Socialism excludes minority (or just working class) rule
Steve Wallis
(www.cpgb.org.uk):
Congratulations on publishing a 1906 Rosa Luxemburg article under the
heading "Socialism excludes minority rule" (January 22).
Minority rule was precisely what happened after the October 1917
revolution in Russia, with "the dictatorship of the proletariat" -
rule just by the working class despite the much more numerous
peasantry, due to the rigging of the soviets to give workers more say
than peasants and the abolition of the Constituent Assembly after the
victory of the Socialist Revolutionaries (SRs, a party based on the
peasantry dominated by large landowners) in elections to it. It is of
course much easier with the benefit of hindsight to say what should
have happened - the Bolsheviks should have allowed the right-wing SRs
to show themselves up in practice and launch a further revolution
later (with Trotsky's argument that the Bolsheviks would have been
massively repressed undermined by the fact that there had been two
revolutions within a year) or even better, the Bolsheviks should have
gone into the countryside before the Assembly elections to build a
united socialist party with the poor peasants.
Marxists generally stick to the mantra that only one class can be in
control of society, although some have used the term "dictatorship of
the proletariat and peasantry". Is there really any objective reason
why democtatic rule by both the working and middle classes cannot be
achieved?
Marxists need to face the fact that those who consider themselves
middle class outnumber those who consider themselves working class in
many countries in the West - certainly in the USA and possibly in
Britain too. Of course, we can argue that many such people really are
working class even if they don't know it, but arguments that public
sector workers (for example) are being exploited are tenuous to say
the least! Continuing to argue for minority rule (or even majority
rule where the majority is only say 60% or 80% of the population) is
not only undemocratic but would render Marxists irrelevant and unable
to take advantage of the massive unfolding capitalist economic crisis.
Even if a Marxist-style socialist state was established in the West,
it would provoke a massive destabilising civil war from middle class
people objecting to not having a say.
As I pointed out in a letter published in last week's paper, Barack
Obama is attempting to unite all classes (including big business of
course). The acts he has carried out within 24 hours of taking office
- passing legislation to close Guantanamo Bay within a year and
banning torture immediately, plus suspending trials of Guantanamo
"suspects" (which would be kangaroo courts with defendants given few
rights) - surely undermine the argument that he is acting (solely or
mainly) in the interests of big business!
At the time Rosa Luxemburg was writing, and at the time of the Russian
revolutions, the concept of proportional representation hadn't been
invented (or if it had, few knew about it). Now, one of the three
mainstream parties in Britain, the Liberal Democrats, advocate it -
and they surely stand a significant chance of holding the balance of
power in a hung parliament after the next general election. They even
advocate the fairest form of PR, single transferable vote, which
removes the rationale for tactical voting. The fact that the Lib Dems
rarely mention this policy nowadays is surely due to them realising
that the main beneficiaries would be socialists!
Nationalisation from above without democratic control from below would
not be true socialism, of course. PR could be combined with a form of
soviets (committees and forums open to all, that are preferably not
too hierarchical since hierarchies make it easier for non-genuine
people to rise to positions of power and stay there) operating in
workplaces and local communities. I have raised the issue of
democratisation of the banks, many of which are becoming nationalised
in desperate acts of capitalist governments faced with an escalating
(and probably terminal as far as the UK is concerned) economic crisis,
with most control in the hands of savers and borrowers (but small
businesses should have a say as well as individuals).
--
Steve Wallis (Manchester, England)
Preferred email address: revolutionary...@yahoo.co.uk
Blogs: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/steve-wallis-socialist-blog,
http://blog.myspace.com/galaxiasteve
My socialist website: http://www.socialiststeve.me.uk
My pages at Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1038291480,
MySpace:http://www.myspace.com/galaxiasteve and Bebo:
http://www.bebo.com/SteveW519
Founder, Ethical Capitalism Network: http://www.ethicalcapitalism.net
Founder, Foundation for Proportional Representation-based Socialism:
http://www.PRsocialism.org
Founder, Revolutionary Platform Network: http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net
My revolutionary socialist band, Galaxia:
http://www.galaxiamusic.net,http://www.myspace.com/galaxiamusic,
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Galaxia-a-revolutionary-socialist-band/84310120180,
http://www.bebo.com/galaxiamusic.
