Algeria: Shit's Getting Real

[Geiseric]

As many of us may know, in Algeria the PT or the Workers Party is running against the FNL, and according to even french poll takers are likely to gain a majority in Parliament.

This would mean that the "Popular Committees" which are pretty much community and workers councils will have a conflict with the Bourgeois in the upcoming Constitituitent Assembly as to where the country is going. What does this mean for us as Socialists?

If the PT gains power of the government they will without a single doubt Nationalise the Oil and Natural Gas reserves in Algeria, which are huge. This will mean that the Imperialists will try to invade if such a time comes, and we as 1st World Communists need to hold a stance defying Imperialist intervention, and unconditionally supporting the Workers Party against the FLN and Islamists who are in the pockets of the Imperialists.

Here's an Article from the 4th International about the events unfolding. The leadership of the PT are more or less blatant Trotskyists. The bourgeois press even labels them as such. Algeria is in a Revolutionary situation, and we need to discuss what this means.

http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=477&Itemid=1
^There's an article from my group. A few people I know have even headed to Algeria to help out.

[Ocean Seal]

Sounds a bit like Greece.

[black magick hustla]

trotskyists: on the road to becoming managers of the capitalist state

[OHumanista]

I don't know anything about the situation in Algeria and so I will refrain from saying much. As long as things get better for the workers there, good.

[Obs]

Permanent revolution in Maghreb.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[Welshy]

It will be interesting to see how this turns out. Also we will get to see if Trotskyists really behave different from Stalinists when they are the ones in power.

[Crux]

As many of us may know, in Algeria the PT or the Workers Party is running against the FNL, and according to even french poll takers are likely to gain a majority in Parliament.

This would mean that the "Popular Committees" which are pretty much community and workers councils will have a conflict with the Bourgeois in the upcoming Constitituitent Assembly as to where the country is going. What does this mean for us as Socialists?

If the PT gains power of the government they will without a single doubt Nationalise the Oil and Natural Gas reserves in Algeria, which are huge. This will mean that the Imperialists will try to invade if such a time comes, and we as 1st World Communists need to hold a stance defying Imperialist intervention, and unconditionally supporting the Workers Party against the FLN and Islamists who are in the pockets of the Imperialists.

Here's an Article from the 4th International about the events unfolding. The leadership of the PT are more or less blatant Trotskyists. The bourgeois press even labels them as such. Algeria is in a Revolutionary situation, and we need to discuss what this means.

http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=477&Itemid=1
^There's an article from my group. A few people I know have even headed to Algeria to help out.
Good luck to the lambertists I suppose.

[Q]

As many of us may know, in Algeria the PT or the Workers Party is running against the FNL, and according to even french poll takers are likely to gain a majority in Parliament.

This would mean that the "Popular Committees" which are pretty much community and workers councils will have a conflict with the Bourgeois in the upcoming Constitituitent Assembly as to where the country is going. What does this mean for us as Socialists?

If the PT gains power of the government they will without a single doubt Nationalise the Oil and Natural Gas reserves in Algeria, which are huge. This will mean that the Imperialists will try to invade if such a time comes, and we as 1st World Communists need to hold a stance defying Imperialist intervention, and unconditionally supporting the Workers Party against the FLN and Islamists who are in the pockets of the Imperialists.

Here's an Article from the 4th International about the events unfolding. The leadership of the PT are more or less blatant Trotskyists. The bourgeois press even labels them as such. Algeria is in a Revolutionary situation, and we need to discuss what this means.

http://www2.socialistorganizer.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=477&Itemid=1
^There's an article from my group. A few people I know have even headed to Algeria to help out.

I didn't read the whole article but skimmed over it to note the baseline. What this seem about is purely on the economist road. Things like these are noteworthy:
- "For years, the PT has been calling for the creation of a Sovereign Constituent Assembly to break with all vestiges of the one-party system, to assert Algeria's sovereignty over its natural resources and decision-making process, and to codify the gains of the Algerian revolution, especially State control over the economy."
- "It has been possible for the Algerian government to make these concessions in response to the growing mass mobilizations because a few years ago -- also under pressure from the Algerian masses, at the instigation of the PT and UGTA -- the Algerian government renationalized the oil industry in 2006 and three years later modified the Law on Finances, making it obligatory for the Algerian State to control at least 51 percent of all foreign-based corporations."
- "And their mobilizations -- both in Algiers and throughout the country -- have resulted most of the time in important victories. Wages have been increased across the board. The government has instituted a massive public-works program that has created hundreds of thousands of jobs. Measures have been taken to refinance social services. Multinational and private corporations that refused to comply with Algerian law -- TONIC, Djezzy, Hadjret, and others -- have been nationalized."
- "The PT struggles for democracy and socialism."

So, the PT version of "democracy and socialism" seems to be nationalization, rule of law and bourgeois democracy.

Yeah...

Then again, it would be a step forwards for the working class movement politically if it was to make a breakthrough as it would organize the class as a class with a political program. The political program would have to be attacked though from a communist point of view to make it more about attacking the constitutional order and its rule of law and about working class rule.

