stupidity and ineffectiveness of that - it would truly be preposterous to say the least)


With today's communications technology this is not only possible, but feasible as well -- consider today's world audiences for the Olympics, World Cup, Superbowl, etc.

A policy regarding the exploration of space, for example, should be a 'planetary-wide' decision....

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

With today's communications technology this is not only possible, but feasible as well -- consider today's world audiences for the Olympics, World Cup, Superbowl, etc.

A policy regarding the exploration of space, for example, should be a 'planetary-wide' decision....

YEAH MAN, E-DEMOCRACY NOW!!!!1117 VOTE OVER THE INTERNET!

Do you think we need more portable toilets in your town? Is the neighbours dog being a nuisance? Should we abolish all churches and turn them into food storage warehouses and museums?

[ckaihatsu]

YEAH MAN, E-DEMOCRACY NOW!!!!1117 VOTE OVER THE INTERNET!

Do you think we need more portable toilets in your town? Is the neighbours dog being a nuisance? Should we abolish all churches and turn them into food storage warehouses and museums?


Your facetiousness really precedes you....

[Hit The North]

I'm still a leftist, but lately I've been drifting away from Engels, Marx, and Trotsky back to my former favorite revolutionaries Paine, Jefferson, and Madison.

Back to the bourgeoisie, then. See ya!

[Remus Bleys]

With today's communications technology this is not only possible, but feasible as well -- consider today's world audiences for the Olympics, World Cup, Superbowl, etc.

A policy regarding the exploration of space, for example, should be a 'planetary-wide' decision....
Why did you put my two sentences in quotes next to each other? They were back to back and had the same point... why?
http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/25/15-of-americans-dont-have-internet-5-think-its-irrelevant-charts-galore/ WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE 15%?

Anyway, what would be the fucking point? Why is something "more correct" becasue a majority agrees it is? Why would that most efficiently and effectively organize the function of a post-capitalist economy (besides, we are about that - in doing so lowers the time that the workers would actually have to work).

What does the olympics or the superbowl have to do with voting?

[ckaihatsu]

That sounds a little idealistic and utopian.


It's a fair argument, but then the question would become 'In what direction *are* we headed?'





Not all disputes are directly related to resources and who controls them; they can revolve around human rights,


Okay, would you like to advance a post-capitalism scenario for this?





freedom of the press,


Really -- ? In this day and age of the Internet -- !





etc.


Feel free to elaborate.





How could a governing body in which no dissenting opinions and therefore no checks and balances be prevented from amassing totalitarian control over everything?


Here's a little tip: Regardless of the *form* of decision-making used, the *outcome* is a final, determining policy that leaves a wake of historical events like a snail's trail of slime.

The decision-making could be instant commands from a military-type hierarchy, or it could be from free-form comments from everyone on the globe, over a period of years -- what *matters* is the actual *policy* that gets enacted.

And, you're issuing forth from the perspective that since a kind of totalitarianism resulted from a mass historical initiative towards a communist-type social order -- the USSR's bureaucratic collectivism -- that such a result is an automatic *inevitability* for the world whenever it might try to overthrow capitalism *again*.

I, for one, certainly don't share this fatalistic attitude -- we in the present are not *beholden* to the past, nor are we *obligated* to take up history's pages as our model for the *future*.





With this ['communist supply & demand'] model the checks and balances would be built-in between the interests of labor for organizing strength (channels of labor credits flowing forward), and the interests of the population for skilled, experienced, readily available labor (large-group demands, concentrated and formalized through politically agreed-upon prioritizations of work projects, and paid for with difficulty-factored labor credits, by the hour).




http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1579303&postcount=49




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174


---





Then what society in history would you describe as communist?


None.





Or has "no truly communist society ever been tried in history" and we are to descend into a "no true scotsman" debate?


Well, what criteria would you go by?





I'm still a leftist, but lately I've been drifting away from Engels, Marx, and Trotsky back to my former favorite revolutionaries Paine, Jefferson, and Madison.


There's *historical* value in learning from the personages of history, but at some point it becomes an exercise in scholasticism if we aren't charting our own course here in the present.

