why do anarchists oppose a vanguard?

[Idealism]

is it misinterpretation and ignorance? or do they find it undemocratic or why?

[Matina]

I think its more of a combination of all of the above.
They confuse the role the vanguard plays until the revolution, with the Stalinist Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Therefore according to their analysis, if you have a vanguard, inevitably this vanguard will rule over the people.

The give too much credit to spontaneity and they don't realize the role of the revolutionary socialists, organized in a party. Of course there is an inherent tendency to socialism in the working class and of course the workers have revolutionary instincts. But those instincts can be betrayed, for example when many workers supported Hitler(although Hitler's mass basis was the petit bourgeoisie). They did so because there was no revolutionary leadership. There are tons of other examples.

It is obvious that only a small percent of the working class is revolutionary right now and it is involved in the study of the past working class struggles, drawing lessons from them , discussing revolutionary theory etc. This is natural as most of the time of the workers is consumed at work, family etc. and some of them have even become dissilutioned and have "bought into capitalism".



A vanguard is nothing more than the revolutionaries, getting together in a part and naturally leading the working class struggle against capitalism, as they are the most advanced members of the working class.

[StalinFanboy]

Anarchists are opposed to any form of central organizing. And they do not feel that a revolution will be lead by a group of "professional revolutionaries" or that it will even be lead at all.

[StalinFanboy]

A vanguard is nothing more than the revolutionaries, getting together in a part and naturally leading the working class struggle against capitalism, as they are the most advanced members of the working class.
And this patronizing shit is why any sane member of the working class will tell you to fuck off.

[Matina]

And this patronizing shit is why any sane member of the working class will tell you to fuck off. __________________

You are confusing revolutionary theory, with propaganda:lol:.
Anyways if the communists aren't there, the workers will be under the mercy of the social-chauvinists and reformists like they were in 1914 in Europe, Spain 1936, Indonesia, Greece etc. etc. History itself refutes your claims, so why should I bother arguing with you?

[Idealism]

Anarchists are opposed to any form of central organizing. And they do not feel that a revolution will be lead by a group of "professional revolutionaries" or that it will even be lead at all.

so how do you (im assuming you are an anarchist) plan to inspire revolution? how could anybody overthrow as strong of a force of government if they weren't organized?

[Idealism]

I think its more of a combination of all of the above.
They confuse the role the vanguard plays until the revolution, with the Stalinist Communist Party in the Soviet Union. Therefore according to their analysis, if you have a vanguard, inevitably this vanguard will rule over the people.

The give too much credit to spontaneity and they don't realize the role of the revolutionary socialists, organized in a party. Of course there is an inherent tendency to socialism in the working class and of course the workers have revolutionary instincts. But those instincts can be betrayed, for example when many workers supported Hitler(although Hitler's mass basis was the petit bourgeoisie). They did so because there was no revolutionary leadership. There are tons of other examples.

It is obvious that only a small percent of the working class is revolutionary right now and it is involved in the study of the past working class struggles, drawing lessons from them , discussing revolutionary theory etc. This is natural as most of the time of the workers is consumed at work, family etc. and some of them have even become dissilutioned and have "bought into capitalism".



A vanguard is nothing more than the revolutionaries, getting together in a part and naturally leading the working class struggle against capitalism, as they are the most advanced members of the working class.

the "leading" part is the part i have trouble with, informing and helping to organize into democratic organizations is one thing ; but in my mind leadership by those somehow more enlightened and making everyone put faith in these people is another.

[Jack]

What do you do if they abandon Socialism?

I think Leninists of all stripes have an inferiority complex.

[Psy]

the "leading" part is the part i have trouble with, informing and helping to organize into democratic organizations is one thing ; but in my mind leadership by those somehow more enlightened and making everyone put faith in these people is another.
The problem is you have elements of the proletariat that are more conscious then the rest, you just have to look at the German work uprisings of 1918 to were workers rose up only to back the same liberal bourgeoisie that backed the war.

[Idealism]

The problem is you have elements of the proletariat that are more conscious then the rest, you just have to look at the German work uprisings of 1918 to were workers rose up only to back the same liberal bourgeoisie that backed the war.

but if sustained i think that blind following of leadership based on enlightenment is too exploitable for power hungry bastards. Even lenin created the cheka who were essentially an intimidation force; he also said that the gradual transition of socialism and the public would stop any dictatorship or exploitation. But then stalin and mao come to mind...

[Matina]

the "leading" part is the part i have trouble with, informing and helping to organize into democratic organizations is one thing ; but in my mind leadership by those somehow more enlightened and making everyone put faith in these people is another.

By leading I mean putting forward revolutionary slogans, having a widely read revolutionary paper and in general being the conscious element for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. In short injecting the movement with revolutionary ideas. If there is anything wrong with that then , fuck it let's stop talking about socialism and let's do something else instead. :lol:


What do you do if they abandon Socialism?

Who? The Communists? Then the real socialists are going to break away with them of course. A party isn't 1-2 leaders, its thousands and thousands of supporters, militants etc. I am not a leader in any organization, but I have a good enough theoretical level as to understand when those who I have voted in the leadership of my party are being reformists.

In short, we follow the example of Trotsky and the Left-Opposition, when the Stalinists revised Marxism.


I think Leninists of all stripes have an inferiority complex.

Haha:lol: What a wonderful contribution to the discussion.
Seriously, open a history book and examine the past struggles. Go out of your little basement and see how the real world is. It is certainly not filled with class conscious workers and revolution is not a dreamland. The communists do not seek positions , they are just class conscious workers who educate and agitate our brothers and sisters of the working class for the socialist revolution.

I won't waste time with an ignorant flamer like you.

[Matina]

but if sustained i think that blind following of leadership based on enlightenment is too exploitable for power hungry bastards
Rank and file communists like me and others on this board know the ideas, we don't follow leaders blindly like a bunch of sheep, even if they are reformists or social chauvinists.

Also as I said the vanguard does not have any positions and stuff like that. It is merely the organized class conscious working class. You confuse the pre-revolutionary society , with the revolutionary, the role of the vanguard with the role of the workers etc. Of course I don't blame you, I did too when I was new to marxism. But you should read some stuff first , before buying into stuff that feels convenient to believe too.



Even lenin created the cheka who were essentially an intimidation force; he also said that the gradual transition of socialism and the public would stop any dictatorship or exploitation. But then stalin and mao come to mind...

I explained to you the conditions that caused degeneration in another thread. If you have any more questions on that please ask me.
You should understand that Stalin wasn't created by the apparatus but because of the objective conditions.

[Jack]

Because I'm just a 16 year old in his basement talking out his ass?

Honestly though, why do you not beleive that people themselves can make a revolution, and that an elite must guide us oh so ignorant working people to Communism. Victory to hierarchy!

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anarchists such as myself oppose the concept of the vanguard party primarily because in the course of a revolutionary party's lifespan, the leadership ultimately becomes isolated from the very people they're supposed to be representing, and the risk of an detached, privileged clique developing is very high.

[Matina]

Honestly though, why do you not beleive that people themselves can make a revolution, and that an elite must guide us oh so ignorant working people to Communism. Victory to hierarchy!

A vanguard party is not an elite. If it was then I would be a member of the elite and I would talk down to you my servants:lol:
Seriously though you have a distorted view of what a vanguard party is despite my honest efforts to show you that it is not what you think it is. This has led me to think that you are being ignorant on purpose.

Perhaps James Cannon and his work "the Revolutionary Party and its Role" will be easily understood and will help you understand the concept. http://www.marxists.org/archive/cannon/works/1967/party.htm

Don't worry its very short, your eyes won't get tired.


the leadership ultimately becomes isolated from the very people they're supposed to be representing, and the risk of an detached, privileged clique developing is very high.

