Socialism as a transitional society?

[KC]

Recently I have been thinking a lot about this. From what I've read I don't believe that people can go straight to communism. I think that socialism and communism are part of the same system which is to succeed capitalism. With a revolution in one state (I would say world but I don't see that happening any time soon), a socialist system could be created and implemented with a democratic government. The success of this state would encourage other states to come into being. Individually, socialist states will evolve through (dare I say!) reform towards communism but not directly to communism. Some issues - such as the abolition of money - must be done internationally. After and only after an international social revolution takes place can many of these issues which separate socialism from communism be abolished. After socialism is global, these issues can be reformed through the existing governments until a fully communist society is created.

So....agree or disagree? Am I a complete moron or what? :unsure:

[redstar2000]

Here is a discussion of socialism that you may find interesting...

Leninism as "Enlightened Despotism"? (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1098911204&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[KC]

Let me try to rewrite everything I said.

There will be a revolution in one state. As a consequence of this revolution, the power will be put into the hands of the proletariat. Agrarian reform and nationalization of all industries will be implemented. There will still be money, and personal income will be equal for all. Education and all of that good stuff will be free for all citizens of this state. A democratic government will be created to protect the interests of all the people; not a representative democracy!! The prosperity of this state will inspire others to implement this same system. Once this system is global, problems such as the abolition of money can be solved and a truly global communist society can start.

I don't know if that helps. I don't believe in despotism as it is more a way of reaching state capitalism than communism, so I just skimmed over that.

[encephalon]

I would agree with you in a comprehensive sense; that is, socialism is a necessary step towards communism. I think that's a basic tenant of marxist philosophy that many try to skim over. I think that is foolish.

Furthermore, I don't believe socialism would need to be violently overthrown to establish communism (that doesn't really make sense to me); nor do I think it would need to be pressed upon. That is, people will need a period of peace between capitalism and communism in order to be sufficently ready to live in a communist society. We cannot simply force greed out of people in a few years.. and the more it is tried with (violent) state repression, the more people will resent what they think is "socialism." The leftover greed from capitalist society (among many other issues) need not be eradicated by the death or imprisonment of all who exhibit it, but simply not allow that greed (or whatnot) to manifest into oppression. Socialism, as I see it, can only evolve towards communist society with time; and peaceful time at that.

Constant revolution is constant insecurity. Insecurity, in turn, leads to reactionary activity and vision (or rather lack thereof); in part, we face the same problem today. We can attack those reactionary sentiments as a revolutionary state, but I'm positive that would only lead to a strengthening opposition. Without a peaceful transition period after capitalism, no transition will ever occur.

As for your theory that "the success of a socialist state will catch on".. I'm not so sure. Unless it is an extremely large movement, a socialist state is unlikely to have the resources to survive long enough and well enough to prosper. I also think you underestimate the power of propaganda, especially to the subtle levels of near-perfection that capitalism has developed.

[kurt]

I do not think you will get much argument that socialism is nessacary in the transition to communism.

However, there is a grave problem that arises from the neccessity of this transitory society. If enough care is not taken, a socialist society can easily be turned into a mere depotism, and create yet another oppressive ruling class. Past experiences with perverse versions of a workers state under the false guise of socialism have shown us the dangers of taking away all civil liberties. There is a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and was indeed the case in many workers states that looked so promising in the beginning.

However, while we keep in mind that depostisms are not beneficial for the proletariat as a class, nor towards the development of socialism, it is extremely important to properly deal with revionists and counter-revolutionaries. If we give everyone too many liberties, we run the risk of the bourgeoisie overthrowing the workers.

Basicly, socialism is nessacary, but we must tread lightly, for we do not want to end up another ruling class, nor do we want to go back to capitalism.

[encephalon]

However, there is a grave problem that arises from the neccessity of this transitory society. If enough care is not taken, a socialist society can easily be turned into a mere depotism, and create yet another oppressive ruling class. Past experiences with perverse versions of a workers state under the false guise of socialism have shown us the dangers of taking away all civil liberties. There is a saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and was indeed the case in many workers states that looked so promising in the beginning.


I would argue that only true socialism will lead to communism, and true socialism can only be the dictatorship of the proletariat via *real* democracy (as was suggested); the concentrated power of the masses would be difficult to overcome, to say the least. I don't care how "progressive" a "socialist" despotism is.. if it's not run directly by the proletariat, it is not socialism.

[kurt]

Agreed, depotisms do not serve the proletariat, no matter how 'enlightened' they are. True socialist democracy is the only way to advance the revolution and solidify class conscience. The masses will not be content to continue on the path of revolution if their liberties are stripped from them all in the names of the revolution.

While I think we both agree on the necessity for true democracy that serves the interests of the proletariat, what measures would you propose in order to keep counter-revolutionaries and revisionists at bay?

[SonofRage]

I think there will be a transition, but I don't think there can be a role for State. I'm for a Stateless Socialism (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bakunin/stateless.html).

[encephalon]

While I think we both agree on the necessity for true democracy that serves the interests of the proletariat, what measures would you propose in order to keep counter-revolutionaries and revisionists at bay?

In a unified socialist society--run democratically by the masses--98% of the state would be the masses themselves. The 2% of capitalists (or former capitalists, rather, turned minority terrorist group) would honestly find it nearly impossible to overcome the unified purpose of 98% of the population; small groups have constituted the ruling class for so long because the lowest and largest class at any given period in hostory has been largely unorganized, fractured and deceived.

And, if such attempts are made, the socialist state would simply oppress the terrorists in the same fashion ruling classes having always oppressed the underclass; depending upon activity, severity of the consequence would vary.

As for the intermediate stage of founding a socialist state, it gets trickier--as one would assume that capitalist numbers, though a minority, would still remain a potent counter-revolutionary force in the beginning. Even moreso, the proletarians simply aren't going to shed their capitalist midset and mannerisms overnight. I do not believe greedy individuals should be horribly punished for the manifestation of their greed, but rather the outward manifestation into oppression should be made impractical, if not impossible. Punishing residual social phenomena from capitalism is essentially a bad idea.

As for capitalist terrorism.. if the only means is violence against said terrorists, then I would have to endorse such actions; but only as a last resort. This is, of course, after revolution, which would necessarily become violent as the capitalists resist the inversion of their social hierarchy.

As far as I'm concerned, violence should only be used against violence. There are much more effective ways to handle subversion otherwise; ways that won't incite compassion for the capitalists, as killings tend to do even for those that wish to destroy you.

In sum, I follow a line of thinking that socialism can only truly be founded when the very large majority of the masses stand organized behind it--not a vanguard. While the vanguard system may allow for faster siezure of the state, it is not a siezure of the proletariat, and many will oppose it even if they shouldn't.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:35 AM
I would argue that only true socialism will lead to communism, and true socialism can only be the dictatorship of the proletariat via *real* democracy (as was suggested); the concentrated power of the masses would be difficult to overcome, to say the least. I don't care how "progressive" a "socialist" despotism is.. if it's not run directly by the proletariat, it is not socialism.
States are not run directly by their ruling classes the same way that public companies are not run directly by their stock holders. The administrative tasks of actually running a government, in reality, must be performed by people dedicated to those tasks...people who may have been proletarian but are in essense bureaucrats...they are the employees of the ruling class. It would be impossible for workers to run the government directly because if they were doing that, they'd not be producing capital and therefore would not be workers.

But the existance of a bureacracy in no way constitutes a ruling class distinct from the workers...any more then bureacracies that exist in capitlist states constitute a ruling class distinct rom the capitalists. This is because ultimate and lasting power in society doesn't rest in the people running the civilian government but in the people they're accountable to, those who control the capital in society, especially those who control the means of production. It would be impossible for the bureaucrats to stay in power without the ruling classes support because the ruling class is where they draw their power from, because they finance the government; the same way that executives are accountable to their share holders.

So any possible arriangement where workers control the government, they'll control it via a bureacratic class and soldiers and police who they effectively employ, the same way that capitalists do. It would be absurd to think that the police or the government offices all the way to the head of state could govern a capitalist nation while violating the interests of the capitalists, it would leave them with no support base because the capitalists control the money and therefore the political power in capitalist states...the same with workers in workers states.

So the real question is not is not do the workers rule directly or is it a 'real' democracy but, is the economy composed of private property or collective property, or a mix and if its a mix which holds greater assets. Thats where you can see the effective balance of power in a state, not whether or not the head of state seems 'authoritarian' or not. No government save for a few tiny oil rich kingdoms represents its own ruling class, everything else is ruled 'indirectly.'

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by encephalon+--> (encephalon)We cannot simply force greed out of people in a few years...[/b]

Agreed...but if "greed" is wide-spread even in the revolutionary period, then why shouldn't whoever comes out on top move quickly to consolidate that position and begin enriching themselves?

The "socialism" argument is really based on the proposition that people may overthrow a capitalist ruling class...and yet "not" be "ready" to live in a communist society.

How can this be known now? And what purpose is served by simply assuming that such will be the case?


Originally posted by TragicClown+--> (TragicClown)But the existence of a bureaucracy in no way constitutes a ruling class distinct from the workers...any more then bureaucracies that exist in capitalist states constitute a ruling class distinct from the capitalists. This is because ultimate and lasting power in society doesn't rest in the people running the civilian government but in the people they're accountable to, those who control the capital in society, especially those who control the means of production. It would be impossible for the bureaucrats to stay in power without the ruling class's support because the ruling class is where they draw their power from, because they finance the government; the same way that executives are accountable to their share holders.

So any possible arrangement where workers control the government, they'll control it via a bureaucratic class and soldiers and police who they effectively employ, the same way that capitalists do. It would be absurd to think that the police or the government offices all the way to the head of state could govern a capitalist nation while violating the interests of the capitalists, it would leave them with no support base because the capitalists control the money and therefore the political power in capitalist states...the same with workers in worker's states.[/b]

That's a neat summary of the argument for a transitional "worker's state". Now, let's take it apart.

1. The "bureaucratic class" is "not" distinct from the workers.

Well, yes, they are distinct. Why? Because they stand in a different relationship to the means of production than the workers do.

Just like now, the workers under socialism go to work, carry out the orders of their superiors, get a paycheck, and go home.

