the difference between one party and no party?

[gorillafuck]

it seems to me that, if a society is run without political parties, then that is effectively banning the right to make political parties. and if a society bans the right to make political parties, then that is the same effect as a one party government.

are there any reasons why this line of thinking is untrue?

[Blake's Baby]

No, not really.

It probably comes down to 'what's the definition of a party?'

But, for instance, in the case of the 10th Conference, the result of 'the banning of factions' was that dominant faction (the Lenin-Trotsky faction) gained complete control of the party and fairly effectively silenced dissent. In a society that 'bans parties' it just means the dominant party has silenced opposing voices.

But hey, I'm a Luxemburgist. Freedom is always the freedom to disagree.

[Gold Against The Soul]

it seems to me that, if a society is run without political parties, then that is effectively banning the right to make political parties. and if a society bans the right to make political parties, then that is the same effect as a one party government.

are there any reasons why this line of thinking is untrue?

Political parties formerly represent different interests. In a society where the working class are in power, will there be a need for such parties? I don't think so.

[eric922]

Political parties formerly represent different interests. In a society where the working class are in power, will there be a need for such parties? I don't think so.
The working class isn't a monolithic group. They will likely have different views on how society should be ran and organized. Some workers might prefer a more Marxist-Leninist society while another group of workers might prefer a more libertarian socialist outlook.

[Blake's Baby]

Do you mean 'formally'?

It's true that the marxist definition of a party is that represents the interests of a class.

In which case, most parties don't exist.

If they do, then there's something wrong with the definition or its application.

Is it the definition that's right, and reality that's wrong (are these, perhaps not actually 'parties' in terms of Marx's definition)?

Or is it reality that's right, and the definition that's wrong (perhaps, parties can represent things more than class interests)?

[GoddessCleoLover]

I don't believe that the working class has only one unitary interest. Political parties do not mechanistically represent one social or class interest. It is possible in a workers' democracy that the working class may want two or even three parties. Why not let the workers decide? How can we justify one party declaring itself to be the vanguard and forbidding the formation of any other political parties?

[gorillafuck]

Political parties formerly represent different interests. In a society where the working class are in power, will there be a need for such parties? I don't think so.do you support a society which bans political parties?

[blake 3:17]

are there any reasons why this line of thinking is untrue?

No. Parties (even if people call them something else) will form.

Socialist governing will have to include a variety of forms of representative and direct democracy.


It is possible in a workers' democracy that the working class may want two or even three parties. Why not let the workers decide? How can we justify one party declaring itself to be the vanguard and forbidding the formation of any other political parties?

The idea of a single party representing the whole of the class is absurd.

[NewLeft]

The idea of a single party representing the whole of the class is absurd.

Exactly, the bourgeois don't have one party either.

[Gold Against The Soul]

The working class isn't a monolithic group. They will likely have different views on how society should be ran and organized. Some workers might prefer a more Marxist-Leninist society while another group of workers might prefer a more libertarian socialist outlook.

Yes but surely these groupings won't be comparable to the political parties we have today? And there is no reason why these differences and concerns couldn't be articulated through the democratic workers intuitions.

[Gold Against The Soul]

do you support a society which bans political parties?

Of course not. What I'm saying is that political parties probably won't exist as they do today. That is, representating different class interests. This is presuming a direct democracy having replaced representative democracy.

I would add to this that if political parties did exist then the revolution will either have failed or degenerated. Political parties represent different class interests and class interests should have been eliminated or transcended in such a society.

[Vyacheslav Brolotov]

The working class isn't a monolithic group. They will likely have different views on how society should be ran and organized. Some workers might prefer a more Marxist-Leninist society while another group of workers might prefer a more libertarian socialist outlook.

Are you suggesting that worker's states should have bourgeoisie democracies, like the ones that got the working class in such a bad position in the first place? Why would a revolutionary state retain the same political system from the past? No matter how many differences in opinions exist in the working class, a Communist Vanguard is not meant to be a political party, it is meant to be the protector of the worker's state and of the progression of humanity into communism. It will not be involved in petty politics, thus eliminating the need to address the issue of differing opinions. The Communist Vanguard will be the universal "party" for all of the working class, until capitalism is successfully defeated.

I opt not for a "single-party state," but for a vanguardist state. No political parties or vanguards would equal the breaking down of the state and the restoration of capitalism, except in the case of the withering away of the state.

