Do Social Democrats promote or or discourage revolution?

[Belleraphone]

I've heard the argument made before that we should vote for the most reactionary candidate so eventually the revolution will take place as conditions become more and more intolerable.

Whats your guys stance on this? My personal opinion is that I'm more than happy to vote for someone like Ralph Nader. I think that even though they don't go nearly as far enough, the table is open to more options and typically the Social Democrats in Europe will treat the socialist parties seriously and make negotiations with them.

[mrmikhail]

Well, as Trotsky (I believe it was) put it, "every revolution is impossible until it is inevitable". So in some sense a more reactionary government would indeed lead more quickly to a revolution than a less oppressive regime. Now would I personally vote for a reactionary? No.

as for the Social Democrats, they have honestly lost their position as such and these days are centre-right wingers at best, long having abandoned their social democratic origins.

[Belleraphone]

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't know much about social democratic origins. The only ones in the USA that I know of are Ralph Nader and Dennis Kuccinich. Do you think these guys are centre-right wingers?

[mrmikhail]

Hmm, I'm afraid I don't know much about social democratic origins. The only ones in the USA that I know of are Ralph Nader and Dennis Kuccinich. Do you think these guys are centre-right wingers?

Kucinich is definitely not a centre-right winger, he is likely the closest democrat to being a socialist in congress. Nader on the other hand is hard to place, he is pretty left wing but I think he's had some questionable positions, but he's mostly an environmentalist and consumer rights activist. However in Europe the Social Democrat Parties have really fallen away from there views, except in a few select places such as Sweden, and they definitely do not support a revolution by any means nor, honestly, will they ever.

[Belleraphone]

Ah, you were referring to Europe. Wasn't sure about that. Anyway yeah I didn't think the SD's would support a revolution but I think they would allow Rev Leftists to come to the table and discuss things with them while right-wingers would completely ignore them even if they were a major political force.

[mrmikhail]

Ah, you were referring to Europe. Wasn't sure about that. Anyway yeah I didn't think the SD's would support a revolution but I think they would allow Rev Leftists to come to the table and discuss things with them while right-wingers would completely ignore them even if they were a major political force.

Possibly so, but I have my doubts...the Social Democrats in Germany didn't work with the Communists in the Weimar republic, at first because of the SDs, and then later because of Stalin refusing to let the communists work with them....so these days I am uncertain SDs would be willing to work with anyone on the revolutionary front as they are bourgeois and don't stand to gain much from a revolution.

[Le Socialiste]

Social Democracy seeks to preserve the capitalist system with a series of reforms that are 'socialistic' by nature. Their goals do not align with the intentions of the revolutionary left, and this has been proven time and again throughout the latter's history. Take the German revolution of 1918, which prompted hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people to rise up against the monarchy in response to harsh social and material conditions - as well as their government's militarism. The SPD (a self-described social democratic party) rose to power promising the 'socialization' of industry and labor while planning to crush the revolution in its infancy. Their dealings with the right led to the formation and rise of nationalist parties and propaganda, creating conditions in which the far right could gain a foothold and thrive. Social Democracy doesn't seek revolution as it would undermine its place in the current capitalistic structure(s). Social Democrats serve to keep worker's activities at a low through the use of opportunistic and reformist tactics/methods. In short, they're no friend of the working-class.

[Belleraphone]

I know that, but that doesn't answer my original question. Do they promote or discourage revolution in relation to the reactionaries?

[North Star]

Well, as Trotsky (I believe it was) put it, "every revolution is impossible until it is inevitable". So in some sense a more reactionary government would indeed lead more quickly to a revolution than a less oppressive regime. Now would I personally vote for a reactionary? No.

as for the Social Democrats, they have honestly lost their position as such and these days are centre-right wingers at best, long having abandoned their social democratic origins.

I've heard other IMT'ers say stuff like this. With all do respect, I understand your rationale for entryism. Get close to the workers, to engage them in the mass organizations that they will first turn to when there is an upswing in the class struggle. Now I'm not against running for parliament or forming united fronts with social democratic entities. However I see the IMT sometimes proclaiming a perfectly revolutionary and Marxist position on social democrats. At the same time I've seen them play the game of running for positions in social democratic parties and working on campaigns. They still sell their paper and call "NDP to power on a socialist program" (I'm Canadian) but do help ordinary social democrats and then posture and denounce the NDP. They know damn well they are not going to get the kind of program they want, make denouncements but at the same time work to get the party elected and throw their support behind it regardless of how much of a right wing drift there is. They claim they are interested in building the movement, call everyone else sectarian for not engaging traditional mass organizations but when you send out mixed signals like this and help a leadership that is barely even social democratic they are only building their ranks because unless you join the IMT it all seems incredibly confusing. Some of the situation has to do with the situation in Canada which I will not necessarily get into, but as things are going particularly in the West, entryism in social democratic parties is really going to become an anachronism if it hasn't already.

