Dictatorship of Proletariat WITHOUT a State

[Comrade-Z]

I think marxists and anarchists have been talking past each other because of different terminology for a long time. The State is obviously the biggest question, but before even addressing the question we should be using the same definitions so that we can accurately understand each other, which we are not doing, it seems to me.

To marxists, the State is, of course, "an instrument used by one ruling class to suppress another ruling class" and "an erroneous mechanism that tries to reconcile irreconcilable segments of class society." Fair enough, anarchists would tend to agree with this, except to anarchists the State generally means several other things as well: centralization, the absence of accountability and democracy, non-democratic military and police forces, etc. In addition, the anarchist definition generally makes one more stipulation: the State is a structure in which a minority rules over a majority without any immediate accountability to that majority. Thus, a global federation of workers' councils that has methods of immediate accountability (instant recall, strict delegation of tasks, transparent activities, etc.) would not be a State, using the anarchist definition.

As an anarchist I am against the existence of any State, as defined by the second all-inclusive definition above. Yet, realistically, I recognize the need for a period of time where there will be a "dictatorship of the proletariat." However, it's important to remember that Marx originally used the phrase in a tongue-in-cheek manner as a sort of joke. Marx envisioned this "dictatorship" as being the fullest democracy imaginable for everyone of the working class. That is the way in which I use the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat,"--a participatory democracy that is run collectively by everyone who is not a part of the owning capitalist class. This includes industrial workers, peasants, and petty-bourgeious professionals who don't employ hired labor. For those who do employ hired labor, their special priviledges and productive assets will be taken away from them and they will be offered the chance of becoming workers just like everyone else.

This "dictatorship of the proletariat" could take any number of forms: federations of trade unions, federations of workers' councils, federations of communes, federations of democratic municipalities, etc. Basically, whatever the working class spontaneously and democratically creates according to its needs and desires will function as the tool to enforce the DoP. The reason a federation is preferable to the classic "State" is that a federation is more fluid and allows a suitable mix of centralization and decentralization, coordination and autonomy, as desired by the participants involved. The classic "State" is too rigid and unfriendly to groups who want to temporarily disassociate. Furthermore, in a federation with methods of immediate accountability (instant recall, etc.) the working class will stay in power. With a classic "State" there's the danger that the tool will turn on its master.

On second thought, one could introduce immediate accountability into the State and make it a suitable structure for the DoP, but the following things would be required: direct election of all government positions, possibility of instant recall of all government officials at every level in every sector, all State documents, memos, etc. are transparent, all State officials given strict mandates, etc. Anything less leaves the risk that the State will be hijacked and become an instrument of a dictatorship over the proletariat. So, really, it's quite impractical to try to democratize the State. Better to leave it rotting in the dustbin of history and use a structure that is more responsive to the desires of the working class.

For years anarchists have said that they are against the DoP. But when they say there is still the need for the working class to defend the gains it has made and defend the revolution, they are actually arguing for the DoP whether they realize it or not. No problem, though, because the DoP does not necessarily entail the existence of a State. In fact, the classic "State" is antithetical to the DoP.

This "dictatorship of the proletariat" is what defines the "socialist" period. Yes, here's an anarchist that is arguing for the stage-by-stage progression of "the revolution." But let me explain: the DoP--socialism--is itself anarchy (self-management/no masters) for 98% of the population and dictatorship/re-adjustment/expropriation for only like 2% of the population, the former capitalist class which is itself guilty of astronomical oppression and atrocities. Socialism is the period where you have democratic workplaces, participatory community democracy, democratic police and military forces, etc. It is the rule of the majority over the miniscule minority. There may exist some inequality during socialism, but it will be nothing compared to capitalism. As far as distribution goes, communities will use a free-market system of money/labor vouchers or a system of completely collective sharing, as desired by each community. The main thing is that the production of wealth is democratic and equal with socialism. Socialism itself is paradise compared to capitalism. The problem with the Soviet Union was that it didn't progress to socialism--it actually regressed into a sort of feudal State-capitalism.

Socialism is the period where there may be counter-revolutionary threats that need to be quelled by the democratic working class police forces and militias. The former capitalist bosses can become workers in the new society if they don't seem to be a threat, or they can be interned if they seem to remain a threat. Really, communism is just a hop-skip-and-a-jump from socialism because, when the counter-revolutionaries have been quelled, communities will be able to dive right into communism the minute they feel like it. So the socialist transition period, assuming a world revolution occurs, would be something between 1 week and 1 year. If you've got an isolated revolution, then the transition period is going to be longer, but hey, you've at least got socialism, which is pretty sweet in itself. The transition from capitalism to socialism should be well-nigh instantaneous. The minute the working class starts taking over factories and constituting democratic militias, you've got socialism. There is no such thing as "building socialism," as Stalin used to talk about.

So then communities may want to jump into communism, which is really just complete anarchy. Really, it's just like socialism, in that it's anarchy for the working class, but since all that remains is the working class by this point, that means anarchy for everyone. Since there are no longer any counter-revolutionary threats, communism/anarchy means the abolition of police and military altogether, the abolition of work and workplaces as things separate from life (as described by Bob Black, Hakim Bey, and other anarchists), no rule by anyone over anyone else, complete collective sharing, the outpouring of creativity and individuality--in short, utopia manifested in real life.

One thing I'd like to refute concerning the deterministic/progressive approach regarding socialism--->communism:
I see no reason why socialism cannot develop at any point in history, at any technological level. Because, in a sense, we've always had capitalism. Feudalism was really just State-capitalism. Slavery was really just State-capitalism. If socialism is the overthrow of a system of minority control of the means of production and the creation of a system of majority, democratic control of the means of production, then why can't that potentially occur at any point? This is an especially relevant question considering peak oil and the fact that humanity will be regressing in terms of use of technology very soon. Didn't hunter-gatherer societies have a sort of socialism? Couldn't the ancient helot slaves of Sparta have revolted and instituted a system of self-management, equal land distribution, and democratic phalanx fighting forces? It seems to me that they just lack the idea and the knowledge of how it could be done.

Then again, perhaps the modern modes of production especially breed class consciousness more than past modes of production. Perhaps being crowded in a dirty factory in close proximity to hundred of other workers in the same plight facilitates socialist revolution more than being a helot slave on a Spartan plantation, atomized and isolated on your remote farm far away from any others sharing the same plight. Communication is certainly faster now. Widespread literacy and printing presses means ideas can be more easily spread now. Although socialism--democratic control of production--isn't too difficult an idea to figure out. Weren't the early Christians a sort of revolutionary communistic group that spread its ideas by word-of-mouth?

[NovelGentry]

To marxists, the State is, of course, "an instrument used by one ruling class to suppress another ruling class" and "an erroneous mechanism that tries to reconcile irreconcilable segments of class society." Fair enough, anarchists would tend to agree with this, except to anarchists the State generally means several other things as well: centralization, the absence of accountability and democracy, non-democratic military and police forces, etc. In addition, the anarchist definition generally makes one more stipulation: the State is a structure in which a minority rules over a majority without any immediate accountability to that majority. Thus, a global federation of workers' councils that has methods of immediate accountability (instant recall, strict delegation of tasks, transparent activities, etc.) would not be a State, using the anarchist definition.

This prose should end right here. You've focused on the primary difference between Marxist and Anarchists, and it is one which I'm sorry to say will not be reconciled any time soon.


That is the way in which I use the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat,"--a participatory democracy that is run collectively by everyone who is not a part of the owning capitalist class. This includes industrial workers, peasants, and petty-bourgeious professionals who don't employ hired labor. For those who do employ hired labor, their special priviledges and productive assets will be taken away from them and they will be offered the chance of becoming workers just like everyone else.

