Communist Organization

[Elok]

Something I've been curious about for a while: the Communist Manifesto contains very little detail as to the way in which Marx's ideal Communist state/community/organization is organized and run. There's only the ten points of Communism (heavily graduated income tax, etc.), and a lot about how bad capitalism is, or how Communism differs from other European socialist movements. This is understandable; the Declaration of Independence didn't say much about how America wanted to be run, just how it didn't. But by extension of that analogy, I have to wonder if Marx's state would have been caught as flat-footed as America was under the Articles of Confederation.

Is there some place in Marx's substantial collected works where he outlines the structure of a Communist state? I.e., who makes the decisions on a day-to-day basis at local, regional, national and eventually international levels? How is this person or group selected? What mechanisms would exist to prevent those in positions of power from becoming just as exploitative as the bourgeoisie? Is the judicial system substantially different from that of a monarchy or conventional democracy? I only have a limited selection of Marx works, and frankly I can't read him for long. His verbosity makes Pekka's prose seem compact and organized.

I'm assuming here that nobody thinks Lenin, Stalin and the rest executed Marx's vision faithfully, since most every Commie I ever met decries their abuses. If someone disagrees, do say so. And of course there are many different kinds of Communists these days, not just Marxists. If you believe in state or otherwise collective ownership of the means of production, by all means share your vision of the structure of a worker's paradise.

Finally, please don't comment with cute Civilization references ("corruption is the same in all cities/martial law is doubly effective") or snarky comments. I don't want to see the smiley. This means YOU, Wiglaf. At least not until five or so sincere posts have been made.

[DinoDoc]

I thought that for organization of the state, Marxists turned to the example of Lenin or Trotsky. Is that not the case?

[Lorizael]

iirc, Marx came before Lenin and Trotsky...

[DinoDoc]

Yes, he did.

[Zoid]

Marx was a philosopher, he didn't delve into too much detail about organization of the communist state. But basing himself on the experience of the Paris Commune, Engels wrote:

"In order not to lose again its only just conquered supremacy, this working class must safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials, by declaring them all, without exception, subject to recall at any moment." To ensure that the state will not be transformed "from servants of society into masters of society - an inevitable transformation in all previous states - the Commune made use of two infallible means. In the first place, it filled all posts - administrative, judicial and educational - by election on the basis of universal suffrage of all concerned, subject to the right of recall at any time by the same electors. And, in the second place, all officials, high or low, were paid only the wages received by other workers. The highest salary paid by the Commune to anyone was 6,000 francs. In this way an effective barrier to place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to delegates to representative bodies which were added besides". (The Civil War in France, by Marx)

Taking as his point of departure Marx and Engels' analysis of the Paris Commune, Lenin put forward four key points to fight bureaucracy in a workers' state in 1917:

1) Free and democratic elections to all positions in the Soviet state,
2) Right of recall of all officials,
3) No official to receive a higher wage than a skilled worker and
4) Gradually, all the tasks of running society and the state to be performed by everyone in turn, or as Lenin put it: "Any cook should be able to be prime minister."

"We shall reduce the role of state officials," wrote Lenin, "to that of simply carrying out our instructions as responsible, revocable, modest paid 'foremen and accountants' (of course, with the aid of technicians of all sorts, types and degrees). This is our proletarian task, this is what we can and must start with in accomplishing the proletarian revolution." (Collected Works, vol 25

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Yes, he did.

More to the point, Marxist != Marx.

[chequita guevara]

Marx argued that to declare a priori what form the workers state would take was just speculation and not scientific. The only place Marx ever discussed what would come in the workers state and eventual communism was in his Critique of the Gotha Programme, and that was as a result of his analysis of the Paris Commune.

When Lenin wrote his book, The State and Revolution it was drawing upon his experiences in the 1905 and 1917 (then occurring) revolutions. He did not create ideal forms for the working class to adopt, but based his arguments on the form of organization the workers spontaneously created, workers councils, i.e. soviets.

There is no blueprint for the future society. Each revolution will make its own way, create its own forms. Each society will create a government that conforms to its own cultural history and its previous struggle. It should be little surprise that societies without a history of democracy have tended to not be terribly democratic in the long run.

I would add that Marxism doesn't reject everything in capitalist society. The word often translated in to English as "abolish" is the German word aufhebung which would be better translated as "transcend" or superscede. Thus we wish to abolish capitalist society by transcending it.

I have been known to make the claim that socialism is the extension of democracy into all spheres of society. This would argue that Marxists consider the bourgeois revolutions incomplete, they stopped at political democracy, but didn't go forward to economic and social democracy. Socialism completes the revolution, by taking what is good from bourgeois society and building upon it. Many of the forms of government that exist today might well be taken wholesale over to socialist society.

[Kidlicious]

Re: Communist Organization

Originally posted by Elok
Something I've been curious about for a while: the Communist Manifesto contains very little detail as to the way in which Marx's ideal Communist state/community/organization is organized and run.

