How should we be led...

[Red Puppy]

Upon a discussion with a sibling on Marxism and Communism as a whole and the post-revolutionary world, I came up with this simple question I had never really thought of before.

After the successful revolution, how will the Socialist world be ruled? And will there not be a mass amount of power struggles from demagogues attempting to grasp control of the newly-formed and fresh Socialist world?

[spartan]

Well first off there will be no one being "ruled" anymore for starters.

People of course will always to whatever extent be "governed" but the difference in a Socialist society is that it will be the people themselves who will be doing the governing not an elite class with certain privileges.

Anyway here are some links that might help answer your questions more clearly than i ever could comrade:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workers_councils

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Workplace_democracy

[Dros]

Question(1.) The proletariat as a class should set up a revolutionary state (Dictatorship of the Proletarait) for the purpose of advancing to communism and providing for the needs of society in the present. Unlike the modern state, it should be radicly democratic and based soley on the interest of the masses of people.

Question(2.) Yes. These people are called reactionary forces and revisionists. They have destroyed almost every communist revolution thus far.

[spartan]

After the successful revolution, how will the Socialist world be ruled? And will there not be a mass amount of power struggles from demagogues attempting to grasp control of the newly-formed and fresh Socialist world?
A global Socialist revolution, as oppossed to a state level Socialist revolution, will eliminate this problem.

[ComradeRed]

The real answer lies in who you ask.

Most will respond to the first question about "How will socialism be ruled?" with a correction that there are no "rulers" and something having to do with the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Even then there is room for debate about what is and is not a "real" "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Marx thought that it was utopian to think about such matters, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We shouldn't worry about what socialism will be like until we set it up...but perhaps we can give some rough sketches about what socialism is not.

For example, the notion of competing firms would be abolished since there is no "capitalist market".

As for the second question, about demagogues trying to cease power, I'm unsure what you mean here to be honest. Perhaps you could clarify?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 05:50 pm
The real answer lies in who you ask.

Most will respond to the first question about "How will socialism be ruled?" with a correction that there are no "rulers" and something having to do with the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Even then there is room for debate about what is and is not a "real" "dictatorship of the proletariat".
Like I said before, capitalism is incapable of eliminating hierarchical relations (and since you haven't been around lately, I suggest reading my hard question and my newfound six-classes analysis (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581&view=findpost&p=1292407496)). As a result of this, the most politically and organizationally (in terms of "business management" and state management) conscious of workers will have adopted a manager/coordinator-based organizational model. :)


Marx thought that it was utopian to think about such matters, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We shouldn't worry about what socialism will be like until we set it up...but perhaps we can give some rough sketches about what socialism is not.

For example, the notion of competing firms would be abolished since there is no "capitalist market".

Coming around and softening up to my revolutionary-stamocap-as-the-DOTP ideas now, eh? [Just had to rub it in as a "welcome back" greeting ;) :D ]


As for the second question, about demagogues trying to cease power, I'm unsure what you mean here to be honest. Perhaps you could clarify?

nom de guerre has been screaming left, right, and center about the supposedly "idealistic" (read: non-materialistic) paradigm of Leninism (there's a shouting match in p.m.a.'s "Leninism" thread).

[ComradeRed]

Just some clarifications before I wade through this other thread.


Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 11, 2007 05:08 pm

Marx thought that it was utopian to think about such matters, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We shouldn't worry about what socialism will be like until we set it up...but perhaps we can give some rough sketches about what socialism is not.

For example, the notion of competing firms would be abolished since there is no "capitalist market".

Coming around and softening up to my revolutionary-stamocap-as-the-DOTP ideas now, eh? ;) :DNo, what I was referring to was that the workers would run the firm. Not that the state would take over the role as the capitalist.

The very little that everyone can agree on is basically "The era of competing firms will be over", what replaces it is very much open to debate.

And it doesn't matter who or what replaces the set of bourgeoisie while preserving the class structure of society.

The important part is the complete and absolute abolition of wage slavery. You can't do that by changing one set of bosses for another.

[Red Puppy]

As for the second question, about demagogues trying to cease power, I'm unsure what you mean here to be honest. Perhaps you could clarify?

By that, I mean what will be done to stop power-hungry dictators hidden among us comrades from rising to power during the period of weakness for our new world?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11, 2007 05:23 pm

As for the second question, about demagogues trying to cease power, I'm unsure what you mean here to be honest. Perhaps you could clarify?

By that, I mean what will be done to stop power-hungry dictators hidden among us comrades from rising to power during the period of weakness for our new world?
That's what I suspected, but wanted some clarification before I go off and give an answer to a question that wasn't even asked.

Ultimately, "after the revolution", the workers would (or should) be running the show.

It doesn't matter if they were part of "the party" or not. It's a workers' democracy not a "democracy" of this or that party.

So it would not be feasible for an individual to obtain "political power" as it would be given exclusively to the proletariat.

The only possibility I could see is if you were to ask "But what if a comrade hidden in our ranks is high enough to order a number of comrades to betray the revolution?" or something like that. A "mutiny" more or less.

I would respond thusly: this isn't a war between professional revolutionaries and an army, this is the emancipation of the working class.

We don't really know if there is going to be some "vanguard party" leading the way or not. It may happen it may not.

Historically when the modes of production change, there hasn't been one. There has been a class fighting against another class...bourgeoisie fighting feudal aristocracy, for example.

Places where, Leninists argue, the party did lead the revolution, like the USSR or China, have failed as socialist societies.

Hell, post-factum looking at the empirical track record of USSR factories, the "centralized planning" consisted of the central planning committee keeping track of the aggregate output, and moving stuff depending on the "demand" for it. Price setting, from the papers I have just read, were nothing like what they were "in theory". They weren't even socialist states when they claimed to have been!

That approach arguably is little more than a modernized bourgeois revolution.

I don't think anyone wants that...instead it's the abolition of wage slavery that is sought.

So in summary: a mutiny in the party seems unlikely since historically the party in revolutions have been used for bourgeois revolutions in pre-capitalist societies...so how could it happen in late capitalism? Different material circumstances...

Kind of longwinded reply for a small question. I'm certain Leninists will answer differently, probably something about iron discipline or whatever.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11, 2007 06:41 pm
Historically when the modes of production change, there hasn't been one. There has been a class fighting against another class...bourgeoisie fighting feudal aristocracy, for example.
Didn't Napoleon betray the French Revolution? Didn't those who got Robespierre's head betray the revolution before Napoleon? That's a "class mutiny" right there. [Luckily, Cromwell's head didn't suffer such fate until AFTER the man's death.]


Hell, post-factum looking at the empirical track record of USSR factories, the "centralized planning" consisted of the central planning committee keeping track of the aggregate output, and moving stuff depending on the "demand" for it. Price setting, from the papers I have just read, were nothing like what they were "in theory". They weren't even socialist states when they claimed to have been!

Have you been reading too much Moshe Lewin like I have? :D To clarify, the problem with the Soviet economic machine wasn't with Gosplan ("State Planning Commission/Committee"), but with Gossnab ("State Committee for Material-Technical Supply") and its bottlenecks (Business Management 101). Lesser blame can be attributed to the State Committee for Prices.


Kind of longwinded reply for a small question. I'm certain Leninists will answer differently, probably something about iron discipline or whatever.

I ain't biting. :P ;) Sufficed to say, I'll emphasize what Lenin, Bordiga, Gramsci, and probably even Luxemburg herself emphasized: organization (as its own "question").

[Invader Zim]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12, 2007 01:50 am
The real answer lies in who you ask.

Most will respond to the first question about "How will socialism be ruled?" with a correction that there are no "rulers" and something having to do with the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Even then there is room for debate about what is and is not a "real" "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Marx thought that it was utopian to think about such matters, and I'm inclined to agree with him. We shouldn't worry about what socialism will be like until we set it up...but perhaps we can give some rough sketches about what socialism is not.

For example, the notion of competing firms would be abolished since there is no "capitalist market".

As for the second question, about demagogues trying to cease power, I'm unsure what you mean here to be honest. Perhaps you could clarify?
Absolutely, I was going to post something along the same lines but this post says it all.

Good work CR.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Jacob Richter+December 11, 2007 05:53 pm--> (Jacob Richter @ December 11, 2007 05:53 pm)
[email protected] 11, 2007 06:41 pm
Historically when the modes of production change, there hasn't been one. There has been a class fighting against another class...bourgeoisie fighting feudal aristocracy, for example.
Didn't Napoleon betray the French Revolution? Didn't those who got Robespierre's head betray the revolution before Napoleon? That's a "class mutiny" right there. [Luckily, Cromwell's head didn't suffer such fate until AFTER the man's death.][/b]
One case at a time.

The Thermidorian reaction (downfall of Robespierre) was a response to Robespierre's distrust of the banks and military despite personally (ab)using them.

He basically alienated himself from the revolutionary class, and then made matters worse by pissing off the military :o

Engels actually had some interesting things to say:


But when the bourgeoisie of the 18th century was strengthened enough likewise to posses an ideology of its own, suited to its own class standpoint, it made its great and conclusive revolution — the French —, appealing exclusively to juristic and political ideas, and troubling itself with religion only in so far as it stood in its way. But it never occurred to it to put a new religion in place of the old. Everyone knows how Robespierre failed in his attempt [to set up a religion of the “highest being”]. From Part 3 of Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch03.htm) by Frederick Engels (1886).

Marx remarks somewhere that the bourgeoisie adopted science because science overthrew the old ideological superstructure of feudalism (i.e. challenged religion). I think that holding on to antiquated religious views during a revolution is not really a wise idea...it implies who you're siding with ;)

Napoleon is an interesting example.

Napoleon himself is rather uninteresting for this, because the immediate cause of the coup wasn't Napoleon getting pissed off...it was that some financier ("Collot" supposedly) had forwarded 2 Million Francs to fund the coup.

The intended plan was to get the Directors to resign and have the "parliament" (the two councils) to implement a constitutional government.

The reasoning behind this would be to secure the recent advances of the bourgeoisie. There were looming threats of invasion even after Napoleon had routed Austria, et al.

This is more of a consolidation maneuver for the bourgeoisie, more than anything else...or that's what it was intended to be at any rate.

When it more or less went horribly awry with the consulate, constitution of the year VIII, etc. That is the class mutiny you speak of I assume.

What resulted from this? If it was a class mutiny, it would make logical sense that the revolution would fall back to feudalism. This isn't what happened, however.

Until he was militarily defeated by the feudal powers, it was more or less a capitalist mode of production in France. Then Louis XVIII took over, then Napoleon again for 100 days, then Charles X...



Hell, post-factum looking at the empirical track record of USSR factories, the "centralized planning" consisted of the central planning committee keeping track of the aggregate output, and moving stuff depending on the "demand" for it. Price setting, from the papers I have just read, were nothing like what they were "in theory". They weren't even socialist states when they claimed to have been!

Have you been reading too much Moshe Lewin like I have? :D To clarify, the problem with the Soviet economic machine wasn't with Gosplan ("State Planning Commission/Committee"), but with Gossnab ("State Committee for Material-Technical Supply") and its bottlenecks (Business Management 101). Lesser blame can be attributed to the State Committee for Prices. No actually I have been reading the assesments of the dismal failures of "Sovietology"...the (former) academic field that tried to model the Soviet Union.

For example:

Soviet managers were as autonomous as their market counterparts. They set their own plan targets by disguising their productive capacity and overstating their resource needs. Soviet planners served primarily as supply agents for enterprises, endeavoring to supply the enterprises with sufficient inputs to fulfill their gross output targets. The system of material supply could seldom perform this task, and Soviet factory managers made barter arrangements with one another and produced their own inputs. This activity led me to the conclusion that the Soviet economy, like a market, was organized polycentrically and not hierarchically as a planning system. The "central plan" was little more than the summation of the factory managers’ individual plans.

From My Time with Soviet Economics (http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?issueID=8&articleID=106) by Paul Craig Roberts. There are a number of other technical papers similar to this, but this is the only free one :(

I actually have never heard of Moshe Lewin before this.

[Marsella]

Marx didn't talk about the Paris Commune for nothing did he?

I don't think we can plan down to the dot how the future society will look, but ignoring the question all together doesn't do much good either.

If we don't, we risk the chance of getting something we don't want.

(ComradeRed)

Ultimately, "after the revolution", the workers would (or should) be running the show.

It doesn't matter if they were part of "the party" or not. It's a workers' democracy not a "democracy" of this or that party.

So it would not be feasible for an individual to obtain "political power" as it would be given exclusively to the proletariat.

The only possibility I could see is if you were to ask "But what if a comrade hidden in our ranks is high enough to order a number of comrades to betray the revolution?" or something like that. A "mutiny" more or less.

I would respond thusly: this isn't a war between professional revolutionaries and an army, this is the emancipation of the working class.

Spot on.

[Red Puppy]

Comrade Red, thank you so much for clarifying that for me. Its nice to have such comrades in our ranks. Thanks again.

[nom de guerre]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11, 2007 11:48 pm
Upon a discussion with a sibling on Marxism and Communism as a whole and the post-revolutionary world, I came up with this simple question I had never really thought of before.

After the successful revolution, how will the Socialist world be ruled? And will there not be a mass amount of power struggles from demagogues attempting to grasp control of the newly-formed and fresh Socialist world?
I don't understand. I thought through the revolution, we were destroying leaders, and notion that we must be "led" to begin with. Isn't that what Marx meant when he said the revolution must be made by the entirety of the working-class itself? I think that Martov is right in his response.

Also - what role does "socialism" play for the post-revolutionary society? Are we not to begin building communism from day one?

[Dros]

Originally posted by nom de [email protected] 12, 2007 11:01 pm
What role does "socialism" play for the post-revolutionary society? Are we not to begin building communism from day one?
Have you read Marx or are you just an anarchist?

I suggest you look at the Communist Manifesto. The answer to your question is in there.

[Labor Shall Rule]

What Martov? There is no vauge, generalized and unspecified "working class" that will emancipate themselves - there is, however, a section of the working class that is in the most militant (but effective) in the class struggle. They reflect their interests through their organizations - which can be clubs, leagues, parties, or even unions. The self-proclaimed political tendencies reflected by each of these groups are irrelevant, what does matter is if they truly represent their class, if they are using the correct analysis of the situation, and if they use appropriate tactics and strategy.

Whether it is the Bolsheviks, the Friends of Durruti, or the CNT, there is always some sort of organization that represents the most advanced section of the truly revolutionary class.

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 12, 2007 06:26 pm
What Martov? There is no vauge, generalized and unspecified "working class" that will emancipate themselves
I'm sure that if you ignore basic concepts long enough, they will cease to exist as well :lol:

There is a working class, and whether you'd like to admit it or not (which you do in your own post, right after denying its existence) the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves...as opposed to you and your "gentlemen's clubs".

But don't let this stop you from contradicting yourself!


- there is, however, a section of the working class that is in the most militant (but effective) in the class struggle. They reflect their interests through their organizations - which can be clubs, leagues, parties, or even unions. The self-proclaimed political tendencies reflected by each of these groups are irrelevant, what does matter is if they truly represent their class, if they are using the correct analysis of the situation, and if they use appropriate tactics and strategy.

Whether it is the Bolsheviks, the Friends of Durruti, or the CNT, there is always some sort of organization that represents the most advanced section of the truly revolutionary class. Yes, obviously small groups of class conscious individuals are what cause revolutions, never mind materialism!

Someone should tell that to Engels (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1895/03/06.htm) that he's wrong :rolleyes:

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of masses lacking consciousness is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organisation, the masses themselves must also be in on it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are fighting for, body and soul.

Or Marx: (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/drafts/notes.htm)

An attempt at a revolution by the secret Republican-socialist Society of the Seasons on May 12. 1839, headed by Louis Auguste Blanqui and Armand Barhes, did not rely on the masses and bore a conspiratorial character; the rising was suppressed by the government army and the National Guard. In order to combat the danger of revolution, a new cabinet was formed, which Dufaure joined.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I didn't say a "conscious minority" leads the revolution in the context that Engels critiqued the Blanquists, I said that a section of the class leads the revolution. The workers of Kronstadt, the Vyborg District, and Moscow were the revolutionary vanguard, in that they were the most militant section of their class. The workers of Catalonia, Asturias, and Aragon were the revolutionary vanguard, in that they were the most militant section of their class. The Friends of Durruti, and the Bolsheviks came in insofar as they represented the political organisation of that class in their respective revolutionary situations.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by drosera99+December 12, 2007 09:01 pm--> (drosera99 @ December 12, 2007 09:01 pm)
nom de [email protected] 12, 2007 11:01 pm
What role does "socialism" play for the post-revolutionary society? Are we not to begin building communism from day one?
Have you read Marx or are you just an anarchist?

I suggest you look at the Communist Manifesto. The answer to your question is in there. [/b]
Do you know when the Communist Manifesto was written?

[ComradeRed]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 13, 2007 07:01 am
I didn't say a "conscious minority" leads the revolution in the context that Engels critiqued the Blanquists, I said that a section of the class leads the revolution.
Yes, and you noted as I quoted:


Whether it is the Bolsheviks, the Friends of Durruti, or the CNT, there is always some sort of organization that represents the most advanced section of the truly revolutionary class. --all emphasis added

Whether you'd like to call it a "conscious minority" or "the most advanced section of the revolutionary class" is irrelevant, a spade is a spade is a spade.


The workers of Kronstadt, the Vyborg District, and Moscow were the revolutionary vanguard, in that they were the most militant section of their class. And of course they "just happened" to be party members right? :lol:

I don't exactly see how the "workers" of the Vyborg District is relevant here, as it was the Soviet military that really did all the work in the Soviet-Finnish war (oh right, they "are workers" :rolleyes: ).

