From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 22:25:46 +0800


No-worries Harald always reply when convenient is the best rule.

Obviously I come from one tradition and you from another - however one of the points I am trying to make is that things have changed historically and that ideological differences may be no where near as important as they were treated in the past.

Of course this is not saying that ideological differences have no importance.

In this thread, the big practical difference is my concentration on the contradictions of the transition from capitalism and communism as against your view that such transitions are of a fleeting nature. To this end I emphaisize that there is an important first phase of communism (of a long lasting nature, rather then fleeting) while you disagree. I hope that is a fair rendition of our central differences as far as they have been expressed.

Added to this is a couple of areas of potential disagreement which are logically drawn from this. I would give a role to both the state and property, capital and labour, with or without the bourgeoisie for some time (I acknowledge that this is probably an anthema to you). I see the period of transition as one of continuing class struggle (going in one direction - towards dissolution) but  a struggle which takes place when the working class is in a ruling position (class that is not those posing as representatives). Naturally I see such a period as one of contradictions.

The first thing I want to do is establish our sources of agreement, which I think from what you have stated overshadow the differences. First we seem to have similar if not identical understandings of communism.

1) No economic relations at all , but conscious social relations of co-operation.
2) No form of property at all.
3) No distinct division of labour (ie one that imprisons people).
4) No state at all (including the judiciary as a distinct organ and of course no army or police as such).
5) No social classes at all.

Added to this are some more practical areas of agreement - I think we both see a tremendous importance in rank and file worker's organisation, lateral and rich communications and a broadly anti-bureacratic approach.

More or less I hope this encapsulates our broad agreement (it is expressed as a series of negatives in order to reduce areas of futile redefinitions). There are some other things addressed that I will leave and try and answer in the context of a clearer explanation. I think it also fair to say that you have raised some questions for clarification rather then direct rebbutals (in the form of clear statements of your own) I say this because I think the emphasis shifts back to me to try and clear up what has been said (I hope you agree to this interpretation - this lengthly prologue is only to establsih more exactly what is at issue).

FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARIFICATION
First I see much of the 20th century dominated by a number of related historical movements. The rising up and dissolution of classic imperialism, the socialisation of capital (for and by the bourgeoisie) the transformation/creation of a vast new middle class into manager/bureacrats. The leading forms of property have been transformed from privately owned to joint ownership, colonies have been disspated into a more or less single world market, the labour market has become internationalisied in many important areas, international forms of capital command vast diverse resources dependant none-the-less on the legal mediation of nation states.

Of course none of this has been done evenly.

Now for the most part our differing ideologies have origins in the period before this (largely in the 19th century), the changes in the next century gave them the shape and sectarian character of which we are now all too familiar (understanding 19th century disputes I believe is far more problematic then we usually assume). I am not concerned with sectarianism in general, but the sectarianism which now confronts us. 

I am also concerned to understand the historical forces which shaped the past century and provided such contradictions such as the USSR.  In both cases I see a defacto radical class alliance at work which gives rise to the ideological differences as they have been shaped (not creating them but imparting particular edges and absolute certianities to them that did not exist when they were first formed - I am speaking here specifically of my own heritage in Marxism).

I dismiss ideological explanations of our ideological/political differences as insufficient to explain all that has happened in this past century - the spiral of history in the USSR, or that of China etc, the particular forms of struggle and the contradictions involved. The sufficient explaination has to lie in history itself - that is the contending class and sectional interests which developed.

While the middle class is now all but fully transformed, this was not always the case - indeed radical elements had to struggle damn hard in many cases to initiate the sought of socialisation of property in which they could find their "new" place as the managers, technocrats and bureacrats that run it. This is no longer the case. In fact the decline of the left as we know it is, to my mind, a by-product of this dual class history.

What were truely radical (not necessary good) elements have nothing further to gain by radicalism, they are reduced to the powers they can muster within the organisations of the left (they are a class rump in otherwords) and spend their time combatting any proletarian moves to unseat them. This is how I see modern sectarianism and cetainly how I have experienced it. Of course given the mixed history of the left this blunts proletarian elements by subjecting them to the logic of the sectarian games being played.

One ideological by product of this contradiction has been that socialism/communism ends up becoming a "system" rather then a historical epoch (classically rendered in the communist movement that the USSR existence defined socialism/communism). But the lure of systems is strong - history is never that tidy it expresses itself as contradictory tendencies. Which brings me to the next point.

Two things must strike us about any form of transformation regardless of how revolutionary, that one part is purely negative and another a positive assertion of change. On one hand the destruction of the old and on the other the construction of the new (it is a banal point). If this movement is mostly ideological, or seen in ideological terms, people merely have to make up their minds that the old must go and have some idea of what they want instead.

