DEBATE: The dictatorship of the proletariat [Archive]

The Feral Underclass

28th December 2004, 20:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 07:17 PM
Is it neccesary (ie, why the dictatorship of the proletariat)
I think you have to address why people think it's necessary in the first place and then see whether or not those reasons are correct.

The most common argument is that we need leaders, in order to direct the business of the revolution because the working class are so "plagued" by capitalist society that there must be a "fully" class conscious element to guide them.

The other argument, and one linked more directly with Marxism is the idea that the transition from capitalism to communism must be maintained and controlled by the state in order to organise the defence and "re-organisation" of society.

Are any of those things true?

How did the past experiences of the dictatorshp of the proletariat go?

They failed, and they failed in a catastrophic way.

The most notable country was of course Russia. Lenin applied Marx's theory into practice and of course everything looks different when you apply theory into practice.

The theory has to be realised in some way. Lenin applied the dictatorship of the proletariat by using a strong bureaucracy which would direct and administrate everything within society in a rigid chain of command, presumably to defend the workers gains. Or maybe for other reasons?

This gave rise to a new element within the communist party. A bureaucratic class of secrateries and officals [which Bakunin had predicted back in the First International incidently], headed by the central committee of the party, which in turn is controlled by the party "big-wigs."

Ultimately This led to Stalin who either did or did not revise Lenin's theories and eventually gave rise to more revisions, in the end liberal democracy and capitalism were re-established.

This is the case for many other countries, including Vietnam and China.

How did attempts without the transitional stage go?

To argue that there doesn't need to be a transitional phase is illogical. We cannot dream to go from capitalism straight to communism. It is impossible. No one has ever advocated that to be the case, no anyone serious anyway.

The main attack on the left against the transitional theory is from anarchism. Anarchism has been used as a practical form of organisation in many different struggles, but the most notable example of anarchism being applied was in Spain.

The Spanish anarchists managed to achieve a good base for transition. Many collectives [anarchist theory of organsation or society] were organised without the use of leaders or a state mechanism. The theory was applied into practice succesfully.

Of course it failed, largely due to divisions in the Popular front which was essentially controlled by the Soviet government and because of tactical errors.

However, if you compare the theoretical and practical success of marxism-leninism and anarchism you can see that in respects of achieving their objectives, anarchism succeeded the most. Marxism-Leninism on the other had lasted the longest, through sheer might and numbers.

How is the transition from socialism to communism going to be?

The Marxist transitional theory is flawed. You cannot use a state in order to achieve your objective [communism]. The way in which the theory must be applied in order to achieve its that objective contradicts the objective itself to such a degree that in the end it cannot be reconciled and you are left with revision and ultimatly capitalism, if not something worse.

I don’t think it's a question of revising the theory either. It has to be scrapped all together. I am not saying that anarchism will invariably work, but it has worked before in the way it was supposed to.

The transitional phase will only ever achieve a socialist state, it can never achieve communism. And that's what Marx really wanted, that's what our objective ultiamtly is and that's what we should be working towards.

Saint-Just

30th December 2004, 23:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2004, 06:17 PM
I hope this will be a constructive debate.

It would be interesting to see a debate among marxists and anarchists on the dictatorship of the proletariat.

First, here are some questions:

Is it neccesary (ie, why the dictatorship of the proletariat)?

How did the past experiences of the dictatorshp of the proletariat go?

How did attempts without the transitional stage go?

How is the transition from socialism to communism going to be?

Discuss :)

Is it neccesary (ie, why the dictatorship of the proletariat)?

In capitalist society classes exist. The relationship between these classes is antagonistic by its very nature. The revolution is an event ordered to overthrow one class and replace it with another. In the new society the old ruling class will still exist. The dictatorship of the proletariat is a period in which society will be purged of this class, something that is necessary to create the new classless society. The old ideas and the old people need to be got rid of.

How did the past experiences of the dictatorshp of the proletariat go?

Almost as expected. The problem was that the class struggle failed and the old practices and old ruling class was not got rid of, and so the old ruling class returned to power in political coups.

How did attempts without the transitional stage go?

It really depends what you define as attempts without the transitional stage. However, I would suggest that any attempt is completely impossible. Until a time comes where all people have become conscious of the evils of capitalism there will be no immediate transition, and I don't believe such a time will ever come.

How is the transition from socialism to communism going to be?

Such a thing cannot be predicted until socialist society has been developed further than it ever has before now. We know that the class struggle will be ended when the transition from socialism to communism occurs, and that is all that matters.

redstar2000

30th December 2004, 23:36

Originally posted by Chairman Mao
The problem was that the class struggle failed and the old practices and old ruling class was not got rid of, and so the old ruling class returned to power in political coups.

Come on, now.

Was Yeltsin a capitalist in 1917? Or the son or grand-son of capitalists?

Was Deng a capitalist in 1949?

It wasn't "the old ruling class" that "returned" to power...it was a new capitalist class that grew up within the ranks of the Leninist party itself.

The idea that we need a centralized state apparatus to "protect us from the overthrown ruling class" may have been plausible in Lenin's day.

But since we've seen where that road leads, what's left to "discuss"?

:redstar2000:

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

Saint-Just

31st December 2004, 00:24

It does not really matter whether these people were capitalists 50 years or so before they came to power. Ideas of the old ruling class and the previous society are passed on. The practices and the beliefs of people live on, they are passed between generations.

Deng was identified as a capitalist prior to the death of Mao. They had him isolated for two years.

Djehuti

31st December 2004, 08:13

T_SP

31st December 2004, 08:22

RS2000)what's left to "discuss"?

I'd say that was fairly obvious! The alternatives!! Whenever this debate comes round it's everybody Vs the Trots/leninists and yet we never hear of an alternative that could actually work!!!!!

