Do You Support a One-Party State? [Archive]

eyeheartlenin

21st July 2012, 04:00

Edit – Historically, one-party rule leads to capitalist restoration, because it deprives the toiling masses in a post-capitalist society of the possibility of making any democratic correction in the bureaucratic dictatorship, other than the "democratic" counter-revolution, as shown by abundant historical experience in Cuba, the USSR, China, etc, where the working class was politically displaced by a ruling bureaucracy. For that reason, a one-party state is a terrible idea, and it surprises me that people are willing to support it, given the historical record of the former "people's democracies," which, without exception, are in the throes of restoring the exploitation of labor by capital.

In a post-capitalist society, the workers should absolutely have the right to organize themselves politically, in a party independent of the ruling single party, in opposition to bureaucratic rule and in defense of the workers' previous conquests. They should also have the right to have trade unions that they control, independent of the toothless, state-sponsored official unions. Edit – Workers should not have fewer rights in a post-capitalist society than they had under bourgeois rule, but that is precisely the situation created by single-party rule.

Positivist

21st July 2012, 04:05

I acknowledge the need for a one party state, though one composed of multiple factions.

Die Neue Zeit

21st July 2012, 04:33

open debate within a mass party movement is a more healthy arrangement than a multi party system, where there is a greater potential for sectarianism and political tribalism.

If the working class can't even establish and maintain democracy for themselves within one party, then how do we expect a system of multiples of that same failure to be productive?

But ze councils, damn it! Councils do ze trick! All power to ze councils!

;)

I acknowledge the need for a one party state, though one composed of multiple factions.

Tendencies, not factions, just to correct you.

Book O'Dead

21st July 2012, 04:41

"No state, no parties!" That must be the dominant slogan once the workers seize power.

If workers take over at the workplaces they won't need political parties and political states. Why should they?

Of course, I concede the need for a party to get there, but once we get there we won't need a party and we won't need a state.

Caj

21st July 2012, 04:46

Of course. The proletariat is represented by, and can only begin to act as a class for itself through, its class party. A truly proletarian dictatorship, then, would be animated by exclusively this party.

Die Neue Zeit

21st July 2012, 04:47

^^^ That's true only if said organization is a real party, but that entails rejecting the Bordigist separation of real parties from real movements and vice versa.

"No state, no parties!" That must be the dominant slogan once the workers seize power.

If workers take over at the workplaces they won't need political parties and political states. Why should they?

Of course, I concede the need for a party to get there, but once we get there we won't need a party and we won't need a state.

That sounds too idealistic. Moshe Lewin argued aptly that the Soviet Union eventually became a No-Party State with the "ruling party" becoming an apolitical fiction.

Caj

21st July 2012, 04:52

My reply to the last thread regarding this topic was "I don't support any kind of state, much less a single-party one." Oh, how my views have changed! :lol:

Book O'Dead

21st July 2012, 04:54

^^^ That's true only if said organization is a real party, but that entails rejecting the Bordigist separation of real parties from real movements and vice versa.

That sounds too idealistic. Moshe Lewin argued aptly that the Soviet Union eventually became a No-Party State with the "ruling party" becoming an apolitical fiction.

Socialism, as a movement and as a goal, cannot demand anything less than the simultaneous abolition of private property and the political state.

To do one without doing the other would result in a social catastrophe.

Brosa Luxemburg

21st July 2012, 22:23

^^^ That's true only if said organization is a real party, but that entails rejecting the Bordigist separation of real parties from real movements and vice versa.

Could you explain this a little more :confused: I don't think Bordigists advocate the separation of "real parties from real movements and vice versa" like you say, and I can provide quotes from Bordiga if you would like (yet, I would like to here what you have to say first).

Omsk

21st July 2012, 22:35

You all know which option i voted for .

JPSartre12

21st July 2012, 22:59

open debate within a mass party movement is a more healthy arrangement than a multi party system, where there is a greater potential for sectarianism and political tribalism.

I love this ^
Yes, I'd support a vanguardist party in order to establish socialism, but I'm not entirely sure where I stand on there being a "party" to rule the post-capitalist society. As a faithful anti-authoritarian, I'm concerned that the party-led revolution could become an out-and-out political dictatorship afterwards. I think this quote summed up what I'm trying to say

Historically, one-party rule leads to capitalist restoration, because it deprives the toiling masses in a post-capitalist society of the possibility of making any democratic correction in the bureaucratic dictatorship, other than the "democratic" counter-revolution, as shown by abundant historical experience in Cuba, the USSR, China, etc, where the working class was politically displaced by a ruling bureaucracy.

But then again, the whole idea of the ruling party not being a "party" anymore because it wouldn't really have much of a political function anymore (the State has been abolished as we know it, it exists purely as an administrative entity not one of class-rule, bourgeois politics are gone, and so on) makes we wonder: is it possible to have a vanguardist transition to socialism without the risk of having it mutate into an authoritarian, élite party member run regime?

hatzel

21st July 2012, 23:02

You all know which option i voted for .

Did you vote no because a party would be an unacceptable devolution of the very power that should always be held exclusively by a single glorious individual, rather than an entity as large and diverse as a 'party'?

I'm personally sceptical of the extent to which a 'one-party state' can be considered a significant enough break from prevailing governmental structures, though much of this would rely on the exact definition of 'one-party state' and the exact form it may take...

Brosa Luxemburg

21st July 2012, 23:15

I love this ^
Yes, I'd support a vanguardist party in order to establish socialism, but I'm not entirely sure where I stand on there being a "party" to rule the post-capitalist society. As a faithful anti-authoritarian, I'm concerned that the party-led revolution could become an out-and-out political dictatorship afterwards. I think this quote summed up what I'm trying to say

But, we do support an "out-and-out political dictatorship" of the proletariat class. If fact, that is what we actively advocate as a transition stage before the withering away of the state and the abolition of classes. What it seems (and I think this is coming from your "anti-authoritarianism" which really means nothing) is that you seem to think the state is something that acts on it's own and for it's own interests. This is a flawed concept. The state has always been an organ of class rule. Democracy, as in the rule of all people, has never existed. There has never been the rule of all people, but the rule of one class. Right now, it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the suppression of the proletariat. What we seek is the establishment of the proletariat state, in which the proletariat rule and the bourgeoisie are suppressed. So, in fact, we do seek an "out-and-out political dictatorship", just the dictatorship of the majority class (majoritarian rule) which, if we take democracy to mean "the rule of the majority" then we seek complete democracy.

How would the dictatorship of the proletariat work? We do not know. We can look at the examples of history (no, Stalinist Russia, China, Vietnam, etc. were not dictatorships of the proletariat. Think the Paris Commune, Russia in 1917, 1918, 1919, etc.) but overall we will not know how the dictatorship of the proletariat will work until such material conditions present themselves. We can speculate on what it might look like. Most argue that the proletariat would actively participate through organs such as the soviets in the administration of the state, some (such as me) see the party as a centralizing force in such a society, etc. Again, this is all just speculation though.

I know, this is a lengthy, somewhat off-topic post, but I hope I made my point without derailing the thread.

JPSartre12

21st July 2012, 23:32

What we seek is the establishment of the proletariat state, in which the proletariat rule and the bourgeoisie are suppressed. So, in fact, we do seek an "out-and-out political dictatorship"

Thank you for this. However, what I am trying to articulate is not a dictatorship of the proletariat (which I do wholeheartedly support!). I suppose that I'm afraid that the vanguard party that leads the proletariat out of capitalism and into socialism will end up in a form of Stalinist rule, with the bourgeois class displaced and the vanguardist élite becoming the new "ruling class".

To respond to your statement that the dictatorship of the proletariat would not end up with something akin to Stalinist Russia, I think that you are right - we do not know how things will turn out until the material conditions play themselves out.

I see capitalism as oppressive (and I'm sure that I'm not the only one here who does :p), and I'm just concerned about the possibility of trading oppressive bourgeois rule for oppressive Party-run rule.

Tim Cornelis

21st July 2012, 23:33

Any party-based state implies parliamentarianism.

If the working class chooses a political party, why ban other parties? What's the point?

In the Free Territory workers' councils elected mandated and recallable delegates, often members of a revolutionary socialist party.

Without parliamentarianism what's the point of a party, multiple or otherwise, based system?

Positivist

21st July 2012, 23:52

JPSartre12

21st July 2012, 23:54

@jpsartre the reason that a party will still be necessary immediately following a revolution is that their very much still will be a state, and their will be former bourgiose and sympathizers of the bourgiose.

Yes, that makes sense. Thank you :)

Are we implying that, given time as the remnants of bourgeois society fade farther into the past and socialism becomes more solidified, that the party will eventually fade away with the State?

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 00:05

Yes, that makes sense. Thank you :)

Are we implying that, given time as the remnants of bourgeois society fade farther into the past and socialism becomes more solidified, that the party will eventually fade away with the State?

Yeah, I think so. I know everyone here is probobly fucking sick of my quoting Bordiga 24/7 like I have a Bordiga fetish or something, but yes, here is a quote from...guess who?...Bordiga!

The need for a political party of the proletariat disappears only with the complete abolition of classes. On the road to this final victory of communism it is possible that the historical importance of the three basic forms of proletarian organisation today (party, soviet, producers' union) will change, and that gradually a single type of workers' organisation will crystallise out. But the Communist Party will only merge completely in the working class when communism ceases to be a goal to be fought for and the entire working class has become communist.

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 00:13

Without parliamentarianism what's the point of a party, multiple or otherwise, based system?

I would argue that a restrictive, vanguard party can overcome many of the wokerist and immediatist tendencies of some organs such as the factory councils, trade unions, etc. Because the proletariat are a product of bourgeois society they can hold very reactionary views. A restrictive vanguard party can overcome these deficiencies by organizing the most class conscious and revolutionary sections of the working class around an essentially revolutionary platform and exclude the reactionary sections of the proletariat from the party. Yes, the party is not a perfect organ of proletariat rule, but it seems to be one of the most effective overcoming some of the deficiencies listed above.

At least, that is my argument.

Tim Cornelis

22nd July 2012, 00:18

I would argue that a restrictive, vanguard party can overcome many of the wokerist and immediatist tendencies of some organs such as the factory councils, trade unions, etc. Because the proletariat are a product of bourgeois society they can hold very reactionary views. A restrictive vanguard party can overcome these deficiencies by organizing the most class conscious and revolutionary sections of the working class around an essentially revolutionary platform and exclude the reactionary sections of the proletariat from the party. Yes, the party is not a perfect organ of proletariat rule, but it seems to be one of the most effective overcoming some of the deficiencies listed above.

At least, that is my argument.

That may indeed be problematic, but having an enlightened few impose its will from above is equally if not more problematic.

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 00:24

That may indeed be problematic, but having an enlightened few impose its will from above is equally if not more problematic.

Well, that is why the party would most likely be a mass party before the proletariat revolution.

Despite what many say, as user ComradeOm points out a lot, the Bolsheviks were basically a party composed of the most revolutionary soviets, trade unions, etc. under the Bolshevik banner before the revolution.

In times of low class consciousness, the party would be a minority party and in times of high class consciousness, the party (I would argue almost naturally) become a mass party.

JPSartre12

22nd July 2012, 00:29

That quote is very insightful, thank you. I have begun reading some of Bordiga's works from marxists.org and some of them are great :)

I like the idea of the State and the party withering away side-by-side, that sounds very reasonable to me. If they both wither away and we are left with a purely administrative body in socialism (as opposed to a capitalist class-rule one), what about the danger of that it would become politicized? I feel as if parties are a natural tendency, and that people would begin to group themselves into various interest factions regardless.

Perhaps I'm totally wrong, I don't know :laugh:

Tim Cornelis

22nd July 2012, 00:32

Well, that is why the party would most likely be a mass party before the proletariat revolution.

Despite what many say, as user ComradeOm points out a lot, the Bolsheviks were basically a party composed of the most revolutionary soviets, trade unions, etc. under the Bolshevik banner before the revolution.

In times of low class consciousness, the party would be a minority party and in times of high class consciousness, the party (I would argue almost naturally) become a mass party.

The Bolshevik Party was a minority party. And since the 'elite' of the party makes the decisions (ya know, democratic centralism), the number of those in charge was small.

As Grigory Zinoviev said:

Our Central Committee has decided to deprive certain categories of party members of the right to vote at the Congress of the party. Certainly it is unheard of to limit the right voting within the party, but the entire party has approved this measure, which is to assure the homogeneous unity of the Communists So that in fact, we have 500,000 members who manage the entire State machine from top to bottom.

EDIT:

And I ask again, if parliamentarianism is abolished, what use is a single-party system? According to you, the Party is already a mass party so why ban other parties, afraid that workers think for themselves?

JPSartre12

22nd July 2012, 00:37

The Bolshevik Party was a minority party. And since the 'elite' of the party makes the decisions (ya know, democratic centralism), the number of those in charge was small.

As Grigory Zinoviev said:

Yeah, I'm not really a fan of democratic centralism :rolleyes: If the vanguard party is going to be anything, I think that it needs to be democratically-run. I feel like a democratic centralist vanguard party is inherently anti-democratic.

Davide

22nd July 2012, 00:40

Yes, i'll definitely support one party state. Because that why socialism would be established.

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 00:56

The whole "history of the Bolshevik party" thing is really going to lead to a derailing of this thread, so I won't respond. Plus, I am sure you have heard the arguments I would bring up anyway.

And I ask again, if parliamentarianism is abolished, what use is a single-party system?

The proletariat only becomes a class for itself and is represented by it's specific class party (I know another user made the same point, but it is an essential Bordigist point and I agree with it). A proletariat dictatorship would be animated by this party. This party may absorb other parties that are also genuine revolutionary communist parties and organizations (I would think of some Trotskyist and anarchist groups and organizations here for example) and include them as tendencies of the original proletariat party.

According to you, the Party is already a mass party so why ban other parties

Openly reactionary parties and parties that want to restore capitalism shouldn't be allowed to run for any office or shape public policy. I would think that anyone who supports the liberation of the proletariat and the suppression of the bourgeoisie would agree.

afraid that workers think for themselves?

Yeah, you caught me :rolleyes:

Psy

22nd July 2012, 00:58

No for a very good reason, the left is highly splintered thus impossible to combine them into a single party.

JPSartre12

22nd July 2012, 01:00

Openly reactionary parties and parties that want to restore capitalism shouldn't be allowed to run for any office or shape public policy. I would think that anyone who supports the liberation of the proletariat and the suppression of the bourgeoisie would agree.

That sounds very undemocratic, though.
I'd like to comfort myself by making the supposition that once we hit socialism there won't be any reactionary / pro-capitalist forces that want to turn the clock back :rolleyes:

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 01:05

That sounds very undemocratic, though.
I'd like to comfort myself by making the supposition that once we hit socialism there won't be any reactionary / pro-capitalist forces that want to turn the clock back :rolleyes:

I am specifically talking about the transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) here, not socialism.

Tim Cornelis

22nd July 2012, 01:08

The proletariat only becomes a class for itself and is represented by it's specific class party (I know another user made the same point, but it is an essential Bordigist point and I agree with it). A proletariat dictatorship would be animated by this party. This party may absorb other parties that are also genuine revolutionary communist parties and organizations (I would think of some Trotskyist and anarchist groups and organizations here for example) and include them as tendencies of the original proletariat party.

Begging the rather essential question: why? Why can a class only become a class with a party as catalyst and its representation?

Openly reactionary parties and parties that want to restore capitalism shouldn't be allowed to run for any office or shape public policy. I would think that anyone who supports the liberation of the proletariat and the suppression of the bourgeoisie would agree.

That's a slippery slope. First, "run for office" implies parliamentarianism does it not?

But then, first liberal and conservative and fascist parties will be banned and persecuted. Then Marxist-Leninists will be banned because they support state-capitalism, and then anarchists will be banned for being bourgeois liberals. Etc.

Communes and workers' councils would already be assemblies of the most advanced and revolutionary workers. In a sense, communes and soviets are the proletarian's party.

JPSartre12

22nd July 2012, 01:09

I am specifically talking about the transition period (the dictatorship of the proletariat) here, not socialism.

Then I wholeheartedly agree with you :thumbup:

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 01:18

Begging the rather essential question: why? Why can a class only become a class with a party as catalyst and its representation?

Lol, are you guys ready for some more Bordiga quotes :drool:

We not only say that the struggle and the historical task of the class cannot be achieved without the two forms: dictatorial State, (i.e. the exclusion, as long as they exist, of the other classes which are henceforth defeated and subdued) and political party, we also say – in our customary dialectical and revolutionary language – that one can only begin to speak of class – of establishing a dynamic link between a repressed class in today's society and a future revolutionised social form, and taking into consideration the struggle between the class which holds the State and the class which is to overthrow it – only when the class is no longer a cold statistical term at the miserable level of bourgeois thought, but a reality, made manifest in its organ, the Party, without which it has neither life nor the strength to fight.

One cannot therefore detach party from class as though class were the main element and the party merely accessory to it. By putting forward the idea of a proletariat without a party, a party which is sterilized and impotent party, or by looking for substitutes for it, the latest corrupters of Marxism have actually annihilated the class by depriving it of any possibility of fighting for socialism, or even, come to that, fighting for a miserable crust of bread.

Basically, we can only speak of a class when we see the class able to historically fight for it's interests (which are in the party) and attempts to take the party away from the class will, essentially, de-class the proletariat.

That's a slippery slope. First, "run for office" implies parliamentarianism does it not?

But then, first liberal and conservative and fascist parties will be banned and persecuted. Then Marxist-Leninists will be banned because they support state-capitalism, and then anarchists will be banned for being bourgeois liberals. Etc.

Communes and workers' councils would already be assemblies of the most advanced and revolutionary workers. In a sense, communes and soviets are the proletarian's party.

Thanks for putting words in my mouth for the second time, distorting my views, even contradicting what I have said. I am trying to have an actual discussion on something that I feel is very important to the revolutionary movement. Please, debate me honestly.

Positivist

22nd July 2012, 01:31

Yes, that makes sense. Thank you :)

Are we implying that, given time as the remnants of bourgeois society fade farther into the past and socialism becomes more solidified, that the party will eventually fade away with the State?

Yes that is what I would suggest. Also I think it will help to explain the definition of a party according to most here in this thread, including myself.

The communist party is the organization of the class conscious proletarians. Class conscious refers to those who recognize that capitalism must necessarily be abolished, and that communism is the system in which the proletarians interests are best satisfied. The party is not a paternal cabal of scholars above the workers, it is the workers.

If the party in described form operates democratically, then it will not be oppressive to the workers, as oppressing the workers could never be in the interests of the workers who would be experiencing the workers.

JPSartre12

22nd July 2012, 02:49

That's a slippery slope. First, "run for office" implies parliamentarianism does it not?

But then, first liberal and conservative and fascist parties will be banned and persecuted. Then Marxist-Leninists will be banned because they support state-capitalism, and then anarchists will be banned for being bourgeois liberals. Etc.

I think that "run for office" does imply some parliamentarianism, yes, but I don't think that we're referring to actual elections. What I believe we mean is that, once the vanguard party leads the revolution and ushers in the dictatorship of the proletariat, steps will be taken to prevent anti-revolutionary and bourgeois-sympathizing forces from being in a position of power.

Maybe it will involve exiling bourgeois liberals, conservatives, and fascists from the revolutionary society. Or maybe that will involve the temporary suspension of all elections and placing the State under the full control of the vanguard party until socialism can be brought about .... but that sound pretty undemocratic. Not sure how I feel about that.

And I disagree with the statement that Marxist-Leninists support state capitalism. I'm not a fan of it.

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 03:00

And I disagree with the statement that Marxist-Leninists support state capitalism. I'm not a fan of it.

By "Marxist-Leninists" he means what we would refer to as Stalinists. Stalinists prefer to be called "Marxist-Leninists" because that is what Stalin called his doctrine. Some of us would argue that their line of thought actually differs from that of Marx and Lenin.

JPSartre12

22nd July 2012, 03:04

By "Marxist-Leninists" he means what we would refer to as Stalinists. Stalinists prefer to be called "Marxist-Leninists" because that is what Stalin called his doctrine. Some of us would argue that their line of thought actually differs from that of Marx and Lenin.

