Question for supporters of DOP and Vanguard

[OneBrickOneVoice]

How would you insure that the DOP won't abuse his powers like Stalin and Lenin by never restoring democratic rights?

[anomaly]

The DoP is the dictatorship of the proletariat as a class. It is not a sole individual.

[TC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:39 AM
How would you insure that the DOP won't abuse his powers like Stalin and Lenin by never restoring democratic rights?
Dictatorship of the proletariat is the workers state as a whole...the Marxist view of the state is that a state is the means by which one class surpresses other classes, preventing them from taking their property. The dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't refer to an individual personal dictatorship, it is rather a democratic state by and for the working class, for the purpose of surpressing capitalists both within and outside of its boarders. You cannot have a dictatorship of the proletariat without democratic rights, it is the means by which workers democratically defend the gains of the revolution.


And Lenin didn't abuse any powers, he was only in power for a few years anyways. In any case, the dictatorship of the proletariat is accountable to the proletariat just as the dicatorship of the bourgeoises is accountable to the bourgeoises.

[MrDoom]

Restoring democratic rights?

The only democracy I currently see is "democracy" of the wage-slave owners. <_<

No, true democracy has yet to be created.

[barista.marxista]

I support the DofP, but not the vanguard. Vanguardism is not the dictatorship of the proletariat, as never in history has a Leninist state been comprised entirely of, and managed entirely by, the proletariat. Vanguardism is a failed attempt to apply Marxism to the unindustrialized world -- something a historical materialist analysis of history has shown is impossible.

An actual dictatorship of the proletariat would look like what I outlined in An Autonomist Conception of the DofP (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=49167&hl=). The dictatorship of the proletariat, proletarian "state," will be a non-institutionalized anti-state comprised of networked autonomous collectives and councils. It is no longer a "state" as we currently conceive of it, but instead a contradiction in and of itself, the continuous abolishment of state (and, parallel to this, hierarchy), just as how through revolution the proletariat itself becomes its own negation. Horizontalism is the only way to abolish all forms of class and exploitation, as history has very explicitly shown us.

[Hit The North]

Vanguardism is a failed attempt to apply Marxism to the unindustrialized world -- something a historical materialist analysis of history has shown is impossible.

As far as I know, neither Lenin or Trotsky believed that socialism could be created in a backwater nation. The analysis of imperialism and the concept of combined but uneven development, allowed both to posit the international character of the revolution. Bolshevik orthodoxy after 1917 required the revolution to be carried internationally to the mature capitalist countries to the West. Both Lenin, but especially Trotsky, were pessemistic about holding on to the gains of October unless the Western proletariat spread the revolution.

Later, Stalin concocted the theory of &#39;socialism in a single country&#39; - the antithesis of Lenin&#39;s and Trotsky&#39;s position. It is this bastardisation of Leninism (in other words, Stalinism) which informs the later struggles in the Third World.

In terms of vanguardism, this is a Leninist tactic (not principle) designed to push forward the revolutionary struggle in the specific conditions of Tsarist Russia. It&#39;s a theory of how to organise the revolutionary party and is not supposed to be a formulation of how to organise a post-revolutionary state.

It is not part of Leninist theory that the vanguard party substitute itself for the DOP. Again, this is Stalinism.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by LeftyHenry+May 18 2006, 02:39 AM--> (LeftyHenry @ May 18 2006, 02:39 AM) How would you insure that the DOP won&#39;t abuse his powers like Stalin and Lenin by never restoring democratic rights? [/b]
Well first of all your question is wrong, Lenin wasn&#39;t able to "restore democratic rights" because he died in 1924.

Secondly, the reason no one else restored it was because the party degenerated and fell prey to petty-bourgeois socialism.

