ZNet Articles
ZMag Articles
Blog PostsDebate with the International Socialist Organization
By Tom Wetzel at Oct 01, 2010 |
|
The piece below is part of a debate prompted by Eric Kerl's article "Contemporary anarchism" in the July-August issue of International Socialist Review:
http://www.isreview.org/issues/72/feat-anarchism.shtml
This article was more objective than previous articles by the ISO critiquing anarchism. I wrote a review of that article which was published on the webzine of the Workers Solidarity Alliance:
http://ideasandaction.info/2010/07/review-international-socialist-review-on-contemporary-anarchism/
In the September-October issue of the ISO's journal the debate was continued with three short pieces, by myself, Sebastian Lamb of the New Socialist Group in Canada, and Eric Kerl. The piece below is a rejoinder to Eric Kerl's response in that issue of ISR.
1. Marxism, Leninism, Syndicalism
Kerl and the ISO want to frame the debate in such a way that those of us who disagree with the ISO from the libertarian socialist left are seen as "against Marxism." But ISO's "anarchism versus Marxism" theme is a false way of framing the disagreement. Workers Solidarity Alliance is not an "anti-Marxist" organization. A number of our members find value in various aspects of Marxism as I do.
Our beef with the ISO is over their Leninism.
Why is this important? The problem is that the writings of Lenin and the politics and practice of Bolshevism in the Russian revolution provide precedents and justifications for a political practice that, in our view, is likely to lead to the emergence of a society dominated by a bureaucratic class...with the workers continuing as a subordinated and exploited class. This is why we reject Leninism.
Kerl claims that "the heart of Marxism is working-class self-emancipation." He also claims that socialism is to be achieved through "mass struggle from below." Thus far, we're in agreement. Revolutionary syndicalism is indeed a strategy to acheive a self-managed socialist society through "mass struggle from below." However, as Sebastian Lamb of the New Socialist Group points out in his contribution to this debate, "Not all supporters of socialism from below have beeen Marxists...[and] most Marxists have not been supporters of socialism from below."
From a libertarian socialist point of view, the "self-emancipation of the working class" can't happen unless the working class builds organized mass movements that they control, such as labor organizations. This is the fundamental basis of syndicalism as a revolutionary strategy. Kerl doesn't talk about self-managed mass organizations as the basis for achieving worker power. If it isn't the working class-based mass social movements that are to acheive the change in society, then how can the ISO claim that they see this change as occurring through "mass struggle from below"?
Although Kerl talks about the Leninist party's "leadership" growing "organically" out of working class struggles and movements, he doesn't say anything about the need for rank and file control of mass organizations, the importance of direct democracy, or the role of the mass organizations in a revolutionary transition. Although the Bolshevik Party in the Russian revolution did amass a large membership through recruiting rank-and-file leaders and activists in the factory committees, unions and soldier committees, this did not prevent them from conceiving of "worker power" as their party controlling a state.
2. Leninism as Partyist
I have characterized the Leninist strategy as partyist, that is, a a strategy of
“a political party capturing state power, and then implementing its program top-down through the hierarchies of the state”.
Kerl says this is "Cold War mythology." That's a rather odd response. Why would Cold War defenders of "capitalist democracy," as they call it, be opposed to political parties "implementing their programs through the hierarchies of the state"? After all, liberals and conservatives who talk about our supposed "capitalist democracy" tend to identify "democracy" with elections of politicians -- political party leaders...who then implement their decisions through the top-down hierarchies of the state. Cold Warriors don't propose to do away with the hierarchical state machine.
It's fairly easy to show that the actual strategy of the Bolshevik Party in the Russian revolution was partyist.
Central Government Rules by Decree
In October 1917 the Congress of Worker and Soldier Soviets agreed to take power and disband the unelected "provisional government" of Alexander Kerensky. This was a decision supported by the majority of the Left in Russia -- syndicalists, the majority of the Menshevik Party (moderate socialists), the Left Social Revolutionary Party (the party with the largest support among the Russian peasantry), and most anarchists as well as the Bolsheviks. Although the libertarian Left had criticisms of the top-down way local soviets were often structured, they were willing to give "critical support" to this change because they assumed they could continue to organize in workplaces, unions and soviets for their viewpoint.
Therefore, it is incorrect to describe this as a "coup d'etat," as Cold Warriors do. When a social-democratic opposition walked out, the Bolshevik party attained a temporary majority of the remaining delegates. They used this to push through a proposal of Lenin to give government authority to a committee, the Council of People's Commissars. The Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Congress was to continue in session as the country's nominal parliament.
But the Bolsheviks worked to pack the Central Executive Committee with dozens of trade union bureaucrats and other officials loyal to the Bolshevik Party...in violation of the soviet principle of direct election. Within some months after October, the Bolshevik government was treating the nominal parliament as a mere rubber stamp. Soon they were ruling by decree, not even submitting proposed laws to the nominal legislature.
How were ordinary workers and peasants in Russia supposed to participate in the making of decisions about the future of the country or the running of the economy?
Top-Down Local Soviets
Also, the major soviets (councils of worker and soldier deputies) in St. Petersburg (Petrograd), Moscow and other cities were structured in a top-down way. These soviets had initially been set up by the social-democratic Menshevik party (and other socialists) at the time of the collapse of Tsarism in March, 1917. Power was centralized in executive committees which mainly consisted of members of the political party "intelligentsia." In the Moscow and St. Petersburg soviets, power was further concentrated into the hands of an even smaller group, the Presidium. According to eye-witness accounts, the executive committees tended to treat the plenaries of delegates as mere rubber stamps. The plenary meetings soon evolved into simply a place where a delegate could go to publicize particular issues or struggles, but not a place where decisions were made.(1)
There were exceptions to this, such as the Kronstadt soviet -- a soviet of workers and sailors at the main navy base of the Russian Baltic fleet. In Kronstadt, 1917-1921, Israel Getzler gives a concrete description of the workings of the soviet in Kronstadt. Here it is clear that the ordinary working class delegates were the people who debated and made the actual decisions themselves. But neither of the main Marxist parties (Bolsheviks and Mensheviks) were dominant in Kronstadt. Two libertarian socialist organizations -- the Union of Socialist Revolutionaries-Maximalists (usualy called "Maximalists") and the anarcho-syndicalists -- had the most political support.
