Anarchism and anti-vanguardism: reductionist

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/internal-challenges-revolutionary-t70556/index.html


Lenin, for example, decried the "worship" of spontaneity, which is reductionist in its exclusive reliance on the sheer number of working-class folks, and fails to take into account Gramsci's analysis on cultural hegemony.



Pre-revolutionary epoch

Lenin Rediscovered: What Is to Be Done? in Context (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0)


As we set about the task of rediscovering Lenin's actual outlook, the terms 'party of a new type' and 'vanguard party' are actually helpful - but only if they are applied to the SPD as well as the Bolsheviks. The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and second because the SPD developed an innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination.' The term 'vanguard party' was not used during this period (I do not believe the term can be found in Lenin's writings), but 'vanguard' was, and this is what people meant by it. Any other definition is historically misleading and confusing.

Ultimately, the vanguard outlook derives from the key Marxist assumption that 'the emancipation of the working classes must be the work of the working classes themselves.' Sometimes this dictum is viewed as the opposite of the vanguard outlook, but, in actually, it makes vanguardism almost inevitable. If the proletariat is the only agent capable of introducing socialism, then it must go through some process that will prepare it to carry out that great deed.



Revolution

Lots of people know that not every proletarian will be behind the revolution; at least some will fight against it. What most people ignore, however, is the inevitably large number of passive proletarians. They won't take up arms in revolution, nor will they fight it, but just sit back and live ordinarily (interestingly enough, this is the same attitude most Russians have today of the October Revolution). These are the type of people who should be liberated class-conscious-wise in the long term, but in the short term need to be led just after the revolution. Even for the workers who are for, they need organization.



Modes of production

Related to this need for vanguard-party leadership in the post-revolutionary era is the mode of production itself. Economic relations based on both full workers' control and the full compensation of labour (labour-time vouchers) cannot be implemented for the whole of society overnight, and so authoritarian relations must remain in certain areas:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/multiple-modern-modes-t75252/index.html


What about this seven-economy "multi-economy":

1) Slave relations - "NKVD-style" GULAGS - for outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial non-political criminals (directed by a broad Internal Affairs administration) - thus saving society the unnecessary expenses associated with maximum-security prisons and execution facilities;

[Comrades should feel free to debate with me on the above economy (since I know there are objections, but I also acknowledge that what is above isn't as important as what is below).]

2) Parecon and other "cooperatives in the market" replacing proprietorships, partnerships, and other small businesses;

3) Non-market state "capitalism" of a rather STALINIST type, with wage-paid labour brigades per Trotsky's suggestion, which would mean a HUGE standing "army" coordinated by GOSSTROY (construction) and GOSPLAN (which would take care of the agricultural sovkhozization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/land-reform-obsolete-t74905/index.html) process);

4) Non-market proletocratic "capitalism" per the Trots (democratic central planning, but with compensation in wages);

5) Labour-voucher "socialism" but per Bordiga - real "bureaucratic socialism" coordinated by a separate soviet-appointed administration independent of the main state administration, but with compensation in labour-time vouchers;

6) Proletocratic socialism (democratic central planning, with compensation in labour-time vouchers);

7) Gift economy (communism in limited areas).

Indeed, resistant elements amongst the ousted bourgeoisie will have to be dealt with by a Party-led but not party-state "state" as part of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism!

[apathy maybe]

Meh, I'm only going to respond to one section of your post. Mainly because I get bored too easily (classic anarchist with ADHD). The last thing you quoted is just silly. Seriously. Besides, I don't really want to explain, yet again, why a state isn't needed (using the anarchist definition, not the Marxist definition).

Lots of people know that not every proletarian will be behind the revolution; at least some will fight against it. What most people ignore, however, is the inevitably large number of passive proletarians. They won't take up arms in revolution, nor will they fight it, but just sit back and live ordinarily (interestingly enough, this is the same attitude most Russians have today of the October Revolution). These are the type of people who should be liberated class-conscious-wise in the long term, but in the short term need to be led.
So, if they aren't fighting for the revolution, and they aren't fighting against the revolution, why do they need to be led anywhere? So what if a lot of people are apathetic to a large degree? They just want hang out with their family and friends, they don't want to get shot by a rampaging soldier (or a rampaging "revolutionary").

What purpose does "leading" them do? Yes, it would be great if everyone was on side. However, the way to do that is by rational argument and by demonstration of the benefits. Once people realise that their boss doesn't have any more say over them, then they start thinking about helping. Once people realise that politicians with their money making schemes (hide the speed cameras on safe bits of road, rather then publicly announce them on unsafe bits of road), and criminalising of dissent, will go,that's when they starting thinking about these things.

Because, you have to explain how it will be better for them personally, immediately. And forcing them off to gulags isn't the way to go about it.

[Herman]

Because, you have to explain how it will be better for them personally, immediately. And forcing them off to gulags isn't the way to go about it.

Why are you talking about Gulags? It has nothing to do with what he said.

[apathy maybe]

Err, I'm sure that if there is a sort of state that implements

1) Slave relations - "NKVD-style" GULAGS - for outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial non-political criminals (directed by a broad Internal Affairs administration) - thus saving society the unnecessary expenses associated with maximum-security prisons and execution facilities;,
then it won't just be for those people mentioned, it will also be for anyone who pisses of some bureaucrat, or just happens to say the wrong thing to the wrong person. One thing I've learnt from history, is that were you have an atmosphere of fear, and a culture of locking up folks who dissent, then bad shit happens. It isn't just those people who actively and strongly fight against the state who get locked up, it is also those who are unlucky, whatever.

Of course, it is perfectly normal for a state to want to defend itself. That is what states do. They don't just whither away as some people dream.

[Bilan]

Revolution

Lots of people know that not every proletarian will be behind the revolution; at least some will fight against it. What most people ignore, however, is the inevitably large number of passive proletarians. They won't take up arms in revolution, nor will they fight it, but just sit back and live ordinarily (interestingly enough, this is the same attitude most Russians have today of the October Revolution). These are the type of people who should be liberated class-conscious-wise in the long term, but in the short term need to be led.

So, they're not going to take part, so you lead them, and then expect them too?
A/ that is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.
B/ Forcing people to join your revolution contradicts the quote of the WMA anyway - the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class themselves - not by a small vanguard forcing people to take part against their will.

The revolution will not take place unless there is a significant portion of support for it, the majority even.
Those who don't take part, wont, and pretending they will is stupid - they will take part when they see fit. The point is to inspire them to take part, to educate them on why they should take part, and why if they choose not to take part, the revolution will go on anyway.
Think what happened in Barcelona.
Think Paris.




