Dictatorship of the Proletariat

[Misodoctakleidist]

In 'State and Revolution' Lenin advances the argument for the dictatorship of the proletariat as a proletariat state, in place of the bougoire state, which will eventually 'wither away'. The assumtion that this state will whither away is based the fact that the state exists to regulate the class war and that without class there will be no function remaining for the state. In the dictatorship of the proletariat (in the leninist definition) the means of production are concentrated in the hands of the proletariat state, the existence of a state imposes a hierachy on society and in this situation different levels in the hierachy have differing amounts of controll over the means of production. Class is defined by the relationship to the means of production but since there are people with different relationships to the means of production doesn't this mean that there is more than one class and consequently that the state cannot 'wither away'?

[The Feral Underclass]

Precisely! And furthermore the state increases its role in society by its very nature. One giant contradiction exists. The Leninists see the state as a means to destroy capitalism. Fine! But what happens is, in order for the Leninists to use the state to smash the ruling class they have to increase its power while at the same time trying to decrease its power to create workers liberation.

It simply cannot be done. In order for the state to perpetrate itself it has to centralize control into the powers of a ruling elite (the vanguard) who then have to suppress any opposition to their rule regardless of what class they are from. They smash the bourgeoisie, good, but then what happens is that there are sections of the workers who are conscious of their class (but most are not as the Leninist theory is that the workers can not become conscious under the context of capitalism) and then organize to attack the rule of the vanguard. Kronstadt is a prime example. The workers and soldiers demanded concessions, not fundamental change, and were suppressed by Trotsky with malicious glee. Now most Leninists agree that it was a necessity. And there lies the contradiction. How can you suppress the workers while at the same time giving them freedom? If Lenin and Trotsky wanted to hand over power to the workers they would have listened to their demands and given in, as it was the will of the workers to have those concessions. Instead they believed that in order for the state to destroy the ruling class all dissent must be suppressed. (Would the bourgeoisie really have been able to achieve a foothold if the demands of Kronstadt were met - I think not!)

The authority of the vanguard or the state simply cannot create workers liberation. It is materially impossible. As the new rulers move down one path [the state] they move further away from workers liberation. The state creates oppression of an underclass, no matter what it's called, because in order for the state to exist it has to assert the authority of the ruler over the ruled. Look what happened with the USSR and indeed every other country that claimed to be fighting for communism It ended up with dictators or reverted back to capitalism. This is because the state leads down a certain path. The state can only maintain itself, it cannot lead to anything else but it's perpetuation and in order to perpetuate itself it has to suppress everything that stands in its way, even workers liberation. [You can not create workers liberation by suppressing it.] The state is a state and cannot be used to achieve workers liberation, just as the bourgeois state cannot. Leninism is simply one giant contradiction, which the Leninists do not seem to realize.

[Iepilei]

Indeed. This is what ultimately turned me away from Leninism as a practice. I know view it more as a guide - a historical reference.

[Saint-Just]

I do not think it matters whether the state will 'wither away' or not. The state is oppressive in some instances, but I do not think it constrains us that greatly.

It is not important who owns the means of production as to what they do with it. We want the means of production in the hands of the state as we know that the state is an efficient and effective way of organising a democratic society. The problems arise when the means of production are in the hands of individuals unaccountable to the wider population.

[The Feral Underclass]

The state is oppressive in some instances, but I do not think it constrains us that greatly.

This is the typical authotarian misinterpretation of what a state is. Leninists have this half arsed view of the state and do not really understand what it is or how it functions.


It is not important who owns the means of production

The means of production should be controlled and organized by the working class and the working class only.


We want the means of production in the hands of the state as we know that the state is an efficient and effective way of organising a democratic society.

The state by nature cannot be democratic. Any state that exists whether Socialists run it in the name of the workers or by the bourgeoisie can only exist by asserting its control. The Leninist state has to assert its control using brute force and thus negates any form of democracy accepts within its own ranks. The bourgeois state is different. The nature of society as it is now is capitalist and the nature of the state is designed to perpetrate that economic system. It appears we have democracy because we can vote every four or five years but we elect parties who all have the same class interest. To maintain capitalism. So actually there is very little democracy. When it comes down to it nobody who voted can actually effect any real change, no democracy exists at all and cannot unless there is no say..

The state creates material conditions which does not allow democracy of any real significance to the general population. When ever demand for fundamental change comes or when the workers specifically try to take control the state, no matter what it is called, has to the dissent in order to exist. This is not democracy!!!


The problems arise when the means of production are in the hands of individuals unaccountable to the wider population.

how can you make an elite of rulers accountable. Their actions are finite, their decisions are the nations will. You cannot force someone who controls an army, security forces and an entire economy to stand down because the wider population does not want it to be. These people have the control of the state and can do what ever they want.

I am confused by what you actually want for a future society. Is it Stalinist state or workers liberation. If it is the Stalinist state then I can understand what you are saying, if it is workers liberation then there is no chance of it with the state you envisage!

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 19 2004, 02:09 PM
I do not think it matters whether the state will 'wither away' or not.
It does when the justification for the existence of a state is that it will wither away, as is the case in leninist theory.

[The Feral Underclass]

Good point!

[Saint-Just]

It does when the justification for the existence of a state is that it will wither away, as is the case in leninist theory.

Yes, of course. I am questioning whether it is desirable for the state to wither away. If Lenin thinks the state will 'wither away' and that human beings are more free once it has done so then I would be critical of Lenin.


This is the typical authotarian misinterpretation of what a state is. Leninists have this half arsed view of the state and do not really understand what it is or how it functions.

Would you elaborate on that?


The means of production should be controlled and organized by the working class and the working class only.

Thats a rather extreme view. I do not think it is really necessary provided the working class are proportionately represented in any state structure following the revolution. What is important is working class ideas rather than the class itself.


When ever demand for fundamental change comes or when the workers specifically try to take control the state, no matter what it is called, has to the dissent in order to exist.

What do you mean by this? specifically what do you mean by 'has to the dissent in order to exist'?


how can you make an elite of rulers accountable. Their actions are finite, their decisions are the nations will. You cannot force someone who controls an army, security forces and an entire economy to stand down because the wider population does not want it to be. These people have the control of the state and can do what ever they want.

I see accountability as necessary to an extent much smaller than what you envisage. I can't argue very easily against the kind of society you imagine since its one that is quite difficult to imagine.


I am confused by what you actually want for a future society. Is it Stalinist state or workers liberation. If it is the Stalinist state then I can understand what you are saying, if it is workers liberation then there is no chance of it with the state you envisage!

But a 'Stalinist' state will bring liberation.

