From: "Sean Tarjoto" 
To: 
Subject: Fwd: fasc 10, II Communist Manifesto
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 10:59 PM




----Original Message Follows----
From: ahaney@lclark.edu
To: tarjoto@hotmail.com
Subject: Fwd: fasc 10, II Communist Manifesto
Date: Mon, 17 Jan 2000 13:02:50 -0800

thought you might find this interesting!

-------- Forwarded Message --------
Return-Path: 
Received: (from majord@localhost)
	by haystack.lclark.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) id WAA12098
	for wto-action-members; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 22:52:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Authentication-Warning: haystack.lclark.edu: majord set sender to
owner-wto-action@lclark.edu using -f
Received: from ssmtp02.arrakis.isp ([212.59.199.83])
	by haystack.lclark.edu (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id WAA12080
	for ; Tue, 4 Jan 2000 22:52:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from default ([212.59.207.134]) by ssmtp02.arrakis.isp
           (Netscape Messaging Server 4.1 Nov 19 1999 19:47:43) with SMTP
           id FNUOCS01.689; Wed, 5 Jan 2000 07:50:52 +0100
From: "contracorriente" 
To: 
Subject: fasc 10, II Communist Manifesto
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 07:50:47 +0100
Message-ID: <005f01bf5749$34b26980$86cf3bd4@default>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_NextPart_000_005B_01BF5751.93E09640"
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-wto-action@lclark.edu
Precedence: bulk

Fascicle 10th


We present and diffuse the 10th fascicle that corresponds at the beginning
of part IV A. B. Razlatski's Second Communist Manifesto.


COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA

January 4 , 2000


(Diffuse this text among the proletarians, all the downtrodden and
exploiteds and that sympathize with this cause, and translate it in other
languages. Organize groups for study, discussion, support and diffusion of
the II Communist Manifesto.)




THE SECOND COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

A.B. RAZLATSKI
Part IV
Proletarian Dictatorship & Proletarian Democracy
Having achieved political victory, that is to say the firm seizure of power,
the proletariat, in the most fundamental way, changes the essence of all
values in society. The means of production, the fund for consumption, the
land, the riches of nature, artistic products and monuments; all these
become the property of the proletariat. They become its property
immediately, without waiting for nationalization or whatever acts of
confiscation and transfer, at the very moment of the seizure of power.

Apparently however, history is ready to leave behind facts contradicting
this seizure. It produces the proletarian revolution, yet maintains a
petty-bourgeois, peasant economy, which produces and sells the goods of
craftsmen. The owners of enterprises which have not been nationalized
continue their pursuit of profits ... Yes, all this is so. But it is only a
form, an appearance, a shadow of the capitalism of the past.

At the moment of proletarian victory, the fundamental law of socialism comes
into force. The victorious proletariat, for the sake of maintaining the
functional integrity of society, needs the activity of very varied layers of
the population, and therefore, must stimulate such activities. The essence
of property is radically changed by the proletarian victory, but the
consciousness of people is incapable of responding to the victory with
changes at the same rate. This consciousness is still unprepared to
recognize new stimuli, in it bourgeois concepts still live, it continues to
assess the results of activities only with bourgeois measures and to strive
for bourgeois individualistic aims.

The proletariat must reckon with this. The form of profits, the form of
their defense in law; this is how the activity of those layers of the
population, as yet unready for the socialist reorientation, are stimulated.
This is neither capitalism nor a remnant of it. It is simply a superficial
similarity, an external simulation of capitalist relations in the form of
stimuli understood by definite segments of society, which draw them in to
activity useful to society. This form of stimulation can be supplanted by
another form. It can also be generally abolished, if the proletariat can
either take upon itself or generally liberate itself from the functions
fulfilled by such layers of society. This form can change where this is
advantageous to the proletariat, where it corresponds to its interests and
for so long as it continues to correspond to them.

Everything is subordinate to the interests of the proletariat. Such is the
legal foundation of socialist society. All other legislation is its direct
consequence. And when discussions are raised about democracy for
non-proletarian layers, there is no point in searching for support in
historical precedent (there just isn't any). The proletariat must not share
real power with anyone. Whatever democratic opportunities for the expression
of the opinions and interests of non-proletarian groups and classes are
permitted, this is only in order that, by taking stock of these interests
and changes in them, a dynamic restructuring of the system of stimuli can
take place. This permits the direction of the activities of the
non-proletarian strata toward maximal effectiveness in the service of the
proletariat. Thus the dictatorship of the proletariat must not, even to the
slightest extent, be taken as a political system which provides authentic
democracy to any class or layer except the proletariat itself. In questions
of law and politics, in economic and social decisions, the proletarian
dictatorship must be self-consciously a true, sovereign dictatorship. It
must rule in the exclusive interests of the proletariat, through the
provision and elimination of specific freedoms for the non-proletarian
strata, exactly as in the question of the liquidation of private property in
the means of production.

