A new type of organisation

[Q]

This text about setting up a new organisation was sent to me several times now from various sources by email from Revleft users. I'll put it up for discussion here:


You don’t need to be told; there is a clear need to move beyond capitalism and reorganize society on a world scale before it’s too late. The old ways handed down from previous generations have proven ineffective, or worse.

A group of like minded individuals who have been involved in the struggle to differing degrees have been discussing the best means to intervene in the class struggle on a sustained and organized basis. After much study and discussion, we have come to what we believe to be the correct conclusions. It is with this in mind that we are writing you.

We encourage you to look over our ideas, summarized in the following proposal, for a new kind of organization. We hope this will lead to your participation in the creation of this prospective international organization.

What follows is a working draft, to serve as an outline of how the organization will operate. Please review it and reply with your thoughts. Remember that is only a draft, and is subject to change. Your suggestions can help in this process. Those who decide to join as founding members will make the final decisions.

For the ease of distribution and the sake of clarity, we have not included individual arguments for each aspect of this proposal. We will provide such arguments as necessary in the course of the inevitable discussions that will breathe life into this proposal.

Working Draft for the Creation of a New Kind of Organization

Membership in the organization will be open to those who agree with the following basic principles, which will serve as the foundation of our unity:

- The capitalist system, based on the ownership by an undeserving few of the means of producing the things human beings want and need, has forced the workers of the world into economic slavery and is the root cause of all the conflict and suffering in modern society.

- The liberation of working people must be carried out by the workers themselves. Because of its position in society, the working class is the only class capable of abolishing capitalism. The worker’s struggle for self-emancipation is not a struggle for a position of privilege, but rather for equal rights and duties for all.

- In order to free itself from the chains of enslavement, the working class must take the means of production into common ownership, to be administered democratically through a system of interconnected councils organized on the basis of real majority rule. Only through these new relations can class and class antagonisms be abolished once and for all.

- Capitalism is global. The working class cannot hope for lasting victory in any isolated local or national territory. Working class liberation can only truly be achieved on a world scale.

The work of the organization will consist of the following:

- The creation and distribution of educational and agitational materials arguing the above principles.

- A website with a forum in which all members with internet access can post, with a corresponding front page prominently displaying the most popular and recent discussions and news.

- A monthly journal in which news and the most popular pieces from the website are published alongside procedural discussions and other contributions from members. All members will have access to the journal, being able to publish any materials they see fit (in accordance with the basic principles). Materials originating from individual members or groups of members will be issued in their own names (or member numbers or aliases), not as statements of the organization as a whole. Additionally, while members are free to associate as they see fit, materials will not be published under the names of any fractions or sub-organizations. A correspondence section will be open to letters and contributions by any workers who are not members of the organization.

- Members will be encouraged to discuss and debate any matters they see fit in any and all mediums. They are free to belong to other organizations or carry out political work outside of the organization.

The inner workings of the organization will function as follows:

- Member to member communication, in public and private, will be encouraged. A members’ database with contact information for each member will be maintained by the International Treasurer. Each member will choose which contact information they want to include in this database.

- Each year, one National Treasurer will be elected by the members in each country in which the organization has a presence.

- National Treasurers will receive and process all applications for membership in their countries of residence.

- Each year, one International Treasurer will be elected by the members of the organization as a whole.

- Each member will submit monthly dues equivalent to one-half percent (0.5%) of their gross monthly income to the appropriate National Treasurer. Members will receive a copy of the journal each month. Any member more than three months in arrears of payment will cease to be a member of the organization.

- The national treasurers will submit the totality of the dues they collect to the International Treasurer.

- The International Treasurer will pay for the maintenance of the website and will pay for and coordinate the printing and distribution of the journal. Additional copies of the journal will be available for any member requesting them (as funds allow).

- All monies received by the International Treasurer each month will immediately be used to pay for the website and printing and distribution of the journal. Increased income will lead to increased print runs. No surplus or permanent treasury will be maintained.

- Each issue of the journal will contain a financial report from each National Treasurer and the International Treasurer detailing all incoming and outgoing transactions.

- A website editorial board and journal editorial board will be elected each year from the membership. These boards will carry out design and editorial work, enlisting the assistance of other members on a volunteer basis as necessary.

- All elected positions are subject to recall at any time. To initiate recall, a petition with supporting arguments and the support of at least ten percent of the membership must be submitted to the journal for publication. An organization-wide recall vote will be held immediately after the publication of such a petition.

- Basic proposals (eg. increase the number of members on the editorial board of the journal, increase the number of journals published per year, decrease dues, etc.) can be made via petitions with supporting arguments and the support of at least five percent of the membership. Such proposals must be submitted for publication in the journal.

- A section in one issue of the journal each year will be open to nominations for candidates to organizational positions and will list any proposals. A section in the following month’s issue will announce whether those nominated accept or decline to run and print any candidate statements. This issue will also publish arguments for and against any proposals submitted by members. Voting will take place immediately following the publication of this issue.

- Each member will send their votes to the editorial board to be counted. Each member’s vote will be clearly noted in the journal. Voters have until the closing date of the following issue of the journal to correct any mistakes before the results become final.

- Any member or group of members convinced that another member has violated the basic principles of the organization can appeal for the expulsion of said member by submitting supporting arguments and a petition with the support of at least ten percent of the membership for publication in the journal. A section in the following issue of the journal will be dedicated to arguments and evidence for and against the expulsion. An organization-wide vote will held immediately following the publication of this issue. The results will be published in the following issue. Those results will become final in the issue following that.

[red cat]

What about field-work ?

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm confused as to what about this is new.

[Comrade Gwydion]

I'm confused as to what about this is new.


^this.

Except, as far I can see, that petitions can be send all year through instead of at the yearly congress, as in most organisations.
I like that factor, but isn't that easier achieved by 'entryism'?

[Voloshinov]

We have enough organisations already...

[Q]

A "third party" who is following this discussion but doesn't want to participate directly, wants to respond to the points raised and asked me to be the messenger (note for this "third party": I'm not going to do this all day you know):


What about field-work?

The type of work that would be carried out is mentioned: Theoretical clarification through discussion and debate and the distribution of educational and agitational materials (including a website and journal open to all members and workers).

This means fighting for real majority rule by representing the future in the present. Following the words of the Communist Manifesto we will "point out and bring to the front .. the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement."

Concretely, in my view, this means that in your workplace you argue that all the workers should meet to discuss the problems faced on the job and try to come up with solutions. When things get to the point where people are ready to meet, you go to those meetings and argue for direct action like strikes, occupations, or whatever will get the goods. During those strikes and things, you argue for the creation of worker-controlled action committees (as opposed to the dominance of the business unions or any others who will attempt to step in and moderate and derail the struggle). In the action committees, you argue for the election of delegates to go to nearby workplaces and other workplaces in your industrial chain to argue for solidarity and mass actions. If mass actions (like general strikes) break out, you argue for local workers' assemblies, open to all workers in the area, in them. If the workers' assemblies are created, you argue for the creation of workers' councils. If the workers' councils are formed you argue for the creation of workers' militias in them.

You do all of this successfully by connecting the way forward with immediate needs. You point out to your coworkers that you won't be able to make any headway at work unless you carry out direct action, like strikes. Then, you point out that the workers need to control the strike themselves so they won't be sold out. You also argue that the only way to insure victory is to extend the strike to other workplaces. Your delegates go to those workplaces and argue that by helping your strike, they are helping themselves by setting industry and local work standards and changing the balance of forces. You argue that the only way to organize the mass strikes effectively is through workers assemblies. Once there are more than one assembly, you point out that workers councils are needed to effectively organize and coordinate the struggle. You argue for the creation of workers militias by pointing out that the workers assemblies will be destroyed and all will be lost if you don't defend yourselves. Then you point out that the only way to go forward is to take power with the militias by explaining that if you stop there not only will the assemblies and councils be destroyed, but a terrible white terror will be unleashed that will leave everyone worse off than when they began.

We're not trying to get the workers to follow us. We're trying to help them lead.

I'm confused as to what about this is new.

While it can be seen as a continuation of the kind of political work that Marx and Engels encouraged during their lifetimes, it's new in that it breaks from the methods of all existing organizations.

