Debate Over Lunch:

Second Edition

Michael Joseph Francisconi

Contents

Introduction

Introduction……………………………………………………….2

Part 1 Withering of the State……………………………………3

Radical Ethics ........................................................................4

Human Activity and Production ..............................................8

Issues and Social Movements ..............................................12

Legal, Reform, Revolution, Insurrection ................................22

Radical socialism ..................................................................39

The Revolution or Betrayal ...................................................44

Theory ...................................................................................48

Vanguard or Mass Movement………………………………….59

Workers and Farmers Reform, Revolution, ..........................72

Working Class Organizations: Labor is symbolic and natural 74

Standard Bibliography for Withering of the State……………..79

Part 2 Post War Marxists .....................................................................

I. Raya Dunayevskaya The Theory of Alienation: Marxʼs Debt to Hegel: (1983) 82

II. George Novackʼs Understanding History (Pathfinder, 1972)………………….83

III. Eric Fromm 1961 Marxʼs Concept of Man ................................................... 87

IV. Marshall Berman, 1963 Freedom and Fetishism……………………………..91

V. Gajo Petrović 1965 Reification……………………………………………………93

VI.István Mészáros 1970 Marxʼs Theory of Alienation……………………………94

Part 3 The Dialectic, Humanism and Consciousness……………………………..97

Epicurus and Modern Socialist Revolution………………………………………….98

The Universal Unity of Consciousness…………………………………………….101

Agency, Consciousness and the Dialectic…………………………………………104

The Universal Again…………………………………………………………………..107

Resistance is the Renaissance………………………………………………………114

Marxist or Existentialist………………………………………………………………..119

Debate Over Lunch:

Second Edition

Michael Joseph Francisconi

Contents

Introduction

Introduction……………………………………………………….2

Part 1 Withering of the State……………………………………3

Radical Ethics ........................................................................4

Human Activity and Production ..............................................8

Issues and Social Movements ..............................................12

Legal, Reform, Revolution, Insurrection ................................22

Radical socialism ..................................................................39

The Revolution or Betrayal ...................................................44

Theory ...................................................................................48

Vanguard or Mass Movement………………………………….59

Workers and Farmers Reform, Revolution, ..........................72

Working Class Organizations: Labor is symbolic and natural 74

Standard Bibliography for Withering of the State……………..79

Part 2 Post War Marxists .....................................................................

I. Raya Dunayevskaya The Theory of Alienation: Marx’s Debt to Hegel: (1983) 82

II. George Novack’s Understanding History (Pathfinder, 1972)………………….83

III. Eric Fromm 1961 Marx’s Concept of Man ................................................... 87

IV. Marshall Berman, 1963 Freedom and Fetishism……………………………..91

V. Gajo Petrović 1965 Reification……………………………………………………93

VI.István Mészáros 1970 Marx’s Theory of Alienation……………………………94

Part 3 The Dialectic, Humanism and Consciousness……………………………..97

Epicurus and Modern Socialist Revolution………………………………………….98

The Universal Unity of Consciousness…………………………………………….101

Agency, Consciousness and the Dialectic…………………………………………104

The Universal Again…………………………………………………………………..107

Resistance is the Renaissance………………………………………………………114

Marxist or Existentialist………………………………………………………………..119

Reason and Empathy………………………………………………………………….126

Dialectic as Humanism…………………………………………………………………130

Introduction

I was born March 8, 1947 into a railroad family. I had two major passions in my early teens: the Democratic Party and John F. Kennedy. With his assassination and then the failure to seat the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party in the summer of 1964, I lost all mooring with Party politics. The following May 1965, I graduated from Pocatello High School; I was eighteen, registered for the draft, and the nation was at war. Mr. Johnson's escalation of the war in Vietnam, the sending the troops into the Dominican Republic, completed my crisis of faith; I was no longer a Democrat.

My history is an intellectually personal history of the awakening and growth of a radical in love with the wonderment of the radical life-style. This is a story of an insurrection and rebellion on the limits placed upon human essential quality in a bourgeois society. This rebellion is at its core anti-capitalist, anti-state, anti-bureaucratic, anti-clerical, anti-patriarchal, and anti-positivist.

This rebellion has continually evolved as age brought more insight and wisdom. One tradition replaces another not that they are outgrown or abandon, but they lead naturally by life experiences to new way of dealing with life. This is a rebellion born in experience and not abstraction of an isolated rebel.

The early days of my youth Camus provided an image of the isolated rebel fighting for human dignity stripped of all meaning in a world given over to the absurd.

Particularly because of the rebellion that was the 1960’s, I soon discovered the philosophy of the Russian Anarchists of Bakunin, Kropotkin, Goldman, and Berkman.

With the collapse of the movement in the early 1970s the veterans and history of the old left became beautiful beckons in the night. The Industrial Workers of the World, Socialist party USA, Communist Party USA, and the Socialist Workers Party became my foundation.

The culture to which I belong is related to the left wing of the Socialist Party of America during the first two decades of the twentieth century, Industrial Workers of the World from its founding in 1905 to 1924, the Communist Party USA 1928 to 1939 during both the third period and the popular front, and the Progressive Party Presidential campaign of Henry Wallace and Glen Taylor in 1948, the last hurrah of the popular front before the Dark ages of the Domestic Cold War suffocated the creative soul of America from which we never fully recovered.

The following is a love letter to the heroes of my life. Part 1 is the discussion centering on the goals of revolution as seen in the early days of the 20^th century. Part 2 the meaning of human dignity. Part 3 what it means to be human.

An earlier version of the first two parts appeared in Debate Over Lunch, Trafford publishing. Because it has been entirely rewritten and a new section added I decided to also change the name.

Part 1

Withering of the State

The debate between Anarchism and all other socialist traditions is about the role of the state in the transitional period between capitalism and communism. I hope to show here that all socialists are anarchists and all anarchists are socialists. The debate is over the time frame for the movement from a socialist revolution when working people have control over government and the economy is run through public agencies for the democratic needs of all. Even those socialists and social democrats that believe that a stateless modern society is impossible, use this model as an ideal type to measure the progress made towards a better and more humane society.

Real democracy and not hierarchy is what is the final goal. The goal of socialism is to bring the economy home to all the people. At first socialist put social responsibility and designing an economy to meet the needs of all of the people at the forefront. Followed closely by public control over the key financial companies, industries and social services. This is but a step that hopefully will lead to increasing direct participatory democracy at the shop floor level, in the community, the nation and globally. The economy belongs to all of us. We need to see a revival of radical militant rank and file unions, civil rights and civil liberties organizations, client rights groups, women’s rights, environmental, gay and lesbian, consumer and community activists. The goal is an economy that meets the needs of all the people particularly the poor and most vulnerable.

Radical Ethics

Simple morality is used to lead the exploited to passivity in the face of oppression. This morality maintains existing relations of exploitation by placing moral responsibility on the shoulders of the poor and exploited, while the rich and powerful get their just rewards. A morality of this type with the destruction of the lives of the poor is unchallenged. The property relations that condemns the poor to a shorten life of misery is perfectly moral, while the poor’s resistance to that suffering is immoral. (Eugene Kamenka 1962)

Morality is set in a specific historical setting defined by law and religion to protect and defend existing power relations. The existential being creates a recurrent pattern pertaining to authenticity with having actual continuation over time. In time the rule of the rulers are seen as universal. This can only be shattered by the essential coming together of a rational self-possessed assessment and class agitation leading to opposing the system of dividing society into a rigid system of social distinctions and that we make a great effort to fight against all forms of inequality. (George G. Brenkert, 1983)

Only by actively challenging the existing moral principles through collective action can decency as defined by the privileged as is use to control the general public and it use of principled teachings and unquestioned right beliefs be confronted. (Paul

Mattick 1965)

Developing an alternative ideology drives the struggle for emancipation forward. This redefines the moral as what meets the needs of the poor and powerless. The old society becomes an obstruction to the decent life as now explained as the essential nature of what it is to be human with dignity. Old morals are uncovered and set forth as a lie standing in the way in the making of the future society. (Paul Mattick 1965)

With this movement towards the realization of the creation of a life that becomes the most we can live, with the greatest fulfillment in our Epicurean garden in which we indulge in every day as a ceremony and a celebration a passionate love affair with existence. Anything else falls far short and must be overthrown, the revolution is and everyday experience is also a permanent part of that life. With each new triumph we find ourselves fighting new forms of alienation and isolation, new forms of exploitation and manipulation, domination and oppression. There can never be political freedom with social and cultural sovereignty and all of the above with out economic self-determination through collective control over the cooperative production by the direct producers in public ownership of the resources necessary for production, survival, subsistence, and the full enjoyment of life. (George G. Brenkert, 1983)

Through labor we manifest our humanity as connected with nature, this is the creative and artistic materialization of our citizenship of life. We wage laborers we are stripped of this genuine and real meaning of life to become little more than raw materials for industry. Work is no longer an inspired and enjoyable emergence of happiness, but becomes a necessary gravity to be undergone required in order to survive. Nature our home, our true quintessence and our maternal connection with life becomes an angered hostile force to be conquered by others and used to subjugate us into submission. Isolated and alienated ultimately we are torn from our community to die alone in the deserts of a forgotten time and a forgotten land.

The above outlining the nature of alienation of labor becomes no more than the consideration of the temperament of disaffection from the gratification of subsistence in an existential sense by the worker. This is a simple tautology and does not give us a universal moral code. For the owner of property need in the production of the necessities of life any threat to that property is wrong. To a business owner theft of property is wrong. These are seen as theft and robbery is always wrong. To a worker particularly a class-consciousness worker property is a result of wealth and wealth is the result of surplus value, which is only produced by the worker. Thus, the work often feels all wealth is theft and property that comes from that wealth is also theft. Morality reflects in this case class positions and what meets the interests of the conflicting classes. This is why it is important for the capitalist to represent their particular morality as a universal morality. If successful the worker will accept the dominant morality of the capitalist and no more need be said. If not there appears to be a conflict of right against right.

It is not however simple moral relativism. In the conflict between moralities that which expands opportunities to have a better life to ever increasing numbers of and classes of people I will argue is more moral than the older more restrictive morality.

Liberal Revolution replaced the ideal rank based upon birth and divinely sanctioned with rank based upon earned merit and at least some hope of equality of opportunity. This is an improvement. Yet, with private property, restriction to access to the resources need for survival, inherited wealth and accumulation of wealth inequality is still guaranteed and will seem to those operating under an innate impediment as unwarranted thus morally wrong.

With equality of outcome in the necessities of life and nominal level differences in life choices replacing ordinal and interval level differences in rank, income or life chances it will be argued here morality has been made better. Peter Kropotkin in his outline of

Mutual Aid as an evolutionary strategy seems a better moral fit than survival of the fittest. Moralizing by the more restrictive ruling class is not moral. The advantaged will be liberated along with the oppressed by the more inclusive and democratic ethics of equality. (Eugene Kamenka 1962)

All ethics are situational ethics. That moral codes are embedded in a particular historical and cultural setting. Moral codes represent the interests of a particular class in that setting, and often are presented as a general and universal truth. In fact one class will benefit more than the existing competing classes. This is not to say all moral codes are equivalent. The larger the classes protected by the principled instructions on life the closer it comes to also protecting the humanitarian concerns of the opposing classes, as well a offering a chance for liberation to the classes suffering oppression.

We are coming closer to understanding the basis of a “proletarian” ethic, the class of a wage earner’s moral guidelines. A community of individuals, in which individuality is more fully realized through the near complete rejection of egoistic individualism, is now realized. This is a situation of mutual aid between members of the community, and a reciprocal confirmation, with an innate reflectively inspired interaction between this community and nature.

As soon as the worker becomes alienated from work, from the product, from nature and from other people labor becomes a labor of personal sacrifice, of humiliation. Under this set of circumstances someone must suffer so someone may benefit.

Only under the state of affairs of mutual aid flanked by citizens of the nation, abided by a common validation, with an inborn thoughtfully educated communication connecting this group of people and natural world can humanity move to a more complete morality. This does not mean that any ethical system can be achieved before the material preconditions for its insights exists in the historical and social environment.

At each stage in our analysis of morality it will be noted, that goals are nothing to be jeered at as a basis of morality. While end and means interact, morality does not predate the material reality that gives rise to. There cannot any other meaningful ethics other than situational ethics. Eternal truths and universal ethics are both dogmatic and dictatorial as well as corrupt and unprincipled.

Before we can attain a more universal ethical code moving from family to clan to tribe to nation to humanity and finally to the living planet we needed to attain a material reality that is based upon an increasing interdependence that we are aware of an ever larger community. If our world consciousness stops with the next mountain range we will not develop a humanist worldview. If the capitalist income is derived from the labor of others surplus value and economic equality is seen only as a Marxist emblematic fairy tales. From the view of the wageworker socialism, communism, worker councils, worker self-management, and the cooperative commonwealth federation frees the worker and the capitalist. ((Eugene Kamenka 1962))

Even this over looks the fact that morality set in a particular environment setting. What is an evil in one setting is a virtue in another. To kill bacteria to save a patent is a virtue even it means of taking the life of the bacteria. To eat meat we take the life of what

is eaten, animal protein can in improve the health of people who eat meat. Meat eating it appears played a role in human evolution. To take an innocent life we can all agree is wrong. (George G. Brenkert, 1983)

The highest form of morality is the end result of struggle, even class struggle, often set in a revolutionary setting. Yet the highest form of morality is only the raw materials for future struggles of yet another class who becomes the limitations for their own needs as the older morality represents the best expression of the class now as the exploiters. (Raya Dunayevskaya 1971)

According to Leon Trotsky Historically ethics the creation of chronological societal evolutionary occurrence. With morals there is not any unchanging principles that would complete universal social welfare in all places and all times. Competing philosophies represent rival interests that are conflicting and morality like all ideology a class temperament suited to the needs of a specific class. Each warring class represents it particular ethical code as the best for society as a whole.

The bourgeoisie, which far surpasses the proletariat in the

completeness and irreconcilability of its class consciousness,

is vitally interested in imposing its moral philosophy upon the

exploited masses. It is exactly for this purpose that the concrete

norms of the bourgeois catechism are concealed under moral

abstractions patronized by religion, philosophy, or that hybrid

which is called “common sense”. The appeal to abstract norms

is not a disinterested philosophic mistake but a necessary

element in the mechanics of class deception. The exposure of

this deceit which retains the tradition of thousands of years is

the first duty of a proletarian revolutionist. (Trotsky: 1938)

Science, common sense, truth and logic each will express themselves differently when used in different setting by different group while fighting for their goals. While classes stand opposed with enough strength to challenge the authority of the ruling elites compromise is offered to maintain control at top levels of the upper class over the rest of society. Where there is not enough power to force concessions form the leaders of the social whole, the ruling class can openly use terror to keep control and justify it using their own universal moral codes. If this wasn’t enough simple commonsense simple or the logic of animal survival is distorted into justifying the authority of the existing state of affairs.

“Politics makes strange bed fellows’ goes the tired cliché, yet this opens up the dilemma faced by all sincere revolutionaries. With out a genuine popular front all we have immature political posturing. But, do we justify working with those allies that ultimately will be harmful to us? Are differences swept under the steps in our basement so as not to make our allies self-conscious? There can be no final answer. Yet these are part of our day-to-day decisions. Openness is suggested and when necessary express candidly our position on both the long term and short-term aims. It can never be easy to be cooperative and honest at the same time, but success requires just this kind of concern.

Radical Ethics

Eugene Kamenka 1962

The Ethical Foundations of Marxism

Published: by Routledge & Kegan Paul

George G. Brenkert, 1983

Marx’s ethics of freedom publ. Routledge & Kegan Paul

Paul Mattick 1965

Humanism and Socialism

International Socialism (1st series), No.22, Autumn 1965,

pp.14-18.

Trotsky: 1938

Their Morals and Ours

The New International, Vol.IVNo.6, June 1938, pp.163-173.

Human Activity and

Production

Human activity in the production of the means of existence is basic to all moral practice, and this we call labor and is the essential groundwork for all of other activities, including the spiritual. Our moral philosophy is grounded in this theory. Theory comes from the practical struggle to gain knowledge of our world, in order to gain more power over our lives within the social-material environment. Knowledge depends upon behavior. Production of our material life is the most important and is the ultimate foundation of our awareness of the circumstances surrounding our lives cultural and physical. These are the properties of our total environment. Its basic nature and essential quality of its attributes, is the groundwork of the component elements of our culture. The relationship between humans and nature and humans and other humans rest with the idea we are always a part of nature because we are but one part of the physical nature of the world (Mao 1966: 1-2).

Communities are people cooperatively interacting with nature.

We as individuals and members of the community take from nature the resources necessary to live. Through our cooperative labor our survival becomes possible. Through this cooperation not only our mere survival, but also the highest spiritual and cultural elegance is consummated. But to live and to achieve culture we must have access to the necessary resources for survival. This becomes the foundation of all other democratic struggle.

In class society the equal access to the necessary resources to survival is erased. Different classes have different relations to the means of production, and thus have different ethics representing these conflicting relationships. This continuing struggle between the competing economic and social classes has a deep sway on the growth and change of understanding. As a member of a specific class, thinking itself is a reflection of that class. History becomes a distortion of interpretation, instead of having a history we have several histories all grounded in the ideology of a specific class.

The political and economic elite controls the telling of history for all classes. The morals of the working class demands telling their own side of the story and being told in the words of the working class (Trotsky 1938).

The questions of truth or falsity for the working class depends on the affect in developing its own theory and the relationship between this theory and the practice of gaining power over our own lives. To attain the expected accomplishments through our actions we must bring our ideas into conformity with laws of the actual physical and social world. Knowledge cannot be separated from practice. Theory and practice is the necessary marriage of all known reality. Theory guides our practice and from our practical activity theories develop. Morality is tied both to our subjective needs and our objective understanding of our universe. Through this connection between the theory and practice our actions lead to more authority over our lives. In this way both the objective and subjective manifestations of our needs can be understood and dealt with. Through a deeper understanding of the universal and the specific of our humanity and our struggles we can gain an understanding of the basic nature of our existence in its entirety, along with the internal links and the inherent arrangement of things in our environment. By way of understanding and deduction we are able to formulate reasonable insights based upon our discoveries. From these insights our morality is formed and not divinely revealed (Mao 1966: 2-7; Kropotkin 1925: 293-300;

Kropotkin 1970: 109-113).

Democracy is a complicated word, meaning something radically different to a socialist than to a liberal. With the liberal revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries democracy became limited to universal suffrage, once achieved it become a completed project. The limited legitimate channels of political activity established the arena of democracy. Any expression of the community concerns out side of this arena with illegal and immoral consequences must be considered. With the growth of the professional classes of the 20th century was added to, but remained on the margins and somewhat outside of the democratic arena. Professional autonomy, limits democratic control of the job site by offering the expert independence from the interference by bosses as well as the general public over the job of the specialist. The radical view is that democracy is an on going historical process that has only just begun. Democracy is never a finished product. Democracy is a life style not limited to politics or the legitimate political channels. If those legitimate channels further popular power over our collective lives, then they must be used. If these channels inhibit democratic expression of all the people then they must be opposed.

To the radical, democratic revolutions are built one upon the other in a never-ending series. In Western Europe liberal revolutions began the fight for the vote, equality before the law, merit replacing rank, capitalism, private property, and individualism. This forms the basis of the ideology of political democracy. The labor movement particularly socialism formed a new ideology that found liberal democracy to limiting. Whether moderately or radically economic democracy must be added to political democracy. Public control over the entire economy became the first order of the day. From this foundation other issues would follow to extend power over our own lives. Other social movements of the 20th century were modeled after the socialist movement. Each found liberal democracy to limiting. The feminist, civil rights, and environmental movements are cases in point. The third world national liberation movements are an attempt for democracy where there were no liberal revolutions. The first stage of anti—imperialism is followed by the struggle for socialism.

Socialism is the materialization of democracy. Without socialism no form of democracy is possible. Without democracy socialism is a bureaucratic sham. Liberal capitalist democracy is only political democracy at the most superficial level. Political democracy is carefully designed to blunt popular opposition to class rule. Political democracy demands the equitable distribution of power. Such a demand remains utopian without the equitable distribution of the rewards of production. Economic democracy demands this equitable distribution, and only by insuring that the resources necessary for this production remains under the collective control of all the people will economic democracy become possible (Mao 1971: 467-470; Allende 1973: 31-34; Che 1987: 196-202; Kautsky 1964: 25-58).

Just as economic democracy is impossible under the conditions of a capitalist economy, so also the existence of political democracy is impossible under the circumstances of bureaucratic socialism. Bureaucratic socialism is at its core hostile to political democracy and as such economic democracy becomes impossible. If either the political or the economic is lacking in the term democracy there is no social democracy and with out social democracy either the political or economic true manifestations of democracy become impossible. After all is said and done a bureaucratic socialist state is closer to becoming democratized than a capitalist republic because the formal ownership has been eliminated already and would be easier to bring the productive resources under the collective control of society for the benefit of all the people. What is to be restricted under democratic socialism are privilege and not the existing political rights (Luxemburg 1961: 68-72, 77-80, 89-108; Lenin 1965: 47-53, Trotsky 1972: 45-64, 273-290; Trotsky 1965: 39-46).

Marx would claim the administrative control of the direct producers over the production process couldn’t live with the continuation of personal economic servitude of the workers. When labor becomes emancipated, every human being becomes a worker, and productive labor will no longer be a characteristic of class. By transforming individual property into social property workers transform the means of production from a method of indenturing and exploiting labor into an apparatus of the free association of labor. Workers must work out their own emancipation through their own agency, passing through a series of long struggles reconstructing environments and people. These workers have no principles to be realized except one to release the substance of the newly forming society for the benefit of all the people, ending the antiquated disintegrating effects of capitalist rule (Marx 1940: 60-62).

Socialism, according to Luxemburg, encourages the oppressed to take the most active stand possible in a resolute manner without hesitation. This should be done in such a way as to guarantee the most comprehensive public form based on the foundation of the most dynamic, involvement of the entire community. Political decisions should be made with the unconstrained participation of the greater portion of the people, always moving towards a more complete democracy (Luxemburg 1961: 76). Conventional capitalist democracy is a soft thin shell of freedom over a large hard core of inequality. The formal equality claimed the above is the silk underwear covering the putrefied tissue of an economy based upon exploitation. Socialist democracy begins with the eradication of class rule. Satisfaction within liberal democracy leads to the stagnation of democracy and preservation of privilege (Luxemburg 1961: 77).

Socialism begins with an organized effort to expand democracy, to strengthen and encourage popular participation in public life, to awaken in people their collective potential, to become aware of their capacity for achievement. It was held by Luxemburg working people had the capacity to acquire popular solutions to social problems by gaining control of the political machinery of a society and all of its economic resources

(Luxemburg 1961: 22).

The struggle for democracy internationally is the basic responsibility of socialist in all countries. It is solely on this foundation that the ultimate significance of the determined international movement of the proletarian revolution can become capable of success, without this collective action internationally as the necessary support for any local action, indeed even the greatest sacrifices of the radical workers will become muddled in a labyrinth of contradictions (Luxemburg 1961: 28-29). Political rights are not calibrated by obscure expressions like “justice” as if given by God, but by the social-economic relationships for which it was designed. Justice meaning equity cannot happen in a social condition of economic inequality (Luxemburg 1961: 22).

The working people, being not only the bottom, but also the most productive class, must free themselves only by canceling out all the sources of exploitation, oppression and injustice. It is the industrial working class who are both oppressed and exploited as a class, which is necessary for the existence of all the other classes. The wageworkers are the only class that continually expands in size, potency, and importance. Through our appreciation of the power of labor, the solidarity of workers internationally become ripe for the fight and the responsibility of rebuilding the world society. Only by accepting the predilection to carry on the struggle, will the final triumph of socialism become possible and this is necessary for freedom and for democracy if it is ever take root (Kautsky 1971: 4).

Because the majority of the people overpower their oppressors, the special force of government in no longer needed. The state would then be in the process of withering away. Instead of the distinctive establishment of privileged minority, the majority itself can immediately accomplish all these services, and the more the functions of state power come under the control of the people as a whole the less is the need for the existence of a powerful state (Lenin 1970: 48-52).

Radical knowledge and planning ability are things that can be achieved in the event that the passion is there to attain them, supposing of course the deficiencies are acknowledged while learning through action. This revolutionary activity is a movement in the direction of canceling out the mistakes of the past (Lenin 1973: 40). Without a radical ideology the struggle remains limited. The character of the initial struggle will grow only when that courageous struggle can be fulfilled only by a coterie that is directed by the most well developed theory (Lenin 1973: 29). Without a radical philosophy there can be no revolutionary social movement, or revolutionary activity. The part played by the forerunners who are the first opponents of social injustice can be completed only by an alliance that is directed by the most well developed ideology (Lenin 1973: 28-29). The influence of the workers and the labor movement is a challenge to the power elite because of the fact that the working class would be beginning to take their fate into their own hands (Lenin 1973: 43).

