Communist Gov

[4thInter]

Truthfully i have to emit I've only been studying communism for about a year. I'm a little confused about the government style. I know that Lenin endorsed Democratic Centralism but upon review that kind of sounds bureaucratic.

[Remus Bleys]

Didn't you have a thread on this? And no the state is not run via "Democratic centralism" that is mao nonsense.
This is what lenin had to say (though I think he neglected to factor in the fact the trade Union was not as bureaucratic in Russia nor did he factor in the fact that the trade Union was filled with revolutionary workers and revolutionary leaders in a revolutionary state - but that's neither here nor there):

In Russia today, the connection between leaders, party, class and masses, as well as the attitude of the dictatorship of the proletariat and its party to the trade unions, are concretely as follows: the dictatorship is exercised by the proletariat organised in the Soviets; the proletariat is guided by the Communist Party of Bolsheviks, which, according to the figures of the latest Party Congress (April 1920), has a membership of 611,000. The membership varied greatly both before and after the October Revolution, and used to be much smaller, even in 1918 and 1919.*[22]*We are apprehensive of an excessive growth of the Party, because careerists and charlatans, who deserve only to be shot, inevitably do all they can to insinuate themselves into the ranks of the ruling party. The last time we opened wide the doors of the Party—to workers and peasants only -- was when (in the winter of 1919) Yudenich was within a few versts of Petrograd, and Denikin was in Orel (about 350 versts from Moscow), i.e., when the Soviet Republic was in mortal danger, and when adventurers, careerists, charlatans and unreliable persons generally could not possibly count on making a profitable career (and had more reason to expect the gallows and torture) by joining the Communists.*[23]*The Party, which holds annual congresses (the most recent on the basis of one delegate per 1,000 members), is directed by a Central Committee of nineteen elected at the Congress, while the current work in Moscow has to be carried on by still smaller bodies, known as the Organising Bureau and the Political Bureau, which are elected at plenary meetings of the Central Committee, five members of the Central Committee to each bureau. This, it would appear, is a full-fledged "oligarchy". No important political or organisational question is decided by any state institution in our republic without the guidance of the Party’s Central Committee.
In its work, the Party relies directly on the*trade unions, which, according to the data of the last congress (April 1920), now have a membership of over four million and are formally*non-Party.*Actually, all the directing bodies of the vast majority of the unions, and primarily, of course, of the all-Russia general trade union centre or bureau (the All-Russia Central Council of Trade Unions), are made up of Communists and carry out all the directives of the Party. Thus, on the whole, we have a formally non-communist, flexible and relatively wide and very powerful proletarian apparatus, by means of which the Party is closely linked up with the*class*and the*masses, and by means of which, under the leadership of the Party, the*class dictatorship is*exercised. Without close contacts with the trade unions, and without their energetic support and devoted efforts, not only in economic,*but also in military affairs, it would of course have been impossible for us to govern the country and to maintain the dictatorship for two and a half months, let alone two and a half years. In practice, these very close contacts naturally call for highly complex and diversified work in the form of propaganda, agitation, timely and frequent conferences, not only with the leading trade union workers, but with influential trade union workers generally; they call for a determined struggle against the Mensheviks, who still have a certain though very small following to whom they teach all kinds of counter-revolutionary machinations, ranging from an ideological defence of (bourgeois) democracy and the preaching that the trade unions should be "independent" (independent of proletarian state power!) to sabotage of proletarian discipline, etc., etc.
We consider that contacts with the "masses" through the trade unions are not enough. In the course of our revolution, practical activities have given rise to such institutions as*non-Party workers’ and peasants’ conferences, and we strive by every means to support, develop and extend this institution in order to be able to observe the temper of the masses, come closer to them, meet their requirements, promote the best among them to state posts, etc. Under a recent decree on the transformation of the People’s Commissariat of State Control into the Workers’ and Peasants’ Inspection, non-Party conferences of this kind have been empowered to select members of the State Control to carry out various kinds of investigations, etc.
Then, of course, all the work of the Party is carried on through the Soviets, which embrace the working masses irrespective of occupation. The district congresses of Soviets are*democratic*institutions, the like of which even the best of the democratic republics of the bourgeois world have never known; through these congresses (whose proceedings the Party endeavours to follow with the closest attention), as well as by continually appointing class-conscious workers to various posts in the rural districts, the proletariat exercises its role of leader of the peasantry, gives effect to the dictatorship of the urban proletariat wages a systematic struggle against the rich, bourgeois, exploiting and profiteering peasantry, etc.
Such is the general mechanism of the proletarian state power viewed "from above", from the standpoint of the practical implementation of the dictatorship. We hope that the reader will understand why the Russian Bolshevik who has known this mechanism for twenty-five years and has seen it develop out of small, illegal and underground circles, cannot help regarding all this talk about "from above"*or*"from below", about the dictatorship of leaders*or*the dictatorship of the masses, etc., as ridiculous and childish nonsense, something like discussing whether a man’s left leg or right arm is of greater use to him.


