DONATE NOW TO HELP UPGRADE LIBCOM.ORG

Separate organisations

126 posts / 0 new
Last post
Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jun 21 2006 21:41

Again trying to clarify, Dave asked:

Quote:
Do you think the state is inherently a counter-revolutionary force? That seems to be the implication, in which case how do you expect the party to be able to maintain this independent role?

They think that the state is an 'inherently a counter-revolutionary force', and they think that the working class must exercise its dictatorship over the state. I don't think that they believe that the party, and the state should become interested in any way.

I think that Alf should explain their position though, not me.

Devrim

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jun 21 2006 21:43
Quote:
It'd be Kronstadt all over again

Except for one thing DtMW: you could fit The Party in a small elevator! smile

Now come on you guys making the argument for the party as the most conscious part of the working class, do you buy this stuff in bottles or roll it up and smoke it?

It might help to clarify things for me if I knew how your party is organised (This is the intro thread after all smile ), but I have strong suspicions that:

1) All parties whether they admit it or not are states-in-waiting

2) Having come through very dark times since the rise of political parties the mass of people will never again follow a political party - not to the corner shop to buy fags let alone over some revolutionary precipice.

3) People that do join parties do so because it makes them feel special/wanted/cognoscent/influential. We live in horribly atomised times and loneliness gets to us all; I understand wink

4) A party is more likely - with its funny language and strange sub-culture - to be a hindrance to real social change than a help. I reckon you're waiting for some crisis to deliver the working class to you like someone waiting at a long disused station for a train that just isn't going to come.

jaycee
Offline
Joined: 3-08-05
Jun 21 2006 21:59

firstly the role of the party is to argue in favour of what it sees as the best line, not to take power if it gains a majority of the vote in the soviets. This is what the Bolsheviks failed to see, and the vast majority of the workers movement. This will maintain the seperation of the party and state, if the state remains under the complete control of the organs of the state.

arguing that dedicated revolutionarys who have spent a large part of their life learning the lessons of the past should take an active role in class struggle is not 'substituting the party for the working class.'

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jun 21 2006 22:15
Quote:
if it gains a majority of the vote in the soviets.

I can see it now, the bold party member steps to the front of the crowd in Hounslow or Bristol and says "Okay comrades what we need to do is immediately form a soviet!"

That's obviously going to work; party member gets frustrated at counter-revolutionary tendancies of people & before you know it the people have to restrain the entire party in a nearby gents for the duration!.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 21 2006 22:32
Blackn'red Ned wrote:
Now come on you guys making the argument for the party as the most conscious part of the working class, do you buy this stuff in bottles or roll it up and smoke it?

To be fair, I doubt they equate class consciousness to a specific organizational principle.

But beliving in the necessity of the party, in the counter revolutionary nature of frontism, revisionism, parlimantarainism, and the necessity of councils.

I can see this being quite important to them, and it may be limited to themsleves and the groups they associate with. iyswim

Quote:
they think that the working class must exercise its dictatorship over the state. I don't think that they believe that the party, and the state should become interested in any way.

This implies to me that the w/c itself may become confused with the state.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jun 21 2006 22:47
lem wrote:
But beliving in the necessity of the party, in the counter revolutionary nature of frontism, revisionism, parlimantarainism, and the necessity of councils.

I can see this being quite important to them, and it may be limited to themsleves and the groups they associate with. iyswim

Maybe that is your opinion Lem, but don't all revolutionaries believe in

1)'the necessity of the party'

If you don't want to call it a party fine, we can say the necessity of political organization.

2)'in the counter revolutionary nature of frontism'

This means that we don' join in with cross class leftist campaigns.

3)'in the counter revolutionary nature of revisionism'

Yes ok, this is a bit of outdated Marxist terminology, which isn't relevant today, but it was brought up in a discussion of historical tendencies from a time when it was relevant.

4)'in the counter revolutionary nature of parliamentarianism'

You are supposed to be anarchists. You must agree with us on this one.

5)'and the necessity of councils'

How else are the working class supposed to exercise their dictatorship?