Such a body is a state. WHY is it a state? Because it's political. You've taken this theoretical/hypothetical organization of the working class form strictly economic organization to a political one, in doing so you create a body politik (aka: a state). Yes, it's an argument on definition, but an important one.


However, it's important to remember that Marx originally used the phrase in a tongue-in-cheek manner as a sort of joke. Marx envisioned this "dictatorship" as being the fullest democracy imaginable for everyone of the working class.

I'm not aware he did use it tongue in cheek. I'm quite certain it had to do with the usage of the term dictatorship. For an excellent article on why a fully democratic council could be considered a dictatorship by Marx, reference this article: http://www.marxmyths.org/hal-draper/article2.htm


The reason a federation is preferable to the classic "State" is that a federation is more fluid and allows a suitable mix of centralization and decentralization, coordination and autonomy, as desired by the participants involved.

A federation is a classic "state" -- as much as any other form is. The US is a federation. For a not so classic state which was attempted at one point you may look to a confederation, which would indeed offer more right to self-determination to more local chapters -- it does however take away from the social nature in which one might envision existing nations to be established and required to operate on.


For years anarchists have said that they are against the DoP. But when they say there is still the need for the working class to defend the gains it has made and defend the revolution, they are actually arguing for the DoP whether they realize it or not.

Indeed, and when making arguments that this DoP needs to maintain political control and maintain for that matter a political character at all, they are actually arguing for a state... such as yourself... whether you realize it or not.


No problem, though, because the DoP does not necessarily entail the existence of a State.

Of course it does. You could certainly economically emancipate the working class and maintain economic organization with no political character, which would indeed be a proletarian organization which is not to be considered a state. But you have already given it a political character, and in doing so have done little more but recreate the state.


In fact, the classic "State" is antithetical to the DoP.

Most Marxists don't talk about the classic "State" whatever the classic and the quotes part is all about... we talk about the state (no classic and no quotes). The DoP takes the form of a state so long as it maintains a political character, when it has abolished this political character (for lack of any need to maintain it), it takes on a purely economic character, here is the point at which it is no longer a state, and most Marxists will consider it merely an administrative.

[violencia.Proletariat]

also as an anarchist comerade z i agree with you. the DOP should take place through workers council federation or the like. however i dont agree with the use of money in this transition. the monetary system would ideally be abolished immediately after the revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z
If socialism is the overthrow of a system of minority control of the means of production and the creation of a system of majority, democratic control of the means of production, then why can't that potentially occur at any point? This is an especially relevant question considering peak oil and the fact that humanity will be regressing in terms of use of technology very soon.

The "crude" answer is that even being conscious of such an idea as the "democratic control of the means of production" requires a very high level of technology...even higher than we have now.

If you accept the "peak oil doomsday" hypothesis, then you should prepare yourself for "life" under feudalism...at best.

In fact, I wouldn't at all be surprised by the restoration of slavery.

Consider what happened in New Orleans when the power went off. There's the consequence of "peak oil" scenarios. :o

As it happens, "peak oil" is bullshit.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file...NG46CMUPL60.DTL (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/05/22/MNG46CMUPL60.DTL)

The central thesis of historical materialism -- which many anarchists find "difficult" to accept -- is that the ideas that people can have are fundamentally dependent on what they can do.

Exceptions to this are not "impossible"...but they prove to be very brief in duration. If the survivors of a "peak oil catastrophe" set up a "communist village" with feudal technology, the result would be the emergence of feudalism...probably within a single generation.

There have been occasions in the past where peasants attempted to establish "Biblical communism" (drawn from the few scraps about the Jerusalem Church in the Acts of the Apostles).

They devolve into despotisms fairly quickly; the only exception that I've ever heard of are the Hutterian Brethren.

Their "communism" works...since, after all, it's "commanded by God". But everything else about them is just as primitive as you might imagine -- women are "baby factories", for example.

A lot of anarchists "don't like" the deterministic element of historical materialism...they seem to feel as if people can just "do anything they want".

Well, no...that's not true.

Sorry. :(

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

[Comrade-Z]

If you want to call a participatory, acccountable, democratic federation of workers' councils a "State," then so be it. It's basically a semantic argument at that point. I guess my main point is: during the DoP, whatever structure the working class uses, and whatever they choose to call that structure (federation, State, etc.), that structure needs to be immediately and directly accountable to the working class so that the working class stays in control of the revolution. The "State" that most people think of (election of some officials every 4 years, appointment of other officials, military is controlled in a bureaucratic, top-down fashion, etc.) simply will not suffice in this respect. Nor will the type of State that Cuba has suffice. Even Chavez, who has been spouting some fine rhetoric about participatory democracy, community councils, etc. has shown himself to be too authoritarian in practice. So I should say, fine, if we are going to have a "State" during the socialist period, it must be immensely libertarian towards the working class, completely accountable to the working class, and immensely participatory. In practice, the CNT during the Spanish Civil War probably provides the best example so far of what I envision as the ideal political tool of the working class during the DoP.

Yes, ideally, the use of money will cease very quickly. The decision will be left up to individual communities and networks, of course, but I would hope, and I think, that in socialism people will quickly find that money is more of a hinderance and creator of social ills than a boon.

Admittedly, I don't have much experience with historical materialism. It just intuitively doesn't make sense, but perhaps there is some truth in it. Is there one piece of (relatively) short writing on historical materialism that you would recommend?

[Comrade-Z]

Also, redstar, I read your "oil tar sands" link in rebuttal of peak oil. That's evidence that I've seen presented and refuted too many times to count on the peakoil.com forums. But even assuming that the article to which you referred me speaks the truth, so what? If you believe that oil is a resource that is non-renewable over the span of human lifetimes, then it follows that there is a finite amount that we can extract from the earth, and eventually there will come a point where our extraction will become depleted and oil production will start to decrease. Maybe we'll tap these tar sands. Maybe we'll find enough oil to keep things going for another 50 years (although don't bet on it. For the past 10 years the world has consistently been discovering roughly 1/3 the amount it has been extracting--we're pumping it faster than we are finding it). Maybe we can keep things going for another 30 years. Maybe another 50 years. But sooner or later, if we don't get off our arse and start getting renewables and oil alternatives going and modifying our consumptive lifestyles, we'll be in trouble. There's the very real threat that enough people won't realize the ramifications of oil depletion until it's too late and we are in a downward spiral of energy production and caught in the whirlwind of economic and techonological havoc that that would entail. But the sooner we confront the problem, the better off we'll be. I guess that's yet another reason for a revolution NOW! Put it in your agit-prop, folks! Socialist revolution and the ensuing responsible, sustainable resource use is essential for the continuance of industrial civilization!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z
But even assuming that the article to which you referred me speaks the truth, so what?

So North America will not "run out" of oil for at least a century if not longer.


But the sooner we confront the problem, the better off we'll be. I guess that's yet another reason for a revolution NOW! Put it in your agit-prop, folks! Socialist revolution and the ensuing responsible, sustainable resource use is essential for the continuance of industrial civilization!

No, don't do that.

Suggesting people "choose socialist revolution" to "avoid doomsday" is not a "sexy" appeal.

Indeed, the logic of the "peak oil" lobby is that "doomsday" is "inevitable"...no matter what people "choose" to do.

I think the people behind this idea are motivated by an ideological opposition to "high tech" society as such.

Except for the ones actually on some oil corporation's payroll, of course. The self-interest of the oil corporations in promoting the "peak oil" scenario is obvious.

The reason we're raising oil prices is not because of our insatiable lust for ever-increasing profits -- it's because we're running out of oil.

Yeah, right. :lol:

Up to now, the prevailing rhetoric surrounding "sustainable resource use" has been along the lines of deprivation is good for you.

