The spatial spread of socialist society

[robbo203]

I know I've brought this subject up before on this forum – quite a while back – but as I recall (perhaps incorrectly)  the responses it elicited tended to be somewhat non commital and along the lines that "we cannot speculate about some distant future".  Personally, I think there are some things about which we have to speculate – nay, more , develop a definite position in relation to – because decisions made now affect the course of action we take and so determine the kind of future we arrive at. The ends and the means tend always to harmonise to an extent.

 

The issue I'm referring to here is how a socialist society is expected to come about.  I am having an extended debate over on the Revleft forum  (http://www.revleft.com/vb/explanation-dictatorship-proletariati-t186924/index.html?t=186924) on that old bugaboo – the dictatorship of the proletariat (DOTP)  Personally I think the whole idea is nonsense on stilts, a regretable error of judgement on the part of Marx who proposed this idea. You cannot run a slave society in the interests of the slaves so to speak.   (Wage) slaves  cannot "dictate" terms to their slave masters while remaining slaves. It is only by rejecting their role as slaves and refusing to recognise their masters as masters that the will of the majority can prevail and its interests be realised.

 

Which, of course, sinks the whole idea of the DOTP and the notion that a proletariat can politically prevail over the capitalist class while allowing the latter to continue exploiting it  (if it didnt , there would be no proletariat and therefore logically  no DOTP since by definition the working class or proletariat constitutes the exploited subject class of capitalism). Of course , it also follows from this that the existence of the DOTP implies also  the existence of capitalism which the said DOTP will be expected to manage supposedly in the interests of the workers  – much like the early British Labour Party sought to irrevocably redistribute wealth and power in favour of working people  (and look what become of that Party!).  The argument I've been putting on the Revleft forum is that by attempting to manage capitalism, the DOTP will inevitably end  up being managed by capitalism instead and, chamelion like, will  expediently adapt to the needs of capital itself , which needs inevitably take first priority under any variety of capitalism.    So, inevitably "substitutionism" will set in,  leading to the emergence of a new ruling class controlling the state machine and counterposing its interests to the interests of the workers themselves under a system of state run capitalism.  Inevitably, in other words,  the Dictatorship of the Proletariat will evolve into a dictatorship of capital  over the proletariat.

 

All this is bog standard SPGB thinking as I understand it .  Perhaps the Party is a little less harsh in its rejection of the DOTP than I am,  arguing simply  that the need for a transition period is no longer required given the development of capitalism since Marx;'s day. whereas I  would argue that the whole idea itself is fundamentally flawed and irherentally illogical

 

However, what I dont hear much from the SPGB (or perhaps Ive just missed the conversation!) is how this all ties in with the global spread of socialist consciousness.  You see, the people I'm debating with over on Revleft – mainly Left coms with a scattering of Trots – take the view that a DOTP is absolutely indispensable because it is unrealistic to attempt to establish "socialism in one country".  Socialism like capitalism must be a global system and so the uneven growth of the socialist movement means that in some parts of the world the working class will capture political power sooner than others.  Of necessity and by default they will be forced to set up a DOTP where this happens  and administer a sort of "attenuated capitalism" in the meantime

 

As if this was not bad enough – serving as  a kind of underlying rationale for Left reformism – some of these people like the Left coms actually advocate the capture of political power before a convinced socialist majority has  even materialised – in effect, vanguardism .  The rather mechanical argument they advance in favour of this is that it is "revolutions that make revolutionaires" rather than revolutionaries that make revolutions.  So in some way the process whereby the working class capture power – which the Left coms equate with "revolution" – will somehow automatically change workers into convinced revolutionary socialists.  I think the argument is a spurious one that puts the cart before the horse.  It is class struggle that makes revolutionaries (and not revolutions since  revolutions presuppose revolutionaries are already made) but class struggle is not necessarily revolutionary in itself  – most trade unionists, for instance, are not revolutionary minded .  It is the interaction of material conditions and material struggles with revolutionary ideas – not one or the other on its own – that makes revolutionaries