This does not mean unbridled arbitrariness or monarchist autonomy in
relations with the non-proletarian strata. Recklessness is not in the
interests of the proletariat; the proletarian dictatorship must carefully
nurture conditions for all strata which lead to the highest level of
efficiency in activities useful to the proletariat. Just as in its care and
concern, so too in its limitation and repression, the proletariat must be
guided by the interests of the class, not concerning itself in the least
with the interests of other strata.

The socialist system is the highest form of democracy not because it is
prepared to grant the bourgeois right of universal suffrage or definite
bourgeois privileges to the intelligentsia, but because, for the first time
in history, the ruling class is an open class. Each member of society has
the opportunity of joining this class and of obtaining all the attendant
privileges and of taking upon himself all the corresponding
responsibilities. The unique real form of democracy in socialist society is
democracy for the proletariat, and this is all that is required to ensure
its gradual transformation into a society without classes. Proletarian
democracy will then become democracy for all.

Proletarian democracy is the unique class democracy which transforms itself
into democracy for all. But for this to take place it is absolutely
essential that the proletariat remain the ruling class, for it is the only
open class of all the classes in history which has conducted a struggle for
the mastery of society. And further, the dictatorship of the proletariat
along all paths to communist society must not only, unavoidably, win the
struggle with other classes, but must suppress the birth and development of
all other classes so long as the conditions for such birth and development
exist in society.

So what is such a proletarian dictatorship?

How must the working class realize its dictatorship?

To say that this dictatorship is state power is insufficient. Yes, the
socialist state can be nothing other than the revolutionary dictatorship of
the proletariat. But the state and the proletariat are distinct, differently
organized social subjects. In order that their interests coincide, if only
for a short historical period, the following conditions are necessary.

The state and a class dictatorship are also dissimilar in other ways. The
state, as a certain type of mechanism, is a means of implementing a
dictatorship, a directing and compelling influence on society. But in order
that this means can be the instrument of any given class, one that rules
society in the interest of this class, it is essential that it is precisely
this class, and not its individual representatives, that holds the key
levers and forces in its hands, thus compelling the state to take up the
interests of this class as its own.

A class dictatorship is a system of social relations which provides the
ruling class with control over society; including the suppression of the
political initiative of any other classes which threaten their dictatorship.

The bourgeoisie promotes the most democratic principles for the formation of
state power and transfers to the state colossal financial resources in the
form of taxes on profits, never fearing that this can be turned against
them. It demands from the state just one thing; the unquestioning defense of
private property. In property lies its strength. For is is precisely
property, through its organizing effects, by conferring the right to decide
the distribution of goods and by providing the hired organizations of the
bourgeoisie with their very livelihood, which guarantees the bourgeoisie
their ruling position, their control over the state.

The proletariat, as the aggregate of the workers, generally has no
opportunity to construct its dictatorship on an analogous basis. The
proletariat is poor and no one pays any attention to them in the decisions
of the state. Like the slaves in ancient Rome, rising against one slaveowner
only to be enslaved by another, like the peasants in Russia rioting for the
"good tsar," so too the proletariat, in creating an authority and then
entrusting to it the distribution of costs and benefits and releasing all
means of control over it, itself promotes new bosses, a new bourgeoisie.
This is how it was, and ever would be, were it not for one condition. This
condition, arising from the social character of production, is the
capability of the proletariat for self-organization.