In addition, there were also weekly assemblies in all the workplaces and among the crews of the ships in the Baltic fleet. These assemblies and workplace committees kept a close eye on their soviet delegates and were an important example of direct participation by the rank and file in the decision-making process.
But this kind of direct democracy was not advocated or emphasized by the Bolshevik party. After the Bolsheviks consolidated their hold in Kronstadt during the Russian civil war, they did away with the workplace and ship assemblies.
And what happened to the local soviets in other places? The first new elections of delegates to the local soviets in Russian cities after October, 1917 took place in the spring of 1918. In many of these cities the Bolsheviks were defeated...receiving only a minority of the vote in the elections. The Bolshevik Party responded to this situation by using armed force to stay in office or overthrow the soviet, replacing it with a Military Revolutionary Committee controlled by their party. It was around this time that Lenin began to talk about "the dictatorship of the party."(2)
Even before the Bolshevik Party moved to abrogate soviet democracy, the only participation of rank-and-file workers they emphasized was voting for representatives, not participating in assemblies to make decisions themselves.
Top-down Central Planning
Within a few weeks after the creation of the Council of People's Commissars, the Bolsheviks created another important institution -- the Supreme Council of National Economy. This body was appointed from above and consisted of various experts, trade union officials and various Bolshevik Party members. It was given authority to devise -- from above -- an economic plan for the whole national economy. This body eventually became the Soviet central planning agency Gosplan in the '20s. When various regional and industry councils were created under this body, Lenin insisted that workers could not elect more than a third of the representatives.(3)
There were alternatives to this. At the First All-Russian Trade Union Congress in January 1918, the syndicalist delegates (with the support of their maximalist allies) proposed a national congress of the factory committee movement to create a national economic plan and control coordination between workplaces -- "from below." But the combined vote of Bolshevik and Menshevik delegates defeated this proposal.
Top-down local soviets, a central government ruling by decree, a hierarchical army run by ex-Tsarist officers, a top-down central planning apparatus, appointment of bosses from above to control workers in industry -- these are all examples of top-down, hierarchical structures that were well-adapted to rule from above. They were not accountable to workplace assemblies, worker congresses or soviet plenaries.
Thus it seems to be quite accurate to describe Leninism as a strategy of a party gaining control of a state and then implementing its program top-down through the hierarchies of the state. This is in fact what the Bolshevik party did.
3. Workers Self-management or Leninist "Worker’s Control"?
After the creation of the Council of People's Commissars in October 1917, Lenin did issue a law authorizing "workers control." However, Lenin uses a very weak concept of "control" where this allots to workers only the power to "check" management, have a veto on hiring and firing, and demand that management "open the books." Moreover, this merely legalized gains the workers committee movement in Russia had already achieved through class fights during 1917.
In the fall of 1917, Lenin assumed that capitalist management of factories would continue for some time. Thus he saw the "checking" of management by workers as a way to keep them from sabotaging the revolution.
After Lenin's "worker control" law was passed, a syndicalist group in the factory committee movement in St. Petersburg issued a "manual of workers control" that advocated going beyond mere "control" to expropriation of capitalists and collective worker management of production. To oppose this, the central government issued a statement on November 14, 1917 which said:
"The right to issue orders relating to management, running and functioning of enterprises remains in the hands of the owner."(4)
Israel Getzler describes a proposal in Kronstadt in January 1918 to expropriate all land and businesses and all housing. This motion was proposed in the Kronstadt soviet by Efim Yarchuk -- a member of the executive committee of the Russian anarcho-syndicalist federation. This measure passed by majority vote in the Kronstadt soviet -- despite the fact that the Bolshevik and Menshevik delegates voted "No." The Bolshevik delegates opposed this measure because Bolshevik policy at that time was opposed to expropriation and direct worker management created by workers themselves.
Lenin envisioned socialism as retaining the hierarchical managerial systems created by capitalism. He believed this hierarchical structure could be wielded by the working class through a "workers state." This idea is expressed in the following passage in The State and Revolution
"A witty German Social-Democrat of the last century called the postal service an example of the socialist economic system. This is very true. At the present the postal service is a business organized on the lines of a state-capitalist monopoly. Imperialism is gradually transforming all trusts into organizations of a similar type, in which, standing over the "common" people, who are overworked and starved, one has the bourgeois democracy. But the mechanism of social management is here already to hand. Once we have overthrown the capitalists, crushed the resistance of these exploiters with teh iron hand of the armed workers, and smashed the bureaucratic machine of the modern state, we shall have a splendidly-equipped mechanism, from from the "parasite," a mechanism which can very well be set going by the united workers themselves, who will hire technicians, foremen and accountants, and pay them all, as indeed all state officials in general, workmen's wages....To organize the whole economy on the lines of the postal service...all under the control and leadership of the armed proletariat -- that is our immediate aim."(5)
Lenin and the main Bolshevik leaders had a fixation on top-down centralization. Thus Lenin often insisted that the economy, revolutionary army and the soviet state should be "subordinated to a single will." For example in March 1918 he wrote:
"Large-scale machine industry -- which is...the foundation of socialis -- calls for absolute and strict unity of will, which directs the joint labors of hundreds, thousands and tens of thousands of people. The technical, economic and historic necessity of this is obvious...But how can strict unity of will be ensured? By thousands subordinating their will to the will of one."(6)
If workers do not directly manage the workplaces, who will? A bureaucratic hierarchy of one-man managers, assisted by "foremen, accountants and experts"? This provides a real material basis for a bureaucratic class-dominated economy. Their class power would make all talk of "equal wages" null because they would be in a position to ensure privileges for themselves over time.
