scarletghoul
7th October 2010, 15:45
This is just a sketch of some ideas I;ve been considering for a while now. Well, its really just one idea. The main emphasis is on a combination of mass line and intercommunalism. Please read and tell me what you think--
very rough Proposal for an Intercommunal Party
As the world is no longer clearly divided into nation-states, but rather a dispersed collection of communities, it makes sense to organise the masses for revolution along these intercommunal lines, rather than sticking to the old fashioned national party model.
MASS LINE
This would involve different approaches specific to different communities, based on a Mass Line approach of what the people want and need and what will help to strengthen/sustain them in preparation for revolution. For example we would campaign for self-determination for the Welsh and Irish communities, an end to the institutional media-driven racism against the Roma along with strenghtening of their communities starting with recognition of their right to exist, Black communities could be organised similar to the Panther style (but updated and adapted regionally or course), our demands for immigrant workers would include an end to below-minimum wage jobs (slave-like conditions in some cases) an end to racism and deportations and so on. These are just some examples of a few of the minority communities that exist in this territory (Britain) and ideas for how they could be mobilised towards liberating this territory.
Now obviously this Party would know no geographic 'national' bounds and would hopefully operate in communities around the world eventually, however I focus on Britain here because it would be the starting place and I know it better than any other country. Approaches would also be specific to the wider country-communities, such as Britain, which encompasses the smaller communities mentioned before. Our approach across Britain would involve the common demands for employment, good housing, an end to the robbery of the people by the bankers and politicians, and so on. On an even larger scale, such as the EU community which encompasses many country-communities, we would campaign and organise on the common needs and demands of the people living in European territory. On a world wide level we would co-ordinate efforts and organisation against imperial aggression and exploitation, for example supporting the resistance on the ground in Palestine while at the same time educating the people here in England on the struggle there and how they are connected. In this way we would tie together the mobilisation of all communities just as they are tied together in their oppression. Also, ethnic groups are dispersed all over the world now, some more than others, so if we were to become the respected vanguard of (for example) the Bangladeshi communities in England we would find credibility and potential to expand in Bangladesh itself.
Such a Mass Line approach is vital if we wish to have any effect and gain any presence among the people. We can not stray too far from the consciousness level of the masses or we will become alienated. That of course doesn't mean we should just follow them; our primary task at this point is to educate the people, both through theory and practice, in order to raise consciousness. Initial actions would have to gain the peoples' attention and expose ourselves as servants of the people. This would help establish the beginnings of a Mass Base, which we could then expand through community programs and institutions. If we have enough capital we could start factories which produce low price goods for the people (or revolutionary fashion, etc, on which I still need to write up). These factories would give employment to the community and could be owned by the workers themselves, providing a great educational course on what socialism means. That's just one idea out of many possible actions... Eventually we would gain a deep-rooted presence in the community and radicalise the people there.
On the issue of illegality, including violence; we should not do it unless it has mass support, which it currently almost everywhere does not. Doing so would not only alienate us from the masses but would also give the state excuse to kill us before we have a chance to establish ourselves. When we have established ourselves and have enough strength and support, there will come a time to 'go underground' and move directly to destroy the state, but that's a long way off if it will ever happen and not worth talking about at this point.
TERRITORY
This repeated across many communities in a geographic area would give us great strength and the opportunity to eventually seize that territory and establish it as a Liberated Zone. This would be impossible unless we weaken the 'national' government (eg, in London) and eventually take control of the whole country-territory (Britain) (as well as ultimately globally weakening the imperial US bourgeoisie and eventually expanding liberated territory throughout the world). But my main point is that if we establish ourselves in all or most of the communities in a geographic area we could more easily liberate that territory. The Panthers were never able to establish anything close to a liberated territory despite their mass support for several reasons, but not least because the urban Black communities where they operated were dispersed and surrounded by White communities whose people were largely not radicalised. A more potent example is the IRA's inability to liberate the 6 counties, despite having the support of the Catholic communities, because the counties were also home to Protestant communities who supported the UK. In other words, this Party should organise in every community possible.
