Democratic Socialism

[Victus Mortuum]

By this, I of course mean those who wish to use parliamentary/congressional measures to bring about 'socialist' things (and who don't call for the smashing of the bourgeois state).

How should we address these individuals when we encounter them? I think I've found they are the most difficult to talk with, because they agree with the basic concepts within socialism - they just aren't revolutionary. What are your experiences and ways of discussing stuff with these individuals?

[Queercommie Girl]

By this, I of course mean those who wish to use parliamentary/congressional measures to bring about 'socialist' things (and who don't call for the smashing of the bourgeois state).

How should we address these individuals when we encounter them? I think I've found they are the most difficult to talk with, because they agree with the basic concepts within socialism - they just aren't revolutionary. What are your experiences and ways of discussing stuff with these individuals?

Actually it isn't either-or. It is possible to assume a semi-revolutionary semi-reformist stance in some situations.

"legal when possible, illegal when necessary; peaceful when possible, violent when necessary; parliamentary activism when possible, smash the state when necessary"

In Europe especially, many socialist theorists have taken an ideological stance that is literally in-between Leninism and left-wing Social Democracy. For instance, Ralph Miliband in Britain.

I think Ralph Miliband's idea is that Leninism and (left-wing) Social Democracy are fundamentally two different paths to the same goal, which one is better is conditional and not absolute, and depends on the situation.

Interestingly, some right-leaning Maoists from China have expressed similar views.

One of my good personal friends in the Chinese branch of the CWI (the CWI comrades here might know who he is) once told me that he believes that any sincere and continuous reformist effort within capitalism will inevitably result in a revolution ultimately. I think he believes that there is a "dialectical interaction" between (genuine) reform and revolution.

[graymouser]

By this, I of course mean those who wish to use parliamentary/congressional measures to bring about 'socialist' things (and who don't call for the smashing of the bourgeois state).

How should we address these individuals when we encounter them? I think I've found they are the most difficult to talk with, because they agree with the basic concepts within socialism - they just aren't revolutionary. What are your experiences and ways of discussing stuff with these individuals?
I've spent a good amount of time debating with social democrats, and honestly it tends to generate more heat than light.

Generally social democrats will say that they sympathize with your viewpoints but think it's utopian or undemocratic to achieve it by revolution. I would honestly put it the other way around: it's utopian to think that we can get to socialism by the ballot box. For me, the experiment that was Allende's Chile is perhaps the best proof: Allende tried to go through all the "right" democratic channels, but because he didn't smash the Chilean state, he and a lot of leftists who supported him got murdered by Pinochet.

Every social democratic government that didn't meet with Allende's fate had already made a private peace with capitalism to go so far and no farther. If it doesn't, without a full revolution the best we can expect is the Allende experience. The worst would be something like in Jack London's novel The Iron Heel, where the election of a socialist government is refused by the state and leads to something more like fascism.

[Queercommie Girl]

Every social democratic government that didn't meet with Allende's fate had already made a private peace with capitalism to go so far and no farther.


In this I agree with you. I think there aren't really many genuine social democrats in the world anymore. The majority have surrendered to neoliberalism, either due to greed, or due to fear.

By the way, just out of interest, I know you are a Trotskyist too, so I'd like to know your personal views on the CWI and their operational strategies in advanced capitalist countries.

I'm not a formal Trotskyist but I'm Trotskyism-leaning, and the CWI is one of my favourite Trotskyist organisations. (Despite some major disagreements, e.g. over Maoism and over Tibet) I personally know many people in this organisation.

I've heard that many Trotskyists criticise the CWI for being too close to the Labour Party in the past, and their particular variant of entryism was "too deep". What do you think?

[Queercommie Girl]

The worst would be something like in Jack London's novel The Iron Heel, where the election of a socialist government is refused by the state and leads to something more like fascism.


Political power comes from the barrel of a gun. --- Mao Zedong

[Ocean Seal]

Reformism does have its place in the left. The bourgeois state doesn't smash itself. Social Democracy offers several contributions. It makes businesses more accountable, it gives the workers more lay time to contemplate the struggle, it gives them a higher standard of living (and the desire to expect more), it gives them education/healthcare, and at the same time social democracy is also very inefficient, and weakens the state economically. Its capitalism on life support, and it becomes more easy to destroy the capitalist state when it is weak.

However, social democracy can also be seen as negative, as some may see it as a pacifying agent for workers in first world countries from the labor of third world workers, and secondly, the welfare aspects of social democracy strongly divide the workers, turning some towards fascism, and anarcho-capitalism.

So social democracy has its up's and down's but regardless, it can never replace the revolution.

[B5C]

Well for me I don't believe in worker utopias or any type of utopia. Also we can not have a fast change into Socialism or even Communism. Why not take a gradual step and slowly change into full socialism or communism. States who convert to Socialism by revolution will tend to revert back into a semi-capitalist state.

[graymouser]

In this I agree with you. I think there aren't really many genuine social democrats in the world anymore. The majority have surrendered to neoliberalism, either due to greed, or due to fear.

By the way, just out of interest, I know you are a Trotskyist too, so I'd like to know your personal views on the CWI and their operational strategies in advanced capitalist countries.

I'm not a formal Trotskyist but I'm Trotskyism-leaning, and the CWI is one of my favourite Trotskyist organisations. (Despite some major disagreements, e.g. over Maoism and over Tibet) I personally know many people in this organisation.

I've heard that many Trotskyists criticise the CWI for being too close to the Labour Party in the past, and their particular variant of entryism was "too deep". What do you think?
Well, I'm not close to the CWI - I was at one point in the past, but their politics on the whole don't line up well with my own.

Part of it is that they don't have a good approach to the national question. This is linked to their approach in Northern Ireland, which was to oppose the struggle for a 32-county republic and instead preach about things like unity between Protestant and Catholic workers and a "Socialist Federation of the British Isles." This echoes in their lack of an appreciation of the importance of the Black and Latino questions in the United States, and for the fantasy of a "socialist" two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. I do think this is related to how deeply they entered Labour. And also - they took a very bad stance on the war in the Falklands/Malvinas, refusing to oppose "their own" imperialists. Plus, they have a terrible line on cops, considering the police to be a legitimate part of the workers' movement. For me all of those are pretty significant problems with both the CWI and the IMT today.

As for the line of old Militant, well, it sure as hell wasn't the Trotskyist conception of entryism. I see Grant's view that the masses always move through their "traditional mass parties" to be deeply one-sided. The projection of an "enabling law" that a Labour government could have used to nationalize the major monopolies was opportunist, and the overall orientation to Labour was the projection of a strategy as a tactic. If you look at it objectively, they recruited a lot of members in the '80s but lost the large majority in the '90s - clearly their method didn't consolidate members well. Labour was obviously a good place to be in the '80s - people hated Thatcher after all - but they couldn't keep it up.

Then the CWI took too hard of a turn on ending entryism. Instead of drawing a level-headed balance sheet on their time in Labour, they made it a generalized statement that all bourgeois workers' parties everywhere were done for, and they had to orient towards new formations. Neither this nor Grant's position (still held by the IMT) is correct; one or the other may be true depending on the specific circumstances of a country, or in fact electoral politics may be pretty much a dead end, as in the US. So all the sections made a volte-face, instead of making solid tactical decisions they all went off and switched their strategies on a dime. In the US the section, Socialist Alternative, has aggressively pursued Ralph Nader and the Green Party rather than endorsing socialist propaganda campaigns - basically accepting a middle-class party as an instrument for building a new labor party.

Finally, I'm not a fan of how the SPEW runs the CWI. Sections tend to be heavily managed by London, rather than independently determining their own course. I have a comrade who was in the group twice, briefly, despite some differences he had (over Cuba, Palestine and the Black question). He was assured by the people in Socialist Alternative close to him that he was welcome even with those differences, but the people on the other side of the factional divide saw it differently. It wound up with a letter from Peter Taaffe basically saying he shouldn't have joined if he had such big differences, and he left rather than change to fit the group. So suffice it to say I do not have any particular warm feelings for the CWI.

