Party and State

[RedLenin]

I have been considering the role of the vanguard party in a socialist state for a while now. If you accept the need for a vanguard party, a party composed of the most advanced and class conscious element of the working class, then you accept the need for leadership. Obviously this communist leadership cannot simply cease after the seizure of power. If this is the case, the question then becomes: what is the role of the vanguard party in a socialist state?

As far as I see it, there are three options. First, we could have a proletarian democracy in which multiple socialist parties could participate. This would obviously be a big blow against the possibility of bureaucracy, but there is a problem with it. It is always possible that, especially in very rough situations, capitalism could be restored by means of a different socialist party getting power and becoming capitalist and/or siding with the reaction, destroying the state from the inside. It seems that, without the solid leadership of the vanguard party, capitalism could conceivably be restored through bourgeois infiltration.

The other option is to have that vanguard party at the head of the state and exist as the only legal party. This would be much like China under Mao or the USSR under Stalin, with the party having complete control. On the one hand, it would be harder for capitalism to be restored from within, as long as the party is kept consistently communist. However, there are also numerous problems with this idea. Obviously a class of bureaucrats can easily take all power into their hands, exercising a dictatorship over the rest of the class, not allowing the people any say or participation in the running of the state. Further, capitalism could be restored simply by capitalists infilitrating the party.

The third option is to have a system somewhat like Cuba, with one legal party, but with some democracy as well. This would mean that you could have soviet democracy, with candidates nominated at the grassroots and with no participation of any party, being elected to local, regional, and national councils. The party could serve the role of supervisor, suggesting things to the national council and approving laws and decisions. In this way, the working class can have its own democratic participation, but the revolution will stay on course and remain consistently socialist, so long as the party remains consistently socialist.

As of right now, I am considering the first and the third option, and I am unsettled on this question. I have always supported the first option, but I am having real trouble trying to understand how we can prevent capitalism from returning. I do not think capitalism can be allowed to return under any circumstance, even if for some reason the masses want it to. What are your thoughts and opinions on the role of the vanguard party within a socialist state?

[Socialist Dave]

First one comrade. This is the 21st cenutray, the democratic centuary. Any and all revolutions will be democratic, I guarentee it. If there is a revolution in the near future it will be democratic, amd the 1st will ben the only option. Of course there is the possibility of the capatilist classes retaining power but democracy is all about rolling with the punches

[R_P_A_S]

ok. I'm going to skip some of your questions and go ahead with suggesting an immediate education system for kids and adults on socialism and how it works. the plan and the actions needed to take. intense teaching of our people. We'll sort of "clean them off" capitalist mentality. This way they can understand what's going on better.

We would do this massive education campaign during your first option... so that the third option can be brought up faster.. and this way we have the proletariat class a bit more advanced and more able and fit to participate in the elections and it would be easier to weed out those who we suspect would try to bring back capitalism, or the next Stalin JR...

nah?

[RNK]

I'm more partial to the 3rd option myself. I think the possibility of corruption is too high if the party has complete control and isn't completely subordinate to the masses. I like the idea of a relatively loose Party system that essentially ensures that capitalist and bourgeois tendencies do not slowly creep back into the system... They are basically there to ensure that the socialist democratic system is performing properly.

[BobKKKindle$]

Lenin described the State as an entity that arises from the irreconciliability of class antagonisms, the primary role of which is the mediation of class struggle. From this observation, it follows that if society is no longer characterised by class division and class struggle, then the state would have no purpose. Under Socialism, the primary role of the vanguard party and the state is to prevent the forces of reaction from seizing control of the means of production and reverting to Capitalism. Classes will continue to exist after the revolution, insofar as there will exist both internal and external groups in whose interests it lies to see a return to an economic system based on private ownership. Only once these groups have been destroyed can the state cease to exist, and until that point there will be a necessity for a vanguard. The question is whether there will always remain the possibility of reactionaries emerging within socialist society, in which case the state will always have to exist in order to mobilise a cultural revolution. It is also important to deal with the question of what shall be done if reactionary groups emerge within the vanguard party itself - which could result in the restoration of Capitalism.

[R_P_A_S]

i think this issue is possibly the most critical one. since its the one what has started on the wrong foot as history has shown. perhaps this needs to be part of the agenda for any group seizing power from the bourgeoisie.

i think its our responsibility to find a common ground on this. OBVIOUSLY every revolution is going to be different, under different circumstances but regardless a set plan must be in full swing by the time we get to that phase.

[RNK]

Personally I feel that the whole transitional phase of Socialism will be rather extended, spanning perhaps generations. Like you pointed out, there may indeed be the threat of reactionary elements re-installing capitalism should there be no state to prevent it. Until all traces of reaction are eliminated I don't see how the Party and State can dissolve itself. Even them, I'm very pessemistic.. there is always a chance that whenever the state is no more, there will be persons who attempt to exploit others and gain over others, even in a system where all is provided.

Personally I feel there is a need for a vanguard state body, which follows true democratic principles, to "watch over" society and initiate capitalist purges whenever the snakes show their head. How long this lasts, though, is completely based on internal and external conditions. One thing is for sure, though... so long as there remains capitalist bastions in the world, I feel there is a need for a vanguard state. Dissolving the state while capitalism still thrives in other parts of the world would essentially be like curling up into a ball and going to sleep in the midsts of the enemy.

[Whitten]

Proletarian Democracy requires the Proletariats involvement. It follows logicly that if we do away with the Bourgeois Democratic state apparatus, and put the power directly into the peoples hands, let them run their own lives as much as possible, while delegating only necessary powers to el;ected representitives, then we increase the chances that they will make decisions that will benefit themselves. They wont be thinking along party lines, or of ideologies, they will just be taking each decision as it comes, and voting to benefit themselves. We know, at least in theory, that this should result in a socialist economy forming on a macro-level.

By leaving as much power in the peoples hands as possible, through grassroots democracy, the people will become more involved in their own political affairs and will learn from their own experiances.

This would then be complemented with multiple layers of democratic decision making bodies. I feel its best that the people send representitives to these bodies on minimal length terms (although without a limit to the number of terms, maybe a rule saying the same person shouldn't get elected more than X number of times in a row) in a system where the body which they are electing provides a list of issues currently on the agenda, which can be discussed by the local citizens before they elect a representitive, so that their wills are transfered to the upper levels as well as possible (maybe this candidate is given a fixed mandate (by his electors) on certain issues?). This system should be used as much as possible through to electing the national legislative assembly (or whatever you want to call it).

The party would have an advisory leadership role. It should publish literature and send recomendations to the government or assemblies (local/national). It should also be similarly involved with the unions and other interest groups. I also think it should be able to initiate legislation, to be discussed, amended, voted on, passed or rejected by the legislature.

Yes, this does draw on the Cuban system, however in the above system no mention is made of the electoral commissions used by Cuba to appoint candidates for election to the higher level legislatures. I'm not certain whether to include them or not. The advantages to them is that important group are consulted in the appointment, involving as many opinions as possible (the party, unions etc). The disadvantage is that the people may be inclined to just go with the commissions nomination, or even if they dont they could end up losing some of the advantages of discussingg the issues which the candidate is being nominated for, and the short terms of the candidates, which I mentioned above.

I think a better system would involved bicameral legislatures all the way up to the national level. One filled with the directly elected representitives of the localities as described above, the other filled with representitives elected along similar lines, but from trade unions or workers councils as opposed to geographical districts.

I'm also not sure how the executive should be decided upon. The Cuban system says that the executive should be appointed by the national assembly, I'm not certain whether this is the best idea, or whether direct national election is better. A potential compromise would be the people electing an executive committee (preferably on short terms with the candidates bowing to the results of discussions at the local level) consisting of a large number of representitives, who oversee the executive, and serve to execute the power of recall and replacement. Although I'm not quite certain about the executive yet.

Anyway, thats my model ideal state. Obviously different revolutions in different places will adopt different strategies and may well need different state structures. To reiterate what I said above, I feel civil participation on the local level is the key to socialist democracy. As many services and institutions as possible should be run on local/regional levels.

[R_P_A_S]

Its obvious that the focus here is 3 things...
3 things that we are trying to prevent. and that we have learn from history..


1. The Restoration of Capitalism via a different "socialist" party.
2. The sole party turning into a state bureaucracy and creating a new class, over the working class
3. One single party but with no progress into furthering the society into socialism. basically not much action, follow through.

I noticed you mention party members siding with the reactionaries,reserving power into their own hands, bourgeoisie infiltration and the lack of solid leadership within the Vanguard. Here is what I think. we can hope.. we can be sure and constantly put our comrades in check to be positive that there isn't any traitors or any one who has a different agenda for themselves and a few others. I believe getting the people involved early and helping us weed out the traitors is very important.

Who will be the first socialist candidates nominated for these local, regional and national consuls?
who can we trust? very few people. capitalist elements will most likely be around and remain for quiet sometime. like you said, trying to infiltrate...

So why not for the fist phase. elect people who have been, since an early age endocrine under marxist theory and are sharp on socialist economy and knowledge. solely that. this would be a special generation that perhaps the vanguard had been educating 20-30 years before the revolution. They would have no interest in capitalism or going back to it. there for they could be incorruptible. and then as time goes by a new generation within our society will be ready to take on the task of the new phase of the revolution. within time and perhaps a generation the remaining reactionary and cappie trolls will cease to exist and there would be less to worry about when it comes to moving forward.

You comrade RedLenin is a perfect example. you could be that "incorruptible generation" if a revolution was tomorrow the vanguard would be people in my age group. 25 to 45 for say. and young man like your age could be that generation to lead us past the hump of reactionary and capitalist attacks and counter revolution into the new phase of socialism..

perhaps building now, here in the present to secure the future is what I'm trying to say.

[R_P_A_S]

If i may add..

IT WOULD BE VITAL! for these "incorruptible generation" to NOT be seen as some "special class" or have any sort of privilege or power over our democracy. just because they were perhaps the children OR hand picked to succeeded the original vanguard it does not mean they hold some sort of monarchy status or it should follow that tradition. lets avoid an other Kim Il Sung cult. PLEASE!

[KC]

As far as I see it, there are three options. First, we could have a proletarian democracy in which multiple socialist parties could participate. This would obviously be a big blow against the possibility of bureaucracy, but there is a problem with it. It is always possible that, especially in very rough situations, capitalism could be restored by means of a different socialist party getting power and becoming capitalist and/or siding with the reaction, destroying the state from the inside. It seems that, without the solid leadership of the vanguard party, capitalism could conceivably be restored through bourgeois infiltration.

This is a dumb idea. There's no point in having multiple parties in a socialist state because that would entail accepting non-Marxist - i.e. reactionary - parties to participate in the government. That's political suicide.


The other option is to have that vanguard party at the head of the state and exist as the only legal party. This would be much like China under Mao or the USSR under Stalin, with the party having complete control. On the one hand, it would be harder for capitalism to be restored from within, as long as the party is kept consistently communist. However, there are also numerous problems with this idea. Obviously a class of bureaucrats can easily take all power into their hands, exercising a dictatorship over the rest of the class, not allowing the people any say or participation in the running of the state. Further, capitalism could be restored simply by capitalists infilitrating the party.