Namely:

It's not a vanguard organization. It doesn't attempt to lead the revolutionary struggle of the working class in practice. Rather it's an educational and agitational group. It intervenes in the struggles of the class. It doesn't substitute its own activities for the activities of the proletariat.

It isn't organized around democratic centralism or any of the other phony "democratic" methods. It doesn't attempt to lead the struggle of the working class for its own liberation, so it doesn't need a bureaucracy. Members are elected to fulfill certain tasks on a temporary basis and subject to recall at any time.

It's truly international in character. There are no national or even local sections. The organization corresponds to the reality of the working class being an international class.

The organization doesn't take official positions on historical questions or current issues over which principled comrades may be divided. It's not a monolithic sect with a corresponding Sacred Texts. Anyone who agrees with the basic communist principles (private property in the means of production as the cause of division, suffering, bloodshed; the proletariat as the revolutionary class capable of eliminating capitalism; the liberation of the working class as the task and responsibility of the working class itself; the liberation of the working class means the liberation of all of humanity; the liberation of the working class can only be realized on a world scale, through the public ownership of the means of production, administered democratically through a network of councils) can join.

Horizontal discussion between members is not only permitted, it's encouraged. The discussions and debates in the organization take place openly. The workings of the organization are totally transparent. There are no closed door Central Committee meetings, because there are no need for them as this is is not a group of coup plotters planning to seize power or a sect playing at politics.

We have enough organisations already...

We have enough of the sterile old leftist sects that haven't delivered on their promises of leading us to communism in nearly 200 years of existence, true. But we don't have a single international organization of revolutionary communist workers based on solid principle.

[cb9's_unity]

So will this essentially try to be an official hub of radical leftist discourse? A revleft with a journal, dues, and more serious membership?

I would be very interested in something like this.

[Q]

So will this essentially try to be an official hub of radical leftist discourse? A revleft with a journal, dues, and more serious membership?

I would be very interested in something like this.

Yes, that is basically my impression of it as well.

I'll give my views on it later on and hope that more of the people who are involved in this contribute to the discussion directly.

[Crux]

Not to be brutal but, discussion clubs with political pretensions isn't something new either.

[red cat]

Suppose this new organization of yours can successfully engage in conducting class struggle. After sometime, if your members within some country disagree regarding the strategic and tactical lines, and then accuse each other of being revisionists, then how will you handle the situation ? Will you allow both the factions to remain members ?

[zimmerwald1915]

Suppose this new organization of yours can successfully engage in conducting class struggle. After sometime, if your members within some country disagree regarding the strategic and tactical lines, and then accuse each other of being revisionists, then how will you handle the situation ? Will you allow both the factions to remain members ?
New organization of whose? I don't believe the person actually promoting this organization has been named in this thread, or on this board. I do agree that the lack of any sort of programme, defended as a unifying measure, is in fact a major weakness of this "new" type of organization because it means that whatever unity is achieved is in fact shallow and opportunist rather than prepared by a deep discussion. The lack of territorial sections is also rather disturbing, as there exists no framework for comrades to intervene in struggles in any sort of organized way, and this structure encourages individual and voluntarist rather than organization-based activity. Organizationally, this looks like a bad caricature of an anarchist organization.

[Red Flag]

Suppose this new organization of yours can successfully engage in conducting class struggle. Organizations don't engage in class struggle. Classes do.


After sometime, if your members within some country disagree regarding the strategic and tactical lines, and then accuse each other of being revisionists, then how will you handle the situation ? Strategy and tactics aren't (or shouldn't be) the basis of an organization. Organizations are grounded in principles. Strategy and tactics must be flexible.

That said, within the bounds of whats laid out here it doesn't seem there would be a "situation" to handle. A vanguard party with a military plan for seizing power isn't being called for. This is a proposal for the creation of an organization of militants that will work inside the class to agitate for the self-liberation of the working class, realized through the establishment of "a system of interconnected councils."

The organization's goals would be subordinate to that. All sorts of arguments for how to best move forward could be raised in the action committees, workers assemblies, and workers councils, based on each individual's experiences and whatnot. It would be up to those bodies to decide.

I don't think one would have to worry about accusations of "revisionism" in such an organization, as it wouldn't be based on an unchanged sacred doctrine handed down through the generations.

Communists like Marx attempted to ground their theories in material reality. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. Some things they were right about in 1860 would not be right today.

Theory corresponds to material reality as it is. Material reality doesn't correspond to theory worked out in advance.

[Red Flag]

I do agree that the lack of any sort of programme, defended as a unifying measure, is in fact a major weakness of this "new" type of organization because it means that whatever unity is achieved is in fact shallow and opportunist rather than prepared by a deep discussion.

Unity based on principle is shallow and opportunist in what way exactly?

What about the First International? Was that shallow and opportunist?


The lack of territorial sections is also rather disturbing, as there exists no framework for comrades to intervene in struggles in any sort of organized way

So revolutionaries are incapable of distributing educational material without a centralized plan, worked out from above? Ye of little faith.

I can see common work unfolding naturally as circumstances dictate. If you and I were in this organization and we both worked in the ABC Warehouse in Brooklyn, it would just make sense for us to coordinate our work instead of doing it on our own, as two separate parties. We wouldn't need a fiat from a Central Committee for that.

What if there were 9 people of our organization in East Bantam. We would know about each others existence, so why wouldn't we coordinate our work? Since there would be regular horizontal communication we would naturally come in contact with each other on the basis of our common locality. We wouldn't need to be told to work together by someone in an office somewhere.

If general strikes broke out in Chicago and Detroit it would only make sense for members of organization in those two cities to link up and work together to coordinate their intervention, wouldn't it?

Think with your brain, not with your dogma.

[Red Flag]

Not to be brutal but, discussion clubs with political pretensions isn't something new either.

Can you show me an organization organized around communist principles (self-liberation of the working class through the creation of a system of councils based on majority rule to eliminate private property in the means of production) without a centralized leadership body or national sections that doesn't seek to lead or take the place of the working class but 'points out and brings to the front the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement?'

Thanks in advance.

[red cat]

Organizations don't engage in class struggle. Classes do.

This is a very vague statement. Class struggle needs a structure to be successful. An organization should provide that structure. As of now, the proletariat cannot make revolution without any organization.




Strategy and tactics aren't (or shouldn't be) the basis of an organization. Organizations are grounded in principles. Strategy and tactics must be flexible.

That said, within the bounds of whats laid out here it doesn't seem there would be a "situation" to handle. A vanguard party with a military plan for seizing power isn't being called for. This is a proposal for the creation of an organization of militants that will work inside the class to agitate for the self-liberation of the working class, realized through the establishment of "a system of interconnected councils."

The organization's goals would be subordinate to that. All sorts of arguments for how to best move forward could be raised in the action committees, workers assemblies, and workers councils, based on each individual's experiences and whatnot. It would be up to those bodies to decide.

I don't think one would have to worry about accusations of "revisionism" in such an organization, as it wouldn't be based on an unchanged sacred doctrine handed down through the generations.

Communists like Marx attempted to ground their theories in material reality. Sometimes they were right, sometimes they were wrong. Somethings they were right about in 1860 would not be right today.

Theory corresponds to material reality as it is. Material reality doesn't correspond to theory worked out in advance.

By revisionism we mean deviations from the usual strategy and tactics that ultimately aid the ruling class. I want to know that if the members of this organization in some country split into factions and accuse each other of helping the ruling class, then what will be the subsequent actions of the organization ?

[zimmerwald1915]

Unity based on principle is shallow and opportunist in what way exactly?

What about the First International? Was that shallow and opportunist?
The four "principles" outlined in the OP are so broad as to mean nothing. For example, even the strongest defenders of socialism in one country can agree that, "in principle" "working class liberation can only be carried out on a world scale". Concretely, the defense of socialism in one country is a betrayal of internationalism, and has proven itself to be such in the real historical experience of the workers' movement. Furthermore, there is nothing there whatsoever on the nature of national liberation movements or imperialist war, two topics that, whatever one's opinion on them, we can all agree are extremely important to have some sort of orientation towards, in order to have some programmatic basis for intervention.

