Ad hoc popular organs: bourgeois construct, too?

[Die Neue Zeit]

For some of the recent anti-party hype in other discussions, would it be fair to describe the very basis of councilism, popular assemblies, as a bourgeois construct itself?

It is clear from historical studies that town and town hall meetings, for example, were bourgeois constructs.

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


Typically conducted by New England towns, town meeting can also refer to meetings of other governmental bodies, such as school districts or water districts. While the uses and laws vary from state to state, the general form is for residents of the town or school district to gather once a year and act as a legislative body, voting on operating budgets, laws and other matters for the community's operation over the following 12 months.

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


Everybody in a town community is invited to attend, not always to voice their opinions, but to hear the responses from public figures and (if applicable) elected officials about shared subjects of interest. Attendees rarely vote on an issue or propose an alternative to a situation.

That part about not meeting frequently enough to hold real governance bodies to account was passed on to ad hoc "workers councils."

Thoughts?

[Mr. Natural]

Whatever their past bourgeois or other limitations, local, grassroots assemblies are the way to go. "Associations will be formed in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." (Manifesto)

Marx and Engels and the Manifesto and anarchism/communism get this right. Life is a bottom-up affair in which "lower" elements come together into higher levels of organization. The components of a cell organize into the cell, and cells organize into organs, and organs organize ....

Without bottom-up organization, anarchist and communist revolutionary processes will inevitably lose contact their "lower" elements--the people by whom and for whom the revolution must be made.

Leaders and vanguard parties are not completely out of the question, though, so long as they are engaged in enabling the self-empowerment of the people. Such leaders and vanguard parties would thereby disappear into community.

My red-green best.

[Spirit]

I agree with Mr. Natural. The grassroots assemblies are the way to go and the only way everyone can participate. Having participated of many of those, and even participated in organizing one, I can say that the grassroots, participative/direct democratic assemblies are definitely not a bourgeoise construct. At least not in their concept.

[Art Vandelay]

What is being argued is not, whether or not they are effective (that was being debated in the "All Power to the Workers Militia" thread), but whether or not they are bourgeois constructs; since that was the argument put forth in the prior mentioned thread, as to why political parties cannot make the break with capitalism and class societies. If those who produced said argument are to be consistent in their logic and thinking, then they would have to argue that "ad hoc popular organs" would also be unable to make the necessary break from capitalism and class society, given their roots.

[eric922]

If you want to be technical isn't direct democracy a product of ancient Athens? Though I don't really think it matters where it comes from,so long as it works for the working class. That goes for both parties and councils. Though I myself am more much in favor of councils.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communes are feudal constructs; commonly owned land is an Asiatic construct; federalism is a bourgeois construct. Might as well have no communism by the looks of it.

I'm so sick of these association fallacies here.

[Art Vandelay]

Communes are feudal constructs; commonly owned land is an Asiatic construct; federalism is a bourgeois construct. Might as well have no communism by the looks of it.

I'm so sick of these association fallacies here.

:rolleyes:

Read my post above; you clearly don't understand the context of this thread.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Right, i'm a bit sick of this ridiculous hyperbole.

Firstly, quoting a couple of sentences from some Wiki is NOT 'research'.

Secondly, you really have no point. Workers' councils do not necessarily take the form of town hall meetings. Indeed, the Russian Revolution itself was built on the politics of workers' councils, was it not?

Besides, you seem to criticise councils for meeting infrequently and for not having great participation, merely listening to the public figures/officials speak. How can you criticise this from a pro-party POV? What are parties if not, in general, un-democratic talking shops designed to suppress mass involvement and centralise decision making?

Seriously, even by your generally low-grade standards, this is really, really poor, DNZ.

[Teacher]

Well, there is a popular bourgeois notion about "civil society" organizations being really important for the functioning of a capitalist "democracy." I'm not sure if this is exactly the type of thing you are talking about. Of course, civil society groups are used by the bourgeoisie for their own ends. Civil society in Weimar Germany was instrumental in the rise of fascism.

I don't think one should characterize the organizational form itself as somehow inherently bourgeois though. There was a similar discussion in my recent political group about "democracy" -- is it a bourgeois idea, should we try to use the concept or do we help perpetuate bourgeois ideas by using it, etc.

