Is the Party still a viable method of political organisation? (Split from Practice)

[The Feral Underclass]

What does that have to do with anything?

:confused:

Erm...Well, you see, anarchists, they reject the idea of leadership. While Q may think that building a revolutionary organisation requires "leadership" and uses Trotsky to qualify that belief, I was pointing out the self-serving nature of Trotsky's comments rendering his argument unreliable at the very least.


Without a guiding organisation, the energy of the masses would dissipate like steam not enclosed in a piston-box.

Also, the assumption that a party and a leader constitutes "organisation" is misplaced, as is the assumption that "the masses" need guiding. Both are based on bourgeois prejudices and interpretations of human dynamic.

[Q]

:confused:

Erm...Well, you see, anarchists, they reject the idea of leadership. While Q may think that building a revolutionary organisation requires "leadership" and uses Trotsky to qualify that belief, I was pointing out the self-serving nature of Trotsky's comments rendering his argument unreliable at the very least.
When he wrote that, he was already expelled from any leading positions. How was it then self-serving?


Also, the assumption that a party and a leader constitutes "organisation" is misplaced, as is the assumption that "the masses" need guiding. Both are based on bourgeois prejudices and interpretations of human dynamic.
Please elaborate on "bourgeois prejudices and interpretations of human dynamic".

[The Feral Underclass]

When he wrote that, he was already expelled from any leading positions. How was it then self-serving?

Because he saw himself as the leader of a movement and the rightful heir to the Soviet throne.


Please elaborate on "bourgeois prejudices and interpretations of human dynamic".

Well there is prejudice in bourgeois society that unless you have centralised, hierarchy with a leader at the top then organisation will fail.

The entire organisation of bourgeois society is predicated on this idea that anything other than hierarchy and authority will lead to chaos. It's an assumption of how life needs to be because essentially that's all it has been. And the reason for this is because human beings are fickle and their capricious nature requires this sort of regimentation.

[KC]

Yes, god forbid that you would actually have to justify your flawed ideas.

TAT, there's no reason to be sarcastic. This thread is regarding the prospects of building a party today, and not whether or not it is theoretically valid. I definitely welcome you to start a new thread on whether or not a party structure is a viable system on principle (on which I would be glad to participate), but please don't derail this thread about it.

[ComradeLands]

I'm afraid its a fact of history that every movement big or small has a leadership whether overt or not, elected or not.

The advantage of a party means that the leadership can be truly democratically elected, recallable and accountable, whereas refusing to admit that leaderships are necessary are simply allowing unelected leaders (often those most confident) to dominate a movement as they will occur organically out of the movement.

[Bilan]

Discussion split from Building a Revolutionary Party. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/building-revolutionary-party-t101590/index.html)

[Die Neue Zeit]

TAT, As I said on another board, the expanding class movement itself has to be both centralized, disciplined, and capable of posing the question of class power. This was the Marxist definition of "party" in the late 19th century. The definition of "socialist party" was thus: "Social Democracy is the merger of socialism and the worker movement."

With your fetish of decentralization and "autonomous" groups (read: circle-sects), I don't know how you can honestly call yourself a class-strugglist.

[RebelDog]

Is the Party still a viable method of political organisation?Put simply, parties lead to government/rule, a consolidation of the state and the bureaucracy and all the other institutions and persons that rule over the working-class and monopolise control over production and society. If you desire this (as the Bolsheviks undoubtedly did) then the party is still a viable method of political organisation, indeed possibly the only modern method that leads to such an outcome. If however the desired outcome is a society without class rule over the producers and their empowerment through their own democratic self-management of production and society, ie the end of class and economic inequality, then the party is a total anathema.

[RebelDog]

TAT, As I said on another board, the expanding class movement itself has to be both centralized, disciplined, and capable of posing the question of class power. This was the Marxist definition of "party" in the late 19th century. The definition of "socialist party" was thus: "Social Democracy is the merger of socialism and the worker movement." With your fetish of decentralization and "autonomous" groups (read: circle-sects), I don't know how you can honestly call yourself a class-strugglist. But you presumably call yourself a 'class-strugglist' whilst proposing that the only model is rule and control over the working-class by presumably people like yourself who we would all be presumably doomed without? You also propose this model whilst completely ignoring its misrable historical failure. You see the working-class as a class to do all the fighting and the work and to be led and controlled by modern-day Moses like figures to the paradise of state monopoly control over all and everything? The irony.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You haven't read Marx's own remarks about class parties (or, much less, my remarks on demarchy as an organizational model), have you?

As much of the class as a whole as possible should be centralized, disciplined, and capable of posing the question of power collectively. I put "party" in quotes for a reason: mere "movements" do not do such, but "parties" do. By the way, would you care to explain the mass nature of the prewar SPD? What a "Moses" Lenin's role model of a party was, eh? :glare:

[Kibbutznik]

TAT, As I said on another board, the expanding class movement itself has to be both centralized, disciplined, and capable of posing the question of class power. This was the Marxist definition of "party" in the late 19th century. The definition of "socialist party" was thus: "Social Democracy is the merger of socialism and the worker movement."

With your fetish of decentralization and "autonomous" groups (read: circle-sects), I don't know how you can honestly call yourself a class-strugglist.
Hon, after watching most Marxist political parties degenerate into authoritarian cults of personality, I feel pretty sure that Marxists don't have much ground to accuse anarchist groups of being petty cults.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Those that have degenerated into such cults have a different definition of the word "party" than the one I've mentioned above. By the way, being a circle-sect doesn't necessarily entail having cultish practices. The SDKPiL in czarist Poland, the indirect role model of most anarchist and ultra-left groups because of Rosa Luxemburg's membership, was a circle-sect.

[The Feral Underclass]

TAT, As I said on another board, the expanding class movement itself has to be both centralized,

No it doesn't.


disciplinedWhat is discipline? I don't necessarily disagree with being disciplined.


and capable of posing the question of class power.But the assumption that in order to do this you need centralisation is false. The fact that anarchist organisations does this refutes that assertion.


With your fetish of decentralization and "autonomous" groups (read: circle-sects), I don't know how you can honestly call yourself a class-strugglist.I call myself a class struggleist because I'm actually involved in class struggle, which is far more than you do I might add. What is it that you actually do Jacob, other than pontificate about esoteric ideas? You can only be class struggleist if you're actually participating in class struggle. Othewise you're just a person with some beliefs.

Furthermore, trying to dismiss my politics by claiming I fetishes decentralisation does not constitute an argument nor does it refute anything. Secondly it would help if you actually understood the nature of anarchist organisation before you attempted to refute it.

[black magick hustla]

:shrugs:, I think anarchism is too taxing for me. I think organizational principles should be flexible as possible provided the context. I don't mind centralization provided it is accountable and democratic. The whole issue of "checking" that the organization is "non-hierarchic" as possible seems to me that it not only taxes me, but diverts my energy from things I might find more worthwhile. I don't want to be called in to discuss for hours the nature of my workplace where I can vote in somoene that can do that job for me.

That being said, while some anarchist tendencies are garbage, it seems that the european anarchist organizations take their shit very seriously and with discipline, so I do not have extreme criticisms about them.

[The Feral Underclass]

I think organizational principles should be flexible as possible provided the context. I don't mind centralization provided it is accountable and democratic.

How can hierarchy be democratic?


The whole issue of "checking" that the organization is "non-hierarchic" as possible seems to me that it not only taxes me, but diverts my energy from things I might find more worthwhile.

I don't know what you mean? In what way does it divert energy? It's an organisational model that defends participation and democracy and safe-guards against authoritarianism. But it's not that difficult and not a great deal of work?

[Bilan]

Hon, after watching most Marxist political parties degenerate into authoritarian cults of personality, I feel pretty sure that Marxists don't have much ground to accuse anarchist groups of being petty cults.

Petty cults, maybe not. But worthless, and involved in petty vandalism, petty actions, and at times totally ridiculous politics, yes.
Anarchism is far more susceptiable to being linked up with peculiar, and stupid currents, e.g. Anarcho-Primitivism

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wow! What a turnaround, SoB! To follow up on an old conversation, if there aren't exactly the five trends in anarchism that I mentioned (utopian, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, and class-strugglist), then what trends do you see now? :confused:


:shrugs:, I think anarchism is too taxing for me. I think organizational principles should be flexible as possible provided the context. I don't mind centralization provided it is accountable and democratic. The whole issue of "checking" that the organization is "non-hierarchic" as possible seems to me that it not only taxes me, but diverts my energy from things I might find more worthwhile. I don't want to be called in to discuss for hours the nature of my workplace where I can vote in somoene that can do that job for me.

