Societies where no class rule

[Karl Marx's Camel]

How many examples are there of periods in certain societies where no single class could be said to rule?

When one class is not strong enough, or does not even "want" to become to the ruling class.

Some would cite France under Napoleon III and Cuba from 1959-present as examples. But are there others?

[Dominicana_1965]

Primitive society. Better known as Primitive Communism.

It was a stateless,classless society. There was no patriarchy, Women and Men both where treated equally. The people where not divided by biology, but rather by SOCIAL groups. Children where taken care of by any female, because again it was about the social status and not biological. Food was stored for their communes. Agriculture bloomed out of this, domestication of animals, examples of remedies, removing poison, textile, the end of hunting for food and on to PRODUCING food and education for Men which was taught by the Women.

[Enragé]

define "class"?

One could easily claim Cuba is ruled by a beaurocratic class.

[Marukusu]

Originally posted by NWOG
Some would cite France under Napoleon III...

Exactly how was the French Empire under Emperor Napoleon III a society without a ruling class?

[which doctor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 11:46 am
Some would cite France under Napoleon III and Cuba from 1959-present as examples. But are there others?
Umm...both of those have/had a ruling class.

[More Fire for the People]

He didn't say there was no ruling class he said 'where no single class could be said to rule'. I agree that Cuba is one such case.

[RGacky3]

Class has become a sketchy term, any hiarchal division could be considered a class. Some talk about Class from a Socialist viewpoint (ie. worker, Capitalist, self employed), others talk about a political class, others talk about Class in terms of wealth, ie, the rich, the poor.

In almost all societies those with control of wealth and violence have been rulers, no matter what class you put them in.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:10 pm
Class has become a sketchy term, any hiarchal division could be considered a class. Some talk about Class from a Socialist viewpoint (ie. worker, Capitalist, self employed), others talk about a political class, others talk about Class in terms of wealth, ie, the rich, the poor.

In almost all societies those with control of wealth and violence have been rulers, no matter what class you put them in.
Umm, no? Maybe in happy go lucky liberal land [ruled by King Weber and his lady Arendt] no one understands what class means but leftist have a clear-cut understanding of class. Class is a definitive relation to the mode of production. Under capitalism class can be defined by two factors: capital and labor.

(1) Does the person own capital? Yes. Do they hire out labor? Yes. Capitalist.
(2) Does the person own capital? Yes. Do they hire out labor? No. Petty-bourgeoisie.
(3) Does the person own capital? No. Do they hire out labor? No. Worker.

[Lamanov]

I'd say Soviet Russia from october 1917 to say-april 1918 and Republic of Spain from june 1936 to july 1937. At the latter dates - in both cases - bureaucracy consolidated its rule by establishing armed forces and dismantling grassroots movement and organization.

Almost everywhere else in revolutions the working class went directly for dismantling state power: Germany, Hungary - but that's why it was shortlived: it was defeated from the outside. I'm not clear on movement in Italy after 1918 (its aspirations besides workplace occupations), but bourgeoisie was clearly in power.

As for Napoleon III -- no, bourgeoisie supported his rule: it was a perfect sythesis of financial and land-owning capital, the perfect defender of their intrests.

This is a great essay on what happens when the workers don't act directly enough, and I suggest reading it: When Insurrections Die (http://libcom.org/library/when-insurrections-die) by Gilles Dauvé.

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Republic of Spain from june 1936 to july 1937.

Just out of curoisity, why Republican Spain from this period?

And which class would you say ruled after july 1937?

[Devrim]

DJ-TC,

Do you think that there was a working class seizure of power in Spain in 1936. When you say that this period ended in July 1937, what do you think that the workers were reacting against in the Maydays if not attacks from the bourgeois state.

In reply to NWOG's question about who ran the state after July 1937, of course it was the bourgeoisie.

I think though DJ-TC that it is important to recognise that the workers weren't in power before July 1937 also.

Devrim

[Lamanov]

Devrim, the original question was about "societies where no single class could be said to rule." So I say it was Spain in those ten months, where, indeed, no class consolidated its exclusive rule.

Workers controled their workplaces and through grasroots running their own unions all economic life was under their control. They, on the other hand, never seized political power as a class, but the bourgeoisie surrendered it anyway under the threat of the revolution which exploded in the summer of 1936, So, the political power was not in the hands of any particular class at that time. It was a wide front which included many different social cathegories that controled political life, which, at that time, was basicly constituted to lead antifascist policy.

It was until May days that bourgeoisie and bureaucrats consolidated their power when they turned National Guard against the workers and everything the revolution made.

Of course, this periodization is indeed, like every one, not that accurate and can't be so black-and-white. It was a wide process of the retreat of revolution and consolidation of bourgeois power through PSUC.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+February 04, 2007 09:05 pm--> (DJ-TC @ February 04, 2007 09:05 pm)Workers controled their workplaces and through grasroots running their own unions all economic life was under their control. They, on the other hand, never seized political power as a class, but the bourgeoisie surrendered it anyway under the threat of the revolution which exploded in the summer of 1936, So, the political power was not in the hands of any particular class at that time. It was a wide front which included many different social cathegories that controled political life, which, at that time, was basicly constituted to lead antifascist policy.

It was until May days that bourgeoisie and bureaucrats consolidated their power when they turned National Guard against the workers and everything the revolution made.

