Problems with the change of capitalist society

[Pogue]

I have encountered the following problem with the idea of revolutionary socialism, anarchism and communism recently.
A revolution is the product of mass action, be it peaceful (in the case of a general strike, Anarcho-Syndicalism) or violent, i.e. guerilla warfare, mass uprisings, etc.
But a revolution is not neccesarily democratic. While it obviously requires alot of people to cause and shape it, this could not neccesarily be the majority, which is the first point which bothers me, and thus would be undemocratic.

The second is that even if it was democratic in the sense that it was what the majority wanted, be that the majority of one country or the whole world, due to the lack of etablished structure, there is no way to ensure the revolution is not 'hijacked', as it has been before, by people such as Stalin, the rich and authoritarians who want to use revolutionary feeling to seize power. No one votes in revolution, there is no vote counting or debate, that could come later but in the initial rise up it is unlikely this would be seen. So how do we ensure the revolution is being guided in the direction the people, the masses, the proles, want? We must also remember that alot of people on the far right call for a fascist revolution or general strike, which uses this force (even if it is non-violent) to effect the change it desires.

This problem has been taken on by Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, who seek to change the system through reform and participation in parliamentary democracy in capitalist societies. Lenin stated that this is doomed to fail and can never suceed, which is debatable, but could be said to be true, in that either capitalisms stops this (which I'm not sure I believe, as Hugo Chavez is effecting great change in Venezuela by democratic means), or the elected democratic socialists betray their ideals, are not radical enough, comprimise, which has been seen in many cases.
Could someone try to solve my problems and conflictions with revolutionary theory and practice. Thanks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I think the key here is to first understand the minimum-maximum program (reform and revolution, respectively), and then challenge it (minimum-reformist-revolutionary program).

For example, something I'm warming up to as either a minimum or reformist demand (I'm not sure which yet) is "socioeconomic democracy":


That is why I have this thread:

Radical or revolutionary social democracy: bring it back??? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/radical-revolutionary-social-t76431/index.html)

I've also been looking into "socioeconomic democracy" as a minimum or "reformist" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/minimum-and-maximum-t71845/index.html) demand (minimum-reformist-revolutionary):

http://www.centersds.com/verybrief.htm

[Why? Because this is a modern take on Marx's minimum demand for progressive income taxation - and goes beyond that archaic call!]

[Niccolò Rossi]

But a revolution is not neccesarily democratic. While it obviously requires alot of people to cause and shape it, this could not neccesarily be the majority, which is the first point which bothers me, and thus would be undemocratic.

Don't fetishize democracy. Remember the very concept is only an outgrowth of the material conditions of society and not some universal, eternal and perfect principal. (Don't for a second however interpret my comment as one against proletarian democracy itself, rather it is against the fetishism of democracy).

The proletarian revolution, if it is to occur in it's true and proper form will be by definition democratic. This is because it involves the labouring and exploited masses, which today comprise the majority of all people, for the first time asserting themselves socially, politically and economically.


The second is that even if it was democratic in the sense that it was what the majority wanted, be that the majority of one country or the whole world, due to the lack of etablished structure, there is no way to ensure the revolution is not 'hijacked', as it has been before, by people such as Stalin, the rich and authoritarians who want to use revolutionary feeling to seize power.

To ensure that proletarian democracy is upheld and not betrayed, it is essential that the masses that lead and determine the course of the revolution. This requires them to bare arms and at all times make their voices heard, within society, within the sphere of politics and within the party.

If for a second, the bourgeoisie is to rear it's head within society (or specifically within the party), it must be crushed. This is why it is essential for the masses the bare arms and remain ever vigilant toward their own organisations of government and their delegates and representatives.


So how do we ensure the revolution is being guided in the direction the people, the masses, the proles, want?

By ensuring it is the masses and not elitist leaders or "the party" that lead and birth the revolution. This is why worker's action and organisation in organs of it's own is of vital importance.


