Why One Party?

[btpound]

In every example of a communist government taking power in a region, they have always set up a government of a one-party state. This has a lot of nasty business that goes along with it that I assume we all know a lot about. I was just wondering why they did it like this? Is there something in Marxist-Leninism that necessitates a one-party system. Stalin said that they have a one party system because separate parties represent separate class interests. But that's not true, because in America we have a two party system, but both parties represent different wings of the same ruling class. Isn't it fair to assume that it we set up a truly democratic state, that a two party system could once again form, representing a conservative and liberal wings of the proletariat? Sort of acting like a break and accelerator on a car?

Your thoughts?

[redwinter]

No, I don't think so on a "two party system" -- and I think we shouldn't be positivist here and just look at the surface of how US capitalism-imperialism operates domestically with elections (which are of course rigged when the results don't convene a section of the ruling class with enough muscle). Both parties represent sections of the imperialist bourgeoisie.

I would check out Bob Avakian's recent talk, "Unresolved Contradictions, Driving Forces for Revolution" -- and specifically the section "The Continuing Relevance and Importance of the "Pyramid Analysis" (http://revcom.us/avakian/driving/index.html#toc04) -- as it summarizes some key observations made as to the nature of the state structure in the US and the major lines of factions of the ruling class.

And if we're going to stay true to the "John Stuart Mill" principle (that the most ardent advocates of an idea have to be able to argue for it in their own terms and from their own perspective to contribute to a broader understanding of what's at play in the debate that'll be raging in society), as well as continue to have a "rule by law" that will in fact be necessary even under the dictatorship of the proletariat, there needs to be an element of contested elections to certain positions within the state apparatus (but not giving up the socialist nature of that state as one in transition to communism and supporting the world revolution). The revolutionary communist vanguard forces have to (and at times fight to) maintain control of the key levers of state power in order to be able to fight capitalist restoration from the bourgeoisie engendered within the top ranks of the party itself (not to mention attacks from the old capitalist exploiters as well, but one of the even bigger problems we've seen in the history of the socialist countries during the first wave of communist revolution in the 20th century has been that they fell victim to revisionism and not straight-up military invasion, murder and conquest from foreign imperialists).

Also really interesting to check out is Avakian's "Views on Socialism and Communism" (http://rwor.org/bob_avakian/views/index.htm)for a lot of exploration of this topic much deeper.

[AK]

No. The very idea behind conservatism is no progress. Don't you want progress in a future society? And it must be said that democracy doesn't mean favouring a two-party system, it is just rule by the people (in the case of representitive democracy it means to choose and elect a leader to represent citizens of a state and direct democracy is the people ruling themselves). My idea of direct democracy in any socialist state or communist society would be the people ruling themselves according to the guidlines of Marxism (this could be the Vanguard Party's duty).

[mikelepore]

Is there something in Marxist-Leninism that necessitates a one-party system.

In Marxism, no. In Leninism, yes.

It was Lenin's decision to have it that way, so obviously his theory asserts that it's necessary.

There is nothing in the complete works of Marx or Engels to suggest having a one-party system.

There is nothing in Marx or Engels to suggest that the party should continue to exist at all after the ruling class has been deposed from power.

[BobKKKindle$]

In the PRC there was/is not just one party. The China Democratic League and other organizations that took the side of the CPC or remained neutral during the civil war were and still are allowed to hold seats in the NPC and other bodies, although they are all much smaller than the CPC in terms of their size and influence. What made and makes China not socialist is the fact that the means of production are not and never have been subject to the democratic control of the working class.


It was Lenin's decision to have it that way, so obviously his theory asserts that it's necessary.You're a liar - the Bolsheviks supported Martov's proposal for a multiparty government and only later found themselves to be the sole governing party after the Mensheviks and Left SRs had variously quit the government (due to Brest-Litovsk, in the case of the Left SRs) or defected to the side of the counter-revolution.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi folks,

There will be lots of parties when the working class runs things. Please see my essay on politics, economics and the mass media when workers run the show (link below)

-- Ben

[btpound]

