A state run in the favor of the workers

[enigma2517]

Ok, on going debate between statist and nonstatist commies on this board. Socialists/Leninists write that a strong state can exist that will help and protect workers from counterrevolutionary elements and the such. Anarchists claim that such ventures have failed in the past, that states and governments and any sort of "ruling class" will eventually get corrupted no matter what so it's better to just go straight to the good stuff.

I'm conflicted. Both sides make good points. Revolutions don't happen overnight...while they are going we need some way to protect its participants during this time. At this point I get a bunch of talk about "popular miltias" and what not but then again you have to realize that millitias are non-professional and with the technological advancement of warfare theres simply no way to wage it effectively without full time professionals. Is it really possible to stage a successful revolution?

On the other hand, haven't all socialist states been corrupted sooner or later? Didn't Spain have quite a large number of military successes durings it revolution? How exactly, at what point, will the state just "wither away"? Why take the extra step?

And lastly, my middle ground proposal. Isn't it possible to have a bit of both? You know, libertarian marxism. Can't we hold a minimalistic approach to the state and only assign hierarchies where truely necessary? I've heard that even anarchists don't have problems with temporary hierarchies. Besides that we'd still have a lot of direct democracy (right to recall, referendum, extra) as well as all people governing in turns (Lenin's suggestion but never actually put into practice). Sure all previous socialist states have more or less "failed" but when has an actual socialist revolution been held in an advanced capitalist country? Ignoring this would be ignoring a very critical part of Marx's theory. The revolution must be carried by the MASSES, that is, the proletariat outnumbering and overwhelming their capitalist rulers. How is this even possible in a backward agricultural country such as Russia and China? Answer: it isn't, its just glorified peasent warfare.

To me it really sounds like the Marxist route would be "easier" and that anarchism is too "idealistic". Do I buy into that? Not necessarily. But I still think that the state COULD provide a convience to us if it is created and operated by the collective class consciousness of workers from an advanced capitalist nation. Comments?

[Snitza]

Hasn't this been done to death already?

There are two kinds of Marxist camps for this argument, I believe. The more sort of Leninistic Marxism that believes in capitalism->socialism->DotP->communism, and the more anarchistic, or further left Marxism of capitalism->DotP->communism. Anarchism is more along the lines, if I understand correctly, of capitalism->anarchism/communism. Basically, Marx said that the state has always and can always be used simply as an organ of class rule. In that sense, after capitalism's downfall, it would be wise to empower the working class through a state that is in favor of the new ruling class(the proletariat).
This would still be a state of oppression, however, so that is why there has to be a gradual evening out of the distribution of goods, which would EVENTUALLY lead the way to communism. Communism's short-term goal IS the switched roles of the proletariat and bourgeousie as rulers and ruled, but in the long term it's human emancipation from class society, PERIOD.

I honestly don't hold too strong of an opinion on this issue, but I certainly am leaning more towards lesser state control, regardless of what class is in power.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Snitza+--> (Snitza)Hasn't this been done to death already?[/b]

Nope.

In fact, it's possibly the most crucial question that we will face on the eve of the revolution itself and immediately afterwards.

Do we want to risk creating a new state apparatus -- a "political center of gravity" -- that could "get out of hand" and betray the revolution?

Or do we want to risk defeat by the counter-revolution "because" we don't have such an apparatus?

Both courses are very dangerous...there's no escaping that.

So this discussion must take place billions of times between tens and hundreds of millions of people.


enigma2517
...and with the technological advancement of warfare there's simply no way to wage it effectively without full time professionals.

Here I must disagree. The idea of "popular militias" is not some sort of "magic wand" that just "waves away the problem"...it's a fundamental mechanism for the on-going participation of the masses in the revolutionary process.

The problem with "professional armies" is that they quickly become a kind of "proto-class" with interests of their own. Being apart from the masses, they move in the direction of opposing the masses.

It pains some folks to hear it, but one of Stalin's "purges" was actually justified -- there really was a "plot" among Russian army officers (mostly ex-Czarist types) to overthrow the USSR. Think hundreds of "Pinochet's"!

I think the ultra-left communist/anarchist position of relying on the masses is the least risky way to go.

As to the abilities of the masses to "wage effective warfare" against "high-tech" armies, consider the Iraqi resistance...they ain't doing too badly.

:redstar2000:

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

[Snitza]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 02:54 AM

As to the abilities of the masses to "wage effective warfare" against "high-tech" armies, consider the Iraqi resistance...they ain't doing too badly.

You really think so? Fallujah has just fallen into almost entire American military control, like a vast majority of the rest of the country. The U.S. possesses more than enough military power to effectively put an END to any more insurgency uprisings in the country.

Do you realize how easy it would be for the Iraqi resistance to be crushed? It's not a matter of the Iraqis fighting a "smart guerrilla warfare campaign".

It's just that the U.S. doesn't want to portray any more a "bloody" image than it has to. This is why the U.S. occupation forces are less aggressive about taking down the militants.

