The reason I am anarchist leaning and not a fully committed “tankie” isn’t because I didn’t bother to read Marx and Lenin
Fair enough, lol. I used to be an anarchist, took a lot of reading to come around to Marxism-Leninism.
I just don’t believe that some of their ideas will practically work, specifically the concept that a state is both inherently bourgeois and in charge of managing impossible contradictions yet somehow the dictatorship of the proletariat is able to wield state power to institute the will of the vanguard while being immune to the inherent contradiction of a state. To me this is a fundamental logical error in the revolutionary process that has to be resolved.
Big correction, the state isn’t inherently bourgeois, but instead inherently representative of the class in power. States predate the bourgeoisie, and last after the bourgeoisie. States are the representative of a class, meaning states can be proletarian, and this is largely determined by which aspect of the economy is principle, as the state exists to maintain class power. Economies where public ownership is principle can be maintained by proletarian states.
The reason the proletariat is a special class, is because as a ruling class, it seeks to end class, not maintain itself as the working class. To do so, it needs to collectivize all production and distribution, which gets rid of any differences in ownership. No more businesses, no more landlords, nothing, just full public ownership. At this point, there are no classes in contention (though it takes generations for the capitalist brainworms to culturally phase out), and thus the oppressive elements like special police forced phase out, leaving only “the administration of things” in place.
Proletarian states aren’t immune to contradictions, but that just means they will run into difficulties, not that they are impossible to carry out into withering away and communism.
I still don’t believe that distinction actually address the contradiction though and what Lenin says in State and Revolution. The title is literally “The State: A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms” and later “The State: an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class”
How can this state that is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms and an instrument for exploitation of the oppressed class be wielded to do anything else but that? Sure maybe the argument can be made that the bourgeois is the oppressed class in the DoP, but they still control the businesses and enterprises even after a state revolution. I don’t think the world can exist without commerce and it is a fundamental feature of human culture. The Soviet state was never able to break that, at most it transferred a portion of that to the state itself, so was the state then an instrument to exploit itself?
This is why I appreciate people like Rick Wolff and his expanded analysis of the prerequisites of revolution including a robust cooperative economy along with political revolution. I just don’t believe the vanguard state is capable of doing what must be done without a component of non hierarchical syndicalist character and anarchist social revolution as an additive measure to the standard ML take and why I consider myself anarchist leaning.
For clarity, I basically summarized the points of State and Rev.
How can this state that is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms and an instrument for exploitation of the oppressed class be wielded to do anything else but that?
It cannot be, the point is that in socialism, the proletariat exploits the bourgeoisie and gradually appropriates its property.
Sure maybe the argument can be made that the bourgeois is the oppressed class in the DoP, but they still control the businesses and enterprises even after a state revolution.
Correct, but only the secondary and small/medium industries at most, as in China, or practically nothing at all, as in the USSR post-NEP (except, of course, for the cooperative farms). By holding the commanding heights of the economy, the proletariat holds the economy in general, and has the bourgeoisie’s hands tied.
I don’t think the world can exist without commerce and it is a fundamental feature of human culture. The Soviet state was never able to break that, at most it transferred a portion of that to the state itself, so was the state then an instrument to exploit itself?
The state was in a state of withering. It was not exploiting itself, but the proletariat was in control of the economy, and abolishing class. It wasn’t until revisionism took root that corruption began to start undermining the system.
This is why I appreciate people like Rick Wolff and his expanded analysis of the prerequisites of revolution including a robust cooperative economy along with political revolution. I just don’t believe the vanguard state is capable of doing what must be done without a component of non hierarchical syndicalist character and anarchist social revolution as an additive measure to the standard ML take and why I consider myself anarchist leaning.
I don’t really agree, but that’s fine. Cooperatives can certainly be a part of socialism, for example Huawei is a cooperative, but it isn’t a prerequisite IMO.
Huawei is a worker owned corporation and not a cooperative. Worker cooperatives operate on a strict “one-member, one-vote” democratic basis with profits shared by labor. Worker-owned corporations may be owned by employees but often distribute voting power and profits based on capital investment (shares) rather than democratic equity. The important distinction here is the democracy in the workplace where workers are directly in charge of their labor decisions and own the means of production.
I see more what you mean, from what I’ve seen those specific requirements are just a feature of some cooperatives, not definitional to them, but for the sake of the point I know what you mean better now. I don’t think cooperatives are an essential prerequisite for socialism, and can be a part of socialism like agricultural cooperatives in the PRC, or Venezuela’s communes, but aren’t strictly necessary for socialism.