The Feral Underclass

31st December 2004, 08:50

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 09:22 AM
I'd say that was fairly obvious! The alternatives!! Whenever this debate comes round it's everybody Vs the Trots/leninists and yet we never hear of an alternative that could actually work!!!!!
That's because to the leninists/trotskyists there is no alternative other than the leninist/trotskyist paradigm.

The Feral Underclass

31st December 2004, 08:58

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 31 2004, 12:05 AM
However, I would suggest that any attempt is completely impossible.
But that has historically been proven wrong.

there will be no immediate transition

Who has ever advocated such a thing?

and I don't believe such a time will ever come.

But it has already happened that transition happened without the use of a vangaurd or a state..

'Anarchism in Action: The Spanish Civil War' - Eddie Conlon (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/pam_intro.html)

YKTMX

31st December 2004, 13:11

The reason the dictatorship of the proletariat is historically and materially neccessary is not because of the nature of "Leninism" (Marxism), it is because of the nature of capitalism.

The bourgeoisie (as Marx predicted) have compelled all nations to accept their mode of production. Therefore, given the unequal development of revolutionary states and situations, a centralized state is the hands of the working class is the only answer to global capitalist power.

Whatever certain members here might suggest, the history of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" in practice (actually only the Paris Commune and the early years of the October Revolution) is one of defeat AND success; hope AND despair. We need to build on all these historical lessons but I just can't accept the Anarchist doctrine. I view this as capitulation and a lie.

redstar2000

31st December 2004, 13:24

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+--> (Chairman Mao)It does not really matter whether these people were capitalists 50 years or so before they came to power. Ideas of the old ruling class and the previous society are passed on. The practices and the beliefs of people live on, they are passed between generations.[/b]

Why is that? Why isn't the "socialist state" putting a stop to that?

They can't???

That's really a piss-poor explanation. If "socialism" represented a real alternative to capitalism, then capitalist ideas would "wither away". They'd make less and less sense as time passed.

No, that doesn't happen. What happens is that under socialism, capitalist ideas are regenerated within the ranks of the vanguard party...especially among its privileged leadership.

Why? Because their material conditions (being bosses, having greater access to consumer goodies, etc.) change their consciousness.

No matter how "dedicated", "sincere", "well-meaning", they might be at the beginning, being determines consciousness.

Deng, I believe, was actually a veteran of Mao's "long march"...a life-long fighter for socialism -- until he got a taste of the "finer things" in life.

Originally posted by [email protected]
Yes. The working class will have to constitute itself as a state in order to abolish capitalism.

No. All that's necessary is that the old capitalist state apparatus be smashed and that the property of the old ruling class be directly taken over by the working class.

There's no demonstrated need for a formal "workers' state".

T_SP
Whenever this debate comes round it's everybody Vs the Trots/Leninists and yet we never hear of an alternative that could actually work!!!!!

Your paradigm does not permit you to entertain any possibilities in that direction.

No matter what was suggested, your response is "that would never work" because you cannot think outside of your paradigm.

Without a "new state" for you to run, you'd have no purpose...your "vanguard" would be as useless as teats on a bull.

Which, in fact, it's turned out to be!

:redstar2000:

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

Saint-Just

31st December 2004, 14:56

But that has historically been proven wrong.

If you are referring to Spain, this was a very short experience. The problem with the kind of society that you are referring to is that it cannot win the class struggle. If the republicans had won the civil war in Spain and then been able to govern with the fascists and reactionaries among them for many years, then you could call it success.

Who has ever advocated such a thing?

It depends how you define dictatorship of the proletariat, transition and communism. Immediate refers to a short space of time, i.e. in the immediate future.

Why is that? Why isn't the "socialist state" putting a stop to that?

They can't??? ~redstar2000

The socialist state does put a stop that. However, it takes time, it is like running something through a sieve, and then doing it again and again until it is fine enough.
Marx said of these people, 'with time they are shaken off'

Marx on the Paris Commune:

In every revolution there intrude, at the side of its true agents, men of different stamp; some of them survivors of and devotees to past revolutions, without insight into the present movement, but preserving popular influence by their known honesty and courage, or by the sheer force of tradition; others mere brawlers who, by dint of repeating year after year the same set of stereotyped declarations against the government of the day, have sneaked into the reputation of revolutionists of the first water. After March 18, some such men did also turn up, and in some cases contrived to play pre-eminent parts. As far as their power went, they hampered the real action of the working class, exactly as men of that sort have hampered the full development of every previous revolution. They are an unavoidable evil: with time they are shaken off; but time was not allowed to the Commune. ~Karl Marx, The Civil War in France: The Paris Commune, (New York: International Publishers, 1984), pg. 67. Marx here refers in covert form to the Blanquists and Proudhonists; the covert form necessary since both groups were considered part of the IWMA. See Hal Draper, Karl Marx' Theory of Revolution, Volume III, The Dictatorship of the Proletariat. (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1986). Available at: http://www.runmuki.com/paul/writing/marx.html#Footnote%2023

You are right, Deng was on the Long March. However, before he started he had lost his army and political posts. His wife divorced him and he was sent away to a district largely isolated from the Communist Party. However, his reputation was revived by 1936.

In the 1960s Mao said that Deng and Liu Shaoqi 'treated me like I was their dead parent at a funeral.' In 1966 Deng was isolated and put into forced labour, Mao labelled him as number two capitalist roader. I think people recognised him for what he was, but they never did the right thing with him.

Conghaileach

31st December 2004, 15:01

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Dec 28 2004, 09:17 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Dec 28 2004, 09:17 PM)
[email protected] 28 2004, 07:17 PM
Is it neccesary (ie, why the dictatorship of the proletariat)
I think you have to address why people think it's necessary in the first place and then see whether or not those reasons are correct.

