"confusionism"

[Lyev]

Hello all,
At the moment I am trying to iron my own position on how communists should view participating in elections.

From the camp that is opposed to any sort of participation in elections, the rationale is pretty clear: Even if we could win some amount of reform, as concessions, and even if there were somehow completely permanent (and I think the recent NHS reforms that the coalition are planning in the UK show that even the most treasured public service can be done away with), we should not participate in elections because this gives legitimacy to the exact bourgeois institutions that we are meant to discredit (even if participation is under the pretense of "using it as a platform" or whatever).

However, those that are opposed to standing in elections (left-communists, anarchists or whatever) are also the most fervent when it comes to being frank about our radical politics -- not being 'patronising', so to speak, to fellow workers. Yet when I have read articles or polemics that are explicitly anti-standing in elections, they sum up the stance of those pro-standing in elections as 'confusionism'.

If we are supposed to be as frank as possible, and always be open and clear with our programme and strategy, isn't is just as easy to explain that we are standing in these elections as a platform only? I mean, might it be construed as 'patronising' if we were to refrain from standing in elections simply because it is confusing?

I hope you all get my drift -- this post isn't typed up very well, because I'm a bit tired/in a rush, but I think the general point is clear enough.
Do you follow?
Anyway, thanks for considerations and answers

[Admiral Swagmeister G-Funk]

the socialists i know who stood in the council elections were deceitful in the sense that their purpose wasn't to win but to somehow use the votes to build the anti-cuts campaign. the problem with that is that it enforces the false illusion that the vote can bring us any closer to socialism - they know it wont, but that is not the line that they gave to the electorate and that reinforces the illusion they are fed to by bourgeois politicians. revolutionary communists need to be honest and concrete in their understanding of bourgeois elections, not use them as fronts that fail every time.

[a rebel]

Any socialists in a Bourgeoisie election are bound to fail, but I think the point of their party isn't to win, but to make Bourgeoisie worried that people voted for them.

[Zanthorus]

Thanks for posting this thread. I've also been quite heavily thinking over my view of electoral participation. I also get the feeling that the title of this thread might have been my doing (As far as I am aware I am the first person to use the word 'confusionism' to refer to the act of confusing people, and I used this in a polemic against electoral participation). Personally the one standpoint which I have not heard any conivincing argument against is Marx's standpoint (Which I will try to elaborate my understanding of throughout this post), which is the one I'm now gravitating towards.


the recent NHS reforms that the coalition are planning in the UK show that even the most treasured public service can be done away with,

I think the argument that reforms cannot be permanent misses the point. The struggles which workers engage in over wages and working conditions with their individual bosses are also non-permanent, but I don't think any serious socialist has tried to tell workers' that struggles with their employers over their immediate working conditions are useless since Marx gave Proudhon the beatdown in 1847. What is key in reform struggles is not the permanency of the result but the advance in the unity and organisation of the working-class movement that the struggle in itself produces. The only difference between struggles over public services like the National Health Service and struggles over the working conditions in a single workplace is that in the latter the workers' struggle as workers in a particular trade or sector, whereas in the former they struggle as a class regardless of occupation. In that respect a struggle over NHS funding is a much more important struggle than a struggle over the wages of say, Tesco cashiers. Obviously in the sense that both are struggles against the encroachments of capital on the working-class they are both equally important, but in terms of what the struggle over the NHS could do to unite workers' from all backgrounds and occupations and generally advance the movement, that struggle is a key struggle.


we should not participate in elections because this gives legitimacy to the exact bourgeois institutions that we are meant to discredit

Talking about universal suffrage as a 'bourgeois institution' is certainly a kick in the face of the historical movements for universal suffrage which were usually led by the proletariat, the democratic petty bourgeoisie or a combination of both. Everyone on the British left at least should recall that the first mass movement of the working-class in this country coincided directly with the struggle for the vote. 'We' are not supposed to 'discredit' anything, we are supposed to support the working-class movement and fight for it's advancement with every means at our disposal, and that includes the ballot box.

The vote in itself is not the problem anyway, there has not been a single working-class movement in history that has aimed to do away with the election of representatives - from Chartism to the Paris Commune to the Russian revolution they all struggled for some form of representative democracy. Council or Soviet democracy even still includes the election of representatives. The Anarchists in the Russian revolution at least were consistent in denouncing the Bolsheviks for organising 'representative' institutions like Sovnarkom. The question for Left Communists is what exactly is 'confusing' about voting for workers' representatives if we're not aiming to abolish elected representatives. I think the ICC at least may have reiterated some of the Anarchist criticisms regarding the function of Sovnarkom, but I distinctly remember the ICT at least stating unambiguously in response to the ICC that the Council of People's Commissars was an institution of the Russian working-class.

There is nothing in Marxist theory that would require replacing representatives with some form of direct democracy either. Marx and Engels were certainly critical of the parliamentary form of republic in which the executive and legislative branches of government were seperated from each other which allowed for the rule of proffessional politicians and removing the control of large portions of the population over day to day administration, but the solution was found not in direct democracy but the municipal council of the Paris Commune which was identified as a working not a parliamentary body.


isn't is just as easy to explain that we are standing in these elections as a platform only?

