A pan-European communist party?

[Marxach-Léinínach]

What do people make of the idea of one united Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party for all of Europe?

[Blackscare]

This is basically the idea behind internationals, except more regional, considering that you'd still have to have individual chapters for every county.

[RGacky3]

terrible idea, because Marxist-Leninint-Maoism is a terrible idea with terrible premisis and no one would pay the slightest attention to them in Europe except for old folks in eastern europe missing the old days.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What do people make of the idea of one united Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party for all of Europe?

Um, long overdue perhaps? The CPGB-PCC has been calling for a CPEU since the 1990s.

[ComradeMan]

Needs to be bottom-up and localised, more of a network than one over-arching party I think.

Drop the Leninist Maoist, just Communist is fine.

[Bud Struggle]

Kind of like what your thoughts are about dancing around a Maypole.

[Fabrizio]

If they couldn't get it together in their prime years when Mao was alive and runnin tings, why would it happen now?

[Devrim]

What do people make of the idea of one united Marxist-Leninist-Maoist party for all of Europe?

What is Europe?

Devrim

[Widerstand]

Sounds pretty sectarian.

[Palingenisis]

There is a pan-Balkan anti-Revisionist Communist Party being built....You should contact Bandito about it.

Also Devrim is right...Would it include Russia and/or Turkey for instance?

Its not easy to know where Europe ends.

[Bright Banana Beard]

How about Communist Party of Eurasia?

[Palingenisis]

http://www.balkanconference.net/english/index.html

These guys are worth checking out.

[Devrim]

http://www.balkanconference.net/english/index.html

These guys are worth checking out.

Why?

Devrim

[Pretty Flaco]

There needs to be more international connectivity and unity.

Making it only Europe and only Marxist-Leninist-Maoist is probably one of the most specific parties that could be made.

[Marxach-Léinínach]

There is a pan-Balkan anti-Revisionist Communist Party being built....You should contact Bandito about it.

Also Devrim is right...Would it include Russia and/or Turkey for instance?

Its not easy to know where Europe ends.

Well it could just be Europe and stretch from Portugal, Ireland etc. to Belarus, Ukraine etc., or it could be a Eurasian party like Gran Rojo said and include Russia, Turkey etc.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What is Europe?

Interesting question. In terms of politics I'm in favour of a wide definition (Pan-Europe), which would include north African countries and other areas bordering the Mediterranean as well as Greenland, which geoscience will tell you is actually part of North America; but it's actually a good idea for a supra-national political union to have access to a diverse array of geological resources.

[ComradeMan]

The comments above also go to show why one over-arching party wouldn't work in the current world.

[The Idler]

Will you follow decisions made by a party based in another country?

[#FF0000]

Will you follow decisions made by a party based in another country?

I think decisions in organizations like this are made by a delegation of representatives from all member organizations.

[#FF0000]

The comments above also go to show why one over-arching party wouldn't work in the current world.

Why wouldn't it work? it's just some challenges to work out. To be honest I don't think anybody would be up in arms if a Turkish party wanted to join or something.

And it's better than a bunch of isolated national parties which wouldn't work ever.

[ComradeMan]

Why wouldn't it work? it's just some challenges to work out. To be honest I don't think anybody would be up in arms if a Turkish party wanted to join or something.

And it's better than a bunch of isolated national parties which wouldn't work ever.

It wouldn't work because it would be the communist version of the EU.

And that just works wonderfully doesn't it.....?

There are too many differences over a vast area.

What language would they use?

Where would be their HQ?

Would people from Norway be able to relate to the problems of the people of Sicily and so on...

No, I just don't think it would work that way. It would become top-down and bureaucratic.

[#FF0000]

What language would they use?

Something to work out I guess.


Where would be their HQ?

Something else that can be decided on.


Would people from Norway be able to relate to the problems of the people of Sicily and so on...

Uh, yes because all worker's struggle for essentially the same thing. Are you saying we should abandon internationalism?

And why in the world would it have to be top-down and bureaucratic?

[Devrim]

Will you follow decisions made by a party based in another country?

The ICC is an international organisation. It has members in 16 countries. We don't follow the decisions of a 'party' in another country, but decide on things collectively.