This is probably the best idea, however I don't think that a bureaucracy would necessarily come of this. It's possible to give less power to the party members and make them accountable to the voters. It would also be possible to give more power to the working class through a congress of workers.


The third option is to have a system somewhat like Cuba, with one legal party, but with some democracy as well. This would mean that you could have soviet democracy, with candidates nominated at the grassroots and with no participation of any party, being elected to local, regional, and national councils. The party could serve the role of supervisor, suggesting things to the national council and approving laws and decisions. In this way, the working class can have its own democratic participation, but the revolution will stay on course and remain consistently socialist, so long as the party remains consistently socialist.

This is the best option, but I think Cuba has some flaws in the way that it's structured. All officials should only be able to serve a certain amount of terms and they should all be elected by the population. Neither of these exist in Cuba.


First one comrade. This is the 21st cenutray, the democratic centuary. Any and all revolutions will be democratic, I guarentee it. If there is a revolution in the near future it will be democratic, amd the 1st will ben the only option. Of course there is the possibility of the capatilist classes retaining power but democracy is all about rolling with the punches

The problem with the first option is that there's no point in having multiple parties. First, it would greatly weaken the state because it would open it up to capitalist attacks. Second, it would greatly hinder revolutionary progress as multiple parties divide the country and this lack of unification leads to a focus on party politics and not on the overall goal of working towards communism. One party is the best option, with freedom of discussion and dissent within that party. This way, everyone is unified, organized and supports the same basic principles which are the theoretical foundations of the party, and everyone can still have freedom of discussion and opinion within that party. It's basically what democratic centralism is.

[вор в законе]

This is a rather interesting topic. In the beginning I leaned towards this:


Originally posted by RedLenin
As far as I see it, there are three options. First, we could have a proletarian democracy in which multiple socialist parties could participate. This would obviously be a big blow against the possibility of bureaucracy, but there is a problem with it. It is always possible that, especially in very rough situations, capitalism could be restored by means of a different socialist party getting power and becoming capitalist and/or siding with the reaction, destroying the state from the inside. It seems that, without the solid leadership of the vanguard party, capitalism could conceivably be restored through bourgeois infiltration.


In fact I believe that there can be an effective mechanism that wouldn't allow bourgeois infiltration in the State. It goes like this:

1) We create a unique Constitution called ''The Declaration of Human Rights'' which will be consisted by Articles that no party can change and will last forever. One of the Articles will state ''Nobody has the right to employ another worker''. By this, we abolish the employer-employee relationship, which practically means that we abolish Capitalism and create the dictatorship of the proletariat. Thus the only way businesses can operate would be by being democratically held. All decisions of hiring or firing workers will be taken democratically because there's simply no other way to work.

2) The parties that participate in the legislation cannot be funded by foreign corporates or governments.

The parties would have no incentive or reason to bring back private ownership of the means of the production since there would be no Capitalists left to lobby for such a thing.

But two problems occur:

A) One thing that disturbs me though is what happens if a business, Industry or corporate (which are collectively owned by the workers of the specific business, Industry and corporate) becomes so powerful that would be able to lobby or influence political decisions such as reducing the taxes for them?

B) And what about the role of the Media? The Media, even if they are democratically held by groups of journalists, they would have tremendous power. And I disagree that the Media should be held exclusively by the State as well. Some other formula must be found.

Solution for A:

We abolish the legislative and the parties. We would have two Parliaments. The first will be consisted by technocrats who would be put there by democratic elections conducted inside the Universities. The task of the Technocrat Parliament will be to propose solutions for problems.

Now the Second Parliament will consisted by representatives sent there by the businesses, the factories etc and generally workers. Their task will be to vote on whether they approve the proposal of the Technocrats.

Additionally the Second Parliament, also called the Workers Parliament, because it is consisted by workers, will also be able to make proposals, and the democratically elected Technocrats will vote whether agree with the approval or not.

We thus observe that the term ''State'' receives an entire different meaning in such a society. The State is literally owned and controlled by the workers, there is no need for electing parties.

Solution for B:

The Media will be managed, not owned, by journalists who are selected after a consensus between the two Parliaments . This way, we avoid propaganda and one sided news.

This is how I think we should operate. I'm open for new ideas or suggestions though.

[Whitten]

A constitution is a piece of paper with ink on it. Its not magicly omnipotent. What makes you think a corrupt bourgeois party would care?

[RedLenin]

1) We create a unique Constitution called ''The Declaration of Human Rights''
I agree. We need a constitution, and it should be plainly spelled out that capitalism is illegal. Now, in order to prevent the constitution from being changed to accept capitalism, we should have certain parts of it remain unchangeable. Mainly the illegality of capitalism. But then again, like with the NEP in Russia, there may come a time of extreme desperation where it will be necessary to allow some very small private enterprise to exist. Hopefully we can avoid such a situation.

As far as your view of the parliments and the state structure, it seems as if you are refering to the economic structure alone. I agree that some form of democratic planning, involving the participation of workers, consumers, and technicrats, will be necessary.

But then we have the problem of the decision making bodies for non-economic issues. I would propose a congress of state/regional workers councils. Each state/regional council elects one delegate and sends them to a national congress of workers councils. This congress can elect a central committee which will hold legislative and executive power in between congresses. Basically, I think the structure of the workers state in 1917 is still the best, though some changes may be a good idea.

However, with such a system you cannot abolish all parties. Different sections of the working class will have different ideas about what to do, hence, parties will exist. You will have the vanguard party and you will have other parties. I now think this is fine and, so long as capitalism is made totally illegal, there isn't a real problem with a multi-party socialist state. Further, I think this will push the vanguard to be of greater quality. If the masses of workers recall party members and elect other parties, the vanguard party can consider it a criticism and try to fix any problems with the party's line. Basically, the vanguard party can hold power only by patiently explaining to the masses the way to go. In this way, the vanguard party can hold power, but only within the confines of the general power of the whole class.

Another issue to think about is this. If we have a standing army, which will be necessary, can such an army itself become a tool of reaction? If the bourgeoisie does infiltrate the state, it could conceivably weild the army to crush any resistance and reinstate capitalism. This is a tricky point for me. On the one hand, we need an army. On the other hand, having an army opens up a real possibility for a lot of problems.

[Rawthentic]

RedLenin, instead of a standing army, why not armed populace of the proletariat, or neighborhood militias?

[Whitten]

There are fundamental flaws in applying the multipartisan parliamentry system to socialism and that's that it is institutionally a reactionary force. You cant just stick a patch on it and call it revolutionary, no more than you can introduce a minimal wage and welfare state to a capitalist country and call it communism.

Such a system only gives the people a choice between party line A, party line B, Party line C etc. Now, a maximum of one of these lines can truly reflect the interests of the people, therefore all other party lines are reactionary. In any realistic scenario, none of the lines will perfectly reflect the interests of the people, and so all will be reactionary to atleast some extent.

Only a grassroots system, where the people have direct democratic control of as much of their daily lives as possible, can a socialist democracy really exist. Think about ot, if you give the people direct control over their working enviroment and the way their neighbourhood is run, the way resources are distributed, people are going to be able to directly carryout the line which bests suits their interests, and they are going to gain consiousness with experiance.

[Rawthentic]

Yeah Whitten, thats a given under socialism, but you can't underestimate the importance of the party in the dictatorship of the proletariat. I believe that there should be one party like Zampano said, and this party would need to be the original revolutionary vanguard to avoid straying off a revolutionary path. The party would need to reflect the needs of the working class and consist of working class members only.

[вор в законе]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:13 pm
A constitution is a piece of paper with ink on it. Its not magicly omnipotent. What makes you think a corrupt bourgeois party would care?
A) Because it would be defended by the workers.

B) It would be practically impossible to have bourgeois Parties when there are no Capitalists in the country. Who would fund the bourgeois Parties? What would stimulate their being?

The only people who would vote for a bourgeois Party would be former employers be it rich, petite bourgeois which consist a non-significant minority.

And all this assuming that we actually chose multiparty democracy, for which as I stated I have my reservations because it can turn problematic for other reasons, they are written up there in my posts, which is what prompted in me in the Two-Parliament solution.

[RedLenin]

instead of a standing army, why not armed populace of the proletariat, or neighborhood militias?
Well, we do need those. I think one of the very first tasks of the worker's state will be to arm every man and woman in the country. Neighborhoods should form their own militias, and free military training should be provided to all militias and all people. But, this may not be enough. A worker's state is going to face reaction not only from internal reactionaries, but also imperialist armies. An armed populous is simply not coordinated enough to be able to defeat one, or perhaps multiple, imperialist armies. I think we need both a centralized standing army and an armed population. Perhaps the armed population can act as kind of a check-and-balance on the standing army.


Only a grassroots system, where the people have direct democratic control of as much of their daily lives as possible, can a socialist democracy really exist.
Agree. Though of course, for a time at least, representative structures will need to exist. You can have some elements of direct democracy, but you will not be able to get rid of representative structures over night.


people are going to be able to directly carryout the line which bests suits their interests
That in and of itself may be a problem. The masses may carry out the line that suits their immediate interests. In a very harsh situation, people may choose to do things that are actually counter to socialism, because it would be in their immediate interest. The masses may not take into account their long-term interest of bringing about a communist society. The proletarian state is a transitory state, and it will either be usurped by capitalist reaction or wither away into communism. I am not sure we can get all the way to communism, facing all of the challenges involved in that, without the leadership of a marxist vanguard party.

[вор в законе]

I agree. We need a constitution, and it should be plainly spelled out that capitalism is illegal. Now, in order to prevent the constitution from being changed to accept capitalism, we should have certain parts of it remain unchangeable. Mainly the illegality of capitalism.

Well practically Capitalism would become illegal. But we wouldn't state that Capitalism is illegal. We would tell that employment is violation of human rights a form of slavery and exploitation. People would be free to think whatever they want, hell they can even protest and march for the support of Capitalism, so long as there are no employers.

This is what the Capitalists do. They allow us Communists to bash Capitalism as much as we want, so long as we can't harm them it doesn't make a difference for them.

And something very important. The State should bear not official Ideology. No red flags, no communist insignias, nothing alike. Ideology should be a personal choice. When the State espouses an official Ideology, every problem within the State goes against the ideology.

Let me give an example.

In Soviet Union, when the train was coming late, the people were saying ''ahh this is communism for you''.

Now in Capitalism when a train arrives late, nobody is bashing Capitalism for that but the train driver. That's because in the Capitalist States Ideology and State are two separate things.

People should be free to think whatever they want. So long as the means of production are held democratically, it is irrelevant.



But then again, like with the NEP in Russia, there may come a time of extreme desperation where it will be necessary to allow some very small private enterprise to exist. Hopefully we can avoid such a situation.