This entire sentence seems to have the notion that the USSR was socialist, one that history doesn't really support. Evidence from the archives seems to suggest that the economy was a lot more capitalistic than people realize, I've already quoted a synopsis of the archives in this thread.


The workers of Catalonia, Asturias, and Aragon were the revolutionary vanguard, in that they were the most militant section of their class. A nice assertion, but like your entire argument so far it's nothing more than an assertion.

Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how they were "the most advanced section", as you originally asserted in your previous post.

I suspect you'll just reassert the same proposition over and over. But you really haven't presented any compelling argument for this concept of "the most advanced section" of the revolutionary class.

Blanqui et al. thought they were "the most advanced section" of the revolutionary class too. Most conspirators think it as well.

The fact of the matter is that, throughout history, it has been class warfare waged by entire classes that have brought about revolutionary change in the mode of production.

It wasn't a handful of guys that overthrew French feudalism, it was the bourgeoisie that did it with the help of the peasantry.

But don't let "objective reality" and these so-called "observable facts" stop your idealistic stance, it hasn't stopped the Christian fascists any.

[Labor Shall Rule]

But once again, the "most advanced section" is the most politically advanced layer of the working class — it is not a party, club, or union, but an actual mass of workers who are more 'radical' than their class brothers.

There are new forms of work and communication that has made direct-democratic cohesion easier, but you can not fit millions of miners, line-workers, service employees, servants, and factory-farm laborers into the same room, and carefully vote on every resolution and minor decree without having deficiencies and confusion. There has to be leadership.

Throughout history, classes have had leadership. The cosmos of history do not revolve around the individual, it revolves around classes, and as so, all leaders are carbon-copies of the class that they represent.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't know your position very well, since you seem to be wavering here and there, particularly in that anarchist thread where an anarchist is potentially starting to realize the need for a vanguard.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Jacob [email protected] 21, 2007 12:59 am
^^^ I don't know your position very well, since you seem to be wavering here and there, particularly in that anarchist thread where an anarchist is potentially starting to realize the need for a vanguard.
What is so 'confusing' about my position?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Labor Shall Rule+December 21, 2007 03:31 pm--> (Labor Shall Rule @ December 21, 2007 03:31 pm)
Jacob [email protected] 21, 2007 12:59 am
^^^ I don't know your position very well, since you seem to be wavering here and there, particularly in that anarchist thread where an anarchist is potentially starting to realize the need for a vanguard.
What is so 'confusing' about my position? [/b]
^^^ This:


The formulations on a 'truly revolutionary party' are distorted, disconnected from a material understanding of historical reality. There can be no plastering of revolutionary class consciousness — it can only be achieved by the independent action of the working class themselves, who must develop their own self-initiative, self-determination, and the necessary economic and strategical training to assume control over the economy and manage it in their own interests.

This part sounds a wee bit "spontaneous." :wacko:

[Labor Shall Rule]

Political and economic conditions fuel 'spontaneous' actions, and though it can not deliver the final blow to the capitalist class, it alone is the only factor that will ever increase consciousness. The trend and character of the revolutionary organization would play a crucial role in determining the nature and the course that these actions take during the revolutionary period, but it can not mandate political enthusiasm.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Oh well. It's just that my position is more "authoritarian" and "monolithic" than yours, yet still maintains a certain "dialectic" between authoritarianism and democracy (sorry, Rosa, but when it comes to spontaneity and organization, I still have to use that d-word as a crutch :( ).

From a past Learning thread on a one-party system (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=73380&view=findpost&p=1292420599) as a potential form of the DOTP:


Now, back to the original question in terms of the DOTP proper (because socialism is too far ahead to plan for): yes and no, especially when reading Lenin's How We Should Reorganise the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection and Better Fewer, But Better.

Yes, in that there should be only one proper communist party in charge of all leading organs of workers' power (at the very least, if not in the local workplace committees and communal councils, then in the "chain" of soviets). (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index.html) Besides, wasn't one of the Comintern's conditions the operation of only one communist party "per country"?

All the other "factions" in said organs would represent "cooperative associations, youth organizations, sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies." Whether said "factional deputies" would also be Party members, who knows?

You'll also note that this is actually very consistent with the concept of an international socialist party proper (not merely "internationals") like the one Bordiga and certain left-communists have in mind.


And this is where a very complicated "no" comes in:

1) I don't think that every "factional deputy" representing the above organizations in quotation marks would also be Party members.

2) A "loyal organizational opposition" should be built into the Party itself and should possess full control over the "control branch" of government (by "control," I mean the checking, auditing, investigating, etc. functions), and should have its own organizational bodies, independent from Central Committee influence. Per this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=dV_Gufwx31UC&dq=%22origins+of+the+stalinist%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=A4dX81El8Y&sig=-n4MrmijsXfK2M_gdH-15OG7gH8#PPA84,M1), the problem with Lenin's proposal is that, while "the commissions were to be independent of party committees [...] they had to rely upon those committees for the machinery to implement their decisions. In this way their independence was compromised organizationally from the outset" (p. 83-84).

This "loyal organizational opposition" wouldn't foray into political questions, however.

3) Within the CC-directed bodies themselves, there would be factions dealing with political and/or organizational questions. Together, these factions and the bodies under their control would constitute the "party of power" within the Party.

[redarmyfaction38]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11, 2007 11:48 pm
Upon a discussion with a sibling on Marxism and Communism as a whole and the post-revolutionary world, I came up with this simple question I had never really thought of before.

After the successful revolution, how will the Socialist world be ruled? And will there not be a mass amount of power struggles from demagogues attempting to grasp control of the newly-formed and fresh Socialist world?
the theory goes like this; the organisations thrown up by the working class in their revolutionary struggle aganst capitalism will form the basis of the new "worldwide socialist state".
basically, the workers councils, the revolutionary proletariat, will determine the conduct of the new socialist world order under democratic workers control of course.
as for the demagogues, well, honestly, i don't think we will ever e truly free of them, we just have to be wary, like churchill said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

[DrFreeman09]

Earlier on in this discussion, a point was brought up that Marx believed it was utopian to discuss matters such as this and that we should figure everything out when we get there.

To an extent, this "we'll cross that bridge when we come to it" mentality is correct.

But currently, the Left is completely paralyzed for the reason that it cannot articulate any kind of general picture of what future society will look like in a way that makes sense to anyone who has not had a lobotomy or is not in extreme denial.

If we cannot come up with anything better than capitalism, why get rid of it?

This is why it is important to have a concrete enough idea of what we think future society might look like so that we can easily explain it to anyone who might ask.

So I think topics like this are extremely important to discuss.

Unfortunately, the kinds of responses this type of discussion usually gets are full of the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat."

Sure, it's easy to say in response to a question like this: "dictatorship of the proletariat" as if that's all we need to know. But what do those words actually mean? We think we know, but we don't bother to take the time to describe what they mean.

The obsessive use of terms like the "DOP" without explaining or even understanding what they actually meant in context and in the proper time period leads to a huge amount of confusion in the left and gives rise to a series of cults where "Marxism" and "Leninism" form the basis of a sectarian religion. The only image of workers' rule that the Left has currently put forward is that of the "dictatorship of the proletariat," which, because of the word "dictatorship," has lead many on the Left and Right to believe that workers' rule will necessarily look like the party-state dictatorship of the USSR and other "communist regimes."

This vision of the future (i.e. a police state where the one party has a monopoly over political power) is a pretty dismal one and when this is the only vision that the Left has put forward, no wonder why Marxism is so unpopular!

Now before I get a bunch of Trotskyists yelling at me, I want to clear up something. You may claim that "everyone" knows that the "DOP" will not look like the USSR. Really? If this is true, why haven't you put forward something more clear? Many organizations have denounced Stalinism and the failures of the USSR and other "Communist" regimes, but they have not yet broken from the myth that workers' rule will necessarily be a one-party state where the "real" Marxist party has a monopoly over political power.

The biggest thing we have to make clear at this point is that workers must have concrete democratic rights of free speech under workers' rule. This is something that seems obvious, but most of the Left thus far has been incapable of decisively putting that idea forward in a way that is clear to everyone.

If one party, be it a "Marxist" party or not, maintains a monopoly over political power, it will necessarily have to suppress democratic rights of free speech to maintain that position. Any exposure of the inevitable corruption and hypocrisy that will exist in ANY political party would be a threat to this "Marxist" party's monopoly and therefore, any such exposure would have to be suppressed. At this point, the party would rule. Not the class.

Lenin criticized the German "left communists" for thinking in terms of "rule of the party OR rule of the class." He understood that the class would rule, but not AS OPPOSED to the party.

However, the same is true the other way around. The party cannot rule AS OPPOSED to the class. The party is not the class. When the party alone rules, the class does not. It is clear in the USSR that after a point, the class did not rule: the party did, and this is contradictory to the definition of the workers' state.

In short, yes, it is important to discuss such topics as "who will rule?" and "how will we be led?" and one of the first things we have to clear up is that the party is not that class, and although we cannot deny that the class will be led by parties, the class cannot be led by ONE party, for if there is one party and no others, the party will rule and not the class. Concrete democratic rights of free speech must be extended to the entire working class, and this includes the right to organize independently of the "Marxist" party.

A good discussion between Ben Seattle, a guy named Frank, and myself can be found here: http://struggle.net/struggle/mass-democracy

Out of all of that discussion, this article in particular is quite useful: http://struggle.net/struggle/ben/2007/909-ben.htm (the main article is under the initial message)

[Die Neue Zeit]

First off, I'd like to congratulate you guys for that cool cartoon warning against sectarianism. :cool:

Now, if you were hinting at the existence of a mass party/league to complement the original vanguard party, you have a point there.

While history has proven that mass parties have a mixed record on leading an outright revolution (refer back to Lenin vs. the Mensheviks on the "militant" question, and refer to the Spartacists/KPD and the SPD), it has also proven that they are an effective opposition against bureaucratic tendencies.



I took this into consideration when I mentioned the "loyal organizational opposition" above. Assuming that history repeats itself in terms of the vanguard party transforming itself into a mass party (the Bolsheviks themselves began this process during the time of the Provisional Government), the "mass" organization should feel at home in matters of "control." And if history doesn't repeat itself in this regard, there can easily be a "loyal political and organizational opposition" forming a de facto two-party system (the vanguard party of power and the oppositional mass "league").



As for the so-called "one-party states" of the past, you should read this:

The No-Party State (http://leftclickblog.blogspot.com/2007/12/no-party-state.html)


In this fascinating book (http://books.google.com/books?id=ETQpY-32DysC&pg=PA349&lpg=PA349&dq=lewin+%22no+party%22&source=web&ots=neGK4Mp5Wu&sig=14zdfW1WElqtLO5qUbCMYmYhQB0), Moshe Lewin – himself a former collective farm worker and Red Army soldier - in effect proposes an alternative to the standard view that seeks to avoid both of these pitfalls...

Lewin rejects the claim that the Soviet Union was an example of a one party system. Instead, he suggests that it is best described as having been a “no party system”: “In the 1930s, the organization calling itself the ‘party’ had already lost its political character; it had been transformed into an administrative network, wherein a hierarchy ruled a rank and file”. Indeed, by the latter years of the regime, the party had literally become “a corpse”.



Now, as for your "DOTP" remarks, how 'bout "proletocracy" or "direct workers' democracy" (to emphasize the working-class nature of the new direct democracy, as well as to come up with a replacement for the "reformed" social democracy)? Remember, the original idea behind "social democracy" was the merger of scientific socialism (then in its "Marxist" form) and the workers' movement! (http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/Reviews/ReviewLeninRediscoveredPart1.html)

[DrFreeman09]

Greetings, Jacob Richter.

That "No-Party State" article was interesting and generally, I agree with its analysis.

What I am hinting at is that the corruption and inefficiency of bureaucracy must be given a sufficient democratic counterweight. Full democratic rights, including the right to organize independently of the "Marxist" party, will be completely necessary for true workers' rule to take place.

We have to be sure not to separate democratic rights from popular support, however. Revolutions like the Hungarian revolution ultimately failed because the revolution did not have popular support.

If the vanguard party does not have the popular support of the masses before and after the revolution, it cannot allow democratic rights of free speech and organization because the unhappy population will go with anyone who opposes the vanguard and bourgeois society will inevitably return.

However, workers' rule will be suffocated and in its place will arise a corrupt bureaucracy if such democratic rights of free speech do not exist to expose such corruption.

So, we had damn well better make sure that the vanguard party, whatever it may be, has the support of the masses. Once again, this seems obvious. But apparently, it is not obvious to a good portion of the Left.

Many Leftist organizations insist that one party (the "real" Marxist party) will have to maintain a monopoly over political power because they are the only "real" representatives of the class, and that socialism cannot afford "breaks in the ranks."

But if the "real" Marxist party has the popular support of the masses, it will not need to suppress democratic rights, and thus, workers will be able to expose any potential corruption from within the party and deal with it.

Further, the key to gaining the popular support of the masses is to assure them that true workers' rule will not have to suppress democratic rights. So it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: if we gain popular support, workers will have democratic rights of free speech and workers' rule will be successful; if we assure the masses that they will have democratic rights and workers' rule will be successful, we will have popular support.


Now, as for your "DOTP" remarks, how 'bout "proletocracy" or "direct workers' democracy" (to emphasize the working-class nature of the new direct democracy, as well as to come up with a replacement for the "reformed" social democracy)?

Indeed.

The Russian Marxist group "Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship" coined the term Proletarism to replace the term "Communism."

The precedent for this act was from Lenin himself after the Great Betrayal of 1914. Since the name social-democracy was soiled by the reformist who wanted to kill each other in WWI, Lenin felt it would confuse the masses and thus left it to the reformists. Instead, he used the term Communism.

Now that the name Communism has been soiled multiple times over, I think it's time we get rid of it.

"Proletarism" is an awkward word. But until someone comes up with something better, that's what I use.

[w0lf]

In my opinion, I think there should be a national council that would take the place of a president or dictator. Local government should be a lot stronger then national. Counties shall be led by workers councils.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 03:46 pm
Greetings, Jacob Richter.

That "No-Party State" article was interesting and generally, I agree with its analysis.
Perhaps you can help me on this, but is one of the organizational factors behind the rise of the "No-Party State" the emergence of "job slots"?

Revolutionaries in Power (http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/0-19-829738-6.pdf)


One of the central concepts of this book is what Robert Daniels has pithily described as the 'job-slot' system, by which various state and party jobs had ex officio membership - slots - on the Central Committee. Comrade 'X' was elected to the Central Committee, not directly as a popular individual or a member of a particular faction, but because he or she held a particular job whose status merited membership on the CC - although of course that appointment itself reflected favour with the leadership. Daniels himself dated the maturity of the job-slot system from the late 1920s, but it was arguably a significant factor even in the early period.

...

Nevertheless, by the time of the 11th Party Congress in 1922 the members of the Central Committee can be fitted reasonably clearly into stable categories, and a general division of labour had probably also existed in the earlier committees.

[The Soviet Elite from Lenin to Gorbachev: The Central Committee and Its Members, 1917-1991. By Evan Mawdsley and Stephen White. Chapter I. Pages 5 and 6.]




The Russian Marxist group "Party of the Proletarian Dictatorship" coined the term Proletarism to replace the term "Communism."

The precedent for this act was from Lenin himself after the Great Betrayal of 1914. Since the name social-democracy was soiled by the reformist who wanted to kill each other in WWI, Lenin felt it would confuse the masses and thus left it to the reformists. Instead, he used the term Communism.

Now that the name Communism has been soiled multiple times over, I think it's time we get rid of it.

"Proletarism" is an awkward word. But until someone comes up with something better, that's what I use.

Ah, but one of the subtler points of adopting the term "social democracy" in the first place was to move away from an "-ism" to a "-cracy" (hence my first term "proletocracy"). Another term I could use is "absolute workers' democracy," which would be stronger than "direct workers' democracy" in further emphasizing the working-class nature of the new political system.

[Ben Seattle]

Red Puppy:

After the successful revolution, how will the Socialist world be ruled? And will there not be a mass amount of power struggles from demagogues attempting to grasp control of the newly-formed and fresh Socialist world?

Hi there Red Puppy,

This is my first post here to RevLeft. It looks like a lot of comrades here have done a lot of work to make this a useful forum.

I am a theoretician and have done a lot of work to answer questions like yours.

You may be interested in an article I wrote (fairly short and easy to read) with the title: "Politics, Economics and the Mass Media when the Working Class Runs the Show" at http://struggle.net/alds/essay_153_content.htm

The short answer to your question is that struggles of all kinds will still take place in post-bourgeois society. However when the working class runs society--the conditions of struggle will be vastly improved and the principles and policies which correspond to the interests of the working class and masses will tend to win again and again. Even a workers' government will from time to time include principles, policies or people who are incompetent, hypocritical or corrupt--but these principles, policies and people will be overthrown by the many independent organizations which will exist and which will mobilize the masses for struggles on a wide variety of issues.

I would be very interested in your comments concerning my article, if you have any.

Sincerely,
Ben Seattle
http://struggle.net/ben/

[co-op]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 11, 2007 11:48 pm
Upon a discussion with a sibling on Marxism and Communism as a whole and the post-revolutionary world, I came up with this simple question I had never really thought of before.

After the successful revolution, how will the Socialist world be ruled? And will there not be a mass amount of power struggles from demagogues attempting to grasp control of the newly-formed and fresh Socialist world?
As an anarchist I believe that workers should sieze control of their factories and democratically self-manage them in the interests of all society. When there is a first-world workers revolution this it will generally be the case that workers do this anyway, its a natural process. What is key to success (post revolution) is workers maintaining their contol over the factories against the expected attemps to destroy self-management/control by those who historically oppose self-management, ie Stalinists, Leninists et al.

There will definitely be struggles against working class self-management and attempts to return to exploitation and class society. Workers must be armed and ready to counter these threats until they are percieved to have been eradicated.