Harald, forgive me for this, but I think this is what you are suggesting in your reply below, that is the revolutionary jump will be manifested primarily as an ideological jump then followed by actions (this is a thorough simplification, I am not saying you would express it that way, I am just suggesting this is the logic that may be there). 

For me this is not enough, indeed for me this has mystical qualities. Instead I look for a form of struggle taking place in capitalism, that leads to political overthrow and in turn to social change. In this there has to be a single dynamic, a contradiction capable of linking all these things together. You are as well aware as I am what it is - proletarian self-activity (not saying that you would express it the same way). My question is what is this proletarian self-activity essentially but also practically?

The only answer I can come up with is an odd contradiction - the struggle to de-alienate labour itself. An odd contradiction, not because it is a contradiction, but because if laid over three distinct historical periods (capitalism, some sort of transition however long or short and communism) it reflects these as a struggle against the bourgeoisie managing other people's labour (objective existence), the struggle to manage labour itself (a contradiction because it is still alienated - the subject expresses itself as object) and finally labour without management (alienated control) at all - unalienated conscious social labour (subjective existence).

Harald I don't know whether this makes things any clearer, for I am about to make it muddier still. Focussed just on the transitionary period (long or short) a really big contradiction appears, labour controls its alienated existence, at least for a while it must treat itself as object as full conscious control of all the necessary production, let alone new production cannot be magically had, it must result from at least this contradiction working against itself, dissapating the unconscious alienated relations which previous co-ordinated labour under capitalism.

I think if there is any part of this that you will bring up strong objections it is this. I believe however, the logic is inescapable and niether of us should be fixated by time scales - it may be an instant it may be many generations but this is the contradiction which drives the proletariat and only that class to the point of dissolving economic relations themselves - that they are confronted with power over the economy and are faced with dealing directly with their own exploitation - it is an unavoidable step whether it lasts a few hours or a few generations.

This is I believe Marx's definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, a partway step towards communism, an unavoidable confrontation between  human labour as human beings and alienated labour which exploits there very existence. This is what I beleive Marx meant by the first stage of communism and even if he had never uttered a word on either it is unavoidable and inherent in any conception of a truely revolutionary change.

Harald, bear with me just a little longer, but the next part depends on assuming the framework outlined above. In Marx's day a proletariat winning political control over society was immediately confronted by an insummountable problem, that is the leading means of production would be still privately controlled. It does not matter how it was done (the phyiscal extermination of the bourgeoisie, the nationalisation of property, the taking of property via worker's control) private property had to be immediately transformed into social property hence Marx's definition of socialism as socialisation of the means of production under the dictatorship of the proletariat (ie proletarian socialism). But we do not need Marx for this, under any circumstances in the 19th century this was unavoidable and in fact was the common heritage of most of the socialist movement at that time whether marxist or not.

What has changed since then is that capital has socialisied itself, its ownership is mediated by the state, the directors are their under the regulations of the state - winning state power by another class (the proletariat) delivers the leading means of the production automatically into their laps (again time is not at issue) in the end this property will become completely socialisied and cease being property at all.

I stand virtually alone in this, and hence my peculiar use of the term proletarian socialism. As capital has more or less socialisied the means of production (for and by the bourgeois class), technically this is already socialism (a period where the dominant form is socialisied property) but the class dictatorship remains solidly bourgeois - Hence sticking strictly to historical periodization the present regime is bourgeois socialism (not that this means anything good for the world) what is more it is tendeing towards being internationalizied bourgeois socialism (despite the bloody events at present - in fact with the bourgeoisie in control this must be expected).

 Now just to flip back to the petit bourgeoisie. The convergance of capital (following a long course of competition induced socialisation) and radical petit bourgeois aspirations - bourgeois socialism is something of an expected outcome.  Rather then disputing the socialist credentials of the USSR, for instance, I would turn it on its head - of course it was socialist but look at the class in charge, likewise calling a spade a spade, when capital accumulates to the degree its has, monopolizes entire markets, socialisises its property form amongst a collective bourgeoisie, then ye this is socialism as well - but look at the class in charge.

This "socialism" cannot move towards communism (though it lays the foundations for it) precisely because of the classes in charge - there is no dynamic for attacking the labour relation - indeed there is every motivation of intesnifying the alienating aspects of labour. Hence proletarian socialism is not about introducing a system as such (a system of property, of productive relations, some new form of economy) but the immedate attack on the classes in power and the rising up of a new class power.

There is no necessary steps to go through, there is not even an ideological point to reach, the struggle now under bourgeoise rule is the same struggle after it is toppled and the same struggle until communism - that proletaruian interests guide production more and more directly. In otherwords the political platform of today is a full scale assualt on bourgeois power in all its forms, the forcing onto society as a whole the interests of the working class without waiting for anything else.

