Revolution and after it [Archive]

Tower of Bebel

22nd January 2009, 21:51

I didn't post this is learning because its a discussion as opposed to an out-right question. I have my own answers, I want to hear other people's.

I don't think we talk enough about what we plan to do in between and during the revolution which overthrows capitalism and its state and implementing communism.

Assume that the capitalist class and state is being defeated by a mass movement of workers occupying factories and workplaces, many of the army have mutinied, the government is no more, etc.

Such issues as:

1) How do we seize the wealth of the rich for everyone?
2) How do we set wages right away, right after this?
3) What do we move toward

I could go on forever. What do comrades think will happen in this turbulent time?
The workers need to prevent capital from fleeing, the workers need organs for the daily struggle for its subsistance and an economic revolution to safeguard the gains of the political revolution.

In short: we need proletarian democracy! Nationalization of the banks under workers' control (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1319840&postcount=17) (1), the independence of trade unions combined with law enforcement by "revolutionized" courts (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1319995&postcount=18) (2) and a move towards communism (3). Socialism is not about arbitrarily breaking or constructing, but about a historical proces. "All factors active in the process of destruction, on the one hand, and in the process of construction on the other, act as they are bound to act.".

peaccenicked

22nd January 2009, 22:11

We have to many ready made formulas already. The critique of the Gotha program
(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm) has been our traditional starting point.
The task is to gain State power with the working class as the majority.
I am reminded of a wobbly song.

When the union's inspiration through the workers' blood shall run,
There can be no power greater anywhere beneath the sun;
Yet what force on earth is weaker than the feeble strength of one,
But the union makes us strong.
CHORUS:
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,
Solidarity forever,

For the union makes us strong.
Is there aught we hold in common with the greedy parasite,
Who would lash us into serfdom and would crush us with his might?
Is there anything left to us but to organize and fight?
For the union makes us strong.
It is we who plowed the prairies; built the cities where they trade;
Dug the mines and built the workshops, endless miles of railroad laid;
Now we stand outcast and starving midst the wonders we have made;

But the union makes us strong.
All the world that's owned by idle drones is ours and ours alone.
We have laid the wide foundations; built it skyward stone by stone.
It is ours, not to slave in, but to master and to own.
While the union makes us strong.

They have taken untold millions that they never toiled to earn,
But without our brain and muscle not a single wheel can turn.
We can break their haughty power, gain our freedom when we learn
That the union makes us strong.

In our hands is placed a power greater than their hoarded gold,
Greater than the might of armies, magnified a thousand-fold.
We can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old
For the union makes us strong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kYiKdJoSsb8

Dave B

22nd January 2009, 22:40

Epigram for the book;

The Mensheviks After October – Socialist Opposition and the Rise of the Bolshevik Dictatorship.
Vladimir N. Brovkin.

ISBN 0-8014-9976-3

And the Lord said unto Cain; ‘Where is Abel, thy Brother?’
And he said ‘I know not; am I my brothers keeper?’
He said; ‘What hast thou done?’

Genisis 4:9 -10

davidasearles

23rd January 2009, 00:12

Tower of Bebel

23rd January 2009, 00:34

Capitalists fleeing with capital?

Specifically what would capitalists be fleeing with?

In the real world we have capitalists being sued all of the time by individuals and other capitalists - and from time to time a court will award a judgement that will strip a capitlist of all capital. I just don't see fleeing with capital as an unmanagable problem now - and especially I don't see that it would be an unmanagable problem at the time of the revolution. Probably when most capitlists see how nice it will be when workers are in collective control of the indutrial means of production they won't be trying to cart away industrial plants in the back of their Rolls Royces.

During the US Civil war when it was pretty clear that the legal recognition of chattle ownership of one human being to another would end in the US, did we see huge numbers of slaves being spirited out of the country by their owners? And where would they have gone?
First, it's easier to extract capital (gold, currencies, whatever) than to move thousands of slaves. Slaves can also be bought with money or capital while you cannot create money or capital out of nothing.
Secondly, I don't expect workers' control to succeed immediately. At the start of every (successful) revolution capitalsts will oppose workers' control, even if it works nicely. It will take weeks, months, years depending on specific situations before most capitalists give in to workers' collective control. In the meantime the proletariat must collectively take over banks and means of production before the capitalist class gets the chance to destroy all of it or take anything movable with them.

AnarchyIsOrder

23rd January 2009, 07:56

1) How do we seize the wealth of the rich for everyone?
We don't. Last I remember, we weren't simply trying to emulate Robin Hood. As for taking the means of production, capitalists own the means of production, that's all. They can't suddenly take it away if we lock them out, nor can they suddenly destroy it, seeing as they can't just go and press their belly button to make a factory blow up. Also,

2) How do we set wages right away, right after this?
We don't have wages in socialism. Even labour vouchers would not count as wages.

Probably when most capitlists see how nice it will be when workers are in collective control of the indutrial means of production they won't be trying to cart away industrial plants in the back of their Rolls Royces.
It hasn't happened yet, I don't see any reason why we should count on it happening in the future. There's nothing in it for them, and anything that we say is is pretty much just speculative.

mikelepore

23rd January 2009, 09:27

"Seizing" the wealth, "taking", etc., are inaccurate slang expressions that mean that, when people go to work, there will be new management. It doesn't mean picking up things and taking them somewhere.

RebelDog

23rd January 2009, 10:27

1) How do we seize the wealth of the rich for everyone?Their means of existence is the fruits of our labour, when we finally deny them our labour their wealth and status is finished. It is like throwing off parasites, they might be full on their last meal but their days are numbered. With those bastards gone we can socialise our production and distribution through self management producer control and give no possible material basis to wealth accumulation.

2) How do we set wages right away, right after this?One must assume that in the post revolutionary period that it is impossible to have the notion of a 'gift economy' as we would like it predominately due to lack of resources. Thus it becomes imperative that the working class has a basis by which it allocates remuneration. Simply put, if we cannot meet everyones needs and desires we must find an adequate and fair distribution system based on labour. I agree with Michael Albert's idea of remuneration based on effort and sacrafice. This is based around the idea that someone working under difficult conditions such as a coal miner or a deep sea fisherman should be remunerated to a greater degree than those that sit behind a desk or have safer working conditions for what ever reason. It would be up to the parecon units and society as a whole to decide what form such an system would take but it is surely clear to us that there is a world of difference between working in a coal mine and an office. This could be reflected in rewarding miners, fishermen etc with greater hours off from work. Balanced job complexes come in to force here.

3) What do we move towardA highly organised, planned, democratic economic structure with the producers and consumers as the dynamic dialectic.

davidasearles

23rd January 2009, 13:47

Nationalizing the banks, even if it did occur would not help the workers, it's a diversion away from workers acquiring collective control of the industrial means of production and distribution.

Capitalists fleeing with capital?
Specifically what would capitalists be fleeing with?

In the real world we have capitalists being sued all of the time by individuals and other capitalists - and from time to time a court will award a judgment that will strip a capitalist of all capital. I just don't see fleeing with capital as an unmanageable problem now - and especially I don't see that it would be an unmanageable problem at the time of the revolution. Probably when most capitalists see how nice it will be when workers are in collective control of the industrial means of production they won't be trying to cart away industrial plants in the back of their Rolls Royces.

During the US Civil war when it was pretty clear that the legal recognition of chattel ownership of one human being to another would end in the US, did we see huge numbers of slaves being spirited out of the country by their owners? And where would they have gone?

First, it's easier to extract capital (gold, currencies, whatever) than to move thousands of slaves. Slaves can also be bought with money or capital while you cannot create money or capital out of nothing.

If capitalists flee with gold, the product of labor, that would be highly convertible. Agreed that would be problematic to trace. How much gold is there to actually to flee with? And what amount of labor value tied up in it? In the scheme of things not a tremendous amount I would suspect. But the country having by popular acclaim having abolished capitalism, I'm pretty sure could figure a way to get most of that gold back.

But non-precious metal currency? That would be pretty easy to deal with, just change the currency as is done on a regular basis around the world. Give people a set date to turn in their old currency at which time any huge amounts would have to be explained, andput a gigantic tax on non-wage derived currency.

Secondly, I don't expect workers' control to succeed immediately. At the start of every (successful) revolution capitalists will oppose workers' control, even if it works nicely. It will take weeks, months, years depending on specific situations before most capitalists give in to workers' collective control. In the meantime the proletariat must collectively take over banks and means of production before the capitalist class gets the chance to destroy all of it or take anything movable with them.

Even assuming everything that you say -

Let us assume that because of the concentration of capital that 10,000 people own all of the currency in the country and that most of it is in banks, and that in the year before the consolidation of worker control they withdraw all of the cash electronic and real in all of the banks.

So what?

They won't be able to buy anything of what the workers produce unless the workers' collective agrees to it. Since the workers' collective generates it's own wealth, and there would be no outstanding property claims on the industrial means of production and distribution to pay off, neither the collective nor its members would be in a position to want or need old currency. In short old currency will no longer be current.

I see a lot of this as just an excuse to support an ill conceived call for nationalization of banks as a tactic in a minimum or transitional "program".

Workers produce wealth in the industrial means of production. All of the banks could be simply whisked away in a tornado and if the workers were in collective control of the means of production it would not our ability to produce for ourselves one bit.

Why call for that which will not benefit the workers?

And let us suppose that the US govt. shaking in its boots acceded to some imagined tremendous worker call to nationalize banks - so then when the capitalist system continued to crumble - what would be the reaction?

Why those workers with their notions caused capitalism to fail - so now the banks are put back into private hands and any gains that the workers had made in the last 100 years are taken away as well.

Tower of Bebel

23rd January 2009, 15:43

Even assuming everything that you say -

Let us assume that because of the concentration of capital that 10,000 people own all of the currency in the country and that most of it is in banks, and that in the year before the consolidation of worker control they withdraw all of the cash electronic and real in all of the banks.

So what?

They won't be able to buy anything of what the workers produce unless the workers' collective agrees to it. Since the workers' collective generates it's own wealth, and there would be no outstanding property claims on the industrial means of production and distribution to pay off, neither the collective nor its members would be in a position to want or need old currency. In short old currency will no longer be current.

I see a lot of this as just an excuse to support an ill conceived call for nationalization of banks as a tactic in a minimum or transitional "program".

Workers produce wealth in the industrial means of production. All of the banks could be simply whisked away in a tornado and if the workers were in collective control of the means of production it would not our ability to produce for ourselves one bit.

Why call for that which will not benefit the workers?

And let us suppose that the US govt. shaking in its boots acceded to some imagined tremendous worker call to nationalize banks - so then when the capitalist system continued to crumble - what would be the reaction?

Why those workers with their notions caused capitalism to fail - so now the banks are put back into private hands and any gains that the workers had made in the last 100 years are taken away as well.
I'm not talking about socialism (which is your case - the moment when all the workers have imposed collective control). I'm talking about the moment of political revolution itself. That's the moment when conscious layers of workers take over the capitalist means of production because they believe in workers' power, while other layers only do so because the capitalist economy crumbles, and while yet another layer of workers don't take over the means of production because they're not conscious of the necessity of a socialist revolution. This means that the capitalists can set up different layers of the population against each other (which they did during the Russian civil war).

Even your "one year before the consolidation ..." proves that workers' control cannot be realized overnight. That my case is possible. I'm not against collective workers' control. I'm against the idea that it is something that does not develop gradually (I don't care about the speed of this development. One day is enough for capitalist to get out, pay or build armies or persuade the working class not to act in its own interests). It is this fact that makes it all the more necessary to take capital (and of course the means of production) away from the capitalist class to prevent this class - not from buying products made by workers - but from paying soldiers to surpress the revolution and buying out workers.

And I could also have made this reply much shorter by claiming that capital is a part of the means of production. Yet the experience of the Paris Commune forces me/us the emphasize the demand for the nationalization of banks under workers' control.

The second part of your reply ("I see a lot of this ...") belongs to another thread

davidasearles

23rd January 2009, 16:49

Even your "one year before the consolidation ..." proves that workers' control cannot be realized overnight.

Of course not overnight - that would be tommorrow.

That my case is possible. I'm not against collective workers' control. I'm against the idea that it is something that does not develop gradually

No comprende

(I don't care about the speed of this development. One day is enough for capitalist to get out, pay or build armies or persuade the working class not to act in its own interests).

