Steps after Revolution

[Faux Real]

Imagine a unified revolutionary left, under full control of a country. Now the question, how would the people with all the sectarian divisions(Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, Maoists, Socialists etc.) work out the differences in views and get the social experiments underway?

I know that vaguely that most would be in favor of setting up local workers councils and local gov'ts, but what would the steps be in setting the whole new system up and fully functional?

[Labor Shall Rule]

It doesn't necessarily matter what ideological background we usher from as of right now — after all, it is through the class struggle that the workers acquire their own experience and organization that is the necessary prerequisite for pressing their revolutionary demands. However, I am afraid that most don't understand the importance of theory, and that the leadership must develop a guiding factor based on their theoretical perspectives.


Theses on the Fundamental Tasks of the Second Congress of the Communist International, Vladimir Lenin:

"...preparation for the dictatorship of the proletariat calls, not only for an intensification of the struggle against reformist and “Centrist” tendencies, but also for a change in the character of that struggle. The struggle cannot be restricted to explaining the erroneousness of these tendencies; it must unswervingly and ruthlessly expose any leader of the working-class movement who reveals such tendencies, for otherwise the proletariat cannot know who it will march with into the decisive struggle against the bourgeoisie. This struggle is such that at any moment it may—and actually does, as experience has shown—substitute criticism with weapons for the weapon of criticism.[6] Any inconsistency or weakness in exposing those who show themselves to be reformists or “Centrists” means directly increasing the danger of the power of the proletariat being overthrown by the bourgeoisie, which tomorrow will utilise for the counter-revolution that which short-sighted people today see merely as “theoretical difference”."

Lenin was addressing the Communist International - he was contributing to the formation of a political strategy for communist parties in every country. I still believe that it applies today. We can not have a "united revolutionary left", considering that the American "left" has always been dominated by the petit-bourgeoisie. We do not need an "alliance" of various groups, but a correct line, a Marxist line, throughout the entire crisis and convulsion of world capitalism — a revolutionary vanguard that has the correct program, one that is not based on the compromising of our political principles, and that carries out effective tactics.

[Labor Shall Rule]

But I don't know, what do you think? What do the anarchists think — should we develop a socialist political program which attracts the growing ranks of angered, disillusioned, class-conscious workers, students, even petty-brougeois intellectuals? Or, are the days of "party-building", or whatever the anarchists refer to their respective organizations, clearly over? What is your key to uniting sections of the revolutionary left; should we welcome an alliance of left-leaning parties, worker associations, trade unions, and other activist groups as a sort of governing unit? Would you collaborate with "vanguardists"? What would the anarchists do?

[Tatarin]

Maybe the idea of a "national government" isn't quite the right thing. Maybe it could work better if smaller communities were established with their local councils?

After all, this would supposedly be a leftist revolution, so I think every community
should decide by themselves what to do, and not one government. I mean, people will still organize together, even if we go directly for communism/anarchism.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:24 am
Maybe the idea of a "national government" isn't quite the right thing. Maybe it could work better if smaller communities were established with their local councils?

After all, this would supposedly be a leftist revolution, so I think every community
should decide by themselves what to do, and not one government. I mean, people will still organize together, even if we go directly for communism/anarchism.
You can't create 'local councils' if you do not have organization, and you cannot have organization if you do not have leadership. The thing that drives the leadership is it's revolutionary theory, so we have to roll the ball back all the way before we consider the alignment of certain communities.

[abbielives!]

there is definitely room for building left organizations, in my experiance broad coalitions only result in watering down of politics (look at UFPJ or ANSWER).

[Faux Real]

Thanks for the replies. In my question, I also meant to specify that there is no threat of outside counterrevolution. Personally, I'm in favor of collaborating with as many people as possible, the only problem being putting too much central authority and the bourgeois element. If there happens to be a World Revolution there wouldn't be much need for Natn'l Gov't. From then on holding local meetings, discussing and addressing common needs, what to improve and theses on people and production along the "common good".

