DotP [Archive] - RevLeft

apathy maybe

12th November 2007, 00:16

Originally posted by Zampanò+November 12, 2007 01:46 am--> (Zampanò @ November 12, 2007 01:46 am)
Surely if things follow how the Marxists claim, once class ceases to exist, then there would be no need for any dictatorship of one class over another (and thus the state whithers away, existing only for the mere administration of things). To put a timeframe on that is impossible, of course.

No. The state doesn't exist after class society is gone, so it cannot "exist only for the mere administration of things". [/b]
I think perhaps you misunderstand me. The phrase "[mere] administration of things" is one used in many writings about Marxism to refer to the amount of governance in a classless society. There would be no 'rule' as it were, but merely administration. Making sure that the trains run on time, and so on.
For example,
Originally posted by http://www.kent.ac.uk/secl/philosophy/ss/[email protected]
However, the `dictatorship of the proletariat' is only the `first phase' of postcapitalist development. Its main purpose is to abolish the private ownership of the means of production, and hence the social and economic basis of class divisions. Moreover, Marx believed that the advent of socialist relations of production would unfetter the productive forces and lead to a great economic development. As the material basis of class divisions is dissolved, class differences will gradually disappear, and with them the need for the state as an instrument of class rule and as a distinct coercive force. In the higher stage of full communism, the state is destined ultimately to `wither away', as Engels puts it, and `the government of people will be replaced by the administration of things' (1884).My bold.

Engles @ http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...c-utop/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch01.htm)
Yet what is here already very plainly expressed is the idea of the future conversion of political rule over men into an administration of things and a direction of processes of production – that is to say, the “abolition of the state”, about which recently there has been so much noise. So, I did not mean that the state continued to exist as a tool of oppression. I was attempting to present Marxist ideas fairly, and my explanation is incorrect, then I apologise.

The most obvious are: that states have a tendency not to whither away

Well obviously not as long as class society exists.
Well indeed, and class society continues to exist.

that it is impossible for an entire class to have control over the running of a government

CdL already addressed this.
Indeed, and I make this very point. It is impossible for a class as a whole to govern, and thus how can you truly say that the class is governing? You can't. You can only say that the people who do govern are governing in the interests of their class. Which, as soon as they become the government, ceases to be the same as the proletariat.

Using these three facts, anarchists reject the idea that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a good idea at all.

You reject the idea of the proletariat taking power and defending it, as well as furthering their aims to achieve their ultimate goals?

It is impossible for an entire class to take power.

The first is the USSR, where a party elite, claiming to be ruling for an entire class, was actually ruling for itself, a new class as it were.
The PRC is another example of where the state has resisted whithering away.

Yeah, these results had absolutely nothing to do with the class struggles in these countries at the time, right? :rolleyes:
Well, they are shining examples of "Marxism" in action. If this is what happens when the "proletariat seizes powers", then fuck that. Why did not the state abolish classes and whither away? Because the state, becomes the new ruling class.

You really are fumbling around in the dark. I'd give you my "light of Marxism" but your eyes are so used to the dark that you'd probably be blinded.You can keep your selective vision thanks.

12th November 2007, 00:26

I think perhaps you misunderstand me. The phrase "[mere] administration of things" is one used in many writings about Marxism to refer to the amount of governance in a classless society. There would be no 'rule' as it were, but merely administration. Making sure that the trains run on time, and so on.

I know what it means. My point was that it's not a state, or a government.

Well indeed, and class society continues to exist.

Now you're getting it...

Indeed, and I make this very point. It is impossible for a class as a whole to govern, and thus how can you truly say that the class is governing?

What is democracy?

Well, they are shining examples of "Marxism" in action. If this is what happens when the "proletariat seizes powers", then fuck that.

No, it happens when the revolution fails.

Why did not the state abolish classes and whither away?

Because the state can't abolish classes?

Led Zeppelin

12th November 2007, 04:32

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 11, 2007 12:12 pm
(just as you see that the bourgeois do not all run the government) (at least in this modern time)
LOL, the bourgeoisie does not run the government? Then who does?

Are you one of those "the state is neutral" Kautskyite types? Wouldn't surprise me to be honest.

apathy maybe

12th November 2007, 07:36

Meh, let me rephrase that...

Not every single bourgeoisie is involved in the running of the government. In other words, where you have a "bourgeois government", it is a government consisting of people working for the interests of the bourgeoisie (at least in theory). It is not a government consisting of every single member of the bourgeoisie.

Zampanò: So you base your ideology on an untested claim?

On democracy: What is democracy? Is what we have now democracy? In discussions with a sociology lecturer, I have been given the answer that it is any system where people have a vote to elect the government. A very broad definition, that equally includes the UK, the US presidential system and the much more equitable Hare-Clarke system in Tasmania.

Well I think that definition is crap. Democracy is rule by the people.

Anyway, I guess it is possible for the entire people to run a country, but it can hardly be called a state...

So, if you are using the term 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' to mean a system of massive decentralisation, moving towards a fully communist system, then it is something that anarchists would support just as much as Marxists. However, if you use it in a Leninists sense... Well, fuck that.

The Feral Underclass

12th November 2007, 11:15

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 08, 2007 06:51 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 08, 2007 06:51 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 07, 2007 05:53 pm
Simple question for all-
How long should the Dictatorship of the Proletariat take to accomplish all of it's objectives? How long can it last before it (inevitably) becomes moribund and corrupt?

EDIT : Anarchists, Communists, all are encouraged to answer.
You can't put a timetable on this, it withers away by itself when it is no longer necessary, you can't "abolish" it. [/b]
A state never becomes unnecessary though.

Bilan

12th November 2007, 11:22

Isn't this largely question largely contextual?

Bilan

12th November 2007, 11:24

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 12, 2007 09:15 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 12, 2007 09:15 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 08, 2007 06:51 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 07, 2007 05:53 pm
Simple question for all-
How long should the Dictatorship of the Proletariat take to accomplish all of it's objectives? How long can it last before it (inevitably) becomes moribund and corrupt?

EDIT : Anarchists, Communists, all are encouraged to answer.
You can't put a timetable on this, it withers away by itself when it is no longer necessary, you can't "abolish" it.
A state never becomes unnecessary though. [/b]
What about when there's no classes? :P

The Feral Underclass

12th November 2007, 11:26

Originally posted by Proper Tea is Theft+November 12, 2007 12:24 pm--> (Proper Tea is Theft @ November 12, 2007 12:24 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 09:15 pm

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 08, 2007 06:51 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 07, 2007 05:53 pm
Simple question for all-
How long should the Dictatorship of the Proletariat take to accomplish all of it's objectives? How long can it last before it (inevitably) becomes moribund and corrupt?

EDIT : Anarchists, Communists, all are encouraged to answer.
You can't put a timetable on this, it withers away by itself when it is no longer necessary, you can't "abolish" it.
A state never becomes unnecessary though.
What about when there's no classes? :P [/b]
A state perpetuates class in one form or another. The state is a self-serving mechanism designed specifically to keep a class in power. Now, contrary to what some left-Marxists argue, the state exists on the basis of centralised political power that indeed creates an administrative layer that is separate - if not from society - from the working class and simply exists to maintain it's political authority.

The state perpetuates class distinction and its existence. That's what it's designed for.

Led Zeppelin

12th November 2007, 11:45

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 11:26 am
A state perpetuates class in one form or another. The state is a self-serving mechanism designed specifically to keep a class in power. Now, contrary to what some left-Marxists argue, the state exists on the basis of centralised political power that indeed creates an administrative layer that is separate - if not from society - from the working class and simply exists to maintain it's political authority.

The state perpetuates class distinction and its existence. That's what it's designed for.
Good job disregarding economics.

The Feral Underclass

12th November 2007, 11:47

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 12, 2007 12:45 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 12, 2007 12:45 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 11:26 am
A state perpetuates class in one form or another. The state is a self-serving mechanism designed specifically to keep a class in power. Now, contrary to what some left-Marxists argue, the state exists on the basis of centralised political power that indeed creates an administrative layer that is separate - if not from society - from the working class and simply exists to maintain it's political authority.

The state perpetuates class distinction and its existence. That's what it's designed for.
Good job disregarding economics. [/b]
A centralised state maintains control over a planned economy. There remains a division of labour while a state exists and that relationship doesn't "wither away", it's maintained and institutionalised by the state.

Led Zeppelin

12th November 2007, 11:51

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 12, 2007 11:47 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 12, 2007 11:47 am)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 12:45 pm

The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 11:26 am
A state perpetuates class in one form or another. The state is a self-serving mechanism designed specifically to keep a class in power. Now, contrary to what some left-Marxists argue, the state exists on the basis of centralised political power that indeed creates an administrative layer that is separate - if not from society - from the working class and simply exists to maintain it's political authority.

The state perpetuates class distinction and its existence. That's what it's designed for.
Good job disregarding economics.
A centralised state maintains control over a planned economy. There remains a division of labour while a state exists and that relationship doesn't "wither away", it's maintained and institutionalised by the state. [/b]
The relationship doesn't wither away as long as the economic conditions won't allow it to wither away. When scarcity is eliminated and the material conditions for a classless communist society exist, the state would lose its value more and more, eventually becoming so useless that it would be reduced to a mere "administration" body.

The problem with your analysis is that you're looking at it from the wrong way. The economic system gives rise to the necessity of a state, not the other way around. And the way the economic system does that is by creating classes...a socialist economic system does not have classes, as for the first time in history the majority class will rule over the minority of the former dispossessed class.

The Feral Underclass

12th November 2007, 12:06

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 12, 2007 12:51 pm
The problem with your analysis is that you're looking at it from the wrong way. The economic system gives rise to the necessity of a state, not the other way around.
While a state may form because of the material conditions of a society the existence of that state also has effects on the material conditions of society. You create a "socialist state" because of the need to challenge capitalist exploitation but by doing so you form the basis by which political authority continues to exist.

a socialist economic system does not have classes, as for the first time in history the majority class will rule over the minority of the former dispossessed class.

That has obviously been falsified. A socialist economic structure (maintained by a [centralised] state structure) does create class division and simply does what a state is designed to do - perpetuate itself and defend those class divisions.

When scarcity is eliminated and the material conditions for a classless communist society exist, the state would lose its value more and more, eventually becoming so useless that it would be reduced to a mere "administration" body.

But a state isn't just an economic managing tool. It's a political and social tool with a centralised hierarchy embedded within it. It's a multi-layered structure that creates political mechanisms to maintain its control; without which it would be incapable of functioning.

Led Zeppelin

12th November 2007, 12:19

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 12:06 pm
While a state may form because of the material conditions of a society the existence of that state also has effects on the material conditions of society. You create a "socialist state" because of the need to challenge capitalist exploitation but by doing so you form the basis by which political authority continues to exist.
Yes, political authority continues to exist, but it exists in the hands of a class, for the first time in history, the majority class, that is, the general populace.

And yes, the existence of a state does have an effect on the economic conditions of a society....that's the whole point of a transitional socialist state, that it will equalize material conditions and build it up to the point of making communism possible.

That has obviously been falsified. A socialist economic structure (maintained by a [centralised] state structure) does create class division and simply does what a state is designed to do - perpetuate itself and defend those class divisions.

There has never been a socialist economic structure coupled with a fully functioning dictatorship of the proletariat.

If you're talking about the USSR: the economic system might have had some forms of socialism, but the state was certainly not in the hands of the majority class, and therefore, as you rightly said, it did perpetuate itself and defend those class divisions.

But I am not arguing for a Stalinist system, I am arguing for a true socialist state, which is run by the proletariat.

But a state isn't just an economic managing tool. It's a political and social tool with a centralised hierarchy embedded within it. It's a multi-layered structure that creates political mechanisms to maintain it's control; without which it would be incapable of functioning.

I know it's not just a economic managing tool...yet. As I said above, the point of a socialist state is to create the material conditions required for it to become a mere economic managing tool, but while doing so it is for the most part a economic managing tool itself, with the only difference being that it still has a need for authority, as the world cannot go "socialist" at once and at the same time.

Your argument is that the state, by its very existence, perpetuates itself and its authority...which is true if that state was historically the same in form as any state before it. That means that if the state is not a true socialist state, i.e., a true dictatorship of the proletariat, created and controlled by the proletariat, it would indeed perpetuate itself and defend class divisions, because it has no interest in a classless society.

I don't disaqree with you there, but you are talking about Stalinism, not true socialism.

True socialism means having the working-class build its own state and controlling it themselves, and that would be, for the first time in history, a new kind of "state", or "not a state in the proper sense of the term".

There is no reason to believe that such a state would perpetuate itself and its authority, as it would be against the class interests of the proletariat to do so.

The Feral Underclass

12th November 2007, 15:10

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 12, 2007 01:19 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 12, 2007 01:19 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 12:06 pm
While a state may form because of the material conditions of a society the existence of that state also has effects on the material conditions of society. You create a "socialist state" because of the need to challenge capitalist exploitation but by doing so you form the basis by which political authority continues to exist.
Yes, political authority continues to exist, but it exists in the hands of a class, for the first time in history, the majority class, that is, the general populace. [/b]
That's a fallacy. It is only in the "hands of the class" in so much as a selected (elected or otherwise) minority bureaucratic class control this political authority on the behalf of the proletariat.

And yes, the existence of a state does have an effect on the economic conditions of a society....that's the whole point of a transitional socialist state, that it will equalize material conditions and build it up to the point of making communism possible.

Firstly, you do not need to have a centralised state structure to equalise material conditions and secondly, this is beneficial because of the political authoritarian nature of a centralised state structure, which invariably leads to the domination of a bureaucratic class.

After decades of embedding itself into the structure of society the political authority of a state structure allow the interests of the bureaucratic class to develop and ultimately be defended over that of the equalisation of the economy. Political power of this nature is incompatible with the creation of a stateless society because new interests arise that are ultimately defended at the discomfiture of the working class.

But I am not arguing for a Stalinist system, I am arguing for a true socialist state, which is run by the proletariat.

A socialist state is a centralised tool of political authority. It's irrelevant whether it's a Stalinist state or a "true" socialist state the effects will be the same. The only way that you can avoid a minority bureaucratic class is by decentralising political authority and economic administration.

I know it's not just a economic managing tool...yet. As I said above, the point of a socialist state is to create the material conditions required for it to become a mere economic managing tool, but while doing so it is for the most part a economic managing tool itself, with the only difference being that it still has a need for authority, as the world cannot go "socialist" at once and at the same time.

And it is through that contradiction that the institutionalisation of the bureaucracy is embedded into society and new class interests arise, invariably meaning that the economic equalisation of the economy is never achieved (look at China).

Your argument is that the state, by its very existence, perpetuates itself and its authority...which is true if that state was historically the same in form as any state before it.

A socialist state does not alter it's structure in a fundamental way. It still requires the centralisation and hierarchy of political authority, which is the basis of institutionalised bureaucracy (as with all states).

That means that if the state is not a true socialist state, i.e., a true dictatorship of the proletariat, created and controlled by the proletariat, it would indeed perpetuate itself and defend class divisions, because it has no interest in a classless society.

The only way this could become true is if economic and political authority is decentralised and not institutionalised.

I don't disagree with you there, but you are talking about Stalinism, not true socialism.

I make the assertion then that the socialist state has no other political direction than that of what has happened in Russia, China and Cuba. The state (being a centralised political tool) will invariably institutionalise a bureaucracy that will eventually have new class interests.

True socialism means having the working-class build its own state and controlling it themselves, and that would be, for the first time in history, a new kind of "state", or "not a state in the proper sense of the term".

The only way to achieve this is through decentralised/direct democratic/consensual means: I.e. Anarchism.

There is no reason to believe that such a state would perpetuate itself and its authority, as it would be against the class interests of the proletariat to do so.

Yes it would, but who actually has control over this state? If it is centralised then it will be a bureaucratic class, perhaps democratically elected (like bourgeois politicians) and perhaps directly from the working class but this class will eventually develop different interests to those of the proletariat at large.

History proves this to be true in any instance where a minority (a consequence of centralisation i.e. a state) is given political authority.

Comrade Nadezhda

12th November 2007, 21:25

TAT:

Centralization of authority does not form bureaucracy. Actually, without any central organization it would be quite chaotic. The entire reason behind the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is so the state power is put in the hands of the proletariat.

I will admit I get quite irritated with anarchists on this topic, because ultimately it seems for the mostpart this kind of a response is only made when there is completely disregard for economics, marxist theory in the first place, and also conditions existent which cannot be eliminated simply without the existence of a state.

Without the formation of a worker's state and some sort of centralized authority what will ultimately happen is that members of the "state" (since they all have power in this regard) will form oppositional movement against each other, which will ultimately cause the worker's state to deteriorate. Without centralization of power, threats will form within, sooner or later it will be quite chaotic. revolutionary vs. revolutionary. My main argument against anarchism and against "all workers having control of the state apparatus" is based on that it provides no transition, it also will be ineffective in eliminating threats outside of it as it will have the same threats developing within it.

Not everyone is going to "agree" on what should be done, not everyone is going to think the same actions to be necessary- and no body that large as "all workers" can possibly control the state apparatus. it is chaotic. it leads to battle of worker against worker. it is no good. and it certainly does not eliminate the problem.

centralized authority is not simply "bad" and should be "disregarded" it is necessary in some regard aside from what arguments can be made against it the problems of the state you suggest are by far worse than with centralized authority.

Anarchism is chaotic, there is a reason- it provides no transition from capitalist society into communism. class relations haven't been eliminated, conditions of the "old bourgeois state" still exist. it doesn't work.

opposing authority in all regards ultimately leads to revolutionary failure and it certainly doesn't eliminate class distinctions- ultimately it will restore them.

RGacky3

12th November 2007, 22:26

Centralization of authority does not form bureaucracy. Actually, without any central organization it would be quite chaotic. The entire reason behind the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is so the state power is put in the hands of the proletariat.

The reason for the centralization of authority is completely irrelivent, because when authorityis centralized those in authority choose their reason, they can use it for wahtever they want.

Without centralization of power, threats will form within, sooner or later it will be quite chaotic. revolutionary vs. revolutionary. My main argument against anarchism and against "all workers having control of the state apparatus" is based on that it provides no transition, it also will be ineffective in eliminating threats outside of it as it will have the same threats developing within it.

Why? Its not about workers controling the state, its about the workers abolishing the state, there would be no authority to control.

Anarchism is chaotic, there is a reason- it provides no transition from capitalist society into communism. class relations haven't been eliminated, conditions of the "old bourgeois state" still exist. it doesn't work.

Historically your wrong. Chaos has never been a problem of Anarchism.

opposing authority in all regards ultimately leads to revolutionary failure and it certainly doesn't eliminate class distinctions- ultimately it will restore them.

What no Leninists have shown so far, is how authority can be regulated, and how it would be answerable to the people.

The Feral Underclass

13th November 2007, 12:51

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 12, 2007 10:25 pm
TAT:

Centralization of authority does not form bureaucracy.
Then how do orders get passed down and how is the state administrated if there is no bureaucracy to carry out the functions of government? Clearly what you're saying is just patently untrue. Any centralised political and economic administration requires functionaries to process the necessary information and organise the necessary tasks.

Actually, without any central organization it would be quite chaotic.

That's a fallacy and one predicated on bourgeois prejudice. The idea that we need centralise political authority or have people telling us what to do is a condition forced into our way of thinking from birth. It doesn't make it true. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of examples of decentralised and non-hierarchical organisation that has succeeded without being "chaotic"

The entire reason behind the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat is so the state power is put in the hands of the proletariat.

I'm fully aware of the reasoning, but the problem is the practical application of that reasoning. Centralising political control means to funnel power to a centre and the consequence of that is minority control. You cannot have the entire proletariat controlling centralised political authority; that's why it's mandated to elected functionaries who do it on their behalf.

Centralising political authority cannot avoid this, as we have seen in history.

I will admit I get quite irritated with anarchists on this topic, because ultimately it seems for the mostpart this kind of a response is only made when there is completely disregard for economics, marxist theory in the first place, and also conditions existent which cannot be eliminated simply without the existence of a state.

That paragraph makes very little sense. From what I can understand you are attacking anarchists because their criticism of the state is not economic? If that's the case then I have to tell you that you are wrong. We can accept that the state forms from economic conditions, but the issue here is the political authority the state then requires to execute it's objectives.

The state isn't just an economic managing tool and this is the distinction and issue anarchists have. We don't ignore economics, we simply understand that the state is much more than a relationship to the economy.

Without the formation of a worker's state and some sort of centralized authority what will ultimately happen is that members of the "state" (since they all have power in this regard) will form oppositional movement against each other, which will ultimately cause the worker's state to deteriorate.

First of all having "oppositional movements" isn't necessarily a bad thing if we can all agree to work within a specific framework. Secondly, in a workers state oppositional movements will still form and if they pose a threat to workers power then defending ourselves does not necessarily require a state.

Your assertion is predicated on bourgeois prejudice and attitudes towards governance. You view political power and government in the same way bourgeois politicians and theorists do: That it is a necessary evil to defend against human nature, which is invariably corrupt.

I don't take that view. My opinion of humanity is far more optimistic than that because not only can people work in mutual aid, they have done in the past; to validate your assertion there would need to be proof of a universal "bad gene" that was inherent in human beings that was going to lead us all into the abyss, lest a powerful state was there to save us!

It's all very Hegelian.

Without centralization of power, threats will form within, sooner or later it will be quite chaotic. revolutionary vs. revolutionary.

What a bizarre dooms-day view on that situation. So, essentially what you are arguing is that if we do not have a strong, centralising political authority human beings would start killing each other (for some particular reason)?

Could you explain to me what reason is and why it would happen?

My main argument against anarchism and against "all workers having control of the state apparatus" is based on that it provides no transition, it also will be ineffective in eliminating threats outside of it as it will have the same threats developing within it.

Firstly, anarchism does offer a transition it's called collectivism. Secondly, this dooms-day approach to military defence is just conjecture based on nothing more than bourgeois prejudice, which obviously I reject.

Obviously a state structure is an effective way of defending your gains militarily but it will not lead to a communist society. Having a defensive system requires organisation but that organisation can and has taken many forms and it ultimately needs to be a process towards communism. Otherwise what's the point?

Not everyone is going to "agree" on what should be done

Of course not, and neither should they. Dissent is an essential part of democracy.

not everyone is going to think the same actions to be necessary- and no body that large as "all workers" can possibly control the state apparatus.

On your latter point I totally agree with you. That's my whole argument. On your former point, what is necessary is for the workers to defend themselves! On the spot decision making will be done as democratically as possible based on the information and skills available to make it. I don't see why that requires centralisation of political authority?

centralized authority is not simply "bad" and should be "disregarded" it is necessary in some regard aside from what arguments can be made against it the problems of the state you suggest are by far worse than with centralized authority.

Well, I am putting it to you that centralised authority is not necessary. Organisation is necessary and the best way to achieve that organisation with the objective of creating a communist society in mind, is through employing decentralised, directly democratic and federated means.

This method has been tried and tested and it works! It is also the most "purist" way to move towards a stateless, classless society, which is what we want.

Led Zeppelin

13th November 2007, 13:37

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 12, 2007 03:10 pm
That's a fallacy. It is only in the "hands of the class" in so much as a selected (elected or otherwise) minority bureaucratic class control this political authority on the behalf of the proletariat.
No it's not a fallacy. I agree with you that every state is by definition a dictatorship of the minority in terms of the running of the system. You know, I could just quote Gramsci's article "leader" to you and just end the discussion right there, but I'm interested in pursuing your line of argument to the end.

You are right, a minority does rule over the majority in any state, that's why the state exists in the first place; for a minority to rule over (I prefer the term 'govern') the majority. So long as it is historically necessary to govern people, whichever the ruling class may be, the problem will arise of having leaders.

There is nothing wrong with that, as I shall prove in my response to your argument as to why it is a problem below:

Firstly, you do not need to have a centralised state structure to equalise material conditions and secondly, this is beneficial because of the political authoritarian nature of a centralised state structure, which invariably leads to the domination of a bureaucratic class.

You may not need a centralized state structure in your opinion, but can your theory ever work in practice in conditions of the real world, or are they only plausible in theory?

Your theory presupposes a lot of things, which to us Marxists is impossible given the material conditions and other factors, and that is why we refer to your theory as utopian.

For one it presupposes that the people will all agree on the new structure of society. There would be no political groupings who disagree with you, there would be no large mass of people disagreeing with your ideas, there would be no foreign capitalist states to interfere in your internal affairs, there would be no internal dissent or economic troubles to cause instability....

These are things that have never, ever, happened in the history of revolutionary movements. On the contrary, the new workers' state was always attacked from all sides, internal and external, and if did not have the right apparatus to sustain itself it would surely collapse.

A decentralized economic system is horribly inefficient in equalizing material conditions in a society which is unequal to begin with. It would require total commitment from all people involved in society, something which is quite frankly silly to believe given the fact that the society in question was under capitalist rule just a short time before.

The general mass of a class, whichever class it may be, is not necessarily "class conscious" of itself, either before or after a revolution. They may support a certain action or political grouping, but they are obviously not yet advanced enough to understand the necessity of a communist society, requiring total commitment from them to equalize the material conditions. This was not the case in the USSR, Spain, France, China or anywhere else for that matter, and it never will be the case.

This is why the term "vanguard" exists. It is the vanguard of any class which acts in their class interests and leads the mass forward. The vanguard of the bourgeoisie are the bourgeoisie politicians, the con-men in Congresses and Parliaments, deceiving the workers.

Why should we not use our vanguard, our most advanced section? Are we not worthy of organization, of intellect, of dedication, of leadership in our movement?

After decades of embedding itself into the structure of society the political authority of a state structure allow the interests of the bureaucratic class to develop and ultimately be defended over that of the equalisation of the economy. Political power of this nature is incompatible with the creation of a stateless society because new interests arise that are ultimately defended at the discomfiture of the working class.

This is all perfect theory, but you are describing a Stalinist system once more, not a genuine socialist one. You keep forgetting the fact that in a genuine socialist system the working-class has the power, not that bureaucratic caste of managers and party pen-pushers. They would not be able to "get new interests" because they are themselves part of the working-class, and directly elected by, and eligible for recall at all times by, the working-class.

Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing, that is socialism.

A socialist state is a centralised tool of political authority. It's irrelevant whether it's a Stalinist state or a "true" socialist state the effects will be the same. The only way that you can avoid a minority bureaucratic class is by decentralising political authority and economic administration.

Or by having genuine workers democracy. Did that thought never occur to you?

And it is through that contradiction that the institutionalisation of the bureaucracy is embedded into society and new class interests arise, invariably meaning that the economic equalisation of the economy is never achieved (look at China).

Yes eventually if the revolution does not spread from a backward nation, no matter how "socialist" it claims to be, the bureaucracy will be embedded into society and take over the role of new ruling class.

This has to do with the material conditions of the situation; socialism is not possible in a thid world nation. It has nothing to do with the socialism because it was never there to begin with. The problem is the building up of the system to reach socialism...something which requires global effort.

Democratic socialism, however, also requires a certain economic and political base to prosper on. We've only had that happen a few times (in my opinion once) in history. I'm not going to give up on it just because it failed a few times (or as I said; once), just as you don't give up on anarchism even though it has failed whenever it attempted to establish itself.

