"Labour monarchy": strawman?

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004874


However, ‘unity is strength’ contains within itself an implicit potential trap. This is the idea that if we all thought the same way and spoke the same way, we would be stronger still. This idea is instantiated in the form of the ideas of the monolithic party, and of the party which keeps its own differences hidden and speaks in one voice only to the outside world.

It is also instantiated in ‘strict unity of will’, which carries with it forms of ‘labour monarchy’: the idea that unity is to be achieved through the role of a single, charismatic, central leader. Or, in other words, the cult of the personality: of Ferdinand Lassalle, of the dead Lenin, of Stalin - and, on a smaller and declining scale, of Lula in the PT, of Bertinotti in Rifondazione, of Tommy Sheridan in the Scottish Socialist Party or of George Galloway in Respect.

The capitalist regime prefers workers’ organisations to have such a single identifiable leader. Such leaders de facto promote the ideology of the necessity of one-man management, which is part of the ideology of capitalist rule, and is expressed in the ‘single person’ - monarch, president or prime minister - found in all capitalist state constitutions. Single leaders are also more amenable to corruption, integration in the normal capitalist political circus, blackmail or ‘exposure’ of this or that scandal, than collective leaderships. Hence, the capitalist media will positively promote the ‘single identifiable leader’: Krivine’s essay in the book shows the difficulties the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) in France experienced in trying to resist this tendency.

The conceptual trap arises from a misunderstanding of the nature of workers’ unity. This is not an organic, spontaneous unity like the unity of a family, a tribe or a peasant village. It is a unity consciously constructed, among people who are members of diverse families and from diverse localities and often enough national backgrounds, in order to achieve specific goals in the everyday struggle with capital. Put another way, it is a unity constructed out of and on the basis of the real degree of individual liberty - to choose your employer, landlord, and so on, to migrate - which is provided by capitalist impersonal market relations.

Is that last point a bit of a strawman? I mean:

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/bernstein/works/1893/lassalle/chap10.htm


It would, however, be altogether a mistake to deny the fact that this cult for the personality of Lassalle did, for a long time, greatly help on the movement.

[...]

The name Lassalle became a standard which created more and more enthusiasm among the masses the more Lassalle’s works spread among the people. Intended to produce immediate effect, written with extraordinary talent, popular, and yet setting forth the theoretical points of view, they had, and to a certain extent still have to-day, a great affect in agitation. The Working-men’s Programme, the Open Reply Letter, the Worker’s Reader, etc., have won over hundreds of thousands to Socialism [...] If the German Social Democracy has always recognised the value of a strong organisation, if it has been so convinced of the necessity of the concentration of forces, that even without the outer bond of organisation it has yet known how to perform all the functions of one, this is largely a heritage of the, agitation of Lassalle. It is an indisputable fact that in those places where, amongst the workers, the traditions of the Lassallean agitation were strongest, as a rule, most was accomplished in the way of organisation.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/ferdinand-lassalle-balanced-t150158/index.html?t=150158


In Italy at the turn of the century, so we are told, Italian socialists named their sons Lassalo and their daughters Marxina. Some informed observers were ready to give Ferdinand Lassalle top billing: 'To Lassalle, even more than to Marx, modern Socialists are deeply indebted; Marx set the world of culture thinking and arguing, Lassalle set the people organising.

[MarxSchmarx]

I think it's important to see cults of personalities in their social context; what started out as genuine admiration for a genuine guerilla hero quickly degenerates into neo-feudal saint worship like with Kim il Sung or Tito. What makes cults of personalities possible are often reactionary doctrines; it is no surprise, IMO, that they have been most successful in, for example, strongly agrarian societies and least successful in, for example, industrialized capitalist societies.

As a thought experiment, for instance, I think it's very possible that had the USSR and not America occupied Japan, that a Stalinist demagogue could have taken over 1948 Japan and used the emperor veneration to his own ends . I think in today's Japan such a thing would be so ridiculously absurd.