The bureaucrats are the ones who give those orders and get a much larger paycheck (and many other privileges) in the process.

This material difference affects how the bureaucrats think of themselves...it generates a class consciousness of its own -- one that is distinctly different from that of ordinary workers.

Time passes...and the bureaucrat, whose job is to act like an owner, begins to think that he ought to be an owner.

Guess what happens next.

2. Bureaucrats are not a "distinct class" under capitalism, but rule "at the pleasure" of the capitalist ruling class.

That is true. But capitalist bureaucrats have a real incentive to serve their masters faithfully; when they leave or retire from government, they can count on many "consultant" positions that involve a great deal of pay for very little work. Some of them are even promoted into the ruling class itself.

This would not apply in a socialist society; for a bureaucrat to become an ordinary worker again would be a demotion...something to avoid by any means possible.

The "socialist bureaucrat" has a powerful material incentive to eliminate any accountability to the working class as quickly as he can.

3. The workers will "rule" through a bureaucratic class and soldiers and police.

Not for long they won't. In Russia, that particular combination of forces eliminated workers' power in a matter of months. By the spring of 1918, the soviets had become ceremonial bodies with no power to decide anything.


[email protected]
So the real question is not is not do the workers rule directly or is it a 'real' democracy but, is the economy composed of private property or collective property, or a mix and if it's a mix which holds greater assets.

History shows that this is not a "real" test at all. When a "socialist bureaucracy" transforms itself into a new ruling class, all that "collective property" ends up in the private hands of that new ruling class.

If workers actually were "the ruling class" in socialist societies, that "shouldn't happen". But it has happened...repeatedly.


encephalon
I would agree with you in a comprehensive sense; that is, socialism is a necessary step towards communism. I think that's a basic tenet of Marxist philosophy that many try to skim over. I think that is foolish.

The reason that some "foolish" folks (like me) try to "skim over" that "basic tenet of Marxist philosophy" is that it didn't work.

As far as I know, the ideas of Marx were not based on revelation but on the examination of material reality.

He did indeed think that a transitional society was necessary between capitalism and communism (though he did not use the word "socialism" to describe it). He seemed to think that the Paris Commune was a good illustration of what he had in mind when he used the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- ultra-democracy for the proletariat and ruthless repression for the old bourgeoisie.

My position is that the "Paris Commune state" is now the minimum acceptable form...and that we ought to be able to do even better than that.

Perhaps that is "foolish"...we shall see when the time comes.

But the sort of bureaucratized hyper-state (with soldiers and police!) that TragicClown advocates is just suicidal.

Even if you "win", you still lose!

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

[KC]

Agreed...but if "greed" is wide-spread even in the revolutionary period, then why shouldn't whoever comes out on top move quickly to consolidate that position and begin enriching themselves?

The "socialism" argument is really based on the proposition that people may overthrow a capitalist ruling class...and yet "not" be "ready" to live in a communist society.

How can this be known now? And what purpose is served by simply assuming that such will be the case?

This must be made clear in the presentation to the revolutionaries of what they are fighting for. It must be made completely clear that a dictatorship will NOT suffice and any attempt at one must be subverted. When the time is right, a new manifesto must be written, not to update the Communist Manifesto or anything like this. This new manifesto will detail what the people of the time are fighting for, it will be written according to current circumstances. Much like a "Declaration of Independence" if you will. :)

[TC]

In the line right before what you quoted i wrote:



It would be impossible for workers to run the government directly because if they were doing that, they'd not be producing capital and therefore would not be workers.

But the existence of a bureaucracy in no way constitutes a ruling class distinct from the workers


So you really misinterpreted what i was saying. I never said that the bureaucracy is not distinct from the workers, actually i said just the opposite, that it is. What i said was that it doesn't constitute a distinct *ruling*.




The bureaucrats are the ones who give those orders and get a much larger paycheck (and many other privileges) in the process.

You are assuming that bureaucrats in socialist economies are identical to those in capitalist economies, and in practice they are not. I never advocated giving bureaucrats larger paychecks, and the reality is that they are typically payed less then workers not more. For instance in the DPRK a blue collar manual laborer receives 6,000 won a month whereas a government bureaucrat receives only 2,000 won a month. The situation is similar in Cuba.

They are not managers in the capitalist sense because they do not have the ability to hire and fire people, as employment is guaranteed by the state, so the notion that socialsit civil servants are 'giving orders' the same way that managers do is incorrect. The simple fact is that running a government or a factory or basically anything complicated requires people to perform administrative tasks. If it didn't, then in capitalist societies there would only be capitalists and proletariat, there would be no white collar employees of the capitalists.




This material difference affects how the bureaucrats think of themselves...it generates a class consciousness of its own -- one that is distinctly different from that of ordinary workers.


This is true in capitalist societies but not in socialist socities. Bureaucrats *are* different from ordinary workers in that they work at desks, but in socialist socities the only material difference is that they have less access to material goods then workering class people. Bureaucrats are employees of the ruling class, whether its rural aristicrats, urban bourgeois or urban proletariat.




Time passes...and the bureaucrat, whose job is to act like an owner, begins to think that he ought to be an owner.

Owners *invest* capital, thats what makes them a distinct class. Bureaucrats don't. A secretary for instance could be a sort of bureaucrat in that they often perform administrative tasks and i doubt they start to think of themselves as owners. Not only do they not invest capital as owners do but they have a smaller share of the capital produced then the workers, so they are clearly not acting like owners. Not in socialist societies anyways.



Guess what happens next.

An unexplained, silent, mysterious counter revolution that magically transforms people into capitalists despite having no capital, so that anarchist dogma can hold that socialist states aren't *really* socialist? :-)



2. Bureaucrats are not a "distinct class" under capitalism, but rule "at the pleasure" of the capitalist ruling class.

That is true. But capitalist bureaucrats have a real incentive to serve their masters faithfully; when they leave or retire from government, they can count on many "consultant" positions that involve a great deal of pay for very little work. Some of them are even promoted into the ruling class itself.


Only the highest level capitalist bureaucrats can count on valuable consultant jobs, the rest do it for the same reason that they do in socialit societies, 1. because something attracts them to public service for *that* government and that way of life and 2. because they're getting payed.



This would not apply in a socialis t society; for a bureaucrat to become an ordinary worker again would be a demotion...something to avoid by any means possible.


Thats just not true. Why do you think Cuban doctors drive taxies, wait tables, work as miners? Because it pays more to have a working class job then a professional class job even if you have the education to do so.



The "socialist bureaucrat" has a powerful material incentive to eliminate any accountability to the working class as quickly as he can.


Thats like saying middle managers have a powerful material incentive to overthrow the executives and capitalists. People might have a desire to not be accountable to their employers but that doesn't mean they have the capability to just dismiss them, its a pure fantasy.



3. The workers will "rule" through a bureaucratic class and soldiers and police.

Not for long they won't. In Russia, that particular combination of forces eliminated workers' power in a matter of months. By the spring of 1918, the soviets had become ceremonial bodies with no power to decide anything.


The workers state became more centralized and effective. There is nothing magical about soviets that makes them the one and only way that workers can exercise power, they are just one administrative unit. It would be like saying that US states where city councils came to have more powers and responsibilities then county governments had a revolution or counter-revolution.

Revolutions that do not lead to effective states are crushed, because non-state entities cannot defend themselves from external state level organizations. There is no way the Soviet Union would have survived invasion from a score of imperialist countries if it didn't have an army.



History shows that this is not a "real" test at all. When a "socialist bureaucracy" transforms itself into a new ruling class, all that "collective property" ends up in the private hands of that new ruling class.

No, your interpretation of history which is based on bad theory doesn't consider it a "real" test because if it was it would run counter to Anarchist/Left Communist dogma (otherwise you might have to except the notion that government can be truely democratic).

Tell me how does a socialist bureaucracy, or for that matter, any individual or class, "transform" itself into a new ruling class? They just wave their hands and say "I'm in charge now, give me your factories!". Gee why can't proletariat do that in capitalist states?

One thing that i've always found funny about left-communism/anarchy is that they tend to believe that workers power can only come from revolution, not from reform within the system...but seem to think that when it comes to capitalist, the social reality of power dynamics are somehow suspended, sort of a sociological equivolent to the law of gravity no longer applying, and captialists are able to assume power by reform within the socialist system. You can't have it both ways, why would capitalists violently resist being deprived of their power and capital and investment but workers would just hand it over without a fight? Workers don't share the same human nature?

Speaking of what history shows, has there ever been a revolution in the history of humanity from the dawn of civilization to present day thats led to a non-state society, which hasn't been crushed from the outside or inside within a few years or less ? This isn't a theoretical question about what constitutes a state, whether the Paris Commune or Barcelona Kronstadt had states, but in your own definition of whats a state and whats not a state, any non-state revolution survive for three years? The only non-state societies are ones that have never had a state because they never had heavy agriculture or industry, and when they meet state societies they don't do so well either historically.



If workers actually were "the ruling class" in socialist societies, that "shouldn't happen". But it has happened...repeatedly.

Whether it has or hasn't happens depends on how much American propaganda you believe.



He seemed to think that the Paris Commune was a good illustration of what he had in mind when he used the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" -- ultra-democracy for the proletariat and ruthless repression for the old bourgeoisie.


Karl Marx told Wilhelm Liebknecht in a letter you can find on the internet that it was the Parisian revolutionaries own fault that their revolution failed because they wasted time by holding elections and organizing the Commune, that they should have rather attacked Versailles and finished off the essentially unarmed remainder of the defeated (by the Prussians) French government. Instead they gave Versailles time to raise an army.

Marx and Lenin and Mao respected the Paris commune as the first socialist revolution but they didn't see it as an ideal.



My position is that the "Paris Commune state" is now the minimum acceptable form...and that we ought to be able to do even better than that.

Right because, the Paris Commune style of government worked out just so well didn't it? lol


The Paris Commune lasted for only two months before being destroyed...and it wasn't to a massive imperialist power with overwhelming numbers and technological superiority. It was to another defunct psudo-state, defeated in war, based in a tiny little town, unable to get troops from any province (except a few from Britanny), no longer acting as anything close to a "French government."

