[Wolfman]

More like just keeping them down, like in the "good old days" before emancipation, and even that would've varied with the discretion of individual businessmen and others. I'm not aware of any KKK plan for systematic genocide.

How do you think they want to do that? Oh right, by killing them every now and then like before the 1960s.

The KKK was practically antithetical to fascism since it was against statism. It favored what Americans traditionally always have--religion and local control--even if it was unusual in its trappings and extreme in its methods.

Uh hu. You make it sound like that's a really important difference.

Had they really been dominant, they could've kept the proles suppressed, just like the nazis did. There's no workers revolution in the nondemocratic societies where manufacturing has gone.

The Nazis instituted policies that appeased the proles. In the US we use minimum wage, welfare, and social security. In Nazi Germany they used corporations. Both give people the appearance of being in control, or well off.

From what I've heard, in practice the capitalists fared very well under fascism.

Shouldn't you know, as a Fascist.

Oh btw, in today's paper I read that 98% of the $70 million raised by Obama came from donations of $250 or less.

I really doubt that.

[Tribbles]

The Nazis instituted policies that appeased the proles. In the US we use minimum wage, welfare, and social security. In Nazi Germany they used corporations. Both give people the appearance of being in control, or well off.

I thought that one of the important differences between Mussolini and Hitler, was that Hitler rejected corporatism?

I don't know about Germany, but in Greece under Metaxas, and in Italy under Mussolini, eight-hour workdays and a few weeks of paid vacation became the norm.

Such things should according to doctrine, be regulated within the corporations, but in both places these policies were largely implemented before the corporative systems were in place.

[Kman]

But fascism isn't anti-capitalist in practice. The nazis put the workers in their place while profits increased.

Yes it is, the Nazi's were very socialistic when it came to the economy, they centrally planned prices of products and wages and what was to be produced in what amounts.

Fascism is basically Communism-light, it creates a form of socialism that leaves company owners as nothing but government pensioners, people without any control over their own companies since everything substantial done by said company is decided by the government anyway, it only looks capitalistic on the surface, as soon as you scratch the surface the ugly socialistic truth comes out.

From what I've heard, in practice the capitalists fared very well under fascism.

If by ''faring well'' you mean losing control over their companies and having a bunch of bureaucrats call the shots instead, then sure....

[The Immortal Goon]

Fascism is basically Communism-light

Fascism [is] the complete opposite of…Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.

Of course, according to Kman everything is communism-light. The US government buys food rations for the armeis? Commies, one and all. The British commission fleets? Commies. The Portuguese established a trad monopoly? Marxists. The Chinese levy taxes to support an early bureaucracy? The Han Dynasty, socialists one and all.

B stretching the definition of "communism" to be, "anything the state does" is something only an idiot would do. So we can all agree to dismiss that as any form of analysis.

Soundtrack.

[Rei Murasame]

You beat me to it, TIG, that was a pretty decent quote. I think that when the liberals look at Fascism and Socialism, they only see that in the darkness they are being punched from both the right and left, and they so conclude that somehow the ones throwing the punches must all be the same.

This reduces all their analysis to basically creating two groups, "liberals", and "Evil non-liberals". To some extent Socialists and Fascists do this sort of amalgamating of enemies from time to time ("class enemies!", "race traitors!" etc) because it's convenient in certain situations, but it seems that liberals have actually turned that into a serious and straight-faced stuff that they do all the time.

Since you already quoted Mussolini, I'll wrap this up and quote Trotsky (it's like we temporarily traded quotes or something, this is like musical chairs!):

DURING AN EPOCH OF triumphant reaction, Messrs. democrats, social-democrats, anarchists, and other representatives of the "left" camp begin to exude double their usual amount of moral effluvia, similar to persons who perspire doubly in fear. Paraphrasing the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, these moralists address themselves not so much to triumphant reaction as to those revolutionists suffering under its persecution, who with their "excesses" and "amoral" principles "provoke" reaction and give it moral justification. Moreover they prescribe a simple but certain means of avoiding reaction: it is necessary only to strive and morally to regenerate oneself. Free samples of moral perfection for those desirous are furnished by all the interested editorial offices.