Issues and Social Movements

To begin with socialism was a mass movement, which soon grew beyond the working class. Only those who are not self-confident with their own association fear alliances. With an understanding of the contemporary circumstances, and of the environment surrounding the social movement comes valiancy and wisdom of the heart. No one should be afraid of to take part in an informed coalition with other groups or associates.

This is true even with the people of questionable classes, according to Lenin.

The political fact is that no party, whether it is a vanguard party or a mass party, can exist for long without association with other such political groups. To work with others on shared issues is primary to success. An essential necessity for any of that kind of an federation must be the total feasibility for the Socialist to bring to light to the working class as a whole and the radical workers in particular, that we must never lose sight of the long range goals while seeking short term objectives. Reforms in capitalist society are always temporary and the contradictions of capitalism undermine the long lasting success of those reforms. It must be remembered that it is to the advantage of the working class to understand that they have interests that are diametrically antagonistic to the interests of the capitalists and even sometimes even the professionals, self-employed and small businesses. The professional must choose between alliances with one of the two major classes. The classes of professionals, small business and self-employed craftsmen have no ideology of their own. In nearly all circumstances, however the middle class welfare are even more repressed by the large capitalist than the working class (Lenin 1973: 19).

The significance of the working class for the struggle for socialism rests completely on the role of its activity being the direct producer in corporate monopoly capitalism, which is enormously and highly concentrated in the centralized production on a scale not known before. The capitalist retains its political superiority, which is attached to its economic supremacy, because it controls access to the resources necessary in production. Those who control the means of production control the means of political domination. Control of the means of production will be kept out of the hands of the working class at all costs. All reforms will have this as its primary logic. The means of production control exclusively by the capitalist can be set into motion producing only by the employment of the working class. The workers must at all costs be reduced to only a material force of production like the machines used by the workers. The worker is to be seen as input costs, a simple extension of the tools used in production. The human capital i.e. employees has a will of its own and can hold up production by refusing to cooperate in its own exploitation. The organized working class in large-scale industry can stop the entire economy; the central role of these workers is critical fort the advancement of socialism. Small workshops or farms can never have that kind of influence on the national economy in its activity (Trotsky 1969: 93—95).

Actual tangible and essential conditions of a technology and material resources to support an absence of personal material gain are required before socialism can advance along its natural path. The precondition is created by monopoly capitalism, the greediest form of capitalism. Even though the means of production are privately owned, class consciousness of the socialized forces of production in large scale industry leads to an expanded feeling of solidarity once class understanding grows to an international movement (Trotsky 1969: 82).

At a certain level of economic concentration the working class can seek to attain more than simple reform over the conditions of work. Radicals in the revolution in order to acquire power must set for itself the goals that can be achieved, by contemplating the strength of the adversary and set up its strategies accordingly. Both subjectively the will to fight for equality by the workers, and the resolve to maintain privilege by the capitalists, is treated like a set of objective factors. So are support of the other classes, the power in control of military resources on both sides, international aid to both sides and the level of development of the economy. At some point only limited options are the issues that can be dealt with. If we do not take direct action then socialism will not happen. The capitalist by the objective forces in capitalism have the advantage. Without the active will of the working class and their allies we can never win anything. Socialist psychology grows only when the objective conditions make socialism possible, and continues to grow as the struggle for socialism advances, and socialism ultimately become the precondition for the complete socialist psychology (Trotsky 1969: 96—99).

Because the workers are the most exploited of the classes under capitalism, they cannot free themselves without abolishing exploitation in general. Because the working class is the most important class in capitalist production they can only grow in strength once properly organized. Socialism is the primary mechanism for the freeing of the laboring classes from oppression. With out an ever-expanding practical democracy, socialism is inconceivable (Kautsky 1964: 1-2).

The two statements above show that both Lenin and Kautsky agreed on the necessary leadership of the working class, and the need to form alliances with other oppressed groups. Their disagreement was based upon the nature of that leadership, and the degree of mass participation in the central organs of the party. Social movements have internal roots, and are a part of a nations particular history. The social movement of any country must be understood within the historical context of that country

(Cabral; Luxemburg).

Most social movements begin modestly in its vision, some of them become more comprehensive, elaborate, and radical. A radical coalition with established liberalism, while sometimes necessary, limits the possibilities of its accomplishments. Radical social movements must move beyond these narrow limits if it is to grow and survive. Radicals, on the other hand, can become isolated if they refuse to work with reformist coalitions when the need arises. These coalitions are usually necessary at the beginning of a movement. Many moderate socialists often feel it is a mistake to go beyond these coalitions. To work with reformist coalitions merely provide a foundation for further social change. The strength of an alliance or popular front is not only cooperation, but also the recognition of the differences (Luxemburg 1970).

The working class is the only class capable of emancipating the exploited position of the poor farmer. Only the workers can lead society toward equality, democracy, end of coercion, end of the domination by the church, expropriation and redistribution of wealth of the capitalist (Trotsky 1969: 71).

The working class can gain power only through a popular rising, national devotion, cooperation, and public spirit. The radical working class will become the government of the people as the only leader against privilege, totalitarian government, antiquated, brutality of a market economy and private property (Trotsky 1969: 75).

Radical workers in the revolution will find support in the conflict between rich and poor peasant, farm workers and the capitalist farmers, “progressive villagers”, and those whose access to the lands are being lost (Trotsky 1969: 76). The main bone of contention between the revolution and the small farmer, at first at least is collectivism and internationalism (Trotsky 1969: 77).

The outcome of any revolution is born from internal contradictions, yet its success or failure depends upon long-term international trends. A world economy with a market ideal can overpower a national economy no matter how revolutionary. The revolution either simply democratic or democratic and socialist cannot escape this logic. Trotsky, Luxemburg, and Cabral all saw this truth in their respective revolutionary struggles. Each revolution has an important impact on any and all revolutions that follow. Socialist of all countries must maintain a deep sense of international solidarity. If not the forces of a highly organized market economy can prove more powerful than any socialist country can cope with, i.e. Cuba in the 1990’s (Luxemburg 1970).

International solidarity and national struggles are a necessity born out by the fact that capitalism is a highly integrated world system. Only through this unity can socialism ever develop and survive. The collapse of socialist economies around the world in the 1990’s prove the age of national economies is forever gone. Even the most sincere struggle of national liberation is doomed before it ever starts. Luxemburg and Trotsky saw this following the Bolsheviks coming to power in Russia. Then it seemed to many hopeful revolutionaries as overly pessimistic, today it cannot be denied.

Uniting all the nations of the world jointly with a distinct all encompassing mode of production and distribution with its corresponding commerce, capitalism has transformed the whole world into but one and only one economic and political organic structure. Without unbroken assistance of the working class outside of Russia and without the success of establishing Revolutionary Governments in other lands also aiding the Russian Revolution, the working class lost power in Russia its political power was transitory. Without an international solidarity no socialist revolution can succeed. The unlimited political rule of the toiling masses cannot be established, economic control of industry by the workers remains a dream. The collectivist dream will remain just out of reach (Trotsky 1969: 105—107).

The capitalist will without a historical understanding of its own foundations and the caustic groundwork of its expansion. Copy that organization of its growth even if that impairs its own totality and the foundation of the existence of a market economy. The capitalist gaspingly hold tight to anything that will save its property no matter how menacing this is to the rest of society particularly laboring people and their allies. Ultimately the capitalist will protect its property no matter what risk this is to neo-liberal economics or their own political power even if this entails sacrificing their democratic ideals. Lasciviousness and lewdly the capitalist will go after any and each reactionary group or social energy that worships with total idolatry private property (Trotsky 1969:108).

Capitalism expands beyond what even the world economy can maintain, and only by expanding human misery can the profit of private property continue to grow.

The less the revolutionary working class wait for the appearance of liberal democracy to give it freedom the less it has to barter away its essence to capital for the illusion of reform. The clearer it becomes that the workers should know what they really need the less will these same workers have to accommodate to the fanciful sluggishness and mawkish ludicrous drool of the professional class and their repugnance of exclusive deliverance and xenophobic individualism. The battle of the workers becomes increasingly inapplicable for liberal goals. The more aware the workers are of their separation from liberalism, the more determined the struggle for collective stewardship of the all the land and resources and the more intense the fight for egalitarian distribution becomes. Socialism breeds the determination to battle for the completion of socialism or true communism. No whining and bewailing but open fighting for socialism. The political leadership can and must fall into the hands of the workers. It is the only class that can lead the rest of society to true democracy (Trotsky 1969: 121).

The liberal revolution is a revolution led by the capitalists and their intellectual supporters. If the working class party remains the left wing of the democratic front the socialist will have to face the fact that the capitalist class will oppose the workers in any reform that threatens property. Within the loyal opposition the issue of property cannot be challenged the threat of the reaction my unite worker and capitalist in the short run, but the ultimate enemy of the working class is capitalism. The farmers came to see that the liberals has much in common with the large land owner, the rural poor’s only hope for radical land redistribution is with the working class coming to power (Trotsky 1969: 127).

Industrialization is the generator of cultural evolution in modern times; the industrial working class is at the front of this change. The worldview of the workers becomes the theoretical foundation of socialism. The workers have a collective existence already. This is a worldwide movement and socialism can succeed in one nation only by expanding to other nations. The resources of the advanced must be shared with the underdeveloped ones for socialism to firmly take root in the less developed countries (Trotsky 1969: 144 145).

Within the capitalist world economy there is uneven development between countries, and between industries within a particular country. National idiosyncrasy is the most common outcome of this unevenness. The uneven development of different branches of the local economy, different economic class within a country, social institutions, this is the expression of these peculiarities. National culture, civilization, countrywide prototypes is the consolidation of this unevenness; encumbrance to social progress is also a result of the unevenness (Trotsky 1969: 148).

Power can be either progressive or reactionary, it all depends on which class is the ruling class. State power is always political, cultural and ideological; meaning the economic core of world capitalism is always an issue for radical socialist to deal with even in a workers state. Every country is integrated into the world market economy, and this dependency maybe lessened by a socialist revolution, but capitalism still must be struggled against even after the local revolution wins power (Trotsky 1969: 152). Between the establishment constitutional government and the socialist formulation of society there is a continuity of revolutionary progress. Through a process of continuous domestic struggle, all social relations are reshaped based upon the changes of international trends (Voyeikov 1994: 7).

Capitalist development must grow and change with the businesslike growth of its foundation. Because of its irresolvable incongruity a market economy must enlarge its total control worldwide. At the core export markets grows in importance. Unmanageable expansion and everlasting emergency is primary to the underlying basis of capitalism. These flaws are the progress of capitalism and its ever-present impending doom and expiration. The energy of a collective economy is the expropriation of private corporate property and the nationalization of industry as well as planning of the uses of the means of production. Its weakness is its isolation (Trotsky 1969: 153).

The underlying philosophy and political culture in specific are important, a political revolution is a component of this worldview, having an internal logic and movement that can and does interrupt unmistakably the course of the world economy, but does not exterminate its penetrating laws, ultimate causes and forces (Trotsky 1969: 154).

Farming people because of their isolation, and the diversity of its social organization means the rural population can only choose between defending the revolutionary working class or reactionary capitalist class. Who wins the struggle between workers and capitalist in part determines who wins a separate struggle between rich farmer and poverty-stricken small family farms in the struggle in the countryside (Trotsky 1969: 194).

The working class creates democratic administration or workers self-management collectives. These will guide the offensive accomplishments of the working masses, which attract into a confederation with the workers both the rural poor and the military. The absolute democratic sovereignty of all the people is a must and the predominant position of the working class is central. Uninterrupted persistent revolution means any and forms of privilege must be attacked by the working poor (Trotsky 1969: 209).

In the less developed nations foreign capital is released promptly into large capital-intensive industry. This creates a large highly class conscious working class. There is no other candidate in this history to lead the revolution than the industrial working-class, even the liberal entrepreneur and professional will side with the old order reactionaries to protect its property. This means that the liberal democratic revolution proceeds at once into a socialist democratic revolution (Trotsky 1969: 215—220).

Finance capital is the ruling faction of capitalist in all capitalist countries. This is true notwithstanding of the fact that technique of control differs greatly from country to country. With this being the case the workers within a socialist government will be different in each country. Even if participatory democracy is established, even though the revolutionary control of the democratic government of all working people is central to any real democracy (Trotsky 1969: 253).

The peculiarity of a nation, which has not completed its democratic revolution, must begin with the type of movement that defines the important meaning of democracy that becomes the foundation for any specific approach of the revolutionary front line. With the level of capitalist development setting the tone for those leading to a largely revolutionary working class must be also concerned with broadminded principles. The solution for the majority of civil liberties leads to socialist humanism. Colonialism deepens oppression in the underdeveloped countries that leads in the direction of a national democratic revolution followed immediately by a socialist egalitarian revolution. The law of uneven development holds sway over the relations between nations and the forces and classes within the colonial state. An adjustment of the uneven processes of economics and politics can be determined only on a world scale. No country can build socialism within its own nationwide boundaries because productive forces of capitalism exist world wide, making socialism within a single country crippled from the start (Trotsky 1969: 254—255).

It is likely for workers to come to power in an economically underdeveloped country before it will in a well-developed nation. Liberal Capitalist and middle classes becomes a reactionary and counter-revolutionary. Losing their liberal potential even before they win their own revolution capitalism is morally bankrupt. The pathfinder situation of the working class in any revolution means it is the working majority that pushes the revolution forward to the foremost limits that has a real chance to see significant improvements in their lives. All other classes of the toiling poor cannot help but follow the lead of working people who are aware of the source of the economic sufferings. Socialist revolution is but the logical outcome of a democratic liberal revolution abandoned by liberal capitalists. Socialist revolution in this way is permanent, liberal reform cannot solve the problems created by the liberal revolution. Socialist revolution is but a necessity that all reforms will lead to. Socialism will lead to collectivization, communism and the ultimate democratic fulfillment of all aspects of life. Socialism either opens the door to further radical revolutions or it collapses in on itself (Trotsky 1969: 180-182).

Either the revolution will break the narrow national bounds, or it will remain limited in its possibilities. If the socialist revolution is overthrown than it will only be a capitalist social movement. The working class and the small farmers working together must overcome the worldwide counterrevolution if socialism is to survive. The revolution must continuously widen its scope at home and its base worldwide. The revolution must remain always revolutionary. All the resources of the state and economy within a socialist country must be thrown into the revolution. If the revolution slows down than it retreats and dies (Trotsky 1969: 184).

The workers government can only be such a government when representatives of the working class command and direct the political institutions of the state. The masses led by the working class, in accord with the goal of socialism, must fortify its power and its will to widen the foundation of the revolution by incorporating allies, but the wage workers will always stand at the lead of the revolution (Trotsky 1969: 70).

Once the socialist take power the demarcation between ultimate objective and its beginning aim fail to have any importance for setting up revolutionary policy, as every thing leads to the final goal of collective stewardship of the resources of production and equal distribution of life’s necessities (Trotsky 1969: 78).

National capital can only be understood in its relationship to a world market economy. Particular characteristics of the national economy are but an elemental piece of the world economy; this is why all communist or socialist movements must be part of an international struggle (Trotsky 1969: 148).

Permanent revolution means an immediate passing from one to another form the democratic revolution to the socialist revolution. The revolution cannot give rise to any concession with any pattern of class rule, no permanent compromise with the liberal bourgeoisie only temporary holding patterns of reform. Not stopping the political democracy and civil rights of socialism and communism are always in the plan of action. To all revolutionaries all enemies of socialism on a world scale will be resisted in its every turn. Every subsequent step of the revolution is solidly grounded in the prior ones and only the workers can abolish class rule. Between the democratic revolution and socialism a condition of continuous revolutionary development (Trotsky 1969: 130—132).

Communist collectives are based upon the democratic participation of the actual producers becomes the arrangement of the day. This destroys the boundary between maximum and minimum programs. The main impediment is the relation of the material and social forces within society. Once the radical working class gains control over the revolution, they must keep the revolution within their grasps at all times driving the revolution forward or lose to some other class or faction of a class (Trotsky 1969: 80).

Revolution like the rest of a radical working class culture is always cosmopolitan. In the beginning the urban workers were derived from many isolated village cultures. In this new industrialized setting the dislocated rural peoples form a new culture when they move to town to find work. The philosophy of socialism helps the radicalized working people to understand the trauma of the industrial environment. Radical urban industrial culture is born from both the lived experience of industrialization and the melding of several eccentric village cultures into something distinct. Revolution also feeds upon revolutions in other nations. While both national and international influences are important, this sharing of ideas between nations and applying them to unique national circumstances creates a new living culture. Finally, many urbanized radicals move back to their farm villages, bring with them new radical ideas that are intermingled with ancient tradition to create a culture of resistance in the countryside. These new traditionalist then move to town bringing together of new traditionalist of many distinct backgrounds to merge with the urban radical culture (Luxemburg 1970).

Social movements are a collective reaction to shared disappointing conditions of the lived experiences of the participants. Evolving processes, of antagonism and adaptation come to pass when major social tendencies produces conflicts and public opposition based upon the psychological need for a refutation of the impact of that trend, upon traditional ways of doing things. Movements are born from a history of traumatic disruption and dissension. Market economies disrupt social protection over land, labor, and resources that are protected by tradition and social obligations. Powers beyond the gods destroy the traditional idyllic confidence with the past (Robert and Kloss 1974: 1-32; Wolf 1969: 276-302).

Because of the deep perceived sense of injustice, which leads to the feeling of frustration. The old world is fallen apart and the new one is not acceptable. People simply lose faith in the established authority; there is weakening in confidence people have of the rulers. A new set of confrontational beliefs often made up of older traditional and imported radical ideas that in combination make sense to the oppressed emerges (Szymanski and Goertzel: 322-327; Heberle 1951: 1-19).

Social movements continue to move toward even more radical demands, or it stagnates giving the reaction time to mobilize to regain, what the class of privilege sees as lost ground. The Revolution moves from small reform to ever more radical demands with each victorious change. Each failure is turned into bases for mobilization to regain ground lost to the Revolution and to move to even more radical demands. There can never be a middle ground of collaboration. With each issue being defined as revolutionary or reactionary there is never a middle ground. Revolution or reaction is the battle cry. The moderate is soon left behind to join the camp of the reaction, or caught in the crossfire. Power is the issue, with power comes justice, equality and freedom

(Luxemburg 1970: 31-40; Heberle 1951: 23-37).

Without a radical ideology there can be no revolutionary activity. The role from the very beginnings of that courageous struggle can be fulfilled only by a coterie that is directed by the most well developed theory (Lenin 1973: 29). The leadership according to Lenin is founded upon a sound theory that acts as a practical guide to action. To have a weak theory or no theory at all is the results of unawareness of the historical sociology of the reality people have to deal with in their struggle for emancipation. Imperialism is more than an abstract concept. It is not only a relationship between nations, but also a lived experience of real people. When an ample number of individual and collective experiences have been accumulated and analyzed it well provide the means the revolutionaries need to define a general line of thought and action with the aim of getting rid of the lack of historical understanding and following a strategy that has a hope of success (Cabral 1969: 92-93).

Lenin claims workers left to their own devices will never evolve beyond simple trade unionism. The impulsive and spontaneous resistance of workers to their exploitation on the job is a substance of their basic nature, according to Lenin. From this rebellion while it remains undisciplined will exemplify not anything more or less than the awareness of their exploitation. It is an undeveloped pattern of social awareness; the workers have at this stage. Even these rudimentary disorders assert the cause of oppression in the hearts of the workers. This is natural result of the lives and working conditions of the workers. To the worker this spontaneous reaction serves as a wake up call for political understanding of a specific type and amount. The workers demonstrate the need for the radical leadership in the party to excite opposition between workers and employers. Lenin would further state that without a vanguard the workers can never appreciate the antagonistic and irreconcilable differences between their working class interests and the sum total current political-economy of the world market economy. They are not yet socialists. This must be brought to them by a small group of people who are educated, and privileged yet strongly identify with the dispossessed working poor. The working class by it self cannot go beyond the trade union identity or simple political democracy (Lenin 1973: 36-37). This is the core philosophy of the vanguard party. Both syndicalism and the position held by Rosa Luxemburg that workers learn socialism in the process of struggle and not brought in from the outside (Luxemburg 1971: 289).

Socialism without democracy as a way to liberate the masses is unimaginable. Socialism is both the public organization of production, but also an extension of democracy. Socialism cannot be separated from democracy. Democracy requires public control. The working class being a majority of a highly industrial society can acquire political power by making use of existing freedoms. The despotism of capitalism has difficulty regulating the compulsion needed for the obstruction of democracy (Kautsky 1971: 1—11).

The more firmly established political democracy is within a society, the longer democracy has historically been central to the politics of that society the more all minority groups have in protecting their rights. The more power in the hands of the people the more any minority can oppose the pretensions of any party which tries to retain control over the government at all costs. Any socialist party must make the protection of minorities extremely important. All current doctrine, be they based upon theory or strategy convictions of principle with assumption that minorities are important, many times in the foremost standards of that doctrine minority representation is its nucleus (Kautsky 1971: 33).

Democracy is the key foundation for the making of a socialist society with its public control of production. Only through democracy does the working class gain the fully developed skills needed the form socialism and democracy test the maturity of the workers (Kautsky 1971: 42).

The pure labor unionist and the revolutionary conspirator, according to Lenin, share the worship of spontaneity. The anarchist-syndicalist, Lenin claims, surrender to the myth of sudden inspiration of action of the pure working class struggle, while the terrorists give away to the impetuousness of the burning moral rage of the isolated intellectual. The intellectuals in their isolation are unable to join up with the struggle of the working class at the job site and in the working class communities. The intellectual is not part of the working class as a whole, unless they take on a working class identity and world-view (Lenin 1973: 92-95; Cabral 1969: 110).

Union activity as well as running for office through legitimate elections are carefully thought about ways to educate and progressively show the path that the working class can learn to accept control over their lives and for the need to seize political power to obtain socialism. This working through the system is only a means of training workers to take control over the economy and political institutions of society for the benefit of the workers. The fight for socialism and total democracy cannot be limited to legal methods as the capitalist still control the rules of the game for their benefit. Through labor activism and parliamentary struggles the appreciation of class-consciousness for the workers to become more socialist is established, and the laboring class is organized as a class of workers. If legitimate political and union activity is foolishly considered as apparatus for the socialization of the capitalist economy, the revolutionary working class loses their capability to establish socialism and no longer prepare all the workers to take over society as a whole in their conquest of power (Luxemburg 1971: 85—86).

As soon as the short-term practical gains become the principle aim of the working struggles, class-consciousness is lost, and the working class party stands in the way of the working class coming to power. All reforms no matter how it benefits the workers by improving their lives will still leave the capitalists in power and the ultimate cause of most societies ills the unequal distribution of wealth and power. Socialism will be the result entirely of the ever-growing disparity of rich and poor; weak and strong because of capitalism and the understanding by the workers that overthrow of these contradictions through social reorganization is inescapable (Luxemburg 1971: 87—88).

The philosophy of Socialism, started growing out of the vision of those educated individuals who identified with the working poor. The Socialist Movement developed from historical and economic theories that were refined by the intellectual’s representatives of the class with property (Lenin 1973: 37).

Bakunin held that the freeing from oppression of the worker must be the responsibility of the workers themselves, and not an intellectual vanguard

(Bakunin 1971: 295).

It would be terrifying for all people if a small group of party intellectuals had any real authority, beyond persuasion. All experts tend to exaggerate their importance, and any professional who believe in their own BS is of course a tyrant. Education is for all the people, and both the teacher and student continuously change roles, as we all learn from well thought out experience. Theory is created out of lived experiences. Minority rule is minority rule, and is based upon the unfounded faith of the stupidity of the masses (Bakunin 1971: 295-332).

In reality both Lenin and Bakunin are right, yet socialism cannot be socialism unless it resonates with the lived experience of the poor and working people. The goal of the revolution is a collective society; policy will be chosen that will shorten the path to socialism. The goal of all reforms within the minimum program is modest improvement in workers lives as soon as possible. Each compromise will be the foundation for further struggles; each victory and each reform will be used to further the long-term goals of socialism. Political democracy remains shallow and incomplete without moving toward economic democracy and finally political democracy there is no political freedom with wage slavery. With the ultimate slogan of expropriation without compensation the long rang goals are kept alive (Trotsky 1969: 100—101).

It is the objective conditions that create the class division of society, the working class is a class in itself, but not yet a class for itself, only through its awareness does a class become a class for it self by fighting the interest of the working class as a class (Marx 1963: 173-174).

Marx leaves debatable where the consciousness of a class as a class comes from, leaving wide-open Lenin’s theory of socialism coming from the outside. Marx clearly had in mind overall class interest occurs when one class confront in an antagonist way another class. Class struggle if fact if active, then conflicts will develop within the already existing discord that is readily available between two or more classes (Marx 1947: 82-95; Marx 1968: 51; Bukharin 1969: 292-293, 297).

This makes it seem likely socialism is an indigenous working class phenomenon and not brought in from the outside like Lenin assumes. When we speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, we are talking about within the shell of the older society, the elements of a newer one develops, the decay of the old ideas is replaced by newer revolutionary ones (Marx 1968: 51). The correct revolutionary ideas are important, and the wrong ones dangerous debate becomes important in the eyes of the participants.

