Revolution without taking power...

[EusebioScrib]

Traditionally when speaking of revolution "Marxists" only look at the qualitative change from one mode of production to another. What they tend to neglect is the quantitative changes which lead to the qualitative change. These are the most important, and what me must focus on as revolutionaries.

These "Marxists" only look at the qualitative change and ask "How can be overthrow capital?" This is the question we must ask, but we must look away from the qualitative change because we have no say in when such a change is possible. The quantiative steps are what we must focus on so that we may build the qualitative change.

The first two paragraphs are kinda thrown in there, but they will have relevance later.

The revolution is not for "taking power", it's for destroying power.

This is the "problem" of 20th Century Marxism. The focus was on how do we get a piece of the pie. Power really does corrupt.

So what do we do then? How do we change the world without taking power?

The answer is refusal. Refusal to work for capital, refusal to be wage slaves, refusal to accept their hegemony and dominance.

Of course this must sound bizzar. Refuse to work? We would starve. True! This is the threat that is held over our heads if we refuse to accept their "laws of motion."

However refusal has always played a key role in all struggles. For example: strikes always involve refusal to work for this amount of time until that demand is met. When we refuse to work for capital, we bring it to a halt. We cause the crisis when we refuse.

However refusing all at once would be a monumental task and thus impossible. So refusal involves more than simply refusing. It involves self-valorization. The working class must build alternatives for itself. It must start building the new system within the belly of the old.

Ultimately the goal of this self-valorization is the creation of a second system with equal influence of the old system; dual-power. We musn't take power, but smash the old power and build our own classless power.

Self-valorization is the quanitative steps which will lead to our qualitative change from capital to classlessness.

So the goal then of revolutionaries is more than simply "organizing the masses" for the time of revolution, as if the revolution is controlled by mystical forces outside of our control. The goal and purpose of revolutionaries is to present alternatives to the old system form which they are alienated. Initially simply alternatives which will lead to an alternative society which will ultimately dominant the other.

This will be a long struggle. We can't one day build a commune and expect it to work. There will be defeat and death, but it will definitly make us stronger.

Whenever I have presented this "heresy" to some other "Marxists" they brushed it off like dust.

However if we look at history from a materialist stand point, we will see that a "self-valorization" of the bourgeoisie has occured during feudalism. Capitalism's beginnings were in the 13th century when trade with Asia started to grow. This led to the rise of merchant classes who later became the modern bourgeoisie. Capitalism and feudalism lived side by side (and still do, although to a much smaller extent) well into the early 20th century.

A little sloppy, maybe a bit unclear. But what are your thoughts?

[Hit The North]

Just some preliminary comments to get the ball rolling:


The revolution is not for "taking power", it's for destroying power.

Power isn't some independent beast which exists independently of the ensemble of human relations. You sound a bit Foucauldian here.


So the goal then of revolutionaries is more than simply "organizing the masses" for the time of revolution, as if the revolution is controlled by mystical forces outside of our control. The goal and purpose of revolutionaries is to present alternatives to the old system form which they are alienated. Initially simply alternatives which will lead to an alternative society which will ultimately dominant the other.


Sounds like utopian socialism to me. It's been tried. It's failed.

[rouchambeau]

The revolution is not for "taking power", it's for destroying power.


When a single class takes control and does away with all other classes, I don't see how there is a difference between taking and destroying power.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 8 2006, 09:37 PM
Power isn't some independent beast which exists independently of the ensemble of human relations. You sound a bit Foucauldian here.
The semantics can get a little tricky here, so it's usually not worth it to spend time arguing over them unless you're going for a specific audience to whom certain terms may not be accessible.

But more on topic, I think we can agree that the basic question here is one of "statism" vs. "anti-statism", or to put it more clearly, is the objective to capture the state or to bypass it entirely, hopefully destroying it in the process?

As far as semantics, various people say different things. John Holloway wrote "change the world without taking power", Ward Churchill mentioned something about "conquering power and in the process changing it into something other than what it is", etc. The idea of "power" can be very subjective and I think is best avoided unless you are targeting a specific audience, say for example people in the real world who aren't necessarily going to get caught up over semantics.


Sounds like utopian socialism to me. It's been tried. It's failed.
Utopian socialism focused on becoming an end unto itself, and was essentially reformist. I believe Scrib is talking about using self-valorization and dual power institutions as weapons in a larger struggle. This definition may also include "defensive" weapons such as basic infrastructure, which would give revolutionary communities practical autonomy and the ability to define their own terms of struggle.

Question for Scrib: Your immediate purpose in writing this is a little unclear. Did something specific inspire it, or did it just seem like a good idea for a thread?

[EusebioScrib]

Question for Scrib: Your immediate purpose in writing this is a little unclear. Did something specific inspire it, or did it just seem like a good idea for a thread?

