Polls: Anticapitalism surging & How to Maintain This

[Tim Cornelis]

Anticapitalism is surging in many, but by no means all, European countries. This is evidenced by the fact that the popularity of far-left parties increase in these countries.

Belgium:
The Workers' Party/Labour Party received 0.9% of the votes in last elections; after the party leader wrote a best-selling book, it was reported the party received around 3% of the virtual votes in polls.

Czech Republic:
The Communist Party of Bohemia and Moravia received 11.3% of the votes in the last elections; it received 16-20% of the votes in the latest polls (largest party received 22.3% of the votes).

Denmark:
The Red-Green Alliance received 6.7% of the votes in the last elections; if elections were held today it would receive 13-14% of the votes.

Germany:
Die Linke gained 11.9% of the votes in the 2009 elections; if elections were held today it would merely receive 6-7% of the votes. The popularity of the Greens and the Pirate Party grew where that of Die Linke's fell. Many of Die Linke's (potential) voters may be drawn to those instead.

Italy:
Unfortunately, no surge in the popularity of far-left parties.
The far-left Rainbow coalition saw its share of votes drop from 10 to 3% in the 2008 election. The newly established 'Federation of the Left' only receives around 3% of the votes in polls. This may be in part attributable to the fact that the coalition is new, but the primary reason is that the Left Ecology Freedom is claiming 6% of the virtual votes. The Left Ecology Freedom is a SYRIZA-like coalition of communists, social-democrats, and democratic socialists. The Five Star Movement (populist, anti-corruption, e-democracy) may also attract many potentially far-left voters (it polls around 20% of the votes).

Spain:
The United Left received 6.9% of the votes in the last elections; it received 10-12% of the votes in the latest polls.

Portugal:
Democratic Unity Coalition (Communist-Green alliance) received 7.9% of the votes in the last elections; it received 9.9% of the votes in the latest poll.
Left Bloc received 5.2% of the votes in the last elections; if elections were held today it would increase its share of votes to 6.9% (the marginal Trotskyist party--0.08% of the votes in the last election--and the small Maoist party--1.12% of the votes in the last election--are not mentioned in the polls.

Polls for France, Ireland, UK are not available. The UK seems to lack a credible far-left party.

The disparity in anticapitalist sentiment as expressed through voting behaviour is interesting. While Denmark is relatively socially and economically tranquil, its largest far-left party performs better than the largest far-left party in Spain. But in countries like the Netherlands and United Kingdom there is a complete absence of any far-left party with an even remotely significant following. In the coming Dutch elections of September 12, 2012, there is not a single far-left party participating.

Sweden and Finland, while similar to Denmark's political landscape, also lack a far-left party. The two left-wing populist and anti-neoliberal social-democratic parties in Sweden and Finland, the Left Party and the Left Alliance, respectively, do not seem to gain or lose strength. In contrast, the Danish version of the Left Party and Left Alliance, the Socialist People's Party, is losing much of its voters presumably to the Red-Green Alliance. In the Netherlands a similar anti-neoliberal social-democratic party: the Maoist turned Marxist-Leninist turned democratic socialist turned left-wing populist turned social-democratic 'Socialist Party' is ahead in the polls, which signifies widespread discontent with neoliberalism and the desire for a left-wing solution to the economic crisis.

For an explanation for the disparity of the popularity of anticapitalist parties we may have to turn to manufacturing consent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Political_Economy_of_th e_Mass_Media

Only in countries where the far-left were an established party, their popularity has surged. In countries that lacked an established far-left party, no such surge is observable. This is certainly conform to the conclusion we would draw from the analysis of 'manufacturing consent'.

How to sustain and expand the popularity of the far-left?

Throughout the last decades various political parties have set up social welfare programmes to fulfill the needs of workers and citizens where the government failed to do so (Socialist Party in the Netherlands opened free clinics; the Black Panther Party also provided some free services; and there are countless other examples). I recall when I suggested that the Golden Dawn, who has been engaging in distributing food and clothes to the needy, could grow in popularity, a user scorned this. But the reality is, social welfare programmes often ensure a long-term popularity of the ideology of the supplier. We can witness this in Palestine where Hamas provided these social services, and in Lebanon where Hezbollah repaired schools, and supplied social welfare.

It seems that the answer lies here:


A declining but still important role among communist and formerly communist parties is played by the “red-belt”, where communist parties long acted as the providers of “womb-to-tomb” local services. Far left voting remains higher than average in several such areas (for example, Creuze and Correze in France, Bologna in Italy, Setubal in Portugal and Northern Finland). Indeed, PDS’s core support vote in Eastern Germany during the 1990s was attributed by many analysts to the party’s ability to represent the socalled “socialist value culture”; that is, a left-paternalist orientation common to many ex-communist countries.

(source: Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe: From Marxism to the Mainstream?)

I assume that these social services are no longer supplied, yet they still impact voting behaviour. It is thus evident that such welfare programmes have positive long-term affects. In Spain, Greece, and Portugal there is a growing lack of supplying basic needs (food, etc.) and therefore there is a lot of potential. Another evident advantage is that providing social services actually helps people, as opposed to merely preaching and agitating.

Not all political organisations will have the means to set up an elaborate network of social services. Therefore other strategies need to be utilised. What do you all think are other means to sustain and expand the popularity of anticapitalism in Europe and elsewhere? Obviously there is the basics: community organising, workplace organising, but perhaps there is something new or unconventional that may work?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I do have sympathy with providing social services in general, but I think we need to be careful that this doesn't turn into alternative culture-ism. Limited help extended to the proletariat can obviously be a good propaganda tool, but I feel it should only be utilised as part of the economic and political struggles the proletariat engages with (i.e. providing services/goods to striking workers to enable them to strike for longer, or providing welfare/logistical support in cases where the already class conscious workers are engaged in battle with the bourgeoisie, a la the miners in Spain).

