Is the transitional workers' state obsolete?

[supernaltempest]

I was reading through RS2K's stuff and he mentioned that the transitional workers' state, the "dictatorship of the proletariat", is an obsolete idea now.

What does everyone else here think?

[manic expression]

Of course not. As long as the bourgeoisie wants to re-establish capitalism and all its trappings, the working class NEEDS to defend its gains and further its interests with the use of the state. Anyone who understands Marxism understands this. Without the worker state, all the accomplishments of the working class will be erased quickly. The experience of the Spanish Communes, as well as the relative success of worker states in the past very much prove this. The need for the worker state is based in both solid theory and real world practice.

[Marsella]

Unfortunately those 'transitional' states have been about as transitional as a cemented wall. The only transitional period was when they collapsed.

It is utter nonsense to think that a party would willingly give up their privileged positions and return to a laboring job.

It is about as fanciful as imagining that capitalists would willingly give up their profits and hand over their businesses to the workers.

It hasn't happened and it won't happen.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Martov

You need to understand only Stalinists want a one party state, in which party members are elevated to official positions.

Its not the same for 'Leninists', Redstar2000 just wasn't aware of this though, or intentionally left it out.

With multiple parties, people will have to return to a normal job, if they are re-called or people elect another person. lol

[Marsella]

Martov

You need to understand only Stalinists want a one party state, in which party members are elevated to official positions.

Its not the same for 'Leninists', Redstar2000 just wasn't aware of this though, or intentionally left it out.

With multiple parties, people will have to return to a normal job, if they are re-called or people elect another person. lol

Eh?

Was Lenin elevated or not elevated to the official position of the Chairperson of the USSR or some other fancy title?

Or is it a matter of mentality which determines whether someone is a dictator - 'nice' Leninists are not, 'evil' Stalinists are?!

The fact of the matter was, that Stalin was in every sense a continuation of Lenin - that doesn't change even if he had a particular fondness of purges. What little control workers did have post October 'Revolution' was quickly trampled on. By the time Stalin was in power there was not much more he could do.

The question is not whether multiple parties existed which could be elected - we have that in capitalism and whether you accept it or not the working class does elect those representatives, even if it does not relatively change a thing.

What we should be focusing on is whether the working class controlled the means of production.

Both Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists ALL insist that a vanguard must lead the revolution, that a dictatorship of the proletariat must occur.

But I wonder whom will take that mantle of dictatorship?

Behind fancy words you find a cesspool of shit.

Something I would like a clear response on from Trotskyists like yourself, is how you intend to prevent the 'bad guys' from pulling a Stalin 101.

Because if its hope you're relying on then the dice is rolled and you've lost your bet.


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


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

Same shit, same smell.

Flush your toilet, comrade.

[kromando33]

wtf are you talking about, Marxism is not about molding it to fit your bourgeois fetishism for 'direct democracy', 'localism', 'radical decentralization' or whatever takes your fancy, I seriously wish people would stop saying 'Marxism' to justify their own wacky and debunked anarchist views. Marxism himself said that the post-Revolution can be 'nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat', I am sick of bourgeois-liberals trying to hijack our science for opportunistic political reasons, most have not even read Marx but still feel the need to speak on his behalf. The so-called modern 'New Left' is nothing but a degenerate front for the exultation of the lumpenproletariat and other abnormal minorities above the working class.

I find it also quite funny that Trotsky himself supported the Jacobin government in France as 'revolutionary', and even supported the Terrors against the reactionaries, but ironically they oppose Stalin's Terror against the bourgeois and kulak-fascist elements, even going so far as calling Stalin's rise to power as the 'Soviet Thermidor', funny really...

[Red October]

The so-called modern 'New Left' is nothing but a degenerate front for the exultation of the lumpenproletariat and other abnormal minorities above the working class.

What are these 'abnormal minorities'?

[kromando33]

What are these 'abnormal minorities'?
Homosexuals, Black Power groups and rebellious middle class students, environmentalists, feminists. Basically it's support the lower-middle class over the proletariat, Marx clearly states in the manifesto that the lower-middle class is reactionary, although many can join the proletariat.

I am just trying to get across that as communists our role is to represent the proletariat and advocate a state wholly run by the proletariat, nothing else.