I actually thought of this idea from reading that Molotov in the USSR had been pushing for the idea of a second party, if only for the appearance of democracy. I feel like everyone is sort of defending the one-party system just because it is the way it has always been done. You don't always need progress in every field in every area of life. And even if you did, there is no reason this has to be carried out by a single monolithic party. Call me populist, but I think that if we are going to actually create revolution, we need to work with the people to create a form of government they want to see put in place. And I don't think the people would be comfortable with a one-party state. I don't think the vanguard of the people and a one-party system is the same thing either. When bourgeois revolutions have been carried out, it was typically lead by one party, that then slip into two afterward. Like the Republican-Democratic Party becoming the Republican and Democratic Party. Also, I think that if one party is just allowed to run things you would have less progress, not more. Two parties means that the two could compete in the realm of ideas, one perhaps fighting for reform, the other fighting for the strengthening of the already existing systems. Or maybe one conservative and the other be a more anarchist party, putting forward reforms toward the ultimate goal of abolishing the state. But very likely scenarios, why not two parties?

[Die Neue Zeit]

In the PRC there was/is not just one party. The China Democratic League and other organizations that took the side of the CPC or remained neutral during the civil war were and still are allowed to hold seats in the NPC and other bodies, although they are all much smaller than the CPC in terms of their size and influence. What made and makes China not socialist is the fact that the means of production are not and never have been subject to the democratic control of the working class.

You're a liar - the Bolsheviks supported Martov's proposal for a multiparty government and only later found themselves to be the sole governing party after the Mensheviks and Left SRs had variously quit the government (due to Brest-Litovsk, in the case of the Left SRs) or defected to the side of the counter-revolution.

Sovnarkom had no Menshevik-Internationalists.

[redwinter]

there is a difference, let me just add, between just having two formal "parties" that contend (but principally collude) for control of a bourgeois state apparatus and two-line struggle over the direction of socialist society and the state that is a main tool (but not the only one) to propel that transition towards communism.

everything divides into two, that's a basic axiom of dialectics and it's actually true. there will always be unity, struggle and transformation to higher levels of development - not that this is a linear process but it actually goes through development and leaps and stops the whole way through. read about stephen jay gould and niles eldridge's theory of punctuated equilibrium in evolutionary natural selection for a pretty dialectical perspective on biological evolutionary development, and start looking at how the evolution of human societies has gone through a very similar process...

sometimes the line struggle within the top leaders of a socialist state or a communist party is going to be the most important aspect of development -- as the superstructure does have relative autonomy from the economic base. and formal elections with different leaders and parties running for various positions within the socialist state might definitely play a role in advancing the struggle under socialism.

we have to get deeper into this question...has anyone read deeply into the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution in China? i think there are some critically important examples to be learned from the way that Mao dealt with the Shanghai Commune, which i believe was principally correct -- and developing the key new "revolutionary 3-in-1 committees" as a mode better suited for the state of things at that point than the commune model (which actually highlights the flaws in bourgeois democratic political organization and "hyperdemocratic" institutions that would mean the loss of anything important gained in the socialist revolution).

a couple more links for people interested in line struggle around this question:

On Developments in Nepal and the Stakes for the Communist Movement: Letters to the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, 2005-2008 (With a Reply from the CPN(M), 2006) (http://revcom.us/a/160/nepal-article-en.html)
http://revcom.us/a/160/Letters.pdf
(these documents in this PDF detail the line struggle between the RCP,USA and the CPN(M), and "multiparty democracy under socialism" and the summation of the historical experience of the dictatorship of the proletariat are central questions dealt with. it's like 150+ pages IIRC.)

also:
Alain Badiou's "Politics of Emancipation": A Communism Locked Within the Confines of the Bourgeois World (http://www.demarcations-journal.org/issue01/demarcations_badiou.html)
which deals with one of the more popular "bourgeois-democratic" tendencies in the international communist movement that is enunciated by Alain Badiou, a French philosopher who claims to defend parts of the socialist experience in China, and the Shanghai Commune in particular, as well as people from Robespierre to St. Paul as examples of the "radical politics of equality." In this polemic the authors point out that Badiou is specifically attacking what he calls the "party-state" framework as "saturated" and that we need to (in essence) go back to 18th century bourgeois democratic ideals.

so yeah, interesting reading...i'd be curious to see what you think, and if there any other readings you suggest on this question too...

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Perhaps I will expand on this particularly rudimentary idea of mine one day. In short, I would hope that, after an indeterminate period of war between the Capitalists and the Proletariat, whereby the means of production transferred unto workers' democratic control, the need for 'parties' to contest elections would become void, simply because the strategic aim of achieving Socialism had been acheived. It would represent some sort of peace, an acknowledgement that Capitalism was no more, and that unquestionable, unarguable Socialism had been established.

