A question on Trotsky

[Dolerite]

I was reading Trotsky's My Life and came across him talking about an anarchist he had met in exile. He asked him how would the train system work under anarchy and the anarchist had no answer. My question is, what has that got to do with anarchy? Couldn't the same question be asked of Trotsky? My understanding was that anarchy and communism had roughly the same end, in a stateless society. Or did Trotsky believe in an eternal dictatorship of the proletariat?
Cheers

[Hit The North]

Yes socialism would be pretty ramshackle, but without capital such a massive public system would not really be needed.
So under your definition of a socialist society we'd be unable to take the train from one end of the country to the other?

If we want to maintain a mobile mass society then some form of general planning (and maintenance) needs to be established.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Or we once again trust the 'anarchy' of the 'free market'.:lol:

[Dolerite]

If we want to maintain a mobile mass society then some form of general planning (and maintenance) needs to be established.

So is this a difference between anarchism and end-of-the-line communism?

[Dolerite]

Well Marx did support a planned economy:

"In the case of socialized production....society distributes labour-power and means of production in the different branches of production".
(K. Marx: "Capital", Volume 2; London; 1974; p.362).

Isn't that the socialist stage of revolution? Or is there infact an adminstration in communism? - I think that is the question I am getting at.

[Hit The North]

No, I am simply saying that under capitalist society much of the State apparatus is devoting through various means to protecting private property, their is alot of excess bureaucracy and the like. Capitalism has historically needed the complete domination of the trusts, the omnipotence of the big banks, a grand-scale colonial policy, and so on.
Of course this is true. However, we need to distinguish between those coercive elements of the capitalist state (army, police, judges, lawyers, prison guards, etc) who's services we can maybe dispense with in the socialist society - certainly replace with more democratic workers organization; and those administrative functions of the state which maintain infrastructure and make mass, industrial society possible.

The OP was about Trotsky's use of the example of train travel and rail networks in order to emphasize the continued use for planning on a mass scale (a scale unimaginable within the confines of the anarchist commune system).

If we desire a planned, mass society then bureaucracies are inevitable. We need to realize this so that we can develop means of imposing proletarian control over them.

[chegitz guevara]

No state doesn't mean no government or no coordinating bodies.

[Dolerite]

No, lol, communism is stateless of course, so no such restrictions would be needed. But I think speaking in terms of 'socialism' and 'communism' is a little deceptive, it's not like one day we are living under socialism and the next communism. The state (and all class relations) would wither away under socialism, meaning that as socialism develops the need for a state to regulate the social product (and it's distribution) would gradually diminish.

See that's what I thought, which made me so confused in the first place about why he would be arguing with an anarchist when they both have the same stateless society.


Socialism is fundamentally 'communism in installments', ie you 'communize' certain products as you can. A product is 'socialized' when it's freely distributed to the public but with state restrictions to prevent hording, looting etc. A product is 'communized' when those restrictions are no longer needed and the product is freely distributed to the public with no restrictions.

As you can probably guess, some products could be communized before others, food and essential items would be the first I would imagine.

So are you saying that the argument is that because communism is so gradual then these ex-state run facilities can learn to operate as a community (I worded that part badly), whereas under anarchy there is no time to adapt to a community run society so it ends in turmoil? Which I think sounds more like Lenin's opposition to anarchy and probably Trotsky's aswell.

[Hit The North]

I find it ironic that it's Trotsky talking about this, Trotsky's theory of bureaucracy was incorrect because he abstracted bureaucracy from the State, and anyone can tell you that bureaucracy is apart of the State. And as such bureaucracy will 'wither away' as socialism developes.


Where does Trotsky deny this? It's certainly not implied in his insistence on the need for cedntral planning in a socialist society.


And, on the contrary, planned economies are not bureaucratic, in planned economies the role of the bureaucracy is simply that of relaying of economic production plans from the Party to the workers. Did I say otherwise?

[Dolerite]

I've just leafed through the page again and Trotsky questioned him on how railways could be managed by autonomous communities so it seems to me that he must have believed in some kind of organisation of the community as you have been saying.

