| Line 4: |
Line 4: |
| | | | |
| | ==Communism== | | ==Communism== |
| − | [[Communism]], as it emerged around 1918-20, was a late political manifestation of Marxist philosophy. [[Lenin]] in Russia and later [[Mao Zedong]] in China tailored Marx's ideas it to their expediant political needs. | + | [[Communism]], as it emerged around 1918-20, was a late political manifestation of Marxist philosophy. [[Lenin]] in Russia and later [[Mao Zedong]] in China tailored Marx's ideas it to their expedient political needs. |
| | ===Soviet experience=== | | ===Soviet experience=== |
| | | | |
| Line 11: |
Line 11: |
| | This state of affairs did not, however, last long. Two issues were at stake. In the first place, the separate factories and other instruments of production were not run very well under workers' control; and there were even greater difficulties in the co-ordination of the efforts of various factories. It was even harder for them to collaborate in the theory of [[economic planning]] effectively to direct entire branches of industry. Workers' control would also mean the elimination of all privilege, or a 'classless society". The drive for class power needed to get rid of workers' control, and found justification in the inefficiency of workers' control. | | This state of affairs did not, however, last long. Two issues were at stake. In the first place, the separate factories and other instruments of production were not run very well under workers' control; and there were even greater difficulties in the co-ordination of the efforts of various factories. It was even harder for them to collaborate in the theory of [[economic planning]] effectively to direct entire branches of industry. Workers' control would also mean the elimination of all privilege, or a 'classless society". The drive for class power needed to get rid of workers' control, and found justification in the inefficiency of workers' control. |
| | | | |
| − | Hence workers' control was replaced by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin by the ''de facto'' managerial control in a new kind of state. The technical direction of factory operations was turned over to "specialists", or managers, with the Factory Committees remaining in existence and still exercising substantial control through a veto power over the managers and jurisdiction over labour conditions. Meanwhile, bureaus and commissions and individuals appointed from above by the Soviet regime were beginning to take over the job of co-ordinating the efforts of various factories and branches of industry. The powers of the managers and technicians increased at the expense of "workers' control" and the Factory Committees. The Factory Committee lost their veto powers. Their prerogative, labour conditions, became more and more narrowly interpreted. The Committee composition was changed to include one state representative, one managerial representative, and one man nominally representing the workers. Finally, even these Committees lost all their real power and remained as mere formalities, to be dropped altogether in during the [[Great Purge]] of 1938. | + | Hence workers' control was replaced by Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin by the ''de facto'' managerial control in a new kind of state. The technical direction of factory operations was turned over to "specialists", or managers, with the Factory Committees remaining in existence and still exercising substantial control through a veto power over the managers and jurisdiction over labor conditions. Meanwhile, bureaus and commissions and individuals appointed from above by the Soviet regime were beginning to take over the job of co-ordinating the efforts of various factories and branches of industry. The powers of the managers and technicians increased at the expense of "workers' control" and the Factory Committees. The Factory Committee lost their veto powers. Their prerogative, labor conditions, became more and more narrowly interpreted. The Committee composition was changed to include one state representative, one managerial representative, and one man nominally representing the workers. Finally, even these Committees lost all their real power and remained as mere formalities, to be dropped altogether in during the [[Great Purge]] of 1938. |
| | | | |
| | ==Nomenklatura== | | ==Nomenklatura== |
| | | | |
| − | The freedom and end of privilege, which the oppressed thought the revolution was to bring, was giving way to a new form of class rule by the [[nomenklatura]]. At each decisive step, the "workers' socialist state" under Lenin and Stalin, backed not the workers but the managers. A wide campaign of "education" was undertaken to show the people why "workers' rule" meant, in practice, managers' rule. Where necessary, the education by the word was supplemented with education by [[firing squad]], [[concentration camp]] or [[slavery|forced labour]] battalion. | + | The freedom and end of privilege, which the oppressed thought the revolution was to bring, was giving way to a new form of class rule by the [[nomenklatura]]. At each decisive step, the "workers' socialist state" under Lenin and Stalin, backed not the workers but the managers. A wide campaign of "education" was undertaken to show the people why "workers' rule" meant, in practice, managers' rule. Where necessary, the education by the word was supplemented with education by [[firing squad]], [[concentration camp]] or [[slavery|forced labor]] battalion. |
| | | | |
