Questions on Trotskyism and voting

[VirgJans12]

Hey guys,

I have two questions and was hoping some of you would like to answer them.

1. I told a friend of a friend that I am a communist, and he is interested in politics and a student of history, so we got in a discussion. At a certain point he said 'Well if everyone may vote about anything in communism, they could vote communism away'. I thought about it quickly and said 'yes'. Is it possible? Why/why not?

2. After a Trotskyist revolution, will democratic centralization enact immediately or will the socialist society be built up first before the people may vote about the policies?

Thanks in advance,

Virgil

[Book O'Dead]

Under socialism everyone who wants to will be able to vote directly on all important matters from the workplace.

IOW's, there will be no political state and government will emanate from our places of work.

[Drosophila]

1. I told a friend of a friend that I am a communist, and he is interested in politics and a student of history, so we got in a discussion. At a certain point he said 'Well if everyone may vote about anything in communism, they could vote communism away'. I thought about it quickly and said 'yes'. Is it possible? Why/why not?


The revolution should be carried out by class-conscious proletarians and preferably a majority of the population. That would likely rule out the possibility of a return to capitalism.

[VirgJans12]

The revolution should be carried out by class-conscious proletarians and preferably a majority of the population. That would likely rule out the possibility of a return to capitalism.
What if you'd only have the support of 35 - 45 percent of the population? Keeping in mind that some of the non-supporters might not care either way, and some are die-hard capitalists.

[Book O'Dead]

What if you'd only have the support of 35 - 45 percent of the population? Keeping in mind that some of the non-supporters might not care either way, and some are die-hard capitalists.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you have only a vague idea how a socialist revolution must take place.

[Q]

Hey guys,

I have two questions and was hoping some of you would like to answer them.

1. I told a friend of a friend that I am a communist, and he is interested in politics and a student of history, so we got in a discussion. At a certain point he said 'Well if everyone may vote about anything in communism, they could vote communism away'. I thought about it quickly and said 'yes'. Is it possible? Why/why not?

2. After a Trotskyist revolution, will democratic centralization enact immediately or will the socialist society be built up first before the people may vote about the policies?

Thanks in advance,

Virgil

Hi Virgil, long time no see :)

To answer both your questions in one go: The working class as a class-collective fighting for its revolutionary emancipation, can only be formed on a democratic political project. The actual revolutionary "act" is to overthrow the capitalist constitutional order and instate new institutions that are fit for majoritarian rule.

So, to be a Marxist is to commit to a political project for radical democracy. Only after the working class seizes control over society, can we build a society that aims for universal human freedom. Not the other way around as you ask in question 2.

Further, communism is a mode of production. You can't vote it away like you can't vote away capitalism under the current order. It is a level of development of social labour and, as such, human civilisation.

Further, democracy (in the sortition sense (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lecture-democracy-video-t172673/index.html) of the word) can indeed, theoretically, bring to power a bunch of reactionaries for a short while. But in a proper democracy, the service in office can much be likened to military draft service under bourgeois society in the sense that no one really wants to do it, but is a way to serve society. For more info on that I point again to the video in the link.

It should be pointed out that while I hold a Trotskyist background, being a member of the CWI, these positions are not commonly "Trotskyist".

The more orthodox Trotskyist positions focus on soviets (workers councils) as being primary instruments of workers power, under the political leadership of a mass revolutionary party. So, what Trotskyists aim for is to build such a mass revolutionary party and at the same time use "transitional demands" to radicalise the wider working class to fight for socialism. In most variants of Trotskyist thought, this is supposed to happen through a series of ever escalating general strikes where the working class, under the timely posed slogans of the revolutionary party, starts up soviets and thereby seizes power.

I hold some reservations with this strategy, but won't delve them out here. In general overview though I think the strategy is problematic in the way it evolved in most groups, as being focused on trade union consciousness and, therefore, economism (i.e. not focusing on the centrality of fighting for radical democracy) and also leading to groups focusing on the "correct" slogans that don't "confuse" the masses which in turn tends to lead to highly stratified organisations with little tolerance on disagreements (in turn fueling sectarian tendencies and splits). There is also often a nationalist undertone, despite claiming internationalism, as such a general strike strategy is most realistic within a current capitalist state context.

