Leninism and Reformism

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I hear of Leninists describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as the means to achieve a communist society. However, reformists also advocate using the state to achieve communism. In this sense, isn't Leninism arguing that the state, as an authoritarian structure, can be used to achieve communism. What is different between the two philosophies except that one gains power through revolution?

Also, what makes Leninism free from the corruption that emerges when reformist efforts occur? Is the revolution an establishment of a state with checks and balances supposed to solve this? In my opinion, the whole idea of a state is hierarchical and leads to corruption. I could be interpreting Leninist philosophy wrong, of course, and I would be interesting in hearing from both sides on the issue.

[bezdomni]

I hear of Leninists describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as the means to achieve a communist society.
Yeah. We say that because we're Marxists. You have to overthrow the bourgeoisie before you can have communism. :P


However, reformists also advocate using the state to achieve communism. In this sense, isn't Leninism arguing that the state, as an authoritarian structure, can be used to achieve communism.

This is false in several ways. First, reformists don't typically advocate communism, but "capitalism with a human face". Look at the scandinavian governments, and you will see reformism.

Second, this tendency is not unique to Leninists. ALL Marxists say that there has to be a socialist state in order for communism (no state, no classes) to exist. The only people who really don't say this are Anarchists.

Third, most Leninists don't advocate an "authoritarian" state. We advocate worker's democracy during the DoP.


what makes Leninism free from the corruption that emerges when reformist efforts occur?
Leninism is (supposed to be) democratic, not despotic. Therefore, the check against corruption is democracy.

However, the bit about reformism doesn't make sense. I think you are trying to assume that Leninism is reformist, when it is not.


In my opinion, the whole idea of a state is hierarchical and leads to corruption
Congratulations! You're an anarchist!

[anomaly]

Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor said:

I hear of Leninists describing the dictatorship of the proletariat as the means to achieve a communist society
I actually do not have a problem with the idea of DoP, however, I do not think it neccesitates a state. A state would imply two functioning classes in society. Clearly, the bourgeoisie will not function as a class in post-revolutionary society. Remember the DoP is not a person, but a class ruling. The point I'm making, though, is that if we only have one functioning class in a society, why then does it neccesitate a state? (it doesn't!)

clownpenisanarchy said:

Third, most Leninists don't advocate an "authoritarian" state. We advocate worker's democracy during the DoP.
In all previous Leninist states, the Leninists did advocate an authoritarian state. The question, then, is why should we believe you will do things any differently next time around?


Congratulations! You're an anarchist!
I second this.

[KC]

I actually do not have a problem with the idea of DoP, however, I do not think it neccesitates a state. A state would imply two functioning classes in society. Clearly, the bourgeoisie will not function as a class in post-revolutionary society. Remember the DoP is not a person, but a class ruling. The point I'm making, though, is that if we only have one functioning class in a society, why then does it neccesitate a state? (it doesn't!)


Your idea that counterrevolution will cease and we will magically be in a communist society right after the revolution is completely childish. I'm beginning to wonder if you've even read any Marx.

[anomaly]

I never said counterrevolution would cease. I said that the bourgeoisie would no longer be a functioning class in post-revolutionary society. You've made a false assumption.

If the bourgeoisie are fighting us, they are certainly not functioning from inside society, but from outside. And we do not need a state to crush counterrevolutionaries.

[Guest1]

You assume you won't have to do much fighting to put them outside of society.

The reality is, they'll still have a foothold in alot of things during the revolution. It will take alot of coordinated efforts to build the structures necessary to eliminate private property as an economic form. In the meantime, they will be fighting you using the property they still own (because you're not done) and using arms. This means a state is necessary.

[KC]

we do not need a state to crush counterrevolutionaries.

“Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”
- Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme, Ch. 4

“The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.”
- V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution

As long as there are class antagonisms, there is a state. So since these antagonisms exist, as you have agreed with, the state exists. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the taking over of the state by the proletariat. So either you agree with the dictatorship of the proletariat and realize that the state is the apparatus used by the proletariat to take control of society and implement communism, or you disagree with the dictatorship of the proletariat, and you are an anti-marxist anarchist (which basically means that you're wrong).

[anomaly]

If class antagonisms do not exist within society, we do not need a state. All 'class anatagonisms' you mention come from outside of society, and will be dealt with appropriately.

CheyMarijuana said:

This means a state is necessary.
I'd say this means the revolution isn't finished.


Also, I need to know what you 'socialists' think the state (post-revolutionary) will look like.

[KC]

If class antagonisms do not exist within society, we do not need a state. All 'class anatagonisms' you mention come from outside of society, and will be dealt with appropriately.

What do you mean by "outside society"? How does counterrevolution come from "outside society"?



I'd say this means the revolution isn't finished.

Well if you consider the revolution the whole period of time between when proletarian revolution starts and when the highest phase of communism is reached, then "post-revolutionary society" is communism. And in that case, addressing this quote:


Also, I need to know what you 'socialists' think the state (post-revolutionary) will look like.

In that case, we all agree on what a "post-revolutionary" state will be. Nonexistant. That is because the world will be communist.

Let's go through this rhetoric again. According to you, the revolution occurs from when the proletariat revolt until all counterrevolution is quelled. Once all counterrevolution is quelled, the proletariat as a class cease to be, as does the state, as there are no longer class antagonisms. A post-revolutionary society, according to you, is the highest phase of communism. And you go on to ask what the 'post-revolutionary state' would look like?

[anomaly]

In that case, as you put it, we agree.

However, then when do you want a state to exist? During revolution? That would be tumultuous at best.

And when, according to you, does revolution end? Let's, for sake of simplicity, assume a communist revolution occurs in Europe. Now, where does your proletarian state fit into this?

And what when counterrevolution is quelled in Europe? Do you want the state to remain?

It seems to me that you believe the long stretch from the first outbreak of violence to the achievement of high communism is 'the revolution'. Rather, I think there will be many 'revolutions'.

[redstar2000]

It was really unfortunate that Marx chose to use the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" to describe the post-capitalist "state"...even though he was only using it in contrast to bourgeois "democracy" -- a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Little did he anticipate how the Leninists would seize on the word "dictatorship" to justify a despotism of the Vanguard Party.

The "classical" Leninist paradigm does indeed posit that their despotism will "gradually be reformed into communism"...but, of course, that never happened.

In fact, they've reformed themselves into modern capitalism! :lol:

Leninists often claim that they've "learned from" what happened in the 20th century and now promise that their despotism will be "more democratic".

But one need only examine how their parties actually work to see that their "promises" are not worth the electrons it takes to display them on a monitor. The parties themselves are despotisms in which the party leadership decides everything of substance and the party members do what they're told! Not all of them have an explicitly designated "Great Leader"...but I think that's the direction they naturally go in.

The consequence of proletarian revolution may well result in the emergence of a "Paris Commune state"...we simply don't know at this point.

But such a "state" is about as far from what the Leninists want as outright anarchism itself.

The Leninists want "the full monte"...a state apparatus just like the one we have now except with them running it instead of the overthrown bourgeoisie.

They especially insist on a professional army and a professional police force...they want forces they can count on in case the proletariat "becomes too demanding" or threatens to "get out of hand".

In the "west", this is all academic, to be sure. The modern working class is no more likely to "follow them" than it is to convert to Islam. We are far past the urge to "seek a Moses" to "lead us out of bondage".

Much less a whole party of Moses wannabes. :lol:

In addition to which is the fact that modern Leninism in the "west" is almost entirely social democratic...with no more interest in proletarian revolution than in renaissance folk music. They dream of "getting into parliament" and "doing nice things"...like the social democrats of seven or eight decades ago.