Oh, alright ... thanks for clearing that up for me :cool:

I think that Stalinists should just accept the label "Stalinist", rather than "Marxist-Leninist", because I think that there is a profound difference between the two ... but that's a whole different thread :p

Die Neue Zeit

22nd July 2012, 03:08

Begging the rather essential question: why? Why can a class only become a class with a party as catalyst and its representation?

I know Brosa here responded by quoting Bordiga, but I'll go straight to the source: Marx and the International Workingmen's Association.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/09/politics-resolution.htm
http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/parties.htm

Against this collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes;

That this constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to ensure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end — the abolition of classes

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm

That this collective appropriation can arise only from the revolutionary action of the productive class – or proletariat - organized in a distinct political party;

That a such an organization must be pursued by all the means the proletariat has at its disposal

The case for the model of the party-movement posed by the pre-WWI SPD and the inter-war USPD could not be greater!

Could you explain this a little more :confused: I don't think Bordigists advocate the separation of "real parties from real movements and vice versa" like you say, and I can provide quotes from Bordiga if you would like (yet, I would like to here what you have to say first).

It's all about building mass class-strugglist parties of the class before a revolutionary period. Bordigists aren't into this. As a result, their "party in the historical sense" is as divorced from social movements as Lenin's distorted merger formula in LWC of "merge, if you will, with the broad masses."

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 04:24

^yes

Die Neue Zeit

22nd July 2012, 04:44

^^^ FYI, I edited that post just now to include a critique of Bordigism, and to answer your question.

Tim Cornelis

22nd July 2012, 11:46

Lol, are you guys ready for some more Bordiga quotes :drool:

Basically, we can only speak of a class when we see the class able to historically fight for it's interests (which are in the party) and attempts to take the party away from the class will, essentially, de-class the proletariat.

And why would this party need to ban other parties?

Thanks for putting words in my mouth for the second time, distorting my views, even contradicting what I have said. I am trying to have an actual discussion on something that I feel is very important to the revolutionary movement. Please, debate me honestly.

This makes no sense. Inquiring into someone's reasons for advocating something and stating my opinions on the consequences of said advocation is by no means putting words into someone's mouth.

How is stating my view putting words in your mouth?

Jimmie Higgins

22nd July 2012, 13:05

I voted "no".

The goal is class-rule, not party rule and while I think a vanguard party or several mass revolutionary parties coordinating their efforts and becoming a de-facto "party" of all the vanguard fighters in the class is necessary to reach the stage of revolution, after worker's have control of society, I can't see how they wouldn't organize themselves according to some basic post-revolution priorities.

I think workers would probably initially set guide-lines such as any eligible "faction" or "party" would have to be explicitly pro-revolution and pro-worker's power with the goal of realizing communism.

Ultimately though I support a 0 party non-state like what Lenin talked about in "State and Revolution".

Jimmie Higgins

22nd July 2012, 13:16

Yes, that makes sense. Thank you :)

Are we implying that, given time as the remnants of bourgeois society fade farther into the past and socialism becomes more solidified, that the party will eventually fade away with the State?

Yes, and the need for democracy altogether.

.. For Marx and myself," continued Engels, "it was therefore absolutely impossible to use such a loose term [Social-Democracy] to characterize our special point of view. Today things are different, and the word ["Social-Democrat"] may perhaps pass muster [mag passieren], inexact [unpassend, unsuitable] though it still is for a party whose economic programme is not merely socialist in general, but downright communist, and whose ultimate political aim is to overcome the whole state and, consequently, democracy as well. The names of real political parties, however, are never wholly appropriate; the party develops while the name stays.

In the usual argument about the state, the mistake is constantly made against which Engels warned and which we have in passing indicated above, namely, it is constantly forgotten that the abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy.

At first sight this assertion seems exceedingly strange and incomprehensible; indeed, someone may even suspect us of expecting the advent of a system of society in which the principle of subordination of the minority to the majority will not be observed--for democracy means the recognition of this very principle.

No, democracy is not identical with the subordination of the minority to the majority. Democracy is a state which recognizes the subordination of the minority to the majority, i.e., an organization for the systematic use of force by one class against another, by one section of the population against another.

Tim Finnegan

22nd July 2012, 13:29

The communist party is the organization of the class conscious proletarians. Class conscious refers to those who recognize that capitalism must necessarily be abolished, and that communism is the system in which the proletarians interests are best satisfied.
In short, "class concious" means "people who agree with you". And has nothing to do with class.

scarletghoul

22nd July 2012, 13:51

Other.

The question really is one of 'material utility' rather than idealised imagined states : of course we'd all prefer a 0-party non-state, but in order to get there is a one party state necessary ?? In Lenin's time it was, due to civil war and foreign invasion and other severities. Developments in china demonstrated that non-cp elements are capable of advancing the revolution; in fact it was ultimately the 'communist party' which crushed the revolution there and arrested the maoists.. so i think china is a big indication of the limits of the leninist model. There's no reason why, once the dictatorship of the proletariat is consolidated enough, the vanguard party should keep absolute control. The details of such a 'post-Leninist' state can only properly be decided when the time comes, in the midst of practical necessity. History has taught us that the Leninist model is an excellent means for establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat, but cannot be relied on to sustain it

Brosa Luxemburg

22nd July 2012, 16:15

It's all about building mass class-strugglist parties of the class before a revolutionary period. Bordigists aren't into this. As a result, their "party in the historical sense" is as divorced from social movements as Lenin's distorted merger formula in LWC of "merge, if you will, with the broad masses."

This is wrong though. It isn't that Bordigists aren't into mass parties or are only into minority parties. Bordigists, like myself and Caj, feel in times of low class consciousness and a relatively stable and non-revolutionary period the party will, naturally, contain a minority of the party. In times of high class consciousness and a unstable, revolutionary period the party will naturally contain many. Bordiga is very contradictory on this point. We can see, in some passages, where Bordiga says that the party will be a minority class until the post-revolutionary society, and then we see Bordiga quotes saying the exact opposite. For example,

The communist party, as defined by this historical foresight and by this program, accomplishes the following tasks as long as the bourgeoisie maintains power...c) it prepares well in advance for the class mobilisation and offensive by appropriately employing every possible means of propaganda, agitation and action, in all particular struggles triggered off by immediate interests. This action culminates in the organisation of the illegal and insurrectional apparatus for the conquest of power.

From Proletariat Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm)

And then, we can also see quotes such as this.

Only after the proletarian dictatorship has deprived the bourgeoisie of such powerful means of exerting influence as the press, the schools, parliament, the church, the administrative machine, etc., only after the final defeat of the bourgeois order has become clear to everybody, only then will all or practically all the workers begin to enter the ranks of the Communist Party.
From Theses on the Role of the Communist Party in the Proletarian Revolution (http://libcom.org/library/role_party_bordiga)

One passage calls for the mobilization of the majority of the proletariat by the communist party for revolution and recruiting them into the communist party through "propaganda, agitation and action" while the other passage says that the communist party will only be a majority party after the conquest of the state. In this instance, I agree with the later Bordiga.

Even still, Bordiga never thought that the party should be separated from the mass of proletariats or divorced from social movements. In fact, in the same writing were he said that the party would contain only a minority of the class until the crushing of the bourgeois state, Bordiga says this:

The most important task of a genuine communist party is to keep always in closest touch with the broadest masses of the proletariat. In order to do that, communists can and should also be active in associations which, though they are not party organisations, have large proletarian groups among their members...The Russian example of the so-called "non- parties" workers' and peasants' conferences is particularly important...Communists consider it their most important task to carry on the work of organisation and instruction in a systematic fashion within these wider workers' organisations. But in order to do this successfully, in order to prevent the enemies of the revolutionary proletariat from taking possession of these broad workers' organisations, the advanced communist workers must have their own independent tightly-knit communist party, which acts always in an organised way and which is able, at every turn of events and whatever form the movement takes, to look after the general interests of communism.

Mr. Natural

22nd July 2012, 17:01

Whether it is a "one party state" with multiple bottom-up tendencies within the party or a state that is the product of many grassroots parties, anarchism and communism demand popular control. Marx and Engels, Manifesto: "Associations will be formed in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

Historically, "democratic centralism" in a party has meant all centralism, no democracy.

It is a myth that there will be no state in anarchist/communist societies. Such societies are much too complex to succeed without overall control, but this overarching supervision of common affairs must grow from the grassroots.

I see and sense a lot of "authoritarian communism"--an oxymoron--being advocated at Revleft.

Die Neue Zeit

22nd July 2012, 17:50

It's all about building mass class-strugglist parties of the class before a revolutionary period. Bordigists aren't into this. As a result, their "party in the historical sense" is as divorced from social movements as Lenin's distorted merger formula in LWC of "merge, if you will, with the broad masses."This is wrong though. It isn't that Bordigists aren't into mass parties or are only into minority parties. Bordigists, like myself and Caj, feel in times of low class consciousness and a relatively stable and non-revolutionary period the party will, naturally, contain a minority of the party. In times of high class consciousness and a unstable, revolutionary period the party will naturally contain many.

Let's put it into more concrete terms, comrade (now I think you've developed enough strategically to warrant that salutation from me, whatever the disagreements).

What is your suggestion for times of low awareness in a non-revolutionary period?

What is your suggestion for times of higher awareness (I say "higher" because things are relative) in a non-revolutionary period?

If you're suggesting the models of the SPD's founding organizations for the first question, I can definitely agree with you. Lassalle's General German Workers Association (ADAV) was a far superior agitational machine to current left sloganeering canards today, because it was willing to employ communication savvy / "charisma," (http://www.revleft.com/vb/labour-monarchy-strawmani-t172753/index.html) "demagoguery," (http://www.revleft.com/vb/one-born-every-t144497/index.html) and conspiracy theories (http://www.revleft.com/vb/religion-evil-article-t159465/index.html) to agitate even the most backward sections of the class. Bebel's and Liebknecht's Social-Democratic Workers Party of Germany (SAPD) was also a good organizational machine because it was formed by, to quote Bordiga, "volunteers."

[I had to take a pot shot at Bordiga's musings on "voluntarism."]

If you're suggesting, however, something like the sectarian formation that was the Social Democracy in the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania (SDKPiL, which should have folded into the RSDLP), an organization which Luxemburg and Dzerzhinsky belonged to, then I have to disagree with you.

Much of my posts focus on the answer to the second question because it is the organizational "ideal" in a pre-revolutionary period.

In fact, in the same writing were he said that the party would contain only a minority of the class until the crushing of the bourgeois state

My take on a revolutionary period is that majority political support is best measured in terms of honest voting membership, or party-movement "citizenship." In other words, the party-movement would already contain a majority of the class before the r-r-r-revolution but during the revolutionary period.

Why? I think it's fairly obvious why majority political support is more concretely expressed in such membership than cheap votes at the polls (which can be protest votes, voting along family lines, or other kinds of insufficiently political support).

Comrade Jandar

22nd July 2012, 19:38

This main sound self-evident, but I would support a one-party state assuming that party had the correct line or in other words were actively pursuing a revolutionary socialist agenda.

Brosa Luxemburg

23rd July 2012, 03:02

DNZ I am going to have to get back to you on this. You have some good questions from me and I don't have the time right now to properly respond.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

23rd July 2012, 03:21

Yes, and I'll quote myself

...with everyone in power earning no more than a workers wage.

What is a workers' wage? Wages will have to be internationally set for workers of various sectors otherwise there will be economic problems in the transition to a socialised socialist economy. So i suspect you meant to say the "average" wage of workers.

MarxSchmarx

23rd July 2012, 05:14

Book O'Dead

23rd July 2012, 05:24

Welshy

23rd July 2012, 05:29

Those of you advocating a one party state: suppose that after so many years of socialism, a significant minority (say, 10-20%) of the population feels it's time to abolish the state and transition to a stateless society pretty drastically, while the majority, including the politburo of your one party, disagree, and estimate that socialism requires another 200 years or something.If that minority starts organizing, agitating, holding regular meetings and realizes there are simply irreconcilable differences with the ruling party, seeks to implement the state begin abolishing its institutions of the state whatever they may be at that point, and does so in some localities, say, what will you do?

A state is not something you can declare abolished. The state is connect to class society, so there will still be a state if the capitalists and their allies still exist and are fighting the working class. Any attempt to get rid of the state controlled by the working class would be to cave into these forces and leave working class helpless. If the capitalists and their allies cease to exist and are no longer fighting the working class the state will cease to exist because there will be no working class anymore (as the basis for these classes would have been long abolished) and any threat of counterrevolution will be destroyed. So the situation you are proposing is meaningless. Also by the point you are talking about, the entirety of the working class should be active members with in the party, councils and other institutions established by the working class during the revolution. The only people who would be outside of them would be those who are fighting the working class. With in this party minority opinions should be allowed to become majority opinions thus making any need to form a separate party non-existent.

Brosa Luxemburg

23rd July 2012, 05:36

What is your suggestion for times of low awareness in a non-revolutionary period?

I would suggest that the party do a few things. I think that the party should continue to develop a Marxian understanding of existing society, putting emphasis on revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. It should develop propaganda and make the party visible to the proletariat as a viable alternative to existing society through various means. Here, I would think that the party could develop somewhat of an "alternative culture" to today's world (such as providing anything from free medical service, a "cop watch", etc.) If the party can be seen as a viable option that differs from existing society, more people will be interested in the party and it's ideas. The party, of course, in all situations, should maintain a revolutionary stance opposed to all forms of bourgeois society.

What is your suggestion for times of higher awareness (I say "higher" because things are relative) in a non-revolutionary period?

The party should then first of all link up with various vanguard elements internationally (this could happen in times of low consciousness as well, but it should certainly happen in times of high class consciousness). The party should organize the class and prepare it for revolution and prepare it for an alternative society by building some of these structures in this time period.

Of course, everything I said above could turn out to be radically different with various material conditions that manifest themselves. This should be frankly admitted. This is all speculation (not to deny that this isn't an important conversation, because it very much is so).

My take on a revolutionary period is that majority political support is best measured in terms of honest voting membership, or party-movement "citizenship." In other words, the party-movement would already contain a majority of the class before the r-r-r-revolution but during the revolutionary period.

Why? I think it's fairly obvious why majority political support is more concretely expressed in such membership than cheap votes at the polls (which can be protest votes, voting along family lines, or other kinds of insufficiently political support).

Well, I agree. I don't think that the party has to have majority support in the polls and "popular elections" before revolution (but, I mean, being a Bordigist you must have known this about me ;)).

Book O'Dead

23rd July 2012, 05:49

I think you're one of the few people here who's tried to offer a definition of the state.

The rest of us, including myself, have been spouting slogans. I mean that.

Somewhere Marx described the state as the executive committee of the ruling class.

If, as you've done below, we follow that line of reasoning we'll discover whether or not the working class, once in power, will requires the help of a political state.

A state is not something you can declare abolished. The state is connect to class society, so there will still be a state if the capitalists and their allies still exist and are fighting the working class. Any attempt to get rid of the state controlled by the working class would be to cave into these forces and leave working class helpless. If the capitalists and their allies cease to exist and are no longer fighting the working class the state will cease to exist because there will be no working class anymore (as the basis for these classes would have been long abolished) and any threat of counterrevolution will be destroyed. So the situation you are proposing is meaningless. Also by the point you are talking about, the entirety of the working class should be active members with in the party, councils and other institutions established by the working class during the revolution. The only people who would be outside of them would be those who are fighting the working class. With in this party minority opinions should be allowed to become majority opinions thus making any need to form a separate party non-existent.

AxiomFire

23rd July 2012, 06:05

Creation of a one-party state will always lead to the formation of new classes. Unless the people directly control policy (either through democratic soviets or another form of direct democracy), it will be impossible to have a 'dictatorship of the proletariat' in any lasting sense. It has been seen that during the Soviet Union, the nomenklatura replaced the ruling bourgeoisie. If anything, the Soviet state only managed to centralise capitalism into their own hands, at the price of the proletariat. Any form of hierarchical rule will alienate the masses and create new distinctions, rendering equality impossible. 'Dictatorship of the proletariat' means the proletariat are the masters of their fate.

28350

23rd July 2012, 06:31

no, I'm a communist

Revolution starts with U

23rd July 2012, 06:44

Other: I don't support the state, even the "worker's state" because I'm a communist. (By this I mean that even were I to work with state institutions as they prove necessary, ultimately even a worker's state needs abolished)

Die Neue Zeit

23rd July 2012, 06:46

Those of you advocating a one party state: suppose that after so many years of socialism, a significant minority (say, 10-20%) of the population feels it's time to abolish the state and transition to a stateless society pretty drastically, while the majority, including the politburo of your one party, disagree, and estimate that socialism requires another 200 years or something. If that minority starts organizing, agitating, holding regular meetings and realizes there are simply irreconcilable differences with the ruling party, seeks to implement the state begin abolishing its institutions of the state whatever they may be at that point, and does so in some localities, say, what will you do?

Comrade, I'm probably one of the select few here who advocates a genuine one-party system, in contrast to the de facto "No-Party State" case you presented (de facto because I read Moshe Lewin's work on the fiction of the "ruling party").

There can be differences, but I'm confident they can be reconciled by means of organized tendencies, not factions or separate parties. The minority could sure organize, agitate, hold meetings, etc. to gain support for its views. However, the initiative to abolish selectively without gaining support would violate majority rule and unity in action.

Moreover, the state will have been gone by that point, anyway. I define it as the sum of the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes. That's why I say "one-party system" and not "one-party state."

Revolution starts with U

23rd July 2012, 06:47

A state is not something you can declare abolished. The state is connect to class society, so there will still be a state if the capitalists and their allies still exist and are fighting the working class. Any attempt to get rid of the state controlled by the working class would be to cave into these forces and leave working class helpless. If the capitalists and their allies cease to exist and are no longer fighting the working class the state will cease to exist because there will be no working class anymore (as the basis for these classes would have been long abolished) and any threat of counterrevolution will be destroyed. So the situation you are proposing is meaningless. Also by the point you are talking about, the entirety of the working class should be active members with in the party, councils and other institutions established by the working class during the revolution. The only people who would be outside of them would be those who are fighting the working class. With in this party minority opinions should be allowed to become majority opinions thus making any need to form a separate party non-existent.

My question (which can be moved if it is derailing): How then, if the lack of class makes "any threat of counterrevolution... destroyed," would you explain the development of class in the first place?

Die Neue Zeit

23rd July 2012, 06:51

What is your suggestion for times of low awareness in a non-revolutionary period?I would suggest that the party do a few things. I think that the party should continue to develop a Marxian understanding of existing society, putting emphasis on revolution and the establishment of a dictatorship of the proletariat. It should develop propaganda and make the party visible to the proletariat as a viable alternative to existing society through various means. Here, I would think that the party could develop somewhat of an "alternative culture" to today's world (such as providing anything from free medical service, a "cop watch", etc.) If the party can be seen as a viable option that differs from existing society, more people will be interested in the party and it's ideas. The party, of course, in all situations, should maintain a revolutionary stance opposed to all forms of bourgeois society.

Then we're already in agreement, comrade. Differences may exist in emphasis of points, but we're in strategic agreement.

The party should then first of all link up with various vanguard elements internationally (this could happen in times of low consciousness as well, but it should certainly happen in times of high class consciousness). The party should organize the class and prepare it for revolution and prepare it for an alternative society by building some of these structures in this time period.

Again, we're already in agreement.

Of course, everything I said above could turn out to be radically different with various material conditions that manifest themselves. This should be frankly admitted. This is all speculation (not to deny that this isn't an important conversation, because it very much is so).

Well, I agree. I don't think that the party has to have majority support in the polls and "popular elections" before revolution (but, I mean, being a Bordigist you must have known this about me ;)).

I agree with you here, too, actually. Political support /= electoral support. One can have majority political support from the class and still end up with an electoral minority, but the party-movement would be more than justified in expropriating ruling-class power.

Welshy

23rd July 2012, 06:58

My question (which can be moved if it is derailing): How then, if the lack of class makes "any threat of counterrevolution... destroyed," would you explain the development of class in the first place?