My socialist band, Red Day: http://www.red-day.net,
http://www.myspace.com/reddayband,http://www.facebook.com/pages/Red-Day/27468311341
Author, "Revolution Destroyed? Have I ensured that a world socialist
revolution will never happen?":http://www.revolutiondestroyed.net
For discussion of the credit crunch, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=156
For discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories, go to
http://www.revolutionaryplatform.net/forum/index.php?board=89
jos boersema
On 2009-01-23, Steve Wallis <revolutionary...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> The following is partly intended as a letter to the Weekly Worker
> (www.cpgb.org.uk):
> Nationalisation from above without democratic control from below would
> not be true socialism, of course. PR could be combined with a form of
> soviets (committees and forums open to all, that are preferably not
> too hierarchical since hierarchies make it easier for non-genuine
> people to rise to positions of power and stay there) operating in
> workplaces and local communities. I have raised the issue of
> democratisation of the banks, many of which are becoming nationalised
> in desperate acts of capitalist governments faced with an escalating
> (and probably terminal as far as the UK is concerned) economic crisis,
> with most control in the hands of savers and borrowers (but small
> businesses should have a say as well as individuals).
Everyone who is not a rich parasite living off power alone is by
definition of the word "working class," that emphatically includes
"middle class." If you have to work for a living you are by definition
working-class. Why makes simple things complicated ?
I'm sure the original idea of Marxists was that the working-class would
rule through neutral democratic protocol by force of numbers, meaning:
everyone can vote, but the working-class would always outnumber the
parasitic classes (ruling class, criminal class).
Low / middle / upper class usually refer to income/wealth/power, where
ruling class refers strictly to power, and "proletariat" probably refers
either narrowly to exploited factory labor, or more widely to all
oppressed people who have to sell their labor, own nothing else. The
word "middle class" is used in the USA in a strange way IMHO, people
who have somewhat of a not minimum wage job immedeately call themselves
middle class because they perceive this as status ? I'd probably call
several tens of million of people in the USA who think of themselves
as "middle class" actually "lower class." Middle class, by definition
of the word, is those people earning money around the medium or average
income ? I suppose by definition of the word it is exactly 1/3rd of the
people (low/middle/upper suggest a cut in 3). Ruling class can be a much
tighter group, much smaller minority. Working class probably complements
the word ruling class. If the ruling class is .5%, the working class is
more or less 99.5%, assuming any kind of work = work (sub-top managers
are also slaves in a big way to capital).
You have raised the issue of nationalizing the banks ? Democratizing
them ? That is great !
They, of course, must have their investment components socialized or
nationalized. This has more to do with fundamental economics: capital
is always most profitable where labor is exploited worst. Therefore
capital does not belong in the free markets. Other forms of free
enterprise are an entirely different story.
I've extensively worked these problems out in theory, in Constitutional
law (proposed new Constitution), and in revolutionary theory. The whole
class problem does not feature much into it, however a little it does:
because the investor class and the current political classes are to be
deeply distrusted and have negative skills, I suggest to fire these
people from their positions, bring fresh people in who are not
contaminated with the poisen of immorality and/or greed and plutocratism.
That means: the ruling class has to be switched out, or fundamental
changes in law and system are likely to get undermined in the extreme
by illicit, ill willed bullshitting from these useless eaters.
That leads to a secondary revolutionary class issue: if we need to get
rid of the ruling class its power position because otherwise we are
lost one way or the other, then the ruling class is likely to oppose
changes for the better. That in turn suggests a harder revolutionary
fight for truth and justice. The ruling class is the source of the
problem in that, not us. The ruling class will then have to be forced
to become working class as well. My idea is to be nice and soft with
that, offer menial job security and free re-education programs. It isn't
about revenge, it is about correcting problems. I note that the ruling
class has come into existence because of the lazyness of the working
class to come up with correct economics and correct laws, and to expell
corrupt leaders. The working class is guilty for the existence of the
ruling class. Marxism in particular is quite a poor job at revolution
and economic solutions. We can do better now, and we should. We should
use the current financial crisis to boot into power a corrected law
system. http://www.jhwh.be
I note that my revolutionary system is pretty much more rather then
less progressive then Marxism, which up to now has had the name of
being on the extremest left. Personally I got to say: I am sympathetic
to the idea of wage equality, however it does not fit with my free trade
model at all, where wages are free (only an upper limit to wealth: 30 x
average, which is pretty high.)
By the way, in my model a confrontation or contest over who'se flag is
upon the parliament building is not suggested. Rather, if we gain power,
we simply designate a new capital city. For all this to work the public
in the whole world needs to be taught real economics, so lots and lots
of work to do... (and little to nothing getting done at the moment).