If the workers didn't know what they wanted, it would be pretty easy to once again scatter the workers all over the place, 100% agreed. (Which is why I always stress the necessity of the workers being told upfront about collective worker control of the industrial means of production.

It is this fact that makes it all the more necessary to take capital (and of course the means of production) away from the capitalist class to prevent this class - not from buying products made by workers - but from paying soldiers to suppress the revolution and buying out workers.

Take the means of production. It doesn't need to be taken, simply collectivized with workers in control. Change the law of property.

And I could also have made this reply much shorter by claiming that capital is a part of the means of production.

And you would be wrong. The means of production being in the hands of the workers' collective there would be no capital.

Yet the experience of the Paris Commune forces me/us the emphasize the demand for the nationalization of banks under workers' control.

The experience of the commune was that workers be drummed on the supposed need for nationalization of banks more important than obtaining collective control of the industrial means of production? Or that even obtaining nationalization of the banks would achieve worker collective control? Don't think so.

Tower of Bebel

23rd January 2009, 17:07

And you would be wrong. The means of production being in the hands of the workers' collective there would be no capital.
Indeed, but over time. Again the context is one of time. Time needed to abolish capital. As long as it is not abolished the working class needs to control it.
In the mind of every capitalist time is money. Time is an opportunity. They'll spend it on any form of reaction against the working class. Whether it is military or economic.

The experience of the commune was that workers be drummed on the supposed need for nationalization of banks more important than obtaining collective control of the industrial means of production? Or that even obtaining nationalization of the banks would achieve worker collective control? Don't think so.
The experience was that, unlike the material means of production (like factories), they ignored the banks and led the capitalist class get away with it.

davidasearles

23rd January 2009, 18:35

"Indeed, but over time. Again the context is one of time. Time needed to abolish capital. As long as it is not abolished the working class needs to control it."

And the capitalists are going to allow the workers to control their money in advance of the workers obtaining collective control of the industrial means of production??

Yes it is a matter of time because if we were to wait for the left to call for collective control of the means of production while it is forever dallying with one minimum or transitional reform of capitalism or another the time of worker collective control would be NEVER.

23rd January 2009, 18:45

David apparently doesn't understand the concept of class struggle.

Tower of Bebel

23rd January 2009, 18:46

"Indeed, but over time. Again the context is one of time. Time needed to abolish capital. As long as it is not abolished the working class needs to control it."

And the capitalists are going to allow the workers to control their money in advance of the workers obtaining collective control of the industrial means of production??
Why is controling banks and controling means of production not compatible? Why does one exclude the other? Why is it that the call for full workers' control of the means of production would be the obvious key to success?

davidasearles

23rd January 2009, 21:57

Pogue

23rd January 2009, 22:48

Other workers and myself are literally dying because we cannot access that part of the productive industries that produces the services associated with health care. I do not care if each capitalist chokes on his or her money. We don’t need their money they can’t buy our labor with it if no one will give them anything for their worthless paper. Calling for banks to be nationalized is a diversion. Assuming you have access to one take a look at a dollar bill of US Currency: front top center, what does it say: Federal Reserve Note. Look at the seal to the left of George Washington - it's issued through one of 12 district offices of the Federal Reserve Bank. Practically every bank of any consequence in the United States is chartered by and subject to all of the rules and regulations of the United States Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The only real difference in nationalizing all of the banks as opposed to keeping them in private hands would drop any limitation of the amount that a deposit account would be insured for in case of failure of the bank, since a federal bank would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.

The survival of the working class depends upon them (us) being able to produce the necessaries of life, and to produce them for ourselves. As I have said, every bank could be whisked away in a whirlwind and it would not matter one whit to the workers producing everything. Nothing needs to be bought back from capitalism because workers would maintain control over everything that they produce.

just for example of how non-radical the proposed solution would be look at the CNN article on bank nationalization just yesterday. France did it in the 1980s Singapore also did it more recently. Wow the revolution just took right off in these countries didn't it??

http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/22/news/companies/banks_nationalization/?postversion=2009012207 (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/22/news/companies/banks_nationalization/?postversion=2009012207)

and big whooptie doo:

Friday January 16, 2009

The Irish government has said it is to nationalise the Anglo Irish Bank after its funding problems continued.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7832203.stm

Aren't you just so proud to be part of such a progressive movement!!

Marxist-Bushite-Brownism is truly leading the way for the great proletarian revolution under the guiding principles of the Credit Crunch Path. Nationalise the banks in the name of the people! is their rallying cry, their banner is that of ex-neo-liberals who did what they had too to prevent financial meltdown!

The revolutionary idea, spawned from The Great Northern Rock Revolutions of 2008 in the UK have swept across the globe. Ireland was naturally the next step for the waves of revolutionary Bailoutism, but truly no where was free. We saw true internationalism and equality, as governments worldwide were united in the common action of throwing billions of dollars at the financial services and industry in general, as decreed by the much loved people's hero Karl Blair in his famous book "Nationalise the Losses, Privatise the Gains, Just Do What You Have To, Just Keep Capitalism Afloat!". Such attempts proved so succesful that many people were spontaneously given indefinate and unpaid holidays by the bosses, to allow them time to celebrate on the streets, or in the banks which they now owned through their taxes.

What is to be done?

Who can say what the next stage is in the movement? What new and revolutionary ways will the people, united under unelected but benevolent leaders such as Comrade Brown, and the man who will surely save the world from what is no doubt a mistake of people's lack of foresight, Barack Obama! Change, he says! Thats something we're all seeing less of, as prices go up and wages go down. Change, that one word, which combined with hope, and a solemn tone, reassures the jobless masses that if you have faith in your leaders, they will continue along the path they always have, one of success and prosperity for all. Such a path brought democracy to Iraq, at a cost of only 1 million lives. 1 million? A tiny amount, when compared to the billions invested in keeping the system afloat! Here is evidenced the wisdoms of our leaders!

Join the party comrades. New-Labour-Democrat-YesWeCanite-IDFism is surely the way to go! Just look at the world! Is there anything to criticise?

Tower of Bebel

23rd January 2009, 22:55

Other workers and myself are literally dying because we cannot access that part of the productive industries that produces the services associated with health care. I do not care if each capitalist chokes on his or her money. We don’t need their money they can’t buy our labor with it if no one will give them anything for their worthless paper.I agree.

The survival of the working class depends upon them (us) being able to produce the necessaries of life, and to produce them for ourselves.I agree.

Calling for banks to be nationalized is a diversion. [...] The only real difference in nationalizing all of the banks as opposed to keeping them in private hands would drop any limitation of the amount that a deposit account would be insured for in case of failure of the bank, since a federal bank would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.
As I have said, every bank could be whisked away in a whirlwind and it would not matter one whit to the workers producing everything. Nothing needs to be bought back from capitalism because workers would maintain control over everything that they produce.Only when workers are able to regulate a collective economy as a whole. Again, this needs some time. So they still have to use the capitalist mode of production (and surplus value) to keep the economy running. But that doesn't mean workers buy back from capitalism. It means they use money to regulate an economy that still suffers from scarcity. As you wrte before:
The survival of the working class depends upon them (us) being able to produce the necessaries of life, and to produce them for ourselves.Money will be abolished or unnecessary when workers are able to produce the necessary commodities in abundance. Today's means of production are adapted to the needs of capitalism, not a global workers' collective (as you wrote workers' are literally dying; capitalists don't care about the lives of the working class). When the workers' have succeeded in their political revolution (taking collective control of society (and also the means of production)) it will take years before the economy is transformed to the needs of the population as a whole. In the mean time the workers could use the accumulated capital (and money in general) in the interest of the working class. When there's the necessary abundance the working class will not need any money or capital no more.

just for example of how non-radical the proposed solution would be look at the CNN article on bank nationalization just yesterday. France did it in the 1980s Singapore also did it more recently. Wow the revolution just took right off in these countries didn't it??

[...]

Aren't you just so proud to be part of such a progressive movement!! This is nothing less than an attempt to dumb down the discussion http://users.telenet.be/honeybee1/gefrustreerd.gif.

This is an answer explaining the material necessity of taking over the banks collectively (practice). The discussion on a specific demand or call for the collective ownership of the means of production belongs to another thread (theory).

ckaihatsu

24th January 2009, 03:29

If capitalists flee with gold, the product of labor, that would be highly convertible. Agreed that would be problematic to trace. How much gold is there to actually to flee with? And what amount of labor value tied up in it? In the scheme of things not a tremendous amount I would suspect. But the country having by popular acclaim having abolished capitalism, I'm pretty sure could figure a way to get most of that gold back.

It bothers me whenever I hear talk of gold being the ultimate "gold standard", like it's God's Own Shit, or something. This comes from libertarian types or from assorted capitalists, in general.

Since labor from workers' collectives would be the basis of value of in a post-revolution society all materials from before the revolution would have to be treated as artifacts, or else actively used in production.

Perhaps some people would be satisfied to work as curators, content to be surrounded by historical artifacts made of gold and made available for public viewing.

Other people who are more into personal accoutrements / style / fashion may wish to put in enough hours of their own labor so as to *own* gold-containing jewelry (or whatever) for themselves.

Maybe in a post-revolutionary redistribution of wealth there would be a lot of gold to *initially* redistribute, according to some kind of first-come, first-served priority, or perhaps a lottery.

But considering that a post-capitalist society would, by definition, also be post-commodity, that means that gold would not / could not be considered to have any *monetary* value in and of itself.

(Also please note that David here has described the revolution in *populist* terms, and only in the context of one country.)

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

-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

robbo203

24th January 2009, 11:37

II don't think we talk enough about what we plan to do in between and during the revolution which overthrows capitalism and its state and implementing communism.

Assume that the capitalist class and state is being defeated by a mass movement of workers occupying factories and workplaces, many of the army have mutinied, the government is no more, etc.

Such issues as:

1) How do we seize the wealth of the rich for everyone?
2) How do we set wages right away, right after this?
3) What do we move toward

I could go on forever. What do comrades think will happen in this turbulent time?

What do you mean by "setting wages". After the revolution there cannot be a wages system. If you have a wages system you still have capitalism and therefore still have a revolution to carry out!

Like Marx said wages presuppose capital and capital presupposes wages. Communism is and can only mean a moneyless wageless stateless society and anything less than that is not communism

Tower of Bebel

24th January 2009, 12:22

What do you mean by "setting wages". After the revolution there cannot be a wages system. If you have a wages system you still have capitalism and therefore still have a revolution to carry out!

Like Marx said wages presuppose capital and capital presupposes wages. Communism is and can only mean a moneyless wageless stateless society and anything less than that is not communism
There will be some sort of wage system during and after the political revolution. Yet there wont be any when the economic revolution has been completed.

robbo203

24th January 2009, 19:33

There will be some sort of wage system during and after the political revolution. Yet there wont be any when the economic revolution has been completed.

Then what you call the political revolution will not bring socialism , it will be a continuation of capitalism becuase of the continuation of the wages system. Though why you imagine the political revolution is or should be separate from the economic revolution I have no idea. It seems to be this is just another excuse for postponing a genuine communist society and as such plays into the hands of the pro-capitalists who claim it is not a realistic project

ZeroNowhere

24th January 2009, 19:58

There will be some sort of wage system during and after the political revolution. Yet there wont be any when the economic revolution has been completed.
Interesting. So there will be a political revolution after which there will still be capitalism, and then, for no apparent reason, there will later be an economic one to abolish it? Well, alright then.

Tower of Bebel

24th January 2009, 20:15

it will be a continuation of capitalism becuase of the continuation of the wages system.Indeed. Yet this time the workers are in power and will transform capitalism into communism.
Though why you imagine the political revolution is or should be separate from the economic revolution I have no idea.Indeed. But I do not separate them. I mentioned them apart from each other to explain that the workers need to take power first before they can transform the economy over time. Both go hand in hand, but not in such a way that the economy is transformed at the same pase as the whole process of a working class taking power.
It seems to be this is just another excuse for postponing a genuine communist society and as such plays into the hands of the pro-capitalists who claim it is not a realistic projectYes. It seems. But it isn't. Because the working class is in power. Not the capitalist class. The working class uses the extraction of surplus for it's own good. It uses the capitalist means of production to create the necessary conditions for a wageless, classless, stateless society. Capitalism doesn't need a ruling bourgeoisie to be called capitalism. Capitalism can be ruled and regulated by aristocraties, bureaucraties, a bourgeoisie and even workers. The difference between the workers and the other ruling classes is the fact that the workers make up the majority of society and use collective ownership of the means of production as a way to abolish all classes. But it takes time.