The problem is thus:

whilst yes, providing welfare state-style services might a) help the working class in the immediate term and b) secure some electoral support in the short-term, it does actually re-inforce the liberal-left notion that the way to fight back against the crisis of capitalism is 'more welfare'. I.e. 'look at these good Socialists, all we need is to follow their lead and have more creches, free schools and subsidies for poor people and things will be better'.

I think this is the difference between broad anticapitalism, and Socialism. Socialism is not a welfare ideology, it's a political philosophy that foresees and demands an absolute rupture in the very fabric of society. I don't think a lot of comrades (not necessarily aiming this at the OP, he's generally an excellent poster in this regard) actually grasp just how fundamental a change from Capitalism to Socialism is. It's not mere ideology, it's a fundamental break in the social, economic, political and ergo cultural relationships in society. Think Feudalism to Capitalism: in the western world alone, it took centuries for the full effects of the advent of Capitalism to be felt and understood; the economic relationships changed first (there was surplus as early as the late 15th century), then socio-economic and only in the 19th century really were cultural attitudes to slavery and servitude really changed.

It must be tempting to resort to this sort of activity to accrue more votes, but is 'popularity' an endgame in itself? Is it not slightly 'cheap'? After all, only when the proletariat for itself understands what Socialism is, and why it comes about, and why Capitalism needs to die, can Socialism itself actually become. It can't come about via the electoral box, even if a genuinely communist party did 'win.'

[Os Cangaceiros]

I think the only parties who are truly on their way out (at least for now) are the milquetoast managers-of-capital parties (the PASOKs of the world). Parties with strong ideological objections to the way the system is currently being run will probably continue to gain popularity, but those can come from conservative or fascist viewpoints just as they can come from left-wing viewpoints...

I could be wrong about that, though. Who knows where the economic situation in Europe is headed.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Only in countries where the far-left were an established party, their popularity has surged. In countries that lacked an established far-left party, no such surge is observable. This is certainly conform to the conclusion we would draw from the analysis of 'manufacturing consent'.

It's the task of the established far left to carry the momentum.


How to sustain and expand the popularity of the far-left?

Throughout the last decades various political parties have set up social welfare programmes to fulfill the needs of workers and citizens where the government failed to do so (Socialist Party in the Netherlands opened free clinics; the Black Panther Party also provided some free services; and there are countless other examples). I recall when I suggested that the Golden Dawn, who has been engaging in distributing food and clothes to the needy, could grow in popularity, a user scorned this. But the reality is, social welfare programmes often ensure a long-term popularity of the ideology of the supplier. We can witness this in Palestine where Hamas provided these social services, and in Lebanon where Hezbollah repaired schools, and supplied social welfare.

Alternative Culture would do wonders.

The left must rediscover and re-embrace the pre-WWI SPD model of worker-class institutions covering cultural societies, recreational clubs, food banks, and such. It can't let reactionary forces do the Alternative Culture work.


It seems that the answer lies here:

(source: Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe: From Marxism to the Mainstream?)

Yes, I read that paper a year ago.


I assume that these social services are no longer supplied, yet they still impact voting behaviour. It is thus evident that such welfare programmes have positive long-term affects. In Spain, Greece, and Portugal there is a growing lack of supplying basic needs (food, etc.) and therefore there is a lot of potential. Another evident advantage is that providing social services actually helps people, as opposed to merely preaching and agitating.

And here's where commitment is really handy. Political support is worth squat without a sufficient membership base, because only that can fuel the Alternative Culture.


Not all political organisations will have the means to set up an elaborate network of social services. Therefore other strategies need to be utilised. What do you all think are other means to sustain and expand the popularity of anticapitalism in Europe and elsewhere? Obviously there is the basics: community organising, workplace organising, but perhaps there is something new or unconventional that may work?

Start with food banks. Start with sports clubs that don't rely on expensive overhead costs (chess and checkers clubs, hiking clubs, biking clubs, etc.).

[Die Neue Zeit]

I do have sympathy with providing social services in general, but I think we need to be careful that this doesn't turn into alternative culture-ism.

Why not? That, historically, has been the way worker-class-for-itself formations or class movements have risen.


Limited help extended to the proletariat can obviously be a good propaganda tool, but I feel it should only be utilised as part of the economic and political struggles the proletariat engages with (i.e. providing services/goods to striking workers to enable them to strike for longer, or providing welfare/logistical support in cases where the already class conscious workers are engaged in battle with the bourgeoisie, a la the miners in Spain).

You're suggesting merely a different form of strike fund, as if it ever propelled class movements. :glare:


The problem is thus:

whilst yes, providing welfare state-style services might a) help the working class in the immediate term and b) secure some electoral support in the short-term, it does actually re-inforce the liberal-left notion that the way to fight back against the crisis of capitalism is 'more welfare'. I.e. 'look at these good Socialists, all we need is to follow their lead and have more creches, free schools and subsidies for poor people and things will be better'.

Why only welfare state-style services? The pre-war SPD model had the kind of recreational clubs that I documented and that you denounced.

Besides, liberal parties historically have never done this stuff. Class commitment goes both ways. Broader class support feeds the class movement politically if the class movement feeds the broader class materially.