I'm also missing any international context. A call for a Democratic Republic of Arabia, for example, would be a step in the right direction as clearly workers power within the confines of Algeria is illusory and even the thoroughly reformist and "anti-imperialist" program of the PT will lead to isolation and impoverishment.

[Blanquist]

This is glorious news!

[Geiseric]

How is this the road to Bourgeois democracy? The constituitent assembly has the same role as in the Russian revolution. In the past 10 years the FLN has been without a doubt the representatives of the bourgeois. The nationalization of oil is being done as the first step Marx laid out for Socialists to do once they've gained power.

However can somebody describe how this is leading to Bourgeois democracy?

[black magick hustla]

How is this the road to Bourgeois democracy? The constituitent assembly has the same role as in the Russian revolution. In the past 10 years the FLN has been without a doubt the representatives of the bourgeois. The nationalization of oil is being done as the first step Marx laid out for Socialists to do once they've gained power.

However can somebody describe how this is leading to Bourgeois democracy?

Cuz' the PT is a run of the mill, socialdemocratic party? just cuz' lambert used to be a trot doesn't mean PT is anything more than a left wing, bourgeois party.

[Geiseric]

Good luck with that kind of pessimism. the entire reason for the split from USec was to become more militant, so the PT leadership in conjunction with the 4th int is about as revolutionary as it can get.

[black magick hustla]

Good luck with that kind of pessimism. the entire reason for the split from USec was to become more militant, so the PT leadership in conjunction with the 4th int is about as revolutionary as it can get.

i don't need "luck" for anything. exactly the same thing that happened to the nepalese maoists will happen to algerian trotskyists. trotskyism in general was never more than radical social democracy anyway imho

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Most if not all Trot parties in europe are blatant social-democratic parties.

[Geiseric]

Right well the PT isn't a party of bourgeois intellectuals, there's a huge following among the working class in Algeria. If the PT was a social dem party they'd be participating in the government in a non aggitational, pro bourgeois way with the deputies they already have, which is something I'm not sure if they're doing or not. But the PT rose out of the struggles over the part 10 years. They are a legitimate threat to Capitalists who want to control the resources in Algeria.

[Tim Cornelis]

The problem is, even assuming the PT is genuinely a revolutionary socialist party, that winning elections is not the same as a social revolution.

A genuine revolution will instigate a sort of euphoria and optimism in neighbouring countries, and throughout the region, as we saw during the Arab spring.

But winning parliamentary elections does not do the trick, so it will be isolated to Algeria. The socialist revolution needs to be regional/continental from its very beginning. If we saw a rise of revolutionary socialism in all Arab countries, then it'be time for optimism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Good luck with that kind of pessimism. the entire reason for the split from USec was to become more militant, so the PT leadership in conjunction with the 4th int is about as revolutionary as it can get.

Sure, but in isolation, it will end up like 'Nepal' and its 'Maoist' rule.

[Geiseric]

Who knows, maybe this will set stuff off in neighboring countries. At this moment though there doesn't exist any Revolutionary organisations in that region, at least I don't know if there is. However Algeria will make things in Europe and America worse, if they Nationalise the prices of gas will probably go up like a bat out of hell.

In order to legitimize the revolutionary section of the PT, they need to remove the power that the FLN has in terms of oppression. The new elections will do just that. As soon as that happens we'll see a system of dual power between workers and capitalist parties, which is the point when I could see the revolution breaking out.

The FLN government's role in the past 10 years could be seen as a conciliationist role between the NATO Bourgeois and the revolutionary workers of Algeria.

[OCMO]

As a militant in a ML party, go trots, best of luck to prove us wrong and to do the best for the algerian working class.

[Geiseric]

This has nothing to do with us and them, the working class's politics are just reflected in the PT. Thus why they are popular. The Algerian working class accepts the PT's politics, which are of a working class dialectic.

[Tabarnack]

Who knows, maybe this will set stuff off in neighboring countries. At this moment though there doesn't exist any Revolutionary organisations in that region, at least I don't know if there is. However Algeria will make things in Europe and America worse, if they Nationalise the prices of gas will probably go up like a bat out of hell.

In order to legitimize the revolutionary section of the PT, they need to remove the power that the FLN has in terms of oppression. The new elections will do just that. As soon as that happens we'll see a system of dual power between workers and capitalist parties, which is the point when I could see the revolution breaking out.

The FLN government's role in the past 10 years could be seen as a conciliationist role between the NATO Bourgeois and the revolutionary workers of Algeria.

I do not dispute the significance of an election of a PT parliament , it's just that I can't find any evidence that the PT is that popular, during the last election they won 5 or 6% of the vote and I can't find any recent polls that would indicate that they are close to taking power, could you furnish one or two links that would confirm their lead in the vote, thank you.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I do not dispute the significance of an election of a PT parliament , it's just that I can't find any evidence that the PT is that popular, during the last election they won 5 or 6% of the vote and I can't find any recent polls that would indicate that they are close to taking power, could you furnish one or two links that would confirm their lead in the vote, thank you.
I second this.

[Geiseric]

Well they have the resources to put candidates in every Wilaya in Algeria, their membership grew by 50,000 members even in one year past the past election. I don't know if there's a way to be sure, but if we look at the process of what's happened in Algeria the upcoming National Assembly has a chance of removing the FLN from their position of the ruling party. The PT is estimating that it'll gain a majority, I mean there's so much momentum built in Algeria at this point.