If we are to achieve true communism then we cannot have some who rule and are empowered and the majority simply taking orders. I do not believe communism is something we must wait for according to some endless DOP where tomorrow never comes. Class must be abolished straight away and that means class in all its guises, economic class division and the class division of control which still exists in state-capitalism (USSR, China, Cuba etc) after private property has been abolished.

If humans are to achieve real communism then it will not be by repeating the past mistakes made by authoritarian communists but by workers going from a class in itself to a class for itself and the determined defeat of all those opposed to real economic democracy and equality.

[DrFreeman09]

Ah, but one of the subtler points of adopting the term "social democracy" in the first place was to move away from an "-ism" to a "-cracy"


Good point.



Perhaps you can help me on this, but is one of the organizational factors behind the rise of the "No-Party State" the emergence of "job slots"?



There were a lot of reasons behind that. The "job slot" system was a result of a much bigger problem: the complete lack of democracy in the USSR. The restrictions on democratic rights started with Lenin; not with Stalin as some would like to believe. But the fundamental difference between these two people was that Lenin realized that the restrictions on democratic rights were temporary emergency measures to be carried out specifically in Russia. Stalin, on the other hand, turned this suppression into a supposedly necessary feature of socialism.

It was a gamble in Russia to suppress democratic rights, but it was either that or restore bourgeois rule, because of the extremely harsh economic conditions of the country, so suppressing rights was the only real solution to give Russia a shot at achieving genuine workers' rule. Unfortunately, workers' rule never re-asserted itself and we all know what happened. The "job slot" system is pretty telling of the sort of corruption that resulted.

But it is backward to assume that such measures of suppression will be necessary in a stable, modern society like the ones we currently live in.

Co-op:


Class must be abolished straight away and that means class in all its guises, economic class division and the class division of control which still exists in state-capitalism (USSR, China, Cuba etc) after private property has been abolished.


Yes, private property, money, wage slavery, and exchange in all forms will need to disappear.

But how, exactly, do you propose that these things, which are the sources of oppression and class-based society, are to be eliminated "straight away?" Millions of workers will not be able to eliminate the rule of capital and figure out how to run an entire economy without money or exchange overnight. They will need time to experiment after bourgeois rule has been eliminated. So a state framework is necessary for a time to keep things running smoothly and to prevent the bourgeoisie (who will still maintain a good amount of power and influence) from retaking power while the workers figure out how to run the economy.

Basically, what you're saying boils down to two options:

1. The sources of oppression and the rule of capital magically disappear overnight, and thus a state is not necessary

or

2. The workers will magically figure out how to run a moneyless economy before capitalism is eliminated.

Both are ridiculous. The first just won't happen. Let me remind you that an economy run without exchange has never been done before. It will take time for the workers to figure out how to do it, and in the mean time, the sources of oppression will still exist in some form.

The second is equally implausible. ALL entities that produce a commodity are subject to the same laws of commodity production that every other business or production unit is. Co-operatives and attempts at "shadow economies" all inevitably create inequality and collapse into very business-like institutions because of the nature of the capitalist economy. So the workers will not be able to figure out how to run an economy without exchange while the capitalist mode of production is dominant.

As I said, the laws of commodity production will exist for a time after bourgeois rule is eliminated. But the workers will be able to operate outside of these laws and experiment if there is a worker-controlled state machine to keep these things running smoothly. The problem with attempting to work outside of these laws in a capitalist society is that the workers do not control the state and thus cannot help "shadow economies" emerge.

In short, such experimentation will be made a million times easier during workers' rule.

Ben Seattle (who posted above) suggests that there will be three economic sectors during workers' rule: a capitalist sector, a state-capitalist sector, and a moneyless sector. The capitalist sector will gradualy transform into a state-capitalist sector, while in the moneyless sector, the workers figure out how to run an economy without money and exchange. This sector will need to be supported by the state initially, but eventually, it will absorb the other economic sectors because it has potential to be far more efficient and satisfactory than capitalism.

I think this is a sound suggestion.

But the bottom line is that the workers need a state because the sources of oppression will not simply disappear overnight and millions of workers will not be able to just spontaneously become conscious enough to run an economy without exchange, unless the working class uses a vast amount of magic. Since this isn't going to happen, a state machine must exist until the workers succeed in creating a moneyless economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ For some reason, I don't think the "job-slot" system is entirely that bad; it's needed in key areas at the top (the party's chief theoretician should ALWAYS have full membership in the CC), but not in EVERY area (Minister of Defense), and should certainly be less pervasive further down the state apparatus. Moreover, those "job-slot" positions should originate at the party end, not at the state end like Yuri Andropov (became KGB head in 1967, and then got elevated to the Politburo in 1973).

[I'm OK with the Chairperson of state administration having full membership in the CC, but not with the Chairperson of provincial administration having full membership in the provincial Party committee, for example.]



Anyhow, I went to this "proletarist" site (http://proletarism.org/m1str.shtml), and skipped to Part IV (http://proletarism.org/hm_2_4.shtml) of Razlatzki's Second Communist Manifesto.

[I am aware that the author had more positive sentiments towards Stalin and Mao (in Part III (http://proletarism.org/hm_2_ikr.shtml)), and that those who did the introduction (http://proletarism.org/hm_2_ikr.shtml) have more pronounced sentiments about such.]

Seeing as how my "post-revolution constitutional laws" discussion pre-supposes a one-party state (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=67479) (not yet complete, but Article 107 in this discussion is a rehash of Stalin's Article 126), I was amazed at his compromise between your position and mine (and mine is a compromise between his and the traditional party-state position):


So what should we have? A two party (or multiparty) system? And will we let social contradictions resolve themselves through struggle between the ruling and the opposition party?

But, along this path, the fundamental contradiction of society, the source of its development, would be concealed, made more complicated and even pushed entirely to the side in the struggle for power; that is to say, secondary contradictions would divert much effort, but would in no way, shape or form assist in advancing society. Besides which, the existence of many parties inevitably assists in the stratification of society and the division of its interests, that is, serves to place additional obstacles on the path of the transformation of the society to classlessness.

No, solving the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only by bursting through the historical (and altogether alien to proletariat) precedents, only by liberating oneself from the path of habitual schematism.

Not the opposition of a ruling and an opposition party, but the immediate opposition of the party and the state; this is what fully reveals the social contradictions, this is what the proletariat must strive for. Yes, the party must lead the proletariat in the struggle for power. Yes, the party, at the head of the proletariat must seize this power. Yes, it must destroy the old state apparatus and build a new one. It must promote its most experienced organizers, leaders and chiefs to the leading posts in the state; and then it must immediately cross them off its list of voting members.



Alternate-History Implication: Lenin, upon becoming the Chairman of Sovnarkom, would have become a non-voting member of the Bolshevik Party!

The rest of the discussion is good too, but good enough for me to express my opinions on where in the whole system voting Party members should be and where they shouldn't be:

1) Legislators (soviets): A perpetual Party supermajority, with League (Luxemburg's mass organization to complement Lenin's vanguard organization) folks filling in the rest

2) "Workers' Control" (I'll touch this in my "constitutional laws" discussion thread): To be comprised exclusively of Party members

3) Chairperson and immediate vice-chairpersons of state administration at the highest level: full Party members (with at least the Chairperson having full CC membership)
* Here's the historical reason: just because one is a formal head of state administration doesn't mean that he is active in the state machinery. Before this file's "download for free" status was changed (http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/376210?journalCode=jmh), I was able to download the full article. To mention the article's example - Stalin - he may have been the chair of the post-war Sovmin and its standing body, but he never attended the meetings of the standing body, leaving those meetings to be chaired by the future "collective leaders" who were his successors. *

4) Internal political security ("the sword and shield of the revolution" / "Cheka"): To be staffed exclusively by Party members, voting and non-voting (the head being a full CC member)
* If "internal political security" is merely part of a larger Ministry of Internal Affairs, then #5 below applies to all other areas (protection services, prison administration, regular police, etc.). *

5) Remaining state administration and BUREAUCRACY: NO VOTING OR "CANDIDATE" PARTY MEMBERS WHATSOEVER (a mix of members who exited with good standing, outside specialists, and ordinary folks)
* Candidate members enter the party for a reason: to serve the Party, not the state! *

6) Courts (assuming an "independent" judiciary, per my Article 88): Former Party members who exited with good standing ("honourable discharge")
* However, back on the "legislative" side of things, the head of the judicial affairs committee would have non-voting CC membership (while important to filter out the good judges from the bad, filling out the Supreme Court isn't an everyday thing). *

[VukBZ2005]

This is the first part of my response to DrFreeman09;


There were a lot of reasons behind that. The "job slot" system was a result of a much bigger problem: the complete lack of democracy in the USSR. The restrictions on democratic rights started with Lenin; not with Stalin as some would like to believe. But the fundamental difference between these two people was that Lenin realized that the restrictions on democratic rights were temporary emergency measures to be carried out specifically in Russia. Stalin, on the other hand, turned this suppression into a supposedly necessary feature of socialism.
The concept that, in order to prevent the Russian Revolution from being defeated by the forces of reaction, the organs of working class and peasant power, the factory committees and the Soviets, had to be temporarily restricted or destroyed, is both absolutely ridiculous, and, has to be seen as an attempt to justify this deprivation of power from both the workers and peasants of Russia by both Lenin and the Bolsheviks. One would have be either naive or ignorant of Russian history, in order to fall for something like this.


It was a gamble in Russia to suppress democratic rights, but it was either that or restore bourgeois rule, because of the extremely harsh economic conditions of the country, so suppressing rights was the only real solution to give Russia a shot at achieving genuine workers' rule.In my perspective, it was not a gamble, but a seizure of power, something that I have just mentioned, albeit, in a manner that was indirect. The reason why I say that the actions that were taken by Lenin and the Bolsheviks were actions that became a seizure of power is because of the fact that they operated upon this belief that the working masses of Russia could not lead the revolution that they created by themselves, and at the same time, effectively defend this revolution from the forces of reaction and counter-revolution, and, because of this, there needed to be a party that would lead the revolution for the working class, and, that would protect the revolution from the forces of reaction and counter-revolution instead of the working class, due to their inability to do so. And, when you look at the position that they obtained, as a result of their role in the destruction of the Kerensky provisional government during the November (October) Revolution, in addition to putting into play the fact that the above concept was a concept that they saw as the basis for their existence, one can only say that their actions were nothing more than the logical extension of the concept that they saw as the basis for their existence. Therefore, the suppression of rights that were undertaken by Lenin and the Bolsheviks were not to give Russia a shot at having genuine Workers' Self-Management, but to take away from them the genuine Workers' Self-Management that they had, in perpetuity.


Unfortunately, workers' rule never re-asserted itself and we all know what happened.How can it?!? If you take away the real power that the working masses have, how the hell can it re-assert itself?!? Was there some magical formula that was missing during the events that were taking place during the Russian Revolution?!?

[DrFreeman09]

To Jacob Richter:

The "Proletarists" in Russia are fundamentally confused about a number of things and the only thing I fundamentally agree with them on is that Leftists should drop the terms "communism" and "socialism" in favor of terms more friendly to a 21st century attempt at workers' rule.

The rest of it is questionable. Although it does appear to be a merger of your views and mine there are a few fairly objectionable things about it.

The proletarists assume that if the party is removed from the state and the state is removed from the party, both will be perfect. Unfortunately, it is perfectly easy for the state, in the absence of any parites, to become somewhat like a party in itself. There is nothing to say that the state cannot abuse the workers like the other revisionist regimes that have existed if it doesn't have a party.

Secondly, the very nature of what they are saying is contradictory. The workers are supposed to have control over the party and the state, yet the party is supposed to work in opposition to the state. This makes very little sense.

Further, it is basically assumed in the Russian proletarists work that other parties would be suppressed. Thus, it is just as possible for the party to be corrupted without exposure as it would be if it was the ruling party.

What I am saying is not that there should be no parties involved in government. What I am saying is that there cannot be one party involved in government.

Many claim that a multiparty system would divide the class, etc. etc. The unity for unity's sake crap is complete nonsense. What many propose is that the class must be merged and unified into one party for it to maintain workers' rule. But this isn't real unity. There WILL be disagreements. There WILL be wrong ideas that emerge. But the solution of a huge portion of the Left is to simply suppress these struggles in the name of "unity." However, such suppression does not solve any problems. It obscures the problems from sight, but they are still there.

Real unity comes from the resolution that results from open struggle. The way to solve problems is to confront them.

Further, you cannot give a central authority the ability to suppress "bad" trends without also giving it the ability to suppress everything else. And such power corrupts.

If the workers had genuine control over this power, it would be fine. But this is difficult by its very nature.

When you give a single point of control the ability to decide what is healthy and unhealthy in culture, the working class isn't deciding. This single point of control can claim that any trend that opposes it (even trends that expose the hypocrisy and corruption within the Party) is counter-revolutionary and have it suppressed. This is what has happened every time a workers' state has been attempted to date.

So it is clear that for the working class to truly be able to decide what is healthy/unhealthy in culture and life, it will have to be able to organize independently of the "proletarian" party without permission from the state. The various trends will fight it out and the ones capable of representing the working class will win.

In short, a party cannot represent the class if the class cannot operate outside of it and check its power. The party is not the class. If one party rules, the class does not.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Unfortunately, it is perfectly easy for the state, in the absence of any parites, to become somewhat like a party in itself.

I thought Moshe Lewin argued the exact opposite regarding the politically inept "no-party state" - that the party, when too interlinked with state administration, is taken over by state-administrative norms. :confused:


Secondly, the very nature of what they are saying is contradictory. The workers are supposed to have control over the party and the state, yet the party is supposed to work in opposition to the state. This makes very little sense.

Huh? That article said that the state is so fundamentally reactionary even to workers. The state's only use is against the former ruling class (hence the proliferation within that apparatus by former Party members who exited "with good standing"). Besides, society cannot eliminate the state, even gradually ("withering away") without first opposing its very existence, no?

[DrFreeman09]

I thought Moshe Lewin argued the exact opposite regarding the politically inept "no-party state" - that the party, when too interlinked with state administration, is taken over by state-administrative norms.

This was really only the case because the party essentially was the state.

I believe the issue the PDP is confused on is why the workers' state in the Soviet Union degenerated. They believe that all parties who are involved with the state will corrupt and degenerate. However, I believe this is only the case when the party is the state. Parties can be involved in the state framework without being the state.

The PDP claims that "the existence of many parties inevitably assists in the stratification of society and the division of its interests".

Such a position assumes there is one more or less "correct" interest of the working class and that all opposing trends are "wrong" and should be suppressed.

But by its very nature, that statement means that the working class isn't really deciding what is in their interest. Often, the working class will disagree over what is in its best interest. It is necessary at this point for these contradictions to be brought into the light. Suppressing them doesn't solve the problem and it effectively eliminates genuine working class control over govenment.

So the PDP doesn't solve the problem just by removing the proletarian party as the ruling party.

In short, it is questionable whether the workers will be able to maintain genuine control over the workers' state simply by acting opposed to it. I believe it will probably be necessary for proletarian parties to also take a direct role in government in addition to acting outside of it. But this is not the main area where the "Second Communist Manifesto" fails. It fails in that it doesn't see that the real reason the workers' state degenerated in the USSR was that there was no opposition to that degeneration. It does not necessarily mean that all parties will follow the same path if they take an active role in government. Rather, it means that when there is only one party allowed to take an active role in government, the party will essentially be the state, and without other working class organizations to check its power, it will corrupt and degenerate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To Jacob Richter:

The "Proletarists" in Russia are fundamentally confused about a number of things and the only thing I fundamentally agree with them on is that Leftists should drop the terms "communism" and "socialism" in favor of terms more friendly to a 21st century attempt at workers' rule.

I did say above that the author may have been sympathetic towards Stalin and Mao, and that those who wrote the introduction to his work are even more so. ;)

Other errors, such as their absolute garbage on the Soviet Union after Stalin being "feudalist," are pointed out quite loudly in a Communist Voice article rebutting Ben Seattle (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/Ltr080109.html) (going so far as to equating his "three-sector" post-revolutionary economy with the old Stalinist state-capitalist economy)!


The rest of it is questionable. Although it does appear to be a merger of your views and mine there are a few fairly objectionable things about it.

In all fairness, I must disclose that, up until I read that work, I was the only person who thought that there should be extensive separation between the party and state administration (except for the "prestige" and internal security sections of state administration).

My sources for my thought:

1) The "no-party state" stuff (Moshe Lewin);
2) Vanguard vs. mass party - I always thought that any genuine vanguard party will never have enough members to fill every slot in state administration, so it should focus on the key areas.

Before I read Razlatzki, my idea coming in was that the "Gosplan" apparatus would also be filled completely by Party members, recalling the Soviet slogan about "the Plan is the law" viz the firm coordinators (who are outside Gosplan).

Coming out of that experience, I realized that any future work for state economic planning, no matter how far out into the future the forecasts were, would be too present-minded (economists, statisticians, liaisons with firm coordinators etc.).

In any event, both he and I hold views on this subject that are in between yours and the orthodox position (absolute Partyocracy, even in state administration).




Many claim that a multiparty system would divide the class, etc. etc. The unity for unity's sake crap is complete nonsense. What many propose is that the class must be merged and unified into one party for it to maintain workers' rule. But this isn't real unity. There WILL be disagreements. There WILL be wrong ideas that emerge. But the solution of a huge portion of the Left is to simply suppress these struggles in the name of "unity." However, such suppression does not solve any problems. It obscures the problems from sight, but they are still there.

Real unity comes from the resolution that results from open struggle. The way to solve problems is to confront them.

