My cousin is a Marxist, pt. 3

Once again. This may be the last post on the subject; we'll see.

Cousin: I support the IWW, of course. I also support the left side in all of the events you mentioned (with the exception of anarchists vs Bolsheviks). My point was the lack of left political success in those cases.

I know there are some anarchists who advocate a disciplined party fighting for political power, like Bookchin. However, that approach seems a minority compared to that of the likes of Zinn, who advocate a real mish-mash of anti-organization, anti-political struggle reccomendations under the aegis of "individual freedom". For instance, he claims that anarchists should not submit to majority rule, because that is the tyranny of the majority and violates individual freedom. Stuff like that is just a facile replication of bourgeois individualist ideology.

Regarding state capitalism, I think its false to describe the USSR are state capitalist, because it had no capitalist class. It was not like China is now, which has state capitalist features - private companies with private ownership. While in the USSR they had not destroyed the managing class, which became a new ruling class, they did successfully destroy the capitalist class. Therefore, their relations of production and social form were fundamentally different to that of a capitalist state. This was clearly demonstrated when the parasitic ruling class in the USSR supported abolishing communism there --- something that can only be explained by differentiating degenerated worker's state from state capitalism (which is what Russia is now).

I think its incorrect to place the state as the cause of class system rather than vice versa. The class system develops as a result of differentials in production. If you had no state, but differentials in production, and inviduals interacting freely through a market, how would you prevent hierarchy, exploitation, and the eventual re-formation of a state? How would various syndicates, relating to each other via a market, avoid the subjugation of the less productive by the more, without a higher level of democratic control (by a state)? It seems that if this is your only goal, then at best you would only be replicating capitalism with syndicates taking over the role previously held by individuals.

Me: Would you really advocate always submitting to majority rule? In California, that would mean banning gay marriage because the majority doesn't like it. Sometimes, individuals need to be protected from the tyranny of the majority. I believe that individual liberty is an important concept that leads to happiness for all, if not corrupted by bourgeois notions of the liberty to exploit.

To me, the distinguishing feature of capitalism from socialism is that the means of production are not owned by the workers using them but by some elite---the capitalists. In a capitalist society, the fruits of the workers' labor is stolen from them by the capitalists. That happened in both the USSR and modern Russia. It doesn't matter whether the means of production is privately owned by the capitalists or owned by the state, which is controlled by the capitalists. Those are important differences for other reasons, but they don't change the fundamental nature of the economic system, which is control of the means of production by an elite.

Well, I would not say that the state is the "cause" of capitalism per se. It would more accurate to say that the state is the tool by which capitalists maintain power; they would not be able to do so without the state or some other state-like institution of systematic violence. Kevin Carson wrote a great article called "The Iron First Behind the Invisible Hand," which recounts the history of capitalism and reveals how much it depends on the state in order to exist: http://mutualist.org/id4.html

There would certainly be some differences in wealth in a libertarian socialist society, but as long as land rights are based on occupancy and use, I just don't see anything even remotely resembling capitalism taking form. Mutualist property rights ensure that no individual or corporation is able to own more land than he/she/it can use. No absentee landlords or anything like that, so no artificial scarcity. No unequal bargaining power between labor and capital. With such mutualist property rights, which would be widely accepted as part of the common law like Lockean property rights are now accepted, usurious contracts would be just as void as contracts to sell oneself into chattel slavery, and would-be capitalists would never get the chance to obtain enough land to reduce the bargaining power of labor significantly. (Not without massive coercion, the likes of which can only be enabled by something like the state.)

Despite what the capitalists might have us think, differences in wealth are not so much the result of natural differences in productivity than differences in ownership of capital. I'm sure I don't need to convince you of this; it's perhaps the most important tenet of Marxian political economy, after all.

Would there be a risk of the state being recreated? Sure, just as there would be a risk under a so-called workers' state of power being held by a new elite. (I'd argue that it's far less likely for capitalism to be reinstituted in a libertarian socialist society, where no one holds enormous amounts of power that might corrupt him or her.) Both systems rely on a common will to maintain socialism; without an abhorrence of capitalism and the capitalist conception of property rights, then capitalism could quite easily raise its ugly head once again.

