One-Party State? Trotskyists say no.

[redstar2000]

Here is a Trotskyist document...

http://www.geocities.com/youth4sa/onepartystate.html

The text is excerpted from a resolution titled "Socialist Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which was adopted by the Fourth International at its 1979 World Congress.

=========================


In no way does the Marxist theory of the state entail the concept that a one-party system is a necessary precondition or feature of workers power, a workers state, or the dictatorship of the proletariat. In no theoretical document of Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Trotsky and in no programmatic document of the Third International under Lenin did such a defense of the one-party system ever appear.

Certainly Marx and Engels are "off the hook" on this one.

But here's what Lenin said...


When we are reproached with having established a dictatorship of one party... we say, "Yes, it is a dictatorship of one party! This is what we stand for and we shall not shift from that position."

And here's what Trotsky said...


We have been more than once accused of having substituted for the dictatorship of the soviets the dictatorship of our own Party...In this substitution of the power of the party for the power of the working class there is nothing accidental, and in reality there is no substitution at all. The Communists express the fundamental interests of the working class...

Besides quotations, the actual practice of both Lenin and Trotsky demonstrated their convictions that a "one-party" state was "required", as far as they were concerned.

By 1922, do you think that anyone ran against the Bolsheviks in soviet "elections"?

Don't be silly!


In that sense, the freedom of organization of different groups, tendencies, and parties without ideological restrictions is a precondition for the exercise of political power by the working class.

Here, it must be admitted, the Trotskyists take off in a completely different direction from the Leninist paradigm.

Note in particular the phrase "without ideological restrictions" -- that means that in the "workers' state" there can be pro-capitalist parties and even fascist parties running candidates for office...if the Trotskyists actually "mean what they say" here.


...then it is obvious that the leading role of the revolutionary party both in the conquest of power and in the building of a classless society can be only to lead the mass activity of the class politically, to win political hegemony in a class that is increasingly engaged in self-activity, to struggle within the class for majority support for its proposals, through political and not administrative or repressive means.

Here the Trotskyists suggest that the "revolutionary party" (they mean them) will win a majority...so there's no real danger of having one of those other parties win.

But what happens if they lose? Suppose a bourgeois or even a fascist party were to win the elections?

Are the Trotskyists suggesting that we "play fair"...with the class enemy?


But genuinely representative, democratically elected workers councils can exist only if the masses have the right to elect whomever they want without distinction, and without restrictive preconditions as to the ideological or political convictions of the elected delegates.

It "sounds" as if that is exactly what they intend.


If one says that only parties and organizations that have no bourgeois (or petty-bourgeois?) program or ideology, or are not "engaged in anti-socialist or anti-soviet propaganda and/or agitation" are to be legalized, how is one to determine the dividing line? Will parties with a majority of working-class members but with a bourgeois ideology be forbidden? How can such a position be reconciled with free elections for workers councils? What is the dividing line between "bourgeois program" and "reformist ideology"? Must reformist parties be forbidden as well? Will the Social Democracy be suppressed?

Those are reasonable questions...provided you accept the "framework" of the "workers' state". If you're going to try to have a "democratic workers' state", then it will be very difficult to "draw a line" between genuinely pro-working class candidates and candidates that represent anti-working class positions.

And that matters...because if you have a centralized "workers' state", then whoever wins those elections is going to have a great deal of power in their hands with little practical accountability. Even if you have a recall mechanism "in place", recalls still take time...and much perhaps irreparable damage can be done to the revolution in that time.


The real choice is: either workers democracy with the right of the masses to elect whomever they want, and freedom of political organization for those elected (including people with bourgeois or petty bourgeois ideologies or programs), or a decisive restriction of the political rights of the working class itself, with all the consequences which flow therefrom.

No, the real choice is between any kind of centralized "workers' state" or a conscious decision to avoid creating a political "center of gravity" at all...devolving power to local and regional assemblies and federations.