The only real problem with Leninism "in decay" is that it still has the power to mislead young people with an interest in Marxism and proletarian revolution. They conjure up romantic "visions" of Petrograd or Shanghai...and, let's face it, the young are often susceptible to "visions of rebellion". They have no idea that joining a Leninist party is just like getting a McJob with zero pay...that all they'll ever really be called upon to do is hustle newspapers and show up for ritual demonstrations. Their minds will never be challenged; their possible capabilities never really utilized.

When they finally get disgusted and quit, they'll often conclude that "revolutionary politics" is just another scam.

And that really is a tragedy. :(

Some "ultra-leftists" and "anarchists" do whatever they can to discredit the Leninist paradigm on boards like this...because we want to remove this obstacle to the development of young revolutionaries.

It's a dirty job, but someone's got to do it. :D

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

[anomaly]

Perhaps the reason I oppose 'the state' is because it has traditionally been oppressive. In fact, if one truly wants a decentralized 'state', it seems odd to call it a 'state' at all. A state traditionally has been centralized, oppressive, etc. etc. Now, I would not object much to a Paris Commune 'state', simply because I do not recognize it much as a 'state'. Again, I think we have a misunderstanding based upon semantics, and my prejudices.

[KC]

However, then when do you want a state to exist? During revolution? That would be tumultuous at best.


Your definition of "revolution" is bullshit; that is what I was pointing out in my post. Socialist revolution in one nation will take the course of a revolutionary upheaval of the proletariat, followed by the dictatorship of the proletariat, followed by communism. Your definition of revolution includes the dictatorship of the proletariat within it. So yes, according to your definition, I "want a 'state' to exist...during revolution".

Of course, throughout the course of the revolution, the state will exist. Socialist revolution is merely the proletariat taking control of the state. Once it has control of the state is when the "dictatorship of the proletariat" comes into play. The dictatorship of the proletariat exists from the moment that the proletariat has control of the state, and slowly phases out as class antagonisms slowly die out (along with the bourgeois class).

So do I wan't a state to exist during revolution? I want a dictatorship of the proletariat to exist, which exists inside the timespan of the revolution according to your definition. Your question, however, is intrinsically flawed, as the state will exist during the course of the revolution regardless of if we want it to or not.



And when, according to you, does revolution end?

Revolution is the overthrow of the bourgeois class and the replacement of it with the proletarian class. Revolution occurs from the moment the proletariat revolts until the moment the proletariat has control of the state. It occurs until the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Do you want the state to remain?


No communist wants the state to remain. That is why we are communists. We desire a communist society; a society which is by its very definition stateless. No communist wants a state to remain in place of a fully developed communist society. That is why we're communists!


Perhaps the reason I oppose 'the state' is because it has traditionally been oppressive.

That is the very reason why the proletariat will take control of it: to oppress the bourgeoisie!!!


In fact, if one truly wants a decentralized 'state', it seems odd to call it a 'state' at all.

I have already defined what a state is in my above post.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 03:34 AM

Little did he [Marx] anticipate how the Leninists would seize on the word "dictatorship" to justify a despotism of the Vanguard Party.


Some Leninists might use the word dictatorship to justify despotism, but it is a bastardization of Marxism-Leninism.

To paraphrase Trotsky; when the working class is exercising their dictatorship over society, they will not tolerate a dictatorship above themselves.

If there is despotism, it isn't the DoP.

[KC]

If there is despotism, it isn't the DoP.

Unless it's class despotism! :P

[anomaly]

Lazar, you might be the worst writer I have ever encountered. :lol:

So communism will not exist, according to you, until the entire world bourgeoisie has been overthrown? That is, there can be no functioning communist society in Europe while a functioning capitalist society in China still exists?

And do you support a 'Paris Commune' type state? Or some other 'structure'?

You are making this far more difficult than it needs to be.

For sake of clarity, please just use 'your' definition of revolution.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by clownpenisanarchy
To paraphrase Trotsky; when the working class is exercising their dictatorship over society, they will not tolerate a dictatorship above themselves.

I suspect you've "paraphrased Trotsky" into incoherence.

Certainly, I can recall no objections from him during the period 1917-24 to the Bolshevik despotism imposed on the Russian proletariat. He may have had some critical things to say after Stalin became General Secretary of the Party...but that doesn't really count, does it? :lol:

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

[KC]

Lazar, you might be the worst writer I have ever encountered. :lol:




You are making this far more difficult than it needs to be.


I am not making this difficult at all.



So communism will not exist, according to you, until the entire world bourgeoisie has been overthrown? That is, there can be no functioning communist society in Europe while a functioning capitalist society in China still exists?

If you haven't noticed, I have been talking about the evolution of one state from capitalism to communism. Of course it won't be such a structured and linear development internationally. Countries will be at different stages of development from capitalism to communism at any given time. But every state must go through the same transition. I don't even know where you got the notion that I believed this to be so.



And do you support a 'Paris Commune' type state? Or some other 'structure'?


I am not getting into a discussion as to the form of the dictatorship of the proletariat. It is completely irrelevant to this discussion.

[anomaly]

In my quest to narrow down this discussion to it's 'bare bones', I think I've finally found it amidst the rest of your posts.

Essentially, our disagreement concerns the state, and whether it will be neccesary once revolution ends. For example, a revolution in Europe: you argue that class antagonisms will still exist even after the revolution. I, however, argue that one class (proletariat) will emerge from the revolution, and the bourgeoisie will either assimilate into the new society or be eliminated.

Now, do we sufficiently understand each other, though we may disagree?

This argument is un-winnable by either of us. Neither can see into the future. But, I do want to make sure we understand each other.

[KC]

Essentially, our disagreement concerns the state, and whether it will be neccesary once revolution ends.

Also, about when the revolution ends.


For example, a revolution in Europe: you argue that class antagonisms will still exist even after the revolution.

Class antagonisms will most certainly exist after the revolution and during the dictatorship of the proletariat. There is no arguing this at all. The bourgeoisie isn't going to simply give up.


I, however, argue that one class (proletariat) will emerge from the revolution, and the bourgeoisie will either assimilate into the new society or be eliminated.

Again, this comes down to our definition of the revolution. I defined the revolution as the moment the proletariat revolts until they have control of the state, at which time the dictatorship of the proletariat starts. During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the bourgeoisie will either assimilate into the new society or be eliminated. Once all bourgeois opposition is quelled, the proletarian class will cease to be as a class, the state will phase out, and we will have communism.

[anomaly]

I would say the revolution ends when the bourgeoisie is overthrown. But, as you mentioned, this will occur at different times for different places.


The bourgeoisie isn't going to simply give up.
True, but does this fact neccesitate a state? I don't think so. Rather, the bourgeoisie will simply either assimilate or, for lack of a better phrase, be hunted down.

Details, as I have not the gift of foresight, are rather hazy :lol:

However, again, the state is the central disagreement.

[KC]

I would say the revolution ends when the bourgeoisie is overthrown.

The bourgeoisie is overthrown when the proletariat takes control of the state, i.e. when the dictatorship of the proletariat begins. This doesn't mean that the bourgeoisie is going to give up, however.


Rather, the bourgeoisie will simply either assimilate or, for lack of a better phrase, be hunted down.

This will happen during the dictatorship of the proletariat.



True, but does this fact neccesitate a state?

Let me requote Lenin, as this is a sufficient definition of what a state is:

“The state is a product and a manifestation of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled. And, conversely, the existence of the state proves that the class antagonisms are irreconcilable.”
- V.I. Lenin, The State and Revolution

[anomaly]

Yes, yes, your thoughts are all well and nice. However, I do not wish here to debate what future societies will look like. It is quite obvious that you are impressed with these ideas which you do espouse. My only aim is to assure we understand each other. Understand?

