Democracy

[danielfolsom]

So do communist countries always have to be dictatorships? History would imply so - but it seems like since Marx wanted to put the power in the people's hands, he would let them vote - perhaps even going as far as a direct democracy instead of an indirect one.


IF it always have to be a dictator, why is it never a good one? (Ok Fidel's pretty good - but obviously the more famous ones are evil - Stalin for example)

[Janus]

So do communist countries always have to be dictatorships?
There's no such thing as a communist country other than a geographical sense. Communism is a classless and stateless society. Obviously, this can't be achieved through a dictatorship.


but it seems like since Marx wanted to put the power in the people's hands, he would let them vote - perhaps even going as far as a direct democracy instead of an indirect one.
Yes, those were the ideas espoused by Marx.


IF it always have to be a dictator, why is it never a good one?
Communism isn't supposed to involve a dictatorship. It is completely ridiculous to believe that one man can lead a state into communism no matter how "good" he is. The people must do it themselves.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:38 am
So do communist countries always have to be dictatorships? History would imply so - but it seems like since Marx wanted to put the power in the people's hands, he would let them vote - perhaps even going as far as a direct democracy instead of an indirect one.


IF it always have to be a dictator, why is it never a good one? (Ok Fidel's pretty good - but obviously the more famous ones are evil - Stalin for example)
Just as others have said, there has never been a communist country. Do not let your history books, school, media distort your image of communism. Communism is eco. equality for everyone (classless, stateless) Communism is direct democracy.

[Q]

The Russian revolution started out quite nice, as a genuine socialist revolution. With soviet democracy and all that. But within a few years the Soviet Union degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship, with Stalin as the product of that degeneration.
This was because the revolution stalled and became isolated instead of spreading worldwide. The extreme backwardness of Russia and the civil war speeded up this degenerative proces.
Then, when other revolutionary movements came, the stalinist elite sabotaged it. Examples of this are Spain (1930s), Germany(1923), the UK(1926) and China(1925-27).

More information about this degeneration can be read right here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) in detail.

[( R )evolution]

Also in order for a sccesful communist revolution you need to have capitalism established and very industrailzed. In places like early 1900 USSR and 1949 China it was not very industralized and was not the best place for a revolution to occur.

[Q]

Originally posted by ( R )[email protected] 30, 2006 08:26 am
Also in order for a sccesful communist revolution you need to have capitalism established and very industrailzed. In places like early 1900 USSR and 1949 China it was not very industralized and was not the best place for a revolution to occur.
Well, it could have worked, but the vital thing was for the revolution to spread. Lenin and Trotsky always emphasized on a revolution in Germany.
But anyway, even if Russia was a highly developed industrial economy, it would still have failed if it remained isolated in Russia, because the tendency to bureaucratisation is universal. The only way to suppress this tendency is by an international revolution and a fast development of the economy, so material inequalities become a thing of the past.

[BobKKKindle$]

The Reason why the State Capitalist (The correct description of the USSR and its client states) Dictators, and indeed all forms of authoritarian rulers are 'evil' is because they are not accountable to the wishes of the people over whom they have power, and are able to assert their power and dominance through the use of the armed forces. However, even with political systems that we conceive of as being 'democratic' - such as the representitive bougeois democracy common in many countries - have important limitations that prevent working people from having control over their communities and lives. For example, it should be noted that many important institutions, such as the armed services and the judiciary, are not subject to democratic control but rather are controlled by unelected authorities.


This was because the revolution stalled and became isolated instead of spreading worldwide. The extreme backwardness of Russia and the civil war speeded up this degenerative proces.

This may have been one of the causes, but I think one must recognize that the characteristics of the revolutionary overthrow of Capitalism will play a role in determining the structure of post-revolutionary society. The Russian Revolution was committed by a small number of intellectuals and class conscious elements of the working class (Leninism) and did not involve the full mass of the working people, which meant that the society that followed was characterised by centralised, coercive, and non-democratic power structures and the destruction of worker's democracy and self-management.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 01:01 pm
The Reason why the State Capitalist (The correct description of the USSR and its client states)
"State capitalism" is a nonsense theory. The theory, in a nutshell, is that the bureaucracy was an economic class on itself that played the role of a "unified bourgeousies". But what about crises of overproduction, private ownership over the means of production, a planned economy (thusly no free market), etc. These basic characteristics of capitalism simply didn't exist in the SU.