The question for me is who is controlling the organization/meeting/council/whatever. Who has the power, to what ends is the organization working? Class power matters more than the particular organizational form or what you call it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

What is being argued is not, whether or not they are effective (that was being debated in the "All Power to the Workers Militia" thread), but whether or not they are bourgeois constructs; since that was the argument put forth in the prior mentioned thread

The bourgeois construct argument wasn't in that thread, comrade, but in the One-Party State thread.


as to why political parties cannot make the break with capitalism and class societies. If those who produced said argument are to be consistent in their logic and thinking, then they would have to argue that "ad hoc popular organs" would also be unable to make the necessary break from capitalism and class society, given their roots.

To repeat what I said in the One-Party State thread, both ad hoc popular organs and political clubs were/are bourgeois constructs. With the emergence of worker-class movements came a much more proletarian form of political organizing: the branch meeting.


How can you criticise this from a pro-party POV? What are parties if not, in general, un-democratic talking shops designed to suppress mass involvement and centralise decision making?

The most democratic branch meeting combines the involvement of all participants with centralized decision-making.


Right, i'm a bit sick of this ridiculous hyperbole.

Look in the mirror. :glare:

[Art Vandelay]

Right, i'm a bit sick of this ridiculous hyperbole.

I am sorry, but I don't see how this is hyperbole; it is literally the argument put forth in the thread (not the one I originally stated, but the one DNZ clarified for me) by the anti-party crowd.


Firstly, quoting a couple of sentences from some Wiki is NOT 'research'.


As opposed the the research put forth in the thread in question by you????

DNZ merely provided a link for a premise he had already stated in said thread.


Secondly, you really have no point. Workers' councils do not necessarily take the form of town hall meetings.

No one said they did.


Indeed, the Russian Revolution itself was built on the politics of workers' councils, was it not?

Indeed, as well as a centralized vanguard party and a class conscious populace.


Besides, you seem to criticise councils for meeting infrequently and for not having great participation, merely listening to the public figures/officials speak. How can you criticise this from a pro-party POV? What are parties if not, in general, un-democratic talking shops designed to suppress mass involvement and centralise decision making?


Yeah all parties are un-democratic and designed to suppress mass involvement; give me a break. Councils, in my opinion, are at times ineffective for the fact that direct democracy can be inefficient in times of crises and that it can allow reationaires into decisions making positions.

Sorry to say, but I am really starting to wonder why you call yourself a Marxist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Sorry, I think I confused myself. I thought DNZs OP was the critique of councils as town hall meetings.

I take it back. It was late and I was tired.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Having said that, I still don't see popular assembles as bourgeois constructs. There may of course be some examples (and the New England, America example is telling), especially in America, where a town hall meeting-style of democracy has developed specifically as a tool of legitimising bourgeois democracy, as we see in the American caucus meetings for Presidential elections, for example (i'm not that familiar on the process for House/Senate and state-level elections).

However, this does not show that the actual style of meeting is a bourgeois construct, it merely shows that it can be used to legitimise bourgeois democracy. If anything, this has little to no effect on the potentially proletarian form (and content) of local councils, particularly workers' councils as a form of decentralised democracy. Think of it this way: precisely because popular assemblies give off the impression (the truthful impression, I might add) of genuine, local, participatory worker democracy are they exploited in America for example. Because they are so limited (limited to the caucus period in Presidential elections) and because, under Capitalism, they can be co-opted into the system when they are initiated by the Capitalists, for the Capitalists and not given any real power, they give off the image of democracy.

Imagine what could be done if popular assemblies led to workers' councils that had real political and economic power, that were the centre of power (i.e, of elected power, and of economic power, establishing economic democracy over the dictatorship of capital)? Yes, there is of course the possibility of reactionary elements infiltrating, but really we cannot base our politics on the negative idea of reducing the risk of reaction. We have to go for the most democratic, the most effective and the organ that will achieve the greatest direct worker participation.

[Die Neue Zeit]

We have to go for the most democratic, the most effective and the organ that will achieve the greatest direct worker participation.

I agree with you, but it's the branch meeting and not the popular assembly that accomplishes this. Not only was the former a more proletarian construct, but the former also signifies commitment (at the most crude level, in the form of dues), while the latter exhibits the hedonistic free rider problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem and the Learning thread).

