How is KKE's betrayal any different from the French Communist Party in 1968?

[CynicalIdealist]

Do hardline Marxist-Leninists support PCF's actions against the French working class in 1968 as well?

EDIT: Or should I say *for the French working class since the vanguard always knows what's best :glare: and obviously the parliamentary FCP was the vanguard party in 1968?

[Die Neue Zeit]

The PCF's role in May 1968 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html)

[CynicalIdealist]

Oh hey, DNZ sighting.

[promethean]

Do hardline Marxist-Leninists support PCF's actions against the French working class in 1968 as well?

EDIT: Or should I say *for the French working class since the vanguard always knows what's best :glare: and obviously the parliamentary FCP was the vanguard party in 1968?
To be fair, considering that Maoists took part in the student struggles in 1968 (see: Maoism in France (http://www.isioma.net/sds00500.html)), I would say "hardline" MLs did not support PCF's action. The PCF and its trade unions were well integrated into the bourgeois state, as is the case with the present-day KKE and its unions. I'd say the hardline Marxist-Leninists were actually the Maoists. The PCF had by 1968 little to do with "Marxism-Leninism" as such and was on its way to adopt Eurocommunism in the next few years.

[Savage]

I don't think that us ultra-left scum can speak of the actions of groups such as the KKE and PCF as 'betrayals' of the working class as these organizations never supported the emancipation of the proletariat to begin with. I suppose you could see them as betraying the 'trust' of the working class, but if we see these as bourgeois parties then it would have ultimately been a good thing that the proletariat became disillusioned with them.

[vyborg]

the situation is completely different. stalinism in 1968 was a mighty force. now it is not. 1968 came after decades of impressive economic growth. nowe we have the biggest capitalist crisis since 1929.

[CynicalIdealist]

Maybe the phrase I'm looking for isn't "hardline Marxist-Leninist," but it seems like the supporters of KKE on revleft are the people who ALWAYS line up behind existing organizations/states that claim to represent workers rather than workers themselves. To me the KKE's actions, and the fact that some people here support them, beg the question of whether or not they would have supported the PCF as well.

[thälmann]

Do hardline Marxist-Leninists support PCF's actions against the French working class in 1968 as well?

EDIT: Or should I say *for the French working class since the vanguard always knows what's best :glare: and obviously the parliamentary FCP was the vanguard party in 1968?

no. "hardline" MLs reject almost everythink what the big CPs did since the 50s.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I believe the OP forgot the figure that was Nikita Khrushchev. :confused:

[Le Socialiste]

I’ve just begun reading Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed, which (if I understand it correctly) tries to outline the relationship of the oppressed with their oppressors and the steps necessary for the former’s liberation. Freire rejects authoritarianism as little more than one’s efforts to “retain the old ways.” Given the subject of this thread, I thought the following excerpt helpful in defining the position of those who opposed the actions of KKE/PAME and the historical role of the unions and pseudo-left parties throughout the previous century:

“They talk about the people, but they do not trust them; and trusting the people is the indispensible precondition for revolutionary change. A real humanist can be identified more by his trust in the people, which engages him in their struggle, than by a thousand actions in their favor without that trust.

Those who authentically commit themselves to the people must re-examine themselves constantly. This conversion is so radical as not to allow of ambiguous behavior. To affirm this commitment but to consider oneself the proprietor of revolutionary wisdom—which must be given to (or imposed on) the people—is to retain the old ways. The man or woman who proclaims devotion to the cause of liberation yet is unable to enter into communion with the people whom he or she continues to regard as totally ignorant, is grievously self-deceived.”