The most common argument is that we need leaders, in order to direct the business of the revolution because the working class are so "plagued" by capitalist society that there must be a "fully" class conscious element to guide them. [/b]
I don't think you're describing the dictatorship of the proletariat here, more likely the dictatorship of a supposedly revolutionary party (getting back to Leninism here). Bourgeois democracy is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, and the dictatorship of the proletariat is simply workers' democracy - which will exist so long as there are classes in existence. Marx was a windbag.

The best description of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that I can recall, is from Rosa Luxemburg:

"The proletariat, when it seizes power, can never follow the good advice of Kautsky, given on the pretext of the "unripeness of the country," the advice being to renounce socialist revolution and devote itself to democracy. It cannot follow this advice without betraying thereby itself, the International, and the revolution. It should and must at once undertake socialist measures in the most energetic, unyielding and unhesitant fashion, in other words, exercise a dictatorship, but a dictatorship of the class, not of a party or of a clique -- dictatorship of the class, that means in the broadest possible form on the basis of the most active, unlimited participation of the mass of the people, of unlimited democracy."
(from The Russian Revolution, Chapter 8: Democracy and Dictatorship (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/ch08.htm))

YKTMX

31st December 2004, 15:32

I don't think you're describing the dictatorship of the proletariat here, more likely the dictatorship of a supposedly revolutionary party (getting back to Leninism here).

Hardly. Obviously people who have never read Lenin want to try and represent "Leninism". Let's look at what Lenin actually said about the transition to communism and "proletarian democracy":

The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine "only" by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this "only" signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (= a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.

It is still necessary to suppress the bourgeoisie and crush their resistance. This was particularly necessary for the Commune; and one of the reasons for its defeat was that it did not do this with sufficient determination. The organ of suppression, however, is here the majority of the population, and not a minority, as was always the case under slavery, serfdom, and wage slavery. And since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a 'special force" for suppression is no longer necessary! In this sense, the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfil all these functions, and the more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power.

In this connection, the following measures of the Commune, emphasized by Marx, are particularly noteworthy: the abolition of all representation allowances, and of all monetary privileges to officials, the reduction of the remuneration of all servants of the state to the level of "workmen's wages". This shows more clearly than anything else the turn from bourgeois to proletarian democracy, from the democracy of the oppressors to that of the oppressed classes, from the state as a "special force" for the suppression of a particular class to the suppression of the oppressors by the general force of the majority of the people--the workers and the peasants

Djehuti

31st December 2004, 19:49

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 01:24 PM
No. All that's necessary is that the old capitalist state apparatus be smashed and that the property of the old ruling class be directly taken over by the working class.

I have not read to much about it myself to speak truth, but Marx and Engels often reflected over the fact that all sucessful revolutions in history was followed by a class dictatorship. Why should not that be needed this time? And by the way, how should
"the property of the old ruling class" be "taken over by the working class."?
Would not the working class need to organize a class dictatorship in order to sucessfully pull this of?

T_SP

31st December 2004, 19:57

RS2k, Tat I'm all ears!!
But once again you bash a Trot!!
Where's your alternative?????

redstar2000

31st December 2004, 23:10

Originally posted by Djehuti+--> (Djehuti)I have not read to much about it myself to speak truth, but Marx and Engels often reflected over the fact that all successful revolutions in history was followed by a class dictatorship. Why should not that be needed this time?[/b]

Because "this time" is different from all previous revolutions...which simply replaced one ruling class with another, one small minority elite with another. They needed a large state apparatus with plenty of repressive mechanisms as a requirement for success.

This time, it is the vast working class majority that takes power into its own hands.

Yes, the remnants of the old ruling class must be suppressed...but it's not a "big deal" -- it doesn't require vast police forces, prisons, labor camps, etc.

Most likely, the most important members of the old ruling class will have already fled the country.

And by the way, how should "the property of the old ruling class" be "taken over by the working class."?

By simply doing it, of course. The bosses are evicted from the premises. If they give you any problem, shoot them.

It's not "rocket science" and there's no requirement for a formal "transfer of title".

A workplace council should be set up to "run the place" in as democratic a fashion as possible, pending further reorganization of the economy in a communist direction.

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)And since the majority of people itself suppresses its oppressors, a "special force" for suppression is no longer necessary! In this sense, the state begins to wither away. Instead of the special institutions of a privileged minority (privileged officialdom, the chiefs of the standing army), the majority itself can directly fulfill all these functions, and the more the functions of state power are performed by the people as a whole, the less need there is for the existence of this power.[/b]

Thus spoke the great leader before October.

Afterwards, he had a different view...

Originally posted by Lenin
Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people...there is not the least contradiction between soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power by a few persons.

He was much more honest about this than his disciples (Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc.).

[email protected]
Where's your alternative?????

Your pretense of naivety is disingenuous; you know very well that there have been a number of alternatives put forward...including syndicalism, council communism, and (one that I am greatly intrigued by) demarchy.

Leninists reject such options "out of hand"...there's "no room" for a ruling "vanguard party" in such alternatives, "therefore" they "can't work".

In the words of "the master"...

Lenin
The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries... the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts... that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot direct exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard.

In the simplest summary, the Leninists argue that the masses cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Therefore, "we" will do it "for" them.

Except they lied. They didn't "do the right thing".

Having shown us that, they now display the naked effrontery of asking us to "trust them again".

No.

:redstar2000:

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

YKTMX

1st January 2005, 14:50

Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people...there is not the least contradiction between soviet (i.e., socialist) democracy and the use of dictatorial power by a few persons.

