|
Post by Vperyod on Jul 22, 2004 7:27:31 GMT -5
I just finished reading State and Revolution for the first time. An excellent, well presented piece of theory from Lenin. However, compared later works from Stalin and Mao, it is the only work that a) stresses the withering away of the state b) stresses popular partcipation and mass democracy. In fact, Marx, Engels and Lenin seem to stress the Paris Commune so much, that it seems that Stalinism and Maoism are in fact well revisionist (ditto Trotskyism). Could someone help explain to me where Maoists and even Stalinists stand on this work?
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Jul 22, 2004 12:12:26 GMT -5
Maoists do indeed uphold much of what Lenin said in State and revolution, however I disagree with the characterization of the work that Vperyod presented:
However, compared later works from Stalin and Mao, it is the only work that a) stresses the withering away of the state b) stresses popular partcipation and mass democracy.
There are several points that Lenin emphasizes as essential to Marx and Engels on the state -
1) Lenin strongly pointed out that recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat was an important difference between Marxism and various forms of bourgeois ideology, including revisionism.
2) he emphasized that this recognition means nothing less than upholding the necessity for violent revolution on the part of the working class and the smashing of the state apparatus of the bourgeoisie.
3)he underlined the transitional nature of socialism.
Can you go more into what you mean by 'popular participation and mass democracy'? How would this look to you?
Do you see specific failings in this area in the Soviet Union under Stalin's leadership or in China under Mao's leadership?
|
|
|
Post by Here on Jul 22, 2004 13:00:59 GMT -5
Methinks a good idea would be to read What is To Be Done, now. By Comrade Vladimir.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Jul 22, 2004 13:19:57 GMT -5
Here said: Methinks a good idea would be to read What is To Be Done, now. By Comrade Vladimir.
I have to agree!!
|
|
|
Post by Vperyod on Jul 22, 2004 15:06:08 GMT -5
Rosa, these are the points raised by Lenin that seem to be absent in Maoism (from what historical experience there has been with Maoism however). 1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials. 2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker. 3. No standing army but the armed people. 4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."
This kind of thing was put into place immediately by the Paris Commune. Sure the commune was smashed, but mind you it only existed in one city. Now Lenin always stressed the need for education of the workers. However, by the early 1950's when there were a slew of experts that had gone through Soviet schools (how else did Stalin get the a-bomb, build computers etc.) the ability to at least recall representitives was lacking and bureaucrats were not rotated.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 23, 2004 12:18:35 GMT -5
Vperyod wrote: ...these are the points raised by Lenin that seem to be absent in Maoism (from what historical experience there has been with Maoism however).
1. Free and democratic elections with right of recall of all officials.
2. No official must receive a higher wage than a skilled worker.
3. No standing army but the armed people.
4. Gradually, all the tasks of running the state should be carried out by the masses on a rotating basis. When everybody is a bureaucrat in turn, nobody is a bureaucrat. Or, as Lenin put it, "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."
Lenin's State and Revolution is the most unusual book of all those that he "wrote".
I say "wrote" because most of it is a "copy & paste" job; Lenin diligently searched out every scrap of Marx and Engels that he could find wherein those two guys discussed post-capitalist society.
If memory serves me, there is hardly any mention in this work of the "vanguard party" or its "leading role". Why? Marx and Engels never discussed such a thing...to them it was the masses that made history.
Another interesting thing about State and Revolution is that it had no relationship to Lenin's actual practice following the Bolshevik seizure of power. Although state officials were not supposed to receive a higher salary than ordinary workers, it was easy to set up a system of "perks"...good apartments, cars, special food rations, etc. Bolshevik party members who held state positions lived considerably better than ordinary workers from the very beginning.
Needless to say, the recall of Bolshevik officials was never permitted at all. By 1919 or so, the soviets were "rubber-stamps" for official decrees.
So it makes one wonder: why did Lenin write it?
It's of course possible that he was completely sincere...he really thought that the measures he copied from Marx and Engels would be implemented after the revolution.