You do not impose a revolutionary consciousness, nor do you attempt to do so from a position of supposed authority. One does not interact with the people as though they were objects or “things” to be molded, but does enter into an interactive dialogue—not as an authority figure, but as a comrade. You do not lead the people, you fight alongside them. While the authenticity and/or genuineness of the PCF’s actions in ’68 are to be questioned at that particular point in their history (as with the KKE in 2011), Freire’s point remains. Without full and complete trust in the people, what are we really doing? How can we be revolutionaries if we aren’t fully capable of placing our support behind the movements and actions of the workers? This is where the PCF and KKE/PAME fall short (aside from their inevitable slide into historical reformism and opportunism), and where every party/union will fall short unless placed in the firm and capable hands of the proletariat.

[Revolutionair]

You tell him DNZ!

[Os Cangaceiros]

The immediate catalyst was provided by the Piazza Statuto riot of July 1962, during which hundreds besieged the Turin offices of the smallest and most conservative of the three major union confederations, the UIL (Union Italiana del Lavoro - the Italian Union of Labour), in what the broad consensus of the labour movement denounced as an assault by provocateurs and lumpenproletarians. Many of the demonstrators were themselves UIL members from FIAT, furious that their union had sabotaged their first big strike by signing a seperate agreement with management. But this was lost at the time upon even the most militant union and party leaders, who preferred with Vittorio Foa to dismiss the whole affair as a "manifestation of extremist pathology"...

The communist party of Italy also did their best to sabotage both the worker's and student's movements during the late 60's/early 70's in Italy. It's just what these groups do...they provide a useful way for the authorities to vent off steam when unrest appears. Channel it into "acceptable" and ultimately ineffectual institutions, while at the same time clamping down on and slandering anyone who operates outside of those institutions, usually in the language of "provocateur", "lumpenproletarian", "hooligan", etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

]You do not impose a revolutionary consciousness, nor do you attempt to do so from a position of supposed authority. One does not interact with the people as though they were objects or “things” to be molded, but does enter into an interactive dialogue—not as an authority figure, but as a comrade. You do not lead the people, you fight alongside them. While the authenticity and/or genuineness of the PCF’s actions in ’68 are to be questioned at that particular point in their history (as with the KKE in 2011), Freire’s point remains. Without full and complete trust in the people, what are we really doing? How can we be revolutionaries if we aren’t fully capable of placing our support behind the movements and actions of the workers? This is where the PCF and KKE/PAME fall short (aside from their inevitable slide into historical reformism and opportunism), and where every party/union will fall short unless placed in the firm and capable hands of the proletariat.

Your last sentence is spot on. However, your first sentence begs the question, "Define Authority." Coaches lead not by charging first into battles, but they do send players from the bench.

As for the OP, May 1968 was not an actual revolutionary period.

[Apoi_Viitor]

As for the OP, May 1968 was not an actual revolutionary period.

True. The French CP made this was the case.

[Le Socialiste]

Your last sentence is spot on. However, your first sentence begs the question, "Define Authority." Coaches lead not by charging first into battles, but they do send players from the bench.

One of the problems I see with the authoritarian left is its tendency to rely on forms of coercion to achieve their goal(s). They retain the basic structure of authority seen in capitalistic bourgeois institutions. They keep the oppressor-oppressed relationship intact, albeit in a 'revolutionized' form. One of our goals, as revolutionary leftists, should be the dismantlement of this relationship, not its renewal. Similarly, it also calls the teacher-student relationship into question, which positions the teacher as an authoritative figure over that of the student(s). It is essential that the barrier between the teacher and student is broken down, so that the teacher becomes the student and vice versa (teacher-student, student-teacher).

I've said it before, the role of the revolutionary left isn't to play vanguard; we should cast off this perception, as it undermines rather than aids most movements. We shouldn't proclaim our leadership over the toiler, but work with her/him in solidarity. Our role is to be one of constant guidance and support, laying the foundation for a revolutionary situation and preparing the working-class for mass mobilization. If we claim to be leaders of the movement, we alienate those who might otherwise sympathize and/or support our cause. This doesn't mean we remain passive in the face of reaction and opportunism. It means we play our part in radicalizing the workingman/woman into a revolutionary consciousness. We can guide the revolution, without weighing it down.