Besides, the bureaucracy wasn't a class in the economical sense. It was a caste, and a parasitical one at that, but it played no fundamental role in the planned economy. Let me explain this by taking the example of the economical system we all know best: capitalism: within this system we have two main classes: the capitalist class (or bourgeoisies) and the working class (or proletariat). They both have a vital role in this economical system. We all know the role of the working class, but the role of the capitalist is often underestimated: in the progressive phase of capitalism (right after the feudal era), the capitalist sought for new ways to innovate society, driven by the impulse to make a profit. The bureaucracy never played such a vital role, if the bureaucracy happend to cease to exist, the working class could take over the role in the planned economy.

So much for state capitalism.


This may have been one of the causes, but I think one must recognize that the characteristics of the revolutionary overthrow of Capitalism will play a role in determining the structure of post-revolutionary society.
Agreed. The Russian Revolution was a genuine socialist revolution though.


The Russian Revolution was committed by a small number of intellectuals and class conscious elements of the working class (Leninism) and did not involve the full mass of the working people, which meant that the society that followed was characterised by centralised, coercive, and non-democratic power structures and the destruction of worker's democracy and self-management.
Now you're mixing up three things. Part 1, part 2 and part 3
Parts 1 is about the idea of a vanguard party, which means in a nutshell: organise revolutionary forces and exapand your organisation to offer the working class a viable alternative to socialism when the time comes. This was exactly the role the Bolsheviks played and is a logical way to organise. Without the Bolsheviks, no revolution.

Parts 2 is just bullocks, please at least pretend to do your homework.

Part 3 is about democratic centralism, which was summarized by Lenin as "freedom in discussion, unity in action". In other words: you can always differ on opinions and bring forward criticism to decissions, but once a (temporary) decission has been made, evryone defends it. However, you can still disagree with it and put forward your criticism... etc. This is in my humble opinion by far the most democratic structure an organisation can have. I never ever heard of a viable alternative which would be more democratic, yet still applicable for large organisations.

Part 3a: It is true that Lenin banned political parties, but this was in the civil war and after the parties in question had taken up arms against the soviet government. Besides it was initially meant as a temporary measure, after the war the political parties would be allowed again. So initially no parties were banned (besides the Black Hundred (fascists)). After the war things went its own way, in this light it was "nice" for the bureaucracy that the parties were banned, but it was, in no way, a fundamental cause of it.

[( R )evolution]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 01:01 pm
This may have been one of the causes, but I think one must recognize that the characteristics of the revolutionary overthrow of Capitalism will play a role in determining the structure of post-revolutionary society. The Russian Revolution was committed by a small number of intellectuals and class conscious elements of the working class (Leninism) and did not involve the full mass of the working people, which meant that the society that followed was characterised by centralised, coercive, and non-democratic power structures and the destruction of worker's democracy and self-management.
The Russian Revolution did not involve the masses? It may have been started by the Vanguard but I assure it it had alot of support from the masses. There was a great discontent among the workers because of the opperrssion and economic faults of the czar regime. Which greatly helped the revolution.

[powertothepeople]

communism is actually against a dictatorship it is actually where the people rule there self but after the revolution you need a temporary goverment to rule the country until the economy is steady

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 30, 2006 08:14 am
The Russian revolution started out quite nice, as a genuine socialist revolution. With soviet democracy and all that. But within a few years the Soviet Union degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship, with Stalin as the product of that degeneration.
This was because the revolution stalled and became isolated instead of spreading worldwide. The extreme backwardness of Russia and the civil war speeded up this degenerative proces.
Then, when other revolutionary movements came, the stalinist elite sabotaged it. Examples of this are Spain (1930s), Germany(1923), the UK(1926) and China(1925-27).

More information about this degeneration can be read right here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) in detail.
That was because the power was concentrated into one unchecked nexus of power. Even feudalism got some checkers, and bourgeoisie democracy is in itself a dictatorship of the law.

One of the reasons why marxism-leninism tend to degenerate into dictatorships is that the party is unchecked and have absolute power to do what it wants to do, without any balance of power.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 30, 2006 08:14 am
The Russian revolution started out quite nice, as a genuine socialist revolution. With soviet democracy and all that. But within a few years the Soviet Union degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship, with Stalin as the product of that degeneration.
This was because the revolution stalled and became isolated instead of spreading worldwide. The extreme backwardness of Russia and the civil war speeded up this degenerative proces.
Then, when other revolutionary movements came, the stalinist elite sabotaged it. Examples of this are Spain (1930s), Germany(1923), the UK(1926) and China(1925-27).

More information about this degeneration can be read right here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) in detail.
Soviet Democracy continued until the end. What the hell are you talking about "stalinist elite"?

[Dimentio]

Given that the rulers of the Soviet Union did not enrich themselves in the same extent as the European upper-class, at least not until the 90;s, it seems quite ideologised to call them an elite, but what influence did the oridinary Ivan have on the Soviet policies?