[Rocky Rococo]

The world's Social Democratic Parties: celebrating unrivaled worthlessness since 1914. A 97-year tradition of selling you out!

[Le Socialiste]

I know that, but that doesn't answer my original question. Do they promote or discourage revolution in relation to the reactionaries?

They discourage it.

[Tommy4ever]

You'd honestly think the Labour Party would be any more likely to negotiate with revolutionaries than the Conservative Party?

[Comrade Gwydion]

Ah, you were referring to Europe. Wasn't sure about that. Anyway yeah I didn't think the SD's would support a revolution but I think they would allow Rev Leftists to come to the table and discuss things with them while right-wingers would completely ignore them even if they were a major political force.

Nope, they see the radical left as competition that has to be crushed even more urgently then the right. Even the 'SP', wich is a Social-populist party to the left of the Dutch labour-party (but far from socialist or revolutionairy), is being systematically kept out of power, even though they were the 3rd largest party four years ago (fifth now).

[roy]

I think that voting for the most reactionary party/candidate is a genuinely dangerous tactic. If the far-right has control, it will propagate far-right ideals and implement far-right policies.

That said, no mainstream politician is ever going to concede ground to socialism. It comes down to deciding who the lesser evil is.

[Comrade Gwydion]

The world's Social Democratic Parties: celebrating unrivaled worthlessness since 1914. A 97-year tradition of selling you out!

Strange then, that Lenin was the head of a social-democratic party!

No, honestly I have much respect for the early Social-Democrats. They did advocate revolution, but took up reformism to alleviate the pains of the working class. A dutch Social-Democrat, Troelstra, once called for violent popular revolution from inside the parliament. However, where the end of the first World War caused a lot of revolutionairy movement in Europe, it stopped the revolution in the Netherlands: after weeks of near revolution, in which many liberal & conservatives fled the country, people suddently stopped protesting and started celebrating the end of the war. :confused:

That said, they haven't been like that for a long time. In the 50ies the social-democrats began to redefine themselves to supporters of a large Welfare-state. Currently there are no social-democratic parties left, even by that definition.The former soc-dems (Labour) have mostly turned "third way", wich is liberal-right. There have been some social-populist parties wich are very close to the soc-dems of the 50ies/60ies, but nowhere near the old time soc-dems.

[Rainsborough]

Originally Posted by Comrade Gwydion http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?p=2297488#post2297488)
Strange then, that Lenin was the head of a social-democratic party!

And then betrayed by the social-democrats of Europe when they rushed to back the WW1 war. "Not one penny, not one man!" (or something to that effect) the pre-war slogan of the social-democrats who quickly alingned themselves behind the imperialist war aims of the European nations.

So no the social-democrats are no friends to us.

[Comrade Gwydion]

And then betrayed by the social-democrats of Europe when they rushed to back the WW1 war. "Not one penny, not one man!" (or something to that effect) the pre-war slogan of the social-democrats who quickly alingned themselves behind the imperialist war aims of the European nations.

So no the social-democrats are no friends to us.


I'm just saying the 'betrayal' came later: as even the Bolsjeviks named themselves Social Democratic party (Bolshevik). I have no illusion about current social democratic parties

[GPDP]

You'd honestly think the Labour Party would be any more likely to negotiate with revolutionaries than the Conservative Party?

Nope, which is why the correct line is to tell both bourgeois parties to kindly fuck off and organize independently of them.

