The Nature Of The 'communist' States - Part 2

[rebelworker]

This part goes over the theories that Communist Party-ruled societies are neither pro-socialist nor capitalist but are a new kind of class society. These theories are correct in believing that the collective bureaucracy is a new ruling class but wrong in denying that these societies are a variety of capitalism. They raised questions about the nature of Fascism. Such theories bring out the need for participatory democracy and workers’ self-management.

Part 1, What Do We Mean By Anti-Capitalism? can be found at http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=2925

The Bureaucratic Ruling Class vs Democratic Self Management (http://www.anarkismo.net/newswire.php?story_id=3063)

[Rawthentic]

I believe that this new kind of class society that spawned out of Leninist and Maoist movements is a state-capitalism, so yes, a variant of capitalism it is.

[Floyce White]

Comrade Price's argument suffers because he does not sufficiently reverse-engineering those theories. Price puts credibility in what the proponents say they are explaining, rather than Price telling them what they are really saying.

[rebelworker]

Im currious as to what this actually means?

I dont really understand your critique, could you elaborate?

[Floyce White]

I thought the English was plain enough. Price makes expository essays. He doesn't analyze what the conclusions mean when put in words and deeds other than those used as examples by the proponents.

Personally, I think it's pretty superficial to never avail oneself of the concept of proxy. State ownership is ownership on behalf of whatever families of capitalists exist. It's ownership by the proxy of an institution other than the family. It's pretty superficial to say there's no such thing as a proxy.

[rebelworker]

If I understand you correctly, i think you miss the point that a beurocratic class might have functions or aspirations of its own, above and beyond whatever the official ruling class may have in mind.

I really find you use alot of convaluded language to explain yourself, and then make snide comments to sound smart, if im wrong I apologise but thats how it comes across to me.

[Floyce White]

I don't have to try to appear smart. I can be smart. So can you. So can Comrade Price.

Solve the problem.

Anybody could define anything if allowed to do so by a list of inclusory and exclusory characteristics. But a 100-item list or even a 10-item list makes for sloppy theory. Each item has opposites, corollaries, inverses, and reverses that overlap and contradict other items. Such an approach is not appropriate to produce a simple yes/no answer: upper class or lower class.

Anybody could say that managers are the upper class where the system of "managerial classes" exist, bureaucrats are the upper class where the system of "bureaucratic classes" exist, officers are the upper class where the system of "official classes" exist, dog washers are the upper class where the system of "dog washer classes" exist, and so on. It's circular logic.

Classes must be defined in such a way that the same definition holds true for both the US and the USSR at the same time. If fact, the definition must hold true for any form of class society in any era.

I find it funny that you think my words are convoluted , but don't have the same criticism of a system of "collective bureaucracy" and "official classes" that applies only to places where you don't have first-hand knowledge.

[rebelworker]

From personal experience I will use the example of the trade union burocracy, they clearly have a seperate set of interests (some whould say on a small scale "class interetses") from both the membership and the capitalists class.

In relation to the capitslists, they are a thorn n the side of rampant corporate domination of the population. In relation to the workers, they have a pasifying and soemwhat anti democratic leaning.

Now in some cases they may be strait up centralists (Andy Stern is a good american example) in other cases they may support more internal democracy (like UE). But on the whole they do fit a certain systemic place in the class structure and functioning of modern Capitalism in the US.

Im not very well read on the soviet union its true, but I would say that the union burocracy (suring the revolution/civil war) had slightly different interests from the Bolshevik leadership (ruling class) and from the factory committees (direct working class). These "class interests similarly mirror the ones I mentioned above.

I actually dont want to get in a huge debate about the issue of the Nature of the Soviet system under Stalin, But I think it is fair to say that there were class divisions of a sort within the bolshevik party, especially during the revolutionary period before Stalins rule.

I havent completely made up my mind n the issue of burocratic class influence, but I have seen its effects (if not completely) in both theory and my own personal life.

I hope you didnt take my previous comments as an insult, they were ment more as a criticism, I often have a hard time following your writting style and wanted to point that out. It often comes across (in my opinion) as overly intelectual, I think you could use more clear language, not so many obscure words/phrases.

[Floyce White]

No sweat. You can't last at politics if you take things personally.

