To Centralize or not to...

[CCCPneubauten]

My main thing I can't agree on in my head is to centralize, risking dictatorship, the government, or risk the chaos of decentrialization...

I would like one side to "win me oever" be it the Lenin supporters or the anarchists...

Marx speaks of centrialization...what exactly does he mean?

Thanks guys.

[More Fire for the People]

Marx, being a 19th century romantic-materialist, vied the state [the proletarian state] as a beautiful and transcendental being. Of course centralization of the means of production into the hands of the state could not fail, the state was perfect. The thing is, [b]we know better than this.

The state, if needed after the revolution, should be based upon worker participation and consensus decision-making. Workers should decide what and how they do tasks, especially those that pertain to themselves. If there are revolutionaries in a large part of the country, even if there are just a few of them, they can slowly win the workers over to their side. There is no need for a large, bueaucratic, centralized government.

[JKP]

http://infoshop.org/faq/secHcon.html

[Lamanov]

Centralization of authority is wrong, because it creates a separate power, outside the working class, with its suppression mechanism, state, police, etc, which it implements to keep itself in power.

A "centralization" for coordination and cooperation is something else. It interconnects workers' councils and communities into cooperatives for exchange of labor, means of production and products.

This does not create a separate state authority.

The goal of the proletarian revolution is - next to social emancipation and elimination of classes - destruction of state apparatus.

When Marx speaks of "centralization" - it must be understood that, as Diego points out, he lived in 19th century, and could not understand how the workers' revolutionary self-organization would look like. He could only speculate and speak of "workers' state" and "dictatorship of the proletariat".

[Social Greenman]

Thanks JKP for the link. I have book marked it.

Bukunin quote:


To Marx's argument that workers should organise politically, and send their representations to Parliament, Bakunin argued that when "the workers . . . send common workers . . . to Legislative Assemblies . . . The worker-deputies, transplanted into a bourgeois environment, into an atmosphere of purely bourgeois ideas, will in fact cease to be workers and, becoming Statesmen, they will become bourgeois . . . For men do not make their situations; on the contrary, men are made by them." [The Basic Bakunin, p. 108]

This is a true quote. I have seen this happen a few times.

[CCCPneubauten]

But I would really love to stick with Marxism and at the same time support decentrialization....but in the back of my mind I just think anarchy cannot work and socialism is the key.

[Social Greenman]

That's okay. Take your time to learn. I thought at one time the entire socialist concept was Karl Marx when, in fact, socialist ideas were around long before his time. If I can find it I believe that Marx first thought of socialism as "stupid."

[Janus]

If I can find it I believe that Marx first thought of socialism as "stupid."
Marx was probably referring to the utopian socialists.


But I would really love to stick with Marxism and at the same time support decentrialization....but in the back of my mind I just think anarchy cannot work and socialism is the key.
Well why can't you? Marxists want to decentralize as much as possible, which is why the transition state must be ultra-democratic and gradually "whither away". Skepticism and questioning is important to Marxism. However, would you rather try to attempt something similar to the Paris Commune, which is the closest thing we have had to a dictatorship of the proletariat, or live under an elitist, centralized government complete with an entrenched bureaucracy and secret police?

[ComTom]

I think that a decentralized goverment would be healthy for a sucessful revolution. We should not encourage a vangaurd party, but vangaurd parties such as anarchists, trots, etc. We should have a mosaic of other leftists who encourage the dictatorship of the prolateriat and protect the revolution. We shouldn't have a one party goverment that would protect the dictatorship of the prolateriat. That would be a dictatorship, a centralized goverment.

[Social Greenman]

Comrade Qiu wrote:


Marx was probably referring to the utopian socialists.