Our goal is to liberate the world. But we must do it one bite at a time, focussing first on the most oppressed areas and then expanding.
OTHER COMRADES
We should work with others wherever it will help.
In many places there are very strong revolutionary organisations, and our branches in those places should work with/in those other organisations rather than trying to start something on their/our own which would both weaken our organisation and the revolution there. Such cases may not allow us to work the ideal way we like to (mass line etc) but they would strengthen our ties with those other organisations, ultimately helping unite the revolutionary movements of the world, allowing revolutionaries to assist each other globally.
In Britain there are only very small socialist organisations, but we should try and work with them in the common interest, as well as encourage them to work with each other. Perhaps an inter-party co-ordination organisation could be set up to establish where we have common ground and therefore where we can co-operate. As regards the Nationalists in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall (if they have any support that is. I'm not sure), we should work with them with the demand for self-determination for their communities, but at the same time try to educate and put forward our correct position.
Socialist countries, such as Cuba and Democratic Korea, constitute liberated territories and we should support them and establish ties with them. However, their bureaucratic style of government and revisionism means these territories can only stay liberated for so long, and unless they are put onto the correct course they will one day be swallowed by the tides of reactionary intercommunalism. In order to prevent this we should do our best to liberate much additional territory and take control of the means of production, thereby weakening the global bourgeoisie and reducing their strength, and eventually eliminating the global capitalist class alltogether. (a lot of people will disagree with me labelling these places as liberated zones but ah well, that's really a minor issue imho).
PARTY STRUCTURE
This Party would work on a few overlapping levels-
1. Cadres at the basic community level, working with the people, setting up the Party's programs, taking account of the peoples' needs, and so on.
2. Regional levels which would oversee the co-ordination between the cadres working at the basic community level, provide a link between the basic level and the Party center (both carrying grassroots level information and decisions to the center, and carrying the decisions, comments and experiences of the center to the basic level).
3. Non-regioinal Party organisations for specific dispersed religious or ethnic groups (Sikhs, Blacks, Roma, Jews, etc) co-ordinating our work in those communities which are linked non-geographically. This would be the same level as the regional one and would play a similar role.
4. Country level sections which are like the regional ones but wider and focussed more on fighting the 'national' governments. For example co-ordinating our campaign against the British state.
5. Central/global level. This would be the top part of the organsation responsable for the most important decisions and so on, but held accountable to the grass-roots cadres.
The Party would work with democratic centralism. All actions and policies would be debated openly by anyone in the Party who wants to, but once a decision is made it must be carried out by all. I haven't thought a lot about this side of things as it's quite boring, but perhaps regional and ethnic level groups could be elected and they would then elect people to the central level. As we become more rooted into the communities and more important to the people, the people themselves will be given power over certain institutions rather than the Party directly. But thats a long way off.
When we liberate territory, as much as possible will be under direct control of the people and their organisations, with the Party fully democratically accountable and serving only a 'guiding role' for most of the territory. Things that have to be under centralised command will be under Party control, but most of life will not. People will be armed with workers' militia being set up everywhere (this can start before the territory is liberated, in places like the US where gun laws are good). In short the masses, who would be mostly radicalised by the time we are able to liberate a territory, will have the ultimate power. But the Party will still exist for purposes of co-ordination, strength, large-scale campaigns etc.. Again I havent thought a lot about this.
BLABLBALBLABLBLABLABLBABLABLA
So there you go that's a brief sketch of the idea i have.. it probably won't be started any time soon if at all, because there are no other comrades where I live. The purpose of this is to just share these ideas, to look for criticism, see how popular they are and all that. I'm not gonna be one of them who starts their own party alone and useless. But yeah,, please respond with what you htink. this isnt supposed to be fuckin complete manifesto or whatever, just the basic starting point for what i think is the approach we should have
very rough Proposal for an Intercommunal Party
As the world is no longer clearly divided into nation-states, but rather a dispersed collection of communities, it makes sense to organise the masses for revolution along these intercommunal lines, rather than sticking to the old fashioned national party model.