[Q]

Originally posted by Serpent+December 30, 2006 05:43 pm--> (Serpent @ December 30, 2006 05:43 pm)
Q-[email protected] 30, 2006 08:14 am
The Russian revolution started out quite nice, as a genuine socialist revolution. With soviet democracy and all that. But within a few years the Soviet Union degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship, with Stalin as the product of that degeneration.
This was because the revolution stalled and became isolated instead of spreading worldwide. The extreme backwardness of Russia and the civil war speeded up this degenerative proces.
Then, when other revolutionary movements came, the stalinist elite sabotaged it. Examples of this are Spain (1930s), Germany(1923), the UK(1926) and China(1925-27).

More information about this degeneration can be read right here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) in detail.
That was because the power was concentrated into one unchecked nexus of power. Even feudalism got some checkers, and bourgeoisie democracy is in itself a dictatorship of the law.

One of the reasons why marxism-leninism tend to degenerate into dictatorships is that the party is unchecked and have absolute power to do what it wants to do, without any balance of power. [/b]
No, please read the bit of text you quoted again for an answer why.
Is reading really that hard?

Again: the material conditions caused the degeneration of the soviet regime. This is a wise lesson, since this tendency of bureaucratisation will occur in any revolutionary circumstance, because of the simple fact that right after the revolution you inherited the material inequalities of capitalism.
The only way to effectively surpress this bureaucratic degenerative tendency is by developing the economy fast, which is only possible when you work together internationally. Once the revolution gets isolated and you can't develop your economy in a relatively short duration of time, the bureaucratic tendency will take over and the revolution becomes betrayed. As a general rule of thumb you could say that the more backward a society is, the faster the degeneration will occur.

Now, I put this a bit into a mechanical schematic way, reality is a lot more versatile ofcourse, but my point is this: democratic centralism and the concept of a vanguard party is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the question of degeneration. If you maintain this position, you have no clue whatsoever how democratic centralism works.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:16 pm
Soviet Democracy continued until the end. What the hell are you talking about "stalinist elite"?
Please read the link, it is explained in detail.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Q-collective+December 30, 2006 07:24 pm--> (Q-collective @ December 30, 2006 07:24 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 05:43 pm

Q-[email protected] 30, 2006 08:14 am
The Russian revolution started out quite nice, as a genuine socialist revolution. With soviet democracy and all that. But within a few years the Soviet Union degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship, with Stalin as the product of that degeneration.
This was because the revolution stalled and became isolated instead of spreading worldwide. The extreme backwardness of Russia and the civil war speeded up this degenerative proces.
Then, when other revolutionary movements came, the stalinist elite sabotaged it. Examples of this are Spain (1930s), Germany(1923), the UK(1926) and China(1925-27).

More information about this degeneration can be read right here (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1936-rev/) in detail.
That was because the power was concentrated into one unchecked nexus of power. Even feudalism got some checkers, and bourgeoisie democracy is in itself a dictatorship of the law.

One of the reasons why marxism-leninism tend to degenerate into dictatorships is that the party is unchecked and have absolute power to do what it wants to do, without any balance of power.
No, please read the bit of text you quoted again for an answer why.
Is reading really that hard?

Again: the material conditions caused the degeneration of the soviet regime. This is a wise lesson, since this tendency of bureaucratisation will occur in any revolutionary circumstance, because of the simple fact that right after the revolution you inherited the material inequalities of capitalism.
The only way to effectively surpress this bureaucratic degenerative tendency is by developing the economy fast, which is only possible when you work together internationally. Once the revolution gets isolated and you can't develop your economy in a relatively short duration of time, the bureaucratic tendency will take over and the revolution becomes betrayed. As a general rule of thumb you could say that the more backward a society is, the faster the degeneration will occur.

Now, I put this a bit into a mechanical schematic way, reality is a lot more versatile ofcourse, but my point is this: democratic centralism and the concept of a vanguard party is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to the question of degeneration. If you maintain this position, you have no clue whatsoever how democratic centralism works. [/b]
The Soviet Union did work together with other states [and foreign companies] and developed itself very fast economically. It is quite certain that we could say that the sacrifices carried out by the peoples of the Soviet Union during that time would have been impossible to be made in a democratic context.

One of the companies which cooperated with the Soviet Union was Ford. Another state was Germany in 1926-1934.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:31 pm
The Soviet Union did work together with other states [and foreign companies] and developed itself very fast economically. It is quite certain that we could say that the sacrifices carried out by the peoples of the Soviet Union during that time would have been impossible to be made in a democratic context.