Interesting. So there will be a political revolution after which there will still be capitalism, and then, for no apparent reason, there will later be an economic one to abolish it? Well, alright then.What is capitalism according to you? Why are capitalism and the wage system immediatily abolished when workers take power? When the working class takes power tomorrow, will there be wages one week from now? Or even a month or a year?

robbo203

25th January 2009, 00:58

Originally Posted by robbo203 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1339520#post1339520)
it will be a continuation of capitalism becuase of the continuation of the wages system.
Indeed. Yet this time the workers are in power and will transform capitalism into communism.

ROBBO; This is not logical . How can the workers be in power and run a system that exploits them? And why on earth do they have to wait to transform capitalism into communism once they have this power? If you are saying they have to wait becuase they are not ready for communism for some reason then how do you suppose in that case they case they could have got into power as class for itself instead of say putting capitalist parties.in power The very fact that they are ready take power as a class means they are ready to establish communism

Quote:
Though why you imagine the political revolution is or should be separate from the economic revolution I have no idea.
Indeed. But I do not separate them. I mentioned them apart from each other to explain that the workers need to take power first before they can transform the economy over time. Both go hand in hand, but not in such a way that the economy is transformed at the same pase as the whole process of a working class taking power.

ROBBO: Granted there is a logical sequence which implies a time factor. Power is taken and communism is then introduced. But this is more or less iimmeidately introduced after the taking of power. There is no real time period let alone lengthy time period between taking power and implementing communism. Nor can there be logically. Otherwise you would be talking about workers trying to run capitalism , the very system that by definition exploits them. And that is utterly absurd
Quote:
It seems to be this is just another excuse for postponing a genuine communist society and as such plays into the hands of the pro-capitalists who claim it is not a realistic project
Yes. It seems. But it isn't. Because the working class is in power. Not the capitalist class. The working class uses the extraction of surplus for it's own good. It uses the capitalist means of production to create the necessary conditions for a wageless, classless, stateless society. Capitalism doesn't need a ruling bourgeoisie to be called capitalism. Capitalism can be ruled and regulated by aristocraties, bureaucraties, a bourgeoisie and even workers. The difference between the workers and the other ruling classes is the fact that the workers make up the majority of society and use collective ownership of the means of production as a way to abolish all classes. But it takes time.

ROBBO: Lets look at this logically. How on earth can the working class use the extraction of a surplus for its own good? If it did it would no longer be a working class and there would be no point in working for wages then anyway would there? By definition the working class is the exploited class in capitalism. And I still dont get your argument. If the working class is in the great majority why the hell hang on to its exploited status as a working class . Why the hell keep the non working class in existence likewise. Why not just get rid of the whole class system in toto. Why does it take time? You keep repeating this mantra without explaining it What is holding back the communist revolution once the working class has taken power. Your whole argument does not make any sense

Pogue

25th January 2009, 01:02

robbo203

25th January 2009, 01:32

People keep hitting me with the same answers because I didn't put my question across very well.

Are we all assuming that if a revolution happened, everyone would be a clear communist with the clear aims of establihsing communism in the way written down in the books? I'm assuming that a workers revolution would not be carrie dout perfectly and would have a few bumps. I think its anive to think everywhere the revolution happens, everyone will progress straight to communism. I refer mainly to the post or during revolutionary stage (depending on your outlook). When we're trying to move towards communism. Doubtless a turbulent and imperfect stage unless eveyr member of our post-revolutoinary society has a clear idea of what communism is. How do we sort out wages then?

You cannot have communism with majority support and understanding of it. It would not be a communist revolution otherwise. It would just be change from one form of capitalist rule to another. Of course there might be some turbulence in the process of changing the basis of society but by the time a majority wanted communism it is inevitable that almost everyone by then will understand what means even if a small minorty might still oppose. That understanding goes with the knowledge that you cannot have a communst society with wages. If you have a wages system then by definition you have capitalism. This is the marxist position. The only sense in which we will sort out wages if by getting rid of the wages system altogether. If you dont or cant do that then by defintion you haven´t had a communist revolution and you are still stuck with capitalism

Die Neue Zeit

25th January 2009, 02:25

Comrade Rakunin is saying that even societal ownership and control over the means of production and distribution does NOT eliminate the extraction of surplus value.

peaccenicked

25th January 2009, 03:27

I assume Comrade Rakunin means,

Let us take, first of all, the words "proceeds of labor" in the sense of the product of labor; then the co-operative proceeds of labor are the total social product.

From this must now be deducted: First, cover for replacement of the means of production used up. Second, additional portion for expansion of production. Third, reserve or insurance funds to provide against accidents, dislocations caused by natural calamities, etc.

These deductions from the "undiminished" proceeds of labor are an economic necessity, and their magnitude is to be determined according to available means and forces, and partly by computation of probabilities, but they are in no way calculable by equity.

There remains the other part of the total product, intended to serve as means of consumption. marx

He his wrong to call this "the extraction of surplus value". It is in effect the socialisation of "surplus value".

Technically it is no longer surplus value, as that is unpaid labour.
The deductions Marx has in mind are part of the social "wage."

Technically it is not a wage as a wage is money.
Money no longer functions as capital. The worker receives vouchers that are tokens of social wealth.

Die Neue Zeit

25th January 2009, 04:09

I assume Comrade Rakunin means [...]

He is wrong to call this "the extraction of surplus value". It is in effect the socialisation of "surplus value".

Technically it is no longer surplus value, as that is unpaid labour.
The deductions Marx has in mind are part of the social "wage."

Technically it is not a wage as a wage is money.
Money no longer functions as capital. The worker receives vouchers that are tokens of social wealth.

I am expecting a comradely shitstorm regarding labour credits vs. "monetary capitalism under workers' ownership and control." :D

Seriously, I think the surplus value pertaining to "monetary capitalism under workers' ownership and control" primarily has to do with the retention of highly paid "managerial" specialists (whom Marx called "functioning capitalists") in order to stem Brezhnev-esque corruption schemes.

robbo203

25th January 2009, 10:15

Comrade Rakunin is saying that even societal ownership and control over the means of production and distribution does NOT eliminate the extraction of surplus value.

Well then Comrade Rakunin is wrong, I´m afraid. Surplus value implies the operation of the law of value in marxian terms and hence capitalism - which is the negation of societal ownershsip of the means of production. As long as there is any form of economic exchange or exchange value there cannot be communism. Wages , money, buying and selling, markets, financial insititutions etc etc etc are all manifestation of the logic of capitalism. There can be no such things in communism. People on this list who talk about a post capitalist society operating a wage system of some kind thereby demonstrate that they do not understand what communism is - or capitalism for that matter.

Like Marx said, instead of workers calling for a fair days wage for a fair day´s work they should inscribe on theír banner the revolutionary watchword "abolition of the wages system!"

Dave B

25th January 2009, 11:25

Well said Robbo!

Dave B

25th January 2009, 11:32

I think Karl dealt with ‘functioning capitalists’ in;

Capital Vol. III Part V
Division of Profit into Interest and Profit of Enterprise. Interest-Bearing Capital
Chapter 23. Interest and Profit of Enterprise

I think things were slightly different in his time in that most capitalist ‘worked’ there own capital ie they were at least part owners of the capital that they ‘worked’. And this needs to be bared in mind to some extent concerning his analysis

The surplus value that they extracted from other peoples or the borrowed part of the capital was split into two. Interest payments on the borrowed capital and ‘profit of enterprise’ that went to the ‘person’ that worked the capital and exploited the workers.

To extent that now much of the role of direct exploitation of labour eg by CEO’s and senior management etc is carried out my non owners of the actual capital they work, what they get 'paid' is actually ‘profit of enterprise’.

Although there is a theoretical grey area as part of the function of the ‘management’ of production is necessary for the production process and therefore is proper value adding labour and can be performed as waged labour power. And actual rather than claimed ‘wages of supervision’.

Thus;

For the productive capitalist who works on borrowed capital, the gross profit falls into two parts — the interest, which he is to pay the lender, and the surplus over and above the interest, which makes up his own share of the profit. If the general rate of profit is given, this latter portion is determined by the rate of interest; and if the rate of interest is given, then by the general rate of profit.

And furthermore: however the gross profit, the actual value of the total profit, may diverge in each individual case from the average profit, the portion belonging to the functioning capitalist is determined by the interest, since this is fixed by the general rate of interest (leaving aside any special legal stipulations) and assumed to be given beforehand, before the process of production begins, hence before its result, the gross profit, is achieved. We have seen that the actual specific product of capital is surplus-value, or, more precisely, profit.

But for the capitalist working on borrowed capital it is not profit, but profit minus interest, that portion of profit which remains to him after paying interest. This portion of the profit, therefore, necessarily appears to him to be the product of a capital as long as it is operative; and this it is, as far as he is concerned, because he represents capital only as functioning capital. He is its personification as long as it functions, and it functions as long as it is profitably invested in industry or commerce and such operations are undertaken with it through its employer as are prescribed by the branch of industry concerned.

In relation to him interest appears therefore as the mere fruit of owning capital, of capital as such abstracted from the reproduction process of capital, inasmuch as it does not "work,"; does not function; while profit of enterprise appears to him as the exclusive fruit of the functions which he performs with the capital, as the fruit of the movement and performance of capital, of a performance which appears to him as his own activity, as opposed to the inactivity, the non-participation of the money-capitalist in the production process.

This qualitative distinction between the two portions of gross profit that interest is the fruit of capital as such, of the ownership of capital irrespective of the production process, and that profit of enterprise is the fruit of performing capital, of capital functioning in the production process, and hence of the active role played by the employer of the capital in the reproduction process — this qualitative distinction is by no means merely a subjective notion of the money-capitalist, on the one hand, and the industrial capitalist, on the other.

It rests upon an objective fact, for interest flows to the money-capitalist, to the lender, who is the mere owner of capital, hence represents only ownership of capital before the production process and outside of it; while the profit of enterprise flows to the functioning capitalist alone, who is non-owner of the capital.

Profit of enterprise and wages of supervision, or management, were confused originally due to the antagonistic form assumed in respect to interest by the surplus of profit. This was further promoted by the apologetic aim of representing profit not as a surplus-value derived from unpaid labour, but as the capitalist's wages for work performed by him. This was met on the part of socialists by a demand to reduce profit actually to what it pretended to be theoretically, namely, mere wages of supervision.

And this demand was all the more obnoxious to theoretical embellishment, the more these wages of supervision, like any other wage, found their definite level and definite market-price, on the one hand, with the development of a numerous class of industrial and commercial managers, and the more they fell, on the other, like all wages for skilled labour, with the general development which reduces the cost of production of specially trained labour-power.

With the development of co-operation on the part of the labourers, and of stock enterprises on the part of the bourgeoisie, even the last pretext for the confusion of profit of enterprise and wages of management was removed, and profit appeared also in practice as it undeniably appeared in theory, as mere surplus-value, a value for which no equivalent was paid, as realised unpaid labour. It was then seen that the functioning capitalist really exploits labour, and that the fruit of his exploitation, when working with borrowed capital, was divided into interest and profit of enterprise, a surplus of profit over interest.

Tower of Bebel

25th January 2009, 12:29

Surplus value implies the operation of the law of value in marxian terms and hence capitalism - which is the negation of societal ownershsip of the means of production. As long as there is any form of economic exchange or exchange value there cannot be communism. Wages , money, buying and selling, markets, financial insititutions etc etc etc are all manifestation of the logic of capitalism. There can be no such things in communism. People on this list who talk about a post capitalist society operating a wage system of some kind thereby demonstrate that they do not understand what communism is - or capitalism for that matter.

Like Marx said, instead of workers calling for a fair days wage for a fair day´s work they should inscribe on theír banner the revolutionary watchword "abolition of the wages system!"
After reading Peacenicked's post and this one I finally see what you mean. Yet why do you speak of communism while communism is the final result of the post-capitalist economic revolution? I was wrting about the first day after the completion of the political revolution (the day when the capitalist class has lost state power), not the day when the workers have completed the transition from capitalism to communism.

robbo203

25th January 2009, 13:07

After reading Peacenicked's post and this one I finally see what you mean. Yet why do you speak of communism while communism is the final result of the post-capitalist economic revolution? I was wrting about the first day after the completion of the political revolution (the day when the capitalist class has lost state power), not the day when the workers have completed the transition from capitalism to communism.