This occurred in Russia because Russia was still underdeveloped. Our Revolution must take place in an advanced country, such as the one's in Western Europe otherwise it wont survive and it would degenerate into another Cuba.

In regards to the Political Structure, I am not sure yet. But the central idea should be to have a participatory democracy. The more direct democracy the Socialist State has, the less chances there will be for a Capitalist re-emergence. And that's because the State will be owned by the workers.

The Army will be controlled by the State and since the State is controlled by the workers then there is nothing to fear. Also the structure of the Army would be democratic, there is not need to go into details now. We need an Army, just as we need a Central Intelligence Agency and a police.

The number of Ministries would be defined by the Two Parliaments that I mentioned. Anyway, in my opinion as long as we have a clear idea of the economic structure of the society the State and its role can be solved rather easily.

[Rawthentic]

The state, which is under workers control, must have a clear ideology, and that is socialism and the road to communism. Without this liberating ideology, the workers are headed nowhere.

[RedLenin]

The State should bear not official Ideology.
I disagree. What is a socialist state? It is a transitory state that is basically the bridge between capitalism and communism. In other words, the state is trying to get to communism and ultimately abolish itself. If the state is trying to move society toward communism, why would it not make marxism the official ideology?


That's because in the Capitalist States Ideology and State are two separate things.
True. But that is a characteristic of capitalist states alone. Under capitalism, the bourgeoisie is trying to maintain its rule at all costs. How to do this will depend on the situation, so no offical ideology is necessary, as a bourgeois state will do whatever is necessary to maintain itself. However, the proletariat is not trying to maintain its rule. The proletariat is trying to negate itself, and all other classes with it. The proletariat will be marching down one straight road, the road to the end of all classes: communism. So again, if the proletariat is marching toward communism through the means of a transitory state, why would marxism not be the official ideology of the state?

If the state does not have marxism as the official ideology, it will by default simply do what will maintain its existence. Without the guiding ideology of marxism, a workers state would be reduced to a self-preserving state standing above the class. With the guiding ideology of marxism, the masses of workers will control the state and move it toward its own negation. An official ideology is also necessary for cultural work. The cultural baggage of capitalism will not disapeer immediately, it needs to be gotten rid of through struggle and education. By getting rid of marxism as the guiding ideology of the state, you cause a lot of problems in regard to getting to communism.


Our Revolution must take place in an advanced country
Yes, but it must take place all over the world, including in underdeveloped countries. In fact, because of the massive exploitation that takes place in backward countries due to imperialism, revolutions will initially take place in backward countries. I do agree that, once one or more revolutions do take place in backward countries, it will be necessary to have a successful revolution in advanced countries. The reason the Russian Revolution degenerated was because of its isolation and especially the faliure of the German Revolution. This time around we'd better make sure the revolution takes place internationally, as a successful revolution in a backward country will not survive for too long.

[KC]

B) It would be practically impossible to have bourgeois Parties when there are no Capitalists in the country. Who would fund the bourgeois Parties? What would stimulate their being?

Foreign countries? Are you really so naive as to think that there would be no reactionism within these parties? As I said earlier, multi party elections are just begging for reaction.


Well, we do need those. I think one of the very first tasks of the worker's state will be to arm every man and woman in the country. Neighborhoods should form their own militias, and free military training should be provided to all militias and all people. But, this may not be enough. A worker's state is going to face reaction not only from internal reactionaries, but also imperialist armies. An armed populous is simply not coordinated enough to be able to defeat one, or perhaps multiple, imperialist armies. I think we need both a centralized standing army and an armed population. Perhaps the armed population can act as kind of a check-and-balance on the standing army.

I don't think a centralized standing army is necessary at all. The performance of warfare has changed drastically over the decades, and I think the best option would be to arm the populace as a whole and create a system whereby the government can't be toppled. This is easily done, as a directly democratic system could simply be implemented within government, from the local to the national level, with a congress on the national level as well as a fluid executive (that is, one that is easily maintained). I don't think that a country would have to worry about invasion if the entire populace is willing to fight against it and if the government isn't easily replaceable.


Agree. Though of course, for a time at least, representative structures will need to exist. You can have some elements of direct democracy, but you will not be able to get rid of representative structures over night.

Of course there will be representative democracy still, at least on the national level. This, however, will be proletarian representative democracy and not similar to bourgeois representative democracy in any way.


That in and of itself may be a problem. The masses may carry out the line that suits their immediate interests. In a very harsh situation, people may choose to do things that are actually counter to socialism, because it would be in their immediate interest. The masses may not take into account their long-term interest of bringing about a communist society. The proletarian state is a transitory state, and it will either be usurped by capitalist reaction or wither away into communism. I am not sure we can get all the way to communism, facing all of the challenges involved in that, without the leadership of a marxist vanguard party.

That is why a party will still exist in a socialist state, yet it's important that it doesn't take the form of government. It will take on a guiding role, not a dictating one.


The State should bear not official Ideology.

I agree to an extent. The state doesn't need to declare an "official" ideology, as ideology manifests itself due to material conditions; a socialist ideology will be created and maintained by socialist society itself.

[pandora]

I agree the Vanguard party can become institutionalized as in Russia if we are not careful. Also, I find often those most in favor of Vanguard control to be more judgemental of other's use of theory, and typically more intellectual.

Although I agree for the need for clarity of understanding among the people, I think that a system similar to Chiapas where self-selected represenatives from marginalized groups at the local level should be found to disseminate information as quickly as possible as well as leadership.

It is very important that leadership passes from the philosophers to the people in the begining of the movement if it is to stay healthy. Also, the more bottom up control, the more control against nepotism and corruption as those in a village or small town know if all the roofing material went to one family and their friends.

[RNK]

I don't think a centralized standing army is necessary at all.

I do -- atleast in the initial transitional stages. The capitalist world is quite capable of mustering armies millions strong, with intensive training and supported by the most advanced weapons humanity has ever conceived. A guerilla-style people's militia like that of the Vietcong or the fighters in Afghanistan and Iraq is mainly a defensive tool used to defeat an enemy morally, not physically. If we are expecting to carry out a revolution world-wide, we can not expect that imperialist powers will turn tail and run as they did in Vietnam. And even so, Vietnam had a centralized standing army that was probably just as important as its Vietcong militia. While the VC undermined American control over the country it was the NVA that swept in with its more powerful weapons and capabilities and dealt the largest blows.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by Red Brigade+March 18, 2007 10:50 pm--> (Red Brigade @ March 18, 2007 10:50 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:13 pm
A constitution is a piece of paper with ink on it. Its not magicly omnipotent. What makes you think a corrupt bourgeois party would care?
A) Because it would be defended by the workers.

B) It would be practically impossible to have bourgeois Parties when there are no Capitalists in the country. Who would fund the bourgeois Parties? What would stimulate their being?

The only people who would vote for a bourgeois Party would be former employers be it rich, petite bourgeois which consist a non-significant minority.

And all this assuming that we actually chose multiparty democracy, for which as I stated I have my reservations because it can turn problematic for other reasons, they are written up there in my posts, which is what prompted in me in the Two-Parliament solution. [/b]
I dont necessarily disapprove of a written constitution, I just say that on its own its worthless. We cant expect miracles from it.

Its not impossible for the bourgeois parties to exist under socialism.

My logic:

1)Logicly most, probably all, of these parties have at least some reactionary ideas in their lines. If your force people into a positio when the choose between parties, they are choosing between a limited number of grouped ideas, not on each decision directly. Therefore, no matter who wins, the direct will of the people will not be carried out.

2)If the workers dont support capitalist parties on the macro level then why hasn't capitalism been overthrown yet?

3)The Bourgeois haven't been completly eliminated under socialism, traces still remain and their resistance becomes even greater.


RedLenin
That in and of itself may be a problem. The masses may carry out the line that suits their immediate interests. In a very harsh situation, people may choose to do things that are actually counter to socialism, because it would be in their immediate interest. The masses may not take into account their long-term interest of bringing about a communist society. The proletarian state is a transitory state, and it will either be usurped by capitalist reaction or wither away into communism. I am not sure we can get all the way to communism, facing all of the challenges involved in that, without the leadership of a marxist vanguard party.

There should ofcourse be a vanguard party to guide the people, however a party dictatorship must be avoided.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:12 am
ok. I'm going to skip some of your questions and go ahead with suggesting an immediate education system for kids and adults on socialism and how it works. the plan and the actions needed to take. intense teaching of our people. We'll sort of "clean them off" capitalist mentality. This way they can understand what's going on better.

We would do this massive education campaign during your first option... so that the third option can be brought up faster.. and this way we have the proletariat class a bit more advanced and more able and fit to participate in the elections and it would be easier to weed out those who we suspect would try to bring back capitalism, or the next Stalin JR...

nah?
The working class will begin their own process of education and organisation building up to and during class struggle and revolution.

We don't need people like you or anyone to "teach us" or "clean us" nor do we need massive institutionalised education campaigns.

We simply need to understand our class position and the confidence to use it in order to begin the proces of creating a society without class and the state.

In times of social and economic upheavel other working class people will find those understandings and will most likely move to put them into action.

Vanguardist parties and the state are unnecessary and invariably destructive to a working class revolution.

No amount of arrogance and patronisation will change that.

[Hit The North]

TAT:

We simply need to understand our class position and the confidence to use it in order to begin the proces of creating a society without class and the state.

"[S]imply", eh? So what's stopping us?

Red Brigade:


Well practically Capitalism would become illegal. But we wouldn't state that Capitalism is illegal.

No, I think we'd be pretty up front about banning it.

[RedLenin]

We simply need to understand our class position and the confidence to use it in order to begin the proces of creating a society without class and the state.
The problem is that the entire class does not reach this level of class consciousness all at once. There will be an advanced element of the class that does understand this, and there will be other segments of the class that do not have this understanding. With this fact in mind, it only makes sense to concentrate this advanced element in an organization which can disseminate revolutionary ideas and lead the revolutionary process.


nor do we need massive institutionalised education campaigns.
Yes we do. The class will not become conscious at once. You can't expect every worker who rises up and participates in the revolution to be a communist. There will be a backward element of the working class, and there will be other middle-of-the-road elements. If we want all workers to be communists and active participants in the revolutionary process, we need to have cultural programs that help to disseminate revolutionary ideas to these elements of the working class.


Vanguardist parties and the state are unnecessary and invariably destructive to a working class revolution.
Only if you have a completely wrong understanding of the Vanguard Party and the State. An organization of advanced workers which leads the revolutionary process does not necessarily lead to a Stalinist state, as anarchists seem to think. Further, a state is simply a violent apparatus. Even anarchists see the need for one, they simply refuse to use the word state. A violent apparatus of workers councils used to manage society and suppress the bourgeoisie is a state.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 01:05 am
TAT:

We simply need to understand our class position and the confidence to use it in order to begin the proces of creating a society without class and the state.

"[S]imply", eh? So what's stopping us?

