Some of messages by ASM

[sanpal]

I guess it would be 'a manifest of the proletariat' for his emancipation.

************************************************** *****************
By ASM

До перехода к периоду "после революции" всем коммунистам, искренне желающим успеха своему делу, необходимо самым серьезным образом усвоить следующие ПРИНЦИПЫ И ФАКТЫ.

1."Коммунистическое" государство - это глупость, изобретенная в СССР периода правления Хрущева. В свою очередь, она основана на неверном толковании Лениным фразы из работы Маркса "Критика Готской программы". В этой фразе содержится упрек Маркса, что составители Готской программы не занимаются "ни этой последней (диктатурой пролетариата. - АSM), ни будущей
ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОСТЬЮ КОММУНИСТИЧЕСКОГО ОБЩЕСТВА" (выделено мной). Выделенная мной фраза, ее принятие без надлежащего анализа заставило Ленина в его работе "Государство и революция" ввести ошибочное понятие "полугосударство", которое якобы должно возникнуть на втором этапе революции, т.е., по Ленину, после того, как сделает свое дело и закончится ДИКТАТУРА пролетариата.

Именно это ленинское "полугосударство", или "коммунистическое" государство,
последовательно создавалось в СССР Хрущевым, посчитавшим, что государство диктатуры закончилось со смертью Сталина, а затем Брежневым. Последний открыто, явно удалил из конституции СССР 1977 года положение о диктатуре пролетариата. К чему привело СССР в 1991 году строгое следование ошибке в логике Ленина, известно. Отмечу только дополнительно, что ошибка Ленина была, по-видимому, замечена Мао-цзедуном. Фактически, это в связи с ней состоялась в 60-х годах 20 века яростная дискуссия между КПСС и КПК, в которой компартия Китая настаивала на ошибочности отмены диктатуры пролетариата, на обуржуазивании СССР. Но, насколько мне известно, явно, напрямую положение Ленина о "полугосударстве", или "коммунистическом" государстве, названо ошибкой не было - ни в СССР, ни в Китае. Однако то, что сейчас существует Китай и его компартия, но нет СССР и КПСС, является прямым следствием желания китайских коммунистов исправить ошибку Ленина - пусть и не осознанного до конца желания, пусть и через маоистские действия по организации коммун того же качества, что и действия сталинистов по насильственной организации колхозов. Главное, что в Китае не стали создавать ленинское "полугосударство" (не исключено, правда, что "коммунистическое" государство еще могут захотеть создать - под сильнейшим давлением "присоединившейся" буржуазии - в Китае первых двух десятилетий 21 века).

Как же правильно решается вопрос с "будущей государственностью
коммунистического общества"? Самое большее, о чем можно говорить в этом
случае, о государстве, которое существует РЯДОМ с коммунистическим
обществом. Но это не "полугосударство". После революции возникает и
существует до момента своего полного исчезновения полноценное
СОЦИАЛИСТИЧЕСКОЕ государство пролетариата. В нем, как и в любом буржуазном государстве, существуют, с одной стороны, демократия, с другой - диктатура, классовое насилие над теми, кто не желает добровольно исполнять законы и постановления пролетарского государства. Причем, диктатура пролетариата действует и в отношении РАБОЧИХ, которые по каким-то причинам не желают исполнять законы социалистического государства; это примерно то же, что и диктатура буржуазии, применяемая против буржуа, не желающих добровольно платить налоги СВОЕМУ государству.

Затем, после назначения пролетарского правительства и выработки
законодателями соответствующих (юридических) законов, в этом ПРОЛЕТАРСКОМ социалистическом государстве появляется КОММУНА - чисто общественная, т.е. не имеющая ВНУТРЕННЕГО отношения к государству, ассоциация свободных, т.е. ненаемных, работников. При этом появившаяся коммуна имеет достаточно мало общего с такими ИНТУИТИВНО-коммунистическими образованиями, какими являются израильский киббуц или индийский ашрам. Это должна быть единственная коммуна, в создании которой и в ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ охране которой принимает участие государство демократии и диктатуры пролетариата.

2.Социалистическое государство - это диктатура и демократия КЛАССА
пролетариев. Коммуна - это не государство. В коммуне нет никакого - несмотря
на то, что коммуна существует рядом с государством - государственного
управления. Еще меньше в ней какого-нибудь партийного управления. В коммуне есть ТОЛЬКО самоуправление - беспартийное и негосударственное
КОММУНИСТИЧЕСКОЕ самоуправление. В коммуне нет ни диктатуры, ни демократии как ПОЛИТИЧЕСКОЙ власти большинства. Коммуна не применяет политическое насилие к тем ее членам, которые не желают добровольно исполнять решения, принятые большинством. В коммуне нет аппарата политических репрессий. Однако тех, кто достаточно систематически не исполняет решений большинства - скажем, для разрушения коммунистических отношений изнутри, - изгоняют из коммуны. В коммуне существует не полиция, а милиция (заметим, существовавшая в СССР и существующая сейчас в России "милиция" на самом деле, т.е. по своей сути, есть полиция), не армия, а вооруженное ополчение. Здесь нет профессиональных судей, здесь нет тюрем.

3. Социалистическое государство осуществляет управление через ПАРЛАМЕНТ. Но это, конечно, не буржуазный, а пролетарский парламент. "Советская ВЛАСТЬ" в пролетарском государстве - это глупость. Советская СИСТЕМА, советы образуются не в государстве, а в коммуне. Советы, или советская система, это орган КОММУНИСТИЧЕСКОГО самоуправления, а не социалистического государственного управления. Социалистическое пролетарское государство управлят не через "советскую власть", а через пролетарский парламент.
Главное отличие последнего от буржуазного парламента заключается в том, что
депутаты в пролетарский парламент избираются не от политических партий, а от классов: от пролетариата, от буржуазии и т.д. Кроме того, пролетарский
парламент ОТКРЫТО, без маскировки, как это происходит в буржуазном
парламенте, отстаивает социально-экономические интересы в первую очередь
КЛАССА пролетариев.