The problem I have with the Trotskyist position is that it's almost identical to the Left Communist position but with a bit of added Kautskyan illusion that we can somehow raise the consciousness of workers through unceasing propaganda. What is the point of using elections as just a passive platform? What about actively fighting against the state and against bourgeois politics through the development of an independent working-class politics? It seems superficially similar to the classical Marxist position but underneath is the same old Bakuninist rubbish that there is some kind of 'contradiction' between mass action and the election of representatives.


Any socialists in a Bourgeoisie election are bound to fail,

Reality check here: the capitalist class does not secretly engineer the results of elections behind the scenes like some kind of alien lizard conspiracy.

[Broletariat]

Reality check here: the capitalist class does not secretly engineer the results of elections behind the scenes like some kind of alien lizard conspiracy.

After the Bush election and that whole finding some odd 3 thousand votes in Wisconsin I think it was, I'm not too far from doubting you.

[28350]

Reality check here: the capitalist class does not secretly engineer the results of elections behind the scenes like some kind of alien lizard conspiracy.

I think they have more control than you give them credit for.

[Zanthorus]

After the Bush election and that whole finding some odd 3 thousand votes in Wisconsin I think it was, I'm not too far from doubting you.

How one case of suspicious vote counting which disenfranchised a number of supporters of the US democratic party relates to a systematic behind-the-scenes campaign by the ruling classes to prevent any candidate who is pro-workers' power from gaining the vote is beyond me. I'm aware that the current system may not be 'truely democratic' but to be frank I don't care, democracy cannot under any circumstances be a principle for us. We should support independent action of workers in defence of their own interests regardless of whether those actions are principled according to the standards of the pure democrats.


I think they have more control than you give them credit for.

It was a throwaway comment placed at the end of a fairly substantial post so I'd appreciate it if we focused on the other arguments I made.

[graymouser]

The problem I have with the Trotskyist position is that it's almost identical to the Left Communist position but with a bit of added Kautskyan illusion that we can somehow raise the consciousness of workers through unceasing propaganda. What is the point of using elections as just a passive platform? What about actively fighting against the state and against bourgeois politics through the development of an independent working-class politics? It seems superficially similar to the classical Marxist position but underneath is the same old Bakuninist rubbish that there is some kind of 'contradiction' between mass action and the election of representatives.
This is a good point worth talking about.

I think the main reason for the Trotskyist position on elections is that, to some extent, an election gets you a platform. This isn't a question of "unceasing propaganda" at all, but rather a question of taking advantage of the fact that running candidates can get you openings to talk about your politics with people who would otherwise never hear of you. This is why small propaganda groups tend to run; for mass parties it's relatively similar, except that they want to actually win a thing or two, because parliamentary representatives have the ability to do things like call press conferences.

From observation, I do think a lot of Trotskyist groups in Europe put far too much importance on electoral results - particularly the French NPA, which was formed basically to be an electoral party. So there is definitely a possibility that this can become a thing for itself, if you aren't careful.

There is no Trotskyist party that I know of that doesn't work to actively push forward class struggle politics; could you go a bit further on what you mean by that? Are you talking about using the electoral platform to push forward the politics?

[Zanthorus]

That might have been something of an unfair, offhand statement. I'm not actually familiar with the precise workings of Trot groups, mainly because all joking aside there are quite a lot of them but perhaps I have been somewhat lazy in this respect. My personal opinion is that small socialist 'propaganda' groups running for elections isn't really worth much. I think running candidates in elections only becomes worthwhile when you have significant sections of the working-class in some kind of independent organisation, otherwise it just seems to be a case of yet another sectlet which thinks that what the movement really needs is for everyone to join their organisation and follow their own particular line.

If by groups putting too much focus on electoral politics you mean focusing on elections as the sole outlet of struggle while ignoring extra-parliamentary avenues then I agree with you.

The impression I get of the Trotskyist position on parliament is that it's intended to be used as a tribune to denounce parliament. It seems to me that the task is not merely to denounce parliamentarianism but to form an independent working-class politics which would involve various positive demands centering around issues like political freedom or public services. If your role in parliament is purely negationary rather than offering a positive programme it seems to me that you're open to the same charge which Engels' levied at the Bakuninists of subordinating the working-class to bourgeois politics in the guise of abstention from politics.

[Android]

Interesting post Zanthorus. I've been thinking about these issues as well. I don't have time to offer a more substantial comment at this point. Just to address this:


The vote in itself is not the problem anyway, there has not been a single working-class movement in history that has aimed to do away with the election of representatives - from Chartism to the Paris Commune to the Russian revolution they all struggled for some form of representative democracy. Council or Soviet democracy even still includes the election of representatives. The Anarchists in the Russian revolution at least were consistent in denouncing the Bolsheviks for organising 'representative' institutions like Sovnarkom. The question for Left Communists is what exactly is 'confusing' about voting for workers' representatives if we're not aiming to abolish elected representatives. I think the ICC at least may have reiterated some of the Anarchist criticisms regarding the function of Sovnarkom, but I distinctly remember the ICT at least stating unambiguously in response to the ICC that the Council of People's Commissars was an institution of the Russian working-class

I am not sure about this. I remember a member of the CWO saying to me something along the lines that it represented a dilution or usurping of the organs of workers power. Have not checked the material so I could be wrong on this and could have remembered the conversation in question inaccurately.

Also, I would be interested to know if the De Leonist theorisation of the use of parliament is the same as the SPGB's.