The Paris Commune demonstrated exactly why decentralized organization fails. Each quarter and neighborhood of the city attempted to defend itself independently with no central organization to mount an effective resistance...so the Versailles little army was able to retake the city peice by peice; If the whole city had met the Versailles army together (which would have required centralization) they would have had a larger force and would have won, but since each segment of the city was individually smaller then the Versailles army they were able to retake all of them seperately.

Compare the Paris Commune to the "Free city of Fallujah"; that fought off an attack by the most powerful military in the world (not a defunct state like Versallies) and lasted nearly four times as long as the Commune, despite being a much much smaller city with an increadible technological disadvantage.




But the sort of bureaucratized hyper-state (with soldiers and police!) that TragicClown advocates is just suicidal.

Hyper-state? All states have soldiers, police, and bureaucrats, thats how a "state" is defined. If something doesn't have those characteristics its not a "state." I'm not talking about some kindof totalitarian micromanagement singapore style government, i'm just talking about having sufficent administration to run the functions that have to be carried out for an industrial society to survive.

The Paris Commune, as a direct result of its refusal to organize a centrally directed army to march on Versallies when it was virtually undefended, ended after *only two months* in a massacure...why would anyone want to have a revolution where the end result after two months is 70,000 people killed and the old government restored? How was that not suicidal?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TragicClown
It would be impossible for workers to run the government directly because if they were doing that, they'd not be producing capital and therefore would not be workers.

Replacing class with caste, eh?

No, that's not acceptable. Any sort of reasonable worker's "government" would rotate administrative posts on a frequent basis.

Your conception would lead only to a permanent bureaucracy...that would, in time, become a proto-ruling class.

And then a ruling class, period.


I never advocated giving bureaucrats larger paychecks, and the reality is that they are typically payed less then workers not more. For instance in the DPRK a blue collar manual laborer receives 6,000 won a month whereas a government bureaucrat receives only 2,000 won a month. The situation is similar in Cuba.

Are you serious?

Hell, I'll work for a paycheck of $0.00 -- as long as my employer will generously supply any damn thing I want. Fancy house, fancy car, imported luxuries...well, shit, who cares what the paycheck says?


They are not managers in the capitalist sense because they do not have the ability to hire and fire people, as employment is guaranteed by the state, so the notion that socialist civil servants are 'giving orders' the same way that managers do is incorrect.

This I will concede...but, a boss can make your life pretty damn unpleasant without actually firing you.

If you are really a pain-in-the-ass, he'll get your sorry ass transfered to shoveling pig turds.

They'll call it "socialist re-education". :o


The simple fact is that running a government or a factory or basically anything complicated requires people to perform administrative tasks.

Indeed...but where is it written that they "must be" a permanent and privileged elite? Max Weber? :lol:


Bureaucrats *are* different from ordinary workers in that they work at desks, but in socialist societies the only material difference is that they have less access to material goods than working class people.

No, they do not have "less access to material goods" than workers.

I'm amazed that you repeat this absurd myth in light of the well-documented discrepancies between workers and bureaucrats in all the "socialist states"...to the disadvantage of the working class.


Owners *invest* capital, that's what makes them a distinct class. Bureaucrats don't.

Semantics. To the extent the "socialist bureaucrat" makes the decisions that an owner would make, he will inevitably develop a "class" consciousness parallel to that of an owner.

And since the working class has no power to stop him (the police and soldiers obey him, not the workers), he will "advance himself" -- along with his counterparts -- into the position of a new ruling class.


A secretary, for instance, could be a sort of bureaucrat in that they often perform administrative tasks and I doubt they start to think of themselves as owners.

We're not really speaking of that level of the bureaucracy...as I think you very well know. Although, my experience has been that secretaries develop a strong psychological attachment to their bosses...and when given the chance to act "independently", often do what they think their boss would do.

We are talking about workplace managers, central planners, police and military elites, and, highest of all, the ruling circles in the party.

The guys who say "shit!" and everybody squats.


An unexplained, silent, mysterious counter revolution that magically transforms people into capitalists despite having no capital, so that anarchist dogma can hold that socialist states aren't *really* socialist?

Counter-revolution has nothing to do with "anarchist dogma" (whatever that is) and is not in the least "mysterious".

If your social role is "boss", then you will, sooner or later, think like a boss.

No mystery; material reality prevails.


Only the highest level capitalist bureaucrats can count on valuable consultant jobs...

Well, who the hell are we talking about here...the mailman?


Why do you think Cuban doctors drive taxis, wait tables, work as miners?

I doubt very much that any Cuban doctors work as miners. They do drive taxis and wait tables to gain access to foreign currency.

The ordinary Cubans who work in tourist-related business for hard currency can live pretty decently. A bureaucrat who gets a hard-currency allowance (or can tap a hard currency account) lives even better.

The ordinary Cuban with no access to hard currency is "in the shit".

And what do doctors have to do with this question anyway?


Thats like saying middle managers have a powerful material incentive to overthrow the executives and capitalists.

They do. But their consciousness is "individual", not collective. The ambitious "middle manager" wants his boss's job...and then his boss's boss's job.

The question of how "socialist bureaucracies" develop a collective interest in becoming a new ruling class is a good one -- my initial hypothesis is that the party serves as a kind of scaffold to build this consciousness on.

Everyone above the rank of basic party member must be dimly conscious of the party as fundamental defender of their privileges...and the higher up they move, the sharper that consciousness must be.


The workers' state became more centralized and effective. There is nothing magical about soviets that makes them the one and only way that workers can exercise power, they are just one administrative unit.

I don't know how you dare to use the word "magical" in this context.

To be sure, the USSR became more centralized and "effective"...despotisms often are more effective than other forms of decision-making.

The nagging problem is that despotisms almost always make decisions that favor the despots and crap on their subjects.

A "benevolent despotism" is an oxymoron.


Revolutions that do not lead to effective states are crushed, because non-state entities cannot defend themselves from external state level organizations.

Time to play dogma, is it?

Ok, here's my move.

Revolutions that do not immediately and permanently incorporate effective organs of proletarian democracy rot from within and restore capitalism.

So, which way would you prefer to lose?


No, your interpretation of history which is based on bad theory doesn't consider it a "real" test because if it was it would run counter to Anarchist/Left Communist dogma.

The historical record is plain enough...and has nothing to do with dogma.


Tell me how does a socialist bureaucracy, or for that matter, any individual or class, "transform" itself into a new ruling class? They just wave their hands and say "I'm in charge now, give me your factories!".

Hardly.

There are several techniques...which we've actually observed in Russia and China.

In Russia, the rationale was that "the revolution is in danger" -- so the party was granted "extraordinary powers" (or just grabbed them). And, no surprise, they kept them.

In China, the rationale was "the urgent need to economically develop"...or "to get rich is glorious".

The process takes time, of course. But it really works.


One thing that I've always found funny about left-communism/anarchy is that they tend to believe that workers power can only come from revolution, not from reform within the system...but seem to think that when it comes to capitalists, the social reality of power dynamics are somehow suspended, sort of a sociological equivalent to the law of gravity no longer applying, and capitalists are able to assume power by reform within the socialist system. You can't have it both ways...

No, it's a very different situation.

In capitalist societies, capitalists have state power...that must be overthrown by the working class.

In "socialist societies", state power is already in the hands of the party bureaucracy...they can easily "reform" themselves into capitalists without the need for any sort of revolution.


...why would capitalists violently resist being deprived of their power and capital and investment, but workers would just hand it over without a fight?

In prior "socialist revolutions", it is at least questionable whether the working class as a whole really thought it was "fit to rule"...had the self-confidence required to become a new ruling class.

That was the case, you know, for a long time with the rising bourgeoisie. They still thought in terms of a "pro-business" king, aristocrat, despot, etc. It really wasn't until the second half of the 19th century that capitalists realized that if they wanted the job done right, they had to do it themselves. Modern capitalist societies are increasingly administered by people who've grown up as part of the ruling class...a trend I expect to see continue and expand.

In this century, I expect to see proletarian revolutions where the working class does have the self-confidence to rule directly...and dispense with despot-wannabes, "enlightened" or otherwise.


Speaking of what history shows, has there ever been a revolution in the history of humanity from the dawn of civilization to present day that's led to a non-state society, which hasn't been crushed from the outside or inside within a few years or less?

Nope.

Nevertheless, I think it's better to fight for what you want and fail than to fight for what you don't won't...and still fail.


Whether it has or hasn't happens depends on how much American propaganda you believe.

Really getting desperate, aren't you?

Everyone on this board knows that I mindlessly repeat "American propaganda" at every opportunity.

:lol: :lol: :lol:


Karl Marx told Wilhelm Liebknecht in a letter you can find on the internet that it was the Parisian revolutionaries own fault that their revolution failed because they wasted time by holding elections and organizing the Commune, that they should have rather attacked Versailles and finished off the essentially unarmed remainder of the defeated (by the Prussians) French government. Instead they gave Versailles time to raise an army.

Marx and Engels wrote lots of letters that said lots of things.

Letters were the "internet chat" of the 19th century.

I think it's better to rely on what they actually saw fit to publish in their lifetimes as the product of their most serious thinking...and not whatever casual notion that may have occurred to them.


The Paris Commune demonstrated exactly why decentralized organization fails. Each quarter and neighborhood of the city attempted to defend itself independently with no central organization to mount an effective resistance...so the Versailles little army was able to retake the city piece by piece; If the whole city had met the Versailles army together (which would have required centralization) they would have had a larger force and would have won, but since each segment of the city was individually smaller then the Versailles army they were able to retake all of them separately.

Well, maybe you're right...I wasn't there when the tactics of defending Paris were decided on and neither were you. There may have been good military arguments for the decisions of the Commune...and maybe not.

But it does not "demonstrate why decentralized organization fails". It was one battle...not the whole history of all military encounters.

Your mention of the Iraqi resistance in Fallujah is interesting. My understanding of the Iraqi resistance is that it is decentralized...and continues no matter who the Americans intern (some 17,000 at last count).

Decentralization appears to be their strength.


Hyper-state? All states have soldiers, police, and bureaucrats, thats how a "state" is defined.

Ah, that such innocence still exists in our cynical world. ;)

Unfortunately, whenever one encounters it, one knows that it's fake..

Tell me, which role appeals to you?

Soldier, cop, or bureaucrat?

