Communists, more organized, or just more undemocratic bureaucracies?

[Idealism]

First of all, this isnt meant to be a criticism, its a legitment question. For awhile now ive been identifying as an anarchist, but it seems that communism goes goes for the same ideal, and with the parties they seem much more organized. So that is the foundation for the question above.

[Tjis]

One doesn't exclude the other. Many anarchists on this board identify as communists as well.

Assuming you mean communist vanguard parties, you'll get different answers based on people's opinions obviously. I personally think vanguard parties are bad. Assuming that people won't be able to take care of themselves, and need a vanguard party of intellectuals to hold their hand seems horribly wrong to me.

Also, anarchists don't reject organisation, just hierarchical organisations. This isn't just theory either; There are many anarchist organisations around currently. For more about anarchist organisation I suggest you read the Platform (http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/platform/plat_preface.html). It's a text written last century which sparked quite some discussion in the anarchist world. It shouldn't be seen as the holy bible of anarchist organisation, but reading this and the critics it sparked might help you form ideas about anarchist organisation.

[h9socialist]

Even Emma Goldman described anarchist economies as "communism." (See her famous essay). The differences between communism, socialism and anarchism are sometimes large, but always subtle. Marx called himself a "communist" in part to distinguish his ideas from the utopians who described themselves as "socialists." In today's world -- especially in the U.S. -- it is programmatically very difficult to distinguish between "communism" and "socialism." I am a long time member of Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), and a former member of the Socialist Party. If you read the programs and proposals of DSA, the Communist Party, USA (CPUSA), the Socialist Party, USA (SPUSA), and the Committees of Correspondence for Socialism and Democracy (CCSD), you will find only minor disagreements. Nowadays, I think that SPUSA is probably the most radical. However, there are many more smaller and more radical parties -- I hate to leave anyone out. But these four are descendants of the Socialist Party of Eugene V. Debs and the Communist Party of John S. Reed. Consequently, they are the largest.
I think that it is wrong to accuse communists and socialists of bureaucratic heaviness -- American socialists never were very bureaucratic (and we've paid the price for it). The Communist Party still adheres to "democratic centralism" -- which is the main reason I haven't joined the CP. However, I must tell you that "democratic centralism" is far more "democratic" than the bourgeois clap-trap that gets passed off for democracy in this country. So I would never want to offend our comrades in CPUSA or in the larger worldwide movement. Invariably, the democratic political power that socialists and communists practice according to the votes of people, capitalists practice with the votes of dollars.
Left-wing anarchists, I believe are more "libertarian" than the bourgeois libertarians that constitute themselves as "the Libertarian Party." This is because bourgeois libertarianism can only find its "liberty" in terms of "private property." Deriving freedom from property is ridiculous for three reasons: (1) historically property, whether in terms of land, slaves or capital, has always been the primary basis of subjugation; (2) Finding freedom through property is the ultimate in vulgar materialism, and (3) and most importantly, private property requires the power of the state to enforce.
Nevertheless, Karl Marx was not an anarchist -- mainly because he understood that the emancipation of the working class (in modern American terms: average, everyday human beings) requires a historical, political vehicle. The values of socialists, communists and anarchists are very similar. It is only a question of how to make the emancipation of working people a reality. This is where I believe that socialism and democracy are superior methods.

[Oneironaut]

First we must ask the question if organization, especially in the political case, is what leads to undemocratic bureaucracies. I would argue that political parties that vie for political power are always going to end up being more or less undemocratic and bureaucratic.

The modern political party is a fighting party. It must make decisions quickly in order to compete with other political parties who are fighting for the same votes. As such, quick decisions require an efficient mechanism for making decisions quickly, which tends to result in mechanisms that are less democratic. A political party does not have the time to ask every rank and file member what decision should be made. If it did, it would be a highly ineffective organization. Instead, the political party tends to result in decisions being made by a minority who in turn create a hierarchy within the party. IMO, it is not a matter of making a political party that is in some way better because any political party that is going to be effective first and foremost has to be a fighting party to gain votes.

I can see a democratic workers' organization arising during times of crisis like we are in now. As workers become more class conscious and learn to take steps for themselves, out of this process will evolve an organization that will be able to smash the capitalist state. I just can't see a political party ever being able to, well at least they haven't been able to yet.