https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/ch06.htm

[RedWorker]

There is no government in communism.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Well, first of all there is no 'government' in Communism. Communism is, by its definition, a society without a government, classes or money. A 'society of free producers', as Marx said.

Socialism, on the other hand, revolves around the dotp, the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat". That is, the working class and its allies have the supreme executive power of the land. All legislation and actions by the dotp are done in the interest of, and in the furtherance of the interest of, the workers and their families.

The dotp is meant to be a direct democracy for the workers, with the exclusion and respression of the bourgeoisie and the ruling classes, counterrevolutionaries and reactionaries (i.e. Capitalists, fascists, career military, religious fanatics, instruments of the old regieme, etc.). At least, that's how I believe it should be done (if such a dotp is found to be a neccesity. I'm still convinced that the anarchist view is equally legitimate and possible). Others might disagree....but that is their right.

[Gracchus R.]

That's not just sound, it is bureaucratic. Maybe it is not what he was aiming for, but it certainly and up like that. It was supposed to be centralism of the ideology, and some independance for each republic. Stalin was going again this idea when he put is homeland, Georgia, back to the state of a colony (while he was commissar for nationalities). For what I know, Lenin has done nothing to prevent it.

[Blake's Baby]

Well, first of all there is no 'government' in Communism. Communism is, by its definition, a society without a government, classes or money. A 'society of free producers', as Marx said.

Socialism, on the other hand, revolves around the dotp, the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat". That is, the working class and its allies have the supreme executive power of the land. All legislation and actions by the dotp are done in the interest of, and in the furtherance of the interest of, the workers and their families. ...

You don't undrestand Lenin, and Lenin didn't understand Marx.

Socialism has nothing to do with the DotP. To Marxists, socialism = communism.

Lenin equated socialism with the 'first phase of communist society'. Get that, 'socialism' = (first phase) communist society, according to Lenin (State and Revolution). This is a classless society, so there is no 'proletariat' in it.

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (many people seem to forget the 'revolutionary' bit) is a class society (the clue is that it has a proletariat) that presides over the dismantling of capitalism. It is, basically, capitalist society in the process of being transformed as the world civil war is progressively won and more of the globe comes into the power of the working class.

Not socialism. Socialist (ie, communist) society comes after (see Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV).

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

You don't undrestand Lenin, and Lenin didn't understand Marx.

Socialism has nothing to do with the DotP. To Marxists, socialism = communism.

Lenin equated socialism with the 'first phase of communist society'. Get that, 'socialism' = (first phase) communist society, according to Lenin (State and Revolution). This is a classless society, so there is no 'proletariat' in it.

The revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat (many people seem to forget the 'revolutionary' bit) is a class society (the clue is that it has a proletariat) that presides over the dismantling of capitalism. It is, basically, capitalist society in the process of being transformed as the world civil war is progressively won and more of the globe comes into the power of the working class.