What does iyswim mean? You have used it a few times, and I have no idea.

Blackn'red ned,

I would tell you what I think of your hippy petty-bourgeois individualistic ideology, but flaming isn't allowed on this board.

Devrim

davethemagicweasel
Offline
Joined: 14-11-05
Jun 21 2006 23:01
Devrim wrote:
Again trying to clarify, Dave asked:
Quote:
Do you think the state is inherently a counter-revolutionary force? That seems to be the implication, in which case how do you expect the party to be able to maintain this independent role?

They think that the state is an 'inherently a counter-revolutionary force', and they think that the working class must exercise its dictatorship over the state. I don't think that they believe that the party, and the state should become interested in any way.

I think that Alf should explain their position though, not me.

Devrim

I wasn't 100% sure ernie was ICC, so I was just clarifying that one.

jaycee wrote:
firstly the role of the party is to argue in favour of what it sees as the best line, not to take power if it gains a majority of the vote in the soviets. This is what the Bolsheviks failed to see, and the vast majority of the workers movement. This will maintain the seperation of the party and state, if the state remains under the complete control of the organs of the state.

arguing that dedicated revolutionarys who have spent a large part of their life learning the lessons of the past should take an active role in class struggle is not 'substituting the party for the working class.'

What will ensure that a party that gains a majority of the votes in council elections does not seek to strengthen its position and entrench itself in power, becoming a state in fact if not in name?

I suspect that if they did get a majority then they would become increasingly differentiated from society as a separate bureaucratic caste/class and would become the germseed of a new state. What is there in your plan that would avoid this possibility? Or, if you deny the possibility, on what grounds?

Edited - made a mess of quoting

jaycee
Offline
Joined: 3-08-05
Jun 21 2006 23:06

logging out now!

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 21 2006 23:13

Transitional state a "scourge" which the proletariat has to use for a certain period. It is inherently conservative in that its role is to safeguard the revolution rather than drive it forward. But it will become counter-revolutionary if the working class goes into retreat and loses control over it.

Party I agree with Devrim, if the word offends so much, let's not insist on it right now. The question I would like to ask Davethemagic..., BlacknRed and others is whether they think that revolutionaries should form separate organisations at all? Wasn't that Lem's original question anyway?

davethemagicweasel
Offline
Joined: 14-11-05
Jun 21 2006 23:31
Alf wrote:
Transitional state: a "scourge" which the proletariat has to use for a certain period. It is inherently conservative in that its role is to safeguard the revolution rather than drive it forward. But it will become counter-revolutionary if the working class goes into retreat and loses control over it.

Party: I agree with Devrim, if the word offends so much, let's not insist on it right now. The question I would like to ask Davethemagic..., BlacknRed and others is whether they think that revolutionaries should form separate organisations at all? Wasn't that Lem's original question anyway?

I haven't read the specific Castoriadis text (if someone has a link to the relevant article please post it), but from what lem has said he seems to be referring to a separate organization of management of society/economy/production.

Whether I support it or not is hard to say, since it turns on how one defines 'separate'. I think that separating out those functions from society would open the way for the (re-)development of a separate bureaucratic caste and that this could serve as a proto-state, and hence would be undesirable.

However, if organizations comprised of part-time recallable delegates are what is being talked about then I would support them. It is clearly impractical for everything to be decided at the level of the immediate assembly - certain co-ordinating functions between these bodies are obviously necessary. If these co-ordinating bodies are clearly subordinated to the councils then they would not, to my mind, constitute a 'state' according to the anarchist understanding of the term.

That may well have similarities to the ICC's 'semi-state', but then there is still the question of how parties/political organizations relate to these bodies (note - multiple parties, not one single party claiming to be the embodiment of the working classes interests or the fulfilment of its historic destiny).

I would be against any kind of institutional relationship between them - I wouldn't stop members of political organizations participating in councils, but would advocate rules within the councils to limit the influence of any parties. For example, I would argue for party whips to be disallowed, and the exercise of such would warrant dismissal from the council and the immediate calling of new elections (although that would of course be a decision to be taken by each council of its own accord).

