Why do some Communists support parliamentary participation?

[StoneFrog]

I don't understand why people think that working within parliamentary proceedings will do anything but hinder the revolution. I know there is something about using the rifts in between the parties to be able help the revolution, but is it not so blatantly obvious that in modern times the bourgeois parties will stand together against communism. I don’t know can someone explain, i know the Lenin supported the idea, maybe a Leninist can explain to me how it would be relevant in modern times.

[ArrowLance]

We shouldn't say no to ANY opportunity to further our agenda even to a small degree. Simply the act of working in these fashions increases our movements prestige.

[Scary Monster]

Intentionally supporting a withholding of vital social services from working class folks because these would otherwise "bribe them out of revolutionary potential" is completely idiotic and insane, even if these services are provided by a Bourgeois government (although they povide these services in crumbs).

[redSHARP]

when the government is considering passing a anti-strike law, sometimes we need to bite the bullet sometimes and support "democracies" in order to get the small victories. besides, who said we cant do both? we're smart enough to pull it off.

[StoneFrog]

Maybe those laws preventing strikes is whats needed to wake up the workers and make them realize the system doesn't support them. TBH i don't quiet see the difference between it and reformist thoughts.

[nickdlc]

What is the percentage of people that vote in elections anyway, in most developed countries around 65% at best. People already see that voting is useless because the day after your still going to wake up and work.

Now you want to say to people no no these things actually do something so vote the socialist party and we'll nationalise the commanding heights. Your then going to throw all your money at this election, your hundreds of dollars mean nothing to their millions of dollars.

A better idea would be to try to reach the people who don't vote it's soon going to be the same percentage of those who do.

[redSHARP]

Maybe those laws preventing strikes is whats needed to wake up the workers and make them realize the system doesn't support them. TBH i don't quiet see the difference between it and reformist thoughts.

i wouldnt put so much faith in the working class rising up anytime soon in my area. though in practice the rising up ideas has worked in some areas. I am torn on this issue myself and i would have to brush up on my history and local laws to really get a full picture.

[durhamleft]

How do you want to bring in communism?

i) By starting a party and gaining public support

public thinks ooo yes, these are a real working class left wing political option i should look at

ii) By waiting one day to overthrow the bourgeois capitalist wankers who enslave us.

public thinks should I call the police, this terrorist is scaring me

Sure, one day the time may come for a revolution, in the current time though talking about it only makes us look like deluded fools, so for now, approaching things from the political system is what we should look at

[StoneFrog]

Don't you think any good that might be accomplished by comrades in theses parties which are participating in these bourgeois structures just going to make the face of capitalism more bearable to the workers. Shouldn't the Communists form a separate body in which to help the workers out side of the parliamentary process? This to show that its not the capitalists whom are working in there favor but the Communists?

All it sounds like it would accomplish is reforming capitalism and distracting the working class. Most are so sick of the process and just lump all those politicians into one lump, these are the people who we should be appealing to. The system is corrupt so why partake in it and associate our "prestige" with such corruption.

[Widerstand]

I think wherever current conditions are unbearable, and a betterment could be achieved through reform, supporting reform is adequate. It should never be the priortized action, though, and as such I am highly skeptical of all parties, groups or individuals primarly aiming primarly at parliamentary influence.

[Red Commissar]

You have to analyze that concept in its times.

In 1850 Marx delivered an address, and had this to say,



Even when there is no prospect whatsoever of their being elected, the workers must put up their own candidates in order to preserve their independence, to count their forces, and to bring before the public their revolutionary attitude and party standpoint. In this connection they must not allow themselves to be seduced by such arguments of the democrats as, for example, that by so doing they are splitting the democratic party and making it possible for the reactionaries to win. The ultimate intention of all such phrases is to dupe the proletariat. The advance which the proletarian party is bound to make by such independent action is indefinitely more important than the disadvantage that might be incurred by the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.

Back then they just the action of having the presence of a mass socialist party would help raise awareness and encourage the proletariat to gain their own political knowledge and confidence.

The problem came over those politicians who were beginning to look for short-term victories and abandon all attempts at a long-term agenda, even if they claimed to practice it. They began to "compromise" with opponents in parliament to pass some laws. Inevitably these parties began to get dragged into the apparatus of the state.

Then the debate of reformists and revolutionaries arose. Reformists were fine with collaborating with the bourgeoisie parties and in the process become one of them. Revolutionaries continued their original stance and became intransigent in the process.