That being said, while some anarchist tendencies are garbage, it seems that the european anarchist organizations take their shit very seriously and with discipline, so I do not have extreme criticisms about them.

Whatever happened to your old Bordigist position on organic centralism and the rejection of the so-called "democratic principle"?

[The Feral Underclass]

I think it's wonderful how Jacob consistently avoids debating with me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No it doesn't.

Take a look, then, at the World Social Forum and the various Latin American "social movements." Better yet: look at NGOs. There's decentralisation for you.


What is discipline? I don't necessarily disagree with being disciplined.

Class discipline is not limited to military-like discipline. It means that adventurism should be avoided when workers aren't yet capable of posing the question of power (usually in the asinine form of "direct action"), but it also means closing ranks when they are. The Bolsheviks tried to instill class discipline during the adventurism of the July Days, for example.


But the assumption that in order to do this you need centralisation is false. The fact that anarchist organisations does this refutes that assertion.

Even a lot of class-strugglist anarchists don't pose the question of power beyond Bakunin's "smash the state" crap, given their preferred circle-sect organizational method and preferred "con the masses to power via the insurrectionary mass strike" strategy.


I call myself a class struggleist because I'm actually involved in class struggle, which is far more than you do I might add. What is it that you actually do Jacob, other than pontificate about esoteric ideas? You can only be class struggleist if you're actually participating in class struggle. Otherwise you're just a person with some beliefs.

Furthermore, trying to dismiss my politics by claiming I fetishes decentralisation does not constitute an argument nor does it refute anything. Secondly it would help if you actually understood the nature of anarchist organisation before you attempted to refute it.

No, you're a mere ultra-activist, a praktiki. Read p. 7-8 of this PDF:

http://mercury.soas.ac.uk/hm/pdf/2006confpapers/papers/LeBlanc.pdf

[RebelDog]

Class discipline is not limited to military-like discipline. It means that adventurism should be avoided when workers aren't yet capable of posing the question of power (usually in the asinine form of "direct action"), but it also means closing ranks when they are. The Bolsheviks tried to instill class discipline during the adventurism of the July Days, for example.In translation: where workers detract from the party-line and the policy of the 'intellectual elite', they should be 'disciplined' i.e, crushed by the Cheka for instance. But of course all this discipline is all for the good of uneducated proles who should not have pretensions above that of producing everything and doing all the fighting and suffering. I wish people like yourself (Jacob) would just admit the actual real contempt you hold for the working-class and their aspirations and actions independent of party control in revolutions past and future.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did you even read my remarks above on the SPD model?

I just have "real contempt" for the social-movements-only-ism that has held the working class BACK from organising ITSELF "into a political party distinct from and opposed to all [non-worker] parties" (Marx).

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/757/letters.html

SPD model

David Taylor is, I’m afraid, part of the soup of Stalinist thinking from which communism needs to escape (Letters, January 29).

Lenin’s model for communist organisation was not the infallible dictatorship of an elite, imposing “full agreement on definite aims”, but the German SPD - a mass, working class, democratic party, in which various Marxist tendencies argued out policy in front of the working class and put their views to the vote. That gave the majority the right to specify action and the minority the duty to support that action, but also the right of criticism.

Moreover, the SPD organised sporting, cultural and social events within the class. It strove to serve and represent a working class that was conscious of its own interests and capable of expressing its own views. The aim was to enable the working class to act as a ruling class.

The idea was that if workers are told the truth they will both understand it and act upon it. So the party criticised sundry viewpoints, both from within the working class and from outside it, from a rational and scientific viewpoint rather than sweep ideas under the carpet.

So, yes, a communist party does differ radically from a bourgeois party. History demonstrates that this kind of model is not infallible, but it is the only approach that puts the working class in control.

Arthur Lawrence
email

[RebelDog]

Did you even read my remarks above on the SPD model?

yes.


I just have "real contempt" for the social-movements-only-ism that has held the working class BACK from organising ITSELF "into a political party distinct from and opposed to other parties" (Marx).

Social anarchism is the working-class organising itself. The party/authoritarian model is part of the problem, not any solution.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since we're in agreement here that the Comintern party model is irrelevant to our disagreement, "the working class organizing itself" takes into consideration the uneven development of consciousness, which can only be overcome through partiinost (Russian: party-ness) as illustrated above. Your "social anarchism" is merely a group extension of the individual lifestyle politics of "living the anarchist life."

[RebelDog]

SPD model

David Taylor is, I’m afraid, part of the soup of Stalinist thinking from which communism needs to escape (Letters, January 29).

Lenin’s model for communist organisation was not the infallible dictatorship of an elite, imposing “full agreement on definite aims”, but the German SPD - a mass, working class, democratic party, in which various Marxist tendencies argued out policy in front of the working class and put their views to the vote. That gave the majority the right to specify action and the minority the duty to support that action, but also the right of criticism.

Moreover, the SPD organised sporting, cultural and social events within the class. It strove to serve and represent a working class that was conscious of its own interests and capable of expressing its own views. The aim was to enable the working class to act as a ruling class.

The idea was that if workers are told the truth they will both understand it and act upon it. So the party criticised sundry viewpoints, both from within the working class and from outside it, from a rational and scientific viewpoint rather than sweep ideas under the carpet.

So, yes, a communist party does differ radically from a bourgeois party. History demonstrates that this kind of model is not infallible, but it is the only approach that puts the working class in control.

Am I supposed to be impressed or something?


Since we're in agreement here that the Comintern party model is irrelevant to our disagreement, "the working class organizing itself" takes into consideration the uneven development of consciousness, which can only be overcome through partiinost (Russian: party-ness) as illustrated above.

Newspeak.


Your "social anarchism" is merely a group extension of the individual lifestyle politics of "living the anarchist life."

Your authoritarianism is merely an extension of the dominance, exploitation and control currently exercised over society's producers with different slogans.

[black magick hustla]

How can hierarchy be democratic?

Well, it wasn't certainly anarchos that invented the term democracy, so I am sure hierarchy can be "democratic"?


I don't know what you mean? In what way does it divert energy? It's an organisational model that defends participation and democracy and safe-guards against authoritarianism. But it's not that difficult and not a great deal of work?First, I don´t think it safeguards against "authoritarianism", whatever that means. Maybe its different with the AF and the groups across the sea but generally there is always a defacto "authority" within this groups where the more assertive people, generally males, dominate the atmosphere. Maybe it is the informality of the collectives I am used too.[/quote]

Second, theres always a lot of tme spent in finding an "agreement" due to the consensus nature of the stuff they try to pull.

[black magick hustla]

No, you're a mere ultra-activist, a praktiki. Read p. 7-8 of this PDF:

lol

[Kibbutznik]

Petty cults, maybe not. But worthless, and involved in petty vandalism, petty actions, and at times totally ridiculous politics, yes.
Anarchism is far more susceptiable to being linked up with peculiar, and stupid currents, e.g. Anarcho-Primitivism
Hon, at varying times in my life I've been a Marxist-Leninist and an anarchist. I've seen it all from both sides of the divide.

I really must take issue with Marxists criticizing anarchists for exhibiting the very same traits that they seem all to cavalier to exhibit. Anarchists have CrimeThinc, and Marxists have the RCP to be shameful of.

If we're going to move forward at all, we're going to have to forget about these old labels and work together, or else we'll continue to be irrelevant, particularly in the United States.

[Bilan]

Wow! What a turnaround, SoB! To follow up on an old conversation, if there aren't exactly the five trends in anarchism that I mentioned (utopian, lifestylist, hooliganist, insurrectionist, and class-strugglist), then what trends do you see now? :confused:


I would say those are, albeit peculiarly worded, dominant tendencies. There are smaller tendencies within anarchism which drift into a more peculiar direction than that, which need to be understood as they are.
For example, Anarcha-Feminism can not be pigeon holed into any of those Trends, because it does not have a definite objective beyond its emphasis on Feminism within the anarchist movement - its particular objective, economically, is not definite, unlike, for example, anarchist communism.

[Bilan]

Hon, at varying times in my life I've been a Marxist-Leninist and an anarchist. I've seen it all from both sides of the divide.

What is hon? are you calling me honey? I reject the notion that I am a spread. :lol:




If we're going to move forward at all, we're going to have to forget about these old labels and work together, or else we'll continue to be irrelevant, particularly in the United States.

I used to agree with this argument, and I no longer do. Labels are not simply words absent of any sort of meaning. The labels which are used are related to the politics and practice of groups. Practice and theory of vital importance to communists, of all tendencies, and the existence of these "labels" is a manifestation of the development of theory, and in turn, practice.
Syndicalist, for example, identifies a definite form of practice, which relates to revolutionary (<- although not always ->*) unionism.