[ken6346]

edit

[mrmikhail]

I've heard other IMT'ers say stuff like this. With all do respect, I understand your rationale for entryism. Get close to the workers, to engage them in the mass organizations that they will first turn to when there is an upswing in the class struggle. Now I'm not against running for parliament or forming united fronts with social democratic entities. However I see the IMT sometimes proclaiming a perfectly revolutionary and Marxist position on social democrats. At the same time I've seen them play the game of running for positions in social democratic parties and working on campaigns. They still sell their paper and call "NDP to power on a socialist program" (I'm Canadian) but do help ordinary social democrats and then posture and denounce the NDP. They know damn well they are not going to get the kind of program they want, make denouncements but at the same time work to get the party elected and throw their support behind it regardless of how much of a right wing drift there is. They claim they are interested in building the movement, call everyone else sectarian for not engaging traditional mass organizations but when you send out mixed signals like this and help a leadership that is barely even social democratic they are only building their ranks because unless you join the IMT it all seems incredibly confusing. Some of the situation has to do with the situation in Canada which I will not necessarily get into, but as things are going particularly in the West, entryism in social democratic parties is really going to become an anachronism if it hasn't already.

Entryism is a tactic, not a doctrine. I am in an IMT organisation, and we do not engage in entryism in either of the two major parties of the US, we maintain total independence and merely support the creation of a labour party in america (as in the labour unions stop supporting the democrats and form their own party). But looking at it realistically, a Trotskyist organisation has a far better chance of getting more members by converting from within another organisation than they do on their own, if you will note how small Trotskyist parties not engaging in entryism are. I will not say it is a perfect system, as I said my group doesn't even use it, but it is better than trying to stand alone with no support from labour.

That aside, I personally support re-unification of many Trotskyist factions, especially with the CWI. We'd stand much stronger together than with the petty factionalism we currently maintain.

[mrmikhail]

I believe that this sentiment characterises the position of many honest social democrats, i.e. those that tend towards a redistribution of wealth and the public ownership of the means of production, and act through reformist means to at least secure workers' rights and establish and maintain a welfare state. It's unfortunate that some so-called social democrats reject socialism, but many parties, party members, and independent social democrats do not, at least as far as I know. The idea that a revolution is impossible until it is inevitable is certainly a position I subscribe to - I'd go so far as to call such a statement a truism.

I was not supporting social democracy with that at all :confused:

I am fully opposed to it, I was saying that autocratic governments force workers to the edge, and thus a revolution goes from impossible to inevitable once the workers are no longer willing to put up with the reaction.

[kashkin]

One could also say the quote just refers to hindsight. At first many authoritarian countries look really secure, but after a revolution we see how shaky their rule was.

Also, social democrats, Fabian socialists, etc reject revolution.

[Parvati]

For example, in the era of the 60's and 70's social-democracy was used to discourage revolution because it gave to a people in struggle the illusion that things could change without changing anything. In some countries that we used to call "social-democrats" like Finland, Norway, Canada, etc., this "social-democray" ou "Providence State" helps to create a national bourgeoisie- it gave the possibility to local capitalist to capitalize on social needs (construction of schools and hospitals, streets and social housing, equipment, managing, etc.) - which do not occured in the United States because it is the Army and military issues that play this role and give this opportunity to the national bourgeoisie.

But for now, since the crisis of capital accumulation of the '70s, governement are no longer able to give progressive reform to the people - and it won't happen again - because we need a critical accumulation of capital to do so. So whatever the name of the party call it "Democrat" "Socialist" "Progressive" etc., it's just aother bourgeois party that is not able to give anything to the masses.

But then, on the question of the vote, I'm in favor of Election Boycott, something that is already done by 40 to 60% of the population in North America (different elections Canada/USA) which are generally the poorest 40-60% of the population. Bourgeois parties only represented different interests inside the bourgeois class and have nothing to do with the masses interest

[Crux]

However in Europe the Social Democrat Parties have really fallen away from there views, except in a few select places such as Sweden, and they definitely do not support a revolution by any means nor, honestly, will they ever.
As a swedish socialist I would have to disagree with this sentiement. Even in purely electoral numbers the social democrats are in free fall, gaining their worst election result since 1914 in the last election.

I think Comrade Gwydion made a good point, the question really is, what do you mean by social democrat? The present parties my answer would be a resoundingly no, but if we are talking about reformists as such my answer would be...well, maybe. But the reformists parties that exist in europe, typically the ex-CP's, tend to lack the mass base that the social democratic parties once had.

Also, as it is worth mentioning, even the most genuine reformist might stab you in the back when the revolution comes. That said, I'd like to think that the power of events can force many people to the left.

As for voting for Nader, in the U.S context, sure why not. If it provides a viable platform for people breaking from the Democrats to the left I am all for it.

[RadioRaheem84]

Social Democrats in Germany hired a member of the right wing FreiKorp to assassinate Rosa Luxembourg.

There is your answer.

