Worker's State

[Sonnie]

How, in communism, is it proposed to protect the revolution against state capitalists?
If it is a dictatorship, then the leader has absolute power. Most people wanting such power, are not communists at all. They think themselves higher, more deserving, or are tyrranizing.
In anarchism, there is no dictatorship, but then how are we suppose to reach this goal of freedom? Capitalism has so much brainwashed most of the public's mind, that reeducation is necessary. How can an entire nation/world be reeducated without a temporary government to educate? How can we ensure that they do not fill the world with lies similar to those we're fed now?
How do we ensure that those educating are leaders without being authorative? How do we then abolish this system, or do we not?

I know that there can be no specific plan, but there must be at least some consideration to these questions.

[Chocobo]

Class conciousness.

[Rawthentic]

How, in communism, is it proposed to protect the revolution against state capitalists?
Thats socialism. And its by the working class organized as the ruling class and represses the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie through its armed populace. After there are no capitalists to repress and class antagonisms have been eliminated, the state then withers away, leaving communism.

The working class is "educated" and gains class-consciousness through their struggles and through the work of the proletarian vanguard, that necessarily takes on the role of a "guiding force".

[RedLenin]

The workers state is a radically different form of state, arising due to acute class antagonisms that still exist within a proletarian revolution. In order to really understand this complex subject, we need to start with a definition of the word "state".

For marxists, the state is a coercive apparatus arising due to the irreconcilability of class antagonisms and existing to defend the economic hegemony of the ruling class. As long as there are classes, there is no peace. The violence that comes with classes is concentrated in a state apparatus, which maintains the rule of that class which owns the means of production.

A proletarian revolution will smash the bourgeois state, which only exists to defend the economic and social monopoly of the bourgeoisie. Yet this revolution will not happen everywhere all at once, and the bourgeoisie is not going to just bow down and allow us to pry their source of existence out of their hands. They will fight like hell to maintain there privilages and you can bet imperialist nations will attempt to drown any proletarian revolution in blood. For these real material reasons, the proletariat will need to be armed and organized as ruling class and wage class war against the bourgeoisie both nationally and internationally. For this, the proletariat will need to organize itself into an apparatus, with the specific purpose of smashing the bourgeoisie. Hence, the proletariat will need its own state, though of a radically different form.

A proletarian state is not a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense of the word. For marxists, dictatorship means the domination of one class by another. When we say we are for the proletarian dictatorship, we mean working class power. A proletarian state necessary takes a radically democratic form, but it is indeed a state in that it is an apparatus which exists to violently suppress people, though the people being suppressed are the oppressors. The proletarian state is a necessary part of the overall project of proletarian emancipation, and is the means by which the proletarian maintains its new-found economic and social hegemony. This state fades away as the proletarian revolution succeeds in every country in the world. Once workers states come into existence everywhere, and once the old bourgeoisie is integrated into the proletariat, the proletarian apparatus will lose its political character and cease to be a state. It's fuction will change from that of suppressing people to the administation of affairs. That is what marxists mean by the "withering away" of the state.

For a more indepth analysis of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat, I highly recommend reading State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm) by Lenin.

[Janus]

Capitalism has so much brainwashed most of the public's mind, that reeducation is necessary.
Capitalism doesn't brainwash people, capitalists do. Post-revolution, there are no capitalists as they no longer own the means of production. As people's lives change, their attitudes will as well and I would trust them to think for themselves rather than rely on any "re-education"


How can an entire nation/world be reeducated without a temporary government to educate? How can we ensure that they do not fill the world with lies similar to those we're fed now?
This is based on the assumption that even in a post-capitalist world, that the people will simply believe whatever reactionaries tell them and that they can't analyze things for themselves. Any type of re-education program would be based on this paternalistic attitude which would be antithetical to the concept of a worker's revolution itself.

[Sonnie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 08:27 pm


A proletarian revolution will smash the bourgeois state, which only exists to defend the economic and social monopoly of the bourgeoisie. Yet this revolution will not happen everywhere all at once, and the bourgeoisie is not going to just bow down and allow us to pry their source of existence out of their hands. They will fight like hell to maintain there privilages and you can bet imperialist nations will attempt to drown any proletarian revolution in blood. For these real material reasons, the proletariat will need to be armed and organized as ruling class and wage class war against the bourgeoisie both nationally and internationally. For this, the proletariat will need to organize itself into an apparatus, with the specific purpose of smashing the bourgeoisie. Hence, the proletariat will need its own state, though of a radically different form.

A proletarian state is not a dictatorship in the bourgeois sense of the word. For marxists, dictatorship means the domination of one class by another. When we say we are for the proletarian dictatorship, we mean working class power. A proletarian state necessary takes a radically democratic form, but it is indeed a state in that it is an apparatus which exists to violently suppress people, though the people being suppressed are the oppressors. The proletarian state is a necessary part of the overall project of proletarian emancipation, and is the means by which the proletarian maintains its new-found economic and social hegemony. This state fades away as the proletarian revolution succeeds in every country in the world. Once workers states come into existence everywhere, and once the old bourgeoisie is integrated into the proletariat, the proletarian apparatus will lose its political character and cease to be a state. It's fuction will change from that of suppressing people to the administation of affairs. That is what marxists mean by the "withering away" of the state.

For a more indepth analysis of the state and the dictatorship of the proletariat, I highly recommend reading State and Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm) by Lenin.
It seems to me, that such a revolution would end in one of two ways.
1) like the French Revolution, sending all so-called traitors to the revolution to death. This is just as, if not more so, oppressive than our current government.

2) Like that of the Spanish Revolution. The bourgeoisie simply blending in, until they have a chance to reemerge.

Although I do agree with the ideals of communism and anarchism, I do not see how it can come about. If it is indeed a violent revolution, where do we get our arms?

I imagine it to be similar to past revolutions, like the Spanish, where weaponry was very limited, and not very good.

Such an organizing would attract a lot of state attention. It would be completely necessary for us to be completely prepared before it was brought to their attention. Impossible! If we were not prepared, I think it would end maybe like the WTO riots od Seattle, or NTAA protests of Miami.

I think a more popular government should take over first, such as a libertarian one. That would most likely get the majority vote, if more were made aware of it. Through a socialist libertarianism, I think the state would "wither away" much easier.

Through this, non authoritative collectives, co-ops, organizations could manage things like health care and education, non violently, or at least with much less violence.

[Question everything]

Hey I asked the same question on this site.

But no money, no capitalists, if capitalism is entirely eliminated, then they capitalists would have no status to fight for...

[Rawthentic]

Who cares where the arms come from? We'll take them from the factories or caches or simply wherever they are stored. The proletarian state will be oppressive, but against our former oppressors, that is to say oppression of a minority by a majority. A popular government is not going to take over, whatever you mean by that. The proletariat will seize state power by arming itself, and will eliminate bureaucracy by making the representative institutions into working bodies rather than talking ones and paying our elected representatives equal to that of our salaries. And most important, instant recall.