The Civil War as Excuse
Kerl responds on this point as follows:
"As for Lenin's opposition to workers' self-management, suffice it to say that Wetzel's criticism leaves out context. The fledgling workers' state existed in conditions of encirclement by Western armies, well-funded by counterrevolutionary White armies, economic chaos and collapse, and the dissolution of the working class (by as early as April 1918, the workforce of Petrograd had declined to 40 percent of its January 1917 level, and the number of metalworkers in the capital declined by almost 75 percent...). The shift toward top-down centralization and away from self-management was...a product of...the centrifigual collapse of Russian's industrial system in the midst of civil war. It is this that explains Lenin's shift from support for workers' control toward more centralized forms of economic management."
In reply:
First, Kerl's last sentence is disingenuous. Kerl is here supposing that Lenin's "workers control" is the same thing as workers self-management. And this is not true. To say that Lenin "moved away from self-management" implies that at one time he supported or advocated it. But in fact he never did.
Direct participation by ordinary workers through assemblies and direct self-management of workplaces by workers were never a feature of Bolshevik practice in the Russian revolution nor were they characteristic of Bolshevik Party politics. As Marxist sociologist Sam Farber writes:
"After October...Lenin's perspective [on workers' role] in Russian factories never went beyond his...usual emphasis on accounting and inspection [that is, Lenin's concept of "workers control"]....The underlying cause here was not, as some have claimed that Lenin and the party leaders were cynically manipulating the factory committees and that once the party leaders 'got power' they had no more use for them....The key problem was that Lenin and the mainstream of the Bolshevik Party, or for that matter the Mensheviks, paid little if any attention to the need for a transformation and democratization of the daily life of the working class on the shopfloor and community...For Lenin the central problem and concern continued to be the revolutionary transformation of the central state."
Farber also points out that "there is no evidence indicating that Lenin or any of the mainstream Bolshevik leaders lamented the loss of workers' control or of democracy in the soviets or...referred to those losses as a retreat."(7)
If Lenin and the Bolsheviks had advocated workers' self-management or thought it was important but felt that conditions of war and economic disruption made this unfeasible, why was there no expression of regret? When Lenin and the Bolsheviks retreated from the state-run economy of War Communism and implemented free trade under the New Economic Policy in 1921, Lenin did declare this to be a retreat...but not so with absence of worker power of decision-making in production.
Second, Kerl's claim about the "dissolution of the working class" is an exaggeration, to say the least. St. Petersburg's population before World War 1 was about a million. This had swelled to 2 million during the war because a large part of war production for the Russian army during World War 1 was centered there. After Russia pulled out of the war, war production collapsed. But the decline of the urban population was less severe in other Russian cities.
Moreover, the mass strikes in protest to Communist policy in St. Petersburg and Moscow was dramatic evidence that the working class still existed and was capable of collective self-activity. The Communist government responded to the St. Petersburg general strike in February 1921 with violent repression and martial law. This is the event that triggered the rebellion of the workers and sailors of Kronstadt, which was actually a solidarity strike.
Third, the civil war in Russia didn't get underway until the summer of 1918. But top-down state planning began with the creation of the Supreme Council of National Economy in the fall of 1917. And Lenin was already beating the drum for one-man management (bosses appointed from above) and Taylorist piece-rates (a technique of pitting workers against each other in competition to increase productivity) by April of 1918. The defeat of the syndicalist proposal for a national congress of factory committees and planning "from below" occurred in January 1918. The civil war can't be blamed for actions and policies that began before the civil war.
Before 1918 Lenin had been aware that economic disruption, violent clashes and potentially civil war are characteristics of a period of revolutionary transition. If Lenin and the Bolshevik party leaders quickly tossed out democratic worker militias, worker management of workplaces and the right to free election of soviet delegates, doesn't this tell us they did not see these things as crucial? If Kerl agrees with this reasoning, what does this tell us about the likely actions of the ISO if they were the dominant "leadership" in such a situation?
Nor can civil war explain opposition to workers management. In the Spanish revolution, the onset of civil war in July 1936 was the occasion for a deepening of the revolution through widespread worker expropriation of industry and farm land. The direct worker power in agriculture and industry was itself important to the ability of the workers' movement to create and sustain a large worker militia -- hundreds of factories were converted to war production through the initiative of the workers. These revolutionary conquests motivated workers to produce and fight. Self-management strengthened the revolution.
At that time the Spanish Communist Party did denounce the worker self-management of industry as "inopportune" "utopian experiments," and they opposed them for this reason. It's ironic, then, that Kerl is agreeing with the rationale of the Spanish Communist Party for opposing workers' management -- a type of Marxist organization the ISO usually denounces as "Stalinist."
4. "Workers State" or Social Self-management?
Kerl writes:
"Wetzel incorrectly paraphrases Engels on the state -- as 'an apparatus that is separated off from effective popular control" rather than a coercive instrument of class rule..."
According to Engels, the state
"is the product of society at a particular stage of development...cleft into irreconcilable antagonisms...classes with conflicting interests."
This leads to a "public power" emerging that places "itself above society and increasingly alienated from it."(8) Now, why is the state "alienated from" the populace it rules over? If we look at the state, we see various bureaucratic structures where decision-making authority and key kinds of expertise are concentrated in the hands of a few, that is, forming a hierarchy, with a chain of command structure. This top-down character of the state apparatus indicates the class character of the state in two ways. First, public workers are themselves subordinate to a bureaucratic class. And, second, the state is structured this way to make it more feasible for it to act to defend the interests of a dominating, exploiting class.
A state is indeed "a coercive instrument of class rule" but it is an instrument of a dominating, exploiting class. Thus it is not possible for the working class to wield a state as the basis of its own collective self-management of society. This is why a "workers state" is a contradiction in terms.
In our "Where We Stand" statement, WSA says:
"The working class can liberate itself through the development of self-managed mass movements that develop through the class struggle. We thus advocate a strategy for social change “from below,” based on mass participation, direct democracy, collective direct action and self-managed mass organizations....
To liberate itself from subordination to dominating classes, the working class must dismantle the hierarchical structures of the corporations and the state. The working class, through its own united action, must seize and manage directly the entire system of production, distribution and services.