That's not going to "fly". I do not know if this planet will support 7 or 8 or 10 billion people at "first world" standards...but that's the direction we're going in.

Either we make it or we go back to barbarism or even savagery.

Those who contend that "it can't be done" might be right...but almost no one will ever listen to them.

Who wants to hear that pessimistic shit? :angry:

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

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 08:39 PM


The "crude" answer is that even being conscious of such an idea as the "democratic control of the means of production" requires a very high level of technology...even higher than we have now.

Spain 1936?

Argentina occupations?

[Comrade-Z]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 01:42 PM
Suggesting people "choose socialist revolution" to "avoid doomsday" is not a "sexy" appeal.

Indeed, the logic of the "peak oil" lobby is that "doomsday" is "inevitable"...no matter what people "choose" to do.

I think the people behind this idea are motivated by an ideological opposition to "high tech" society as such.

Except for the ones actually on some oil corporation's payroll, of course. The self-interest of the oil corporations in promoting the "peak oil" scenario is obvious.

The reason we're raising oil prices is not because of our insatiable lust for ever-increasing profits -- it's because we're running out of oil.

Yeah, right. :lol:

Up to now, the prevailing rhetoric surrounding "sustainable resource use" has been along the lines of deprivation is good for you.

That's not going to "fly". I do not know if this planet will support 7 or 8 or 10 billion people at "first world" standards...but that's the direction we're going in.

Either we make it or we go back to barbarism or even savagery.

Those who contend that "it can't be done" might be right...but almost no one will ever listen to them.

Who wants to hear that pessimistic shit? :angry:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I don't really care if oil depletion is "sexy." If I find that it is true, and I find that it would help us all to spread information about its ramifications, then I'm going to do it.

It's just like saying, "Oh, Mr. President, one of our astronomers recently discovered a meteor that's headed for Earth. Now, if we start assembling some interspace nuclear missiles now we can launch them in time to knock the meteor off its Earth-bound trajectory. But, really, most people don't want to hear pessimistic stuff like this, so why don't we just sit on our ass and wait for the meteor to obliterate us?" :blink:

SOME peak-oilers have a sort of dogmatic doomer mentality. And SOME absolutely have some sort of masochistic wish for it to happen. But not all. The optimists or "soft-landing" proponents assert that if we start doing the following things immediately we can avoid significant inconvenience and havoc and even preserve a first-world standard of living for most people on the Earth:

*Shift in urban planning away from suburban sprawl and in the direction of more local downtown areas that are more compact geographically--so as to decrease distance of commutes to work. 40 minute commutes to work are not sustainable. Nor are they very enjoyable, either!
*Increase the use of bikes (hey, people in the Netherlands do it. If we had some sane urban planning, we could do it too!)
*Increase the use of busses, train-(especially for shipping), carpooling.
*Accelerated investment and construction of solar, wind, tidal, and other renewable power sources.
*More conscientious use of plastic-ware, more recycling, more conscientious use of thermostats (wearing a sweater can achieve pretty much the same thing).
*Increase the use of high-energy-efficiency stuff.
*Open up urban spaces to community gardening (they've had much success with this in Cuba, from what I've heard).
*Network with local producers and buy food locally--there's no point in shipping a caesar salad 3,000 miles when someone's probably growing one 10 miles away!
*Decrease the intake of meat and increase the intake of vegetables (99% of the original energy is wasted by the time the energy makes it to the 3rd and 4th trophic level in an ecosystem. It's much more energy efficient to eat the cabbage than to feed the cabbage to a rabbit and eat the rabbit, for instance).

Notice nowhere in here have I talked about serious material deprivation. I wager a lot of the world could have a lower-end first-world standard of living while living within this eco-conscious and resource-sustainable programme. And I'd wager this type of lifestyle would be much more enjoyable than sitting in traffic for an hour, filling your lungs with toxic fumes, driving yourself crazy with nothing to do, and having fat just accumulate while you're sitting there.

There is the possibility that SOME peak-oilers are closet primitivists. I myself like high-tech society (computers are nifty! And I hope they don't ever go away!), although I don't like the pollution, the unsustainable resource harvesting, and the wasteful McMansion suburban-sprawl aspects very much.

The funny thing about peak-oil that you'll notice is that 90% of the proponents are left-wing and primarily blame the oil companies and the politicians for our woes--for neglecting to prepare for this long-term. A peak-oiler would probably respond to high gas prices by saying, "Well, yes it's true that oil depletion is a factor, but I'm sure the oil companies are making a killing as well, and they are the ones ultimately responsible for landing us in this mess, so let's lynch 'em anyway!"

Most peak-oilers point to peak oil as evidence that grow-or-die capitalism has an inherent and insurmountable flaw, and needs to be replaced by a system that can accept sustainability instead of demanding continuous exponential growth to finance debt and such, as capitalism does.

World population is another problem, and one that must be dealt with in a humane and non-coercive manner, of course. As I see it, we could have a groovy eco-conscious socialist revolution and start voluntarily decreasing our reproduction (as Europeans have already started doing, by the way. Italy and Germany are actually declining in population now), or we could get some crazy nazi dictator in power who will try to genocidally obliterate 3 billion people.

Oh, and I'm still looking for the historical materialism stuff.

[Comrade-Z]

The "crude" answer is that even being conscious of such an idea as the "democratic control of the means of production" requires a very high level of technology...even higher than we have now.

Yeah, on second thought, I'm not sure if I buy that either. If you look at the workers' councils during the Russian Revolution, the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War, the factory occupations during the May '68 rev. in France, the factory recuperations in Argentina, etc., it looks to me like large groups of mostly ordinary people (not intellectuals) have been able to grasp the idea and put it into practice. The problem so far has been successfully defending those gains against capitalists, the government, and even leninists in the case of the Russian Rev. the Spanish rev., and May '68.

It's like saying to an infant, "Oh no, you're not ready to walk yet." And then the infant starts walking, and you tackle the infant to the ground and say, "See? I told you so."

What will you do if workers start proving you wrong? (Well, I shouldn't say if. They are already in Argentina right now). Will you applaud them and help them out, or will you try to tackle them to the ground so as to force them into the procrustean mold of your theory and prove your theory correct?

[Enragé]

The "crude" answer is that even being conscious of such an idea as the "democratic control of the means of production" requires a very high level of technology...even higher than we have now.

err why?

Why not now?
Why not a hundred years ago?

democracy is an idea, a concept, a structurisation of society, not a technology.

and if you are sayin democratic control of the means of production isnt possible right now...why are you a revolutionary leftist right now?

[Comrade-Z]

The thing that really confuses me is the idea that democracy requires superabundance, leisure time for all involved, literacy, etc. While these things might help, I don't see why they are absolutely essential. If you are a Spartan helot slave, and a socialist activist from the 20th century visits you in your field and explains in simple terms why it is in your best interest to abolish your master and work your fields for yourself or cooperatively with others, as needed (making sure NOT to become a new master yourself, because that's not going to help you either. You're going to have a much more socially-fulfilling life if you are a free-spirit among equals than if you have to spend time and effort worrying about how you are going to subjugate someone else. Material wealth isn't everything, you know. There's psychological and social satisfaction too. That's why, even if State-socialism could guarantee a better standard of living, I'd still prefer bottom-up workers' council socialism. Much more fulfilling, in the end), wouldn't the Spartan helot slave consider that a good idea and try to move towards that by spreading the idea to other slaves and creating a socialist society?

Now, that example is a little ridiculous, but what if we were talking about a peasant in brazil or someplace in today's society? Historical materialism might say that the peasantry there isn't ready for democracy and socialism, but would it be necessarily impossible to convince those peasants of the desireability of socialism for the enrichment of their lives and explain to them methods they could pursue to achieve it?