Nope:

Influence of Moses Hess on Karl Marx

* Soon after giving up on the idea of becoming a university teacher, Marx met Moses Hess.
* Prior to meeting Hess, Marx thought socialism was a stupid idea.
* Hess suggested a form of socialism that was combined with his own interpretation of Jewish theology.
* Marx didn't agree with Hess's concept of socialism, or any form of socialism, and he merely agreed when Hess said in general terms that justice isn't possible without economic equality.
* Hess persuaded some liberal investors in Cologne to finance the founding of a newspaper to be written by the Marx and the other Young Hegelians. The Rheinische Zeitung (Rhine Gazette) was founded in 1842.
* After several articles criticized the government for brutal treatment of poor people, government censors shut down the Rheinische Zeitung. The repression of the newspaper made Marx famous among radicals in Germany.
* In 1843, Marx, not yet a socialist, began to seriously study the idea of socialism.
* During 1842-1843, although Marx and Engels didn't know each other yet, Hess was also introducing Engels to the idea of socialism.

http://www.marxism.ws/

[Janus]

First off, the definition of socialism is ambiguous in this case which can lead to a misleading understanding of Marx's criticism of Hess. It seems that Hess was one of the "true" socialists as well as a Zionist. So, Marx wasn't criticizing socialism itself but rather Hess's form of socialism which wasn't scientific since it failed to recognize the objective material factors of history in economics and class struggle.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm

[CCCPneubauten]

I love the Paris Commune, so so much the Spanish Civil War communes...as they didn't seem to do much as I have read in Orewell (They had food problems, economic ills, ect.)

But the Paris Commune was crushed...how could one stop this from happening again?

And Marx talks about a national bank, heavy federal income tax, ect...seems like he is in favour of a "modern day" type socialist party such as FDR (I know he wasn't a true socialist...but...for the sake of argument...) but with more tweeks to kill the bits of capitalism in it.

[Social Greenman]

Comrade Qiu wrote:


First off, the definition of socialism is ambiguous in this case which can lead to a misleading understanding of Marx's criticism of Hess. It seems that Hess was one of the "true" socialists as well as a Zionist. So, Marx wasn't criticizing socialism itself but rather Hess's form of socialism which wasn't scientific since it failed to recognize the objective material factors of history in economics and class struggle.


The understanding of the situation is complicated by the fact that the leading figures of “true socialism” stood closer to Marx and Engels than any other radical German group in the ’40’s. We know that Moses Hess, the chief theoretician of the movement, converted Engels to communism, and Zlocisti, Hess’ biographer, claims that Hess was not without influence on Marx, too.

http://www.marxists.org/glossary/frame.htm

[Janus]

I never said that Moses Hess had no influence on Marx. I was questioning your use of "socialism" because unless you define it, no one can be sure of what exactly Marx was calling stupid. Hess avoided scientific socialism and believed that the struggle of nationalities was the prime factor of history.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Social Greenman+--> (Social Greenman)To Marx's argument that workers should organise politically, and send their representations to Parliament...[/b]

When did Marx suggest that? :huh:


CCCPneubauten
But I would really love to stick with Marxism and at the same time support decentrialization....but in the back of my mind I just think anarchy cannot work and socialism is the key.

Marxism is not about centralization of authority and separation of power!

Read my original post.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 11:55 PM
But I would really love to stick with Marxism and at the same time support decentrialization....
Then maybe Libertarian Marxism is for you?

[Social Greenman]

DJ-TC wrote:


QUOTE (Social Greenman)
To Marx's argument that workers should organise politically, and send their representations to Parliament...


When did Marx suggest that?

From the Anarchist FAQ link that JKP gave.

Comrade Qiu wrote:


I never said that Moses Hess had no influence on Marx. I was questioning your use of "socialism" because unless you define it, no one can be sure of what exactly Marx was calling stupid. Hess avoided scientific socialism and believed that the struggle of nationalities was the prime factor of history.

What he first was hearing about socialism he thought it to be stupid before Moses Hess started to influence him. I am talking of his younger years before he began his studies.

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 06:36 PM
I love the Paris Commune, so so much the Spanish Civil War communes...as they didn't seem to do much as I have read in Orewell (They had food problems, economic ills, ect.)