Devrim

[#FF0000]

I think it is really concerning that self-described leftists take issue with forming international organizations...

[ComradeMan]

I think it is really concerning that self-described leftists take issue with forming international organizations...

I think it's more concerning that self described Best Mods can't come up with answers better than "they'll work something out". The idea of one monolithic overarching Pan European Communist Party would be, in my opinion, full of the difficulties I outlined.

This is not an attack on internationalism, but like I said, I'd prefer a network of bottom-up organisations- Euro-Zapatistas if you like.

[#FF0000]

I think it's more concerning that self described Best Mods can't come up with answers better than "they'll work something out". The idea of one monolithic overarching Pan European Communist Party would be, in my opinion, full of the difficulties I outlined.

This is not an attack on internationalism, but like I said, I'd prefer a network of bottom-up organisations- Euro-Zapatistas if you like.

It's not as if international organizations don't exist already and have hella simple solutions for these things.

HQ? Don't need one. Each branch has it's own HQ wherever they are and when they meet up they find a convention center or whatever.

Language? Each branch uses it's native languages within the organization, and they translate everything for the other branches and release everything they do in multiple languages.

Differences in situation between countries? Workers in every country are facing a different set of circumstances. That goes without saying and it's not something anyone ignores. But it's not like international organizations call the shots and tell the branches and the workers in them exactly what to do and exactly how to fight their battles.

I mean just look at any international organization right now. Look at any federation right now. Look at any party or organization that has branches in more than one location in a single country, let alone internationally. The things you brought up are things all organizations might have to deal with. The only different between local, national, and international is scale.

[ComradeMan]

It's not as if international organizations don't exist already and have hella simple solutions for these things..

Like what?


HQ? Don't need one. Each branch has it's own HQ wherever they are and when they meet up they find a convention center or whatever.

Not co-ordinated, has little revolutionary value.


Language? Each branch uses it's native languages within the organization, and they translate everything for the other branches and release everything they do in multiple languages.

Things get lost in translation- especially if urgent communication is needed it could be a problem.


Differences in situation between countries? Workers in every country are facing a different set of circumstances. That goes without saying and it's not something anyone ignores. But it's not like international organizations call the shots and tell the branches and the workers in them exactly what to do and exactly how to fight their battles.

You see that last point is exactly what I think would happen, just like Moscow and Beijing calling the shots in the past.


I mean just look at any international organization right now. Look at any federation right now. Look at any party or organization that has branches in more than one location in a single country, let alone internationally. The things you brought up are things all organizations might have to deal with. The only different between local, national, and international is scale.

Perhaps it's just the anarchist baggage I have.

I just don't think it would work to be honest, nor do I see it as being necessary given what already exists.

[#FF0000]

Not co-ordinated, has little revolutionary value.

What? Why not? Why does an international organization need to have a physical address for a central Headquarters?


Things get lost in translation- especially if urgent communication is needed it could be a problem.

English is widely spoken, then? Honestly this doesn't have to be an issue and I don't think it is one in most organizations.


You see that last point is exactly what I think would happen, just like Moscow and Beijing calling the shots in the past.

Except that isn't what we're advocating whatsoever.


Perhaps it's just the anarchist baggage I have.

Uh, anarchists are not by any means opposed to international organization. It's your own lack of imagination that's making you say "Oh, there's a bump in this plan. It is clearly unworkable".

[#FF0000]

I mean there are a ton of international organizations that aren't "top down bureuacracies" and operate pretty well. The First International? The International Communist Current?

[ComradeMan]

What? Why not? Why does an international organization need to have a physical address for a central Headquarters?

Strawman- you need an operational nerve centre.



English is widely spoken, then? Honestly this doesn't have to be an issue and I don't think it is one in most organizations.

More anglocentric cultural imperialism I see.


Except that isn't what we're advocating whatsoever.

I'm not saying anyone is advocating that but that's where I think it would inevitably lead.


Uh, anarchists are not by any means opposed to international organization. It's your own lack of imagination that's making you say "Oh, there's a bump in this plan. It is clearly unworkable".