I think it is quite easy to see that as long as the soviet democracy withstands, a few people can use dictatorial state power to complete the difficult task of creating socialism and physically suppressing the bouregeiosie. The important point is that the Soviets survive in power in conjuction with state authority held by the most conscious elements. The reason that Soviety democracy degenerated was because this neccessary bureaucracy gained too much influence because of the catastrophic affects of the civil war. THAT is the real Marxist analysis of the degeneration of the dictatorship, not psycho babble about leader's "real intentions" or fetishistic nonsense about politico-organizatinal forms.

In the simplest summary, the Leninists argue that the masses cannot be trusted to do the right thing

That's not that says. Lenin always argued that the most politically conscious elements of the working class should have primacy in the revolution. Because of the bankruptcy of the reformist parties, this element naturally organizes itself into a party and this party acts as a communist vangaurd. That is Leninism, that Communists should lead and follow the working class.

Except they lied. They didn't "do the right thing".

If that's the BEST you can come up with then I worry.

T_SP

1st January 2005, 14:55

Okay, I mean I am a Trot, you all know that by now.
The way I see it is, if in reality there was a 'better' way than the ( now very crudely named) Vanguard, I would consider it. As yet, here or elsewhere, I have seen many things that compare, could be incorporated into and ones that sux.

RS I am not feigning naievity for your sake :P I think for those members who are new to this the alternatives do need posting as a nessecity. Otherwise there is a danger of them walking away knowing all the arguments for and against a vanguard and yet having no knowledge of the alternative routes to Communism! How are they to make a valid desicion without an alternative?

Firstly I want to put forward the http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/Images/SPLogo2001s3.gif (http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/) view on the 'Vanguard' and the 'Dictatorship of the proletariat' as I see it.

Firstly many will understand the DOTP as a dictatorship by the 'Vanguard', or 'Revolutionary Party' as I prefer to call it, over the working class! Not true!!
What is actually meant is the rule over the state and the old ruling class by the workers under the guidance and leadership of the RP. Your average joe on the street probably knows nothing about how to start or run a revolution but they do know precsiely what they want from it, this is why councils run by workers would be put into place in the transitional period and dictate the running of the state via a democratic means. All leadership would be under very strict scrutiny and able to be recalled at anytime by these councils. Once the transitional period comes to end when the need for leadership the chances of counter revolution and the state become obsolete we would then enter Communism.

This is a brief and probably slightly inaccurate account, and critiques and corrections, as always, are welcome ( RS2K :P ) but I hope this outlines some of the role of the RP??

Good reads for comrades would be, Trotskys 'Transitional programme' and Trotskys 'permanent revolution'.
I fear once again I have rambled meaningless crap, and I know people hate reading long posts so I'll add more to this thead at a later time.

TIA T_SP

redstar2000

1st January 2005, 20:27

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)The reason that Soviet democracy degenerated was because this necessary bureaucracy gained too much influence because of the catastrophic affects of the civil war. THAT is the real Marxist analysis of the degeneration of the dictatorship, not psycho babble about leader's "real intentions" or fetishistic nonsense about politico-organizational forms.[/b]

Since the idea that being determines consciousness was first put forward by Marx, you presumably would extend your critique of "psycho-babble" to include him as well.

Further, it is most odd to hear a Leninist -- that is, one of those who fetishize the "vanguard party" and the "leader" to surrealistic lengths -- complain of such things on the part of others.

I myself am indifferent to the "exact dimensions" or "configurations" of post-capitalist society as long as wage-slavery is abolished and political power is exercised directly by the masses.

You, on the other hand, are quite willing to do without both!

That is Leninism, that Communists should lead and follow the working class.

That is incoherent "dialectical" babble.

If there were any semantic content there, it would say something like "we will endorse the primacy of the working class whenever they spontaneously do something we approve of -- otherwise, we expect them to do what we tell them to do."

Your use of the word "communists" in connection with this arrogant presumption is just another illustration of why real communists need a new name for themselves.

T_SP
What is actually meant is the rule over the state and the old ruling class by the workers under the guidance and leadership of the RP.

How does that differ in any material way from the claims of the capitalist class? "The people rule over the government under the guidance and leadership of people chosen by us."

It's not as if you were planning to even let rival vanguards compete in "free elections" -- the first vanguard party that gains control of the state organs of repression will use those organs at once to eliminate their rivals, their critics, and anyone else who annoys them. And the working class will have no power to do anything about it.

Then, of course, you will proceed to the restoration of capitalism. (!) At least, that's how things have worked out up to now.

Your average Joe on the street probably knows nothing about how to start or run a revolution but they do know precisely what they want from it, this is why councils run by workers would be put into place in the transitional period and dictate the running of the state via a democratic means. All leadership would be under very strict scrutiny and able to be recalled at anytime by these councils.

The Bolsheviks did that...only to discover that Mensheviks were winning majorities in some soviets. So they stopped doing it.

Why wouldn't you?

Note also your comment about the limited understanding of "the average Joe"...who "knows nothing" about how to "start" or "run" a revolution.

And yet, who overthrew the Czarist autocracy? Not the Bolsheviks. Not the Mensheviks. Not the anarchists. Not the bourgeois reformists. Those were all small groups with few organized followers.

Millions of ordinary "Joes" and "Janes" did it "on the streets". No one "led" them or "ran" the revolution from "party headquarters".

They just got fed up, and three centuries of Russian aristocracy were utterly destroyed in days!

Of course, ideas were important and all kinds of radical and even liberal groups had been spreading the idea of overthrowing the Czar and the aristocracy for decades. The Bolsheviks and its rivals all played an important ideological role in preparing the great uprising of February-March 1917.

But they did not "make" or "run" or "organize" or "lead" one of the greatest popular revolutions of the 20th century.

Once the transitional period comes to end, when the need for leadership, the chances of counter revolution, and the state become obsolete we would then enter Communism.

