Fw: Communism and global (democratic) socialism

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Dr. R.J. Barendse <r.barendse@worldonline.nl>
Aan: WORLD SYSTEMS NETWORK <wsn@csf.colorado.edu>
Datum: dinsdag 24 november 1998 15:02
Onderwerp: Communism and global (democratic) socialism


>An extended  note on Kohler's and
>Beatty's views:

>>>(1) wsn and ipe contributors tend to agree that the present world is
>>>dominated by capitalist elites (global and national).
>>
>Well, globally, I could at least think of one other elite which is nearly
as
>powerful or in a very real sense more powerful than global capitalism -
for,
>let me remind you again that the US, Russian, British or French can destroy
>most of the world in a wink of an eye, namely the military - and in command
>structures such as NATO, these tend to be closely integrated globally, or -
>in the case of the African and Latin American military - they tend to share
>the ethos of the western military for being trained at Sandhurst or
>Charleston. To some extent this is a global elite, therefore.
>
>And nationally there are countries in Africa (e.g. Zaire, maybe Rwanda and
>Nigeria) in which the military is the only elite, for want of a national
>elite - there are local elites alright but the military is the only elite
>tied to the nation-state, meaning it will dominate `national politics' as
>long as other elites do not have a sense of belonging to the nation-state.
>Zaire, Sudan, Gabon, Chad etc. and what have you have at best a national
>`quasi-capitalism'  since the `capitalists' are fed by
government-contracts.
>This is also the case for some countries in the Middle East the classic
case
>being Iraq where there are many local elites (merchants, landlords, imams
>etc.) but where Saddam Husain, the Takriti clan, and the Republic Guard are
>the only national elite. Thus, the problem finding a replacement to Saddam
>Husain; if Iraq or Syria have a capitalism at all, it's quasi-capitalism:
>groups of traders dealing in government goods and government contracts:
>ditto for Iran under the shah.
>
>>>(2) offline respondents pointed out that there is a special category of
>>>global elite -- namely, criminal elites (as in "Russian Mafia", etc.)
>>
>Yes, but I wouldn't be so sure whether Maffia and `Kali-cartel' are not
>related to the CIA - the Russian maffia, I have the impression, is using
>people, methods and armements of the KGB and has protectors within the
>Yeltsin government. Historically the Maffia started as armed gangs of the
>Sicilian elites to impose their force on the peasants - outside of the
>power - structure of the Italian unified state which was both too weak and
>not recognized by the Sicilian landlords, and I often wonder to what extent
>the Russian maffia is simply the KGB in a different incarnation. In fact
>Middle Eastern secret services, e.g. the SAVAK under the Shah or the Iraqi
>secret service were a kind of maffia-like organization in that they are
paid
>by protection racket at home and abroad. Thus, I'm very doubtful whether
the
>criminal elite is really an independent elite.
>>
>) What is the prospective role of elites in something that might be
>>>called "global democratic socialism"? [This is a utopia-oriented
>question.]
>>>Here one could, tentatively, claim that there are three broad models of
>>>"global (democratic) socialism"
>
>>>(5) ANARCHIST MODEL of global democratic socialism. Here "democracy"
means
>>>"no governmental structures". There is no government. There are no
elites.
>>>The world is a system of self-governing workers groups.
>
>>>(6) DICTATORIAL MODEL of global (democratic) socialism. Here "democracy"
>>>means "dictatorship in the name of the proletariat". There is a global
>>>government. There is a dictatorial elite. "Democracy" is  here the same
as
>>>dictatorship a la Lenin or Castro.
>
>Now,  it is clear Kohler knows very little - or better absolutely
>nothing - about communism or communist theory as all of this is wrong:
>
>1.)It is `dictatorship of the proletariate' - not in the name of the
>proletariate - meaning that government is exercised by the proletariate as
>long as there are still powerful vestiges of capitalism - this is a further
>form of class-struggle upon the proletariate having seized power, necessary
>as a temporary emergency measure until the achievement of socialist
>democracy.
>
>2.)There is no difference between model A and D: socialism is an
>intermediate stage to communism where the state will wither away, since the
>state exists because of class-contradictions. Socialism is a temporary
stage
>to communism existing as long production still has to be distributed -
>socialism is an arrangement for the realm of want while communism is an
>arrangement for the realm of plenty - meaning that people receive according
>to needs and as long as socialism is still involved in a global
>class-struggle with capitalism.
>
>3.)The leadership in the transition from socialism to communism is
exercised
>by the party which broadly represents the most advanced parts of the
working
>class (peasants and workers united - ever wondered what the flag of the
USSR
>meant ?) party members are selected both because of their excellence at
work
>and because of their commitment to political work. Potential members of the
>party are commended by other party-members and then party groups
>democratically vote to let new members in.
>
>4.)The party has democratic centralism meaning that issues are being
>discussed in party-conference but once a decision has been made in a
>democratic vote - it is not permitted to dissent.
>
>5.)Power in factories or in the neighbourhoods is exercised by
>democratically and secretly elected worker councils who in turn elect
higher
>institution up to the supreme workers' council, the highest executive power
>in the country which is controled by a secretly and nationally elected
>parlement.
>
>6.)There is an independent judiciary.
>
>7.)Since under socialism the state can not yet whither away and since the
>state means the national state, world-governance is only possible under
>communism. The best which can be achieved is a lose Union of Socialist
>Workers Council's Republics which other national governments may join, once
>they have achieved socialism.
>
> I suggest Kohler and Beatty take a good look to the
>Collected Works of Lenin, Kim Il Sung or Stalin gathering dust on library
>shelves worldwide or at least read Stalin's "Problems of Communism" and
>"Brief history of the Communist Party of the USSR (Bolsheviki)". You may
not
>like communism - say Cuba or North Korea style - but it is the only real
>existing alternative to capitalism (perhaps together with `real existing
>fundamentalism' nowadays - but I'm not so sure about that) and thus well
>worth thorough study.
>
>Two final points:
>
>A.)Gramsci was a hard-line communist  - he was `discovered' after world war
>II by the PCI under the other hardliner Palmiro Togliatti (they named a
city
>after him on the Volga under Khrusev and with good reasons) who immediately
>claimed him with perfectly good reasons. Since he was always afraid his
>diaries and letters would be censored Gramsci tended to couch things in
>cryptic formulations which are perfectly understandable to everybody with a
>communist background but since the reception of his ideas went through the
>non-communist new left in English speaking countries, his ideas have been
>claimed by the new left. A company he does not belong to: `counter
hegemonic
>movement' would be Gramsci's code for `communist party'. If I'm irritated
by
>the abuse of Weber by the Weberians - the abuse of Gramsci by the
Gramscians
>is even worse. My basic problem being that they construct a cleavage
between
>Gramsci and communism whereas Gramsci remained an unrepentant communist his
>whole life and was imprisoned his whole life because of this.
>
>2.)And with good reasons to be unrepentant - there's a lot of bad but also
a lot of good to be said for communism or at least for communists: We here
this week commemorate the february strike of 1941 against the persecution of
the Jews in Amsterdam organized by the Dutch Communist Party, for example.
And the Communist Party then alone resisted the Germans and defended the
Jews while almost everybody else was collaborating.