A socialist state does not alter it's structure in a fundamental way. It still requires the centralisation and hierarchy of political authority, which is the basis of institutionalised bureaucracy (as with all states).

So having the state work for the interest of the working-class, the general populace, for the first time in history, is not a fundamental alteration of the state structure? Suffice it to say; I disagree with you on that one.

The centralization of authority and hierarchy do not necessarily lead to a institutionalized bureaucracy/Stalinism. If the centralization was in the hands of the workers, instead of some party bureaucrats, then that would not be the case. Furthermore, if that centralization and hierarchy were under complete democratic control of the workers, it would also not be the case.

There is nothing wrong with us workers having working-class leaders who are more able and capable to do certain things, in fact it's exactly what we need; people from our own class to lead us.

The only way this could become true is if economic and political authority is decentralised and not institutionalised.

Or if workers democracy was in place. A decentralized structure will always fail under internal and external pressure, so that's not a viable option.

I make the assertion then that the socialist state has no other political direction than that of what has happened in Russia, China and Cuba. The state (being a centralised political tool) will invariably institutionalise a bureaucracy that will eventually have new class interests.

You may assert this, but you can't really prove it, because there has never been a socialist system wherein workers democracy prevailed.

I however can prove that a decentralized structure of authority will always fail due to internal and external pressures; I can point to all the anarchist attempts and subsequent failures to do such a thing.

The only way to achieve this is through decentralised/direct democratic/consensual means: I.e. Anarchism.

That's not necessarily anarchism, I'm sure Lenin and Trotsky would agree with you there, if applied to advanced capitalist societies which could sustain such a form of state.

You however don't call that state though, right? It is a state, just not "in the proper sense of the term". It's a workers' state, which can (and probably will) come in a great variety of forms.

Yes it would, but who actually has control over this state? If it is centralised then it will be a bureaucratic class, perhaps democratically elected (like bourgeois politicians) and perhaps directly from the working class but this class will eventually develop different interests to those of the proletariat at large.

History proves this to be true in any instance where a minority (a consequence of centralisation i.e. a state) is given political authority.

They were never elected and they were never part of the working-class, so history has not proven that at all.

Something interesting to think about: We are currently living in the "ideal society" of the bourgeoisie class. But it took about a century or two to get to this stage. Before the bourgeoisie instituted outright dictatorships in their state-systems to maintain control and advance their goals, because the economic (see, material) conditions weren't favorable for them to create a stable "democratic" society.

They needed a form of super-exploitation, imperialism, to be able to gather the wealth to provide for a stable "democratic" society at home.

It's a bad situation when our enemies know how to use and form the state structure more effectively than us.

Donnie

13th November 2007, 15:24

never mind.

The Feral Underclass

13th November 2007, 15:25

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 13, 2007 01:37 pm

Firstly, you do not need to have a centralised state structure to equalise material conditions and secondly, this is beneficial because of the political authoritarian nature of a centralised state structure, which invariably leads to the domination of a bureaucratic class.

You may not need a centralized state structure in your opinion, but can your theory ever work in practice in conditions of the real world, or are they only plausible in theory?
It has done already.

For one it [anarchism] presupposes that the people will all agree on the new structure of society.

No it doesn't. In fact, it embraces the opposite.

There would be no political groupings who disagree with you, there would be no large mass of people disagreeing with your ideas

Of course there would! What on earth are you talking about?

here would be no foreign capitalist states to interfere in your internal affairs, there would be no internal dissent or economic troubles to cause instability....

Clearly you are misunderstanding the nature of anarchism. We do not "presuppose" that these things wouldn't exist; we accept that they would exist but reject the need for a state in spite of those facts.

On the contrary, the new workers' state was always attacked from all sides, internal and external, and if did not have the right apparatus to sustain itself it would surely collapse.

I agree.

A decentralized economic system is horribly inefficient in equalizing material conditions in a society which is unequal to begin with.

But that's not true. Any document analysing the economic management during the Spanish civil war can easily see that to be the case.

A decentralized economic system is horribly inefficient in equalizing material conditions in a society which is unequal to begin with.

Well, it would require the working class or the vast majority of the working class to want the equalisation of the economy, but that's pretty much a given with any Marxist based theory.

The general mass of a class, whichever class it may be, is not necessarily "class conscious" of itself, either before or after a revolution.

Then how has a revolution come to exist? A revolution comes from class struggle and the desire to transform society. It is the spontaneous act of the working class to free themselves from exploitation. That's what it is. Without the working class being conscious of their class then where would the basis be to overthrow capitalism.

They may support a certain action or political grouping, but they are obviously not yet advanced enough to understand the necessity of a communist society, requiring total commitment from them to equalize the material conditions.

Having a centralised political authority does not help that process, it simply places political power into the hands of a minority, which contrary to your disagreement, will undoubtedly develop new interests. Political power is a corrupting force and no leader should be trusted to fight for the interests of anyone other than their power.

In fact, even if this was not the case, it would happen anyway. The state, 'governed' but this minority, will need to create institutions in order to defend its power, that's precisely what it's there for. The interests of this minority is to defend the state and thus the state becomes a self-serving mechanism, incapable of just "withering away".

Why should we not use our vanguard, our most advanced section? Are we not worthy of organization, of intellect, of dedication, of leadership in our movement?

Revolutionary change should come only through the self-activity of the working class. Not through the political wrangling and intrigue of professional revolutionaries. Fighting for communism is not just about economic freedom, it is about political freedom also. It is about using methods that empower us to govern ourselves in a society that allows communities to decide on issues concerning them at that very basic level.

Putting trust and faith into political leaders and the authority that they centralise into their hands, whether they are democratically elected or not, is antithetical to the creation of a society empowered to be free. Now, I understand the idea that "not everyone will agree" - Of course they won't, but in any political movement or struggle solidarity is a key aspect to its existence. We may not always agree, but we believe in a framework of how to work together to make decisions.

Dissent is a good thing. Marx himself said "debate is progress" and it is through that debate and the dissenting of ideas that we find a solution that is beneficial for all of us. If that is not possible then we find a way to work in co-operation. Freedom is an internal struggle also to change our attitudes towards politics and political process; this requires humility and an acceptance of Mutual Aid.

There is no point in having economic freedom if we are not politically free and this process should begin long before revolution happens.

After decades of embedding itself into the structure of society the political authority of a state structure allow the interests of the bureaucratic class to develop and ultimately be defended over that of the equalisation of the economy. Political power of this nature is incompatible with the creation of a stateless society because new interests arise that are ultimately defended at the discomfiture of the working class.

This is all perfect theory, but you are describing a Stalinist system once more, not a genuine socialist one.

I am describing any political system that centralises political power. It is an invariable consequence of centralisation of political authority. As I've described, the state creates political conditions by it's existence that can only be usurped by force.

You keep forgetting the fact that in a genuine socialist system the working-class has the power, not that bureaucratic caste of managers and party pen-pushers.

Leninists claiming that the working class have power because they have the right to vote and recall is worth as much as when the bourgeoisie claim it.

They would not be able to "get new interests" because they are themselves part of the working-class, and directly elected by, and eligible for recall at all times by, the working-class.

This is just a naive political position, much like that of bourgeois politicians. You can put into place these democratic safety nets but the reality is the working class do not have political freedom in any real sense and at some point there will be some process that consolidates the political bureaucracy, why wouldn't that happen? We cannot and should not trust the process you outline.

All Leninist revolutions start with this ideal but they either become corrupted or untenable and the interests that arrive, contrary to those of the working class is to stay in power. Of course, if this means removing those democratic processes then so be it, right? The state must remain in control at all costs, otherwise the revolution is lost...

Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing, that is socialism.

A pretty sound bite, but what does that mean in reality? Having an idea and a theory is all fine, but if it does not work in practice then repeating the sound bite is pointless.

A socialist state is a centralised tool of political authority. It's irrelevant whether it's a Stalinist state or a "true" socialist state the effects will be the same. The only way that you can avoid a minority bureaucratic class is by decentralising political authority and economic administration.

Or by having genuine workers democracy. Did that thought never occur to you?

Genuine workers democracy is allowing the working class to govern their communities and workplaces free from centralised political authority.

A socialist state does not alter it's structure in a fundamental way. It still requires the centralisation and hierarchy of political authority, which is the basis of institutionalised bureaucracy (as with all states).

So having the state work for the interest of the working-class, the general populace, for the first time in history, is not a fundamental alteration of the state structure? Suffice it to say; I disagree with you on that one.

Perhaps in an economic sense (for a certain length of time) but in a political sense it cannot work in the interest of the working class and this leads to the economic objectives of the state never being achieved.

I make the assertion then that the socialist state has no other political direction than that of what has happened in Russia, China and Cuba. The state (being a centralised political tool) will invariably institutionalise a bureaucracy that will eventually have new class interests.

You may assert this, but you can't really prove it, because there has never been a socialist system wherein workers democracy prevailed.

It hasn't because it can't. You cannot have "workers democracy" prevailing within a structure of centralised political authority. It hasn't happened yet because the process is predicated on a false premise.

Marsella

13th November 2007, 15:33

You may assert this, but you can't really prove it, because there has never been a socialist system wherein workers democracy prevailed.

Yes there has: the Paris Commune.

Unless I have misunderstood you.

Comrade Nadezhda

13th November 2007, 17:49

This is just a naive political position, much like that of bourgeois politicians. You can put into place these democratic safety nets but the reality is the working class do not have political freedom in any real sense and at some point there will be some process that consolidates the political bureaucracy, why wouldn't that happen? We cannot and should not trust the process you outline.

All Leninist revolutions start with this ideal but they either become corrupted or untenable and the interests that arrive, contrary to those of the working class is to stay in power. Of course, if this means removing those democratic processes then so be it, right? The state must remain in control at all costs, otherwise the revolution is lost...
Threats cannot be crushed without centralized power. Revolution must either progress or regress, you can't have it both ways. If the revolutionary movement is not to regress, there has to be means of progression within it. i.e. communist society cannot possibly be attained without certain measures being taken towards it.

That's a fallacy and one predicated on bourgeois prejudice. The idea that we need centralise political authority or have people telling us what to do is a condition forced into our way of thinking from birth. It doesn't make it true. Not to mention the fact that there are plenty of examples of decentralised and non-hierarchical organisation that has succeeded without being "chaotic"

Ultimately, without centralized power, the movement is prone to threat, just as in an anarchist state where apparently "all workers are in power" this is the most liberal bullshit I have ever heard, it reminds me of Rousseau's argument actually that "all individuals" should "have governmental authority", and with such an argument the assumption is being made that all class relations/property relations will be "abolished" or "eliminated" with the elimination of the bourgeois state. that is not entirely true. once the state is eliminated, there is necessity for securing it. there is also necessity for centralized power to provide transition into communist society (which is the entire point of the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place).

When there are threats existent outside of the movement, there will also be threats which form within the movement. Therefore, it seems idiotic to assume that "all workers" will agree on eliminating threats and the method they are to be eliminated. It isn't possible. The conditions causing distiction of class haven't been eliminated. The state is only beginning to be transformed. Class/property relations don't diminish overnight, just as the conditions causing them in the first place don't. Therefore, for the revolution to be successful there must be centralization in some regard.

Also, keep in mind that ideals don't exist, as the conditions existent are not ideal but existent upon necessity. It is not about whether or not it is "just" or "undemocratic" or causes "repression" or prevents existence of "freedom". The conditions existent under the bourgeois state are by all means repressive. Aside from that, such terms are irrelevant when it comes to revolutionary movement and the act of eliminating given threats to it. That is not important, as there is a distinction between necessary and ideal acts. i.e. the dictatorship of the proletariat is necessary for the formation of an "ideal" (i hate this word, i just use it because that is the argument ultimately presented here) society (i.e. communist society (society existent without class distinction).).

Why should we not use our vanguard, our most advanced section? Are we not worthy of organization, of intellect, of dedication, of leadership in our movement?

The whole point of the existence of a vanguard is for the progression of revolutionary movement. As I said above, revolution can progress or regress. Ultimately, without a centralized force leading a revolution there will be regress. It is not about having an "authority" over the proletariat, it is about having a authority of the proletariat. This is especially important in regard to the formation of class consciousness and also in regard to securing revolution and the worker's state. The existence of the vanguard, if anything, benefits the proletariat as it forms consciousness within the proletariat as a whole and helps carry the movement forward instead of regressing back into bourgeois democracy.

The Feral Underclass

13th November 2007, 19:56

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 13, 2007 06:49 pm
Threats cannot be crushed without centralized power.
Why can't it?

You keep saying but you have no actually offered any kind of evidence to support your assertion.

Revolution must either progress or regress, you can't have it both ways. If the revolutionary movement is not to regress, there has to be means of progression within it. i.e. communist society cannot possibly be attained without certain measures being taken towards it.

Throwing out axioms isn't a substitute for substance.

Ultimately, without centralized power, the movement is prone to threat,

It's prone to threat anyway, even with a centralised power. The question here is what ultimately does the state create, analysing that conclusion and understanding it. Of course centralised authority is an effective way of dealing with dissent, but is it beneficial to the creation of communism?

You say that we need systems in place to move towards communism, but centralised state authority is not that system and never can be, simply because of the political conditions it creates in society. Yes, you will defend a nation and deal with "threat" but you will not create the necessary conditions to create a communist society.

an anarchist state where apparently "all workers are in power" this is the most liberal bullshit I have ever heard,

And this is the true nature of Leninism. Anything that calls for workers to have power is called "liberal". Anything that questions the authority of the party elite must obviously be attacked because if we were to create real workers democracy, where communities have the control over themselves, "leaders" and bureaucrats will be out of a job.

it reminds me of Rousseau's argument actually that "all individuals" should "have governmental authority", and with such an argument the assumption is being made that all class relations/property relations will be "abolished" or "eliminated" with the elimination of the bourgeois state. that is not entirely true. once the state is eliminated, there is necessity for securing it. there is also necessity for centralized power to provide transition into communist society (which is the entire point of the existence of the dictatorship of the proletariat in the first place).

Workers have the ability to defend themselves and organise their communities and workplaces without leadership and centralised governmental planning: We're not stupid!

Of course creating a revolutionary situation will not lead directly to a communist society, we must fight for our gains militarily if necessary, but in order to ensure the best possible way of reaching our objective we must ensure that the very basic tenets of our ideas are begun to be put in place: That means decentralised political authority. That means giving communities power over their communities, giving workers power over their workplaces - federating and organising from the bottom up - ensuring that each and every person has the possibility of participating the re-organisation of their society if they so choose.

If we don't do that, what is the point?

When there are threats existent outside of the movement, there will also be threats which form within the movement. Therefore, it seems idiotic to assume that "all workers" will agree on eliminating threats and the method they are to be eliminated.

This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of actual class struggle. Have you ever been on a picket line? Have you ever been in political meetings or been on a political action?

Of course people disagree with each other, but one has to remember that within the class struggle debate and dissent are what unite us in solidarity not what divides us. Every person on a picket line is different and they have different ideas about things but at the end of the day each of those people will stand in solidarity with the other to defend their rights as workers.

Why would we suppose that this would be any different in a transitional society? In fact surely it would be intensified in such a profound moment in history. Solidarity and mutual aid are the bedrocks by which we organise, not just in a future society but right now and I see this everyday in my political activity. I know it is possible, so I have no fear.

The conditions causing distiction of class haven't been eliminated. The state is only beginning to be transformed. Class/property relations don't diminish overnight, just as the conditions causing them in the first place don't. Therefore, for the revolution to be successful there must be centralization in some regard.

I don't accept your conclusion. Of course a revolution has to be defended and we need to begin equalising the economy and removing the concept of private property, but why we need a centralisation of power is still unsure to me.

The only argument that you have offered is that human beings, by their nature, will be incapable of working together and in such an instance will resort to violence or counter-revolutionary activity. Even if that were the case you still have not provided an argument to support why centralised political authority is necessary to deal with that?

Shouting chaos is not a valid argument.

Also, keep in mind that ideals don't exist, as the conditions existent are not ideal but existent upon necessity. Also, keep in mind that ideals don't exist, as the conditions existent are not ideal but existent upon necessity. It is not about whether or not it is "just" or "undemocratic" or causes "repression" or prevents existence of "freedom".

Struggle to create a communist society will be a long and painful, it will be violent, bloody and awful experience for all those involved in that process. We will be faced with material conditions that will test the very core of our ideas, but to take such an ultra-pragmatic view has always lead to places that we cannot be redeemed from.

When compromise is necessary we must take those things into consideration, but to assert that we must do anything to achieve our goals is neither justified or beneficial. That may seem idealist but that idealism has objective consequence.

What you fight for, you will get. It's common dialectical sense.

Comrade Nadezhda

13th November 2007, 21:44

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 01:56 pm
It's prone to threat anyway, even with a centralised power. The question here is what ultimately does the state create, analysing that conclusion and understanding it. Of course centralised authority is an effective way of dealing with dissent, but is it beneficial to the creation of communism?
It is not an argument whether or not the movement is prone to threat, it is an argument of how to deal with the threats effectively.

You say that we need systems in place to move towards communism, but centralised state authority is not that system and never can be, simply because of the political conditions it creates in society. Yes, you will defend a nation and deal with "threat" but you will not create the necessary conditions to create a communist society.
Centralization will wither away along with the state apparatus once its existence is no longer necessary. There is no way to know how long it will remain necessary, but it cannot be eliminated- it must wither away, if it is "abolished" the necessary measures cannot be taken in attaining communist society. Communist society will only be attained once all threats are eliminated and the conditions causing them are too. Communist society can only exist when there is no longer need for a state apparatus to defend against counterrevolutionary movement, and that necessity will continue to exist until all threats are eliminated, all distinctions, all property relations, everything creating necessity for the existence of the state apparatus. It will wither away when it is no longer needed.

And this is the true nature of Leninism. Anything that calls for workers to have power is called "liberal". Anything that questions the authority of the party elite must obviously be attacked because if we were to create real workers democracy, where communities have the control over themselves, "leaders" and bureaucrats will be out of a job.
A vanguard of the proletariat is not an elite party, it is group organized in defense of the proletariat, of the proletariat- it is not an elitist group serving its private interest, and it is not comparable to bureaucractic rule as it is serving to secure the dictatorship or the proletariat, not its own interests. "Leaders" aren't necessarily bad, their major role is to create awareness among the proletariat of conditions existent so that class consciousness can develop- which by the way, does not develop out of nowhere. This is the problem I have with anarchists, they simply hate authority of any kind regardless of the role it is to have and whatever necessity there is for it- they disregard conditions causing its necessity, and they disregard the fact that when the state is abolished these conditions are not abolished along with it- the state is only a bourgeois instrument, do you see, it is not the cause of the conditions, it is only a means of carrying them out to a certain extent. Class distinctions cannot be eliminated all at once- there is a process which they can be, but it does not happen simply "overnight".

Workers have the ability to defend themselves and organise their communities and workplaces without leadership and centralised governmental planning: We're not stupid!
Bourgeois reactionaries aren't stupid either, they are capable of crushing revolutionary movements and they will if they are not eliminated as threats, and there is reason why uncentralized, poorly organized movements fail- it is because they have less strength against oppositional movements, as they are not only prone to threats from the outside but from within- and this wouldn't be such a significant issue if there was means in eliminating them. (see my last argument, below)

Of course creating a revolutionary situation will not lead directly to a communist society, we must fight for our gains militarily if necessary, but in order to ensure the best possible way of reaching our objective we must ensure that the very basic tenets of our ideas are begun to be put in place: That means decentralised political authority. That means giving communities power over their communities, giving workers power over their workplaces - federating and organising from the bottom up - ensuring that each and every person has the possibility of participating the re-organisation of their society if they so choose.

If we don't do that, what is the point?
The problem here is the lack of proletarian unity. Possibility does not have any relation to effectivity. Something can be possible but it can also be quite ineffective when it comes to implementing it.

This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of actual class struggle. Have you ever been on a picket line? Have you ever been in political meetings or been on a political action?
I don't say this has no impact- I say that organization is the key to success, and the lack of organization is ultimately the key to failure. That doesn't necessarily apply to everything, but it certainly does make an impact on whether or not a movement is effective. It seems you have a misunderstanding for the conditions causing class struggle- the state isn't the only cause- eliminating the state won't "bring all workers together" that doesn't happen overnight- that is ultimately why there is necessity for centralized movement- I'm not saying it's impossible but it certainly seems that you equate the existence of class distinction to simply the existence of the state apparatus while ignoring all other conditions. Keep in mind that the state is merely an instrument of the bourgeoisie.

Of course people disagree with each other, but one has to remember that within the class struggle debate and dissent are what unite us in solidarity not what divides us. Every person on a picket line is different and they have different ideas about things but at the end of the day each of those people will stand in solidarity with the other to defend their rights as workers.
It may work at that level, but again you are disregarding certain conditions. (see my argument below)

The only argument that you have offered is that human beings, by their nature, will be incapable of working together and in such an instance will resort to violence or counter-revolutionary activity. Even if that were the case you still have not provided an argument to support why centralised political authority is necessary to deal with that?
The problem here is you put too much emphasis on the elimination of the state apparatus and ignore the fact that there are other conditions existent that are not eliminated along with the state, and that the bourgeois state is only an instrument of exaggerating though conditions, not necessarily bringing them into being.

Struggle to create a communist society will be a long and painful, it will be violent, bloody and awful experience for all those involved in that process. We will be faced with material conditions that will test the very core of our ideas, but to take such an ultra-pragmatic view has always lead to places that we cannot be redeemed from.

When compromise is necessary we must take those things into consideration, but to assert that we must do anything to achieve our goals is neither justified or beneficial. That may seem idealist but that idealism has objective consequence.

What you fight for, you will get. It's common dialectical sense.
The problem is, you see, the whole purpose of the dictatorship of the proletariat is for the development of conditions which allow for the formation of communist society- i.e. to abolish the state apparatus does not alone accomplish this, and therefore simply abolishing the state won't eliminate the conditions causing class distinction, because it is only a small factor. Eliminating the state is simply removing an instrument used by the ruling class- it does not eliminate class distinction all together, that is not something that can happen overnight.

Would you honestly argue that something of such nature would have worked in Russia? It seems as you are ignoring the conditions which cause class distinction.

To argue that if the vanguard didn't exist in Russia it would be better is absurd.

Counterrevolution doesn't just come out of nowhere, it comes into existence because the bourgeoisie isn't just going to sit on their asses. They are going to form oppositional movement. They will use force. It will be bloody, it will be violent, that is already a given fact. The point is how to better combat that force- how to effectively crush it- eliminate it so that it does not have the opportunity to weaken the revolutionary movement and cause significant damage (i.e. centralization becomes necessarily in terms of effectivity, not that it can't be done otherwise, but that it is much more effective in eliminating threats and securing the movement than it would be if "all workers" had to. The larger the state apparatus the more prone it is to the development of threats.

I don't accept your conclusion. Of course a revolution has to be defended and we need to begin equalising the economy and removing the concept of private property, but why we need a centralisation of power is still unsure to me.
If there was no vanguard and the civil war in russia took place, it would be very difficult to combat the oppositional movement. Basically it would become so chaotic that proletarians would be shooting each other, as it can't be denied that an army made up of all workers would possibly agree on what measures are to be taken and ultimately not only would there be war between counterrevolutionary and revolutionary movement but you would have proletarians from the same movement killing each other over disagreement on such matters of how to combat the oppositional movement. and aside from that, the counterrevolutionaries would ultimately gain strength against the revolutionaries- ultimately leading the revolution to failure. Therefore, it seems fair to say that certain measures are just necessary in any regard, and a vanguard is one of them- that is, if you want to be any bit certain the revolutionary movement has the possibility of succeeding.

Led Zeppelin

14th November 2007, 06:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 03:33 pm

You may assert this, but you can't really prove it, because there has never been a socialist system wherein workers democracy prevailed.

Yes there has: the Paris Commune.

Unless I have misunderstood you.
That wasn't a socialist system, that was more a of a commune then a centralized socialist state as was the case in the USSR.

The problem with that type of state was that it was isolated without being able to spread.

It could be claimed as much by the anarchists as the communists.

I'll reply to TAT's post later on when I have more time.

The Feral Underclass

14th November 2007, 12:35

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 13, 2007 10:44 pm--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 13, 2007 10:44 pm)
The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 01:56 pm
It's prone to threat anyway, even with a centralised power. The question here is what ultimately does the state create, analysing that conclusion and understanding it. Of course centralised authority is an effective way of dealing with dissent, but is it beneficial to the creation of communism?
It is not an argument whether or not the movement is prone to threat, it is an argument of how to deal with the threats effectively. [/b]
Actually it isn't. I accept that a centralised state structure is an effective way of dealing with "threats", but the issue here is whether that application of theory is an actual process towards communism.

You say that we need systems in place to move towards communism, but centralised state authority is not that system and never can be, simply because of the political conditions it creates in society. Yes, you will defend a nation and deal with "threat" but you will not create the necessary conditions to create a communist society.
Centralization will wither away along with the state apparatus once its existence is no longer necessary.

You're now just repeating yourself, which means I now have to repeat myself. Look, I understand the theory and I understand that you think this, but my assertion to you is that it cannot just "wither away".

There is no way to know how long it will remain necessary, but it cannot be eliminated- it must wither away, if it is "abolished" the necessary measures cannot be taken in attaining communist society.

The state cannot "wither away". If you centralise political authority you institutionalise it. It becomes a self-perpetuating mechanism of political control in which, over decades of existence, consolidate a bureaucratic class whose interests become contrary to that of the working class.

Led Zeppelin has tried to argue that what I am referring to is actually not socialism, but doesn't really clarify what is, instead just giving vague sound-bites about "real workers democracy".

The only real workers democracy is grassroots political organisation and that means no centralised political authority dictating to the working class how to organise themselves. If you usurp that process then you are not moving towards communism, you are moving towards state socialism.

Decentralised organisation does not mean chaos. You can still organise defence, you can still organise economic management and you can still deal with external and internal threats. It's simply a question of organisation.

Communist society will only be attained once all threats are eliminated and the conditions causing them are too. Communist society can only exist when there is no longer need for a state apparatus to defend against counterrevolutionary movement, and that necessity will continue to exist until all threats are eliminated, all distinctions, all property relations, everything creating necessity for the existence of the state apparatus. It will wither away when it is no longer needed.

Right, but we don't need a state to do those things. We don't need to centralise political authority in order to achieve those objectives and the reason anarchists struggle for that is because the nature of the state embodied in centralising political authority is antithetical to creating a process towards communism.

This is the problem I have with anarchists, they simply hate authority of any kind regardless of the role it is to have and whatever necessity there is for it- they disregard conditions causing its necessity

Anarchists reject authority because 1) it's not necessary, we can organise differently and as effectively and 2) it is antithetical to creating a free and communist society.

and they disregard the fact that when the state is abolished these conditions are not abolished along with it- the state is only a bourgeois instrument, do you see, it is not the cause of the conditions, it is only a means of carrying them out to a certain extent.

We don't disregard it, we don't agree with your conclusion.