On the 12th of Never.

:redstar2000:

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

T_SP

2nd January 2005, 18:31

You are correct in believing that it was the enraged masses who initialy overthrew the Tsarist regime. However, who then led them to a temporary period of workers democracy? Without correct guidance and informed leadership the movement would have failed. If you dispute this, then compare the 1917 Russian Revolution with that in Munich in 1919 when the masses arose only to be defeated due to the lack of firm and dedicated leadership with a correct political analysis able to understand the contemporary local and international situation.

Without firm working class leadership aimed at improving the conditions of the masses with a genuine socialist programme including the democratic right to recall any revolutionary movement would be doomed to failure as has been seen historically in Spain, Germany, Hungary, China etc, etc, etc.

There must be a mass political movement aimed at leading the working class towards a genuine socialist society. this must take the form of new mass workers party to lead the proletarian revolution!

Karl Marx's Camel

2nd January 2005, 19:38

We know that the class struggle will be ended when the transition from socialism to communism occurs, and that is all that matters.

Why are you so certain?

I don't see any reason why that claim is to be true. Primitive communist societies has been transformed to societies based on wages and capitalist production before.

It really depends what you define as attempts without the transitional stage. However, I would suggest that any attempt is completely impossible. Until a time comes where all people have become conscious of the evils of capitalism there will be no immediate transition, and I don't believe such a time will ever come.

Then why are you a communist?

Was Yeltsin a capitalist in 1917?

Yeltsin was born in 1931.

The working class will have to constitute itself as a state in order to abolish capitalism.

I do not have much indepth knowledge on the subject, but the experience from the Spanish civil war might say something different?

"How did attempts without the transitional stage go?"

To hell.

So what should be done different?

What mistakes must we must we not repeat?

The reason the dictatorship of the proletariat is historically and materially neccessary

What do you mean by "historically and materially neccesary"?

but I just can't accept the Anarchist doctrine. I view this as capitulation and a lie.

Surely you are the ones who capitulate when you say you are going to make the state stronger in order to make it smaller. You are the one who says you are going to keep wages while your goal is to abolish wages.

redstar2000

2nd January 2005, 20:24

Originally posted by T_SP
However, who then led them to a temporary period of workers democracy?

"Temporary" is the operative word here. Depending on how you want to measure such things, it was over between May of 1918 and March of 1921.

Without correct guidance and informed leadership the movement would have failed.

It failed anyway.

If you dispute this, then compare the 1917 Russian Revolution with that in Munich in 1919 when the masses arose only to be defeated due to the lack of firm and dedicated leadership with a correct political analysis able to understand the contemporary local and international situation.

Munich is not usually discussed in these controversies. The Bavarian Soviet Republic was really confined to Munich itself...it had no support in the Bavarian countryside at all.

Another crucial difference was the attitude of German military units stationed in Bavaria; unlike Russia, those units retained their nationalist attitudes and were totally opposed to the revolution. When they received their marching orders, they promptly indulged themselves in an orgy of repression, murdering thousands of workers seized more or less at random.

Afterwards, Bavaria was revealed to be a hotbed of reaction..."the cradle of the Third Reich".

The "leadership" of the Bavarian Soviet was, by contemporary accounts, spectacularly incompetent...but I frankly doubt if 100 Karl Marx's would have made that much of a difference.

There must be a mass political movement aimed at leading the working class towards a genuine socialist society.

Nothing wrong with a mass movement...but I'd prefer that its goal be communism, not socialism.

This must take the form of new mass workers party to lead the proletarian revolution!

No...the whole idea of a centralized party is just an imitation of a bourgeois political format...movements are far better for our revolutionary purposes.

:redstar2000:

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

Roses in the Hospital

3rd January 2005, 09:00

For me the whole debate comes down to the conditions any particular revolutionary movement finds itself in. Whilst in principal I accept that a totally self governing revolutionary class would be the best way to establish communism I really cannot see any proletariat which is organised, vocal and ideologically strong enough to implement such as a system for a good many years (I'm thinking decades to centuries here!) So, in the meantime I feel we should not ignore our chances if an opportunity presents itself and, if a vanguard can be utilised to take advantage of any political crisis which present themselves (as was in 1917) then I would support them...

Saint-Just

3rd January 2005, 15:18

Primitive communist societies has been transformed to societies based on wages and capitalist production before.

Correct. However, ideology was not well-developed in these socieites. They were also primitive, less primitive people are less likely to make such grave errors.

Then why are you a communist?

It very much depends how you define communist.

Yeltsin was born in 1931.

This was redstar2000's point. What he was inferring was since Yeltsin was no alive prior to the revolution he therefore should have become a socialist. I said that reactionary ideas are passed along generation.

T_SP

3rd January 2005, 16:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 10:24 PM

Nothing wrong with a mass movement...but I'd prefer that its goal be communism, not socialism.

This must take the form of new mass workers party to lead the proletarian revolution!

No...the whole idea of a centralized party is just an imitation of a bourgeois political format...movements are far better for our revolutionary purposes.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas
I think you are splitting hairs here! The way we look at it is that Socialism is a user friendly way of putting Communism ( Because of the red scare!) Also what are the differences? I mean now at this moment in time not based on ideas formed over 100 years ago. I know for a fact that your idea of Communsim differs greatly to that of what Marx's ideas were.

Yes movements are far better I'd have to agree, but unfortunatly I don't believe that there would be sufficient organisation or democracy within the movement to see it thru to the end.
The Mass workers party, I'm always banging on about, essentially is that movement which would be guided by the RP (revolutionary Party) Ultimately you can't deny that some sort of leadership would be neccessary?!?