As for the OP, May 1968 was not an actual revolutionary period.

Says you. What qualifies as a revolutionary period, then?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Says you. What qualifies as a revolutionary period, then?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/kkes-actions-october-t163088/index.html?p=2277389

-----


All three you mentioned are part of only the first condition for a revolutionary period for the working class, open hostilities between the capitalist state and the workers. What is missing are the other three conditions for a revolutionary period:

1) The existence of a mass, worker-class party-movement in intransigent opposition to the regime (which includes "leadership," "program," and "platform")
2) Majority political support for the party-movement from the class (best indicated by honest membership but can be measured by other means)
3) Internal confidence breakdown re. the state apparatus (soldiers staying put in garrisons, intimidated police forces, etc.)

#3 is possible in the current Greek situation but right now I don't see #1 or #2.

It's a refined version of this:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch06.htm


Where these conditions exist a great transfer of political power that shall destroy a tyrannical regime is only to be expected where all of the following conditions exist:

1) The great mass of the people must be decisively hostile to such a regime.
2) There must be a great organized party in irreconcilable opposition to such a regime.
3) This party must represent the interests of the great majority of the population and possess their confidence.
4) Confidence in the ruling regime, both in its power and in its stability, must have been destroyed by its own tools, by the bureaucracy and the army.

1909 Germany exhibited all these. 1917 Russia exhibited all these. 1968 France didn't. Neither has today's Greece. Both latter cases lack a "great organized party" that "possess[es the] confidence" of "the great majority" (of the working class, not population, to correct Kautsky).

[Jose Gracchus]

Tautology. We need MY IDEZ OF ZE ARBETIER PARTEI MOVEMENT W BOWLING CLUBZ BECAUSE I DEFINED REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD AS NEEDING MY PARTEI-MOVEMENT CON LOS CLUBS DE BOWLING LOL.

According to that idiot list by Kautsky, 1905, 1917 were not revolutionary situations. The Bolsheviks never commanded great support prior to the revolutionary upheavals.

[Martin Blank]

According to that idiot list by Kautsky, 1905, 1917 were not revolutionary situations. The Bolsheviks never commanded great support prior to the revolutionary upheavals.

IIRC, this is DNZ's position. He considers the October Revolution to be a coup d'état.

ON EDIT: Actually, no, he doesn't. It was when the Bolsheviks sought to "reorganize" the soviets that didn't send Bolshevik majorities to the Fifth (?) Congress that he (correctly, I might add) called a coup d'état.

[Jose Gracchus]

Kautskyism I think leads to the belief that every conceivable extra-legal, extra-constitutional claim to power must necessarily be a coup d'état. It is infected with the fantasy of building up a pre-revolutionary institution that is essentially an ersatzstaat, that will then be semi-bloodlessly through electoral or other mass approval, simply assume power as the state and start issuing "workers' decrees" for the workers' edification. I think it is a deeply reactionary doctrine.

[Martin Blank]

[/URL][URL]http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1909/power/ch06.htm (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kkes-actions-october-t163088/index.html?p=2277389)


Where these conditions exist a great transfer of political power that shall destroy a tyrannical regime is only to be expected where all of the following conditions exist:

1) The great mass of the people must be decisively hostile to such a regime.
2) There must be a great organized party in irreconcilable opposition to such a regime.
3) This party must represent the interests of the great majority of the population and possess their confidence.
4) Confidence in the ruling regime, both in its power and in its stability, must have been destroyed by its own tools, by the bureaucracy and the army.

The problem with this statement is that it is completely ahistorical, subjective and classless. It is all about "the people", with not even a wink or a nod to class divisions or class antagonisms. This reads like it is tailored for the democratic petty bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. Moreover, the statement all but completely ignores objective conditions. It really boils the class struggle down to a battle of wills -- the opposition of "the people" against the tyranny of "the regime". This is also why it is ahistorical, because it acts as if "the people" have the same material (class) interests; in this sense, it is similar to the current arguments about "the 99%" in the #occupy events.


