Eleutherianism

A spectre is haunting Europe—the spectre of communism.
Karl Marx

A General Critique of Marxist-Leninist States (WIP)

The Marxist-Leninist implementation of the communist project is the most venerated communist movement among the various communist parties among the world. Despite the praise given to such a movement, this movement is not the real movement for the liberation of the proletariat, which Marx and Engels spoke of in their original texts, and we can see this through the "socialist commodity production" present within the USSR under the tenure of Joseph Stalin, the theoriser of Marxist-Leninist ideology. We can characterise socialism as the end of the commodity form, as well as the wage-labour system, which under the capitalist mode of production, has become our answer to the basic economic problem of scarcity. It is incorrect to suppose that socialism is merely a stage in which private ownership of the means of production is ended; this is not the fulfillment of the socialist project, otherwise, we would conclude that state capitalism is a form of socialism, which is clearly a false statement. The commodity is defined as having a two-fold value, a use-value, and an exchange-value, with the law of value determining that the value of a commodity is determined by its socially necessary labor time (the amount of time "required to produce an article under the normal conditions of production, and with the average degree of skill and intensity") Despite the nationalisation of industry within the USSR, the economy there still maintained capitalist properties, there was no transcendence of the laws of capitalist economy. Even if we were to suggest the means of production were put in the hands of the labourer, this is of course not the achievement of the socialist project, because without the transcendence of the commodity (which would itself eliminate private ownership of the means of production through the socialisation/decommodification of the MoP), we cannot say socialism exists. Under the USSR, workers were merely wage labourers under state capitalism.

But we need to prove this of course, this is multiple useless statements otherwise.

First, we look at Marx's critique of political economy.

Commodities come into the world in the shape of use values, articles, or goods, such as iron, linen, corn, &c. This is their plain, homely, bodily form. They are, however, commodities, only because they are something two-fold, both objects of utility, and, at the same time, depositories of value. They manifest themselves therefore as commodities, or have the form of commodities, only in so far as they have two forms, a physical or natural form, and a value form.
Karl Marx, Capital, Volume 1

It is a basic of Marxist ideas that commodities, produced for the specific purpose of being exchanged, have both a use-value and an exchange-value, and the process of commodity production leads to alienation, where labour and its products become detached from the labourers due to the commodified means of production. In the USSR, despite the nationalisation of industries by the state, commodities still followed the law of value, which is not characteristic of a socialist society, as said by Marx in the Critique of the Gotha Programme,

Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products; just as little does the labor employed on the products appear here as the value of these products, as a material quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society, individual labor no longer exists in an indirect fashion but directly as a component part of total labor.
Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme

It is admitted by Joseph Stalin that the law of value operated within the USSR,

In our country, the sphere of operation of the law of value extends, first of all, to commodity circulation, to the ex-change of commodities through purchase and sale, the ex-change, chiefly, of articles of personal consumption. Here, in this sphere, the law of value preserves, within certain limits, of course, the function of a regulator.
Joseph Stalin, Economic Problems of the USSR

Therefore, despite claims of socialism, the USSR retained laws of capitalist economy within its structure, which can be seen as contradictory to Marx's view of socialism. It should not be controversial to suggest that if commodities were produced and those commodities were still subject to the law of value present within capitalist modes of production, the system failed to transcend capitalist law and therefore failed to achieve socialism, as the economy continued to operate within a framework that Marx opposed in his critique of political economy. Therefore, we can see the USSR as a state capitalist state.

A Critique of Market Socialism

Market socialism has become quite the disappointment, largely because its premise is one made to be as such in the first place. Market socialists subscribe to heterodox thought that markets can exist within a socialist mode of production, which is a completely flawed form of non-orthodoxy, rather than a revolutionary one seen by particularly beautiful revolutionary theorists across the decades. We can see that within the market socialist economy, the means of production are put in the hands of the producers, but this is of course, as noted with any critique of marxist-leninists to ever exist in the history of mankind, the achievement of socialism, it is merely a step, or even a step within a step. The true essence of socialism comes with the transcendence of the commodity form and the end of the system of wage-labour, and is reaffirmed with the end of capitalist law e.g. the law of value. To suggest that market socialism (which can be summarised no less or more than the social democracy with a fantastical love for cooperatives) is a socialist mode of production is an incorrect idea.

The Nation as a Machine

The "Socialist" Facade of Syndicalism

On "Liberal Socialism" by Carlo Rosselli

First, I'm gonna say I sorta skipped through the preface of this book, explaining Rosselli's life, I don't care for what he did, who he killed, how he lived, why he lived, or what/whom he put his dick in, so all of that is useless, I cared for what he stood for, so I moved onto the first chapter instead of reading that. Kill me or something I don't know. Anyways, humorous segment aside.