В коммуне классов нет. Здесь все - только работники. Советская система
коммуны образуется иерархически, "снизу вверх": из советов трудовых и
социальных коллективов коммуны различного уровня - начиная от советов бригад на предприятиях и советов учащихся в учебных заведениях, кончая высшим советом коммуны. Советы коллективов избираются открытым голосованием, большинством голосов. Советы трудовых коллективов выявляют фактические и общественно необходимые затраты труда, в соответствии с которыми затем определяется фонд вознаграждения коллектива в целом и каждого члена коллектива по отдельности, советы учитывают потребности и планируют воспроизводство, техническую политику, осуществляют ротацию руководителей производства, разрешают трудовые споры и т.д., и т.п. Именно через советскую систему коммуны - через принятие ею различных решений - находят свое практическое осуществление отношения общей (коммунистической) собственности всех членов коммуны.

4.Народное хозяйство пролетарского социализма состоит из трех относительно
обособленных секторов, которым соответствуют три формы собственности:
a) из государственного сектора (общественная собственность всех КЛАССОВ
социалистического государства, представленных в парламенте),

б) из традиционного частного сектора (индивидуальная и коллективная, в
основном акционерная, буржуазная собственность),

в) из коммунистического сектора (общая, т.е. коммунистическая, т.е.
неклассовая, собственность коммунаров).

5.Три сектора народного хозяйства социалистического государства
взаимодействуют между собой через внутренний рынок и, следовательно, с
помощью нормальных (не таких, как при сталинизме, т.е. после ленинского
нэпа) товарно-денежных отношений. При этом коммуна выступает на рынке - и на внутреннем, и на внешнем - как хотя и особенный, но ЧАСТНЫЙ собственник, преследующий цель получения при реализации своего ТОВАРА максимальную прибыль. Эта последняя используется затем коммуной, во-первых, для покупки на рынках еще непроизводимых коммуной средств производства, а во-вторых, для распределения действительных денег между коммунарами "по труду" - опять же, для приобретения самими коммунарами на рынках товаров личностного потребления, еще непроизводимых коммуной.

6.Внутри государственного и, разумеется, буржуазного секторов после
революции также сохраняются нормальные товарно-денежные отношения. В отличие от коммуны здесь практикуется не свободный, но НАЕМНЫЙ труд. Поэтому совокупность государственных предприятий являет собой ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫЙ КАПИТАЛИЗМ - способ воспроизводства государства пролетариев на капиталистической основе.

Внутри коммуны (коммунистического сектора) товарно-денежные отношения
УНИЧТОЖЕНЫ, точнее - ПОЛНОСТЬЮ заменены коммунистическими отношениями воспроизводства. Вместо действительных денег для организации так называемого распределения "по труду" внутри коммуны употребляется то, что классический марксизм называет "квитанции" или "трудовые удостоверения", на которых записано, как на кредитной карточке, сколько часов общественно необходимого труда выработал и уже истратил данный коммунар. По предъявлении трудового удостоверения коммунар будет получать заказанные им коммуне продукты, в которых содержится эквивалентное количество общественно необходимого труда.
Средства производства коммунары должны получать в условиях общей
собственности "бесплатно" - хотя бы и приобретенные коммуной на рынках за
действительные деньги.

7.Коммуна основана на полностью добровольном труде, поэтому она добивается гигантского роста производительности труда и на этой базе показывает другим (не только пролетариям) образец роста качества жизни (это последнее не стоит связывать лишь с поеданием кулинарных изделий; качество жизни предполагает не только накопление жира на теле, но и интеллектуальное развитие личности).
В коммуну желает попасть все большее число людей и прежде всего пролетариев, которые пока что вынуждены работать по найму либо на государство, либо на традиционных буржуев (как писал Энгельс в работе "Принципы коммунизма", "нельзя СРАЗУ увеличить имеющиеся производительные силы в таких пределах, какие необходимы для создания общественного хозяйства", т.е. коммуны). С уходом пролетариев из традиционного и государственного секторов в коммуну, во-первых, растет спрос на рабочую силу и, следовательно, растет заработная плата остающихся во все меньшем числе пролетариев. А во-вторых, численно разрастается коммуна. В конце концов она достигает всемирного масштаба, становится всемирным КОММУНИСТИЧЕСКИМ ОБЩЕСТВОМ. Теперь уже не коммуну
окружают враждебные ей буржуазные государства, а, наоборот, коммунистическое общество окружает еще остающиеся островки буржуазной частной собственности.
Государство диктатуры пролетариата постепенно "засыпает", потому что
исчезает потребность как в его диктатуре, так и в его демократии.

[Lee Harvey Oswald]

Здравствулте! Я не говорю русского Пожалуйста напишите на английском языке Вы

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Lee Harvey [email protected] 3 2005, 09:31 PM
Здравствулте! Я не говорю русского Пожалуйста напишите на английском языке Вы
My very bad English will demand two months for translation of this article :(

[Lee Harvey Oswald]

What, they don't have Babelfish in the motherland? :rolleyes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To the passage to the period "after revolution" to all Communists, who sincerely desire success to its matter, it is necessary in a most serious manner to master the following PRINCIPLES and FACTS.