[KC]

However, I do not wish here to debate what future societies will look like.

Where did I attempt to do this?


It is quite obvious that you are impressed with these ideas which you do espouse.

Because I'm right.


My only aim is to assure we understand each other. Understand?

No. You seem to not understand what a "state" is (your definition of revolution is also completely skewed). I gave the marxist definition of what a state is; now I would like to hear your thoughts again. Do you agree with the definition I have posed? Why/why not? What is your definition of a state?

Why do you disagree with what I am saying?

[anomaly]

The state implies hierarchy. Do you understand? And for this reason, the structure of this 'state' of yours becomes most important.

And who will run this state? That is also of importance. The usual response is 'the proletariat as a whole'. Accurate?

But will you have representatives? Or will it be ultra-democratic? Or what?

What will the functions be of this state? Who decides?

In other words, the "form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" becomes extremely important. You must understand that there has never existed a state which was not authoritarian, which was not hierarchical, which was not corrupt. For this reason, I am skeptical that we can use the state to create a stateless society.

[KC]

The state implies hierarchy. Do you understand? And for this reason, the structure of this 'state' of yours becomes most important.

We're not discussing the structure of the state at all here. All I'm saying is that the state exists during both the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat, and phases out as society evolves into communism. The structure of the state is important, but it is completely irrelevant to this discussion.




And who will run this state? That is also of importance. The usual response is 'the proletariat as a whole'. Accurate?

But will you have representatives? Or will it be ultra-democratic? Or what?

What will the functions be of this state? Who decides?

Again, the form of the state is irrelevant to this discussion.



In other words, the "form of the dictatorship of the proletariat" becomes extremely important. You must understand that there has never existed a state which was not authoritarian, which was not hierarchical, which was not corrupt. For this reason, I am skeptical that we can use the state to create a stateless society.

I suggest you reread the definition of state that I have supplied. "The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled." Therefore, the state exists as long as class antagonism is irreconcilable. Therefore the state will exist. The form of the state doesn't have anything to do with this conclusion. All we are saying is that the state will exist during the revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. The structure of the bourgeois state does not in any way define the state in general.


You must understand that there has never existed a state which was not authoritarian, which was not hierarchical, which was not corrupt. For this reason, I am skeptical that we can use the state to create a stateless society.

You must understand that there has never existed a society which was not divided into classes. For this reason, should you be skeptical that we can create a classless society? Is this not the same form that you are arguing? So why are you not skeptical about creating a classless society?

There has never been a state where the majority of society has control of it, or a society where the majority class has rule over society. So why aren't you skeptical of this?

You are too caught up in the form of the state. You think that the state is by definition hierarchial. But it isn't.

[anomaly]

I am not very skeptical that communism will exist because it fits with observed history. (historical materialism)

However, that a state ceases to become corrupt does not fit with observed history, nor has there been any movement in this direction.


"The state arises where, when and insofar as class antagonism objectively cannot be reconciled."
We've been over this. What when the bourgeoisie is hunted down or assimilates? This will happen during the revolution. The revolution ends when the bourgeoisie ceases to exist. During the revolution, which may well be rather short (the proletariat, after all, greatly outnumbers the bourgeoisie), the existence of a state is meaningless (because there is a revolution going on!). The goal of a revolution is not state control but defeat of the bourgeoisie. And so where does a state fit into this? It doesn't!

In other words, no state is needed. So why bother creating one?


You think that the state is by definition hierarchial. But it isn't.
In view of history, I see no evidence supporting this statement.

[KC]

What when the bourgeoisie is hunted down or assimilates?

This happens during the dictatorship of the proletariat, from the moment the proletariat takes control of the state to the moment communism is achieved.


This will happen during the revolution.

If you consider the dictatorship of the proletariat to exist during the revolution...


The revolution ends when the bourgeoisie ceases to exist.

...which you do.


During the revolution, which may well be rather short (the proletariat, after all, greatly outnumbers the bourgeoisie), the existence of a state is meaningless (because there is a revolution going on!).

The revolution (by your definition) internationally won't be short at all. It will take decades to completely smash the bourgeoisie and end class antagonisms (and classes, and states).


The goal of a revolution is not state control but defeat of the bourgeoisie.

The goal of the violent upheaval of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie (my definition of the revolution) is to take control of the state (nationally) and the world (internationally), which is just a collection of states. Here's an actual definition of what a state is, as I guess the definition I provided earlier wasn't sufficient:

"The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."
-marxists.org

So as you can see, the proletariat must take control of the institution of organized violence and use it, as the ruling class of a country, to maintain the conditions of its rule.


And so where does a state fit into this? It doesn't!


Of course it does.



In other words, no state is needed. So why bother creating one?

Because it exists as long as there are class antagonisms. And since class antagonisms exist until communism is fully developed, it is necessary for the proletariat to take control of in order to maintain its rule.

The rule of the proletarian class over the bourgeois class in any given country is a state. If you don't believe in a state then you don't believe in the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, and thus have no theoretical ground to stand on.



In view of history, I see no evidence supporting this statement.

In view of history, I see no evidence supporting the creation of a classless society. :rolleyes:

You are looking at a bourgeois state and saying it shouldn't exist. All states aren't bourgeois. In fact, they take a different form depending on the class controlling them.

What form do you think the dictatorship of the proletariat would take?

EDIT: If you're an anarchist, why do you have a hammer and sickle avatar?

[anomaly]

The rule of the proletarian class over the bourgeois class in any given country is a state
We won't have this. The proletariat will never coexist with the bourgeoisie while being the upper class.

Rather, the proletariat will become the only class, and so eliminate any need for the state. Any society created by revolution will not include the bourgeoisie. That is why I consistently refer to any counterrevolutionaries as being outside of society.

For example, let's again turn to the European example. Let us say that the proletariat controls territory including Britain and France. There will not exist any bourgeoisie inside of Britain and France in this case. That is why counterrevolutionary activity will come from outside the society. Therefore, there are no class anatagonisms within the proletarian society (for lack of a better term here).


If you're an anarchist, why do you have a hammer and sickle avatar?
Anarcho-communism. I suppose I could change it, but I easily identify myself with this avatar. So, there is no need or want to change it.

[KC]

EDIT: I give up. I'm sick of talking semantics with stuff that you can't get through your head.

[anomaly]

Hmm. Well, I hardly think such is the case. Indeed, the more I look at any possible revolution, a state not only seems undesirable, but unlikely.

I told you when this began that we would not agree. We are arguing about events that have no come to pass. Of course there will be a wide range of opinions about such things. That you cannot see this is, frankly, surprising.

However, we do have some bit of 'unity', I think. Is it not true that if there is an 'anarchist revolution', in which no state is created, you would support it? I would certainly support a 'proletarian state', however, as is obvious, I am skeptical of the idea (and favor anarchism).

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 06:03 AM
Rather, the proletariat will become the only class, and so eliminate any need for the state. Any society created by revolution will not include the bourgeoisie.
Can you explain how you've arrived at this conclusion? On face value it appears to be both illogical and ahistorical. Will the bourgeoisie simply disappear after revolution?

[321zero]

The bourgeois state is an intrument of rule for a minority, exploiting class. The Bourgeois have invested a great deal in 'perfecting' this intrument, in ensuring as much as possible that it is loyal not to the 'nation' or the 'people' in the aggregate, but to them and their continuing rule. The police and professional army are indocrinated and seperated from the potentially corrupting influence of society in general. They swear allegience to the consitution, or in some backward (in this respect) nations to a titular sovereign. They are highly hierarchical and undemocratic because any other form would be unreliable is times of crisis.