[#FF0000]

Well for me I don't believe in worker utopias or any type of utopia. Also we can not have a fast change into Socialism or even Communism. Why not take a gradual step and slowly change into full socialism or communism.

Because you can't gradually step into a new mode of production.


States who convert to Socialism by revolution will tend to revert back into a semi-capitalist state.

But by definition the change from Capitalism to Socialism is a revolution. :mellow:

[B5C]

But by definition the change from Capitalism to Socialism is a revolution. :mellow:

Yeah an revolution, but what I was talking about is an armed struggle or peaceful type of revolution. IE Russian, China, or even the Egyptian revolution.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

What about Latin American "21st century socialism"? They claim to be Socialist Democrats, and by their actions (free elections, "economic revolution", but a progressive strategy) it seems that this might be the case.

Or are they just bourgeoise anti-imperialists?

Anyway, I think democratic socialism is an appealing strategy, but i do think some other system is ideal.

[#FF0000]

Yeah an revolution, but not an armed struggle type of revolution.

Well, you realize that the upper class-- the people who enjoy the privilege of power--won't just give up power peacefully, right?

EDIT: I mean, obviously I'm not saying that the ends absolutely justify the means, but where violence can be used and is useful, it's frankly foolish to not use it.

[Paulappaul]

Democracy acknowledges the existence of classes and with it, the existence of exploitation and class domination. Democratic Socialism, is therefor not a revolutionary thing.

The tactics of using "democracy" (the class domination of the Bourgeois) for the purpose of creating Socialism by the existing state machine has been proved through the history of the workers' movement to be a complete failure. Since the Paris Commune, true Marxists have always warned against using the ready made state for the purpose of Socialism.

[B5C]

Well, you realize that the upper class-- the people who enjoy the privilege of power--won't just give up power peacefully, right?

EDIT: I mean, obviously I'm not saying that the ends absolutely justify the means, but where violence can be used and is useful, it's frankly foolish to not use it.

I am an pacifist. I can not support a violent revolution.

[#FF0000]

I am an pacifist. I can not support a violent revolution.

Do you oppose violence in self-defense?

[Hoplite]

Actually it isn't either-or. It is possible to assume a semi-revolutionary semi-reformist stance in some situations.

"legal when possible, illegal when necessary; peaceful when possible, violent when necessary; parliamentary activism when possible, smash the state when necessary"
I agree. I've been told that my views are very similar to that of Democratic Socialism and I wouldn't say I was against revolution, I just see it as counter-productive to creating a Socialist country.

I feel that people will naturally lean towards Socialism if they are given free access to information and not manipulated. If you have a country that is utterly controlled by a dictatorship, revolution should be used to replace that leadership with a democratic government that will protect the people as best it can and allow them to freely understand the world around them.

The problem with having a Socialist revolution in a society that isnt prepared for it is the society tends to reject the idea, so you either have to concede defeat and forget about the idea or you have to clamp down and I think thats how a lot of the repressive regimes that pretend to be Communist or Socialist today were created.

[Le Socialiste]

Speaking as one who, until quite recently, considered himself to be an adherent of Democratic Socialism, the concepts and theories it advocates speaks to those sympathetic and/or adherents to/of socialism, but are wary of leaving behind what has always been (parliamentarism, republicanism, etc. etc.) - all capitalist means of governance. It is certainly to the right of revolutionary socialism according to its classic definitions, but its adherents aren't completely opposed to it. They can be won over - I was. I've since left that part of my "ideological past" behind me, but I can understand how its adherents might be hesitant in the face of the state's complete and total dismantlement; I was, for some time. That all said, if a Democratic Socialist dismisses my revolutionary aspirations and goals as "utopian" and "idealistic", I know to walk away (not without a good amount of debate, that is).

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, you realize that the upper class-- the people who enjoy the privilege of power--won't just give up power peacefully, right?

EDIT: I mean, obviously I'm not saying that the ends absolutely justify the means, but where violence can be used and is useful, it's frankly foolish to not use it.

The ends do justify the means, but the means should never ever be glorified.

There is nothing good in violence itself. It should be seen as a necessary evil in socialist politics, not something to gloat about.

Or as the ancient Chinese philosopher Laozi once said: Every military victory should be mourned like a funeral.

[Queercommie Girl]

I agree. I've been told that my views are very similar to that of Democratic Socialism and I wouldn't say I was against revolution, I just see it as counter-productive to creating a Socialist country.

I feel that people will naturally lean towards Socialism if they are given free access to information and not manipulated. If you have a country that is utterly controlled by a dictatorship, revolution should be used to replace that leadership with a democratic government that will protect the people as best it can and allow them to freely understand the world around them.

The problem with having a Socialist revolution in a society that isnt prepared for it is the society tends to reject the idea, so you either have to concede defeat and forget about the idea or you have to clamp down and I think thats how a lot of the repressive regimes that pretend to be Communist or Socialist today were created.

A revolution is not genuine if it does not have mass democratic support.

A socialist revolution is not a military coup by a small elite group.

However, we must be prepared potentially to use violence. As Mao Zedong said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

I agree that to always call for the "smashing of the bourgeois state" at every opportunity when the mass democratic support for socialism simply isn't there is clearly the wrong political line, but we must be potentially prepared to defend socialism using violent power. Absolute pacifism is incompatible with socialism.

Otherwise, it will be like in Chile, where even a democratically elected socialist government would be brutally crushed by the fascists.

[Queercommie Girl]

Well, I'm not close to the CWI - I was at one point in the past, but their politics on the whole don't line up well with my own.

Part of it is that they don't have a good approach to the national question. This is linked to their approach in Northern Ireland, which was to oppose the struggle for a 32-county republic and instead preach about things like unity between Protestant and Catholic workers and a "Socialist Federation of the British Isles." This echoes in their lack of an appreciation of the importance of the Black and Latino questions in the United States, and for the fantasy of a "socialist" two-state solution in Israel and Palestine. I do think this is related to how deeply they entered Labour. And also - they took a very bad stance on the war in the Falklands/Malvinas, refusing to oppose "their own" imperialists. Plus, they have a terrible line on cops, considering the police to be a legitimate part of the workers' movement. For me all of those are pretty significant problems with both the CWI and the IMT today.

As for the line of old Militant, well, it sure as hell wasn't the Trotskyist conception of entryism. I see Grant's view that the masses always move through their "traditional mass parties" to be deeply one-sided. The projection of an "enabling law" that a Labour government could have used to nationalize the major monopolies was opportunist, and the overall orientation to Labour was the projection of a strategy as a tactic. If you look at it objectively, they recruited a lot of members in the '80s but lost the large majority in the '90s - clearly their method didn't consolidate members well. Labour was obviously a good place to be in the '80s - people hated Thatcher after all - but they couldn't keep it up.

Then the CWI took too hard of a turn on ending entryism. Instead of drawing a level-headed balance sheet on their time in Labour, they made it a generalized statement that all bourgeois workers' parties everywhere were done for, and they had to orient towards new formations. Neither this nor Grant's position (still held by the IMT) is correct; one or the other may be true depending on the specific circumstances of a country, or in fact electoral politics may be pretty much a dead end, as in the US. So all the sections made a volte-face, instead of making solid tactical decisions they all went off and switched their strategies on a dime. In the US the section, Socialist Alternative, has aggressively pursued Ralph Nader and the Green Party rather than endorsing socialist propaganda campaigns - basically accepting a middle-class party as an instrument for building a new labor party.

Finally, I'm not a fan of how the SPEW runs the CWI. Sections tend to be heavily managed by London, rather than independently determining their own course. I have a comrade who was in the group twice, briefly, despite some differences he had (over Cuba, Palestine and the Black question). He was assured by the people in Socialist Alternative close to him that he was welcome even with those differences, but the people on the other side of the factional divide saw it differently. It wound up with a letter from Peter Taaffe basically saying he shouldn't have joined if he had such big differences, and he left rather than change to fit the group. So suffice it to say I do not have any particular warm feelings for the CWI.

Ok.

Well, I have to disagree with you, because I think the CWI is currently one of the best Trotskyist organisations in the world. They are not like those dogmatic ultra-left ideologues who can only parrot Marxist gospels but are totally useless in the real world.