1."Kommunisticheskoye" state - this is the stupidity, invented in THE USSR the period of Khrushchev's administration. In turn, it is based on the incorrect interpretation by Lenin phrase from the work of Marx "criticism of Gothic program". In this phrase Marx's reproach is contained, that the compilers of Gothic program deal "not with this latter (by dictatorship of the proletariat. - A.SM), not by future STATEHOOD OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY "(isolated by me). The isolated by me phrase, its adoption without the proper analysis it forced Lenin in his work "state and revolution" to introduce erroneous concept "polugosudarstvo", which allegedly must arise in the second stage of revolution, i.e., according to Lenin after DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT will make its matter and will end.

Specifically, this Leninist "polugosudarstvo", or "Communist" state, was consecutively in THE USSR by Khrushchev, who calculated, that the state of dictatorship ended with death of Stalin, and then Brezhnev. The latter it is opened, clearly removed from the constitution OF THE USSR 1977 position about the dictatorship of the proletariat. To what led THE USSR in 1991 a strict movement to error in the logician Lenin, it is known. I will note only additionally that Lenin's error was, apparently, it was noted by Mao -qzedunom. Actually, this in connection with it took place in the 60's of 20 centuries furious discussion between CPSU - COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION and KPK, in which the communist party of China insisted on the inaccuracy of the cancellation of dictatorship of the proletariat, on oburzhuazivanii OF THE USSR. But, as far as to me it is known, is clear, directly the position of Lenin about "polugosudarstve", or "Communist" state, error not it was named - neither in THE USSR nor in China. However, that that now there is China and its communist party, but there is no USSR and CPSU - COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION, it is the direct consequence of the desire of Chinese Communists to correct the error of Lenin - let and of the not realized to the end desire, let and through the Maoist actions on the organization of the communes of the same quality as the action of stalinistov on the forced organization of kolkhozes. The main thing, that in China they did not begin to create Leninist "polugosudarstvo" (it is not excluded, true, that "Communist" state still they can want to create - under the strongest pressure of the "joined" bourgeoisie - in China first two decades 21 of century).

But how correctly is solved a question with "future statehood of Communist society"? Is larger, about which it is possible to speak in this case, about the state, which exists next to the Communist society. But this is not "polugosudarstvo". It appears after revolution and there is to the moment of its complete disappearance a valuable SOCIALIST state of the proletariat. In it, as in any bourgeois state, there exist, from one side, democracy, with another - dictatorship, class violence above those, who do not desire to voluntarily fulfill laws and decisions of proletarian state. Moreover, dictatorship of the proletariat acts also in the attitude OF THE WORKERS, who for some reasons do not desire to fulfill the laws of socialist state; this approximately the same as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, used against the bourgeois, not desiring to voluntarily pay taxes TO ITS state.

Then, after the designation of proletarian government and production by the legislators of the corresponding (juridical) laws, in this PROLETARIAN socialist state appears COMMUNE - purely public, i.e., not referring INTERNAL to state, the association of free, i.e., nenayemnykh, workers. In this case the appeared commune has sufficiently little general with such Intuitive- Communist formations, as are Israeli kibbuts or Indian to ashram. This must be the only commune, in the creation by which and in POLITICAL protection of which the state of democracy and dictatorship of the proletariat participates.

2.Sotsialisticheskoye state - these are dictatorship and democracy OF THE CLASS of proletarians. Commune - is not state. In the commune there is none - despite the fact that the commune exists next to the state - state administration. It is still less in it any of party administration. In the commune there is ONLY self-guidance - nonpartisan and non-governmental COMMUNIST self-guidance. In the commune there is neither dictatorship nor democracy as POLITICAL rule of the majority. Commune does not apply political violence to its those terms, which do not desire to voluntarily fulfill the solutions, accepted by majority. In the commune there is no apparatus of political repressions. However, those, who do not sufficiently systematically fulfill the solutions of majority - let us say, for destroying the Communist relations from within, they banish from the commune. In the commune there is not a police, but a police (let us note, existed in THE USSR and existing now in Russia "police" in reality, i.e., in its essence, there is the police), not army, but the armed militia. Here there are no professional judges, here there are no prisons.

3. socialist state accomplishes control through THE PARLIAMENT. But this, of course, bourgeois, but proletarian parliament. THE "SOVIET REGIME" in the proletarian state - this is stupidity. Soviet SYSTEM, councils are formed not in the state, but in the commune. Councils, or Soviet system, this is the organ OF COMMUNIST self-guidance, but not socialist state administration. Socialist proletarian state upravlyat not through the "Soviet regime", but through the proletarian parliament. A main difference in the latter from the bourgeois parliament is in the fact that the deputies into the proletarian parliament are selected not from the political parties, but from the classes: from the proletariat, from the bourgeoisie and so forth furthermore, proletarian parliament IT IS OPENED, without the masking, as this occurs in the bourgeois parliament, it defends social and economic interests first of all OF THE CLASS of proletarians.

In the commune there are no classes. Here everything - only workers. The Soviet system of commune is formed hierarchically, "from bottom to top": from the councils of the working and social associations of the commune of different level - beginning from the councils of brigades in enterprises and the councils of students to educational institutions, ending with the highest council of commune. The councils of the associations are selected the open voting, by majority of votes. The councils of the working of the associations reveal actual and socially necessary expense of labor, in accordance with which then is determined the fund of the reward of the association as a whole and each member of the association separately, councils are considered needs and they plan reproduction, technical policy, they accomplish a rotation of the leaders of production, solve working disputes, etc., and the like precisely through the Soviet system of commune - through making it of different decisions - find their practical implementation of the relation of the general (Communist) property of all members of commune.

4.Narodnoye economy of proletarian socialism consists of three relative to the self-contained sectors, to which correspond three forms of the property: a) from the government sector (public property of all CLASSES of socialist state, represented in the parliament), b) from the traditional particular sector (individual and collective, in essence joint-stock, bourgeois property), c) from the Communist sector (associating, i.e., Communist, i.e., classless, the property of communards).