This problem has been taken on by Social Democrats and Democratic Socialists, who seek to change the system through reform and participation in parliamentary democracy in capitalist societies. Lenin stated that this is doomed to fail and can never suceed, which is debatable, but could be said to be true, in that either capitalisms stops this (which I'm not sure I believe, as Hugo Chavez is effecting great change in Venezuela by democratic means), or the elected democratic socialists betray their ideals, are not radical enough, comprimise, which has been seen in many cases.
Could someone try to solve my problems and conflictions with revolutionary theory and practice.

The party and parliamentary democracy are both, in their current state, organs of bourgeois rule. The toiling masses can not possibly bring about effective revolutionary change through organs of bourgeois power. This is why the workers must form political organs of it's own in the form of workers councils.

In regard to Chavez, all he is, is a red painted populist. Sure I'll admit what has been seen in Venezuela is definitely positive. The problem is the actions are the result of reformist methods and the leadership, above all, of the powerful character that is Hugo Chavez. The fundamental contradiction of using organs of bourgeois rule to bring about proletarian revolution is already being seen in Chavez's attempted power grabs via referendums and the actions of the Chavez government in their efforts to quash steel workers protest action.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Don't fetishize democracy. Remember the very concept is only an outgrowth of the material conditions of society and not some universal, eternal and perfect principal. (Don't for a second however interpret my comment as one against proletarian democracy itself, rather it is against the fetishism of democracy).

Spot on, comrade.


To ensure that proletarian democracy is upheld and not betrayed, it is essential that the masses that lead and determine the course of the revolution. This requires them to bear arms and at all times make their voices heard, within society, within the sphere of politics and within the party.

I certainly hope this comment of yours won't be subject to anti-vanguardist misinterpretation (as noted by Lars Lih in his analysis of the SPD and the Bolsheviks as both being "vanguards").


If for a second, the bourgeoisie is to rear it's head within society (or specifically within the party), it must be crushed. This is why it is essential for the masses the bare arms and remain ever vigilant toward their own organisations of government and their delegates and representatives.

That's also why I noted Razlatzki's idea of separating the party from state administration through the demotion of "promoted" party members to non-voting status.

[MarxSchmarx]

I'm not sure raw "vigilance" is a sufficient solution to counter-revolutionary pressure. Obviously in the early stages there will be a role for it, but I think there are some important, concrete changes that must be adopted to safeguard any gains, apart from a "steel nerve".

For instance, taking over the schools is a no-brainer, as is setting up workplace democracy to promote the values of the new order within people's work lives. Indeed, the immediate reorganization of the economy among democratic lines that value solidarity and hard work will do far more to cement the changes than laws and willpower. Of course capitalism won't disappear overnight, which is why a lot of the educational efforts and solidarity building among the working class need to be done BEFORE we proclaim capitalism abolished.

[Hyacinth]

In times of great upheaval, such as revolution, there are few guarantees, including that the revolution won’t be subverted by authoritarian elements. That being said, though, we can make this less likely by putting real power into the hands of the workers: turn over workplaces directly to worker control, disseminate information, hold referenda and elections frequently, have delegates be subject to immediate recall, etc.

Revolutions are a messy business, and we shouldn’t expect post-revolutionary society to be neat either. There will likely be a lot of talk as to what to do now, how to structure society, etc. This needs to be encouraged since this would be the first time in human history where people would get to decide for themselves what their futures will be like.

Dangers lie in (among other places) centralizing power and banning factionalism (provided that the factions are progressive), as we learned in the USSR.