But if you'd like to read more of me on this, I recommend the blogposts here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=7728), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6681), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6435), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1720), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1702), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1598), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1465) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464).

[VirgJans12]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me you have only a vague idea how a socialist revolution must take place.
Either through a vanguard party (Marxism-Leninism) or the working masses together in a "spontaneous" rising (Marxism, Trotskyism). However, I haven't read you actually need 50%+ to make it happen.

[Book O'Dead]

Either through a vanguard party (Marxism-Leninism) or the working masses together in a "spontaneous" rising (Marxism, Trotskyism). However, I haven't read you actually need 50%+ to make it happen.

As far as I can tell no Leninist formula can achieve socialism. So-called vanguard parties are a thing of the past and spontaneous uprisings, without any coherent plan to take possession of the source of power, the industries are doomed to failure.

You need a plan and Leninism has no plan.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

As far as I can tell no Leninist formula can achieve socialism. So-called vanguard parties are a thing of the past and spontaneous uprisings, without any coherent plan to take possession of the source of power, the industries are doomed to failure.

You need a plan and Leninism has no plan.

Stop trolling. You may not like the plan Leninists have but they do have a plan.


Either through a vanguard party (Marxism-Leninism) or the working (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#) masses together in a "spontaneous" rising (Marxism, Trotskyism). However, I haven't read you actually need 50%+ to make it happen.

A vanguard part transcends typical thought and is used by Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, and Left Communists (though they use it in a different context than the aforementioned tendencies) as well as Leninists; it is not an idea used exclusively by Marxist-Leninists.

Spontaneous uprisings are more of an Anarchist focus if I remember correctly but in terms of percentage of the amount of the population needed to make a revolution one can only go by how large the proletarian class is within the society and what tactics and strategies are used.

[VirgJans12]

Hi Virgil, long time no see :)

To answer both your questions in one go: The working class as a class-collective fighting for its revolutionary emancipation, can only be formed on a democratic political project. The actual revolutionary "act" is to overthrow the capitalist constitutional order and instate new institutions that are fit for majoritarian rule.

So, to be a Marxist is to commit to a political project for radical democracy. Only after the working class seizes control over society, can we build a society that aims for universal human freedom. Not the other way around as you ask in question 2.

Further, communism is a mode of production. You can't vote it away like you can't vote away capitalism under the current order. It is a level of development of social labour and, as such, human civilisation.

Further, democracy (in the sortition sense (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lecture-democracy-video-t172673/index.html) of the word) can indeed, theoretically, bring to power a bunch of reactionaries for a short while. But in a proper democracy, the service in office can much be likened to military draft service under bourgeois society in the sense that no one really wants to do it, but is a way to serve society. For more info on that I point again to the video in the link.

It should be pointed out that while I hold a Trotskyist background, being a member of the CWI, these positions are not commonly "Trotskyist".

The more orthodox Trotskyist positions focus on soviets (workers councils) as being primary instruments of workers power, under the political leadership of a mass revolutionary party. So, what Trotskyists aim for is to build such a mass revolutionary party and at the same time use "transitional demands" to radicalise the wider working class to fight for socialism. In most variants of Trotskyist thought, this is supposed to happen through a series of ever escalating general strikes where the working class, under the timely posed slogans of the revolutionary party, starts up soviets and thereby seizes power.

I hold some reservations with this strategy, but won't delve them out here. In general overview though I think the strategy is problematic in the way it evolved in most groups, as being focused on trade union consciousness and, therefore, economism (i.e. not focusing on the centrality of fighting for radical democracy) and also leading to groups focusing on the "correct" slogans that don't "confuse" the masses which in turn tends to lead to highly stratified organisations with little tolerance on disagreements (in turn fueling sectarian tendencies and splits). There is also often a nationalist undertone, despite claiming internationalism, as such a general strike strategy is most realistic within a current capitalist state context.