[Misodoctakleidist]

I do not think it is really necessary provided the working class are proportionately represented in any state structure following the revolution.

How can you have a state which serves the interests of the proletariat?

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 05:41 PM

I do not think it is really necessary provided the working class are proportionately represented in any state structure following the revolution.

How can you have a state which serves the interests of the proletariat?
Its fairly simple. What is needed is a group of people who like the proletariat.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 19 2004, 05:52 PM
Its fairly simple. What is needed is a group of people who like the proletariat.
so you would put your faith in some kind of benevolent dictatorship? what happens when the leader/leaders die, would you raise people from birth to be leaders like in plato's republic? how would you ensure that they represent the interests of the proletariate?

[The Feral Underclass]

Would you elaborate on that

You did it in the very same reply you asked this question. Leninists never ever seem to answer the question of the contradiction which exists in the theory. Your interpretation of the state is that it can be used as a form of organization as long as there are people who are "nicer" than the bourgeoisie and by thinking this miss the whole meaning of the state altogether.

The state exists as a concept in and of itself. It has a purpose and functions, which characterize it as a state. There a different aspects that go into it, but one fundamental trait, which is inherent in all states, is the rulers and their ideal of how to rule. Then there are the tools i.e. police, army, judiciary etc which are used to maintain the rulers ideal and rule. In bourgeois society the ideal is capitalism and it is maintained in a facade of democracy. In fact the ideal of capitalism is etched into everyone’s minds. People function and act within its constraints. As soon as the ideal is threatened those who wish to maintain it use their tools, police, army etc to crush any dissent and make sure that the ideal of capitalism is maintained.

The Leninist state is slightly different. The ideal is no longer capitalism but workers control. You believe that if you maintain the state and bring it under the control of "intellectuals" that communism can be achieved. However, as I stated before, which you did not answer, communism can not be reached in the confines of a state because of the nature of it. In order for the Leninists to achieve workers liberation they have to advance the role of the state and as you advance the role of the state control moves further and further away from the workers which ultimately can not lead to workers liberation.


I do not think it is really necessary provided the working class is proportionately represented in any state structure following the revolution.

I want to live in a world where wages don't exist and existence is about living, not working, not being a part of a state or a nation or a government with elected representatives and the boring bureaucracy that comes with it. Your view of a new society is very limited. You are just transferring power without actually dealing with the problems. Your society is, quite frankly, boring and repressive not embracing life or freeing. Society should simply be structured so that everyone is provided for with what they need, freeing up peoples lives to actually live. I am talking about the exploited, the working class, the unemployed and the drifters...

These representatives would do nothing for the working class or for society except monopolize on power and privilege working in a bureaucracy of bullshit. Your world would be as mundane and as boring as the world now. You could not live or enjoy life, you would be subservient to some dictator or some vanguard government of people you don’t know. It's no better than capitalism.


What do you mean by this? specifically what do you mean by 'has to the dissent in order to exist'?

I mean that the state cannot survive unless it crushes dissent whether it is a bourgeois state or a Leninist state. When change is demanded and specifically when it is the working class demanding control, again whether it is bourgeois or Leninist, the state has to suppress it, otherwise the state wouldn’t be able to exist, and in Leninist terms the state wouldn’t exist to be able to create workers liberation...Do you not see how stupid that is....You want to achieve wokers liberation by maintaining the state bu then suppress the workers when the want liberation. it dosn't make sense?


I see accountability as necessary to an extent much smaller than what you envisage.

Then who is being held accountable. If it isn’t your leaders then who is it? And if it isn’t your leaders what in hell is the point? You are simply handing over power to a bunch of people whose only qualification to power is that they say they are working in the interests of the people.


I can't argue very easily against the kind of society you imagine since its one that is quite difficult to imagine.

Exactly! You simply cannot imagine a world without a state. It is unimaginable for you just as it is unimaginable to the workers that they could have control of society.


But a 'Stalinist' state will bring liberation.

How? Answer the question of the contradiction? How can the state lead to liberation. If the state could lead to liberation why can we not do it in the context of the capitalist state?

[The Feral Underclass]

Its fairly simple. What is needed is a group of people who like the proletariat.

:lol:

Hitler liked the workers?!?!?!...

"We anarchists do not want to emancipate the people; We want the people to emancipate themselves."

[crazy comie]

The dictatorship of the prolitarian can work if the top is acountable to the bottom and workers representives are recallable. Without the dictatorship of the prolitarian there would not be inof coordination betwean pepole and reigeons to fully control and supress the bourgeosie.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 20 2004, 11:04 AM
Without the dictatorship of the prolitarian there would not be inof coordination betwean pepole and reigeons to fully control and supress the bourgeosie.
or for the vanguard to supress the proletariat for that matter. Could you, or another leninist, please address my point.

[Saint-Just]

as I stated before, which you did not answer, communism can not be reached in the confines of a state because of the nature of it. In order for the Leninists to achieve workers liberation they have to advance the role of the state and as you advance the role of the state control moves further and further away from the workers which ultimately can not lead to workers liberation.

Yes, I understand. I don't know if I would agree entirely, but I cannot predict what the state may do, whether it would be able to wither away at some point. I do not think the socialist state gets stronger and stronger, it does immediatly after its establishment but following that maintains its influence.


These representatives would do nothing for the working class or for society except monopolize on power and privilege working in a bureaucracy of bullshit. Your world would be as mundane and as boring as the world now. You could not live or enjoy life, you would be subservient to some dictator or some vanguard government of people you don’t know. It's no better than capitalism.

I enjoy my life now. I only have a few problems with it and they are certainly not ones that I can see solved by having no state, no bureaucracy and no leaders.


I mean that the state cannot survive unless it crushes dissent whether it is a bourgeois state or a Leninist state.

Thats true, however I think the Leninist state is ideal and that there will be no need for another revolution, as best I can see.


Then who is being held accountable. If it isn’t your leaders then who is it? And if it isn’t your leaders what in hell is the point? You are simply handing over power to a bunch of people whose only qualification to power is that they say they are working in the interests of the people.

As I said, I think it is necessary to a lesser extent than you envisage, I still think that accountability is necessary to some degree. Yes, leaders are accountable, to their peers, their superiors and those they represent.


Exactly! You simply cannot imagine a world without a state. It is unimaginable for you just as it is unimaginable to the workers that they could have control of society.

Specifically I cannot imagine all the complexities and workings of such a system, one that relies so much on self discipline without external discipline. I think humans are fundamentally sociable human beings, however not to the same degree that you do.


