Once capitalism collapses – and it surely will, by one cause or another – it will be up to the people through democratic, mass organizations to seize the means of production from private hands. The workers will proceed to run their workplaces democratically, electing management and voting on major decisions, and the economy will be centrally planned by a democratic constitutent assembly.

Capitalism, for the time being, has the majority convinced that it is a system capable of guaranteeing every individual a livelihood. We should ask the millions of recently laid-off North Americans if they think this is the case. Especially when corporations plead that they cannot afford to keep the workers on while the market bulls still pull in multi-million dollar bonuses.

Yesterday morning I changed my Facebook status. I do this on a daily basis, and typically include politically-charged thoughts or lyrics from songs I like. On September 11, 2009, my status read:

“Rick Gunderman remembers today the victims of 9/11 – the sacrificial lambs who paid for the crimes of US capital-centric imperialism in the Middle East.”

It had occurred to me in the week leading up to the eighth anniversary of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon as the TV documentaries and jingoist news demagogues reared their heads. For the eighth time I found myself reflecting on that paradigm-shifting event in a very different manner than many people around me.

For a significant proportion of the Canadian and American populations, it is a time to remember the victims of the attacks as the Saints of Democracy. These fallen 3,000 to the media-vulnerable mind represent heroes whose death at the hands of nineteen Muslims will mean hell reigning down from Beirut to Islamabad.

Innocent, they were. Heroes who died in the name of democracy, freedom and independence? Not quite.

It is strange to me how cognitively dissonant the dominant views on 9/11 seem to be. On the one hand, many people are aware of the history of U.S interference in the Middle East. Maybe not quite the extent, but they are aware that the American government has got caught up in affairs they ought not to for decades.

Yet many of these same people also believe Osama bin Laden to be some sort of satanic incarnation, and believe that the wars in and occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan were in some way justified.

This is attributable more than anything to the aforementioned paradigm shift. After 9/11, the media rallied to the calls of the ultra-right Bush Administration and their hound dogs in Congress. Those calls were for nationalist unity, a culture of militarism, and the blurring of the line between patriotism and state-obedience.

Theories abound that the United States government orchestrated the 9/11 attacks, but solid, incontrovertible evidence is lacking. What is clear is that some of the most powerful members of the Bush Administration wanted “a new Pearl Harbor.”*

The Bush Administration used patriotic and emotional blackmail to round up enough scared and proud Americans to re-elect them and to marginalize all opposition to their warmongering agenda. Through this, they have legitimized for many North Americans illegal invasions, torture, religious and racial intolerance, and military fanaticism.

The approximately 3,000 victims of 9/11 were not heroes safeguarding a democracy or a free way of life – the United States has neither. No single capitalist country in the world allows for the maximum freedom for their people nor does democracy mean anything more than the right to pick an unaccountable representative.

The Bush Administration did not mourn those who died in the attacks. It would come as no surprise to me if they didn’t get drunk and have a party as soon as Bush’s national address was done. They got exactly what they wanted: a nation paralyzed by terrorism with a national media telling them to trust the government or perish in a terrorist-induced hellfire.

The victims were sacrificial lambs, dead because the crimes of their government against the people of the Middle East caused nineteen members of those societies to strike back. Then, their memories were exploited to convince the 300,000,000 American survivors of 9/11 to elevate Bush from president to God-king, and the Republicans from political party to the manifestation of patriotism.

* Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Dick Cheney, Scooter Libby, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and several other Bushies were members of the Project for a New American Century, whose publication “Rebuilding Americas Defenses” explicitly mentions a new Pearl Harbor as necessary to implement their agenda. This is EXACTLY what happened. Proof can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#.22New_Pearl_Harbor.22
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html
http://www.terraknowledge.net/news/terrak040503a.htm

and for the original…

www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

The primary goal of the United Socialist Movement of the Americas is to build a coalition of revolutionary political parties, activist groups, progressive organizations and social movements. The unequivocal goal of this coalition must be to drastically and comprehensively change the constitution of Canada, or to adopt a new constitution altogether.

The latter would be the preferred option, particularly if we hope to significantly diverge from the 18th Century political system that Canada inexplicably still maintains.

While some socialist currents claim that they are the “true socialists”, or even the only true socialists, the goal of the USMA is to eliminate this sectarianism in the pursuit of a revolution. At this point, it appears that none of the established revolutionary parties or organizations in Canada have made headway towards such a goal.