This whole thing about the transition is the source of endless confusion on this list. A transition between what? Look, if you retain the wages system , the buying and selling system, the market - in short capitalism -after the so called political revolution then that means you havent begun to make a tranisition at all. It means you are still stuck with capitalism. Some people on this list still dont seem to understand this point. A transition, if it is to meaningfull in any sense ,has to be imply a qualitatively different social arrangement to the society you have supposedly overthrown - otherwise it is a meaningless term.

Marx talked about a lower and higher phase of communism (he never distinguised between communism and socialism). You can plausibly call the lower phase a "transition" to the higher phase of communism. But the lower phase was still fundamentally based on communism - the common ownership of the means of wealth production. The labour voucher scheme that Marx envisaged operating in this lower phase was considered necessary by him in a society that still manifested as it were some of the problem and prejudices of capitalism. But the point is that it was not a capitalist society. Labour vouchers are not wages, do not function as money.

I diagree with Marx on the need for any kind of transitional society to full "free access" communism but that is only because society has moved on since Marx´s time. There is absolutely no reason now, assuming mass understanding and support for comunism ,that we cannot have higher communism starightaway without any kind of transition. We have long had the technological infrastructure to sustain such a society but it is held back or imprisoned within the structure of capitalist relations of production.

If there is a need for a transition period (as opposed to the notion of a transitional society, then I would say that we are in that period now when we have the potential to shift consciousness in a communist direction. But we do not help the cause of communism by arguing for the retention of capitalism in the form of state run capitalism after the political revolution in the pretence that this can somehow facilitate the realisation of communism. It doesnt and the history of the utter futility and complete failure of the Bolshevik experiment to move society even so much as an inch towards communism demonstrates this more forcefully than words can express. If there was the slightest truth in the whole Leninist mythology about moving towards communism via some so called transition, we would not now be just talking about communism. We would actually have communism! As it is the Bolshevik experiment actually served to push back the realisation of communism by several decades becuase it diverted so many millions of workers down what we now know was a complete cul de sac. The fruits of that experiment are what we see in Russia to - an oppressive authoritarian chauvinistic and indeed explicitly capitalist society. What a waste, what an utter tragedy from the viewpoint of the communist goal

Dave B

25th January 2009, 17:40

Marx in fact was not that keen on the idea of labour vouchers as is I think clear in Grundisse, where he rarely went into the subject in some detail. It probably needs to be read from the start on page 153, however an extract gets across the point.

(You have to be a bit careful reading Grundisse I think as he is invariably just chewing ideas over in his head.)

The ‘bank’ here is I think being used as a metaphor for the organisation that would administer the allocation of who got what according to how much they worked or the amount of labour they had contributed to society etc

The bank would thus be the general buyer and seller. Instead of notes it could also issue cheques, and instead of that it could also keep simple bank accounts. Depending on the sum of commodity values which X had deposited with the bank, X would have that sum in the form of other commodities to his credit. A second attribute of the bank would be necessary: it would need the power to establish the exchange value of all commodities, i.e. the labour time materialized in them, in an authentic manner.

But its functions could not end there. It would have to determine the labour time in which commodities could be produced, with the average means of production available in a given industry, i.e. the time in which they would have to be produced. But that also would not be sufficient. It would not only have to determine the time in which a certain quantity of products had to be produced, and place the producers in conditions which made their labour equally productive (i.e. it would have to balance and to arrange the distribution of the means of labour), but it would also have to determine the amounts of labour time to be employed in the different branches of production.
The latter would be necessary because, in order to realize exchange value and make the bank’s currency really convertible, social production in general would have to be stabilized and arranged so that the needs of the partners in exchange were always satisfied.

Nor is this all. The biggest exchange process is not that between commodities, but that between commodities and labour. (More on this presently.) The workers would not be selling their labour to the bank, but they would receive the exchange value for the entire product of their labour, etc. Precisely seen, then, the bank would be not only the general buyer and seller, but also the general producer. In fact either it would be a despotic ruler of production and trustee of distribution, or it would indeed be nothing more than a board which keeps the books and accounts for a society producing in common. The common ownership of the means of production is presupposed, etc., etc.

The Saint-Simonians made their bank into the papacy of production.

The idea of labour vouchers was current amongst ‘revolutionary’ workers, for want of an all embracing term, at the time and I think Marx and Engels felt compelled to go along with it to a certain extent because of that . And the realisation that the conditions for abundance were not yet developed enough and rationing based on some criteria was inevitable.

That is suggested I think in the following quote from Engels, where he is trying to find an outlet or excuse for a bit of ‘idealism’ which was self prohibited of course.

Engels to C. Schmidt In Berlin, August 5, 1890

There has also been a discussion in the Volks-Tribune about the distribution of products in future society, whether this will take place according to the amount of work done or otherwise. The question has been approached very "materialistically" in opposition to certain idealistic phraseology about justice. But strangely enough it has not struck anyone that, after all, the method of distribution essentially depends on how much there is to distribute, and that this must surely change with the progress of production and social organization, so that the method of distribution may also change.

But everyone who took part in the discussion, "socialist society" appeared not as something undergoing continuous change and progress but as a stable affair fixed once for all, which must, therefore, have a method of distribution fixed once for all. All one can reasonably do, however, is 1) to try and discover the method of distribution to be used at the beginning, and 2) to try and find the general tendency of the further development. But about this I do not find a single word in the whole debate.

There is more critical appraisal on this kind of labour voucher thing, this time on John Gray’s ideas on labour certificates and ‘banks’ etc in the second half of.

Karl Marx: Critique of Political Economy, B. Theories of the Standard of Money

The only other places Karl mentioned Labour vouchers was in the famous Critique of The Gotha Programme, where in fact he was making a critical appraisal of the labour voucher idea that was being proposed by others.

They were in fact just outlining how far they could go along with it and why.

The fact that it was published reluctantly and later should demonstrate that it was never supposed be a definitive statement on their position.

There also is a sentence on it at the end of chapter 18 volume two, and a passing reference to it in the first footnote volume One chapter III.

They mentioned it in a couple of other places I think but all in the same vein.

Die Neue Zeit

25th January 2009, 17:52

Marx in fact was not that keen on the idea of labour vouchers as is I think clear in Grundisse, where he rarely went into the subject in some detail. It probably needs to be read from the start on page 153, however an extract gets across the point.

[...]

The only other places Karl mentioned Labour vouchers was in the famous Critique of The Gotha Programme, where in fact he was making a critical appraisal of the labour voucher idea that was being proposed by others.

Nope: Marx mentions it again in Chapter 18 of Capital, Volume II - as well as in the distribution chapter of Anti-Duhring:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-time-vouchers-t96793/index.html?p=1332906

The labour voucher scheme that Marx envisaged operating in this lower phase was considered necessary by him in a society that still manifested as it were some of the problem and prejudices of capitalism. But the point is that it was not a capitalist society. Labour vouchers are not wages, do not function as money.

I diagree with Marx on the need for any kind of transitional society to full "free access" communism but that is only because society has moved on since Marx´s time. There is absolutely no reason now, assuming mass understanding and support for comunism ,that we cannot have higher communism starightaway without any kind of transition. We have long had the technological infrastructure to sustain such a society but it is held back or imprisoned within the structure of capitalist relations of production.

That is an overly idealistic World Socialist Movement point of view, I'm afraid. :(

Dave B

25th January 2009, 18:17

There also is a sentence on it at the end of chapter 18 volume two, and a passing reference to it in the first footnote volume One chapter III.

They mentioned it in a couple of other places I think but all in the same vein.

As I remember it the discussion on Labour vouchers in Anti-Duhring was part of a criticism of a labour voucher kind scheme that Duhring was proposing.

robbo203

25th January 2009, 22:29

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbo203 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1340041#post1340041)
The labour voucher scheme that Marx envisaged operating in this lower phase was considered necessary by him in a society that still manifested as it were some of the problem and prejudices of capitalism. But the point is that it was not a capitalist society. Labour vouchers are not wages, do not function as money.

I diagree with Marx on the need for any kind of transitional society to full "free access" communism but that is only because society has moved on since Marx´s time. There is absolutely no reason now, assuming mass understanding and support for comunism ,that we cannot have higher communism starightaway without any kind of transition. We have long had the technological infrastructure to sustain such a society but it is held back or imprisoned within the structure of capitalist relations of production.

That is an overly idealistic World Socialist Movement point of view, I'm afraid. :(

Im not actually a member of the WSM but I fail to see in what sense the above is "idealistic". My whole point is that the neccesary preparatory steps to be taken in order for a communist society to be realised come BEFORE the capture of state power and not after it. If you capture state and dont introduce communism (having accomplished these necesary preparatory steps beforehand), that means you are stuck with running capitalism. And that in turn means you have a new ruling class in power to run capitalism )against the interests of the workers (obviously) while purportedly doing this on the grounds that it will eventually usher in communism. Now that really is an idealistic viewpoint

Die Neue Zeit

25th January 2009, 22:44

Im not actually a member of the WSM but I fail to see in what sense the above is "idealistic". My whole point is that the neccesary preparatory steps to be taken in order for a communist society to be realised come BEFORE the capture of state power and not after it. If you capture state and dont introduce communism (having accomplished these necesary preparatory steps beforehand), that means you are stuck with running capitalism. And that in turn means you have a new ruling class in power to run capitalism )against the interests of the workers (obviously) while purportedly doing this on the grounds that it will eventually usher in communism. Now that really is an idealistic viewpoint

I honestly don't know whether to call what you've just said Bernsteinian or "transitionalist" (a la Trotsky). If the latter, you may be interested in this blog:

http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2008/08/programmatic-objectives-of-socialism.html

Dave B

25th January 2009, 23:06

I honestly don't know whether to call what you've just said Bernsteinian or "transitionalist" (a la Trotsky). If the latter, you may be interested in this blog:

I don’t think there is much of a difference.

Bernsteinism aims at gradually converting capitalism into socialism, from above.

Leninism and Trotskyism aims at gradually converting state capitalism into socialism, from above.

The mature Marxist position is simpler;

Karl Marx, The Class Struggles In France, Introduction by Frederick Engels, Written: 1895;

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

The last 100 years would appear to have taught the Leninist nothing.

Die Neue Zeit

25th January 2009, 23:41

I don’t think there is much of a difference.

Bernsteinism aims at gradually converting capitalism into socialism, from above.

Leninism and Trotskyism aims at gradually converting state capitalism into socialism, from above.

The mature Marxist position is simpler;

Karl Marx, The Class Struggles In France, Introduction by Frederick Engels, Written: 1895;

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

The last 100 years would appear to have taught the Leninist nothing.

Since you're getting off-topic, I would like to say that Lenin was a Kautskyist when it came to class emancipation and partiinost. :p

http://z11.invisionfree.com/Kasama_Threads/index.php?showtopic=241

ckaihatsu

25th January 2009, 23:51

You cannot have communism with majority support and understanding of it. It would not be a communist revolution otherwise. It would just be change from one form of capitalist rule to another. Of course there might be some turbulence in the process of changing the basis of society but by the time a majority wanted communism it is inevitable that almost everyone by then will understand what means even if a small minorty might still oppose.

In the current period, under still-existing capitalism, we're continuing the political struggle, which is about the extent that's available to us, aside from some limited factory occupations and short-lived insurrectionary movements.

The political struggle is paramount of course, for the reason that you state, Robbo -- a majority would need to at least tacitly support a socialist / communist movement so that it would not encounter significant resistance from the masses.

That understanding goes with the knowledge that you cannot have a communst society with wages. If you have a wages system then by definition you have capitalism. This is the marxist position. The only sense in which we will sort out wages if by getting rid of the wages system altogether. If you dont or cant do that then by defintion you haven´t had a communist revolution and you are still stuck with capitalism

Wages, or more generally, *compensation* for labor performed, is going to remain a necessity in some form through to the very final stage in which communism's built-up infrastructure would automatically provide for every person on earth without their having to work, *at all*. And even then there would *still* need to be a system for accounting for the realm of material things, including work performed.

ROBBO: Lets look at this logically. How on earth can the working class use the extraction of a surplus for its own good? If it did it would no longer be a working class and there would be no point in working for wages then anyway would there?