How? Answer the question of the contradiction? How can the state lead to liberation. If the state could lead to liberation why can we not do it in the context of the capitalist state?

What contradiction? I believe the mass of society can be liberated within the state structure. It can not be done in a capitalist state since a capitalist state is entirely different from a socialist state.


Hitler liked the workers?!?!?!...

Whether he liked them or not is irrelevent since he had the wrong ideas to bring about their freedom, he had a false analysis of society.


so you would put your faith in some kind of benevolent dictatorship? what happens when the leader/leaders die, would you raise people from birth to be leaders like in plato's republic? how would you ensure that they represent the interests of the proletariate?

I don't think people need to be raised from birth. The right people will arise and be chosen. What is necessary is that the individual has the correct ideas, the correct Marxist-Leninist line in the tradition of Lenin, Stalin and Mao. These ideas are proletarian ideas and represent the interests of the proletariat. It is not a question of faith but of social science.

[BOZG]

Before I start, do not try and counter my points by saying Lenin did this and that. I'm not arguing on the basis of the events after the October Revolution.



In order for the state to perpetrate itself it has to centralize control into the powers of a ruling elite (the vanguard) who then have to suppress any opposition to their rule regardless of what class they are from.


There does have to be a level of centralisation of course but does that always have to lead to a dictatorial centralism? I don't think it does. I also do not believe that the vanguard must be that "ruling elite". They do not have to smash any opposition, only opposition of the minority, who work against the interests of the proleteriat.



The workers and soldiers demanded concessions, not fundamental change, and were suppressed by Trotsky with malicious glee. Now most Leninists agree that it was a necessity. And there lies the contradiction. How can you suppress the workers while at the same time giving them freedom?

Moving away from this exact situation, if elements of the workers act against the interests of the majority, it is necessary that they be 'crushed'.

[Misodoctakleidist]

There does have to be a level of centralisation of course but does that always have to lead to a dictatorial centralism? I don't think it does. I also do not believe that the vanguard must be that "ruling elite". They do not have to smash any opposition, only opposition of the minority, who work against the interests of the proleteriat.

Whether there is dictatorship or 'democracy' it doesn't make much difference. My origional point, which still hasn't been addressed was that the state cannot wither away when there is more than one class which is the case in the leninist state (in theory not just in practice).

[The Feral Underclass]

Chairman Mao


but I cannot predict what the state may do

There is no need to predict just look at history.


I do not think the socialist state gets stronger and stronger, it does immediatly after its establishment but following that maintains its influence.

The how can this lead to workers liberation? What is a state? What is it's purpose? How can the state with away if it has to maintain itself? And it has to maintain itself in order to achieve workers liberation. The two mutually exclude each other. Lenin said "if there is a state there can be no freedom, if there is freedom there will be no state." Take that assertion and looking at what a state actually is and how it develops through the history of it's existence then look at what workers liberation is they move further and further away from each other.

On the one hand you have a state which has to oppress and create a dictatorship in order for it to exist and on the other hand you have workers control. Direct control without central government or a state. In order for the state to get to where it wants [workers liberation] it must increase it's role and then maintain it, but while you do that you have to create layer upon layer. You have to create a security force, you have to centralize more and more power into the hands of these rulers, you have to crushg freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of press, you have to control the economy, creating initiatives to force production and everytime the state does this it step by step moves further and further away from handing power over to the workers.

Leninists throw out an ideal. They assert with confidence [regardless of the historical facts] that the state will mysteriously wither away. But that is all it is. An idealist dream. In actual practice, in material reality, it sumnply cannot. The state just cannot create workers liberation. It is impossible.


I enjoy my life now. I only have a few problems with it and they are certainly not ones that I can see solved by having no state, no bureaucracy and no leaders.

I am certain you have no problems with your life. I am sure your food, electricty and water is all provided for you by someone else. Do you pay your electricty bill? Do you work and pay rent? Do you have to slave away at a job for 50 hours a week to pay for your internet. I doubt very much you do. You however are not actually living in the real world. You are protected inside a nice bubble where you can theorize and say how wonderful your life is. Try actually being in the real world. Living on a run down council estate. Try being a single parent or unemployed with £42 a week to live on. Try and be a drug addict or a labourer with a family to support, taxes and debts to pay. They you will realise that the state, the bureaucracy and leaders do nothing but establish the rights of individuals above other people.

You are supporting the ideal of a state etc because you cannot see how it could be done any differently. Is that really a reason to support something which creates oppression, class distinctions and exploitation?


Thats true, however I think the Leninist state is ideal and that there will be no need for another revolution, as best I can see.

There are many examples where the workers will demand change from the state. As [anarchists work hard] the workers will become more and more conscious and will see what the state is and demand control. What will this state do then? Ignore what they want. Kill or imprison us?


I think humans are fundamentally sociable human beings, however not to the same degree that you do

Why?


What contradiction?

Don't joke. I have explained it several times through out this thread, including at the beginning of this post.


I believe the mass of society can be liberated within the state structure.

Yey you have not answered how?


It can not be done in a capitalist state since a capitalist state is entirely different from a socialist state.

I would argue that they are not. Maybe in name and in rulers but certainly not in form or function.


Whether he liked them or not is irrelevent since he had the wrong ideas to bring about their freedom, he had a false analysis of society.

My point was that the workers are going to need a little bit more than niceness if they ever want to free themselves.

[The Feral Underclass]

BornOfZapatasGun


There does have to be a level of centralisation of course but does that always have to lead to a dictatorial centralism?

If a state exists then yes!


I also do not believe that the vanguard must be that "ruling elite".

It's the basis of leninism that this is the case. The reason is because the it is believed by them that the workers are unable to gain class consciousness in the pretext of capitalism and therefore must be led by a vangaurd who then assumes control of the state to work for the "interests" of the working class. Which ultimatly can not happen.


They do not have to smash any opposition, only opposition of the minority, who work against the interests of the proleteriat.

Then how can it [the state] maintain itself. If there are thousands and thousands of workers who want to control their communities what will happen then?


if elements of the workers act against the interests of the majority, it is necessary that they be 'crushed'.

How do you define what is in the interest of the workers. Surely the interest of the workers is for them to be conscious of capitalism their material position in society and then how to change it. It is in the interest of the workers to take control of the means of production and their lives and organize for themselves society without the state. Would you oppress people who wanted this? Surely what I have described is in the interest of the working class, even if the majority of them are not aware of it. This opposition will be what comes from the new working class in this state of yours. Does it deserve to be oppressed?

[BOZG]

If a state exists then yes!

We can go around in circles on this.



It's the basis of leninism that this is the case.