But if you'd like to read more of me on this, I recommend the blogposts here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=7728), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6681), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6435), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1720), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1702), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1598), here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1465) and here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1464).

Hey Q, yeah it is. I'm still learning so here I am again :)

So if I get it right, it goes something like this: A Trotskyist party is formed. It gains support among unsatisfied workers and forms worker councils with them. When they get big enough, they seize power through revolution.

The problem is, the workers fight for economy instead of democracy and it connects easily to nationalism.

Thanks for the help. I always have trouble learning theory from texts but I do my best. I'll have a look at the links tomorrow. It's 0200 and I have a test tomorrow.

[Book O'Dead]

Stop trolling. You may not like the plan Leninists have but they do have a plan.



A vanguard part transcends typical thought and is used by Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists, and Left Communists (though they use it in a different context than the aforementioned tendencies) as well as Leninists; it is not an idea used exclusively by Marxist-Leninists.

Spontaneous uprisings are more of an Anarchist focus if I remember correctly but in terms of percentage of the amount of the population needed to make a revolution one can only go by how large the proletarian class is within the society and what tactics and strategies are used.

I am not trolling, I am stating what I understand to be the facts.

Beyond the proposed capture of the political state, Leninism has nothing to offer workers. It does not instruct them on how they must seize, hold and operate the means of production, and that, sir, is what will determine if the workers can take power into their own hands.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I am not trolling, I am stating what I understand to be the facts.

Beyond the proposed capture of the political state, Leninism has nothing to offer workers. It does not instruct them on how they must seize, hold and operate the means of production, and that, sir, is what will determine if the workers can take power into their own hands.

Read some Lenin and stop posting in this thread if you do not understand the ideology you are slandering (the "proposed capture of the state" gave away your ignorance). Either that or start a new thread in Learning asking about Leninism.

Next time it is a verbal warning.

[Book O'Dead]

Read some Lenin and stop posting in this thread if you do not understand the ideology you are slandering (the "proposed capture of the state" gave away your ignorance). Either that or start a new thread in Learning asking about Leninism.

Next time it is a verbal warning.

I have studied Lenin. And my comments are germane to the OP. Perhaps it you who are ignorant of the alternatives.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

I have studied Lenin. And my comments are germane to the OP. Perhaps it you who are ignorant of the alternatives.

Your posts here say to the contrary. So either give the OP detailed explanations as to why Leninism doesn't offer the working class anything or walk away.

[Book O'Dead]

Your posts here say to the contrary. So either give the OP detailed explanations as to why Leninism doesn't offer the working class anything or walk away.

I've stated it already; nowhere in anything I have studied by Lenin or his followers is there a plan on how 21st Century workers must seize capitalist property an democratically run it in their interest. Neither is there any explanation on how a vanguard party that seizes control of the state is to dismantle that state.

As far as that is concerned, the Leninism I know is a blank page.

And to me, those are fundamental questions that socialism must answer.

[citizen of industry]

By eliminating class and therefore the basis for a state? Anyone...no?:confused:

[Geiseric]

The vanguard party is any organization of the working class that seizes power. There is no chance for a revolution without one of those, since most people even when they're starving as we've seen throughout history won't be won over untill they see the party as representative of their interests. Besides the entire process of having a congress of workers delegates as opposed to bourgeois representatives makes it as democratic as it coult be, since decisions are agreed with by the workers who that delegate is elected by, or else he's out of the job. But the process of dissolving the state couldn't of started for seemingly blatant obvious reasons. There was a civil war, economic depression, and peasant uprisings, not to mention world war two which proved that the state needs to be functioning to prevent the capitalists from gaining power again.

[Book O'Dead]

By eliminating class and therefore the basis for a state? Anyone...no?:confused:

Marx described the political state as the 'executive committee of the ruling class'.

So it would follow that by abolishing the ruling class we would abolish their political organization.