There will doubtless be Stalin-wannabes after the revolution who wish to "lift the world"...the way to deal with that is to deprive them of both a lever and a place to stand.

:redstar2000:

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

[El Che]

No, the real choice is between any kind of centralized "workers' state" or a conscious decision to avoid creating a political "center of gravity" at all...devolving power to local and regional assemblies and federations.


Redstar2000, do you believe that after a revolution, lets say a year or two after, you can do away with political power, some form of state, altogether? I don't think that is what you are saying. I think you are saying less is better and I would agree with that. However the notion that you can simply, easily, quickly do away, altogether, with things such as some form of state seems little grounded in reality or Maxist theory. There are a series of walls that need to be broken down, new conciousness needs to spread. Communism will have to be built it will not materilize its self overnight when everyone suddenly wakes up and smells the coffee. So, the questions and problems in the piece you posted linger.

[redstar2000]

Redstar2000, do you believe that after a revolution, let's say a year or two after, you can do away with political power, some form of state, altogether?

Well, you've already smashed the bourgeois state apparatus and dispersed its personnel. Political power rests on a local, even a workplace basis.

So you have options to consider: (1) Set up a new "workers' state", a formal "political center of gravity"; (2) Put together local and regional federations based on functions; and (3) Other possibilities that might occur to people at that time...but which we have no way to anticipate.

The reason I emphasize functions is that we want "bodies" that actually do useful things...not simply stand on a platform on Mayday. Even on a local level, we need a "Soviet of Electrical Power Workers" far more than we need a "People's Mayor".

Ask yourself what purposes are served by a formal, centralized state apparatus that "gathers all power" into its own hands. Who benefits?

In fact, how does it "help us" to even grant the on-going "legitimacy" of the nation-state in which the revolution takes place? Nations themselves are social constructs and really have no purpose outside of class society.


There are a series of walls that need to be broken down, new consciousness needs to spread. Communism will have to be built it; will not materialize itself overnight when everyone suddenly wakes up and smells the coffee.

I think there are two considerations here.

The first is what we have been telling people two or three decades prior to the revolution itself. What kind of movement have we built? What have we told people that needs to be done? If we've told people that what we want is a communist revolution and that what needs to be constructed is communism, then it won't be a situation where people's consciousness has to be changed "overnight". It will have been changing over the previous 30 years or more.

Secondly, I agree that communism must be "built", although it may well have some features that "spontaneously" appear. The point is that, unlike the Leninists, we will have prepared people for that task.

Rather than a "detour" through the "workers' state" and other features of the old order, most people will understand that beginning the construction of communist society is an immediate task on day one after the revolution.

As to the time scale involved, I don't think we have any realistic way of estimating that now. It's quite possible, in fact, that "communism" will always be "a work in progress"...it may never be "finished".

All the more reason to begin at once, accepting that there will be many problems and obstacles but having the confidence that a mature revolutionary proletariat can just do it!

Why do the Leninists think that such a perspective is "utopian"? It looks like plain common (working class) sense to me.

:redstar2000:

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

[Severian]

This is a big pile of misleading out-of-context quotations.

The position of Bolsheviks was that a one party vs multiple parties was a tactical question. Not a "necessary precondition or feature of workers power". On that, at least, the Fourth International resolution is accurate.

This was the policy, in action, of the early Soviet government. By 1923, all other political parties had been banned...because they took up arms against the Soviet government. When the Right S.R.'s, for example, temporarily decided that armed struggle against the Soviet state was a bad idea, Lenin recommended that they be re-legalized.

[El Che]

Political power rests on a local, even a workplace basis.


(2) Put together local and regional federations based on functions

This is another way of saying that we should preserve power only for administrative purposes.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that idea. It is desirable; it is what we, communists, want. The question is when does that become possible.

Redstar2000, you are far too sure of yourself in this matter (there is a reason why I suggested a timeframe). I think you will agree with me that in discussing such matters we are largely in the realm of speculation. As a Marxist you have to be suspicious of indulging in such activities. Too, you need to consider and prepare for other possibilities.