Of course, this periodization is indeed, like every one, not that accurate and can't be so black-and-white. It was a wide process of the retreat of revolution and consolidation of bourgeois power through PSUC.[/b]
DJ-TC,

I don't agree with your suggestion that 'the bourgeoisie surrender political power under the threat of revolution'. I think that the bourgeoisie never 'surrenders' political power, but does its best to hang on to it. I think that this happened in Spain, and that the CNT was incorporated into the state, and became a counter revolutionary force. When you write that:


Originally posted by DJ-[email protected]
political power was not in the hands of any particular class at that time. It was a wide front which included many different social cathegories that controled political life, which, at that time, was basicly constituted to lead antifascist policy.

I would say that cross class alliances tend to protect the power of the bourgeoisie. They are not a stage when no class has its hands on political power.
Also when you write that:


DJ-TC
Workers controled their workplaces and through grasroots running their own unions all economic life was under their control. They, on the other hand, never seized political power as a class

I feel that the important question, 'which class holds political power' is posed, but not answered. Political power can not be built on the control of one, or even many factories. It is built by smashing the bourgeois state, and instituting a dictatorship of the proletariat. This didn't happen in Spain, and the control of the factories by the CNT increasingly became control by the bourgeoisie as the CNT was increasingly integrated into the state.

To me the events of May 37 in Barcelona show an attempt by the working class to reassert its autonomy, which had already been lost. You seem to agree with that when you write about the 'consolidation of bourgeois power', which to me implies that they were already in power in the first place.

Devrim

[chimx]

I'd say Soviet Russia from october 1917 to say-april 1918 and Republic of Spain from june 1936 to july 1937. At the latter dates - in both cases - bureaucracy consolidated its rule by establishing armed forces and dismantling grassroots movement and organization.

If there was no class, then who were they ruling?

[Cryotank Screams]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 12:46 pm
But are there others?
Yes, of course, take for example the pirate ships existing in the golden age of piracy, I mean in their time, they had a floating multi-ethnic egalitarian community, based on direct democracy, and communalism.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by devrimankara+--> (devrimankara) I don't agree with your suggestion that 'the bourgeoisie surrender political power under the threat of revolution'. I think that the bourgeoisie never 'surrenders' political power, but does its best to hang on to it. I think that this happened in Spain, and that the CNT was incorporated into the state, and became a counter revolutionary force. [/b]

I wouldn't be so sure. Bourgeoisie didn't remain in power as such, now did it? It remained in priviliged political position only because the working class did not go all the way, i.e, did not create the DOP. But bourgeoisie still needed to adapt itself to the new conditions. It had to recognize these representatives (PSUC, in particular, and the antifascist republic) as the only structure through which they could defend their intrests.

These representatives (PSUC, CNT) came in to fill the political void and integrated themselves - you're right - into the state. They managed to do so, of course, only because the revolution was excercised half way.

You're also right about antifascist governments in general: they tend to protect the priviliges of the bourgeoisie. But the problem is this: these priviliges were under a big question mark after the july uprising. It took them a whole year until they could have been restored.

That's why it was so hard and long for the workers to recognize who is the real enemy and what really is to be done.


Originally posted by [email protected]
To me the events of May 37 in Barcelona show an attempt by the working class to reassert its autonomy, which had already been lost. You seem to agree with that when you write about the 'consolidation of bourgeois power', which to me implies that they were already in power in the first place.

They excercised their power, but only through PSUC.

They did not, yet, managed to retrieve their - almost lost - social position, until it was up to PSUC to destroy grass roots "selfmanagement" of the workplaces.

So that period isn't really that simple.


chimx
If there was no class, then who were they ruling?

No one said that there was "no class".

[Devrim]

Originally posted by DJ-TC+February 05, 2007 06:06 pm--> (DJ-TC @ February 05, 2007 06:06 pm)
devrimankara
I don't agree with your suggestion that 'the bourgeoisie surrender political power under the threat of revolution'. I think that the bourgeoisie never 'surrenders' political power, but does its best to hang on to it. I think that this happened in Spain, and that the CNT was incorporated into the state, and became a counter revolutionary force.

I wouldn't be so sure. Bourgeoisie didn't remain in power as such, now did it? It remained in priviliged political position only because the working class did not go all the way, i.e, did not create the DOP. But bourgeoisie still needed to adapt itself to the new conditions. It had to recognize these representatives (PSUC, in particular, and the antifascist republic) as the only structure through which they could defend their intrests.

These representatives (PSUC, CNT) came in to fill the political void and integrated themselves - you're right - into the state. They managed to do so, of course, only because the revolution was excercised half way.

You're also right about antifascist governments in general: they tend to protect the priviliges of the bourgeoisie. But the problem is this: these priviliges were under a big question mark after the july uprising. It took them a whole year until they could have been restored.



[/b]
I agree with most of this. The thing that I would emphasise though is that although the bourgeoisie did not seem to remain in power as such, it did actually remain in power.

Devrim

[Enragé]

hmm

i was watching this tv programme on native americans.

Wouldnt their society have been primtive communism(-ish)?

[Janus]

Certain Native American societies and probably many other cooperative, primitive societies.

[Guerrilla22]

The Iroquois Nation had a well established confederacy, that the various member groups were a part of. They devised a well rounded written articles of confederation.