What is Revolutionary Marxist?

[Bostana]

Can a REVOLUTIONARY MARXISTS give me a better view of their group. Explain to me your views, ideologies, and stuff like that.

[Drosophila]

I think it's a "non-tendency" Marxist group.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Can a REVOLUTIONARY MARXISTS give me a better view of their group. Explain to me your views, ideologies, and stuff like that.

Basically it's just anyone that adheres to Marx's writings more than anyone else.

[The Jay]

It just means that they are marxists that think that they best way towards communism is through a revolution rather than reform. Basically, almost everyone here is a revolutionary marxist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Can a REVOLUTIONARY MARXISTS give me a better view of their group. Explain to me your views, ideologies, and stuff like that.

Are you referring to small-r revolutionary Marxism, or the usergroup?

If the latter, a number of us are "volunteering" in whatever way we can to jump-start the worker-class movement once again and merge Marxism with this, but actually adapting the entirety of what was once called "Orthodox Marxism" (especially the strategic lines) to modern circumstances. In fact, I'd say that this is the core of small-r revolutionary Marxism.

[RedAtheist]

Can a REVOLUTIONARY MARXISTS give me a better view of their group. Explain to me your views, ideologies, and stuff like that.

Putting the word 'revolutionary' before the word 'Marxist' is completely redundant. Marx made it clear he believed in working class revolution. The term is about as useful as 'evolution-accepting Darwinist'. I find the term 'revolutionary Marxist' annoying since it implies there is such a thing as a non-revolutionary Marxist.

[Ostrinski]

It's clear that OP is referring to the usergroup which is our resident Orthodox Marxist group.

[Proukunin]

A Marxist is revolutionary on it's own terms. Now a Socialist can either be or not be revolutionary depending on what they believe.

I don't think there are people who are reformist Marxists unless they are just influenced by Marxism and don't really read much Marx.

But anyway I'm not a Marxist but I still like some of his ideas. :laugh:

[Grenzer]

As others have said, the revolutionary Marxists user group is basically the Orthodox Marxist user group. Orthodox Marxism was the ideology of the Second International. When Marx and Engels died, Marxism as a coherent and cohesive school of thought didn't entirely exist to the outside world. Its concepts needed to be organized and made presentable; and in addition, certain concepts such as Dialectical Materialism were vague and hazy. The most prominent Orthodox Marxist is Karl Kautsky who was known back in the day as the "pope of Marxism". Unfortunately, he ended up abandoning the idea of revolution during World War I and was then known as an anti-communist renegade for the rest of his days. In conjunction with the historical significance of the October Revolution, Kautsky was forgotten in favor of Lenin; despite the latter being a theoretical lightweight in comparison. The resurrection of Orthodox Marxism seems to owe a lot to the seminal work Lenin Rediscovered: What is to be done? In Context by Lars T. Lih, which is a nearly 900 page text which was published in 2005.

You could say that one of the things that concerns Orthodox Marxists the most is strategy. They see anarchists, left communists, and leninists as having a nonexistent revolutionary strategy(not the same thing as organizational principles) who instead rely on "apocalyptic predestinationalism" in regards to the fate of Capital.

You could also probably say that Orthodox Marxism is the dominant ideology of the CPGB ("http://www.cpgb.org.uk/). They have a lot of videos there explaining things from their perspective which are worth giving a watch.


I find the term 'revolutionary Marxist' annoying since it implies there is such a thing as a non-revolutionary Marxist.

Clearly you haven't spent enough time on the forums.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

I was under the impression that the usergroup you refer to was some kind of Kautskyist group. In all honesty, I don't know much about it, Die Neue Zeit seems to be the one in the know about that.

Are you in the Rev Marxist gorup mostly anti-Leninist, for the record?

[Grenzer]

I was under the impression that the usergroup you refer to was some kind of Kautskyist group. In all honesty, I don't know much about it, Die Neue Zeit seems to be the one in the know about that.

Are you in the Rev Marxist gorup mostly anti-Leninist, for the record?