It must be tempting to resort to this sort of activity to accrue more votes, but is 'popularity' an endgame in itself? Is it not slightly 'cheap'? After all, only when the proletariat for itself understands what Socialism is, and why it comes about, and why Capitalism needs to die, can Socialism itself actually become. It can't come about via the electoral box, even if a genuinely communist party did 'win.'

Don't be ridiculous. This isn't for popularity. As I said before and again, political support is more concretely measured in party-movement citizenship (measured by both financial support / "Dues!" and individual participation / "Branch Meetings!") than by any vote at the ballot box.

[Positivist]

The best way to build active communities of workers is to facilitate mutual aid and interaction within the potential communities. As the OP and DNZ have pointed out, this method has proven most successful in attracting political loyalty (albeit to an exclusively electoral extent.) Furthermore there isn't evej any other method of building a sustainable mass workers movement.
You can found a party and survive on the few class conscious workers who emerge out of each generation (while also competing with other immobile parties with different lines.)

You can just sit around and wait for material conditions to deteriorate and hope everybody realizes that the only viable solution to alleviate the plight of their condition is to abolish the system (even though historically mass reaction has been prone to be simplistic, such as demands for higher wages or cries to expel harmful elements to society.)

Or you can build networks of aid and interaction between workers where gratitude and sociality are developed, and where the workers begin to open up to alternative ideas and concepts. The only way that workers will ever even be in the position to learn and understand socialism is if they find themselves in a control environment which promotes (both directly and indirectly.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ "Marxist but Beyond Marx" is a damn good sig line, comrade. Marx's understanding of Alternative Culture / mutual aid was rather primordial, compared to the higher, "institutional" understanding of the original Socialist International. :cool:

[Per Levy]

Why not? That, historically, has been the way worker-class-for-itself formations or class movements have risen.


Why only welfare state-style services? The pre-war SPD model had the kind of recreational clubs that I documented and that you denounced.

yeah that worked out so well didnt it? i mean its not like that the pre-war spd did send all their alternative culture proles into the war to slaughter their french and russian brothers. why didnt the pre-war spd alternative culture stop this? why didnt most of the alternative culture spd workers joined the revolution and sided with reformism. maybe your alternative culture is a thing of the past and even in the past it didnt work so well.


"Marxist but Beyond Marx" is a damn good sig line, comrade. Marx's understanding of Alternative Culture / mutual aid was rather primordial, compared to the higher, "institutional" understanding of the original Socialist International.

yeah, marx was so stupid, if he was just more like kautsky and dnz, everything would've been better.

[DaringMehring]

Leftism is on the rise in Europe, due to the economic collapse (duh?). For the same reason rightism is on the rise. Status-quo, centrism, always suffers when the system it represents falls into shambles. It's like a miniature version of the Great Depression.

"We" don't have to do anything to maintain this "momentum" -- the objective situation is instilling it in the working class. Not the stupid electoral posturing of some zombie Communist Party. It seems silly to even measure the supposed rise of the left by the electoral results of reformist formations -- that is a symptom but far from the most important or precise one.

More than anything, the development of the far left movement will come from capitalist attacks, capitalist crises, and breakdown. Those will active thousands and millions of working class militants into the class struggle.

Whether we help that process by offering all the accumulated knowledge of our tradition, or whether we hurt it by trying to divert radicals into elections, coalitions, and reforms, is the question. The movement will grow but what goals will it orient itself around? The only true Marxist answer is seizing power for the proletariat, and making a clean sweep of the bourgeoisie and their rotten society.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Leftism is on the rise in Europe, due to the economic collapse (duh?).

On the rise, but *not* due to the economic collapse. It's on the rise because of how the mainstream has handled the economic bumbling.


For the same reason rightism is on the rise. Status-quo, centrism, always suffers when the system it represents falls into shambles. It's like a miniature version of the Great Depression.

The left rises when there's something like the Long Depression. The far right rises when there's something like the Great Depression. One involves economic bumbling. The other one doesn't.

[Hit The North]

You're suggesting merely a different form of strike fund, as if it ever propelled class movements. :glare:


Ah, yes, your antipathy to supporting workers in actual struggle is well known. Better to support workers in their leisure pursuits, yes?



The pre-war SPD model had the kind of recreational clubs that I documented and that you denounced.

And talk about supporting defunct and discredited organisational models. This is the SPD that collapsed into a heap of national chauvinism during the great imperialist war and connived in the massacre of revolutionary workers after the war. Its chess clubs couldn't save it from its inevitable fate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ah, yes, your antipathy to supporting workers in actual struggle is well known. Better to support workers in their leisure pursuits, yes?

Class-based political struggle and mere labour disputes are not synonymous.


And talk about supporting defunct and discredited organisational models. This is the SPD that collapsed into a heap of national chauvinism during the great imperialist war and connived in the massacre of revolutionary workers after the war. Its chess clubs couldn't save it from its inevitable fate.

Your tendency doesn't have a viable organizational model, as noted in the OP itself.

[Hit The North]

Class-based political struggle and mere labour disputes are not synonymous.


Empty schematicism. A bit like this:


The left rises when there's something like the Long Depression. The far right rises when there's something like the Great Depression. One involves economic bumbling. The other one doesn't.



Your tendency doesn't have a viable organizational model, as noted in the OP itself.

It has enough viability to make it the largest organisation on the UK revolutionary left. Not a huge boast, by any means, but still more viable than McNair's fantasy about building a mass communist movement through the reanimation of Kautsky's dead ideas.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Empty schematicism.

If you want to repeat the empty adage that "the economic is political," be my guest.


