Marxian class analysis vs Marxian historiography [Archive]

apathy maybe

10th May 2007, 11:37

Sentinel

10th May 2007, 12:29

After reading a few threads where Leninists and Marxists are conflicted on the matter of a post-revolution state, I'm lead to wonder why certain anarchists support Marxian class analysis, but disagree with this other aspect of Marxian thought.

Does Marxian historiography imply Marxian class analysis? (I assume that it does...)

And does Marxian class analysis imply Marxian historiography? (I assume that it doesn't...)

I'm an anarchist in the sense that I want the state abolished as soon as possible, and it's power over the production, distribution and society taken over by a federation of worker's unions and communes managed from below -- but still I in large adhere both to Marx' historical materialism, because it's backed with scientific evidence, and Marxian class analysis which to me is the logical conclusion one draws when s/he understands HM.

Why could Marx not have interpreted history and class society correctly even if he had other ideas which perhaps weren't as clever? I'm mainly referring to his actions as a member of the General Council of the First International, when he among others pushed for a centralised leadership for the International, which lead to the first really disastrious split in the modern workers movement as others wanted to keep it a federalist organisation. Thus he revealed hs distrust in the working class, and his 'vanguardism' in action.

I reject political parties, organisations and vanguards aspiring for mere political power in order to change things from above. Political power is worthless and means nothing without economic power. Workers radicalisation through organising into a federation of fighting unions makes any such parties superfluous. But it doesn't negate historical materialism or Marxist class analysis.

That is where I disagree with Marxist-Leninists and other non-libertarian Marxists. Some might even say I'm not a Marxist, but frankly I don't care. I use what I find useful in Marx' texts, he was a brilliant theorist although too authoriatarian for my tastes. As I do with say Bakunins ones, who besides a great anarchist theorist unfortunately was an anti-semitic shit.

We got to learn to draw our own conclusions if we strive for true understanding. :)

Vargha Poralli

10th May 2007, 13:48

I'm mainly referring to his actions as a member of the General Council of the First International, when he among others pushed for a centralised leadership for the International, which lead to the first really disastrious split in the modern workers movement as others wanted to keep it a federalist organisation. Thus he revealed hs distrust in the working class, and his 'vanguardism' in action.

That is a load of Libertarian Bullshit. If you are referring to kicking out Bakunin and his supporters out of the First International it is not because Marx was authoritarian and Bakunin was a libertarian. It is because of the disruptve activities of Bakunin and hios secret society. And it was not done just beacuse commanded to remove them. It has been investigated by a commision and action was taken based on the report by the commision. (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-commission/index.htm)

I reject political parties, organisations and vanguards aspiring for mere political power in order to change things from above.

You may be not intrested in politics but politics is intrested in you. Seriously without gaining the political power working class can achieve nothing.

Political power is worthless and means nothing without economic power.

Each is interrelated with other. One is worthless without the other. Your proposal is very much reformists than revolutionary.

I use what I find useful in Marx' texts, he was a brilliant theorist although too authoriatarian for my tastes. As I do with say Bakunins ones, who besides a great anarchist theorist unfortunately was an anti-semitic shit.

Bakunin a Libertarian ? Good joke but his own actions speak otherwise. Past thread discussing how much "Libertarian" Bakunin was. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36092&hl=Bakunin)A lot of original sources there.

Does Marxian historiography imply Marxian class analysis? (I assume that it does...)

I don't know but Marx's class analysis is very based on real learning of it and very good analysis of it. If you say that class analysis is wrong and Marx's analysis does not accurately define the progress of Human development then you must make an analysis yourself and provide the argument. You cannot say it is wrong just because you did not understand it.

Whitten

10th May 2007, 13:58

Modern marxian class annalysis is based on the development of class relations from historical contexts. It would seem rather pointless to accept marxian class annalysis and not Marx's material conception of history.

Sentinel

10th May 2007, 15:49

That is a load of Libertarian Bullshit. If you are referring to kicking out Bakunin and his supporters out of the First International it is not because Marx was authoritarian and Bakunin was a libertarian. It is because of the disruptve activities of Bakunin and hios secret society. And it was not done just beacuse commanded to remove them. It has been investigated by a commision and action was taken based on the report by the commision.

No, believe it or not but I was actually referring to exactly what I said: Marx' and others agenda to centralise the power in the first International into the hands of the Central Congress like it had been some bourgeois government, which was opposed by many and lead to the split in the international.

And I don't give a shit about 'Bakunin and his secret society', the authoritarian/libertarian split was evident in the International before Bakunin even joined it. While he was one of the most vocal opponents to authoritarian tendencies in the International, he was far from the only one.

You may be not intrested in politics but politics is intrested in you. Seriously without gaining the political power working class can achieve nothing

Each is interrelated with other. One is worthless without the other. Your proposal is very much reformists than revolutionary.

Seriously, I'm a revolutionary syndicalist and realise that power in society stems from the control over production and distribution. I want the working class to organise in fighting unions, grab that power in a revolutionary change and excercise it thereafter federatively from below up, not surrender it to political parties or other representatives. Likewise must the entire society be organised federatively.

No 'political' bourgeois bullshit but direct worker's power for me, please!

apathy maybe

10th May 2007, 15:50

Originally posted by g.ram+May 10, 2007 01:48 pm--> (g.ram @ May 10, 2007 01:48 pm)
I reject political parties, organisations and vanguards aspiring for mere political power in order to change things from above.

You may be not intrested in politics but politics is intrested in you. Seriously without gaining the political power working class can achieve nothing.

Political power is worthless and means nothing without economic power.

Each is interrelated with other. One is worthless without the other. Your proposal is very much reformists than revolutionary. [/b]
Wait a minute! Aren't you a Marxist? Now correct me if I am wrong (but please, politely), didn't Marx write something about political power coming from economic power?

I use what I find useful in Marx' texts, he was a brilliant theorist although too authoriatarian for my tastes. As I do with say Bakunins ones, who besides a great anarchist theorist unfortunately was an anti-semitic shit.

Bakunin a Libertarian ? Good joke but his own actions speak otherwise. Past thread discussing how much "Libertarian" Bakunin was. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=36092&hl=Bakunin)A lot of original sources there.
That past thread seems to indicate that it doesn't matter what the fuck Bakunin's opinions were, we can still find useful things in his writings. And it also says that there aren't any anarchists around that call themselves "Bakuninists".

Does Marxian historiography imply Marxian class analysis? (I assume that it does...)

I don't know but Marx's class analysis is very based on real learning of it and very good analysis of it. If you say that class analysis is wrong and Marx's analysis does not accurately define the progress of Human development then you must make an analysis yourself and provide the argument. You cannot say it is wrong just because you did not understand it.
...

Whitten
Modern marxian class annalysis is based on the development of class relations from historical contexts. It would seem rather pointless to accept marxian class annalysis and not Marx's material conception of history.
I had something to say here, but I have forgotten it... I might reply again later.

JazzRemington

10th May 2007, 16:39

According to the anarchist FAQ, most anarchists accept the Marxian analysis of class, but disagree with the historiography because they think it is dehumanizing, meaning it shifts focus away from the people involved and on to the development of productive forces, class struggle, etc.

I think Marxian historiography implies class analysis and theory because Marxian historiography, in part, studies the nature, movements, developments, and actions of classes.

But one can subscribe to the Marxian theories of class without the historiography. Many social scientists do this (especially sociologists). But in its place they often have some bastard Hegelian-esque theory of history or the development of society. While you can have the Marxian theory of class without the historiography, there really is no good alternative.

Vargha Poralli

10th May 2007, 16:45

No, believe it or not but I was actually referring to exactly what I said: Marx' and others agenda to centralise the power in the first International into the hands of the Central Congress like it had been some bourgeois government, which was opposed by many and lead to the split in the international.

Then obviously you don't know much about the First international. It was just an assortment of Radicals who were totally unconnected even by idealogies. There were both anarchists and other radicals. It has failed mainly because of the growth of regional political parties

Seriously, I'm a revolutionary syndicalist and realise that power in society stems from the control over production and distribution. I want the working class to organise in fighting unions, grab that power in a revolutionary change and excercise it thereafter federatively from below up, not surrender it to political parties or other representatives. Likewise must the entire society be organised federatively.

No 'political' bourgeois bullshit but direct worker's power for me, please!

Direct workers power would not come from skies. It must be fought for and won by the workers.

Wait a minute! Aren't you a Marxist? Now correct me if I am wrong (but please, politely), didn't Marx write something about political power coming from economic power?

Yes you missed my point better read it again

Originally posted by Me

Each is interrelated with other. One is worthless without the other.

What I mean was there cannot be economic power without political power and the vice versa.

RaÃºl Duke

10th May 2007, 20:49

If you accept both the Marxian Class Analysis and the Historical Materialism/Marxian Historiography.....does that make you not an anarchist? :unsure:.

I don't see anything wrong with the idea of Historical Materialism...
Sometimes I use it to explain other people why something is happening, etc, etc.

Does the "problem" with HM stem from the whole determinism vs free will debate?

gilhyle

10th May 2007, 21:08

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 10, 2007 10:37 am

Does Marxian historiography imply Marxian class analysis? (I assume that it does...)

And does Marxian class analysis imply Marxian historiography? (I assume that it doesn't...)

(Wikipedia has an interesting article on Marxist historiography (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist+historiography). Including this quote, "Marxist history is generally teleological, in that it posits a direction of history, towards an end state of history as classless human society." which is yet another reason to think it is not worth taking notice of...)

I think I agree with Whitten.

I would question what anarchists mean by Marxist class analysis if they try to accept it and not the historical and materialist conceptions from which it is derived. If they mean that they accept that society is divided into classes, that isnt saying very much. The issue is not really whether there are classes, but what you mean by that term. Many modern conceptions of class in sociology, in state capitalist theory, in anarchism and political commentary generally are really conceptions of elites rather than conceptions of classes. In other words, they ascribe an identity to a group or layer of people as sharing a common political or cultural power, maybe because of common access to wealth or common access to the levers of power or some conception mixing the two.

THe Marxist conception of class is very different.

I see that the explanation of what teleology is has been taken from the wikpedia article, altough the word remains.

Strictly speaking, the Marxist conception of history is not teleological in that defeat and regression are always at any point in time viable alternatives. In that sense it makes no significant sense for a Marxist to say that history is destined (or worse pre-determined) to reach a certain outcome.

Marxists are willing to identify factors pushing society in a particular direction (for example willing to identify the elements of socialisation and globalisation within the capitalist economy which prepare the way for am international socialist society), but they never draw they conclusion that no political effort is required to change society, rather they draw the conclusion that political effort must be directed in certain ways rather than others.

syndicat

10th May 2007, 21:25

The theory of historical materialism is distinct from Marx's theory of class. Marx's theory of class is bound up, however, with his political economy. Anarchists historically tended to accept Marxis' economic theory but often without the theory of historical materialism.

The theory of historical materialism (HM) is a trans-historical theory of the movement of social history, from one social arrangement to another. It is based on the distinction between "development of the forces of production" and "the social relations of production." The theory says that periods of revolution ensue-- are the product of -- conflict between the development of human productive power ("forces of production") and the existing set of social relations in which that development has been taking place.

There are various problems with HM. One problem is that it leads to the idea of capitalism collapsing or entering crisis due to its own "internal contradictions". The view of the libertarian Left, however, is that a social crisis that can lead to working class liberation is shaped by the development of working class self-activity and class consciousness. The working masses generate the crisis through a period of rising mobilization, contestation, collective struggle.