Modes of production

Related to this need for vanguard-party leadership in the post-revolutionary era is the mode of production itself. Economic relations based on both full workers' control and the full compensation of labour (labour-time vouchers) cannot be implemented for the whole of society overnight, and so authoritarian relations must remain in certain areas:

Leninist, you are going to have to come to terms with this: Never, ever, have anarchists said anything will happen over night. Please stop using that, it has been debunked a thousand times.
Furthermore, a revolution will not, and can not be carried out over night, either. The revolution must spread, until it reaches every corner. And as it spreads, the economy must be radically reorganized on liberatian socialist principles - workers self management of the means of production, workers control.

When the revolution meets counter revolutionary resistance, it addresses it appropriately. When met with words, use words. When met with force, use force.




Indeed, resistant elements amongst the ousted bourgeoisie will have to be dealt with by a Party-led but not party-state "state" as part of the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism!

I see a slow transition to socialism which will never come within your words.

[Os Cangaceiros]

So the working masses need to be led? Then the inevitable question arises...by whom?

Oh yes, that's right: by the Enlightened, of course! :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

then it won't just be for those people mentioned

Apathetic workers would be better off as army conscripts or as labour-brigade conscripts (thus getting paid WHILE LED) than as gulag inmates (not paid). :glare:

What's the point of emancipating apathetic workers' consciousness if they're overworked to death in the gulags?


Forcing people to join your revolution contradicts the quote of the WMA anyway - the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class themselves - not by a small vanguard forcing people to take part against their will.

Who said anything about forcing them to take up arms? :glare:

The apathetic ones will stay home, but will need to accept the post-revolution order, and at least some of them may be the first workers to be conscripted in wage-paid labour brigades or in the army (with already-conscious workers as the rear guard).

[Bilan]

Who said anything about forcing them to take up arms? :glare:


Good question, because I sure didn't!



The apathetic ones will stay home, but will need to accept the post-revolution order, and at least some of them may be the first workers to be conscripted in wage-paid labour brigades or in the army (with already-conscious workers as the rear guard).

That sounds like barrack communism to me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ In the POF-300 group, Ben Seattle talks about the "DP-embryo." As much as you anarchists don't like this necessity, the "DP-embryo" will be necessary. The reductionist mistake made by the "Marxist-Leninists" (Stalinists) is to make this necessity into a virtue.

[KC]

So the working masses need to be led? Then the inevitable question arises...by whom?

Oh yes, that's right: by the Enlightened, of course!

Of course!

The reactionary elements aren't going to lead it, obviously.


^^^ In the POF-300 group, Ben Seattle talks about the "DP-embryo." As much as you anarchists don't like this necessity, the "DP-embryo" will be necessary.

Nobody cares about your lame saint. He doesn't even have a wikipedia page!!!:laugh:

[MarxSchmarx]

1) Slave relations - "NKVD-style" GULAGS - for outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial non-political criminals (directed by a broad Internal Affairs administration) - thus saving society the unnecessary expenses associated with maximum-security prisons and execution facilities;


Exactly what purpose is this segment of the economy supposed to serve?

Also WRT "apathetic" workers - I think we too quickly forget that workers are apathetic because of their social relations, and not in spite of them. Right now, it is apathy is frustrating as hell and seems too ingrained in people's essence. But we have to understand that apathy is rewarded and drummed into people's minds day in and day out.

That is why it is crucial to reorganize work relations along democratic lines to destroy incentives for apathy on day one - and quite possibly before.

[BobKKKindle$]

I support a vanguard, but the OP has some very misguided ideas about how a socialist society should operate.


1) Slave relations - "NKVD-style" GULAGS - for outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial non-political criminals (directed by a broad Internal Affairs administration) - thus saving society the unnecessary expenses associated with maximum-security prisons and execution facilities;

Who would you classify as class enemies? People who advocate a return to capitalism without using violence to try and accomplish this objective should not be sent to a slave camp, they should not be subject to any form of punishment, instead they should be given access to resources that enable them to express their views. A culture of open discussion will ensure that the state is not able to attain a hegemony on political activity.

As for the people who do try and use violence to restore capitalism (for example, by attacking state property) there is still no need for a sector based on slave labor. It is unlikely that the standard of the work would be of sufficient quality, given that most slaves resent being forced to work, and slave labour also incurs expenses, as it is necessary to have a staff of managers to make sure that the slaves work and do not try and escape the facility where they are being held.


These are the type of people who should be liberated class-conscious-wise in the long term, but in the short term need to be led just after the revolution. Even for the workers who are for, they need organization.

What do you understand the term "led" to mean in this context?

[apathy maybe]

The capitalists got rid of feudalism for us, we do not want to reintroduce slavery simply because we claim to be socialists.

Indeed, we aim for the liberation of people, by forcing people to work (even if it is 'paid' labour) we aren't reaching socialism, instead we just head towards some other fucked up authoritarian system. We don't like capitalism because it forces people to do things, why keep that force?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Exactly what purpose is this segment of the economy supposed to serve?

"saving society the unnecessary expenses associated with maximum-security prisons and execution facilities"


Also WRT "apathetic" workers - I think we too quickly forget that workers are apathetic because of their social relations, and not in spite of them. Right now, it is apathy is frustrating as hell and seems too ingrained in people's essence. But we have to understand that apathy is rewarded and drummed into people's minds day in and day out.

I realize that, for all the talk about personal responsibility and so on, capitalism encourages personal irresponsibility.


That is why it is crucial to reorganize work relations along democratic lines to destroy incentives for apathy on day one - and quite possibly before.

Good rebuttal. :(




I support a vanguard, but the OP has some very misguided ideas about how a socialist society should operate.

A proper socialist society has only one class: the proletariat. This is because the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism will have assimilated (prostitutes, gangsters, coordinators) or liquidated (dissenting bourgeois and lumpenbourgeois scum) other classes.


Who would you classify as class enemies? People who advocate a return to capitalism without using violence to try and accomplish this objective should not be sent to a slave camp, they should not be subject to any form of punishment, instead they should be given access to resources that enable them to express their views. A culture of open discussion will ensure that the state is not able to attain a hegemony on political activity.

If they happen to be from the ousted bourgeois or lumpenbourgeois classes, they SHOULD be sent to a slave "camp" for expressing such crap. Full "democratic rights" in the DOTP/proletocracy should be enjoyed only by workers, coordinators, and lumpenproles (as opposed to lumpenbourgeoisie like hucksters and lumpens like beggars). After all, weren't the Russian bourgeoisie deprived of voting?


