Lesser of two evils: types of bourgeois worker parties

[Die Neue Zeit]

To start off, no bourgeois worker party or "party" strives for all three goals of "formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat" (Marx and Engels). However, a recent discussion that overrated British organized labour prompted me to start this discussion on the types of bourgeois worker formations. There are two types, but lots of leftists, even the likes of the CPGB, haven't realized the significant differences between the two, and thus tactics pursued have proven to be fruitless.

There are Labourite bourgeois worker formations and there are Continental bourgeois worker formations.

The first type of formation is established by so-called "organized labour," by tred-iunionisty bureaucrats and member grunts. Income-wise they tend to be the country's "aristocracy of labour" (Engels) or "labour aristocracy." Economic struggles are conducted by "organized labour" directly at the point of production, while political and even semi-political struggles are channeled to the formation. Here, the logic of growing political struggles out of mere economic ones is most self-evident. Examples of this first type of formation include the British Labour Party, the Socialist Labour Party, any front work initiated and led by SPEW, the historic Cooperative Commonwealth Federation and present-day New Democratic Party of Canada, the Australian Labor Party, the New Zealand Labour Party, and even the Workers Party in Brazil.

[Polemically, "Labour Mark II" projects are more accurately described as those seeking new formations based on the above.]

The second type of formation, "Continental," is established outside so-called "organized labour," which comes into play as either a tail or as a vehicle of co-option. Income-wise they tend to be less dependent on the country's labour aristocracy, and linked to this, more importantly, is the members' immediate realization that their immediate problems can only be solved politically, not economically. Point-of-production-struggles, other mere labour disputes, and other equally not-so-important economic struggles take a back seat to the political formation's political program, activism, and, for the more successful formations, even communication savvyness. Examples of this second type of formation include Die Linke, Front de gauche, the Left Alliance in Finland, the Left-Green Movement in Iceland (a governing coalition partner), the Movimiento al Socialismo in Bolivia, the Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela, Quebec solidaire, Sinn Fein in Ireland, SYRIZA, the Brazilian Socialist Party, and the newly-formed United Left and Peasants formation in the Ukraine. More mainstream formations include the Social-Democratic Alliance in Iceland (the main governing coalition partner) and Spanish Socialist Workers Party.

[In relation to Guy Standing's literature on the so-called "precariat," this new social strata would be more at home in a "Continental" formation.]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

So 'Labour' parties drawn historically from the working class but co-opted by the labour aristocracy and professionals = nono,

'Social Democratic' parties with working class members but no historical roots in the working class or unionism, who demand some Keynesian reforms = yesyes.

Bring on Social Democracy, is what you're saying, as usual. :rolleyes:

[Serge's Fist]

There are two types, but lots of leftists, even the likes of the CPGB, haven't realized the significant differences between the two, and thus tactics pursued have proven to be fruitless.

There are Labourite bourgeois worker formations and there are Continental bourgeois worker formations.

That's not true. Not just the CPGB, but pretty much all of the left have a conception of the British Labour Party versus the SPD for example. The former makes up the pinnacle of a unitary official working class movement that maintains strong formal links between the party and the unions. Thus tactics would vary in such a situation to that in Germany or Italy for example. That argument is one of the cornerstones of fraction work within the Labour Party for nearly a century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So 'Labour' parties drawn historically from the working class but co-opted by the labour aristocracy and professionals = nono,

'Social Democratic' parties with working class members but no historical roots in the working class or unionism, who demand some Keynesian reforms = yesyes.

Bring on Social Democracy, is what you're saying, as usual. :rolleyes:

Come on, you know that a workers-only voting membership policy is the best way to establish "roots in the working class" outside of unionism, right?


That's not true. Not just the CPGB, but pretty much all of the left have a conception of the British Labour Party versus the SPD for example. The former makes up the pinnacle of a unitary official working class movement that maintains strong formal links between the party and the unions. Thus tactics would vary in such a situation to that in Germany or Italy for example. That argument is one of the cornerstones of fraction work within the Labour Party for nearly a century.

"Makes up the pinnacle": You've got to be absolutely joking, right? :huh: :blink:

[Q]

A while back I made a similar remark (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=3233). I'll repost it for now:



In the case of a "Labour Party", that's to be expected. A "Labour Party" is traditionally the political wing of a national trade union movementThis is actually only true in a limited way. That is, the "Labour setup" of social-democracy (the political wing of the trade union movement) is a specific anglo-saxon (that is, the UK and its former colonies) phenomena. I haven't seen it in that form on "continental" Europe, where social-democracy traditionally has had much looser ties to the trade unions (and consequently have much less of a class character).

Labour in the UK on the other hand still has a close TUC link and for that reason maintains a (contradictionary) class character. That is, at least during election times the working class is specifically addressed as a class. This is not the case in "continental" European social-democratic parties, or at least not to the same extent.

This is something not widely understood for some reason, so I thought I'd write it out for once. I believe this has strategical implications in how communists should relate to the Labour parties, which is different from how we should relate (if at all) to the social-democratic parties. But that is of course a long running debate.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Come on, you know that a workers-only voting membership policy is the best way to establish "roots in the working class" outside of unionism, right?


