What is meant by "vanguardism?" The idea of vanguardism conjures among some a scene of a small group of people sitting around a table plotting to do evil deeds under the guise of communism. This could not be farther from the truth. When we speak of the "vanguard" we are talking about a group of class conscious individuals who have dedicated themselves to bringing about the revolution. This group could be small but that would likely not work out. A successful vanguard would need to be quite large and have the ability to rally the proletariat behind it.
So why the emphasis on a dedicated group? Can't the proletariat spontaneously rise on its own? The average worker should not be counted on to rise up in revolution. They are more concerned with daily survival than political activity. It falls to dedicated proletarian revolutionaries to make preparations for the revolution. This dedicated group would be comprised of those members of the proletariat who have decided to make an active stand against the inequalities of the capitalist system.
Then what are the responsibilities of the vanguard? First and foremost is their duty to educate the proletariat and make them aware of the oppression they face on a daily basis under capitalism. Many in the proletariat are so focused on the basics of survival or are so ingrained with capitalist propaganda that they either do not know they are being oppressed or don't have the time or energy to care. The vanguard has a responsibility to raise their awareness to the inequity around them. The second duty of the vanguard is to lead the proletariat towards revolution. This is an extension of the first duty. By raising the proletariat's awareness they move the proletariat towards collective action. Once the proletariat reaches its breaking point the vanguard will perform its next, and potentially last, duty: to lead the proletarian revolution. The revolution will be a trying time and the slightest misstep could derail the entire revolution. An experienced cadre of revolutionaries will be necessary for the success of the revolution. The vanguard will organize and direct the actions of the proletariat towards capitalism's weakest points and ensure the swift demolition of the capitalist system.
Following the success of the revolution the vanguard will no longer be necessary. However, the proletariat may ask the vanguard to form the beginning leadership of the new proletarian democracy due to their experience and knowledge. If that is the case then the vanguard will have one final duty: to faithfully, rapidly, and democratically lead society down the road to socialism and eventually communism. As society moves towards communism the whole of society will become politically aware and will become members of the "vanguard." At that point the vanguard will vanish and instead we will have socialist and then communist society.
I cannot stress enough the importance of the vanguard. It will ensure the effective education and leadership of the proletariat. No socialist revolution has ever succeeded without a vanguard. The largest socialist and communist movements around the globe are vanguardist. If you are a Leninist, Marxist-Leninist, Trotskyist, or Maoist then you are, by your very ideological nature, a vanguardist. Those Marxists who are not vanguardists are waiting in vain for the proletariat to rise spontaneously in revolution. The problem with this "spontaneous revolution" is that it is a utopian fantasy. The proletariat, without proper leadership and direction, will either be placated by Capitalism with luxuries and petty concessions like we see in the West or brutally oppressed as we see in the developing world. Without the active work of vanguardists to keep the movement going, the socialist movement would be either appeased into lethargy or oppressed into submission. Without vanguardism the revolution is doomed to failure.
Tuesday, December 23, 2014
Saturday, December 13, 2014
Lenin on the Necessity of a Worker's State and Vanguard Leadership
"The proletariat needs state power, a centralized organization of force, an organization of violence, both to
crush the resistance of the exploiters and to lead the enormous mass of the population — the peasants, the
petty bourgeoisie, and semiproletarians — in the work of organizing a socialist economy
By educating the workers' party, Marxism educates the vanguard of the proletariat, capable of assuming
power and leading the whole people to socialism, of directing and organizing the new system, of being the
teacher, the guide, the leader of all the working and exploited people in organizing their social life without
the bourgeoisie and against the bourgeoisie. By contrast, the opportunism now prevailing trains the
members of the workers' party to be the representatives of the betterpaid workers, who lose touch with the
masses, "get along" fairly well under capitalism, and sell their birthright for a mass of pottage, i.e., renounce
their role as revolutionary leaders of the people against the bourgeoisie.
Marx's theory of "the state, i.e., the proletariat organized as the ruling class", is inseparably bound up with
the whole of his doctrine of the revolutionary role of the proletariat in history. The culmination of this rule
is the proletarian dictatorship, the political rule of the proletariat."
The State and Revolution
by V.I. Lenin
Wednesday, December 10, 2014
Debates on Soviet Revisionism
The Soviet Union looms large over the entirety of the Socialist movement. For 74 years it was the primary source most people looked to for their idea of what Socialism was supposed to be. However, even its status as a Socialist state is called into question by many on the left. I am here to offer my take on the history of the USSR. I will try to offer an objective view of the criticisms of the USSR but naturally my opinions about these criticisms will be included. This will be a Marxist-oriented critique and I am making a point to exclude Bourgeois, Fascist, and Liberal criticisms of the Soviet Union. Those criticisms are widely known and available and form the basis of how most people in the West understand the USSR. I will state that most of those non-Marxist criticisms are based on lies spread by the Nazis and Cold War propaganda used in an effort to undermine both the USSR and Socialism. As such, most non-Marxist criticism of the USSR cannot constitute a reliable source of accurate criticism. Would you trust an oil company to form an accurate statement on climate change? That is the same as trusting a Capitalist to form an accurate critique of Socialism. The Capitalist has too much skin in the game to be trusted with truthfully criticizing a Socialist State.
Most leftists, and certainly all tendencies that descend from Leninism, will usually divide the history of the USSR into various periods. The debate and inevitable points of contention stem from how the different currents within the left view these various periods. The most common point of contention, and the point that I will focus on, is whether or when the USSR became revisionist.
To begin, what is revisionism? Revisionists are those Marxists who have "revised" their interpretations of Marx's writings in such a way as to remove the revolutionary nature from Marxism. One example that is commonly mentioned on the left is that of democratic socialism. Democratic socialists moved away from the idea of revolution in favor of reforming capitalism into socialism from within bourgeois democracy. This is viewed by almost all on the far left as revisionist, although democratic socialists prefer to call it "reformist" socialism. A further point among these discussions of Soviet revisionism are whether the leaders of the USSR adhered to Leninism or revised Lenin. This leads to a further divide within Leninism itself on the nature of the Soviet Union.