A culture of open discussion will ensure that the state is not able to attain a hegemony on political activity.

You forget that the state is NEVER neutral. The state should not attain a hegemony on workers' political activity.


As for the people who do try and use violence to restore capitalism (for example, by attacking state property) there is still no need for a sector based on slave labor. It is unlikely that the standard of the work would be of sufficient quality, given that most slaves resent being forced to work, and slave labour also incurs expenses, as it is necessary to have a staff of managers to make sure that the slaves work and do not try and escape the facility where they are being held.

Ever heard of Stalin's big gulag construction projects?

[Module]

If there is such a proportion of workers who necessarily need 'authoritarian relations' with a sort of governmental party, in order to force them to fight the revolution, then in what mind does one see such a situation as a revolution of the workers, at all?

In the case of workers needing organisation, why do you think that organisation can only exist through the initiative of a vanguard party, and not by the workers themselves?

I would say, personally, that a reason I am against capitalism is because of the enslavement of working people by capitalist wage relations.
Is the only reason you're against that because it's an illusory way to freedom for working people, and you'd feel more ethically innocent knowing they're 100% aware of their enslavement, under 'conscripted' wage-labour conditions?

As apathy maybe said, socialists aim for socialism as the emancipation of the working class. It's not the same, aiming for socialism, as socialism, through the use of the working class.

From what you've quoted, "The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission", then how do you consider the fulfillment of the vanguard party's mission through actively controlling working people, through things such as forced labour?

[Hit The North]

The capitalists got rid of feudalism for us, we do not want to reintroduce slavery simply because we claim to be socialists.


Too right! This cannot be stressed enough. Any attempt to establish the slavery of persons on any basis must be fought tooth and nail.

Jacob, if I find you arguing for the institution of slave labour camps after the Revolution I will denounce you as an enemy of the people - and shoot you if necessary. :)

[Hit The North]

If there is such a proportion of workers who necessarily need 'authoritarian relations' with a sort of governmental party, in order to force them to fight the revolution, then in what mind does one see such a situation as a revolution of the workers, at all?

In the case of workers needing organisation, why do you think that organisation can only exist through the initiative of a vanguard party, and not by the workers themselves?


Good point. To separate the vanguard from the class, as this debate often does, is un-Marxist.

The class struggle in a genuine pre-revolutionary situation will be at such a depth and pitch that the spontaneous creative activity of the workers will be flourishing like never before.

The vanguard can only be objectively realised (that is, proven in practice) to the extent in which it emerges from, and gives expression and coordination to, the flourishing class consciousness of the overwhelming majority of the class.

Vanguards do not create revolutions - classes do.

To say otherwise is Blanquism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Too right! This cannot be stressed enough. Any attempt to establish the slavery of persons on any basis must be fought tooth and nail.

Jacob, if I find you arguing for the institution of slave labour camps after the Revolution I will denounce you as an enemy of the people - and shoot you if necessary. :)

If the bourgeoisie are somehow defanged during the revolution and prove incapable of mounting counterrevolutionary efforts - either by deed or by word (propaganda) - then by all means I'd shut up.

If emergency measures are warranted, however, don't be surprised at the advocacy and implementation of the utilitarian measure above.

There! That proves that I'm not trying to turn some necessity into a "virtue" (and thus falling into another reductionist trap).




Good point. To separate the vanguard from the class, as this debate often does, is un-Marxist.

I never implied such, especially given my workers-only proposal for such organization (manual, clerical, and professional workers). :crying:


Vanguards do not create revolutions - classes do.

To say otherwise is Blanquism.

I never said that, either. I merely repeated Lih's notion that only a vanguardist process can enable the working class to emancipate itself. It's like modern business management: before, the people (credit or blame); now, the process (create, refine, or discard).

[Hit The North]

If the bourgeoisie are somehow defanged during the revolution and prove incapable of mounting counterrevolutionary efforts - either by deed or by word (propaganda) - then by all means I'd shut up.

If emergency measures are warranted, however, don't be surprised at the advocacy and implementation of the utilitarian measure above.

There! That proves that I'm not trying to turn some necessity into a "virtue."

You miss the point. I'm not against taking measures against the bourgeois enemies of the revolution but I am against transforming anyone into a slave. Put them on trial and execute them if necessary. But slavery, never!

[Bilan]

Jacob, are you going to respond to me or Desrumeaux?

[Hit The North]

Jacob:
I never implied such, especially given my workers-only proposal for such organization (manual, clerical, and professional workers).Comrade, I never suggested you did. It's not all about you! ;)


I never said that, either. I merely repeated Lih's notion that only a vanguardist process can enable the working class to emancipate itself.I refer you to my comments above.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ And I replied to those remarks regarding slave labour facilities ("camp" is an inaccurate word, when considering gulags like Magnitogorsk). Again, my stance is one of "hoping for the best but planning for the worst." I don't like them, but if the ousted bourgeoisie, at least stripped of democratic rights, start trouble (either by deed or by word), then measures need to be taken to aggravate the class struggle during the transition.

Economics and Politics.]



Crap. I didn't notice your reply. :( :cursing:


You miss the point. I'm not against taking measures against the bourgeois enemies of the revolution but I am against transforming anyone into a slave. Put them on trial and execute them if necessary. But slavery, never!

I have utilitarian objections to executions and lengthy prison terms. :(

[Hit The North]

Jacob Richter;1134135]^^^ And I replied to those remarks regarding slave labour facilities ("camp" is an inaccurate word, when considering gulags like Magnitogorsk). Again, my stance is one of "hoping for the best but planning for the worst." I don't like them, but if the ousted bourgeoisie, at least stripped of democratic rights, start trouble (either by deed or by word), then measures need to be taken to aggravate the class struggle during the transition.

Those who cause trouble by deed should be imprisoned. Those who don't can have their democratic rights returned as they transform themselves into workers.

By the way, describing a situation of forcing people into slavery for exercising free speech as "hoping for the best but planning for the worst" is even more slippery than the idea that calling "camps" "facilities" somehow makes slavery more palatable. :glare:

Comrade, please consider the implications of the positions you would seemingly commit us to. :(

[Hit The North]

I have utilitarian objections to executions and life-in-prison terms. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gifHow very bourgeois of you :laugh:

But who said anything about life in prison?

[Die Neue Zeit]

By the way, describing a situation of forcing people into slavery for exercising free speech as "hoping for the best but planning for the worst" is even more slippery than the idea that calling "camps" "facilities" somehow makes slavery more palatable.