"They ain't doing too badly". Yeah, alright. Only in the latest siege of Fallujah, the Iraqi dead numbered, I believe, well into about one or two thousand. U.S. and Iraqi military casualties were somewhere along the lines of less than forty.

Populist movements don't have the effectiveness, or anywhere NEAR the level playing field that they had fifty or a hundred years ago.

It's going to be an uphill battle for ANY proletarian revolution in an advanced capitalist country that has a technologically advanced armed forces.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Snitza
You really think so? Fallujah has just fallen into almost entire American military control, like a vast majority of the rest of the country. The U.S. possesses more than enough military power to effectively put an END to any more insurgency uprisings in the country.

Not according to the BBC this morning. As was the case in Vietnam, the U.S. controls the ground it stands on...and no more. And "hit and run" attacks continue relentlessly throughout the country.

Of course the U.S. can kill a lot of civilians (labeling them "insurgents" for the media) and destroy a lot of structures...I imagine Fallujah looks like the scene of a major earthquake now. But far from putting an "end" to insurgency, they have only made it even more determined.

In Mosul, their "trained security forces" defected in wholesale numbers. One group of their domestic quislings have withdrawn from the "government". Two more members of their "coalition of the willing" have become unwilling and plan to withdraw their forces next year. I think Hungary and Poland will withdraw earlier than they've announced.

Look, the technological advantage that, for example, Israel has over the Palestinians is almost infinite...yet Israel cannot suppress the Palestinian struggle. As long as the U.S. and its lackeys remain in Iraq, the war against them will continue indefinitely.

And the anti-war movement in the U.S. itself will grow.


It's going to be an uphill battle for ANY proletarian revolution in an advanced capitalist country that has a technologically advanced armed forces.

That implies a scenario in which the army is willing to move against the working class within the "homeland". I agree with you here...if the army does not defect, then proletarian revolution is not possible.

My own feeling is that the army is not really conditioned to suppress a massive domestic uprising...it won't feel "right" to them psychologically. If their officers order them to do it, they will refuse. Or rather, enough of them will refuse as to effectively neutralize the role of the army in the outcome of the uprising.

If you are speaking of a post-revolutionary situation in which a foreign capitalist power attempts to intervene on behalf of counter-revolution, then I think guerrilla resistance is the way to go...and will win.

Either way, a "professional army" is of no use to us...and could actually hurt us in the long run, as I indicated in my last post.

:redstar2000:

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

[h&s]

You really think so? Fallujah has just fallen into almost entire American military control, like a vast majority of the rest of the country. The U.S. possesses more than enough military power to effectively put an END to any more insurgency uprisings in the country.

Just imagine an army fighting not just one city, but every city in the country. How much military fire power will that take? Also a revolution will join the people together so that in a war situation there will be some sort of organisation. The insurgents in Fallujah aren't organised together in any way really. They are just groups of 5-6 men self armed and not trained. If they had some sort of communication network they would pose a real threat to the US troops.
Now think - the only way an army would be able to fight this sort of war without overstretching themselves is through carpet bombing, and even the US lackeys will speak out against that in horror.

[Snitza]

My own feeling is that the army is not really conditioned to suppress a massive domestic uprising...it won't feel "right" to them psychologically. If their officers order them to do it, they will refuse. Or rather, enough of them will refuse as to effectively neutralize the role of the army in the outcome of the uprising.

The Paris Commune was effectively "rid of" by the French army, who massacred their own countrymen, workers and civilians into the thousands.

However, it is likely that a good or atleast somewhat substantial portion of the army WILL defect to such a popular movement. If that is the case, and the national army of 'wherever' is atleast crippled, then that may be enough for a militant uprising to route whatever remnant there is.

Having trained military personell fighting on our side would of course be preferred, but not to the point where they hold more power, and non-democratically(it would like more like a coup than a revolution).

How would we go about enlisting the help of soldiers and officers if they were to defect to the revolution, and how would we limit how much power and influence they have in the overall scheme of things?

[enigma2517]

Yeah, and not to mention nukes. The way the system works now is that the president has the "football" which he always has accessible to him in case of a nuclear threat. Some "political center of gravity" must exist for such an operation to procede. Nuclear silos have to be manned at all times, by trained professionals. C'mon guys you're not just going to teach a volunteer how to operate a silo. Or what about satelite equipment? Or fancy radar? Surely we would need (or least exercise control over) these things for a successful revolution.

Are we going to make the immediate decision to employ that ballistic shield or are you guys gonna "vote" on it first?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 11:40 PM
Yeah, and not to mention nukes. The way the system works now is that the president has the "football" which he always has accessible to him in case of a nuclear threat. Some "political center of gravity" must exist for such an operation to procede. Nuclear silos have to be manned at all times, by trained professionals. C'mon guys you're not just going to teach a volunteer how to operate a silo. Or what about satelite equipment? Or fancy radar? Surely we would need (or least exercise control over) these things for a successful revolution.

