Reification of Bourgeoise and Petite Bourgeoisie

[blackstone]

I have noticed a tendency of attributing "special powers" to the bourgeoisie and the petite bourgeoisie.


Originally posted by Live for the People
When there is a successful revolution, the masses will always express sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology, and this is something very real that has to be fought against because it is a mentality bore out from capitalism. The communist party reaches into the masses, teaches them how to take control of society in the transformation to communism. If the bourgeoisie all of a sudden disappeared off the face of the earth would working people understand how to take control of all the things society calls for? No.

I haven't seen anyone really talk to much about this issue, which i think is very important. It seems to me as a reification of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie classes. It presupposes, in my view, a certain relation and role as thing that can only be held by a certain type of people.

This is a very bad way of thinking if your a revolutionary.

The idea that if the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie( in this case, managers) disappear from the earth and leaves the workers in a sense of disarray is a good case against revolution not for it.

Recent example of worker's self management
http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic...entry1292392087 (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=71670&st=0&#entry1292392087)

and there are many more..


Reification occurs when specifically human creations are misconceived as “facts of nature, results of cosmic laws, or manifestations of divine will”.
-Berger, Peter, & Luckmann, Thomas. (1966). The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. New York: Anchor/Doubleday.


George Lukacs in History and Class Consciousness begins his chapter on Reification as
such,


Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a ‘phantom objectivity’, an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to conceal every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people.



Marx talks about reification also here,


"Capital employs labour. Even this relation in its simplicity is a personification of things and a reification of persons. But the relation becomes still more complex - and apparently more mysterious - in that, with the development of the specifically capitalist mode of production, not only do these things - these products of labour, both as use values and as exchange values - stand on their hind legs vis-à-vis the worker and confront him as "capital" - but also the social forms of labour appear as forms of the development of capital, and therefore the productive powers of social labour, thus developed, appear as productive powers of capital. As such social forces they are "capitalised" vis-à-vis labour. In fact, communal unity in cooperation, combination in the division of labour, the application of the forces of nature and science, as well as the products of labour in the shape of machinery, are all things which confront the individual workers as alien, objective, and present in advance, without their assistance, and often against them, independent of them, as mere forms of existence of the means of labour which are independent of them and rule over them, in so far as they are objective; while the intelligence and volition of the total workshop, incarnated in the capitalist or his understrappers (representatives), in so far as the workshop is formed by the combination of the means of labour, confront the workers as functions of capital, which lives in the person of the capitalist. The social forms of their own labour - the subjective as well as the objective forms - or the form of their own social labour, are relations constituted quite independently of the individual workers; the workers as subsumed under capital become elements of these social constructions, but these social constructions do not belong to them. They therefore confront the workers as shapes of capital itself, as combinations which, unlike their isolated labour capacities, belong to capital, originate from it and are incorporated within it. And this assumes a form which is the more real the more, on the one hand, their labour capacity is itself modified by these forms, so that it becomes powerless when it stands alone, i.e. outside this context of capitalism, and its capacity for independent production is destroyed, while on the other hand the development of machinery causes the conditions of labour to appear as ruling labour technologically too, and at the same time to replace it, suppress it, and render it superfluous in its independent forms. In this process, in which the social characteristics of their labour confront them as capitalised, to a certain extent - in the way that e.g. in machinery the visible products of labour appear as ruling over labour - the same thing of course takes place for the forces of nature and science, the product of general historical development in its abstract quintessence: they confront the workers as powers of capital."

From Karl Marx's Economic Manuscripts
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...nomic/ch02b.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1864/economic/ch02b.htm)



This one of the main points that bother me about vanguard parties. They, like the bourgeoisie, have a habit of reification of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeois's roles.

[RGacky3]

I completely agree, if you look at the role of the Gran Bourgeoisie in the Capitalist Society very little of it actually has to do directly with managing the production and distribution, a lot of it has to do with pushing products, money circulation, competition, in other words they do the Competition and Profit game, the workers do the production and distribution game. So a Communist Society can run easiy without the Gran Bourgeoisie, because their role is'nt neccessary at all.

The Petit Bourgeoisie is a completely different issue, I am completely against the idea that Petit Bourgeoisie is anything negative, that they as a class are any less than workers. In a Socialist society I see nothing wrong with them doing their thing.

[co-op]

I haven't seen anyone really talk to much about this issue, which i think is very important. It seems to me as a reification of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie classes. It presupposes, in my view, a certain relation and role as thing that can only be held by a certain type of people.


Yes i agree. I'm afraid this is the ideology of the vanguard party. The vanguard party and the elements therein, seek to play out their historical role and 'lead' the proletariat, through the transitional phase of the workers state, to socialism and the disolution of state and class. However, any self-respecting 'socialist' should understand that this has never been the practice and it never will be. As Bakunin knew the state is continued as a tool of oppression against the proletariat and a new ruling class assumes the power and tyranny of the old. The history of the 20th century is to a great degree the confirmation of Bakunins fear of the oximoronic 'workers state'.



I think the people who talk about workers self management as something that is handed down by a vanguard party who are the saviors of the working class is gut-wrenching. Give me a historical example where any communist party has done this or even had any intention to. There are many examples where the C.P. has destroyed the attempts by workers of self-management. Workers liberate themselves through libertarian revolution, self-management and the realisation that it is only they that can fulfill this historical role. If someone deep down holds the view that the proletariat are not exclusively capable of this role I believe they actually hold the proletariat in contempt.

[Dr Mindbender]

my understanding is that once the petit-beourgioise middle and upper management types have been 'relieved' the unions or worker's councils would take their places?
:blink:

[Rawthentic]

I haven't seen anyone really talk to much about this issue, which i think is very important. It seems to me as a reification of the bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie classes. It presupposes, in my view, a certain relation and role as thing that can only be held by a certain type of people.
You clearly did not know what I was talking about. In a post-revolutionary society, there WILL be lots of confusion amongst the proletariat and other oppressed peoples that they are not able to handle larger things such as science or technology. This is what the communist vanguard needs to struggle through and allow for the greater participation of the masses in taking over society. This is how we overcome the "birthmarks of capitalism" as Marx put it. It does not argue against worker self-management, but takes a materialist stance in understanding that such things need to be struggled through with the proletariat.


If someone deep down holds the view that the proletariat are not exclusively capable of this role I believe they actually hold the proletariat in contempt.
Communists do not fight for "worker's self-management" or a "worker's republic" run by "worker's councils." During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the contending class forces and strata are far too complex for all this to be governed by "worker's councils". Such councils actually become part of an entire superstructure to defend the revolution and continue on the road to socialism.

Communists fight for the emancipation of all humanity, and the proletariat is the first class in human history that can achieve what Marx and Mao called the "4 alls", which are :

The abolition of all class distinctions; the abolition of the social relations that correspond to such classes; the abolition of the production relations that give way to such social relations; and the revolutionizing of thinking that did correspond to such production relations.

Thats all that there is to this; communists take a materialist stance, not an idealist stance, in understanding the socialist process and how such contradictions can be overcome.

Blackstone, it seems like you uphold Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party while at the same time discarding the fundamental Marxist concept of the vanguard party and revolutionary leadership.

[RGacky3]

there WILL be lots of confusion amongst the proletariat and other oppressed peoples that they are not able to handle larger things such as science or technology.

Why? Are Capitalists Scientists and Technicians? No They are check writers and economic politicians. Scientists and Technocians although wealthy are not exploiters, and I don't see why they can't keep their place in a Soicalistic Society.


This is what the communist vanguard needs to struggle through and allow for the greater participation of the masses in taking over society.

Is the Vanguard a bunch of Technicians and Socientists? I don't think it should be up to the Vanguard to choose how much participatoin the masses are allowed, flip it around.

[QUOTE] During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the contending class forces and strata are far too complex for all this to be governed by "worker's councils". Such councils actually become part of an entire superstructure to defend the revolution and continue on the road to socialism. QUOTE]

Why are the contending class forces too coplex for workers councils? But not too complex for a Vanguard party?
Whats the 'entire superstructure,' if there is a system where people are 'allowed a certain amount of democracy or freedom' then it implies there are people that are allowing this, in this case its not a real democracy or real freedom.

[Rawthentic]

Why? Are Capitalists Scientists and Technicians? No They are check writers and economic politicians. Scientists and Technocians although wealthy are not exploiters, and I don't see why they can't keep their place in a Soicalistic Society.

No, they for the most part represent the petty-bourgeoisie. As we see here, you are arguing for the petty-bourgeoisie to maintain its power while I argue for the proletariat to consciously and actively take control of science and technology.


Is the Vanguard a bunch of Technicians and Socientists? I don't think it should be up to the Vanguard to choose how much participatoin the masses are allowed, flip it around.
Nah, just a bunch of revolutionary communists. In the workplace, there will be revolutionary workers, apathetic workers, and maybe even counter-revolutionary workers. The revolutionary ones, the vanguard, need to lead their brothers and sisters on the correct path.


Why are the contending class forces too coplex for workers councils? But not too complex for a Vanguard party?
Whats the 'entire superstructure,' if there is a system where people are 'allowed a certain amount of democracy or freedom' then it implies there are people that are allowing this, in this case its not a real democracy or real freedom.
Don't act like you know what you are talking about.

The vanguard party,the workers councils, peoples assemblies, the revolutionary army, etc., are all part of the superstructure.

[syndicat]

Communists do not fight for "worker's self-management" or a "worker's republic" run by "worker's councils." During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the contending class forces and strata are far too complex for all this to be governed by "worker's councils".

To suppose that the working class cannot take over the management of social production, and the governing of society is condescending middle class drivel. It's the sort of politics that contributes to the emergence of a new class system, based on hierarchies of professionals and managers, as existed in the Soviet Union and other so-called "Communist" countries.

[bezdomni]

To suppose that the working class cannot take over the management of social production, and the governing of society is condescending middle class drivel.

Who is saying that? Of course the proletariat has to seize state power and, through this channel, the means of production.

The formation of "worker's councils" doesn't necessarily mean there is socialism.


The Petit Bourgeoisie is a completely different issue, I am completely against the idea that Petit Bourgeoisie is anything negative, that they as a class are any less than workers. In a Socialist society I see nothing wrong with them doing their thing.

So you think there will be a petit-bourgeoisie under socialism?

Do you think the petit-bourgeoisie have the same relations to production as the proletariat? If not, how are they "a class any less than workers"? What does that even mean?

:blink:

[blackstone]

The formation of "worker's councils" doesn't necessarily mean there is socialism.

Of course not, because the RCP and other Leninist/Maoists parties advocate the formation of "worker's council's". But the difference between a worker's council in authoritarian socialism and libertarian socialism is whether or not these councils have actual power in society.


When there is a successful revolution, the masses will always express sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology, and this is something very real that has to be fought against because it is a mentality bore out from capitalism.

I completely agree with syndicat that authoritarian socialism suppposing that the working class cannot take over the management of social production and subsequently, the governing of society is condescending middle class drivel. The type of drivel that gives power to beaurocrats that rule in the interest of the workers instead of worker's ruling themselves.

I quote again


When there is a successful revolution, the masses will always express sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology, and this is something very real that has to be fought against because it is a mentality bore out from capitalism.

My emphasis added.

I believe that class consciousness grows from actual class struggle. This class struggle doesn't always have to take in the workplace, but there is definitely insight to be gained from class struggle there. Through this class struggle comes the realization that all functions of the managerial classes can be taken up by the worker's themselves, minus the coercive functions!

This mystique of the bourgeoisie and managers need to be unveiled now! I thought communists were suppose to be the most class conscious, yet, some feel that we still need managers and bosses?




Blackstone, it seems like you uphold Huey Newton and the Black Panther Party while at the same time discarding the fundamental Marxist concept of the vanguard party and revolutionary leadership

I do highly regard Huey Newton, Stokely Charmichael, etc and the Black Panther Party but i know they or their theories were not without flaws. I highly respect brother Marther Luther King, but you'll never see me at a sit-in getting food thrown at me, without me throwing some fists back at em!

And the vanguard party is definitely not a fundamental Marxist concept.

[Hit The North]

The job of the vanguard party (i.e. the most advanced and class conscious workers, organised in activity) is to agitate, educate and organise the proletariat into a revolutionary class. It is not its job to pose as a revolutionary government in waiting.

[RGacky3]

Nah, just a bunch of revolutionary communists. In the workplace, there will be revolutionary workers, apathetic workers, and maybe even counter-revolutionary workers. The revolutionary ones, the vanguard, need to lead their brothers and sisters on the correct path.

Of coarse, thats cool, if the vanguard workers are just those who are not revolutionary than thats fine, but the fact is the vanguard in most vanguardist theories the vanguard is'nt just that, it takes an authoratitive leadership role and acording to this thread teach the other workers how to run society, as if the others don't know, and only the 'vanguard does', also the vanguard usually is'nt just a vague term for those who happen to be revolutionary, usually it has nothing to do with that, it has to do with if your a member of a certain communist party.


The job of the vanguard party (i.e. the most advanced and class conscious workers, organised in activity) is to agitate, educate and organise the proletariat into a revolutionary class. It is not its job to pose as a revolutionary government in waiting.

But when a revolution comes will they be the revolutoinary government? Yeah.


So you think there will be a petit-bourgeoisie under socialism?

Do you think the petit-bourgeoisie have the same relations to production as the proletariat? If not, how are they "a class any less than workers"? What does that even mean?


My point is they are not a class any less than workers, The Petit Bourgeoisie don't exploit any one, so I see no problem with them, they just do their own thing.


No, they for the most part represent the petty-bourgeoisie. As we see here, you are arguing for the petty-bourgeoisie to maintain its power while I argue for the proletariat to consciously and actively take control of science and technology.