And take RedLenin's advice to read Lenin's State and Revolution, because as far as I'm, concerned, theres no better work that explains precisely what you ask for.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 02:36 pm
It seems to me, that such a revolution would end in one of two ways.
1) like the French Revolution, sending all so-called traitors to the revolution to death. This is just as, if not more so, oppressive than our current government.

2) Like that of the Spanish Revolution. The bourgeoisie simply blending in, until they have a chance to reemerge.

Although I do agree with the ideals of communism and anarchism, I do not see how it can come about. If it is indeed a violent revolution, where do we get our arms?

I imagine it to be similar to past revolutions, like the Spanish, where weaponry was very limited, and not very good.

Such an organizing would attract a lot of state attention. It would be completely necessary for us to be completely prepared before it was brought to their attention. Impossible! If we were not prepared, I think it would end maybe like the WTO riots od Seattle, or NTAA protests of Miami.

I think a more popular government should take over first, such as a libertarian one. That would most likely get the majority vote, if more were made aware of it. Through a socialist libertarianism, I think the state would "wither away" much easier.

Through this, non authoritative collectives, co-ops, organizations could manage things like health care and education, non violently, or at least with much less violence.
What is the problem with sending traitors to death? What is the problem with killing someone who took pride in killing and oppressing the workers under capitalism?

Where do revolutionaries get arms? Where does anyone get arms?

It seems like you are a pacifist. Are you? So you don't like the idea of being violent against people that are going to be violent against you? Whenever the people come together and want freedom they are going to be met with violence. There are two things you can do in that situation. Fight for freedom or sit down and take it.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 03, 2007 08:02 am
What is the problem with sending traitors to death? What is the problem with killing someone who took pride in killing and oppressing the workers under capitalism?
Revenge is a pointless and uncompassionate standard to set. Violence should only be employed when necessary and executing people for the sake of some perceived notion of working class "justice" is not necessary.


It seems like you are a pacifist. Are you? So you don't like the idea of being violent against people that are going to be violent against you?

Let's have a bit of perspective.

Violence is a necessity in order to defend gains made by the working class. It's not a preference and having that position does not make you a pacifist.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Perhaps the violent comrades should be controlled and contained until after everything has simmered down. As for a Leninist form of government--no thanks. A workers administraton would be fine without a forceful hand..er...guidance.

[Enragé]

which theoretically is a leninist form of government :P

just saying..

[Sonnie]

Originally posted by Chicano [email protected] 03, 2007 07:02 am

It seems like you are a pacifist. Are you? So you don't like the idea of being violent against people that are going to be violent against you? Whenever the people come together and want freedom they are going to be met with violence. There are two things you can do in that situation. Fight for freedom or sit down and take it.
No, I'm not a pacifist, I just think that violence only goes so far. Through violence comes resentment. Violence makes the oppressed group together, and revolt. It also catches attention fom other nations. America is a big nation in the world, it would be noticed what was going on, and our working class army could never beat multiple nations fighting against us. Plus, we'd need most of the nation fighting, when not most of the nation is commie.

A popular resistance seems more sensible.

Besides violence towards the government, violence would be little, and therefore not attract that much attention.

[Rawthentic]

It is a popular resistance, and that is why we need a worldwide socialist revolution to aid the new revolutionary working class in its struggle against the counter-revolutionary bourgeoisie.

[Question everything]

The rich are a minority in itself, once solidarity was established, then they are screwed.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

NKOS wrotewhich theoretically is a leninist form of government

just saying...

Hardly, a confederation of industries is not political in nature whatsoever. No one will be calling shots from a central political planning authority. Class conciousness does not translate into workers being disciples of a vanguard. Those who want political power are those who believe they are superior. I would rather take my chances under capitalist rule than under Leninist rule. At least I know I have some protection under the law and some civil liberties even though I know I am exploited at the point of production.

If a new society is ever birthed its going to be centered around production and distribution. What society does as a whole is an unknown factor. It's not going to be made in someones image. I don't think they would follow something that should of been left in the dust bin of history.

[RedLenin]

Hardly, a confederation of industries is not political in nature whatsoever.
The proletariat cannot ignore politics. If you hold that position you will never have a revolution. Yes, the workers must take control of the economy, but that is not enough. The proletariat must enforce this economic hegemony by means of a violent political apparatus. A centralized union of workers councils, whos function is the suppression of the oppressor class, is indeed a state, a workers state.


No one will be calling shots from a central political planning authority.
If you believe in workers councils as organs of proletarian power, you believe in centralism. Local soviets form regional soviets, regional soviets form a national congress of soviets, a national congress elects a central committee as the national governing body in between congresses. This is central authority, but it is central authority that is delegated from below and can be removed from below, by means of recall. In a workers state the rank and file has control over the leadership.


Class conciousness does not translate into workers being disciples of a vanguard.
Workers will be self-governing fighters in a workers state. That does not mean they must ignore politics. It means the opposite in fact. If the workers join and follow a party, that is because they see that the party represents their class interests. This does not mean that they become mindless drones, it means that they administer society with other workers under a common banner.


Those who want political power are those who believe they are superior.
Those who want political power and those who think a revolution is necessary. Those who want political power and those with nothing to lose but their chains. The proletariat absolutely needs political power, this is part of the overall process of self-emancipation. No one will snap their fingers and usher in a communist world. A long, drawn-out process of violent world-wide revolution is necessary. A fundamental part of this revolutionary process is the conquering of political power by the proletariat.


I would rather take my chances under capitalist rule than under Leninist rule.
I would hardly consider the state apparatus of the Soviet Union under Stalin or of China under Mao to be "Leninist". A real workers state would involve maximum personal freedom and maximum workers democracy, within the overall framework of its purpose: the violent suppression of the bourgeoisie. Struggle, sacrafice, and discipline will play a role in such a state, but a healthy workers state necessarily involves freedom and democracy for the laboring masses.


At least I know I have some protection under the law and some civil liberties
See how fast that changes when you are drafted. See how fast that changes after another terrorist attack. The bourgeoisie only utilizes parlimentary democracy when its domination is not threatened. It is perfectly willing to use the most brutal dictatorships and the most savage force when it feels it necessary to maintain its rule. The existence of your "civil liberties" depends on how tightly the bourgeoisie feels it has a grip on power.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by "Sonnie"+--> ("Sonnie")How, in communism, is it proposed to protect the revolution against state capitalists?[/b]
Continual struggle in both word and action against state-capitalists. The Chinese Communists were the first to really expirement with this on a broad scale a la the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s. I think its important as modern communists to analyze and adapt this view in continious revolution towards communism through the shifting of ideas and ways through cultural renovation and self-creativity of the masses.


