Councils as state organs, and analysis of their degeneration

This is to repeat some points I made on a thread at the ICC forum (I also posted there several photos of councils, and linked some interesting texts, such as my translation of Sverdlov's speech on the design of the constitution): en.internationalism.org

Councils are state organs (of the dictatorship of the proletariat). The ICC's position that the party should not rule the state (during the transition period) out of fear of falling into "subsitutionism", in fact would mean that the party cannot stand its own candidates for (or even vote in!) elections to the councils. Since councils were themselves state organs, it also doesn't make sense to counter-pose, as the ICC does, the bad (degenerating) state to the (good) councils.

The labouring masses select delegates to a council. But we know very little concretely how this was done. Comrade Cleishbotam in the past has appealed to historians to study this (of course, of prime interest are the early phases of the revolution). I have looked into this, but there's indeed little surviving information. It's important to understand the election (and recall) procedures, because the manipulation of election procedures was a way by which councils "escaped control" of the labouring masses.

Councils escaped control of the masses not due to the party's involvement or direct take-over ("micro-management") of councils, like the ICC's critique (charging the bolsheviks with substitutionism) makes out. I argue even on the contrary, that the party should have had more power over its members in the councils, to discipline them directly, in case election procedures were not sufficient to keep the masses' control over the council by way of recall.

However, even if soviet delegates could be recalled every day, a mere change of personnel wouldn't solve the existing material problems.

Forum: 

Perhaps I will be told that we have to look at the Sovnarkom, at the highest level, for the power-grab from the CEC of the congress of soviets. I addressed that on the following libcom thread: libcom.org

Even if there had been no Sovnarkom, and the CEC maintained all legislative/executive power, I think the same accusation (of escaping popular control) could have been levelled simply at the CEC then.

Councils are often touted as uniting executive and legislative power into one organ, but in fact they each had an executive committee.

Noa

You pose so many problems in one post that adding a response to them would take some time. I went to the threads you flagged on the ICC forum and on libcom (the one on libcom I had not even looked at because of the title - it looked like an invitation to idle polemics, however I see you and "Pennoid" both tried to turn it into a serious debate about the nature of soviet power and the way it panned out in Russia post-1917). I very much liked your photos (must try to copy them!) and the translation of Sverdlov's work - a great contribution.

As you say the truth about the actual mechanics of how the working class controlled the organs which gave them their expression in the "workers' state" is difficult to come by. We are still researching away for a book which we hope to publish this year looking at the Russian Revolution both in its international context and "from below". So far as we can gauge the soviets never worked as purely as we would have liked. Partially this stems from the fact that despite the demands for them in the February/March demonstrations they were set up predominantly by the Mensheviks who imposed not only the CEC (which met elsewhere from the main soviet body and which EC members rarely if ever went to [See Sukhanov's Memoirs]. In addition the overrepresentation of some (workers in small factories, soldiers in the Petrograd garrison) at the expense of others does not seem to have been fully resolved. And the final coup de grace was the cooption of representatives of all the "socialist" parties onto the CEC. Its not even clear how the principle of recall worked. R V Daniels in The Conscience of the Revolution tells us that after the Kornilov Affair the Bolsheviks achieved their first majority in the Petrograd Soviet "due to the principle of recall of delegates". However this obviously haphazard and did not always work so it was not a surprise that one of the first decrees of Soviet power was to formalise it across all representative bodies.

Our case is that soviet power, workers control of production and a whole host of other collective and communal bodies were extending themselves with at first hesitant then enthusiatic support from the Bolshevik Left (which inculded at that time Lenin) until April 1918 when the economic crisis saw a swing towards the Bolshevik Right who had all along argued that the idea of Russian workers running the state was a chimera. It was in that month that the first recorded abuse of elections occurred.