Red Brigade
The spectacle.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 01:16 am
it only makes sense to concentrate this advanced element in an organization which can disseminate revolutionary ideas and lead the revolutionary process.
A decentralised, federated one.



nor do we need massive institutionalised education campaigns.
Yes we do. The class will not become conscious at once. You can't expect every worker who rises up and participates in the revolution to be a communist.

The process of becoming conscious is through struggle, not through being taught by leaders what it means to be working class or a communist.

No one wants to listen to strangers tell them what they are. Other working class people need to learn it for themselves and they can only do that through struggle.


There will be a backward element of the working class, and there will be other middle-of-the-road elements. If we want all workers to be communists and active participants in the revolutionary process, we need to have cultural programs that help to disseminate revolutionary ideas to these elements of the working class.

What is the point of "disseminating revolutionary ideas" to people who are already engaged in struggle?

Look at any revolutionary situation? People went onto the streets when the ruling class could not longer justify their control and when struggle had reached boiling point. There was no need for "cultural programs", simply a desire to confront.

All revolutions have sprung from the economic realities faced by working class people, not because you sit them down and teach them.


An organization of advanced workers which leads the revolutionary process does not necessarily lead to a Stalinist state, as anarchists seem to think.

Then why does it?


Even anarchists see the need for one, they simply refuse to use the word state. A violent apparatus of workers councils used to manage society and suppress the bourgeoisie is a state.

A state is a specific form of structure. It is not simply whatever you want it to be.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+March 20, 2007 01:26 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ March 20, 2007 01:26 am)
Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 01:05 am
TAT:

We simply need to understand our class position and the confidence to use it in order to begin the proces of creating a society without class and the state.

"[S]imply", eh? So what's stopping us?

Red Brigade
The spectacle.[/b]
Riiiight.


What is the point of "disseminating revolutionary ideas" to people who are already engaged in struggle?

Because that's when people are most open to revolutionary ideas. Or do you think that being "engaged in struggle" automatically and irrevocably frees people from the influence of the "spectacle"?

Do revolutionary ideas just pop into workers minds like a religious revelation?

[The Bitter Hippy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 12:16 am
There will be an advanced element of the class that does understand this, and there will be other segments of the class that do not have this understanding. With this fact in mind, it only makes sense to concentrate this advanced element in an organization which can disseminate revolutionary ideas and lead the revolutionary process.

that's fine and dandy, but if the advanced element within the proletariat decides, as did the bolsheviks, that the time is right for revolution *before* the rest of the proletariat is ready, conflict immediately arises.

This is because the vanguard, in order to safeguard their revolution and keep it pure, must necessarily exclude other members of the proletariat from any power. Otherwise you would have pro-capitalist, nationalist or just non-socialists leading the workers.

This alienation from power turns the minority vanguard into a perceived boss-class. A cynical worker will see one band of liars pretending to act in their interests replaced bloodily by another group of people claiming the same thing. Except this new group will, whilst talking about worker liberation and an end to wage slavery, carry out a violent campaign of repression against any and all opposition. In neither circumstance has the worker any real control over the running of things, and you're less likely to be shot by a bourgeios cappie.

Finally, the perceived boss-class mentioned above have a very strong chance of becoming an actual boss-class. History shows us that even those with the highest ideals, when given control, will usually sacrifice some or all of them in order to keep power. Whilst in a communist society this effect is eliminated by decentralization and statelessness, in the immediate term of the aftermath of a vanguard coup, the vanguard take power. Getting them to relinquish this power is very difficult indeed.


So to sum up then: Yes, a vanguard of revolutionaries is no doubt necessary. BUT, their role is to educate and agitate the workers into a full comprehension of the problems of capitalism and how to fight them. The revolution by coup could possibly, in theory, work as a means of introducing socialism; but there would be short-term conflict between worker and party that would make strong statism a must. Releasing that statism after at least a generation have been educated (and half of the original leaders and vanguard are dead and replaced) is no mean feat.

[RedLenin]

The process of becoming conscious is through struggle
True, but class struggle itself does not automatically make all participants communists. The spontaneous movement and struggle of the masses of working people needs to be combined with the dissemination of revolutionary ideas by the advanced element of the class, concentrated in an organization.


What is the point of "disseminating revolutionary ideas" to people who are already engaged in struggle?
Because not everyone who participates in the revolutionary struggle will be a communist. Not every worker is going to see to the end and consciously strive to bring about a communist society, unless the communist proletarians struggle to bring communist ideas to the rest of the class.


People went onto the streets when the ruling class could not longer justify their control and when struggle had reached boiling point.
Yes. But that does not mean that bourgeois culture will be completely tossed aside by all the workers in favor of revolutionary communist ideology. Even those workers who are out on the streets struggling and sacraficing for a better world will not necessarily be communists and may still hold some minor racist/sexist/homophobic/religious tendencies. In order to get to communism, all remaining marks of bourgeois society need to be gotten rid of. Cultural struggle within the class, the struggle to get rid of the baggage left over from capitalist society, needs to occur for this reason. This does not mean that one elite forcedly imposes its will on the rest of the class, it simply means that there is initiative to disseminate revolutionary ideas and get rid of bourgeois ideas.


Then why does it?
Because all of those revolutions that brought into being those kinds of states followed Stalinist ideology. There has only been one genuine communist revolution, the October Revolution, though that revolution was ultimately defeated both by material conditions and some mistakes on the part of the Bolsheviks.


A state is a specific form of structure.
A violent structure, arising because of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms. A structure that is definied mainly by the existence of armed bodies of men and women. The proletariat needs such an apparatus, simply because there is a need for an organization of armed force, so long as classes still exist in the world. A worker's state is defined more or less by it's fuction, the armed suppression of the bourgeoisie. This led Engels to call the proletarian state a "psuedo-state". Once class antagonisms cease, the function of the proletarian organization simply becomes that of the "administration of things", hence ceasing to be a state.


but if the advanced element within the proletariat decides, as did the bolsheviks, that the time is right for revolution *before* the rest of the proletariat is ready, conflict immediately arises.
The majority of the proletariat, though the proletariat was small, sided with the Bolsheviks.


This is because the vanguard, in order to safeguard their revolution and keep it pure, must necessarily exclude other members of the proletariat from any power.
Well, a revolution needs the majority of the proletariat to participate. If the majority of workers are participating, then obviously they are in favor of the abolition of capitalism and the bringing-about of socialism. A socialist state is the unification of the organs of working class power, workers councils, into a violent apparatus of power. Workers have control over this state, because it is bottom up and controlled by the rank-and-file. So really, all workers can have power, and they do. They elect representatives to higher councils and can recall any official at any time. As socialist society progresses, more and more workers will hold high positions, as there will be term limits and the rotation of tasks.


Except this new group will, whilst talking about worker liberation and an end to wage slavery, carry out a violent campaign of repression against any and all opposition.
Yes. The state will need to use force to stop any violent reaction, whether that be on the part of bourgeois reactionaries or wavering proletarians. However, the decision to use such force will be an implementation of the will of the majority. If the majority of the rank-and-file workers disagreed with this use of force, they could recall all the officials involved and replace them. But yes, it may become necessary to use violence against a minority of wavering workers who choose to take up arms against the state. That is a sad consequence of the revolutionary struggle.


The revolution by coup could possibly, in theory, work as a means of introducing socialism
The vanguard does not take power through a coup. A small vanguard could not take power because the existing state would crush them. The vanguard can only lead the masses in taking power, as it will require the armed force of the proletariat to topple the existing regime. Such an armed insurrection may need to only take place in major cities, but even that will require the armed struggle of the proletarians of those cities. Further, the vanguard does not take power in a way in which there is no rank-and-file control by the workers. In reality the vanguard leads in the taking of power by the workers councils, which form a new state apparatus. Dual power is a necessary precondition for armed insurrection and the taking of power by the working class.

In answer to the criticism that an elite minority would dominate society, there are four main rules for a workers state.
1. Election of all officials with right of recall at any time.
2. No official is to be paid a wage higher than an average worker.
3. Democratic control by the workers over the standing army.
4. Gradually all tasks and positions to be rotated among all the people.

[KC]

The working class will begin their own process of education and organisation building up to and during class struggle and revolution.

Well, duh. The working class will build its own party.


We don't need people like you or anyone to "teach us" or "clean us" nor do we need massive institutionalised education campaigns.

Sorry, but proletarians will have to teach other proletarians.


We simply need to understand our class position and the confidence to use it in order to begin the proces of creating a society without class and the state.

And that involves education!


A decentralised, federated one.

Principle before tactic; that's a great way to fail.


The process of becoming conscious is through struggle, not through being taught by leaders what it means to be working class or a communist.

Becoming class conscious doesn't happen through economic struggle. You don't learn revolutionary socialism through economic struggle.



What is the point of "disseminating revolutionary ideas" to people who are already engaged in struggle?


Proletarians have been "engaged in struggle" since capitalism has been formed.


Look at any revolutionary situation? People went onto the streets when the ruling class could not longer justify their control and when struggle had reached boiling point. There was no need for "cultural programs", simply a desire to confront.

And these didn't lead to a political overthrow of capitalism.



All revolutions have sprung from the economic realities faced by working class people, not because you sit them down and teach them.

All proletarian revolutions have sprung from both the economic struggle and the introduction of revolutionary socialism by a class conscious element of the proletariat (the vanguard) to the class as a whole (the masses).



A state is a specific form of structure. It is not simply whatever you want it to be.


Seems to me like anarchists get too hung up on the word state. If you read Marx or Engels that deals with this subject you would probably understand it better and wouldn't say something so stupid.


Riiiight.

Uh, the spectacle is certainly one reason.


that's fine and dandy, but if the advanced element within the proletariat decides, as did the bolsheviks, that the time is right for revolution *before* the rest of the proletariat is ready, conflict immediately arises.

Uh, the Bolsheviks didn't lead the 1917 revolution. They were barely prepared for it.


This is because the vanguard, in order to safeguard their revolution and keep it pure, must necessarily exclude other members of the proletariat from any power.

False.


This alienation from power turns the minority vanguard into a perceived boss-class. A cynical worker will see one band of liars pretending to act in their interests replaced bloodily by another group of people claiming the same thing. Except this new group will, whilst talking about worker liberation and an end to wage slavery, carry out a violent campaign of repression against any and all opposition. In neither circumstance has the worker any real control over the running of things, and you're less likely to be shot by a bourgeios cappie.

That's why we advocate a limitation on terms and democratic elections as well as the opportunity to recall at any time.


The revolution by coup could possibly, in theory, work as a means of introducing socialism; but there would be short-term conflict between worker and party that would make strong statism a must.

First, Marxists don't advocate a "coup". Second, statism's an incredibly stupid and arbitrary word. Socialist society will have a state. Does that make it statist?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Citizen Zero+March 20, 2007 01:44 am--> (Citizen Zero @ March 20, 2007 01:44 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 20, 2007 01:26 am

Citizen [email protected] 20, 2007 01:05 am
TAT:

We simply need to understand our class position and the confidence to use it in order to begin the proces of creating a society without class and the state.