A bit like this:

The Long Depression propelled worker-class movements all over Continent Europe. Mass of workers organized politically because the cons and libs bumbled.


It has enough viability to make it the largest organisation on the UK revolutionary left. Not a huge boast, by any means, but still more viable than McNair's fantasy about building a mass communist movement through the reanimation of Kautsky's dead ideas.

If the GUE-EGL parliamentary group decided to launch a collective initiative for Alternative Culture / mutual aid, that would dwarf your petty British activism (collective "your" and not individual).

Note to the OP: I think that, for a post-labour worker-class movement to be established in the UK, the GUE-NGL itself, assuming an inclination towards Alternative Culture / mutual aid, must establish a national "branch" of sorts in the UK. France once had the Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Section_of_the_Workers'_International), the French Section of the Workers International, though it wasn't a national "branch" per se.

The UK needs an explicit British Section of the European United Left ( - Nordic Green Left).

[Ostrinski]

The main thing that is necessary here not only to keep and increase these numbers but also to mold this momentum into something positive and productive is political conversation. In times like these more than ever, the left needs to establish itself as a concrete political force and a determined one that's here to stay at that. But more importantly we need to show that we have answers - not just for the economic crisis, but for any number of issues, such as prison, the environment, and other issues that affect people's lives. People aren't going to know that there is a socialist answer to these issues if it isn't explained to them.

This is where alternative culture can come in. It's not about being paternalistic and condescending, nor is it about simply winning votes. It's to expand a platform on which the left can elucidate on its program, provide political education, and to provide a foundation on which the politicized working class can empower itself - to cultivate a higher political consciousness. The class struggle is a political struggle afterall, not just an economic one.

We need to seriously consider how we are to not only reach this necessary intermediate stage but transcend it. That necessitates an understanding of what the politics of being the ruling class entail, what kind of political system to implement in accordance with certain circumstances, how to operate it.

In short, class consciousness, while a necessary condition for the working class to rule society for itself, is not a sufficient condition. There is more to organizing society than just being in control of the economy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The main thing that is necessary here not only to keep and increase these numbers but also to mold this momentum into something positive and productive is political conversation. In times like these more than ever, the left needs to establish itself as a concrete political force and a determined one that's here to stay at that. But more importantly we need to show that we have answers - not just for the economic crisis, but for any number of issues, such as prison, the environment, and other issues that affect people's lives. People aren't going to know that there is a socialist answer to these issues if it isn't explained to them.

Genuine class struggle and social revolution is indeed programmed, comrade.


This is where alternative culture can come in. It's not about being paternalistic and condescending, nor is it about simply winning votes.

That's something those more strategically ultra-left or those strategically reform-coalitionist / soc-dem just don't get, respectively.


It's to expand a platform on which the left can elucidate on its program, provide political education, and to provide a foundation on which the politicized working class can empower itself - to cultivate a higher political consciousness. The class struggle is a political struggle afterall, not just an economic one.

That's a profoundly true and important strategic insight.


We need to seriously consider how we are to not only reach this necessary intermediate stage but transcend it. That necessitates an understanding of what the politics of being the ruling class entail, what kind of political system to implement in accordance with certain circumstances, how to operate it.

In short, class consciousness, while a necessary condition for the working class to rule society for itself, is not a sufficient condition. There is more to organizing society than just being in control of the economy.

OK, comrade, I need to correct you somewhat here. Here you confuse genuine class consciousness with either r-r-r-r-revolutionary/"socialist" consciousness or that associated with mere labour disputes.

In short, it is r-r-r-r-revolutionary/"socialist" consciousness or that associated with mere labour disputes, and even both, that are insufficient. Genuine class consciousness is necessary, and this arises from more generic political consciousness (a la Occupy).

[citizen of industry]

It's the task of the established far left to carry the momentum.

Alternative Culture would do wonders.

The left must rediscover and re-embrace the pre-WWI SPD model of worker-class institutions covering cultural societies, recreational clubs, food banks, and such. It can't let reactionary forces do the Alternative Culture work.

And here's where commitment is really handy. Political support is worth squat without a sufficient membership base, because only that can fuel the Alternative Culture.

Start with food banks. Start with sports clubs that don't rely on expensive overhead costs (chess and checkers clubs, hiking clubs, biking clubs).

Oh man, not this again. Chess and hiking clubs? Seriously, that sounds lame. If there was a proletarian checker club on my block with a red flag flying from it I'd run the other way. How are you going to compete with capitalist industry when it comes to entertainment anyway?

You can dress your proposal up and spray perfume on it, but it can be reduced to leisure activities and electoral politics. What happens if you win one of those elections? Have a hand in the exploitation of workers? Maybe call in the police to repress some popular dissent because there's a "socialist" in government and the proletariat needs to have patience while you work your wonders?

We aren't going to "create" a revolution. Conditions will change consciousness, and it is precisely the kind of electoral politics you are preaching about that always tries to choke it off and direct it into parliament while the proletariat is swinging further and further to the left.

[Ostrinski]

Oh man, not this again. Chess and hiking clubs? No not if people are not interested in chess and hiking

[Ostrinski]

This thread is in dire need of some Qommunism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Why not? That, historically, has been the way worker-class-for-itself formations or class movements have risen.

No, historically the working class [see how I avoid pointless neological indulgence there?] has become class and politically conscious when material conditions allow; the extent to which consciousness has been realised depends on material conditions, how effective our propaganda efforts are, the extent of agitation amongst the working class. Only then does organisation play a part.