No its the basis of Leninism that the vanguard must help antagonise and advance the struggle due to its own advanced consciousness. This does not mean that the vanguard must automatically assume control of the state.



The reason is because the it is believed by them that the workers are unable to gain class consciousness in the pretext of capitalism

On that basis a socialist revolution cannot happen. Therefore no country would have ever even attempted a socialist revolution. The fact that attempts at socialism exist in many countries refutes your argument.



Then how can it [the state] maintain itself. If there are thousands and thousands of workers who want to control their communities what will happen then?


But does the 'Leninist' state seek to maintain itself? Once again we can go in circles on this one. Obviously they'll decentralise the state because it's their will.



How do you define what is in the interest of the workers. Surely the interest of the workers is for them to be conscious of capitalism their material position in society and then how to change it. It is in the interest of the workers to take control of the means of production and their lives and organize for themselves society without the state.

Ultimately yes, that is the interests of the working class but what's in the interests of one part of the working class may not be in the interests of the entire class. I'm going to have to refer to Kronstadt on this one because I know you're coming from that perspective. I'm not going to say whether what happened in Kronstadt was correct or incorrect but once again, their demands may or may not have been in the interests of the class even if they were just to control their own community.

[Mike Fakelastname]

I had a theory awhile back, about the dictatorship of the proletariat. My eyes hurt so I'm not going to type a lot, but one of the main problems that we've seen with this dictatorship of the proletariat so far, is that it's waaaaay too centralized to "whither away".

Durring the Russian revolution though, they had not other choice but a centralized dictatorship of the proletariat. Fine, that just only goes to prove that Russian socialism was doomed to fail, and wasn't possible to begin with. But, a decentralized dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't go entirely against Leninism, and it's quite possible.

[sanpal]

You, guys, search for truth in not a true place. You do not take into account the main conclusion made by scientists Marx and Engels that the society will never achieve fair distribution of products of work on the basis of commodity-money relations (market economic system) between members of a society.

1-st, the bourgeois society based on commodity-money relations will cause exploitation of proletariat by bourgeoisie

2-nd, proletarian society (dictatorship of the proletariat) based on commodity-money relations will cause violence and exploitation of the proletariat by bureaucracy. If to cancel violence (to enter liberalization) then a proletarian society will be transformed into a bourgeois one (then see point '1').

3-rd, anarchist society (cancelled state) based on commodity-money relations will cause development of bourgeoisie and formation of the state (then see point '1' or '2')

If you need an alternative to these three points you can read Marx and Engels works in which they say about nonmarket economic system in a communistic society without commodity-money relations between members of a communistic society.

They speak that it is impossible only to cancel or forbid money or to apply to it functions unusual for it (as labour marks). Thus, the capitalism can not be abolished. It could be replaced with communism only.

For such replacement, occuring the gradual and peace way, requires protection of communes as ' sprouts of communism ' from attacks of bourgeoisie by the proletarian state. It means, that the state system should be " dictatorship of the proletariat ". And the proletariat which has received the state power should not make a silly mistake to abolish capitalism and there should allow be bourgeoisies during any time.

In process of growth of communistic sector the capitalist sector will decrease and the state will 'wither away' also.

[The Feral Underclass]

BornOfZapatasGun


We can go around in circles on this.

No, I keep going around in circles, you haven't yet attempted to refute my argument.


No its the basis of Leninism that the vanguard must help antagonise and advance the struggle due to its own advanced consciousness. This does not mean that the vanguard must automatically assume control of the state.

But the state would still exist. Who would control it?


On that basis a socialist revolution cannot happen. Therefore no country would have ever even attempted a socialist revolution. The fact that attempts at socialism exist in many countries refutes your argument.

It wasn't my argument. It was the argument of many Leninists I have debated with. I believe the opposite is true. If the workers are conscious of the needs and requirements to achieve workers liberation the state is negated.


But does the 'Leninist' state seek to maintain itself?

I am sure not consciously. But that is what a state is. It is a form of organization, which seeks to maintain itself. If you create state structures and organization you are consciously or unconsciously asserting it's control through suppression of freedom, centralization of control and economic authority.


Once again we can go in circles on this one.

No, again I am going around in circles, you again, haven't answered my points. You assert things to be fact and then when I have told you why I don’t think it will work you simply reassert the same assertions. Tell me why you think it will work and why my argument is wrong.


Obviously they'll decentralise the state because it's their will.

I am sure it is their will in an idealist sense, but materially it is impossible to achieve.


that is the interests of the working class but what's in the interests of one part of the working class may not be in the interests of the entire class.

This is where anarchism and Leninism has a fundamental difference. I see a pointful and lasting revolution as a historical inevitability. Mass consciousness will come as a historical fact. Workers liberation can only ever come about when the majority of workers are conscious and work together to smash the state. If they are unconscious and the state exists then workers liberation can never come for the reasons I have stated.

Leninism on the other hand is opportunist and does not seek even the approvement of the working class to confront the bourgeoisie. This is a fundamental flaw. You cannot have half the workers against you while trying to free them. Only when they are conscious of it can they free themselves.


I'm not going to say whether what happened in Kronstadt was correct or incorrect but once again, their demands may or may not have been in the interests of the class even if they were just to control their own community.

It's quite easy to dismiss it with apathy. If you look at what happened at Kronstadt closely it shows what happens when intellectuals maintain the state in the name of the workers. It creates contradictions, which ultimately cannot lead to liberation.

For your reference, these were the demands of the Kronstadt workers.


THE PETROPAVLOVSK RESOLUTION (see article "Kronstadt 1921").

"Having heard the report of the representatives sent by the general meeting of ships' crews to Petrograd to investigate the situation there we resolve:

1. In view of the fact that the present soviets do not express the will of the workers and peasants, immediately to hold new elections by secret ballot, with freedom to carry on agitation beforehand for all workers and peasants.

2. To give freedom of speech and press to workers and peasants, to anarchists and left socialist parties.

3. To secure freedom of assembly for trade unions and peasant organisations.

4. To call a non- Party conference of the workers, Red Army soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and Petrograd province, no later than 10 March 1921.

5. To liberate all political prisoners of socialist parties, as well as workers, peasants, soldiers and sailors imprisoned in connection with the labour and peasant movements.

6. To elect a commission to review the cases of those being held in prisons and concentration camps.

7. To abolish all political departments, since no party should be given special privileges in the propagation of its ideas or receive the financial support of the state for such purposes. Instead, cultural and educational commissions should be established, locally elected and financed by the State.