Class distinctions cannot be eliminated all at once- there is a process which they can be, but it does not happen simply "overnight".

It seems that you are purposely refusing to understand. No anarchist believes that class distinctions will be elimated at once nor that anything will happen "overnight". Who has ever said that? Point me to an anarchist that has these opinions...

What anarchists argue is that the best way of achieving the elimination of class and creating a process towards communism can only exist when political authority is decentralised and that this process should and more importantly can begin before/during/after a revolution.

Workers have the ability to defend themselves and organise their communities and workplaces without leadership and centralised governmental planning: We're not stupid!
Bourgeois reactionaries aren't stupid either, they are capable of crushing revolutionary movements and they will if they are not eliminated as threats, and there is reason why uncentralized, poorly organized movements fail

Firstly there is no evidence that supports the idea that decentralised organisation = poorly organised movements. Secondly, can you please explain to me why you think it does?

Again, as I've said already, this attitude is born from bourgeois prejudices about governance. Just because the bourgeoisie use centralised political authority does not mean it is the only way to be organised and effective.

it is because they have less strength against oppositional movements, as they are not only prone to threats from the outside but from within- and this wouldn't be such a significant issue if there was means in eliminating them. (see my last argument, below)

So you keep repeating, but as of yet you have still failed to explain why this is the case. Because of that there is nothing more I can say to you.

Of course creating a revolutionary situation will not lead directly to a communist society, we must fight for our gains militarily if necessary, but in order to ensure the best possible way of reaching our objective we must ensure that the very basic tenets of our ideas are begun to be put in place: That means decentralised political authority. That means giving communities power over their communities, giving workers power over their workplaces - federating and organising from the bottom up - ensuring that each and every person has the possibility of participating the re-organisation of their society if they so choose.

If we don't do that, what is the point?
The problem here is the lack of proletarian unity. Possibility does not have any relation to effectivity. Something can be possible but it can also be quite ineffective when it comes to implementing it.

That doesn't adequately refute my point-of-view. Can you please explain yourself a little better?

This demonstrates to me a clear lack of understanding of [i]actual class struggle. Have you ever been on a picket line? Have you ever been in political meetings or been on a political action?
I don't say this has no impact- I say that organization is the key to success, and the lack of organization is ultimately the key to failure.

I absolutely agree 100%. Malatesta himself said "Anarchism is organisation, organisation, and more organisation."

You should read Anarchism and Organisation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/malatesta/1897/xx/anarchorg.htm)

It seems you have a misunderstanding for the conditions causing class struggle- the state isn't the only cause- eliminating the state won't "bring all workers together" that doesn't happen overnight- that is ultimately why there is necessity for centralized movement- I'm not saying it's impossible but it certainly seems that you equate the existence of class distinction to simply the existence of the state apparatus while ignoring all other conditions. Keep in mind that the state is merely an instrument of the bourgeoisie.

Yes, you have offered me your theory and I have given a refutation. Please stop repeating yourself.

The only argument that you have offered is that human beings, by their nature, will be incapable of working together and in such an instance will resort to violence or counter-revolutionary activity. Even if that were the case you still have not provided an argument to support why centralised political authority is necessary to deal with that?
The problem here is you put too much emphasis on the elimination of the state apparatus and ignore the fact that there are other conditions existent that are not eliminated along with the state, and that the bourgeois state is only an instrument of exaggerating though conditions, not necessarily bringing them into being.

Again, I am not ignoring them I am asserting that these issues can be dealt with using a different and more beneficial means of organisation.

Eliminating the state is simply removing an instrument used by the ruling class- it does not eliminate class distinction all together, that is not something that can happen overnight.

Well, the process of equalising the economy and removing the basis for private property will begin to eliminate class distinction and this can be done without centralised political authority.

Would you honestly argue that something of such nature would have worked in Russia? It seems as you are ignoring the conditions which cause class distinction.

Well, we'll never know will we? It worked in Spain for the brief time it existed so as far as I'm concerned the theory has been put into practice (albeit on a smaller scale than the USSR) and worked.

I don't accept your conclusion. Of course a revolution has to be defended and we need to begin equalising the economy and removing the concept of private property, but why we need a centralisation of power is still unsure to me.
If there was no vanguard and the civil war in russia took place, it would be very difficult to combat the oppositional movement.

Why?

Basically it would become so chaotic that proletarians would be shooting each other

So you're essentially arguing that if the working class don't have people telling them what to do they will kill each other?

it can't be denied that an army made up of all workers would possibly agree on what measures are to be taken and ultimately not only would there be war between counterrevolutionary and revolutionary movement but you would have proletarians from the same movement killing each other over disagreement on such matters of how to combat the oppositional movement.

As radical as it may seem, I have more faith in human beings. Especially in a time of such profound social upheaval that they themselves have instigated.

Therefore, it seems fair to say that certain measures are just necessary in any regard, and a vanguard is one of them- that is, if you want to be any bit certain the revolutionary movement has the possibility of succeeding.

Yes, your justification is the same one used by the bourgeoisie to justify the existence of their state. What you are saying is: The workers and plebs are too naive and violent to do anything for themselves so a select few in a strong centralised political institution must do it for them.

It is that very attitude that makes it necessary for the destruction of centralised political authority; as much as you may think we are all robots incapable of free thought I know that this is not true and that given the means to control our lives and defend our gains, us workers will do fine without professional revolutionaries and dictatorships of any kind.

That includes you and your vanguard!

Comrade Nadezhda

14th November 2007, 13:42

TAT, quick question:

If you want to convince me of anarchism, why do you insist on ignoring the actual point made in that post? It would seem if you could give a logical explanation for why decentralized authority could possibly lead to classless society and if you could explain why, aside from the classic "anti-authority" perspective which most anarchists love to argue- and give a true reason why centralization cannot lead to communist society, and why it defeats the purpose, if you really had a valid argument. Otherwise, I can't see reason for you to ignore my historical claims against the argument you insist on making continuously.

Marsella

14th November 2007, 14:13

give a true reason why centralization cannot lead to communist society, and why it defeats the purpose, if you really had a valid argument.

...once in control of the government the Communists saw that the Soviets threatened the supremacy of the State. At the same time they could not destroy them arbitrarily without undermining their own prestige at home and abroad as the sponsors of the Soviet system. They began to shear them gradually of their own powers and finally to subordinate them to their own needs. Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks

Once their power has been consolidated the Bolsheviks as state socialists, that is as men who believe in centralized and authoritarian leadership will start running the life of your country and of the people from the top. Your soviets will gradually become simple tools of the central government. You will soon see the inauguration of an authoritarian political state apparatus...'All power to the soviets' will become 'all power to the leaders of the party.' Voline

It is now clear why the Russian Revolution, as conducted by the Communist Party, was a failure. The political power of the party, organised and centralized in the State , sought to maintain itself by all means at hand. The central authorities attempted to force the activities of the people into forms corresponding with the purposes of the Party. The sole aim of the later was to strengthen the state and monopolize all economical, political and social activities - even all the cultural manifestations. The revolution had an entirely different object, and in its very character was the negation of authority and centralization. It strove to open ever-larger fields for proletarian expression and to multiply the phases of individual and collective effort. The aims and tendencies of the Revolution were diametrically opposed to those of the ruling political party. Emma Goldman, Red Emma Speaks

In time we see appear on the scene and even more "legitimate" child of history -- the Russian labor movement. For the first time, bases for the formation of a real "people’s will" are laid in Russian soil.

But here is the "ego" of the Russian revolutionary again! Pirouetting on its head, it once more proclaims itself to be the all-powerful director of history -- this time with the title of His Excellency the Central Committee of the Social Democratic Party of Russia.

The nimble acrobat fails to perceive that the only "subject" which merits today the role of director is the collective "ego" of the working class. The working class demands the right to make its mistakes and learn the dialectic of history.

Let us speak plainly. Historically, the errors committed by a truly revolutionary movement are infinitely more fruitful than the infallibility of the cleverest Central Committee. Rosa Luxemburg, Leninism or Marxism?

We stand for the construction of a proletariat society by the class creativity of the workers themselves, not by ukases from the 'captains of industry'...We proceed from the trust in the class instinct, and in the active class initiative of the proletariat. It cannot be otherwise. If the workers themselves do not know how to create the necessary prerequisite for the socialist organisation of labor - no one can do this for them, nor can the workers be forced to do it. The stick if raised against the workers, will find itself either in the hands of another social force...or in the hands of the soviet power. But then the soviet power will be forced to seek support against the proletariat from another class, and by this it will destroy itself as the dictatorship of the proletariat. Socialism and socialist organisation must be set up by the proletariat itself, or they will give not be set up at all; something else will come up; state capitalism. Kommunist (Read this if nothing else)

The Feral Underclass

14th November 2007, 16:23

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 14, 2007 02:42 pm
If you want to convince me of anarchism
I don't necessarily want to convince you, simply show the flaws in your theory.

why do you insist on ignoring the actual point made in that post?

I didn't realise I had.

It would seem if you could give a logical explanation for why decentralized authority could possibly lead to classless society

By ursupring private property, equalising the economy and defending those gains.

if you could explain why, aside from the classic "anti-authority" perspective which most anarchists love to argue- and give a true reason why centralization cannot lead to communist society

I have already given a "true" reason, but I shall do it again.

The existence of the state is for the purposes of defending the institutions created by it for the purpose of exacting its objectives. In order to do this it consolidates political authority by centralising that control into the hands of a minority, mandated with the purpose of co-ordinating that economic, political and defensive management.

This centralisation is predicated on a system of hierarchy. If you have a minority at the top, orders and decisions that are made then get filtered downwards. This hierarchy then requires its own system to pass down these commands to ensure they are verified, documented, analysed and executed. This requires a bureaucracy.

This bureaucracy then must exercise these tasks for decades and eventually, after years of "revolution" (as with Russia, Cuba and China) power corrupts, opportunities arise and new interests begin to form.

Random Precision

14th November 2007, 20:59

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+--> (The Anarchist Tension)
Led Zeppelin
A decentralized economic system is horribly inefficient in equalizing material conditions in a society which is unequal to begin with.

But that's not true. Any document analysing the economic management during the Spanish civil war can easily see that to be the case.[/b]

On the contrary, the decentralized management of Catalonia during the war created huge inefficiencies in the distribution of wealth, mostly because as the action to collectivize was spontaneous and had no semblance of organization at all between industries, some of which were socialized completely and some just half-heartedly collectivized. Also there was no attempt made to seize the capital held in banks, which would have put the collectivized economy on a much better footing. Horacio Prieto, a former national committee secretary of the CNT, said that:

The collectivism we are living in in Spain is not anarchist collectivism, it is the creation of a new capitalism... Rich collectives refuse to recognize any responsibilities, duties, or solidarity towards poor collectives... No one understands the complexities of the economy, the dependence of one industry on another.

Quoted in Ronald Fraser, "The Blood of Spain", 209.

That being said, it would also be unwise to throw decentralized economy out the window on the basis of the Spanish experience, because it obviousy could not function at its best during the war.

The Feral Underclass

15th November 2007, 00:29

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the Proles+November 14, 2007 09:59 pm--> (Hope Lies in the Proles @ November 14, 2007 09:59 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected]

Led Zeppelin
A decentralized economic system is horribly inefficient in equalizing material conditions in a society which is unequal to begin with.

But that's not true. Any document analysing the economic management during the Spanish civil war can easily see that to be the case.

On the contrary, the decentralized management of Catalonia during the war created huge inefficiencies in the distribution of wealth, mostly because as the action to collectivize was spontaneous and had no semblance of organization at all between industries, some of which were socialized completely and some just half-heartedly collectivized. [/b]
I'm not trying to argue that there were no mistakes or that the entire organisation was perfect. Of course there were mistakes, of course there were inefficiencies. The reality of the overall situation however was that it worked and given the extra impetus could have gone further with better results.

What you are saying is a little harsh as most production was organised federally into plenums to redistribute and organise mass industry quite effectively. Mistakes were made, but this is to be expected. The process had not been completed by its defeat, but to say that the theory had failed, which is the argument here, is grossly unfair.

I'm not arguing it's perfect, I'm arguing that it's successful in terms of vindicating the theory.

Also there was no attempt made to seize the capital held in banks, which would have put the collectivized economy on a much better footing. Horacio Prieto, a former national committee secretary of the CNT, said that:

That doesn't negate the theory though. That's just a tactical error.

Entrails Konfetti

15th November 2007, 00:32

Sorry, but I have not read everyones posts.
But you want opinions, so heres mine.

Theres is a big mistake in the geographic sphere of Dotp, it cannot exist in one single country. All that has happened when say workers take over a state, is precisely that-- a workers ran state. You cannot equate a worker run state with the DotP. Workers in a given can country can only weild power for so long, unless the revolution spreads into other regions, or countries. If not, another caste will arise, which will succumb to world capitalist market. Or the proletariat in that region will be crushed by a millitary counter-revolution.

The Dotp is when the global proletariat has achieved it mission in taking power, here then the proletariat can weild its power over the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie can assimiliate or try to take up arms, but end up unsuccessful.

As to how long the DoTP will last, I say about 3 generations, by that time the bourgeois social attitude should have dissapeared, and Socialist relations in production should be well established.

Comrade Rage

15th November 2007, 00:40

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+November 14, 2007 07:32 pm--> (EL KABLAMO @ November 14, 2007 07:32 pm) Sorry, but I have not read everyones posts.
But you want opinions, so heres mine.

Theres is a big mistake in the geographic sphere of Dotp, it cannot exist in one single country. All that has happened when say workers take over a state, is precisely that-- a workers ran state. [/b]
I agree with you here, I think Albania was a good example of a proletarian state, and what eventually went wrong was the fact that it became isolated after the USSR and China gave way to revisionism. Socialism must expand every year, or the bourgeosie will subvert the proletarian state.

EL KABLAMO
You cannot equate a worker run state with the DotP. Workers in a given can country can only weild power for so long, unless the revolution spreads into other regions, or countries. If not, another caste will arise, which will succumb to world capitalist market. Or the proletariat in that region will be crushed by a millitary counter-revolution.

The Dotp is when the global proletariat has achieved it mission in taking power, here then the proletariat can weild its power over the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie can assimiliate or try to take up arms, but end up unsuccessful.

As to how long the DoTP will last, I say about 3 generations, by that time the bourgeois social attitude should have dissapeared, and Socialist relations in production should be well established.
Sounds about right to me, given that all needed events such as the ones you've described happen. That would be the maximum probably.

Labor Shall Rule

15th November 2007, 00:48

What will the anarchists do in countries such as Chad, where a majority of the populace is malnourished, and access to water supply is sparse? The entire economy is based on homescale, subsistence farming, as well as herding and fishing. The most profitable export are camels, though foreign contractors are preparing to drill for oil.

Marx wrote that:

"A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive."

In other words, if the small working class conquered power with the poor farmers at their backs, they would face the historic basis of destitution, aggravated by the destructions of the imperialist and civil wars on their small, impoverished country where the productive forces are certainly not developed to a material level of making the abolishment of classes a near possibility.

Why should we put faith in a 'federal' system where a plenum in each village would magically build an economy out of nothing? How will a highly trained and armed military be built to withstand attacks? The fact is that central planning is necessary to build up the material and cultural level of the masses, and all that matters is that it is democratically accountable, not if it is 'a peculiar hierarchal relationship' or whatever you guys are pressing on about.

Comrade Rage

15th November 2007, 01:04

Originally posted by Proper Tea is [email protected] 12, 2007 06:22 am
Isn't this largely question largely contextual?
Pretty much, but it is mainly the contexts that I was interested in hearing about, what Revlefters think is necessary for the establishment of Communism.

Comrade Nadezhda

15th November 2007, 06:47

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 14, 2007 10:23 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 14, 2007 10:23 am)I don't necessarily want to convince you, simply show the flaws in your theory.[/b]
You fail to point out these "flaws".

By ursupring private property, equalising the economy and defending those gains.
How do you imagine doing that without the means in doing so?

I have already given a "true" reason, but I shall do it again.

The existence of the state is for the purposes of defending the institutions created by it for the purpose of exacting its objectives. In order to do this it consolidates political authority by centralising that control into the hands of a minority, mandated with the purpose of co-ordinating that economic, political and defensive management.

This centralisation is predicated on a system of hierarchy. If you have a minority at the top, orders and decisions that are made then get filtered downwards. This hierarchy then requires its own system to pass down these commands to ensure they are verified, documented, analysed and executed. This requires a bureaucracy.

This bureaucracy then must exercise these tasks for decades and eventually, after years of "revolution" (as with Russia, Cuba and China) power corrupts, opportunities arise and new interests begin to form.
You can't eliminate the necessity for centralization without eliminating the necessity for the state, and that will never happen without first eliminating the conditions causing the necessity for its existence. Simply eliminating the bourgeois state apparatus does not eliminate the conditions existent within the society, and until those conditions no longer exist the dictatorship of the proletariat will be necessary (just as centralization and an armed body appointed by the vanguard). Centralization doesn't necessarily lead to corruption or the formation of bureaucracy, but without centralization communist society cannot possibly be attained, as the means of attaining it are nonexistent.

Labor Shall [email protected] 14, 2007 06:48 pm
What will the anarchists do in countries such as Chad, where a majority of the populace is malnourished, and access to water supply is sparse? The entire economy is based on homescale, subsistence farming, as well as herding and fishing. The most profitable export are camels, though foreign contractors are preparing to drill for oil.

Marx wrote that:

"A development of the productive forces is the absolutely necessary practical premise [of Communism], because without it want is generalized, and with want the struggle for necessities begins again, and that means that all the old crap must revive."

In other words, if the small working class conquered power with the poor farmers at their backs, they would face the historic basis of destitution, aggravated by the destructions of the imperialist and civil wars on their small, impoverished country where the productive forces are certainly not developed to a material level of making the abolishment of classes a near possibility.

Why should we put faith in a 'federal' system where a plenum in each village would magically build an economy out of nothing? How will a highly trained and armed military be built to withstand attacks? The fact is that central planning is necessary to build up the material and cultural level of the masses, and all that matters is that it is democratically accountable, not if it is 'a peculiar hierarchal relationship' or whatever you guys are pressing on about.
This is the point I was attempting to make but TAT completely ignored it, which doesn't surpise me, as many times anarchists seem to disregard conditions other than the state which are existent; and ultimately these are conditions which make the existence of the state necessary. Under these conditions, without central planning there will not be sufficient conditions to bring forward the abolition of class distinction. Eliminating the state cannot alone bring about the means of abolition of distinct classes, as the conditions causing their existence in the first place are not yet abolished, creating necessity for the existence of centralization, as the means for the state to no longer be a necessity have not come into existence yet.

Donnie

15th November 2007, 10:10

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO
he Dotp is when the global proletariat has achieved it mission in taking power, here then the proletariat can weild its power over the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie can assimiliate or try to take up arms, but end up unsuccessful.

What form does that take though? That's the issue.

The Feral Underclass

15th November 2007, 10:13

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 15, 2007 12:48 am
What will the anarchists do in countries such as Chad, where a majority of the populace is malnourished, and access to water supply is sparse? The entire economy is based on homescale, subsistence farming, as well as herding and fishing. The most profitable export are camels, though foreign contractors are preparing to drill for oil.
There's no working class in Chad, or at least a very small one. There couldn't be a communist revolution there.

Why should we put faith in a 'federal' system where a plenum in each village would magically build an economy out of nothing? How will a highly trained and armed military be built to withstand attacks?

Faith? It's not a question of faith it's a question of organisation and hard work. Your argument presupposes that decentralised federalism is incapable of building an economy or training an army, but you're not really proposing any kind of argument of why? Comrade Nadezhda have, but her basic argument is that we need a state because the workers shoot each other. :rolleyes:

The fact is that central planning is necessary to build up the material and cultural level of the masses, and all that matters is that it is democratically accountable, not if it is 'a peculiar hierarchal relationship' or whatever you guys are pressing on about.

I don't agree that it is a "fact". Central planning or centralised political authority are not necessary. Obviously you are having difficult seeing past your bourgeois prejuidices on governance, but that's just your problem.

No state does not = no organisation and chaos.

The Feral Underclass

15th November 2007, 10:21

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 15, 2007 07:47 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 15, 2007 07:47 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 14, 2007 10:23 am
I don't necessarily want to convince you, simply show the flaws in your theory.
You fail to point out these "flaws". [/b]
Yes I have, several times. You just keep failing to address them instead taking the tactic of just outright denying my arguments exist.

By ursupring private property, equalising the economy and defending those gains.
How do you imagine doing that without the means in doing so?

When the working class take control of the means of production we will have the means of equalising the economy and usurping private property...

You can't eliminate the necessity for centralization without eliminating the necessity for the state, and that will never happen without first eliminating the conditions causing the necessity for its existence.

If that is true then we will never achieve communism.

Class distinction will exist in an immediate post-revolutionary society with or without a state. The issue here is taking control of the economy and usurping private property. Once you begin to equalise the economy class distinction begins to disappear. You do not need centralised political authority to do this.

Centralization doesn't necessarily lead to corruption or the formation of bureaucracy

Once again you're just repeating yourself. If you are going to continute contributing to this debate please have the courtesy to forward it by taking notice of my arguments to you. It's very boring just re-reading your same assertions and repeated statements.

but without centralization communist society cannot possibly be attained, as the means of attaining it are nonexistent.

So you keep saying.

This is the point I was attempting to make but TAT completely ignored it, which doesn't surpise me, as many times anarchists seem to disregard conditions other than the state which are existent;

Excuse me, that's a little unfair considering I've taken the time to respond to your questions and criticisms. I have not ignored your points at all. It's not my fault you refuse to engage me on it.

Labor Shall Rule

15th November 2007, 20:44

The fact is that it is possible to federally build a revolutionary army, but it becomes an arduous task to do so when you are threatened with extinction during a civil or imperialist war. The Ukrainian and Korean anarchists equally realized this, and they both went on to use the instrument of the state in their experiments.

Entrails Konfetti

15th November 2007, 20:47

What form does that take though? That's the issue.

The will of the majority over the minority-- what else?

Comrade Nadezhda

15th November 2007, 21:23

It seems that some anarchists are opposed to all authority, regardless of the argument(s) for it, especially in regards to centralization- even if it will ultimately benefit the revolutionary movement. Even while it is possible to do so without centralization, there are far more possibilities for failure than success, mostly in regard to building an army, having the means of securing the revolution (significant force and the means for it), as there are certain threats which ultimately will occur (esp. civil and imperial wars) as Labor Shall Rule mentioned, and communism is much less likely to be attained when the movement is significantly damaged as a result of civil war and its lack of proper organization to prevent such difficulties in the first place.

Random Precision

15th November 2007, 22:21

What you are saying is a little harsh as most production was organised federally into plenums to redistribute and organise mass industry quite effectively. Mistakes were made, but this is to be expected. The process had not been completed by its defeat, but to say that the theory had failed, which is the argument here, is grossly unfair.

And I did not make that argument. My own position on decentralized economy is identical to the one on the establishment of a stateless society: can't be done right after the revolution, but give it time and it will work.

I'm not arguing it's perfect, I'm arguing that it's successful in terms of vindicating the theory.

See, I don't think that it does. The Spanish experiment proved that seizure of the means of production by the workers must be organized, which in Spain it was not. It also proved that worker control of the economy must be coupled with the establishment of a workers' state to survive. The Stalinists were able to easily able to dismantle workers control because those two factors were not present.

RGacky3

15th November 2007, 23:41

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15, 2007 09:23 pm
It seems that some anarchists are opposed to all authority, regardless of the argument(s) for it, especially in regards to centralization- even if it will ultimately benefit the revolutionary movement. Even while it is possible to do so without centralization, there are far more possibilities for failure than success, mostly in regard to building an army, having the means of securing the revolution (significant force and the means for it), as there are certain threats which ultimately will occur (esp. civil and imperial wars) as Labor Shall Rule mentioned, and communism is much less likely to be attained when the movement is significantly damaged as a result of civil war and its lack of proper organization to prevent such difficulties in the first place.
I've never heard from Leninists how those having Authoirty will be answerable practically to those not having Authority, and how Authority will be kept in check so as not to be abused. Most Leninists argue that simply because they are Communists their power would neccessarily not be abused, which is as stupid as saying, a christian would never shoot someone if you give him a gun and there are no legal consequences for shooting someone simply because he's a christian :P.

Comrade Rage

15th November 2007, 23:49

Originally posted by RGacky3+November 15, 2007 06:41 pm--> (RGacky3 @ November 15, 2007 06:41 pm)
Comrade [email protected] 15, 2007 09:23 pm
It seems that some anarchists are opposed to all authority, regardless of the argument(s) for it, especially in regards to centralization- even if it will ultimately benefit the revolutionary movement. Even while it is possible to do so without centralization, there are far more possibilities for failure than success, mostly in regard to building an army, having the means of securing the revolution (significant force and the means for it), as there are certain threats which ultimately will occur (esp. civil and imperial wars) as Labor Shall Rule mentioned, and communism is much less likely to be attained when the movement is significantly damaged as a result of civil war and its lack of proper organization to prevent such difficulties in the first place.
I've never heard from Leninists how those having Authoirty will be answerable practically to those not having Authority, and how Authority will be kept in check so as not to be abused. Most Leninists argue that simply because they are Communists their power would neccessarily not be abused, which is as stupid as saying, a christian would never shoot someone if you give him a gun and there are no legal consequences for shooting someone simply because he's a christian :P. [/b]
There are several Communists such as myself who believe in the right to posess weapons. There is no reason that any true (correctly organized and run) Red Army would tolerate revisionism.

There are ways to combat revisionism in the DotP.

RGacky3

16th November 2007, 00:02

There are several Communists such as myself who believe in the right to posess weapons. There is no reason that any true (correctly organized and run) Red Army would tolerate revisionism.

There are ways to combat revisionism in the DotP.

So the only way to stop abuse of power (I'm not refering to revisionism, I'm refering to politicians putting their own power and authority first and abusing people to do so), is though a coup?

No direct accountability to the people, other than through guns?

Comrade Rage

16th November 2007, 00:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:02 pm

There are several Communists such as myself who believe in the right to posess weapons. There is no reason that any true (correctly organized and run) Red Army would tolerate revisionism.

There are ways to combat revisionism in the DotP.

So the only way to stop abuse of power (I'm not refering to revisionism, I'm refering to politicians putting their own power and authority first and abusing people to do so), is though a coup?

No direct accountability to the people, other than through guns?
No, there are methods to deal with revisionists that are within the Party, but I was talking about the way to deal with a DotP that has gone completely off the rails, for instance in China (PRC).

RGacky3

16th November 2007, 00:12

It has nothing to do with revisionism, thats not what I'm talking about, I'm saying how in practical terms is the leadership accountable to the people?

Comrade Rage

16th November 2007, 00:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2007 07:12 pm
It has nothing to do with revisionism, thats not what I'm talking about, I'm saying how in practical terms is the leadership accountable to the people?
The leadership is accountable throgh the Party.

Labor Shall Rule

16th November 2007, 00:35

I thought it was Bakunin that said "does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker”?