Now, to move on, how do we prevent it? Simple, by implementing what Lenin proposed in his The State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm):


Lenin
All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen&#39;s wages" — these simple and "self-evident" democratic measures, while completely uniting the interests of the workers and the majority of the peasants, at the same time serve as a bridge leading from capitalism to socialism. These measures concern the reorganization of the state, the purely political reorganization of society; but, of course, they acquire their full meaning and significance only in connection with the "expropriation of the expropriators" either bring accomplished or in preparation, i.e., with the transformation of capitalist private ownership of the means of production into social ownership.
What is to Replace the Smashed State Machine? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm)

[rouchambeau]

What is more important: democratic rights or communism? If the majority choose to do something anti-communistic do you support them and say, "well, that&#39;s their right."?

Anyway, what I&#39;m getting at is that democratic "rights" are of no value if they are used to do something anti-communistic.

[More Fire for the People]

The dictatorship of the proletariat will be organized along the means of workers’ democracy (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm) through working class representatives, abolition of the military, and organization of the proletariat. Lenin analyzed the Parisian dictatorship of the proletariat in Chapter 3 of the State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch03.htm). If you want a short Marxian conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat I suggest you read “What is the dictatorship of the proletariat?” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/mandel/1985/dictprole/part1.htm#s1)

[Rawthentic]

As I see it, the dictatorship of the proletariat has never really existed, except maybe on a small scale at the Paris Commune. Leninism has been throughout history, the dictatorship over the proletariat, creating hierarchy and a new class comprised of petty-bourgeios socialists and capitalist-roaders.

[bezdomni]

Leninism has been throughout history, the dictatorship over the proletariat, creating hierarchy and a new class comprised of petty-bourgeios socialists and capitalist-roaders.

When the proletariat class is exercising their dictatorship over society, they will hardly tolerate a dictatorship over themselves.

The new hierarchy and class system arose out of the Stalinist bureaucracy, it is not inherent to the Leninist method of organization and revolution.


How would you insure that the DOP won&#39;t abuse his powers like Stalin and Lenin by never restoring democratic rights?
You&#39;re assuming that democratic rights exist in the first place. Democratic rights in the United States are negligible. You might be able to decide what books a local school uses by working your way into the PTA or something...but nothing important is decided by the people in the advanced capitalist nations. I believe Bakunin said "If voting changed anyththing, they&#39;d make it illegal". He was spot on right there.

Now, when you speak of Lenin and Stalin, you are assuming that there was anything that even pretended to be democratic in Russia. The Russians were brutally oppressed by the Tsar, therefore, the Bolsheviks were logically unable to "restore" democratic rights. Although, there was an exponentially larger amount of democracy (if it can be quantitatively measured) when the Bolsheviks were in power. Hell, Stalin even allowed for more democracy than the Tsar&#33;

[Connolly]

Does this small minority of vanguard "officials", possibly with a chairman or president, make the decisions towards creating socialism?

If so, who are they to know what decisions are to be taken to create socialism? (since it has never existed)

Are you advocating social experimentation to create socialism - with the possibility of taking wrong decisions leading to another failure?
(something the proletariat really dont have time for and could do without)

[KC]

Does this small minority of vanguard "officials", possibly with a chairman or president, make the decisions towards creating socialism?

Why are you calling them "officials" and why would they make any decisions about creating socialism? Do you even know what the vanguard is?

[Ol' Dirty]

The DOP can suck my delicious salty balls. :)

:lol:

In all seriousness, I think the DOP is an unnecassery step in Communist evolution. I think that the people should not put themselves over of the ex-elite; instead, they should intergrate them, destroying the boundaries that stand in our way.

[LoneRed]

How would you know they are delicious?


anyways, If you take the DOP and "vanguard" in a non-leninist stance, it is necessary for the workers to have the DOP to supress the remnants of the capitalist class. believing otherwise is mere foolishness

[Connolly]

You havnt answered my questions <_<


Why are you calling them "officials"

If you had bothered to read the entirety of the other posts, you may have noticed the quote from the great "God" himself :

""All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen&#39;s wages""

If Lenin calls them officials, then it must be right. :lol:


why would they make any decisions about creating socialism?

Your very correct here. They dont. The Leninist vanguard simply sit back and do jack all.