However there's open defiance of the curfew in Algiers, which has been happening for the past maybe 10 years. There's strikes and protests almost daily. It might not be a revolutionary crisis as of yet, but these things take time.

[Tabarnack]

As many of us may know, in Algeria the PT or the Workers Party is running against the FNL, and according to even french poll takers are likely to gain a majority in Parliament.

Can you provide a link to those polls please, the only poll I could find gives the PT 4% of the vote with FNL at 25% and 60% distributed between various Islamic parties, and the official PT website seems to be permanently offline...?

http://www.maghrebemergent.com/actualite/fil-maghreb/10743-algerie-44-des-electeurs-iront-voter-le-10-mai-prochain-pas-de-deferlante-islamiste-sondage.html

[black magick hustla]

PT is the only opposition to "FLN". The FLN is allied to a bunch of islamist/democratic organizations in an electoral bloc. But there are news that this bloc might split.

[gorillafuck]

trotskyism in general was never more than radical social democracy anyway imhoafter world war II maybe. not before at all.

and btw, shit is always real in every country in Africa.

[Geiseric]

Fair enough, shit is indeed always real. I meant in the revolutionary sense. I'll look for a more specific source on how popular the PT is.

[A Marxist Historian]

I do not dispute the significance of an election of a PT parliament , it's just that I can't find any evidence that the PT is that popular, during the last election they won 5 or 6% of the vote and I can't find any recent polls that would indicate that they are close to taking power, could you furnish one or two links that would confirm their lead in the vote, thank you.

How popular is the PT? Well, it doesn't really matter. The PT is a thoroughly rotten social-democratic party, despite their verbal "Trotskyism."

They have vacillated between supporting the murderous reactionary fundamentalists during the hideous Algerian civil war of the '90s, to supporting the equally murderous Algerian military dictatorship, in fact often trying to do both at the same time. That's what most of their support really comes from, as the peace party, trying to get the two equally murderous and equally reactionary sides to kiss and make up.

A popular notion, given that literally hundreds of thousands of Algerians died in the Algerian civil war. But with nothing whatsoever revolutionary about it.

During the Arab Spring of last year, Algeria was the only major country in the whole area where there were no mass demonstrations against the government.

Why? Because the Algerian PT, which does have a lot of support, was telling people not to demonstrate against the government.

When the head of the PT ran for President a few years ago, she got a message of congratulation for her vote total from ... the dictator! That tells you everything you need to know about the PT I think.

-M.H.-

[Ocean Seal]

The problem is, even assuming the PT is genuinely a revolutionary socialist party, that winning elections is not the same as a social revolution.

A genuine revolution will instigate a sort of euphoria and optimism in neighbouring countries, and throughout the region, as we saw during the Arab spring.

But winning parliamentary elections does not do the trick, so it will be isolated to Algeria. The socialist revolution needs to be regional/continental from its very beginning. If we saw a rise of revolutionary socialism in all Arab countries, then it'be time for optimism.


Sure, but in isolation, it will end up like 'Nepal' and its 'Maoist' rule.
These are excellent points, actually. However, I have been thinking, how will this affect Nepal and its "Maoist" rule. Is there a chance for collaboration between Nepal and Algeria if this continues to develop in Algeria. Will revolutions elsewhere push current revolutionary countries to the left, and prevent the degeneration? How about Cuba's slide? Is it possible that these nations could see at the very least some resurgent leftist charge.

[El Oso Rojo]

I don't know much about the situation, i get my emails from socialist organizer and haven't read the take on the PT in Algeria yet, but this sound like jeolously from the opposition on here. Give them some time. Before being skeptual or visit the situation on the ground if you have the money.

[black magick hustla]

i've actually been there a few times. PT is a ordinary social democratic party. its importance gets exaggerated because they are the only "real" opposition to the FLN.

[Geiseric]

How are they a "normal," social democrat party? They argue for the nationalisation of all the industries in Algeria so that the International bourgeois don't get their hands on them, the monopoly can be used to develop Algeria. How is that not Maximalist or Bolshevist?

If they were actually Social Dems they'd ride the coat tails of FLN like the Socialist party. During the Civil War they were trying to END THE WAR. How is that a bad thing? They were trying to being some semblence of peace to the country, same goes for defying the COUP that FLN did. It's trying to keep things in a democratically stabile environment so the PT can grow into a party which can challenge the FLN government.

It was trying to make it so death squads aren't trying to kill people for requesting democracy during the Civil War, what's wrong with that? What other stance should have been taken? Proletarian Revolution? Lol right.

[A Marxist Historian]

How are they a "normal," social democrat party? They argue for the nationalisation of all the industries in Algeria so that the International bourgeois don't get their hands on them, the monopoly can be used to develop Algeria. How is that not Maximalist or Bolshevist?

If they were actually Social Dems they'd ride the coat tails of FLN like the Socialist party. During the Civil War they were trying to END THE WAR. How is that a bad thing? They were trying to being some semblence of peace to the country, same goes for defying the COUP that FLN did. It's trying to keep things in a democratically stabile environment so the PT can grow into a party which can challenge the FLN government.