Or, he wrote it as a "recruiting pamphlet"...particularly addressed to those Russian workers attracted to anarchism. He wanted to "prove" that Bolsheviks were not "despotic Marxists".
If that was the case, it "worked" -- to this day, State and Revolution is a "must read" for potential recruits to most Leninist parties. And whenever Leninists feel "attacked" on the issue of proletarian democracy, State and Revolution is the text they reach for first.
Some Leninists will say that Lenin "would have" done all those good things...but the civil war made them "impossible".
A good excuse, one might be tempted to think. Yet after the civil war was over, things just got worse.
Not only did the soviets remain powerless, but even within the party itself the rules were changed in such a way as to reserve all substantive political debate to the leadership. Rank-and-file party members were no longer permitted to organize themselves to promote a change in the "line". Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were all in agreement on this step.
It is sometimes pretended (particularly by Trotskyists) that these measures were always intended to be "temporary" or "emergency" steps...but if you go back and actually read the speeches that were made at the time, there's not so much as a hint of "temporary" about them.
Thus, I think that State and Revolution was an aberration...a sharp departure from all of Lenin's other pre-revolutionary writings and irrelevant to his post-revolutionary practice.
The real core of the Leninist paradigm is found here...
"The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries...the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts...that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard."
That's what Leninism, in all its variants, means.
|
|
|
Post by MundoQueGanar on Jul 23, 2004 14:59:15 GMT -5
The real core of the Leninist paradigm is found here... "The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries...the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts...that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard."That's what Leninism, in all its variants, means. I'm curious, redstar, since you seem to disagree with Lenin's proposal, what is it that you find so disagreeable? I mean, it's obvious that the proletariat does not embrace revolutionary ideology, because if they did, a lot of our work would be already done. However, huge sections of the proletariat are more into bourgeois ideologies, voting, religion, and other "answers", sometimes even quite backward, anti-people stuff. Is a revolutionary party or organization supposed to just tail all that stuff? How ARE we supposed to deal with all the bullshit idologies left over from capitalism if we don't concentrate the advanced into the revolutionary party, and work to overcome the leadership/led contradiction by mass struggle and political education so that the masses are equipped to become the masters of society, and run it in their interests? I would love for you to be right about the masses being ready to transform society--I just look around though and see that that's not true. Am I wrong? If not, what do we DO about that? In other words, what is your program? What would you suggest revolutionaries do that is different than what Lenin did?I don't think it's enough to just trash Lenin--to me the real value of this board is in discussing positive proposals for how to actually make revolution in the USA, comparing different lines promoted by different forces and hashing out where they will lead. Let's take it THERE.
|
|
|
Post by VolOHara on Jul 23, 2004 15:28:10 GMT -5
"I'm curious, redstar, since you seem to disagree with Lenin's proposal, what is it that you find so disagreeable? "
I obviously can't speak for redstar but it seems to me he hit the nail on the head w/ this bit:
"The real core of the Leninist paradigm is found here...
'The dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be exercised through an organisation embracing the whole of the class, because in all capitalist countries...the proletariat is still so divided, so degraded, and so corrupted in parts...that an organisation taking in the whole proletariat cannot directly exercise proletarian dictatorship. It can be exercised only by a vanguard.'
That's what Leninism, in all its variants, means. "
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2004 15:49:11 GMT -5
The disagreeable part should be obvious. How can you speak of the working class emancipating themselves or of workers' power when you want to try and justify ruling over them in a party dictatorship?
If power is not actually in the hands of the ruling class themselves, what assurance do they have that the "dicatorship of the proletariat" is ruling things in their interest?
