Dictatorship of the proletariat, working class power and a true revolution

[Pogue]

I'd post this in theory because its more something I wanted to put forward as an idea plus I don't see myself as a beginner anymore, but it'd be moved by an admin from theory anyway so I'll just put it here.

1)Won't Anarchism naturally have a socialist, dictatorship of the proletariat stage anyway, during the post revolutionary society, the period in which we're basicall sorting everything out - physically seizing the capitalists wealth, distributing it, setting up all our committees?

2) Even Leninist revolutionary socialism says the revolution must be working class led and give power to the workers, so if say a Trot vanguard led a revolution, if they were true Trots they'd give/let the workers have power, OR the workers would have power anyway. If so, theres no major difference between 'true' and properly applied Leninism and anarchism - the working class will lead, defend and make the revolution, and will only be educated by us revolutionaries here and now.

Thoughts/corrections?

[revolution inaction]

2) Even Leninist revolutionary socialism says the revolution must be working class led and give power to the workers, so if say a Trot vanguard led a revolution, if they were true Trots they'd give/let the workers have power, OR the workers would have power anyway. If so, theres no major difference between 'true' and properly applied Leninism and anarchism - the working class will lead, defend and make the revolution, and will only be educated by us revolutionaries here and now.

Thoughts/corrections?

in practice the Leninists including trotsky did not do this so its strange to call this true leninism

[Pogue]

in practice the Leninists including trotsky did not do this so its strange to call this true leninism

Yeh I know that but from the theories from the SWP and other modern Trotskyists they're supportive of real working class power, based upon Marxism and Lenins teachings I believe.

[BobKKKindle$]

if they were true Trots they'd give/let the workers have power

This comment makes it clear that you still have a totally false notion of how Trotskyists see themselves and the role of the vanguard party in relation to the mass working class. The vanguard party does not seek to dictate how the overthrow of capitalism should take place, instead it exists in order to agitate amongst workers who are still influenced by the ideology of bourgeois society, especially ideas such as racism which are used to create divisions within the working class and prevent workers from acknowledging the fundamental importance of class antagonisms, and demonstrate that all workers have a shared interest in overthrowing capitalism and constructing a socialist society based on freedom and solidarity. The vanguard party is rooted in and draws its strength from the working class - it is not an elitist or blanquist organization. This was shown by the events of the Russian Revolution, as the Bolsheviks were able to win majorities in all of the major urban Soviets, and Lenin could justifiably claim that:

"The party is where a majority of the class-conscious worker Marxists who take an active part in political life are to be found"

Given that, according to the Trotskyist conception, the emancipation of the working class is the act of the working class itself, and not the isolated intrigues of an elitist organization, the eventual failure of the Russian Revolution was not the result of Lenin's desire to "betray" the workers. This is an idealistic view which ignores the working class base of the Bolsheviks and the capacity of workers for independent political action. Instead, the failure was the product of material conditions - specifically, the failure of the revolution to spread to other more advanced capitalist states, as this resulted in the complete disintegration of the working class, thereby rendering the Soviets incapable of functioning as the base of proletarian dictatorship.

[Tower of Bebel]

According to the materialist analysis of Marx, Engels, Luxemburg, Lenin, Trotsky and many other marxists the dictatorship of the proletariat will be inevitable. We just don't always agree on the form of it.

[Mister X]

Since H-L-V-S is not interested in historical materialism and he examines history as what happened rather than how it happened I will present him a speech by Lenin which outlines what "evil authoritarian Leninism" is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_EcpFLmUaU&feature=related

Marxism Leninism stands on workers democracy.
This "did not happen in practice" because of historical conditions of material poverty and isolation, not because of the evil Lenin monster that is power hungry.
There were no people to perform bureaucratic tasks as 80% of the population was illiterate so bureaucrats of the old regime needed to be employed .
Therefore point 4 in the Bolshevik program which says that there would be rotation of the bureaucratic tasks according to the principle of Engels "if everyone is a bureaucrat then noone is a bureaucrat, could not realistically happen. Therefore a layer of bureaucracy formed.