[Tim Finnegan]

Thoughts?
I wouldn't describe it in such generous terms, no.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I agree with you, but it's the branch meeting and not the popular assembly that accomplishes this. Not only was the former a more proletarian construct, but the former also signifies commitment (at the most crude level, in the form of dues), while the latter exhibits the hedonistic free rider problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_rider_problem and the Learning thread).

Why do popular assemblies have a free rider problem? Why would someone go along to a council meeting merely to 'free ride'? Surely there is nothing to 'free ride' upon by attending a meeting. Attendance will lead to input.

I don't see why you have such a fetish for branch meetings over popular assemblies. There is simply no reason that I can think of, nor that you can present, aside from your elitist crap about 'dues' - as if people should have to pay to have a democratic input!

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wouldn't describe it in such generous terms, no.

Oh? You're more skeptical about the origins and historical development of councils, too? :confused:


Why do popular assemblies have a free rider problem? Why would someone go along to a council meeting merely to 'free ride'? Surely there is nothing to 'free ride' upon by attending a meeting. Attendance will lead to input.

I don't see why you have such a fetish for branch meetings over popular assemblies. There is simply no reason that I can think of, nor that you can present, aside from your elitist crap about 'dues' - as if people should have to pay to have a democratic input!

Just as citizens have to pay taxes in order to vote (especially if criminals can't vote) and benefit from social services, even the most democratic input has obligations beforehand that can't be ignored. Besides, if you recall the Economist article I just posted, I quoted in red bold text the cost of mass neglect of one such obligation ("vested interests" stepping in).

[Rafiq]

I wouldn't describe it in such generous terms, no.


Here, comrades, we again are blessed with the privilege of being in the company of yet again another useless post by Tim Finnigen. Very insightful, Tim. Keep up the good work.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Just as citizens have to pay taxes in order to vote (especially if criminals can't vote) and benefit from social services, even the most democratic input has obligations beforehand that can't be ignored. Besides, if you recall the Economist article I just posted, I quoted in red bold text the cost of mass ignorance of one such obligation ("vested interests" stepping in).

Ah, so in our quest for a stateless and moneyless society, we make our own barrier to entry to democracy by saying that money must be paid to the state (or whichever body you wish) to have the democratic franchise? And we're now using that right-wing rag to justify this? Really? :confused:

Another great theoretical contribution from DNZ: pay your way to a moneyless society!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Another great theoretical contribution from DNZ: pay your way to a moneyless society!

Whether it's money or some tangible resource (comrade Miles talked about contributing office supplies directly instead of money in one instance because that would save time purchasing said office supplies), the point is that one can't avoid regular economic obligations. "From each according to his ability" first.

[Grenzer]

Ah, so in our quest for a stateless and moneyless society, we make our own barrier to entry to democracy by saying that money must be paid to the state (or whichever body you wish) to have the democratic franchise? And we're now using that right-wing rag to justify this? Really? :confused:

Another great theoretical contribution from DNZ: pay your way to a moneyless society!

Right on brother!

It's not like an international, class-wide party needs financial resources to operate after all.

[islandmilitia]

It is clear from historical studies that town and town hall meetings, for example, were bourgeois constructs.

This seems to amount to nothing more profound than simply saying that town hall meetings arose under capitalist historical conditions in the United States. I don't see how it follows that workers' councils are also "bourgeois constructs", whatever that means, because the entire defining characteristic of the workers' council form is that it arises organically in the course of struggles under capitalism but at the same time has the potential to contest the power of the capitalist state (dual power) and provide the basis for a post-capitalist form of political organization. Hence the Bolshevik slogan, all power to the Soviets. The reason the workers' council has this potential is that it overcomes the division between politics and economics, which is otherwise a central component of bourgeois political discourse and organization. As long as you fail to grasp that complex historical function (which is itself sufficient to distinguish workers' councils from town hall meetings) then you won't be able to grasp why workers' councils are so important for the revolutionary project.


Just as citizens have to pay taxes in order to vote (especially if criminals can't vote) and benefit from social services, even the most democratic input has obligations beforehand that can't be ignored.

Uh, I don't think we should take the operating principles of bourgeois politics as the basis for the revolutionary project?


