response to mauro jr. ... Re: AUT: Re: the state ...

[commie zero zero <commie00@xxxxxxxxx>]

hiya mauro jr.

> > so even trying to redfine the word state (or using
> > words like "quasi-state") carries with it serious
> > repercussions because most people equate state
> with
> > hierarchy (even if unconsciously).
> This seems to be a psychological problem, i.e. not a
> historical/political one.

no, it's for a good reason. the state is the form of
control created by the bourgeoisie for their rule.
thus it IS a hierarchical institution. this is
historically and politically true. thus:

> <hierarchy> [is] equated with (perceived as) the
> state
> (and viceversa) by most of people

and as such, it is suicide to persist in the use of
the word, even if you do mean something different.

> It would be interesting to know how Commie00 would
> call the class organisation against
> the counter revolution. But it seems he's ready to
> call it as Marx did: proletarian
> dictatorship.

i'm uncomfortable with this term since dictatorship is
now certainly considered a state-form. i would say
this was true even in marx's time, tho it is clear he
did not intend it this way. he is very clear that he
is anti-state, and his ideas for the class
organization are anything but state like (i.e. his
ideas are anti-hierarchical).

as to what i would call it? i don't know... we're not
there yet. tho i'm kinda partial to "commune of
communes", or the global general assembly, or
something along those lines.

> Who/what's the subject of that
> dictatorship? The class organised in its own
> soviet (or council or general assemblies or what it
> will be). Perfect, we agree. But
> Commie 00 says also that
> > we also have to be careful not to fetisize the
> > council form (as many council communists have)
> because
> > with the releasing of creativity there's no
> telling
> > what we'll come up with which meat the criteria of
> > revolution.
> And even here we could agree (in the first part,
> having several difficulties in undertsandinf the
> second part .i.-e the... because).
> Question. What is the condition (we cant talk about
> guarantees) for a proletarian
> dictatorship to ... meet the criteria of revolution?

the revolutionary organization(s) must be (internally)
anti-hierarchical / anti-authoritarian. see my
response to tahir.

> Here we can do nothing but sending Commie00 to read
> where Lenin admitted <he> (??) was
> building state capitalism. It's on the pamphlet
> "About the tax in nature" (???
> Sull'Imposta in natura). There it is clearly stated
> that the state capitalism was the
> only temporary solution for the terrible conditions
> of Russia, while waiting for a
> communist revolution in Europe. Is the seizure of
> the power (destruction of the bourgeois
> state) by the proletariat THE revolution? No, That's
> the condition for the actual
> revolution.

i disagree with this entire formulation, more-or-less.
in my opinion, the revolution is an on-going movement
which has been going on since (prolly before) the
begining of capitalism, and will continue long after
capitalism is long gone.

revolution IS the communist movement (see berrot &
martin's _eclipse and re-emergence of the communist
movement_:
http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/etoc.html ), the
struggle for the global human community. it is NOT the
inssurectionary moment in which we destroy capitalism,
it is NOT a programme to be put in practice, and it is
only the furture society only in as much as the future
society is a realization of the movement.

so, yes, the revolution was long since going in russia
before lenin came back. hell, even the insurrection to
destroy capitalism was in full swing before he got
back. lenin STOPPED this insurrection by
hierarchicallizing the soviets into a state, forcing
the stop of communization, and wiping out dissent
agains bolshevik ([state-]capitalist)
counter-revolution.

> Did this start in Russia? Unfortunately
> no. The civil war and its tremendous
> damages to the industrial structure, the
> agricultural production, the proletarian
> vanguards

no. by hierarchicallizing the soviets into a state
structure lenin and the bolsheviks destroyed the will
of the revolutionary masses. that is: by being
vanguardists, and by destroying the insurrection (thus
setting the revolution back a great deal), lenin and
the bolsheviks did a lot more damage to revolution
than the civil war did.

> and hence the proletarian soviets made the
> "building of socialism" impossible,
> unless a proletarian revolution in the west came to
> bring economical and political
> oxygen. The revolution in the West (Italy,
> Germany...) didn't come. The state capitalism
> was the only way ahead for Russia, alternative to an
> open counter revolution.

state-capitalism was open counter-revolution already.
the reason no revolution came from the west was
because the inspiration of russia was dying as
state-capitalism was imposed on the russian
proletariat and peasentry.

russia did not need insurrection in the west in order
to survive, the insurrection in russia would have had
to be sucessful for revolutions in the west to begin.

> Now we say that it would have been much better to
> have an open counter revolution in
> Russia, instead of the historical tragedy of
> stalinism and state capitalism, sold to the
> entire proletariat in the world as socialism. Stalin
> had to destory completely (thru
> murders) the old guard of blosheviks in order to
> implement the state capitalism. But we
> have here a concrete, hard counter revolution that
> completelyt reversed the nature of the
> party and of the state (no more a semi-state, but a
> new capitalis state).

it was never a semi-state. it was a totalitarian state
from the moment the bolshviks undermined the soviets,
and succeeded in hierarchicallizing them. stalin was
the natural outcome of lenin and the bolsheviks. he
killed off the olde guard because he was afraid they'd
try to take his power, not because they were
revolutionaries.

> Thus the problem to Commie00 comes back: where or
> which is the condition for the
> proletarian dictatorship based on the workers
> councils to meet the revolutionary criteria
> (I'd say to actualize the revolutionary programme)?

i don't know. it seems to me that if an insurrection
breaks out, then those in insurrection have deemed the
conditions ripe. and i think it was marx who said that
the conditions have been ripe since at least 1848.

as to russia, go back and have a look at marx. toward
the end of his life he was talking about how
insurrection in russia was immediately possible
because the russian peasentry maintained a limited
tradition of communitarianism, which could easily lead
to creating a communist world.

=====
commie00
---------------------------------
http://www.geocities.com/commie00
---------------------------------

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
a year!  http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/


     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---