[Ocean Seal]

I think it's important to see cults of personalities in their social context; what started out as genuine admiration for a genuine guerilla hero quickly degenerates into neo-feudal saint worship like with Kim il Sung or Tito. What makes cults of personalities possible are often reactionary doctrines; it is no surprise, IMO, that they have been most successful in, for example, strongly agrarian societies and least successful in, for example, industrialized capitalist societies.

As a thought experiment, for instance, I think it's very possible that had the USSR and not America occupied Japan, that a Stalinist demagogue could have taken over 1948 Japan and used the emperor veneration to his own ends . I think in today's Japan such a thing would be so ridiculously absurd.
Only one thing, why were charismatic leaders like Hitler and Mussolini so popular among the urban populace?

[Raúl Duke]

I agree with Mike; cults of personalities, per the example of such as the ones for Stalin, Kim, et.al, are not organic constructs.

Even the useful "good" ones of Lenin, Marx, and Lasalle only make sense during its era...the modern working class of the "developed world" find cults of personalities noxious and will not respect them. Even the modern ones he refers to he uses the term "declining"/not as strong.

This does not mean that charisma won't play some bit of role (and perhaps even problems) in socialist organizing/action. There will be "leaders" (using this term loosely) who arrive to us organically by the merits of their actions and the respect they engendered. After all, I bet Mike may be implicitly referring to this kind of leadership when he mentions that last bolded line.

Also, on the Bernstein quote, it smacks of "Great Man" theory. Eventually someone else would have come along and developed similar things to what Lasalle did...the conditions were there that led for a figure, such as Lasalle, to arise.


why were charismatic leaders like Hitler and Mussolini so popular among the urban populaceThat's a very difficult question to answer since the factors are complex.
You have to take into account that for Mussolini and Hitler a lot of their support came from the middle class, the elites, nationalists, etc. I'm not fully sure about Mussolini, but Hitler did not have an easy time winning the elections (and one reason has to do with the working class and the unemployed working class, who tended to vote for the KPD and the SPD at the time).


labour monarchy

I"M THE LABOR KING, ALL BOW TO ME!!!
:P

[Die Neue Zeit]

As a thought experiment, for instance, I think it's very possible that had the USSR and not America occupied Japan, that a Stalinist demagogue could have taken over 1948 Japan and used the emperor veneration to his own ends . I think in today's Japan such a thing would be so ridiculously absurd.

Why does that sound too similar to the People's Emperor discussion thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/peoples-emperori-t172148/index.html)? :lol:


I agree with Mike; cults of personalities, per the example of such as the ones for Stalin, Kim, et.al, are not organic constructs.

Even the useful "good" ones of Lenin, Marx, and Lasalle only make sense during its era...the modern working class of the "developed world" find cults of personalities noxious and will not respect them. Even the modern ones he refers to he uses the term "declining"/not as strong.

This does not mean that charisma won't play some bit of role (and perhaps even problems) in socialist organizing/action. There will be "leaders" (using this term loosely) who arrive to us organically by the merits of their actions and the respect they engendered. After all, I bet Mike may be implicitly referring to this kind of leadership when he mentions that last bolded line.

Also, on the Bernstein quote, it smacks of "Great Man" theory. Eventually someone else would have come along and developed similar things to what Lasalle did...the conditions were there that led for a figure, such as Lasalle, to arise.

Finally, someone on the left has got the guts to tackle that pre-revisionist statement! That means I'll respond from last paragraph to first.

OK, how exactly is his statement "Great Man" theory? The cult is the subject, not Lassalle: "that this cult... did, for a time, greatly help..." The cult is an organizing tool, not an end to itself.

That last bolded line about "like the unity of a family, a tribe or a peasant village" certainly applied to a "declining"-like cult or two. Tommy Sheridan himself had his earlier activism to count on, which then forged a unity-of-a-political-family. It is said that much of Labour's vote in the UK is political "tribalism" (Tory Bus. Sec. Vince Cable said this at a Fabian conference of all places (http://www.nextleft.org/2011/05/tories-could-be-real-winners-from.html)), but while the political tribalism wasn't there yet with the SSP, the political family of sorts was there.