I'm not arguind that they 'take power' at all, I'm just saying they keep their jobs as scientists and technicians, that does'nt mean they have any power at all, its their job. What you argue for is this idea, that after the revolution the vanguard party, who for some reason knows how to use science and technology (maybe they read up on it before the revolutoin) teaches the proletariat (who arn't as smart as the vanguard party) to use science and technology, and take over society (even though science and technology are just tools of society, not soceity itself).


Don't act like you know what you are talking about.

The vanguard party,the workers councils, peoples assemblies, the revolutionary army, etc., are all part of the superstructure.

OK, but again. Why are the contending class forces too coplex for workers councils? But not too complex for a Vanguard party?

[blackstone]

It's all mysticism!

They won't be able to give you a straight answer based on any material or empirical evidence, just empty rhetoric like this!

RCP Draft Programme


Under socialism, the work people do will be based on the overall needs of the proletariat in carrying forward the socialist revolution, socialist economic construction, and the world revolution. The Party will mobilize its own members, and other class conscious people who volunteer, to be the leading force in going where work is most difficult. And in general, through the schools, factories, neighborhood committees, etc., and under the centralized leadership of the Party and the state, the people as a whole will be mobilized to meet the requirements of the plan in various areas and economic spheres.

Since when did class consciousness make someone qualified to do work that's most difficult?


The job of the vanguard party (i.e. the most advanced and class conscious workers, organised in activity) is to agitate, educate and organise the proletariat into a revolutionary class. It is not its job to pose as a revolutionary government in waiting.

Thought i'd just quote that one more time, just incase our fellow Maoists missed it. :ph34r:

[Rawthentic]

I completely agree with syndicat that authoritarian socialism suppposing that the working class cannot take over the management of social production and subsequently, the governing of society is condescending middle class drivel. The type of drivel that gives power to beaurocrats that rule in the interest of the workers instead of worker's ruling themselves.
Do you honestly think that all of a sudden, in the minds of the proletariat, a light is gonna turn on that magically tells them how to run things in society that they have never done before?

What I am saying, and what in the end will need to happen, is that communists, as the leadership and guidance, will have to work through that negative capitalist mentality in persuading and working with the proletariat to consciously take control of all sectors of society.


Thought i'd just quote that one more time, just incase our fellow Maoists missed it
If you really think that a socialist state will not have communist leadership, then you are openly counter-revolutionary or just setting us up for a seizure of power by other reactionary, bourgeois forces.


And the vanguard party is definitely not a fundamental Marxist concept.
lol, stop calling yourself a Marxist, you've never been one. You are against what you wrongly deem as the "state" (as most anarchists are), you are against the vanguard party (lets see what Marx had to say on it):


In what relation do the Communists stand to the proletarians as a whole?

The Communists do not form a separate party opposed to the other working-class parties.

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

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

The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.

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

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

The theoretical conclusions of the Communists are in no way based on ideas or principles that have been invented, or discovered, by this or that would-be universal reformer.

They merely express, in general terms, actual relations springing from an existing class struggle, from a historical movement going on under our very eyes. The abolition of existing property relations is not at all a distinctive feature of communism.
Straight from the Communist Manifesto.

So no, you are not a Marxist, and you do shit on Huey and the BPP's legacy as a Maoist communist vanguard.

[co-op]

Live for the people:


Communists do not fight for "worker's self-management" or a "worker's republic" run by "worker's councils." During the dictatorship of the proletariat, the contending class forces and strata are far too complex for all this to be governed by "worker's councils". Such councils actually become part of an entire superstructure to defend the revolution and continue on the road to socialism.


Libertarian communists do. Authoritarian communists do not. You are sticking rigidly to a failed, discredited dogma that has never produced (or ever will) anything other than state capitalism and the renewed, usually worse, oppression of the proletariat. If workers councils could ever be (or ever were) complimentary to and a part of centralisation and a 'workers republic', why does history show the C.P. crushing them at every opportunity?

I'm aware that Leninists, Trotskyists, Maoists and Stalinists are all against workers self-management, that is clear. The emancipation of the working class is their role alone, and it must be achieved by the defeat of all counter-revolutionary forces like the Bolsheviks, PCE et al.


Communists fight for the emancipation of all humanity, and the proletariat is the first class in human history that can achieve what Marx and Mao called the "4 alls", which are :

The abolition of all class distinctions; the abolition of the social relations that correspond to such classes; the abolition of the production relations that give way to such social relations; and the revolutionizing of thinking that did correspond to such production relations.

Yes the proletariat can achieve a classless, stateless society but a person is deluded if they think that the communist party has a positive, productive role to play in that. It is the height of arrogance to declare that the working class are incapable of running society and need guidance and education from elements that have their own agenda and a terrible history of atrocities against the working class.


Thats all that there is to this; communists take a materialist stance, not an idealist stance, in understanding the socialist process and how such contradictions can be overcome.

Here we see part of the problem. Everything can be justified by the theory. Authoritarian communists must play out their historical role at all costs.

Sovietpants:


Who is saying that? Of course the proletariat has to seize state power and, through this channel, the means of production.

The formation of "worker's councils" doesn't necessarily mean there is socialism.


The proletariat must seize the means of production and self-manage them, that is real socialism, workers realising their strength and acting to change and run society. The state and its hierarchical institutions must be destroyed by the proletariat. History clearly shows that the preservation of the state is an anathema to the working class, not a tool for its emancipation. What is definitely not socialism is the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba, the eastern bloc etc. When is China reaching the end of the transitional period?

[blackstone]

Live for the People:
Thanks for quoting the passage from the Communist Manifesto. Brilliant piece of work, is it not? Definitely explains the role and purpose of communists. But, I asked specifically about vanguard parties, and i put forth that they are not a fundamental concept to Marxism. There's a difference between the vanguard, which are Communists, whom as Marx says are the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class and the vanguard party which Lenin defined as a organization of elite cadres or professional revolutionaries.


Unfortunately, many of those who judge our Party are outsiders, who do not know the subject, who do not realise that today the idea of an organisation of professional revolutionaries has already scored a complete victory. That victory would have been impossible if this idea had not been pushed to the forefront at the time

Of course a communist society will have communist leadership, but it won't be centralized like in you are proposing. Communist leadership won't be Bob Avakian, but rather real working class people. Some whom probably would never read Marx or tell you what a negation of the negation is. Ha!


Do you honestly think that all of a sudden, in the minds of the proletariat, a light is gonna turn on that magically tells them how to run things in society that they have never done before?

What I am saying, and what in the end will need to happen, is that communists, as the leadership and guidance, will have to work through that negative capitalist mentality in persuading and working with the proletariat to consciously take control of all sectors of society.


If the light doesn't go off in the minds of the proletariat in order to run society, how is it going to be run?

I ask this because you claim the it's going to be run by a vanguard. And i assume the vanguard is going to be made up proletariat? No? Didn't think so.

Here's an interesting analysis by Sub Commandante Marcos


If this is analysed in depth, it will be seen that it is a process where entire villages are learning to govern.

"The advantages? Fine, one of them is that it's more difficult for an authority to go too far and, by arguing how "complicated" the task of governing is, to not keep the communities informed about the use of resources or decision making. The more people who know what it's all about, the more difficult it will be to deceive and to lie. And the governed will exercise more vigilance over those who govern.

"It also makes corruption more difficult. If you manage to corrupt one member of the JBG, you will have to corrupt all the autonomous authorities, or all the rotations, because doing a "deal" with just one of them won't guarantee anything (corruption also requires "continuity"). Just when you have corrupted all the councils, you'll have to start over again, because by then there will have been a change in the authorities, and the one you "arranged" won't work any longer. And so you'll have to corrupt virtually all the adult residents of the Zapatista communities. Although, obviously, it's likely that once you've achieved that, the children will have already grown up and then, once again"

Interesting concept ay? The people actually learn how to self-govern...by self-governing. Communists, as the most advanced section could very will just be the first batch of delegates. The after a decided cycle, maybe a few months, we elect another batch of delegates.

So if there is a vanguard party that grasps power. It doesn't have to exist for long. Granted, if they give up their powers.

But why would they do that?

[Rawthentic]

Thanks for quoting the passage from the Communist Manifesto. Brilliant piece of work, is it not? Definitely explains the role and purpose of communists. But, I asked specifically about vanguard parties, and i put forth that they are not a fundamental concept to Marxism. There's a difference between the vanguard, which are Communists, whom as Marx says are the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class and the vanguard party which Lenin defined as a organization of elite cadres or professional revolutionaries.
Marx put forward the theory, and Lenin the practice. He created and led a party that was indispensable to the proletarian seizure of power in Russia. Why? Because the vanguard party is not an organization of workers, as economists say, but of revolutionary communists that dedicate their lives to overthrowing capitalism and the capitalist class. Without it, there can be no revolution. What the hell do you think Lenin, Mao, Huey, Debs, or Hampton showed? That they were in it for the fun of it?


Of course a communist society will have communist leadership, but it won't be centralized like in you are proposing. Communist leadership won't be Bob Avakian, but rather real working class people. Some whom probably would never read Marx or tell you what a negation of the negation is. Ha!
Yeah, as opposed to fake working class people? :wacko: This is idiotic, economist shit. Of course the majority of leadership will be proletarians, because they will make up the majority of the communist vanguard. But what matters is not whether they are proletarian or not, but what line and program they are putting forward.


If the light doesn't go off in the minds of the proletariat in order to run society, how is it going to be run?
Run by the proletariat, with the leadership of the vanguard to lead them in taking conscious control over all society. Without it, there productive powers can never be released. The point is that I advocate direct control over society by the masses and take a materialist stance in showing how that can come to be.


So if there is a vanguard party that grasps power. It doesn't have to exist for long. Granted, if they give up their powers.

But why would they do that?
ThEY WonT BEcoz Power corrUPts!!!

You're starting to sound like RGacky. Material conditions are what dictate whether we will have or need a state or not. Period.

[blackstone]

Marx put forward the theory, and Lenin the practice. He created and led a party that was indispensable to the proletarian seizure of power in Russia. Why? Because the vanguard party is not an organization of workers, as economists say, but of revolutionary communists that dedicate their lives to overthrowing capitalism and the capitalist class. Without it, there can be no revolution. What the hell do you think Lenin, Mao, Huey, Debs, or Hampton showed? That they were in it for the fun of it?

This is called substitutionism and here's what Engels had to say about that! Specifically of the Blanquists, in The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune. He criticized Blanqui for "believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution."

Where was the party,as practiced, by VI Lenin, during the course of the Paris Commune? You remember that? What Engels exclaimed as the first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

There was a revolution in Oakland, California or Chicago, Illinois? I don't remember those proletarian seizure of power by Hampton and Huey, and i surely read alot on the panthers. Eugene Debs led a revolution that seized power too? This is all news to me. Thank you for pointing this all out to me.



Yeah, as opposed to fake working class people? This is idiotic, economist shit. Of course the majority of leadership will be proletarians, because they will make up the majority of the communist vanguard. But what matters is not whether they are proletarian or not, but what line and program they are putting forward.

Wait, wait wait. The majority of the communist vanguard will be proletarians? I thought the vanguard was the most advanced and resolute section of the working class. How can you have something other than proletarians in a group defined as proletarians?

Oh, because your definition of vanguard defers from Marx's and throws class analysis out of the window. All that matters is party line and the programme put forth.

Your definitely treading off the Marxist road.


Run by the proletariat, with the leadership of the vanguard to lead them in taking conscious control over all society. Without it, there productive powers can never be released. The point is that I advocate direct control over society by the masses and take a materialist stance in showing how that can come to be.


So the collegues of the bicycle factory in Nordhausen and the supporting anarchosyndicalist union "Freie Arbeiterinnen- und Arbeiter-Union" (FAU) made history. Never before in the FRG (Federal Republic of Germany) self-managed production in an occupied factory took place.

In the next days the collegues will order the production-necessary parts. The production starts at the 23rd of October and in the beginning of november the "Strike-Bike" will be delivered to the solidary orderers.

The success of this direct action was possible through the unexpected drive of the solidary campaign. Within less than two weeks after publication of the aim to produce the "Strike-Bikes" in self-management, the campaign became an issue for social and union movements worldwide. The staff received orders from nearly all european countries as well as e.g. Egypt, USA, Australia, Canada, South Africa and Israel.

Solidarity statements and euphoric feedback found their way from nearly all parts of the world to Nordhausen and to the FAU. And at the latest since two days, the news coverage goes far beyond alternative media. Yesterday there were several minutes long reports on all main german TV channel (ARD, ZDF, SAT 1, RTL), more then two hundred germanspeaking newspaper published news, more than 50 newspaper with own investigations. The news agencies DDP, AP and Reuters produced yesterday several updated own news, with reference to the webpage of the campaign. There were also TV reports in France, Holland, Switzerland and Austria. A press review is available at the campaign-webpage.

In Nordhausen the collegues are still overwhelmed from the dimension of worldwide solidarity. All-around they are referred to as path-breaking examples. And slowly also the main actors get aware, that with their courage and solidarity they will write history.


Well, there goes that idea. Looks like FAU unleashed their productive powers without the help of a vanguard party hovering over them.

You don't advocate direct control over society by the masses, you advocate direct control over society by a political party of "professional revolutionaries".


ThEY WonT BEcoz Power corrUPts!!!

You're starting to sound like RGacky. Material conditions are what dictate whether we will have or need a state or not. Period.

The bourgeoisie have been in power for centuries. Did they give up power? Or what about the ruling class in feudal societies? Do you advocate the working class to give up power once achieved? It's nothing personal, it just historical materialism show that the ruling class never willingly gives up power.

[RGacky3]

ThEY WonT BEcoz Power corrUPts!!!