Legal, Reform,

Revolution, Insurrection

Legal reform and revolution are distinct considerations in the progress of class struggle which shape and supplement each other yet restrain each other jointly. Every legal constitution is the product of revolution. In this relationship revolution is the creation and legislation is the political articulation of that creation. Reforms can only carry out the order bequeathed by the driving forces of the last revolution and only within the setting of the social arrangements created by the last revolution. Their basic nature and the issues of their appropriate specific possibilities distinguish revolution and reform from each other. The gist of this is that one will add to what already exists and the other radically creates something new. No code or customs in the nature of humanity require the workers to succumb to the bewitchment of capitalism, only the need to eat because workers lack access to the means of existence. The necessary resources of production belonging to the capitalist force the free worker to work for the capitalist or die. The market enslaves the worker, not the law. Humans become commodities used up in production and thrown away (Luxemburg 1917: 115).

Stretching out of the problems of capitalism are in part the result of limiting working class struggles to only the legitimate channels. The essence of revolution is to recognize this and to move between legal and illegal activities with the utmost of freedom. Inequality and the total of capitalist production must be challenged defiantly. The extremes of capitalism continue to grow world wide making all of us part of the same struggle (Luxemburg 1971: 89).

Lenin because of the fact of the secret police of the Tsar, could not see that struggle of the workers in their own lived everyday experience would have the raw materials to become radical activist and sociologist or anthropologist. As Gramsci repeatedly pointed out every class would have its own intellectuals. Whenever any class comes into existence it creates its own set of intellectuals, which give the class its identity, and awareness of its self as a class (Gramsci 1971: 5-6).

In the backward Russia of the Tsar in the early 1900’s only the industrial working class was organized or strong enough to challenge authoritarian centralized command of the state (Trotsky 1969: 66).

Socialist should show their typical democratic loyalties in the company of all the people, without ever hiding their radical socialist convictions that are necessary for democracy. The conclusion is that the political and social life of the proletariat either as a class in and of itself, or even as the beginnings of the revolutionary contest is on the inside of the fight for freedom world wide. Socialist should promote freedom of the working class as the essence of their political rallying cry and their campaign for the social movement for the struggle for equality economic, political, and social (Lenin 1973: 102-103).

Socialism is more than the democratic organization of economic production; socialism is also the democratic organization of the social life of the communities. Working class struggle for socialism takes for granted democracy, or the completion of democracy (Kautsky 1971: 4—13).

The best community for political orientation is the working class. This is true, however only after they become class conscious. Which means the workers need a broad and energetic political understanding, workers will only then become the most able at adapting this information into an active struggle. Political displays are public announcements of resistance against the state. Economic revelations are an assertion of a fight against the bosses and owners. Simply put, an alliance is needed that will coordinate the population for an extensive struggle against capital and lead discussion groups to inspire. This creates distinctively acute knowledge on the causes of the origin of the oppression of the toiling masses. Only at that point can the radical develop as the forefront of the revolutionary action of our time (Lenin 1973: 109-110).

A class can be the ruling force through its influence of a nation state. It would appear exclusively that the act of governing directly is not always a possibility. This is true for an economic class as it is for an indistinct conglomerate of individuals. While only a coordinated assemblage of administrators within government can truly govern, class interests remain important influences. It is the legitimate political parties within government, which manages a democracy. A political party is not indistinguishable from the class, which most directly benefits from its platform. Class and party remains distinct even though it is most likely, that in the long run, any party will try to exemplify a class advantage for the class it ultimately supports. Only once in a while does a party have the proper mix of people so that the party and the class it represents can regulate enough energy in the right amount so that the party and indirectly the class it represents can govern the State by itself. If a class through its party attains power, and finds out that it cannot hold that power by its own authority, it looks for collaborators in other classes (Kautsky 1971: 31).

Sensible policy of the organized radical industrial working class will need to have the inclination to summon to power significant leaders among the intellectuals, small farmers, professionals, small business owners and other lower middle class people. Caution must be maintained to insure ultimate power resides with the workers. These allies of the workers are at best undependable, contradictory and ungrounded in rational theory (Trotsky 1969: 69—70).

When industrial capitalism’s growth begins to slow down dramatically, then union power will also decline. The demand for labor power slows while the supply of labor continues to increase. The declining growth in profits based solely upon increased production means the capitalist will make an increase effort to reduce the part of the total gross product going to the workers as wages. Unions then are reduced to only to defending already made gains in the struggle against capital. The fundamental limits of social reform must appease capital in the form of compromise only. In this struggle all reforms in the future are going to be limited by the interests of capital not labor (Luxemburg 1971: 76-77).

Class character of the state means the state takes on increasingly more coercive role over ever-larger domains. Democracy is increasingly tamed by parliamentary restraints. Parliamentary form of government is nothing but class rule. This is true by the fact that simply the rules of the game no matter how powerful the socialist become exist to protect private property of the capitalist. If democracy ever betrays the interests of the capitalist class, democracy must be suspended. Parliamentary democracy cannot be used as a socialist tool for progressively and firmly replacing capitalist society with socialism. Political democracies, at this time, will all the time continue to put limits on further development of economic and social democracy. Production under capitalism becomes more socialized leading to more not less state intervention, yet with the growth of monopoly capitalism private property remains the core of the economy and the state reflects this. Parliamentary democracy stands as the organization of the capitalists by controlling the rules of the game for the benefit of the capitalist class (Luxemburg 1971: 83—85).

Every major Government, even a truly revolutionary one, before long brings to light that its adversary will abuse its rights. These same governments, this includes political dictatorships tries to look at itself as if to be the expression of the whole people, and not just the class they truly represent (Kautsky 1971: 85).

Each government will describe its role and its rule to be representing that of the whole country. The government in power will claim whatever does not agree with the rulers cannot be appropriate for the nation as a whole (Kautsky 1971: 87).

The active capability of the state is class interests. Government, the press, education, religion, the civil bureaucracy, military, police, courts and prison interact through the state, and the state becomes a mechanism to control the producers by the ruling class. Every political party will try to capture political power and control the state for the class it represents. Any socialist party that truly represents the working class will fight for the workers. Capitalism creates the working class, and the working class will have its own party of socialism to over throw capitalism (Trotsky 1969: 62).

Every state will attempt to mold the new arrangement of the government and public domain in a tradition comparable to the distinctive interests of the rulers. The slogan of the common people of the nation in the early 1900’s began with Universal Franchise and Civil Liberties (Kautsky 1971:27).

The most energetic tool of the struggle of the working class is in its numbers. We could not free ourselves until we became the largest class. When the workers replaced farmers and shopkeepers as the largest class, the struggle began (Kautsky 1971:29).

Society is made up of diametrically opposing classes with clashing interests, goals, ambitions, and understandings. They are separate and conflicting cultures. Universal science that is the same for all classes is absurd. Theoretical progressiveness, virtue, ethics and needs that are the same for all classes are an illusion (Luxemburg 1971: 126).

Only the workers are in an objective position to lead the way toward socialism. Only the workers have the objective interests in socialism in both the short and long run. They have the will to fight against those whose narrow interests stand in the interests of socialism and the majority of the people (Trotsky 1969: 92).

Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat as it was called was to be the transition between capitalism and communism. This was meant to be the government of the working class, not a dictatorship of a single person, party or committee. The above was meant to be not a form of government, but a condition that occurs when the working class has obtained by the energy of their struggle power to control the political and economic distribution of wealth and power (Kautsky 1971: 43).

General wealth not poverty is the natural starting point for socialism. Political dictatorship and civil war further weakens the possibility of socialism. Capitalism is the precondition for socialism. Socialism comes about where the workers gained experience in self-rule through labor unions and parliamentary democracy. Governmental dictatorship cannot bring about the general prosperity of all, nor establish political, economic or social democracy that is the essence of socialism (Kautsky 1971:92—93).

The material foundation of society and not the desires of the dictator will decide the success of socialism (Kautsky 1971:102).

With modern corporations the exploitation and oppression of the workers increases and does not become more democratic. It is the working class and not the capitalist that fights for democracy. Democracy is extended only through class struggle by the workers, and is constantly under attack by the capitalist. In this democracy direct participation of wageworkers in important economic decisions hastens the decay and collapse of capitalism; thus the capitalists will always fight against democracy as much as they fight against socialism, which is democracy’s twin sister. The transformation to socialism assumes a prolonged and continuous battle, the power between the capitalist and workers will go first in the direction of the workers only to be taken back by the capitalist many times. The premature seizure of state power is very likely in all socialist revolutions. Each attempt nurtures the conditions for final victory. One revolutionary struggle becomes the foundation for the next. Each attempt to capture power and establish socialism only strengthens the next attempt and should be encouraged. The premature attempt is part of the larger struggle. Each premature attempt is necessary and right. Caution and not bold dreams is the enemy of socialism (Luxemburg 1971: 119—123).

Socialism is the result of economic destiny and the knowledge of that is essential for the workers. This leads to the destruction of capitalism by the working masses of the people. That central fact of capitalism is its moral disorder is what is at issue. Like all historical societies capitalism came into being and will collapse. The replacement should be democratic socialism or true communism not bureaucratic rigidity nor brutality of humanity cannibalizing it self (Luxemburg 1971: 98-102).

The final goal of socialism is and always will be the main theme of any socialist party true to its name; reform is only short-term strategy to strengthen the workers and to lessen their burden. Capitalism cannot be reformed, only its more extreme abuses can be fought. The contradictions of production for profit ultimately leads to the spreading of human misery and the rebellion of class-conscious workers (Luxemburg 1971: 52—60).

The state is a capitalist state when the capitalist class gained political mastery over the older ruling classes. When the capitalist class interests become dominant the functions of the state then began to expand to control the economic environment. First liberty was designed to free the capitalist from previous social obligations, and then the greatly expanded role of the professional bureaucracy was to control the environment including the growing resistance of the working class (Luxemburg 1971: 79).

The policy of maintaining a strong military ready for action is necessary to defend the “national interests” of the capitalist class, the means of investments for financial and industrial capitalist, plus class domination over the workers of any and all lands (Luxemburg 1971: 82).

The participants in a democratic movement should unite into one coalition of comrades to force the government to act in the name of all the working people. The revolutionary preparation by the most militant of the proletariat must defend public liberty, while directing the economic struggle of the working class as a whole, and bringing together an ever-expanding collection of the total working class (Lenin 1973: 109-111).

The unexpected social movements of the working class left to its own logic can give birth to only minor reforms of trade unions, feared Lenin. With the Capitalist State the politics of working class labor union are definitely working class politics defined and limited by the rules of the state and official capitalist ideology (Lenin 1973: 117).

This only confuses short-term goals with the final struggle. Socialism is lived not made, and every struggle is but a prelude to further struggles for even greater freedom. The working class ultimately can only learn of socialism through its own daily struggles. The vanguard at any time either becomes intellectuals separated from working class issues by the remoteness of the scholarly life, or of the sectarian cults of obscurity. The overly romantic affirmation of the radical intellectual is often confused with that of a professional revolutionary. When this happened, ideological chastity is often the beginning of sectarian isolation. This further serves to isolate the revolutionary intellectual from the rank and file working class. Thus, leaving the radical both within and outside of the working class vulnerable to repression by government of the capitalist class as was the case of the IWW and peace socialist during and after W.W.I and the Communist and other left socialist in the us after W.W.II. The left in the US was in both cases too weak to organize a mass resistance. The working class came under the bureaucratic leadership of cowardly conservative business unionists. Marxism loses its working class roots and becomes either a disciplined academic masturbation, or a middle class whimsical disappointment (Kipnis 1952: 421-429).

The reality is that normally most workers were able to show a great deal of brave behavior in their personal commitment to a strike and show courage with their on going conflict with the bosses. This was important because the entire establishment of law was only used to protect the property of the owners. These same workers were capable of setting up the struggle to maximize the accomplishment of the strike given the power of the other side. This has a direct effect of bringing the larger labor movement to the lives of the working class community in the area. The fight for immediate demands by all the toiling people is always important and the foundation for a struggle for an ever expanding democratic roles of the working class. This was also true for Lenin, but in Russia of Lenin’s time the fight against the terror of the secret police required special qualities for the professional revolutionaries. This vanguard struggled along side of the rest of the working class, but was the permanent core of the revolution. They were to encourage the workers to advance concrete demands, and to increase the numbers of revolutionaries with the ranks of that working class (Lenin 1973: 135).

The role of the vanguard party in Czarist Russia could not be exaggerated. This vanguard role was always limited from the start, and failure to realize this proved fatal in the end. The “truth” as seen and understood by Lenin is that the rank and file workers are spontaneously being attracted into the labor movement. This movement makes the association of the working poor into a united army of organized and disciplined toilers. This is unexpected, from the owners’ point of view. Rousing the rabble to action. This ragtag group of drudges struggling against these same owners in unity that will cause among the capitalist class as a whole such an over reaction and will promote among the working class ever enlarging quantity of skilled revolutionaries to fill leadership roles (Lenin 1973: 136).

What Lenin missed was that non-working class intellectuals couldn’t export socialism to the workers from the outside. Socialism will only be embraced when the workers themselves come to see socialism as their product created out of their own lived experiences. Radical ideas come from radical practice. Once the idea fits with the lived experience of the workers it in turn becomes the guide the revolutionary worker lived by. Ideas that were born from practice and error and practice again in turn guided further practice (Mao 1966: 135).

A working class organization must also be a labor union, as comprehensive as the current social circumstances will allow. However for Lenin, the vanguard should remain obscure as possible as far as the employing class and government officials in Russia were concerned because of the conditions of the autocratic state where the working class lack political rights found in most of the Western European societies of his day. The association of activist (rabble-rousers) must be composed of folks willing to make the revolutionary movement their craft and profession. Revolution becomes a life style as far as the existing political potential is concerned. Revolutionary fellowships required the separation between the workers and intellectuals are removed, and the separation between unskilled labor, skilled trades and professions will have to be taken apart piece by piece. If political rights are not protected than the leadership must remain small and hidden from the view of government officials. This to Lenin this was exclusive responsibility of the radical professional. The revolutionary was to take an advantageous position within existing unions while remaining active and efficient in the direction of future socialism. Every socialist should work in the union at their job site and any other progressive community affiliation (Lenin 1973: 138-143).

Socialist Democracy will replace liberal capitalist democracy with a democratic direction that wisdom will nurture and that will denote the method for the entire laboring class in their battle for equality (Lenin 1973: 144-145).

The organization of capitalism only breeds hunger for the many, ecological putrefaction for us all, cravenness for the few. The assumption that the working class in a political democracy will have to give up its revolutionary goals is always false. Political democracy has not eliminated class antagonism, because it has left economic exploitation in tact. The ultimate goal of the overthrow capitalist society is still central to working class politics. Political democracy will warn against premature and reckless attempts at revolution before the working class has the power to rule, and it may lessen significantly the violence necessary to carry out a revolution. The democratic processes give a clear reading on the relative strength of the class-conscious working class. The final overthrow is not eliminated, however meanwhile the workers even in a capitalist society can win real concessions from the capitalist class. To many revolutionary workers this may seem much too slow, but power is a real concern if success is to be gained. Class struggle cannot be limited by legal or legitimate methods, but these same peaceful methods must also be used as they simplify the necessary sacrifices (Kautsky 1971: 36—37).

Revolution both social and political is a swift action by large masses of people that directly reverse the relative strength of the classes in a society. Those classes kept out of power gain control over the means of government. The more democratic the government, the more likely the revolution will be peaceful. The revolution cannot but be limited by capabilities of the people to assimilate the revolutionary agenda (Kautsky 1971: 56).

The mass strike to be triumphant will break out by surprise in specific circumstances. Most important it will occur spontaneously (Kautsky 1971: 72).

The mass strike once it breaks out by unimpeded and unexpected, political parties and labor unions rigidity off times frustrates the actions taken by the workers (Kautsky 1971: 72).

It is necessary for radicals to bring about a far-reaching a communication network. These same militants must reach as many workers as feasible about their leftist arguments in order to make known to the widest numbers the understandable ideas about class struggle within the nation of workers. A modestly succinct nucleus of those activists that show the greatest dependability, capability and discipline among the workers, for Lenin, is the important center of revolutionary activity. The contradiction between popular democracy and revolutionary discipline is where Lenin receives his greatest criticism (Lenin 19173: 145).

The following is a paraphrase of Lenin’s theory of a vanguard party, as can be seen the critical environmental issue is the police state Lenin was dealing with. The revolutionary professional was necessary for the revolution. It is also important to have groups of activist in each locality; united to other progressive groups. The core that unites these groups must remain underground and must be unseen to the bosses. This forms the center within the radical labor groups themselves. With the widest aid from the rank and file that can be achieved, while through the larger organizations the small revolutionary core provides services needed for a trade union and labor party even in a police state. Beginning with the firm structure and a powerful organization of revolutionaries there is a promise of stability in the social movement. The entire labor movement is brought under a single management. The revolutionaries together with the entire labor and community groups are united in popular action, carrying out the aims of socialism, and democracy. Labor unions need protection in the face of repression from any totalitarian government. Radicals must have an organized council of skilled activist. For a successful revolution it is not important one way or the other if any single student or worker is able to become a revolutionary, it is important that the analysis of the professional revolutionary matches the social reality of the workers. No insurrection can grow and survive without a sturdy organization of advance guard that retains its primary goals (Lenin 1973: 145-52).

The more thoroughly the common people are brought into class struggle, the more they will become an integral part of the support of the movement for socialism. Workers must take part in the necessary tasks of revolutionary action. This becomes the society of radical workers; this is a Cultural Revolution. The leadership of radicals must become a more complete organization of revolutionaries, if it is to become the vanguard. The essence of the structure of the movement is composed of a small group that is professional revolutionaries. Under a tyrannical government, the more we restrict the body of members of the leadership core to the people who are experienced in practicing revolutionary activity the more stable the party. People, who have been skilled in preparation of creating the aptitude of opposing the governmental control, will also become the people who can fight the more troublesome parts of their domination by creating an association to erase government support for the oppressors. The small vanguard allows the larger populace of the working class to become capable of uniting with the movement vigorously (Lenin 1973: 153).

Defense of any and all minorities is fundamental precondition for the survival of a democracy, even the political rights of the old ruling class. The rule of the majority will protect the gains of that majority (Kautsky 1971: 34).

It takes many years of experience to prepare oneself for social action and to mature as an expert social activist. The living and far-reaching support of the common people will not be hurt by, but will be further enrich by a small group of trained revolutionaries, informed and skilled in the art of revolution. These revolutionaries must concentrate all professional activity in the direction of organized social change. To escape the notice of the police they must conceal much of the conditions of their occupation. They accumulate of the skill needed. While a majority of the revolutionaries activities remains concealed from public view. The good service done in the association of these radicals will not lessen, but more willingly grow in the magnitude and accomplishment of the larger social movement. A broad sum total of diverse groups can now be effectively brought into this struggle. People brought into this movement are now better directed. Which means they have their goals more clearly in mind. The citizens belonging to more extensive popular organizations and are unfettered by the same obstacles as the professional revolutionaries face and popular activities remain as unhidden as practicable (Lenin 1973: 154-155).

In Russia Capitalism was introducing through the active intervention of the state (Trotsky 1969: 42).

During the 19th century in Russia big capital and the industrial revolution were artificially imposed upon a natural economy (Trotsky 1969:61).

The centralized government of the Tsar became independent of direct influence of the aristocracy and the large capitalist, mostly foreign, though government was dependent on both sections of the ruling classes. This became the formula for the particular type of autocratic rule the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries were dealing with. The government was both a stimuli for economic growth, because of the needs of the army, and a fetter on economic development because of autocratic control over the economic environment (Trotsky 1969: 44).

Lenin’s model of a vanguard party is limited in its moral justification to police states without minimal protection of civil rights. The less democratic the central command is the less democratic will be its results after the revolution. Louis Auguste Blanqui taught what became known as Blanquism that a small number of secret revolutionaries could make a revolution for the working class. The problem remained that through this small group of conspirators revolutionary activities would be carried out without much actual feedback by the workers in whose name this was to be done. Lenin shared this same problem with his organization. While he was more creative than many of his followers, it still remains a serious flaw that is difficult to overcome. Lenin debated with Rosa Luxemburg on the issue of nationalism. Lenin supported it and Rosa Luxemburg was that it was at most of secondary importance. In point of fact it was Polish chauvinism, which would give the church and landlords in Poland power for the reactionary opposition to democracy. The urban working class in Austria, Germany, and Russia saw common cause with the working class of each of these three nations as more likely to lead to empowerment for the workers than nationalism. Lenin in this case was out of touch with Polish workers in the 1905 Revolution. The Polish Workers would stand to lose in an independent Poland (Luxemburg 1976; Davis 1978).

The flaw in universally applying what Lenin help organize in Russia as a model for radical change everywhere in the world is the failure to distinguish among the various types of governments within the world capitalist system. The fundamental position held by Marxist Political Sociology is that the state is the result of class society. With economic stratification class antagonisms develop requiring ultimately the coercion of the state to safeguard the existing institutions of wealth and power. The state mechanisms arise when and where these natural conflicts of interests require that force will be used to preserve the peace. As long as a conflict of interest exists class antagonisms will exist and peaceful reconciliation cannot be guaranteed (Lenin 1970a: 7).

This broad overview cannot be taken as absolute. Each country will have its own history of struggle and balance of power between the classes. While the above is clearly true in all individual capitalist societies it follows that in some societies there has been significant political freedoms that have been won by the working class, and these liberties should be used as a foundation to fight for still more freedoms for the working class. Multilinear evolution assumes that there is some regularity in cultural change between different societies, but not necessarily so. This is an empirical question and not a universal. Differences also occur depending upon core economic and historical variables (Steward 1955: 18-19).

Forces of production, in the last analysis set real limits, upon the social-history of a society and its culture. The economy and the corresponding class structure are the result of possibilities and specific interests that operate within the confines of these limits.

The division of labor assumes part of the population is capable of producing a surplus, which is large enough to be taken over by the non-producing elite who controls the necessary resources (Trotsky 1969: 37).

Every change in the forces and relations of production leads to a change in the division of labor. The different types of division of labor are different forms of restrictions on the universal access to the resources of subsistence, or otherwise known as property (Marx 1947: 43).

Gramsci, while testing a major tactic for a revolutionary party to follow, also created an ideological resonance for scrutinizing the relationship between structure and super-structure in this struggle. He recorded that the popular beliefs and ideas of a mass movement can become an incentive and energy in a people’s actions. This means ideas are part of the social environment. That in a dialectical manner material forces create ideology, it becomes in turn part of the material forces (Gramsci 1971:123-205).

It is the question of the relationship between structure and the super-structure that we must first correctly understand if the trends, which are dynamic part of history of a specific era, are to be correctly examined and minutely to be understood in our actions (The Fundamentals of Marxist-Leninist Philosophy 1974:475).

The institution of the state is always a political tool of a certain class or classes. The state became necessary because of class conflict. To protect the ruling class both from itself and opposing classes, the state stands above society to represent the interest of society as a whole. The state is central to class society yet it is separated from the rest of society in the sense it stands above society with laws that apply even to those whose benefit most from those laws. Individual members of the ruling class are often forced to take positions that conflict with other members of their class because they do not want to protect the ruling class as a whole. It is true that the state is alienated from the rest of society giving a small measure of independence from its economic base. In the final analysis, however, the economic interests of the ruling class determine the state. The power of the state stands in the way of the liberation of the oppressed classes. Freedom becomes impossible without revolutionary change. One reason for this is because the entire power of the state stands in opposition to any radical change that threatens the ruling class. Total destruction of the existing government and the corresponding administrative apparatus becomes necessary before freedom is possible. This is true because any particular state was created to represent the interest of a particular class, or a certain temporary alliance of classes, and when another class comes to power the previous state apparatus will no longer suffice (Lenin 1970a: 7-9, Lenin 1970a: 8-9, Marx 1974: 143-249).

The state must back up its policy by force; in order to do this the specialized institutions of force must be in place, these are the police and the military. The state creates government to establish policy, administration to carry these policies out and or police the require compliance by coercion if necessary these policies. The state then claims the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. The military and the police are the chief means to enforce the edicts of the state. Lenin claimed because of this every revolution must begin by the destruction of the existing state. This is necessary before new institutions are created to reflect changes in class relations. The old state reflected a certain relationship of exploitation, when these relationships change the old state can no longer function properly (Lenin 1970a: 10).

The separate social formulations within the institution of the state; government, administrative bodies, police, military, public education and etc. operate to hold class conflict to a minimum. This means ordinarily the over all interests of the most powerful class, becomes the interest of the whole of society. The economically dominant class is also the politically dominant class, though sometimes indirectly, it is through the state that wealth and power is maintained. In this way the exploited classes are held in check. Only through struggle can the people on the bottom challenge this power. When warring classes balance each other out then and only then does the state gain a measure of independence from ultimate control by the upper class, though then only for the time being (Lenin 1970a: 14).

The state will act in the interest of the capitalist in the long run because the organization of the circumstances under which government operates is obligate it to carry out its business for capital in order to maintain a sound economy (Szymanski 1978: 268).