Lenin was a member of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party, before its split between Mensheviks and Bolsheviks. They were still following old social democratic principles that until the time of the revolution, their party would act as an agitator in representative bodies and try to pass some things to improve the material conditions of workers.

However like other revolutionaries he recognized that they should abandon this approach once the time for revolution came, and to ensure this would happen he made sure that his Bolsheviks had no trace of "reformists" so that the party's action would be uniform.

Lenin's stance towards participation in bourgeoisie parliaments was simple:


We shall not refuse to go into the Second Duma when (or "if") it is convened. We shall not refuse to utilize this arena, but we shall not exaggerate its modest importance; on the contrary, guided by the experience already provided by history, we shall entirely subordinate the struggle we wage in the Duma to another form of struggle, namely strikes, uprisings, etc.

In other words Lenin saw the bourgeoisie parliaments as simply one front among many for a communist party, and should not be afraid to abandon those once revolution is imminent.

Reformists on the other hand relegated their activities purely to participation in parliament and passing legislation, in other words "legal" activities.

This was different in the case of the SPD in Germany, which had a diverse collection of ideologies in the party. Unfortunately the one came out were opportunists (Frederich Ebert), who voted for war credits in WWI and came in control of the post-war government. This government put down the Socialist Revolutions and ultimately led to a massacre of workers and the deaths of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg.

SPD was not alone in this. Similar actions arose out of the Socialist movement in France and Italy, and the rest of the world, part of the division in the socialist movement between revolutionaries and reformists.

I guess what I'm getting at is that a true revolutionary party sees participation in bourgeoisie establishments as one of many fronts. The moment however when that party focuses exclusively on that is when it is lost.

[Kassad]

It's really not a difficult concept. The bourgeois elections are very important to the working class. Obviously, it tends to be a vote for who exactly will be fucking them next, but you never see the amount of political activism and discussion you see in the elections outside of them. Millions of workers vote and are very interested in the elections.

Thus, it would be irresponsible of a party that considers itself a party of the working class to ignore the immense opportunity to promote a socialist alternative to capitalism during the elections. They give revolutionaries a chance to show a different way out of the electoral sham that currently exists in the United States. It is necessary for revolutionaries to stand up and say that the two corporate parties are not the only options, but merely electing progressives is not an option either. What is needed is to form a movement to fight back against oppression and exploitation and build for socialist revolution.

Elections give socialists a chance to reach out to people who might not tend to be politically active at any other time and show them the folly of bourgeois politics. Frankly, if you choose to ignore them, that's just another way of alienating the working class. Some parties miss out on the vital opportunity that elections give, to provide a socialist answer to capitalist exploitation.

[StoneFrog]

Since most countries use a system of National, Provincial and Municipal. How are each treated, is there need to be represented in all?

[The Hong Se Sun]

Plus, just because a party uses the election process does not mean they don't also want revolution. But as said before to start planning the armed revolution before it is possible makes you look silly and out of touch and a "terrorist" to the...........right, the working class.

[Victory]

Communist Parties should not participate in parliament to improve the conditions of the working class, entirely because it prolongs the Capitalist system, thus prolongs their suffering.

By slightly improving the conditions of the working class in the immediate moment through reform, you are acting against revolution because it inevitably makes revolution less likely to occur.

Communist Parties should use the parliamentary system only to gain support for Communism, but reform does not do this, it does the opposite, it makes people less revolutionary.

I'm not big on the idea of participating in parliament, I think it misguides the working class away from the only solution, Revolution. A Communist Party is supposed to guide the people towards their liberation, fighting to improve the lives for the workers in the Capitalist system causes much more mass suffering in the mid-long term, thus mis-directs them. -
Which is why I think it's reactionary how Communists jump on the band wagon and think that by fighting for jobs, you are automaticly doing something "good", simply because it's helping somebody in this instantance.
Fighting to improve workers conditions in the Capitalist system is like charity, it improves the conditions only slightly, but the damage done by doing this is much more severe.

[ourhandsaretied]

I don't understand why people think that working within parliamentary proceedings will do anything but hinder the revolution. I know there is something about using the rifts in between the parties to be able help the revolution, but is it not so blatantly obvious that in modern times the bourgeois parties will stand together against communism. I don’t know can someone explain, i know the Lenin supported the idea, maybe a Leninist can explain to me how it would be relevant in modern times.

I think in the short-term, our goal should be informing people of our aims and properly educating people about the past and the future. It may be necessary to follow these means in order to gain enough of a level of popular support to make a revolution possible.