One of the companies which cooperated with the Soviet Union was Ford. Another state was Germany in 1926-1934.
Now we get back to my original point: Russia couldn't possibly carry a socialist economy when the revolution began. In 1917 ist still really was a feudal state with some capitalist characteristics. The revolution therefor was a socialist one (carried by the masses), but with bourgeois tasks (developing of the economy) (sidenote: this was also the basis of Lenin's NEP policy). And after seven years of war (1914 - 1921) all they had on industry was destroyed, the agrarian sector was a mess, the economy lay in ruins.
This laid the basis for the degeneration. Once the SU started with 5 year plans in 1927 and had an economical boom a few years later, it was already too late; the bureaucratic tendency was already too strong and demanded all the surplus, effectively widening the inequality instead of closing it.

I again want to point to "The Revolution Betrayed" where this is explained in detail.

[Dimentio]

Originally posted by Q-collective+December 30, 2006 07:39 pm--> (Q-collective @ December 30, 2006 07:39 pm)
[email protected] 30, 2006 07:31 pm
The Soviet Union did work together with other states [and foreign companies] and developed itself very fast economically. It is quite certain that we could say that the sacrifices carried out by the peoples of the Soviet Union during that time would have been impossible to be made in a democratic context.

One of the companies which cooperated with the Soviet Union was Ford. Another state was Germany in 1926-1934.
Now we get back to my original point: Russia couldn't possibly carry a socialist economy when the revolution began. In 1917 ist still really was a feudal state with some capitalist characteristics. The revolution therefor was a socialist one (carried by the masses), but with bourgeois tasks (developing of the economy) (sidenote: this was also the basis of Lenin's NEP policy). And after seven years of war (1914 - 1921) all they had on industry was destroyed, the agrarian sector was a mess, the economy lay in ruins.
This laid the basis for the degeneration. Once the SU started with 5 year plans in 1927 and had an economical boom a few years later, it was already too late; the bureaucratic tendency was already too strong and demanded all the surplus, effectively widening the inequality instead of closing it.

I again want to point to "The Revolution Betrayed" where this is explained in detail. [/b]
A bureaucracy, or at least some form of structure, is needed if you want to have something more than an agrarian state.

[Dimentio]

By the way, here are two very interesting debates pertaining how power should, or should not be executed.

The judiciary (http://spazz.mine.nu/cms/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&catid=4&id=4194#4194)

Democracy (http://spazz.mine.nu/cms/index.php?option=com_mamboboard&Itemid=103&func=view&id=3625&catid=4)

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:44 pm
A bureaucracy, or at least some form of structure, is needed if you want to have something more than an agrarian state.
Obviously this is true. The point however is that "power corrupts" and that the bureaucracy led a life of its own. Lenin already saw the danger of this in an early stage and spent most of his time in his last few years to combat this by demanding more democratic rights, more power of the soviets, etc. But after his dead, things went a lot faster - in the bad direction that is.

But yeah, a form of government is needed, and imho soviet democracy is the best way to run a socialist society: for the masses, by the masses. Where cooperation on higher levels only occurs where this is needed or logical, for example in the case of a big infrastructural project or a macro-economical plan.

[Dimentio]

A good way to have some sort of democratic sphere is to create a set of rules and then give the power to interpret the rules to an independent body, which could oversee that everything works it's way.

I am actually open to separate the state from the management of the economy as well, and instead give the infrastructure to an autonomous foundation controlled by the people. Thus, we would get three spheres, one of the state, one of the foundation - which we technocrats call the technate - and one for the judiciary.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 07:57 pm
A good way to have some sort of democratic sphere is to create a set of rules and then give the power to interpret the rules to an independent body, which could oversee that everything works it's way.

I am actually open to separate the state from the management of the economy as well, and instead give the infrastructure to an autonomous foundation controlled by the people. Thus, we would get three spheres, one of the state, one of the foundation - which we technocrats call the technate - and one for the judiciary.
Hmm, the goal of socialists however is to let the state gradually "die away". The idea is to get a direct democratic society, so controlled by the people in every aspect.

[Dimentio]

It sounds rather vague. I mean, in a hypothetical society marked by total democracy, we could assemble all people in the agora, and the people could theoretically vote who should be executed, without any reason except out of arbitrarity. That is of course an extremely unlikely scenario, but I hope you get my point.

The goal of liberation, as we tend to see it, should be to make people independent from relationships based on the execution of power. Democracies could be repressive as well, unless they are checkered by constitutional limitations.