No, absolutely not. Orthodox Marxists don't consider themselves to be Leninists, but many are indeed fans of Lenin. It's more that they see that Lenin got most of his views from Orthodox Marxism, and that it's better to focus on the teacher(Orthodox Marxism) as opposed to the student(Lenin). They basically believe that no understanding of Lenin's theoretical views can be complete without also understanding the dominant thinkers of the Second International. The thing about Orthodox Marxism is that it's not monolithic. Some might hate Lenin(Most do not), others might be big fans.. it's really up to the individual to decide. One thing Orthodox Marxism is not is a pre-packaged set of opinions on any given subject. It's that way with many subjects, such as the nature of the Soviet Union. Some say it was capitalist, some say it was a bureaucratic dictatorship. Orthodox Marxism gives a framework for analysis, it does not give pre-packaged results. Depending on how the individual interprets things, they might come to a different conclusion. With that said, I think the view that the Soviet Union was at any point a socialist sate is incompatible with the framework of Orthodox Marxism.

And yes, DNZ is more or less the resident expert on the subject.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Are you referring to small-r revolutionary Marxism, or the usergroup?

If the latter, a number of us are "volunteering" in whatever way we can to jump-start the worker-class movement once again and merge Marxism with this, but actually adapting the entirety of what was once called "Orthodox Marxism" (especially the strategic lines) to modern circumstances. In fact, I'd say that this is the core of small-r revolutionary Marxism.

That's essentially it

[Art Vandelay]

You could say that one of the things that concerns Orthodox Marxists the most is strategy. They see anarchists, left communists, and leninists as having a nonexistent revolutionary strategy(not the same thing as organizational principles) who instead rely on "apocalyptic predestinationalism" in regards to the fate of Capital.

Perhaps a resident orthodox Marxist could fill me in on what exactly they propose for revolutionary strategy? This is actually something I have been grappling with quite seriously lately as I have felt like my own views rely upon a "apocalyptic predestinationalism."

[Q]

DNZ and Grenzer have already covered a lot of it all. Except perhaps for the following:


Perhaps a resident orthodox Marxist could fill me in on what exactly they propose for revolutionary strategy? This is actually something I have been grappling with quite seriously lately as I have felt like my own views rely upon a "apocalyptic predestinationalism."

This is a big subject. If you want to know more about it, I recommend the book Revolutionary Strategy - Marxism and the Challenge of Left Unity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-strategy-marxism-t168571/index.html) (click for a review here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1001677), there is a Revleft usergroup here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)). I'll try to summarize the main points.

First of all it needs to be understood in opposition, broadly speaking, to both the left and the right of the workers movement. The right is characterized by coalitionism (willing to carry out governmental position under capitalism, often under the guise of "being realistic" and "doing something"). The left is characterized by the strategy of the mass strike (or variations thereof), where the working class is supposedly to take power spontaneously by escalating strikes in which process (or so is the idea) soviets will be formed and thus the working class takes power.

So, the right wing collapses to becoming a part of the capitalist state and bureaucratizes the working class movement. The left collapses to sectism of "the pure" that agitate all the time for strikes, demonstrations and other forms of action in an attempt to, effectively, dupe the working class into power.

The revolutionary center (or Orthodox Marxism) opposes to the right a position of permanent opposition and working class independence and against the left a strategy of patience and mass organisation. It can be summed up as the "merger formula" where the existing mass movement merges with Marxist ideas and thus becomes a party-movement, with a plethora of forms of self-organisation of the working masses. They are all guided by the idea of being explicitly pro-working class based and on the program of this class wanting to take power as a class. This implies majority support of our class and as such Revolutionary Marxists generally agree on the need for a political struggle for the most thorough form of democracy. This in essence for three purposes: To expose the undemocratic nature of capitalist society, where we are ruled by the financial markets and the "rule of law"; to form the working class, in all its diversity, as a class-collective; and to pose a positive alternative against capitalism, where humanity is ruled by humans as opposed to money.