So they will, just because they are nice guys who really don't care at all about power right? Let me ask you, why is that idea SO absurd? That someone would want to keep the power that they get?


Why? Because the vanguard party is not an organization of workers, as economists say, but of revolutionary communists that dedicate their lives to overthrowing capitalism and the capitalist class.

Who are these economists?
Also, I always thought you and all the other Vanguardists said that the Vanguard party was the most class counscious section of the working class? So now they are NOT that? Rather just "revolutoinary communists," whatever that means, pretty much anyone really. So let me ask you, what gives these "revolutoinary communists" more knowledge of running society, then the people that actually do, the working class (as a whole).


Do you advocate the working class to give up power once achieved?

After a Genuine Communist revolution, where all property is collective, there will be no more working class, everyone will be the working class and the owning class, there won't be any power to give up, because if everyone is in power, i.e. exploitation and oppression is done away with, it changes the whole concept of power, there is no power to give up.

Obviously if its a Vanguard of "Revolutoinary communists" to take power, supposedly for the working class, thats a different issue.


Run by the proletariat, with the leadership of the vanguard to lead them in taking conscious control over all society. Without it, there productive powers can never be released. The point is that I advocate direct control over society by the masses and take a materialist stance in showing how that can come to be.


I'm glad you advocate that, so do I, but what my questoin is, what qualifies the vanguard in helping the proletariat taking control over Society, what do they know about controlling and running society that the workers as a whole do not, also what guarantees that the Vanguard will give the masses control?

[Rawthentic]

Where was the party,as practiced, by VI Lenin, during the course of the Paris Commune? You remember that? What Engels exclaimed as the first example of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

There was a revolution in Oakland, California or Chicago, Illinois? I don't remember those proletarian seizure of power by Hampton and Huey, and i surely read alot on the panthers. Eugene Debs led a revolution that seized power too? This is all news to me. Thank you for pointing this all out to me.

Why the fuck do you think that the Paris Commune got crushed? Why do you think that the Bolshevik Revolution and the Chinese Revolutions did not?

When I spoke of Huey, Debs, and Hampton, I was speaking about vanguard leadership and how vital it is.


Wait, wait wait. The majority of the communist vanguard will be proletarians? I thought the vanguard was the most advanced and resolute section of the working class. How can you have something other than proletarians in a group defined as proletarians?

Oh, because your definition of vanguard defers from Marx's and throws class analysis out of the window. All that matters is party line and the programme put forth.

Your definitely treading off the Marxist road.
Well duh it will be majority proletarians, but there will also be members of the intelligentsia and petty-bourgeoisie (professors, writers, etc.)

So yeah, you defined the vanguard correctly.

What matters is line and the program put forward. You have the fucked up economist line that only proletarians can speak the truth. Was Lenin right? Was Mao right? Hey, proletarians, don't ever read Lenin or Mao because they were not proletarian! :lol: The reality is that millions of workers and peasants rallied to them and their program not because Lenin was proletarian or not, but because he was right, and offered the way out that the workers and peasants were crying for.



Well, there goes that idea. Looks like FAU unleashed their productive powers without the help of a vanguard party hovering over them.

You don't advocate direct control over society by the masses, you advocate direct control over society by a political party of "professional revolutionaries".
Ughh, motherfuck. <_<

I am saying that if the conscious initiative of the masses does not elevate, then their productive powers wont be unleashed. The thing is, I take a materialist stance on how the proletarian can master all of society, and its not with the flick of a wand.


Do you advocate the working class to give up power once achieved? It&#39;s nothing personal, it just historical materialism show that the ruling class never willingly gives up power.
You are anti-working class because you are against necessary structures that protect proletarian rule and the advance to communism.


This is called substitutionism and here&#39;s what Engels had to say about that&#33; Specifically of the Blanquists, in The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune. He criticized Blanqui for "believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution."
Oh I almost missed this shit.

No, its not substitutionism.

I advocate a proletarian seizure of power, via a communist party (as Marxists do). Like I said, without a vanguard there is no revolution, period. Without the BPP, the black masses would not have been mobilized, same goes for the Bolsheviks and the CCP.

[RGacky3]

Why the fuck do you think that the Paris Commune got crushed?

Because a city barely out of a revolution with no outside support, was attacked by a large organized army with a lot of support.


I am saying that if the conscious initiative of the masses does not elevate, then their productive powers wont be unleashed. The thing is, I take a materialist stance on how the proletarian can master all of society, and its not with the flick of a wand.

How does the &#39;Vanguard&#39; get the power and inteligence to elevate them? Since when are they elevated in their creative powers?


You are anti-working class because you are against necessary structures that protect proletarian rule and the advance to communism.

Yeah, and I&#39;m pro-Saddam because I&#39;m against the war in Iraq :P.


Like I said, without a vanguard there is no revolution, period.

No Comma, it should be this "Without a vanguard there is no revolutoin, unless the working class does it without the Vanguard."

[Rawthentic]

RGacky,, shut the fuck you mindless drone.

All you do is ***** with your liberal, idealist crap.

[RGacky3]

RGacky,, shut the fuck you mindless drone.

All you do is ***** with your liberal, idealist crap.

No Woman, No Cry, NO WOMAN NO CRY&#33;&#33;&#33;

Why not answer what I bring up instead of pissing yourself with anger> But I do think its a little bit more Idealist to think that simply because a group of people come form a certain class, they neccessarily MUST always be selfless servents of the people. BTW, if all I&#39;m doing its *****ing about liberal idealist crap, it would be extremly easy to debunk.

[blackstone]

I posted this old article as an example of worker&#39;s self-management in action. It is a case in which 300 odd workers of the largest ceramic floor-tile factory in Argentina had expropriated the means of production and created a democratic workplace. The factory was originally known as Zanon but has since been renamed FaSinPat. The new name is short for, Fábrica Sin Patrones, which means "Factory Without Bosses" in Spanish.

"The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves." Flora Tristan, 1843.




March 18, 2004

Zanon, Argentina

By Marie Trigona


At the break of dawn on a frigid winter day the workers of Zanon, a ceramics factory under worker control, file into the plant for the day&#39;s first shift (6am to 1pm). They greet the men in charge of security at the plant&#39;s entrance and punch in to the time clock.

Since March, 2002 the factory has been producing without an owner, bosses or foremen. The factory sits among the red earth and rolling hills of the Southern Neuquén province in Argentina and is the largest factory in the region. After a long-standing conflict with the owners for back pay, sudden closure of the factory and firings in the fall of 2001, Zanon&#39;s workers occupied the factory and set an example of resistance against capitalism for workers all over the world that workers can produce even better under self-organization/management.

"It was a decision to stay here and struggle or go home, I could have gone home but I decided to stay here in the factory and struggle. I learned to defend my 15 years of work here in the factory and fight," forcefully expressed Rosa Rivera, one of the 15 women among the 300 employed by the factory.

"The owners never paid taxes, during the epoch of former President Raul Menem they were given millions of dollars in subsidies, the exploitation of the workers was extremely high and the company were stealing Mapuche land for raw resources for the ceramics factory."

When corporate welfare ran dry due to the Argentina&#39;s economic collapse in 2001, Zanon&#39;s owners decided to close its doors and fire the workers without paying months of back pay or indemnity. October, 2001, of the 331 original workers, 266 decided to continue to come to the factory to work to continue in their job posts. For four months workers camped outside the factory, pamphleteering and partially blocking a highway leading to the capital city Neuquén.

During this time, the events Argentina&#39;s popular rebellion December 19 and 20, 2001 and the brief post-rebellion upsurge of other factory occupations and organizing among the popular assemblies and unemployed workers organizations also influenced the decision to begin working under worker control.

"When we re-entered the factory we began selling the materials produce on a small-scale level, when those ran out, we asked ourselves what do we do-fight for an unemployment subsidy of 150 pesos [about 50 US dollars] or put the factory to work?," explains Fransisco Mollinas.

In March, 2002 the workers of Zanon reentered the factory and began to produce. "This is a battle against individualism, against everything that those above impose upon us. Here inside the factory we are fighting for a new human being."

As soon as the workers began to produce without an owner or boss, relationships inside the factory were re-invented, breaking with hierarchical organization, isolation and exploitation. Workers describe the company&#39;s practices of controlling the workers-one example is that workers had to wear a uniform of a certain color, to identify which sector a worker belonged to and it was prohibited to speak with a worker from a different sector.

On the wall in the factory&#39;s offices hangs a ceramic tile with an image of a young man, Daniel, with an inscription remembering him as a fellow comrade who died in the factory. Production inside the factory was set to maximize the company&#39;s profits, reducing salaries to the minimum possible level, cutting corners on worker safety measures and pressuring workers to produce at higher levels making it possible to have less workers on the production line.

These conditions previous to the workers&#39; occupation led to an average of 25-30 accidents per month and one fatality per year. In the years of Zanon&#39;s production, 14 workers died inside the factory. Since Zanon&#39;s occupation by its workers not one accident inside the factory has occurred. "With the owner, you worry and are pressured. Without him you work better, you take on more responsibility with consciousness," one worker comments.

The factory is now organized practicing the ideal of horizontalism, direct democracy and autonomy. Everything is decided in an assembly, there is no hierarchical personnel or administration. Each sector such as the production line, sales, production planning, press, etc, has a commission which votes in a coordinator. The coordinator of the sector informs on issues, news and conflicts within his or her sector to the delegate&#39;s table. The coordinator then reports back to his or her commission news from other sectors.

Today, Zanon employs over 300 workers and continues to plan to hire more workers. Since the factory&#39;s occupation over 70 workers have been hired. The workers&#39; assembly decided that it is necessary to take on workers from the unemployed workers organizations. Most new workers participate in the MTD (Unemployed Workers Movement). Each worker receives 800-pesos a month salary, which was based on the cost of basic "canasta familiar" or family needs.

The factory that spans for blocks has 18 production lines, while only three are currently functioning. Meanwhile, the factory is only producing 12-15% of its capacity, with lowered levels of exploitation (workers working less hours, higher salaries) they have been able to hire new workers.

One of the keys to Zanon&#39;s success has been the insertion of the workers&#39; struggle into the community. At the factory&#39;s entrance, workers have constructed a mural made of broken ceramics. The mural tells of the history of the struggle inside Zanon. It begins with men and women around a large pot cooking above a fire.

During the months outside the factory, neighbors, students and workers from piquetero movement demonstrated solidarity-giving funds and groceries for the workers campaign. The prisoners from the jail behind the factory donated their food rations to the workers. Social organizations such as Mothers of Plaza de Mayo have acted in solidarity, some of the women are 70-years old, have declared that they to will defend the factory with their lives.

Zanon&#39;s self-defense and security scheme is the back bone of the factory. The government&#39;s response to Zanon has been violent, using different tactics to evict the factory. The government has tried to evict the factory five times with police operatives.

Each time thousands of community members came to defend the factory. When there is the threat of eviction, everyone leaves their job posts and assumes the role of security-unemployed workers organizations with self-defense lines outside the factory, while the workers go to the roof-top to take on self-defense measures like using the sling-shot.

Prison number 11 sits right behind the factory. One night, we accompanied the workers in charge of night security on their nightly rounds around the factory we near the prison. About 20 meters away we hear "clack-clack", a prisoner guard loading his rifle while we pass by.

The factory has developed particular measures to ensure that infiltrators do not enter the factory. Each worker must punch into the time clock-not to punish him or her for arriving late but to keep track of who is inside the factory. Before the plant&#39;s security was used to guard against workers stealing equipment. Today, workers in security make sure each worker coming to work brought his or her sling-shot to work.

On November 25, 2003 workers from Zanon and unemployed workers organizations in Nuequén protested a debit card for the unemployed (rather than receiving the 150-unemployement welfare to work subsidy in cash the government now wants the jobless to use the bank card, forcing them to only be able to take out a minimum amount in cash from the banks and having to purchase defined goods in &#39;commercial networks&#39; which are to be transnational supermarkets).

The protests ended with violent state repression. There were over 22 injured - 10 from lead bullet wounds. Andrés from MTD and worker of occupied ceramics factory Zanon was injured with over 64 impacts from rubber bullets. He was held for over 8 hours by police without medical attention while he was tortured. He lost his left eye.

On December 2, 2003 seven hooded men entered the factory armed and stole 32,000-pesos. This was also after organizations in Nuequén were brutally repressed in November and workers and activists with MTD were continuously threatened in their homes. "We see this as a way to pressure those of us who are struggling for a more just society," published the workers in a press release after the infiltrators made off with the money.

The government is also using cooperatives to co-opt the factories under worker control. Other than Zanon, there is only one business, Tigre supermarket in Rosario that has refused cooperatization. "The government is co-opting the movement through different methods. The state offers cooperatives but you have to stop struggling," explains Raul Godoy, worker at Zanon.

The workers of Brukman, suit factory in Buenos Aires that was evicted on April 18, 2003, have reentered the factory recently but under cooperatization. They now have only two years to buy the machinery and building under the agreement that the government offered. Since the Brukman eviction, the political Left has been criticized for its damaging intervention in the conflict (convincing the workers that self-defense tactics were not necessary during the workers 16-month occupation of the factory and during the attempt to re-enter the factory after the eviction). The factory &#33; now has private security company, a shameful reminder of what the factory once symbolized.

Rosa Rivera, worker at Zanon for 15 years explains that Zanon is not only a struggle for the 300 workers inside the factory but a struggle for the community and social revolution. "If factories are shut down and abandoned, workers have the right to occupy it, put it to work and defend it with their lives."

In the shambles of Argentina&#39;s highly divided movements, Zanon continues as one of the most dynamic expressions of resistance against capitalism. The social process inside the factory has brought inspiration to break with the patrón (boss) for other workers occupying factories and for the working-class all over the world.