Which brings me to an observation that I'd like to make about "vanguardism," which is, if there is one role for "vanguards," it is as activists and catalysts of the revolution, but not as direction or authoritative influences. The sparks, if you will, but ultimately the fire will follow its own course.

An historical example of what I'm talking about would be the FAI in relation to the CNT. The FAI acted as a sort of "political action committee" in influencing the direction of the CNT, providing it with anarchist theory and practical advice, and encouraging it to stay revolutionary and not become reformist. But, as far as I know, the FAI never exerted a direct dictatorial influence over the CNT.

Edit: To elaborate, the vanguards (the most class-conscious members of the working class that are the most experienced with theory and direct action) should at all times be nothing more than acitivists towards other members of the working class--they should only persuade other workers through the strength of their ideas, never through any sort of institutionalized power.

Edit2: This might mean that the working class will ignore the advice of the "vanguard" from time to time, which is okay. The vanguard will have to be able to accept that and move on. Ultimately the working class will just have to learn some things on its own, through experience. In fact that's sort of already been the case in history. The left-wing socialists (of the POUM and such) probably saw what happened with the Russian Revolution and drew lessons from that accordingly. I sort of feel like history has given the working class enough accumulated experience by now, enough instances showing what does and doesn't work, that future revolutions will face fewer internal pitfalls.

Case in point: many socialists have discovered that State-socialism is not the way to go, and that council communism and socialism-from-below holds much more promise. Thus, in Venezuela Chavez is forced to at least pay lip-service to concepts like "participatory democracy," "socialism-from-below," "self-management" (although it sounds like Chavez has been promoting various "co-management" schemes much more vigorously than genuine self-management), etc. Thus we have a situation where Chavez, a sort of reformist social-democrat who would like to be much more authoritarian, is being forced by popular movements to act in a much more libertarian and socialist manner, at least for the meantime. This is accumulated experience at work.

[redstar2000]

We have two different "themes" here...although they are "distantly" connected.

First, what "we should do" if the "peak oil" scenario had any validity...


Shift in urban planning away from suburban sprawl and in the direction of more local downtown areas that are more compact geographically--so as to decrease distance of commutes to work. 40 minute commutes to work are not sustainable. Nor are they very enjoyable, either!

I would support this with considerable enthusiasm...indeed, except for my current refugee status, I have always lived in downtown areas where I was a short bus ride away from work.

But for this to happen, then apartment buildings must be built to very high standards...much higher than is usually the case now. Urban schools must be likewise sharply upgraded...people with kids will otherwise prefer the suburbs.

I don't see much of this sort of thing happening in North America for a very long time. On the other hand, it's much more practical in Europe.

So we'll see.


Increase the use of bikes.

That only works for the young and healthy...and only when the weather is pleasant.

In Manhattan, there's actually an on-going struggle over the use of bikes -- city traffic authorities do everything they can to discourage the practice.


Increase the use of buses, trains-(especially for shipping), carpooling.

Present-day bus designs are cramped and uncomfortable...in addition to which there are not nearly enough of them to handle the passenger load.

Inter-city rail passenger service is indeed a comfortable mode of transportation...but smoking is no longer permitted. Trains are rare except in the Boston-Washington corridor and delays are frequent. An enormous amount of freight is shipped by rail...people really "have no idea" how much.

Carpooling has been attempted in some U.S. cities...but without a whole lot of success. The reason is obvious -- it prevents doing things "before" and "after" work that need to get done. It's inconvenient.


Accelerated investment and construction of solar, wind, tidal, and other renewable power sources.

I think this is already happening and I expect it to accelerate throughout the remainder of this century.


More conscientious use of plastic-ware, more recycling, more conscientious use of thermostats (wearing a sweater can achieve pretty much the same thing).

Up to this point, recycling does not appear to "pay for itself"...it actually costs more than it saves. That could change, of course, and we might find ourselves "mining" our own trash dumps by the end of the century.

Wearing a sweater does not keep your hands, ears, feet warm.


Increase the use of high-energy-efficiency stuff.

This also seems to be already happening. My new monitor with a 19-inch screen uses only 30 watts; my old one with a 17-inch screen used 100 watts.

I expect that presently every time someone replaces an electrical appliance of any kind, their new one will be markedly more energy-efficient than their old one was.


Open up urban spaces to community gardening (they've had much success with this in Cuba, from what I've heard).

Yes, the Cubans have done well -- though understand that they had to do that because they lacked the gasoline to power their tractors after the collapse of the USSR. If they hadn't planted those community gardens, they would have starved.

Now that oil is flowing into Cuba again (from Venezuela), I would expect a decline in urban community gardening to result.

In North America, there's not much interest in that sort of thing. We are "an urban people" and digging in the dirt really appeals to only a small minority.

In fact, people who do gardening have a hard time disposing of their produce...their friends, neighbors, and even distant acquaintances are inundated with vegetables that are never eaten.


Network with local producers and buy food locally--there's no point in shipping a caesar salad 3,000 miles when someone's probably growing one 10 miles away!

An obviously rational proposal...but difficult to implement under present circumstances. I think quite a few cities in North America have urban "farmers' markets" where locally-grown stuff can be purchased. In San Francisco, you can even buy freshly-caught fish there.

But you can imagine the difficulties. Operating hours are limited. It means a special trip.

And we are becoming more and more habituated to meals that have already been prepared and need only to be heated in the microwave to be "ready to eat".

Actually preparing a meal "from scratch" is becoming a rare experience...something one might do on a holiday when leisure time is abundant -- if one remembers how to do it at all.


Decrease the intake of meat and increase the intake of vegetables.

Won't happen! Meat tastes better and whenever humans have access to it, they almost universally prefer it to any form of plant life. As the "third world" develops, meat consumption climbs.

Vegetarianism will never be embraced by any significant number of people unless meat is simply unavailable.


Notice nowhere in here have I talked about serious material deprivation.

It all depends on what people regard as "serious"...and how these things would actually "work out" in practice.


And I'd wager this type of lifestyle would be much more enjoyable than sitting in traffic for an hour, filling your lungs with toxic fumes, driving yourself crazy with nothing to do, and having fat just accumulate while you're sitting there.

I share your distaste for the "commuter's life"...it must be hell.

On the other hand, there are capitalists who are trying to make it "less hellish". For example, the "audio book" publishers invite you to spend that wretched hour or more listening to anything from a new mystery novel to a scholarly discourse on the literary influence of Shakespeare's plays.


The funny thing about peak-oil that you'll notice is that 90% of the proponents are left-wing and primarily blame the oil companies and the politicians for our woes.

Well, they may say they are "left-wing"...but as you know, the label on the package cannot be relied upon to tell what's actually inside the package.

For one thing, the "blame" doesn't really make logical sense. Since oil is, by definition, a finite resource, how can you blame the people who just happen to be "in charge" when it finally does run out? Someone had to be in that "spot", right?

It's like blaming the guy who happens to be carrying the ball at the moment the clock runs out "for losing the game".

That seems to me to be a very "shallow" kind of "leftism".

Indeed, it strikes me that "peak oil" boosters -- at least the ones that come to this board -- mostly blame ordinary people for our "piggish" consumption of energy. As if we were "fat lazy swine" who didn't want to live "by the sweat of our brows" like "Nature intended".

Frankly, I am not enamored of "nature's intentions"...especially after living through two hurricanes.

I think we should dominate the fuck out of nature until it behaves according to our desires.

If this be hubristic, then make the most of it! :)

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

[Comrade-Z]

I think we should dominate the fuck out of nature until it behaves according to our desires.