"At the giant steel and locomotive plant at Sormovo near Nizhni Novgorod discontent over the dramatic food shortages as well as abuses by local commissars led to a new election to the soviet. The Bolsheviks won the most votes (5,336) but the combined votes of the SRs and Mensheviks (7,674) outvoted them. The Bolsheviks by-passed the election by forming a new Sormovo bureau attached to the Nizhni Novgorod soviet. Such actions not only undermined the soviets as credible organisations but were a complete reversal of all that the Bolsheviks had earlier stood for (and the Left Communists still stood for). And it is clear that the Bolsheviks also misread the implications of votes like this. They thought that their loss of support meant support for a return to the Constituent Assembly (which was what the Mensheviks and SRs openly campaigned on) but in fact the workers were protesting against the food crisis and the abuses of some local commissars (often former workers themselves) who abused their new power." [extract from our as yet unpublished work on the Revolution - the evidence comes from "Bread and Justice" by Mary McCauley]. However it seems here that there is an overlap between soviets and factory committee (since the word "soviet" was used loosely to refer to many organisations which were not in fact "workers' councils" as we would understand them.

Before coming to the theoretical issues you pose two other historical facts - it was obviously a mistake inherited from the Mensheviks to have a government separate from the direct democracy of the Soviets. True Sovnarkom and its decrees at the beginning had to be approved of by the CEC of the Soviet Congresses but that CEC did not meet for 18 months between 1918 and 1920. In that situation soviet power is withering away to leave the state to Sovnarkom (by this time consisting of only one party). The other thing that needs to be born in mind is that the Bolshevik Party at the end of 1917, despite having 350,000 members was not big enough to both run the soviets and carry out Party work (of spreading revolutionary political consciousness). There was a bitter debate about this in early 1918 in which many Bolsheviks complained that too many party members were just doing purely soviet work and nothing more. It was though one way in which party and soviets mixed and organically paved the way for a one party state. Substitionism? Possibly but de facto not de jure (that came later).

The trouble always remains that we cannot make too much of a model of an isolated proletarian experience in a relatively backward economy given the weight of all the other problems that the Russian proletariat faced (the material dangers of starvation or freezing to death not being least amongst them). The soviet idea with the principle of instant recall of not just delegates to congresses but to the CECs or whatever is decided upon still remains a historically-discovered way in which we can have statist organs which over time and with the final victory over the capitalist class will transform themselves into mere coordinators and adminstrators of production and distribution as long as no separate bodies like a Red Army or a Cheka are set up outside their control. The armed workers' councils means just that. The Party remains international (even if its members participate in local soviet tasks) and spreading the world revolution remains its task until that is achieved when it then devotes itself to the debate on the way forward for humanity as a whole.

You pose so many problems in one post that adding a response to them would take some time.

I just raise some issues on my mind, thank you for your reponse. Others can choose to explore further whatever strikes as most comment-worthy.

The Bolsheviks by-passed the election by forming a new Sormovo bureau attached to the Nizhni Novgorod soviet.

Some greater detail on pp. 29–30 in Scott Baldwin Smith's Captives of Revolution: The Socialist Revolutionaries and the Bolshevik Dictatorship, 1918–1923 (2011), (viewable on Google books: books.google.com).

The recall of delegates (or proclamation of new elections) is a double-edged sword, it can be an arbitrary method to eleminate any critical voices on the soviet.

it was obviously a mistake inherited from the Mensheviks to have a government separate from the direct democracy of the Soviets.

On the libcom thread I translated a passage from Osinsky of the decist faction (I'm sure he was still a leftcom then) at the 11th party congress, in which he called for legislative power to be taken from Sovnarkom and given (back) entirely to the CEC. He wanted to make Sovnarkom a purely executive power. Lenin retorted that this would mean the introduction of the bourgeois system of a separation of executive and legal powers. However, in my view the question of powers in the parliamentary system vs. (an ideal) council system has not been given proper theoretical attention.

CEC did not meet for 18 months between 1918 and 1920. In that situation soviet power is withering away to leave the state to Sovnarkom

I don't regard the Sovnarkom as such to be really the problem. If instead executive power had been retained by the CEC, the same problem could have emerged, only now an unaccountable CEC with regard to the larger soviet congress.

in early 1918 in which many Bolsheviks complained that too many party members were just doing purely soviet work and nothing more. It was though one way in which party and soviets mixed and organically paved the way for a one party state. Substitionism? Possibly but de facto not de jure (that came later).