The fact is that we are in a society where not everyone can be leaders, though new forms of work and communicaton have made dialogue more easier. At the end of the day, we can all sit down and chat in our locality and factories, but all the workers from all industries can't fit into a single conference room to draft an overall plan. They can, however, politically participate by watching debates on their television sets and computer, and by holding meetings about the representative that they deterred their authority to.

The difference is that instead of being passive speculators, they are active in political life.

The representatives of bourgeois democracy represent their class interests, while the delegates from our own work shops and neighborhoods will represent our class interests. The delegates who breach their mandate can be swiftly held to account, and they will either voluntarily surrender their political position, or they will lose all credibility and legitimacy, and be forcibly removed.

RGacky3

16th November 2007, 00:35

Knowing the way the USSR and Democratic Centralism works, thats very very little accountability, also the Party is'nt the People.

Comrade Rage

16th November 2007, 00:44

Originally posted by RGacky3+November 15, 2007 07:35 pm--> (RGacky3 @ November 15, 2007 07:35 pm) Knowing the way the USSR and Democratic Centralism works, thats very very little accountability, also the Party is'nt the People. [/b]
The Party is the people who joins it. The people need to become active in the Party, and become vocal.

That is accountability, but it is accountability to Communists. It will be very inefficient to govern the DotP if the General Secretary is bombarded with the same Cappie shit-arguments day after day. It will be necessary to limit discourse for the first 20-30 years of the DotP. I think everyone would agree.

Check out LSR's post on the end of the last page. I think s/he made some excellent points.

Labor Shall Rule
The representatives of bourgeois democracy represent their class interests, while the delegates from our own work shops and neighborhoods will represent our class interests. The delegates who breach their mandate can be swiftly held to account, and they will either voluntarily surrender their political position, or they will lose all credibility and legitimacy, and be forcibly removed.

Labor Shall Rule

16th November 2007, 00:45

* Comrade Crum pointed my post out, thanks comrade. You are raising excellent points by the way.

Comrade Rage

16th November 2007, 00:51

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 15, 2007 07:45 pm
* Comrade Crum pointed my post out, thanks comrade. You are raising excellent points by the way.
Thank you as well. Your post was 'covered up' by RGacky3's post since they were entered almost simultaneously, and that's also when this discussion ran onto another page. Your post was too good to let go by.

RGacky3

16th November 2007, 01:11

The Party is the people who joins it. The people need to become active in the Party, and become vocal.

Thats the same argument used by people who say "If you don't vote you don't have a right to complain," as if your rights and the such are dependant on affiliating with an ideology, not even that, a political party.

It will be necessary to limit discourse for the first 20-30 years of the DotP. I think everyone would agree.

Its not about discourse, I'm talking about the ability to recall leaders with no reprocussions, the ability to limit the authority of leaders, to have desicions made by leaders accountable to the people. Also, who unlimits it? As if those in power will just willingly give it up because its not "needed" anymore.

while the delegates from our own work shops and neighborhoods will represent our class interests. The delegates who breach their mandate can be swiftly held to account, and they will either voluntarily surrender their political position, or they will lose all credibility and legitimacy, and be forcibly removed.

Also, how will these 'delegates be forcible removed, since the Party Controlled State has control of the police and army, HOW are they held to account, are major desicions put to a vote? Can they be immediately recalled by a secret vote? Or what?

In the USSR and almost all State Socialist Nations that followed, workshop and neighborhood governments held very little real authority, and that real desicions, laws, use of violence was based in Politburo.

Looking at Stalin for one can show us how well Democratic Cetralism keeps Leaders accountable.

The fact is that we are in a society where not everyone can be leaders

What I'm suggesting is we don't need leaders (in the sense of people with authority over other people), we need solidarity and organization.

Representives in bourgeousie democracy represent bourgeousie interests because the bourgeousie controls the economy, under State Socialism the State makes economic desicions, thus controls the economy, not unless the State is directly accountable in practical ways to the people both politically and economically, the dotp cannot be seriouslly called a workers democracy.

Comrade Rage

16th November 2007, 01:24

Originally posted by RGacky3+--> (RGacky3)Thats the same argument used by people who say "If you don't vote you don't have a right to complain," as if your rights and the such are dependant on affiliating with an ideology, not even that, a political party.[/b]
The DotP is a Communist concept, from a Communist Revolution to implement Communism. Why would it be unreasonable to limit participation of counter-revolutionaries like Capitalists? Besides the Cappies aren't going to exactly be pleased with relinquishing control of the means of production.

Originally posted by RGacky3+--> (RGacky3)Its not about discourse, I'm talking about the ability to recall leaders with no reprocussions, the ability to limit the authority of leaders, to have desicions made by leaders accountable to the people. Also, who unlimits it? As if those in power will just willingly give it up because its not "needed" anymore.[/b]As I said before, they are accountable to the Communists in the Party. And as Communism is gradually attained through socialism, the Secretary will gradually have less influence. S/He will not have to give up power, Communism is not dependent on any one person 'giving' up power.

Originally posted by RGacky3
Also, how will these 'delegates be forcible removed, since the Party Controlled State has control of the police and army, HOW are they held to account, are major desicions put to a vote? Can they be immediately recalled by a secret vote? Or what?
They will be removed by citizen based militias that will be formed (if necessary). Otherwise they will be recalled by the Central Committee.

Originally posted by RGacky3
In the USSR and almost all State Socialist Nations that followed, workshop and neighborhood governments held very little real authority, and that real desicions, laws, use of violence was based in Politburo.

Looking at Stalin for one can show us how well Democratic Cetralism keeps Leaders accountable.
I'm not talking about establishing a carbon-copy of the USSR.

[email protected]
What I'm suggesting is we don't need leaders (in the sense of people with authority over other people), we need solidarity and organization.
You're wrong. We need both.

RGacky3
Representives in bourgeousie democracy represent bourgeousie interests because the bourgeousie controls the economy, under State Socialism the State makes economic desicions, thus controls the economy, not unless the State is directly accountable in practical ways to the people both politically and economically, the dotp cannot be seriouslly called a workers democracy.
Unless economic policies are decided by a confederation of worker's unions, which is something I've proposed.

Labor Shall Rule

16th November 2007, 04:27

RGacky3, as Comrade Crum mentioned, you are taking the actions of the Bolsheviks during their conditions of historic destitution and civil and imperialist war, and linking it with their theories altogether.

There will be no 'party-controlled' police, military, or secret service. If you can provide specific evidence that Lenin remarked that under all situations; under any pretext whatsoever, that there should be armed forces controlled by the 'party,' then I will concede.

Lenin faced a country that was on the verge of colossal famine, that was surrounded by over twenty-two hostile armies, that was put under a economic blockade, and that had a destroyed industrial infastructure. The planners, secret police, and soldiers that came out of this was an organic product of these material conditions, this is an irrefutable fact. He was working within his situation, he was not forming a dogmatic theory that had to be strictly followed. Lenin actually wrote, in evaluating Marx's interpretation of the Paris Commune, that:

The Commune, therefore, appears to have replaced the smashed state machine “only” by fuller democracy: abolition of the standing army; all officials to be elected and subject to recall. But as a matter of fact this “only” signifies a gigantic replacement of certain institutions by other institutions of a fundamentally different type. This is exactly a case of "quantity being transformed into quality": democracy, introduced as fully and consistently as is at all conceivable, is transformed from bourgeois into proletarian democracy; from the state (a special force for the suppression of a particular class) into something which is no longer the state proper.

This is what our state would be replaced with.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2007, 12:43

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 15, 2007 09:44 pm
The fact is that it is possible to federally build a revolutionary army, but it becomes an arduous task to do so when you are threatened with extinction during a civil or imperialist war.
I don't understand what the problems you are alluding to are?

Organising in any way during a revolutionary period will be arduous, but this is the reality of class struggle. The Spanish civil war, regardless of its failings, is a model of decentralised military action, co-ordinated federally.

The Ukrainian and Korean anarchists equally realized this, and they both went on to use the instrument of the state in their experiments.

It is easy to fall back on tried and tested solutions when you run into problems but the fact remains that once you have insitutionalised political authority there can be to progression to communism.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2007, 13:53

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected] 15, 2007 10:23 pm
It seems that some anarchists are opposed to all authority, regardless of the argument(s) for it, especially in regards to centralization- even if it will ultimately benefit the revolutionary movement. Even while it is possible to do so without centralization, there are far more possibilities for failure than success, mostly in regard to building an army, having the means of securing the revolution (significant force and the means for it), as there are certain threats which ultimately will occur (esp. civil and imperial wars) as Labor Shall Rule mentioned, and communism is much less likely to be attained when the movement is significantly damaged as a result of civil war and its lack of proper organization to prevent such difficulties in the first place.
What is the point of engaging someone in a discussion if you are going to ignore their refutations and simply repeat yourself over and over again. Clearly you are not interested in having your opinions challenged in any meaningful way.

This is typical of Leninists.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2007, 14:05

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 15, 2007 11:21 pm
My own position on decentralized economy is identical to the one on the establishment of a stateless society: can't be done right after the revolution, but give it time and it will work.
There is no evidence to suggest that is the case. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary.

The Spanish experiment proved that seizure of the means of production by the workers must be organized, which in Spain it was not

Which is not true.

It also proved that worker control of the economy must be coupled with the establishment of a workers' state to survive.

In Eddie Conlons book 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action' (http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_ch2.html) he says:

...in many areas equalisation funds were set up to redistribute wealth from the better off areas to the poorer ones. It was ensured that machinery and expertise were shifted to the areas most in need of it. Indeed one indicator of the feeling of solidarity is the fact that 1,000 collectivists from the Levant, which was quite advanced, moved to Castille to help out. Federations of collectives were established, the most successful being in Aragon. In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country"

This is also confirmed in Vernon Richards account of the Spanish civil war and in the non-biased book by Anthony Beevor.

The Stalinists were able to easily able to dismantle workers control because those two factors were not present.

I don't take that conclusion to be true. This was a result of historical inexperience. The Spanish anarchists trusted the Republic far too much. Had they not listened to the orders to disarm and waged a more firm ideological and defensive attack against the state things may have been different.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2007, 14:07

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 16, 2007 01:35 am
I thought it was Bakunin that said "does it follow that I reject all authority? Perish the thought. In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the boot-maker”?
There are two definitions of the word authority and Bakunin was making the distinction.

Tower of Bebel

16th November 2007, 14:46

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 03:53 pm
What is the point of engaging someone in a discussion if you are going to ignore their refutations and simply repeat yourself over and over again. Clearly you are not interested in having your opinions challenged in any meaningful way.

This is typical of Leninists.
Thank you to remind us of our social behavior :rolleyes: . Don't you think both "sides" are accusing each other of this behavior?

blackstone

16th November 2007, 15:04

I disagree, i think it's very obvious that Comrade Crum and LSR are ignoring the refutations of TAT. Comrade Crum insists on repeating baseless myths and offering no sort of evidence what so ever on why centralized planning is more efficient than decentralized planning. He justs says it is so, so therefore it must be so!

For example, they keep saying things like,

"but without centralization communist society cannot possibly be attained"

or

"A decentralized economic system is horribly inefficient in equalizing material conditions in a society which is unequal to begin with"

Yet, they offer no substantial empirical or historical evidence to support those claims.

You get things like this

What will the anarchists do in countries such as Chad, where a majority of the populace is malnourished, and access to water supply is sparse? The entire economy is based on homescale, subsistence farming, as well as herding and fishing. The most profitable export are camels, though foreign contractors are preparing to drill for oil....Why should we put faith in a 'federal' system where a plenum in each village would magically build an economy out of nothing? How will a highly trained and armed military be built to withstand attacks? The fact is that central planning is necessary to build up the material and cultural level of the masses, and all that matters is that it is democratically accountable, not if it is 'a peculiar hierarchal relationship' or whatever you guys are pressing on about.

That's not proof! That's why it got quickly shut down.

Led Zeppelin

16th November 2007, 18:25

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 13, 2007 03:25 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 13, 2007 03:25 pm)
Led [email protected] 13, 2007 01:37 pm

Firstly, you do not need to have a centralised state structure to equalise material conditions and secondly, this is beneficial because of the political authoritarian nature of a centralised state structure, which invariably leads to the domination of a bureaucratic class.

You may not need a centralized state structure in your opinion, but can your theory ever work in practice in conditions of the real world, or are they only plausible in theory?
It has done already. [/b]
No it hasn't. It worked in some isolated cases and on a very small scale. Besides, that kind of "working" is not what we Marxists would consider effective. Feudalism and slavery "worked" too in maintaining a certain economic system, that doesn't mean they were as effective as capitalism. The reason capitalism was more effective and eventually replaced the two previous economic systems I mentioned is because it was more effecient and effective at advancing the means of production.

A centralized planned economy has proven to be able to do this better than capitalism, even in a degenerated system without workers democracy in the economic process (see USSR), so it is only logical to believe that with a democratic system in place it would do so countless times better, as innovations would be brought in by the workers themselves, and this would increase efficiency and effectiveness.

Your decentralized system "worked" in maintaining a regular order of society, but it didn't work at advancing the means of production at speeds surpassing capitalism (or even advancing it at all, since they were all so short-lived they couldn't even sustain a war-effort); which is what the whole basis of our argument as communists is, that our system is more advanced and will bring more prosperity and wealth to the world.

No it doesn't. In fact, it embraces the opposite.

No it doesn't. If it does then what would you do when one "commune" disagrees with another? What would you do if one of them was pro-Leninist, and the other was pro-anarchist? Would there be a war between them? Would they form separate independent "city-states" opposing each other?

It would create, as the name of your ideology ironically suggests; anarchy.

Of course there would! What on earth are you talking about?

Just as I said above. You can only maintain such a decentralized grass-roots democratic system if all people agree with it. If some people disagree (and only a utopian would believe they wouldn't) they can form independent "communes" or "councils" or whatever you like to call them, and oppose the others, refuse to work with the others etc.

The only reason this is not the case in communism is because the economic base for that happening isn't present anymore; scarcity has been eliminated by then and the general consciousness of the people are about the same, since class-distinctions have been eliminated over the previous lower phase of communism.

But to have such a system while the material conditions aren't yet ready for it, scarcity still exists, the consciousness of the masses is still marked by the class-society they just came out of, is totally ridiculous.

Clearly you are misunderstanding the nature of anarchism. We do not "presuppose" that these things wouldn't exist; we accept that they would exist but reject the need for a state in spite of those facts.

Yeah and history has proven how effective you were at resisting such pressures.

I'm sorry but history is against you. We tried your way and were ruthlessly crushed by the bourgeoisie, we're not going to keep making the same mistake over and over again, and behave like lambs going to the slaughter.

At least the Marxists were able to resist those foreign pressures and keep state-power, so we are one step ahead of you in that respect.

But that's not true. Any document analysing the economic management during the Spanish civil war can easily see that to be the case.

See what I wrote above. You can't even begin to compare the situation in Spain to the amazing speed of industrialization in the USSR, under the centralized planned economy.

They didn't even have the economic organization to sustain the war effort and win the civil war! In case you forgot, the Bolsheviks were attacked by a lot more countries and a lot more armies, and were pretty much in a similar situation as the Spanish. Yet their economic system of war communism was able to sustain the war effort and win them the war against incredible odds.

Then how has a revolution come to exist? A revolution comes from class struggle and the desire to transform society. It is the spontaneous act of the working class to free themselves from exploitation. That's what it is. Without the working class being conscious of their class then where would the basis be to overthrow capitalism.

Of course it comes from class-struggle and a desire to transform society, but that doesn't mean a person has to be class-conscious to believe that, and this has been the case in all previous revolutions.

Take for example Russia. Do you think the vast majority of workers there were class-conscious, or rather just wanted to get out of the war, take control over their own lives by getting rid of the Monarchy and the bosses, and have food?

The desire for revolution comes from economic necessity and the breaking down of the old system. When the current system still works for the majority of the people, they are not going to overthrow it.

That is something completely different from class-consciousness. Class-consciousness means looking beyond those basic economic necessities which cause the revolution in the first place, and move towards the view of socialism and communism as the necessary stages in the struggle for their liberation as a class.

Basically it's very simple; if you believe the majority of workers who supported the Bolsheviks, the CNT, or whatever revolutionary movement, did so because they knew the theory in and out and were "conscious" of it, you're taking an idealist view of history to be true.

They did so out of practical necessity, as in any revolutionary situation, not class-consciousness. If this was the case then you'd basically be saying that the vast majority of people were communists, which is ridiculous given the backwardness of consciousness in general during that period.

Having a centralised political authority does not help that process, it simply places political power into the hands of a minority, which contrary to your disagreement, will undoubtedly develop new interests. Political power is a corrupting force and no leader should be trusted to fight for the interests of anyone other than their power.

In fact, even if this was not the case, it would happen anyway. The state, 'governed' but this minority, will need to create institutions in order to defend its power, that's precisely what it's there for. The interests of this minority is to defend the state and thus the state becomes a self-serving mechanism, incapable of just "withering away".

Well it's nice of you to keep repeating this, but I got the point the first time you said it, and I refuted it with an argument that can be reduced to a single sentence: Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing.

Revolutionary change should come only through the self-activity of the working class. Not through the political wrangling and intrigue of professional revolutionaries. Fighting for communism is not just about economic freedom, it is about political freedom also. It is about using methods that empower us to govern ourselves in a society that allows communities to decide on issues concerning them at that very basic level.

Putting trust and faith into political leaders and the authority that they centralise into their hands, whether they are democratically elected or not, is antithetical to the creation of a society empowered to be free. Now, I understand the idea that "not everyone will agree" - Of course they won't, but in any political movement or struggle solidarity is a key aspect to its existence. We may not always agree, but we believe in a framework of how to work together to make decisions.

Dissent is a good thing. Marx himself said "debate is progress" and it is through that debate and the dissenting of ideas that we find a solution that is beneficial for all of us. If that is not possible then we find a way to work in co-operation. Freedom is an internal struggle also to change our attitudes towards politics and political process; this requires humility and an acceptance of Mutual Aid.

There is no point in having economic freedom if we are not politically free and this process should begin long before revolution happens.

First of all you make the mistake of separating the vanguard from the general class. As I said, the vanguard is merely the most advanced section of the working-class. You and I are both part of that vanguard, as we are both class-conscious. Any person who is a communist is part of that section as well.

They do not have to be necessarily "professional revolutionaries" or in a political party to begin with. If I recall correctly Sartre was not a member of any political party, yet I would certainly consider him to be part of the vanguard, as he promoted class-consciousness amonst the working-class.

Your argument about political freedom is a bit silly because it presupposes that Marxist political parties are oppressive by nature. Political freedom means nothing without economic freedom. We have so-called "political freedom" under capitalism, does this make society any better? Of course not. Economic freedom creates political freedom, or rather, freedom from politics altogether.

Politics is the science of governing, it is created out of class-society. The ultimate aim of communists is to rid the world of this unnecessary evil, but we are not utopians. While we live in a class-society we must use the tools that arose out of it to our benefit, in order to create a communist society. If we do not do this we'll be living outside of class-society, using tools that even though claim not to be "political", are in effect just that.

Take your Anarchist Federation party, or "organization" as you like to call it. There is practically no difference between that party or any other socialist/communist party, besides maybe some formalities. You are playing politics as well, and it is inevitable that you do so. All anarchists have done so in the past, no matter how much they wanted to stay ideologically pure.

You should be glad they did, or else the history of your movement would've been even more ridden with failure.

I am describing any political system that centralises political power. It is an invariable consequence of centralisation of political authority. As I've described, the state creates political conditions by it's existence that can only be usurped by force.

You can't prove it's inevitable.

Leninists claiming that the working class have power because they have the right to vote and recall is worth as much as when the bourgeoisie claim it.

Once again; good job disregarding economics.

In a socialist state the working-class also owns the means of production and there is a socialized economic system, so they don't just have "formal democracy" in the form of voting and recalling people, they actually have the authority to back that formal democracy up by controlling the economic system.

Also you keep ignoring the fact that the people in the state-machinery are all workers themselves.

This is just a naive political position, much like that of bourgeois politicians. You can put into place these democratic safety nets but the reality is the working class do not have political freedom in any real sense and at some point there will be some process that consolidates the political bureaucracy, why wouldn't that happen? We cannot and should not trust the process you outline.

All Leninist revolutions start with this ideal but they either become corrupted or untenable and the interests that arrive, contrary to those of the working class is to stay in power. Of course, if this means removing those democratic processes then so be it, right? The state must remain in control at all costs, otherwise the revolution is lost...

The USSR became corrupted because economically it wasn't ready for workers' control of the society, i.e., the state and the means of production.

There was no other Leninist state that started out with that ideal, and the reason it failed was the backward material conditions. That is not to blame on the theory, that is to blame on the practical situation of the matter.

A pretty sound bite, but what does that mean in reality? Having an idea and a theory is all fine, but if it does not work in practice then repeating the sound bite is pointless.

It means that everyone has a say in the system. Everyone is paid equally, everyone receives the product of their labor, everyone has a say in the decision-making process, starting from a workplace all the way up to the level of a ministry.

The system would be so that every cook would be able to run it, as Lenin said.

Genuine workers democracy is allowing the working class to govern their communities and workplaces free from centralised political authority.

Centralism and democracy are not incompatible.

The Commune had a centralized political authority, do you oppose that?

Perhaps in an economic sense (for a certain length of time) but in a political sense it cannot work in the interest of the working class and this leads to the economic objectives of the state never being achieved.

You can't back that up with any fact, you're just assuming things.

It hasn't because it can't. You cannot have "workers democracy" prevailing within a structure of centralised political authority. It hasn't happened yet because the process is predicated on a false premise.

Once again you're asserting something based on assumptions instead of fact.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2007, 21:40

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+November 16, 2007 07:25 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ November 16, 2007 07:25 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 13, 2007 03:25 pm

Led [email protected] 13, 2007 01:37 pm

Firstly, you do not need to have a centralised state structure to equalise material conditions and secondly, this is beneficial because of the political authoritarian nature of a centralised state structure, which invariably leads to the domination of a bureaucratic class.

You may not need a centralized state structure in your opinion, but can your theory ever work in practice in conditions of the real world, or are they only plausible in theory?
It has done already.
No it hasn't. It worked in some isolated cases and on a very small scale. Besides, that kind of "working" is not what we Marxists would consider effective. [/b]
Has anarchism worked on a national or multi-national level? No, of course it hasn't, but according to you both anarchists and Marxists are in the same boat in that respect.

However, has anarchism applied it's theory of decentralised political authority and economic management and succeeded? Yes. Where as Marxism [Leninism] has been applied and has mutilated and reverted back into capitalism, three times.

Look, I'm not going to keep having this back-and-forth argument. The fact of the matter is the Spanish collectives, contrary to the opinion that decentralisation cannot possible achieve anything viable, did in fact do that and successfully (in terms of starting a process of equalising the economy).

Whether Marxists would consider that effective is clearly an opinion for you and other Marxists.

Feudalism and slavery "worked" too in maintaining a certain economic system, that doesn't mean they were as effective as capitalism. The reason capitalism was more effective and eventually replaced the two previous economic systems I mentioned is because it was more effecient and effective at advancing the means of production.

A centralized planned economy has proven to be able to do this better than capitalism, even in a degenerated system without workers democracy in the economic process (see USSR), so it is only logical to believe that with a democratic system in place it would do so countless times better, as innovations would be brought in by the workers themselves, and this would increase efficiency and effectiveness.

I have not denied that it is effective. Yes, it is effective perhaps even efficient, but as I have said countless times this process of consolidating political authority in this way cannot lead to a classless, stateless society - as I have outlined in previous posts.

Your decentralized system "worked" in maintaining a regular order of society, but it didn't work at advancing the means of production at speeds surpassing capitalism (or even advancing it at all, since they were all so short-lived they couldn't even sustain a war-effort); which is what the whole basis of our argument as communists is, that our system is more advanced and will bring more prosperity and wealth to the world.

Perhaps it will bring more "prosperity and wealth to the world" but will it create a classless, stateless society?

Prosperity and "wealth" (decidedly bourgeois concepts) are things that we will look for (if at all) once we have taken control of the means of production and decentralised political authority into the hands of communities and workers in order to equalise the economy and defend the revolution.

Centralisation may be effective in doing what you have described, but anarchism is about bringing power into the hands of the workers and communities.

No it doesn't. In fact, it embraces the opposite.

No it doesn't. If it does then what would you do when one "commune" disagrees with another?

Find a solution...

No it doesn't. If it does then what would you do when one "commune" disagrees with another? What would you do if one of them was pro-Leninist, and the other was pro-anarchist? Would there be a war between them? Would they form separate independent "city-states" opposing each other?

The problem here is, as with Spain and the Ukraine, conflict is bound to arise between the two camps. Hopefully we can learn our lessons from history but I'd be surprised if this was the case.

I look at workers movements now or at least how workers respond to authoritarianism and I am happy to say that in my experience they can see a trot coming a mile off and do the right thing by telling them to get fucked.

Of course communities and workplaces will have differences but they will be differences free from the authoritarianism of centralised political authority and I assume that in a situation where Leninists were challenging the decentralised and direct-democratic or consensual way a community or workplace was running, they would do as they do now and firmly tell you to get fucked.

It would create, as the name of your ideology ironically suggests; anarchy.

If that was the case we wouldn't have any problems.

Of course there would! What on earth are you talking about?

Just as I said above. You can only maintain such a decentralized grass-roots democratic system if all people agree with it.

Yes, this has been said before and I have asked why to no response.

If some people disagree (and only a utopian would believe they wouldn't) they can form independent "communes" or "councils" or whatever you like to call them, and oppose the others, refuse to work with the others etc.

Firstly only someone who is being incredibly facetious, naive or down right ignorant would think that I, or indeed anarchists in general (especially because of this thread) would argue that everyone would agree with each other.

The problem I see here is one of binary. It's either one way or utopianism. I don't agree that this has to be the case. Assuming for a moment that the working class are not monumentally stupid, perhaps it's possible that, at the end of years of class struggle and in the midst of them deciding to profoundly change the fabric of society they will be capable of solidarity and co-operation - regardless of their differences.

I do not accept that real people - and I'm not talking about the politicos - will be interested in fighting each other or creating separate communities and councils over some ideological differences. I think that they will want to do what the revolution was all about in the first place and create a communist society.

We have a lot of history to learn from.

But to have such a system while the material conditions aren't yet ready for it, scarcity still exists, the consciousness of the masses is still marked by the class-society they just came out of, is totally ridiculous.

Of course there needs to be a transitionary period and of course these things need to be taken into consideration because what you say about differences and class distinction is true. However, there is absolutely no reason to claim that this needs to be done through a process of centralised political authority.

But that's not true. Any document analysing the economic management during the Spanish civil war can easily see that to be the case.

See what I wrote above. You can't even begin to compare the situation in Spain to the amazing speed of industrialization in the USSR, under the centralized planned economy.

And look where it got you.

They didn't even have the economic organization to sustain the war effort and win the civil war! In case you forgot, the Bolsheviks were attacked by a lot more countries and a lot more armies, and were pretty much in a similar situation as the Spanish. Yet their economic system of war communism was able to sustain the war effort and win them the war against incredible odds.

All of these things are true.