I disagree. The priviledged clique in Russia was formed , after the situation had created conditions such that favored the degeneration. These conditions have been dealt by me in other threads so I will not repeat them.
The Party does not exist in a vacuum but is subject to the world around it. Anyways I won't go too deep on the materialism vs idealism issue.

Also it should be noted that a genuine marxist revolutionary party has a leadership voted in and controlled by the members. It needs the extreme conditions of the USSR in order to become its opposite (ie degenerate with no possibility of becoming what it was).

[Idealism]

Anarchists such as myself oppose the concept of the vanguard party primarily because in the course of a revolutionary party's lifespan, the leadership ultimately becomes isolated from the very people they're supposed to be representing, and the risk of an detached, privileged clique developing is very high.

that makes sense, but what do anarchists propose as method to overthrow the government?

[Rosa Provokateur]

The idea of vanguard is elitist and exclusive; supposing a vanguard succeeds, that vanguard then becomes the new power-structure and always moves to build a new State. Vanguards never provide revolution, only coups.

[Rosa Provokateur]

that makes sense, but what do anarchists propose as method to overthrow the government?

This is highly debated and depends on who you talk to. I propose non-violent direct-action, student/worker strikes, sabotage, community involvement in local politics to lessen the power of the State on local levels, and the lowering of taxes.

Direct-action will confront the problem; strikes will handicap the economy; sabotage will disarm the State and also handicap economy; community involvement will get people thinking about taking a place in society and as we lessen local-State power we can work our ways up; lowering of taxes will handicap the State's ability to finance itself.

[ZeroNowhere]

The idea of vanguard is elitist and exclusive; supposing a vanguard succeeds, that vanguard then becomes the new power-structure and always moves to build a new State. Vanguards never provide revolution, only coups.
That depends on what you mean by 'vanguard'.

[Tjis]

non-violent
Off-topic but why non-violent? What will you do when the ruling class eventually sends in the army or some other kind of reactionary force?

Edit: wooh 100th post.

[Black Sheep]

why do anarchists oppose a vanguard?

they do not, as the vanguard is an objective term & characteristic.Denying it would be denying a part of reality..
Vanguard = the most concious and militant part of the working class

What they oppose is the institutionalized leadership of the vanguard as the pioneers-to-lead the rest of the working class, in a form of a vanguard party of otherwise.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Off-topic but why non-violent? What will you do when the ruling class eventually sends in the army or some other kind of reactionary force?

Edit: wooh 100th post.

If they send the army then I say keep non-violent; I dont think soldiers would be willing to fire on non-violent civilians. Even if they do, that brings sympathy to the cause and justification to what we're doing.

[mykittyhasaboner]

If they send the army then I say keep non-violent; I dont think soldiers would be willing to fire on non-violent civilians. Even if they do, that brings sympathy to the cause and justification to what we're doing.

Wow, that is the definition of spinelessness.

Do you honestly think for a second, that soldiers will hesitate firing on unarmed civilians, if given the order to?

And do you honestly think, that allowing a military to slaughter non-violent protesters, is going to attract people "the cause"?

[Tjis]

I made a topic for the violent vs non-violent discussion in politics: http://www.revleft.com/vb/non-violent-revolutioni-t105327/index.html?p=1400475
So we can keep this topic about the vanguard :).

[mykittyhasaboner]

All we need is a mod or admin to split the thread.

Edit: nvm, it seems we can just continue in that thread, since you copied the replies. :)

[#FF0000]

I'm sure someone else said it, but Anarchists don't oppose a Vanguard, if by which you mean the most "theoretically advanced" of the working class. What we do oppose is putting them in a position of power over the working class, thus creating hierarchy.

[Psy]

If they send the army then I say keep non-violent; I dont think soldiers would be willing to fire on non-violent civilians. Even if they do, that brings sympathy to the cause and justification to what we're doing.

The capitalists don't need to send the army for non-violent civilians that is what the riot police is for. Also the paramilitary forces of the CIA has time and again proved to have no sense of humanity one just has look the past actions of CIA paramilitary forces in Chile, Nicaragua, Cuba, Guatemala Vietnam, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere.

[Idealism]

Wow, that is the definition of spinelessness.

Do you honestly think for a second, that soldiers will hesitate firing on unarmed civilians, if given the order to?

And do you honestly think, that allowing a military to slaughter non-violent protesters, is going to attract people "the cause"?

on the contrary, martyrs were one of the driving forces for the momentum in the beginning stages of the spanish revolution. though i still agree that it would be fairly "spineless" to be non-violent in the face of violence.

[tehpevis]

In my own opinion, the Revolutionary Vanguard has been tried, and failed... Dramatically.

[manic expression]

Anarchists oppose the vanguard party because they see it as too hierarchical, too centralized and therefore basically oppressive. Secondly, they believe a vanguard party in power necessarily leads to a dictatorship over the working class.

The problem is that the vanguard party explicitly allows democratic discussion. The giving and taking of orders is not oppressive, it's just effective. Case in point: the Bolsheviks were infiltrated by several police-spies, but nothing came of it because the infiltrators were unable to get around party discipline. Wars are fought with discipline, so why should it be neglected in class warfare? If anarchists concede that the working-class vanguard exists, there is little reason to object to that vanguard organizing itself into a strong and coherent party.

As for the charge of dictatorial tendencies, this is just rhetoric. Vanguard parties represent and further the interests of the proletariat and vanguard parties are made up of the most politically advanced workers, so the policies it will enact can hardly go against the interests of the workers themselves. Further, it is more than possible to establish democratic processes with a vanguard party; Cuba is a strong example of this.

[griffjam]

http://zinelibrary.info/files/Graeber%20-%20The%20Twilight%20of%20Vanguardism.pdf

[#FF0000]

The problem is that the vanguard party explicitly allows democratic discussion.

So what? Anarchists do not recognize the right of the majority to impose its will on the minority. This creates hierarchy.


The giving and taking of orders is not oppressive, it's just effective. Case in point: the Bolsheviks were infiltrated by several police-spies, but nothing came of it because the infiltrators were unable to get around party discipline.You know, I don't mind the giving and taking of orders -- so long as the people taking the orders are following them because they want to, and not because their lives or freedom is threatened if they disobey. Hell, I'm even fine with someone giving orders, as long as they rule with the explicit consent of those taking orders. None of this social contract, implied consent bullshit either. Any other way of doing it is indeed unduly oppressive.

The question of effectiveness is a moot point. There are ways of doing things without hierarchy while remaining effective. Security culture, for example. Plus the numerous examples in the Spanish Civil War and history in general.


Wars are fought with discipline, so why should it be neglected in class warfare?You're implying that non-hierarchical modes of organization necessarily lack discipline. This isn't true.


If anarchists concede that the working-class vanguard exists, there is little reason to object to that vanguard organizing itself into a strong and coherent party.Sure there is -- the fact that they're human and prone to error, for one.



As for the charge of dictatorial tendencies, this is just rhetoric. Vanguard parties represent and further the interests of the proletariat and vanguard parties are made up of the most politically advanced workers, so the policies it will enact can hardly go against the interests of the workers themselves.Well, speaking of rhetoric.

What constitutes a "vanguard" is pretty subjective. The set of ideas I would consider "advanced" and "progressive" probably differ a fair deal from yours. A Marxist-Leninist and a Trotskyist couldn't agree on this, or a Maoist and a Hoxhaist, or any of these and a left-Communist.

