The spatial spread of socialist society

[ALB]

Here's the ICC's crackpot solution to the problem raised by Robbo — world-wide civil war.And here's the CWO's admission that what would exist in the areas under the control of the "workers state" (with or without inverted commas) would be capitalist:

Quote:

A so-called ‘workers’ state’ or the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is, in the first instance, a political category. Nevertheless, a ‘workers’ state’ will take measures for the improvement of the conditions of life of the working class (reduction in the working-day, free access to the health and education system, etc) and try to direct production for the needs of society. But these measures are, in any case, milestones for a socialist future (. . . ) As long as capitalist commodity production in the rest of the world continues to exist, the diktat of the law of value holds (p.38).

Socialists shouldn't have too much difficulty in refuting these ideas on the various forums where and when they appear. I think Robbo's point is that the last sentence above isn't necessarily true. One major reason why the CWO think it is is that they don't envisage a majority of the population in the areas where capitalist rule has been overthrown being or having to be socialist-minded and so can't think of any means of dealing with it other than the old capitalist forms plus a few reformist "milestones". If, on the other hand, there was a socialist majority there then the population could understand and adopt other measures which did not reflect "the diktat of the law of value", certainly production directly for use and the direct distribution of products for use without money (even if not full free access).

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

 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?

 Of course not.  The DOTP is something that is supposed to be installed AFTER the working class is said to have "taken control of the state".  Except, of course, that I would not say the working class  had carried out a revolution yet in that case.  If the working class or proletariat still exists  (and a DOTP means it does still exist) then clearly capitalism still exists and a fundamental change in the  very basis of society – what is meant by a "revolution" – would be something that has yet to be accomplished

[steve colborn]

I think Robbo, you are getting the horse mixed up with the cart, or first principles misconstrued as something else. Plainly and simply put, when a majority of workers are "class-conscious" and use their common interests for their own good, it will not matter what pertains at "that time", the dotp or whatever else anyone wants to call it, will be a moot point. A new way of running society will be established. Intellectual bollocks, moreover, intellectuals, can go hang. When we become a class that understands "ourselves" and our interests, the State, Capitalism, and all the detritus that surrounds it can, quite literally, go "fuck itself".Speed the day!

[robbo203]

ALB wrote:

Here's the ICC's crackpot solution to the problem raised by Robbo — world-wide civil war.And here's the CWO's admission that what would exist in the areas under the control of the "workers state" (with or without inverted commas) would be capitalist:

Quote:

A so-called ‘workers’ state’ or the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is, in the first instance, a political category. Nevertheless, a ‘workers’ state’ will take measures for the improvement of the conditions of life of the working class (reduction in the working-day, free access to the health and education system, etc) and try to direct production for the needs of society. But these measures are, in any case, milestones for a socialist future (. . . ) As long as capitalist commodity production in the rest of the world continues to exist, the diktat of the law of value holds (p.38).

Socialists shouldn't have too much difficulty in refuting these ideas on the various forums where and when they appear. I think Robbo's point is that the last sentence above isn't necessarily true. One major reason why the CWO think it is is that they don't envisage a majority of the population in the areas where capitalist rule has been overthrown being or having to be socialist-minded and so can't think of any means of dealing with it other than the old capitalist forms plus a few reformist "milestones". If, on the other hand, there was a socialist majority there then the population could understand and adopt other measures which did not reflect "the diktat of the law of value", certainly production directly for use and the direct distribution of products for use without money (even if not full free access).

 The CWO quote above  nicely illustrates the point that Ive long argued about the concept of the DOTP – that it feeds into and helps to rationalise or underwrite a Left reformist approach to politics.  I dont think its enough to dismiss the concept simply on the grounds that it is "outdated" or that the wording is potentially misleading. What has to be acknowleged also is that the concept itself – quite apart from being inherently illogical – is intrinsically toxic to the interests of the working class inasmuch as capitalism whether under a DOTP or any other form of governance, cannot possibly be administered in the interests of the class it needs  to economically exploit. The other point  the CWO make about parts of the word, where a socialist majority had first taken power,  being unable to flout the "law of value"" until such time as the entire world  had been been covered in DOTPs, rather undermines its  claims as to what a DOTP is capable of achieving given that a DOTP would then likewise be subject to the selfsame law of value.  By implication this means that a DOTP would be essentially no different from any (other) form of  capitalist regime likewise subject to the law of value. It would seem the CWO have rather shot themselves in the foot with this particular argument!  propsect of the DO 