Also the fact that most advanced cadres died in the Civil War gave the opportunists the positions of the genuine activists .
Also the fact that 21 imperialist armies invaded the Soviet Union upon its creation, brought upon it more centralization and emergency measures which dealt a serious blow to workers democracy.

It was either those measures though , or the return to Czarism. I believe they were correct to take them in a situation of life and death.

Unfortunately during those extreme conditions the USSR started degenerating to Stalinism, who eventually won when Trotsky got exiled.


To respond to the claim that "true Leninism" (whatever that means in H-L-V-S's head) and anarchism are the same, is easy.
No they are not. Either you don't know what anarchism is or what Leninism is. Maybe you don't know what either stand for.


Marxists stand for the centralization of the means of production according to the communist manifesto, anarchists do not. Marxists (Leninists) stand for flexible tactics anarchists do not. Marxists talk about a workers state, most anarchists do not.

[revolution inaction]

Marxism Leninism stands on workers democracy.
This "did not happen in practice" because of historical conditions of material poverty and isolation, not because of the evil Lenin monster that is power hungry.
There were no people to perform bureaucratic tasks as 80% of the population was illiterate so bureaucrats of the old regime needed to be employed .
Therefore point 4 in the Bolshevik program which says that there would be rotation of the bureaucratic tasks according to the principle of Engels "if everyone is a bureaucrat then noone is a bureaucrat, could not realistically happen. Therefore a layer of bureaucracy formed.

Also the fact that most advanced cadres died in the Civil War gave the opportunists the positions of the genuine activists .
Also the fact that 21 imperialist armies invaded the Soviet Union upon its creation, brought upon it more centralization and emergency measures which dealt a serious blow to workers democracy.


Then why did the Bolsheviks suppress workers control before the civil war began?
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group

[Mister X]

Then why did the Bolsheviks suppress workers control before the civil war began?
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolshe...lidarity-group (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)

I am not aware of this and I am not buying this book. Explain it in your own words and use credible sources.
Also you need to prove that it happened on a mass scale for it to be considered as suppressing workers control.

Please so bourgeois, or biased sources(such as Menshevik or SR propaganda).

[revolution inaction]

you can read the book on the web site, click on the links under the introduction or to the right of the page, here is the section for 1917 http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917

I'm not going to explain this again, at least not now

there's also kronstadt http://libcom.org/library/the-kronstadt-uprising-of-1921-by-lynne-thorndycraft

[Mister X]

you can read the book on the web site, click on the links under the introduction or to the right of the page, here is the section for 1917 http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks...olidarity-1917 (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/bolsheviks-workers-control-solidarity-1917)

I'm not going to explain this again, at least not now

there's also kronstadt http://libcom.org/library/the-kronst...e-thorndycraft (http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/the-kronstadt-uprising-of-1921-by-lynne-thorndycraft)

Ok so if you do not want to discuss let us play a battle of links( Although I find it idiotic, you started it).

Here is a book that explains what Lenin and Trotsky stood for (http://www.marxist.com/lenin-trotsky-stalinism-johnstone-41.htm) it is available online.
And here the degeneration is explained (http://www.marxist.com/russiabook-8.htm)

Here is what Trotsky said about Kronstandt. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/01/kronstadt.htm)

Now we can argue about which links are better?

[lombas]

Basically, in a revolutionary state, I don't think direct workers control of the factories &c. is plausible. You cannot have a capitalist, exploitative system one day and a workers self-management the other. The workers themselves are not ready for this task! They have to receive a decent education and means of organization in order to take control of the means of production.

In Anarchist Catalunya, as I've heard anarchists from those days say in interviews, this was a real problem in the beginning. What they did, was made sure that the managers and bosses understood workers councils were to be in control of the factory, but they did continue to manage them. After a fue days, a centralized committee started making foodstamps, organizing food imports, &c.