The class basis of this false and pompous sermon is the intellectual petty bourgeoisie. The political basis – their impotence and confusion in the face of approaching reaction. Psychological basis – their effort at overcoming the feeling of their own inferiority through masquerading in the beard of a prophet.

A moralizing Philistine's favourite method is the lumping of reaction's conduct with that of revolution. He achieves success in this device through recourse to formal analogies. To him czarism and Bolshevism are twins. Twins are likewise discovered in fascism and communism. An inventory is compiled of the common features in Catholicism – or more specifically, Jesuitism – and Bolshevism. Hitler and Mussolini, utilizing from their side exactly the same method, disclose that liberalism, democracy, and Bolshevism represent merely different manifestations of one and the same evil. The conception that Stalinism and Trotskyism are "essentially" one and the same now enjoys the joint approval of liberals, democrats, devout Catholics, idealists, pragmatists, and anarchists. If the Stalinists are unable to adhere to this "People's Front", then it is only because they are accidentally occupied with the extermination of Trotskyists.

The fundamental feature of these approchements and similitudes lies in their completely ignoring the material foundation of the various currents, that is, their class nature and by that token their objective historical role. Instead they evaluate and classify different currents according to some external and secondary manifestation, most often according to their relation to one or another abstract principle which for the given classifier has a special professional value. Thus to the Roman pope Freemasons and Darwinists, Marxists and anarchists are twins because all of them sacrilegiously deny the immaculate conception. To Hitler, liberalism and Marxism are twins because they ignore "blood and honour". To a democrat, fascism and Bolshevism are twins because they do not bow before universal suffrage. And so forth.

Undoubtedly the currents grouped above have certain common features. But the gist of the matter lies in the fact that the evolution of mankind exhausts itself neither by universal suffrage, not by "blood and honour," nor by the dogma of the immaculate conception. The historical process signifies primarily the class struggle; moreover, different classes in the name of different aims may in certain instances utilize similar means. Essentially it cannot be otherwise. Armies in combat are always more or less symmetrical; were there nothing in common in their methods of struggle they could not inflict blows upon each other.

If an ignorant peasant or shopkeeper, understanding neither the origin nor the sense of the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, discovers himself between the two fires, he will consider both belligerent camps with equal hatred. And who are all these democratic moralists? Ideologists of intermediary layers who have fallen, or are in fear of falling between the two fires. The chief traits of the prophets of this type are alienism to great historical movements, a hardened conservative mentality, smug narrowness, and a most primitive political cowardice. More than anything moralists wish that history should leave them in peace with their petty books, little magazines, subscribers, common sense, and moral copy books. But history does not leave them in peace. It cuffs them now from the left, now from the right. Clearly – revolution and reaction, Czarism and Bolshevism, communism and fascism, Stalinism and Trotskyism – are all 'twins'. Whoever doubts this may feel the symmetrical skull bumps upon both the right and left sides of these very moralists.

[...]

They do not understand that morality is a function of the class struggle; that democratic morality corresponds to the epoch of liberal and progressive capitalism; that the sharpening of the class struggle in passing through its latest phase definitively and irrevocably destroyed this morality; that in its place came the morality of fascism on one side, on the other the morality of proletarian revolution.

Yes, I believe that Trotsky did indeed accent the word "clearly", and then roll his eyes like a Midlands girl at the word "twins".

This was a pretty well-done piece by him. Let it not be said that I am entirely uncharitable to the left.~

[Wolfman]

I thought that one of the important differences between Mussolini and Hitler, was that Hitler rejected corporatism?

He rejected it mostly, but there was a handful of Corporatist elements he adapted.

eight-hour workdays and a few weeks of paid vacation became the norm.

Bam.

were largely implemented before the corporative systems were in place.

Irrelevant.

[starman2003]

How do you think they want to do that? Oh right, by killing them every now and then like before the 1960s.

But they weren't advocating genocide; also treatment of blacks would've varied greatly with individual whim, owing to lack of systematically enforced state policy--quite unlike fascism.