I have enjoyed some of our exchanges, but for me a lot of the weaknesses of the CWI which you have cited are actually strengths. This is due to my own ideological stance, which can be semi-reformist semi-revolutionary (what I actually believe is to try to have socialism voted into power but seriously prepare for violent confrontation at the same time, so that what happened in Chile won't occur, but for me violent power is used for defending the gains of the socialist movement, not to actively smash the state using violence). So I actually support the CWI's strategy of deep entryism in social democratic parties. And since I in principle agree with classical Soviet style "law and order" (e.g. re-education centres and labour camps), I don't rule out the police force either. I think the lower layers of the police and the prison officers can be potentially won over to the revolution.

My only disagreements with the CWI are essentially with respect to China and Maoism. Obviously I'd much rather co-operate with the CWI than third-campists who label Maoist China as "state-capitalist". But I'm a lot closer to Maoism (on issues like the peasantry) than most Trotskyists are.

But if the CWI can see the China-Tibet situation in the same way they see the Britain-Ireland situation and the Britain-Falklands situation, and chant "Chinese jobs for Chinese workers" in the same way they chant "British jobs for British workers", then I would support them even more. :D

Personally I don't support Tibetan or Uyghur independence, but I actually call for the formation of a genuine socialist federation in the PRC, led by both Maoist and Trotskyist political parties.

[Queercommie Girl]

Reformism does have its place in the left. The bourgeois state doesn't smash itself. Social Democracy offers several contributions. It makes businesses more accountable, it gives the workers more lay time to contemplate the struggle, it gives them a higher standard of living (and the desire to expect more), it gives them education/healthcare, and at the same time social democracy is also very inefficient, and weakens the state economically. Its capitalism on life support, and it becomes more easy to destroy the capitalist state when it is weak.

However, social democracy can also be seen as negative, as some may see it as a pacifying agent for workers in first world countries from the labor of third world workers, and secondly, the welfare aspects of social democracy strongly divide the workers, turning some towards fascism, and anarcho-capitalism.

So social democracy has its up's and down's but regardless, it can never replace the revolution.

How does welfarism lead to fascism?

I agree that social welfare can be a double-edged sword sometimes, but this should never be blamed on the workers and the poor who frankly do need welfare provisions on a personal level.

[Queercommie Girl]

I think sometimes there is a double standard among the left:

Many people would consider Huge Chavez to be a genuine socialist, but not Tony Benn (of the old Labour left in Britain).

This is a mistake. I know there is a difference between the First World and the Third World, but looking at the policies themselves, economically Tony Benn is certainly no less "socialist" than Chavez, and Chavez is no more revolutionary than Tony Benn, despite the rhetoric. And actually clearly Tony Benn is closer to genuine Marxism since he is more democratic and less bureaucratic than Chavez.

If one is a left communist who wants absolutely nothing to do with any kind of reformism, then fine, I disagree, but at least I respect your ideological integrity to some extent.

But if one supports Hugo Chavez yet rejects Tony Benn and the genuine Labour left in Britain, then I have to say, such a person is an ideological hypocrite.

Fact is, Tony Benn and the Labour left is objectively closer to a genuine Soviet system than Hugo Chavez is.

If one supports Chavez's "21st century socialism" as the way ahead, then one cannot reject the strategy of deep entryism by the CWI.

[graymouser]

Ok.

Well, I have to disagree with you, because I think the CWI is currently one of the best Trotskyist organisations in the world. They are not like those dogmatic ultra-left ideologues who can only parrot Marxist gospels but are totally useless in the real world.

I have enjoyed some of our exchanges, but for me a lot of the weaknesses of the CWI which you have cited are actually strengths. This is due to my own ideological stance, which can be semi-reformist semi-revolutionary (what I actually believe is to try to have socialism voted into power but seriously prepare for violent confrontation at the same time, so that what happened in Chile won't occur, but for me violent power is used for defending the gains of the socialist movement, not to actively smash the state using violence). So I actually support the CWI's strategy of deep entryism in social democratic parties. And since I in principle agree with classical Soviet style "law and order" (e.g. re-education centres and labour camps), I don't rule out the police force either. I think the lower layers of the police and the prison officers can be potentially won over to the revolution.

My only disagreements with the CWI are essentially with respect to China and Maoism. Obviously I'd much rather co-operate with the CWI than third-campists who label Maoist China as "state-capitalist". But I'm a lot closer to Maoism (on issues like the peasantry) than most Trotskyists are.

But if the CWI can see the China-Tibet situation in the same way they see the Britain-Ireland situation and the Britain-Falklands situation, and chant "Chinese jobs for Chinese workers" in the same way they chant "British jobs for British workers", then I would support them even more. :D

Personally I don't support Tibetan or Uyghur independence, but I actually call for the formation of a genuine socialist federation in the PRC, led by both Maoist and Trotskyist political parties.
Well, you're at least honest about that, I appreciate it. I find it to be a problematic position, for reasons that should be fairly obvious to you, and I do see the CWI as a group is really more or less "centrist" as Trotsky saw it, swinging between revolution and reformism in their approach. I see the problems with centrism as having been illustrated quite vividly in the experience of POUM: it prizes "flexibility" in times when intransigence is required, and only comes to realize too late that there are times when you have to stand up.

As for the "dogmatic ultra-left ideologues," well, I left Workers Power for a reason. ;) The group I'm closest to, Socialist Action (the US group), I feel strikes a better balance between practical work and theoretical correctness.

[chegitz guevara]

By this, I of course mean those who wish to use parliamentary/congressional measures to bring about 'socialist' things (and who don't call for the smashing of the bourgeois state).

How should we address these individuals when we encounter them? I think I've found they are the most difficult to talk with, because they agree with the basic concepts within socialism - they just aren't revolutionary. What are your experiences and ways of discussing stuff with these individuals?

The phrase you want to use, then, is social democracy. Democratic socialism is an undefined term, which can mean anything from social democracy to violent revolutionaries who are committed to the democratic process.

[chegitz guevara]

Yeah an revolution, but what I was talking about is an armed struggle or peaceful type of revolution. IE Russian, China, or even the Egyptian revolution.

There has been no revolution in Egypt. A capitalist military dictator has been replaced by a capitalist military junta.


I am an pacifist. I can not support a violent revolution.

The people will use whatever method is necessary to achieve liberation. As soon as you say there is a step you will not take to achieve freedom, you hand the enemy victory.


One of my good personal friends in the Chinese branch of the CWI (the CWI comrades here might know who he is) once told me that he believes that any sincere and continuous reformist effort within capitalism will inevitably result in a revolution ultimately. I think he believes that there is a "dialectical interaction" between (genuine) reform and revolution.

The Maoists refer to this position as "economism," and while it isn't the same economism Luxemburg and Lenin fought 100 years ago, it is definitely related. History has not shown us an example of reformist struggles leading to revolution once they come up against their limitations. Instead what happens is a hunkering down, to defend the gains already won. Reformists become deeply conservative and afraid to continue challenging the status quo, for fear of losing everything.

[Hoplite]

A revolution is not genuine if it does not have mass democratic support.

A socialist revolution is not a military coup by a small elite group.

However, we must be prepared potentially to use violence. As Mao Zedong said, political power comes from the barrel of a gun.
An example I use for this frequently is Ernesto Guevara in Bolivia. When Guevara tried to re-create the Cuban revolution in Bolivia, he didnt stop to look at the circumstances. If he had, he'd have seen that the Bolivian people were already at a semi-democratic stage already and were moving towards a more free and Socialist nation without using violent revolution at that point.

That's why Guevara failed, the society he tried to incite rebellion in was not ready for it and so rejected him.


I agree that to always call for the "smashing of the bourgeois state" at every opportunity when the mass democratic support for socialism simply isn't there is clearly the wrong political line, but we must be potentially prepared to defend socialism using violent power. Absolute pacifism is incompatible with socialism.
I agree completely, but you have to keep in mind several things.