[Anonymous]

Dictatorsip of the proletariat means the dictariship of the majority instead of the few. What does it matter if it has been mis interpreted and twisted? So has 'socialism'.  The capitalist media  have good reason to hate our words. Let them tremble at the socialist revolution we have nothing to lose…I cannot envisage uneven development but if there was a time lag, a community wanting socialism would not take the means of production into state ownership and wait for the rest of the world catch up.  I still think you are confusing Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat with Lenin and Stalin’s dictatorship over the proletariat.Property is not transferred to the state. it is taken by the community to be used in its interestsThe socialist community would send delegates to parliament only to prevent it from being used against the organisation of production for use and free access. This is incompatible with Stalin’s dictatorship over the proletariat but compatible with Marx’s idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The class conscious proletariat is dictating the course of history  and in the process  abolishes itself  and as Engels wrote“The anarchy of production is replaced by planned conscious organisation …and we emerge from animal conditions of existence to truly human ones”

[alanjjohnstone]

"…The socialist community would send delegates to parliament only to prevent it from being used against the organisation of production for use and free access… " My understanding is that it may not be simply a preventative measure as you suggest but in some cases will be used against a recalcitrant minority which may well endeavour to use violence against the will of the people. Our control of the State and with it the command of the armed forces may be wielded proactively rather than the passive role reflected in the section i quoted. We cannot also overlook the situation that some warlord will not yield and he and his supporters will have to be subdued forcibly. So the blue helmets may not be immediately redundant. (as an aside –  i do not actually foresee the military being disbanded but they also being adapted to a new role…all that testosterone can be channeled into a new type of a Peace Corps.  If they can wage war on the opposite side of the world they can be deployed in the wildernesses and jungles to develop the infrastructure) We will see a process within the State machine taking place. Those who are going to strip away its anti-social elements and enhance its social importance, i'm meaning all the ministries such as health an environment and departments of statistics., etc etc. Not an overnight process but importantly not one that will await the day after the revolution either. I remember how the unions during the 70 developed the Lucas Aerospace project where they reappraised what they did and how it could switch from the arms business to constructive industry. The DOTP may well be the process of dotting the i and crossing the t to this transformation of the economy as the resources are made available.  

[Anonymous]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

My understanding is that it may not be simply a preventative measure as you suggest but in some cases will be used against a recalcitrant minority which may well endeavour to use violence against the will of the people. Our control of the State and with it the command of the armed forces may be wielded proactively rather than the passive role reflected in the section i quoted. 

  I should have added that the state will defend the socialist re-organisation of society if that is neededIt is impossible to visualise a socialist revolution but my point is that the state will not take property into ownership; the community will.The state's role will be to facilitate the process. I guess you were never in favour of   'the immediate abolition the state'?   

[alanjjohnstone]

I'm more a wither away person, myself 

[robbo203]

Vin Maratty wrote:

Dictatorsip of the proletariat means the dictariship of the majority instead of the few. What does it matter if it has been mis interpreted and twisted? So has 'socialism'.  The capitalist media  have good reason to hate our words. Let them tremble at the socialist revolution we have nothing to lose…

 The proletariat is certainly the majority but it does not follow from that that the dictatorship of the proletariat  means the dictatorship of the majority.  Again, you are missing the point completely. How can the proletariat exercise a "dictatorship" at all in any meaningful sense of the term when the proletariat by definition is the subject class in capitalism, the exploited class in capitalism?.  How can the exploited "dictate" terms to those who exploit them? It makes no sense.  It is only by overthrowing their status as the exploited class that the majority can "dictate". Thats blindingly obvious. The confusion still seems to loe with equating the capture of political power with the concept of the DOTP itself.   I repeat once again: they are not the same thing.  You can quite easily advocate the capture of political power by the working  class but completely reject the DOTP as I do.   The DOTP is something that is supposed to be  installed AFTER the capture of political power. The idea is that the working class having captured the state, continues to exist as a working class,  allegedly in control of the state, until such time as  DOTPs have been set up everywhere. Then and only then, according to the theory, is it possible to implement socialism – when every country in the world has set up a DOTP. The problem is that the DOTP by default will be administering capitalism in the meantime and, as we all know,  capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital. So inevitably the DOTP will have to operate a system that operates against the very working class it claims to represent. This is a recipe for class betrayal.  It would also kill any prospect of establishing a socialist society Thats why I say –  to hell with DOTP!  No revolutionary socialist should touch the idea with a bargepole.  To advocate the DOTP is tantamount to, say,  supporting  the early Labour Party which claimed to want to effect a fundamental redistribution of wealth and power in favour of the working class. And we all know what became of the Party of Tony Bliar and Ed Milliband

Vin Maratty wrote:

I cannot envisage uneven development but if there was a time lag, a community wanting socialism would not take the means of production into state ownership and wait for the rest of the world catch up.