Uh hu. You make it sound like that's a really important difference.

It is, inasmuch as the KKK didn't favor the state, the idol of fascism.

The Nazis instituted policies that appeased the proles.

They won their support by taking away the "freedom to starve." The proles had to work long and hard for little above subsistence, and they were pressured to make contributions, even swindled.

I really doubt that.

AFAIK it hasn't been challenged on the basis of evidence.

[Wolfman]

But they weren't advocating genocide; also treatment of blacks would've varied greatly with individual whim, owing to lack of systematically enforced state policy--quite unlike fascism.

It's the exact same end result, the method of accomplishing this is irrelevant.

[starman2003]

It's the exact same end result, the method of accomplishing this is irrelevant.

Na, I don't think so. I think had the white racists had their way, separation would've become official instead of by mostly by choice--to the degree it persists.

[Daktoria]

The only real stickler between the two is the Fascist use of a command economy and the issue of civil rights/liberties. I stand convinced on the last two grounds from the Libertarian perspective.

Individuals should have basic inalienable negative rights - I do not believe in granting positive rights wholesale nor should they exist wholesale as they only encourage and foster weakness. The state should encourage self-reliance as opposed to this nanny-state mentality. Socio-Darwinism would be practiced in this form - not via Eugenics but by simple survival of the fittest. Much like how the market is ruthless in purging inefficient and failing businesses, so should the state purge weak members of society unable to take care of themselves. (a notable exception being those who have performed national service) This wouldn't be accomplished with bayonets or guns, simple indifference would do the job just as well. I for one do not mind seeing the filth of society die in the gutters once their lifelines at the expense of hardworking individuals are taken away


However, it is time to acknowledge that a) a totally free market will not be able to compete with a market that has the backing of the state. Which is why I'm opposed to a totally free market. A case in point is China. In this case what I mean to say is that instead of taking from the market via tax, the nation should give to it. Corporations wield considerable power in todays world. There is no sense stripping them of that power and alienating them - not only are they more efficient than the state in accomplishing a goal, but they are also more successful in the allocation and management of resources. A lower flat tax rate would encourage corporations and the state to be enmeshed together, a more useful and powerful ally than taking the path of the left in trying to utilize the corrupt intellectual liberal elite to engender a revolution of the masses. The state should make it its policy to actively encourage and court corporations, and rather than isolating them from the decision making process- involve them more. As it is, corporations are patriotic - they employ citizens. Now, instead of using the state as a tool to redistribute corporate wealth, the state can make it its active policy to expand corporate wealth. An expansion of corporate wealth comes to the benefit of society - corporations will have added incentive to reinvest in a state and society that actively supports their acquisition of resources/capital.

The way I see it, corporations are the new way to conquer land. No more is it done with steel and gunpowder, but rather acquisitions and property purchases. When a corporation can acquire resources for the "nation" in an imperialistic fashion without the insurgency and threat of war, there is truly an avenue for certain nations to remain ascendant.

As a paleolibertarian, I have to say this rings far more deeply of paleoconservatism than paleolibertarianism.

(Oddly enough, there's a fringe ideology called neolibertarianism which synthesized neoconservatism and libertarianism in your manner.)

When the Cold War ended, Pat Buchanan and Murray Rothbard had a staunch division over the value of free market principles. Buchanan took a more corporatist and labor oriented approach for the sake of reinforcing organic solidarity. He even backs universal health care now. Rothbard, in contrast, pursued the disintegration of the welfare state, public education, and military industrial complex.

This isn't to say Buchanan endorsed aggressive foreign policy. He condemned the first George Bush, and still condemns our intervention in the Middle East today. However, as a paleoconservative, he's deeply concerned over national defense, and if he was given any sort of power, it wouldn't be surprising to see him make a pragmatic compromise, especially in light of how Iran has been found attempting to penetrate our porous border with Mexico.