That has nothing to do with your love of Social Democracy. Besides, the bureaucracy =/= the working class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A workers-only voting membership policy has nothing to do with your "bureaucracy =/= the working class" statement.

What's so special about an "organized" labour that has historically been a minority within the workforce?

[Grenzer]

So 'Labour' parties drawn historically from the working class but co-opted by the labour aristocracy and professionals = nono,

'Social Democratic' parties with working class members but no historical roots in the working class or unionism, who demand some Keynesian reforms = yesyes.

Bring on Social Democracy, is what you're saying, as usual. :rolleyes:

That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that the working class must organize itself as a class for itself, contrary to anarcho-castroites like yourself who remain strangely mum on this issue. Even many ultra-left organizations(hell, especially ultra-left organizations) do not maintain an explicitly working class membership.

DNZ has never espoused reformism, he just realizes that independent working class political organization, regardless of whether it is explicitly revolutionary or not, is a positive development. If the working class is truly organizing itself as a class for itself, then it will become revolutionary in the course of putting forth its class interests. It's simple Marxism really, but I guess I wouldn't expect you to be able to realize that. If you knew anything about DNZ's politics, you'd know that he is quite skeptical towards the managerial sorts, but you prefer to simply throw out petty insults.

The revolutionary sloganeering and posturing you and others have displayed has proven to be less than useless. It favors nothing less than working class merger with capitalism. Your maximalist rhetoric has proven to be an utter failure; many communist parties have been trying it for a hundred years and it usually results in them being downgraded to the level of a mere sect, if they weren't already one to begin with. What we really need is revolutionary centrism which avoids the strategic bankruptcy and impotency of the ultra-left and the reformism of the right such as the Trotskyists and Stalinists.

[Grenzer]

That has nothing to do with your love of Social Democracy. Besides, the bureaucracy =/= the working class.

Again, there is absolutely nothing in the statements shown here that has demonstrated a belief in the ability of capitalism to reform itself into socialism. Just more childish behavior here.

Also again, if you knew DNZ's politics you'd realize that certain positions in full time bureaucracy are seen as being qualitatively different from the proletariat's connection to the means of production. It seems strange that a worshiper of the petit-bourgeois Castro like you would be complaining about the bureaucracy in any case.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's not what he's saying at all. What he's saying is that the working class must organize itself as a class for itself, contrary to anarcho-castroites like yourself who remain strangely mum on this issue. Even many ultra-left organizations(hell, especially ultra-left organizations) do not maintain an explicitly working class membership.

DNZ has never espoused reformism, he just realizes that independent working class political organization, regardless of whether it is explicitly revolutionary or not, is a positive development. If the working class is truly organizing itself as a class for itself, then it will become revolutionary in the course of putting forth its class interests. It's simple Marxism really, but I guess I wouldn't expect you to be able to realize that. If you knew anything about DNZ's politics, you'd know that he is quite skeptical towards the managerial sorts, but you prefer to simply throw out petty insults.

The revolutionary sloganeering and posturing you and others have displayed has proven to be less than useless. It favors nothing less than working class merger with capitalism. Your maximalist rhetoric has proven to be an utter failure; many communist parties have been trying it for a hundred years and it usually results in them being downgraded to the level of a mere sect, if they weren't already one to begin with. What we really need is revolutionary centrism which avoids the strategic bankruptcy and impotency of the ultra-left and the reformism of the right such as the Trotskyists and Stalinists.

Anarcho-castroite? Is there even such a thing??

If you've read even a tiny number of my posts and the posts of others who agree with me, you'll see that we strongly support independent working class organisation. You really have no point.

Yeah, DNZs love of Caesar, Chavez, Die Linke and Syriza does lend itself to his hatred of managerial, reformist shits :rolleyes:

If you can find just ONE phrase of mine where i've EVER advocated working class merger with Capitalism, I will quit this board and never come back. That is a promise. Of course, you cannot and will not deliver on this front, because you're throwing wild, sectarian shit around and, in this instance, this shit will only hit you in the face because i'm not a Capitalist, don't advocate Capitalism, don't advocate class collaborationism.

DNZ after all, is the one who supports the class collaborationist PCF, the bolivarian 'revolution' and Social Democratic Left in Europe: Die Linke, SYRIZA et al.

I fail to see how just because you say DNZs support for Kautsky, Chavez, Caesar and European Social Democracy is 'revolutionary centrism', really proves he isn't a reformist. Sectarian political creatures such as yourself have postured for the middle ground from the beginning of Capitalist politics. In fact, wasn't there a famous Social Democratic Party in Britain whose leader reclaimed the 'centre ground' a few years ago? How did that go? :confused:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anarcho-castroite? Is there even such a thing??

Not ideologically speaking, but he is referring to your strategic line and to your sympathies re. Cuba.


Yeah, DNZs love of Caesar, Chavez, Die Linke and Syriza does lend itself to his hatred of managerial, reformist shits :rolleyes:

[...]

DNZ after all, is the one who supports the class collaborationist PCF, the bolivarian 'revolution' and Social Democratic Left in Europe: Die Linke, SYRIZA et al.