First, we must begin with the revolution itself. Naturally all groups that descend from Leninism (which includes Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists or "Stalinists", Maoists, and Hoxhaists) believe that the revolution was not revisionist. However, many on what is termed the "Ultra-Left" (Luxemburgists, Council Communists, Libertarian Communists, and Anarchists) believe that since the revolution was led by a vanguard then that alone constitutes revisionism. These groups tend to believe that only the spontaneous rising of the entire proletariat in a decentralized movement would constitute a proper revolution. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that these tendencies have never led a successful revolution because these decentralized movements usually fail to follow through with establishing a workers' state or never have a significant enough following to even mount a revolution in the first place. Only Leninist-style vanguard revolutions have ever succeeded in establishing workers' states.
Next we move to Lenin and the NEP period in Soviet history. I will skip over the Russian Civil War period because it is my belief that everything in that period was done under emergency conditions. Instead I will judge Lenin and his legacy by what he and the Communist Party did once they gained total control over the Soviet Union. Lenin championed the NEP, or New Economic Policy, after the Civil War as a way to reinvigorate the economy, which was on the brink of collapse. Lenin himself described the NEP as State Capitalism. Under the NEP the Soviets implemented a mixed economy where small enterprises could be privately owned. This was an effort to encourage economic growth while ensuring that the State remained in charge of the important national industries. The goal of the NEP was to allow for a future transition to socialism when the economy had been properly developed. Many on the left, again mostly among the ultra-left, hold that because there was not an immediate implementation of Socialism then the USSR had become revisionist. I believe this to be a naive assumption that focuses more on appeals to ideological purists rather than the pragmatic necessities of real life. Following the Russian Civil War the Soviets needed to rebuild the economy and State Capitalism is the best method to achieve that goal especially given the situation in the USSR at the time.
Following Lenin's death there was a period of joint rule by numerous individuals in the Communist Party. Each of these individuals was jockeying to become the ultimate leader of both the Party and the State. This period saw a continuation of the NEP and should be judged in accordance with that period. This interregnum ended with the ascension of Stalin to the leadership of the State and the Party and the exile of Leon Trotsky.
The Stalin period was the most explosive period of Soviet history both in terms of economic development and contention among Marxists. Stalin led the USSR in the greatest period of rapid economic growth ever witnessed in the world. Stalin took the Soviet Union from an agrarian society to become the second largest industrial economy in the world in less than a generation. Stalin collectivized agriculture which single-handedly ended famine in the USSR after over a millenia where famines occurred every five years. The Stalin period also saw the failure of the spread of revolution across the world thus leaving the Soviet Union as the only workers' state in existence capable of self-reliance. This failure of the spread of revolution forced the Soviets to focus more on internal development. This focus on internal development, along with Stalin's purge of Trotskyists, opportunists, and fascist collaborators from the Communist Party, forms the center of the ideological battle between the tendencies within Leninism. First you have "Stalinists," Maoists, and Hoxhaists who hold up Stalin as the last true Socialist leader of the USSR. They praise Stalin's actions as not only necessary given the situation in the USSR and the world at the time but also as the proper way to develop the USSR and move it towards Socialism. Next you have Trotskyists who believe that Stalin betrayed the Revolution by bureaucratizing the USSR, throwing out the "Old Bolsheviks," and failing to spread the Revolution out of Russia. Some Trotskyists hold that at that point the USSR became a "degenerated workers' state" and could only be saved by a revolution that swept the world and replaced bureaucratic Stalinism with Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution." Finally you have the ultra-left who were still opposed to the very nature of the Soviet State since the Revolution. All Stalin's rule did for them was confirm that the Soviets had become bureaucratic, elitist, and undemocratic further degenerating the revolution.
Finally, we have the post-Stalin period. This period, which lasted from the death of Stalin to the fall of the USSR, is usually lumped together by all sides of the revisionism debate. The other accepted starting point for this period would be the "Secret Speech" by Khrushchev. Khrushchev made a speech to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party where he outlined the "crimes" of Stalin and his cohorts, especially Beria. This speech was made in a secret meeting in the middle of the night where stenographers were not permitted to take notes on what was said, although the contents of the speech was later made public. Many at the meeting could not believe what they were hearing but refused to speak up in defense of Stalin for fear of reprisals from Khrushchev's allies. At this point Khrushchev had cemented his position of power and used it to lash out against his political enemies who were also attempting to gain control of the Party. Most of those opposed to Khrushchev were former officials in Stalin's government and seen to many as friends of Stalin and his ideas. This made it politically expedient for Khrushchev to speak against these other leaders because their association with Stalin could be used to keep them out of positions of power. Following the speech, however, many of those enemies of Khrushchev were arrested and executed for their part in Stalin's administration. Almost all major currents of Marxism, with the notable exception of the orthodox members of the post-Stalin Communist Party of the Soviet Union, describe the post-Stalin Soviet Union as revisionist at best and outright Capitalist at worst. This is because at that point the bureaucratic opportunists within the Communist Party had cemented control over the Party and the State. They slowly but systematically removed all vestiges of revolutionary fervor from the Party and instead implemented a policy of entrenched bureaucratism and cronyism. The economy continued to be dominated by heavy industry with little emphasis on consumer goods or services. This would directly lead to the Brezhnev Stagnation which was a 20 year period of economic stagnation that almost toppled the USSR on its own. The failure of the Soviet leadership in this period to reform the economy in the direction of Socialism and away from State Capitalism is, in my opinion, what led to the failure of the Soviet economy to keep pace with the West. The period ended with the fall of the Soviet Union following the "reforms" of Gorbachev that had the effect of returning the Soviet Union to Bourgeois Democracy and Capitalism. The political collapse of the USSR was inevitable following the liberalization of the economy by Gorbachev. All true Communists and Socialists hold that Gorbachev was at best a Liberal sympathizer and at worst a Bourgeois infiltrator. To see just how deep the infiltration by Liberal sympathizers and bourgeois infiltrators was in the Communist Party one must only look at the political positions adopted by many former Communists after the fall of the USSR. For example, Yeltsin, first President of the Russian Federation and former Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR (a very prestigious position), upon becoming President aggressively pushed for the privatization of the Russian economy. Failure to take any regulatory action in favor of laissez-faire economics directly led to the rise of the current Oligarchic Capitalism that reigns in Russia today. Yeltsin and Gorbachev are but two of the worst examples of what can happen when revisionism is allowed to take hold in the Socialist movement. But it should surprise no one when you look at how rotten to the core the USSR had become, especially during the Gorbachev era. Only old, hard line Communists maintain that the post-Stalin era was not revisionist and that position was most likely only held because of their desire to use the Communist Party as legitimacy for their corrupt rule over Soviet society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum
I would just like to clarify my use of the term "Socialist State." Some language purists may take offence to my use of this term because there has never been a truly Socialist state and I would agree with that statement. However, when I use the term "Socialist State" I am referring to any country that describes itself as "Socialist." Today this would include China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and Laos. My use of this term does not imply that I believe that they are Socialist in practice, only that they are socialist in name. I use the term "Socialist State" in order to separate those countries that have declared themselves Socialist from countries that are still obviously Capitalist. While these states may practice Capitalism there remains the hope that should revolution sweep the world they could be counted on to join the new Socialist order readily.