In any case, you can't integrate free market principles into land acquisition for very long for one very simple reason: imperialism = bullying. The instant you tolerate an industry centered on bullying is the instant bullying will seep into the culture of industrialists. Initially, corporations will tolerate engineers and accountants and other clerical geeks because they yield impressive results, but eventually, corporations will internally exploit clerical geeks because sadists just like bullying people. Not only will external targets become harder to engage and conquer than internal targets, but soldiers will find stronger inter-corporate camaraderie with other soldiers. What's keeping soldiers from labeling clerks as "filth" and letting them rot in the gutter?

Nozick attempted to balance this out with the idea of private defense agencies that would arbitrate and offer insurance to independents in order to mitigate intra-group conflict, but the problem with even Nozick's model is it doesn't explain how the independently arbitrating private defense agency would remain secure itself. Soldiers are not rational people. They love creating chaos, havok, and violence (by definition of specialization of labor and how emotion is vital for the maximization of physical output), so eventually, they could create a chaotic war to undermine the "free market" land grab system just for the fun of it.

[powertoolsculpture]

Anti-populist propertarian corporatism leads to anti-Humanism and post-humanism. It's anti-thetical to race and patrimony because it would rapidly make its participants (by rapidly we are talking a few hundred years or less) into non-humans. Which is fine. Humans are scum.

This is actually fairly close to something I'd like to see, but I have a rather less-than-libertarian view on who counts as a sovereign property owner (adult males) and who counts as property (the rest of the Universe).

[BurrsWogdon]

In my opinion, the only paleo-conservatives who are in any way consistent and reasonable are those America-Firsters of the sphere of Bill Kauffman. The others, who may relate to the lists in the OP, are pop-culture debris rather than examined lives capable of an intelligent populism. The latter has come to define the term. But that is the way of political identities in America.

@ Goon: Not to argue with your general point, but, I read something from Trotsky recently that suggested Soviet bureaucracy was especially similar to that of fascism. The Revolution Betrayed, I believe.

Oh btw, in today's paper I read that 98% of the $70 million raised by Obama came from donations of $250 or less.

I really doubt that.

Check out the Idea Factory.

The deep pocket donors responsible for CAP's success are not bragging, at least in public anyway. The group was formed with significant seed money by the families of three wealthy liberals, financier George Soros, Progressive insurance magnate Peter Lewis, and Herb and Marion Sandler, who once owned Golden West Savings and Loan. All three benefactors are represented directly or indirectly on the CAP board. Since 2005, the larger group of wealthy liberals, known as the Democracy Alliance, has also begun to contribute significant sums to the effort. Rob McKay, the heir to a Taco Bell fortune and chairman of the Alliance, says that between 30% and 50% of the Alliance's 107 wealthy members have given money to the Center for American Progress, or its political offshoot, the Center for American Progress Action Fund. (Corporate benefactors are not disclosed, though the center bars companies from funding specific research projects.)

The Center for American Progress -cFAP- is not so much about political reform as it is political re-form.



Read more: http://www.time.com/time/politics/artic ... z1mCKkRiRt

[Tribbles]

Anti-populist propertarian corporatism leads to anti-Humanism and post-humanism. It's anti-thetical to race and patrimony because it would rapidly make its participants (by rapidly we are talking a few hundred years or less) into non-humans. Which is fine. Humans are scum.

Do you realize that you are mocking the cornerstone of post-WWII western Europe? And Fascism as well?

[Wolfman]

PTS is a self described misanthrope who thinks Plato and the Enlightenment were the worst things to happen to the world and frequently associates with Holocaust deniers and Nazis. We're not exactly deal with a stable individual.

[The Immortal Goon]

@ Goon: Not to argue with your general point, but, I read something from Trotsky recently that suggested Soviet bureaucracy was especially similar to that of fascism. The Revolution Betrayed, I believe.

That is horribly incorrect. I suppose if you took one line completely out of context you could find that, but in reality, most of the chapter is used to show that the idea of a fascist and soviet bureaucracy being "especially similar" is incorrect. They are only similar so far as three things. Everything else is quite different. This being said, of course, Trotsky did not agree with the soviet bureaucracy.