So, what we propose is the patient (admittedly boring, dull, long-term and committed) work of education, agitation and organisation of our class in mass organisations, effectively building our class as the party (hence "party-movement"). Don't think strictly in terms of political parties like we understand them today, but also in the sense of a cooperative movement, democratized unions, educational collectives, social & cultural organisations, etc. This forms the basis of our alternative society and the logical trajectory can only lead towards revolution: towards consciously getting the old society out of the way of our self-emancipation and building a different kind of society.

Many in the Revolutionary Marxists group don't see the existing left in a purely problematic way, despite our disagreements with the strategies on table. Many comrades in the existing groups are surely committed to the project of a human future, but are - in our view - limited by their often sectarian politics, where everyone inside a group has to agree on every public stance of the group and where public disagreement are an anathema under the argumentation of "discipline" and other such nonsense.

As opposed to this we pose the need for radical democracy - the right to disagree - also on the left. In fact, the right to disagree is the only way forward as only on a democratic basis we can achieve lasting unity, only on a democratic basis can we achieve discipline, only on a democratic basis can we achieve a movement of thinking leaders as opposed to robots following a guru... Only on a democratic basis does the left, and indeed humanity, have a future.

[Brosip Tito]

I'll stick with just "Marxists", thank you.

[Misanthrope]

One that holds that the proletariat should violently overthrow their bourgeois oppressors and consolidate power and societal control for the proletariat.

[Geiseric]

I like to keep is simple and not dwell into 2nd international stuff...

[Ostrinski]

DNZ and Grenzer have already covered a lot of it all. Except perhaps for the following:



This is a big subject. If you want to know more about it, I recommend the book Revolutionary Strategy - Marxism and the Challenge of Left Unity (http://www.revleft.com/vb/revolutionary-strategy-marxism-t168571/index.html) (click for a review here (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1001677), there is a Revleft usergroup here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=205)). I'll try to summarize the main points.

First of all it needs to be understood in opposition, broadly speaking, to both the left and the right of the workers movement. The right is characterized by coalitionism (willing to carry out governmental position under capitalism, often under the guise of "being realistic" and "doing something"). The left is characterized by the strategy of the mass strike (or variations thereof), where the working class is supposedly to take power spontaneously by escalating strikes in which process (or so is the idea) soviets will be formed and thus the working class takes power.

So, the right wing collapses to becoming a part of the capitalist state and bureaucratizes the working class movement. The left collapses to sectism of "the pure" that agitate all the time for strikes, demonstrations and other forms of action in an attempt to, effectively, dupe the working class into power.

The revolutionary center (or Orthodox Marxism) opposes to the right a position of permanent opposition and working class independence and against the left a strategy of patience and mass organisation. It can be summed up as the "merger formula" where the existing mass movement merges with Marxist ideas and thus becomes a party-movement, with a plethora of forms of self-organisation of the working masses. They are all guided by the idea of being explicitly pro-working class based and on the program of this class wanting to take power as a class. This implies majority support of our class and as such Revolutionary Marxists generally agree on the need for a political struggle for the most thorough form of democracy. This in essence for three purposes: To expose the undemocratic nature of capitalist society, where we are ruled by the financial markets and the "rule of law"; to form the working class, in all its diversity, as a class-collective; and to pose a positive alternative against capitalism, where humanity is ruled by humans as opposed to money.

So, what we propose is the patient (admittedly boring, dull, long-term and committed) work of education, agitation and organisation of our class in mass organisations, effectively building our class as the party (hence "party-movement"). Don't think strictly in terms of political parties like we understand them today, but also in the sense of a cooperative movement, democratized unions, educational collectives, social & cultural organisations, etc. This forms the basis of our alternative society and the logical trajectory can only lead towards revolution: towards consciously getting the old society out of the way of our self-emancipation and building a different kind of society.

Many in the Revolutionary Marxists group don't see the existing left in a purely problematic way, despite our disagreements with the strategies on table. Many comrades in the existing groups are surely committed to the project of a human future, but are - in our view - limited by their often sectarian politics, where everyone inside a group has to agree on every public stance of the group and where public disagreement are an anathema under the argumentation of "discipline" and other such nonsense.