[ourhandsaretied]

Communist Parties should not participate in parliament to improve the conditions of the working class, entirely because it prolongs the Capitalist system, thus prolongs their suffering.

By slightly improving the conditions of the working class in the immediate moment through reform, you are acting against revolution because it inevitably makes revolution less likely to occur.

Communist Parties should use the parliamentary system only to gain support for Communism, but reform does not do this, it does the opposite, it makes people less revolutionary.

I'm not big on the idea of participating in parliament, I think it misguides the working class away from the only solution, Revolution. A Communist Party is supposed to guide the people towards their liberation, fighting to improve the lives for the workers in the Capitalist system causes much more mass suffering in the mid-long term. -
Which is why I think it's reactionary how Communists jump on the band wagon and think that by fighting for jobs, you are automaticly doing something good simply because it's helping somebody in this instantance. Fighting to improve workers conditions in the Capitalist system, It's like charity, it improves the conditions only slightly, but the damage done by doing this is much more severe.

Yes, participation in capitalism does prolong it, i agree, however, as I said in the post above, I think it could help us achieve our goals of educating the majority of the population. You are right that it is thinking about the short term, not the long.

[StoneFrog]

Communist Parties should not participate in parliament to improve the conditions of the working class, entirely because it prolongs the Capitalist system, thus prolongs their suffering.

By slightly improving the conditions of the working class in the immediate moment through reform, you are acting against revolution because it inevitably makes revolution less likely to occur.

Communist Parties should use the parliamentary system only to gain support for Communism, but reform does not do this, it does the opposite, it makes people less revolutionary.

I'm not big on the idea of participating in parliament, I think it misguides the working class away from the only solution, Revolution. A Communist Party is supposed to guide the people towards their liberation, fighting to improve the lives for the workers in the Capitalist system causes much more mass suffering in the mid-long term, thus mis-directs them. -
Which is why I think it's reactionary how Communists jump on the band wagon and think that by fighting for jobs, you are automaticly doing something "good", simply because it's helping somebody in this instantance.
Fighting to improve workers conditions in the Capitalist system is like charity, it improves the conditions only slightly, but the damage done by doing this is much more severe.

I agree 100% on that it "misguides the working class away form the only solution, Revolution."

[Niccolò Rossi]

It's really not a difficult concept. The bourgeois elections are very important to the working class. Obviously, it tends to be a vote for who exactly will be fucking them next, but you never see the amount of political activism and discussion you see in the elections outside of them. Millions of workers vote and are very interested in the elections.

Thus, it would be irresponsible of a party that considers itself a party of the working class to ignore the immense opportunity to promote a socialist alternative to capitalism during the elections. They give revolutionaries a chance to show a different way out of the electoral sham that currently exists in the United States. It is necessary for revolutionaries to stand up and say that the two corporate parties are not the only options, but merely electing progressives is not an option either. What is needed is to form a movement to fight back against oppression and exploitation and build for socialist revolution.

Elections give socialists a chance to reach out to people who might not tend to be politically active at any other time and show them the folly of bourgeois politics. Frankly, if you choose to ignore them, that's just another way of alienating the working class. Some parties miss out on the vital opportunity that elections give, to provide a socialist answer to capitalist exploitation.

This formulation is wrong on two levels.

For one, it sees elections as class neutral, a platform in the abstract from which revolutionaries can connect with the class. Elections in reality offer no platform for workers to struggle, they are the class terrain of the bourgeoisie.

Furthermore, your conception of class consciousness is an ideological one; class consciousness is a set of ideas to be acquired. The logical extention of this is to see the process of the development and generalisation of class consciousness as a propoganda war, hence the role of revolutionaries is (not dissimilar to born-again Christians) to 'spread the message' something any channel will serve to do. It is not, it can not.

Nic.

[Volcanicity]

Communist Parties should not participate in parliament to improve the conditions of the working class, entirely because it prolongs the Capitalist system, thus prolongs their suffering.

By slightly improving the conditions of the working class in the immediate moment through reform, you are acting against revolution because it inevitably makes revolution less likely to occur.

Communist Parties should use the parliamentary system only to gain support for Communism, but reform does not do this, it does the opposite, it makes people less revolutionary.

I'm not big on the idea of participating in parliament, I think it misguides the working class away from the only solution, Revolution. A Communist Party is supposed to guide the people towards their liberation, fighting to improve the lives for the workers in the Capitalist system causes much more mass suffering in the mid-long term, thus mis-directs them. -
Which is why I think it's reactionary how Communists jump on the band wagon and think that by fighting for jobs, you are automaticly doing something "good", simply because it's helping somebody in this instantance.
Fighting to improve workers conditions in the Capitalist system is like charity, it improves the conditions only slightly, but the damage done by doing this is much more severe.
This pretty much sums it up for me.You either look to completly improve the conditions of the working class or you dont.There is no point in being half-hearted.