How is this any different than what we have now? Are we honestly supposed to believe that these "benevolent" dictators are going to be any different? You are only proposing to replace our current rulers with your own rulers, headed by your Chairman I'm sure. I don't care how much you guys think you have the "correct line" that is not something I would fight for.
|
|
|
Post by MundoQueGanar on Jul 23, 2004 16:32:12 GMT -5
The disagreeable part should be obvious. How can you speak of the working class emancipating themselves or of workers' power when you want to try and justify ruling over them in a party dictatorship? If power is not actually in the hands of the ruling class themselves, what assurance do they have that the "dicatorship of the proletariat" is ruling things in their interest? How is this any different than what we have now? Are we honestly supposed to believe that these "benevolent" dictators are going to be any different? You are only proposing to replace our current rulers with your own rulers, headed by your Chairman I'm sure. I don't care how much you guys think you have the "correct line" that is not something I would fight for. Well, that's fine, you can disagree with it all you want, but my question was more about the reality of where the working class is at and how to move it forward.Redstar hasn't weighed in yet and I look forward to his response, but I think this is where everyone should jump in. How do you solve that problem? It's all well and good to trash Lenin, but until you solve the problem of how to move the working class into the position where they not only see the need to run society in their interests but are actually able to do it, the rest is all academic. How do anarchists plan to solve that problem? Am I totally out in the stratosphere here, or am I talking about a real world problem? Or, to pose the bigger question, how are we going to make revolution? Who's going to make it happen, and how? Again, let's go THERE. Attack Lenin if you want to. But please, tell me how this is going to happen without leadership that understands the real world conditions and has a plan for overcoming them.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 24, 2004 8:51:09 GMT -5
MundoQueGanar wrote: I mean, it's obvious that the proletariat does not embrace revolutionary ideology, because if they did, a lot of our work would be already done. However, huge sections of the proletariat are more into bourgeois ideologies, voting, religion, and other "answers", sometimes even quite backward, anti-people stuff.
We live in a "period of reaction" and the influence of reactionary ideas appears to be overwhelming.
But periods of reaction are not permanent. After a while, a new generation appears, fresh and ready to "storm heaven".
When that happens, the fog of reactionary "consensus" dissipates...revealing the real strength of reactionary ideas (not much!) and the eagerness of the masses to take a fresh and critical look at everything.
As was noted by Lenin himself in the immediate aftermath of the February 1917 rising: the masses are far to the left of the party. (!)
I think this is a general truth and will remain so; no small group can ever be as thorough in criticizing the old order as the masses themselves...once they decide to do it.
MundoQueGanar wrote: How ARE we supposed to deal with all the bullshit ideologies left over from capitalism if we don't concentrate the advanced into the revolutionary party, and work to overcome the leadership/led contradiction by mass struggle and political education so that the masses are equipped to become the masters of society, and run it in their interests?
If you assume that the masses are not "equipped" to become "the masters of society" even at the very moment when they have overthrown the old order, then you have, at the same moment, assumed that you "are equipped" to do the job.
And once you find out how comfortable your bottom feels in that plush chair...why would you "ever" want to give it up? Or your kids? Or their kids?
All things considered, it's almost always better to be one of the "masters" than one of the...well, you know.
MundoQueGanar wrote: What would you suggest revolutionaries do that is different than what Lenin did?
I would suggest that we should begin by abandoning the conceit that our political consciousness (however "advanced") gives us "the right to rule".
It does no such thing!
We may, at best, facilitate a proletarian revolution and the transition from capitalism to communism...but we will not "lead" the revolution, much less "administer the transition" (rule) "on behalf of the proletariat".
There is nothing wrong about trying to develop revolutionary ideas as best we can and struggling for those ideas within the working class. Nor is there anything necessarily wrong with taking initiatives to demonstrate our ideas in practice.
There's not even anything wrong with conscious communists organizing themselves into a political group to advance the influence of communist ideas among the masses...though a "movement" is clearly superior to the old-style "party" framework.
But we must reject the idea that we are "history's darlings", the "chosen ones" who will "change the world" because of our "special insight" or "advanced political consciousness".
The real world doesn't work like that.
MundoQueGanar wrote: It's all well and good to trash Lenin, but until you solve the problem of how to move the working class into the position where they not only see the need to run society in their interests but are actually able to do it, the rest is all academic.