The institutions of the existing state cannot simply be 'taken over', the revolution must smash the existing state utterly, police and the officer class should be decimated and dispersed. Any military formations which have not already come over to the revolution need to be dispersed. Those that do come over to the revolution will be transformed in the process and merged with the armed people.

There can be no possibility of reconciling class antagonism under capitalism because of the neccesarily exploitative nature of the rule of capital. They cannot crush the workers out of existence (although I'm sure they daydream it...)

The dictatorship of the proletariat on the other hand has only one task - to exterminate the exploiters, either physically or as a class as needs be. Unlike the bosses daydream this task can be achieved, and in the process the neccesity for 'dictatorship' will 'wither away' (it will I tell you!) The DoP should be ultra-democratic, based primarily on the armed people. Any extraordinary ;) organs must be fully accountable to soviet rule (I know, I know, an anachronism).

No one can predict the surge and ebb of the revolution, or the precise nature and strength of counter-revolution. In the Soviet Union the open counter-revolution was defeated, but at such a cost and with recourse to such methods and tools, that unaccountable power grew until it could not be checked when it sought to institutionalise itself.

We should carry on screaming at each other in as comradely manner as possible about the meaning of 1917 and and other such events. It's the best way to ensure as far as possible that we end up pointing our guns in the same direction.

Sorry for the long edit, bold tags all over the place.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2006, 11:09 AM
Can you explain how you've arrived at this conclusion? On face value it appears to be both illogical and ahistorical. Will the bourgeoisie simply disappear after revolution?
As I wrote, I think they will either assimilate or be killed. So yes. What I think we'll see is a growing communist territory, originating in those places with the most favorable material conditions for communism, which I hypothesize to be Western Europe.

I am, however, interested in whether socialist comrades would support an 'anarchist revolution.'

[Axel1917]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 21 2006, 02:12 AM
You assume you won't have to do much fighting to put them outside of society.

The reality is, they'll still have a foothold in alot of things during the revolution. It will take alot of coordinated efforts to build the structures necessary to eliminate private property as an economic form. In the meantime, they will be fighting you using the property they still own (because you're not done) and using arms. This means a state is necessary.
This so true. The Anarchists have not even read or understood what they criticize. The Russian Revolution and the foreign imperialist intervention are perfect proof of this. I have been doing some reading when I can, and I believe that Lenin makes many valid points in his speeches and writings contained in the 28th volume of the Lenin Collected Works.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Axel1917
The Russian Revolution and the foreign imperialist intervention are perfect proof of this.

More proof (if it were needed) that Trotskyists live in a time warp.

When they're not tailing German Social Democracy c.1912, they're busy refighting the Russian Civil War (1918-21).

Go figure. :lol:

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

[321zero]

When they're not tailing German Social Democracy c.1912, they're busy refighting the Russian Civil War (1918-21).

So what is the 'shelf-life' of history Redstar? From the above we can work out it's less than 90 years. Is it less than 80? 60? 50? Oh wait, that makes you obselete.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 10:12 PM

More proof (if it were needed) that Trotskyists live in a time warp.

When they're not tailing German Social Democracy c.1912, they're busy refighting the Russian Civil War (1918-21).

Go figure. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I'll be honest, that made me laugh.

However, certain Trotskyist parties are active. A lot of the people who go around calling themselves Trotskyists these days are just in it for the fashion. The fashion being distancing oneself from Stalin.

The SWP is a joke of a "revolutionary" party, as are many of the other self-proclaimed "Trotskyist" parties. The ISO in my city is a good example of this. They will spend entire meetings talking about the Russian civil war and not give a thought the world today.

However, these inactive Trotskyist parties are still much better than the ultra-left "sects" that rarely have more than 12 members at a time and do nothing other than talk about utopias.

check out the International Marxist Tendency (http://www.marxist.com) website. The IMT is Trotskyist andvery active.

Another problem I have with some Leninist (and Trotskyist) parties is the sectarianism. They do more fighting between themselves than they do against capitalism.

However, this problem is usually isolated to certain circumstances. I've notced that heavy sectarianism tends to occurs when
a) a party is new
b) a radical political situation arises, causing controversy
c) certain members are expelled or admitted into the party

There are probably more, but these are the first ones that come to mind.

[rebelworker]

Yet another great example of someone who has taken lenin and trotsky with biblical "all knowers" or someone who is so influenced by petty burgeoise thinking that they see the state and management of the stupid workers by the enlightened managers/vanguard as the same thing as revolution.

I got tired of playing this game years ago, just makes me want to shoot these guys before they get the chance to shoot me. Or send me to the gulag or whatever other peice of "socialism" they want to correct line me into my far off paradise.

Workers versus bosses, thats revolution, its clear to me which side lazerus is on.

Redstar said it well, I was stuck in the bolshi swamp for a few years, kept good and ignorant by the anarchist retoric the party leaders threw around. When I finally did some actual looking at the facts i realised that lenin and trotsky were both enemies of my class.

Luckily I was too stuborn to gve up and went to work saving the anarchist movement from itself. Thankfully we are well on our way to making Bolsevism totally irrelevant, just give us another decade and lenin will be in the same dustbin as stalin...

In Solidarity,
(a)rebelworker(who wont be fooled again)

PS please do some research on the IMT and why their flagship org. the militant group in Britan is no longer active. Its because they became a counter revolutionary cult and in order to try and take controll of a struggle aganist the poll tax that the working class was in the process of winning independantly(and leaving them behind) they went so far as to publicly denounce working class militants who were defending themselves on mass from a brutal police offensive. They even said in the burgeoise press that they would "name names" in a effort to help police round up the "unclontrollable elements".

The IMT is history, In Canada, were i live they are totally burgeoise students out of touch with reality. The people i met in my city(who were pretty solid) quit after becoming disgusted with the leadership.

This group IS NOT worth rebuilding, even if they have some student groups in Mexico and ven. with a few hundred members.

[KC]

Workers versus bosses, thats revolution, its clear to me which side lazerus is on.


It's funny because I wasn't supporting Marxism-Leninism or Stalinism. I was talking about historical materialism.

[rebelworker]

that means alot of things to alot of people, your vagueness on what you mean by a state is troubling...

try being more specific.

[KC]

that means alot of things to alot of people, your vagueness on what you mean by a state is troubling...

try being more specific.

If you haven't paid any attention at all to this conversation, the whole conversation was on the evolution of society towards communism. A state will exist until class antagonisms fade. I am not going into a discussion here on the form of the state, as that is not what this is about at all. I am being vague because this discussion isn't about the form of a state. If you want to discuss that then start a thread on it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by 321zero
So what is the 'shelf-life' of history Redstar? From the above we can work out it's less than 90 years. Is it less than 80? 60? 50? Oh wait, that makes you obsolete.

You jest...but actually I'd suggest quite seriously that in terms of revolutionary strategy and tactics, about 30 years would be a reasonable estimate.

That doesn't mean one should "ignore" what happened before that...but the further back you go, the more likely the "historical example" that you want to bring forward really is obsolete.

Conditions have changed so dramatically that the "historical example" has become irrelevant.

Imagine how silly it would look if I made a detailed study of the Paris Commune and then said: Hey, we've got to do everything those guys did...right down to the fine print!

When SDS was recently re-started, some people (correctly) objected that we are not living in the 1960s anymore and it's highly questionable whether an approach that worked well 40 years ago is still relevant.

We shall have to see...and I am hopeful that it will. It's much more likely to work out than ideas that were developed in response to the conditions of Russia 1900-17 or China 1930-1949, don't you think?

To be sure, there are some things we can "borrow" from past movements...and much controversy revolves around precisely what things have not passed their "sell-by" dates.

The Leninist Vanguard Party is, in the "old" capitalist countries self-evidently obsolete. The same is true for its parent, social democracy.