I have quoted Stalin who in 1923/24 complained that not enough non-party people were elected into soviets. We must distinguish the party's bureaucratization from the problem of the degeneration of councils into unresponsive bodies. Even if the party had abstained from all participation in soviets, it is perfectly possible that the latter would still have become "unresponsive" to the popular will. Just a simple cause: soviet members were paid a salary, as such they have an interest to keep their seat and to manipulate election procedures in favour of their own re-election. If we have to use the (in my view non-sensical) term 'substitutionism', then it is the councils here who 'substitute' themselves for the popular will.

Editor's comment of 12:49 on 2018-01-21 is obviously full of historical content. The final paragraph is of some concern. Revolution first, then the debate on the way forward for the whole of humanity? The components of workers councils needs to be considered and decided in advance as soon as possible, because there are doubts as to whether personally individually all workers will be willing to take responsibility and be held responsible, equally or by groups, for specific procedures, even though or if such a mighty overall collective effort is estimated to be likely to be effecient and approved by the mass of workers in any one area and in the whole world. Not only those issues of responsibility, or lack of it, but there surely must be questions as to local and wider structures of control. Leaders ? Extents of geographical and industrial and civic control ? What extent of understanding and agreement is needed for the whole proposed thing to work ? Before or after the abandonment of money ?

Noa

Thanks for that reference to Balwin Smith - I had not come across it. Interesting stuff. Will reply at greater length later as we have a meeting tonight I am a bit tied up just now. I am trying to work out where you are coming from on this. No system of electing people to carry out tasks for a wider community will ever be perfect in expressing all the "wills of the people" but it seems that embryonically the notion of workers' councils remains the best so far thrown up by working class history. Agreed re substitutionism which we have always seen as a consequence of the counter-revolution and almost a tautology.

Will reply at greater length later

No worries, I appreciate your earlier response already.

I am trying to work out where you are coming from on this. No system of electing people to carry out tasks for a wider community will ever be perfect in expressing all the 'wills of the people'

With alll the talk about the 'direct democracy' of councils, it doesn't hurt to simply remind ourselves that they are representative organs, that not the whole proletariat is organised into councils. There is also the point KLZ made that likely not 'all workers will be willing to take responsibility'. This is about election procedure (what is the pool of candidates, who draws up the list, etc.). And what if a candidate elected to a council simply 'walks out' when things don't go their way (the effect of which is basically a discrediting of the council).

As for expressing the 'wills of the people', I think the councils sometimes will have to do things without majority electoral support (like in case of French revolution iirc, if a popular referendum on the king's fate were held, probably the people would have let him off) .

but it seems that embryonically the notion of workers' councils remains the best so far thrown up by working class history.

Yes, Bordiga didn't turn the council system into some divine principle.

Agreed re substitutionism which we have always seen as a consequence of the counter-revolution and almost a tautology.

Well I was thinking of Hegel and Lenin's critique of expressions like "self-organisation".

"The fact is, no man can think for another, any more than he can eat or drink for him and the expression is a pleonasm." en.internationalism.org

And Lenin in this 1907 article: 'Intellectualist Warriors Against Domination by the Intelligentsia'

With all the talk about the 'direct democracy' of councils, it doesn't hurt to simply remind ourselves that they are representative organs, that not the whole proletariat is organised into councils.

Is this a semantic argument? All who wish to participate in the running of society ( not only the paid proletariat) will be able to do so through the territorial assemblies. That these elect instantly recallable delegates to a permanent organ, a council, does not exclude the masses from the process. Are they "representative"? Well, they are subject to instant recall and are elected with mandates so it seems to me that they can hardly impose anything on the masses. If the masses want to execute or spare public figures, (as per your example of the French King) that will be their call.

I would also add that modern technology, will allow for rapid expression of public will. Any council of delegates could be quickly overturned by masses.