Do you imagine that you are an "Archimedes" with a Leninist "lever" who can "lift the earth"?
You cannot "move" the working class in the sense you are speaking of here; it's too big. Only the class can move itself.
This should be obvious when you consider the actual performance of all the different varieties of Leninist parties in the "west". No matter what their "line" or how vast their claims of "dialectical insight", the working class has mostly ignored them. Were/are they all just really lousy Leninists? Total fuckups?
Or have they failed because they tried to do something that simply isn't possible -- "make" the working class revolutionary without regard to the difference between their own size and the size of the class.
"But Lenin did it...so it is possible," the Leninists retort. No, that reverses the actual sequence of events. The Russian urban working class was already revolutionary and chose to support the Bolsheviks in the belief that they were the most revolutionary political group at hand.
Whatever we do or don't do, the working class sets its own pace and becomes revolutionary only when material conditions make revolution the obvious rational choice.
And, in fact, that's the time when the masses are actually ready to listen to and carefully consider communist ideas. Prior to that, only a small number of workers are even interested in communist ideas.
These considerations likewise apply in the post-revolutionary period. The transition to communism can only be the work of the workers themselves...it's not something that can be led or guided or administered by an elite, however well-meaning.
We can try to persuade the masses "what is to be done", but we can't do it for them or make them do it at gunpoint. If the attempt is made to do either of those things, the result is always ignominious failure.
MundoQueGanar wrote: Or, to pose the bigger question, how are we going to make revolution? Who's going to make it happen, and how?...But please, tell me how this is going to happen without leadership that understands the real world conditions and has a plan for overcoming them.
Did someone "plan" the transition from ancient despotism to feudalism? Or from feudalism to capitalism? Who?
What makes you think that something as enormous and complex as a change in the relations of production can be "understood" or "planned" by anyone?
Perhaps if you had a party of millions -- all with the genius of Marx -- it might be feasible.
In the real world? With folks like you and me? No.
Any "plan" thought up by a small group of people, even fairly bright people like us, is guaranteed to be hopelessly inadequate.
The best thing we communists can do is encourage resistance to capitalist hegemony...and hope that it will spread and deepen. We are, in a sense, the "memory" of our class...and we can warn against the repetition of past blunders. To a very limited extent, we can even "point the way forward"...again hoping that the best features of past revolutions will "repeat themselves". (If that doesn't happen, our advice will be irrelevant.)
But when you've said that, you've said about all there is to be said. Neither Marxism nor anything else can predict the future in useful detail. One cannot "conjure up" a proletarian revolution on demand...or "make one" like making a pizza.
Revolutions are the consequence of an enormous number of factors interacting in enormously complex ways...which is another way of saying that we don't know why they happen or when they will happen.
We can only hope that one will happen as soon as can be.
|
|
ShineThePath
Revolutionary
"Individualism is Parasitism"
Posts: 128
|
Post by ShineThePath on Jul 24, 2004 13:15:04 GMT -5
Redstar let me just question how would you deal with the contradictions of Mental and Physical labor, The wage system, and a Vanguard?
The Contradiction between Mental and Physical labor is a contradiction all "Straight to Communism"(Pseudo Anarchy) ideology has yet to deal with. Communist society obviously implies that the Class system is long gone, but as long as you have such a contradiction between Mental and Physical labor, The class system is bound to exist no matter if you say it does not. The fact remains, it is there. Wages is another situation you are going to come over, the wage system just can not be destroyed and you have communism. What comes from this is economic chaos in society, this would cause a disturbance amongst the people and they would more likely take it out against your "communism".
Also you don't realize the problem that Communism is also the destruction of inequality as well as equality, this contradiction will cease. How would you destroy this contradiction? By giving people the exact same amount of rations for different works? Is there not inequality as well as equality in this action? If I work twice as hard, doing more labor and work than another of my associates and they get the same ration, then there is inequality as well as equality in the system and it cannot be Communism.