"[S]imply", eh? So what's stopping us?
The spectacle.
Riiiight. [/b]
Yes, it is right. That and the fact we live in a period of reaction.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 02:22 am

The process of becoming conscious is through struggle
True, but class struggle itself does not automatically make all participants communists.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by "dissemination of revolutionary ideas" so I can't really judge my response?

I will say, however, that Marx himself said "debate is progress" - Not that an organisation of class conscious workers "disseminating revolutionary idea's" is progress. I accept the need for propaganda but in terms of creating an organisation that is specifically designed to 'indoctrinate' working class people is totally unjustified.

In a situation where working class people are challenging capitalism and the state the process of creating communism has already begun and the only job the "advanced elements" can do to disseminate revolutionary ideas is to debate and argue our point as communists.

We are not justified in forcing the working class to accept our point-of-view.



What is the point of "disseminating revolutionary ideas" to people who are already engaged in struggle?
Because not everyone who participates in the revolutionary struggle will be a communist.

That's very true.


Not every worker is going to see to the end and consciously strive to bring about a communist society, unless the communist proletarians struggle to bring communist ideas to the rest of the class.

I'm not against working class communists struggling to bring communist idea's to the rest of the working class. What I am adverse to is the notion of an "education campaign" as if we are justified in "educating" people.

We can argue our point and propagandise in favour of communism, but unless the working class voluntarily and freely adhere to our beliefs then there is absolutely nothing we can do.



People went onto the streets when the ruling class could not longer justify their control and when struggle had reached boiling point.
Yes. But that does not mean that bourgeois culture will be completely tossed aside by all the workers in favor of revolutionary communist ideology.

So we need to win the argument.


Even those workers who are out on the streets struggling and sacraficing for a better world will not necessarily be communists and may still hold some minor racist/sexist/homophobic/religious tendencies.

Those attitudes will dissipate over time.


This does not mean that one elite forcedly imposes its will on the rest of the class, it simply means that there is initiative to disseminate revolutionary ideas and get rid of bourgeois ideas.

I can accept that.



Then why does it?
Because all of those revolutions that brought into being those kinds of states followed Stalinist ideology. There has only been one genuine communist revolution, the October Revolution, though that revolution was ultimately defeated both by material conditions and some mistakes on the part of the Bolsheviks.

Of course everything else is to blame but the theory.



A state is a specific form of structure.
A violent structure, arising because of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms.

That's a definition of the state but there is far more to it than that.

[KC]

I will say, however, that Marx himself said "debate is progress" - Not that an organisation of class conscious workers "disseminating revolutionary idea's" is progress.

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat."
-Karl Marx, Manifesto of the Communist Party

Italics are mine. In this quote Marx discusses the vanguard and its relation to the rest of the proletariat. In the italicized section he discusses the role of the vanguard, which is education.


I accept the need for propaganda but in terms of creating an organisation that is specifically designed to 'indoctrinate' working class people is totally unjustified.

An organization isn't about "indoctrination" and it isn't just about education; it's also used to coordinate the work of communists and to organize class conscious proletarians.



We are not justified in forcing the working class to accept our point-of-view.


I don't think anyone said we were.


What I am adverse to is the notion of an "education campaign" as if we are justified in "educating" people.

We're not justified in educating people? :blink:



We can argue our point and propagandise in favour of communism, but unless the working class voluntarily and freely adhere to our beliefs then there is absolutely nothing we can do.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You're basically saying that we should educate, but we shouldn't. I don't get it.



That's a definition of the state but there is far more to it than that.

Says losers.

[RevolutionaryMarxist]

Not Enough People Vote for a Revolution to be democratic. As Engels said, "Revolution is the most authroitarian thing in the world. It is one class forcibly placing their interests onto another class."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 20, 2007 06:33 pm
In the italicized section he discusses the role of the vanguard, which is education.
Sorry, where does he say that?



I accept the need for propaganda but in terms of creating an organisation that is specifically designed to 'indoctrinate' working class people is totally unjustified.

An organization isn't about "indoctrination"

Good, I'm glad to hear you say that.


it's also used to coordinate the work of communists and to organize class conscious proletarians.

Why aren't ‘class conscious proletarians’ organising themselves?




We are not justified in forcing the working class to accept our point-of-view.


I don't think anyone said we were.

Not explicitly, but "massive education campaigns" and "cultural programmes" don't sound too voluntary to me? Going by history those two things are usually forced on the working class by the state.

I'm not prepared to give you lot the benefit of the doubt. You had your chance and you blew it.



What I am adverse to is the notion of an "education campaign" as if we are justified in "educating" people.

We're not justified in educating people? :blink:

Not unless they want to be educated.




We can argue our point and propagandise in favour of communism, but unless the working class voluntarily and freely adhere to our beliefs then there is absolutely nothing we can do.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. You're basically saying that we should educate, but we shouldn't. I don't get it.

If a group of workers come to you as a communist and says "teach me what communism is and why it is that way" then of course you are free to educate them, but unless they choose freely to participate in such a situation then the only thing we can do is argue and propagandise our point and hope we are able to convince people.




That's a definition of the state but there is far more to it than that.

Says losers.

Sshh!

[RedLenin]

Not explicitly, but "massive education campaigns" and "cultural programmes" don't sound too voluntary to me?
Any decision to bring about education or cultural programs, such as teaching communist ideology or materialist philosophy in schools, would be result of the majority of the working class wanting it. If such a law is passed, and the majority of working people don't want it, they can hold a referendum and repeal the law, or even recall the officials that passed the law in the first place. In a genuine socialist state, the rank-and-file controls the leadership.


then the only thing we can do is argue and propagandise our point and hope we are able to convince people.
That is all anyone is advocating. We are not going to hold a gun to people's heads and tell them that they must believe something. Now in a socialist state, any program to spread revolutionary ideas would be a decision that the majority of workers agree with, and it would be non-coercive.


You had your chance and you blew it.
I disagree. I think that Bolshevism was very successful because, for the first time in history since the Paris Commune, the working class took power. Power was in the hands of the soviets, at least initially. Though genuine socialism and workers democracy only existed for a brief period of time, I still consider it a success. If revolutions would have succeeded in other countries, we may well have had a complete success world-wide. As opposed to anarchist movements, which have never once at any time ever taken power. Even when the opportunity was right there, like it was in Catalonia in Spain. It seems that, with anarchist leadership, the working class never really gets beyond the phaze of dual-power.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:22 am

Not explicitly, but "massive education campaigns" and "cultural programmes" don't sound too voluntary to me?
Any decision to bring about education or cultural programs, such as teaching communist ideology or materialist philosophy in schools, would be result of the majority of the working class wanting it. If such a law is passed, and the majority of working people don't want it, they can hold a referendum and repeal the law, or even recall the officials that passed the law in the first place. In a genuine socialist state, the rank-and-file controls the leadership.
This has no relevanec to me.


As opposed to anarchist movements, which have never once at any time ever taken power.
Anarchist's don't want to take power, we want to destroy it and in that sense we began that process successfully.


Even when the opportunity was right there, like it was in Catalonia in Spain. It seems that, with anarchist leadership, the working class never really gets beyond the phaze of dual-power.
I don't really understand what you're talking about or refering to? Political power was destroyed in Catalonia and a decentralised federated system of organisation was introduced and it was a success?

In Aragon and Catalonia, there was no dual power. The working class and peasents organised themselves. They deconstructed the state, collectivised industry and land and organised themselves in a decentralised, federated way - Thus begining the process towards a gift economy.

[Rawthentic]

Why aren't ‘class conscious proletarians’ organising themselves?
They are; communists are the class-conscious proletarians.


In Aragon and Catalonia, there was no dual power. The working class and peasents organised themselves. They deconstructed the state, collectivised industry and land and organised themselves in a decentralised, federated way - Thus begining the process towards a gift economy.
That'd be nice if it was that easy, but....what of the reaction and bourgeoisie?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Anarchist's don't want to take power, we want to destroy it and in that sense we began that process successfully.

but you have not accomplished that.

[Rawthentic]

but you have not accomplished that.
Comrade, I do see the necessity for a worker's state after the revolution, but just because they have not accomplished what they say they have is not sufficient to refute, just like when anarchists say that communists and "Leninists" have never succeeded in achieving communism, which is an immaterialistic analysis.

[R_P_A_S]

i still dont feel some of you guys are around enough working people everyday. to realized what a immense task it is to get them all or the vast majority to side with the revolution and understand that this "harsh and confusing times" will lead to a better life in general!.. That idea that all the sudden people will be enlighten and "work together" is a fairy tale of some sort. what book you guys reading?

education is needed.

[R_P_A_S]

let me ask you something.. RedLenin you seem to be very advocate about all these elections.. we'll vote for this, we'll vote for that. It seems every time someone throws a disagreement or suggests and alternative you always support to vote for it.. not that theres anything wrong with that. BUT how are things supposed to get done if we are always taking time to vote for every little thing every person wants to vote on.??

AND what would be the validity of ANY vote if it can always be recalled and over turned??? :(

[Rawthentic]

That idea that all the sudden people will be enlighten and "work together" is a fairy tale of some sort. what book you guys reading?

Nobody is suggesting this comrade. It is through their struggles as well as the work of the revolutionary vanguard to gain class consciousness.


BUT how are things supposed to get do if we are always taking time to vote for every little thing every person wants to vote on.??
Not on everything, just everything that we see fit and need.


AND what would be the validity of ANY vote if it can always be recalled and over turned???
It would be completely valid, because we as a people would be able to recall our representatives and delegates according to our interests.

[KC]

Sorry, where does he say that?

About the vanguard: "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country..."

About education: "...that section which pushes forward all others."


Why aren't ‘class conscious proletarians’ organising themselves?

Uh, that's what the organization is...


Not explicitly, but "massive education campaigns" and "cultural programmes" don't sound too voluntary to me? Going by history those two things are usually forced on the working class by the state.

I assumed that these things were being recommended under bourgeois rule, not under socialism. Why would "massive education campaigns" even be necessary after the revolution? Of course, there should be open debate, but I don't think a direct propaganda campaign would be necessary at all.


I'm not prepared to give you lot the benefit of the doubt. You had your chance and you blew it.

When did I have my chance?


Not unless they want to be educated.

How do you educate someone who doesn't want to learn? :wacko:



If a group of workers come to you as a communist and says "teach me what communism is and why it is that way" then of course you are free to educate them, but unless they choose freely to participate in such a situation then the only thing we can do is argue and propagandise our point and hope we are able to convince people.

Duh.



Sshh!

Nahhhh...


i still dont feel some of you guys are around enough working people everyday. to realized what a immense task it is to get them all or the vast majority to side with the revolution and understand that this "harsh and confusing times" will lead to a better life in general!.. That idea that all the sudden people will be enlighten and "work together" is a fairy tale of some sort. what book you guys reading?


Dude, just shut up. You're really annoying.