Just a sporadic "good idea." Something I've been thinking and reading about much lately (including Holloway's book), so I figure it'd be good to discuss.

And thanks for elaborating on the state/power etc ^_^

[Comrade-Z]

The focus was on how do we get a piece of the pie. Power really does corrupt.

This is obscuring things a bit.

Specifically what kind of power corrupts? When I exert power over my automobile and command it to take a left turn, am I becoming "corrupted"?

I would say, if your power and well-being depend on the subjugation of other people, then you will inevitably see it in your interest to continue to subjugate those people and continue reaping the profits.

If your power and well-being depend on cooperating with others, then you will see it in your self-interest to do that.


The answer is refusal. Refusal to work for capital, refusal to be wage slaves, refusal to accept their hegemony and dominance.

That's a necessary but not sufficient step in order to effect systemic change in society.

This is obvious unless you are a pacifist/mutualist/Proudhonist, in which case: why are you on a site about revolutionary leftism?

[apathy maybe]

Umm... seems a bit individualist you'll never get into the CC with those thoughts. You mustn't talk of building alternative structures. Workers must work for the bosses and be good little workers until the revolution. They mustn't even strike!


I agree that we should build alternatives to state power and capitalism, as well as attempt to bring down the system by other means. But in building these alternates we must not see them as a good in and off themselves, they are simply a shadow of the society we envision post capitalism post state.

We must also not take the power that is currently handled by the state. We do not need a new police or army. We do not need a new secret service to root out the "enemies of the people". Power does corrupt, people do not like giving it up.

Anarchism will not have centralised power structures, so why should we attempt to use them to bring anarchy about?


Originally posted by Citizen Zero+--> (Citizen Zero)Sounds like utopian socialism to me. It's been tried. It's failed.[/b]So has Leninism and other forms of Marxism. But I see this as different to utopian socialism. Where utopians attempted to build their utopias in a vacuum and hopped that human good will would convince others to join them, anarchists also work for revolution.


Originally posted by rouchambeau+--> (rouchambeau)When a single class takes control and does away with all other classes, I don't see how there is a difference between taking and destroying power.[/b]Within that class there will be power, who leads, who follows? Destroying power does away with leaders and followers.


Comrade-[email protected]
Specifically what kind of power corrupts? When I exert power over my automobile and command it to take a left turn, am I becoming "corrupted"?

I would say, if your power and well-being depend on the subjugation of other people, then you will inevitably see it in your interest to continue to subjugate those people and continue reaping the profits.

If your power and well-being depend on cooperating with others, then you will see it in your self-interest to do that.The power over others corrupts. People who have power over others, tend to think that they know better then the people beneath them. They do not want to give up that power and it's in the peoples best interest not to give up that power.


Comrade-Z
That's a necessary but not sufficient step in order to effect systemic change in society.

This is obvious unless you are a pacifist/mutualist/Proudhonist, in which case: why are you on a site about revolutionary leftism? I doubt that ve thought it was sufficient. I think that it is an important step towards revolution (and if everyone did it, there would not be a need for a revolution).


(And what the hell is "self-valorization"?)

[Nachie]

Self-valorization refers to the working class' psychological - and eventually, economic - evolution towards conceiving of themselves as their own subject and no longer the object of the ruling elite. It is for all intents and purposes an autonomist Marxist term popularized by Negri.

Literally, "self-valorization" is meant to contrast with capitalist valorization, or in other words refers to workers developing alternate value systems and acting on them through things like the refusal of work and construction of dual power.

[anomaly]

I like the idea, but, a question, do you also support a revolution in the classic sense of the word? (a violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie)

[apathy maybe]

The way I read it, you do both. You work apart from the system, at the same time as working to abolish it.

After all a revolution requires lots of people, but you can create alternatives with only a few. So you get to live a better life outside the system, but you work to bring about freedom for all.

[anomaly]

That sounds good.

[Herman]

The revolution is not for "taking power", it's for destroying power.

Of course not! This statement seems Anarchist to me. All revolutions have ended in the taking of power. The proletarian revolution is no different. Power must be taken in a revolution.

[nickdlc]

We must also not take the power that is currently handled by the state. We do not need a new police or army. We do not need a new secret service to root out the "enemies of the people". Power does corrupt, people do not like giving it up. We must take the power currently handled by the state and replace that power with working class institutions ie workers councils. The whole objective of having dual power is to replace it with the "mono power" :blink: of the working class, we can't be wary of taking over the state.

We do need a new police army and those are workers militias and i agree we do not need a secret service we will openly deal with reactionaries.

There is a good talk about this on ResistanceMP3 where this guy Alex Callinicos critiques John Holloway and Antonio Negri.