Of course there will be disagreements and wrong ideas, and they need to come out into the open and be confronted. Factionalism is healthy for the party. Also, the "provincial and local" petit-bourgeois organizations that are ALLOWED will undoubtedly express their ideas out into the open (so there they are, the non-worker bogeymen to shout at). What Razlatzki and I are saying, however, is that a multi-party system would hinder unity in action.

I had this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1050595&postcount=30) to say to an ex-Trot who became an anarchist:


Democratic centralism is "freedom of discussion, unity in action." (Lenin)

Let me review the features of democratic centralism and also highlight where I think you've got problems:

1) Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.
2) Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.

3) Strict and conscious discipline in the party—the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.

4) Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.
5) Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create.



If you've got problems with the bolded text above, I understand your position (the potential for abuse). Note, however, that I've deliberately put space between #3 (strict subordination of the minority to the majority) and the rest. If you've got problems with this - like anarchists and "autonomous Marxists" do - then you're erroneously (and quite gravely, might I add) siding with spontaneity.

I'm NOT calling you a "spontaneist" here, given your obvious acknowledgement of the need for a vanguard party. ;)

[Waits for Martov :D]



Furthermore, Communist Voice also said this in the same article above:


You believe it is absurd to imagine that the bulk of the class-conscious workers would unite behind a single party because of all the different things they might disagree on. But, if there are disagreements on what policies a party should advocate, there will be the same disagreements on what policies the government should implement. If your reasoning were valid, it would be equally absurd to imagine that the working class could rule.

When people unite into a party, it doesn't mean that they agree on every detail. It means that they recognize their common interests despite their differences, and they believe that if a party adopts certain general standpoints, it is worthy of support. And after they gain experience in party life, they may well come to recognize the value of working out views in common. That is why it takes a certain level of consciousness and class maturity for the working masses to unite into a party. If people really could agree on every last comma, then people could unite easily. But one has to learn how to work together with other people on a certain definite platform, even though there are differences of temperament, viewpoint, experience, abilities, circumstances, and even of certain material interests. This is required not just for unity in a party, but for any type of class unity, such as the class unity needed to rule a country.

You write about differences. But you focus on differences about exactly how much money goes here and there. There are some very well-known differences which you neglect to mention. What about differences of nationality and of religion? Your argument would lead to the view that there must be separate parties for workers of each religion (as well as a separate one for nonbelievers), and separate parties for workers of each nationality. The working class movement would dissolve into separate religious and national movements. In fact, it is unity across national and religious lines that gives a tremendous moral authority to the working class movement. Meanwhile the Leninist party especially showed that it was possible to pay attention to the special needs of different sectors of the working class, while preserving the unity of the party.

If workers can actually run the affairs of a country on a class basis, and if this is a stable rule, then it means that they have overcome their divisions and, in some sense, have formed a political party. That's what it means to act as a class on political issues. This party, or party in a broad sense, might be organized in a better or worse fashion, and might formally be divided into several organizations. But the most favorable circumstance is that most of the working class is organized behind a single class-wide party. There are many examples of classes which have been defeated because they were politically divided. But even if a single proletarian party maintains the stable support of the majority of the population, this doesn't necessarily mean that other parties, if they haven't risen in revolt against proletarian rule, will be suppressed. Moreover, even when there is a single dominant proletarian party, there may be a number of smaller parties closely associated with it: naturally, though, as you don't regard mass organizations as truly reflecting the masses if they back the proletarian party, you probably wouldn't regard the smaller revolutionary parties as actual separate parties either.

Moreover, whenever the working class has moved toward class-wide struggle and revolutionary upsurge, there is generally a strong gravitation by the working class towards unity. The old divisions begin to break down. And on the other hand, bourgeois parties will tend to rise up against the insurgent working class. These bourgeois parties may call themselves socialist or workers' or revolutionary parties, just as many bourgeois parties do now, but they will not be competing with the working class party or parties to improve proletarian rule, but they will aim to smash it to bits. The struggle of classes and parties in a revolutionary age isn't going to be simply a gentle parliamentary "competition and cooperation".

[DrFreeman09]

Communist Voice does gives good analysis at times. BUT, they are thoroughly confused on a number of issues.

I have read Joseph Green's rebuttal of Ben Seattle and a reply will be made in the next several weeks. For the time being, the article is being discussed here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300 The discussion goes back a little ways, but I will highlight some main points here:

Me:



Joseph writes:

> Capitalist economies have a large number of independent enterprises
> that are free of conscious social planning, and engage
> in "competition and cooperation" by means of buying and selling
> from each other. The marketplace provides the connection that
> forces these units not to produce at random, but to be part of a
> whole. The result is, while they may imagine themselves free to do
> as they please, the sum of their activities is ruled by Adam
> Smith's famous "invisible hand". The invisible hand is also an iron
> hand, and it results in boom and bust, devastation of the
> environment, overwork and unemployment, and the other well-known
> features of capitalism. The economy appears to have a life of its
> own, independent of human volition. Each enterprise and each worker
> appears to be economically free, and yet they are ruled by forces
> beyond their control.

This is yet another equation of Ben's proposal for a free sector to
capitalism. The fundamental difference between capitalist competition
and the competition that will (in my opinion) have to exist in this
moneyless economy is that the end result of this capitalist
competition is that it produces a commodity. The moneyless sector
will NOT produce commodities because what it produces is not to be
bought or sold. The laws of commodity production, and all of the
things that make capitalism a shitty economic system, will not apply
in an economy based on abundance where people do not buy, sell, or
even exchange goods.

In short, this moneyless sector will not be a marketplace, and I
believe it is foolish to equate it to one.



Ben Seattle added this, which is probably worth reading in its entirety: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/1836

Subsequently, I added this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/1837, where I specifically addressed the section you quoted. Here it is:


> When people unite into a party, it doesn't mean that they agree on
> every detail. It means that they recognize their common interests
> despite their differences, and they believe that if a party adopts
> certain general standpoints, it is worthy of support. And after they
> gain experience in party life, they may well come to recognize the
> value of working out views in common.

But what if the party becomes plagued by corruption and hypocrisy?
Would it not be in the best interest of the working class to organize
independently of the party and expose such things? Secondly, how is
the entire working class to unite behind this one party? Won't there
be people who disagree with the party enough to want to organize
independently of it? How is the Party to prevent this from happening?
Oh yeah, by suppressing democratic rights. Once again, if one looks
deeper into Joseph's arguments, one finds that he believes that those
who want to organize independently of the party are class enemies.
But who decides who is a class enemy? The class? No, not under
Joseph's system. The party does!

> You write about differences. But you focus on differences about
> exactly how much money goes here and there. There are some very
> well-known differences which you neglect to mention. What about
> differences of nationality and of religion? Your argument would
> lead to the view that there must be separate parties for workers of
> each religion (as well as a separate one for nonbelievers), and
> separate parties for workers of each nationality. The working class
> movement would dissolve into separate religious and national
> movements.

This whole "breaks in the ranks" argument is yet another telling tale
that shows what Joseph really thinks. He thinks that if people
disagree over religion and such, the party should take an official
position and suppress all opposition. Problem solved! But the problem
is not solved; it is simply obscured.

If he does not believe this, then he should say so and propose how
exactly these conflicts would be resolved in the system he advocates.
But he has failed to do that because (I believe) he doesn't have an
answer.

> If workers can actually run the affairs of a country on a class
> basis, and if this is a stable rule, then it means that they have
> overcome their divisions and, in some sense, have formed a political
> party.

The biggest mistake Joseph makes is equating the party to the class.
The party is not the class. If the party alone rules, the class does
not. I believe you made that fairly clear in the last installment of
the debate between Frank and ourselves:
http://struggle.net/struggle/ben/2007/909-ben.htm (http://struggle.net/struggle/ben/2007/909-ben.htm)


Me again:


Joseph:

> One problem with the proletarist system is that, if there is no
> ruling party, the state apparatus may find itself independent of
> outside political control. Thus the possibility exists that the
> government itself would emerge as the ruling party.

Joseph is thinking in black and white: he thinks there will either be
one ruling party or there will be no control over the government and
the government will become the ruling party.

We (as far as I know) don't oppose the control of government through
political organization (i.e. parties), but we do oppose the control
of government by_one_party. There is a huge difference between that
and what Joseph claims we are advocating here.

Joseph seems to think that the whole "Power Corrupts" spiel
is "abstract." It seems pretty clear to me. Power corrupts.

> Power corrupts, you say, and so a strong party would be corrupt,
> and so we had better abandon party-building.

No, that's not what we're saying. A strong party that maintained
absolute power over politics would be corrupt. However, a party that
did not have the luxury of absolute control over politics would be
less likely to corrupt, and if it did corrupt, the working class
could actually do something about it.

Giving one party the role of ruling party means that to make sure
that it stays the ruling party, it must have the authority to
suppress opposing trends, right? This means that you are giving a
party the right to decide what is healthy or unhealthy in culture
without opposition, and at this point, the working class isn't
running the show.

Joseph claims that if the workers had genuine control over this
central authority, then they_would_be running the show. But the
workers CANNOT exercise genuine control over this authority in
Jospeh's system because the ruling party has suppressed their
democratic rights!

And still, Joseph denies that his ideal system would suppress
democratic rights, but how else will the ruling party maintain that
position?

You can't have it both ways. You cannot have one ruling party without
suppressing other parties. This is something that Joseph is fuzzy on.
He wants it both ways. When presented with the argument that he is
advocating the suppression of democratic rights, he recoils in
disgust, but he turns around and advocates a one-party state.

It is likely that the proletarian party will be the majority party,
and it may be that for a time, it will effectively be the only party
in government. But workers cannot be prevented from organizing
outside of it. This whole unity for unity's sake nonsense that Joseph
advocates is more or less complete bullshit. Unity is important, but
the unity that Joseph advocates is forced. It is forced because the
workers, in Joseph's ideal system, are_not allowed_to organize
outside of the party. This is not real unity, and it doesn't solve
any problems. Problems are solved when you confront them and deal
with them. Suppression of trends that oppose the "proletarian" party
merely obscures the problems from view, yet they are still there. On
the other hand, real unity will come as a result of problems being
solved through the open struggle of different trends. These trends
will more or less fight it out and the ones capable of mobilizing the
masses will win.

Joseph is correct in that the class must be unified against the
bourgeoisie. But once again, Joseph's idea of unity is that of
forcing everyone to conform to one party, which is unity only
superficially. There will be fundamentally wrong ideas that will
emerge during workers' rule. But it is important for these ideas to
be brought out into the light and dealt with as opposed to simply
suppressing them. The reason for this is that what is right or wrong
must be decided by the working class and not a single point of
control.

It is also questionable whether we should use the term "democratic centralism" to describe what the party looks. Most organizations (including the CVO) demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what that actually means and why a centralist policy was implemented in Russia. This was one issue that I tackled in "Appendix A" of this article: http://theredbeacon.wordpress.com/2007/12/29/on-vanguard-parties/

The problem with Joseph argument is this: it doesn't matter what Joseph imagines about democratic rights during workers' rule. He has never explicitly said that the workers will have concrete democratic rights. Instead, he dodges the question whenever it is asked. He denies that he opposes democratic rights, but he never explicitly says that the workers will have them. And coupled with this silence are his arguments that the state must be merged with one party. It doesn't matter how democratic the party itself will be in theory. What single-party rule ammounts to in practice is that it will need to suppress democratic rights to some extent to maintain that position. How can you prevent other trends from arising unless you do so? Joseph believes that a single point of control should decide what is right for the working class and suppress the opposing trends.

But this is a bankrupt view. The right to decide what is healthy/unhealthy, or good/bad must belong to the entire working class and not a single point of control.

It doesn't matter what the ideal one-party system would be in theory, i.e. a combination of division in debate and unity in action. What matters is that power corrupts. The party will become victim to corruption and hypocrisy. But these things can be countered by the working class if they have the concrete right to organize independently of the party.

What Joseph is doing here is "implying" that the workers will have rights. But at the same time, he is saying that independent organization would divide the class. So he is also "implying" that the party will suppress other parties (like I said, there is no other way to prevent opposing trends from springing up).

The party cannot be given the authority to suppress "bad" opposing trends without also being given the authority to suppress ALL opposing trends. Joseph believes that this is fine if the working class has genuine control over the party. But HOW will the workers have genuine control over the party? By means of democratic rights which Joseph's party would have suppressed?

There are ways to effectively diminish the power of the bourgeoisie in being divisive without eliminating the ability to organize independently of the party. The latter is completely unacceptable for reason that should seem obvious: it eliminates the working class's ability to check the power of the state and the party.

However, what I believe are some alternatives that make sense are clearly outlined in this article by Ben Seattle:

http://struggle.net/struggle/alds/essay_153_content.htm

Finally, Lenin said some things on a possible Bolshevik two-party system. Here is Ben's analysis:


[I wrote the comments below in 1999. In this
section, Lenin describes a transition step that
could have unfolded to help mitigate the problems
of single party rule in the period before
democratic rights could have been extended to
the entire population. Ben -- Sept 2007]

I will introduce my reply [...] with
a "secondhand" interview with Lenin described by George
Seldes in his 1988 book "Witness to a Century". Seldes went
on to become the publisher of a one-person social-democratic
newsletter (1940-50) that became the inspiration for "I.F.
Stone's Weekly". In late 1922, as a reporter, he was sent
to Russia to gather intelligence for the US government as a
condition for US famine relief. Stone interviewed many key
figures in Russia and was personally debriefed by US
president Warren G. Harding when he returned.

=======================================
Lenin on a Bolshevik "two-party system"
=======================================

(from "Witness to a Century" by George Seldes, 1988)

"For many weeks Oscar Cesare, the noted artist of
The New York Times, was privileged to sit in
Lenin's office daily and make sketches. Sometimes
Lenin talked. When Spewack of the World and I
heard of these conversations, we primed Cesare
with questions--and thus had a secondhand running
interview.

"To our questions, 'Will you ever permit another
political party to exist in Soviet Russia?' Lenin
replied:

"'The two-party system is a luxury which only
long-established and secure nations can afford.
However, eventually we will have a two-party
system such as the British have--a left party
and a right party--but two Bolshevik parties,
of course.'

"Cesare said that Lenin's eyes twinkled when he said
'two-party system,' and that he finished his talk
with a knowing laugh."

Such an "interview" certainly contradicts the notion of our
"Cargo Cult Leninists" that Lenin stood for the rule of a
single monolithic party (ie: without factions) thruout the
entire period of the D of P. These people (and others) may
question whether Seldes' account can be considered reliable.

I am personally confident that Seldes' account is accurate.
How do I know? I believe we can know it is accurate the
same way we can know that Phoenician claims to have
circumnavigated Africa in a three-year voyage before 500
B.C. are accurate. The Greek historian Herodotus,
considering these claims fifty years later, doubted their
validity because the Phoenicians reported that in the far
south the Sun [at noon] was in the northern half of the sky.
Herodotus felt this to be impossible. Issac Asimov notes
that we moderns know that the [noon] Sun _is_ always in the
northern half of the sky when seen from that latitude. "The
Phoenicians would not have made up such a ridiculous story
if they had not actually witnessed it, so the very item that
caused Herodotus to doubt the story convinces us that it
must be true."

In a loosely analogous way, I believe that Seldes account is
accurate because Lenin's remarks are _theoretically correct_
and I believe it was beyond the power of someone with
Seldes' ideology to make up such a formulation. (Note
again, potential opponents--I do _not_ claim the
formulations are correct _because_ Lenin said them. On the
contrary, I claim that Lenin said them because they are
correct. ;-)

I present the "interview" here as food for thought. This
interview is characteristic of how Lenin thought: Lenin was
able to see phenomena in the _process of development_.
Lenin clearly saw that the _form_ of working class rule
would certainly change as it developed, as conditions
developed and experience was accumulated--just as the form
of capitalist rule developed from the stern Oliver Cromwell
to the modern bourgeois democracy.

We can't know, from Seldes' description, the exact words
that Lenin might have used nor what he really had in mind
when he said "two-party system" and his eyes twinkled. But
the "interview" helps us to grasp that the period of
workers' rule will have _stages of development_ within it.
The necessity of overcoming the extreme problems that
inevitably accompany such highly centralized power (ie: the
ease with which officials at all levels would be able to
silence the press to cover-up their incompetence, hypocrisy
or corruption) would probably find expression _first_ in a
system which permits a "loyal opposition". As experience is
accumulated--the boundaries of oppositional behavior that
serve the interest of workers (and the workers' state) would
be determined experimentally.

I appologize for the lengthy post and I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Apology accepted (although my brain is hurting a bit right now ;) ).



PART ONE

Before I spend "inordinate" time on your post, let my start off with some initial comments...

Yes, I remember that "two Bolshevik parties" interview that Lenin gave to "some British guy" (I never thought that the guy was AMERICAN until you pointed that out :p ;) ). However, just like methinks you're too attached to Lord Acton's "power corrupts" quote (in reality, power is a two-edged sword, and not inherently bad or "evil"), I am too attached to "slippery slope" arguments. Right now, as you know, there is a plethora of sectarian "communist" organizations out there, each claiming to be the "one true Party." I addressed this problem in a Practice forum thread "Why not an international socialist party?" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index.html) - where I INADVERTENTLY absorbed Bordigist ideas on international organization (not even "infantile" in the time of the Second International). The problem with even this "two-party system" is that it sets a sectarian precedent: if two parties are OK, why not three, four, five, a hundred, etc.?

EDIT: I'm quoting Razlatzki again here so that this post can be linked to as the summary post of my position on this subject:


So what should we have? A two party (or multiparty) system? And will we let social contradictions resolve themselves through struggle between the ruling and the opposition party?

But, along this path, the fundamental contradiction of society, the source of its development, would be concealed, made more complicated and even pushed entirely to the side in the struggle for power; that is to say, secondary contradictions would divert much effort, but would in no way, shape or form assist in advancing society. Besides which, the existence of many parties inevitably assists in the stratification of society and the division of its interests, that is, serves to place additional obstacles on the path of the transformation of the society to classlessness.