Most leftists, and certainly all tendencies that descend from Leninism, will usually divide the history of the USSR into various periods. The debate and inevitable points of contention stem from how the different currents within the left view these various periods. The most common point of contention, and the point that I will focus on, is whether or when the USSR became revisionist.
To begin, what is revisionism? Revisionists are those Marxists who have "revised" their interpretations of Marx's writings in such a way as to remove the revolutionary nature from Marxism. One example that is commonly mentioned on the left is that of democratic socialism. Democratic socialists moved away from the idea of revolution in favor of reforming capitalism into socialism from within bourgeois democracy. This is viewed by almost all on the far left as revisionist, although democratic socialists prefer to call it "reformist" socialism. A further point among these discussions of Soviet revisionism are whether the leaders of the USSR adhered to Leninism or revised Lenin. This leads to a further divide within Leninism itself on the nature of the Soviet Union.
First, we must begin with the revolution itself. Naturally all groups that descend from Leninism (which includes Trotskyists, Marxist-Leninists or "Stalinists", Maoists, and Hoxhaists) believe that the revolution was not revisionist. However, many on what is termed the "Ultra-Left" (Luxemburgists, Council Communists, Libertarian Communists, and Anarchists) believe that since the revolution was led by a vanguard then that alone constitutes revisionism. These groups tend to believe that only the spontaneous rising of the entire proletariat in a decentralized movement would constitute a proper revolution. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that these tendencies have never led a successful revolution because these decentralized movements usually fail to follow through with establishing a workers' state or never have a significant enough following to even mount a revolution in the first place. Only Leninist-style vanguard revolutions have ever succeeded in establishing workers' states.
Next we move to Lenin and the NEP period in Soviet history. I will skip over the Russian Civil War period because it is my belief that everything in that period was done under emergency conditions. Instead I will judge Lenin and his legacy by what he and the Communist Party did once they gained total control over the Soviet Union. Lenin championed the NEP, or New Economic Policy, after the Civil War as a way to reinvigorate the economy, which was on the brink of collapse. Lenin himself described the NEP as State Capitalism. Under the NEP the Soviets implemented a mixed economy where small enterprises could be privately owned. This was an effort to encourage economic growth while ensuring that the State remained in charge of the important national industries. The goal of the NEP was to allow for a future transition to socialism when the economy had been properly developed. Many on the left, again mostly among the ultra-left, hold that because there was not an immediate implementation of Socialism then the USSR had become revisionist. I believe this to be a naive assumption that focuses more on appeals to ideological purists rather than the pragmatic necessities of real life. Following the Russian Civil War the Soviets needed to rebuild the economy and State Capitalism is the best method to achieve that goal especially given the situation in the USSR at the time.
Following Lenin's death there was a period of joint rule by numerous individuals in the Communist Party. Each of these individuals was jockeying to become the ultimate leader of both the Party and the State. This period saw a continuation of the NEP and should be judged in accordance with that period. This interregnum ended with the ascension of Stalin to the leadership of the State and the Party and the exile of Leon Trotsky.
The Stalin period was the most explosive period of Soviet history both in terms of economic development and contention among Marxists. Stalin led the USSR in the greatest period of rapid economic growth ever witnessed in the world. Stalin took the Soviet Union from an agrarian society to become the second largest industrial economy in the world in less than a generation. Stalin collectivized agriculture which single-handedly ended famine in the USSR after over a millenia where famines occurred every five years. The Stalin period also saw the failure of the spread of revolution across the world thus leaving the Soviet Union as the only workers' state in existence capable of self-reliance. This failure of the spread of revolution forced the Soviets to focus more on internal development. This focus on internal development, along with Stalin's purge of Trotskyists, opportunists, and fascist collaborators from the Communist Party, forms the center of the ideological battle between the tendencies within Leninism. First you have "Stalinists," Maoists, and Hoxhaists who hold up Stalin as the last true Socialist leader of the USSR. They praise Stalin's actions as not only necessary given the situation in the USSR and the world at the time but also as the proper way to develop the USSR and move it towards Socialism. Next you have Trotskyists who believe that Stalin betrayed the Revolution by bureaucratizing the USSR, throwing out the "Old Bolsheviks," and failing to spread the Revolution out of Russia. Some Trotskyists hold that at that point the USSR became a "degenerated workers' state" and could only be saved by a revolution that swept the world and replaced bureaucratic Stalinism with Trotsky's "Permanent Revolution." Finally you have the ultra-left who were still opposed to the very nature of the Soviet State since the Revolution. All Stalin's rule did for them was confirm that the Soviets had become bureaucratic, elitist, and undemocratic further degenerating the revolution.