[Zanthorus]

Communist Parties should not participate in parliament to improve the conditions of the working class, entirely because it prolongs the Capitalist system, thus prolongs their suffering.

Although I take an anti-parliamentarian stance I have to disagree with this. Just look at the crisis of social-democracy that's been occuring since the 70's. The fact is that reforms don't halt capitalism's crisis tendencies, they merely displace them so that capitalism's internal contradictions manifest themselves in fiscal crises of the state, which forces the state to roll back the welfare net and puts us back at square one again. The problem isn't that reforms prevent revolution, it's that when you look in the long term reforms don't actually do anything. I'm actually quite suspicious of anyone whose position on reformism is based on the fact that it holds back revolution rather than simply being useless.

[StoneFrog]

Although I take an anti-parliamentarian stance I have to disagree with this. Just look at the crisis of social-democracy that's been occuring since the 70's. The fact is that reforms don't halt capitalism's crisis tendencies, they merely displace them so that capitalism's internal contradictions manifest themselves in fiscal crises of the state, which forces the state to roll back the welfare net and puts us back at square one again. The problem isn't that reforms prevent revolution, it's that when you look in the long term reforms don't actually do anything. I'm actually quite suspicious of anyone whose position on reformism is based on the fact that it holds back revolution rather than simply being useless.

Could you please elaborate on this pls =]

[Zanthorus]

Could you please elaborate on this pls =]

Well do you know about the falling rate of profit and it's correction via the destruction of capital through crises?

[StoneFrog]

Well do you know about the falling rate of profit and it's correction via the destruction of capital through crises?

I think i get what your saying.
When there is a crisis all the reforms are made useless in the name that its done for the greater good, and everyone has to make sacrifices to get over the crisis? So all reforms are usless for when they count the most they are abandoned. Close?

[Zanthorus]

I think i get what your saying.
When there is a crisis all the reforms are made useless in the name that its done for the greater good, and everyone has to make sacrifices to get over the crisis? So all reforms are usless for when they count the most they are abandoned. Close?

Not really, my basic point is that crises are inherent to capitalism, caused by contradictions which are internal to the capitalist mode of production and not by outside forces like government fiscal and monetary policy. The only reform that can do away with capitalism's crisis tendencies is it's abolition.

[RED DAVE]

when the government is considering passing a anti-strike law, sometimes we need to bite the bullet sometimes and support "democracies" in order to get the small victories. besides, who said we cant do both? we're smart enough to pull it off.This is absolutely wrong.

The only time that Marxists can participate in a bourgeois government is as an opposition. We should never "support" "democracies" for small victories. This is class collaboration, social democracy, and leads to political disaster.

It's not a matter of being smart. It's a matter of not supporting the class enemy. And this goes for undeveloped as well as developed countries.

RED DAVE

[The Idler]

What's Wrong with Using Parliament? (http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldsocialism.org%2Fspgb%2F2 0C%2FParliament_update.html&ei=IAVbTJmsIOmg4Qau05CEAg&usg=AFQjCNFhzwrdgqicboT06rXyqmtm11l5qw&sig2=8A6WnW3T3uY6WNGS3euKJg)

[Victory]

Although I take an anti-parliamentarian stance I have to disagree with this. Just look at the crisis of social-democracy that's been occuring since the 70's. The fact is that reforms don't halt capitalism's crisis tendencies, they merely displace them so that capitalism's internal contradictions manifest themselves in fiscal crises of the state, which forces the state to roll back the welfare net and puts us back at square one again. The problem isn't that reforms prevent revolution, it's that when you look in the long term reforms don't actually do anything. I'm actually quite suspicious of anyone whose position on reformism is based on the fact that it holds back revolution rather than simply being useless.

Are you trying to say that by improving the lives of the working class in the short term it's not going to make them less revolutionary and think that the Capitalist system could actually improve?
I don't oppose reform simply because it delays revolution. I oppose it both because it not only because it doesn't work, but because he act's against what we're trying to achieve, for my reasons stated in the post.

A revolution has only ever happened in harsh conditions and difficult circumstances. By improving the lives of the people, it is going to make revolution less likely. Surely you understand this theory which through history we know is correct.