Why only welfare state-style services? The pre-war SPD model had the kind of recreational clubs that I documented and that you denounced.

And how did that turn out?


Besides, liberal parties historically have never done this stuff. Class commitment goes both ways. Broader class support feeds the class movement politically if the class movement feeds the broader class materially.

I agree, but ours is a political class commitment. It's all too easy for the political message to get blurred if we over-indulge in welfare support (if it becomes 'alternative' culture rather than short-term alleviation of working class strife). We do not want welfare to become our culture; ultimately, we are political ideologues trying to advance a philosophy that, as of yet, is not popularised amongst the working class.


Don't be ridiculous. This isn't for popularity. As I said before and again, political support is more concretely measured in party-movement citizenship (measured by both financial support / "Dues!" and individual participation / "Branch Meetings!") than by any vote at the ballot box.

You can think that all you want - that how many members see fit to attend boring branch meetings and pay money so that bureaucrats like you can think up wacky ideas like inflatable atheist communes or water-wells-as-alternative-culture for the worker-class-in-and-of-itself provided by the tred-unionisty, or whatever - but political support is not measured by party membership, nor party dues. Indeed, the very idea of 'political support' implies that there is a distinction between the working class and your precious party. Socialism will not come about by working class support for a party, but by working class action for itself. You never seem to get this.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

What happens if you win one of those elections? Have a hand in the exploitation of workers? Maybe call in the police to repress some popular dissent because there's a "socialist" in government and the proletariat needs to have patience while you work your wonders?


Don't be silly, he'd only call the police to repress anarchist dissent. In fact, as
he's stated before, he'd hand them over to the pigs personally.

Solidarity and all that...:thumbdown:

[Q]

This thread is in dire need of some Qommunism.
Cue taken ;)

As I'm going off to the Communist University next week, I won't expect to reply much here, but just some general comments for now.


I do have sympathy with providing social services in general, but I think we need to be careful that this doesn't turn into alternative culture-ism. Limited help extended to the proletariat can obviously be a good propaganda tool, but I feel it should only be utilised as part of the economic and political struggles the proletariat engages with (i.e. providing services/goods to striking workers to enable them to strike for longer, or providing welfare/logistical support in cases where the already class conscious workers are engaged in battle with the bourgeoisie, a la the miners in Spain).

One does not contradict with the other as you (and others) seem to imply. Focusing on merely a strikefund "plus" will inevitably lead to economism and trade unionism, not to political activity.

On the other hand, building on the long term task of an alternative culture that is explicitly cut loose from the state and the bosses builds the working class a a class-collective, that is, an explicitly political movement where the working class fights for its own interests, which are inevitably to take power on a social level. In this context we can then talk of strike funds "plus" forms of organisation as one form of (defense) organisation, but where alternative culture institutions (such as workers sports, cummunity centers, educational collectives, worker coops, etc) are all equally forms of working class organisation.

In other words: Fetishizing strikes and strike funds will lead to nowhere.

Further on-topic reading can be found in this blogpost of mine (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618), a while back.


The problem is thus:

whilst yes, providing welfare state-style services might a) help the working class in the immediate term and b) secure some electoral support in the short-term, it does actually re-inforce the liberal-left notion that the way to fight back against the crisis of capitalism is 'more welfare'. I.e. 'look at these good Socialists, all we need is to follow their lead and have more creches, free schools and subsidies for poor people and things will be better'.
A non-sequitur. The argument for an alternative culture that is explicitly working-class based does not lead to demanding that the capitalist state should be be more welfarist. It could however be a strategic response of the capitalist politicians in an attempt to cut support for the communists, but this should be fought against in my view and our organisation should always remain independent, never reliant on the state. Doing otherwise would be a betrayal of the program.


I think this is the difference between broad anticapitalism, and Socialism. Socialism is not a welfare ideology, it's a political philosophy that foresees and demands an absolute rupture in the very fabric of society. I don't think a lot of comrades (not necessarily aiming this at the OP, he's generally an excellent poster in this regard) actually grasp just how fundamental a change from Capitalism to Socialism is. It's not mere ideology, it's a fundamental break in the social, economic, political and ergo cultural relationships in society. Think Feudalism to Capitalism: in the western world alone, it took centuries for the full effects of the advent of Capitalism to be felt and understood; the economic relationships changed first (there was surplus as early as the late 15th century), then socio-economic and only in the 19th century really were cultural attitudes to slavery and servitude really changed.
In fact it is a far more radical break with society than happened between feudalism and capitalism, where one ruling minority class replaced another. In the socialist rupture (nice word btw, I like it) we strive for majoritarian politics. This is exactly the long term educational goal of the party-movement.

In fact, alternative culture is exactly the model that leads to a proto-state that can replace the (minoritarian) capitalist state with the (majoritarian) working class "state" (and I say "state" because it would from the start only be a semi-state that progressively collapses into society itself (remember this? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359))).


It must be tempting to resort to this sort of activity to accrue more votes, but is 'popularity' an endgame in itself? Is it not slightly 'cheap'?
It is not cheap at all, comrade. It requires dedication on a long term project and on a mass scale. Compared to it, general-strikist strategies are extremely cheap as they only require cheerleading and putting out slogans in a Bakuninist fashion.