[ckaihatsu]

Why did you put my two sentences in quotes next to each other? There were the same sentence and had the same point... why?


Readability. Is it really so upsetting -- ?





http://techcrunch.com/2013/09/25/15-of-americans-dont-have-internet-5-think-its-irrelevant-charts-galore/ WONT SOMEONE THINK OF THE 15%?


What method of communications would you prefer -- ?





Anyway, what would be the fucking point? Why is something "more correct" becasue a majority agrees it is?


I don't disagree -- see my position regarding democracy at post #19:





Let me put it this way -- if all of today's artificial scarcity could be / were done away with, what exactly could there be disagreements about -- ? -- (!)

Would people have any material reasons for disputes over food -- ? No? How about regarding housing -- ? (Etc.)

Really, there'd be nothing of critical importance *left* to have a 'democracy' *for* -- for once humanity could plan and cooperate on a sheerly *discretionary* basis, once everyone's basic human needs have been provided-for.


Also, from another thread:





Democracy was a *political* concession that the bourgeois class won from the royalty, at the waning of feudal-based rule -- it's not something that *anyone*, especially revolutionaries, should feel *beholden* to. Rather, in the domain of mass industrial production, we're dealing more with matters of consumption-driven material demands which aren't dependent on who is "in charge" or exactly which persons carry out the labor for it.

To prove this point there could be a situation where a broad-scale vote is taken and 'the majority' votes to have menial labor provided on a lifelong basis to each and every person -- doesn't mean that any worker is going to actually *oblige* such a "vote".





Why would [democracy] most efficiently and effectively organize the function of a post-capitalist economy (besides, we are about that - in doing so lowers the time that the workers would actually have to work).


In what way would production be rationalized, then, in a post-capitalist society -- ?





What does the olympics or the superbowl have to do with voting?


(It means that there are precedents of realtime participation from all over the globe.)

[RedWorker]

Then what society in history would you describe as communist? Or has "no truly communist society ever been tried in history" and we are to descend into a "no true scotsman" debate? I'm still a leftist, but lately I've been drifting away from Engels, Marx, and Trotsky back to my former favorite revolutionaries Paine, Jefferson, and Madison.

None. Communism has never existed except perhaps "primitive communism" or maybe societies like Revolutionary Catalonia (though not sure to what degree), and that's agreed upon by everyone who has taken the time to research communism for 5 minutes. Don't be silly, this has nothing to do with the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Communism has absolutely nothing to do with what went on in the Soviet Union - at all, other than they had a big red flag. It's debatable whether they were socialist or not, but claiming that they were a "communist" or "near communist" society is a damn joke. Like somebody correctly stated in another thread, Engels before the Soviet Union ever existed had already spotted the fact that just state ownership does not do away with capitalist exploitation.

[Dagoth Ur]

Capitalist exploitation must necessarily be the form of earliest socialism. I mean it's not like just one day you flip the big economy switch from capitalist mode to socialist mode. Shit takes time.

Also the idea that no communist country (communist in the sense that it was led by real communists) is a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

[RedWorker]

Capitalist exploitation must necessarily be the form of earliest socialism.

I fail to see how "capitalist exploitation" could constitute "socialism".


Also the idea that no communist country (communist in the sense that it was led by real communists) is a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

What the hell is a "real communist"? What is it defined, by how they defined themselves? I seriously doubt that Stalin, claiming to be a real communist, really wanted to establish a communist society. Is Nazi Germany socialist because Hitler called himself a "Socialist"? And how is it relevant what the personal opinions of the leaders of a state are, when the state's politics are not in line with these opinions?

[Dagoth Ur]

I fail to see how "capitalist exploitation" could constitute "socialism".
The system of value and wages.


What the hell is a "real communist"? What is it defined, by how they defined themselves? I seriously doubt that Stalin, claiming to be a real communist, really wanted to establish a communist society. Is Nazi Germany socialist because Hitler called himself a "Socialist"? And how is it relevant what the personal opinions of the leaders of a state are, when the state's politics are not in line with these opinions?
See this is what I'm talking about. Stalin isn't a "real communist" to you and many others on this forum despite his entire history of being a committed communist (even if he wasn't that ingenuitive). Nothing Stalin did was counterrevolutionary, overly pragmatic at times, but not noncommunist by any stretch of the imagination.