[Comrade Gwydion]

TBH i don't quiet see the difference between it and reformist thoughts.

For reformists, it's the only means, or in times even the goals. 'Street'-activism is merely something on the side to put some more pressure on their parliamentairy opponents.

For revolutionairies in parliament, parliament is merely a tool to ease the worst suffering of the poor, to gain 'attention' and thus chances to educate, and to be a pain in the ass of the other parliamentairy parties. Yet, all in all, it's just a tool, and as said in the Lenin-Quote, not a tool of tremendous importance.

[Zanthorus]

A revolution has only ever happened in harsh conditions and difficult circumstances.

On the contrary, the events of Mai 68 in France which almost brought down the de Gaulle government in France occured in a time of relative economic stability. Another point would be to look at all the times when people were living in "harsh conditions and difficult circumstances" and didn't make any kind of revolution. Things were going pretty bad in 19th century england but apart from movements like the Chartists which were crushed anyway there wasn't any kind of revolutionary action on the part of the British working class. Let's not forget movements like Fascism which are not only equally as geared up as the radical left to respond to widespread disillusionment with the system, but in a much better position to exploit that disillusionment given the nature of their arguments which usually end up blaming a scapegoat like a particular race, or some kind of "non-productive" capital as opposed to "productive capital" (The latter at least was key to the ideas of the British Fascist Oswald Mosley who saw the key class conflict in society as being one between the "productive classes" [Capitalists and wage-labourers) and the un-productive ones [Finance Capital]). In fact if you look at the ideas of people like Keynes who is widely considered by some on the "Left" to have found an answer to capitalism's crises, you'll find that actually they're disturbingly similar to the fascists. Like the fash, Keynes was aiming for a "euthanasia" of non-productive and specifically interest bearing capital which he considered as being somehow more parasitic than industrial capital. Like the fash, Keynes was a supporter of the isolated nation state apart from the international division of labour, a nation state which used protectionist policies to defend itself from international capital (A policy which is characteristic to all reformist programs in fact). Oswald Mosley was in fact a follower of Keynes, whose ideas were also well recieved in Nazi economic journals like Der deutsche Volkswirt and Die deutsche Volkwirtschaft. Considering that harsh conditions can empower the far right and ideologies which give some variety of implicit support to the far right, it's not a route we really want to risk going down.


By improving the lives of the people, it is going to make revolution less likely. Surely you understand this theory which through history we know is correct.

Well personally I'm not a sadist (Or a masochist for that matter!), so no I don't quite understand this theory. It seems to rest on some kind of vision of revolution where the ignorant masses are too stupid to understand the case for socialism and need to be compelled into action by being brought to the point of starving which thereby allows the enlightened vanguard which has somehow managed to bring itself above the conditions of everyday people to exploit the popular unrest to it's own advantage.

Can I ask why you became a socialist in the first place? Was it because you were on the edge of starving and saw socialism as the only way out? Somehow I doubt it.

Another point to raise is that this "theory" of revolution through popular resentment is based on a totally un-Marxist understanding of revolution. This article (http://home.earthlink.net/~lrgoldner/methodology.html) by Loren Goldner is brilliant on the subject.

[Proletarian Ultra]

I don't understand why people think that working within parliamentary proceedings will do anything but hinder the revolution. I know there is something about using the rifts in between the parties to be able help the revolution, but is it not so blatantly obvious that in modern times the bourgeois parties will stand together against communism. I don’t know can someone explain, i know the Lenin supported the idea, maybe a Leninist can explain to me how it would be relevant in modern times.

The crucial distinction is between sitting in a parliament that debates capitalist policy and becoming part of the executive branch that implements it.

Leninists are for parliamentary participation but against ministerialism.

There is a good article by the Sparts of all people on this:

http://www.icl-fi.org/print/english/esp/61/electoral.html



Down With Executive Offices of the Capitalist State!
Marxist Principles and Electoral Tactics
Communist deputies can, as oppositionists, serve in the U.S. Congress, parliaments and other legislative bodies as revolutionary tribunes of the working class. But assuming executive office or gaining control of a bourgeois legislature or municipal council, either independently or in coalition, requires taking responsibility for the administration of the machinery of the capitalist state.

