Re: Fw: Communism and global (democratic) socialism

At 03:27 PM 11/24/98 +0100, Rene J. Barendese wrote:

>>>>(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:
>>

The personal attack was unnecessary.  It would certainly have been possible
for you to disagree with Gernot and me (I guess you think you are
disagreeing with me, although I said nothing explicit about what Gernot is
calling the "dictatorial model") without attacking anyone's intellectual
credentials. 

But since you raise the issue. . . .

>>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.
>>

Everybody knows this.  I'm not sure I heard Gernot denying it.  I thought
he was simply describing the political program advocated by Leninist and
Castroite communists as a means to "real" democratic socialism.   


>>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.
>>

This is the theory--and, again, I'm not sure I heard Gernot denying any of
this.  It is undeniably the case that, even in principle, Communist Parties
favor centralization of the party leadership and have not been noticeably
tolerant of internal dissent.  Before the Bolshevik Revolution, Lenin had
no scruples about dissolving democratically elected party bodies when they
opposed Bolshevik Communism.  After the Revolution, he purged the party of
"enemies of the people" and attempted, through the Third International, to
subject Communist Parties in other countries to similar centralized and
disciplined organization.  Even in their supposedly benign "Eurocommunist"
incarnations, Communist parties for a long time retained their tight
organization, discipline, and leadership control (although in the post-Cold
War years, the politicians of what used to be the Communist Parties of
Western Europe have attempted to distance themselves from their past).

The bottom line:  even in principle, to say nothing of practice, Leninist
Communist parties are elitist.  You may not like Gernot's word
"dictatorial," but it seems appropriate to me.  And of course, whether the
vanguard party of Soviet Communism "really" represented the interests of
the revolutionary _smychka_ of workers and peasants, as opposed to the
interests of party hacks, is at the very least subject to debate.

>>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.
>>

See above.

>>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.
>>

Again, this is the theory. It's certainly the case that, in the Soviet
case, Khruschev attempted to create such "grass-roots" organizations, and
Gorbachev undertook some initiatives toward worker self-management.  It's
hard to assess the significance of such organizations, though.


>>6.)There is an independent judiciary.
>>

In the Soviet case, the independence of the judiciary was always
problematic, although optimists saw trends toward judicial independence.
Certainly was forced to bend the knee frequently to the Stalinist terror
apparatus.  See 
Harold Berman's Justice in the U.S.S.R.; an interpretation of Soviet law
(Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1963).

>>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 don't completely disagree with this point--I confess, I missed Gernot's
comment about "global government."  May I remind you, however, of the
broadly anti-nationalistic bent of the notion of "socialist
internationalism."  

>> 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.
>>

Unfortunately, Cuban and North Korean style Communism "really exists" in
fewer and fewer places these days.  Even those who maintain its trappings,
like the mainland Chinese and Castro himself, are increasingly practicing
something arguably quite different from Leninism.  Furthermore, I'm puzzled
that you, as a person apparently located in the Netherlands, can so
casually dismiss the "left-corporatist" model of capitalist democracy
offered as an alternative to at least Reaganite and Thatcherite capitalism
by the Scandinavian and Low countries of Europe, as well as the
"developmentalist state" model used by the Japanese or some kind of attempt
to develop some sort of global welfare state. Reaganite and Thatcherite
capitalism is not the only variation of capitalism "really existing" in the
world.  This being the case, it isn't clear to me that we must look outside
capitalism to Lenin and Castro for guidance.

--
Jeffrey L. Beatty
Doctoral Student
Department of Political Science
The Ohio State University
2140 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, Ohio 43210

(o) 614/292-2880
(h) 614/688-0567
Email:  Beatty.4@osu.edu
___________________________________________________
People don't eat in the long run, Senator.  They 
eat every day--Harry Hopkins