[Dolerite]

No, Trotsky claimed that the USSR was 'taken over' by the bureaucracy in his personal vendetta against Stalin. He called for a 'revolution' against the 'bureaucracy', but that is clearly contradicted by Lenin who said that bureaucracy withers away, it is not 'overthrown' or 'abolished'.

Isn't that just because he believed Stalin's regimé to be tyrannical and because he came to power by manipulating the bureaucracy of the party? In that he wanted a 'revolution' against that particular bureaucracy.

[Hit The North]

No, Trotsky claimed that the USSR was 'taken over' by the bureaucracy in his personal vendetta against Stalin. He called for a 'revolution' against the 'bureaucracy', but that is clearly contradicted by Lenin who said that bureaucracy withers away, it is not 'overthrown' or 'abolished'. Which is not the same as denying the general principle that a properly constituted bureaucracy (i.e. one under the control of the proletariat) will, in time wither away.

Now, if you want to see the Stalinist bureaucracy as some model of socialism or workers state, that's your problem. Eventually you will have to explain how this bureaucracy, far from withering away, extended its hold over society and later, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, transformed itself into capitalists.

[Q]

My understanding was that anarchy and communism had roughly the same end, in a stateless society. Or did Trotsky believe in an eternal dictatorship of the proletariat?

Well, roughly they are the same in that they both want an end to the class society. But anarchy does not feature a central plan, an anarchist society would be a society of villages and communities that are (semi-)independant from eachother. This is why anarchy is utopian: to reach such a society, you have to revert back into small scale production of everything (in order to achieve the autarkic communities). This entails that you go back to a society of scarcity and therefore therefore capitalist (or even pre-capitalist!) logic resurfaces.

Socialism and communism in contrast stand for a central plan that provides in the needs of everyone. The advantages of scaling up production are enormous as a higher level of production than possible under capitalism can be achieved, eliminating the evils of capitalism (poverty, disease, war ...). Now, this central planning does not equal a state. This is where anarchists are wrong about the state as they view it simply as any kind of centralisation of authority as opposed to a class apparatus. The central planning is in the interests of everyone, administered and checked by everyone, but still centralised.

So yeah, as Trotsky pointed out: anarchists don't have and cannot have an answer to the rail network question.

[Dolerite]

Thank you.

[revolution inaction]

Well, roughly they are the same in that they both want an end to the class society. But anarchy does not feature a central plan, an anarchist society would be a society of villages and communities that are (semi-)independant from eachother. This is why anarchy is utopian: to reach such a society, you have to revert back into small scale production of everything (in order to achieve the autarkic communities). This entails that you go back to a society of scarcity and therefore therefore capitalist (or even pre-capitalist!) logic resurfaces.

This is not true, Anarchism is not about returning to small scale production at all. Nor is it about every one living in separate independent villages, an anarchist society would defiantly have cities and massive factories. The anarcho-syndicalists in spain show anarchists can run both.
Lack of central planing is not the same as lack of planing.
Also anarchists virtually never call the system they are aiming for "anarchy", this is usually a sign of someone with shit politics.



Socialism and communism in contrast stand for a central plan that provides in the needs of everyone. The advantages of scaling up production are enormous as a higher level of production than possible under capitalism can be achieved, eliminating the evils of capitalism (poverty, disease, war ...).

In capitalism the level of production is not as big a problem as distribution.
Also socialism is not in contrast to anarchism, as anarchism is a kind of socialism, nor is communism as many anarchists are communists.



Now, this central planning does not equal a state. This is where anarchists are wrong about the state as they view it simply as any kind of centralisation of authority as opposed to a class apparatus. The central planning is in the interests of everyone, administered and checked by everyone, but still centralised.

The anarchist and Marxist definitions of the state are different, it doesn't make any sense to say one it wrong, but the anarchist definition doesn't include forms of organisation that are completely unlike any state that has ever existed, unlike the Marxist definition so I think it is better.