Then how has a revolution come to exist? A revolution comes from class struggle and the desire to transform society. It is the spontaneous act of the working class to free themselves from exploitation. That's what it is. Without the working class being conscious of their class then where would the basis be to overthrow capitalism.

Of course it comes from class-struggle and a desire to transform society, but that doesn't mean a person has to be class-conscious to believe that, and this has been the case in all previous revolutions.

Right, but it is the basis by which to create a process towards communism. You have argued that decentralisation cannot happen because not everyone would agree with each other and while I accept that is the case my point here is that the working class want to create this process so self-imploding it would seem far-fetched.

Basically it's very simple; if you believe the majority of workers who supported the Bolsheviks, the CNT, or whatever revolutionary movement, did so because they knew the theory in and out and were "conscious" of it, you're taking an idealist view of history to be true.

They did so out of practical necessity, as in any revolutionary situation, not class-consciousness. If this was the case then you'd basically be saying that the vast majority of people were communists, which is ridiculous given the backwardness of consciousness in general during that period.

I have not and do not claim those things.

Well it's nice of you to keep repeating this, but I got the point the first time you said it, and I refuted it with an argument that can be reduced to a single sentence: Under socialism all will govern in turn and will soon become accustomed to no one governing

Yes, and as I have explained in previous posts, centralising political authority will make that impossible.

As I said, the vanguard is merely the most advanced section of the working-class. You and I are both part of that vanguard, as we are both class-conscious. Any person who is a communist is part of that section as well.

They do not have to be necessarily "professional revolutionaries" or in a political party to begin with. If I recall correctly Sartre was not a member of any political party, yet I would certainly consider him to be part of the vanguard, as he promoted class-consciousness amonst the working-class.

I am only interested in the historical experiences of a vanguard, not what you may semantically call one. Fine, you can use the word vanguard to mean intellectuals but as soon as those intellectuals have institutionalised into positions of political authority then it becomes a problem.

Your argument about political freedom is a bit silly because it presupposes that Marxist political parties are oppressive by nature.

I have no other practical experience to the contrary.

Political freedom means nothing without economic freedom. We have so-called "political freedom" under capitalism, does this make society any better? Of course not. Economic freedom creates political freedom, or rather, freedom from politics altogether.

Firstly I accept that you are right, economic freedom and political freedom come hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other - That's the issue. Also, I do not accept that we have political freedom under capitalism at all and I find it bizarre that you would make that argument.

Take your Anarchist Federation party, or "organization" as you like to call it. There is practically no difference between that party or any other socialist/communist party, besides maybe some formalities.

There is a fundamental and profound difference to both the organisation and activism of the Anarchist Federation and other parties that you refer to.

Firstly, our organisation is decentralised and based on federalism. Secondly, our activism is about empowering community and workplace action by providing the ideas for or facilitating dissent. It is not about recruiting or taking control of that dissent and formalising it into a party structure.

We are about giving support (solidarity), arguing our politics within struggles and winning debates while using anarchist tactics to be apart of those struggles to confront the institutions of exploitation and oppression.

That is nothing like what other socialist and "communist" parties do.

You are playing politics as well, and it is inevitable that you do so. All anarchists have done so in the past, no matter how much they wanted to stay ideologically pure.

And it was a mistake to do so.

I am describing any political system that centralises political power. It is an invariable consequence of centralisation of political authority. As I've described, the state creates political conditions by it's existence that can only be usurped by force.

You can't prove it's inevitable.

No, I can't, but neither can you prove that your model will create communism. What I can do though is use history as a judge and as far as I and the rest of the sane world are concerned your theory has been falsified.

Fait accompli.

In a socialist state the working-class also owns the means of production

In name only, as a centralised bureaucratic class have ultimate control over the centralised planning.

there is a socialized economic system, so they don't just have "formal democracy" in the form of voting and recalling people, they actually have the authority to back that formal democracy up by controlling the economic system.

Once again, they can only control the economic system if political authority and economic management is decentralised

Also you keep ignoring the fact that the people in the state-machinery are all workers themselves.

Controlled by a hierarchy.

Genuine workers democracy is allowing the working class to govern their communities and workplaces free from centralised political authority.

Centralism and democracy are not incompatible.

Yeah, you can have a form of democracy, but not any kind of democracy that is significantly different to what they have now.

The Commune had a centralized political authority, do you oppose that?

I oppose any political authority that is centralised into a minority.

Perhaps in an economic sense (for a certain length of time) but in a political sense it cannot work in the interest of the working class and this leads to the economic objectives of the state never being achieved.

You can't back that up with any fact, you're just assuming things.

Yes, it's a theoretical framework in understanding the nature of the state and understanding our historical empiricism.

Labor Shall Rule

16th November 2007, 22:02

The "decentralized" military was dependent on arms from the Soviets, and though they pushed the Falangists out of the industrial areas in the earlier period of the war, they were quickly repelled in other vast parts of Spain, and the fascist advance wasn't stopped until the Civil Guard was deployed. Its 'failings' was that it was unable to independently repel Franco on their own initiative.

A war is an activity that requires the highest level of centralization. If there is no central command to coordinate forces, oversee the mass transportation of crucial supplies to different parts of the front, and the distribution of arms to the armed groups that need it, then there is no use even trying to take power for ourselves. We would be going against highly trained, disciplined and well-supplied imperialist and counterrevolutionary armies, and I don't want "decentralization" to be our death at their hands.

Labor Shall Rule

16th November 2007, 22:16

All 'central planning' would be subordinated and accountable to the worker's deputies. The framework for self-management would not be immediately realizable where output is relatively low, and not developed to a point of bridging the gap between necessary and surplus labor time, so there will be a ratification of all managers until communicaton and production is built up until full control is possible. Therefore, 'central planning' will be necessary, but that doesn't mean that it won't be democratic whatsoever.

Random Precision

16th November 2007, 23:12

Which is not true.

How was seizure of industry organized by the CNT? No? That's right, workers from each industry pretty much did their own thing.

In Eddie Conlons book 'The Spanish Civil War: Anarchism in Action' (http://struggle.ws/spain/pam_ch2.html) he says:

...in many areas equalisation funds were set up to redistribute wealth from the better off areas to the poorer ones. It was ensured that machinery and expertise were shifted to the areas most in need of it. Indeed one indicator of the feeling of solidarity is the fact that 1,000 collectivists from the Levant, which was quite advanced, moved to Castille to help out. Federations of collectives were established, the most successful being in Aragon. In June 1937 a plenum of Regional Federations of Peasants was held. Its aim was the formation of a national federation "for the co-ordination and extension of the collectivist movement and also to ensure an equitable distribution of the produce of the land, not only between the collectives but for the whole country"

This is also confirmed in Vernon Richards account of the Spanish civil war and in the non-biased book by Anthony Beevor.

Your sources deal with peasant, agricultural collectivization. I don't deny that great strides were made there. But we are dealing with industrial collectivization.

I don't take that conclusion to be true. This was a result of historical inexperience. The Spanish anarchists trusted the Republic far too much. Had they not listened to the orders to disarm and waged a more firm ideological and defensive attack against the state things may have been different.

I agree! The anarchists did not have the experience to know that a worker state was necessary to defend a revolution, and thus take steps to smash the bourgeois state apparatus immidiately after the uprising was crushed.

The Feral Underclass

16th November 2007, 23:16

Originally posted by Hope Lies in the [email protected] 17, 2007 12:12 am

I don't take that conclusion to be true. This was a result of historical inexperience. The Spanish anarchists trusted the Republic far too much. Had they not listened to the orders to disarm and waged a more firm ideological and defensive attack against the state things may have been different.

I agree! The anarchists did not have the experience to know that a worker state was necessary to defend a revolution, and thus take steps to smash the bourgeois state apparatus immidiately after the uprising was crushed.
Nice try.

RGacky3

16th November 2007, 23:22

No it doesn't. If it does then what would you do when one "commune" disagrees with another? What would you do if one of them was pro-Leninist, and the other was pro-anarchist? Would there be a war between them? Would they form separate independent "city-states" opposing each other?

Let me ask you, why would anyone decide to be ruled over by a political party completely voluntarily, without any threat of violence and withoutand immediate need. So your saying there would be Communes that would willingly say "You know what? We need someone telling us what to do, and restricting freedom, just for the hell of it."

I'm sorry but history is against you. We tried your way and were ruthlessly crushed by the bourgeoisie, we're not going to keep making the same mistake over and over again, and behave like lambs going to the slaughter.

I don't know, I think the unsupported CNT, made up of untrained (militarily) workers, stood up pretty well against, the Facists, backed my the trained general military, the catholic church, the Germans, the Italians, and the Republicans/Communists backed up by the Comintern and the USSR, I think they did Ok.

At least the Marxists were able to resist those foreign pressures and keep state-power, so we are one step ahead of you in that respect.

And in the proccess destroyed the whole point of the revolution, emancipation.

First of all you make the mistake of separating the vanguard from the general class. As I said, the vanguard is merely the most advanced section of the working-class. You and I are both part of that vanguard, as we are both class-conscious. Any person who is a communist is part of that section as well.

Well sure, if the Vanguard is just workers who understand class dynamics well, you don't really need a name and theory for them :P, but when you make a formal political party, with a defined heiarchy, which has authority over people with the threat of violence (if in power), and in most historical cases the Vanguard Party does'nt really care what class your from (Unlike revolutionary workers Unions). So if what you described is exactly what the vanguard is, I don't see a problem, if its just people knowing stuff :P, what I do have a problem with is a formal hiarchial political party wielding political authority.

Your argument about political freedom is a bit silly because it presupposes that Marxist political parties are oppressive by nature. Political freedom means nothing without economic freedom. We have so-called "political freedom" under capitalism, does this make society any better? Of course not. Economic freedom creates political freedom, or rather, freedom from politics altogether.

Well, in the United States, we have political freedom, but not economic, in the USSR there was niether, so great job Leninists. Yes Political freedom does make society better, because strikes are possible, protests, free speach, rallies and the such, remember the whole civil rights movement? Would'nt have been possible in the USSR. In fact because of Political freedom, the government many times has to resort to cloak and dagger operations to stop dissent, which ends up getting them in trouble many times.

There is practically no difference between that party or any other socialist/communist party, besides maybe some formalities.

I don't know any Anarchist Organization that has the right to tell its followers what to do, or has the goal of taking state power, and wielding state authority.

You can't prove it's inevitable.

WHen it comes to social issues you cannot PROVE that anything is INEVITABLE, but I can say, its happend everytime, soooooo.

It will be very inefficient to govern the DotP if the General Secretary is bombarded with the same Cappie shit-arguments day after day. It will be necessary to limit discourse for the first 20-30 years of the DotP. I think everyone would agree.

First of all, sure if you have a one man dictatorship :P, but if you have a decentralized Anarchist system, Cappies can talk as much as they want, not ones gonna listen, what are they gonna say "You guys were much better off when we made profit off your work." How is that a threat.

We Socialists have higher moral ground, and knowing that there is no reason to stop freedom of speach, if you do, your pretty much saying, "we are afraid of what these people say because they are right." If you think its ok for Socialists to silence cappies to defend their system, then you have no moral argument against a Capitalits state taking away Socialists freedom of speach.

You can't have any type of real democracy without freedom of speach.

Comrade Nadezhda

17th November 2007, 21:21

The major problem with decentralized "communities" is it is hardly a community. The classic assumption is being made that all members of this "community" will be able to come to a common agreement, which cannot be assumed will happen. My argument is coming out of the idea that it won't- because what you suggest is ultimately based upon utopian ideals. My argument is not based upon ideals, it is based upon necessity, just as revolutionary movement hasn't to be based upon necessity as well. If revolutionaries refuse to make necessary actions because they don't see it as being "ideal" or the conditions needing to be formed as being "ideal" it is argued as "repressive". I am not arguing for ideals, I am not arguing for an ideal situation.

Elimination of threats (which includes all counterrevolutionary, reactionary and oppositional forces), violence, civil war, etc. - these are not ideal situations, these are not ideal acts, they are necessary acts resulting from given conditions existent, but it is not ideal.

"Repression" is an irrelevant term. Whether or not is it repressive does not matter. A "worker" that participates in reactionary movement and opposes the worker's movement must be eliminated. Such elimination is not ideal, but it is necessary if the movement is not to be crushed by reactionary movement which has formed externally and will also form internally if such a threat is not eliminated. Therefore, speaking of what "repression" exists in context to revolutionary movement is absurd. Ultimately, an argument of that nature is simply an argument of "utopian ideals" not for the formation of communist society, as certain acts are necessary in attaining communism and are not ideal, as property relations cannot be effectively crushed without crushing the forces which bring them into being.

Revolution will either:

1.) Progress
2.) Regress

Therefore it is true that:

1.) A revolution will progress when acts are taken to sustain its progress and secure its position. i.e. it will not progress if there are threats existent which cause it to weaken.

2.) A revolutionary movement cannot continue to exist (at least not for a long period of time) without progression towards communist society, it will only be able to sustain itself for so long, especially in regards to the army. Armies cannot exist forever, as the means of their existence cannot be everlasting. This is merely a transitional "state". Its resources will become limited the more threats develop against it.

3.) When revolutionary movement cannot progress and can no longer sustain itself to guarantee progression towards communism, it will ultimately regress back into capitalism. This won't happen overnight, but it will ultimately happen as a result of there being a lack of resources it has to sustain itself.

Therefore it can be said that:

1.) For revolutionary movement to progress it must eliminate threats to it.

2.) The elimination of given threats is an act of necessity and is therefore not ideal or "preferable".

3.) Necessary action cannot be characterized by whether or not they are "ideal".

Therefore, such action is not repressive, as the conditions existent are not ideal not necessary.

The entire point I am making in regards to this is that a vanguard is necessary, even when it may not be considered "ideal", and regardless of whether or not it is "ideal" doesn't matter- it only matters what must be done to secure the movement. It doesn't make the movement "elite" either, because the vanguard is not "elite" its existence is not ideal, however its existence is necessary to maintain progression towards communism, as it is impossible that all members of such a "community" will be able to make decisions or even agree on the measures to be taken in regards to all issues. Yes, that is an ideal situation, but it is a utopian argument which involves many assumptions which cannot be made if the revolution is to be successful.

It must be assumed that there will be difficulties, that there will be conflict from within just as outside of the movement. Decentralized organization ultimately only leads to opportunity for counterrevolutionary movement to form within the revolutionary movement and crush it from inside rather than from a distance.

Making the assumption that this won't happen will only lead to the failure of revolutionary movement, as the more assumptions made lead to the inability to defend against threats. It can never be assumed how a threat will manifest itself, the best way to work against it is to acknowledge this and make all efforts to crush its presence and eliminate its ability to crush the revolutionary movement- assuming it will manifest itself in a certain way will cause for the inability to realize certain threats and act against them to effectively eliminate them.

Therefore, it is logical to conclude that many measures may become necessary to be taken later on, and they may not be ideal, but the measures taken by the movement against all threats which manifest themselves will ultimately determine its success or failure.

It would make much more sense to argue for necessary actions rather than ideal actions, because no action in regards to securing revolutionary movement will be ideal, and many necessary actions cannot be determined ahead of their occurance. The best way to deal with this, however, is to not make assumptions in regards to threats, and act upon necessity. This necessity will be distinct among different threats, and the necessity of each action is not to be determined by other actions, as the conditions causing their necessity will never be the same, and always require different means of elimination.

Leading me to conclude that revolutionary movement cannot be based upon ideals if it is to succeed.

The Feral Underclass

17th November 2007, 23:58

Comrade Nadezhda you have repeated your arguments again. I'm beginning to think you're a bit crazy.

Comrade Nadezhda

18th November 2007, 00:00

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 05:58 pm
Comrade Nadezhda you have repeated your arguments again. I'm beginning to think you're a bit crazy.
I repeat them because you continue to make assumptions regardless of how many times it is pointed out that these are assumptions that cannot be made if revolution is to be successful.

The Feral Underclass

18th November 2007, 00:10

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 18, 2007 01:00 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 18, 2007 01:00 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 17, 2007 05:58 pm
Comrade Nadezhda you have repeated your arguments again. I'm beginning to think you're a bit crazy.
I repeat them because you continue to make assumptions regardless of how many times it is pointed out that these are assumptions that cannot be made if revolution is to be successful. [/b]
The "assumptions" that you are talking about have been explained several times. I have responded to your misconceptions of my argument and then you just repeat yourself again. It's very strange.

I suggest you re-read the thread.

Entrails Konfetti

18th November 2007, 19:43

When I think of Centralization I think of an elected, revokable body that coordinates resources to areas around that world. Where one area has more, they transport to an area that has less. Because of imperialism every single area hasn't the resources it can produce locally, so a global coordinating body can locate resources.

As for a strong fighting force in the revolutionary period, it can be combined of workers militias, soldiers and sailors councils, however, there needs to be co-ordinated strategies, and a elected and revokable unifying body which plans the actions of war. Member of this body should have to fight, and they should have the same accomadations and pristige as their constituents.

Finally, the role of the party(ies) during revolution (given they are on the same page as the working-class, and composed of it and its sympathizers) are to advance objectives; they are a think tank with solid platforms and principles. They do not seize power, the workers assemblies do. Ofcourse these assemblies seize power for Socialism when they have same attitude and objectives of the party or other political organizations, such a thing would never happen if they didn't want to act of the objectives, or have the attitude.

Comrade Rage

19th November 2007, 18:45

Originally posted by RGacky+--> (RGacky)Let me ask you, why would anyone decide to be ruled over by a political party completely voluntarily, without any threat of violence and withoutand immediate need. [/b]
Without any need? OK who's going to do all the scut work? The Party isn't just going to have to deal with grandiose problems after the revolution, they are also going to have to provide the public with all the mundane services that will need to be rendered.
RGacky, when was the last time you walked past some roadkill, or other repulsive trash, and decided to dispose of it properly?

My bet is never.

You see, after the revolution has been won, and the dust clears, the new Socialist State will have to send out uniformed, unionized, well-paid workers to do such menial jobs. Why might you ask? Because the the public, during capitalism, has been conditioned with the bourgeosie notion that those jobs, and the people who work them, are inferior and undignified. Not only has this way of thinking turned large portions of America into filthy eyesores, it has made a vast majority of America's moron population into slobs who won't clean up after themselves.

YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?

A very important function of the DotP is to ELIMINATE such backward thinking, through state-sponsored child-care, youth organizations, and a completely rethought public school system-which would put an emphasis on comraderie, respect, knowledge, and Communism.

RGacky3
I don't know, I think the unsupported CNT, made up of untrained (militarily) workers, stood up pretty well against, the Facists, backed my the trained general military, the catholic church, the Germans, the Italians, and the Republicans/Communists backed up by the Comintern and the USSR, I think they did Ok.
I DON'T. Considering another situation, a few years later, a few hundred miles away.

When the Germans violated the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Nonagression Pact in 1941 they mounted a severe offensive (Operation Barbarossa) all the way into the heartland of the USSR that featured the Panzer tank (against which there was not yet a good countermeasure), Heinz Guderian (none other than the guy who MASTERMINDED the Panzer unit tactics), and a seriously superior war industry that was mainly based on forced-labor, and the wholesale theft of property from the Jews.

WHO STOPPED THIS?

The untrained workers and poorly trained infantry of the USSR, in cities such as Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, and Sevastopol. The workers and soldiers were often starving, they had to put up with terrifying urban trench and house-to-house warfare, lack of medical supplies, lack of hospital beds, lack of all human needs.

AND GUESS WHAT? THEY WERE VICTORIOUS!
Even in the case of Sevastopol, which fell after a 847 day siege, they succeeded in delaying the victory of it's conquerors long enough to keep their (needed) presence from Operation Blau, which was the drive towards Grozny and the Caucasus oil-fields.
If that offensive had succeeded, we'd all speaking German right now (those of us lucky to be alive that is).

The workers of the USSR faced a MORE RUTHLESS, BETTER TRAINED AND SUPPLIED enemy, and they beat it out of existence!

Whereas the Spanish anarchists main problems, other than Trot-revisionism, were caused by a basic anarchist lack of organization.

(After all, you need barracks and hierarchy to train soldiers.) :P

The Feral Underclass

19th November 2007, 19:00

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?
You are totally correct but that's not a justification for centralised political authority.

Comrade Rage

19th November 2007, 19:07

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 19, 2007 01:59 pm--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 19, 2007 01:59 pm)
COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?
You are totally correct but that's not a justification for centralised political authority. [/b]
Centralized political authority is the only way such bourgeosie notions have ever been readicated though.

blackstone

19th November 2007, 19:12

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 19, 2007 02:06 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 19, 2007 02:06 pm)
Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 01:59 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?
You are totally correct but that's not a justification for centralised political authority.
Centralized political authority is the only way such bourgeosie notions have ever been readicated though. [/b]
Then according to your theory, Russia and China shouldn't be capitalist..

Comrade Rage

19th November 2007, 19:21

Originally posted by blackstone+November 19, 2007 02:11 pm--> (blackstone @ November 19, 2007 02:11 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 02:06 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 01:59 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?
You are totally correct but that's not a justification for centralised political authority.
Centralized political authority is the only way such bourgeosie notions have ever been readicated though.
Then according to your theory, Russia and China shouldn't be capitalist.. [/b]
I didn't say it was always successful.

When you go about the DotP light-heartedly, and leave too many anti-Communist bourgeosie in power as Russia and China did, you will end up with capitalism (Russia), and state-capitalism (PRC).

Comrade Nadezhda

20th November 2007, 07:12

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 19, 2007 01:20 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 19, 2007 01:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:11 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 02:06 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 01:59 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?
You are totally correct but that's not a justification for centralised political authority.
Centralized political authority is the only way such bourgeosie notions have ever been readicated though.
Then according to your theory, Russia and China shouldn't be capitalist..
I didn't say it was always successful.

When you go about the DotP light-heartedly, and leave too many anti-Communist bourgeosie in power as Russia and China did, you will end up with capitalism (Russia), and state-capitalism (PRC). [/b]
The point is for the revolution to be at all successful the movement has to significantly crush oppositional force. You can't just assume the bourgeoisie will sit on their asses and watch without attempting to crush the revolutionary movement- reactionary movement will develop.

It is also impossible for all property relations and bourgeois bullshit to be completely thrown out overnight, and as that cannot be expected to be the case it cannot be assumed that the use of force against reactionary movment won't be necessary, and it also cannot be assumed that communism will be attained overnight, which is merely what is being suggested with arguments opposing centralized authority.

Yes, in the ideal situation this wouldn't be necessary. But ideals don't exist in revolutionary situations; the measures taken to secure revolution are upon necessity, it cannot be based upon anything else.

It cannot be expected that workers will be united on all matters, the conditions causing class distinction are still existent. These conditions cannot be abolished overnight, it takes transition, which requires centralized authority- it is impossible that all bourgeois ideals, bourgeois ways of life, relations existent in bourgeois society will all diminish overnight. Yes, the state has a role in this- but it is merely an instrument, it is not the cause of the conditions but a means of exaggerating them.

It is impossible to crush bourgeois opposition without eliminating the conditions which allow its existence. It can't be expected that everyone is just going to form a community- the such "community" can't exist until all property, class and former bourgeois relations are entirely eliminated- otherwise, yes, there is plenty of opportunity for the revolution to fail- and it is, then, more likely for it to regress back into capitalism.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2007, 10:12

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 19, 2007 08:20 pm--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 19, 2007 08:20 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:11 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 02:06 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 01:59 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?
You are totally correct but that's not a justification for centralised political authority.
Centralized political authority is the only way such bourgeosie notions have ever been readicated though.
Then according to your theory, Russia and China shouldn't be capitalist..
I didn't say it was always successful. [/b]
It's never been successful.

The Feral Underclass

20th November 2007, 10:20

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 20, 2007 08:11 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 20, 2007 08:11 am)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 01:20 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 19, 2007 02:11 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 02:06 pm

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 19, 2007 01:59 pm

COMRADE [email protected] 19, 2007 07:44 pm
YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE GENERAL POPULATION TO DROP EVERY STUPID CAPITALIST IDEOSYNCRACY THE DAY AFTER THE REVOLUTION, NOW CAN YOU?
You are totally correct but that's not a justification for centralised political authority.
Centralized political authority is the only way such bourgeosie notions have ever been readicated though.
Then according to your theory, Russia and China shouldn't be capitalist..
I didn't say it was always successful.

When you go about the DotP light-heartedly, and leave too many anti-Communist bourgeosie in power as Russia and China did, you will end up with capitalism (Russia), and state-capitalism (PRC).
The point is for the revolution to be at all successful the movement has to significantly crush oppositional force. You can't just assume the bourgeoisie will sit on their asses and watch without attempting to crush the revolutionary movement- reactionary movement will develop.

It is also impossible for all property relations and bourgeois bullshit to be completely thrown out overnight, and as that cannot be expected to be the case it cannot be assumed that the use of force against reactionary movment won't be necessary, and it also cannot be assumed that communism will be attained overnight, which is merely what is being suggested with arguments opposing centralized authority.

Yes, in the ideal situation this wouldn't be necessary. But ideals don't exist in revolutionary situations; the measures taken to secure revolution are upon necessity, it cannot be based upon anything else.

It cannot be expected that workers will be united on all matters, the conditions causing class distinction are still existent. These conditions cannot be abolished overnight, it takes transition, which requires centralized authority- it is impossible that all bourgeois ideals, bourgeois ways of life, relations existent in bourgeois society will all diminish overnight. Yes, the state has a role in this- but it is merely an instrument, it is not the cause of the conditions but a means of exaggerating them.

It is impossible to crush bourgeois opposition without eliminating the conditions which allow its existence. It can't be expected that everyone is just going to form a community- the such "community" can't exist until all property, class and former bourgeois relations are entirely eliminated- otherwise, yes, there is plenty of opportunity for the revolution to fail- and it is, then, more likely for it to regress back into capitalism. [/b]
That's about the eighth time you've said all that.

RGacky3

20th November 2007, 17:28

RGacky, when was the last time you walked past some roadkill, or other repulsive trash, and decided to dispose of it properly?

Well I've done volunteer work before, many times, and willingly cleaned crap without any threat of violence.

Why can't the community decide to share those jobs? Or are they to dumb to figure that out?

The workers of the USSR faced a MORE RUTHLESS, BETTER TRAINED AND SUPPLIED enemy, and they beat it out of existence!

If you want to call that a victory? Millions of millions of Russian workers being slaughtered by dumb ass Generals using WW1 tactics, and wasting the lives of workers en masse, really for one reason, Stalin staying in power.

Whereas the Spanish anarchists main problems, other than Trot-revisionism, were caused by a basic anarchist lack of organization

That was never a problem, EVER, the problem was Stalinist lust for power, no suport from anyone, and being attacked from all sides by huge enemies, there was NEVER a problem with lack of organization.

Labor Shall Rule

21st November 2007, 03:43

I don't understand how creating a democratic and federalist amalgamation of worker's councils, directed through soviet power, and economically centralized in order to overcome underdevelopment and trade imbalances that would otherwise naturally arise between cooperatives with more resources would somehow bring forth another ruling class through the use of this state?