Arguing against these 'labels' is stupid. We might have the same goal. But a goal is only one part of the picture. How to reach that goal is what counts. Debate, discussion, and practice are the only way to over come that. Not by abandoning labels. That's a superficial change.

* For example, SolFeds recent pamphlet, to a significant degree, rejects classical anarcho-syndicalist practice, whilst at the same time maintaining the label.

[Kibbutznik]

What is hon? are you calling me honey? I reject the notion that I am a spread. :lol:

Basically, it's a contraction of "honey" that is either used as a term of endearment or as a way to be condescending. I'm sure you recognize which one I'm using for.


I used to agree with this argument, and I no longer do. Labels are not simply words absent of any sort of meaning. The labels which are used are related to the politics and practice of groups. Practice and theory of vital importance to communists, of all tendencies, and the existence of these "labels" is a manifestation of the development of theory, and in turn, practice.
Syndicalist, for example, identifies a definite form of practice, which relates to revolutionary (<- although not always ->*) unionism.

Arguing against these 'labels' is stupid. We might have the same goal. But a goal is only one part of the picture. How to reach that goal is what counts. Debate, discussion, and practice are the only way to over come that. Not by abandoning labels. That's a superficial change.

* For example, SolFeds recent pamphlet, to a significant degree, rejects classical anarcho-syndicalist practice, whilst at the same time maintaining the label.

I'm not rejecting labels completely, I'm arguing that the baggage that comes along with the old labels of the various sub-sects of the left have become so great that it makes communication and rational debate practically impossible.

They're ideological shibboleths that increasingly serve only to divide and shut off discussion. Now is not the time for sectarian squabbles, espescially one based on a century old split in the First International that shouldn't have happened in the first place. "Marxist" and "anarchist" carry a century of baggage that has ultimately made modern anarchists and Marxists get at each other's throats more violently than they do at actual class enemies.

[MarxSchmarx]

The posts hitherto strike me as problems of semantics.

The problem with a "party" is that the word is so loaded, and despite its complicated historical pedigree, the term means different things to different leftists. What distinguishes the Spanish CNT, with a clear, central program but considerable local autonomy, from the turn of the century SPD that JR characterizes?

I suppose the difference is that the former was more work place oriented whilst the latter was concerned more with taking control of the Diet.

If the establishment of a socialist commonwealth is our shared objective, neither organizational approach lays claim to much success. The common thread of failure for both is unwarranted sectarianism and doctrinaire dogma. What harms both is a lack of ideological plurality, and the inability of too many leftist organizations to accept intra-group divisions.

Until we as leftists figure out how to deal with the corrosive power of sectarianism in our ranks, our organizational attempts, parties or radical unions or whatever, are doomed to failure.

1000th post; w00t :þ

[The Feral Underclass]

Take a look, then, at the World Social Forum and the various Latin American "social movements." Better yet: look at NGOs. There's decentralisation for you.

This is an evasion.


Class discipline is not limited to military-like discipline. It means that adventurism should be avoided when workers aren't yet capable of posing the question of power (usually in the asinine form of "direct action"), but it also means closing ranks when they are. The Bolsheviks tried to instill class discipline during the adventurism of the July Days, for example.

I see. So what you mean by discipline is centralised control.


Even a lot of class-strugglist anarchists don't pose the question of power beyond Bakunin's "smash the state" crap

Oh for fuck sake! When are you going to accept that you have no idea what you're talking about?

Beyond Resistance (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/manifest.html) and Role Of the Revolutionary Organisation (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/roro.html).

Jacob, you have absolutely no understanding of class struggle anarchism yet you feel comfortable in criticising it. How is that? Instead of working from your blind political prejudice, I suggest you educate yourself beyond your party line.


given their preferred circle-sect organizational method and preferred "con the masses to power via the insurrectionary mass strike" strategy.

Yet the Anarchist Federation is involved in both community and work place struggles, not only with working class people but as working class people.

I suggest that you research anarchist politics by yourself, rather than just take what the bourgeois media tell you as fact.

[The Feral Underclass]

Well, it wasn't certainly anarchos that invented the term democracy, so I am sure hierarchy can be "democratic"?

I asked how it was democratic, not for you to repeat your opinion.


First, I don´t think it safeguards against "authoritarianism", whatever that means. Maybe its different with the AF and the groups across the sea but generally there is always a defacto "authority" within this groups where the more assertive people, generally males, dominate the atmosphere. Maybe it is the informality of the collectives I am used too.

If you don't have organisational structures in place then this will happen.


Second, theres always a lot of tme spent in finding an "agreement" due to the consensus nature of the stuff they try to pull.

You oppose finding consensual agreements?

[ComradeOm]

In translation: where workers detract from the party-line and the policy of the 'intellectual elite', they should be 'disciplined' i.e, crushed by the Cheka for instance. But of course all this discipline is all for the good of uneducated proles who should not have pretensions above that of producing everything and doing all the fighting and suffering. I wish people like yourself (Jacob) would just admit the actual real contempt you hold for the working-class and their aspirations and actions independent of party control in revolutions past and future.While I strongly disagree with many of Jacob's theories as to the party (and odd admiration for Kautsky) he's perfectly correct in stressing this aspect of the party's role

The simple fact is that 'the workers' are not a homogeneous body with a single mind. Some elements will be radicalised first, some later, some perhaps never. The fundamental role of the revolutionary party is directing (yes, another dirty word) the activities of the revolutionary proletariat in order to break the ancien régime. Where it fails in this role the most radical elements (traditionally ultra-leftists) launch their own premature attack on the state apparatus which endangers and alienates the entire working class. Revolution is not a slogan and its not simply a matter of taking to the streets or smashing shop windows, its an often delicate sustained assault on the structures of the bourgeois state. Push too hard too early, as a militant minority will inevitably demand, and you have nothing but a putsch

The July Days have already been mentioned - a disaster that came extremely close to isolating and destroying the entire left wing of Russian socialism - but I'll also throw in the entire German Revolution as a warning. The whole affair was rife with ultra-leftist militants (Fischer et al) and lack of organisation (the refusal to contest elections, the bizarre 'Revolutionary Offensive' and uncoordinated strikes of 1919 spring to mind) but really you need look no further than the failed putsch of January 1919 which effectively ended the most promising revolution in Europe

There has to be a strong proletarian party*, aware of its role in history, that coordinates the various actions - principally restraining the militant radicals and encouraging the unconverted workers. Otherwise the counter-revolution will triumph, simple as

*And anyone who denies that the Bolsheviks of 1917 were a mass workers' party is simply denying history

[Bilan]

If you think the refusal to get involved in elections was the reason for the demise of the German revolution you need to return to square one.

[ComradeOm]

If you think the refusal to get involved in elections was the reason for the demise of the German revolution you need to return to square one.I disagree with a lot of Luxemburg's theories and actions but her stance on the elections during the KPD's foundation congress of 1918 was sound. The essence of her, and Levi's, argument was simple - the new party, which they were only in the process of founding, was isolated from the masses and virtually without any organisational infrastructure. In her analysis, which was subsequently proven correct, the German Revolution was not yet mature enough for the sort of radical action demanded by the ultra-leftists and that consolidation was required first and foremost

Levi explicitly spelt out the logic in contesting the elections to the Constituent Assembly. Pointing out that "The road to the victory of the proletariat can pass only over the corpse of the National Assembly", he nonetheless presented participation in it as a strategic choice:

"The National Assembly is going to meet. It will meet and you cannot stop it. For months it will dominate all political life in Germany. You will not be able to prevent all eyes from being fixed on it, you will not be able to prevent even the best of your supporters from being interested in it, seeking information, forecasting and wanting to know what will happen in the National Assembly. It will be in the consciousness of the German workers, and confronted with that fact, do you want to stay outside and work from the outside?"

Yet then, as now, there remained an instinctive knee-jerk reaction to the very mention of elections. KPD participation in the National Assembly was rejected and the new party remained dangerously isolated from the working class. It would not become an actual mass party until the merger with the USPD (which did contest the National Assembly). The ultra-leftist current was pushing too hard and too fast... which would lead to complete disaster in 1919

[Die Neue Zeit]

1000th post; w00t :þ

Congrats, comrade! :cool:


What distinguishes the Spanish CNT, with a clear, central program but considerable local autonomy, from the turn of the century SPD that JR characterizes?

I suppose the difference is that the former was more work place oriented whilst the latter was concerned more with taking control of the Diet.

If the establishment of a socialist commonwealth is our shared objective, neither organizational approach lays claim to much success. The common thread of failure for both is unwarranted sectarianism and doctrinaire dogma. What harms both is a lack of ideological plurality, and the inability of too many leftist organizations to accept intra-group divisions.