If you disperse political, statist power I don't think there can be any doubt that you greatly diminish it, reducing its reach and capacity to perform a variety of [non-administrative] functions. To do this in a situation where class ambiguities persist; where bourgeois elements still linger, even if in minority situation, is to do nothing less than invite the resurgence of bourgeois power. I say it with a heavy heart. I have no desire for political power, I feel I will always be the critical outsider regardless of the nature of the establishment. On this matter I feel your position is largely wishful thinking. There are circumstances, possbilities, dangers you do not account for because you do not believe they will present themselves.

Note that I am not necessarily directly contradicting your views in this matter. To do so would be to enter into equally uncertain, self assertive, speculation. Your statements are the larger issue.


In fact, how does it "help us" to even grant the on-going "legitimacy" of the nation-state in which the revolution takes place? Nations themselves are social constructs and really have no purpose outside of class society.


Nationalism is a good example of bourgeois mentality that I believe will linger for considerable time after a revolution.


Rather than a "detour" through the "workers' state" and other features of the old order, most people will understand that beginning the construction of communist society is an immediate task on day one after the revolution.

Some consider it not a "detour" but merely a different way to begin the "immediate task" of "beginning the construction of communist society".


As to the time scale involved, I don't think we have any realistic way of estimating that now. It's quite possible, in fact, that "communism" will always be "a work in progress"...it may never be "finished".


I agree with this. I don't think history will ever end, what we may end is the imperialism and barbarism that is currently dubbed 'history'.


All the more reason to begin at once, accepting that there will be many problems and obstacles but having the confidence that a mature revolutionary proletariat can just do it!

Revolution: just do it! :P

The problem is finding such a "mature revolutionary proletariat". And even with such a thing, everyone and anyone must preserve their power while it is threatened, opposed or risk losing it.

[redstar2000]

The question is when does that become possible.

No one "knows", of course...but it stands to reason that the more that people are convinced that it's both possible and necessary, the sooner it will happen.

Circumstances may be such that you can't do everything as quickly as you would like...but there's a difference in "psychological orientation" between Marxists and Leninists. Marxists say that we should go for communism as quickly as we can; Leninists are already reconciled to a lengthy "transition state" which will preserve most of the features of class society -- the state, the army, the police, the market, wage-labor, money, etc.

The Leninists actually have "very good reason" to tremble at the prospect of capitalist restoration; they have deliberately preserved everything that leads to the development of bourgeois consciousness.

All talk of "new communist man" to the contrary notwithstanding, the way to "get ahead" in Leninist socialism is to behave exactly the same way ambitious people behave in a modern corporation now.

Competence is always helpful but hardly necessary. Intrigue, ass-kissing, exchange of favors, bribes and theft, etc. are the "royal roads to success" for middle-managers in both situations.

No wonder bourgeois ideology emerges, flourishes, and ultimately conquers in Leninist "transitional states".

Sure, those kinds of things could happen to a Marxist commune...but we would not invite them!


Redstar2000, you are far too sure of yourself in this matter...

I have to be. You'll recall that Marx and Engels said late in life that they had to "over-emphasize" economic determinism because of the wide-spread conviction in their century that economics played no significant role in the events of history.

I have to "over-emphasize" the realistic possibilities of proceeding directly to communism because of the still wide-spread conviction that a "transitional workers' state" is "necessary".

Of course we are in "the realm of speculation"...but we are also in the realm of defining a new approach to the communist project!

If we don't want another repetition of 20th century Leninism, then perforce we are required to develop "speculative" alternatives.


To do this in a situation where class ambiguities persist; where bourgeois elements still linger, even if in minority situation, is to do nothing less than invite the resurgence of bourgeois power.

For our class enemy, it's not enough just to "want" to return to power. They need social levers of one kind or another. Leninist states provide those levers; communism doesn't.