Self-management must not be limited to the workplaces but must be extended throughout the society and to governance of public affairs. Self-management means that people control the decisions that affect them. The basic building blocks of a self-managed society would be assemblies of workers in workplaces and of residents in neighborhoods."
In my ISR piece I described the structure of social self-management this way:
"A self-managing society needs a governance structure through which the people make and enforce the basic rules of the society and defend their social order. Thus we think there would be a central role for regional and national congresses of delegates elected by the base assemblies. To ensure accountability to the base and direct participation by the rank and file, we favor a rule that allows controversial decisions of congresses to be forced back to the base assemblies for debate and decision."
The working class-based organized mass movement that creates this structure of industrial and social self-management would also create its own people's militia, accountable directly to them. This would be necessary for self-defense of the revolutionary movement against external or internal attempts by armed organizations to re-create a capitalist regime.
My essay in ISR already provided the answer to questions Kerl raises: "Wetzel proposes an armed body...Will this militia exist indefinitely? What is the basis for its dissolution?" The mass working class-based movement that creates the structures of social and workplace self-management also creates the militia. The institutions of popular power created by the working class-based mass movement is the basis for the control of this militia.
The idea that the working class mass organizations are the source of "the authority" of the militia is a long-standing syndicalist principle. Thus the principles of the syndicalist International Workers Association say:
"Revolutionary unionism advocates...the replacement of standing armies, which are only the instruments of counter-revolution at the service of capitalism, by workers’ militias, which, during the revolution, will be controlled by the workers’ unions."(9)
Kerl responds to my description of a governance structure based on assemblies, delegate congresses and a people's militia by describing it as a "workers state" under another name. But, then, a few sentences later he says I "ignore the purpose of a militia -- organized coercion." But if I say that the governance structure proposed by libertarian socialists must have the means to "enforce" its decisions (including a militia), how am I ignoring the existence of "organized coercion"?
Moreover, the ability of a society's governance system to exercise "organized coercion" does not make it a state. In early tribal societies that lacked a division into classes and lacked the bureaucratic structure of a state, their ability to govern their affairs still entailed occasional ability to use "organized coercion"...as when one tribe went to war against another in a fight over land. An armed band fighting to exclude another tribe from their lands is a form of "organized coercion."
The failure of Leninist state socialism in the 20th century contributed to discrediting socialism itself in the eyes of many. It's not plausible to propose to simply go back to Lenin and the Bolsheviks of 1917 as if their politics had nothing to do with the emergence of dismal bureaucratic class-dominated regimes.
Notes
(1) Peter Rachleff, "Soviets and Factory Committees in the Russian Revolution"
(http://libcom.org/library/soviets-factory-committees-russian-revolution-peter-rachleff)
(2) The refusal of the Bolsheviks to accept the results of soviet elections in the spring of 1918 is
discussed in Vladimir Brovkin, The Mensheviks After October. See also Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p 22 ff.
(3) Maurice Brinton, "The Bolsheviks and Workers' Control" in For Workers Power, p. 293 ff.
(4) Brinton, p. 327.
(5) V.I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 25, p. 426 ff.
(6) V.I. Lenin, "The Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government", Collected Works, Vol. 27, p. 268.
(7) Samuel Farber, Before Stalinism, p. 72.
(8) Frederick Engels, The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, p. 229.
(9) http://www.iwa-ait.org/?q=statutes
self-managed mass organizations
By Andrews, Matthew at Oct 05, 2010 20:04 PM
I've never heard of the WSA, but I see from their website that they share the same building as the SPUSA of which I am a member! I really like this idea that WSA seems to emphasize about "working people building their own self-managed mass organizations." That is a philosophical principle which underlies my membership in both the SPUSA and the IWW. Although one is a political party and the other a union, both are democratic, member-run organizations that seek to build a mass base for the class struggle. I'm also active in local movement-based coalitions in Boston to oppose war and support immigrant rights. The Greater Boston Stop the Wars Coalition and the Boston May Day Committee share this outlook. I like to make an analogy by referring to left wing groups collectively as forming an ecology. They compete and cooperate. No one group has all the answers. Different organizations have adapted to the particulars of their constituents and the struggles they face. Overcoming sectarianism to me, means flowing with this complexity, rather than try to dominate it. This would make the left as a whole much healthier. When we unite left-wing forces, we can respond to current events and advance popular demands.
I was surprised to read your argument on the nature of the state:
A state is indeed "a coercive instrument of class rule" but it is an instrument of a dominating, exploiting class. Thus it is not possible for the working class to wield a state as the basis of its own collective self-management of society. This is why a "workers state" is a contradiction in terms.
You seem to imply that Frederick Engels makes this argument in The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State. Is this true? Or perhaps he is only referring to state that existed at the time of his writing?
I have always defined the state as being an institution that 1) holds a monopoly over the use of force and 2) maintains class relations and the status quo social order. This definition does not disqualify the possibility of a workers' state. I'm not sure if this is a real political difference or just a matter of semantics?
It seems obvious to me that even after the most conclusive of revolutionary victories, there is a possibility of the old order re-exerting itself through violence or deceit. Furthermore, it will take a long time, generations in some cases, to overcome the class destinctions that divide us. Material wealth is relatively straight-forward, but levels of development are much more systemic. Also, the struggle to balance levels of education, politicization, and the confidence to assert oneself (not to mention overcome racism and sexism) will undoubtedly continue after a revolution just as it did before. It seems hopelessly romantic to think we can wash these problems away. So, how do we defend a revolution without a workers' state?
I can see how the state would be unnecessary in a classless society. In a society of equals, there would be no need for a repressive regime to enforce inequalities. But if we agree that a revolution would signify a transfer of power from one class to another - such as capitalists to workers - rather than the immediate abolition of classes, then what solutions do you suggest in place of the workers' state?