If you actually read the threads on each of those subjects, you'd know the subtleties of revolutionary strategy.

1) The failed attempt to transfer power to the Tribunal Assembly, away from the Senate, was nonetheless revolutionary (Gramsci) and part of people's history.
2) You really need to re-read my posts distinguishing between Venezuelan politics in general, the failed 2007 referendum, and the aborted Fifth Socialist International project.
3) I have been very critical of Die Linke's organizational ins-and-outs in my posts (from lack of Alternative Culture to joining coalition governments).
4) You really need to read the Comintern literature on "workers governments" and relate it critically to the Greek situation.
5) Again, May 1968 was not an actual revolutionary period for the French working class! At best, mere regime change could be attained. Also, if there existed a mass party-movement with some senses on revolutionary strategy, but not quite majority political support from the class as a whole, it too would have told the class to "get back to work" like the Bolsheviks did in the July Days.

Oh, and I did title this thread "lesser of two evils"; nowhere did I say one "good" and one "evil."

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Well, thanks for explaining to me my own political beliefs. I'm quite sure, in my own mind, that i'm neither an Anarchist nor a Castroist, nevermind an anarcho-castroist, whatever that entails. This is quite symptomatic of the issues I raised in my thread on the cult: this sort of personal barrage of abuse, masked in the line of 'political criticism', when somebody steps out of your line. It's clear to everyone here that i'm a left-wing Communist. So instead of attacking me and trying to find your own little silly niche for me, like 'anarcho-castroist', why don't you just accept that me, and many others, have taken a divergent political path to you? :rolleyes:

You can hide behind your 'lesser than two evils' stuff all you want, but all you ever do on here is advocate support for European Social Democracy, and 'left-nationalist' (inverted commas because there is no such thing) strongmen in the developing nations. You talk of an independently organised working class, yet your support for the PCF shows that this is just lip service; you do NOT want the working class to self-emancipate, you want a left-wing party to win an election on behalf of the working class.

I don't really need to go on, because everybody here can really see the inherent silly-ness of your strategy, the aloofness of your politics and the downright annoyance that you present with your silly use of words: I mean, the social-proletocrat? And if you're typing in English comrade, can you just use the phrase 'Trade Unions', instead of the french alternative? It defeats your point and makes your post almost impossible to follow.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Boss and DNZ, you are both making good points, but please try and stick to the relevant debate and steer away from some of the personal accusations piled on top.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, thanks for explaining to me my own political beliefs. I'm quite sure, in my own mind, that i'm neither an Anarchist nor a Castroist, nevermind an anarcho-castroist, whatever that entails.

Of course you aren't an anarchist. Maybe the comrade above can explain it better, but the narrative goes like, "On the other hand, Bakunin - and from Bakunin's ideas we get the syndicalists and Sorel, and Sorel's ideas are profoundly influential on Rosa Luxemburg and somewhat less influential on Trotsky, and certainly influential on Bogdanov and a whole lot of people... Herman Gorter, Korsch, the people who were the left wing of the Second International..." (Mike Macnair)

[The comrade skips over Pannekoek to further substantiate the links between Sorel and Luxemburg, but there are enough links regarding Bakunin being the original theorist behind general and mass strikes as strategy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/engels-1873-bakuninists-t168688/index.html).]


This is quite symptomatic of the issues I raised in my thread on the cult: this sort of personal barrage of abuse, masked in the line of 'political criticism', when somebody steps out of your line. It's clear to everyone here that i'm a left-wing Communist. So instead of attacking me and trying to find your own little silly niche for me, like 'anarcho-castroist', why don't you just accept that me, and many others, have taken a divergent political path to you? :rolleyes:

I didn't call you that, though.


You talk of an independently organised working class, yet your support for the PCF shows that this is just lip service; you do NOT want the working class to self-emancipate, you want a left-wing party to win an election on behalf of the working class.

Why are you misconstruing what I said? :confused:

Not all electoral support is political, and not all political support is electoral. I stated before that mass voting membership is by far the best indicator of political support.

Besides, I want the class movement/class for itself to take power and do what it needs to do representatively, on behalf of "the class as a whole"/"the class in itself."


And if you're typing in English comrade, can you just use the phrase 'Trade Unions', instead of the french alternative? It defeats your point and makes your post almost impossible to follow.

It's not French; it's Russian and the intention of using the Russian term is dismissive.

[Tim Finnegan]

Well, thanks for explaining to me my own political beliefs. I'm quite sure, in my own mind, that i'm neither an Anarchist nor a Castroist, nevermind an anarcho-castroist, whatever that entails.
It's basically the same as anarcho-Trotskyism, but you smoke a cigar while you're doing it.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's basically the same as anarcho-Trotskyism, but you smoke a cigar while you're doing it.

Cigars are shit though. Can't I be a renegade-Marxist? Like, I renege on my Marxism whilst sipping some rum. Like Kautsky. :laugh:

On second thoughts, i'll stick with the rum and the Marxism together.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anyway, a government formed exclusively by an explicitly political wing of some trade union movement would only be a small-l labour government at best, not a broader "workers government."