No, that's why they have more organisations that you can count and never seem to get organised! :lol: It was not in all seriousness either. It's not my lack of imagination, I am not obliged to like someone's idea if I think it's a bad idea- stop being the thought police here, okay? I think the idea sucks- deal with it.

Euro-Zapatistas!!!

[Bud Struggle]

It wouldn't work because it would be the communist version of the EU.

And that just works wonderfully doesn't it.....?

There are too many differences over a vast area.

What language would they use?

Where would be their HQ?

Would people from Norway be able to relate to the problems of the people of Sicily and so on...

No, I just don't think it would work that way. It would become top-down and bureaucratic.

It sounds like it would be the Soviet Union part deux.

[#FF0000]

Strawman- you need an operational nerve centre.

No you don't. What was the First International's headquarters? The ICC doesn't have a headquarters. I don't think any mainstream international political organizations don't usually have physical, permanent headquarters. NEFAC doesn't have a headquarters.

Be honest, are you actually affiliated with any sort of party or organization?


More anglocentric cultural imperialism I see.

Wait wait wait, so suggesting that everyone just work it out with their own language and translate communications between them, which is already done wherever people need to work with others who speak a different language is, for some reason, unworkable, but then using a language that literally taught as a second language from the first years of primary school in all of Western Europe is cultural imperialism and is a no-go?

Who cares. Everyone learn French then or something.


I'm not saying anyone is advocating that but that's where I think it would inevitably lead.

The International Workingmen's Association ended up being just like the Warsaw Pact? The ICC is headed that direction too?


No, that's why they have more organisations that you can count and never seem to get organised!

Meanwhile you're advocating that they forgo any attempt at organizing outside of their national borders.


I think the idea sucks- deal with it.

But it's a thoroughly uninformed opinion.

[#FF0000]

It sounds like it would be the Soviet Union part deux.

You realize there were and are other international organizations that aren't at all like the USSR/Warsaw pact, right? As in, they're set up in a completely different manner and all that?

Like seriously point out the similarities between the Northeastern Federation of Anarchist Communists and the Warsaw Pact.

[#FF0000]

I keep saying warsaw pact for some reason. I think I mean Comintern but w/e

[ComradeMan]

No you don't. What was the First International's headquarters? The ICC doesn't have a headquarters. I don't think any mainstream international political organizations don't usually have physical, permanent headquarters. NEFAC doesn't have a headquarters.

Great success those Internationals weren't they? Just disintegrating into sectarianism between Marx and Bakunin. I am sure the ICC would welcome Maoists, Trots and Stalinoids too... :lol:

The comparison with NEFAC is just stupid to be honest, they are anarchists based largely in N.America, they have affiliation but they are not part of one over-arching party, which was being proposed here. Nor do they seem to be interested in creating a global NEFAC which would be a contradiction in terms.

Anyway, seeing as the ICC functions perfectly well as it is, why would there be a need for the PanEuropean Communist Party anyway?



Be honest, are you actually affiliated with any sort of party or organization?

My business not yours.


Wait wait wait, so suggesting that everyone just work it out with their own language and translate communications between them, which is already done wherever people need to work with others who speak a different language is, for some reason, unworkable, but then using a language that literally taught as a second language from the first years of primary school in all of Western Europe is cultural imperialism and is a no-go?

It isn't taught as a second language from the first years of primary school in all of Western Europe, and only recently has that developed. You've alread hit another problem on the head, Western Europe. Comparing what countries and companies do with what a revolutionary over-arching Pan-European Communist party would be is not relevant. Also, where would you define Europe as beginning and ending- why not go for a World Party which would be truly internationalist? Oh, that might not work because the pesky Maoists would fuck things up for people like you!


Who cares. Everyone learn French then or something.

A lot of people care. When languages are dying out all over the place everyone must just suddenly learn a new language. Completely impractical.


The International Workingmen's Association ended up being just like the Warsaw Pact? The ICC is headed that direction too?

But, but, they weren't overarching PanEuropean Communist Parties, as was being proposed here.


Meanwhile you're advocating that they forgo any attempt at organizing outside of their national borders.

No- I didn't say that, I said a bottom-up network. Derposaurus.


But it's a thoroughly uninformed opinion.