[Coggeh]

First we must ask the question if organization, especially in the political case, is what leads to undemocratic bureaucracies. I would argue that political parties that vie for political power are always going to end up being more or less undemocratic and bureaucratic.

The modern political party is a fighting party. It must make decisions quickly in order to compete with other political parties who are fighting for the same votes. As such, quick decisions require an efficient mechanism for making decisions quickly, which tends to result in mechanisms that are less democratic. A political party does not have the time to ask every rank and file member what decision should be made. If it did, it would be a highly ineffective organization. Instead, the political party tends to result in decisions being made by a minority who in turn create a hierarchy within the party. IMO, it is not a matter of making a political party that is in some way better because any political party that is going to be effective first and foremost has to be a fighting party to gain votes.

I can see a democratic workers' organization arising during times of crisis like we are in now. As workers become more class conscious and learn to take steps for themselves, out of this process will evolve an organization that will be able to smash the capitalist state. I just can't see a political party ever being able to, well at least they haven't been able to yet.
Most political parties on the left have democratic structures in place , all members elect people who in turn take executive decisions , and every member can debate that policy freely within the organisation .

How can you see a democratic workers organisation simply "arising"?


I just can't see a political party ever being able to, well at least they haven't been able to yet.Has Russia 1917 slipped your mind ?

[Oneironaut]

Most political parties on the left have democratic structures in place , all members elect people who in turn take executive decisions , and every member can debate that policy freely within the organisation .

I would say that socialist parties are the most democratic of any political party. The younger they are and the less members also tends to allow them to be more democratic. But from my experience, at least in the United States and Mexico, for a political party to have any success, they must abide by the same rules that all other capitalist parties abide by. This typically means opening up to broader areas of society (which in turn loses the class character of the party) in order to get as many votes as possible. As the party gains more support and members grow, the tendency for political parties is to centralize who is making the decisions that need to be made quickly.


How can you see a democratic workers organisation simply "arising"?

Any number of ways. One way would be as more and more workers occupy their workplaces and hear of one another's struggle, they would begin to communicate and organize between themselves. I could see some sort of unified decision making mechanism arise out of such a process.


Has Russia 1917 slipped your mind ?
If the October Revolution had actually smashed the state resulting in dealienation and equality, the world could be a drastically different place. However, a hyper-state was set up that would evolve into an ultra-bureaucracy. I don't really see how we can look at Russia 1917 and say that it was a successful workers' revolution. That may just be me mumbling though!

[ZeroNowhere]

Nowadays, I think that SPUSA is probably the most radica
Dude, the SLP. Regardless of their financial problems, they're still a hell of a lot more radical than SPUSA.

Heh. "The Socialist Party calls for ending of the war and occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and bringing all the troops home now!" I don't think that anybody gives a fuck. 'Oh no, those socialists don't like us!' 'Well, duh. Why should we give a shit?' 'Good point.'

As for socialist parties, I'd say that the one with the best form of organization would be the SPGB and similar dedicated non-hierarchal groups. Regardless of minor disagreements with them, they are awesome.


So I would never want to offend our comrades in CPUSA
That's like saying that you would never want to offend Santa Claus or the bogeyman.


it is programmatically very difficult to distinguish between "communism" and "socialism."
This could be because they're the same thing.

[Coggeh]

I would say that socialist parties are the most democratic of any political party. The younger they are and the less members also tends to allow them to be more democratic. But from my experience, at least in the United States and Mexico, for a political party to have any success, they must abide by the same rules that all other capitalist parties abide by. This typically means opening up to broader areas of society (which in turn loses the class character of the party) in order to get as many votes as possible. As the party gains more support and members grow, the tendency for political parties is to centralize who is making the decisions that need to be made quickly.

Revolutionary socialist parties don't believe in bourgeois democracy , we have to grasp this properly as it can lead to reformism as you've pointed out quite rightly .However we use the party mechanism as a means to organise people , to gain political support for our ideas not change our ideas for political support . We have to intervene in society as a means of giving people a real alternative come election day . But elections aren't the be all and end all , we organise people through the party and raise class conciousness in communities (and not just college campus's ) like some parties in the US .