Marx's theory of class in capitalism is based on a bipolar division between labor and capital, which derives from Marx's analysis of the capital accumulation process. A problem with this theory is that it failed to predict, or account for, the emerence of a third main class in capitalism in its mature corporate form, the class of hired managers and top professionals -- what I call the "coordinator class". The position of this class is not based on ownership of assets -- accumulation of capital -- but relative monopolization of conditions that empower such as concentrations of expertise, managerial positions. Meritocracy tends to be the characteristic ideology of this class, as credentials, education, expertise are held to justify being the people who make the decisions. The bosses that workers have to deal with day to day are either members of this class, or of the small business class. The plutocracy (the big capitalists) are powerful and rich enough they can insulate themselves from the working class thru layers of management.

Another key feature of the coordinator class is that it has the power to be a dominating class, as is shown by all the "Communist" countries where this class has been the dominant class. The cadres of the coordinator class are the managers, officials, and experts who run the various arms of the state.

This is why state socialism, in both its social-democratic and Leninist forms, can be regarded as as Left coordinatorist ideology, in that they tend to empower the coordinator class.

The theory of the coordinator class is based on the idea that class is rooted in structures of power in social production, and has that much in common with Marx, but it is an anarchist theory in that anarchism allows that structures of power do not have to be based on ownership.

RebelDog

10th May 2007, 22:32

There are various problems with HM. One problem is that it leads to the idea of capitalism collapsing or entering crisis due to its own "internal contradictions". The view of the libertarian Left, however, is that a social crisis that can lead to working class liberation is shaped by the development of working class self-activity and class consciousness. The working masses generate the crisis through a period of rising mobilization, contestation, collective struggle.

Well, if it is the working class who consciously bring about these crisis' in capitalism I can never in envisage a proletarian revolution in the UK. Class consciousness amongst the workers here is poor, something dramatic needs to change that, i.e. a major crisis in capitalism. I think both crisis in capitalism and proletarian class consciousness are two sides to the same coin. They both matter.

Another key feature of the coordinator class is that it has the power to be a dominating class, as is shown by all the "Communist" countries where this class has been the dominant class. The cadres of the coordinator class are the managers, officials, and experts who run the various arms of the state.

This is why state socialism, in both its social-democratic and Leninist forms, can be regarded as as Left coordinatorist ideology, in that they tend to empower the coordinator class.

The theory of the coordinator class is based on the idea that class is rooted in structures of power in social production, and has that much in common with Marx, but it is an anarchist theory in that anarchism allows that structures of power do not have to be based on ownership.

I agree that revolution has to guard against putting another bureaucratic elite in positions of power, who couldn't really. Marx, as we all do, envisaged communism as a stateless classless society and if people are committed to that ideal then the 'coordinator class' should be of no consequence. I think state capitalism and the bureaucratic class are an inevitable outcome of isolated revolutions.

Sentinel

10th May 2007, 22:37

Then obviously you don't know much about the First international. It was just an assortment of Radicals who were totally unconnected even by idealogies. There were both anarchists and other radicals. It has failed mainly because of the growth of regional political parties

Maybe it was a bit utopian to think the left could cooperate like that, but it was nonetheless an attempt to unity whose failure is a real shame. I do not at all deny there were other reasons but the dispute I was talking about was without doubt one of the fundamental ones -- there are too many key differences between orthodox marxism (and it's later developed daughter ideologies) and anarchism. :(

Direct workers power would not come from skies. It must be fought for and won by the workers.

Yeah well no shit. And if you had bothered to read what you just quoted, you would have seen that I advocate and partake in a very clearly outlined strategy to fight for and win it.

Check the link to SAC in my sig for a more detailed description (it has a section in english) -- although I somehow doubt you're interested enough.

Rawthentic

10th May 2007, 22:56

The class struggle is by nature a poltical struggle, that is to defeat capitalism you must destroy the bourgeois state. That playing field is the political one; the "battle for democracy." Anarchists and economists can call it "political bourgeoisiness" or whatever crap, but it does not change this.

Marx's historiography is all bound up. That is to say, in class society, there is a state as an organ to enforce the rule of the ruling class, in this case the capitalist class. Post-revolution, I would like to see the society that you syndicalists call for, the problem, is that I call it a state, because it is the worker's organ to repress the millions upon millions of counterrevolutionaries, which will also naturally call for a degree of political centralization! :( But seriously, its utopian to think otherwise.

I have a question for the syndicalists: Since you are only about the labor struggle, what about the landless peasants? What about the working class students? What about the unemployed? A political struggle is the only thing that will get us liberation, because it attacks the state that binds up all class antagonisms.

And I'll respond to the typical ignorance about "vanguardism" and all of your strawmen. The vanguard is the most politically conscious section of the working class, those who put the interests of the class in every struggle. Its not a clique of "professional revolutionaries", thats a false concept. Anarchists are part of the vanguard, whether you like it or not.

A problem with this theory is that it failed to predict, or account for, the emerence of a third main class in capitalism in its mature corporate form, the class of hired managers and top professionals -- what I call the "coordinator class". The position of this class is not based on ownership of assets -- accumulation of capital -- but relative monopolization of conditions that empower such as concentrations of expertise, managerial positions
Stop lying: its called the petty-bourgeoisie.

The theory of the coordinator class is based on the idea that class is rooted in structures of power in social production, and has that much in common with Marx, but it is an anarchist theory in that anarchism allows that structures of power do not have to be based on ownership.
This is bullshit!!! A class is one's relationship to the means of production, thats the Marxist analysis dumbass. Seriously, its no small wonder people call you ignorant.

Seriously, I'm a revolutionary syndicalist and realise that power in society stems from the control over production and distribution. I want the working class to organise in fighting unions, grab that power in a revolutionary change and excercise it thereafter federatively from below up, not surrender it to political parties or other representatives
No doubt, but without political power, all is an illusion. I responded to this ignorance above.

Rawthentic

10th May 2007, 23:25

Some more ideas for the weak-minded economists:

The power of the proletariat is more than economic. We as a class have power in all aspects of society, if only by our sheer numerical majority. The problem is organization and political direction. Ours is a fight that spans all aspects of society: political, economic, cultural and social. It is not a matter of "diverting resources", but developing resources to meet the fight in all areas.

Because the capitalists have control and dominance in all aspects of society, including economics, we find that the deck is "foundationally stacked against us" wherever we are. But the real question is why it is stacked against us and how to overcome it. This is why we cannot wall off one section of society and say "this is where we will work -- here and here alone", like syndicalists are proposing.

We have to recognize the interrelationships within the different arenas of society and how they help each other to maintain the bourgeois social system as a whole. Among other things, this means that it is necessary to recognize that the bourgeois economic system could not remain in place for very long without the bourgeois state protecting and serving it.

The state is the guardian of bourgeois "order" in all aspects of society, even though it is a strictly political phenomenon. Because of this central role -- because it is the linchpin of capitalist society -- communists have to concentrate their efforts at overthrowing capitalism at the defeat and dissolution of the bourgeois state. This is our job in the political arena, and this is why Marx understood that the class struggle is a political struggle.

Rawthentic

10th May 2007, 23:55

And syndicat, the thing about the "coordinator class" is a load of bullshit, and shows your misunderstanding of the class struggle.

gilhyle

10th May 2007, 23:57

I think syndicat's point that his theory (not his alone of course) of class is not Marxist is correct. He is not correct, though, if his suggestion is that the Marxist theory of class is 'distinct' from his view of history means that one can sensibly hold one without the other. In fact the Marxist definition of class relies on the historical conceptualisation of relations of production as the outcome of the development of the forces of production.

Marx's theory of history can be described as Syndicat does as a conception of fundamental social change in terms of interaction between forces and relations. But it can also be described as a typology of different modes of production based on differentiating between the different dominant forms in which surplus is extracted. This is a retrospective view from within capitalism., one which analyses societies by identifying the relationship between how labor is contributed and how revenue is provided to those who do not labor. It makes perfect sense that from within capitalism such a view would emerge from the representatives of those who, more than ever before in history, were separated from the control of the tools of production. It is precisely the aim of the Marxist theory of history to identify the specificity of the proletariat, to be able to say what makes them different from slaves and serfs and to be able to say what their potential is.

Marx thus uses history to define the objective reality of the working class IN ORDER to set out what can be done and must be done by the proletariat to realise its potential - in that way to articulate the common course of action (the political programme of the class) from the common interests which arise from the common situation.

Thus what Marx's theory of history allows Marx to have is an understanding of class consciousness and militancy which is based in his understanding of its material condition.

Janus

11th May 2007, 00:40

Does the "problem" with HM stem from the whole determinism vs free will debate?
Not necessarily "free will" but active human participation. Marxists tend to focus more on economic forces while anarchists reject this determinism as too dehumanizing as JR said up above.

syndicat

11th May 2007, 03:10

hasta:

I have a question for the syndicalists: Since you are only about the labor struggle, what about the landless peasants? What about the working class students? What about the unemployed? A political struggle is the only thing that will get us liberation, because it attacks the state that binds up all class antagonisms.

We're not only about labor struggle. We're about class struggle, which develops both at the point of production and in the community, and we're also against all forms of oppression, and support autonomy of movements in these areas (against race or gender oppression). Landless peasants are workers, immediate producers.

We syndicalists are for the dismantling of the state...the working class cannot be liberated otherwise, and the revolution does need to consolidate itself throughout the society. This means the working class needs democratic organizations such as congresses of delegates from workplace and community assemblies, to work out the new rules and control any popular militia needed for defense of the revolution. Social self-defense and making the basic rules are inevitably "political" functions, but no state is required for a society to be able to perform these, and no classless society will ensue if a state is rebuilt.

me: "A problem with this theory is that it failed to predict, or account for, the emerence of a third main class in capitalism in its mature corporate form, the class of hired managers and top professionals -- what I call the "coordinator class". The position of this class is not based on ownership of assets -- accumulation of capital -- but relative monopolization of conditions that empower such as concentrations of expertise, managerial positions"

Stop lying: its called the petty-bourgeoisie.

Don't be an idiot. The petty bourgeoisie are the small capitalists. These are people whose power is based on ownership of capital. But they don't own enough capital to avoid doing the direct management of workers. This class, because its power is based on ownership and private accumulation of wealth, has a different basis for its class power than the coordinator class. The prospects and power of the coordinator class is not based on ownership. Moreover, the petty bourgeoisie have been around since the beginnings of capitalism, but the coordinator class only became significant since the emergence of the corporate form of capitalism at the end of the 19th century.

The development of the coordinator class is based on "scientific management" or Taylorism, which systematically redesigns jobs, dividing the conceptual and decision-making tasks from the rote or physical tasks. Instead of a single worker doing both, as under the artisanal methods, which pre-dated capitalism, the conceptual and decision-making is put into separate people in a hierarchy. With the emergence of this class, the level of control and supervision over workers is ramped up, and the corporate and state bureaucracies become vastly larger.

Classes are NOT based solely on a person's relationship to the means of production. Clases are also power relations between groups of people. That's why, for Marx, capital and labor are two sides of the same relationship.

syndicat

11th May 2007, 03:18

gilhyle:
It is precisely the aim of the Marxist theory of history to identify the specificity of the proletariat, to be able to say what makes them different from slaves and serfs and to be able to say what their potential is.

That's fine. But this is logically independent of the theory of historical materialism.