When most of the agricultural areas are captured by the enemy, you tend to have food problems.

[CCCPneubauten]

Now THAT JKP I did not know. I just fear that one commune would ban gay rights or something reactionary like that. People who live in diffrent areas differ in views...so laws passed in one commune wouldn't be another...that would seem to lead to some inequality...

[rebelworker]

Its true that decentralisation will lead to uneven development, but whats wrong with that? you cant force people to be anything, after 80 years of the soviet union or titos yugoslavia racism and sexism have survived. Only by people empowering themselves and living as economic and political equals will people learn on an individual basis to really respect each other and themselves.

Besides the alternative is one person or a small minority setting all morality and this is extreemly dangerous, just using your example of gay rights and your political quote for most of the history of the cuba "revolution" fidel thought homosexuality should be persecuted, so the entire state was at the disposal of imprisoning homosexuals untill just a few years ago. Im sure without a centralised state at least in some areas homosexuals would have been free and this exaple probably would have spread to other areas.

The RCP in the USA also used to untill very recently hold the position that homosexuality was a burgeoise deviation. why should homosexuals have to submit their lives to the aproval of Bob Avakian(himself petty burgeoise).

Individual freedom and collective responsibility are the only safeguards against gross discrimination.

As to food shortages, The Bolshevik party caused famine in russia due to their policy of forced collectivisation, as did the Communist party of china(where it is thought as many as 40 million people starved to death during the "great leap forward".

reality was stalled by these "vanguardists" in order to harness the productive forces of the nation subjegating all individual worth and any sense of economic or political equality.

Nothing even close to this took place in anarchist spain.

Just look at the horrors of Cambodia. I assure you that you wouldnt want to live under a one party state, unless ofcourse you were to become a member of the new ruling class, which is usually the people who advocate it in the first place.
One party rule is the antithesis of revolutionary change.

As far as the plurality of many revolutionary organisations, i like this idea, but trotskyists are highly opposed to it. While head of the Red Army trotsky was responsible for the repression of the Free soviet system of anarchists in the Ukraine and the free organisation of other political organisations in Russia. Trotsky beleived in one party rule, his modern day followers are no exception.

[afitillidie13]

Centralization should come into existence, but it shouldn't be established without the support and participation of the people. Centralization can help create order and purpose, but it shouldn't be forgotten that the reasoning behind centralization is to help and free the people. So the state should be used as a means of organization and an instrument of ensurement of peronal liberty, while it works toward an area where the state in the Capitalist term dissolves, and is replaced by a People's State.

[rebelworker]

I think this idea of a "peoples state" is the big point of contention.

What does that mean?

North korea is called a "peoples state"
China is called a "peoples state"
The USSR was called a "peoples state"

I think centralisation should be worked towards, but only if it is guided by the needs of communities.
Free federation of the economy, that is local democratic structures, like workplace and community councils of a directly demoratic nature, organised locally to meet the needs of the people directly involved in them, should voluntarily link up with other such bodies on regional levels to help coordinate distribution of raw materials, goods and specialised services.

Much of this could be facilitated by computers, greatly reducing the need for any kind of beurocracy, and only regional bodies for actual deission making, with recallable and rotating delegates perhaps, would be needed assome kind of "state".

In the case of Armed conflict, similar directly democratic regional militias could be federated i n the same way, with elected, recallable, decission making bodies.

Schools and healthcare could be similarly federated and directly linked to the local community councils, with no seperate beurocracy, guided by a joint mandate from the community and regional councils, carried out by the workers and students councils from each school and region made up of teachers, support staff and students and their families.

The less division of power and unaccointable decission making the better

All so called "peoples" or "workers" states of the past have turned into self serving totalitarian beurcracies because it is built into their structure.
Communism can only be built and carried out by the democratic participation of the majority.

This is the differnece between Anarchsit-communism, some liberatory forms of autonomist marxism and the Vanguardist marxism that has destroyed the communist movement.