[Marsella]

wtf are you talking about, Marxism is not about molding it to fit your bourgeois fetishism for 'direct democracy', 'localism', 'radical decentralization' or whatever takes your fancy, I seriously wish people would stop saying 'Marxism' to justify their own wacky and debunked anarchist views. Marxism himself said that the post-Revolution can be 'nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat', I am sick of bourgeois-liberals trying to hijack our science for opportunistic political reasons, most have not even read Marx but still feel the need to speak on his behalf. The so-called modern 'New Left' is nothing but a degenerate front for the exultation of the lumpenproletariat and other abnormal minorities above the working class.

I find it also quite funny that Trotsky himself supported the Jacobin government in France as 'revolutionary', and even supported the Terrors against the reactionaries, but ironically they oppose Stalin's Terror against the bourgeois and kulak-fascist elements, even going so far as calling Stalin's rise to power as the 'Soviet Thermidor', funny really...

Well, let's consult what dear Marx actually wrote, shall we?



The rural communes of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the national delegation in Paris, each delegate to be revocable and bound by the mandat impératif [formal instruction of his constituents].


The Commune — the reabsorption of the state power by society as its own living forces instead of as forces controlling and subduing it, by the popular masses themselves, forming their own force instead of die organised force of their suppression — the political form of their social emancipation, instead of the artificial force (appropriated by their oppressors) (their own force opposed to and organized against them) of society wielded for their oppression by their enemies.


All France organised into self-working and self-governing communes [...] the suffrage for the national representation not a matter of sleight-of-hand for an all-powerful government, but the deliberate expression of organised communes, the state functions reduced to a few functions for general national purposes.

Such is the Commune — the political form of the social emancipation, of the liberation of labour from the usurpations (slave-holding) of the monopolists of the means of labour, created by the labourers themselves or forming the gift of nature. As the state machinery and parliamentarism are not the real life of the ruling classes, but only the organised general organs of their dominion, so the Commune is not the social movement of the working class and therefore of a general regeneration of mankind, but the organised means of action.

What was that you were saying about 'direct-democracy' and self-governance?

Sort of goes out the window doesn't it?

Just like the relevance of your stinking ideology to the working class.

Ah, but what did Engels say of this 'vulgar reformist, revisionist, anti-Marxist Paris Commune?'


Of late, the social democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: dictatorship of the proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the dictatorship of the proletariat.

:eek:


…universal suffrage was to serve the people…as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly.(Marx)

The other measures of the Paris Commune, Engels describes in the introduction:


On March 26 the Paris Commune was elected and on March 28 it was proclaimed. The Central Committee of the National Guard, which up to then had carried on the government, handed in its resignation to the National Guard, after it had first decreed the abolition of the scandalous Paris "Morality Police." On March 30 the Commune abolished conscription and the standing army, and declared that the National Guard, in which all citizens capable of bearing arms were to be enrolled, was to be the sole armed force. It remitted all payments of rent for dwelling houses from October 1870 until April, the amounts already paid to be reckoned to a future rental period, and stopped all sales of article pledged in the municipal pawnshops. On the same day the foreigners elected to the Commune were confirmed in office, because "the flag of the Commune is the flag of the World Republic."

On April 1 it was decided that the highest salary received by any employee of the Commune, and therefore also by its members themselves, might not exceed 6,000 francs. On the following day the Commune decreed the separation of the Church from the State, and the abolition of all state payments for religious purposes as well as the transformation of all Church property into national property; as a result of which, on April 8, a decree excluding from the schools all religious symbols, pictures, dogmas, prayers – in a word, "all that belongs to the sphere of the individual's conscience" – was ordered to be excluded from the schools, and this decree was gradually applied. On the 5th, day after day, in reply to the shooting of the Commune's fighters captured by the Versailles troops, a decree was issued for imprisonment of hostages, but it was never carried into effect. On the 6th, the guillotine was brought out by the 137th battalion of the National guard, and publicly burnt, amid great popular rejoicing.