Marie Trigona is an independent journalist and activist based in Argentina. She participates in Grupo AlavÃ*o, video and direct action collective. She can be reached at [email protected]
http://power-2-people.blogspot.com/

http://www.rebelion.org/petras/english/worker021002.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0425/p08s01-woam.htm
http://www.upsidedownworld.org/bauen-loren.htm
http://www.globaljusticecenter.org/papers2006/ruggeriENG.htm

the demystification continues&#33; :ph34r:

[KC]

I completely agree with syndicat that authoritarian socialism suppposing that the working class cannot take over the management of social production and subsequently, the governing of society is condescending middle class drivel.

The point our comrade was trying to make was that the oppressed develop a consciousness of being oppressed based on their status in society. He is not saying that "the working class cannot take over the management of social production and subsequently, the governing of society." He is saying that this form of consciousness must be combatted through the course of the revolution.

And if you read his quote closer, he said "the masses will always express sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology..." He isn&#39;t saying they aren&#39;t able to; he is saying, they will express sentiments that they aren&#39;t able to. Moreover, he goes on: "...and this is something very real that has to be fought against because it is a mentality bore out from capitalism."


I believe that class consciousness grows from actual class struggle.

Everyone here would agree with this statement.


This class struggle doesn&#39;t always have to take in the workplace, but there is definitely insight to be gained from class struggle there. Through this class struggle comes the realization that all functions of the managerial classes can be taken up by the worker&#39;s themselves, minus the coercive functions&#33;

It depends here on what you mean by "class struggle" that I have bolded above. Depending on what you mean by that you could either be advocating the "spontaneity of class consciousness" or recognizing the fact that the work of communists is an integral part in developing class consciousness. If the former, you would be promoting economism; if the latter, I would fully agree with you.

Also, after reading that quote again, it seems that you contradicted yourself. Maybe I&#39;m just reading into it too much, though. In the first place you say that the class struggle "doesn&#39;t always have to take in the workplace" but towards the end you claim that through class struggle within the workplace "comes the realization that all functions of the managerial classes can be taken up by the worker&#39;s themselves, minus the coercive functions&#33;" Now, this is contradictory to me because the second part that I have quoted is what class consciousness is and by stating such you are claiming that class struggle merely within the work place is enough to raise class consciousness, which negates your earlier statement (or, rather, implies that class struggle outside of the work place is "unnecessary").

Perhaps I just misinterpreted or overanalyzed, but if that is what you are claiming then I would vehemently disagree with you. Economic organization is the first step in the development of class consciousness, but it isn&#39;t the final step.


This mystique of the bourgeoisie and managers need to be unveiled now&#33; I thought communists were suppose to be the most class conscious, yet, some feel that we still need managers and bosses?

What do you mean?


I do highly regard Huey Newton, Stokely Charmichael, etc and the Black Panther Party but i know they or their theories were not without flaws. I highly respect brother Marther Luther King, but you&#39;ll never see me at a sit-in getting food thrown at me, without me throwing some fists back at em&#33;

Then you don&#39;t understand the tactic of non-violence.


And the vanguard party is definitely not a fundamental Marxist concept.

Obviously that is debatable.


Since when did class consciousness make someone qualified to do work that&#39;s most difficult?

Yes, that certainly is strange. I&#39;d understand if they were talking about political work, but they&#39;re talking about work in general, which is definitely strange.


Yes the proletariat can achieve a classless, stateless society but a person is deluded if they think that the communist party has a positive, productive role to play in that. It is the height of arrogance to declare that the working class are incapable of running society and need guidance and education from elements that have their own agenda and a terrible history of atrocities against the working class.

Could you please refer to us which parties you are talking about?


The proletariat must seize the means of production and self-manage them, that is real socialism, workers realising their strength and acting to change and run society. The state...

What do Marxists mean when they say "state"? (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#state)


There&#39;s a difference between the vanguard, which are Communists, whom as Marx says are the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class and the vanguard party which Lenin defined as a organization of elite cadres or professional revolutionaries.

It would greatly help if you could provide us with some quotes from Lenin and their sources.


I ask this because you claim the it&#39;s going to be run by a vanguard. And i assume the vanguard is going to be made up proletariat?

Yes, as well as those most theoretically and practically advanced in the working-class movement, which could include members of other oppressed classes or those willing to "break" from their old class relations and "go over to the proletariat". Marx put it best here:

"Finally, in times when the class struggle nears the decisive hour, the progress of dissolution going on within the ruling class, in fact within the whole range of old society, assumes such a violent, glaring character, that a small section of the ruling class cuts itself adrift, and joins the revolutionary class, the class that holds the future in its hands. Just as, therefore, at an earlier period, a section of the nobility went over to the bourgeoisie, so now a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the proletariat, and in particular, a portion of the bourgeois ideologists, who have raised themselves to the level of comprehending theoretically the historical movement as a whole."

So, yes, members of other classes can become part of the vanguard, but the fact remains that the proletarian movement is inherently proletarian in nature (in other words, the vast majority of the proletarian movement is proletarian itself). In this same sense, the vast majority of the vanguard as well is proletarian, and the party as well.


This is called substitutionism and here&#39;s what Engels had to say about that&#33; Specifically of the Blanquists, in The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune. He criticized Blanqui for "believing that a small and well organized minority, who would attempt a political stroke of force at the opportune moment, could carry the mass of the people with them by a few successes at the start and thus make a victorious revolution."

The major difference between Lenin&#39;s theories and Blanqui&#39;s were that Lenin advocated, and actually helped to implement, a mass party, whereas Blanqui did not; because of this, they aren&#39;t comparable on this matter.


Wait, wait wait. The majority of the communist vanguard will be proletarians? I thought the vanguard was the most advanced and resolute section of the working class.

Reread the quote. "The most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties..."


I posted this old article as an example of worker&#39;s self-management in action. It is a case in which 300 odd workers of the largest ceramic floor-tile factory in Argentina had expropriated the means of production and created a democratic workplace.

This is entirely different than an entire political movement based on the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and the takeover of the means of production which leads towards communism in an entire country. They aren&#39;t comparable on any level.

[Rawthentic]

Zampano, I appreciate that you clarified my position, thanks man. It seems like a materialist position gets harder to understand around here.


It would greatly help if you could provide us with some quotes from Lenin and their sources.
In What is to Be Done?, he did outline that the communist party was an organization of revolutionary communists, not an organization of workers. The latter would also be promoting economism. Not to say that the communist party shouldn&#39;t have a majority proletarian membership, because it should, but that what was pivotal was line, and how dedicated they were to the Party, revolution, and the proletariat.

I&#39;m sort of in a rush, and it would take a long time for me to find the passage in Lenin&#39;s work. I can look for it later if anyone wishes.

In the sense of a mass party, I think that came into being as the revolutionary situation in Russia grew, and workers, peasants, and intellectuals flocked to the party (I think this is correct, somewhat). But in the non-revolutionary periods, it was a very small party, relative to the peasantry and proletariat. He went by the norm of "fewer, but better", when referring to communist militants in the party.

[KC]

Zampano, I appreciate that you clarified my position, thanks man. It seems like a materialist position gets harder to understand around here.

No problem. And you should stop it with the antagonistic comments. As much as you hate to admit it, the person you are debating against is your comrade and the goal of debate is to learn from both sides of the argument, not to "win". The same, of course, goes to blackstone.


In What is to Be Done?, he did outline that the communist party was an organization of revolutionary communists, not an organization of workers. The latter would also be promoting economism. Not to say that the communist party shouldn&#39;t have a majority proletarian membership, because it should, but that what was pivotal was line, and how dedicated they were to the Party, revolution, and the proletariat.

To further clarify, What Is To Be Done? must not be taken out of its historical context; this was never what Lenin was arguing for in general (i.e. he wasn&#39;t advocating that the party must always be this way), but that due to the circumstances at the time, it was necessary, and this definitely was true.

As for the passage you&#39;re looking for, I think I have it. I think I was going to use it in another post a few days ago. Let me pull it up again. Ah, here&#39;s two that explain it rather well:

"In his Reply, Mr. N. N.[20] wrote: “The Emancipation of Labour group demands direct struggle against the government without first considering where the material forces for this struggle are to be obtained, and without indicating the path of the struggle.” Emphasising the last words, the author adds the following footnote to the word “Path”: “This cannot be explained by purposes of secrecy, because the programme does not refer to a plot but to a mass movement. And the masses cannot proceed by secret paths. Can we conceive of a secret strike? Can we conceive of secret demonstrations and petitions?” (Vademecum, p. 59.) Thus, the author comes quite close to the question of the “material forces” (organisers of strikes and demonstrations) and to the “paths” of the struggle, but, nevertheless, is still in a state of consternation, because he “worships” the mass movement, i.e., he regards it as something that relieves us of the necessity of conducting revolutionary activity and not as something that should encourage us and stimulate our revolutionary activity. It is impossible for a strike to remain a secret to those participating in it and to those immediately associated with it, but it may (and in the majority of cases does) remain a “secret” to the masses of the Russian workers, because the government takes care to cut all communication with the strikers, to prevent all news of strikes from spreading. Here indeed is where a special “struggle against the political police” is required, a struggle that can never be conducted actively by such large masses as take part in strikes. This struggle must be organised, according to “all the rules of the art”, by people who are professionally engaged in revolutionary activity. The fact that the masses are spontaneously being drawn into the movement does not make the organisation of this struggle less necessary. On the contrary, it makes it more necessary; for we socialists would be failing in our direct duty to the masses if we did not prevent the police from making a secret of every strike and every demonstration (and if we did not ourselves from time to time secretly prepare strikes and demonstrations). And we will succeed in doing this, because the spontaneously awakening masses will also produce increasing, numbers of “professional revolutionaries” from their own ranks (that is, if we do not take it into our heads to advise the workers to keep on marking time)."

"" I invite our Economists, terrorists, and “Economists-terrorists”[9] to confute these propositions. At the moment, I shall deal only with the last two points. The question as to whether it is easier to wipe out “a dozen wisemen” or “a hundred fools” reduces itself to the question, above considered, whether it is possible to have a mass organisation when the maintenance of strict secrecy is essential. We can never give a mass organisation that degree of secrecy without which there can be no question of persistent and continuous struggle against the government. To concentrate all secret functions in the hands of as small a number of professional revolutionaries as possible does not mean that the latter will “do the thinking for all” and that the rank and file will not take an active part in the movement. On the contrary, the membership will promote increasing numbers of the professional revolutionaries from its ranks; for it will know that it is not enough for a few students and for a few working men waging the economic struggle to gather in order to form a “committee”, but that it takes years to train oneself to be a professional revolutionary; and the rank and file will “think”, not only of amateurish methods, but of such training. Centralisation of the secret functions of the organisation by no means implies centralisation of all the functions of the movement. Active participation of the widest masses in the illegal press will not diminish because a “dozen” professional revolutionaries centralise the secret functions connected with this work; on the contrary, it will increase tenfold. In this way, and in this way alone, shall we ensure that reading the illegal press, writing for it, and to some extent even distributing it, will almost cease to be secret work, for the police will soon come to realise the folly and impossibility of judicial and administrative red-tape procedure over every copy of a publication that is being distributed in the thousands. This holds not only for the press, but for every function of the movement, even for demonstrations. The active and widespread participation of the masses will not suffer; on the contrary, it will benefit by the fact that a “dozen” experienced revolutionaries, trained professionally no less than the police, will centralise all the secret aspects of the work – the drawing up of leaflets, the working out of approximate plans; and the appointing of bodies of leaders for each urban district, for each institution, etc. (I know that exception will be taken to my “undemocratic” views, but I shall reply below fully to this anything but intelligent objection.) Centralisation of the most secret functions in an organisation of revolutionaries will not diminish, but rather increase the extent and enhance the quality of the activity of a large number of other organisations that are intended for a broad public and are therefore as loose and as non-secret as possible, such as workers’ trade unions; workers’ self-education circles and circles for reading illegal literature; and socialist, as well as democratic, circles among all other sections of the population; etc., etc. We must have such circles, trade unions, and organisations everywhere in as large a number as possible and with the widest variety of functions; but it would be absurd and harmful to confound them with the organisation of revolutionaries, to efface the border-line between them, to make still more hazy the all too faint recognition of the fact that in order to “serve” the mass movement we must have people who will devote themselves exclusively to Social-Democratic activities, and that such people must train themselves patiently and steadfastly to be professional revolutionaries.

Yes, this recognition is incredibly dim. Our worst sin with regard to organisation consists in the fact that by our primitiveness we have lowered the prestige of revolutionaries in Russia. A person who is flabby and shaky on questions of theory, who has a narrow outlook, who pleads the spontaneity of the masses as an excuse for his own sluggishness, who resembles a trade union secretary more than a spokesman of the people, who is unable to conceive of a broad and bold plan that would command the respect even of opponents, and who is inexperienced and clumsy in his own professional art – the art of combating the political police – such a man is not a revolutionary, but a wretched amateur&#33;

Let no active worker take offence at these frank remarks, for as far as insufficient training is concerned, I apply them first and foremost to myself. I used to work in a study circle[23] that set itself very broad, all-embracing tasks; and all of us, members of that circle, suffered painfully and acutely from the realisation that we were acting as amateurs at a moment in history when we might have been able to say, varying a well-known statement: "Give us an organisation of revolutionaries, and we will overturn RussiaP’ The more I recall the burning sense of shame I then experienced, the bitterer become my feelings towards those pseudo-Social-Democrats whose preachings “bring disgrace on the calling of a revolutionary”, who fail to understand that our task is not to champion the degrading of the revolutionary to the level of an amateur, but to raise the amateurs to the level of revolutionaries."