Dont try steer things away from my initial questions. :angry:

[sanpal]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:39 AM
How would you insure that the DOP won&#39;t abuse his powers like Stalin and Lenin by never restoring democratic rights?
Proletarian parliament is true democracy. In contrast to forming bourgeois parliament (voting generally for candidates from people) proletarian parliament could be formed with representatives from classes: each class sends as a delegate its own representatives. For example, if class of the proletariat form the majority then the dictatorship of the proletariat come to be.

What is needed for this? It is revolutionary reorganization of State power i.e. parliament system. No matter it could be either reformist way or way of coup. Communist Party could play important role in preparation and realization of revolution. But I talk only about true Communist Party, i.e. Party based on the main principle - fighting for political power for the proletariat and handing over full political power from CP to the whole class of the proletariat immediately after the revolution and after creating the proletarian parliament the Communist Party must leave political scene (with all bourgeois parliament parties as political trash).


Proletarian parliament fulfils both aims - dictatorship (oppressing of class of the bourgeoisie) and democracy (the power of the majority) - simultaneously.


PS I&#39;ve said only about creating proletarian socialism as DOP.
In the condition of DOP it could be possible to create communist mode of production and the first commune, but it&#39;s another theme for talking.

[Connolly]

Proletarian parliament is true democracy.

Sure it might be democratic in the sense that the people elect candidates for representation.

But the question is that of the decision making process - one in which the mode of production is changed.

I ask again, who are this minority vanguard leadership to take decisions toward socialism?

Who are they to direct the course of the proletarian revolution?

How do they know what socialism is?

From this, how can they structure and direct a society towards something in which they think is socialism?

This proletarian vanguard could have any "interpretation" of historical events as to what socialism is.

Chocolate from taps maybe? Cars with ten wheels?

The fact of the matter is, they dont know what socialism is - and they definitly dont know whether a vanguard is even necessary to transform the systems of production.

They can try create objective conditions - but with the decision making process focused onto a small professional revolutionary vanguard - their decisions are major ones, ones that are nothing but one great social experiment - "to see if we can create socialism" - from nothing.

True proletarian revolution can only occur through the actions of the vast majority, each individual through their own small way, contributing to the organism that is humanity.

Not through the flawed and inperfect actions of a minority.

Such actions are nothing but a social experiment.

[KC]

If you had bothered to read the entirety of the other posts, you may have noticed the quote from the great "God" himself :

""All officials, without exception, elected and subject to recall at any time, their salaries reduced to the level of ordinary "workmen&#39;s wages""

If Lenin calls them officials, then it must be right.

So you&#39;re saying that all members of the proletarian vanguard will be "officials"?


Your very correct here. They dont. The Leninist vanguard simply sit back and do jack all.

This thread is about the vanguard, not Lenin&#39;s role of the vanguard.



Proletarian parliament is true democracy.

Careful, sanpal&#33; If you advocate that around here you&#39;ll be called an evil verticalist Leninist&#33; :o

[Connolly]

So you&#39;re saying that all members of the proletarian vanguard will be "officials"?

I dont care whos an official or not - im simply stating that a proletarian revolution led by a minority of professional revolutionaries is ridiculous - asking for experimental failure.


This thread is about the vanguard, not Lenin&#39;s role of the vanguard.

I was directing it at the leninist vanguard.

However, the vanguard, being in the position of leadership(and its members being a minority), surely must lead the proletariat down a blind alley?

All though, fair enough - this thread is about the democratic characteristics of the DoP and the vanguard (if it exists).

[barista.marxista]

I&#39;m very curious to see what Khayembii Communique&#39;s conception of the DofP, as he keeps insisting that we do not understand vanguardism.

Care to give us a brief explanation?

[KC]

Originally posted by barista.marxista
I&#39;m very curious to see what Khayembii Communique&#39;s conception of the DofP, as he keeps insisting that we do not understand vanguardism.

Care to give us a brief explanation?

I answered your inquiry in this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50048&st=50&#entry1292073237) post:


Direct democracy, while applicable in a communist society, is not applicable in a period of revolutionary transition. While it is the most preferred method, it is also the slowest and most inefficient. The more people you have involved in the decision making process, the longer it will take to reach a consensus. You might not like that, but it&#39;s true.