Class didn't develop because of counter-revolution, unless class society began with the failure of a communist revolution several thousands of years ago. :laugh:

Also I never said purely lack of class means the end of counter-revolution. I made it clear to include the destruction of the allies of capitalists who fight and try to sabotage the workers revolution would also be necessary.

EDIT: I also should have said any serious threat of counter-revolution. I hardly advocate creating a society full of paranoid people who hunt down anyone under even slight suspicions of being a counterrevolutionary.

Revolution starts with U

23rd July 2012, 07:11

Class didn't develop because of counter-revolution, unless class society began with the failure of a communist revolution several thousands of years ago. :laugh:

Also I never said purely lack of class means the end of counter-revolution. I made it clear to include the destruction of the allies of capitalists who fight and try to sabotage the workers revolution would also be necessary.

EDIT: I also should have said any serious threat of counter-revolution. I hardly advocate creating a society full of paranoid people who hunt down anyone under even slight suspicions of being a counterrevolutionary.

Well... it did begin with the "failure" of a "communist" society, if we take "primitive communism" to be a real term.

But I understand what you're saying now. I perceived a more mechanistic relationship than you intended.

Tim Cornelis

23rd July 2012, 13:33

the entirety of the working class should be active members with in the party, councils and other institutions established by the working class during the revolution.

If the majority or the entire working class is a member of a revolutionary party, then what is the point of having one in the first place? Communes and workers' councils would suffice.

And why would this party need to ban other parties?

Die Neue Zeit

23rd July 2012, 14:07

If the majority or the entire working class is a member of a revolutionary party, then what is the point of having one in the first place? Communes and workers' councils would suffice.

And why would this party need to ban other parties?

The point is class awareness and political support, and precisely because of this councils won't suffice.

Tim Cornelis

23rd July 2012, 16:41

The point is class awareness and political support, and precisely because of this councils won't suffice.

You can be class conscious without being a member of a party. Moreover, this answers why you believe in a political party to mobilise people (which, I think, no one here objects to), but not why this party needs to ban other parties!

(I've asked this three times now).

Welshy

23rd July 2012, 18:53

If the majority or the entire working class is a member of a revolutionary party, then what is the point of having one in the first place? Communes and workers' councils would suffice.

And why would this party need to ban other parties?

I think the problem is that when you hear parties you think parliamentarism. Other pro-revolutionaries won't be banned outright, but instead will be absorbed into the revolutionary party of the working class. Other parties that fight against the working class won't be banned outright because they will be fought and crushed by the working class and its organs. The point of the party is to provide political organization for the working class and a certain amount of centralization (centralization does not mean bureaucratic, so don't try to twist my words) it needs in order carry out the revolution. Councils while they will also be vehicles for the working class to carry out revolution have other jobs that involve economic organization of society and helping running other daily aspects of life that will take up much other their time and resources. For this reason councils cannot by themselves carry out all aspects of the revolution. So I guess when I talk about a one party state I mean a de facto one party, where similar minded groups will be absorbs and turned into groups with in the party and pro-capitalist groups are crushed.

Also having a multiparty system would be to allow remnants of bourgeois democratic organization survive and make it difficult for the party and state dissolve after all serious pro-capitalist forces have been destroyed.

For an anarchist and all your criticisms of parliamentarism you seem to really like ideas that heavily connected bourgeois society.

Brosa Luxemburg

23rd July 2012, 21:15

no, I'm a communist

Thank you so much for participating in this discussion, elaborating on your points, and making intriguing and well-developed arguments. Your contribution was very helpful.

:rolleyes:

Die Neue Zeit

24th July 2012, 04:37

You can be class conscious without being a member of a party. Moreover, this answers why you believe in a political party to mobilise people (which, I think, no one here objects to), but not why this party needs to ban other parties!

(I've asked this three times now).

When Marx and Engels declared the necessity of organizing into a political party, they did not say "into a political party or into political parties" or "into a political party or two." They were quite clear about a singular party-movement.

Of course one can be class-conscious without being a member of a party, but there is greater obligation to join a party-movement when it has momentum.

Ostrinski

24th July 2012, 04:41

Damn, tied at 38.

MarxSchmarx

24th July 2012, 04:55

Comrade, I'm probably one of the select few here who advocates a genuine one-party system, in contrast to the de facto "No-Party State" case you presented (de facto because I read Moshe Lewin's work on the fiction of the "ruling party").

There can be differences, but I'm confident they can be reconciled by means of organized tendencies, not factions or separate parties. The minority could sure organize, agitate, hold meetings, etc. to gain support for its views. However, the initiative to abolish selectively without gaining support would violate majority rule and unity in action.

Moreover, the state will have been gone by that point, anyway. I define it as the sum of the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes. That's why I say "one-party system" and not "one-party state."

I do think the difference is that perhaps both of us see the transition from bourgeois rule as occurring rather abruptly, with alternative entities and mechanisms for working class rule being established relatively quickly in lieu of the classic state apparatus. But I'm not sure this is the prevailing image even among leninists (i.e., trots and various stalinists). Indeed, I think whether we really call something an "organized tendency or faction" or "a party" in a system that is radically different from the role of parties in bourgeois democracy is to some extent simply a reflection that a"pre-revolution" an entity was a party, and anything that arose "post-revolution" is a faction.

I suppose this happens under bourgeois rule as well. Queen Elizabeth isn't really a sovereign, but she is called that and in fact the plain language meaning of sovereignty only applies to her in the most arcane sense. But in that sense, I think tolerance of open, organized factionalism means that you have, for all intents and purposes in a system you describe, basically what most of us rhrough our pre-socialist spectacles would call "mutliple parties"

There's always the danger of people confusing Soviet-era nomenclature with real socialist tactics.

Could you clarify what you mean by that? For instance, I am under the impression that some features of the state and socialism under the USSR were genuinely interpreted to be meant as transitional mechanisms, but that this is also a fairly mainstream view, at least among those subscribing to the capitalism -> socialism -> communism path of development.

A state is not something you can declare abolished. The state is connect to class society, so there will still be a state if the capitalists and their allies still exist and are fighting the working class. Any attempt to get rid of the state controlled by the working class would be to cave into these forces and leave working class helpless. If the capitalists and their allies cease to exist and are no longer fighting the working class the state will cease to exist because there will be no working class anymore (as the basis for these classes would have been long abolished) and any threat of counterrevolution will be destroyed. So the situation you are proposing is meaningless.

Not really. Flip it the other way around - suppose a vocal minority (10-20%) of people feel that we still need the state apparatus even though a strong majority feels the capitalists have been dealt with and we are ready to begin dismantling the state. Suppose the minority organize, agitate etc... to retain the state apparatus and use that apparatus to continue the persistence of teh state. Are you saying they should effectively be prohibited from doing so ?

Also by the point you are talking about, the entirety of the working class should be active members with in the party, councils and other institutions established by the working class during the revolution. The only people who would be outside of them would be those who are fighting the working class. With in this party minority opinions should be allowed to become majority opinions thus making any need to form a separate party non-existent.

But the point is that for people who are outside the party, although they may participate in councils and "other institutions", how would you propose they organize if they see the interests of the party as being opposed to the interests of, say, the councils and "other institutions"?

Moreover, suppose some workers feel that the party/councils/other institutions have been coopted by counter revolutionaries and bureaucratic reaction. What are they to do if they feel compelled to organize outside your approved venues?

Die Neue Zeit

24th July 2012, 05:06

I do think the difference is that perhaps both of us see the transition from bourgeois rule as occurring rather abruptly, with alternative entities and mechanisms for working class rule being established relatively quickly in lieu of the classic state apparatus. But I'm not sure this is the prevailing image even among leninists (i.e., trots and various stalinists). Indeed, I think whether we really call something an "organized tendency or faction" or "a party" in a system that is radically different from the role of parties in bourgeois democracy is to some extent simply a reflection that a"pre-revolution" an entity was a party, and anything that arose "post-revolution" is a faction.

I suppose this happens under bourgeois rule as well. Queen Elizabeth isn't really a sovereign, but she is called that and in fact the plain language meaning of sovereignty only applies to her in the most arcane sense. But in that sense, I think tolerance of open, organized factionalism means that you have, for all intents and purposes in a system you describe, basically what most of us rhrough our pre-socialist spectacles would call "mutliple parties"

Well, comrade, there might be the possibility of multiple electoral machines post-revolution up for grabs, even in a demarchy (via random balloting, for example). However, I envision any such possibility as being merely the fulfillment of Stalin's original vision of multiple CPSU candidates competing with one another for Supreme Soviet seats, not Lenin's "two Bolshevik parties" quote to a journalist.

The fundamental difference is that the membership dues would and should still belong to the singular class institution (a.k.a. party-movement), not appropriated by the separate electoral machines (which I've derided in today's sense for daring to call themselves "parties" when they're anything but).

NOTE: I'm for tendencies, but against factions and factionalism. I wrote about this already in my work, citing Marx vs. Bakunin and not Lenin for my anti-factions stance.

Not really. Flip it the other way around - suppose a vocal minority (10-20%) of people feel that we still need the state apparatus even though a strong majority feels the capitalists have been dealt with and we are ready to begin dismantling the state. Suppose the minority organize, agitate etc... to retain the state apparatus and use that apparatus to continue the persistence of teh state. Are you saying they should effectively be prohibited from doing so ?

Now you pose the opposite example, comrade! My answer to that question is an emphatic Yes. These minority statists should be dealt with the same way as a majority "politburo" should deal with minoritarian dismantlers of workers institutions.

But the point is that for people who are outside the party, although they may participate in councils and "other institutions", how would you propose they organize if they see the interests of the party as being opposed to the interests of, say, the councils and "other institutions"?

You know my stance on that one already, comrade. Only overt party councils are viable in the long term. I wrote about party-movements having things like "central workers councils" and "executive workers councils" replacing party committees in name.

Tim Cornelis

24th July 2012, 11:03

I think the problem is that when you hear parties you think parliamentarism. Other pro-revolutionaries won't be banned outright, but instead will be absorbed into the revolutionary party of the working class. Other parties that fight against the working class won't be banned outright because they will be fought and crushed by the working class and its organs.

The point of the party is to provide political organization for the working class and a certain amount of centralization (centralization does not mean bureaucratic, so don't try to twist my words) it needs in order carry out the revolution.

And why is it impossible to have a central organs on top of the communes and workers' councils that is not a party?

Councils while they will also be vehicles for the working class to carry out revolution have other jobs that involve economic organization of society and helping running other daily aspects of life that will take up much other their time and resources.

So the "Party" is basically a parallel organisation for "other daily aspects of life" (I can't imagine what, but whatever).

For this reason councils cannot by themselves carry out all aspects of the revolution.

You are begging the question here, why.

So I guess when I talk about a one party state I mean a de facto one party, where similar minded groups will be absorbs and turned into groups with in the party and pro-capitalist groups are crushed.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a single-party state.

Also having a multiparty system would be to allow remnants of bourgeois democratic organization survive and make it difficult for the party and state dissolve after all serious pro-capitalist forces have been destroyed.

False dichotomy.

For an anarchist and all your criticisms of parliamentarism you seem to really like ideas that heavily connected bourgeois society.

I don't understand how you can think I want to abolish parliamentarianism, yet keep a multi-party system which implies parliamentarianism.

The Burgundy Rose

24th July 2012, 13:44

i support a no-party state. in fact you have to wildly misconstrue true communism to even desire a 'state' at all. The purpose of communism is to smash the state, as the state is simply the means by which the established elite control and oppress the proletariat in order to maintain their grip on power. A party is a grouping of relatively similarly minded people who are coalesced, sometimes forcibly, into representing one set of ideals and policies, and the elements within such a political entity are brought into line with these ideals. i support the idea of direct democracy like of that in Switzerland, i do not think there is a need to impose equality upon people, i think they will seek a relatively egalitarian society for themselves through this loose and flexible political structure.

Welshy

24th July 2012, 16:03

And why is it impossible to have a central organs on top of the communes and workers' councils that is not a party?

The communes and workers' councils will work together with the party, but communes and workers councils are by their nature fairly decentralized things. So the party helps introduce the centralization necessary to coordinate revolutionary actions on a large, international scale. So if you want you could view the party as the central organ at the top of the councils and communes.

So the "Party" is basically a parallel organisation for "other daily aspects of life" (I can't imagine what, but whatever).

No. I said the councils take care of the daily aspects of life, where as coordinating revolutionary actions and the fight against counter-revolutionaries is the role the party. The party will also create the centralized structures or centralize the councils in a way necessary to organize production and other things on an international scale after the revolution.

You are begging the question here, why.

As I said the councils have other things to see to that will take up their time and resources, so councils are not enough to carry out the revolution.

I wouldn't necessarily call that a single-party state.

But it is. You have one party in control of the state and all other parties are absorbed into it or are crushed. I don't see how it can be called anything else.

False dichotomy.

No it isn't. If you have multiple parties, then you will set the stage for power struggles between the largest parties and this power struggle could develop into outright armed conflict. I'm not saying it always will, but you are creating that possibility. If you can describe a multiparty system that doesn't fall into bourgeois democratic trap of "vote for X party candidate for Y office" instead of actively organizing the working class into running society and the state, then I will concede I am wrong on this party. Though I will still argue that have multiparties is unnecessary.

I have to ask you a question. Why do you consider a multiparty system to a system where you have a one party system as the result of the merger of pro-revolutionary working class forces that seeks to make all of the working class active members and where minority opinions can try to become majority opinions? Also if you have two or more pro-revolutionary parties, why wouldn't they merged into one party and become tendencies in it based on what positions that they differ on and where they can try to become majority opinions on those positions? Also would you allow pro-capitalist parties to continue to exist? If so why?

I don't understand how you can think I want to abolish parliamentarianism, yet keep a multi-party system which implies parliamentarianism.

It's because I think you are upholding a contradictory position, thats why I mentioned it. However like I said above, if you describe a multiparty system that doesn't fall into parliamentarianism then I will concede that you are not holding a necessarily contradictory position. (your support of a multiparty system and opposition to parliamentary democracy).

Welshy

24th July 2012, 16:19

Not really. Flip it the other way around - suppose a vocal minority (10-20%) of people feel that we still need the state apparatus even though a strong majority feels the capitalists have been dealt with and we are ready to begin dismantling the state. Suppose the minority organize, agitate etc... to retain the state apparatus and use that apparatus to continue the persistence of teh state. Are you saying they should effectively be prohibited from doing so ?

Then the state should be dismantled and the pro-statists should make arguments to try to become a majority opinion and if they can't then hopefully the other group was right about the capitalists. If they were wrong then the pro-statists can use that to argue for a temporary rebuilding of the state apparatus to destroy the remaining capitalist forces after which the state will be dissolved. They shouldn't form a new party.

But the point is that for people who are outside the party, although they may participate in councils and "other institutions", how would you propose they organize if they see the interests of the party as being opposed to the interests of, say, the councils and "other institutions"?

That is the point about trying to organize all of the working class with in the party and to allow for minority opinions to become majority. However I don't think that looking at as being the party opposed to the interests of the councils and other institutions is the best example, as one could imagine a case where the councils are acting against the interests of the working class just like one could imagine the party doing so. So it is probably better to rephrase what you are asking in terms of beign opposed to the interests of the working class. In either case it would be necessary for them to join and wage struggle against the elements who oppose the interests of the working class as to not split the working class movement at its most vulnerable, during the revolution.

Moreover, suppose some workers feel that the party/councils/other institutions have been coopted by counter revolutionaries and bureaucratic reaction. What are they to do if they feel compelled to organize outside your approved venues?

It is not a matter of approved venues it is the matter of not splitting the working class movement when vulnerable. So if the party or the councils have been coopted then it is first the job of the opposition to these elements to gain majority support of the workers while waging a struggle against these elements. If internal struggle is made impossible, then a split, while a sad occasion, would be necessary and the fight to can majority support continues while the fight against the counter-revolutionaries continue. However if we reach this point then other horrible stuff may have probably gone on, in which case the outlook for the future of the revolution may be bleak. But I believe splitting should be a last option when all else has failed in such extreme circumstances. If it is just a matter of your tendency on a particular issue was unable to get majority support, then splitting should not take place and your tendency should not sabotage implementing the decision. Then if it fails you can use that to argue for your position(s) in the future.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th July 2012, 12:14

Brosa Luxemburg

25th July 2012, 16:20

Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless.

I would agree.

It's disappointing (though not entirely unexpected) that many of those who self-identify as communists do not seem to understand its core tenets, and moreover engage in political masturbation over the failed Leninist policies of the USSR, which even if you agree with them, were only ever meant for that particular time.

I used to argue this same point when I was a non-Leninist. I agree, I do not support Lenin's insistence on working within bourgeois trade union, parliaments, etc. because I feel that tactic has no relevance to more industrialized nations (I agree with Gorter's Open Letter). At the same time, I feel a mass vanguard party would be absolutely relevant to industrialized nations today.

Comrades from developed countries saying they support a one-party state should be ashamed. We should never actively support the propping up of any state.

Yeah, I am really going to be ashamed of myself because some guy on the internet told me I should. :tt2:

Welshy

25th July 2012, 16:23

Art Vandelay

25th July 2012, 16:50

Unless, boss, you consider the dictatorship of the proletariat a stateless affair, then I am not even sure what that comment was even supposed to mean, other than to apparently make us feel ashamed. Also no one is claiming that all of Lenin's policies or tactics are relevant, or that alot do not need to be updated to current material conditions; frankly this is nothing short of another caricature of Leninism.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th July 2012, 18:59

Welshy

25th July 2012, 19:21

It's a pretty straight forward question: do you support a one-party state?

No Socialist should support (and therefore, implicitly, aim for) a one-party state [i'm mainly talking about the state bit). By supporting the notion of upholding the state via the machinations of a party, you are essentially forgoing the idea of fluid material conditions and mapping out what is essentially 'Socialism in one country'. Therefore, even if the possibility of the immediate eradication of the state became possible, you would be bound to oppose it, since your dogma is to support the one-party state.

Wow that is quite the strawman you are attacking there. We are defining the state as a tool of class rule by which a class suppresses another class. To expect that the capitalists will not need suppressing, which is what you are saying by saying the state could be immediately eradicated, is completely naive and excessively optimistic.

Also I don't think it is productive to equate a one party state during the dictatorship of the proletariat with socialism in one country especially since the people here who are the most vocal for a one party state are bordigists and we are internationalists and reject the notion of socialism in country.

It's understandable that in certain situations, a proletarian communist party may take power, and the state may exist - again, given material conditions - and, if it were necessary, I would support it. But as a Socialist, my base aim is always for a stateless, moneyless and classless society, not as some utopian ideal abstracted from reality, but as an aim that needs to be drummed and drummed and drummed into the minds of conscious workers. Otherwise we just consign ourselves to repeat the failed Statist experiments of the 20th century with this negative, deformed-Marxist thought.

As if we don't recognize that (what I have bolded) as our aim, we just acknowledge the fact that the capitalists will need to be suppressed which means a state will be necessary. It's not because we love the idea of a state as something we should always have, it is just something that will necessary and will naturally form during the time when the working class has the upper hand and is actively fighting the capitalists. I've already commented on what I have meant by one party state so you will have to read my posts again if you want my definition.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th July 2012, 20:22

It's a fact that, in the developed industrial nations at least, the proletariat far outnumbers all other classes/strata added together. So what is wrong with the formation of political workers' councils to administer the political system, and workplace councils to democratically control the production process? Yes, some elements of the state will still exist as a bygone from the previous era, but let's not kid ourselves that this will be the stuff that is useful for the repression of the Capitalists - the police, the security services and the army (at least not in its current form) will not simply be commandeered as state tools to be used. These elements of the state (which would be most useful for the defined purpose of suppressing counter-revolution) are not neutral, I think this is obvious.

Any successful revolution in the developed nations will need large-scale army defections: why can't these defectors be subsumed by democratically run workers' militias? Why can't we establish alternative means of political administration, economic councils and security apparatus, to be complemented by army defectors?

Martin Blank

25th July 2012, 20:22

I answered "no" for several reasons.