[Ol' Dirty]

It's a good thing to acknowledge that there are two types of communism: national and international. National communism is the system espoused by Stalin, Tito, and possibly Mao, while international communism is the system used by more left-leaning communists, such as Marx, Trotsky, Luxembourg, Che, and maybe Lenin.

National Communism is rightist, and is very similar to fascism and national socialism, which is why Stalin and Hitler got along so well before the Second World War, with the non-aggresion pact and such. They were just two authoritarian regimes that wanted to control the world.

International communism, on the other hand, is on the far left, and is, in truth, more aligned orthodox marxism. The non OI members on this board are all internationalists, while the restricted "communists" are are nationalists. The International Leftist movement should be just as wary of National Comunists as other Authoritarians, Conservatives and Liberals.

National communists would most certainly favor a dictatorship or a "Red Prince" system, in which members of the Party are above the law. National Communists are just as (or more) reactionary than fascists, and should be watched carefuly.

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 08:03 pm
It sounds rather vague. I mean, in a hypothetical society marked by total democracy, we could assemble all people in the agora, and the people could theoretically vote who should be executed, without any reason except out of arbitrarity. That is of course an extremely unlikely scenario, but I hope you get my point.

The goal of liberation, as we tend to see it, should be to make people independent from relationships based on the execution of power. Democracies could be repressive as well, unless they are checkered by constitutional limitations.
I get your point of checks and balances. I don't think the judiciary should cease to exist, all judges should just be democratically elected.
Then again, I do think that a society in socialism is a lot more culturally advanced then our society is, for this I would like to refer to the work of Maslow (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs), who analysed the need hierarchy of humans.
So, would a direct democratic socialistic society degenerate into barbarism? I highly doubt it.

[Dimentio]

I think that definition actually could be seen as an after-invention of the events leading to the demise of Trotsky in the 1920;s. Both Stalin and Trotsky supported the theory of international revolution, until the defeat outside of Warszaw in 1921, when both of them started to support the NEP. Stalin first used the rightists to get rid of the leftists, and then he used the centre - now the new leftists - to get rid of the rightists.

BTW - To make a fuss about that is like making a fuss over who should have succeeded the prophet Mohamed. ^^

[Ol' Dirty]

I think that definition actually could be seen as an after-invention of the events leading to the demise of Trotsky in the 1920;s. Both Stalin and Trotsky supported the theory of international revolution, until the defeat outside of Warszaw in 1921, when both of them started to support the NEP. Stalin first used the rightists to get rid of the leftists, and then he used the centre - now the new leftists - to get rid of the rightists.

BTW - To make a fuss about that is like making a fuss over who should have succeeded the prophet Mohamed. ^^

I understand what you're saying, but please don't get me wrong, I'm no Trotskyite. Yeah things could've gone better under Trotsky, but I don't fall in line with everything he said. I'm saying that we should differentiate the national and international communist movements. They are totally different movements; the term "I'm a communist" can be misconstrude in all sorts of ways. That's why I';m saying that we should draw the political line around there. Stalin was just an example of a national communist, and Trotsky was more of the International type.

[Dimentio]

I do not like the definition "internationalism" since it is self-contradicting.

Why? Because "inter" and "nationalism" could be translated as between nations-ism, thus asserting the existence of nations as the natural reference point.

When it comes to communism, it remains more pragmatic to opt for the change into socialism for one state, or a group of states in one region, than a simultaneous global revolution spontaneously or intentionally erupting.

[Janus]

Why? Because "inter" and "nationalism" could be translated as between nations-ism, thus asserting the existence of nations as the natural reference point.
Yes, internationalism still technically accepts the existence of nations. I suppose transnationalism would be a better word.


I'm saying that we should differentiate the national and international communist movements.
I would say that it's more of a difference between theory and practice in that it's very easy to support internationalism in theory but quite difficult to put it into practice when your movement is mainly based in one nation.


Stalin was just an example of a national communist, and Trotsky was more of the International type.
Well, Stalin was the leader of the CCCP while Trotsky was an exile who could afford to create more of an international movement. Stalin created the theory of socialism in one country to solidify his position yet he still was an internationalist in that he aided other communists through the Comintern when he could afford it.

[Ol' Dirty]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2006 04:16 pm






I do not like the definition "internationalism" since it is self-contradicting.

Why? Because "inter" and "nationalism" could be translated as between nations-ism, thus asserting the existence of nations as the natural reference point.

Besides, that is not a definition, but a name. I suppose Janus' version would be more correct, but I still stick to the theory.



When it comes to communism, it remains more pragmatic to opt for the change into socialism for one state, or a group of states in one region, than a simultaneous global revolution spontaneously or intentionally erupting.