The reason for these omissions is clear: the method of this initiative's organizers is not grounded in the history of the workers' movement. "After much study and discussion, we have come to what we believe to be the correct conclusions," they say. This project is based around creating their ideal organization, not around the actual experiences and trajectories of the workers' movement over two hundred years.

As for the First International, if the original draft Rules had been adopted, then yes, it would indeed have been shallow and opportunist. The intervention of Marx and his faction, which intervention was focused on creating a program, as opposed to a "mishmash of Proudhon and Mazzini" (paraphrased) was instrumental in avoiding that outcome.


So revolutionaries are incapable of distributing educational material without a centralized plan, worked out from above? Ye of little faith.I did not say that. What I said was that such intervention would not be the intervention of an organization, but of individuals. And, according to the inventor of this organization, this is a good thing: a network of autonomous individuals who happen to intervene together because circumstances happen to work out that way is better, for them, than an organization, which intervenes in a unified manner on the basis of a program. I happen to disagree.


without a centralized leadership body or national sections
This is a caricature of the KAPD's "anti-chief" position, a caricature even of the anarchist model of organization. And it's a poor caricature at that.

[chegitz guevara]

I received this email as well. As I didn't know the sender, I had no way of evaluating if this was serious or if it was just some nutjob with yet another "new" idea for an organization.

Can't say I'm terribly interested in it.

[Red Flag]

The four "principles" outlined in the OP are so broad as to mean nothing.

Basic principles of this organization:

- The capitalist system, based on the ownership by an undeserving few of the means of producing the things human beings want and need, has forced the workers of the world into economic slavery and is the root cause of all the conflict and suffering in modern society.

- The liberation of working people must be carried out by the workers themselves. Because of its position in society, the working class is the only class capable of abolishing capitalism. The worker’s struggle for self-emancipation is not a struggle for a position of privilege, but rather for equal rights and duties for all.

- In order to free itself from the chains of enslavement, the working class must take the means of production into common ownership, to be administered democratically through a system of interconnected councils organized on the basis of real majority rule. Only through these new relations can class and class antagonisms be abolished once and for all.

- Capitalism is global. The working class cannot hope for lasting victory in any isolated local or national territory. Working class liberation can only truly be achieved on a world scale.

General principles of the International Workingmen's Association (First International)

- The emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves, the struggle for the emancipation of the working classes means not a struggle for class privileges and monopolies, but for equal rights and duties, and the abolition of all class rule.

- The economical subjection of the man of labor to the monopolizer of the means of labor — that is, the source of life — lies at the bottom of servitude in all its forms, of all social misery, mental degradation, and political dependence.


- The economical emancipation of the working classes is therefore the great end to which every political movement ought to be subordinate as a means.


- All efforts aiming at the great end hitherto failed from the want of solidarity between the manifold divisions of labor in each country, and from the absence of a fraternal bond of union between the working classes of different countries.


- The emancipation of labor is neither a local nor a national, but a social problem, embracing all countries in which modern society exists, and depending for its solution on the concurrence, practical and theoretical, of the most advanced countries.


- The present revival of the working classes in the most industrious countries of Europe, while it raises a new hope, gives solemn warning against a relapse into the old errors, and calls for the immediate combination of the still disconnected movements.




Furthermore, there is nothing there whatsoever on the nature of national liberation movements or imperialist war, two topics that, whatever one's opinion on them, we can all agree are extremely important to have some sort of orientation towards, in order to have some programmatic basis for intervention.


Comrades in this organization could have differing views on the national liberation question (and make their arguments in the organizations publications) while still arguing for the formation of mass workers bodies like strike committees, assemblies and councils. It will ultimately be up to the class decide, not a handful of dusty old left communists in a "public meeting" of 4 people in an empty office building in Manhattan or a Maoist party of 105 in an underground safe house in Berkley.




I happen to disagree.


Opinions are like assholes...




This is a very vague statement.


Not really. It's very clear. It's another way of saying the liberation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself, a key principle since the days of Marx.




Class struggle needs a structure to be successful.


Hence workers councils, which the proletariat invented itself in the midst of struggle.




An organization should provide that structure.


According to you, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all others who wished to rule over the proletariat.



According to Engels:


"Today the German proletariat no longer needs any official organization, either public or secret. The simple self-evident interconnection of like-minded class comrades suffices, without any rules, boards, resolutions or other tangible forms, to shake the whole German Empire to its foundations. The international movement of the European and American proletariat has become so much strengthened that not merely its first narrow form — the secret League — but even its second, infinitely wider form — the open International Working Men’s Association — has become a fetter for it, and that the simple feeling of solidarity based on the understanding of the identity of class position suffices to create and to hold together one and the same great party of the proletariat among the workers of all countries and tongues."



As of now, the proletariat cannot make revolution without any organization.


In other words, we need the enlightened leadership of "workers party" lead by everyone but workers. That's done so well in the past. It must be true! :thumbup1:



By revisionism we mean deviations from the usual strategy and tactics that ultimately aid the ruling class.

Strategy and tactics are a means to an end. They are not a religious doctrine set in stone that we must follow.


I want to know that if the members of this organization in some country split into factions and accuse each other of helping the ruling class, then what will be the subsequent actions of the organization ?

What would be the basis for splitting into a faction? There's no need for a faction to argue a minority viewpoint. Like minded comrades could simply cosign an argument. The organization has no centralized leadership or line, so there's no way a faction could take control of it.

The basis of unity is agreement on the Basic Principles. Everything else is up for debate. Ultimately the working class will decide which, if any, of the positions were correct in practice.

If some members believe other members have violated the basic principles they could bring up their case in the organization. The membership as a whole would decide whether or not to expel the members in question.

Look at the writing on the paper. It's all there for you to read yourself. It seems that you are so stuck in the old Maoist way of doing things that you're viewing this through lenses dirtied with the residue of that washed up dogma.

[zimmerwald1915]

Basic principles of this organization:
I read them the first time, but thanks for assuming that just because I disagree with you I lack basic reading comprehension skills. It endears you to me.


Comrades in this organization could have differing views on the national liberation question (and make their arguments in the organizations publications) while still arguing for the formation of mass workers bodies like strike committees, assemblies and councils. It will ultimately be up to the class decide, not a handful of dusty old left communists in a "public meeting" of 4 people in an empty office building in Manhattan or a Maoist party of 105 in an underground safe house in Berkley.
How very ahistorical. The national question and the question of imperialist wars have historically been questions that have separated internationalists, revolutionaries, from those who today sit at the feat of the bourgeoisie. To call them unimportant is to ignore the history of the Second and Third Internationals, and to ignore the history of the Russian revolution and its progeny in Europe, the Americas, and China. It is an idealist position.


Opinions are like assholes...
How very crass.


Not really. It's very clear. It's another way of saying the liberation of the working class must be carried out by the working class itself, a key principle since the days of Marx.
And, "in principle", everyone agrees. However, what must be exposed is the actual conduct of groups. Does a group claim to support this idea in principle, but actually act in a substitutionist manner? What should be the orientation of this "new" "organization" towards such a group? It's not at all clear in the text provided.

[Red Flag]

I read them the first time, but thanks for assuming that just because I disagree with you I lack basic reading comprehension skills. It endears you to me.I posted them alongside the principles of the First International for comparison love.


How very ahistorical. The national question and the question of imperialist wars have historically been questions that have separated internationalists, revolutionaries, from those who today sit at the feat of the bourgeoisie. To call them unimportant is to ignore the history of the Second and Third Internationals, and to ignore the history of the Russian revolution and its progeny in Europe, the Americas, and China. It is an idealist position.Where did I call it unimportant? The point is only the class can decide was it correct and what's not in action. Therefore revolutionaries who disagree on this and other questions can still unite in arguing for the self-liberation of the proletariat through the creation of a system of workers councils. It's only in mass organizations that their ideas will get a hearing and have any substance anyway.

Arguments between you and I on a message board with 150 active members over the nature of the USSR in 1921 have no bearing on the real world.


How very crass.Did I offend your refined bourgeois sensibility? :laugh:


And, "in principle", everyone agrees.Wow, really? :confused:

My boss doesn't.

My landlord doesn't.

People who say the working class can't liberate itself without the leadership of an enlightened vanguard lead by elements of classes external to the proletariat don't either.