MASS LINE
This would involve different approaches specific to different communities, based on a Mass Line approach of what the people want and need and what will help to strengthen/sustain them in preparation for revolution. For example we would campaign for self-determination for the Welsh and Irish communities, an end to the institutional media-driven racism against the Roma along with strenghtening of their communities starting with recognition of their right to exist, Black communities could be organised similar to the Panther style (but updated and adapted regionally or course), our demands for immigrant workers would include an end to below-minimum wage jobs (slave-like conditions in some cases) an end to racism and deportations and so on. These are just some examples of a few of the minority communities that exist in this territory (Britain) and ideas for how they could be mobilised towards liberating this territory.
Now obviously this Party would know no geographic 'national' bounds and would hopefully operate in communities around the world eventually, however I focus on Britain here because it would be the starting place and I know it better than any other country. Approaches would also be specific to the wider country-communities, such as Britain, which encompasses the smaller communities mentioned before. Our approach across Britain would involve the common demands for employment, good housing, an end to the robbery of the people by the bankers and politicians, and so on. On an even larger scale, such as the EU community which encompasses many country-communities, we would campaign and organise on the common needs and demands of the people living in European territory. On a world wide level we would co-ordinate efforts and organisation against imperial aggression and exploitation, for example supporting the resistance on the ground in Palestine while at the same time educating the people here in England on the struggle there and how they are connected. In this way we would tie together the mobilisation of all communities just as they are tied together in their oppression. Also, ethnic groups are dispersed all over the world now, some more than others, so if we were to become the respected vanguard of (for example) the Bangladeshi communities in England we would find credibility and potential to expand in Bangladesh itself.
Such a Mass Line approach is vital if we wish to have any effect and gain any presence among the people. We can not stray too far from the consciousness level of the masses or we will become alienated. That of course doesn't mean we should just follow them; our primary task at this point is to educate the people, both through theory and practice, in order to raise consciousness. Initial actions would have to gain the peoples' attention and expose ourselves as servants of the people. This would help establish the beginnings of a Mass Base, which we could then expand through community programs and institutions. If we have enough capital we could start factories which produce low price goods for the people (or revolutionary fashion, etc, on which I still need to write up). These factories would give employment to the community and could be owned by the workers themselves, providing a great educational course on what socialism means. That's just one idea out of many possible actions... Eventually we would gain a deep-rooted presence in the community and radicalise the people there.
On the issue of illegality, including violence; we should not do it unless it has mass support, which it currently almost everywhere does not. Doing so would not only alienate us from the masses but would also give the state excuse to kill us before we have a chance to establish ourselves. When we have established ourselves and have enough strength and support, there will come a time to 'go underground' and move directly to destroy the state, but that's a long way off if it will ever happen and not worth talking about at this point.
TERRITORY
This repeated across many communities in a geographic area would give us great strength and the opportunity to eventually seize that territory and establish it as a Liberated Zone. This would be impossible unless we weaken the 'national' government (eg, in London) and eventually take control of the whole country-territory (Britain) (as well as ultimately globally weakening the imperial US bourgeoisie and eventually expanding liberated territory throughout the world). But my main point is that if we establish ourselves in all or most of the communities in a geographic area we could more easily liberate that territory. The Panthers were never able to establish anything close to a liberated territory despite their mass support for several reasons, but not least because the urban Black communities where they operated were dispersed and surrounded by White communities whose people were largely not radicalised. A more potent example is the IRA's inability to liberate the 6 counties, despite having the support of the Catholic communities, because the counties were also home to Protestant communities who supported the UK. In other words, this Party should organise in every community possible.
