Workers power/rule, the DOTP, managed democracy, and parties

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes; That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes [...]" (Marx, Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm))

First off, it should be noted that Marx and his colleagues in the International Workingmen's Association did not say "into political parties" (that is, in the plural), but rather "into a political party." The expression in the singular is important when considering the logical conclusions to be made after taking their relatively crude understanding of "political party" to a higher, more institutional level (as Orthodox Marxism, the pre-war SPD, the inter-war USPD, etc. all did).

Second, it is already clear that the worker class "for itself" is not the same as the broader working class as a whole. Because real parties are real movements and vice versa, it would be hard to yell "Substitutionist!" or "Voluntarist!" at any equivalence of the (mass) worker-class party-movement with the worker class "for itself." For example, the pre-WWI SPD and the inter-war USPD were the German worker class "for itself" in their respective periods, and the SFIO was the French worker class "for itself."

Third, it should be asserted that, contrary to affections for petit-bourgeois democratism, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the highest form of participatory but managed democracy for the working class. Lenin noted that there should be no fetishes for universal suffrage or multi-party pluralism. Clearly, "managed" refers to who can vote, who can't, who can run candidates or run as a candidate, who can't, who can in general participate in the political affairs of society, and who can't.

Fourth, if the worker class "for itself" has appropriate processes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practical-issues-and-t150582/index.html) - democratic processes to the point of scrapping oligarchic means of personnel selection, lots of participation and unity-in-diversity (forums and networks, currents, platforms, and tendencies, but not factions or factionalism) within its singular institution, mastery over bureaucratic processes (such as nomenclatures and job slots) for its own long-term purposes - what is the point of establishing politically separate institutions (other than for any necessary functional specialization), from those not requiring the kind of civic political commitment or actual political citizenship that voting membership requires... to political competition that turns unity-in-diversity into a sort of Balkanized parody (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-independent-t155105/index.html)?

Notes:

Speaking of necessary functional specialization, historian Moshe Lewin demolished the historical "one-party state" myth by asserting that, "in the 1930s, the [Soviet] organization calling itself the ‘party’ had already lost its political character; it had been transformed into an administrative network, wherein a hierarchy ruled a rank and file.” Two compatible solutions have been proposed for this problem:

1) Immediate opposition of the political party and any state or societal polity, plus the minimization of state or polity influence on party affairs, via crossing off from the list of voting members or party citizens all of the most experienced party organizers, leaders, chiefs, etc. who are transferred or promoted to some state or polity "party" - including those transferred or promoted to administrative posts in the state or polity itself (Razlatzki);

2) Among those transferred or promoted to some state or polity "party," for the "party" full-timers to give priority to the politico-ideological education of all the rest of the "party" and allow considerable autonomy for those with administrative posts in the state or polity itself (Zhdanov (http://books.google.ca/books?id=J69Gk-Dti-EC&dq=zhdanov+malenkov+secretariat&source=gbs_navlinks_s), Kuznetsov (www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=CMR_442_0219)).

In all, there can be three distinct groups in a genuine one-party system: the political, mass, worker-class party-movement proper, the professional or full-time state/polity "party," and the purely administrative state/polity "party."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Firstly, in future llong posts can you post a key/legend and explain what you mean by the several useless and unnecessary and, to all intents and purposes, meaningless jargonistic epithets you attach to non-attributable collections of letters.:thumbup1:

Secondly, no, the DoTP is not managed democracy. In fact, if you understood revolutions from any sort of materialistic viewpoint, and had you participated in any struggle in your life, you would understand revolution as the coming and going, the swaying and then eruption of anger, emotion and working class rebellion; the self-agitation, self-education and self-organisation of the working class in their quest to overthrow, expropriate the bourgeoisie and create a proletarian system of their own.

Now, i'm just saying, a group who has been oppressed for hundreds of years like the working class, when they finally come to power, are unlikely to be of the viewpoint that managed democracy (aka bastard quasi-democracy, in other words) or withholding the vote, or dictatorship, any of these are a good idea. I cannot predict, but I imagine that a working class truly politically empowered would WANT (this is the key phrase, comrade 'what the working class wants') a system of truly direct, extreme democracy, where multiple candidates can stand in elections, can be recalled etc.

What you fail to understand is that Socialism is that its main aim is educating and empowering the working class, not simply taking power and introducing reforms that benefit the working class.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

When I saw the title, I knew it was going to be a DNZ thread.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Secondly, no, the DoTP is not managed democracy. In fact, if you understood revolutions from any sort of materialistic viewpoint, and had you participated in any struggle in your life, you would understand revolution as the coming and going, the swaying and then eruption of anger, emotion and working class rebellion; the self-agitation, self-education and self-organisation of the working class in their quest to overthrow, expropriate the bourgeoisie and create a proletarian system of their own.