In the case of the capitalist class, only dispossessing them and turning their property over to the workers to run democratically will ensure that they never return.

[Book O'Dead]

The vanguard party is any organization of the working class that seizes power. There is no chance for a revolution without one of those, since most people even when they're starving as we've seen throughout history won't be won over untill they see the party as representative of their interests. Besides the entire process of having a congress of workers delegates as opposed to bourgeois representatives makes it as democratic as it coult be, since decisions are agreed with by the workers who that delegate is elected by, or else he's out of the job. But the process of dissolving the state couldn't of started for seemingly blatant obvious reasons. There was a civil war, economic depression, and peasant uprisings, not to mention world war two which proved that the state needs to be functioning to prevent the capitalists from gaining power again.

For me, the phrase "working class that seizes power" is too vague. What sort of power are we referring to?

Also, it's possible that direct democracy will have to be applied and the only function that workers' delegates will have will be to carry out the mandates of the workers who elect them directly from the workplace; something like what Engels was referring to when he said that the administration of people would give way to the administration of things, i.e., the administration of production and distribution.

[Art Vandelay]

Marx described the political state as the 'executive committee of the ruling class'.

So it would follow that by abolishing the ruling class we would abolish their political organization.

In the case of the capitalist class, only dispossessing them and turning their property over to the workers to run democratically will ensure that they never return.

The whole point is for the proletarian class to abolish itself; given that a state is a tool of class oppression and there will be no more classes, there will be no more need for it, ie: it withers away.

[Book O'Dead]

The whole point is for the proletarian class to abolish itself; given that a state is a tool of class oppression and there will be no more classes, there will be no more need for it, ie: it withers away.

I agree, but such an ambitious goal must have a plan beyond what current doctrines offer.

[Art Vandelay]

Marx described the political state as the 'executive committee of the ruling class'.

So it would follow that by abolishing the ruling class we would abolish their political organization.

In the case of the capitalist class, only dispossessing them and turning their property over to the workers to run democratically will ensure that they never return.

First off, the entire bourgeoisie won't be eliminated the day after workers seize power, but your point is correct; the proletariat will abolish their "political organization" and erect their own. Engels was the one said (I believe) that if the Paris Commune taught us anything, it was that the proletariat couldn't merely take over the bourgeois state apparatus, but must smash it and build their own.

[Art Vandelay]

I agree, but such an ambitious goal must have a plan beyond what current doctrines offer.

I am not sure what you mean, the only issue is a successful revolution. If the revolution fails to spread we're fucked either way; if it spreads, classes will be abolished and the state will wither away. :confused:

[Book O'Dead]

First off, the entire bourgeoisie won't be eliminated the day after workers seize power, but your point is correct; the proletariat will abolish their "political organization" and erect their own. Engels was the one said (I believe) that if the Paris Commune taught us anything, it was that the proletariat couldn't merely take over the bourgeois state apparatus, but must smash it and build their own.

I think it was Marx who said that workers cannot lay hold of the 'ready-made machinery of state and wield it for their own purposes'.

In this world we live in, a plan must be devised that can help the workers seize power on two fronts simultaneously, the economic and the political; the economic front will be the exercise of workers' power over the source of all social power, the means of production; the political front will be the expression of that power through civilized methods.

[Book O'Dead]

I am not sure what you mean, the only issue is a successful revolution. If the revolution fails to spread we're fucked either way; if it spreads, classes will be abolished and the state will wither away. :confused:

Yeah, except you talk about 'revolution' but fail to describe this revolution in practical terms.

I'm not accusing Leninism of that, only of limiting its scope to a political revolution, and that is not sufficient.

[Ostrinski]

You need a plan and Leninism has no plan.What Is to Be Done? is pretty much the foundation of all attempts at making any kind of "plan" for proletarian revolution.

[Art Vandelay]

Well other than vague phrases, you have yet to articulate what exactly it is you think that "Leninism" lacks as far as tactics. So perhaps, in some detail, you could explain where exactly "Leninism" falls short and this could help stimulate further discussion.