[Victory]

On the contrary, the events of Mai 68 in France which almost brought down the de Gaulle government in France occured in a time of relative economic stability. Another point would be to look at all the times when people were living in "harsh conditions and difficult circumstances" and didn't make any kind of revolution. Things were going pretty bad in 19th century england but apart from movements like the Chartists which were crushed anyway there wasn't any kind of revolutionary action on the part of the British working class. Let's not forget movements like Fascism which are not only equally as geared up as the radical left to respond to widespread disillusionment with the system, but in a much better position to exploit that disillusionment given the nature of their arguments which usually end up blaming a scapegoat like a particular race, or some kind of "non-productive" capital as opposed to "productive capital" (The latter at least was key to the ideas of the British Fascist Oswald Mosley who saw the key class conflict in society as being one between the "productive classes" [Capitalists and wage-labourers) and the un-productive ones [Finance Capital]). In fact if you look at the ideas of people like Keynes who is widely considered by some on the "Left" to have found an answer to capitalism's crises, you'll find that actually they're disturbingly similar to the fascists. Like the fash, Keynes was aiming for a "euthanasia" of non-productive and specifically interest bearing capital which he considered as being somehow more parasitic than industrial capital. Like the fash, Keynes was a supporter of the isolated nation state apart from the international division of labour, a nation state which used protectionist policies to defend itself from international capital (A policy which is characteristic to all reformist programs in fact). Oswald Mosley was in fact a follower of Keynes, whose ideas were also well recieved in Nazi economic journals like Der deutsche Volkswirt and Die deutsche Volkwirtschaft. Considering that harsh conditions can empower the far right and ideologies which give some variety of implicit support to the far right, it's not a route we really want to risk going down.



Well personally I'm not a sadist (Or a masochist for that matter!), so no I don't quite understand this theory. It seems to rest on some kind of vision of revolution where the ignorant masses are too stupid to understand the case for socialism and need to be compelled into action by being brought to the point of starving which thereby allows the enlightened vanguard which has somehow managed to bring itself above the conditions of everyday people to exploit the popular unrest to it's own advantage.

Can I ask why you became a socialist in the first place? Was it because you were on the edge of starving and saw socialism as the only way out? Somehow I doubt it.


Oh I'm sorry, I'm talking about a Socialist revolution, not a bourgeoisie revolution like in France, I thought you would realise that.
If you honestly believe a Socialist revolution is just as likely to occur in normal circumstances rather than when people are suffering to a higher extent, then I'll leave you to jump on the bandwagon with the anarchists and re-write history, but you'll be waiting a very long time.

No, I did not become a Socialist because I was starving. But I know many of the people in the Russian and Cuban Revolutions turned to Socialism because they were starving. I know many people in Colombia support the FARC because they are suffering and are living in poverty.

Just because I don't choose your style of building a revolution does not make it "un-Marxist". If that was the case, Che Guevara was "un-marxist" and the FARC too are "un-Marxist" because they support a different thoery of building a revolution.

You should build a revolution to identify with the conditions in which you live, not follow a dogmatic approach which people like you claim is the only "marxist" apparoach.

[chegitz guevara]

The illusion some people are under here is the communists participate in elections in order to use the state in order to ameliorate the suffering of the workers.

WRONG!

We use elections as a way of spreading our message to a wider audience. If we were to actually win, we'd use our position in parliament to highlight the inability of using the capitalist state for such purposes, by proposing perfectly reasonable reforms which the capitalists would oppose.

If we were to win a majority, we should launch the revolution.

[Victory]

The illusion some people are under here is the communists participate in elections in order to use the state in order to ameliorate the suffering of the workers.

WRONG!

We use elections as a way of spreading our message to a wider audience. If we were to actually win, we'd use our position in parliament to highlight the inability of using the capitalist state for such purposes, by proposing perfectly reasonable reforms which the capitalists would oppose.

If we were to win a majority, we should launch the revolution.

Sorry, But I don't know what its like in the United States. But many Communist parties in the United Kingdom use the election system to improve the conditions for the working class in the short term. I'd also assume that revisionist parties too, do it in USA.

I don't know how you can try and speak for all communist parties by saying
"The illusion some people are under here is the communists participate in elections in order to use the state in order to ameliorate the suffering of the workers.

WRONG!"

You don't speak for all Communists and your statement was factually incorrect.

[RED DAVE]

Sorry, But I don't know what its like in the United States. But many Communist parties in the United KingdomHistorically there has only been one CP in the UK with any clout at all, and that was/is the stalinist CP.


use the election system to improve the conditions for the working class in the short term.This has, basically, not been true in any systematic sense since about 1950 when the UK got the NHS.


I'd also assume that revisionist parties too, do it in USA.Socialist and Communist parties have never achieved much in the way of election victories either in the US or the UK.