One, force is not on our side. Opposition groups have FAR greater numbers and FAR greater strength than we do and can easily roll over us in a contest of strength. Yes there are innumerable books and examples about a smaller force fighting a larger force, but at the end of the day we have to realize that we should explore other options first, fighting only as a last resort due to the imbalance of odds.

Two, fighting does not make us look good. And yes we DO have to worry about that. If we look like a bunch of goons coming in and smashing things up, people wont listen to us no matter what we have to say. If they can easily label us as bloodthirsty criminals, they WILL ignore us. But if we have concrete examples of us not being there for the sheer sake of fighting or being destructive, the logic of dismissing what we say has less weight.


Otherwise, it will be like in Chile, where even a democratically elected socialist government would be brutally crushed by the fascists.
Point taken, but we have to actually GET the government first.

[graymouser]

I think sometimes there is a double standard among the left:

Many people would consider Huge Chavez to be a genuine socialist, but not Tony Benn (of the old Labour left in Britain).

This is a mistake. I know there is a difference between the First World and the Third World, but looking at the policies themselves, economically Tony Benn is certainly no less "socialist" than Chavez, and Chavez is no more revolutionary than Tony Benn, despite the rhetoric. And actually clearly Tony Benn is closer to genuine Marxism since he is more democratic and less bureaucratic than Chavez.

If one is a left communist who wants absolutely nothing to do with any kind of reformism, then fine, I disagree, but at least I respect your ideological integrity to some extent.

But if one supports Hugo Chavez yet rejects Tony Benn and the genuine Labour left in Britain, then I have to say, such a person is an ideological hypocrite.

Fact is, Tony Benn and the Labour left is objectively closer to a genuine Soviet system than Hugo Chavez is.

If one supports Chavez's "21st century socialism" as the way ahead, then one cannot reject the strategy of deep entryism by the CWI.
Well, I wouldn't consider Chávez as any kind of a model - I think he's much closer to the traditions of Latin American populism than the people entranced by his use of the "S-word" will admit to themselves. His program isn't all that radical and when you get down to it the PSUV is a cross-class formation, not a workers' party in any respect.

But I also have to object to your conclusion about Benn and the CWI. The orientation of the CWI for almost 3 decades to Labour and the "mass parties" was not just wrong because it led to a more reformist line on the part of Militant, but because it was one-sided and abstract. It substituted a tactic for a strategy. Entryism is a three-part maneuver: you enter, you win over the left wing, you either take over the party or you get kicked out. All the major Brit-Trot groups were in Labour during the '60s because it was a fairly obvious strategy. In the late '60s and '70s Militant essentially passed on any relation to the student radicalization to stay in Labour, leaving the students to the IS and the IMG. When things turned their way thanks to Thatcherism, Militant had a strong start but didn't leave until it was pretty clearly too late, being stuck in Labour and basically unable to recruit despite all the work their cadre did around the Poll Tax issue. (Taaffe is pretty much clear on this in his book The Rise of Militant, although the IMT's Rob Sewell tends to object to his whole narrative.)

And their subsequent turn, as I outlined, was also done wrongly. Because they say they need to be totally outside of Labour, they are unable to make a turn toward critical support - which was correctly done by a couple of other groups in 2010 - and instead promote sad electoralist farces like the TUSC. They were totally ineffective and basically wasted their time on the initiative.

So for me it's in many ways more about the one-sidedness (and the bad position on the national question) than about the support for Labour per se.

[graymouser]

An example I use for this frequently is Ernesto Guevara in Bolivia. When Guevara tried to re-create the Cuban revolution in Bolivia, he didnt stop to look at the circumstances. If he had, he'd have seen that the Bolivian people were already at a semi-democratic stage already and were moving towards a more free and Socialist nation without using violent revolution at that point.

That's why Guevara failed, the society he tried to incite rebellion in was not ready for it and so rejected him.
Bolivia wasn't ready for revolution in 1968? Nonsense, it had a revolution in 1952 and went through regular upheavals (in both right and left directions, heavily involving the military) from 1964 through 1971. The main problem was that Che tried to orient toward the peasantry rather than the working class, which in Bolivia was a significant and heavily radicalized force. The largest trade union confederation, the COB, basically adopted a transitional program in 1952. Readiness for revolution has never been the problem in Bolivia, it's always been about the readiness of the revolutionary forces.

[el_chavista]

Victus Mortuum

Democratic Socialism
By this, I of course mean those who wish to use parliamentary/congressional measures to bring about 'socialist' things (and who don't call for the smashing of the bourgeois state).
Parliamentary/congressional democracy or, as we call it, representative democracy is just a kind of democracy which evolved from the Roman ancient regime. The president figure and the congress correspond to the Roman figures of the dictator and the senate. This kind of democracy generates an oligarchy or government of the elected "best" (the more educated, the richer)

What socialism seeks is extreme democracy like it was brought up in Athena: collective leadership, decisions taken by consensus of all. Sorting among all citizens instead of elections from individual candidates (who will turn into a dictator). You may say it could work at the tiny scale of a city like ancient Athena but nowadays Internet makes it possible.

Shiva Trishula Dialectics

What about Latin American "21st century socialism"? They claim to be Socialist Democrats, and by their actions (free elections, "economic revolution", but a progressive strategy) it seems that this might be the case.

Or are they just bourgeoise anti-imperialists?The true "21st century socialists" are not in Latin America. The "21st century socialism" is a label for the petit-bourgeois rethoric socialism of the Latin American national reformists who think that just egalitarianism and social justice make socialism.
Anti-imperialism is a byproduct of the inability of the national local bourgeoisie to achieve a democratic revolution due to her alliance with the international finances.

graymouser

Well, I wouldn't consider Chávez as any kind of a model - I think he's much closer to the traditions of Latin American populism than the people entranced by his use of the "S-word" will admit to themselves. His program isn't all that radical and when you get down to it the PSUV is a cross-class formation, not a workers' party in any respect.
That is it.

[Victus Mortuum]

Victus Mortuum
Parliamentary/congressional democracy or, as we call it, representative democracy is just a kind of democracy which evolved from the Roman ancient regime. The president figure and the congress correspond to the Roman figures of the dictator and the senate. This kind of democracy generates an oligarchy or government of the elected "best" (the more educated, the richer)

What socialism seeks is extreme democracy like it was brought up in Athena: collective leadership, decisions taken by consensus of all. Sorting among all citizens instead of elections from individual candidates (who will turn into a dictator). You may say it could work at the tiny scale of a city like ancient Athena but nowadays Internet makes it possible.

I'm not contesting the validity of what you said here. I'm trying to understand what other rev socialists think about those who would like to bring about this radical democracy via the congressional/parliamentary democracy.

[Lyev]

I don't wanna get sectarian here or offended because someone attacked the organisation I am part of (your qualms are much the same as mine) but some of the issues graymouser brings up are pertinent;
The projection of an "enabling law" that a Labour government could have used to nationalize the major monopolies was opportunist, and the overall orientation to Labour was the projection of a strategy as a tactic. If you look at it objectively, they recruited a lot of members in the '80s but lost the large majority in the '90s - clearly their method didn't consolidate members well. Labour was obviously a good place to be in the '80s - people hated Thatcher after all - but they couldn't keep it up.This contention about the 'enabling act' comes up quite a lot against CWI members actually. It is often taken out of context and I think we also have to bear in mind the position that Militant held in the Labour Party. I think the CWI is often quite careful in how we try to phrase our literature and pamplets. We have always tried to emphasize - in response to liberal, pacifists and such - that a socialist revolution is not a putsch or minority coup, but must be supported by the majority of the organised working class. Taaffe in that quote (which is taken from the Dec. 1981 pamphlet 'Militant: What We Stand For', which I guess can probably be found online), was trying to emphasize that social revolution does not have to defined by insurrectionary violence. And leading on from this, that weakening and eventually smashing of the political and economic power of the ruling class is one of the fundamental prerequisites for a socialist revolution, which is what the 'enabling act' would hopefully go at least some to doing.


Finally, I'm not a fan of how the SPEW runs the CWI. Sections tend to be heavily managed by London, rather than independently determining their own course. I have a comrade who was in the group twice, briefly, despite some differences he had (over Cuba, Palestine and the Black question).I think it might seem like, on a international level, that SPEW administrates the CWI too centrally. However, I suppose part of this is because the international started in England and Wales; we have historical roots here, comparatively against the other sections. It is definitely one of the biggest sections. And actually a lot of our international events are held in Belgium, too.