For it is precisely the capability of the proletariat for self organization,
which at a definite historical stage, permits the proletariat to fill the
bosses shoes. But in the realization of this capability, the proletariat
ceases to be simply an aggregate of workers; it acts as a class, as an
integral social subject, and in this way becomes the irresistible force in
society. Emerging victorious from the class struggle, the proletariat, again
as an integral subject, becomes the owner of all the riches of society. But
managing them in the bourgeois fashion, utilizing them directly in their own
subjective class interests, is simply impossible. For this, it is necessary
to build a sufficiently complex social system out of the materials
bequeathed to it by history and on the basis of the relations prevailing in
society at the given moment. But these relations must be restructured and
reshaped so as to provide a guarantee of the dictatorship of the proletariat
as a class. A system of social relations, operating through the abilities of
the proletariat for self-organization, having as its foundation the
self-directed, organized proletariat, can exist only if, in the course of
its operation, it results in the satisfaction of definite proletarian
interests. But these interests are precisely the merging of organizational
and collective interests, of interests having a social character, into the
class interest. In this system, the state plays the role of the social
mechanism which compels and stimulates the purposeful activity of
individuals through the strivings of personal, individualistic interests,
and regulates the satisfaction of these desires depending on such activity.
 >From this it is easy to see that, if the state locks up this role 
entirely,
basing itself on just this set of functions, it will begin to function in
the interests of its own apparatus, and this apparatus will transform itself
into a parasitic organism, compelling society to serve it. As a result, it
will cease to satisfy those interests of the workers which have a social
character, it will cease to satisfy their spiritual needs, and this will
lead to the weakening of the self-organization of the proletariat and
directly assist the formation of the highest levels of the bureaucratic
state apparatus into a ruling class exploiting the working mass.

The task of the organized revolutionary proletariat is not to permit such an
isolation, such a cutting off of the state. The proletariat must utilize the
state mechanism to carry out the will of the class. It must play on the
individualistic interests of the members of society and direct their
activity to the satisfaction of social interests, in order to consolidate in
social relations and in the consciousness of individuals an appreciation of
the demands and interests of society. And for this to be possible, for it to
become a reality, the proletariat finds itself confronting an array of other
problems. These include cutting off any self-activity of the state directed
against the proletariat. They include changing the functions of the state
and changing the tasks placed before it according to the changing and
developing interests of the proletariat. They also include, the categorical
removal from the state of the slightest opportunity to hinder the free
development of proletarian interests. Without a solution to these problems,
without the construction of an entire system of relations which secure the
consistent realization of the proletarian interest in a developing,
revolutionizing, renewing society, any talk of proletarian dictatorship can
only be hot air.

The state stands opposed to society, and in this opposition it possesses
considerable advantages. Even the bourgeois state, the economic
possibilities of which are shaped by the wills of the capitalists, and which
has at its disposal colossal quantities of goods, distributes a vital share
of the social wealth. The socialist state takes upon itself the distribution
of all goods, and in society there is not and cannot be anything comparable
to the state by this measure. And this means that the entire might of the
hired social organizations is directed to the defense of the interests of
the state. In such conditions, how can society defend itself from
exploitation by the state?

(...)
-----End Of Forwarded Message -----


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
 
From: "Sean Tarjoto" 
To: 
Subject: Fwd: fasc 11, II Manifesto
Date: Wednesday, February 23, 2000 11:00 PM


Fascicle 11

Today we present and diffuse the fascicle 11 that corresponds to the
continuation of the part IV, "Proletarian Dictatorship & Proletarian
Democracy" of the A.B.Razlatski's II Communist Manifesto.

COMUNISTES de CATALUNYA

January 12, 2000




(Diffuse this text among the proletarians, all the downtrodden and
exploiteds and that sympathize with this cause, and translate it in other
languages. Organize groups for study, discussion, support and diffusion of
the II Communist Manifesto.)




THE SECOND COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

A.B. RAZLATSKI
Part IV-2
Proletarian Dictatorship & Proletarian Democracy

(...)

Well the state has its weaknesses. Above all it is a paid organization, it
is stimulated by material goods, and this means that the activities of the
members of the separate links in this mechanism, in defense of their common
interests, are defeated by their economic dependence and because such
attitudes are not dictated by their basic interests. Secondly, each member
of the state apparatus does not simply obtain the opportunity to appropriate
some quantity of goods, these are provided to him under definite conditions
and, in this sense he is under the control of society. Thirdly, the very
system which the state mechanism organizes is formed not by the state but by
the whole of society; thus, under definite conditions, it stands ahead of
every member of the state apparatus and dictates the interest of society.

Weaknesses there are, and these weaknesses must be used by proletarian
society to maintain control over the proletarian state, but this is not so
easy. The spontaneous activity of the proletariat in exercising this control
cannot be guaranteed. The state then immediately slips out from under
control and restructures itself to eliminate the weak spots. So that the
control of society over the state can be effective, society must oppose the
state with such a force as will be able to cut off all attempts by the state
to restructure in isolation from the social system, as will be able to
hinder the state's striving to liberate its links from social control, and,
in the end, as will be able to destroy the entire state system, if that
system refuses to subordinate personal improvement to social interests.

Society must oppose the state with organization. And such organization can
only be the self-directed organization of the proletarian mass, a firmer
organization than that based on the unity of fundamental interests of the
workers.