On the 12th, the Commune decided that the Victory Column on the Place Vendôme, which had been cast from guns captured by Napoleon after the war of 1809, should be demolished as a symbol of chauvinism and incitement to national hatred. This decree was carried out on May 16. On April 16 the Commune ordered a statistical tabulation of factories which had been closed down by the manufacturers, and the working out of plans for the carrying on of these factories by workers formerly employed in them, who were to be organized in co-operative societies, and also plans for the organization of these co-operatives in one great union. On the 20th the Commune abolished night work for bakers, and also the workers' registration cards, which since the Second Empire had been run as a monopoly by police nominees – exploiters of the first rank; the issuing of these registration cards was transferred to the mayors of the 20 arrondissements of Paris. On April 30, the Commune ordered the closing of the pawnshops, on the ground that they were a private exploitation of labor, and were in contradiction with the right of the workers to their instruments of labor and to credit. On May 5 it ordered the demolition of the Chapel of Atonement, which had been built in expiation of the execution of Louis XVI.

Thus, from March 18 onwards the class character of the Paris movement, which had previously been pushed into the background by the fight against the foreign invaders, emerged sharply and clearly. As almost without exception, workers, or recognized representatives of the workers, sat in the Commune, its decision bore a decidedly proletarian character. Either they decreed reforms which the republican bourgeoisie had failed to pass solely out of cowardice, but which provided a necessary basis for the free activity of the working class – such as the realization of the principle that in relation to the state, religion is a purely private matter – or they promulgated decrees which were in the direct interests of the working class and to some extent cut deeply into the old order of society. In a beleaguered city, however, it was possible at most to make a start in the realization of all these measures.

This was hyper democracy, this was a participatory democracy or 'direct democracy' as you labeled yourself.

Now go wank off to a picture of your beloved Hoxha, or better yet, the Labor party which you seemingly admire. ;)

[kromando33]

That's form, all that matters is control, democracy in socialism gives equal measure and power to the recently ousted bourgeois and their allies in the lumpenproletariat and (usually religious-conservative) lower-middle classes. Marx was just commenting on the Paris Commune, he was not advocating that model, in fact he said it wasn't socialist, and as was proven it's spontaneousness, fragmented nature ultimately got it destroyed.

In reality leadership is the question, you anarchists like to talk of 'authoritarianism' but in reality from Stalin, to Mao to Hoxha, their leaderships were just that, directives so that the proletariat coordinate themselves effectively and not hurt each others interests, centralized contact is necessary for solidarity, the alternate breaks down into sectarianism.

[Red October]

Homosexuals, Black Power groups and rebellious middle class students, environmentalists, feminists. Basically it's support the lower-middle class over the proletariat, Marx clearly states in the manifesto that the lower-middle class is reactionary, although many can join the proletariat.

I am just trying to get across that as communists our role is to represent the proletariat and advocate a state wholly run by the proletariat, nothing else.

And why do you call them "abnormal"?

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Martov (RedStar2000 disciple)


Was Lenin elevated or not elevated to the official position of the Chairperson of the USSR or some other fancy title?

LOL no

The Legislative body of the early R.S.F.S.R., was elected by the 'Second Congress of Soviets', and was called 'Council of people's commissars'.

And indeed, Lenin was elected as its Chairman.



Or is it a matter of mentality which determines whether someone is a dictator - 'nice' Leninists are not, 'evil' Stalinists are?!

no, its a matter of looking at the facts, and not 'straw manning' like RedStar2000 did.

He simply came from a Maoist position and so understood Stalinism as a continuation of Leninism.



The fact of the matter was, that Stalin was in every sense a continuation of Lenin - that doesn't change even if he had a particular fondness of purges. What little control workers did have post October 'Revolution' was quickly trampled on. By the time Stalin was in power there was not much more he could do.

You know, Trotskyists (the real continuation of Leninism) think that after the civil war, the proletariat had lost is class status and power.

So, the Soviets lost their power to elect the government and was replaced by the 'Central Committee of the Communist Party' ( in 1917 the 'Central Committee of Soviets' elected the governmental bodies.)


The question is not whether multiple parties existed which could be elected - we have that in capitalism and whether you accept it or not the working class does elect those representatives, even if it does not relatively change a thing.

Yah i accept that 'liberal democracy' is a form of democracy.




What we should be focusing on is whether the working class controlled the means of production.

indeed. We should be.



Both Stalinists, Leninists, Maoists, Trotskyists ALL insist that a vanguard must lead the revolution, that a dictatorship of the proletariat must occur.

Erm, vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat. For Marxists, organised into a party. It is not the only party, and it must defend the right of other parties to exist and other modes of organisation to exist.

'dictatorship of the proletariat' doesn't mean a 'dictator' it means governance by the proletariat over a given territory.