Not socialism. Socialist (ie, communist) society comes after (see Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV).

Hmmm...yes, I seem to have been mistaken and gotten my semantics mixed up. I made the mistake in thinking that the dotp was in the process of building socialism, when in fact its the revolutionary body that governs during the time of the global war against capital.

[Blake's Baby]

It's a mistake that comes up a lot, usually from Maoists but occasionally from Troskyists. The conflation of the DotP with the first phase of communist society, and calling that phase socialism, is a result of pretty fundamental misunderstandings of how Marx saw social developments.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You don't undrestand Lenin, and Lenin didn't understand Marx.

Socialism has nothing to do with the DotP. To Marxists, socialism = communism.

Lenin equated socialism with the 'first phase of communist society'. Get that, 'socialism' = (first phase) communist society, according to Lenin (State and Revolution). This is a classless society, so there is no 'proletariat' in it.

Lenin didn't originate this use, though, he just noted that the first phase is often called socialism. In later works, he rarely if ever makes the socialism/communism distinction, apart from some rather... enthusiastic articles written around the time of his stroke.


It's a mistake that comes up a lot, usually from Maoists but occasionally from Troskyists.

What Trotskyists?

[Blake's Baby]

Lenin didn't originate this use, though, he just noted that the first phase is often called socialism. In later works, he rarely if ever makes the socialism/communism distinction, apart from some rather... enthusiastic articles written around the time of his stroke...

Can you provide examples? I've seen people saying 'Lenin just reported the common usage' (as he of course claims in 'State an Revolution') an other people saying 'there's no other socialist writer who makes this distinction before Lenin'. I tend towards the latter view, as I know of no other socialist writer who does. If you have evidence to the contrary then I'd be happy to see it.



...
What Trotskyists?

Possibly, 'internet Trotskyists' (compare, 'internet Anarchists'). Obviously, Trotskyists who don't really know what they're talking about.

There was a user here, who claimed to be a Trotskyist, who used to express the view that socialism=the DotP. Can't remember their user name (I have after all been having this same discussion for years).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Can you provide examples? I've seen people saying 'Lenin just reported the common usage' (as he of course claims in 'State an Revolution') an other people saying 'there's no other socialist writer who makes this distinction before Lenin'. I tend towards the latter view, as I know of no other socialist writer who does. If you have evidence to the contrary then I'd be happy to see it.

I swear there was a text, authored by Bukharin if I'm not mistaken, that made the distinction before Lenin. But for the life of me I can't find it, so maybe it was all some drunken hallucination on my part.

There is circumstantial evidence, though. In "Socialism and Nationalisation" Lafargue explicitly equates communism with a society in which distribution proceeds according to the principle of free consumption (as opposed to distribution "according to services and talents", which he places in an era of "a revolutionary government", which is a somewhat inexact expression given the confusion of the early socialists about the state, government and socialism - consider Kautsky talking about a socialist state in the Erfut programme for example).

I'm sure more examples could be found. But the important point is, Lenin had no reason to report something that was not true. He doesn't use the socialism-communism distinction in his argument at all; call both phases of a classless society the same name, and the argument proceeds as before. If anything, his readers would be extremely confused if he were to make up a usage and say that it was common in the socialist movement.


Possibly, 'internet Trotskyists' (compare, 'internet Anarchists'). Obviously, Trotskyists who don't really know what they're talking about.

There was a user here, who claimed to be a Trotskyist, who used to express the view that socialism=the DotP. Can't remember their user name (I have after all been having this same discussion for years).

Well - Pabloists sometimes call the Soviet Union and similar states "socialist", and groups that originated in the old Marcy-Copeland tendency of the American SWP - WWP, PSL, CC etc. - do so as well. But Marcyists generally don't consider themselves to be Trotskyists and Pabloists, at least open Pabloists, are extinct.

But then, this is the Internet...