| | Lenin and Trotsky, both, in the early years of the revolution, wrote pamphlets and speeches arguing the case of the specialists, the technicians, the managers. Lenin, in his forceful way, used to declare that the manager had to be a dictator in the factory. "Workers' democracy" in the state, Lenin said in effect, was to be founded upon a managerial dictatorship in the factory. | | Lenin and Trotsky, both, in the early years of the revolution, wrote pamphlets and speeches arguing the case of the specialists, the technicians, the managers. Lenin, in his forceful way, used to declare that the manager had to be a dictator in the factory. "Workers' democracy" in the state, Lenin said in effect, was to be founded upon a managerial dictatorship in the factory. |
| | | | |
| − | Lenin as the head of the state, helped to smash workers', popular, control over those instruments and to substitute for it control by the managers. And, of course, the managers of individual plants became subordinate to the big managers, to the boards and bureaus directing entire sectors of industry and governing industry as a whole. The managers under the new state included many who had been managers under the old "capitalist rule". Lenin and Trotsky poured scorn on "infantile leftists" <ref>[http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.</ref> who were against making use of the "services" of the "bourgeois specialists.". Favourable terms were given to foreign "bourgeois specialists" who were willing to come to work under the new regime. <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966.</ref> | + | Lenin as the head of the state, helped to smash workers', popular, control over those instruments and to substitute for it control by the managers. And, of course, the managers of individual plants became subordinate to the big managers, to the boards and bureaus directing entire sectors of industry and governing industry as a whole. The managers under the new state included many who had been managers under the old "capitalist rule". Lenin and Trotsky poured scorn on "infantile leftists" <ref>[http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LWC20.html V. I. Lenin, ''"Left-Wing" Communism, An Infantile Disorder''] (1920) V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, English edition, Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1952, Vol. II, Part 2.</ref> who were against making use of the "services" of the "bourgeois specialists.". Favorable terms were given to foreign "bourgeois specialists" who were willing to come to work under the new regime. <ref>James Burnham, ''The Managerial Revolution'', Indiana University Press, Bloomingham 1966.</ref> |
| | | | |
| | The control, and the social rule which goes with it, when it leaves the hands of the capitalists, goes not to the workers, the people, but to the managers, the new ruling class. A parallel of the Russian process can be observed with particular clarity in connection with the events in [[Loyalist]] territories during the [[Spanish Civil War]], above all in Catalonia. There, just as in Russia, the workers and peasants began taking over direct control of the factories and railroads and firms. There too, not at once, but during the course of the first two years of the Civil War, the ''de facto'' power slipped from the workers' hands, sometimes voluntarily given up at the persuasion of a political party, sometimes smashed by arms and prison. It was not the troops of [[Franco]] who took control away from the people of Catalonia; they had lost control well before Franco's army conquered. | | The control, and the social rule which goes with it, when it leaves the hands of the capitalists, goes not to the workers, the people, but to the managers, the new ruling class. A parallel of the Russian process can be observed with particular clarity in connection with the events in [[Loyalist]] territories during the [[Spanish Civil War]], above all in Catalonia. There, just as in Russia, the workers and peasants began taking over direct control of the factories and railroads and firms. There too, not at once, but during the course of the first two years of the Civil War, the ''de facto'' power slipped from the workers' hands, sometimes voluntarily given up at the persuasion of a political party, sometimes smashed by arms and prison. It was not the troops of [[Franco]] who took control away from the people of Catalonia; they had lost control well before Franco's army conquered. |
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
| | == Ideology == | | == Ideology == |
| | | | |
| − | A Marxist society does not allow an individual to gain wealth; instead, that wealth belongs to the people as a collective. In a 'pure' marxist society, the state is a democratic system that manages all aspects of production--essentially making the state the head of all industry. However, this was never realized due to power grabs by the eventual managers of the factories, as well as many practical limitations. Marx dreamed of a society where a man could be "A farmer in the morning, a laborer in the afternoon, and a philosopher in the evening"--essentially, a world without specialization and stark divisions of labor. Again, this tennant of his philosophy was never realized, mostly due to practical reasons. | + | A Marxist society does not allow an individual to gain wealth; instead, that wealth belongs to the people as a collective. In a 'pure' Marxist society, the state is a democratic system that manages all aspects of production--essentially making the state the head of all industry. However, this was never realized due to power grabs by the eventual managers of the factories, as well as many practical limitations. Marx dreamed of a society where a man could be "A farmer in the morning, a laborer in the afternoon, and a philosopher in the evening"--essentially, a world without specialization and stark divisions of labor. Again, this tenet of his philosophy was never realized, mostly due to practical reasons. |
| | | | |
| | ==References== | | ==References== |