Ad hominem.


Now, i'm just saying, a group who has been oppressed for hundreds of years like the working class, when they finally come to power, are unlikely to be of the viewpoint that managed democracy (aka bastard quasi-democracy, in other words) or withholding the vote, or dictatorship, any of these are a good idea. I cannot predict, but I imagine that a working class truly politically empowered would WANT (this is the key phrase, comrade 'what the working class wants') a system of truly direct, extreme democracy, where multiple candidates can stand in elections, can be recalled etc.

Multiple worker-class party platforms could be presented for not-so-managed plebiscites, and even those selected by processes free from oligarchic means of personnel selection could be recallable.

I'm just saying that, unless somehow relations with non-worker classes are as smooth as you'd like it to be, Petit-Bourgeois Democratism (a crucial political component in the Third World but which you subscribe to for countries with working-class super-majorities) is utopian.


What you fail to understand is that Socialism is that its main aim is educating and empowering the working class, not simply taking power and introducing reforms that benefit the working class.

Um, I know the slogan "Educate! Agitate! Organize!" all too well ("education" can't be free from "jargonistic epithets"), so I don't know what you're talking about. :confused:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Ad hominem.



Multiple worker-class party platforms could be presented for not-so-managed plebiscites, and even those selected by processes free from oligarchic means of personnel selection could be recallable.

I'm just saying that, unless somehow relations with non-worker classes are as smooth as you'd like it to be, Petit-Bourgeois Democratism (a crucial political component in the Third World but which you subscribe to for countries with working-class super-majorities) is utopian.



Um, I know the slogan "Educate! Agitate! Organize!" all too well ("education" can't be free from "jargonistic epithets"), so I don't know what you're talking about. :confused:

My first point was not an ad hom at all. Even if I take out the point about you being a theoriser and nothing more, the point still stands.

Secondly, who is to decide about plebiscites, democracy and who is a worker or not? This is what you always avoid answering, because we both know the truth: that you believe a small cabal of strongmen should decide who is a worker, who is allowed the vote etc. It's Stalinism cloaked in confusing jargon.

[Die Neue Zeit]

that you believe a small cabal of strongmen should decide who is a worker, who is allowed the vote etc.

Well, if you call a party congress within a genuine one-party system "a small cabal of strongmen," I'd have to agree with you. :lol:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

There have been enough historical examples that show a 'genuine one-party system' will always degenerate the revolution, as 'the party' will become an interest group of its own within society, developing interests that do not always work in tandem with the interests of the wider working class.

So yeah, given historical experience, i'd say that a 'genuine one party system' (as opposed to what, a dis-ingenuous one party fucking system???) will end up sub-ordinating the working class, probably sub-ordinating congress too, and leaving much of the power in the hands of regional chiefs and those on the national executive committee.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There have been enough historical examples that show a 'genuine one-party system' will always degenerate the revolution, as 'the party' will become an interest group of its own within society, developing interests that do not always work in tandem with the interests of the wider working class.

So yeah, given historical experience, i'd say that a 'genuine one party system' (as opposed to what, a dis-ingenuous one party fucking system???) will end up sub-ordinating the working class, probably sub-ordinating congress too, and leaving much of the power in the hands of regional chiefs and those on the national executive committee.

Such degeneration occurred either because the ruling parties weren't mass parties, or they were at one point but their ranks got chopped down.

Re. "as opposed to what," I already mentioned the "no-party state." The tail end of my OP listed measures to preserve the political character of the ruling party.

[RED DAVE]

"Considering, that against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes; That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end – the abolition of classes [...]" (Marx, Resolution of the London Conference on Working Class Political Action (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm))
First off, it should be noted that Marx and his colleagues in the International Workingmen's Association did not say "into political parties" (that is, in the plural), but rather "into a political party."And it's quite possible that they were speaking rhetorically, and, in any event, we are not bound by formulations Marx, et al., made 150 or so years ago.


The expression in the singular is important when considering the logical conclusions to be made after taking their relatively crude understanding of "political party" to a higher, more institutional level (as Orthodox Marxism, the pre-war SPD, the inter-war USPD, etc. all did).Let me say to anyone reading this post who is unfamiliar with what DNZ is writing about, he's holding up as a model to emulate some of the most bureaucratized, sell-out parties ever to curse the working class.


Second, it is already clear that the worker classNote that he's using "worker class," instead of working class, to fit some weird theory of his own. Doubtless he'll tell you about it.