However, what must be exposed is the actual conduct of groups. Does a group claim to support this idea in principle, but actually act in a substitutionist manner? What should be the orientation of this "new" "organization" towards such a group? Doing so would be a violation of the principle and cause for expulsion if this group was in the organization. If it was external to the organization it wouldn't matter.


It's not at all clear in the text provided. We don't need a complicated program and a verdict on every historical event ever. In fact such a thing can only be an obstacle.

What matters is that the class moves, seizes the means of production, creates a system of councils to rule through. The class will find the way forward from there on its on. The best we can hope to do is to educate ourselves as much as possible to offer arguments as individual members of the class when that happens (or pass what we know on to future generations of revolutionaries to do the same).

[anticap]

The focus on the journal and the inner workings of the organization made my eyes glaze over, and I thought, "another one?"

Also, the dues amounts to a flat tax; if you're going to be so bold as to make it a percentage of income, then at least make it steeply progressive.

[Red Flag]

The focus on the journal and the inner workings of the organization made my eyes glaze over, and I thought, "another one?"

:rolleyes: There's not a single organization in the world that operates as this proposed organization would.


Also, the dues amounts to a flat tax; if you're going to be so bold as to make it a percentage of income, then at least make it steeply progressive.

This is the kind of crap that causes needless division. Do you agree with the principles? That's what matters. Dues are a minor detail. Especially when the proposal states "Remember that is only a draft, and is subject to change. Your suggestions can help in this process. Those who decide to join as founding members will make the final decisions."

[anticap]

"Your suggestions can help in this process."

Hence my post.

[Q]

Red Flag: How can one join this proposed organisation? Is there a steering committee of some sort? Who will take part in the founding and when does that happen?

[Red Flag]

If there is enough interest (outside of the group of people making the proposal) there will be a discussion period open to all interested parties to be followed by a founding conference in which everything would be finalized.

The founding members will gain their credentials through the processes of that conference, which will also elect the treasurers and editors. Subsequent applicants will apply through the National Treasurers or International Treasurer depending on whether or not the organization has a presence in their country.


I'll give my views on it later on

I'm still waiting for your input on this by the way.

[chimx]

this looks identical to the raan model, which didn't really accomplish anything at all.

[Red Flag]

Not only isn't it identical, the two don't even resemble each other.

RAAN is a loose group of affiliates. What's proposed here is a membership organization.

RAAN's Principles & Directions doesn't mention the self-liberation of the working class (though it does spend a lot of time talking about "animal liberation," "earth liberation" and "personal liberation") or workers councils at all.

RAAN's Principles & Directions refer approvingly to a quote that says is is "impossible to achieve a social change without the future development of a revolutionary party" while this organization is based on the principle that the class makes revolution if it is to lead to a classless society.

RAAN has a program worked out to the most minute details, with organizational positions on things like race relations, feminism and veganism.

I could go on.

[chegitz guevara]

Just what we need, another organization.

[zimmerwald1915]

If there is enough interest (outside of the group of people making the proposal) there will be a discussion period open to all interested parties to be followed by a founding conference in which everything would be finalized....

RAAN is a loose group of affiliates. What's proposed here is a membership organization.
Quick question: is this meant to be a unitary organization composed of members with no other political influence, or will already existing organizations be able to affiliate to it, assuming they want to?


I'm still waiting for your input on this by the way.Q can be...verbose when he wants to. Give him time :)

[red cat]

According to you, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and all others who wished to rule over the proletariat.


WOW! I did'nt notice this earlier. Moi and them in the same line only separated by commas ? Thanks man! :thumbup1:

[zimmerwald1915]

WOW! I did'nt notice this earlier. Moi and them in the same line only separated by commas ? Thanks man! :thumbup1:
I object to Lenin being among your company :thumbup1:

[chimx]

I could go on.

raan-lite

having a membership to discuss intellectual blah-blah-blah in some hub. is this an oprah book club for leftists?

[StoneFrog]

Not a bad overall idea, just few things that came to mind.

what about members that cannot pay for this journal yet still want to participate with the overall goal, what happens then? There are many whom are either not employed or don't have the financial means to pay towards this journal, that 0.5% of monthly income can mean a lot to some people.

Is this journal going to be published as a web document as well?

Whats going to happen to money left over after its been used on the web sites and publishing? If there happens to be any.

[Red Flag]

raan-lite

Actually the two are not alike in anyway. You haven't shown otherwise. Just more baseless assertions from the resident baseless ass.


having a membership to discuss intellectual blah-blah-blah in some hub. is this an oprah book club for leftists?

There's no mention of books. There is mention of intervening in the class struggle to represent the future in the present, ie. to make poignant arguments for the next step on the way to the creation of the assemblies and councils through which the class will rule.

I don't know what kind of fantasies you have about leading the class into battle but it doesn't work like that. The class moves when conditions prompt it to.

More likely you're content where you are and would rather use your condemnation as an excuse to do nothing. That's fine too. The class struggle doesn't hinge on your personal whims.


Quick question: is this meant to be a unitary organization composed of members with no other political influence, or will already existing organizations be able to affiliate to it, assuming they want to?

Anyone who agrees with the principles is able to join as an individual. Individual members of other orgs can join then. But organizations as organizations cannot. That's as I see it. I can't speak for everyone that's involved in this so far.


Just what we need, another organization.

Again, can you show me an organization organized around communist principles (self-liberation of the working class through the creation of a system of councils based on majority rule to eliminate private property in the means of production) without a centralized leadership body or national sections that doesn't seek to lead or take the place of the working class but 'points out and brings to the front the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement?'

Or are you only capable of "contributing" the same worthless one liners and aping peasant warriors and social democrats?


what about members that cannot pay for this journal yet still want to participate with the overall goal, what happens then? There are many whom are either not employed or don't have the financial means to pay towards this journal, that 0.5% of monthly income can mean a lot to some people.

The dues aren't laid in stone. This is something that can still be ironed out. I imagine that wording would be put in place to allow exceptions in the case of extreme hardship.

Half a percent is much lower than most other groups charge for dues though. Without a bureaucracy to prop up costs are greatly cut.


Is this journal going to be published as a web document as well?

Yes. It's going to originate from the website as stated in the proposal.


Whats going to happen to money left over after its been used on the web sites and publishing? If there happens to be any.

From the proposal: "All monies received by the International Treasurer each month will immediately be used to pay for the website and printing and distribution of the journal. Increased income will lead to increased print runs. No surplus or permanent treasury will be maintained."

[chimx]

he class struggle doesn't hinge on your personal whims.

i'm not so sure about that

[Tower of Bebel]

Just what we need, another organization.
Don't you think that this is a bit black and white? I also think that, if we want to overcome the current status quo, the current swamp, we don't need another organization per se. Gilhyle once wrote that we don't need to write cookbooks for the future (i.e. parties with their own "correct" programmes like the ones of "the Marxists"; the adherents of M, E, L, S and Mao; or the only ones who uphold "correct perspectives"). You could create yet another party, but that would be futile if your whole perspective is based upon a belief. Namely the idea that all we need is a party. That a party will, objectively, rally people under the banner of scientific socialism or Marxism.

However, at some point we will need, and hopefully have a party (if you're Marxist at least and it probably wont be one of the current parties). How do we get there?

[Red Flag]

But why do we need a party?

The working class can liberate itself without a party. The working class expresses its rule through councils, not party states.

[La Comédie Noire]

I say go for it guys, who knows what could happen.

[The Idler]

Can you show me an organization organized around communist principles (self-liberation of the working class through the creation of a system of councils based on majority rule to eliminate private property in the means of production) without a centralized leadership body or national sections that doesn't seek to lead or take the place of the working class but 'points out and brings to the front the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement?'

Thanks in advance.
Solidarity (UK) 1960 to 1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_%28UK%29).

[zimmerwald1915]

But why do we need a party?

The working class can liberate itself without a party. The working class expresses its rule through councils, not party states.
And yet it always seems to generate a party out of itself when its struggle reaches a certain point.

It should be said, by the way, that, the rather nonsensical phobia about international organizations having smaller sections, some gratuitous liquidationism, and a messianic tone notwithstanding, you do seem to be defending internationalist principles grounded in the workers' movement. The biggest flaw I can see with what you're doing is that you sacrifice elaborating those principles into a program in order to buy cheap unity. I do wish you luck in your endeavors, despite my criticisms.