As opposed to this we pose the need for radical democracy - the right to disagree - also on the left. In fact, the right to disagree is the only way forward as only on a democratic basis we can achieve lasting unity, only on a democratic basis can we achieve discipline, only on a democratic basis can we achieve a movement of thinking leaders as opposed to robots following a guru... Only on a democratic basis does the left, and indeed humanity, have a future.So if I'm not mistaken, you all believe in both the mass strike and party organization?

[Grenzer]

No, I don't think they do. From my conversations with DNZ, they believe that mass strikes are an ineffective tactic and that it is dangerous and counter-productive to fetishize them.

Their party organization is a mass party which allows multiple tendencies and factions, from what I can tell. Would this be democratic centralism? I'm not that familiar with it since it looks simple enough in practice, but then why does it seem that no Trotskyist or Stalinist parties are actually democratic?

Overall, I think their little movement is a positive thing overall; but only time will tell whether it will thrive and grow, even though I disagree with some of their politics like national liberation and 20th century anti-imperialism. I also have yet to see them adequately address the issue of internationalism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, I don't think they do. From my conversations with DNZ, they believe that mass strikes are an ineffective tactic and that it is dangerous and counter-productive to fetishize them.

Polemically, I like being the polemical "bad cop" amongst the revivalists with respect to direct action, mass strikes, soviets, etc.


Their party organization is a mass party which allows multiple tendencies and factions, from what I can tell. Would this be democratic centralism? I'm not that familiar with it since it looks simple enough in practice, but then why does it seem that no Trotskyist or Stalinist parties are actually democratic?

I don't know about the other comrades, comrade, but I'm for multiple tendencies but also for a ban on factions and factionalism (see Marx, not Lenin).

[blake 3:17]

I don't know about the other comrades, comrade, but I'm for multiple tendencies but also for a ban on factions and factionalism (see Marx, not Lenin).

I`m not sure how you ban factions without banning tendencies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I`m not sure how you ban factions without banning tendencies.

I described the crucial differences here (again, from the work-in-progress you already have):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/practical-issues-and-t150581/index.html


So what is factionalism, then, within an atmosphere of forums, currents, platforms, and tendencies? Factionalism is characterized by its very contrast to publicized discussive unity. As opposed to tendencies, factions and their culture of secrecy limit audience access to intra-party discussions, overemphasize representative voting and top-down appointments, exhibit unprofessional behaviour in striving to be a political and organizational majority (such as bullying or threatening to split unless their views are adopted across the board, or attempting to replace party media with their own), refuse to act in accordance with agreed-upon action, and abstain from presenting majority viewpoints in addition to their own. It is no wonder why the anarchist Mikhail Bakunin and his immediate conspirators, despite their baseless and hypocritical charge of authoritarianism on the part of Marx, were expelled from the International Workingmen’s Association for maintaining the International Alliance for Socialist Democracy as a secret faction inside and outside the former, with its “rules or administrative regulations contrary to the General Rules and Administrative Regulations of the International Association.” Therefore, the best approach to factions vs. tendencies would be similar to the left-reformist “Eurocommunist” approach, as described by Mike Macnair:

The clearest cases are the French and Italian Communist Parties. Such parties officially prohibit factions [and factionalism], but have them [and tendencies] de facto, and are officially Bonapartist-centralist, but in practice allow a lot of leeway to the branches and fractions. They can actually be useful for the workers’ movement and the development of class consciousness even if they have coalitionist politics which they cannot carry into practice (all of them between the 1950s and the 1970s) and even if they are small (like the old CPGB).

The only organs that should be allowed to have one or two factional characteristics under pressing circumstances (overemphasizing representative voting and top-down appointments, plus limiting audience access to intra-party discussions especially during politically revolutionary periods) are the Central Workers Council and its lower-level equivalents within the party.

Organizationally, the Eurocommunist approach should be reconsidered.