I don't know how you can try and speak for all communist parties by saying "The illusion some people are under here is the communists participate in elections in order to use the state in order to ameliorate the suffering of the workers."Because it's correct.


WRONG!"

You don't speak for all Communists and your statement was factually incorrect.It is correct. CPs have never engaged in parliamentary activities for the major purpose of achieving reforms. Learn your history, except when they are in revisionist phases.

RED DAVE

[Victory]

Historically there has only been one CP in the UK with any clout at all, and that was/is the stalinist CP.

This has, basically, not been true in any systematic sense since about 1950 when the UK got the NHS.

Socialist and Communist parties have never achieved much in the way of election victories either in the US or the UK.

Because it's correct.

It is correct. CPs have never engaged in parliamentary activities for the major purpose of achieving reforms. Learn your history, except when they are in revisionist phases.

RED DAVE

Then explain why for explain, the SWP vote for the Labour Party, a party which has historically waged a ruthless war against Socialism and has delayed it significantly, by being seen as a genuine working class alternative? - They argue that there are still progressive people in the Labour Party. - People who are doing nothing for Socialism but are improving the lives of workers.

Please explain why people do nothing in Britain but "fight for jobs" and "against cuts", two things which significantly delay revolution and misguide the people into thinking that reform is a good option.

I've seen some of your posts on here, and I think you're so detached from the working class that all you do is mouth phrases of Marxism with your sectarian dribble that has only developed your movement an ice axe. Please get outside and do something for the people, instead of practically living your whole life paying lip service to revolution.

Victory

[28350]

this.

we use elections as a way of spreading our message to a wider audience. If we were to actually win, we'd use our position in parliament to highlight the inability of using the capitalist state for such purposes, by proposing perfectly reasonable reforms which the capitalists would oppose.

[What Would Durruti Do?]

Those are reformists, not revolutionaries.

Hopefully any true revolutionary sees the hypocrisy of working within the bourgeois electoral system.

Not only do leftists not stand a chance in such situations, but we will never achieve our goals through such methods.

[chegitz guevara]

Sorry, But I don't know what its like in the United States. But many Communist parties in the United Kingdom use the election system to improve the conditions for the working class in the short term. I'd also assume that revisionist parties too, do it in USA.

I don't know how you can try and speak for all communist parties by saying
"The illusion some people are under here is the communists participate in elections in order to use the state in order to ameliorate the suffering of the workers.

WRONG!"

You don't speak for all Communists and your statement was factually incorrect.

There is a difference between Communists and communists. Most Communists are not communists, but social democrats, so they really shouldn't be considered.

Next, while the SWP may vote for Labour, the questions was about running for office.

So my statement was factually correct. :)

[RED DAVE]

Then explain why for explain, the SWP vote for the Labour Party, a party which has historically waged a ruthless war against Socialism and has delayed it significantly, by being seen as a genuine working class alternative? - They argue that there are still progressive people in the Labour Party. - People who are doing nothing for Socialism but are improving the lives of workers.Go argue with the SWP as to the tactic of entrism. I would have given up on the BLP decades ago.


Please explain why people do nothing in Britain but "fight for jobs" and "against cuts", two things which significantly delay revolution and misguide the people into thinking that reform is a good option.You obviously do not understand the relationship between the fight for reforms, amelioration, etc., and the fight for socialism. To "fight for jobs" and "against cuts" is fine for revolutionaries because, as the bourgeoisie destroys jobs and makes the cuts, hopefully peoples' consciousness is raised. The notion that fighting for reforms somehow delays revolution is a crude distortion of Marxism.


I've seen some of your posts on here, and I think you're so detached from the working class that all you do is mouth phrases of Marxism with your sectarian dribble that has only developed your movement an ice axe. Please get outside and do something for the people, instead of practically living your whole life paying lip service to revolution.(1) Go fuck yourself.

(2) I am a member of the working class. I am currently involved in an organizing drive at my workplace. I have been a member of half a dozen or so unions, the antiwar movement (when it exists), the civil rights movement, etc. What have you done?

(3) Go read some Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky. Maybe you'll learn something.

RED DAVE

[StoneFrog]

Next, while the SWP may vote for Labour, the questions was about running for office.


O'rly?

I wonder how you got that it was only about running for office?

[AK]

I don't support Parliamentary Representation simply because it is an oxymoron and will not further class struggle in any way - it will only give the working class the illusion that the capitalist mode of production can somehow be ended or hindered without any real working-class action. It is class collaboration of the worst kind.