Our goal is to liberate the world. But we must do it one bite at a time, focussing first on the most oppressed areas and then expanding.
OTHER COMRADES
We should work with others wherever it will help.
In many places there are very strong revolutionary organisations, and our branches in those places should work with/in those other organisations rather than trying to start something on their/our own which would both weaken our organisation and the revolution there. Such cases may not allow us to work the ideal way we like to (mass line etc) but they would strengthen our ties with those other organisations, ultimately helping unite the revolutionary movements of the world, allowing revolutionaries to assist each other globally.
In Britain there are only very small socialist organisations, but we should try and work with them in the common interest, as well as encourage them to work with each other. Perhaps an inter-party co-ordination organisation could be set up to establish where we have common ground and therefore where we can co-operate. As regards the Nationalists in Ireland, Wales, Scotland, and Cornwall (if they have any support that is. I'm not sure), we should work with them with the demand for self-determination for their communities, but at the same time try to educate and put forward our correct position.
Socialist countries, such as Cuba and Democratic Korea, constitute liberated territories and we should support them and establish ties with them. However, their bureaucratic style of government and revisionism means these territories can only stay liberated for so long, and unless they are put onto the correct course they will one day be swallowed by the tides of reactionary intercommunalism. In order to prevent this we should do our best to liberate much additional territory and take control of the means of production, thereby weakening the global bourgeoisie and reducing their strength, and eventually eliminating the global capitalist class alltogether. (a lot of people will disagree with me labelling these places as liberated zones but ah well, that's really a minor issue imho).
PARTY STRUCTURE
This Party would work on a few overlapping levels-
1. Cadres at the basic community level, working with the people, setting up the Party's programs, taking account of the peoples' needs, and so on.
2. Regional levels which would oversee the co-ordination between the cadres working at the basic community level, provide a link between the basic level and the Party center (both carrying grassroots level information and decisions to the center, and carrying the decisions, comments and experiences of the center to the basic level).
3. Non-regioinal Party organisations for specific dispersed religious or ethnic groups (Sikhs, Blacks, Roma, Jews, etc) co-ordinating our work in those communities which are linked non-geographically. This would be the same level as the regional one and would play a similar role.
4. Country level sections which are like the regional ones but wider and focussed more on fighting the 'national' governments. For example co-ordinating our campaign against the British state.
5. Central/global level. This would be the top part of the organsation responsable for the most important decisions and so on, but held accountable to the grass-roots cadres.
The Party would work with democratic centralism. All actions and policies would be debated openly by anyone in the Party who wants to, but once a decision is made it must be carried out by all. I haven't thought a lot about this side of things as it's quite boring, but perhaps regional and ethnic level groups could be elected and they would then elect people to the central level. As we become more rooted into the communities and more important to the people, the people themselves will be given power over certain institutions rather than the Party directly. But thats a long way off.
When we liberate territory, as much as possible will be under direct control of the people and their organisations, with the Party fully democratically accountable and serving only a 'guiding role' for most of the territory. Things that have to be under centralised command will be under Party control, but most of life will not. People will be armed with workers' militia being set up everywhere (this can start before the territory is liberated, in places like the US where gun laws are good). In short the masses, who would be mostly radicalised by the time we are able to liberate a territory, will have the ultimate power. But the Party will still exist for purposes of co-ordination, strength, large-scale campaigns etc.. Again I havent thought a lot about this.
BLABLBALBLABLBLABLABLBABLABLA
So there you go that's a brief sketch of the idea i have.. it probably won't be started any time soon if at all, because there are no other comrades where I live. The purpose of this is to just share these ideas, to look for criticism, see how popular they are and all that. I'm not gonna be one of them who starts their own party alone and useless. But yeah,, please respond with what you htink. this isnt supposed to be fuckin complete manifesto or whatever, just the basic starting point for what i think is the approach we should have