Upcoming review of Free Lunch

I've just started reading this book by journalist David Cay Johnston, called Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill), and I think I'll review it when I'm done. Keep a lookout in the upcoming weeks. So far, I can tell you that while Johnston seems to revere Adam Smith and thus probably believes in the Lockean conception of property, he does a good job in exposing many of the ways that the United States government favors a select few in its policies. Definitely not a vulgar libertarian, although still a capitalist and statist.

My cousin is a Marxist, pt. 2

He's at it again.

Cousin: Obviously Stalinism was and is a disaster, but even after Stalin's rule the gains of October were not entirely wiped out. Russia transformed from a worker's state to a degenerated worker's state, not to state capitalism. State capitalism is a system countries like post war S. Korea have had, or some of the imperial powers of the 19th century, and it's not the same as a degenerated worker's state. Yes the Soviet bureaucracy was a parasitic ruling class, but it was not the same as the capitalist class, because there existed a totally different economic structure and ideological superstructure, and is really obvious if you look at how the later USSR functioned.

In all the examples you mentioned there was no success on the part of the revolutionaries in seizing lasting political power. The civil war Ukrainians were ravaged by the counter-revolutionaries, Cossacks, and the German intervention. The Spanish civil war, Paris 1968, Argentina, all failed to achieve communist political power. On the other land, Lenin-inspired revolutions in China, Cuba, Yugoslavia, etc. were able to conquer the state power. Bolshevism itself achieved the first worker's state and in a relatively powerful country as well. Therefore, the question is, after the historically proven Leninist methods achieve a revolution, how to avoid counter-revolutionary downturn and degeneration. It's overly fatalistic and a submission to capitalist propaganda to believe that this is actually an impossible task.

Arguments on these subject can be found in Lenin's "State and Revolution", where he argues against opportunism by communists as regards the state, and suggests ways to prevent this, and "Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder" in which he argues for the necessity of organization, leaders, a party, etc.

Of course one has to put Lenin's methods in their particular historical context, and things obviously change, however, the historical pattern indicates that the essence of Leninism is the best revolutionary organizing philosophy, and so the question is how best to modify Leninism to suit particular circumstances.

As for the food-rations issue, I think its pretty clear why they did what they did --- it was a civil war. They also punitively executed kulaks, and undertook all kinds of other harsh measures, including the introduction of the death penalty for Red Army deserters, during that period, because they were on defeat's doorstep, with 6/7ths of the country occupied by whites or interventionists at the worst point.

As for leading to true liberty and equality, the anarchist model is yet to succeed. Also, it apparently offers no solution to the problem of the state, in that the state arises for specific reasons --- to resolve class conflict in society by adjudicating in favor of one or the other class. As long as class division exists, the state will continue to exist. Therefore, the first step has to be to abolish class divisions, which can only be done by using the state to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat, and undertake forcible economic levelling. If you simply overthrew the state without these measures, you would get warlordism and then eventually another state, like in China after the Manchus and prior to the communists.

Me: I am familiar with Trotsky's theory of the degenerated workers' state, and I do not agree with his terminology. I will stick to state capitalist as a way to describe the Soviet regime, thank you very much. "Degenerated workers' state" implies that there could ever be such a thing as a workers' state, something that I do not believe. The state necessarily involves hierarchy and has always created new imbalances of power, as I said before.

The Ukrainian anarcho-communists only failed to perpetuate their stateless communism because of Bolshevik invasion. They would have done fine had it not been for Lenin and the Red Army.

The Spanish Civil War did achieve socialism, although the principles along which the workers organized were typically closer to Bakunin's anarcho-collectivism than Kropotkin's or Marx's communism, the key difference being adherence to the principle of compensation "from each according to his contribution" rather than "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." In other words, there was equal pay, but it was usually (but not always) awarded according to the amount of work done. However, even Lenin and most Marxists admit that this is a necessary transitory condition until true communism is achieved. I believe that Marx said something along these lines as well, but I am not sure.