How was the SPD sectarian or even dogmatic? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

While I strongly disagree with many of Jacob's theories as to the party (and odd admiration for Kautsky) he's perfectly correct in stressing this aspect of the party's role

[...]

I'll also throw in the entire German Revolution as a warning. The whole affair was rife with ultra-leftist militants (Fischer et al) and lack of organisation (the refusal to contest elections, the bizarre 'Revolutionary Offensive' and uncoordinated strikes of 1919 spring to mind) but really you need look no further than the failed putsch of January 1919 which effectively ended the most promising revolution in Europe

[...]I disagree with a lot of Luxemburg's theories and actions but her stance on the elections during the KPD's foundation congress of 1918 was sound.

[...]

KPD participation in the National Assembly was rejected and the new party remained dangerously isolated from the working class. It would not become an actual mass party until the merger with the USPD (which did contest the National Assembly). The ultra-leftist current was pushing too hard and too fast... which would lead to complete disaster in 1919



Given your very own words here:


Certainly it dwarfed the KPD in terms of numbers and the considerable majority of class conscious workers of Germany could be counted amongst its membership. That was its real strength and it was not until the merger with the USPD that the KPD could be considered a true mass party

I consider the very foundation of the KPD in 1918, in direct competition with the USPD (not the SPD, of course) that was founded in 1917 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unabhaengige-sozialdemokratische-partei-t95038/index.html), to be ultra-leftist. The USPD was Germany's vanguard party, especially since the majority of the membership was revolutionary, and could have easily booted out the leading renegades.

Nowadays, German workers have to start from scratch... in the less-than-ideal-vanguard-party Die Linke (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-party-berlin-t100273/index2.html). :(

[Tower of Bebel]

Can you provide some proof that the USPD was a vanguard party?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, I thought you yourself said earlier that the USPD was a vanguard party:


Why wasn't it a vanguard party? Didn't the SPD organize the vanguard of the German proletariat? Wasn't this the reason for the militancy of the German revolution: the "'filling up' [of] the proletariat with the awareness and skills needed to fulfil its own world-historical mission, and [...] spreading enlightenment and 'combination'" (still having its effect after years of betrayal)?

The mere splitting away from the class-collaborationist, ultra-rightist tred-iunionisty in the SPD is good enough. Of the five tendencies comrade Macnair wrote about in regards to the workers' movement, three tendencies belonged to the USPD: the Bernsteinian pacifists (who realized how wrong it was to work with the economists to their right), the collapsing center, and the "Hegelian Marxist" left.

While Rosa Luxemburg lamented about the lack of an organisational infrastructure in the ultra-left KPD (I would think newspapers would be part of this deficit), the USPD took quite a number of the SPD's newspapers, and maybe even more "innovative panoply of methods for spreading enlightenment and 'combination'" (Lars Lih's description for sports clubs, social groups, cultural societies, etc.).

Over time, the "profoundly revolutionary wing" of the USPD became the majority, and the "ultra-revisionist wing" became the minority. Why did this majority do the exact reverse of the RSDLP's liquidationism episode and liquidate itself instead of fighting the other side?



Trivia: The even more ultra-leftist KAPD split from the ultra-left KPD before the liquidationist influx of USPD members into the latter. :lol:

[MarxSchmarx]

How was the SPD sectarian or even dogmatic? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/confused1.gifThe stance the party took during the first world war up to and including expulsion of the anti-war contingent was dogmatic and probably quite opportunistic. Their collusion with the freikorps during the German Revolution was deeply sectarian and belied their claims to build a unified left.

Whatever their merits before the first world war, the party's internal structure did not prove robust to the concrete demands placed on it by external challenges.


Congrats, comrade! http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_cool.gif

Haha thanks comrade

[Die Neue Zeit]

Right; I underestimated the role of right sectarianism a la Ted Grant.

[The Feral Underclass]

So...Are you actually going to attempt to qualify your comments or accept they are prejudiced and narrow minded?

[Die Neue Zeit]

So...Are you actually going to attempt to qualify your comments or accept they are prejudiced and narrow minded?

Very well, then:


This is an evasion.

How so?


I see. So what you mean by discipline is centralised control.

Um, no. I said "centralized" and "disciplined" for a specific reason. To imply that "discipline" is centralized control would be redundant. Instilling class discipline to counter the adventurism of something like the July Days would be like the relationship between a horny teenager on his way to maturity (working-class "masses") and his parents and high-school teachers (the "vanguard").

[EDIT: Most "vanguardists" (neo-Blanquists) see their relationship with the working class as one between a parent and a (preteen) child. That's "patronizing." I brought up horny teenagers in order to illustrate the situation much more accurately; they are maturing, may live on their own upon graduation, but will live their own lives upon maturity. Parents tend to have a generally passive relationship with teenage offspring. High school teachers, meanwhile, expect more maturity, too.]


Oh for fuck sake! When are you going to accept that you have no idea what you're talking about?

Beyond Resistance (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/manifest.html) and Role Of the Revolutionary Organisation (http://www.afed.org.uk/ace/roro.html).

Jacob, you have absolutely no understanding of class struggle anarchism yet you feel comfortable in criticising it. How is that? Instead of working from your blind political prejudice, I suggest you educate yourself beyond your party line.

Yet the Anarchist Federation is involved in both community and work place struggles, not only with working class people but as working class people.

I suggest that you research anarchist politics by yourself, rather than just take what the bourgeois media tell you as fact.

I know the differences between class-strugglist anarchism and other forms of anarchism. I made my remark about Bakunin because his moronic ultra-left strategy is, in its various forms, common to much of the class-strugglist left. It is based on the equally moronic notion that the masses cannot gain consciousness unless it is in action (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/cu/2008/2008%20videos.htm) (see CPGB comrade Mike Macnair's video summing up his profoundly true and important work). For Bakunin personally, propaganda of the deed was the way to move the masses into action.

On the other hand, those "community and work place struggles" are based, unfortunately, on very economistic struggles and not on a radical minimum political program, and this is the other way to move the masses into action (http://csukblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/debating-the-marxist-programme-videos-from-communist-university-north/). It is this broad economism that plagues most of the class-strugglist left, from class-strugglist anarchists to left-communists to Luxemburgists to Trotskyists all the way to "anti-revisionists."

[The Feral Underclass]

How so?

You didn't actually address my assertion that a working class movement does not need to be centralised.


Instilling class discipline to counter the adventurism of something like the July Days would be like the relationship between a horny teenager on his way to maturity (working-class "masses") and his parents and high-school teachers (the "vanguard").Comments like these reinforce the fact that people like you are completely removed from the working class. What an absurdly patronising attitude. It's worthy of nothing but contempt.

You've just referred to the working class as horny teenagers...


I know the differences between class-strugglist anarchism and other forms of anarchism.Seemingly not.


I made my remark about Bakunin because his moronic ultra-left strategy is, in its various forms, common to much of the class-strugglist left. It is based on the equally moronic notion that the masses cannot gain consciousness unless it is in action (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/cu/2008/2008%20videos.htm) (see CPGB comrade Mike Macnair's video summing up his profoundly true and important work). For Bakunin personally, propaganda of the deed was the way to move the masses into action.You've taken this position whereby you criticise modern anarchism by referring to Bakunin's methods. The class struggle anarchist movement in 1870 is fundamentally different to the class struggle anarchist movement now.

MacNair does the same. He equates some unidentified co-operativeist movement or at the very least "idea" to how moderan class struggle anarchists operate. Firstly, collectivism as a tendency within the anarchist movement doesn't really exist anymore due to the fact that men like Kropotkin and Malatesta sophisticated Bakunin's ideas and developed the tendency of anarcho-communism. Secondly, no anarchist communist organisation or infact any class struggle anarchist organisation advocates the development of "co-operatives" or "collectives" as a means of making capitalism redundant. We do advocate collectivism as a transitional phase between a market and gift economy, but this transition has to come about by the working class taking economic and yes political power, articulated through it's own forms of organisation and not through a political party. This will only come about through class struggle that ultimately leads to workers defending their gains i.e. a revolution.

Moreover, Bakunin's central theme of praxis was the development of secret organisations who would instigate economic and political change and actually no self-respecting class struggle anarchist has thought that to be true since the First International...So actually what are you talking about?

On your second point, it's a bog standard vanguardist idea that the working class can be "led" to consciousness by "intellectuals". As materialists we have to recognise that life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.

