Spontaneity and Organization (very rough draft)

[RedSabine]

So, I've been thinking about this for the past couple of days, and so I wrote about it... I'm pretty sure that Rosa Luxemburg wrote something analagous to this, and she may have already said most of this; I've never read it, but I've read other Luxemburg and consider many of my ideas as Luxemburgist. There are also some Syndicalist leanings in there. critique please?
__________________________________________________ _______
Spontaneity and Organization
These two methods for acheiving Liberation for the Working Class are not opposing theories, they must go hand in hand.

It is the job of Organization to foster the political conquest of the State for the Working Class. This organization must be a grassroots one. With the power that the political establishment wields, the Spontanious portion of the Revolution is encouraged and promoted, supported. So, the organic self-organization of the Working Class is supported by the State. The appropration of the means of production: factories, fields, workshops, etc. are spontanious and organic, and are fully supported by the political establishment.

A hypothetical situation: There has been a Political Revolution in Australia, fully suppoted by the majority of the Working Class, and Workers in Perth begin an anarchistic, self-organized direct appropriation of the Means of Production. Instead of crushing this movement, as the Bourgeois or Leninist state would, it is allowed to continue, and even given funds and supplies. Then, similar movements are encouraged across the nation, given supplies and overall support from the Revolutionary State. This way the state does not become self-serving due to insistence on rigid organization and impositions by the state on the Working Class. This also helps to ease beurocratization and allows for genuine self-rule. Imagine the early Soviet Union organized in such a way; Kronstadt would not have been the tradgedy it was, but rather a true worker-controlled city where the Soviets weren't monopolized by the Bolshevik Party, but real organs of working-class control. Imagine if Kornstadt was actually given the support by the Soviet state! It was an expression of the will of the working class, and should have been allowed to flourish. The same is true for the Free Territories of Ukraine, which were brutally put down by Trotsky.

The role of the Revolutionary State is to foster self-organized worker's action. This is the relationship between Spontinaity and Organization. The Working Class must also be empowered to use their place in production to maintain worker's control over the nation and state, and maintain the the means of production is being used to fulfill the needs of the Workers themselves; because all power really does rest at the point of production. With this power fully in the hands of an enlightened Proletariat, they can protect themselves better from the tendency of states to become self-serving. This can be affected throing Revolutionary Unions, which in conjuction with a genuine Worker's State, grassroots Worker's Councils and organizations and spontainious appropriation and consolidation of the means of productionm qw can create the classless and stateless wirkd that we desire, and the full liberation of huanity from economic slavery and exploitation.

[Tower of Bebel]

Not vulgar spontaneity but democracy is thé weapon against bureaucracy.

[RedSabine]

what do you mean by "vulgar spontaneity"?

What I mean by that is spontaneious councils and other forms of direct self-rule on the part of the working class. This can be led, every mass movement has leadership, but this leadership will not necesarily be organized in the Political Party sense.

Basically, the revolutionary state fosters anarchy, and the Revolutionary State must also have internal democracy as a prerequisite; otherwise it is no longer revolutionary, but reactionary.

[Tower of Bebel]

I misinterpreted you. We're actually talking about the same thing, although you don't really talk about the revolutionary party of the working class.

[RedSabine]

I love it when that happens.

[Lamanov]

First of all, I don't like the concept of "Workers' State". It is an oxymoron that means nothing, and Marx himself was never tricked into using this term.

Now. Spontaneity and Organisation can be two very friendly concepts if they are understood and applied in the right manner, and the successful combination of spontaneity and organisation could be the guarantee that the proletarian revolution is both libertarian and well organised and effective.

First we have to define these two terms. 1.) Spontaneity basically means an opportunity and most of all free possibility for uninterrupted mass action and individual initiative in every corner of revolutionary movement and the revolutionary change of society. 2.) Organisation means coordination and unification of all revolutionary forces, of all revolutionary proletariat, under the same guiding principles.*

When you put two and two together it's obvious that an organisation that effectivelly combines these two elements has to have: 1.) direct-democratic structure, and 2.) set of principles that holds its constituent parts together. Functioning of '1' is depending on the span of '2' and '2' is derived from the practice, of '1' that is.

This is why I am an anarchosyndicalist. Even though I stem from council communist (Marxist) school of thought, I found anarchosyndicalism to be the only answer to our most important question: organisational one.

* This is the reason I say "pinciples", not "leaders", becuase it is the correct ideas that form from correct class practice. "Leadership" forms from abandoning that practice. We don't need the leadership of men, we need the "leadership of ideas".

[RedSabine]

First of all, I don't like the concept of "Workers' State". It is an oxymoron that means nothing, and Marx himself was never tricked into using this term.