Like Marx said, instead of workers calling for a fair days wage for a fair day´s work they should inscribe on theír banner the revolutionary watchword "abolition of the wages system!"

The best way I've heard this explained is that there's *nothing wrong* with the extraction of profit *per se* -- the problem is that it's an elite that *controls* that surplus value, under capitalism.

So the heart of the matter is how *empowered* the working class is, and how much of a political economy exists around the economic economy.

In a revolutionary transition there might be *very* good reasons for retaining much of the current, capitalist structure, for strictly functional / operational reasons, while the capitalist class as a political force is beaten back. Political / policy control could be taken to re-direct the *outputs* of the current economic machine to serve the working class, politically, strengthening the class struggle and weakening the ability of the bourgeoisie to organize.

In other words, many people might be content to continue working as they're used to doing, and to *not* be overtly political during a workers revolution. That would be fine. It would be up to the revolution to dispossess the capitalist ruling class out of continuing to receive the *proceeds* from the toil of billions.

The continuous financial proceeds could be used by a revolutionary leadership to mobilize workers militias as a priority, to disarm the capitalist armies, and to disband the military infrastructure. As capitalist resistance weakened more proceeds could be used to beef up social services and provide employment -- still with the general, existing wages system that extracts surplus labor value.

By definition the working class is the exploited class in capitalism. And I still dont get your argument. If the working class is in the great majority why the hell hang on to its exploited status as a working class . Why the hell keep the non working class in existence likewise. Why not just get rid of the whole class system in toto. Why does it take time? You keep repeating this mantra without explaining it What is holding back the communist revolution once the working class has taken power. Your whole argument does not make any sense[/I]

My conceptualization of the transition goes as follows: [1] political struggle against bourgeois rule, [2] possible physical confrontations with defenders of capital, [3] institution of local workers collectives, [4] generalization of working-class rule, use of universal labor credits, build-up of communist infrastructure, [5] full automation, free availability of basics for living, for everyone, without *any* necessity for *anyone* to work if they don't want to, full workers political economy over all things material

He his wrong to call this "the extraction of surplus value". It is in effect the socialisation of "surplus value".

Technically it is no longer surplus value, as that is unpaid labour.
The deductions Marx has in mind are part of the social "wage."

Technically it is not a wage as a wage is money.
Money no longer functions as capital. The worker receives vouchers that are tokens of social wealth.

Surplus value is any goods or services produced and available that are more than what's needed to simply reproduce the labor force -- that is, to keep it alive and moving forward in time.

A socialist / communist economy would *socialize* the surplus value, in addition to providing the basics that keep people (workers) alive and in good health / working condition (and producing future generations).

I advocate the build-up of a global syndicalist currency as soon as possible, so as to cut against the expropriation of surplus labor value into the hands of the capitalist elite. This would be a full-labor-value, competing currency that would *not* be compatible with capitalist currency.

The build-up of local syndicalist control would lead into more socialized forms of production, like universal use of labor credits, a socialist political economy, and finally full communism.

robbo203

26th January 2009, 00:20

[quote=ckaihatsu;1340614]

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbo203 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1339794#post1339794)
That understanding goes with the knowledge that you cannot have a communst society with wages. If you have a wages system then by definition you have capitalism. This is the marxist position. The only sense in which we will sort out wages if by getting rid of the wages system altogether. If you dont or cant do that then by defintion you haven´t had a communist revolution and you are still stuck with capitalism

Wages, or more generally, *compensation* for labor performed, is going to remain a necessity in some form through to the very final stage in which communism's built-up infrastructure would automatically provide for every person on earth without their having to work, *at all*. And even then there would *still* need to be a system for accounting for the realm of material things, including work performed.

ROBBO: If wages remain a necessity in your view then you have not even begun the first stage let alone arrived at the final stage (so called) before communism. You would still be in a capitalist system! You would still have to acheve a revolution to achieve communism.

You also completely miss the point. The built up infrastructure to sustain a communist spociety already exists . It does not have have to be built up. And that in itself eliminates the presumed need for any kind of transition between capitalism and communism. You are at least a century behind the times in terms of technological development. Your productivist kind of thinking belongs to the 19th century

Quote:
Originally Posted by robbo203 http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1339973#post1339973)
Like Marx said, instead of workers calling for a fair days wage for a fair day´s work they should inscribe on theír banner the revolutionary watchword "abolition of the wages system!"

The best way I've heard this explained is that there's *nothing wrong* with the extraction of profit *per se* -- the problem is that it's an elite that *controls* that surplus value, under capitalism.

ROBBO: Surplus value by definition is the difference between what the value of goods wroers produce and the value of their wages. Logically therefore they cannot control the surplus value as you seem to imply . Surplus value only applies in a society in which the law of value applies in marxian terms i.e. capitalism

Originally Posted by peaccenicked http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1339850#post1339850)
He his wrong to call this "the extraction of surplus value". It is in effect the socialisation of "surplus value".

Technically it is no longer surplus value, as that is unpaid labour.
The deductions Marx has in mind are part of the social "wage."

Technically it is not a wage as a wage is money.
Money no longer functions as capital. The worker receives vouchers that are tokens of social wealth.

Surplus value is any goods or services produced and available that are more than what's needed to simply reproduce the labor force -- that is, to keep it alive and moving forward in time.

ROBBO: This is NOT what surplus value means . You are confusing the concept of a production surplus with surplus value . See above

Die Neue Zeit

26th January 2009, 00:26

Wow! I didn't expect a fuss over the definition of surplus value!

To me, surplus value is simply the excess wealth pocketed by the big cappies, as well as any micro-surplus that arises due to the existence and capitalization of money (M-C-M).

You also completely miss the point. The built up infrastructure to sustain a communist spociety already exists. It does not have have to be built up. And that in itself eliminates the presumed need for any kind of transition between capitalism and communism. You are at least a century behind the times in terms of technological development. Your productivist kind of thinking belongs to the 19th century.

I can think of numerous "sci-fi" concepts that are realizable but are constrained by capitalism: vertical farming, fusion energy, further space exploration, further geological exploration (for minimizing earthquakes and supervolcano eruptions like the one bound to happen in Yellowstone).

ckaihatsu

26th January 2009, 01:41

ROBBO: If wages remain a necessity in your view then you have not even begun the first stage let alone arrived at the final stage (so called) before communism. You would still be in a capitalist system! You would still have to acheve a revolution to achieve communism.

I'm not saying that a nascent workers revolution *must* or *should* use the wages system on the way to communism -- I'm saying that it would be a *valid* (and convenient) method for running an economy, as long as the proceeds from it came under revolutionary political control, for the purpose of overthrowing the capitalist class and destroying their organizational ability.

My own position is to direct labor towards the build-up of a global syndicalist currency -- this would inherently be a revolutionary political act, establishing the basis of syndicalist, or local workers' control, of the means of mass production. This would directly compete with the capitalist mode of production, such as it is these days.

You could say that it would still use the wages system, but that would not be entirely accurate. The build-up of a global syndicalist currency would be more akin to the creation of an expansive economic network, leveraging the assets and infrastructure of the one that preceded it. Workers would receive compensation, but it would be a proportion based on the full labor value of their work, with the rest going towards the buttressing of the currency, so as to strengthen the emerging economic / political network.

You also completely miss the point. The built up infrastructure to sustain a communist spociety already exists . It does not have have to be built up. And that in itself eliminates the presumed need for any kind of transition between capitalism and communism. You are at least a century behind the times in terms of technological development. Your productivist kind of thinking belongs to the 19th century

Technology and materials is *not* the only kind of infrastructure there is -- I agree that the current society has tremendous technological prowess that could / would provide the basis of a very advanced, highly automated communist society.

But just because the technology exists doesn't mean that it's being used equitably. For example, why don't we have mass light rail networks criss-crossing through every major metropolitan area, and well-interconnected to suburban and rural areas as well (instead of so much vehicle-based transport)? This would free up many, many laborers from having to drive to transport goods, maybe even eliminating the need for human labor for door-to-door delivery.

Our * working-class * * political * infrastructure is what's lacking the most -- without strong rank-and-file unions and instantly recallable labor representatives we can't claim to have an organizational structure that really speaks in the voice of revolutionary labor.

The makings of a communist society will only be enabled to the extent that rank-and-file labor can articulate its best *objective* interests, and then have the organizational cohesion to back it up with the threat of strikes and factory takeovers.

ROBBO: Surplus value by definition is the difference between what the value of goods wroers produce and the value of their wages. Logically therefore they cannot control the surplus value as you seem to imply . Surplus value only applies in a society in which the law of value applies in marxian terms i.e. capitalism

Let's use your definition here -- we could have a syndicalist-oriented economy that still removes surplus labor value from its workers. The difference would be about where that surplus goes. In a worker-organized economy the surplus could be collectivized and repurposed towards the fight against capitalist rule. It could also be collectivized towards the running of internal, labor-oriented schools, health care, new worker-controlled factories, whatever....

robbo203

26th January 2009, 13:22

I'm not saying that a nascent workers revolution *must* or *should* use the wages system on the way to communism -- I'm saying that it would be a *valid* (and convenient) method for running an economy, as long as the proceeds from it came under revolutionary political control, for the purpose of overthrowing the capitalist class and destroying their organizational ability.

But look, if you have a wages system, you have employers and employees, you have classes, you have buying and selling and all of the other economic paraphenalia associated with capitalism. You are not overthrowing the capitalist class or destroying their organisational ability. You are merely replicating it. You merelybecome the capitalist class you claim to want to overthrow. You might say that those exercising this revolutionary political control fully intend to run capitalism in the way you describe and eventually overthrow the capitalist class. No doubt. But good intentions are not enough. Once you are caught up in running the system the system will in the end impose its own requirements on you. The Bolshevik revolution demonstrated this completely. I have no doubt that many of the early Boslheviks fully understood what communism meant and quite probably desired it. But once they got into power, one by one all of their erstwhile idealistic sentiments were jettisoned. They had no choice but to operate a capitalist system (since the vast majority of the population had no idea of communism let alone wanted it) and in operatiing the capitalist system they were changed by it. They turned into a brutal authroitarian state capitalist dictatorship that oppressed the workers and enriched the privileged few.

What I am saying is we dont have to go down this road. A transition that is still based on capitalist principles of operation will completely destroy and undermine any tendency towards communism. If you are going to have a transition let it be on a communist basis - get rid of the market, get rid of the wages system. The lower phase of communism is such a transition and no no dount will involve a degree of ratioing of some goods prior to the realisation of full free access. That is a legitimate kind of transition but what is not legitmiate or valid is one that employs capitalist methods of organisation and retains the wages system.- the very means by which a working class is exploited Becuase that is not a transtion at all. It is still capitalism. It is perpetuating capitalism and those that advocate this kind of transition are in the business of perpetuating capitalism

ckaihatsu

26th January 2009, 16:41

But look, if you have a wages system, you have employers and employees, you have classes, you have buying and selling and all of the other economic paraphenalia associated with capitalism.

One reason to keep similar work roles in place for the short-term would be for the ease of transitioning -- *and*, for the record, I am *not* necessarily arguing for this. I, despite my choice of high-sounding title on this discussion board, am just one person among many adding my best thoughts to the matter at hand.

If the wages system would serve as a decent economic framework while mass sentiment turned against banks and the financial sector of capitalism, calling forth for a redistribution of financial wealth as a reformist / populist measure, then great. If people *didn't* want to work in the wages system but could add to the social fabric in other ways then they should be supported in that as best possible. If people could contribute politically to the revolutionary movement, then same thing.

You are not overthrowing the capitalist class or destroying their organisational ability. You are merely *replicating* it. You merelybecome the capitalist class you claim to want to overthrow.

Since we're arguing hypothetically here, all I can say is either it happens or it doesn't.

You might say that those exercising this revolutionary political control fully intend to run capitalism in the way you describe and eventually overthrow the capitalist class. No doubt. But good intentions are not enough. Once you are caught up in running the system the system will in the end impose its own requirements on you.

But who's "running the system", currently? * No one *. Capitalism is *not* a system that is *run*, as from a throne. It is either tolerated or it has to be consciously *overthrown*, en masse. There is no *one* person who will "run the system" as a revolutionary movement rises in opposition to the continued existence of capitalism, just as there is no *one person* running capitalism.