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

[workersunity]

yes socialism needs to come first, to oppress the capitalist institutions and set up the stage for communism, anything short of this is impossible, i.e. anarchism

no offense ya'll

[MKS]

Socialism should be permament, government is nessecary.

[Black Dagger]

yes socialism needs to come first, to oppress the capitalist institutions and set up the stage for communism,


Socialism should be permament, government is nessecary.

You two have more in common than you may think, 'no offense ya'll'.

[MKS]

Socialism, to me is the perfection of society, and I still contend that government is nessecary, if only for administration. Like it or not the masses need to be controlled, in order to protect the intrests of the community. Wheter you organize a commune or set up an executive office, there still is control over the masses, or the movement of the masses in order to maintain order. Sometimes however what the masses wnat is not nessecarily good (for example the masses in Nazi Germany wanted the Nazis in power, which was not good. In the south of the US before civil rights the masses of people wanted segregation, which was bad) my point being sometimes laws are needed in order to protect all the people, even minorities.
I do beleive men are not "bad" by nature, but by social conditioning, but why try to undo thousands of years of conditioning, it would be drudgingly (sp) slow. Instead a democratic socialist govrnement is needed to ensure the protection of the people, to maintain order and to administrate.

[KC]

Communism has government. Engels clearly stated that a democratic government should be used in a communist society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS)Like it or not, the masses need to be controlled, in order to protect the interests of the community.[/b]

Since any capitalist or bureaucrat would enthusiastically agree with you, I have to ask: why are you at this board?

And, just out of curiosity, who do you imagine will be in charge of "controlling the masses"?


Lazar
Engels clearly stated that a democratic government should be used in a communist society.

Um...no, he didn't say that, at least to the best of my knowledge.

Communist society has no government at all in the sense the word is now used -- a professional bureaucracy supported by a professional police force and a professional army.

No doubt there would be a wide variety of social organs for decision-making and they'd certainly be "hyper-democratic"...but, in communist society, there's be nothing that you could point to and say "there's the state" or "there's the government".

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

[KC]

The Principles Of Communism:

What will be the course of this revolution?

Above all, it will establish a democratic constitution, and through this, the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat.

[MKS]

Since any capitalist or bureaucrat would enthusiastically agree with you, I have to ask: why are you at this board?

Well history has shown that sometimes the sentiement of the majority is sometimes not one that values equality, freedom and justice. The origin of the sentiment is not important. Such sentiments hopefully rare in a socialist society must be guarded against. I am on this board because I do belive in socialism, in the rule by the people. However a leadership is nessecary, if only for administration but also to ensure the "rights" of all the people are protected.



And, just out of curiosity, who do you imagine will be in charge of "controlling the masses"?

A limited leadership elected by the people, but with a mandate to consider the intrests of the entire community and not those of the popular majority.

A great book I read : The Revolt of the Masses by Jose Ortega y Gasset.
The book surmised that the masses need leadership, in order to protect against a gradual decline into decandence and that man will become but a creature of routine, and empty motion. Such laxivity allows corruption and an easment to persusaion, halts original thought and creates an almost blind acceptance. We must guard against such attitudes as to guard against a re-emergence of capitalism and exploitation.

Do I agree with the above. I do, to a point. The masses do need positive leadership, in order to maintain a moral code that will uphold the ideals of the society and guard against the decadence that could destory any revoltuionary work.

Gasset also said in his book : "Communism is an extravangent moral code, but nothing less than a moral code"
I thought that was interesting. I think he was refering more to Leninism/communism, which ruled Russia, and not pure Communism.

(Gasset was not a communist by any means, he was a Spanish Republican, and some people compare his work The Revolt of the Masses to Marx's Das Kapital, in terms of importance.)

[KC]

Direct democracy. Society will be organized into "communes"; typically groups of up to 150 people (I heard somewhere that humans work best in groups of up to 150 people as that is the maximum number of people that the human brain can remember or something like that). Communes and/or groups of communes can have a "local government". Larger groups of communes can have "state government". Even larger can have "national government" if necessary. If there are such things as countries, these would only be used for political and geographical purposes as one will be able to travel freely as if all land is one nation. Politicians will only be the people that will report the numbers and I have no idea because I have never thought about exactly what they would do and it's too big of a task to take up right now. Police are necessary, as is a court system. "Police," in the most developed form of communism, will be a job like any other. "Communal" watch programs will be in every "commune". Judges will be a job like any other. There will be a written set of laws.

[redstar2000]

Well, let's get this misunderstanding about Engels out of the way first.

The "principles of communism" was not a published work; it was a draft manuscript for what became The Communist Manifesto.

At the time those documents were composed, both Engels and Marx thought that bourgeois revolutions leading to democratic governments would indeed "secure the direct or indirect dominance of the proletariat".

That turned out not to be true.

But, more importantly, it also turned out to be irrelevant to communism after the Paris Commune. From that event, Marx and Engels drew the conclusion that the old bourgeois "democracy" must be smashed and its army, police, bureaucracy, etc. dispersed.

Nor did they suggest that the proletariat set up a "fresh version" of all those institutions; if anything, the implication of their comments about the Paris Commune was that the role of any proletarian "state apparatus" should be steadily reduced until it no longer existed at all.


Originally posted by Lazar+--> (Lazar)Police are necessary, as is a court system. "Police," in the most developed form of communism, will be a job like any other....Judges will be a job like any other. There will be a written set of laws.[/b]

No.


Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS)The Revolt of the Masses surmised that the masses need leadership, in order to protect against a gradual decline into decadence, and that man will become but a creature of routine and empty motion. Such laxity allows corruption and an easement to persuasion, halts original thought, and creates an almost blind acceptance.[/b]

Ortega y Gasset was a wealthy aristocratic "philosopher" who despised the masses as "uncultured" and "barbaric".

http://www.historyguide.org/europe/gasset.html

He was a respected professor in Madrid after 1948...under Franco.


[email protected]
The masses do need positive leadership, in order to maintain a moral code that will uphold the ideals of the society and guard against the decadence that could destroy any revolutionary work.

It's interesting that "decadence" and the "masses" are always coupled in reactionary paradigms.

Historically speaking, it is precisely the leading elites of various societies who have been infamously decadent...they are the ones, after all, who have the material resources to engage in large-scale decadent activities.

"Decadence", of course, is from the word "decay" and usually refers to "morals" and "art"...entirely subjective phenomena.

No one actually knows what "decadence" really is...because no one knows what "morality" or "art" really is.

But the masses always "take the rap" for "decadence".

In my view, the whole concept of "decadence" is utterly without meaning.


MKS
However a leadership is necessary, if only for administration, but also to ensure the "rights" of all the people are protected.

Note that you correctly set the word "rights" within quotation marks...because they also have no objective definition.

The argument you appear to be making runs...

1. The masses will impose a "tyranny of the majority" if they are permitted to govern themselves;

2. That tyranny is likely to be "decadent" or "barbaric";

3. Therefore, a government (or, more abstractly, "leadership") is needed to control the masses and keep them from mis-behaving.

All the weight is on No. 2...is that true?

The communist position is that it is not true. Whatever the masses decide will be less decadent and less barbaric than any possible leadership.

You are free to argue otherwise, of course. But you will not have an easy time of it.

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

[MKS]

Ortega y Gasset was a wealthy aristocratic "philosopher" who despised the masses as "uncultured" and "barbaric".

I dont think he despised the masses, he instead believed that the masses needed leadership in order to strive for excellence, and keep a vibrant and active populous.


He was a respected professor in Madrid after 1948...under Franco

Gasset was a staunch supporter of the Republic and served in its parliment before the outbreak of the civil war, he was forced to flee from Spain but returned and continued his studies. Yes he lived under Franco, many Spainiards did, but he wasnt a facist.
However he was very anti-communist and warned Europe that the ensuing decadence would lead to the perversion of Communism.


"Decadence", of course, is from the word "decay" and usually refers to "morals" and "art"...entirely subjective phenomena.
Quote from redstar2000

The decanance he speaks of is a laxcivity of consciousness, that is the creation of a meaningless, mechanical man who is easily persuaded. Such decadence can allow for such sentiments of: fascism, racism etc. Sentiments which in my view are corrosive and go against the intrests of the people.




The argument you appear to be making runs...

1. The masses will impose a "tyranny of the majority" if they are permitted to govern themselves;

2. That tyranny is likely to be "decadent" or "barbaric";


The masses wont nessecarily make a tyranny of the majority but could. History gives examples of majority opinions that were moraly wrong. It is easy to argue the subjective nature of right and wrong, but I think all will agree when I say racism is wrong, fascism is wrong, and slavery is wrong. As stated before, hopefully such sentiments will be destoryed by a socialist/communist revolution, but just in case a leadership is needed to guard against such things and ensure all of the people are protected.
Can the masses govern themselves, will they be less decadent or less barbaric than a leadership? Only after the years of social conditionig has been destoryed and new man built, than maybe the masses will be able to govern themselves. However I contend such a destruction of conditioning would be next to impossible, and the masses themselves would fight against it. And this brings me to one of the biggest questions I have about Communism. How does communist thought porpose to destory the social and cultural conditioning of the people? I believe the Marxist answer is the material reality be as such that they will begin the destruction themselves, but is that really possible?
Presuming that the destrcution of social conditioning would be a fruitless taks, I do assert that a limited leadership is needed in order to ensure the well being of the community, to protect all people and to guard against corrosive sentiments that may weaken the revolution.

[KC]

Why couldn't there be a government in a communist society? Because the people in charge will become power-hungry? According to materialism this is false. people will grow up in an environment that doesn't encourage the exploitation of others (i.e. capitalism) and therefore this hunger for power will not occur.

The two problems with politicians becoming more powerful presently are obvious; the influence of big business in politics and money itself. In a transitional socialist state, all business will be nationalized and all people will be paid equal. Since working is the only means of acquiring money (no such thing as investing), people will not be able to "gain power" without breaking laws written in a constitution.

Since the beginning of agriculture, commodities and money have been the two factors in causing power. This solves both problems.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by MKS+--> (MKS)As stated before, hopefully such sentiments will be destroyed by a socialist/communist revolution, but just in case a leadership is needed to guard against such things and ensure all of the people are protected.[/b]

But why do you assume that bad ideas "come from the masses"?