All three you mentioned are part of only the first condition for a revolutionary period for the working class, open hostilities between the capitalist state and the workers. What is missing are the other three conditions for a revolutionary period:

1) The existence of a mass, worker-class party-movement in intransigent opposition to the regime (which includes "leadership," "program," and "platform")
2) Majority political support for the party-movement from the class (best indicated by honest membership but can be measured by other means)
3) Internal confidence breakdown re. the state apparatus (soldiers staying put in garrisons, intimidated police forces, etc.)

For the record, this was directed at me. This is what provoked his response above (slightly modified to make it into a list):


As for it being a revolutionary situation, it does seem to me that the three objective conditions for revolution do exist:

1) the exploiting classes can no longer rule in the old way;
2) the exploited class is unwilling to be ruled in the old ways; and,
3) the opposing forces are arraying themselves against each other and assessing their strengths.

What is missing is revolutionary political leadership -- i.e., a revolutionary communist program and platform of action. That program being absent is what is keeping the situation from fully maturing into a full-blown revolution, but the objective situation is still ripe for it.

The problem with concentrating on the subjective elements of what makes up a revolutionary situation is that it distorts how those elements view the objective situation itself. Saying, for example, that the objective situation consists of "open hostilities between the capitalist state and the workers" narrows down the conditions that can be called objectively revolutionary to one scenario. There are many objectively revolutionary situations where "open hostilities" do not occur until the moment of revolution is at hand. The three objective conditions may lay the basis for "open hostilities", but they are not dependent on them.

Moreover, your #3, "Internal confidence breakdown re. the state apparatus", is subsumed in the #3 I wrote. It is a small part of the process of "opposing forces ... arraying themselves against each other and assessing their strengths". My problem with your #3 is, again, that it offers too narrow of a definition. It is not necessarily the case that soldiers will stay in their garrisons or that the police will be too intimidated to do their jobs. But I have to emphasize again that this is a small part of my #3. This is because placing front-and-center a breakdown in "internal confidence" within the capitalist state sounds more like there is an expectant reliance on elements of the existing state apparatus. The experience of the USSR taught us well that reliance on elements of the old state and bureaucracy has to be avoided at all costs.

[Die Neue Zeit]

IIRC, this is DNZ's position. He considers the October Revolution to be a coup d'état.

FYI, I think you've mistaken my position on Red October. It was a revolution up until the Bolsheviks shut down soviets that returned non-Bolshevik majorities. Those acts were symptomic of a coup d'etat (i.e., they lost majority political support from the working class), not the ouster of the Provisional Government, and not the disbanding of the discredited Constituent Assembly (focused on too much by Luxemburg and the renegade Kautsky).


Tautology. We need MY IDEZ OF ZE ARBETIER PARTEI MOVEMENT W BOWLING CLUBZ BECAUSE I DEFINED REVOLUTIONARY PERIOD AS NEEDING MY PARTEI-MOVEMENT CON LOS CLUBS DE BOWLING LOL.

According to that idiot list by Kautsky, 1905, 1917 were not revolutionary situations. The Bolsheviks never commanded great support prior to the revolutionary upheavals.

That's a strawman argument. I don't need to repeat Marx's dictum on the relationship between a class for itself and party-movements.

You should really re-read Marxist reviews on The Road to Power by the likes of Lenin. The Bolsheviks took all the workers curia seats in the Duma. This, the swelling of membership in 1917, and other factors are symptomic of gaining majority political support from the working class.


Kautskyism I think leads to the belief that every conceivable extra-legal, extra-constitutional claim to power must necessarily be a coup d'état.

How quickly you have forgotten comrade Macnair's analysis and conclusions on the weaknesses of the historical Marxist center!