But I wonder whom will take that mantle of dictatorship?

the means of organisation that the proletariat choose.


Something I would like a clear response on from Trotskyists like yourself, is how you intend to prevent the 'bad guys' from pulling a Stalin 101.

Erm, it isnt 'bad guys' it is the proletariat loosing power. As Lenin noted, the result of the victory of the Red Army against the whites and the invaders came at the expense of the proletariat as a functioning class.

Then Lenin says that, as a result of trying and to got things 'working' and the war machine functioning things were done rapidly and rashly, leading to the R.S.F.S.R. still existing after the civil war, but having gross 'bureaucratic deformations'.

The bureaucracy was able to take over governance and so the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' ended. and the 'vanguard' was killed, purged or assassinated.

Luckily though, such conditions are unlikely to happen again in all but the most backward countries due to the enormous size of the proletariat compared to Russia 1917.

As for those quotes, you might like to provide the sources, as we can all misquote people, even Marx and Engels.

I suspect, Lenin was commenting on the fact that the Bolshevik party was a mass party of workers and peasants.



Same shit, same smell.

Flush your toilet, comrade.

"all power to the soviets!" - Lenin

Lets all misquote people!

[manic expression]

Unfortunately those 'transitional' states have been about as transitional as a cemented wall. The only transitional period was when they collapsed.

It is utter nonsense to think that a party would willingly give up their privileged positions and return to a laboring job.

It is about as fanciful as imagining that capitalists would willingly give up their profits and hand over their businesses to the workers.

It hasn't happened and it won't happen.

And again you trot out the same myopic garbage. Let me ask you: when the Paris Commune fell, how did Marx and Engels react? Did they bewail the transitional state? No, they did THE EXACT OPPOSITE and called for even more decisiveness in establishing the transitional state.

Your attempt to put a Marxist label on your anti-Marxist delusions is all too obvious.

[Martin Blank]

The Legislative body of the early R.S.F.S.R., was elected by the 'Second Congress of Soviets', and was called 'Council of people's commissars'.

And indeed, Lenin was elected as its Chairman.

Actually, the legislative bodies on an all-Russian level were both the Congresses of Soviets and, in between them, the Central Executive Committee. The Council of People's Commissars (Sovnarkom) was the executive body. And, yes, Lenin was elected Chairman of the Sovnarkom ... barely.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yes you are correct, i was confused about which part was legislative and which part was executive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Martov

You need to understand only Stalinists want a one party state, in which party members are elevated to official positions.

Its not the same for 'Leninists', Redstar2000 just wasn't aware of this though, or intentionally left it out.

With multiple parties, people will have to return to a normal job, if they are re-called or people elect another person. lol

Not quite. Stalinists, in spite of their "best intentions," usually end up with a

I, for one, see the necessity of a one-party system (especially in the soviets), but also the need to [url=http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1049042&postcount=37]separate the "party of power" from state administration (]"no-party state."[/url) (except for, as noted above by Martov, the prestige positions at the very top, AS WELL AS internal political security).


The Legislative body of the early R.S.F.S.R., was elected by the 'Second Congress of Soviets', and was called 'Council of people's commissars'.

And indeed, Lenin was elected as its Chairman.

Wrong on that front. :(

The legislative body was elected by the All-Russia Congress of Soviets, but was called the "All-Russia Central Executive Committee." The chairman of that body, until 1919, was Sverdlov.

Sovnarkom, on the other hand, was the executive body (or "Cabinet" in bourgeois terminology) and the highest body of state administration, but one that was granted the power to enact laws by decree.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yeah CommunistLeague pointed that out. Lenin though was elected and wanst just 'installed' as chairman of the USSR.

[Marsella]

That's form, all that matters is control, democracy in socialism gives equal measure and power to the recently ousted bourgeois and their allies in the lumpenproletariat and (usually religious-conservative) lower-middle classes.No it doesn't.

Do you honestly expect workers which have just ousted their bosses to then elect them as their representatives? Now this may be a crazy thought, but might they elect one of their own? Or will they be lead like sheep to support bourgeoisie representatives?

You are ignoring the fact that a revolution is a mass overthrow of the old order.

Of course you will give the standard reply 'their will still be people thinking like capitalists' which of course is utter nonsense.