Aiming to lead the working class and challenging them to engage with you on ideals is not going to convince us. People gravitate towards radical ideas because they see them work, they gain experience from their application and they aim to replicate them. Trying to convince them that your "program" is the right one is essentially a reformist idea and it never creates revolutionaries.


On the other hand, those "community and work place struggles" are based, unfortunately, on very economistic struggles and not on a radical minimum political program, and this is the other way to move the masses into action (http://csukblog.wordpress.com/2008/06/05/debating-the-marxist-programme-videos-from-communist-university-north/). It is this broad economism that plagues most of the class-strugglist left, from class-strugglist anarchists to left-communists to Luxemburgists to Trotskyists all the way to "anti-revisionists."

MacNair says that we should have a program of how a future society should be organised and I've heard such a program from the CPGB. First of all, MacNair nor the CPGB have any rights to claim how a future society should look. Secondly, setting out prescriptive notions about how it should be ignores the historical importance of the working class as a force positioned to serve themselves. A revolutionary program should come from the working class, not from a political party. It has to be formulated by experience and fought for by its own leadership.

But your sentiment typifies vanguardist, authoritarian attitudes which are born from an intellectual elitism. You consider the working class to be "horny teenagers", incapable of using revolutionary methods for its own purpose without guidance from those who "know better". It's the age old Trotskyist notion that the working class has "fleeting ideas" and therefore is unable to lead itself, lest it be into confusion, reaction and the re-acceptance of exploitation.

Well I reject those prejudices and as a working class person know that I am perfectly capable to fight for myself without your guidance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comments like these reinforce the fact that people like you are completely removed from the working class. What an absurdly patronising attitude. It's worthy of nothing but contempt.

You've just referred to the working class as horny teenagers...

Either you just don't get it, or apologies are in order on my part for not elaborating upon this further.

Most "vanguardists" (neo-Blanquists) see their relationship with the working class as one between a parent and a (preteen) child. That's "patronizing." I brought up horny teenagers in order to illustrate the situation much more accurately; they are maturing, may live on their own upon graduation, but will live their own lives upon maturity. Parents tend to have a generally passive relationship with teenage offspring. High school teachers, meanwhile, expect more maturity, too.


On your second point, it's a bog standard vanguardist idea that the working class can be "led" to consciousness by "intellectuals". As materialists we have to recognise that life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life.

You need to distinguish between class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness, and between revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary theory. Only then can you appreciate the notion that "the bearer of science is not the [ordinary or activist] proletariat but the [...] intelligentsia" (Kautsky).


MacNair says that we should have a program of how a future society should be organised and I've heard such a program from the CPGB. First of all, MacNair nor the CPGB have any rights to claim how a future society should look.

Given some of his other polemics, I would suggest you reconsider what you've said and distinguish between "how a future society should be organized politically" and "how a future society should be organized socio-economically."

[RebelDog]

[EDIT: Most "vanguardists" see their relationship with the working class as one between a parent and a (preteen) child. That's "patronizing." I brought up horny teenagers in order to illustrate the situation much more accurately; they are maturing, may live on their own upon graduation, but will live their own lives upon maturity. Parents tend to have a generally passive relationship with teenage offspring. High school teachers, meanwhile, expect more maturity, too.]


Little wonder the working-class do not embrace the left. The whole idea of swapping one parcel of authoritarian rogues that treat them with contempt, for another parcel of rogues that treat them with contempt, seems pointless.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know whether your statement is an agreement with my sophisticated answer (swapping cappies with Blanquists) or a disagreement (Blanquists with real vanguardists a la Marx, Engels, Kautsky, etc.).

[RebelDog]

My statement is in 'disagreement' with yourself and all those who view the working-class with such contempt. Communism cannot be achieved by having different bosses and that is your ideology in a nutshell: control of the working-class, not their emancipation. The working-class must build their own institutions and democratically control them themselves, from within, by those who engage in them. Self-management, democracy and participation, not more bosses, not more control, not more authoritarian demigods acting out their historical roles.

[redguard2009]

Alright, you've made your emotionally-charged and ridiculously sensationalist point. Bosses are bad, yadda yadda.

But we're not talking about bosses. We're talking about leaders; though I don't blame you for conjuring up the capitalist "mode" of "leadership" when thinking of that term. The current system ascends leadership to untouchable, infallable positions in society and the economy.

In the communist sense, leadership is derived from a sense of obligation and mandate, not power and control. Although of course there is and always will be those who seek leadership for personal power, we do not. We do not seek it, period, except in cases which we feel we are better suited to a particular task.

Leadership, to me, philosophically and in a practical sense, is simply another cog in the machine of human co-operation, the embodiment of organization, that which helps the machine as a whole, with all its individual parts, function. It is a matter of efficiency and practicality. Without the efforts of a large number of parts being co-ordinated with a single directive, you have little more than individuals fighting one another for dominance.

Anyway, the whole point is that the working class isn't capable of spontaneous advancement in consciousness without some viable precursor. And while we can imagine that one day, if things get so bad, the workers will all rise up at once in some romantic wave of revolutionary fervor, the reality of it is that those workers will without exception follow some rudimentary form of hierarchy or another, be it a traditional party with a chairman and central committee, or a council or other body which drives the vehicle of change. And that is class consciousness.

[ZeroNowhere]

To imply that "discipline" is centralized control would be redundant. Instilling class discipline to counter the adventurism of something like the July Days would be like the relationship between a horny teenager on his way to maturity (working-class "masses") and his parents and high-school teachers (the "vanguard").
Well, that's not especially encouraging. Of course, when debating with libertarians, using the schooling system and often hierarchal (especially when the children go to school, it would seem) parent-child relationship isn't an especially good idea.

[RebelDog]

Alright, you've made your emotionally-charged and ridiculously sensationalist point. Bosses are bad, yadda yadda.Well being working-class I've had experience of being told what to do, it effects you. I hate hierarchy in all its guises.


But we're not talking about bosses. We're talking about leaders; though I don't blame you for conjuring up the capitalist "mode" of "leadership" when thinking of that term. The current system ascends leadership to untouchable, infallable positions in society and the economy.We are talking about parties and hierarchy. There will always be vanguards in the pure sense. The current system and the party and the state is no different from the working-class point of view in state-run monopolies. The economic structure has changed but class and control remains.


In the communist sense, leadership is derived from a sense of obligation and mandate, not power and control. Although of course there is and always will be those who seek leadership for personal power, we do not. We do not seek it, period, except in cases which we feel we are better suited to a particular task."Except", is a very dubious word in this context.


Leadership, to me, philosophically and in a practical sense, is simply another cog in the machine of human co-operation, the embodiment of organization, that which helps the machine as a whole, with all its individual parts, function. It is a matter of efficiency and practicality. Without the efforts of a large number of parts being co-ordinated with a single directive, you have little more than individuals fighting one another for dominance.It all depends on what the structure is. We can all take leads on certain things, we all have different talents to bring. I believe the working-class can run production and society as a class for itself and by itself without directives, dominance and control from above. A party does not lend itself to this reality, nor can it ever. We would be stupid to believe we can rely on authoritarian structures of control to somehow bring about egalitarian, democratic, horizontal planning and control. History shows the weakness in such thinking.


Anyway, the whole point is that the working class isn't capable of spontaneous advancement in consciousness without some viable precursor. And while we can imagine that one day, if things get so bad, the workers will all rise up at once in some romantic wave of revolutionary fervor, the reality of it is that those workers will without exception follow some rudimentary form of hierarchy or another, be it a traditional party with a chairman and central committee, or a council or other body which drives the vehicle of change. And that is class consciousness. No its not. You are effectively saying class-consciousness for the working-class is knowing its place. No anarchist here has ever stated that the working-class will spontaneous rise up against capitalism, your vacuous knowledge of anarchism has caused you to fill the void with nonsense.

[Pogue]

Parties are unappealing to workers. They're too guided solely by some great political vision, which not everyone will share, and can only gain through particpation in workers struggles.

What has any given worker go to gain from paying the dues monthly to be in the SWP and debate Trotsky? Why would they ever do it? Whats the appeal? How would they benefit?

Why would anyone want to have an elite group of leaders in a heirachy telling those below what the party line is, how to think? Why would they want to talk endless politics about Russian's who died before they and possibly their grandparents were even born?

I'm an syndicalist because I think workers will be attracted to unbereucratic, fighting unions, and organisation not full of dogma that actually engages in struggles and aims to benefit them. I see no future in parties, because people don't engage in that sort of thing.