Society must oppose to the state the organized, self-directed, proletarian
party.

The self-directed proletarian party is the form of proletarian
self-organization with the aid of which the state mechanism can be forced to
serve the interests of the proletariat, to be the means for the realization
of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Here is the key. The party must be self-directed, that is to say both
voluntary, attracting people exclusively thanks to their collectivist,
social interests and not through the promise of any personal advantage, and
bound by conscious discipline and personal enthusiasm. The party must be
proletarian, for only the particular relationship of the proletariat to the
aggregate social product provides a guarantee of the distribution of goods
and labour in the interests of the whole of society. And it must be a party,
for only a party can guarantee an integral policy, a unified world view
monitoring all links of the state mechanism, only a party is capable of
organizing and directing the activities of the masses to the change and
improvement of this mechanism.

But this is still not everything. Such a party, with the most powerful
organization and enjoying the support of the proletarian masses, necessarily
must have the possibility of taking upon itself all and absolute power, all
control of society.

Here is what it must not do! The party must remain in opposition to the
state, it must act on the state only through the proletarian masses. In
other words, every party decision must be evaluated by the support of the
whole class, by its readiness for class action. A party serving the
interests of the proletariat must not link its activity with those of the
state, it must remain in continuous opposition to the state.

Now we may collect all this together as a scheme for social relations. The
state administers society, including the aggregate of all proletarians. The
party monitors the state. The proletariat, the entire class, monitors party
decisions through embodying them in their own mass activities directed at
changing the state system. And the other way around; the proletariat
transfers and delegates to the party its most advanced ideas; the party
secures the realization of these ideas in state form; the state consolidates
the establishment of these ideas in society.

This is the unique scheme for social relations which can secure the
existence and continuous reproduction of the dictatorship of the proletariat
in society.

In order to assess the disposition of forces corresponding to the
dictatorship of the proletariat, we must first pause for a deeper
examination. In distinction from the other components of the proletarian
dictatorship, the party must always have a precise understanding of its
basic aims and tasks at each concrete stage. This does not mean that the
party must be the brain of society. No, the destiny of the party is rather
to play the role of a sense organ, to keenly apprehend reality and the
beginnings of the impulses of the mass movement. But before it can be
embodied in a definite restructuring, each impulse must be comprehended by
the super-brain, the consciousness of the proletariat; for only its approval
can confer reality on the impulse. The party, if it deviates from the
interests of the proletariat or gets ahead of it, will immediately sense
this.

Holding fast to its aim of the construction of communist society, the
development of social relations in the direction of communism, the party
must understand the sharp divergence of its own tasks from the tasks of the
proletarian state.

Despite the fact that the proletarian state, in general, at the stage of the
movement toward communism, plays a positive role, and is the only means of
realization of this movement, every concrete form of the proletarian state,
at that historical moment, is the most backward element of proletarian
society. This is because it is occupied not with the search for newer,
higher levels, but with the consolidation of a level of social consciousness
which has already been reached and surpassed. The state, remaining
proletarian, exhibits its advanced character only in external aspects, only
in its relations with the non-proletarian environment. In its relations with
the proletariat it always remains bourgeois because it dies away only to the
extent that it loses the support of the individualistic hangovers in the
proletariat itself and in other members of society.

The party encourages this withering away with all the means at its disposal,
its ideological work secures definite changes in the consciousness of
society and the organized movement of the proletariat for consolidation by
the state of the changes which have take place. The state is incapable of
embodying an ideology which outstrips the current level in this way; it
changes and progresses only under pressure from the masses, and it loses its
function to the extent that the masses transform their consciousness on the
path to communist social consciousness. The growth of communist social
consciousness, generally speaking, consists not in the mastery of culture,
nor in the assimilation of the theory of social development, although all
this is useful, but quite simply in the predomination of collectivist over
individual consciousness. But the development of the collectivist interests
of each member of society depend directly on their level of satisfaction; it
flowers in victory and withers in defeat. This is where the party and its
theoretical armaments play a decisive role, securing the selection of paths
to victory and organizing the masses for victory. Continuous interaction on
the basis of common interests, alone can guarantee the establishment in each
individual of the principal communist idea that the social position of the
individual is determined by the degree of his collectivism. Incidentally,
this is why all attempts to "implant" communism by the state or by a
party-state ruling system are futile; one ought not to hope for the
development of collectivist characteristics from individualistic incentives.
To each concrete, historical form of the socialist state the masses must
liberally offer their recognition but not their respect; and it is exactly
this the party must worry about, crushing conservative complacency with its
inexhaustible enthusiasm.