8. To remove all road block detachments immediately.

9. To equalise the rations of all working people, with the exception of those employed in trades detrimental to health.

10. To abolish the Communist fighting detachments in all branches of the army, as well as the Communist guards kept on duty in factories and mills. Should such guard attachments be found necessary, they are to be appointed in the army from the ranks and in the factories and mills at the discretion of the workers.

11. To give peasants full freedom of action in regard to the land, and also the right to keep cattle, on condition that the peasants manage with their own means, that is, without employing hired labour.

12. To request all branches of the army, as well as our comrades the military cadets, to endorse our resolution.

13. To demand that the press give all our resolutions wide publicity.

14. To appoint an itinerant bureau of control.

15. To permit free handicraft production by ones own labour."

Pertichenko, Chairman of the Squadron Meeting.

Perepelkin, Secretary.

They didn’t want control, they wanted concessions, and concessions that were in line with Communism, the very thing Lenin and Trotsky claimed they were trying to achieve. The result of these demands was mass murder when Trotsky used Artillery to pound the shit out of them...Did they deserve it? No! Why did Trotsky and Lenin do this? Either they didn’t care about workers liberation, or they attempted to control the nation and suppress dissent, regardless of class, in which case the hypothesis of my argument proves true which leads to the conclusion, the state cannot achieve workers liberation.

[The Feral Underclass]

a decentralized dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't go entirely against Leninism, and it's quite possible.

God forbid you go against Lenin!

[Saint-Just]

There is no need to predict just look at history.

There are no examples in history to look at, a Marxist-Leninist state has never been in existence for long enough.


The how can this lead to workers liberation? What is a state? What is it's purpose? How can the state with away if it has to maintain itself? And it has to maintain itself in order to achieve workers liberation. The two mutually exclude each other. Lenin said "if there is a state there can be no freedom, if there is freedom there will be no state." Take that assertion and looking at what a state actually is and how it develops through the history of it's existence then look at what workers liberation is they move further and further away from each other.

Yes, I may disagree with Lenin to some extent on this point. I would suggest that the state may be invaluable.


I am certain you have no problems with your life. I am sure your food, electricty and water is all provided for you by someone else. Do you pay your electricty bill? Do you work and pay rent? Do you have to slave away at a job for 50 hours a week to pay for your internet. I doubt very much you do. You however are not actually living in the real world. You are protected inside a nice bubble where you can theorize and say how wonderful your life is. Try actually being in the real world. Living on a run down council estate. Try being a single parent or unemployed with £42 a week to live on. Try and be a drug addict or a labourer with a family to support, taxes and debts to pay.

If this was the case, that by being poor one realises that the state, the bureaucracy and the leaders need to be removed then we would have a lot more Anarchists than we do now. I would suggest that the things you mentioned are just as likely to make someone into a socialist as an anarchist.

I believe the mass of society can be liberated within the state structure.


Yey you have not answered how?

I have not answered how because its a rather long and complex answer. I can answer it very simply but it still leaves a number of other questions. Very simply and unsubstantiated, the state does not constrain one doing what one wants, only what one should not do. The state is used to enforce the will of the collective, although of course where we disagree is one whether or not the will of the collective will prevail as the state is always divorced from the masses to some degree. I think that the state's relation to the masses must be through ideology, that the correct ideological path is chosen. Of course to ensure that the state does not deviate from this path there are a number of measures taken, history has shown this to be quite diffucult.


Anarchy requires to revolutions, the destruction of the state and the realisation that it is not needed and the socialist revolution. I am not sure that both will occur simultaneously. I am not certain, but I would not proclaim that it was possible and then if I did I would not be sure it was not virtually impossible.

[BOZG]

No, I keep going around in circles, you haven't yet attempted to refute my argument.

You believe the state will always be dictatorial and cannot be used to any extent, I disagree. There's nothing to refute. We can go around in circles saying I think this, I think that, we'll get nowhere.



Who would control it?

A socialist society cannot be created after a revolution without an advanced consciousness of society as a whole. Anyone could 'control' it.



It is a form of organization, which seeks to maintain itself. If you create state structures and organization you are consciously or unconsciously asserting it's control through suppression of freedom, centralization of control and economic authority.


Same as my first point.



Tell me why you think it will work and why my argument is wrong.

You know the theoretical arguments behind it, do I have to just repeat them?



You cannot have half the workers against you while trying to free them. Only when they are conscious of it can they free themselves.

I agree with you but that's with HALF, not a small section.



They didn’t want control, they wanted concessions, and concessions that were in line with Communism,

I'm not saying that the demands of the workers were unacceptable but there at times when you can ask for the most acceptable things in the world but it's not always what's in the interest of the workers as a whole at that time.

[The Feral Underclass]

Chairman Mao


the state, the bureaucracy and the leaders need to be removed then we would have a lot more Anarchists

Speak to many working class people or to the unemployed and you will see that actually they all advocate that the state, the bureaucracy and the leaders be removed. The problem is they don't necessarily have it a class perspective. They do not identify what the state is entirly, its effects on society and how to change it.


I have not answered how because its a rather long and complex answer.

I would very much like to hear it.


the state does not constrain one doing what one wants,

It's a lie. The state continually stops people from doing things they want to. I want to take drugs but am not allowed. I want to marry my male partner, I can not because it is against the law. I want to organize my community with my comrades but I can not. I can not do these things, expecially the latter, because the state demands abolsute control.

The same with a Leninist state. The state has to have absolute control in order to maintain itself and must stop anyone or anything which challanges its authority.


[b]only what one should not do.

I think this is what it comes down to. You say that those who deicde who do this are a party elite, or professional revolutionaries. I say that it should not. The whole point to workers class action is to allow them to make those decisions for themselves. No one has the right to decide what is acceptable and what isnt. These decisions have to be made collectivly by individuals and not leaders.

There can never be freedom if the state, controlled by unknown people, dictate to you what is and what isnt acceptable to run your life or your community. Freedom can only come about when those choices are made by the individuals themselves. Otherwise what is the point?


The state is used to enforce the will of the collective

No, the state is there to enforce the will of the rulers. What happens if the collective want to enforce their will by themselves? The working class make no decisions by themselves, rather they are made for them by a central authority who demands discipline, obdience and loyalty so it can carry out it's control.


I think that the state's relation to the masses must be through ideology, that the correct ideological path is chosen.

But the workers should not be mothered in such a patronizing way. The workers do not want to be told what to think and feel about the state and why it exists. They want control. They want to be able to run their lives without fear of want. This relationship between the masses and the state only serve the rulers who perpetrate the state and control the masses. Remove the state and the rulers and teach the workers to take responsability for themselves and then you will get freedom.