If people cannot 'stop thinking like capitalists' then there is no fucking hope that they are going to revolt, let alone even begin questioning the 'ideals' of capitalism.

Before someone throws a brick they moralise that action.

Before the working class overthrows capitalism their mind frame will be one of anti-capitalism.

Consciousness happens before the actual action; otherwise the action would not occur.


Marx was just commenting on the Paris Commune, he was not advocating that model, in fact he said it wasn't socialist, and as was proven it's spontaneousness, fragmented nature ultimately got it destroyed.Oh, Marx wasn't an advocate of the Paris Commune was he? :eek:

Then why did dead Engels refer to it as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat?'

A slip of the tongue? :rolleyes:

The Commune failed because ultimately it was outnumbered and outslaughtered and made some very serious political mistakes, particularly not taking over the Bank of France.

Whether someone calls themselves socialist or waves a red flag is irrelevant:


This was also a serious political mistake. The bank in the hands of the Commune — this would have been worth more than 10,000 hostages. It would have meant the pressure of the whole of the French bourgeoisie on the Versailles government in favor of peace with the Commune. But what is still more wonderful is the correctness of so much that was actually done by the Commune, composed as it was of Blanquists and Proudhonists. naturally, the Proudhonists were chiefly responsible for the economic decrees of the Commune, both for their praiseworthy and their unpraiseworthy aspects; as the Blanquists were for its political actions and omissions. And in both cases the irony of history willed — as is usual when doctrinaires come to the helm — that both did the opposite of what the doctrines of their school proscribed.


Redstar2000 disciple

Yes, very cute.

But may I remind you that I do not name myself after a man whom died so very long ago? ;)


And indeed, Lenin was elected as its Chairman. Yes, so that quite correctly stands with your original statement:


You need to understand only Stalinists want a one party state, in which party members are elevated to official positions.
no, its a matter of looking at the facts, and not 'straw manning' like RedStar2000 did.

He simply came from a Maoist position and so understood Stalinism as a continuation of Leninism. Yes, very nice. But you are talking to me, sweetheart.


You know, Trotskyists (the real continuation of Leninism) think that after the civil war, the proletariat had lost is class status and power. That demise of what little power workers did have was happening before the civil war. And it certainly continued under the NEP.


Indeed. We should be.Well then please show me how the worker's position differed from under Lenin to Stalin.

From say, 1923 to 1933.

The fundamental question: what was the position of the working class to the means of production?

Managers and officials managed the planning under Lenin and continued to do so under Stalin, albeit Stalin focused more on a national level via the 5 Year Plans.

Where is the economic change?


Erm, vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat. For Marxists, organised into a party. It is not the only party, and it must defend the right of other parties to exist and other modes of organisation to exist. But didn't Marx say something about this?


"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 organization, 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."

Didn’t Marx say something about the educator educating himself?

And why is the vanguard the most advanced section of the proletariat?

Because they say so? (*cough* RCP *cough*)

Does the proletariat have any choice in this, or is this some sort of objective criteria in which to judge the ‘vanguard meter’ of a particular party?

And what does the vanguard aim at? A vanguard of course aims at the dictatorship of its own power. So really, what your model of a vanguard will always mean is the dictatorship of a party. In that sense, it does become a dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than by the proletariat.

A communist revolution requires nothing less than the overwhelming consciousness of the working class, not the enlightened leaders leading the frail few.

I mean, look at the very nature of a communist revolution. United workers will be facing their individual capitalists. How can a vanguard possibly do this for them? Or even lead this?

Even if they could it would be undesirable, because the working class must learn from its actions, mistakes and successes. That is the only way they will become the governing force of society.

As for your argument that such a vanguard would ‘defend the right of other parties to exist and other modes of organisation to exist’ that has not happened.

Those parties which threaten the power of the precious vanguard usually end non-existent.

I would expect that track record to continue.


Luckily though, such conditions are unlikely to happen again in all but the most backward countries due to the enormous size of the proletariat compared to Russia 1917.

I certainly hope so.

You Trotskyites are an amusing bunch.

You advocate the dictatorship of the party, yet complain when that party falls prey to bureaucracy, reformism etc.

It’s rather like setting fire to your house, then complaining that your bedroom was engulfed in flames. :(

You fail to realize that the high life of party leadership is not someone would give up willingly. Soon enough those former party leaders, or their successors, will start to enjoy the taste of champagne.