In civilized societies, property relations are validated by laws. The nationalization of the land, the means of industrial production, transport and exchange, together with the monopoly of foreign trade, constitute the basis of the Soviet social structure. Through these relations, established by the proletarian revolution, the nature of the Soviet Union as a proletarian state is for us basically defined.

In its intermediary and regulating function, its concern to maintain social ranks, and its exploitation of the state apparatus for personal goals, the Soviet bureaucracy is similar to every other bureaucracy, especially the fascist. But it is also in a vast way different. In no other regime has a bureaucracy ever achieved such a degree of independence from the dominating class. In bourgeois society, the bureaucracy represents the interests of a possessing and educated class, which has at its disposal innumerable means of everyday control over its administration of affairs. The Soviet bureaucracy has risen above a class which is hardly emerging from destitution and darkness, and has no tradition of dominion or command. Whereas the fascists, when they find themselves in power, are united with the big bourgeoisie by bonds of common interest, friendship, marriage, etc., the Soviet bureaucracy takes on bourgeois customs without having beside it a national bourgeoisie. In this sense we cannot deny that it is something more than a bureaucracy. It is in the full sense of the word the sole privileged and commanding stratum in the Soviet society.

Another difference is no less important. The Soviet bureaucracy has expropriated the proletariat politically in order by methods of its own to defend the social conquests. But the very fact of its appropriation of political power in a country where the principal means of production are in the hands of the state, creates a new and hitherto unknown relation between the bureaucracy and the riches of the nation. The means of production belong to the state. But the state, so to speak, “belongs” to the bureaucracy. If these as yet wholly new relations should solidify, become the norm and be legalized, whether with or without resistance from the workers, they would, in the long run, lead to a complete liquidation of the social conquests of the proletarian revolution. But to speak of that now is at least premature. The proletariat has not yet said its last word. The bureaucracy has not yet created social supports for its dominion in the form of special types of property. It is compelled to defend state property as the source of its power and its income. In this aspect of its activity it still remains a weapon of proletarian dictatorship.

The attempt to represent the Soviet bureaucracy as a class of “state capitalists” will obviously not withstand criticism. The bureaucracy has neither stocks nor bonds. It is recruited, supplemented and renewed in the manner of an administrative hierarchy, independently of any special property relations of its own. The individual bureaucrat cannot transmit to his heirs his rights in the exploitation of the state apparatus. The bureaucracy enjoys its privileges under the form of an abuse of power It conceals its income; it pretends that as a special social group it does not even exist. Its appropriation of a vast share of the national income has the character of social parasitism. All this makes the position of the commanding Soviet stratum in the highest degree contradictory, equivocal and undignified, notwithstanding the completeness of its power and the smoke screen of flattery that conceals it.

Bourgeois society has in the course of its history displaced many political regimes and bureaucratic castes, without changing its social foundations. It has preserved itself against the restoration of feudal and guild relations by the superiority of its productive methods. The state power has been able either to co-operate with capitalist development, or put brakes on it. But in general the productive forces, upon a basis of private property and competition, have been working out their own destiny. In contrast to this, the property relations which issued from the socialist revolution are indivisibly bound up with the new state as their repository. The predominance of socialist over petty bourgeois tendencies is guaranteed, not by the automatism of the economy – we are still far from that – but by political measures taken by the dictatorship. The character of the economy as a whole thus depends upon the character of the state power.

The general theme of the book move or less comes out through other discussions about the collapse of capitalism. The idea being that as capitalism decays, fascism and communism become more attractive:

Every revolutionary party finds its chief support in the younger generation of the rising class. Political decay expresses itself in a loss of ability to attract the youth under one’s banner. The parties of bourgeois democracy, in withdrawing one after another from the scene, are compelled to turn over the young either to revolution or fascism. Bolshevism when underground was always a party of young workers. The Mensheviks relied upon the more respectable skilled upper stratum of the working class, always prided themselves on it, and looked down upon the Bolsheviks. Subsequent events harshly showed them their mistake. At the decisive moment the youth carried with them the more mature stratum and even the old folks.