[BobKKKindle$]

Parties are unappealing to workers.The Bolsheviks commanded the mass support of the working class in Russia, and in subsequent revolutionary situations such as Germany in 1918, the most militant and class conscious workers have always organized themselves in the form of a party, designed to intervene and shape the consciousness of the rest of the working class, and often modeled on the Bolshevik party due to its historic success. You may not agree with organizing through parties, but to assert that workers have never been won over to a revolutionary position by a party, or that workers have never identified as supporters of a party because they see all parties as being inherently elitist and authoritarian, is a gross distortion of history, and evidently something you didn't give much thought to. The need for a party stems from the fact that the consciousness of the working class is not even - there are always going to be some workers who possess a more revolutionary and class-orientated understanding of the external world, especially the nature of the society they inhabit, and it is generally these workers who are most likely to push for militant strategies and tactics in the event of an industrial dispute, and it is these workers who, as a collective body, form the vanguard of the working class, in the sense that they are at the forefront of the proletariat in terms of class consciousness. From this perspective, the vanguard will always exist, whether you want it to or not, although its size and location may change over time, and so the task that individual members of the vanguard confront is what role they should play in relation to the rest of the working class, and how that role should be carried out. As people who want to transform society by abolishing capitalism once and for all, socialists should recognize that we need to be organized. Being part of an organization consisting of other revolutionaries and people who also want to change the world means that you can intervene and agitate collectively, and draw on the experiences of other revolutionaries, which is much more effective than trying to operate as an independent and isolated activist, especially if you are new to radical politics. This, HLVS, is why workers are members of the SWP, and this is why the membership of the Bolsheviks expanded so rapidly under the Kerensky government, as the Bolsheviks proved that they were the only party capable of offering meaningful and concrete solutions to the working class, by calling for an end to the imperialist war, and refusing to ally with the Provisional Government. It is silly to say that being a member of the SWP only involves holding meetings, as interesting as these meetings can be - a revolutionary party is fundamentally about being part of working-class struggles and showing people through examples and leadership that we can offer a radical political vision that is rooted in the everyday experience and class interests of the proletariat. However, acknowledging the need for organization is not limited to Bolshevik-Leninists, as many anarchists would advocate the same thing.

This raises the question of what form our organizations should assume, which, in turn, raises the question of how we should go about defining a party, and distinguishing a party, especially a revolutionary party, from other forms of organization. The crucial characteristic of a revolutionary party is the fact that it is the political manifestation of the vanguard whereas other organizations such as trade unions and the established social-democratic parties encompass the whole of the working class as well as other class forces, and are therefore liable to contain a mixture of reactionary and progressive ideas (given that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas") which, in turn, leads to inconsistent, and, at times, downright reactionary praxis, as we saw recently when leading trade unions in the UK voiced support for the slogan "British Jobs for British Workers". This means that, as an organization that wants to defeat reactionary ideas that have established themselves within the ranks of the working class and by doing so create the right subjective (i.e. ideological) conditions for proletarian revolution, the revolutionary party is a party of militant workers, and is therefore capable of maintaining a consistently revolutionary position, whereas the positions of other organizations can easily shift and become more reactionary during periods of low confidence and disillusionment. This does not, however, mean that the revolutionary party rejects these mass organizations - in fact, the only way to win workers over to a revolutionary position is to have a presence inside all of these organizations and to lead by example, and not by trying to force your ideas on workers from outside, as noted above. Nor does it mean that a revolutionary party should restrict its membership to only those who are already committed revolutionaries and ready to set up barricades in the street - in fact, involving people in the work and activity of a party is an effective way to provoke ideological debate and break down established ideas, and that further affirms the need to intervene in other struggles and develop a periphery. However, any organization that aims to be genuinely revolutionary and internationalist cannot permit racists and other people who hold prejudiced ideas within its ranks. In addition to this approach to membership, the revolutionary party also functions in a specific way that makes it different from other organizations. The creation of policy takes place through a process of debate and discussion at every level of the party, and every leading member of the party is always subject to the control of the rank-and-file membership, and so in this respect the party derives many of its organizational principles from the experience of the Paris Commune and our vision of how a democratic socialist society would function. Once a decision has been taken, however, every party member has a duty to uphold that position when they taken on a leading role in a struggle - this is not an attempt to smash debate, or ideological diversity, but an objective necessity - an organization needs to have a coherent line, especially during periods of instability when the course of events cannot always be predicted, such as a revolutionary situation.

In sum, the revolutionary party is not elitist. It is not a club of intellectuals who sit around talking about dialectics. It is a fighting organization, that draws its strength from the ranks of the working class, and exists to establish the conditions that will allow the working class to emancipate itself and establish its own form of political and economic rule. That is why a party is still a viable form of organization.

[Pogue]

The Bolsheviks commanded the mass support of the working class in Russia, and in subsequent revolutionary situations such as Germany in 1918, the most militant and class conscious workers have always organized themselves in the form of a party, designed to intervene and shape the consciousness of the rest of the working class, and often modeled on the Bolshevik party due to its historic success. You may not agree with organizing through parties, but to assert that workers have never been won over to a revolutionary position by a party, or that workers have never identified as supporters of a party because they see all parties as being inherently elitist and authoritarian, is a gross distortion of history, and evidently something you didn't give much thought to. The need for a party stems from the fact that the consciousness of the working class is not even - there are always going to be some workers who possess a more revolutionary and class-orientated understanding of the external world, especially the nature of the society they inhabit, and it is generally these workers who are most likely to push for militant strategies and tactics in the event of an industrial dispute, and it is these workers who, as a collective body, form the vanguard of the working class, in the sense that they are at the forefront of the proletariat in terms of class consciousness. From this perspective, the vanguard will always exist, whether you want it to or not, although its size and location may change over time, and so the task that individual members of the vanguard confront is what role they should play in relation to the rest of the working class, and how that role should be carried out. As people who want to transform society by abolishing capitalism once and for all, socialists should recognize that we need to be organized. Being part of an organization consisting of other revolutionaries and people who also want to change the world means that you can intervene and agitate collectively, and draw on the experiences of other revolutionaries, which is much more effective than trying to operate as an independent and isolated activist, especially if you are new to radical politics. This, HLVS, is why workers are members of the SWP, and this is why the membership of the Bolsheviks expanded so rapidly under the Kerensky government, as the Bolsheviks proved that they were the only party capable of offering meaningful and concrete solutions to the working class, by calling for an end to the imperialist war, and refusing to ally with the Provisional Government. It is silly to say that being a member of the SWP only involves holding meetings, as interesting as these meetings can be - a revolutionary party is fundamentally about being part of working-class struggles and showing people through examples and leadership that we can offer a radical political vision that is rooted in the everyday experience and class interests of the proletariat. However, acknowledging the need for organization is not limited to Bolshevik-Leninists, as many anarchists would advocate the same thing. This raises the question of what form our organizations should assume, which, in turn, raises the question of how we should go about defining a party, and distinguishing a party, especially a revolutionary party, from other forms of organization. The crucial characteristic of a revolutionary party is the fact that it is the political manifestion of the vanguard whereas other organizations such as trade unions and the established social-democratic parties encompass the whole of the working class as well as other class forces, and are therefore liable to contain a mixture of reactionary and progressive ideas (given that "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas") which, in turn, leads to inconsistent, and, at times, downright reactionary praxis, as we saw recently when leading trade unions in the UK voiced support for the slogan "British Jobs for British Workers". This means that, as an organization that wants to defeat reactionary ideas that have established themelves within the ranks of the working class and by doing so create the right subjective (i.e. ideological) conditions for proletarian revolution, the revolutionary party is a party of militant workers, and is therfore capable of maintaining a consistently revolutionary position, whereas the positions of other organizations can easily shift and become more reactionary during periods of low confidence and disillusionement. This does not, however, mean that the revolutionary party rejects these mass organizations - in fact, the only way to win workers over to a revolutionary position is to have a presence inside all of these organizations and to lead by example, as noted above. Nor does it mean that a revolutionary organization should restrict its membership to only those who are already committed revolutionaries and ready to set up barricades in the street - in fact, involving people in the work and activity of a party is an effective way to provoke ideological debate and break down established ideas.

I refuse to read that until you structure it better because honestly, thats really not acceptable, did you not learn about this sort of thing at school. Thats so bad, do you not just think to space it out? Jesus

[BobKKKindle$]

Actually, HLVS, I posted that early to make sure I didn't lost it. I've added more ideas, and spaced it out, just for you.

[RebelDog]

The Bolsheviks commanded the mass support of the working class in Russia, and in subsequent revolutionary situations such as Germany in 1918, the most militant and class conscious workers have always organized themselves in the form of a party, designed to intervene and shape the consciousness of the rest of the working class, and often modeled on the Bolshevik party due to its historic success.How can you say the "most militant and class conscious workers have always organized themselves in the form of a party" when the Bolsheviks destroyed the free soviets of workers and peasant control? What success are you talking about?