Enter capitalism.

Of course there is a more materialist approach promulgated my Marx:


"The “injustice in property relations” which is determined by the modern division of labor, the modern form of exchange, competition, concentration, etc., by no means arises from the political rule of the bourgeois class, but vice versa, the political rule of the bourgeois class arises from these modern relations of production which bourgeois economists proclaim to be necessary and eternal laws. If therefore the proletariat overthrows the political rule of the bourgeoisie, its victory will only be temporary, only an element in the service of the bourgeois revolution itself, as in the year 1794, as long as in the course of history, in its “movement”, the material conditions have not yet been created which make necessary the abolition of the bourgeois mode of production and therefore also the definitive overthrow of the political rule of the bourgeoisie…Men build a new world for themselves...from the historical achievements of their declining world. In the course of their development they first have to produce the material conditions of a new society itself, and no exertion of mind or will can free them from this fate."

Of course, if I stated that Russia was not in the material position for a proletarian revolution, I would be labeled an economist.

But some would call it a materialist.


I, for one, see the necessity of a one-party system (especially in the soviets), but also the need to
separate the "party of power" from state administration (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1049042&postcount=37) (except for, as noted above by Martov, the prestige positions at the very top, AS WELL AS internal political security).

Well, way to make a complete contradiction of an argument.

Firstly, why does the working class need a one party state?

You then go on to state that the party must be separate from the administration of the state, except for the lovely top jobs (you can usually tell what they are by how long someone licks your shoes for).

Now, I know you Leninists take inspiration from the bourgeoisie revolutionaries, but you seriously don't take serious the nonsense of a division of power?

It’s a myth in bourgeoisie society, and it would be a myth in 'proletarian' society.

So, you postulate that we should have a separation of power, but that the party leaders should occupy the top positions?

Doesn't sound very logical to me.


And again you trot out the same myopic garbage. Let me ask you: when the Paris Commune fell, how did Marx and Engels react? Did they bewail the transitional state? No, they did THE EXACT OPPOSITE and called for even more decisiveness in establishing the transitional state.

Your attempt to put a Marxist label on your anti-Marxist delusions is all too obvious.The difference between the Commune was that it actually contained the seeds of its foreseeable disappearance:

1. All the modern features of the state were abolished: police, army, etc.
2. The commune was an actual WORKING body, versus a parliamentary like body, which of course the Soviets ended up as.
3. The revocable nature of the Commune meant that it was ALWAYS going to be in the hands of the working class.

See, things such as armies, police have their own agendas and interests, and their non-existence is not one of them. The same goes for the party elite. Thinking that they will abolish themselves or fade away is utopian in the extreme.

And as for you arguing that Marx advocated a more centralized structure, well:


The Paris Commune was, of course, to serve as a model to all the great industrial centres of France. The communal regime once established in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized government would in the provinces, too, have to give way to the self-government of the producers.

In a rough sketch of national organization, which the Commune had no time to develop, it states clearly that the Commune was to be the political form of even the smallest country hamlet, and that in the rural districts the standing army was to be replaced by a national militia, with an extremely short term of service. The rural communities of every district were to administer their common affairs by an assembly of delegates in the central town, and these district assemblies were again to send deputies to the National Delegation in Paris, each delegate to be at any time revocable and bound by the mandat imperatif (formal instructions) of his constituents. The few but important functions which would still remain for a central government were not to be suppressed, as has been intentionally misstated, but were to be discharged by Communal and thereafter responsible agents.

The unity of the nation was not to be broken, but, on the contrary, to be organized by Communal Constitution, and to become a reality by the destruction of the state power which claimed to be the embodiment of that unity independent of, and superior to, the nation itself, from which it was but a parasitic excrescence.

While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people, constituted in Communes, as individual suffrage serves every other employer in the search for the workmen and managers in his business. And it is well-known that companies, like individuals, in matters of real business generally know how to put the right man in the right place, and, if they for once make a mistake, to redress it promptly. On the other hand, nothing could be more foreign to the spirit of the Commune than to supercede universal suffrage by hierarchical investiture.
:eek:

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Martov, why are you not using the standard font? It's REALLY hard for me to quote you. :(


Oh, Marx wasn't an advocate of the Paris Commune was he?

Then why did dead Engels refer to it as the 'dictatorship of the proletariat?'