Using the word "vanguard" makes it look like we're all talking about the same thing, when we really aren't. Who has the "correct" line and analysis, and who best represents the interests of the working class is very much subjective. No one can claim that their analysis is totally correct and foolproof. People who do are liars or prophets (read: insane).


Further, it is more than possible to establish democratic processes with a vanguard party; Cuba is a strong example of this.

Well, it wouldn't be fair to call all Leninists totalitarian monsters, but democracy is still coercive.

[#FF0000]

In my own opinion, the Revolutionary Vanguard has been tried, and failed... Dramatically.

Well, that isn't exactly fair. It's been tried in a couple slightly different contexts. Not really enough to say that it's empirically a bad way of doing things.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I just assumed that when we were talking about the "vanguard", we were talking about the vanguard party. :mellow:

[manic expression]

So what? Anarchists do not recognize the right of the majority to impose its will on the minority. This creates hierarchy.

Then anarchists do not recognize what a revolution really is. Revolution means one group overthrowing and suppressing another group; in this epoch, revolution means the majority overthrowing and suppressing a minority. Your talk of hierarchy ignores the basic mathematics of what a revolution inherently entails, for it ignores the fact that every revolution has ever established a new hierarchy. Needless to say, working-class revolutions do precisely that.


You know, I don't mind the giving and taking of orders -- so long as the people taking the orders are following them because they want to, and not because their lives or freedom is threatened if they disobey.No one is forced to join a vanguard party, so this is tangential. If an individual is willing to carry out the tasks of working-class revolution, then s/he must be willing to follow the orders of the party. If not, that's fine, just leave the party.


The question of effectiveness is a moot point. There are ways of doing things without hierarchy while remaining effective. Security culture, for example. Plus the numerous examples in the Spanish Civil War and history in general.The question of effectiveness is one of the most important issues here. Communists don't ask themselves how they would like to make a revolution in an ideal world, they ask themselves how they can make a revolution now. As I said, the Bolsheviks were able to withstand incredible pressures from reactionaries, opportunists and careerists because of party discipline. Organizations that do not adhere to this principle are routinely infiltrated and compromised.

The anarchists in the Spanish Civil War are a textbook example of why discipline is so necessary. The Spanish anarchists exhibited bravery and courage, but they had almost no discipline and senselessly squandered men and material because of it. That you hold them up as a model is evidence of anarchism's insufficiency in this regard.


You're implying that non-hierarchical modes of organization necessarily lack discipline. This isn't true.Why isn't it true? Discipline means responding to orders, orders imply a chain of command. These "non-hierarchical modes of organization" are not only ineffective, not only self-defeating but based on some sort of moral pretext as well.


Sure there is -- the fact that they're human and prone to error, for one.If the party errs, the working class errs. That's the point.


What constitutes a "vanguard" is pretty subjective. The set of ideas I would consider "advanced" and "progressive" probably differ a fair deal from yours. A Marxist-Leninist and a Trotskyist couldn't agree on this, or a Maoist and a Hoxhaist, or any of these and a left-Communist.

Using the word "vanguard" makes it look like we're all talking about the same thing, when we really aren't. Who has the "correct" line and analysis, and who best represents the interests of the working class is very much subjective. No one can claim that their analysis is totally correct and foolproof. People who do are liars or prophets (read: insane).We are talking about the vanguard in theory at this point; putting it into practice is a whole different ball game. However, the principles should remain the same if the theory is sound, and since you agree with the theory (a Marxist theory), we can leave that for another time.


Well, it wouldn't be fair to call all Leninists totalitarian monsters, but democracy is still coercive.Socialism "is still" coercive. Revolution "is still" coercive. If you overthrow a system, you are necessarily coercing any person who defends or appreciates or kind of likes that system. If you tell a fascist to refrain from spreading his/her hate, you are coercing that individual. That's the deal whether you like it or not.

[Blackscare]

I'm against vanguard parties.

Platformists are a bit different from typical anarchists, since we support the idea of a General Union of Anarchists. Through this union, revolutionary activities (military, propaganda, logistical, etc) can be managed and coordinated effectively during times of tumult. Yes, in some cases such as military command, this includes a level of centralization. The instances where centralized control is warranted are few and the burden of proof justifying such action is high, but it's hard to deny that an effective war can only be waged through an at least somewhat traditional military structure, for instance.


In the Makhnovist (direct inspiration for Platformism) soviets, parties were done away with (although individuals sympathetic to various parties were allowed), there was no "Makhnovist" party that enforced/promoted the doctrine of the Makhnovists, because, aside from establishing the framework that democracy and social life should work within, they didn't have an ideological position on every issue, or at least they didn't push them on the system from the top down. Instead they chose to disseminate ideas and let people choose as they wished. They were against currency, for instance, but they didn't enforce this on towns that claimed to require it to run. They were in effect the guardians of the new social order, people of a variety of persuasions participated in the organization because they saw that the Makhnovist movement was almost extrapolitical, defending the core structure of democracy without attempting to control it.

They saw that the most revolutionary thing they could do as a group was to establish a system that gave power to the producers, free agreement and communal organization would (and were in the process of) come about as these were naturally in the best interest of the majority. When the former government is abolished and power is placed directly in the hands of the people on the ground, AND there is an organization to protect and express the will of these soviets militarily, there is not a need for further party organization because the system, not a party, is inherently communist. Everything else is just a detail to be debated and voted upon. The biggest hurdle to be overcome in revolution is the fashion in which decisions will be made.


Platformist non-party soviets are inherently communist because of the power and responsibility they place on individuals to cooperate and participate politically in issues that matter directly to them.


So in summery, non-party vanguard groups simply serve as the protectors and creators of an inherently communist system, they do not exist to enforce a particular group's vision of communist policy. The Makhnovists were the expression of the will of the soviets that they had helped to create, the local soviets were not the expression of the will of a party from above because there were no party cells to sway the votes. The Makhnovists were political in the sense that they stressed the importance of free soviets and communal organization, of course. It's not as if they weren't a political militant group, their politics just stopped (as a unified organization) at the restructuring of society around anarchist/communist ideals. Vanguards are good when they serve to promote a general framework of political life, what I am against is when they use their organizations for the promotion of their particular policies within the new system.




Sorry if I rambled or didn't make sense, I'm half awake right now but can't fall asleep. Please ask any questions you feel like :D

~BS

[robbo203]

As others have pointed out, there are two senses in which the term vanguard can be used. The first has to do with that section of the the working class that are communist minded. If communism is the future we look forward to then you could reasonably talk of communist minded workers representing the vanguard of the future.

The second meaning of the term is quite different and really when we are talking about vanguardism we are referring to this. This is the idea of the vanguard party which "leads" the working class. Both marxists and anarchists would find this concept thoroughly objectionable - it fundamentally conflicts with the basic dictum that the emancipation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself, not some bunch of puffed-up self-important "professional revolutionaries". If the working class was communist minded then they cannnot be "led" anywhere - the idea of leadership becomes totally redundant. If, on the other hand, the working class is not communist minded then you cannot have communism anyway so all you would be doing is leading them into some version of capitalism - state capitalism to be precise.

Historically, the notion of the vanguard party has shown itself time and time again to contain the seeds of oppression and a new ruling class waiting in the wings. THe hierarchical and antidemocratic nature of these vanguard parties prefigures the kind of societies they help to bring about - state capitalist dictatorships. Whatever might be the case in theory, in practice policy is decided at the top and imposed downwards.

It is for this reason that marxists and anarchists oppose vanguardism

[Rosa Provokateur]

Then anarchists do not recognize what a revolution really is. Revolution means one group overthrowing and suppressing another group; in this epoch, revolution means the majority overthrowing and suppressing a minority. Your talk of hierarchy ignores the basic mathematics of what a revolution inherently entails, for it ignores the fact that every revolution has ever established a new hierarchy. Needless to say, working-class revolutions do precisely that.