As a last remark: It is a pity that since Miles left us you reverted back to your old position. I was hoping to see more progress since the "one party" thread.


yeah that worked out so well didnt it? i mean its not like that the pre-war spd did send all their alternative culture proles into the war to slaughter their french and russian brothers. why didnt the pre-war spd alternative culture stop this? why didnt most of the alternative culture spd workers joined the revolution and sided with reformism. maybe your alternative culture is a thing of the past and even in the past it didnt work so well.
This somewhat pathetic retort doesn't account for the existence of the RSDLP where the Bolsheviks were explicitly committed to the Erfurt model and implemented it under Russian conditions (that is, police state repression, which means the alternative culture aspect didn't blossom like it did in Western countries).


yeah, marx was so stupid, if he was just more like kautsky and dnz, everything would've been better.
No one said Marx was stupid. Without Marx Kautsky and the revolutionary center couldn't possibly have proposed the strategy that they did.


Ah, yes, your antipathy to supporting workers in actual struggle is well known. Better to support workers in their leisure pursuits, yes?
As I explained in my reply to The Boss, one does not exclude the other. Strike funds shouldn't be a strategic goal, but a tactical part of a broader strategy.


And talk about supporting defunct and discredited organisational models. This is the SPD that collapsed into a heap of national chauvinism during the great imperialist war and connived in the massacre of revolutionary workers after the war. Its chess clubs couldn't save it from its inevitable fate.
Odd that you are to talk of "defunct and discredited organisational models" since your own group also tries to emulate the Bolsheviks last time I checked. Then again, the far left has long misunderstood this essential part of our history, so I can understand where this contradiction comes from.


It has enough viability to make it the largest organisation on the UK revolutionary left. Not a huge boast, by any means, but still more viable than McNair's fantasy about building a mass communist movement through the reanimation of Kautsky's dead ideas.
2500 odd members is hardly a boast worth speaking about. In fact I'd say it's rather ludicrous. We need a movement of (on a European scale) tens of millions.


No, historically the working class [see how I avoid pointless neological indulgence there?] has become class and politically conscious when material conditions allow; the extent to which consciousness has been realised depends on material conditions, how effective our propaganda efforts are, the extent of agitation amongst the working class. Only then does organisation play a part.
Sorry, but this logic inevitably leads to political apathy. I refuse to accept a "strategy" based on merely cheerleading workers struggles wherever they spontaneously come up and sit on our hands in the mean time, merely spouting agitation on how cool strikes are and what a grand idea socialism is.


And how did that turn out?
That strategy led to October 1917. Not a particular success in the long term, but the only model worth considering.


You can think that all you want - that how many members see fit to attend boring branch meetings and pay money so that bureaucrats like you can think up wacky ideas like inflatable atheist communes or water-wells-as-alternative-culture for the worker-class-in-and-of-itself provided by the tred-unionisty, or whatever - but political support is not measured by party membership, nor party dues. Indeed, the very idea of 'political support' implies that there is a distinction between the working class and your precious party. Socialism will not come about by working class support for a party, but by working class action for itself. You never seem to get this.
You never seem to get the basic point that alternative culture is all about the self-organisation of the working class in its fight for revolutionary self-emancipation that is called the dictatorship of the proletariat.


Don't be silly, he'd only call the police to repress anarchist dissent. In fact, as
he's stated before, he'd hand them over to the pigs personally.

Solidarity and all that...:thumbdown:
Trolololol.

You're better then that.


But in countries like the Netherlands and United Kingdom there is a complete absence of any far-left party with an even remotely significant following. In the coming Dutch elections of September 12, 2012, there is not a single far-left party participating.
You've come a long way since you thought that the Volkskrant was the only leftwing daily in the Netherlands :) (at least, I thought that was you).


In the Netherlands a similar anti-neoliberal social-democratic party: the Maoist turned Marxist-Leninist turned democratic socialist turned left-wing populist turned social-democratic 'Socialist Party' is ahead in the polls, which signifies widespread discontent with neoliberalism and the desire for a left-wing solution to the economic crisis.
Despite these obvious shortcomings, the SP is the only party that uses "workers" and "the common man" as its branding. As such it has attracted many activists that are genuinely working class and a close cooperation with trade union struggle.

This opens possibilities of political education, but only if there is to be a battle for democracy within the ranks of the SP that ousts the bureaucratic careerist
pro-capitalist elite. This in itself is a political struggle, be it within the workers movement.

As a sidenote: I recently re-applied for membership but apparently I'm still blacklisted as I haven't heard a thing which I would have expected rather swiftly in election times.


How to sustain and expand the popularity of the far-left?

Throughout the last decades various political parties have set up social welfare programmes to fulfill the needs of workers and citizens where the government failed to do so (Socialist Party in the Netherlands opened free clinics; the Black Panther Party also provided some free services; and there are countless other examples). I recall when I suggested that the Golden Dawn, who has been engaging in distributing food and clothes to the needy, could grow in popularity, a user scorned this. But the reality is, social welfare programmes often ensure a long-term popularity of the ideology of the supplier. We can witness this in Palestine where Hamas provided these social services, and in Lebanon where Hezbollah repaired schools, and supplied social welfare.

Exactly! In fact, throughout history we see that this model works again and again, be it for different goals. You already mention Hezbollah. I can add the Muslim Brotherhood and Histadrut to that list. The latter in fact was essential for the formation of Zionism as we know it today, as described in Moshé Machover's recent book, Israelis and Palestinians: Conflict and Resolution (http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-Conflict-Resolution-Haymarket/dp/1608461483/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345296830&sr=1-2&keywords=israelis+and+palestinians+conflict+and+re solution) (I recommend it, it's a very educational read for anyone outside Israel written by an Israeli anti-Zionist revolutionary socialist).