Either the revolutionary movement is *effective* at pooling sentiment and work effort to counter the inertia of capitalism, generalizing and speaking for rank-and-file political interests, or it isn't.

The Bolshevik revolution demonstrated this completely. I have no doubt that many of the early Boslheviks fully understood what communism meant and quite probably desired it. But once they got into power, one by one all of their erstwhile idealistic sentiments were jettisoned. They had no choice but to operate a capitalist system (since the vast majority of the population had no idea of communism let alone wanted it) and in operatiing the capitalist system they were changed by it. They turned into a brutal authroitarian state capitalist dictatorship that oppressed the workers and enriched the privileged few.

This is a distortion of history, to say the least, and also to give you the benefit of the doubt. I'd rather not deal with a discussion that pertains to the history of the Bolshevik Revolution -- there are several threads here at RevLeft that deal with this topic very well.

Your overall *point*, however, is well taken, and all I can say, again, is that either there is enough general political interest to sustain a well-directed revolutionary movement, or else inertia reasserts itself and the fate of capitalism becomes our fate.

What I am saying is we dont have to go down this road. A transition that is still based on capitalist principles of operation will completely destroy and undermine any tendency towards communism. If you are going to have a transition let it be on a communist basis - get rid of the market, get rid of the wages system.

Fair enough. I'm open to any good revolutionary ideas, and the material base certainly enables non-market options for the running of some kind of adequate economic system in a transitional period to socialism / communism.

The lower phase of communism is such a transition and no no dount will involve a degree of ratioing of some goods prior to the realisation of full free access.

I agree with you in theory here, if the word you're using is "ratioing" and not "rationing" -- the other half of it is what kind of political organization, exactly, will be taking the reins of the economy, as you're alluding to here. I have my own model, a global syndicalist currency, as a vehicle for this economic transition, but I'm sure it's not the only strategy out there.

That is a legitimate kind of transition but what is not legitmiate or valid is one that employs capitalist methods of organisation and retains the wages system.- the very means by which a working class is exploited Becuase that is not a transtion at all. It is still capitalism. It is perpetuating capitalism and those that advocate this kind of transition are in the business of perpetuating capitalism

I appreciate the caution you're expressing here. Again, we're at a loss since we're speaking hypothetically -- to concretize the discussion from here we'd have to have specifics in front of us.

AIM Correspondent

26th January 2009, 22:34

This is complicated... lets wait and see for it :)

ckaihatsu

26th January 2009, 22:48

This is complicated... lets wait and see for it :)

There's *nothing* complicated about *any* of it -- more to the point is that it's political, so it requires a knowledge of where one's best class interests lie. From there it requires understanding, which is where RevLeft comes in. Actually doing it requires organizational agreement and cohesion, which is a ground-level, rank-and-file thing.

You can dig up my explanations of the 'global syndicalist currency' by going to the advanced search feature here and using that along with my username.

ckaihatsu

27th January 2009, 01:11

Okay, just threw together a one-page diagram that describes the economics and politics for the stages of syndicalism, socialism, and communism. It's at:

Syndicalism - Socialism - Communism Transition Diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bgqgjw

robbo203

27th January 2009, 10:19

One reason to keep similar work roles in place for the short-term would be for the ease of transitioning -- *and*, for the record, I am *not* necessarily arguing for this. I, despite my choice of high-sounding title on this discussion board, am just one person among many adding my best thoughts to the matter at hand.

If the wages system would serve as a decent economic framework while mass sentiment turned against banks and the financial sector of capitalism, calling forth for a redistribution of financial wealth as a reformist / populist measure, then great. If people *didn't* want to work in the wages system but could add to the social fabric in other ways then they should be supported in that as best possible. If people could contribute politically to the revolutionary movement, then same thing..

OK I understand where you are coming from but I dont think this is an issue on which fence sitting is an appropriate response. Clarity is needed on what we mean by capitalism and what we mean by communism.

You seem to adopt a position of agnosticism on the matter of the wages system, I dont. I take as my basic perspective the Marxian undestanding that the wages system lies at the very heart of capitalism, it is the essential mechanism by which the exploitation process is effected. It is the very thing that defines us as a class . the economic compulsion to work for a wage. You cannot be indifferent to it.

The wages system cannot serve as a "decent economic framework" for anything. It is the way class rule is perpetuated in capitalism. You seem to imply that somehow it could co-exist with a redistribution of financial wealth. The implication of what you are saying here is that capitalism can be run on a tolerably egalitarian basis. As if! If you presuppose the continuation of the wages system you presuppose everything else that goes with capitalism and in particular the need to accumulate capital out of surplus value , a need imposed by economic competition between competing capitals. Everytthing else flows from this including the enormous inequalities between capitalists and workers by virtue of the former´s ownership of the means of production as well as the differentiation of wage levels between skilled and unskilled workers in accordance with the law of value.

My basic point is that continuing with this primary characteristic of capitalism - the wages system - into some allegedly post revolutuonary transitional period, you have not really changed anything at all. You have certainly not carried out a revolutionary change, all you have done is replaced one set of rulers with another.

Another point you raise is about the need to keep "similar work roles" to ease the transition as you call it. But actually one of the enormous benefits of a communuist system of production is that it will get rid of the huge amount of structural waste that is part and parcel of capitalism - the myriad of economic activities that perform no useful function at all but are only necessary to the functioning of capitalism - from banking to pay departments and hundreds of other kinds of jobs. I look forward to the complete elimination of all such pointless jobs and the rediversion of labour and resoruces to socially useful production on a massive scale. I also look forward to the fact that I would no longer be confined to doing just one job but could express myself in a variety of different ways in a communist future. It is capitalism not communism that imposes a bleak uniformity on us in the name of functional necccesity. Unfortunately you seem to have swallowed such apologetics for the system a little too uncritically

ckaihatsu

27th January 2009, 10:41

Another point you raise is about the need to keep "similar work roles" to ease the transition as you call it. But actually one of the enormous benefits of a communuist system of production is that it will get rid of the huge amount of structural waste that is part and parcel of capitalism - the myriad of economic activities that perform no useful function at all but are only necessary to the functioning of capitalism - from banking to pay departments and hundreds of other kinds of jobs. I look forward to the complete elimination of all such pointless jobs and the rediversion of labour and resoruces to socially useful production on a massive scale. I also look forward to the fact that I would no longer be confined to doing just one job but could express myself in a variety of different ways in a communist future. It is capitalism not communism that imposes a bleak uniformity on us in the name of functional necccesity. Unfortunately you seem to have swallowed such apologetics for the system a little too uncritically

Suffice it to say that I look forward to and welcome as quick a sprint to communism as is possible. The last thing I would want to see is foot-dragging, for all of the reasons you've listed. At the same time I *don't* see anything from you in the way of a plan to take society forward. How about some details? How *would* we get there from here, then?

My use of stages is meant to be illustrative and illuminating, *not* a hindrance. If each stage lasted only a day and we had communism by the end of the week, then that would be an excellent time-frame in my book. If it all happened in the next minute, then that's all the better still.

davidasearles

27th January 2009, 10:43

ckaihatsu I looked at the diagram I don't see anything too objectionable about it, except for some of the terminology - and the fact that personally I think that while trying to speculate so far into the future might satisfy the intellectual urges of some , my "future" speculations are much in the range of from 5 seconds now to the day after tomorrow.

But in your diagram - the workplace collectives, how did they get there and what is their function? For "employee purchases" (within the collective - or among collectives) The exchange medium would be labor hours worked for labor hours required to produce as opposed to wages using outside currency? And as the collectives got larger and combined, labor time exchange would for the most part overtake the outside currency for most exchanges?

ckaihatsu

27th January 2009, 11:23

But in your diagram - the workplace collectives, how did they get there and what is their function?

David, the basic principle of worker control is that those who are doing the labor need to be in control. Without bosses that follow the dictate of serving capital in the quest for profit accumulation the workers would have to take over all management / administrative functions, on a collective, self-organizing basis.

For "employee purchases" (within the collective - or among collectives)

Exchanges through the use of a global syndicalist currency would *have* to be on the basis of several collectives' cooperation in a nascent workers' economy.

The exchange medium would be labor hours worked for labor hours required to produce as opposed to wages using outside currency?

I'm including an excerpt from a recent post in which I cover this issue of the difficulty of different types of labor, and the use of ratios to treat these differences appropriately. There is good discussion around this individual post, on the thread.

[G]iven the years of schooling and preparation needed to produce a qualified surgeon, those labor hours -- or labor minutes -- would have a *much* higher multiplier on them than for that of a carpenter (no offense).

So maybe our table would look something like this:

OCCUPATION_______%_OF_POPULATION_______MULTIPLIER_ _____LABOR_HOURS______LABOR_CREDITS

surgeon________________2%_(guessing)__________300X ________0.25_per_minor_surgery____75_credit-hours
carpenter_______________5%_(guessing)__________1X_ (sorry)____75_per_month,_part-time____75_credit-hours

I'd like to emphasize, as I noted before, that in a planned economy, this labor could *not* be done on a strictly self-motivated basis, because if there's no actual *demand* for it in the economy then it's a hobby.

And as the collectives got larger and combined, labor time exchange would for the most part overtake the outside currency for most exchanges?

Forget for a moment that we're talking about our own political govt. Suppose the US workers for the most part went workers' collective but that Canada didn't. We want to use a particular type of Canadian timber but Canada doesn't those nasty labor credits, but because of the great amount of cross border transactions it will agree to a currency balance system based upon the goods and services being transferred being valued in dollars. Wouldn't it be handy to have a money currency issuing agency to issue or take in currency from a foreign entity?

It would be far more preferable to build up the strength and reach of a global syndicalist currency, backed by full, unexpropriated labor value, and enjoying the credibility that comes with transparently published accounts. Given these qualities it should be easy to see how this currency {would} be absolutely incompatible, both economically and politically, with any existing, capitalist currencies.

robbo203

31st January 2009, 11:06

Suffice it to say that I look forward to and welcome as quick a sprint to communism as is possible. The last thing I would want to see is foot-dragging, for all of the reasons you've listed. At the same time I *don't* see anything from you in the way of a plan to take society forward. How about some details? How *would* we get there from here, then?

My use of stages is meant to be illustrative and illuminating, *not* a hindrance. If each stage lasted only a day and we had communism by the end of the week, then that would be an excellent time-frame in my book. If it all happened in the next minute, then that's all the better still.

The quickest route to communism is the one that fully addresses what we need to achieve communism. That is very simply 1) a developed infrastructure to sustain a communist mode of production 2) mass understanding of and support for communism.

I think we can broadly agree on this. 1) is not an issue anymore - we have the technology to support a communist society now. 2) is more complicated. How do you arrive at mass understanding and support for communism.

My quarrel with much of the Left is that it views the idea of a communist society as a remote abstraction to brushed aside by more pressing matters (which boil down to futilely pressing for reforms within capitalism). It is almost as if communism is an embarrassment to them, like a distant family relative one does not talk about in polite company. The fear of being ridiculed as a utopian idealist has paralysed the Left into submissive conformism. (I once met a trotskyoist who actually argued that a moneyless society was against human nature!) Much of this talk of transitional stages is really just an attempt to appear to be realistically grounded and strategically adept when all it does is expose the utter confusion that lies behind their thinking. As I pointed out, a transitional stage that includes the primary features of capitalism - above all its wages system - is not a transition at all. It is and can only be a continuation of capitalism in another form.

I dont have any quick and easy solutions as to how we get a communist consciousness (I do have a few suggestions beyond just abstractedly propagandizing for communism , necessary though this is). However, I think before we can even talk about how to build up a communist consciousness we need to be clear about things we must AVOID doing, things which actually get in the way of developing a communist consciousness.

There are several things I have in mind but two stick out. One is to give up altogether all talk or advocacy of any kind of so called transitional society between capitalism and communism. All this is amounts to in practice is an apology for state capitalism and the association of state capitalism with socialist or communist thought has been probably the single biggest disaster for the movement itself.