One of the contemporary criticisms of the variant of HM you describe...the idea of a sequence of modes of production...is that it only is an accurate picture of certain countries in western Europe. The rest of the world has gone thru a very different sort of historical evolution. And this is important because it also brings out another criticism of HM: it's tendency to be interpreted by Marxists as a theory of historical determinism, which is simply not plausible.

another problem with HM is that the emphasis upon the primacy of the "development of the productive forces" tends to lead to technological determinism. This sort of thinking could account for why Lenin and Trotsky were so enamored of Taylorism. They could have been arguing: "Since capitalism is progressive in developing the productive forces, anything capitalism develops in the way of organization must be simply more efficient."

This fails to consider that Taylorism, by suppressing development of worker potentials, actually sacrifices potential efficiency for the sake of accumulating wealth and power.

11th May 2007, 03:40

Don't be an idiot. The petty bourgeoisie are the small capitalists. These are people whose power is based on ownership of capital. But they don't own enough capital to avoid doing the direct management of workers. This class, because its power is based on ownership and private accumulation of wealth, has a different basis for its class power than the coordinator class. The prospects and power of the coordinator class is not based on ownership. Moreover, the petty bourgeoisie have been around since the beginnings of capitalism, but the coordinator class only became significant since the emergence of the corporate form of capitalism at the end of the 19th century.

Managers are petty-bourgeois...

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 03:46

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 03:59

One of the contemporary criticisms of the variant of HM you describe...the idea of a sequence of modes of production...is that it only is an accurate picture of certain countries in western Europe. The rest of the world has gone thru a very different sort of historical evolution. And this is important because it also brings out another criticism of HM: it's tendency to be interpreted by Marxists as a theory of historical determinism, which is simply not plausible.

Stop fucking lying! Marx clearly pointed out that his analysis was of contemporary W. Europe of his time, and that the rest of the world would follow different paths. Do you want quotes? Sorry, but you just ain't gonna refute ol' Charlie.

another problem with HM is that the emphasis upon the primacy of the "development of the productive forces" tends to lead to technological determinism. This sort of thinking could account for why Lenin and Trotsky were so enamored of Taylorism.
Bullshit!! This was a result of the isolation of the Russian Revolution. It has absolutely nothing to do with ideology. Its all material conditions. Everything stems from that.

We syndicalists are for the dismantling of the state...the working class cannot be liberated otherwise, and the revolution does need to consolidate itself throughout the society
Then we will be massacred.

This means the working class needs democratic organizations such as congresses of delegates from workplace and community assemblies, to work out the new rules and control any popular militia needed for defense of the revolution. Social self-defense and making the basic rules are inevitably "political" functions, but no state is required for a society to be able to perform these, and no classless society will ensue if a state is rebuilt.
Thats a worker state, stop trying to get around that and playing semantics.

Social self-defense and making the basic rules are inevitably "political" functions, but no state is required for a society to be able to perform these, and no classless society will ensue if a state is rebuilt.
So we can all just jump around and be happy we won! And then get massacred? Get serious.

Classes are NOT based solely on a person's relationship to the means of production. Clases are also power relations between groups of people.
This is also a basis of all your confusion. A class is ones relation to the means of production. This "coordinator class" crap and what you said here prove me right that you have misunderstanding of class struggle.

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 04:02

From the Communist League's Basic Principles; if you have any balls you'll read them all:

5. In order for the proletariat to establish its own workers’ republic, which is the first step on the road to the abolition of classes, it must raise itself to the level of a ruling class. The first great conflict in which the proletariat must engage in order to achieve the establishment of a workers’ republic is the battle for democracy. This is because it is on the political plane that all classes are bound together and placed in a common arena. Direct economic struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie often are confined to one workplace, one region or one industry. Thus, they are prone to isolation and marginalization.
On the other hand, the political struggles between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie take on a generalized, societal character. A political victory by the proletariat in one region or country generally has an effect on the position of the proletarians in other areas. Communists seek the broadest possible union of the proletariat on a political level for the purposes of uniting the localized and isolated struggles of the working class — including economic struggles — into a common battle for revolutionary democracy, designed to aid the proletariat and its task of elevating itself to a ruling class. This is why every class struggle is, in the final analysis, a political struggle.

6. Because the class struggle is a political struggle, the proletariat must be organized as a distinct and independent political body. Concretely, this means that proletarians need to unite into a single political organization that is able to challenge the bourgeoisie on its own field and win — a political party of the working class. Communists do not form a proletarian political party that stands in opposition to other genuine parties of the working class.
Communists do not have any interests or principles that politically separate it from the proletariat as a whole. The principles of communism distinguish their adherents from other proletarians in only two ways: first, in all struggles of the proletariat, communists point out and bring to the front the interests of the entire class, regardless of this or that difference; and, second, in the various stages of the class struggle, communists always represent the interests of the movement as a whole, not just the views of this or that leadership. Thus, the communists are on the one hand the most advanced and resolute component of the proletariat of every country, and on the other hand are the most theoretically developed and are able to articulate and understand the various developments, conditions and results of the class struggle.

The workers’ republic — referred to historically as the dictatorship of the proletariat — is not merely another form of the state, or of class rule. Rather, it represents the transition between defeated bourgeois rule and the classless, communist society. The state is the linchpin of class society. Its abolition is key to the abolition of class distinctions and antagonisms. But the abolition of the state cannot be accomplished merely with the stroke of a pen. The capitalist state, due to its nature as a combination of armed agencies, must not only be dismantled, but its armed forces must be broken up and atomized.
In all, the workers’ republic has four main tasks: 1) the ouster of the bourgeoisie from political power; 2) the eradication of the old organs of the bourgeois state; 3) the institution of democratic workers’ control of production through the abolition of private property; and 4) the raising of the productive forces to a level where the material basis for class distinctions and class antagonism is forever eliminated. As the material basis for class distinctions and antagonisms disappears, those who were hitherto counted among the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie will enter the ranks of labor. The proletariat comes to encompass all members of society, and the proletariat itself ceases to be a class. Thus, the state becomes an anachronism of society, to be discarded like an empty orange peel. With the disappearance of classes comes the disappearance of the state.

syndicat

11th May 2007, 04:25

Black Dagger

11th May 2007, 10:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 01:02 pm
From the Communist League's Basic Principles; if you have any balls you'll read them all:
And what if syndicat doesn't have any 'balls'? No need for the masculinist language :P

Hasta and syndicat please try to refrain from the 'idiot, you're wrong im right' style responses, or this discussion is going to seriously deteriorate.

apathy maybe

11th May 2007, 11:02

Originally posted by Zampanò@May 11, 2007 03:40 am
Managers are petty-bourgeois...
Like, I hate to correct a Marxist on what Marx actually fucking said ... But Marx never included managers and professionals in the petit-bourgeois. No matter what your fucking organisation might tell you, the petit-bourgeois are the small capitalists who don't own enough to live purely off their investments, but also have to work.

They sometimes employ workers, and they sometimes don't ... But the point is that they own some amount of capital...

Because managers don't own, but merely control, they remain paid workers. Who obviously don't share the same opinions on capitalism as the majority of workers, hence why classing the proletariat as a single monolithic block is so fucking stupid ...

bloody_capitalist_sham

11th May 2007, 11:39

Originally posted by apathy maybe+May 11, 2007 11:02 am--> (apathy maybe @ May 11, 2007 11:02 am)
Zampanò@May 11, 2007 03:40 am
Managers are petty-bourgeois...
Like, I hate to correct a Marxist on what Marx actually fucking said ... But Marx never included managers and professionals in the petit-bourgeois. No matter what your fucking organisation might tell you, the petit-bourgeois are the small capitalists who don't own enough to live purely off their investments, but also have to work.

They sometimes employ workers, and they sometimes don't ... But the point is that they own some amount of capital...

Because managers don't own, but merely control, they remain paid workers. Who obviously don't share the same opinions on capitalism as the majority of workers, hence why classing the proletariat as a single monolithic block is so fucking stupid ... [/b]
I agree with you Apathy Maybe.

I think Zampano's politics are akin to the religious beliefs of a religious fundamentalist. Things are only black or white.

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 14:31

hasta: your huffing and puffing and bullying merely shows you can't make a persuasive case.

the principles you reprint from CL is just regurgitated rhetoric
from a century ago. "workers' control" is a vague term. Lenin meant
by it only that workers would have the right to check management and
ask for an accounting. Pretty tame. Workers in many workplaces in Russia
had already gone beyond that to workers collective management, which is
not the same thing as "worker control".

Ending private property doesn't ensure the empowerment or liberation of the working class. It is necessary but not sufficient. That's shown very clearly by the example of the old Soviet Union. they abolished private property in favor of state ownership. but the working class remained subordinated to, and exploited by, a new coordinatorist ruling class.
Then you didn't read the Principles. I want you to provide quotes where Lenin says what you claim. Or are you just lying again?

Lenin: The Democratic Tasks of the Revolutionary Proletariat:
The [Russian] Social Democratic Party, as the conscious exponent of the working-class movement, aims at the complete liberation of the toiling masses from every form of oppression and exploitationLink (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/jun/17b.htm
)

Links to refute this:
The rest of the world has gone thru a very different sort of historical evolution. And this is important because it also brings out another criticism of HM: it's tendency to be interpreted by Marxists as a theory of historical determinism, which is simply not plausible.
Marx and the Iroquois (http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/marx_iroquois.html) -- Pre-capitalist societies (http://marxists.org/subject/precapitalist/index.htm)

Ending private property doesn't ensure the empowerment or liberation of the working class. It is necessary but not sufficient. That's shown very clearly by the example of the old Soviet Union. they abolished private property in favor of state ownership. but the working class remained subordinated to, and exploited by, a new coordinatorist ruling class.
Lying again huh? For the liberation of the proletariat, they must take political power, abolish private property, and then begin the process of eliminating the capitalist relations of production. You claim its the fault of Marxist ideology, but you are clearly unable to back this with even quotes. I already explained your "coordinator class" vomit.

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 15:44

Marx's theory of class in capitalism is based on a bipolar division between labor and capital, which derives from Marx's analysis of the capital accumulation process. A problem with this theory is that it failed to predict, or account for, the emerence of a third main class in capitalism in its mature corporate form, the class of hired managers and top professionals -- what I call the "coordinator class". The position of this class is not based on ownership of assets -- accumulation of capital -- but relative monopolization of conditions that empower such as concentrations of expertise, managerial positions.
These are the petty-bourgeois; the enforce the rule of the bourgeois as managers, policemen, etc. Your definition is also true, but vague and old.

The development of capitalism in its early, ascendant stage required the mass reorganization of the petty bourgeoisie, which meant that members of that class were to be thrown down into the working class in large numbers -- even in whole sections, such as clerks and secretaries. However, with the growth of large-scale industry and the world market, the need for an intermediary between owner and producer -- between bourgeois and proletarian -- reasserted itself. The petty bourgeoisie was best suited to this role, but had to be transformed and "perfected" to fit into the system of social relations that existed. Marx and Engels recognized this in their famous passage from the Manifesto:

(Communist Manifesto @ Chapter III)
"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, maneuvering between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen."

I mean, and the fact that you, syndicat, fail to respond to 80% of my posts that re directed towards you, shows your inability and lack of understanding, seriously.

11th May 2007, 17:00

Like, I hate to correct a Marxist on what Marx actually fucking said ... But Marx never included managers and professionals in the petit-bourgeois.

Hasta pretty much pwned you on that one.