A slip of the tongue?

More than that - a mistake (and one which Lenin made, too) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-marx-abandon-t68044/index.html). :(




You fail to realize that the high life of party leadership is not someone would give up willingly. Soon enough those former party leaders, or their successors, will start to enjoy the taste of champagne.

You should read that "proletarist" article I linked to above. That "high life" will never be enjoyed by active party members:

http://proletarism.org/hm_2_2.shtml


A particularly important sphere of activity for the socialist state is the economy. In replacing the capitalist striving for maximal profits with the socialist demand for maximum production effectiveness the socialist state must subordinate the entire management system to this demand.

In the first place, this applies to the management apparatus. The apparatus of production organizers must be rewarded in direct dependence on the organizational investment in heightening the productivity of labour and must be very highly rewarded.

Why is this so? Why can not (or must not) the victorious proletariat dictate to the technical intelligentsia its own, different conditions? Why can the leading class not exploit the creative capabilities of the specialists in the same merciless way that the capitalist exploits the workers?

Because this is not advantageous to the proletariat, it contradicts its interests.

The display of talent and creative ability possess an individual character. The struggle for social and self recognition serves as the stimulus for individual manifestations of ability. As long as commodity-money relations continue to exist in society, recognition in the distribution of goods will remain one of the elements of recognition in general.

But it is precisely upon creative activities that the perfection of production depends, the growth of its effectiveness; whether it be the activities of the production organizers or the creative initiative of the masses themselves. Growth in production of goods without an additional expenditure of labour - this is also the economic aim of the proletariat; it is quite ready to devote a portion of this growth to movement in this direction.

And if we glance back at the capitalist and learn from him, it may be seen that he loses nothing through the highly paid specialist but rather increases his profits. Besides which, he encourage a competitive struggle for recognition among them, leading to a full disclosure of their abilities, permitting him to select the best among them. In refusing to adopt such an approach, the proletariat can only harm itself.

The individual evaluation of each specialist must be based on the extent to which his activities are useful to the proletariat and this must be an assessment in the grand scheme, from the heights of class interests. As far as the share of any remaining capitalist is concerned, it must be said that if the proletariat does not offer its specialists the opportunity of obtaining more benefits that in the service of any capitalist, then it is a bad boss. Work for socialist society must attract, for their own benefit, the most prominent specialist of the capitalist world. The proletariat will only become richer through the exploitation of their abilities, since that which is advantageous to the capitalist is many times more advantageous in the socialist economy which is not limited by the competitive monopolies.

Translation: There will still be economic inequality of distribution, and for some reason the Party-trained coordinators and managers who have been ejected "with good standing" in the immediate post-revolutionary society would earn more than capitalist coordinators and managers. This makes sense, given the immediate problem of corruption. :)

Active party members would still not earn more than the average worker. :p


Well, way to make a complete contradiction of an argument.

Firstly, why does the working class need a one party state?

http://proletarism.org/hm_2_4.shtml


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.


You then go on to state that the party must be separate from the administration of the state, except for the lovely top jobs (you can usually tell what they are by how long someone licks your shoes for).

On a spectrum, multi-party folks like you are on one end, and Stalinists on the other. Razlatzski and I occupy the non-traditional "center," with him closer to you guys (COMPLETE separation of full party members from state administration) and with me closer to the Stalinists ("except for the lovely top jobs"). :)

But, like I said, those "lovely top jobs" would still result in the occupants earning no more than the average worker! The only value in such positions is one of prestige!


Now, I know you Leninists take inspiration from the bourgeoisie revolutionaries, but you seriously don't take serious the nonsense of a division of power?

It’s a myth in bourgeoisie society, and it would be a myth in 'proletarian' society.

Does the party's ability to continuously replace worn-out ex-members within state administration count as Montesquieu's "separation of powers"? :rolleyes:

[Marsella]

^^^ Martov, why are you not using the standard font? It's REALLY hard for me to quote you. :(

Yeah I apologize for that. I tried to change it back to Verdana but it didn't seem to want to change. A bit like the transitional workers' state! :p

I've gotta run. I'll reply later after I've read your response in more depth.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Martov




But may I remind you that I do not name myself after a man whom died so very long ago? ;)

I'm glad you are not a Marxist. ;)


Yes, so that quite correctly stands with your original statement:

Quote:
You need to understand only Stalinists want a one party state, in which party members are elevated to official positions.