It was trying to make it so death squads aren't trying to kill people for requesting democracy during the Civil War, what's wrong with that? What other stance should have been taken? Proletarian Revolution? Lol right.

Yes, proletarian revolution, me I'm down for that. Algeria had one revolution, the working class used to be very militant and played the central role in that revolution. And is still one of the strongest in the area. Problem is that its leaders subordinate it to either the reactionary regime or the fundamentalists. And in the case of the PT, both!

During the civil war, when it looked like the reactionary fundamentalists were more popular, and they were in fact, they did win the election that started the war, they were defending the fundamentalists up, down and sideways, and trying to ally with them.

But then, when it became clear that the FLN was gonna win, they switched their line to "Peace Now." Clever! And well timed, as the FLN was wanting to end the war at that time too.

Since then, they have been, exactly, riders of the FLN coattails, useful to the FLN as proof to the West that Algeria is "democratic," with a thoroughly housebroken opposition party that is even "socialist" with lots of seats in parliament.

The congratulations PT leader Hanoune got from the dictator when she ran against him for Prez and got a respectable but not dangerous vote total prove that, I should think.

Do they call for nationalizations? Sure. So did the British Labour Party back in the old days.

In practice, the actual main axis of their agitation is going door to door with petitions for a Constituent Assembly, when then are sent to the regime and end up in the circular file.

Though maybe not. Next door Tunisia actually has a Constituent Assembly, and that has worked out very nicely for the Tunisian capitalists, and very badly for the Tunisian people.

And now in Tunisia you have a democratically elected right wing fundamentalist regime, which come to think of it is what you'd get in Algeria too. So the PT's alliance wih the fundamentalists continues, side by side with its subservience to the FLN dictatorship.

-M.H.-

[Geiseric]

The "congratulation," isn't a relevant arguement I think, the FLN president is a scumbag just like the rest of their bourgeois party. What he says to sound like a nice guy to the masses of people who by this point are more or ess alligned behind the PT I think isn't too important.

At this point, I think the fact that the class struggle is reaching the point of a constituitent assembly is a sign that the Bourgeois know they're losing support and need to make demands to the Proletariat who are sick of their rule as well as the Islamists who were just as bad during the Civil War.

However PT never "took a side," during the Civil War. It was against a coup, but it would be the same thing as being against a coup of a Democrat government from a Republican one, something that they knew would lead to the Civil War. They weren't Pro-Islamist, they were anti-death squad politics, which to you may sound opportunistic but to me sounds like the reasonable thing to do. What else was going to be done? Raise a PT militia? Get real.

Tunisia doesn't have a workers party that can possibly run the constituitent assembly, one small detail you're missing.

However this seems almost directly mirroring the Bolsheviks support of a Constituitent assembly, the role this will take is exposing the Bourgeois FLN and Islamists for the pro-imperialists they are.

You're ultra left as it gets, in the negative sense, if you think that Nationalising the oil resources into the hands of a workers government isn't enough btw. I don't see any better ideas coming from anybody as to what the actual thing to do in Algeria would be, all I see are opportunistic pot shots at the PT.

[Zealot]

This will be very interesting if they do get power. However, they must remember that the Leninist principle is not to seize the state but to smash it. I wish these Trotskyists all the best.

[Os Cangaceiros]

During the Arab Spring of last year, Algeria was the only major country in the whole area where there were no mass demonstrations against the government.

Well, I'm not sure if they were what someone would call mass demonstrations, but there was some stuff going on there around the time of Tunisia/Egypt. I seem to remember one demo pulling some 30,000 people at the capital. I think that there's been on-and-off rioting in a lot of the poorer neighborhoods of Algiers for the last few years as well.

[black magick hustla]

actually, algerians have in general a higher class consciousness compared to the other arab spring countries. a lot of the rioting and striking is pretty curtailed along class lines. in many of the countries of the arab spring, there was very little class activity, as opposed to mass mobilizations that were marshalled by some faction of the bosses or the other.

[the last donut of the night]

Right well the PT isn't a party of bourgeois intellectuals, there's a huge following among the working class in Algeria.

as does the brazilian PT or the american republican party. what's your point?


If the PT was a social dem party they'd be participating in the government in a non aggitational, pro bourgeois way with the deputies they already have, which is something I'm not sure if they're doing or not.

doesn't work that easily. lots of parties do that

[ckaihatsu]

If *this* is true....





How are they a "normal," social democrat party? They argue for the nationalisation of all the industries in Algeria so that the International bourgeois don't get their hands on them, the monopoly can be used to develop Algeria. How is that not Maximalist or Bolshevist?


...then that makes *this* a dismissive ultra-left line that is probably mistaking the tactic of entryism for actual politics:





In practice, the actual main axis of their agitation is going door to door with petitions for a Constituent Assembly, when then are sent to the regime and end up in the circular file.

Though maybe not. Next door Tunisia actually has a Constituent Assembly, and that has worked out very nicely for the Tunisian capitalists, and very badly for the Tunisian people.