Now, back to criticizing.

[Crux]

I think this is a worthless endeavor, and the illusion of novelty is just that, an illusion. The reason you don't see any groups working by liquidationist principles is that liquidationists don't tend to stay around that long. I am sorry but we don't need another discussion club.
If you want to start a political paper, all good and fine by me, but don't deceive yourself into the idea that you are "inventing a new form of organization".

[Tower of Bebel]

Red Flag, the working class party or worker's party is, what a Marxist could say, the "logical" conclusion of the emancipation of the working class. Ever since Marx waged his battle against mutualism inside and outside the First International Marxists argue for the political struggle, the generalization of various seperate economic struggles into a class struggle, hence the creation of a political party. For more clearance on the subject of class struggle and political struggle, read the post scriptum (marked by the letters N.B.) in this letter (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_11_23.htm) from Marx to Bolte.

What devides many Marxists is the question: how do we get there? Most other devides are the result of petty sectarianism (for your information, I'm not saying that the former devision isn't sectarian - it's just less... petty).

[Die Neue Zeit]

The only new types of organization needed at the moment are party-movements (real parties being real movements and vice versa) and an international "brotherhood of the peoples" uniting these party-movements.

Discussion clubs aren't as effective as politicized food banks, and neither are as effective as more total organization.

[Tower of Bebel]

One question that remains is what to do with those hundreds or thousands of revolutionaries and potential revolutionaries when there is no such party-movement. How do you organize these guys with the perspective that one day, if we manage to root in the class we're supposed to defend and help organize, a class struggle or political movement (towards a party) is a possibility?

That's where, partially, many current internationals come in. Some are control freaky but others are the result of some sort of rapprochement of forces in times when no genuine party exist(ed). Is this the modern "time of sects", or is there something far more complex going on?

Partially, because there are well known discrepancies between the (popular?) call for working class parties (the form that such a party should take doesn't matter much in this discussion) and the general practices of there parties, movements and internationals.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think that the new International - and *only* the new International by Hugo Chavez - is capable of bringing about party-movements. The International Workingmen's Association preceded the pre-war SPD and also Bebel's SAPD. It came into existence mainly because of the impetus of British trade unionism (not Lassalle's ADAV), which was without a political party until the bastardized Labour party came along. The original Socialist International contributed to the formation of the RSDLP.

[Red Flag]

Solidarity (UK) 1960 to 1992.

That group doesn't exist anymore.


And yet it always seems to generate a party out of itself when its struggle reaches a certain point.

I think it's more the case that "workers" parties lead by elements alien to the class tend to hijack struggles when they get to a certain point (the point where workers have established councils and are ready to take power).


The biggest flaw I can see with what you're doing is that you sacrifice elaborating those principles into a program in order to buy cheap unity.

I think you're confusing program with principles.

[Red Flag]

if we manage to root in the class we're supposed to defend and help organize

Your perspective is all wrong. You're coming from outside of the class like a missionary goes into a country full of non-believers. You await the day that they will convert to the teachings of your sect so that they will be saved.

The liberation of the working class must be carried out by the workers themselves. Period. No condescending saviors.


Red Flag, the working class party or worker's party is, what a Marxist could say, the "logical" conclusion of the emancipation of the working class. Ever since Marx waged his battle against mutualism inside and outside the First International Marxists argue for the political struggle, the generalization of various seperate economic struggles into a class struggle, hence the creation of a political party. For more clearance on the subject of class struggle and political struggle, read the post scriptum (marked by the letters N.B.) in this letter (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/letters/71_11_23.htm) from Marx to Bolte.

Marx spoke of the formation of the class into a party, meaning that it organizes itself politically. He supported the formation of workers parties at the time, but he never said they were necessary for revolution.

Engels later said that a party was no longer necessary.

"Today the German proletariat no longer needs any official organization, either public or secret. The simple self-evident interconnection of like-minded class comrades suffices, without any rules, boards, resolutions or other tangible forms, to shake the whole German Empire to its foundations. The international movement of the European and American proletariat has become so much strengthened that not merely its first narrow form — the secret League — but even its second, infinitely wider form — the open International Working Men’s Association — has become a fetter for it, and that the simple feeling of solidarity based on the understanding of the identity of class position suffices to create and to hold together one and the same great party of the proletariat among the workers of all countries and tongues."

Experience has born this out.

The working class needs only to act in its own interests.

Anyway, we shouldn't do things according to what Marx and Engels said. We're not in a religion. We don't base our work on holy texts. Marx and Engels helped us to understand the world. That's what we're supposed to do. How many decades must go by before you see that the vanguard party is a dead end?

[Tower of Bebel]

"Experience has born this out"... :huh: who's?

I'm just saying that today many organized revolutionaries tend to stand outside of the working class because... well... most militants are students, full timers, etc. I'm a member of a party with no stable roots. In many ways a party solely in form. I don't wait to day for mindless converts to rally under my banner. I'm not an idiot, I don't want to create sectarian principles of my own. I just gave a hint of the sorry state of the revolutionary left. And saying that the workers need to liberate themselves wont convince me of your ideas because many other say exactly the same, whether they support movements, parties, sects, etc.

Nevermind. I can somewhat agree that Marx never (?) said or wrote that a party was needed, but that he suported various "proletarian parties" (see the Communist Manifesto). And I'm currently reading a paper containing useful information on the subject of Marx and his use of the word "party". But what concerns us is this statement: "Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes. Otherwise it will remain a plaything in their hands [...]."

This is my primary concern because today the class we talk about is definately not able to undertake such a campaign.

[chegitz guevara]

Marx spoke of the formation of the class into a party, meaning that it organizes itself politically. He supported the formation of workers parties at the time, but he never said they were necessary for revolution.

Engels later said that a party was no longer necessary.

This is dogmatism. You're basically treating the writings of Marx and Engels as if they are holy writ, not to be deviated from, and you fail to recognize that the conditions we fact in the 21st Century, with the fully modern, fully developed state, is entirely different from th conditions under which Marx wrote.

Without an organization of our own, the state will keep us in check, divided, unable to realize our own power. We will be so many fingers, but never a fist. Meanwhile, the state, with it's training, it techniques, its technology, it money, will have every advantage.

[Red Flag]

"Experience has born this out"... http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../revleft/smilies2/001_huh.gif who's?

We are living on the same planet right? "Workers parties" either helped derail or directly lead to the ruination or the workers revolutions in Russia 1917, Germany 1919, China 1927, Hungary 1956, France 1968 and more.


I'm just saying that today many organized revolutionaries tend to stand outside of the working class because... well... most militants are students, full timers, etc.

Which is a big part of the problem. They're elements of other classes trying to lead a revolution which can only be carried out by the working class itself.

"...when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. …in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time... In any case, the time seems to have come.” - Engels, 1879

"...the social conditions of the United States, though in many other aspects most favorable to the success of the working-class movement, peculiarly facilitate the intrusion into the International of bogus reformers, middle-class quacks, and trading politicians. ...For these reasons, the General Council recommends that in future there be admitted no new American section of which two-thirds at least do not consist of wage laborers." - The International Workingmen's Association, Resolutions on the split in the U.S. Federation

What began as an irritant has become a symptom of a systemic disease.


But what concerns us is this statement: "Where the working class is not yet far enough advanced in its organisation to undertake a decisive campaign against the collective power, i.e., the political power of the ruling classes, it must at any rate be trained for this by continual agitation against and a hostile attitude towards the policy of the ruling classes. Otherwise it will remain a plaything in their hands [...]."

That was taken from a letter written in 1871. By 1885, Engels was writing that "The international movement of the European and American proletariat has become so much strengthened that not merely its first narrow form — the secret League — but even its second, infinitely wider form — the open International Working Men’s Association — has become a fetter for it, and that the simple feeling of solidarity based on the understanding of the identity of class position suffices to create and to hold together one and the same great party of the proletariat among the workers of all countries and tongues."

Because capitalism was maturing and the classes were beginning to cement themselves in this new mode of production, it was no longer necessary for "few persons whose minds had penetrated to the realization of the historical role of the proletariat had to forgather in secret, to assemble clandestinely in small communities of 3 to 20 persons."

