Single-Party State/Questions on Democracy

[Jacob Cliff]

Is the dictatorship of the proletariat animated by the proletarian party, i.e. by the Vanguard Party?

I've heard this claim innumerable times, and I of course agree with the notion that the social revolution puts socialism as its goal, and doesn't need to pay homage to passing moods of democracy that might compromise that goal.

However, there does arrive a problem which, frankly, I'm not sure how to counter:

At what point would one insure that the excessively repressive nature of the state to cease? How would you prevent the Vanguard of the Proletariat -- which may do with the country as it pleases, and not being accountable to democratic processes from below -- from becoming a dictatorship over the proletariat? What measures, exactly, would eliminate the pressing matters of bureaucratic growth in a centrally-planned economy, or where the state is governed by an exclusive, minority power?

I'm struggling to understand how, inevitably, Party dictatorship would not constitute a new ruling class. If "class" is based on relations to production, and in the transitional state, if those relations merely take on the form of state-managers and party-bureaucrats, then where exactly does this not classify itself as a new ruling class?

I'm not relapsing into Anarchism, but I'd just like a quick rebuttal to these common claims.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The key is to keep the party in power politicized in the first place.

Historian Moshe Lewin wrote that what passed for a "one-party" system in the Soviet Union was, in fact, a "no party" state. The "Communist Party" of the Soviet Union ceased being a politicized entity and became simply a de facto state organ.

A genuine one-party system would ensure that the sole political party remains independent from the broader "workers' state," and if bold enough, would place the former in political opposition to the latter. This would happen even as the sole political party keeps on transferring its experienced members to the "state" side and cancelling the voting memberships of those individuals.

[Jacob Cliff]

Historian Moshe Lewin wrote that what passed for a "one-party" system in the Soviet Union was, in fact, a "no party" state. The "Communist Party" of the Soviet Union ceased being a politicized entity and became simply a de facto state organ.

So since it was a de facto state organ, it therefore ceases to qualify as a "politicized entity"? But is it not the goal of us communists to have a party that is not outside the proletarian dictatorship, but is internalized in it? In other words: is the transformation of the Party into the supreme state organ not the ultimate task of the proletarian party? I don't understand how the communist party being detached from the organs of state power would mean it is "non-politicized entity," nor do I understand how this at all entails that the dictatorship of the party would not be a dictatorship over the proletariat. I appreciate your answer, but I am not at all, in the slightest, seeing your point clearly. Could you elaborate?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So since it was a de facto state organ, it therefore ceases to qualify as a "politicized entity"?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=30

“In the 1930s, the organization calling itself the ‘party’ had already lost its political character; it had been transformed into an administrative network, wherein a hierarchy ruled a rank and file”. Indeed, by the latter years of the regime, the party had literally become “a corpse”.

But is it not the goal of us communists to have a party that is not outside the proletarian dictatorship, but is internalized in it? In other words: is the transformation of the Party into the supreme state organ not the ultimate task of the proletarian party?

Zdhanov and Kuznetsov disagreed: http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-po...796/index.html

The ultimate task of the worker-class party-movement is to expropriate all public policymaking functions for itself. Public policymaking is a different beast from even the best forms of administration.

I don't understand how the communist party being detached from the organs of state power would mean it is "non-politicized entity," nor do I understand how this at all entails that the dictatorship of the party would not be a dictatorship over the proletariat. I appreciate your answer, but I am not at all, in the slightest, seeing your point clearly. Could you elaborate?

I'll answer with a rhetorical question: What if "all power to workers' councils" instead were re-imagined to mean "all power to workers' party-movement councils"? So instead of a supreme soviet or congress of soviets, institute the party congress itself as a working body in continuous session.

"In continuous session" is the only saving grace of small-p parliamentarism, as this means being able to continuously hold subordinate bodies to account (which rubber-stamping, once-every-few-months-or-years party congresses couldn't do), while "working body" refers to the Marxist criticism of parliaments devolving into mere talking shops.

Which bodies need to be held to account periodically? Central administrative organs (i.e., sovnarkom, sovmin, etc.).

Orthodox Marxists have understood the mass party-movement, derived from the pre-war SPD model, as itself already being the entire "class for itself." The feared "dictatorship over the proletariat" scenario arises when there is a deviation from that pre-war SPD model, which unfortunately the Comintern "parties of a new type" did.

[Jacob Cliff]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.p...8&postcount=30





Zdhanov and Kuznetsov disagreed: http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-po...796/index.html

The ultimate task of the worker-class party-movement is to expropriate all public policymaking functions for itself. Public policymaking is a different beast from even the best forms of administration.



I'll answer with a rhetorical question: What if "all power to workers' councils" instead were re-imagined to mean "all power to workers' party-movement councils"? So instead of a supreme soviet or congress of soviets, institute the party congress itself as a working body in continuous session.

"In continuous session" is the only saving grace of small-p parliamentarism, as this means being able to continuously hold subordinate bodies to account (which rubber-stamping, once-every-few-months-or-years party congresses couldn't do), while "working body" refers to the Marxist criticism of parliaments devolving into mere talking shops.

Which bodies need to be held to account periodically? Central administrative organs (i.e., sovnarkom, sovmin, etc.).

Orthodox Marxists have understood the mass party-movement, derived from the pre-war SPD model, as itself already being the entire "class for itself." The feared "dictatorship over the proletariat" scenario arises when there is a deviation from that pre-war SPD model, which unfortunately the Comintern "parties of a new type" did.