[Zanthorus]

I am not sure about this. I remember a member of the CWO saying to me something along the lines that it represented a dilution or usurping of the organ of workers power.

Well the text I was referring to was their 1977 list (http://en.internationalism.org/node/2635) of questions presented to the ICC which clearly states:


Does the ICC now, like Rosa Luxemburg, criticize the Bolsheviks for dissolving the Assembly, which could have been a useful mediating force for avoiding the ‘excesses’ of war communism? In an attempt to turn the tables on the CWO’s idea that there can be a working class state, the text in International Review, no.10 accuses us of being silent on whether such institutions as the Sovnarkom, Vesenkhah, Red Army and Cheka were ‘class organs’ of the Russian workers’ state. Silent we have never been, and are not now; until the triumph of the counterrevolution they emphatically were so.

This is quite an old text though so they could have moved on since then.


Also, I would be interested to know if the De Leonist theorisation of the use of parliament is the same as the SPGB's.

I think ZeroNowhere should probably answer that question.

[graymouser]

That might have been something of an unfair, offhand statement. I'm not actually familiar with the precise workings of Trot groups, mainly because all joking aside there are quite a lot of them but perhaps I have been somewhat lazy in this respect. My personal opinion is that small socialist 'propaganda' groups running for elections isn't really worth much. I think running candidates in elections only becomes worthwhile when you have significant sections of the working-class in some kind of independent organisation, otherwise it just seems to be a case of yet another sectlet which thinks that what the movement really needs is for everyone to join their organisation and follow their own particular line.
Honestly, for a small group it can be challenging to break out of the activist circles that you wind up in day after day. The goal of small groups running candidates is really basically to meet new people and try and win them to their ranks. You can call it "yet another sectlet," but as I see it, small cadre groups can punch above their weight in terms of political movements. I see the role of the US SWP in the '60s/'70s Vietnam antiwar movement as a case study in this, a group of about 400 taking a leading role in the antiwar movement and growing to around 1500 in the process (before collapsing). The campaigns kept the party visible, and also did a reasonably good job of training cadres in how to do politics outside of activist circles.


If by groups putting too much focus on electoral politics you mean focusing on elections as the sole outlet of struggle while ignoring extra-parliamentary avenues then I agree with you.
Yes, that's what I mean.


The impression I get of the Trotskyist position on parliament is that it's intended to be used as a tribune to denounce parliament. It seems to me that the task is not merely to denounce parliamentarianism but to form an independent working-class politics which would involve various positive demands centering around issues like political freedom or public services. If your role in parliament is purely negationary rather than offering a positive programme it seems to me that you're open to the same charge which Engels' levied at the Bakuninists of subordinating the working-class to bourgeois politics in the guise of abstention from politics.
It's interesting that this is your objection - Trotskyists of most stripes actually tend to be criticized the other way around, because we put too much emphasis on the idea of a transitional program. Certainly the idea of running for office, or serving as a tribune in a parliamentary body, would be primarily programmatic; you may not agree with Trotsky's method of a program of transitional demands, but they are traditionally central to how we work and I don't think it should be any different with an electoral program. There's no confidence that it could be implemented by parliament, of course, but it would be advanced.

[Tim Finnegan]

There is nothing in Marxist theory that would require replacing representatives with some form of direct democracy either. Marx and Engels were certainly critical of the parliamentary form of republic in which the executive and legislative branches of government were seperated from each other which allowed for the rule of proffessional politicians and removing the control of large portions of the population over day to day administration, but the solution was found not in direct democracy but the municipal council of the Paris Commune which was identified as a working not a parliamentary body.
I've heard the distinction posed as one between "representative democracy" and "delegative democracy". Do you think that this is a useful way of thinking about it?

[Android]

Just done a quick search, this quote from the text 'The Decline of the Russian Revolution and the Cult of the Party' (http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2003-03-01/the-decline-of-the-russian-revolution-and-the-cult-of-the-party) seems quite clear as to what their attitude on this question is. it is worth stating I think that when the CWO were formed they looked more toward the German Left:


To start with, the Bolsheviks set up a cabinet of the Council of People’s Commissars (Sovnarkom) to run the Departments of State. Calling the leaders of these Departments “People’s Commissars” (Trotsky’s brainwave) did not hide the fact that they were Ministers in the old sense. Instead of relying on the class-wide bodies of the soviets to elect an executive which ran the government, the Bolsheviks had already begun the process of supplanting soviet rule. This was not a conscious process but followed a recurrent pattern in every area of life in the Russian Socialist Federal Soviet Republic (RSFSR).

[Zanthorus]

You can call it "yet another sectlet," but as I see it, small cadre groups can punch above their weight in terms of political movements.

I don't know about this. I guess I'm more suspicious of small socialist groups trying to push themselves into the leadership of the movement but that seems like another issue.


Certainly the idea of running for office, or serving as a tribune in a parliamentary body, would be primarily programmatic;

Ok thanks for clarifying.


I've heard the distinction posed as one between "representative democracy" and "delegative democracy". Do you think that this is a useful way of thinking about it?