As for everything else, what about those of Melenchon, or Chavez, or, speaking of Germans, of an avuncular one (http://www.revleft.com/vb/break-labourism-t142481/index.html?p=1881462)? I'm very sure there's quite a bit of an "organic" component to them.


I"M THE LABOR KING, ALL BOW TO ME!!!
:P

Shouldn't that be standing before, not bowing to? :p

[Raúl Duke]

The cult may be a simple organization tool, but it can degenerate particularly if it arises when the person is still alive and/or if there are institutions at stake at creating it into a sort of mythology/power discourse.

But I would like to clarify that my main point/question I'm trying to argue, outside whether it's desirable or not to have such "cults," is if it's still effective in the developed world (the place where most of the posters on here live) and/or in every culture. Now, about the "Great Man," if we do focus on the cult aspect rather than the subject/person, than sure it was an effective organizing tool but will the same thing be effective today? You know...maybe it's possible although here in the US I can't think of any left one that is relatively widespread. The first thing that comes to mind is the cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul. But I feel, if I take that cult as an example, it would lead to dogmatism and an uncritical, etc mentality (than again this can apply to the smaller RCP one, or many other cults of personalities; although not sure if the Lasalle or Marx one of the 19th century fits this mold.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

The cult may be a simple organization tool, but it can degenerate particularly if it arises when the person is still alive and/or if there are institutions at stake at creating it into a sort of mythology/power discourse.

Indeed, that's why I cited Lars Lih about the cult of Lassalle surviving past his death in places like Italy. August Bebel himself had a mild cult in his aging years, the few years before he died, and I think the mild cult survived until the Nazis rose to power. In other words, Lenin was not alone in this.


But I would like to clarify that my main point/question I'm trying to argue, outside whether it's desirable or not to have such "cults," is if it's still effective in the developed world (the place where most of the posters on here live) and/or in every culture.

Well, I recall an old post of mine where I responded to an American leftist about American left "heroes" of sorts. Building the American left would mean having American characteristics, and one such characteristic would be to boost the profile of the likes of DeLeon, Debs, or various American left theorists since then (like the pareconist duo of Albert and Hahnel), certainly the "hero" profile of those actually involved in organizing and mass agitation.

[The Canadian left, I think, has a much tougher job to do, because there was no one with at least the profile of DeLeon or Debs, and Tommy Douglas certainly doesn't count.]

I also recall that, for obvious reasons, it wouldn't hurt Russian left unity to revamp its own take on cult-as-organizing-tool, but that the Lenin cult would still be relevant, and that the Stalin question is very complicated and not black-and-white. However, the post-Stalin cult of the "Party" should go by the wayside. Criticizing the lack of agricultural resolve, for instance, certainly means criticizing the "Party" as a whole and its debates, and I won't go into the "Institutional Pluralism" musings by Western observers in the 1970s (which further dent the "Party" cult).


Now, about the "Great Man," if we do focus on the cult aspect rather than the subject/person, than sure it was an effective organizing tool but will the same thing be effective today?

Again I refer to the American "heroes" stuff above.


You know...maybe it's possible although here in the US I can't think of any left one that is relatively widespread. The first thing that comes to mind is the cult of personality surrounding Ron Paul. But I feel, if I take that cult as an example, it would lead to dogmatism and an uncritical, etc mentality (than again this can apply to the smaller RCP one, or many other cults of personalities; although not sure if the Lasalle or Marx one of the 19th century fits this mold.)

Interesting you mention Ron Paul. I didn't know he too has a personality cult.

[Raúl Duke]

Interesting you mention Ron Paul. I didn't know he too has a personality cult.