[CCCPneubauten]

I am almost won over by the decentrialization camp...as the above comment was correct...central "communism" has fallen, we MUST try something that differs from this.

Although it would seem all these direct democracys would require a lot of paperwork so people could remember past votes, ect.

Problem is that if 51% will still dominate over the rest...the minority must submit to the will of the majority?

Could someone explain that in a decentralized "state"?

[Seong]

I actualy think I'm going with centralization, i.e. centralization through the people not the state. This may be a dumb question but would demarchy be classifed as a centralized deomcracy?

[JKP]

http://infoshop.org/faq/secI5.html#seci56

[Seong]

thanks for the link JKP.
The whole page is very educational :)

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:43 PM

Problem is that if 51% will still dominate over the rest...the minority must submit to the will of the majority?

Could someone explain that in a decentralized "state"?
I gravitate towards this idea of a decentralized state and democracy,

The operating criteria for who makes decisions in a parecon is that those affected have a say or influence proportionate to the degree they are affected. This norm is called participatory self management. It is participatory in that every actor is treated identically and welcomed into decision making by the norm. It is self managing in that every actor has control over what impacts them in the same amount and manner as every other actor.

From here,
Capitalism & Participatory Economics: Decisions (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/decisions.html)

[JKP]

Originally posted by Diego Armando+Jan 29 2006, 11:17 AM--> (Diego Armando @ Jan 29 2006, 11:17 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 10:43 PM

Problem is that if 51% will still dominate over the rest...the minority must submit to the will of the majority?

Could someone explain that in a decentralized "state"?
I gravitate towards this idea of a decentralized state and democracy,

The operating criteria for who makes decisions in a parecon is that those affected have a say or influence proportionate to the degree they are affected. This norm is called participatory self management. It is participatory in that every actor is treated identically and welcomed into decision making by the norm. It is self managing in that every actor has control over what impacts them in the same amount and manner as every other actor.

From here,
Capitalism & Participatory Economics: Decisions (http://www.zmag.org/parecon/capvsparecon/html/decisions.html) [/b]
Parecon is a fucking joke. Besides, it's only an economic system, not a political one.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 03:50 PM
Parecon is a fucking joke. Besides, it's only an economic system, not a political one.
Sometimes I don't agree with parecon but I do like a lot of their ideas. The quote covers participatory democracy in general, regardless as to whether it is economic or political democracy. Interestingly though, I don't like parecon's vision of participatory politics.

[CCCPneubauten]

Well still if a commune does a vote on such and such, and 51% victory...what do those other 49% do?

Do they just pack up and go? Do people shift around until you have communes of people who all believe the same thing? Then that would create conflict it would seem.

Also another question....what would housing be like under communism?

[rebelworker]

Depends on how you define a commune? and what kind of descision they are trying to make.

I think an important factor is how descision making bodies are made and how they relate to other bodies. For management of the ecomomy you want workplace based councils, but they have to be balanced out by community based bodies, they people who will be using the goods and services produced, and giving more political direction to the economy and society as a whole.

If a commune is neigborhood based(or town outside of cities) then people will have to make descisions were they live. There may be disagreement but people will be forced to work togeather in the interest of a livable community.

There is always going to be conflict in society the question is how will it be solved. If people wh live togeather are given actualpower to affect change in their lives and are not divided by economic or political status, we can begin to work towards a society where people cooperate and respect each other. Children who grow up under these conditions willhave a totaly different outlook on life than us who are raised in a highly unequal and there fore highly competative envyroment.

On the other hand you can try and solve problems by imposing one persons or a small minority of peoples personal opinion about how things should be done on everyone else, very similar to how things are done now. The result will be people who dont feel at all empowered and dont take responsibility for their own behavior.
You create a class of people, who are the majority, who are brought up with feelings of insecurity and alienation, a competative, petty, group of subordinates...

which vision of a future world your are working towards will anwer the question as to how society should be organised.