I agree with you, but it's the branch meeting and not the popular assembly that accomplishes this

This makes little sense because the entire concept of a branch meeting only makes sense within the context of a party. You don't speak of workers' councils having branch meetings, you speak of party organizations having branch meetings. A party organization can hardly serve as the ultimate locus of democracy for the working class because the entire point and meaning of a party organization is that it is a contained body, organized around specific interests, positions, and aims, such that it cannot enable the whole of society or even the whole of the working class to participate in decision-making. In order to do that you need a system of radical decision-making that is distinct from the party organization, which, for Marxists, has historically been understood in terms of workers' councils, organized at different levels, and rooted in the principles of the Paris Commune.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Right on brother!

It's not like an international, class-wide party needs financial resources to operate after all.

I don't disagree, i'm merely pointing out that, if someone does not have the financial resources to contribute, they should NOT be excluded from the democratic process.

The only criteria we should use for inclusion in our political process is class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This seems to amount to nothing more profound than simply saying that town hall meetings arose under capitalist historical conditions in the United States. I don't see how it follows that workers' councils are also "bourgeois constructs"

My OP stated just one of the traits workers councils shared with town and town hall meetings. Another common trait is the free rider problem.


Uh, I don't think we should take the operating principles of bourgeois politics as the basis for the revolutionary project?

Are you saying that the imperative "from each according to his ability" is a bourgeois principle now? :confused:


A party organization can hardly serve as the ultimate locus of democracy for the working class because the entire point and meaning of a party organization is that it is a contained body, organized around specific interests, positions, and aims, such that it cannot enable the whole of society or even the whole of the working class to participate in decision-making.

Even the whole of the working class? Even the majority of the working class? You need to re-examine the political work of the IWMA ("First International") and the original Socialist International (and its component national party-movements), especially their definition of the relationship between the class movement or "class for itself" and the political party.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

'From each according to his ability' relates to amount of labour inputted. By saying that it relates to economic resources outside of labour-time inputted in the production process, you are really bastardising the phrase.

Put simply: if a worker participates in the production process appropriately, then they shouldn't need on top of that to 'pay dues' or 'office supplies' to be able to participate in the democratic process.

[black magick hustla]

idk what you are babbling about. "assemblies" are some of the most basic and natural forms of organization. it is not a "construct" in the same way eating or talking is not a "construct". assemblies simply entail people getting together to discuss something, which probably exist since the beginning of humanity.

[Tim Finnegan]

Here, comrades, we again are blessed with the privilege of being in the company of yet again another useless post by Tim Finnigen. Very insightful, Tim. Keep up the good work.
http://th38.photobucket.com/albums/e146/vgupload/th_Bow.gif

[Die Neue Zeit]

'From each according to his ability' relates to amount of labour inputted. By saying that it relates to economic resources outside of labour-time inputted in the production process, you are really bastardising the phrase.

Alternatively, one could call what I'm referring to as "socially necessary political work," which is by no means a bastardization of Marx's economic analysis.

Anyway, "socially necessary political work" is no, how shall I use a mainstream phrase, a "free lunch."


Put simply: if a worker participates in the production process appropriately, then they shouldn't need on top of that to 'pay dues' or 'office supplies' to be able to participate in the democratic process.

Again, I'm writing of the "socially necessary political work" performed by a class-for-itself or the class movement. Although you're opposed, you already know how we revivalists define these terms, but it's a fact that this work isn't a "free lunch."


idk what you are babbling about. "assemblies" are some of the most basic and natural forms of organization. it is not a "construct" in the same way eating or talking is not a "construct". assemblies simply entail people getting together to discuss something, which probably exist since the beginning of humanity.

Popular assembly is a bourgeois construct. If you're not convinced by my example of the New England town and town hall meetings, I'll give you another one: Swiss bourgeois-"democratic" constitutionalism.

What you're referring to are smaller group meetings, which aren't a form of popular assembly.

[Hermes]

Popular assembly is a bourgeois construct. If you're not convinced by my example of the New England town and town hall meetings, I'll give you another one: Swiss bourgeois-"democratic" constitutionalism.

What you're referring to are smaller group meetings, which aren't a form of popular assembly.