[RedWorker]

See this is what I'm talking about. Stalin isn't a "real communist" to you and many others on this forum despite his entire history of being a committed communist (even if he wasn't that ingenuitive). Nothing Stalin did was counterrevolutionary, overly pragmatic at times, but not noncommunist by any stretch of the imagination.

Not sure if you're a liberal or a Stalinist or just completely lack knowledge in several areas, but you should think a little before you speak. I'm not bothering to refute this because there's so much written on the topic that it would be a waste.

[Dagoth Ur]

That's a solid argument bro.

[Haldane]

Okay, would you like to advance a post-capitalism scenario for this?
One that would be directly related to a communistic society, and I mean this purely as hypothetical rhetoric and not as an actual question, does an individual have a right to break away from the collective and make his or her own profits? Not everyone would be perfectly happy with a communistic way of life, and it would be foolish to think so.


There's *historical* value in learning from the personages of history, but at some point it becomes an exercise in scholasticism if we aren't charting our own course here in the present. What I should have said is that I'm leaning less towards radical but hopeful utopianisms such as pure communism or anarchism and back towards more rational ideas like constitutional democracy, although I still find the theories of Marx and Bakunin interesting and surely worthy of thought and I still hold a Marxist view of sociology.

None. Communism has never existed except perhaps "primitive communism" or maybe societies like Revolutionary Catalonia (though not sure to what degree), and that's agreed upon by everyone who has taken the time to research communism for 5 minutes. Don't be silly, this has nothing to do with the "no true scotsman" fallacy. Communism has absolutely nothing to do with what went on in the Soviet Union - at all, other than they had a big red flag. It's debatable whether they were socialist or not, but claiming that they were a "communist" or "near communist" society is a damn joke. Like somebody correctly stated in another thread, Engels before the Soviet Union ever existed had already spotted the fact that just state ownership does not do away with capitalist exploitation.
What about how many societies have started with the intention of becoming communistic? The most glaring flaw that I see with communism is that the dictatorship of the proletariat that is set up in order to set up the future communist society doesn't simply wither away, like Engels said it would. People in power seem to like keeping it, which is probably the main message of all history.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

It is vague in that it is a very different thing to have Workers of X location vote for something than say to have all the workers of the world vote on something (and not to mention the stupidity and ineffectiveness of that - it would truly be preposterous to say the least) but if you have one simple workplace constitute one body that is completely decentralized for your democratist demands of complete self management and of the workers of workplace x being the sole people who have a say on what goes on in workplace x, not only do you affirm the division of labor, but how is this any different than prodhounism?

I didn't say all workers of the world vote for sth.
I said that workplace democracy is that workers of each x workplace vote for things that affect them.
why is that preposterous?
I'm sorry if I've been vague in my comments.

[Thirsty Crow]

I said that workplace democracy is that workers of each x workplace vote for things that affect them.
why is that preposterous?

I wouldn't say it's preposterous, but severely limited.

Your position is that of workplace democracy, on workers voting for the stuff that affects them. But what is one of the most important things here is the scope of production and the specifics of the products - this indeed affects workers but it is also clear that it affects workers at other workplaces because production ought to work for satisfying society wide needs.

In other words, such workplace autonomy isn't compatible with social planning of production; it is intimately tied with the enterprise form, and ongoing communization (establishing the new social relations of production and wider social relations, through both "creative" and "destructive" acts - the latter is concerned with the capitalist relations) will necessarily come in conflict with the isolated enterprise as a unit of production (this is an important characteristic of capitalism); the climax of communization will have to coincide with, among other things, the elimination of this social form.

In this sense, this workplace democracy isn't enough; it can even be considered as damaging to further movements of social revolution.

But on the other hand, limited workplace control, potentially exercised by workplace committees, has its important role to play in all of this. By limited I mean that workers ought to collectively managed day to day affairs and technical matters, in opposition to the creation of a bureaucratic and managerial layer (e.g. one man management in early Soviet Union).