[Ostrinski]

What is the criticism of the mass strike?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade Q already answered that question and especially posted the appropriate links above.

Basically, institutional self-organization is required by the working class in order to establish a durable class rule. Mass strikes, councilism, direct action, insurrectionism, all on the one hand, and reform coalitions, on the other, don't achieve this.

Bad Cop-wise: "For the mass party-movement" and "Down with councils and other spontaneisms."

[Grenzer]

What is the criticism of the mass strike?

Basically their criticism is that it just doesn't work, and that history has proven this. You should check out Mike Macnair's Revolutionary Strategy, it basically highlights the philosophy behind the movement's strategy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"One Big Failure" = SPD (but the Bolsheviks succeeded); many perennial failures = China 1927, Spanish Civil War (even if the Popular Front were rejected), Mai 1968 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/pcfs-role-may-t138705/index.html) (my "sellout" thread), Portugal 1975, "Battle of Seattle" 1999, etc.

[Grenzer]

Basically you could say that the strategy espoused by the CPGB is one of the "slow burn" variety. They seen the emphasis on spontaneity as being one of continuous failure. Like DNZ said, they think that what is needed are deliberate, lasting attempts. The critique is that Stalinism and Trotskyism have no revolutionary strategy because they skip right from Marx and Engels directly to Lenin; and they critique the Left Communists as having an ineffectual strategy.

I think a good example of this are the alternative culture institutions that were mentioned earlier; which serve a dual purpose of providing a non-exploitative alternative within capitalism, and to to serve as the nascent organs which will replace existing capitalist institutions after the revolution. Most people dismissed it outright, but I don't really think they're aware of its significance. We are in dramatic need of some new strategies and tactics, that much is clear. Unfortunately, most people seem to be sticking to the same hackneyed old lines of Stalin, Trotsky, and Mao; which have little to no relevance to us today.

[Brosip Tito]

DNZ, you're a Kautskyist, I never understood how you could be so opposed to the Mass Strike, especially after Luxemburg demolished Kautsky's argument.

What is it that makes the mass strike so dangerous and ineffective?

[Grenzer]

DNZ, you're a Kautskyist, I never understood how you could be so opposed to the Mass Strike, even after Luxemburg demolished Kautsky's argument.

What is it that makes the mass strike so dangerous and ineffective?

Well, look at the examples he provided. Theoretical arguments aside, it just doesn't work on a practical level(his opinion, not mine). The argument is that adhering to a strategy which has proven to be a failure is counter-productive. Personally I think there is a place for the mass strike, but for reasons that DNZ illustrated I'd question the wisdom of making it the cornerstone of your strategy.

I'm not sure it'd be entirely correct to call him a Kautskyan since he gets his inspiration from wide variety of theorists; both before and after Kautsky, including contemporary theorists. I think the main point of the Kautsky Revival is to reintroduce Kautsky as a component of theory to supplement a much broader array of ideas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Personally I think there is a place for the mass strike, but for reasons that DNZ illustrated I'd question the wisdom of making it the cornerstone of your strategy.

I'm not sure it'd be entirely correct to call him a Kautskyan since he gets his inspiration from wide variety of theorists; both before and after Kautsky, including contemporary theorists. I think the main point of the Kautsky Revival is to reintroduce Kautsky as a component of theory to supplement a much broader array of ideas.

Indeed. Despite this "Kautsky Revival" label, Kautsky the Marxist himself didn't write much about institutional self-organization. Comrade Q noted above that the original Orthodox Marxism was more against the left and right strategic lines rather than for a detailed strategy of its own.

When comrades like myself write today about Alternative Culture, mastering bureaucracy-as-process, real parties as real movements and vice versa, what constitutes a genuine revolutionary period for the working class, and all other things institutional, we are positing quite a detailed strategy on the "for" side.

[Ostrinski]

What do Ortho-Marxists think of Bordiga? He's probably my favorite theorist and has had most influence on me.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What do Ortho-Marxists think of Bordiga?