First, the character of a state is based on class, not party. The very idea of a "one-party state" is itself anathema to the communist understanding of what a state is: the coercive bodies that enforce and maintain the rule of one class (or coalition of classes) over all other classes. Because the state operates based on the demands of a class -- enforces its version of "law and order" -- it cannot, as the state, function as an arm of a party. Even if the party is perceived as representing the entirety of a class (an impossibility, really), there will remain areas where the state and a party will clash over policy and actions.

Second, communists do not support any state, even the one they find themselves having to build as a means of defense against the restoration of capitalism. The workers' republic -- proletarian dictatorship -- is tolerated, not embraced, by communists. It is a temporary necessity that is to be dismantled when the threats of the ruling classes have subsided to the point of no longer posing a danger.

Third, the victory of the proletarian party-movement, concretized in the establishment of the system of workers' councils and workplace committees, the revolutionary industrial union, etc., means the end of its existence as a single body. The movement then begins to resemble its pre-revolutionary existence, with organizations and party-factions that represent different sectional interests, different strata within the working class, coming to the fore. To attempt to contain all of these differences within a single party after the revolution leads to the same outcome, regardless of which form is taken: the party comes to represent the voice of one section of the working class, with all others silenced or drowned out. Proletarian democracy becomes impossible, as the other voices within the working class are atomized or suppressed. Attempts to strike blows against counterrevolution end up landing on the jaws of the working class itself. The insular existence such a party inevitably leads further divorces it from the class itself, until the question becomes whether or not that party can even be considered a genuinely proletarian organization.

Fourth, and finally, it is the height of arrogance and elitism to assume that a singular organization, no matter how open and democratic it may be, can come to embody all of the competing interests, experiences and ideas within the working class itself. All of the words in the Oxford English Dictionary cannot make this possible. It is much more sensible to accept that there will be multiple parties, organizations and tendencies that find themselves represented in the workers' councils and workplace committees of a workers' republic. There will be communists, socialists, anarchists, syndicalists and combinations thereof in these bodies. They will be legitimate representatives of our class brothers and sisters, whether we each like it or not.

Everybody has an opinion. And you can damn well bet that once we as a class have the opportunity to express those opinions and act on them, we will certainly do so.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

25th July 2012, 20:26

^Indeed, there is also (well, mainly) the issue that a one-party state effectively means a one-ideology state. Leninism. No anarchism, no left-opposition, no Trotskyism. This is what it boils down to. A one-party state cannot be democratic. This has been shown to be the case in a multitude of historical examples. How can be ignore these and make the same mistakes again?

I shudder to think of the response of these supporters of the one-party state were the Capitalists to overthrow a left-leaning government and establish such a dictatorship. In fact, we have an example of this - Chile anyone?

Art Vandelay

25th July 2012, 20:31

This argument that you have put forward here boss is one of fairly low quality, especially for you.

It's a pretty straight forward question: do you support a one-party state?

Yes.

No Socialist should support (and therefore, implicitly, aim for) a one-party state [i'm mainly talking about the state bit). By supporting the notion of upholding the state via the machinations of a party, you are essentially forgoing the idea of fluid material conditions and mapping out what is essentially 'Socialism in one country'.

So basically what you are arguing, is that should the bourgeoisie just decide that they will give up their privilege and wealth (implausible and utopian) that we would be the ones to stop it. :rolleyes:

Therefore, even if the possibility of the immediate eradication of the state became possible, you would be bound to oppose it, since your dogma is to support the one-party state.

So I guess that this also applies to those who have stated their support of a no-party state as well then? Or are your prejudices just showing here.

It's understandable that in certain situations, a proletarian communist party may take power, and the state may exist - again, given material conditions - and, if it were necessary, I would support it.

Indeed; so do you think that the bourgeoisie will not need to be suppressed post revolution? Didn't Marx mention in the manifesto that no ruling class has ever went silently and peacefully to the dustbin of history.

But as a Socialist, my base aim is always for a stateless, moneyless and classless society, not as some utopian ideal abstracted from reality, but as an aim that needs to be drummed and drummed and drummed into the minds of conscious workers. Otherwise we just consign ourselves to repeat the failed Statist experiments of the 20th century with this negative, deformed-Marxist thought.

Honestly your communism to me seems to me to be somewhat of a rehash of certain anarchist convictions. The whole ideas that the state is needed to abolish the need for a state (just as the proletarian class is needed to abolish classes) is what that has been with Marxism since its inception.

blake 3:17

26th July 2012, 00:42

This main sound self-evident, but I would support a one-party state assuming that party had the correct line or in other words were actively pursuing a revolutionary socialist agenda.

And how would that be? I'm in favour of a multiparty system -- this would include the possibility of multiple workers parties and parties which represent other classes.

Book O'Dead

26th July 2012, 00:43

This argument that you have put forward here boss is one of fairly low quality, especially for you.
Yes.
So basically what you are arguing, is that should the bourgeoisie just decide that they will give up their privilege and wealth (implausible and utopian) that we would be the ones to stop it. :rolleyes:
So I guess that this also applies to those who have stated their support of a no-party state as well then? Or are your prejudices just showing here.
Indeed; so do you think that the bourgeoisie will not need to be suppressed post revolution? Didn't Marx mention in the manifesto that no ruling class has ever went silently and peacefully to the dustbin of history.
Honestly your communism to me seems to me to be somewhat of a rehash of certain anarchist convictions. The whole ideas that the state is needed to abolish the need for a state (just as the proletarian class is needed to abolish classes) is what that has been with Marxism since its inception.

Putting aside your somewhat distorted characterizations of your opponents' arguments, let me say this:

Unlike previous revolutions wherein, due to geographic and other limitations, victories were at best partial, the proletarian revolution will strike at the very heart of ruling class power; Not exclusively at their political state but at the heart of all their social power: the means of production.

Having captured the means of production and consolidated their control over them, while at the same time wresting control over the political state (their executive committee), there is little possibility that members of the former ruling class will mount any sort of credible attempt to overthrow the workers' dictatorship.

Remember this: for the socialist revolution to succeed, it must be a two-pronged, simultaneous attack on the political state and on the capitalist economic system.

Brosa Luxemburg

26th July 2012, 00:46

the proletarian revolution will strike at the very heart of ruling class power; Not exclusively at their political state but at the heart of all their social power: the means of production.

No one disagrees.

Having captured the means of production and consolidated their control over them, while at the same time wresting control over the political state (their executive committee), there is little possibility that members of the former ruling class will mount any sort of credible attempt to overthrow the workers' dictatorship.

I disagree completely. If history has shown us anything, it is that the complete opposite will happen.

Book O'Dead

26th July 2012, 00:46

And how would that be? I'm in favour of a multiparty system -- this would include the possibility of multiple workers parties and parties which represent other classes.

I would also avoid calling them 'parties', as they may not be politically organized at all. I would rather call them sectors of the working class..

Book O'Dead

26th July 2012, 00:49

No one disagrees.

I disagree completely. If history has shown us anything, it is that the complete opposite will happen.

That's only because you insist on ignoring the difference in prevailing material conditions of previous revolutions and those of today.

Brosa Luxemburg

26th July 2012, 00:54

That's only because you insist on ignoring the difference in prevailing material conditions of previous revolutions and those of today.

Nope, that's because historically the bourgeoisie and it's allies always try to regain power. If it is possible to transition to socialism without the threat of bourgeois counter-revolution that would be great, but historically this has never happened so it would be wrong to assume that we could transition without such a threat.

Die Neue Zeit

26th July 2012, 04:46

I answered "no" for several reasons.

First, the character of a state is based on class, not party. The very idea of a "one-party state" is itself anathema to the communist understanding of what a state is: the coercive bodies that enforce and maintain the rule of one class (or coalition of classes) over all other classes. Because the state operates based on the demands of a class -- enforces its version of "law and order" -- it cannot, as the state, function as an arm of a party. Even if the party is perceived as representing the entirety of a class (an impossibility, really), there will remain areas where the state and a party will clash over policy and actions.

You forgot to add that, with respect to administration and politics, the state has more of the former, and real parties the latter. This would jive with the last part of your paragraph.

Second, communists do not support any state, even the one they find themselves having to build as a means of defense against the restoration of capitalism. The workers' republic -- proletarian dictatorship -- is tolerated, not embraced, by communists. It is a temporary necessity that is to be dismantled when the threats of the ruling classes have subsided to the point of no longer posing a danger.

Yeah, the poll should have stated "system" instead of "state."

Third, the victory of the proletarian party-movement, concretized in the establishment of the system of workers' councils and workplace committees, the revolutionary industrial union, etc., means the end of its existence as a single body. The movement then begins to resemble its pre-revolutionary existence, with organizations and party-factions that represent different sectional interests, different strata within the working class, coming to the fore. To attempt to contain all of these differences within a single party after the revolution leads to the same outcome, regardless of which form is taken: the party comes to represent the voice of one section of the working class, with all others silenced or drowned out. Proletarian democracy becomes impossible, as the other voices within the working class are atomized or suppressed. Attempts to strike blows against counterrevolution end up landing on the jaws of the working class itself. The insular existence such a party inevitably leads further divorces it from the class itself, until the question becomes whether or not that party can even be considered a genuinely proletarian organization.

Why the skepticism? As a comrade noted above, this all comes down to the imperative for the proletariat to be able to maintain democratic functions internally. If this is the case, then organizational plurality is quite superfluous.

Fourth, and finally, it is the height of arrogance and elitism to assume that a singular organization, no matter how open and democratic it may be, can come to embody all of the competing interests, experiences and ideas within the working class itself.

Again, why the skepticism? Sure, mass class movements might leave out representation for the most backward elements of the class, but with the proper mechanisms it can be very representative of the different strata within it.

A mathematical example would be stratified sampling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratified_sampling

Everybody has an opinion. And you can damn well bet that once we as a class have the opportunity to express those opinions and act on them, we will certainly do so.

I agree here, but how does this take into account unity in action?

Ocean Seal

26th July 2012, 14:07

Tim Cornelis

26th July 2012, 15:20

The communes and workers' councils will work together with the party, but communes and workers councils are by their nature fairly decentralized things. So the party helps introduce the centralization necessary to coordinate revolutionary actions on a large, international scale. So if you want you could view the party as the central organ at the top of the councils and communes.

I wouldn't really call that a party, more like executive committees above workers' councils and communes (that could be run from below or above—decentralised or centralised respectively).

No. I said the councils take care of the daily aspects of life, where as coordinating revolutionary actions and the fight against counter-revolutionaries is the role the party.

Coordination does not require a political party. Coordination will be necessary even hundreds of years after higher-phase communism has been attained, but this coordination will be done by federations of mandated, recallable delegates under communism in all likeliness. So why should a party, in the transition, be necessary, but not after the transition?

The fighting of counter-revolution will be done by workers' militias that should operate, in my view, based on democratic centralism, with the central command being half elected by workers' organs (either communes or workers' councils).

The party will also create the centralized structures or centralize the councils in a way necessary to organize production and other things on an international scale after the revolution.

First, why couldn't this be done through federalism?
Second, why a "party", which is political, and not a producers' delegation committee of some sort which is economic in nature?

As I said the councils have other things to see to that will take up their time and resources, so councils are not enough to carry out the revolution.

What is the revolution if not a social transformation of the economy and social structure of society? Workers' councils would conduct production, consumer council would conduct distribution, and communes would decide collective consumption, and workers' militias would fight off counter-revolutionaries. Where is this party for then?

But it is. You have one party in control of the state and all other parties are absorbed into it or are crushed. I don't see how it can be called anything else.

Ok.

No it isn't. If you have multiple parties, then you will set the stage for power struggles between the largest parties and this power struggle could develop into outright armed conflict. I'm not saying it always will, but you are creating that possibility. If you can describe a multiparty system that doesn't fall into bourgeois democratic trap of "vote for X party candidate for Y office" instead of actively organizing the working class into running society and the state, then I will concede I am wrong on this party. Though I will still argue that have multiparties is unnecessary.

But then you are assuming the initial point that power will be based on political parties. Power struggles between parties are only necessary when you have a party-based system.

If you have communes and workers' councils and these make the decisions, then this will render political parties obsolete. Federations and their committees will consist of delegates, not political parties. These individual delegates may be members of a political party, but a political party will never gain power in itself.

I have to ask you a question. Why do you consider a multiparty system to a system where you have a one party system as the result of the merger of pro-revolutionary working class forces that seeks to make all of the working class active members and where minority opinions can try to become majority opinions?

It's a false dichotomy, I think, as a single-party system implies a political party has political power, a multi-party system implies that in this system multiple political parties have political power. I don't advocate a system in which any political party holds political power, but rather the revolutionary elements of the working class holds power through their self-organised organs of power, i.e. workers' council, communes, and federations thereof.

Also if you have two or more pro-revolutionary parties, why wouldn't they merged into one party and become tendencies in it based on what positions that they differ on and where they can try to become majority opinions on those positions?

If they want to sure, but I don't see the necessity of having a political party possess political power, rather than the working class, or at least the revolutionary elements in it.

Also would you allow pro-capitalist parties to continue to exist? If so why?

The revolution will start at the initiative of a significant part of the working class—the majority. They are convinced of a revolutionary socialist solution to prevailing social and economic problems, at this point I don't see capitalist parties as a threat ideologically (would the mere existence of a capitalist party cast doubt on a socialist revolution you yourself helped started and supported? I doubt so).

It's because I think you are upholding a contradictory position, thats why I mentioned it. However like I said above, if you describe a multiparty system that doesn't fall into parliamentarianism then I will concede that you are not holding a necessarily contradictory position. (your support of a multiparty system and opposition to parliamentary democracy).

The first assumption is wrong, a nation does not even have to be socialist for a party to not imply parliamentalism.

What?

Art Vandelay

26th July 2012, 17:02

Tim Cornelis

26th July 2012, 17:34

Tim, I just wanted to jump in here and make a comment. Personally, I find you to probably the best anarchist poster on the site and someone who influenced my views greatly (whether or not you know it) during period as an anarchist. But what I feel like I need to say is that by decentralizing the organization of the revolution you are robbing it of its power (unnecessarily I might add). Centralization is much much more efficient and why should we allow the bourgeoisie a more effecient form of organization than the proletariat?

Let me state first that I wouldn't call centralisation or decentralisation inherently inefficient or efficient an sich. For example, "decentralised" warfare may be efficient some times, but centralised command in combat may be more efficient other times. Generally, it's the latter. Hence I think that the military aspect of the revolution ought to be centralised based on the principle of democratic centralism.

That being said, you are being unclear: efficient at what? Organising production? Not necessarily, often those more involved in the daily aspects of running a workplace know better how to run it than some detached boss. Hence why workers' self-management is more efficient than hierarchical, centralised management (See Kevin Carson's Libertarian Theory (PDF (http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/otkc11.pdf))). Similarly, I imagine that if those involved actually run the things they are involved with in terms of the social transformation during the revolution, it will run more efficient than when there is someone in a central position making decisions for something that perhaps make sense on paper, but does not translate well into the real world.

Decentralisation has the obvious advantage over centralisation of being much more resilient. Grouping and regroup, recovering social infrastructure after blows during a counter-revolution is much more efficient than have it down by some central authority whom may have an unclear view of the situation (in contrast to those who are knee-deep in it). You can't cut off the head of a decentralised network, if you will.

Moreover, what is meant by centralisation? For example, Cornelius Castoriadis seems to mean by "centralisation" what I would still call decentralisation. I agree with the following description of a councilist-based system by anarchist Thom Holterman:

1. Decentralisation, that is to say, optimal autonomy of the smaller subsystems pertaining to the larger.

2. Construction of relations that

a) make intervention of those involved in the decision-making process of the carriers [delegates] of functions possible

b) the duty to accountability that make functions by democratic carriers [delegates] effective (recall)

3. Multiple headed, collegial leadership

4. Rotation of (elected) posts

Yet Cornelius Castoriadis says:

But in a socialist society there will be no conflict between centralization and the autonomy of local organizations, for both functions will be exercised by the same institutions. There will be no separate apparatus whose function it will be to reunite what. it has itself smashed up, which absurd task (need we recall it) is precisely the function of a modern bureaucracy.

Which seems to conform to Holterman's description of a decentralised, council-based network.

That is not to say that I rule out any form of centralisation, certainly not, if during the course of the revolution it turns out that some central body is necessary—which may or may not be inevitable—then I would accept this. But using that as a default model seems undesirable to me. In fact, centralised bodies would emerge 'spontaneously' without preconceived plan if they are necessary.

Martin Blank

26th July 2012, 23:53

Why the skepticism?...

It's not skepticism per se. It's looking at history and seeing its dynamics. Sure, in terms of forms, you can keep it all looking like a singular organization, but the reality would still be one where it has broken down into various competing factions and tendencies, arguing publicly against each other in the workers' councils and workplace committees. It makes more sense, and is much more honest, to let the organizational devolution take place.

The working class is not a homogeneous mass. There are varying political viewpoints within it, from reactionary to revolutionary. Obviously, the proletarian party-movement will be composed of the revolutionary elements, but these elements -- anarchist, communist, socialist, syndicalist, etc. -- will only be uniting for the purposes of raising the proletariat to being a class-for-itself, overthrowing the supremacy of the ruling classes and assuming state power in the form of a workers' republic. After that, once the workers' councils, workplace committees, revolutionary industrial unions, etc., have become the organs of the transitional semi-state, the task of the proletarian party-movement is at an end. That is the point where those same tendencies mentioned above begin to differ on the course of action.

Anarchists will push for a rapid abolition of the state.
Syndicalists will argue for more decentralized power to the unions and workplace committees.
Socialists will hold fast to the state itself.
Communists will continue to fight for the extension of the revolution internationally before further steps are taken.
Workers not in the advanced ranks will demand that revolutionary transformation not be "forced" and say it should take a more evolutionary path.
Workers still beholden to the political illusions of capitalism will continue to call the revolution and workers' republic adventurism and doomed to failure.

Each of these tendencies will inevitably have a voice in the organs of the workers' republic. They will be competing with, and at moments hostile toward, each other. There will be moments when one tendency will declare another to be "counterrevolutionary" and demand they be driven out. Moreover, there will be moments when intra-tendency divisions mimic these larger tensions.

This cannot be maintained in a single organization, nor should it be. It doesn't matter how democratic and sincere it is about the rights of its members, the divisions are of a principled character and will inevitably lead to splits and schisms. The overarching coordinating elements of the pre-revolutionary proletarian party-movement will become nothing but an empty shell. Again, this is not skepticism. This is historical experience.

Any tendency or trend that supports the development of society toward communism -- toward the classless, stateless, moneyless society of general freedom -- should be allowed an independent existence and its own voice in the workers' republic. Proletarian democracy should not be sacrificed in the name of trying to maintain a political entity whose time has passed.

I agree here, but how does this take into account unity in action?

Unity in action -- real unity in action -- is not something that can be imposed. There must be agreement before there can be unity. This is the central failing of democratic centralism as an organizational theory. Centralism must be a conscious, voluntary act, based on political agreement. It cannot be imposed by any committee or organization on an unwilling and dissenting group. If you genuinely desire unity in action, then you have to win the political argument. Period.

Die Neue Zeit

27th July 2012, 05:07

It's not skepticism per se. It's looking at history and seeing its dynamics. Sure, in terms of forms, you can keep it all looking like a singular organization, but the reality would still be one where it has broken down into various competing factions and tendencies, arguing publicly against each other in the workers' councils and workplace committees.

I suppose my musings on Sociopolitical Syndicalism were an attempt to "keep it all looking like a singular organization."

It makes more sense, and is much more honest, to let the organizational devolution take place.

Having read comrade Macnair's Revolutionary Strategy, the reason I have argued for the opposite was his statement "party-states everywhere":

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/625/the-minimum-platform-and-extreme-democracy (new site :D )

He stated that the American War of Independence led to a "Whig party-state" that drove out the Tories before splitting into Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. He also stated that Britain has since the 19th century been a Hanoverian-Tory "party"-state (Libs, Labs, and Cons all being descended from this older Tory heritage), and that France since 1958 has been a Gaullist "party"-state.

I have been making an honest case for acknowledging this early "party"-state condition more formally.