Finally, we have the post-Stalin period. This period, which lasted from the death of Stalin to the fall of the USSR, is usually lumped together by all sides of the revisionism debate. The other accepted starting point for this period would be the "Secret Speech" by Khrushchev. Khrushchev made a speech to the 20th Party Congress of the Communist Party where he outlined the "crimes" of Stalin and his cohorts, especially Beria. This speech was made in a secret meeting in the middle of the night where stenographers were not permitted to take notes on what was said, although the contents of the speech was later made public. Many at the meeting could not believe what they were hearing but refused to speak up in defense of Stalin for fear of reprisals from Khrushchev's allies. At this point Khrushchev had cemented his position of power and used it to lash out against his political enemies who were also attempting to gain control of the Party. Most of those opposed to Khrushchev were former officials in Stalin's government and seen to many as friends of Stalin and his ideas. This made it politically expedient for Khrushchev to speak against these other leaders because their association with Stalin could be used to keep them out of positions of power. Following the speech, however, many of those enemies of Khrushchev were arrested and executed for their part in Stalin's administration. Almost all major currents of Marxism, with the notable exception of the orthodox members of the post-Stalin Communist Party of the Soviet Union, describe the post-Stalin Soviet Union as revisionist at best and outright Capitalist at worst. This is because at that point the bureaucratic opportunists within the Communist Party had cemented control over the Party and the State. They slowly but systematically removed all vestiges of revolutionary fervor from the Party and instead implemented a policy of entrenched bureaucratism and cronyism. The economy continued to be dominated by heavy industry with little emphasis on consumer goods or services. This would directly lead to the Brezhnev Stagnation which was a 20 year period of economic stagnation that almost toppled the USSR on its own. The failure of the Soviet leadership in this period to reform the economy in the direction of Socialism and away from State Capitalism is, in my opinion, what led to the failure of the Soviet economy to keep pace with the West. The period ended with the fall of the Soviet Union following the "reforms" of Gorbachev that had the effect of returning the Soviet Union to Bourgeois Democracy and Capitalism. The political collapse of the USSR was inevitable following the liberalization of the economy by Gorbachev. All true Communists and Socialists hold that Gorbachev was at best a Liberal sympathizer and at worst a Bourgeois infiltrator. To see just how deep the infiltration by Liberal sympathizers and bourgeois infiltrators was in the Communist Party one must only look at the political positions adopted by many former Communists after the fall of the USSR. For example, Yeltsin, first President of the Russian Federation and former Chairman of the Presidium of the USSR (a very prestigious position), upon becoming President aggressively pushed for the privatization of the Russian economy. Failure to take any regulatory action in favor of laissez-faire economics directly led to the rise of the current Oligarchic Capitalism that reigns in Russia today. Yeltsin and Gorbachev are but two of the worst examples of what can happen when revisionism is allowed to take hold in the Socialist movement. But it should surprise no one when you look at how rotten to the core the USSR had become, especially during the Gorbachev era. Only old, hard line Communists maintain that the post-Stalin era was not revisionist and that position was most likely only held because of their desire to use the Communist Party as legitimacy for their corrupt rule over Soviet society.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Addendum
I would just like to clarify my use of the term "Socialist State." Some language purists may take offence to my use of this term because there has never been a truly Socialist state and I would agree with that statement. However, when I use the term "Socialist State" I am referring to any country that describes itself as "Socialist." Today this would include China, Vietnam, Cuba, North Korea, and Laos. My use of this term does not imply that I believe that they are Socialist in practice, only that they are socialist in name. I use the term "Socialist State" in order to separate those countries that have declared themselves Socialist from countries that are still obviously Capitalist. While these states may practice Capitalism there remains the hope that should revolution sweep the world they could be counted on to join the new Socialist order readily.
Monday, December 8, 2014
About the Alliance between Workers and Peasants
There is much contention in Marxist theoretical circles about the potential for a revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. Many in the West may be confused about this debate because they believe that there is no such thing as "the Peasantry" anymore. That certainly is the case in all the developed countries of Europe and North America. However, a peasantry of sorts does exist in the developing world.
How can we define people as peasants when feudalism no longer exists? We much shape our answer around how peasantry functioned. In the feudal era, peasants were subsistence farmers who owed a share of their crops to their feudal lord in return for protection and a place to live and farm. Modern peasantry is similar but with a subtle difference. Modern peasants are subsistence farmers who either own their land but the plot is too small to form a profitable commercial operation or, more commonly, who rent their land from a larger landowner in exchange for either money rent or rent in the form of a portion of their crop earnings. This makes modern peasantry virtually the same as medieval peasantry, minus the religiously motivated hierarchy of feudalism.
So, how does the existence of modern peasantry matter to Marxists? The simple conclusion is that these modern peasants make logical allies for the revolutionary proletariat in places where the proletariat is not large. In fact, the Marxist school of Maoism believes that in unindustrialized states only an alliance between the Proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow capitalism. This notion makes sense.
If it makes so much sense then why is there contention between Marxists on this issue? Most of the disagreement stems from the idea that only the proletariat can be revolutionary in character. What does that mean? Basically, it is a tenant of Marxism that the proletariat is oppressed in a special way by Capitalism, namely by being alienated from the fruits of their labor, and that means that only the proletariat can be truly revolutionary. Other groups can join the revolution but they would not be considered fundamentally revolutionary. This assertion makes sense but following it dogmatically can reduce the chances for revolution in underdeveloped areas to nearly zero. This is because in underdeveloped economies the proletariat may form a small majority of the population.