Ultimately, the revolutionary process would, to my mind see a continual decrease in the influence of any such organizations and their eventual dissolution.

Devrim's picture
Devrim
Offline
Joined: 15-07-06
Jun 21 2006 23:54
davethemagicweasel wrote:

I would be against any kind of institutional relationship between them - I wouldn't stop members of political organizations participating in councils, but would advocate rules within the councils to limit the influence of any parties. In particular, I would argue for party whips to be disallowed, and the exercise of such would warrant dismissal from the council and the immediate calling of new elections (although that would of course be a decision to be taken by each council of its own accord).

Dave, I think that the first question is would you be able to stop political organizations participating in the councils? People will form specific groups, or cliques if you allow it or not, and here we are assuming that anarchists have the power to 'limit the influence of any parties'. How would they be able to enforce that without organizing politically. I personally think that open tendencies are better than hidden cliques.

As for the point about 'party whips', which is a completely bourgeoisie idea, how do you suggest that people are prevented from caucusing. Through all of my political experience, I have always discussed what to argue in meetings with fellow militant workers. Should everything change after the revolution? More to the point, will everything change? Just because some anarchists may think it best to dissolve their organization, it doesn't mean that the leftists will dissolve theirs.

Devrim

davethemagicweasel
Offline
Joined: 14-11-05
Jun 22 2006 00:32
Devrim wrote:
davethemagicweasel wrote:

I would be against any kind of institutional relationship between them - I wouldn't stop members of political organizations participating in councils, but would advocate rules within the councils to limit the influence of any parties. In particular, I would argue for party whips to be disallowed, and the exercise of such would warrant dismissal from the council and the immediate calling of new elections (although that would of course be a decision to be taken by each council of its own accord).

Dave, I think that the first question is would you be able to stop political organizations participating in the councils? People will form specific groups, or cliques if you allow it or not, and here we are assuming that anarchists have the power to 'limit the influence of any parties'. How would they be able to enforce that without organizing politically. I personally think that open tendencies are better than hidden cliques.

As for the point about 'party whips', which is a completely bourgeoisie idea, how do you suggest that people are prevented from caucusing. Through all of my political experience, I have always discussed what to argue in meetings with fellow militant workers. Should everything change after the revolution? More to the point, will everything change? Just because some anarchists may think it best to dissolve their organization, it doesn't mean that the leftists will dissolve theirs.

Devrim

I'm only talking here about what I would be arguing for in the vaguest of senses in a hypothetical situation. Individual councils would, to my mind, define their own operations and rules, and that would include evaluating and organizing their relationships with other bodies as they saw fit. That may even include kicking all the anarchists out as trouble-makers, it wouldn't actually surprise me that much if they did.

I'd like to see the anarchist movement pull its finger out of its collective arse at some point and start having some kind of affect, but I sincerely doubt that anarchists could stop anyone doing anything. Stopping anything would be for the councils themselves to do, if they don't do that and yield their power to other organs, be they parties or something else, then the revolution is probably at long-term risk because there will always be something/someone that will try to usurp their power or co-opt them. But the working class will sink or swim by its own efforts, if the anarchists can play a small part in helping that happen then that'll be enough for me.

Whether its called a party whip or something else I was only using it as indicative of the type of relationship I see a party potentially establishing. I'm not convinced that specific class natures can be ascribed to certain ideas, but if it is a bourgeois idea then I think its one thats rather inherent to the party form, and would distinguish a party from other forms of political organization if I were trying to define them, so on that basis I could see it as possible to argue that a party is a bourgeois institution - further reinforcing the need to treat them with extreme caution in a post-revolutionary situation.

I personally would have no problem with caucasing as in discussion. I would like to see as much discussion going on within the councils as possible, but discussion outside of them is both inevitable and a healthy sign. What I would have a problem with would be notions of party discipline, since I think that would presuppose a leadership which I think would be likely to become separated from wider struggles and hence be prone to degeneration Bolshevik(or CNT)-style. Plus I have the more generalised anarchist objections to loyalty to an abstraction and a distrust of leaderships.

logs off, goes to bed

EDIT - having slept on it I have thought of a point I would like to modify a little.