I never implied palatability. :confused: It is an "unsung" fact that the modern city of Magnitogorsk was actually a "gulag" in Soviet times (even AFTER Stalin's death). I watched an American documentary on the city, and how it impacted "inmates."

Upon release, the "inmates" actually wanted to stay (and did), because they feared the ramifications of living life elsewhere.

To call Magnitogorsk a "camp" is linguistically inaccurate. :crying:


Those who don't can have their democratic rights returned as they transform themselves into workers.

On this we can agree.


Comrade, please consider the implications of the positions you would seemingly commit us to.

Perhaps I should omit this from my WIP. :(



I have utilitarian objections to executions and life-in-prison terms.How very bourgeois of you

Marx criticized various views of utility, but he didn't criticize utilitarianism itself. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism#Karl_Marx.27s_argument_concerning_t he_importance_of_human_nature)


But who said anything about life in prison?

Or lengthy prison terms in general. :p

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now that #1 has been addressed, what about #3?


3) Non-market state "capitalism" of a rather STALINIST type, with wage-paid labour brigades per Trotsky's suggestion, which would mean a HUGE standing "army" coordinated by GOSSTROY (construction) and GOSPLAN (which would take care of the agricultural sovkhozization process);

[Especially in the area of agriculture]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/land-reform-obsolete-t74905/index.html


Sorry, but this exactly why I favour very, very state-capitalist measures in regards to land: expropriate all the land owned by the agribusinesses AND the reactionary "small farmers" (let's face it, "small farmers" in the developed world have expired in terms of revolutionary potential, and the whole world is capitalist enough for the proletariat to "screw" Third-World peasants over), and have very hierarchical state agri-enterprises (by anarchist standards) oversee the immediate post-revolution production

[Hyacinth]

3) Non-market state "capitalism" of a rather STALINIST type, with wage-paid labour brigades per Trotsky's suggestion, which would mean a HUGE standing "army" coordinated by GOSSTROY (construction) and GOSPLAN (which would take care of the agricultural sovkhozization process); One important point to remember is that the USSR should not, and, more importantly, cannot be a model for a post-revolutionary society, or even the transitionary phase. Largely because, even if one is intend on using the USSR as a model, the fact remains that the material conditions today in the advanced industrial countries (I’m presuming here that one is intending on carrying out a communist revolution there, rather than in some backwater developing nation) are *very* different from those in Russia after the revolution, and even in the Stalinist Soviet Union.

Many of the measures implemented in the USSR, such as those proposed above, were done so with the intent of industrializing the [at the time backwards] USSR. Given that presumably we are aiming for a revolution in advanced *industrial* states, there isn’t a need for further industrialization on the sort of scale as seen in the USSR during the first few 5-year plans.

The same applies to agricultural production; the collectivization efforts were an effort to modernize, and industrialize, agricultural production in the USSR; something that is already the standard in the advanced industrial countries. All that has to be done after the revolution is the appropriation of existing industrial farms.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Good rebuttal, but:


One important point to remember is that the USSR should not, and, more importantly, cannot be a model for a post-revolutionary society, or even the transitionary phase. Largely because, even if one is intend on using the USSR as a model, the fact remains that the material conditions today in the advanced industrial countries (I’m presuming here that one is intending on carrying out a communist revolution there, rather than in some backwater developing nation) are *very* different from those in Russia after the revolution, and even in the Stalinist Soviet Union.

I'm not saying such. Whereas the Soviet Union had a state-capitalist monopoly, I've got the "multi-economy" outlined by Lenin in Left-Wing Childishness. However, given the development of information-communication technology today, social and state planning - both centralized - will be much easier to conduct.


The same applies to agricultural production; the collectivization efforts were an effort to modernize, and industrialize, agricultural production in the USSR; something that is already the standard in the advanced industrial countries. All that has to be done after the revolution is the appropriation of existing industrial farms.

You'd be quite surprised at the still-sheer number of small and medium-sized farms ripe for sovkhozization in the advanced countries (just look at how much $$$ in farm subsidies the EU doles out). True, that the agribusinesses are much more productive AND more efficient (because of their economies of scale), but... ;)

And since you're Canadian, you should know about the politics of the Canadian Wheat Board. ;)

[Hyacinth]

You'd be quite surprised at the still-sheer number of small and medium-sized farms ripe for sovkhozization in the advanced countries (just look at how much $$$ in farm subsidies the EU doles out). True, that the agribusinesses are much more productive AND more efficient (because of their economies of scale), but...
All agriculture in the advanced industrial nations is heavily subsidized, largely because if we operated in an actual free market, it would be the case that the third world agricultural products would be substantially cheaper that what we produce domestically (modern agriculture is not very labour intensive, but it is very capital intensive; third world agriculture is vice versa).

The reason that we still have small (and medium) scale farming is because of such subsidies, which are a consequence of the fact that a) faming lobbies are influential, since there is still a substantial rural constituency , and b) states consider is in their strategic interest to have a domestic food supply.

Without these subsidies you’d likely see small-scale farming in the industrial world completely disappear.

Though none of the above is a criticism of the proposal, I’m just going on a tangent.

I'm not saying such. Whereas the Soviet Union had a state-capitalist monopoly, I've got the "multi-economy" outlined by Lenin in Left-Wing Childishness. However, given the development of information-communication technology today, social and state planning - both centralized - will be much easier to conduct.
When I initially examined the proposal I was looking at #3 in isolation. When you put it that way, all-in-all the necessity of having different sorts of economics relations during a transition period seems obvious: as you say, such things can’t happen overnight.

That being said, though, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: what *can* we do, and how quickly can we do it? Modern (and future) computing technology might make it possible to hasten the transition to an economy of relative abundance, in making it possible to effectively and efficiently plans everything. Depending upon how quickly such a transition can be made, it makes the multi-tiered economic model proposed superfluous. (I don’t pretend to be an expert enough on such technical issues to come out decisively in favour or against the proposal).


Though, so far I’ve just examined the economist considerations, which, really, cannot be looked at in isolation apart from political considerations. Whatever form a post-revolutionary economic system takes, what must be ensured, in order for any revolution to be genuine, is that it remains democratic. Communism needs democracy, in fact, I would go further and say that it *is* democracy; we seek the extension of democracy over the economic sphere (in fact, properly speaking, unless you have democracy over that as well, democracy with respect to the political sphere is meaningless; one can’t properly consider the two separate, even if bourgeoisie political scientists and economists try).