 I agree with the latter part of this sentence.  But what you are doing here is rejecting the very grounds on which the advocates of  the DOTP advocate the DOTP!  It is precisely becuause they assert the need for the rest of the world to "catch up" that they advoicate a DOTPI think there is very likely to be a degree of uneven development but not much.  But still enough to rule out the possiblity of synchronous socialist revolutions across the globe 

Vin Maratty wrote:

I still think you are confusing Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat with Lenin and Stalin’s dictatorship over the proletariat.Property is not transferred to the state. it is taken by the community to be used in its interests

Hmm. I think you are on somewhat shaky grounds here if you are trying invoke Marx in supportThe Communist Manifesto which he co-authored states quite clearly: The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.   This is what Marx's DOTP would look like – a system of state-run capitalism.  Lets not have any delusions about that.  True,  Marx and Engels equated it with a "democratic republic" and the Soviet Union was very far from being a democratic republic but capitalism under Marx's version of the DOTP would still amount to the same thing in practice, fundamentally speaking, as Lenin's or Stalin's version –  namely a dictatorship of capital over wage labour (since capitalism can only be run in the interests of capital). The difference would be that, with Marx, workers would be exploited under a democratically run DOTP whereas with Lenin and Stalin,  even the possiblity of wage slaves choosing their own masters was denied them

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

"…The socialist community would send delegates to parliament only to prevent it from being used against the organisation of production for use and free access… " My understanding is that it may not be simply a preventative measure as you suggest but in some cases will be used against a recalcitrant minority which may well endeavour to use violence against the will of the people. Our control of the State and with it the command of the armed forces may be wielded proactively rather than the passive role reflected in the section i quoted. We cannot also overlook the situation that some warlord will not yield and he and his supporters will have to be subdued forcibly. So the blue helmets may not be immediately redundant. (as an aside –  i do not actually foresee the military being disbanded but they also being adapted to a new role…all that testosterone can be channeled into a new type of a Peace Corps.  If they can wage war on the opposite side of the world they can be deployed in the wildernesses and jungles to develop the infrastructure) We will see a process within the State machine taking place. Those who are going to strip away its anti-social elements and enhance its social importance, i'm meaning all the ministries such as health an environment and departments of statistics., etc etc. Not an overnight process but importantly not one that will await the day after the revolution either. I remember how the unions during the 70 developed the Lucas Aerospace project where they reappraised what they did and how it could switch from the arms business to constructive industry. The DOTP may well be the process of dotting the i and crossing the t to this transformation of the economy as the resources are made available. 

 The flaw in this argument is that you are overlooking what the DOTP actually means.  It means the continued existence of a proletariat – you know, the wage slaves who sell their labour power to an employer who exploits them in return .   Do you propose that the process of "stripping away" all the anti social aspects of the state machine should be carried out while a majority continue to remain wage slaves – proletarians – and therefore under an ongoing system of capitalist relations of production which is what by definition a DOTP would be managing? In short, is what you suggest possible while capitalism still exists albeit DOTP style capitalism The problem, I think, is  that you are  confusing the state qua state with the administrative hardware  or bureaucracy we associate with the state.  Its the same with the argument you invoke that you need a "state" to protect the community against the odd warlord cum recalcitrant minority.  But this is confusing,  A state is an instrument of class rule. If socialism has been esablished there are no classes and therefore no state.  So it would not be the state that would be called upon to defend the community  but rather non-state bodies set up by the community for that purpose if so required. This is not a question of splitting hairs.  It is vital to an understanding of what a state actually is In the absence of a state – that is, in the absence of classes in  socialism –  there might very well still be means of defence needed against the odd psychotic warlord of course.  But these means of defence – weapons of various sorts – do not signify the existence of the state in themselves.  Anymore than a peice of machinery is "capital".  It is only capital under specific socio-economic circumstancess i.e capitalism. So by the same token means of defences only serve as the intrument of a state when a state exists,  When it does not exist the means of defence are still there to be used by the community if the need arises Logically,  it makes no more sense to talk of the state "withering away" than it does of getting rid of the money system one pound note at a time. It is the symbolism of the state and of the process of capturing the state that we should be looking  at – the need to draw a clear line between the society you have departed and tthe society you have come to embrace. The only sensible and coherent inference we can draw from that is that the state will be immediately abolished in the eyes of everyone along with the class relations of production that underpin the state.