[ArisVelouxiotis]

I wouldn't say it's preposterous, but severely limited.

Your position is that of workplace democracy, on workers voting for the stuff that affects them. But what is one of the most important things here is the scope of production and the specifics of the products - this indeed affects workers but it is also clear that it affects workers at other workplaces because production ought to work for satisfying society wide needs.

In other words, such workplace autonomy isn't compatible with social planning of production; it is intimately tied with the enterprise form, and ongoing communization (establishing the new social relations of production and wider social relations, through both "creative" and "destructive" acts - the latter is concerned with the capitalist relations) will necessarily come in conflict with the isolated enterprise as a unit of production (this is an important characteristic of capitalism); the climax of communization will have to coincide with, among other things, the elimination of this social form.

In this sense, this workplace democracy isn't enough; it can even be considered as damaging to further movements of social revolution.

But on the other hand, limited workplace control, potentially exercised by workplace committees, has its important role to play in all of this. By limited I mean that workers ought to collectively managed day to day affairs and technical matters, in opposition to the creation of a bureaucratic and managerial layer (e.g. one man management in early Soviet Union).
But in this case you don't have a "middle" solution.
You either have "bureacratic and managerial layer" or workplace democracy.
But I understand now that a decision made in one workplace affects others as well.
Now that I get that I have some second thoughts about that.Still it would be better than not having control over your own workplace.

[Thirsty Crow]

But in this case you don't have a "middle" solution.
You either have "bureacratic and managerial layer" or workplace democracy.
But I understand that you a decision made in one workplace affects others as well.
Now that I get that I have some second thoughts about that.Still it would be better than not having control over your own workplace.
Wait, what makes you think there isn't any possibility of that limited form of worker control at the point of production (limited in precisely this sense of not being along the lines of making workers owners of the isolated autonomous enterprise)?

As the experience of Russian factory committees shows, this indeed might be possible but it simultaneously needs to be fought for, and this will crucially depend on a) the militancy and readiness of the working class itself for transcending capitalist relations, b) what kind of a revolutionary party are we dealing with, and c) its relationship to the broad layers of the working class I mentioned earlier.

I don't think one can so rigidly postulate that the party necessarily turns into the bureaucratic overseer monopolizing power, and later into a mechanism for the formation of a new ruling class.

[ckaihatsu]

Not all disputes are directly related to resources and who controls them; they can revolve around human rights,





Okay, would you like to advance a post-capitalism scenario for this?





One that would be directly related to a communistic society, and I mean this purely as hypothetical rhetoric and not as an actual question, does an individual have a right to break away from the collective and make his or her own profits? Not everyone would be perfectly happy with a communistic way of life, and it would be foolish to think so.


Huh! You started this thread by inquiring about Trotsky, and *now* look where things are at -- you're basically saying here that if a communistic society ever came into being you'd be the one looking for a 'waiver' from the whole thing, for the sake of bourgeois-type *property* rights...(!)

But -- to address your point, there *is* an 'outer-reaches' of the area of revolutionary theory, regarding 'luxury production', the point being about how a communist-type system could possibly address the production of items that are sheerly discretionary. The question is whether / how such customized production could be part of the regular communistic economy -- such as it would be -- or whether some limited, fringe-area of the society would be allowed to use market-style transactions for the domain of such.

Here's an illustration:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)


---





There's *historical* value in learning from the personages of history, but at some point it becomes an exercise in scholasticism if we aren't charting our own course here in the present.





What I should have said is that I'm leaning less towards radical but hopeful utopianisms such as pure communism or anarchism and back towards more rational ideas like constitutional democracy, although I still find the theories of Marx and Bakunin interesting and surely worthy of thought and I still hold a Marxist view of sociology.


From the part above, you may want to first resolve the whole 'property rights vs. human rights' thing, because they're fundamentally at odds with each other -- yet, we as human beings obviously have stewardship over the earth, so the question of materials (economy, etc.) isn't going to be going away, either.

From my blog entry:





What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[Haldane]

Huh! You started this thread by inquiring about Trotsky, and *now* look where things are at -- you're basically saying here that if a communistic society ever came into being you'd be the one looking for a 'waiver' from the whole thing, for the sake of bourgeois-type *property* rights...(!)