The reasons the Spanish socialists were eventually crushed are complicated, but perhaps most notable was that the fascists, who were supported by both Hitler and Mussolini, had greater external support than the socialists, who were even internally divided amongst themselves between authoritarian allies of the Soviet Union and the more libertarian elements. Stalin subverted the anarchists, Trotskyists, and other socialists, demanding that revolution happen only on his terms and calling for the people’s revolution in Catalonia and Aragon to be crushed. If Stalin had thrown his support in front of the anarchists and other libertarian socialists rather than oppose them, we would have seen lasting socialism in Catalonia.

The May 1968 uprisings were probably the most significant activity in France even resembling socialist revolution since the Paris Commune. Yes, they failed, but it’s not as if the Leninists methods succeeded either. As I believe said before, the French Communist Party initially opposed the uprisings altogether and later tried to negotiate for minor increases in wages while still maintaining the overarching capitalist structure. Historically proven methods indeed!

As for Argentina, there are workers’ collectives there right now. It may not be country-wide socialism yet, but I think we can agree that it’s better than nothing. One hopes that eventually, the power of the cooperatives will grow and, with organizational help from the Federation of Recovered Factories, overthrow the state capitalist regime and replace it with the federal structure already in place, per anarcho-syndicalist theory. If the United States does not throw its support behind the capitalist regime, which is an unfortunate possibility, we easily could see widespread socialism in Argentina within our lifetimes.

I haven’t read either of those works, but this section of the Anarchist FAQ partially addresses your objections: http://www.infoshop.org/faq/secH1.html#sech17

It’s simply untrue that anarchism does not advocate organization, leaders, etc. It just doesn’t advocate leaders who are not accountable to the people they lead. I suggest reading the work of Rudolph Rucker, the most famous anarcho-syndicalist theorist, for some alternatives to Leninist vanguardism. This is a good introduction: http://www.anarchosyndicalism.net/rocker/aasind.htm

I hardly think that a philosophy which has led to brutal, plutocratic dictatorship in its application every single time is the best philosophy.

Anarchism offers a clear solution to the problem of the state: crush both the state and capitalism at the same time! As anarchists see it, class division only exists because of the state. Without an institutionalized system of coercion, the bourgeoisie would not be able to maintain its privileged place in society. Without this system, the market would naturally favor socialism, and confederations of worker co-operatives would be able to sufficiently maintain bourgeois counter-revolution or “warlordism.” Anarchy is not the absence of organization by any means, not at all! As Proudhon said, “Anarchy is order.”

(Addendum) I'd like to discuss the history of anarcho-syndicalism a bit, so I'll get to that when I have time. The International Workers of the World could have had great success in the U.S. had it not been for state repression of unions (just as Communists were repressed as well by the state).

My cousin is a Marxist, my brother is a fascist, and my father is a royalist!

Well, 1 for 3 is alright. My cousin really is a Marxist, and a Marxist-Leninist no less. I decided to show him an article from libcom.org and hopefully open his eyes to the flaws of Marxism-Leninism. I don't think it's working. However, I said some things that I'd like to preserve, so here is the chronicle of our conversation, starting after I showed him the link. It's a terribly long exchange, so I don't expect anyone to read it. This is really just so I don't have to repeat this discussion with Marxists anymore; I can just point them to this post in the future.

Cousin: I found that article disturbing. The CPN(M) has for decades been the only significant revolutionary party in Nepal, and only by its dedicated struggle has the monarchy been brought to its knees. This guy offers zero alternative to them. He might wish that a revolution could have been made without a vanguard party leading the fighting, but that has nothing to do with reality, neither theoretically nor practically.

Also the cheap slanders of Lenin and the Bolsheviks are pathetic and false. In the historical context of 1917, being chauffeured in appropriated Tsarist Rolls-Royce's was nothing. They had to get around to do the work and autos were scarce. As for driving, most people back then couldn't, and why should Lenin spend his time learning to and doing so. He had better things to do. As for the Rolls' brand name, back then I doubt it siginified what it does now, and the author disingenuously takes advantage of that.

Me: I'm sure the Maoists have been a significant force in destroying the monarchy in Nepal. I would not deny this. The problem is that once the monarchy is toppled, the old hierarchy is replaced with a new one. That should be pretty clear from the enormous salaries that Prachanda and his friends are giving themselves.