Originally posted by "Sonnie"+--> ("Sonnie")If it is a dictatorship, then the leader has absolute power. Most people wanting such power, are not communists at all. They think themselves higher, more deserving, or are tyrranizing.[/b]
The phase in between capitalism and communism is often called the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. This is not an individual dictatorship or the dictatorship of the communist party but a class dictatorship of the whole proletariat over and with their class allies against the bourgeoisie.

The role of the communists in this dictatorship is none other than to act as the most forward thinking sect of the working class who encourages and educates its fellow members. Most workers don't think in terms of Marxist anti-capitalism and likewise don't struggle against ruling class ideas in the same way Marxists do but most workers already understand the alienation of the '9-to-5', the 'rat race', the 'old grindstone', etc. and as a class have demonstrated a historical tendency to develop their own political forms against capitalism. Communists give this form a revolutionary and humanist content. Essentially, communists are ideological combatants as well as foot soldiers in the revolution.


"Sonnie"@
Capitalism has so much brainwashed most of the public's mind, that reeducation is necessary. How can an entire nation/world be reeducated without a temporary government to educate? How can we ensure that they do not fill the world with lies similar to those we're fed now?
Well as I said most workers are fed up with capitalism but don't think other solutions are viable or think this is the way things have always been. The revolution activates the inner core of the working class — their un-fulfilled repressed desires for freedom and self-creativity. Revolution is catharsis. It sets free all of our repressed emotions in an act of objective destruction through creation. Once people feel confident in themselves and the future they can fully enjoy themselves as human beings and clearly work towards emancipation.


"Sonnie"
How do we ensure that those educating are leaders without being authorative? How do we then abolish this system, or do we not?
As communists move within the political forms created by working class we must advocate a form of organistion that is democratic and inclusive of all members of the working class — young and old, Black and white, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, and all varieties in-between. In short these organisations must strive towards three 'principles': liberty, equality, solidarity. Libertarian, in that each worker has a right to freely express their opinions without fear or reserve. Egalitarian, in that each worker has equal say and equal power within the organisation. Solidaritarian, in that each worker is secure in knowing that the other workers will be there for them and collectively work towards the emancipation of all of them. These principles also apply between organisations.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

RedLenin wrote:The proletariat cannot ignore politics. If you hold that position you will never have a revolution. Yes, the workers must take control of the economy, but that is not enough. The proletariat must enforce this economic hegemony by means of a violent political apparatus. A centralized union of workers councils, whos function is the suppression of the oppressor class, is indeed a state, a workers state.

I just felt as if I walked into a "B" Cold War movie. Workers are a majority. The capitalist class is but a small group of people. All the politics that workers would want to do is have an actual election to for the sole purpose of holding the military and police back while the workers lock the capitalist out of industry. After that is done the political government ajourns itself leaving workers in control of the means of production. This is the Republic of Labor. Perhaps a volunteer police force could keep the peace in each community. I really don't see a need for a violent political apparatus. Is it to keep the workers under control of the vangaurd?

If you believe in workers councils as organs of proletarian power, you believe in centralism. Local soviets form regional soviets, regional soviets form a national congress of soviets, a national congress elects a central committee as the national governing body in between congresses. This is central authority, but it is central authority that is delegated from below and can be removed from below, by means of recall. In a workers state the rank and file has control over the leadership.

Ah, no...what is produced and distributed is determined by the social stores when workers exchange their Time Labor Vouchers for items produced. Yes the rank and file would have control over elected administrators but the workers mostly would fill orders in each industry and deliver those items to where ever they would go to. Whatever councils come together would be for paving roads or building bridges. The IWW would know how to handle that since they have many departments of industry and very much part of the Republic of Labor.

Workers will be self-governing fighters in a workers state. That does not mean they must ignore politics. It means the opposite in fact. If the workers join and follow a party, that is because they see that the party represents their class interests. This does not mean that they become mindless drones, it means that they administer society with other workers under a common banner.

There is a lot here to say the least and I agree that workers cannot ignore politics. Workers just don't have that sort of trust and would rather be apolitical. The Anarchist would not follow a party and historically I can agree with them on that.

Those who want political power and those who think a revolution is necessary. Those who want political power and those with nothing to lose but their chains. The proletariat absolutely needs political power, this is part of the overall process of self-emancipation. No one will snap their fingers and usher in a communist world. A long, drawn-out process of violent world-wide revolution is necessary. A fundamental part of this revolutionary process is the conquering of political power by the proletariat.

No...the workers have to awaken to the fact that they already are in control of the means of production. The capitalist is absent these days unlike in the past.

I would hardly consider the state apparatus of the Soviet Union under Stalin or of China under Mao to be "Leninist". A real workers state would involve maximum personal freedom and maximum workers democracy, within the overall framework of its purpose: the violent suppression of the bourgeoisie. Struggle, sacrafice, and discipline will play a role in such a state, but a healthy workers state necessarily involves freedom and democracy for the laboring masses.

But it always has a tendency of going in a Stalinist direction.

See how fast that changes when you are drafted. See how fast that changes after another terrorist attack. The bourgeoisie only utilizes parlimentary democracy when its domination is not threatened. It is perfectly willing to use the most brutal dictatorships and the most savage force when it feels it necessary to maintain its rule. The existence of your "civil liberties" depends on how tightly the bourgeoisie feels it has a grip on power.

I understand that but seeing how the Soviet model turned out makes me feel not so threatened here in the U.S.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 03, 2007 02:11 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 03, 2007 02:11 am)
Chicano [email protected] 03, 2007 08:02 am
What is the problem with sending traitors to death? What is the problem with killing someone who took pride in killing and oppressing the workers under capitalism?
Revenge is a pointless and uncompassionate standard to set. Violence should only be employed when necessary and executing people for the sake of some perceived notion of working class "justice" is not necessary.
[/b]
I was not talking about sending traitors to death to have revenge. I was talking about it to stop the counter-revolution or slow it down.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 01:08 am

Hardly, a confederation of industries is not political in nature whatsoever.
The proletariat cannot ignore politics. If you hold that position you will never have a revolution. Yes, the workers must take control of the economy, but that is not enough. The proletariat must enforce this economic hegemony by means of a violent political apparatus. A centralized union of workers councils, whos function is the suppression of the oppressor class, is indeed a state, a workers state.


No one will be calling shots from a central political planning authority.
If you believe in workers councils as organs of proletarian power, you believe in centralism. Local soviets form regional soviets, regional soviets form a national congress of soviets, a national congress elects a central committee as the national governing body in between congresses. This is central authority, but it is central authority that is delegated from below and can be removed from below, by means of recall. In a workers state the rank and file has control over the leadership.


Class conciousness does not translate into workers being disciples of a vanguard.
Workers will be self-governing fighters in a workers state. That does not mean they must ignore politics. It means the opposite in fact. If the workers join and follow a party, that is because they see that the party represents their class interests. This does not mean that they become mindless drones, it means that they administer society with other workers under a common banner.