And, as noted above, Leninist socialism provides the material conditions for a resurgence of bourgeois ideology. "Looking out for number one" makes sense under Leninism...as it does under capitalism.


There are circumstances, possibilities, dangers you do not account for because you do not believe they will present themselves.

Very true. I'm willing to entertain plausible scenarios to the contrary...but historical experience points directly at the Leninist state apparatus as the main danger to the revolution.

My perspective deals with that danger by refusing the construction of that state apparatus altogether.


Nationalism is a good example of bourgeois mentality that I believe will linger for considerable time after a revolution.

Leninist states routinely encouraged that garbage...thinking that it would "enhance support" for the revolution.

Instead, it was just another dose of counter-revolutionary poison.

So poisonous was it that it actually enhanced armed conflict between Leninist states.


Some consider it not a "detour" but merely a different way to begin the "immediate task" of "beginning the construction of communist society".

People can always think whatever they like...but it would take nothing short of complete ignorance of the failures of 20th century Leninism to argue that point seriously. None of those countries ever even attempted a "transition to communism".


The problem is finding such a "mature revolutionary proletariat".

IF Marx was right, then it will emerge "spontaneously"...that is, as a direct result of the normal functioning of the laws of capitalist production.

A Leninist party combined with a rebellious but "immature" proletariat may indeed "make a revolution".

But it won't last...and will never get anywhere even close to communism.

:redstar2000:

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

[El Che]

^ Logical fallacy: Straw-man.

I lagerly agree with your critique of Leninism (by "Leninism" I mean revolutionary praxis since 1917) but I wouldn't like to get into it because I dont want to shift the discussion towards beating an old tired horse on his last legs.

I the solutions you offer are of much more interest. First let me say, and in response to what you wrote, that I am abosutely for rethinking ways of making the communist project a reality. Your views seem largely a reaction to the failures of, and perversions brought about by, Leninism. That even explains why its hard for you to disassociate a discussion of your views with a critique of Leninism. However as commendable as all of that may be it doesn't eliminate the need to extend a critical eye to the solutions you put foward; or indeed that anyone puts foward. In this chapter I feel your remedies, while they maybe a good theoretical answer to avoid the problems identified, in hindsight, in Leninist practice, leave many other questions unanswered. I dislike repeating my self but as I said it will take more than revolution, its self, to crush bourgeois power, dispel bourgeois mentality from among even the working masses and contain bourgeois elements that work against the majority. Revolution is the start of a process, namely the process of elimination of class society, if you do not follow up you will not be able to bring this process to good end. So, how do we follow up? I believe we need to follow up with a grass-roots movement, avoiding the dangers of vanguardism, but abolishing the state is not something I would foresee in the short to mid term of post-revolutionary society.

[redstar2000]

...but abolishing the state is not something I would foresee in the short to mid term of post-revolutionary society.

Fair enough; we're all just "guessing" at this point.

But if you decide that the construction of a centralized state apparatus is "necessary", then certain consequences emerge from that decision.

What kinds of people are attracted to a "political center of gravity" anyway? Who wants to be "a Chairman", sit on a "Central Committee", be a "Minister of the Interior", a judge, a general, a cop, a prison guard?

How will people like this behave once they attain their ambition? What will they do with the authority that you have granted them?

Social roles and the behavior associated with them have measurable and serious effects on the consciousness of the people in those roles.

We've all heard stories about "nice guys" who become cops...they either stop being "nice" or they quit. There's no such thing as a "nice guy" who is also a veteran cop. Just as there's no such thing as a "nice boss".

Sooner or later, you are what you do. If Marx was right, there's no escape from that.

Thus, whatever contingencies impel you to construct a "workers' state", you will be creating the circumstances for people to develop a political consciousness directly opposed to the goals of the revolution itself.

You will have consumed poison. It will have the usual effect...your revolution will die.

:redstar2000:

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

[El Che]

I do not deny there are problems and difficulties but I'd rather live with these problems, and try to work through them, than put my faith in dubious solutions.