[BlackMarx]

By this, I of course mean those who wish to use parliamentary/congressional measures to bring about 'socialist' things (and who don't call for the smashing of the bourgeois state).

How should we address these individuals when we encounter them? I think I've found they are the most difficult to talk with, because they agree with the basic concepts within socialism - they just aren't revolutionary. What are your experiences and ways of discussing stuff with these individuals?
Well first of all, democratic socialism is not about voting for 'socialist' things. I, somone who considers them self a democratic socialist (A Marxist one at that), do not agree with that. Its about trying to bring about radical transformation to a society that is built on economic/political participatory democracy and transforming the bourgeoisie state into a social democratic (I mean social democracy by socialist and democratic). I do not consider a social democrat (Usually a non-Marxist or Marxish democratic socialist) a true democratic socialist.

My mentality and criticism towards Leninist (as a prime example of anti-democratic socialist), is that while they are virulently anti-capitalist (arguably some of the most hardworking and intellectually brilliant anti-capitalist to exist among the left), they tend to be very dogmatic and formulaic. They tend to care about a certain concept, communism in the classical sense, too much to realize we probably won't see communism for 500-1000 years. After all, human society needs a great amount of time to evolve, let alone even develop the conscious and technology to sustain such a society.

Democratic, small d, socialist realize that while capitalism needs to be abolished, people need to keep their jobs and need to be able to pay off their credit cards, and keep their lights on. Its a politic based on pragmatism. The double-edged sword of democratic socialism is that it tends to attract liberals and some progressives who really aren't hardcore into socialism, nor understand what it really is (Read: organization, democracy and WORKER'S CONTROL).

Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary socialist tend to take a vanguardistic stance (which is anti-democratic) and think that they have a right to grasp power when the fact is that power and authority is given to those the people accept, not people who appoint themselves and rule society from the top down. The problem with 20th century state socialism was the fact you had revolutionary socialist who thought of themselves as the revolution/people's movement, instead of just being delegates of it. Socialism is not suppose to repeat the idiocy and monstrosity of capitalism,primarily the control of society by self provclaimed elitist who think they know what is best for the people.

Let's not forget what the wise sayings of anarchist, Mikhail Bakunin said:

"Freedom without socialism is privilege. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality"

When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." - Statism and Anarchy

[Queercommie Girl]

The Maoists refer to this position as "economism," and while it isn't the same economism Luxemburg and Lenin fought 100 years ago, it is definitely related. History has not shown us an example of reformist struggles leading to revolution once they come up against their limitations. Instead what happens is a hunkering down, to defend the gains already won. Reformists become deeply conservative and afraid to continue challenging the status quo, for fear of losing everything.


"Economic demands" by themselves aren't wrong, where they are mistaken it's only due to strategic considerations.

Basically, I don't want to work very hard, with little pay. As a worker I want to work less and get more pay. If you can't show that you can satisfy my economic demands here, then I won't support you.

If people need to slave harder under "communism" than they do under capitalism, then fuck "communism".

[Queercommie Girl]

So for me it's in many ways more about the one-sidedness (and the bad position on the national question) than about the support for Labour per se.


You are not in Britain, you don't know the situation here.

The Labour Left doesn't really exist anymore. New Labour is qualitatively different from Old Labour. So entryism in Labour today isn't really useful anymore.

CWI has not made a dogmatic decision here, on the contrary, it is indeed based on empirical considerations on the ground.

[graymouser]

You are not in Britain, you don't know the situation here.

The Labour Left doesn't really exist anymore. New Labour is qualitatively different from Old Labour. So entryism in Labour today isn't really useful anymore.

CWI has not made a dogmatic decision here, on the contrary, it is indeed based on empirical considerations on the ground.
I wasn't talking about entryism - I was talking about using the tactic of critical support, which the CWI wrote off as well as entryism by its one-sided analysis of the change in Labour. I followed the last British election including the far left, and I think the SWP and Workers Power (who I was affiliated with at the time) made the right choice in using this tactic. You're missing the nuance, which is precisely what I am accusing the SPEW/CWI of.

[Queercommie Girl]

I wasn't talking about entryism - I was talking about using the tactic of critical support, which the CWI wrote off as well as entryism by its one-sided analysis of the change in Labour. I followed the last British election including the far left, and I think the SWP and Workers Power (who I was affiliated with at the time) made the right choice in using this tactic. You're missing the nuance, which is precisely what I am accusing the SPEW/CWI of.

Is there much point in "critically supporting" a neo-liberal party with a social democratic skin?

I mean seriously, the actual concrete policies of New Labour aren't so different from those of Thatcher.

[chegitz guevara]

"Economic demands" by themselves aren't wrong, where they are mistaken it's only due to strategic considerations.

Basically, I don't want to work very hard, with little pay. As a worker I want to work less and get more pay. If you can't show that you can satisfy my economic demands here, then I won't support you.

If people need to slave harder under "communism" than they do under capitalism, then fuck "communism".

I'm not saying that at all. I'm merely saying that a particular political orientation, reformism, doesn't automatically lead to the growth of revolutionary consciousness, but rather, ultimately becomes its opposite, conservatism and support for the system. The question for us revolutionaries is how to make the absolutely necessary fight for reforms in a revolutionary way.


An example I use for this frequently is Ernesto Guevara in Bolivia. When Guevara tried to re-create the Cuban revolution in Bolivia, he didnt stop to look at the circumstances. If he had, he'd have seen that the Bolivian people were already at a semi-democratic stage already and were moving towards a more free and Socialist nation without using violent revolution at that point.

That's why Guevara failed, the society he tried to incite rebellion in was not ready for it and so rejected him.

This is not true in the least.

Number one, Bolivia had just had a military coup three years earlier which had overthrown a workers revolution that existed from 1952 to 1964. Unfortunately, there was no revolutionary workers party capable of overthrowing capitalism and establishing a workers' republic. By the 80s, the military dictatorship in Bolivia was even working with former Nazis, like Klaus Barbi.

No. 2, Guevara was invited to Bolivia by the Bolivian Communist Party, which had promised him many people willing to fight in a guerrilla army. After Guevara had been smuggled into the country, the Communist Party announced that it was backing out, likely at the behest of the USSR, whome Guevara increasingly criticized for its conservatism and failure to help the international revolutionary movement. Guevara was betrayed.

His mistake was to stay in Bolivia and try anyway, to think that he could proceed to build something without support. As Kenny Rogers says, you've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. El Che should have run.

[Fulanito de Tal]

How should we address these individuals when we encounter them? I think I've found they are the most difficult to talk with, because they agree with the basic concepts within socialism - they just aren't revolutionary. What are your experiences and ways of discussing stuff with these individuals?[/QUOTE]

Chilean Coup as Evidence that a Socialist Revolution Has to Be Violent

During the 1970's Chilean presidential elections, a Marxist candidate from the Unidad Popular (Popular Unity) coalition, Salvador Allende, won the elections. As president, he directed an agrarian reform and nationalized (state ownership) the mining and banking industries. President Allende called the nationalization Chileanization. This was bad for the US as they had interests in the copper industry which supported the growing telecommunication industry back in the US. The CIA started Project Fubelt by order of President Nixon in order to stop the socialist processes that were occurring in Chile. Nixon said that the Chilean economy should be "made to scream." Henry Kissinger, National Security Advisor at the time, stated, "I don't see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves."

At first, the project caused a drop in the economy of Chile as American capital to the country was blocked. This harmed the Chileanized sales of copper and was done in order to weaken popular support for Allende. The second part of the project was designed to help the Chilean military to conduct a military coup. It was essential that it appeared that the US was not involved. Lead by Chilean General Augusto Pinochet, and with the support of the US, the coup was successful. The General used the Chilean Air Force to conduct the coup. How Allende died is still uncertain, but many believe he committed suicide once he realized that there was nothing he could do to stop Pinochet.