Those who want political power are those who believe they are superior.
Those who want political power and those who think a revolution is necessary. Those who want political power and those with nothing to lose but their chains. The proletariat absolutely needs political power, this is part of the overall process of self-emancipation. No one will snap their fingers and usher in a communist world. A long, drawn-out process of violent world-wide revolution is necessary. A fundamental part of this revolutionary process is the conquering of political power by the proletariat.


I would rather take my chances under capitalist rule than under Leninist rule.
I would hardly consider the state apparatus of the Soviet Union under Stalin or of China under Mao to be "Leninist". A real workers state would involve maximum personal freedom and maximum workers democracy, within the overall framework of its purpose: the violent suppression of the bourgeoisie. Struggle, sacrafice, and discipline will play a role in such a state, but a healthy workers state necessarily involves freedom and democracy for the laboring masses.


At least I know I have some protection under the law and some civil liberties
See how fast that changes when you are drafted. See how fast that changes after another terrorist attack. The bourgeoisie only utilizes parlimentary democracy when its domination is not threatened. It is perfectly willing to use the most brutal dictatorships and the most savage force when it feels it necessary to maintain its rule. The existence of your "civil liberties" depends on how tightly the bourgeoisie feels it has a grip on power.
I'm sorry I don't have the inclination to respond to your points but the concepts of of a workers state and democratic centralism are both founded on a false premise.

You cannot centralise control and have it democratic at the same time. Although the theory may work, the practical application of it is inherently flawed. Centralisation requires hierarchy and hierarchy negates any standard of democracy.

A central committee controls, that's the bottom line and in that sense it's not a "workers" state but a "party" state.

[Rawthentic]

The main point is that the proletariat must create its own state to repress the capitalists and administer the transition.

Utopian dreams about destroying the state overnight might as well be kept for sleeping.


As communists move within the political forms created by working class we must advocate a form of organistion that is democratic and inclusive of all members of the working class — young and old, Black and white, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, and all varieties in-between. In short these organisations must strive towards three 'principles': liberty, equality, solidarity. Libertarian, in that each worker has a right to freely express their opinions without fear or reserve. Egalitarian, in that each worker has equal say and equal power within the organisation. Solidaritarian, in that each worker is secure in knowing that the other workers will be there for them and collectively work towards the emancipation of all of them. These principles also apply between organisations.

Now this is what I'm talking about. Very good point, I think that as communists this is what he must strive for.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:48 pm
The main point is that the proletariat must create its own state to repress the capitalists and administer the transition.

Utopian dreams about destroying the state overnight might as well be kept for sleeping.
The theory is well documented so there really is no point repeating it.

As I have already stated the theory of a workers state is founded on a false premise. Although those at the higher end of the hierarchy (central committee) may have been workers (although they usually haven't) they no longer are workers when they take control of a centralised political/economic apparatus the state undoubtedly is.

They are at best a bureaucracy and at worst a ruling class.


Utopian dreams about destroying the state overnight might as well be kept for sleeping.

Rhetoric is not a substitute for argument.

The theory of the destruction of the state has not yet been falsified, unlike the theory of a workers state and in fact witnessed a very important level of success in the anarchist liberated areas of Spain during the civil war.

Although the practice has not been implemented on a national or cross-national level the indications are that decentralising political and economic control can work

As both Marxists and anarchists can agree, the destruction of the state will ultimately safe guard the revolution from failure. If it works there really is no reason to maintain centralisation.

Well, unless of course the purpose is to exact a political dictatorship. That Leninism has had much success in.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 04, 2007 04:48 pm
As communists move within the political forms created by working class we must advocate a form of organistion that is democratic and inclusive of all members of the working class — young and old, Black and white, male and female, heterosexual and homosexual, and all varieties in-between. In short these organisations must strive towards three 'principles': liberty, equality, solidarity.
The only way that can be realised is through a decentralised, direct and federated for of organsiation.


Libertarian, in that each worker has a right to freely express their opinions without fear or reserve. Egalitarian, in that each worker has equal say and equal power within the organisation. Solidaritarian, in that each worker is secure in knowing that the other workers will be there for them and collectively work towards the emancipation of all of them. These principles also apply between organisations.

How do you expect to achieve that through a political dictatorship realised in the centralisation of power.

If this is truely what you want then the "communist" movement needs to move past the failures of Leninism and embrace a new analysis.

[Rawthentic]

Although those at the higher end of the hierarchy (central committee) may have been workers (although they usually haven't) they no longer are workers when they take control of a centralised political/economic apparatus the state undoubtedly is.

They are at best a bureaucracy and at worst a ruling class.
I agree. Which is I am so against the RCP and Avakian and all, and for what Hopscotch said in his last post.

The theory of the workers state has not been falsified. You sound like those happy capitalists when the Berlin Wall fell saying that "communism is dead" and that this is the "end of human history." As long as there are class antagonisms after the revolution, which there will, and capitalists that want to bring the old order back, which there will, there will always be the necessity for a worker's state as armed bodies to repress the the counter-revolutionaries. I am definitely against the hierarchy you speak of, but thats why we can implement instant recall, equal salary pay for elected representatives, universal suffrage, etc.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:14 pm
The theory of the workers state has not been falsified.
I'm not in the business of trying to convince the deluded of their delusion. If you people continue to argue for the workers state you will continue to fail.

If history is not enough to prove the falsification of the workers state then really, nothing ever will.


You sound like those happy capitalists when the Berlin Wall fell saying that "communism is dead" and that this is the "end of human history."

:rolleyes: No I don't.


As long as there are class antagonisms after the revolution, which there will, and capitalists that want to bring the old order back, which there will, there will always be the necessity for a worker's state as armed bodies to repress the the counter-revolutionaries.

Fine, but the centralisation of political and economic power will not "wither away". This has been proven to be the case.


I am definitely against the hierarchy you speak of, but thats why we can implement instant recall, equal salary pay for elected representatives, universal suffrage, etc.

You cannot implement those things while the centralisation of political and economic control exists.

[Rawthentic]

When I say "centralization", I mean in the hands of the proletariat, completely, not in the hands of Party elites.

It seems reasonable that we cant implement instant recall, equal salary pay for elected representatives, universal suffrage, etc., under the centralization of control in a few hands, but as I said, this control must be in the hands of the armed workers.


Fine, but the centralisation of political and economic power will not "wither away". This has been proven to be the case.

What do you mean "fine"? You agree with me? You're confusing.


I think we agree with each other but we are now arguing semantics on "workers state" and "centralization."

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:28 pm
When I say "centralization", I mean in the hands of the proletariat, completely, not in the hands of Party elites.
That's not practically possible. Centralisation requires hierarchy in order for it to operate. If you have hierarchy you no longer have direct democracy. You have a central committee exercising political control on party lines for the purpose of maintaining it's control.


It seems reasonable that we cant implement instant recall, equal salary pay for elected representatives, universal suffrage, etc., under the centralization of control in a few hands, but as I said, this control must be in the hands of the armed workers.