Both from What Is To Be Done?

[blackstone]

The point our comrade was trying to make was that the oppressed develop a consciousness of being oppressed based on their status in society. He is not saying that "the working class cannot take over the management of social production and subsequently, the governing of society." He is saying that this form of consciousness must be combatted through the course of the revolution.

And if you read his quote closer, he said "the masses will always express sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology..." He isn&#39;t saying they aren&#39;t able to; he is saying, they will express sentiments that they aren&#39;t able to. Moreover, he goes on: "...and this is something very real that has to be fought against because it is a mentality bore out from capitalism."

Comrade, i understand what LFP said and i still disagree. Maybe in non-revolutionary periods when the masses have not developed their class consciousness that is the case but not in revolutionary periods.

I believe your views are not based on reality, that is why i posted the article on the Zanon factory and other links to workers managed facilities. Worker&#39;s actively partaking in class struggled generally don&#39;t have those concerns. They renamed the production unit ,"Factory Without Bosses". Which should be clear to those who question their sentiments on being able to manage production.



Perhaps I just misinterpreted or overanalyzed, but if that is what you are claiming then I would vehemently disagree with you. Economic organization is the first step in the development of class consciousness, but it isn&#39;t the final step.

Your over analyzing, comrade.


What do you mean?
We as communists should be advocating and supporting proletariat revolution which entails the working class seizing control of the means of production and managing the industries directly themselves. We should not be flirting with ideas of representatives managing the industries in the interest of the working class because "the masses will are expressing sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology". This just renews hierarchy and a monopoly on decision making control, which in my opinion and others, is not the road to socialism but restoration of capitalism.


Yes, that certainly is strange. I&#39;d understand if they were talking about political work, but they&#39;re talking about work in general, which is definitely strange.
Yes, they truely are a strange bunch.

[KC]

Comrade, i understand what LFP said and i still disagree. Maybe in non-revolutionary periods when the masses have not developed their class consciousness that is the case but not in revolutionary periods.

Consciousness doesn&#39;t change instantaneously. It takes time for consciousness to change, even after such a profound experience as a revolutionary upheaval.


I believe your views are not based on reality

That&#39;s fine, but you don&#39;t have to imply that I&#39;m delusional; simply saying that you disagree would be much more respectful and comradely.


that is why i posted the article on the Zanon factory and other links to workers managed facilities. Worker&#39;s actively partaking in class struggled generally don&#39;t have those concerns. They renamed the production unit ,"Factory Without Bosses". Which should be clear to those who question their sentiments on being able to manage production.

The political struggle of Social-Democracy is far more extensive and complex than the economic struggle of the workers against the employers and the government.


We as communists should be advocating and supporting proletariat revolution which entails the working class seizing control of the means of production and managing the industries directly themselves. We should not be flirting with ideas of representatives managing the industries in the interest of the working class because "the masses will are expressing sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology".

Who here mentioned anything about representatives, though? That&#39;s what I meant when I asked "What do you mean?"

Also, I&#39;d prefer if sometime you&#39;d respond to my post in whole.

[Rawthentic]

This just renews hierarchy and a monopoly on decision making control, which in my opinion and others, is not the road to socialism but restoration of capitalism.
This is not how capitalism is restored. All this needs to be put in the framework of the fundamental class nature of a society. As I said before, capitalism bears the garbage from capitalism, and all such forms of oppression need to be worked through. One can&#39;t be narrow and think that because there are managers in socialist society (elected or not) that its nature is capitalist. The task of communists (in particular the communist vanguard) in socialist society is to put and end to all forms of oppression and relations of exploitation, workers control of industry being one of them.

But to think that hierarchy leads to capitalism is a dangerous position.

[blackstone]

Consciousness doesn&#39;t change instantaneously. It takes time for consciousness to change, even after such a profound experience as a revolutionary upheaval.
Workers have a collective self-interest in the creation of a society based on freedom and equality since we can only have power if we manage society collectively, through mass direct democracy. Classes, organize themselves and gain class consciousness through the course of class struggle.


The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors. On the other hand, the class in its turn achieves an independent existence over against the individuals, so that the latter find their conditions of existence predestined, and hence have their position in life and their personal development assigned to them by their class, become subsumed under it. This is the same phenomenon as the subjection of the separate individuals to the division of labour and can only be removed by the abolition of private property and of labour itself
Karl Marx,The German Ideology,Chapter 1

Self-emancipation and proletariat revolution involves workers as a class acting to seize and manage the system of production and allocation. Thus, the masses are not expressing sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology but the exact opposite.

I was not implying that you were delusional. I proposed that if the masses do not have confidence in their abilities to self-manage society, then they will not form into a class and self-emancipate. Part of class consciousness involves the worker&#39;s realizing their potential to reorganize and transform society and manage it themselves.

[Rawthentic]

Self-emancipation and proletariat revolution involves workers as a class acting to seize and manage the system of production and allocation. Thus, the masses are not expressing sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology but the exact opposite.

I agree with most of your post here. The thing is, as I&#39;ve said many times before, socialism is scarred by capitalism&#39;s leftover&#39;s. Thus, a part of that, a vital part, is how the proletariat will achieve mastery of all those spheres of society you mentioned. Like I said, a seizure of power by that class does not mean that they know how to do such things, because they wont. Its a process of working through and learning by the communist leadership and the proletariat.

[KC]

Workers have a collective self-interest in the creation of a society based on freedom and equality since we can only have power if we manage society collectively, through mass direct democracy. Classes, organize themselves and gain class consciousness through the course of class struggle.

Stop being so vague. Describe what you&#39;re saying here. This could mean a million different things depending on what you mean by "classes organize themselves" and "class struggle".


Self-emancipation and proletariat revolution involves workers as a class acting to seize and manage the system of production and allocation. Thus, the masses are not expressing sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology but the exact opposite.

I&#39;m not talking about action. I&#39;m talking about consciousness. This point is pretty obvious, though, so I don&#39;t think I&#39;m going to argue about it anymore.

Are you going to respond to my other posts?

[co-op]

Live for the people:

But to think that hierarchy leads to capitalism is a dangerous position.

A hierachy by definition means we do not have producer/consumer democratic control and self-managed society. Any hierarchy/controlling class will do what it needs to do to preserve its position and this was true when state-capitalism changed to private capitalism in the USSR. This trend is being repeated with most of the other so called communist states. Its dangerous and actually ignorant to think that a class in control will one day relinquish power volunterally, how many times must history repeat itself before this fact is accepted by mainstream communists?

[RGacky3]

Hierarchy, is what is bad about Capitalism, Hierarchy may not lead to Capitalism, it will lead to Hierarchy, which always results in a form of oppression.

[co-op]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:41 pm
Hierarchy, is what is bad about Capitalism, Hierarchy may not lead to Capitalism, it will lead to Hierarchy, which always results in a form of oppression.
If hierarchy, as you say, is what is bad about capitalism, why is this not a negative feature of all societies, be they capitalist, state-capitalist or other? I think hierarchy in any situation leads to what is best for the controlling/ruling class and what best preserves their position. Its true to say that the fall-back position of the ruling class in the situation of state-capitalism appears to be back to private capitalism. The USSR, China, the Eastern Bloc all confirm this and the rest are following suit. I am not saying that hierarchy leads to capitalism per say, I am saying that any ruling class will do what it feels is necessary to survive.

[KC]

A hierachy by definition means we do not have producer/consumer democratic control and self-managed society. Any hierarchy/controlling class will do what it needs to do to preserve its position and this was true when state-capitalism changed to private capitalism in the USSR. This trend is being repeated with most of the other so called communist states. Its dangerous and actually ignorant to think that a class in control will one day relinquish power volunterally, how many times must history repeat itself before this fact is accepted by mainstream communists?

The proletariat doesn&#39;t have to "one day relinquish power volunterally"; the class itself withers away, as well as the state and class society in general.


I think hierarchy in any situation leads to what is best for the controlling/ruling class and what best preserves their position.

Completely true.

[syndicat]

The proletariat doesn&#39;t have to "one day relinquish power volunterally"; the class itself withers away, as well as the state and class society in general.

the people who form the managers and experts in the state hierarchy have power over the working class, as bosses in general do, and this is a class power relation. it&#39;s not possible for the working class to control the state any more than any other hierarchical system, like the corporations. and those people who form a separate administrative layer in the state and the state-run economy will never relinguish their power voluntarily.

for the working class to have power in society, all the hierarchies have to be dismantled, including not only the corporations but also the state.

there are some effects of the old society that will persist for some time, such as many with individualist attitudes or hostility to the new order, or higher education from the old inequalities. these things may "wither away" over time.

but it is possible to elminate the formal hiearchies right away and this has to be done to empower the working class.

[KC]

Don&#39;t ever waste your time responding to me with regards to the state.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 02, 2007 04:26 pm

Workers have a collective self-interest in the creation of a society based on freedom and equality since we can only have power if we manage society collectively, through mass direct democracy. Classes, organize themselves and gain class consciousness through the course of class struggle.

Stop being so vague. Describe what you&#39;re saying here. This could mean a million different things depending on what you mean by "classes organize themselves" and "class struggle".


Self-emancipation and proletariat revolution involves workers as a class acting to seize and manage the system of production and allocation. Thus, the masses are not expressing sentiments such as they see themselves as not being able to manage production, education, science, technology but the exact opposite.

I&#39;m not talking about action. I&#39;m talking about consciousness. This point is pretty obvious, though, so I don&#39;t think I&#39;m going to argue about it anymore.

Are you going to respond to my other posts?
I wasn&#39;t being vague, i even quoted Marx who elaborated further. If you don&#39;t agree or don&#39;t understand the argument, then say so, and i will go more into detail.


Then you don&#39;t understand the tactic of non-violence.

I understand the tactic of non-violence and it&#39;s historical context in the Civil Rights Era. My parents performed in sit-ins, sit-downs, and what have you and i have a great respect and admiration for my ancestors who persevered water hoses, vicious dogs, and other attacks. I think your the one one who doesn&#39;t understand. But this thread is not about acts of non-violence but the demystification of hierarchal relations and bourgeois and petite bourgeoisie

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 05:41 pm
Hierarchy, is what is bad about Capitalism, Hierarchy may not lead to Capitalism, it will lead to Hierarchy, which always results in a form of oppression.
Silly me, I thought it was exploitation and the inequality which derives from that.

A question to you; you are on a boat with 10 others. There is a storm on the way and you have to prepare, and each of the 10 have a different idea on how to prepare.

One says: "we must return to the shore as soon as possible&#33;"

Two says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the east&#33;"

Three says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the west&#33;"

Four says: "we must turns sideways, and move to the north&#33;"

Five says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the south&#33;"

And so on and so forth.

But the boat is still there, in the path of the storm. Who should decide what to do? Who gets the "last say"? Without hierarchy, they&#39;ll end up bickering and you die in the storm. Yeah...not a good move.

Now let&#39;s say the 10 people come together, and decide to elect one of them to listen to all their opinions, and make the decision on what to do. They will naturally elect the person they consider the wisest of all, for he will make the smartest decision. The person is elected, he decides to move back to the shore, and you live.

That&#39;s not oppression, that&#39;s sanity.

[KC]

I wasn&#39;t being vague, i even quoted Marx who elaborated further. If you don&#39;t agree or don&#39;t understand the argument, then say so, and i will go more into detail.

What did you mean when you said "classes organize themselves" and "class struggle"?


I understand the tactic of non-violence and it&#39;s historical context in the Civil Rights Era. My parents performed in sit-ins, sit-downs, and what have you and i have a great respect and admiration for my ancestors who persevered water hoses, vicious dogs, and other attacks. I think your the one one who doesn&#39;t understand. But this thread is not about acts of non-violence but the demystification of hierarchal relations and bourgeois and petite bourgeoisie

Something which the tactic of non-violence was used to do in the past (i.e. the Civil Rights Era) and continues to be a viable tactic for all of those wishing to expose the hierarchical, violent nature of the bourgeois state.

Note: Non-violence is a tactic, unlike pacifism which is an ideology. They are completely different.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 06, 2007 11:23 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 06, 2007 11:23 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 05:41 pm
Hierarchy, is what is bad about Capitalism, Hierarchy may not lead to Capitalism, it will lead to Hierarchy, which always results in a form of oppression.
Silly me, I thought it was exploitation and the inequality which derives from that.

A question to you; you are on a boat with 10 others. There is a storm on the way and you have to prepare, and each of the 10 have a different idea on how to prepare.

One says: "we must return to the shore as soon as possible&#33;"

Two says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the east&#33;"

Three says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the west&#33;"

Four says: "we must turns sideways, and move to the north&#33;"

Five says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the south&#33;"

And so on and so forth.

But the boat is still there, in the path of the storm. Who should decide what to do? Who gets the "last say"? Without hierarchy, they&#39;ll end up bickering and you die in the storm. Yeah...not a good move.

Now let&#39;s say the 10 people come together, and decide to elect one of them to listen to all their opinions, and make the decision on what to do. They will naturally elect the person they consider the wisest of all, for he will make the smartest decision. The person is elected, he decides to move back to the shore, and you live.

That&#39;s not oppression, that&#39;s sanity. [/b]
You have a very wild imagination.

But i want to ask some questions to bring us back to reality.


Now let&#39;s say the 10 people come together, and decide to elect one of them to listen to all their opinions, and make the decision on what to do. They will naturally elect the person they consider the wisest of all, for he will make the smartest decision. The person is elected, he decides to move back to the shore, and you live.

If we randomly come together, how do we know who is the "wisest" to make the decision to get us back to shore?

[RGacky3]

Silly me, I thought it was exploitation and the inequality which derives from that.