[AK]

ii) By waiting one day to overthrow the bourgeois capitalist wankers who enslave us.
You think that's what revolutionary organisations do? They just wait? They serve to agitate the working class and further class struggle in such a way that the working class learns that they must create their own institutions of self-government and self-economic-management. Well, true communist groups would do that, anyway.

[tellyontellyon]

Lenin said it was worth doing and it didn't seem to get in the way of the revolution in Russia.

Read:
"Left Communism, an infantile disorder"... by V. I. Lenin.
:)

[Victory]

Lenin said it was worth doing and it didn't seem to get in the way of the revolution in Russia.

Read:
"Left Communism, an infantile disorder"... by V. I. Lenin.
:)

And I disagree with Lenin on this, because unlike many other Communists, I don't see what Lenin said as a dogma, nor do I bow down to him as the always supreme Communist genius.

It certainly does get in the way of revolution in Britain. Conditions in Britain are significantly different than living under the Tsar in 1917.

[StoneFrog]

Lenin said it was worth doing and it didn't seem to get in the way of the revolution in Russia.

Read:
"Left Communism, an infantile disorder"... by V. I. Lenin.
:)

And because the conflict between the tsar and the bourgeois he was able to do so, but in most countries now the bourgeois will stand together against the communists.

Please read:
"Open-Letter to Comrade Lenin" -Herman Gorter

http://www.marxists.org/archive/gorter/1920/open-letter/index.htm
He might not be the best political writter but he does have good points.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Parliamentary participation, I believe, is something of a recent (post-cold war) addition to Marxist theory.

I'm not the most detailed or philosophical of theoreticians, but my opinion is that in countries like the UK, where I live, parliamentary participation is a viable way of moving the agenda towards Socialism. I am not saying that Socialism, or revolution, can be brought about by participating in a bourgeois parliament, but we can get to a situation where the profile (and thus working class understanding of Socialism) of our movement is raised to an extent that we can educate, agitate and raise the class consciousness of the working class. We saw this throughout what is known as the 'post-war consensus' period in the UK, whereby Social Democracy of sorts was the accepted form of government, and where genuine Socialists were having a definite impact on the political process.

The problem that we faced during that period, and that is even more problematic now, is that it was a Social Democracy (well, that's a problem for a start, but i'll continue) from above. It was mainly led by moderate Conservatives, and right-wing Labour members such as Attlee and Callaghan. Even moderate Labour figures such as Michael Foot, no more than a dedicated and honest left-Social Democrat, was cast as some sort of Marxist.

The challenge, therefore, is to build a grass-roots movement. This is what we did not do in the post-war period in this country. Thus, the initiation of reforms was left to those from above, and this meant that class consciousness, although raised (as you can see from the increasingly militant and powerful TUs and Militant Tendencies exploits, as well as the near capture of the Labour Party by the Bennites), was never sponsored in Parliament.

I support, in the circumstances of the UK only (I do not have extensive enough political knowledge to comment on many other countries), participation in parliament - as well as extra-mural activities that must be the bread and butter of Socialist activism, such as building grass-roots movements, educating the working class and of course agitating and protesting in the strongest vain for single issues (Stop The War) and generally (G20 protests) against Capitalism - because it provides us with the platform that we need to raise class consciousness, bring Socialism or at least Social Democracy onto the agenda, so that slowly by slowly (preferably as quick as possibly, but the unique socio-political history of this country suggests that idealism of this sort is misplaced) we can lay the groundwork for revolution.

In short, we saw in the period 1945-79 in this country that, by adopting parliamentary participation as one of a number of our tactics, we can make veritable gains, However, what we need to do is to make sure that any movement in Parliament is dominated by revolutionaries and Democratic Socialists (we should be handing parliamentary tasks to those in the mindset of Tony Benn and Jeremy Corbyn, not Hugh Gaitskell or Jim Callaghan), rather than Capitalism-defending Labour right-Social Democrats. We also need to make sure that we have educated - and have the support of - millions of ordinary working class people, so as to be able to force an initial agenda through Parliament until we are ready to enact Socialist revolution.

This is why I support parliamentary participation as a tactic in the overall strategy of achieving Socialism in my country. Obviously in countries with more militant TUs and a more active working class, such as France, this might not be such a valid tactic, but anyone that understands the peculiar socio-economic history of the UK will understand that it is ridiculously idealistic and utopian to wave around a placard demanding that we all rise up now and destroy the bourgeois institutions so that we can wake up to red flags and a classless society tomorrow.