While direct democracy won&#39;t work, we have to design a system that is efficient and decisive yet keeps the power in the hands of the proletariat. On the local level soviets will have power. On the national level there must be some representative system. This is a congress consisting of members elected by the proletariat and recallable at any time. Also, elections will be held rather often (perhaps once or twice a year) in order to maintain proletarian rule. This way decisions can be made quickly and efficiently and power remains in the hands of the proletariat as a whole. Oh, and before anyone gets all stuffy about them not being proletarian, a requirement will be doing work other than political work.

And since we are talking about a state, we might as well talk about how the state will maintain its control. This will be done in the form of volunteer militias. Policing will be in the hands of citizens, all of whom will be armed, as well as a local detective/forensics unit.

[Fistful of Steel]

I&#39;m for direct democracy, possibly demarchy and not much else. The vanguard is absolutely fucking useless and the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" has only limited use. At best.

[sanpal]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 22 2006, 05:17 PM




Proletarian parliament is true democracy.

Careful, sanpal&#33; If you advocate that around here you&#39;ll be called an evil verticalist Leninist&#33; :o


Cool label, though I don&#39;t know what it means.
What is verticalist? And why it is evil?
If a horizontalist is it not evil?

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 02:39 AM
How would you insure that the DOP won&#39;t abuse his powers like Stalin and Lenin by never restoring democratic rights?
The USSR was more democratic in so many ways under Stalin than at any time in the US. You would know this if you bothered to look at how much power workers had in the factories.

Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html), Part 2 (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html).

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 06:24 PM
I&#39;m very curious to see what Khayembii Communique&#39;s conception of the DofP, as he keeps insisting that we do not understand vanguardism.

Care to give us a brief explanation?
If you would read Lenin&#39;s What is to be Done, you would understand what a Vanguard is. To put it simply, it is a way to carry out revolutionary struggle under a police state were spreading socialist ideas is illegal, as it was in Russia at the time. The inner core of the party make all the decisions, because it is simply impossible to allow more direct democracy, without getting busted and shipped off to Siberia.

In many ways, it isn&#39;t applicable to us in the US, but in many ways it still is. This is because the FBI still infiltrates our organizations and tries to fuck them up. One of things they do is try to incite members to violence. Another tactic is snitch-jacketing, where you accuse other members of being FBI agents. I suggest you all look into the COINTELPRO operations to see how the FBI has been trying to sabotage our movement for decades. Any organization that gets large enough will encounter people that are FBI agents, as this has been attested to even in organizations like Food Not Bombs.

I suggest if you&#39;re gonna read the stupid shit anarchists write about Lenin&#39;s ideas, you at least also read what Lenin has to say about his own ideas. There is usually a world of difference.

[More Fire for the People]

If you would read Lenin&#39;s What is to be Done, you would understand what a Vanguard is. To put it simply, it is a way to carry out revolutionary struggle under a police state were spreading socialist ideas is illegal, as it was in Russia at the time. The inner core of the party make all the decisions, because it is simply impossible to allow more direct democracy, without getting busted and shipped off to Siberia.
This is how the vanguard party behaves, not what it is. The purpose of the vangurad party is to be the forefront every proletarian movement.

[barista.marxista]

...so how do our arguments not apply? I&#39;m confused. :lol:

And thank you for recommending What Is To Be Done? I&#39;ve never heard of it before. Is Khayembii in agreeance with how you answered for him?

[KC]

Is Khayembii in agreeance with how you answered for him?

Nope.

[Intelligitimate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2006, 07:09 AM
...so how do our arguments not apply? I&#39;m confused. :lol:

And thank you for recommending What Is To Be Done? I&#39;ve never heard of it before. Is Khayembii in agreeance with how you answered for him?
Your arguments don&#39;t apply because they&#39;re anarchist psuedo-history. You say Leninism is a failed attempt, when in fact it has been the only successful attempts at socialism were based on Leninist principles of organization. Anarchists are fucking retarded anti-communists who will never, ever successfully do anything because they&#39;re petty-bourgeois idiots. Anarchists in fact hate actually existing socialism.

