Results 41 to 53 of 53
Cause the argument he is putting forth is one which is ultimately 'power corrupts,' a notion which traces its roots to classical liberalism. The best of the anarchists have abandoned this notion about a century ago, but the vast majority of anarchists on revleft (including 'lets get free' are nothing but liberals waving black flags and coming from idealist paradigms). The only good anarchists I've engaged in polemics with on the site are VMC and Tim Cornellis (however Tim has recently stopped identifying as an anarchist).
Not saying that "power corrupts," but that social relationships matter. every human power seeks to enlarge its prerogatives. He who has acquired power will almost always endeavor to consolidate and extend it, to multiply the ramparts which defend his position, and to withdraw himself from the control of the masses. Anyone who subscribes to a 'materialist analysis' should know this. No ruling class in history has ever voluntarily given up power, and this so-called workers state will be no different.
Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
-James Baldwin
"We change ideas like neckties."
- E.M. Cioran
No once again you are coming from the paradigm of power corrupts. Positing the withering away of the state as the actions of benevolent bureaucrats shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the material conditions which lead to said state 'withering away' as well as the material conditions which lead to a state to begin with.
I don't think that's the case, honestly. I can't speak for him, but the whole critique of the state is largely based on an understanding of the dangers of a centralized state, bureaucratic power structures, standing armies, etc. Believe it or not, but that's the type of state that most Marxists promote.
As a Marxist, I know fully what type of state that I promote and in the immediate aftermath of insurrection, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, in most material conditions, it will be a centralized organization.
So how exactly does this "Proletarian state" "whither away"? Considering a state implies a ruling class and a ruling class implies a class system that arises from material factors, do these material factors simply "whither away"? Will this workers state effect a revolution against itself after its job is done?
Any real change implies the breakup of the world as one has always known it, the loss of all that gave one an identity, the end of safety. And at such a moment, unable to see and not daring to imagine what the future will now bring forth, one clings to what one knew, or dreamed that one possessed. Yet, it is only when a man is able, without bitterness or self-pity, to surrender a dream he has long possessed that he is set free - he has set himself free - for higher dreams, for greater privileges.”
-James Baldwin
"We change ideas like neckties."
- E.M. Cioran
The workers state withers away due to material conditions. A state doesn't arise in a vacuum, but due to class antagonisms; where irreconcilable class antagonisms exists, so will a state. It is, after all, a by product of class antagonisms. The idea that anarchists have, that they can create a stateless society in an isolated area, is honestly so absurd. Regardless of whether or not you wish to call federated soviets a state or not, misses the point: statelessness is only possible on a global scale. I've in the past made comments on how centralization and decentralization have been taken (by both dogmatic anarchists, as well as Marxists) to be considered as principles as opposed to tactics. Until the proletariat succeeds in its historic goal of abolishing itself as a social class (as well as surpassing classes, both tasks which can only be achieved on a global scale) states will exist (as a direct result of class society).
No it will not. This once again shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a state; it isn't some entity which can act on its own right, I don't understand why anarchists give the state this mythical consciousness or power.
If a workers state takes the form pf an armed democratic commune or workers council used to suppress the bourgeoisie i see no reason why anarchists would oppose it since historically they've actually participated in these forms of organization, i mean if this is what you're proposing you should be more specific to avoid semantics since i know alot of anarchists who have wholeheartedly advocated the DotP.Describing the state as a hierarchical,centralized body is inherently against the interest of the proletariat as it will cause a separate consciousness from the workers,creating a class of bureaucrats which is unhealthy,unneeded and outdated.
"You can have all my shine I'll give you the lighttt"
It depends on the situation, on the material conditions in existence. Like I said above, decentralization and centralization are tactics and not principles. In certain cases the former or the latter will be more conducive to material conditions and to insist on one or the other, regardless of material conditions, is pure dogmatism. Some centralization will most likely be needed (largely for military purposes, given that the displaced bourgeoisie will mount an attempt at returning to their position of class hegemony), however ultimately federated soviets is the end goal.
Just because you keep repeating something over and over doesn't make it true. I've already dealt with this point multiple times and all this is regurgitated rhetoric. There is no substance to this statement. How does this new class spontaneously emerge, when the means of production are all held in common? What is this new consciousness which arises? How is centralization inherently against the interests of the proletariat? How is centralization 'unhealthy, unneeded and outdated' (this to me, seems exactly like the dogmatic approach I was outlining above)?
Unless you have some serious and detailed responses to those questions, then I see no reason to continue in polemics on the matter.
Yeah, the Soviet Union. Nobody can yet explain why the SU simply collapsed one day. Marx and Engels explained it 150 yrs ago.
There are two different critiques - one is against centralism, the other is against the vanguard party, which is a particular notion of centralism outlined by Lenin and developed further by the majority of Communist parties after 1917.
A critique of the bureaucracy is not necessarily one of "power corrupts absolutely" so much as "a monopoly over the means of production by a group of people, regardless who they are, will lead to different interests between themselves and the masses of workers". There's really no other way to explain a counter-revolution that had a benefit for the greater majority of state bureaucrats who sought Capitalism as a more efficient way of exploiting the means of production. The problem with the vanguard party is that over time it leads to a fundamental alienation between the ruling elites and the workers, especially if there is no direct accountability towards the ruling elites on the part of the workers. It's a useful strategy for toppling an authoritarian despotism during a war but is it going to be the most effective strategy in all cases, and how do the workers ensure that the members of the Vanguard Party continue to work in their interests?
The bigger question from a strategic point of view is whether hierarchies in the abstract are necessarily going to cause these divisions, or how they can be used to actually liberate those on the lowest rungs of society.
Also, no strategy or system of organization is perfect. From a strategic point of view and regarding their ability to actually "liberate" the working class in the long run, they each have different advantages and disadvantages in certain contexts. Lenin's model was simply perfectly suited to ride the wave of the Urban proletariat in St Petersburg and the other major cities. The EZLN's model, which is anti-hierarchical, has worked effectively in parts of rural Mexico where people are accustomed to local, communal governance of political affairs and the means of production but its spread has mostly been limited to indigenous communities. Mao, Ho Chih Mihn and the Nepalese Maoists used forms of a mass people's war which worked in their context but failed to produce socialism to their countries, and which has failed in numerous other countries since. Castro and Guevara offered a model which was perfectly suited to take power in Cuba in 1959, but unsuited for Cold War Bolivia and Congo. Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales were able to win a number of elections and consolidate economic power in state hands, but similar politicians have not been elected in every Latin American country and the ability of those governments to produce anything close to "real socialism" is questionable. In a way, talking about these models in absolutist terms seems to be a mistaken method of criticism. They each had a particular place and historical context in which they were wildly successful - to a point of course, as all of the old-guard "Leninist" regimes except arguably the Cubans ended up collapsing, becoming Capitalist republics, or turning into peculiar military despotisms in the case of the DPRK.
Last edited by Sinister Cultural Marxist; 26th February 2013 at 21:46.
Socialist Party of Outer Space
I think there were elements in the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution of undermining the separation of "state and people" -- i.e. expanding the sphere of direct popular control, subjecting authorities of all kinds to criticism and public scrutiny, establishing a principle of "great debates" over the heights of policy (not just minor local matters) and more.
Clearly power was shredded in ways intended to break up "water tight kingdoms" that were consolidating (not weakening) class society.
Among the Maoists these were called "socialist new things" on the larger "communist road."