Chile came under control of a junta. A new constitution that was vague was enacted. The National Congress of Chile was dissolved. The new government began a process of eradicating any possible dissent. Guns and explosives ownership was banned. Many political figures were assassinated. Around seven thousand people were put into the National Stadium and imprisoned. Similar actions occurred throughout Chile. The infamous Caravan of Death would travel the country executing people. Overall, the Chilean 1990 government sated that over three thousand people were killed while another thousand disappeared. Another commission, The National Commission on Political Prisoners and Torture, estimated that around 35,000 people were abused. Methods of torture developed during this period, such as the used of dogs to rape people, or forcing people to watch their family members be sodomized or slowly electrocuted. General Pinochet stayed in command until 1990.

The Point
The Chilean population elected a Marxist president. Once the president began enacting socialist policies, the capitalists intervened and eradicated the movement through violent and inhumane means. Over 35,000 families were horribly affected by this process. The result was a puppet military rule until 1990. This was seen by many Marxists as evidence that a socialist revolution could not occur through elections; the bourgeoisie has to be violently overthrown and annihilated.

Cause I always have to throw Cuba in there.
-Cuba offered several thousand Chileans refuge. In Havana, a main road that was named after a Spanish monarch, Carlos III, was renamed Salvador Allende.
-Henry Kissinger was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
-Cuba is still on the US list of terrorist nations.

[graymouser]

Is there much point in "critically supporting" a neo-liberal party with a social democratic skin?

I mean seriously, the actual concrete policies of New Labour aren't so different from those of Thatcher.
Sure. The situation in Britain has been a total loss for "left of Labour" initiatives since 1993 - Socialist Alliance, RESPECT, TUSC, what exactly has not failed? For a party the size of the SPEW the alternatives were to waste time and energy on a coalition like TUSC or take an abstentionist position and not be able to relate to politics throughout the election. They chose the former route. Still a waste.

Critical support isn't about how good the program of the party is. It's all about breaking illusions - if the Tory / Lib Dem victory hadn't happened, Labour would have had to administer the austerity that voters looked to them to prevent. That's a valuable experience in itself.

[Hoplite]

Bolivia wasn't ready for revolution in 1968?
They weren't ready for the kind of revolution that Guevara was offering.

[Queercommie Girl]

They weren't ready for the kind of revolution that Guevara was offering.

Guevara's approach basically is just too peasant-based and hasn't got enough focus on the workers.

[graymouser]

They weren't ready for the kind of revolution that Guevara was offering.
No, Bolivia was quite ready for revolution, Che just was not going about it the right way. What Che was trying to do was not effective particularly in a country like Bolivia where the proletariat had already taken a leading role in a previous revolution.

[RATM-Eubie]

Im a democratic socialist..........

[gorillafuck]

Yeah an revolution, but what I was talking about is an armed struggle or peaceful type of revolution.Power won't be given up willingly or peacefully, though.


IE Russian, China, or even the Egyptian revolution.What about them?:confused:

[psgchisolm]

Im a democratic socialist..........
Maybe we need to start up a group then :D

[Fulanito de Tal]

The reason election results are considered valid is because they do not change much. If they did, someone would take care of it. Examples: Paul Wellstone, 2000 US Presidential Elections, and the example i gave on The 1973 Chilean coup.

In a capitalist society, a government that appears neutral is necessary. If we did not have this, then it would be obvious that we live in an ever-increasing authoritarian society. Seriously, in the US, the place that loves to boast it, democracy happens for 5 minutes every two years. The rest of the time people go to work and kiss their dictators' (boss') ass. Granted, you could leave your dictator and hopefully be accepted by another one, but you will more than likely not change your relationship with your boss. At best, you can become a petty-bourgeois, but that will eventually run out. If it wasn't for those elections that give the general population the perception of democracy, then it would be much easier to abolish private property. Fooling yourself into think that elections can cause change is joining the bourgeois' team.

[jinx92]

Actually it isn't either-or. It is possible to assume a semi-revolutionary semi-reformist stance in some situations.

"legal when possible, illegal when necessary; peaceful when possible, violent when necessary; parliamentary activism when possible, smash the state when necessary"

I rather like this approach, i feel it's more flexible than the hardline revolutionary approach.

[Diogenes]

I become conflicted when I begin to think of Democratic Socialism. On one hand I believe that it can be used in a capitalist society to gain control of the government which then would peacefully dissolve into a Socialist Society.

However, I believe that because not every elected politician would a Socialist, we would end up with socialist politicians "fixing" capitalism. This would only hurt an attempt at socialism.

If socialists in the '20s hadn't fought for worker's rights, the situation would have gotten worse; to the point that the possibility for a revolution would have been likely.

[Zeus the Moose]

This may be jumping into the discussion a bit late, but I'd argue that "democratic socialism" as it's commonly thought of is distinct from social democracy in that it seeks the overthrow of the capitalist system rather than mere management or amelioration, but is somewhat similar to social democracy in that it argues for solely legal/constitutional means of struggle against the capitalist state. Similarly, it seems somewhat agnostic on the idea of simply using the state as its currently structured to abolish capitalism versus fundamentally transforming the state as a component of (possibly even a prerequisite for?) the abolition of capitalism. In this way, it makes the mistake similar to Karl Kautsky in most of his writings, even during his earlier revolutionary period.

That said, I don't think opposition to this tendency would mean the abandonment of the perspective that socialism (as thought of as the dictatorship of the proletariat) could be introduced through an electoral victory of a socialist or communist party, though it does mean an abandonment of a road to socialism within the current constitutional framework of the capitalist state, if that difference makes sense. To use the US as an example, let's assume that a socialist or communist party wins a presidential majority in the United States (that is, the Presidency, 51%+ of the US Senate, and 51%+ of the House of Representatives are filled by candidates of this party or its allies.) Assuming that this party hasn't succumbed to opportunism by this point (a very big if in many respects), then it would take its presidential majority as a mandate to begin the fundamental transformation of the US government. Importantly, this mandate comes from the people who voted it into office, and as a socialist/communist party, it should not see this mandate as being bound within the confines of the constitutional framework of the capitalist state. Thus, it would makes sense to expect measures such as the abolition of the US Senate, severe curtailment on the power of the president, readjustment of the US congress so that districts are drawn across the nation as a whole and not confined within state boundaries, alteration of the supreme court to make it a democratic body, and so on. All of these measures, in the minds of the not-yet-completely-deposed capitalist power structure, would be blatantly illegal, and as such they would be completely justified, in their view, of using whatever means necessary in order to remove these "usurpers of the Constitution" (or whatever) from power. So even the capture of state power through an election would most likely require the use of armed force on the part of this emerging socialist government in order to preserve its own existence and implement its minimum programme.


This is where I see aspects of “democratic socialism” to break down, in addition to its possible intersections with pacifism and such.

[chegitz guevara]

I become conflicted when I begin to think of Democratic Socialism. On one hand I believe that it can be used in a capitalist society to gain control of the government which then would peacefully dissolve into a Socialist Society.
Cuz that happened every previous time the Socialists were elected. :rolleyes:

[Tim Finnegan]

Because you can't gradually step into a new mode of production.
Individually? Of course not. Collectively? Eeeeeh... I'm not so certain. There needs to be a tipping point, certainly, just as there were revolutions which tipped the old agrarian-aristocratic societies into industrial-capitalist societies, but they themselves demonstrate what I would consider to be the necessity of challenging traditional modes of production as a condition of revolution. The difference, of course, is that while they pushed for factories and banks, we push for worker's collectives, and the fostering of such collectives is something which I think the state is actually capable of playing a role in, just as the central governments of the aristocratic states often played a role in fostering the bourgeoisie in opposition to local aristocracies. The trick is not to allow the worker's movement to become reliant upon the state system, or you'll simply end up with an equivalent of the Chinese imperial bureaucracy, in which the revolutionary class is neutered by its submission to a newly-empowered state.


Cuz that happened every previous time the Socialists were elected. :rolleyes:
And, if we're using that logic, every time they took over through revolution, we found ourselves with a brutal dictatorship. "The future is unwritten" is a slogan that all revolutionaries must take to heart; contest reformism through strong arguments, not trite precedents.