Then there is the problem of a nearly totaly centralized state controling the menas of production without leaving room for autonomy. This leads to authoritarianism, and that is one of things communists should try to avoid. Also, if that one state falls, you have then the only major base of support you have, which is what more or less happened after the fall of the Soviet Union (which really wasn't socialist.)

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29, 2006 11:38 pm
So do communist countries always have to be dictatorships? History would imply so - but it seems like since Marx wanted to put the power in the people's hands, he would let them vote - perhaps even going as far as a direct democracy instead of an indirect one.
Exactly. That's why the really existing socialism of the 20th century was an overall failure of a socialist project. The only advances it made were in its negative form — i.e. its criticisms. I suggest you check out The Russian Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1918/russian-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg.

[nickdlc]

"State capitalism" is a nonsense theory. The theory, in a nutshell, is that the bureaucracy was an economic class on itself that played the role of a "unified bourgeousies". But what about crises of overproduction, private ownership over the means of production, a planned economy (thusly no free market), etc. These basic characteristics of capitalism simply didn't exist in the SU. In essence state property was private ownership, workers had no decision making over what was produced, in what way and under what conditions. Labour was under worse conditions than in other countries when it deffinetly should have been much better if this was a socialist state. You even agree that the bureaucracy was a parasitiacal layer which means you accept the fact that surplus value/labour was being extracted from workers to pay for the better life these state capitalist managers were living.


The bureaucracy never played such a vital role, if the bureaucracy happend to cease to exist, the working class could take over the role in the planned economy. The bureacracy did cease in 1989 remember? so much for degenerated workers state.


Again: the material conditions caused the degeneration of the soviet regime. This is a wise lesson, since this tendency of bureaucratisation will occur in any revolutionary circumstance, because of the simple fact that right after the revolution you inherited the material inequalities of capitalism. I think it would be wise for you to read up on the factory committee movement which trotsky and lenin both recognized as being much more revolutionary than the organization which they wished for and which threatened their very hold on the soviet economy i.e. bureaucratic control over the means of production ie state capitalism.


But yeah, a form of government is needed, and imho soviet democracy is the best way to run a socialist society: for the masses, by the masses. Actually many of the soviets and especially the larger and most influential i.e. petrograd soviet were set up and controlled by intellegensia and middle class radicals and were basically only a forum where workers could air out their grievences. they had no fundamental control over teh policies in these 1917 soviets. This was contrasted by the factory committees which were basically worker controlled factories that had to be expropriated or taken over by workers because managers and owners had left or where to incompetant to control it anymore. this was the real socialist revolution in russia and it's sad more is not known about it by socialists who think they need to find out forumal's to set up a socialist society. We don't need a blueprint workers had already set out on the socialist transformation in 1917 without the help of fearless leaders and all that other bullshit mythology that has grown since then!

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 06:54 pm
In essence state property was private ownership, workers had no decision making over what was produced, in what way and under what conditions.
Private ownership isn't defined as the lack of workers' democracy. You have to come with a better argument.


The bureacracy did cease in 1989 remember? so much for degenerated workers state.
Oh yeah, talking about apples and oranges here. The class counsiousness of the working class in the SU was close to nil. Workers weren't organised, no revolutionary party existed and the memory of the revolution had faded away and was replaced by cynism.



Again: the material conditions caused the degeneration of the soviet regime. This is a wise lesson, since this tendency of bureaucratisation will occur in any revolutionary circumstance, because of the simple fact that right after the revolution you inherited the material inequalities of capitalism. I think it would be wise for you to read up on the factory committee movement which trotsky and lenin both recognized as being much more revolutionary than the organization which they wished for and which threatened their very hold on the soviet economy i.e. bureaucratic control over the means of production ie state capitalism.
1. I never said anything to the contrary about factory committees.
2. Lenin nor Trotsky strived for bureaucratic control.


Actually many of the soviets and especially the larger and most influential i.e. petrograd soviet were set up and controlled by intellegensia and middle class radicals and were basically only a forum where workers could air out their grievences. they had no fundamental control over teh policies in these 1917 soviets.
Sources?


This was contrasted by the factory committees which were basically worker controlled factories that had to be expropriated or taken over by workers because managers and owners had left or where to incompetant to control it anymore. this was the real socialist revolution in russia and it's sad more is not known about it by socialists who think they need to find out forumal's to set up a socialist society. We don't need a blueprint workers had already set out on the socialist transformation in 1917 without the help of fearless leaders and all that other bullshit mythology that has grown since then!
You seem to make a non-existant difference between factory committees and soviets. They're merely different in stages of development; where there factory committee still is the workers democracy inside a factory, is the soviet the logical next step where factory commiittees bond together to for an alternative to bourgeois rule to run a society. You classification of a soviet being a "forum where intelligentia and middle class radicals come together to air their grievances" is simply a wrong characterisation of what they are.