>Consider this too:
>
>All party-members learned this song (sorry I only know the text in the
>original German and in Dutch):
>
>Das Solidaritaetslied
>
>"Vorwaerts und nicht vergessen worin unsere staerke besteht
>beim hungern und beim essen vorwaerts und nicht vergessen die Solidaritaet"
>"Auf Voelker dieser Erde ! einigt euch in dieser Sinn
>das sie jetz die euere werde und die grosse Naehrerin"
>
>"Vorwaerts und nicht vergessen worin unsere staerke besteht
>beim hungern und beim essen vorwaerts und nicht vergessen die Solidaritaet"
>"Schwarze, Weisse, Gelbe endet ihre slaechtereien,
>reden einst die Voelker selber wuerden sie schnell einig sein"
>
>"Vorwaerts und nicht vergessen worin unsere staerke besteht
>beim hungern und beim essen vorwaerts und nicht vergessen die Solidaritaet"
>"Wollen wir es am schnelst erreichen, brauchen wir noch dich und dich
>wer im stich lasst seines gleichen, laest ja nur sich selbst im stich"
>
>"Vorwaerts und nicht vergessen worin unsere staerke besteht
>beim hungern und beim essen vorwaerts und nicht vergessen die Solidaritaet"
>"Unsere Herren wer sie auch seien, sehen unsere Zweitracht gern
>denn solange sie uns entzweien bleiben sie doch unsern Herrn"
>
>"Vorwaerts und nicht vergessen worin unsere staerke besteht
>beim hungern und beim essen vorwaerts und nicht vergessen die Solidaritaet"
>"Proletarier einigt euch und ihr seid frei
>Euere grosse regimente brechen jede Tirannei"
>
>"Vorwaerts und nicht vergessen die Frage sei an jeder gestelt:
>Willst du hungern oder essen ?
>Wessen Welt ist die Welt ?"
>
>Now, isn't this exactly what everybody on this list is trying to achieve
and
>trying to say ?
>
>Rene J. Barendse