I assume that these social services are no longer supplied, yet they still impact voting behaviour. It is thus evident that such welfare programmes have positive long-term affects. In Spain, Greece, and Portugal there is a growing lack of supplying basic needs (food, etc.) and therefore there is a lot of potential. Another evident advantage is that providing social services actually helps people, as opposed to merely preaching and agitating.
Maybe this bit has triggered the more vicious responses here, but the goal shouldn't be to gain votes. This leads only to a betrayal of the program and a subordination of the workers movement to the capitalist state. Electoral participation may be considered, but only in a tactical sense.


Not all political organisations will have the means to set up an elaborate network of social services. Therefore other strategies need to be utilised. What do you all think are other means to sustain and expand the popularity of anticapitalism in Europe and elsewhere? Obviously there is the basics: community organising, workplace organising, but perhaps there is something new or unconventional that may work?
Given the era we live in, we cannot avoid talking about a Europe-wide party-movement vis-a-vis the EU. Only on this level can we unite the workers of Europe and provide viable alternative that transcends (semi-)Keynesian (and as such nationalist) politics.

[Hit The North]

One does not contradict with the other as you (and others) seem to imply. Focusing on merely a strikefund "plus" will inevitably lead to economism and trade unionism, not to political activity.


No one's arguing for a focus on "merely a strikefund plus". It is the job of trade unions to organise strike funds, not the revolutionary party. However, whenever workers find themselves in struggle it is important that revolutionaries intervene with solidarity action, including mobilising practical resources. Important because that's how we break down the economism of trade unionism. That's where we find an audience of workers for our general propaganda against capitalism; moreover, an audience in struggle and therefore more receptive to anti-capitalist ideas. As Marx argues, it is the battles fought by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie that makes it fit to lead society. But also, as Lenin argues, it takes conscious agitation by revolutionaries to push workers away from the dominant ideas of bourgeois society. Part of those dominant ideas, springing from the formal appearance that the social relations of production under capitalism take on, is the separation between the economic and the political - in other words, the separation between control over bourgeois private property and democracy in the political sphere which allows the bourgeoisie to insulate their means of production from the democratic demands of society. This is one reason, among others, why there is nothing "mere" about the economic struggle. After all, ideas change in struggle, not in chess halls or due to the good deeds of socialist missionaries. Of course, the work place is not the only site of class struggle, but it remains a crucial and persistent site of day-to-day struggle for millions of workers who are positioned there as a collective power in potentia.


On the other hand, building on the long term task of an alternative culture that is explicitly cut loose from the state and the bosses builds the working class a a class-collective, that is, an explicitly political movement where the working class fights for its own interests, which are inevitably to take power on a social level. In this context we can then talk of strike funds "plus" forms of organisation as one form of (defense) organisation, but where alternative culture institutions (such as workers sports, cummunity centers, educational collectives, worker coops, etc) are all equally forms of working class organisation.Yes, but none of these are revolutionary or socialist organisations. If anything, they are linked to reformist movements like the Labour Movement in the UK and often act as areas of retreat from class struggle, rather than an engagement with it. Meanwhile, in the UK at least, workers already participate in voluntary organisations such as Sunday league football, workers social clubs, the WEA, and credit unions - all of them of a distinctly apolitical or labourist bent. Are you suggesting that the small bands of revolutionary socialists in Europe should be putting their energy into competing with these voluntary organisations? Why would a young worker swap his existing Sunday league team for one in a Communist Federation of Sunday League Football? What would be the benefit to him, apart from the half-time team talk being a discussion on Kautsky's The Social Revolution?


2500 odd members is hardly a boast worth speaking about. In fact I'd say it's rather ludicrous. We need a movement of (on a European scale) tens of millions.
Sure, and this is the nub of my objection: who will build this alternative culture and out of what materials? If the largest socialist group outside the Labour Party in the UK numbers only 2,500 odd members, isn't it the case that the left is just too weak to build proletarian institutions? And I doubt the 25 odd members of the CPGB will suffice. Meanwhile, the actual working class doesn't appear much interested.

Surely, given our paltry resources (both materially and politically), the notion of building an alternative proletarian culture is just another form of utopian posturing. Wouldn't we be better focusing our resources in other areas - you know, where the struggle is actually taking place?

[Q]

No one's arguing for a focus on "merely a strikefund plus". It is the job of trade unions to organise strike funds, not the revolutionary party. However, whenever workers find themselves in struggle it is important that revolutionaries intervene with solidarity action, including mobilising practical resources. Important because that's how we break down the economism of trade unionism. That's where we find an audience of workers for our general propaganda against capitalism; moreover, an audience in struggle and therefore more receptive to anti-capitalist ideas. As Marx argues, it is the battles fought by the proletariat against the bourgeoisie that makes it fit to lead society. But also, as Lenin argues, it takes conscious agitation by revolutionaries to push workers away from the dominant ideas of bourgeois society. Part of those dominant ideas, springing from the formal appearance that the social relations of production under capitalism take on, is the separation between the economic and the political - in other words, the separation between control over bourgeois private property and democracy in the political sphere which allows the bourgeoisie to insulate their means of production from the democratic demands of society. This is one reason, among others, why there is nothing "mere" about the economic struggle. After all, ideas change in struggle, not in chess halls or due to the good deeds of socialist missionaries. Of course, the work place is not the only site of class struggle, but it remains a crucial and persistent site of day-to-day struggle for millions of workers who are positioned there as a collective power in potentia.
I have nothing against solidarity action, including mobilising practical resources, as you put it. I agree that it can open workers for our propaganda and agitation. My point is however that only this work is, by far, not enough to form a potential ruling class. It is just one part of our broader work.