When lenin was elected though, it wasn't a one party state, many parties existed and the SR's were joining the government.

Also, Lenin's position was there through Soviet power, and was later put in through Party choice, as the stalinist deemed the soviets to be counter-revolutionary.




Yes, very nice. But you are talking to me, sweetheart.

so? he did come from a Maoist position.




That demise of what little power workers did have was happening before the civil war. And it certainly continued under the NEP.

Well, you weren't there and the Bolsheviks were, and they knew that things had gone awry.

And they claimed that the chief culprit was the civil war.



Well then please show me how the worker's position differed from under Lenin to Stalin.

From say, 1923 to 1933.

The fundamental question: what was the position of the working class to the means of production?

Managers and officials managed the planning under Lenin and continued to do so under Stalin, albeit Stalin focused more on a national level via the 5 Year Plans.

Where is the economic change?

Erm, I'm not well read enough on the economic development of the Soviet Union.

But by 1923 the soviet democracy had ceased to function.

Leading to a counter-revolution (hence all the really bad purges and murders and forced labor camps, committed against the working class by the bureaucracy).

in 1917, the Soviets controlled the government, but the Soviets were no ultra leftists.

They used factory committees, delegation's, central soviets of Factory shop committees, Trade Union Soviets.

Through this federal structure the workers were organizing the running of the country and the election of government.

Neither could be said of the Stalinist camps.



Didn’t Marx say something about the educator educating himself?

Yeah, the vanguard party is educated by the proletariat.



And why is the vanguard the most advanced section of the proletariat?

Because it has collected the experience from the workers struggle and attempts to understand the objective situation.


Because they say so?

NO! They can exist and garnish no support and will have no significant role to play. But, they might become a MASS party and play a significant role.


Does the proletariat have any choice in this, or is this some sort of objective criteria in which to judge the ‘vanguard meter’ of a particular party?

Nobody can force you to join or vote for a vanguard (well apart from the Stalinist countries) but in 1917, the Bolsheviks were a mass party with massive interal democracy especially in the part of history they were in.

As Lenin said, put the party to the masses and test yourselves! meaning lets the workers vote for you if they want you.



And what does the vanguard aim at?

Workers power!


A vanguard of course aims at the dictatorship of its own power.

I will concede you this. When the Bolsheviks realized that the civil war had messed up the Russian revolution, they were clueless what to do. So, did they mess up? yeah. but it would have been a worse crime to flee.



So really, what your model of a vanguard will always mean is the dictatorship of a party. In that sense, it does become a dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than by the proletariat.

If we face a situation where there is a civil war where most of the proletariat die, or are displaced, then it probably will.

But sicne war is much different these days and the working class is much larger, then i doubt it will happen.


A communist revolution requires nothing less than the overwhelming consciousness of the working class, not the enlightened leaders leading the frail few.

I agree! but the Bolsheviks were the mass of the working class and the most conscious. and they were elected to govern!



I mean, look at the very nature of a communist revolution. United workers will be facing their individual capitalists. How can a vanguard possibly do this for them? Or even lead this?

what? communist revolution is the attainment of political power and the smashing of the bourgeois state. and the workers putting themselves in power as the ruling class.

kicking out the bosses of their factory and leaving politics alone is not a revolution.

Even if they could it would be undesirable, because the working class must learn from its actions, mistakes and successes. That is the only way they will become the governing force of society.


But you really, don't understand why the workers need parties do you?

you use hindsight and you attempt to analyze the 1917 revolution, but you blame this on Lenin and the bolsheviks from the outset.

Why were they so popular?

There is an extremely important argument for Marxist's about the party and class.

1. The main ideas of society are the ideas of the ruling class.
2.The emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class.

how do we understand this? surely if the working class emancipate themselves, then they will need to not believe the main ideas in society.

But, why then have they believed the main ideas in society for so long?

The party, is used to educate the workers using the lessons learned of years of struggle. The experience of the failed revolutions, the experience of bitter strikes, and explanation of history that breaks with the bourgeois interpretation.

The class must form a party of their own, and use that as a vehicle of revolution.

workers won't break with the ideas of the ruling class (as Marx said) then we wont ever get socialism.

but if workers use a party, their university, then we will have one!