Also, just for the record, I do not self style as a "Leninist."

[Art Vandelay]

And just for the record, it is rather silly to attempt to conjure up in your head how exactly the revolution will unfold.

[Book O'Dead]

What Is to Be Done? is pretty much the foundation of all attempts at making any kind of "plan" for proletarian revolution.

I disagree. What Is To Be Done? Is an outline for the Russian proletariat. As far as I know, Lenin never intended it to be a universal prescription. Besides, things have changed for the proletariat since.

[Book O'Dead]

Well other than vague phrases, you have yet to articulate what exactly it is you think that "Leninism" lacks as far as tactics. So perhaps, in some detail, you could explain where exactly "Leninism" falls short and this could help stimulate further discussion.

Also, just for the record, I do not self style as a "Leninist."

I've said it already. Leninism offers a plan only for a POLITICAL revolution. A political revolution alone will not help emancipate the working class from capitalism.

Moreover, I stated elsewhere the need for an alternative that includes two class struggle battlefronts: the economic and the political.

[Book O'Dead]

And just for the record, it is rather silly to attempt to conjure up in your head how exactly the revolution will unfold.

I disagree. The revolution we want will be fraught with so many dangers that if we don't have a well-planned approach we will fail.

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I am not trolling, I am stating what I understand to be the facts.

Beyond the proposed capture of the political state, Leninism has nothing to offer workers. It does not instruct them on how they must seize, hold and operate the means of production, and that, sir, is what will determine if the workers can take power into their own hands.
Lenin was a Marxist, not a soothsayer. There can be no precise plan for how to run things after the revolution for any number of fairly obvious reasons. The main reason is that you don't know in advance what the proletariat will be faced with -- what the specific problems will be. It would have been difficult, under the circumstances, for the Bolsheviks, of Lenin and Trotsky to have done better in the aftermath of 1917. Maybe not to a sneering intellectual like yourself, but perhaps to the rest of us. The details of how production must be carried out needs to be worked out in the real fucking world in real time for gosh sake.

All you get going in are some of the basics: The people own the means of production. No one gets rich off anyone else's labor. A planned collectivized economy is developed on an international scale that optimizes production and wealth. No more investment bankers, landlords, hedgefunds, and corporate lawyers. Anyone who wants to return to capitalism and tries to act on it is in deep shit.

Who has more to say then Lenin, who led the only successful proletarian revolution in history, on the subject? Who should carry more weight. Should your opinions, comrade?

[Lev Bronsteinovich]

I've said it already. Leninism offers a plan only for a POLITICAL revolution. A political revolution alone will not help emancipate the working class from capitalism.

Moreover, I stated elsewhere the need for an alternative that includes two class struggle battlefronts: the economic and the political.
That is dead wrong. Lenin lead a political and social revolution. Ask the Tsar and his family -- ask the large landholders and the aristocrats. Ask the bankers and the foreign companies with holdings in Russia. If this was not a social revolution, then you would be hard pressed to show that one has ever been made or can be made.

[Book O'Dead]

Lenin was a Marxist, not a soothsayer. There can be no precise plan for how to run things after the revolution for any number of fairly obvious reasons. The main reason is that you don't know in advance what the proletariat will be faced with -- what the specific problems will be. It would have been difficult, under the circumstances, for the Bolsheviks, of Lenin and Trotsky to have done better in the aftermath of 1917. Maybe not to a sneering intellectual like yourself, but perhaps to the rest of us. The details of how production must be carried out needs to be worked out in the real fucking world in real time for gosh sake.

All you get going in are some of the basics: The people own the means of production. No one gets rich off anyone else's labor. A planned collectivized economy is developed on an international scale that optimizes production and wealth. No more investment bankers, landlords, hedgefunds, and corporate lawyers. Anyone who wants to return to capitalism and tries to act on it is in deep shit.

Who has more to say then Lenin, who led the only successful proletarian revolution in history, on the subject? Who should carry more weight. Should your opinions, comrade?

