me: >> As scientists say, that's (socialization of appropriation)
necessary but not sufficient. In any event, I wasn't talking about
Marx, a champion of socialist democracy, but people like Paul Baran.<<
CB: >Marx , the champion of socialist democracy, seems to see these
as sufficient conditions for socialism. He calls the working class as
the ruling class "democracy"; he coined and claimed credit for
originating concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat.<
Right, but the old USSR didn't have the dictatorship of the
proletariat, but instead a dictatorship "in the name of" the
proletariat, over the proletariat, i.e., a dictatorship by the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union.
me: >> In other words, the old USSR did not have democracy.<<
CB: > No, in other words , the young and old USSR did take a giant
step into democracy. The working class was represented by the Soviet
state in taking a giant step toward social appropriation.<
(I call it the "old USSR" because it's currently defunct.)
1. It's only a "giant step" toward democracy if the government and
state that own the means of production and the people who control them
do not use their power to block actual democracy from taking hold.
2. We should remember that such worthies as Mobutu Sese Seko, Papa Doc
Duvalier, Anastasio Somoza, and Rafael Trujillo also hogged most of
the domestic means of production in their countries, effectively
socializing much of production.
>> Nor has China had democracy. In neither case have the working classes
>> (proletarians and peasants) been the ruling class.<<
CB: > No in both cases, in the Marxist sense, there were significant
steps into democracy compared with the societies overthrown and
compared to capitalist countries<
1. The only steps toward democracy were the socialization of
appropriation, which isn't really a step in that direction if the
state doesn't abuse its power. See above.
2. Actually, in the history of Russia, there _was_ a step toward
democracy around 1917, but after that there was a step backward, as
the CPSU became the backbone of the new ruling class.
CB had written:
>>> With modern mass societies, only republican or representative democratic
>>> control of the state, and through that ownership of the basic means of
>>> production and planning the giant economy, ?is feasible and viable. It is
>>> not feasible to have direct democratic control by
tens of millions of workers.<<<
me: >> I didn't say anything about "direct democracy." That's a red herring.<<
CB: >Well, it's a red analysis, more like a red dolphin. <
That's funny. LOL!
> The Soviet state represented the working class very essentially in taking a
> big step into social appropriation and away from private appropriation
> (private property) Marx's sense of democracy.<
See above.
Me: >> In any event, democracy (i.e., "popular-democratic control of
the state") does not involve a monopoly political party that controls
state power (the means of coercion), along with the media, to maintain
rule without significant control by the people they rule.<<
CB: > In Marx and Engels' sense, democacy certainly can involve one
party. They don't equate pluralism with democracy. Marx and Engels
thought of the dictatorship of the proletariat as the most advanced
level of democracy, the form in which the working class exercised its
rule as ruling class. Doesn't make sense to exercise the dictatorship
of the proletariat in multiple parties.<
1. What if the workers want to have multiple parties? shouldn't it be
_working class people_ who make this kind of decision? Marx and Engels
would have rejected the application of an abstract formula (no
political parties) to the concrete process of workers running their
own lives collectively and democratically.
2. I don't remember Marx or Engels rejecting the idea of pluralism or
multiple political parties. (Please find a quote where they do so.)
If I remember correctly, the Paris Commune had more than one party,
and Marx thought that the Commune was the closest he could see to a
precursor of socialism.
3. The key thing about socialism is not the end of pluralism. Rather,
it's the achievement of pluralism without the gross bias introduced
into the political system by the class nature of society.
4. The total suppression of opposition parties is impossible in the
real world, since secret and informal political parties always arise
(Orwell's 1984 is fiction). Even within the CPSU, there were factions
that acted almost like political parties. (A friend's dissertation
involved some research on the rural/urban split in the CPSU during the
Khrushchev era.) You can see this in corporate bureaucracies, where
factions exist within the hierarchy.
> Even the bourgeois ideologist Madison eschewed "factions" ,multiple parties.
> Of course, he was setting up the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. As it has
> turned out, the US and other bourgeois have used multiple parties to their
> advantage in exercising their dictatorship.<
Hmm... how does this justify the suppression of independent
working-class political parties in the old USSR? Are you saying that
the ideas of a bourgeois ideologist can be used to justify the CPSU's
dictatorship?
me: >> So the old USSR was not and the "People's Republic" of China
has not been democratic.<<
CB: > Well, they took big steps into democracy in the sense that Marx
and Engels use the term.<
You _define_ both socialism and democracy by the state appropriation
of the surplus. Then you defend that definition. You're entitled to
your definition, CB, but if the USSR was an example of democratic
socialism, that discredits democratic socialism in the eyes of most
working-class people who know that the state usually stands against
them unless they control it.
me: > You can call those places "socialist" if you want, but it's a
bureaucratic/authoritarian socialism, not a democratic sort. It's the
kind where the rulers can accumulate power over the ruled.<
CB: > For Marx and Engels, materialists, the first thing to look at is
material appropriation, social or private , in measuring what is
democratic. If state power is exercised to create social
appropriation against private appropriation, it's moving in a
democratic way, in the Marxist sense.<
1. This is quite circular. So it was okay to Marx and Engels that the
Soviet state suppressed independent labor unions?
2. You should read Hal Draper's KARL MARX'S THEORY OF REVOLUTION
(Monthly Review Press) some time to see what they actually said about
issues of socialization and democracy.
3. Under capitalism, the capitalists accumulate physical means of
production as the main basis of their political, economic, and social
power as a class. Their state accumulates military and police power
(the means of destruction) to enforce their rule. In now-defunct USSR,
the state accumulated the means of both production and destruction. I
guess you could say that the difference is that the USSR "eliminated
the middle-man."
me: >> One example of the absence of democracy in the old USSR is that
the ruling class's main organization (the CP, merged with the state)
was able to abolish the old "socialist" system without any kind of
consent from the workers.<<
CB: > This is not a Marxist way to understand it. Plus, it is not
accurate that there was _no_ "consent" from the workers. The idea
that there was no mass popularity of the decisions and actions of the
CPSU is ridiculous.<
1. So they workers loved Yeltsin's reintroduction of capitalism?
(that's what I was referring to -- I should have made it clearer.)
Maybe they did favor capitalism. But if so, it's because bureaucratic
socialism had failed as far as they were concerned.
2. _Of course_ there was some "mass popularity" among workers of some
or many CPSU decisions. Every state and every class society has to
have _some_ legitimacy, because none of these can persist totally
based on coercion. (A system based totally on coercion likely grinds
to a halt.) The key to an authoritarian government is not forcing
everyone to do everything at gun-point but instead to make sure that
there are no permanent oppositional institutions (political parties,
independent labor unions, etc.) Then, the system's legitimacy can be
(provisionally) won among the politically atomized populace with grand
gestures of largesse, threats of foreign invasion and subversion,
propaganda about how other systems are even worse, great ceremonies,
the cult of personality, and the like.
me: >> This is a quibble. After all, peasants are workers (direct
producers) too. Often, they're not proletarians (wage-earners).<<
CB: > Marx and Engels used "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a
reason; and had the original precise meaning of "proletarian". They
considered proletarians more advanced in consciousness than peasants.
Of course, the Soviets developed the unity of the hammer and sickle.<
Charles, are you channeling Gus Hall or something? Anyway, there's a
difference between "workers" (direct producers) and proletarians
(wage-earners). Small peasants are part of the former but not the
latter. Rural proletarians are part of both groups.
--
Jim Devine
"Those who take the most from the table
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary folk." – Bertolt Brecht.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