Centralisation is a funnel type organsiation going from the base to the top of the tube. It get's narrower and narrower as you centralise. That's the point of it.

You cannot centralise power to everyone. That's essentially decentralisation.


I think we agree with each other but we are now arguing semantics on "workers state" and "centralization."

Not at all. Centralisation is a very specific political organisation and it's this specific organsiation that will destroy a revolution.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yeah when Marxist refer to centralisation it refers to centralisation of power to a class not representatives of that class.

But, Marx pointed out that government should be government by all the people in the class, and like trade unions elect their representatives so should the workers in a workers state.

There really isnt an argument here if you think in class terms.

[Rawthentic]

Very well. So, can I make the conclusion that you are for decentralization of power in the hands of the working class, but you agree that the we need to arm ourselves to smash the counter-revolutionaries?


You cannot centralise power to everyone. That's essentially decentralisation.
Then I am with you. But this yet does not negate socialism, "workers state", or as in the League, "working people's republic." As I said about 2 posts ago:

As long as there are class antagonisms after the revolution, which there will, and capitalists that want to bring the old order back, which there will, there will always be the necessity for a worker's state as armed bodies to repress the the counter-revolutionaries.

Thats all I am saying comrade.

[RedLenin]

Centralisation requires hierarchy in order for it to operate.
In a sense. Yet this hierarchy does not need to be absolute. First of all, yes, if you give all power to a small group of people we will not get to communism. I agree. But, that is why Marx set out some parameters for a healthy workers state.

Election of all bodies from the bottom up. We know how this works. Local councils send delegates to a regional council, regional councils send delegates to a national congress, the congress elects a central council. Each delegate needs to periodically meet with the electorate for purposes of acountability. And, any delegate can be recalled at any time. These measures help to ensure that the leaders, as they are concentrated in the higher organs of power, are accountable to the base. The rank-and-file has control.

Also, every offical would receive a wage equal to that of an average worker. This measure would eliminate any trace of careerism associated with government. Further, there will be no standing army, just the armed people. Without an army or police force, any higher body will have no means to enforce anything. The base will have to voluntarily enforce the decrees from above, through their own armed action.

This form of state, which is really only a semi-state, is what Marxists want.


If history is not enough to prove the falsification of the workers state
Well, I consider the October revolution to be the only successful proletarian revolution. So all of those other alleged socialist states, based on Stalin's Moscow, are not relevant. It is relevant as to why the Russian Revolution degenerated, and that has best been show by Trotsky. Certainly the Bolsheviks made some mistakes too, but to ignore material factors and blame the degeneration on Marxism itself is absurd and idealist.

[FOREVER LEFT]

The revolution is not going to happen in AmeriKKKa anytime soon. The Third World is where poverty is taking place. Sure there is poverty in the U.S. But compare our poverty to the poor in the Third World, it's like night and day. I think fascism is prime and ready to strike the U.S. if it hasn't already.

I wish the revolution would happen here because we have so much clout and influence around the world that other nations would look to us and say, "Let's do what they're doing."

[Rawthentic]

Thats what I'm talking about RedLenin, you got it right.

Its only logical that there will need to be a state to defend what has been won, and the measures you stated are necessary ones to prevent bureaucracy, careerism, and centralization of power in a few hands.

[More Fire for the People]

Centralisation does not mean hierarchy it means representation through delegation and voluntary discipline.

[Rawthentic]

So we are arguing semantics. But Hopscotch, regarding previous socialist revolutions, do you think we can trust "voluntary discipline"?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:40 pm
Yeah when Marxist refer to centralisation it refers to centralisation of power to a class not representatives of that class.
How is that practically possible?

Look, the whole concept of centralisation is the "the act of consolidating power under a central control" to "gather to a centre".

You cannot consolidate power to a central control that includes the entire working class? The point of centralisation is to bring into the centre control to a governing body that executes power on "behalf" of the working class. This is the Leninist paradigm.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:44 pm

You cannot centralise power to everyone. That's essentially decentralisation.
Then I am with you. But this yet does not negate socialism, "workers state", or as in the League, "working people's republic." As I said about
Your argument is incredibly confused. You seem to be arguing for the centralisation of political control i.e. a 'Socialist state' yet at the same time you say you centralisation is more desirable.

You cannot have centralisation and decentralisation at the same time. It's either one or the other.


As long as there are class antagonisms after the revolution, which there will, and capitalists that want to bring the old order back, which there will, there will always be the necessity for a worker's state as armed bodies to repress the the counter-revolutionaries.

That's misleading. A state is not simply defined by it's purpose but by its structure. A state is the centralisation of political control for the purpose of repressing a class (not counter-revolutionaries).

[Rawthentic]

Your argument is incredibly confused. You seem to be arguing for the centralisation of political control i.e. a 'Socialist state' yet at the same time you say you centralisation is more desirable.

You cannot have centralisation and decentralisation at the same time. It's either one or the other.

I'm arguing for the logical necessity for a state to repress the capitalists. This does not mean that all power will rest on the Party elites, it will mean that it rests on the hands of the armed workers. I am for what RedLenin said:


Election of all bodies from the bottom up. We know how this works. Local councils send delegates to a regional council, regional councils send delegates to a national congress, the congress elects a central council. Each delegate needs to periodically meet with the electorate for purposes of acountability. And, any delegate can be recalled at any time. These measures help to ensure that the leaders, as they are concentrated in the higher organs of power, are accountable to the base. The rank-and-file has control.

Also, every offical would receive a wage equal to that of an average worker. This measure would eliminate any trace of careerism associated with government. Further, there will be no standing army, just the armed people. Without an army or police force, any higher body will have no means to enforce anything. The base will have to voluntarily enforce the decrees from above, through their own armed action.

This form of state, which is really only a semi-state, is what Marxists want.

Here's the deal: do you fail to recognize that the working class must arm itself as a ruling class to repress the counter-revolutionaries? They must be repressed to defend what we have won, and the structure I argue for is for what RedLenin outlined.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 06:39 pm

Centralisation requires hierarchy in order for it to operate.
In a sense. Yet this hierarchy does not need to be absolute.
That's irrelevant.


Election of all bodies from the bottom up. We know how this works. Local councils send delegates to a regional council, regional councils send delegates to a national congress, the congress elects a central council.

This is nothing more than rhetoric. The reality is that, based on Trotsky's own theory of praxis, a political party dominates either through entryism or by force all political bodies until it has exercised full authority. Political parties exist to exact their political line and will use any tactic. This much is proven to be fact.

In any case, a central committee will allow such elections only until the working class elect officials that stand in opposition to it, or at the very least continue to employ authoritarian tactics to dominate such elections. You simply cannot have a centralised structure and allow direct democracy, it's impossible in a practical sense.

The central committee has one point of view that cannot deviate. This has historically been the case and is in fact the nature of centralisation.


This form of state, which is really only a semi-state, is what Marxists want.

And it doesn't work.



If history is not enough to prove the falsification of the workers state
Well, I consider the October revolution to be the only successful proletarian revolution.

But it wasn't successful!

The argument about material factors does not apply to this argument. The working class was sizeable within the cities for the theory to be applied successfully and it failed and it did so because political control was centralised into the hands of individuals thus allowing the state to continue its existence in perpetuity.

No matter whether you call it absurd or idealist the facts are clear to anyone who is not blinded by party lines and hero-worshipping.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 04, 2007 10:28 pm
Centralisation does not mean hierarchy it means representation through delegation and voluntary discipline.
Then how do you have centralisation without it?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:19 am

Your argument is incredibly confused. You seem to be arguing for the centralisation of political control i.e. a 'Socialist state' yet at the same time you say you centralisation is more desirable.

You cannot have centralisation and decentralisation at the same time. It's either one or the other.

I'm arguing for the logical necessity for a state to repress the capitalists.
And I can see that argument but the question here is that if you have a state, you will not create communism.


This does not mean that all power will rest on the Party elites, it will mean that it rests on the hands of the armed workers.

If you call for a state and create one then power will "rest on the Party elites". That's the point of a state.

You have to make a choice. Either you advocate the centralisation of power or the decentralisation of it? Whether you call it a state is up to you.


Here's the deal: do you fail to recognize that the working class must arm itself as a ruling class to repress the counter-revolutionaries?

Why do you keep repeating this? Of course I believe taht they should "arm themselves" but they should do so within a decentralised political structure.


They must be repressed to defend what we have won, and the structure I argue for is for what RedLenin outlined.

Then we will not achieve a communist society.

[Rawthentic]

Anarchist Tension, I must say that your argument is strong, but can you then explain for yourself what the alternative is to socialism and the repression of counter-revolutionaries as well as its structure?

[Rawthentic]

Why do you keep repeating this? Of course I believe taht they should "arm themselves" but they should do so within a decentralised political structure.
I am for its decentralization, but a body of armed workers as well as a transition to communism. Fair enough?

[Rawthentic]

Are you gonna respond TAT?

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+April 04, 2007 05:22 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ April 04, 2007 05:22 pm)
Hopscotch [email protected] 04, 2007 10:28 pm
Centralisation does not mean hierarchy it means representation through delegation and voluntary discipline.
Then how do you have centralisation without it? [/b]
A provincal, national, or some other central congress of local assemblies, workers’ councils, unions, etc. can composed of delegates who agree to abide by the conventions rulings or otherwise not partake in the convention [ or some similar arrangement ] is both delegatory and centralised without hierarchy.

[RedLenin]

The reality is that, based on Trotsky's own theory of praxis, a political party dominates either through entryism or by force all political bodies until it has exercised full authority.
Yes. Your point? We live in a class society in which the masses are split into different classes with different interests and ideas. Political parties are a political manifestation of this. Classes are led by parties. The existence of classes and parties are facts that cannot be simply wished away. The dictatorship of the proletariat, which involves representative structures, necessarily involves political parties. As long as representative structures exist, parties will exist. Soviet power is a state in that it has political characteristics; armed force, representative structures, and political parties.

The Bolsheviks were the most influential political party in the soviets and they existed along with the other parties, at least initially. The banning of other parties and factions by the Soviet government during the civil war was a temporary war measure, not a matter of theory. Lenin always empasized that, in a healthy workers state, the proletariat will be led by the party that it feels best represents its interests, and the class will be able to recall those party members from their government positions at any time. In this way you have the existence of the dictatorship of the party within the overall dictatorship of the class. Hence, my aformentioned democratic conditions of a healthy workers state still fully apply.


will allow such elections only until the working class elect officials that stand in opposition to it
This is a danger. That is why the provision of not having a standing army is so important. Without a standing army, no party will have a means to dominate the rest of the class. Obviously the armed workers are not going to oppress themselves. We need a general arming of the working population and the formation of workers militas led by the local soviets, not any party.


But it wasn't successful!
Obviously it did not succeed in its goal of sparking off a world-wide revolution that would usher in communism. But, it did succeed in bringing the working class to power.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:27 am
can you then explain for yourself what the alternative is to socialism and the repression of counter-revolutionaries as well as its structure?
I don't really understand the question.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+April 05, 2007 02:54 am--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ April 05, 2007 02:54 am)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 04, 2007 05:22 pm

Hopscotch [email protected] 04, 2007 10:28 pm
Centralisation does not mean hierarchy it means representation through delegation and voluntary discipline.
Then how do you have centralisation without it?
A provincal, national, or some other central congress of local assemblies, workers’ councils, unions, etc. can composed of delegates who agree to abide by the conventions rulings or otherwise not partake in the convention [ or some similar arrangement ] is both delegatory and centralised without hierarchy. [/b]
That doesn't make any sense?

You've simply said some bit words and then said "is both delegatory and centralised without hierarchy".

Well, how is it?

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 02:59 am

The reality is that, based on Trotsky's own theory of praxis, a political party dominates either through entryism or by force all political bodies until it has exercised full authority.
Yes. Your point?
That's not democracy.


We live in a class society in which the masses are split into different classes with different interests and ideas. Political parties are a political manifestation of this. Classes are led by parties. The existence of classes and parties are facts that cannot be simply wished away.

So, essentially your line is "it is democratic providing we're in charge"? Of course that's your line. This is entirely my point!


The dictatorship of the proletariat, which involves representative structures, necessarily involves political parties.

...That use authoritarian tactics to exercise control without regards for any democratic process.


he existence of classes and parties are facts that cannot be simply wished away.

That doesn't logically follow. That's conjecture, not fact.


As long as representative structures exist, parties will exist.

Perhaps, which is fine. The problem is that you speak of democracy and democratic processes that safeguard the integrity of the revolution but in reality and seemingly by admission in this thread, you fully accept the need to enforce party line over them.

Thus creates the centralisation of political control into the hands of a party and negates the notion of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and as historically proves creates a 'dictatorship of the party'.


Soviet power is a state in that it has political characteristics; armed force, representative structures, and political parties.

The Anarchists made heavy concessions during the revolution and participated in the alleged democratic process of the Soviets only to be forced out by party political tactics and then crushed altogether. Kronstadt is an example of demands being made to go through such a process and the result was a propaganda campaign to paint them as 'whites' and outright slaughter.

This is the reality of Leninism and it's centralisation. There is nothing democratic about it. You will exercise your authority without regard.


The banning of other parties and factions by the Soviet government during the civil war was a temporary war measure, not a matter of theory.

Exactly my point! This is the first step and is justified by a "greater good". Incidentally, these political parties were not "unbanned" after the civil war.


Lenin always empasized that, in a healthy workers state, the proletariat will be led by the party that it feels best represents its interests, and the class will be able to recall those party members from their government positions at any time.

There is very little point in electing officials if those officials answer to a central committee of one particular party. That's just a facade of democracy.


In this way you have the existence of the dictatorship of the party within the overall dictatorship of the class. Hence, my aformentioned democratic conditions of a healthy workers state still fully apply.

So now there is a dictatorship of the party?

Direct democracy is a condition where people have the ability to decide for themselves. This healthy workers state is nothing more than a dictatorship of a political party exercised over the class in the "name" of that class submerged in some 'process' that is just as controlled by the party as anything else.



will allow such elections only until the working class elect officials that stand in opposition to it
This is a danger.

You've already admitted that this is acceptable.


Obviously the armed workers are not going to oppress themselves. We need a general arming of the working population and the formation of workers militas led by the local soviets, not any party.

You already accepted that the party must exert its authority over Soviets in the interests of the working class.


But, it did succeed in bringing the working class to power.

It succeeded in bringing the Bolsheviks into power. That's not the same thing.

[TheGreenWeeWee]

Like I wrote in another thread...Leninism is a dead horse with all four legs in the air but the die hards view the horse as alive and standing. To try and bring something like that back again will only end in tears once again.

The idea of political state is as Daniel De Leon said: The governmental administration of capitalism is the State, the government proper (that institution is
purely political). Political power, in the language of Marx, is
merely the organized power of the capitalist class to oppress, to
curb, to keep the working class in subjection. The bourgeois shell in
which the social revolution must partly shape its course dictates the
setting up of a body that shall contest the possession of the
political robber burg by the capitalist class. The reason for such
initial tactics also dictates their ultimate goal - the razing to the
ground of the robber burg of capitalist tyranny. The shops, the
yards, the mills, in short, the mechanical establishments of
production, now in the hands of the capitalist class - they are all to
be "taken," not for the purpose of being destroyed, but for the
purpose of being "held"; for the purpose of improving and enlarging
all the good that is latent in them, and that capitalism dwarfs; in
short, they are to be "taken and held" in order to save them for
civilization. It is exactly the reverse with the "political power." That is
to be taken for the purpose of abolishing it. It follows herefrom
that the goal of the political movement of labor is purely
destructive.

The only use of a socialist political party is to contest the power of the capitalist political machine with the goal to abolish it. The best determination of of what workers want would actually be the ballot. If socialist were elected in office there sole purpose would be the ajournment of the political in favor of the industrial republic of labor. This would be a clear signal to workers to lock out the capitalist--I speak as a De Leonist. There is a Constitutional clause here in the U.S.A. which states: "...it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to reflect their Safety and Happiness." _Declaration of Independence

Article V

"...shall propose amendments to this Constitution..."

"...shall call a convention for proposing amendments..." _Constitution of the United States
I am sure there will be those who are bent on bringing back the old way of things through different physical forms of disruption and causing harm to people. Don't you think the new society will have jails? Of course it will. On the other hand, they can say what they want since the new society would be democratic. The new society would not infringe on individual free speech nor the civil rights of individuals to meet for religious purposes. It would be libertarian. Agencies will exist for family courts, crimes committed against people to the harboring of stray dogs and cats. All of whom are elected by the people themselves. These things are determined at the local level by those who live in those communities. Don't get me wrong...the new society will have some sort of democratic community structure but this is separate from the economic structure since it deals with how humans interact with each other.

Now the only thing administrative is departments heads such who are elected one vote-one person by the workers themselves (I am speaking in terms of a Socialist Industrial Union (SIU)). Whatever is produced and distributed in each department will depend on communication between departments which include social store departments. All departments have to be united at some level because the goals of each have to recognized by the others. If the transportation department wants a new bridge, the mining department has to provide the metal. If the education department wants a new school, the construction department would go to the site to build the school and the furniture assembly department has to provide the desks, etc. We could call that industrial councils but in no way are they political.

Money won't exist either. Labor Time Vouchers (LTV) would have to come into existencce to tally hours. Most likely this will in a form of debit card usage. Labor hours don't circulate which eliminates the profit motive. LTVs can be exchanges for minutes or seconds since products will have "X" amount of necessary labor time contained in them--sorry, not the best of terms but I hope you understand where I am coming from. How can the capitalist come back into power when what was once used for wealth no longer exist? Co-ops and other independent entities who wish to remain separate from the SIU should consider the use of the TLVs so that they can exchange their tally of hours for needed items with the SIU and among themselves.

[RedLenin]

So, essentially your line is "it is democratic providing we're in charge"?
No. It will be democratic no matter what party has the most power in a soviet state. I don't believe in a one-party state, i think that multiple socialist parties can be a good thing. If one party holds the most positions in the soviet government, this is because the masses voted for the individual delegates of that party to those positions. They can easily recall those delegates and replace them will delegates representing another party. Hell, even anarchists could form their own party and participate if they wanted to. Their success would be determined by their ability to convince the masses of the validity of their program.


you fully accept the need to enforce party line over them.
Where have I said that? What I have said is that a soviet state will involve political parties. That is pretty different. Any party that accepts a planned economy can participate in the soviet state. At the same time, all government officials are elected from below, by the masses. The masses vote for the party that they feel best represents their interests, and can recall those party members at any time. It is true that an official of a particular party is going to act in accordance with his/her party program, but that is as far as it goes.


Thus creates the centralisation of political control into the hands of a party
If one party has the vast majority of power in a soviet state, that is because the masses of people voted for it. All delegates can be recalled, I have always said that. If the masses are fed up with the communist party for some reason, they can elect delegates of some other party. However, I think it would be a good thing for the revolutionary marxist party to have the most political power. That does not mean I want any party to hoist itself above the rest of the class and become an unaccountable bureaucracy.


Incidentally, these political parties were not "unbanned" after the civil war.
Yes, and that is because of the rise of a powerful bureaucracy which took place during the civil war. The bureaucracy reached its peak of power under Stalin. Lenin and Trotsky were both well aware of the problem of the growing bureaucracy, and fought against it.


That's just a facade of democracy.
No, that is real democracy, just party democracy. Representative structures exist so the masses elect parties to represent their interests in these structures. This is a political characteristic that will disapeer overtime, to be replaced with general direct democracy under communism. From the begining we will have to combine representative structures and parties with elements of direct democracy. As the function of the soviet structure changes from that of the suppression of persons to the administration of things, parties will no longer be necessary, and delegates will be nothing more than direct servants of the electorate.


So now there is a dictatorship of the party?
By which I mean that the most thouroughly revolutionary party has the most power in a soviet state. Of course, they will only get this power because the masses feel that this party best represents their interests, and the party members that hold positions in government can be recalled at any time. So basically, the party dictatorship is subordinate to the class dictatorship.


You already accepted that the party must exert its authority over Soviets
No, the party exercises authority within the soviets. All party members are subordinate to the rules of workers democracy; election, average wage, and recall.


It succeeded in bringing the Bolsheviks into power. That's not the same thing.
It succeeded in bringing the soviets to power, in which the Bolsheviks had the majority. As the soviets were the organs of working class power, the Russian Revolution did indeed bring the working class to power. The revolution did not institutionalize the central committee of the Bolshevik party. It brought the All-Russian Congress of Soviets to power, which then elected a central executive committee and the council of people's commissars. The Bolsheviks led the soviets because the masses elected Bolshevik delegates to the soviets. The only reason the Bolsheviks had power was the because the party followed the correct tactic and patiently explained the situation to the masses in the soviets, and as a result got the majority.

[Rawthentic]

I don't really understand the question.
I mean your alternative to a worker's state. What I mean by worker's state, just to be clear, and I'm sorry if I'm redundant, is the whole proletariat armed to protect what it has won, with all political power resting in their hands of their class organs (soviets, councils, assemblies, etc). I believe that immediately post revolution there will still be the need for representative democracy, but it will be mixed up with direct democracy, somehow. And with the addition of all the political measures to prevent careerism and bureaucracy such as those taken in the Paris Commune. But yeah, I want to hear your alternative, and please make it realistic.


Thus creates the centralisation of political control into the hands of a party and negates the notion of a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and as historically proves creates a 'dictatorship of the party'.

You seem to think that all communists hold this view. I'm not a Leninist, my conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat lies on the left-communist position more than anything else. So, like I said before, to avoid political centralization, I think it is imperative that all officials be well known by the workers in his area, be a working person himself, get paid equally, and be subject to recall.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 04:59 pm
If one party has the vast majority of power in a soviet state, that is because the masses of people voted for it.
Just one quick point as I don't have the inclination to respond in full right now; the point is that a political party will achieve a majority of votes by employing entryism and other authoritarian tactics, which are by their nature undemocratic.

Political parties forcing their party line is not democracy.


All delegates can be recalled

To be replaced by other delegates of the same party...

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 03:29 pm

Why do you keep repeating this? Of course I believe taht they should "arm themselves" but they should do so within a decentralised political structure.
I am for its decentralization, but a body of armed workers as well as a transition to communism. Fair enough?
You do not need a state to have organization. A state is not needed to have people armed. You keep bringing this up but I don't know where you get it from. It is as if you believe that people are so stupid that they have no way to think for themselves or come up with ideas as equals in an organization without government intervention. If this is what you think then why do you have any faith at all in communism? After all, in a communist society there will be no government. If you think that people can not organize without a state then you might as well stop following the communist path now because in your head once you get your end product everything will collapse.

[Rawthentic]

A state in post-revolution will be a state of the armed working class as the ruling class to repress the counter-revolutionaries.

I don't get the state from just "anywhere". It is needed as a transition to put an end to class antagonisms and protect what the working class has won.

Hey idiot, the state is not "government intervention", like I said, read up some more before saying such things.

In a communist society there will be government, such as worker's councils, assemblies, etc. You are wrongfully equating the state with government.

Its not that I don't think that they cant organize without a state, they themselves will create is as a concrete practical necessity to protect themselves and their workplaces.

The political structure I see necessary is irrelevant to what me and you are speaking of, but I would like to see a decentralized structure based on workers councils and all power arising from the armed populace.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 06:51 pm
A state in post-revolution will be a state of the armed working class as the ruling class to repress the counter-revolutionaries.

I don't get the state from just "anywhere". It is needed as a transition to put an end to class antagonisms and protect what the working class has won.

Hey idiot, the state is not "government intervention", like I said, read up some more before saying such things.

In a communist society there will be government, such as worker's councils, assemblies, etc. You are wrongfully equating the state with government.

Its not that I don't think that they cant organize without a state, they themselves will create is as a concrete practical necessity to protect themselves and their workplaces.

The political structure I see necessary is irrelevant to what me and you are speaking of, but I would like to see a decentralized structure based on workers councils and all power arising from the armed populace.
There is no need for name calling. How can you say the state is "needed" to put an end to class antagonisms so definitely. Wherever you read these things or whoever said them does not matter as no one can know everything. Not everything these philosophers have said is truth. We have seen time and time again what has happened when these "needed" socialist states have been put into motion. They have never ended up in communism. Fuck the philosophers and think for yourself. What has been told to us about the situation and what has happened? We have been told that state socialism is necessary to transition to communism and to suppress the counter-revolution but we have seen that it doesn't work.

The product of an experiment is worth 100 times whatever Marx theorized.

The definition of government is: "A government (from the Greek Κυβερνήτης kubernites - steersman, governor, pilot, or rudder) is an organization that has the power to make and enforce laws for a certain territory. There are several definitions on what exactly constitutes a government. In its broadest sense, "govern" means the power to administrate, whether over an area of land, a set group of people, or an association. ". Communism is about equality and there can be no equality if there is government. Maybe I am wrong but I can come to terms with myself being wrong and being a hypocrite. Can you? Can state Communists admit that a socialist state is proven to not work as a means to communism? Can they admit that they are all hypocrites because they advocate at the same time a state and a stateless society?

[RedLenin]

How can you say the state is "needed" to put an end to class antagonisms so definitely.
Simple. Let's try a thought experiment. Let's say a proletarian revolution is occuring in a Latin American country. Dual power exists and the workers are organized into workers councils. The bourgeois state is overthrown through popular insurrection. What now? Are we going to dance in the streets and then go home, allowing the bourgeoisie to re-establish their state? No. The workers councils, centralized into a congress of councils, will take the power. This is what any insurrection will do. It will be nothing less that the seizure of power by the workers councils.

Is this a state? Yes. It is an appartus that has control over a territory (the nation), has the power to make and enforce laws (the fist law being the expropriation of private property), and has a monopoly on armed force (how else does the victorious proletariat defend it's gains?). Hence, simply by logically thinking about a revolution, we can conclude that a workers state is an objective necessity. As the revolution spreads internationally, the workers take power in other countries and establish similar workers states. Once all bourgeois states have been overthrown world-wide and replaced with workers states, the workers states begin to lose their political characteristics. As the bourgeoisie is integrated into the ranks of the proletariat, and as the revolution triumps world-wide, the state no longer exists to violently enforce class hegemony. The apparatus will exist only for the administation of affairs, and cease to be a state. Perhaps anarchists should actually start thinking about two things; what a state is, and how a revolution could possibly succeed without taking power.


The product of an experiment is worth 100 times whatever Marx theorized.
You are being hopelessly naive if you think that Marxism has failed. Let's exclude the Russian Revolution for a moment. All the other "communist" revolutions, bar none, were led by Stalinist parties, parties that sought to replecate, according to the conditions of their countries, the Russian state. The only genuine Marxist revolution to ever take place and succeed was the Russian Revolution of 1917, which actually succeeded in bring the soviets to power. The degeneration of the workers state into a bureaucratically deformed state was due to it's isolation, the backwardness and economic difficulties of Russia, the brutal civil war, and other material factors.