It's a personal preference and view to begin with. Secondly, when the best you can come up with is things like "everyone can learn French then", and "they'll work it out"- it doesn't sound like much of an informed opinion.

Think about it, one over-arching party would have to agree on a manifesto, would have an elected chairperson and then would need a base and so on.

You are completely divorced from reality.

Comintern - Warsaw Pact... LOL!!!

[#FF0000]

Great success those Internationals weren't they?Just disintegrating into sectarianism between Marx and Bakunin.

So we shouldn't ever bother with international organizing, then? Because you don't like how Marx and Bakunin had a falling out? And because of that, it's better to have isolated parties work alone within their individual countries? Really?


The comparison with NEFAC is just stupid to be honest, they are anarchists based largely in N.America, they have affiliation but they are not part of one over-arching party, which was being proposed here. Nor do they seem to be interested in creating a global NEFAC which would be a contradiction in terms.

1)What is the different between an international party and an "international organization"
2) Compare the Comintern to any international organization you like then
3) NEFAC is strictly a Platformist organization.


It isn't taught as a second language from the first years of primary school in all of Western Europe, and only recently has that developed.

Okay. You know my first suggestion was not "Use English", right? You dismissed the idea of, er, translating anything, and then got offended when I said "well English is pretty widely spoken. Whatever".


You've alread hit another problem on the head, Western Europe. Comparing what countries and companies do with what a revolutionary over-arching Pan-European Communist party would be is not relevant. Also, where would you define Europe as beginning and ending- why not go for a World Party which would be truly internationalist?

I'm not opposed to that.


Oh, that might not work because the pesky Maoists would fuck things up for people like you!

1) What
2) People like who
3) why maoists?


I am sure the ICC would welcome Maoists, Trots and Stalinoids too...

ICC is a Left-Communist organization.


Anyway, seeing as the ICC functions perfectly well as it is, why would there be a need for the PanEuropean Communist Party anyway?


It is a strictly left-communist organization.

[#FF0000]

It's a personal preference and view to begin with. Secondly, when the best you can come up with is things like "everyone can learn French then", and "they'll work it out"- it doesn't sound like much of an informed opinion.

Oh okay. I guess it's impossible to communicate with people who speak a different language then and any attempt is doomed to failure.


Think about it, one over-arching party would have to agree on a manifesto, would have an elected chairperson and then would need a base and so on.

Uhhhh the Internationals had lists of demands and made statements alllll the time. They sent out letters on behalf of the organization alllll the time. And chairpeople can just be... elected... by the chapters.

Seriously you act like international organization is some impossible feat when a million exist, communist and otherwise.

[#FF0000]

No- I didn't say that, I said a bottom-up network. Derposaurus.

Every

one

in

this

thread

is

saying

that.

You're the one who came in and said NO IT WILL BE TOP DOWN AND BUREUACRATIC

[ComradeMan]

NO IT WILL BE TOP DOWN AND BUREUACRATIC

no

you

are

really

the

only

one

doing

that---

no one

else

really

cares!

BTW- before you start trying to be a smart ass- learn the difference between Comintern and the Warsaw Pact.:lol:

Do political parties- I take it you know the difference between a PARTY and a federation, network, etc--- not tend to be bureaucratic and top down?

I know ICC is left communist, there you go... a PAN EUROPEAN COMMUNIST PARTY would not be very "PAN" would it? Which communists??? LOL!!!!!!

Derposaurus Rex.

[#FF0000]

BTW- before you start trying to be a smart ass- learn the difference between Comintern and the Warsaw Pact.

I, uh, corrected myself there, guy.


Do political parties- I take it you know the difference between a PARTY and a federation, network, etc--- not tend to be bureaucratic and top down?


I don't think they have to be, at least not in the manner you're describing where, for some reason, one country gets to call all the shots for some reason.

[#FF0000]

Either way, the big disagreement here is because people are using different definitions of "parties" and "organizations" or whatever. I saw "Pan-European Party" and thought of it as synonymous with "Pan-European organization", while you see a difference. Could you define the difference?

[ComradeMan]

Either way, the big disagreement here is because people are using different definitions of "parties" and "organizations" or whatever. I saw "Pan-European Party" and thought of it as synonymous with "Pan-European organization", while you see a difference. Could you define the difference?