I'm not really sure that I follow your argument that well, which is why I'm a little hesitant to post, but wouldn't the Greek voting system be an example of popular assembly? Unless I'm mistaken on your definition of that, of course.

[black magick hustla]

What you're referring to are smaller group meetings, which aren't a form of popular assembly.

Not really. A popular assembly is just really an extension of that idea. I don't see the difference.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Alternatively, one could call what I'm referring to as "socially necessary political work," which is by no means a bastardization of Marx's economic analysis.

Anyway, "socially necessary political work" is no, how shall I use a mainstream phrase, a "free lunch."



Again, I'm writing of the "socially necessary political work" performed by a class-for-itself or the class movement. Although you're opposed, you already know how we revivalists define these terms, but it's a fact that this work isn't a "free lunch."


Political work will be necessary, but in the form of administration and direct democracy. Why would people need to pay to participate in this?

And how long would this go on for? You are delaying the transition to a moneyless society and, moreover, you are creating an unnecessary division between the working class: those workers who pay dues and do political work, and those workers who don't pay dues. You are creating a new political class.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And how long would this go on for? You are delaying the transition to a moneyless society and, moreover, you are creating an unnecessary division between the working class: those workers who pay dues and do political work, and those workers who don't pay dues. You are creating a new political class.

Yes, because the (mass) class movement, the representatives of the class as a whole (not delegates, else they'd be at the mob rule whims of the most reactionary segments of the class), are now a totally new class unto itself. :rolleyes:

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, because the (mass) class movement, the representatives of the class as a whole (not delegates, else they'd be at the mob rule whims of the most reactionary segments of the class), are now a totally new class unto itself. :rolleyes:

It's not like there are countless historical examples of representatives of the working class becoming a new strata or class unto themselves. :rolleyes:

[Desperado]

Whether it's money or some tangible resource (comrade Miles talked about contributing office supplies directly instead of money in one instance because that would save time purchasing said office supplies), the point is that one can't avoid regular economic obligations. "From each according to his ability" first.

Of course. "From each according to his ability" begins with regulating each members party contribution to ensure that they are each loyally doing their part to achieve their own liberation. If we don't make them contribute the proletariat will never realise its own emancipation.

Yes, the point is that the proletarian can't avoid regular economic obligations - paying the rent, taxes, feeding her family. Sometimes even at the detriment to contributing time, money or effort towards some "revolutionary" organisation (shock horror!). Believe it or not, proletarians often organise in order to lessen these straining economic obligations which are put upon them, ultimately so that they can freely share their unrestrained labour amongst themselves.

The point is to destroy the money relation, not emulate it.

"Join the party of your liberation, for a subscription of £19.99 per month!"

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yes, the point is that the proletarian can't avoid regular economic obligations - paying the rent, taxes, feeding her family. Sometimes even at the detriment to contributing time, money or effort towards some "revolutionary" organisation (shock horror!). Believe it or not, proletarians often organise in order to lessen these straining economic obligations which are put upon them, ultimately so that they can freely share their unrestrained labour amongst themselves.

The point is to destroy the money relation, not emulate it.

"Join the party of your liberation, for a subscription of £19.99 per month!"

First two sentences: Duh.

However, typically those workers who have time on their hands for basic political activity also tend to have economic resources available. More often the sympathizers have the economic resources but not the time. The free rider problem occurs when only the former is committed when both can be committed.

[And for those eagerly awaiting to go off on ad hominems against me, let's just say I'm not a free rider.]

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

First two sentences: Duh.

However, typically those workers who have time on their hands for basic political activity also tend to have economic resources available. More often the sympathizers have the economic resources but not the time. The free rider problem occurs when only the former is committed when both can be committed.

[And for those eagerly awaiting to go off on ad hominems against me, let's just say I'm not a free rider.]

What you're doing is putting ideology before class, here. It may be that those who have free time and economic resources available simply don't want to spend their time doing party work. Rather, they're happy to contribute to the class, happy to contribute labour time and have played a part in the revolution along with other members of their class. But they'd rather sit at home and watch the football, or go to the gym, or hang out with their mates, rather than do mundane party/branch work.

I don't understand why this is so difficult to fathom for you. Post-revolution, society will not be made up of party-worshipping cadre, but of normal, slowly de-politicising people as ideology and politics die out and society organises itself in a more organic, communitarian and decentralised way.