My definition of a party is that it is an organisation that perpetuates the separation of politics into a separate realm detached from wider society, which is a division I see as being an expression of the division of labour and as lying at the foundations of the state - both of which I regard as being in need of abolishing. In many cases these parties also become mini-states in waiting, imitating the forms of the state they seek to takeover and therefore becoming a way for the state form (a bourgeois form if you want to put it that way) being transferred into a revolutionary situation.

In the event of a revolution and the formation of councils I would still see the relevance of political organisation, but I think that the form this organisation would take would need to be fundamentally different than that of almost all parties/political organisations - a reflection of the changed context and the difference between councils and state. I can't say with any precision what sort of organisation I think this would entail (I'd like to say that anarchist/libertarian forms of organisation should presage these, but i think that would likely be either hubris or wishful thinking).

Given that I think parties will cease to be appropriate forms of organisation in the future, I see little reason to try and strengthen them in the short-term as that would only increase the chances of them dragging back any future revolution.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 22 2006 03:08
Devrim wrote:
lem wrote:
But beliving in the necessity of the party, in the counter revolutionary nature of frontism, revisionism, parlimantarainism, and the necessity of councils.

I can see this being quite important to them, and it may be limited to themsleves and the groups they associate with. iyswim

Maybe that is your opinion Lem, but don't all revolutionaries believe in...

Maybe I left some out? I assumed that it was revolutioary principles like these that differntited groups, not membership.

You've got to ask if all the arguments are about nothing otherwise confused (and, it seems, there are alot).

Would e.g. Alf really argue that he is more cc than e.g. you? On the basis of what - decadence theory, his party's history?! Isn't this a bit sectarian?

Quote:
What does iyswim mean? You have used it a few times, and I have no idea.

Jack is right, but I just try and use it as a disclaimer.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 22 2006 10:08

sorry lem, what does "cc" stand for?

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 22 2006 11:27

No sorry, class conscious

embarrassed

For what reason does the ICC think it is the most class conscious part of the working class, or any party for that matter?

Blacknred Ned
Offline
Joined: 19-06-06
Jun 22 2006 12:47

(I can't get the quote thing to do what I want! Cobblers! embarrassed

Dev wrote:

"Blackn'red ned,

I would tell you what I think of your hippy petty-bourgeois individualistic ideology, but flaming isn't allowed on this board."

Well, nah nah nah to you to Dev. What do you do in your spare time sit on a park bench and shake your walking stick at young people?

I know hippy when I see it Dev, and I am no hippy. As for this "petty-bourgeois" nonsense, it is a fine example of exactly the kind of hollow jargon pushed out by a certain element of the fossilised left; I think it's a good deal more petty-bourgeois, if you must use the phrase, to stick to the arcane idiom of a long gone age. It's not my fault your watch stopped in 1890.

Just because I believe that we need a revolutionary practice that suits the age that we live in and the people around us now does not make me an individualist. I am an ardent believer in organisation, just not the kind of organisation that seems to be propounded by political parties. There are lots of other models of human organisation which IMHO offer better prospects with less risk. In any event all of this theoretical chatter is quite academic because I see no reason to believe that any party will be of any use, or could ever be of any use in bringing social change. Anarchists (and maybe other socialists and communists) could well play a major part in influencing events, in education and constructive preparation (leading by example) but not as a party or anything resembling a party.

Cardinal Tourettes
Offline
Joined: 1-04-06
Jun 22 2006 22:22
Alf wrote:
Transitional state: a "scourge" which the proletariat has to use for a certain period. It is inherently conservative in that its role is to safeguard the revolution rather than drive it forward. But it will become counter-revolutionary if the working class goes into retreat and loses control over it.

The ICC propose the workers councils accept a dual power arrangement with the state.