Obviously, the proletarian party-movement will be composed of the revolutionary elements, but these elements -- anarchist, communist, socialist, syndicalist, etc. -- will only be uniting for the purposes of raising the proletariat to being a class-for-itself, overthrowing the supremacy of the ruling classes and assuming state power in the form of a workers' republic. After that, once the workers' councils, workplace committees, revolutionary industrial unions, etc., have become the organs of the transitional semi-state, the task of the proletarian party-movement is at an end.

Funny, because the evolution in my personal definition of "the state" (the sum of the repressive instruments for the rule of minority classes, thus the accommodation of the class-strugglist anarchist take on "the state") has led me to conclude that the party-movement system must necessarily outlast "the state."

Workers not in the advanced ranks will demand that revolutionary transformation not be "forced" and say it should take a more evolutionary path.

Workers still beholden to the political illusions of capitalism will continue to call the revolution and workers' republic adventurism and doomed to failure.

Huh? I can sorta understand the presence of the first category being part of the party-movement, but I don't know how one could reconcile the last category with the definition of "proletarian parties" by Marx and Engels. :confused:

Maybe you meant "economic illusions of generalized commodity production will continue to call the social revolution adventurism"? That way, hardcore cooperativists could be referred to. :confused:

Unity in action -- [I]real unity in action -- is not something that can be imposed. There must be agreement before there can be unity. This is the central failing of democratic centralism as an organizational theory. Centralism must be a conscious, voluntary act, based on political agreement. It cannot be imposed by any committee or organization on an unwilling and dissenting group. If you genuinely desire unity in action, then you have to win the political argument. Period.

What about the basic premise of majority rule? Winning the public policy(-making) argument or some other political argument, without any tricky schemes, is supposed to result in majority rule.

Martin Blank

27th July 2012, 06:42

He stated that the American War of Independence led to a "Whig party-state" that drove out the Tories before splitting into Federalists and Democratic-Republicans. He also stated that Britain has since the 19th century been a Hanoverian-Tory "party"-state (Libs, Labs, and Cons all being descended from this older Tory heritage), and that France since 1958 has been a Gaullist "party"-state.

In these examples (to which I would add the French Revolution, the democratic revolutions of 1848-1851, etc.), you see fundamentally the same dynamic: The party-movement that encompasses the leading ranks of the revolution only hold together until their immediate enemy is defeated and has withdrawn from the field. After that, the same divisions and differences that had tied the movement in knots prior to the opening of the revolutionary period re-emerge on a new level.

That said, there are other problems with Macnair's methodology, but that's a discussion for another time.

Huh? I can sorta understand the presence of the first category being part of the party-movement, but I don't know how one could reconcile the last category with the definition of "proletarian parties" by Marx and Engels. :confused:

I skipped a step in thinking here, which is what is creating the confusion.

The proletarian party-movement itself, insofar as it has any kind of overarching coordinating bodies, will essentially be an ad hoc phenomenon. The base organizations for the party-movement will be the workers' councils, workplace committees, revolutionary industrial union movement, the party-factions, etc. When the councils, committees and unions become the basis of the transitional semi-state, they will begin to incorporate the masses of workers as a whole and no longer be merely "vanguard" bodies. Thus, you will have all shades of opinion existing in the working class being expressed in these organizations, including those opinions of the more backward strata. This is unavoidable unless you believe that only a portion of the working class is entitled to rule.

This is why I talked about those coordinating bodies becoming an empty shell. As these basic organizations become representative of the class as a whole in the period of the transition from capitalism to communism, the structures that were created to coordinate the successful revolution become superfluous. As the pressures of the transition begin to weigh on these bodies, as well as on the various tendencies and party-factions, there will be splits (and mergers). But it will be impossible to maintain the old, pre-revolutionary organizational forms as they were. The material conditions will not allow for it.

Now, if you want to argue that this would still qualify under Macnair's definition of a singular "party-state", then that's fine. It's obscurantist, but it's still fine.

What about the basic premise of majority rule? Winning the public policy(-making) argument or some other political argument, without any tricky schemes, is supposed to result in majority rule.

The main problem with this argument is that of agreement. It is one thing for a voluntary union of people to expect unity in action. It is another thing entirely when you step away from that kind of organization and into a society. The transition from capitalism to communism is not a voluntary union; there will be millions of people -- not just dispossessed bourgeois and petty bourgeois, but also proletarians -- who are a part of this society involuntarily. They were born here and lived here all their lives, but never got involved with "politics". And yet, we now expect them to participate in the building of a new society (or, at the very least, not actively fight against its development). Simple, unconscious "majority rule" can actually be dangerous in a situation like this, since it can breed counterrevolution. In such a situation, until more or less everyone is on the same page, it may be better to seek consensus (at least among workers) than to simply say, "We have a majority, so suck it!"

Art Vandelay

27th July 2012, 18:15

Let me state first that I wouldn't call centralisation or decentralisation inherently inefficient or efficient an sich. For example, "decentralised" warfare may be efficient some times, but centralised command in combat may be more efficient other times. Generally, it's the latter. Hence I think that the military aspect of the revolution ought to be centralised based on the principle of democratic centralism.

I think that it is fairly safe to say, given historical examples, that centralized warfare is much much more efficient than decentralized warfare; a statement which you seem to agree with. Now the whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to consolidate proletarian power and crush the remnants of bourgeois society. Decentralizing the organization of the revolution during the dictatorship of the proletariat (immediate post-revolutionary situation) robs the revolution of its power and gives the bourgeois the advantage of having superior and more efficient forms of organization; all in the name of a principle (decentralization, ie: power corrupts) which can be traced back to liberal thought and is held up regardless of material conditions.

Now in the past (October revolution) the Bolsheviks were faced with the task of having to industrialize and vamp up the economy; given that Marx is right this time around (revolution will break out in the belly of the beast, if you will) such tasks will be unnecessary, ie: the economy will already be developed sufficiently for a socialist economy. The most important task in that case, given if a warfare situation arises (which I few extremely likely, after all every disposed ruling class in history has mounted an counter-revolution) then perhaps the most important economic task would be resource allocation. In a time of war, when resources need to get to certain areas immediately, discussion and democracy are not always possible.

That being said, you are being unclear: efficient at what? Organising production? Not necessarily, often those more involved in the daily aspects of running a workplace know better how to run it than some detached boss. Hence why workers' self-management is more efficient than hierarchical, centralised management (See Kevin Carson's Libertarian Theory (PDF (http://www.mutualist.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/otkc11.pdf))).

I haven't argued otherwise, after all we are attempting to get to a stateless society after all; if I didn't think workers self-management would be the most desirable way to organize production than I wouldn't be a socialist. However during the dictatorship of the proletariat, as stated above, the material conditions do not always correspond to what we would like or envision.

Similarly, I imagine that if those involved actually run the things they are involved with in terms of the social transformation during the revolution, it will run more efficient than when there is someone in a central position making decisions for something that perhaps make sense on paper, but does not translate well into the real world.

For example, during the civil war in Russia, many people were unhappy with their produce and products being seized by the Bolsheviks; but during a time of war, they didn't have the luxury of people coming around to decide that they would give up their products. They were needed to successfully save the revolution from the impeding counter-revolution, so they were taken.

Decentralisation has the obvious advantage over centralisation of being much more resilient. Grouping and regroup, recovering social infrastructure after blows during a counter-revolution is much more efficient than have it down by some central authority whom may have an unclear view of the situation (in contrast to those who are knee-deep in it). You can't cut off the head of a decentralised network, if you will.

Which is why any central authority will need to have a clear and accurate portrayal of the actual conditions on the ground. We are not arguing for some unchecked authority, we are arguing for the entirety of the class to be encompassed and active in the party.

That is not to say that I rule out any form of centralisation, certainly not, if during the course of the revolution it turns out that some central body is necessary—which may or may not be inevitable—then I would accept this. But using that as a default model seems undesirable to me. In fact, centralised bodies would emerge 'spontaneously' without preconceived plan if they are necessary.

How would such a centralized body emerge spontaneously? I think what we are saying is that a centralized body will undoubtedly needed, unless you think the bourgeoisie will simply give up their privilege and that said centralized body will emerge organically out of the class struggle.

Revolution starts with U

29th July 2012, 01:15

People should be skeptical about everything, ever...

I don't know why anyone would suggest otherwise... :confused:

Peoples' War

29th July 2012, 02:02

Art Vandelay

29th July 2012, 04:57

I like the idea of a single party, though, we can't deny that there will be other parties, and they won't always be counter-revolutionary, but may have different views on what is to be done on land reform, etc.

I'm not sure.

Indeed, but I would argue that separate parties would be unnecessary and create unnecessary divisions. Factions would be much more beneficial.

Die Neue Zeit

29th July 2012, 04:59

Indeed, but I would argue that separate parties would be unnecessary and create unnecessary divisions. Factions would be much more beneficial.

Tendencies, comrade, not factions (per my reply to Positivist on this).

Art Vandelay

29th July 2012, 05:15

Tendencies, comrade, not factions (per my reply to Positivist on this).

Comrade, can you explain the difference? To the laymen, like myself, they seem like synonyms.

Die Neue Zeit

29th July 2012, 05:29

Comrade, can you explain the difference? To the laymen, like myself, they seem like synonyms.

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

[My work-in-progress thus cites the Marx precedent and not the Bolshevik one in calling for a very permanent ban on groupings that fit my definition of "factions" and "factionalism"]

Art Vandelay

29th July 2012, 05:47

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

[My work-in-progress thus cites the Marx precedent and not the Bolshevik one in calling for a very permanent ban on groupings that fit my definition of "factions" and "factionalism"]

I see comrade and would have to undoubtedly agree. Although my one comment would be that the charge of authoritarianism against Marx was not a baseless one; Marx was an authoritarian, something which should be applauded, not condemned.

Edit: although Bakunin's criticism levied against Marx, was not a very good argument at all.

Grenzer

29th July 2012, 09:32

Could you explain this a little more :confused: I don't think Bordigists advocate the separation of "real parties from real movements and vice versa" like you say, and I can provide quotes from Bordiga if you would like (yet, I would like to here what you have to say first).

They do, as all Leninists(in the sense of supporting a vanguard party) do. Simply put, a proletarian dictatorship is defined by the class itself exercising political power. A narrowly construed political party with only the "most advanced" portions of the class by definition cannot be defined as the class itself, it can not be substituted for the class itself.

There are really two forms I can see a proletarian dictatorship taking place. The first: political power is exercised by the proletariat via councils which encompass the class as a whole; this is comparable with the notion of a narrowly construed vanguard party, since in this situation the party is not substituting itself for the class as a whole. In the second situation, a one party state could form a proletarian dictatorship if, and only if, the party is as broad as the class itself, not merely it's most 'advanced' "vanguard".

Bordigists advocate a vanguard party taking state power, substituting the rule of the class itself with the rule of only a segment. In reality, this is a non-party since real parties are real movements which represent the class as a whole. In this sense, Bordigism does not really differ significantly from Stalinism except in the sense that it has a correct conception of the economic conditions under which capitalism is to be abolished. I believe Die Neue Zeit has summed this up most accurately with the description of Bordigism as "Social-abolitionist(correct understanding of the economic structure of genuine socialism), but not proletocratic(their conception of a proletarian dictatorship is a small ruling segment, not the class itself)". Interestingly, I have seen some left communists describe Bordigism's attitude towards councils and proletarian dictatorship as "confused", but there does not seem to be any confusion about it: They(Bordigites) have no idea what a genuine proletarian dictatorship entails(no offense to any fans of Bordiga around here, but that is my frank assessment of Bordigism as a political ideology).

So I guess my answer to the question posed by the OP is that I would support a one-party state, but only if that party is as broad as the class itself. If not, then the left communist idea of the party as an entity that exists independently of the state is much more desirable. This is not to judge either of those solutions for the purposes of this post, only that I see either situation as being compatible with a genuine proletarian dictatorship.

Tim Cornelis

29th July 2012, 11:32

I think that it is fairly safe to say, given historical examples, that centralized warfare is much much more efficient than decentralized warfare; a statement which you seem to agree with. Now the whole point of the dictatorship of the proletariat is to consolidate proletarian power and crush the remnants of bourgeois society. Decentralizing the organization of the revolution during the dictatorship of the proletariat (immediate post-revolutionary situation) robs the revolution of its power and gives the bourgeois the advantage of having superior and more efficient forms of organization; all in the name of a principle (decentralization, ie: power corrupts) which can be traced back to liberal thought and is held up regardless of material conditions.

In warfare centralised command may be more efficient, but I don't think the same goes for social organisation. A decentralised network of workers' organs is more resilient and dynamic and can more easily and efficiently adapt to fluid circumstances that will be the result of a counter-revolution.

Now in the past (October revolution) the Bolsheviks were faced with the task of having to industrialize and vamp up the economy; given that Marx is right this time around (revolution will break out in the belly of the beast, if you will) such tasks will be unnecessary, ie: the economy will already be developed sufficiently for a socialist economy. The most important task in that case, given if a warfare situation arises (which I few extremely likely, after all every disposed ruling class in history has mounted an counter-revolution) then perhaps the most important economic task would be resource allocation. In a time of war, when resources need to get to certain areas immediately, discussion and democracy are not always possible.

See below

For example, during the civil war in Russia, many people were unhappy with their produce and products being seized by the Bolsheviks; but during a time of war, they didn't have the luxury of people coming around to decide that they would give up their products. They were needed to successfully save the revolution from the impeding counter-revolution, so they were taken.

And the result was millions of deaths.

Which is why any central authority will need to have a clear and accurate portrayal of the actual conditions on the ground. We are not arguing for some unchecked authority, we are arguing for the entirety of the class to be encompassed and active in the party.

I don't see this happening. Anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, and Trotskyists may be able to operate together pre-revolution, but during the revolution they would, I think, never join a single-party. Even today, Trotskyists and Marxist-Leninists are in most countries wholly unable to be part of the same party, all because they disagree on minor historical squabbles such as the nature of the Soviet Union, which collapsed twenty years ago. I therefore can't imagine them successfully joining the same party in a situation so crucial as a revolution.

Therefore we will see the anarchists refuse to join. The minority of Trotskyists expelled, and the Marxist-Leninists impose their single-party state (for example).

You may qualify this as arguing "power corrupts" but I don't consider this relevant. Imagine the following scenario where a single-party state with the central authority it is vested in imposes various policies the working class does not agree with. Hereby you recreate the class dynamics that had previously existed: a conflict arises between the working class and the party. When you forcefully deprive workers of the products they made two things may happen:

1. It becomes undesirable to produce beyond their own needs (the result will be shortages) (agricultural workers)
2. The workers go on strike (industrial proletariat)

Then what? You send in the riot police? Declare their strike illegal? A Marxist-Leninist single-party state is likely to do so, as I've seen some members on this forum who identify as such state that "workers striking in a workers' state is tantamount to striking against themselves" in defence of banning strikes in various so-called "workers' states."

And now we have new class antagonisms.

How would such a centralized body emerge spontaneously? I think what we are saying is that a centralized body will undoubtedly needed, unless you think the bourgeoisie will simply give up their privilege and that said centralized body will emerge organically out of the class struggle.

What do you mean exactly with the last part?

Book O'Dead

29th July 2012, 14:53

I see comrade and would have to undoubtedly agree. Although my one comment would be that the charge of authoritarianism against Marx was not a baseless one; Marx was an authoritarian, something which should be applauded, not condemned.

Edit: although Bakunin's criticism levied against Marx, was not a very good argument at all.

This is false.
Karl Marx was a disciplinarian, something entirely different from your slander of him.

Die Neue Zeit

29th July 2012, 16:21

They do, as all Leninists(in the sense of supporting a vanguard party) do. Simply put, a proletarian dictatorship is defined by the class itself exercising political power. A narrowly construed political party with only the "most advanced" portions of the class by definition cannot be defined as the class itself, it can not be substituted for the class itself.

To be fair, comrade, Lars Lih defined the pre-WWI SPD as a vanguard party in the context of understanding Second International Marxism. I'd apply this label to the USPD, too.

There does come a point where "vanguard party" and "class for itself"/"class movement" do intersect with one another (mass-wise). It is only at this juncture where a vanguard party would be quite justified in becoming the ruling party. Keep in mind that this would still exclude the most obviously reactionary elements of the class, however a minority they'd have become by that point, from its ranks.

There are really two forms I can see a proletarian dictatorship taking place. The first: political power is exercised by the proletariat via councils which encompass the class as a whole; this is comparable with the notion of a narrowly construed vanguard party, since in this situation the party is not substituting itself for the class as a whole. In the second situation, a one party state could form a proletarian dictatorship if, and only if, the party is as broad as the class itself, not merely it's most 'advanced' "vanguard".

The second, of course, requires real commitment, but the "payoff" is far greater.

I believe Die Neue Zeit has summed this up most accurately with the description of Bordigism as "Social-abolitionist (correct understanding of the economic structure of genuine socialism), but not proletocratic (their conception of a proletarian dictatorship is a small ruling segment, not the class itself)".

Indeed, comrade.

Interestingly, I have seen some left communists describe Bordigism's attitude towards councils and proletarian dictatorship as "confused", but there does not seem to be any confusion about it: They(Bordigites) have no idea what a genuine proletarian dictatorship entails(no offense to any fans of Bordiga around here, but that is my frank assessment of Bordigism as a political ideology).

Despite his error here, Bordiga had a point about a key problem with councils, though: they can be filled by reactionaries more easily than a party-movement with clear political commitments (i.e., a political program and a plan to win majority political support for this) and clear unity in action. Unlike councils, even the biggest of party-movements wouldn't dare admit outright reactionary minorities (amongst the workers) to the ranks until they've changed their views.

Brosa Luxemburg

29th July 2012, 17:59

I already responded to some of the criticism you levied against Bordigism here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2483827&postcount=54) when I responded to DNZ. I will respond to other points you have brought up.

Bordigists advocate a vanguard party taking state power, substituting the rule of the class itself with the rule of only a segment. In reality, this is a non-party since real parties are real movements which represent the class as a whole. In this sense, Bordigism does not really differ significantly from Stalinism except in the sense that it has a correct conception of the economic conditions under which capitalism is to be abolished.

I am surprised that a former Bordigist would make this point, because it is very wrong. Yes, Bordigists do advocate a party taking state power, but not the rule of only a segment. Again, on this point Bordiga is contradictory and I addressed this in my response to DNZ. In the post I linked to I quoted Bordiga and went into detail but I will summarize it here. Bordiga said that in times of low class consciousness the party would contain only a minority of the class (as it should) and, in times of high class consciousness, the party would contain a majority of the class. Bordiga, in his early years, believed that the party would contain a minority until the seizure of power and sometime after that (something I disagree with) and in his later years he started to backtrack on this absolutist statement. It isn't that Bordigists are only into minority parties or are always opposed to majority parties, it is that it is highly dependent to conditions that exist.

Interestingly, I have seen some left communists describe Bordigism's attitude towards councils and proletarian dictatorship as "confused", but there does not seem to be any confusion about it: They(Bordigites) have no idea what a genuine proletarian dictatorship entails

This is very wrong. In fact, if anything, I have seen people claim that Bordiga fetishizes things like the soviets (regional councils). In fact, here are quotes from Bordiga, from his early and later years, claiming to uphold the soviet form and the active participation of proletariat in administering their dictatorship.

The Soviet system is a system of political representation of the working class; its fundamental characteristic is denial of the right to vote to anyone who is not a member of the proletariat...But the fundamental political role of the network of workers' councils is based on the historical concept of dictatorship: proletarian interests must be allowed free play in so far as they concern the whole class over and above sectional interests, and the whole of the historical development of the movement for its emancipation...

From The System of Communist Representation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/representation.htm)

The political Soviet represents the collective interests of the working class, in so far as this class does not share power with the bourgeoisie, but has succeeded in overthrowing it and excluding it from power. Hence the full significance and strength of the Soviet lies not in this or that structure, but in the fact that it is the organ of a class which is taking the management of society into its own hands. Every member of the Soviet is a proletarian conscious that he is exercising dictatorship in the name of his own class.