I don't think it is important what we call it. Perhaps I was not entirely clear enough in my initial post but the way I see it is that the workers' movement should utilise both electoral action and 'mass action' in the streets. To a certain degree the form of workers' power would reflect this by combining the oversight of the mass of the class with the election of representatives to carry out day to day administration and so on. Basically I agree with what Gorter says in his Open Letter to Lenin:


It is the task of the German and English, the West-European and American proletariat to combine centralisation and discipline with the strictest control of, with power over, the leadership.

But disagree that this has anything to do with work in parliament.

[Broletariat]

I think the argument that reforms cannot be permanent misses the point. The struggles which workers engage in over wages and working conditions with their individual bosses are also non-permanent, but I don't think any serious socialist has tried to tell workers' that struggles with their employers over their immediate working conditions are useless since Marx gave Proudhon the beatdown in 1847. What is key in reform struggles is not the permanency of the result but the advance in the unity and organisation of the working-class movement that the struggle in itself produces. The only difference between struggles over public services like the National Health Service and struggles over the working conditions in a single workplace is that in the latter the workers' struggle as workers in a particular trade or sector, whereas in the former they struggle as a class regardless of occupation. In that respect a struggle over NHS funding is a much more important struggle than a struggle over the wages of say, Tesco cashiers. Obviously in the sense that both are struggles against the encroachments of capital on the working-class they are both equally important, but in terms of what the struggle over the NHS could do to unite workers' from all backgrounds and occupations and generally advance the movement, that struggle is a key struggle.

My question here is, are reforms still a viable option? I'm sort of under the impression that we're past the age of reforms and that the bourgeoisie can't afford such things any longer.

I'm willing to accept I'm completely wrong of course, if you could explain why/how.


Talking about universal suffrage as a 'bourgeois institution' is certainly a kick in the face of the historical movements for universal suffrage which were usually led by the proletariat, the democratic petty bourgeoisie or a combination of both. Everyone on the British left at least should recall that the first mass movement of the working-class in this country coincided directly with the struggle for the vote. 'We' are not supposed to 'discredit' anything, we are supposed to support the working-class movement and fight for it's advancement with every means at our disposal, and that includes the ballot box.

It would seem to me that people have already lost faith in the voting system ala low voter turn-out. Voting to me strikes me as similar to trade-unionism. At first it's shiny new and cool toy for the worker's to express some sort of opinion, but then we realise it's an opinion expressed within certain boundaries, namely those made by the bourgeois.


The vote in itself is not the problem anyway, there has not been a single working-class movement in history that has aimed to do away with the election of representatives - from Chartism to the Paris Commune to the Russian revolution they all struggled for some form of representative democracy. Council or Soviet democracy even still includes the election of representatives. The Anarchists in the Russian revolution at least were consistent in denouncing the Bolsheviks for organising 'representative' institutions like Sovnarkom. The question for Left Communists is what exactly is 'confusing' about voting for workers' representatives if we're not aiming to abolish elected representatives. I think the ICC at least may have reiterated some of the Anarchist criticisms regarding the function of Sovnarkom, but I distinctly remember the ICT at least stating unambiguously in response to the ICC that the Council of People's Commissars was an institution of the Russian working-class.

There is nothing in Marxist theory that would require replacing representatives with some form of direct democracy either. Marx and Engels were certainly critical of the parliamentary form of republic in which the executive and legislative branches of government were seperated from each other which allowed for the rule of proffessional politicians and removing the control of large portions of the population over day to day administration, but the solution was found not in direct democracy but the municipal council of the Paris Commune which was identified as a working not a parliamentary body.

It might be just me, but this looks really devoid of class content. Sure nothing wrong with representative democracy, but who's being represented.


I'd also like to note I'm a little confused on what your actual position is, so I might be misrepresenting your argument here or there.


How one case of suspicious vote counting which disenfranchised a number of supporters of the US democratic party relates to a systematic behind-the-scenes campaign by the ruling classes to prevent any candidate who is pro-workers' power from gaining the vote is beyond me. I'm aware that the current system may not be 'truely democratic' but to be frank I don't care, democracy cannot under any circumstances be a principle for us. We should support independent action of workers in defence of their own interests regardless of whether those actions are principled according to the standards of the pure democrats.

If things are going to get suspicious because the chosen representative of the ruling class didn't win against another ruling class representative, what's going to happen when candidates run who don't represent the ruling class?

[Zanthorus]

I'm sort of under the impression that we're past the age of reforms and that the bourgeoisie can't afford such things any longer.

The question for you would be exactly when and why did the 'age of reforms' suddenly come to an end? The ICC at least claims that 1914 or thereabouts marked the decisive turning point, yet Clement Atlee's post-war Labour government, to take one example, certainly brought in more than a few reforms.


It would seem to me that people have already lost faith in the voting system ala low voter turn-out.

And why is this important? People may have lost faith in voting but for this to serve your argument they would have to concurrently accept the idea of changing society through the direct action of the class. Given the low voter turnouts, that would mean something like 40% of the UK population is ready to spring up at any time and form workers' councils in opposition to the existing state, wishful thinking if ever there was any. Indeed, one can just as easily make the opposite case that voter apathy signifies people's belief in their lack of ability to change things for the better, which is certainly not a good thing.


At first it's shiny new and cool toy for the worker's to express some sort of opinion, but then we realise it's an opinion expressed within certain boundaries, namely those made by the bourgeois.

If the bourgeoisie themselves actually made the boundaries in the way they wanted we'd still have the property qualification on the vote.