They have, however, individually built up their organizations to have some degree of viability on their own. While this is evident, it is also evident that a divided front will lose the class war. Sectarianism has emerged as the single greatest threat to the possibility of a revolution in North America.

It is important to remember what the revolutionary program of the USMA stands for: constitutional change to usher in a new political system. This political system (and thus the constitution) will have as its basic principles eco-socialism, feminism, liberty, democracy, peace, and internationalism.

The exact dynamics of the future Canadian socialist society will be crafted by the work done within and by the revolutionary coalition. It will not be a specific doctrine, like “Trotskyism”, “Maoism” or “anarchism” that will come to power. Such squabble over labels distorts the true goal of the revolution, which will not be to glorify one particular revolutionary or another. The goal is to unite all those who seek to draft a new constitution based on the above-noted principles. This constitution will be the vehicle of the revolution, not the revolution itself.

When the conquest by the revolutionary coalition of political power and the subsequent adoption of a new constitution comes to pass, it will be the time to truly initiate the revolution. Organized workers will seize their workplaces, demanding their newly-constitutionally recognized right to run the means of production democratically, and the workers’ state will ensure that this right is upheld.

It would be a mistake to compensate the capitalists by having the workers’ state “buy them out” – such a move would only serve to recognize the imaginary entitlement to dictatorially run a workplace and to hoard the wealth therein produced known as “private property”. A socialist constitution will not perpetuate the Divine Right of Kings that characterizes capitalism.

A system of direct, community-based democracy has already been established as a goal of the USMA alongside the proletarian conquest of economic power. It would be ludicrous to expect direct democracy to spontaneously spring out of the Canadian population as soon as the revolution is initiated, and thus such a system will come into being as the revolution progresses.

Herein we are presented with both contradictions and questions – primarily, what will be the exact function of a federal workers’ state when all decisions are made locally? Also, if the goal is for the revolutionary coalition to seize power in usher in a new constitution, what will become of the capitalist parties (Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Green, etc.)?

The first question is easily answered. The new constitution will proscribe to the federal workers’ state the paramount duty to defend the nation against foreign aggressors and to prevent an anti-democratic counter-revolution. Otherwise, this revolution, done in the spirit of liberty, will constitutionally enshrine the maximization of civil and human rights. All restrictions on human behaviour that does not harm another or compromise the rights of another will be exterminated, and such sentiment upheld by a constitution-minded Supreme Court.

Thus, for those who wonder whose discretion it will be at to regulate gay marriage, abortion, or whatever right-wing red herring happens to be the particular issue at hand, the answer is “nobody”. The new workers’ state will not be there to paternalistically run the lives of the nation the way contemporary “democracies” do.

Democracy, then, will exist at the local level, and the decisions made will be mostly economic in nature.

The second question, on the other hand, requires far more consideration – indeed, it requires a separate article.

Many socialists are limited in their scope of what it means for the working class to seize political power. Some believe it means winning at the federal level either exclusively or primarily, while others back a sovereigntist-type platform that causes for territorial fragmentation (like some elements within Quebec Solidaire).

Political power is a necessary prerequisite to the transition to a socialist economy. As such, the success or failure of a future socialist revolution in Canada will depend heavily on the means by which revolutionaries approach this monumental task.

Suppose that a revolutionary coalition of political parties and trade unions wins a federal election in Canada. It is unlikely that this could occur without having already secured governance in at least some provinces and a handful of municipalities. If it did, however, a lack of political control at lower levels would be a virtually insurmountable obstacle to initiating constitutional change.

A political revolution from the top, in either case, would not have the necessary grassroots base to effectively devolve political power to the working masses. The workers would need to control municipal and provincial governments first.

To do so, local councils of the revolutionary coalition would need to be set up. These councils would serve the electoral needs of the coalition and would be the forerunners to the participatory local councils that will hold supreme power in revolutionary Canada.

The first goal of the councils will be to win municipal power for the revolutionary coalition, and to secure it for the future political reconstruction of the country. From there, winning power at the provincial level will be the next great concern. The constitutional arrangements in Canada dictate that any change to the constitution itself requires unanimous approval of the provinces.