Of course to ensure that the state does not deviate from this path there are a number of measures taken, history has shown this to be quite diffucult.

But you are just creating yet more problems. You are solving one problem by creating another. You are layering the state adding layer upon layer to ensure it exists. How can the state wither away if you are creating more functions and sub functions for it to exist?

[The Feral Underclass]

BornOfZapatasGun


You believe the state will always be dictatorial and cannot be used to any extent, I disagree. There's nothing to refute. We can go around in circles saying I think this, I think that, we'll get nowhere.

The point of debate is not to say "I think this and I think that," I know what you think, what I am asking is that you justify it. I have said that I believe that the state will always function as a state and can not be used for workers liberation and I have stated why I think it. You have said, again, that you disagree, fine! What I am looking for is for you to tell me why you disagree.

Tell me what you think a state is and how it functions? Tell me why this contradiction is not a contradiction? Tell me how the state can wither away? Tell me how the state can create liberation? Justify your ideology!


A socialist society cannot be created after a revolution without an advanced consciousness of society as a whole

Then why is a state necessary? If the workers are conscious they can easily organize themselves without central authority or state structures.



You know the theoretical arguments behind it, do I have to just repeat them?

No I do not know the theoretical arguments. I understand the ideal, I understand Lenins assertions and counter assertions. I understand the rhetoric and the promises what I don't understand is how it will actually work in a material sense. Especially based on my own view of the state. Please correct me and explain it to me.


I agree with you but that's with HALF, not a small section.

The assertion is that the state is needed to guide the workers and fight in their interests because they can not becme conscious in the context of capitalism and therefore must be led. Now, if they are conscious, or at least the vast majority of them are, then they will have the ability to lead themselves and organize among themselves because they understand what is needed and will have a sense of empowerment and passion to achieve it. Thus negating the need for a state.


I'm not saying that the demands of the workers were unacceptable but there at times when you can ask for the most acceptable things in the world but it's not always what's in the interest of the workers as a whole at that time.

So they deserved to be bombed then?...These people were the workers. They lived in their own communities and wanted concessions which would have made their lives better. For a start, why did they have to ask for these concessions? Secondly, the interests of the workers is to have the freedom to organize themselves. If they are conscious of class struggle then they are as able as any state representative or central committee official and should have the right [the whole point of the revolution is for them to have this right] to organize and make decisions for themselves.

You are just trying to justify the unjustifiable.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

The way I see it, the course of action should depend on how the party gets into poewr. If we are elected in, then we should merely play by the rules of the existing government and play the multiparty democracy game, and all is fine and dandy till we lose, but in the event of a violent revolution, then the party has a moral responsibility to keep the capitalists out of power, that it did not have otherwise, so in that event I think the single party communist state is the best course of action.

[Saint-Just]

It's a lie. The state continually stops people from doing things they want to.

In an anarchist society, if the collective will was a certain way then you may not be able to do those things you want to do. Taking drugs or marrying someone of the same sex may be considered offences to the same degree that stealing would be. What you want to do is change the rules of society. In anarchist society the collective rules, in a state system the state rules, there are still rules on what one can and cannot do. Its fully pheasable that a state could exist which let you marry your boyfriend or take drugs.


No, the state is there to enforce the will of the rulers. What happens if the collective want to enforce their will by themselves? The working class make no decisions by themselves, rather they are made for them by a central authority who demands discipline, obdience and loyalty so it can carry out it's control.

It is a matter of ideology. I think that people do not need to make certain decisions themselves as the decisions are prescribed by the ideology they must adhere to, which in Anarchist (the kind of Anarchist society you advocate) and Leninist-type societies is socialist ideology.

In addition, I do not see what decisions an individual can take in an Anarchist society that all socialist state would deny them. One cannot oppose the system in an Anarchist society either, since (if the Anarchist society is as you say it will be) then all other individuals will reject their ideas about how to overthrow the system i.e. re-establish a state. Similarly a proletarian dictatorship will fight against being replaced. Both systems are subject to small changes of course.


But the workers should not be mothered in such a patronizing way. The workers do not want to be told what to think and feel about the state and why it exists. They want control.

I can't relate at all. I would think that I have internalised the fundamental disciplines of civilised society, that is to say I could function in an Anarchist society. However, I do not dislike the idea of being told what to think in a Marxist-Leninist society. It does not diminish my choice, but reaffirms what I already think. And for those who think differently, they are wrong and should not be able to exercise their choice. Similarly, in an Anarchist society individuals have to agree on a large number of things in order for society to operate, there is no room for difference of opinion in either societies. It is only in liberal democracy that a difference of opinion can exist without being suppressed by force, although only a few can prevail liberal ideologies can prevail.


How can the state wither away if you are creating more functions and sub functions for it to exist?

Marx said there would be a peaceful revolution to overthrow the first stage of communism (socialism). How many functions and sub-functions exist would be irrelevent since there would be a revolution to remove it all. Its as likely to happen as it is that there would be an Anarchist revolution in a capitalist society.

[crazy comie]

There is only 2 classes in the dictatorship of the prolitarian the prolitariate and the bourgeosie the job of the dictatorship of the prolitarian is to supress the bourgeosie. The prolitarian dictatorship would be kept prolitarian the members of the soviets would e recallable and democraticly elected in all feilds of work.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 23 2004, 04:18 PM
There is only 2 classes in the dictatorship of the prolitarian the prolitariate and the bourgeosie the job of the dictatorship of the prolitarian is to supress the bourgeosie. The prolitarian dictatorship would be kept prolitarian the members of the soviets would e recallable and democraticly elected in all feilds of work.
There is at least one other class, the vanguard. It makes no difference if the members of the soviets are recallable, they have a different relationship to the means of production and are therefor a different class. The only way the dictatorship of the proletariat could work is if it was a perfect democracy which is impossible within a state structure.

[BOZG]

There is at least one other class, the vanguard. It makes no difference if the members of the soviets are recallable, they have a different relationship to the means of production and are therefor a different class.

The proleteriat is a super class, comprised of numerous classes. It could be argued that the Vanguard is still a member of the Proleteriat.

[Misodoctakleidist]

The vanguard controls the means of production, how can it possibly be part of the proletariat?

[BOZG]

How exactly does the vanguard control the means of production?

[Misodoctakleidist]

The means of production are centralised into the hands of the state and consequently the vanguard.