I personally have higher respect for him than for all the other left-com milieu. His party-centric critique of councils having the potential to be downright reactionary is a big plus, but I'm not sure about his take on revolutionary strategy. He was against reform coalitions and mass strike-isms, but he wasn't very receptive, to say the least, about institutional self-organization (the mass party-movement). If he's the one who coined "substitutionism" and especially "voluntarism" as a critique, that's in fact a big minus, because the pre-war SPD and inter-war USPD were the German worker-class-for-itself ("substitutionism") and its organizers "volunteered" to organize the class as a whole.

[Likewise, the pre-war SFIO, "French Section of the Workers International," was the French worker-class-for-itself.]

[Brosip Tito]

Well, look at the examples he provided. Theoretical arguments aside, it just doesn't work on a practical level(his opinion, not mine). The argument is that adhering to a strategy which has proven to be a failure is counter-productive. Personally I think there is a place for the mass strike, but for reasons that DNZ illustrated I'd question the wisdom of making it the cornerstone of your strategy.

I'm not sure it'd be entirely correct to call him a Kautskyan since he gets his inspiration from wide variety of theorists; both before and after Kautsky, including contemporary theorists. I think the main point of the Kautsky Revival is to reintroduce Kautsky as a component of theory to supplement a much broader array of ideas.
To throw the mass strike out the window, I believe, is absurd. It is quite effective, as we can see from the 1905 revolution in Russia, and Luxemburg puts her argument forth quite well, and quells the Kautskyist stance of it's supposed ineffectiveness.

I fail to see how Luxemburg was wrong on this, or if DNZ is discussing the Anarchist approach, which is not Luxemburg's. She didn't believe in spontaneity alone, she stressed party organization as well, just not to the extent of the revisionists (Kautsky and co).

[Grenzer]

What do Ortho-Marxists think of Bordiga? He's probably my favorite theorist and has had most influence on me.

Probably not much, good or bad.

I think some would sympathize with his views on the party, but if I remember correctly he played a role in the creation of the International Communist Party. The key thing to keep in mind is that from the Orthodox Marxist view, the most important thing is to examine things from a Marxist and strategic viewpoint. I would think that they would view the idea of an international communist party in the current conditions to be extremely impractical. They are internationalists, there is no doubt on that; but I don't think they would see an international party as being acceptable for the present conditions. Probably a lot to agree with in regards to the analysis of the fSU.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Probably not much, good or bad.

I think some would sympathize with his views on the party, but if I remember correctly he played a role in the creation of the International Communist Party. The key thing to keep in mind is that from the Orthodox Marxist view, the most important thing is to examine things from a Marxist and strategic viewpoint. I would think that they would view the idea of an international communist party in the current conditions to be extremely impractical. They are internationalists, there is no doubt on that; but I don't think they would see an international party as being acceptable for the present conditions. Probably a lot to agree with in regards to the analysis of the fSU.

Actually, I'm very much for a transnational party-movement even in current conditions. "Internationalism" is bankrupt. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bankruptcy-internationalismi-t144285/index.html)


To throw the mass strike out the window, I believe, is absurd. It is quite effective, as we can see from the 1905 revolution in Russia, and Luxemburg puts her argument forth quite well, and quells the Kautskyist stance of it's supposed ineffectiveness.

In limited circumstances they can be effective, but they're woefully ineffective when the question of class power is immediately posed, simply because the class doesn't have the organs for durable class rule.


I fail to see how Luxemburg was wrong on this, or if DNZ is discussing the Anarchist approach, which is not Luxemburg's. She didn't believe in spontaneity alone, she stressed party organization as well, just not to the extent of the revisionists (Kautsky and co).

Explain her days in the sectarian Social Democracy of the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania.

As illustrated by comrade Macnair, Luxemburg was influenced by Gorter, Pannekoek, etc. who were in turn influenced by Sorel who in turn was influenced by Bakunin.

[Ostrinski]

If he's the one who coined "substitutionism"I believe Trotsky coined the term.