As the modern form of state develops class antagonism become more sophisticated. The state power became more of a national power of capital to control the discontent of labor. Every time workers gain more control within the state, the more autocratic becomes capital’s control over all parts of the state (Marx 1940: 55)

The totalitarian power of capital thrives in the liberal democracy of the republic. Capital becomes politically more powerful than government, not only making capital partially independent of the state, ultimately the free movement of capital means the state is often held hostage by capital through the social, cultural, ideological, and economic control of all the parts of the state by the needs of capital. All players in the legitimate politics of the capitalist state must accept the rules that maintain the power of capital (Lenin 1970a: 15-16).

This leaves the revolutionary with few options; reform can only become stepping-stones to further radical action and further reforms leading to a total revolutionary change. Any victory that brings about radical change is brought about by class struggle, will lead to only more renewed struggle on the part of the ruling class who had been forced to give up some of its power. The working class cannot allow its self to remain limited by the rules of liberal capitalist democracy (Trotsky 1969: 30).

Once power is gained it can only be maintained by continual struggle against those who directly benefited from the old order (Trotsky 1961: 15).

By capturing the control of the state from the ruling class, the toiling masses which includes the working class, destroys the founding necessity for the institutions of the existing state. The state, which is created to maintain capitalism, becomes outdated and non-functional. The new revolutionary state greatly expands democracy and dramatically lessens the role of the state and weakens its power for oppression. The old state does not simply retire from the scene; the new ruling class must consciously eliminate the structure of the old state. Only through increasing social and economic democracy for all the toiling masses does the political role of the state decline (Lenin 1970a: 20).

The essence of the state is coercion. By claiming monopoly of the legitimate use of force, the rulers of the state claim the right to eliminate any competition to its power. The state simply exists to repress certain classes for the benefit of other classes. The socialist will take possession of the state, however the tools of oppression already exist and are not a creation of the socialist. By doing this the socialist also take jurisdiction of the means of production in the name of the toiling masses. After the political control of the state is taken away from the ruling class and the majority of toilers are given more democratic control over their lives the old structure of the state in no longer adequate for the new expression of democracy (Lenin 1970a: 20-21).

Democracy is the conclusion of a struggle to include more and more people in relationships of wealth and power in ever increasing equality among all the people. Democracy is the ultimate struggle for working people, within state society. As long as state society survives democracy cannot be surpassed. Only through revolution can moderate or liberal political democracy, be replaced by social and economic democracy, and at which point the political aspects of democracy is outlived. Under capitalism the workers must defend liberal democratic rights. The capitalist will abrogate democracy, before this same democracy will be abandon by working class organizations. The capitalist class and their expert supporters used democracy to further their commitment to private property, profits, and an open market economy. In the liberal democratic republic political democracy remains shallow, limited, it is a superficial facade that hides the tyranny of wage slavery. Private property always stands opposed to democracy at any level. The market economy is always a cruel joke on the workers. The complete control over the means of coercion, formation of ideology, and the all-powerful market means a liberal market based society can never become truly democratic or completely representatively sovereign without a complete social, economic, and political revolution. This revolution must be total or it will fail and a hierarchical society will be re-established (Lenin 1970a: 22-25).

State society exists where there is serious conflict between two or more classes. Because force is monopolized by the state, force that is not authorized by the state is not legitimate, therefore illegal. This legitimate organization of violence exists to maintain order benefiting the ruling class by repressing the threat of another class. Once the workers create a revolution to seize the government for themselves, the state will no longer be used to suppress the working class. The workers to protect their gains that were made by the workers from the resistance to these gains now being made by their former oppressors the capitalist will now use the state. The working class must be willing to follow through with the suppression of the capitalist if the democratic and socialist gains won by the workers are to be protected. The wage workers has the most revolutionary potential among all the toilers, thus can unite all the working poor and exploited creating a majority against the parasitic minority. The capitalist like all previous exploiters, need to politically control their specific form of state in order to maintain their systems of exploitation. The exploited class uses politics to abolish the previous system of exploitation. (Lenin 1970a: 28).

The capitalist state is so all-inclusive that it cannot evolve by its own logic into a radical popular democracy. The people who work for a wage is the only economic class among the laboring people who lives a life style in regard to the technology, working relations and social organization used in the production of our everyday life who can take advantage of the conditions necessary for the creation of a truly social and economic democracy. If a class other than the working class comes to power new forms of exploitation will be established. The farmers, for example, are not in a position to be the leaders because of their isolation. Under capitalism the peasants are turned into agricultural workers, rural small business owners, or capitalist farmers. In advance capitalism the numbers of the self-employed and small business owners both rural and urban has become too small to lead a revolution. In the colonies and periphery they become increasingly dependent on local capitalist to lead a nation wide struggle. The two major classes contending for power are the capitalist and the working class. Lenin never looked at the growing class of educated professionals and administrators, thus for him they were not an issue. To Lenin the working class or the intellectuals who have taken on a working class identity could only lead the coming revolution. Because of mass production the working class has a collective view of economics. Because of this view the working class remains the natural leader in any democratic revolution under capitalism. Only through a working class identity can we develop a sophisticated class analysis leading to a clear understanding of class struggle. This is particularly accurate when issues of state power are at stake. It is the working class who ultimately stands the most to gain from a socialist revolution. The capitalist even after the revolution will resist socialism at every turn. To prevent the reaction from regaining power cooperation of all the toiling masses is important

(Lenin 1970a: 29-30).

All revolutions in history up till now expanded the power of the state, by increasingly developing bureaucratic structures of control. Only the working class finds it in its interests to replace bureaucracy with the first time in history with a popular democracy. This is why Lenin, believed that for the hope of a truly economic democracy to be established the republican state of the capitalist must first be smashed. Because the state being an instrument of class rule, the working class must first confiscate the state out from under the control of the capitalist class. The working people soon fined the republic cannot meet their democratic needs, and then the smashing the liberal democratic republic is simple necessity. If this smashing is not done liberal society can never be overthrown. Political democracy whitens with age as social and economic democracy grows. Laws, courts, police, military, government, bureaucracy one by one are replaced by workers and community councils (Lenin 1970a: 32-33).

Expansion of a professional bureaucracy growing with the centralizing state power reaches its ultimate conclusion under advanced capitalism. With the collapse of the monarchy the state bureaucratic structure did not wither away, the professional bureaucratic power only increased in size and importance. Bureaucracy and the standing army became increasingly central to everyday life under capitalism even with the growth of a representative republic. Even though they were massive under the rule of the absolute monarchy, the bureaucracy grew even more bulky after the democratic liberal revolutions with the birth of market capitalism. Because the military and the administrative bureaucracy are not part of capitalist production, they become a necessary parasite that was needed to control in an orderly fashion the established order of the capitalist environment (Lenin 1970a: 34).

With the growth of the modern liberal capitalist and their corresponding political revolutions, the state grew in size and importance, from a parasite to a civil bureaucracy that manages all the details of daily life of an entire population. From the late middleages until the liberal revolutions the state became increasingly expensive to the point of stifling the further economic development of the ruling classes. The state must represent the interests of the most dynamic part of the upper classes, the capitalist, who ultimately controls the economy. Yet the state came in serious conflict with the interests of other parts if not most other elements of the upper classes. The state became too expensive and too restrictive, and conflicts between purpose and function developed. A similar set of problems would develop again in the 20th century worldwide. In these conflicts the working majority soon learned that no faction among the wealthy classes represented their interests (Trotsky 1969: 39-40).

In times of crisis the middle class will share the official ideology of the monopoly capitalist including the civil religion of private property, market economy, individualism and competition. The middle class cannot help but remain subservient to capitalism.

Thus by incorporating elements of the average academic and specialist into the administrative bureaucracy the capitalist has the appearance of being a popular government. These administrative jobs become dependent upon the success and stability of the market economy thus capitalism can never be seriously challenged (Lenin 1970a:

34).

With monopoly capitalism imperialism reaches its ultimate development. The entire state apparatus becomes overly developed, thus the state becomes an increasing drain on the capitalist economy. The growth of all parts of the state is out of control because of the inherent instability of capitalism. The bureaucracy necessary for the rational control of the social environment of capital intrudes on all aspects of popular life. The increasing repression of the worker becomes total. The market economy becomes so omnipresent that to most people the economy is seen as a force of nature and a part of human condition. The market economy becomes totalitarian and is a hidden cultural reality operating even at the subconscious level (Lenin 1970a: 38).

The central motivation in the struggle to overthrow capitalism and create socialism, which will lead ultimately to communism, and this, should end all class inequality, which will become indispensable for freedom. Intensive class struggle is both the effect and the cause of revolution. With the great expansion of social democracy the privilege of property is lost. For the working poor life becomes freer, for the rich and the powerful the advantage of wealth is lost (Lenin 1970a: 41).

Dictatorship is an inherent part of all governments. Government being part of the state is also an instrument of class rule that is needed to repress other classes in their resistance to that rule, i.e. dictatorship. As long as there are class divisions there will always be some sorts of dictatorship. Politically even a democratic dictatorship or dictatorship of the working people, will be necessary to protect the democratic gains of a socialist revolutions from those who would reestablish privilege. Only when all memory of privilege is gone will social democracy finally replace the last traces of political democracy. The democratic republic under capitalism is in fact a dictatorship of the capitalist class. First in the socialist revolution is the overthrow of the dictatorship of the capitalist economy, which allows the establishment of the democratic dictatorship, which early Marxists called the dictatorship of the proletariat. Finally the greatly expanded political democracy of socialism, the democratic dictatorship, is totally replaced by the social and economic democracy of communism. The need for instruments of repression will then be eliminated by popular action of all the people. This is yet another reason why the republic, with its very limited political democracy and the liberal capitalism of the oppressors is of little use too socialist after the revolution. The people’s revolution is the natural evolution of democracy as all the masses weighted down by drudgery of wage slavery become involved in a new democratic way of life (Lenin

1970a: 41-45).

Working class cannot use the liberal state as it is structured; the people’s revolution is a democratic revolution. The total elimination of the capitalist state represents the best interests of the majority of the workers and small farmers. The alliance of all the working poor whether they be they industrial workers, day laborers, or indigent farmers, or be they small urban shopkeepers must come together in this effort. The destruction of the republican, autocratic, or even political democratic form of government is a prerequisite for social and economic democracy. Without a strong alliance among all the toiling masses any form of democracy, even political democracy the lowest form of democracy, becomes meaningless. Socialism is only the expansion of democracy into the social and economic wholeness if all those who work to create the necessities of existence are included. With the full development of world capitalist market economy the two major classes, workers and capitalists are locked in a deadly battle. The primary role of the state under capitalism is to create an orderly nation-state. The state must have enough coercive and ideological power to control the inadmissible expectation of the radical working class. With the modern nation-state all the public forces of the entire nation are mobilized for the enslavement of the drudging plebeians (Lenin 1970a: 47-58).

By making a revolution to smash the state in all of its current manifestations the workers and small farmers unite in the common task of eliminating the common parasite of the state corporate investors and their beneficiaries, living off the labor of the working person and tiller of the soil. Because of the fact the privilege of the few is supported by the state, after the revolution force will be necessary because the former upper class will not leave the scene willingly. The majority will need to defend them self’s from the former elite. The old oppressors will morn the good old days of their institutional supremacy. Once political democracy gives way to the economic control of all the people of a society the oppressive institutions of the state become unnecessary (Lenin 1970a: 47-58).

With large-scale production and the world economy of capitalism the nation-state becomes out dated even before a socialist revolution. Much of the roles of the state become increasingly simplified to the point of being understandable to most people, leaving the control over the populace by a professional and managerial elite without a sensible justification. The role of government in large part is taken over by many public administrative bodies. This public sector bureaucracy should not be abolished, but democratized. This is possible only when this public sector bureaucracy is absorbed into worker and community councils. Through a worldwide federation of these local councils’ monopoly capital’s property, the public bureaucracy and a world economy can be democratized. Then and only then will the role of the state become greatly reduced and its functions will also become so greatly reduced and its purpose change so dramatically that what would be left would be qualitatively different from any previous form of state-society (Lenin 1970a: 47-58).

The fortified majority will in the short run protect the gains of the revolution by its own form of state. This will be necessary to win and protect its freedom. The leaders of capitalist society always confuse liberty and privilege. This revolutionary transition needs a committed populace who will not tolerate sabotage of the growing social and economic democracy by the former privileged few. The soviets or worker councils will become the new economic foundation of society. Every force of the reaction will unite for the destruction of this expansion of democracy. The churches, the former capitalist and even the educated professionals will create alliances with the remaining reactionary nation states to destabilize any hope for a broad base social and economic democracy. When faced by the reactions of the Church along with the former rulers and the reactionary nation-states who have not had their revolution the revolution is in constant peril. The democracy of the capitalist state is limited to formal democracy, leaving the basic economic institutions of private property and exploitation in tact and unchallenged. The myth that liberal democracy is the last word in democracy is seriously threatened by socialist action. True democracy is always the worst fear of the liberal democrat of capitalism. This empty lie will fall because crushing poverty of the majority of the world cannot be resolved with the lie of liberal democracy (Lenin 1970a: 102-104).

If we examine political democracy, of the liberal capitalist republic we see serious limitations to participatory democracy in order to protect the private property of the capitalist. Suffrage is limited in that only certain issues are open to public debate.

In addition the selection of elected officers in government leaves the basic political and economic rules effectively unchallenged. The structure of how representative government can allow public discussion to go only so far is carefully maintained by the rules of the political game. Never at any point are the basic social relations of economic stratification seriously threatened. As far as the market economy and private property are at issue, compromise after compromise are set up in such a fashion to remove and change in these two basic institutions from the realm of democratic decision making. Fundamental rights like freedom of speech, press and assembly are define in such a manner as to restrict their basic core to one of discussion and inaction. The working poor are seriously excluded from any participation in political democracy. The democratic dictatorship of the majority is the democratic transition from that of restrictive political democracy to one of genuine economic and social democracy. This is not merely an expansion of political democracy, but something entirely different. The liberal institutions must be entirely eradicated in order to free humanity from capitalism and wage slavery. The new working class state is not an expansion of the so-called freedoms under the democratic illusions under the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but repression of privilege so that real freedom can take root and grow. Freedom is freedom only when there is real equality. More and more the workers come to see that without equality economically there is privilege but no real freedom (Lenin 1973a: 104-105).

Democracy for the toiling masses is a serious threat to the former capitalist, thus the poor must be able to protect themselves by ensuring privilege is never reestablished. Liberal democracy is a cruel lie. It is oppression for the poor and privilege for the rich. Only when private property and a market are dismembered can real democracy take root. Only when the economy and the basic resources of necessity are under the democratic control of all the people can we speak of authentic democracy. This is communism in the true sense of the word. When the memory of privilege is replaced by equality of freedom, then the attraction of coercion will have no appeal. This is because the state exists for those who control the mechanisms of the state. Exploitation and oppression are twins of necessity if we remove one the other cannot survive. The exploiting classes cannot keep the exploited in line without a specialized institution that uses terror for its purpose, this is what the working poor must remember about every state they fight against. As economic and social democracy expands, so do the peaceful mechanisms to resolve conflict. With communism all people can participate in a community of equals. In the beginning after the socialist revolution, the justice of equality is still far away. Exploitation becomes impossible because individuals no longer own or control the means of production. The conversion of privately owned means of production into public property and the expansion of the public sector without the corresponding expansion of bureaucracy cannot help but to expand democracy (Lenin 1973a: 112-114).

The worst enemies of capitalism often are the capitalists themselves. Capitalism stands in the way of the complete development of their own society. Many sectors of the world community do not benefit from capitalist development. Socialism can turn capitalism’s incredible development into the benefit of all (Lenin 114: 1973a).

Democracy is very important for the working class in their struggle against the capitalist in the fight for freedom. Democracy is an evolving process, not a finished product. Under capitalism democracy is a formal type of state in which violence is used by the state to limit debate. Equality is formalized, and for the workers democracy is and must be a means of struggle against the overly formal and limited bourgeois democracy. Democracy grows from the equality of the vote too ever more ever more encompassing types of equality. Equality must grow until the formal political limits are burst asunder, as capitalist democracy cannot hope to meet the expectations of the general population for control over public life increases. As the public sector replaces the private sector we all work for each other. Worker control over the work place merges with community control over the community. When this stage is reached administration ceases to be the boss and becomes the collective representation of all the people (Lenin 1973a: 118-122).

The already established democratic rights in all nations claiming to be a democracy are a minimum starting point for the establishment of socialism. These minimal democratic rights of a liberal republic cannot be sacrifice in the struggle for socialism. Socialism becomes a necessity because these existing political democratic rights are too adolescent and unpredictable for real democracy to become established (Luxemburg 1970).

In the United States specifically there is an historical tradition of either ignoring rights at the state and local level, or suspending these rights nation wide for certain dissident groups when it suits the purpose of the national elite. The rights as defined in political democracy must be broadened in our demands to include the greatly expanded right of economic and social democracy. Existing democratic rights are important at all times, but the radical in particular must defend civil rights during times of reaction.

The liberal capitalists will violate their own deeply held principles in a heartbeat when threatened. The radical is always committed to the expansion of those rights beyond the very narrow liberal limits. The dismissal basic civil liberties are never acceptable. This is not because of some sort of universal justice that stands outside of history, such a belief is a mystical drug. Justice is always set within a specific historical setting and is measured in terms of real power. For the radical it is the power of those on the bottom to end inequality. Rights have different meanings to different classes in any one society. In different societies rights or liberties often become emotionally charged phrases with little agreed upon meaning. To the socialist rights are viewed from the viewpoint of the working poor. Socialist see rights as being but stepping stones that will burst asunder the narrow limits of political democracy to expand to a radically new society of democratic socialism in which democracy is seen as social and economic. Politics of liberal revolutions are transcended and all liberal politics dies when all people are equal. It is the reaction and not the socialist, which kills democracy to save the private property of the few. Every society has a different division of power between the classes meaning whether legitimate channels are open to democracy. In Western Europe they are and in the United States they are not. “Freedom only for the supporters of the government . . . however numerous they may be is no freedom at all. Freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently. Not because of any fanatical concept of justice but because all that is instructive, wholesome and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effectiveness vanishes when freedom become a special privilege” (Luxemburg 1970: 69).

Socialism and democracy are born out of struggle; the struggle is defined by the struggle itself and not pre-existing ideology. Theory is but a map that gains meaning only in practice. Socialist ideology reflects that struggle and changes with that struggle.

Marxist through critical analysis can expose the contradictions, as they exist. Through negative criticism the positive form of the future is carefully outlined. Theory must reflect existing structures and experiences. All social needs produce ways of satisfying those needs. When existing structures block the way that those needs are met then the social background for a social movement is created. If insight into the source of the social frustration is valid then the theory will provide a map to create the possibility of success out of the real situations born from exploitation and oppression. If the explanation is incorrect than the collective action is doomed to failure, leading to a more cruel reaction. Ideals no matter how impeccable or sincere must reflect material reality, or be lost in the romance and failure of utopian ideals. The power of theory is necessary. Always with social movements the negative of tearing down is necessary before there is a positive of building up. Both sides of this equation must be guided by theory. If the theory is correct, continual corrections are necessary if the movement is not to fall into a dead end trap. If correct, however, every movement has limited potential. When that potential is met, there is created a social foundation for future movements. Freedom and equality remains the necessary slogan, but in fact it always is but an ill-defined battle cry of the exploited majority. The demand for basic democratic rights is necessary but not sufficient. The most basic of these rights is that people must be allowed to govern themselves directly in a participatory fashion if socialism is ever to work. This is only the simplest beginning of democracy. “The whole mass of people must take part in it. A dozen intellectuals will decree otherwise socialism from behind a few official desks . . . Public control is indispensably necessary. Otherwise the exchange of experience remains only with the closed circle of officials of the new regime . . . Socialism in life demands a complete spiritual transformation in the masses degraded by centuries of bourgeois class rule . . . The only way to a rebirth is the school of public life itself, the most unlimited, demoralizes” (Luxemburg1970: 71).

Radical Socialism

Radical socialism, syndicalism, true communism are ideally the collective attempts to reunite people with the creative aspects of their collective lives. When there is a community of individuals that are united in the environment of existence for mutual aid and the celebration of life this is a life of being equal in our interdependent closeness with others, from this life a common humanity of a cooperative commonwealth community is molded. From this a comradeship will emerge from this interaction. This will be the most vigorous avenue taken by people collectively within their material and social environment, to gain the deepest meaning in their lives. It is in our struggle to endure through unity, upon which that the essence our humanity is founded. What born in struggle is nourished in joy and passionate satisfaction! Our humanity is established on justice, the essential quality of which will always be justice through equality. Radicals experience a moral obligation to revolt against any power that would subjugate another human being to any and all treatment that would demean this equality. It does not matter if the radical is the recipient of the injustice or not (Kropotkin 1927: 105-109).

Only through equality can any human beings realize their potential, only through the completion of democracy can equality have any meaning (Bakunin 1970; Luxemburg 1961: 76-80; Marx 1940: 61).

Revolutionary visions of a worldwide community project are born in a struggle for equality. What starts as a local common concern, will grow and change as it matures it creates the coalition of the common people made up of concerned world citizens acting together with the authority of ever broadening hungry hoards. The movement gains the guidance of a sincere sovereignty of the poor who are the producers of all wealth and the victims of that wealth must lead the way to a new day. These revolutions are the collective attempts to reunite people with the creative aspects of their lives. When there is a condition of being free the essence of which is equality there develops an interconnected association with others. There is born a deep feeling of companionship that will come out of this common humanity. It is through our reciprocal responsibility of each individual to other people in the community and humanity as a whole that we also connect to nature and life. We as individuals are never separate from the larger community. Each community is part of an even larger whole. This continues at each stage ever-larger communities are established that includes both our social and physical environment. This common struggle will be the most effective road taken by people collectively within their material and social environment. It is in our endeavor to survive through unity. Upon this unity the essence of our humanity is founded. By working and struggling with other humans we ourselves become human. After fully developed compassion we can say our humanity itself is the result of these community connections. In turn our humanity is the result of our kinship with other human communities. Ever more distant connections with the world of humans and with nature are established through our humanity. Our humanity is established on justice, the essential quality of which will always be justice through equality. Revolt against injustice is the maturity of a moral obligation to rise up against any power that would subjugate another human being. Any and all treatment that would demean this equality is to be resisted. Freedom in the US is only the privilege of the few. Without equality of all, equality of outcome based upon the dignity of our humanity is what we are fighting for. (Kropotkin 1927: 105-109).

We are always connected to the larger whole, the whole of the community that includes both our social and physical environment. Our humanity itself is the result of these community connections and our relationship with other human communities and with nature. It has been said that we are human in a social context. The old slogan an injury to one is an injury to all becomes the credo of a life style. Human activity in production of the means of existence is basic to all moral practice, and this we call labor and is the essential groundwork for all of other activities, including the spiritual. Our moral philosophy is grounded in this theory. Theory comes from the practical struggle to gain knowledge of our world, in order to gain more power over our lives within the social-material environment. Knowledge depends upon behavior. Production of our material life is the most important and is the ultimate foundation of our awareness of the circumstances surrounding our lives cultural and physical. These are the properties of our total environment. Its basic nature and essential quality of its attributes, is the groundwork of the component elements of our culture. The relationship between humans and nature and humans and other humans rest with the idea we are always a part of nature because we are but one part of the physical nature of the world (Mao 1966: 1-2).

Communities are people cooperatively interacting with nature. We as individuals and members of the community take from nature the resources necessary to live. Through our cooperative labor, our survival becomes possible. Through this cooperation not only our mere survival, but also the highest spiritual and cultural elegance is consummated. But to live and to achieve culture we must have access to the necessary resources for survival. This becomes the foundation of all other democratic struggle.

The political and economic elite controls the telling of history for all classes. The morals of the working class demand that these workers tell their own side of the story (Trotsky 1938).

The questions of truth or falsity for the working class depends on the affect it has in developing its own theory and the relationship between this theory and the practice of gaining power over our own lives. To attain the expected accomplishments through our actions we must bring our ideas into conformity with laws of the actual physical and social world. Knowledge cannot be separated from practice. Theory and practice is the necessary marriage of all known reality. Theory guides our practice and from our practical activity theories develop. Morality is tied both to our subjective needs and our objective understanding of our universe. Through this connection between the theory and practice our actions lead to more authority over our lives. In this way both the objective and subjective manifestations of our needs can be understood and dealt with. Through a deeper understanding of the universal and the specifics of our humanity and our struggles we can gain an understanding of the basic nature of our existence in its entirety, along with the internal links and the inherent arrangement of things in our environment. By way of understanding and deduction we are able to formulate reasonable insights based upon our discoveries. From these insights our morality is formed and not divinely revealed (Mao 1966: 2-7; Kropotkin 1925: 293-300; Kropotkin 1970: 109-113).

To the radical, democratic revolutions are built one upon the other in a never-ending series. In Western Europe liberal revolutions began the fight for the vote, equality before the law, merit replacing rank, capitalism, private property, and individualism. This forms the basis of the ideology of political democracy. The labor movement particularly socialism formed a new ideology that found liberal democracy too limiting. Whether moderately or radically defined, economic democracy must be added to political democracy. Public control over the economy became the first order of the day. From this foundation other issues would follow to extend power over our own lives. Other social movements of the 20th century were modeled after the socialist movement. Each of the other movements found liberal democracy too limiting.