It seems to me much more historically accurate to say that bad ideas have their origins in traditional elites -- or old ruling classes, to use the Marxist terminology.

Take the wide-spread anti-semitism that was a factor in the rise of the Nazis. That wasn't an invention of the German masses; it was invented by proto-Byzantine Catholic hierarchs back in the fourth and fifth centuries and brought to Germany after the collapse of the Roman Empire in the west. It was elaborated by Martin Luther and the northern German princes in the 16th century. It was made "scientific" by elite German intellectuals in the second half of the 19th century and adopted by many leading German conservatives in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Nazis themselves, when the whole party would have fit in a phone booth, were actively (and financially) encouraged by Bavarian and Prussian elitists.

The German masses were not "spontaneously barbaric" (as someone like Ortega would have it)...they were taught to be anti-semitic throughout their history by their "social betters".

I suspect that if you looked closely at any reactionary mass movement, you'd find at least portions of the traditional social elites directly involved in its creation and financing and publicizing.

Barbaric ideas come from the leaders.

If the masses were free to choose their own course, I'm sure they'd fuck up too...perhaps even barbarously.

But less so than what they turn out to be willing to do when their leaders command them.


Only after the years of social conditioning has been destroyed and new man built, than maybe the masses will be able to govern themselves.

I don't see why we need a "new man" especially constructed for this purpose. Ordinary men (and women) when free to implement their own preferences are usually pretty damn decent -- it's when they follow a "great leader" that they discover what may be the real appeal of "followership".

I am no longer responsible for what I do.

I can loot, rape, murder indiscriminately because it's the will of the leader that I do those things...and the responsibility is his!


However I contend such a destruction of conditioning would be next to impossible, and the masses themselves would fight against it.

Well, some would...certainly. But I contend that it will be the masses themselves who will fight to liberate themselves from all the old social conditioning.

Leaders would, at best, just get in the way.


How does communist thought propose to destroy the social and cultural conditioning of the people? I believe the Marxist answer is the material reality [will] be such that they will begin the destruction themselves, but is that really possible?

It's happening even as we speak. For example, in my own lifetime I've actually seen the sharp decline of sexism among working class men.

Not that the process is anywhere close to completion...but it's steadily taking place. The use of physical violence against women or children is no longer considered a "manly" thing to do...it's considered disgusting and barbaric.

Did that happen because the American elite decided to do that and to "enforce" that "new outlook" on working class men whether they liked it or not?

Or was it large numbers of ordinary young women who fought tenaciously for that change in social attitudes...dragging a very reluctant elite in their wake?

In fact, is it not the most reactionary part of that elite -- the Christian fascists, the professional military, etc. -- who continue to work vigorously to force women "back in their place"?


Lazar
Why couldn't there be a government in a communist society?

Because it would serve no purpose and lack any useful function.

It would be like saying "why can't we have a King under communism"?

What for?

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

[red_che]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 05:42 AM
I would agree with you in a comprehensive sense; that is, socialism is a necessary step towards communism. I think that's a basic tenant of marxist philosophy that many try to skim over. I think that is foolish.

Furthermore, I don't believe socialism would need to be violently overthrown to establish communism (that doesn't really make sense to me); nor do I think it would need to be pressed upon. That is, people will need a period of peace between capitalism and communism in order to be sufficently ready to live in a communist society. We cannot simply force greed out of people in a few years.. and the more it is tried with (violent) state repression, the more people will resent what they think is "socialism." The leftover greed from capitalist society (among many other issues) need not be eradicated by the death or imprisonment of all who exhibit it, but simply not allow that greed (or whatnot) to manifest into oppression. Socialism, as I see it, can only evolve towards communist society with time; and peaceful time at that.

Constant revolution is constant insecurity. Insecurity, in turn, leads to reactionary activity and vision (or rather lack thereof); in part, we face the same problem today. We can attack those reactionary sentiments as a revolutionary state, but I'm positive that would only lead to a strengthening opposition. Without a peaceful transition period after capitalism, no transition will ever occur.

As for your theory that "the success of a socialist state will catch on".. I'm not so sure. Unless it is an extremely large movement, a socialist state is unlikely to have the resources to survive long enough and well enough to prosper. I also think you underestimate the power of propaganda, especially to the subtle levels of near-perfection that capitalism has developed.
I agree that socialism is the transition towards communism. In addition, socialism is not merely a transition, it is the early/embryonic stage of communism. Only that it is established on a State-to-State basis. It is only when all or a substantial number of Socialist States (maybe 2/3) can Communism or steps in building a communist society be started.


Socialism, as I see it, can only evolve towards communist society with time; and peaceful time at that.


Without a peaceful transition period after capitalism, no transition will ever occur

However, this notion that Socialism can only evolve towards Communism in a peaceful time is somewhat irregular or unthinkable. Marx and Lenin both said that Socialism is an entirely revolutionary transition towards communism. It is a time when the Bourgeois class would try to regain power ten times more violent than when they tried to maintain power during their rule in capitalism.

There maybe a "peaceful" time only when all the Bourgeois influences and remnants have been shattered. And that would happen only in the later part (a relatively short time) of the entire Socialist transition. For the most part of Socialism, the proletariat and all communists will be preoccupied in severing all bourgeois/capitalist influences in all portions of social structure (i.e. economy, politics, culture). Mao realized this and have said that a Continuing Revolution is needed. A revolution aimed at not only laying the foundations for socialism and communism (economic and political revolution), but more importantly a cultural revolution to remove/shatter capitalist/bourgeois ideology and culture.

Socialism will be an entire epoch in the history of mankind. It is a long and revolutionary society to attain the highest level of society that mankind could achieve, so far, that is communism.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Socialism will be an entire epoch in the history of mankind.

You know it wouldn't be so bad if the folks who agreed with that sentiment would just stop calling themselves communists.

In their eyes, communism is like "the return of Jesus"...something that takes place on the day after never.

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

[TC]

Redstar2000

Thanks for taking the time to respond to my points. I've enjoyed debating you sorry for the delay:






Are you serious?

Hell, I'll work for a paycheck of $0.00 -- as long as my employer will generously supply any damn thing I want. Fancy house, fancy car, imported luxuries...well, shit, who cares what the paycheck says?

This is simply not how it works in Cuba. Working for the government does not afford any special privileges. If you think otherwise, show some evidence of it (more credible then 'someone in Miami said so').



This I will concede...but, a boss can make your life pretty damn unpleasant without actually firing you.

If you are really a pain-in-the-ass, he'll get your sorry ass transfered to shoveling pig turds.

There aren't "bosses" in the capitalist sense, stop projecting the social dynamics created in capitalism to socialist situations. Not that any co-worker can't make another co-workers life a unpleasant to an extent. People arent' transphered around the country like if they were working for a US corporation.






The simple fact is that running a government or a factory or basically anything complicated requires people to perform administrative tasks.


Indeed...but where is it written that they "must be" a permanent and privileged elite? Max Weber? :lol:



But where did i write that they "must be" a permanent and privileged elite? I didn't you just came up with that on your own. I'm not arguing that. Administrators in socialist states shouldn't be an 'elite'...and though i don't object to them being virtually permanent if accountable to the workers. By that i mean, Fidel Castro is in a 'virtually' permanent leadership position in Cuba in that he is very unlikely to ever lose a national assembly election or a referendum on his office, nor is his constituency, Santiago de cuba, ever likely not to appoint him to the National Assembly, but if he were ever to have a change of heart and do somethign against the people, he would lose the next referendum on his presidency and/or his assembly seat. But since Cuba is a highly consolidated socialist state, there are no other political forces to appease besides the people so he would have no motivation to do so (whereas, in a capitalist country like Brazil, even a socialist/communist president like Lula is forced into positions where he has to appease the interests of private property, which is just another example of why government administrators or not independent from the ruling class, regardless of their ideology). Also any laws of any significance in Cuba are always put to popular referendum, which is really unusual, and gives the Cuban people an effective direct veto over basically any significant government action.

But i don't see any reason why people in administrative positions have to or ought to be permanent either.




I'm amazed that you repeat this absurd myth in light of the well-documented discrepancies between workers and bureaucrats in all the "socialist states"...to the disadvantage of the working class.


Lol. Well documented eh? Can we see some documentation to that effect on contemporary Cuba? lol i'm not asking much cuase its so well-documented that i'm sure you'll be able to find it in a second right? Some hard facts not vague speculation by Forbs or anecdotes by Cuban exiles.






Owners *invest* capital, that's what makes them a distinct class. Bureaucrats don't.

Semantics. To the extent the "socialist bureaucrat" makes the decisions that an owner would make, he will inevitably develop a "class" consciousness parallel to that of an owner.



Its not a semantics if you understand the concepts of 'capital' and investment. According to your hypothesis here, you would think that stock brokers would inevitably develop a "class" conciousness parallel to the capitalists they work for, and then i guess, steal their money? Does that happen in real life? Not so much no. Even if socialist bureaucrats charged with planning development, or capitalist stock brokers, were to "develop a 'class' conciousness parallel to that of an owner", which is in of itself absurd, that class conciousness doesn't mean they're going to be able to become owners. The only reason why proletarian class conciousness allows them to take control of property is on account of their numbers, students for instance tend to be very 'class concious' but it doesn't bring them to power does it (except in China, almost)?




And since the working class has no power to stop him (the police and soldiers obey him, not the workers), he will "advance himself" -- along with his counterparts -- into the position of a new ruling class.

Civilian workers are often armed for the express purpose of keeping the government in check, ensuring that a coup de'tat by an anti-worker group can be defeated, and to make foreign occupation much more difficult, at least in Cuba, Venezuala, and the DPRK (the later two having vastly larger numbers of civilian worker militas then regular soldiers).

The soldiers themselves obey officials elected by and directly accountable to the workers, or at least they do when there are minimal competing class interests (in venezuela for instance there were soldiers loyal to the still powerful capitalist class, against the government). This isn't a theoretical thing, but something that works in practice. In Cuba for instance, soldiers/police have never been used to surpress a demonstration, have never fired on a crowd or protest, have never acted against organized workers.




A secretary, for instance, could be a sort of bureaucrat in that they often perform administrative tasks and I doubt they start to think of themselves as owners.