Rossselli offers an alternative to Marxian socialism, based upon the principle of liberal democracy. However, liberal democracy, so to speak, is not a viable state for the achievement of socialism. It is only under the dictatorship of the proletariat that we can make progress towards socialism. Liberal democracy shall always benefit the bourgeoisie class and relying upon it as a foundation of a socialist state is insufficiently radical, and exposes Rosselli's weak socialist idea. Further exposing Rosseli's weak socialism is his definition of it, that being:

Socialism is nothing more than the logical development, taken to its extreme consequences, of the principle of liberty.
Carlo Rosselli

Despite having a clear hatred for Stalin in his liberal nature (you can choose whether the liberal I'm referring to is Rosselli or Stalin here), he copies from his tactics with defining socialism as something it is not. To describe socialism as a logical development taken to its extreme consequences of a principle is fundamentally flawed, as reducing socialism to a vision based upon "principle", rather than acknowledging it as a mode of production with a revolutionary shift in material conditions is overlooking basic theories of socialism. There are systemic changes required to destroy capitalism. Capitalism can pose itself as freedom, it still retains capitalist nonetheless. Socialism is most notably the transcendence of the commodity-form and the end of the system of wage-labour, reaffirmed by the end of capitalist law (such as the law of value), rather than any idealistic principles.

In our first critique of the murderer of socialism Rosselli, we shall look at his counterrevolutionary democratic approach. Liberal democracy, in its most freedom-appearing methods, will, from the materialist stance, always operate as a product of capitalist social relations. The state remains always an instrument of enforcing the will of the ruling class, and all of its institutions follow. The proletarian hegemony over the state and therefore over its social structures - the dictatorship of the proletariat - is necessary for the achievement of socialism, for without the capturing of the state apparatus and the forced destruction through any means necessary of all that is counterrevolutionary. It is today, yesterday, and tomorrow socialism which requires the outright destruction of bourgeoisie structures. It is yesterday, tomorrow, and today the liberal socialist doctrine which refuses to recognise this, despite the continuous proof throughout the past class struggles.

Next we shall speak of the dictatorship of the proletariat as necessary for the achievement of socialism. The dictatorship of the proletariat is not a matter of "political preference" for socialists but a requirement. The bourgeoisie state, regardless of its liberal democratic additions, remains an instrument of class rule, this obviously being the rule of the bourgeoisie. We therefore take the stance that no democratic process, no matter what voting method it may use, can lead to the dismantling of capitalist relations because these capitalist relations are simply the foundation upon which liberal democracy is built upon. To put it into attractive metaphors as liberals love to, you cannot destroy the bottom of the tower (the base economic mode of production, capitalism) and keep the middle (the liberal democratic system) floating in the sky. Liberal socialists may argue that liberal democracy has allowed for the expansion of labour rights, as if this is an advance towards socialism. However, these reforms are always within the framework of capitalist relations (trade unions or welfare for example do not threaten wage labour, nor capitalist law) and therefore do not threaten the dominance of capital. Without the increase in the stress put upon the dominance of capital, we cannot suggest there has been any push towards a socialist mode of production by the liberal democratic procedure.

The true power of the state lies not in the choices of the electorate in liberal democracy, not in this "will of the people", but in the economic mode of production within the society. The mistake Rosselli has made is believing in the will of the people, and the truthfulness of liberal democracy, as if an institution formed by the capitalist class shall merit the socialist cause. The proletariat MUST seize the state and utilise it to expropriate the bourgeoisie, and eradicate the law of the capitalist mode of production. This process will be violent, not because of the nature of the proletariat as a "violent class" or any desire to needlessly cut the throats of the upper classes, but because the capitalist class will resist any threat to its power. This is where we see that under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.

Addendum

The History of the State and The Emergence of Class Society

We shall first speak of the Marxist conception of the state. We argue with a materialist conception of history. With this, we see the superstructure (culture, institutions, roles, rituals, religion, media, and of course the state) as not merely something societally created — a socially active theory of superstructure — but rather as something determined by the economic base — this currently being the capitalist mode of production.

With the economic mode of production being a reflection of class rule, we see that the superstructure and henceforth the state is too a reflection of these class relations, and an apparatus for the maintenance of the rule of the ruling classes, in a history of class conflict. It is not to be considered an independent structure.

We look at the class conflict within society and see the state as a mediator of the conflict between classes. This idea of mediation is not to be confused with the late Kautskyite (renegade) or Lassallean conception of the state however, as this mediation is in favour of the ruling class, as already established — this ruling class being the bourgeoisie.