And now in Tunisia you have a democratically elected right wing fundamentalist regime, which come to think of it is what you'd get in Algeria too. So the PT's alliance wih the fundamentalists continues, side by side with its subservience to the FLN dictatorship.

[Tim Finnegan]

This has nothing to do with us and them, the working class's politics are just reflected in the PT. Thus why they are popular. The Algerian working class accepts the PT's politics, which are of a working class dialectic.
I don't really know what this means. Could you elaborate?

[Geiseric]

I don't know what it means either, I was trying to sound smart >.> sorry. I meant to say that the politics the PT has are from a working class viewpoint and world view, which I thought was a dialectic.

[ckaihatsu]

---





Class struggle is the central contradiction to be resolved by Marxist dialectics, because of its central role in the social and political lives of a society. Nonetheless, Marx and Marxists developed the concept of class struggle to comprehend the dialectical contradictions between mental and manual labor, and between town and country. Hence, philosophic contradiction is central to the development of dialectics — the progress from quantity to quality, the acceleration of gradual social change; the negation of the initial development of the status quo; the negation of that negation; and the high-level recurrence of features of the original status quo.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic#Marxist_dialectics

[Os Cangaceiros]

And now in Tunisia you have a democratically elected right wing fundamentalist regime, which come to think of it is what you'd get in Algeria too. So the PT's alliance wih the fundamentalists continues, side by side with its subservience to the FLN dictatorship.

-M.H.-

Also, I guess I didn't read your post completely, but I just noticed this part. Regarding Tunisia and the government there, I don't think that the ruling party is "fundamentalist", is it? My impression was that they were "soft Islamists" who were not as right as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and nowhere near as right as the salafists in Egypt, or the ruling class in Saudi Arabia.

[A Marxist Historian]

Well, I'm not sure if they were what someone would call mass demonstrations, but there was some stuff going on there around the time of Tunisia/Egypt. I seem to remember one demo pulling some 30,000 people at the capital. I think that there's been on-and-off rioting in a lot of the poorer neighborhoods of Algiers for the last few years as well.

Yes. This died down quickly because the PT opposed these rallies, calling them an imperialist plot or something.

-M.H.-

[A Marxist Historian]

Also, I guess I didn't read your post completely, but I just noticed this part. Regarding Tunisia and the government there, I don't think that the ruling party is "fundamentalist", is it? My impression was that they were "soft Islamists" who were not as right as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and nowhere near as right as the salafists in Egypt, or the ruling class in Saudi Arabia.

That's what they said before the elections, Tunisia being probably the most left wing country in the whole Middle East, and the Islamic party leaders, who by the way did not even participate in the revolution vs. the old regime, being very smart politicians.

But as soon as they got elected, the fangs came out, and now the regime is trying to smash not just the left, but the unions too, and getting more fundamentalist by the day.

Perfect example of how bourgeois elections, including to Constituent Assemblies, are just methods of deceiving the people.

Thus, the Bolsheviks, who had in fact called for Constituent Assembly elections, learned from the results of their mistake and dissolved the Russian Constituent Assembly after one day.

-M.H.-

[Geiseric]

That's what they said before the elections, Tunisia being probably the most left wing country in the whole Middle East, and the Islamic party leaders, who by the way did not even participate in the revolution vs. the old regime, being very smart politicians.

But as soon as they got elected, the fangs came out, and now the regime is trying to smash not just the left, but the unions too, and getting more fundamentalist by the day.

Perfect example of how bourgeois elections, including to Constituent Assemblies, are just methods of deceiving the people.

Thus, the Bolsheviks, who had in fact called for Constituent Assembly elections, learned from the results of their mistake and dissolved the Russian Constituent Assembly after one day.

-M.H.-

Ok on this point you're wrong, the bolsheviks dissolved the constituitent assembly because it happened before the news of the incredibly recent revolution in Petrograd didn't reach the peripherary of the country nor most of the Peasantry. That constituitent assembly was canceled because the Bourgeoisie already lost and was trying to grip onto the Assembly with the results of a horse shit election.

A constituitent assembly is an important Transitional demand, and can show the working class in Algeria that they have the power to do what they want and exact the change they see necessary. It'll create a situation of dual power between the Popular Assemblies (Algerian Soviets which support the PT) and the FLN Government as to who is really in charge.

If the constitution can be changed, and if the economy is nationalized, the working class will know they are fully in control of things and a revolution will be inevitable.

You call yourself a Trotskyist but you don't adhere to the Transitional Program, or the actions that the Bolsheviks did

[Crux]

...then that makes *this* a dismissive ultra-left line that is probably mistaking the tactic of entryism for actual politics:
I would like Syd Barret to explain the lambertists tactic of deep entryism though, personally I find it rather confusing. PT, which is seemingly a part of the lambertist 4th international is also a party they are doing entryism in?

[Dogs On Acid]

As a militant in a ML party, go trots, best of luck to prove us wrong and to do the best for the algerian working class.

Our party has Trotskyists. It follows the ideas of Lenin, not strictly Stalin.

[Geiseric]

I would like Syd Barret to explain the lambertists tactic of deep entryism though, personally I find it rather confusing. PT, which is seemingly a part of the lambertist 4th international is also a party they are doing entryism in?