We're not really speaking of that level of the bureaucracy...as I think you very well know. Although, my experience has been that secretaries develop a strong psychological attachment to their bosses...and when given the chance to act "independently", often do what they think their boss would do.


Maybe you're not speaking of that level of bureaucracy because you're concern is any kind of authority or hierarchy, but i am talking about all levels of administration including people like secretaries and clerks, because i'm concerned with thinsg working practically and practically speaking complicated organizations don't run without low level bureaucrats. I think people tend to do what their bosses would want because it leads to rewards; George Bush's 'boss' are capitalists, the top 1% that he gave the tax breaks to, and Fidel Castro's 'boss' is the proletariat in his country, Hu Jintao's is a mix both, and all three act according to the same principle.



The guys who say "shit!" and everybody squats.


Please. Authority that would warrent analogies like that hasn't existed since feudalism. Power is not so concentrated in capitalist states let alone socialist ones.




Counter-revolution has nothing to do with "anarchist dogma" (whatever that is) and is not in the least "mysterious".

If your social role is "boss", then you will, sooner or later, think like a boss.

No mystery; material reality prevails.


Thinking like a boss doesn't make you turn into a boss anymore then clicking your heals and thinking about home will make you wind up in Kansas. What you're describing has nothing to do with any 'material reality.'

Administrators and bosses are distinct functions, even in capitalism many administrators have no function as bosses (they don't hire and fire employees) or owners (they don't invest or own profits) and many bosses have no function as administrators (they simply delagate administrative tasks). When administrators have none of the roles of a boss, they do not have a bosses social role, the fact that the two jobs are often combined in contemporary capitalist society (whereas, they didn't always used to be, there used to be more of a ruling 'leisure' class) does not imply any relation in socialist society.





Only the highest level capitalist bureaucrats can count on valuable consultant jobs...

Well, who the hell are we talking about here...the mailman?


Don't think i share your preoccupation with authority positions. I was using 'bureaucrat' because what 'bureaucrats' are are people who carry out administrative procedures not strictly people who make policy who would rarely be called bureaucrats.





Why do you think Cuban doctors drive taxis, wait tables, work as miners?

I doubt very much that any Cuban doctors work as miners. They do drive taxis and wait tables to gain access to foreign currency.

The ordinary Cubans who work in tourist-related business for hard currency can live pretty decently. A bureaucrat who gets a hard-currency allowance (or can tap a hard currency account) lives even better.

The ordinary Cuban with no access to hard currency is "in the shit".



Mining in Cuba is one of the very most highly paid occupations (much more so then white collar workers) because its dirty and given that *everyone* in cuba's basic standard of living is ensured by the government people have to have additional compensation to want to take difficult jobs. Foreign currency is no longer in circulation in Cuba as of november 2004, no bureaucrats have hard-currency allowances they have always been payed in pesos, they don't have accounts for personal use, what you're describing is a pure fantasy. The ordinary Cuban has the highest standard of living in the third world by all quality of life measures, with health care and education standards comperable to the US or western Europe, i don't know how thats "in the shit." Check the UN statistics on Cuban life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy, homelessness and unemployment. No country with Cuba's GNP per capita comes even close.




And what do doctors have to do with this question anyway?

Because doctors are the sterotype of a profession thats highly paid in capitalist countries and not in Cuba. Doctors driving taxies is the sterotype no?




The question of how "socialist bureaucracies" develop a collective interest in becoming a new ruling class is a good one -- my initial hypothesis is that the party serves as a kind of scaffold to build this consciousness on.

That might be true if there were political parties for bureaucrats, but ruling Communist parties are parties for workers, whose membership is overwhelmingly workers. Even the chinese communist party that theoreticaly includes some capitalists excludes them from gaining any status or position in the party or government.




Everyone above the rank of basic party member must be dimly conscious of the party as fundamental defender of their privileges...and the higher up they move, the sharper that consciousness must be.


Any status or social esteem that people get from high office depends on continueing to please the people who put them their, in the case of a communist party that would be the workers, so you would think they'd be more loyal not less.




The nagging problem is that despotisms almost always make decisions that favor the despots and crap on their subjects.

A "benevolent despotism" is an oxymoron.


I'm arguing for democratic socialist states, not 'benevolent despotism', stop projecting your political insecurities. :-p





Revolutions that do not lead to effective states are crushed, because non-state entities cannot defend themselves from external state level organizations.

Time to play dogma, is it?

Ok, here's my move.

Revolutions that do not immediately and permanently incorporate effective organs of proletarian democracy rot from within and restore capitalism.

So, which way would you prefer to lose?


You do not dispute my claim there has never been a successful stateless revolution, so in making the empirical claim "revolutions that don't lead to states are crushed" i have nothing to prove. If you're saying revolutions that do lead to states restore capitalism, which is also an empirical claim, i would dispute it, so you do have something to prove. I'd use Cuba as an example not because there aren't other socialist states but simply because i'm most familier with it. Argue that the Cuban economy is capitalist when it has none of the characteristics of capitalism as typically defined (price is not set by the market, there is no private ownership of the means of production, the economy is not built around individuals employing other individuals, ect.).


And to answer your rhetorical question, if living in a country like Cuba or Brezhnev era Soviet Union or the former DDR, is one way to 'lose' and dieing in a society like the Paris Commune is another way to lose, i think anyone would prefer to 'lose' the prior way.





In Russia, the rationale was that "the revolution is in danger" -- so the party was granted "extraordinary powers" (or just grabbed them). And, no surprise, they kept them.

Kept them? What are you talking about, security powers that Stalin took in WWII were revoked by the Khrushchev administration. And the revolution *was* in danger, when Nazis kill 30 million Soviet citizens, statements like "the revolution is in danger" would be putting it mildly.




In China, the rationale was "the urgent need to economically develop"...or "to get rich is glorious".

Limited capitalism in China for the purpose of urgent economic development (which, lets face it, with a unipoler world with only one super power and no stratigically effective socialist camp, doesn't sound like an irrelevant concern to me) though doesn't help government administrators or communist party officials, though, the capitalists are neither, so this example does not support your socialist administrators turning themselves into capitalists theory at all. There are capitalists but they're not in positions of power in the government or party nor did they come from them, they came from the outside. Whether or not China's plan will work and they'll be able to control the capitalists and later elimate them after they gain economic advantage over the United States, is something that will become apparent in twenty years but not now, because it's part of a long term strategy. Maybe they will maybe they wont, maybe the Communist party will be overthrown, I don't know enough about China to know if its a good idea or a bad idea but i can see arguments both for and against it. Hu and Wen have been trying to put the chinese economy back in check and reduce the rate of growth, expand the collective sector and reduce the private sector in a more leftwing program then the prior administration, but its not clear that they'll be able to do that since the chinese economy hasn't slowed as the government wants...

However what its not, is inevitable. It was what happened in China, thats why its called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." It didn't happen in Cuba, it didn't happen in the DPRK.


In capitalist societies, capitalists have state power...that must be overthrown by the working class.

In "socialist societies", state power is already in the hands of the party bureaucracy...they can easily "reform" themselves into capitalists without the need for any sort of revolution.


You mistake the mechanical operation of state power for the origin of that power. Its like saying that the rank and file police officers hold the real power in capitalist society. They don't, and its demonstrated by the fact that they're unable to act against capital's interests, they are merely the means by which another group exercises its power. The same applies in socialism.



That was the case, you know, for a long time with the rising bourgeoisie. They still thought in terms of a "pro-business" king, aristocrat, despot, etc. It really wasn't until the second half of the 19th century that capitalists realized that if they wanted the job done right, they had to do it themselves. Modern capitalist societies are increasingly administered by people who've grown up as part of the ruling class...a trend I expect to see continue and expand.

The bourgeoisie didn't overthrow the aristocracy until the late 18th and 19th centuries not because they didn't have the class conciousness, it was because the balance of power did not favor them (or rather, they thought in terms of a 'pro-business' king percisely because they were at the disadvantage in the power balance between classes). In mostly agrarian societies, most of the capital is produced in farms not factories, so aristocrats are more powerful, capitalists take power when that balance shifts (and for that matter, aristocrats often reinvest their capital into factories and become capitalists themselves when the economy is moving in that direction as happened in Germany).

The type of analysis you're using is not Marxist or otherwise materialist. You look at history and social change as things that happen by acts of will, where people can simply take power as an act of will, where classes that become concious of their interests simply achieve them. In reality, people are not stupid and they generally persue their individual and class interests when they have the oprotunity to do so, so the limiting factor is in the balance of power not in the degree of consciousness.




In this century, I expect to see proletarian revolutions where the working class does have the self-confidence to rule directly...and dispense with despot-wannabes, "enlightened" or otherwise.

When you try to make abstract claims like, about a class being 'confident to rule' (as if that makes more sense then saying 'the working class is amused' 'the working class is sad' ect.) its no wonder that reality never lives up to it.





Speaking of what history shows, has there ever been a revolution in the history of humanity from the dawn of civilization to present day that's led to a non-state society, which hasn't been crushed from the outside or inside within a few years or less?

Nope.

Wonder why that is...and isn't it so much easier to argue for abstract utopias then to defend an earthly, achievable reality as an example of something thats good enough to be happy with? Since its impossible to achieve revolutionary anarchy for any length of time, theres never a chance to be disapointed!




Nevertheless, I think it's better to fight for what you want and fail than to fight
for what you don't won't...and still fail.

Well i guess what i want is a society where everyone has a decent standard of living, people don't have to compete with one another to survive or live in acceptable comfort, people are free to conduct themselves in their personal lives as they choose as long as they don't interfere with other's rights to do the same, material wealth is distributed comparatively evenly, where utilities, health care, education, housing, food and employment are guaranteed as rights by the government. Such societies exist today, in the real world, not in some abstract theory that has never been successfully applied. If those things aren't important to you and all that matters is a stateless society free from any authority, then i guess you shouldn't support socialism but i don't know why you'd call yourself a communist or a leftist for that matter.

Maybe though if those things are important to you, you would decide that real life and real practical conditions that people and society face are important enough to compromise your preference for practicality. Being uncompromising to the extent that it prevents you from getting, not only all of what you want, but any part of what you want, is a decision that its not really that important to you and that you'd rather support an ideology then support people.