Bordiga seems to outdo Stalin in his insistence on party rule and I think that the modern day Bordigists remain wedded to that erroneous perspective.

This may be controversial but I think muuch of the problem of the communist movement relates to its inability to communicate with the people they aim to influence. No this is understandable to a certain extent given the circumstances of the moment, but at some point the situation will change. The masses will move. There is no overcoming the need for generalised class consciousness and no specialists, well read and well versed in the minutia of theory, history, can make up for the lack of awareness of Joe plumber and Jane nurse. The task of the revolutionary "vanguard" is not only to elaborate ever more volumes of obscure text for the converted, but to contribute to raising the consciousness of the exploited and oppressed. Again, I could be wrong, but the method which allows certain individuals to succeed in academic circles and highly restricted political circles today will not allow for the generalisation of class consciousness, even if it could lead to a repeat of the substitutionist errors of the past.

Either the masses are broadly capable of class consciousness and taking the future into their own hands or we take the road to ruin.

PS. I think that the unqualified use of the term "state" to describe the mass organs of the revolutionary class is erroneous. Semi - state is better, but arguably the proletarian dictatorship is anti-statist.

Is this a semantic argument?

No. I think already Bakunin (perhaps unlike many councilists/anarchists today) clearly regarded even councils as repressive state organs. In analysis of the degenaration of soviets, my point is just that councils themselves (without blame of the party) indeed can escape control from the masses. I don't go so far as to say, like Baknunin, that this is inevitably so.

All who wish to participate in the running of society (not only the paid proletariat) will be able to do so through the territorial assemblies.

The same can be said of councils in bourgeois society today (city councils, etc.) though.

Well, they are subject to instant recall and are elected with mandates so it seems to me that they can hardly impose anything on the masses.

I doubt if they were mandated. And the process of recall in practice can be a bit tricky.

I would also add that modern technology, will allow for rapid expression of public will. Any council of delegates could be quickly overturned by masses.

My point is not to criticise the representative nature of councils. I already said that even if recall were to happen every single day (and thus reflect the 'will of the people'), a mere change in personnel would not change material problems (just like we say about bourgeois elections).

Bordiga seems to outdo Stalin in his insistence on party rule

On the ICC thread I have quoted Stalin in 1923/24 critising the expression of 'party rule'. The fact that even Stalin spoke in defence of the expression of 'rule of the proletariat', cannot be set aside as mere hypocrisy.

the unqualified use of the term 'state' to describe the mass organs of the revolutionary class is erroneous.

Lenin's polemic against Kautsky was in large part due to Kautsky's unwillingness to recognise the councils as precisely state organs.

arguably the proletarian dictatorship is anti-statist.

Which is why councils themselves, as state organs, will have to be abolished too.

"The same can be said of councils in bourgeois society today (city councils, etc.) though." No, these do not result in instantly recallable delegates. Typically councillors are elected every four years where I live in the UK. Nor do these councils have powers beyond local affairs etc.

If the masses are not sufficiently conscious to set up real councils consisting of recallable delegates with mandates, then they will seed another ruling class.The reliance on experts to "do it for them" is not going to result in a successful proletarian revolution If the revolutionary party does not insist on instantly recallable delegates or attempts to take power for itself, the same result will arise, another ruling class. Such a party would not be a revolutionary party."Lenin's polemic against Kautsky was in large part due to Kautsky's unwillingness to recognise the councils as precisely state organs." Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat was no longer a state in the true sense of the word, that it was a semi-state. Yes, the semi-state carries out repressive statist functions as needs be. The councils as statist organs, i.e. with powers of repression by violence, may well be phased out, but likely some vestige with peaceful purpose will remain.

No, these do not result in instantly recallable delegates. Typically councillors are elected every four years where I live in the UK. Nor do these councils have powers beyond local affairs etc.

I specifically was referring to your sentence that any worker who wished could stand candidate in bourgeous elections to city councils, etc.