Reply this comment
Re: self-managed mass organizations
By Wetzel, Tom at Oct 06, 2010 17:22 PM
You ask how we defend a revolution. I wasn't proposing that there be no governance system nor that there not be any means to defend it. Governance involves ways to make the rules, a judicial system of some kind to adjudicate disputes and accusations of criminal conduct, and a means of enforcement and self-defense of the new sysytem. There also needs to be a system of grassroots economic planning to move away from market competition. I mentioned the building blocks of such a governance and planning system -- assemblies in workplaces and neighborhoods. As I envision things, regional congresses of delegates (regions can be smaller or can be as large as a multi-national region or continent) to perform the legislative function, with the right to force important matters back to the base assemblies for discussion and vote by the people themselves.
This governance system would have a "monopoly of legitimate use of force" in its territory. The anarcho-syndicalist movement in Spain proposed a structure somewhat like this during the revoluion there in 1936. In an oral history interview in the '70s the editor of the Madrid daily paper of the anarcho-syndicalist movement, Eduardo de Guzman, called this a "proletarian government."
So, you ask, Why not call it a "workers state"? The problem here is that this has been used as an excuse historically by state socialists to justify top-down, bureaucratic structures in the name of expediency or a "temporary situation" or whatever. But this then undermines the goal becuase the bureaucratic concentration of decision-making and information becomes the basis of a new class system.
I don't think it will take generations or many years to get rid of the class system. There are three elements here. First, there is workers taking over the responsibility to manage and plan production in the various workplaces and industries. This includes changing the organizational structure so that power is based on the direct democracy of assemblies. Second, training of people to have information and skills for effective participation in decision-making can begin immediatly. The jobs will need to be changed, and people learn by doing. Of course the society's educational system would need to be changed to support this equalization of roles. And, third, there needs to be a system of decentralized participatory planning so that actual workplace self-management is consistent with social accountability.
I think it's a mistake to think that some bureaucratic managerial regime is okay as some sort of "temporary" measure. It won't be temporary. Any bureaucratic class will use its power to entrench its position.
Reply this comment
anarcho-dogmatism
By Evans, Mark at Oct 09, 2010 02:55 AM
This, in my experience, is a typical anarchist position - but I have never been convinced by it. It seems to me to be very dogmatic. I mean how can you say "It won't be temporary" with such confidence? Even if we agree that historically this has been the case I don't see that this means that it always has to be the case. Look at some of the developments in Venezuela for example.
I put it to you that there is no reason why the coordinator class can't use its position of power and authority to promote economic and social justice. Whilst we are at it, I think the same goes for the capitalist class. Now you might argue that this is unlikely because it would be against their class interests - and I would agree. But it is not - as you seem to think - impossible!
In the end it all depends on what people advocate as economic justice NOT what class they belong to. As we all know members of the working class can be terribly backward whilst members of the coordinator / capitalist class can be quite advanced - and vice-verse.
If there is a member of the working class advocating democratic centralism (i.e. coordinatorism) whilst there is also a member of the coordinator class advocating balanced job complexes, participatory planning, etc. then I am going to work with the member of the coordinator class. Same goes with a member of the capitalist class. As long as they demonstrate a genuine commitment to economic / social justice I don't care what class they belong to.
My problem with your statement (and anarchists in general) is that you make grand / universal assertions about strategy that I think hold us back and cut-off all kinds of creative possibilities - including cross-class alliances. It seems to me that strategy is context specific and therefore no such grand / universal assertions can be made. Rather the question of strategy should be informed by the realities on the ground at any one time and place plus by the long-term objectives of that movement (vision, on the other hand, is a different question). Clearly the answer(s) to this question will therefore vary so no grand / universal answers should be, or can be, taken seriously.
Dogmatism is a major problem within the revolutionary left and I think we should try to overcome it - both amongst Marxists and anarchist.
Reply this comment
Re: anarcho-dogmatism
By D'Arcy, Steve at Oct 09, 2010 15:28 PM
Dogmatism is a problem. You're right about that. But I'm not convinced that it's more common among marxists and anarchists than it is among liberals, conservatives, social democrats or non-marxist, non-anarchist pareconists. That hasn't been my experience, certainly.
Anyway, on your main point. I have to strongly agree with Tom, and disagree with you.
It is one thing to say that one or several particular members of a class can side with other classes. For instance, Friedrich Engels or Pyotr Kropotkin, to name only two of the most famous examples. There's also the case of the Tea Party, which may or may not be mostly 'middle class' ("petty bourgeois"), plus rich people, but is certainly partly comprised of working class people, yet which passionately supports the interests of big business.
It is something quite different -- and far less plausible -- to suggest that institutionalizing the dominance of a class is consistent with an expectation that the class in question can rule on behalf of other classes.
Let's take one example: liberal-democratic capitalism. Here, the poltiical process is structured for the rule of big business (most notably by insulating investment decisions from public control by establishing a "private sector" under the control of a propertied elite). Now, the question is, can corporations rule this sort of society in the interests of workers? Is it just a matter of choice, so that we could imagine, even in principle, that corporations might some day begin to rule on behalf of their employees? Is it just a sort of coincidence that no corporation has yet tried this? I find it hard to even consider this question, except as a rhetorical question, because the answer is so obvious. You will no doubt regard this as an indicator of dogmatism, but I regard it as plain common sense.
The same thing applies to other socio-economic-political regimes. In a statist polity/economy, investment authority and political decision-making power are invested in bureacratic-administrative 'offices.' This creates imperatives, not altogether different from those that drive corporate behavior, such as the imperative to enforce labour discipline, the imperative to ensure that key decisions are defined as 'technical' decisions, requirign deference to 'experts', and so on. Could those at the helm of a bureaucratic regime simply reverse course and begin to dismantle their prerogatives and subject their own processes to popular control, etc.? No. Because acting in that way would disqualify a person from their position, just as ceasing to care about profits above all would disqualify someone from serving as a CEO. (There's more to say, but I'm in a bit of a hurry).
Even if you believe it is possible, in principle, surely, on reflection, you will admit that it would be crazy to base a political strategy on the expectation of such an improbable reversal.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: anarcho-dogmatism
By Evans, Mark at Oct 10, 2010 01:45 AM
Of course he is, and as we agree dogmatism is a problem - it helps to maintain splits where no division need exist. It stifles strategic creativity and has led to the miserable situation the revolutionary left are in today.