Lastly you have to deal with the fact that Communism can not exist in one nation and spread through out the world at an even pace, Trotsky seems to be having the same problem about Socialism as you are having with Communism, but atleast he acknowledged socialism first. First you have to deal with a people not having the ability to rule themselves directly as of yet. Yes they may be politically aware in some aspects, but most in this country are not that aware of anything, and there is still the presence of unequal education amongst them as well as illiteracy. Also Communism can not exist in One nation, it would be doomed not only to be crushed by other Capitalists power, but also it would not give people in the other world to develop their production at the same pace causing inequality in the level of productions. Even if you were to expand Communism across the world at a pace faster than any other ever seen in human events, you would still come across the fact that there are nations that still have backward production, some needing to undergo Capitalist Revolution. However the system is declared communism and cannot provide such a nation that revolution. If you have such backward production across the globe and your nation does not have the same effect on it, what will happen is a new sort of Imperialism, much like Soviet Union in its Post-Stalin era, you would just turn into the new Social-Imperial power, depending that you first defeat Capitalists across the globe.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Jul 24, 2004 21:36:30 GMT -5
ShineThePath wrote: The Contradiction between Mental and Physical labor is a contradiction all "Straight to Communism"(Pseudo Anarchy) ideology has yet to deal with. Communist society obviously implies that the class system is long gone, but as long as you have such a contradiction between Mental and Physical labor, the class system is bound to exist no matter if you say it does not. The fact remains, it is there.
Funny you should ask...as it's a "contradiction" that I've never written about before.
Consider the implications:
1. Under capitalism, "mental labor" is usually paid better, supplied with better working conditions, is less physically exhausting, and generally considered more "prestigious".
2. Under capitalism, "manual labor" is usually paid less, under worse working conditions, is physically exhausting, and is considered "demeaning" and "degrading".
So, how would a communist approach this question?
Well, it's not unreasonable to expect that many items will be rationed in the early post-revolutionary years.
So...why not a bigger ration for those who perform the "drudge" work necessary to keep a society functioning?
If there's a shortage of some desirable commodity, why not give the manual laborers "first crack"?
Secondly, working conditions are actually pretty flexible in many respects...would it be unreasonable to have a shorter work-week for manual laborers and to take appropriate measures to improve their working conditions? (Actually, I expect they'd do this themselves, spontaneously.)
Things like "prestige" are more subtle...but there are steps that could be taken. For example, after we demolish all the statues of generals, politicians, and similar scum, we could put up some statues to plumbers, electricians, and even janitors. (There's a fine piece of "socialist realist" sculpture in downtown San Francisco called "The Mechanics" -- a bunch of naked guys shaping a piece of sheet metal with a giant press.)
In other words, I don't see that this "contradiction" is a "big deal".
ShineThePath wrote: Wages is another situation you are going to come over; the wage system just can not be destroyed and you have communism. What comes from this is economic chaos in society; this would cause a disturbance amongst the people and they would more likely take it out against your "communism".
Obviously the abolition of wages would go "hand-in-hand" with the provision of goods to people "according to need".
And, to be fair, it's always possible that the first attempts to establish communism will fail...and people will, in disgust, turn towards a Leninist despot or even towards a restoration of capitalism.
In the long run, history is "on the side" of communism...but the short-run can get complicated.
We'll do the best we can and then...see how it goes.
ShineThePath wrote: By giving people the exact same amount of rations for different work? Is there not inequality as well as equality in this action? If I work twice as hard, doing more labor and work than another of my associates and they get the same ration, then there is inequality as well as equality in the system and it cannot be Communism. That's actually one of the standard bourgeois criticisms of communism. The bourgeois thinks that there "must be" a connection between work and "reward".
Communism assumes that people actually enjoy productive labor...what they do not enjoy is being exploited, taking orders from stupid and arrogant bosses, etc.
If you are doing work that you enjoy in conditions that respect your human dignity, then what matters your material "reward" as long as it meets your needs?