Imagine, then, that a healthy majority of municipalities and most (if not all) of the provinces have come under revolutionary dominion. Further imagine that a socialist constitution has been approved and Canada is on the path to socialism.

Barring any real threats from counter-revolutionary forces (the domestic bourgeoisie, street-fighting fascists, the American military, etc.) there will be a radical realignment of the Canadian political arrangement. Massive steps towards autonomy for the First Nations and French Canada will be undertaken, but the real changes will be seen at a local level.

Staying with the commitment to democracy, the revolutionary coalition must proceed to grant autonomy to the municipalities, including the right to mutually redefine their borders. The latter is an important stipulation that will be discussed in depth later.

In these circumstances, the local participatory councils will proceed to replace the bureaucratic City Halls that currently dominate Canadian local politics. These councils, properly structured, will become the new municipal governments, but will be more than that. They will be the workers’ states.

When socialists speak of a workers’ state, we mean one that recognizes the rights of the working class to a democratic workplace as opposed to a capitalist state, which recognizes private domain over the workplace. A workers’ state must be democratic in nature, lest it degenerate into a bureaucratic, despotic regime.

Democratic, participatory councils whose jurisdiction extends over the municipalities of Canada will be the forces that solidify democracy in revolutionary Canada. As the trade unions and workers’ councils proceed to conquer economic power backed by the power of the federal workers’ state, the municipal workers’ states will be the means by which the federal workers’ state is kept under democratic control.

The reality of this process, then, could be something like this:

The city of Hamilton, Ontario has a municipal government aligned with the revolutionary coalition. The new socialist constitution has paved the way for the restructuring of Hamilton’s economic and political institutions. Workers’ councils now administer Hamilton’s steel mills, chemical plants, assembly lines, retail outlets, and infrastructure. All profits are going to the workers and to economic and social programs.

Backed by the federal revolutionary government, the municipal government organizes participatory community councils throughout the city. These councils elect recallable delegates to the municipal government and begin to function as completely independent political entities. The municipal government is now subordinate to the decisions of the community councils. They work under a system of direct democracy.

For the citizens of Hamilton, this means that their city council never acts without the expressed approval of all those who choose to participate in the community councils. It also means that in their workplaces, all major decisions are made by the workers’ councils and the managers that they elect (and can recall through a simple majority vote at any given time) execute those decisions.

While evidently politically sovereign, the city of Hamilton is one part of the massive economic machine of Canada that is now under workers’ control. The economy as an entity being a natural network, Canada’s true unity will come through the interdependence and co-participation of all Canadian workers in the national economy. This stands in stark contrast with the current order, where workers are “loyal” to their individual bosses and the workings of the so-called “free market” (i.e. the decisions of the capitalists) guide the national economy.

Thus, a workers’ state seizes federal political power and devolves it to the workers’ municipalities. The workers’ state lays the foundation for an economic revolution through constitutional change, after which the trade unions and workers’ councils remove the capitalists from power and begin to make the decisions themselves. It will be the role of the workers’ municipalities to facilitate and ensure the removal of the capitalists, thereby enforcing the new constitution and making it a reality for all Canadians.

A serious source of disunity in the socialist movement is the (often small) disagreements over strategy and small policy differences. Major sources of contention, however, can be traced back to the First International and cannot be overcome with the tip of a hat.

The political alliance I have proposed so far would seem a natural union of radicals to the liberal observer, but the rift between communism and anarchism is a large one, and the rifts within these supertendencies are plentiful. Simply taking into account the communist proposal for a workers’ state and the traditional anarchist refusal to go along with any government-like apparatus shows the challenge ahead of us in uniting the revolutionary left.

To accomplish this unity, each participating member will have to recognize that they are equal partners and must craft a role for themselves accordingly. The anarchists, for example, could be brought into the workers’ state on the basis that their role will be to ensure that the state lasts only so long as it is absolutely necessary. Their fervent anti-statism, then, is an asset and not a liability for the united socialist movement.

Conversely, the communists have passion, theoretical knowledge and practical experience, the value to the revolutionary cause of which cannot be disregarded. Communist participation in coalition governments as junior partners in Venezuela, France, Italy, India, Syria, Uruguay and South Africa, and as leaders of the coalition in Cyprus, Moldova and Nepal testify to the value of communist participation.