[Rocky Rococo]

I'm just saying the 'betrayal' came later: as even the Bolsjeviks named themselves Social Democratic party (Bolshevik). I have no illusion about current social democratic parties

I see. so the German, French and Austrian Socialist/Social Democratic Parties (the largest in the world at that time) didn't betray the workers in 1914? If you say so, I guess it must be true.

[promethean]

I've heard the argument made before that we should vote for the most reactionary candidate so eventually the revolution will take place as conditions become more and more intolerable.Not sure where you heard this, but it sounds like something a social democrat would make up. Reactionary candidates normally cannot make capitalism any worse than it already is.


I know that, but that doesn't answer my original question. Do they promote or discourage revolution in relation to the reactionaries? Social democracy was always a hybrid between the interests of proletarians and the petit-bourgeoisie. This made sense in the 19th century since the working class was not as numerous as today and capitalism was still in its expanding phase, but is no longer valid today. With capitalism entering its new phase (variously called imperialist, decadent etc) after the first world war, social democracy almost naturally sided with capital and the state. Revolutionaries like Luxemburg and the left communists of the KAPD, had no choice but to break from it.

Social democracy was formed at the onset of the proletarian movement in France after the 1848 revolutions as a merger between proletarian and petit-bourgeois currents. Marx described this in the Eighteenth Brumaire (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch03.htm):

As against the coalesced bourgeoisie, a coalition between petty bourgeois and workers had been formed, the so-called Social-Democratic party. The petty bourgeois saw that they were badly rewarded after the June days of 1848, that their material interests were imperiled, and that the democratic guarantees which were to insure the effectuation of these interests were called in question by the counterrevolution. Accordingly they came closer to the workers. On the other hand, their parliamentary representation, the Montagne, thrust aside during the dictatorship of the bourgeois republicans, had in the last half of the life of the Constituent Assembly reconquered its lost popularity through the struggle with Bonaparte and the royalist ministers. It had concluded an alliance with the socialist leaders. In February, 1849, banquets celebrated the reconciliation. A joint program was drafted, joint election committees were set up and joint candidates put forward. The revolutionary point was broken off and a democratic turn given to the social demands of the proletariat; the purely political form was stripped off the democratic claims of the petty bourgeoisie and their socialist point thrust forward. Thus arose social-democracy.
Social Democrats in Germany hired a member of the right wing FreiKorp to assassinate Rosa Luxembourg.

There is your answer.It was probably a little more complicated than that.

The faction of German social democracy that carried out the assassination of Luxemburg and the suppression of the German revolution was its right wing faction which had always been a malignant presence within the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Its presence could be traced to the beginnings of the SPD, which was formed as a merger between the Lasallian party, the General German Workers Association (ADAV) which was very nationalist and anti-Marxist and the Socialist Workers Party of Germany (SAPD) led by Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, which was more open to Marxism. The Lasallian current was always present in the party and Lasalle was widely revered among many members of the party. The later right wing executioners of the revolution were thus always a part of German social democracy. This paper (http://dare.uva.nl/document/177512) goes into details and discusses the origins of the doctrine of Socialism in One Country. Trotsky had traced the origins of this doctrine, later taken up by Stalin, to the right-wing of German social democracy.

The right wing of the SPD was always very authoritarian and class collaborationist. This was compared to the so-called Marxist wing that included such stalwarts as Bebel, Liebknechts (both Wilhelm and his son Karl) and the pre-1914 Kautsky. The right wing revisionist faction included people like Bernstein (who was more of a English-style liberal, having spent many years living in England) and later such elements as Ebert and Noske. The latter two were leaders in the SPD government that took power following the 1918 revolution, when Ebert assured the bourgeoisie that his party was the only one that could save capitalism. Noske was the the social democrat minister responsible for ordering the Freikorps' suppression of the Spartakist revolt, as part of which Luxemburg got murdered.


I see. so the German, French and Austrian Socialist/Social Democratic Parties (the largest in the world at that time) didn't betray the workers in 1914? If you say so, I guess it must be true.It was not really that big of a surprise that this happened really. Especially with regard to Austrian social democracy, which developed a theory called, Austro-Marxism. This theory was basically an attempt to reconcile nationalism with Marxism.

[NewLeft]

Alot of the locals of the social democratic party representing our riding are far left, mostly syndicalist sympathizers. Though it's true that 'social democratic' or even socialist parties in general have shifted right wards, the members of these parties have not.