Now. Spontaneity and Organisation can be two very friendly concepts if they are understood and applied in the right manner, and the successful combination of spontaneity and organisation could be the guarantee that the proletarian revolution is both libertarian and well organised and effective.

First we have to define these two terms. 1.) Spontaneity basically means an opportunity and most of all free possibility for uninterrupted mass action and individual initiative in every corner of revolutionary movement and the revolutionary change of society. 2.) Organisation means coordination and unification of all revolutionary forces, of all revolutionary proletariat, under the same guiding principles.*

When you put two and two together it's obvious that an organisation that effectivelly combines these two elements has to have: 1.) direct-democratic structure, and 2.) set of principles that holds its constituent parts together. Functioning of '1' is depending on the span of '2' and '2' is derived from the practice, of '1' that is.

This is why I am an anarchosyndicalist. Even though I stem from council communist (Marxist) school of thought, I found anarchosyndicalism to be the only answer to our most important question: organisational one.

* This is the reason I say "pinciples", not "leaders", becuase it is the correct ideas that form from correct class practice. "Leadership" forms from abandoning that practice. We don't need the leadership of men, we need the "leadership of ideas".

Okay, so I also agree that it is the revolutionary ideas that must be stressed, not the leaser (I would even extend this to the state organization in the revolutionary period.) But! it is necessary to use the Political establishment to help the organic movements to flourish with them having to defend against the bourgeois sate, which would be the case if the spontainious portion of the revolution were the only one utilized.

Take Spain: The Anarchists and Syndicalists had mass support, but because the sate structure was in the hands of Fascists, they were eventually crushed. If their had also been a political revolution in spain, bringing a revolutionary worker's party to power, and then that party, using the powers wielded by the state, gave National Support to the Anarchists, I thik that the Spanish revolution would have been a great example of the relationship between the Organized Revolutionary State and the Organic/Spontaneous Worker's movement.

I think that any disagreements we may have will be on minor nuances, so lets watch out for that.

I am also thinking about changing the Title to

The Relationship Between the Oraganized Revolutionary State and Organic Worker's self-rule.

[Oneironaut]

I think your ideas are good Commie God. If there was a plausible revolutionary workers' party that did not take power away from workers' councils and but supported them, I would have no issue. However I would be wary at all times of such a party...

Workers will be able to organize themselves without the need of a political party. Top-down socialism hasn't worked nor can it. It only serves to take away workers' power. I don't see the necessity of such a party either. You do propose a very good idea though. I just have a few questions...

How would you imagine such a party whose involvement is with bourgeois
democracy not turn against workers?

How would workers' councils prevent this party from hijacking their power?

Within the confinement of bourgeois democracy, how would such a party not make concessions with capitalists?

What could a party do that workers' councils couldn't?

[ckaihatsu]

In the dialectic between stasis and process this is my contribution for the process side of things:

Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://tinyurl.com/yvn2xq


Chris




--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u

[RedSabine]

I think your ideas are good Commie God. If there was a plausible revolutionary workers' party that did not take power away from workers' councils and but supported them, I would have no issue. However I would be wary at all times of such a party...

Workers will be able to organize themselves without the need of a political party. Top-down socialism hasn't worked nor can it. It only serves to take away workers' power. I don't see the necessity of such a party either. You do propose a very good idea though. I just have a few questions...

How would you imagine such a party whose involvement is with bourgeois
democracy not turn against workers?

How would workers' councils prevent this party from hijacking their power?

Within the confinement of bourgeois democracy, how would such a party not make concessions with capitalists?

What could a party do that workers' councils couldn't?

Okay, first off, I think that we should scrap calling it a "Revolutionary Party" in favor of calling it a "Revolutionary Organization" - due to the fact that parliamentary action is by no means its only or greatest tactic. Its prime function is to serve as a rallying point for all the various worker's movements, and then to take State power to support all the other movements.

1. Plausible Party: Well, it must be a grassroots organization, one with internal democracy (multi-tendency). It must also be all-inclusive, that is, one one that is open to anyone who wants to join (not just those who are completely in agreeance with everything in the party platform/fanatical adherants who treat the manifesto of said party as holy writ.) This means NO VANGUARDISM!

2. Self-organization of workers: In the current state of affairs, the state and the massive power it wields is in the hands of the Bourgois class, so therefore all that power is directed at the worker's and against any effort of self organization. But if the power that the state wields were in the hands of the Proletariat, through the afforementioned worker's party, then the councils, collectives, and other more spontaineous portions of the Revolution (which are of the greatest importance to the revolution, without them, you get a deformed/beaurocratized self-serving state - the necesary outcome of Leninism).