Hiearchy neccessarily results in that. by definition if there is Hiearchy there is inequality, and exploitation results.


But the boat is still there, in the path of the storm. Who should decide what to do? Who gets the "last say"? Without hierarchy, they&#39;ll end up bickering and you die in the storm. Yeah...not a good move.

Now let&#39;s say the 10 people come together, and decide to elect one of them to listen to all their opinions, and make the decision on what to do. They will naturally elect the person they consider the wisest of all, for he will make the smartest decision. The person is elected, he decides to move back to the shore, and you live.

That&#39;s not oppression, that&#39;s sanity.

Thats not Hiearchy at all, because that persons authority is directly attached to the 10 peoples allowing him to make those desicions, and those 10 people can take away that authority at any time, and that authority is for certain specific things.

Also thats a very bad example, because in a situation like that its hard to imagen that they would&#39;nt be able to come to a consensus.

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by blackstone+November 06, 2007 04:39 pm--> (blackstone @ November 06, 2007 04:39 pm)
Now let&#39;s say the 10 people come together, and decide to elect one of them to listen to all their opinions, and make the decision on what to do. They will naturally elect the person they consider the wisest of all, for he will make the smartest decision. The person is elected, he decides to move back to the shore, and you live.

If we randomly come together, how do we know who is the "wisest" to make the decision to get us back to shore? [/b]
Okay then, the ten people know each other well.

As for my wild imagination, that&#39;s true, here&#39;s how Engels put it, much better:


Originally posted by [email protected]
Let us take another example — the railway. Here too the co-operation of an infinite number of individuals is absolutely necessary, and this co-operation must be practised during precisely fixed hours so that no accidents may happen. Here, too, the first condition of the job is a dominant will that settles all subordinate questions, whether this will is represented by a single delegate or a committee charged with the execution of the resolutions of the majority of persona interested. In either case there is a very pronounced authority. Moreover, what would happen to the first train dispatched if the authority of the railway employees over the Hon. passengers were abolished?

But the necessity of authority, and of imperious authority at that, will nowhere be found more evident than on board a ship on the high seas. There, in time of danger, the lives of all depend on the instantaneous and absolute obedience of all to the will of one.

And here&#39;s another good example:


Engels
Let us take by way if example a cotton spinning mill. The cotton must pass through at least six successive operations before it is reduced to the state of thread, and these operations take place for the most part in different rooms. Furthermore, keeping the machines going requires an engineer to look after the steam engine, mechanics to make the current repairs, and many other labourers whose business it is to transfer the products from one room to another, and so forth. All these workers, men, women and children, are obliged to begin and finish their work at the hours fixed by the authority of the steam, which cares nothing for individual autonomy. The workers must, therefore, first come to an understanding on the hours of work; and these hours, once they are fixed, must be observed by all, without any exception. Thereafter particular questions arise in each room and at every moment concerning the mode of production, distribution of material, etc., which must be settled by decision of a delegate placed at the head of each branch of labour or, if possible, by a majority vote, the will of the single individual will always have to subordinate itself, which means that questions are settled in an authoritarian way. The automatic machinery of the big factory is much more despotic than the small capitalists who employ workers ever have been. At least with regard to the hours of work one may write upon the portals of these factories: Lasciate ogni autonomia, voi che entrate&#33; [Leave, ye that enter in, all autonomy behind&#33;]

If man, by dint of his knowledge and inventive genius, has subdued the forces of nature, the latter avenge themselves upon him by subjecting him, in so far as he employs them, to a veritable despotism independent of all social organisation. Wanting to abolish authority in large-scale industry is tantamount to wanting to abolish industry itself, to destroy the power loom in order to return to the spinning wheel.
On Authority (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm)

[KC]

Thats not Hiearchy at all, because that persons authority is directly attached to the 10 peoples allowing him to make those desicions, and those 10 people can take away that authority at any time, and that authority is for certain specific things.

It seems that you don&#39;t know what hierarchy is.

"hierarchy: any system of persons or things ranked one above another."

[co-op]

Zampanò:

The proletariat doesn&#39;t have to "one day relinquish power volunterally"; the class itself withers away, as well as the state and class society in general.


When has this happened in history and why will the future be any different.


Completely true.

If you agree it is completely true that the controlling/ruling classes do what is best in their interests how do you square this with idea that the state and class naturally "wither away." If the rule is that where there are controllers/rulers they will always act to preserve their hegemony in society, how can any institution that empowers them wither away?

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:41 pm
Thats not Hiearchy at all, because that persons authority is directly attached to the 10 peoples allowing him to make those desicions, and those 10 people can take away that authority at any time, and that authority is for certain specific things.

Also thats a very bad example, because in a situation like that its hard to imagen that they would&#39;nt be able to come to a consensus.
That&#39;s still hierarchy; the dictionary defintion of it is:


hi·er·ar·chy /ˈhaɪəˌrɑrki, ˈhaɪrɑr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hahy-uh-rahr-kee, hahy-rahr-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun, plural -chies. 1. any system of persons or things ranked one above another.

The person who makes the decisions gets the authority to make those decisions from the other people. Just because he&#39;s democratically elected to do so, and eligible for recall at all times, doesn&#39;t mean he doesn&#39;t have the higher position.

Now, insert that example into a larger scale in terms of society, and you have democratic socialism/communism.

[KC]

Marxism 101


When has this happened in history and why will the future be any different.

It hasn&#39;t happened in history because communism hasn&#39;t been reached.


If you agree it is completely true that the controlling/ruling classes do what is best in their interests how do you square this with idea that the state and class naturally "wither away."

Because it is in the interests of the working class to maintain the conditions of their rule which leads to a classless society.

[RGacky3]

The person who makes the decisions gets the authority to make those decisions from the other people. Just because he&#39;s democratically elected to do so, and eligible for recall at all times, doesn&#39;t mean he doesn&#39;t have the higher position.

Now, insert that example into a larger scale in terms of society, and you have democratic socialism/communism.

Well then I must clarify myself, I am innate authority, or power, you can mince words all you want, and talk about definitions, but it does&#39;nt change my position, or my point, it just forces me to use different words :P.


"hierarchy: any system of persons or things ranked one above another."

I&#39;d like to point out, that I don&#39;t believe a group of people on a boat allowing a guy to make a certain decisions constitutes a "system of ranking."

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 06, 2007 11:29 am

I wasn&#39;t being vague, i even quoted Marx who elaborated further. If you don&#39;t agree or don&#39;t understand the argument, then say so, and i will go more into detail.

What did you mean when you said "classes organize themselves" and "class struggle"?


I understand the tactic of non-violence and it&#39;s historical context in the Civil Rights Era. My parents performed in sit-ins, sit-downs, and what have you and i have a great respect and admiration for my ancestors who persevered water hoses, vicious dogs, and other attacks. I think your the one one who doesn&#39;t understand. But this thread is not about acts of non-violence but the demystification of hierarchal relations and bourgeois and petite bourgeoisie

Something which the tactic of non-violence was used to do in the past (i.e. the Civil Rights Era) and continues to be a viable tactic for all of those wishing to expose the hierarchical, violent nature of the bourgeois state.

Note: Non-violence is a tactic, unlike pacifism which is an ideology. They are completely different.
To bring it back, i never proposed that class consciousness changes instantaneously. The development of workers class consciousness is a long and complex process. It is a precondition as well as a result of class struggle. "The development of the proletariat proceeeds everywhere through internal struggles", Engel once wrote.

Marx also tells us that class struggle is a necessary condition for people to form a class.


The separate individuals form a class only insofar as they have to carry on a common battle against another class; otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors. On the other hand, the class in its turn achieves an independent existence over against the individuals.
-Karl Marx,The German Ideology,Chapter 1

Another more concrete example here.


The small-holding peasants form a vast mass, the members of which live in similar conditions but without entering into manifold relations with one another. Their mode of production isolates them from one another instead of bringing them into mutual intercourse...In this way, the great mass of the French nation is formed by simple addition of homologous magnitudes, much as potatoes in a sack form a sack of potatoes. Insofar as millions of families live under economic conditions of existence that separate their mode of life, their interests, and their culture from those of other classes and put them in hostile opposition to the latter they form a class. Insofar as there is merely a local interconnection among these small-holding peasants and the identity of their interests begets no community, no national bond, and no political organization among them, they do not form a class.
-Karl Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte

and here.


The proletariat goes through various stages of development..At first the struggle is carried on by individual laborers, then by workers of a factory, then by the operatives in one trade, in one locality, against the bourgeois who directly exploits them...At this stage the laborers still form an incoherent mass scattered over the country, broken up by their mutual competition...But with the development of industry the proletariat not only increases in number, it becomes concentrated in greater masses, its strength grows, and it feels that strength more. The various interests and conditions of life within the ranks of the proletariat are more and more equalized...The collisions between individual workers and individual bourgeois tend to assume the character of collisions between the respective classes. Thereupon the workers begin to form coalitions against the bourgeois...
-Karl Marx, German Ideology



To reiterate, I proposed that if the masses do not have confidence in their abilities to self-manage society, then they will not form into a class and self-emancipate. Part of class consciousness involves the worker&#39;s realizing their potential to reorganize and transform society and manage it themselves.



Zeppelin:

Here&#39;s what Bakunin had to say on Authority,


Does it follow that I reject all authority? Far from me such a thought. In the matter of boots, I refer to the authority of the bootmaker; concerning houses, canals, or railroads, I consult that of the architect or engineer.


I bow before the authority of special men because it is imposed upon me by my own reason. I am conscious of my inability to grasp, in all its details and positive developments, any very large portion of human knowledge.

[co-op]

Zampanò

It hasn&#39;t happened in history because communism hasn&#39;t been reached.

Then there is something wrong with the method. Authoritarian communists play out their historical role by supposedly &#39;leading&#39; the working class to communism. This theory in practice has always brought us state capitalism and the oppression of the working class. The empirical results have shown the DOP and the preservation of the state as no more conducive to communism than capitalism.


Because it is in the interests of the working class to maintain the conditions of their rule which leads to a classless society.

It is in the interests of the working class to abolish class relations in all its guises and never trust those who seek to control them whilst stating they wish to emancipate them.

[co-op]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 06, 2007 04:23 pm--> (Led Zeppelin &#064; November 06, 2007 04:23 pm)
[email protected] 05, 2007 05:41 pm
Hierarchy, is what is bad about Capitalism, Hierarchy may not lead to Capitalism, it will lead to Hierarchy, which always results in a form of oppression.
Silly me, I thought it was exploitation and the inequality which derives from that.

A question to you; you are on a boat with 10 others. There is a storm on the way and you have to prepare, and each of the 10 have a different idea on how to prepare.

One says: "we must return to the shore as soon as possible&#33;"

Two says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the east&#33;"

Three says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the west&#33;"

Four says: "we must turns sideways, and move to the north&#33;"

Five says: "we must turn sideways, and move to the south&#33;"

And so on and so forth.

But the boat is still there, in the path of the storm. Who should decide what to do? Who gets the "last say"? Without hierarchy, they&#39;ll end up bickering and you die in the storm. Yeah...not a good move.

Now let&#39;s say the 10 people come together, and decide to elect one of them to listen to all their opinions, and make the decision on what to do. They will naturally elect the person they consider the wisest of all, for he will make the smartest decision. The person is elected, he decides to move back to the shore, and you live.

That&#39;s not oppression, that&#39;s sanity.[/b]
Spoken like a true conservative with nothing but contempt for the idea that ordinary people can self-manage their workplaces and society. You have used an example that you intended to show that the idea of self-management was ridiculous and dangerous; instead you have shown yourself to be wallowing in ruling class ideas, anti-working class ideas, ideas that preserve oppression, inequality and class. Lets use your example for a minute and try to properly understand the workings of self-management and workplace democracy.

First off the idea that just because there is 10 people on the boat there must be 10 dissenting opinions is silly. With the storm coming from a certain direction it would surely be quick and easy to reach a consensus that the boat does not steer towards it. With the 10 people making up the self-managed unit they would have planning for production, maintenance, balanced job complexes etc. Before the boat set out to sea the crew would have a plan for the day and each member of the self-managing crew would have their tasks set out and each knew what would be their responsibility. Where storms are concerned crews could have plans which are previously agreed. For example, risk would be assessed before the boat left port and if the risk was too great workers simply would not leave the port. A yearly production plan would be in place which budgeted for storm-offs.

If the risk is not as great the crew may decide to leave port. In this circumstance there would be safety plans already in place and previously agreed which didn’t take chances with workers lives, their lives. If the ferocity of a storm increased to a previously agreed level then that would automatically necessitate a return to harbour. Often sinkings are the result of captains under commercial pressure who act unilaterally and take risks with the crews lives. With balanced job complexes it would be the responsibility of the person steering the boat at the time of the storm to steer it to harbour. The crew would trust them with this task just as they must trust others when they take the wheel. It is important in any emergency situation that all people perform their allotted tasks correctly. Steering the boat and crew to safety is important but so are other tasks. In a storm, ensuring the boat remains powered, navigating, preparing life rafts, survival suits, flares, sending may-days etc, are all essential tasks for survival with individuals carrying them out. Hierarchy doesn’t come in to it. We trust bus drivers we do not know with our safety, why would you not trust a crew you know and trust to help each other in dangerous times? Are people who work under self-management somehow willing to risk their lives more than the worker with no control? I think the inverse is true.

The person is steering the vessel because that is part of his balanced job complex which is an equal way of sharing out work, both empowering work and monotonous boring work like being on watch, etc. They have no ranking above anyone and their interests are the same as that of the self-managed crew; to perform their tasks and look out for each other. When the next person takes the wheel you trust them that they will do their job like they trust the person who watches the sea for problems, the guy that fixes the engine and the person who monitors the radar and radio equipment. Even at the moment it is a fact that workplaces that have worker input in safety are safer to work in than ones which have no worker input. The self-managed workplace, with total worker control over safety, would, I am certain be the safest place to work that is possible.