My thing with Marxism is that while we can draw conclusions from it, we should always stay self-critical of it and not necessarily turn it into a dogma. The reason being is that not every country has the same material conditions, and I wouldn't want some Maoist or ML have the rest of the population following a non-revisionist stance without question.

[Aurora]

I also meant to specify that there is no threat of outside counterrevolution.
Well then the question is pointless because that situation is totally immaterial.

I agree entirely with RedDali's stance.

[bcbm]

Workers and communities will self-organize their own councils and set about figuring out how to run those things on their own. They don't need to be all be brought over to the "correct line," or have some bureaucratic organization establish itself and tell them how to organize themselves.

[Devrim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:07 pm
Imagine a unified revolutionary left, under full control of a country. Now the question, how would the people with all the sectarian divisions(Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, Maoists, Socialists etc.) work out the differences in views and get the social experiments underway?

I know that vaguely that most would be in favor of setting up local workers councils and local gov'ts, but what would the steps be in setting the whole new system up and fully functional?
I think that the entire question is wrong. The idea seems to be that the 'left' is in control of a country. Socialism will not be made by the 'left'. It will be made by the working class, or not at all. The stting up of workers councils is not a nice measure to take. The workers' councils are the very bodies that take power. Without them there is no revolution.

Devrim

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:07 pm

I know that vaguely that most would be in favor of setting up local workers councils and local gov'ts, but what would the steps be in setting the whole new system up and fully functional?
The question really is one of administrative urgency - what needs to be done ?

You have your categoreis of Trotskyists, maoists, anarchists etc ad divisions among revolutionaries´¨¨which make sense in capitalist society. But how will they divide on the practical issues of the day is really the question you are posing and how will those differences be resolved.

Clearly this depends on a range of issues, notably the extent to which a disciplined party has had to take and retain the leading role. You speculate on the absence of counter revolution, by that token you are effectively speculating on there not being a need for a disciplined revolutionary party.

This is a very hypothetical question, somewhat unlikely....however.Lets assume that the matters are to be decided in workers councils, that a revolutionary party will not persist (this is a big assumption) and that there are divisions that are decided democratically. Now, what is missing ?.....quite simply: what is the topic of disagreement ?

Assuming a unified world revolution a significant issue would clearly be the planning of the transfer of resources to less developed regions (´countries´as they are now called). The pace of change to a more planned, organised economy would be a second issue. Targets for diminishing pay differentials. The pace of the socialisation of housework.

All these we can imagine as key issues (and many more). But what determines the character of the discussion and debate will be their relative urgency and the availability of resouces. It is that which will determine how revolutionary forces divide and how issues are resolved......two things you can expect, repeated breaches of constitutionality in decision making and significant threats from entrenched bureaucratic (and sectional) interests to progress.

[Tatarin]

You can't create 'local councils' if you do not have organization, and you cannot have organization if you do not have leadership.

But when the revolution begins, most people will be conscious about socialism and communism, and thus they must have some kind of plan as to what will happen after it. Leadership in a revolution is probably important, but why after it if the majority already know what they want?


The thing that drives the leadership is it's revolutionary theory, so we have to roll the ball back all the way before we consider the alignment of certain communities.

Why? The people already have a driving left ideology. Maybe a community thinks socialism should be established first, while another wants communism? What if 60% of all communities in the country wants communism directly after the revolution?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by gilhyle+July 09, 2007 05:10 am--> (gilhyle @ July 09, 2007 05:10 am)
[email protected] 08, 2007 10:07 pm

I know that vaguely that most would be in favor of setting up local workers councils and local gov'ts, but what would the steps be in setting the whole new system up and fully functional?
The question really is one of administrative urgency - what needs to be done ?

You have your categoreis of Trotskyists, maoists, anarchists etc ad divisions among revolutionaries´¨¨which make sense in capitalist society. But how will they divide on the practical issues of the day is really the question you are posing and how will those differences be resolved.