[BOZG]

As I said before the vanguard does not necessarily have to be in control of the state apparatus. The means of production are centralised to be used by the state as a whole but that their control ultimately lies within the Soviets.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 10:07 PM
As I said before the vanguard does not necessarily have to be in control of the state apparatus. The means of production are centralised to be used by the state as a whole but that their control ultimately lies within the Soviets.
But that still indicates a class system unless you are suggesting that the soviets are perfectly democratic. Whoever is in controll, they are controll of the means of production which contitutes a different class since their relationship to the means of production is different to that of the proletariat. As long as there is a state then there are people whose relationship to the means of production differ from that of others.

[Saint-Just]

If the means of production are owned by the state they are in common ownership. The state is a forum for debate and an organ of power that has an ideological commitment, unlike the private individual. The decisions it makes are influenced more greatly by workers than a firm in private ownership is influenced by workers.

At a lower level, decisions are made by workers since they have a say in the functioning of each state firm in a soviet system. You can argue that the larger macroeconomic decisions are somewhat detached from the workers. However, it is virtually impossible to give millions of people direct control over such decisions, that is why our democracy is a representative system.

The greatest relationship between the masses and their vanguard is through ideology, the vanguard is a collection of people who subscribe to the ideology of the masses, socialism. It is the same as the way in which someone of bourgeois background can be a proletarian revolutionary, it is because they share the same ideology.

I think a lot of people on this site listen to too much redstar200ism, its because he was a journalist and as such can argue and pursuade very well, in addition to being clever. The reality is that he a fantastic ambassador of a bankrupt ideology.

[BOZG]

Misodoctakleidist,

I think Chairman Mao's first two paragraphs answer your question. Even at the individual level, the worker is in control of the means of production. The question here is whether that control is accountable.



I just have a question for those that reject the role of the state in a socialist revolution. Do you agree that the state is a product of class antagonisms and is used for the suppression of one class by another?

[redstar2000]

I just have a question for those that reject the role of the state in a socialist revolution. Do you agree that the state is a product of class antagonisms and is used for the suppression of one class by another?

Well, I agree with that statement, but so what?

That is, what conclusion can you legitimately draw from that observation that "justifies" a bloated and repressive despotism "in the name of the working class"?

The state in capitalist society is indeed bloated and repressive and more so with every passing decade. It has to be that way because it must "keep under control" a class that the capitalists cannot do without -- the working class.

On the other hand, the working class can easily dispense with the capitalist class -- by depriving it of its ownership and control of the means of production, it abolishes the capitalist class as an organized element of society.

That's not to say there won't still be people -- ex-capitalists and their lackeys -- who would like to restore capitalism, but they have no "levers of power".

Their collective wealth has vanished. Their access to the media is gone. Their military and police are history.

Whatever pathetic and sleazy little plots they can organize should be easily suppressed by any commune that's paying attention.

It's the same old Leninist "bogeyman" -- put us in power or the capitalists will return.

But when capitalism actually returned, it was the Leninists who were the new capitalist class.

What is "so hard" to understand about that?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 10:35 PM
I just have a question for those that reject the role of the state in a socialist revolution. Do you agree that the state is a product of class antagonisms and is used for the suppression of one class by another?
Yes, which is why the dictatorship of the proletariat can't wither away. It doesn't matter who the vanguard represents, the fact still remains that they are a different class and a class system can't exist without conflict. The state must mediate the class antagonisms and so doesn't wither away. The only way the dictatorship of the proletariat could whither away is if everyone was equaly in controll of the means of production and in a centralised state that would require a flawless democracy.

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 11:41 AM
But when capitalism actually returned, it was the Leninists who were the new capitalist class.

What is "so hard" to understand about that?
you endlessly use pointless quotation and speechmarks, which become very irritating, yet when you need them you dont use them

If these people were Leninists, then they couldnt be capitalists. Why do you twist things to fit your argument? I put it to you because your argument is flawed. Now go unload yourself before your piss bag explodes you whining old git

[Kez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 12:08 PM
It doesn't matter who the vanguard represents, the fact still remains that they are a different class and a class system can't exist without conflict.
But the vanguard by definition cannot be seperate from a class.

In this case, the leninist vanguard is made of (for the very very large part), supported by, and needs the working class, and thats where its power comes from.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Being determines conciousness, meaning that if you act like a leader, you BECOME a leader, and all the nasty stuff that comes with it.

I don't believe leninist/vanguardist leaders are any different to any other sort of leader.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:03 PM
But the vanguard by definition cannot be seperate from a class.

In this case, the leninist vanguard is made of (for the very very large part), supported by, and needs the working class, and thats where its power comes from.
Class is defined by the relatioship to the means of production and when the means of production are centralisedc into the hands of the state then the different levels of power within the state have different relationships to the means of production and so are different classes.

I understand what you are trying to say about the vanguard representing the working class but even with the best intentions they couldn't possibly be a perfect representation and so would come into conflict with the proletariat even if just in small ways, in the worst case you end up with someone like Stalin.

[BOZG]

Well if you agree that the state is an apparatus used by one class in the suppression, then why can't the proleteriat use it against the capitalist class? If the state always leads to a dictatorship, then it must also lead to a dictatorship or the bourgeoisie itself.

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 04:39 PM
Class is defined by the relatioship to the means of production and when the means of production are centralisedc into the hands of the state then the different levels of power within the state have different relationships to the means of production and so are different classes.

I understand what you are trying to say about the vanguard representing the working class but even with the best intentions they couldn't possibly be a perfect representation and so would come into conflict with the proletariat even if just in small ways, in the worst case you end up with someone like Stalin.
Its not hard to represent the working-class given the right ideas, could you do it?

Class may be defined by the relationship to the means of production that class has. However, the relationship the state has to the means of production is fundamentally different from the capitalist. That is to say, it is a relationship that does not involve, profit, exploitation or private expriation. The state is a means to bring things into common ownership, a member of the state works for the state, and the purposes of the state are organise things in the common interest, this will be done unless the state brings things into private ownership. The class aspect comes into play when the state becomes inseperable from elements of society that possess private ownership of the means of production, as is the case in capitalist society.

In the USSR the state became the bourgeois class, things were brought out of common, state, ownership and into the ownership and for the profit of party members. The state became a class in itself with an entirely different relationship to the means of production from those outside of the state.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:53 PM
Well if you agree that the state is an apparatus used by one class in the suppression, then why can't the proleteriat use it against the capitalist class?
They can, but it wont wither away.

[BOZG]

I disagree...but at least you don't take an idealistic approach.

[Hate Is Art]

we have seen that it hasn't worked, didn't achieve Communism in USSR after 80 years of trying, hasn't achieved Communism in Cuba or Vietnam or Laos or Cambodia.