As long as any economic organization is built from the bottom up, and not imposed from the top down, I have no issue with it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

All agriculture in the advanced industrial nations is heavily subsidized, largely because if we operated in an actual free market, it would be the case that the third world agricultural products would be substantially cheaper that what we produce domestically (modern agriculture is not very labour intensive, but it is very capital intensive; third world agriculture is vice versa).

The reason that we still have small (and medium) scale farming is because of such subsidies, which are a consequence of the fact that a) faming lobbies are influential, since there is still a substantial rural constituency , and b) states consider is in their strategic interest to have a domestic food supply.

Ah, but can't that domestic food supply be made more effectively and efficiently by large agribusinesses operating on every single inch of arable land?


That being said, though, the question that we have to ask ourselves is: what *can* we do, and how quickly can we do it? Modern (and future) computing technology might make it possible to hasten the transition to an economy of relative abundance, in making it possible to effectively and efficiently plans everything. Depending upon how quickly such a transition can be made, it makes the multi-tiered economic model proposed superfluous. (I don’t pretend to be an expert enough on such technical issues to come out decisively in favour or against the proposal).

I only floated that as a "most likely" scenario. If indeed the labour-time economy can be ushered in fast enough, yes indeed this "multi-economy" would be too tedious.


Whatever form a post-revolutionary economic system takes, what must be ensured, in order for any revolution to be genuine, is that it remains democratic. Communism needs democracy, in fact, I would go further and say that it *is* democracy; we seek the extension of democracy over the economic sphere (in fact, properly speaking, unless you have democracy over that as well, democracy with respect to the political sphere is meaningless; one can’t properly consider the two separate, even if bourgeoisie political scientists and economists try).

As long as any economic organization is built from the bottom up, and not imposed from the top down, I have no issue with it.

One small critique on your stance (because you haven't addressed exploitation):

Lenin's error re. state capitalism vs. "socialism" (and "left-wing" childishness) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-error-re-t74487/index.html)

Both complete workers' control and the full compensation of labour are necessary to usher in "socialism"; having the former without the latter is still capitalistic (and this is the error most Marxists still make quite stubbornly).

[Hyacinth]

Ah, but can't that domestic food supply be made more effectively and efficiently by large agribusinesses operating on every single inch of arable land?
Very much so, in fact, it is likely that we can improve the agricultural production methods to the point where we won’t need to use “every single inch of arable land”.

One small critique on your stance (because you haven't addressed exploitation):
Both complete workers' control and the full compensation of labour are necessary to usher in "socialism"; having the former without the latter is still capitalistic (and this is the error most Marxists still make quite stubbornly).
You’re right; this is something that I have unwittingly overlooked. If our aim is to end exploitation, then fair and full compensation (in the manner in which you’ve described, or something similar) is, alongside democracy (worker’s control), also necessary.

That being said, I think the oversight was largely due to the fact that I (and I presume many others as well) simply assume that worker’s control will simply bright about fair and full compensation for labour.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, here's another aspect of #3 (Stalinist central planning with wage-paid labour brigades) that needs discussion: peak oil. Any major shift to post-oil energy like fusion power and hydrogen power (and this is becoming more and more necessary) will require massive infrastructural changes and investment (and a whole bureaucracy in charge of this project). Without this, the oil will run out, and we'll have a crash (as well as barbaric scarcity).

[Hyacinth]

Comrade, here's another aspect of #3 (Stalinist central planning with wage-paid labour brigades) that needs discussion: peak oil. Any major shift to post-oil energy like fusion power and hydrogen power (and this is becoming more and more necessary) will require massive infrastructural changes and investment (and a whole bureaucracy in charge of this project). Without this, the oil will run out, and we'll have a crash (as well as barbaric scarcity).
I think you may want to drop “Stalinist” as an adjective to describe the sort of central planning that is proposed, it is somewhat misleading. The Soviet model was more about directing the economy, rather than planning it fully, in the sense that the planners over at GOSPLAN simply lacked the sufficient data gathering and processing capability to fully plan an economy; rather what they did was, more or less, set general directives for what was to be aimed for. With today’s computing technology we have the technical means to overcome the shortcomings of the Soviet planning mode.

As for the rest, I agree with you; in fact, one would think that hardly anyone would disagree for the necessity of organizational measures, even a bureaucracy of some sort. The more interesting question is how exactly should this bureaucracy be structures, and how will we ensure proper bureaucracy oversight of it as to prevent the emergence of a nomenklatura.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ OK, top-down, centralized micro-planning, then ;)

[On the other hand, you may want to look into two other planning agencies, GOSSNAB and GOSSTROY.]

[Hyacinth]

^^^ OK, top-down, centralized micro-planning, then ;)

[On the other hand, you may want to look into two other planning agencies, GOSSNAB and GOSSTROY.]
I would love to get my hands on *more* information about the Soviet planning process, since I’m greatly interested in the nitty-gritty details of how a planned economy would work, but alas I really haven’t come across much at all (I have some scattered data regarding how complicated an economic model would be, as well as information about how much process time it would take, using modern computing power, to run all the linear [or non-linear, as the case may be] equations that compose the economic model); I suspect much of the source material is in Russia, my command of which is not sufficient enough to read technical data.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, what's your educational background to warrant such interest? :confused:

Anyways, perhaps this thread may help:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/soviet-price-mechanism-t67381/index.html

[Die Neue Zeit]

If there is such a proportion of workers who necessarily need 'authoritarian relations' with a sort of governmental party, in order to force them to fight the revolution, then in what mind does one see such a situation as a revolution of the workers, at all?

I think I responded to this already. :confused: No draftees are involved during the revolution, but they're certainly involved afterwards.


In the case of workers needing organisation, why do you think that organisation can only exist through the initiative of a vanguard party, and not by the workers themselves?

Vanguardism is a process. Also, you can have as many parties out there proclaiming to be THE "vanguard" party, but without them performing the actual vanguardist process, they're anything but vanguard parties. Again, refer to the SPD as a grossly overlooked example of a vanguard party.


From what you've quoted, "The SPD was a vanguard party, first because it defined its own mission as 'filling up' the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission", then how do you consider the fulfillment of the vanguard party's mission through actively controlling working people, through things such as forced labour?

You might want to consider the discussion between Hyacinth and myself regarding gargantuan social projects. You're implying the gulag scenario here; I'm not.

[Hyacinth]

Comrade, what's your educational background to warrant such interest? :confused:
My educational background: philosophy and psychology (what I’m interested in, and eventually aim to do, is cognitive science).

As for my interest in economic planning, that is largely unrelated to what I’m studying. I simply want to satisfy my own curiosity on the subject. Though, for one who is interested in modeling intelligence on computers, you’ve got to start somewhere, and the economy is a far simpler system than the mind.