Oh my! My Earth First! friends would have some things to say about that... :o :lol:

I kind of admire eco-activism, but I don't feel like it deserves the bulk of my effort, at least, at this time. Because until we get rid of capitalism, eco-activism is going to be a terrible uphill battle. I mean, sure, Earth First! might be able to protect this particular 40,000 acres of pristine old-growth forest from logging through arduous direct action and struggle with timber companies and the government, but meanwhile those same timber companies are busy cutting down 200,000 acres somewhere else. The onslaught is just too overwhelming. Trying to confront "The Beast" on one issue at a time, whether it is environmentalism, racism, patriarchy, the Iraq war, etc. etc. is frustrating as hell and ultimately insufficient. I know that my efforts will go much further if they go straight to the root of all the problems--capitalism and the State. If we can create a socialist society, then eco-activists will have a much better foundation for actually making a significant difference with their efforts.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Comrade-Z+--> (Comrade-Z)Oh, and I'm still looking for the historical materialism stuff.[/b]

In a "non-Marxist" sense, I think you'll find it in almost any modern work by a reputable historian.

"Popular histories" (like the History channel) may still talk about "great men" or "great ideas" as if they were "significant".

And, of course, it's generally considered unacceptable in academia to "dwell too obviously" on the role of class struggle.

But a historian that simply "passed over in silence" the material basics of a given historical narrative would likely be regarded as a "poor" historian by his/her peers and would suffer a consequent loss of prestige.

Indeed, without a materialist analysis, history is just a jumble of random events...as the pre-materialist Gibbon put it, "a dreary tale of the crimes, follies, and misfortunes of mankind".


If you look at the workers' councils during the Russian Revolution, the CNT-FAI during the Spanish Civil War, the factory occupations during the May '68 rev. in France, the factory recuperations in Argentina, etc., it looks to me like large groups of mostly ordinary people (not intellectuals) have been able to grasp the idea and put it into practice.

Yes they did...sorta.

They managed what I would call an embryonic understanding of the concept.

How far short they fell is at least partially illustrated by their reactions to those who took the factories back.

It was something that they thought was "maybe a good idea"...but not something they were ready to "go to the wall with".

Like Russian workers, soldiers, and peasants were ready to "go to the wall" with the idea of deposing the Czar and his aristocracy in February 1917.

Russia was ready for a bourgeois revolution and there was "no fooling around" about it.

The genuinely working class initiatives that you list all shared, I think, a reluctance on the part of most workers to actually seize power.

There was still a kind of "built-in" deference to the capitalist class...or to petty-bourgeois radicals who came from that class.

It's "not enough" to simply occupy a factory...that's just a kind of "first step".

What is really required is that the working class must be convinced "in their guts" that they are fit to rule. And that the old ruling class is unfit to rule. The old "habits of servility" must be burned away in the fire of hatred for everything the old ruling class stands for.

The historical materialist hypothesis is that only a very "high tech" form of capitalism can generate this level of consciousness.

One can dispute this, of course, since it "hasn't happened yet".

But I think it "makes sense" as an explanation of why working class insurrections have not yet been really successful in ending class society.

Certainly, it makes more sense to me than "Bolshevik villainy" or "Stalinist intrigue" or "lack of vanguard leadership" or any of that History channel crap.


Will you applaud them and help them out, or will you try to tackle them to the ground so as to force them into the procrustean mold of your theory and prove your theory correct?

Like many of my critics, you vastly over-estimate my "powers". :lol:

Nothing I or any individual says is going to make any measurable difference in how these events "turn out".

Will there be a fully developed proletarian revolution in Argentina that will actually begin to build a communist society?

You imply that this will happen "soon" or is even "already happening".

My "theory" (historical materialism) suggests that this is highly unlikely...and that Argentina -- like a number of Latin American countries -- is entering "the age of reform" that we in North America and Europe are currently leaving behind.

This would seem to be a "stage" of modern capitalism that all countries need to "pass through".


If you are a Spartan helot slave, and a socialist activist from the 20th century visits you in your field and explains in simple terms why it is in your best interest to abolish your master and work your fields for yourself or cooperatively with others, as needed...

The vocabulary of the helot slave has no words for the ideas that you are attempting to convey.

Indeed, I think even an Athenian "intellectual" would find it very difficult to grasp your meaning.

If I were a real "scholar" in the traditional sense, I would "prove" this by attempting to translate a couple of paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto into classical Greek...and demonstrate that it can't be done.

Since I lack such skills, I can only assert that it can't be done...at least in any way that would actually make sense to someone from that era.

"How" people think about things is historically contingent...human brains don't exist "up in the sky" free to think about "whatever they want to".

I think that illusion is actually a product of the emergence of capitalism. It was only in the northern trading cities in Italy c.1300 or so that such a thing as a "secular intellectual" became possible...we call it a "renaissance" because it became possible for people to think about "new things".

As technology and then science began to develop, more "new things" could be thought about and even discussed (with risks!).

As capitalism rose to dominance (19th century), the idea of "pure thought" able to "conceive anything" that "might become real" dominated European intellectual life.

Only Marx and Engels contested this view...and they won very little acceptance of their dissent during their lifetimes.

To this day, any kind of "formal acceptance" of the proposition that ideas reflect material reality is not easy to find -- even though, as I said, modern historians "take that outlook into account" when they sit down to construct a historical narrative.

And even among those who consider themselves revolutionaries or even "Marxists", the illusion persists that "people can do whatever they want" if they can be "convinced to want to do it".

If Marx was right, that cannot possibly be true.

But there are a lot of "Marxists" who sincerely believe that Marx "got that one wrong".

I am not one of them.


Historical materialism might say that the peasantry [in Brazil] isn't ready for democracy and socialism, but would it be necessarily impossible to convince those peasants of the desirability of socialism for the enrichment of their lives and explain to them methods they could pursue to achieve it?

Yeah. I think the most you could "convince" them of is that you had their "best interests" at heart and thus they should follow you.

But when the time came to actually construct your post-revolutionary "socialism", you would have to do all the work.

What you convinced them of was what they were capable of grasping: that you will be a "benevolent despot" who will smash the power of the landed aristocracy and redistribute land to the individual peasant.

Lenin managed the "trick"...no reason you (or others) can't do the same.

In similar material conditions!


NewKindOfSoldier
And if you are saying democratic control of the means of production isn't possible right now...why are you a revolutionary leftist right now?

Because I think we are approaching the time when it will be possible.

My guess is that western Europe could build a working communist society before the end of this century.

It might even be possible in North America...though I'll admit that is more problematic.

Like all of us, I wish the train of history ran a lot faster than it does.

But I see nothing to be gained by pretending that we are a lot further along than we really are.

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

[Storming Heaven]

Bravo, Comrade Z! It's encouraging to see that someone on this forum can write English beautifully.

Backtracking to the original topic, I think you have hit on a winning idea with this DoP without a state. It is obvious that communism cannot be achieved through a simple political transfer of power and there will be a need to mount a defence of the revolution. I think, however, that we should abandon the Marxist terminology. It not only infuriates Marxists but risks causing general confusion amougst us all.


Really, communism is just a hop-skip-and-a-jump from socialism because, when the counter-revolutionaries have been quelled, communities will be able to dive right into communism the minute they feel like it.

I don't think this is right. From what I gather, the idea is that once the DoP has achieved it's aims of destroying the capitalist class it will waste away into anarchy. The reason for this is that government, involving the repression of one person (or class) by another could not occur in a classless society. However, a DoP State, even one governed through direct democracy, would involve the creation of a ruling class. After the destruction of the capitalists, it would not dissapear, but would rather degenerate into a tyranny of the majority. This is why the defence of the revolution needs to be conducted by an anarchy rather than a state.