No one is forced to join a vanguard party, so this is tangential. If an individual is willing to carry out the tasks of working-class revolution, then s/he must be willing to follow the orders of the party. If not, that's fine, just leave the party.

The question of effectiveness is one of the most important issues here. Communists don't ask themselves how they would like to make a revolution in an ideal world, they ask themselves how they can make a revolution now. As I said, the Bolsheviks were able to withstand incredible pressures from reactionaries, opportunists and careerists because of party discipline. Organizations that do not adhere to this principle are routinely infiltrated and compromised.

The anarchists in the Spanish Civil War are a textbook example of why discipline is so necessary. The Spanish anarchists exhibited bravery and courage, but they had almost no discipline and senselessly squandered men and material because of it. That you hold them up as a model is evidence of anarchism's insufficiency in this regard.

Why isn't it true? Discipline means responding to orders, orders imply a chain of command. These "non-hierarchical modes of organization" are not only ineffective, not only self-defeating but based on some sort of moral pretext as well.

If the party errs, the working class errs. That's the point.

We are talking about the vanguard in theory at this point; putting it into practice is a whole different ball game. However, the principles should remain the same if the theory is sound, and since you agree with the theory (a Marxist theory), we can leave that for another time.

Socialism "is still" coercive. Revolution "is still" coercive. If you overthrow a system, you are necessarily coercing any person who defends or appreciates or kind of likes that system. If you tell a fascist to refrain from spreading his/her hate, you are coercing that individual. That's the deal whether you like it or not.

A revolution is one group ending the domination of another, that doesnt mean dominating them once you've won. You supress them and you have no right to rule. True freedom means no supression, no domination, no hierarchy. Forget "all power to the people". "No power for anyone" should be the slogan. Revolution aint about class, its about humanity.

Who gave the party any authority? What if the party is wrong? People gotta figure things out for themselves without beureucratic party "comrade" junk barking a line on how to do it.

The Bolsheviks were tiny and after the break with the Mensheviks I doubt anyone wanted to touch them.

Spain suffered because of Stalin's interference regarding strategy and tactics, I've even heard that he used bullets on both sides if you catch my drift.

Revolution is ethical, why wouldnt there be moral pre-text?

Fuck that, a population shouldnt rely on a beuracracy.

We're talking about Groucho Marxism, right?

If they wanna spread hate then let 'em, they wanna set up there own little capitalist shop then let 'em. "Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy, and dont take crap from anybody"-- Guns & Dope Party

[manic expression]

A revolution is one group ending the domination of another, that doesnt mean dominating them once you've won. You supress them and you have no right to rule.

This is self-contradictory and self-defeating. The act of ruling is inherently one of suppression in one way or another; if you rule, you are ruling over something and/or someone. That's what the word entails by its own definition.

More importantly, to make a revolution and "end the domination of another", you are most certainly forcing others to accept a new order. After the new system is established, do you think the former ruling class will just sit back and drink lemonade on their porches? No, they will attempt to reestablish their own authority, and how do you propose to respond to this? Suppression of reactionary efforts is the only logical and necessary response.


True freedom means no supression, no domination, no hierarchy. Forget "all power to the people". "No power for anyone" should be the slogan. Revolution aint about class, its about humanity.

Revolution is certainly about class, that's the whole point. All of humanity is engaged in class conflict, and so this is what plays out first and foremost. Capitalists are humans, after all, they just deny the human dignity of workers, who must assert their humanity through revolution. So it is, in the end, about class. Your refusal to take into account class is anti-materialistic and therefore incorrect.


Who gave the party any authority?

The workers.


What if the party is wrong?

Then the workers have erred. I explained this before.


The Bolsheviks were tiny and after the break with the Mensheviks I doubt anyone wanted to touch them.

Except the Russian workers fully supported them in November 1917 through their voice in the Congress of the Soviets. The working class wanted not only to touch the Bolsheviks, but to push them forward and upward, and that is exactly what happened.


Spain suffered because of Stalin's interference regarding strategy and tactics, I've even heard that he used bullets on both sides if you catch my drift.

Don't be silly, Stalin hardly interfered with the Spanish Republic's strategic or tactical plans. You make it sound like it was Stalin that caused defeat at the Ebro. On the contrary, Soviet support of the Spanish Republic was the only reason it had a chance in the world of succeeding, the International Brigades arrived just in time to help repulse the fascists at Madrid, and that was organized and funded directly through the Comintern.


Revolution is ethical, why wouldnt there be moral pre-text?

The problem isn't ethics alone, the problem is basing revolutionary theory off of abstract sentiments, which is what (some) anarchists here are attempting to do. Revolution is ethical only insofar as it signals progress for the working class, because that's all a revolution is. The means ARE the ends, and that is the basis of revolutionary morality. Suppression, then, is not immoral.


Fuck that, a population shouldnt rely on a beuracracy.

A vanguard party is not necessarily bureaucratic, and it's intellectually lazy of you to assume so.


If they wanna spread hate then let 'em, they wanna set up there own little capitalist shop then let 'em. "Like what you like, enjoy what you enjoy, and dont take crap from anybody"-- Guns & Dope Party

So you accept capitalism, and thus the exploitation of the working class. I see.

[tehpevis]

A vanguard party is not necessarily bureaucratic, and it's intellectually lazy of you to assume so.
True, the Vanguard isn't directly Bureaucratic, but, due to its organiational structure, tends to eventually end up with a centralized Bureaucracy.

[Dimentio]

is it misinterpretation and ignorance? or do they find it undemocratic or why?

I think we are misled by our false conciousness. Luckily, you are there to provide us poor, misled heretics to the Red Path of Communism.

GLORY TO BOGOVICH!

[tehpevis]

GLORY TO BOGOVICH!
Exactly the situation we're trying to avoid here

[Dimentio]

There has been some marxist-leninist and marxist-leninist-maoist groups which has degenerated into semi-religious cults historically. Like the rebel movement in Sweden of the 1960;s.

[Matina]

By Mikittyhasabonner
Do you honestly think for a second, that soldiers will hesitate firing on unarmed civilians, if given the order to?

What the hell are you talking about ? The army in every revolutionary situation gets divided on a class basis. The army while being an armed body of the bourgeois state, is at the same time composed mostly by workers and peasants. In every revolutionary situation, the army gets divided to those who support the revolution and those who do not. Usually most of the soldiers join the ranks of the revolutionaries and most of the officers and their lackeys the ranks of the reaction.

[manic expression]

True, the Vanguard isn't directly Bureaucratic, but, due to its organiational structure, tends to eventually end up with a centralized Bureaucracy.

Well first, if it's not necessarily bureaucratic, then the problem lies not with the theory but with the application, and that is something we can refine, fix and solve. Second, Cuba maintains a socialist society with a vanguard party without an overreliance on a bureaucratic mechanisms: much of the island's governance is done through local organizations and unions and the like (not to mention the democratically elected leaders of the working class, who receive no pay for their time in office).

[tehpevis]

Well first, if it's not necessarily bureaucratic, then the problem lies not with the theory but with the application, and that is something we can refine, fix and solve. Second, Cuba maintains a socialist society with a vanguard party without an overreliance on a bureaucratic mechanisms: much of the island's governance is done through local organizations and unions and the like (not to mention the democratically elected leaders of the working class, who receive no pay for their time in office).
and most of the time, the application of the theory ends up wrong Another of those "Good on paper" ideas.