No, solving the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible only by bursting through the historical (and altogether alien to proletariat) precedents, only by liberating oneself from the path of habitual schematism.

Not the opposition of a ruling and an opposition party, but the immediate opposition of the party and the state; this is what fully reveals the social contradictions, this is what the proletariat must strive for. Yes, the party must lead the proletariat in the struggle for power. Yes, the party, at the head of the proletariat must seize this power. Yes, it must destroy the old state apparatus and build a new one. It must promote its most experienced organizers, leaders and chiefs to the leading posts in the state; and then it must immediately cross them off its list of voting members.




What single-party rule amounts to in practice is that it will need to suppress democratic rights to some extent to maintain that position.

"Unity in action" by default already suppresses to some extent "democratic rights!" I'm all for freedom of discussion, but this point is really important here (the minority should NOT continue to oppose the majority once a vote has been taken)! Again, please read my remarks to the ex-Trot, wherein I acknowledge the potential for abuse yet stress the importance of this third point of democratic centralism (which I would rather call "proletocratic centralism" ;) ).



I mentioned a "Communist Workers' League" above as the complement to the "party of power" - and your article above did mention "... would probably find expression first in a system which permits a 'loyal opposition'":


Article 107 [Freedom of Association]

In conformity with the interests of the urban and rural workers, and in order to develop their organizational initiative and political activity, citizens of the Soviet Republic are guaranteed the right to unite in public organizations, both inside and outside the system of workers' power: workers' organizations (including workplace committees), cooperative organizations (including communal councils), provincial and local petit-bourgeois organizations, youth organizations, sport clubs, and cultural and scientific societies.

Article 107-a

The most advanced and resolute (that is, militant) sections of the urban and rural workers voluntarily unite in the Revolutionary Party of Workers' Power (Communist), which was the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers in their revolutionary struggles, and remains the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers—as the nucleus of various organs of workers' power—in their continuing efforts to jointly build socialism and communism.

Article 107-b

Other advanced and resolute (but not militant) sections of the urban and rural workers are guaranteed the right to voluntarily unite in the Communist Workers' League (or its youth wing), which is the leading mass organization of the urban and rural workers and is the nucleus of various public organizations that are outside the Party.

Believe it or not, while this Article on the surface loudly proclaims "the Party" to be the ruling party, there are key areas open for interpretation that can set aside that surface claim:

"Workers' organizations" in the first paragraph can easily include other political parties, and this was missing in the old "Stalin constitution" (Article 126: "trade unions, cooperative associations, youth organizations,' sport and defence organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies").

"...the nucleus of various organs of workers' power..." is very open. At a left-communist minimum, I think you'd agree that the Party must have absolute control over "workers' inspection and control." The Party must be at the forefront in the fight against bureaucratic and economic corruption.



Furthermore, I said this (http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-party-state-t66586/index2.html) regarding "loyal oppositions" in organizational sections of the Party besides the usual "platforms" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/questions-platformism-and-t69243/index.html) within the Party:


Now, back to the original question in terms of the DOTP proper (because socialism is too far ahead to plan for): yes and no, especially when reading Lenin's How We Should Reorganise the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection and Better Fewer, But Better.

Yes, in that there should be only one proper communist party in charge of all leading organs of workers' power (at the very least, if not in the local workplace committees and communal councils, then in the "chain" of soviets). (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65207&view=findpost&p=1292296528) Besides, wasn't one of the Comintern's conditions the operation of only one communist party "per country"?

All the other "factions" in said organs would represent "cooperative associations, youth organizations, sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies." Whether said "factional deputies" would also be Party members, who knows?

And this is where a very complicated "no" comes in:

1) I don't think that every "factional deputy" representing the above organizations in quotation marks would also be Party members.

2) A "loyal organizational opposition" should be built into the Party itself and should possess full control over the "control branch" of government (by "control," I mean the checking, auditing, investigating, etc. functions), and should have its own organizational bodies, independent from Central Committee influence. Per this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=dV_Gufwx31UC&dq=%22origins+of+the+stalinist%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=A4dX81El8Y&sig=-n4MrmijsXfK2M_gdH-15OG7gH8#PPA84,M1), the problem with Lenin's proposal is that, while "the commissions were to be independent of party committees [...] they had to rely upon those committees for the machinery to implement their decisions. In this way their independence was compromised organizationally from the outset" (p. 83-84).

This "loyal organizational opposition" wouldn't foray into political questions, however.

3) Within the CC-directed bodies themselves, there would be [platforms] dealing with political and/or organizational questions. Together, these [platforms] and the bodies under their control would constitute the "party of power" within the Party.

[DrFreeman09]

Anyhow, I'll continuously edit this post for the next several hours (its 10 pm here), so please don't reply for the next 14 hours unless you wish to reply specifically to this "Part One." Thanks.
I'll keep that in mind, but there are a couple of things, initially, that I would like to address.

First of all, that "Lenin on the two-party system" article was not mine, and was written by Ben in 1999. I tried to make that clear. But perhaps it wasn't, since it was included among a mixture of other short articles I had written.

The "two-party system" article was included as part of the article "What Does Victory Look Like," which can be found here: http://struggle.net/struggle/ben/2007/909-ben.htm

Now,



The problem with even this "two-party system" is that it sets a sectarian precedent: if two parties are OK, why not three, four, five, a hundred, etc.?


Exactly. Why not? Even though people have the free right to organization in capitalist nations, the bourgeoisie still support two major parties. And as will be discussed below, the benefits of having multiple parties outweighs their supposed "sectarianism."


"Unity in action" by default already suppresses to some extent "democratic rights!" I'm all for freedom of discussion, but this point is really important here (the minority should NOT continue to oppose the majority once a vote has been taken)!

Centralism may have been necessary in the Soviet Union.

But to claim that the measures taken in the Soviet Union are applicable to everywhere else in the world negates what Marx said about these sorts of things:

"The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing [...]" -- Marx in the 1872 German preface to The Communist Manifesto

Secondly, you readily admit that "unity in action" is a form of suppression of democratic rights. While I disagree that this is acceptable, at least you are more honest than the CVO, who will not admit that. :)

In effect, what you are advocating is that all things should be carried out democratically until the decision is made. This means that effectively, you are still advocating a one-party state. In this case, it does not matter how democratic the party itself is in theory or even in practice to some extent. What matters is that this party is forcefully maintaining a monopoly over political power.

As a result, if the party was to become plagued by corruption and hypocrisy, there wouldn't be much the workers could do about it, because they could not oppose any decision that the party made.

There is also a difference between closing a bourgeois TV station that exploits its workers and eliminating the ability of workers to freely organize, distribute leaflets, etc. (have I already talked about this?)

The first is completely acceptable, but the second is extremely dangerous and has led to the degeneration of every workers' state to date. The workers cannot be prevented from opposing decisions even after they are made, because to enforce this, the workers' democratic rights must be suppressed. Thus, the democratic rights necessary for workers' rule to exist will not be extended to the entire working class.

In short, if the majority is wrong, the minority will have no way of exposing the corrupt decision and possible corruption within the party. There will be no safeguard against corruption, and in the end, the party will rule and the class will not.

Do I exhibit a fetish with Lord Action's "power corrupts" spiel? I don't think so, because history has demonstrated time and again that this statement is true.

You talk (like Joseph does) about power being a double-edged sword. But the benefits of power to the working class will be undermined if there is no way for the workers to oppose wrong decisions.

The way I see it, multiple parties will "fight it out" more or less for all to see. Some workers may support one party one time, or support another party another time, based on what these parties are actually advocating. It may be the case that the major party (or parties) may have to change their policy to pick up the support of those who support the minor parties. Either way, the ability for workers to organize independently of the "proletarian" party provides a sufficient check for state and party power.

Finally, Ben wrote an interesting article on centralism that may be worth your time: http://leninism.org/pof/pof7.htm

[More Fire for the People]

How should we be ruled? The phrase ‘of and by us’ is adequate—more like who rules us, us! In the workplace, there won’t be any more bosses or managers. Instead, all decisions will take place in workers’ councils & assemblies. How do we stop demagogues from centralizing power? By building the movement democratically and from the roots up. If the center of socialist verbal exchange & organizing is in workers’ councils & assemblies before the revolution, then it makes sense that they would be the center of everything after the revolution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

First of all, that "Lenin on the two-party system" article was not mine, and was written by Ben in 1999.

Actually, I read it elsewhere. ;)

Anyhow, I don't know why I'm at a loss of words. What was originally intended to be a two-parter became an elongated post (and I do notice that you didn't comment on my Article 107 and accompanying comments :( ).


Centralism may have been necessary in the Soviet Union.

But to claim that the measures taken in the Soviet Union are applicable to everywhere else in the world negates what Marx said about these sorts of things:

"The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing [...]" -- Marx in the 1872 German preface to The Communist Manifesto

I'm well aware of that, otherwise I wouldn't have started a past thread on "early Marx" vs. "late Marx" (the former dismissing the prospects of revolution in Russia, and the latter authoring a letter to Vera Zasulich).


Secondly, you readily admit that "unity in action" is a form of suppression of democratic rights. While I disagree that this is acceptable, at least you are more honest than the CVO, who will not admit that. :)

As I said above, I prefer to call it "proletocratic centralism."


In effect, what you are advocating is that all things should be carried out democratically until the decision is made. This means that effectively, you are still advocating a one-party state. In this case, it does not matter how democratic the party itself is in theory or even in practice to some extent. What matters is that this party is forcefully maintaining a monopoly over political power.

As a result, if the party was to become plagued by corruption and hypocrisy, there wouldn't be much the workers could do about it, because they could not oppose any decision that the party made.

Huh? Where did you get that notion from? Let me be clearer ( :( ): while I was a bit emotional in my advocacy of class-wide "unity of action," I was advocating it in a weak form.

Even in my example above, NON-Party workers could protest the decisions. Let's take this to a worst-case scenario, wherein the idea of extending "proletocratic centralism" applies strictly to the political organs of workers' power. In the system of soviets, workplace committees, and communal councils, let's have a hypothetical example of merely a Party supermajority and a League minority. In this scenario, the League can still organize protests, but only those League members who have been elected to the system have to be quiet about the decisions (unless they actually support them, because the League wouldn't be organized on the principle of "proletocratic centralism").


There is also a difference between closing a bourgeois TV station that exploits its workers and eliminating the ability of workers to freely organize, distribute leaflets, etc. (have I already talked about this?)

You have, and I have read it extensively. My idea with regards to minimal restrictions on democratic rights is that, again non-Party workers can protest! Article 107 above loudly proclaims the prominence of the Party, but again, as I said, there's a lot of wiggle room for interpretation. In a worse case scenario, only the formation of actual, non-Party parties is taboo.


In short, if the majority is wrong, the minority will have no way of exposing the corrupt decision and possible corruption within the party. There will be no safeguard against corruption, and in the end, the party will rule and the class will not.

Did you read my quote regarding a "loyal organizational opposition" within the Party above?




Finally, Ben wrote an interesting article on centralism that may be worth your time: http://leninism.org/pof/pof7.htm


There is another issue here that is of interest. Lenin favored a party modeled after the most advanced form of capitalist cooperation which existed at the time. I doubt that many who study capitalist organization today would argue that the factory is the most advanced form. People who today study the organization of modern corporations (and are generally well-paid by the capitalists for their advice)--are much more concerned with forms of organization which "push down" decision making to lower levels. Today, the more advanced forms of capitalist organization are more concerned with such matters as encouraging greater "initiative from below".

Now, to prevent some possible misconceptions, I should point out here that the great majority of workers under capitalism will probably never have much opportunity to display much of this increased initiative. Much of the need and the focus, within capitalist organizations, for greater initiative from below, is aimed at sections of workers who tend to be above the lowest rungs. But for our purposes--that is beside the point--because we are concerned here not with how capitalist organization will supposedly liberate workers--but with better understanding how the most advanced forms of capitalist cooperation operate--so that, like Lenin, we can adapt some of the "best practices"--to build an organization which will make possible the overthrow of capitalism--and the replacement of capitalism with something which will work *better*. What is at issue--is that the capitalists themselves are searching for methods that unleash greater amounts of flexibility and initiative--and the most successful corporations are increasingly those who have found such methods--because these methods result in a higher productivity of labor.

This stuff on organization hooked this corporate finance student on to read further. Further comments are pending. :cool: ;)



Section 7c talks about the lack of many-to-many communication technology back in Lenin's day. If anything else, the other historical premise of WITBD - forming a party newspaper - is somewhat obsolete due to the Internet. :D

Skipping to Section 7d, where Lenin quoted Kautsky in One Step Forward ("let him suggest that candidates be nominated by the direct vote of the Party membership at large"), does that mean that even Party congresses are obsolete? On the other hand, since decisions need to be made quickly, do future Party congress folks merely filter out the most important criticisms and opinions of support from the trivial stuff while maintaining their own conscience (as opposed to the Menshevik proposal of delegates voting exactly as their constituents voted)?

[Interestingly enough, I read an ICC commentary (left-communist) (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/110_conference.html) on the context behind Lenin's work.]

Section 7e calls Trotsky a clown - "No predominate center emerges and only charlatans and clueless clowns (ie: Trotsky)" - I like that! :D

Alas, Section 7f, describing a fifth type of communist organization, doesn't mention the possibility of full internationalization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index.html). :(

[Ben Seattle]

Hi Jacob,

Just a quick note here (I must apologize for not having the time right now to read or study this entire thread).

Your comment that caught my eye was this one:

Section 7c talks about the lack of many-to-many communication technology back in Lenin's day. If anything else, the other historical premise of WITBD - forming a party newspaper - is somewhat obsolete due to the Internet.The goal of a revolutionary news service remains the central unifying task that will unite revolutionaries today. The news service will consist of a central database of articles (and comments, discussion, and votes related to rating and filtering) that will have many different "front ends" that display content. Some of these "front ends" will be paper. Different trends will repost or reprint things they like. But this setup will help to encourage debate and interaction among the various trends and greatly assist the development of revolutionary analysis (in depth) of news and events. In the process both reformism and sectarianism will be defeated. It will become clear, with time, which people support the working class and which people have other agendas.

You may find my comments at NewsRefinery.com and AttentionRefinery.com to be of interest in relation to this.

Unfortunately, I do not have time to do much right now to make these ideas a reality -- but the central unifying goal of a revolutionary news service remains. All we need to do, so to speak, is update WITBD to take into account the emerging revolution in communications.

[DrFreeman09]

I will now address what you said about Article 107. I didn't have time in my first post. But first, a couple of things:



In the system of soviets, workplace committees, and communal councils, let's have a hypothetical example of merely a Party supermajority and a League minority. In this scenario, the League can still organize protests, but only those League members who have been elected to the system have to be quiet.


What's the point of electing them if they have to be quiet? This completely undermines the idea of democracy.


Did you read my quote regarding a "loyal organizational opposition" within the Party above?

Yes, and I'm skeptical of your idea of "loyal organizational opposition," because the bottom line is that it's not good enough, mainly because of this:


This "loyal organizational opposition" wouldn't foray into political questions, however

I also think that you're making the problem way too complicated in an attempt to justify one-party control over Soviet power.



The most advanced and resolute (that is, militant) sections of the urban and rural workers voluntarily unite in the Revolutionary Party of Workers' Power (Communist), which was the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers in their revolutionary struggles, and remains the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers—as the nucleus of various organs of workers' power—in their continuing efforts to jointly build socialism and communism.


What if the party is corrupt and the workers don't want to orgnanize into this party? You said that if any other party sprung up and attempted to take a role in government, they would have to be quiet. So it wouldn't be real opposition would it? What is the point of workers' democracy if the workers don't have full democratic rights?



"Workers' organizations" in the first paragraph can easily include other political parties,


Yes, but the workers must be given a CONCRETE right to organize into independent political organizations, in my opinion.


"...the nucleus of various organs of workers' power..." is very open. At a left-communist minimum, I think you'd agree that the Party must have absolute control over "workers' inspection and control." The Party must be at the forefront in the fight against bureaucratic and economic corruption.


Yes, but if the Party itself becomes corrupted (which, once again, has happened EVERY SINGLE TIME TO DATE), its oversight over such things may slip, or even stop. Thus, it is important for independent organizations to also be able to have a role in government.

But a second time, I believe your system is overcomplicated. Instead of overcomplicating things to justify repeating the failures of the USSR, let us create new paradigms that are applicable to the 21st century!

These new paradigms can, however, find their roots in the good things that came out of the October Revolution of 1917.

Let's look at the Soviet Constitution of 1918:


ARTICLE 64. The right to elect and to be elected to soviets is enjoyed, irrespective of religion, nationality, sex, domicile, etc. by the following citizens of the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic who have reached the age of eighteen by polling day:

All those who earn a living by productive and socially useful labour (as well as persons engaged in housekeeping which enables the former to work productively), viz. wage and salaried workers of all groups and categories engaged in industry, trade, agriculture, etc. and peasants and Cossack farmers who do not employ hired labour for profit;

Soldiers of the Soviet army and navy;

Citizens belonging to categories listed in Paragraphs (a) and (b) of the present article who have been to any degree incapacitated.

NOTE 1. The local soviets may, subject to approval by the central authority, lower the age limit established in the present article.

NOTE 2. As far as resident foreigners are concerned, active and passive suffrage is enjoyed by persons indicated in Article 20 (Part Two, Chapter V).