In the period of class war, I would advocate some sort of democratically elected Assembly constituting of Socialist parties from different tendencies. The idea behind this being that, insofar as all Socialists naturally unite against Capitalism, a coalition of Trotskyists, Maoists, Leninists and those of a more general revolutionary Socialist ilk would be preferable to the situation that occurred in Russia in 1917. It is in the period when Socialism has been established, or rather, when Capitalism has been hounded out, to be more accurate, that one can start to unfurl some deep, sectarian debate on how to further progress to better society.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Direct Democracy is necessary. Allow for diverse communist parties. Luxembourgian, council communist parties, etc.

[syndicat]

BobK:
You're a liar - the Bolsheviks supported Martov's proposal for a multiparty government and only later found themselves to be the sole governing party after the Mensheviks and Left SRs had variously quit the government (due to Brest-Litovsk, in the case of the Left SRs) or defected to the side of the counter-revolution.

Not quite accurate. When the Congress of Workers and Soldiers Soviets opened, Martov's proposal was for the entire left to rule jointly, through the existing Executive Committee of the Congress, which also had a few anarchists and Left Mensheviks (Martov's group) on it. But that was not Lenin's plan. After the Right Mensheviks and Right SRs walked out, giving the Bolsheviks a temporary majority, the Bolsheviks then introduced a different proposal: Creation of a new and more restricted body, the Council of People's Commissars. This body did have the Left SRs on it for awhile. This only happened because legitimacy required support not only of the workers and soldiers soviet congress but also of the Peasant Congress. When this met a month after the Congress of Workers and Soldiers Soviets, the Right SRs walked out again, but the Left SRs were then the majority because they had more support among the peasantry. Thus the Bolsheviks were forced to agree to co-government with the Left SRs for awhile.

But it wasn't really a genuine co-government. The cheka was created in Nov 1917 and, as a police body, should have been under the authority of the Justice Minister on the Council of Commissars, who was the Left SR Shteinberg. But Shteinberg was never able to get control of the cheka because, for the most part, it answered only to the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party.

Also, the Bolsheviks began their campaign of armed attacks on the peasantry...the base of the Left SRs...in the spring, forcing them to quit the government.

And the Bolsheviks quickly stacked the Central Executive Committee of the Soviet Congress with union and other bureaucrats, people from their party, in violation of the soviet principle of direct election. And thus they were soon able to start treating the Executive Committee...the nominal parliament...as a rubber stamp and rule by decree.

And then in the spring when new soviet elections came, the Bolsheviks were defeated for re-election in 19 cities in European Russia and used miliitary force to stay in power, and refuse to recognize the results of the elections.

Also you imply that the Mensheviks quit the government. But they were never in it. Attempts by Bolshevik moderates like Zinoviev to gain entry of the Left Mensheviks to the government were not supported by Lenin and it didn't work out. The Left SRs and Left Mensheviks did not go "over to the counter-revolution." The maximalists, syndicalists and Left Mensheviks all remained in opposition but trying to work democratically through workplace organizing, inside the unions and soviets, etc., at least until the Kronstadt protest in 1921. The groups that "went over to the counter revolution" were the Right Mensheviks and Right SRs in June 1918.

[BobKKKindle$]

This body did have the Left SRs on it for awhile. This only happened because legitimacy required support not only of the workers and soldiers soviet congress but also of the Peasant Congress.

This is a complete assertion, though. The problem with an approach of this kind is that whatever evidence I present of the Bolsheviks wanting to govern alongside other parties like the Left SRs, you'll dismiss it as evidence of cynical maneuvering and the force of circumstances forcing the Bolsheviks to postpone their ultimate aim of governing alone, because you're so committed to the belief that the Bolsheviks were a fundamentally elitist and anti-worker organization. But let's at least get some facts straight. What caused the Left SRs to quit the government and the Congress was not "attacks" being carried out on the peasantry, which were in any case necessary to prevent the whole of the working class dying of starvation, it was the fact that the Left SRs were oppossed to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk - they went so far as to call for a vote of no confidence in the Congress before they walked out. Whilst the Brest-Litovsk negotiations were taking place two members of the Left SR carried out an assassination attack on the German ambassador to Soviet Russia, Mirbach, with the assassination being planned by Left SR members of the Cheka, and followed by attempts to seize power in Moscow, as well as a series of other important urban centers throughout the country, including Yaroslavl. This was political suicide as the Soviet republic was already surrounded by both internal and external opposition forces and so it would easily have been defeated if German forces in the Ukraine had decided to take military action. If trying to provoke war with Germany is not going over to the side of the counter-revolution, I don't know what is. It is however significant that on November 30 1918, VTsIK passed a resolution canceling the policy of excluding the Mensheviks and the Left SRs received the same lenient treatment in February 1919 on the condition that "all groups which directly or indirectly support external and internal counter-revolution" would be excluded. How do you reconcile this with your thesis that the Bolsheviks were power-hungry elitists?