[Marxaveli]

Would Bernie Sanders be considered a social democrat?

[NewLeft]

Would Bernie Sanders be considered a social democrat?

He sympathizes... He's probably the closest thing in the senate.

[RadioRaheem84]

He sympathizes... He's probably the closest thing in the senate.

Bernie Sanders would be considered a social democrat, yes. He chides "third way" politics.

He is our version of Tony Benn.

[Marxaveli]

Bernie is one of the very few American politicians that means well, I think. Still, there no reforming capitalism, because all it takes is a few reactionaries to get in power and rollbacks start happening.

[North Star]

Entryism is a tactic, not a doctrine. I am in an IMT organisation, and we do not engage in entryism in either of the two major parties of the US, we maintain total independence and merely support the creation of a labour party in america (as in the labour unions stop supporting the democrats and form their own party). But looking at it realistically, a Trotskyist organisation has a far better chance of getting more members by converting from within another organisation than they do on their own, if you will note how small Trotskyist parties not engaging in entryism are. I will not say it is a perfect system, as I said my group doesn't even use it, but it is better than trying to stand alone with no support from labour.

That aside, I personally support re-unification of many Trotskyist factions, especially with the CWI. We'd stand much stronger together than with the petty factionalism we currently maintain.

Yes re-unification is desirable. There isn't that much separated the IMT and CWI on many questions other than the nature of the UK Labour Party and entryism into it. That being said you do know you would be labelled by some in your organization as reaching out to sectarians for saying that? That's part of the problem. I think you mean well and are sincere, but the nature of these kind of Trotskyist organizations allow the CWI/IMT to split, agree on most things yet still be hostile and denounce one another. I know entryism is a tactic. The IMT does not say it up front however in many of its writings. I think the way it is practiced is disingenuous. You all know its a tactic, yet to the worker you are trying to engage they think the IMT is trying to get (insert social democratic party here) to power on a socialist program. I don't think it's honest politics and is confusing. Communists are not supposed to hide their views. I think it's a matter of legitimacy that intentions are stated like this.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The faction of German social democracy that carried out the assassination of Luxemburg and the suppression of the German revolution was its right wing faction which had always been a malignant presence within the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Its presence could be traced to the beginnings of the SPD, which was formed as a merger between the Lasallian party, the General German Workers Association (ADAV) which was very nationalist and anti-Marxist and the Socialist Workers Party of Germany (SAPD) led by Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, which was more open to Marxism. The Lasallian current was always present in the party and Lasalle was widely revered among many members of the party.

Your ultra-left historical account is disingenuous. It was the ADAV that stressed independent political organization of the working class first, before the Eisenachers! Why? Because the likes of Lassalle drove a wedge between working-class militants and bourgeois liberals! Meanwhile, the Eisenachers, while programmatically more solid on the question of coops than either the then-contemporary Lassalleans or the Erfurtists down the road, emerged somewhat from bourgeois liberal origins.

You confuse the Lassallean current, despite all its strategic errors, with the later "socialism in one country" current around Von Vollmar, who stood against the very independent political organization of the working class that Lassalle and his immediate followers stood for (by suggesting that peasants be admitted into the SPD's membership)!

[dodger]

Not only did LABOUR support the Great War..it sent two of its best sons to fight it! Both MP's both heads of industrial manual workers unions. Impeccable credentials. A delegation to keep Russia in the war. One of the worthies was presented with a fur coat by a Tory MP to help him on his way....it was to prove prophetic. After a problematic wartime journey they reached Petrograd greeted wined and dined by HM Ambassador who pronounced them charming although of lowly background....his wife gushed in her diary. To work! They met Kerenski and off to the trenches where they experienced true Russian hospitality. Thorne especially as a manual worker and representative of the British working class. He rose to speak to those assembled, who cheered him to an echo. His message was clear and spelled out. An ice calm descended, he ploughed on, soon eyes were averted, side glances....blank stares for the most part. Enough of an old hand at such meetings Thorne knew at once he had lost his audience, he was never to salvage anything. Frosty stares....the coat kept the worst of the chill out. Reporting back to the Ambassador, the state of things at the front...a new tack was undertaken. A visit to the Soviet! No better luck there. Thorne muttered, those Soviet delegates have soft hands! He went on to various socialist conferences...still with the same message carry on with the war. He never received a knighthood for his efforts...but was made Her Majesty's Representative to Tasmania in later life. We must hope he got a warmer reception.