However, I'm not in the least saying that it wont work in overthrowing the Bourgeois, I'm just talking about the problems that tend to develop after the Bourgeois have been finally overthrown. Might I add that, with a centralised leadership that is easy to exploit, there, more likely than not, will be a Stalin-Esque figure there to exploit it.

[manic expression]

and most of the time, the application of the theory ends up wrong Another of those "Good on paper" ideas.

However, I'm not in the least saying that it wont work in overthrowing the Bourgeois, I'm just talking about the problems that tend to develop after the Bourgeois have been finally overthrown. Might I add that, with a centralised leadership that is easy to exploit, there, more likely than not, will be a Stalin-Esque figure there to exploit it.

I think we can figure out how to apply something to which we both agree to in principle.

More importantly, however, Cuba is an example of a vanguard party establishing democratic processes for electing the members of the worker state. The PCC has NO influence in the nomination of candidates for any office, and in fact NO Cuban political party does. About a third (IIRC) of the members of the National Assembly are non-members of the Communist Party.

So no, it works great off paper, too.

[tehpevis]

So no, it works great off paper, too.
Now that I think about it, under the right circumstances. Russia was a third-world country with a totalitarian regime hovering over its people for almost its entire history.
Still, the Cuban Revolution was something more like a guerilla civil war that an uprising quite like that of the Bolshevik revolution. And, Cuba is a small enough country that Democratic Communism can be successfuly implemented. But, it still has quite a strong central government, which I'm largely opposed to. Not saying I wouldn't live there, but it does still have the attitude of "Our Glorious Leader" and a cult of personality around Fidel.

[Rosa Provokateur]

This is self-contradictory and self-defeating. The act of ruling is inherently one of suppression in one way or another; if you rule, you are ruling over something and/or someone. That's what the word entails by its own definition.

More importantly, to make a revolution and "end the domination of another", you are most certainly forcing others to accept a new order. After the new system is established, do you think the former ruling class will just sit back and drink lemonade on their porches? No, they will attempt to reestablish their own authority, and how do you propose to respond to this? Suppression of reactionary efforts is the only logical and necessary response.



Revolution is certainly about class, that's the whole point. All of humanity is engaged in class conflict, and so this is what plays out first and foremost. Capitalists are humans, after all, they just deny the human dignity of workers, who must assert their humanity through revolution. So it is, in the end, about class. Your refusal to take into account class is anti-materialistic and therefore incorrect.



The workers.



Then the workers have erred. I explained this before.



Except the Russian workers fully supported them in November 1917 through their voice in the Congress of the Soviets. The working class wanted not only to touch the Bolsheviks, but to push them forward and upward, and that is exactly what happened.



Don't be silly, Stalin hardly interfered with the Spanish Republic's strategic or tactical plans. You make it sound like it was Stalin that caused defeat at the Ebro. On the contrary, Soviet support of the Spanish Republic was the only reason it had a chance in the world of succeeding, the International Brigades arrived just in time to help repulse the fascists at Madrid, and that was organized and funded directly through the Comintern.



The problem isn't ethics alone, the problem is basing revolutionary theory off of abstract sentiments, which is what (some) anarchists here are attempting to do. Revolution is ethical only insofar as it signals progress for the working class, because that's all a revolution is. The means ARE the ends, and that is the basis of revolutionary morality. Suppression, then, is not immoral.



A vanguard party is not necessarily bureaucratic, and it's intellectually lazy of you to assume so.



So you accept capitalism, and thus the exploitation of the working class. I see.

No-one should rule.

Wrong, you're just ending their ability to rule. Forcing anyone to accept something against their own will is fascist.

Class-conflict is an aspect but not the total reality. Materialism is for Marxists, of which I am not.

The workers in theory.

I doubt an entire class of people will all support one organization.

What happend was a coup, nothing democratic about that... I recall the Bolshies restricted voting.

Point taken.

Ends justifying the means is the same game the Nazis played and I reject it.

Not necessarily but it historically goes that way.

I see no harm in some-one setting up a small shop if they feel like it. Communal living is great but not the universal ideal.

[JimmyJazz]

Marxists, of which I am not.

that's for sure.


What happend was a coup, nothing democratic about that... I recall the Bolshies restricted voting.

Actually they extended the vote to women, and did it two years before the U.S. did. Nice try though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

[manic expression]

Now that I think about it, under the right circumstances. Russia was a third-world country with a totalitarian regime hovering over its people for almost its entire history.
Still, the Cuban Revolution was something more like a guerilla civil war that an uprising quite like that of the Bolshevik revolution. And, Cuba is a small enough country that Democratic Communism can be successfuly implemented. But, it still has quite a strong central government, which I'm largely opposed to. Not saying I wouldn't live there, but it does still have the attitude of "Our Glorious Leader" and a cult of personality around Fidel.

Of course there were differences between 1917 Russia and 1959 Cuba, but I don't think you're pinpointing them. If you call Russia a "third-wrold country with a totalitarian regime hovering over its people for almost its entire history", I'm not sure how this differs from Cuba all that much. Before Batista, there was American occupation (and humiliation) of Cuba that persists to the present day; before that, there was Spanish colonialism.

Democracy isn't about size, it's about practice. Cuba isn't a small country for starters, and the Soviet Union DID utilize democratic mechanisms for the first years of its existence. More importantly, if you don't think something is going to work if it's put into place in a large country, then you shouldn't be promoting it at all, because revolutionaries want to establish socialism around the world, not just in one island or one commune.


No-one should rule.

This is a moralistic and anti-materialist belief. It's not about "should", it's about abolishing the exploitation of the working class. That means suppressing the capitalists, whether you like it or not. If you persist in thinking about how you would like to make a revolution in an ideal world, you will not make a difference in this world.


Wrong, you're just ending their ability to rule. Forcing anyone to accept something against their own will is fascist.

And do you think they will stop ruling voluntarily? No, they won't, and so you must force (read: force) them to do so.

And no, forcing people to accept things is not fascist, that's just naive. If you force a child molester to not molest children, are you a fascist? Think about that.


Class-conflict is an aspect but not the total reality. Materialism is for Marxists, of which I am not.

No one's saying it's "the total reality", we're saying class conflict defines and drives society in the present day. Those are two very different things.

And yes, I agree with you, materialism, that is the logical, rational and scientific method of analyzing the world, is for Marxists.


I doubt an entire class of people will all support one organization.

I doubt this as well, but it's unimportant. There will be reactionary workers, but that does not change the fact that the vanguard does represent the most politically advanced section of the working class. More importantly, the party's ability to win the workers to their side simply means they will win the general support of the workers, not every single worker on the planet.


What happend was a coup, nothing democratic about that... I recall the Bolshies restricted voting.

If it was a coup, it was a coup supported by the workers: the Congress of the Soviets unanimously endorsed the actions of the Bolsheviks. And no, they didn't restrict voting, see above.


Ends justifying the means is the same game the Nazis played and I reject it.

I reject it as well, because I didn't say that at all. I said that the ends ARE the means, which is quite a different thing.


Not necessarily but it historically goes that way.

See my posts on Cuba.


I see no harm in some-one setting up a small shop if they feel like it. Communal living is great but not the universal ideal.

If someone sets up a small capitalist shop, it necessitates the exploitation of workers, and that is regressive and reactionary. Marx clearly stated he had no problem with people making profit off of stuff they themselves made, but he also recognized that industrial development has made this impractical and outdated as a mode of production. Why set up smaller and smaller shops when the workers can utilize the power of industry to uplift their conditions with less work?

[PeaderO'Donnell]

is it misinterpretation and ignorance? or do they find it undemocratic or why?

They do not oppose a vanguard.

Anarchists are part of the vanguard.

If you mean by vanguard though an infallible political party than Marxists are against that idea also.