The revolution gave a mighty historical impulse to the new Soviet generation. It cut them free at one blow from conservative forms of life, and exposed to them the great secret – the first secret of the dialectic – that there is nothing unchanging on this earth, and that society is made out of plastic materials. How stupid is the theory of unchanging racial types in the light of the events of our epoch ! The Soviet Union is an immense melting pot in which the characters of dozens of nationalities are being mixed. The mysticism of the “Slavic soul” is coming off like scum.

And, of course, Trotsky wrote many times about how only a "moralizing Philistine" would compare fascism to soviet communism. He goes on to also formulate why he would even make a comparison in that World Revolution > better USSR > USSR as it was.

[ralfy]

It is illogical to flirt with fascism, as one cannot generally call for it, choose one's leaders, and remove them if one does not approve of them. Either some come to power or not by force, and you have no say on the matter.

[Far-Right Sage]

One cannot presently choose to reject either the results or the very notion of elections, most in the Western world dominated by domestic and international financial interests against the backdrop of a form of pseudo-morality with little historical precedent or purposeful prospect of betterment. Case in point, Greece. The fateful decisions will always be taken out of not only the counted population but the very will of the masses as the pretext of liberal democracy fizzles. The very concept of the average man choosing those who will unquestionably drive the nation's advancement or face dire consequences exudes rampant individualism, and denies the integral kernels of freedom which can only be exhibited by going beyond democracy.

[BurrsWogdon]

That is horribly incorrect. I suppose if you took one line completely out of context you could find that, but in reality, most of the chapter is used to show that the idea of a fascist and soviet bureaucracy being "especially similar" is incorrect. They are only similar so far as three things. Everything else is quite different. This being said, of course, Trotsky did not agree with the soviet bureaucracy.

the Soviet bureaucracy takes on bourgeois customs without having beside it a national bourgeoisie. In this sense we cannot deny that it is something more than a bureaucracy. It is in the full sense of the word the sole privileged and commanding stratum in the Soviet society.

I don't believe I was horribly wrong. With respect to bureaucracy, that is what he said. I would also dispute that "the Soviet Bureaucracy takes on bourgeois customs without having beside it a national bourgeois" . I see a problem with the petty bourgeois -it seems to me that both the bourgeois and the prole struggle with harnessing the dynamism of that class. In that respect, class becomes less relevant than the ultimate bureaucracy. That's not to emphasize the primacy of that class, just to consider it as pivotal, which, I might argue, takes emphasis from class in general.

I am still thinking about his distinctions, but I am not convinced. Thank you for the links. I sincerely appreciate your enduring openness to discourse. I'll look at them as time permits.

[The Immortal Goon]

I don't believe I was horribly wrong. With respect to bureaucracy, that is what he said.

I suppose that it's a matter of perspective as to how wrong it is. I think the main point is that while the bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, it's fundamentally different in most ways. That's my reading anyway.

I see a problem with the petty bourgeois -it seems to me that both the bourgeois and the prole struggle with harnessing the dynamism of that class. In that respect, class becomes less relevant than the ultimate bureaucracy. That's not to emphasize the primacy of that class, just to consider it as pivotal, which, I might argue, takes emphasis from class in general.

If it's of interest,you might look at this.

This is probably more information than you're looking for, but I've been thinking for a while now about how the schism amongst communists has more to do with whether one can define socialism or not. The former, the De Leons, Stalins, and others, argued that a socialist state could be defined and created now. Engels, Trotsky, Connolly, and others warned that socialist society was something that would develop from the struggle that we would not full understand at our level and would have to come organically.

You could go so far as to connect that to forms of struggle; the hardliners like Nechayev and even those like O'Donnovan Rossa (maybe Stalin, he fancied himself a bank-robber in his younger days) saw destroying the old system more important than anything; while your Trotskys and Connollys attempt to build mass action that will flower in to whatever system the struggle would produce. In a sense, the fight against the old system would be a byproduct of the mass action.

...anyway, I started (and am still) toying with the idea when I wrote this. Included are other quotes about Soviet bureaucracy if you're interested.