Labour is institutionally corrupt. It cannot be reformed, and it is not `New'. The Labour Party always embraced capital, now it loves capital.

[promethean]

Your ultra-left historical accountAnother made up term.


You confuse the Lassallean current, despite all its strategic errors, with the later "socialism in one country" current around Von Vollmar, who stood against the very independent political organization of the working class that Lassalle and his immediate followers stood It would seem to me that you are deliberately rewriting history to conform with the "program" you made up in your head. In doing this, you are recreating a bizarre social democratic version of Stalinist falsification of history.

From the paper I linked to:


The German socialist party has a complex history. The year before he died, in
1863, Lassalle founded the Allgemeine deutsche Arbeiterverein, to be followed by
the establishment of August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht’s Sozialdemokratische
Arbeiterpartei (SDAP) in Eisenach in 1869. Bebel and Liebknecht were
personally close to Marx, but Lassalle’s ideological influence remained equally
strong.13

In 1875 the two parties fused at a congress in Gotha. The new SAPD could not
be considered Marxist. The later staunch Marxists Bebel, Liebknecht, Bernstein
and Karl Kautsky had not yet exclusively committed themselves to one socialist
line of thinking. This was a period of ideological eclecticism and intense
searching. The party leaders were eagerly looking for figures of authority to clarify
the new doctrine to which they had committed themselves.

This tendency was represented by Lassalle and other independent socialist
thinkers such as Eugen Du¨hring, Karl Rodbertus and Albert Scha¨ffle, and
remained very influential. But Bismarck’s October 1878 Sozialistengesetz, which
remained in force until 1890, undermined the party’s faith in the existing state,
thereby unintentionally assisting Marxism in gradually triumphing over its state
socialist rivals. The Marxists clustered around Kautsky’s theoretical journal
Die Neue Zeit, established in 1883. With the adoption of the new party programme
at the 1891 Erfurt congress, Marxism became the dominant force in the SPD, as
the party had been rechristened at its Halle congress in 1890.


Lassalle expounded this thought most clearly in his last work Herr Bastiat-Schulze
von Delitzsch (1864), in which he explained that the socialist system would turn
out a triumph of efficiency. This led him to the following spectacular conclusion:
Cast a glance at the world market from this perspective! The world market belongs to that
nation that first decides to embark on the introduction of this social transformation on a grand
scale. It will be the deserved reward for its energy and decisiveness. Because of the
cheapness of the concentrated production, the nation taking the lead in this will occupy an
even more superior position compared to the capitalists of the other nations than England has
occupied for so long towards the continental nations.
This seems more like open social-patriotism than "independent political organization". The paper thus makes a logical connection between the patriotism of Lassalle and the later right wing current, all of whom admired Lassalle over Marx. So far, I have not seen any evidence that Lassalle was anything other than a social-patriot who advocated Malthusianism in the form of his Iron Law of Wages and then allied with Bismarck and the German state. His advocacy of state socialism was something that Marx fought against his entire life.

Not to mention, the ADAV consisted of such honorable people as Eugen Duhring, against whose doctrines Engels wrote his famous Anti-Duhring.

On the other hand, why anyone would go to such lengths as to falsify a 150-year old history and make up bizarre one-man programs on the internet is anybody's guess.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another made up term.

"Ultra-left" isn't made up. :rolleyes:


It would seem to me that you are deliberately rewriting history to conform with the "program" you made up in your head. In doing this, you are recreating a bizarre social democratic version of Stalinist falsification of history.

Whatever beefs you have on this issue, it's with independent historian Lars Lih and not myself. Check out Chapter 1 of Lenin Rediscovered.


So far, I have not seen any evidence that Lassalle was anything other than a social-patriot who advocated Malthusianism in the form of his Iron Law of Wages and then allied with Bismarck and the German state. His advocacy of state socialism was something that Marx fought against his entire life.

Does the author you cite know that the Iron Law of Wages was shared by the Ricardian political economists? Does he even know the motives behind the informal coalition with Bismarck? Does he know of Marx's lack of criticisms for the Eisenach program? :rolleyes:


Not to mention, the ADAV consisted of such honorable people as Eugen Duhring, against whose doctrines Engels wrote his famous Anti-Duhring.

The ADAV consisted of such honourable activists as Jean-Baptista Von Schweitzer, who first coined... guess what? Democratic Centralization.

[promethean]

"Ultra-left" isn't made up. "Ultra-left history" is.