You may not agree with organizing through parties, but to assert that workers have never been won over to a revolutionary position by a party, or that workers have never identified as supporters of a party because they see all parties as being inherently elitist and authoritarian, is a gross distortion of history, and evidently something you didn't give much thought to. The need for a party stems from the fact that the consciousness of the working class is not even - there are always going to be some workers who possess a more revolutionary and class-orientated understanding of the external world, especially the nature of the society they inhabit, and it is generally these workers who are most likely to push for militant strategies and tactics in the event of an industrial dispute, and it is these workers who, as a collective body, form the vanguard of the working class, in the sense that they are at the forefront of the proletariat in terms of class consciousness.And the party is superfluous not the driving force. Nobody would claim all workers have complete class-consciousness, the need for struggle would not exist if they did. The leading class elements should educate and inform the others but not dictate and rule them through a hierarchy. Because we do not all rise in synchronicity to smash capitalism is no excuse to be dictated to and controlled. I reject that as a worker, an anarchist and as a human being who refuses to believe that I cannot and should not shape my own destiny. I have a right to exist outside your party and so does my workplace and my community.


From this perspective, the vanguard will always existAgain, just because a vanguard is a reality does not mean the working-class needs to be regimented to the party agenda.


As people who want to transform society by abolishing capitalism once and for all, socialists should recognize that we need to be organized.Who would deny we need to be organized? There is organization and there is party elite control. Two different concepts.

[RebelDog]

This, HLVS, is why workers are members of the SWP

Christ, I feel sick.


"the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas"

An incorruptible truism so long as we have rulers and sadly the irony lies therein.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And the party is superfluous not the driving force.

Although there are key parts of BK's remarks that I disagree with, I must ask you to review the history of worker movements and especially worker-class movements. The international proletariat's first vanguard party was THE driving organizational force (obviously not the driving socioeconomic force) behind the development of the worker-class movement in its country and especially beyond (such as in Russia), withstanding the challenge presented by the authoritarian Lassalleans (and, ironically, their syndicalist organizational form) and by Anti-Socialist Laws.


Nobody would claim all workers have complete class-consciousness, the need for struggle would not exist if they did. The leading class elements should educate and inform the others but not dictate and rule them through a hierarchy.

Tell me, then, how the aforementioned vanguard party "dictated" and "ruled" over the workers in its country through some sort of hierarchy? The "education" and "informing" part were possible ONLY because of partiinost - the Party organization that made possible the existence of Party-based media diversity, cultural societies, social groups, and sports clubs. Hezbollah in Lebanon is a modern-day caricature of this historic example.

[RebelDog]

Although there are key parts of BK's remarks that I disagree with, I must ask you to review the history of worker movements and especially worker-class movements. The international proletariat's first vanguard party was THE driving organizational force (obviously not the driving socioeconomic force) behind the development of the worker-class movement in its country and especially beyond (such as in Russia), withstanding the challenge presented by the authoritarian Lassalleans (and, ironically, their syndicalist organizational form) and by Anti-Socialist Laws.

I'm sorry Jacob but that post is in a language I am not familiar with. What can I do.


Tell me, then, how the aforementioned vanguard party "dictated" and "ruled" over the workers in its country through some sort of hierarchy? The "education" and "informing" part were possible ONLY because of partiinost - the Party organization that made possible the existence of Party-based media diversity, cultural societies, social groups, and sports clubs. Hezbollah in Lebanon is a modern-day caricature of this historic example.

The fact that you cannot conceive of working-class power beyond that of control from above is not my problem but yours, and it is a terrible affliction to have. Your rhetoric is an affront to working-class organization and power given that it only views these concepts as given from above. I used to be involved in party politics and you remind why I was so determined to leave it behind.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I was referring, as usual, to the history of the SPD in Germany and its predecessor parties. :)

[RebelDog]

I was referring, as usual, to the history of the SPD in Germany and its predecessor parties. :)

I just see the working-class in trenches when I think of the SPD.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That is because the ultra-left in the party failed to organize the overall class movement (thankfully synonymous with "party membership") against the economistic scabs of the ultra-right (not the pacifistic, Bernsteinian "center-right") - the key lesson hammered home by the Kautskyan Marxist center, which in turn degenerated to the politics of vulgar "centrism" (covering the ultra-right and not just the "center-right") even when accurately predicting the advent of a new era of wars and revolutions.

[The Feral Underclass]

Either you just don't get it

No I got it.

You go on to qualify it here...


Most "vanguardists" (neo-Blanquists) see their relationship with the working class as one between a parent and a (preteen) child. That's "patronizing." I brought up horny teenagers in order to illustrate the situation much more accurately; they are maturing, may live on their own upon graduation, but will live their own lives upon maturity. Parents tend to have a generally passive relationship with teenage offspring. High school teachers, meanwhile, expect more maturity, too.

Your ideology is an enemy to the working class.


You need to distinguish between class consciousness and revolutionary consciousness, and between revolutionary consciousness and revolutionary theory. Only then can you appreciate the notion that "the bearer of science is not the [ordinary or activist] proletariat but the [...] intelligentsia" (Kautsky).

It's debatable whether what you are proposing can qualify as a science in the first place. Secondly, I don't see how this actually addresses any of what I said.


Given some of his other polemics, I would suggest you reconsider what you've said and distinguish between "how a future society should be organized politically" and "how a future society should be organized socio-economically."

No matter how much you attempt to mystify this discussion you are not actually making any argument.

You've evaded everything I've said.

[The Feral Underclass]

We do not seek it [power and control], period, except in cases which we feel we are better suited to a particular task.

(Bold added)

Oops. You gave the game away.


Anyway, the whole point is that the working class isn't capable of spontaneous advancement in consciousness without some viable precursor.The precursor is called struggle.


And while we can imagine that one day, if things get so bad, the workers will all rise up at once in some romantic wave of revolutionary fervor, the reality of it is that those workers will without exception follow some rudimentary form of hierarchy or another, be it a traditional party with a chairman and central committee, or a council or other body which drives the vehicle of change.I'd like you to qualify this statement with something other than your opinion. History is against you, I'm afraid.


And that is class consciousness.Class consciousness is not defined as the working class being incapable of anything other than blindly following political authority. Not on any level.

[Bilan]

Jacob, I must ask why you feel it necessary to distuingish between the Workers movement and the Workers-Class movement, when logically, the working class movement, is infact the Workers movement, and the Workers-Class movement, is infact, the Working Class movement, which is the Workers Movement.
The distuingishment between these two is unnecessary.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Jacob, I must ask why you feel it necessary to distuingish between the Workers movement and the Workers-Class movement, when logically, the working class movement, is infact the Workers movement, and the Workers-Class movement, is infact, the Working Class movement, which is the Workers Movement.
The distuingishment between these two is unnecessary.

I read a rather interesting article on this last night which ties in to politico-ideological class independence:

Has working class consciousness collapsed? (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1516)


In many countries efforts have been made to create, or begin to create, broad left parties that can begin to resolve this crisis. However the idea of the ‘crisis of the working class subject’ takes the analysis one step further, saying in effect that class consciousness has declined to such a degree that the overwhelming majority of working class people have no consciousness of themselves as part of a class that has its own interests other than those of the ruling class; using Lukacs’ distinction the working class is a “class in itself” but no longer a “class for itself”. If this is correct of course then it has big implications for socialist analysis and strategy.

We argue here that the idea that the working class is no longer a “class for itself” is an exaggeration, but like most caricatures is based on aspects of reality that socialists have to identify and integrate into their strategy and tactics. Consciousness, especially mass consciousness, is a dynamic factor that is subject to change and sometimes, in periods of crisis, is subject to abrupt shifts. So any attempt to capture and interpret mass working class consciousness is likely to be partial and one-sided. Before we get into the detail of that we have to say something about the changing structure of the working class, in Britain and internationally.

Ordinary worker / "working-class" movements are not politico-ideologically independent; worker-class movements are.

[Bilan]

I'm not entirely sure what politico-ideology means in relation to this.
The distinction your making is supposed to be between reformism - e.g. Trade Union movements - and revolutionary movements?

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Political" refers to organizing in political organizations, and ideological refers to class consciousness and rejections of "reformism." I put the two together because they are linked.


The distinction your making is supposed to be between reformism - e.g. Trade Union movements - and revolutionary movements?

Not quite. A concrete example of this distinction is between something like "social movements" and run-of-the-mill collective bargainism (typical tred-iunionizm) on the one hand and organisations like the "red union" IWW on the other. Organisations whose purpose is the merger formula are a subset of worker-class movements.