ARTICLE 65. The right to elect and to be elected is denied to the following persons, even if they belong to one of the categories listed above:

Persons who employ hired labour for profit;

Persons living on unearned income, such as interest on capital, profits from enterprises, receipts from property, etc.;

Private traders and commercial middle-men;

Monks and ministers of religion;

Employees and agents of the former police, the special corps of gendarmerie and the secret political police department, as well as members of the former imperial family;

Persons declared insane by legal proceeding, as well as persons in ward;

Persons condemned for pecuniary and infamous crimes to terms established by law or by a court decision.

NEVER ONCE does this constitution mention that the Communist Party has a monopoly over political power. NEVER ONCE is Party membership given as a prerequisite for voice in the Soviets. Rather, it is you who have said that non-Party parties would have to be quiet if they attempted to play a roll in government. This is a one-way ticket to corruption. Regardless of how democratic you imagine the Party itself to be, you are still advocating that one party has a monopoly over political power, and that the voice of opposition should be suppressed in one form or another. And once again, you cannot give a central authority the right to suppress "bad" trends without giving it the right to suppress all other trends, which is a power that WILL be abused.

Now, where do you (and a lot of other people) get the idea that the Communist Party should maintain absolute control of politics?

Here is the Soviet Constitution of 1977:


Article 6
(1) The leading and guiding force of the Soviet society and the nucleus of its political system, of all state organizations and public organizations, is the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The CPSU exists for the people and serves the people.
(2) The Communist Party, armed with Marxism-Leninism, determines the general perspectives of the development of society and the course of the home and foreign policy of the USSR, directs the great constructive work of the Soviet people, and imparts a planned, systematic and theoretically substantiated character to their struggle for the victory of communism.
(3) All party organizations shall function within the framework of the Constitution of the USSR.


Whoa, whoa whoa! There was none of this talk in 1918. It was not added to the constitution until 1977. Even the 1936 constitution, which did reshape the workings of the Soviet Union quite a lot, did not mention that the Communist Party is the "guiding force" in society.

The 1918 Soviet Constitution was very good. It represents what I think would be a stable form of government, and there is nothing in it that says anything about your definition of "democratic centralism," i.e. that opposing parties have to be quiet in the Soviets.

So, we can use some of the principles in the 1918 Soviet Constitution to give us an idea of what stable workers' rule might look like.

You did not respond to Ben's article here: http://struggle.net/struggle/alds/essay_153_content.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://struggle.net/struggle/alds/essay_153_content.htm) , which I posted earlier.

I think it represents a plausible alternative to BOTH what you are advocating, what the proletarists advocate, AND the degenerated police states that have been called "Communist" in the past.

Further, an important point to bring up is this:

If the proletarian party has the popular support of the masses, it has nothing to fear from allowing complete democratic rights. If it does not have the popular support of the masses, workers’ rule is doomed to fail anyway.

So it is clear that the proletarian party must have popular support. At this point, it will be able to allow full democratic rights, which will provide an ample check for the possible corruption and hypocrisy that may very well present itself within the party and state.

By the way, the versions of the Soviet Constitutions I mentioned can be found here:

1918: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/books/soviet18.txt

1936: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/books/soviet36.txt

1977: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/books/soviet77.txt

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's the point of electing them if they have to be quiet? This completely undermines the idea of democracy.

I edited my post above for clarification. That silence refers to post-decision matters.


Yes, and I'm skeptical of your idea of "loyal organizational opposition," because the bottom line is that it's not good enough, mainly because of this:


This "loyal organizational opposition" wouldn't foray into political questions, however

I also think that you're making the problem way too complicated in an attempt to justify one-party control over Soviet power.

Like I said above, there are multi-faceted opposition forces within the party itself. The "loyal organizational opposition" wouldn't foray into political questions because that's NOT its job. That job belongs to the party's factions, however numerous they are.


What if the party is corrupt and the workers don't want to organize into this party?

How can the party be corrupt in the moment of leading the revolution and in the immediate moments afterwards? :confused:


You said that if any other party sprung up and attempted to take a role in government, they would have to be quiet.

That's not what I said (at least after editing for clarification). The non-Party individuals within the soviets would have full freedom of discussion (and more importantly, so would the Party individuals within the soviets), but once a decision has been made, if they have reservations, they had better leave those reservations to be expressed for them by the mass organizations to which they belong.

Remember, "unity of action" in my case is in the weak form, and I don't think that the mass organization(s) in the soviets would be organized around "proletocratic centralism." Some of those individuals could voice more emotional support for the decision that most of the Party members in the soviets.


Even the 1936 constitution, which did reshape the workings of the Soviet Union quite a lot, did not mention that the Communist Party is the "guiding force" in society.

My Article 107 doesn't mention the Party as the "leading and guiding force" - unless you count the word "vanguard" (Article 126: "vanguard of the working people in their struggle to strengthen and develop the socialist system and is the leading core of all organizations of the working people, both public and state").


You did not respond to Ben's article here: http://struggle.net/struggle/alds/essay_153_content.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://struggle.net/struggle/alds/essay_153_content.htm) , which I posted earlier.

I did read it, but most of the stuff in that article focused on economic organization. Communist Voice provided a rebuttal (http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/Ltr080109.html) for that part and, as I said earlier above, "going so far as to equating his 'three-sector' post-revolutionary economy with the old Stalinist state-capitalist economy."


Your idea of the state and private sectors of the economy subsidizing the gift economy may, at first glance, appear similar to such basic socialist ideas as that the workers will provide aid to help the peasantry collectivize. But in that case, a more advanced sector of the economy, advanced in that there is more social control over production, helps a more backward sector. The more advanced sector can do this because it has an economic surplus, and because the workers in that sector have a higher consciousness, and because it can provide help in promoting new, collective methods of work as well as providing material aid. In contrast, in your conception the more backward sectors of the economy, which are thoroughly capitalist or state-capitalist, will subsidize the development of the communist future (or, rather, the cooperative anarchist future). In the socialist conception, the most conscious sections of the working class, such as the industrial proletariat, will encourage small petty-bourgeois proprietors to collectivize as well as helping the rural proletariat to organize. In your plan, the sectors of the economy which are run by the most capitalist-minded section of the population are expected to be the most conscious backers of communism. These are very different plans.




If the proletarian party has the popular support of the masses, it has nothing to fear from allowing complete democratic rights. If it does not have the popular support of the masses, workers’ rule is doomed to fail anyway.

So it is clear that the proletarian party must have popular support. At this point, it will be able to allow full democratic rights, which will provide an ample check for the possible corruption and hypocrisy that may very well present itself within the party and state.

See, here I differentiate between "proletocracy" and socialism proper (ie, the socialist mode of production). "Proletocracy" is still under the capitalist mode of production (commodities, money, etc.). Perhaps the Party will "wither away" during the onset of socialism proper.

Anyhow, Cromwell and the Jacobins passed on, yet bourgeois rule survived without them and their restrictions on democratic rights.


By the way, the versions of the Soviet Constitutions I mentioned can be found here:

1918: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/books/soviet18.txt

1936: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/books/soviet36.txt

1977: http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/books/soviet77.txt

Back when I was a "Stalin kiddie," I saved all FOUR Soviet constitutions (including the 1924 constitution, which for some odd reason didn't mention fundamental rights and duties) - and I still have them.

Furthermore, I even have the "1964" constitution and once had the "1969" constitution (what interested me the most about those was, obviously, the list of ministries ;) ).

[DrFreeman09]

[Just a heads-up. This post is very long, but it is worth reading when you have time. :)]



Communist Voice provided a rebuttal (http://www.anonym.to/?http://home.flash.net/~comvoice/Ltr080109.html) for that part and, as I said earlier above, "going so far as to equating his 'three-sector' post-revolutionary economy with the old Stalinist state-capitalist economy."



The CVO article hardly provided a refutation of Ben's postulates, and, since I have read Joseph's article thoroughly, I believe I'm in a position to make this statement:

The CVO completely misinterpreted the article, took Ben's words completely out of context in many cases, and as a result, didn't really refute anything Ben said.

I wanted you to do your own thinking. Instead, you used Joseph to do the thinking for you, and you have assumed that Joseph "refuted" Ben because he's a smart guy. He is a smart guy. But it doesn't mean what he's saying is correct or accurate.

Ben:


Joseph:

> You describe the state sector as "state capitalist
> economy". It will still use money and commodity
> production. But more than that, you regard that it
> will be dominated by "state-appointed bureaucrats"
> who do pretty much as they please, independent of
> the working class. You say that workers might be
> able to run some of the state corporations, but
> you regard that, overall, this sector is the realm
> of state bureaucracy. Of course, such a
> state-capitalist sector existed in the Stalinist
> economy.

Actually, I did not say that the state-capitalist sector would be
_dominated_ by state-appointed bureaucrats. I did use the phrase "state
appointed bureaucrats" in the excerpt below:

> It is very important, however, to understand that
> the corporations that are expropriated by the state
> will continue to represent a form of the capitalist
> mode of production. For example many of these
> corporations will still make use of money or capital
> (to some degree) to guide decisions concerning what
> goods and services to produce, how to produce them
> and how many workers to hire or fire. Corporations
> that are run by the workers' state will in many ways
> be run better than corporations run by the bourgeoisie.
> But we should not kid ourselves--the opposite will
> also sometimes be true: state appointed bureaucrats
> will not prove to be immune from incompetence,
> hypocrisy and corruption. In many cases the workers
> will be able to run these corporations themselves
> and elect their own supervisors (or eliminate the
> distinction between supervisors and the supervised)
> but my conclusion is that this process will be
> limited as long as money is used to make decisions.

So my emphasis is different. The state-appointed bureaucrats will _not_
be able to "do pretty much as they please, independent of the working
class". The state-capitalist sector will be a battleground of sorts.
One tendency would be for state appointed bureaucrats to dominate
everything. But this will be countered by the opposite tendency: for
the workers (both within an enterprise and in society at large) to
assert their control over the various enterprises. In some situations
one tendency might come out on top, and in other circumstances the other
tendency will win. Often what might emerge are partial victories for
each side. But the main thing to keep in mind is that as long as the
enterprise is based on commodity production -- it will tend to be a
field of struggle in which the playing field is tilted against the
workers and a lot of energy will be necessary to keep things from
getting out of hand. This is why the gift economy is the only
fundamental way out.

Joseph confuses the issue (of my 1995 work on the gift economy vs. my
2002 essay on the transition period) by using the word "buy" in this
section below:

> Back in 1995, when you and I were debating the issue of
> cooperative anarchy, one of the issues which came up was
> environmental protection. This requires the ability for
> overall planning, which cooperative anarchy cannot provide.
> For example, we debated the issue of how to deal with
> environmental poisons.

> You gave an example of your views by referring to what
> would happen if society had to make a choice between
> two products, one which was easy to produce but poisonous,
> and the other which was harder to produce but was safe.
> It turned out that it was impossible, in cooperative
> anarchy, to altogether stop the production of the poison.
> You saw the problem as one of what proportion in which
> to produce the products, and said this would be settled
> by how many consumers wanted to buy each product, how
> many factories wanted to produce each product, etc.

Here, Joseph substitutes his own misconceptions for what I actually
said. In my 1995 S.O.M.E., I described an economy where nothing was
bought or sold. So consumers are not choosing what to buy--they are
choosing which free product to use. I said that consumers would not use
or consume products that hurt the environment -- and that the degree to
which they refused to consume a product would be proportional to the
harm it caused. So, if something was truly toxic to the degree that
(according to Joseph) it should be "banned" (by his central authority)
then it would not be produced or consumed (ie: in the self-organizing
moneyless economy).

To continue:

Joseph:

> Capitalist economies have a large number of independent enterprises
> that are free of conscious social planning, and engage
> in "competition and cooperation" by means of buying and selling
> from each other. The marketplace provides the connection that
> forces these units not to produce at random, but to be part of a
> whole. The result is, while they may imagine themselves free to do
> as they please, the sum of their activities is ruled by Adam
> Smith's famous "invisible hand". The invisible hand is also an iron
> hand, and it results in boom and bust, devastation of the
> environment, overwork and unemployment, and the other well-known
> features of capitalism. The economy appears to have a life of its
> own, independent of human volition. Each enterprise and each worker
> appears to be economically free, and yet they are ruled by forces
> beyond their control.

Alex replies:

> This is yet another equation of Ben's proposal for a free sector
> to capitalism. The fundamental difference between capitalist
> competition and the competition that will (in my opinion) have
> to exist in this moneyless economy is that the end result of
> this capitalist competition is that it produces a commodity.
> The moneyless sector will NOT produce commodities because what
> it produces is not to be bought or sold. The laws of commodity
> production, and all of the things that make capitalism a shitty
> economic system, will not apply in an economy based on
> abundance where people do not buy, sell, or even exchange goods.

Ben:

Exactly. The iron hand that Joseph describes is the action of the laws
of commodity production.

> In short, this moneyless sector will not be a marketplace,
> and I believe it is foolish to equate it to one.

Ben:

Yes. I believe Joseph is compelled to do so because he is concerned,
above all, with upholding his tattered "prestige" and is afraid of the
consequences of admitting that he was mistaken in the past. So he is
engaged in a task that is usually called: "digging himself out of a
hole" (ie: an impossible task -- when you are dishonest in an attempt to
hide previous dishonesty the problem just grows bigger and bigger). I
believe that the pressure of keeping his group (the CVO) alive has led
Joseph to slip into this kind of dishonesty. And this is a very
slippery path. Once on it--things usually get worse. And Joseph has
company. CVO supporters also dishonor themselves when they eat this
stuff up. This is similar to the "whateverism" that is described on
Mike Ely's blog (http://MikeEly.wordpress.com (http://mikeely.wordpress.com/)) used to prop up the
charlatan Avakian amongst RCP supporters.

Joseph:

> Communism aims to replace the rule of money and the marketplace
> with conscious social planning.

Alex:

> This is complete bullshit.

> The aim of communism is a stateless, classless society
> where the means of production are owned in common.
> "Conscious social planning" (i.e. weasel words for
> central planning) is not a prerequisite.

Everything revolves around the question of how you achieve "escape
velocity" (ie: successfully overcome the laws of commodity production)
in a way analogous to how a rocket achieves escape velocity to
"overcome" (so to speak) the law of gravity and achieve orbital
altitude. Joseph sees central planning as being the magic tool that
allows us to escape the laws of commodity production. We understand
that there is nothing magic about central planning and that you can only
escape the laws of commodity production when the economy is not based on
the production and sale of commodities.

Centralized planning will certainly play a role in future society and
plays a big role today. When Boeing or Toyota make plans they have a
system (and a large family) of suppliers and they all plan things
together. A tire for a new car will be delivered to the Toyota plant
"just in time" to put on a new car on the assembly line. (This is an
amazingly efficient and impressive process when one car is produced per
minute.) But this is not central planning as Joseph imagines it.
Because Airbus and GM (ie: competitors to Boeing and Toyota) also do
their own planning. Will there be a single plan, in the future, that
covers manufacture of airplanes or cars for an entire society? Maybe,
in some kinds of situations, but not others. The point is we don't
necessarily need a central plan run by a central authority in order to
run everything. To Joseph, central planning is a magic concept that
eliminates the need to think about anything. To us, central planning is
simply an economic tool that is essential for some things and not
necessary for others.

Alex:

> In fact, one could argue (and it has been argued) that
> central planning is contradictory to Marxism, as it has
> historically been the rule of politics over economy,
> ESPECIALLY in the one-party society that Joseph has
> consistently advocated. This logic of politics over
> economy is a complete inverse of Marxist thought.

I am not sure if the last sentence above is correct. It may be, but I
don't understand it as currently written. I know that politics can
sometimes be considered as "concentrated economics". And a political
change will be necessary in order to unleash economic forces (ie:
feudalism to capitalism, and capitalism to proletarism). But your
formulation is abstract in a way that I am not sure what it means.

[...]

> Joseph accuses Ben of wanting to put a bunch of
> bureaucrats in charge of the economy, but one look
> at what Joseph is advocating shows that he is the
> one doing that. Joseph wants a single-party state
> that runs the economy in a centralized way.
> Somehow, this is supposed to make the workers more
> free. But it is more than obvious that this leads
> to excessive bureaucracy and not the workers'
> control over the economy.

> Further, such a centralized system is extremely
> inefficient, because as the economy expands, it is
> unlikely that the planners will be able to keep up.

Good point. Centralized planning may be appropriate to a smaller and
simpler economy. As the economy becomes larger and more complex, the
problems with centralized planning accumulate. In the terminology of
software technology, central planning does not "scale".

> In many cases, it will be far better to let certain
> trends "fight it out." We can't be completely afraid
> of planning because it may come in handy in some
> instances. But we should certainly not be afraid of
> competition.

> Joseph accuses Ben of advocating Stalinist state-capitalism,
> but he fails to explain why what _he_ is advocating is not
> Stalinist state-capitalism.

Joseph's consistent tactic, over many years, is to attack the positions
of his opponents while saying as little of substance as he can get away
with.

Joseph's position, apparently, is that what he advocates is not
Stalinist state-capitalism -- because he says so. More specifically, he
says things will be different, in his conception, because the working
class will really run things. But when I ask him if the working class
will have the fundamental rights of speech and organization (ie:
necessary to run things) Joseph falls silent.

There is also Joseph's attitude toward building a genuine revolutionary
organization.

Joseph:

> Oddly enough, you hold that anyone who works to build a proletarian
> party must want to imitate the anti-proletarian parties that ruled
> the state-capitalist countries. That's quite a jump in logic.

This _is_ quite a jump in logic--for Joseph. The central task of our
time is to build genuine revolutionary organization. Joseph does not
have a clue how to do this. We may have half a clue: we understand that
we must work out foundational principles with other activists in a
transparent way. We must find means of practical cooperation with
activists with whom we disagree. I have proposed that a revolutionary
news service will eventually be the heart of this effort.