I think Zampano's politics are akin to the religious beliefs of a religious fundamentalist. Things are only black or white.

Nobody cares what you think.

ComradeRed

11th May 2007, 17:17

Originally posted by apathy maybe+May 11, 2007 02:02 am--> (apathy maybe @ May 11, 2007 02:02 am)
Zampanò@May 11, 2007 03:40 am
Managers are petty-bourgeois...
Like, I hate to correct a Marxist on what Marx actually fucking said ... But Marx never included managers and professionals in the petit-bourgeois. [/b]
Marx thought these people were petit bourgeois, it's Leninists who think they aren't.

If you actually look in chapter one of the Manifesto Marx outright states that the handicraftsman, the artisan, the shopkeeper, the peasant, and the manager are petit bourgeois (depending on the translator, it may be "lower middle class" instead of "petit bourgeois").

syndicat

11th May 2007, 17:18

hasta: Your posts are so taken up with huffing and puffing and bullying, there is little in the way of actual argument to respond to.

when Marx talks about the "petit bougeousie" being thrown into the proletariat, he is talking about the self-employed farmers and artisans. These are producers who still own their means of production. In some cases they werre master craftsmen who employed an apprentice and maybe a helper or two. in the USA in the early 1800s 70% of the households had their own means of production.

this is a very different class than the coordinator class. You ought to be able to see this when you consider the following facts:

(1) during the course of capitalist development, the petit bourgeoisie has continually shrunk, as petty commodity producers are driven out of business and have to seek jobs with employers

(2) the coordinator class has grown massively from the late 19th century on, and became the ruling class in the socalled "Communist" countries.

the coordinator class are hired labor, they don't own their means of production (tho they may use their high incomes to acquire some small capital holdings, like some stocks, a small apartment building etc). their life prospects are not based on owning some business but as people with credentials, expertise, hired to help manage large businesses or arms of the state.

apathy maybe

11th May 2007, 18:04

(Communist Manifesto @ Chapter III)
"In countries where modern civilisation has become fully developed, a new class of petty bourgeois has been formed, maneuvering between proletariat and bourgeoisie, and ever renewing itself as a supplementary part of bourgeois society. The individual members of this class, however, are being constantly hurled down into the proletariat by the action of competition, and, as modern industry develops, they even see the moment approaching when they will completely disappear as an independent section of modern society, to be replaced in manufactures, agriculture and commerce, by overlookers, bailiffs and shopmen."I wonder what "to be replaced ... by" means? Like, I'm not an expert in Marxism, but I would swear that Marx was talking about the petit-bourgeois being replaced, not simply changing jobs ...
These managers are surely simply workers, they do not own the means of production, but instead are forced to work for a living.

Take this quote from syndicat (slightly modified by me) and see if it makes sense (keeping in mind that the petit-bourgeois own some small amount of capital...

the [petit-bourgeois] are hired labor, they don't own their means of production (tho they may use their high incomes to acquire some small capital holdings, like some stocks, a small apartment building etc). their life prospects are not based on owning some business but as people with credentials, expertise, hired to help manage large businesses or arms of the state.
Thus, I pwn3d those who disagree.

Managers who do not own property (capital) cannot be considered anything other then a section of the proletariat. They are forced to work for a living, just like all the other proletariat are ...

syndicat

11th May 2007, 19:15

allegedly quoting me:
the [petit-bourgeois] are hired labor, they don't own their means of production (tho they may use their high incomes to acquire some small capital holdings, like some stocks, a small apartment building etc). their life prospects are not based on owning some business but as people with credentials, expertise, hired to help manage large businesses or arms of the state.

That's not what I said. The petit bourgeois are NOT "hired labor". The term "petit bourgeois" means small capitalist. They are people who are capitalists but do no own enough of it to avoid having to the sort of labor that the coordinator class are hired to do, manage labor, do accounts, etc.

Some members of the coordinator class own some small bits of capital, some don't. the point is that even if they do own some capital (some stocks, a house they are renting out), it isn't how they make their living, it isn'w what their life prospects are based on. Their life prospects, the way they make their living, is through their work.

Now, the contradictory statements by those in the grip of the Marxis schema here shows exactly the problem with Marxism: Some insist the class of managers and top professionals must be "petit bourgeois" -- confusing them with small business owners. Others, lik AM here, say they must be workers because they are hired labor.

Again, this proves my point: the classic marxist schema is an inadequate class theory because it has no adequate account of this important class, a class that became the ruling class in the "Communist" countries, and plays an important role in the corporations and the state in capitalism, as the class of bosses that most workers deal with directly. the big capitalists, the plutocracy, are too wealthy and powerful to have to deal with workers directly. they are insulated from the proletarian class by the coordinator class.

Hit The North

11th May 2007, 19:34

syndicat

11th May 2007, 19:43

As Noam Chomsky points out "middle class" is a meaningless phrase. That's because it's used in wide variety of inconsistent ways. Bourgeois social scientists and elite pundits in the USA like to talk of the "middle class" being the vast majority of American society. What exactly is "the middle class"? The term itself is un-Marxist as it isn't defined in relation to control over the means of production, or the other classes in social production. Is it the small business class -- petit bourgoisie? Is it the growing bureaucracy of hired managers and professionals? Is it just highly paid working people? The phrase has been used in such a wide and contradictory way that it is useless.

And Zero is suggesting that Marx was predicting the growth of the "middle class", in reality Marx predicted the shrinking of the petit bourgeoisie...and that prediction has come to pass. But the coordinator class has grown....a class that Marxism has no theory of.

and the fact they don't helps to explain why Marxism ended up providing ideological justification for dictatorial systems where the coordinator class presided over the working class, exploiting the latter.

gilhyle

11th May 2007, 20:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 02:59 am

We syndicalists are for the dismantling of the state...the working class cannot be liberated otherwise, and the revolution does need to consolidate itself throughout the society
Then we will be massacred.

Succinct, love it. :D

Syndicat says HM and Marxist class theory are 'logically' distinct and seems to think that has some significance for this debate. I have no clue what significance it has. He hasn't replied to the various points showing the historical nature of Marx's conception of class and the class character of Marx's conception of history. That is what this is about.

Its a different question as to whether a) the twin concepts of capitalist/working class can or should account for the layering of social strata in capitalist society or whether b) Marx alway uses the term class in a singular and uniform sense.

The issue is whether anarchists, having abaondoned the Marxist conception of history retain a conception of class which is similar to the Marxist conception of class. The Marxist conception of class might be a terrible one (I dont happen to think it is), but that is not the question.

The alternative is that the anarchist conception of class is actually the same as the capitlaist conception of class as set out and used in capitalist sociology. This is a conception which is empiricist and primarily descriptive and which sees any social group which has a distinct lever of social power as having an equal capacity to be seen as a 'class'. There is a serious political reason why we need to differentiate between a concept of class and a concept of an elite/social strata and that is because we need to differentiate between the class nature of states notwithstanding that whole classes never actually occupy Governments.

syndicat

11th May 2007, 20:09

First of all, HM and Marx's analysis of class are inseparable. The fact that Marx sometimes explains the tensions between relations and forces of production in abstract terms, does not mean he did not, at bottom, see these as acting through the struggle of social classes. It's there right at the top of the Communist Manifesto: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles."

Many of us on the libertarian Left recognize the central importance of the class struggle as an engine of change, and as the process through which the proletarian class can liberate itself.

But this is not the same thing as the theory of Historical Materialism (HM). HM is more than the simple statement that social history for the last coupld thousand years has been shaped by class conflict....a statement that, as i say, many on the libertarian Left agree with.

Rather, HM is a very specific theory about how a change from one mode of production to another comes about. This theory posits a fundamental force, the "development of the forces of production", driving this process. The idea is that as the forces of production develop in the context of some existing social arrangement (a "social formation") they run up against aspects of the way social production is controlled ("social relations of production") and then the ensuing crises and conflict generate a period of revolution, and a new mode of production comes into being, as people seek a way of arranging social production that can facilitate more growth in human productive power.

One problem with this theory is that it predicts that a social arrangement will be replaced when there is a failure to develop the productive forces. But if you look at human history, you will long periods of time in various parts of the world where little change in productive methods took place, where despotic regimes presided over a flattened peasantry, and simply were content to live in wealth extracted from the peasants without investing in new productive methods. This is inconsistent with what HM predicts.

Moreover, the specific generator of crisis in capitalism is supposed to be the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall", which appears to follow from the labor theory of value. Problem is, the "tendency of the rate of profit to fall" has been refuted, and the labor theory of value is a useless fifth wheel that is independent of the rest of Marxism...you don't need it to understand surplus labor, and it falsely assumes the two-class schema.

Rather than requiring commitment to this dubious house of cards, the libertarian Left is free to take from Marx only the elements that seem to make sense, such as the social theory of the person, the critique of "alienated labor", the distinction between labor and labor-power, the importance of the class struggle to history, and the belief that "the emancipation of the working class will be the work of the workers themselves."

syndicat

11th May 2007, 21:04

gilhyle:
The alternative is that the anarchist conception of class is actually the same as the capitlaist conception of class as set out and used in capitalist sociology. This is a conception which is empiricist and primarily descriptive and which sees any social group which has a distinct lever of social power as having an equal capacity to be seen as a 'class'. There is a serious political reason why we need to differentiate between a concept of class and a concept of an elite/social strata and that is because we need to differentiate between the class nature of states notwithstanding that whole classes never actually occupy Governments.

First, there is no such thing as "the anarchist conception of class" for the simple reason that there is no single thing that "anarchism" refers to. Now, among those anarchists who do recognize the importance of the class struggle, there was historically a tendency to simply take over Marx's sociology, but without the commitment to the specific theory of Historical Materialism (HM).

Rejecting HM meant that anarchists were intellectually free to explore ideas about forms of oppression not reducible to the labor/capital schema. In the Spanish revolution, for example, this led Mujeres Libres, a working class organization of anarchist women, to recognize the duality of women's oppression and class oppression, without trying to reduce the liberation of women to the class fight. This came about because of the experience of the working class women who organized ML, who had been labor organizers, and saw that a separate movement was needed of women, to develop their capacities as activists and organizers, to overcome their subordination within the unions and the revolutionary movemet. thus ML insisted on their autonomy in relation to the anarcho-syndicalist mass unions of the CNT and the specific anarchist formation, the FAI.

Rejecting HM and the labor/capital schema enabled a number of non-dogmatic libertarian Marxists in the '70s/'80s period to develop the theory of the coordinator class, rather than trying to artificially squeeze this class into either the working class (making it impossible to undertand the situation where the bosses most workers deal with daily are hired labor) or the "petit bourgeoisie" -- a class whose fortunes were supposed to be dependent on its ownership of its means of production.

Finally, your suggestion that the theory of the coordinator class is derived from boureois empricist sociology is simply false. It arose in the context of radical political economy....that's the libertarian, non-dogmatic Marxists i referred to. It's part of a structuralist analysis of the existing social arrangment. "Structuralist" in the sense that it looks at the structures of power within social production. The entire tradition of radical political economy, including Marx, is "structuralist" in this sense. Bourgeois economics and sociology avoids structures like class. Insofar as bourgeois social science uses the term "class", it tends to define it in terms of things like income or cultural characteristics, not structures of power over social production.

Within class divided societies, each class is itself hierarchical. And these hiearchies are shaped by different institutions. To suppose that those who are leaders currently at the top of the state are a separate class fails to define that class by the role in social production. This mistake was a feature, for example, of the theory of "bureaucratic collectivism". That theory of the class structure in the USSR limited its notion of the dominant class to the party leaders, but that fails to understand the dominant class in the USSR in terms of its structural position in social production.