[KC]

Ok, since Jacob has led yet another thread into the dark abyss that is his own language, let's try to bring this thread back into the light.

The real question here is what is the most viable form of organization for both communists and workers, and how should those relate to one another?

Based on the current situation in the United States, I think it's pretty obvious that the best form of organization for revolutionaries in the United States is a network of sorts, mainly as a tool of coordination and information sharing, to keep everyone in the loop and everyone organized without getting bogged down by petty differences.

What is not needed currently is a party structure, as such structures without a demand for them from a substantial movement just degenerate into completely counterproductive sectism, as we have witnessed over the past few decades.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You go on to qualify it here...


Most "vanguardists" (neo-Blanquists) see their relationship with the working class as one between a parent and a (preteen) child. That's "patronizing." I brought up horny teenagers in order to illustrate the situation much more accurately; they are maturing, may live on their own upon graduation, but will live their own lives upon maturity. Parents tend to have a generally passive relationship with teenage offspring. High school teachers, meanwhile, expect more maturity, too.

Your ideology is an enemy to the working class.

On the contrary, what I've said is nothing new:

"Social Democracy is the party of the militant proletariat; it seeks to enlighten it, to educate it, to organise it, to expand its political and economic power by every available means, to conquer every position that can possibly be conquered, and thus to provide it with the strength and maturity that will finally enable it to conquer political power and to overthrow the rule of the bourgeoisie." (Karl Kautsky)




MacNair says that we should have a program of how a future society should be organised and I've heard such a program from the CPGB. First of all, MacNair nor the CPGB have any rights to claim how a future society should look.

Given some of his other polemics, I would suggest you reconsider what you've said and distinguish between "how a future society should be organized politically" and "how a future society should be organized socio-economically."

No matter how much you attempt to mystify this discussion you are not actually making any argument.

You've evaded everything I've said.

I would also add that the Erfurt Program and its authoritative commentary had a legitimate claim to "how a future society should look."

[Mike Morin]

The question, "Is the Party still a viable method of political organisation? " gets to the heart of some very fundamental dilemmas.

I'm probably different than most socialists, most anarcho-syndicalists, most communists, in that along the way while resigning myself to making a living within the Capitalist system, I picked up a MBA degree.

In "Organizational Behavior" class, I did my paper on "Participatory Management". I learned a few useful lessons, thus.

At an earlier period in my life, while participating in group self-study seminars with the Society of Friends, we operated on the principle of consensus in decision making. That is, we did not proceed until everyone concurred. Suffice to say, sometimes, if not often, the group progressed very slowly. On the other hand, we learned everybuddy's perspective and in a SMALL GROUP (a soviet) we eventually began to reach consensus faster, as we learned the perspectives and increased our own knowledge bases with respect to the questions at hand, and learned to respect and defer to others who either knew more or seemed to know more and/or had the respect and following of others in the group. Sometimes, if not often, participants would accede to the majority for the sake of expediency, having to weigh the importance of their disagreement, and/or having to weigh the confidence in one's knowledge and opinion with respect to the issue at hand.

In the "discipline" of Organizational Behavior, there are certain types of recognized authority.

One, which I know we all are familiar with, is called "legitimate" authority. I think a better term for it is "legitimized" authority. This is the authority delegated to an individual by the organization (e.g. a CEO, a Manager, a Foreman).

Another type of authority is called "expert" authority. Such occurs in a group when the members of a group either correctly or incorrectly identify an individual or individuals who have more knowledge, intelligence, and wisdom with respect to the matters at hand and defer to that authority.

If there is a need for "legitimized" authority then certainly it should come from one's "expert" authority (i.e. from the "bottom, up"). I know that some will object to the term, "bottom, up" because it implies a hierarchy. But the study of animal and human behavior teaches us that hierarchies are natural and will always occur. Would it not be optimal to assure that those hierarchies are based on the correct criteria, such as intentions, experience with respect to the matters at hand, wisdom, education and knowledge of the matters at hand, compassion, empathy, and intelligence? Is there always adequate time for a group to correctly discern the correct "expert" authority when someone who has "public relations" skills can outshine someone with the more noble attributes of "public service"?

Given that we all have limited combinations of knowledge, education (and of the kind that is oriented towards the best of intentions), experience, direct and indirect wisdom, empathy, compassion, tolerance, pride, etc., don't we all run the risk of falling into dogmatic thinking, thus following authoritarian (especially if talented orators and "target marketers" (e.g. Obama))?

I submit to you that such concerns are fundamental to the original question about whether a Party is a viable method of political organization. Being an anarcho-syndicalist of sorts, I transfer the question to one that precedes political organization with one that is concerned with ecological economic organization (ecology means the study of the home, economics means the management of the home).

Still, can we preclude the need for organization?


Mike Morin
"Peoples Equity Union"

[Lynx]

Would it not be optimal to assure that those hierarchies are based on the correct criteria, such as intentions, experience with respect to the matters at hand, wisdom, education and knowledge of the matters at hand, compassion, empathy, and intelligence?
Yes, although there is a tendency to simply recruit people towards roles that play to their strengths.

Is there always adequate time for a group to correctly discern the correct "expert" authority when someone who has "public relations" skills can outshine someone with the more noble attributes of "public service"?
A proper team effort would not allow for any notions of prestige. If someone has something to say, yet isn't a good public speaker, then that might be a situation where one team member writes a speech while another team member delivers it.

Given that we all have limited combinations of knowledge, education (and of the kind that is oriented towards the best of intentions), experience, direct and indirect wisdom, empathy, compassion, tolerance, pride, etc., don't we all run the risk of falling into dogmatic thinking, thus following authoritarian (especially if talented orators and "target marketers" (e.g. Obama))?
Yes, there appears to be a cognitive bias at play. The first step is to recognize it and develop countermeasures.

[Mike Morin]

You and I recognize and understand these dynamics, but do others on this list?

More importantly, do the majority of world citizens understand and apply such dynamics?

If the argument is that "Anarchists" reject leadership, therefore a Party could not exist, even if it were called, and intended to be, the "World Peoples Unity Party", what is to assure that all citizens have the necessary sensitivity with respect to group decision making, and the underlying concensus of the mission, objectives, strategies, planning and policy making procedures, including implementation, resource allocation, worker education, placement and career path, dispute resolution, etc. ?

Group decision making can be almost completely democratic in small groups (soviets), but becomes unweildy quickly as the body politic gets larger and less democratic as decision making has to be delegated "up" or "out", probably to the point that it is often unrecognizable to some, if not many, as it is implemented back "down" or "in".


Mike Morin
Peoples Equity Union

[Enragé]

Im torn between the TAT's position and that of Bob Kindles. TAT, could you respond to Bob's post on the previous page? :)


Also, jacob, honestly, for fuck sake, start talking in clear language ok. Doubtless you're a smart guy, we get it, but wording your position in such a way only people who spend their days reading lenin, kautsky (what a dipshit he was by the way) and whomever gets you nowhere. Have you ever even talked to anyone outside this forum about your ideas? If so, do you talk as you write?

[Lynx]

More importantly, do the majority of world citizens understand and apply such dynamics?
Few of the world's citizens have any experience with direct democracy at the national level. Most people live under representative democracies or under undemocratic regimes. For those who live in representative democracies, a major response is apathy and/or rational ignorance. There is a certain logic underlying this response. When the input, in the form of a vote, is non-specific, there is no incentive to base your approval/disapproval on anything more than 'character' or vague generalities.

Education and experience regarding the dynamics of direct democratic systems is crucial.

If the argument is that "Anarchists" reject leadership, therefore a Party could not exist, even if it were called, and intended to be, the "World Peoples Unity Party", what is to assure that all citizens have the necessary sensitivity with respect to group decision making, and the underlying concensus of the mission, objectives, strategies, planning and policy making procedures, including implementation, resource allocation, worker education, placement and career path, dispute resolution, etc. ?
There are at least two stumbling blocks to be negotiated: defining the internal structure of a party, and defining its interaction within the political process. AFAIK Anarchists are not opposed to all forms of hierarchy in all situations.

Group decision making can be almost completely democratic in small groups (soviets), but becomes unweildy quickly as the body politic gets larger and less democratic as decision making has to be delegated "up" or "out", probably to the point that it is often unrecognizable to some, if not many, as it is implemented back "down" or "in".
On the national level, a platformist approach might be more appropriate. Be specific with the platform (list of demands to be accomplished) and keep the leadership focused and under control. Internal party mechanisms usually have to strike a balance between consultation with members and unwieldiness - if that particular perception is correct. Mechanisms must be scrutinized to avoid conflicts of interest.