I see no reason why socialism cannot develop at any point in history, at any technological level. Because, in a sense, we've always had capitalism. Feudalism was really just State-capitalism. Slavery was really just State-capitalism.

Whilst I too see no reason for a leftist revolution at any point in history, I would caution against the term 'State-capitalism'. Capitalism involves a market-orientated society and has not occurred throughout history. What has occurred throughout history is exploitation, including State-exploitation.


The central thesis of historical materialism -- which many anarchists find "difficult" to accept -- is that the ideas that people can have are fundamentally dependent on what they can do.

Exceptions to this are not "impossible"...but they prove to be very brief in duration. If the survivors of a "peak oil catastrophe" set up a "communist village" with feudal technology, the result would be the emergence of feudalism...probably within a single generation.

The italics here are my own. What people can do selects which ideas they can put into practice, not which ideas they can have. People can have any idea that they like. Furthermore, I think that systems such as feudalism, socialism etc. are based primarily on social relations and can occur at any 'technological level'.


Material wealth isn't everything, you know. There's psychological and social satisfaction too.

As a materialist I object. I think that psychological and social satisfaction are products (or perhaps facets) of material satisfaction. This, I think, is the essence of 'Historical Materialism' - that the quest to satisfy material needs is the driving force behind history. Bottom-up socialism is psychologically satisfying because allows people the power to control their own material position. An egalitarian social anarchism would be even better.


I think we should dominate the fuck out of nature until it behaves according to our desires.


By the way, redstar, you cannot make nature behave according to your desires. She behaves according to laws that we cannot alter or change. Get used to it. Indeed, by 'dominating' her, you are probably acting in accordance with a natural law. Individuals of all species attempt to benefit themselves by altering their environment. In light of this, I propose we attempt to do it wisely.

[Comrade-Z]

I've got to say, Redstar, you've made some brilliant points.

First:


Yes they did...sorta.

They managed what I would call an embryonic understanding of the concept.

How far short they fell is at least partially illustrated by their reactions to those who took the factories back.

It was something that they thought was "maybe a good idea"...but not something they were ready to "go to the wall with".

Like Russian workers, soldiers, and peasants were ready to "go to the wall" with the idea of deposing the Czar and his aristocracy in February 1917.

Russia was ready for a bourgeois revolution and there was "no fooling around" about it.

The genuinely working class initiatives that you list all shared, I think, a reluctance on the part of most workers to actually seize power.

There was still a kind of "built-in" deference to the capitalist class...or to petty-bourgeois radicals who came from that class.

It's "not enough" to simply occupy a factory...that's just a kind of "first step".

What is really required is that the working class must be convinced "in their guts" that they are fit to rule. And that the old ruling class is unfit to rule. The old "habits of servility" must be burned away in the fire of hatred for everything the old ruling class stands for.

That totally makes sense to me. I begin to see what you are saying. For instance, during the May '68 revolts the reformist trade union leaders and the PCF were able to convince the workers at some of the automotive plants who were beginning to self-manage the plants to walk away from their radical forms of action and settle things "like civilized people" at the ballot box and the bargaining table. And those workers obeyed! And thus the May '68 revolts shrivelled up and died almost as quickly as they had begun. So you're saying the reason those works didn't tell the union bureaucrats to shove it was because of a lack of class-consciousness, revolutionary will, and confidence? That makes perfect sense to me. And then I suppose you would assert that this was due to material progress not being sufficient at the time? I'm not so sure about that part, although you are making come convincing arguments in that vein. So, I suppose you would deny the possibility that mere ideas, or mere activists spouting ideas, could have imbued those workers with revolutionary will and confidence and a sense that they were "fit to rule"?

In fact, in an article about the Argentinian factory recuperations I also recall reading a report from an activists visiting some of these plants. Apparently the general sentiment was that the new arrangement (worker control of the factories, self-management, equal earnings for all employees, rotation of tasks, etc.) was really groovy. Yet the workers who were interviewed noted that they hadn't really had the idea of doing it before--they just sort of realized that, when their boss was going to shut down the factory and lay the workers off, the workers would be out of a job, even though the factory could still be operated at a profit. And thus a sentiment sort of spontaneously developed that this factory needed to be occupied and recuperated. Furthermore, when asked if the workers had any plans for encouraging factory seizures elsewhere, the workers responded that they hadn't seriously considered it, or didn't consider it a huge priority(!) The activist asked if the workers would take a job tomorrow where they would be working for a capitalist boss that paid twice as much as they got now, and the workers said "oh no, we like this arrangement far too much", and the activist asked if they thought other workers would like the same arrangement, and the workers said, probably, and the activist finally asked, "Wouldn't it be a good idea to spread this idea elsewhere, then?" And the workers responded, "Oh yeah, I guess it would be..."
That article is here:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cf...=42&ItemID=9042 (http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=42&ItemID=9042)

I feel, though, that one exception to what you said must be made for Spain in 1936. There was an instance where the working class, especially in Catalonia, actively and assertively took control, as if they had confidence that they were "fit to rule." A passage from Orwell's Homage to Catalonia:

"The Spanish working class did not, as we might conceivably do in England, resist Franco in the name of 'democracy' and the status quo', their resistance was accompanied by--one might almost say it consisted of--a definite revolutionary outbreak. Land was seized by the peasants; many factories and most of the transport were seized by the trade unions; churches were wrecked and the priests driven out or killed......For the first few months of the war Franco's real opponent was not so much the Government as the trade unions. As soon as the rising broke out the organized town workers replied by calling a general strike and then by demanding --and, after a struggle, getting--arms from the public arsenals. If they had not acted spontaneously and more or less independently it is quite conceivable
that Franco would never have been resisted. There can, of course, be no
certainty about this, but there is at least reason for thinking it. The
Government had made little or no attempt to forestall the rising, which had been
foreseen for a long time past, and when the trouble started its attitude was
weak and hesitant, so much so, indeed, that Spain had three premiers in a single
day. Moreover, the one step that could save the immediate situation, the arming of the workers, was only taken unwillingly and in response to violent popular clamour. However, the arms were distributed, and in the big towns of eastern Spain the Fascists were defeated by a huge effort, mainly of the working class, aided by some of the armed forces (Assault Guards, etc.) who had remained loyal. It was the kind of effort that could probably only be made by people who were fighting with a revolutionary intention--i.e. believed that they were fighting for something better than the status quo."

And:

"The estates of the big pro-Fascist landlords were in many places seized by the peasants. Along with the collectivization of industry and transport there was an attempt to set up the rough beginnings of a workers' government by means of local committees, workers' patrols to replace the old pro-capitalist police forces, workers' militias based on the trade unions, and so forth. Of course the process was not uniform, and it went further in Catalonia than elsewhere. There were areas where the institutions of local government remained almost untouched, and others where they existed side by side with revolutionary committees. In a few places independent Anarchist communes were set up, and some of them remained in being till about a year later, when they were forcibly suppressed by the Government. In Catalonia, for the first few months, most of the actual power was in the hands of the Anarcho-syndicalists, who controlled most of the key industries.
The thing that had happened in Spain was, in fact, not merely a civil war, but
the beginning of a revolution."

So, at least in Catalonia the working class had developed a revolutionary will and confidence that they were "fit to rule." Further evidence of this is the fact that the POUM and the anarchists violently resisted PSUC (Communist Party) attempts to get rid of worker control (for instance, when the civil guards, under the command of the PSUC, tried to take the Barcelona Telephone Exchange away from the CNT, a whole city-wide battle erupted between the PSUC on one side and the POUM/CNT-FAI on the other). When the PSUC tried to get rid of the workers' militias and bourgeiosify the military (by re-introducing differential pay-rates, servility, etc. and destroying the egalitarian spirit that the POUM and anarchists had forged in the militias), the POUM and anarchists resisted again, although not as vigorously as one would have liked. So maybe they weren't TOTALLY to the point that you describe, but pretty much the closest any large group of the working class has come so far, it seems to me.