On the theme of the Cheka, it was founded as a multiparty body - otherwise it wouldn't have been possible for its Left SR members to try and provoke war with Germany. The repression it carried out was not only justified but also never as serious as many anarchists like to believe - despite the fact that the Kadets had been banned at the end of 1917 as the political manifestation of bourgeois and petty-bourgeois interests, the paper of that party, entitled Svoboda Rossii was still being published in Moscow in the summer of 1918 with no interference from the state, and, after being suppressed in February 1918 for its campaign of opposition to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, the Menshevik paper, Novyi Luch, was re-published from April 1918 onwards, albeit under a new name, Vpered, with the same being true of a number of minor anarchist journals. In fact, despite being excluded, the central committee of the Mensheviks were able to hold a five-day conference in Moscow at the end of October 1918.

[Buffalo Souljah]

The idea of a proletarian state is a bit oxymoronic. Lenin argues that it will fall away through disuse once a revolution has overturned the bureaucracy of the bourgeousie state.

Lenin quoting Engels in his "Revolution and the State," which I recommend you read in its entirety:

The state, then, has not existed from all eternity. There have been societies that did without it, that had no idea of the state and state power. At a certain stage of economic development, which was necessarily bound up with the split of society into classes, the state became a necessity owing to this split. We are now rapidly approaching a stage in the development of production at which the existence of these classes not only will have ceased to be a necessity, but will become a positive hindrance to production. They will fall as they arose at an earlier stage. Along with them the state will inevitably fall. Society, which will reorganize production on the basis of a free and equal association of the producers, will put the whole machinery of state where it will then belong: into a museum of antiquities, by the side of the spinning-wheel and the bronze axe."

Lenin goes further to suggest that the interests of communism necessitate not a slow process of "withering away" like reactionary and vulgar Marxist philosophers like karl kautsky were suggesting, but that a violent insurrection, an "abolishment" of the state was required in order to rid the world of capitalism and imperialism, and that, after the revolution, when the proletarian state had come into being, the freely-associating members of society would see the need of a state. as a past need and then the state would dissolve. "When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary." says comrade Lenin. The whole area of the role of the state after the proletarian revolution is a nebulous area. I highly recommend you read Revolution & the State & also the essay in History & Class Consciousness called "What is Orthodox Marxism?"(I would provide you with links, but RevLeft's draconian rules for newbs prohibit me to do so. Both works can be found in their entirety at marxists.org). Highly informative reading.

[syndicat]

BobK:
But let's at least get some facts straight. What caused the Left SRs to quit the government and the Congress was not "attacks" being carried out on the peasantry, which were in any case necessary to prevent the whole of the working class dying of starvation, it was the fact that the Left SRs were oppossed to the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

You could be right about the Left SRs, tho historians often refer to the food stuff requisitions. Also, you fail to note that there were other ideas about how to get the peasantry to provide food...such as the ideas put in place under the NEP. In any event, I am no particular fan of the Left SRs. At least you don't contradict my other points...which do contradict what you originally said.

And, no, I do not have the view of the Bolshevik party that you attribute to me without citation of anything I've written. I would say that many rank and file Bolsheviks would have prefered to keep intact their conception of themselves ruling through the backing of the working class combined with their conception that somehow workers democracy is just electing people to run a state top-down. It's just that the loss of soviet elections in the spring of 1918 made it hard for them to keep both things together.

I do think Leninism emphasizes that the key thing in a revolution is that those who have Marxist ideas hold power. There thus can be a contradiciton between "our party holding power is essential because we're the carriers of correct socialist politics" and "the emancipation of the working class is the work of the workers themselves." What if the working class doesn't want your party?