Even the letter you quote from makes this argument though: "The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers' movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other. So long as the sects are (historically) justified, the working class is not yet ripe for an independent historic movement. As soon as it has attained this maturity ail sects are essentially reactionary. Nevertheless what history has shown everywhere was repeated within the International. The antiquated makes an attempt to re-establish and maintain itself within the newly achieved form. And the history of the International was a continual struggle on the part of the General Council against the sects and amateur experiments which attempted to assert themselves within the International itself against the genuine movement of the working class."

And it doesn't argue for members of other classes to form "vanguard parties" and take the lead of the struggle or anything of the source regardless. It calls for agitation amongst the class, which is also what this new organization calls for.

“The working class did not expect miracles from the Commune. They have no ready-made utopias to introduce par decret du peuple. They know that in order to work out their own emancipation, and along with it that higher form to which present society is irresistably tending by its own economical agencies, they will have to pass through long struggles, through a series of historic processes, transforming circumstances and men. They have no ideals to realize, but to set free the elements of the new society with which old collapsing bourgeois society itself is pregnant.” - The Civil War in France

In other words, the first principle of the First International in practice: the liberation of the working class must be carried out by the working class, on their own, in the process of acting on their own interests. It can't be done by anyone else, organized in a "workers party" or otherwise.

[Red Flag]

This is dogmatism. You're basically treating the writings of Marx and Engels as if they are holy writ, not to be deviated from, and you fail to recognize that the conditions we fact in the 21st Century, with the fully modern, fully developed state, is entirely different from th conditions under which Marx wrote.False. I was replying to a comrade who cited a letter from Marx with a larger samplings of the works of Marx and Engels to help put it in perspective.

I've said repeatedly throughout this discussion that following individuals from the past or present in the wrong thing to do.

Dogmatism is claiming that Lenin proved a universal truth because his party was able to take advantage of a workers uprising in the Russian empire nearly a hundred years ago - especially when that revolution soon after degenerated into something that would never be recognized by the workers carried out that revolution as something of their own.

Besides, you're not interested in this conversation remember? We don't need "another organization." You're satisfied with your crusty old social democratic sect and running in bourgeois elections.

But please do come back when you have some more witty one liners. :thumbup1:


Without an organization of our own, the state will keep us in check, divided, unable to realize our own power. We will be so many fingers, but never a fist. Meanwhile, the state, with it's training, it techniques, its technology, it money, will have every advantage.The working class makes revolution as a class by seizing the means of production and establishing its rule through the creation of a system of councils. This doesn't require the enlightened leadership of party full timers or wannabe politicians.

[Tower of Bebel]

We live on the same planet, but that doesn't mean we should always agree. You can argue against parties by relying on "experience", but what about trade unions or the failure of worker's councils and committees? It's your experience. That's why I think that statements like "experience has born out" or "history has proven" are pointless. I get your point, but...

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nevermind. I can somewhat agree that Marx never (?) said or wrote that a party was needed

What about "Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes"?

I'm a worker, and I'm here to disagree with Red Flag.

[Tower of Bebel]

You're correct. I forgot. But the paper I'm reading points to the fact that Marx' use of the word party changed many times (party as "movement", "seperate organization [=part]", "political party", etc.]. It reminds me of Macnair writing about the word "movement [as a whole]" in the Communist Manifesto:

"In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole."

Movement, does it mean worker's movement (trade unions, etc.), but what does this say about the labour aristocracy? Or does it mean process? By that I mean the progression towards communism (from the working class as an exploited class to the class as liberator of humanity).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Damn, for a moment I thought "movement" was merely interpreted as being either a mere "labour movement" (trade unions :rolleyes: ) or a worker-class (PNNC) movement. ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The International Workingmen's Association and the original Socialist International, the Second International, were the only two internationals that united three distinct movements:

1) The trade union movement;
2) the socialist movement of diverse class backgrounds; and
3) the independent, worker-class movement - or proletarian movement - with workers-only membership policies and the three political aims attributed to them by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto.

Upon the demise of the Second International, the first movement hobbled along to forge the "Labour and Socialist" International (which name-wise reminds me of the current Trade Union and Socialist Coalition :D ), and then later on today's "Socialist" International.

The second movement split in two, naturally between reformists and revolutionaries. The latter formed the Comintern, the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, the "World Party of Socialist Revolution" that was the Fourth International (Trotskyist), the International Conference of Communist and Workers Parties (official Communism), and other international groups. Except for the Comintern, none of these nutter groups and their subsequent sects had strong connections with the working class.

However, there was no reforged proletarian / worker-class movement (the difference between a "merger" and a mere "connection"). The closest to this was the short-lived International Working Union of Socialist Parties, which was a mixture of liquidationist elements on the one hand (alas) and on the other realos that left the Comintern.

Thoughts?

Needed: Revived Second International (or Third Worker Class International) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/needed-revived-second-t128934/index.html)

[Red Flag]

You can argue against parties by relying on "experience", but what about trade unions or the failure of worker's councils and committees? It's your experience. That's why I think that statements like "experience has born out" or "history has proven" are pointless. I get your point, but

The trade unions are beyond the topic of this discussion though I do have my views on them, and I believe the experience of the class has born those out too (unless you can point me to a communist enclave somewhere that came about through a union).

We has to base ourselves on history and and analysis of the present. Otherwise we might as well sit around playing risk with little plastic pieces representing the proletariat and the bourgeoisie.

Look at it objectively:

* A majority of the most prominent workers revolutions in history were sabotaged or ruined under the leadership of "workers parties."

* The establishment of a party-state has always led to the dictatorship of forces alien to the working class.

* In every genuine workers revolution the working class established strike committees, assemblies and councils.

* The working class has always expressed its rule through councils whenever and wherever its been able to seize power as a class with the goal of its own liberation. These struggles have always been sabotaged or defeated.

* While workers revolutions in which the class set up councils have been defeated (eg. St. Louis 1877, Germany 1919) this has only been a temporary setback. These blows led to the reestablishment of capitalist rule. However, they didn't lead to any grotesque formations of alien rule in the name of the working class (eg. Stalinist USSR). This is not to compare capitalism favorably to what existed in the USSR, but to prove a point.

[Red Flag]

Marx used the words party, movement, etc., interchangeably. He meant the general movement of the class.

The formation of the class into a party = a fighting force capable of taking control of the means of production and defeating the capitalists, not a Marxist-Leninist "Workers Party" with 10 different leadership organizations, all full of everyone but workers.

Hence "The development of the system of Socialist sects and that of the real workers' movement always stand in inverse ratio to each other."

[Die Neue Zeit]

So why don't you praise the SPD-USPD model of total organization (especially its "alternative culture" organizations), then?

[Red Flag]

Have you missed the last 3 pages of discussion on parties?

The SPD was as much a party as all the others.

Are you after the self-liberation of the class and communism or a big party capable of electing politicians who can vote for imperialist war?

[Die Neue Zeit]

* In every genuine workers revolution the working class established strike committees, assemblies and councils.

* The working class has always expressed its rule through councils whenever and wherever its been able to seize power as a class with the goal of its own liberation. These struggles have always been sabotaged or defeated.

I invite you to read this book and join the discussion:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205

Pay particular attention to Chapter 2. I don't have time to go into an anti-council tirade right now.

[Tower of Bebel]

One thing that bothers me is how much has changed since the late 19th century. A party used to be (and sometimes still is) a losely organized, sometimes federative, bond of people trying to get candidates elected. The electorate was small because of various reasons and a dominant idea was the laissez-faire state (the state as night watcher only). But when the worker's movement started to participate bureaucratism and modern 'partyism' was created.

The modern party is different because it is mostly highly bureaucratic. Two reasons can be found for this change: competition against the "democratic centralism" (organization through democratic discussion and participation) that was a prominent feature in genuine worker's movements, and control over the working class in bourgeois (worker's) parties.

This evolution helped to shape the current definition of the word (political) party. Marx workerd and lived at a time when no or only a few political parties existed (like the Lassalleans), sometimes without workers having the right to vote!

[KC]

Why don't you just join the Communist League (http://www.communistleague.us/)?