[alanjjohnstone]

I think what i was describing  the process where the State is transformed into the administration of things , as you say,  rather than dwell upon the DOTP which we all seem to agree is a flawed concept so yes i did not use the classic definition in political left circles except the general understanding to mean the democratic will of the people, and since the majority of people are members of the working class, it is class democracy until indeed capitalist relations are made history.The transformation of the State into organs of social democracy i think is a more worthwhile debate since it is the more appropriate discussion on how to make socialsm practicable and viable than debating the DOTP, a throwaway aside from a 19th century writer who picked it up from another earlier writer but like another vague and seldom used  phrase "permanent revolution" it is seized upon for polemic purposes and distracts. Even with the abolition of wages and money, i would argue that we will be slaves  until we have assumed the full responsibility of the decision making of organising production and distribution and the running of their daily communal/collective lives. This begins in the pre-revolution period but continues in the post-revolution. Capitalism expects a member of the working class to have a passive role and as along as he or she accepts this non-active, non-participatory social role then he or she is still has a class mentality.Even the administration of things for a period will retain coercive elements, prisons and state hospitals for the criminally insane being the most obvious and i am sure for a while the motorway "police" will be still cruising the highways with the "authority" to confiscate car – keys and public health officials with the "power" to padlock restaurants. But that is a different topic on law in socialismTo relate this thread to another, the political is the destructive part of the revolution, workers councils (originally industrial unionism) is the constructive element. While the destruction of capitalism is being accomplished, we can call it the DOTP, if we so wish and when it is completed the constructive side carries on and on changing the state into simply the machinery of administration 

[robbo203]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

I think what i was describing  the process where the State is transformed into the administration of things , as you say,  rather than dwell upon the DOTP which we all seem to agree is a flawed concept so yes i did not use the classic definition in political left circles except the general understanding to mean the democratic will of the people, and since the majority of people are members of the working class, it is class democracy until indeed capitalist relations are made history.The transformation of the State into organs of social democracy i think is a more worthwhile debate since it is the more appropriate discussion on how to make socialsm practicable and viable than debating the DOTP, a throwaway aside from a 19th century writer who picked it up from another earlier writer but like another vague and seldom used  phrase "permanent revolution" it is seized upon for polemic purposes and distracts.

 I understand the point you are making, Alan, but I would strongly caution against making use of the concept of the DOTP in any way shape or form- -even as code for  the mere capture of political power when it is pretty much understood to be  a state of affairs that emerges after the capture of political power by the working class .  Indeed there are even some who argue, from a vanguardist perspective, that only a minority of the working class need be socialists in order for the working class to capture power – a problermatic notion which I think automatically invites substitutionisim (the replacement of the class by the Party/vanguard as the governing organ) To be honest, Im quite surprised, judging by the reponses on this thread , by  the causalness of the SPGB's attitude towards the whole question of the DOTP.  I would have thought, if anything, given its basic theoretical orientration, it would be robustly critical of the idea (and perhaps even produce a pamphlet on the subject!) .  The whole dogma of the DOTP has evolved into something far more than a throwaway aisde from a 19th century  writer.  It has become a central organising principle of the so called revolutionary left and I maintain it is a principle that gives warrant to  their underlying reformism.  After all,  the logic of DOTP, on the face of it , would suggests that capitalism can indeed be run in the interests of the workers who can indeed dictate terms to the capitalists .  And there can be no doubt that under the DOTP it is capitalism that will prevail since by definition the proletariat is the exploited class in capitalism and thus presupposes capitalism. That apart , there is still the question of how a socialist society might come about in  spatial terms which has not really been touched on in this thread. I think we can safely assume a degree of unnevenness in the growth of socialist consciopsuness that would rule out the synchronous implementation of socialism everywhere.  What does that mean for  those parts of the world that attain a significant socialist majority first?The Left's reponse is that they should hold fire and set up a DOTP ands continue with capitalism.  I think thats a ridiculous notion.  A majority in one part of the world presupposes a significant minority of socialists everywhere else and a radically transformed social environment – both locally and globally – that would provide the context in which those parts of the world where a majority had been first attained  can go ahead and establish a socialist society.The really interesting questions still remain to be discussed such as what might be the form in which an expanding socialist part of the world relates to the residual capitalist states.  The point is that these kinds of issues should not be dissmised as "merely speculative", something that can be left to a future socialist movement to deal with.  Like the question of whether or not a socialist society would be centrally planned, they are of an inherently  different nature to issues such as whether or not a socialist society will continue with nuclear power.  That latter issue is indeed a matter of speculation but not what we are talking about hereWhat we are talking here is an organic aspect of the socialist case, a logical deduction from what  will almost certainly be the case – the relatively unneven spatial growth of the socialist movement.  It is thus an issue that cannot be avoided or sidelined and requires therefore some kind of theoretical position be developed in relation to this matter if  the case for socialism is to come across as more plausible