It seems to me that there is no (absolute) reason why a party - set-up and run by the professional managerial class - could not take power (by election or otherwise) and use that power to implement new institutions that move us towards a classless / participatory society - all against their own class interests. It just requires a genuine commitment to social justice and that has nothing to do with class! Give the working class power with no understanding of social justice and the results would surely be horrendous?
Lenin paid lip-service to “all power to the soviets” but he did not follow that up in practice. Rather he institutionalised democratic centralism which ensured coodinator class dominance. However the man / the party still had a choice and he / they could instead have used this power to introduce a series of reform that moved the economy / society towards classlessness / participation. Do you deny this?
Im not saying that this is my favoured strategy - not for the UK anyway - but it might be appropriate in some places at some time.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: anarcho-dogmatism
By D'Arcy, Steve at Oct 10, 2010 17:19 PM
{{So Steve - Tom isn’t being dogmatic when he says “It won't be temporary”?
Of course he is, and as we agree dogmatism is a problem - it helps to maintain splits where no division need exist. It stifles strate}gic creativity and has led to the miserable situation the revolutionary left are in today.}}
No, I don't think Tom is being dogmatic when he says that. There's a difference between (1) maintaining a long-standing conviction, grounded in both supporting empirical evidence and theoretical considerations that seem to explain the evidence quite well; and (2) dogmatically clinging to a conviction when there is a lack of empirical support for it, and there are compelling arguments against it.
When a U.S. liberal maintains that supporting the Democratic Party will advance the cause of social justice, even though they see that in practice the Nixon Administration better served that cause than either the Clinton or Obama Administrations (because of the different balance of power between elites and extra-parliamentary movements in these contexts), then that is dogmatic.
I think Tom's case is different. It's not that he read about this in Bakunin and doesn't think there's anything to think about anymore, because he can just cite what Bakunin said (or the Wobblie constitution, or whatever), which is what you seem to be implying about his alleged "anarchist dogmatism." He is making what I think is a well-founded judgment that, for instance, alliances between the workers' movement and big business, or the capitalist state, are self-defeating, which is a judgment well-supported by both evidence and theory. I don't mean that people can't challenge his claim by presenting contrary evidence or arguments. But, if he can engage in a serious way in that debate, by making his case with counter-arguments and counter-evidence, and not just relying on saying "But [thinker X] says [position Y], so you are being a 'revisionist' by questioning it!," then I don't see why he's being "dogmatic."
Dogmatism is not the same thing as judging some long-standing radical arguments to be sound.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: anarcho-dogmatism
By Evans, Mark at Oct 10, 2010 20:43 PM
Rather my criticism here is that Tom makes statements as though this evidence / consideration is conclusive. This, in my experience, is typical of anarchists - but Marxists also have their equivalent. The result of all of this is that the division within the revolutionary left is maintained - the exact opposite to what we need.
The mistake / problem here - it seems to me - is that both anarchists and Marxists tend to treat the evidence as if it is conclusive in nature - and it is not. If the evidence where conclusive then we would be able to draw absolute conclusions from it - like Tom has, and many anarchists and Marxists do all the time - but it is not, so we can not.
The solution - I think - is for the revolutionary left to be more honest about what we can say based on the evidence. This would mean recognising that the nature of such evidence is not conclusive and therefore no absolute conclusions can be drawn. So instead of stating “it won’t be temporary” we might instead say “in my opinion it is unlikely that it will be temporary” or something like that. The difference is that with this approach we could all work together despite the differences of opinion. We could have serious debates whilst respecting each others opinions. By removing the dogmatism we could remove the division.
Treating these questions about strategy as if they are closed only stagnates the movement. If we want to generate an intellectually vibrant movement them the revolutionary left needs to avoid dogmatism by recognising that these questions are very much open to debate and the answers may well vary considerably from time and place.
Reply this comment
what is dogmatism?
By Wetzel, Tom at Oct 11, 2010 23:43 PM
Mark,
I don't think you're clear about the distinction between epistemological certainty and psychological or practical certainty. A person's belief is epistemologically "certain" (or so the epistemologists tell us) when there is no possibility of being mistaken. For about 300 years after Descartes people called "philosophers" tried to come up with some account of the basis of human knowledge that would allow us to say we are "certain" in this sense. After studying those debates I came to the conclusion that that search was a will o' the wisp. That is, my view is that all human knowledge is based on hypotheses. Hypotheses are ideas we come up with to explain the things we observe in our experience. There is always the possibility that in the future we might run into information that might make us change our mind about any given hypothesis....even hypotheses we are quite psychologically certain about.
I hold this to be true even of mathematical propositions. We have the example of Euclid's "Elements." For 2000 years this was taken to be the model of "scientific certainty." Then subsequent information suggests our world in fact is not Euclidean. "The Elements" was a reasonable approximation, generalized from ancient land surveyor practices, but didn't hold up when generalized to the whole physical cosmos.
Epistemological "certainty" isn't the same thing as psychological or practical certainty. According to quantum mechanics, there is some chance that the particles that make up my TV, which is currently in the living room, might disassemble themselves and re-deploy in the bedroom. But that is no reason for me to become psychologically doubtful about whether the TV is in the living room.
Human beings must hold assumptions about the world in order to be able to act in it. It's part of the human condition that we act under conditions of uncertainty. We can't be constantly investigating the huge mass of hypotheses about the world that we hold in our heads. So in principle it's okay for people to hold hypotheses with practical or psychological certainty...even tho no hypothesis, according to me, is epistemologically "certain."
Now, I would agree that our ideas about political strategy are the kinds of assumptions and hypotheses that we should base on careful study about human institutions and social structures, such as class systems and the like, and by examining what we can learn from the history of social movements and struggles. And in this case I think I have done that.