Besides this theoretical disagreement, what other reasons would Marxists have to oppose an alliance with the peasantry? Because the peasantry is not fundamentally revolutionary, the fear is that if they were to be allies in a revolution then they would extort concessions from the proletariat that would not benefit the development of Socialism. One example concerns land reform. Collectivization is the fundamental form of agricultural organization in a Socialist society. Peasants would be vehemently opposed to collectivization and would instead press the proletariat to enact land redistribution. While not inherently counter-revolutionary, this can hold back Socialist development because land redistribution would enable to peasants to become petty bourgeois landowners and allow the continued existence of market economics in agriculture. This is but one of numerous examples.
Despite all of this, it is my belief that the positives outweigh the negatives in many instances regarding the alliance between peasants and the proletariat. This is because in undeveloped economies the only hope for revolution may be in the alliance between workers and peasants. The proletariat must always be careful to maintain the revolutionary character of society but some concession may be necessary to facilitate revolution. However, given the proper path of economic development towards industrialization some concession are not necessarily a bad thing. The uneven development of Capitalism around the world all but necessitates the alliance in some areas because there are likely to always to be places in the world where the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat. Without the alliance of workers and peasants those areas may never see revolution.
How can we define people as peasants when feudalism no longer exists? We much shape our answer around how peasantry functioned. In the feudal era, peasants were subsistence farmers who owed a share of their crops to their feudal lord in return for protection and a place to live and farm. Modern peasantry is similar but with a subtle difference. Modern peasants are subsistence farmers who either own their land but the plot is too small to form a profitable commercial operation or, more commonly, who rent their land from a larger landowner in exchange for either money rent or rent in the form of a portion of their crop earnings. This makes modern peasantry virtually the same as medieval peasantry, minus the religiously motivated hierarchy of feudalism.
So, how does the existence of modern peasantry matter to Marxists? The simple conclusion is that these modern peasants make logical allies for the revolutionary proletariat in places where the proletariat is not large. In fact, the Marxist school of Maoism believes that in unindustrialized states only an alliance between the Proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow capitalism. This notion makes sense.
If it makes so much sense then why is there contention between Marxists on this issue? Most of the disagreement stems from the idea that only the proletariat can be revolutionary in character. What does that mean? Basically, it is a tenant of Marxism that the proletariat is oppressed in a special way by Capitalism, namely by being alienated from the fruits of their labor, and that means that only the proletariat can be truly revolutionary. Other groups can join the revolution but they would not be considered fundamentally revolutionary. This assertion makes sense but following it dogmatically can reduce the chances for revolution in underdeveloped areas to nearly zero. This is because in underdeveloped economies the proletariat may form a small majority of the population.
Besides this theoretical disagreement, what other reasons would Marxists have to oppose an alliance with the peasantry? Because the peasantry is not fundamentally revolutionary, the fear is that if they were to be allies in a revolution then they would extort concessions from the proletariat that would not benefit the development of Socialism. One example concerns land reform. Collectivization is the fundamental form of agricultural organization in a Socialist society. Peasants would be vehemently opposed to collectivization and would instead press the proletariat to enact land redistribution. While not inherently counter-revolutionary, this can hold back Socialist development because land redistribution would enable to peasants to become petty bourgeois landowners and allow the continued existence of market economics in agriculture. This is but one of numerous examples.
Despite all of this, it is my belief that the positives outweigh the negatives in many instances regarding the alliance between peasants and the proletariat. This is because in undeveloped economies the only hope for revolution may be in the alliance between workers and peasants. The proletariat must always be careful to maintain the revolutionary character of society but some concession may be necessary to facilitate revolution. However, given the proper path of economic development towards industrialization some concession are not necessarily a bad thing. The uneven development of Capitalism around the world all but necessitates the alliance in some areas because there are likely to always to be places in the world where the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat. Without the alliance of workers and peasants those areas may never see revolution.
From State Capitalism to Communism
Since I last wrote on the Marxist case in favor of State Capitalism as a transitional stage between Capitalism and Socialism, I have decided to write what I consider to be the logical progression that would follow from the early establishment of State Capitalism in a proletarian democracy through to Communism.
Under State Capitalism in its early stages the State would have to hold absolute control over the direction of the economy. This would likely take the form of some kind of central planning body. This body would set production goals and prioritize distribution of goods and services to different areas. The primary goal of this central body would be the ensure that all people get the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.) in high enough quantities to enable them to live a secure existence. Once that goal has been achieved the State would begin to use its central planning power to increase the productive capacity of all goods and services in a effort to move society towards post-scarcity. Socialism, by its very nature, requires the existence of post-scarcity in order to thrive. Karl Marx admitted in his own writings that Socialism could only work in highly industrialized societies because of both the need for the majority of the population to be proletarian and the necessity of the economy to be able to adequately provide for the people through high productive output.
As State Capitalism wanes in its usefulness, Socialism will, as said earlier, emerge when either a post-scarcity or nearly post-scarcity society has been achieved. Under Socialism the proletariat will directly take over the management and distribution of goods and services. How exactly this would function can be only speculated because we in the present time are not anywhere near post-scarcity and do not know what such a society could even look like. Trying to envision a post-scarcity society is, for us, like a feudal lord in the 12th century trying to envision modern capitalist society. Even if we can see hints of what that new society may look like, the future will be so radically different from today that we are nothing better than fortune tellers gazing into a crystal ball. No matter the details, the primary goal of the Socialist system will be to progress society towards Communism. As society moves through post-scarcity people will realize that it is no longer necessary to accumulate goods. Because the proletariat will control distribution, overconsumption will be mitigated through societal controls. However, as we move through post-scarcity these controls will cease being necessary. People will come to understand that should they need something, they need only go and get it. Because everything will be so freely available people will eventually stop hoarding goods. Most likely such a post-scarcity society will also be so highly automated that manual labor will be virtually eliminated. This will enable people to pursue science, philosophy, art or anything else free from the constraints of wage labor. At this point society will likely have moved through Socialism and on to Communism.