Anyways, perhaps this thread may help...
Thank you; that may prove of some assistance.

[Module]

Sorry I've taken a while replying. I'm aware it might seem a little hypocritical of me now :D but I haven't been on RevLeft in a few days.

I think I responded to this already. :confused: No draftees are involved during the revolution, but they're certainly involved afterwards.
(...)Then maybe I should rephrase my question ...

If there is such a proportion of workers who necessarily need 'authoritarian relations' with a sort of governmental party, in order to force them to work, in the way that apparently "apathy" and a lack of class consciousness prevents, then in what mind does one see such a situation as communism at all?

A desire to work is not created by class consciousness, it is created by necessity. I don't see why somebody's apathy towards class relations negates their ability work willingly.

What's more,
Drafted by what/whom?
For what purpose, and why would drafting be necessary?

The idea that workers will be drafted en masse implies a sort of state, in which case it is not communism, in which case it is (hopefully) not post-revolution.
However, I assume that we're dealing with slightly different definition of revolution, here.
I will say that it's my opinion that a communist revolution is not simply getting rid of the capitalist system, but transitioning to another system, communism. Is the process that you speak of not the revolution?
If not, what is it?
A process to what? If it is post-revolution, what is it that needs processing towards, which can only be processed towards through a state, which uses authoritarian measures towards so-called 'emancipated' workers?

And why would a post-revolution army require conscription?
Will it not be just another form of work?
And if it does require conscription, does the idea of having the first army conscripts apathetic workers not seem just a little short sighted to you? :p


You might want to consider the discussion between Hyacinth and myself regarding gargantuan social projects. You're implying the gulag scenario here; I'm not.No, I'm not implying a gulag scenario, I'm implying conscripted wage labour of workers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Please allow me some time to think about what you said (don't worry about that delay). Perhaps other posters can chime in and indirectly help me formulate an answer.

[MarxSchmarx]

If there is such a proportion of workers who necessarily need 'authoritarian relations' with a sort of governmental party, in order to force them to work, in the way that apparently "apathy" and a lack of class consciousness prevents, then in what mind does one see such a situation as communism at all?As we all know, "authoritarian relations" need not be restricted to the state. Custom, for example, can be deeply authoritarian (e.g. many forms of sexism in the global north). Ditto with capitalist relations - indeed most of our oppression comes from the capitalist boss.

It's an interesting question whether such relations will exist during socialism. I think they will, at least in the form of custom. For example, I envision "custom" dictating certain "authoritarian" customs under socialism, like majority rule, to be prevelant.

If the question, then, is not the immediate abolition of authoritarian relations, but the abolition of workers oppression, it seems to me bourgeois scum like Paris Hilton should be put to work. Even if it is by the strong social disapproval of their friends and family for an idolist lifestyle, and not at the point of a gun in a collective mine in Alberta. Indeed, it sounds reasonable to expect some of the presently comfortable to give up that comfort and work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Be careful, comrade. There is a distinct difference between the DOTP and socialism. Nonetheless, what you said was the main purpose of this thread. Apathetic workers that would still exist in huge numbers - not just bourgeois scum like Paris Hilton - need the DOTP authoritarian "guidance" of conscripted wage labour, since the "carrot" of education hasn't worked on them.

The only wage to manage this conscripted wage labour is through the mechanism of a state bureaucracy (albeit one that is accountable).


That is why it is crucial to reorganize work relations along democratic lines to destroy incentives for apathy on day one - and quite possibly before.

We're not perfect beings. Mark my words: it is most likely that there will be apathetic workers, just as there were apathetic bourgeois and petit-bourgeois elements who were OK with the aristocratic status quo.

[Module]

^^^ Please allow me some time to think about what you said (don't worry about that delay). Perhaps other posters can chime in and indirectly help me formulate an answer.
Sure thing, comrade.

MarxSchmarx, I don't disagree with you, if you are saying this to challenge my post.
I suppose it depends on what we mean by 'authoritarian relations', in which case I think that we need to differentiate from 'power' and 'authority', in reference to 'many forms of sexism in the global north'.
Although I'm not specifically sure what you mean by this, maybe you could give me an example to help me better understand.
:)

[MarxSchmarx]

Des and JR - I just wrote a long reply but then it got erased so here goes the abridged version :/

JR - why do you suppose revolutionary re-education will fail on such a massive scale? I agree perfection is impossible but making labor time vouchers the common currency would seem to provide much inducement to work.

Des - I guess what I was getting at was the power of the state/slave owner/capitalist to get people to do what they want by threatening physical harm, versus the power of for example ones peer group or, in some cultures, parents to get people to do what they want by psychological pressure even though they don't threaten physical harm such as beatings or denying someone the means to survival.

[RebelDog]

The only wage to manage this conscripted wage labour is through the mechanism of a state bureaucracy (albeit one that is accountable).

Nonsense. Why should bureaucrats dictate where the social product should go? Workers and communities should be organising this. An easy way to get round parasitism like that of 'Paris Hilton', would be to adopt a system which rewards effort and sacrifice in commodity/service production and scores jobs accordingly, so that such a pointless useless existence like that of Paris Hilton is rewarded and scored at the low end of the scale and say a miner or a deep-sea fisherman at the top. I would imagine any libertarian community, post-revolution, could/would simply have parasites like Paris Hilton having to outline what it is exactly they are doing for society, is it worthwhile, needed, desirable? If the community/workers decided they did not wish Paris Hilton to receive reward for what she does then that would have to be respected. If we were to have a revolution then, in reality, the world of super-parasites like Paris Hilton would already have come tumbling down around them. They would have no one left to do their labour for them and no longer have the power to take a large slice of the social product for little contribution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Des and JR - I just wrote a long reply but then it got erased so here goes the abridged version :/

JR - why do you suppose revolutionary re-education will fail on such a massive scale? I agree perfection is impossible but making labor time vouchers the common currency would seem to provide much inducement to work.

Comrade, did you not consider the "most likely scenario" of the "multi-economy" (carrots AND sticks)? I'm not sure that the implementation of labour-time economics can be made wholesale overnight ("left-wing childishness," as Lenin would call it ;) ). :(

It would apply in some sectors first (perhaps the Internet, but gift economics could prevail here, though), but not in others (the state-owned web of financial institutions, what Lenin mistakenly described as "nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" :glare: ).

However, you are correct in regards to the carrot: the emerging labour-time economy (proper socialism) would serve as a very effective carrot, and more workers would want to join in and expand this economy by themselves.