When Trotskyists and Maoists in the "west" open their mouths, what comes out sounds to modern ears like noise...almost as if they were actually "speaking" in Russian or Chinese. :lol:

While, interestingly and significantly enough, Marx and Engels "sound modern"...if it weren't for the Victorian English of the existing translations, much sounds as if it could have been "written yesterday".

Oh, and as to me "being obsolete"...hey, I certainly hope to become so. If future generations can't improve on me, then we're all fucked! :lol:

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

[Guest1]

Actually, I think one of the biggest problems on the left today is an exaggerated sense of change.

Really, the fundamentals are all the same, as far back as the Commune, it's just now we have a higher proportion of workers and urban poor.

This fetish for "newness" on the left is incredibly irritating, being new for the sake of being new leads to vague, rediculous polemics without any concrete organizing. "Let's build a new organization!" they shout, what kind, we ask. And then silence fills the room.

What can be new about working class organizing? Abandoning the unions? That's been tried, it's called liberalism. So what exactly needs to change? Isn't it the same at the bottom? Don't we need to build industrial organs of power in the end? Workers' councils which begin as tools for the fight?

AKA unions.

[321zero]

Imagine how silly it would look if I made a detailed study of the Paris Commune and then said: Hey, we've got to do everything those guys did...right down to the fine print!

OK, I agree with your response, and anyone who wants to repeat history is, um, scholastic, dogmatic, etc etc, and that you were probably stick-bending a bit.

However I also think Che-spliff is right to be cautious about claims that everything is new (which is the conceit of every new generation...)

For example 'globalisation' in some interpretations is supposedly replacing 'imperialism'. Now a proper analysis of modern TNCs and MNCs is certainly a good idea but I for one doubt that they really represent the beginnings of a new 'global' capitalist order.

But even the idea of 'globalisation' isn't new - Marx observed the early years the global economy, and Kautsky theorised that capitalism may be able to overcome the conflict between the nation-state and the global economy.

One of the happy consequences (for him) of Kautsky's theory of 'ultra-imperialism' was that he could justify washing his hands of the Leninist imperitive to defend pre-capitalist countries against the empires. Sometimes todays crop of B-52 liberals revive this reasoning with relation to Iraq and other prey-nations.

Now I've read your stuff on Iraq on your own site and I reckon it owes more than a little to Lenin's Imperialism - please don't take offense.

So this is an example, I reckon, of an important continuity with that &#39;time beyond time&#39;, when men were men and Leninists were revolutionaries. <_<

I&#39;m also sympathetic to the idea that the Cold War tended to suppress inter-imperialist rivalry and that we are now seeing the consequences of the Wests victory over the USSR in a new round of resource wars.

i.e. There are parallels to be drawn between 1914 and 2014. I would say we are past tragedy and well into the &#39;farcical stage of history&#39; though.

[321zero]

I guess I&#39;m intolerant of the idea that we shouldn&#39;t bother with &#39;ancient history&#39; coz it&#39;s so, like, over and of the suggestion that we have nothing to learn from certain dead Russians. Hence my occasional over-grumpy accusations of wilful ignorance

Too much mutual polemical stick-bending can result in uncontrollable bad-vibrations and meltdown.

<sigh> Lookit me, I&#39;ve got my cake and now I&#39;m gonna eat it. :rolleyes:

[anomaly]

This fetish for "newness" on the left is incredibly irritating, being new for the sake of being new leads to vague, rediculous polemics without any concrete organizing. "Let&#39;s build a new organization&#33;" they shout, what kind, we ask. And then silence fills the room.
Something other than the old, top-heavy Leninist &#39;organization&#39; would certainly seem new.

As far as organizing goes, there are certainly some ideas on this site. However, with any of them, we must use democratic tactics (ultra-democracy, if you prefer).

[anomaly]

To Lazar, to further any discussion of the state...I am still unsure whether our &#39;disagreement&#39; is more do to semantics or theory. Indeed, I would support a &#39;Paris Commune&#39; style state, or something similar. I am not convinced that such a state will be created, but that is mere prophecy. We&#39;ll find out when the revolution comes.

I see you quoted out of Critique of the Gotha Program. Well, back at ya&#39;:

In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there [the "workers&#39; state"] that are analogous to present functions of the state?
A good question indeed. However, Marx does not really answer it in Gotha. He says only, just like you, that there will exist a dictatorship of the proletariat, in the form of a state.

Also, if we have a state, somebody must administer the state. So, to quote Bakunin:

Can it really be that the entire proletariat will stand at the head of the administration?
Well, can it? If not, then what?

Also, a specific question for you: would you support a &#39;Leninist style&#39; &#39;DoP?&#39;

Oh, and do answer. This thread is off-topic as it is. No need for a new thread.

[KC]

To Lazar, to further any discussion of the state...I am still unsure whether our &#39;disagreement&#39; is more do to semantics or theory.

As am I.


Indeed, I would support a &#39;Paris Commune&#39; style state, or something similar. I am not convinced that such a state will be created, but that is mere prophecy. We&#39;ll find out when the revolution comes.


So you realize that a state will exist, regardless of its form, until class anagonisms are done away with? Again, I haven&#39;t spoken of the form of the state at all. I am merely talking about historical materialism and the necessary existence of the state until class antagonisms are gone; i.e. until communism is fully developed.



A good question indeed. However, Marx does not really answer it in Gotha. He says only, just like you, that there will exist a dictatorship of the proletariat, in the form of a state.


My point, as well as Karl&#39;s, was that discussion of the form of the state isn&#39;t relevant at all to this discussion. Of course, it&#39;s an important issue that must be discussed, but this isn&#39;t the discussion for it.



Well, can it? If not, then what?

Isn&#39;t that what direct democracy is?



Also, a specific question for you: would you support a &#39;Leninist style&#39; &#39;DoP?&#39;


It depends. You have to realize that every situation can&#39;t be treated with the same form of the state. The material conditions in different countries are different. This is why Marx never specifically spoke of the form of proletarian dictatorship. This is why both Marx and I are being "vague" on the subject.

This is what this discussion was about. Tell me if you agree with this analysis or not:

Eventually, as capitalism develops, class antagonisms will become violent. Following this is the violent takeover of the state by the proletariat. From this point on is known as the dictatorship of the proletariat (notice, this has nothing to do with the form of the DoP&#33;&#33;&#33;). Counterrevolution (which is performed by the bourgeoisie) will be quelled by this proletarian "state" (I put state in quotes because it is of a completely different form than a bourgeois state, which you and other anarchists constantly compare it to). Once this counterrevolution is stopped, class antagonisms no longer exist, the proletariat as a class no longer exists - the world is all workers, who have the same relation to the means of production - and the state withers away. We are left with a fully developed communist society.

[anomaly]

I think our disagreement is mostly semantics. This is good.

Would you call a territory in which only the proletariat existed, and counterrevolutionary activity came from outside the territory...would you call that a &#39;state&#39;? Because that was my semantic I used throughout the &#39;debate&#39;.

However, I think you miss the reason &#39;us anarchists&#39; don&#39;t much care for the state: Leninist regimes used an &#39;ultra-state&#39;, and some, namely TragicClown, think that this centralization is precisely what Marx spoke of (indeed, she says Marx wanted a more centralized state then did Lenin). Using TragicClown&#39;s definitions, I&#39;m not a Marxist at all, because I don&#39;t want a state even more centralized than Lenin&#39;s.

So until we can see that the &#39;DoP&#39; won&#39;t use Leninist methods, anarchists will not support it.

Indeed, Bakunin&#39;s predictions of what the DoP would become proved extremely accurate with the USSR and the rest. Whether this was due to simple material conditions, or if this is just &#39;what the DoP does&#39; remains to be seen.