It's not "entryism," as in entrence to a bourgeois Social Dem party, the PT rose out of the working class in the past few years and the Trotskyists in it were chosen to be in the leadership. However, if there was a workers or labor party in the U.S. regardless of the leadership, it's our duty to stay with the working class and make the Labor party doesn't degenerate like most Unions have. The Social Democrat party in Germany rose out of the workers movement, however the leadership is really what ruined it down the road. not unlike most Communist Parties who were affiliated with the f3rd international.

However in most Workers Parties where Trotskyists are a minority, it won't be uncommon to find them with their own press and propaganda engines. A comrade told me whose from Brazil that the 4th international section there is trying to get rid of the reformist leadership of the PT (Partei Trabajadores) whose holding the party back.

[ckaihatsu]

Mmmmmmm, political porn -- "deep entryism"....


x D

[A Marxist Historian]

Ok on this point you're wrong, the bolsheviks dissolved the constituitent assembly because it happened before the news of the incredibly recent revolution in Petrograd didn't reach the peripherary of the country nor most of the Peasantry. That constituitent assembly was canceled because the Bourgeoisie already lost and was trying to grip onto the Assembly with the results of a horse shit election.

A constituitent assembly is an important Transitional demand, and can show the working class in Algeria that they have the power to do what they want and exact the change they see necessary. It'll create a situation of dual power between the Popular Assemblies (Algerian Soviets which support the PT) and the FLN Government as to who is really in charge.

If the constitution can be changed, and if the economy is nationalized, the working class will know they are fully in control of things and a revolution will be inevitable.

You call yourself a Trotskyist but you don't adhere to the Transitional Program, or the actions that the Bolsheviks did

A Constituent Assembly is the classic demand of *bourgeois* revolutions. Played a revolutionary role in 1789 in France. But for the last two centuries, every Constituent Assembly ever elected has always been a tool of reaction, as the bourgeoisie is now a reactionary not a revolutionary class. Especially during the European revolutions of 1848 of course.

The Constituent Assembly of 1917 in Russia being a typical example--even though the election was run by the Soviet government, so it was hardly a "horse shit election," but about as fair and pro-working-class a bourgeois-type election campaign as you can imagine.

Suppose the Bolsheviks had delayed the election a bit. Would the peasantry have voted for the Bolsheviks? Quite unlikely. At best, the split in the Socialist Revolutionary Party would have been carried out, and the Bolsheviks might have managed to cobble out a thin majority in coalition with the Left SRs.

Which would have given the Left SRs a whip hand when they came out in opposition to the Brest Litovsk treaty, and the coalition majority would have collapsed, with disastrous consequences.

Which would have violated the desires of the Left SR peasant constituency for peace, but hey, that's how bourgeois democracy works, and why the workers council/Soviet form is so superior, wih instant recall etc.

What's more, revolutionaries are for the rule of the working class, and workers were only about a tenth of the population of Russia. At some
point, a collision between the social interests of the workers and peasants in Russia was inevitable. If Russia was governed by a one person one vote representative regime, the peasants win and the workers lose. In the original Soviet constitution, one workers vote was worth that of ten peasants, which was exactly right in the interests of the revolution.

Stalin's granting everybody, in theory, equal voting rights in the "democratic" Soviet constitution of 1936 (written by Bukharin) was one of the steps in Stalin's political counterrevolution against workers democracy.

Lenin's articles about the dissolution of the CA *do not* say it was a great transitional demand or anything like that, they are devoted to explaining why constituent assemblies are inferior to Soviets. He didn't explicitly repudiate the old Bolshevik call for a CA, but neither did he defend it.

Did Trotsky put the CA demand in the Transitional Program for Third World countries? Yes. But it was never really relevant, you simply didn't have any movements for Constituent Assemblies in China or India or anywhere else at the time, so its validity was not tested in practice. The Chinese Trotskyists did agitate for a Constituent Assembly, but the idea was irrelevant to the situation, and may have been one of the reasons Mao won and the Trotskyists lost.

Now the idea has been finally thoroughly tested in practice in the Third World, with Tunisia and Egypt electing Constituent Assemblies that immediately turned out to be obstacles to and enemies of the revolutionary process, vehicles for the Islamic fundamentalists to smash the working class.

Why would things be any different in Algeria, right next door? In practice, a CA in Algeria would be merely a basis for Islamic reaction to take power.

You have to learn from history, including recent history, not just quote sacred texts like bibles.

-M.H.-

[robbo203]

If the PT gains power of the government they will without a single doubt Nationalise the Oil and Natural Gas reserves in Algeria, which are huge. This will mean that the Imperialists will try to invade if such a time comes, and we as 1st World Communists need to hold a stance defying Imperialist intervention, and unconditionally supporting the Workers Party against the FLN and Islamists who are in the pockets of the Imperialists.
.

No. Why the hell should we be called upon to "unconditionally" support one capitalist side against another? You dont have to pick sides in order to oppose the military slaughter that might ensue. Has the lesson of Libya not been learnt?