 

Of course, in the end,  even the Left coms et al will accept that you can't  have socialism without  a convinced socialist majority but these 2 factors Ive alluded to will nevetheless intervene in the meanwhile to ensure that the so called transtion between capitalism and communism.socialism will be a long and indefinite period of time even on their own terms:

1) the fact that after the "revolution" (so called – although one wonders how a revolution can have technically occured if capitalism is still intact under the DOTP) a majority will still not necessarily be socialist minded and so it will take time for a socialist majority to be realised

2) the fact that in different parts of the world, the growth of the revolutionary movement will be uneven so that that too will take time before DOTPs are established everywhere in the world and socialism can then be established instantly in one fell swoop on a world wide basis.

 

My argument is that it is precisely this time factor,  even assuming the best of intentions on the part of those operating a DOTP,  which will remorsely induce them  to change course, to become increasingly amenable to the needs of capital and correspondingly increasingly opposed to the interests of wage labour and the establishment of socialism

 

The point  I'm trying to make here is that this WILL happen if you take the view the capitalism has to be abolished worldwide ansd socialism in one fell swoop.  This is  because while we can expect there to be a degree of spatial evenness  in the growth of a global socialist movement it is unrealistic to expect this growth to be EXACTLY even. There will be lags here and there. Significant socialist majorities will be achieved in some parts of the world sooner than others so what then is to happen in that event?

 

Does one go ahead and establish a kind of attenuated socialism in certain parts of the world and expect the residual capitalist states to fall in domino fashion leading to the relentless spatial expansion of a genuine socialist society (a view I favour and which is technically quite different from what is called the  "socialism in one country" thesis for reasons which i went into in one of my posts on the Revleft thread).  Or  does one rein in one's impulse to immediately establish socialism where you a significant socialist majority (is this even feasible???)  and install a DOTP, with all that entails,  while waiting for the rest of the world to "catch up"?

 

Unless I am sorely mistaken, the  SPGB has never really come out with a definitive statement on this issue, one way or another. Its not enough to say that socialism will be a global society to replace capitalism (which is also global) since we all know and accept that point.  The  issue really concerns the process by which we move from the one society to the other – does it happen incrementally in spatial terms or all at once globally?

 

If you argue as many on the left do that it must happen all in one go on a worldwide basis then inevitably what seems to go hand in hand with an advocacy of  the flawed concept of the DOTP.

 

Where then does the SPGB and the WSM generally stand in relation to this vital question?

[steve colborn]

For the "dictatorship of the proletariat", simply substitute the "will of the majority", or more simple still, "democracy". In essence, that is all that is meant by the DOTP. The confusion, as far as I am concerned, is caused by people giving overmuch emphasis on the term, "dictatorship". If one understands the prerequisites needed, before Socialism can be brought about, this term becomes an irrelevance, as understanding would explain.

[Anonymous]

The proletariat has to bring about socialism and to do so it has to take political power and dictate the direction of history. It abolishes itself after not before taking political power.  

[alanjjohnstone]

I wonder why the Beatles all of a sudden had a worldwide influence? Motown instead of the Blues? Rock and Roll? The influence of West Indian reggae springing up in Africa. Punk music? Clever marketing by the record companies, somehow i doubt it.How did the Arab Spring, Indignados and Occupy spread so swiftly ?I accept uneven development. The rural interior of China will develop at a different pace as the cities on the coast as will the countryside village in India and Mumbai, just as is happening in capitalism. But,  the mobile phone and the internet and satellite tv is going to shorten any gap. The world is divided into particular bases of power, political and economic. In Thailand, the political centre and the economic centre is the capital, Bangkok. No protests elsewhere. What is decided there decides for the nation. I dare say this applies to most places. The mass demonstrations do not take place in Manchester but London. The crisis of the riots a few years back was not the ones in Nottingham but Nottinghill. Who still remembers the 1870 Lyon Commune?The revolution is a process and will be expressed in a variety of ways. I question any recourse to a domino theory.i foresee it being much more unpredictable. One area will implement what it can when it can and how it can. Revolution is all about improvisation, ad hoc actions, and a learning curve. As you say the current manner of interpreting a DOTP is not of any value. But more importantly behind it all is an idea  – the spirit of revolution, something less tangible to describe in its absence. And there is no rule as far as i know on how that spreads and permeates peoples consciousnesses. As an aside, it often appears that those who propose the DOTP always assume that it will be some other country and not this one which lags behinds.  Shouldn't theY also be considering the tactics to be applied when other regions have moved ahead and left the UK lagging behind alongside Saudi Arabia and North Korea rather than presuming the GB will be in the revolutionary fore-front??!!The SPGB priority is ensuring we have a voice to be heard in any revolutionary episode.  