"for itself" is not the same as the broader working class as a whole.The "worker class 'for itself'" is not the same as the working class "as a whole." If anyone can come with an explanation for this, please let us know.


Because real parties are real movements and vice versa, it would be hard to yell "Substitutionist!" or "Voluntarist!" at any equivalence of the (mass) worker-class party-movement with the worker class "for itself."Umm, yes, sure, of course, you were saying?


For example, the pre-WWI SPD and the inter-war USPD were the German worker class "for itself" in their respective periods, and the SFIO was the French worker class "for itself."Umm, yes, sure, of course, you were saying?


Third, it should be asserted that, contrary to affections for petit-bourgeois democratism, the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is the highest form of participatory but managed democracy for the working class.And now we get to it.

Somehow, this person, with (a) no experience in an active revolutionary organization that he has ever mentioned, and (b) with no experience in a working class organization like a union that he has ever mentioned, and (c) with a pronounced bent, even affection, towards bureaucratic modes of organization, is (d) telling us that the dictatorship of the proletariat is going be a "managed democracy." In other words, something other than the working class itself is going to manage the dictatorship of the proletariat. Because if it were elsewise, if the proletariat would control its own dictatorship, as it will, then there would be no need for the very loaded term "managed."


Lenin noted that there should be no fetishes for universal suffrage or multi-party pluralism.And Lenin was, in the broadest sense wrong. What might have been briefly appropriate, and very dangerous, for an extreme situation that the Bolsheviks found themselves in nearly 100 years ago, in an undeveloped country, facing foreign invasion and civil war, is not appropriate for revolutionary situations in general.


Clearly, "managed" refers to who can vote, who can't, who can run candidates or run as a candidate, who can't, who can in general participate in the political affairs of society, and who can't.That is not what "managed" means in common parlance. "Managed" refers, in the common view, a situation where something is controlled from the outside. DNZ's choice of words is unfortunate at best but actually reflect his bureaucratic outlook, the outlook of a "manager."

No one who is really interested in working class democracy would refer to it as "managed."


Fourth, if the worker class (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practical-issues-and-t150582/index.html)Again the bullshit of the "worker class" as opposed to the working class? Why, you have to ask, would someone with little or no political experience take it upon themself to avoid standard Marxist terminology?


"for itself" has appropriate processes (http://www.revleft.com/vb/practical-issues-and-t150582/index.html)
- democratic processes to the point of scrapping oligarchic means of personnel selection, lots of participation and unity-in-diversity (forums and networks, currents, platforms, and tendenciesOkay.! But let's see where this goes.


but not factions or factionalism)Right to stalinism! Comrades, whenever anyone looks to ban factions, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.


within its singular institution, mastery over bureaucratic processes (such as nomenclatures and job slots) for its own long-term purposesNotice that he refers to the normal working processes as "bureaucratic."


what is the point of establishing politically separate institutions (other than for any necessary functional specialization), from those not requiring the kind of civic political commitment or actual political citizenship that voting membership requires... to political competition that turns unity-in-diversity into a sort of Balkanized parody (http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-independent-t155105/index.html)?A red kewpie doll to anyone who can decipher this.


Notes:

Speaking of necessary functional specialization, historian Moshe Lewin demolished the historical "one-party state" myth by asserting that, "in the 1930s, the [Soviet] organization calling itself the ‘party’ had already lost its political character; it had been transformed into an administrative network, wherein a hierarchy ruled a rank and file.” Two compatible solutions have been proposed for this problem:Umm, yes, sure, of course, you were saying?


1) Immediate opposition of the political party and any state or societal polity, plus the minimization of state or polity influence on party affairs, via crossing off from the list of voting members or party citizens all of the most experienced party organizers, leaders, chiefs, etc. who are transferred or promoted to some state or polity "party" - including those transferred or promoted to administrative posts in the state or polity itself (Razlatzki);Umm, yes, sure, of course, you were saying?


2) Among those transferred or promoted to some state or polity "party," for the "party" full-timers to give priority to the politico-ideological education of all the rest of the "party" and allow considerable autonomy for those with administrative posts in the state or polity itself (Zhdanov (http://books.google.ca/books?id=J69Gk-Dti-EC&dq=zhdanov+malenkov+secretariat&source=gbs_navlinks_s), Kuznetsov (http://www.cairn.info/load_pdf.php?ID_ARTICLE=CMR_442_0219)).I think he's advocating stalinism. On the other hand, it might be a recipe for borscht.