Yes, but none of these are revolutionary or socialist organisations. If anything, they are linked to reformist movements like the Labour Movement in the UK and often act as areas of retreat from class struggle, rather than an engagement with it. Meanwhile, in the UK at least, workers already participate in voluntary organisations such as Sunday league football, workers social clubs, the WEA, and credit unions - all of them of a distinctly apolitical or labourist bent. Are you suggesting that the small bands of revolutionary socialists in Europe should be putting their energy into competing with these voluntary organisations? Why would a young worker swap his existing Sunday league team for one in a Communist Federation of Sunday League Football? What would be the benefit to him, apart from the half-time team talk being a discussion on Kautsky's The Social Revolution?
1. Yes, such organisations already exist in some countries, such as the UK. Mostly they are left-overs of a begone era. They have become apolitical or Labour-bend exactly because there is no communist program and political organisation that centers such a movement. Instead we have the omni-present Labour party around which such organisations hover.
2. No, we shouldn't aim to replace them where they already exist. We should aim to politicize them.


Sure, and this is the nub of my objection: who will build this alternative culture and out of what materials? If the largest socialist group outside the Labour Party in the UK numbers only 2,500 odd members, isn't it the case that the left is just too weak to build proletarian institutions? And I doubt the 25 odd members of the CPGB will suffice. Meanwhile, the actual working class doesn't appear much interested.

A British comrade once told me he calculated (somehow) that there must be about 500,000 people around in the UK that have, at one point or another in their live, been a member of a far left group. By far most have dropped out again given the sect nature of the far left, but what if the far left was actually united along a common communist program and, given their unitary voice and common resources, actually become relevant to working class people? In no time you'd have tens of thousands of members, in a longer while I'm sure you could reach millions.

For this we need a "cultural revolution" in the far left though.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No, historically the working class [see how I avoid pointless neological indulgence there?] has become class and politically conscious when material conditions allow; the extent to which consciousness has been realised depends on material conditions, how effective our propaganda efforts are, the extent of agitation amongst the working class. Only then does organisation play a part.

Material conditions were a given assumption in what I said. "Effective propaganda" is tied quite heavily with a sort of political "evangelism," especially amongst more educated workers. "Effective agitation" is tied also with communication savvy/"charisma" and sympathetic grumbling amongst the more backward sections of the working class because of left-oriented "conspiracy theories" floating around.


I agree, but ours is a political class commitment. It's all too easy for the political message to get blurred if we over-indulge in welfare support (if it becomes 'alternative' culture rather than short-term alleviation of working class strife). We do not want welfare to become our culture; ultimately, we are political ideologues trying to advance a philosophy that, as of yet, is not popularised amongst the working class.

Therein lies the inconsistency of your ultra-left position. You don't see any opportunity for activists to politicize the class through side and snide discussions in meetings of cultural societies and recreational clubs.


You can think that all you want - that how many members see fit to attend boring branch meetings and pay money so that bureaucrats like you can think up wacky ideas like inflatable atheist communes or water-wells-as-alternative-culture for the worker-class-in-and-of-itself provided by the tred-unionisty, or whatever - but political support is not measured by party membership, nor party dues. Indeed, the very idea of 'political support' implies that there is a distinction between the working class and your precious party. Socialism will not come about by working class support for a party, but by working class action for itself. You never seem to get this.

Um, you yourself already know there's a distinction between the broader class in itself and the class for itself, or class movement. All I'm saying is that there's a contradiction between your last two sentences. Socialism comes through the actions of the (mass) worker class for itself, supported by the broader class in itself.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One does not contradict with the other as you (and others) seem to imply. Focusing on merely a strikefund "plus" will inevitably lead to economism and trade unionism, not to political activity.

Well, comrade, some ultra-lefts have taken the personal initiative to "organize" extraordinary strike funds, so more power to them I suppose (personally, not so much politically).


A non-sequitur. The argument for an alternative culture that is explicitly working-class based does not lead to demanding that the capitalist state should be be more welfarist. It could however be a strategic response of the capitalist politicians in an attempt to cut support for the communists, but this should be fought against in my view and our organisation should always remain independent, never reliant on the state. Doing otherwise would be a betrayal of the program.

One need only look at how different the soc-dem parties and the trade unions in Europe are since... 1945! WWII destroyed the institutional infrastructure, while the welfare state allowed them to "outsource" their welfare functions and become more electoral machine-like and more business union-like, respectively.


In fact it is a far more radical break with society than happened between feudalism and capitalism, where one ruling minority class replaced another. In the socialist rupture (nice word btw, I like it) we strive for majoritarian politics. This is exactly the long term educational goal of the party-movement.

"Rupture" might sound more effective than "transformation" or "overhaul," indeed.


It is not cheap at all, comrade. It requires dedication on a long term project and on a mass scale.

That says nothing, comrade, of the "business model" to be thought about carefully when launching alternative Proto-culture; it has to be financially viable irrespective of things like tax considerations!


As a last remark: It is a pity that since Miles left us you reverted back to your old position. I was hoping to see more progress since the "one party" thread.

The Boss didn't revert back. His two-front polemics show that he didn't change at all. He polemicized with both comrade Miles and myself simultaneously during that stretch, and his polemics with me speak for themselves.


Sorry, but this logic inevitably leads to political apathy. I refuse to accept a "strategy" based on merely cheerleading workers struggles wherever they spontaneously come up and sit on our hands in the mean time, merely spouting agitation on how cool strikes are and what a grand idea socialism is.

It's called vulgar "materialism."