From Is this the Time to form "Soviets"? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/soviets.htm)

But even the relationship between the worker - a recognised and active member of the class in power - and the state apparatus will no longer retain that fictitious and deceitful characteristic of a delegation of power, of a representation through the intermediary of a deputy, an election ticket, or by a party. Delegation means in effect the renunciation to the possibility of direct action...The working members of society will be grouped into local territorial organs according to their place of residence, and in certain cases according to the displacements imposed by their participation in a productive mechanism in full transformation. Thanks to their uninterrupted and continuous action, the participation of all active social elements in the mechanism of the state apparatus, and therefore in the management and exercise of class power, will be assured. To sketch these mechanisms is impossible before the class relationships from which they will spring have been concretely realised.

From Proletariat Dictatorship and Class Party (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1951/class-party.htm)

(no offense to any fans of Bordiga around here, but that is my frank assessment of Bordigism as a political ideology).

Ah, don't worry about it. If anyone takes offense to what some stranger on the internet said they are stupid, to be blunt ;)

Revolution starts with U

29th July 2012, 20:12

Imagine the following scenario where a single-party state with the central authority it is vested in imposes various policies the working class does not agree with. Hereby you recreate the class dynamics that had previously existed: a conflict arises between the working class and the party. When you forcefully deprive workers of the products they made two things may happen:

1. It becomes undesirable to produce beyond their own needs (the result will be shortages) (agricultural workers)
2. The workers go on strike (industrial proletariat)

Then what? You send in the riot police? Declare their strike illegal? A Marxist-Leninist single-party state is likely to do so, as I've seen some members on this forum who identify as such state that "workers striking in a workers' state is tantamount to striking against themselves" in defence of banning strikes in various so-called "workers' states."

And now we have new class antagonisms.

Even worse, I have heard some call it treason. That means death for any striking worker.

Brosa Luxemburg

1st August 2012, 15:55

Bump. In case anyone didn't vote yet.

Art Vandelay

1st August 2012, 16:47

It would seem that us one party state supporters are slightly in the minority.

Zanthorus

1st August 2012, 20:18

Bordigists, like myself and Caj

D'aw, isn't that cute, the laddy reckons himself a Bordigist.

The Burgundy Rose

1st August 2012, 20:43

Communism is stateless, moneyless and classless.

It's disappointing (though not entirely unexpected) that many of those who self-identify as communists do not seem to understand its core tenets, and moreover engage in political masturbation over the failed Leninist policies of the USSR, which even if you agree with them, were only ever meant for that particular time.

Comrades from developed countries saying they support a one-party state should be ashamed. We should never actively support the propping up of any state.

why moneyless??? money is simply a way of organising exchange value of goods and is created simply through the existence of a common denominator of all commodities. for example the inca civilization did not have money per se, however cocoa beans were considered to be of lowest value and so became the lowest common denominator of goods and became a sort of de facto currency. money is simply an evolution of this and will happen wherever there is need for exchange of goods, and if there isn't exchange of goods then there is ostensibly no choice or variety in ones material desires which surely serves to limit ones liberty as opposed to ameliorating it.

Rafiq

1st August 2012, 21:31

D'aw, isn't that cute, the laddy reckons himself a Bordigist.

?

Tim Finnegan

1st August 2012, 21:57

why moneyless??? money is simply a way of organising exchange value of goods and is created simply through the existence of a common denominator of all commodities.
If you have commodities, then it's not communism, so that's a rather self-defeating objection.

eric922

1st August 2012, 22:03

D'aw, isn't that cute, the laddy reckons himself a Bordigist.
Care to explain why he isn't a Bordigist?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st August 2012, 23:25

why moneyless??? money is simply a way of organising exchange value of goods and is created simply through the existence of a common denominator of all commodities. for example the inca civilization did not have money per se, however cocoa beans were considered to be of lowest value and so became the lowest common denominator of goods and became a sort of de facto currency. money is simply an evolution of this and will happen wherever there is need for exchange of goods, and if there isn't exchange of goods then there is ostensibly no choice or variety in ones material desires which surely serves to limit ones liberty as opposed to ameliorating it.

The existence of money divorces the exchange value from the intrinsic value of a product - the value of its labour inputs. This leads the way to exploitation and thus back to Capitalism as a surplus is created through the divergence between exchange value and labour value.

A moneyless society is an essential feature of a communist society, according to Marxism.

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2012, 05:05

It would seem that us one party state supporters are slightly in the minority.

Well, those comrades who support a genuine one-party system are in an even smaller minority. ;)

However, there are lots of opportunities for skeptics to learn.

RedHammer

2nd August 2012, 05:17

Yes, and we must ruthlessly suppress the bourgeois opposition.

Misanthrope

2nd August 2012, 05:22

I do not support a party and do not support a state or any other bourgeois entity.

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

2nd August 2012, 06:12

I do not support a party and do not support a state or any other bourgeois entity.

Let me guess, you support spontaneous international working class insurrection? Well, i don't!... :rolleyes:

Misanthrope

2nd August 2012, 06:19

Let me guess, you support spontaneous international working class insurrection? Well, i don't!... :rolleyes:

A party does not equate to organization, decentralized or not.

Gray

2nd August 2012, 06:22

I don't think I support a state at all, nor do I like political parties. I think a one-party state is inherently restrictive, and I don't see how one could be used to make a Communist country, so no, I suppose I don't support a one-party state.

RedHammer

2nd August 2012, 06:24

Let me guess, you support spontaneous international working class insurrection? Well, I don't!...
Idealism at its best

Art Vandelay

2nd August 2012, 07:12

Art Vandelay

2nd August 2012, 07:13

I do not support a party and do not support a state or any other bourgeois entity.

Political parties and states are not exclusively bourgeois constructs or entities. :confused:

Tim Finnegan

2nd August 2012, 08:44

Political parties and states are not exclusively bourgeois constructs or entities. :confused:
No, they pretty much are.

Art Vandelay

2nd August 2012, 09:16

No, they pretty much are.

I didn't realize that feudalism and slave societies were also stateless societies. Being a Marxist and all, I thought that the state was something attached to class societies, ie: the institution through which one class exerts its hegemony; must have missed the memo when that was changed.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd August 2012, 09:36

I think you two are crossing wires.

Think of it this way: political parties are a bourgeois construct, not necessarily a bourgeois entity. Parties were first constructed by the bourgeoisie to bring some political legitimacy to the dictatorship of capital. Of course, many others have appropriated this party structure and claimed it for their own ends, to a greater or lesser degree of success.

But are political parties bourgeois entities? Certainly not, merely bourgeois constructs. This does present a difficult theoretical question: can a political party purged of its bourgeois content ever escape the fact of its bourgeois origins? I say - personally - probably not, but I still think it's unfair to label all political parties as inherently bourgeois.

It's just that they all do seem to end up bourgeois, after the passage of time :)

Tim Finnegan

2nd August 2012, 09:37

I didn't realize that feudalism and slave societies were also stateless societies. Being a Marxist and all, I thought that the state was something attached to class societies, ie: the institution through which one class exerts its hegemony; must have missed the memo when that was changed.
Firstly, you are bad at irony.

Secondly, it's pretty clear that we are in this instance talking about the bourgeois state, because unless you think that feudalism is gearing up for a comeback, that's the only sort of state with which an anti-state communist in the year 2012 is going to concern themselves.

But are political parties bourgeois entities? Certainly not, merely bourgeois constructs. This does present a difficult theoretical question: can a political party purged of its bourgeois content ever escape the fact of its bourgeois origins? I say - personally - probably not, but I still think it's unfair to label all political parties as inherently bourgeois.
I think that problem only emerges if you blur form and content. It is possible for a party to have an authentically proletarian content, but as long as it is organised as a party, it is locked within a bourgeois political form and is therefore incapable of making the ultimate break with bourgeois politics and thus with class society as such. This puts any political party, no matter how working class it might be, on an inevitable collision course with the class itself, because while the party may be able to bring about a situation of working class political power, it cannot bring about the abolition of class society. What follows is that it devours its own rebellious base, as the Bolsheviks did in 1919, and reverts as you say to being a regular old bourgeois party.

Art Vandelay

2nd August 2012, 09:43

Firstly, you're shit at irony. Stop it.

Secondly, it's pretty clear that we are in this instance talking about the bourgeois state, because unless you think that feudalism is gearing up for a comeback, that's the only sort of state with which an anti-state communist in the year 2012 is going to concern themselves.

No it wasn't. It was claimed that the state was a bourgeois construct; I corrected that misconception. The fact that feudalism isn't "gearing up for a comeback" is irrelevant. If he meant something else, then he can clarify for himself; perhaps I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from his post, that he thought the state was a bourgeois construct.

And for the record I'll lace my post with as much irony as I please.

Art Vandelay

2nd August 2012, 09:56

You didn't need to edit out the swear Tim, I'm an adult, you can say that I am "shit" at something, I can handle it.

Tim Finnegan

2nd August 2012, 10:38

No it wasn't. It was claimed that the state was a bourgeois construct; I corrected that misconception. The fact that feudalism isn't "gearing up for a comeback" is irrelevant. If he meant something else, then he can clarify for himself; perhaps I misunderstood, but that was the impression I got from his post, that he thought the state was a bourgeois construct.
You're just being pedantic. It's clear enough from context that "state" refers to the bourgeois state, just as "party" refers to a political party in the modern sense, and not to the generic sense of "faction".

You didn't need to edit out the swear Tim, I'm an adult, you can say that I am "shit" at something, I can handle it.
Actually, I just changed it because the original phrasing felt unreasonably antagonistic. (As opposed to "reasonably antagonistic"? I dunno, I clearly don't think these things through. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/crazyeyes.gif)

Kornilios Sunshine

2nd August 2012, 11:37

I think multiple-party state is not so successful and I've seen this in my country. Besides if two parties disagree with each other I don't see why should they make a coalition.

Die Neue Zeit

2nd August 2012, 15:02

Parties were first constructed by the bourgeoisie to bring some political legitimacy to the dictatorship of capital. Of course, many others have appropriated this party structure and claimed it for their own ends, to a greater or lesser degree of success.

It is possible for a party to have an authentically proletarian content, but as long as it is organised as a party, it is locked within a bourgeois political form and is therefore incapable of making the ultimate break with bourgeois politics and thus with class society as such.

More from the anti-party crowd again, as expected.

After doing some research, I've discovered that this is actually a defense of bourgeois constructs of their own: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ad-hoc-popular-t174039/index.html

Moreover, the anti-party crowd can't distinguish between two party forms: clubs, which were a (radical) bourgeois construct, and branch meetings, which weren't.

Zanthorus

2nd August 2012, 15:12

I am glad to see that Revleft is invariant in it's love of circular debates between predictable factions.

?

Care to explain why he isn't a Bordigist?

It's pretty clear isn't it? He is listed as sympathising with the ICT, ICC, CPGB and the WPA. Cancelling out the one which doesn't seem to exist anywhere other than the internet, we have everyone's favourite British Kautskyites, a group which doesn't even believe that the transitional state and the dictatorship of the proletariat are equivalent, and the group who broke with Bordiga himself in 1952. Given that Bordiga is a figure about whom (Unfortunately) relatively little has been written in English, and given that 'Bordigism' has had something of a dramatic fall from grace since the 1970's, this might be forgiven, but for future reference these are what actual Bordigist groups look like:

http://www.internationalcommunistparty.org/
http://www.international-communist-party.org/
http://www.pcint.org/

Brosa Luxemburg

2nd August 2012, 15:41

It's pretty clear isn't it? He is listed as sympathising with the ICT, ICC, CPGB and the WPA. Cancelling out the one which doesn't seem to exist anywhere other than the internet, we have everyone's favourite British Kautskyites, a group which doesn't even believe that the transitional state and the dictatorship of the proletariat are equivalent, and the group who broke with Bordiga himself in 1952. Given that Bordiga is a figure about whom (Unfortunately) relatively little has been written in English, and given that 'Bordigism' has had something of a dramatic fall from grace since the 1970's, this might be forgiven, but for future reference these are what actual Bordigist groups look like:

http://www.internationalcommunistparty.org/
http://www.international-communist-party.org/
http://www.pcint.org/

I said that I sympathize with the group, not that they have my full, unequivocal support.

Whatever though, I really don't have to prove myself to a stranger on the internet.

Since we are on the subject, if anyone would like to learn more about Bordiga and his writings, check out this group. http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=970

Welshy

2nd August 2012, 16:05

You're just being pedantic. It's clear enough from context that "state" refers to the bourgeois state, just as "party" refers to a political party in the modern sense, and not to the generic sense of "faction".

No it was pretty obvious from previous posts that we are talking about the Proletarian State (Dictatorship of Proletariat) and not the modern bourgeois conception of the party. It was the anti-party crowd who made it about the bourgeois state and the political party in the modern sense. Quit being dishonest.

Tim Finnegan

2nd August 2012, 19:33

Art Vandelay

2nd August 2012, 19:40

What I meant was that Misanthrope said that he considers states and parties to be bourgeois, so it seems pretty self-evident that he was talking about bourgeois states and parties, rather than to feudal or "slave society" (lol) states. Nothing dishonest about it.

So if I were to say that politicians were a bourgeois construct, then it would be oh so obvious that I was talking about exclusively bourgeois politicians and not just simply misinformed. He proclaimed that states are a bourgeois contstruct, which is false; why you, an intelligent guy feel the need to keep defending this clearly false position is beyond me.

Edit: When it comes down to it, anyways, a state is something which is attached to class society, (as I stated earlier) ie: the institution one class uses to exert its hegemony. To think that the need for the state will disapear immediately post revolution is absurd and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a state and the conditions which give rise to a state.

Welshy

2nd August 2012, 21:35

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd August 2012, 22:17

More from the anti-party crowd again, as expected.

After doing some research, I've discovered that this is actually a defense of bourgeois constructs of their own: http://www.revleft.com/vb/ad-hoc-popular-t174039/index.html

Moreover, the anti-party crowd can't distinguish between two party forms: clubs, which were a (radical) bourgeois construct, and branch meetings, which weren't.

Ah, 'workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your branch meetings'. :thumbdown:

The revolution will be built on branch meetings, eh? :laugh:

Die Neue Zeit

3rd August 2012, 04:37

The revolution will be built on branch meetings, eh? :laugh:

Eh? To paraphrase the IWMA, genuine class struggle (i.e., class-based political struggle) and social revolution cannot thrive without the branch meeting.

Tim Finnegan

3rd August 2012, 11:58

So if I were to say that politicians were a bourgeois construct, then it would be oh so obvious that I was talking about exclusively bourgeois politicians and not just simply misinformed.
Given that there hasn't been a non-bourgeois politician for around sixteen hundred years, yes, it would be.

He proclaimed that states are a bourgeois contstruct, which is false; why you, an intelligent guy feel the need to keep defending this clearly false position is beyond me.I think his position is correct, and I think he communicated it clearly enough that anyone who isn't being wilfully difficult could understand it.

Edit: When it comes down to it, anyways, a state is something which is attached to class society, (as I stated earlier) ie: the institution one class uses to exert its hegemony. To think that the need for the state will disapear immediately post revolution is absurd and shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes a state and the conditions which give rise to a state.Problem is, right, problem is, problem is, that's a shitty and unhelpful theory of state that nobody outside of the Unreconstructed-Second Internationalist ghetto takes even remotely seriously, so you can't really go waving it around like it's some sort of truth-baton.

Then what he was saying was irrelevant to this entire thread unless you are going to make the claim that all states and all parties are bourgeois in which case the previous objections apply.
What he said was that he did not support a one-party state, because he did not believe that a proletarian state or party is possible, and so believed that any state or party proclaiming itself to be "proletarian" would in fact be bourgeois. You can disagree with that, fine, but it was pretty clear what he said. Only when the creaking dinosaur bullshit brigade stumbled along and started chirping on about feudal and "slave society" states did we get dragged down this stupid side-road.

Die Neue Zeit

3rd August 2012, 14:58

Problem is, right, problem is, problem is, that's a shitty and unhelpful theory of state that nobody outside of the Unreconstructed-Second Internationalist ghetto

The only "unreconstructed" types I see here are those subscribing to the unreconstructed strategic ultra-leftism of mass strikes, direct action, ad hoc/organic "organization," growing political awareness and struggles from the base economic, anti-political nihilism, etc.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

4th August 2012, 15:42

Eh? To paraphrase the IWMA, genuine class struggle (i.e., class-based political struggle) and social revolution cannot thrive without the branch meeting.

Why not?

Why not just get rid of the party and instead of having a meeting of workers denoted as a branch meeting, have an open meeting of workers denoted as just that...an open meeting. No need to fetishise the party, just have direct workers' democracy.

I have a feeling that this argument is redundant anyway, since that seems to have been increasingly the case over the past few years. No longer do workers join the existing left sects in times of increased class tension. How does that square with your ultra pro-party theories?

Die Neue Zeit

4th August 2012, 16:18

I have a feeling that this argument is redundant anyway, since that seems to have been increasingly the case over the past few years. No longer do workers join the existing left sects in times of increased class tension. How does that square with your ultra pro-party theories?

And the results are the same again and again. They fail because people keep bumping their heads against the brick wall of anti-partyism.

Tim Finnegan

5th August 2012, 00:08

I have a feeling that this argument is redundant anyway, since that seems to have been increasingly the case over the past few years. No longer do workers join the existing left sects in times of increased class tension. How does that square with your ultra pro-party theories?
"Stupid workers don't know what's good for them", if the Trots I'm acquainted with are any indication.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 03:11

Whoever put yes, you suck. Stop calling yourselves communists.

Brosa Luxemburg

5th August 2012, 03:37

Whoever put yes, you suck.

Great addition to this thread. Really riveting analysis right there.

Stop calling yourselves communists.

Umm.....no?

Aziz

5th August 2012, 03:41

Great addition to this thread. Really riveting analysis right there.

Umm.....no?

Fine, feel my wrath Bro

Welshy

5th August 2012, 03:41

Whoever put yes, you suck. Stop calling yourselves communists.

Way to read the thread. Please come back when you actually have more substance. There were other people who said no who actually contributed decent post to this thread, there is no reason why you can't to.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 03:44

Way to read the thread. Please come back when you actually have more substance. There were other people who said no who actually contributed decent post to this thread, there is no reason why you can't to.

Howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww about i am a worker and anyone that advocates that I should have to live under a one party state can go fuck themselves?

Or maybe I could make ass licking comments to fit in on an internet forum?

Brosa Luxemburg

5th August 2012, 03:47

Howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww about i am a worker and anyone that advocates that I should have to live under a one party state can go fuck themselves?

Or maybe I could make ass licking comments to fit in on an internet forum?

Howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww about I am a worker and any single individual that acts like they embody the interests and ideas of all of us can go fuck themselves?

Also, if you aren't here to participate in a meaningful discussion (which I take it is what you meant from part 2 of your elegant speech) then leave.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 03:53

If you are advocating a one party state you are advocating oppression and violence, I treat these ideas the same as I treat racism and fascism, capitalism and feudalism.

Should I engage in polite discourse with Neo Nazis too or is it just the Leninist I have to hear genocide denial from with a smile and open arms?

Welshy

5th August 2012, 03:56

Howwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww about i am a worker and anyone that advocates that I should have to live under a one party state can go fuck themselves?

Or maybe I could make ass licking comments to fit in on an internet forum?

Once again you prove that you haven't read the thread.

Also how about I'm not of a working class back ground (though all of my jobs have been working class jobs) and I would willing subordinate myself to the party of the working class. It's primarily my democratic "rights" that would be at threat with a state control by the party of the working class, not yours. So one would think that I should be more worried and opposed to this ideas. As a side note I don't seek any form of leadership within such an organization if I were allowed to join.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 04:01

You are advocating oppression of my class by a state, on top of that one even more centralized and fucked up that the one now that gives its wage slaves slight reforms.

No we are supporting the suppression of other classes by the state controlled by the working class. We are not stalinists as you seem to believe.

I would not give a fascist, a racist or a capitalist polite discourse as they shovel shit into my face and tell me it is chocolate cake, why would I treat a Leninist any different?

Yes because leninists are all like fascists and racists and all leninists are stalinists.

The masses will never support such blatant oppression as we have seen from state capitalist regimes, that is why they were murdered by every Leninist regime that stood.

Once again not all leninists are stalinists and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about in relation to russian history or the history of leninist tendencies.