[Grenzer]

To throw the mass strike out the window, I believe, is absurd. It is quite effective, as we can see from the 1905 revolution in Russia, and Luxemburg puts her argument forth quite well, and quells the Kautskyist stance of it's supposed ineffectiveness.

I fail to see how Luxemburg was wrong on this, or if DNZ is discussing the Anarchist approach, which is not Luxemburg's. She didn't believe in spontaneity alone, she stressed party organization as well, just not to the extent of the revisionists (Kautsky and co).

The key question to ask is whether the 1905 uprising led to a proletarian dictatorship. It did not; yet the 1917 uprising(although the actual removal of the Provisional Government was done via a coup) which was based along Kautskyan lines did succeed. Is this a coincidence? DNZ would argue that the 1905 revolution is actually a good example of why the Mass strike should be thrown out, precisely because it didn't work. I can't speak for Luxemburgist party, but the Kautskyan party is a mass party.

Also important to realize that he condemns post-1910(I think that was the cutoff) Kautsky. He did become a revisionist, but unlike the Stalinist-idealist version of it, it's a bit different. I believe that his writings beginning in 1910 began to show clear social-democratic degeneration, increasingly to the year 1913; and then in the year 1914 he broke fully.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I believe Trotsky coined the term.

Are you sure? He was someone was more on the line of "the class cannot substitute for the party" than the other way around.


(although the actual removal of the Provisional Government was done via a coup)

There were no Bolshevik coups until 1918. That's repeating the usual Western accounts.

[Ostrinski]

Are you sure? He was someone was more on the line of "the class cannot substitute for the party" than the other way around.The wiki article says so, though they use Tony Cliff as the source.

[Brosip Tito]

I have to do some more reading.

Though, I don't think that Luxemburg proposed it as a means of achieving proletarian dictatorship on it's own.

I think the issue is that you (DNZ) are seeing Luxemburg's position as an unorganized one, with no idea of party structure and organization. Without support of the idea of a vanguard party (which she does support -- she even believed in maintaining the mass party that Kautsky was in, until they voted for war credits and showed they have no chance of putting the workers first). Luxemburg was not opposed to this idea of a "mass party" perse, but she was not so quick to consider the mass strike only a small and localized methodology.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Luxemburg was not opposed to this idea of a "mass party" perse, but she was not so quick to consider the mass strike only a small and localized methodology.

If that were the case, she would have urged the sectarian SDKPiL honchos to liquidate into the RSDLP.

[Brosip Tito]

If that were the case, she would have urged the sectarian SDKPiL honchos to liquidate into the RSDLP.
Maybe I don't understand your idea of the mass party.

However, I'm talking maintaining the largest workers' parties of each area, based on material conditions. For instance, the material conditions of the class struggle in the main of Russia was different than that of Poland and Lithuania.

We can't blanket the material conditions as the exact same in each area/nation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The Russian Empire was still the Russian Empire. The SDKPiL coexisting with the RSDLP would have been like some hypothetical Bavarian or Prussian party coexisting with the larger SPD. The original Socialist International correctly resolved for there to exist only one affiliated party-movement in each country.

[Q]

So if I'm not mistaken, you all believe in both the mass strike and party organization?

I think it needs to be emphasized that most see the mass strike as a tactic, not a strategy to working class power. No tactic should be dismissed outright, given the circumstances. But strategically, the working class cannot be conned into power but has to want power, as a part of its self-emancipation which has to be conscious.

[Brosip Tito]

The Russian Empire was still the Russian Empire. The SDKPiL coexisting with the RSDLP would have been like some hypothetical Bavarian or Prussian party coexisting with the larger SPD. The original Socialist International correctly resolved for there to exist only one affiliated party-movement in each country.
That's a poor analogy, and you know it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think it needs to be emphasized that most see the mass strike as a tactic, not a strategy to working class power. No tactic should be dismissed outright, given the circumstances. But strategically, the working class cannot be conned into power but has to want power, as a part of its self-emancipation which has to be conscious.

In light of Ismail's jabs in other threads, I wonder if he'd accept an invitation to read this thread's material.