[BurrsWogdon]

I don't believe I was horribly wrong. With respect to bureaucracy, that is what he said.

I suppose that it's a matter of perspective as to how wrong it is. I think the main point is that while the bureaucracy is a bureaucracy, it's fundamentally different in most ways. That's my reading anyway.

Yes, I think it is a matter of perspective and I might be able to put it in Trotsky's words from something I am reading from him on Fascism in Spain. The "umbrella invention" thing. But I cannot do it right now. I'll just say that I see a problem with the perspective of class, as in working class, in that it tends to emphasize the latter (strata) rather than the former (force). And I don't mean to suggest that the "transitional" class is a solution to conflict, but that the fact that it is transitional demonstrates dynamism and that it seems to seed the supposed solution. So ultimately, there is an element of cooperation over conflict that is definitive. I have to compile some excerpts. I'm playing with fire throwing out these notions here.

I see a problem with the petty bourgeois -it seems to me that both the bourgeois and the prole struggle with harnessing the dynamism of that class. In that respect, class becomes less relevant than the ultimate bureaucracy. That's not to emphasize the primacy of that class, just to consider it as pivotal, which, I might argue, takes emphasis from class in general.

If it's of interest,you might look at this.

This is probably more information than you're looking for, but I've been thinking for a while now about how the schism amongst communists has more to do with whether one can define socialism or not. The former, the De Leons, Stalins, and others, argued that a socialist state could be defined and created now. Engels, Trotsky, Connolly, and others warned that socialist society was something that would develop from the struggle that we would not full understand at our level and would have to come organically.

You could go so far as to connect that to forms of struggle; the hardliners like Nechayev and even those like O'Donnovan Rossa (maybe Stalin, he fancied himself a bank-robber in his younger days) saw destroying the old system more important than anything; while your Trotskys and Connollys attempt to build mass action that will flower in to whatever system the struggle would produce. In a sense, the fight against the old system would be a byproduct of the mass action.

...anyway, I started (and am still) toying with the idea when I wrote this. Included are other quotes about Soviet bureaucracy if you're interested.

It is not more information that I am looking for. Again, I will have to look at the links later. I would agree with your first sentence, but I would go further to say that is a problem well beyond communists. It seems to be a universal problem. This is exactly the sort and scale of information I am looking for -the thing that I find informs socialism for me is feedback from people who identify with it in such a way. I would be with Trotsky in your scheme of things, but I am skeptical, and do not subscribe to the broader theme -this has to do with something unsatisfying about the "definite modes of production" and how what is social is derived from that. Again, I need to compile more excerpts on which to base by point.

I would IN NO WAY be sympathetic to the "hardliners". Simply to set out to destroy the old system makes the doctrine a faith, based on progress as an article of faith. It ignores the prospect of barbarism and destroys the doctrine's only defense, as best as I can tell, from being a teleology.

All IMO, of course.

Thanks... unless going to these links brings black helicopters to my door.

edit: let me please add to these thoughts. Here is a quote from you in another thread:

Connolly wrote:
I believe that no matter what may have been the force which gave birth to any institution, its permanency will and must be tested not by its origin but by its adaptability to the institutions – the economic institutions, of the future.

Let me suggest that bureaucratic institutions are "alien" to humans by their very corporate definition. If they are to constitute an acculturative force which requires adaptation, humans are being subjected to yet another "alien force". If we have to accept this, hten the smaller their scale, the more authentic to human relations. This makes me suspect that socialism would require confederacy or at most very loose federalism for success. But I suppose that would have to be the condition of any system of social organization in order for it to signify a progressive phase. You don't deny that evolution isn't necessarily unilinear. Perhaps advanced and suffocating bureaucracies in themselves are a sign of a fateful homeostatic imbalance, and doctrinal attempts to harness them, however efficient theoretically, are pathetic symptoms of our knowledge of that.

That's not to say that I am automatically pessimistic. I can be rationally optimistic, but not on account of an obsessive focus on social organizations with respect to innovation.