[tehpevis]

If someone sets up a small capitalist shop, it necessitates the exploitation of workers, and that is regressive and reactionary. Marx clearly stated he had no problem with people making profit off of stuff they themselves made, but he also recognized that industrial development has made this impractical and outdated as a mode of production. Why set up smaller and smaller shops when the workers can utilize the power of industry to uplift their conditions with less work?
In my own opinion, with Socialism, there should still be independent (not Private, Independent) business, i.e., frame shops, theatre troupes, hotels, production centers, etc., as long as they are for the most part Non-Profit and controlled by the workers.

[The Feral Underclass]

The communists do not seek positions , they are just class conscious workers who educate and agitate our brothers and sisters of the working class for the socialist revolution.

That's just factually inaccurate. If you're going to lecture people about history I suggest you start by looking at the leadership of your organisations past and present.

It's utterly ridiculous for you to claim that communists "do not seek positions".

[Rosa Provokateur]

Actually they extended the vote to women, and did it two years before the U.S. did. Nice try though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

I recall that from the movie Reds.

"Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-Revolutionary_Party), anarchists, and other leftists opposed the Bolsheviks through the soviets. When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917#October_Revolution

[manic expression]

I recall that from the movie Reds.

"Soviet membership was initially freely elected, but many members of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist-Revolutionary_Party), anarchists, and other leftists opposed the Bolsheviks through the soviets. When it became clear that the Bolsheviks had little support outside of the industrialized areas of Saint Petersburg and Moscow, they barred non-Bolsheviks from membership in the soviets." --http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_of_1917#October_Revolution

IIRC, the Left-SRs were barred because the left the government they were elected to and attempted a coup when it became clear the Bolsheviks (who were also part of the coalition Soviet government) weren't going to bend over for them. And to be honest, I can't recall the anarchists ever wanting to be part of the Soviet government anyway.

By the way, it's quite interesting that you should mention the immense support the Bolsheviks received from the urban proletariat.

[Rosa Provokateur]

This is a moralistic and anti-materialist belief. It's not about "should", it's about abolishing the exploitation of the working class. That means suppressing the capitalists, whether you like it or not. If you persist in thinking about how you would like to make a revolution in an ideal world, you will not make a difference in this world.



And do you think they will stop ruling voluntarily? No, they won't, and so you must force (read: force) them to do so.

And no, forcing people to accept things is not fascist, that's just naive. If you force a child molester to not molest children, are you a fascist? Think about that.



No one's saying it's "the total reality", we're saying class conflict defines and drives society in the present day. Those are two very different things.

And yes, I agree with you, materialism, that is the logical, rational and scientific method of analyzing the world, is for Marxists.



I doubt this as well, but it's unimportant. There will be reactionary workers, but that does not change the fact that the vanguard does represent the most politically advanced section of the working class. More importantly, the party's ability to win the workers to their side simply means they will win the general support of the workers, not every single worker on the planet.



If it was a coup, it was a coup supported by the workers: the Congress of the Soviets unanimously endorsed the actions of the Bolsheviks. And no, they didn't restrict voting, see above.



I reject it as well, because I didn't say that at all. I said that the ends ARE the means, which is quite a different thing.



See my posts on Cuba.



If someone sets up a small capitalist shop, it necessitates the exploitation of workers, and that is regressive and reactionary. Marx clearly stated he had no problem with people making profit off of stuff they themselves made, but he also recognized that industrial development has made this impractical and outdated as a mode of production. Why set up smaller and smaller shops when the workers can utilize the power of industry to uplift their conditions with less work?

I have morals and I'm not a materialist so... yeah. You cant create freedom by taking it from others, its gotta be freedom for all or freedom for none. Liberation, even for the opressors. I see no better way.

Or I could show them what its doing to other people and that we've got a chance to really re-create the world and would appreciate their help.

Point taken.

Theres more to it than that. I dont think rich people wake up in the morning and go, "I wonder how I can screw my employees today" as they stroke a persian cat and do a Blofeld laugh.

Wow... conceited much?

The most advanced? As opposed to what? What standard sets it as the best in a diverse and internationally divided economic class? As for the ability to win workers over, if it could it would've by now.

Why wouldnt they, the soviets where loaded with Bolsheviks since they barred membership to anyone else.

The ends ARE the means, clarify.

Cuba has only one political party, no elections, a censored press, and loads of political prisoners including glbt who's only crime was being born not-straight.

Not if people voluntarily employ themselves and work with management to make decisions, etc. It happens and I think indy businesses are proof of that. People dont always have to make choices based on economic "out-datedness" or efficiency; I want to start up a book-store when I get out of high-school but that doesnt make me anti-radical.

[manic expression]

I have morals and I'm not a materialist so... yeah. You cant create freedom by taking it from others, its gotta be freedom for all or freedom for none. Liberation, even for the opressors. I see no better way.

You can't liberate oppressors from themselves, the ACT of liberating something means liberating one group FROM the oppression of ANOTHER. That's what the word itself really means. Further, you're using vague terms with no concrete meaning. You want to create "freedom", but I doubt you can even define what that means, and more importantly I highly doubt you could actually apply it.


Or I could show them what its doing to other people and that we've got a chance to really re-create the world and would appreciate their help.

They know the results of their actions, they know the harrowing living conditions of "their" workers. They know and they still do it, don't be naive to think they're going to have some epiphany, that's something Christians believe in.


Theres more to it than that. I dont think rich people wake up in the morning and go, "I wonder how I can screw my employees today" as they stroke a persian cat and do a Blofeld laugh.

They do ask themselves how to maximize profit and production, which essentially boils down to precisely that.


Wow... conceited much?

Marxism analyzes the world scientifically. Unless you refute that, there's nothing wrong with my statement.


The most advanced? As opposed to what? What standard sets it as the best in a diverse and internationally divided economic class? As for the ability to win workers over, if it could it would've by now.

As opposed to the apathetic, the un-militant and so on. The standard for the vanguard is quite simple: revolutionary class consciousness. Even the anarchists on this thread have agreed to that much.


Why wouldnt they, the soviets where loaded with Bolsheviks since they barred membership to anyone else.

That's not true, and even before the Bolsheviks were in power they were overwhelmingly endorsed and voted in by the Soviets that had undergone no Bolshevik interference. Check out the first Congress of the Soviets after the October Revolution in November 1917.


The ends ARE the means, clarify.

Basically, if you seek revolutionary society, you must seek revolution in order to attain it. The ends naturally follow from the means, and that must be kept in mind at every step. If a lack of discipline and connection to the masses typifies a movement, it will exhibit these flaws throughout its existence whether in power or not. That's what it means.


Cuba has only one political party, no elections, a censored press, and loads of political prisoners including glbt who's only crime was being born not-straight.

That's laughably incorrect. Cuba has many political parties, but only one has been democratically recognized by the Cuban people to be the party of progress (the constitution specifies the PCC as the party of the people but does NOT bar other parties from political participation, and in fact holds the PCC to the same limits on electoral involvement as any other party). Cuba has elections, and they're far more democratic than anything in the capitalist camp, probably because it's working-class democracy (see below). You can read American newspapers and listen to American radio stations in Havana, so Cubans have access to plenty of diverse sources of information. The only political prisoners in Cuba were proven to have connections to reactionary terrorists based out of the US (trained by the CIA as well). Gay rights are established in Cuba, as gay marriage is now legal and sex change operations are entirely free; Mariela Castro, Raul Castro's daughter, is an open lesbian and is spearheading the cause of GLBT rights in Cuba (she led the international anti-homophobia festival in Havana).

In short, don't be so quick to buy capitalist slander of revolutionary Cuba.