Secondly, give up all talk or advocacy of vanguardism. This only entrenches the ideology of capitalism and disempowers those who must make the revolution - the working class. The Leninist twaddle that workers are only capable of reaching a trade union consciousness and the revolution has to be carried out by an elite of professional revolutionaries on their behalf is a malicious insult as well the source of so much confusion. Imagine if the revolution was actually carried out by this elite in the absence of mass communist consciousness. The only thing this elite could do is carry on with , or solidify , capitalist relations of production. That is exactly what happened in post revolutionary Russia under the Bolsheviks. What you had in the end was a vicious anti-working class state capitalist dictatorship that in claiming the mantle of communism did the greatest possible disservice to communism

ckaihatsu

31st January 2009, 12:28

My quarrel with much of the Left is that it views the idea of a communist society as a remote abstraction to brushed aside by more pressing matters (which boil down to futilely pressing for reforms within capitalism).

Yes, I agree -- this is accurately described as 'pragmatism', which afflicts the radical / progressive / liberal / reformist Left as much as it does the mainstream bourgeoisie. Perhaps we could say that this is the litmus test -- to what degree does a person orient their politics relative to the mainstream issue-of-the-day, instead of advocating an anti-imperialist, independent, working-class-empowering politics -- ?

It is almost as if communism is an embarrassment to them, like a distant family relative one does not talk about in polite company. The fear of being ridiculed as a utopian idealist has paralysed the Left into submissive conformism. (I once met a trotskyoist who actually argued that a moneyless society was against human nature!)

The dark side of being too "careful" and "realistic" with one's politics is the obverse of not having a forward-looking, goal-oriented conception of what one is doing politics *for*. The thing about the status quo is that it has plenty of inertia going for it, so the closer one is to it the more useless one's activities are.

I think the experience you had with that one Trotskyist was atypical -- certainly most revolutionaries, including Trotskyists, would, by definition, not subscribe to any "human nature" types of arguments regarding societal / political constructions. (The "human nature" argument is an idealistic / dualistic construction -- an abstraction of human behavior that conveniently removes it from any larger, political context.)

Much of this talk of transitional stages is really just an attempt to appear to be realistically grounded and strategically adept when all it does is expose the utter confusion that lies behind their thinking. As I pointed out, a transitional stage that includes the primary features of capitalism - above all its wages system - is not a transition at all. It is and can only be a continuation of capitalism in another form.

I appreciate your critique of my transitional diagram -- I agree that it has some validity to it. I can only reiterate that I hope it will have some *educational* and *clarifying* value, and I do note on it that it is a *model* -- I think it's clear that it is meant to be received as an addition to inform any actual struggle that is taking place in the real world.

I dont have any quick and easy solutions as to how we get a communist consciousness (I do have a few suggestions beyond just abstractedly propagandizing for communism , necessary though this is). However, I think before we can even talk about how to build up a communist consciousness we need to be clear about things we must AVOID doing, things which actually get in the way of developing a communist consciousness.

There are several things I have in mind but two stick out. One is to give up altogether all talk or advocacy of any kind of so called transitional society between capitalism and communism. All this is amounts to in practice is an apology for state capitalism and the association of state capitalism with socialist or communist thought has been probably the single biggest disaster for the movement itself.

I strongly disagree with this interpretation of *my own* advocacy of possible syndicalist or socialist steps on the way to communism. I make it clear on the diagram that these steps describe a political basis in *local* workers' collectives, thereby precluding a top-down, or governmental-oriented approach to revolution.

Secondly, give up all talk or advocacy of vanguardism. This only entrenches the ideology of capitalism and disempowers those who must make the revolution - the working class.

You may want to clarify what you mean here by 'vanguardism' -- the term is subject to interpretation. I would say that advocating communism, as you're doing here, is an action of vanguardism in itself -- (and my advocacy as well). We could say that our discussion on a forum in cyberspace is too detached from the actual reality and struggles of the working class, in which case we're practicing idealism, or we might say that this discussion has propagandistic / edifying value, in which case we're practicing vanguardism.

Are we giving capitalism a break by not practicing our politics closer to an actual workplace, or are we nearer to empowering those who must make the revolution -- the working class -- ?

The Leninist twaddle that workers are only capable of reaching a trade union consciousness and the revolution has to be carried out by an elite of professional revolutionaries on their behalf is a malicious insult as well the source of so much confusion. Imagine if the revolution was actually carried out by this elite in the absence of mass communist consciousness. The only thing this elite could do is carry on with , or solidify , capitalist relations of production.

This is far too simplistic a formulation of vanguardism. I think *anyone* who has the means with which to advocate communism -- thereby supporting communist consciousness generally -- can be labeled as a "professional revolutionary", meaning that one is doing it in an outward, world-directed way -- one cannot be a "hobbyist revolutionary" or a "casual revolutionary" or a "self-aggrandizing revolutionary". (Okay, on the last term I admit that it's possible, but for the sake of argument please allow me the use that I intend for it.)

You're doing Leninism a disservice by distorting it in the way that you're doing. I'll remind you that you're using a pseudonym while I am not. Certainly Leninism supports promoting revolutionary, communist consciousness -- beyond trade union consciousness -- for workers. And vanguardism, or a "Leninist elite", as you put it, would not *fatalistically*, *automatically* lead into a solidification of capitalist relations of production, as you're so blithely stating.

That is exactly what happened in post revolutionary Russia under the Bolsheviks. What you had in the end was a vicious anti-working class state capitalist dictatorship that in claiming the mantle of communism did the greatest possible disservice to communism

Again, I am not going to get into a discussion of this history. I'll maintain that you're incorrect, and that you're distorting the role of the Bolsheviks in history and ask you to revisit this issue, using this board's resources.

Lynx

31st January 2009, 14:18

There are several things I have in mind but two stick out. One is to give up altogether all talk or advocacy of any kind of so called transitional society between capitalism and communism. All this is amounts to in practice is an apology for state capitalism and the association of state capitalism with socialist or communist thought has been probably the single biggest disaster for the movement itself.
Some prefer to use the term 'lower stage of communism' to describe a transitional or socialist society. Are you opposed to making this distinction?

robbo203

31st January 2009, 14:22

You may want to clarify what you mean here by 'vanguardism' -- the term is subject to interpretation. I would say that advocating communism, as you're doing here, is an action of vanguardism in itself -- (and my advocacy as well). We could say that our discussion on a forum in cyberspace is too detached from the actual reality and struggles of the working class, in which case we're practicing idealism, or we might say that this discussion has propagandistic / edifying value, in which case we're practicing vanguardism
.

You can call advocating communism "vanguardism" in the sense that it is atypical and presumes to speak of something that is ahead of its time. But of course this is not what I have in mind when I am talking about vanguardism. I would have thought that was obvious from the context. Im talking specifically about the political approach that entails a small elite taking steps - in this case enacting a revolution - by itself and allegedly on behalf of others, the outcome of which is then imposed on the latter without them having been involved in the process of having created this new reality. The whole Leninist approach to politics frankly reeks of this vanguardism. And it was justified by Lenin himself on the explicit grounds that workers by themselves are only capable of reaching a trade union consciousness

You're doing Leninism a disservice by distorting it in the way that you're doing. I'll remind you that you're using a pseudonym while I am not. Certainly Leninism supports promoting revolutionary, communist consciousness -- beyond trade union consciousness -- for workers. And vanguardism, or a "Leninist elite", as you put it, would not *fatalistically*, *automatically* lead into a solidification of capitalist relations of production, as you're so blithely stating..

But hold on here. This is exactly what happened with the Bolshevik Revolution! It ushered in state capitalism (Lenin himself even admitted earlier on that state capitalism "would be a step forward"). Despite the rhetoric, there was no way in which the Bolsheviks could have established communism even if they wanted to. They couldnt because inter alia there simply was not the mass understanding and support for communism that the establishment of communism requires. Am I saying that a Leninist elite that proposes to enact a revolution without mass understanding and support for communism is doomed "automatically" to oversee the solidification of capitalist relations. You bet I am! Let me throw the ball back in your court. Do you accept that communism is only possible with this mass understanding? If so, then , without that mass understanding, what else do you think could have happened? If not capitalism what else? Because it could certainly not be communism

Again, I am not going to get into a discussion of this history. I'll maintain that you're incorrect, and that you're distorting the role of the Bolsheviks in history and ask you to revisit this issue, using this board's resources.

I dont think it is a distortion at all. If there was any distortion it lies in the way Lenin and co distorted the meaning of socialism to suit their own political ends. Marxism and Leninism are in reality two quite different and in many ways opposed paradigms. Leninism was essentially the adaptation and indeed significant misrepresentation of Marxism in a number of important ways to serve as a rhetorical garb to justify and oversee the solidification of capitalist relations of production in Russia in a state capitalist disguise. I dont deny that Lenin had a reasonable grasp of what Marxism was about. Im not even suggesting that he, or indeed others among the Bolsheviks, did not seriously desire to bring about a communist society. What I am saying is that communism without mass understanding was not possible in Russia then but by pretending that the Bolsheviks had , or could have, achieved anything other than a capitalist revolution is the greatest distortion of all

robbo203

31st January 2009, 14:47

Some prefer to use the term 'lower stage of communism' to describe a transitional or socialist society. Are you opposed to making this distinction?

Traditionally, there was no distinction between socialism and communism in the Marxian tradition. They were synonyms. It was Lenin and some figures in the Second International who introduced the distinction. But that is an aside

Your main point is really about whether I accept the need to make a dictinction between the lower and higher phases of a communist society and whether the former can be seen as a kind of transition to the later. Essentially I have no quarrel with the idea of a lower and higher phase. I wouldn't call "lower" communism a transitional "society" - since lower and higher communism is still the same society! These terms just refer to different phases of that society - communism (or socialism)

This is very different to the concept of a so called transition between capitalism and communism. I reject that idea completely. It is theoretically unsound. Its akin to saying you can be a little bit pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not.

Places like the Soviet Union et al which claimed to locate themselves in some transistional limbo between capitalism and communism were nothing of the sort. They were simply a continuation of capitalism in a state capitalist guise. Why? Because they all exhibited the primary features of capitalism and in particular commodity production and wage labour.

If you are going to advocate a transition to full "free access" communism then the only legitimate basis for such a transition is a communist basis. The labour voucher scheme casually suggested by Marx is predicated on just such a communist basis and, as such, legitimately constituted a transitional phase to full communism (although I dont myself actually support the idea of labour vouchers)

Cumannach

31st January 2009, 18:04

I wouldn't call "lower" communism a transitional "society" - since lower and higher communism is still the same society!

Why is one called lower and one called higher if they are the same society?

robbo203

1st February 2009, 09:42

Why is one called lower and one called higher if they are the same society?

This was explained in the Critique of the Gotha Programme. Concerning the lower phase of communism this is what Marx said:

What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it comes."

In its essentials however lower communism is the same as higher communism, based on common ownership of the means of production. It was just that some form of labour time accounting similar to Robert Owens labour certificates was judged necessary by Marx in the lower phase to habituate people into the practice of cooperating for the common good.

Lenin however introduced a distinction which did not exist in Marx and Engels. In The state and Revolution for example he said :

But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism

Then in Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Lenin claimed

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

So according to Lenin socialism was both the lower phase of communism AND state capitalist monopoly made to run in the interests of the whole people. Even the most ardent Lenin worshipper must surely have some difficulty in trying to explain away these verbal gymnatics!

Indeed, Lenin even went to argue on the need for a centralised banking system in "socialism" implying the existence of a monetary economy (which Marx had emphatically could not possibly exist in communist society).

Capitalism has created an accounting apparatus in the shape of the banks, syndicates, postal service, consumers' societies, and office employees unions. Without the big banks socialism would be impossible.
The big banks are the state apparatus which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready made from capitalism; our task is merely to lop off what characteristically mutilates this excellent apparatus, to make it even bigger, even more democratic, even more comprehensive. Quantity will be transformed into quality.
A single state bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus. This will be country-wide book-keeping, country-wide accounting of the production and distribution of goods, this will be, so to speak, something in the nature of the skeleton of socialist society. Lenin, Ibid, Vol.26 page 106.

No doubt Lenin would favourably look upon the current rescue package being organised for his "democratic" buddies in the banking world!