I haven't always rejected "partyism". when I was in my 20s I was influenced by the left-wing of the old American Socialist Party and for a few years believed that a working people's mass party could be a vehicle for basic change in the structure of society. Later on, due to further study of history, I came to abandon that idea. Even then, however, I held that such a party would have to be controlled by a democratic mass labor movement and other social organizations or it would tend to degenerate in some bureaucratic or pro-capitalist way. I think your view that it is sufficient for the leaders to have the "right" ideas about "social justice" is "utopian" in the bad sense, that is, unrealistic. It fails to consider the way that real material class interests affect the mindset that people tend towards.
Now, of course, much more could be said to back up the claim I made about partyism and the role of the bureaucratic class in the state and such, but it wasn't my purpose to write an entire treatise.
You say: "It seems to me that there is no (absolute) reason why a party - set-up and run by the professional managerial class - could not take power (by election or otherwise) and use that power to implement new institutions that move us towards a classless / participatory society - all against their own class interests. It just requires a genuine commitment to social justice and that has nothing to do with class! Give the working class power with no understanding of social justice and the results would surely be horrendous?"
Actually I could cite lots of reasons to disagree with your suggestion here, and I cited a few. So in fact there are plenty of "reasons" to disagree with your hypothesis about an alleged practical possibility of a bureaucractic class run regime somehow liberating the working class from above. You qualify your claim by the word "absolute". What does that word mean?
Frankly I don't think you're really objecting to the fact I didn't preface my claim about partyism with the phrase "it is highly likely that..." If we had to do that all the time that would make human communication pretty tedious. Rather, I think you're simply objecting to a claim you disagree with. In that case, it is always up to you to argue against it or try to refute it.
Reply this comment
Re: what is dogmatism?
By Evans, Mark at Oct 13, 2010 08:44 AM
That is what I mean by dogmatic and it is this delusion of certain knowledge (maintained by both Marxists and anarchists) that I suspect is helping maintain the split within the revolutionary left. I think that if we were all more honest about the limitations of our knowledge then we could disagree whilst maintaining respect between us and thus all organise together. Strong opinions are fine but beyond that we are entering into the world of make believe.
Whether Marxists and anarchists like it or not the reality of the situation regarding organising and the development of strategy is that there are no universal truths about what will and what wont be successful. We need to look at the situation in any one place at any one time (unlike the development of vision - which is based on values - the development of strategy is context specific). The organisers in that place at that time then need to develop their own strategy based on their assessment of what they think will work best to move them towards their long term objectives / vision.
This might mean being in an international organisation whereby some sections choose to try election campaigning whilst others choose more grass roots methods. The point is that there would be debate, disagreement and much diversity - but importantly there would also be respect and solidarity!
But to achieve this we must stop making absolute and universal claims about strategy.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: what is dogmatism?
By Wetzel, Tom at Oct 14, 2010 18:50 PM
If you'd read what I wrote above, you would also not make a statement like this:
"Tom - I don’t deny that you could give plenty of reasons to disagree with the position I put forward and I suspect that I would actually agree with many of them. I am not saying that there is no debate about strategy - quite the opposite in fact. You see the scenario I presented is NOT my personal position but rather an example of what I think is a valid position (even if I disagree with it) - but one that you seem to think has zero validity due to your certain knowledge." Where do I make any claim about "certain knowledge"?
Your ploy here could be turned against you in the following way. Pick anything that you advocate, such as "balanced jobs" or "participatory planning." I could argue, using your same argumentative strategy, that you shouldn't advocate it. After all, according to you, if I advocate something this means I'm supposedly making a claim about "certain knowledge" and you say that is taboo. So it follows that you must think that it is "certain" that participatory planning would work and be better than the alternatives. That's because, you assume that when I advocate something it must be that I'm making a claim about "certain knowledge." But if this is true for me, it's true for you too. So anything you advocate is therefore you making a claim of "certain knowledge."
The logical consequence of your assumptions is that you can't make any claims or proposals. so good luck with your universal scepticism.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: what is dogmatism?
By Evans, Mark at Oct 15, 2010 06:00 AM
“Your ploy here could be turned against you in the following way. Pick anything that you advocate, such as "balanced jobs" or "participatory planning." I could argue, using your same argumentative strategy, that you shouldn't advocate it. After all, according to you, if I advocate something this means I'm supposedly making a claim about "certain knowledge" and you say that is taboo.”
Not true! In my previous reply I clearly stated that “Strong opinions are fine”. This is what I have about BJC, parplanning etc.
Tom asks - “What is a "universal truth"? Where do I make claims about "certain knowledge"?”
As I have highlight throughout this exchange what I am referring to is the following statement Tom made to Mathew (above) -
“"I think it's a mistake to think that some bureaucratic managerial regime is okay as some sort of "temporary" measure. It won't be temporary. Any bureaucratic class will use its power to entrench its position."
Given that this statement has no specific context it reads as a universal statement - by which I mean it reads as if it can be applied to all places at all times.
The phrases “won't be temporary” and “will use its power” leave no room for any other possible outcome - this is what I mean by certain knowledge.
In my experience these kinds of statements are typical of those made by anarchists (mostly against Marxists - which helps to maintain the division within the revolutionary left). My problem with them is that they simply ignore the reality that strategy is context specific - what will work in one place or at one time might not in another place / time - so we can not make universal claims with any real certainty. The development of vision, on the other hand, is a different matter.
Reply this comment
Class systems tend to continue
By Wetzel, Tom at Oct 09, 2010 18:59 PM
As Steve points out, you are confusing two separate questions. Individuals from elite classes have supported movements for empowerment of the oppressed, including movements against the interests of their own class.
But this is different from the question of rthe role of a dominating class itself. A dominating class is based on a particular institutional setup. Why do such systems tend to persist? Within the present capitalist system the bureaucratic and capitalist classes play certain roles. The system reproduces these roles because the day to day activities of members of the different classes shapes them and their mindset and and skills. Workers who work day to day under the thumb of the college-educated bureaucratic class (what you call the "coordinator" class) are encouraged by their subordination and powerlessness to have a mentality of fatalism and acceptance, and the bureaucratic and capitalist class members are encouraged to have a bloated sense of their own entitlement to make the decisions. As Marx put it, humans are "creatures of practice." The daily practice of social production in a class regime tends to shape the skills and mindset of the people who occupy the class roles. A class system doesn't just produce commodities, it reproduces the social power relations.