Even though subordinate to society, the state serves its majority, at the
same time that advanced ideas, guaranteeing forward movement, arise in the
minds of a minority. Such ideas can become the property of the whole of
society, can become the leading ideas of the state only if they are
supported by the party which, through its ideological activity, makes them
into the ideas of the majority. Without the organized support of a party no
minority ideas will be able to stand against a functioning state machine.

The opposition between the party and the state in socialist society is the
most direct, most naked reflection of the fundamental contradiction of
socialism, the contradiction between the communist and the bourgeois, the
social and the personal, the collectivist and the individualist. In this
contradiction lies the source of the development toward communism, and the
more clearly the opposing forces are recognized, the more exactly the causes
of their opposition, within the concrete historical sequence, are defined,
the more effectively the process of overcoming these contradictions will
proceed and the more direct will be the path of society to communism.

The party and the state present themselves as two structures organizing
society, two types of social organization; leadership and management. It is
as if these structures found themselves at opposite poles of social life.
Management is a coordination of activity, leadership is a coordination of
consciousness. Management exerts influence on individuality through
limitations and stimuli, leadership appeals to the understanding and
influences through public opinion. Management appeals to the individual,
knowing of no other means of control other than the economic. Leadership
discloses to the individual the possibility of direct social management, not
linked with economic circumstances. Management operates on the accumulated
experience of the past, leadership seeks its support in the future.

Society serves as the source, continuously nourishing both the party and the
state. What then will take place?

The proletariat under the leadership of the party seizes power; thus the
party, willy-nilly, becomes the ruler. It necessarily must take a decisive
part in securing the victory of the proletariat, in the liquidation of
residual capitalist forces, in the destruction of the old and construction
of the new state apparatus. And the new state apparatus can be composed only
of party cadre, of people who have proven their dedication to the
proletarian cause. Where then is the opposition?

But perhaps things don't need to be this way? No, this is the only way!
Shall we give up power to the "Varangians" (2) whose aims are so far from
proletarian? And in general; for the newborn state there is only one
possibility, one solid buttress for the establishment of power, that is the
full support of all proletarian layers, cemented together in the party.

The solution, it would seem, is prefined. And for all that ... The
proletarian party, in linking itself to the state, only deceives itself
about the apparent ease of realization of revolutionary aims through the
mechanism of the state. Such a path can consolidate the victory of the
proletariat and its mastery over the other classes, but as for the questions
of the further development of the proletariat itself and of its
consciousness, these are excluded from the sphere of activity of the party
and become inaccessible to it. On becoming ruling, the party can remain
proletarian, but in this event it will not be the avant-garde of the
proletariat but will represent the most backward of its strata.

To lead the conscious advance of society is possible only for an opposition
party, basing its work on the appeal to the collectivist character of the
workers and organizing the proletariat for collective activity as a
counterweight to the administration, which links society with its system of
coercive stimuli.

So what should we have? A two party (or multiparty) system? And will we let
social contradictions resolve themselves through struggle between the ruling
and the opposition party?

But, along this path, the fundamental contradiction of society, the source
of its development, would be concealed, made more complicated and even
pushed entirely to the side in the struggle for power; that is to say,
secondary contradictions would divert much effort, but would in no way,
shape or form assist in advancing society. Besides which, the existence of
many parties inevitably assists in the stratification of society and the
division of its interests, that is, serves to place additional obstacles on
the path of the transformation of the society to classlessness.

No, solving the problem of the dictatorship of the proletariat is possible
only by bursting through the historical (and altogether alien to
proletariat) precedents, only by liberating oneself from the path of
habitual schematism.

Not the opposition of a ruling and an opposition party, but the immediate
opposition of the party and the state; this is what fully reveals the social
contradictions, this is what the proletariat must strive for.

Yes, the party must lead the proletariat in the struggle for power. Yes, the
party, at the head of the proletariat must seize this power. Yes, it must
destroy the old state apparatus and build a new one. It must promote its
most experienced organizers, leaders and chiefs to the leading posts in the
state; and then it must immediately cross them off its list of voting
members.

(...)

     1.. (2) The Varangians were Normans from the region of Upsala who
subjugated the Slavs beginning around the year 859. Led by Rurik they
established themselves near Novgorod. Their domination lasted only two
years, after which the locals, who had age old free and democratic
traditions, rose in rebellion.
-----End Of Forwarded Message -----


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
 

    Source: geocities.com/tarjoto/frosh

               ( geocities.com/tarjoto)