Here in Ireland my party the Socialist Party (CWI) is a household name , we have huge support in working class communities in Dublin ,Cork , Limerick and Belfast with some other places too . We have been able to do this by using the party as means of doing our work . Also intervening in Trade unions such as Batu & the CPSU as a party has giving us tremendous power in the unions .

And just comparing this to other leftist parties who don't organise in elections and as a "party" its a clear sign of the success of organising in a vanguard party .

On the topic of bureaucracy , it is a party after all and parties cannot be 100% democratic for example, if say 5 members disagree with a certain policy they can voice their debate all well and good within the party but outside of it they must abide by the majority decision . It isn't fully democratic but its just practical.We have to use the democratic mechanisms in place such as democratic centralism to like you said adapt to situations quickly . But it is as democratic as any political party can be really .



Any number of ways. One way would be as more and more workers occupy their workplaces and hear of one another's struggle, they would begin to communicate and organize between themselves. I could see some sort of unified decision making mechanism arise out of such a process.

Yes this happened before , but marxist ideas have been in tatters with concern to class conciousness over the last 15years and people are apathetic towards it . Without an organised class-based workers movement we can't expect this anytime soon I'm afraid . Workers and leftists have to get organised and a party is a means of doing that , a means of getting people organised I mean .





If the October Revolution had actually smashed the state resulting in dealienation and equality, the world could be a drastically different place. However, a hyper-state was set up that would evolve into an ultra-bureaucracy. I don't really see how we can look at Russia 1917 and say that it was a successful workers' revolution. That may just be me mumbling though!
This is going to create an Anarchist vs Communist argument . Maybe on another thread ? :thumbup1:

The point I was making was that the bolsheviks through the means of a party were able to organise workers and overthrow the provisional government .

[Oneironaut]

Revolutionary socialist parties don't believe in bourgeois democracy , we have to grasp this properly as it can lead to reformism as you've pointed out quite rightly .However we use the party mechanism as a means to organise people , to gain political support for our ideas not change our ideas for political support . We have to intervene in society as a means of giving people a real alternative come election day . But elections aren't the be all and end all , we organise people through the party and raise class conciousness in communities (and not just college campus's ) like some parties in the US .

Here in Ireland my party the Socialist Party (CWI) is a household name , we have huge support in working class communities in Dublin ,Cork , Limerick and Belfast with some other places too . We have been able to do this by using the party as means of doing our work . Also intervening in Trade unions such as Batu & the CPSU as a party has giving us tremendous power in the unions .

And just comparing this to other leftist parties who don't organise in elections and as a "party" its a clear sign of the success of organising in a vanguard party .

You are very correct. A revolutionary socialist party is an effective way to organize workers and moreover, spread propaganda. I do give support to organizations that do exactly that; organize and print propaganda. It is when these organizations start to play in elections that the party tends to lose almost everything that it was born with. IMO, this is inevitable.


On the topic of bureaucracy , it is a party after all and parties cannot be 100% democratic for example, if say 5 members disagree with a certain policy they can voice their debate all well and good within the party but outside of it they must abide by the majority decision . It isn't fully democratic but its just practical.We have to use the democratic mechanisms in place such as democratic centralism to like you said adapt to situations quickly . But it is as democratic as any political party can be really .
I couldn't agree with your analysis more. But it is exactly this which prevents workers ever leading their own revolution.



Yes this happened before , but marxist ideas have been in tatters with concern to class conciousness over the last 15years and people are apathetic towards it . Without an organised class-based workers movement we can't expect this anytime soon I'm afraid . Workers and leftists have to get organised and a party is a means of doing that , a means of getting people organised I mean .

I can't disagree with you either. But a revolutionary movement will only gain mass support in times of crisis, like the current one. It is evident that people are atleast listening to us as opposed to saying we are simply crazy. We must constantly educate our coworkers and raise their class consciousness. Working class people don't have to understand the inns and outs of Marxism to understand their situation. What will help our movement more than anything else is practical achievements that will show people communism is exactly the opposite of what we were all told in school.




This is going to create an Anarchist vs Communist argument . Maybe on another thread ? :thumbup1:
Haha let's save that discussion for later. But it would be a Council Communist vs. Leninist argument! :thumbup:

[Coggeh]

Haha , my sincere apologies comrade :p