It is an insane generalization to say that a few men would come along, thirsty for power, and simply take over. Stalin, for example, represented several social layers that had definite interests. He did not come along and decide it was time to do very, very evil things that would hurt a lot of people's feelings – there was real economic forces involved that deliberately chose Stalin to violently propell their agenda forward.

There will never be a repeat of Stalinism. Bolshevism is the categorical opposite of Stalinism – it is the conscious factor of the revolutionary working class. It was the theory, program, and inter-organization that successfully conquered power for the dispossessed; the peasants, soldiers, sailors, and workers that took control of their military bases, land plots, and factories and made them run in accordance to their own interests. The death of over a million Marxists to Stalin is not simply a product of a "power struggle." That simply reduces a myriad of economic, political, social and cultural factors present in the Russian Revolution and makes the event a struggle between individuals instead of classes.

So, my question is, if Bolshevism was implemented in a first-world country where the same economic and political obstacles didn't exist, would we still see the result of the Soviet Union?

Led Zeppelin

21st November 2007, 03:50

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 16, 2007 09:39 pm

Political freedom means nothing without economic freedom. We have so-called "political freedom" under capitalism, does this make society any better? Of course not. Economic freedom creates political freedom, or rather, freedom from politics altogether.

Firstly I accept that you are right, economic freedom and political freedom come hand in hand. You cannot have one without the other - That's the issue. Also, I do not accept that we have political freedom under capitalism at all and I find it bizarre that you would make that argument.
I meant formal political freedom, not actual.

Surely you can see the difference between a bourgeois dictatorship and a bourgeois democracy.

Cmde. Slavyanski

21st November 2007, 05:25

Originally posted by RGacky3+November 20, 2007 05:27 pm--> (RGacky3 @ November 20, 2007 05:27 pm)
RGacky, when was the last time you walked past some roadkill, or other repulsive trash, and decided to dispose of it properly?

Well I've done volunteer work before, many times, and willingly cleaned crap without any threat of violence.

Why can't the community decide to share those jobs? Or are they to dumb to figure that out?

The workers of the USSR faced a MORE RUTHLESS, BETTER TRAINED AND SUPPLIED enemy, and they beat it out of existence!

If you want to call that a victory? Millions of millions of Russian workers being slaughtered by dumb ass Generals using WW1 tactics, and wasting the lives of workers en masse, really for one reason, Stalin staying in power.

Whereas the Spanish anarchists main problems, other than Trot-revisionism, were caused by a basic anarchist lack of organization

That was never a problem, EVER, the problem was Stalinist lust for power, no suport from anyone, and being attacked from all sides by huge enemies, there was NEVER a problem with lack of organization. [/b]
So you did some volunteer work; do you assume everyone has the same community spirit and volunteerism as you? Many do not, because they are conditioned not to give a shit.

Rgacky
If you want to call that a victory? Millions of millions of Russian workers being slaughtered by dumb ass Generals using WW1 tactics, and wasting the lives of workers en masse, really for one reason, Stalin staying in power.

This one I quote here because you clearly have no clue what the hell you are talking about. Let me give you a history lesson: The Soviet Union was invaded by Germany, the latter having the intention to cleanse all of Ukraine, Belarus, and European Russia of the Eastern Slavic population, to be replaced by German settlers. This was revealed in Mein Kampf, and remained the goal of the Germans through the war. An example of this was carried out in an area of Poland called the Wartheland.

Now perhaps you'd like to name one of those "dumbass" Generals using WWI tactics. The Soviet Union pioneered many areas of warfare, most notably vertical envelopment. I use that term to highlight the fact that you are commenting on issues you do not understand.

As for the idea that the war was to "keep Stalin" in power, this is ridiculous. This was a war for the survival of all Soviet people west of the Ural mountains. Maybe you ought to take some time to read about what kinds of atrocities were committed by the Axis in occupied Soviet territory. Maybe you ought to get off your privileged Western ass, and go to Ukraine, Belarus, or Russia, and find out what this war was about. Maybe while you're at it you can talk to many elderly people who still long for the days of Stalin.

Oh well, I guess you know more about the Soviet Union and life under Stalin than they do.

Now as for this nonsense about Stalin being power hungry- if Stalin was so power-hungry, why oh why did he almost immediately try to resign from the post that granted him that power? Look it up, he tried to resign more than once. In addition to this there is plenty of records of Stalin's wishes being violated and blocked left and right, throughout his entire tenure.

davidasearles

21st November 2007, 10:20

Labor Shall Rule wrote:

As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power.

Dave S. asks:

Quote please.

Led Zeppelin

21st November 2007, 10:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 10:19 am
Labor Shall Rule wrote:

As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power.

Dave S. asks:

Quote please.
"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." - Marx
Manifesto of the Communist Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/index.htm)

As far as I know a proletarian party is a political organization.

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2007, 11:03

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 21, 2007 04:42 am
I don't understand how creating a democratic and federalist amalgamation of worker's councils, directed through soviet power, and economically centralized in order to overcome underdevelopment and trade imbalances that would otherwise naturally arise between cooperatives with more resources would somehow bring forth another ruling class through the use of this state?
I've explained it in this thread.

It is an insane generalization to say that a few men would come along, thirsty for power, and simply take over

You're very naive then. Moreover, a "few men" are not entitled to such power. The point of a revolution is to seize hold of such power for the the working class. Fighting a revolution and then handing power over to a "few men" is totally antithetical.

Stalin, for example, represented several social layers that had definite interests. He did not come along and decide it was time to do very, very evil things that would hurt a lot of people's feelings – there was real economic forces involved that deliberately chose Stalin to violently propell their agenda forward.

And those conditions will always exist but allowing a "few men" to make the decisions on how to do that, indeed by institutionalising that decision making power you allow situations like Stalin to happen.

There will never be a repeat of Stalinism.

I don't see how it can be avoided if you follow the same model. If you institutionalise political authority into the hands of a "few men" then you are creating the conditions for Stalin to happen again.

So, my question is, if Bolshevism was implemented in a first-world country where the same economic and political obstacles didn't exist, would we still see the result of the Soviet Union?

I don't see why those economic and political obstacles would not exist?

Tower of Bebel

21st November 2007, 11:10

Originally posted by Cmde. [email protected] 21, 2007 07:24 am
Now perhaps you'd like to name one of those "dumbass" Generals using WWI tactics. The Soviet Union pioneered many areas of warfare, most notably vertical envelopment. I use that term to highlight the fact that you are commenting on issues you do not understand.
Thousands of Russian soldiers fought without weapons in 1942-'43. Still, they were sent to the front to fight. It's not something I have picked up from shity movies like enemy at the gates or something.

The German army - in general - was inferior to the Russian army but still managed to reach Moscow within 3 weeks. The reason why is tactical and strategic superiority of the German general staff. The Red army was the most modern and advanced army of the early thirties, but lost most of this advantage by the early 40's.

If by vertical envelopment you mean insertion by the air, then I must tell you that the Red army indeed pioneerd this tactic, but failed to use it effectivly. The Germans were far more advanced by the time the Russians started to use this tactic again.

But this is... off topic.

Cmde. Slavyanski

21st November 2007, 12:32

Originally posted by Rakunin+--> (Rakunin)
Thousands of Russian soldiers fought without weapons in 1942-'43. Still, they were sent to the front to fight. It's not something I have picked up from shity movies like enemy at the gates or something.[/b]

Obviously you did pick that up from a film, because in reality such situations were very rare, usually when units that aren't normally ground units were forced to take up arms. More often than not units being "without rifles" were simply issued machine pistols instead.

Originally posted by [email protected]
The German army - in general - was inferior to the Russian army but still managed to reach Moscow within 3 weeks. The reason why is tactical and strategic superiority of the German general staff. The Red army was the most modern and advanced army of the early thirties, but lost most of this advantage by the early 40's.

Wow, late June to late November of 1941 is THREE WEEKS? The Red Army was in fact not the most advanced army in Europe at the time, and did not achieve significant superiority over the Germans until the end of 1942.

Rakunin
If by vertical envelopment you mean insertion by the air, then I must tell you that the Red army indeed pioneerd this tactic, but failed to use it effectivly. The Germans were far more advanced by the time the Russians started to use this tactic again.

Ok someone here can use Google. Yes, the operational airborne campaigns were failures, mainly due to lack of air transport and weather conditions in each case, but this is far from your "dumbass generals" and "WWI" tactics. Soviet paratroopers fighting in a ground role were crucial to victory at Stalingrad and Kursk, among other places.

So who were these "dumbass" generals anyway? Was it Rodimtsev or Chuikov, who utilized small assualt team and strongpoint tactics in Stalingrad? What is those who employed highly respected night/short range infiltration tactics? Was it Timoshenko who halted the German advance into Ukraine in 1941?

This is on topic because you clearly have a basic lack of knowledge about Soviet history. I notice you chose to ignore every other point I made about Stalin and this topic.

Tower of Bebel

21st November 2007, 13:06

Btw, I'm not RGacky3

Cmde. Slavyanski

21st November 2007, 14:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 01:05 pm
Btw, I'm not RGacky3
Terribly sorry.

davidasearles

21st November 2007, 15:49

Labor Shall Rule wrote:

As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power.

Dave S. asks:

Quote please.

Led Zeppelin quoted the Manifesto:

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.

And Led Zeppelin then commented:

As far as I know a proletarian party is a political organization.

Dave S. comments:

For some reason I didn't see the part about armed seizure.

Marsella

21st November 2007, 15:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 01:18 am
Dave S. comments:

For some reason I didn't see the part about armed seizure.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

You disagree with that analysis? (Not that the skies will fall in...)

Edit:

And there is a key difference between armed seizure and armed overthrow, but I assumed you were remarking on the violent character.

Entrails Konfetti

21st November 2007, 16:02

Originally posted by TAT
I don't see how it can be avoided if you follow the same model. If you institutionalise political authority into the hands of a "few men" then you are creating the conditions for Stalin to happen again.

I don't understand what you mean by "institutionalizing", your syndicalist unions are institutions. Unless you want to make a distinction.

Anyways, IMO, it has alot to do with the policy of War Communism that brought such a corruption about. If you create a secret service for your party that harrasses, and terrorized citizens, you can take power and be unaccountable.

Entrails Konfetti

21st November 2007, 16:06

I forgot to add, also with that policy, the peasants, workers and millitary were transformed into a regular standing army. So with a secret service you can also have the army-- as always the secret service is a director of the millitary.

Marsella

21st November 2007, 16:07

Originally posted by EL [email protected] 22, 2007 01:31 am
Anyways, IMO, it has alot to do with the policy of War Communism that brought such a corruption about. If you create a secret service for your party that harrasses, and terrorized citizens, you can take power and be unaccountable.
Cheka was established in December 1917, quite soon after the Bolsheviks had taken power.

Entrails Konfetti

21st November 2007, 16:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 04:06 pm
Cheka was established in December 1917, quite soon after the Bolsheviks had taken power.
I didn't hear of until War Communism.

I don't mean to derail this thread-- but at that time what did it do?
Was it just Bolsheviks and their supporters telling the MRC what they saw?

The Feral Underclass

21st November 2007, 16:16

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+November 21, 2007 05:01 pm--> (EL KABLAMO @ November 21, 2007 05:01 pm)
TAT
I don't see how it can be avoided if you follow the same model. If you institutionalise political authority into the hands of a "few men" then you are creating the conditions for Stalin to happen again.

I don't understand what you mean by "institutionalizing", your syndicalist unions are institutions. Unless you want to make a distinction. [/b]
Firstly, I'm not a syndicalist. Secondly, what I mean by "institutionalisation" is formalising centralised political structures. I.e. courts, Commissariat for economic planning etc etc.

Essentially I mean a state.

Marsella

21st November 2007, 16:22

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+November 22, 2007 01:43 am--> (EL KABLAMO @ November 22, 2007 01:43 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 04:06 pm
Cheka was established in December 1917, quite soon after the Bolsheviks had taken power.
I didn't hear of until War Communism.

I don't mean to derail this thread-- but at that time what did it do?
Was it just Bolsheviks and their supporters telling the MRC what they saw? [/b]
From the CCCP decree:

"to liquidate counter-revolution and sabotage, to hand over counter-revolutionaries and saboteurs to the revolutionary tribunals, and to apply such measures of repression as 'confiscation, deprivation of ration cards, publication of lists of enemies of the people etc.'"

Originally known as 'The All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counter-Revolution, Speculation, and Sabotage'

It was obviously prominent in War Communism because it played a key role in grain acquisition.

And yes, the Bolsheviks were originally the key controllers of the Cheka - they decreed it after all.

Some left-wing SRs were leaders, but that soon changed when political dissent was attacked.

blackstone

21st November 2007, 16:36

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 16, 2007 01:24 pm

A centralized planned economy has proven to be able to do this better than capitalism, even in a degenerated system without workers democracy in the economic process (see USSR), so it is only logical to believe that with a democratic system in place it would do so countless times better, as innovations would be brought in by the workers themselves, and this would increase efficiency and effectiveness.

Emphasis added, because this is exactly what I and others are proposing when it comes to decentralized and participatory economies. Participatory planning allows participants to exercise direct democracy and allows ordinary citizens to control their own lives. Citizens of a post-revolutionary society will be organized into federations of workers and consumer councils. Workers in worker councils need to articulate proposals on what and how much they want to produce, as well as the resources needed for production. Consumers, on the other hand, will need to express through proposals what and how much they intend to consume. Both production and consumption proposals will be sent to the facilitation board where through a system of proposals, amendments, and rejections, a social plan articulated to cover the entire economy is hashed out.

Let's be like Frank Lucas in American Gangster and cut out all the middle men.

The institutions of a participatory economy embody the values of efficiency and effectiveness that we seek. The institutions of a centrally planned economy however, no matter how valiant our efforts, no matter how beautiful are rhetoric, negate and hamper the realization of these values to take form.

Let's take a look at how central planning can be inefficient and ineffective. All which can be viewed in the history of China and Russia's usage of it.

But, first we must realize that a nation's(or regions') economy is an integrated affair. Therefore, any decisions about production in one industry will have ripple effects elsewhere. This is due to the simple fact that the output of one industry can serve as an input towards another , and thereby makes one industry dependent on another. This integration of industries can be represented through the usage of an input-output matrix.

Input Output Table
Industry Metal Coal
Metal 0 .4 tons
Coal 2 tons 0

Suppose through a democratic and participatory process of proposals, requests, rejections, and amendments, a social plan articulated to cover the entire economy is hashed out. One in which it articulates the need for the Coal industry to produce a net output of 200,000 tons of coal and the Metal industry to produce a net output of 50,000 tons. Suppose, coal is required to produce metal and some amount of metal in the form of tools is required to produce coal. To produce 50,000 tons of Metal requires 2(50,000)=100,000 tons of coal. Likewise the production of 200,000 tons of coal requires (0.4)(200,000)=80,000 tons of metal.

There's a finite amount of resources, that goes for labor, time, natural resources, etc. What we had in Russia and China was resources being over committed. Central planners were committing more resources than were available, so there were persistent shortages. And these shortages weren't prone to one industry, but because an economy is integrated it affected other production units.

But that can be avoided with participatory planning and the roles of central planners. People express their priorities through the usage of workers and consumer councils, and federations of these. This prevents overproduction and potentially useful products being wasted. Participatory planning is the more efficient in gauging the priorities and needs of the people, than central planning could.

Moreover, the government established fixed prices for all inputs and outputs based on the role of the product in the plan and on other noneconomic criteria. The prices did not reflect the supply and demand or relative scarcity of the product. Shortages occured and prices were established too low which resulted in allocation inefficiency and ineffectiveness. So, what we had was some outputs being cheaper than the inputs used to produce it! For example, bread was cheaper than the wheat needed for its production.

But that can be avoided with participatory planning and the roles of central planners. People express their priorities through the usage of workers and consumer councils, and federations of these. This prevents inefficient allocation and goods being over or undervalued which can cause scarcity or overproduction. Participatory planning is the more efficient in gauging the priorities and needs of the people, than central planning could.

In central planned economies, managers were rewarded for meeting assigned goals. Can you see the problem here? In Russia and China, managers manipulated and lied about reaching production goals in order not to be reprimanded and to live the good petite-bourgeois lifestyle. But, remember, economies are integrated. Looking at the input output table i have above, if managers in the coal industry are lying about reaching their output goals or manipulating data, this effects the steel industry, who uses that input to produce steel. This decreases the steel intended target, which affects bike makers, car makers and all other industries that use steel as an input.

Not very efficient or effective, huh?

But that can be avoided with participatory planning and the roles of central planners. People express their priorities through the usage of workers and consumer councils, and federations of these. Worker's self-manage these work units, information is democratized the decision making process is democratized with each actor influencing decisions in proportion in which they are affected by them.This prevents inefficient allocation and goods being over or undervalued which can cause scarcity or overproduction by managers manipulating data. It would be more beneficial to the workers of the work unit and society as a whole to report accurate data. Again, participatory planning is the more efficient in gauging the priorities and needs of the people, than central planning could.

Cheers

Entrails Konfetti

21st November 2007, 16:42

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:15 pm
Firstly, I'm not a syndicalist. Secondly, what I mean by "institutionalisation" is formalising centralised political structures. I.e. courts, Commissariat for economic planning etc etc.
Alright, you're not a syndicalist.

Secondly, what I mean by "institutionalisation" is formalising centralised political structures. I.e. courts, Commissariat for economic planning etc etc.

Come on, you don't have to hastily correct my sentances like I'm some sort of goon. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion without petty mudslinging and ad hominems.

Anyways, I just don't understand how you can direct the economy without electing someone to a post. They can always be revoked and replaced, if they aren't doing things to your liking.

Entrails Konfetti

21st November 2007, 16:46

Originally posted by blackstone
It would be more beneficial to the workers of the work unit and society as a whole to report accurate data. Again, participatory planning is the more efficient in gauging the priorities and needs of the people, than central planning could.

And you would ofcourse elect someone from those councils to give the report, and do things according to their [councils] liking.

RGacky3

21st November 2007, 19:28

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 21, 2007 03:42 am
I don't understand how creating a democratic and federalist amalgamation of worker's councils, directed through soviet power, and economically centralized in order to overcome underdevelopment and trade imbalances that would otherwise naturally arise between cooperatives with more resources would somehow bring forth another ruling class through the use of this state?

It is an insane generalization to say that a few men would come along, thirsty for power, and simply take over. Stalin, for example, represented several social layers that had definite interests. He did not come along and decide it was time to do very, very evil things that would hurt a lot of people's feelings – there was real economic forces involved that deliberately chose Stalin to violently propell their agenda forward.

There will never be a repeat of Stalinism. Bolshevism is the categorical opposite of Stalinism – it is the conscious factor of the revolutionary working class. It was the theory, program, and inter-organization that successfully conquered power for the dispossessed; the peasants, soldiers, sailors, and workers that took control of their military bases, land plots, and factories and made them run in accordance to their own interests. The death of over a million Marxists to Stalin is not simply a product of a "power struggle." That simply reduces a myriad of economic, political, social and cultural factors present in the Russian Revolution and makes the event a struggle between individuals instead of classes.

So, my question is, if Bolshevism was implemented in a first-world country where the same economic and political obstacles didn't exist, would we still see the result of the Soviet Union?

I don't understand how creating a democratic and federalist amalgamation of worker's councils, directed through soviet power, and economically centralized in order to overcome underdevelopment and trade imbalances that would otherwise naturally arise between cooperatives with more resources would somehow bring forth another ruling class through the use of this state?

Democratic and Federalist Amalgamation of workers coucils directed through society power? That was never the power structure in the USSR, workers organizations never had any direct and final power in the USSR given by the Bolshevics (or for that matter any political party), Also you cannot have a true federalist power that is centralized, whichever one has final say outwieghs the other one. The Centralization or Power in the USSR and any modern State Socialist government, had absolutely NOTHING to do with trade imbalances arising between autonomous cooperatives, if that were the case the dopt would be like a socialist WTO, but the truth is, its a political entity with direct control over policy, liberty and the economy.

It is an insane generalization to say that a few men would come along, thirsty for power, and simply take over.

No, it happens all the time.

Stalin, for example, represented several social layers that had definite interests. He did not come along and decide it was time to do very, very evil things that would hurt a lot of people's feelings – there was real economic forces involved that deliberately chose Stalin to violently propell their agenda forward.

Stalin represented his own power interests, he did'nt just decide to do evil things, he felt that to keep onto his power and achieve the things he wanted to acheive in the USSR through his authority it was neccessary to do things I and many others would call evil, you act as if Stalins atrocities were just some economic side effect, but not, Stalin sat in his office and signed death warrents, why? Because he felt this was needed to weed out those not loyal to him.

That simply reduces a myriad of economic, political, social and cultural factors present in the Russian Revolution and makes the event a struggle between individuals instead of classes.

No it was'nt even a struggle at all, it was'nt societies doing, it was'nt some innate thing that caused the gulags deaths, and horrible dictatorships, it was a mans and a handfull of others desicions, written down on paper, and carried out by others. You can try and obscure it by talking about it like a economic class struggle, but in reality it was nothing of the sort, theres no way it could be, when one man and a few others had the power to kill anyone not loyal.

So, my question is, if Bolshevism was implemented in a first-world country where the same economic and political obstacles didn't exist, would we still see the result of the Soviet Union?

If a small group of people, in a first-world country took control of the state, made a 1 party quasi democratic state, centralized the economy, took away freedom of speach, and killed dissentors and those not loyal to the party, it would be pretty bad.

All throughout history, when power has been centralized the resault has been pretty much similar, and the power was never volutnarily given up. The concept that power would just fade because its not needed is just dreaming.

blackstone

21st November 2007, 20:04

Originally posted by EL KABLAMO+November 21, 2007 11:41 am--> (EL KABLAMO @ November 21, 2007 11:41 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 21, 2007 04:15 pm
Firstly, I'm not a syndicalist. Secondly, what I mean by "institutionalisation" is formalising centralised political structures. I.e. courts, Commissariat for economic planning etc etc.
Alright, you're not a syndicalist.

Secondly, what I mean by "institutionalisation" is formalising centralised political structures. I.e. courts, Commissariat for economic planning etc etc.

Come on, you don't have to hastily correct my sentances like I'm some sort of goon. I'm trying to have a reasonable discussion without petty mudslinging and ad hominems.

Anyways, I just don't understand how you can direct the economy without electing someone to a post. They can always be revoked and replaced, if they aren't doing things to your liking. [/b]
What don't you understand, do you want me to go in more detail about participatory economics and decentrally planning economies in general? The economy can function, and quite efficiently i might add, without the direction of order givers, whether they be elected or not.

If you would like me to elaborate in a further post, i would be glad to, comrade. But i would like you to first elaborate more on this statement before i can accurately, or to the best of my knowledge, reply.

And you would ofcourse elect someone from those councils to give the report, and do things according to their [councils] liking.

Labor Shall Rule

21st November 2007, 20:40

To Anarchist Tension

You are right, a “few men” are not entitled to power, but due to the character of society, where communication and work are not yet developed to a point of making “direct democracy” in full form even nearly possible, you would have to delegate authority to officials. All that matters is if they are democratically accountable - subject to recall at any moment, and without the privileges that bourgeois politicians enjoy.

Those “few men” are under the control of economic forces. There was a bourgeois counterrevolution, that was accompanied with the defeat of socialist militants in western Europe, and the invasion and international isolation of the Soviet Republic, which nurtured the nationalist bourgeoisie that Stalin represented, but there was no “few men” that moved the mountains of history to bow to their own will.

To RGacky3

You are an infantile retard, have you even read my posts? I want to bash my dick in with a hammer whenever I read anything you post on this site. As I said, Stalin was the representative of definite social layers that had definite social interests. Stalin was not simply the autonomous "maker of history," he was subjected to the will of certain class forces. He wasn't sitting behind a desk, rubbing his hands together, saying "yes, I am going to destroy liberty forever, and send everyone to a gulag!" I don't see how you could be more blind to, as I said, the historical, economic, and material forces in society.

davidasearles

21st November 2007, 22:12

From the Communist Manifesto

This organisation of the proletarians into a class, and, consequently into a political party, is continually being upset again by the competition between the workers themselves. But it ever rises up again, stronger, firmer, mightier. It compels legislative recognition of particular interests of the workers, by taking advantage of the divisions among the bourgeoisie itself. Thus, the ten-hours’ bill in England was carried.

Altogether collisions between the classes of the old society further, in many ways, the course of development of the proletariat. The bourgeoisie finds itself involved in a constant battle. At first with the aristocracy; later on, with those portions of the bourgeoisie itself, whose interests have become antagonistic to the progress of industry; at all time with the bourgeoisie of foreign countries. In all these battles, it sees itself compelled to appeal to the proletariat, to ask for help, and thus, to drag it into the political arena. The bourgeoisie itself, therefore, supplies the proletariat with its own elements of political and general education, in other words, it furnishes the proletariat with weapons for fighting the bourgeoisie.....

Further, as we have already seen, entire sections of the ruling class are, by the advance of industry, precipitated into the proletariat, or are at least threatened in their conditions of existence. These also supply the proletariat with fresh elements of enlightenment and progress.

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....

The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant, all these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class....

The proletarians cannot become masters of the productive forces of society, except by abolishing their own previous mode of appropriation, and thereby also every other previous mode of appropriation. They have nothing of their own to secure and to fortify; their mission is to destroy all previous securities for, and insurances of, individual property....

Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...ifesto/ch01.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm)

Labor Shall Rule wrote:

As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power.

Dave S. asks:

Quote please.

Led Zeppelin quoted the Manifesto:

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.

And Led Zeppelin then commented:

As far as I know a proletarian party is a political organization.

Dave S. comments:

For some reason I didn't see the part about armed seizure.

Led Zeppelin then quoted the Manifesto:

the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat

Dave S. now comments:

An objective reading of the Manifesto (more fully quoted above) would (not) equate the "violent overthrow" from above to Marx always stressing "armed seizure"?

Zeppelin I would say that yours would be a classic case of quoting out of context.

Marsella

21st November 2007, 22:26

Led Zeppelin then quoted the Manifesto:

the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat

Dave S. now comments:

An objective reading of the Manifesto (more fully quoted above) would equate the "violent overthrow" from above to Marx always stressing "armed seizure"?

Zeppelin I would say that yours would be a classic case of quoting out of context.

Led Zeppelin did not quote that, I did.

Seems you have fallen for the 'classic case of quoting out of context.' Marx could not have put it more clearly than:

In depicting the most general phases of the development of the proletariat, we traced the more or less veiled civil war, raging within existing society, up to the point where that war breaks out into open revolution, and where the violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie lays the foundation for the sway of the proletariat.

As for the real debate, yes Marx stressed the importance of political non-violent dialogue.

But that can only get us so far. The bourgeoisie class will not readily lay down their wealth. Hell, even when a half-arsed socialist enters office he is typically ousted or paralleled with the devil. If you would like to argue the merits of non-violent 'revolution' then start another thread.

Comrade Rage

21st November 2007, 22:30

Originally posted by davidasearles+November 21, 2007 05:11 pm--> (davidasearles @ November 21, 2007 05:11 pm) Led Zeppelin quoted the Manifesto:

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.

And Led Zeppelin then commented:

As far as I know a proletarian party is a political organization.