[citizen of industry]

However, typically those workers who have time on their hands for basic political activity also tend to have economic resources available. More often the sympathizers have the economic resources but not the time.

This just isn't true. Money isn't everything. People who do political activity often sacrifice economic resources to find time for it, because that is the focus of their lives. I've seen people turn down better job offers because they are involved in labor struggles and committed to their union. I've seen people living at poverty level and devoting almost all of their time to political activity by choice. I've seen strain put on families because of conflicts between political activity and economic resources. Sympathizers use time or or money as an excuse not to engage in political activity. Really it just comes down to time, as most organizations allow sliding scales, financial aid, etc. for members who want to be active but can't afford the normal obligation. People who want to be active find the time for it at the expense of economic resources

[Die Neue Zeit]

This just isn't true. Money isn't everything. People who do political activity often sacrifice economic resources to find time for it, because that is the focus of their lives.

I said basic political activity, not political activity in general which would include the activism you speak of.


Really it just comes down to time, as most organizations allow sliding scales, financial aid, etc. for members who want to be active but can't afford the normal obligation. People who want to be active find the time for it at the expense of economic resources

There is a trend these days for membership-based organizations to have multi-tiered memberships reflecting the time and money problems, and that's a good thing. [Of course, ad hoc popular organs don't have this control to deal with the free rider problem.]


It may be that those who have free time and economic resources available simply don't want to spend their time doing party work. Rather, they're happy to contribute to the class, happy to contribute labour time

Class movements have always required more solid contributions, not consultancy-like activity that's more typical of the petit-bourgeoisie and other non-workers.


But they'd rather sit at home and watch the football, or go to the gym, or hang out with their mates, rather than do mundane party/branch work.

That only necessitates the role of the full-timer.


Post-revolution, society will not be made up of party-worshipping cadre, but of normal, slowly de-politicising people

Here you actually repeat Lenin's mistake (post-October)! Politics needs to be intensified during the transitional period and at least part of the lower phase of the communist mode of production, not whittled down.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Class movements have always required more solid contributions, not consultancy-like activity that's more typical of the petit-bourgeoisie and other non-workers.

That only necessitates the role of the full-timer.

Here you actually repeat Lenin's mistake (post-October)! Politics needs to be intensified during the transitional period and at least part of the lower phase of the communist mode of production, not whittled down.

So only those who give their time and economic resources should take part in the economic process, and party work necessitates only the role of the full timer.

So what you're basically saying is that society should be administered by a small minority of 'professional' revolutionaries on behalf of the working class, the large portion of whom will be de facto disengaged from the political process.

Aren't you the democrat. :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

So only those who give their time and economic resources should take part in the economic process, and party work necessitates only the role of the full timer.

You've got your grammar wrong. Party-movement work necessitates the role of the full timer, but it can't and shouldn't be monopolized by such. If I had said the opposite, I'd be hypocritical, given my highly critical stance towards today's "activism."


So what you're basically saying is that society should be administered by a small minority of 'professional' revolutionaries on behalf of the working class, the large portion of whom will be de facto disengaged from the political process.

Class struggle and social revolution should be performed by masses of "dues-paying" workers (dues and dues equivalents) performing at least the most basic of class-based political activity. In other words, class struggle and social revolution society should be performed by the class-for-itself. Different tiers of voting membership, all the way up to citizenship, can and should be established.


Aren't you the democrat. :rolleyes:

Well, yes, clear programmatic approaches to the lower and higher phases of the communist mode of production (or social-abolitionism) combined with the strategy of Revolutionary Social Democracy (or proletocracy) is the best of both worlds (hence social proletocracy). :D

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why can't you just give straight answers to straight (albeit sarcastic!) questions?

I seriously haven't been enlightened by that last post at all. I still don't understand what you are on about, I must say. :rolleyes:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Many times the best answers require elaboration.

[Камо́ Зэд]

I couldn't really say for sure based on my own research whether such organizations are bourgeois constructs, but I'm glad that it's acknowledged that bourgeois historical development doesn't necessarily mean that such organizations are unfit for the establishment of socialism. After all, capitalism is itself the wellspring of socialism in that the resolution of its contradictions is what constitutes the socialist endeavor.