In all, there can be three distinct groups in a genuine one-party system:Just three.


the political, mass, worker-class party-movement properI think he means the working class. On the other hand, it might be the time to add the beets.


the professional or full-time state/polity "party,"I think he's talking about elective officials, but it might be time to add sour cream.


and the purely administrative state/polity "party."These might be the full time bureaucrats, but my grandmother always crumpled pumpernickel into borscht, so he might mean that.

RED DAVE

[Die Neue Zeit]

Let me say to anyone reading this post who is unfamiliar with what DNZ is writing about, he's holding up as a model to emulate some of the most bureaucratized, sell-out parties ever to curse the working class.

How exactly did the inter-war USPD "sell out"?


Note that he's using "worker class," instead of working class, to fit some weird theory of his own. Doubtless he'll tell you about it.

I already told you the German inspiration.


The "worker class 'for itself'" is not the same as the working class "as a whole." If anyone can come with an explanation for this, please let us know.

As in, not every worker is labour-conscious, politically conscious, or class-conscious, let alone a member of an organization that is all three.


In other words, something other than the working class itself is going to manage the dictatorship of the proletariat. Because if it were elsewise, if the proletariat would control its own dictatorship, as it will, then there would be no need for the very loaded term "managed."

You've misconstrued my words again. The working class must manage its democracy in relation to other non-worker classes, including professional managers. :rolleyes:


That is not what "managed" means in common parlance. "Managed" refers, in the common view, a situation where something is controlled from the outside. DNZ's choice of words is unfortunate at best but actually reflect his bureaucratic outlook, the outlook of a "manager."

Again, no it isn't. For example, the Kremlin's "management" of Russian "bourgeois democracy" isn't external to the whole Russian bourgeoisie (not just the oligarchs).


Right to stalinism! Comrades, whenever anyone looks to ban factions, run, do not walk, to the nearest exit.

All those other forms of intra-party organization that I mentioned are diverse enough. The IWMA expelled the Bakuninists for their "secret faction."

A source discussion for the link you just quoted explains the negative connotation of the word "factionalism":

Factions, tendencies, and platforms: organizational issues (http://www.revleft.com/vb/factions-tendencies-and-t132448/index.html)


Notice that he refers to the normal working processes as "bureaucratic."

It can nothing less than that, and again I have a different definition of "bureaucracy" than your misplaced emphasis on hierarchy.


A red kewpie doll to anyone who can decipher this.

It's called a one-party system, and naturally my critique followed afterwards.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I thought this response would be more appropriate in this thread:



Second, there are ways to distance the genuine political party from the state or societal polity while accommodating some necessary form of "ruling" role, as I explained.

2. I wasn't talking about party-movements.

3. No, there are not. Parties fight elections, in the long run. Elections to participate in/be the government, which is tied to the state. When the state is destroyed, the bureaucratic/administrative tasks and political/economic tasks can be carried out at a mainly local level, directly by the working class themselves. There is a correlation between the existence of parties and the states. Indeed, one could go further to explore a causal relationship: the state can only exist using the legitimacy of election-fighting parties (since the former is a naturally repressive object), and the parties need the state, as fighting elections has, hitherto, been the main role of the political party. What i'm arguing for is a medium-term party whose role is not to fight elections nor assume power for itself on behalf of a people/class/whatever, but to exist as a 'group' or several 'groups' that can educate and agitate within a movement, not at its head nor as its whole.

That's what Luxemburg's SDKPiL tried to do, and failed miserably at that. Its education was sectarian, its agitation based on growing political struggles from mere labour disputes was illusory, and its organization was shabby (and definitely sectarian in relation to the RSDLP).

As for the state, I said before that the DOTP should right there and then replace the state, in all its class forms, with the workers polity.

From there, though, it's a question of how best to approach the "withering away" of the workers polity. Razlatzki proposed an excellent solution for the genuine political party-movement, yet ironically it was also none other than Khrushchev who proposed a solution from another angle, in direct opposition to Zhdanov's and Kuznetsov's "getting out of economics" and "political work" line:

For the polity "party" apparatus to go beyond the wildest dreams of Malenkov in terms of directly administering the economy and leaving every other function as secondary.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=ISMK584f28sC&pg=PA54&dq=khrushchev+bifurcation+party+apparatus&hl=en&ei=9Lp_TqbuA8HiiALR74y6Aw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=khrushchev%20bifurcation%20party%20apparatus&f=false

Instead of having some local, regional, national, or higher public administrative organ (like a ministry) for, say, agriculture, there's a corresponding polity "party" organ (though the exact form of bifurcation was, alas, another hare-brained scheme).

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No. You can put your response in the right thread. I'm not going chase you around a forum for a discussion when i've posted in this and the other thread you're quoting me from in the above post.