You're not going to get "rich"...but neither is anyone else.
In communist society, who you are has no connection with material reward or accumulated wealth.
Just think: does it "bother you" that you have no title of "nobility"? It does not...such things no longer matter.
The kind of extravagant personal consumption (waste) that exists now will not exist under communism...and no one will miss it.
ShineThePath wrote: Lastly you have to deal with the fact that Communism cannot exist in one nation and spread through out the world at an even pace.
I expect the next wave of proletarian revolutions to begin in Western Europe and carry most of the EU into communism fairly rapidly.
Beyond that, we'll see.
ShineThePath wrote: First you have to deal with a people not having the ability to rule themselves directly as of yet. Yes, they may be politically aware in some aspects, but most in this country are not that aware of anything, and there is still the presence of unequal education amongst them as well as illiteracy.
I presume you are speaking of the United States here.
This is an argument that I run into quite often; Americans are "too reactionary" and must have a "socialist" despotism imposed on them to "teach them" to "rule themselves".
It's a foolish and ultimately self-defeating proposition, of course. There are no peoples who are "genetically reactionary" and the American working class will be, when the time comes, just as revolutionary as any other. If Marx was right, the laws of capitalism itself make that inevitable.
Your error is one of historical confusion. The American working class of today is not the class that will make a proletarian revolution.
The American working class of tomorrow which actually does make a proletarian revolution will be fully fit to "govern itself".
At least I think that's the most reasonable assumption for communists to proceed with.
ShineThePath wrote: Also communism can not exist in one nation; it would be doomed not only to be crushed by other capitalist powers, but also it would not give people in the other world [the chance?] to develop their production at the same pace causing inequality in the level of productions.
"Crushing" an advanced and technologically developed country that is making the transition to communism is not "the piece of cake" that you apparently think it is. Be reminded that U.S. imperialism and its lackeys have actually failed to pacify Afghanistan or Iraq...do you really like their chances against a communist EU?
Not to mention the general world situation at the time when proletarian revolutions are taking place. I would anticipate that the remaining capitalist countries will be having many difficulties of their own, domestic and foreign. Sure, they'd like to intervene...but, at that point, will they be able to?
I don't think so.
As to global economic inequality, I would rather expect that to be around for a very long time. A communist country might or might not provide assistance and might or might not impose progressive conditions on that assistance.
For example, if a primitive capitalist country asked us for aid, we might say "sure...but we can't give it to you unless you provide a free eighth-grade education for every female child in your country."
Is that "social imperialism"?
On the other hand, if you propose that communism must be artificially delayed until the whole world is "economically equal", then that is just a recipe for postponing communism indefinitely.
Something which has a "not-so-secret appeal" to some Leninists...who are rather looking forward to that plush chair, massive desk, and corner office on the 50th floor of the Ministry for Global Economic Development.
The limo and driver are nice too.
|
|
VolPatsyOHara
New Member
Republican Socialist / Syndicalist
Posts: 34
|
Post by VolPatsyOHara on Jul 26, 2004 2:58:45 GMT -5
I've asked this once before, and I'd like to inquire again, why are so many obsessed with various coups and civil wars in third world countries where there are not the conditions for a workers revolution? Why would anyone accept at face value that a middle class third world ethnocentric dictator like Lenin should lead a first world multi-cultural wokers union like the IWW?
I've just never been able to understand the fascination with Cuba, Russia, etc as Marx himself argued that the more advanced countries would become communist first.
In Ireland it is the same way: radicals are obsessed with Che yet we have the outstanding example of James Connolly who was a far better organizer, a much more gifted writer and theorist than Che. There are obnoxious hero-worship posters and t-shirts. of that middle class anti-American Guevara and comparatively very few of Connolly.
Actually, I should not be wondering why; of course the middle class would be devoted to a putschist like Che and not a genuine worker revolutionary like Seamus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2004 19:27:35 GMT -5
|
|