[alanjjohnstone]

Not too far unrelated to the topic. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/02/did-arab-leftists-betray-revolu-201421674037574769.html " younger leftist groups consider that the main focus should be on social liberation since no real independence can be reached under a capitalist and repressive system….one thing both the traditional and younger left-wing organisations have learned from the Arab uprisings, it would be that their romanticised idea of the revolution is not accurate. In as much as revolutions are powerful and essential, revolutionary periods are not as rosy and easy as the Left would have wished.The Arab revolutions should be understood as a long-term process of deep economic, social and political change that will undergo many ups and downs before it finally settles. During this process, many of the social taboos will be broken, many of the norms and values will change and many movements will grow, but at the same time, many lives will be lost, many people will suffer and entire cities can be demolished in an attempt by the brutal regimes to erase not just the present, but the past as well."Bit too trotty for my liking but interesting take on things, nevertheless

[robbo203]

steve colborn wrote:

For the "dictatorship of the proletariat", simply substitute the "will of the majority", or more simple still, "democracy". In essence, that is all that is meant by the DOTP. The confusion, as far as I am concerned, is caused by people giving overmuch emphasis on the term, "dictatorship". If one understands the prerequisites needed, before Socialism can be brought about, this term becomes an irrelevance, as understanding would explain.

Steve The problem is that that is NOT all that is meant by the DOTP…. I have no problem with the need to capture political power.  Nor have I any problem with the need for this to be done democratically  from the bottom up.  And you are right  – by "dictatorship" in this context, Marx and Engels did not mean the the absence of democracy but rather the "will of the majority "as you say ,  coming to prevail or dictate .  However, all of these points are not relevant to what is actually being discussed here The point is what happens AFTER the revolutionary capture of political power.   This where  the DOTP entails a lot more than just the argument that the working class needs to capture power.  It  entails also the idea that workers as a class should hold onto to that power – i.e. the state  – and should strive to manage capitalism in the interim  in the form of a working class government for some indeterminate period of time,  trying to operate capitalism in the interests of the workers  Then, and only then, when   DOTPs have been set up in every country in the world , can they collectively establish  global socialism in one fell swoop right across the world.  I hold that this view would be absolutely toxic to the interests of the working class for reasons that were outlined in the OP.   It would lead to substitutionism and the workers being sold down the river as the so called proletarian state adminstering capitalism would increasingly   find itself having to adapt to the exigencies of running capitalism with its need to first  and foremost  make a profit.  As I say, this is all bog standard SPGB thinking but what I  am trying to do is to show that all this will happen if you hold the view that socialism must come about globally right across the world in one single fell swoop There cannot be a working class  (or indeed a capitalist class) after the revolutionary capture of political power for the reasons explained.   Which is why, strictly speaking, I think Vin is wrong to argue that  the working class only abolishes itself after this  event.  The event itself  will mark – i.e. coincide with – the complete deconstitution  and disappearance of the working class rather than what Marx misleadingly stated would be an attempt "raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class"  – something that can only serve to perpetuate  a class divided society: capitalism. It is not possible for an exploited class to be a ruling class and it makes absolutely no sense even to make such a claim.  Worse still it feeds the reformist assumptions of the Left that capitalism can somehow be operated for the benefit of the working class.  The whole concept of the DOTP needs to be vigorously opposed by revolutionary socialists.