You say that the crew should elect a person to make decisions on their behalf. Without the self-management of the workplaces we would have centralised planning with top-down orders. How long before the elected boss is acting on behalf of interests outwith the crew?

[KC]

To bring it back, i never proposed that class consciousness changes instantaneously. The development of workers class consciousness is a long and complex process. It is a precondition as well as a result of class struggle. "The development of the proletariat proceeeds everywhere through internal struggles", Engel once wrote.

Marx also tells us that class struggle is a necessary condition for people to form a class.


I agree.


To reiterate, I proposed that if the masses do not have confidence in their abilities to self-manage society, then they will not form into a class and self-emancipate.

Sure they could. And it&#39;s not about how they feel; it&#39;s about the state of their consciousness. Many workers will be class conscious yet still hold capitalist sentiments, for example, even after overthrowing the bourgeoisie.


Then there is something wrong with the method. Authoritarian communists play out their historical role by supposedly &#39;leading&#39; the working class to communism.

Define leading and back up your assertion with some sources from Lenin that showed he believed that.


This theory in practice has always brought us state capitalism and the oppression of the working class. The empirical results have shown the DOP and the preservation of the state as no more conducive to communism than capitalism.

Your logic is incredibly flawed.


It is in the interests of the working class to abolish class relations in all its guises and never trust those who seek to control them whilst stating they wish to emancipate them.

Nobody attempts to control class relations. What a funny thing to say.

[blackstone]

Sure they could. And it&#39;s not about how they feel; it&#39;s about the state of their consciousness. Many workers will be class conscious yet still hold capitalist sentiments, for example, even after overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

Marx states we have to deal with " a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it emerges."

However, that doesn&#39;t necessarily presuppose that worker as a class will have sentiments that they can run society. On the contrary, Engels in an article in the Labour Standard says, “We [can] manage very well without the interference of the capitalist class in the great industries of the country,” Engels concluded. “Stand back&#33; Give the working class the chance of a turn.” Marx and Engels also wrote in 1879, “At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes.”

[KC]

However, that doesn&#39;t necessarily presuppose that worker as a class will have sentiments that they can run society. On the contrary, Engels in an article in the Labour Standard says, “We [can] manage very well without the interference of the capitalist class in the great industries of the country,” Engels concluded. “Stand back&#33; Give the working class the chance of a turn.” Marx and Engels also wrote in 1879, “At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes.”

This is the same straw man you attempted to pass off before. Nobody is talking about education.

[RGacky3]

Nobody attempts to control class relations. What a funny thing to say.

I think he was saying trying to control the working class, which maybe a funny thing to say, but its true.


QUOTE
This theory in practice has always brought us state capitalism and the oppression of the working class. The empirical results have shown the DOP and the preservation of the state as no more conducive to communism than capitalism.



Your logic is incredibly flawed.

How so? What he said made complete sense to me.


Many workers will be class conscious yet still hold capitalist sentiments, for example, even after overthrowing the bourgeoisie.

Like what? Capitalist sentiments? What does that mean?

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 08, 2007 11:46 am

However, that doesn&#39;t necessarily presuppose that worker as a class will have sentiments that they can run society. On the contrary, Engels in an article in the Labour Standard says, “We [can] manage very well without the interference of the capitalist class in the great industries of the country,” Engels concluded. “Stand back&#33; Give the working class the chance of a turn.” Marx and Engels also wrote in 1879, “At the founding of the International we expressly formulated the battle cry: The emancipation of the working class must be achieved by the working class itself. Hence we cannot co-operate with men who say openly that the workers are too uneducated to emancipate themselves, and must first be emancipated from above by philanthropic members of the upper and lower middle classes.”

This is the same straw man you attempted to pass off before. Nobody is talking about education.
Please back your claims by evidence or valid arguments and not childish accusations of me using "straw men".


If the bourgeoisie all of a sudden disappeared off the face of the earth would working people understand how to take control of all the things society calls for?

Is that good enough for you? This statement is very different thatn claiming that working class people may at some times not see themselves capable of running society. It suggest working class people, ordinary people can not run society. It specifically says that working people will not understand how to take control of all the things society calls for if the bourgeoisie disappear. Which I&#39;m afraid is attributing mystical powers to the bourgeoisie.

If you are a Marxist, here&#39;s some Engels for you,


To begin with the means of communication, we find the telegraphs in the hands of the Government. The railways and a large part of the sea-going steamships are owned, not by individual capitalists who manage their own business, but by joint-stock companies whose business is managed for them by paid employees, by servants whose position is to all intents and purposes that of superior, better paid workpeople. As to the directors and shareholders, they both know that the less the former interfere with the management, and the latter with the supervision, the better for the concern. A lax and mostly perfunctory supervision is, indeed, the only function left to the owners of the business. Thus we see that in reality the capitalist owners of these immense establishments have no other action left with regard to them, but to cash the half-yearly dividend warrants. The social function of the capitalist here has been transferred to servants paid by wages; but he continues to pocket, in his dividends, the pay for those functions though he has ceased to perform them


As Engels as early as 1881 noted that the bourgeoisie, the people at the very top of society, the multimillionaires and billionaires, play no direct function in its running--they merely collect the rewards of ownership. The ruling class today has become entirely parasitic, siphoning wealth, but serving no useful social function.

Society could do away with the bourgeoisie and suffer no more than when an appendix is removed from a human body.

[Rawthentic]

Is that good enough for you? This statement is very different thatn claiming that working class people may at some times not see themselves capable of running society. It suggest working class people, ordinary people can not run society. It specifically says that working people will not understand how to take control of all the things society calls for if the bourgeoisie disappear. Which I&#39;m afraid is attributing mystical powers to the bourgeoisie.

No, it&#39;s not. When a revolution comes, a switch does not turn on in their heads that magically tells them how to run medicine, physics, and other sciences, as well as how to manage production for an entire society. They have never done it before a revolution, and under socialism the revolutionary process entails breaking down all these inequalities so that the proletariat can take increasing mastery.

And don&#39;t patronize me, anarchist. I am the marxist, not you.

[KC]

Please back your claims by evidence or valid arguments and not childish accusations of me using "straw men".

I don&#39;t have to "offer evidence" that nobody in this thread was talking about education; it&#39;s blatantly obvious by the very fact that you are the only one to bring it up.


Is that good enough for you? This statement is very different thatn claiming that working class people may at some times not see themselves capable of running society. It suggest working class people, ordinary people can not run society. It specifically says that working people will not understand how to take control of all the things society calls for if the bourgeoisie disappear. Which I&#39;m afraid is attributing mystical powers to the bourgeoisie.

No it&#39;s not. Yet another straw man. The statement is very clear and very obvious. Working people wouldn&#39;t understand how to run society because they&#39;ve never done it. That is entirely different than saying they are incapable of learning how to do so.

[RGacky3]

When a revolution comes, a switch does not turn on in their heads that magically tells them how to run medicine, physics, and other sciences, as well as how to manage production for an entire society

You know whos gonna run the Sciences? Scientists.


They have never done it before a revolution, and under socialism the revolutionary process entails breaking down all these inequalities so that the proletariat can take increasing mastery.


The so-called vanguard, has also never managed society at all, what makes them better qualified to run society?


And don&#39;t patronize me, anarchist. I am the marxist, not you.

you are an asshole.

[co-op]

Define leading and back up your assertion with some sources from Lenin that showed he believed that.

I don&#39;t recall mentioning Lenin although I am fully aware that his goal was state capitalism for Russia. What I am saying is that whether it is possible to achieve communism anywhere in the world at any time is irrelevant to communists whose wish it is to centralise political power and deny the workers self-management of the economy. The adherance to this dogma has preserved class and state at moments in history where workers sought to destroy such concepts. The actors change but the script remains the same, as does the outcome.



Your logic is incredibly flawed.


Then you must explain why its flawed.


Nobody attempts to control class relations. What a funny thing to say.

I think you know what I meant. RGacky3 seems to understand without difficulty.

[Marsella]

Unquestionably submission to the single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labor processes based on large scale machine industry...Revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestionably obey the single will of the leaders of the labor process. Lenin


Large scale machine industry which is the central productive source and foundation of socialism calls for absolute and strict unity of will...How can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one. Lenin


Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people. Lenin


...we passed from worker&#39;s control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy... Lenin (1918&#33;)


...In the present circumstances, state capitalism would mean a step forward for the Soviet Republic. If, for example, state capitalism firmly established itself here after six months, that would be a mighty achievement, and the surest guarantee that, after a year, socialism would finally and irrevocably established here. Lenin


To study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no efforts in copying it, (to not) shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Lenin


State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers ( :lol: ), the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state...And it rests on us to determine what state capitalism is to be. Lenin


When we are reproached with the dictatorship of one party, and when, as you have heard, a proposal is made to establish a united socialist front, we reply: &#39;Yes, the dictatorship of one party&#33; We stand by it, and cannot depart from it; for it is that Party which, in the course of decades, has won the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat.&#39; Lenin


I consider that if the Civil War had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management much sooner and much less painfully. Trotsky


It is a general rule that man will try to get out of work. Man is a lazy animal. Trotsky


Those workers who contribute more than the rest to the general good have every right to receive a larger share of the socialist product than layabouts, idlers and the undisciplined. Trotsky


They [Worker&#39;s Opposition] turn democratic principles into fetish. They put the right of the workers to elect their own representatives above the party, thus challenging the Party&#39;s right to affirm its own dictatorship, even when this dictatorship comes into conflict with the evanescent mood of the worker&#39;s democracy. We must bear in mind the historical mission of our Party. The Party is forced to maintain its dictatorship without stopping for these vacillations, nor even the momentary faltering of the working class. This realization in the mortar which cements our unity. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not always have to conform to formal principles of democracy. Trotsky

All sourced from What is to be Undone, 1974, Michael Albert.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 09, 2007 11:58 pm

Is that good enough for you? This statement is very different thatn claiming that working class people may at some times not see themselves capable of running society. It suggest working class people, ordinary people can not run society. It specifically says that working people will not understand how to take control of all the things society calls for if the bourgeoisie disappear. Which I&#39;m afraid is attributing mystical powers to the bourgeoisie.

No, it&#39;s not. When a revolution comes, a switch does not turn on in their heads that magically tells them how to run medicine, physics, and other sciences, as well as how to manage production for an entire society. They have never done it before a revolution, and under socialism the revolutionary process entails breaking down all these inequalities so that the proletariat can take increasing mastery.

And don&#39;t patronize me, anarchist. I am the marxist, not you.
First, a revolution doesn&#39;t "come". Your not going to wake up tomorrow at 10 A.M, turn on the tv and find out you missed the revolution&#33;

Earlier, i stated that the development of workers class consciousness is a long and complex process. It is a precondition as well as a result of class struggle. "The development of the proletariat proceeeds everywhere through internal struggles", Engel once wrote.

This is why the self-managed institutions in Argentina are so important, even though Zampano brushed it off. These various battles and instances of class struggle are preparing workers to one day be able to take over the means of production&#33;

A revolution won&#39;t "come, and catch the worker&#39;s off guard. On the contrary, the revolution is the process of worker&#39;s taking control over the means of production and self-managing those production units. Alas, Flora Tristan, "The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves."

This is an anarcho or libertarian syndicalist strategy. Rudolf Rocker says," Anarcho-syndicalists are convinced that a Socialist economic order cannot be created by the decrees and statutes of a government, but only by the solidaric collaboration of the workers with hand and brain in each special branch of production; that is, through the taking over of the management of all plants by the producers themselves under such form that the separate groups, plants, and branches of industry are independent members of the general economic organism and systematically carry on production and the distribution of the products in the interest of the community on the basis of free mutual agreements."

Noam Chomsky, in Notes on Anarchism has this to say,


Anarchosyndicalists sought, even under capitalism, to create "free associations of free producers" that would engage in militant struggle and prepare to take over the organization of production on a democratic basis. These associations would serve as "a practical school of anarchism."20 If private ownership of the means of production is, in Proudhon&#39;s often quoted phrase, merely a form of "theft" -- "the exploitation of the weak by the strong"21 -- control of production by a state bureaucracy, no matter how benevolent its intentions, also does not create the conditions under which labor, manual and intellectual, can become the highest want in life. Both, then, must be overcome.


The phrase "spontaneous revolutionary action" can be misleading. The anarchosyndicalists, at least, took very seriously Bakunin&#39;s remark that the workers&#39; organizations must create "not only the ideas but also the facts of the future itself" in the prerevolutionary period. The accomplishments of the popular revolution in Spain, in particular, were based on the patient work of many years of organization and education, one component of a long tradition of commitment and militancy. The resolutions of the Madrid Congress of June 1931 and the Saragossa Congress in May 1936 foreshadowed in many ways the acts of the revolution, as did the somewhat different ideas sketched by Santillan (see note 4) in his fairly specific account of the social and economic organization to be instituted by the revolution. Guérin writes "The Spanish revolution was relatively mature in the minds of libertarian thinkers, as in the popular consciousness." And workers&#39; organizations existed with the structure, the experience, and the understanding to undertake the task of social reconstruction when, with the Franco coup, the turmoil of early 1936 exploded into social revolution. In his introduction to a collection of documents on collectivization in Spain, the anarchist Augustin Souchy writes:
Noam Chomsky, Notes on Anarchism


So yes, before the revolution, during the revolution and after the revolution, worker&#39;s well be self-managing various sectors of the economy. Not only that, but we will see worker&#39;s acting as their dual role as consumers/citizens self-managing social institutions and the like. This was exemplified in the 70s, by the Black Panther Party and other organizations taking more control of existing institutions or creating their own when the existing ones were failing them.