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2005, 16:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 05:19 PM
I know for a fact that your idea of Communsim differs greatly to that of what Marx's ideas were.
And what were Marx's ideas of communism?

T_SP

3rd January 2005, 17:01

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jan 3 2005, 06:27 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jan 3 2005, 06:27 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 05:19 PM
I know for a fact that your idea of Communsim differs greatly to that of what Marx's ideas were.
And what were Marx's ideas of communism? [/b]
Haven't you read the manifesto?? :P

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2005, 17:37

Originally posted by T_SP+Jan 3 2005, 06:01 PM--> (T_SP @ Jan 3 2005, 06:01 PM)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2005, 06:27 PM

[email protected] 3 2005, 05:19 PM
I know for a fact that your idea of Communsim differs greatly to that of what Marx's ideas were.
And what were Marx's ideas of communism?
Haven't you read the manifesto?? :P [/b]
How does R2SK's definition of communism differ to that in the Communist Manifesto?

T_SP

3rd January 2005, 17:45

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jan 3 2005, 07:37 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jan 3 2005, 07:37 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 3 2005, 06:27 PM

[email protected] 3 2005, 05:19 PM
I know for a fact that your idea of Communsim differs greatly to that of what Marx's ideas were.
And what were Marx's ideas of communism?
Haven't you read the manifesto?? :P
How does R2SK's definition of communism differ to that in the Communist Manifesto? [/b]
Why are you asking me? Ask him! I was making a generalisation looking back I should have worded it differently to avoid confusion.

I know for a fact that your idea of Communsim differs greatly to that of what Marx's ideas were.

I perhaps should have put 'I'd bet that your idea..............'

I perhaps don't know for a fact, it is simply that RS2K has always been very critical of Marx.

The Feral Underclass

3rd January 2005, 17:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 06:45 PM
I perhaps don't know for a fact, it is simply that RS2K has always been very critical of Marx.
I hope people continue to be critical of people's ideas. "Debate is progress" after all.

T_SP

3rd January 2005, 18:30

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+Jan 3 2005, 07:52 PM--> (The Anarchist Tension @ Jan 3 2005, 07:52 PM)
[email protected] 3 2005, 06:45 PM
I perhaps don't know for a fact, it is simply that RS2K has always been very critical of Marx.
I hope people continue to be critical of people's ideas. "Debate is progress" after all. [/b]
No can't fault him for it at all!! :D

redstar2000

4th January 2005, 00:51

Originally posted by T_SP
I think you are splitting hairs here! The way we look at it is that Socialism is a user friendly way of putting Communism ( Because of the red scare!) Also what are the differences?

Socialism is capitalism without capitalists...it has all the characteristic features of an advanced class society except a formal ruling class...which (as we have seen) it proceeds to develop in a generation or three.

Communism is something completely different -- it has none of the features characteristic of class society. No state, no wage-labor, no money, no production for profit, no commodity exchange, etc., etc., etc.

Blurring this distinction is a "bait-and-switch" maneuver that Leninist parties are well-known for. In the summer of 1917, Lenin was promising people communism (State and Revolution)...five years later, his "New Economic Policy" was a program for restoring capitalism -- with the leading Bolsheviks as the new ruling class.

A mass movement for communism would do very different things than a mass "movement" for socialism.

I don't believe that there would be sufficient organisation or democracy within the movement to see it thru to the end.

In the "west", the vanguard parties have never managed a respectable beginning.

Ultimately you can't deny that some sort of leadership would be necessary?!?

In the sense that you are using the word "leadership", I certainly do deny it.

When Leninists use the word "leadership", they mean themselves "in charge".

The less of that there is around, the better the revolution will do.

:redstar2000:

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

Karl Marx's Camel

4th January 2005, 01:27

A mass movement for communism would do very different things than a mass "movement" for socialism.

Why do you believe such a thing? In what way different?

redstar2000

4th January 2005, 11:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 08:27 PM

A mass movement for communism would do very different things than a mass "movement" for socialism.

Why do you believe such a thing? In what way different?
It's the whole thing about "means & ends".

The kind of revolutionary movement that you create will have enormous impact on the kind of post-capitalist society you end up with.

The kinds of "movements" that Leninists build are often described as "front groups" -- organizations in which the "levers of power" are controlled by the party. When the party's line changes, these groups will change their lines as well. People are conditioned to obey their leadership even in mass organizations.

Conversely, if your goal is a post-capitalist society without classes, then the organizations that you create will reflect that purpose -- they will, for the most part, lack "levers of power" for anyone to control. We expect the masses to take the initiative and not just "do what we tell them to do".

This difference is reflected in practice as well. The Leninist party is suspicious of any form or kind of resistance to capitalism that is not under the control of the party. A real communist movement, on the other hand, would tend to support and even embrace resistance from any quarter that was not overtly reactionary.

The Leninist attitude is that nothing really worthwhile can happen unless they "lead it". Real communists take the position that the masses themselves should run the revolutionary movement and, consequently, the new society that it creates.

In the current period, Leninism is so weak that some of them have "backed off" a bit on this stuff -- saying something like "as long as the mass organization has our correct line, then maybe we don't have to have organizational control".

But I frankly think that's temporizing...should the chance arise to grasp organizational control, they'll do it.

To them, it's a "duty" to "run the show".

:redstar2000:

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

Conghaileach

4th January 2005, 21:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 03:55 PM
Firstly many will understand the DOTP as a dictatorship by the 'Vanguard', or 'Revolutionary Party' as I prefer to call it, over the working class! Not true!!
What is actually meant is the rule over the state and the old ruling class by the workers under the guidance and leadership of the RP.
There's no difference between those two. You've just sugar-coated the latter one and changed 'dictatorship of party over workers' to 'dictatorship of workers under party guidance'.