[Ed]

robbo203 wrote:

I know I've brought this subject up before on this forum – quite a while back – but as I recall (perhaps incorrectly)  the responses it elicited tended to be somewhat non commital and along the lines that "we cannot speculate about some distant future".  Personally, I think there are some things about which we have to speculate – nay, more , develop a definite position in relation to – because decisions made now affect the course of action we take and so determine the kind of future we arrive at. The ends and the means tend always to harmonise to an extent.

Hi Robbo, sorry this doesn't relate to the rest of your post but I had to comment. Decisions made now do undoubtedly effect future decisions. That's the problem with idealism! Creating a plan on the basis of what we think now ignores the material conditions present in the future, which may be completely different depending on how long it takes. This would mean that socialists of the future may be acting on the strength of an antiquated idea, a complete abandonment of materialism. Which will inevitably lead to bad decisions.The DoTP is a very good example of an idea becoming so entrenched that it's advocates actually ignore the material conditions of the modern world in favour of a long redundant idea. We don't need to create more ideas, more concrete plans, which future generations will then lionise and make lore.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

This where  the DOTP entails a lot more than just the argument that the working class needs to capture power.  It  entails also the idea that workers as a class should hold onto to that power – i.e. the state  – and should strive to manage capitalism in the interim  in the form of a working class government for some indeterminate period of time,  trying to operate capitalism in the interests of the workers  Then, and only then, when   DOTPs have been set up in every country in the world , can they collectively establish  global socialism in one fell swoop right across the world. I hold that this view would be absolutely toxic to the interests of the working class for reasons that were outlined in the OP.   It would lead to substitutionism and the workers being sold down the river as the so called proletarian state adminstering capitalism would increasingly   find itself having to adapt to the exigencies of running capitalism with its need to first  and foremost  make a profit.  As I say, this is all bog standard SPGB thinking but what I  am trying to do is to show that all this will happen if you hold the view that socialism must come about globally right across the world in one single fell swoop

There is a danger of confusing a  class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority. Do not confuse our case with theirsSocialists will become anarchists if they abandon the need to take control of the state machinary in order to ensure the safe transfer of property and power to the community "That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the woreking class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, national and local, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into the agent of emancipation and the overthrow of privilege, aristocratic and plutocratic.It would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. "     

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

There is a danger of confusing a  class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority. Do not confuse our case with theirsSocialists will become anarchists if they abandon the need to take control of the state machinary in order to ensure the safe transfer of property and power to the communityIt would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. "

 Hi Vin, I can assure that there is no possibility whatsoever of me confusing a  "class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority". I understand the difference completely  and fully accord with the suggestion that such a democratically organised working class must take control of the state for the reason you state.  Im not an anarchist in that respect. Nor am i vanguardist who advocates the minority seizure of political power However once again let me point out that this not the issue.  I wish people would attend to the argument that is being put.  The issue is what happens when you take control of the state.  I think it is the view of the SPGB – it is certainly mine – that immediately upon taking control of the state the organised working class must abolish the state and all class relations of production that underpin the very existence of the state. In other words, the working class or proletariat must  immediately abolish itself as the exploited class of capitalism. In this event,  there can be no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat since there is no proletariat to do the "dictating".  On the other hand , the advocates of the DOTP  – like the Leninists you mention – do NOT advocate the immediate abolition of the proletariat but propose  – absurdly –  to unnecessarily prolong the existence of the proletariat as the exploited class in captalism (and hence prolong capitalism itself) for some indeterminate period of time or at least until every country in the world has established a DOTP and everyone can then switch over to socialism in their view However , the impications of such an approach to establishing socialism would be nothing short of disastrous for the working class since what the advocates of the DOTP are suggesting is trhat  capitalism should be allowed to contrinue  after the organised working class had seized power. (if that were not the case then how could there be a proletariat if there was no capitalism) But you know and I know that capitalism cannot possibly  be administered in the interests of the proletariat.  So inevitably the DOTP will turn out to be something that works against the interests of the  proletariat.   Inevitably the DOTP will become a dictatorship of capital (more than like concentrated in the hands of the state – state capitalism) over the proletariat This is the basic point Im trying to make. Please dont confuse the capture of political power by the working class with the concept of the DOTP. They are two quite different things. You can certainly advocate the former without going along with the later at all. Just to reiterate