Whatever beefs you have on this issue, it's with independent historian Lars Lih and not myself. Check out Chapter 1 of Lenin Rediscovered.I have read some of Lih's works on Lenin (not this book though) where he demonstrates the Bolsheviks' inheritance from the SPD. It is mainly Leninists and Trotskyists who like to imagine that the Bolsheviks completely broke away from the legacy of the SPD. I don't think the Bolsheviks were that special. Also, I did not see anything in Lih's writing that contradicts my account of German social democracy. If so, I would like to see where and how Lenin Rediscovered does.




Does the author you cite know that the Iron Law of Wages was shared by the Ricardian political economists? Does he even know the motives behind the informal coalition with Bismarck? Does he know of Marx's lack of criticisms for the Eisenach program?
I don't think the Iron Law of Wages or his collaboration with Bismarck was Lassalle's main problem. It was more to do with his open advocacy for social-patriotism which continued within the SPD and ended up with the suppression of the German revolution and the murders of its revolutionary leaders including Rosa Luxemburg, Karl Liebknecht and Leo Jogisches. I do not know what your motives are in falsifying this history or in creating bizarre one-man political programs, but it would seem social-patriotism may have something to do with it.

[StalinstUser]

Social-democracy is treason of the leftist ideals, social-democracy does not promote a revolution or a dictatorship of the proletariat. Social-democracy promotes capitalist free-market, social-democracy is just a tool of capitalism to promote it's economical ideals in the left side of the political spectrum.

[Renegade Saint]

I've heard the argument made before that we should vote for the most reactionary candidate so eventually the revolution will take place as conditions become more and more intolerable.


Besides being questionable strategy, I could never vote with the intention of increasing the suffering of the elderly, students, children and the poor in the hopes of hastening revolution. I suprized no one has said that already.

[dodger]

Social-democracy is treason of the leftist ideals, social-democracy does not promote a revolution or a dictatorship of the proletariat. Social-democracy promotes capitalist free-market, social-democracy is just a tool of capitalism to promote it's economical ideals in the left side of the political spectrum.

In Britain Social democracy, Labour Party.....all inventions discoveries of workers mind and imagination. Some would have it that in a golden age it was set up by workers then fiends came along and corrupted it. Betrayal. This dishonesty shows we are still not getting to grips with the subject. How can it be treason, we never, never, never invented it for revolution or socialism. It was merely a way to survive within capitalism. It worked, we are still here. Voting to change a political economic system for revolutionary change--does that sound feasible? Not now, not then, not never! When was the last time somebody came along and offered to do something for you out of the goodness of their own heart? It must have happened, but surely a long time ago.....No we must do it for ourselves, as always. Unions in Britain are unique. They were not invented by parties or church but by workers, a means of survival. That they went on to create a monster along with our class is a shame, a mistake. In short we cannot blame others but must take responsibility. The working class is ahead of us, they are walking away from the wreckage. Not even hysterical calls from leftists that we might let in BNP have any credence. Not when there were 7 leftist parties all contesting Bolton. Not when we were invited to vote in EU elections that Labour refused us a referendum. Last time I looked there were 138,000 members on direct debit. Did the cream stay or did the best of them jump ship. It would be a great mistake in this period if we each of us could do little, so we did nothing. The forces ranged against us are confused, shifting....the Tories told us they were the natural leaders--born to it? Then why don't they lead? The markets, decaying capitalism is beyond their control our schools, local services, health, health put beyond democratic control.

The skill, the sheer professionalism, the creative potential in workers is what LABOUR most hates and fears, but that is just what must now be tapped .if we are to draw up a programme for our class’s survival. Now the most skilled sections, bringing everyone with them in their wake, must finish the job off. The Communist Manifesto had presented workers as active, self-reliant, able to think, speak and act for themselves, and thus capable of changing the world. It was based on faith in the working class. LABOUR, saw workers as passive, an electorate, a force to be harnessed, “noble savages”, uncorrupted because unlettered, whose lot on earth would be improved by politicians making reforms on their behalf. It was then, and is now, based on fear and hatred of the working class. After all we might be such ungrateful curs as to hold them to account for attacking our pensions, health, freedoms, social welfare, children's future and vote them out of office. To say nothing of handing our sovereignty to Brussels.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have read some of Lih's works on Lenin (not this book though) where he demonstrates the Bolsheviks' inheritance from the SPD. It is mainly Leninists and Trotskyists who like to imagine that the Bolsheviks completely broke away from the legacy of the SPD. I don't think the Bolsheviks were that special. Also, I did not see anything in Lih's writing that contradicts my account of German social democracy. If so, I would like to see where and how Lenin Rediscovered does.