Clearly this depends on a range of issues, notably the extent to which a disciplined party has had to take and retain the leading role. You speculate on the absence of counter revolution, by that token you are effectively speculating on there not being a need for a disciplined revolutionary party.

This is a very hypothetical question, somewhat unlikely....however.Lets assume that the matters are to be decided in workers councils, that a revolutionary party will not persist (this is a big assumption) and that there are divisions that are decided democratically. Now, what is missing ?.....quite simply: what is the topic of disagreement ?

Assuming a unified world revolution a significant issue would clearly be the planning of the transfer of resources to less developed regions (´countries´as they are now called). The pace of change to a more planned, organised economy would be a second issue. Targets for diminishing pay differentials. The pace of the socialisation of housework.

All these we can imagine as key issues (and many more). But what determines the character of the discussion and debate will be their relative urgency and the availability of resouces. It is that which will determine how revolutionary forces divide and how issues are resolved......two things you can expect, repeated breaches of constitutionality in decision making and significant threats from entrenched bureaucratic (and sectional) interests to progress.[/b]
I should have asked this in the theory forum, though yes I had an idea that it would play out as you say. I guess I was wondering how all sects of working class people, with the different ideologies, help cooperate and compromise on how to run themselves. You pretty much answered it(or how it should likely work) for me so thanks. :)

[Labor Shall Rule]

Anarion is correct, since after the revolution, the problem of planning is completely out of the hands of ideologues; the bourgeoisie have been suppressed, so it is no longer necessary to tussle between each other. Devrim also made it clear that, at that point, it will be working people, rather than the ambiguous, confusing term of the "left" imposing their own measures.

As for black coffee black metal, I don't think you understand the point that I was making - you can not form councils without some sort of preexistent organization, and you simply can not have organization if you do not have leadership to guide it. As I made clear, it is the theoretical perspective of the leadership that ultimately forms it's decisions and policies; it is their revolutionary theory that shapes the organization, and ultimately these councils itself. The "correct line", is the effective leadership that brings forth results within their organization based on the theory that they are based on, and during the course of revolution, the workers will naturally select a section of their own class that is based on this.

[bcbm]

As for black coffee black metal, I don't think you understand the point that I was making - you can not form councils without some sort of preexistent organization, and you simply can not have organization if you do not have leadership to guide it.

Which preexistent organizations and leadership were behind the last 10000 years of self-organized councils that have appeared under a whole slew of under-class uprisings, insurrections, revolts, revolutions, strikes, etc? The under-classes know which forms best suit their needs and have consistently chosen those forms when they undertake struggle against their oppressors. I don't see why future occurrences should be any different. The only place for the organizations and leaders you mention is working alongside or within the underclasses, not guiding them.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by black coffee black [email protected] 09, 2007 07:59 pm
Which preexistent organizations and leadership were behind the last 10000 years of self-organized councils that have appeared under a whole slew of under-class uprisings, insurrections, revolts, revolutions, strikes, etc? The under-classes know which forms best suit their needs and have consistently chosen those forms when they undertake struggle against their oppressors. I don't see why future occurrences should be any different. The only place for the organizations and leaders you mention is working alongside or within the underclasses, not guiding them.
But do any of these self-organized councils exist today - and better yet, how many of them lasted a few weeks without some sort of organization guiding them?

Your last sentence is rather ambiguous. The leaders and organizations should "work alongside" or "within" these class forces, but they should not "guide" them? What is the purpose of leaders and organizations anyway? I am confused by your conclusions? I thought that leadership guided an organization, while the organization guided the administration of certain governing units?

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 08:20 pm
But do any of these self-organized councils exist today - and better yet, how many of them lasted a few weeks without some sort of organization guiding them?
They lasted various lengths... its hard to go from general to specific when discussing 10,000 years of history. The point is that they can be sustained longer, because they are organized- they just aren't "guided" by any formal organization, but rather informally by themselves... self-organized.