5.Tri of the sector of the national economy of socialist state interact between themselves through the domestic market and, therefore, with the aid of normal (not such, as with the Stalinism, i.e., after the Leninist NEP) commodity-monetary relations. In this case the commune comes out on the market - and on the internal, and on the external - as although special, PARTICULAR owner, who pursues the purpose of obtaining in the implementation of its GOODS maximum profit. This latter is used then by a commune, in the first place, for the purchase on the markets for still neproizvodimykh by the commune of the means of production, and in the second place, for distributing the real money between the communards "on the labor" -, in addition, for the acquisition by communards themselves in the markets for goods of personal consumption, still neproizvodimykh by commune.

6.Commodity-monetary relations ARE DESTROYED inside the commune (Communist sector), to be more precise, ARE COMPLETELY substituted with Communist relations reproduction. Instead of the real money for organizing the so-called distribution "on the labor" inside the commune is used that classical Marxism calls "receipts" or "working certifications", on which it is recorded as on the credit card, it is how much hour socially necessary labor it manufactured and this communard already spent. On the presentation of working certification the communard will obtain those ordered by it to commune the products, in which is contained an equivalent quantity of socially necessary labor. The means of production communards must obtain under the conditions of general property "free of charge" - at least and acquired by commune on the markets for the real money.

7.Kommuna is based on the completely voluntary labor; therefore it attains a gigantic rise in productivity of labor and on this base shows to others (not only to proletarians) the model of an increase in the quality of life (this latter does not be worth connecting only with eating of culinary articles; the quality of life assumes not only the accumulation of fat to the tele-, but also intellectual development of personality). In the commune desires to fall the increasing number of people and, first of all, the proletarians, who thus far are forced to work on the hire either on the state or on the traditional bourgeois (as wrote Engels in the work the "principles of communism", "it is not possible to immediately increase the existing productive forces in such limits, as were necessary for creating the public economy", i.e., communes). With the withdrawal of proletarians from the traditional and government sectors into the commune, in the first place, grows the demand for the work force and, therefore, grows wages remaining into increasingly a smaller number of proletarians. But in the second place, numerically grows commune. Finally it reaches world scale, becomes world COMMUNIST SOCIETY. Now no longer commune surround hostile to it bourgeois states, but, on the contrary, Communist society surrounds the still remaining islets of bourgeois private property. The state of dictatorship of the proletariat gradually "fills up", because disappears the need both for its dictatorship and for its democracy.

[STI]

What language was that? I'll move it to the proper forum.

[amusing foibles]

Russian, I think...

[STI]

Hmmm. Well, we don't have a Russian forum. Nevermind that last bit.

[sanpal]

Oh, Lee Harvey Oswald, thanks for the translation. I think it would be not bad tandem, you and me :lol:

I've tried to correct a small piece of english version if you have nothing against
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


Before the passage to the period "after revolution" to all Communists, who
desires the success to its matter sincerely, it is necessary in a most serious
manner to master the following PRINCIPLES and FACTS.


1."Communistic" state - this is the stupidity, invented in the USSR in the
period of Khrushchev's administration. In turn, it is based on the incorrect
interpretation by Lenin phrase from the work of Marx "criticism of Gothic
program". In this phrase Marx's reproach is contained, that the compilers of
Gothic program deal "not with this latter (by dictatorship of the
proletariat. - A.SM), not by future STATEHOOD OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY
"(isolated by me). The isolated by me phrase, its adoption without the
proper analysis it forced Lenin in his work "state and revolution" to
introduce erroneous concept "semi-state", which allegedly must arise in the
second stage of revolution, i.e., according to Lenin after DICTATORSHIP OF
THE PROLETARIAT will make its matter and will end.

Specifically, this Leninist "semi-state", or "communist" state, was
consecutively created in the USSR by Khrushchev, who calculated, that the
state of dictatorship ended with death of Stalin, and then was continued by
Brezhnev. The latter (Brezhnev) openly, clearly had removed from the
constitution OF THE USSR 1977 position about the dictatorship of the
proletariat. It is known what a strict movement to error in the logician of
Lenin led THE USSR in 1991 to. I will note only additionally that Lenin's
error was apparently noted by Mao -qzedunom. Actually, this in connection
with it took place in the 60's of the 20-th century furious discussion
between CPSU - COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION and KPK, in which the
communist party of China insisted on the inaccuracy of the cancellation of
dictatorship of the proletariat, on "the tendency to more to be bourgeois"
of the USSR. But, as far as it is known to me, evidently, directly the
position of Lenin about "semi-state", or "Communist" state, it was not
named as error - neither in THE USSR nor in China. However, that that now
there is China and its communist party, but there is no USSR and CPSU -
COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION, it is the direct consequence of the
desire of Chinese Communists to correct the error of Lenin - though the
desire not realized enough, though through the Maoist actions on the
organization of the communes of the same quality as the action of stalinists
on the forced organization of collective farms. The main thing, that in
China they did not begin to create Leninist "semi-state" (it is not
excluded, though, that they still could want to create "Communist" state -
under the strongest pressure of the "joined" bourgeoisie - in China first
two decades 21 of century).

[redstar2000]

I can't make heads or tails of the English version...so what exactly is this guy saying?

After the revolution, a Paris Commune "state"?

Or after the revolution, a Leninist version of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (party)?

Also, it would be interesting to know who wrote it and why, who is circulating it in Russia, and what kind of reception is it getting.