My point, as well as Karl&#39;s, was that discussion of the form of the state isn&#39;t relevant at all to this discussion. Of course, it&#39;s an important issue that must be discussed, but this isn&#39;t the discussion for it.
If a state exists which is &#39;Leninist like&#39;, anarchists won&#39;t support it. And for good reason.


The material conditions in different countries are different
True, but if a country is ready for proletarian revolution, material conditions should be similar to other nations which had proletarian revolution. So I would expect any &#39;state&#39; formed to be pretty similar.

[KC]

Would you call a territory in which only the proletariat existed, and counterrevolutionary activity came from outside the territory...would you call that a &#39;state&#39;?

I would call that as nonexistant. I don&#39;t see a territory where only the proletariat exists as even plausible. That notion is entirely nonsensical.



However, I think you miss the reason &#39;us anarchists&#39; don&#39;t much care for the state: Leninist regimes used an &#39;ultra-state&#39;, and some, namely TragicClown, think that this centralization is precisely what Marx spoke of (indeed, she says Marx wanted a more centralized state then did Lenin). Using TragicClown&#39;s definitions, I&#39;m not a Marxist at all, because I don&#39;t want a state even more centralized than Lenin&#39;s.

So until we can see that the &#39;DoP&#39; won&#39;t use Leninist methods, anarchists will not support it.


Again, these are disagreements on the form of the state.



True, but if a country is ready for proletarian revolution, material conditions should be similar to other nations which had proletarian revolution. So I would expect any &#39;state&#39; formed to be pretty similar.


The conditions of life in every country aren&#39;t the same. That is why the style of feudalism, the style of capitalism, and the style of proletarian dictatorship, have been (and will be) different.

[anomaly]

So you think that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will both exist in the same &#39;state&#39;, even when the proletariat is the &#39;upper class&#39;?

And how can you call them &#39;bourgeoisie&#39; if they no longer own capital? I think they&#39;ll either assimilate or leave to go to a place where they can own capital. Or maybe they&#39;ll form counterrevolutionary groups, but these would have to be formed outside of the said &#39;territory&#39;.

[KC]

So you think that the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will both exist in the same &#39;state&#39;, even when the proletariat is the &#39;upper class&#39;?

Yes, both the proletariat and the bourgeoisie will still exist.



And how can you call them &#39;bourgeoisie&#39; if they no longer own capital?

Because they are either former-capital owners, sympathizers with the bourgeoisie, or current-capital owners (in the beginning). These form the bourgeois class. Although they no longer might have control of the means of production, they are all organized into a class, and called "the bourgeois class" because they have the same relation to the means of production, and they are determined on taking back the means which were "wrongfully stolen" from them.


I think they&#39;ll either assimilate or leave to go to a place where they can own capital.

Or they will fight the proletariat for control of the means of production. :rolleyes:


Or maybe they&#39;ll form counterrevolutionary groups, but these would have to be formed outside of the said &#39;territory&#39;.

Why? What&#39;s stopping them from forming them inside the territory?

[anomaly]

Why? What&#39;s stopping them from forming them inside the territory?
The people&#33; If you want to call that a &#39;state&#39;, be my guest. But we don&#39;t need any Leninist-style state.

[KC]

The people&#33; If you want to call that a &#39;state&#39;, be my guest. But we don&#39;t need any Leninist-style state.

The people can&#39;t stop them from forming. You think all counterrevolution will magically stop and the people will know everything that everyone does and will be able to prevent counterrevolution within the state? What is stopping the bourgeoisie from forming secret counterrevolutionary organizations and performing through those? "The people"? How?

[anomaly]

If and when the people find these &#39;secret counterrevolutionary organizations&#39;, they would forceably crush them.

Besides, stop making such silly assumptions. I never said counterrevolution would "magically stop." But I do think that the proletariat would sufficiently outnumber any bourgeois resistance in order to crush them.

But, we are getting into prophecy here.

[KC]

If and when the people find these &#39;secret counterrevolutionary organizations&#39;, they would forceably crush them.

So you realize then that counterrevolution will come from within the country as well as from without.

[LSD]

This discussion doesn&#39;t really seem to be going anywhere. :P

Of course there will be a need for an organized society following the revolution, but whether that society could be qualified as a "state" or not is a complex question.

A post-revolutionary society will obviously be structured differently from bourgeois society, but it will nonetheless need to perform the same basic tasks. Crimes need to be prevented, distribution needs to be organized, production needs to be controlled, and counterrevolution needs to be stiffled.

The issue, though, is over whether or not it should be a centralized hierarchy that makes these decisions.

My answer is no.

While governance will certainly be nescessary, government will not. The nature of a postrevolutionary population will be one of active consciouness. Following a successful overthrow of capitalism, they will not need a "vanguard" or a "state aparatus" to "look after their well-being".

The same organizational structures that fought the revolution can be modified to organize the initial stages of commmunist society.

There will doubtless be a great deal of bureaucratic work to be done and records will have to be kept and controlled. But the beauty about modern technological advances is that these things no longer need to be centralized.

As with all things, material reality defines nature and so is is not coincidental that current technology has allowed unprecedented coordination and communication.

Such networks are essential to the foundation of a free democratic society.

The reason that Leninism could not succede in the third world was that the objective conditions were not present. Indeed, they were not even present in the first.

We are rapidly approaching the time, however, when the workers will have no need for "leaders" or "stearing committees" in fighting the bosses; nor for "representatives" or "presidents" in making their laws.

Political power is as corrupting and corrosive as economic power and a proletarian society cannot be Bourgeois government with a red flag.

Self-government means self-government; class-free, state-free.

It won&#39;t come "overnight", but it must be our direct goal from the beginning. No state institutions can be allowed to cement and stultify revolutionary progress.

[anomaly]

Yes, I agree LSD.

This debate was really anarchist semantics vs. Marxist semantics. Well, guess what? They still aren&#39;t the same&#33; :lol:

However, if Lazar has any Leninist sympathies, I think that is a problem. (or if he considers Leninist states as &#39;workers states&#39;, or Leninism as a &#39;possible form of the DoP&#39;).

What we need to do is establish that the modern communist movement has as much to do with Leninism as apple pie has to do with cherries (perhaps a bad metaphor :P ).


So you realize then that counterrevolution will come from within the country as well as from without.
It may, but it should, and probably will, be quickly quelled.

[KC]

Decentralization and workers&#39; self-governance is still a form of a state.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:54 PM
Decentralization and workers&#39; self-governance is still a form of a state.
Whatever semantics you wish to use.

[KC]

As I posted earlier....

"The state is the institution of organised violence which is used by the ruling class of a country to maintain the conditions of its rule."

Anything fitting this definition is a state.

[anomaly]

Yes, and those are Marxist semantics. But we don&#39;t all have to agree with Marxist semantics. Ideas, not the semantics, are important. So, we seem to agree, for the most part. So, honestly, give it a rest, buddy.

Although, Lazar, I still am wondering whether you have Leninist sympathies, and whether you beleive the old Leninist states were &#39;workers states&#39;.

[KC]

Yes, and those are Marxist semantics. But we don&#39;t all have to agree with Marxist semantics. Ideas, not the semantics, are important. So, we seem to agree, for the most part. So, honestly, give it a rest, buddy.

Well, since we are reconciling Marxist and Anarchist beliefs here, it is completely fitting to use marxist definitions and the marxist analysis of history. Moreover, I was asking if you agreed with the marxist analysis of history; this means using marxist definitions.



Although, Lazar, I still am wondering whether you have Leninist sympathies, and whether you beleive the old Leninist states were &#39;workers states&#39;.