I've never been called a 'sneering intellectual' but since it's you who's doing it I'll take it as a compliment.

I am not talking about a post-revolutionary world. I am trying to discuss about how the revolution is to take place; what forces must we gather and in which direction must they be deployed?

As I stated before, we have to come up with a plan--as detailed as possible--on how to occupy and take over the industries and on how best to seize control of the state in order to dismantle it.

That is what I thought was under discussion here, as generally articulated by the OP.

[Book O'Dead]

That is dead wrong. Lenin lead a political and social revolution. Ask the Tsar and his family -- ask the large landholders and the aristocrats. Ask the bankers and the foreign companies with holdings in Russia. If this was not a social revolution, then you would be hard pressed to show that one has ever been made or can be made.

I don't disagree with that but I think that in the 21st Century we in the industrialized countries must have a political as well as an economic revolution that occur simultaneous to one another.

[Art Vandelay]

:confused: There can be a political revolution without an economic or social revolution, but there cannot be a economic or social revolution, without a political one. Politics is a component of the social superstructure.

[Book O'Dead]

:confused: There can be a political revolution without an economic or social revolution, but there cannot be a economic or social revolution, without a political one. Politics is a component of the social superstructure.

If I understand the concept at all, I think that your statement is tautology.

I think that workers must think in terms of a revolution on two fronts; we must challenge capitalist political rule by establishing a revolutionary political party of labor, while at the same time challenge capitalism on the economic front by creating economic organizations whose purpose must be to take away from the capitalist the source of their power: the means of production.

[citizen of industry]

If I understand the concept at all, I think that your statement is tautology.

I think that workers must think in terms of a revolution on two fronts; we must challenge capitalist political rule by establishing a revolutionary political party of labor, while at the same time challenge capitalism on the economic front by creating economic organizations whose purpose must be to take away from the capitalist the source of their power: the means of production.

We have those economic organizations already: labour unions. The problem is a lack of union democracy and conservative leadership. Democratic unions with militant leadership are capable of challenging capital on the economic as well as the political front. We also have revoluionary political parties.

[Q]

What Is to Be Done? is pretty much the foundation of all attempts at making any kind of "plan" for proletarian revolution.

No it isn't. Stop repeating that Stalinoid falsification of our history.

[Dunk]

A return to capitalism after it's hypothetical replacement by the alternative is impossible

Imagine a return to feudal production today as the dominant mode

Impossible

[Q]

So if I get it right, it goes something like this: A Trotskyist party is formed. It gains support among unsatisfied workers and forms worker councils with them. When they get big enough, they seize power through revolution.

The problem is, the workers fight for economy instead of democracy and it connects easily to nationalism.
More or less, correct.


Thanks for the help. I always have trouble learning theory from texts but I do my best. I'll have a look at the links tomorrow. It's 0200 and I have a test tomorrow.

Then debate more, perhaps consider going to a summerschool (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-university-2012-t169094/index.html) :)

[Book O'Dead]

We have those economic organizations already: labour unions. The problem is a lack of union democracy and conservative leadership. Democratic unions with militant leadership are capable of challenging capital on the economic as well as the political front. We also have revoluionary political parties.

The kind of traditional labor unions that exist today are insufficient to accomplish revolutionary goals. They accept the right of capitalists to own productive property, they accept the capitalist right to exploit workers at the point of production and they preach the mythology of the 'brotherhood of capital and labor.

We need an all-industry revolutionary union, one great union that will coalesce our latent economic might, whose near-term goal is to take, hold and operate the industries of the land on behalf of society and which will become the government centered at the workplace.

Initially, that one great union will be tasked with setting in motion a political party of labor whose purpose will be to give political expression to our demand for socialism and whose ultimate goal will be to capture the political state for the sole purpose of dismantling it:


"Industrial Unionism is the Socialist Republic in the making; and the goal once reached, the Industrial Union is the Socialist Republic in operation. Accordingly, the Industrial Union is at once the battering ram with which to pound down the fortress of Capitalism, and the successor of the capitalist social structure itself."--Daniel De Leon.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/deleon/index.htm

De Leon wrote this around the time that the Chicago IWW came into existence in 1905.