As Sam Farber points out in "Before Stalinism" neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mensheviks emphasized direct participatory democracy or direct involvement by the rank and file of working class people. They thought in terms of workers power as election of a workers party to run a state, and their focus was thus on the control of the central government. This does not necessarily imply that it must be only one party but it does imply that what is crucial is the decision-making by socialists who control a hierarchical government power.

I would say that in fact the working class never ruled in Russia. I don't confuse the Bolshevik party control of the state with the workers themselves having power. These are quite different. Workers themselves would have had to have institutional means of direct intervention, shaping of policy and direct channels to determine outcomes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

syndicat, if only there were a USPD comrade in Germany who applauded the Bolshevik revolution and the closure of the Constituent Assembly, but also denounced the USPD's collaboration with the SPD and the real Bolshevik putsch (soviet closures in 1918). :(


Also, the Bolsheviks began their campaign of armed attacks on the peasantry...the base of the Left SRs...in the spring, forcing them to quit the government.

While I may have said what I said above, why are you defending the Left SRs? They left the government over Brest-Litovsk, not over alleged "armed attacks on the peasantry."

[syndicat]

why are you defending the Left SRs?

As I said, I'm not a fan of the Left SRs and am not particularly concerned to defend them. I agree with BobK that they committed political suicide in their uprising.

But I think there are legitimate questions about Bolshevik policy towards the peasantry in the spring of 1918.

[Die Neue Zeit]

As Sam Farber points out in "Before Stalinism" neither the Bolsheviks nor the Mensheviks emphasized direct participatory democracy or direct involvement by the rank and file of working class people. They thought in terms of workers power as election of a workers party to run a state, and their focus was thus on the control of the central government. This does not necessarily imply that it must be only one party but it does imply that what is crucial is the decision-making by socialists who control a hierarchical government power.

I would actually say that proper political parties are crucial to the life of participatory democracy. Today's anti-party populism is a symptom of the decay in bourgeois politics.

Even with a demarchic system replacing elections (per comrade Paul Cockshott on RevLeft), political parties give life to policies.

[Paul Cockshott]

In every example of a communist government taking power in a region, they have always set up a government of a one-party state. This has a lot of nasty business that goes along with it that I assume we all know a lot about. I was just wondering why they did it like this? Is there something in Marxist-Leninism that necessitates a one-party system. Stalin said that they have a one party system because separate parties represent separate class interests. But that's not true, because in America we have a two party system, but both parties represent different wings of the same ruling class. Isn't it fair to assume that it we set up a truly democratic state, that a two party system could once again form, representing a conservative and liberal wings of the proletariat? Sort of acting like a break and accelerator on a car?

Your thoughts?

Not strictly true as the GDR for example had multiple political parties, though they all had to be loyal to the state. Effectively though you are right that one part had the overwhelming majority of power.

The answer though has to be direct rule by the people, with parties restricted to formulating and arguing for policies rather than controling the state executive.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Perhaps there should also be a law in place prohibiting voting members of political parties to be in the public administrative apparatus? Ben Seattle argued for this (also in my CSR appendix).

[Q]

Perhaps there should also be a law in place prohibiting voting members of political parties to be in the public administrative apparatus? Ben Seattle argued for this (also in my CSR appendix).

With a lottery system (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-oligarchyi-t119643/index.html) in place for appointing all delegates, how much value would such a law entail?

[btpound]

The problem, from my point of view, with a one party system is that the party itself is too exclusive. A political party is by nature a grouping of people with similar political aims in the interest of imposing these political aims on the whole of society by gaining political power. This isn't, and shouldn't be, regulated by the state. Personal opinion should not be dictated by the state, as long as these opinions assist the goal of communism. Mao said that in order for any sort of debate to occur there has to be a will to solidarity. That means there has to be a few things everyone agrees on, and that all criticism must be directed toward helping the common goals of the whole of society. The problem with the USSR is that this single ruling party is, being a political party, was governed by the personal opinions of those within it. Because they were the only game in town, there was no pressure on them to be accountable to the public, and any criticism of the party was an act equal to treason. The state should be an ambivalent organ, generalized in a way that it serves the interests of the people at large, not the specific people who happen to occupy the seats of power at that time. Society should be organized in a way that no matter where you are, be it a congressman or carpenter, you exercise some amount of political control. However, not so general that it betrays the idea of democratic centralism. You cannot say that just because there was not two parties in the USSR that people did not split into fractions. You had the left and right opposition, arguing for libertarian and authoritarian brands of communism respectfully. The problem came when one side wiped out the other. Both sides are needed, and one without the other will cause the whole concept of communism to contort into something else, which is what happened. If it was not illegal they would have split into two parties. There should be statutes in the law that both allow the existence of other parties, without a single one being considered the communist party, and illegal to launch a purge of political influence from the top down. A one party system allows the revival of class antagonisms, and a "dictatorship of the vanguard" as Stalin put it, where the state apparatus becomes not the tool of the people, but of the ruling cadre the consolidates power into its hands in the name of the people. I am not saying that simply making a two party system will magically fix it; it is a complex problem that requires a complex solution. But it would certainly be a large step forward toward fixing the problem.