The fact remains - what the Bolsveviks introduced was a brutal system of state run capitalism and to that end Lenin and his cohorts were prepared to use all manner of means to distort and misrepresent marxism for their own capitalist ends

ckaihatsu

1st February 2009, 12:37

Am I saying that a Leninist elite that proposes to enact a revolution without mass understanding and support for communism is doomed "automatically" to oversee the solidification of capitalist relations. You bet I am! Let me throw the ball back in your court. Do you accept that communism is only possible with this mass understanding? If so, then , without that mass understanding, what else do you think could have happened? If not capitalism what else? Because it could certainly not be communism

What I am saying is that communism without mass understanding was not possible in Russia then but by pretending that the Bolsheviks had , or could have, achieved anything other than a capitalist revolution is the greatest distortion of all

Your distrust of revolutionary leadership is your own personal (political) problem, Robbo. It is sad to see, but I am not of the inclination to try to convince you otherwise or to change your mind so that you correct your inaccurate characterization of the Bolshevik Revolution.

For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.

So according to Lenin socialism was both the lower phase of communism AND state capitalist monopoly made to run in the interests of the whole people. Even the most ardent Lenin worshipper must surely have some difficulty in trying to explain away these verbal gymnatics!

Indeed, Lenin even went to argue on the need for a centralised banking system in "socialism" implying the existence of a monetary economy (which Marx had emphatically could not possibly exist in communist society).

You should realize that *time* is linear, and so we *have* to move in linear portions from one state of being to another. If the existing banking infrastructure can be *repurposed* in the short-term, until it can be entirely dismantled by bottom-up workers' collectives and labor, then why *not* do it???

You're also forgetting that *any* economic system is still going to be based on materialism since we are talking about material things here -- there would *have* to be *some* kind of material accounting infrastructure in place whether it's a revolutionary or post-revolutionary situation.

sanpal

1st February 2009, 15:27

Revolution (or communist revolution) means revolutionary transformation of capitalism into communism or in other words, it means replacement of the capitalist mode of production by the communist mode of production. So it is very obviously "after revolution" when this transformation is finished it will be only communism (communist mode of production). What talk then about? More interesting to talk about the transformation itself.

As i see it all discussions are going around how this transformation must be running.
I'm sure many have seen on tv a short video clip where was shown male face which gradually, fluently, without fitful moving is transformed into female face, or something else like this.
It has been made with the help of the special computer programme.
It seems to me someone here considers transformation of capitalist mode of production (monetary system) into communist mode of production (moneyless system) gradually, fluently with the help of analog of "the special computer programme" = "class struggle".
It was great mistake of the 20-th century and maybe it seems to be of the 21-th century too, if not to clear it.

Monetary system cannot be dismantled gradually or partly because of the reason that it leads to appearing of the economic ugly creature (semi-market / semi-non-market) = socialism "a la Duhring" (a la Stalin).
Indeed this ugly sort of society needs permanent "class struggle" in the form of fighting against dissents and extra-economic compulsion to productive labour, against underfloor (black market) economy, etc. The capitalist mode of production can be only gradually replaced by ... but not gradually transformed into ... communist mode of production.

What i mean under "The capitalist mode of production can be only gradually replaced by the communist mode of production"?
Well, it could be imagined like the red spots (communist sector of economy) gradually cover over blue field (tradition capitalist sector of economy + state capitalist sector of economy). Gradually red spots more and more cover over blue field and finally blue spots remain in minority as single fragments. This process conforms to definition of "the state withering away" i.e. the majority of society come to selfmanagement, emancipation of working people from wage slavery become a reality, etc. It is important that communist sector(s) of economy must not be as semi-communist but only as full economic mechanism (LTV for example). The same principle concerns money/market mechanism - it mustn't be as "semi-".

Very suitable sentence could be here which robbo203 has said:

Its akin to saying you can be a little bit pregnant. You are either pregnant or you are not.
which means: red spot must be RED, blue spot must be BLUE but not as merging of red colour with blue colour to get as violet colour.

robbo203

1st February 2009, 15:42

Your distrust of revolutionary leadership is your own personal (political) problem, Robbo. It is sad to see, but I am not of the inclination to try to convince you otherwise or to change your mind so that you correct your inaccurate characterization of the Bolshevik Revolution..

I am baffled by this response. My point was very simple. Communism simply cannot come into being without a vast majority wanting it and understanding what it means. The so called revolutionary leadership is irrelevant. They cannot introduce communism for us and on our behalf. We have to do this ourselves. We, after all, in our millions have to operate such a society. And it doesnt matter whether the revolutionary leaders are brimful with personal integrity and good intent. Relying on them rather than ourselves means you will never ever get communism. This is not a question of trust or distrust. It is simply stating a fact

You should realize that *time* is linear, and so we *have* to move in linear portions from one state of being to another. If the existing banking infrastructure can be *repurposed* in the short-term, until it can be entirely dismantled by bottom-up workers' collectives and labor, then why *not* do it??? ..

But this is like saying if we can "repurpose" capitalism why not keep it, why not get it to function in the interest of the working class? Now you know as well as I that that that is sheer idealistic nonsense. You cannot get a leopard to change its spots. You cannot change the nature of the beast. The purpose of the banking structure is intimately tied up with the purpose and existence of capitalism. You cannot have a banking structure inside communism because the very nature of communism - common ownership of the means of living - precludes economic exchange, buying and selling . money and ,yes, banks too along with all the other wasteful activities associated with keeping this anachronistic system in existence

You're also forgetting that *any* economic system is still going to be based on materialism since we are talking about material things here -- there would *have* to be *some* kind of material accounting infrastructure in place whether it's a revolutionary or post-revolutionary situation.

Of course but who said anything about there not be any accounting in communism. I am only saying there will not be capitalist accounting based on market prices because in communism you do not have a market system. There will however be calculation in kind which the German Marxist Otto Neurath wrote extensively about. It is calculation in kind that is essential to any kind of economic system, not market-based accounting. If you disagree with that statement then you have strange allies in the form of the anarcho-capitalist brigade whose guru is Ludwig von Mises. Von Mises argument however has been comprehensively rebutted and I would be more than happy to discuss why if you want to go down this road

Lynx

1st February 2009, 18:14

If you are going to advocate a transition to full "free access" communism then the only legitimate basis for such a transition is a communist basis. The labour voucher scheme casually suggested by Marx is predicated on just such a communist basis and, as such, legitimately constituted a transitional phase to full communism (although I dont myself actually support the idea of labour vouchers)
Yes, this 'scheme' is what I am referring to. I have tended to call this phase 'transitional' or 'socialist' and also recognize the term 'lower communism'. Once LTV are no longer required by workers, it is then claimed we have reached the higher level of communism, aka the gift economy.

We can say it is the same society, one with lower, then higher levels of awareness. But surely this is a semantic issue?

With regard to 'vanguardism':
A worker led movement within a representative democracy is very unlikely. Long before workers have gained class consciousness, politicians will have harnessed their initial discontent into winning electoral campaigns. If those politicians believe themselves to be revolutionaries they will hopefully effect revolutionary change, not just mere reforms. Once again, a revolution will (claim to) have occurred, whilst led by a small minority.
It seems to me the revolutionary left has always failed to educate workers prior to a revolution, making vanguardism inevitable.

Die Neue Zeit

1st February 2009, 21:02

With regard to 'vanguardism':
A worker led movement within a representative democracy is very unlikely. Long before workers have gained class consciousness, politicians will have harnessed their initial discontent into winning electoral campaigns. If those politicians believe themselves to be revolutionaries they will hopefully effect revolutionary change, not just mere reforms. Once again, a revolution will (claim to) have occurred, whilst led by a small minority.
It seems to me the revolutionary left has always failed to educate workers prior to a revolution, making vanguardism inevitable.

I should add some clarification here: A worker-led movement within the boundaries of representative electoralism is very unlikely. If you recall Cockshott's most recent paper on democracy (http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/ope/archive/0809/att-0160/leadershipconcepts.pdf), the top-most body that combines legislative and executive power and is free from judicial "checks and balances" is still "representative" in terms of being selected by lot.

I do suppose that the "initial discontent" could be cynically channeled into reform platforms, which then lead to the random selection of individuals committed to implementing that platform.

ckaihatsu

2nd February 2009, 00:54

I am baffled by this response. My point was very simple. Communism simply cannot come into being without a vast majority wanting it and understanding what it means. The so called revolutionary leadership is irrelevant. They cannot introduce communism for us and on our behalf. We have to do this ourselves. We, after all, in our millions have to operate such a society. And it doesnt matter whether the revolutionary leaders are brimful with personal integrity and good intent. Relying on them rather than ourselves means you will never ever get communism. This is not a question of trust or distrust. It is simply stating a fact

Okay, I *do* agree with this statement of yours here.

But this is like saying if we can "repurpose" capitalism why not keep it, why not get it to function in the interest of the working class? Now you know as well as I that that that is sheer idealistic nonsense. You cannot get a leopard to change its spots. You cannot change the nature of the beast. The purpose of the banking structure is intimately tied up with the purpose and existence of capitalism. You cannot have a banking structure inside communism because the very nature of communism - common ownership of the means of living - precludes economic exchange, buying and selling . money and ,yes, banks too along with all the other wasteful activities associated with keeping this anachronistic system in existence

Okay, I appreciate your profound abhorrence with all institutions of capitalism. I don't *mean* to argue for the preservation of historically bourgeois economic practices -- let me put it this way then: Given a mass revolutionary consciousness that swells up at the same time all over the world, about evenly, what would be the first thing on the agenda, once bourgeois politicians are soundly ignored?

The scenario would require an *economic* solution, preferably one that would make the most of the concentration of factories (means of mass production) and supply chains and financial relationships that the capitalist society has built up.

I could understand the argument for a ground-up reorganization of (now-)worker-based society, if this is what you're arguing. Should we adopt a "Night-of-the-Comet" kind of mentality, and try to "find" each other anew and build up a new economics and politics into the shell of the former world?

Of course but who said anything about there not be any accounting in communism. I am only saying there will not be capitalist accounting based on market prices because in communism you do not have a market system. There will however be calculation in kind which the German Marxist Otto Neurath wrote extensively about. It is calculation in kind that is essential to any kind of economic system, not market-based accounting. If you disagree with that statement then you have strange allies in the form of the anarcho-capitalist brigade whose guru is Ludwig von Mises. Von Mises argument however has been comprehensively rebutted and I would be more than happy to discuss why if you want to go down this road

No, no, I assure you I do *not* have any orientation towards *any* kind of a market system whatsoever. I'll look into the Otto Neurath thing -- also please feel free to outline it here, if you like.

Dave B

2nd February 2009, 21:14

The ‘vanguardist’ approach was described in The Class Struggles In France
Introduction by Frederick Engels, Written: 1895

This was a ‘political’ position that Engels admitted that they had once held circa 1850 and then subsequently rejected.

It is up to Leninists and Trotskyists to work out for themselves how closely this rejected position fits in with their own.

Was not this just the situation in which a revolution had to succeed, led certainly by a minority, but this time not in the interests of the minority, but in the real interests of the majority? If, in all the longer revolutionary periods, it was so easy to win the great masses of the people by the merely plausible and delusive views of the minorities thrusting themselves forward, how could they be less susceptible to ideas which were the truest reflex of their economic position, which were nothing but the clear, comprehensible expression of their needs, of needs not yet understood by themselves, but only vaguely felt?

To be sure, this revolutionary mood of the masses had almost always, and usually very speedily, given way to lassitude or even to a revulsion to its opposite, so soon as illusion evaporated and disappointment set in.
But here it was not a question of delusive views, but of giving effect to the very special interests of the great majority itself, interests, which at that time were certainly by no means clear to this great majority, but which must soon enough become clear in the course of giving practical effect to them, by their convincing obviousness.

And later;

The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair.

And then there is in the; Works of Frederick Engels 1874
The Program of the Blanquist Fugitives from the Paris Commune

Blanquists, being in the;

1891 Introduction by Frederick Engels, On the 20th Anniversary of the Paris Commune, postscript;

Brought up in the school of conspiracy, and held together by the strict discipline which went with it, they started out from the viewpoint that a relatively small number of resolute, well-organized men would be able, at a given favorable moment, not only seize the helm of state, but also by energetic and relentless action, to keep power until they succeeded in drawing the mass of the people into the revolution and ranging them round the small band of leaders. this conception involved, above all, the strictest dictatorship and centralization of all power in the hands of the new revolutionary government.

If that isn’t Leninism, what is?

Leon of course, from the Trotskyist school of falsification, swatted away The Class Struggles In France, Introduction by Frederick Engels, thing in;

The History of the Russian Revolution, Chapter 43, The Art of Insurrection;

As it has come up before, Engels retained the threat of insurrection as a counter threat, as the German government was at the time threatening to take away universal suffrage.