Joseph, on the other hand, is concerned, uber alles, with holding his
sect together and consigning to hell any effort to cleanse the Augean
stables. This is what makes Joseph deserving of a role in a Gilbert and
Sullivan opera:

(Ben -- paraphrasing Joseph)

> I wrote my polemics so dishonestly
> that I revealed my hatred for a real party
>
> (chorus: )
>
> He wrote his polemics so dishonestly
> that he revealed his hatred for a real party


And even if you reject the 3-sector economy, you have not said anything on the reasons for a multiparty system that Ben put forward. You have not said anything about how media can be reconstructed to eliminate the power of the bourgeoisie without suppressing democratic rights. Actually, you haven't said anything. You have simply quoted Joseph's article, which, as I have hopefully just demonstrated, doesn't do a very good job a "refuting" Ben's proposals.



My Article 107 doesn't mention the Party as the "leading and guiding force"


It is, however, implied.



Article 107-a

The most advanced and resolute (that is, militant) sections of the urban and rural workers voluntarily unite in the Revolutionary Party of Workers' Power (Communist), which was the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers in their revolutionary struggles, and remains the international vanguard of the urban and rural workers—as the nucleus of various organs of workers' power—in their continuing efforts to jointly build socialism and communism.



This looks, to me anyway, to be an implication of one party being the sort of "guiding" force of society.

One strength of the 1918 Soviet Constitution, and the United States Constitution (there is no denying that it is a strong constitution), is that they make no mention of parties. Your Article 107, on the other hand, clearly states that there will be one ruling party and that workers will organize into it. It "implies" that the workers will have the right to free, independent organization, but it does not guarantee it.

The early Soviet and current U.S. Constitutions, on the other hand, guarantee democratic rights, but do not say anything about political parties.

This is where I have my biggest objection to you. Now that you have rephrased some of the things you said, they make more sense to me. What I think you are saying now is that the politics would be defined by multiple trends within one umbrella oranization (the proletarian party). I wouldn't really object to this. But from a practical standpoint, your proposal is too utopian, I think.

It is too utopian in the sense that you have everything, in terms of parties and such, planned out in advance in a sort of constitution. You cannot plan such things. A formal constitution in the RSFSR was written after the revolution; not before.

It is fine to have principles, but blueprints are more or less useless.

Secondly, I believe your solution is overcomplicated. If you know anything about computer programming or engineering, the more complicated it is, the more things can go wrong, and they less likely it is to work.



"Proletocracy" is still under the capitalist mode of production (commodities, money, etc.).


Indeed, but the workers won't have to suppress democratic rights to stay in power. The bourgeoisie allow democratic rights (more democratic rights than are allowed in your system :) ), yet they firmly maintain power.

I have another article for you. It is the first article of Ben's I read, and it is what got me interested in his work:

http://struggle.net/struggle/proletarian-democracy/

Another interesting note: The 1918 constitution says that property is abolished and given to the entire working class. The 1936 constitution says that the state is basically the manager of the economy and all property, etc. It is also interesting to note that it changes "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to "From each according to his ability, to each according to his work" (my emphasis).

[Die Neue Zeit]

First off, how come I can't see your username under "Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread"? :confused:




The CVO article hardly provided a refutation of Ben's postulates, and, since I have read Joseph's article thoroughly, I believe I'm in a position to make this statement:

The CVO completely misinterpreted the article, took Ben's words completely out of context in many cases, and as a result, didn't really refute anything in the article.

I wanted you to do your own thinking. Instead, you used Joseph to do the thinking for you, and you have assumed that Joseph "refuted" Ben because he's a smart guy. He is a smart guy. But it doesn't mean what he's saying is correct or accurate.

As noted above, I don't agree with Joseph on every issue (never met him personally or communicated with him or his group online). The CVO's primary "Leninist" appeal to me is that it eschews both Trotsky and Stalin, as well as Mao. However, Joseph's position on a one-party system is still on the "far right" like Stalinists, Maoists, etc. Nevertheless, I do think that what he was hinting at in the economic portion of his rebuttal is that well-known concept of economies of scale. Correct me if I'm wrong here, though.

As for the "gift economy," would you please care to highlight the differences between it and parecon?


And even if you reject the 3-sector economy, you have not said anything on the reasons for a multiparty system that Ben put forward. You have not said anything about how media can be reconstructed to eliminate the power of the bourgeoisie without suppressing democratic rights. Actually, you haven't said anything. You have simply quoted Joseph's article, which, as I have hopefully just demonstrated, doesn't do a very good job a "refuting" Ben's proposals.

Forgive me, but I don't have any specific position with regards to media in the era of "proletocracy" (other than the position those "big" media that are reliant on capital should be nationalized). :(

As for Joseph, from what I've read (his article) he didn't say much about your position on mass media.


This is where I have my biggest objection to you. Now that you have rephrased some of the things you said, they make more sense to me (I still don't necessarily agree with all of them, but they make more sense). But your proposal is too utopian, I think.

It is too utopian in the sense that you have everything, in terms of parties and such, planned out in advance. You cannot plan such things. A formal constitution in the RSFSR was written after the revolution; not before.

It is fine to have principles, but blueprints are more or less useless.

Couldn't the exact same thing be said regarding your (and Ben's) vision of the mass media in the era of "proletocracy"? Again, I have read it, but I don't have much of a position on the mass media.

Couldn't the exact same charge be levelled at Lenin when he wrote The State and Revolution and, more importantly, my favourite of his works - Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

And what of Kautsky and his On the Day after the Social Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-1.htm)?


And secondly, in an attempt to justify the reactualization in modern times of measures taken in a feudal nation to attempt socialism, you have come up with an extremely complicated system for "ensuring" that corruption will not take place.

Actually, look no further than Lenin's How We Should Reorganise the Workers' and Peasants' Inspection and Better Few But Better as the sources of that "extremely complicated system." It isn't utopian at all, being based on historical experiences. Furthermore, at least I don't think my proposal is that complicated at all. :confused:


Indeed, but the workers won't have to suppress democratic rights to stay in power. The bourgeoisie allow democratic rights (more democratic rights than are allowed in your system :) ), yet they firmly maintain power.

My signature says it all: ever heard of the "post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the development of international proletocracy proper"? Unlike Stalin's "along with the development of socialism," this one makes sense, because:

A) It comes from my favourite work. :D ;)
B) You actually agree with me on the notion that the whole era of "proletocracy" is still in the capitalist mode of production.




http://struggle.net/struggle/proletarian-democracy/


The first myth we must smash is that, during the period of workers' rule the workers' party and the workers' state are fused together or, equivalently, that one is a branch of or controlled completely by the other.

I have no problems with helping to smash that myth. After all, I don't want to see a repeat of the "no-party state" - hence my "extremely complicated system" (in your words, but I don't agree) that is, to its advantage, outside a certain "-ism" which Razlatzki mentioned and which I won't mention again to Luis Henrique's offense. And no, I don't think that the state can EVER be a branch of and/or under the complete control of the Party. Perhaps Ben should have clarified here.


The second myth is that there will be a single workers' party.

The funny thing here is that, while I disagree with you on this point, I am in two-thirds agreement with the third ("fight to influence the consciousness of the masses and mobilize mass support for their views."). :o

[What makes it "two-thirds" is the question of independence. Yes: The mass organization(s) should be independent of Party influence. No: It/they should NOT be the ruling organization in the system of workers' power.]

Anecdote: When I was a Trotskyist, I read Ted Grant's Russia: From Revolution to Counter-Revolution. I read his comments on the Hungarian revolution, and I found them to be contradictory:


To these points, significantly, the Hungarian workers added a new one--no more one party state! After the experience of Stalinist totalitarianism, never again would the working class entrust power to a single party.

...

The lesson is clear. There is no substitute for the revolutionary party and leadership. No automatic mechanism exists where by the lessons of one generation can be transmitted to the next. Without the party every generation must painfully relearn the lessons of the past through their own experience. That is why Lenin always insisted on the need for a vanguard party composed of cadres, as the memory of the class. All subsequent history, that of 1956 included, has shown this to be absolutely necessary.

Back to Ben:


The competition of multiple workers' parties for positions of leadership within the state machine is consistent with the experience of the world's first dictatorship of the proletariat: the Paris Commune of 1871.

I think you should read this Theory thread of mine:

Did Marx abandon "French socialism"? [And should we?] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-marx-abandon-t68044/index.html)

Ben has made the same mistake that Engels - and even Lenin himself - made with regards to the nature of the Paris Commune!

[DrFreeman09]

As for the "gift economy," would you please care to highlight the differences between it and parecon?


HA! I'm glad you brought that up.

Parecon is different because

a) It doesn't eliminate exchange. One quick look through the work shows that they still think exchange (whether it be barter or money) is an acceptable way to handle an economy. Of course exchange will still exist for a time after the end of bourgeois rule, but in Parecon, the goal involves exchange. And this means that commodity production will still exist, and as a result, so will inequality, wage slavery, and all of the things related to capitalism.

b) The economy, regardless of what the folks at Parecon say, is still run in a centralized way. They call it "decentralized." But their description is that workers take their concerns to a planning body and this body makes the economic decsions. That's central. And even though central planning is a tool that we will probably use, it's not our goal and it should not be used to run everything, because on the large scale, when everything must be managed, it has proved to be quite inefficient, as the planners have a hard time keeping up with the expanding economy.

c) Parecon doesn't recognize that the bourgeoisie, if you think practically, will almost certainly exist for quite a while after they are removed from power. They don't recognize that class struggle will continue to exsit for a time after the overthrow of bourgeois rule.

Joseph made this issue extremely difficult for readers to truly understand because he used the word "buy" when talking about Ben's proposal for gift economy. Gift economy, which can be viewed as "the way out," or how to achieve classless society, is not based on exchange or commodity production. If it was, it would be capitalism. But it's not.



The funny thing here is that, while I disagree with you on this point, I am in two-thirds agreement with the third ("fight to influence the consciousness of the masses and mobilize mass support for their views."). http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-led-t67387/images/smilies/redface.gif

[What makes it "two-thirds" is the question of independence. Yes: The mass organization(s) should be independent of Party influence. No: It/they should NOT be the ruling organization in the system of workers' power.]



Like I said, now that I understand your viewpoint, you seem to be advocating that there will be multiple trends in an umbrella organization. I don't really have any objections to this.



Forgive me, but I don't have any specific position with regards to media in the era of "proletocracy" (other than the position those "big" media that are reliant on capital should be nationalized). http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-led-t67387/images/smilies/frown.gif



Fair enough.



Couldn't the exact same thing be said regarding your (and Ben's) vision of the mass media in the era of "proletocracy"? Again, I have read it, but I don't have much of a position on the mass media.

Couldn't the exact same charge be levelled at Lenin when he wrote The State and Revolution and, more importantly, my favourite of his works - Economics and Politics in the Era of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat?

And what of Kautsky and his On the Day after the Social Revolution (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-1.htm)?


See, the difference here is this:

It's fine to have a set of principles, as I said. Ben, Lenin, etc. all have (had) some clearly defined principles about what future society might look like. But you have gone as far as to create what is more-or-less a constitution, a blueprint about what future society looks like, in advance. I think this is a mistake.

Further, if you are going to do such a thing, it is important to take into consideration what I said before:

The constitution should guarantee democratic rights and imply political parties, or rather, not even say anything of substance about them.

Your Article 107 did the exact opposite: it implied democratic rights and guaranteed one communist party.

If you look at all great constitutions, they were flexible. Only the things that were seriously, seriously important were written in stone. These things were democratic rights and the procedures for extremely important tasks. Other things, which would be considered to be relative minutia, were either laid out in a way that was subject to varying degrees of interpretation, or simply were not discussed and left for the people to decide for themselves. These things included the existence of political parties, how these parties would operate, etc.

Your Article 107 was concrete in the wrong place, I believe. It was concrete in that there would be a communist party as the ruling party. It was, unfortunately, not concrete on democratic rights like the right of free organization.

Democratic rights should not be subject to interpretation. On the other hand, the existence of parties does not need to be discussed in a constitution.



Actually, look no further than Lenin's How We Should Reorganise the Wokers' and Peasants' Inspection and Better Few But Better as the sources of that "extremely complicated system." It isn't utopian at all, being based on historical experiences. Furthermore, at least I don't think my proposal is that complicated at all. http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-led-t67387/images/smilies/confused.gif


Your idea may have its roots in Lenin, but remember that Lenin advocated all of that to be carried out in Russia. I think your idea is overcomplicated in the sense that it tries too hard to apply theory that was designed for 20th century Russia, a feudalist nation at the time, to modern, capitalist nations in the 21st century.

What we need to do instead is come up with an entirely new set of principles that are applicable today.

But we must keep this in mind: There is no magic bullet that is going to untie the entire working class, other than the idea that a world without bourgeois rule is possible and necessary. The different ideas and trends will fight for the popular support of the masses after bourgeois rule has been eliminated. So we don't have to agree on everything.

But what me must realize is that this is the 21st century and we need new paradigms that take into account the revolution in communications and the fact that limiting democratic rights in today's world is extremely impractical, unnecessary, and in reality, impossible.

In short, we have to come out and say that the workers will have concrete democratic rights under workers rule, or else no one is going to support us. It seems obvious to a lot of us: "Oh, of course, democratic rights are essential to workers' rule. Duh!"

But the CVO and similar organizations fail in that they talk the talk, but they cannot walk the walk. They deny that the oppose democratic rights, but they fall silent when asked about them.

Though it seems that I don't need to tell you this because you agree.

I disagree with you about democratic centralism. But nothing says that we have to agree on that.

Ben:

"[...] there can be no central unifying idea around which a mass movement for the overthrow of bourgeois rule can be built. But it is precisely this shift in focus from the context of Lenin's Russia (a desperate, backward peasant country with a shattered economy that the imperialist countries were determined to strangle) to the context of modern, stable countries (with advanced, complex economies and infrastructure and a working class majority) that allows us to clearly see what today's cargo cult Leninists (http://struggle.net/struggle/proletarian-democracy/related.htm#cargocult) (whether Stalinists, Trotskyists, denizens of deep denial or simply sectarians with their heads up their butts) cannot see: The methods used by a revolutionary government in the 21st century to defend its existence--will have as little in common with the extreme methods that Lenin's Bolsheviks found necessary--as the conditions of modern first-world countries have in common with the extreme conditions of Lenin's Russia."



Ben has made the same mistake that Engels - and even Lenin himself - made with regards to the nature of the Paris Commune!


The Paris Commune was far from perfect. I believe Marx addressed this issue as early (in comparison to 1881) as 1872, in the preface to the German edition of The Communist Manifesto:

'One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”'

He obviously saw something wrong with the way the events in Paris transpired. By not constructing a state that served the workers, socialism was never really established (possibly). But there is no doubt that the Paris example is worth studying because I believe that regardless of its failures, it did represent a form of workers' rule. It was the first attempt. It failed, for many reasons. But it was a learning experience. I don't think Marx ever really "abandoned" French Socialism in that respect.

Either way, I don't think mentioning it does any harm in "Proletarian Democracy," especially since Ben spends the entire article talking about how we need principles applicable to the 21st century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

HA! I'm glad you brought that up.

Parecon is different because

a) It doesn't eliminate exchange. One quick look through the work shows that they still think exchange (whether it be barter or money) is an acceptable way to handle an economy. Of course exchange will still exist for a time after the end of bourgeois rule, but in Parecon, the goal involves exchange. And this means that commodity production will still exist, and as a result, so will inequality, wage slavery, and all of the things related to capitalism.

b) The economy, regardless of what the folks at Parecon say, is still run in a centralized way. They call it "decentralized." But their description is that workers take their concerns to a planning body and this body makes the economic decsions. That's central. And even though central planning is a tool that we will probably use, it's not our goal and it should not be used to run everything, because on the large scale, when everything must be managed, it has proved to be quite inefficient, as the planners have a hard time keeping up with the expanding economy.

c) Parecon doesn't recognize that the bourgeoisie, if you think practically, will almost certainly exist for quite a while after they are removed from power. They don't recognize that class struggle will continue to exist for a time after the overthrow of bourgeois rule.

Joseph made this issue extremely difficult for readers to truly understand because he used the word "buy" when talking about Ben's proposal for gift economy. Gift economy, which can be viewed as "the way out," or how to achieve classless society, is not based on exchange or commodity production. If it was, it would be capitalism. But it's not.

I listed consumerism as the main problem of parecon. Correct me if I'm wrong:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/parecon-t59471/index.html


I've mentioned it several times before in other boards. The problem with parecon is the over-emphasis on the consumer (only interested in price). Yes, there is need for input for appropriate output (agriculture being the most notorious example), but several key industries can do very well with MINIMAL democratic input (I hate to say it, but heavy industry, that notorious Soviet bulwark, is one of them).

Heck, an anarchist is another board said that consumer-dictated production is exploitation, too (capitalist exploitation being two-fold in the price: the capitalist and the consumer).

Also, its proponent, Michael Albert, is a REFORMIST. He conveniently ignores the monopoly nature of modern capitalism.

Regarding central planning, you'd be VERY surprised at problems with your statement, especially because of recent advances in information-communication technology that enhance production processes ("just in time").

With that last remark regarding monopoly in mind, I hereby "invite" you to my hallmark thread on "revolutionary stamocap" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/stamocap-t59014/index.html) as the economic basis for proletocracy. [Comments there would be greatly appreciated. ;) ]

Anyhow, I'm waiting for this board's resident parecon guy, syndicat, to scratch his head over this. :D




But you have gone as far as to create what is more-or-less a constitution, a blueprint about what future society looks like, in advance. I think this is a mistake.

Ah, but I think one of the key problems facing the modern socialist movement is the lack of an immediate "post-revolutionary" blueprint or template. In my stamocap thread above, I made it clear that I was NOT planning for socialism, knowing that such is utopian. Marx's mistake was his refusal to picture what "proletocracy" - still in the capitalist mode of production - would look like in sufficient detail.