Not if people voluntarily employ themselves and work with management to make decisions, etc. It happens and I think indy businesses are proof of that. People dont always have to make choices based on economic "out-datedness" or efficiency; I want to start up a book-store when I get out of high-school but that doesnt make me anti-radical.

The whole point of capitalism is a coerced labor force. What you're describing (owning a bookstore, etc.) is anything but, therefore the point is irrelevant.

http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html
(Check the link "Democracy in Cuba" on the left)

[tehpevis]

on Cuba, I can only say that it's certainly a Stalinist Dictatorship, but the only one I can think of that I would be comfortable living in. Don't they have Democracy based by City Blocks?

[robbo203]

on Cuba, I can only say that it's certainly a Stalinist Dictatorship, but the only one I can think of that I would be comfortable living in. Don't they have Democracy based by City Blocks?

To describe the capitalist regime in Cuba as "democratic" would be , to put it mildly, somewhat perverse. It is hardly that. There is only one legally recognised political party in the country although there are a number of other parties that operate on an illegal basis.

The claim that Cuba's political process is "democratic" hinges in part on the way in which candidates are selected for the national assembly. Only one candidate is permitted per constituency and that candidate has to get at least 50% of the vote. In answer to the question "Why not anyone stand and let the electorate decide at the ballot box" this is what the por-Cuba FAQ at http://members.allstream.net/~dchris/CubaFAQ.html has to say:

"Why do so many people have to be involved? Why not let anyone who wants to just put his or her name forward to be put on the ballot, and let the electorate decide in the privacy of the voting booth?
In principle, there is nothing wrong with this approach. Cuba's integrated approach, however, gets as many people as possible involved in the electoral process from the very start--beginning with the public nomination meetings for municipal deputies, right up to the final vote for the National Assembly. This level of participation is something to be applauded. By contrast, in the USA, where there is no such public nomination process, the role of the public in the electoral process is one of almost total passivity. The vast majority are actively involved only in the final vote. And even then, the majority often abstains from even this limited role! With the safeguards built into it, the Cuban system seems to me to be a more democratic alternative. It is certainly no less democratic. If someone or some faction can't make it past this process, it can only be that they would not have sufficient public support in any case."

Of course, it is quite true that the representative democracy of American capitalism is hardly an example of a genuine democracy for all sorts of reasons, not the least of which is the distorting factor of big money. But that hardly makes the Cuban model democratic. As the Inter-Parliamentary UNion report on Cuba (http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2079_B.htm) points out "according to law, up to 50% of the Deputies must be delegates chosen in each municipality. Parliamentary candidates are otherwise proposed by nominating assemblies which comprise representatives of workers, youth, women, students and farmers as well as members of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution". Who controls these nominating assemblies one has to wonder? It is difficult to imagine that they are somehow free of the heavy hand of the Party. More ominously the Report goes on to say ".The final list of candidates, which corresponds to the number of seats to be filled, is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history." So ultimately it would seem national candidates have to get the green light to stand from the National Candidature Commission in order to stand all which kind of makes a mockery of all the claims that the Cuban model gets as gets as many people as possible involved in the electoral process from the very start. It amounts to little more than empty ritual to con the Cuban workers into believing they somehow are actually in control of the political process when manifestly they are not.

But even if Cuban workers were fully able to exercise control of the selection and election of candidates this would still not amount to a particularly democratic model at all since there is no other candidate or political party to chose from. The proactive forbidding of any alternative is not an example of democracy but its opposite, tyranny

[tehpevis]

by "Democracy", I didn't mean "Electing a President", hence why I recognized it as a stalinist dictatorship. What I was talking about is their replacement of Parliament.

[manic expression]

Who controls these nominating assemblies one has to wonder? It is difficult to imagine that they are somehow free of the heavy hand of the Party.

Pure speculation with no evidence. The nominations of candidates is done in open local meetings. Unless you can show that the "heavy hand of the Party" is actually involved (or that the party has a "heavy hand" in the first place, at that), then you might have an argument. Right now, you don't.


More ominously the Report goes on to say ".The final list of candidates, which corresponds to the number of seats to be filled, is drawn up by the National Candidature Commission taking into account criteria such as candidates' merit, patriotism, ethical values and revolutionary history." So ultimately it would seem national candidates have to get the green light to stand from the National Candidature Commission in order to stand all which kind of makes a mockery of all the claims that the Cuban model gets as gets as many people as possible involved in the electoral process from the very start. It amounts to little more than empty ritual to con the Cuban workers into believing they somehow are actually in control of the political process when manifestly they are not. Perhaps you could find an example of a candidate being rejected by the NCC then. Surely, if your belief of some Cuban dictatorship is true, then this commission MUST be busy blocking all sorts of pro-worker candidates, right? Right now, you are citing a mechanism, but you have failed to specify or even outline the actual activities of that mechanism. Your lack of evidence is impressive.

By the way, if the Cuban electoral system was "little more than empty ritual", how do you explain extremely high turnout rates in elections (more on this below)?


But even if Cuban workers were fully able to exercise control of the selection and election of candidates this would still not amount to a particularly democratic model at all since there is no other candidate or political party to chose from. The proactive forbidding of any alternative is not an example of democracy but its opposite, tyranny:laugh: Pal, the PCC doesn't nominate candidates, no party does. In order for you to explain this away, you offered (without any actual evidence) your own personal speculation that the party somehow controls a process they don't. Many Cuban delegates to the National Assembly DON'T belong to the PCC (some, in fact, are priests). More importantly, if there were no alternatives and no working-class representation, why would Cubans come out in droves to vote (see below)? Lastly, the fact is that the elected members of government invariably live with their fellow workers; they do not get payed to serve in the National Assembly, for instance (see below). Your idea of "no alternatives" is as incorrect as it is anti-socialist.

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/enero/juev31/05elecc.html
http://www.themilitant.com/2008/7210/721002.html (on the pay of delegates, it's about halfway in)

[9]

You are confusing revolutionary theory, with propaganda:lol:.
Anyways if the communists aren't there, the workers will be under the mercy of the social-chauvinists and reformists like they were in 1914 in Europe, Spain 1936, Indonesia, Greece etc. etc. History itself refutes your claims, so why should I bother arguing with you?
I believe the Communists actually helped to stamp out the worker's revolution in Spain 1936, if I am not mistaken.

[manic expression]

I believe the Communists actually helped to stamp out the worker's revolution in Spain 1936, if I am not mistaken.
On the contrary, the efforts of the communists gave the Spanish Republic lifesaving aid at crucial moments throughout the war. The Soviet Union provided the Republic with much-needed arms, and the International Brigades (organized, funded and manned mostly by the Comintern) were indispensable to the defense of Madrid early in the war. So no, and really the only reason the Republic had a chance in h*ll of surviving was because of the unwavering support of the communists.

[9]

On the contrary, the efforts of the communists gave the Spanish Republic lifesaving aid at crucial moments throughout the war. The Soviet Union provided the Republic with much-needed arms, and the International Brigades (organized, funded and manned mostly by the Comintern) were indispensable to the defense of Madrid early in the war. So no, and really the only reason the Republic had a chance in h*ll of surviving was because of the unwavering support of the communists.
Right, the Republic -- Franco's Republic, which the worker's revolution was firmly against. Did the Communists and the Fascists not fight hand-in-hand to save this "Republic" from the revolution?

