System of separation of Soviet authorities and left S. R.

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 23 2018 11:48
System of separation of Soviet authorities and left S. R.
In Spain Friends of Durruti (revolutionary faction of CNT) advocated the economy is controlled by revolutionary syndicates, local life was ruled by Councils of deputies of the Commune and militia were under the control of the Soviets of deputies elected from the fighters. In Russia there was a revolutionary and to some extent libertarian movement - Party of left socialists - revolutionaries (PLSR), which supported similar ideas in 1918-1923. After the defeat in the fight against the Bolsheviks on 6 July left S. R. ceased to be a centralized party, has become de facto Federation of Autonomous regional groups and ideological and political factions. The power of the Central Committee sharply decreased. In addition, Pro-Bolshevik elements left the party. Left S.R. moved to positions partly close to the Real historical anarcho-syndicalism. However, they had their own original ideas. They believed the associations of factory committees should create syndicates and take control of the factory. Consumers should unite in "consumer cooperatives" (At that time about a third of Russian peasants and a part of city inhabitants took part in work of self-governing consumer, trade-and-purchasing, credit and production cooperatives). Then, syndicates and cooperative-unions-of-consumers had to choose special Economic Councils, in order to plan production according to the needs of the working population. As for the issues of politics and defense people need Political Councils elected from factories and villages. One of the leading theorists of the PLSR Isaac Steinberg called it a "System of separation of Soviet authorities". He believed it's not enough to smash the Bolsheviks dictators. Steinberg said "it is necessary to crush the common fist of the Power of Soviets". One can argue that Councils is a system of direct democracy, which relies on the Assembly of workers. But there is a problem: the most active people usually come to the Councils as delegates and make operational decisions on their own, while the people's assemblies can not control them all the time. Steinberg developed the "theory of crystallization". According to this theory, within even the most free society there are pockets of authoritarianism (parent-child relationship, teacher-student, doctor-patient). So there may be authoritarian centres of crystallization and then pyramids of autocracy will start to line up. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the different decision centers make them to control each other ("constant mixing of the liquid to prevent authoritarian crystallization"). These ideas have become the policy for the Left S. R.
Lucky Black Cat's picture
Lucky Black Cat
Offline
Joined: 11-02-18
Apr 25 2018 05:33
Quote:
Therefore, it is necessary to separate the different decision centers make them to control each other ("constant mixing of the liquid to prevent authoritarian crystallization").
This seems to be your concluding point but it's got me very confused. I'm also concerned with creeping authoritarianism in what should be a directly democratic structure, but I don't understand what you're proposing.
meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
Apr 30 2018 21:08
I don't understand what authoritarianism is here. The Soviets created during the revolution, was not perfect. Even at best, when they negotiated most of the key decisions with the assemblies of workers, they acted as the guiding core of society. So there is the idea of the left SR on the "separation of powers of the Soviets". Left SR sought this division, for the simple reasoт: they feared too much concentration of power in the hands of leaders. I offer nothing, in this case I only write about this historical problem.
Lucky Black Cat's picture
Lucky Black Cat
Offline
Joined: 11-02-18
May 4 2018 21:17
Sorry, authoritarianism was too strong a word. I was talking about this part of your post: Quote:
But there is a problem: the most active people usually come to the Councils as delegates and make operational decisions on their own, while the people's assemblies can not control them all the time.
I should have said bureaucratization or something like that. But bureaucracy can easily become authoritarian. As for my confusion, it was about this paragraph: Quote:
Steinberg developed the "theory of crystallization". According to this theory, within even the most free society there are pockets of authoritarianism (parent-child relationship, teacher-student, doctor-patient). So there may be authoritarian centres of crystallization and then pyramids of autocracy will start to line up. Therefore, it is necessary to separate the different decision centers make them to control each other ("constant mixing of the liquid to prevent authoritarian crystallization").
I don't understand what's meant by "separate the different decision centers make them to control each other" or by "constant mixing of the liquid to prevent authoritarian crystallization"
meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
May 5 2018 17:03
Lucky Black Cat Sorry, authoritarianism was too strong a word. I was talking about this part of your post: Quote: But there is a problem: the most active people usually come to the Councils as delegates and make operational decisions on their own, while the people's assemblies can not control them all the time. I should have said bureaucratization or something like that. But bureaucracy can easily become authoritarian. I'm catching on. But the problem is that it was the reality of the Councils of deputies. Even the revolutionary Committee of the Kronstadt uprising in 1921 made decisions and then coordinated them with the assemblies of the city sections. But the main ideas and initiatives came from the Council. Unfortunately, in the real history of revolutions, the risk of bureaucratization of the Soviets of deputies was great. This is reality. That's the reason for Steinberg talked about it. I don't understand what's meant by "separate the different decision centers make them to control each other" or by "constant mixing of the liquid to prevent authoritarian crystallization" Separation of the the different decision centers make them to control each other and "constant mixing of the liquid to prevent authoritarian crystallization". In Steinberg's concept, the economic and political Councils of deputies will have a great influence, control and check each other's actions, will pay attention to mutual mistakes. This will create a certain movement in society, not allowing it to freeze (crystallize) in a solid authoritarian mass
Lucky Black Cat's picture
Lucky Black Cat
Offline
Joined: 11-02-18
May 6 2018 04:15
Ok, thanks for explaining. I think the best check against bureaucratization, though, is not for different councils to check each other, but for there to be frequent assemblies at the base of society (in workplaces or neighborhoods) so that delegates are guided from below.
meerov21
Offline
Joined: 14-08-13
May 6 2018 15:01
I agree with you about the assemblies. But I don't see the contradiction with what was suggested by Isaac Steinberg. The diversity of forms of control is the key to the success of libertarian socialism as i think.
Lucky Black Cat's picture
Lucky Black Cat
Offline
Joined: 11-02-18
May 6 2018 23:08
You might be right, it's just a totally new idea for me and I don't have any understanding of what it would look like and how it would work and what would actually be done to make it happen, so it's hard to have an opinion.