I think maybe I could still be a little clearer on what I think, I realise for instance that in my original post I would elaborate what I thought the 'classical' Marxist view on elections was, but I never did. I will return to this subject tomorrow when I've had a bit more time to think.

[Broletariat]

The question for you would be exactly when and why did the 'age of reforms' suddenly come to an end? The ICC at least claims that 1914 or thereabouts marked the decisive turning point, yet Clement Atlee's post-war Labour government, to take one example, certainly brought in more than a few reforms.

Honestly I couldn't give an exact date or anything, I'm really not this familiar with such thing. I would probably attribute the "why" to the falling rate of profit though.

It just seems, intuitively, with all the austerity and cutbacks going on all over right now, that the reforms that've been fought for in the past are being rolled back before us. It appears that the bourgeois can no longer, or no longer needs to, bribe the working class into submission. There have been demonstrations and protests and such against such austerity, but it still goes through which leads me to believe that the bourgeois can't afford those reforms anymore.




And why is this important? People may have lost faith in voting but for this to serve your argument they would have to concurrently accept the idea of changing society through the direct action of the class. Given the low voter turnouts, that would mean something like 40% of the UK population is ready to spring up at any time and form workers' councils in opposition to the existing state, wishful thinking if ever there was any. Indeed, one can just as easily make the opposite case that voter apathy signifies people's belief in their lack of ability to change things for the better, which is certainly not a good thing.I think it's important because if you think voting becomes important then part of your program would be telling people who don't vote to vote? I'm still confused on this issue so maybe I'm misrepresenting you.

I'm not at all saying that those who don't vote are up for revolution, just that they've lost hope in any sort of change coming from the ballot boxes. They've lost hope in the ballot boxes, give them hope in revolution.


If the bourgeoisie themselves actually made the boundaries in the way they wanted we'd still have the property qualification on the vote.I think that, obviously, the bourgeoisie are willing to make concessions. For the time being they either deem it too trivial or too dangerous to add property qualifications to the vote. It's sort of like playing a game you make your own rules to, you don't want to make your rules too obviously biased in your favour or nobody will want to play anymore.

[Tim Finnegan]

Honestly I couldn't give an exact date or anything, I'm really not this familiar with such thing. I would probably attribute the "why" to the falling rate of profit though.

It just seems, intuitively, with all the austerity and cutbacks going on all over right now, that the reforms that've been fought for in the past are being rolled back before us. It appears that the bourgeois can no longer, or no longer needs to, bribe the working class into submission. There have been demonstrations and protests and such against such austerity, but it still goes through which leads me to believe that the bourgeois can't afford those reforms anymore.
I would suggest that this owes more to collapse of a widespread working class conciousness than any objective economic reasons. When the majority of the country not only refer to themselves as "middle class" in an aspirational manner, but in a defensive one, the sort of energy that lead to the success (to whatever extent) of the early reformist movements is going to be incredibly hard to muster. The "middle class majority" is and was an ideological tool, and now that it has served its need- the crushing of working class mass-militancy and the butchering of industry- its material basis is being gradually dismantled.

[Broletariat]

I would suggest that this owes more to collapse of a widespread working class conciousness than any objective economic reasons. When the majority of the country not only refer to themselves as "middle class" in an aspirational manner, but in a defensive one, the sort of energy that lead to the success (to whatever extent) of the early reformist movements is going to be incredibly hard to muster. The "middle class majority" is and was an ideological tool, and now that it has served its need- the crushing of working class mass-militancy and the butchering of industry- its material basis is being gradually dismantled.

Weren't there relatively large protests in France and Greece about austerity and that didn't stop it? I'm not sure if they would be considered large or not.

Do you think as the middle class mentality wears off, we'll see a new wave of revolutionary sentiment?

[Tim Finnegan]

Weren't there relatively large protests in France and Greece about austerity and that didn't stop it? I'm not sure if they would be considered large or not.
There were protests, but protests only mean so much if you can't back them up. A lot of the public outcry has been pretty toothless, given limited unionisation, the timidity of unions, and the frequent lack of serious electoral opposition.


Do you think as the middle class mentality wears off, we'll see a new wave of revolutionary sentiment?It's possible, and I would certainly like to think so, but that really depends on whether it does wear off. I foresee some ideologically turbulent times ahead, as people try to reconcile their self-perception with their material conditions, and we can only hope that the impossibility of this task for the majority produces a disillusionment with capitalism.

[Broletariat]

So do you think that, given enough class struggle, the bourgeois would reinstate those reforms they cut back?

[Tim Finnegan]

So do you think that, given enough class struggle, the bourgeois would reinstate those reforms they cut back?
I suppose that depends. I was perhaps a bit over-eager in pointing to ideology over material circumstances, and I do think that there could well come a point where the rate of profit has declined such that revolution will come easier than those reforms. The question, then, is whether a working class movement will be able to win back those reforms before we reach viable revolutionary circumstances, or whether viable revolutionary circumstances emerge before the opportunities for such reforms do.

I think that a lot of what will determine this will be where capitalism goes from here. Despite all the fuss made of the shift from social democracy to neoliberalism within the West, both operated within more or less the same liberal democratic framework, but, as we're all aware, that is in no way inherent to capitalism. What we could well see is the emergence of more ruthlessly authoritarian forms of capitalism developing in the West, perhaps mirroring those being developed in much of Asia, and that could well make such reforms impossible to reprieve, at least without some great shift of capitalism back to liberalism. (And that's not suggest that the so-called "freedom" of the West hasn't long been hollow, but that things could get worse, as they were before the emergence of a popular liberal democracy.)