I haven&#39;t read about the Russian Revolution enough to make a commitment one way or the other. I doubt you have, however I&#39;m guessing you already have an opinion on it. Unfortunate.

[anomaly]

I&#39;ve read enough about it to &#39;have an opinion on it&#39;. However, Lazar&#39;s idea of self-righteousness never seems to cease. That&#39;s what I call unfortunate.

And besides, the product of the Russian revolution is obvious: dictatorship of the Party. Is that a &#39;workers state&#39;? No&#33;

[KC]

However, Lazar&#39;s idea of self-righteousness never seems to cease.

That&#39;s because I&#39;m right. Historical materialism is right. If you disagree with it then you&#39;re wrong. It&#39;s common sense stuff.



And besides, the product of the Russian revolution is obvious: dictatorship of the Party. Is that a &#39;workers state&#39;? No&#33;

Yes, the product of the Russian Revolution was obviously Stalinism. But were Stalin&#39;s tactics Marxist-Leninist? I, and many others, would argue NO&#33;&#33;&#33; Only Stalinists would say yes.

[anomaly]

I never said historical materialism was false. We obviously have different ideas on what constitutes &#39;the state&#39;. Apparently, in all of your wisdom, you fail to see this.

[LSD]

OK, this is really getting pointless.

The definition of "state" is not a clear-cut issue. Even from within Marxist or anarchist paradigms, it&#39;s still a controversial issue.

The definition of state that Lazar is providing is, frankly, somewhat useless. If we define state to be merely organized violence controlled by a class then we fail to recognize the social rule of institutionalized power dynamics.

Furthermore, it makes the classic Marxist line of classless, stateless fundamentally redundant. Every society that will ever exist will relly on "organized violence". Lazar&#39;s definition of "state" is, accordingly, merely a society with a rulling class, also known as class society.

Personally, I don&#39;t accept that "state" is synymous with rulling class mechanism. Furthermore, I would challange that definition when applied to post-revolutionary society. There will doubtlessly be counterrevolutionary forces following the dissolution of capitalism, but these forces will not be class-based in any meaningful sense.

That is, the bourgeois class is defined solely by its relationship to production, once that relationship is eliminated, everyone will be functionaly proletariat.

This will not mean that they will all adopt proletarian values but it will mean that they will be a part of class activity.

Think about it, following a loss to a revolutionary proletariat, most of the capitalists will not fight. They are fundamentally opportunists and will grudgingly accept the loss of power. Some will fight, yes, but most will try to go on with their lives.

They will do so by, like everyone else, working. That means producing in an organized setting alongside other workers in the field. They are therefore nescessarily a part of the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Post-revolutionary societ will not be "magically" free of conflict, but it will be a class-less society.

Accordingly, in the strictest sense of Lazar&#39;s definition , it will be stateless as well.

And, as when most people say "state", they are thinking in terms of institutionalized hierarchy, it will also be state-free in the regular sense too.

[anomaly]

OK, this is really getting pointless.
Atleast someone recognizes this besides me&#33; :lol:


That is, the bourgeois class is defined solely by its relationship to production, once that relationship is eliminated, everyone will be functionaly proletariat.
This is what I was saying...except with better word structure. :P

[KC]

Apparently, in all of your wisdom, you fail to see this.

It was you who even failed to acknowledge the existence of a state.


Lazar&#39;s definition of "state" is, accordingly, merely a society with a rulling class, also known as class society.

My definition of state isn&#39;t class society. My definition of state only exists in class society. Class society - the rule of one class over another (others) - is maintained through the state. The state is the tool used by the ruling class to maintain rule over "lesser" classes.


There will doubtlessly be counterrevolutionary forces following the dissolution of capitalism, but these forces will not be class-based in any meaningful sense.

Of course not. I never claimed there would be any class-based motives in a communist society.



That is, the bourgeois class is defined solely by its relationship to production, once that relationship is eliminated, everyone will be functionaly proletariat.

Yes, everyone will be "proletarian". But since there are no longer class antagonisms, there is no longer a need for a proletarian class. Everyone will be workers.

Of course, during the revolution and the DoP, the bourgeoisie is most certainly going to fight back (from both inside and outside of the country).



Postrevolutionary societ will not be "magically" free of conflict, but it will be a class-less society.


Postrevolutionary society meaning globally, or just within said country? I really think this is a degeneration into semantics.

[LSD]

The state is the tool used by the ruling class to maintain rule over "lesser" classes.

Yes it is, but that is not all that it is.

Defining the state as merely "organized violence" controlled by class is, in my opinion, an oversimplification.

The state has a deeper social existance than its class usage would suggest. The institutionalization of political hierarchy has inherent consequences all its own.


Of course not. I never claimed there would be any class-based motives in a communist society.

My point is that there will not be class-based motives in post-revolutioanary society either.

Following the revolutionary process, resistance will have primarily ceased. Capitalist forces will be no longer capable of mounting a struggle and society will have begun re-organizing. In such a context there will be no room for any bourgeoisie whatsoever. Those who continue to fight surrupticiously will be counterrevolutionaries nothing more.

You see the revolution is not merely the process of overthrowing capitalism, it&#39;s the dissolution of bourgeois control and the establishment of alternative power dynamics.

When the revolution is complete, the workers will be fully liberated from bourgeois enslavement. What they do with their freedom is up to them and the crafting of a functional society will take a good deal of time, but production will be in their hands

Those who, at this time, still attempt a restoration of capitalism will be a distinct minority and totally distanced from the means of production.

Capitalists as a class will be void the moment the revolution is sucessfuly completed.


Of course, during the revolution and the DoP, the bourgeoisie is most certainly going to fight back (from both inside and outside of the country).

External resistance will certainly be lead by the bourgeoisie of other countries, but internally, there will be no bourgeoisie of which to speak.

And, in both cases, there is no need for centralized authority to combat counterrevolutionary attacks.


Postrevolutionary society meaning globally, or just within said country? I really think this is a degeneration into semantics.

Oh, it degenerated into that a long time ago&#33; :P

Again, I think that the semantic question here is really insignificant. The only real practical question is, regadless of whether post-revolutionary governance will be called "state" or not, will it be organized along instutional hierarchical lines?

My answer is still no, but serious Leninists and Maoists would argue differently.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 03:58 AM
Capitalists as a class will be void the moment the revolution is sucessfuly completed.
History says otherwise. I&#39;m a big fan of the French revolutionaries who pretty much did everything right in 1789. Despite this clean break with the past, monarchist sentiment continued to be a force in France for the batter part of the next century&#33;

The same could be said of Britain or almost every other nation that made the transition to capitalism. Barring a campaign to kill off every last member of the bourgeoisie, the class will still exist in the immediate post-revolution environment.

[LSD]

History says otherwise. I&#39;m a big fan of the French revolutionaries who pretty much did everything right in 1789. Despite this clean break with the past, monarchist sentiment continued to be a force in France for the batter part of the next century&#33;

Yes, but sentiment is not a class.

Class has to have actual an material existance relative to the means of production. While there will certainly be counterrevolutionary sentiments following a successful proletarian revolution, the bourgeoisie will no longer have a class position within society.

Those who labour to restore capitalism will be reactionary proletarians, as by a strict material analysis, there will be no other functional class.

[Black Dagger]

And can you really see all the suits &#39;taking up arms&#39; to restore capitalism? :S

[321zero]

You are assuming that a revolution will make an unopposed &#39;clean sweep&#39; of all capitalist activity, and further that the &#39;reactionary proletarians&#39; who labour (ha&#33;) to restore (or preserve) bourgeois relations of production will have no success, and further that extra-territorial forces of reaction will have no success.

This seems to me to be a hopeful rather than an inevitable view of how a revolution will happen.