In this second installment, Comrade Price points out a valid critique of the theory of a new system of exploitation in the USSR. Capitalism is a form of production (and circulation). Forms of production cannot rule except by violently excluding other forms. Capitalist commodification of society cannot flourish under conditions of feudal land tenure, serfdom, royal fiat, and vassalage. The rule of capitalism means that all persons who wish to rule over others must use capitalist methods. The ruling class must be a capitalist class. To prove the existence of a "bureaucrat class"--a new form of rule--it is necessary to prove not only that capitalist forms have been excluded and suppressed, but also prove the existence of a new form of production that generated the new class. Theories of "bureaucratic collectivism" fail to prove either. So the ruling class must be the same old capitalist class.

Yet even this correct critique misses the point. Forms of production do define the composition and function of classes. The rule of capitalism means that the ruling class must be capitalists; it defines the "capitalist" part of "capitalist class." The rule of capitalism means that the exploited producing class must be proletarians; it defines the "worker" part of "working class." However, it does not define what the word "class" means.

So how is "class" defined? More or less, as "a group with categorical similarities." The vulgar definition! No better than how boats are classified. What about the reality of the society of rich and poor? What about the meaning of "class" as a method of social interaction? What about "class" as a way of treating other people? We are told to look at the "capitalist" or "worker" part only. Then why even use the word "class?" Why not just say "capitalists" instead of "capitalist class," and "workers" instead of "working class" (or "bureaucrats" instead of "bureaucrat class")? Why leave the argument open to the charge that it is false because it is vulgar?

Why indeed!

Those who live in glass houses do not throw stones. "Marxist" class analysis depends on a wish list of characteristics to define the word "class"--in order to defend its theory of a "lower order of communism" ruled by a "dictatorship of the proletariat." "Marxists" are never going to criticize anybody else for using a wish list. Even when they argue over a particular item on the wish list as being a bourgeois-vulgar description, they do not criticize their own process of defining the word "class" as itself being vulgar "classification." It is bourgeois methodology.

That is the another part of the critique of defining "class" by a list.

There are many good arguments that could be made in this thread, but won't be. You see my posts as being "obscure." I see the theory board as being chit-chat about theory, the philosophy board as being chit-chat about philosophy, and so on. There is some truth to both of our perspectives. I used the word "inclusory" in my last post. I wanted to check the spelling, so I used Dictionary.com. The word isn't there. Is there no such word as "inclusory?" No. Google it. You'll find it.

Is there no such thing as critique of bourgeois methodology in the definition of "class?"

[rebelworker]

Mabey im miss understanding you, but are you arguing that there can only be two "classes" at work in any given society. If so I think this is a mistake.

Take for example southern mexico. Although mexico is clearly a capitaist nation state, there are elemnts of the power structure that resemble a more semi feudal system. Landless peasant living in isolated villages, and large land owners with private armies that for all intenets and perposes are the local authority.

This system closely mirrors spain of the turn of the century.

I would say the Zapatistas have a backbone in the peanants, and thier main oposition is not the state but the landowners. These two bodies have very different interests and characteristics that industrail( or even rural) proletariate on the one hand, and industrialists and the like on the other.

I would argue that for atleat the purpose of political analysis these are two "other" classes at play in the framework of Capitalist Mexico.

In the same light I would argue that a burocratic class could be at play in a Capitalist system aswell.

Like you said class is a very complicated thing, more than just a role in production, it encompases social, cultural and political characteristics and patterns that are very important to the usefullsness of such catagories.

Over simplification of class is for me at the heart of the errors in Bolshevik thinking, and for me also at the heart of my conversion to anarchist communism.

Anyway, an interesting discussion on all accounts.
Im going to invite Wayne to join this forum, and will also soon post part three of his essay.

[Marion]

I'm got some queries about the notion of class as well. I think its important to see that class is not some firm category that exists once and for all and explains everything - at best its a helpful tool to try and give us a fix on certain aspects of reality. Personally I like starting from the starting point of two classes with the working-class as those who are forced to work to survive (with this including both waged and unwaged labour) as this fits with the way I view capitalism. Of course though, this doesn't mean that it doesn't also make sense to look at the composition of the class as there are different strata within this.

On the other hand, I see class as about a social relationship (isn't everything?) and so to categorise someone as entirely belonging to a class, rather than saying that their current action or relation is of a certain type, seems a bit strange. Haven't really thought through all the consequences of this so will reserve the right to change my mind!

Anyway, any thoughts/considerations gratefully received as have enjoyed reading both sides of the discussion!

[rebelworker]

I defenitly dont have a hard and fast position on this question either.

I just see the contradictions and shortcomings of alot of what passes for class analysis these days.

IM not much of an intelectual, I just ask questions, try and formulate my beleifs and hopw that someone else has written something more indepth and well researched on the subject that will help me out.

More often than not, after searching a while, Im suprised to see there are intelectuals who think like me...