Your last sentence is rather ambiguous. The leaders and organizations should "work alongside" or "within" these class forces, but they should not "guide" them? What is the purpose of leaders and organizations anyway?

Their purpose is as members of the under-classes to work with other members towards self-organization. Not to bring people in to one ideological tendency or one organization or rubbish like that.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I am not saying that the decrees of the upper echelons of the party should substitute the self-organization of the working class.

My point is that you can't achieve self-organization, which is the most perfect expression of industrial democracy in the first place, unless there is a conscious factor present; if there is not a circle of agitators and theoreticians that derive from proletarian circles to shape and mold the very concept of the class struggle itself as a response to their social reality of barbaric world imperialism and exploitation, while also being a strong and present voice of the entire class also, then you do not further your objectives past a few pages in the history book. You do not become another Lenin, Durruti, or Trotsky, instead, you become another minor figure that was wiped off the face of the planet.

[More Fire for the People]

By abiding by the will of the popular assemblies at all times. All parties must agree to two principles: (1) obedience to the will of the people; (2) faith in the democratic and egalitarian form of the popular assemblies.

[bcbm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 09:41 pm
My point is that you can't achieve self-organization, which is the most perfect expression of industrial democracy in the first place, unless there is a conscious factor present; if there is not a circle of agitators and theoreticians that derive from proletarian circles to shape and mold the very concept of the class struggle itself as a response to their social reality of barbaric world imperialism and exploitation, while also being a strong and present voice of the entire class also, then you do not further your objectives past a few pages in the history book.
Autonomous self-organization arises independently out of the under-classes- it is their almost exclusive mode of operation when they need to defend their interests, which is also when "consciousness" arises- out of reality, not from theorists there to tell them about reality. At best, those theorists will help to maintain and push forward following any initial burst.

[Leo]

My point is that you can't achieve self-organization, which is the most perfect expression of industrial democracy in the first place, unless there is a conscious factor present

What is called self-organization, in reality, happens in every workers' struggle, big or small. Workers organize strikes, picket lines, demonstrations and so forth. Had what you said been true, there would be no struggles in places where communists aren't around.


if there is not a circle of agitators and theoreticians that derive from proletarian circles to shape and mold the very concept of the class struggle itself as a response to their social reality of barbaric world imperialism and exploitation, while also being a strong and present voice of the entire class also, then you do not further your objectives past a few pages in the history book.

I would say your argument here is standing upside down. In reality, there can't be a conscious factor present unless there has been workers' struggles - it is the struggle that created consciousness. Of course the role of the interventions of communists is not by any means unimportant. To quote the Manifesto: "The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole." Yet still, those conclusions have been made as a result of the struggle. The strength of the communist organizations is much more connected to the strength of the proletariat as a class rather than the other way for the most part.


Autonomous self-organization arises independently out of the under-classes

Do you mean underclass as in lumpens or do you mean lower classes in general?


it is their almost exclusive mode of operation when they need to defend their interests, which is also when "consciousness" arises- out of reality, not from theorists there to tell them about reality.

What is more, theory itself arises from the experience of the working class.

[Dr Mindbender]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 10:07 pm
Imagine a unified revolutionary left, under full control of a country. Now the question, how would the people with all the sectarian divisions(Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, Maoists, Socialists etc.) work out the differences in views and get the social experiments underway?

I know that vaguely that most would be in favor of setting up local workers councils and local gov'ts, but what would the steps be in setting the whole new system up and fully functional?
Only one country under socialism, would be no good. It would need to be global, or at the very least globally dominant to stand a chance. The example of the USSR taught us that.

[Janus]

Now the question, how would the people with all the sectarian divisions(Marxist-Leninists, Anarchists, Maoists, Socialists etc.) work out the differences in views and get the social experiments underway?
Well, as you yourself pointed out, there would already be some sort of merger between the various functions as a direct result of the revolution itself.