[Young Master Smeet]

I must be missing something here.1) The socialist party achieves political majority within the working class.2) The working class achieves political power.3) The organised working class, using political power, works to abolish capitalism.Now, if only for a few days, hours or nano-seconds, the political preponderance of the working class will exist within capitalism.Now, we can also envision a situation where the working class could take control of the state, but be unable to abolish capitalism (the vexed question of the local majority, or the technical majority).  Whilst it would ultimately have to govern within the limits of the interest of capital, such local/technial majorities could work to keep naked state power out of the direct hands of the agents of capital.For example, in the UK, I'd imagine any "socialist" administration that, say, won a parliamentary majority with 25% of th vote to do such things as (at least have referendums proposing to) abolish the Monarchy, House of Lordsa and Prime Minister and introduce annual Parliaments, elected office for important positions (Chief Exec of the NHS, BBC, etc.), etc.

[Anonymous]

Robbo, It is obvious that you are using the word 'dictatorship' as defined today by the 'right' and 'left'. There had been no Stalins in Marx's day. Marx uses the term in a completely different context. The 'right' and 'left' have done the same to 'communism' Discussing the dictatorship of the proletariat with you is like defending communism with someone who keeps an image in their head of the Russian revolution. The working class will raise itself to be the class that finally dictates the direction of history – which is why I quoted Engels. 

[alanjjohnstone]

"…but I would strongly caution against making use of the concept of the DOTP in any way shape or form…" I agree since i cannot recollect ever using the term in recent years and as you pointed  i redefined it in my own terms and i thought i had dismissed it as a worthy concept  to consider. We treat it with the same contempt as we do the "workers state" term is what we do, even if it was used by Marx.   "…What does that mean for  those parts of the world that attain a significant socialist majority first?…" At one time long ago i had this romantic idea that we form a International Brigade to liberate socialist minorities in 'medieval' backward countries. Having since visited some places i re-evaluated and just as medieval Calvinism existed in the Outer Hebrides (and Chapel in parts of Wales, i guess)  long after it disappeared elsewhere and died its own death in its own time we will let that happen and meantime any who wish to exit such a region will receive a welcome and not be treated as a unwanted as a political refugee or asylum seeker currently is.  But i suppose the Left envisage the unevenism to be more like those backward bible bashing creationist Americans who unlike examples i offered may be crucial to the material needs to socialism (which i don't particularly believe). I have in a previous contribution mentioned that the hinterland of China to-day is not China…see # 4…and the Bible belt of of the USA is not America. They become simply regions of the Big Wide World. And they readily adopt what they need to survive and put other beliefs on back-burner.  i guess if a warlord (or a recalcitrant region) has in his clutches (as in Congo) highly sought after natural resource we will engage in barter. No lifestyle crisis for the rest of us in the rest of the world.   "….the relatively unneven spatial growth of the socialist movement.  It is thus an issue that cannot be avoided or sidelined and requires therefore some kind of theoretical position be developed in relation to this matter if  the case for socialism is to come across as more plausible…" The DOTP is not the theory we need to answer or address this issue. We don't side-line it but the DOTP side-tracks it into a cul de sac.    

[Author]

Posts