The feminist, civil rights, and environmental movements are cases in point. The third world national liberation movements are attempts to establish democracy were there were no liberal revolutions. The first stage of anti-imperialism is followed by the struggle for socialism. Socialism is the materialization of democracy. Without socialism no form of democracy is possible. Without democracy socialism is a bureaucratic sham. Capitalist democracy is only political democracy at the most superficial level. Political democracy is carefully designed to blunt popular opposition to class rule. Political democracy demands the equitable distribution of power. Such a demand remains utopian without the equitable distribution of the rewards of production. Economic democracy demands this equitable distribution, and only by insuring that the resources necessary for this production remains under the collective control of all the people will economic democracy become possible (Mao 1971: 467-470; Allende 1973: 31-34; Che 1987: 196-202; Kautsky 1964: 25-58).

Just as economic democracy is impossible under the conditions of a capitalist economy, so also the existence of political democracy is impossible under the circumstances of bureaucratic socialism. Bureaucratic socialism is at its core hostile to political democracy and as such economic democracy becomes impossible. If either the political or the economic is lacking in the term democracy there is no social democracy and with out social democracy either the political or economic true manifestations of democracy becomes impossible. After all is said and done a bureaucratic socialist state is closer to becoming democratized than a capitalist republic because the formal ownership has been eliminated already and would be easier to bring the productive resources under the collective control of society for the benefit of all the people. What is to be restricted under democratic socialism is privilege and not existing political rights (Luxemburg 1961: 68-72, 77-80, 89-108; Lenin 1965: 47-53, Trotsky 1972: 45-64, 273-290; Trotsky 1965: 39-46).

Marx would claim the administrative control of the direct producers over the production process couldn’t thrive with the continuation of personal economic servitude of the workers. When labor becomes emancipated, every human being becomes a worker, and productive labor will no longer be a characteristic of class. By transforming individual property into social property workers transform the means of production from a method of indenturing and exploiting labor into an apparatus of the free association of labor. Workers must work out their own emancipation through their own agency, passing through a series of long struggles reconstructing environments and people. These workers have no principles to be realized except one to release the substance of the newly forming society for the benefit of all the people, ending the antiquated disintegrating effects of corporate rule (Marx 1940: 60-62).

Liberal democracy is a soft thin shell of freedom over a large hard core of inequality. The formal equality claimed by the above is nothing more than the silk underwear covering the putrefied tissue of an economy upon exploitation. Socialist democracy begins with the eradication of class rule. Satisfaction within capitalist democracy leads to the stagnation of democracy and preservation of privilege (Luxemburg 1961: 77).

(Luxemburg 1961: 22).

Political rights are not calibrated by obscure expressions like “justice” as if given by God, but by the social-economic relationships for which it was designed. Justice meaning equity cannot happen in a social condition of economic inequality (Luxemburg 1961: 22).

The wageworkers, being not only the bottom, but also the most productive class, must free themselves by canceling out all the sources of exploitation, oppression and injustice. It is the industrial working class who are both oppressed and exploited as a class, which is necessary for the existence of all the other classes. The employee as a class is the only class, which continually expands in size, potency, and importance. Through our appreciation of the power of labor, the solidarity among the workers internationally becomes ripe for the fight and has the responsibility of rebuilding the world society. Only by accepting the predilection to carry on the struggle, will the final triumph of socialism become possible and this is necessary for freedom and for democracy if it is ever take root (Kautsky 1971: 4).

With the evolution of class conflict between capital and labor, the State power presupposes the characteristic of the governmental authority of capital over labor. The state is the public enforcement established for social subjugation of the real producers. The state is a mechanism of class oppression. After every revolution characterizing a progressive stage in the achievement of democracy based upon class struggle, the directly autocratic aspect of the state become more apparent. The state in its determination to control the forces of production becomes more insolent and immodest in its total configuration. It is essential to overpower the capitalists and overcome its opposition to true democracy. The component of control needs in the future to rest in the hands of the preponderance of the toiling masses or the majority of the total population. Because the majority of the people can overpower their oppressors, the special force of government is no longer needed. The state would then be in the process of withering away. Instead of the distinctive establishment of privileged minority, the majority itself can immediately accomplish all these services, and the more the functions of state power come under the control of the people as a whole the less is the need for the existence of a powerful state (Lenin 1970: 48-52).

Without a radical ideology the struggle remains limited. The character of the initial struggle will grow only when the courageous struggles are waged. Victory can be achieved only by a coterie that is directed by the most well developed theory (Lenin 1973: 29).

Without a radical philosophy there can be no revolutionary social movement, or insurgent activity. The part played by the forerunners of revolution who also are the first opponents of social injustice can be consummated only by an alliance that is directed by the most well developed ideology (Lenin 1973: 28-29).

The influence of the workers and the labor movement is a challenge to the power elite because of the fact that the working class would be beginning to take their fate into their own hands (Lenin 1973: 43).

We need to welcome the opportunities as they arise. Sacrifices may be inevitable in order to acquire the strength to over come the obstacles that stands in the way of democracy. We need to be able to support agitation directly, propaganda methodically, planning precisely, action purposefully, and achieve our accomplishments diligently in those associations in which the wage workers, public employees, day laborers and even the unemployed street people are found. We must coordinate producer cooperatives and labor unions in order that class-consciousness can grow and the desired radical organization becomes part of a radical working class culture (Lenin 1965: 45).

The common people must have their own knowledge of public concerns and how to deal with those issues politically. It is class-consciousness that is to guide the people. All other classes belligerent and antagonistic to the workers have become muddled up in a series of alliances with other competing classes wearing down their effectiveness. The allies of the working class; which include the professionals and small business owners; are driven by individual insecurities are always indecisive, inconstant and undependable with an unpleasant concern for individual fortune. The socialist workers need to support the most stubborn, courageous, and democratic action possible. The activist group of workers needs be capable of learning all methods of social activity crossing from one model to another as immediately and as expediently as possible. Following the success of our efforts the workers must make a vigorous attempt to disengage themselves from the opportunists. We must work hard to inspire other workers about the goal of the workers controlling the economy and the system of administration. It is our obligation as socialists to understand all sorts of needed action. We must learn how to carry out our activities, with the utmost agility, to supplant any single item when necessary for another short-term goal in our struggle, and to accommodate our strategy to every modification when the situation warrants (Lenin 1965: 93-111).

The Revolution or Betrayal

The Russian Revolution, not only was a first, it literally was happening without a clear path or strategy for the passing from capitalism or semi-colonialism to socialism and eventually communism. In view of the fact that it was extremely local conditions that led to a successful seizing of power in Russia. In fact a group of revolutionary socialist came to power quite suddenly in the middle of a political crisis. After seizing power they had no existing illustrations to learn from. The Bolsheviks found themselves isolated of in an extremely hostile world dominated by a few powerful capitalist states. The Russian revolution was a grand experiment with very little in the way of previous experience to go by. The Bolsheviks became the leading models for revolution. The older social democratic parties of Europe were put on the defensive for none them had anything in their experiences that could challenge the Bolshevik strategies. The Russian model was the most important model at least until Mao, and Castro changed the rules. Following the Russian Revolution classical Marxism became orthodox Leninism. The debate between parliamentary socialism and revolutionary socialism became intense and off times personal. The following is an endeavor to craft the radical perspectives of the times.

Most revolutions are literally brought into existence by homegrown and national issues, but ultimately tied to international trends of the world economy. This leaves the revolutionary with few options; reform or revolution overly simplifies the dilemma.

Reform brings changes that can be taken back after the workers become apathetic again. Revolution can lead to sectarian isolation. The solution remains reforms that leads to revolution, thus all reforms must be able to become stepping-stones to further radical action. These further reforms instituted in a way leading to a total revolutionary change. Any victory that brings about radical change is brought about by class struggle. This will lead to renewed struggle, because the ruling class who were forced to give up some of its power, they will fight to regain lost ground. The working class cannot allow its self to remain limited by the rules of liberal capitalist democracy (Trotsky 1969: 30).

Once power is gained it can only be maintained by continual struggle against those who directly benefited from the old order (Trotsky 1961: 15).

By capturing the control of the state from the ruling class, the toiling masses which includes the working class, destroys the founding necessity for the institutions of the existing state. The capitalist state, which is created to maintain capitalism, becomes outdated and non-functional. The new revolutionary state greatly expands democracy and dramatically lessens the role of the state and weakens its power for oppression. The old state does not simply retire from the scene; the new ruling class must consciously eliminate the structure of the old state. Only through increasing social and economic democracy for all the toiling masses does the political role of the state decline (Lenin 1970a: 20).

The essence of the state is coercion. By claiming monopoly of the legitimate use of force, the rulers of the state claim the right to eliminate any competition to its power. The state simply exists to repress certain classes for the benefit of other classes. The socialist will take possession of the state, however the tools of oppression already exist and are not a creation of the socialist. By doing this the socialist also take custody of the means of production in the name of the toiling masses. After the political control of the state is taken away from the ruling class and the majority of toilers are given more democratic control over their lives the old structure of the state is no longer adequate for the new expression of democracy (Lenin 1970a: 20-21).

The republican state founded upon a market economy is in reality a dictatorship of the capitalist as a class. The capitalist pilfers the working people and exploitation is legal. Government and the law both sanctions and sustains existing capitalist robbery. The use of police to enslave the toilers who are born from the ranks of the people is the rule of law. Through the use of coercion to protect the assets of the avaricious few is the reality behind law and order. The government uses part of the people to support and defend the money-grubbing investment capitalists in burglarizing the totality of the nation (Berkman 1972: 21).

Administration becomes the proper protection of privilege of the few, while allowing the mass to have a say in their own exploitation. The goals must remain the goals of the capitalist class. If the workers go too far in fighting for their own interests the workers lose their jobs as investment opportunities dry up. Wage labor requires the capitalist to invest locally. Institutions of exploitation and oppression must look like it is the idea of the workers themselves (Bottomore 1979: 12—17).

In times of crisis the intellectuals, professionals, managers, small business owners and civil administrators will share the official ideology of the monopoly capitalist including the civil religion of private property, market economy, individualism and competition. The small business owners cannot but remain subservient to the larger capitalist enterprises. By incorporating elements of the class of the educated professionals into the administrative bureaucracy the capitalist has the appearance of being a popular government. These administrative jobs become dependent upon the success and stability of the market economy thus capitalism can never be seriously challenged (Lenin 1970a: 34).

With monopoly capitalism, imperialism reaches its ultimate development. The entire state apparatus becomes overly developed; thus the state becomes an increasing drain on the capitalist economy. The growth of all parts of the state is out of control because of the inherent instability of capitalism. The bureaucracy necessary for the rational control of the social environment of capital intrudes on all aspects of popular life. The increasing repression of the worker becomes total. The market economy becomes so omnipresent that to most people, markets became to be seen as a force of nature and a part of human condition. The market economy became totalitarian and a hidden cultural reality that was operating not only openly, but even at the subconscious level (Lenin 1970a: 38).

The central motivation in the struggle to overthrow capitalism and create socialism, which will lead ultimately to communism, is to end all class inequality as indispensable for freedom. Intensive class struggle is both the effect and the cause of revolution. The bourgeoisie its society, culture, ideology, religion, educational system, as well as the state stand as enemies to be crushed before the workers can emancipate them selves. With the great expansion of social democracy the privilege of property is lost.

For the working poor life becomes freer, for the rich and power the advantage of wealth is lost (Lenin 1970a: 41).

Dictatorship is an inherent part of all governments. Government being part of the state is also an instrument of class rule needed to repress other classes in their resistance to that rule, i.e. dictatorship. As long as there are class divisions there will always be some type of dictatorship. Politically a democratic dictatorship or dictatorship of the working majority, will be necessary to protect the democratic gains of a socialist revolutions from those who would reestablish privilege. Only when all memory of privilege is gone will social democracy finally replace the last traces of political democracy. The democratic republic under capitalism is in fact a dictatorship of the capitalist class. First in the socialist revolution is the overthrow of the dictatorship of the capitalist economy, and the establishment of the democratic dictatorship, also called the “dictatorship of the proletariat” i.e. the working majority. Finally the greatly expanded political democracy of socialism, the democratic dictatorship, is totally replaced by the social and economic democracy of communism. The need for instruments of repression will then be eliminated by popular action of all the people. This may be another reason why the republic or the very limited political democracy of liberal capitalism of the oppressors is of little use to socialist after the revolution. The people’s revolution is the natural evolution of democracy as all the masses weighted down by drudgery of wage slavery becoming involved in a new democratic way of life (Lenin 1970a: 41-45).

Until things become so intolerable that prolonged reconciliation becomes unacceptable; the majority will not embrace a radical ideology that offers an alternative vision of how society should be structured. Until the people on the bottom reach that agitated point of grievances, they will accept the prevalent values of the dominant culture as inevitable. It is demanded by all that any disruptive political behavior “must be avoided” by both the exploited and the exploiters. Until the revolutionary juncture is reached only the working class will pursue those concessions that are seen as untenable to the ruling class. (Lenin 1970a: 47-58).

As more people become desperate the capitalist becomes ready to use coercion to force compliance, only further alienating the poor. Death squads and low intensity wars of genocide have become commonplace in Africa and Latin America in the last third of the twentieth century. Foolishly daring wars of liberation are met with sanctions and technological holocausts by the advanced industrial state like the US and their third world client states. Democracy is very important for the working class. Workers in their struggle against the capitalist in the fight for freedom will need to become the defenders of democracy. (Lenin 1973a: 118-122).

Theory is born from experience. The intellectual who try’s to articulate theory must first go to the ordinary people of the community, to study their lived experiences in the context of the larger social structure in order to understand the impact of that complex web called world capitalism on real life in real communities (Mao).

People learn from democracy, and extending progressively more power to the powerless is the best education on self-rule. Political rights in the liberal democracies are superficial at best, but without them people lose their main vehicle to express their dissatisfaction and demand change that will address the issues that affect their lives. Every socialist must be a civil libertarian, for without these basic rights the radical socialists become but easy targets for repression. People cannot make use of radical theory without first being exposed to it. Only if the theory of socialism makes sense to those on the bottom of a society can socialism take root as the expression of the oppressed. This problem becomes in our every day lives we as teachers become exposed to traditional liberties as being but an outside covering of inequality, oppression, very limited freedom of expression for the majority of the people who are victims of exploitation and living broken lives (Luxemburg 1970).

Socialism is the manifestation of democracy. Without socialism no form of democracy is possible. Liberalism ultimately is a slick sells job; the object is to blunt any possible opposition to class rule. Socialism and democracy both share the responsibility and the necessity of ending any form of class rule. Just as democracy is impossible under the conditions of a capitalist economy, so also is the bureaucratic manifestation of state socialism also hostile to democracy. However the second type of systems is easier to reform along democratic lines than the form. This is because formal ownership of private property has been eliminated. This is the main reason why the democratic reforms in the state socialist societies were openly stolen by the former communist in Eastern Europe rejecting what they were in the past to become proponents of capitalism. In both cases privilege and not political rights is what the rulers want. The expression of class narrow-mindedness is everywhere in advanced capitalist society. The fact that there are non-producers who control the means of production and producers who do all the real work, while true, is officially denied. The non-producers have their private independent income, which is the result of their ownership and control of the productive property of society. This means it is the producers the actual working class which produces the wealth of the non-productive owners. Class is the relationship to the means of production, and this relationship affects the accumulation of wealth and power. This means the relationship between the workers and the corporate elite is one of exploitation. The rich corporations exploit not only the workers of the rich centers, but all the poor nations of the world. The expressions of oppressed ethnic groups often are in themselves the result of class exploitation. (Parenti 1994: 55-70)

Theory

The historical isolation of most struggles limits its possibilities. Both the national and international characteristics of any social upheaval interact to give each social setting a unique set of possibilities. Because social movements depend upon internal peculiarity of a nation it is easy to forget the worldwide trends of which it is apart. It must be remembered that all social movements are the result of internal national struggles brought about by local manifestations of a larger worldwide trends. The worldwide nature of the market economy and its bastard child imperialism creates many distinct yet similar problems, each with its unique national character. Every struggle must take into account the unique differences, as well as the cross-national similarities. This means a revolutionary strategy that may work in one nation is not exportable to another nation with a different social environment. The local objective of a movement is determined by the history of the indigenous people. Each nation has its own interaction between external and internal forces at work. This creates a specific contradictory reality and its own formula for resolution. The failure of a radical ideology to take root and to offer a realistic solution is born from the lack of an historical understanding of the situation. History includes a knowledge of the material factors that leads to success or failure. In all class societies any movement that fails to consider the internal class struggle will remain limited in its possibilities. The development of the productive forces allowing for a surplus and an unequal distribution of wealth means for the toiling poor that a victory will improve the drudgery of their lives but very little if at all (Cabral 1969: 11-14, 90—111).

The isolation of any local or national struggle sets the limits of its success. It becomes increasingly obvious all national struggles are in turn tied to the success of other struggles around the world. Without this connection each revolution, if successful, creates a weakened national economy in which the socialist state is but a puny threat to a world system based upon imperialist exploitation. Rosa Luxemburg wrote from her prison cell during The Great War: “ The fate of the revolution in Russia depends fully upon international events. That the Bolsheviks have based their policy entirely upon the world proletarian revolution is the clearest proof of their political farsightedness and firmness of principle and bold scope of their policies” (Luxemburg 1970: 28).

Without this association of socialists around the world, and because each individual socialist revolution in any one country is encircled by a unfriendly capitalist world, she gave a prophetic warning to the effect that because of such deadly circumstances of continual assault on socialism by the world capitalist even with a revolutionary commitment of tremendous scope on the part of the revolutionaries in any new socialist society, and even with radicals who are most experienced in fighting under siege in the field, with all their revolutionary energy they will still be helpless of achieving either democracy or socialism but only the most deformed strivings at either (Luxemburg 1970: 28).

The issue of national sovereignty cannot limit the expanded struggle for a truly democratic society. National sovereignty is not the type of right that will expand political democracy or move towards economic and social democracy. Sovereignty becomes the battle cry of a national capitalism seeking opportunistically to strengthen their position in a neo-colonial relationship with the elite power of world capitalism (Luxemburg 1970).

Reactionary politics and nationalism reinforce each other no matter if we are talking about the domination by the metropolis or the subjugation of the periphery. Nationalism improves the lot of the national elite while leaving the plight of the poor people in tact. Nationalism only increases the poverty, exploitation, and oppression of the working poor by creating yet another thin layer, the national leaders, who live off the surplus generated by these poor (Luxemburg 1970).

A nationalist slogan in a developed class society ignores the existing contradictions and only maintains those already existing class antagonisms. There can be no real national self-determination of oppressed nations as long as there exists an international capitalist system. Each class within the existing oppressed nation has a different vision of what self-determination means. In the end however the national elite has the power to speak for the oppressed nation as a whole. At independence the national leaders have the power to subordinate all the working poor to its command, while creating an integral position for itself in the world capitalist system. This is neo-colonialism. Socialist often agree that nationalist movements that lack the integrating ideology for the continuation of class struggle within the oppressed nation must not be supported by the socialist in any nation (Luxemburg 1970).

Among the small property owners who suffer tremendously under capitalism, are often attracted to any kind of revolutionary ideology. When they become revolutionaries they often move in irrational and dangerously extreme directions. Because of this they often start trouble and lack the discipline to follow through. Because of the individualism of small property the same individual often moves from the extreme left to the extreme right, and follows any of the latest fads that appears to be anti-establishment. These same individuals because of their lack of discipline ultimately end up apathetic cynics when the last fad passes (Lenin 1973b. 17).

It is stupid to reject compromise with other groups out of hand. With out a grounding in rigorous sociological theory the revolutionary never understands what compromises will further the struggle for emancipation, and which will jeopardize the revolution itself. To gain strong theoretical insight will protect the revolutionary from the ideological purest who reject any and all compromises or alliances, even those that will strengthen their power, expand their popular base, and add further insights to revolutionary theory (Lenin 1973b: 23).

Socialist movements are born from a prolonged awareness of injustice. Once expressed it has the power as a collective action of the people. In the process an alternative ideology is shaped. This gives form and substance to the movement. This growing popular mood defines the political issues and the opposing sides. The growing popular rebellion and its ideology of resistance creates and defines the authority of the movement. It is clearly the movement itself, which brings into being by its radical action the white-hot fervor that moves people to become more than what they are. That delicate but resonant essence, impressionable yet tense political and social ambiance in which wave after wave of public emotion grows into the vibration of democratic animation of entire communities. People become drunk on the movement (Luxemburg 1970: 61).

In all countries in this era there are continuous developments of internal struggles. These struggles develop certain elements that become progressively more radical. Each local struggle is at some point tied to a larger national struggle or it will remain a local issue easily defeated and forgotten. If successful this can lead only temporarily to minor changes in peoples lives. Each national struggle is in turn tied to a larger world trend and thus closely dependent upon the success of struggles in other nations. The first stage in any local or national movement is to form a coalition of many parties and interested people, but as it moves toward revolution a single party gains control over the revolution. Either a movement must develop along revolutionary lines or remain forever limited in its visions of accomplishments (Luxemburg 1970: 29-36).

Each class in most republican states has either their own political party, or their own political organization to represent their interests. A faction of stable and experienced individuals will acquire influence over the political organizations (Lenin 1973b: 28).

Ferdinand LaSalle offered the theory of the iron law of wages, which was, based upon the overabundance of people needing a job under capitalism driving down wages, making labor activity somewhat ineffective. The strategy for socialism was to be electoral and/ or forming cooperatives. On the other hand to the Marxist there should be no preexisting limitations to political activity, the working class Party must operate both legal and extra-legal activities (Kipinis 1952: 8).

Small commodity producers are not the enemy. They must, however, be brought closer to the revolutionary working class. The culture of the professional and small business owner is one of individualism. Their dreams usually center on more private property and more personal wealth. Only through the strictest revolutionary discipline can the working class make use of this activist raw material to further the struggle for democracy (Lenin 1973b: 32).

The issue of who is the working class becomes central to the debate over alliances with the professionals. Most Marxist included wageworkers that did not own the resources of production and had very little control over those resources. Larger wage packages were offered to the upper stratum of skilled workers of the older capitalist countries, to buy off those workers who would be the hardest to replace. With skilled labor dominating the labor movement in industrialized nations, skilled labor in the rich countries began to see their interests in narrowly nationalist terms. These workers in rich countries shared the surplus created in the poor nations. Poverty became more intense and permanently entrenched in the less developed parts of the world. In the rich centers, the labor movement became short term and reformist. The hope for revolution then was in the dependent and semi-dependent nations (Lenin 1939:61).

Victor Berger a socialist from the US in the early 1900’s would hold skilled craftsmen were workers, as were college educated intellectuals, small farmers, small business owners, independent producers, merchants even capitalists who were not monopoly capitalist. These groups gave socialism its finest minds. Unskilled workers were the product of the slum and gutter, were squalid, unenlightened, and dull. The rabble only leads a movement of class hatred and was dangerous to the future of socialism (Kipinis 1952: 226-228).

Most revolutionary Marxists would see this latter group as the real working class. Once the working class has been defined, it is seen as the class of emancipation, the intermediate groups are full of contradictions, and undependable. The working class must ultimately lead the revolution if democracy is to lead to socialism. The working class in power is seen as the highest form of democracy as they are in no position to exploit anyone (Trotsky 1969: 70-71).

The centralized property of a worldwide monopoly capital is easier to socialize than the small properties of thousands if not millions of small proprietors (Lenin 1973b: 33).

The old craft distinction of the early days of capitalism lived on to plague the radical working class, as craft union had dreams of business ownership and middle class individualism at its core. Any kind of union is progressive; industrial unions were more advanced than craft unions and revolutionary social union should lead the way (Lenin 1973b: 40).

Trade unions developed into industrial unions as working class unity come into being (Lenin 1973b: 41).

Through revolutionary action members of a trade union become educated on the need for a radical labor party. It is through this action that workers learn to become communists. They become free of capitalist ideological control of such oppressive support units as the churches, schools, the popular media, professional management and the limited visions of their own unions. They become capable of replacing the rules of the market and professional managers, who pawn their souls to the capitalist, with a true working class democracy (Lenin 1973b: 41).

The most radical workers become models for the least progressive political workers teaching them to become militants in the revolutionary struggle for freedom (Lenin 1973b: 42).

Democracy based on real socialism demands nothing less of its scholars than to become plebeian in their heart and soul and claim themselves workers. The intellectual must call the rural poor farmers and farm labors relatives, and to feel at home in the villages, the working class neighborhoods and among the destitute. It is in times of non-revolutionary quietude or the explosion of counter-revolutionary reaction that the hard work of the radical counts the most. It is during these times in a thousand subtle ways, and in many quiet conversations that keeps the popular hope of equality and liberty alive. If the radical ideology is carefully cared for during this time of barren hopelessness, will the reverberation of the sound of insurrection move to a climax of meaningful lived experience during times of upheaval. The revolutionary ideology will grow to give expression to the shared feelings of those whose sense of social injustice and moral outrage that demands expression will find a home. This is revolution. “The revolutionary petty bourgeoisie must be capable of committing suicide as a class in order to be reborn as revolutionary workers, completely identified with the deepest aspirations of the people to which they belong” (Cabral: 110).

