Red O said:
In what way did the Bolsheviks look to decentralise economic power down to labour?
Thanks for the reply - you raise interesting questions - And i probably could no answer all properly (well, at least more soberly anyway...) - this is off the top of my head as quick replies though...
Our probable different interpretations of events that happened in very different circumstances and a different place and time don't actually matter much now - as you explain later the bit on workers control is the key arguement you are making. But I'll paw over this question quickly (it would probably take a lot more to clarify properly my view) They were doomed by the circumstances they were operating in - they depended on (and pushed for) a revolution in more economically advanced countries (looking to Germany as the probable weak link) but ended up isolated as those revolutionary movements were defeated. With a small working class - effectively wiped out by the civil war. In an economicaly and socially (ie most folk could not read and write and had no experience of even basic democratic/participative activity - peoples often only just coming out of serfdom) backward country. This being further destroyed by that civil war. There was little practical chance of 'workers control' - simply organising a supply of food to the cities was hard enough.
I suppose it could even be argued that what elements, existing, of control initially tended to be the basis of the future bureaucracy - as workers became controllers, as food queues need to be 'policed'. Having said that - the social experiments and democratic participation that did exist for a period after 1917 cannot simply be wished away by folk who don't like what happened afterwards. The Bolsheviks would not have been able to hold onto what they had let alone extend what control they had without the support of that same working class via the soviets. This was mass participation in events, mass decision making - you my not like the Bolsheviks but they depended entirely on their popular support in the soviets. Later, as the Russian Empire collapsed - the act of putting 'control' in the hands of whole nations (previously under the imperial yoke) - the right to self determination - despite what happened after, despite the limitations imposed by a war of survival. All way ahead of the imperialist nations attacking them. It would be a bit of a false arguement to try and impose retrospective 'workers control' qualifiers on the Bolsheviks without looking at the actual situation on the ground at the time and in that place.
Red O said:
When the electorate had a choice between Thatcherism and Old Labour in '79 and '83, they chose Thatcherism. I think the effect of Bennism was to alienate a section of the working class, large enough to produce a winning Thatcherite electoral coalition, so essentially yes. Why do you think Thatcherism triumphed at the ballot box?
My family were part of that generation of 'self-made', self-employed working class tories (almost all building trade, the rest garage/motors/engineering from the SE of UK - its a big family...). Yep, its a good question. And, again off the top off my head, yep, they voted for what they saw as security (mum still goes on about the 'bloody power cuts' from the winter of discontent...) and what they saw as improvements to their circumstances (housing being the big thing - and a thatcherite vote winner i suppose). Reformist governments had resolved nothing for the majority of people - they tried to work within capitalist boundaries - people looked for the - apparently - easy option on offer (not looking at the costs and consequences - but then the politicians didn't mention that bit...). I suppose you could call these labour reformists 'state socialists' - but its one of those terms that means very different things at different times and is misused frequently (trying to apply the same label to bolshevik style socialists for example). I think 'reformism' is a clearer term and provides a better grounding for understanding the labourites you are talking about.
In Britain you had right reformists - in Chile you had left reformists - Allende's lot. They made the same mistakes for different reasons. In Chile they did not place power in the hands of working people despite being in a position to do so. In Britain they never intended to... In Chile, after a few years 'reaction' was able to regroup, building on the lies of its still control of the majority of outlets of propaganda, and strike back in the form of a military coup (funded and pushed by the US). Here the control of the media etc drip fed the same lies in a different form until enough of us were fooled for long enough (in the form of boss 'democracy if you have enough cash') to have a democratic 'coup'. Having said that - Thatcher almost lost it - she was bailed out by floating back in the blood of those squaddies left on the Falklands - British and Argentinian. Yes, a minority of working people 'supported the tories' if you look at an electoral snapshot of boss democracy - I don't think they were that bothered that the ideology had changed from 'kensyanism' towards the new 'neo-liberal' model all of that was covered up in boss democracy lies. they simply ended up with that drip feed with division and fear politics - nowt new there.
I actually think that 'reformist' ideas are still very strong despite years of Thatcherism and Blairism - it is one of the ideas that we have to deal with and work through as opposition to the consequences of the reality we face bites. Reformism is no longer the preserve of Labour as new labour have led the international movement of the 'old' workers parties towards becoming the best new 'counter-reformists', cutters and privatisers (in the wake of the collapse of the old state 'socialist' illusions, the collapse of stalinism, and in the west the old kensyian compromise as the world economy changes, etc)
Red O said:
To a certain extent, yes, see above. The Keynesian consensus produced inflation and unemployment without producing workers control. When Keynesianism fell in the 1970s the right had a coherent alternative to offer in the form of neo-liberalism, whereas Labour only offered more of the same tried and failed formula.
In a sense you hit a nail on the head but the hammer head then bounces off in the wrong direction so you don't knock the nail in fully. I agree, the keynesian economics of the reformists can no longer provide an improvement in circumstances. The right had no better alternative though - simply a better set of lies to get folk to vote against rather than anything to vote for. In fact the old reformists have now taken up and run with the boss alternatives on offer better that the Tories could - Blair, now Brown.
Red O said:
Never said it was original to me: Chomsky's 1970 lecture that I quoted from is largely about that very topic. Far more importantly, workers control was the obvious, instinctive approach for James Connolly, the Spanish republicans and the Italian partisans. It was at this time that socialism was a mass movement and had the instinctive loyalty of the working class. It was when the left began to move away from workers control that the working class began to move away from the left. State control has failed and it has deserved to fail. The left is doomed to failure until it revives the tradition of workers control, that's my point.
We don't really disagree on what is needed - you list the same experiences I would hold to as well. What you are actually pointing towards is the old battle - Reformism v Revolution. I don't think you can jump from the social democratic parties which you label as 'state socialists' to differenciate them from 'workers control socialists' to tarring revolutionaries with the same brush.
Yes, absolutely, workers control - but those who oppose workers control are not opposed because of their illusions in weather one introduces socialism via the state or outside of the state - they are opposed to revolution from below by the working class weather that working class movement uses elements of the boss state at certain points (say using boss elections and parliaments for propaganda purposes) to overthrow that same state is irrelevant.
Red O said:
No, but a section of the working class obviously did, otherwise Thatcher wouldn't have won three elections.
I'd argue that people fell for lies (and not even the majority - just enough of them to hookwink us all with the 'democratic' sham) - they did not support the reality behind those lies. Ironically, people had had enough of tory lies and hoped for 'something different' - i honestly don't think most people voted for 'more of the same' which is what they got. Now brown will have to dress it up as 'we have no alternative' - and, in a sense, in terms of boss democracy we don't
Red O said:
Assuming you're referring to New Labour, I think they deserve to die. I would like to see them lined up against a wall and shot, and I would happily pull the trigger.
)) - you'd have to get in line ...