I just want to say one of the reasons I quite like my experience on lemmy (at least the instances I most frequent communities on) is this right here. A lot of the time when I see disagreement between users in my frequented communities they:
actually provide details and context for their points, including directing their response to specific points made.
are willing to disagree without it being a problem or it devolving into personal attacks.
I’m not saying I don’t see these things, its just not the primary thing I see as compared to other sites.
Thank y’all for having a very insightful and positive conversation.
Fair enough, lol. I used to be an anarchist, took a lot of reading to come around to Marxism-Leninism.
Big correction, the state isn’t inherently bourgeois, but instead inherently representative of the class in power. States predate the bourgeoisie, and last after the bourgeoisie. States are the representative of a class, meaning states can be proletarian, and this is largely determined by which aspect of the economy is principle, as the state exists to maintain class power. Economies where public ownership is principle can be maintained by proletarian states.
The reason the proletariat is a special class, is because as a ruling class, it seeks to end class, not maintain itself as the working class. To do so, it needs to collectivize all production and distribution, which gets rid of any differences in ownership. No more businesses, no more landlords, nothing, just full public ownership. At this point, there are no classes in contention (though it takes generations for the capitalist brainworms to culturally phase out), and thus the oppressive elements like special police forced phase out, leaving only “the administration of things” in place.
Proletarian states aren’t immune to contradictions, but that just means they will run into difficulties, not that they are impossible to carry out into withering away and communism.
I still don’t believe that distinction actually address the contradiction though and what Lenin says in State and Revolution. The title is literally “The State: A Product of the Irreconcilability of Class Antagonisms” and later “The State: an Instrument for the Exploitation of the Oppressed Class”
How can this state that is a product of the irreconcilability of class antagonisms and an instrument for exploitation of the oppressed class be wielded to do anything else but that? Sure maybe the argument can be made that the bourgeois is the oppressed class in the DoP, but they still control the businesses and enterprises even after a state revolution. I don’t think the world can exist without commerce and it is a fundamental feature of human culture. The Soviet state was never able to break that, at most it transferred a portion of that to the state itself, so was the state then an instrument to exploit itself?
This is why I appreciate people like Rick Wolff and his expanded analysis of the prerequisites of revolution including a robust cooperative economy along with political revolution. I just don’t believe the vanguard state is capable of doing what must be done without a component of non hierarchical syndicalist character and anarchist social revolution as an additive measure to the standard ML take and why I consider myself anarchist leaning.
For clarity, I basically summarized the points of State and Rev.
It cannot be, the point is that in socialism, the proletariat exploits the bourgeoisie and gradually appropriates its property.
Correct, but only the secondary and small/medium industries at most, as in China, or practically nothing at all, as in the USSR post-NEP (except, of course, for the cooperative farms). By holding the commanding heights of the economy, the proletariat holds the economy in general, and has the bourgeoisie’s hands tied.
The state was in a state of withering. It was not exploiting itself, but the proletariat was in control of the economy, and abolishing class. It wasn’t until revisionism took root that corruption began to start undermining the system.
I don’t really agree, but that’s fine. Cooperatives can certainly be a part of socialism, for example Huawei is a cooperative, but it isn’t a prerequisite IMO.
Huawei is a worker owned corporation and not a cooperative. Worker cooperatives operate on a strict “one-member, one-vote” democratic basis with profits shared by labor. Worker-owned corporations may be owned by employees but often distribute voting power and profits based on capital investment (shares) rather than democratic equity. The important distinction here is the democracy in the workplace where workers are directly in charge of their labor decisions and own the means of production.
I see more what you mean, from what I’ve seen those specific requirements are just a feature of some cooperatives, not definitional to them, but for the sake of the point I know what you mean better now. I don’t think cooperatives are an essential prerequisite for socialism, and can be a part of socialism like agricultural cooperatives in the PRC, or Venezuela’s communes, but aren’t strictly necessary for socialism.
I just want to say one of the reasons I quite like my experience on lemmy (at least the instances I most frequent communities on) is this right here. A lot of the time when I see disagreement between users in my frequented communities they:
I’m not saying I don’t see these things, its just not the primary thing I see as compared to other sites.
Thank y’all for having a very insightful and positive conversation.
Thanks for the kind words!