A state will never have a rightful authority over me and anyone that says I should have to be dominated by a state is just a very bad person.

Yeah because we are advocating the suppression of the working class :rolleyes:. Are you purposefully being ignorant or are you just naturally this way.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:01

Once again you prove that you haven't read the thread.

Also how about I'm not of a working class back ground (though all of my jobs have been working class jobs) and I would willing subordinate myself to the party of the working class. It's primarily my democratic "rights" that would be at threat with a state control by the party of the working class, not yours. So one would think that I should be more worried and opposed to this ideas. As a side note I don't seek any form of leadership within such an organization if I were allowed to join.

If your not working class your not revolutionary, why are you debating me on revolution drop out queen?

PS, fuck that, how can freedom be sought from being in a position of subordination, you make me sick. I guess when you don't need to improve your conditions real revolution is not important, finding something to believe in and fight for is, a cause for you eh. I wonder how many people advocating dictatorship even work for a fucking living.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:05

No we are supporting the suppression of other classes by the state controlled by the working class. We are not stalinists as you seem to believe.

Yes because leninists are all like fascists and racists and all leninists are stalinists.

Once again not all leninists are stalinists and you obviously have no idea what you are talking about in relation to russian history or the history of leninist tendencies.

Yeah because we are advocating the suppression of the working class :rolleyes:. Are you purposefully being ignorant or are you just naturally this way.

Yeah I am imagining Kronstadt , I am imagining strikes being illegal in leninist states, I am imagining communism is a classless, stateless, non monetary society, I have no idea what I am talking about, I need a student from a non working class background to tell me.

Can you tell me how a state, that has wage slavery and does not give me and my colleagues control of the means of production can be a good thing for me?

Welshy

5th August 2012, 04:07

If your not working class your not revolutionary, why are you debating me on revolution drop out queen?

Lol, where did I imply I was a drop out.:laugh:

Also nice workerism. I am a pro-revolutionary, since we are not going through a revolution right now no one can be considered a revolutionary. Being pro-communism and pro-revolutionary does not require one to be a worker. I believe workers have to take the front and center role which is why I don't seek any leadership.

PS, fuck that, how can freedom be sought from being in a position of subordination, you make me sick. I guess when you don't need to improve your conditions real revolution is not important, finding something to believe in and fight for is, a cause for you eh. I wonder how many people advocating dictatorship even work for a fucking living.

I think communism would provide me with a higher standard of living. Since I'm not necessarily working class and I believe the working class have to have leadership in a communist revolution, it would be logically inconsistent for me to advocate non-working individuals to hold leadership. Also when I talk about a state I referring to the working class organized in order to suppress the capitalists and their allies. I don't advocate suppression of the working class.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 04:10

Yeah I am imagining Kronstadt , I am imagining strikes being illegal in leninist states, I am imagining communism is a classless, stateless, non monetary society, I have no idea what I am talking about, I need a student from a non working class background to tell me.

When I talk about the state, I'm not talking about communism. I am talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. I believe the working class should be united under one banner and will be an organ of the working class just like councils will be.

Also I love how you reject my opinion whether I was a drop out or not.

EDIT: Also not all leninists support what happened at Kronstadt from my experience. I personally don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Can you tell me how a state, that has wage slavery and does not give me and my colleagues control of the means of production can be a good thing for me?

Nice strawman. You know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is right?

Brosa Luxemburg

5th August 2012, 04:11

If you are advocating a one party state you are advocating oppression and violence

Yes, anyone who supports the dictatorship of the proletariat does. Seriously, read the thread before participating in the discussion.

I treat these ideas the same as I treat racism and fascism, capitalism and feudalism.

.......... :rolleyes:

Should I engage in polite discourse with Neo Nazis too or is it just the Leninist I have to hear genocide denial from with a smile and open arms?

You know not every Leninist is a Stalinist, right?

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:12

Lol, where did I imply I was a drop out.:laugh:

Also nice workerism. I am a pro-revolutionary, since we are not going through a revolution right now no one can be considered a revolutionary. Being pro-communism and pro-revolutionary does not require one to be a worker. I believe workers have to take the front and center role which is why I don't seek any leadership.

I think communism would provide me with a higher standard of living. Since I'm not necessarily working class and I believe the working class have to have leadership in a communist revolution, it would be logically inconsistent for me to advocate non-working individuals to hold leadership. Also when I talk about a state I referring to the working class organized in order to suppress the capitalists and their allies. I don't advocate suppression of the working class.

Communism is a stateless, classless, non monetary society, what you advocate is not communism, there are no states in a communist society.

You never said you were a drop out, it is just that from your attitude I can tell you never had to struggle in life.

blake 3:17

5th August 2012, 04:14

Why not?

Why not just get rid of the party and instead of having a meeting of workers denoted as a branch meeting, have an open meeting of workers denoted as just that...an open meeting. No need to fetishise the party, just have direct workers' democracy.

I have a feeling that this argument is redundant anyway, since that seems to have been increasingly the case over the past few years. No longer do workers join the existing left sects in times of increased class tension. How does that square with your ultra pro-party theories?

It doesn't need to be a question of pro- or anti- party. A socialist society requires a combination of representative and direct democracy.

The workplace isn't the be all and end all. There are a huge number of questions that involve other vital questions -- health, culture, education, ecology to name just a few.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:15

Yes, anyone who supports the dictatorship of the proletariat does. Seriously, read the thread before participating in the discussion.

.......... :rolleyes:

You know not every Leninist is a Stalinist, right?

I am saying that a state regardless of its politics is violence, how else can a state maintain dominance over its masses which the state leeches off?

I am saying if you support a state, you do not support communism.

I am saying receiving a wage under a state capitalist regime is not something anyone will risk revolution and all it entails for.

I have read the thread, I just don't fucking agree, stop being a patronizing ass to me now please Broseph.

Brosa Luxemburg

5th August 2012, 04:18

Communism is a stateless, classless, non monetary society, what you advocate is not communism, there are no states in a communist society.

No shit. We are talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat here, something you obviously don't understand, which is a transition stage between capitalism and communism.

You never said you were a drop out, it is just that from your attitude I can tell you never had to struggle in life.

What are you talking about? This is an internet forum? How can you tell "from their attitude" that they have never struggled?

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:18

When I talk about the state, I'm not talking about communism. I am talking about the dictatorship of the proletariat. I believe the working class should be united under one banner and will be an organ of the working class just like councils will be.

Also I love how you reject my opinion whether I was a drop out or not.

EDIT: Also not all leninists support what happened at Kronstadt from my experience. I personally don't know enough about it to have an opinion.

Nice strawman. You know what the dictatorship of the proletariat is right?

Yes, a bullshit stepping stone to communism, which will never lead to communism because erecting a new class, with an armed military over its newly acquired wage slaves is not the way to do it.

Believe it or not you patronizing git, I have read Marx, Lenin, even some Mao, I just don't agree with the shit you spew, I do however comprehend it.

Ostrinski

5th August 2012, 04:18

I treat these ideas the same as I treat racism and fascism, capitalism and feudalism.I treat your ideas as I treat the contents of my digestive system after they exit into the sewage system, as that is, more or less, about as relevant as they'll ever be.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:22

Did a socialist just label me irrelevant :D epic.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 04:22

Communism is a stateless, classless, non monetary society, what you advocate is not communism, there are no states in a communist society.

I advocate communism. During the revolution I recognize that the capitalists and their allies will need to be suppressed, this requires by the default the existence of the state controlled by the working class. If you think there will be no need of suppressing the capitalists then you are naive and no next to nothing about history.

You never said you were a drop out, it is just that from your attitude I can tell you never had to struggle in life.

You called me a drop out queen. Plus what do you know about me? I've been unemployed for a couple months living off of what little money I was able to save up from a job where I almost got my leg sucked into a wood chipper. I've only been able afford one meal a day and have been losing a lot of weight because of it. The school year is the only time I'm able to get more than one meal a day thanks to my meal plan and I have to work about 25hrs a week on top of taking full course load that includes graduate level classes. So yeah you were saying?

EDIT: I have finally just found some work doing landscaping but I have to work multiple jobs because they don't offer enough hours.

Brosa Luxemburg

5th August 2012, 04:26

I am saying that a state regardless of its politics is violence

Yes, it is. No one is claiming otherwise.

how else can a state maintain dominance over its masses which the state leeches off?

The state is an organ of class rule. It is a tool for one class to suppress another. The proletariat dictatorship would be used to suppress the bourgeoisie until a stateless and classless society could be instituted. All communists, whether council communists, left communists, Trotskyists, etc. support this conception of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I am saying if you support a state, you do not support communism.

We support a proletariat state as a transition stage to a classless and stateless society.

I am saying receiving a wage under a state capitalist regime is not something anyone will risk revolution and all it entails for.

Okay....:confused:

I have read the thread, I just don't fucking agree

Agree with what? This thread is asking your opinion. There is nothing to agree/disagree on accept other people's views. This makes me think even more that you haven't read this thread at all.

stop being a patronizing ass to me now please Broseph.

Your so cute when your mad.

Brosa Luxemburg

5th August 2012, 04:27

Did a socialist just label me irrelevant :D epic.

You know that anarchists (which is what I assume you are) are socialists and Marx and Engels used the term socialism and communism interchangeably?

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:28

I advocate communism. During the revolution I recognize that the capitalists and their allies will need to be suppressed, this requires by the default the existence of the state controlled by the working class. If you think there will be no need of suppressing the capitalists then you are naive and no next to nothing about history.

You called me a drop out queen. Plus what do you know about me? I've been unemployed for a couple months living off of what little money I was able to save up from a job where I almost got my leg sucked into a wood chipper. I've only been able afford one meal a day and have been losing a lot of weight because of it. The school year is the only time I'm able to get more than one meal a day thanks to my meal plan and I have to work about 25hrs a week on top of taking full course load that includes graduate level classes. So yeah you were saying?

I was saying your middle class arrogance makes me love wood chippers.

Also, no you don't recognise that, you read it, you read it and now you parrot it, you do not employ materialist thinking and analyse the contradictions in society, or think about the ones that emerge under the DOP, creating a new ruling class and oppressed from within the new "revolutionary state"

You are yet another student, driven by some utopian moralistic standpoint, not fro the simple want to better conditions, on which revolution relies.

You seek to condemn the workers to the hands of the few, as it is in their best interests, but what would you do when the workers say fuck you you crazy fuck, how about we don't want central planning, what is the Leninist regime to do then, what other recourse is there for your centrally democratic regime to do then but repress, massacre and maintain position?

BTW it is half four and I am wired, I will continue tommorow when not a zombie.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:30

You know that anarchists (which is what I assume you are) are socialists and Marx and Engels used the term socialism and communism interchangeably?

Yes I am aware, again with the patronizing routine, however, on here among anti capitalists, socialism is easier to distinguish those who do not call for communism straight away and those who do, the USSR was socialist, not communist, argue semantics, the use of it is appropriate as a distinguish-er when in debate.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:32

Your so cute when your mad.

I am cute all the time, I am fucking gawjuss Bro.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 04:35

Yes, a bullshit stepping stone to communism, which will never lead to communism because erecting a new class, with an armed military over its newly acquired wage slaves is not the way to do it.

So the working class organized to suppress the capitalist class is creating a new class??? I had no idea that a class organized to get rid of wage slavery would institute wage slavery? You have a very negative out look on the working class.

Believe it or not you patronizing git, I have read Marx, Lenin, even some Mao, I just don't agree with the shit you spew, I do however comprehend it.

As if I'm a maoist and you obviously don't understand it since you are just spewing the same crap that bakunin did.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:43

Yeah because look how that turned out.

I forgot it was the proletariat that caused famine, that invaded czechoslovakia, that crushed workers independent unions, that payed each other wages for slave labour. Not a government, it was the workers idea to do all that.

Oh wait, you have an ideal utopia where YOUR LENINIST VISION WILL BE DIFFERENT.

It is like the leftist version of imaginary ron paul fantasy, the whole economy being made up of middle class small bushiness owners and unicorns but instead it is that the government is a proletarian one, if it is so, why have one at all, if the workers truly wield power under the dop.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:44

So the working class organized to suppress the capitalist class is creating a new class??? I had no idea that a class organized to get rid of wage slavery would institute wage slavery? You have a very negative out look on the working class.

As if I'm a maoist and you obviously don't understand it since you are just spewing the same crap that bakunin did.

The new class is the new ruling class that emerged in the leninist shitholes, they act in the same, albeit bastardised way the ruling class does here, but more blatantly.

Aziz

5th August 2012, 04:47

So the working class organized to suppress the capitalist class is creating a new class??? I had no idea that a class organized to get rid of wage slavery would institute wage slavery? You have a very negative out look on the working class.

As if I'm a maoist and you obviously don't understand it since you are just spewing the same crap that bakunin did.

Bakunin was an anti Semite and can suck my majestic ball sack, I have my own mind and do not require old relics with peado beards to instruct me.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 04:51

I was saying your middle class arrogance makes me love wood chippers.

Seriously fuck you. You know I disagree with you but I would never wish you to have you leg chewed of by a woodchipper.

Also, no you don't recognise that, you read it, you read it and now you parrot it, you do not employ materialist thinking and analyse the contradictions in society, or think about the ones that emerge under the DOP, creating a new ruling class and oppressed from within the new "revolutionary state"

Yes I do recognize it. History has shown us time and time again. Russia, Spain, and the Paris Commune show us that we need this. To be honest I haven't always been a marxist let alone a leninist (though I break with him in the early 20's).

You are yet another student, driven by some utopian moralistic standpoint, not fro the simple want to better conditions, on which revolution relies.

This directly contradicts what I said earlier. Communsim will improve my standard of living too.

You seek to condemn the workers to the hands of the few, as it is in their best interests, but what would you do when the workers say fuck you you crazy fuck, how about we don't want central planning, what is the Leninist regime to do then, what other recourse is there for your centrally democratic regime to do then but repress, massacre and maintain position?

You are assuming more workers are going to support anarchism over marxism. Also I don't want a "leninist regime" I want the working class organized suppressing the capitalists and their allies and eliminating the basis of capitalism and building upon its remains communism (to rafiq: yes I know communism is a movement and not some to be established but I am using this for short hand). You are taking a overly simplified view of the russian revolution and extrapolating it to modern circumstances. Also if it turns out that the working class doesn't form or need a party, I will be happy proven wrong. Unlike you I have raised my political positions to the point of dogma. And your hesitance to let the working class exert state power will leave it vulnerable and will case the death of thousands if not millions of workers in the course of the revolution and will probably run a higher risk failure.

BTW it is half four and I am wired, I will continue tommorow when not a zombie.

What ever you are such a hateful person that I see no point in continuing.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 04:55

Oh wait, you have an ideal utopia where YOUR LENINIST VISION WILL BE DIFFERENT.

You are calling me the idealist when you are ignoring that the material conditions in Russia and lets say the US or Europe are different. You can't assume that things will play out the same. You are claim the ideas are the reason why things turned out shitty, who is really the idealist here.

Comrade Lenin

5th August 2012, 07:01

I support democracy but only within the socialist/communist party.

Comrade Lenin

5th August 2012, 07:45

It depends on how one party rule works.. democracy within the party itself depending on how it comes about can be very revolutionary. Although I would have to agree it has not worked well in the past.

Red Banana

5th August 2012, 07:53

The purpose of the party is to help bring about the revolution. Once it has done so and socialism is established and stabilized all parties should be abolished. So no, not really.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 08:10

I just noticed this:

Yeah because look how that turned out.

I forgot it was the proletariat that caused famine, that invaded czechoslovakia, that crushed workers independent unions, that payed each other wages for slave labour. Not a government, it was the workers idea to do all that.

Wow you really must think all leninism is Stalinism? Do you even bother to read stuff written by the communist left at all? Because if you did you would notice that me and others like me very much oppose the policies that led to those actions. They are not the direct result of a state though, but of the degeneration of the Russian revolution which isn't a result of ideas like you like to propose.

TheGodlessUtopian

5th August 2012, 08:14

Aziz... lay off the flaming and hostility.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

5th August 2012, 12:01

Jimmie Higgins

5th August 2012, 12:41

I was saying your middle class arrogance makes me love wood chippers.

Bakunin was an anti Semite and can suck my majestic ball sack.

Aziz, this is a verbal warning for flaming, being abusive and some borderline chauvinist language.

If you want to be in this debate, then debate. Flaming like this is for people who can't make a convincing argument.

This is also a general request for everyone to take it down a couple of notches.

Welshy

5th August 2012, 16:18

Guys let's get this back on topic.

Something I do want to ask those who favour a one party state....

You talk quite a lot about it being necessary to establish a one party state to defeat counter-revolution and (don't take this as a flame because it's merely an observation) you seem to extend this to a fetishising of the one party state, to the extent that before we even know the material conditions in which said revolution takes place, and before we know the extent to which the revolution has the absolute backing of the working class, and before we know the ability of the capitalists to launch a counter-revolution, you express your support for a one-party state.

I think you make a pretty good point here. Of course we can't know right now what the revolution will be like so to say for sure what will happen is utopian in nature, but I feel this criticism can apply to those who are firmly opposed to the idea of the one party state as well. The reason why we say we support it is because:

1. We think that the capitalist reaction will require a state in order to take care of it.

2. We want the working class united under one banner and for all pro-revolutionary groups to unite in the process of the revolution.

As for 1 I don't think anyone here thinks there will be no reaction but the issue how big this reaction will be and what type of response it would require. This is the utopian part of the issue. As for 2 I don't think anyone disagrees that it would be good to have the working class voluntarily unite under one banner or at the very least have a united front of pro-revolutionary working class groups carrying out the revolution together. So I guess the issue is whether or not this is likely to, or should, happen in a formalized way. This is another thing I don't think we can be able to tell until the revolution, so all we can talk about is hypotheticals to try to make our point. Let me know if I misrepresented you, The Boss.

This makes me feel as though, even given no counter-revolution, many of you would like to set up a one party state for ideological reasons (again, not a flame, just my opinion...). So here is my question:

after setting up a one-party state, what concrete moves would you make to move towards the abolition of the state, the abolition of money and the total abolition of class?

I don't think the first part is fair assessment, but no worries I don't see it as flame. Hopefully I addressed that above. As to your question, I think it would be handled in a similar way to how one would abolish a non-one party state. The organs that the proletariat would set up to suppress the bourgeoisie would be dissolved and the party itself will begin the process to dissolve into the councils and other administrative organs of a communist society. One possibility could be that the party becomes something like a think tank for the rest of society. But since we can't predict the future and since you are basically asking "how do with carry out the revolution?", it would utopian for any of us to say we know exactly what's going to happen.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

5th August 2012, 16:30

I think you make a pretty good point here. Of course we can't know right now what the revolution will be like so to say for sure what will happen is utopian in nature, but I feel this criticism can apply to those who are firmly opposed to the idea of the one party state as well. The reason why we say we support it is because:

1. We think that the capitalist reaction will require a state in order to take care of it.

2. We want the working class united under one banner and for all pro-revolutionary groups to unite in the process of the revolution.

As for 1 I don't think anyone here thinks there will be no reaction but the issue how big this reaction will be and what type of response it would require. This is the utopian part of the issue. As for 2 I don't think anyone disagrees that it would be good to have the working class voluntarily unite under one banner or at the very least have a united front of pro-revolutionary working class groups carrying out the revolution together. So I guess the issue is whether or not this is likely to, or should, happen in a formalized way. This is another thing I don't think we can be able to tell until the revolution, so all we can talk about is hypotheticals to try to make our point. Let me know if I misrepresented you, The Boss.

I don't think the first part is fair assessment, but no worries I don't see it as flame. Hopefully I addressed that above. As to your question, I think it would be handled in a similar way to how one would abolish a non-one party state. The organs that the proletariat would set up to suppress the bourgeoisie would be dissolved and the party itself will begin the process to dissolve into the councils and other administrative organs of a communist society. One possibility could be that the party becomes something like a think tank for the rest of society. But since we can't predict the future and since you are basically asking "how do with carry out the revolution?", it would utopian for any of us to say we know exactly what's going to happen.

Thank you for your reply, very fair and considered.