Marx and Engels wrote lots of letters that said lots of things.

Letters were the "internet chat" of the 19th century.

I think it's better to rely on what they actually saw fit to publish in their lifetimes as the product of their most serious thinking...and not whatever casual notion that may have occurred to them.

I was merely trying to establish Marx's opinion on the Paris Commune since you made an unsubstantiated claim about it. If you read Marx's "The Civil War in France" he's certaintly writing from the side of the Paris Commune but he doesn't paint the picture of it that you do.

And would you tell a political contact, a co-worker in Marx's case, something you didn't belive in an internet chat about a political event you'd written on? Doubt it, so why are you disputing letters as a way to judge what he thought. Marx and Engles were also total homophobes because of their letters, not that i think they ever published anything to that effect, so its not like they are always such shining examples of absolute truth as some leftists seem to feel anyways.





Well, maybe you're right...I wasn't there when the tactics of defending Paris were decided on and neither were you. There may have been good military arguments for the decisions of the Commune...and maybe not.

Marx was a contemporary read his account of it. Its not like it wasn't a well documented event.



But it does not "demonstrate why decentralized organization fails". It was one battle...not the whole history of all military encounters.

Well decentralized organization isn't frequently used in battles because people don't like dieing.




Your mention of the Iraqi resistance in Fallujah is interesting. My understanding of the Iraqi resistance is that it is decentralized...and continues no matter who the Americans intern (some 17,000 at last count).

There are independent aspects of the Iraqi resistance, but the large scale military resistance involving large numbers is generally thought by western intellegence as portrayed in the media to be co-ordinated by what remains of the Ba'ath party regional command, the iraqi intellegence agency, and the Republican guard, through a varity of fronts. Fallujah's resistance was very well coordinated both by the Association of Muslim Scholars and the republican guard unit under saleh, and the resistance was able to make counter attacks across the country, breifly taking control of Mosul...so no i don't think its decentralized except in the sense that some of the low intensity harrassment sort of thing is carried out by independent groups. The effective resistance by al awda and its associates likeiraqi islamic army, muhammad's army, ansar al sunnah, ect. is organized.



Tell me, which role appeals to you?

Soldier, cop, or bureaucrat?

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

You hate authority so much, even if its just and democratic authority, that you think the only possible reason why anyone might think that such roles could be useful to making a functional society is if they wanted to occupy the role themselves?

Or were you just trying to be snotty like, if i were to ask you,

"tell me, which role do you identify with your parents who you are trying to rebel against?

Soldier, cop, or bureaucrat?

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

...but i wouldn't cause i'm nice! ^_^



Personally even if i lived under a government that i supported completely, like Cuba's, i'd not want to work for it in any of those functions because they aren't fun and they don't suit my personality or tastes.

But likewise...i don't want to be a doctor or a nurse, that has like 0 appeal to me, but i also don't want to live in a society where other people don't fill those roles because they're necessary for the general welfare.




You know it wouldn't be so bad if the folks who agreed with that sentiment would just stop calling themselves communists.

In their eyes, communism is like "the return of Jesus"...something that takes place on the day after never.



Industrial communism is not really a more desirable form of society then industrial socialism, socialism is itself a very desirable sort of state that offers great benefits to people. Communism is not the 'goal' of socialism as if socialism is not a good thing *in of its self*...its just the natural consequence of global socialism where capitalism is completely eliminated...the state "withers away" not because it doing so is such a great thing but simply because it becomes unnecessary. States exist for one purpose, to protect the ruling class' capital from other classes and other states, states protect property...but when there are no other states and the ruling class is the only class, there is nothing to protect the ruling class's property from, so one would think that they would choose to organize themselves in a very decentralized, local manner and have no need for a standing army or full time police...that type of organizational structure would be the more efficent one at that point.

And don't try to tell me that states never give up their power. Capitalists states typically demobilize and invest far less on military after a threat is eliminated (such as after the cold war or other wars) and police presense is intense in poor areas but mild or barely existant in affluent areas (where the ruling class is the only class). Communism is just an extreme form of that kindof 'demobilization' in a global socialist society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by TragicClown
This is simply not how it works in Cuba. Working for the government does not afford any special privileges. If you think otherwise, show some evidence of it (more credible then 'someone in Miami said so').

How would direct and incontrovertible evidence of privilege be acquired...especially by someone in another country who doesn't speak the language?

We know that privilege existed in Russia (1917-1992) and China (1949-1976) because later governments admitted it.

Now you suggest that Cuba is "different"...and while I have no direct evidence to dispute that assertion, I don't see any reason why it should be.

Indeed, since socialism is a class society, it would be simply mind-boggling if privilege "did not exist".


There aren't "bosses" in the capitalist sense, stop projecting the social dynamics created in capitalism to socialist situations.

Why? And how can you be so confident of this? Have you personally been employed in, for example, Cuba? Have you first-hand knowledge of the dynamics of Cuban workplaces? Did you see with your own eyes Cuban managers cringing from the wrath of the workers?

Cuban workers get up in the morning, just like here. They go to work, just like here. They carry out what they are told to do by their bosses, just like here. They get a paycheck, just like here. They go home, just like here.

Do they elect their bosses? No. Do they have any voice in what they are told to do? No. Can they get rid of a boss who's an asshole? No.

Just like here!


Administrators in socialist states shouldn't be an 'elite'...and though I don't object to them being virtually permanent if accountable to the workers. By that I mean, Fidel Castro is in a 'virtually' permanent leadership position in Cuba in that he is very unlikely to ever lose a national assembly election or a referendum on his office, nor is his constituency, Santiago de Cuba, ever likely not to appoint him to the National Assembly, but if he were ever to have a change of heart and do something against the people, he would lose the next referendum on his presidency and/or his assembly seat.

And how, pray tell, would this happen? Some guy would get up in a meeting and say "It's time to retire Fidel" and everyone would spontaneously raise their hands? And that would be it...all that would remain would be to decide on the size of his pension. (!)

If you really think that this is how politics works in a class society, I don't know how much we really have to discuss.

On occasion, a party in power may decide that this or that bureaucrat is so incompetent as to be a liability -- and may stage a public recall of such a klutz. But even that is rare.

Recalling a "maximum leader"?

When pigs learn to fly!


But since Cuba is a highly consolidated socialist state, there are no other political forces to appease besides the people so he would have no motivation to do so...

So his recent love affair with the Catholic Church is motivated by a desire to "appease the people"?

And his recent commercial agreement with China to exploit Cuban nickel deposits (and Cuban miners) was likewise motivated by a desire to "appease the people"? (It is a strictly commercial agreement; China intends to make a profit that will be repatriated to China.)


Also any laws of any significance in Cuba are always put to popular referendum, which is really unusual, and gives the Cuban people an effective direct veto over basically any significant government action.

Indeed? Those referendums must be conducted in great secrecy.

What was the popular vote on internet restrictions? On removing the dollar from circulation? On closing some of the hard-currency stores? On any of the big foreign investment deals?


According to your hypothesis here, you would think that stock brokers would inevitably develop a "class" consciousness parallel to the capitalists they work for, and then I guess, steal their money?

Have you been living in a cave for the last decade or two?

The answer is yes...stockbrokers steal from their own bosses, from their customers, and are probably not above a little recreational purse-snatching on the weekends.

Good grief!


Even if socialist bureaucrats charged with planning development...were to "develop a 'class' consciousness parallel to that of an owner"...that class consciousness doesn't mean they're going to be able to become owners.

It doesn't? Who do you imagine ended up owning the "public property" in the formerly socialist countries?

A bunch of "risk-taking entrepreneurs" that crawled out from under a rock...or the guys who were in charge of that public property under socialism?


In Cuba for instance, soldiers/police have never been used to suppress a demonstration, have never fired on a crowd or protest, have never acted against organized workers.

Yet!


Authority that would warrant analogies like that hasn't existed since feudalism. Power is not so concentrated in capitalist states let alone socialist ones.

I have the distinct impression that you've never read any detailed accounts of "authority in action" -- much less actually confronted it personally.


Thinking like a boss doesn't make you turn into a boss anymore then clicking your heals and thinking about home will make you wind up in Kansas.

Cute...but obviously irrelevant.

What I am arguing is that if your social function is to act like a boss, then you will begin to think like a boss.

If, for that matter, you discover that thinking about your geographical destination and clicking your heels actually turns out to be an effective mode of instant transportation to where you want to go, you'll use that method.


Administrators and bosses are distinct functions...

That's as it may be...but I don't see any relevance to this discussion.

We are speaking of people who have authority over others and who are effectively unaccountable to those over whom they have that authority.


Don't think I share your preoccupation with authority positions. I was using 'bureaucrat' because what 'bureaucrats' are are people who carry out administrative procedures, not strictly people who make policy who would rarely be called bureaucrats.

Well, you should share my preoccupation with "authority positions"...because that is what's really at stake in considering socialism as a post-revolutionary option.

Who decides?

A socialist elite or the working class?


Foreign currency is no longer in circulation in Cuba as of November 2004.

I think you are mistaken here; as I recall, it was U.S. dollars that were taken out of circulation. Euros, Canadian dollars, and "hard" pesos still circulate freely.


No bureaucrats have hard-currency allowances, they have always been paid in pesos, they don't have accounts for personal use, what you're describing is a pure fantasy.

And I would say the same of your assertions...I can't imagine that the higher levels of the bureaucracy (at least!) do not receive some kind of hard currency compensation.


The ordinary Cuban has the highest standard of living in the third world by all quality of life measures...

I don't dispute that...but a high standard of living by "third world standards" is still crap.

Tourist websites that discuss Cuba advise travelers to bring some extra bottles of aspirin and tubes of toothpaste as gifts for Cubans...because those basic things (and many like them) are so difficult to come by.

How would you go about acquiring an air conditioner, a personal computer, an internet connection in Cuba? If they broke, how would you get them repaired?


Check the UN statistics...

A curiosity, that. Doesn't the UN simply compile the official statistics released by each of its member governments? How would they go about verifying any of those statistics? Do they even bother?


That might be true if there were political parties for bureaucrats, but ruling Communist parties are parties for workers, whose membership is overwhelmingly workers.

Are you suggesting that the membership controls those parties?

Or that they ever have?

Puh-leeze!