While State and Revolution is a good work, Economics and Politics is a superior work, even if Lenin during this period mistakenly equated "revolutionary democracy" (proles AND peasants) with a proper proletocracy, precisely because it was in the "spirit" of Kautsky's On the Day after the Social Revolution without being as overly detailed.

The lack of basic "future planning" on the part of Marx is one of several reasons why, in my political profile (in the Politics forum), I rank Lenin WAAAAAAY above Marx in terms of personal political inspiration: the student did indeed surpass the master.








Your idea may have its roots in Lenin, but remember that Lenin advocated all of that to be carried out in Russia. I think your idea is overcomplicated in the sense that it tries too hard to apply theory that was designed for 20th century Russia, a feudalist nation at the time, to modern, capitalist nations in the 21st century.

I don't think Russia was a feudalist nation by 1920. :confused: The hardcore "orthodox Marxists" and "autonomous Marxists" (read: spontaneists) say that "Leninism" was and is the best set of ideas in regards to feudal countries advancing to capitalism (not as bloody with imperialist wars, and not as slow as capitalist development in Western Europe).

By the time he wrote his material regarding Rabkrin, Russia was a thoroughly capitalist country.


But what me must realize is that this is the 21st century and we need new paradigms that take into account the revolution in communications and the fact that limiting democratic rights in today's world is extremely impractical, unnecessary, and in reality, impossible.

What, then, is with the emerging authoritarian capitalist tendencies everywhere, from the West ("imperial presidencies" and "presidential" prime ministers, particularly the emergence of the latter group's respective "Prime Minister's Office" organizations (http://books.google.com/books?id=KaBRl7XNqdkC&pg=PA329&lpg=PA329&dq=%22presidential+prime+ministers%22&source=web&ots=AUSWrV6hZv&sig=rohZ6Sdpr5Ww-HkovUuaBkjiZNc)) to the developing world? What about the UK being the most monitored country in the world? What about Internet monitoring and censorship?


In short, we have to come out and say that the workers will have concrete democratic rights under workers rule, or else no one is going to support us.

Why do lots of them support bourgeois parties, even if they know quite well the undemocratic nature of those organizations (even the populist ones)?


I disagree with you about democratic centralism. But nothing says that we have to agree on that.

Fair enough, but after reading this left-communist article on centralism (http://www.en.internationalism.org/specialtexts/IR033_functioning.htm), I would rather call said centralism "proletocratic" than "democratic":


the term 'democratic' is itself not the most appropriate, both etymologically ('power of the people') and because of the meaning it has acquired under capitalism which has turned it into a formalistic fetish used to cover up and justify the bourgeoisie's domination over society.

Now, on to Ben:


The [I]methods used by a revolutionary government in the 21st century to defend its existence--will have as little in common with the extreme methods that Lenin's Bolsheviks found necessary--as the conditions of modern first-world countries have in common with the extreme conditions of Lenin's Russia."

Perhaps, as I hinted at with regards to Lenin's advocacy for a party newspaper. Ben then commented on some sort of central database, but obviously what I meant here was the concept of a newspaper - even an online version - as the primary source of communication for the entire party (blogs and boards are more personal).

On to "French socialism":


He obviously saw something wrong with the way the events in Paris transpired. By not constructing a state that served the workers, socialism was never really established (possibly). But there is no doubt that the Paris example is worth studying because I believe that regardless of its failures, it did represent a form of workers' rule. It was the first attempt. It failed, for many reasons. But it was a learning experience. I don't think Marx ever really "abandoned" French Socialism in that respect.

My question in that thread concerns the class demographics of the Paris Commune:

1) Most of them were petit-bourgeois;
2) The petit-bourgeois leaders of the Commune were looking out for their own class interests.

[DrFreeman09]

I don't have time for a lot of discussion now, but I will say this:



I don't think Russia was a feudalist nation by 1920. http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-led-t67387/images/smilies/confused.gif


That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that many of the measures taken from 1917-1923 were taken because Russia was a feudalist nation before the revolution.

The bottom line is that the conditions in Russia were very different than conditions today, and I don't believe that Lenin, given the conditions of a nation such as, say, the United States, would advocate the same stuff as he did from 1906-1923.

The paradigms that we use today will be determined by "concrete analysis of the concrete situation," as Lenin himself would have said.



Why do lots of them support bourgeois parties, even if they know quite well the undemocratic nature of those organizations (even the populist ones)?



Because there are no revolutionary parties today that are both a) genuinely revolutionary and b) in a position where their heads are not shoved up their asses.

Demoralized and confused people either don't do anything, or the end up choosing what the feel is "the lesser of two evils."



Perhaps,


I don't think there's a "perhaps" about it. We need new paradigms.


My question in that thread concerns the class demographics of the Paris Commune:

1) Most of them were petit-bourgeois;
2) The petit-bourgeois leaders of the Commune were looking out for their own class interests.

Maybe. I really don't know enough about it to make a really useful comment on this issue. But again, I don't think it hurt anyone to mention it in "Proletarian Democracy."


What, then, is with the emerging authoritarian capitalist tendencies everywhere, from the West ("imperial presidencies" and "presidential" prime ministers, particularly the emergence of the latter group's respective "Prime Minister's Office" organizations (http://www.anonym.to/?http://books.google.com/books?id=KaBRl7XNqdkC&pg=PA329&lpg=PA329&dq=%22presidential+prime+ministers%22&source=web&ots=AUSWrV6hZv&sig=rohZ6Sdpr5Ww-HkovUuaBkjiZNc)) to the developing world? What about the UK being the most monitored country in the world?


Yes, things appear to be turning for the worse. BUT, there is only so far this can go. One of the things I do involves computers, and I've been in a position to watch the trend of technology over the last few years. Computers are a result of capitalist production, but the more people come online and become experienced with their computers, the harder it is for capitalists to keep people passive and ignorant.

For example, I could tell you how you can prevent your computer from being spied on and how to access the internet without censorship in a way where every day, you can be 99.99% sure that no one saw what you did online. No system is foolproof, but Freenet is about as good as it gets in terms of current technology: http://freenetproject.org

As more and more people get access to this technology, the harder it will be for capitalists to control the masses.

During workers' rule, it will be equally impractical to censor the internet or limit democratic rights in a similar fashion. Censoring the internet may also greatly hinder the economy, considering how much of it has gone digital.


Marx's mistake was his refusal to picture what "proletocracy" - still in the capitalist mode of production - would look like in sufficient detail.


That wasn't a mistake. It was correct. He wanted that to be left to the workers.

I agree with your statement in that I think that one of the problems with the Left today is that we can't describe what future society looks like. But there is a difference between being able to paint a general picture and having blueprints. Nothing ever goes according to plan. Shit happens. For me, it is too utopian to have a clear set of blueprints.

But accepting that you are going to continue along this line anyway, I look forward to your comments on my criticism of Article 107 and I hope that you will at least consider what I said.


Regarding central planning, you'd be VERY surprised at problems with your statement, especially because of recent advances in information-communication technology that enhance production processes ("just in time").


Still, central planning isn't some magic solution that solves all of our problems. It's not our goal either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The constitution should guarantee democratic rights and imply political parties, or rather, not even say anything of substance about them.

Your Article 107 did the exact opposite: it implied democratic rights and guaranteed one communist party.

If you look at all great constitutions, they were flexible. Only the things that were seriously, seriously important were written in stone. These things were democratic rights and the procedures for extremely important tasks. Other things, which would be considered to be relative minutia, were either laid out in a way that was subject to varying degrees of interpretation, or simply were not discussed and left for the people to decide for themselves. These things included the existence of political parties, how these parties would operate, etc.

Your Article 107 was concrete in the wrong place, I believe. It was concrete in that there would be a communist party as the ruling party. It was, unfortunately, not concrete on democratic rights like the right of free organization.

Democratic rights should not be subject to interpretation. On the other hand, the existence of parties does not need to be discussed in a constitution.

But democratic rights are guaranteed:


Article 107

In conformity with the interests of the urban and rural workers, and in order to develop their organizational initiative and political activity, citizens of the Soviet Republic are guaranteed the right to unite in public organizations, both inside and outside the system of workers' power: workers' organizations (including workplace committees), cooperative organizations (including communal councils), provincial and local petit-bourgeois organizations, youth organizations, sport clubs, and cultural and scientific societies.

If political parties should be only implied, basically all I have to do is dump the 1936-like Article 107-a and Article 107-b?




Because there are no revolutionary parties today that are both a) genuinely revolutionary and b) in a position where their heads are not shoved up their asses.

By the way, thanks for commenting in my stamocap thread. ;)

There is another thread which may be of interest to you (comments there):

Why not an international socialist party? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index.html)

Left-Communist Leo had this to say in that thread:


It is interesting to see someone who is not a left communist calling for the world party - I don't see stuff like that often, well I haven't ever seen it.




For example, I could tell you how you can prevent your computer from being spied on and how to access the internet without censorship in a way where every day, you can be 99.99% sure that no one saw what you did online. No system is foolproof, but Freenet is about as good as it gets in terms of current technology: http://freenetproject.org

I'll keep that software in mind.


During workers' rule, it will be equally impractical to censor the internet or limit democratic rights in a similar fashion. Censoring the internet may also greatly hinder the economy, considering how much of it has gone digital.

Something for me to think about... how can dissenting Party members be prevented from agitating against Party decisions AFTER they're made? :o


But again, I don't think it hurt anyone to mention it in "Proletarian Democracy."

Your web page? Sure, but if you're gonna quote other posters here, I think you'll have to get their permission, too.

[DrFreeman09]

But democratic rights are guaranteed:

Sorry. :) I guess I didn't look as closely as I thought.

It is still my general impression though that a "Bill of Rights" of sorts is necessary. The Soviet Constitution of 1918 had one (it wasn't called the "Bill of Rights," but that's what it was) that laid out VERY CLEARLY the rights that are guaranteed to workers.


Article 13. In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.

Article 14. In order to ensure genuine freedom of expression for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic abolishes the dependence of the press on capital, and places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all the technical and material requisites for the publication of newspapers, pamphlets, books and all other printed matter, and guarantees their unhindered circulation throughout the country.

Article 15. In order to ensure genuine freedom of assembly for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, recognizing the right of citizens of the Soviet Republic freely to hold assemblies, meetings, processions, etc., places at the disposal of the working class and the poor peasantry all buildings suitable for the holding of public gatherings, complete with furnishing, lighting and heating.

Article 16. In order to ensure genuine freedom of association for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic, having destroyed the economic and political rule of the propertied classes and thereby removed all the obstacles which heretofore, in bourgeois society, prevented the workers and peasants from enjoying freedom of organization and action, renders material and all other assistance to the workers and poorest peasants for purposes of their association and organization.

Article 17. In order to ensure access to knowledge for the working people, the Russian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic makes its aim to give the workers and poorest peasants complete all-round and free education.

Not only does it guarantee freedom of association and organization, but it says that the workers and non-exploiting peasants will actually be given the materials necessary.

I haven't seen the rest of your work, but my suggestion is that if you don't have one, you should add a Bill of Rights and take out the mention of the communist party. Obviously, you should not refrain from expressing your views in other places, but I don't think that mentioning political parties has a place in any constitution, which is more-or-less what, I assume, that Article 107 is a part of.

Why do I think a Bill of Rights is necessary? Well, you can never be too safe with things like that.

In the U.S., after the failure of the Articles of Confederation, the Federalists had come up with a draft of a constitution that had a stronger central government. However, the Anti-Federalists didn't like it because they felt it didn't do enough to guarantee citizens democratic rights. The Federalists basically said, "Yes, it does mention democratic rights in the Articles, and that's good enough." The Anti-Federalists responded with "No, if you do not have a Bill of Rights that explicitly guarantees democratic rights to the point of being over-kill, you are making it easy for executive government to abuse the rights of its citizens."

The Constitution wouldn't have been ratified if a Bill of Rights was not included, and thank goodness it was! If our rights in the U.S. are being stepped on with a Bill of Rights, imagine how bad it would be without one.

So, yes, I think your Article 107 would be OK if you left out mentioning the Party and if you used it as part of a Bill of Rights, if it is not already.


Something for me to think about... how can dissenting Party members be prevented from agitating against Party decisions AFTER they're made?


I don't think it's very practical or safe to prevent them from doing so. It's an interesting question, and it is one of the reasons I'm skeptical about how practical centralism really is.

On the "international socialist party" thread: I will comment there, but I have something else to say about that.

Leo seemed surprised that you are not a left communist yet you are calling for a world party. On the surface, you may seem more "authoritarian" and I may seem more "libertarian." But in reality, I think we only disagree on some relatively minor issues, and that we can agree on most things, and that left communists, when presented with our arguments, can also bring themselves to agree, is, I believe, proof that the principles that we advocate are either correct or are at least on the right track.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Sorry. :) I guess I didn't look as closely as I thought.

It is still my general impression though that a "Bill of Rights" of sorts is necessary. The Soviet Constitution of 1918 had one (it wasn't called the "Bill of Rights," but that's what it was) that laid out VERY CLEARLY the rights that are guaranteed to workers.

Not only does it guarantee freedom of association and organization, but it says that the workers and non-exploiting peasants will actually be given the materials necessary.

I haven't seen the rest of your work, but my suggestion is that if you don't have one, you should add a Bill of Rights and take out the mention of the communist party.

I haven't posted Part VIII ("The Fundamental Rights and Duties of Citizens") yet. :(

If you read my constitution thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/post-revolution-constitutional-t67479/index.html), I've only completed everything up to and including Part IV.

And remember the disclaimer in that thread:


I said in the past somewhere on this board that this constitutional template was based primarily on the so-called "Stalin constitution" which was actually penned by Bukharin, incorporating elements of the 1918 constitution and the 1977 "Brezhnev constitution" where appropriate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think it's very practical or safe to prevent them from doing so. It's an interesting question, and it is one of the reasons I'm skeptical about how practical centralism really is.

I think that the "dialectic" of spontaneity versus organization (I remember our mutual agreement that dialectics is an albatross on workers' movements, but on this particular aspect I am forced to use that word as a crutch) is in a constant state of flux.

We can't limit into any particular "-ism" the notion of "freedom of discussion, unity in action." I suppose my earlier remarks regarding "proletocratic centralism" are a slight, class-emphasized improvement, but thankfully I acknowledge that it is one of many incarnations of Lenin's slogan.


On the "international socialist party" thread: I will comment there, but I have something else to say about that.

Leo seemed surprised that you are not a left communist yet you are calling for a world party. On the surface, you may seem more "authoritarian" and I may seem more "libertarian." But in reality, I think we only disagree on some relatively minor issues, and that we can agree on most things, and that left communists, when presented with our arguments, can also bring themselves to agree, is, I believe, proof that the principles that we advocate are either correct or are at least on the right track.

And that is always a good thing! :cool: ;)

[Ben Seattle]

Other errors, such as their absolute garbage on the Soviet Union after Stalin being "feudalist," are pointed out quite loudly in a Communist Voice article rebutting Ben Seattle (going so far as to equating his "three-sector" post-revolutionary economy with the old Stalinist state-capitalist economy)! (Jacob Richter-Jan 17)

Reply to a cargo-cult Leninist:
Powerful Agitation Requires Confronting the Crisis of Theory
struggle.net/ben/2008/126-agitation.htm

Contents:

Intro: powerful agitation requires a marriage between our current struggles and our future goal
The politics of workers' rule - Many independent organizations will exist
The proposal to rename the communist movement
The struggle to build a party: community, political transparency and confronting the crisis of theory
Economics in the transition period: and the struggle of the working class to exercise control
The struggle for integrity: The issue is line, not author

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ A lot of things can change in the span of nine days, Ben (feel free to drop into my "Stamocap" thread to see what I mean). :(

Hopefully I'll have enough time later to comment on this Sept. 9 conversation between you and a couple of comrades:

DP vs. DP-embryo (http://struggle.net/struggle/mass%2Ddemocracy/..%5Cben%5C2007%5C909-ben.htm)

[Nusocialist]

A successful revolution will not be "led", as history shows that doesn't go too well.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Unfortunately, I think the debate is fundamental. Anarchists were kicked out of/left the first two Internationals and events in the twentieth century show (particularly Spain) anarchism as a very unclear and unstable ideology which tends to succumb to backing bourgeois liberalism or to walking off the pitch (wishing they could take the ball with them, but since no one will ever pass to them that doesnt happen).

Revolutionary politics asks people to risk life limb and family for a better world. The sacrifices it asks are enormous. Revolutionary politics needs to be objective and methodical in its pursuit of the revolutionary state to justify that. Anarchists just cant do that from within anarchist organisations (there has really only been one exception to this - one small anarchist organisation within the spanish revolution).

Anarchists can be some of the best militants and should always be welcome in times of political crisis into the revolutionary party. If they work under discipline for the immediate goal, questions of ideology can wait. But anarchists organisations are seedbeds of moralising criticism and bourgeois ideologies. Unfortunately, they cant be trusted.

In light of the recent "Anarchism vs. Marxism" thread, I once again posit the necessity of having in place some restrictions on workers' rights. "Freedom of association" does not mean the "freedom of action" to associate in militant anarchist groups whose subsequent anti-proletocratic actions make those of anarchist hooligans look like child's play.



Therefore, in light of my "pof300 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pof-300/message/1860)" response to DrFreeman09 regarding the separation of the party from state administration ("the party cannot merge itself with the state's power of coercion, because this takes the "voluntary" aspect out of the equation and it puts the party in a position where it is EASY for corruption to rise unchecked"), the "sword and shield of the revolution," for the sake of revolutionary, Leninist "unity in action," must be FULLY incorporated into the party apparatus!

[And by this, I distinguish between the ordinary police forces under regular state administration and the more important "secret police."]