In elections procedures, there is also the question of presenting yourself on a party list or individually, etc.

delegates with mandates,

Again, I don't know if this was the case in the Russian soviets, hence it would be useful to get down to the concrete, like what is an example of a specific mandate that was given to specific delegates, etc.

Lenin pointed out that the dictatorship of the proletariat was no longer a state in the true sense of the word, that it was a semi-state.

I have found exactly one instance where he used the expression 'semi-state'.

but likely some vestige with peaceful purpose will remain.

The same could be said then I think about parliament.

We cannot do away with relations of force immediately. Honest anarchists would agree, the ruling class are not going to walk away, concede. Perhaps there will be a peaceful revolution, perhaps the former ruling class cannot muster the forces required to overcome a speedy revolutionary wave, but we cannot expect only the best case scenario. However, it would be prefered to have a non violent rupture.

In my own opinion, there is nothing wrong in talking about a proletarian state if one is clear about the meaning of the terminology, the nature of the revolutionary power.

As for parliament, well, maybe the buildings would be useful, perhaps they could house meetings of national level councils, but I cannot see any vestige of the bourgeois form of democracy surviving.

As for parliament, well, maybe the buildings would be useful, perhaps they could house meetings of national level councils, but I cannot see any vestige of the bourgeois form of democracy surviving.

So in your view national level councils will remain 'as a vestige with peaceful purpose' even after the dictatorship of the proletariat has fulfilled its task, ie introduced communism?

IIRC Bordiga said that the party will remain even in communism, but I 'm sure no Marxists ever said that councils (ie state organs) would remain.

Perhaps the reason you are so vague about this 'vestige of councils' (in communism) is because we haven't a sufficiently clear conception of what councils proper are.

Councils will have to abolished, as Korsch put it in 1929 (here: marxists.org):

it is just as incorrect when today some Marxist followers of the revolutionary commune on [sic!] the revolutionary council system believe on the basis of such misunderstood explanations by Marx, Engels, and Lenin that a parliamentary representative with a short-term, binding mandate revocable at any time, or a government functionary employed by private treaty for ordinary 'wages', would be a less bourgeois arrangement than an elected parliamentarian.

But notice Korsch's interchangeable use of communes and councils. These however are distinct things.

Kautsky in 1922 (marxists.org):

In place of the State, Marx foresaw “a national delegation in Paris,” confronting “a central government with few but very important functions.” This, however, implied the same separation of legislative and executive powers which Marx desired to see abolished so far as the Commune was concerned.*Consequently, *it may well be doubted whether Marx desired the same institution for the State as for the Commune. But even if Marx wished to see all the powers of the State combined in a single body, this would signify nothing more than the persistence of memories of the great Bourgeois Revolution, whose forms it was the custom to regard as those of revolutions in general, inasmuch as the peculiar conditions for the Proletarian Revolution had not yet developed with sufficient clearness.

This discussion has now moved from an enquiry about what was to speculation about what ought to be, and perhaps should be taken up on another thread (there are already several on the period of transition). To get back to our original discussion it is clear that the soviet experiment as conducted between February 1917 and April 1918 (when the first election was riggred) can only be a rough approximation to what class wide bodies may be in the future. To focus only on councils is also a mistake as there were not only factory committees but all kinds of cooperatives, communes and ad hoc committees (apparently Russia went committtee-mad after October 1917 with passengers even forming committees to regulate train journeys etc.). However the whole experiment was distorted and then destroyed by economic crisis which saw the proletariat leave the main cities in droves thus undermining any chance of any kind of functioning delegatory "democracy" (in fact we know that some delegates who left their factory bases still considered themselves delegates for non-existent bodies). The solid legacy lies in the principles of recall and mandating - which are the antithesis of representation as understood by bourgeois democracy.

This discussion has now moved from an enquiry about what was to speculation about what ought to be, and perhaps should be taken up on another thread (there are already several on the period of transition). To get back to our original discussion it is clear that the soviet experiment as conducted between February 1917 and April 1918 (when the first election was riggred) can only be a rough approximation to what class wide bodies may be in the future.