Not too dissimilar to Lenin and Trotsky's proposition to the councils back in 1917 really.

Happily, the ICC are a fine example of revolutionary leftism in its comic stage, and exist merely so the working class can take leave of its past with a smile on its face.

Alf's picture
Alf
Offline
Joined: 6-07-05
Jun 22 2006 23:11

What exactly did Lenin and Trotsky propose to the councils in 1917, in your view?

And what is 'revolutionary leftism'?

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jun 23 2006 08:15

A state of some description always arises in any society divided into classes. This is because different social classes have different interests which would tear society apart without some force that can hold society together.

The state can only do this because it presents itself as being above these differences i.e. the legitimate form of violence in society. Nonetheless, it is fundamentally a creature of the economic relations that give it birth and thus draws its strength from the ruling class.

Classless society will not magically appear after the revolution. Different classes and strata will still exist and their interests will not the be same as the proletariat's. A state will inevitably arise in order to prevent the pre-communist society from errupting into chaos. The proletariat will need this state because it will still have to fight against counter-revolutionaries and suppress the class interests of the middle-classes although it cannot do this simply by violence. These strata must be allowed to have some form of representation in the new society or their revolt will intensify. Yet because the proletariat will not be a ruling class with an economic bases in the society, the state will not automatically operate in the interests of the proletariat either. Because of its interest in maintaining order and stability it will often conflict with the proletariat's need to revolutionise society as it progressively restructures society.

If the appearance of the state is unavoidable (and even necessary) the only way that workers can ensure it serves their interests is by maintaining their independent (and armed) organs: assemblies, councils, soviets, militias, etc.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 23 2006 10:51
Demogorgon303 wrote:
A state of some description always arises in any society divided into classes. This is because different social classes have different interests which would tear society apart without some force that can hold society together

Maybe I agree with you.

Lefort seems to think that any society which denies the possibility of conflict, or does not have a legitimate outlet for it, is totalitarian.

And Castoriadis (Whose outline of a new society I quite like (he is an economist, and obviously pro self management) based on Pannekoek) suggets a "government" (elected by the council delegates) to help organize the political decsions of councils.

He seems to think that shop owners peasents etc will be represented in councils (never as individuals) integrated into the political process with as much say as anyone else, unless they outnumber the proletariat.

So yeah, maybe some kind of government during the transition isn't a terrible idea, cos denying conflict is dangerous, and it doesn't have to threaten self-management. I would guess, that it ought to be integrated into the councils though.

Edit: How different though, is this "government", to any permanent federation of councils - would delegates of federated councils elect people for the task of preparing for the councils and acting in their place if they're at work. Is this just semantics again confused

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jun 23 2006 11:59

Hi

Seeing Lem is teasing us again with his recently acquired penchant for Mr Castoriadis, I feel the need to interject with a Brintonism…

Chris Pallis wrote:
the basic question, who manages production after the overthrow of the bourgeoisie? should therefore now become the centre of any serious discussion about socialism. Today the old equation (liquidation of the bourgeoisie equals workers' state) popularised by countless Leninists, Stalinists and Trotskyists is just not good enough.

Political ideology should have no impact on the specifics of production. No “political debate” is required for us to decide to make this or that, it’s either technical matter or a question of supply and demand. Would Liberal Democrats have a different position on train timetables, say, than the British National Party? With no state to direct production, there’s nothing for political parties to do except promote their religious preferences.

lem wrote:
I really like the description of transitional socialism in Castoradis's On the content of socialism. Am I wrong to?

Only insofar as you might discredit it by association. You’re going to make some serious enemies of Devrm et all if you start promoting Corny’s “libertarian capitalist” model. Ha ha.

Love

LR

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 23 2006 12:08

Ha, its not capitalist. I don't think so anyway - labour time is exhanged for products priced according to labour time in a transitional society.

I'm not suggesting that a state direct production, more that it sorts out political problems, like relations with capitalist governments, legal disputes, internal opposition, and the general direction of social life that couldn't be decided by enterprises. Surely there would be some political questions not related to consumption?

confused

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jun 23 2006 12:41

Hi

Quote:
Surely there would be some political questions not related to consumption?