[Ostrinski]

It's not as if a one party state can't be completely horizontally and democratically run, in contrast to how the bourgeois parties are run. But the fact of the matter is that the proletarian party should not be a "party" in the formal sense of the word, it should simply be the central apparatus by which the working class makes its decisions and carries out its actions. A de facto party, if you will.

[GoddessCleoLover]

How can we assure that this central apparatus remains subordinate to the working class given the negative historical experiences of the past century?

[Ostrinski]

That is the task of the working class. As soon as the working class becomes subordinate to the party instead of vice versa the party ceases to be revolutionary.

[Red Storm]

Honestly, I think you can do it several different ways. Even in a single party state you end up with right and left wings and differing factions(e.g. think hardliners and reformers in the USSR). The problem seems to come when one group silences dissent and difference of opinion. Then it ends up like a runaway train. I think the key thing is to keep various ideas thriving and working together. You can do it with a party or without; but the groups, of people of like mind, will form regardless of the parameters put in place.

[eric922]

Are you suggesting that worker's states should have bourgeoisie democracies, like the ones that got the working class in such a bad position in the first place? Why would a revolutionary state retain the same political system from the past? No matter how many differences in opinions exist in the working class, a Communist Vanguard is not meant to be a political party, it is meant to be the protector of the worker's state and of the progression of humanity into communism. It will not be involved in petty politics, thus eliminating the need to address the issue of differing opinions. The Communist Vanguard will be the universal "party" for all of the working class, until capitalism is successfully defeated.

I opt not for a "single-party state," but for a vanguardist state. No political parties or vanguards would equal the breaking down of the state and the restoration of capitalism, except in the case of the withering away of the state.
I'm suggesting that as workers debate issues in the councils various factions will inevitably arise based the views of individual workers. They would argue for their position in the worker's councils in order to persuade the majority vote alongside their view. It would be direct democracy, so it wouldn't be as easily corruptible as representative democracy, but you still need to convince majority to support you.

As for a Vanguradist state, well what that doesn't really help us, because what defines a "Vanguard?" Does it have to follow a Marxist-Leninist line, what if the majority of workers prefer a Trotskyist Vanguard or something based on Council Communism or Luxemburgism?

Honestly,though, I think in the case of a true worker's revolution, these debates will be void. The working class won't care for our views on theory,they will care about what they feel aids them best, and it could likely follow a different path than anything you or I lay it.

[GoddessCleoLover]

I would put a slightly different twist on the last sentence in Eric's post. The working class is well aware of what "vanguard" parties have done to past revolutions, and I am confident they will never again support would-be dictators. If we are to win the support of the working class, we must come up with a clear vision of workers' democracy. Policy difference ought to be out in the open and decided democratically by workers, not in the smoke-falled rooms where party factions battle with each other and workers have to live with the result without having a role in formulating the policy.

[eric922]

I would put a slightly different twist on the last sentence in Eric's post. The working class is well aware of what "vanguard" parties have done to past revolutions, and I am confident they will never again support would-be dictators. If we are to win the support of the working class, we must come up with a clear vision of workers' democracy. Policy difference ought to be out in the open and decided democratically by workers, not in the smoke-falled rooms where party factions battle with each other and workers have to live with the result without having a role in formulating the policy.
You make a good point. To be fully honest, I fail to see the difference from a one party state and Vanguardist state. The Vanguard is good for leading a evolution, but it seems to be too distanced from the people to be trusted. There needs to be open public debate over issues. The working class needs to decide what needs to be manufactured,what resources need to be used for, etc. Not have those things decided for them. On that note, I should really figure out how to change my lean. Trotskyist doesn't fit me anymore.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't believe that the working class has only one unitary interest. Political parties do not mechanistically represent one social or class interest. It is possible in a workers' democracy that the working class may want two or even three parties. Why not let the workers decide? How can we justify one party declaring itself to be the vanguard and forbidding the formation of any other political parties?

That's the slippery slope to sectarianism. We need to go back to Marx and Engels re. unitary political interest and the related mass institution.

[Lucretia]

it seems to me that, if a society is run without political parties, then that is effectively banning the right to make political parties. and if a society bans the right to make political parties, then that is the same effect as a one party government.

are there any reasons why this line of thinking is untrue?

This is all very abstract. Do you have a particular historical situation in mind when asking this question? Perhaps it would be more useful to discuss that.