I know that vaguely that most would be in favor of setting up local workers councils and local gov'ts, but what would the steps be in setting the whole new system up and fully functional?
Politics should be centered around mass participation, action, and democracy. Much of the core components would probably already have been set up and in place by this time so the major question would be concerning goals and various economic issues,etc.

[Never Give In]

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 05:20 am
I agree entirely with RedDali's stance.
As do I.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Leo, it is true that struggle leads to consciousness, that consciousness leads to organization, but also that organization leads to formal parties clarifying their demands; demands shape the struggle, which in turn develops consciousness, builds new layers of a vanguard to shape a party, which in turn breeds more struggle until the conquest of power. As so, this conscious factor is of the utmost importance; their strategy and theoretical perspective are flexed as concerted political action during revolutionary situations. It is the party that filter through the tactics and distill the anger of the masses into concerted action.

Had the Left Communists been in Russia in 1917, they would have carried the July Days to an even further disaster, would have refused to work with the Provisional Government against Kornilov (along with foregoing the Bolshevik demand on the Provisional Government to arm the people in exchange for defending the Provisional Government), and in general would have ended up like Germany in 1918.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Bump for Leo's sake.

[Leo]

Had the Left Communists been in Russia in 1917, they would have carried the July Days to an even further disaster,

What makes you think that? Have you ever read what left communists are saying about that? Here's a link for it:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/305/july-1917


would have refused to work with the Provisional Government against Kornilov (along with foregoing the Bolshevik demand on the Provisional Government to arm the people in exchange for defending the Provisional Government)

And again what makes you think that? Have you ever read what left communists are saying about that? It wasn't only Kerensky who was defended from Kornilov: there was a dual-power situation, workers' were also defending their Soviets. Also in this situation, it was Kerensky's mistake to oppose the Kornilov offensive in the first place. Here's a left communist work on this issue:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/306/1917-Kornilov


and in general would have ended up like Germany in 1918.

Ah, of course you mean Germany in 1919, the Spartacist uprising. Well, all who were to be left communists and who had already held all the positions of left communists such as Rosa Luxemburg said that this uprising would be disastrous because it was premature, because it wasn't the right time for the uprising.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Thanks Leo. Those articles were actually enlightening. I am trying to understand the Left Communist perspective more.

[The Author]

Marx and Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm)