We can also look at the historical basis of the state. Under primitive communism, in which the mode of production was quite different for the means of production and resources were difficult to monopolise, production was crude, and the tools for survival were largely accessible, leading to an absence of a surplus and meaning there was little ability (nor incentive) to monopolise wealth or resources. Without this surplus, the basis for class society and private property did not exist. Social stages are oft enslaved to Marx’s quote:

In the social production of their existence, men inevitably enter into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their material forces of production.
Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy

Then came developments of agriculture, a turning point in human society, I’m sure anybody would agree that this would mark one, if not anything else. Through the domestication of livestock and crops, humanity was able to produce more than was necessary for consumption — a surplus. Surplus production then meant the emergence of specialisation (no longer did everyone have to be involved in food production). This allowed for new roles such as artisans, warriors, etc.

These roles and humans themselves became economically differentiated. Those controlling the production of necessities, essential items for living, gained unique, heightened access to the surplus. Those in charge of these frankly essential resources then began to consolidate control over them for themselves. In many cases, it would be helped by ideological justification, justifying this control, as voices of “the divine and inherently good”. Even this religious malarkey would degrade however, as control over surplus shifted from ownership which had been (coercively/religiously) agreed to, into private property.

Those in charge of essential resources, tools, or the land began to treat these as their own property, passing control to their heirs — members of their own kin. Once certain individuals or groups controlled these items (these “forces of production,” so to speak), those who did not would become dependent on their decisions for survival. This is the emergence of class society. But where comes the state?

The state comes from the intensification of these class division, the class struggle. Without a state, the non-owning class, becoming aware of its exploitation, could seize the means of production and threaten the dominance of the ruling class. This made a state a necessity for the ruling class in order to enforce their control and maintain an order befitting class society. Here we see the emergence of the state in terms of class, rather than as merely a neutral social creation.

It is therefore to be said that the state was not created for harmony or mutual benefit between all people, but as an apparatus to manage the relationship between the ruling and ruled classes in a way beneficial to the former group. This is why the state can be referred to as an instrument of class oppression, for that is the purpose it was created to serve. It uses both force and ideology to secure the dominance of today the bourgeoisie, just as how, in the dictatorship of the proletariat, it would secure the interests and dominance of the proletariat.

Against a Liberal Socialism

We shall first look at the quote I focused on in my original critique, because I find it quite interesting.

Socialism is nothing more than the logical development, taken to its extreme consequences, of the principle of liberty.
Carlo Rosselli, Liberal Socialism

We can see this as a striking difference between the liberal socialism of Rosselli and the scientific socialism of Karl Marx and his successors. Rosselli follows the liberal principle of liberty — life, liberty, and property being the Lockean idea of natural rights.

However, the state which prevails over Carlo Rosselli’s socialism of course is a state, an instrument of class rule. Any Marxist, when presented with the state, with democracy, etc. must ask the question — “For which class?” It is as Lenin said:

“Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners.”
V. I. Lenin

We must also question the idealistic nature of this definition of socialism. Under primitive communism, there was an absence of class divisions as well as the state to enforce them. The emergence of class society marked a clear division between those who controlled the means of production and those who were subjugated to it. It is from this historical understanding that we see that socialism cannot be reduced to a principle, as Rosselli suggests, but rather must address material conditions such as class relations and the need for the overthrow of the capitalist mode of production — the result of this being higher-stage communism, a stateless, classless, moneyless society.

We shall next highlight Rosselli’s reformism.

For liberalism, and hence for socialism, observance of the liberal method, that is, the democratic method, of entering the political contest is fundamental.
Carlo Rosselli, Liberal Socialism

Rosselli’s approach to socialism rests on the assumption that democracy (understood in a liberal way by Rosselli) can be the vehicle for a revolutionary transformation of material conditions. However, we first of all must contend that the liberal definition of democracy is incorrect. As mentioned earlier, the state and its democracy are not merely spectators in the history driven by class struggle but rather a vicious side-effect.

The liberals suggest that the democratic method is fundamental, when this very same democratic method works against the achievement of a society that shall achieve material conditions which shall resolve class conflict. It is the proletariat that is fundamental to democracy, for the democratic dictatorship rests upon the inaction of the proletariat. But it is not the reverse; democracy is not fundamental to the proletariat, who is not imbued with a natural democratic duty.

It is the material conditions of the capitalist mode of production, the Marxist analysis of the state as an instrument of class power, that we conclude an opposition to reformism, which serves as nothing but a left of capital.