Let us know how it goes.

[Red Flag]

Yeah, Rakunin. That's part of the point. We're facing a different situation. And Marx and Engels were viewing bourgeois politics and parties (which were created as vehicles for participation in the bourgeois political system) in their infancy. We've had plenty of time to observe them and draw conclusions.


Why don't you just join the Communist League (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.communistleague.us/)?

Because it's entirely different from this proposal. It goes beyond basic principles into a program and platform. It has a centralized structure with a Central Committee. It takes organizational positions on historical questions. I could go on.

I would like to point out that in the time that was spent here debating parties and such we could have distributed numerous education and agitation materials while still debating the merits of different types of organization with an expanded audience of working people.

[bcbm]

I would like to point out that in the time that was spent here debating parties and such we could have distributed numerous education and agitation materials while still debating the merits of different types of organization with an expanded audience of working people.

so get off the internet.

[Red Flag]

A most witty retort!

It would have been much better if it didn't miss the point entirely, ie. that this sort of debate can take place within the frame work of organized agitation and education.

But yeah, great job. :thumbup1:

[bcbm]

that applies to just about every discussion on this site. many of them could occur under other circumstances, like agitating and organizing outside of the internet. many of them probably do. but i think it is also interesting to participate in discussions on here because of the much wider range of people there are to interact with and i would imagine others have similar reasons so its a bit asinine to say "instead of wasting our time discussing here, we could have been out in the real world," especially when you're here posting (quite a bit) with the rest of us.

[Red Flag]

I didn't mention the internet, use the term real world, say this was a waste of time or anything else you put in quotations.

I'm saying these sorts of discussion would be more effective within the framework of an organization like the one proposed. In that case it would get more exposure and input from the class (imagine if each of us distributed a journal containing this discussion to many of our coworkers and contacts, friends and family members in different jobs).

I illustrated the point by using this discussion as an example.

That is all.

[bcbm]

it seemed implied given the dichotomy of "time spent here" vs time that could have been invested in other ways. if i misunderstood the intent, sorry.

[KC]

Because it's entirely different from this proposal. It goes beyond basic principles into a program and platform. It has a centralized structure with a Central Committee. It takes organizational positions on historical questions. I could go on.

I would like to point out that in the time that was spent here debating parties and such we could have distributed numerous education and agitation materials while still debating the merits of different types of organization with an expanded audience of working people.

The Communist League has all of those.

[Red Flag]

It helps to pay attention to what you're commenting on.

The Communist League does indeed have all of those.

The proposed organization does not.

The two are not the same.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Red Flag, let me know when workers councils or federations of workplace committees (or glorified strike committees) organize cultural societies, sports clubs and other recreational groups, funeral homes, and food banks that are necessary to truly organize the working class on a fully class basis. :glare:

I know of no group of workers councils, workplace committees, or glorified strike committees that did such stuff. :)


One thing that bothers me is how much has changed since the late 19th century. A party used to be (and sometimes still is) a losely organized, sometimes federative, bond of people trying to get candidates elected. The electorate was small because of various reasons and a dominant idea was the laissez-faire state (the state as night watcher only). But when the worker's movement started to participate bureaucratism and modern 'partyism' was created.

The modern party is different because it is mostly highly bureaucratic. Two reasons can be found for this change: competition against the "democratic centralism" (organization through democratic discussion and participation) that was a prominent feature in genuine worker's movements, and control over the working class in bourgeois (worker's) parties.

This evolution helped to shape the current definition of the word (political) party. Marx workerd and lived at a time when no or only a few political parties existed (like the Lassalleans), sometimes without workers having the right to vote!

Comrade, I don't recall the ADAV as being a "loosely organized bond of people trying to get candidates elected" (thanks to Mike Lepore for the political context of the "Iron Law of Wages" as Lassalle's nothing-but-the-party stance against trade unionism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/marx-and-iron-t132067/index.html)).

[Red Flag]

Like most else you comment on, it's clear that you don't really know what a workers council is.

The class establishes councils for practical reasons, in struggle, but at the same time they express the rule of the class.

You're thinking about building a party (of the kind that hasn't existed in decades, because the time for that kind of thing is long gone) within capitalism, while workers councils represent the transition away from capitalism.

[Crux]

Like most else you comment on, it's clear that you don't really know what a workers council is.

The class establishes councils for practical reasons, in struggle, but at the same time they express the rule of the class.

You're thinking about building a party (of the kind that hasn't existed in decades, because the time for that kind of thing is long gone) within capitalism, while workers councils represent the transition away from capitalism.
"What childish innocence it is to present one’s own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument!" Friedrich Engels

[Red Flag]

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood." - Stephen Covey

[Tower of Bebel]

JR, the ADAV was less a party then a trade union. However, we do agree that worker's parties, unlike early bourgeois parties, were far more centralized forcing the latter to follow its example (but with a lot of bureaucratism).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Like most else you comment on, it's clear that you don't really know what a workers council is.

The class establishes councils for practical reasons, in struggle, but at the same time they express the rule of the class.

You're thinking about building a party (of the kind that hasn't existed in decades, because the time for that kind of thing is long gone) within capitalism, while workers councils represent the transition away from capitalism.

Actually, I know exactly what a workers council is.

Your second sentence expresses a contradictory problem: "practical reasons, in struggle" come into conflict with "express the rule of the class." Ad hoc groups of workers councils simply cannot solve the problems of society at large, because the information behind those problems needs to be absorbed first by specialists and bureaucracies.

As for the Communist League, they'd be better off replacing the term "workers councils" with something else less associated with spontaneity, given their revolutionary industrial unionism strategy.

[Red Flag]

In other words the working class needs the petty bourgeoisie because it can't rule on its on. In other words petty bourgeois socialist wrapped up in a bunch of obscure vocabulary and an endless string of links. No thanks.

Well, it's been real....

[Tower of Bebel]

We need something that represents the so called "dialectical unity" between socialism as a goal and the struggles for immediate demands. In other but 'crude' words: a unity between "intellectuals", "middle class" or "petit-bourgeoisie" (preferably just those who study socialism) and workers (preferably those who want to defend their standards of living collectively). Marxists have always insisted on having a programme and a party to represent this unity.

Neither spontaneity nor organization (bureaucracy) at all cost. Neither just "workers" nor "leaders" or "caders". We need both of them and I think ComradeOm made a nice contribution to this question in his paper on the Bolshevik party in 1917.

[jmlima]

We need something that represents the so called "dialectical unity" between socialism as a goal and the struggles for immediate demands. In other but 'crude' words: a unity between "intellectuals", "middle class" or "petit-bourgeoisie" (preferably just those who study socialism) and workers (preferably those who want to defend their standards of living collectively). Marxists have always insisted on having a programme and a party to represent this unity.

Neither spontaneity nor organization (bureaucracy) at all cost. Neither just "workers" nor "leaders" or "caders". We need both of them and I think ComradeOm made a nice contribution to this question in his paper on the Bolshevik party in 1917.

I think you're putting the cart way ahead of the horses. You're assuming there's actually an interested society out there, interested in things like 'standards of living collectively', or , even more fabled a petit-bourgoise that studies socialism.

Those things are not out there. What you have out there, is (in his vast majority), an apathetic , apolitical , ferociously individualistic society.

What we need is a form of organization, even an informal one, that awakens people for the perils of their situation, and for the bleak place they are putting themselves onto. Then, when you have their attention, you can try to bring to their attention other concepts.

If you start talking about colective good and joint struggle, you will alienate more people than you will bring in. (which socialism and anarchism have gingerly done over the past 50 years or so, as they fail to perceive the changes in society).

[Red Flag]

Actually Rakunin, Marx and Engels argued specifically against the kind of thing you are advocating (an organization of the working class and "radical" petty bourgeoisie, which is actually a petty bourgeois socialist organization powered by working class members), as indicated by the quotes I posted earlier, Marx's refusal to take official leadership positions in the International because he wasn't a "manual worker," and the principle that the liberation of the working class must be done by the working class itself.

"Citizen Marx has just been mentioned; he has perfectly understood the importance of this first congress, where there should be only working-class delegates; therefor he refused the delegateship he was offered in the General Council." - James Carter, Geneva Congress of the First International.