The theory of the coordinator class, however, overcomes this defect, because this class is defined by its relative monopolization of conditions that give power in social production other than by ownership (private accumulation). This class is, in its subordinate position in capitalism, and in its dominant position in the old USSR, an internally hierarchical class, just as the capitalists in the USA are an internally hierarchical class, and the working class is differentiated within capitalism by various hierarchies (of skill, race, gender). The dominant coordinator class in the old USSR included not only the party leaders, but also the generals in the military, managers of the major industries, the Gosplan planning elite.

apathy maybe

11th May 2007, 21:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:15 pm
allegedly quoting me:
the [petit-bourgeois] are hired labor, they don't own their means of production (tho they may use their high incomes to acquire some small capital holdings, like some stocks, a small apartment building etc). their life prospects are not based on owning some business but as people with credentials, expertise, hired to help manage large businesses or arms of the state.

That's not what I said. The petit bourgeois are NOT "hired labor". The term "petit bourgeois" means small capitalist. They are people who are capitalists but do no own enough of it to avoid having to the sort of labor that the coordinator class are hired to do, manage labor, do accounts, etc.

Some members of the coordinator class own some small bits of capital, some don't. the point is that even if they do own some capital (some stocks, a house they are renting out), it isn't how they make their living, it isn'w what their life prospects are based on. Their life prospects, the way they make their living, is through their work.

Now, the contradictory statements by those in the grip of the Marxis schema here shows exactly the problem with Marxism: Some insist the class of managers and top professionals must be "petit bourgeois" -- confusing them with small business owners. Others, lik AM here, say they must be workers because they are hired labor.

Again, this proves my point: the classic marxist schema is an inadequate class theory because it has no adequate account of this important class, a class that became the ruling class in the "Communist" countries, and plays an important role in the corporations and the state in capitalism, as the class of bosses that most workers deal with directly. the big capitalists, the plutocracy, are too wealthy and powerful to have to deal with workers directly. they are insulated from the proletarian class by the coordinator class.
I actually agree with you, and I modified your quote to show how ridiculous the claim is that managers are part of the petit-bourgeois.

The way I modified your quote doesn't make sense, yet there are some people in this thread who would claim otherwise. (I only used your quote because it was a good description of what managers are, what certain people were trying to claim were petit-bourgeois).

I also agree with you on the inadequacy of Marxian class analysis, but we are really getting off topic. (I find it simplistic to lump all the proletariat or in fact all the bourgeois into one class. I also think that only looking at economics is problematic, and I have been discussing the issue of the military in live chat, and will in the future start a thread on the matter.)

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 22:56

I also agree with you on the inadequacy of Marxian class analysis, but we are really getting off topic. (I find it simplistic to lump all the proletariat or in fact all the bourgeois into one class
Marxism is an expanding ideology; it is not a dogma. Nobody suggested what you said.

the coordinator class has grown massively from the late 19th century on, and became the ruling class in the socalled "Communist" countries.
But see, you see, you can't objetively analyze why that happened. You blame it on ideology. I have the opinion that Russia was state-capitalist, after the successful counterrevolution by the bureaucracy, due mostly to the fact that the revolution did not become global.

Your posts are so taken up with huffing and puffing and bullying, there is little in the way of actual argument to respond to.
You fail to respond or to give a good analysis. And you call it "huffing and puffing", but I'm gonna blow the house down motherfucker.

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 23:07

And just to refute some of syndicraps on going lies, I'll give this nice quote on Lenin about the state and worker's power:

Secondly, the state is a “special coercive force". Engels gives this splendid and extremely profound definition here with the utmost lucidity. And from it follows that the “special coercive force” for the suppression of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie, of millions of working people by handfuls of the rich, must be replaced by a “special coercive force” for the suppression of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat (the dictatorship of the proletariat). This is precisely what is meant by “abolition of the state as state". This is precisely the “act” of taking possession of the means of production in the name of society. And it is self-evident that such a replacement of one (bourgeois) “special force” by another (proletarian) “special force” cannot possibly take place in the form of “withering away".

The State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch01.htm#s4)

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 23:11

This thing of the coordinator class, Marx precisely sums up how what you refer to are the managers and clerks and overseers. They are also private guards and armies and security guards, etc.

One thing holds true though: they are the enforcers of bourgeois rule, and thus enemies of the working class.

Syndicrap, would you say that cops are part of your "coordinator class?"

You also said some crap about how Marxism didn't liberate the women or something, as if you've actually read Marx, and if you have, then you are quite ingorant. Anyway, from a prominent female Marxist called Rosa Luxembourg:

As long as capitalism and the wage system rule, only that kind of work is considered productive which produces surplus value, which creates capitalist profit. From this point of view, the music-hall dancer whose legs sweep profit into her employer's pocket is a productive worker, whereas all the toil of the proletarian women and mothers in the four walls of their homes is considered unproductive. This sounds brutal and insane, but corresponds exactly to the brutality and insanity of our present capitalist economy. And seeing this brutal reality clearly and sharply is the proletarian woman's first task.

To begin with, in the 1844 Paris Manuscripts, Marx makes a major point of
the relationship between the sexes:

The infinite degradation in which man
exists for himself is expressed in this relation to the woman

Rawthentic

11th May 2007, 23:39

Leon Trotsky's Communism and Syndicalism (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1931/unions/3-commsyn.htm)

The larger the mass the trade unions embrace, the better they are able to fulfil their mission. A proletarian party, on the contrary, merits its name only if it is ideologically homogeneous, bound by unity of action and organisation. To represent the trade unions as self-sufficient because the proletariat has already attained its “majority,” is to flatter the proletariat is to picture it other than it is and can be under capitalism, which keeps enormous masses of workers in ignorance and backwardness, leaving only the vanguard of the proletariat the possibility of breaking through all the difficulties and arriving at a clear comprehension of the tasks of its class as a whole.

The weakness of anarcho-syndicalism, even in its classic period, was the absence of a correct theoretical foundation, and, as a result a wrong understanding of the nature of the state and its role in the class struggle; an incomplete, not fully developed and, consequently, a wrong conception of the role of the revolutionary minority, that is, the party. Thence the mistakes in tactics, such as the fetishism of the general strike, the ignoring of the connection between the uprising and the seizure of power, etc.

cenv

12th May 2007, 00:08

But see, you see, you can't objetively analyze why that happened. You blame it on ideology. I have the opinion that Russia was state-capitalist, after the successful counterrevolution by the bureaucracy, due mostly to the fact that the revolution did not become global.
Why don't you elaborate on this? Why d'you think that this was the primary reason? D'you think that had, say, the German revolution succeeded, the USSR would've been successful in building socialism? You seem to make the above claim every time someone references the Russian Revolution in an argument, but you haven't explained why you think the Soviet disaster was "due mostly to the fact that the revolution did not become global"?

You fail to respond or to give a good analysis. And you call it "huffing and puffing", but I'm gonna blow the house down motherfucker.
He seems to responding to your points more than you're responding to his. All this talk about the proletariat organizing as a class, yet you seem unable to debate civilly with a few comrades.

I think defining the coordinator class as separate from petty capitalists is an interesting idea, because one could certainly argue that the two groups have different interests. The petty-bourgeoisie is primarily interested in creating conditions in which their small businesses aren't threatened by more powerful competition while syndicat's "coordinator class" is probably just interested in maintaining capitalism as it is so they can enjoy their privilege. For this reason, it seems as if the class of small capitalists may be more opposed to capitalism in its current form and have more potential of siding with the proletariat than top managers and professionals. As Marx points out, the petty capitalists are constantly being proletarianized, while the powerful professionals and managers certainly aren't threatened in the same way.

I'm still not convinced as to how significant the difference between the two groups is though. Both, while not possessing the power of the ruling class, enjoy a relatively high degree of autonomy in their work. They're both similar in that the main character of their occupation in terms of class is that they are not exploited despite the fact they aren't running society either, so both of them are probably primarily concerned with protecting their conditions of privilege and non-exploitation.

Rawthentic

12th May 2007, 01:11

Why don't you elaborate on this?
No problem. If there is no worldwide revolution, there is no way that a proletarian revolution can successfully overturn capitalist class relations. This is because, as Russia showed us, it became subject to the laws of capitalism very soon. Its worldwide or it is nothing. It has more to do with science than solidarity.

He seems to responding to your points more than you're responding to his. All this talk about the proletariat organizing as a class, yet you seem unable to debate civilly with a few comrades.
Yeah, Im quite hostile to some that are too hard-headed. But thats why I made this post, more on what you said:

This thing of the coordinator class, Marx precisely sums up how what you refer to are the managers and clerks and overseers. They are also private guards and armies and security guards, etc.

One thing holds true though: they are the enforcers of bourgeois rule, and thus enemies of the working class.

Syndicrap, would you say that cops are part of your "coordinator class?"

But this "class" cannot be a class if it has no relation to the means of production. Thus, if this "class" is that of managers and overseers or what he says, then they are the protectors of the capitalist system.

Marx points out, the petty capitalists are constantly being proletarianized, while the powerful professionals and managers certainly aren't threatened in the same way.
No they are not. That was in capitalism's ascendant phase, not today.

"This is a consequence of the transition from capitalism from its ascendant to its declining stage: imperialism. The bourgeoisie needed these legions of petty bourgeois to handle the daily administration of society, especially as the proletariat grew to numbers that could easily overwhelm the ruling classes of the world. Thus, a deal was made: In exchange for their loyalty, the petty bourgeoisie would be given a broad hand in the management and shaping of society. The deal would be sweetened over the years, with the bourgeoisie accepting agreements that bolstered the position of the petty bourgeoisie within society. In times of relative social peace and an ebbed class struggle, this arrangement commonly expressed itself through bourgeois democracy. In times of sharpened class struggle, this arrangement was thrown into crisis and resolved many times with the turning toward fascism.

But the transformation of the petty bourgeoisie into a stable and crystallized class within the social relations structure capitalism needs was the annihilation of the "grey areas" that surrounded class relations, even in ascendant capitalist society. In other words, the ability to "de-class" one's self and be able to stand apart from one's previous class relations was eliminated in the epoch of imperialism. From this point on, one must either remain in their previous class relations or completely break from them."

syndicat

12th May 2007, 01:45

No, my critique of Leninism is based on their programmatic and strategic commitments. It's a question thus of what the REAL consequences will be. Do you say that there are no real consequences of your program?

I have in fact defined the coordinator class in relation to the system of production. That's exactly how i defined it. Classes aren't just in relation to the means of production but also to each other. That's why, for Marx capital and labor are opposite sides of the same relation. The coordinator class is defined by its relative monopolization of conditions in social production that empower other than by ownership -- key forms of expertise that give them great influence (lawyers, engineers) or management positions. This has to do with the use of means of production by human work because we're talking about power over the labor process, which is a process wherein people use the means of production to produce things that of use to others.

Hit The North

12th May 2007, 01:59

Sindicat writes:

And Zero is suggesting that Marx was predicting the growth of the "middle class", in reality Marx predicted the shrinking of the petit bourgeoisie...and that prediction has come to pass. But the coordinator class has grown....a class that Marxism has no theory of.

I'm not suggesting it, I'm quoting the man himself. Neither have I claimed that Marx saw the "middle class" as being coterminous with the "petite bourgeoisie" - that's perhaps your assertion.