But -- to address your point, there *is* an 'outer-reaches' of the area of revolutionary theory, regarding 'luxury production', the point being about how a communist-type system could possibly address the production of items that are sheerly discretionary. The question is whether / how such customized production could be part of the regular communistic economy -- such as it would be -- or whether some limited, fringe-area of the society would be allowed to use market-style transactions for the domain of such.

Here's an illustration:


Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy



---








From the part above, you may want to first resolve the whole 'property rights vs. human rights' thing, because they're fundamentally at odds with each other -- yet, we as human beings obviously have stewardship over the earth, so the question of materials (economy, etc.) isn't going to be going away, either.

From my blog entry:
I wasn't raising the property rights question myself, I was just providing an example of a dispute that might go on in a post-capitalistic society. I'm just trying to find out more about how various communist systems or ideologies, like Trotskyism, would work. Thanks for the explanation of multi-tiered economic communistic theory.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

I don't think one can so rigidly postulate that the party necessarily turns into the bureaucratic overseer monopolizing power, and later into a mechanism for the formation of a new ruling class.
It isn't 100% certain but it is a very likely possibility.

[ckaihatsu]

---





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-vanguardism

[RedWorker]

The most glaring flaw that I see with communism is that the dictatorship of the proletariat that is set up in order to set up the future communist society doesn't simply wither away, like Engels said it would. People in power seem to like keeping it, which is probably the main message of all history.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't mean a single-party state. It means that the 99% (proletariat) are in power instead of the 1% (bourgeois) - THE WHOLE CLASS, not a party. When the burgeois is in power it is named the "dictatorship of the burgeois" - does that mean it is a single-party state? The dictatorship of the proletariat can and MUST be as democratic as possible. Otherwise that is no dictatorship of the proletariat, it is a dictatorship of a minority party.


Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.

(source (https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm))

[Haldane]

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" doesn't mean a single-party state. It means that the 99% (proletariat) are in power instead of the 1% (bourgeois) - THE WHOLE CLASS, not a party. When the burgeois is in power it is named the "dictatorship of the burgeois" - does that mean it is a single-party state? The dictatorship of the proletariat can and MUST be as democratic as possible. Otherwise that is no dictatorship of the proletariat, it is a dictatorship of a minority party.
So Leninist vanguardism is actually antithetical to Marxism?

[Thirsty Crow]

It isn't 100% certain but it is a very likely possibility.
If it were so, then the horizon would be completely dark: either party monopolization of political power leading to state planned capital accumulation or workers' ownership of capital and self-management (itself giving rise to the tendency towards the former due to inter-enterprise competition).

I don't think that this paints the complete picture at all.

[Geiseric]

If it were so, then the horizon would be completely dark: either party monopolization of political power leading to state planned capital accumulation or workers' ownership of capital and self-management (itself giving rise to the tendency towards the former due to inter-enterprise competition).

I don't think that this paints the complete picture at all.

There is such a thing as a "workers state." Seriously you and your friends take over every one of these threads with this red herring debate about state capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

There is such a thing as a "workers state." Seriously you and your friends take over every one of these threads with this red herring debate about state capitalism.
It's not a debate about state capitalism you dipshit. I'm not even putting forth this idea for discussion but openly use it as part of an altogether different argument. I'm not interested in debating this theory; I assume it here. The argument concerns workers' control and self-management - and last time I checked, these are matters also relevant for Trots. If this irritates you and if you can't handle a different perspective being put forward, then you might as well take a stroll or find some other thread to spew your inane bullshit.

[ArisVelouxiotis]

If it were so, then the horizon would be completely dark: either party monopolization of political power leading to state planned capital accumulation or workers' ownership of capital and self-management (itself giving rise to the tendency towards the former due to inter-enterprise competition).

I don't think that this paints the complete picture at all.

And what does paint a complete picture?

[ArisVelouxiotis]

There is such a thing as a "workers state." Seriously you and your friends take over every one of these threads with this red herring debate about state capitalism.

Originally we weren't debating state capitalism.Nobody mentioned it at all actually.