[ckaihatsu]

A Constituent Assembly is the classic demand of *bourgeois* revolutions. Played a revolutionary role in 1789 in France. But for the last two centuries, every Constituent Assembly ever elected has always been a tool of reaction, as the bourgeoisie is now a reactionary not a revolutionary class. Especially during the European revolutions of 1848 of course.




Lenin's articles about the dissolution of the CA *do not* say it was a great transitional demand or anything like that, they are devoted to explaining why constituent assemblies are inferior to Soviets. He didn't explicitly repudiate the old Bolshevik call for a CA, but neither did he defend it.




The Chinese Trotskyists did agitate for a Constituent Assembly, but the idea was irrelevant to the situation, and may have been one of the reasons Mao won and the Trotskyists lost.


Obviously the PT in Algeria has mass support, and it looks like they're calling for a Constituent Assembly as an entryist tactic to put the question of legitimacy and power to the vote.

It still looks like you're conflating a tactic with a "demand", or even with the PT's politics entirely.

[A Marxist Historian]

The "congratulation," isn't a relevant arguement I think, the FLN president is a scumbag just like the rest of their bourgeois party. What he says to sound like a nice guy to the masses of people who by this point are more or ess alligned behind the PT I think isn't too important.

So according to you, the congratulations, back in 2004 I think it was, was just a desperate last second gesture of a regime about to be overthrown by the masses under the leadership of the PT?

What are you smoking? I want some!


At this point, I think the fact that the class struggle is reaching the point of a constituitent assembly is a sign that the Bourgeois know they're losing support and need to make demands to the Proletariat who are sick of their rule as well as the Islamists who were just as bad during the Civil War.

"The class struggle" is not "reaching the point of a constituent assembly" in Algeria. Now, in Tunisia and to some degree in Egypt you could describe things that way, yes you had Constituent Assemblies called as the result of mass pressure, because the leftists and Islamists, in coalition, were demanding one and the masses were following them.

In Algeria, all you have is PT petition campaigns for the FLN circular file, seen by the regime as an utterly harmless activity which it looks on benignly.

If revolution does break out in Algeria, despite the best efforts of the FLN and the PT, then these petitions will get rescued from the trash and a CA will be called to put an end to the revolution, just as in Tunisia and Egypt.


However PT never "took a side," during the Civil War. It was against a coup, but it would be the same thing as being against a coup of a Democrat government from a Republican one, something that they knew would lead to the Civil War. They weren't Pro-Islamist, they were anti-death squad politics, which to you may sound opportunistic but to me sounds like the reasonable thing to do. What else was going to be done? Raise a PT militia? Get real.

Tunisia doesn't have a workers party that can possibly run the constituitent assembly, one small detail you're missing.

So then, you really do think that the way workers can come to power is through bourgeois elections? Then you are a Social Democrat, not a revolutionary. And indeed that's exactly what the PT is, just another Social Democratic party, not ultimately different from the British Labour Party or the German Social Democracy, at least back in the day when they still talked about bringing in socialism by them getting elected.

The excuse the PT used for supporting the Islamic fundamentalists, who were just as murderous as the regime but had a lower body count because, and only because, they were less well armed, and for that matter were politically *more* right wing than the regime, was that they got the majority of votes in a bourgeois election. So the hell what?

Should radicals have supported Al Gore in 2000?

In fact, let's suppose that Obama gets elected this fall through some kind of 2000-style flim-flam. Indeed there's been some speculation among the political scientists that a popular vote majority for Romney and an electoral vote majority for Obama is a distinct possibility, due to the peculiar way the stars are aligning this year. Would radicals be duty bound to come out in support of Romney? That's actually a more accurate analogy.


However this seems almost directly mirroring the Bolsheviks support of a Constituitent assembly, the role this will take is exposing the Bourgeois FLN and Islamists for the pro-imperialists they are.

You're ultra left as it gets, in the negative sense, if you think that Nationalising the oil resources into the hands of a workers government isn't enough btw. I don't see any better ideas coming from anybody as to what the actual thing to do in Algeria would be, all I see are opportunistic pot shots at the PT.

When the FLN took power in the Algerian Revolution, they nationalized oil, and in fact, initially the oil wells were administered under workers control, as the Algerian revolution was very radical. But over the years, as it was always a bourgeois regime, the workers were suppressed and the oilfields were handed back to the imperialists.

All the PT program boils down to is, at best, bring back the good old days of the early '60s. But the real program of the PT is simply bourgeois democracy.

They are social democrats, pure and simple. The Trotskyist verbiage of its main leaders is just a cover, like that of other social democratic parties elsewhere--before they take power.

Did the Bolsheviks use Kerensky's refusal to carry out the elections he promised to discredit him? And this sort of worked out, as Kerensky was dumb enough not to call elections. But then, when the Bolsheviks took power, they were forced to carry out the elections, which the reactionaries got a majority in. The chickens came home to roost, as Malcolm X put it.

This was a great political gift to the Whites. When the Whites rose in insurrection in the summer of 1918, they hid behind the "Constituent Assembly" banner, set up a Constituent Assembly government in Siberia, at first the Mensheviks and Social Revolutionaries supported them, and the Bolshevik regime came quite close to being overthrown.