In respect of this 'coordinator class', Marxism would not recognize it as a class, because it isn't one - being formed through its function within the means of production, rather than its relation to it.

The antecedent to the concept can be found in the bourgeois social theory of Max Weber who argued that power and authority increasingly shifts away from ownership of production to control of administration i.e. the ranks of white collar administrators who inhabit the bureaucracies of social institutions. According to Weber, and following on from Malthus, this expanding middle class makes class polarization practically impossible and class conflict unlikely. So not only is the concept of a "coordinator class" not original but it mimics an extremely conservative analysis of social class structure which is anti-socialist in its conclusions.

Of course, a big problem with seeing administrators and bureaucrats as a social class, is that it is even more diverse than the proletariat being composed of routine white collar workers at one end and powerful mandarins at the other, with a host of different strata of functionaries in between.

If however by "coordinator class" you are referring to those privileged groups who wield real power and authority, like the top civil service, judges and top executives of private corporations and yet don't directly own means of production, I think Ralph Milibands notion of a self-recruiting elite is a good Marxist approach to explaining where they come from and what they represent. In fact a rudimentary empirical investigation into the social backgrounds, family and education of these groups will easily demonstrate that they derive from the same cess pit as the bourgeois owners of industry.

Rawthentic

12th May 2007, 02:00

No, my critique of Leninism is based on their programmatic and strategic commitments. It's a question thus of what the REAL consequences will be. Do you say that there are no real consequences of your program?
Very well, that is fine and dandy. I might just add that "Leninism" is not what it was in Russia, or wherever else. In fact, I am no "Leninist", but discarding some of Lenin's theories such as the State and Revolution and What is to be Done? is stupid.
What happened in Russia would not happen in the US for example.

I don't know what you mean by "program" but it basically consists of a political struggle, the only sort that can destroy the capitalist state, and build a working people's republic.

I would also appreciate it if you responded to all of the points in like the 3 other posts directed towards you.

Rawthentic

12th May 2007, 02:03

I think that someone should sticky this thread, or put it somewhere visible for when the question of the "state" pops up again.

cenv

12th May 2007, 06:33

No problem. If there is no worldwide revolution, there is no way that a proletarian revolution can successfully overturn capitalist class relations. This is because, as Russia showed us, it became subject to the laws of capitalism very soon. Its worldwide or it is nothing. It has more to do with science than solidarity.

I realize that this is what you're saying. I'm asking how you arrived at this conclusion and, more specifically, how you decided that this is the number one reason for the collapse of workers' power in Russia?

But this "class" cannot be a class if it has no relation to the means of production. Thus, if this "class" is that of managers and overseers or what he says, then they are the protectors of the capitalist system.
Well, as I pointed out in my first post, I do agree that managers and top professionals can ultimately be included in the petty-bourgeoisie, but I still think this is worth discussing. I think what syndicat is getting at is that technically, in terms of relation to the means of production, managers and high-ranked professionals are proletarian because they sell their labor power.

No they are not. That was in capitalism's ascendant phase, not today.

The process continues today, although perhaps to a lesser extent.

No, my critique of Leninism is based on their programmatic and strategic commitments. It's a question thus of what the REAL consequences will be. Do you say that there are no real consequences of your program?
I think perhaps you're starting to use the term "Leninist" too liberally. Hasta isn't a Leninist by any means.

but discarding some of Lenin's theories such as the State and Revolution and What is to be Done? is stupid.
Exactly what theories d'you refer to? He didn't really introduce any original "theories" in State and Revolution.

syndicat, the "coordinator class" still seems somewhat vaguely defined. Exactly what credentials d'you use to decide whether someone is a "coordinator"? How d'you decide where the "coordinator class" ends and the working class begins?

12th May 2007, 07:06

Well, as I pointed out in my first post, I do agree that managers and top professionals can ultimately be included in the petty-bourgeoisie, but I still think this is worth discussing. I think what syndicat is getting at is that technically, in terms of relation to the means of production, managers and high-ranked professionals are proletarian because they sell their labor power.

This is incorrect because, as Syndicat has correctly pointed out, classes aren't defined solely by their relations to the means of production but also their relations to each other.

Exactly what theories d'you refer to? He didn't really introduce any original "theories" in State and Revolution.

That is a valid response to what Hasta has written; however, I think he meant that we shouldn't discard State & Revolution as a theoretical work. While Lenin didn't introduce any new theories in State & Revolution, he did present an incredibly thorough exposition of the Marxist theory of the state, and because of this it should be accepted and valued as a contribution to that theory.

Rawthentic

12th May 2007, 16:19

I realize that this is what you're saying. I'm asking how you arrived at this conclusion and, more specifically, how you decided that this is the number one reason for the collapse of workers' power in Russia?
Studying I suppose? ABC Marxism?

Like Cuba today, it cannot by any means evade the capitalist market and the relations that come with it. Thats why it must be global or it will fail. It may not be the number one reason, but it a fundamental part of it. I mean, take how Lenin emphasized the need for worldwide revolution, namely in Germany.

There's also the economic backwardness of Russia, the Civil War, etc. But do we agree that worldwide revolution would definitely help keep the workers in power?

This is incorrect because, as Syndicat has correctly pointed out, classes aren't defined solely by their relations to the means of production but also their relations to each other.
Yeah. How can they can they make a class out of thin air?

syndicat

12th May 2007, 16:39

Replying to Zero,

Max Weber had no theory of the coordinator class. The coordinator class is not the same as "middle class." As I've pointed out, "middle class" is nonsensical phrase beause it's been used to mean different, contradictory things. The "middle class" contains three layers within it:

(1) the coordinator class. you say:

In respect of this 'coordinator class', Marxism would not recognize it as a class, because it isn't one - being formed through its function within the means of production, rather than its relation to it.

This is incorrect. The coordinator class is defined in terms of its power over the working class in social production. Classes in Marx are not defined solely "in relation to the means of production" but in relation to each other. That's why for Marx labor and capital are just opposite sides of the labor/capital relation. The notion of the coordinator class was not derived from the theories of Max Weber.

The power of the coordinator class in social production is based on its relative monopolization of conditions other than ownership that give power in social production, to direct the labor process, such as management positions, concentrations of certain key types of expertise (lawyers, accountants, engineers).

(2) small business class. Marxists call this the "petit bourgeoisie". this class differs from the coordinator class in that its power is based on ownership of a business. very often people who run small businesses don't have the college educations typical of the coordinator class, like a carpenter getting his contractor's license and setting up shop as a contractor.

However, class boundary lines are fuzzy...how much capital does one need to have to rise from the petit bourgeoisie into the haute bourgesoisie?

One reason that class lines are fuzzy is that capitalism is continually re-organizing production, trying to strip away autonomy and control from groups in the production process. in the 19th century many workers still had lots of artisan autonomy, like the iron puddlers in the steel industry who hired their own helpers and controlled the technology. to extract more profit capitalists reorganize production to take away that sort of autonomy, by redefining the jobs, creaing management structures to more intensely control workers.

this process nowadays leads to groups of "professionals" losing their autonomy. for example, there are capitalist consultancies that go to school boards in the USA to sell them canned curricula and teaching schemes, and then if these are adopted the teachers lose their control over the methods and content of the classes and are told "just do it this way." Teachers are thus proletarianized.

So this leads me to the third group in the middle strata:

(3) lower-level professionals (application programmers, writers, teachers, social workers etc)

The Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright introduced the concept of a "contradictory class location." This is a position that is on the boundary line between classes. Lower level professionals are in this situation. They are hired labor, they are subject to management power -- their situation is thus somewhat worker-like. And they sometimes form unions to fight management. But they typically have college degrees and get more autonomy and respect at work than proletarians. They sometimes take an elitist stance, separating themselves from other workers. They share some of the cultural characteristics of the coordinator class. But capital works to restrict their autonomy, to proletarianize them.

so the so-called "middle class" isn't a class...it's too diverse to be. But it contains two classes within it, coordinators and petit bourgeoisie, and a boundary line group that shares some of the situation of proletarian class.

12th May 2007, 18:27

The Marxist sociologist Erik Olin Wright

This guy's about as Marxist as Michael Moore. He's a fucking joke.

gilhyle

12th May 2007, 20:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 07:09 pm

Rather than requiring commitment to this dubious house of cards, the libertarian Left is free to take from Marx only the elements that seem to make sense, such as the social theory of the person, the critique of "alienated labor", the distinction between labor and labor-power, the importance of the class struggle to history, and the belief that "the emancipation of the working class will be the work of the workers themselves."
THank you: so lets just reformulate that slightly more transparently, having rejected the Marxist theory of history, such libertarians also have a different theory of class than Marx - that is the answer to the original question.

syndicat

12th May 2007, 20:37

gilhyle:
THank you: so lets just reformulate that slightly more transparently, having rejected the Marxist theory of history, such libertarians also have a different theory of class than Marx - that is the answer to the original question.

I don't have the same theory of class since Marxism has a bipolar labor/capital theory and I don't. but you shouldn't assume that the libertarian left in general agrees with me. Many of them in fact hold to the Marxist labor/capital polarity, despite not relying on the specific theory of historical materialism (the theory of change in terms of "fettering" of "the development of the productive forces" by the "social relations of production") (as distinguished from the more general idea of class struggle as a force in social change, and the fact of changes in modes of production over time, which of course the libertarian Left generally agrees with).

gilhyle

13th May 2007, 15:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 07:37 pm
Many of them in fact hold to the Marxist labor/capital polarity, despite not relying on the specific theory of historical materialism (the theory of change in terms of "fettering" of "the development of the productive forces" by the "social relations of production") (as distinguished from the more general idea of class struggle as a force in social change, and the fact of changes in modes of production over time, which of course the libertarian Left generally agrees with).
Well, I suspect they do not. For me the differentiation of the forces/relations view of history from the clas analysis view of hsitory is a typical effect of the way capitalist sociological ideology tries to divide Marxism up into bits they can assimilate and reject/accept.

Apathy Maybe asked an interesting question about why anarchists appear to accept a Marxist type of class analysis while rejecting Marxist conceptions of history- and suggested a link between this and the cocneption of a post-revolutionary society.

I think this was very good question. As anarchism has developed in what I might call a syndicalist direction and, in particular, during the later twentieth century when hard core anarchist ideas were marginalised and there seemed some leverage in adapting to labor movements where Marxism had its greatest influence, they have adopted some of the language of Marxist class analysis. But just because there is an appranet capital/labor counterposition in their writings doesnt mean that in any realistic sense they have actually adopted a Marxist type of class analysis.

I think this thread has not shown that in any significant sense they retain a Marxist type of class analysis. Granted there is a problem with that debate in saying what Marxist class analysis is. When attempts hve been made to locate the heart of the method in the view that that a class analysis of historical change is critical you have argued that that method is not a good one. BUt whether good or not, it still is the Marxist method. And anarchists dont usually share it.

They usually have a conception of class based on power, on the division between those who benefit from the exercise of power versus those who would, supposedly, be liberated by the elimination of those power structures. That is part of the approach which leads anarchists to see the seizure of the state as itself a sufficiently transformative event to alter radically the potential of huan society.

They tend to believe this in a way Marxists do not.