You say people can&#39;t run things like education, I disagree&#33;

Also, i was not patronizing you, that was directed at Zampano, because i did not know whether or not he was a Marxist. Not all socialists or revolutionaries are, and that is not a bad thing. If he is not a Marxist, then using Marx to support my arguments would be meaningless to him.

Cheers.

[KC]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 10:47 pm

Unquestionably submission to the single will is absolutely necessary for the success of labor processes based on large scale machine industry...Revolution demands, in the interests of socialism, that the masses unquestionably obey the single will of the leaders of the labor process. Lenin


Large scale machine industry which is the central productive source and foundation of socialism calls for absolute and strict unity of will...How can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one. Lenin


Socialism is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people. Lenin


...we passed from worker&#39;s control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy... Lenin (1918&#33;)


...In the present circumstances, state capitalism would mean a step forward for the Soviet Republic. If, for example, state capitalism firmly established itself here after six months, that would be a mighty achievement, and the surest guarantee that, after a year, socialism would finally and irrevocably established here. Lenin


To study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no efforts in copying it, (to not) shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Lenin


State capitalism is capitalism which we shall be able to restrain, and the limits of which we shall be able to fix. This state capitalism is connected with the state, and the state is the workers ( :lol: ), the advanced section of the workers, the vanguard. We are the state...And it rests on us to determine what state capitalism is to be. Lenin


When we are reproached with the dictatorship of one party, and when, as you have heard, a proposal is made to establish a united socialist front, we reply: &#39;Yes, the dictatorship of one party&#33; We stand by it, and cannot depart from it; for it is that Party which, in the course of decades, has won the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat.&#39; Lenin


I consider that if the Civil War had not plundered our economic organs of all that was strongest, most independent, most endowed with initiative, we should undoubtedly have entered the path of one-man management much sooner and much less painfully. Trotsky


It is a general rule that man will try to get out of work. Man is a lazy animal. Trotsky


Those workers who contribute more than the rest to the general good have every right to receive a larger share of the socialist product than layabouts, idlers and the undisciplined. Trotsky


They [Worker&#39;s Opposition] turn democratic principles into fetish. They put the right of the workers to elect their own representatives above the party, thus challenging the Party&#39;s right to affirm its own dictatorship, even when this dictatorship comes into conflict with the evanescent mood of the worker&#39;s democracy. We must bear in mind the historical mission of our Party. The Party is forced to maintain its dictatorship without stopping for these vacillations, nor even the momentary faltering of the working class. This realization in the mortar which cements our unity. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not always have to conform to formal principles of democracy. Trotsky

All sourced from What is to be Undone, 1974, Michael Albert.
You should provide direct sources for these. I&#39;ve looked them up and they are all taken out of context or terribly "paraphrased" (i.e. reworded) to sound completely different than what they are. The Trotsky quote, for example, is taken so out of context it&#39;s not even close to what it originally meant:

Martov&#39;s "Quote":
"It is a general rule that man will try to get out of work. Man is a lazy animal."

The Actual Quote:
"As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education. One may even say that man is a fairly lazy animal. It is on this quality, in reality, that is founded to a considerable extent all human progress; because if man did not strive to expend his energy economically, did not seek to receive the largest possible quantity of products in return for a small quantity of energy, there would have been no technical development or social culture. It would appear, then, from this point of view that human laziness is a progressive force, Old Antonio Labriola, the Italian Marxist, even used to picture the man of the future as a “happy and lazy genius.” We must not, however, draw the conclusion from this that the party and the trade unions must propagate this quality in their agitation as a moral duty. No, no. We have sufficient of it as it is. The problem before the social organization is just to bring “laziness” within a definite framework, to discipline it, and to pull mankind together with the help of methods and measures invented by mankind itself."

I could go through the rest but, well, it&#39;s just a waste of my time. Martov, though, if you&#39;d like to provide the sources I&#39;d gladly show how you&#39;ve taken every single quote out of context and falsified the views of others in order to further your political agenda.

[Led Zeppelin]

LOL, I knew that Trotsky quote was ripped out of context.

I guess we now have to deal with the "Martov school of falsification".

[Marsella]

As a matter of fact dipshit, I quoted the sources in full from the book that I got them from.

I will type the whole essay when I have time because it is rather a good attack on Leninism, and its ridiculous arguments, but rather long.


I could go through the rest but, well, it&#39;s just a waste of my time. Martov, though, if you&#39;d like to provide the sources I&#39;d gladly show how you&#39;ve taken every single quote out of context and falsified the views of others in order to further your political agenda.

The quotes still show what Lenin and co aimed for: state capitalism.

But by all means, quote them in full.

And guess what, history isn&#39;t falsified: Lenin and co took state control and advanced capitalism. So I guess your argument sorta fails there doesn&#39;t it? :lol:


I guess we now have to deal with the "Martov school of falsification".

Hey it could be worse&#33;

I could be claiming to be a Communist whilst holding a middle class ideology&#33;

*Horrors*

:o

[Led Zeppelin]

First of all stop flaming, it doesn&#39;t make you "look cool" or help your argument.

Secondly, this is hilarious:


Originally posted by Martov
I quoted the sources in full from the book that I got them from.

Yeah, from the book you got them from, which distorted the quote and ripped it out of context, if you didn&#39;t notice the direct quote Zampanò just provided.

Just admit you quoted out of a biased bullshit book and get over yourself.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 17, 2007 07:05 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 17, 2007 07:05 pm) First of all stop flaming, it doesn&#39;t make you "look cool" or help your argument.

Secondly, this is hilarious:


Martov
I quoted the sources in full from the book that I got them from.

Yeah, from the book you got them from, which distorted the quote and ripped it out of context, if you didn&#39;t notice the direct quote Zampanò just provided.

Just admit you quoted out of a biased bullshit book and get over yourself. [/b]
Nope the book used quotes and then demonstrated how those quotes were true.

So it probably wouldn&#39;t do best with simply quoting and not using the author&#39;s other arguments and facts.

But like I said I will try and type the essay up in full because it really has some good arguments.

And lastly ****, just because one quote is out of context does not mean others are. So get a grip just because your dear leader said:


When we are reproached with the dictatorship of one party, and when, as you have heard, a proposal is made to establish a united socialist front, we reply: &#39;Yes, the dictatorship of one party&#33; We stand by it, and cannot depart from it; for it is that Party which, in the course of decades, has won the position of vanguard of the whole factory and industrial proletariat.


I guess we now have to deal with the "Martov school of falsification".

Oh and that was constructive criticism?

[Led Zeppelin]

So basically you were wrong but you don&#39;t have the ability to say you were. Typical.

I shouldn&#39;t have expected more from an immature lemming like you.

Also, stop flaming you idiot. It doesn&#39;t help your argument, it just shows how pathetic it is.

EDIT: oh and it&#39;s ironic that you&#39;re saying that I believe what my "dear leader" has to say unquestionably, yet you don&#39;t even bother to check the sources of the quotes you read in the book of your "dear leader".

You&#39;re a fucking joke.

[Marsella]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 17, 2007 07:13 pm
So basically you were wrong but you don&#39;t have the ability to say you were. Typical.

I shouldn&#39;t have expected more from an immature lemming like you.

Also, stop flaming you idiot. It doesn&#39;t help your argument, it just shows how pathetic it is.
No I will admit when I am wrong when I am wrong.

That&#39;s one of the points that differentiates a Communist from a Leninist.

You are making the accusation that just because one quote was out of context all my arguments are. Nice try.

And no, its not flaming to point out the reality of your dear leader&#39;s failed ideology.

Its just fact, fucktard.

[Led Zeppelin]

Haha you idiot, you wrote communist with a capital C which hints at the Moscow aligned Stalinist "Communist" parties.

I&#39;m going to continue to ignore your idiotic ramblings again now as I did before. Shouldn&#39;t have bothered with your immature crap in the first place, forgive me for doing so. Though that ridiculous falsification of that quote made it clear to me and every other member here that you can&#39;t be taken any more seriously than a clown at a circus.

Run along now child.

[co-op]

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 17, 2007 09:50 am
Haha you idiot, you wrote communist with a capital C which hints at the Moscow aligned Stalinist "Communist" parties.

I&#39;m going to continue to ignore your idiotic ramblings again now as I did before. Shouldn&#39;t have bothered with your immature crap in the first place, forgive me for doing so. Though that ridiculous falsification of that quote made it clear to me and every other member here that you can&#39;t be taken any more seriously than a clown at a circus.

Run along now child.
It seems you have as much contempt for those who challenge your views as you do for the proletarian class you believe are incapable of the self-management of production. Whether the above quotes are taken out of context or not, they definately fit in with the human experience of Bolshevism and state capitalism: Oppression of the working class, the crushing of dissenting views, the destruction of attempts at self-management and the completion of the historical mission to instal a state capitalist hierarchy with the working class rock bottom. Leninism/Trotskyism/Maoism are state-capitalist ideologies which enslave the working class, as a worker I utterly oppose them and all the anti-working class garbage they spew forth.

[Led Zeppelin]

Oh wow, you&#39;re a worker, that must mean you know things better than me, because I&#39;m a petty-bourgeois vanguardist, right?

In case you didn&#39;t notice, that was sarcasm. I am myself a worker, so playing the "proletarianer than thou" game won&#39;t work with me. Also, playing that game through the internet is pointless anyway, since there is no way of verifying those claims.

And the fact remains; those quotes were taken out of context so horribly that they were reduced to Trotsky saying that "humans are lazy animals". That kindof falsification is typical with Stalinists, but it is no surprise that ultra-leftists such as yourself and Martov go on to defend it.

As for my harsh reply to Martov, if you care to scroll back a few posts you&#39;ll see that he started this little flame-war when he started to call people "dipshit", "****" and "fucktard", after having been told to stop flaming, which he refused to do after the first post he made (the first post I made in reply to his was without flames, just a request to stop flaming). So maybe if you bothered to take off your sectarian goggles, and see the reality, you would&#39;ve noticed that he started the harshness in tone; not me.

[blackstone]

I appreciate Zed, as a Mod, you do your job and not add into bringing the quality of this thread down. Let&#39;s all keep this on a political and not a personal level by leaving out personal attacks,flames and insults.

I believe the fact still stands on Trotsky&#39;s belief that man was a lazy animal, the full quote says this.


As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education.

Since when has it become a general rule and is this fact? Of course not. I, as well as you, know people who enjoy programming computers, building computers, writing essays/books, fixing cars, and others activities. They do them as hobbies and can do them for hours and days on end. So what say you now?

[bezdomni]

I, as well as you, know people who enjoy programming computers, building computers, writing essays/books, fixing cars, and others activities.

There is a difference between "work" (things that require effort) and "labor" (things that require effort that you get paid to do).

Videotaping sex with a stranger for yourself because you want to masturbate to it later is hugely different than being paid to get videotaped having sex with a stranger because you need the money.

Sorry I couldn&#39;t come up with a less vulgar example.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:31 pm

I, as well as you, know people who enjoy programming computers, building computers, writing essays/books, fixing cars, and others activities.

There is a difference between "work" (things that require effort) and "labor" (things that require effort that you get paid to do).

Videotaping sex with a stranger for yourself because you want to masturbate to it later is hugely different than being paid to get videotaped having sex with a stranger because you need the money.

Sorry I couldn&#39;t come up with a less vulgar example.
I knew someone was going to try to differentiate the two, and that&#39;s not a problem because Trotsky uses both terms labor and work. And says that man enjoys to do neither.

And yeah your perv SP. :P

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by blackstone+November 19, 2007 04:18 pm--> (blackstone &#064; November 19, 2007 04:18 pm)
As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education.

Since when has it become a general rule and is this fact? Of course not. I, as well as you, know people who enjoy programming computers, building computers, writing essays/books, fixing cars, and others activities. They do them as hobbies and can do them for hours and days on end. So what say you now? [/b]
You left out Trotsky&#39;s argument for that claim, which is pretty irrefutable by history:


Trotsky
As a general rule, man strives to avoid labor. Love for work is not at all an inborn characteristic: it is created by economic pressure and social education. One may even say that man is a fairly lazy animal. It is on this quality, in reality, that is founded to a considerable extent all human progress; because if man did not strive to expend his energy economically, did not seek to receive the largest possible quantity of products in return for a small quantity of energy, there would have been no technical development or social culture. It would appear, then, from this point of view that human laziness is a progressive force, Old Antonio Labriola, the Italian Marxist, even used to picture the man of the future as a “happy and lazy genius.”

The desire of humanity to convenience itself by wanting to "receive the largest possible quantity of products in return for a small quantity of energy" is founded on laziness, is it not?

That is not a bad thing; it&#39;s actually a good thing, as laziness is a progressive force for humanity which drives its development.

[bezdomni]

Originally posted by blackstone+November 19, 2007 10:47 pm--> (blackstone @ November 19, 2007 10:47 pm)
[email protected] 19, 2007 02:31 pm

I, as well as you, know people who enjoy programming computers, building computers, writing essays/books, fixing cars, and others activities.

There is a difference between "work" (things that require effort) and "labor" (things that require effort that you get paid to do).

Videotaping sex with a stranger for yourself because you want to masturbate to it later is hugely different than being paid to get videotaped having sex with a stranger because you need the money.

Sorry I couldn&#39;t come up with a less vulgar example.
I knew someone was going to try to differentiate the two, and that&#39;s not a problem because Trotsky uses both terms labor and work. And says that man enjoys to do neither.

And yeah your perv SP. :P [/b]
Hey, don&#39;t project Trotsky&#39;s incapacity for concrete analysis onto me&#33; :P