I thought it would be pretty enthymemic on RevLeft, in a political discussion, that the word PARTY would not need to be defined.

Oops...

FAIL.
:thumbup:

[#FF0000]

I thought it would be pretty enthymemic on RevLeft, in a political discussion, that the word PARTY would not need to be defined.

I know you probably don't get out and talk to people much but it really isn't uncommon to ask people to define their terms when it seems like they're using a word differently than you are. It seems like you see political parties as bureaucratic and top-down in organization by default. I do not.

I wanted to see if there was a semantic issue here.

[Bud Struggle]

^^^FYI: You guys are pretty entertaining. :)^^^

[ComradeMan]

I know you probably don't get out and talk to people much but it really isn't uncommon to ask people to define their terms when it seems like they're using a word differently than you are. It seems like you see political parties as bureaucratic and top-down in organization by default. I do not.

I wanted to see if there was a semantic issue here.

There is no semantic issue. You are just trying to back out of an argument you fucked up in.

BTW- what about all the existing parties? In Italy we have three.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d4/Partito_dei_comunisti_italiani.png/150px-Partito_dei_comunisti_italiani.png (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Partito_dei_comunisti_italiani.png)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Pmlibanner.PNG (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Pmlibanner.PNG)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/22/Logo_Rifondazione_2006.png/150px-Logo_Rifondazione_2006.png (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/File:Logo_Rifondazione_2006.png)

[#FF0000]

There is no semantic issue. You are just trying to back out of an argument you fucked up in.

Uh, no I'm not. I'm thinking of an international party like the International Communist Current or something like that. It doesn't seem like you would consider that a party, for whatever reason, so I'm trying to get clarification.

[Devrim]

The question of language has come up prominently in this discussion. I will try to explain how it works in the ICC. As I said previously we have members in 16 countries and produce material in 19 different languages. A list of our sections and the languages we publish in is available here (http://world.internationalism.org/).

The internal bulletin of the ICC is available in three languages, English, French, and Spanish. Our biggest section is the French one followed by the Mexican. They are not all exactly the same, but the vast majority is. Sometimes of course a piece appears in one before another. Ideally we would like to have them all the same and in all the languages of our organisation, but translation is a lot of work and at the moment that is impossible. After that local sections translate articles from the internal bulletin for people members who can't speak one of those three languages.

The last world congress of the ICC, which is the supreme decision making body of the organisation has simultaneous translation (you wear a little headset when someone you can't understand is speaking) into the above languages plus German and Portuguese. In addition to this the speakers words appeared on a OHP (linked to a computer) in English translation as they spoke. Of course that doesn't cover everyone, but at the last World Congress, for example, delegates who were native Turkish speakers spoke either English or German.

It is far from perfect, but it is improving congress by congress. I believe the congress before last which I didn't attend had Korean as well as we had representatives there from two organisations we are in contact with in Korea. At the last one which I attended there people from Korea all spoke some English.

Of course to a certain extent in limits the choice of delegates from section that don't speak one of the languages above. This is unfortunate but at the moment unavoidable.

The International Bureau of the ICC, which meets more regularly between congresses runs on pretty similar lines. The delegate from the Turkish section (not myself, or Leo who also posts on here) speaks English.

Apart form this there are also the conference/annual meetings of the local sections. At these there are always at least some foreign delegates. Personally I have attended the conferences of two other sections, the French, and the Indian. The French congress was of course run in French with translations into English, Spanish, and German, while the Indian congress was run in English with translations into Hindi and Punjabi.

Devrim

[#FF0000]

^^^FYI: You guys are pretty entertaining. :)^^^

I don't think this is entertaining really. It's sort of annoying getting attacked for correcting myself and working out a semantic issue.

[Devrim]

Uh, no I'm not. I'm thinking of an international party like the International Communist Current or something like that. It doesn't seem like you would consider that a party, for whatever reason, so I'm trying to get clarification.

Neither do we actually. The ICC is for a world communist party, but we aren't arrogant or deluded enough to think that our tiny organisation is it.

Devrim

[#FF0000]

Then I'm having a really hard time thinking of an international political party!