The question of uniting executive and legislative powers into one body is relevant, not just at the top level, but even for local soviets. I mentioned that each council had an executive committee, which carried out the real work. The other council delegates only now and again met to hear what the EC was up to. So in reality do we not have here a seperation of powers? To compare with bourgeois parliament in Britain, all government ministers are originally elected MPs, are they not? Hence one could make the case that the government is just an extension of one and the same body.

There's very little discussion of such "merely political" issues as the seperation of powers, except for a few Marx quotes (like the one Kautsky mentioned in the 1922 quote I gave above).

To focus only on councils is also a mistake as there were not only factory committees but all kinds of cooperatives, communes and ad hoc committees

I'm not interested in hand-wringing about the reality of the soviets. We're talking about the issue of organs of state power (in the transition period). Of course there were various other committtees. I imagine this may bring clashes e.g. between factory committees and councils about who has the final authority in some field. In fact, as Sverdlov (libcom.org) pointed out, such clashes exists e.g. between regional council agencies and the national/central soviet authority. And ulitamely if the existing councils become unresponsive to the "will of the people", new ("really revolutionary") councils will be proclaimed and there will just be fought a civil war between these 2 councils, one fake, the other authentic.

The solid legacy lies in the principles of recall and mandating - which are the antithesis of representation as understood by bourgeois democracy.

In Korsch's view, such a revocable mandated representative is not any less of a 'bourgeois arrangement than an elected parliamentarian'. The councils are still state-organs. Lenin cited Engels to the effect that even the purest form of democracy will have to abolished in communism.

Btw, the right of recall in the USSR officially continued to exist (except for 1936-1959) most of the time. Between 1960-1985 some ten thousand deputies were recalled (p. 186, Soviet Grassroots: Citizen Participation in Local Soviet Government).

IIRC Bordiga said that the party will remain even in communism, but I 'm sure no Marxists ever said that councils (ie state organs) would remain.

I do not see communism as being distinct from socialism and see no period of transition which is not communist from the outset. This does not mean that the early stage is not different from the later stages, nor does it mean there is a clear delineation between stages, rather a process of transformation, becoming.

“All combined labour on a large scale requires, more or less, a directing authority, in order to secure the harmonious working of the individual activities, and to perform the general functions that have their origin in the action of the combined organism, as distinguished from the action of its separate organs. “ Karl Marx Capital Vol 1 chap XIII

I am unaware as to any proletarian means to arrive at a “directing authority” other than the system of recallable delegates which together form councils, though if you wish to give it another name, I doubt that will change the essence. So, I think that a directing authority, a council system, will persist.

Some of what is being written here about possible degeneration and the like I accept. There is no magic bullet solution. Previously I argued with people like Barry from the Commune that the absence of a revolutionary party means that there will be no revolution, but this does not mean that the presence of a revolutionary party ensures a successful outcome.

I previously wrote

“Thus an organ of power arising from civil society is not in itself revolutionary or counter revolutionary; it becomes a battleground between the perspectives contending for power. It becomes the sole power by following the revolutionaries’ directives to sweep away its class enemy and begins the process of total transformation of society, or it falls under the influence of those advocating capitalist preservation and is eventually swept away.”

If it is agreed that every word is a generalisation, then it might seem reasonable to reckon that whatever forms the futures of societies take, they are unlikely to be appropriately named by such headings as 'socialism' and 'communism' as currently imagined.

though if you wish to give it another name, I doubt that will change the essence. So, I think that a directing authority, a council system, will persist.

'Factory committees' is what you have in mind. They are not the same as the councils – organs of state power. Bordiga wrote (marxists.org):

Only up to a certain point can the factory internal commissions be seen as the precursors of Soviets. We prefer to think of them as precursors of the factory councils, which will have technical and disciplinary duties both during and after the socialization of the factory itself.

...

In parallel to this system [of the Soviet system of representation], new and technically competent techno-economic bodies will emerge. They must, however, remain subordinate to whatever the Soviets lay down in terms of broad policy guidelines; for until classes are totally abolished, only the political system of representation will embody the collective interests of the proletariat, acting as the prime accelerator of the revolutionary process.