[MilitantWorker]

"Without the revolutionary party, every revolt will exhaust itself within the system."

Onorato Damen
(emphasis mine, although that's what he meant)

[Die Neue Zeit]

With a lottery system (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-oligarchyi-t119643/index.html) in place for appointing all delegates, how much value would such a law entail?

It is precisely when they are in office, even in a demarchic-and-term-limited system, that there is a conflict of interest between loyalty to the party and attachments to public administration. I quoted Razlatzki's "Second Communist Manifesto" for that in my CSR work (remember? ;) ). Even the ICC had an article or two somewhere on left-communist concerns about Bolshevik administration of the state apparatus.

[MilitantWorker]

Left communists don't support the melding of the revolutionary party and the state apparatus after the proletariat has won political power and established its dicatorship.

It's not just a simple critique of the Bolsheviks that we voice, it's an analysis of the failures of past revolutionary situations in general.

[Ben Seattle]

Perhaps there should also be a law in place prohibiting voting members of political parties to be in the public administrative apparatus? Ben Seattle argued for this (also in my CSR appendix).

No. I have never argued such a thing. Jacob--you may be getting my views mixed up with those of Gregory Isayev and the PPD in Russia (they originated the proposal to use the name "proletarism"). It's generally good to be careful when characterizing someone else's views. I only saw your mischaracterization of my views because it was quoted by Q (I don't generally read your posts because they are too difficult to understand)

Readers--more about Isayev and his proposal is at: (http, etc) Proletarism.com (note: the .org site is his, the .com site is mine)

[Die Neue Zeit]

My apologies, comrade.

[Red Saxon]

As someone who borders Anarcho-Socialism, I have to say getting rid of the party idea altogether wouldn't be such a bad idea. A decentralized state consisting of democratically elected community/regional governments has many more advantages when compared to a strong, centralized Federal system. Instead of one large federation failing, we have a loose confederation of governments that won't be affected if one fails, so to speak.

A single party system is a nice idea on paper, but it's simply not Democratic.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

also:
Alain Badiou's "Politics of Emancipation": A Communism Locked Within the Confines of the Bourgeois World (http://www.demarcations-journal.org/issue01/demarcations_badiou.html)
which deals with one of the more popular "bourgeois-democratic" tendencies in the international communist movement that is enunciated by Alain Badiou, a French philosopher who claims to defend parts of the socialist experience in China, and the Shanghai Commune in particular, as well as people from Robespierre to St. Paul as examples of the "radical politics of equality." In this polemic the authors point out that Badiou is specifically attacking what he calls the "party-state" framework as "saturated" and that we need to (in essence) go back to 18th century bourgeois democratic ideals.

I'm no Badiou fanboy, but all he suggests is that the world of radical politics didn't start with Karl Marx. You're intentionally distorting his argument here, a tactic which hardly surprises me anymore coming out of your camp. Badiou doesn't argue that we just "go back to 18th century democratic ideals" in the sense you make it seem, like he sees no need for progression beyond that. Sure, he thinks we should reflect and take lessons from earlier philosophers and ideals, but would you mind pointing out any inherent flaw with the concept of "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" being a guiding principle in society? Are you suggesting that we have nothing to learn from any philosophers before Marx? Can Rousseau really contribute nothing to our theory? Robespierre? St. Paul?