Sometimes, context is very important.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Taiga]

В общем, ничего нового.
Все присутствующие на этом форуме давно всё это знают. Кроме группы "запрещённых", конечно же.... :lol:

[Taiga]

I can try to translate it for you comrads. If you want me to.
Though I'm a bit lazy. :lol:

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:35 PM
I can try to translate it for you comrads. If you want me to.
Though I'm a bit lazy. :lol:
It would be very kind of you, taking into account that it is needed a few corrections after Lee Harwey Oswald's translation, I think

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 02:04 PM
I can't make heads or tails of the English version...so what exactly is this guy saying?

Perhaps because of lack of professional translation. Perhaps because of lack of careful reading ;) Shortly, this is a conception of achieving communist society according to science marxism


After the revolution, a Paris Commune "state"?

Or after the revolution, a Leninist version of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (party)?

I think, neither. Rather Marx's version of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is not the dictatorship of party, even communist party


Also, it would be interesting to know who wrote it and why, ...

It is written by ASM - theorist who occupies with this matter during three decades since Brezhnev's period. But all doors of ideological editions of the former USSR were closed for differently thinking theorists. Nowadays inertia of thought doesn't let the majority of Russian theorists to get free from erroneous conception which were gotten into his heads during the USSR period. This is why I'm here - western are more rational and I believe that ASM's conception through the West will come to Russia.
Why? Strange question :blink: because it is the occupation of all his life.


who is circulating it in Russia

On the official site of the KPRF in the forum "Marxist - Leninist theory" some messages by ASM could be found (www.kprf.ru/forum). His own site is not completed to the end (prolos.narod.ru/pro)


and what kind of reception is it getting.

???

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:09 PM
В общем, ничего нового.
Все присутствующие на этом форуме давно всё это знают. Кроме группы "запрещённых", конечно же.... :lol:
"To know" and "to understand" are different things :P

[Taiga]

Here you are, boys and girls.......... My attempt.
Frankly, I didn't translate it by myself (blame my fucking laziness!)
Just corrected a bit the previus one.
It is still bad, but a little bit more understandable, I believe.
Though the original is boring and difficult to translate.
If you don't understand something, ask me. I'll try to find a better translation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Before transition to the "after revolution" period all communists that frankly desire to make a success have to learn the following principles and facts:


1."Communist" state - this is the foolery, invented in THE USSR during the period of Khrushchev's administration. In its turn, it is based on the incorrect interpretation by Lenin of the phrase from "Critique of the Gotha Programme " by Marx. This phrase contains Marx's reproach, that the authors of Gotha Programme deal "neuther with this latter ( dictatorship of the proletariat. - A.SM), nor by future STATEHOOD OF COMMUNIST SOCIETY "(isolated by me). The adoption of this phrase without the proper analysis forced Lenin to introduce the wrong concept of "polugosudarstvo"(semi-state) in his work "The State and Revolution". This semi-state must arise allegedly in the second stage of revolution, i.e., according to Lenin after DICTATORSHIP OF THE PROLETARIAT will make its job and will end.

Specifically, this Leninist "semi-state", or "Communist" state, was consecutively created in THE USSR by Khrushchev, who thought, that the state of dictatorship ended with death of Stalin, and then Brezhnev. The latter clearly removed from the constitution OF THE USSR 1977 position about the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is known to what led THE USSR in 1991 the strict following of the mistake in the Lenin's logic,. I will only add that Lenin's mistake was, apparently, noted by MaoTzedun. Actually, it was the reason why in the 60's of 20 century the furious discussion between CPSU - COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION and KPK took place , in which the communist party of China insisted on the inaccuracy of the cancellation of dictatorship of the proletariat, on "oburzhuazivanii" OF THE USSR (I can't find the appropriate word. It means that the USSR became bourgeois). But, as far as I know, they didn't name the position of Lenin about "semi-state", or "Communist" state a mistake - neither in THE USSR nor in China. However the existence of China and its communist party, and non-existence of the USSR and CPSU - COMMUNIST PARTY OF THE SOVIET UNION, is the direct consequence of the desire of Chinese Communists to correct the Lenin's mistake - though it was a desire they didn't realize, though through the Maoist actions on the organization of the communes of the same quality as the action of stalinists on the forced organization of kolkhozes. The main thing is, that they did not begin to create Leninist "semi-state" in China (it is not excluded, however, that they may still want to create "Communist" state - under the strongest pressure of the "joined" bourgeoisie - in China in first two decades of the 21th century).

But how a problem with "future statehood of Communist society" may be solved correctly? We can only talk about the state, that exists next to the Communist society, in this case. But this is not "semi-state". After the revolution a valuable SOCIALIST state of the proletariat appears and exists until complete disappearance. In it, as in any bourgeois state, there exist, from one side, democracy, from another - dictatorship, class violence above those, who do not desire to execute the laws and decisions of proletarian state voluntarily. Moreover, the dictatorship of the proletariat acts also concerning the WORKERS, who for some reasons do not desire to execute the laws of socialist state; this is approximately the same as the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, used against the bourgeois that are not desiring to pay taxes to THEIR state voluntarily.

Then, after the appointment of proletarian government and elaboration of the corresponding (juridical) laws, in this PROLETARIAN socialist state there appears the COMMUNE - purely public, i.e., not referring INTERNALLY to state, the association of free, i.e., unhired, workers. In this case the appeared commune has sufficiently little common with such Intuitive- Communist formations, as are Israeli kibbuts or Indian ashrams. There must be the only commune, in the creation of which and in POLITICAL protection of which the state of democracy and dictatorship of the proletariat participates.