Dave S. comments:

For some reason I didn't see the part about armed seizure. [/b]
Well then, how do you propose we overthrow the bourgeosie?

(Oh, yeah , right. Your 'brilliant' constitutional amendment. Since it's so easy to amend the constitution.) :rolleyes:

To Dave Searles:
To use the quote function, simply hit the QUOTE BUTTON, paste the text, hit the QUOTE BUTTON again, and go into the first set of brackets, and add =the name. It's simple!

QUOTE=DavidASearles

__________________________________________________ _____________

Originally posted by [email protected]
No, it happens all the time.
Exaggeration?

RGacky
All throughout history, when power has been centralized the resault has been pretty much similar, and the power was never volutnarily given up. The concept that power would just fade because its not needed is just dreaming.
Power would fade because a well-fed, well-educated proletariat would not need authority after the DotP has run it's course. It would become irrelevant.

Of course you call us 'dreamers' because we disagree with your assertion that we can go from a society based on greed to one on mutual aid in a year or two. :rolleyes:

Marsella

21st November 2007, 22:44

Power would fade because a well-fed, well-educated proletariat would not need authority after the DotP has run it's course. It would become irrelevant.

Bureaucrats never tire of being well fed, having nice clothes and not working.

Of course you call us 'dreamers' because we disagree with your assertion that we can go from a society based on greed to one on mutual aid in a year or two. rolleyes.gif

I would call it dreaming when you envision that a dictatorship of a party can do that for you.

And in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Comrade Rage

21st November 2007, 22:50

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 05:43 pm--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 05:43 pm)
Originally posted by yours truly+ COMRADE CRUM--> (yours truly @ COMRADE CRUM)Power would fade because a well-fed, well-educated proletariat would not need authority after the DotP has run it's course. It would become irrelevant.[/b]

Bureaucrats never tire of being well fed, having nice clothes and not working. [/b]
But the proletariat will gradually have no use for them, and they will ultimately be eliminated.

[email protected]

yours truly
Of course you call us 'dreamers' because we disagree with your assertion that we can go from a society based on greed to one on mutual aid in a year or two. rolleyes.gif

I would call it dreaming when you envision that a dictatorship of a party can do that for you.

And in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
What 'evidence' have you?

Comrade Rage

21st November 2007, 22:55

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 05:43 pm--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 05:43 pm)
YOURS [email protected] crum
Of course you call us 'dreamers' because we disagree with your assertion that we can go from a society based on greed to one on mutual aid in a year or two. rolleyes.gif

I would call it dreaming when you envision that a dictatorship of a party can do that for you. [/b]
BTW Martov the state doesn't do that--the party and the people do that.

The state FACILITATES social change.

Marsella

21st November 2007, 22:56

But the proletariat will gradually have no use for them, and they will ultimately be eliminated.

Bureaucrats don't eliminate themselves any more than parliaments decree their abolition!

What 'evidence' have you?

Russia had 70 odd years of a dictatorship of the party, they did not manage to change the USSR from a society based on greed to a society based on mutual aid.

They managed to put a man in space, but not that.

21st November 2007, 23:03

Bureaucrats don't eliminate themselves any more than parliaments decree their abolition!

And the proletariat is, what, not powerful enough to rid themselves of bureaucracy? Too stupid? Too willing to be led? What an anti-proletarian position to take (and an anti-Marxist one as well).

History is made by classes, not leaders.

Comrade Rage

21st November 2007, 23:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 05:55 pm

But the proletariat will gradually have no use for them, and they will ultimately be eliminated.

Bureaucrats don't eliminate themselves any more than parliaments decree their abolition!
Comrade the state doesn't make the state irrelevant--the Party does.

It is possible.

Martov, I know what happens when I assume, but I believe you are a Menshevik, am I right?

What is the Menshy alternative to the DotP?

Marsella

21st November 2007, 23:14

And the proletariat is, what, not powerful enough to rid themselves of bureaucracy? Too stupid? Too willing to be led? What an anti-proletarian position to take (and an anti-Marxist one as well).

Probably the threat of a trip to Siberia.

Comrade the state doesn't make the state irrelevant--the Party does

It sounds nice but could you come up with an argument to prove it?

Does not the Party have a vested interest in keeping their power as long as possible.

They are 'mere individuals' after all.

Martov, I know what happens when I assume, but I believe you are a Menshevik, am I right?

No! :lol:

True, I agree with some of what Julius Martov wrote, but I am not a Menshevik. They were dead 90 odd years ago. Edit: and that's not to mention that the Mensheviks were an extremely ideological wide-ranging group: from socialist liberals who supported the war and the provisional government, to extreme left wing Marxists.

What is the Menshy alternative to the DotP?

The communist alternative would be a revolution that puts power in the hands of the working class, that puts puts workers in fundamental control of their means of production. If there are bureaucrats, they should be immediately recallable and a working body rather than a parliamentarian body. In short, the Paris Commune best represents what the dictatorship of the proletariat is. Engels said it himself. It is not the dictatorship of the party. If you are sincerely interested in what the dictatorship of the proletariat is, I suggest you read The Civil War in France (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm)

21st November 2007, 23:16

Probably the threat of a trip to Siberia.

Good to know how anti-working class you really are.

No!

Yes you are. You claimed in another thread that the material conditions weren't right for proletarian revolution and that you would have supported the bourgeois government against the Bolsheviks.

Marsella

21st November 2007, 23:23

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 22, 2007 08:45 am

Probably the threat of a trip to Siberia.

Good to know how anti-working class you really are.

No!

Yes you are. You claimed in another thread that the material conditions weren't right for proletarian revolution and that you would have supported the bourgeois government against the Bolsheviks.
It is anti-working class to understand that a person will not express dissent when facing severe consequences?

Its just realistic.

Those that tried in Russia were systematically wiped out.

Kronstadt, Tambov rebellions etc.

The force of the state crushed down on them.

And if you want to turn this into 'I am more proletarian than thou' debate then I trust you will leave your full working class credentials, right?

I said I supported the democratically elected C.A of 1918 which the Bolsheviks disbanded. And yes, I would support that any day to a dictatorship of a party.

Edit: and I'll note that even the Bolsheviks held a minority in that government.

So please Zampano, stop with your petty personal attacks.

Its just boring and adds no value to the argument.

Comrade Rage

21st November 2007, 23:26

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 06:13 pm--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 06:13 pm)
And the proletariat is, what, not powerful enough to rid themselves of bureaucracy? Too stupid? Too willing to be led? What an anti-proletarian position to take (and an anti-Marxist one as well).

Probably the threat of a trip to Siberia. [/b]
Stop being a demagogue!

Originally posted by Martov+--> (Martov)
Comrade the state doesn't make the state irrelevant--the Party does

Martov, I know what happens when I assume, but I believe you are a Menshevik, am I right?

No! :lol:

True, I agree with some of what Julius Martov wrote, but I am not a Menshevik. They were dead 90 odd years ago. Edit: and that's not to mention that the Mensheviks were an extremely ideological wide-ranging group: from socialist liberals who supported the war and the provisional government, to extreme left wing Marxists.[/b]
Seeing as your name is Martov and your member title is Menshy! I thought it was a fair question.

Originally posted by Martov
It sounds nice but could you come up with an argument to prove it?

Does not the Party have a vested interest in keeping their power as long as possible.

Not in a one-party state-that pursuit will become irrelevant and archaic.

[email protected]
If you are sincerely interested in what the dictatorship of the proletariat is, I suggest you read http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/index.htm]The (http://anonym.to/?[url) Civil War in France[/url]
I will reread it.

Zampanò
Yes you are. You claimed in another thread that the material conditions weren't right for proletarian revolution and that you would have supported the bourgeois government against the Bolsheviks.
I remember that one. I can't search for it right now as I am short on time.

Comrade Rage

21st November 2007, 23:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 pm
Kronstadt, Tambov rebellions etc.
Kronstadt - where the anarchists betrayed the Communists!?

That wasn't dissent!

Marsella

21st November 2007, 23:37

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 22, 2007 08:57 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 22, 2007 08:57 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 pm
Kronstadt, Tambov rebellions etc.
Kronstadt - where the anarchists betrayed the Communists!?

That wasn't dissent! [/b]
Funny, I seem to remember the Kronstadt sailors being amongst the most loyal supporters of the Bolsheviks.

So one day they are fierce proletarian warriors, the next they are anarchists?

I said this in another thread:

The Krondstat rebellion:

Demands:

1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be held by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, soldiers and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution.
13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.

The Petrograd workers were under martial law and could offer little support to Kronstadt. The rebellion was crushed with some 60,000 troops. Thousands of rebels died, thousands more imprisoned and even more fled.

The day after the surrender of Kronstadt, the Bolsheviks celebrated the fiftieth anniversary of the Paris Commune.

How ironic is that!

How are their demands anarchistic or anti-working class?

Edit: If you want to see what I actually wrote, then here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72156) it is. I have argued against most of what you have said, so perhaps you should read this so you don't have to repeat the arguments which others have raised and I don't have to repeat my responses. Cool?

21st November 2007, 23:50

Yayyyyy Kronstadt!

However, the final nail in the coffin for the anti-Bolshevik mythology built up around Kronstadt comes later. According to documents published in these two books new facts emerge about what happened in the town around Kronstadt. During the attack on Kronstadt, the workers of the town moved against the putschists and liberated the town even before the main forces of the Red Army arrived. So in reality what we had was not a workers' and sailors' rebellion against Bolshevism, but a workers' and sailors' Bolshevik uprising against the "rebels"!

In the proclamations of the Kronstadt sailors we see the words that refer to "the men of the White guards that are leading the rebels ". These were not mere words. The real command over the rebels was concentrated not in the Kronstadt soviet, as some naive individuals may think, but in the so-called "Court for the Defence of Kronstadt Fortress". One of its leaders was rear-admiral S.H. Dmitriev (who was executed after the fortress fall), the other was general A. H. Koslovsky, who escaped to Finland. Both of these senior officers were very far from having any kind of sympathy for Socialism "with Bolsheviks" or "without Bolsheviks".

There is also much talk about S. M. Petrechenko - the sailor and anti-Bolshevik leader. What is really interesting is to note that in 1927 this man was recruited by Stalin's GPU and he was one of Stalin's agent until 1944 when he was arrested by the Finnish authorities. The following year he died in a Finnish concentration camp.

So, the real story is that the Kronstadt workers and sailors actually understood the real nature of these rebels far better than any of the later intellectuals who have tried to build up the myth of Kronstadt. The same can be said of the counterrevolutionary forces that were operating in Kronstadt. The former Tsarist prime-minister and finance minister, and in emigration the director of the Russian Bank in Paris, Kokovzev, transferred 225 thousand francs to the Kronstadt rebels. The Russian-Asian bank transferred 200 thousand francs. The French prime-minister, Briand, during the meeting with the former ambassador of Kerensky's government, Malachov, promised "any necessary help to Kronstadt".
Source (http://www.marxist.com/History/Trotsky_was_right.html)

Also, Hue and Cry Over Kronstadt (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm).

Marsella

22nd November 2007, 00:04

Tauride Palace was crowded and a special body of kursanti surrounded the platform. The atmosphere was very tense. All waited for Trotsky. But when at 10 o'clock he had not arrived, Zinoviev opened the meeting. Before he had spoken fifteen minutes I was convinced that he himself did not believe in the story of Kozlovsky. "Of course Kozlovsky is old and can do nothing," he said, "but the White officers are back of him and are misleading the sailors." Yet for days the Soviet papers had heralded General Kozlovsky as the moving spirit in the "uprising." Kalinin, whom the sailors had permitted to leave Kronstadt unmolested, raved like a fishmonger. He denounced the sailors as counter-revolutionists and called for their immediate subjugation. Several other Communists followed suit. When the meeting was opened for discussion, a workingman from the Petrograd Arsenal demanded to be heard. He spoke with deep emotion and, ignoring the constant interruptions, he fearlessly declared that the workers had been driven to strike because of the Government's indifference to their complaints; the Kronstadt sailors, far from being counter-revolutionists, were devoted to the Revolution. Facing Zinoviev he reminded him that the Bolshevik authorities were now acting toward the workers and sailors just as the Kerensky Government had acted toward the Bolsheviki. "Then you were denounced as counter-revolutionists and German agents," he said; "we, the workers and sailors, protected you and helped you to power. Now you denounce us and are ready to attack us with arms. Remember, you are playing with fire."

Then a sailor spoke. He referred to the glorious revolutionary past of Kronstadt, appealed to the Communists not to engage in fratricide, and read the Kronstadt resolution to prove the peaceful attitude of the sailors. But the voice of these sons of the people fell on deaf ears. The Petro-Soviet, its passions roused by Bolshevik demagoguery, passed the Zinoviev resolution ordering Kronstadt to surrender on pain of extermination.

The Kronstadt sailors were ever the first to serve the Revolution. They had played an important part in the revolution of 1905; they were in the front ranks in 1917. Under Kerensky's regime they proclaimed the Commune of Kronstadt and opposed the Constituent Assembly. They were the advance guard in the October Revolution. In the great struggle against Yudenitch the sailors offered the strongest defense of Petrograd, and Trotsky praised them as the "pride and glory of the Revolution." Now, however, they had dared to raise their voice in protest against the new rulers of Russia. That was high treason from the Bolshevik viewpoint. The Kronstadt sailors were doomed.

Kronstadt - Emma Goldman (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1920s/disillusionment/ch27.htm)

:lol:

You're trying to claim that the workers themselves fought the rebels and that when Trotsky came in with 60,000 troops the rebellion was already put down?

And whilst we are on the topic, what happened to all the left-SRs and the Mensheviks?

Hell, what happened to all political parties which opposed the Bolsheviks to some degree?

Did they just disappear? How thoroughly materialist of you!

And my point remains: try and criticise the Bolsheviks in 1918-21 and your future won't look so bright.

Comrade Rage

22nd November 2007, 00:04

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 06:36 pm--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 06:36 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 22, 2007 08:57 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 pm
Kronstadt, Tambov rebellions etc.
Kronstadt - where the anarchists betrayed the Communists!?

That wasn't dissent!
Funny, I seem to remember the Kronstadt sailors being amongst the most loyal supporters of the Bolsheviks.

So one day they are fierce proletarian warriors, the next they are anarchists? [/b]
Err.. when they take up the anarchist cause they are. :rolleyes:

Kronstadt betrayed the Communists--you expected them NOT to react?

Marsella

22nd November 2007, 00:06

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 22, 2007 09:33 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 22, 2007 09:33 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:36 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 22, 2007 08:57 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 pm
Kronstadt, Tambov rebellions etc.
Kronstadt - where the anarchists betrayed the Communists!?

That wasn't dissent!
Funny, I seem to remember the Kronstadt sailors being amongst the most loyal supporters of the Bolsheviks.

So one day they are fierce proletarian warriors, the next they are anarchists?
Err.. when they take up the anarchist cause they are. :rolleyes:

Kronstadt betrayed the Communists--you expected them NOT to react? [/b]
No I expect that when sailors demand free speech and new elections they are to be taken seriously.

And once again, how did they take up the anarchist cause? Or is that just a 'dirty' word you like to throw around without any proof to back it up?

22nd November 2007, 00:11

No I expect that when sailors demand free speech and new elections they are to be taken seriously.

It doesn't matter what they demanded; the uprising itself was reactionary, led by bourgeois officers and composed of reactionary peasantry and other demoralized elements. You should try reading that Trotsky piece I linked to; maybe you'll learn something instead of me having to spoon feed it to you.

Comrade Rage

22nd November 2007, 00:14

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 07:05 pm--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 07:05 pm)
Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 22, 2007 09:33 am

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:36 pm

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 22, 2007 08:57 am

[email protected] 21, 2007 06:22 pm
Kronstadt, Tambov rebellions etc.
Kronstadt - where the anarchists betrayed the Communists!?

That wasn't dissent!
Funny, I seem to remember the Kronstadt sailors being amongst the most loyal supporters of the Bolsheviks.

So one day they are fierce proletarian warriors, the next they are anarchists?
Err.. when they take up the anarchist cause they are. :rolleyes:

Kronstadt betrayed the Communists--you expected them NOT to react?
No I expect that when sailors demand free speech and new elections they are to be taken seriously.

And once again, how did they take up the anarchist cause? Or is that just a 'dirty' word you like to throw around without any proof to back it up? [/b]
They were taking advantage of the USSR at a strategically vulnerable time--that's counterrevolutionary. Much like the Maknoites in the Ukraine.

Marsella

22nd November 2007, 00:20

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 22, 2007 09:40 am

No I expect that when sailors demand free speech and new elections they are to be taken seriously.

It doesn't matter what they demanded; the uprising itself was reactionary, led by bourgeois officers and composed of reactionary peasantry and other demoralized elements. You should try reading that Trotsky piece I linked to; maybe you'll learn something instead of me having to spoon feed it to you.
I have bookmarked it and will read it.

But I will hardly be spoon-fed it. Trotsky wrote it after all.

It would be like asking a politician their view on a wage increase for themselves! :lol:

And you can scarcely judge the whole rebellion on a few officers.

People (edit: I mean peoples or groups or classes) make history, not individuals after all.

And yes, their demands were quite important and relevant.

Why else would they have rebelled if not to set out to get those clear demands?

Oh, and I see that you did ignore all those missing SRs, Mensheviks and dissidents.

Unsurprising.

davidasearles

22nd November 2007, 00:28

Martov:

Marx stressed the importance of political non-violent dialogue.

But that can only get us so far.

Dave S.:

I have no idea what "so far" refers to, however this is slightly different from the post by Labor Shall Rule that I questioned:

"As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power."

Thank you,

Marsella

22nd November 2007, 00:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 09:57 am
Martov:

Marx stressed the importance of political non-violent dialogue.

But that can only get us so far.

Dave S.:

I have no idea what "so far" refers to, however this is slightly different from the post by Labor Shall Rule that I questioned:

"As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power."

Thank you,
I think Engels said it quite well:

Will the peaceful abolition of private property be possible?

It would be desirable if this could happen, and the communists would certainly be the last to oppose it. Communists know only too well that all conspiracies are not only useless, but even harmful. They know all too well that revolutions are not made intentionally and arbitrarily, but that, everywhere and always, they have been the necessary consequence of conditions which were wholly independent of the will and direction of individual parties and entire classes.

But they also see that the development of the proletariat in nearly all civilized countries has been violently suppressed, and that in this way the opponents of communism have been working toward a revolution with all their strength. If the oppressed proletariat is finally driven to revolution, then we communists will defend the interests of the proletarians with deeds as we now defend them with words. Edit: Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm)

So, peaceful change as far as it can be substantiated.

I am sure that most here would agree to that.

If you disagree then that is your prerogative and best of luck to a peaceful path.

Comrade Rage

22nd November 2007, 00:44

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 07:19 pm--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 07:19 pm)
Zampanò@November 22, 2007 09:40 am

No I expect that when sailors demand free speech and new elections they are to be taken seriously.

It doesn't matter what they demanded; the uprising itself was reactionary, led by bourgeois officers and composed of reactionary peasantry and other demoralized elements. You should try reading that Trotsky piece I linked to; maybe you'll learn something instead of me having to spoon feed it to you.
I have bookmarked it and will read it.

But I will hardly be spoon-fed it. Trotsky wrote it after all.

It would be like asking a politician their view on a wage increase for themselves! :lol:

And you can scarcely judge the whole rebellion on a few officers.

People (edit: I mean peoples or groups or classes) make history, not individuals after all.

And yes, their demands were quite important and relevant.

Why else would they have rebelled if not to set out to get those clear demands?

Oh, and I see that you did ignore all those missing SRs, Mensheviks and dissidents.

Unsurprising. [/b]
The sailors were being used as tools.

Unfortunately the sailors bought into the propaganda of the reactionaries.

Martov has such a permissive view of 'revolutions' he probably believes the Confederacy was revolutionary. :lol:

Marsella

22nd November 2007, 00:54

Originally posted by COMRADE CRUM+November 22, 2007 10:13 am--> (COMRADE CRUM @ November 22, 2007 10:13 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 07:19 pm

Zampanò@November 22, 2007 09:40 am

No I expect that when sailors demand free speech and new elections they are to be taken seriously.

It doesn't matter what they demanded; the uprising itself was reactionary, led by bourgeois officers and composed of reactionary peasantry and other demoralized elements. You should try reading that Trotsky piece I linked to; maybe you'll learn something instead of me having to spoon feed it to you.
I have bookmarked it and will read it.

But I will hardly be spoon-fed it. Trotsky wrote it after all.

It would be like asking a politician their view on a wage increase for themselves! :lol:

And you can scarcely judge the whole rebellion on a few officers.

People (edit: I mean peoples or groups or classes) make history, not individuals after all.

And yes, their demands were quite important and relevant.

Why else would they have rebelled if not to set out to get those clear demands?

Oh, and I see that you did ignore all those missing SRs, Mensheviks and dissidents.

Unsurprising.
The sailors were being used as tools.

Unfortunately the sailors bought into the propaganda of the reactionaries.

Martov has such a permissive view of 'revolutions' he probably believes the Confederacy was revolutionary. :lol: [/b]
Could I not say that the Russian proletariat were being used as tools to advance the aims of the Bolsheviks?

The only difference is, they succeeded.

Unless you are willing to add some arguments, there is hardly much motivation to continue this debate.

Martov has such a permissive view of 'revolutions' he probably believes the Confederacy was revolutionary. :lol:

:rolleyes:

I don't deny a revolution occurred in Russia in 1917.

I maintain that a bourgeoisie revolution occurred.

As for storming a palace, that is barely revolutionary.

And what gains were made were soon reversed.

But your arguments are quite boring, I have debated them before in the thread I gave you. I scarcely feel like debating them again, least of all with a Stalinist (or Marxist-Leninist as you prefer to be called)

I am interested in the working class taking hold of the means of production and radically changing society through their own hands.

If you agree with that then we see eye to eye.

Leninists want a party to take control.

That is the fundamental difference and one I will not accept.

Comrade Rage

22nd November 2007, 01:44

Martov-for all of your invective, criticisms, etc about the Bolsheviks being 'bourgeosie' you haven't stated what you would do differently.

Be constructive-I'm sick of the shouting game.

What would you differently? How would you 'put the revolution in the hands of the masses?

Originally posted by Martov+--> (Martov)least of all with a Stalinist[/b]
What are your politics?

Martov
Could I not say that the Russian proletariat were being used as tools to advance the aims of the Bolsheviks?
No you can't-the Russian communists were fully educated by a decades long effort by the Bolsheviks. You can't equate that with a counterrevolution led by naval officers (let's call it what it was--a military coup).

Comrade Nadezhda

22nd November 2007, 01:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 06:03 pm
And whilst we are on the topic, what happened to all the left-SRs and the Mensheviks?

Hell, what happened to all political parties which opposed the Bolsheviks to some degree?

Did they just disappear? How thoroughly materialist of you!

And my point remains: try and criticise the Bolsheviks in 1918-21 and your future won't look so bright.
Are you saying there was no necessity in regard to the elimination of threats? :huh:

What you are disregarding is that the Mensheviks and SRs were not revolutionary. They simply argued for bourgeois revolution to be followed by proletarian revolution. They did not support true proletarian revolution, but instead they advocated for reformist movement with a bourgeois revolution to "make way for social change" for a proletarian revolution to occur. They ultimately were not advocating for proletarian interests, but bourgeois interests- as the such couldn't possibly ever lead to proletarian revolution. I very well understand the conditions existent, especially in regards to industrialization- but the Mensheviks and SRs were not truly representing proletarian movement- instead they were advocating for movement which ultimately would only reform bourgeois rule, never to make way for the formation of a worker's state. It seems you misunderstand the entire context of which elimination of counterrevolutionary/bourgeois reactionary movement took place.

It isn't a matter of "working class" at this point. This is merely a misunderstanding of the necessary measures to be taken in regards to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Revolution certainly doesn't come without bloodshed, violence and civil war. Assuming revolutionary situations will be "peaceful" is absurd. There is no ideal revolutionary situation, only the necessary-- which can only bring about acts of necessity.

i.e. to secure any revolutionary movement there are certain necessary measures to be taken (the elimination of counterrevolutionary and bourgeois reactionary threats, also any other threats which manifest themselves and have potential to weaken the revolutionary movement).

It doesn't necessarily matter whether or not they are "workers" at that point, but if they will weaken the movement. It isn't necessarily important what class they are part of then- the point is, regardless of that, if they are merely an instrument used by counterrevolutionary movements as a means of weakening the revolutionary movement they are a threat.

Whether or not they are a "worker" is unimportant. They aren't serving in the interests of their own class (if they are proletarian) so using the excuse that they are workers and shouldn't be eliminated as threats is absurd. They aren't simply opposing the "party" they are then opposing revolutionary movement. The longer these threats are ignored- the more they will develop with enough significant force to weaken the revolutionary movement.

You can say that centralization, the vanguard, 'Leninism', the Bolsheviks, etc. is repressive but you have yet to make a valid claim in that regard. It is clear your misconception of the Mensheviks/SRs contributes to your inability to see the difference between revolutionary and reactionary bourgeois movement.

Marsella

22nd November 2007, 02:29

Are you saying there was no necessity in regard to the elimination of threats? huh.gif

I scarcely see the point in eliminating parties which already formed sections in the Soviets and C.A.

How were the Mensheviks and the SRs a threat to the Bolsheviks? Really, the Bolsheviks party had all the control so I fail to see the reason why they did such - apart from consolidating their own power.

What you are disregarding is that the Mensheviks and SRs were not revolutionary.

As I have stated, you cannot paint the whole Mensheviks and SRs with one brush.

Left wing SRs had alliances with the Bolsheviks. So did various Mensheviks.

They simply argued for bourgeois revolution to be followed by proletarian revolution. They did not support true proletarian revolution, but instead they advocated for reformist movement with a bourgeois revolution to "make way for social change" for a proletarian revolution to occur.

Even Lenin recognised that the first aim of the USSR was state capitalism, to reform before they could 'make way for social change' for a proletarian revolution to occur:

You say that civilization is necessary for the building of socialism. Very good. But why could we not first create such prerequisites of civilization in our country by the expulsion of the landowners and the Russian capitalists, and then start moving toward socialism? Where, in what books, have you read that such variations of the customary historical sequence of events are impermissible or impossible?

They ultimately were not advocating for proletarian interests, but bourgeois interests- as the such couldn't possibly ever lead to proletarian revolution. I very well understand the conditions existent, especially in regards to industrialization- but the Mensheviks and SRs were not truly representing proletarian movement- instead they were advocating for movement which ultimately would only reform bourgeois rule, never to make way for the formation of a worker's state.

Once again, you paint with a very broad brush. But I quite accept that there were reactionary socialists and liberals in both parties. I scarcely defend them.

It seems you misunderstand the entire context of which elimination of counterrevolutionary/bourgeois reactionary movement took place.

On the contrary, Lenin was shot by an SR (allegedly) then he took immediate steps to have them eliminated. That is to ignore the fact that the Bolsheviks too abolished whatever power the SRs and Mensheviks had, by abolishing the C.A.

Was the abolishment of the democratically elected CA - which the Bolsheviks only had 25% - necessary?