"'...Victor Le Lubez ... asked if Karl Marx would suggest the name of someone to speak on behalf of the German Workers.' Marx himself was far too bourgeois to be eligible so he recommended the emigre tailor Johann Georg Eccarius..." - Karl Marx: A Life, Francis Wheen.

"...when such people from other classes join the proletarian movement, the first demand upon them must be that they do not bring with them any remnants of bourgeois, petty-bourgeois, etc., prejudices, but that they irreversibly assimilate the proletarian viewpoint. But those gentlemen, as has been shown, adhere overwhelmingly to petty-bourgeois conceptions. …in a labor party, they are a falsifying element. If there are grounds which necessitate tolerating them, it is a duty only to tolerate them, to allow them no influence in party leadership, and to keep in mind that a break with them is only a matter of time... In any case, the time seems to have come.” - Engels, 1879

"...the social conditions of the United States, though in many other aspects most favorable to the success of the working-class movement, peculiarly facilitate the intrusion into the International of bogus reformers, middle-class quacks, and trading politicians. ...For these reasons, the General Council recommends that in future there be admitted no new American section of which two-thirds at least do not consist of wage laborers." - The International Workingmen's Association, Resolutions on the split in the U.S. Federation

"...the emancipation of the working classes must be conquered by the working classes themselves." - General Rules of the International Workingmen's Association

jmlima is just repackaging the same old argument that has already appeared in this thread, ie. that the working class must be "won over" to class consciousness. Like it's just a well thought out argument or a religion they can be converted to.

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” - Karl Marx, The German Ideology

[Red Flag]

Well that's it for me. Enjoy.

[Tower of Bebel]

I think I get your point, jmlima, but I don't agree. I'm not assuming that such society exists. It's "known" for ages that the working class suffers and benefits from two forces: competition (potentially driving sections of workers away from each other) and struggles (potentially driving sections of workers towards each other). This creates mixed feelings, but it can also help us gain some ground.

I never underestimated the role played by pioneers of socialistic or revolutionary ideas. They are the few, the individual colleagues and friends who for argue for change, even revolution, without much response (what you called apathy) from their peers. In some countries, like China, they even risc their lives because they want to be that eye-opener! In the end, when society starts moving (mostly because of wars, crises, etc.) they will be heard by more and more layers of people who search for alternatives.

This of course is the ideal situation. But such a situation does not exist. Many "pioneers" or socialists are sometimes part of organizations and currents that even play a "counter-revolutionary" role in society. This will slow down progress towards unity. Yet, in the end we need many of them.

I don't think that talking about collective action will alienate us from the rest of society. What alienated us are two forces: the problems that are part of the revolutionary left (sectarianism, bureaucratism, opportunism, etc.), and capitalist "hegemony" expressed in liberal, free-market ideas. Talking Marxism or anarchism wont hurt us in the long term (though such language can feel awkward in the short term! Especially when it is old-fashioned), but what damages us are these 'forces' (our mistakes and their liberal ideology).

And Red Flag, for now I only want to write down that I agree with the assumption that the petty bourgeois must leave its bourgeois ideas when entering the worker's movement. But I don't agree with the idea that non-workers must stay away from leading positions. However, maybe this opens up the discussion in favor of "demarchy" and random selection as an alternative.

P.S. I shouldn't distinguish "intellectuals" too much from "workers" because there exist intelligent, class conscious workers! In the end, it's all about grasping and taking part in the movement that we're supposed to represent (see Communist Manifesto) whether manual worker, student, etc.

[jmlima]

...jmlima is just repackaging the same old argument that has already appeared in this thread, ie. that the working class must be "won over" to class consciousness. Like it's just a well thought out argument or a religion they can be converted to.

“Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.” - Karl Marx, The German Ideology

Thanks for the quote.

And you're wrong in assuming that it's not a well thought out argument of which people can be convinced of.

What you cannot do is to try to convince people using 100 years old rethoric or practics, deeply discredited at their eyes. You need to adjust to reality. And the fact is, people around you on the bus don't give a toss about political rethorics, vanguards, or abstract discussions. They also do not care about common good. If you expect them to just suddenly blink a light at the top of the head and come to a sudden understading, then, I can assure you, it will not happen.

Look at past history, and analyse the results of the quotes you posted.

[jmlima]

...
I don't think that talking about collective action will alienate us from the rest of society. What alienated us are two forces: the problems that are part of the revolutionary left (sectarianism, bureaucratism, opportunism, etc.), and capitalist "hegemony" expressed in liberal, free-market ideas. Talking Marxism or anarchism wont hurt us in the long term (though such language can feel awkward in the short term! Especially when it is old-fashioned), but what damages us are these 'forces' (our mistakes and their liberal ideology).
...
P.S. I shouldn't distinguish "intellectuals" too much from "workers" because there exist intelligent, class conscious workers! In the end, it's all about grasping and taking party in the movement that we're supposed to represent (see Communist Manifesto) whether manual worker, student, etc.

It's a fair point you make about talking about collective action. I was meaning by that what I wrote in the post just above about using old rhetoric , and I stand corrected about being so generalist. (sometimes writing in a rush results on these things)

I still think though, that insistence on preaching the same old mantras will only get leftist ideas nowhere. New ways of communicating, and most of all, new goals must be set.

I do wholeheartedly agree with your PS.

[Red Flag]

What you cannot do is to try to convince people using 100 years old rethoric or practics, deeply discredited at their eyes. You need to adjust to reality. And the fact is, people around you on the bus don't give a toss about political rethorics, vanguards, or abstract discussions. They also do not care about common good. If you expect them to just suddenly blink a light at the top of the head and come to a sudden understading, then, I can assure you, it will not happen.

What you cannot do is convince a class to carry out a revolution. It's only by acting in their own material interests that the workers will overthrow capitalism. Those of us who are class conscious can make arguments as to the need for and the best way for this to happen when opportunities arise. We're not preachers going into the hinterland to convince the savages The Word, no matter how you package it.

[jmlima]

What you cannot do is convince a class to carry out a revolution. It's only by acting in their own material interests that the workers will overthrow capitalism. Those of us who are class conscious can make arguments as to the need for and the best way for this to happen when opportunities arise. We're not preachers going into the hinterland to convince the savages The Word, no matter how you package it.

Naturally. Preachers did not try to convince the savages though, they 'educated' them. There's a substantial difference between awakening a conscience, and telling people what to do. You will not mandate a spontaneous revolution, neither on the other hand will it happen spontaneously. But you can help the conscience required for it to happen to emerge. My point is that this will not be achieved:

a) by itself through some spontaneous momentous event
b) through the use of a set of age old rhetoric and methods

I think we are essentially agreeing though, but may be wrong...

[Die Neue Zeit]

In other words the working class needs the petty bourgeoisie because it can't rule on its on. In other words petty bourgeois socialist wrapped up in a bunch of obscure vocabulary and an endless string of links. No thanks.

Well, it's been real....

No, one other part I forgot to say is that the party must have an explicitly workers-only voting membership policy.


We need something that represents the so called "dialectical unity" between socialism as a goal and the struggles for immediate demands. In other but 'crude' words: a unity between "intellectuals", "middle class" or "petit-bourgeoisie" (preferably just those who study socialism) and workers (preferably those who want to defend their standards of living collectively). Marxists have always insisted on having a programme and a party to represent this unity.

[...]

But I don't agree with the idea that non-workers must stay away from leading positions. However, maybe this opens up the discussion in favor of "demarchy" and random selection as an alternative.

I don't know whether to state a rare disagreement between the two of us or not.

A workers-only voting membership / citizenship policy can still accommodate "intellectual" and "bureaucratic" positions amongst the workers within the party, like Paul Cockshott. What's not needed for voting membership / citizenship are outright coordinator or petit-bourgeois hacks like Leo Panitch (who's got underling research staff) and Noam Chomsky, respectively.

I'd be OK with the latter group being non-voting card-carriers.

On a schoolmastery note, there would be a contradiction if one were to use the refined definitions of "proletarian" by either Cockshott or myself. It has to do with the fact that the bureaucratic work of the party is unproductive (bureaucratic effort not even indirectly sustaining the workers consumption bundle; not contributing to the development of society's labour power and capabilities).