3. Bourgeois democracy: the current form of democracy, being the sham that it is, cannot be the prime method of bringing the Revolutionary Organization to power, due to the fact that the same pressure applied against the formation of an entirely spontaneous revolution is applied to the Revolutionary Organizations, although I still think it should be used.
3b. Making concessions for the Bourgeoisie: As stated above, parlimentary elections are not the only or prime method of this Organization, but rather one of its many tactics.

4. Keeping the Organization in line: Well, I think that the Organization, being grassroots, will necessarily more or less decentralize state power (more and more over time). Again, it is notnecessarily a "Political Party" in the usual sense, but an Organization based in the community, with the people fully involved. Also (though this is still an idea in utero) the creation of militia's as aopposed to a national military apparatus. This way, military power is in the hands of the people, not in the hands of the State, per se.

5. What could this do that Councils couldn't: Like we said earlier, it uses all of the state power to foster the spontaneous action that you desire, so these are not crushed in infancy.

Thank you for asking me these things, it is this that needs to happen for these ideas to grow.
Salaam alaykum.

[Oneironaut]

Okay, first off, I think that we should scrap calling it a "Revolutionary Party" in favor of calling it a "Revolutionary Organization" - due to the fact that parliamentary action is by no means its only or greatest tactic. Its prime function is to serve as a rallying point for all the various worker's movements, and then to take State power to support all the other movements.

1. Plausible Party: Well, it must be a grassroots organization, one with internal democracy (multi-tendency). It must also be all-inclusive, that is, one one that is open to anyone who wants to join (not just those who are completely in agreeance with everything in the party platform/fanatical adherants who treat the manifesto of said party as holy writ.) This means NO VANGUARDISM!

2. Self-organization of workers: In the current state of affairs, the state and the massive power it wields is in the hands of the Bourgois class, so therefore all that power is directed at the worker's and against any effort of self organization. But if the power that the state wields were in the hands of the Proletariat, through the afforementioned worker's party, then the councils, collectives, and other more spontaineous portions of the Revolution (which are of the greatest importance to the revolution, without them, you get a deformed/beaurocratized self-serving state - the necesary outcome of Leninism).

3. Bourgeois democracy: the current form of democracy, being the sham that it is, cannot be the prime method of bringing the Revolutionary Organization to power, due to the fact that the same pressure applied against the formation of an entirely spontaneous revolution is applied to the Revolutionary Organizations, although I still think it should be used.
3b. Making concessions for the Bourgeoisie: As stated above, parlimentary elections are not the only or prime method of this Organization, but rather one of its many tactics.

4. Keeping the Organization in line: Well, I think that the Organization, being grassroots, will necessarily more or less decentralize state power (more and more over time). Again, it is notnecessarily a "Political Party" in the usual sense, but an Organization based in the community, with the people fully involved. Also (though this is still an idea in utero) the creation of militia's as aopposed to a national military apparatus. This way, military power is in the hands of the people, not in the hands of the State, per se.

5. What could this do that Councils couldn't: Like we said earlier, it uses all of the state power to foster the spontaneous action that you desire, so these are not crushed in infancy.

Thank you for asking me these things, it is this that needs to happen for these ideas to grow.
Salaam alaykum.

I like your ideas and I find they do not conflict with my own. I feel like we are advocating the same revolutionary line just with different wordings. I likewise advocate workers' political power, but I see this power stemming from the councils themselves and not from a "separate" revolutionary organization (which I don't think you advocate). I really do enjoy your ideas... keep them coming!

[RedSabine]

I like your ideas and I find they do not conflict with my own. I feel like we are advocating the same revolutionary line just with different wordings. I likewise advocate workers' political power, but I see this power stemming from the councils themselves and not from a "separate" revolutionary organization (which I don't think you advocate). I really do enjoy your ideas... keep them coming!


The power stems from te pure power that the State wields inherintly... but this Organization (whcih is grassroots, and fully under the control of its membership) uses that power to help foster the fledgling Spontaneous revolution happening at the ground level. It also helps by putting pressure from above on the Capitalist system.

Thanks.

[Oneironaut]

If you haven't read this, it would interest you greatly:

http://www.geocities.com/cordobakaf/proleorga.html

[RedSabine]

thanks, that looks interesting/helpful. (Other people have thought of EVERTHING! AHH~!;))

[Oneironaut]

thanks, that looks interesting/helpful. (Other people have thought of EVERTHING! AHH~!;))

After I read it, I immediately thought of this thread. It will absolutely help you out. The section on the Revolutionary Organization will be very pertinent for you. But yes, you are right... we have plenty of theories. We just need to be open and creative with them!