[R_P_A_S]

Dude, just shut up. You're really annoying.

oh.. ok DUDE! :rolleyes: lol

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:04 am
i still dont feel some of you guys are around enough working people everyday. to realized what a immense task it is to get them all or the vast majority to side with the revolution and understand that this "harsh and confusing times"
Look, you arrogant prick. I am working class and I am around working class people and they aren't stupid as some of you would like to contend. People respond to ideas and they will agree or not agree. Debate is a process.

Clearly you don't understand the nature of struggle. We live in a period of reaction and so people aren't going to pay that much attention to us. Marx argued that "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." This means that people are not going to become class conscious until their lives change.

People will not become conscious until the material conditions in which they live force them to and they become apart of struggle. We cannot convince people unless they listen and they will not listen unless they have a reason to.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:26 am

Anarchist's don't want to take power, we want to destroy it and in that sense we began that process successfully.

but you have not accomplished that.
We have accomplished it enough to know that our theory works and with only very small practical adjustments.

[R_P_A_S]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+March 21, 2007 08:16 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ March 21, 2007 08:16 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 04:04 am
i still dont feel some of you guys are around enough working people everyday. to realized what a immense task it is to get them all or the vast majority to side with the revolution and understand that this "harsh and confusing times"
Look, you arrogant prick. I am working class and I am around working class people and they aren't stupid as some of you would like to contend. People respond to ideas and they will agree or not agree. Debate is a process.

Clearly you don't understand the nature of struggle. We live in a period of reaction and so people aren't going to pay that much attention to us. Marx argued that "Life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life." This means that people are not going to become class conscious until their lives change.

People will not become conscious until the material conditions in which they live force them to and they become apart of struggle. We cannot convince people unless they listen and they will not listen unless they have a reason to. [/b]
i feel you homie... but ease up a bit G. you like to insult people as if it were going at of style. damn.
group hug! ;)

oh. and an other thing. I NEVER said or implied the working class is stupid. fuck is wrong with cha? never never. damn! talk about putting words in peoples mouths!

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 09:31 am
oh. and an other thing. I NEVER said or implied the working class is stupid. fuck is wrong with cha? never never. damn! talk about putting words in peoples mouths!
Pay attention to what you say and the implications of it.

[RGacky3]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:26 am

Anarchist's don't want to take power, we want to destroy it and in that sense we began that process successfully.

but you have not accomplished that.
No we hav'nt, if we did we would'nt be Anarchists would we, just people living in a free and equal world :P. So lets see, the Lenninists have taken power and couple times and how many times have they achieve a free and equal society? Or one even close too one?

Now how many times have Humble Anarchist efforts made free and Equal Societies, sure they have been short lived because out imperialist forces but still a better score card than the Leninists, also how many Anarchist supported movements have made our society more free and equal? I must admit not very many, but still a better score card than the Leninists.


About the vanguard: "The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country..."

According to the 'Communists' that is, does that give them any right to impose anything on other working class people whom they think have a lesser "Class Conciousness"?

[Rawthentic]

According to the 'Communists' that is, does that give them any right to impose anything on other working class people whom they think have a lesser "Class Conciousness"?



It isn't a "right", its a responsibility as the class-conscious section of the proletariat, in other words, the communists, to struggle alongside proletarians and push for wider and farther reaching goals.

[KC]

According to the 'Communists' that is, does that give them any right to impose anything on other working class people whom they think have a lesser "Class Conciousness"?

Did you not understand that the role of the vanguard is to educate the masses? Do you know anything about Marxist theory?

[RGacky3]

I understand that, but anyone can educate anyone, are you going to force education on them? I could say its the roll of the priests to educate the Masses. So sure you can get together and talk to people and educate them, but that is different from taking control of the state and then 'educating' after you have power over them.

You have this notion that Power cannot be corrupted, that the Vanguard party will innately be on the same page and the workers, but what if the workers (or even just some of them) want something different from the Vanguard party? What then?

[KC]

I understand that, but anyone can educate anyone

Well, that's really not true. Only people that have the knowledge can teach others that knowledge. Communists are those that are knowledgeable about revolutionary theory; they are also the vanguard. That is why it is their job to educate the rest of the proletariat.


are you going to force education on them?

How do you force education on someone? :wacko:


I could say its the roll of the priests to educate the Masses.

The priests?! Are you trying to prove a point or do you actually think that? Also, we're talking about educating about revolutionary socialism.


So sure you can get together and talk to people and educate them, but that is different from taking control of the state and then 'educating' after you have power over them.

First, nobody is taking control of a state. The bourgeois state apparatus is destroyed and the dictatorship of the proletariat is put in its place. Second, no proletarian has any power over any other proletarian during this period. So your assertion falls to pieces because it's based on flawed premises.


You have this notion that Power cannot be corrupted

No I don't. You have this notion that the vanguard is the same thing as a vanguard party and that dictatorship of the proletariat means party rule, which are both false.


that the Vanguard party will innately be on the same page and the workers, but what if the workers (or even just some of them) want something different from the Vanguard party? What then?

We were talking about a vanguard before. Why have you switched to talking about a party?

Regardless of that, the vanguard party takes on different roles in different periods. Before the revolution the vanguard party is simply an organization of members of the vanguard, i.e. communists, which is used to coordinate the work of communists and to help bring class consciousness to the mass of the proletariat. During the revolutionary period, the proletariat chooses a party to represent itself, which is a vanguard party. At this time the party ceases to be a "vanguard party" and becomes a mass party, a party of the proletariat and for the proletariat. During this time the party can't have seperate interests than the proletariat, since the party is the proletariat.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+March 21, 2007 08:17 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ March 21, 2007 08:17 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 02:26 am

Anarchist's don't want to take power, we want to destroy it and in that sense we began that process successfully.

but you have not accomplished that.
We have accomplished it enough to know that our theory works and with only very small practical adjustments. [/b]
really? That's hardly true. What type of adjustments would you suggest?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Regardless of that, the vanguard party takes on different roles in different periods. Before the revolution the vanguard party is simply an organization of members of the vanguard, i.e. communists, which is used to coordinate the work of communists and to help bring class consciousness to the mass of the proletariat. During the revolutionary period, the proletariat chooses a party to represent itself, which is a vanguard party. At this time the party ceases to be a "vanguard party" and becomes a mass party, a party of the proletariat and for the proletariat. During this time the party can't have seperate interests than the proletariat, since the party is the proletariat

Exactly. It is the political force which excercises the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[KC]

Exactly. It is the political force which excercises the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Regardless, the role of the party during the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't to rule. Dictatorship of the proletariat shouldn't take on party rule, as the party should take on a guiding role and not be a governmental institution.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Zampanò@March 23, 2007 08:03 pm

Exactly. It is the political force which excercises the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Regardless, the role of the party during the dictatorship of the proletariat isn't to rule. Dictatorship of the proletariat shouldn't take on party rule, as the party should take on a guiding role and not be a governmental institution.
If the proletariat are the party, why shouldn't the party rule?

[KC]

Because a party is a party and not a government?

[RNK]

Party and State are different.. once the Party leads the people to revolution, and helps develop socialist institutions, its role is to sort of "step back" and allow the people to rule themselves. The party and the state institutions are only linked insofar as members of either can be members of both; governmental "ministers", "deputies", whathaveyou, can be Party members (but they don't have to be). Mainly the party serves to maintain the traditions enacted by the law of the government, holding heavy influence but little actual power.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Party should be parrallel to the state. It should guide the state as you said yourself, the party is the proletariat.

[RedLenin]

It should guide the state as you said yourself, the party is the proletariat.
Yes but it is only part of the proletariat. Really the party should serve as a kind of revolutionary institution that keeps the spirit of things alive. It can make suggestions to governmental institutions and guide the people ideologically, but if you isolate all political power into a party you run into dangerous territory.

I like how Cuba's system works, with only one party, but with the party only really serving a guiding role, not a ruling one. Soviet democracy based on workers councils with the party serving as a guiding force. That seems to me to be the best way to handle the question of the party and the state.

[KC]

It should guide the state as you said yourself, the party is the proletariat.


I never said that the party is the proletariat. I said the party is composed of proletarians and represents the interests of the proletariat. It is not the proletariat, but an organization of proletarians.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Isn't there an inherent conflict between the Party and the workers over who shall control the factories?

[KC]

Isn't there an inherent conflict between the Party and the workers over who shall control the factories?

What's the conflict?

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

This is more or less a paraphraising of Anton Pannekoek's "Party and Class," but the idea is that when (and if) the Party says "hold on there boys, we're going to nationalise these here means of production" the workers will either say "No, we're going to occupy our factories" and a conflict will arise, or they'll go home and allow the Party to do to the means of production what it sees fit.

[Rawthentic]

Juanito, the Party is not going to say "hold on their boys", its going to do as RedLenin and Zampano, said, which is be the guiding force. The workers will occupy the factories and workplaces, using the guidance of the party.

[KC]

This is more or less a paraphraising of Anton Pannekoek's "Party and Class," but the idea is that when (and if) the Party says "hold on there boys, we're going to nationalise these here means of production" the workers will either say "No, we're going to occupy our factories" and a conflict will arise, or they'll go home and allow the Party to do to the means of production what it sees fit.

The party is supposed to be a guiding force, not a ruling one. The party itself doesn't hold distinct political power.

[Leo]

I would suggest early writings of Pannekoek and Bordiga on the party.

[KC]

Who are you suggesting them to?

[Leo]

Everyone interested in the concept of "party" as well as the formation of a future world communist party should read them in my opinion.

[Rawthentic]

Personally, Leo, what's your concept of a "party"? I'd be interested to know, seeing that I haven't really been in contact with the left-communist point of view.

[KC]

Leo, could you link me to some relevant texts?

[Vargha Poralli]

What Leo points out could be found here.

Left-Wing Communism subject archive (http://www.marxists.org/subject/left-wing/index.htm) from Marxists.org.


I would suggest early writings of Pannekoek

Party and Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm)


Bordiga on the party.

System of Communist representation. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/representation.htm)

Party and Class. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1921/party-class.htm)

There are more links to works in the link I have given which forms the main basis for Council Communism.

[Leo]

There are more links to works in the link I have given which forms the main basis for Council Communism.

Bordiga has little, if at all, to do with council communism. In fact he would be quite offended to be listed under "anti-Bolshevik" communism.

Anyway, from Bordiga, I would suggest:

System of Communist Representation (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pre/soviet/bedu/bedumkozue.html)

Seize the Power or Seize the Factory (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/pre/soviet/beea/beeabcizue.html)

Party and Class (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipe/lipedbiboe.html)

Party and Class Action (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipe/lipexbiboe.html)

Fundamental Thesis of the Party (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/liqa/liqamcebue.html)

Proletarian Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipe/lipexbibue.html)

While reading Bordiga, one should keep in mind that Bordiga always equated the dictatorship of the party with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is, in my opinion, quite wrong. Also Bordiga was again quite wrong on the issue of decadence of capitalism, which he rejected, and therefore accepted Marxism as [an] invariant [dogma] where the world we live in did change after capital reached its material limits of expansion and became decadent.