I think Badiou is correct to criticize the party-state framework; it is flawed, undemocratic, and outdated. Based on what I'm hearing you say, redwinter, it seems you're arguing for a system where party leaders maintain effective control of things, but beneath them there should be elections for other positions where 'the masses' can't potentially screw things up and revert society to capitalism. For the record, I wanted to point out that so far in socialist history, it's been the party to restore capitalism in every situation, not the people, so who exactly are you expecting I put my trust in? It seems to me like the structure you are arguing for is comparable to Iran's; unelected, centralized leadership in effective control of the state, while there are elections held for smaller things and regular decision-making with veto power resting with the top leaders when the decision threatens the character of the state. You can talk all you want about the need to foster criticism and debate, but if that criticism and debate can't lead to anything, then what the fuck's the point? Part of why capitalism was restored in China was because the people had virtually no control over the mechanisms of the state and/or the party leadership that controlled it. The GPCR was a positive experience but you can't just have a society in constant cultural revolution; those upsurges need to manifest themselves into new organizational/structural forms in society for them to be able to last. Not doing so I feel will absolutely lead to either a) perpetual social chaos and a need to bombard the headquarters every few weeks, or b) unaccountable party leadership and the likely reversion to capitalism. Chairman Mao was correct in bringing to light the fact that capitalist roaders will emerge within the ruling communist party, and it's no wonder why. When you have one party that rules exclusively, what better haven for the capitalists to try and infiltrate!

So yeah, I'm against the one party state. A lot.

[Comrade Anarchist]

Because if you consolidate all power into one authority(a party) then it is easier to control public opinion and in turn the public(the only thing those "communist" governments wanted to do). To have multiple parties is to allow multiple ideologies and a totalitarian government can not allow that or they would face a revolution of some sort from an oppressed minority. That is why there shouldn't be any state whatsoever.

[A.R.Amistad]

three words: united front democracy.

[Paul Cockshott]

As someone who borders Anarcho-Socialism, I have to say getting rid of the party idea altogether wouldn't be such a bad idea. A decentralized state consisting of democratically elected community/regional governments has many more advantages when compared to a strong, centralized Federal system. Instead of one large federation failing, we have a loose confederation of governments that won't be affected if one fails, so to speak. .

Why do you think that decentralising things is in any way democratic?

The issue of democracy versus oligarchy and centralism versus federation are quite orthogonal to one another, as the history of feudal states should show.

[Dimentio]

Perhaps I will expand on this particularly rudimentary idea of mine one day. In short, I would hope that, after an indeterminate period of war between the Capitalists and the Proletariat, whereby the means of production transferred unto workers' democratic control, the need for 'parties' to contest elections would become void, simply because the strategic aim of achieving Socialism had been acheived. It would represent some sort of peace, an acknowledgement that Capitalism was no more, and that unquestionable, unarguable Socialism had been established.


Ah, like the CC? :lol:

[Red Saxon]

Why do you think that decentralising things is in any way democratic?

The issue of democracy versus oligarchy and centralism versus federation are quite orthogonal to one another, as the history of feudal states should show.I don't understand how decentralizing power is undemocratic.It just means that the power is more localized, meaning there is less risk for broader economic and political strife.

[Ben Seattle]

Ok--after reaching 25 posts--I am now allowed to post graphics ...
http://struggle.net/ben/2009/images/timeline_of_transition.GIF

[Paul Cockshott]

I don't understand how decentralizing power is undemocratic.It just means that the power is more localized, meaning there is less risk for broader economic and political strife.


It is neither democratic not undemocratic but quite a different iissue and should not be confused with democracy.

[Ben Seattle]

Lenin's description of a bolshevik two party system

from http://struggle.net/alds/part_7_E.htm

[...] a "secondhand" interview with Lenin described by George
Seldes in his 1988 book "Witness to a Century". Seldes went
on to become the publisher of a one-person social-democratic
newsletter (1940-50) that became the inspiration for "I.F.
Stone's Weekly". In late 1922, as a reporter, he was sent
to Russia to gather intelligence for the US government as a
condition for US famine relief. Stone interviewed many key
figures in Russia and was personally debriefed by US
president Warren G. Harding when he returned.

=======================================
Lenin on a Bolshevik "two-party system"
=======================================

(from "Witness to a Century" by George Seldes, 1988)



"For many weeks Oscar Cesare, the noted artist of
The New York Times, was privileged to sit in
Lenin's office daily and make sketches. Sometimes
Lenin talked. When Spewack of the World and I
heard of these conversations, we primed Cesare
with questions--and thus had a secondhand running
interview.