Why Revolution Means Taking Power (http://www.themightyowl.com/marxism2005/why-changing-the-world-means-taking-power-alex-callinicos.mp3)

Discussion (http://www.themightyowl.com/marxism2005/why-changing-the-world-means-taking-power-discussion-alex-callinicos.mp3)

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:43 PM
Alex Callinicos
That guy is a Trot.

As for everything else you said, they also seem to be only semantic differences.

[EusebioScrib]

Taking over the state implies wielding pre-exisiting institutions. The workers need to smash to state, not take it over.


We do need a new police army


Workers militias are qualitatively different from police and armies. Why are you trying to reconsile the terms?

[Herman]

Taking over the state implies wielding pre-exisiting institutions. The workers need to smash to state, not take it over.

Marx said it himself, that the workers should use the state as an oppresive instrument against bourgeois. The idea of smashing the state is a Anarchist idea which does not work.

[nickdlc]

That guy is a Trot. I think some of his critisisms are good. He sounded pretty left communist to me btw.


As for everything else you said, they also seem to be only semantic differences. I agree, but at what point do you stop fetishizing dual power? Just because you decide to ignore the bourgeoise state doesnt mean it will decide to ignore you. Thats why we must take over the state and make sure workers power is the only official "institution"

What we are really getting into is how can socialism in country succeed in a sea of capitalism. It can't.


Taking over the state implies wielding pre-exisiting institutions. The workers need to smash to state, not take it over. Well you should have read my previous post then. I said workers councils (or whatever form workers control is exerted) should be the way we take state control. Again this comes to the issue of how can we smash the state if capitalist states are all around us.


Workers militias are qualitatively different from police and armies. Why are you trying to reconsile the terms? Your right workers militias are very democratic but that just shows you that the instead of dictatorship of the bourgeoise with their organs of class power, has now been replace by dictatorship of the proletariat with organs of workers power.


btw i haven't read holloways book but it seems very odd that anyone would want dual power indefinately.

[KC]

Taking over the state implies wielding pre-exisiting institutions.

Taking over the bourgeois state implies wielding pre-existing institutions. Nobody is suggesting this. To quote Marx - "But the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes."


The workers need to smash to state

The bourgeois state, yes. Then they construct a workers' state, a system of organized violence used to maintain proletarian power.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:16 PM

Taking over the state implies wielding pre-exisiting institutions. The workers need to smash to state, not take it over.

Marx said it himself, that the workers should use the state as an oppresive instrument against bourgeois. The idea of smashing the state is a Anarchist idea which does not work.
Then we become the capitalists, and they become the working oppressed.

[Nachie]

He sounded pretty left communist to me btw.
Perhaps he has moved on... Do you know if he's still in the International Socialist Movement/Tendency or whatever they're called?


I agree, but at what point do you stop fetishizing dual power?
Dual power becomes attack due to the fact that it excludes capitalism and creates spaces for workers' self-valorization. All dual power is self-valorization but not all self-valorization is dual power. Dual power creates the infrastructure necessary to combat capitalism. Dual power can include things like alternative "state" forces such as popular militias, and ceases to be dual power at whatever point it manages to impose a monopoly on violence. Don't get caught up on the terminology, what's important is to explore the practical application, which shows that dual power is not like utopian socialism... it's a method of attack!


Just because you decide to ignore the bourgeoise state doesnt mean it will decide to ignore you. Thats why we must take over the state and make sure workers power is the only official "institution"
We do not take over the state as it exists because it is fundamentally incompatible with communism due to its institutionalization of repression. Whether or not autonomous workers' power, horizontally organized, constitutes a "new state" is a purely philosophical question that means absolutely nothing.


Well you should have read my previous post then. I said workers councils (or whatever form workers control is exerted) should be the way we take state control.
In that case our differences are totally based over semantics, as I said, and we should deal exclusively with real-world examples from now on so we can be clear on what everyone means.


Your right workers militias are very democratic but that just shows you that the instead of dictatorship of the bourgeoise with their organs of class power, has now been replace by dictatorship of the proletariat with organs of workers power.
Right, and whether or not this is defined as a "state" is a purely semantic question that is literally of no importance except to people who debate crap like this on the internet and in publications nobody reads.

[Ol' Dirty]

I can agree with that. :) A good post. Really, you summed up what I think rather well.

Also, how would we achieve this society in the belly of this beast? It's very acidic in there.

[nickdlc]

Perhaps he has moved on... Do you know if he's still in the International Socialist Movement/Tendency or whatever they're called? I've only heard that one speach that i gave the links to... but i was impressed. He had some sensible positions imo. I really reccomend you listen to the speech.


Whether or not autonomous workers' power, horizontally organized, constitutes a "new state" is a purely philosophical question that means absolutely nothing.