[Zav]

I haven't had much experience with them, but the few conversations I had with one gave me the impression that they tend to want to have a Socialist society eventually but want it to come about through the gradual concessions of the State. I don't understand why they wouldn't want it to happen as soon as possible though.

[Queercommie Girl]

I haven't had much experience with them, but the few conversations I had with one gave me the impression that they tend to want to have a Socialist society eventually but want it to come about through the gradual concessions of the State. I don't understand why they wouldn't want it to happen as soon as possible though.

A socialist revolution cannot be valid without genuine mass democratic support from the majority of the people. A socialist revolution is not just a military coup by an elitist group.

So to push for genuine revolution, one must convince the people to believe in socialism, this means one must co-operate with reformists on many things.

Socialism can never be imposed from above. The emancipation of the working class is the job of the working class itself, and no-one else, and the working class in the strict technical sense is the majority of the population.

[chegitz guevara]

And, if we're using that logic, every time they took over through revolution, we found ourselves with a brutal dictatorship. "The future is unwritten" is a slogan that all revolutionaries must take to heart; contest reformism through strong arguments, not trite precedents.

History teaches us lessons, and if every single time Socialists have been elected to head a government, they have failed to try to create socialism, we need to learn from that.

Every revolution has not ended up a brutal dictatorship. Some were overthrown by counter-revolutionaries, the Sandinistas stepped down when they lost an election, etc. So while the odds aren't great, they beat the alternative.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This may be jumping into the discussion a bit late, but I'd argue that "democratic socialism" as it's commonly thought of is distinct from social democracy in that it seeks the overthrow of the capitalist system rather than mere management or amelioration, but is somewhat similar to social democracy in that it argues for solely legal/constitutional means of struggle against the capitalist state. Similarly, it seems somewhat agnostic on the idea of simply using the state as its currently structured to abolish capitalism versus fundamentally transforming the state as a component of (possibly even a prerequisite for?) the abolition of capitalism. In this way, it makes the mistake similar to Karl Kautsky in most of his writings, even during his earlier revolutionary period.

That said, I don't think opposition to this tendency would mean the abandonment of the perspective that socialism (as thought of as the dictatorship of the proletariat) could be introduced through an electoral victory of a socialist or communist party, though it does mean an abandonment of a road to socialism within the current constitutional framework of the capitalist state, if that difference makes sense. To use the US as an example, let's assume that a socialist or communist party wins a presidential majority in the United States (that is, the Presidency, 51%+ of the US Senate, and 51%+ of the House of Representatives are filled by candidates of this party or its allies.) Assuming that this party hasn't succumbed to opportunism by this point (a very big if in many respects), then it would take its presidential majority as a mandate to begin the fundamental transformation of the US government. Importantly, this mandate comes from the people who voted it into office, and as a socialist/communist party, it should not see this mandate as being bound within the confines of the constitutional framework of the capitalist state. Thus, it would makes sense to expect measures such as the abolition of the US Senate, severe curtailment on the power of the president, readjustment of the US congress so that districts are drawn across the nation as a whole and not confined within state boundaries, alteration of the supreme court to make it a democratic body, and so on. All of these measures, in the minds of the not-yet-completely-deposed capitalist power structure, would be blatantly illegal, and as such they would be completely justified, in their view, of using whatever means necessary in order to remove these "usurpers of the Constitution" (or whatever) from power. So even the capture of state power through an election would most likely require the use of armed force on the part of this emerging socialist government in order to preserve its own existence and implement its minimum programme.

This is where I see aspects of “democratic socialism” to break down, in addition to its possible intersections with pacifism and such.

Comrade, all that's needed is majority political support from the working class (not "the population" or "the people" as Conrad put it in this week's video on the Alternative Vote referendum) plus a state breakdown, and things are good to go, legal or illegal. It's a refinement of Kautsky's conditions for a revolutionary period, one that's inclined more towards the working class and less towards Lenin's explicitly more petit-bourgeois orientation (petit-bourgeois support swinging towards the party).

[Queercommie Girl]

Comrade, all that's needed is majority political support from the working class (not "the population" or "the people" as Conrad put it in this week's video on the Alternative Vote referendum) plus a state breakdown, and things are good to go, legal or illegal. It's a refinement of Kautsky's conditions for a revolutionary period, one that's inclined more towards the working class and less towards Lenin's explicitly more petit-bourgeois orientation (petit-bourgeois support swinging towards the party).

In advanced capitalist countries, the majority of the population are a part of the working class. That's an irrefutable fact. The idea that only "blue collar workers" are "real workers" is ridiculous.

In less advanced countries, there would need to be an alliance between the working class and the poor peasants. It's a fundamental mistake to assume that workers and peasants have intrinsically divergent interests.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Your first sentence, comrade, was my point as well. Despite that, what if 60% of the working-class support translates still to 49.9% support from "the population"?

The less developed countries, well let's just we'll constructively disagree on who in the class alliance should lead.

[Queercommie Girl]

Your first sentence, comrade, was my point as well. Despite that, what if 60% of the working-class support translates still to 49.9% support from "the population"?

The less developed countries, well let's just we'll constructively disagree on who in the class alliance should lead.

Frankly, I don't even think 60% support is sufficient to pull-off a complete revolution.

Of course it depends are whether or not the other 40% actually opposes the revolution or just in the middle.

If 60% support the revolution but 40% oppose it, then it's definitely a no-no.

If 60% support it, 30% swaying, and 10% oppose it, then it's possible.

[chegitz guevara]

To be honest, if just 10% support the revolution and are capable of carrying it out, I'd say we should go for it. It will be easier to win over a majority without the bourgeoisie pouring poison into their minds 100 times an hour, every day, every week, every month, every year.

In reality, a mere 10% wouldn't be capable of pulling it off. I'd say we need closer to a third, given that a third will be apolitical, and the rest opposed.

[Queercommie Girl]

To be honest, if just 10% support the revolution and are capable of carrying it out, I'd say we should go for it. It will be easier to win over a majority without the bourgeoisie pouring poison into their minds 100 times an hour, every day, every week, every month, every year.

In reality, a mere 10% wouldn't be capable of pulling it off. I'd say we need closer to a third, given that a third will be apolitical, and the rest opposed.

But it depends on whether the "non-supportive" segment is just "swaying in the middle" or "very firmly opposing the revolution".

A socialist revolution surely cannot arise out of a civil war within the working class!

[Zanthorus]

To be honest, you lot are wasting your time trying to find some ridiculous statistical figure of support beyond which revolution will occur. Revolutions are the product of forces which are, as Engels said, beyond the control of individuals and even entire classes. They cannot be brought about through endless recruitment drives by ostensibly revolutionary groups seeking to spark revolution by getting 50% + 1 of the working-class into their organisation.

[Queercommie Girl]

To be honest, you lot are wasting your time trying to find some ridiculous statistical figure of support beyond which revolution will occur. Revolutions are the product of forces which are, as Engels said, beyond the control of individuals and even entire classes. They cannot be brought about through endless recruitment drives by ostensibly revolutionary groups seeking to spark revolution by getting 50% + 1 of the working-class into their organisation.

Beyond the individual sure, beyond the entire class?

A revolution is only valid if it's the self-emancipation of the working class for itself, nothing else. Not all "actually occurring revolutions" are 100% positive or progressive events.

Your position is almost bordering on fatalism.

You may laugh at recruitment drives and newspaper sales by the likes of the SWP etc, but frankly they have done more for the socialist cause in the concrete sense than dogmatic left communists like you have ever done.

[Jose Gracchus]

He's probably replying of DNZ's conception of a broadly bureaucratic revolution, enacted by the party leadership at the correct time and position as determined by the revolutionary strategists. Hence a clear criteria is those would-be revolutionary generals being able to count on half the workers to take orders, for his bureaucratic revolution.

[Q]

He's probably replying of DNZ's conception of a broadly bureaucratic revolution, enacted by the party leadership at the correct time and position as determined by the revolutionary strategists. Hence a clear criteria is those would-be revolutionary generals being able to count on half the workers to take orders, for his bureaucratic revolution.