So yeah, as Trotsky pointed out: anarchists don't have and cannot have an answer to the rail network question.

Trotsky didn't point this out at all, he just asked some random anarchist about it, presumably one who didn't work on the railways, one anarchist doesn't know how to operate the railways is not the same as anarchists as a whole cant deal with a rail network.
Trotsky is not really in any position to criticise anyone's planning ability considering how his militarisation of labour went.

[Wake Up]

Now, this central planning does not equal a state. This is where anarchists are wrong about the state as they view it simply as any kind of centralisation of authority as opposed to a class apparatus. The central planning is in the interests of everyone, administered and checked by everyone, but still centralised.



Having a central administration IS the same as a state, at least it will be after a few years of power corruption.
Please tell me how having a central authority is different to the governments we have now??


You call anarchists utopian? Trusting a central authority not to corrupt itself as it has done in just about every instance in history is utopian.

[chegitz guevara]

The state is the repressive apparatus of one or more classes over the rest. When all classes cease to exist, there is no need for a repressive apparatus. That state ceases to exist. That doesn't mean government and coordinating bureaucracy cease to exist.

[GPDP]

Well, I think this thread officially dispels any notion that anarchists and Marxists have the same vision for a communist society.

[Lamanov]

Trotsky was just being arrogant in his book. Trains would operate just like anything else. But we suppose he means that trains can't operate unless there's a gunman there who could shoot you.

Railway workers would operate trains, schedules, maintenance, etc, according to a plan established in accordance with other workplaces, i.e. other workers' assemblies.

I don't know with what kind of idiot he was talking to, but it's pretty obvious.

[Q]

Trotsky was just being arrogant in his book. Trains would operate just like anything else. But we suppose he means that trains can't operate unless there's a gunman there who could shoot you.

Railway workers would operate trains, schedules, maintenance, etc, according to a plan established in accordance with other workplaces, i.e. other workers' assemblies.

I don't know with what kind of idiot he was talking to, but it's pretty obvious.

A classical trick in discussions is to focus on the example that's being given in an attempt to undermine the argument. You're doing precisely that. The point Trotsky was making was not so much about the railroad system itself (although it is a very good example imho), but about the defiance of anarchists against centralised planning.

Capitalisms ever need for more profit and expansion has given us a globalised economy. This is the progressive legacy of a rotten system on which we can build a society free of scarcity. This complex society cannot be run if we all draw our own course of action, centralised planning is a scientific need if we are to build socialism and communism.

Anarchists defy this centralisation out of principle and therefore don't develop but bring back society to small scale production on a community level.

Let me ask another set of questions if the railroad wasn't good enough:
- who would take care for the (high)road system?
- who would take care of the power grid?
- who would take care of the internet?
- who would take care for the global environment?

Arrogance? No, you're incredibly naive.

[Lamanov]

Anarchists defy this centralisation out of principle and therefore don't develop but bring back society to small scale production on a community level.

Oh, for fuck's sake. I'm not against economic "centralisation" of planning, I'm against the centralisation of power. There's nothing wrong with making a unified plan that would correspond to all sections of economic life (including both production and consumption). What matters is the way in which this is done. Trotsky, just like Engels in his "On Authority", believed workers are not capable of creating a unified economic plan through direct democracy and without coercion.

You, Trots, are identifying planning, economy and integration of social and economic life with bureaucracy and bureaucratic rule. ("Communication" of information between "the Party and the workers" is just a bogus, and not very smart and obviously authoritarian concept, by which you try to cover up your love of top-down organisation of society. It's not even that good of a cover up.)

P.S.

Trotsky was arrogant with his "he couldn't explain" (I guess "ha-ha" comes into play) antics. I can explain.

[Wake Up]

The state is the repressive apparatus of one or more classes over the rest. When all classes cease to exist, there is no need for a repressive apparatus. That state ceases to exist. That doesn't mean government and coordinating bureaucracy cease to exist.

Sure but if you then create a central bureaucracy you suddenly have a class division in all but name. Bureaucrats and the rest.