It is not philisophical. The Russian revolution took place within RUSSIA the Spanish revolution took place within SPAIN ect ect. There would have still been state borders (at least for a while) had the working class achieved victory and they would have had to deal with these problems.

This is what we are really dealing with... if it's possible to make revolution and not take state power or "taking power" as holloway puts it. It's obviously an absurd notion, i agree with the concept of getting to a situation of dual power but you have to deal with the question of who controls the state at some point.


In that case our differences are totally based over semantics, as I said, and we should deal exclusively with real-world examples from now on so we can be clear on what everyone means. Good idea. In Russia the situation of dual power was solved by the bolsheviks taking over the state supposedly embracing "all power to the soviets" even though they subsequently dismantled soviet power.

But more importantly what did the anarchists do about the situation of dual power in spain since they were anti state? From what i've read and heard the anarchists were quite hesitant about taking power because they thought that they had already completed the revolution by setting up collectives and councils. But because they had only finished the revolution halfway, when the facist military and other counter revolutionaries regained thier strength you see the anarchists going against everything they had stood for and collaborating with the state government to presumably protect the revolution.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 09:29 PM
It is not philisophical. The Russian revolution took place within RUSSIA the Spanish revolution took place within SPAIN ect ect. There would have still been state borders (at least for a while) had the working class achieved victory and they would have had to deal with these problems.
But see it is philosophical, as we're both using totally different definitions of the word state and so cannot take for granted that we understand each other! For example, I had no idea that you were referring to actual nations right there!

Borders are totally fictional other than that they are enforced by violence, so why would be expect a revolution that originates from outside the hierarchy to respect them? Borders are enforced by the state-form that we want nothing to do with, so why would we be confined to them? The Russian revolution was actually only one of a ton of different social explosions that happened throughout Europe around that time. The "Russian Revolution" is only called such because it failed.


This is what we are really dealing with... if it's possible to make revolution and not take state power or "taking power" as holloway puts it. It's obviously an absurd notion, i agree with the concept of getting to a situation of dual power but you have to deal with the question of who controls the state at some point.
The fact that you're saying that further proves that we are not talking about the same thing when we say "state".


Good idea. In Russia the situation of dual power was solved by the bolsheviks taking over the state supposedly embracing "all power to the soviets" even though they subsequently dismantled soviet power.
Right, dual power was crushed and capitalist power fully re-instituted.


But more importantly what did the anarchists do about the situation of dual power in spain since they were anti state? From what i've read and heard the anarchists were quite hesitant about taking power because they thought that they had already completed the revolution by setting up collectives and councils. But because they had only finished the revolution halfway, when the facist military and other counter revolutionaries regained thier strength you see the anarchists going against everything they had stood for and collaborating with the state government to presumably protect the revolution.
Yeah and that worked out great, didn't it?

That's why we oppose "socialism in one country". Obviously, we then also oppose "socialism in one region", but that's really all the anarchists had the influence to pull off. Spain was not ripe for a communist revolution, it was ripe for a last desperate sigh of the agrarian classes against the capitalist mode of production.

[Rawthentic]

I was thinking of the thread title, and now I must say that revolution, or communist revolution in our sense, is not revolution if the working class does not take power, while yes, simultaneously destroying capitalist power. The idea is that the proletariat comes to power and in itself forms a new state. Not in the sense of a government, but of worker's councils, autonomously, yet internationally operating. So, why the fuss? There can be no revolution if we do not take power

[EusebioScrib]

So, why the fuss? There can be no revolution if we do not take power

The problem is what we do with that power when we take it. Leninists claim they destroy it. Perhaps they do, but what they create is the same thing only painted red.

We must take power from capital, but we must destroy that power. We cannot wield that power, we must make it end.

[Chrysalis]

Originally posted by rouchambeau+--> (rouchambeau)When a single class takes control and does away with all other classes, I don't see how there is a difference between taking and destroying power. [/b]
True. There is a distinction, though, that I thought the communist manifesto made clear. EusebioScrib did not make clear, in his opening post, what kind of power the revolution will try to destroy: it's power from capital, from wealth of the capitalist: "The revolution is not for "taking power", it's for destroying power."

Though, I notice that EusebioScrib makes that clear later on here:


EusebioScrib
We must take power from capital, but we must destroy that power. We cannot wield that power, we must make it end.

[Rawthentic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 06:48 PM

So, why the fuss? There can be no revolution if we do not take power

The problem is what we do with that power when we take it. Leninists claim they destroy it. Perhaps they do, but what they create is the same thing only painted red.

We must take power from capital, but we must destroy that power. We cannot wield that power, we must make it end.
yes, yes you are right. The Leninits concept of destroying power must be destroying the ruling classes and placing themselves as the new rulers. Wouldnt know what else to say for them