What is significant, in my opinion, is the ideas he has about the internal structure of the party, advocating for an internationally organized and organic collective party. Indeed I find myself agreeing with his concepts of the party about its organic international nature and its organic international unity. Bordiga's emphasis in the collective nature of the party is a very important aspect in the development of the concept of the party.

From Pannekoek, I suggest:

World Revolution and Communist Tactics (http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/panworl1.htm)

Party and Class (http://www.marxists.org/archive/pannekoe/1936/party-class.htm)

Party and Working Class (http://www.geocities.com/~johngray/panparty.htm)

The first one is a major book and not entirely about the communist party but has very interesting ideas about its role. In the second link, we see a more educated but also a more disillusioned Pannekoek. As we know, Pannekoek ended up rejecting the party, but he defended it for a long time of his life and his warnings about how it can end up and his opinions about party's role and party not taking power or managing economy etc. and his emphasis that it should be, and can only be the working class who can do that are insightful in my opinion.

Anyway, as tragedy follows, Pannekoek ended up as an isolated man with no political intervention and Bordiga's party ended up sinking into opportunism. So in order to explain the left communist take on the party, I think I should also talk about the contributions of the left communist review called Bilan (literally: balance sheet).

I can't find any relevant texts about this issue by this review, but what they basically said was that a party can only be formed in a revolutionary period, as a result of class struggle, contrary to the general understanding of the party which assumes that class struggle is the result of the party. So what they defended was that in a counter-revolutionary period, a party cannot exist, only a fraction can exist and its roles are intervention whenever and however possible, defending the class demands always, staying in the old revolutionary party as long as possible, trying to win its members and also theoretical clarification and analysis of the existing situation. As for times than can neither be defined as revolutionary or counter-revolutionary, then the theory developed by people coming from the tradition of Bilan was that there would be proletarian currents, intermediary proletarian organizations which will create the future party in revolutionary times.

[Rawthentic]

How would an internationally organized party work? I mean, is it physically possible to d so?

[KC]

The League is an international organization...

[Rawthentic]

Oh, I didn't see it that way, my bad.

Leo, this might be off topic but somewhat related: what do you think on our CL's worker-only policy for membership? I see this as a fundamental part of Marxism, where the advanced section of the working class is the vanguard, not some intelligentsia. If this is a class struggle, why give such a damn about other "strata" or petty-bourgeoisie? I have also explained that if these individuals want to join a worker's organization, they must show their commitment and be only tolerated at first.

Thoughts?

[Leo]

How would an internationally organized party work? I mean, is it physically possible to d so?

There would be sections, of course, but the decisions would be made on an international level as much as possible.


Leo, this might be off topic but somewhat related: what do you think on our CL's worker-only policy for membership? I see this as a fundamental part of Marxism, where the advanced section of the working class is the vanguard, not some intelligentsia. If this is a class struggle, why give such a damn about other "strata" or petty-bourgeoisie? I have also explained that if these individuals want to join a worker's organization, they must show their commitment and be only tolerated at first.

Well, a real proletarian organization must have and will have workers at the majority, there is no doubt about that. The petty-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie would only want to join a proletarian organization in mass on special occasions; that is when the organization is getting bourgeois itself, when being a member became profitable, a good career opportunity. As for individual members, well on the individual level everyone does what they do, for us being a proletarian is not a lifestyle choice, that's what we do. I have not met a petty-bourgeois who wants to join the organization that I am in, but if something like that happened, well it would depend if the person is actually committed to do militant work, and we would discuss with the person, we would try to do some joint work perhaps, and then we would see how it goes. If the person is really committed, then he or she will integrate himself or herself in our militant work. But you don't see stuff like that happening everyday, and we don't care about our "card-carrying" membership.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Marx wrote:
In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole? The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

They have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole.

They do not set up any sectarian principles of their own, by which to shape and mold the proletarian movement.

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only:

(1) In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality.

(2) In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: Formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.

This was before the existence of Communist "Parties", but the demand for political organization in which there is "no seperate interests apart from those of the proletariat", that "represents the interests of the movement as a whole", that is "the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country", that "pushes forward all others", and that has the greater "advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement", clearly echoes what Lenin wrote decades later in What Is To Be Done?

In every revolution, there is a vanguard, and then there is the masses. If there is political organization, this would imply that some sort of leadership has previously existed. It would suggest that there is, in other words, a vanguard that is steadily representing the masses. I don't know if many anarchists realize this, but when they are passing out flyers, attending protests, recruiting, and engaging in acts of "direct action"; they are becoming the vanguard of their movement. They are, after all, committed, militant, and politically advanced compared to the workers who are reading the flyer that they distributed who don't know anything about anarchism. Believing in this concept is not a matter of being "anti-worker", but rather, realistically examining the state of consciousness amongst the working class, and determining through historical analysis what we can do to increase class consciousness and militancy amongst the working people.

[RNK]

In that regard, everyone here is a member of the vanguard.

[chimx]

The party is supposed to be a guiding force, not a ruling one. The party itself doesn't hold distinct political power.

Unfortunately, Lenin's vision of the party in practice is distinct from that of any theoretical vision. In June 1917, at the First National Congress of Soviets, the speaker rhetorically asked (assuming the answer would be "no") if there were any political parties that were prepared to take on the responsibility of taking on political power *alone*. Lenin chimed in, "There is such a party!"

[Rawthentic]

But does that change the fact that Russia became the dictatorship of the proletariat?

[KC]

In that regard, everyone here is a member of the vanguard.

Pretty much.



Unfortunately, Lenin's vision of the party in practice is distinct from that of any theoretical vision. In June 1917, at the First National Congress of Soviets, the speaker rhetorically asked (assuming the answer would be "no") if there were any political parties that were prepared to take on the responsibility of taking on political power *alone*. Lenin chimed in, "There is such a party!"


Of course these are different. Lenin was doing what he believed was applying revolutionary theory to the material conditions of Russia at the time. Whether or not you disagree with that is pretty irrelevant.

[chimx]

Lenin was doing what he believed was applying revolutionary theory to the material conditions of Russia at the time.

I don't doubt that he was doing what he believed was necessary for the "material conditions of Russia at the time," but the Bolshevik party was not the only Marxist party. Hell, even Bolsheviks were apprehensive of Lenin's insistence of single-party governance, e.g: Kamenev and Zinoviev.

[KC]

I don't doubt any of that, but I don't see how it's relevant to this discussion.

[Rawthentic]

And so Chimx, as the Bolshevik Party was indeed the proletarian vanguard, what would you propose in its stead?

I don't see whats so wrong with 'single-party' governance, other than people make it sound like some dictatorship. Well, it was, but a working-class dictatorship. The Party was the "guiding force."

[KC]

I don't see whats so wrong with 'single-party' governance, other than people make it sound like some dictatorship. Well, it was, but a working-class dictatorship. The Party was the "guiding force."

No it wasn't. The party was the government.

[Rawthentic]

It wasn't the dictatorship of the proletariat? Seems to me like it was. Even though I do agree that it was the government, due to the centralization of authority and all.

Goddam it, you confused me now. Explain yourself.

[KC]

The party wasn't the "guiding force" because the party held political power. Whether or not it was the dictatorship of the proletariat is irrelevant.

[Rawthentic]

I understand. I'm actually reading what you are describing, but I got confused.

So, by saying that the Bolsheviks held power, and not the workers, are you saying that this negates that the DoP existed in Russia? I seem to think it did for the initial years, but existed through the political leadership of the Bolshevik Party.

What do you think?

[KC]

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the dictatorship of the proletariat; it has to do with the relation between party and state. Whether or not there was a dictatorship of the proletariat in Russia is irrelevant.

[Rawthentic]

Ok. What I'm reading now is that the Bolshevik Party, of course due to certain material conditions, destroyed the line between Party and state, fusing the two together.

What I mean is that state power was not directly held by the working class, but by the Bolshevik Party. I believe this was reinforced by the reintroduction of one-person management of workplaces, along with other factors.

[RedLenin]

destroyed the line between Party and state, fusing the two together.
Why should there be a line between party and state, why should they not be fused together? The Bolshevik party participated in the soviets along with the Mensheviks and the SRs. In fact, the Bolsheviks held the majority pretty much everywhere and were basically in power. The Bolsheviks banned other parties as a temporary war measure, and even that made little difference, as the Bolsheviks already held power. I don't see why there is a contradiction between the dictatorship of the party and the dictatorship of the class. The two can co-exist, though I am not really up for the idea of banning other parties.


What I mean is that state power was not directly held by the working class
It certainly was initially. Throughout the corse of the revolution, due to adverse material conditions and the backwardness of Russia, the power slipped more and more into the hands of the specialists and out of the hands of the rank and file workers. This culminated in the growth of a brutal bureaucracy, which became fully consolidated and institutionalized when Stalin came to power.


but by the Bolshevik Party
The Bolsheviks were originally the elected and recallable representatives of the working class in the soviets. The outlawing of other parties did, however, help the party turn into a bureaucratic caste above the workers, which was fully manifested under Stalin.


I believe this was reinforced by the reintroduction of one-person management of workplaces
Yes that was perhaps one of the clearest examples of the utilization of specialists, at the expense of the power of the rank-and-file workers.

I think this whole question of party and class does have a historical side to it, as we have had some experience with this. The Russian Revolution can serve as a kind of point of reference. The question is this; was the introduction of a one-party state a good idea that should be replecated...or should we look to have multiple socialist parties participating in the proletarian state, until it looses its political characteristics?

[Rawthentic]

Why should there be a line between party and state, why should they not be fused together?
Here's why comrade. The state is supposed to be directly subordinate to the organs of the working-class, which in Russia were the soviets. The Party, in theory, is supposed to take on the role as the "guiding force" and respect the autonomy of the workers.


This culminated in the growth of a brutal bureaucracy, which became fully consolidated and institutionalized when Stalin came to power.
Yeah, this a solid class analysis, thanks RedLenin. There are Stalinists here that swear that it was only a temporary measure and that the working class held power under Stalin. But that's complete bullshit.


The question is this; was the introduction of a one-party state a good idea that should be replecated...or should we look to have multiple socialist parties participating in the proletarian state, until it looses its political characteristics?
My opinion on this is that, since the initial revolutionary vanguard is composed of the advanced workers, there is no need for other parties because this vanguard represents that basic interests of the workers. As I mentioned above, this party must be "teacher" and respect the self-organization of the workers, while of course pushing and agitating for communist goals. Since the proletarians here hold autonomy, they use their power to yield their interests, leaving no reason for multiple parties.

This might be confusing, I can clarify if you wish.

[Rawthentic]

I have a quote from the book I am reading for which I want comments on:

"Nevertheless, it was also true that Lenin's theory of the state reflected the dichotomy of Marxist thought, which combined a highly realist and relativist analysis of the historical process with an uncompromising absolute vision of the ultimate goal, and strove to bridge the gap between them by a chain of causal development. This transformation of reality into utopia, of relative into the absolute, of incessant class conflict into classless society, and the ruthless use of state power into the classless society, was the essence of what Marx and Lenin believed."