Hm, interesting -- it's late where I am, so I'll probably read more attentively tomorrow -- but is what you're saying that, essentially, the merging of the state with the party (or: the internalized nature of the party) just sort of left it as some hierarchical, administrative functionary which wasn't necessarily leading society insofar that it was merely managing it in a very bureaucratic way?

And is that less statement, on the "party congress itself acting in continuous session" -- do you mean this in the literal sense; that the Party Congress would be constantly in session rather than some meet-up every so many years, or do you mean this in a more figurative sense -- that we ought to break down power relations into miniature "workers' councils" under the, I don't know, control of the party?

Because the former supposition would, perhaps, slow down decision making, no?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hm, interesting -- it's late where I am, so I'll probably read more attentively tomorrow -- but is what you're saying that, essentially, the merging of the state with the party (or: the internalized nature of the party) just sort of left it as some hierarchical, administrative functionary which wasn't necessarily leading society insofar that it was merely managing it in a very bureaucratic way?

Precisely. The official CPSU may have been the "leading nucleus" or whatever within every major social organization (from the Academy of Sciences to the most prominent cultural societies to the armed forces), but there were no open debates on public policy, beyond the local district level.

And is that [last] statement, on the "party congress itself acting in continuous session" -- do you mean this in the literal sense; that the Party Congress would be constantly in session rather than some meet-up every so many years

Yes, just like the lower house of a bicameral legislature in any country.

or do you mean this in a more figurative sense -- that we ought to break down power relations into miniature "workers' councils" under the, I don't know, control of the party?

Both. There's the Central Workers' Council (the renamed party central committee), and there are the lower workers' councils (the renamed lower party committees). All these are party-movement organs, not spontaneous ones. After all, in my scenario above (not all ortho-Marxist comrades share my opinion, but at least they understand), there needn't be any nominally independent (from the party-movement) workers' councils for public policymaking at all.

The Central Workers' Council (the renamed party central committee) should be provided sufficient public resources to meet in continuous session. The lower workers' councils (the renamed lower party committees) should be provided sufficient public resources to meet either in continuous session or however frequently municipal councils meet.

If there must be ad hoc, nominally independent workers' councils, they could simply be called Workers' Consultative Conferences, based on what the pre-constitution regime of the PRC labelled their legislature for five years: Political Consultative Conference. These bodies can meet in the usual format of traditional workers' councils (once every few weeks or months), and by actually functioning as consultative conferences demonstrate to workers at large why they are ineffective at holding other bodies to account.

What does this mean "state-side" (the formal government)? Well, there need be no congress of soviets or supreme soviet, but just the executive committee or council of ministers (i.e., cabinet).

"All power to the workers' movement councils" could have rendered unnecessary the tragic, undemocratic Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918.

[Jacob Cliff]

Hm, this is certainly a very interesting view. But I do wonder: is maybe designating the SU as a "no party state," in the literal sense, maybe splitting hairs? I think you've convinced me through-and-through on the nature OF the Party, but does this view literally claim that the CPSU was not a Party at all given the circumstances? Maybe not the form of a single-party state we'd likely want to see, but still a single-party state nevertheless? Or is this mistaken?

Yes, just like the lower house of a bicameral legislature in any country.

The Central Workers' Council (the renamed party central committee) should be provided sufficient public resources to meet in continuous session. The lower workers' councils (the renamed lower party committees) should be provided sufficient public resources to meet either in continuous session or however frequently municipal councils meet.

But wouldn't the constant debates and ultra-openness maybe, I don't know, compromise state secrets and plans or, even to a greater extent, slow down progress? If there's a huge crisis that needs immediate attention, and there is no equivalent to what the Bolsheviks had as a Central Executive Committee, then I fear a long drawn-out debate would ensure if it's a very polarizing but urgent issue. Not just that, but internal factions within the party on perpetual debate would, as far as I'm seeing it, act as a de facto multiparty state, with different factions competing and maybe even subverting each other to end up with what they want.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Hm, this is certainly a very interesting view. But I do wonder: is maybe designating the SU as a "no party state," in the literal sense, maybe splitting hairs?

Not at all. It may have been officially a "one-party system," but in substance it was anything but.

But wouldn't the constant debates and ultra-openness maybe, I don't know, compromise state secrets and plans or, even to a greater extent, slow down progress?

Political transparency is the principle here, not the equivalent of "private property" in the access to information.

If there's a huge crisis that needs immediate attention, and there is no equivalent to what the Bolsheviks had as a Central Executive Committee, then I fear a long drawn-out debate would ensure if it's a very polarizing but urgent issue. Not just that, but internal factions within the party on perpetual debate would, as far as I'm seeing it, act as a de facto multiparty state, with different factions competing and maybe even subverting each other to end up with what they want.

Well, there was quite a debate leading to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, within the soviet bodies and within the RSDLP(B) central committee.

Now that you bring the issue of factions into the picture: http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-sup...81#post2484681

There are currents, platforms, and tendencies. There are also factions and factionalism. Bans on the first three are bad. Permanent bans on the last two are a must, according to Marx vs. Bakunin.

[Jacob Cliff]

Alright, thanks.

Although, perhaps in extreme circumstances (such as a newborn revolution), political transparency in its absolute form is something undesirable -- if saboteurs and spies can see and listen to policy as its being discussed, such as maybe the assistance of this-or-that revolutionary movement in a certain country, then I don't know if this would be a healthy environment for the proletarian dictatorship.