Socialism, like State Capitalism, will still require the existence of the State in some form. However, the Socialist State will have a much reduced role in managing the economy or maybe even no role. The key role of the Socialist State will be preventing the reemergence of Capitalism. As the proletariat takes the reins of economic management there may be some opportunists or former capitalists that will try to use the newly decentralized economy to reestablish Capitalism even if only on a local level. The State will therefore have to act as an agent of revolution in order to protect Socialism from these opportunists. Eventually, however, economic progress and automation will be so great, and goods so readily available, that people will so no need to pay for goods and so Capitalism will have no mechanism to maintain its existence. Prices would be so low that the accumulation of wealth and capital would be impossible and serve on the purpose of personal vanity. After society moves into post-scarcity and the threat of the reemergence of Capitalism is gone the State will cease to have a true function other than providing political unity. Even in a Communist society there may be some form of central deliberative body but it would probably have little function other than to keep the people of the world united on a political level.
This whole description is, by its nature, speculative. We cannot know what the future will hold. We also cannot know how Capitalism will end. If there is not a political revolution installing a Socialist party into power then it is likely the eventually Capitalism will cease to exist naturally. As we have seen over the course of its existence, Capitalism is always seeking to increase its own productive capacity. Eventually Capitalism will have increased the industrial capabilities of society to such a point that there will be no need for people to purchase anything due to such a ready abundance of goods. Once that happens Capitalism will crumble on its own because it will lose the ability to accumulate capital in such an oversaturated economy.
Under State Capitalism in its early stages the State would have to hold absolute control over the direction of the economy. This would likely take the form of some kind of central planning body. This body would set production goals and prioritize distribution of goods and services to different areas. The primary goal of this central body would be the ensure that all people get the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.) in high enough quantities to enable them to live a secure existence. Once that goal has been achieved the State would begin to use its central planning power to increase the productive capacity of all goods and services in a effort to move society towards post-scarcity. Socialism, by its very nature, requires the existence of post-scarcity in order to thrive. Karl Marx admitted in his own writings that Socialism could only work in highly industrialized societies because of both the need for the majority of the population to be proletarian and the necessity of the economy to be able to adequately provide for the people through high productive output.
As State Capitalism wanes in its usefulness, Socialism will, as said earlier, emerge when either a post-scarcity or nearly post-scarcity society has been achieved. Under Socialism the proletariat will directly take over the management and distribution of goods and services. How exactly this would function can be only speculated because we in the present time are not anywhere near post-scarcity and do not know what such a society could even look like. Trying to envision a post-scarcity society is, for us, like a feudal lord in the 12th century trying to envision modern capitalist society. Even if we can see hints of what that new society may look like, the future will be so radically different from today that we are nothing better than fortune tellers gazing into a crystal ball. No matter the details, the primary goal of the Socialist system will be to progress society towards Communism. As society moves through post-scarcity people will realize that it is no longer necessary to accumulate goods. Because the proletariat will control distribution, overconsumption will be mitigated through societal controls. However, as we move through post-scarcity these controls will cease being necessary. People will come to understand that should they need something, they need only go and get it. Because everything will be so freely available people will eventually stop hoarding goods. Most likely such a post-scarcity society will also be so highly automated that manual labor will be virtually eliminated. This will enable people to pursue science, philosophy, art or anything else free from the constraints of wage labor. At this point society will likely have moved through Socialism and on to Communism.
Socialism, like State Capitalism, will still require the existence of the State in some form. However, the Socialist State will have a much reduced role in managing the economy or maybe even no role. The key role of the Socialist State will be preventing the reemergence of Capitalism. As the proletariat takes the reins of economic management there may be some opportunists or former capitalists that will try to use the newly decentralized economy to reestablish Capitalism even if only on a local level. The State will therefore have to act as an agent of revolution in order to protect Socialism from these opportunists. Eventually, however, economic progress and automation will be so great, and goods so readily available, that people will so no need to pay for goods and so Capitalism will have no mechanism to maintain its existence. Prices would be so low that the accumulation of wealth and capital would be impossible and serve on the purpose of personal vanity. After society moves into post-scarcity and the threat of the reemergence of Capitalism is gone the State will cease to have a true function other than providing political unity. Even in a Communist society there may be some form of central deliberative body but it would probably have little function other than to keep the people of the world united on a political level.
This whole description is, by its nature, speculative. We cannot know what the future will hold. We also cannot know how Capitalism will end. If there is not a political revolution installing a Socialist party into power then it is likely the eventually Capitalism will cease to exist naturally. As we have seen over the course of its existence, Capitalism is always seeking to increase its own productive capacity. Eventually Capitalism will have increased the industrial capabilities of society to such a point that there will be no need for people to purchase anything due to such a ready abundance of goods. Once that happens Capitalism will crumble on its own because it will lose the ability to accumulate capital in such an oversaturated economy.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
The Marxist Argument in Favor of State Capitalism
Following the Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin stated that he believed that the State should take on the functions of the capitalists by planning and directing the economy. Lenin himself called this state ownership of the means of production State Capitalism but he did not mean it in the slanderous sense that the term carries among Marxists today. Today, many Marxists use the term to deride the policies of Stalin and as the beginning point of their criticism of the Soviet Union. I believe that State Capitalism can in fact be a good method for the eventual development of Socialism and then Communism.
First, what is State Capitalism? State Capitalism is, put simply, the State ownership of the means of production. In a proletarian democracy the State is in the service of the proletariat and so in this way under State Capitalism the proletariat owns the means of production through the State by proxy. This however should be distinguished from State Capitalism under a bourgeois democracy where the State would instead be owned by the capitalists. For this reason, State Capitalism would only be desirable under proletarian democracy. Thus State Capitalism holds a precarious position because of the role it can play depending on the ruling political organization.