I don't disagree that there will of course be reaction, which could be as little as 'revenge' attacks (isolated acts of terrorism, withdrawal of capital etc.) or as great as to plunge a nation, region or greater into warfare. I don't disagree either that it should be an aim to unite pro-revolutionary workers under one banner. But this is one area that I believe the one-party state falls down. It has been proven by history that a party, with all the power of the state behind it, will be a pretty all-conquering force in any post-Capitalist society. We've seen that in the 20th century; the party becomes a rather pervading force in society. But i'm not here to pass comment on that, positive or negative. Rather, i'm merely stating the importance of that point in relation to what i'm about to say; because history has also shown that the party is not the best vehicle for uniting all pro-revolutionary worker groups. Leninists cannot even get on themselves within one party, with Stalinists, Trotskyists and the left and right opposition viciously tearing each other apart. And that's before we get onto those who tack either to the right or the left of Leninists: pan-leftists, Orthodox Marxists and those from the anarchist tradition.

If we want an umbrella group, surely we could set up a temporary 'Socialist opposition' movement, whose sole aim is to destroy Capitalism; when the bourgeoisie has been displaced, this temporary umbrella group could disband and a healthy democratic fight could break out between the various left groupings as to the direction of a post-Capitalist society - hopefully in the most frank, sectarian way: in popular assemblies, in the workplaces and in political councils and assemblies, pervading all levels of society. A true Dictatorship by the Proletariat, rather than a Dictatorship over the dis-enfranchised Proletariat.

I would also argue that the idea that the party - tied by the defence of the revolution against reaction to the state - might, after years or decades choose to disband itself into workers' councils and dissolve the might of state power that defeated reaction (if it did), is quite utopian and naive in itself. We've seen in the past that, if anything, with the passage of time the party - tied to the state - grows dis-enfranchised from the very working class on behalf of whom it is meant to administer society, and certainly nowhere near to disbanding itself in favour of communism.

TheRedAnarchist23

5th August 2012, 16:55

Yay the majority are not authoritarian!

Die Neue Zeit

5th August 2012, 17:05

Welshy

5th August 2012, 17:07

Rather, i'm merely stating the importance of that point in relation to what i'm about to say; because history has also shown that the party is not the best vehicle for uniting all pro-revolutionary worker groups. Leninists cannot even get on themselves within one party, with Stalinists, Trotskyists and the left and right opposition viciously tearing each other apart. And that's before we get onto those who tack either to the right or the left of Leninists: pan-leftists, Orthodox Marxists and those from the anarchist tradition.

Of course sectarian differences will be an issue in someway shape or form, but I think it is important to understand that the point isn't unite ideologies but to unite the working class. Of course some groups will probably not join, but instead choose to try to propagate themselves independently from the rest of the working class in some vain hope of becoming the party. Hopefully such groups will be marginalized by the working class and it members join the party and argue for there positions there.

If we want an umbrella group, surely we could set up a temporary 'Socialist opposition' movement, whose sole aim is to destroy Capitalism; when the bourgeoisie has been displaced, this temporary umbrella group could disband and a healthy democratic fight could break out between the various left groupings as to the direction of a post-Capitalist society - hopefully in the most frank, sectarian way: in popular assemblies, in the workplaces and in political councils and assemblies, pervading all levels of society. A true Dictatorship by the Proletariat, rather than a Dictatorship over the dis-enfranchised Proletariat.

I don't think this is healthy. After the revolution we would need a focus on administration of resources and general running of society. We don't need a bunch of parties squabbling in the councils taking up time and resources and trying gain control of the soviets. That's an aspect of bourgeois democracy that I really hope we can leave behind as I feel it hinders us from true debate over issues of things that would involve groups with different interests. Also I don't see how it would prevent a Dictatorship over the dis-enfranchised Proletariat, as you could have a ruling coalition that actively fights opposing party and works to disenfranchise their base like you see in modern politics and to be honest given the sectarian nature of left groups right now you probably run an even high risk of this assuming they break down in the most sectarian ways.

I would also argue that the idea that the party - tied by the defence of the revolution against reaction to the state - might, after years or decades choose to disband itself into workers' councils and dissolve the might of state power that defeated reaction (if it did), is quite utopian and naive in itself. We've seen in the past that, if anything, with the passage of time the party - tied to the state - grows dis-enfranchised from the very working class on behalf of whom it is meant to administer society, and certainly nowhere near to disbanding itself in favour of communism.

As I said talking about how things are going to go done post revolution whether we are talking about one party or many is going to require use to do a lot of utopian guess work. But I also, as I state above, think that to assume that there wouldn't be large sectarian fighting in a multiparty system post revolution and that the ruling group would make use of the state organs that they used to suppress the bourgeoisie to suppress their opponents if need be. Also we run into another similar issue, since once the revolution is full carried out we won't need parties anymore as the parties are merely tools of the working class to carry out the revolution, then how do we get rid of all these parties and the state now that they are no longer needed?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

5th August 2012, 17:26

Welshy

5th August 2012, 17:33

Agree with a majority of what you posted

All I would say is that, rather than advocating a multi-party system a la bourgeois democracy, I was advocating a no-party democracy, where yes there might exist different groups and movements, but elections would not be the once-in-a-while party affair, but the de-centralised, popular, everyday part of political administration and the production process that takes place in workplaces.

Alright well then I think this discussion has probably come to a close, since we already agree on a lot then I think the rest of the discussion would require too much debating on issues that we have no ability to really talk about with out getting Utopian.

Die Neue Zeit

5th August 2012, 17:53

FYI, notes on faction-less but multi-tendency and genuine one-party system commentary:

“Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working [class].” (Marx)

- Resolution by the Hague Congress on the Establishment of Working-Class Parties by the International Workingmen’s Association [http://www.marxists.org/history/international/iwma/documents/1872/hague-conference/parties.htm]

- “When Marx and Engels declared the necessity of organizing into a political party, they did not say ‘into a political party or into political parties’ or ‘into a political party or two.’ They were quite clear about a singular party-movement.” (Me)
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-you-support-t173690/index.html

- Relate Lewin’s “no-party state” to the coordinator class
- Define the faction-less but multi-tendency one-party system as the post-state transitional body politic in accordance with the reconciliatory definition of “the state” offered in this work
- Razlatzki vs. Schwartz on pluralism: http://books.google.com/books?id=ppZIhynKp0wC
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-power-rule-t160796/index.html

- “In all, there can be three distinct groups in a genuine one-party system: the political, mass, worker-class party-movement proper, the professional or full-time state/polity ‘party,’ and the purely administrative state/polity ‘party.’” (Me)
- http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-independent-t155105/index.html
- “With regards to the German Revolution, had the very ultra-left formation of the KPD not occurred and had the renegades in the USPD been given the boot, I'm sure the MSPD-USPD experiences in parliamentarism, cabinet coalitions (through the Rat der Volksbeauftragten, or Council of People's Representatives), and the Arbeiterrate ("Workers Councils") would have prompted a USPD with majority working-class political support to simply claim "All Power to Independent Social Democracy!" Arbeiterrate be damned.” (Me)

- http://www.revleft.com/vb/deleon-vs-khrushchev-t161755/index.html
- “From the other side there's another system of economic institutionalism, this time conceptualized and partially implemented by Nikita Khrushchev. His take on the "withering away of the state" involved massive reorganization of the "ruling party" such that direct administration over the economy, at the expense of state and/or polity organs, would be the primary focus and that cultural, political, and other non-economic functions would be prioritized further down or outsourced to youth organizations (Komsomol), trade unions, public-sponsored mass vigilante groups (druzhinniki, or auxiliary citizen militiamen), "comrades courts," etc. Other than the hare-brained scheme of specifically bifurcating the "ruling party" into specialized sections for "Industry" and "Agriculture," the key flaw in Khrushchev's approach to the "withering away of the state" was the absence of a mass party-movement with an explicitly political character, in relation to which all members of the "ruling party" would be merely non-voting members. This merely goes back to Lenin's own fundamental error with regards to the dumbing down of politics during the transitional period. Assuming the existence of a mass party-movement with an explicitly political character in both cases, how should workers go about economic administration on an institutional basis?” (Me)
- “For me, there's no right or wrong answer here. Personal inclinations depend on whether or not a comrade supports a genuine one-party system, and even then there are still possibilities. For those comrades who knowledgeably and understandably still oppose a genuine one-party system, SIU/RIU/SPS is the way to go, though it should be cautioned that the One Big Union under any of the DeLeonist variants (especially the newer ones) risks losing its political character by diving into systemic, collective workers management over the economy. For those comrades who do support a genuine one-party system, some may not buy the "withering away of the state" argument posed by Khrushchev and may completely side with Zhdanov & Kuznetsov to make doubly sure there's redundant political character for the "ruling party," in relation to Razlatzki's actual political party-movement constitutionally entrenched as the ruling party proper. Personally, whatever happens with the "ruling party," I still see a mix that includes a DeLeonist variant. One can't swing from Zhdanov-Kuznetsov all the way to Khrushchev or back again re. "party political work" vs. direct economic management, without crossing paths with Malenkov first (the Stalin and Brezhnev eras saw waffling between Z-K and M), and a Malenkov-style apparatus just doesn't have the numbers to chug along just fine without the DeLeonist variant.” (Me)
- The Split in Stalin’s Secretariat, 1939-1948 by Jonathan Harris [http://books.google.com/books?id=ghOox8ijs1MC&printsec=frontcover]
- Consider Kaganovich re. preceding Malenkov (by splitting Orgraspred)
- The Communist Party of the Soviet Union by Leonard Schapiro [http://books.google.com/books?id=VrsOAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover]

Chrome_Fist

12th August 2012, 21:52

Comrade Enver Hoxha in "Yugoslav 'self-administration" the chapter titled "The System of Self-Administration and the Denial of the Leading Role of the Party" explains perfectly why we MUST have a one party state.

Die Neue Zeit

17th August 2012, 04:05

^^^ How so, exactly? :confused:

PeoplesRepublics

6th July 2013, 08:15

I would prefer I no party system with independent candidates but maybe with some sort of van guard party to defend the revolution, Somewhat like the Cuban system :cubaflag:

The Feral Underclass

6th July 2013, 08:38

Yes, I do.

Brosa Luxemburg

6th July 2013, 08:48

Yes, I do.

.....you're joking. YOU support a ONE-PARTY STATE????????

Did you really bring up this old poll to make a joke?

d3crypt

6th July 2013, 08:57

Yes, I do.

You joker :grin: no way your serious

The Feral Underclass

6th July 2013, 09:15

I love parties and states.

The Feral Underclass

6th July 2013, 09:16

Did you really bring up this old poll to make a joke?

I didn't necro it, PeoplesRepublics did. I am just here to express my true feelings.

L1NKS

6th July 2013, 09:22

Why the yearning for a one party state, when this is exactly what we have today in most industrialized countries - one business party with two or three branches. And look where this got us.

Hence I think, the reasonable answer is nay.

RedLenin

6th July 2013, 17:31

I would be very leery of a one party state. I'd rather like to see multiple working-class parties participating in government. Working people should be able to form their own socialist political parties; this way if one party degenerates in some way, a new party can take its place and lead things forward.

All of this should, of course, happen within a broader constitutional framework. Capitalist and fascist parties should be banned, only working-class, socialist parties need exist in a socialist society. A plurality of workers parties would ensure a more robust democratic structure and would be a hedge against bureaucratic degeneration.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 17:37

Brutus

6th July 2013, 17:39

NO

Your reasoning, please.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 17:43

Your reasoning, please.

One-party states exclude all other parties opposed to their own party. Government needs to be challenged. Having the working-class only able to vote for one party is anti-working class and anti-democratic.

Rural Comrade

6th July 2013, 17:52

Yes I support a single party state. Though elections would have the party members and independents that can run and be elected. Plus I believe if the party holds up the ideas of the revolution it will continue to exist and help the people under communism.

The only problem with this is if the party strays from its original ideologies like all single party ML states.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th July 2013, 17:53

So, I think a big problem with this poll is that, y'know, pick any two people, regardless of their votes, and their opinion in practice is likely to be similar or not hinging not on whether they believe in a "one party state" or otherwise, but on their conceptions of "the party" (or parties) and their conception of "the state". I think this was well-illustrated by an extended argument I had with 9mm prior to his banning in which his defined the state so broadly that a punk house could constitute a state if we all had baseball bats, and a basis of unity. Similarly, between "the party" in Marx and the centralized party of Lenin, between "organizing" and "the organization" their is so little in common (pun intended) that a partisan of either is apt to find themselves at odds (if not loggerheads) with the other.

So, who wants to kick off the "What is the state?" discussion again. Harhar.

The Garbage Disposal Unit

6th July 2013, 17:56

The only problem with this is if what has happened if every historical instance happens again.

You'd almost think it says something about the character of the contemporary state, and its relationship to capital.

Brutus

6th July 2013, 18:00

One-party states exclude all other parties opposed to their own party. Government needs to be challenged. Having the working-class only able to vote for one party is anti-working class and anti-democratic.

The party will be made up of the working class. Read DNZ's quotes on the previous page.

Fourth Internationalist

6th July 2013, 18:03

The party will be made up of the working class. Read DNZ's quotes on the previous page.

You can't guarentee that every single proletarian will join and agree with one party; even one that is multitendency will be limited in one way or other to certain people, even socialists.

The Feral Underclass

6th July 2013, 18:13

The party will be made up of the working class.

And?

Red Banana

6th July 2013, 18:34

Capitalist and fascist parties should be banned, only working-class, socialist parties need exist in a socialist society. A plurality of workers parties would ensure a more robust democratic structure and would be a hedge against bureaucratic degeneration.

What is to stop one or a few of the ruling working class parties from labeling an opposition party, though genuinely socialist, "capitalist"?

I don't think the bourgeois political party is a viable tool for governing a post-revolutionary society. Why would we need political parties other than for one set of interests to gain an upper hand over other sets of interests in a supposedly classeless society?

It makes total sense in the context of capitalism because there are competing interests all vying for power, even the working class, necessitating a working class party. Once there is no power to compete for however, what is the point of a political party?

G4b3n

6th July 2013, 21:05

History has shown as that the affects of this sort of authoritarianism can be distasteful to say the least. I am a staunch anti-statist.

Bright Banana Beard

7th July 2013, 14:52

Yes, I think the multi-parties distracted the real issue that need to be addressed. Fighting for the party is pettiness to me, but if the parties can work it out and not be an asshole then okay.

Brandon's Impotent Rage

8th July 2013, 02:19

I do not think I would use the term 'one party state', as that would imply that a 'party' was needed in the first place.

Although I am all for a diversity of opinions, political parties can more often than not simply become forms of micro-tribalism. Just look at the way that Republicans and Democrats here in the U.S. constantly snipe at each other in petty and childish ways, often to the detriment to the very people and party they claim to represent. Hell, even George Washington had enough sense to warn the young U.S. of the dangers of political parties....and the country was barely a decade old at that point!

Personally, I would prefer the workers be able to represent themselves, without the need for a 'State' apparatus of any kind.

Kalinin's Facial Hair

8th July 2013, 02:27

I don't know.

Gotta read something on the issue/think more about it.

Old Bolshie

8th July 2013, 02:41

As someone who believes that in a bourgeoisie dictatorship the differences between the multiple bourgeois parties are artificial I don't have any reason to think that it would be different in a proletarian dictatorship.

Just like the interests of the bourgeoisie are the same regardless the party, the interests of the proletariat will always be the same regardless the party.

In this sense I defend either a system without parties or with one party rule where direct democracy is applied and open debate allowed. I think that in a context of direct democracy the issue of the existence of one or multiple parties is not so crucial as it is in a representative democracy.

GerrardWinstanley

13th July 2013, 11:07

In terms of one-party state vs multiparty liberal democracy, I'm indifferent at best. Different parts of the world have different and diverse political cultures and are likely to express their democratic will by different means. For many, the imposition of Western style democracy would be harmful. Remember democracy is not synonymous with elections.

I would definitely say I support China's one party system against Western demands for political reform (which to all but the most blinkered and naive, is a patent attempt to impose economic reform of the neoliberal variety) and the Chinese 'dissident' movement.

hashem

13th July 2013, 13:08

No. a communist party represents overwhelming majority of population, therefore if it conducts its tasks correctly, it can push aside any bourgeoisie party which represents a small minority. thus, a true communist party benefits most from freedom.

if some unconscious workers still support bourgeoisie parties, communists must gain their support by agitation and propaganda. if those backward workers are suppressed using force, they will be pushed further into reaction.

only those who are unwilling or unable to present class consciousness to workers and organize them can support a single party system.

3dward

13th July 2013, 14:44

First it has to be explained if we are talking about a party as in running for elections or as in organization to coordinate revolutionary efforts. In the first case, u gotta have more than one party to have an election (obviously). In the second case, I think that after the revolution the party should dissolve, giving space to a more evolved and democratic way of coordination between the revolutionary forces. Otherwise, the possibility of the party becoming an opressive force over the people is almost a certainty. From this point of view a one-party state is very close to a dictatorship. Sadly this is what have happened in every country under the so-called "real socialism" regimes, like Eastern Europa and the Soviet Union.

Lenin1986

13th July 2013, 16:43

I voted no. I think history shows that a one party state does not work. I believe the workers should be in power and not a single party that is led by intellectuals.

Fourth Internationalist

13th July 2013, 20:11

I can't believe 40% of the people voting actually support a one-party state. :(

Darius

14th July 2013, 21:59

One-party state naturally implies the need of repression, since there has to be strict control of political, social life to keep all kinds of dissent crushed. Don't know who would want such kind of state after so many failed examples. It hardly helps the cause of socialism, probably just makes more problems. Though it could be tolarable as a very brief revolutionary measure, or in crysis, war situation then you need fast decisions, but it would work only with good safeguards, and mass support. Party-state as a goal in itself, o or as "transition" to communism is certainly no go.

connoros

14th July 2013, 22:33

There is only one party worth managing a state, so long as the state has to persist. That is the party of the proletariat.

Le Communiste

14th July 2013, 23:48

That's a major generalization, and it really depends on the situation

connoros

14th July 2013, 23:53

Think about how well a multiparty system actually works, though. The state ultimately serves the interests of the ruling class. When that ruling class is the proletariat, what issues will be so divisive among the working class that there need to be separate parties managing the state together? The differences between the Democrats and the Republicans in my country are often illusory; you'll find plenty of Democrats playing to people's bigotry regarding sexuality as you'll find Republicans who believe welfare programs keep the capitalist system on life support.

TheIrrationalist

15th July 2013, 00:15

No, I do not support a single-party state, at least in the sense we have seen in the so called communist states. I see, with the experience of the Marxist-Leninist type of one-party state, that the party is in direct contradiction with the state, and it was one of the factors that led to the degeneration of the Russian revolution.

D-A-C

17th July 2013, 11:28

The problem with a One Party State can clearly be seen in the post-civil war Soviet Union.

The Trotskyist historian Issac Deutscher in his biography of Stalin really hits the nail on the head when he talks about how after the civil war, due to the fact there was only the Bolshevik Party, they had to instigate purges (just expulsions from the Party at this point in history) because, due to the lack of political options available, people who would have been Kadets, Mensheviks etc had no available outlet for their views.

So you end up with thousands of people who join the Bolsheviks, say they are Bolsheviks, act like Bolsheviks ... but aren't Bolsheviks and it causes all sorts of problems.

In the same book however, he comments that after the revolution, when Russia was devastated, people, if they had been allowed to vote, would have voted for Parties that would have re-established the old order and would have unwittingly been counter-revolutionary.

So what was the Party supposed to do? Bow down and let the revolution fail after all the struggling and bloodshed for it? Because thousands of the best Working Class/Proletariet elements (of an already small number) within Russia had perished in the Civil War they had no choice but to substitute the Party for the people as some like Trotsky predicted would happen.

What does all that mean? Its not an easy decision to undertake a one Party state. There are pro's and con's and it isn't in any way a clear cut issue.

I'd ultimately side with a One Party Communist state. But in my mind, Communist Parties should be small and full of specialists in the science of social progress that constitutes Marxism and so in theory it should work. But theory often stumbles in practice.

But it is not an easy issue to grapple with and I often go back and forth on it.