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

 I think it is the view of the SPGB – it is certainly mine – that immediately upon taking control of the state the organised working class must abolish the state 

 And therin lies the problem. You allude to a specific conference decision do you not? Without that resolution you could not have presented such an interpretation of the SPGB's position. I never saw the point in that  resolution and I still don't. If an organised working class is able to immediately abolish the state then that's fine but if it needs the state to defend the democratic will of the community and ensure the smooth transfer of property and power  then that's fine too. If that is what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariate then I have no reason to disagree with that.   

[robbo203]

robbo203 wrote:

Vin Maratty wrote:

There is a danger of confusing a  class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority. Do not confuse our case with theirsSocialists will become anarchists if they abandon the need to take control of the state machinary in order to ensure the safe transfer of property and power to the communityIt would be foolish to expect the capitalist class to voluntarily give up its privileged position in society. "

 Hi Vin, I can assure that there is no possibility whatsoever of me confusing a  "class conscious democratically organised working class taking control of the capitalist state with a Leninist minority". I understand the difference completely  and fully accord with the suggestion that such a democratically organised working class must take control of the state for the reason you state.  Im not an anarchist in that respect. Nor am i a vanguardist who advocates the minority seizure of political power However once again let me point out that this not the issue.  I wish people would attend to the argument that is being put.  The issue is what happens when you take control of the state.  I think it is the view of the SPGB – it is certainly mine – that immediately upon taking control of the state the organised working class must abolish the state and all class relations of production that underpin the very existence of the state. In other words, the working class or proletariat must  immediately abolish itself as the exploited class of capitalism. In this event,  there can be no such thing as a dictatorship of the proletariat since there is no proletariat to do the "dictating".  On the other hand , the advocates of the DOTP  – like the Leninists you mention – do NOT advocate the immediate abolition of the proletariat but propose  – absurdly –  to unnecessarily prolong the existence of the proletariat as the exploited class in capitalism (and hence prolong capitalism itself) for some indeterminate period of time or at least until every country in the world has established a DOTP and everyone can then switch over to socialism in their view However , the implications of such an approach to establishing socialism would be nothing short of disastrous for the working class since what the advocates of the DOTP are suggesting is that  capitalism should be allowed to continue  after the organised working class had seized power. (if that were not the case then how could there be a proletariat if there was no capitalism) But you know and I know that capitalism cannot possibly  be administered in the interests of the proletariat.  So inevitably the DOTP will turn out to be something that works against the interests of the  proletariat.   Inevitably the DOTP will become a dictatorship of capital (more than likely concentrated in the hands of the state – state capitalism) over the proletariat This is the basic point Im trying to make. Please dont confuse the capture of political power by the working class with the concept of the DOTP. They are two quite different things. You can certainly advocate the former without going along with the later at all. 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

robbo203 wrote:

 I think it is the view of the SPGB – it is certainly mine – that immediately upon taking control of the state the organised working class must abolish the state 

 And therin lies the problem. You allude to a specific conference decision do you not? Without that resolution you could not have presented such an interpretation of the SPGB's position. I never saw the point in that  resolution and I still don't. If an organised working class is able to immediately abolish the state then that's fine but if it needs the state to defend the democratic will of the community and ensure the smooth transfer of property and power  then that's fine too. If that is what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariate then I have no reason to disagree with that.