Next, why is State Capitalism good in proletarian democracy? Following a successful revolution it will be necessary for the new socialist state to set priorities for the redistribution of wealth and commodities as a way to ensure that the needs of the proletariat are met and to ensure the destruction of the capitalist class. These goal cannot be quickly achieved without centralized direction of some kind. Therefore, the ownership of the means of productions through the State is advisable. While the direct ownership of the means of production by the proletariat would be able to achieve the same goal, it would be less efficient because of the disjointed nature of the redistribution in such a decentralized system. In the event of a peaceful transition away from Capitalism, State Capitalism would be the most logical step. This would most likely be in the form of the nationalization of all industries. The State would then become the guarantor of the proletariat's need and work to redistribute wealth in the economy.
All of this is not to say that State Capitalism is Socialism, it is not. However, State Capitalism is in my opinion like Socialism in that it can be a transitional stage on the way to Communism. As the wealth in the economy is redistributed, the capitalist class is destroyed, and the needs and wants of the proletariat satisfactorily met the system would need to transition to Socialism, or the direct ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. This would remove the State from its role as economic planner and in its place the proletariat would directly assume the role of managing the production and distribution of goods and services. The State could then transition to being a kind of watchdog to ensure that Capitalism does not reemerge. As the proletariat more efficiently distributes goods and services, the State would no longer have any need to exist. This would lead to the State ceasing to exist and would finally usher in true Communism.
I feel that I must state again that State Capitalism is not meant as an end state, a necessity, or even necessarily desirable. My intention is to show that State Capitalism under a proletarian democracy could be used to speed up the transition to Socialism or at least to ensure that such a transition happened efficiently. Too often State Capitalism is described as Capitalism with a Marxist face. Instead we should try ad view it as one of many possible tools in the transition from Capitalism to Communism.
I also fell the need to describe some of the potential pitfalls of State Capitalism. We can learn much from the failure of State Capitalism in the the Soviet Union and China. In the USSR we saw the State latch on to its role as economic planner and refused to give up its status. This led to the entrenchment of the state bureaucracy and the eventual failure of the USSR due to economic stagnation and poor management. The opposite has happened in China. Because State Capitalism in China failed to properly industrialize the nation, when the US came knocking with offers to build factories on the condition that corporations be allowed to run them, the Chinese jumped on the opportunity. This ushered in the end of State Capitalism in China and the restoration of true Capitalism. Both of these examples can occur under State Capitalism given enough time and so a rapid transition from State Capitalism to Socialism in a necessity. However, given these potential problems, it is still my belief that effective use of State Capitalism can be used as a way to transition from Capitalism to Socialism efficiently. By using the State to direct all of the economic powers of society towards increased production we could move into a post-scarcity society in which Socialism can thrive. In fact it has often been noted by many Marxist theorists that without the proper level of economic development Socialism is doomed to fail. State Capitalism can be the engine that drives that development.
I would like to counter some possible criticism stemming from the belief that I am trying to assert a more or less gradual change from Capitalism to Socialism. Rather, my emphasis in using State Capitalism is that it much be coupled with rapid and radical changes in economic conditions. Failure to do so could result in the entrenchment of State Capitalism as in the USSR or the reversal of the revolution and the reemergence of Capitalism as we have seen in China. I would also like to say that I am not saying the State Capitalism must be implemented. If in the course of the revolution it becomes apparent that a direct transition to Socialism is possible then by all means that is the more favorable route. But given the current distribution of wealth across the globe it is my belief that some period of State Capitalism would be necessary in order to bring those less developed parts of the world up to a modern standard of living. By using the State as the engine of this process we could quickly usher in a new age for humanity where no person is forced to go without the basic necessities of life simply because of the economic conditions where they live.
First, what is State Capitalism? State Capitalism is, put simply, the State ownership of the means of production. In a proletarian democracy the State is in the service of the proletariat and so in this way under State Capitalism the proletariat owns the means of production through the State by proxy. This however should be distinguished from State Capitalism under a bourgeois democracy where the State would instead be owned by the capitalists. For this reason, State Capitalism would only be desirable under proletarian democracy. Thus State Capitalism holds a precarious position because of the role it can play depending on the ruling political organization.
Next, why is State Capitalism good in proletarian democracy? Following a successful revolution it will be necessary for the new socialist state to set priorities for the redistribution of wealth and commodities as a way to ensure that the needs of the proletariat are met and to ensure the destruction of the capitalist class. These goal cannot be quickly achieved without centralized direction of some kind. Therefore, the ownership of the means of productions through the State is advisable. While the direct ownership of the means of production by the proletariat would be able to achieve the same goal, it would be less efficient because of the disjointed nature of the redistribution in such a decentralized system. In the event of a peaceful transition away from Capitalism, State Capitalism would be the most logical step. This would most likely be in the form of the nationalization of all industries. The State would then become the guarantor of the proletariat's need and work to redistribute wealth in the economy.
All of this is not to say that State Capitalism is Socialism, it is not. However, State Capitalism is in my opinion like Socialism in that it can be a transitional stage on the way to Communism. As the wealth in the economy is redistributed, the capitalist class is destroyed, and the needs and wants of the proletariat satisfactorily met the system would need to transition to Socialism, or the direct ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. This would remove the State from its role as economic planner and in its place the proletariat would directly assume the role of managing the production and distribution of goods and services. The State could then transition to being a kind of watchdog to ensure that Capitalism does not reemerge. As the proletariat more efficiently distributes goods and services, the State would no longer have any need to exist. This would lead to the State ceasing to exist and would finally usher in true Communism.
I feel that I must state again that State Capitalism is not meant as an end state, a necessity, or even necessarily desirable. My intention is to show that State Capitalism under a proletarian democracy could be used to speed up the transition to Socialism or at least to ensure that such a transition happened efficiently. Too often State Capitalism is described as Capitalism with a Marxist face. Instead we should try ad view it as one of many possible tools in the transition from Capitalism to Communism.