You have to understand clearly that in 1917 Russia, many proletarians could not read or write. They didn't have much sense of the world, and were certainly not ready to control a factory &c. This is not to degrade the working classes - on the contrary! It was the bourgeoisie that was responsible for all this.

Comrades from Western countries should also take this into account when talking about developing countries today and why Lenins practice is still the only guideline for revolutionary organizations there.

The day a lot of Lenins actions become unnecessary in the present world, will be a day of joy.

[BobKKKindle$]

Simply linking to articles on an anarchist-orientated website is not adequate refutation. The Bolsheviks did exactly the right thing by using force against the Kronstadt uprising, as the Kronstadt sailors made it clear from the beginning that they would not be willing to tolerate a Soviet government involving the Bolsheviks, despite the fact that the Bolsheviks still has a working class support base and were clearly the only party capable of defending the gains of the revolution against the onslaught of the imperialist powers. This was expressed in the slogan "Soviets without Bolsheviks, raised by the sailors during the uprising. The narrow appeal of the uprising was demonstrated by the absence of serious disturbances in Petrograd when the uprising was taking place even though the workers of Petrograd could plausibly have supported the sailors of Kronstadt if they had chosen to declare their own uprising against the political leadership of the Bolsheviks. On the issue of workers control, this was an unfortunate measure taken by the Bolsheviks as a necessary response to the demands of the Civil War. It was not possible to allow for complete workplace democracy as the prevailing conditions required the state to assume complete control of the economy and punish workers who posed a threat to the production of armaments and other essential goods.

[Mister X]

The day a lot of Lenins actions become unnecessary in the present world, will be a day of joy.

I don't really get this although I agree with the majority of the rest of your post.
However trotskyists do not study Lenin's actions. They rather study Lenin's tactics in the creation of the revolutionary party. And of course we will not copy Lenin's actions after the revolution as there is presently no country in the world that has the same conditions as pre-revolutionary Russia.

We are materialists, we examine the ideas and apply them according to material conditions not dogmatically.

[lombas]

I don't really get this although I agree with the majority of the rest of your post.

The day Lenin wouldn't act like he had to do in 1917/22 will be the day the world is ready for a true dictatorship of the proletariat.

;)

[Tower of Bebel]

Then why did the Bolsheviks suppress workers control before the civil war began?
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group
Because he was a materialist? If it wasn't for the state-socialists in Germany the Bolsheviks would have been rescued by the European proletariat before such necessities became a virtue. Btw, Lenin never envisaged to survive a counterrevolution (just like the Paris Commune), nor did he wish for a counterrevolution from the inside as well.

[Mister X]

The day Lenin wouldn't act like he had to do in 1917/22 will be the day the world is ready for a true dictatorship of the proletariat.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif

Oh I strongly disagree with this because it would mean that there is no point in getting organized.
I think that if there was a revolution to happen in North or South America or Europe (and some parts of Asia), there would not be a need for such emergency acts of centralization as Lenin took. Besides I think that through the Russian revolution experience the subjective factor has been many times stronger than it was in 1917(by subjective factor I mean genuine workers organizations).

That means that if a revolution happened in France , there would be a subjective and objective factor to spread the revolution to the whole continent and maybe the whole world!

[Pogue]

Since H-L-V-S is not interested in historical materialism and he examines history as what happened rather than how it happened I will present him a speech by Lenin which outlines what "evil authoritarian Leninism" is.

X_EcpFLmUaU

Marxism Leninism stands on workers democracy.
This "did not happen in practice" because of historical conditions of material poverty and isolation, not because of the evil Lenin monster that is power hungry.
There were no people to perform bureaucratic tasks as 80% of the population was illiterate so bureaucrats of the old regime needed to be employed .
Therefore point 4 in the Bolshevik program which says that there would be rotation of the bureaucratic tasks according to the principle of Engels "if everyone is a bureaucrat then noone is a bureaucrat, could not realistically happen. Therefore a layer of bureaucracy formed.