Are we going to make the immediate decision to employ that ballistic shield or are you guys gonna "vote" on it first?
I think that you are misunderstanding the issue. It would not be in the president's
interest to un-leash a nuclear silo upon the a portion of the popluation - that would
eventually intensify the revolutionary situation even more as it shows that he
does'nt even care whether his supporters would survive or not. And not to
mention the amount of casualities resulting from such a action - in other words -
this may cause a even more intensified Communist/Anarchist Resistance. He
can't afford such a action in such a serious situation.

Why do we need a state - when we would have plenty of people willing to learn
and operate the things to defend themselves.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Snitza
How would we go about enlisting the help of soldiers and officers if they were to defect to the revolution, and how would we limit how much power and influence they have in the overall scheme of things?

Well, there's an obvious answer to that question...though working out the details would be complicated.

In brief, the soldiers that defect to us would not be "in charge" of the workers' militia but would rather be employed to train ordinary people in the techniques of urban guerrilla warfare.

They would not be "commanders" but rather instructors.

This is _________ (weapon). This is how it works. This is what you have to do to keep it working. These are the best ways to use it in a combat situation. Etc., etc., etc.

(Naturally, officers who defected to us would not be given any military or non-military positions of responsibility at all. I'd try to find something for them to do such that it wouldn't matter much if they fucked up or not.)

:redstar2000:

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

[refuse_resist]

You really think so? Fallujah has just fallen into almost entire American military control, like a vast majority of the rest of the country. The U.S. possesses more than enough military power to effectively put an END to any more insurgency uprisings in the country.
That doesn't matter whether or not the enemy of the guerrilla fighter is better equipped with more advanced weapons. As long as the popular resistance movement has the support of the masses, they will prevail. Keep in mind that when you're always outgunned, you will use your ammo and weapons wisely.

Having the military on your side is always a good thing too. The October Revolution showed this. There is no need for the officers though since they are no different than the rest of those who exploit the working class. It's the "grunts" and such that we should mainly be concerned about, because without them the militaries would be ineffective. Also most of them come from working class backgrounds.


(Naturally, officers who defected to us would not be given any military or non-military positions of responsibility at all. I'd try to find something for them to do such that it wouldn't matter much if they fucked up or not.)
Indeed.

[Snitza]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2004, 02:43 AM
Well, there's an obvious answer to that question...though working out the details would be complicated.

In brief, the soldiers that defect to us would not be "in charge" of the workers' militia but would rather be employed to train ordinary people in the techniques of urban guerrilla warfare.

They would not be "commanders" but rather instructors.

This is _________ (weapon). This is how it works. This is what you have to do to keep it working. These are the best ways to use it in a combat situation. Etc., etc., etc.

(Naturally, officers who defected to us would not be given any military or non-military positions of responsibility at all. I'd try to find something for them to do such that it wouldn't matter much if they fucked up or not.)

Right, but while the prospect of having real professional soldiers training our revolutionaries is grand, who will command our armies? Socrates once said "A disorderly mob is no more an army
than a pile of building materials is a house." Any effective revolution in history needs organization(and organizers!). This seems to be a problem. How do we tackle the organization of the army wtihout installing a "vanguard" at the top, to make the strategic battle decisions?

Historically, those who have been at the top of armies and revolutions tend to be those who hold the most power in the post-war society. Take Fidel's rebel army, for example. The higher up you were in the army, the higher up you were in the Cuban "socialist" government.

How do we have both military effectiveness while avoiding the "leadership problem"?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Snitza
Right, but while the prospect of having real professional soldiers training our revolutionaries is grand, who will command our armies?

The tradition in revolutionary armies is for soldiers to elect their officers...and depose them if they fuck up.

In both the American Revolution and the American civil war, a group of volunteers from a particular place would gather and elect a captain. Thereafter they would by known as the 2nd Massachusetts Volunteers or the 12th Ohio Volunteers or whatever.

Anything higher than that is probably not a very good idea...though captains could gather and elect a "super-captain" if they wished.

Elaborate command structures are probably not very useful in guerrilla warfare...they encourage people to "wait for orders" rather than seize the initiative on the ground.


How do we tackle the organization of the army without installing a "vanguard" at the top, to make the strategic battle decisions?

We don't do it. "Strategic battle decisions" only make sense in a situation where you're trying to coordinate the movement of large numbers of troops all at the same time.

Guerrilla units operating independently of one another launch attacks at unpredictable intervals in unpredictable locations.

A strategist walking around with his head full of elaborate plans would just be a liability...especially if he should be captured by the enemy.


Historically, those who have been at the top of armies and revolutions tend to be those who hold the most power in the post-war society...How do we have both military effectiveness while avoiding the "leadership problem"?

By not creating a centralized state apparatus at all...thus giving the "military hero" no platform on which to stand above the people.

Captain Jones may be the "Hero of Manhattan" and Captain Smith the "Hero of Los Angeles"...but there will be no "national heroes" ready and willing to "take over" because there won't be an apparatus for them to take over. If they try to install one, then we must stop them or we and our revolution go down the toilet.

If people's "radicalism" ever gets reduced to faith in a "great leader", then any serious progress towards communism is over...and the only remaining question is how quickly capitalism will be restored.

I think 30-40 years is a reasonable estimate. :(

:redstar2000:

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