The ever-present threat of social democratic anti-communism has the potential to disrupt valuable participation by communists in the revolutionary coalition. This is counter to the need for unity and mutual respect for ideological differences, and thus a historic turning of the tables to exclude the social democrats while including the communists would be necessary in such an event.

Once the revolutionary political coalition is built, and is working in tandem with the revolutionary social and trade union movements on the streets, the conquest of political power will be the next great task. The integrity of the movement, particularly the stated goal of the deconstruction of capitalism to be replaced with socialism, can never be compromised in the pursuit of political power, as many social democrats have demonstrated their tendency to do.

How the revolutionary coalition will seize political power all depends on how the reactionaries and counter-revolutionaries respond to the revolutionary project. The coalition will not come to power without widespread popular support in Canada and will use the electoral system as the primary means to achieve power. Until the coalition does seize power, constant agitation for democratic reforms of the current state is necessary, particularly the abolition of the monarchy in favour of a republic system and the introduction of proportional representation as the electoral method.

The fundamental question of how the reactionaries will do what they do best (i.e. react) will guide the pace and tactics of the revolution. Should the revolutionary Canadian state be faced with threats of a coup d’etat from a counter-revolutionary military and police apparatus, American intervention to “restore” the current Canadian state, or a combination of both, the revolutionary state will need to respond adequately to protect the gains of the revolution.

It is for this reason that the best strategy for Canadian revolutionaries – and potentially the only strategy that will secure the most peaceful transition to socialism – is to work in complete partnership with American revolutionaries with the same or similar stated goals. If the Canadian revolutionaries are fortunate, the same type of revolutionary political and extraparliamentary coalitions would form south of the border and carry out the same mission as their northern counterparts. A continent-wide revolution, especially one that picks up on the current left-wing momentum in Latin America, is the only way in which socialism can be secured for all peoples of the Americas.

Should those of us who wish to build a socialist alternative and subsequently a socialist society ignore this monumental task, i.e. forget the goal of a transcontinental revolution, we will surely fail. The recent coup d’etat in Honduras will serve as an enduring reminder of this fact.

As the Venezuelan revolutionary state continues to build socialism in their country, they have formed the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) to strengthen and defend socialism in those countries where it is taking off. Even this progressive international alliance, however, was not enough to save Honduran President Manuel Zelaya from military deposition.

But the political events leading up to Zelaya’s ouster can hardly be described as “revolutionary” – Zelaya was a businessman from a very wealthy family and was a member of the Liberal Party, not a socialist or even social democratic party. His attempts to counter American influence in Central America, particularly entering Honduras into ALBA, were anti-imperialist in nature and his modest reforms were more social democratic than socialist.

The Honduran experience teaches that a revolutionary coalition – and not a particularly progressive member of a bourgeois political party – is a better means towards and to defend a revolutionary project. It also teaches that even as strong an alliance as ALBA may be, it has been unable to prevent or reverse the coup d’etat, clearly indicating that domestic, indigenous struggle is necessary to uphold the revolution as opposed to relying on foreign intervention.

These are the lessons that need to be learned in order to fulfil the revolutionary goal in Canada.

In summary, a revolutionary socialist alliance must build power on the streets and proceed to win political power by electoral means. Once in power, the revolutionary coalition must draft a new constitution to pave the way for a socialist economic transformation, for the preservation of civil and human rights, and for the maximization of democracy. This project must also be done in connection with a fraternal American revolution in order to prevent the American ruling class from destroying the Canadian revolutionary project and/or strengthening the Canadian bourgeoisie to fight the project.

It is time for the unity of all progressive forces in Canada and for such an alliance to put Canada on the path to a peaceful, democratic, free and equal society!

Almost three years ago, back in high school (ah, the good ol’ days…) I joined up with a group called “Positive Space”. Positive Space was a gay-straight alliance dedicated to promoting rights and a safe environment for LGBTQ students.

I was one of the few straight males in the group and endured harassment for my involvement. Before I knew it, half of the school assumed I must have been gay – due in no small part, I’m sure, to my younger brother and his friends.

Positive Space was, truth be told, more of a club than an activist group. I can remember two major activities – we lobbied for and got a compulsory assembly early in the year where we introduced three guest speakers, and later in the year we organized a day of workshops centred on themes of sexuality. I’m sure far fewer people would have attended were the workshops not counted towards extra credit.