Of course, there are many older than wiser voices than me around here, so perhaps they'd have something to say on the topic...?

[Broletariat]

I think that a lot of what will determine this will be where capitalism goes from here. Despite all the fuss made of the shift from social democracy to neoliberalism within the West, both operated within more or less the same liberal democratic framework, but, as we're all aware, that is in no way inherent to capitalism. What we could well see is the emergence of more ruthlessly authoritarian forms of capitalism developing in the West, perhaps mirroring those being developed in much of Asia, and that could well make such reforms impossible to reprieve, at least without some great shift of capitalism back to liberalism. (And that's not suggest that the so-called "freedom" of the West hasn't long been hollow, but that things could get worse, as they were before the emergence of a popular liberal democracy.)

My thinking was along the lines of, well they can't afford to bribe us (social democracy) any more, guess they'll just strong arm us in line.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem I have with the Trotskyist position is that it's almost identical to the Left Communist position but with a bit of added Kautskyan illusion that we can somehow raise the consciousness of workers through unceasing propaganda.

That's a bit inaccurate to say the least. Drop the word "Kautskyan" and replace "propaganda" with "agitation."

[ar734]

The question for you would be exactly when and why did the 'age of reforms' suddenly come to an end?

What about the elections of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher?

[HEAD ICE]

Talking about universal suffrage as a 'bourgeois institution' is certainly a kick in the face of the historical movements for universal suffrage which were usually led by the proletariat, the democratic petty bourgeoisie or a combination of both. Everyone on the British left at least should recall that the first mass movement of the working-class in this country coincided directly with the struggle for the vote. 'We' are not supposed to 'discredit' anything, we are supposed to support the working-class movement and fight for it's advancement with every means at our disposal, and that includes the ballot box.

A lot of this I think has to do with anarchists generally and some Marxists as well taking anti-parliamentarianism to be a principle rather than a tactic. The why I have always thought of it and is my position is that standing for elections to be used as a 'platform' is not only 'passive' as you mentioned it but a complete waste of time and resources for revolutionaries.

I remember a thread on here for someone who ran for congress and they got a couple paragraphs in the Wall Street journal where the most "radical" thing that the paper published was changing America's system of representative democracy to a parliament. Socialists standing for elections as a "tribune" is one of the most passive activities that can be done, and almost completely pointless.

However, I believe it would not be pointless if there was a strong class movement that would make using the ballot box justifiable. Using the ballot box to make a broad class movement is pure fantasy. For example, the PCInt in Italy ran for local elections in the immediate post-war period, where the different political factions of the bourgeoisie were weak and there was a great amount of class activity. The use of elections and of parliament/legislature should be considered solely if the material conditions are appropriate, not as an overriding principle. Because of this, I would advocate boycotts of elections and the like, or "anti-parliamentarianism."

[Broletariat]

A lot of this I think has to do with anarchists generally and some Marxists as well taking anti-parliamentarianism to be a principle rather than a tactic. The why I have always thought of it and is my position is that standing for elections to be used as a 'platform' is not only 'passive' as you mentioned it but a complete waste of time and resources for revolutionaries.

I remember a thread on here for someone who ran for congress and they got a couple paragraphs in the Wall Street journal where the most "radical" thing that the paper published was changing America's system of representative democracy to a parliament. Socialists standing for elections as a "tribune" is one of the most passive activities that can be done, and almost completely pointless.

However, I believe it would not be pointless if there was a strong class movement that would make using the ballot box justifiable. Using the ballot box to make a broad class movement is pure fantasy. For example, the PCInt in Italy ran for local elections in the immediate post-war period, where the different political factions of the bourgeoisie were weak and there was a great amount of class activity. The use of elections and of parliament/legislature should be considered solely if the material conditions are appropriate, not as an overriding principle. Because of this, I would advocate boycotts of elections and the like, or "anti-parliamentarianism."

This was a very clarifying post and I greatly appreciate it.

Your last piece looks like you're basically shedding some class-analysis to this otherwise abstract conversation of "representative democracy." You seem to be alluding to the formation of a worker's state in the shell of the old state perhaps?

[HEAD ICE]

This was a very clarifying post and I greatly appreciate it.

Your last piece looks like you're basically shedding some class-analysis to this otherwise abstract conversation of "representative democracy." You seem to be alluding to the formation of a worker's state in the shell of the old state perhaps?

I don't think I fully understand your last sentence, but I don't believe a worker's state can come about if socialists simply get a majority in whatever legislative apparatus they get elected to.

[Lyev]

Thanks for the thought-out responses folks

I also get the feeling that the title of this thread might have been my doing (As far as I am aware I am the first person to use the word 'confusionism' to refer to the act of confusing people, and I used this in a polemic against electoral participation).Oh gee, yeah, it was an article that you wrote. I thought it was a more widely used term, but it seems to encompass some of the key questions at stake here anyway.


I think the argument that reforms cannot be permanent misses the point.I didn't really have my thinking cap on whilst typing this. I was really just addressing reformism itself here, but of course social-democracy was cast into the dirt-pile of history even way before the Second International.