Perhaps I'm overreacting here (in any event, Citizen Zero persuaded me to mention just four of the seven "economies": 2, 4, 6, and 7). :(

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade, did you not consider the "most likely scenario" of the "multi-economy" (carrots AND sticks)? I'm not sure that the implementation of labour-time economics can be made wholesale overnight ("left-wing childishness," as Lenin would call it http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif ).

Yeah, you make a good point. The question is how far should we go with the "carrots and sticks". Some would (not without merit) consider anything short of a full gift economy "sticks".

Moreover, the presumption is that individual incentive and renumeration towards is what drives the economy. I think there could be room for individuals being rewarded for labor time alone. For example, this is effectively what a uniform wage with, for example, a steep income tax and massive redistribution to other workers would be. Well that doesn't quite work but I think the point is clear. Still business to business transactions could still being governed by the supply and demand rather than effort put in.



However, you are correct in regards to the carrot: the emerging labour-time economy (proper socialism) would serve as a very effective carrot, and more workers would want to join in and expand this economy by themselves.

Do you think this could be accomplished without taking state power (e.g. the creation/conversion of alternative economic institutions)?



Perhaps I'm overreacting here (in any event, Citizen Zero persuaded me to mention just four of the seven "economies": 2, 4, 6, and 7). http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif

good call. I think many leftists will balk at that slave labor thing:D.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Do you think this could be accomplished without taking state power (e.g. the creation/conversion of alternative economic institutions)?

I thought the USL article was clear enough. :(

The job of USLers and Social-Proletocrats is to build alternative organs of workers' power, ditching parliamentary bodies.

Crap - I was being political here. Yes and no, I think. There's the Bordigist "economy" as outlined above, and then there is the socialist "economy." The former, IF EXISTENT, would have to use state power. I'm just not sure on the socialist "economy." :(




good call. I think many leftists will balk at that slave labor thing. :D

Hehehe. ;)

[Tower of Bebel]

I believe a centralized, democratic and class conscious (state-) structure is needed to guard the developping transition of capitalism to socialism (because ending the rule of the bourgeoisie is one thing, while the beginning of the rule of the proletariat is another thing); but I also believe that JR's plans are more like a focus on the militarisation of the post-bourgeois society [I wont say socialism or (R)DOTP(PP) :closedeyes:] than a conclusion of how society will look like if it wants to get rid of capitalism. JR's plans would almost betray the impossibility of socialism and communism to be possible [and I partially support Desrumeaux's hypothetical question] without any force desperately trying to get workers and farmers to work. IMO that's because they reflect the situation of Russia just after the October Revolution too much.

[MarxSchmarx]

I thought the USL article was clear enough. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/sad.gif

The job of USLers and Social-Proletocrats is to build alternative organs of workers' power, ditching parliamentary bodies.
In RE: the USL chapter of your essay, I found BOTH the "revolutionary" and "reformist" tendencies to be essentially statist/political. Parliamentarianism has admittedly always struck me as something of a red herring - what difference does it make if a serious radical party controls a majority and the PM-ship, or if they happen to occupy the post of generalissimo? Ok it makes some (IMHO procedural) difference as a matter of practice, but in being an essentially statist/legal solution to establishing "the socialist rule of the working class" I fail to see the distinction.

Of course, this doesn't detract from (IMO) JR's valid critique of reformist accomodationalism. It's just that the solution is still seen as essentially political rather than economic or social/cultural. I think the validity of this point needs to be established BEFORE we discuss the merits/demerits of parliamentary TACTICS.


a conclusion of how society will look like if it wants to get rid of capitalism. JR's plans would almost betray the impossibility of socialism and communism to be possible [and I partially support Desrumeaux's hypothetical question] without any force desperately trying to get workers and farmers to work. IMO that's because they reflect the situation of Russia just after the October Revolution too much.Rakunin - I think it is very important to distinguish between an inevitable "transitional stage" and gratuitous betrayal of communist and socialist ideals. Where do you propose we draw this line?

[Tower of Bebel]

Rakunin - I think it is very important to distinguish between an inevitable "transitional stage" and gratuitous betrayal of communist and socialist ideals. Where do you propose we draw this line?

Sorry, you might have misunderstood my point. When I saw some of JR's proposals I couldn't believe my eyes. They more or less reflect the Soviet Union more than a possible post-bourgeois society in the near future. The whole concept of labour armies and camps was created to force people to work harder and more efficient as the USSR couldn't have survived without (as the Soviet Union was too backward to have a (proper) transitional period). A possible post-bourgeois period today would be something else (yet maybe not in some backward regions).

But I received a PM were JR said I was too late with my opinion, since he had already abandoned some ideas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In RE: the USL chapter of your essay, I found BOTH the "revolutionary" and "reformist" tendencies to be essentially statist/political. Parliamentarianism has admittedly always struck me as something of a red herring - what difference does it make if a serious radical party controls a majority and the PM-ship, or if they happen to occupy the post of generalissimo? Ok it makes some (IMHO procedural) difference as a matter of practice, but in being an essentially statist/legal solution to establishing "the socialist rule of the working class" I fail to see the distinction.

...

It's just that the solution is still seen as essentially political rather than economic or social/cultural.

Comrade, if I'm not mistaken, you're thinking around the lines of pre-renegade Kautsky here (The Social Revolution). You seem to appreciate his thinking much more than I do. ;)

The thing, though, is that I don't see how the bourgeoisie would allow genuine-reformist socioeconomic changes without a fight started by them. Unlike the aristocracy folding more easily into the bourgeoisie, I just don't see how they'd wish to assimilate into what would become a mono-class society (the bourgeoisie is incapable of, and does not want to, eliminate the MCM process and fully compensate workers for their labour). Furthermore, there was a Politics thread on "planned obsolescence" - so as to get consumers to buy more regularly.

To be granted, however, there are some changes in the business world right now. Decentralization (kicking decision-making "downstairs") has all the hot raves.


I think the validity of this point needs to be established BEFORE we discuss the merits/demerits of parliamentary TACTICS.

Rakunin - I think it is very important to distinguish between an inevitable "transitional stage" and gratuitous betrayal of communist and socialist ideals. Where do you propose we draw this line?

Well, I'll introduce the "right" and "left" of social proletocracy: the "right" (you, me, and others) acknowledges the need for a pre-socialist "multi-economy" that already has a labour-time economy as one of the competing economies (Lenin's "Left-Wing" Childishness); the "left" (comrades like NewKindOfSoldier) wants an immediate duopoly of the labour-time and gift economies.