Granted the precise nature of the difference is hard to pin down. But it is characteristic of the anarchist view to suggest that a abroad range of obstacles to a better society will simply be wiped away by teh revolutionary moment. (I dont want to charicature anarchism, obviously views vary - but Im trying to summarise here).

the Marxist view, on the contrary, tends to see the seizure of the State as achieving only the transfer of ownership of the power of the state from one class to another. This opens up possibilities, because of how that power can be used. But the Marxist view minimises the idea of a transformative elimination of unacceptable power structures by the seizure itself.

There is no concept of the seizure of the capitalist state as a doing away with power in Marxism only the change in who weilds the poiwer. Patently once we stretch our terms of reference beyond the period of the seizure of the state to what is done with the power, then there is a concept of the the transofrmative elimination of undesirable power structures, but always as a function of enrichment rather than as a self-justifying process of liberation by purposely getting rid of power structures.

Hit The North

13th May 2007, 16:18

Reply to Syndicat,

Max Weber had no theory of the coordinator class. The coordinator class is not the same as "middle class."

Weber didn't call it the 'coordinator class' but his theory of bureaucratic domination depends upon the existence of a technocratic elite, buttressed by ranks of specialists, similar to your depiction. However, he had enough respect for material relations not to call it a 'class'.

As I've pointed out, "middle class" is nonsensical phrase beause it's been used to mean different, contradictory things. The "middle class" contains three layers within it:

2) Either they are layers within the middle class or they are classes in themselves. You seem to conflate the two.

This is because you detach your notion of class from the relations of production. Yes, classes are relational, but they are relational to the means of production, not to other sources of power or prestige. I think you're describing status groups within the division of labour. Consequently, in my opinion, you once again lapse into a Weberian sociology.

On the other hand I agree with you that class lines are fuzzy and I have some sympathy with Olin-Wright's notion of contradictory class relations. Marx was aware of this. In Capital Vol 3, he observes that in England where the economic structure is "most highly and classically developed... intermediate and transitional strata obscures the class boundaries". Therefore, I don't accept your description of his class outlook as a bi-polar labour/capital theory. As Marxists we can accept the empirical reality of a society composed of more than two classes. Nevertheless not all class locations should be treated as having the same significance. Despite the existence of other classes, it is the relationship between the owners and the producers of the means of production which holds the key to both the existence of capitalist society and its transcendence.

syndicat

13th May 2007, 18:35

gilhyle:

As anarchism has developed in what I might call a syndicalist direction and, in particular, during the later twentieth century when hard core anarchist ideas were marginalised and there seemed some leverage in adapting to labor movements where Marxism had its greatest influence, they have adopted some of the language of Marxist class analysis.

Actually, you have the history exactly reversed. Modern anarchism began as a political tendency in the first International Workers Association of the 1860s-70s. The libertarian socialists within the first IWA were oriented to the class struggle, and viewed the mass organizations of the workers in the class struggle as the means to revolution. Consider that the Haymarket Martyrs were members of the International Working People's Association -- an anarchist political group. The most important influence of anarchism in a revolution was in Spain in the 1930s, when the anarcho-syndicalist CNT was the driving force beyind the revolution.

In the 1920s the anarcho-syndicalist international (the second IWA) had between 3 and 5 million members.

It was after the defeat of the Spanish revolution and the onset of the Cold War and the post-WWII boom that anarchism became marginalized. And it was then that anarchism began to wander away from the old class struggle orientation, to orient itself to other sorts of ideas, such as Bookchin's social ecology.

They usually have a conception of class based on power, on the division between those who benefit from the exercise of power versus those who would, supposedly, be liberated by the elimination of those power structures. That is part of the approach which leads anarchists to see the seizure of the state as itself a sufficiently transformative event to alter radically the potential of huan society.

There are also Marxist economists who interpret class in terms of power, thus analyzing capital as essentially a power relation. As I said before, it's not a concept of class unless it's a structure of power over social production and in relation to other groups of people. Your comment above ignores this.

It's not a party winning control of a state that in itself is transformative of the mode of production. That dependsx on what their programmatic direction is, that is, what they do with the state.

However, what we do say is that capturing a state cannot be the basis of a certain kind of transformation, namely, liberating the working class from the class system. That's because the state is inherently a class institution. This is so because of its hierarchical separation from effective control by the mass of the people, which enables the state to have a function of defending and furthering the interests of a dominating class. In the modern state there is a corporate-style hierarchy in which cadres of the coordinator class -- managers/officials and top professionals -- preside over the various arms of the state, over its top-down armed bodies and so on.

syndicat

13th May 2007, 18:41

Zero:
This is because you detach your notion of class from the relations of production. Yes, classes are relational, but they are relational to the means of production, not to other sources of power or prestige. I think you're describing status groups within the division of labour. Consequently, in my opinion, you once again lapse into a Weberian sociology.

You need to quote what I say that says anything like this. I defined the coodinator class precisely by their power -- their role -- in social production. This means the power they have over the use of the means of production, and their power relations to both workers and capitalists. Class is not just a relation to the means of production, but between different groups. Capital is a power relation that gives the capitalists power over workers. I didn't define the coordinator class in terms of "prestige". Their type of ideology and prestige would be an effect of their power position in social production, as with other classes.

gilhyle

14th May 2007, 19:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 05:35 pm

There are also Marxist economists who interpret class in terms of power, thus analyzing capital as essentially a power relation. As I said before, it's not a concept of class unless it's a structure of power over social production and in relation to other groups of people. Your comment above ignores this.

It's not a party winning control of a state that in itself is transformative of the mode of production. That dependsx on what their programmatic direction is, that is, what they do with the state.

However, what we do say is that capturing a state cannot be the basis of a certain kind of transformation, namely, liberating the working class from the class system. That's because the state is inherently a class institution. This is so because of its hierarchical separation from effective control by the mass of the people, which enables the state to have a function of defending and furthering the interests of a dominating class. In the modern state there is a corporate-style hierarchy in which cadres of the coordinator class -- managers/officials and top professionals -- preside over the various arms of the state, over its top-down armed bodies and so on.
I dont get the history of anarchism the wrong way around, I just start it earlier than you do - and I include the alienation from the workers movement after anarchists were kicked out of the International and some turned towards individualist anarchism; I differentiate between the original syndicalist movements and anarchism; I link the revival in more socialist anarchism to the Russian revolution etc etc....

But the point is that anarchists think about a revolution against capitalism which is a liberating act and this idea is very different from the Marxist conception in which the seizure of the State is primarily preparatory and only secondarily constitutive. Similarly, the Marxist conception of class is based on role within production rather than power over production. The anarchist conception of class does not include the idea of the working class as a ruling class. Classically, the conception is one of those who cannot rule others but can only be freed

It doesnt work to say that there are marxist economists who interpret class in terms of power - this would be the kind of answer I would expect from an academic rather than a revolutionary, since academics have no respect for Marxism and debase it to an almost empty label.

Anarchism and Marxism are very different sets of ideas. It would be bizarre if you could mix and match them like cheap separates. Their concepts of class are as different as their concepts of revolution and of history.

gilhyle

15th May 2007, 00:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 08:04 pm
To suppose that those who are leaders currently at the top of the state are a separate class fails to define that class by the role in social production. This mistake was a feature, for example, of the theory of "bureaucratic collectivism". That theory of the class structure in the USSR limited its notion of the dominant class to the party leaders, but that fails to understand the dominant class in the USSR in terms of its structural position in social production.

The theory of the coordinator class, however, overcomes this defect, because this class is defined by its relative monopolization of conditions that give power in social production other than by ownership (private accumulation).
By the way, just for the record, I question this:

If you look at Milovan Djilas' The New Class, he is very clear that what supposedly make the bureaucracy a 'class' in the USSR is that because of the nationalised character of property, the bureaucracy not only disposes of political power but, further, has the power to control the use of property in all aspects of life, including production (see for example pp 54-56, Allen & Unwin 1966 edition)

Or go back to Bruno Rizzi: In the USSR, in our view, it is the bureaucrats who are the owners....it is they who manage the economy...." (P.69, The Bureaucratisation of the World, The Free Press, 1985)

Nether of these writers confines their conception to the political leaders, they include all those who control production.

syndicat

15th May 2007, 00:35

gilhyle:

If you look at Milovan Djilas' The New Class, he is very clear that what supposedly make the bureaucracy a 'class' in the USSR is that because of the nationalised character of property, the bureaucracy not only disposes of political power but, further, has the power to control the use of property in all aspects of life, including production (see for example pp 54-56, Allen & Unwin 1966 edition)

Or go back to Bruno Rizzi: In the USSR, in our view, it is the bureaucrats who are the owners....it is they who manage the economy...." (P.69, The Bureaucratisation of the World, The Free Press, 1985)

Nether of these writers confines their conception to the political leaders, they include all those who control production.

I had in mind Max Schachtman's formulation, and that of his followers like Hal Draper.

But your quotes don't really prove your point. That's because the term "bureaudracy" is vague. There are bureaucracies in all kinds of organizations, in trade unions, in AARP, in the Boy Scouts, etc. "Bureaucracy" therefore doesn't define a role in relation to social production. And you said earlier that, in the Marxist view, it was a "role" in social production that defines class.

Throwing around the label "bureaucracy" doesn't really provide us a theory of the dominating class in the USSR.

the Marxist conception of class is based on role within production rather than power over production.

This seems to me to be a distinction without a difference. Presumably the sort of role one has in mind is one where it gives power, or subordinates to power.

It doesnt work to say that there are marxist economists who interpret class in terms of power - this would be the kind of answer I would expect from an academic rather than a revolutionary, since academics have no respect for Marxism and debase it to an almost empty label.

I was thinking of an essay in "Dollars & Sense" -- not exactly a rarified academic journal. Besides, there are a number of "revolutionary Marxist" groups (such as Solidarity) which have as members academics who play an influential role, as for example writers and articulators of ideas.

Now, someone might say that these groups "are not real Marxists" but that sort of reply would be sectarian.

Anarchism and Marxism are very different sets of ideas. It would be bizarre if you could mix and match them like cheap separates. Their concepts of class are as different as their concepts of revolution and of history.

The thing is, tho, this is what has actually happened in history. And the influence has gone both ways. In the World War I era Italian socialism/communism was heavily influenced by anarchist and syndicalist ideas. Carl Levy talks about this in his book "Gramsci and the Anarchists." And I know lots of anarchist activists who consider themselves "libertarian Marxists" in their ideas, or who agree with bits and pieces of Marxism.

apathy maybe

15th May 2007, 08:53

Originally posted by gilhyle
... The anarchist conception of class does not include the idea of the working class as a ruling class. Classically, the conception is one of those who cannot rule others but can only be freed

When you talk of "the anarchist conception of class", you do realise that you are generalising something that perhaps shouldn't be. Though I do agree that, at least the anarchist I know, anarchists don't think that the working class as a whole can rule.

Anarchism and Marxism are very different sets of ideas. It would be bizarre if you could mix and match them like cheap separates. Their concepts of class are as different as their concepts of revolution and of history.
Well, it depends I guess. I'm sure that some people would disagree that Marxism and anarchism are so different (take our ex-resident guru redstar2000 for example, who disliked the term anarchism, but who's ideas where distinctly anarchistic). And as such, there are some variants of Marxism that are basically anarchistic (specifically the more libertarian strains, those who reject that the state can be used as you seem to describe) and some variants of anarchism that have adopted both the historiography and class analysis of Marxism (of course interpreted in a libertarian sense).