[redstar2000]

If these people were Leninists, then they couldnt be capitalists. Why do you twist things to fit your argument? I put it to you because your argument is flawed. Now go unload yourself before your piss bag explodes you whining old git

What's the matter, kez, hemorrhoids acting up on you again? This is the second post today where you found it necessary to comment on my "late youth".

"If these people were Leninists than they couldn't be capitalists", you assert. Is that a theological definition?

Most of the leading political and business figures in Russia today were once (prior to 1992) members and even leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (Bolsheviks) -- or, for short, Leninists.

I know, you think it was all an elaborate masquerade and Leninism died in the USSR with the death of Lenin and the exile of Trotsky.

We don't know what Trotsky "would have done", but we certainly know exactly what Lenin did in the last years of his life. It was called the "New Economic Policy"...probably because it would have been too embarrassing to call it "Back to Capitalism!".

Who knows, if Lenin had lived into his 70s, he might have been a Gorbachov...or even a Yeltsin. (Perhaps with a piss bag!)

Material conditions, you know...!

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[crazy comie]

The workers control the means of prouduction by electing the factory leaders to make dessisions.
Trotsky was wright about the ussr.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 05:53 PM
Well if you agree that the state is an apparatus used by one class in the suppression, then why can't the proleteriat use it against the capitalist class?
Because the entire proletariat can not be in control of the state. Instead it is substituted by "intellectuals" who work for their interests. In order to fight for those interests a ruling elite must maintain itself at any cost.

How can the state wither away if in order to fight for the interests of the working class a ruling elite must maintain itself?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2004, 03:03 PM
But the vanguard by definition cannot be seperate from a class.

In this case, the leninist vanguard is made of (for the very very large part), supported by, and needs the working class, and thats where its power comes from.
In what sense is it the same as the working class. If this vangaurd asserts itself as a leadership how then can it be the same as those it leads?

If the working class support the ideals of this vangaurd and understand them, why can they then not liberate themselves. What is the purpose of working class action? leninist or anarchist. It is for the workers to take control of society and organize it for themselves. This vangaurd or any revolutionary should be arguing for the workers to take responsability for themselves, not to rely on yet more "intellectuals" who yet again claim they are fighting for their interests.

The only time a workers revolution will be succesful, meaningful and lasting is if it is carried out by the working class themselves, controlled and organized by the working class. As soon as people start asserting control etc the revolution has been lost. Power, the state and class distinctions of any kind have to be destroyed if the working class can ever be liberated.

[crazy comie]

The vangaurd is just the revoulotionary section of the prolitarian.

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 26 2004, 04:06 PM
The workers control the means of prouduction by electing the factory leaders to make dessisions.
Trotsky was wright about the ussr.
Yeah, just like they control the British government by electing Tony Blaire, he's such a man of the people.

[BOZG]

If this vangaurd asserts itself as a leadership how then can it be the same as those it leads?


As much as the vanguard orientates itself towards the working class, it cannot assert itself as the leadership, the people must orientate towards the vanguard just as much.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2004, 07:19 PM

If this vangaurd asserts itself as a leadership how then can it be the same as those it leads?


As much as the vanguard orientates itself towards the working class, it cannot assert itself as the leadership, the people must orientate towards the vanguard just as much.
Then it negates its purpose and the working class might as well do it themselves.

[crazy comie]

Yes they would be representitives of the pepole as they would be reacallable and they would be chosen from other factory workers.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by crazy [email protected] 1 2004, 04:13 PM
Yes they would be representitives of the pepole as they would be reacallable and they would be chosen from other factory workers.
How could you recall them? The army is controlled by the state which is run by the people you want to recall...do you think the workers could have recalled Lenin or Trotsky had they wanted too...of course not, they would have been arrested and shot as counter-revolutionaries!

[Saint-Just]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Mar 1 2004, 04:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (The Anarchist Tension @ Mar 1 2004, 04:38 PM)
crazy [email protected] 1 2004, 04:13 PM
Yes they would be representitives of the pepole as they would be reacallable and they would be chosen from other factory workers.
How could you recall them? The army is controlled by the state which is run by the people you want to recall...do you think the workers could have recalled Lenin or Trotsky had they wanted too...of course not, they would have been arrested and shot as counter-revolutionaries&#33; [/b]
Lenin could have been deselected if those immediately under him removed him. Trotsky was removed by those around him and those under him. And, a large enough mass of workers could have removed the entire Soviet system. Those who wanted Lenin and those like him out were in a minority in the Soviet Union.

[crazy comie]

Cm is right although in practise stalin maneged to gain much support after lenin centralised control more for the civl war.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 2 2004, 09:54 AM
Lenin could have been deselected if those immediately under him removed him. Trotsky was removed by those around him and those under him. And, a large enough mass of workers could have removed the entire Soviet system.
fan·ta·sy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fnt-s, -z)
n. pl. fan·ta·sies

1. The creative imagination; unrestrained fancy.
2. Something, such as an invention, that is a creation of the fancy.
A capricious or fantastic idea; a conceit.
3. Fiction characterized by highly fanciful or supernatural elements.
An example of such fiction.
4. An imagined event or sequence of mental images, such as a daydream, usually fulfilling a wish or psychological need.
5. An unrealistic or improbable supposition.
6. A hallucination.

[crazy comie]

"Trotsky was removed by those around him and those under him. And, a large enough mass of workers could have removed the entire Soviet system." only that part was fantasy.

[Misodoctakleidist]

CM, a "large enough mass of workers" could remove the British government that doesn&#39;t make it democratic.

[BOZG]

Then it negates its purpose and the working class might as well do it themselves.

Reading back over what I said, you&#39;re actually correct. What I meant is that the vanguard cannot just merely step into the workers&#39; movement and all will immediately follow. They must fight for their ideas and gain the respect of the masses. Unless you believe they&#39;re all mindless idiots....

[The Feral Underclass]

What I meant is that the vanguard cannot just merely step into the workers&#39; movement and all will immediately follow.

I agree. Any movement must be prepared to use methods to propogate their ideals and fighting for consciousness among the workers, not a platform for leadership.


must fight for their ideas and gain the respect of the masses.

But there is a fundamental difference between fighting for your ideals and gaining the respect of the masses and wanting to lead them. I can agree that this is what must be done but what is the consequence you are looking for. In my opinion the conclusion of such action has to be to give the workers a sense of empowerment to change society by themselves and not, as the leninists believe, assert a leadership over the ignorant workers and control the revolution themselves.

[crazy comie]

The vangaurd is there to educate the prolitarian and guide them and lead them in there strugle against the bourgeosie. It is not there job to control the workers just to help them once the prolitarian is placed in power there is no need for a vangaurd.