Talking about universal suffrage as a 'bourgeois institution' is certainly a kick in the face of the historical movements for universal suffrage which were usually led by the proletariat, the democratic petty bourgeoisie or a combination of both. Everyone on the British left at least should recall that the first mass movement of the working-class in this country coincided directly with the struggle for the vote.Again, I don't think I was completely clear on this. I think I was referring more to government and the state itself as a 'bourgeois institution'.

'We' are not supposed to 'discredit' anything, we are supposed to support the working-class movement and fight for it's advancement with every means at our disposal, and that includes the ballot box.How are the interests of the workers' movement promoted through the ballot box?

[Broletariat]

I don't think I fully understand your last sentence, but I don't believe a worker's state can come about if socialists simply get a majority in whatever legislative apparatus they get elected to.

I was talking about like in conjunction with mass worker's struggle. As they started running for election in things they could then go on to dissolve the government and make a new one as they gain more and more social power.

[Lyev]

On another note, a point that various posters seem to have bought in this thread is boycotting elections; "anti-parliamentarianism". What is the chief purpose of calling for a boycott? I think a big section of possible voters, just don't bother because and increasingly large amount of people are so disillusioned and unamoured by these political processes. The politicians that are supposed to represent those who elect them are just out of touch, or are completely wishy-washy with no strong stances on anything. In this sense, the old class analysis stands for much of this: for example, 18 members of the current UK cabinet are millionaires, the PM himself is worth in excess of £30 mil. The coalition's interests are separate from those of their "electorate" (although I kind of dislike the sterility of this term). Maybe I am missing something really obvious, but why call for a boycott of elections when a lot of folks don't bother voting anyway?

[Lyev]

Sorry to keep replying in separate posts but...

I was talking about like in conjunction with mass worker's struggle. As they started running for election in things they could then go on to dissolve the government and make a new one as they gain more and more social power.Isn't this just practically socialism-from-above? Something similar to what Chavez is half-heartedly trying to do right now? Or similar to what Allende attempted 40 years ago? I don't really tend to go in for the anarchist "power corrupts"* viewpoint, but, once elected, it is pretty easy to lose the ties with the mass worker movement that just elected you.

*It is probably more accurate to say that material economic conditions are what corrupt; not abstract greed, or the desire for power.

[Broletariat]

Sorry to keep replying in separate posts but...
Isn't this just practically socialism-from-above? Something similar to what Chavez is half-heartedly trying to do right now? Or similar to what Allende attempted 40 years ago? I don't really tend to go in for the anarchist "power corrupts"* viewpoint, but, once elected, it is pretty easy to lose the ties with the mass worker movement that just elected you.

*It is probably more accurate to say that material economic conditions are what corrupt; not abstract greed, or the desire for power.

Perhaps I have strayed a bit from what I mean to say.

In the context of mass class-struggle I imagine the socialist reps would be compelled by material conditions that would override the fact that they're in office.

[Lyev]

Perhaps I have strayed a bit from what I mean to say.

In the context of mass class-struggle I imagine the socialist reps would be compelled by material conditions that would override the fact that they're in office.But bearing that assertion in mind, can you directly address either of these concrete historical examples that I cited (one of which is unfolding before our eyes)? The "context of mass class-struggle" did not stop Allende from being overthrown in a CIA-backed, fascist coup.

[Broletariat]

But bearing that assertion in mind, can you directly address either of these concrete historical examples that I cited (one of which is unfolding before our eyes)? The "context of mass class-struggle" did not stop Allende from being overthrown in a CIA-backed, fascist coup.

I'm not really sure Chavez has that given context.

I'm also basically oblivious to history, so I don't know about Allende, but from the sounds of it you're presenting an external problem when we were focusing on internal ones before.

[Broletariat]

I'd just like to emphasize that the elections must be an OUTGROWTH of revolutionary activity. Once the base of revolutionary activity recedes, this doesn't mean that those elected into power will necessarily leave, just that they will stop being revolutionary.

[black magick hustla]

im too lazy to get in line and vote

[Zanthorus]

I said previously that I would try to elaborate further on my position, which I identify basically with Marx's. Perhaps to understand this topic we can begin with the question of how much of Marxist politics is applicable on an international scale and how much is determined with regards to national particularities. The question can be easily answered by looking at those parts of our politics which are determined in reference to the economic situation of the proletariat, and those which refer to political institutions. The basic situation of the working-class as a class of 'free' wage-labourers is universal, and as such those that relate to this are universally valid. It is always the case that the class is impoverished by competition, and can only fight impoverishment by becoming organised. It is thus universally the case that communists support workers' struggles and organisation at all points. Anyone who tries to except themselves from this on the basis of 'unique' national or historical conditions is an opportunist.

On the other hand aspects of our politics that refer to specific political institutions are nationally specific. This follows fairly easily from not being a bloody idiot. Whether or not to utilise the ballot does not figure for those living under monarchical or dictatorial rule. Similarly the electoral institutions in each country differ and considerations arising from this could effect the decision to utilise electoral methods from country to country. As Marx says in his 1872 speech in Holland, "Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics. But we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same. You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration".

