CCTV
From each what they can, to each what they need.* Karl Marx
There is no socialism without democracy and there is no democracy without socialism. **
The state is not `abolished`, it withers. *** Friedrich Engels
The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. Albert Einstein
Before arriving at the subject, I would like to point out a few facts.
A number of these facts could be part of some theories here and there, but they don’t need to, as any politically observant person for half a century can see their relevance simply from the experience of the political movements and situations in various parts of the world:
– Equal individual rights within the framework of the society’s rights are what we should strive for. However, as poverty and exploitation still exist, so do classes. Never mind the new forms like corporations – which use the concept of the individual rights in order to expand their exploitation and in actual fact make a mockery of individual rights altogether - and the increase in the number of the lower middle class in the First World – at least in the UK and USA - who appear to be well off despite living on a Never Never (never c learing loans).
— The need for the freedom of expression and c ivil rights increases only when most members of a society have reached a humanly acceptable level of living standard.
Before this level is achieved the only soc ially effective outcry in a demonstration which could mobilize the masses would be for bread.
This was the case both in the Russian October revolution as well as the French revolution.
Whereas in France the Bourgeoisie took over the power from the feudal masters, and those related to the one who was wondering why the hungry demonstrators didn’t have biscuits instead, in Russia Lenin and the Bolsheviks ceased the opportunity to lead the nation after the WWI misery and the failure of the Russian revolution in 1905.
What the October Revolution and the French Revolution had in common was the fact that the protests were not for the freedom of expression but for bread.
In France it was the bourgeoisie who needed the freedom of expression and was interested in abolishing feudalism.
In Russia however the bourgeoisie was still weak in terms of the industrial ownership and incapable of dissolving the feudal production mode to which it was most likely still financially attached as well.
Taking a mainly non industrialised country – however extremely bureaucratic – with a nation that had only a decade of experience in democracy and a devastating war behind it, and trying to make it a socialist country as imagined by Marxists of the day was quite an undertaking for Lenin and Trotsky.
Lenin talked about `proceeding to construct the socialist order`.
The unexplored concept of ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ - expressed only rarely by Marx when mentioning class struggle as a natural transition state between capitalism and the dying out of the `state` in socialism, and which was inspired by the Parisian Commune experience - was misused to establish a state capitalism to the benefit of few eventually.
In fact Stalin and Stalinism was a natural follow up of the politics before him namely
Trotsky’s massacre of the ‘kulaks ‘in Kronstadt and Lenin’s forced constructed socialism
It is obvious from Karl Marx’s theories that he assumed a certain level of Bourgeois achievement and class struggle with certain rights like the existence of unions for a nation in its move towards socialism.
As a matter of fact after the experience of Parisian Commune and its fall he believed that England would be the first country that would become a socialist land as it was the most advanced capitalist society in the 19th century and perhaps this was also one of the reasons he chose to live in England, apart from the presence of his friend, sponsor, writer and the owner of a small factory in north England namely Friedrich Engels.
Whereas France now needs to sort out its problems regarding discrimination against its naturalized population from its ex colonies and move on to its next stage of development, the Soviets failed to continue to exist within 70 years which is a lifetime for a human being but it is very short in terms of the history.
They failed completely because their leaders did not understand the needs for change at the right stage of their economical development.
This I believe was in the 50’s and the 60’s. They also got too much stuck into a superpower game with the USA and failed to perceive and respond to the need for the freedom of expression in the soviets as a natural phenomenon that would grow with the improvement of the people’s living standard.
If they had been alert to this real and positive need in their society the soviets would have survived and would have been by now truly democratic as well as quite well developed socialist countries.
I cannot speculate on what would have followed realistically if it were the Mensheviks instead of the Bolsheviks, who would have won the argument- as some have speculated - , simply because if they were the majority their name wouldn’t have been Mensheviks(=minority) anyway.
And who knows perhaps this was the world’s historical example for the future generations to understand how not to mix a progressive idea that looks to the future and is meant to benefit many - and not just a few- with despotism which is out of date and by nature regressive.
– In a country like UK only those who have gambler-like spirits have been enjoying the way this system works. It is a system that has been relying on speculative capitalism for many decades and inevitably is starting to fall apart.
The fact is that capitalism as a system is ready to be buried, but politicians keep pretending that it is still alive and kicking, and try to cut its clothes to size while the rot is shrinking.
A deadlock of continuously changing interest rates and games with tax tailoring won’t bring the smelly body of this gambling mode of value creation to life either. But it keeps people guessing and worrying.
Two policies that were started by Ms Thatcher in the 80’s, namely the encouragement of ordinary people to buy their own homes rather than to rent and with almost 100% loan – not practiced in any other European country – and privatisation of all state run services – which has now spread to the rest of Europe and beyond – have had particular effect on UK economy and the social understanding of the British people.
For one, young people who buy their place of residence are less likely to change town for even a few years. In this way many sit tightly were they are and skills are not distributed evenly to all parts of the country.
Ibn Khaldun in 14th century already foresaw that to own and live in a property would make people loose their freedom and that eventually more educated young people would start a nomadic life in order to gain more freedom. We already have seen this development amongst New Age groups in the UK.