[nickdlc]

Private ownership isn't defined as the lack of workers' democracy. You have to come with a better argument. But when the very essence of socialism is workers democracy anything less is not socialism. Just because an industry is nationalized in a western country do the workers own it or control it anymore than if it was privitized? Don't be naive. It's not their's in a western country and it's wasn't theirs in russia. What you have to get past is mere formality. Just because in the constitution of russia the means of production was for "everybody" doesn't make it so. Your a marxist no? Don't you know the mere formality is nothing but the essence beneath the formality is everything.


The class counsiousness of the working class in the SU was close to nil. Workers weren't organised, no revolutionary party existed and the memory of the revolution had faded away and was replaced by cynism. That's what happens in a state capitalist society when workers aren't in control of the means of production. Also the arrogant nature of lenninists come out when they say that without a revolutionary party workers are blind sheep with no minds. Workers setup soviets in 1905 without the help of the party and set up factory commitee's in 1917 with no party guiding them. The bolsheviks rode on the wave of proletariat revolution they just went along for the ride mirroring workers concerns but ultimetly capitalist transformation of russia (represented by bolsheviks and other capitalist parties) won over socialist transformation of russia (represented by the factory commitee movement).


Sources?
http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/acropolis/...tory/FACTRY.HTM (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/acropolis/8195/factory/FACTRY.HTM)
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-a...olidarity-group (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)


You seem to make a non-existant difference between factory committees and soviets. They're merely different in stages of development; where there factory committee still is the workers democracy inside a factory, is the soviet the logical next step where factory commiittees bond together to for an alternative to bourgeois rule to run a society Wrong. Soviets were first organized to co-ordinate strikes but quickly became something much more and were used to pressure the state into accepting workers demands and the airing out of grievances type stuff. Soviets where more organs of political action where-as factory committees grew from the essential need for workers to carry on production and survive, which in russia meant workers having to take control of their factories. So soviets were political organs and factory committee's were more economically oriented. Of course these functions overlapped since the economic is political and the political is economic. One example of this is both soviets and factory committee's fought for the 8 hour work day. The evolution of these organs have seperate histories though and it is important to remember.


You classification of a soviet being a "forum where intelligentia and middle class radicals come together to air their grievances" is simply a wrong characterisation of what they are. Probably because you had my classification wrong in the first place. What i said was "(soviets) were set up and controlled by intellegensia and middle class radicals and were basically only a forum where workers could air out their grievences."

From Soviets And Factory Committees (one of my sources):


Sukhanov, a journalist and a member of this Executive Committee, describes the functioning of this Soviet:

To this day, I, a member of the Executive Committee of the Soviet, am completely ignorant of what the Soviet was doing in the course of the day. It never interested me, either then or later, because it was self-evident that all the practical pivotal work had fallen on the shoulders of the Executive Committee. As for the Soviet at that moment, in the given situation, with its quantitative and qualitative composition, it was clearly incapable of any work even as a Parliament, and performed merely moral functions.

The Executive Committee had to accomplish by itself all the current work as well as bring into being a scheme of government. In the first place, to pass this programme through the Soviet was plainly a formality; secondly, this formality was not difficult and no one cared about it....

"And what's going on in the Soviet?" I remember asking someone who had come in from beyond the curtain. He waved his hand hopelessly: "A mass meeting! Anyone who wants to gets up and says whatever he likes!"

[Q]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:52 pm
Your a marxist no? Don't you know the mere formality is nothing but the essence beneath the formality is everything.
Yes, obviously. But the characterisation of the SU as a capitalistic society is a wrong one, since that's not what it was. The bourgeoisies has contradictions of interests that are inherent to its class, this is why for example the European Union will never actually be a unified Europe as long as it remains a capitalist project. If at all, state capitalism is more accuratly defined as Keynesian capitalism where the state has a strong say on the economy, the US of the 1930s was an example of this. China today might be aswell. The SU clearly was not.



The class counsiousness of the working class in the SU was close to nil. Workers weren't organised, no revolutionary party existed and the memory of the revolution had faded away and was replaced by cynism. That's what happens in a state capitalist society when workers aren't in control of the means of production.
So, does this also explain why revolutionary organisations and class counsiousness in general dropped drastically after the SU collapsed? Despite it deficiensies the SU was an example of how workers could control society. The fall of it gave the capitalists the opporunity to unleash an attack on the working class and no-one could counter it.