[citizen of industry]

And the IWW is still around today, and is a great union. Do you want to make another IWW? How are you going to get people out of the conservative unions and into yours? Do you have cadre inside the conservative federations going for the top? Or factions organizing a split? There are some very militant unions around today with revolutionaries at the top, but they are a snall minority. I fail to see anything new here. This is what many Leninist parties, syndicalists and Marxist union activists already do.

[Geiseric]

Your guys dream for the "super union," is basically a party that only exists among the minority of unionized workers. a union's goals are to deal with the bosses, and it stops there. You need a party if you're going to raise political demands as opposed to "economic," ones like pay, safety, hours etc.

[Book O'Dead]

And the IWW is still around today, and is a great union. Do you want to make another IWW? How are you going to get people out of the conservative unions and into yours? Do you have cadre inside the conservative federations going for the top? Or factions organizing a split? There are some very militant unions around today with revolutionaries at the top, but they are a snall minority. I fail to see anything new here. This is what many Leninist parties, syndicalists and Marxist union activists already do.

I was referring to the original IWW, the one founded in 1905:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Workers_of_the_World

The present-day IWW is different in that it is the continuation of the anarchist organization that repudiated the need for political action and worker participation in electoral politics.

[Book O'Dead]

Your guys dream for the "super union," is basically a party that only exists among the minority of unionized workers. a union's goals are to deal with the bosses, and it stops there. You need a party if you're going to raise political demands as opposed to "economic," ones like pay, safety, hours etc.

This view reflects the theoretical weakness inherent in Leninism insofar as unionism is concerned.

To define the role of unionism in such a limited fashion is wrong because it assumes that workers are incapable of transcending trade union consciousness.

[Q]

This view reflects the theoretical weakness inherent in Leninism insofar as unionism is concerned.

To define the role of unionism in such a limited fashion is wrong because it assumes that workers are incapable of transcending trade union consciousness.

No one says workers are incapable of transcending trade union consciousness. This is neither the point Lenin made in his (in)famous What is to be done? either. There are certainly many cases throughout history where workers jumped from trade union consciousness to political consciousness and as such to revolutionary conclusions. The Russian 1905 revolution for example was a strong example of this.

The point Lenin made against the economists however is that this is, at best, a spontaneous and as such partial and uneven process and that you simply cannot build a revolution on this strategy. What you need is a framework of politics where workers can be educated, agitated and organised for the political project of communism. This long term mass partyist project was in turn modelled on the German SPD and around the 1892 Erfurt programme, but of course adapted to Russian circumstances which meant a focus on political freedoms to even be able to propagate the rest of the programme and build a wider movement.

As Trotsky once remarked, the working class is potentially an extremely strong force that has the potential to change everything. But, much like steam, if it isn't focused it cannot achieve anything much. It is the party that, in this analogy, works like piston engines, that focus the might power of the steam to locomote change.

[aquaruis15000]

This is what many Leninist parties, syndicalists and Marxist union activists already do.

How is that going for you in say, the last 175 years?

[aquaruis15000]

As Trotsky once remarked, the working class is potentially an extremely strong force that has the potential to change everything. But, much like steam, if it isn't focused it cannot achieve anything much. It is the party that, in this analogy, works like piston engines, that focus the might power of the steam to locomote change.

He should have said workers are like horses, running wild and free. They need people like me to jump on their backs and ride them so they can be useful. Since, you know, that's actually what happened in the USSR.

[Q]

He should have said workers are like horses, running wild and free. They need people like me to jump on their backs and ride them so they can be useful. Since, you know, that's actually what happened in the USSR.

Ok, bro.

If you were around a little longer, you might have been aware how poorly aimed that was (http://www.revleft.com/vb/russiai-theories-soviet-t168685/index.html) at me.

