Date: Fri, 21 Jun 1996 13:59:28 +0200
From: Jorn Andersen <ccc6639-AT-vip.cybercity.dk>
Subject: Problems of workers' power


At 17:07 20-06-96 +0000, you wrote:

Raymond Hickman (about the workers' state):
>Don't you see any possible problem with the manner in which that
>power is operated, or the operation of that state? 
>
>If your answer is that it doesn't matter what the state does,
>since being a workers state, it must by definition act in
>workers' interests, then fair enough.
<cut>
>If your answer is that, during the revolutionary transformation
>of society, workers' consciousness will be transformed so that
>they will not act in a reprehensible manner, then things get a
>little trickier.

Jorn:
Probably I will fall in *both* of your extremes :-)

What I basically think is this:
We have very little evidence to how a real workers' state will be operated.
The most important experiences are from the Paris Commune and the very first
short period of the Russian revolution. (Although one should not dismiss
experiences such as the workers' councils in Italy and Germany - and later
in parts of Spain 1936, Poland 1980-81 and others. They were all very
embryonic however, in the sense that they had to spend 90% of their energy
with the immediate struggle for their right to *become* organs of workers'
power.)

Those experiences point to two things: First, that the root of degeneration
is not power but lack of power of the workers. Second, that workers *do*
change in the struggle.

I think this is the basis for all the rest. You know, I always think of
workers' power as giving possibilities (or opportunities - what is the right
word?). For me it is a possibility of starting to deal with all these
problems that face us today - and which we are excluded from dealing with
because of our exclusion from power over our own societies and life in general.

Of course we (the workers) will have to *learn* to do this. And we will face
a lot of problems, but what strikes me is much more how *easy* (under the
difficult circumstances we have seen up to now) workers can deal with
difficult questions in a democratic way than the opposite.

So I still think that - if history gives us the choice - we should eagerly
catch the opportunities of workers' power.

But what puzzles me is what is the basis for your question? I mean: There is
no use in thinking up problems, so your question must have a more distinct
basis? You hint at something in your question of how to deal with opoosition
within the working class - is it Kronstadt, the Workers' Opposition,
stalinism in general? Please spell it out.

Raymond:
>Will all workers be similiarly transformed?

No, they will not. For a long time there will be unevenness. But this should
not be exaggerated - it *is* based, mainly, in the existence of an enemy
still not beaten.

Have you seen Ken Loach's film "Land and Freedom"? There is a scene where in
a small village they have taken over the land. The debate is what to do with
it. Most of them agree that they should grow it collectively. But there are
a few who have a little (very little) land for themselves, and they argue
that they should keep it, and that the land should be divided up.

My point is not that it was the nasty stalinos who was against this
(although that was the case). The point is that the only argument they could
use to have some effect was that "the enemy would use it against us". In the
areas where the enemy was beaten for good this was not a problem - the land
was grown collectively. The problems from this were dealt with
democratically - i.e. there was a debate and then the majority decided.

The most critical phase seems to be the period where the question of (class)
power is still not resolved, where petty bourgeois ideas still have a
material base. The most positive experiences are clearly those where our
(class) enemy has (temporarily) been beaten to the ground. (In Paris they
were litterally outside the city walls). There real workers' democracy has
shown strengths which far outweighs whatever problems we can think up today.

So when you ask:
>Will you/they have to keep on leading. And if so what
>should you/they do about those elements of the working class who
>steadfastly refuse to be lead; remember they might even be to the
>left of the vanguard party.

- I will reply that the left/right divisions seem to be linked exclusively
to the question of power. When this is resolved then there will still be
different opinions, different approaches etc. - but they will very soon
loose their harsh class context.

*In the meantime* there is, I think, no other way to solve problems than
making sure that the majority rules. This means debate + decision. If
opposition is hard then the majority would have to use harsh means to deal
with it. The alternative is the direct road back to class society.

This may be one-dimensional - but isn't that the point of socialism: To do
away with a one-dimensional society turned upside down, we first have to
raise it at it's feet in a very one-dimensional way before it can learn to
walk, run, play, sing, paint and all the rest?

Please come back, if you think all this is just rubbish - we do not have too
much historical evidence, so maybe I have allowed myself to get a little too
... eeehh .. philosophical???  :-)

Best wishes

Jorn


-------
Jorn Andersen

Internationale Socialister
Denmark



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---