Pogue
20th January 2009, 11:39
Assuming a workers movement of whatever kind built up around the world, in that workers became class concious, we can assume it highly doubtful that the majority of them will actually consider themselves Leninist, Trotskyist, Anarchists, etc. They will merely be doing as they see right and intelligent in the circumstances (as they are class concious) in taking voer their factories and forming orgnisaitons for self defense against the fascists and bourgeoisie who will try to counter true workers power.
Assuming, circumstances being as they will have to be to develop revolutionary ddesires, the workers will create workers councils as a natural replacement for the recently removed bosses and government, both of which are likely now workign against them. Workers councils seem to be the natural home of the working class, in their view as well as ours, seen in how they were formed in Spain in 1936, Hungary 1956, Paris 68, etc. They just make sense, and when we have proposed it through our spreading of socialist ideas, they will be commonplace.
Now, all schools of socialist thought (genuine socialist thought) propose workers control from the get go. If the workers have carrie dout a revolution they already have power and thus need no state to work on their behalf. We're assuming, ift he bourgeoisie has been overthrown, that the workers are already in control.
We also know no revolutions will ever follow a set and pre-dtermined path. They will not happen in the way Trotsky, Kropotkin or anyone else said they would. Not to the letter. In advancing from capitalism (or the overthrow of capitalism) to communism, there will be specific unforseeable problems and natural obstacles. Thus, the revolution will develop in specific ways according to location, circumstance, time etc.
I feel this renders any divisions between anarchists and Leninist obsolete, because it will be the working class and the existing conditions which will dictate the path of the revolution. We can certainly provide input but not control things. The transitionary period seems to be unforseeable. It will neither be a clearly defined 'workers state', nor the absence of any intermediary stage between capitalism and communism. There may be wage inequality, there may still be nations. As we know revolutions and societal developement progresses and changes by its very nature.
I thus feel any theories as to what happens after the bourgeois class has been deposed and the capitalist state has been destroyed are irrelevant, as things will happen as they will from external influence. We all agree that there should be no more capitalism or bourgeois state, no counter-revolution. So for the more concious revolutionaries, our job will be to defend the workers against the reintroduction of capitalism and its state and ruling class. If we can defend against this, surely the revolution will progress naturally? For surely it is utopian or naive to assume we would have a perfectly detailed workers state as on paper in reality (as Leninsts would argue), or indeed we would have a flawless progression to communism without a transition stage of socialism as Anarchists would propose. Our post-capitalist wll develop naturally with our guidance, not as Anarchists or Trotskyists but merely as supporters of the workers and freedom, as defenders of the revolution. We'd all oppose the same thing - degenration and counter-reovlution - and we wont be the ones in charge. We must defend it vigerously with ideas and action, against its core enemies, but be pragmatic, let the workign class develop the system as they will, even if it takes a long time to get things perfect.
Thoughts?
Assuming, circumstances being as they will have to be to develop revolutionary ddesires, the workers will create workers councils as a natural replacement for the recently removed bosses and government, both of which are likely now workign against them. Workers councils seem to be the natural home of the working class, in their view as well as ours, seen in how they were formed in Spain in 1936, Hungary 1956, Paris 68, etc. They just make sense, and when we have proposed it through our spreading of socialist ideas, they will be commonplace.
Now, all schools of socialist thought (genuine socialist thought) propose workers control from the get go. If the workers have carrie dout a revolution they already have power and thus need no state to work on their behalf. We're assuming, ift he bourgeoisie has been overthrown, that the workers are already in control.
We also know no revolutions will ever follow a set and pre-dtermined path. They will not happen in the way Trotsky, Kropotkin or anyone else said they would. Not to the letter. In advancing from capitalism (or the overthrow of capitalism) to communism, there will be specific unforseeable problems and natural obstacles. Thus, the revolution will develop in specific ways according to location, circumstance, time etc.
I feel this renders any divisions between anarchists and Leninist obsolete, because it will be the working class and the existing conditions which will dictate the path of the revolution. We can certainly provide input but not control things. The transitionary period seems to be unforseeable. It will neither be a clearly defined 'workers state', nor the absence of any intermediary stage between capitalism and communism. There may be wage inequality, there may still be nations. As we know revolutions and societal developement progresses and changes by its very nature.
I thus feel any theories as to what happens after the bourgeois class has been deposed and the capitalist state has been destroyed are irrelevant, as things will happen as they will from external influence. We all agree that there should be no more capitalism or bourgeois state, no counter-revolution. So for the more concious revolutionaries, our job will be to defend the workers against the reintroduction of capitalism and its state and ruling class. If we can defend against this, surely the revolution will progress naturally? For surely it is utopian or naive to assume we would have a perfectly detailed workers state as on paper in reality (as Leninsts would argue), or indeed we would have a flawless progression to communism without a transition stage of socialism as Anarchists would propose. Our post-capitalist wll develop naturally with our guidance, not as Anarchists or Trotskyists but merely as supporters of the workers and freedom, as defenders of the revolution. We'd all oppose the same thing - degenration and counter-reovlution - and we wont be the ones in charge. We must defend it vigerously with ideas and action, against its core enemies, but be pragmatic, let the workign class develop the system as they will, even if it takes a long time to get things perfect.
Thoughts?