Oh yes...he surely does at least to some degree; the "Ron Paul Revolution" is not just mere libertarianism. As an example, it presents the potential problems of using the cult of personality as an organizing tool. The most noticeable is that it tends to foster dogmatism and uncritical-ness. Even a slight criticism or verbal slight of Ron Paul puts the Paultards into a frenzy and pointing out the negatives of his politics makes them engage in hysterical apologetics. It also elicits a specific kind of derision, as do many cults of personalities, among certain people on the basis of its cultish-ness (people make fun of paultards all over the internet all due to how his fanbase kiss his ass so much plus believing absurdly at times that their candidate has a chance of winning, etc).

[blake 3:17]

and Tommy Douglas certainly doesn't count.

???

[Paul Cockshott]

You have to take into account that for Mussolini and Hitler a lot of their support came from the middle class, the elites, nationalists, etc.

It is true that they did have support from the elites and the middle class but it would be naive to neglect that there was also a substantial working class support for Hitler at least, this is backed up by historical analysis of the occupational backgrounds of local NSDAP membership.

[Die Neue Zeit]

???

The "father of Medicare" was too young to be an activist in the midst of the Winnipeg General Strike. Politically he and J.S. Woodsworth, who was one of the organizers, were the same (i.e., too reformist).

In addition, when I say that "the Canadian left, I think, has a much tougher job to do, because there was no one with at least the profile of DeLeon or Debs," I'm also damning the legacy of Labourism outside the British Isles: Lesser of two evils: types of bourgeois worker parties (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lesser-two-evils-t172262/index.html)

[MarxSchmarx]

Very briefly and not to get too OT:



Originally Posted by MarxSchmarx
I think it's important to see cults of personalities in their social context; what started out as genuine admiration for a genuine guerilla hero quickly degenerates into neo-feudal saint worship like with Kim il Sung or Tito. What makes cults of personalities possible are often reactionary doctrines; it is no surprise, IMO, that they have been most successful in, for example, strongly agrarian societies and least successful in, for example, industrialized capitalist societies.

As a thought experiment, for instance, I think it's very possible that had the USSR and not America occupied Japan, that a Stalinist demagogue could have taken over 1948 Japan and used the emperor veneration to his own ends . I think in today's Japan such a thing would be so ridiculously absurd.Only one thing, why were charismatic leaders like Hitler and Mussolini so popular among the urban populace?


Great question. I do not know enough about Mussolini's rule to comment meaningfully, but at least wrt the 1932 reichstag election Hitler and the Nazi's biggest returns came from rural areas. This article goes into in some length:

http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm

e.g.:


Voters in large urban centres were less susceptible to Nazi electoral propaganda. In July 1932, the NSDAP's support in the Grosstadte (over 100,000 inhabitants) was 10 per cent lower than the national average. Though there had been a significant increase in support among German workers between 1930 and 1932, this was less marked in the larger cities; and nearly half the working-class newcomers to the party ranks between 1925 and 1932 came from villages of under 5,000 inhabitants. And proportionally few of the working-class storm-troopers of the SA came from the big cities.

It is admittedly tricky to assess what happened after these elections. I don't know if that's been studied much, although I suspect these geographical differences persisted in some form.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oh yes...he surely does at least to some degree; the "Ron Paul Revolution" is not just mere libertarianism. As an example, it presents the potential problems of using the cult of personality as an organizing tool. The most noticeable is that it tends to foster dogmatism and uncritical-ness. Even a slight criticism or verbal slight of Ron Paul puts the Paultards into a frenzy and pointing out the negatives of his politics makes them engage in hysterical apologetics. It also elicits a specific kind of derision, as do many cults of personalities, among certain people on the basis of its cultish-ness (people make fun of paultards all over the internet all due to how his fanbase kiss his ass so much plus believing absurdly at times that their candidate has a chance of winning, etc).

The problem with Ron Paul is that he isn't consistent. He's in the GOP and hasn't broken away to be a registered Independent, hasn't put his money where his mouth is, etc.

The "labour monarchy" of which I speak applies to independent political organizations.