So how did the Spanish (or, more precisely Catalan) working class get to this point? Perhaps that's something we should intensively study.

Edit: Because, as to my knowledge, Spain was significantly more backward than England or Germany, or even Russia, at the time. I'm beginning to agree that material conditions do set the overall "backdrop" of people's ideas and decisions, but perhaps you are not giving ideas enough credit as far as their capability of altering the course of behavior of a large group of people. After all, didn't Marx assert that "people make their own history" even though they make it within the confines of a certain overarching superstructure? Perhaps the Spanish (Catalan) working class partly owed its advanced and revolutionary nature to the predominance of anarchism and non-leninist marxism (of the POUM variety), rather than the leninism which was predominant elsewhere at the time?

[Comrade-Z]

The vocabulary of the helot slave has no words for the ideas that you are attempting to convey.

Indeed, I think even an Athenian "intellectual" would find it very difficult to grasp your meaning.

If I were a real "scholar" in the traditional sense, I would "prove" this by attempting to translate a couple of paragraphs of the Communist Manifesto into classical Greek...and demonstrate that it can't be done.

Ah, I see. Makes sense, I suppose.


Yeah. I think the most you could "convince" them of is that you had their "best interests" at heart and thus they should follow you.

But when the time came to actually construct your post-revolutionary "socialism", you would have to do all the work.

What you convinced them of was what they were capable of grasping: that you will be a "benevolent despot" who will smash the power of the landed aristocracy and redistribute land to the individual peasant.

Makes sense in a way, although I still wonder if there might be a chance that I could successfully explain to them, "No, you have the power to do all of this. Don't look to God to fix your problems, don't look to politicians, don't look to me--you are perfectly capable of managing yourselves democratically and obtaining what you want, whether it's land, rights, etc." I suppose it would be tough going, with the continuing predominance of Roman Catholicism there (when is that shit going to die off!?)

Your talk about the workers having a solid sense that they are "fit to rule" got me thinking about the latest MTA transit strike in NYC. I suppose if those workers had progressed to the point that you are describing, they would have responded to calls by Bloomberg and the union bosses to go back to work and re-negotiate by saying, "Fuck that shit, we're taking over!" And then they would have promptly began an uprising and exhorted other New Yorkers to do likewise. Which would have been totally awesome, but I can see how something like that is totally unrealistic in our current society, with its lack of class-consciousness and revolutionary will.

I mean, those workers must have a consciousness that they are able to completely shut down the world's most important city economically. If they don't see that then they're blind. Heck, even the capitalist press had to acknowledge that fact. Those workers must realize that that gives them tremendous bargaining power. So why aren't they even more militant and more assertive? I suppose they might feel unsure about whether it would be "ethical" to do that to a city (and it doesn't help that the capitalist press moans and whines about how that strike "hurt ordinary working-class families." Give me a break!) In short, they don't feel justified or prepared to take power and rule yet, like you were talking about.

So, what can we as activists do to bring the working class closer to a condition where they feel "fit to rule"? I know you are probably going to answer, "Very little." But surely there must be some things.

[VukBZ2005]

That totally makes sense to me. I begin to see what you are saying. For instance, during the May '68 revolts the reformist trade union leaders and the PCF were able to convince the workers at some of the automotive plants who were beginning to self-manage the plants to walk away from their radical forms of action and settle things "like civilized people" at the ballot box and the bargaining table. And those workers obeyed! And thus the May '68 revolts shrivelled up and died almost as quickly as they had begun. So you're saying the reason those works didn't tell the union bureaucrats to shove it was because of a lack of class-consciousness, revolutionary will, and confidence? That makes perfect sense to me. And then I suppose you would assert that this was due to material progress not being sufficient at the time? I'm not so sure about that part, although you are making come convincing arguments in that vein. So, I suppose you would deny the possibility that mere ideas, or mere activists spouting ideas, could have imbued those workers with revolutionary will and confidence and a sense that they were "fit to rule"?

Hmm.. In order to really understand May 1968 in France, you have to understand what caused it. There was nothing in France that could allowed such a situation to happen; it was not even that involved in the Vietnam war; it had a society that one could consider stable.

What was happening? As more evidence was begining to show, the French educational system was in trouble. Too much baby-boomers being entered into the educational system led to overcrowing by 1966.

This overcrowding was too serious and the events of the November 1966 Strasbourg scandal (caused by the Situationist International and members of the national student union when they had their pamplets placed on the seats of that university's assembly building during it's opening, which caused a tremendous event - mainly because there were government officals present and this infurated them) led to the formation of the Situationist-inspired group of students - Les Enrages.

Les Enrages distributed the pamphlet - The Poverty of Student Life - to others on the campus - which rapidly spread all over french high schools, colleges and universities during 1967. This begun to effect the student population in a way that was unforseen - they begun to move towards the event that triggered May 1968 - the occupation of La Sorbonne.

Then the CRS came in and attacked the students and the crowd around then - I even read that they attacked pregnant woman bystanders. That is what caused the student movement to become a generalized workers' movement that led to the occupation of factories, football stadiums, and even news stations all over France during the period of almost four weeks.

But - the union came inbetween the working class and the capitalist class - causing the workers to place their trust in the union - which was controlled by the French "Communist" Party (CPF), thinking that the union was going to help them in their struggle; however, the union invoked the kind of class consciousness that is present today - allowing those guys to subvert the situation to the point of dis-illusion and comptempt - that is, they got to the point in which they could tell the workers that they must go back to work.

It could be said that the class consciousness that made the situation function was not strong enough to stand up to the influence of people who looked like that they will help the workers; but it can also said that the situationist-inspired approach was not immediately taken up by the French working class - as they should have done; this is what subverted the class consciousness - leading to this situation's destruction!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Storming Heaven+--> (Storming Heaven)People can have any idea that they like.[/b]

No matter how often this is asserted, it remains untrue.


Furthermore, I think that systems such as feudalism, socialism, etc., are based primarily on social relations and can occur at any 'technological level'.

Then you have to explain why that doesn't happen.

Why wasn't there a "People's Republic of Athens"?

No "vanguard party" to show the "way"? No version of "Marx" or "Bakunin" to explain "the next step"?

Just plain bad luck?

There is a "school" of academic historians who do insist on the primacy of chance...to them, nothing was or is "inevitable" and pretty much "anything" can "happen" at "any time".

Human societies are like the "unknowable mind of God" in medieval Christian theology.

Such an outlook is a "perfect defense" of the bourgeois concept of "free will"...it is logically impregnable.

It's just useless for explaining anything.


Comrade-Z
So, I suppose you would deny the possibility that mere ideas, or mere activists spouting ideas, could have imbued those workers with revolutionary will and confidence and a sense that they were "fit to rule"?

Revolutionary words only have an effect on people with whom those words "resonate".

When I first read Marx (at the age of 20 or so), what I remember was a feeling of "Why, of course!". What he had to say put into coherent words what I was already thinking and feeling.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that's what conscious revolutionaries really do when they speak to people...they make explicit what was already implicitly there.

So we do have a "role" to play...but it depends entirely on what people are really ready to listen to.

And I think that, in turn, depends on the technological level of a given society.


So, at least in Catalonia the working class had developed a revolutionary will and confidence that they were "fit to rule."

Well...almost. Anarchists still lament, with good reason, the failure of the CNT to disperse the old state apparatus in Catalonia...to simply remove it entirely from the political scene there.

Instead, it was allowed to remain and gradually re-gain its strength until it became a sword in the back of the CNT...while the fascists were advancing!