The way I view it Marx predicted that a classless society would not need much organization. The citizens would cooperate with each other. So he didn't get into details about such a society.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Kidicious
The way I view it Marx predicted that a classless society would not need much organization. The citizens would cooperate with each other. So he didn't get into details about such a society.

Is that your POV as well? Because it sounds profoundly silly to me, like suggesting you could make lions eat grass by raising them as zebras. I guess it has to do with Marx's belief that human behavior is a consequence largely, if not entirely, of material circumstances.

Che: So according to your view, if the USA went Communist, it'd probably be pretty similar to what we have, only with a much more powerful secretary of commerce/labor/whatever, enlarged trade powers for congress, etc.?

Zoid: Lenin's fourth point is completely bat**** insane IMO, as I expect that would result in a whole country of unspecialized, generally incompetent workers (I thought it was nuts when Marx said the infamous "a farmer in the morning" quote, too). Otherwise it doesn't sound too bad, though I wonder about the unknown ramifications or applications it might have WRT logistics. Especially in modern times, where mass media are so influential. How would you organize a socialist state? The same way?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Elok

Zoid: Lenin's fourth point is completely bat**** insane IMO, as I expect that would result in a whole country of unspecialized, generally incompetent workers (I thought it was nuts when Marx said the infamous "a farmer in the morning" quote, too). Otherwise it doesn't sound too bad, though I wonder about the unknown ramifications or applications it might have WRT logistics. Especially in modern times, where mass media are so influential. How would you organize a socialist state? The same way?

I don't know about the bat ****... I can see his point and what he's trying to achieve. I know it doesn't work though, the Arvika Music Festival uses that system and since noone can do the same things two years in a row they do things differently each year. Sometimes making the exact same mistakes as earlier years... And I wouldn't try to organize a socialist state. It doesn't work, and since most people in the revolutionary left in Sweden is either utterly useless or mad as a box of frogs I shudder to think what would happen if any of them got any real power (instead of "oh, look at me I'm the leader of a party with 30 members and I know a guy who saw another guy shake hands with Noam Chomsky and Naomi Klein. Worship me!") If the revolution comes I'll shoot first and ask questions later.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Elok
Is that your POV as well? Because it sounds profoundly silly to me, like suggesting you could make lions eat grass by raising them as zebras.

No, I believe in a monetary system. The difference is that the citizens would be more enlightened.

I guess it has to do with Marx's belief that human behavior is a consequence largely, if not entirely, of material circumstances.

Maybe, but also a belief that government is always created in defense of those who own property.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Elok
Is that your POV as well? Because it sounds profoundly silly to me, like suggesting you could make lions eat grass by raising them as zebras. I guess it has to do with Marx's belief that human behavior is a consequence largely, if not entirely, of material circumstances.

Marxism posits a difference between the government and the state. The state is the repressive apparatus of the ruling class: police, courts, the army, secret police, etc. Anarchists and communists are united in their desire to abolish the state, but we disagree on how soon that can be done. Anarchists think it can be done immediately, communists only when class society has ceased to exist.

A coordinating government, however, will always need to exist.

Che: So according to your view, if the USA went Communist, it'd probably be pretty similar to what we have, only with a much more powerful secretary of commerce/labor/whatever, enlarged trade powers for congress, etc.?

It would merely be speculation on my part to say one way or the other what will happen. I would like to see a more democratic society than we have arise from the revolution: instant run off voting, proportional legislatures, instant recall of elected officials, accountable judges, etc. What form that takes will be up to those who make the revolution.

Zoid: Lenin's fourth point is completely bat**** insane IMO, as I expect that would result in a whole country of unspecialized, generally incompetent workers (I thought it was nuts when Marx said the infamous "a farmer in the morning" quote, too). Otherwise it doesn't sound too bad, though I wonder about the unknown ramifications or applications it might have WRT logistics. Especially in modern times, where mass media are so influential. How would you organize a socialist state? The same way?

A lot of what needs to be done in society doesn't require specialization. This ought to be shared by everyone. We could all take turns driving the garbage truck. Obviously some things require a high degree of specialization. We don't want just anyone to be a brain surgeon. However, the degree of specialization we have in our society leads to one dimensional lives, where we do one thing and don't experience the full richness of the human experience. There needs to be some balance. It's okay not to have the most absolutely productive society possible if we increase human happiness instead.

As for Lenin's 4th point specifically, despite the myth, Lenin was deeply suspicious of professional intellectuals. He constantly argued for having an overwhelming majority of workers in the coordinating and decision making bodies of the Bolshevik party. He also made the argument with regards to the ruling bodies of the USSR, but it was a battle he never won.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
As for Lenin's 4th point specifically, despite the myth, Lenin was deeply suspicious of professional intellectuals.

Too bad. It's known that the factories rarely used cost accounting to ensure efficiency.

[chequita guevara]

Look at what happened to the Second International and the USSR once the professionals took over. Lenin, as usual, was right.

[Zkribbler]

"I wouldn't join any organization that would have me as a member." ... Groucho Marx