Also the fact that most advanced cadres died in the Civil War gave the opportunists the positions of the genuine activists .
Also the fact that 21 imperialist armies invaded the Soviet Union upon its creation, brought upon it more centralization and emergency measures which dealt a serious blow to workers democracy.

It was either those measures though , or the return to Czarism. I believe they were correct to take them in a situation of life and death.

Unfortunately during those extreme conditions the USSR started degenerating to Stalinism, who eventually won when Trotsky got exiled.


To respond to the claim that "true Leninism" (whatever that means in H-L-V-S's head) and anarchism are the same, is easy.
No they are not. Either you don't know what anarchism is or what Leninism is. Maybe you don't know what either stand for.


Marxists stand for the centralization of the means of production according to the communist manifesto, anarchists do not. Marxists (Leninists) stand for flexible tactics anarchists do not. Marxists talk about a workers state, most anarchists do not.

I know as much as you about socialist theory, so please don't adress me with this arogant condemnation. I was merely asking a question as to whether an idea I thought of had any validity.

[davidasearles]

Basically, in a revolutionary state, I don't think direct workers control of the factories &c. is plausible. You cannot have a capitalist, exploitative system one day and a workers self-management the other. The workers themselves are not ready for this task! They have to receive a decent education and means of organization in order to take control of the means of production. In Anarchist Catalunya, as I've heard anarchists from those days say in interviews, this was a real problem in the beginning. What they did, was made sure that the managers and bosses understood workers councils were to be in control of the factory, but they did continue to manage them. After a fue days, a centralized committee started making foodstamps, organizing food imports, &c.

You have to understand clearly that in 1917 Russia, many proletarians could not read or write. They didn't have much sense of the world, and were certainly not ready to control a factory &c. This is not to degrade the working classes - on the contrary! It was the bourgeoisie that was responsible for all this.

Comrades from Western countries should also take this into account when talking about developing countries today and why Lenins practice is still the only guideline for revolutionary organizations there.

The day a lot of Lenins actions become unnecessary in the present world, will be a day of joy.

In the US and other countries there are constitutional processes available to alter the basic law of society concerning the relationship of the workers to the means of production and distribution. I suggest that the process itself can be the basis for organizing "education" campaigns to promote the recognition of the right of workers to establish collective control.

One thing that can be easily written into the process is to allow for collectivization workplace by workplace under authority of the national constitution.

[BobKKKindle$]

In the US and other countries there are constitutional processes available to alter the basic law of society concerning the relationship of the workers to the means of production and distribution

"Constitutional processes" and other external features of the bourgeois state apparatus such as the division of powers and established electoral procedures hide the fact that the state can only exercise power if it maintains the loyalty and support of armed bodies of men such as the military and police force. If these "bodies" are unwilling to cooperate, then the ability of the state to enforce its policies and carry out the aims of the elected government will always be limited, and there are numerous examples of governments which have come to power with the intention of implementing a radical program of social transformation, but have eventually been overthrown by the military because their intentions conflict with the interests of existing political and economic elites, as in the case of Salvador Allende, in Chile. Campaigning for the creation of socialism by means of constitutional amendments creates the illusion that this is possible and an effective means of achieving change, and thereby obscures the fact that socialism can only come into being through the destruction of the bourgeois state and all of its associated processes and institutions, and the creation of a new proletarian state, which reflects and is geared to the class interests of the proletariat.

[Leo]

Then why did the Bolsheviks suppress workers control before the civil war began?
http://libcom.org/library/the-bolshe...lidarity-group (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.anonym.to/?http://libcom.org/library/the-bolsheviks-and-workers-control-solidarity-group)

I'd like to link to a response to that article: http://en.internationalism.org/wr/300/anarchism-and-workers-control

[Pogue]

Why is this thread being hijacked? I gave a very clear direction for it, about whether this small theory I created made any sense.