Or Engels, if you prefer: "One may be of the opinion that the best way to abolish the Presidency and the Senate in America is to elect men to these offices who are pledged to effect their abolition, and then one will consistently act accordingly. Others may think that this method is inappropriate; that’s a matter of opinion... the immediate goal of the labor movement is the conquest of political power for and by the working class. If we agree on that, the difference of opinion regarding the ways and means of struggle to be employed therein can scarcely lead to differences of principle among sincere people who have their wits about them."

On this score I agree completely with Stagger Lee - this is a question of tactics and not principles. Whether or not to utilise elections is not a class line in the same way that supporting governments contrary to the interests of the workers' movement in opressed nations is. To assert that utilisation or non-utilisation of parliament constitutes a 'principle' to be upheld under all circumstances would be to fall back into the old Proudhonist trap.


How are the interests of the workers' movement promoted through the ballot box?

Voting for workers' candidates against bourgeois candidates can help to solidify the political independence of the workers' movement as against all other classes. Engels argued in 'The Bakuninists at Work' that the Bakuninists abstention from running candidates had led to the workers going out to vote for Republican candidates and thus subordinating the movement of the class to bourgeois politics. As Lenin phrased it, the argument is that anti-electoralism constitutes a form of subordinating the movement to bourgeois politics in the guise of abstention from politics.


Isn't this just practically socialism-from-above? Something similar to what Chavez is half-heartedly trying to do right now? Or similar to what Allende attempted 40 years ago?

Well, if that is true then Marx must have been an advocate of 'socialism from above'. That is one Anarchist argument anyway, that Marx was inconsistent on the question the state because he posed the possibility of the working-class taking power through peaceful, electoral means. David Adams pointed out to the contrary, however, that there is no necessary contradiction between 'socialism from below' and taking power through electoral means. The workers' deputies could simply act to dissolve parliament, declare the re-organisation of the country along the lines of a commune republic and legislate the actions of the class in taking over their workplaces. This is also the classic De Leonist position as far as I understand it. The comparisons with Chavez and Allende are pure rubbish.


The "context of mass class-struggle" did not stop Allende from being overthrown in a CIA-backed, fascist coup.

The key here is 'CIA-backed'. This is an argument against socialism in one country, not against electoralism.


im too lazy to get in line and vote

I can definitely sympathise with this position.

[Lyev]

I know this thread is a bit old now, but I thought I would just try and wrap things up a little, trying to sum up my thoughts. (by the way, I really put my foot in it with that 'socialism-from-above' Chavez-Allende comparison :blushing:)
So is the Paris Commune, the Bolsheviks in 1917 etc. (any other examples?) historical examples where power was taken -- to very varying degrees -- through electoral means? Hypothetically, if the communist movement, on the back of highly intensified class struggle, was much larger and stronger, would it be appropriate to stand candidates for parliamentary elections (not as a 'platform', but to reassert our independent class position against bourgeois influence)? This would not be for reasons related to 'principle', but would be largely tactical because it is not an immutable position that remains the same all the time, but moves with the working class. I think this little excerpt from the David Adams essay clears some issues up:
Some critics may look at a focus on the Paris Commune as bound to make Marx and Engels look very hostile to the bourgeois state, when in fact their politics were much more ambiguous. Did they not advocate participation in bourgeois elections, and the election of workers’ candidates into parliament? In fact, in certain countries, they even thought that a working class parliamentary majority could be used for a peaceful transition to socialism.62 For many anarchists, this is the defining aspect of Marx’s political thought, and his supposed authoritarianism is considered proven on this evidence. Leaving aside the question of the relative value of electoral politics, it is worth asking whether there is necessarily any contradiction in advocating the use of bourgeois parliaments while hoping for their eventual replacement by Communal-type organization, in other words whether one can insist on the fullest possible democratization while participating in governmental forms that are less than ideal. The anarchist assumption, of course, is that participation in bourgeois governmental forms can only help sustain such institutions. But the error comes when it is assumed that since Marx advocated such participation, he also believed in keeping the governmental forms of the bourgeois state for the period of proletarian rule.

As we have seen, Marx in fact foresaw a fundamental change occurring when the workers reabsorb their alienated political powers, and the state becomes servant instead of master of society. Unsurprisingly, this change entails certain formal changes such as the extension of the principle of democratic control to more areas of public life, the maximization of popular control over elected delegates, a deprofessionalization of public life and an end to bureaucratism, a simplification of governmental functions and the end to the division between executive and legislative power. As Richard N. Hunt has put it, “. . . Marx and Engels never imagined that the leaders of the workers’ movement would simply step into the high offices of the state and govern as a professional cadre in much the same manner as their bourgeois predecessors.”Also, would we say that communists standing in elections in the current period (where the workers' movement is weak and divided), for the purpose of gaining a 'platform', will result in the 'entrenching' of our politics and activity. Those communists who gained some amount of influence in parliament would become lethargic and ultimately would be lead into reformism. In other words, like the Eurocommunists, as an example, in France or Italy currently? Again, thanks to everyone for their replies and comments.

(Also, apologies for arguing against the user 'Broletariat' when I was clearly ill-informed and just plain wrong!)

[Broletariat]

(Also, apologies for arguing against the user 'Broletariat' when I was clearly ill-informed and just plain wrong!)

Don't apologise at all comrade, this is an issue I had thought very little about and debating with you stimulated my thoughts on this matter to help us all come to a more informed conclusion. I thank you for the resistance.