Any status or social esteem that people get from high office depends on continuing to please the people who put them there, in the case of a communist party that would be the workers, so you would think they'd be more loyal not less.

That's only true if there are effective mechanisms of accountability in place. Leninist parties lack such mechanisms; once a leadership is in place, it is secure from any challenge by ordinary members.

That's especially true where the Leninist party holds state power; they can call upon the repressive tools of the state itself if they need them.


If you're saying revolutions that do lead to states restore capitalism, which is also an empirical claim, I would dispute it, so you do have something to prove. I'd use Cuba as an example not because there aren't other socialist states but simply because I'm most familiar with it.

Well, you can defend Cuba until it formally restores capitalism if you wish...I think it is moving in the direction of restoring capitalism.

Why? Because of the growing weight of foreign direct investment in the Cuban economy.

If you make any claims to a materialist outlook, then you realize that such investment must lead to political changes that favor the re-establishment of capitalism.

And that's entirely independent, of course, of the mind-set of the Cuban bureaucracy itself which, I think it is safe to say, probably doesn't regard capitalism with quite the same hostility as it did 40 years ago.


And to answer your rhetorical question, if living in a country like Cuba or Brezhnev era Soviet Union or the former DDR, is one way to 'lose' and dying in a society like the Paris Commune is another way to lose, I think anyone would prefer to 'lose' the prior way.

Nope, not "anyone". That's your choice.


Kept them? What are you talking about, security powers that Stalin took in WWII were revoked by the Khrushchev administration.

Wrong era. I'm talking about the powers that the Bolsheviks grabbed for themselves in order to fight the civil war...powers that were never "revoked".

Like what? Like the power to appoint members of the soviets to make sure they remained politically "reliable"...docile.


Limited capitalism in China for the purpose of urgent economic development (which, let's face it, with a unipoler world with only one super power and no strategically effective socialist camp, doesn't sound like an irrelevant concern to me) though doesn't help government administrators or communist party officials, though, the capitalists are neither, so this example does not support your socialist administrators turning themselves into capitalists theory at all.

I'm afraid when it comes to fantasy, I am simply not in your league.

"Limited capitalism"? What limits?

You imagine that there are no capitalists who are also government officials or party officials (or, for that matter, officers in the armed forces)???


Whether or not China's plan will work and they'll be able to control the capitalists and later eliminate them after they gain economic advantage over the United States, is something that will become apparent in twenty years but not now, because it's part of a long term strategy.

The only way to "eliminate" capitalists in China now or in the future is through proletarian revolution.


It was what happened in China, that's why it's called "Socialism with Chinese characteristics." It didn't happen in Cuba, it didn't happen in the DPRK.

"Socialism with Chinese characteristics" is just a "nice" way of saying capitalism. And it is beginning in the DPRK, by the way; they've already began to set up "special economic zones" just as China did back in the 80s.

The tourist industry is Cuba's version of a "special economic zone".


You mistake the mechanical operation of state power for the origin of that power.

Once state power has been established, its "origins" are of dubious relevance.

For example, state power in the U.S. began as a coalition between northern merchants and southern landed aristocrats/slaveholders...with the latter being the dominant partners.

After the civil war, the mechanisms of state power were completely taken over by the new capitalist class...which made surprisingly few alterations to what had turned out to be such a useful instrument of class rule.

The Russian soviets originated as organs of direct working class rule; the Bolsheviks kept them around in name...but converted them into ceremonial bodies.

The Cuban National Assembly is also such a ceremonial body; it does not debate or discuss national policy, it exists only to approve whatever the government has decided to do.

The Chinese parliament is losing its traditional ceremonial role...debates actually take place there now.

Why? Because the return of China to capitalism has generated conflicts between capitalists that need to be resolved.

The interests of workers or peasants are not represented at all, of course...just like here.


The type of analysis you're using is not Marxist or otherwise materialist. You look at history and social change as things that happen by acts of will, where people can simply take power as an act of will, where classes that become conscious of their interests simply achieve them. In reality, people are not stupid and they generally pursue their individual and class interests when they have the opportunity to do so, so the limiting factor is in the balance of power not in the degree of consciousness.

Your analysis ignores the factor of time.

To be sure, there is beneath class consciousness an objective "balance of power" that shifts with changes in the means of production. But it takes time for that shift to be reflected in people's consciousness...and sometimes quite a bit of time. It certainly doesn't happen "instantly".

For a rising class, the shift is "realized" on the conscious level when it becomes aware of the fact that it is "fit to rule"...more fit, in fact, than the old ruling class.

"Objectively" it could have taken power earlier...even much earlier. But it had not yet learned its own strength or capabilities...or even developed an ideological critique of the old order.

You have to do that stuff before taking power...otherwise you just end up giving it back.

As we have seen.


When you try to make abstract claims like, about a class being 'confident to rule' (as if that makes more sense then saying 'the working class is amused', 'the working class is sad' etc.) it's no wonder that reality never lives up to it.

As you wish. Presently, the working class in the United States is demoralized.

To be sure, only individuals can actually experience these feelings...but when most individuals in a class have those feelings, then why is it unjustifiable to use those words to describe the attitude of that class?


Wonder why that is...and isn't it so much easier to argue for abstract utopias than to defend an earthly, achievable reality as an example of something that's good enough to be happy with?

Well, you see, what you have on offer is not "good enough" to make me "happy".

All it is is class society with a fresh coat of red paint. That's not what I want.

Naturally, like any good businessman, you will do your best to convince me that what I do want is "not available" and "will never be available"...so I had better buy what you're selling while I still have the chance.

No deal.


Maybe though if those things are important to you, you would decide that real life and real practical conditions that people and society face are important enough to compromise your preference for practicality. Being uncompromising to the extent that it prevents you from getting, not only all of what you want, but any part of what you want, is a decision that it's not really that important to you and that you'd rather support an ideology than support people. -- emphasis added.

Damn, I knew that was coming!

The eternal reproach of the reformist to the genuine revolutionary -- you don't care about people...because if you did, you'd abandon your utopian fantasies and concentrate on real improvements that we can actually achieve right now.

But this does illustrate an important point: at its roots, Leninism is reformist...as is the entire concept of a "transitional socialist state".

The people who support it are not interested in a classless society -- they think that's "utopian fantasy". What they really want is a "more humane" version of what exists now...they think that is "all that's realistically possible".

They also claim that they will be "much better" bosses than the ones we have now...because they really care about people.

Believe it or not, folks, but I also "care about people"...just in a different way.

Reformists want people to be more comfortable in class society than they are now.

I want them to be free.


You hate authority so much, even if it's just and democratic authority, that you think the only possible reason why anyone might think that such roles could be useful to making a functional society is if they wanted to occupy the role themselves?

Um...yes.

That's been my experience.

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

[KC]

It would be like saying "why can't we have a King under communism"?

I think you have two things mixed up here. Communism isn't a form of government. It is a form of society, just as feudalism was and capitalism is. These aren't governments. A monarchy is a government, a democracy is a government, etc... You can't have a monarchy in communism (obviously) because it doesn't fit to serve the needs of the society. It doesn't work in capitalism because of the same reason. A monarchy doesn't fit the needs of society. You have to separate these two in your head, and remember that the government serves the needs of the society and not the other way around.

What I meant when I said constitutional democracy is an evolved form of what democracy is now. I believe that each society has had its own government that has served its needs (feudalism/monarchy;capitalism/democracy), and therefore we need another form of government to serve the needs of communism. I believe this to be a new form of democracy.


What for?

Society is constantly evolving. It has never stopped moving forwards, and with this evolvement people's consciousness changes; therefore the rules of society must evolve with society itself. We need a government for this; to help society move forward.

[VukBZ2005]

1
We do not need a central government nor a "transitional "socialist" state" to
manage a transition to a real communist society. That is like saying that you
do not trust the generalized self-management of the working class - you only
trust the guidence of the state beaucrats. I do not doubt that there would be a
transition period; but it would not be a period in which a state would exist; but -
it would be a period where the direct application of real communist ideas and
theories would occur on a real, physical scale. This is my view on the "tranistion
period" before a real Communist society is up and running. I also do not see
the point of calling a workers' revolution a workers' revolution if it is not the
workers leading it - but the Leninist beaucrats; who want power for themselves;
not the people who the Leninists are supposedly acting on their "behalf" - the
Working class! If it's lead by Leninists - it would be fair to call it a grab for
power.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

If I am not mistaken, doctors drive taxis etc. because of Cuba's lack of economic independence during the Cold War, not because "out of goodness". In my opinon, it is nothing to brag about. Working in the tourism industry is much more profitable than being a doctor. The Cuban economy is based on service industry, not autarky. It's not independent.

Why'd you think Cuba went straight to hell after the Soviet era ended?

[MKS]

But why do you assume that bad ideas "come from the masses"?

Bad ideas dont come from the masses but they are accepted by the masses. A government or leadership could prevent such sentiments from taking root in the society.


I don't see why we need a "new man" especially constructed for this purpose. Ordinary men (and women) when free to implement their own preferences are usually pretty damn decent -- it's when they follow a "great leader" that they discover what may be the real appeal of "followership".

Exactly, the new man or woman, would be impervious to such "leaders" who wish to re-establish calssy systems and tryanny.


I personally am for as little government as possible, but given historical precedants I see no evidence that the masses, left to their own devices would thrive. Could they survive, with minimum barbarity?, maybe, but why accept the the mimum when under democratic leadership, the society could become great, the government should act as a servant of the people, to administer and to protect, so that the masses can build a society to its maximum possibility.

[KC]

I was going to write some huge thing about how society as a whole can't handle a transition directly to communism but I realized something. If we go directly to communism without a government, we will have a HUGE problem with reactionaries. How will there be laws? Reactionaries could kill people and nothing would be done about it. How can a communist society without government run?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Lazar
How will there be laws? Reactionaries could kill people and nothing would be done about it. How can a communist society without government run?

Good question...and there is no "the answer" in sight at the moment.

On the other hand, there are ideas...

Democracy without Elections; Demarchy and Communism (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Crime & Punishment--Some Brief Notes on Communist Justice (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083339099&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Further Notes on Demarchy (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083543192&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Communist Society -- Some Brief Reflections (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083719642&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Authority and Centralization (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1087693599&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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