To the extent that these factory committees just manage capitalist stuff like payment of wages, hiring/firing of workers, they too will wither away in communism.

As for direction/management over combined work on a large scale, in your Marx-quote it was about the purely technical side (in capitalist production). It was not about conscious planning, communism.

I don't agree that the workplace committees of the future will "manage capitalist stuff" but you could well be right there n saying councils fade away and production is regulated by the workplace committees. Here is a quote from Marx 1872. I don't think it is something we could repeat word for word today, but it may add to our thinking on the matter. ''The nationalisation of land will work a complete change in the relations between labour and capital, and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production, whether industrial or rural. Then class distinctions and privileges will disappear together with the economical basis upon which they rest. To live on other people's labour will become a thing of the past. There will be no longer any government or state power, distinct from society itself! Agriculture, mining, manufacture, in one word, all branches of production, will gradually be organised in the most adequate manner. National centralisation of the means of production will become the national basis of a society composed of associations of free and equal producers, carrying on the social business on a common and rational plan. Such is the humanitarian goal to which the great economic movement of the 19th century is tending.''

I don't agree that the workplace committees of the future will manage capitalist stuff

I mean during the dictatorship of the proletarat, i.e. in the transitional phase.

but you could well be right there n saying councils fade away and production is regulated by the workplace committees.

First, during the dictatorship of the proletarat, councils will be state organs.

In your Marx quote it says: 'and finally, do away with the capitalist form of production' – which indicates a transitional phase. If you don't believe in a transitional phase, then there is little point for you in discussing councils.

I think that there will be communism from the outset. However this does not mean there is no need for statist functions to defend the revolution.

I do not think there will be a capitalist phase after the revolutionary rupture.

I see communism as a process and in the initial stages there is a need to defend the revolution by force if needed.

However that does not mean there remains a capitalist economy under proletarian authority.

I do not think we can reproduce the ideas of Marx and Engels as the blueprint for the future revolution. Their early ideas were based on a low level of capitalist development which meant that an immediate transition to socialism could not be made,thus they theorised a prolonged transitional period.

But even if communism will there from the outset, there is still a danger of the statist functions to degenerate, i.e. the councils to become unresponsive to the 'will of people', i.e. the proletariat to lose control over its state apparatus, right? That is the topic of the thread. (Btw, that means also the communist economy can degenerate, perhaps not into pure capitalism, but something quite unpleasant nevertheless.)

So what caused the councils to degenerate? Some say it was due to the needs of the civil war. But before the civil war really exploded, there were already signs of degeneration, see Rabinowitch's article: The Evolution of Local Soviets in Petrograd, November 1917 to June 1918: The Case of the First City District Soviet: libcom.org

The article argues that the local party committee had no control over (its own members in) the First City (a Petrograd district) soviet, yet the masses felt that the soviet did not respond to its wishes.

The soviet chose to respond to growing popular dissatisfaction by organising a workers' conference (representing in total some 25,000 "working citizens") held between 25 May - 5 June 1918. Maybe the soviet succeeds in woeing/tricking their electorate by making promises, so that they prevent recall elections? And, after all, the rules are not very determined on when and how to hold elections.

The soviet did not want to publish the minutes of the workers' conference. Such an apparent detail as publishing minutes, is important to keep the council accountable.

-

Taking power requires enough competent people to staff the state (ie councils), which the bolsheviks apparently lacked. If that's true, then it seems that from the beginning the councils would not be able to maintain their popular support. Maintaining the links of the councils to workers itself requires administration, as does organizing elections, calling meetings to inform/update (publishing the council's minutes), collect and respond to complaints...

This thesis of bureaucratisation of soviets is perhaps best know from the works of French historian Marc Ferro.

The same theme was recently raised in a lecture (in French) by Eric Aunoble: 'Des parcours plébéiens dans la révolution, de l'utopie à la bureaucratie': youtube.com