The alternative is workers' self-management. The people are their own vanguard. It is empirically false that this has not proven to be effective in the past. One need look no further than the Spanish Revolution in 1936 to see this; as George Orwell documents in his book Homage to Catalonia, the people can lead their own revolution just fine. Or take 1919 Ukraine before the Bolsheviks invaded; people had been organizing successfully under the principles of Kropotkin's anarchist communism.

Forty years ago in Paris, May 1968, the students and workers led their uprising, and the efforts of the self-proclaimed vanguard, the French Communist Party, were counter-productive, if anything. Of course, the uprisings ultimately failed to destroy the capitalist machine, but they did have a lasting effect on French culture. Had the Communists had their way, the uprisings would never have happened. Democracy Now! has a good story on the protests, and here's some anarchist commentary as well. (Excuse the poor geocities mirror; the main site is down right now.)
http://www.geocities.com/capitolHill/1931/secA5.html#seca57

Or for a modern example, look at the workers' self-management in Argentina. The most significant progress we've ever seen in that country is thanks to people organizing along the principles of mutual aid; vanguard parties have had nothing to do with it. Last time we met (Christmas?), I said I'd show you a documentary, The Take, about that Argentinian struggle; perhaps I can mail it to you. It's a great example of bottom-up socialism working today. Basically, following the 2001 economic collapse due to the neoliberal policies of the government ans massive exploitation of the working class by the ruling elite, the workers began occupy the factories abandoned by their capitalist masters and take them over, forming worker cooperatives organized along bottom-up, democratic principles with equal pay (for the most part, although some elected to use a more hierarchical structure with some form of limited merit pay). They did this without the help of any Communist Party, forming mutual aid associations for microloans and so forth. Here are a couple of articles in the meantime:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/may/11/argentina.rorycarroll
http://newsocialist.org/newsite/index.php?id=995

Don't underestimate the ability of people to fight for themselves. Organization is extremely important, but it need not come from a vanguard party. Unions and other voluntary associations have proven to effective as well, more effective if you consider the fact that all "successful" Marxist-Leninist revolutions have resulted in brutal dictatorships with virtually no civil liberties.

As for Lenin and his cars, I have a feeling you're portraying him in an all too heroic light, but I have a final tomorrow for which I must be studying. Maybe I'll do some more research a little later.

Cousin: In Nepal there isn't an independent workers' movement outside the CPN(M). Even the CPN(M) is more peasant oriented than worker oriented.

Obviously all communists are for worker's democratic self-management and political power (a system of soviets or workers councils). However to achieve working class power and a classless society requires an organized political apparatus.

The CPN(M) has obvious failings in that it is Maoist, which is basically a modern variation of Menshevikism. However, it is the one and only fighting people's organization in Nepal, and not only does it fight (against the wishes of the Royalists, the international bourgeois-democratic community, etc) but it has also won. Therefore, as the most advanced people's organization and not yet deformed by counter-revolutionary elements, it deserves the support of communists worldwide.

Regarding Lenin, personally he was an austere fellow. He did not accrue possessions nor spare himself personal luxury. He only retired to the dacha after he had the strokes. Some other Bolsheviks were less circumspect, but the big issue - the differential rations for party and non-party members during the civil war period - is a ringer. Of course the party members should get more rations. What sense does it make giving your resources away to people who might be your enemies, while your side is tortured by want.

You should critically review the role of anarchists during this period. After failing to achieve anything on their own, even though they were the leading people's movement in the second half of the 1800s (Narodnaya Volya and other anarchist groups), they could only undermine the Bolshevik revolution, which was actually having success. Putting two bullets put into Lenin by the anarchist Kaplan, which lead directly to his strokes, was a huge counter-revolutionary act that led to, or at least hastened, the victory of Stalinism. The Kronstadt rebellion is another example, where the anarchists de facto sided with the whites and the intervention, and even worse, removed themselves from the internal struggles of the movement. They would have been much better off if they had joined with the left-democratic factions and become Trotskyists instead of withdrawing altogether and fighting the embattled reds with guns, which could ultimately only help the whites and the anti-democratic factions within the Bolsheviks.