For your convenience, you don't have to search far and wide:

The Merger of Socialism and the Worker Movement (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA41&dq=merger+socialism+worker+movement&hl=en&ei=TbPITt3lIsmKiAK6_fXtDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=merger%20socialism%20worker%20movement&f=false) (the commentary on Lassalle starts at the bottom of p. 53)

[CAleftist]

Social Democrats have been, at best, irrelevant to the working class struggle for the past century.

[promethean]

For your convenience, you don't have to search far and wide:

The Merger of Socialism and the Worker Movement (http://books.google.ca/books?id=8AVUvEUsdCgC&pg=PA41&dq=merger+socialism+worker+movement&hl=en&ei=TbPITt3lIsmKiAK6_fXtDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=merger%20socialism%20worker%20movement&f=false) (the commentary on Lassalle starts at the bottom of p. 53)
I still don't see how that passage or Lih's work in general contradicts my assertion that LaSalle was a social-patriot. Lih does not address that anywhere. Lih's main goal in writing that book was to show that the Bolsheviks were indebted to German social democracy. This was was a well known fact, especially among German left communists and Spartakists. Lih is not arguing anything new here. I don't see any problem with the Bolsheviks inheriting a lot of their theories from LaSalle and Kautsky. I do not accept the authority of either the Bolsheviks or LaSalle-Kautsky. I do not think how either of them interpreted Marx as or how they thought they were "improving" or "expanding" on Marx is of any use at all.

[dodger]

HAVE THE SOCIAL DEMOCRATS EVER SUPPORTED A STRIKE?

I'm waitin'...................

[Agathor]

I've heard the argument made before that we should vote for the most reactionary candidate so eventually the revolution will take place as conditions become more and more intolerable.

Whats your guys stance on this? My personal opinion is that I'm more than happy to vote for someone like Ralph Nader. I think that even though they don't go nearly as far enough, the table is open to more options and typically the Social Democrats in Europe will treat the socialist parties seriously and make negotiations with them.

I don't have any time for this ivory tower bollocks. Britain elected the extreme right wing candidate four times in a row; it didn't galvanize the left, it destroyed it. When Thatcher and Major destroyed the trade union movement they pulled radicalism up by the roots.

Suppose I start voting Tory. What do I say when one of their victims -- a single mother or an unemployed man -- asks me what I'm doing? "I'm committed to making life as difficult for you as possible until you adopt my political positions." This is extortion, albeit extremely bad extortion, as the left wing doesn't have the numbers to push the vote either way.

There are no Social Democratic parties in England apart from the Greens. If I lived in Wales I would vote for Plaid Cymru.

[Ocean Seal]

As much as I enjoy saying fuck all bourgeois parties, social democrats have a reasonable role to play in certain places (the United States comes to mind), but in Europe they are nothing but reactionaries. No longer necessary to the political struggle of the proletariat. So that's pretty much it, once they've outlived their usefulness they are an anchor to the working class movement.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Social Democrats are reformists. They believe they can solve all problems by reforming/"fixing" the system. They are not in support of revolution. However, it is best that we support them to improve the living standards of the working class. For now, we do not have a revolutionary party that can/will participate in parliament with a purely opposition platform, and refusal to take power. Until we have that, social democrats are the group we should vote for.

Reform or Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg, would be a good read on the subject of reformists. Note, back then, "Social Democracy" referred to revolutionary socialism.

[Rainsborough]

Social Democrats are reformists. They believe they can solve all problems by reforming/"fixing" the system. They are not in support of revolution. However, it is best that we support them to improve the living standards of the working class. For now, we do not have a revolutionary party that can/will participate in parliament with a purely opposition platform, and refusal to take power. Until we have that, social democrats are the group we should vote for.

Reform or Revolution (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm) by Rosa Luxemburg, would be a good read on the subject of reformists. Note, back then, "Social Democracy" referred to revolutionary socialism.

If we continue to endlessly support their reformism, then they are all we'll ever have. Sounds familiar "at least voting for the Labour Party is better than letting the Conservatives in".

And so it goes, around and around. Nothing ever truly changes, because too many are conned into riding the 'merry go round' of politics.