Anyway, I'm finding this discussion very interesting, despite it wandering away a bit from where it started.

gilhyle

15th May 2007, 12:16

Funny, I also looked up Shachtman, but I didnt have a suitable summary reference for his view

My quotes do not prove my point, but my references do. The arguments Rizzi, Djilas (and for that mattter many State Caps) make is that the bureaucracy ceases to be just a bureacracy precisely because it is located in a nationalised economy. By creating the planned economy, the bureaucracy supposedly transformed itself into a class by giving itself power over the distribution of resources in production. that may be the real difference between your view and theirs - their view is linked specifically to the planned economy, yours extends to what early twentieth century writers would call the 'trustified' economy.

The reason why I disagree with them and you have to do with recognising the USSR as a transitional form rather than as a mode of production and with recognising the later stages of capitalism as transitional. You get command economies within all modes of production - particularly during periods of crisis or decline - and you need a methodology which allows you to differentiate between a temporary and/or transitional form and a mode of production.

For example, absolutist monarchies were not a mode of production, although they involved the exercise of very significant centralised power over the distribution of land and the structure of taxation and trade.

Lacking historical perspective, structuralist approaches fall easily into empiricism, unable to differentiate between the mere exercise of power in relation to production at a moment in time and the role within the production process over a significant period of history, definable as the mode of production.

There are all sorts of difficult methodological issues here for Marxists around the bizarre fact that the mode of production is an abstract concept which never actually exists. The capitalism of Volume One of Capital, notwithstanding the many illustrations in that volume, never has and never could actually exist. Real capitalism is always also something more specific - but that is where historical analysis is critical.

One way to see these methodological difficulties Marxism has is as points of conflict with the dominant ideology. I start from the view that it is extremely difficult to articulate a coherent alternative to the dominant ideology and that the alternative always seems counter-intuitive precisely because we live under capitalism - we are always left with the desire to try to restate our ideas in more acceptable ways, i.e. in ways which appear more common-sensical. Shachtman, for example, represents a sense that Marxism need not be nearly so different from the dominant scientific paradigms as it thinks it needs to be. Most anarchists, in the same way, articulate values and ideas of class etc. which are much more amenable to conventional views - the radicality of their conclusions hides this conventionality of their concepts and method.

So when you cite some putative guru, or some libertarian Marxist, to me you are just citing people who were willing to reconcile Marxism with the dominant ideology on some point or another. I dont accept that that is sectarian - if I excluded those people from shared political struggle cos I didnt like their ideas, that would be sectarian.

When I look at anarchism, I see such reconciliations with the dominant ideology at every turn. That is not to take away from the positive contribution anarchists have made to militancy in the heat of revolution on many occasions. I also see much in anarchism to commend in the questioning of the way in which political action is organised. But in its vague conceptions of class (divorced from a class conception of history), I see only a threat to the ability of the working class to conceptualise the alternative perspective appropriate for its historical role.

syndicat

15th May 2007, 16:36

By creating the planned economy, the bureaucracy supposedly transformed itself into a class by giving itself power over the distribution of resources in production. that may be the real difference between your view and theirs - their view is linked specifically to the planned economy, yours extends to what early twentieth century writers would call the 'trustified' economy.

The coordinator class is a class that doesn't just exist in one particular mode of production. It exists within late capitalism as an intermediate class, and in the USSR as the dominant class. Although its existence as a dominant class in the USSR was tied up with the conditions of its emergence out of the revolution as a dominant class, which includes the creation of a central planning system beginning in Nov 1917, its existence as a dominant class doesn't require a system of central planning. It would also be the dominant class in "market socialism", as was clear in Yugoslavia in the '60s/'70s.

You can see this in the Mondragon coops. The professionals and managers dominate the workers in those companies, even tho there is an annual assembly where the workers have the right to vote. but if you work 40 hours a week all year cleaning toilets or running a metal-working machine in a stove factory, when do you have the time to learn financial analylsis and engineering? How are you going to challenge the plans proposed by the professionals and managers? and the Mondragon coops have a rule that disallows workers from hiring outside consultants to help them understand and critique management's plans. but those entities exist in a market context. the Mondragon coops were a nationalist economic development strategy developed in the '50s by members of the Basque middle strata who had no possible access to the state -- the usual institution used for this type of nationalist development project -- due to Francoism.

I don't think a merely "transitional" social arrangement could survive for 70 years. That really stretches the idea of a "transition." Now, it's true that coordinatorism is an unstable social formation, in the context of world capitalism, because the coordinator elite would prefer the more secure basis of dominant class power that comes from private accumulation and a system of private ownership of means of production. so they will tend to figure out a way to privatize the public assets. and we've seen this happen in China, Russia, Yugoslavia.

For Marx a mode production consisted of a certain technological level -- a stage in the development of the forces of production -- and a set of social relations of production. Both of these conditions had been solidified in the USSR by the late '20s.

You can say, if you like, that anarchists reconcile some radical ideas with ideas from the prevailing society. But it's also open to me to point out that Marxism did this, thru notions like central planning, "dictatorship of the proletariat", and Lenin's concept of the "vanguard party" running a state. As i see it, these are ideas that implicitly accept the need for an elite to make decisions.

People who live in a class society cannot challenge all the ideas they've picked up in one sitting, so this is not entirely surprising.

apathy maybe's example is relevant to the question of mixing anarchist and marxist ideas. redstar2000 is an old friend and comrade of mine. he was a Marxist-Leninist back in the '60s but he and his group in New Orleans worked their way through to a critique of Leninism in the early '70s. His critique was an anarchist critique. For the most part, he didn't abandon Marx's social theory. he thus worked his way thru to a libertarian council communist view.

gilhyle

15th May 2007, 21:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 03:36 pm

I don't think a merely "transitional" social arrangement could survive for 70 years. That really stretches the idea of a "transition."
I was making the same point to you as you have just made to me : namely that what distinguishes your theory of the coordinator class from the USSR-focused new class theories is that you claim a particular power for that group both in capitalist and planned economies - so I dont disagree with your self-description to this extent. Whether you can show that you have a distinctive view from Shachtman, Burnham et al is another days work and might be worht exploring if it brought out the distinctive character of anarchist views of class....though of course they were no anarchists.

Aactually in the Marxist typology transition periods last much longer than periods of open domination by the emerging or falling dominant mode of production. Feudalism proper, for example in Europe existed only for a few hundred years in a narrowly defined geographic area.

In historical terms, 70 years is a mere blip. The Jesuit state in paraguay lasted that length.

As to Redstar, I wont comment. I happily acknowledge the positive contribution anarchism can make politically, but the fact that ideas interact does not prevent me from arguing that their interaction produces neither a horse nor a donkey.

syndicat

15th May 2007, 22:10

It doesn't really matter whether we call the USSR a "transitional" form of society or not. All of class society's history could be regarded as transitional in some sense. But i don't think that would be especially useful. I think it is more useful to try to understand the differences between specific modes of production. If the USSR was a "transition" then history woudl say it was part of a long transition from feudalism to capitalism. But this doesn't really work very well because the actual transition from feudalism to capitalism typically did not involve destruction of the old class. In England the feudal landlord class initiated the process that led to the creation of capitalism, that is, they saw a path to greater enrichment through destruction of the social relations of production that had been characteristic of fuedal society. The old feudal landlord class was thus not destroyed but transformed into a capitalist class, along with the urban merchants. The tendency of capitalism to emerge from within the old feudal society, based on certain existing groups, accounts for its long transition.

The reason that the theory of the coordinator class is different from the theory of the bureaucratic class, as put forward by Burnham and Schachtman et al, is that, although Burnham, at least, did see the emergence of the professional/managerial hierarchies in the corporations and states in capitalist society as also indicative of the rise of the same class, I don't think Burnham had a particularly good theory of the role of this class.

As I see it, the coordinator class arises in capitalism at the stage where capital has accumulated into large firms because this provides the firm with the resources to do a more systematic re-organization of the methods of production. This took the form of the "scientific management" movement in the late 1800s and early 1900s, the systematic analysis of work, and the breaking down of traditional artisanal or craft methods, and the reorganization of work with the concetual and decision-making tasks separated out into the hierarchies of professional engineers, accountants etc and managers. Steven Meyer's book "Five Dollar Day" goes into concrete detail about what this did to the Ford Motor Co. What he shows is that during the transition in that firm, in 1914-1918, there was a huge increase the numbers of managers, supervisors, shop engineers, etc.

This change corresponds to what Marx called the shift from "the merely formal" to the "real domination of capital". in the 19th century capitalism was still dependent to a large extent on artisanal production methods in that it was depedent on the skilled workers having the technology in their heads, passed on thru craft tradition and the apprentice system. This was revolutionized, replaced by science-based engineering, with the workers under a more intense and systematic supervision, to increase the rate of exploitation.

What is characteristic of the coordinator class that it accumulates a relative monopolization of the empowering conditions, including concentrations of forms of expertise, control over the conceptualization and decision-making work, not just hierarchical positions in a chain of command, "empowering conditions" other than ownership of capital.

I'm not sure that Burnham was aware of the link between the big increase in the size of the management hierarchy and scientific management and Taylorism.
He did understand that this class has the ability to organize a mode of production apart from private capital ownership.

What makes this distinctively anarchist, I would argue, is seeing that ownership is not the only structure of power in social production that generates a class division, and the view that it is possible to organize social production without a class division of this sort. Burnham interpreted the emergence of the "managerial class" (as he called it) as refuting the idea that the working class could emancipate itself. That's because he assumed that breaking with Marx's class analysis meant throwing out the idea of proletarian liberation...an assumption common to anarchism and Marxism. That's why Burnham then promptly moved to the right. It became his rationale for giving up. The fallacy there is in thinking that the domination of the "managerial class" is "inevitable." That inevitable-ism is a remnant of Marxism that persisted in his thinking, and is derived from the influence of historical materialism.

gilhyle

16th May 2007, 20:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 09:10 pm

What makes this distinctively anarchist, I would argue, is seeing that ownership is not the only structure of power in social production that generates a class division, and the view that it is possible to organize social production without a class division of this sort.
I think this is correct. WHile the view would not (in my opinion) be 'distinctively' anarchist, (i.e. I would not say that noone else defines class in this way), I do agree that anarchism characteristically defines class this way and you have illustrated that very clearly.

(As an aside I observe that the Marxist concept, by contrast, does rely on the concept of ownership - but its a bizarre concept of ownership. In truth, the Marxist concept of class conflict under capitalism is less a concept of conflict between different groups of people and more a concept of a conflict between capital and labor, because for Marx, under capitalism the generalised fetishization of commodities has transformed capital into an independent social force to which people belong (rather than it belonging to them). This is a twist in the Marxist conception of class conflict in capitalist society which is often confusing. )

So lets go back to the question from Apathy Maybe: "I'm led to wonder why certain anarchists support Marxian class analysis, but disagree with this other aspect of Marxian thought" The answer would be that the ability of anarchists to do this relies on their ability to broaden the base of class analysis to see class division as flowing from various power structures in society. In this regard, anarchists can usefully be seen as amending the Marxist approach to class analysis - and we can add, having regard to Syndicat's points, that certain libertarian Marxists follow them in this.

But I would then have to add that other Marxists would see those libertarian Marxists as having broken with a fundamental of Marxist class analysis, namely what Comrade Zero referred to when he pointed out that in the Marxist conception the conflict of forces and relations is realised as a class struggle - it is this conflict between forces and relations rather than the conflict between those who exercise and those who suffer the exercise of power which constitutes the important, epoch-making, progressive class struggle between the rising class and the ruling class - on this narrower, more orthodoxly Marxist view.

Does this map out the terrain ?