The temporary and minor political convenience of the Constituent Assembly demand raised in the summer and fall of 1917 came back to haunt the Bolsheviks. It was a mistake, and a highly unnecessary one, as what the Bolshevik Revolution was about was "peace, land and bread," and Soviet power, not electing a constituent assembly.

-M.H.-

[ckaihatsu]

In Algeria, all you have is PT petition campaigns for the FLN circular file, seen by the regime as an utterly harmless activity which it looks on benignly.


Regardless of how the *officialdom* receives such results the PT's activity may not be as irrelevant as you make it out to be, since it is effectively gauging where the actual politics of the masses are at right now.





If revolution does break out in Algeria, despite the best efforts of the FLN and the PT, then these petitions will get rescued from the trash and a CA will be called to put an end to the revolution, just as in Tunisia and Egypt.


This would be a different timeframe and situation *entirely*, then, and it would be the *FLN* using the petitions according to *their* interests, as a tactic.





When the FLN took power in the Algerian Revolution, they nationalized oil, and in fact, initially the oil wells were administered under workers control, as the Algerian revolution was very radical. But over the years, as it was always a bourgeois regime, the workers were suppressed and the oilfields were handed back to the imperialists.

All the PT program boils down to is, at best, bring back the good old days of the early '60s. But the real program of the PT is simply bourgeois democracy.


The PT, as with any formal organization, is constrained by its own formalistic substitutionism and by the nation-state in which it operates. It's *necessarily* limited, then, to the revolutionary activity of the masses themselves, and to a nationalist-type program -- unless it takes on an internationalist dimension with more pan-Arab struggles in concert.





The temporary and minor political convenience of the Constituent Assembly demand raised in the summer and fall of 1917 came back to haunt the Bolsheviks. It was a mistake, and a highly unnecessary one, as what the Bolshevik Revolution was about was "peace, land and bread," and Soviet power, not electing a constituent assembly.


Perhaps the lesson to draw from this is to acknowledge that a tactic like a call for a Constituent Assembly should not draw focus and emphasis away from the *core principles* of what a revolutionary politics is about -- taking power and displacing bourgeois rule. If revolutionaries get distracted by *their own* tactics and slip away from *their own* program as a result of using whatever tactics, that's not saying much for them as revolutionaries.

[A Marxist Historian]

Obviously the PT in Algeria has mass support, and it looks like they're calling for a Constituent Assembly as an entryist tactic to put the question of legitimacy and power to the vote.

It still looks like you're conflating a tactic with a "demand", or even with the PT's politics entirely.

Yes, obviously the PT has some mass support, though I think some folk here have some pretty inflated ideas as to how much. The question is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Given the PT's reformist, regime-loyal and pro-Islamic politics, I don't see how this can be seen as a good thing.

Whatever the PT call for a CA is, it's not an "entryist tactic." So far, at least they are not trying to "enter" the right wing Islamic parties that would gain a majority if a CA were actually held.

Thereby demonstrating a certain degree of survival instinct, as if the PT were to enter the Islamic fundamentalist movement, the corpses of PT'ers would probably start turning up in back alleys.

No, the only safe way for the PT to ally with the Islamics is how they've done it in the past, through "united fronts" at a safe arms length.

Though that hasn't been helping the Revolutionary Socialists in Egypt, the most important left party there, also allegedly "Trotskyist," whose continual attempts to ally with the Muslim Brotherhood keep backfiring on them.

-M.H.-

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, obviously the PT has some mass support, though I think some folk here have some pretty inflated ideas as to how much.


Sorry, but I take some exception to the dismissive tone -- I don't think it's helpful.





The question is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing. Given the PT's reformist, regime-loyal and pro-Islamic politics, I don't see how this can be seen as a good thing.


I understand that many formal leftist organizations / parties tend to succumb to the inertia of nationalism and wind up orienting their activities -- and even program -- to that of prevailing mainstream (bourgeois) policy, but your characterization of the PT here is at odds to Syd Barrett's description of their nationalization program, and to that of its own reporting.

Can we figure out why there's a discrepancy here?





Whatever the PT call for a CA is, it's not an "entryist tactic." So far, at least they are not trying to "enter" the right wing Islamic parties that would gain a majority if a CA were actually held.


Your use of the term 'entryism' is different from my understanding of it -- entryism, as I know it, means to have a formal political presence and representation in the official democratic body of government, *not* to be a part of other, rival parties.





Thereby demonstrating a certain degree of survival instinct, as if the PT were to enter the Islamic fundamentalist movement, the corpses of PT'ers would probably start turning up in back alleys.


Of course -- this wouldn't be a good idea at all, and it smacks of an unrealistic literary-type dramatic intrigue.





No, the only safe way for the PT to ally with the Islamics is how they've done it in the past, through "united fronts" at a safe arms length.


But it sounds like [1] they don't *need* this kind of united-front unity/support since they have broad support from the masses themselves, and [2] it wouldn't be a good strategic direction to go in since it would overshoot their limited involvement in governmental politics as an entryist tactic.





Though that hasn't been helping the Revolutionary Socialists in Egypt, the most important left party there, also allegedly "Trotskyist," whose continual attempts to ally with the Muslim Brotherhood keep backfiring on them.


Right -- agreed.