By saying JR stands for a bureaucratic revolution I think you completely miss his point. The basic idea is indeed, as Iseul said, that the working class has to liberate itself. Zanthorus is correct that this doesn't need a specific arbitrary number. Class forces are a dialectical thing, constantly in fluid and changing to eachothers moves. So, sectarian recruitment drives and building your own organisation as a strategy in itself is a dead end. What we need is to organise the working class as a class which in turn gives communists the possibility to spread the ideas of Marxism and make them the "ownership" of the class movement, a "merger" as it were of Marxism with the class movement. This is where JR comes in again with his ideas of building a party-movement as a class movement striving to organise the whole class and preparing it for the day of taking power as a class.

I could be wrong, but I got the impression JR's point in his last post was not to actually pinpoint some "magical sweet spot" of percentages, but simply as a reply to Iseul to say that having a majority in the working class does not necessarily mean a majority in the "population". And he is correct at that.

[Victus Mortuum]

I think Q's spot on. Fundamentally, what DNZ is talking about is how to have a mass working-class revolution. He's discussing what conditions and actions from a working class party-movement are necessary to help the working class self-emancipate.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The working class is, if we use a proper Marxist analysis rather than the bourgeois Sociological model, an overwhelming majority in at least the developed nations (in the developing nations there are of course more peasants and others in the agri-sector, but that is deviating from the main point).

Thus, you'd think that having the mass of the working class supporting a revolution would be to have at least a majority, if not a significant majority, of the population supporting revolution. As has been said, though, to take a flexible, dialectic approach here is necessary. It cannot be a numbers game, as there is not, and never has been, an arbitrary cut off point between those who are 'class conscious' and those who are not. There is obviously a blurring of the lines, and numberism here simply would not work.

I have a question for whoever wants to reply:

When, in your opinion, does a revolution become a coup? What are its characteristics, but also, does the idea of 'numbers of support' come into play when differentiating between a revolution and a coup? I mean, obviously a few dozen people seizing power in Britain with the support of a 1,000-strong armed militia is a coup, whereas a 30 million strong general strike would most likely indicate popular revolution, but what about in between these extremes?

[Die Neue Zeit]

To be honest, you lot are wasting your time trying to find some ridiculous statistical figure of support beyond which revolution will occur. Revolutions are the product of forces which are, as Engels said, beyond the control of individuals and even entire classes. They cannot be brought about through endless recruitment drives by ostensibly revolutionary groups seeking to spark revolution by getting 50% + 1 of the working-class into their organisation.

You're not distinguishing between political revolutions and politically revolutionary periods. :confused:

I didn't say at all that they cannot be brought about only through endless citizenship drives, but without going beyond even the electoral fantasies of the WSM ("voting in socialism"), all you'll get are coups ("revolutionary" ones Trotsky-style or post-revolutionary ones Bolshevik-style), civil wars, and Stalin-style bureaucratic degeneration.


He's probably replying of DNZ's conception of a broadly bureaucratic revolution, enacted by the party leadership at the correct time and position as determined by the revolutionary strategists. Hence a clear criteria is those would-be revolutionary generals being able to count on half the workers to take orders, for his bureaucratic revolution.

To paraphrase Washington, bureaucratic processes are "like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." On the other hand, without fire humans would never have been able to get out of their caves, diversify their diets, and so on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_of_fire_by_early_humans

I do appreciate that you write the phase "broadly bureaucratic revolution." It does emphasize that, during a politically revolutionary period, there should be a revolutionary "gambit" (Macnair) and not clinging to all that alternative culture work like a panacea.


By saying JR stands for a bureaucratic revolution I think you completely miss his point. The basic idea is indeed, as Iseul said, that the working class has to liberate itself. Zanthorus is correct that this doesn't need a specific arbitrary number. Class forces are a dialectical thing, constantly in fluid and changing to eachothers moves. So, sectarian recruitment drives and building your own organisation as a strategy in itself is a dead end. What we need is to organise the working class as a class which in turn gives communists the possibility to spread the ideas of Marxism and make them the "ownership" of the class movement, a "merger" as it were of Marxism with the class movement. This is where JR comes in again with his ideas of building a party-movement as a class movement striving to organise the whole class and preparing it for the day of taking power as a class.

I could be wrong, but I got the impression JR's point in his last post was not to actually pinpoint some "magical sweet spot" of percentages, but simply as a reply to Iseul to say that having a majority in the working class does not necessarily mean a majority in the "population". And he is correct at that.

You're quite right. :)

It would be more obvious in cases of constitution-related supermajorities, if the 70-80% working-class support translates only to 60% population support (that is, not enough to pressure for constitutional change).


I think Q's spot on. Fundamentally, what DNZ is talking about is how to have a mass working-class revolution. He's discussing what conditions and actions from a working class party-movement are necessary to help the working class self-emancipate.


The working class is, if we use a proper Marxist analysis rather than the bourgeois Sociological model, an overwhelming majority in at least the developed nations (in the developing nations there are of course more peasants and others in the agri-sector, but that is deviating from the main point).

Thus, you'd think that having the mass of the working class supporting a revolution would be to have at least a majority, if not a significant majority, of the population supporting revolution. As has been said, though, to take a flexible, dialectic approach here is necessary. It cannot be a numbers game, as there is not, and never has been, an arbitrary cut off point between those who are 'class conscious' and those who are not. There is obviously a blurring of the lines, and numberism here simply would not work.

I have a question for whoever wants to reply:

When, in your opinion, does a revolution become a coup? What are its characteristics, but also, does the idea of 'numbers of support' come into play when differentiating between a revolution and a coup? I mean, obviously a few dozen people seizing power in Britain with the support of a 1,000-strong armed militia is a coup, whereas a 30 million strong general strike would most likely indicate popular revolution, but what about in between these extremes?

There are "revolutionary" coups and there are lesser known post-revolutionary ones. The first type is obvious, when there's clearly not much in the way of numerical support. A 30-million-strong general strike would still be a coup if the class population is much bigger than that, and if the strike committees seize power, without a clear signal of class support.

The post-revolutionary ones happen when the once-revolutionary party loses majority political support, like that of the Bolshevik thugs during the soviet elections of 1918.

Again, the best gauge for political support is honest citizenship (so there's the possibility of infiltrators on one side and opportunists on the other). Spontaneist workers councils are too volatile with in-and-out participation.

[chegitz guevara]

A socialist revolution surely cannot arise out of a civil war within the working class!

A socialist revolution will create and arise out of a civil war within every class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade, that I think is somewhat defeatist. We want to minimize any such civil war conflict within the working class. At least, try to make sure the most reactionary elements have a so-so gut feeling.

[Jose Gracchus]

I think most of the above on your part is apologism. When you say "class" you mean "a party properly organized along my lines." Soviets are not wishy-washy; they are organically elected from industrial workplaces and organized groups of workers. Their advantage is in their ipso facto "finger on the pulse" of the working class character, and the ways this lets they defy the downsides of bourgeois influences, including bureaucratic politics.

[Die Neue Zeit]

When you say "class" you mean "a party properly organized along my lines."

The commentary on party-movements isn't entirely original. It goes all the way back to Marx's woefully underrated dictum about classes becoming for themselves by means of genuine political parties.


Soviets are not wishy-washy; they are organically elected from industrial workplaces and organized groups of workers.

They don't include the likes of tenant organizations and neighbourhood committees, which formed the basis of the Paris Commune.

They get co-opted quite easily, and those that don't fall by the wayside by other means.


Their advantage is in their ipso facto "finger on the pulse" of the working class character, and the ways this lets they defy the downsides of bourgeois influences, including bureaucratic politics.

Why are they superior "fingers on the pulse" than citizenship numbers? Pulses need accurate measurement, and certainly dues are merely one component.

[chegitz guevara]

Comrade, that I think is somewhat defeatist. We want to minimize any such civil war conflict within the working class. At least, try to make sure the most reactionary elements have a so-so gut feeling.

Well, of course! But we need to recognize that there are backwards workers who will oppose the revolution, just as there are elements of the middle classes and even the ruling class who will switch sides.