The rest of our time was spent with idle chatter, indignant rants against homophobia, and the occasional visit by one of the faithful to discuss our differences in beliefs.

The homophobia spilled out in full force when many of our posters around the school were found torn and in the garbage, and when the occasional tough-guy would shout “fags” into our meeting room and promptly flee before anybody had a chance to see his face*.

As per school rules, we had to have a teacher sponsoring and supervising our group. Our teacher-advisor was a strong-willed woman who was very knowledgeable and passionate about LGBTQ rights. A point of contention for me emerged over time, however, when her ideas about conducting the group’s activities became clear to me. The idea, we were told, was to “tear down walls”, “build bridges”, and other such care-bear tactics for putting an end to homophobia.

If we had an incident, we were not to rely on collective action and the strength of our group – we were to report it to the school authorities. There was no talk of demonstrations, protests, or even leafleting.

There is nothing wrong with reaching out to like-minded groups in order to strengthen a movement – in fact, that’s exactly how a movement succeeds. But there is a very big, very monstrous, machine-gun-armed-and-manned Berlin Wall standing between the homophobes and the rest of us. And they’re perfectly willing to fire off a 21-gun salute every time a gay teenager is called a fag, every time a lesbian couple is harassed for holding hands, and every time a trans student is left for dead after a severe beating.

Realistically, what chance does a movement that relies on offering “free hugs” to the Westboro Baptist Church have of truly overcoming homophobia? These thugs who prowl the streets looking to bash some gays would rather have their tongues nailed to a wooden table then have anything to do with LGBTQ people and their supporters.

For too long, the gay rights movement has relied on litigation, legislation and love-ins to advance their cause. And yet it was only a little over a year ago that Lawrence King was shot to death at his high school by a heterofanatic punk who couldn’t handle Lawrence asking him to be his Valentine.

Staring down the barrel of a handgun, was Lawrence King supposed to try to “break down a wall”?

The point is not that the gay rights movement hasn’t fulfilled many aspects of their mission. Quite to the contrary, they are one of the most effective movements in this day and age in terms of getting done what they need to get done. And truth be told, I don’t mean to single out gay rights activists any more than environmentalists, feminists, trade unionists, or secularists who engage in the same petit-bourgeois, formalized tactics rather than mobilizing their supporters to confront those who mean to do us harm.

If we want real, lasting changes to our social order to destroy the last vestiges of the moral absolutism that dictates conformity and obedience, we have to be willing to take a real stand. Activists of the world: don’t be afraid to fight when you know you’re right!

* I’m sure he and his skinny gym-class crew had a good laugh and a round of high-fives over this.

History confirms that, if Canada is the leader in the socialist revolution, we will surely find ourselves in need of a workers’ state. The international bourgeoisie has effectively bought up Canada, sold to them for a bargain by our neoliberal politicians, and to think that they will stand for having the entirety of their claims to Canadian resources taken back by the Canadian people is a fantasy.

The workers’ state in Canada will have markedly different qualities from the workers’ states set up in the former Eastern Bloc, in East Asia, or in the African/Middle Eastern revolutionary waves. Our tradition of multi-party democracy will be carried forward into our socialist future.

The task of the USMA, then, is to build a revolutionary political coalition that spans sectarian lines and unites behind the one central, common goal of creating a new constitution for Canada.

Decades of liberal-capitalist domination of the political debate in Canada have surely left many Canadians wary of the concept of a radical change in the political order. This is especially so considering the frailty of our current constitutional monarchy with all of its bizarre political arrangements.

This constitutional change, however, is nothing to be feared if done in the right spirit. The dissolution of the Fourth Republic in Venezuela and its subsequent replacement by the (Fifth) Bolivarian Republic, which includes guarantees of free education, free quality health care, a clean environment, extensive minority rights, and far more human rights than the previous constitution, is an example of this.

The political coalition in Canada would have to include all Communists, Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, Luxemburgists, left communists, democratic socialists, anarchists, syndicalists, libertarian socialists and left-social democrats*. Each tendency has its own perspectives and commitments to bring to the table, and their participation in the drafting of a socialist constitution will be required for a pluralistic socialist society.

Also to be included in the process of drafting a new constitution will be the Assembly of First Nations, youth groups, women’s groups, LGBTQ groups, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, minority groups**, immigrant and migrant workers’ groups – effectively, all sectors of society who have an interest in ensuring the security of their rights.