I'm not sure if there are even those! What "political questions" would you expect party blocs to resolve?

Love

LR

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 23 2006 13:03

I don't think that its a party - just a centralized organ of the councils.

I guess that you could say that e.g. education policy be decided by teachers and students, but you could say that it affect all of society - someone is going to say it does anyway. Should there be a way of settling these kind of disputes?

He's quite keen to point out that people would not be separated from these sort of questions - that the aim of this is for people to decide about the questions that affect society.

How to care for chronic thieves, people who can't work, speed limits, abortion, should there be laws, should we allow churches, what should medical research be most interested in, what to do about the group of people demanding capitalism, do we even need a government etc. Sure these decisions are easy to make, but they have to be made.

What ought to be the overall vision of society?

confused

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jun 23 2006 13:30

Hi

Quote:
I guess that you could say that e.g. education policy be decided by teachers and students, but you could say that it affect all of society - someone is going to say it does anyway.

He's quite keen to point out that people would not be separated from these sort of questions - that the aim of this is for people to decide about the questions that affect society.

How to care for chronic thieves, people who can't work, speed limits, abortion, should there be laws, should we allow churches, what should medical research be most interested in, what to do about the group of people demanding capitalism, do we even need a government etc. Sure these decisions are easy to make, but they have to be made.

What ought to be the overall vision of society

I see. You’ll definitely get “party blocs” campaigning for their religion’s perspective on this or that. How much influence they have will depend on their support and the amount of coercive power they wield. What happens when groups start swapping votes? (oh you lot vote to abolish abortion with us, and we’ll vote to abolish tax with you). It’s not desirable, and would lead to the break up of the legislature and calls for succession from the federation left, right and centre. Eventually some area rich in natural resources or talent will take issue with the majority position on this or that, and there will need to be a war to force them to continue to contribute to the common pool.

So this leads to the concept of subsidiary, which is really a non brainer as Hackney Independent will tell you, and a federated propositional democracy that operates strictly bottom-up through a delegate system with decisions effective at the level at which they get passed. I’d propose a system of jury courts to resolve questions of contended property or other disputes with an escalation to the neighbourhood assemblies on appeal. In all of this, the role of the political bloc becomes a bit of a joke and I’d expect most people who are much more interested in practicalities rather than ideological principles, will regard them as such. Watch out for the trainspotters, they shall not pass!

For a desolate locale with nothing to offer and populations too “expensive” to be carried by it’s productive neighbours, are ideological communism or Christian charity the only games in town able to prevent their starvation?

Love

LR

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 23 2006 13:59

I'm not sure how what I'm talking about differs from federation, other than the organs meet more regularly, and thus be more active in decisons, than those below them.

Quote:
You’ll definitely get “party blocs” campaigning for their religion’s perspective on this or that.

In this instance, a socialist party of workers whose membership is open to anyone would be allowed, to dominate the other parties.

Quote:
So this leads to the concept of subsidiary, which is really a non brainer as Hackney Independent will tell you, and a federated propositional democracy that operates strictly bottom-up through a delegate system with decisions effective at the level at which they get passed. I’d propose a system of jury courts to resolve questions of contended property or other disputes with an escalation to the neighbourhood assemblies on appeal. In all of this, the role of the political bloc becomes a bit of a joke and I’d expect most people who are much more interested in practicalities rather than ideological principles, will regard them as such. Watch out for the trainspotters, they shall not pass!

Tbh I'm not sure what most of these terms used, mean, so I couldn't suggest wheter ths set up would be better.

If it comes down to - no decisions at levels which they are not enacted, it may be worth noting that council delegates can recall the governemnt, and the general assembely the council delegates, and their task is simply to prepare decisions for the enterprsie councils, and to stand in for them as (recallable) decision makers as they meet more regularly.

If all runs smoothely then a permanent organ that represents the interests of the whole of society will make these kind of decisions. If not then they will be recalled by the groups that carry them out. If this hasn't answered any of the problems you have, then your going to have to explian your solution, if you want me to agree.

