The Role of the State

In my ever continuing effort to further m understanding of Revolutionary Syndicalist ideology, I would be interested in learning your positions on the role that the State would play in a post-revolution society.

I'd have the state in control of pretty much the same things it controls in current social-democratic countries, with the addition of nationalised banking.

I'm taking a look at the way the state functions in China, which involves many more nationalised industries than we have in the West (although the private firms should naturally become worker-run), but I don't know much about it yet.

RedSun wrote:I'd have the state in control of pretty much the same things it controls in current social-democratic countries, with the addition of nationalised banking.

I'm taking a look at the way the state functions in China, which involves many more nationalised industries than we have in the West (although the private firms should naturally become worker-run), but I don't know much about it yet.

Personally, I would have most of the economy be run by federated syndicates, with the role of the state being to monitor and direct these syndicates in accordance to central planning. However, I too would have banking and other large-scale monetary institutions run by the state, along with foreign economic interests.

Admin, can you give an RSF position on the role of the state?

RedSun wrote:Firstly, could you the difference between 'guiding' and 'commanding' the syndicates? Second, given the generally perceived historic failure of centrally planned state socialism, can you provide any evidence to suggest that central planning (whether commanding or guiding) can be made to work?

To address your first question, the central authority would determine the course of the economy and convey the general direction a particular industry needs to progress to delegates elected by each syndicate. The workers of each syndicate would be free to manage their own industry, as long as it fits the long-term aim of the central planning authority. For example, a delegate chosen by a boat-constructing syndicate might return with instructions to produce more large commerce vessels and less military ships. The syndicate would be free to build these vessels however they wish, give them any appearance, and improve on previous designs without interference.
To address your second concern, I do not support centrally planned state socialism. The state's role would not extend much further than defense, foreign relations, and the most broad and general economic decisions. I must restate, the state will not dominate the economy. In fact, much of these sweeping economic decisions would by made within the top echelons of the industrial federations (of syndicates), and not in the state at all. You may be mistaking the "central authority" with the state. The majority of central planning would be the burden of syndicate officials who have risen up the ranks through workplace democracy. Historically, central planning (are you thinking of Soviet Union perhaps? ) has been managed by party officials who have become distanced from the workers. My form of Syndicalist Central Planning seeks to remedy that by introducing to the planning process the necessity of workplace democracy. To rise into a top economic post would require the express support of the workers. It is central planning from the bottom up.

RedSun wrote:Admin, can you give an RSF position on the role of the state?

Yes please do!