I attribute this to the fact that as sincerely revolutionary as the working class was in Catalonia, it still retained a "lingering respect" for the "old order of things".

If I am not mistaken, Catalonia was the most advanced -- "Europeanized" -- part of Spain...and I think this was why it was "the heart of the revolution".

And I don't see how any rational person could deny the role of anarcho-syndicalism as in ideology in the spontaneous anti-fascist uprising.

The Spanish Communist Party had only a few thousand members and was simply not a factor in 1936.

Take that, Leninists! :lol:

Later on, the Trotskyist POUM and the syndicalist "Friends of Durruti" emerged as the "left wing" of the "revolution"...but it was "too little" and "too late". :(

Catalonia is the "brightest star" in the anarchist firmament...the place where they "came closer" than any other.

And the very fact that they consciously refused to set up a "revolutionary despotism" makes that star shine all the brighter.

But they succumbed to the "disease" that plagues all kinds of revolutionaries.

Fearing to "go too far", they did not go far enough. They did not smash the old bourgeois state apparatus in Catalonia...much less "march on Madrid" with the explicit purpose of overthrowing the bourgeois republic.

I don't think that was due to "incompetence" (much less "villainy" as the Leninists charge)...but rather to the fact that they could not grasp what really needed to be done.

And even if they had grasped it, would the Spanish working class have understood it?

I think the answer is no. :(

So it is that in my opinion the Spanish anarcho-syndicalists collectively played the role of Oliver Cromwell's people in England. Cromwell's people could have made a bourgeois revolution in England and nearly did...but the emerging English bourgeoisie was simply "not yet ready to rule".

The Spanish anarcho-syndicalists nearly made a proletarian revolution in Spain...but the Spanish working class was "not yet ready to rule".

And thus the end of a very sad story.

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

[JKP]

Redstar2000, just to be sure, have you been reading this?

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44529

Because some of the things you said seem to be taken from it, while others seem to be assertions.

[redstar2000]

No, I haven't seen that pamphlet before...but it is certainly most instructive. :)

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

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 05:39 AM
A lot of anarchists "don't like" the deterministic element of historical materialism...they seem to feel as if people can just "do anything they want".
Fortunately the trend in Britain and indeed Europe is far more materialist than the trend in the US, so to avoid misinformation I think it's important to make that distinction.

The British Anarchist movement, or at least the disparate groups that exist around the country are primarily class-struggle groups.

The three main national groups being the Anarchist Federation, Class War Federation and Solidarity Federation.

[Comrade-Z]

Well, in the U.S. we've got NEFAC (North Eastern Federation of Anarcho-Communists), and....er, I see what you mean. I agree that, from what I've experienced, anarchists of the CrimethInc. variety predominate in the U.S. Although CrimethInc. writes some great stuff, I've got to say. It's fully and explicitly anti-capitalist (although it's light on class struggle and such, instead focusing on individual direct action against capitalism). And speaking of "resonating," that stuff resonates with young activists in a way that a dense piece like Das Kapital wouldn't. But just reading CrimethInc. is not a "complete anarchist education," if you will. I think every hardcore class-struggle anarcho-communist platformist should read CrimethInc.'s Days of War Nights of Love. On the flip side, every youthful lifestyle-ish anarchist should read some sort of important theoretical or historical work that elaborates on the hardcore class-struggle aspect of anarchism.

Edit: Ah, that's very enlightening analysis of the Spanish Revolution, redstar and JKP. I wonder if the working class has taken steps backwards since then, particularly in that area of Spain but also around the world. Because there doesn't seem to be much of a possibility of another Spanish Rev. (or something even surpassing it) happening any time soon, especially when you consider that the revolution was proceeded by years of militant strike action, something we have not seen in an industrialized country for quite some time. :(

[redstar2000]

In case someone might be interested...

A Note on Crimethinc (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1115220862&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

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

[1984]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2005, 04:50 AM
The "crude" answer is that even being conscious of such an idea as the "democratic control of the means of production" requires a very high level of technology...even higher than we have now.


What about the very "primitive" human communities that had existed even before the creation of the State?

:huh:

What about human tribes that exist up to today? Their "chief" is usually chosen by all members of the tribe because he, among them all, the the one BEST suited for the menagement of the tribe (or has to pass a ritual test to proof he's the most suited for his task) - he does not "rule" them, neither has control of the means of production, which, in the case, are their basic tools and the small piece of land they plow, which are communal.

That's an exemple of a society which has some sort of government, yet has no State estabilished. And they aren't, let's say the least, very high on technology.

:rolleyes:

[violencia.Proletariat]

Tribal societies were just that small tribes. They did not have complex production systems to coordinate on a country wide basis in order to keep society functioning.

[NovelGentry]

I do apologize, as I do not come here that frequently and must have missed some of the responses here, bare with me, as some are a bit old and might have already been addressed.


If you want to call a participatory, acccountable, democratic federation of workers' councils a "State," then so be it.

I wouldn't call those a state at all, at least not necessarily one. As long as they completely affect economic change, they are little more than an administrative. The state has political character. Thus the line between a state and non-state is when your participatory, accountable, democratic federation of workers' councils is or isn't deciding things like say civil rights, domestic policing policy, national defense policy, etc.


It's basically a semantic argument at that point.

In my eyes it always has been. Starting with Marx and Proudhon we see very different definitions as to what the fundamental nature and concept of a state is.


I guess my main point is: during the DoP, whatever structure the working class uses, and whatever they choose to call that structure (federation, State, etc.), that structure needs to be immediately and directly accountable to the working class so that the working class stays in control of the revolution.

Directly accountable... I'll do you one better, I think it should be completely composed of the working class, in full!


The "State" that most people think of (election of some officials every 4 years, appointment of other officials, military is controlled in a bureaucratic, top-down fashion, etc.) simply will not suffice in this respect. Nor will the type of State that Cuba has suffice. Even Chavez, who has been spouting some fine rhetoric about participatory democracy, community councils, etc. has shown himself to be too authoritarian in practice.

Unfortunately, you can't redefine state to the state most people think of. The type of structures you present here are the form of most modern capitalist states... no one in their right mind would argue that feudal societies didn't have a state, but it was a very different kind of state, as will a socialist state be.


Yes, ideally, the use of money will cease very quickly.

I don't think you can claim to have achieved socialism until it does.


The decision will be left up to individual communities and networks, of course, but I would hope, and I think, that in socialism people will quickly find that money is more of a hinderance and creator of social ills than a boon.

I think they'll find that out before socialism... I think they'll find out on top of being a hinderance, it is the basis on which modern exploitation exists, and just like other modern bourgeois concepts of things quickly passing towards obsoletism, they will do away with it come revolution.


Is there one piece of (relatively) short writing on historical materialism that you would recommend?

The best work I know on the subject is probably The German Ideology, not "short" unless you wish to compare it to Capital.

[NovelGentry]

democracy is an idea, a concept, a structurisation of society, not a technology.

and if you are sayin democratic control of the means of production isnt possible right now...why are you a revolutionary leftist right now?

It is an idea, but it is not an idea separate from material reality. For example, bourgeois democracy wouldn't really make sense with feudal productive forces, the primary aspects of property control would only lay in land. Productive forces were so limited, democratic control of them as an idea would be simply preposterous -- sure, I'll take the plow on mondays, you get it on tuesdays, bill will get it wednesday... ... and in the end, we'll all have extremely limited capacity for developing the food we need to survive... etc..etc.

In my eyes the advent of the internet has made democratic control over means of production a possible reality. So while I don't agree it will take as long as Redstar may think, I certainly think it's going to be bit of time before that sets in and before people see it as a necessary step for their future.