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Jun 23 2006 17:07

Hi

Sorry not to have come back before but I have busy.

Lem, you make the following point in the way of a conclusion to the discussion with lazy riser:

Quote:
If all runs smoothely then a permanent organ that represents the interests of the whole of society will make these kind of decisions

. The central point that you are underlining, the revocablity of delegates is crucial to the development of the revolution and a principle that will need to be defend tooth and nail. However, no organ can represent the "interests of the whole of society", unless were are talking about communism i.e., a classless society. But even then there will be conflicting ideas about how best to take forwards humanity. As Trotsky points out -somewhere- those wanting to try to put into practice a minority idea for such development will be given the means to do so. Before communism there will still be classes or the remnents of them and thus there will need to be a form of organisation which will try to reconcil these conflicting interests: for the ICC this is the transitional state. Where indeed the question of speed limits, how to deal with criminals etc will have to be discussed and acted upon.

Here we also answer Torrets about the idea of dual power. The proletariat organised in the workers' councils will have to impose its dictatorship upon the transitional state. Whilst understanding the need for such a body it will need to struggle against the effort of this conservative body to dominate society.

Briefly on the question of the party being the expression of the most advanced development of class consciousness. This is a general point, because, as history has shown, there will be times when the class is in advance of the party. For example, Lenin made this point several times in 1917 as parts of the class pushed forwards the revolution. It is an expression of the maturity of a party that it can understand this and learn the lessons of such advances.

lem
Offline
Joined: 25-07-05
Jun 23 2006 17:22
Quote:
However, no organ can represent the "interests of the whole of society", unless were are talking about communism i.e., a classless society.

Yeah sure, it was just rhetoric (?). I mean to say, that, it would seem, that the government I tried to describe would in functioning embrace more than a single industry or locality

Exactly how do you see the transitional state being organized, if thats not a uutopian/stupid question?

ernie
Offline
Joined: 19-04-06
Jun 23 2006 18:32

Hi Lem

Exactly how do you see the transitional state being organized, if thats not a uutopian/stupid question?

This is not utopian/stupid. The general outline is;

- the transitional state will be formed by the territorial soviets

- these soviets will be formed of all those living within a territorial area, bar the former exploiting classes

- These soviets will send delegates to regional and national, and eventually international congress of soviets.

- the delegates will be revocable

- the various levels of the soviets will control the various aspects of the running of society.

- the proletariat will have a predominance within these bodies.

This method of organisation highlights the way in which the territorial soviets, as the organs of the transitional state will be faced with a constant pressure to place the immediate needs of the society before the future goal of communsim.

This underlines the vital importance of the working class maintaining its autonomy through the workers councils which will be based on work place and only regroup the proletariat.

This is probably not enough detail for a full reply but I do not have time at present. The following link is to an article which gives a broader outline of our position http://en.internationalism.org/ir/113_pot_ir1.html on the problems of the period of transition and this series deal with the question of Communismhttp://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/336. These may help to explain our understanding of this vital question more. It would be good to know what you think of them

Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Offline
Joined: 6-05-05
Jun 23 2006 19:54

Hi

Quote:
This is probably not enough detail for a full reply but I do not have time at present. The following link is to an article which gives a broader outline of our position http://en.internationalism.org/ir/113_pot_ir1.html on the problems of the period of transition and this series deal with the question of Communismhttp://en.internationalism.org/taxonomy/term/336. These may help to explain our understanding of this vital question more. It would be good to know what you think of them

Ho ho. Would it be good to know what I think of them? I doubt it.

Anyway, in a self managed society what problem would the abolition of individual private property solve? Why is communism necessary?

Having talked to some “normal people” recently, the prospect of communism seems to be one of the reasons why insurrection appears such an unattractive option.

Like the fridge light going out, the working class gets on with its secret revolution whenever the communists’ backs are turned. I know for a fact that a lot of communists notice how people stop talking when they unexpectedly enter a room.

Love

LR