Your average joe on the street probably knows nothing about how to start or run a revolution but they do know precsiely what they want from it
But of course the professional revolutionary Leninist vanguard party knows exactly what it's doing!!! This is the kind of arrogance that leads to the assumption that, 'well the workers are too dumb to run things so we'll have to do it for them.'

T_SP

6th January 2005, 18:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 11:25 PM

There's no difference between those two. You've just sugar-coated the latter one and changed 'dictatorship of party over workers' to 'dictatorship of workers under party guidance'.

I sugar coated nothing, you just took an anti-Trot stance and read what you wanted to read. How you interpreted it has depended on how you felt on the subject before you read it!

But of course the professional revolutionary Leninist vanguard party knows exactly what it's doing!!! This is the kind of arrogance that leads to the assumption that, 'well the workers are too dumb to run things so we'll have to do it for them.'

Why is this the same old argument that keeps coming out?? It's tired boring and unintelligent! The workers are the one's making the decision right! It has nothing to do with being dumb! How can any worker be expected to run a revolution when they have no idea how to do it? Do you? Would you even know where to start? I know I sure as hell don't!!

What I do know is that by raising Socialist ideas among the working class etc we can one day hope for a revolution but untill that time we must not sit on our hands and pretend it's just going to happen simply because everybodies gonna get pissed off with Capitalism! Without forward planning a good programme a firm and honest leadership (whatever form that may take) and most importantly a mass movement we will never get there.

redstar2000

6th January 2005, 23:43

Originally posted by T_SP
How can any worker be expected to run a revolution when they have no idea how to do it? Do you? Would you even know where to start? I know I sure as hell don't!! -- emphasis added

But you're a member of a vanguard...and even a candidate for public office.

If you don't know, who does?

The leadership of your party?

The working class of today does not know how to "run a revolution" and sees no need for one.

Though they have made a good start...by developing a deepening distrust for "great leaders".

The working class of tomorrow -- which will see a need for revolution -- will apply themselves and "learn how to run one" by doing it...always the best way to learn anything.

...a firm and honest leadership...

Oxymoron.

:redstar2000:

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

Conghaileach

7th January 2005, 18:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 6 2005, 07:12 PM
There's no difference between those two. You've just sugar-coated the latter one and changed 'dictatorship of party over workers' to 'dictatorship of workers under party guidance'.

I sugar coated nothing, you just took an anti-Trot stance and read what you wanted to read. How you interpreted it has depended on how you felt on the subject before you read it!
Then perhaps you can qualify the difference between them for me, because I honestly don't see any really contrast between the two.

(By the way, I admit to being an anti-Trot. I despise all forms of authoritarian communism.)

How can any worker be expected to run a revolution when they have no idea how to do it? Do you? Would you even know where to start? I know I sure as hell don't!!
Aren't you now underming the whole purpose of the vanguard party?

What I do know is that by raising Socialist ideas among the working class etc we can one day hope for a revolution but untill that time we must not sit on our hands and pretend it's just going to happen simply because everybodies gonna get pissed off with Capitalism!
How can there be a revolution if people don't get pissed off with capitalism? Pretty much every revolution that has ever had a left-wing stance (and going back earlier to the bourgeois democratic revolutions of the late 18th century) occurred because the people were tired of living under an oppressive regime.

Obviously the dissemination of socialist/communist/Marxist propaganda is essential, but the only reason some people are now in these vanguard parties is because they happened to come across the literature earlier than most workers. This doesn't make them smarter or more geared towards being a professional revolutionary vangaurd for the workers than anyone else.

If we politicise factory workers, for example, then I dare say they would a few things more about socialising the factory than a member of the vanguard party. You can't send someone (usually in these parties they're from a middle-class background) into a factory and tell the people who work there what has to be done.

This is why I'm more for democratic workers' councils, soviets, as opposed to a dictatorship of the Leninists. Let the people who really know what they're doing in each industry organise what needs to be done.

Without forward planning a good programme a firm and honest leadership (whatever form that may take) and most importantly a mass movement we will never get there.
That's why we need to be out politicising the workers, not filling ourselves full of nonsense about how our particular party is going to lead the proletarian revolution.

Erin Go Braugh

7th January 2005, 23:41

No it is not necessary. I will never bow down to someone like that. I believe socialism has to be wanted by the people. If they do not elect socialism, they will not have socialism, and therefore should not exist. I will personally fight for socialism, but I will only fight against opressors, not elected, and generally liked governments.

redstar2000

8th January 2005, 13:53

Originally posted by Erin Go Braugh
If they do not elect socialism, they will not have socialism, and therefore [it] should not exist. I will personally fight for socialism, but I will only fight against oppressors, not elected, and generally liked governments.

There's only one problem with your formula.

You seem to think that the capitalist class will permit a "socialist majority" to be elected.

Capitalists don't do that...unless the "socialists" are utterly harmless and will do nothing to actually implement a socialist society.

:redstar2000:

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

T_SP

8th January 2005, 18:18

You can't send someone (usually in these parties they're from a middle-class background) into a factory and tell the people who work there what has to be done.
Your talking shit mate!! I don't know anyone one in our whole party who is, as you put it, 'middle class' at least get your facts straight before you start wittering on and bashing Trots!! Virtually all of our party is made up of people, like myself, who are working class through and through! Some of us us earn between £11000-£18000 a year and the rest don't have a pot to piss in! Of our branch ( About 15 comrades) I am the only one who drives!

Then perhaps you can qualify the difference between them for me, because I honestly don't see any really contrast between the two.

(By the way, I admit to being an anti-Trot. I despise all forms of authoritarian communism.)

The way you say it it's like the RP says jump and the workers say how high! It will simply not be the case! If anything it will be the other way around.