The educated “elite” among the radicals in the socialist and labor movement is always a difficult contradictory group to understand at best. These groups of intellectuals are drawn from several different classes and strata within these classes.

Many of these intellectuals have their own grievances against capitalist society. There are far too few legitimate positions open compared to number of qualified applicants, the competition for these positions resolves itself often around characteristics only indirectly related to the job. Often the position ends up restricting what the office holder is allowed to do. In either case potentially progressive professionals are thrown on the scrap heap of the refuse of the decadent market economy. Therefore many of these middle class intellectuals come to socialism through the back door. Many of these socialists have very little in common with the direct producers, the working class. The working class socialism is the best expression of anti-capitalism. The intellectual alienated from the main trends of capitalism are often drawn into socialism, not for their deep concerns for the working class but because of the lack of a creative life in the heart of a market economy. Because of the suffocating life within the free market society, anyone who spent their lives developing their intellectual talents will soon run up against the heartless and cruel laws of the market. Their socialism is the socialism of the broken heart. Because of their easy access to theory their socialism is often an authoritarian form of socialism. When the intellectual of any other class speaks for the working class, these tendencies toward centralized command become even more pronounced (Luxemburg: 1970; Bakunin 1971).

According to Cabral there are only two alternatives, either to betray the revolution or to commit suicide as a class. This constitutes the dilemma of the radical intellectual within the general struggle of the larger national liberation struggle. The development of revolutionary consciousness becomes the most important challenge of these people’s existence (Cabral: 110).

Because laboring people often lack the access to the most developed socialist sociology, when they do embrace socialism it often takes on an eclectic character. This selective eclecticism of the working class often lack scientific understanding or practical strategies, but is grounded in real lived experience of the workers. The flaw of the intellectual middle class is the strong inclination to become an ideologically pure and narrow sect. What is needed is a blending of both. All factions within socialism have a certain measure of insight. Through open and friendly dialogue the various competing factions can contribute to a larger more logical whole. Historical Sociology and the lived experience of the proletariat need to be brought closer together. Class-consciousness is the key to this unity. Bureaucracy is hostel to maintaining class-consciousness and the movement is easily taken over by the educated professionals who are hungry for power (Luxemburg: 1970).

“Nothing will more surely enslave a young labor movement to an intellectual elite hungry for power than this bureaucratic straight jacket, which will immobilize the movement and turn it into an automation manipulated by a central committee . . . there is no more effective guarantee against opportunist intrigue and personal ambition than the independent revolutionary action of the proletariat, as a result of which the workers acquire the sense of political responsibility and self-reliance” (Luxemburg 1970: 102).

Revolutions that are led by a professional vanguard, will need a second revolution with an independent revolutionary culture born deep within the working poor as a class instinctive in their pain, their hope and in their joy, is an absolute if the revolution is to survive. If socialism is to survive the workers must through their own democratic organizations take control of the revolution. If the revolution does not pass out of the hands of the vanguard then this vanguard will be drawn from the ranks of the corporate capitalists, minor entrepreneurs and the professional classes and speaking in the name of the international working classes will use the plight of the working poor to continue their own bid for power and care for the elite’s interests first, the exploitation continues with new masters (Luxemburg 1970).

This problem is not easily solved because socialism is opposed to any form of injustice. Socialism has always been the sanctuary for any who are abused by global capitalism. Socialism not only represents the class interests of the working people of all lands, but socialism also is the last best hope for any with dreams of a more humane society. All who dare to care beyond their narrow interests will find socialism attractive. The socialist movement is not only often dominated by an educated strata who are from non-working class origins, but often the majority of its adherents are also non-working class, i.e. the New Left of the 1960’s. This is because of the permanent moral crisis of a market economy i.e. capitalism and the consumer driven mediocrity of popular culture all of which is founded on the most amoral, and outright immoral economy worldwide the planet has ever seen. Socialist of all varieties is the only social movement that takes on all inequalities at its fundamental core. Socialist must be opposed to any form of inequality and all ruling classes. This is why all socialist must return to the movement’s working class origins or socialism becomes as both Rosa Luxemburg a classical Marxist and Michael Bakunin the father of modern Anarchism pointed out socialism will turn into its opposite and become the rule of the professional for the professionals at the expense of the workers and other toiling poor. While working within the limits of the existing society, and the rules lay down by its laws and social structure it is important to guard against any form of elitism. Through the day-to-day struggles we learn, often painfully slow, that victory only has a chance if we respect in a democratic way other positions and other dreams. Each victory is but a resting platform leading to further struggles and new launching platforms until all traces of inequality is eliminated. The collective control of the fruits of society And the collective control of the needed resources and the labor of society means that only through equality of outcome can any individual have the support necessary to maximize her full potential. Socialism is a mass movement of all people with out regard to rank. The flaws socialism must overcome within its own movement are created out of the fact that everywhere socialist face a firmly established class structure. The ideological garbage of capitalist society has been deeply entrenched into the psychology of each and every one of us as socialists. Only by fighting for socialism can we become healed. Errors must be treated with loving compassion, for that is the only way to learn (Luxemburg 1970).

Socialism must remain critical of liberal society in its entirety. Any compromise with this long-term opposition to liberal society will mean total defeat of the socialist ideal, even before one begins on a socialist path. Socialism can only be judged using a socialist frame of reference. Socialism is born and nurtured in opposition to liberal society. All human rights are based upon human relations, either they lead to further collective emancipation or they lead to privilege of an elite minority. Liberty is always subversive to privileged the two are always opposed. Privilege in a liberal society masquerades as liberty. If property is challenged, as it must be for egalitarianism or liberty to be established, this become subversion and repressed to stop the movement toward equality. Liberty always remains its opposite in the hands of a ruling elite. Liberty is defined not as the collective freedom of individuals in society, thus its content remains shallow. In a liberal society or under a bureaucratic nationalized economy the collective freedom of all is properly channeled so as to protect ranking of power. If freedom is not the social psychology born out of the economic environment based upon the democratic collective production relations of equals, then all we can expect is that the elite must be appealed to protect our mutual freedom in opposition to their own best interests and power; which is absurd. Liberal society is based upon the established national elite who is in a position to give or take away the freedom of others, as they will (Luxemburg 1970: Saxton 1992; Bakunin; Lenin 1973b; Marx 1968; Trotsky 1968, Cabral 1969; Mao; Kropotkin).

Theory that is rigorous and scientific cannot be avoided, if organized socialist are to see through the labyrinth called the present. Theory deals with what exists and its historical development. By understanding what are the current contradictions in the larger setting of historical trends we gain an understanding on how to organize, around what issues and what strategies are possible. Because there is always the conjuncture of local issues in the context of regional, national and international environments each locality has its own specific needs that need to be dealt with (Luxemburg 1970; Cabral).

Organization must take on long-term strategies and a permanent structure. This leads to both centralization and bureaucracy. These two characteristics are necessitated by the very structure of international capitalism. Because capitalism dominates all aspects of life, any resistance to capitalism takes on certain traits of capitalism. Centralization and bureaucracy while unavoidable, carry within it strong anti-democratic tendencies. Class struggle needs an organization that can withstand the crushing effects of the state, militarism of imperialism, and the assimilation of the entire world into a single all dominating economic system. Unions and socialist parties must continually be on the alert for the anti-democratic top down bureaucracies. Each generation must push for democracy, as long as there is a market economy that dominates every fiber of our lives democracy will remain subversive and democracy will be attacked on all sides even within our own ranks (Luxemburg 1970).

Education of a socialist strategy is born out of struggle. Day to day manifestations of that struggle necessitates a continuing re-evaluation of any strategy. Radical awareness comes from lived experience. Theory only makes sense in the context of lived experiences. The toiling majorities become educated in the context of trying to improve their lives collectively. Local awareness incorporates national and international understandings. The workers cannot wait for political reformers to take pity upon them. The poor and the working majority must develop their own collective organized activities to influence public life for their benefit. The mind deadening jobs of the unskilled worker means that their bodies and their work lives become an extension of a non-living machine. When these same workers become radicalized within their working class organizations and make contacts with radicals the world over their lives become a fertile and cultivated aesthetic declaration of their humanity. The radicals sees their larger collective interests in common with laboring people everywhere. The coordination for a worker on the job provides the discipline for larger political activity. To disentangle capitalist control over every aspect of proletarian existence the obedience and servility on the job, in the working class communities, and the private recesses of the workers minds must be forever shattered. Once a movement takes off whatever ideological spadework already done will provide the framework for the popular rebellion. If this ideology reflects and maps real situations it will provide a rough outline to move the insurrection toward a long-term movement and in a hopeful and progressive direction.

Once established ideologies no mater how insightful or radical are hard pressed to keep up with what is happening. If radicals have not done the ideological groundwork another ideology will be found leading the movement in a reactionary direction defeating all hope to improve the situation (Luxemburg: 1970).

This is why theory must resonate with the real historical situation, and the continuing chance to expand the revolution over time. Theory must remain flexible to allow changes in its formal expression as the social environment changes. The most difficult thing to learn is how to study the sociology of the current situation, and learn the political potential of the now. Part of this understanding is to become aware of any revolutionary or reform opportunities that currently exist. To do this we must understand the limitations of potential action. The revolutionary workers need to know what to expect from their allies in the struggle to seize power. To use past experiences only as an educational tool to better comprehend the historical development of the current situation. To use skills used in this analysis to become aware of the new potentials as they present themselves and to inform others of our discoveries. To move with caution when caution is warranted, to move with radical and decided resolve when the opportunity for insurrection is good. Class-consciousness only grows when such opportunities exhibit themselves with a sensibility of how to proceed (Lenin 1973b: 42).

Revolutionaries must be capable of great sacrifices, because great sacrifices are required. The struggles are many, and the hurdles are great as they are many. It is always dangerous to agitate. (Lenin 1973b: 45).

Only those who feel they have more to gain than lose will pursue revolution. Even death while fighting injustice has more meaning than living through that injustice (Kautsky 194: 17).

The revolutionary organization must learn from past mistakes. It is true that only by being willing to learn can an effective organization be created. Revolution is serious business and should be treated as such (Lenin 1973b: 50).

Rosa Luxemburg is clear when she stated that the Revolution should be compelled to move forward at a speedy pace. Revolutionaries should constantly be besieging the fortress of privilege, but always at a determined momentum of struggle. This is the only way to break down all the obstacles that are set up by the Reaction and place the goals of the revolutionary working class even further ahead with each victory. If each victory is not seen as a lunching pad for further revolutionary struggles the whole movement will soon simply be thrown backward at a place even further behind the puny goals of the beginning of the working class movement. Those gains we have already made will be suppressed by the counter-revolution unless we continuously build upon our victories of the past and our current strength (Luxemburg 1970: 36).

By being willing to admit mistakes, can we find the reasons why these mistakes were made in the first place, and what were the conditions that led us into such mistakes and finally what can be done to correct these errors (Lenin 1973b: 51).

Moderate gains are easily lost in the fight against the Reaction. In a revolutionary situation those groups of radicals who push to the limits of their goals and match the hopes of the toiling poor will take control of the struggle. Only through this control of the revolution can the revolutionaries ever hope to be a part of the movement of the majority of the oppressed who came to see their interests are articulated by the Revolution. Only by taking control of the situation will the majority of the working poor offer support to a disciplined and organized party of Revolution. The immediate aim is the seizure of power by the party claiming to speak for the toiling mass. By direct seizure of the land by those who work the land, can the rural poor be won over to socialism. In fact national self-determination has little to do with either democracy or socialism. Land and sovereignty without an over riding commitment to international socialist democracy is easily controlled by narrow self-serving petty or national bourgeoisie leading only to neo-colonialism. (Luxemburg 1970: 36).

Strategy is always changing, based upon the objective analysis of the continuously change situations in the social settings of state societies. Sometimes working within the legitimate parliamentary channels is indeed wise and practical, because of the fact there may me room to make progressive changes legally. At other times the legitimate parliamentary channels, only show to the activist the limitations of those channels. Many times it becomes necessary to work outside of the existing the legitimate parliamentary channels either to change the rules or to irradiate that system (Lenin 1973b: 51-158).

Following the organization of the Revolutionary Party, any tactics will be successful only if those actions bring ever-larger numbers of the exploited masses into the revolution. At every stage radical workers will meet organized opposition from the international capitalist class. Even after the socialist revolution the enemies within the nation and in cooperation with the international opponents to socialism will work together to destroy socialism and discredit the revolution. All socialist revolutions start from a position of weakness. Even after the establishment of a socialist state within a country that nation remains isolated as the organized and more powerful international capitalist class will throw all its combined power at the socialist state to destroy it and any hope of the expansion of socialism into other countries. The more powerful enemy can be overpowered only by putting forth a very long, highly organized and extremely systematic struggle by the workers of the world, even in the reactionary countries. Every contradiction, of every faction, within the international capitalist class must be taken advantage of by the revolutionaries within every socialist nation and hopefully with the active support of socialist everywhere (Lenin 1973b: 52-78).

When the revolution catches on, the worldview of the workers becomes dramatically altered. The old ways of doing business becomes so unattractive that there will be no returning to the life of the docile and willing wage slave. The crisis runs so deep as to make an entirely new consciousness the norm. The revolution becomes the workers lifeblood. Every sacrifice even death is preferred to returning to the old ways of doing things. As the revolution grows spin off groups, are formed who fear going

further with the revolution. The revolution has already reached a point of no return. Thus, the reaction grows with the growth of the revolution. Socialism remains surrounded by a lot of enemies (Lenin 1973b: 85-113).

Everywhere socialism has been established it either had to compromise it main principles from the start with the large corporate capitalist by not challenging private property, i.e. social democratic Sweden; or it became isolated and under attack by the surrounding capitalist countries, i.e. the Soviet Union during the formative years. To survive socialist around the world turned in upon themselves and created a society in which the economy is controlled by a highly bureaucratic centralized state. What happened with the early abandonment of liberty in former socialist countries like the Soviet Union is understandable when threatened with extinction by a worldwide hostile camp of capitalism. This, is not to say the suppression of human liberties can ever be excused. It is only to say that in the long run democratizing the soviet Union would have been easier than democratizing the United States in which all of its major institutions are dominated by corporate capitalist concerns. The sabotage of the democratic efforts within Eastern Europe took the active cooperation of both bureaucrats who claimed loyalty to the Communist Party at one time and now are strongly pro-capitalist, and International Capitalist organizations. These international capitalist organization like the World Trade Council. the World Bank, International Monetary Fund and the United States Government cannot stand any threat to imperialism. The former Soviet Union certainly was a threat by its international support of National Liberation Movements, yet a

democratic model on the scale of the 1989 revolutions would have been far greater cause of concern. Democracy and capitalism will always remain mortal enemies. Only a tamed and trite political democracy can be tolerated, as long as it acts like religion to drug the minds of the oppressed. Every nation is unique. Any time frame in history is also unique. Taken in combination, every road to socialism meets with its own nightmares and has its own shortcomings forced upon it from the outside. National history is always exceptional. Any and all historical stages exist in a historically specific set of circumstance with its own unique limitations (Luxemburg 1970).

The fetal organization of socialism created out of revolution rapidly grows to maturity after political victory. The ends are a direct product of the means. The compromises made with democracy or civil liberty soon becomes institutionalized. If socialist are not careful the organized power needed to fight against inequality, oppression and exploitation will create a bureaucracy hostile to democracy. On the other hand it is important for socialist to understand its organized opposition. To take the necessary precautions to save democracy does not require the abandonment of democracy. This contradiction will have to be resolved if we are to have a better world someday. What is needed is the flexibility to deal with each unique situation that develops out of the conjuncture of historical variables local and international (Luxemburg 1970).

We as humans consciously act within a social-historical environment that exists, at least initially for all of us, independent of our will. This environment is historical. People were around before we were born, in part created the environment. Its boundaries are demarcated, and its present form reflects a particular historical development. In the past within each society were people struggling with their own preexisting social environments changing that social setting and themselves to reflect their continuously evolving circumstances. The fact that change is constant does not alter the fact that change often results in conflict. Those with a stake in the past or present social relations resist that change, particularly any change that may favor another class contending for power. It is this particular struggle that establishes the political generations of contending forces, the issues defined as important and the contending ideology. Following such upheavals are many people who are attracted to movements without experiencing a radicalizing event, thus leading to a superficial commitment to the Revolution. Intellectually this leads to an emotional and shallow understanding the social forces and issues at stake. The original radicalizing experience is made even more radical by the repression of the ruling class that feels threatened. This is a struggle between those with the power and those that directly challenges that power. The result of this power struggle is at least in part determined by what resources the contending factions can muster. These classes opposing each other are manifested in opposing ideologies. The tensions that develop as an outgrowth of their social relations accumulate for years then at some point spill over into open conflict. Within the struggle that is the result of the contradictions inherent in the productive forces, ideas are a guide to action. The ideas being expressed can lead to a better resolution of these contradictions, as far as the working class is concerned, if it correctly expresses the material nature of these contradictions.

This action led by a good understanding of sociology, leads to a weakening of class oppression. If the ideology of struggle focuses on the wrong causes of exploitation it will weaken the classes fighting for more equality. Radical consciousness helps the radical to focus her attention on the origin of oppression, and not competing victims of injustice. The old ruling class controlling ideological production orchestrates nationalism just for that reason. Only by taking a class analysis can theory become apart of the direct action in which the actors transform themselves while transforming society. While critically analyzing the limitations of liberal society can one understand the potential for a socialist transition and recreating a new persona. This theory of history takes society and the personality of the individuals involved as an historical construction in which individuals have a say in remaking their society and themselves. The recreating of self creates new individuals capable of freedom. This is a theory of history that says by becoming a revolutionary we create a new social-psychology in which people can become masters of the their own personal fate, and not just its victims. Society and personality, both were historical constructions beyond our control, now becomes a product of our own creativity. If theory and sociology are not only the study of what is, but also what might be if certain action is taken then sociology and theory becomes guides to conscious behavior. Through rebellion we become free, even while the

institutions of oppression remain. Because this theory is set in a specific historical and social context, sociology is necessary to understand the potential beyond the utopian illusions. Theory set in a sociological as well as a socialist frame of reference will give that theory a greater possibility of limiting the material structure of oppression and exploitation. In the contest with the ruling elite the toiling masses cannot afford not to take this socialist frame of reference if they ever hope to limit or end their source of oppression. This is theory of action. If history is the history of transformation of the economic base, it is under capitalism of today that socialism can become a tool of the working class to implement social change. By changing their circumstance the

working class changes them. Only through understanding history by having an insight theory of anthropology does the socialist have a chance of controlling the direction of the changes they live through. The workers are the direct producers of the material base of society. Socialism must belong to the working class. Our welfare is at stake here. If not there can never be democracy because of the fact the other classes live off the surplus produced by the working people.

Till now democracy has meant democracy for the few. Liberal democracy becomes possible because of poverty and exploitation of most of the rest of the world. For a handful of these liberal democracies the horrors of imperialism is carefully maintained abroad. At home drugs like mass culture and religion are openly supported by corporate and government cooperation, deaden the pain class exploitation, by giving short-term fixes to the exploited working class. Violence and oppression are the necessary preconditions of freedom and peace in a capitalist society. This contradiction divides the world between rich nations, with their own internal colonial pockets of poverty, and the poor nations who are exploited for the benefits of the wealthy citizens of the rich nations. The rich nations, or at least to their richer citizens, can claim to offer the best hopes and opportunities only because these same dreams are denied to the majority in those poor nations, and even among the workers in the rich nations, who are exploited for the benefit of the rich. Through our education in the United States we are constantly told of the crimes of the former Communist nations like the USSR and the People’s Republic of China. What of the worldwide carnage orchestrated by the United States’ Government through the world during the twentieth century? At home the United States passed many laws restricting first amendment rights of its own citizens. Around the rest of the world the government murdered countless millions of people to keep the world safe for corporate investments. What the Soviet Union did to its own citizens the US Government did directly or indirectly to the rest of the globe. In both countries the murders, justified their crimes because of the logic of the historical situation. Given the logic of the specific modes of production and their corresponding ideologies murder is never really murder. Criminals with a clean conscience see only the evil of the other side. However, the crimes are not equal. Exploitation around the world is central to the capitalist system. Its violence and oppression is necessary for its very existence. The tragedy of the Soviet Union was its violence was an unnecessary internal paranoid reaction to a very real external threat. The Soviet Union out of a false concept of the “necessary”, created its own professional class to speak in the name of the proletariat. This class without a clear identity of its own relationship to the means of production, never was in a position to understand the class needs or temperament of the Soviet Working Class. The professional bureaucrat became a ruling class, controlling the very same people they claimed to speak for. This contradiction only grew because the ideology did not recognize their separateness from the working class. This contradiction could not resolve itself without recognizing the antagonistic relationship between the workers and the professionals. When the professionals ceased to see itself as part of the working class they falsely saw themselves as potential capitalists. In point of fact the revolution or counter-revolution of 1989—1991 was never over democracy. The Communist Party professionals and many enterprise directors had dreams of becoming a national capitalist class. In the United States the Crimes committed by the ruling class are not only done with a clear conscience, but also with a clear mind as a necessity for the survival of the world market economy. The rape, felony, robbery and murder by the economic and political leaders of the US are as rational as they are cynical. Rational crimes can be even more dangerous than irrational crimes.

Vanguard or Mass Movement

The Party of the Working Class

The evolution of capitalism is also the evolution of a unified working class (Lenin 1973b. 40-41).

Ever since the Bolshevik Revolution the name of Lenin was closely associated with Marxism. Marxism-Leninism has often equated with not only Marxism, but with the entirety of the communist, socialist, and revolutionary working class movements.

Until after World War II the socialist movement as a whole was dwarfed by the Third international. Lenin strongly believed in a centralized command structure and a very strict discipline among revolutionaries is necessary for victory (Lenin 1973b: 6).

In fact Lenin was but one player in a rather diverse anti-capitalist movement. Before the Bolshevik Revolution his influence out side of Russia was limited. After 1917, because of the events in Russia his words and deeds electrified the left world wide, in turn sparking some of the healthiest debates in the 20th century. The books “What is to be Done” (1902), “The State and Revolution” (1917), and “Left Wing Communism: Infantile Disorder” (1921) expresses his evolving ideas on revolutionary strategy and the role of the party. This stimulated very heated debates between a vanguard vs. mass party, as well as the very definitions of democracy and the role of the revolutionary in a larger social movement. We need to look at the ideas of Lenin and compare them to other ideas on the revolutionary left. From beginning to end of the 19th century socialism was a mass movement, by the end of that century socialism grew beyond the working class. Many socialists believed that only those who are not confident with their own organization and understanding of the contemporary circumstances, of the environment surrounding the social movement, would be afraid to take part in an temporary alliance with other classes or parties. The political fact is that no party, whether it is a vanguard party or a mass party, can exist for long without association with other such political groups. A fundamental prerequisite for such an alliance must be the complete possibility for the Socialists who are not from the working class become exposed to the working class as a whole and the radical workers in particular. The result was the idea that the party of the revolution must never lose sight of the long-range goals while seeking short-term objectives. It must be remembered that it is to the advantage of the working class to understand that they have interests that are diametrically antagonistic to the interests of the capitalist and even sometimes the professionals and the self employed. The middle class must choose between alliances with one of the two major classes. In most cases, however the small business owners’ interests are even more frustrated by the large capitalist than the working class (Lenin 1973: 19).

The basic tenet of Marxism was it would fall to the working class to unshackle all classes of the demoralized, thereby emancipating humanity. Because the workers are the most exploited of the classes under capitalism, they cannot free themselves without abolishing exploitation in general. Because the working class is the most important class in capitalist production they can only grow in strength once properly organized. Thus Marx and the Marxists after Marx indentified with the working class. The expression of a class-conscious worker is socialism. Socialism is the primary mechanism for the freeing of the laboring classes from oppression. With out the expansion of practical democracy, socialism is inconceivable (Kautsky 1964: 1-2).

Lenin and Kautsky agreed on the needed supervision of the working class, and the importance to forming coalitions with others striving for freedom. Their dispute was over what kind of leadership, and the extent of popular participation in the control of the party. Was there to be a mass party led by representatives of the working class as a whole? Was there to be a vanguard core of professional revolutionaries who have accepted the life of sacrifice, and in the name of the working class they would carry out the revolution? When successful and only then will the working people be able to rule themselves through direct participatory democracy without fear for themselves and their families being imprisoned or murdered by government police. Social movements have internal roots, and are a part of a nation’s particular history. Social movements of any country must be understood within the historical context of that country (Cabral; Luxemburg).