[gilhyle]

However, you are correct on one key point - the revolution is in constant danger of hijack by bureaucracy and any limitation on democracy facilitates that. The problem is not unique to socialism. Capitalist societies also are threatened by the takeover of the state by bureaucracies and use representative democracy to prevent that. However, the task will be all the more difficult in a socialist society because direct democracy is incredibly inefficient where there is any significant material poverty. Regional, local, factory-based, office-based divisions come into play as each self-definable grouping seeks for itself a bigger slice of the inadequate pie. ...that is the key reason why a communist society requires wealth. Meanwhile, socialist democracy will not be absolute, but it will need to be different from representative capitalist democracy because the nature of the ruling class will be different, but its social role will be essentailly similar - to protect the state from the bureaucratic cliques that inevitably hold power in any complex society.

[MarxSchmarx]

but its social role will be essentailly similar - to protect the state from the bureaucratic cliques that inevitably hold power in any complex society.

Is a powerful socialist state required for this? Bureaucracies gain power because they become (1) entrenched and (2) unaccountable. The answer to both seems to be to abolish the professional bureaucracy and delegate work like regulation and its enforcement to different rotating workers councils. For as you note:


the revolution is in constant danger of hijack by bureaucracy and any limitation on democracy facilitates that

and democracy is the antiseptic that cleanses entrenched bureaucracy. By distributing the functions of the bureaucracy and democratizing its operations, we can reign in its selfish tendencies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have an old Learning question regarding bureaucracy:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/parliamentarism-soviet-power-t72852/index.html


One of the criticisms levelled at bourgeois parliamentarianism is that parliaments are talking shops. That is valid, indeed.

On the other hand, since I read a lot more than just Moshe Lewin's material on the nature of the Soviet "no-Party state" (the "one-party rule" being a facade for the bureaucracy), I have to ask this: if the soviets themselves get more involved in the "affairs of state," wouldn't they become bureaucratized to a certain extent, or is that the way it's supposed to be (bureaucratize the soviets and not the party apparatus)?

In the original Soviet constitution, Article 36 stated that "The members of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee work in the various departments (People's Commissariats) or execute special orders of the All-Russian Central Executive Committee."

Later on, the instruments of soviet power were sidelined by Stalin and his successors, replaced by the party apparatus. An example of this lies in the 23 or so Brezhnev-era departments of the CPSU Central Committee directed by the CC Secretariat:

Agricultural Machine-Building
Agriculture
Chemical Industry
Construction
Defense Industry
Heavy Industry
Light and Food Industry
Machine Building
Planning and Finance Organs (probably headed by a lesser figure than the head of Gosplan)
Trade and Domestic Services
Transport and Communications

Culture
Agitprop/Propaganda/Ideology
Science and Educational Institutions

International Information
International
Liaison with Communist and Workers' Parties of Socialist Countries
Cadres Abroad (foreign travel)

Administration of Affairs (party official residences, CC library, Publishing House)

General (secret communications and general affairs)

Main Political Directorate of the Soviet Army and Navy (dual CC department and organization within the Ministry of Defense, but the head of this department, having to report to a CC Secretary, wasn't as powerful as someone like the Minister of Defense)

Administrative Organs (internal security, courts, etc. but the head of this department, having to report to a CC Secretary, wasn't as powerful as someone like the head of the KGB)

Organizational-Party Work



Source: The Soviet Polity in the Modern Era (http://books.google.ca/books?id=63_obglArrMC&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=%22central+party+apparatus%22+%22planning+and+f inance%22&source=web&ots=6j2SLLeXGd&sig=GOYu6zivSP63p7V1j17HZcDoHU4&hl=en)

"While the actual operation of industries and economic enterprises falls within the jurisdiction of the ministries, the central party apparatus exercises important functions in regard to information gathering and processing, control and supervision. In addition, the central party apparatus enjoys the all-important power of appointment (nomenklatura)."

Judging by the statement above, these Central Committee departments were more powerful than even the United States House Committee on Ways and Means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Committee_on_Ways_and_Means) (in charge of taxation).

On the other hand, "higher bureaucracy" (in that there are political considerations compared to work in the ministries) is implicit in their functions. A lot of the criticisms levelled at the merger between the party and state apparata (the latter referring to administration, not legislation) centers around the bureaucracy question.