As for privatisation of public services, ironically this has lead to the amusing result of the state becoming increasingly superfluous.
Are we arriving at the point where the end goal of socialism and anarchism – though through different means – is near after all?
Having arrived there through a completely different and unexpected path?
Can now the stateless socialism be achieved with only a few steps?
I mean with state having become a tax collecting apparatus that is prepared to go and stay in war partly to ensure supply and control of the oil (oh yeah, let me be one sided for a change. It feels good) and partly to ensure more tax revenue for petrol,**** I am asking myself what is the role of the state at the moment except trying to coordinate the function of various private companies who are now in control of public services, and not making a good job of it either.
Really the way things are at present, it would be much more effective and honest to have skilled ‘governing coordinators’ as selected ministers. That would cut costs and the UK local councils could continue involving the communities in decision making and legislation processing etc. until eventually the means of productions become the communal properties and benefit the whole communities and not just a few corporation members?
-It sounds good doesn’t it? So who is in the way?
-The corporations and the state of course.
If you don’t think this sounds good you probably belong to one or the other.
There is no coincidence that the parties continue to bring on the issue of tax cuts and public security when competing with each other (call a spade a spade). As in my view these are the only reasons they can use to justify their existence.
But even then if genuine why not remove the reasons for fear of ‘terrorism’ which is a reflection of war? Are the British people so naive to think that you can occupy other countries and have no repercussions at home? Give me a break. By calling all perceived enemies ‘terrorists’ UK and USA cannot escape from the fact that they are in war and as a result they are risking the safety of their populations as well
As for ordinary crimes, local policing and challenging local youth gangs, and involving them in looking after their local communities and making constructive use of their abilities while helping them to overcome their bitterness is the only way forward.
But with the communities coming to grips with violence and councils managing the taxes, wouldn’t everyone actually see the state as what it has really become namely superfluous?
Democracy is the rule of the majority with respect for the rights of the minorities.
We also know that the independent functioning of the 3 forces – legislative, judiciary and executive - from each other is a must in a modern democracy. Lack of these principals is at the root of many pretend-democracies throughout the world.
Of course my suggestion for the replacement of state apparatus with a small selected group of coordinating body – appointed every 3 years and disappointed at any time when necessary - concerns the Legislative Force and the governing body only. The other two Forces could have their own progressive reforms to adjust to the changing structures in the society and the coordinating body.
In my opinion the existence of councils in the UK makes this transition democratically possible without much of a birth pang
As a matter of fact I think it is very likely that the idea of soviets was inspired by the existence of councils in Britain. Lenin was very interested in the way organisations functioned and during his relatively short stay in London mentioned the post system in Britain as an example of a well organised and well functioning body.
From this I conclude that he also researched the structure of other organisations in Britain including the councils (shora haay-e mahalli).
Obviously with the change in the structure of the government councils should then undertake a more dynamic approach in their relationship with the local communities and reform their structures whenever needed.
In the meanwhile they should avoid sending questionnaires that are based on outdated quantative survey methods with 4 options only that does not reflect their true intentions and reads like: Which of the following 4 traps do you agree with?
With other words they need to change over to qualitative surveys that make a real contribution of the individuals in the community possible.
So, in order to keep up our consciousness in accord with the nature and its developmental rule of birth, bloom, flourish, fruition and decay, it’s time to acknowledge the fact that the state is withering rapidly, and to get ready for nurturing the new seed that is already sown.
To reach the stage of a well functioning socialist society as a body, one must also nurture love as its connective tissue and, beyond to the eventual stage of perfection, love as its heart.
To be continued
____________________________________________________________________
* Von jedem was er kann, zu jedem was er braucht.
Literal translation: From each what he can, to each what he needs.
In the English translation of Criticism of the Gotha Programme 1875: From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
Here the use of the word ‘abilities’ for the word ‘kann / können’ is misleading.
The German words for ability are Geschicklichkeit and Faehigkeit (ae = ä).
The word `kann` can also mean `able to` but here should be translated ‘can’ as Marx has meant it. In this way it also expresses his opinion of those who can in financial terms – without necessarily having any other abilities, as money brings money – give to those who are in need.
In Marx’ statement the word ‘can’ encompasses both aspects namely the material as well as the immaterial.
** For years I have been absolutely sure that this statement was what Rosa Luxemburg made when criticising Lenin’s policy in Russia. However unfortunately in my recent search I have not been able to find the article which could have included this statement. If you happen to know the article please let us know in a comment. I am not worried in case someone is absolutely sure it wasn’t her statement at all. I would eagerly claim it for myself, as it is one of the most perfect political statements I know of, and has been printed on my mind for many years without fainting. In any case as it reflects R.Luxemburg’s idea of democracy I don’t think it would bother her at all. So the quotation can only be either Rosa’s, or a rosy dream of mine.
*** Der Staat wird nicht `abgeschaft`, er stirbt ab. Anti Dühring, III
**** Is it £1 tax for a litre? Others write 60 p per £1. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Anyway what is the official statement? Isn’t the state expected to be transparent? Whom am I asking?