Most social movements begin modestly in its vision, some of them become more comprehensive, elaborate, and radical. Creating radical socialist coalitions with the more moderate liberals, while sometimes necessary, limits the possibilities of its accomplishments. Radical social movements must move beyond these narrow limits if it is to grow and survive. Radicals, on the other hand, can become isolated if they refuse to work with reformist coalitions when the need arises. These coalitions are usually necessary at the beginning of a movement. Many moderate socialists often feel it is a mistake to go beyond these coalitions. To work with reformist coalitions merely provide a foundation for further social change. The strength of an alliance or popular front is not only cooperation, but also the recognition of the differences (Luxemburg 1970).

The outcome of any revolution is born from internal contradictions, yet its success or failure depends upon long-term international trends. The world market economy can overpower a national economy no matter how revolutionary. The revolution, which is either simply democratic or democratic and socialist, cannot escape this logic. Trotsky, Luxemburg, and Cabral all saw this truth in their respective revolutionary struggles. Each revolution has an important impact on any and all revolutions that follow. Socialist of all countries must maintain a deep sense of international solidarity. If not the forces of a highly organized market economy can prove more powerful than any socialist country can cope with, i.e. Cuba in the 1990’s (Luxemburg 1970).

The progressive nature of the American and French revolutionary traditions, rapidly turn into their opposites when the property of the wealthy was threatened by the rising popular expectations of toiling poor. Bonaparte and the U.S. Constitutions are examples of this reaction. From the founding of the Republic the U.S. created various anti-sedition legislations to quiet dissent. Un-American activities are always defined in a way that protects property and never extends equality. International solidarity and national struggles are a necessity because of the fact that capitalism is a highly integrated world system. Only through this unity can socialism ever develop and survive. The collapse of socialist economies around the world in the 1990’s prove the age of national economies is forever gone. Even the most sincere struggle of national liberation is doomed before it ever starts. Luxemburg and Trotsky saw this following the Bolsheviks coming to power in Russia. Then it seemed to many hopeful revolutionaries as overly pessimistic, today it cannot be denied. Revolution like the rest of a radical proletarian culture is always cosmopolitan. In the beginning the urban proletariat are derived from many isolated village cultures. In this new industrialized setting the dislocated rural population form a new culture when they move to town to find work. The philosophy of socialism helps the radicalized working class to understand the trauma of the industrial environment. Radical proletarian culture is born from both the lived experience of industrialization and the melding of several eccentric village cultures into something distinct. Revolution too feeds upon revolutions in other nations. While both national and international influences are important, this sharing of ideas between nations and applying them to unique national circumstances creates a new living culture. Finally, many urbanized radicals move back to their farm villages, bring with them new radical ideas that are intermingled with ancient tradition to create a culture of resistance in the countryside. These new traditionalist begin moving into town and through this process the bringing together of new long-established view points of many distinct backgrounds begin to merge with the urban radical culture (Luxemburg 1970).

These multinational urban ideas need grounding in a historical sociology. The pure labor unionist and the revolutionary conspirator, according to Lenin, share the worship of spontaneity. The anarchist-syndicalist, Lenin claims, surrender to the myth of sudden inspiration of action of the pure working class struggle, while the terrorists give away to the impetuousness of the burning moral rage of the isolated intellectual. The intellectual in their isolation are unable to join up with the struggle of the working class at the job site and in the working class communities. The intellectual is not part of the working class as a whole, unless they take on a working class identity and world-view (Lenin 1973:

92-95; Cabral 1969: 110).

The philosophy of Socialism, started growing out of the vision of those educated individuals who identified with the working poor. The Socialist Movement developed from historical and economic theories that were refined by the intellectuals’ from classes other than the working class (Lenin 1973: 37).

Bakunin held that the freeing from oppression of the workers must be the responsibility of the workers themselves, and not an intellectual vanguard

(Bakunin 1971: 295).

It would be terrifying for all people if a small group of party intellectuals had any real authority, beyond persuasion. All experts tend to exaggerate their importance, and any professional who believes in their own BS is of course a tyrant. Education is for all the people, and both the teacher and student continuously change roles, as we all learn from well thought out expressions born from experiences. Theory is created out of lived experiences. Minority rule is minority rule, and is based upon the unfounded faith of the stupidity of the masses (Bakunin 1971: 295-332).

In reality both Lenin and Bakunin are right, yet socialism cannot be socialism unless it resonates with the lived experience of the poor and working people. It is the objective conditions that create the class division of society. In the early stages of capitalist development the working class is an objective class, but not yet aware of itself as a class, only through its awareness does a class become a class fighting for the interest of the working class as a whole (Marx 1963: 173-174).

Marx does not answer the question where class consciousness comes from, leaving wide open Lenin’s theory of socialism coming from the outside. Marx clearly had in mind class interests occurs when one class confront in an antagonistic way another class. Class struggle when it is active will develop the already existing discord between two or more classes (Marx 1947: 82-95; Marx 1968: 51; Bukharin 1969: 292-293, 297).

Socialism seems like a homegrown working class phenomenon. Not brought in from the outside like Lenin assumes. When we speak of the ideas that revolutionize society, we are talking about within the shell of the older society, the elements of a newer one develops, the decay of the old ideas is replaced by newer revolutionary ones (Marx 1968: 51).

The correct revolutionary ideas are important, and the wrong

ones dangerous. The debate becomes important in the eyes of the participants.

Lenin targeted syndicalism as romantic reckless strategy. Syndicalism is a revolutionary way of life, in which everything is judged by how it affects the relative welfare and power of the workers. The workers will struggle to seize control of the government and the economy by their own direct efforts, creating a system of economic organization in which all industries and society as a whole are managed and owned exclusively by the

workers. If you don’t work you don’t eat. Notice the first two lines of the Preamble of the Industrial Workers of the World Constitution is as follows:

The working class and the employing class have nothing in

common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want

are found among millions of working people and the few, who

make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.

Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the

workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of

the means of production, and abolish the wage system.

* * *

It is the historic mission of the working class to do away with capitalism. The army of production must be organized, not only for the everyday struggle with capitalism, but also to carry on production when capitalism is overthrown. By organizing industrially we are forming the structure of the new society within the shell of the old. Revolution itself has created among the revolutionary working class “workers councils”. These were the workers who have developed a radical class-consciousness. At a certain point the workers outgrow their intellectual leadership from the universities. The party leaders maintain power only if the revolution is stopped at a point before reaching true democratic socialism (Lukacs 1971: 80).

The council communist saw Lenin’s party as part of the problem and not part of the solution, as leaders find it hard to give up power (McLellan 1979: 171).

Every devoted act by the radical workers no matter how faithful fails with out a sound theory. Radical ideas start out being the result of the lived experiences. Without the leadership of the vanguard, even their anger only weakens the working class movement, Lenin countered. All these anti-intellectual sentiments of direct action of the working class ends up being hostile portrayal of the scholarly ingredient of socialism as being mere academic hogwash. This only makes stronger the authority of liberal philosophy. To ridicule socialist beliefs for each and every appearance of elitism is popular superstition. This mindless populism is to deviate from the practical path of revolution and will removed in the long run any hope for success. Even the slightest importance given to this superstition is to encourage middle class beliefs of the impossibility of socialism (Lenin 1973: 46).

The Council Communist on the other hand, declared socialism was not a science of the vanguard, but the lived results of exploited workers fighting against that exploitation. The Bolsheviks according to these radicals were important in the fight against capitalism, but after the revolution the party would become a new sources of exploitation if the workers themselves did not eliminate this vanguard party (McLellan 1979: 172).

Rosa Luxemburg while condemning anarcho-syndicalist did support the idea of a mass strike, as being more important than the careful control over political action by a highly centralized party. In “What is to be Done” Lenin has two closely related points

that without this outside influence workers develop only a trade union consciousness, and without political freedom the revolutionary is always at risk. The intellectual, who becomes a professional revolutionary, can use their educational advantage to help the working class. In the autocratic state of czarist Russia a small group of highly disciplined and clandestine revolutionaries stood a better chance of being not detected by the secret police than individuals of a large undisciplined mass party. The police spy also is less threatening, while infiltrating the party; the spy does good work for the party by spreading the ideas of socialism (Luxemburg 1971: 227).

Revolutionary knowledge based upon an understanding of the social forces at work and the organizational ability to use this understanding are things that can be gained by labor union activists providing the desire is there to win real long term victories. The shortcomings of the social setting can be overcome providing these long-range goals are accepted (Lenin 1973:40).

While this is true there is no reason to assume that these skills must be gained by importation from outside the working class. In point of fact off times these skills are the result of having the time to study the social setting of the working class using the sociological imagination. It is also possible that lived every day experience of the workers themselves can lead to the same conclusions as that of the radical professional anthropologist or sociologist (Luxemburg 1971: 228).

The potency of the working class militant activity is increased by workers taking their destiny into their own hands and out of the hands of their labor administration (Lenin 1973:43).

Radical principles are gained through workers’ own accomplishments. Education can seem real if it reflects workers own lived every day experiences. This would basically lead to a conclusion different from what Lenin proposes. Once again the intellectual of other than working class origins has a valuable role to play, it does not follow that theory must be brought in from the outside. Lenin was on the right track in the following idea. The only real alternatives remaining for workers to choose from in a capitalist society is between either, what Lenin called, “bourgeois liberalism” which is the same thing as the dominant culture, or the socialist culture also known as revolutionary approach to life. In a society split by class conflict there cannot be a nonpartisan set of beliefs representing a classless point of view (Lenin 1973: 48).

The power of mass culture is something that has continuously blunted radical criticism. Lenin recognized this, a mass social movement has to fight against the social drugs of religion and popular culture. With the hasty growth of a movement the working class struggles without a clearly developed radical ideology, the workers will remain mesmerized to the mass culture controlled or captured by the capitalist class. Because of the individualizing effects of these twin drugs the subjugation of the toilers remains complete. Popular culture, of course, at its core is an out growth of capitalism. Popular culture ultimately defines reality in the narrow confines of conventional consumerist society. The labor union movement, according to Lenin, without a socialist organization associated with it means servitude of the working class to the capitalist rules of the game. This has proven true in the US. The job of the socialist is to help workers to gain a radical discipline. Radical workers take the working class movement away from this mawkishness of sentimentality and have it supported by the revolutionary attachment to the rigor of class studies. As long as the working class is controlled by the mass culture superstitions, extreme swings in sentimental drivel such as nationalism and religious awakening become constant threats to the hope of liberation (Lenin 1973: 49).

Class awareness of the capitalist, is economic to its core. The antagonistic disharmony between essential principles and economy, means core values are rewritten to see the free market as based upon human nature, and a self-regulating economy as following natural laws. The dominions of the industrialist, financial capitalist and government envelop the total society; the entire society is organized around the interests of the capitalist class. The ideological history of the capitalist class is the frantic preventing of any serious understanding of the genuine character of the society created by the ruling class (Lukacs 1968: 64—66; Polanyi 1944).

To make real the liberal illusions of every aspect of life is necessary for capitalism. Alternatives are kept from view. The substance of ideology and its coterminous consciousness can be understood only when one analyze them in their actual social environment. Distinct social surroundings lead to a particular type of consciousness. What appears to be a stability of a philosophy we should examine that set of beliefs in its real material setting, in order to comprehend the fine distinctions an ideology goes through as its social environment changes (Lukas 1968:27-81).

Ideology is a complex system of opinions, beliefs and ideas directly and indirectly formed by the economic and social characteristics of any society. Ideology combines in an eloquent way the position, resources, needs and objectives of certain social classes and is organized to continue or transform the present social structure (The Fundamentals of Marxist Leninist Philosophy 1974:475).

Gramsci, while analyzing a success strategy for a revolutionary party to follow, set the theoretical tone for investigating the relationship between structure and super-structure. He noted that the popular beliefs and ideas become a motivating force in people’s actions, and, as such, are themselves part of the social environment. This means that in a dialectical manner, while it can be said material forces in society fabricate ideology, ideology becomes in turn part of the material forces (Gramsci 1971:123-205).

It is the question of the relationship between structure (technology, environment and economic core) and super-structure (ideology and culture), which we must first correctly understand if the trends, which are dynamic part of history of a specific era, are to be accurately analyzed (Gramsci 1971:177).

The continual redefinition of ideology requires the appearance of continuity for what it is: a non-historical view that fails to see the relationship between the material base and the ideological super-structure (Gramsci 1971:177-179).

When the workers finally strive for its own class interests it at once has the possibility of creating a strategy that can carry through the intelligent attainment of the actual goals of the total toiling masses of a society (Lukacs 1968: 149).

The consciousness of the laboring class is impractical, as long as it does not become freed from mass culture. Mass culture is not a real class-consciousness. Before all the traces of the mind deadening alternative of religion and mass culture are replaced by a directed class awareness the intelligent moral principles of a political theory of action representing the actual needs of the working class must become separated from the short term fads of popular culture, or the escapist drunkenness of religion. There will never be practical class awareness on the part of the workers, until they understand the society of which they are apart. Every other social class must also be understood as far as their interests are concerned in relation to the interest of the working class. This must be done in order to understand what alliances are possible and the limitations to those alliances. The workers must learn philosophical and scientific materialism using this approach to examine minutely all conditions of life and class conflict in any society (Lenin 1973: 86).

The liberal arrangements of their concepts are more developed, than socialist sociology. Neo-liberal and neo-classical economic philosophy of constant development within the narrow confines of capitalist reality results in the lack of critical sociology. This never questioning liberal capitalist intellectual history means never seriously questioning the foundations of capitalist society. This can be carried to the point that overly mature capitalism is seen as natural, until it becomes intensely ubiquitous increasing its believability because of the lack of acceptable alternatives. The faddishness of conventional liberal philosophy, even at the most academic level, leads to continuous paradigm shifts that lead nowhere. It is enlargement in the family tree of mainstream explanations of any social reality that leads to the popular marginalization of critical sociology of the socialist variety. A neo-conservative and neo-liberal doctrine appears more advanced by the marginalization of alternatives through the economic controls over resources giving conformist dogma more of a chance to distribute alternative ideas. Socialist philosophy is still in the process of developing explanations based upon lived experience, and this is its strength. The larger the normal rebellion of the common people, the more far-reaching the movement becomes, so socialist understanding grows through experimentation and experience. The needs of the people in their struggles for equality, power and freedom advance the requirement for superior awareness in the theoretical, political and organizational work of socialism. Lenin and Luxemburg views differ on the importance of raw experience in formulating an insightful theory. All the unions can achieve, according to Lenin, without socialism is for the sellers of labor power is to educate themselves as workers on how to sell their commodity, labor power and to fight the purchasers of labor power over an utterly economic contract. This may lead to better terms for wages. Unions are part of the greater socialist movement. This means that the struggle of the working class is not only for increased wages and better conditions of the sale of their labor power, but also the elimination of that social order which forces the propertyless to prostitute themselves to the rich property owners (Lenin 1973: 50-70).

The collaborative battle of the workers through their unions, which fought against their employers for better working conditions and more money in the marketing of their labor power, remains limited. This business unionism is a struggle related to economy, i.e. industrial in nature, and does not deal with the political problems of oppression, or exploitation. Circumstances of work vary greatly between jobs and frequently the diversified occupations; make a common economic strategy without a larger social and political agenda very insufficient. Thus industrial unions are an improvement over craft unions, yet they still remain locked into respect for the owners’ property. Revolutionary socialist will fight for freedom and for socialism when they put theory into practice. The propagandist and the radical sociologist construct ideas mainly by method of the printed word, while the activist by way of the lively expression of ideas through the process of activities (Lenin 1973: 75-83).

Economic compromises are the least costly and beneficial practice from the government’s attitude of control over the people. Humble reforms, it is hoped, will obtain the trust of the majority of workers. A significant requirement for the increase of political struggle of the workers against the abuses they suffer under capitalism is the creation of the exhaustive political revelation through the advancement of critical sociology of how the existing system benefits those in positions of wealth and power. Through repeated efforts of legitimate political activity that only leave the social relations in tack, the common people will become well-grounded in class consciousness and with the right kind of social theory the revolutionary political activity of radical workers becomes understandable. Working class consciousness cannot become political awareness unless the workers are experienced in fighting all classifications of exploitation and oppression, against any dispossessed classes even the middle class (Lenin 1973:

84-85).

Invitation to fight the bosses by the class of workers is to enter into conflict against the owners of the resources needed for liberation. Each confrontation can only be made at the time and locality that the conflict takes place. Only those who are part of the purposeful course of action can make the cry for a social movement (Lenin 1973: 88; Cabral 1969: 92).

Lenin because of the fact of the secret police of the Tsar, could not see that struggle of the workers in their own lived everyday experience, have the raw materials to become radical activist sociologist or anthropologist. As Gramsci repeatedly pointed out when ever any class comes into existence creates its own set of intellectuals, which give the class its identity, and awareness of its self as a class (Gramsci 1971: 5-6).

Lenin’s general distrust for the untrained revolutionary stands in marked contrast to Luxemburg’s view of the mass strike. To her the mass strike was the most substantial weapon in the struggles of the working class (Luxemburg 1971: 227).

If it were simply a deliberation between the expressiveness of the encouragement of their dreamlike political views, then secret resolutions of the central committee were accurate then mass strikes would be seen as non-revolutionary. In point of fact it is only through the mass strike that the majority of workers become revolutionaries according to Luxemburg (1971: 231).

The real working class revolutionary is recruited from the experience of exploitation. Struggle for freedom is their education, as the objectives of the struggle become clear. There is created out the ranks a massive segment of workers trained in political battles, and the probability for the workers to acquire their own political movement by way of direct action. This is a straight path to power within their public life, to create an assemblage of like thinkers, establish party publications, and to establish large public councils (Luxemburg 1970: 89).

The intellectuals no matter how revolutionary has a (overly romantic and poetic) personal mannerisms only leading to a flightiness and vicissitude in their quaintness. Working class teachers are the stewards and must dominate their own movement, and the town laboring class must stand as the pilot (Trotsky 1969: 70).

Lenin is opposed to the above views. No matter how we try to give the economic struggle a political makeup, workers will never be able to gain a political consciousness in Lenin’s view. If the workers stay within the environment of the economic issues, business unionism is all that can be hoped for. This is because pure and simple unionism as a direction is much too confining to fight the structure of oppression and exploitation enslaving the lives of the workers. The political consciousness of the working class can be completed by the struggles of the workers alone. This education is born from the actions that remain apart from of the pure economic struggle of their unions. The political awareness is obtained is from the relationship between the opposing classes and the state (Lenin 1973: 97-98).

Socialist should show their typical democratic loyalties in the company of all the people, without ever hiding their radical socialist convictions that are necessary for democracy. The conclusion is that the political and social life of the proletariat as a class is aware of existing class stratification. The beginning of the revolutionary contest is on the inside of the fight for freedom worldwide. Socialist should promote freedom of the working class as the essence of their political rallying cry and their campaign for the social movement for the struggle for equality economic, political, and social (Lenin 1973: 102-103).

Socialism is more than the democratic organization of economic production;

socialism is also the democratic organization of the social life of the communities. Working class struggle for socialism takes for granted democracy, or the completion of democracy (Kautsky 1971: 4—13).

The best community for political orientation is the working class. This is true, however only after they become class conscious. Which means the workers need a broad and energetic political understanding, workers will only then become the most able at adapting this information into an active struggle. Political displays are public announcements of resistance against the state. Economic revelations are an assertion of a fight against the bosses and owners. Simply put, an alliance is needed that will coordinate the population for an extensive struggle against capital and lead discussion groups to inspire still others. This creates distinctively acute knowledge on the causes of the origin of the oppression of the toiling masses. Only at that point can the radical be developed as the forefront of the revolutionary action of our time (Lenin 1973: 109-110).

The participants in a democratic movement should unite into one coalition of comrades to force the government to act in the name of all the working people. The revolutionary preparation by the most militant of the revolutionary workers, must defend public liberty, while directing the economic struggle of the working class as a whole, and bringing together an ever-expanding collection of the total working class (Lenin 1973: 109-111).

According to Lenin: The unexpected social movements of the working class left to its own logic can give birth to only minor reforms of trade unions. With the Capitalist state the politics of working class labor unions are definitely working class politics defined and limited by the rules of the state and official capitalist principles (Lenin 1973: 117).

Normally most workers are able to show great deal of brave behavior in their personal commitment to a strike and show courage with their on going conflict with the bosses. This was important because the entire establishment of law is only used to protect the property of the owners. These same workers are capable of setting up the struggle to maximize the accomplishment of the strike given the power of the other side. This has a direct effect of bringing the larger labor movement to the lives of the working class community in the area. The fight for is immediate demands by all the toiling people. But in Russia of Lenin’s time the fight against the terror of the secret police required special qualities for the professional revolutionaries. This vanguard of the working class struggled along side of the rest of the working class, but was the permanent core of the revolution. They were to encourage the workers to advance concrete demands, and to increase the numbers of revolutionaries within the ranks of that working class (Lenin 1973: 135).

The reality as seen by Lenin is that the rank and file workers are spontaneously being attracted into the labor movement. This movement makes the association of the working poor into a united army of organized and disciplined toilers. This is unexpected, from the owner’s point of view. The inspiring the rabble to action is always a surprise. The sight of this ragtag group of drudges struggling against these same owners in unity causes among the capitalist class as a whole such an over reaction. This in turn will promote among the working class ever enlarging quantity of skilled revolutionaries to fill leadership roles (Lenin 1973: 136).

Russia were concerned because of the conditions of the autocratic state where the working class lack political rights found in most of the Western European societies of his day. The association of activist (rabble rousers) must be composed of folks willing to make the revolutionary movement their craft and profession. Revolution becomes a life style as far as the existing political potential is concerned. Revolutionary fellowships required the separation between the workers and intellectuals be collapsed, and the separation between unskilled labor, skilled trades and professions will have to be taken apart piece by piece. If political rights are not protected than the leadership must remain small and hidden from the view of government officials. To Lenin the position of full time revolutionary was exclusive of the radical professional. The revolutionary was to take an advantageous position within existing unions while remaining active and efficient in the direction of future socialism. Every socialist should work in the union at their job site and any other progressive community affiliation (Lenin 1973: 138-143).

Socialist Democracy will replace liberal democracy with a democratic direction that wisdom will nurture and that will denote the method for the entire laboring class in their battle for equality (Lenin 1973: 144-145).

It is necessary for radicals to bring about a far-reaching a communication network. These same militants must reach as many workers as feasible about their leftist arguments in order to make known to the widest numbers understandable ideas about class struggle within the nation of workers. A modestly succinct nucleus of those activists that show the greatest in dependability, capability and discipline among the workers, for Lenin, is the important center of revolutionary activity. The contradiction between popular democracy and revolutionary discipline is where Lenin receives his greatest criticism (Lenin 19173: 145).

The following is a paraphrase of Lenin’s theory of a vanguard party, as can be seen the critical environmental issue is the police state Lenin was dealing with. The revolutionary professional was necessary for the revolution. It is also important to have groups of activist in each locality; united to other progressive groups. The core that unites these groups must remain underground, however and must be unseen to the bosses. This forms the center within the radical labor groups themselves. With the widest aid from the rank and file that can be achieved, while through the larger organizations the small revolutionary core provides services needed for a trade union and labor party even in a police state. Beginning with the firm structure and a powerful organization of revolutionaries there is a promise of stability in the social movement. The entire labor movement is brought under a single management. The revolutionaries together with the entire labor and community groups are united in popular action; carrying out the aims of socialism, and democracy. Labor unions need protection in the face of repression from any totalitarian government. Radicals must have an organized council of skilled activist. For a successful revolution it is not important one way or the other if any single student or worker is able to become a revolutionary, it is important that the analysis of the professional revolutionary matches the social reality of the workers. No insurrection can grow and survive without a sturdy organization of an advance guard that retains its primary goals (Lenin 1973: 145-52).

The more thoroughly the common people are brought into class struggle, the more they will become an integral part of the support of the movement for socialism. Workers should take part in much of the necessary tasks of revolutionary action. This becomes the society of radical workers. This is a cultural revolution. The leadership of radicals must become a more complete organization of revolutionaries, if it is to become the vanguard. The essence of the structure of the movement is composed of a small group of professional revolutionaries. In any tyrannical government, Lenin believed the body of members of the leadership core be restricted to the people who are experienced in practicing revolutionary activity and who have been skilled in preparation of opposing the governmental control. With a small professional core as leaders it will be more troublesome to rub out such an organization. The populace of the working class will be capable of uniting with the movement more actively (Lenin 1973: 153)

It takes many years of experience to prepare oneself for social action and to mature as an expert social activist. The living and far-reaching support of the common people will not be hurt by, but will be further enrich by a small group of trained revolutionaries, informed and skilled in the art of revolution. These revolutionaries must concentrate all professional activity in the direction of organized social change. To escape the notice of the police they must conceal much of the conditions of their occupation. They accumulate of the skills needed. While for the majority, of their activities remains concealed from public view. The good service done in the association of these radicals will not lessen, but more willingly grow in the magnitude and accomplishment of the larger social movement. A wide-ranging total of diverse groups can now be effectively brought into this struggle. People brought into this movement are now better directed. Which means they have their goals more clearly in mind. The sameobstacles, now unfetter the citizens belonging to more extensive popular organizations, as the professional revolutionaries face and popular activities remain as unhidden as feasible (Lenin 1973: 154-155).