Me: In order to crush capitalism and achieve equality, organization is certainly necessary. The enemy we face is certainly a formidable opponent, and an “organized political apparatus,” as you put it, is undoubtedly an effective way to facilitate revolution. However, the question is not whether organization is necessary, but whether that organization must come in the form of a vanguard party which consolidates power, using the apparatus of the state to crush all opposition. I think the answer to that question is a resounding “No.” There are plenty of other ways to further the workers’ struggle, from a syndicalist network of unions to spontaneous uprisings facilitated by various radical groups. I gave examples of this in action in my last message to you. If you are skeptical of the ability of the people to overcome capitalism without a vanguard party, I suggest George Orwell’s Homage to Catalonia, his account of his experiences fighting against the fascists alongside Trotskyists, anarchists, and other socialists during the Spanish Revolution.

The problem with vanguard parties is not their effectiveness but their propensity to create a new hierarchy. Unfortunately, Lenin abandoned the idea of true workers’ self-management just as soon as he cried, “All Power to the Soviets,” which quickly became “All power to the Central Committee.” You cannot possibly contend that the council communist notion that workers’ councils should possess all power was something that actually happened under Lenin.

“Of course the party members should get more rations. What sense does it make giving your resources away to people who might be your enemies, while your side is tortured by want.”

Right. “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Strangely familiar, no? While perhaps a more defensible position during civil war when resources are scarce (although still suspect in my opinion), it is certainly not necessary during times of peace, and I am not aware of any sign of this changing during the two years after the Civil War and before Lenin’s death. This is not surprising, of course; those with power are not likely to relinquish it. As Lord Acton remarked, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” This sort of preferential treatment for Party members not only led to the gross inequity that we saw under Stalin and every other regime based on Marxism-Leninism (and indeed, every single government of any sort), from the Khmer Rouge to what was once Communist China, but is also antithetical to true socialism. True socialism does not contain artificial hierarchy based on loyalty to Big Brother and the Party.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that anarchists were “undermining” the Bolshevik revolution. (Of course, if reaction to Bolshevik suppression of free speech is considered “undermining the revolution,” then I would understand.) In Ukraine, led by Nestor Mahkno, the anarchists did just fine without the Bolsheviks and communes organized along the principles of Peter Kropotkin spread around the so-called “Free Territory.”

Also, according to my sources, Kaplan was a member of the Socialist Revolutionary Party and supporter of the Constituent Assembly, which Lenin closed. (And as a supporter of the Constituent Assembly, you can hardly call her anarchist.) I performed a Google search on her as well, and none of the top hits described her as anarchist either.
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/RUSkaplan.htm

Kronstadt wasn’t about the whites at all; it was about the workers demanding an end to Bolshevik repression of free speech and so forth. These are the demands of the sailors, which the Bolsheviks refused to meet:

“1. Immediate new elections to the Soviets. The present Soviets no longer express the wishes of the workers and peasants. The new elections should be by secret ballot, and should be preceded by free electoral propaganda.
2. Freedom of speech and of the press for workers and peasants, for the Anarchists, and for the Left Socialist parties.
3. The right of assembly, and freedom for trade union and peasant organisations.
4. The organisation, at the latest on 10th March 1921, of a Conference of non-Party workers, solders and sailors of Petrograd, Kronstadt and the Petrograd District.
5. The liberation of all political prisoners of the Socialist parties, and of all imprisoned workers and peasants, soldiers and sailors belonging to working class and peasant organisations.
6. The election of a commission to look into the dossiers of all those detained in prisons and concentration camps.
7. The abolition of all political sections in the armed forces. No political party should have privileges for the propagation of its ideas, or receive State subsidies to this end. In the place of the political sections various cultural groups should be set up, deriving resources from the State.
8. The immediate abolition of the militia detachments set up between towns and countryside.
9. The equalisation of rations for all workers, except those engaged in dangerous or unhealthy jobs.
10. The abolition of Party combat detachments in all military groups. The abolition of Party guards in factories and enterprises. If guards are required, they should be nominated, taking into account the views of the workers.
11. The granting to the peasants of freedom of action on their own soil, and of the right to own cattle, provided they look after them themselves and do not employ hired labour.
12. We request that all military units and officer trainee groups associate themselves with this resolution. 13. We demand that the Press give proper publicity to this resolution.
14. We demand the institution of mobile workers' control groups.
15. We demand that handicraft production be authorised provided it does not utilise wage labour.”