Thoughts?

[sexyguy]

What is the book and who wrote it?

[Rawthentic]

Its in the first volume of the Bolshevik Revolution, 1917-1932 by Edward Carr. Don't get me wrong, its an extremely good well written book, I just happen to disagree with what he says about Marx and Lenin.

I don't think that communism is a utopia as the author says, because it is a society who's roots rest under capitalism and the strength of the working class. The state does use repression, but against reactionaries and the rebellious bourgeoisie. As the proletariat does this, it eliminates all forms of oppression and class antagonisms, leaving no reason for a state. I believe that Lenin's State and Revolution does a brilliant job of explaining this.

[RedLenin]

it eliminates all forms of oppression and class antagonisms, leaving no reason for a state.
Yes, but we need to be careful when we say this, especially when talking to non-marxists. It is not as simple as saying that the state will disapeer once their is no more bourgeoisie. The historic mission of the proletariat is to lead itself and all other classes out of existence. To do this will require the self-emancipation of the proletariat and the overthrow of the bourgeoisie, which means that the proletariat will need to consolidate its economic and social hegemony. A violent apparatus, ie a state, is necessary for this. But the proletariat, unlike all other classes, does not seek to maintain it's domination. The state withers away in the sense that it looses its political characteristics. Such characteristics include violence, parties, and representative structures. The state whithers away as the proletariat takes power all over the world and the old bourgeoisie is integrated into the ranks of the proletariat. When this occurs, classes cease to exist, and the apparatus of the proletariat will loose its political characteristics. It will cease to be an instrument for the suppression of people, and will become an apparatus for the mere administration of things.

Now here is something we need to consider when we talk about parties and the workers state. First, representative structures will need to exist at first. They are a political characteristic and they cannot be gotten rid of immediately. There will be, from day one, a dialectic between direct and representative democracy, but representative structures will still exist. Having representatives means that some people implement decisions on behalf of others, not with there direct approval. Even with the right of recall this remains the case. Really, as long as there are representative structures there will be parties, as different people will compete to have their own ideas implemented. With this in mind, here is a question. By only allowing one party, are we not stiffling the ability of the proletariat to express itself in an organized form? On one hand, there is only one direction the proletariat can move toward; communism. So in this sense it would seem legitimate to have one communist party with that perspective in mind. On the other hand, wouldn't such a move endanger the power of the class over the leaders? Even though we can talk about the party only playing a "guiding role" there still remains the very, very real possibility that the one party will hold total power in all the state institutions. Do we want that? This whole question of party and state is very complicated and needs to be looked at indepth.

[Rawthentic]

I agree definitely that this needs to be looked at deeply.

As I said above, the autonomy of the workers allows for their self-organization and expression. I certainly don't want a party to hold complete power, which why it is important to learn our lessons from the past.

Another important concept is that the revolutionary vanguard's leadership must consist of proletarians, the most politically advanced ones. This is because the leadership's material interests will be one in the same as the rest of the proletarians, and would greatly diminish the possibility of party domination. I can't stress enough how important this is.

[chimx]

Originally posted by hastalavictoria
since the initial revolutionary vanguard is composed of the advanced workers, there is no need for other parties because this vanguard represents that basic interests of the workers.

Says who? The group calling itself the "most advanced workers"? The black and white egotism of what you are saying is quite unsettling, IMO. How do you define the most "advanced worker"? Is an "advanced worker" just one that supports Bolshevism and that party program? This just sounds like circular logic to avoid political accountability and the necessary checks and balances to deter the growth of *self-serving* bureaucratic party institutions.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by chimx+April 01, 2007 12:16 pm--> (chimx @ April 01, 2007 12:16 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected]
since the initial revolutionary vanguard is composed of the advanced workers, there is no need for other parties because this vanguard represents that basic interests of the workers.

Says who? The group calling itself the "most advanced workers"? The black and white egotism of what you are saying is quite unsettling, IMO. How do you define the most "advanced worker"? Is an "advanced worker" just one that supports Bolshevism and that party program? [/b]
So you are pulling a straw over what hastalavictoria mentioned about the party in a word and condemn whole bolshevism for it.



This just sounds like circular logic to avoid political accountability and the necessary checks and balances to deter the growth of *self-serving* bureaucratic party institutions.

No it is not like that. hatalvictoria himself has later said in this same thread in case it has missed your intrest because it doesn't fitted with your opinion of bolshevism



hasatalavictoria
As I said above, the autonomy of the workers allows for their self-organization and expression. I certainly don't want a party to hold complete power, which why it is important to learn our lessons from the past.

Another important concept is that the revolutionary vanguard's leadership must consist of proletarians, the most politically advanced ones. This is because the leadership's material interests will be one in the same as the rest of the proletarians, and would greatly diminish the possibility of party domination. I can't stress enough how important this is.

[Rawthentic]

The most advanced workers are the class conscious ones, they are clear on what must be done and help "guide" their brothers and sisters.

Thanks g.ram for the clarification.

[chimx]

There were plenty of "class conscious" workers that disagreed with certain party programs (e.g.: Bolshevism).

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:10 pm
There were plenty of "class conscious" workers that disagreed with certain party programs (e.g.: Bolshevism).
Oh really ? Where in midgard ? :P

Any way that is not a crime.No one is going to force it down your throats.

[Rawthentic]

There were plenty of "class conscious" workers that disagreed with certain party programs (e.g.: Bolshevism).

Yeah, but the Bolshevik Party did not consist of proletarian leadership. This is a problem I have with them, but one cannot ignore material conditions at the time, especially the backwardness of the proletariat. Lenin did call for the "proletarianization" of the party to prevent careerism and the replication of the division of labor in the party. We all know this didn't happen though.

[chimx]

OR, there was just a diversity of opinion on the conquest of political power. Hell, lets just pretend that all the other *socialist* parties didn't exist. No SRs, no Mensheviks, no anarchists, etc.

The Bolshevik party, especially the "old Bolshevik" members, up until a few weeks before the October rising, was not much of a Leftist party. When Lenin wrote the CC demanding insurrection while in hiding, it was agreed upon to burn the letter. When Lenin returned to Russia and a policy of insurrection was decided upon, Kamenev and Zinoviev were not the only ones in disagreement with Bolshevik hegemony. Roughly one third of the Bolshevik leadership remained opposed to the idea and still advocated dual power between a Bolshevik dominated soviet, and a politically broad Constituent Assembly. (even Stalin leaned towards this position at times)

Was the Bolshevik leadership itself, to use your term, "backwards" because of this disagreement?

Also, it is far too easy to pull out the "material conditions in Russia" card, and that is an expression far too often abused. I would ask that people elaborate on the specific conditions you are referring to. As it was, the urban proletariat, especially those in Petrograd and Moscow were extremely politicized. In the country side there had already been existing an agrarian social revolution. What "backwardness" are you referring to exactly?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The material conditions that forced the Bolsheviks into a position of rule was to save the revolution after the civil war.

Prior to the civil war, the soviets were the voice of the workers.

Upon the massive defeat the working class suffered during the civil war, because it really wasn't much of a victory.

The Russian working class had never been educated at all, their numbers were few, and their enemies were numerous and powerful, all the while having to contend with the old classes, rising petty bourgeois class, and a bureaucratic caste.

The material conditions that stopped the Russian revolution being successful was the actual working class being weakened.

Factories could be rebuilt or repaired, more crops could be sown, but it would take time for the workers to repopulate and until then their ability to exercise political power would remain impotent.

The Bolsheviks didn't have the luxury of heignsight , and not only could they not tell how difficult this sort of management was, but they couldn't know about the coming degeneration of the soviet state.

They were faced with an impossible and more or less futile situation after the civil war.

What alternative was there?

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)The Bolshevik party, especially the "old Bolshevik" members, up until a few weeks before the October rising, was not much of a Leftist party. When Lenin wrote the CC demanding insurrection while in hiding, it was agreed upon to burn the letter. When Lenin returned to Russia and a policy of insurrection was decided upon, Kamenev and Zinoviev were not the only ones in disagreement with Bolshevik hegemony. Roughly one third of the Bolshevik leadership remained opposed to the idea and still advocated dual power between a Bolshevik dominated soviet, and a politically broad Constituent Assembly. (even Stalin leaned towards this position at times)[/b]

The main belief of Lenin and Trotsky at that time was stopping the Imeprialist war at all costs. This princiupled opposition of Imeprialist war was a thing that made Trotsky to join the Bolsheviks. They belived that stopping the war from Russian side would make German workers and soldiers to rebel against the German ruling class. They views were not centred around Russia to speak.

The problem arised here. German revolution did not materialise and the Bolsheviks were forced to sign the Brest-Litovsk treaty. They were let alone to face the Whites who were backed up heavily by Imperialists. Even their attempt to join the German workers in 1920 was stopped by the Polish state with a heavy Imperialist Backup. The thing we need to learn from Bolsheviks is that they managed to save the young workers state from collapse almost immediately like Paris Commune.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Also, it is far too easy to pull out the "material conditions in Russia" card, and that is an expression far too often abused. I would ask that people elaborate on the specific conditions you are referring to. As it was, the urban proletariat, especially those in Petrograd and Moscow were extremely politicized. In the country side there had already been existing an agrarian social revolution. What "backwardness" are you referring to exactly?

The Russian Industry was not as much modernised as their western counterparts. The Red Army was in very dangerous condition that they were really lucky they didn't face some serious rivalry. Much of the infrastructure were laid to ruins because of the Sabotage attempts by both sides. There were many material conditions that were essentially necessary to wipe out the entire country.


BCS
What alternative was there?

None in a materialist point of view. When does anarchists analyse any situations materialistically.

[Rawthentic]

No, the Bolshevik leadership was one the most advanced in the world I would say, in terms of revolutionary Marxist theory.

The proletariat was backwards relative to the "developed" world in that a good part had no literacy skills or didnt even know how to handle machinery, and this hurt self-management.

Also, during the Civil War, the best proletarians who were class conscious and could help their fellow workers were volunteered and most died.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 09:20 pm
No, the Bolshevik leadership was one the most advanced in the world I would say, in terms of revolutionary Marxist theory.
But certainly they did not carry out the February Revolution. The Soldiers and workers of Russia did that.



The proletariat was backwards relative to the "developed" world in that a good part had no literacy skills or didnt even know how to handle machinery, and this hurt self-management.

No you are underestimating the workers of Petrograd Soviet. They weer quite advanced that the Menshevik economist program was very successful among them. They were as much aware of the world situation that the supported the Bolshevik insurrection.


Also, during the Civil War, the best proletarians who were class conscious and could help their fellow workers were volunteered and most died.

This is somewhat correct. It was this vacancy of positions which was filled by Stalin when he was made the general secretary of the party.

[Rawthentic]

I don't underestimate them, it was a fact that were undeveloped relative to the "first" world where workers definitely had better basic skills. I don't doubt that they had a high degree of class consciousness, but that has nothing to do with what I am saying.