I'll throw your own question back at you: perhaps you could contribute to pre-revolutionary non-political solutions. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

If there is such a proportion of workers who necessarily need 'authoritarian relations' with a sort of governmental party, in order to force them to work, in the way that apparently "apathy" and a lack of class consciousness prevents, then in what mind does one see such a situation as communism at all?

Who said that "communism" (distribution based on need) can be achieved overnight? :confused:

The day after the political revolution is just the DOTP / proletocracy moving towards social proletocracy (and then towards "communism").


A desire to work is not created by class consciousness, it is created by necessity. I don't see why somebody's apathy towards class relations negates their ability work willingly.

What's more,
Drafted by what/whom?
For what purpose, and why would drafting be necessary?

The idea that workers will be drafted en masse implies a sort of state, in which case it is not communism, in which case it is (hopefully) not post-revolution.
However, I assume that we're dealing with slightly different definition of revolution, here.
I will say that it's my opinion that a communist revolution is not simply getting rid of the capitalist system, but transitioning to another system, communism. Is the process that you speak of not the revolution?

The armed revolution itself is merely part of the revolutionary process that eliminates capitalist relations and establishes pre-communist "socialist" (social-proletocratic) relations.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As for the other subject of this thread, anti-vanguardism, here's an interesting and important quote:

"[The socialist movement] must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party.” (Karl Kautsky, The Class Struggle)

[MarxSchmarx]

Comrade, if I'm not mistaken, you're thinking around the lines of pre-renegade Kautsky here (The Social Revolution). You seem to appreciate his thinking much more than I do. ;)

For the record I have actually never read Kautsky himself, only commentaries and the secondary literature. :( that's one less dead white guy whose writings I have to read I guess :D.



The thing, though, is that I don't see how the bourgeoisie would allow genuine-reformist socioeconomic changes without a fight started by them. Unlike the aristocracy folding more easily into the bourgeoisie, I just don't see how they'd wish to assimilate into what would become a mono-class society (the bourgeoisie is incapable of, and does not want to, eliminate the MCM process and fully compensate workers for their labour). You're absolutely correct that they won't give up without a fight.

As of now, the power that the bourgeoisie yield is essentially because the working class gives them that power.
Without the consent of the working class, who will generate their wealth, buy their garbage, and work their jobs?

Even the state security forces, like the military, are composed of a small class of upper managers, and a large number of rank and file who have very little decision making power. Perhaps if we saw something like the military as reflections of, say, corporations rather than all soldiers being members of a professional class, it will become more apparent that the true petite bourgeosie within, say, the military, are vastly outnumbered by an essentially proletarized lower officer and enlisted population. After all, these people generally come from the working class and so it is not obvious to me that their interests must necessarily lie with the coordinator class/petite bourgeoisie.

All this is a cumbersome way of saying that the bourgeoisie's ability to "fight back" is entirely contingent on the consent of the working class. Would this mark a fundamental distinction to the case of aristocratic resistance to the emerging bourgeois order in the middle to late modern era?



I'll throw your own question back at you: perhaps you could contribute to pre-revolutionary non-political solutions. ;)Haha. yeah this is the proverbial 64000 dollar question.

Of course the term "political" is probably misleading, because who's to say propagandizing or a general strike (for example) is "non-political"? Or suppose a leftist worker's party runs candidates, wins a majority in parliament, but refuses to take an oath of loyalty to the Queen or something? Is that a "non-political" repudiation?

[Module]

Who said that "communism" (distribution based on need) can be achieved overnight? :confused:
Nobody! But that's not what I was asking,
I was pointing out that your notion of what (post-revolution by your definition, revolution by mine, it seems) will be is not worker's self control (or apparently even the worker's want), so how could you call the revolution a workers revolution, for one, and secondly, if post-revolution (by your definition) is not communism, then how can you call it a communist revolution?
Instead you propose forced wage labour - is that not exactly what we seek to escape?
I don't think it's an issue of achieving distribution based on need 'overnight', so much as it is achieving a genuinely democratic system, in which the working class has self control over their lives, and the new system that is to be worked towards, and achieved.
If the working class does not want communism, then I dare say communism won't happen - one way or the other.


The day after the political revolution is just the DOTP / proletocracy moving towards social proletocracy (and then towards "communism").
See, this here is my issue.
You say that 'social proletocracy' is a 'worker's democracy', and 'socialist rule of the working class', and yet you think that it will be necessary to have conscripted wage labour for workers.
It seems to me that this is contradictory - to democracy, and working class rule.
This is what I'd like you to explain.


The armed revolution itself is merely part of the revolutionary process that eliminates capitalist relations and establishes pre-communist "socialist" (social-proletocratic) relations.
That answers next to none of my questions!

[Die Neue Zeit]

In my original argument, I was actually referring to plain proletocracy and not social proletocracy (full compensation of labour). There is a huge difference.

The transitional "multi-economy" would have a number of separate "economies" competing with one another. Ultimately, the social-proletocratic "multi-economy" would consist only of the social-proletocratic "economy" and the "gift economy" (communist).

In terms of reservations regarding authoritarian elements (Stalinist/gulag, Trotskyist/conscripted, and Bordigist), the comrades above persuaded me to drop those from my work-in-progress.

[Die Neue Zeit]

[The socialist movement] must do all in its power to hasten the day when the working-class will be able to save itself. To give to the class struggle of the proletariat the most effective form, this is the function of the Socialist Party.


A possible post-bourgeois period today would be something else (yet maybe not in some backward regions).

Sorry for bumping this up, but something came up in terms of reinterpreting this very foundation of vanguardism. Rakunin, since you mentioned "more backward regions" (due to uneven development), in these regions wage-paid labour conscription would be necessary in order to "hasten the day when the working class will be able to save itself" (LT-voucher compensation, minus deductions for common funds, in all economic spheres).



For some segments of the international proletariat, the vanguard will have to act as the leading (not just guiding) force.

[Die Neue Zeit]

From p. 87 of Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered:


Thus, the merger narrative laid the foundation for a two-front polemical war aimed against all who defend the continued isolation of either socialism or the worker movement. The technical term within Social-Democratic discourse for the effort to keep the worker-class struggle free from socialism was Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, "trade-unions-only-ism."

Quoting Lenin:


For the spontaneist working-class movement is tred iunionizm [yellow-trade-union reductionism], is Nur-Gewerkschaftlerei, and tred iunionizm means the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie

Back to Lih:


A similar "Nur" term could have been coined for bomb-throwing revolutionaries who continued to think that it was a waste of time to try to propagandise and educate the worker class as a whole prior to the revolution.