[aquaruis15000]

Trotsky and Lenin never worked a day in their lives. But that's what the workers needed to have a workers revolution? Ok, bro.

[VirgJans12]

More or less, correct.



Then debate more, perhaps consider going to a summerschool (http://www.revleft.com/vb/communist-university-2012-t169094/index.html) :)

I'll just look up some documentaries, I get stuff way easier from those. Are there any good documentaries (English or Dutch) about Trotskyism, communist/socialist revolutions, communism in general and socialism in general?

I'm reluctant to look up stuff by the BBC or Discovery Channel or such. Big western media always think the USSR was a communism.

[Q]

Trotsky and Lenin never worked a day in their lives. But that's what the workers needed to have a workers revolution? Ok, bro.
It's rather humoristic that you attack me as if I were a typical Leninist (in the post 1924 sense of the word). But ok, whatever makes your day I guess.


I'll just look up some documentaries, I get stuff way easier from those. Are there any good documentaries (English or Dutch) about Trotskyism, communist/socialist revolutions, communism in general and socialism in general?

I'm reluctant to look up stuff by the BBC or Discovery Channel or such. Big western media always think the USSR was a communism.
Oh, I didn't tell yet: You can find most Communist University lectures online (http://vimeo.com/cpgb/channels). 86 videos so far, I'm sure there is something in there that interests you. The subjects vary from party & programme to anthropology and from dead sea scrolls to the Bolsheviks.

[citizen of industry]

This view reflects the theoretical weakness inherent in Leninism insofar as unionism is concerned.

To define the role of unionism in such a limited fashion is wrong because it assumes that workers are incapable of transcending trade union consciousness.

I disagree with that analysis of Leninists. It depends on the party and the Leninist, of course. But that seems more like an analysis of left communists than Leninists. Many of the latter are also militant trade unionists. There are some parties that don't see a Leninist party flourishing without a mass militant labor movement, i.e., in a vacuum, and devote much of their practice to union work.

I think your analysis falls short in practice. Do you plan on forming another general union, proclaiming its existence than expecting workers to leave their unions en masse and rally to your banner? Depending on your country, a significant portion of the workforce is unionized. But they are in collaborationist, reactionary unions with entrenched leadership. Seizing the leadership is one option, pushing for greater rank-and-file control and democracy an option, organizing splits another, forming alternative unions another. But Leninists do these things. Quoting some DeLeon from 1905 doesn't get nearer to a solution.

[Homo Songun]

What Is to Be Done? is pretty much the foundation of all attempts at making any kind of "plan" for proletarian revolution. I disagree. What Is To Be Done? Is an outline for the Russian proletariat. As far as I know, Lenin never intended it to be a universal prescription. Besides, things have changed for the proletariat since.
This is a very trendy idea lately (thanks to the Lars Lih fan club amongst other things), but it is self-evidently an open question as to the intended scope of Lenin's organizational theories -- if not the text itself.




What Is to Be Done? is pretty much the foundation of all attempts at making any kind of "plan" for proletarian revolution. No it isn't. Stop repeating that Stalinoid falsification of our history.
'Stalinoid' is arguable. As to what degree the text has applied to revolutions since then, (i.e. "our history") I'd say once again: open question. Regardless of that, describing it as a "falsification" to draw a line between the two is just plain nutty.

[Q]

'Stalinoid' is arguable. As to what degree the text has applied to revolutions since then, (i.e. "our history") I'd say once again: open question. Regardless of that, describing it as a "falsification" to draw a line between the two is just plain nutty.

I do describe it as a falsification if anyone is claiming it to be a foundational text of Bolshevik thought. It wasn't. And I call it a Stalinoid falsification because it was, as far as I'm aware, first mentioned as a foundational text in Stalin's 1938 History of the CPSU (B) Shortcourse (http://marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1939/x01/index.htm).

The real historical basis of the Bolsheviks lay of course in Germany's SPD, but by 1938 this was all but forgotten and purposefully so.