At this point I have reached full circle - I fear I may not have made things much clearer, but in concise form this is more or less what I am talking about.

Harald forgive me for not going through your points, but this was the only way I could think of covering the territory which you raised in a reasonable way.

All the best,
Greg






--- Message Received ---
From: Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-online.no>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 05:34:54 +0100
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?


-----Original Message-----
From: Greg Schofield 
Date: Wednesday, March 13, 2002 3:05 AM
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?


Greg, thanks for your reply but I have been busy with other things,
and have not manged to keep up with the speed of posting on
the aut-op-sy recently. Though I have felt tempted to intervene on
the thread of unions, where I no doubt have a different perspective
than Chris for instance ... (and also some strong doubts concerning
the accuracy of historical outline, at least if we look beyond the
particular  history of unionism in the U.S.)

I am far from sure that I wholly undertand what you are trying to
say. This might not be bad. I just have to try harder, and you on
your side might try to express yourself in a way that comes
over clearer to me. Sorry if I in what follows, I do not so much
directly address what you wrote

You said: "Unless the leading means of production were socialisied
(nationalisied whatever) a politically successful proletariat would
have no direct means to manage the economy - its rule would be
meaningless in practice as it would be constantly sabotaged by the
bourgeoisie."

The bourgeoisie either exist or it does not, as far as I
can understand. And they only exist as far as they are
obeyed. There is nothing mystical about taking over the
means of production even is mostly exactly what did
not take place in Russia, not even in Petrograd.
Knowledge and  a horisontal human communication network
are two of the fundamental things needed, and the market
an expression of that the absence of the latter. This, 
together with a generalised self-confidence (some-
thing the Russian working class did not have enough
of, which was also in the first and final instance the
main reason for their defeat),  as well as trust and
organisational capacities.

The real problem begins if you only go half the way, trying
to make the economical forms of the old society operate
side by side with communist relations. This guaratees for
one thing, a non-functional chaos and the ushering in of a
new bureacracy /ruling class. Studying the Russian
revolution from this perspective is pretty interesting.

I am still a bit unsure how you use socialised but if the means
of production are so-called privately owned or state owned
matters little in practical terms. If you have a large petty
bourgeoisie this may have political consequences though,
as was the case in Spain, where many of them flocked to
the so-called "Communist Party". This said, I agree with
you that contemporary capitalism already is extremely
socialised in a particular sense. (I may also point out that
it was on this basis Kropotkin argued more than a
century ago that nothing less than full-fledged communism
was longer possible as a functioning, practical alternative
to capitalism.)

I am opposed to the "first phase of communism" as outlined
by Marx in "Critique of the Gotha Programme," among
other reason because it is based on contradictions which
simply would make it impractical. I'm very much a "Kropotkian"
on this. Not only because its closer to my heart but because
it is far more realistic. My years of work experience
has not made me less convinced of this.

I find the term "transition period" used to refer to not a
period of days, weeks and months but decades and
even centuries, idealistic and naive. That is if we are
talking about the fundamental organisation of society.

How ever you bend and twist it, within the realm of modern
production, the question of whether we will be able to
create a classless socity will be termined by our capability
to create non-hierachical organisational structures,
not at least of the horisontal, borderless kinds. This is
a fundamental socio-material precondition for a classless
society within the realm of modern production that Marx, and
even less Englels never quite understood, which made
them turn to idealism and silly, stupefying polemical tricks
of the kind repeated again on this list about not having
a committee steering an airplane. (Surprise, surprise, this
was presiely the kind of "natural authority" also explicitely
supported by Bakunin.)  Communism means to gain
power over our own lifes and destinies or it means nothing,
or at best an enlightened despotism, with the idealism of
"serve the people" of social democracy of Maoism.

As an anarchist I of course agree with you in the importance
of the rise of the management strata for the history of the
20th century. And even if far from a new idea, it is still often
forgotten, often for far too abvious reasons. But not only
that, it tends to be taken for such a self-evident part of our reality
so that we hardly can see it any more.  Still it is quite interesting
to view Islamic integralism in that light, for instance, just like,
even if within a slightly differerent  ideological framwork, all
those "Free Officers" before them.

Does any of the above makes any sense to you?

Maybe if you reply to this, I will also better be able to grasp what
you are trying to say, and where we might agree and
disagree beyond the question of labels. Though sometimes
labels are manifestations of  far more than what immediately
appears within the framework of discussions, as for
instance: trails of blood .... 

Harald









Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/)
* Powerful filters.
* Create you own headers.
* Have email types launch scripts.
* Use emails to automat your work.
* Add comments on receive.
* Use scripts to extract and check emails.
* Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions.
* LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX.
* A REXX interpreter is freely available.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---