In Russia Capitalism was introduced through the active intervention of the state (Trotsky 1969: 42).

During the 19th century in Russia big capital and the industrial revolution were artificially imposed upon a natural economy (Trotsky 1969:61).

The centralized government of the Tsar became independent of direct influence of the aristocracy and the large capitalist, mostly foreign; though government was dependent on both sections of the ruling classes. This became the formula for the particular type of autocratic rule the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries were dealing with. The government was both a stimulus for economic growth, because of the needs of the army; and a fetter on economic development because of autocratic control over the economic environment (Trotsky 1969: 44).

Lenin’s model of a vanguard party is limited in its moral justification to police states without minimal protection of civil rights. The less democratic the central command is the less democratic will be its results after the revolution. Louis Auguste Blanqui taught what became known as Blanquism that a small number of secret revolutionaries could make a revolution for the working class. The problem remained, revolutionary activities that this small group of conspirators’ carried out in name of the working class, there wasn’t much actual feedback from those workers. Lenin shared this same problem with his organization. While he was more creative than many of his followers, it still remains a serious flaw that is difficult to overcome. For example, Lenin debated with Rosa Luxemburg on the issue of nationalism. Lenin supported it and Rosa Luxemburg thought was that it was at most of secondary importance. In point of fact Polish chauvinism, which would give the church and landlords in Poland power for the reaction. The urban working class in Austria, Germany, and Russia saw common cause with the working class of each of these three nations as more likely to lead to empowerment for the workers than nationalism. Lenin in this case was out of touch with Polish workers in the 1905 Revolution. The Polish Workers would stand to lose in an independent Poland (Luxemburg 1976; Davis 1978).

Lenin hypothesized that a centralized command structure and a very strict discipline among revolutionaries was necessary for victory (Lenin 1973b.6).

The actuality past historical events and the forced isolation of most revolutionary struggles within nations out side of Western Europe and North America, meant socialist movements in the “backward countries” anticipated that the national parties ought to count on support from larger more established socialist parties in the West. The smaller parties surrounded by a hostile capitalist world limited the possibilities of any socialist. But help did not come. Repression and national security issues were the advanced capitalist countries response. There would be suspension of many civil liberties in the advanced democracies, and either direct invasion of the neo-colonial or secondary nations by the highly developed capitalist powers or the support of third world dictators.

The flaw in universally applying what Lenin help organize in Russia as a model for radical change everywhere in the world is the failure to distinguish among the various types of governments within the world capitalist system. The fundamental position held by Marxist Political Sociology is that the state is the result of class society. With economic stratification class antagonisms develop requiring ultimately the coercion of the state to safeguard the existing institutions of wealth and power. The state mechanisms arise when and where these natural rivalries of interests require force to preserve the peace. As long as a conflict of interest exists class antagonisms will exist and peaceful reconciliation cannot be guaranteed (Lenin 1970a: 7).

This broad overview cannot be taken as absolute. Each country will have its own history of struggle and balance of power between the classes. Multilinear evolution assumes that there is some regularity in cultural change between different societies, but not necessarily so. This is an empirical question and not a universal. Differences also occur depending upon core economic and historical variables (Steward 1955: 18-19).

The economically dominant classes can function best where their security is recognized as the security of all by the dominant ideology. The exploited classes are taught to accommodate the upper class. Challenging the sound reasoning of the dominant ideology is unacceptable. The alternatives are “practical politics” or revolution. The rebellion of the “people’ is subversive because if successful will create and entirely new game plan for the political and Cultural Revolution. The rivalry of competitive firms is the theory of a market economy. The competition of political parties for public office is the theory of liberal democracy. Free markets lead to economic monopolies; electoral democracy leads to large administrative bureaucracies or political monopolies. The types of monopolies are mutually supportive of the political and economic elites, which most often are the same people. Both free markets and free elections lead to centralization and concentration of power, cultural mediocrity, and xenophobic individualism What ever sells gets elected. The struggle for a greater share of the market presupposes a tightly controlled market. In politics this leads to the ideology and behavior of authoritarian democracy of the privileged elite (Bottomore 1979: 17).

Law and order is the main means of violating the basic human rights within the United States. Labor organizations can easily be targeted because of the perceived threat to private property. Subversive organizations were defined, officially, in such away as to allow repression of any of the groups, which may question the assumptions of the capitalist economy. It is not only within the United States that repression of dissent became the norm, but around the world the U.S. Government felt free to use violence either through direct intervention or by supporting regimes with abysmal human rights records. The mass culture in the United States has been manipulated to create a popular demand for suppression of alternative views of life, and open support for shameless neo-colonialism around the world. Violence is the official policy when preserving liberal society of the United States and its worldwide empire. The purity of principal of basic liberal civil rights around the world and at home, require the direct violation of those self same rights in order to protect the foundation of liberal society. Life in liberal society is mystified, in away that creates a total culture of support for a capitalist economy and capitalist class rule. Resistance becomes impossible without a fundamental ideological break within the radical herself from the education she received in liberal capitalist society. With out this break any serious resistance becomes psychologically impossible. Alternatives become limited within safe bounds in a way that can be incorporated within capitalism protecting private property and liberal bureaucratic rule. A spiritually vacuous life becomes the norm, leading to metaphysical illusions and escapism as the only hope for relief (Luxemburg 1970: Saxton 1992; Bakunin; Lenin 1973b; Marx 1968; Trotsky 1968).

For democracy to protect the interests of the economic privileged few, a sharing of core values is required of all the citizens regardless of class. Democracy of the political patricians must be viewed, as a completed article of trade, a sophisticated system and it is the core values that hold it together. Further radical evolution of democracy would only undermine the political culture of liberal democracy. Democracy in a capitalist society not only stands opposed to every other political system, but any opposing definition of democracy (Bottomore 1979: 18).

The radical wants to extend democracy beyond the narrow confines of the selection of candidates. Democracy can never become a finished product, but a continuing evolutionary process. Democracy is a total cultural life-style. There is not a distinct separation of political culture from the rest of the life ways of a people. Political democracy gives way to social democracy, economic democracy, intellectual democracy, cultural democracy and spiritual democracy. If existing political institution furthers the democratic vision than they can be used. If political democracy as it is instituted stands in the way of the democratic life-style than it must be obliterated.

Workers and Farmers Reform, Revolution: Working Class Organizations

Labor unions are positively essential because the workers are much healthier as a class the larger the total amount of members of the working class organized within the unions. The larger the fiscal assets of the unions, the stronger they are, in relation to the task they have to do. Bureaucracies become inevitable because the size, permanence and the ramifications of these labor organizations. Bureaucracies restrict the use of the general strikes, and it is the direct action of strikes that leads to more democracy. These organizations democratic or bureaucratic are necessary for the emancipation of the working class. Unions and the Parliamentary parties, however, can only act as a backup for the spontaneous strikes. Only through direct action will the leadership fall into the hands of the worker councils or local soviets (Kautsky 1971: 83).

It would appear according to Kautsky that unions and social democratic parties are both working class organizations, but will lead to increasing orderliness of these associations and thus increasing bureaucracies. The workers themselves need to work within the system to democratize the bureaucracies. First the workers must create their parties that work closely with their unions. The concept of a working class dictatorship would unavoidably occur in a setting of genuine democracy, this is because the workers would be the majority. Dictatorship as a form of continued existence, must not be confused with dictatorship as a form of government. Dictatorship as a form of government will mean to neutralize the adversary by taking away the vote, freedoms of press, speech, and association. The governmental form has nothing to do with the rule by the majority class (Kautsky 1971: 45).

State organization of the existing means of production, through the state bureaucracy foreordains a dictatorship of a small group of people and this is not socialism. Socialism must be that the broadest masses of people are actively part of the formulation of control of these needed resources. Political and economic structures of society, which would be under the direct, collective and democratic control of all the people, can develop in complete liberty. The socialist type of labor is not the function of military discipline. The dictatorship of a vanguard, which would bestow to the people full freedom of association, simply disables its own power in the process. This volunteering to give up of power seems unlikely. If the dictatorship chooses to persist in its own command by restraining the freedom of its opposition, it obstructs the development of socialism, which is public and democratic control of the means of production. The obedient army is always the basis of the dictatorship of government. Through the repression of dissent with the elimination of basic liberties and the coercion, suppressing freedom of expression, a counter-revolutionary army becomes the next logical step. Civil war becomes the death of revolutionary progress (Kautsky 1971: 51—52).

Revolution itself has created among the revolutionary working class “workers councils”. These were the workers that have developed a radical class-consciousness. At a certain point the workers outgrow their intellectual leadership of minor academic and specialized origins. The party leaders maintain power only if the revolution is stopped at a point before reaching true democratic socialism (Lukacs 1971: 80).

Lenin did agree, yet the council communist saw Lenin’s party as part of the problem and not part of the solution, as leaders find it hard to give up power (McLellan 1979: 171).

Under a democracy, socialism can be achieved completely only when most of the people desire of it. An active minority cannot institute socialism when the majority is opposed to it (Kautsky 1971: 88-89).

Socialism means liberty, food, safety, a livable natural environment and lodgings for all. All are equally important. People cannot be consoled for the loss of freedom with food and shelter or even increasing material pleasures of life. The old ruling class still trying to regain power need not loose the vote. The workers greatest political power is its numbers (Kautsky 1971:90—91).

A society that has a democratic government and a capitalist economy is a possible candidate for socialism. The more contemporary and integrated the productive creation of goods and services and the rest of the economy the easier socialism can be established. The larger the working class, the more educated this class, and the more experience in parties and unions in a democracy the more likely socialism is to be established. Once the socialist party wins the national elections the workers will attain the physical and intellectual assets to establish socialism (Kautsky 1971: 96).

The devotion, will and capabilities of the revolutionaries are limited by the material conditions of that society and this proves how powerless even the strongest revolutionary organization is. Democracy in a real form cannot be found anywhere on earth, and everywhere must be strived for continuously. The closer the people come to democracy the closer they are to socialism. To compromise the principles of democracy is to compromise the principles of socialism (Kautsky 1971:136—149)).

Labor is Symbolic

Labor is both symbolic and natural. Labor is born in combining symbols of creation with real human needs or wants. As a Dine’ person may say thinking leads to planning, planning to action, through action the product of labor is born. Through working together in an existing environment, to take from nature and altering it in ways to meet our needs, we bring forth new needs in this action. It is through this process of being human that society and cultures are created, and only in society are we fully human. Only through affinity with others can we decidedly attain our power of creativity of expression and fully maximize our humanity. (Donham: 56)

We produce, and thus make happen, alter, create and ultimately bring forth ourselves through labor. Thought and action through labor produces new thought and action continuously. Culture through communication, and collective expressive validity, which creates meaning, that becomes basic to the cultural explanations and socially knowledgeable people who in turn create themselves by creating culture (Donham: 57).

Societies to a certain degree are internally consistent. There is a fundamental interactive relationship between economy, politics and religion in a mutually reciprocal way where these institutions can be intellectually defined within a larger social whole. These “social totalities” have structures of somewhat consistent arrangements of institutions that define the type of character a society has, in spite of the variation with in the whole of that society. In any social and historical setting there are limited

options that the formation of these structures place upon choices people make and the degree of social change possible. There are types of societies these types form epochs. The epochs are a short hand for these basic themes of production of human social life of an entire historical era. (Donham: 58).

Productive powers are anything that can be used in production and through production people interacts with nature. People act in a way that will ensure that production in fact occurs because of our collective efforts and in turn we can use these forces and powers. This contribution to production is in fact planned. There must be an objective knowledge about this contribution to production. This interpretive composition of comprehension, within a culturally defined meaning and within a relative framework establishes our ability to communicate in a social context. A related interactive complex of meaning for the actors is involved. This is central to the interpretation of symbols needed to carry out production. Productive powers include raw materials, technology, within an environment along with the skills and knowledge about the use of technology with in that environment. (Donham: 59).

Humans in fact create themselves and their society through their productive action in the material world. Productive powers are the resources that people use in that process. It is acting people using symbols, ideas and objects which, changes nature that is the core to the production of society and its culture (Donham: 60).

All human social relations and their functions have an incontestable influence upon material production, and material production directly influences these relations (Donham: 60).

Humans realize themselves through labor. Through labor people develop power and skills with an on going “dialectic” with nature. Productive knowledge is central to this actualization. Differing productive powers (forces of production) express themselves in different societies. Different relations of production give internal groups different interests in technological changes in these different societies. Most social revolutions would appear to preserve the level of productive powers already achieved. Yet this tendency of expanding powers can best be seen at the world level, because locally relations of production can prevent technical development beyond a certain point. The population size and average productivity of labor, resolutely conditions mass productive powers (Donham: 61).

It is power that decides differing groups access to control over the means of production, and the division of the fruits of labor of that society. Relations of production lead to productive inequalities. These relations of production are affinity between groups with in a society in which some groups dominate and others remain subordinate in production and distribution. This is the basis of the inequalities over the distribution of societies total product (Donham: 62).

A capitalist owns the means of production. Because of this power, the capitalist can buy labor power of those who nothing but their ability to work. The owner now controls the labor of others and the product they produce. It is the owners who own the profits of the production process. Prior to beginning of the labor process, the specific distribution of power over the forces of production is in place. The capitalist has ultimate control over the means of production; the proletarian now has only labor power to offer. It is the capitalist who has says who gets what when the final product is sold (Donham: 63).

More than control over the forces of production; it is the differential power over the production and distribution of society’s total product that leads to gross inequalities within the relations of production, or productive inequalities. Productive inequalities are in fact powers over labor and products of that labor. This unequal access to the resources used in production means one group lives to a greater or lesser extent on the labor of the others. Marxist’s utopian vision is that everyone can realized their essential identity through their free and creative labor in a community of mutually supporting free and creative individuals each benefiting and benefiting from all these others. Productive inequalities are social impediments to the process of true freedom and creative self-realization of labor. Labor should be our spiritual connection between ourselves, the community of free citizens and with nature. Labor is the essence of our humanity. With inequality this spiritual essence is shattered. Labor becomes the toil of drudgery.

Individuals become alienated from the creative process of labor and thus form their own spiritual essence. We are all alienated from the products that we produce. The social product required for our self-realization stands in opposition to any hope for that self-realization (Donham: 65).

In functionalism there is no understanding about the inherent conflicts with in a social order and cultural manifestations, or it is seen as detrimental to the over all wellbeing of the humans involved. The functionalist sees any conflicts that that might arise as being the result of individuals who were poorly educated in the core values of that society and became deviants. Marxist disagrees. Marxist claim the economic system is based upon exploitation. The direct producers create the surplus used against them and which supports the élites. The manner in which this surplus is extracted from the producers determines the relationship of “servitude and domination”. Because this grows directly out of production and this relation in this relationship in turn is determinant to production. The degree of alienation reflects how short the producers’ fall short of realizing or actualizing their essential quality of their humanity through labor or the products of their labor. Technology is historical specific and environment is also distinct to a setting. Both are always changing. The greater the potential for achieving freedom through creative labor, the greater will be the failure of the potential because of exploitation. The gap between the benefit going to the producers and the benefit to an elite who receives the surplus continues to increase. This multiplies the degree of alienation to the producers (Donham: 65).

At the beginning of the productive operations, capitalist society is divided into inequalities founded on the productive process. The two major classes stand opposed to each other, in an unequal contest of power. Capitalist who control the “greatest mass of productive powers” over and against those who are separated from control of the forces of production and have only their potential labor power to bargain with for a wage

job. Capitalist control the means of production, only they have power to establish the enterprises of capitalism. Capitalist invests their money in machines and the hiring of the labor of workers (Donham: 66).

Workers own nothing but their own labor power. Without access to the forces of production controlled by the capitalist workers cannot work. Without the capitalist, then all production lies idle. Starving workers are in a poor position to bargain. Workers are free to sell their labor power or free to starve. It is only a matter of which capitalist they work for. The workers to live must work for some capitalist, the structure of capitalism is as simple as that (Donham: 66).

It is the capitalist that organizes production. The pace and intensity of the work force is under the command of the capitalist. The capitalist is constantly driving the workers to produce more in less time. Workers resist any way they can, like on the job sabotage, or joining unions. Even so it is the workers and not the capitalist who owns the surplus created by the workers and not by the capitalists. This surplus is reinvested into ever expanding capital, increasing the power of the capitalist and diminishing the power of the workers (Donham: 66).

There is a system of ideas that convinces all classes within a society that the unequal distribution of power is both natural and healthy. Power of ideology and the ideology of power mutually interact, in a way that the majority of both the exploiters and the exploited agree on this relationship as the best around. The powerful will act to preserve their power at all costs, and the powerless often cooperate with their own subjugation. When opposition arises among the exploited is likely to be divided, while the exploiters are far more united. Both the powerful and the powerless then believe the dominant culture. Ideologies then have a kernel of truth, but are limited in that the full possibilities of any particular time are not completely recognized by the workers themselves (Donham: 68).

In all societies the norms and values have a conventionalized or conventional ways of settling social conflicts. Laws and conflict resolution are necessary for stability. If these conflicts widen the contradictions in a society the social production of power relations are threatened. The mode of production and its unequal power relations must be maintained to the interests of the dominant groups (Donham: 69).

Coercive force finally can be used to maintain the law and preserve the dominant ideology. This coercion is very slight in some societies and very authoritarian in others. It is the dominant ideology and the law that makes coercion to preserve the power

of the dominant group legitimate (Donham: 70).

Forces of production are anything that can be used in the material process of production. Relations of production (social organization and social relationships) are characteristics of prevailing power over the productive process as well as over the gross a product of the labor of society. Superstructures (culture, ideology, politics) are created and reproduce the relations of production, including the established inequalities. It is through their conscious action that people reproduce their lived mode of production. Insight into inequalities and oppression often exists, while knowledge of possible successful options to fight back is often hidden from view (Donham: 70).

Superstructure is not simply determined by relations of production. The productive inequalities are expressed in the ideology of the superstructure. In turn the superstructure are necessary for the reproduction of these inequalities (Donham: 71).

Relations of production that maintain the productive inequalities have only a number of conceivable reproductive arrangements that can stabilize the existence of differences in social power. This pattern of purpose is selected for, in order to bring about the superstructure that allows the inequalities to exist in the first place (Donham: 72).

Forces of production and the level of productive powers determines the relations of production and its productive inequalities, because there are only a limited number of potential productive inequalities which promote subsequent development of the powers of production. As long as forces and relations of production reinforce each other the powers of production can be expanded until real limits in the development is attained only by revolutionary changes in the relations of production is this stagnation transcended (Donham: 73).

Conservation of orderly reciprocation is founded upon the superstructure. Part of the replication pattern of a dominant culture perseveres in a consistent manner an assemblage of inequalities. The superstructure protects the economic base from any attempt to rupture or reconstruct those inequalities (Donham: 73).

The pattern of power over people results from the kind of control that one group may have over other people and results from the kind of control the more powerful group may have over the forces of production. Through social reproduction the pattern of control over the forces of production leads to control over people in the work process, strengthens the control of forces of production and the producers alike. This is a relationship of power (Donham: 82).

Standard Bibliography for Withering of the State

Allende, Salvador (1973) Chile’s Road to Socialism Pelican

Althusser, Louis (1969) For Marx. Vintage

Bakunin, Michael God and the State (1971)

Berkman, Alexander (1972) What is Communist Anarchism: Dover

Bukharin, Nikolai (1969) Historical materialism: A system of

sociology Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press

Cabral, Amilcar (1969) The Weapon of Theory New York

International Publishers

Cameron, Kenneth Neill (1995) Dialectical Materialism and

Modern Science New York International Publishers

Davis, Horace B. (1978) Toward A Marxist Theory Of

Nationalism New York, Monthly Review

Donham, Donald L. (1999) History, Power, Ideology: Central

Issues in Marxism and Anthropology Berkley, University of

California Press

Engles, Frederick (1955) The Conditions of the Working Class in

England New York International Publishers

Engles, Frederick (1965) Peasant War in Germany New York

International Publishers

Engles, Frederick (1970) The Role of Force in Histroy New York

International Publishers

228

Engles, Frederick (1975) Origin of the Family, Private Property

and the State New York International Publishers

Engles, Frederick (1977) Dialectics of Nature New York

International Publishers

Engles, Frederick (1978) Anti-During New York International

Publishers

Guevvara, Ernesto Che (1987) Che Guevara and the Cuban Revolution Pathfinder

Kautsky, Karl (1964) The Dictatorship of the Proletariat Ann

Arbor University Of Michigan Press

Kautsky, Karl (1971) The Class Struggle (Erfurt Program) New

York Norton

Kropotkin, Peter 1967 Memoirs of a Revolutionist Glocester,

MA: Peter Smith

Kropotkin, Peter 1967 Mutual Aid Boston: Extending Horizons

Kropotkin Ethics(1967) Origin and Development London:

Benjamin Blom

Kropotkin, Peter 1968 Fields, Factories and Workshops

Tomorrow London: Benjamin Blom

Kropotkin, Peter 1970 Revolutionary Pamphlets New York:

Dover

Kropotkin, Peter 1989 The Conquest of Bread Montreal Black

Rose Books

229

Lenin, V. I. (1956) The Development of Capitalism in Russia

Moscow Progress Publishers

Lenin, V. I. (1973) What is to be Done Peking, Foreign Language

Press

Lenin, V. I (1947) One Step Forward, Two Steps Back Moscow

Progress Publishers

Lenin, V. I (1970) Materialism and Empiriocriticism Peking,

Foreign Language Press

Lenin, V. I (1939) Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism

New York, International Publishers

Lenin, V. I (1954 )Critical Remarks on The National Question

/ The Right of Nations to Self-determination Moscow

Progress Publishers

Lenin, V. I (1934) The Emancipation of Women New York,

International Publishers

Lenin, V. I (1970) Left Wing Communism An Infantile Disorder

Peking, Foreign Language Press

Lenin, V. I (1954) The Agrarian Program of Social Democracy

in the First Revolution 1905—1907 Moscow Progress

Publishers

Lenin, V. I (1970) The State and Revolution Peking, Foreign

Language Press

230

Lenin, V. I (1970) What the Friends of the People are and how

the Fight the Social-Democrats Moscow Progress Publishers

Lukacs, Georg (1968) History and Class Consciousness: Studies

in Marxist Dialectics Cambridge, MA MIT Press

Luxemburg, Rosa (1970) Rosa Luxemburg Speaks New York

Path Finder

Luxemburg, Rosa (1971) Selected Political Writings of Rosa

Luxemburg

New York, Monthly Review Press

Luxemburg, Rosa (1976) The National Question: Selected

Writings New York

Luxemburg, Rosa (1961) The Russian Revolution and Leninism

or Marxism?

Ann Arbor University of Michigan Press

Luxemburg, Rosa (2009) The Crisis in the German

Social-Democracy: (the “Junius” Pamphlet) [ 1919 ] Cornell

University Library

Luxemburg, Rosa (1971) The mass strike: The political party and

the trade unions, and the Junius pamphlet Harper & Row

Mao Tse-Tung (1966) Four Essays on Philosophy, Foreign Language Press

Marx, Karl (1938) Critique of the Gotha Programme: Internationa Publishers

Marx, Karl (1940) Civil War in France: The Paris Commune

Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels (1970) The German Ideology.

New York International Publishers

231

Marx, Karl (1964) The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts

of 1844. International Publishers

Marx, Karl (1964) Karl Max: Early Writings Ed. T. B. Bottomore New York: McGraw Hill

Marx, Karl (1975) Karl Marx Early Writings Translated by Lucio Colletti and Gregor Benton, New York: Vintage Books

Marx, Karl (1994) Early Political Writings Edited by Joseph

O’Malley. Cambridge

McLellan, David (1977) Freiedrich Engels New York, Penguin

Books

Marx, Karl (1967) Capital Vol. One New York: International Publishers

McLellan, David (1979) Marxism After Marx London,

Macmillian

Polanyi, Karl (1944) The Great Transformation Boston, Beacon

Press

Steward, Julian H. (1955) Theory of Culture Change: the methodology of multilinear evolution. University of Illinois Press.

Szymanski, Albert (1978) The Capitalist State and the Politics of Class Cambridge

Szymanski, Albert (1981) Logic of Imperialism New York: Prager

Szymanski, Albert (1983) Class Structure: a critical perspective, Prager

Trotsky, Leon (1938) Their Morals and Ours in The New

International: Vo. IV No. 6 June 1938 pp. 163 – 173

Trotsky, Leon (1969) The Permanent Revolution & Results and

Prospects New York, Pathfinder Press

Leon Trotsky (1973)The Revolution Betrayed New York,

Pathfinder

Voyeikov, Mikhail (1994) in The ideological legacy of L. D.

Trotsky history and contemporary times : materials from the

International Scientific Conference on Leon Trotsky held in

Moscow November 10-12, 1994 [English-language ed.]

International Committee for the Study of Leon Trotsky’s Legacy.

232

Part I. The relevance of Trotsky today. The relevance of Trotsky’s

ideological legacy / M.I. Voyeikov

White, James D. (2001) Lenin: The Practice and Theory of

Revolution Hampshire England, Palgrave.

Papasconi

Friday, February 1, 2019

debate

No comments:

Post a Comment