Centralisation
- This topic has 23 replies, 5 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 1 day ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Socialism must be a stateless society It was Lenin who separated socialism from communism. There’s not any relationship between government and democracy
Then I wonder how do you see society being organised? Because without the state to distribute law, protect those from exploitation and to prevent the re-establishment of capitalism, all myself see is a chaotic system were those who are able to gain power rule. Democracy needs centralised organisation for action to be taken and planned. It is pure anarchism not socialism, no proletariat need the state to protect them and there way of life but not as a sperate entity for both the masses and the state to be a dual system through the hands of democracy.
McDonald wrote “Democracy needs centralised organisation…”
Yes, but are you opposing ‘democracy’ to ‘centralised’? ie. the ‘centre’ is free from democratic control?
Surely any body with power under socialism/communism would be not only elected, but those elected would be ‘delegates’, not ‘representatives’?
So, the ‘centralised organisation’ would do as it is told by the electors. If the decisions of the ‘centralised organisation’ were opposed by the majority, the delegates would be removed.
Thus, ‘centralised organisation needs democracy’, to re-work your statement.
The Socialist Party has written and published thousands of pages on the question of a stateless socialist/communist society. In all their works, Marx and Engels also mention the conception of a post-capitalist stateless socialist/communist society.
The conception of a stateless society is not only an issue solely propagated by some anarchist groups, but some so-called anarchists support state capitalism and state capitalist leaders, and some capitalist groups also advocate for a stateless capitalist society
Marx and Engles also wrote about the history, the origin, the function, and the character of the state, even more, on the Communist Manifesto they also indicated that the state is only the executive apparatus to handle the affairs of the capitalist class, and they called it the superstructure, therefore, without social classes a state would not be needed
Engels clear indicated that the state is going to be vanished ( withering away ) on a socialist society, in a classless society human beings would not need a system of oppression, repression and domination, and the proletarian class will also be vanished on a socialist society, therefore, the working class is not going to oppress itself, it is illogical
It was Lenin and the Bolsheviks who created the conceptions of the workers’ state, socialist state, socialist countries, and socialist leaders, and any third-world dictator is called a communist leader. They continued oppressing the working class, extracting surplus value from their labor like any other typical capitalist society.
Julius Martov swept the floor with Lenin State and the revolution, a pamphlet where Lenin completely distorted Marx concept of the state and dishonestly introduced and twisted phrases that Marx used in other writings, and the Commune of Paris was never a workers state, and it was never the first workers state, and socialism in one country, one capital, ad one backward country can not be established, even more socialism can not be established in one single advanced country like the USA.
Lenin State and the Revolution, Stalin Foundation of Leninism, Lenin What is to be done, Imperialism higher stage of capitalism, Trotsky Permanent revolution, became the textbooks and part of the curriculum of the study groups of all Leninists organizations, and those ideas were propagated thru the whole world, instead of learning socialism, members learned a distorted view of socialism/communism, two concepts that Marx and Engels never separated in two differents conceptions, along with the revolutionary war which created the death of thousands of innocent peoples. In our time, any guerrilla fighter is called a socialist, but there are also guerrilla fighters supported by the capitalist class, and some groups have been formed by them .
A so-callled socialist society managed by a state apparatus is not socialism, it is state capitalism.
The socialist party has published thousands of words about the dictatorship of the proletariat ( government ) and it has given the proper definition and the proper application during the historical context that it was mentioned by Marx, and our time it is not longer required, and the real transitional period is capitalism
Then I wonder how do you see society being organised? Because without the state to distribute law, protect those from exploitation and to prevent the re-establishment of capitalism, all myself see is a chaotic system were those who are able to gain power rule. Democracy needs centralised organisation for action to be taken and planned. It is pure anarchism not socialism, no proletariat need the state to protect them and there way of life but not as a sperate entity for both the masses and the state to be a dual system through the hands of democracy.
—————————————————————–
The state is not an organizer, it is the opposite way, it is the real chaotic instrument in our society. The real organizer is going to be the world working class
“Then I wonder how do you see society being organised? Because without the state to distribute law, protect those from exploitation and to prevent the re-establishment of capitalism, all myself see is a chaotic system were those who are able to gain power rule.”
I think this is a matter of semantics. When socialists speak of a “stateless” society they are not talking about the absence of a body that would fulfill the functions mentioned above.
What they are talking about is the form of this body. Instead of being something above society, that functions to preserve minority rule – “a state” – this body would be something that has become absorbed into the whole of society, for example through the use of mandated and recallable delegates and through an increase in democratic participation.
I think this is a matter of semantics. When socialists speak of a “stateless” society they are not talking about the absence of a body that would fulfill the functions mentioned above.
What they are talking about is the form of this body. Instead of being something above society, that functions to preserve minority rule – “a state” – this body would be something that has become absorbed into the whole of society, for example through the use of mandated and recallable delegates and through an increase in democratic participation.
———————————————————————————–
This is a conception that many peoples in the so called working class movement do not understand
Please do forgive my misunderstanding. I am relatively new to socialism as a political theory in all of it’s forms. I am open to hearing and want to expand my current knowledge on the concept. So, anything that you can tell me, would be great.
The best source for information is the index of the Socialist Party /World Socialist Movement. You can find anything you want, the best way is to research by topic. The Socialist Party is a university on socialism/communism. The socialist party has written that without Marx and Engels, they would have created their concept of socialism/communism. The rest of the organizations have been corrupted with Leninism and social democrats’ conceptions. The socialist party does not write long articles, but the articles written are concise and precise. Someone that I knew said: There is a great difference between being a follower and a continuator
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.