 Well lets look at this logically.If the state in the Marxian sense is an instrument of class rule and presupposes the existence of classes then what you are effectively saying here is that an organised working class, having captured the state, could or might decide to prolong its own existence as the exploited class in capitalism. Yes?  In other words, to prolong the existence of capitalism.  That to me is an absurdity. Why would a revolutionary working class majority which, according to you, would want to effect the transfer of property to the community in general, want at the same time to perpetuate its own existence as a class alienated from the means of production?     It just  doesnt add up.  However, this is what the concept of the DOTP asserts needs to be done. That may seem a somewhat pedantic point Im making but there is a further to make here. Why is it assumed that you need a state to defend the democratic will of the community anyway? Just as a peice of machinery  does not constitute capital in itself but only under certain socio economic conditions so the physical means of defending one self or asserting the will of the majority does not necessarily  constitute a state either but only under conditions in which class relations of production exist. What you are suggesting is that a stateless socialist society has no means by which to enforce its own will – something i would contest.  That aside, the idea that the state is needed to defend the will of the majority presupposes that the majority has already decided to scrap capitalism and ipso facto the capitalist  state.  The state is not something that exists in some physical sense outside of the values , expectations and beliefs of individuals. You cannot simply point to  something called a state as you might , say, building  and declare that you wish to demolish it..  The state is a social insititution and a social insitrituion is a“a complex of positions, roles, norms and values lodged in particular types of social structures and organising relatively stable patterns of human activity with respect to fundamental problems in producing life-sustaining resources, in reproducing individuals, and in sustaining viable societal structures within a given environment."  *Stanford Encyclopedia)One of the strongest arguments in favour of capturing the state is precisely that provides for a kind of symbolic juncture – a specific point in time – when the rules of the social game can be conveniently "switched" and in a form that can be universally recognised and acknowleged by all , friend and foe. The growth of the socialist movement will bring with it the knowlege that the new society will be one in which there will be no classes and hence the state have no place.  With that a new set of rules come into being . To continue in the same metaphorical vein , some inviduals may quite possibly not  want to play the new game, may object to the new  rules and seek by various ways and  means to subvert them – a recalcitrant minority. But that does not alter the fact that socialism would be the only ball game in town once a socialist majoruty have captured the state.  And with that ballgame goes the understanding that classes and the state no longer exist.  Therefore from that point onwards they will cease  to exist.  Not bcause they have in some  literal sense been dismantled but becuase they have no place in the new social order that has just been formally – or institutionally – installed

[Young Master Smeet]

As Fred said in 1845:

Freddy wrote:

Democracy nowadays is communism. Any other democracy can only still, exist in the heads of theoretical visionaries who are not concerned with real events, in whose view it is not the men and the circumstances that develop the principles but the principles develop of themselves. Democracy has become the proletarian principle, the principle of the masses. The masses may be more or less clear about this, the only correct meaning of democracy, but all have at least an obscure feeling that social equality of rights is implicit in democracy. The democratic masses can be safely included in any calculation of the strength of the communist forces. And if the proletarian parties of the different nations unite they will be quite right to inscribe the word “Democracy” on their banners, since, except for those who do not count, all European democrats in 1846 are more or less Communists at heart.

We can contrast this to David Cameron's recent conversion to Communism (Sandbags for free, money for flood defences no object), just because some floods happened where the Tories need votes.The effect of a growing socialist movement would be the advance and entrenchment of democracy (the big constitutional questions that traditional leftists eschew in favour of 'bread and butter' questions).So, even if we achieve a local majority before we can effectively organise to abolish teh wages system, we can extend democracy in the meantime.

[Anonymous]

robbo203 wrote:

 What you are suggesting is that a stateless socialist society has no means by which to enforce its own will – something i would contest.  

No I never said that. Is there no such thing as revolution ? Only capitalism or socialism?If you reject the 'dictatorship of the proletariate' (which I agree is not a helpful term nowadays) are you also rejecting the need to take control of the state? 

[Anonymous]

I don't think it will be any different from what it is now. You and I are forced to continue with capitalism until there is a majority. Why should it be any different in future?Is it that you believe a socialist majority in parliament – with capitalism still in existence – will lead to something along the lines of the Soviet Union. Well I believe it is an unfounded fear.  Perhaps it is a bit of Leninphobia!       

[Author]

Posts