[Devrim]

Then I'm having a really hard time thinking of an international political party! The only international groups I know are all "Associations" and this and that.

Historically the term party has had a particular meaning in communist circles. The platform of the ICC describes it like this:


e. The organisation of revolutionaries in the different moments of the class struggle
While the general organisation of the class and the organisation of revolutionaries are two different things as far as their function is concerned, as far as their function is concerned, the circumstances in which they arise are also different. The councils appear only in periods of revolutionary confrontation when all the struggles of the class tend towards the seizure of power. However the effort of the class to develop its consciousness has existed at all times since its origins and will exist until its dissolution into communist society. This is why communist minorities have existed in every period as an expression of this constant effort. But the scope, the influence, the type of activity, and the mode of organisation of these minorities are closely linked to the conditions of the class struggle.

In the periods of intense class activity, these minorities have a direct influence on the practical course of events. One can then speak of the party to describe the organisation of the communist vanguard. On the other hand, in periods of defeat or of downturn in the class struggle, revolutionaries no longer have a direct influence on the immediate course of history.

All that can exist at such times are organisations of a much smaller size whose function is no longer to influence the immediate movement, but to resist it, which means struggling against the current while the class is being disarmed and mobilised by the bourgeoisie (through class collaboration, ‘Sacred Union’, ‘the Resistance’, ‘anti-fascism’, etc). Their essential task then is to draw the lessons of previous experience and so prepare the theoretical and programmatic framework for the future proletarian party which must necessarily emerge in the next upsurge of the class. These groups and fractions who, when the class struggle is on the ebb, have detached themselves from the degenerating party or have survived its demise, have the task of constituting a political and organisational bridge until the re-emergence of the party.

To put it in very simple terms, the term party seems a bit pretensions for tiny organisations.

Devrim

[Bud Struggle]

In the USA there are 42 Communist "Parties." I imagine they go from a few thousand people to a a couple of guys with a webpage and a flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Communist_parties_in_the_United_States

[ComradeMan]

Uh, no I'm not. I'm thinking of an international party like the International Communist Current or something like that. It doesn't seem like you would consider that a party, for whatever reason, so I'm trying to get clarification.

The International Communist Current isn't a political party though is it champ?

It's an organisation. :thumbup:

PS-- Have a read of this interesting "open" letter I found at Libcom and the comments section too.

Open Letter to the International Communist Current (http://libcom.org/history/open-letter-international-communist-current)

[#FF0000]

The International Communist Current isn't a political party though is it champ?

Can you name an international political party, please, and tell me what the difference between a party and an organization is, in your mind?

[ComradeMan]

I, uh, corrected myself there, guy.

How does your medicine taste? LOL!!! Anyway, in politics you can't do that....

(Lighten up- I was teasing you....)


I don't think they have to be, at least not in the manner you're describing where, for some reason, one country gets to call all the shots for some reason.

Did or did not the OP call for a Marxist-Leninist-Maoists Pan European Communist Party? I couldn't think of anything futher from the ICC, your example, than that to be honest.

Big over-arching parties are inevitably going to be top-down and bureaucratic, on a European scale it would be vast.

What you are proposing is fine, except for one fatal flaw, it isn't a Pan European Communist Party.

We also have plenty of "traditional" Communist parties- how would they react to this proposal?

[#FF0000]

EDIT:

You know what, nevermind. I am pretty sure we agree here, somewhere but someone misunderstood or misspoke or whatever so yeah.



How does your medicine taste? LOL!!! Anyway, in politics you can't do that....

BITTER. THE MOST BITTER.

[ComradeMan]

Can you name an international political party, please, and tell me what the difference between a party and an organization is, in your mind?

The European People's Party (EPP) is a centre-right European political party. Founded in 1976, the EPP has 72 member-parties from 39 countries, 15 EU and 5 non-EU heads of state and government, 13 European Commissioners (including the President), the President of the European Council and the largest group in the European Parliament with 265 members.

Yippee--- let's adopt EU structures and become Christian Democrats....

:thumbup:

Ooh... the bureaucracy of Brussels, ooh... the enchantment of top-down hierarchies.