I suppose anything which falls short can be dismissed as a case of &#39;unripe conditions&#39;. It&#39;s a nice theory.

[LSD]

You are assuming that a revolution will make an unopposed &#39;clean sweep&#39; of all capitalist activity

"Unopposed"? Surely not.

But "clean sweep"? Yes.

That&#39;s the point of the revolution, to eliminate capitalist activity. I&#39;m not saying that we will capture or kill every capitalist, but capitalism is an integrative system. It is reliant on complex networks and institutions and cannot stand largescale destabilization.

The revolution will not strip the earth of capitalists, it will just strip capitalists of their power. What they do next is, ultimately, up to them.


and further that the &#39;reactionary proletarians&#39; who labour (ha&#33;) to restore (or preserve) bourgeois relations of production will have no success

Undoutably they will have some sucesses, that&#39;s how battles work. But once the revolution is complete, their power will be broken.

Remember, the capitalists have no implicity superiority. The only power they have is that which we give them. Once a post-revolutionary society is established, it will be very difficult for any of the former bourgeoisie to convince any worker to fight for the restoration of his enslavement.

And, again, it is highly unlikely that many capitalists will be willing to risk their lives fighting an "underground" against tough odds.

More likely, they will quickly realize that communist life is not actually "that bad" and that they can get along much better if they just accept it.

Certainly many will agitate for a capitalist restoration and some may well even join with international capitalist forces in trying to undermine post-revolutionary organization, but these individuals will still not be class capitalists&#33;

They will be reactionaries and counterrevolutionaries, yes, but without ownership over the means of production, the bourgeoisie cannot exist.


and further that extra-territorial forces of reaction will have no success.

Well, it will be our responsibility to prevent them from having any success. But, really, that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

A state is not required to fight extra-territorial incursions; all that is needed is an active and revolutionary population and an organized society.

Of course a few nukes wouldn&#39;t hurt. ;)

[JimFar]

In places like Russia and China, the prerevolutionary classes were not so easily swept aside following those countries&#39; revolutions. In the Soviet Union, following the civil war, Lenin replaced "war communism" with the NEP which made it possible for many of the old capitalists to resume their economic positions. Even before NEP, many of those capitalists who had not fled the country following the October Revolution had been kept on in state enterprises as managers. That situation lasted on until Stalin&#39;s abandonment of NEP in favor of his first Five Year Plan, under which the regime began to train and recruite new managers from the peasantry and working class.

In China, much of the old capitalist class stayed on in the country and were reemplyoyed as managers in state enterprises, often managing enterprises that their families had previously owned. Under the economic reforms of the 1980s, many of these people were able to become full-fledged capitalists once again, along with all the people from the Party and State who also were now able to become capitalists too.

As to what relevance that this history would have for a revolution in advanced capitalist countries like the US or the UK or western Europe, is hard to say, since countries like Russia or China were economically underdeveloped. Prior to the October Revolution, most of the Russian Marxists were in agreement that even following a revolution in Russia, it would likely be the case that Russia would have to continue with a capitalist economy for a long time to come, even after a successful workers revolution. That was the position that Plekhanov took but even Lenin and Trotsky too similar positions too at that time. They later came to believe that it might be possible for Russia to avoid doing that, provided that a Russian revolution were to be accompanied by revolutions in the advanced capitalist countries such as Germany. In that case, a revolutionary Russia as the recipient of economic assistance from a revolutionary western Europe might then be able to proceed more or less directly to socialism.

Needless to say, that&#39;s not quite how things worked out in Russia following the OCtober Revolution. Hence, the radical shifts in Soviet economic policy from War Communism to the NEP and later to Stalin&#39;s Five Year Plans.

Presumably, regardless of what position one might take concerning "Russian questions," a socialist revolution, if one occurs in North America or western Europe would take place under economically much more favorable circumstances and so would face issues rather different from those that revolutionaries faced in Russia or China.

[anomaly]

Originally posted by JimFar
Presumably, regardless of what position one might take concerning "Russian questions," a socialist revolution, if one occurs in North America or western Europe would take place under economically much more favorable circumstances and so would face issues rather different from those that revolutionaries faced in Russia or China.
Not only will material conditions be correct for revolution, but we won&#39;t have those burdensome Leninist parties either&#33; :lol:

[bezdomni]

Its because they became a counter revolutionary cult and in order to try and take controll of a struggle aganist the poll tax that the working class was in the process of winning independantly(and leaving them behind) they went so far as to publicly denounce working class militants who were defending themselves on mass from a brutal police offensive. They even said in the burgeoise press that they would "name names" in a effort to help police round up the "unclontrollable elements".
What was the particular group? I have trouble believing that the WIL would abandon the working class in such a manner. Also, as far as I have heard, Socialist Appeal (organ of WIL) is still active in Britain.


The IMT is history, In Canada, were i live they are totally burgeoise students out of touch with reality. The people i met in my city(who were pretty solid) quit after becoming disgusted with the leadership.
Do you live in Montreal?

I believe one of the biggest WIL branches is in Canada (vancouver). I have also heard that there is a branch in Alberta...of all places.

This is not to mention the HOV and all of the members in Pakistan. The WIL is very active in Latin America.

A mass labor party dedicated to permanant revolution is certainly worth building. I don&#39;t doubt that there have been some problems, but there are problems in every party. We just need to be able to take care of it in a reasonable manner. Bad leadership should be punished by expulsion and replaced by another member by popular election.

I certainly realize that Marxism-Leninism faces problems today, but we can fix it. Democracy serves a purpose.

[KC]

Found this little gem in State and Revolution:


Originally posted by Engels: Anti&#045;Duhring
"The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not &#39;abolished&#39;. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase &#39;a free people&#39;s state&#39;, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists&#39; demand that the state be abolished overnight."

"As a matter of fact, Engels speaks here of the proletariat revolution "abolishing" the bourgeois state, while the words about the state withering away refer to the remnants of the proletarian state after the socialist revolution. According to Engels, the bourgeois state does not "wither away", but is "abolished" by the proletariat in the course of the revolution. What withers away after this revolution is the proletarian state or semi-state.

Secondly, the state is a "special coercive force". Engels gives this splendid and extremely profound definition here with the utmost lucidity. And from it follows that the "special coercive force" for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a "special coercive force" for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is precisely what is meant by "abolition of the state as state". This is precisely the "act" of taking possession of the means of production in the name of society. And it is self-evident that such a replacement of one (bourgeois) "special force" by another (proletarian) "special force" cannot possibly take place in the form of "withering away".

Thirdly, in speaking of the state "withering away", and the even more graphic and colorful "dying down of itself", Engels refers quite clearly and definitely to the period after "the state has taken possession of the means of production in the name of the whole of society", that is, after the socialist revolution. We all know that the political form of the "state" at that time is the most complete democracy. But it never enters the head of any of the opportunists, who shamelessly distort Marxism, that Engels is consequently speaking here of democracy "dying down of itself", or "withering away". This seems very strange at first sight. But is is "incomprehensible" only to those who have not thought about democracy also being a state and, consequently, also disappearing when the state disappears. Revolution alone can "abolish" the bourgeois state. The state in general, i.e., the most complete democracy, can only "wither away".

[321zero]

Good, no more talk of how the -


Socialist revolution is merely the proletariat taking control of the state.

Which is the assumption made by reformists and &#39;parliamentary cretins&#39;.

[KC]

It is the same thing as what I was saying before, though. It&#39;s just a semantics game. The proletariat are taking control of the state. They are destroying the bourgeois state and creating the proletarian one in the process. In this way the form of the state changes.

[anomaly]

So, using anarchist semantics, you do not want a state as we define it, i.e. a centralized hierarchical body. You do not want that, correct?