It is infected with the fantasy of building up a pre-revolutionary institution that is essentially an ersatzstaat

Failed State? WTF is that supposed to mean? :confused:


that will then be semi-bloodlessly through electoral or other mass approval, simply assume power as the state and start issuing "workers' decrees" for the workers' edification. I think it is a deeply reactionary doctrine.

I put a premium on honest "party citizenship" as the leading indicator of political support, something well beyond electoral gimmicks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The problem with this statement is that it is completely ahistorical, subjective and classless. It is all about "the people", with not even a wink or a nod to class divisions or class antagonisms. This reads like it is tailored for the democratic petty bourgeoisie, not the proletariat.

That, comrade, is why I wrote my understatement "of the working class, not population, to correct Kautsky." I believe Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, et al took this further to add explicitly the point of petit-bourgeois elements swinging over in their political support (though, thanks to Third World Caesarean Socialist theory, they were wrong about the situation of proletarian demographic minorities as well, by underestimating petit-bourgeois politics).

I have made this point again and again, which is why I've worded my take on a revolutionary period for the working class differently. [To be really anal and technical, "for proletarian demographic majorities"]


Moreover, the statement all but completely ignores objective conditions. It really boils the class struggle down to a battle of wills -- the opposition of "the people" against the tyranny of "the regime". This is also why it is ahistorical, because it acts as if "the people" have the same material (class) interests; in this sense, it is similar to the current arguments about "the 99%" in the #occupy events.

I have a thread criticizing the use of "objective" and "subjective":

http://www.revleft.com/vb/objective-vs-subjective-t161443/index.html

Fundamentally, capitalist production has developed the productive forces, done sufficient socialization, etc. needed to transition to advanced communism.

On another level, though, many countries have proletarian demographic majorities, though others don't.

Still on another level is all the talk of political awareness, class-based political awareness, etc. There are also other "subjective" factors to consider.


The problem with concentrating on the subjective elements of what makes up a revolutionary situation is that it distorts how those elements view the objective situation itself. Saying, for example, that the objective situation consists of "open hostilities between the capitalist state and the workers" narrows down the conditions that can be called objectively revolutionary to one scenario. There are many objectively revolutionary situations where "open hostilities" do not occur until the moment of revolution is at hand. The three objective conditions may lay the basis for "open hostilities", but they are not dependent on them.

On the other hand, your two criteria stating "in the old way" is too flexible. At a more cursory level, this can be used for the basis of mere regime change a la Arab Spring. "The exploited class is unwilling to be ruled in the old ways" is utterly meaningless without the organizational and especially institutional expression of this unwillingness.


Moreover, your #3, "Internal confidence breakdown re. the state apparatus", is subsumed in the #3 I wrote. It is a small part of the process of "opposing forces ... arraying themselves against each other and assessing their strengths". My problem with your #3 is, again, that it offers too narrow of a definition. It is not necessarily the case that soldiers will stay in their garrisons or that the police will be too intimidated to do their jobs. But I have to emphasize again that this is a small part of my #3. This is because placing front-and-center a breakdown in "internal confidence" within the capitalist state sounds more like there is an expectant reliance on elements of the existing state apparatus. The experience of the USSR taught us well that reliance on elements of the old state and bureaucracy has to be avoided at all costs.

It just might be the case that "opposing forces arraying themselves against each other and assessing their strengths" might be completely independent of my paraphrase of Kautsky's fourth condition. :confused:

You do have a point re. the slippery slope problem of reliance on confidence-subverting "insiders."

I think the two of us can "compromise" on what comprises a revolutionary situation. I will say that my and Kautsky's two sticking points about "the existence of a mass, worker-class party-movement in intransigent opposition to the regime (which includes "leadership," "program," and "platform")" and "majority political support for the party-movement from the [working] class (best indicated by honest membership but can be measured by other means)" stand, since they are the basis for my evaluation of the overrated Mai 1968 and today's situation in Greece.