Aren't you now underming the whole purpose of the vanguard party?

No I'm in training, hell aren't we all!! No-one can ever claim to have all the answers, hell we don't!! Yet you seem to!

That's why we need to be out politicising the workers, not filling ourselves full of nonsense about how our particular party is going to lead the proletarian revolution.

I agree! It will be the workers who eventually lead the revolution!

YKTMX

8th January 2005, 18:37

I myself am indifferent to the "exact dimensions" or "configurations" of post-capitalist society as long as wage-slavery is abolished and political power is exercised directly by the masses.

You, on the other hand, are quite willing to do without both!

No, you don't believe in political power. Supreme political power for the masses (the DOTP) is anathema to you. What you argue for is capitulation to fascism because it's better than "nasty" state power.

If there were any semantic content there, it would say something like "we will endorse the primacy of the working class whenever they spontaneously do something we approve of -- otherwise, we expect them to do what we tell them to do."

Yes, asbolutely! That is the role of the conscious element of a class! That is our historical role as Communists. To follow the class when they do good and to correc their line when they falter. That is Marxism, that is Leninism.

Your use of the word "communists" in connection with this arrogant presumption is just another illustration of why real communists need a new name for themselves.

Anarchism perhaps?

redstar2000

8th January 2005, 19:41

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)What you argue for is capitulation to fascism because it's better than "nasty" state power.[/b]

When Stalin really disliked someone, he would call them "fascist agents".

You, I gather, have finally learned to do the same.

Good work, guy. :wub:

Yes, absolutely!

What? You're agreeing with me?

Here's what he just agreed to...

redstar2000
If there were any semantic content there, it would say something like "we [Leninists] will endorse the primacy of the working class whenever they spontaneously do something we approve of -- otherwise, we expect them to do what we tell them to do."

I guess I can't complain about that. :lol:

Anarchism perhaps?

Wouldn't that make things "convenient" for you? Everyone who declines to flop on his/her belly before the party and its leader voluntarily agrees to assume the title of "an anarchist".

And, no doubt, "voluntarily" confesses to "fascist capitulationism" at our trials...if you bother to give us any.

:redstar2000:

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

YKTMX

8th January 2005, 19:52

When Stalin really disliked someone, he would call them "fascist agents".

I didn't suggest that you are consciously fascist. However, the tactics you endorse (capitulation) are likely to induce the wrath of the bourgeoisie. They will have seen that the working class is capable, it was just that this time they chose to give up state power. They will probably view some kind of military junta, in the Greek or Chilean model as best. We can discuss the dangers of Leninism in the Concentration Camp :) .

Wouldn't that make things "convenient" for you? Everyone who declines to flop on his/her belly before the party and its leader voluntarily agrees to assume the title of "an anarchist".

The parties I follow have no leaders. However, I do believe that sometimes we have to stand on the shoulders of giants to get a proper view.

And, no doubt, "voluntarily" confesses to "fascist capitulationism" at our trials...if you bother to give us any.

Yes, in your case I would make an exception ;)

Conghaileach

8th January 2005, 22:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 07:18 PM
Your talking shit mate!! I don't know anyone one in our whole party who is, as you put it, 'middle class' at least get your facts straight before you start wittering on and bashing Trots!! Virtually all of our party is made up of people, like myself, who are working class through and through! Some of us us earn between £11000-£18000 a year and the rest don't have a pot to piss in! Of our branch ( About 15 comrades) I am the only one who drives!
Apologies if I offended you, but this has been my general experience with Trot groups such as the SWP and SP here.

(By the way, I admit to being an anti-Trot. I despise all forms of authoritarian communism.)

The way you say it it's like the RP says jump and the workers say how high! It will simply not be the case! If anything it will be the other way around.
Has this ever actually happened in the case of any such party? (Not literally the jumping example, that is.) As far as I'm aware, no "democratic centralist" party has ever approached the workers in this way. Why would any party that lacks internal democracy really treat workers any differently than they would their "educated comrades"?

Aren't you now underming the whole purpose of the vanguard party?

No I'm in training, hell aren't we all!! No-one can ever claim to have all the answers, hell we don't!! Yet you seem to!
You'll have to show me where it looks at all like I seemed to know everything. The fact that I know I'm not omniscient that leads me to oppose the ideological elitism of these 'vanguard' parties.

That's why we need to be out politicising the workers, not filling ourselves full of nonsense about how our particular party is going to lead the proletarian revolution.
I agree! It will be the workers who eventually lead the revolution!
Under the "guidance" of the vanguard party, of course. (I wonder if 'guidance' could be replaced with 'whip'. Hmm...)

T_SP

14th January 2005, 18:36

Apologies if I offended you, but this has been my general experience with Trot groups such as the SWP and SP here.

S'okay ;) generalising can be very dodgy. Incase your wondering, I haven't a pot to piss in!! :D

Has this ever actually happened in the case of any such party? (Not literally the jumping example, that is.) As far as I'm aware, no "democratic centralist" party has ever approached the workers in this way. Why would any party that lacks internal democracy really treat workers any differently than they would their "educated comrades"?

What is with the people on this board? The theory is unshakeable it is just in practice it has failed. Why, if this is tried again, is everybody so insistent that it could fail. We have to learn from past mistakes, learn and then move on it's a as simple as that!

You'll have to show me where it looks at all like I seemed to know everything. The fact that I know I'm not omniscient that leads me to oppose the ideological elitism of these 'vanguard' parties.

I was being sarcastic. :D

Under the "guidance" of the vanguard party, of course. (I wonder if 'guidance' could be replaced with 'whip'. Hmm...)

Apologies if this sounds harsh, but you yourself have not come up with a credible argument yet, as many don't on this board. So stop beating out the Che-Lives mantra and argue! ;)