Also the arrogant nature of lenninists come out when they say that without a revolutionary party workers are blind sheep with no minds. Workers setup soviets in 1905 without the help of the party and set up factory commitee's in 1917 with no party guiding them. The bolsheviks rode on the wave of proletariat revolution they just went along for the ride mirroring workers concerns but ultimetly capitalist transformation of russia (represented by bolsheviks and other capitalist parties) won over socialist transformation of russia (represented by the factory commitee movement).
This is true, but it is also true that the soviets quickly collapsed when they couldn't "scale them up" to cover the country. A revolutionary party is in general the most practical way to have a political voice for the working class.



Sources?
http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/raclef.htm
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/acropolis/...tory/FACTRY.HTM (http://www.geocities.com/Athens/acropolis/8195/factory/FACTRY.HTM)
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-a...olidarity-group (http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)
Thanks, I'll read them when I have time.



You seem to make a non-existant difference between factory committees and soviets. They're merely different in stages of development; where there factory committee still is the workers democracy inside a factory, is the soviet the logical next step where factory commiittees bond together to for an alternative to bourgeois rule to run a society Wrong. Soviets were first organized to co-ordinate strikes but quickly became something much more and were used to pressure the state into accepting workers demands and the airing out of grievances type stuff. Soviets where more organs of political action where-as factory committees grew from the essential need for workers to carry on production and survive, which in russia meant workers having to take control of their factories. So soviets were political organs and factory committee's were more economically oriented. Of course these functions overlapped since the economic is political and the political is economic. One example of this is both soviets and factory committee's fought for the 8 hour work day. The evolution of these organs have seperate histories though and it is important to remember.
This is completely true, glad we agree here. Soviets are the organisational next step for the working class after factory committees. And because of this they indeed have a more political nature. This is why I called them an alternative to bourgeois rule, I was referring to the bourgeois political system. Where factory comittees are a form of dual power within the factory, soviets are a form of dual power in society.



You classification of a soviet being a "forum where intelligentia and middle class radicals come together to air their grievances" is simply a wrong characterisation of what they are. Probably because you had my classification wrong in the first place. What i said was "(soviets) were set up and controlled by intellegensia and middle class radicals and were basically only a forum where workers could air out their grievences."
Ah, right. Still wrong though. The soviets were a form of direct democracy where the workers did have an important say on things.


From Soviets And Factory Committees (one of my sources):

...
An interesting quote, but what is your point? That soviets are not the way to run a socialist society? This seems to contradict with what you said earlier about soviets being organisations setup by workers, for workers. What is your alternative? Besides, I guess everything still has to be worked out in the beginning, democracy didn't have a very long tradition in Russia but I would also expect such problems if a revolution would start in an post-industrialised country today.

[nickdlc]

If at all, state capitalism is more accuratly defined as Keynesian capitalism where the state has a strong say on the economy, the US of the 1930s was an example of this. China today might be aswell. The SU clearly was not. I would agree with this except that the SU took state capitalism further where the united states could not and where china got a new set of leaders who took them in a different direction. State capitalism wasn't keynes' idea either it was a well known concept and i think engles even used the term a couple times.

While you may see the only important thing to be the economy and if all of marx's laws to make a country socialist are followed (which they clearly weren't) to me workers must clearly have the only say in the decision making of the country day to day and this doesn't work if there is a "revolutionary party" making all the decisions for them. Everybody knows the soviets merely became a formality and a rubber stamp to whatever the bolsheviks wanted. And this is what would have to happen if "the state" took the decision to produce what was needed and when, it follows that the soviets would be utterly useless in this situation why would they need to make decisions if the decisions had already been made?


So, does this also explain why revolutionary organisations and class counsiousness in general dropped drastically after the SU collapsed? If passively following leaders orders is your idea of class conciousness then we have different ideas of what it is.


This is true, but it is also true that the soviets quickly collapsed when they couldn't "scale them up" to cover the country. A revolutionary party is in general the most practical way to have a political voice for the working class. I.E. centralize decision making power to a few. I would say it's the most practical way to crush workers initiative.


The soviets were a form of direct democracy where the workers did have an important say on things. Your turn for sources especially during the period of where the great leader lenin was in control. how was workers control lets say 1918 to 1923?


An interesting quote, but what is your point? That soviets are not the way to run a socialist society? This seems to contradict with what you said earlier about soviets being organisations setup by workers, for workers. What is your alternative? I'm just trying to dispell the myths of the great soviets and im not saying the factory committee's would have done it but they were the last chance. I have no alternative ... only advice ... never to trust parties or anyone other than workers themsleves. That means a system of workers councils with no party representation just a mass of workers voices. The revolution is not a party affair.