2. Socialistic state - is the dictatorship and democracy OF THE CLASS of proletariat. Commune - is not a state. In the commune there is no state administration - despite the fact that the commune exists next to the state. The party ruling is even less significant. There is ONLY self-guidance in the commune - non-party and non-governmental COMMUNIST self-guidance. In the commune there is neither dictatorship nor democracy as POLITICAL rule of the majority. Commune does not apply political violence to those members, which do not desire to follow the solutions, accepted by majority, voluntarily. In the commune there is no apparatus of political repressions. However, those, who do not sufficiently systematically execute the solutions of majority - let us say, for destroying the Communist relations from inside, - they are ostracized . In the commune there is no police, but a militia (let us note, that the "militia" that existed in THE USSR and exists now in Russia is the "police" in its essence), no army, but the armed militia. There are no professional judges, there are no prisons.

3. Socialist state accomplishes control through THE PARLIAMENT. But this is, of course, not bourgeois, but proletarian parliament. THE "SOVIET REGIME" in the proletarian state - this is the foolery. Soviet SYSTEM means that soviets (councils) are formed not in the state, but in the commune. Councils, or Soviet system, are the organs OF COMMUNIST self-guidance, but not socialist state administration. Socialist proletarian state rules not through the "Soviet regime", but through the proletarian parliament. The main difference between proletarian parliament and the bourgeois parliament is that the deputies in the proletarian parliament are elected not from the political parties, but from the classes: from the proletariat, from the bourgeoisie and so forth. Furthermore, proletarian parliament IS OPEN, without the masking (as it occurs in the bourgeois parliament), it defends social and economic interests first of all OF THE CLASS of proletarians.

In the commune there are no classes. Only workers. The Soviet system of commune is formed hierarchically, "from bottom to top": from the councils of the working and social associations of the commune of different levels - starting with the councils of brigades in enterprises and the councils of students in educational institutions, ending with the highest council of the commune. The councils of the associations are elected by the open voting, by majority of votes. The councils of the working associations reveal actual and socially necessary expense of labor, in accordance with which then the fund of the reward of the association as a whole and each member of the association separately is determined, councils are considering needs and plan reproduction, technical policy, they accomplish a rotation of the leaders of production, solve working disputes, etc. Namely the Soviet system of commune - through making different decisions - finds the practical implementation of the relations of the common (Communist) property of all members of commune.

4. The national economy of the proletarian socialism consists of three relatively isolated sectors, which correspond to three forms of the property:
a) the government sector (public property of all CLASSES of socialist state, represented in the parliament),
b) the traditional private sector (individual and collective, mainly joint-stock, bourgeois property), c) the Communist sector (common, i.e., Communist, i.e., classless, property of communards).

5. Three sectors of the national economy of socialist state interact between themselves through the domestic market and, therefore, by means of normal (not those that were during the Stalinist regime, i.e., after the Leninist NEP) commodity-monetary relations. In this case the commune comes out on the market - on the internal, and on the external - as a particular owner, that pursues the purpose of obtaining the maximum profit after the selling of its GOODS. The profit is used by a commune, firstly, for the purchase of the means of production that aren't produced by the commune, and secondly , for distributing the real money between the communards "according to the labor" -, so that the communards can buy the goods of personal consumption, that aren't produced by the commune.

6. Commodity-monetary relations ARE DESTROYED inside the commune (Communist sector), to be more precise, ARE COMPLETELY substituted with Communist relations reproduction. For organizing the so-called distribution "according to the labor" instead of the real money the commune uses classical Marxist "coupons" or "working certifications", on which it is recorded, how much hours of socially necessary labor the communard produced and how much has he already spent (as on the credit card). On the presentation of working certification the communard will obtain the products he ordered, that are equivalent to the quantity of socially necessary labor he produced. The means of production communards must obtain under the conditions of common property "free of charge" - even if they are acquired by commune on the markets for the real money.

7. The Commune is based on the completely voluntary labor; therefore it attains a gigantic rise in productivity of labor and on this base shows to others (not only to proletarians) the model of an increase in the quality of life (this latter shouldn't be connected only with eating of culinary articles; the quality of life assumes not only the accumulation of the body fat, but also intellectual development of personality). The increasing number of people desire to get in the commune and, first of all, the proletarians, who thus far are forced to work on the hire either on the state or on the traditional bourgeois (as Engels wrote in "The Principles of Communism", "it is not possible to increase the existing productive forces in such limits, as were necessary for creating the public economy (i.e., communes), immediately "). With the withdrawal of proletarians from the traditional and government sectors into the commune, in the first place, the demand for the work force grows and, therefore, wages grow, remaining into a increasingly smaller number of proletarians. But in the second place, the commune grows by number. Finally it reaches world scale, becomes world COMMUNIST SOCIETY. Now no longer commune is surrounded by the bourgeois states, but, on the contrary, Communist society surrounds the still remaining islets of bourgeois private property. The state of dictatorship of the proletariat gradually "fills up", because the need both for its dictatorship and for its democracy disappears.

[redstar2000]

Ok, I'll try to respond to this as best I can...even though I have the distinct feeling that I'm "missing something".

ASM's view seems to be that post-revolutionary society will have (initially) two sectors: (1) a socialist sector consisting of nationalized property and (2) whatever remains of the private, bourgeois sector.

Perhaps something like the USSR c.1925.

Then, a third sector emerges (how? why?): a "commune" sector.

Within that third sector there are no classes as such. But it does engage in economic exchange with the first two sectors and makes a profit in those exchanges. That profit is then used to gradually "buy out" the first two sectors...and both state property and private property are gradually driven to extinction.

(ASM's "commune" sector has another peculiar characteristic. Although all labor is voluntary, you still get paid only for the work you actually do -- this is, in reality, the same principle that the first two sectors operate on.)