It isn't a matter of "working class" at this point. This is merely a misunderstanding of the necessary measures to be taken in regards to the dictatorship of the proletariat. Revolution certainly doesn't come without bloodshed, violence and civil war. Assuming revolutionary situations will be "peaceful" is absurd. There is no ideal revolutionary situation, only the necessary-- which can only bring about acts of necessity.

Quote me where I have argued that a revolution will be peaceful.

There is a difference between eliminating threats to a worker's revolution, and eliminating threats to a parties personal enemies.

It doesn't necessarily matter whether or not they are "workers" at that point, but if they will weaken the movement. It isn't necessarily important what class they are part of then- the point is, regardless of that, if they are merely an instrument used by counterrevolutionary movements as a means of weakening the revolutionary movement they are a threat.

Whether or not they are a "worker" is unimportant. They aren't serving in the interests of their own class (if they are proletarian) so using the excuse that they are workers and shouldn't be eliminated as threats is absurd. They aren't simply opposing the "party" they are then opposing revolutionary movement. The longer these threats are ignored- the more they will develop with enough significant force to weaken the revolutionary movement.

So, if workers like those in Kronstadt or the peasants in Tambov raised objections it would be quite legitimate to ruthlessly put those movements down?

Unless you have ever dealt with killing someone I think you are not in position to pass such harsh judgement. And in fact, the slogans of the opposition was Soviets without Bolsheviks. So, they quite clearly advocated socialist revolution, not counter-revolution.

You can say that centralization, the vanguard, 'Leninism', the Bolsheviks, etc. is repressive but you have yet to make a valid claim in that regard. It is clear your misconception of the Mensheviks/SRs contributes to your inability to see the difference between revolutionary and reactionary bourgeois movement.

Not are they only repressive, but they tend to end up in 'counter-revolution.'

Something which you have failed to prove is why it will not happen again.

And yes I have made numerous valid regards to the uselessness of a dictatorship of the party, I suggest you read the arguments by TAT and Blackstone. I think we are all getting tired of refuting your arguments and listening to your same posts.

CRUM:

Martov-for all of your invective, criticisms, etc about the Bolsheviks being 'bourgeosie' you haven't stated what you would do differently.

I never said they were bourgeoisie, but they certainly ended up developing those conditions. And I have stated my ideas numerous times, of what I consider a workers revolution to be.

Be constructive-I'm sick of the shouting game.

I haven't flamed you once, merely criticised your arguments and politics (unless you count referring to you as a Stalinist as flaming). You have posted some quite obnoxious statements.

What would you differently? How would you 'put the revolution in the hands of the masses?

I wouldn't do anything different because a revolution has nothing to do with me personally, or at least the control of it.

It is the domain of the working class, pure and simple. It is up to them to battle it out with their capitalists, to abolish the old state and set up a new system.

A party can not substitute class struggle. The very best they can do is act as an organising role and a educational role.

What are your politics?

Communist.

No you can't-the Russian communists were fully educated by a decades long effort by the Bolsheviks. You can't equate that with a counterrevolution led by naval officers (let's call it what it was--a military coup).

And how does October 1917 differ from a coup?

Let's be serious, they overtook the Provisional government. There was no taking over of the means of production by the workers. It was a government change.

Now, even if you disagree that October 1917 was a coup, Lenin himself admitted that the Soviets had become a mere ceremonial body, that their worth had dried up:

...we passed from worker's control to the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy...

and

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, 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.

Comrade Rage

22nd November 2007, 02:46

Originally posted by Martov+November 21, 2007 09:28 pm--> (Martov @ November 21, 2007 09:28 pm) CRUM:

Martov-for all of your invective, criticisms, etc about the Bolsheviks being 'bourgeosie' you haven't stated what you would do differently.

I never said they were bourgeoisie, but they certainly ended up developing those conditions. [/b]
Then we are in partial agreement. (I don't think the USSR became bourgeosie until 'de-Stalinization.)

Martov

What are your politics?

Communist.

Elaborate. Maoist, Leninist, Stalinist, dyslexic Satlinist, etc.

And also, cite your quotes. It makes it so much easier for the reader.

Comrade Nadezhda

22nd November 2007, 03:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 08:28 pm
I scarcely see the point in eliminating parties which already formed sections in the Soviets and C.A.

How were the Mensheviks and the SRs a threat to the Bolsheviks? Really, the Bolsheviks party had all the control so I fail to see the reason why they did such - apart from consolidating their own power.
They had different interests, different means of attaining them, that is evident. The differences couldn't resolve in their union, lets put it that way- otherwise they wouldn't have separated.

Left wing SRs had alliances with the Bolsheviks. So did various Mensheviks.

Even Lenin recognised that the first aim of the USSR was state capitalism, to reform before they could 'make way for social change' for a proletarian revolution to occur:
Through different means. Lenin recognized the need for centralization of power to secure the proletarian state and he didn't let "ideals" get in the way, as no revolutionary should- necessary acts and ideals can't be associated with each other.

Once again, you paint with a very broad brush. But I quite accept that there were reactionary socialists and liberals in both parties. I scarcely defend them.
You deny the importance of eliminating threats. A movement would fail without doing so.

On the contrary, Lenin was shot by an SR (allegedly) then he took immediate steps to have them eliminated. That is to ignore the fact that the Bolsheviks too abolished whatever power the SRs and Mensheviks had, by abolishing the C.A.
So you would justify shooting Lenin? :huh: Well, either way- that wouldn't be a surprise coming from you.

Was the abolishment of the democratically elected CA - which the Bolsheviks only had 25% - necessary?
Yes, it threatened the movement.

Quote me where I have argued that a revolution will be peaceful.
Well you certainly make the assumption that a decentralized state wouldn't be chaotic...

There is a difference between eliminating threats to a worker's revolution, and eliminating threats to a parties personal enemies.
Yes, there certainly is, but the Bolsheviks didn't simply "eliminate threats to their party".

So, if workers like those in Kronstadt or the peasants in Tambov raised objections it would be quite legitimate to ruthlessly put those movements down?
Any movement which causes threat to revolutionary movement is necessary to be eliminated.

Unless you have ever dealt with killing someone I think you are not in position to pass such harsh judgement. And in fact, the slogans of the opposition was Soviets without Bolsheviks. So, they quite clearly advocated socialist revolution, not counter-revolution.
Regardless of how they advocated for it, it still means the same thing: reactionary bourgeois movement proposing a bourgeois revolution.

Not are they only repressive, but they tend to end up in 'counter-revolution.'

Something which you have failed to prove is why it will not happen again.
Are you denying the conditions existent, because it seems you completely misunderstand the civil war, the conditions which caused it making it necessary to eliminate threats and how it ultimately impacted the future of the proletarian state.

It isn't simply: Lenin --> Stalin
or
the Bolsheviks ---> failure of the revolution

it is much more complex than that.

A movement is not "repressive" when it is necessary.

davidasearles

22nd November 2007, 05:03

Martov:

So, peaceful change as far as it can be substantiated.

I am sure that most here would agree to that.

If you disagree then that is your prerogative and best of luck to a peaceful path.

Dave S.:

I do not disagree at all. What I disagreed with was the statement by Labor Shall Rule:

"As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power."

22nd November 2007, 05:11

I like how Martov changed the subject from Kronstadt after he got pwnt.

davidasearles

22nd November 2007, 08:11

As to the basic question: How long should the DotP last? I would answer that the premise has not been totally established that under all or even any circumstances for most of the industrial world that there would be a period between revolution and the proletariet doing away with very basis of classifications as opposed to having to rule over another class for any period of time.

davidasearles

22nd November 2007, 11:37

"Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent vis-a-vis society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class." -- Engels, in _Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy_ (1886)

Dave S. writes: I don't see any implication that there must be an armed siezure of political power here either.

Labor Shall Rule

22nd November 2007, 13:47

If the state is truly a "special coercive force," and, if it "plays yet another role in history, a revolutionary role; that, in the words of Marx, it is the midwife of every old society which is pregnant with a new one, that it is the instrument with which social movement forces its way through and shatters the dead, fossilized political forms," then there would be a violent state.

Marx, in his Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League emphasized the importance of creating "a revolutionary worker's party" out of the scattered worker's clubs, secret societies, and labor associations in Germany. If you read it, you will discover that the language is not flowery, peaceful talk of working within the nascent bourgeois state.

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

In view of the government's financial difficulties, these conditions would ensure that power would in the long run fall into its hands again and that all its interests would be secured, if it were possible for the revolutionary movement to assume from now on a so-called peaceful course of development. In order to guarantee its power the bourgeoisie would not even need to arouse hatred by taking violent measures against the people, as all of these violent measures have already been carried out by the feudal counter-revolution. But events will not take this peaceful course. On the contrary, the revolution which will accelerate the course of events, is imminent, whether it is initiated by an independent rising of the French proletariat or by an invasion of the revolutionary Babel by the Holy Alliance.

The Feral Underclass

22nd November 2007, 14:24

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 22, 2007 06:10 am
I like how Martov changed the subject from Kronstadt after he got pwnt.
I can't seem to find where that happened?

22nd November 2007, 14:57

I can't seem to find where that happened?

That's because you're an idiot.

The Feral Underclass

22nd November 2007, 15:13

Originally posted by Zampanò@November 22, 2007 03:56 pm

I can't seem to find where that happened?

That's because you're an idiot.
:rolleyes:

I don't think that's the reason. Would you mind showing me?

Comrade Nadezhda

22nd November 2007, 15:49

Originally posted by The Anarchist Tension+November 22, 2007 09:12 am--> (The Anarchist Tension @ November 22, 2007 09:12 am)
Zampanò@November 22, 2007 03:56 pm

I can't seem to find where that happened?

That's because you're an idiot.
:rolleyes:

I don't think that's the reason. Would you mind showing me? [/b]
Look back a few posts. Shouldn't be difficult for you to do.

The Feral Underclass

22nd November 2007, 16:11

I'm too lazy :P

davidasearles

22nd November 2007, 17:19

Marx:

But we have never said that the means to arrive at these ends were identical. We know the allowance that must be made for the institutions, manners and traditions of different countries. We do not deny that there exist countries like America, England, and, if I knew your institutions better, I would add Holland, where the workers may be able to attain their ends by peaceful means. If that is true we must also recognize that inmost of the countries of the Continent force must be the lever to which it will be necessary to resort for a time in order to attain the dominion of labour.

http://www.marxists.org/history/internatio...ntroduction.htm (http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/introduction.htm)

Dave S. writes:

I don't see any implication here either that there MUST be an armed siezure of political power.

Comrade Rage

22nd November 2007, 22:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 22, 2007 12:18 pm
I don't see any implication here either that there MUST be an armed siezure of political power.
Look back a few posts ago. You'll see.

If you are so squeamish about armed rev, come up with something you think will abolish capitalism (that has a decent chance).

The reason we advocate armed revolution isn't because we love guns or we are too lazy. As a matter of fact, armed revolution is the hardest way to affect social change.

We advocate it because the is no alternative.

Labor Shall Rule

23rd November 2007, 00:32

Martov, why would a Marxist of such prestige continue with this anarchist generalization of how the Bolsheviks demanded “power” for themselves? Though power has played a role in history that many do not credit with it, the proposition that the Bolsheviks were the center of the universe around which all of the cosmos of history revolved takes out many important factors in determining their policies. As I have said, Stalin was not sitting behind a desk, and laughing as he signed paper after paper, condemning liberty to death. He did it because he was subjected to real class forces, at a time of sharp class struggle over who would hold control of the Soviet Republic — would the Left "Trotskyites" have control, or would the Center-Right continue to hold sway.

The Bolsheviks were the first faction to demand a "Socialist Coalition Government" following October. The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk is what lead to the break between the Left Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bolsheviks, and it began a campaign of terrorist bombings and assassinations of Bolshevik functionaries by the “socialists” themselves. Wilson, in May of the split, proposed a peace conference on the island of Novaya Zemlya between the Bolsheviks, the “democratic” governments in Ufa and Omsk, General Alekseev, and Minister Kolchak would meet. The only faction to take up the call was the Bolsheviks. Even if the Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries coordinated attacks on food supplies, assassinated thousands, and were collaborating with imperialist and counter-revolutionary forces, they were not expelled from the Soviets until August.

Kronstadt, no matter how revolutionary it was, posed a direct threat. The British Navy was right up the Gulf of Finland, and Mannerheim, the nationalist “hero” of Finland that slaughtered tens of thousands of workers earlier, had posted several detachments within a few miles of Petrograd. They held a strategic position and the largest arms cache in the region, and for it to be under insurgent role of any kind would be opening the nearby areas up for attack. There was a risk that they would reach for imperialist financers (and according to the opened-up Russian archives, there is bank notes that prove they did reach to the French and British), and they were not willing to wait for a few weeks to prove it.

Comrade Nadezhda

23rd November 2007, 04:40

It wouldn't have been necessary for the Bolsheviks to exclude the Mensheviks and SRs if they weren't a significant threat to revolutionary movement and the worker's state. The Mensheviks and SRs didn't avoid violence, and in many cases they instigated it. Regardless of the threat they posed to the Bolsheviks, they posed a threat to proletarian movement. They didn't simply pose a threat to the Bolsheviks power- they threatened revolutionary movement by aiding counterrevolutionary force. This caused the need for measures to be taken against the Mensheviks and SRs to eliminate the threats they brought into existence. It was simply necessary exclude them as they caused the development of threats by participating in counterrevolutionary movement. Furthering my point that it is not "repressive" when such measures are necessary in attempt to ensure that the movement itself is not damaged by counterrevolutionary forces.

Originally posted by The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 10:10 am
I'm too lazy :P
Why bother asking what "happened" then?

davidasearles

23rd November 2007, 13:10

Labor Shall Rule had written:

"As for the 'party', Marx had always stressed that political organization was necessary to carry out an armed seizure of the political power."

Dave. S. asked for a quote. Led Zeppelin in defense quoted the Manifesto.

And Dave. S. stated:

An objective reading of the Manifesto would equate the "violent overthrow" (from the quoted section) to Marx always stressing "armed seizure"?

Zeppelin I would say that yours would be a classic case of quoting out of context.

Dave S. quoted Engels:

"Society creates for itself an organ for the safeguarding of its common interests against internal and external attacks. This organ is the state power. Hardly come into being, this organ makes itself independent vis-a-vis society; and, indeed, the more so, the more it becomes the organ of a particular class, the more it directly enforces the supremacy of that class. The fight of the oppressed class against the ruling class becomes necessarily a political fight, a fight first of all against the political dominance of this class." -- Engels, in _Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy_ (1886)

And dave S. commented:

I don't see any implication that there must be an armed siezure of political power here either.

And dave S. quoted Marx:

But we have never said that the means to arrive at these ends were identical. We know the allowance that must be made for the institutions, manners and traditions of different countries. We do not deny that there exist countries like America, England, and, if I knew your institutions better, I would add Holland, where the workers may be able to attain their ends by peaceful means.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/...ntroduction.htm (http://anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/introduction.htm)

Dave S. commented:

I don't see any implication here either that there MUST be an armed siezure of political power.

Then CC quoted Dave S.:

I don't see any implication here either that there MUST be an armed siezure of political power.

And CC stated:

Look back a few posts ago. You'll see.

Dave S. comments:

Marx stating that there MUST be an "armed seizure of political power"? No for some reason I did not see that. Perhaps you could supply a direct quote from Marx where he supposedly said or wrote that.

Cmde. Slavyanski

24th November 2007, 05:21

If you want to try non-armed seizure of power, be our guest. Look what happened to folks like Allende or the Sandinistas when that happened.

Labor Shall Rule

24th November 2007, 06:09

Marx never held it as some sort of rigid, dogmatic "principle" that had to be followed zealously — but he did recognize that when overthrowing an entire social order, there would be stubborn resistance that would fuel violence, and that the public power is the only instrument that is "coercive" enough to defeat that enemy. That is a stance of all Marxists — we push our objectives peacefully; as Lenin said "caution, caution, caution" — then there will come a moment in which finance capital uses the vestiges of the state machinery on us, calls in imperialist allies, or enlists armed fascists, and at that moment, we can either piss our pants and run in the other direction, or we can pick up our rifle and shoot in self-defense.

MarxSchmarx

24th November 2007, 06:16

If you are so squeamish about armed rev, come up with something you think will abolish capitalism (that has a decent chance).

The general strike?

If you want to try non-armed seizure of power, be our guest. Look what happened to folks like Allende or the Sandinistas when that happened.

If you want to try armed seizure of power, be our guest. Look what happened in (places like) the Soviet Union, the "People's Republic" of China, Columbia, Vietnam, Spain, Mexico, Southern Yemen, Cambodia ...

The Feral Underclass

24th November 2007, 11:44

Originally posted by Comrade Nadezhda+November 23, 2007 05:39 am--> (Comrade Nadezhda @ November 23, 2007 05:39 am)
The Anarchist [email protected] 22, 2007 10:10 am
I'm too lazy :P
Why bother asking what "happened" then? [/b]
Erm, because I want to know.

I've read now, so it's ok.

davidasearles

24th November 2007, 11:50

LSR:

(Marx) did recognize that when overthrowing an entire social order, there would be stubborn resistance that would fuel violence....

Dave S.:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the word could instead of would? For example:

But we have never said that the means to arrive at these ends were identical. We know the allowance that must be made for the institutions, manners and traditions of different countries. We do not deny that there exist countries like America, England, and, if I knew your institutions better, I would add Holland, where the workers may be able to attain their ends by peaceful means.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/...ntroduction.htm

The Feral Underclass

24th November 2007, 11:51

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 23, 2007 01:31 am
Kronstadt, no matter how revolutionary it was, posed a direct threat. The British Navy was right up the Gulf of Finland, and Mannerheim, the nationalist “hero” of Finland that slaughtered tens of thousands of workers earlier, had posted several detachments within a few miles of Petrograd. They held a strategic position and the largest arms cache in the region, and for it to be under insurgent role of any kind would be opening the nearby areas up for attack.
That's a strawman argument. The only possible reason that could have happened is if the Red Army refused to participate in its defence. Creating a commune and making demands on the Bolshevik government did not mean revolutionary weakness or an inability to defend.

There was a risk that they would reach for imperialist financers (and according to the opened-up Russian archives, there is bank notes that prove they did reach to the French and British), and they were not willing to wait for a few weeks to prove it.

Claiming that some bank notes in a former Soviet Archive is proof that the workers in Kronstadt were financed by imperialist forces is a ridiculous claim. It also doesn't follow from your previous assertion. If they were in the finance of imperialists, there would have been no need for the Finnish army to attack them.

davidasearles

24th November 2007, 12:04

Comrade Crum:

We advocate (armed revolution) because the is no alternative.

Dave Searles:

Or you advocate it because you can think of no alternative;

Or you advocate it in order to purposefully draw workers away from necessary political agitation;

Or you advocate it becuase you are a paid agent of the state to provoke an excuse for a general round up of activists for security purposes.

The Feral Underclass

24th November 2007, 12:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 01:03 pm
Or you advocate it because you can think of no alternative;
What are the alternatives?

Comrade Rage

25th November 2007, 05:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 07:03 am
Or you advocate it becuase you are a paid agent of the state to provoke an excuse for a general round up of activists for security purposes.
http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd298/COMRADE_CRUM/freakazoid_fail.gif

Labor Shall Rule

25th November 2007, 06:02

"Lenin's suspicion of an international conspiracy linked up with the Kronstadt events has been supported by the discovery of a handwritten memorandum preserved in the Columbia University Russian Archive, dated 1921 and marked 'Top Secret.' The document includes remarkably detailed information about the resources, personnel, arms and plans of the Kronstadt rebellion. It also details plans regarding White army and French government support for the Kronstadt sailors' March rebellion. Its title is 'Memorandum on the Question of Organising an Uprising in Kronstadt.'

The memorandum was part of a collection of documents written by an organisation called the National Centre, which originated at the beginning in 1918 as a self identified 'underground organisation formed in Russia for the struggle against the Bolsheviks.' After suffering military defeat and the arrest of many of its central members, the group reconstituted itself in exile by late 1920. General Wrangel, with a trained army of tens of thousands ready and waiting, was their principal military base of support. This memorandum was written between January and early February of 1921 by an agent of the National Centre in Finland."

It is not that the revolt was reactionary in character, but that the French and Whites used it as a wedge to split the entire revolutionary movement in half. This truly substantiates Bolshevik suspicions that the pressures of the situation would have resulted in an attempt of the rebels to seek imperialist allies precisely because of the material deprivation of their besieged naval base. Their response was legitimate — they just got out of a war with a coalition of imperialist nations that slaughtered tens of millions of soldier-workers and armed peasants.

Kronstadt was a vital military installation — it was the largest armament in the region, and it housed more troops than any other post. The Bolsheviks could not allow the base to be occupied by rebels whom, as we see, had reason to suspect them of collaboration with the enemy. This isn't some deep dark conspiracy of evil leaders plotting to destroy worker's democracy, but a necessary imposition of the situation.

The "demands" of the Kronstadters proposed to alleviate all economic problems, which are intrinsically tied to political problems. The stabilization process was starting in the ravaged countryside and cities, where livestock was gone, the mines were flooded, fuel was scarce, the factories were shut down, and famine became a fact of life. All economic life was destroyed to a severe point that put it at a point of being beyond anyone's ability to immediately solve. Perhaps they should have approached the problem realistically, instead of taking a naval base.

To say "the Red Army should of just sided with them" ignores all the material facts. The anarchist proposition of "maybe if they adhered to the right idea, everything will be solved" is incorrect. Their forces shot officials, upholding the "no party" position by gutting communists. They captured a military base. They invited the intrigues of imperialist bankers who wished to exploit the situation.

Labor Shall Rule

25th November 2007, 06:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 11:49 am
LSR:

(Marx) did recognize that when overthrowing an entire social order, there would be stubborn resistance that would fuel violence....

Dave S.:

Wouldn't it be more accurate to use the word could instead of would? For example:

But we have never said that the means to arrive at these ends were identical. We know the allowance that must be made for the institutions, manners and traditions of different countries. We do not deny that there exist countries like America, England, and, if I knew your institutions better, I would add Holland, where the workers may be able to attain their ends by peaceful means.

http://anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/...ntroduction.htm
I hate to say this, but Marx is wrong. He analyzed his time and adapted his theories to those circumstances, but it is now time to evaluate our own. The United States, England, and Holland all have fascist splinters that can be armed at any moment, thrive off of the super-exploitation of minority groups, and are active imperialists. There is no "peaceful" way of getting rid of those things.

Comrade Rage

27th November 2007, 00:34

Originally posted by davidasearles+November 24, 2007 07:03 am--> (davidasearles @ November 24, 2007 07:03 am) Or you advocate it in order to purposefully draw workers away from necessary political agitation [/b]
What is this crap about 'necessary' political action?

We voted you socialist guys into offices, and it didn't move us closer to a workers state!

Don't get me wrong, I am an admirer of Frank Zeidler (greatest Socialist Mayor of Milwaukee) and if I'm not mistaken Milwaukee had the first socialist mayor in the US and had the last socialist mayor in the US.

The Socialists turned this city into a great place--but brought us NO CLOSER to proletarian equality.

David Searles
Or you advocate it becuase you are a paid agent of the state to provoke an excuse for a general round up of activists for security purposes.
Oh crap! You so got me! That was my intention all along! :rolleyes:
Do you seriously believe that?!
It looks like I'm completely under your skin! :D

Of course David Searles, you make the mistake of believing the bourgeosie will not round us up if we somehow DO elect a socialist/communist president.

History proves you wrong, once again. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

Comrade Nadezhda

27th November 2007, 03:06

davidsearles seems to prefer to make claims that comrades here are "spies" or "agents of the bourgeois state" as he has accused me and others of. If anyone was a "spy", it would be davidsearles :lol:

Originally posted by COMRADE [email protected] 26, 2007 06:33 pm
What is this crap about 'necessary' political action?

We voted you socialist guys into offices, and it didn't move us closer to a workers state!

Don't get me wrong, I am an admirer of Frank Zeidler (greatest Socialist Mayor of Milwaukee) and if I'm not mistaken Milwaukee had the first socialist mayor in the US and had the last socialist mayor in the US.

The Socialists turned this city into a great place--but brought us NO CLOSER to proletarian equality.
I'm actually from Milwaukee and lived there for a considerable portion of my life.

I don't simply "oppose" "attaining communism through the polls", but I acknowledge this just isn't possible. No number of "socialist" mayors or any other governmental office will lead to communist society being attained. There are many reasons, but the most obvious is that a "revolution" through the polls cannot occur under bourgeois democracy, even if you end up with a "socialist" candidate in the government, there is little chance it will impact anything. Socialist candidates haven't lead to the progression towards communist society, so it can't possibly be attained in that way.

There has been no progression towards a proletarian state through socialist parties/candidates involvement in governmental activities. Instead of progressing towards a proletarian state it modifies capitalism into bourgeois socialism, and not always by all means. Sometimes it only transforms certain sectors into state-owned enterprises (which in that case are ultimately owned by the bourgeois state- and therefore, exist to benefit the bourgeois ruling class).

There are many good examples of how this is done, i.e. education. The bourgeois state provides public education but at the same time allows private education- and uses it as a means of creating further class distinctions, as for the mostpart it is bourgeois children who attend private schools and working-class children who attend public schools. In that case, it is a means of exploiting the proletariat. It serves no other purpose.

If it was possible, so be it, but it isn't. "Revolution through the polls" just reforms capitalism, if it made way for anything else it would be have by now. The reason it can't happen is it doesn't seek to eliminate class relations, property relations, etc. It modifies these relations, but it doesn't eliminate them.

What you end up with, if anything at all- is certain socialist features under a bourgeois state- which isn't going to lead to the formation of a proletarian state- it's just bourgeois socialism. Modification of the bourgeois state apparatus isn't going to eliminate it. What you end up with is a bourgeois state which has assumed the role of a monopoly. That doesn't take the place of proletarian socialism, or proletarian revolution.

There are many countries in europe which I think of in regards to this issue. Yes, certain things may be socialized, and in many countries that is the case- but what is the ruling class? These aren't proletarian states- these are bourgeois states. No amount of socialized education, healthcare, etc. is going to eliminate the necessity of abolishing the bourgeois state apparatus. It will not make violent revolution less necessary or eliminate the need for it all together- it will just distract from revolutionary proletarian movement. There wouldn't be a problem with this if it somehow "made way" for communist society, but it doesn't- it just modifies the role of the bourgeois state apparatus.

To finish my argument in some way, I will add the fact that if there was a "socialist"/"communist" president elected in the United States nothing would change. What would happen is the candidate would function just as all presidents have from capitalist parties. It would make no difference at all. It's not simply because the United States is a bourgeois democracy which doesn't allow for it but because the system is set up to ultimately benefit the bourgeois ruling class. It is an intrument of the ruling class. It does not seek the interests of the proletariat. Aside from that, any candidate supposably opposed to bourgeois rule will ultimately end up serving in bourgeois interests under the bourgeois state- because the conditions causing the state apparatus to function merely as an instrument of the ruling class have not yet been eliminated- and the bourgeoisie aren't merely going to sit on their asses. Their role is significant, and they will do everything to maintain their "state".