1. At the moment, while the democratic petty bourgeois are everywhere oppressed, they preach to the proletariat general unity and reconciliation; they extend the hand of friendship, and seek to found a great opposition party which will embrace all shades of democratic opinion; that is, they seek to ensnare the workers in a party organization in which general social-democratic phrases prevail while their particular interests are kept hidden behind, and in which, for the sake of preserving the peace, the specific demands of the proletariat may not be presented. Such a unity would be to their advantage alone and to the complete disadvantage of the proletariat. The proletariat would lose all its hard-won independent position and be reduced once more to a mere appendage of official bourgeois democracy. This unity must therefore be resisted in the most decisive manner. Instead of lowering themselves to the level of an applauding chorus, the workers, and above all the League, must work for the creation of an independent organization of the workers' party, both secret and open, and alongside the official democrats, and the League must aim to make every one of its communes a center and nucleus of workers' associations in which the position and interests of the proletariat can be discussed free from bourgeois influence. How serious the bourgeois democrats are about an alliance in which the proletariat has equal power and equal rights is demonstrated by the Breslau democrats, who are conducting a furious campaign in their organ, the Neue Oder Zeitung, against independently organized workers, whom they call 'socialists'. In the event of a struggle against a common enemy a special alliance is unnecessary. As soon as such an enemy has to be fought directly, the interests of both parties will coincide for the moment and an association of momentary expedience will arise spontaneously in the future, as it has in the past. It goes without saying that in the bloody conflicts to come, as in all others, it will be the workers, with their courage, resolution and self-sacrifice, who will be chiefly responsible for achieving victory. As in the past, so in the coming struggle also, the petty bourgeoisie, to a man, will hesitate as long as possible and remain fearful, irresolute and inactive; but when victory is certain it will claim it for itself and will call upon the workers to behave in an orderly fashion, to return to work and to prevent so-called excesses, and it will exclude the proletariat from the fruits of victory. It does not lie within the power of the workers to prevent the petty-bourgeois democrats from doing this; but it does lie within their power to make it as difficult as possible for the petty bourgeoisie to use its power against the armed proletariat, and to dictate such conditions to them that the rule of the bourgeois democrats, from the very first, will carry within it the seeds of its own destruction, and its subsequent displacement by the proletariat will be made considerably easier. Above all, during and immediately after the struggle the workers, as far as it is at all possible, must oppose bourgeois attempts at pacification and force the democrats to carry out their terroristic phrases. They must work to ensure that the immediate revolutionary excitement is not suddenly suppressed after the victory. On the contrary, it must be sustained as long as possible. Far from opposing the so-called excesses - instances of popular vengeance against hated individuals or against public buildings with which hateful memories are associated - the workers' party must not only tolerate these actions but must even give them direction. During and after the struggle the workers must at every opportunity put forward their own demands against those of the bourgeois democrats. They must demand guarantees for the workers as soon as the democratic bourgeoisie sets about taking over the government. They must achieve these guarantees by force if necessary, and generally make sure that the new rulers commit themselves to all possible concessions and promises - the surest means of compromising them. They must check in every way and as far as is possible the victory euphoria and enthusiasm for the new situation which follow every successful street battle, with a cool and cold-blooded analysis of the situation and with undisguised mistrust of the new government. Alongside the new official governments they must simultaneously establish their own revolutionary workers' governments, either in the form of local executive committees and councils or through workers' clubs or committees, so that the bourgeois-democratic governments not only immediately lost the support of the workers but find themselves from the very beginning supervised and threatened by authorities behind which stand the whole mass of the workers. In a word, from the very moment of victory the workers' suspicion must be directed no longer against the defeated reactionary party but against their former ally, against the party which intends to exploit the common victory for itself.

2. To be able forcefully and threateningly to oppose this party, whose betrayal of the workers will begin with the very first hour of victory, the workers must be armed and organized. The whole proletariat must be armed at once with muskets, rifles, cannon and ammunition, and the revival of the old-style citizens' militia, directed against the workers, must be opposed. Where the formation of this militia cannot be prevented, the workers must try to organize themselves independently as a proletarian guard, with elected leaders and with their own elected general staff; they must try to place themselves not under the orders of the state authority but of the revolutionary local councils set up by the workers. Where the workers are employed by the state, they must arm and organize themselves into special corps with elected leaders, or as a part of the proletarian guard. Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary. The destruction of the bourgeois democrats' influence over the workers, and the enforcement of conditions which will compromise the rule of bourgeois democracy, which is for the moment inevitable, and make it as difficult as possible - these are the main points which the proletariat and therefore the League must keep in mind during and after the approaching uprising.

3. As soon as the new governments have established themselves, their struggle against the workers will begin. If the workers are to be able to forcibly oppose the democratic petty bourgeois it is essential above all for them to be independently organized and centralized in clubs. At the soonest possible moment after the overthrow of the present governments, the Central Committee will come to Germany and will immediately convene a Congress, submitting to it the necessary proposals for the centralization of the workers' clubs under a directorate established at the movement's center of operations. The speedy organization of at least provincial connections between the workers' clubs is one of the prime requirements for the strengthening and development of the workers' party; the immediate result of the overthrow of the existing governments will be the election of a national representative body. Here the proletariat must take care: 1) that by sharp practices local authorities and government commissioners do not, under any pretext whatsoever, exclude any section of workers; 2) that workers' candidates are nominated everywhere in opposition to bourgeois-democratic candidates. As far as possible they should be League members and their election should be pursued by all possible means. Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers' candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body. If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence in the election will already have been destroyed.