When I say that it is unlikely that a bureaucratic class, once consolidated in control, will give up its power voluntarily, I think this is a good inductive inference based on the actual observation of how class systems work.
Support of a movement for working class liberation by people of other classes in the course of the actual struggles is not the same thing as a "cross-class alliance." An alliance is based on protecting the interests and aims of the allied groups. A cross-class alliance with the small capitalist class must defend the basic elements of capitalism and similarly a cross-class alliance with the bureaucratic class must leave untouched the top-down hierarchical systems --that is, the relative concentration of decision-making into the hands of executives and professionals -- that is the basis of the power of such a class.
In regard to Venezuela, we can see some of the problems here. The preference for "co-management" in major industries rather than complete worker power protects the bureaucratic class. Denial of funding to community councils or cooperatives where elements of the radical left not supportive of incumbent politicians are prominent also protects the existing party-state structure. What is needed for the transformation of the structures of governance in industry and society is a powerful independent mass working class based movement...precisely to break down resistance by bureaucratic and capitalist elements.
Reply this comment
Confusions between feasibility and "certainty"
By Wetzel, Tom at Oct 21, 2010 21:44 PM
Mark objects to the following passage in my piece here:
“"I think it's a mistake to think that some bureaucratic managerial regime is okay as some sort of "temporary" measure. It won't be temporary. Any bureaucratic class will use its power to entrench its position."
Mark's objection:
"Given that this statement has no specific context it reads as a universal statement - by which I mean it reads as if it can be applied to all places at all times. "
The context for a statement is in the larger discussion that it is a part of. No sentence contains its "context" within itself. If Mark's objection is that the "context" isn't in the sentence, I'd point out that for any sentence you choose, interpretation of that sentence requires information from outside it.
The context for the statement he quotes is the topic discussed in the essay, including the kinds of evidence I refer to. I talk about how classes have a tendency to reproduce themselves, and in this case, the bureaucratic class, which is a product of contemporary class-divided industrial society. This class is based on the relative concentration of decision-making authority and expertise relevant to control over social production and large organizations such as companies and state institutions. This class is a dominating class, that is, has a position of authority, domination, over the working class. So, the question is, Is it realistic to suppose that a dominating class, once entrenched in institutions that give it a dominating class position, would simply voluntarily withdraw from power and work to empower the working class to take over their duties in production and governance?
We have the evidence of state socialism throughout the past century to look at, and in this essay I mainly talk about, or allude to, how this class was consolidated in the Russian revolution, tho a lot more could be said on this.
Mark's conclusion
"The phrases “won't be temporary” and “will use its power” leave no room for any other possible outcome - this is what I mean by certain knowledge."
Mark is here confusing two different meanings of "possible." In my reply to his previous comments, I already pointed out that I think that, probably for just about any hypothesis, certainly about human society, it is always possible that we should be mistaken.
But Mark confuses two forms of possibility: (1) whether it is possible to be mistaken about some thesis, and (2) whether a particular outcome or course of action is feasible.
Suppose I'm in a small community where the stores close at 7 pm. Around 8 pm I tell someone "You can't buy milk this time of night around here." This is a thesis about what is feasible or possible to do. In order to make this assertion, I do not need to claim that there is no possibility of me being mistaken. For all I know, some store owner may have just recently changed his store hours or a new store opened up that I don't know about. But if I'm right, then there is no possibility of buying milk in a store in that place at that time of evening.
Or, to take the example I gave before. According to quantum mechanics, there is some small chance that my TV, which is in the living room, might spontaneously disassemble itself and redeploy in the bedroom. But this is such a remote possibility that for practical purposes I can be reasonably sure it won't happen. So it doesn't make any sense to plan for that eventuality.
Similarly with a bureaucratic class voluntarily empowering the working class from above due to some personal commitment to an idea of "social justice"...the possibility Mark refers to. I think we have enough evidence to dismiss this as not a likely scenario. Moreover, it's also rather odd that Mark talks about hypotheses like this "perpetuating divisions between Marxists and anarchists." That's because, in this case, this happens to be a hypothesis that anarcho-syndicalists like me and Marxists like the ISO and other Marxist advocates of "socialism from below" agree on. Moreover, it is suggested by Marx's slogan, "The emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves."
Reply this comment
re: Bolshevism
By Leask, Bernard at Oct 03, 2010 22:16 PM
I greatly appreciated your criticism of Leninist tendencies because I have just recenttly, during the past 4 months, put myself through a fairly intensive education on the subjects of the Russian revolution and the role of the Bolshevik movment within it. Your analysis for the most part reinforces my own conclusions. Your analysis is not an ideologically-driven attempt to paint the Bolsheviks, especially its leaders, as one dimensional monsters; nevertheless I think, based upon my own research of the Sovnarkom and specific Bolshevik legislations following their seizure of power, that you are accurate in pointing out the instrumentalist disposition that Bolshevik leaders such as Lenin and Trotsky adopted towards the workers .
On another note, based upon my own experience within a modern day Bolshevik party it is common to use a political language that is rife with stereotypical labelling. Although this kind of stereotyping polemic existed in the polemics of Marx and Engels I feel that it was amplified in the extreme in the polemics of the Bolsheviks , especially Lenin. Modern-day Bolsheviks seem to have inherited the same stereotyping political language. One never ceases to hear in Bolshevik circles, of either sarcastic rejection of so-called "infantile ultra-leftism" or of on the other hand, "opportunism.' , a label applied to anyone suspected of the original sin of reformism. Ironically enough, I have always thought that it was perhaps the Bolsheviks under Lenin who represented the ultimate form of opportunism since they came only belatedly to accept the institution of the soviet (and only intermittently) and never did bother themselves to develop a serious theory of how an economy based upon worker's councils as the core production unit could work. At least a so-called infantile leftist like Pannekoek recognized the importance of worker's self-management and made an honest attempt to advance the theory of council communism. .
Reply this comment