Are those demands so unreasonable? Kronstadt was a people’s rebellion, not a bourgeois rebellion. Yes, the whites in France and elsewhere supported the rebellion as well, but you can’t truly blame the workers for acting in their own self-interest, can you? What kind of socialist would you be?

However, this is beside the point. You can take as many potshots at specific anarchists’ actions as you want, and you’ll eventually find some mistakes. I’ll help you: propaganda of the deed is a terrible idea, helping to characterize anarchism as a terrorist movement in the eyes of many. Anarchists aren’t perfect; they do make errors. I could go over mistakes made by Marxist-Leninists as well, but it would not be a productive use of time. Instead, we should focus on the underlying ideas behind the movements and their practical effects. In other words, which is more likely to lead to true liberty and equality, anarchism or Marxism-Leninism?

By the way, as for the Maoists, I do support them over the capitalists, of course. My worry is simply that if Prachanda gets his way and follows in the footsteps of the glorious Lenin, we'll just see another single-party state capitalist...err, socialist...dictatorship with a new kind of hierarchy, one where top Party officials replace the capitalists as the ruling elite. A little better than private sector capitalism, I suppose, but far from the stateless communism that Marx envisioned. (And if history indicates anything, and boy was Marx fond of history, the state government will not give up its power; the state will not "wither away." It's alright, Marx; Proudhon was a patriarch and Goldman was something of a terrorist. We all make mistakes.)

Anarchist joke candidates - a counter-productive strategy?

Werner Scott wrote a post about some anarchist joke candidates, among other things, on his blog today, and I began to think about the actual impact of this sort of antics. Upon some reflection, I've become rather skeptical of their effectiveness.

While their silly antics are amusing, I have to wonder what good it actually does, how much it actually advances the anarchist movement. If I were a progressive, libertarian-inclined Democrat, as I was before I began to call myself a libertarian socialist, I don't think this sort of thing would make me take anarchists seriously at all. I became an anarchist because of thoughtful publications like the Anarchist FAQ. This seems to be a common trend I've noticed among anarchist joke candidates, actually, for example with Jello Biafra and his 1979 San Francisco Mayoral campaign. When an anarchist candidate proposes things like making all businessmen wear clown suits, it causes reasonable people who could become anarchists, if effectively persuaded, to just shrug them off as not "serious" about politics. The only people with whom the clown suit-mentality resonates are already anarchists. Of course, we anarchists are serious about politics; we just don't have confidence in the state political process to bring about true change. But try telling that to one of those standard American "progressives" while at the same time urging businessmen to wear clown suits, and tell me if they take you seriously.

I could be wrong, of course; maybe this sort of thing does work with some people. Maybe it wouldn't have worked with me just because I come from a petit bourgeois background and was trained to think about governmental politics very seriously, as a way to achieve fundamental change. Maybe it's more effective with true working-class people. Such are the limits of my perspective. Thoughts?

Chomsky copyrights his material?

According to a section of his website, Chomsky.info, Noam Chomsky copyrights at least some of his intellectual "property." And he isn't just reserving the right to profit off his work, which is justifiable in my opinion; he is actually reserving the right to use it at all without written permission, whether or not for profit. Perhaps he grants all requests to reprint the work as long as it is attributed to him? But if that's the case, why wouldn't he just say, "No written material on this website may be reprinted or posted elsewhere without correct attribution"? Is this hypocrisy I detect, or is there something I'm missing? I've decided to write Anthony Arnove, the person of contact according to that page, an email inquiring into this matter. I'll let you know about any response I receive.

Ne me libère pas, je m'en charge

Forty years later, Democracy Now! has a nice little story about the May 1968 protests in France. While a failure in the sense that capitalism still exists in France today (and that the Gaullists actually grew in power), the strikes had lasting impact on French culture and the left-wing movement in general. They were a powerful example of a self-directed people's movement; in fact, the French Communist Party which tried to act as a vanguard failed to achieve anything of substance and was in large rejected by the students and workers. Hence the slogan, "Ne me libère pas, je m'en charge," or "Do not liberate me, I'll take care of that myself."