"To our questions, 'Will you ever permit another
political party to exist in Soviet Russia?' Lenin
replied:


'The two-party system is a luxury which only
long-established and secure nations can afford.
However, eventually we will have a two-party
system such as the British have--a left party
and a right party--but two Bolshevik parties,
of course.'

"Cesare said that Lenin's eyes twinkled when he said
'two-party system,' and that he finished his talk
with a knowing laugh."


Such an "interview" certainly contradicts the notion of our
"Cargo Cult Leninists" that Lenin stood for the rule of a
single monolithic party (ie: without factions) thruout the
entire period of the D of P. These people (and others) may
question whether Seldes' account can be considered reliable.

I am personally confident that Seldes' account is accurate.
How do I know? I believe we can know it is accurate the
same way we can know that Phoenician claims to have
circumnavigated Africa in a three-year voyage before 500
B.C. are accurate. The Greek historian Herodotus,
considering these claims fifty years later, doubted their
validity because the Phoenicians reported that in the far
south the Sun [at noon] was in the northern half of the sky.
Herodotus felt this to be impossible. Issac Asimov notes
that we moderns know that the [noon] Sun _is_ always in the
northern half of the sky when seen from that latitude. "The
Phoenicians would not have made up such a ridiculous story
if they had not actually witnessed it, so the very item that
caused Herodotus to doubt the story convinces us that it
must be true."

In a loosely analogous way, I believe that Seldes account is
accurate because Lenin's remarks are _theoretically correct_
and I believe it was beyond the power of someone with
Seldes' ideology to make up such a formulation. (Note
again, potential opponents--I do _not_ claim the
formulations are correct _because_ Lenin said them. On the
contrary, I claim that Lenin said them because they are
correct. ;-)

I present the "interview" here as food for thought. This
interview is characteristic of how Lenin thought: Lenin was
able to see phenomena in the _process of development_.
Lenin clearly saw that the _form_ of working class rule
would certainly change as it developed, as conditions
developed and experience was accumulated--just as the form
of capitalist rule developed from the stern Oliver Cromwell
to the modern bourgeois democracy.

We can't know, from Seldes' description, the exact words
that Lenin might have used nor what he really had in mind
when he said "two-party system" and his eyes twinkled. But
the "interview" helps us to grasp that the period of
workers' rule will have _stages of development_ within it.
The necessity of overcoming the extreme problems that
inevitably accompany such highly centralized power (ie: the
ease with which officials at all levels would be able to
silence the press to cover-up their incompetence, hypocrisy
or corruption) would probably find expression _first_ in a
system which permits a "loyal opposition". As experience is
accumulated--the boundaries of oppositional behavior that
serve the interest of workers (and the workers' state) would
be determined experimentally.

[Sand Castle]

“The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat” - Lenin “The State and Revolution”

"Which is better, to have just one party or several? As we see it now, it's perhaps better to have several parties. This has been true in the past and may well be so for the future; it means long-term coexistence and mutual supervision." - Mao Zedong, 1956 “On the Ten Major Relationships”, in Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung, Vol.V, Peking, 1977.

One could argue that such things have never been seen in practice, and you could argue over why. I don't want to though. I just found these interesting and relevant.

I don't think Marxism-Leninism (of any shade) and Maoism (MLM) are incompatible with a multi-party democracy of the proletarian type. They're quite compatible in theory. The Nepali Maoists are actually working on establishing the dictatorship of the oppressed classes in a multi-party form. Not within the current system at the moment though. They're fighting that with a fusion of people's war and urban insurrection.

[chegitz guevara]

It wasn't supposed to be one party. The Civil War and the unprincipled behavior of the other socialist parties just caused it to turn out that way. Had the other socialist parties not insisted on including the Kadets in the government, a multiparty system would have emerged out of the October Revolution. By insisting on including the representitives of the bourgeoisie, the force the Bolsheviks to rule alone, albeit with the fig leaf of Left SRs, who eventually left over Brest-Litovsk.



P.S. Count Mirbach was assassinated months after the treaty was concluded. Lenin was forced to show up at the German Embassy (which wouldn't have existed had the treaty not already been signed), and apologize to Germany.

[Atlanta]

the Bolshevik lead government only outlawed those parties that took up arms against the revolutions......it just so happen they all did.