[barista.marxista]

You mispelled a-u-t-o-n-o-m-i-s-t, dipshit.

You call state-capitalism and social-imperialism the "only successful attempts at socialism"? Let me ask you: how much actual worker democracy was in place in the USSR, or the PRC, or Cuba, or any of your "successful attempts at socialism"? Or are we disregarding worker democracy from our definition of socialism? As for "anarchist pseudo-history", perhaps you&#39;d be interested in these topics: Makhnovischina, Spanish Civil War, Hungary &#39;56, Paris &#39;68, Prague &#39;68, Italian Autonomia, German Autonomen, Zapatistas, France &#39;06.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by Khayembii [email protected] 25 2006, 03:17 AM

Is Khayembii in agreeance with how you answered for him?

Nope.
So, for about the fifth time, can I ask you to enlighten us with your vision of the DofP, so you can stop claiming that I don&#39;t understand what a vanguard is?

[KC]

See this (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50170&view=findpost&p=1292076378) post. I already answered your question.

[barista.marxista]

While direct democracy won&#39;t work, we have to design a system that is efficient and decisive yet keeps the power in the hands of the proletariat. On the local level soviets will have power. On the national level there must be some representative system. This is a congress consisting of members elected by the proletariat and recallable at any time. Also, elections will be held rather often (perhaps once or twice a year) in order to maintain proletarian rule. This way decisions can be made quickly and efficiently and power remains in the hands of the proletariat as a whole. Oh, and before anyone gets all stuffy about them not being proletarian, a requirement will be doing work other than political work.

And so how is this any different that what happened in every Leninist country that has sprung up? Just your line about "a requirement will be doing work other than political work"? Man, if only our politicians now did more charity work... :rolleyes:

[Intelligitimate]

You mispelled a-u-t-o-n-o-m-i-s-t, dipshit.

I didn&#39;t even try to type it, you dumb fuck.


You call state-capitalism and social-imperialism the "only successful attempts at socialism"?

Yes, and since they are the only successful attempts, you hate actually existing socialism. Your hatred for socialism would make any right-winger proud.


Let me ask you: how much actual worker democracy was in place in the USSR, or the PRC, or Cuba, or any of your "successful attempts at socialism"?

Plenty. You would know this is you bothered to read anything about these places other than bourgeois anti-communist trash. But considering you are anti-communist trash with socialist phraseology, this isn&#39;t surprising.


Makhnovischina

Failed anarchist crap that only served the interests of White generals. His troops committed pogroms against Jews, he robbed towns, betrayed the people giving him weapons, etc. A worthless idiotic rebellion that wasn&#39;t crushed soon enough.


Spanish Civil War

More dumbass anarchists trying to build socialism during a Civil War. The biggest proof of anarchist stupidity and their need to spew anti-communist lies. Their hero Orwell even worked for the British in exposing his fellow travelers.


Hungary &#39;56

Didn&#39;t even claim to be anarchist. Just more of anarchists trying to take credit for shit they didn&#39;t do, even outright reactionary shit like this.

Worthless anti-communist twits.

[barista.marxista]

I get warning points for posting pictures of zombies, and this guy is still posting here? Man, I wish we still restricted hardcore Stalinists like this.

Oh, I like how you completely ignored my question about worker democracy, and the 4/5 of the list which weren&#39;t anarchist movements. Useful debating skills.

[Intelligitimate]

I get warning points for posting pictures of zombies, and this guy is still posting here? Man, I wish we still restricted hardcore Stalinists like this.

You&#39;d probably fit in better on a forum called reactionaryright, given your extreme hatred of actually existing socialism.

Why do people like yourself, who express nothing but contempt for actually existing socialism, even want to call yourselves socialists? That question has been bugging me for awhile, but I think I have some answers.


Oh, I like how you completely ignored my question about worker democracy

I didn&#39;t. I told you that you would understand how democratic they were if you would bother to read something besides anti-communist trash.


and the 4/5 of the list which weren&#39;t anarchist movements.

Which I pointed out. It&#39;s funny you champion right-wing reactionary shit as an example of &#39;socialism&#39; you support.