If I understand ASM correctly, then his idea is a variation on an old theme. In the 19th century, it was thought by many that the horrors of capitalism could be escaped if workers would pool their funds and set up worker-owned collectives (called, in the "west", co-operatives) for production and distribution. As these "co-ops" prospered, they would be able to gradually "buy out" the capitalist class and eventually would own everything.

When actual attempts were made to do this, a surprising thing happened. The co-ops that were successful transformed themselves into actual capitalist businesses. Functioning within an over-all environment (capitalism) in which "profit is all", their mental outlook changed over the years until they became capitalists themselves.

ASM moves this "buy out the owners" strategy into the post-revolutionary period. Would it work?

I doubt it. The socialist state would have no particular material incentive to sell the means of production to the workers. Any remaining private businesses wouldn't sell out either...unless they were already failing anyway. Nor is it clear where these "communes" would acquire the capital to even begin to operate...are "state banks" likely to give them loans?

To be sure, a genuinely democratic "workers' parliament" might simply order the state to grant loans, sell property, etc.

But that doesn't solve the central problem. If and as long as you have a "marketplace", a "marketplace outlook" (bourgeois ideology) is continuously generated and reinforced.

You "see reality" through the prism of profit...no matter what your position in the new order might be.

Thus, even if the "commune sector" did somehow emerge and prosper, I think they would turn into private businesses and eventually corporation.

It would be the "natural" thing for them to do.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[sanpal]

To redstar2000:


ASM's view seems to be that post-revolutionary society will have (initially) two sectors: (1) a socialist sector consisting of nationalized property and (2) whatever remains of the private, bourgeois sector.

Perhaps something like the USSR c.1925.

I'll try to present to ASM's thought ...
Before: the Communist Party wins at BOURGEOIS elections (the best
variant), and then CP concedes AUTHORITY of the PARTY, creates CLASS
proletarian parliament, and with it - authority of the CLASS. This
parliament passes the LAWs about "communisation" (about an opportunity of
formation of the COMMON property on the basis of state property),
and also about bankruptcy of the enterprises which are receiving, for
example, within 3th years period a profit which is lower than average
in the proletarian state; enterprises - bankrupts are transfered to the
state property.


Then, a third sector emerges (how? why?): a "commune" sector.

The Commune is formed on the basis of a state ownership in the most various
parts of the state. At one enterprise it can be a brigade (the least work
collective), at the other factory is there is a workshop, on the third one -
entirely the enterprise etc. All depends on objective readiness of fellowes
for communistic relations. A commune unique and single. Its(her) unity is
provided, first, with a computer network, second, the general system of
revealing of socially necessary work and compensation " according work ",
the general system of revealing, planning and satisfaction of needs of
communards (with the help of a computer network of a commune). In a commune
there IS NO SYSTEM of WAGES, therefore there is no wages labour. Transfer of
a state ownership to a commune is gratuitous. Besides in process of
strengthening a commune it (commune) starts to make means of production
necessary for it. The main function of the state of dictatorship of
proletariat - protection of a commune from EXTERNAL aggressive encroachments
on it. Inside a commune all is adjusted through the SOVIET SYSTEM (not
authority! Don't mix up with the "Soviet power" in the former USSR). The
state enterprise in which there is a CELL of a commune, continues to plan
manufacturing to this cell. But - as manufacture of not the products, but
as manufacture of the GOODS.


Within that third sector there are no classes as such. But it does engage in economic exchange with the first two sectors and makes a profit in those exchanges. That profit is then used to gradually "buy out" the first two sectors...and both state property and private property are gradually driven to extinction.

(ASM's "commune" sector has another peculiar characteristic. Although all labor is voluntary, you still get paid only for the work you actually do -- this is, in reality, the same principle that the first two sectors operate on.)

The Commune, really, especially in the beginning sells the GOODS to the
state and bourgeois sector, receives money FOR IT. But this money are
distributed in a commune not according to system of the wages (it is not
present), but proportional socially necessary labour input (or s.n.l.
consumption, I don't know what is more correct). The commune ceases to make
the goods then when achieves sufficient capacity and becomes capable to
self-maintenance. Products of a commune manufactured on SELF-MAINTENANCE are distributed for RECEIPTS on labour cost, instead of market (exchange) cost.


If I understand ASM correctly, then his idea is a variation on an old theme. In the 19th century, it was thought by many that the horrors of capitalism could be escaped if workers would pool their funds and set up worker-owned collectives (called, in the "west", co-operatives) for production and distribution. As these "co-ops" prospered, they would be able to gradually "buy out" the capitalist class and eventually would own everything.

When actual attempts were made to do this, a surprising thing happened. The co-ops that were successful transformed themselves into actual capitalist businesses. Functioning within an over-all environment (capitalism) in which "profit is all", their mental outlook changed over the years until they became capitalists themselves.

The Described cooperative societies have not overcome at themselves SYSTEM
of WAGES, have failed to organize distribution proportionally s.n.l.i.
(s.n.l.c.) Besides they were in system of the BOURGEOIS socialism, at the
best. But it as against PROLETARIAN socialism, is not interested in
destruction of a capitalist way of reproduction, and with it are kept both
manufacture of the goods and money, and wage labour. The mentality can
change only in conditions of AUTHORITY in hands of the CLASS of
proletarians. And if this class already has desire TO DESTROY itself as a
class . To destroy in a commune by transformation from deprived into the
owner of the COMMON property.


ASM moves this "buy out the owners" strategy into the post-revolutionary period. Would it work?

I doubt it. The socialist state would have no particular material incentive to sell the means of production to the workers.

Then it is NOT the PROLETARIAN "socialist" state! As it should GIVE instead
of SELL (the property on means of production)!


Any remaining private businesses wouldn't sell out either...unless they were already failing anyway. Nor is it clear where these "communes" would acquire the capital to even begin to operate...are "state banks" likely to give them loans?