[9]

On the contrary, the efforts of the communists gave the Spanish Republic lifesaving aid at crucial moments throughout the war. The Soviet Union provided the Republic with much-needed arms, and the International Brigades (organized, funded and manned mostly by the Comintern) were indispensable to the defense of Madrid early in the war. So no, and really the only reason the Republic had a chance in h*ll of surviving was because of the unwavering support of the communists.
"May 1937. The Soviet Union had sent technicians and food. No weapons.1 Condition: restoration of the status quo in Catalonia and Asturias. The factory owners and landlords should have their rights restored; the clergy, insofar as it was not openly fascistic, should also be permitted; and all non-Communists, that is, anarchists and POUM members, should be purged. The Communists occupied the telephone centres in Barcelona and L6rida; street-fighting resulted, and there were dead and wounded. It was the Russian intention to give the Spanish revolution a respectable face, in order to make it acceptable to the western powers, Britain and France. The untrustworthy generals were again called up, resulting later in democratic strongholds such as Malaga being betrayed. The bourgeoisie emerged from its holes. It was like Germany in 1918, when the reaction hid itself behind Noske and Scheidemann. One had the sense of déja vu, only this time the CP was the reactionary factor. Apart from the war industry, all expropriated enterprises were handed back to their previous owners. The POUM's offices were closed, its officials arrested Andrés Nin, the head and heart of the POUM, was shot. Shock troops were sent against the anarchists, in order to smash any resistance. At the time, Bilbao was already threatened, and every man was needed at the front."

[manic expression]

Right, the Republic -- Franco's Republic, which the worker's revolution was firmly against. Did the Communists and the Fascists not fight hand-in-hand to save this "Republic" from the revolution?
You must be confused about the Spanish Civil War. Franco launched a coup against the Spanish Republic in 1936, which was in turn defended by the Spanish left-wing (communists, social-democrats, anarchists, etc.). All the Republicans, communists included, were definitely fighting Franco.

And on the subject of the Soviet Union not sending arms, you can clearly see pictures of Soviet tanks being operated by the Republicans during the Civil War (not to mention plenty of firearms from the USSR as well). The Soviets were sending arms to the Spanish Republic.

And on the street-fighting in Catalunya, the anarchists really had no right to try to separate themselves from the Republican government, which is what they were attempting to do. It's funny that you're accusing the communists of withholding aid to the Republic, and with your next breath accusing the communists of fighting for the Republic. Incredible stuff.

There's a lot more wrong with your quote, but we'll leave that for later. Let me know when you know the difference between the Republican and Nationalist sides, then you might be ready to discuss the conflict itself.

[9]

You must be confused about the Spanish Civil War. Franco launched a coup against the Spanish Republic in 1936, which was in turn defended by the Spanish left-wing (communists, social-democrats, anarchists, etc.). All the Republicans, communists included, were definitely fighting Franco.

And on the subject of the Soviet Union not sending arms, you can clearly see pictures of Soviet tanks being operated by the Republicans during the Civil War (not to mention plenty of firearms from the USSR as well). The Soviets were sending arms to the Spanish Republic.

And on the street-fighting in Catalunya, the anarchists really had no right to try to separate themselves from the Republican government, which is what they were attempting to do. It's funny that you're accusing the communists of withholding aid to the Republic, and with your next breath accusing the communists of fighting for the Republic. Incredible stuff.

There's a lot more wrong with your quote, but we'll leave that for later. Let me know when you know the difference between the Republican and Nationalist sides, then you might be ready to discuss the conflict itself.
If you'll notice the first word in the quote is MAY. That the Soviet Union hadn't sent weapons was referring strictly to the month of May 1937.

[manic expression]

If you'll notice the first word in the quote is MAY. That the Soviet Union hadn't sent weapons was referring strictly to the month of May 1937.
Kind of vague, don't you think? Anyway, the point is the Soviet Union was sending plenty of needed weapons to the Spanish Republic, and that the communists were fighting Franco. If there's anything else you need cleared up, let me know.

By the way (on edit), welcome to RevLeft, hope you enjoy it.

[9]

Kind of vague, don't you think? Anyway, the point is the Soviet Union was sending plenty of needed weapons to the Spanish Republic, and that the communists were fighting Franco. If there's anything else you need cleared up, let me know.

By the way (on edit), welcome to RevLeft, hope you enjoy it.
That is simply incorrect. Many of Franco's supporters and allies went on to join the Communist Party because its aim was essentially to restore the status quo.
And on a side note, do you find it necessary to behave arrogantly in order to have a discussion?

[manic expression]

That is simply incorrect. Many of Franco's supporters and allies went on to join the Communist Party because its aim was essentially to restore the status quo.

You're going to have to provide something specific on that, because it makes no sense. Franco's fascists spent a good deal of their time murdering anyone remotely connected to communism, and more importantly Franco's objectives were diametrically opposed to that of the PCE (the PCE wanted to defend the progressive Republic, Franco wanted to destroy it).

Some individuals may have done such a thing, but that proves little because it's an isolated incident, and moreover it means they would have been defending the Republic, which was a good thing from a revolutionary perspective.


And on a side note, do you find it necessary to behave arrogantly in order to have a discussion?

How was I supposed to behave when someone apparently didn't know the fact that Franco and the Republic weren't allies?

[9]

You're going to have to provide something specific on that, because it makes no sense. Franco's fascists spent a good deal of their time murdering anyone remotely connected to communism, and more importantly Franco's objectives were diametrically opposed to that of the PCE (the PCE wanted to defend the progressive Republic, Franco wanted to destroy it).

Some individuals may have done such a thing, but that proves little because it's an isolated incident, and moreover it means they would have been defending the Republic, which was a good thing from a revolutionary perspective.



How was I supposed to behave when someone apparently didn't know the fact that Franco and the Republic weren't allies?
So how would you respond to the following:

"The period from the summer of 1936 to 1937 was one of revolution and counterrevolution: the revolution was largely spontaneous with mass participation of anarchist and socialist industrial and agricultural workers; the counterrevolution was under Communist direction, the Communist party increasingly coming to represent the right wing of the Republic."

"One reason for the vigorous counterrevolutionary policy of the Communists was their belief that England would never tolerate a revolutionary triumph in Spain, where England had substantial commercial interests, as did France and to a lesser extent the United States"

[manic expression]

So how would you respond to the following:

"The period from the summer of 1936 to 1937 was one of revolution and counterrevolution: the revolution was largely spontaneous with mass participation of anarchist and socialist industrial and agricultural workers; the counterrevolution was under Communist direction, the Communist party increasingly coming to represent the right wing of the Republic."

This is conjecture. This assigns the "revolution" to the anarchists and "counterrevolution" to the Republic with not a single shred of justification or definition.

However, more to the point, the activities of the anarchists were certainly not helping the cause of revolution in Spain for many reasons. First, they were basically undercutting the authority of the Republic as much as they could, which meant a weaker Republic. The anarchist militias were notoriously undisciplined, unorganized and borderline-suicidal in their tactics. Their governing structures were similarly untenable, and the fact that the anarchist communes fell like a house of cards after the May Days is evidence of this. How could the supporters of the progressive, pro-worker Republic allow such developments, especially in the context of a life-or-death struggle with fascism? The opposition to anarchism in Spain was not counterrevolutionary, it was an attempt to save revolutionary progress from its enemies.


"One reason for the vigorous counterrevolutionary policy of the Communists was their belief that England would never tolerate a revolutionary triumph in Spain, where England had substantial commercial interests, as did France and to a lesser extent the United States"

This makes absolutely no sense at all. The presence of Soviet aid in Spain was one of the reasons Britain, France and the US were content to see the Republic fall, and you're claiming the communists were trying to appease them? The Soviet Union and its supporters wanted Spain to come into the socialist camp, and their sacrifices for that cause prove this.

[tehpevis]

I believe the Communists actually helped to stamp out the worker's revolution in Spain 1936, if I am not mistaken.
Stalinists.