This constitution will create new economic arrangements, agricultural and industrial policy, human rights guarantees, entrench environmental protection, protect democratic rights and a multi-party system, and fortify our commitment to multiculturalism and intercultural peace.

The value of each tendency and social group in crafting this constitution cannot be undermined by accusations of “revisionism”, “sectarianism”, or “betrayal of socialism”. In order for this revolutionary coalition to function cohesively, each group must embrace their own autonomy and the room that gives them to craft autonomous policy that they will push for within the coalition. Democratic centralism is fine within the tendencies, but the overall movement must be inclusive of all ideas.

The constitution that will subsequently be drafted will be comprehensive and explained thoroughly and understandably to the Canadian people before a nation-wide referendum to approve the new constitution is held.

Supposing that the constitution is approved, the economic revolution will commence, as private property (i.e. capitalist ownership) of the means of production will no longer be state-sponsored and hence no longer a reality. Workers’ councils, set up by or an outright evolution of the trade unions, will declare their ownership and right-to-rule over the workplace and subsequently elect management.

The economic revolution, it would appear, necessarily must follow a political revolution. Without a constitution that recognizes worker’s self-management as opposed to private ownership of the means of production, such action could not succeed. How to conduct such a political revolution is the next question.

* By “left-social democrats”, I mean those who identify as such but believe in the necessity to replace capitalism with a socialist order, which we have already defined as an economy structured on workers’ self-management. I am unsure if this constitutes a separate category from “democratic socialist” but thought it best to include this possible tendency as well for inclusivity’s sake.

** At the USMA International Conference in Buffalo, the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party took part, with one member delivering a very moving and articulate speech. Such organizations will be an integral part of drafting the revolutionary constitution.

As many readers know, a project is currently underway to build an organization known as the United Socialist Movement of the Americas (USMA).

I have been involved since the early stages and have witnessed the successful creation of a very active chapter in Buffalo, New York (who hosted a spectacular first annual USMA international conference), as well as nascent chapters in Hamilton, Ontario; Saskatoon, Saskatchewan; Bogota, Colombia; Port-of-Spain, Trinidad and Tobago; Aurora, Illinois; and Caracas, Venezuela.

As of now, two groups – the People’s Revolutionary Party (Philadelphia) and the Boston Radicals – have affiliated themselves with the USMA.

The USMA is on a path to unite the revolutionary left into a democratic, confederated force. The nature of that force and how it will achieve its goals, however, has yet to be specified.

As revolutionary socialists, the USMA is unequivocally committed to the abolition of private ownership of the means of production in favour of workers’ ownership and self-management, and to the creation of a direct democratic political system.

In short, to replace capitalism with democratic, pluralistic socialism.

A part of this project is to understand how we can bring about such a change in the political and economic order in Canada. This can be done through study and interpretation of theory, but must also be done with practical experience in mind.

Practical experience can be achieved through the welcoming members from all different revolutionary socialist tendencies into the USMA sphere – a policy already well-entrenched in the USMA. More importantly, the policy also means establishing links with trade unions.

It is well-understood among the left that trade unions will inevitably play a pivotal role in any future revolution. It will be the unions on the front lines at their workplaces, initiating the economic transformation away from capitalism.

The workplace arrangement envisioned by the USMA is one where ownership is constitutionally vested in the workers, who will manage their workplaces through democratic, participatory councils. Potential managers would be elected by the workers and terminable by a simple recall vote of the workers’ council.

Formulating these councils, indeed achieving the physical conditions to do so, will be the task of the trade unions, whose practical experience is indispensible towards the revolutionary project.

The political side of the revolution, however, will involve a much more complex alliance of forces. Marx, Lenin, Luxemburg…indeed, a very significant portion of revolutionary socialist theorists, have argued that the proletariat must conquer political power before it can conquer economic power.

It would seem that to contradict this is foolish – the bourgeoisie holds political power in most (read: all) of the developed world. The economic relations that create and maintain their power are enshrined in dozens of constitutions, usually as a guarantee of “private property” rights.

Facing this reality, we can only imagine the proletarian’s conquest of economic power resulting in two political consequences: a complete destruction of state apparatuses and a resulting leap towards a communist society, or a workers’ state as a provisional means to protect the proletarian economic conquest from capitalist counter-revolution or foreign invasion.