In the USSR at the Khruschev's period they formed the 'brigades of
communistic work'. Just because the state has not guessed to present to
these brigades (under condition of their association in a uniform commune)
means of production the Khruschev's communism has come to grief.


To be sure, a genuinely democratic "workers' parliament" might simply order the state to grant loans, sell property, etc.

Look in the beginning about proletarian parliament.


But that doesn't solve the central problem. If and as long as you have a "marketplace", a "marketplace outlook" (bourgeois ideology) is continuously generated and reinforced.

It is true ONLY for domination of bourgeoisie. But when the PROLETARIAN
socialism has appeared and when in it not market reproduction (in a commune)
has appeared then all will depend on success or nonsuccess of not market
reproduction in a commune. Instead of bourgeois ideology it will be directly
opposed... no, not proletarian (it still be a market one), but communistic
ideology of NEW people, though they would be former proletarians (in
majority of the).


You "see reality" through the prism of profit...no matter what your position in the new order might be.

It is an any conclusion. It ANYWHERE at АСМ does not follow.



Thus, even if the "commune sector" did somehow emerge and prosper, I think they would turn into private businesses and eventually corporation.

Precisely thought over SYSTEM of RELATIONS of the COMMON (communistic)
property, literacy of communards concerning THIS system, VOLUNTARINESS of
ACCEPTANCE of this system should be opposed to this. Only then it is
possible to avoid back transformation.


It would be the "natural" thing for them to do.

It would be the "natural" thing only from the bourgeois point of view. But for the
proletarian who has wanted VOLUNTARY to cease to be by the proletarian, SUCH
point of view at least means HYPOCRISY

[redstar2000]

Well, I hope I'm starting to at least get some grasp of ASM's idea.


Before: the Communist Party wins at BOURGEOIS elections (the best variant), and then CP concedes AUTHORITY of the PARTY, creates CLASS proletarian parliament, and with it - authority of the CLASS.

Winning working class power through bourgeois elections is definitely a utopian concept in modern capitalism...and has been, really, since 1914.

But setting that aside, there is a more serious problem: that the victorious Communist Party "would concede authority" to the working class.

I simply can't imagine WHY they would do that.

Think about it -- the CP has been trying for decades to "win power"...and then they're just going to "give it up" to the class as a whole???

The whole idea runs "against the grain" of the way they've been thinking about social reality for all their lives...I think such a "leap" would be psychologically impossible.

It seems to me that it's necessary to reject the whole idea of a "communist" party.

Parties were invented by the bourgeoisie as a means of running a bourgeois political system -- like the bourgeois state apparatus itself, they have not proven to be of any positive benefit to the proletariat at all.

What we need, rather, is a communist movement...something far more open, flexible, responsive to the class, etc.

The purpose of this movement is not to "lead the workers" or "take power" -- it exists to communicate the goal of taking power to the working class itself.

In the course of this, it will participate in many working class struggles (and other struggles) against the despotism of capital...but it will not command any of them.


But this money are distributed in a commune not according to system of the wages (it is not present), but proportional socially necessary labour input (or s.n.l. consumption, I don't know what is more correct).

This is a technical consideration that is probably "over my head". As I understand it, "socially necessary labor time" is an abstraction -- something that has to exist according to Marxist economic theory but cannot directly be calculated because of the enormous number of variables involved.

We only know of its existence indirectly -- capitalist firms that put products on the market containing an excess of socially necessary labor must price their products too high...they are not competitive and eventually go bankrupt.

Trying to pay people for their labor according to the socially necessary labor time they contribute to a productive process would seem to me to be an intractable problem.

But then, as I've often admitted, I am very far from being an "expert" on Marxist economics.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 02:23 AM
What we need, rather, is a communist movement...something far more open, flexible, responsive to the class, etc.

The purpose of this movement is not to "lead the workers" or "take power" -- it exists to communicate the goal of taking power to the working class itself.

In the course of this, it will participate in many working class struggles (and other struggles) against the despotism of capital...but it will not command any of them.


That's been the direction the IRSM's been going the past ten years or so. We never considered ourselves 'The Vanguard' but now we've gone farther by making our goal the empowerment of the working class in preperation for a revolution, over merely empowering our party.

[sanpal]

ASM's last article seems to be very interesting: http://www.kprf.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10662
named as "Пролетарски-коммунистическая ревизия классического марксизма"
("Proletarian-communistic audit of classical marxism").

The article is begun with the next:


Let's try to carry out this audit on the basis of product of Engels « Fair wages for a fair working day » which is written as a certain audit of the previous views also. Given article of Engels was written 1 - 2 of May, 1881 for the newspaper « The Labour Standard » – opportunistic (as is specified in the note to article) the weekly English newspaper, body of trade unions. Article is one of a series of articles published by Engels in the specified newspaper.
ASM's comments is given « between lines » of Engels' article.

[Taiga]

No offense, Sanpal, but I don't understand why you're advertizing that article here, on the board where only both of us speak Russian well enough to understand it.
It seems senseless. :huh:

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:18 AM
No offense, Sanpal, but I don't understand why you're advertizing that article here, on the board where only both of us speak Russian well enough to understand it.
It seems senseless. :huh:
Good question, Taigusha :)
I'm far from littering of good forum such as revolutionaryleft which I
respect so much with an unimportant stuff. I suppose this material (ASM's articles) has particulary significant meaning in process of realization of scientific marxism. I'm ready to begin the translating of his works into English immediately if I would be able to do it as you can ;)

[Taiga]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2005, 12:06 AM
I'm ready to begin the translating of his works into English immediately if I would be able to do it as you can ;)
Is this a hint? :lol: :lol:


Taigusha
:rolleyes: