Political Power

[Rawthentic]

I have stressed myself a lot over the issue of political power and how it has been manifested in the past, mainly by hierarchical and oppressive structures. Yet I do think that the revolutionary movement must take on a political character because it encompasses the whole picture and fights the state power that reinforces capitalist class rule. On the issue of organization, for a proletarian revolutionary movement to be truly successful in terms of democracy and worker power, it needs to be non-hierarchical and completely democratic, as well as composed of working class people or have the leadership (vanguard composed of class-conscious proletarians) composed of solely working people. Post-revolution, I believe that the working class must organize itself as ruling class and arm itself to defend what it has won. Yet I do not want to end up with bureaucratic degeneration in the past, so I advocate political power in a post-revolutionary society based directly in the workplace and working people's assemblies.

From the League:

Based on assemblies of workers elected in workplaces and neighborhoods, a workers' republic would be the first society worthy of being called "democratic." But this democracy — the democracy of the exploited and oppressed majority, proletarian democracy — would not be confined to just the political arena. Common ownership of capital means nothing unless those who use those instruments of production democratically decide how to use them. Similarly, the changes in economic and political relationships would usher in a democratization of human culture and development, and the creation of the first truly human history, not just the "history" written by the current rulers.

What are people's thoughts here? I would like to see both sides of the spectrum respond, such as anarchists and "Leninists."

P.S.: Feel free to move this thread if it not in the correct place, I assumed that Theory was the best place.

[Kropotkin Has a Posse]

Why do they need to arm themselves? There might be one or two irreconcilable loonies who could pose some harm but short of genocide the state would have no practical way of dealing with a populace of the non-compliant. If it's genocide they decide upon there would be such a need, but unless that came up it would be better off to give them little in the way of a "casus belli."

[Rawthentic]

You underestimate the ferocity of the capitalists when they have their power taken away. They will find forms to retaliate, and we must defend ourselves.

But please, back to the main topic of the thread comrades.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think in the immiediete post-revolutionary period there will have to be a degree of centralisaton and the formation of what is essentially a new state apparatus - an institution that exercises a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This is based on history - one of the reasons that the Paris Commune did not succeed was because divisions of the National Guard (Bodies of Armed Men composed of volunteers) often recived orders from a wide range of different sources between which there was no unity of purpose and cohesion, and thus many Units simply acted on their own initiative without any broader concern for the requirements of the revolution and the commune.

[Rawthentic]

But would that centralization mean a hierarchical structure? I think that there must be checks to make sure it is temporary, if what you say is correct.

It is vague when you speak of the state, bobkindles, you make it seem as if it would be another group of armed people over the working class.

What I propose, and maybe this furthers what you say, is that all workplaces be armed, as well as every household to protect from counterrevolution.

Since immediately after the revolution we will still be "stamped" with the "birthmarks" of capitalism, there will be a mixture of representative democracy and direct democracy, with all elected to be subject to instant recall, making them completely subject to the masses.

What do others think on the political structure connected with the armed populace and ways to make sure that there is no degeneration?

[BobKKKindle$]

I think the best form of organisation would be a rota system whereby workers take turns to undergo military training and serve in the militia. This would have two advantages : Firstly, it ensures that a large proportion of the population will have the skills needed to provide resistance should the necessity arise. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, It would prevent the formation of a permanent body of armed men which is seperate from and could exercise control over the working class. In this respect I hope we are in agreement.

In terms of the state, though, I think a centralised authority must exist which has the capability to over-rule any measures or decisions undertaken by lower organs of military and economic organisation. However, I do not mean to suggest that this 'authority' should be seperate from the workers. Rather, it should operate according the principles of democratic centralism, such that the authority is dependent upon the support of lower levels of organisation, but once a decision has been taken all sections of the militia must follow without deviance.

I think the fact that the armed forces of the revolution are the workers themselves is a sufficient safeguard against the formation of a bureaucratic elite or a divergence of interests between the 'centralised authority' and the general populace. A state only exists and is powerful so long as it has absolute control over the 'bodies of armed men' that mediate class struggle under Capitalism - a loss of this support will inevitably lead to the dissolution of power.

[Rawthentic]

You see, thats what I've been pondering about. Is there the necessity to have a centralized political structure? If so, will it exercise authority over the working-class as it has in the past and eliminate taking decisions ourselves?

But as I said in a prior thread, the elected folks must be workers, known around the area by fellow workers, get paid equally, and be subject to instant recall.

Can you elaborate on the political structure in your opinion?