I also fell the need to describe some of the potential pitfalls of State Capitalism. We can learn much from the failure of State Capitalism in the the Soviet Union and China. In the USSR we saw the State latch on to its role as economic planner and refused to give up its status. This led to the entrenchment of the state bureaucracy and the eventual failure of the USSR due to economic stagnation and poor management. The opposite has happened in China. Because State Capitalism in China failed to properly industrialize the nation, when the US came knocking with offers to build factories on the condition that corporations be allowed to run them, the Chinese jumped on the opportunity. This ushered in the end of State Capitalism in China and the restoration of true Capitalism. Both of these examples can occur under State Capitalism given enough time and so a rapid transition from State Capitalism to Socialism in a necessity. However, given these potential problems, it is still my belief that effective use of State Capitalism can be used as a way to transition from Capitalism to Socialism efficiently. By using the State to direct all of the economic powers of society towards increased production we could move into a post-scarcity society in which Socialism can thrive. In fact it has often been noted by many Marxist theorists that without the proper level of economic development Socialism is doomed to fail. State Capitalism can be the engine that drives that development.
I would like to counter some possible criticism stemming from the belief that I am trying to assert a more or less gradual change from Capitalism to Socialism. Rather, my emphasis in using State Capitalism is that it much be coupled with rapid and radical changes in economic conditions. Failure to do so could result in the entrenchment of State Capitalism as in the USSR or the reversal of the revolution and the reemergence of Capitalism as we have seen in China. I would also like to say that I am not saying the State Capitalism must be implemented. If in the course of the revolution it becomes apparent that a direct transition to Socialism is possible then by all means that is the more favorable route. But given the current distribution of wealth across the globe it is my belief that some period of State Capitalism would be necessary in order to bring those less developed parts of the world up to a modern standard of living. By using the State as the engine of this process we could quickly usher in a new age for humanity where no person is forced to go without the basic necessities of life simply because of the economic conditions where they live.
Monday, December 1, 2014
Ferguson Movement Isn't Just About Ferguson Anymore
There has been a lot of hate going around the internet about people's reactions to the events in Ferguson. Almost all the negative attention is coming from white people who have little to no social interactions with people of color and seem utterly unable to understand where all the anger is coming from. As an example, yesterday a few players on the St. Louis Rams football team raised their hands in the "hands up" gesture that has been adopted by the Ferguson protesters during their pre-game entry. There was immediately a strong negative reaction from the police union and many white fans who took offence to the gesture. The reaction to such a public show of support for the protesters is telling of the views of different sectors of our society. Most leftists and people of color were quick to show support for the gesture while the negative reactions was almost exclusively from whites. Most negative reactions come in the form of a statement like this, "Why are you showing support for a thug who robbed a store and attacked a police officer?" This statement is loaded in many ways because it focuses squarely on the events surrounding Michael Brown's death and is loaded with racial stereotypes about black youths. In the days following the death of Michael Brown it became evident that regardless of the actual events in Ferguson, the protest movement that was rising was focusing more on the issues of police militarization, police brutality, and racially motivated police practices than just on the events in Ferguson. This is why I say that the Ferguson Movement is bigger than Ferguson itself. These are issues that are deeply rooted in our police and our criminal justice system. Police are regularly allowed to use brutal measures with people of color in order to ensure their "compliance" while if similar treatment were used in white communities there would be an uprising. It is telling of the deep rooted nature of these issues that minority communities have not acted sooner. They have been so terrified and forced into submission by the police and our judicial system that it took a tragic and explosive situation to rouse them out of their oppression.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that people who are against what is happening in Ferguson need to look past the events themselves to see the bigger picture. This isn't about Darren Wilson or Michael Brown anymore, it is a debate over the role and actions of our nation's law enforcement community, especially in communities of color. Until the detractors can see past the surface of the situation they will never understand why the protesters are so motivated and willing to confront the police. This isn't just about Ferguson, it's about America.
We live in a state of de facto apartheid where minorities are brutally oppressed by the police, have little hope for a good education in their underfunded schools, and are destined to a life of poverty because of a total lack of opportunity for good paying jobs in their own communities. The most depressing aspect in all of this is that many whites refuse to even acknowledge that these problems exist. When whites look at communities of color they choose to see the crime and gangs rather than the systemic failure on the part of society to alleviate the roots causes of problems in minority communities. Instead of providing better education and good job opportunities, whites focus on increasing policing and giving minority criminals harsh prison sentences. We will never be able to solve the inequalities between whites and minorities without addressing the root causes of inequality. "Better policing" and "tough on crime" approaches only have the effect of glossing over the problems rather than actually fixing the problems in those communities.
Basically what I'm trying to say is that people who are against what is happening in Ferguson need to look past the events themselves to see the bigger picture. This isn't about Darren Wilson or Michael Brown anymore, it is a debate over the role and actions of our nation's law enforcement community, especially in communities of color. Until the detractors can see past the surface of the situation they will never understand why the protesters are so motivated and willing to confront the police. This isn't just about Ferguson, it's about America.
We live in a state of de facto apartheid where minorities are brutally oppressed by the police, have little hope for a good education in their underfunded schools, and are destined to a life of poverty because of a total lack of opportunity for good paying jobs in their own communities. The most depressing aspect in all of this is that many whites refuse to even acknowledge that these problems exist. When whites look at communities of color they choose to see the crime and gangs rather than the systemic failure on the part of society to alleviate the roots causes of problems in minority communities. Instead of providing better education and good job opportunities, whites focus on increasing policing and giving minority criminals harsh prison sentences. We will never be able to solve the inequalities between whites and minorities without addressing the root causes of inequality. "Better policing" and "tough on crime" approaches only have the effect of glossing over the problems rather than actually fixing the problems in those communities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)