KKE's 18th Congress, Resolution on Socialism

[Delenda Carthago]

A congress which conluded a 20 years collective study on the issue of the construction of socialism in USSR in the 20th century. What went wrong, when and why. A study that I think all the communists from all around the world should have in mind. Please help spreading.

http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/18congres-resolution-2nd

[Kotze]

Too long, especially the history parts (as with every text by a Marxist group ever).


“Labour time” [footnote: K. Marx, “Capital”, Volume 1, p 91-92. (Greek edition). « Time » as a measure of labour must be viewed “merely for the sake of a parallel with the production of commodities.”] under socialism is not the “socially necessary labour time” that constitutes the measure of value for the exchange of commodities in commodity production. “Labour time” is the measure of the individual contribution to social labour for the production of the total product.I suppose the distinction meant here is that when some have to work with machinery that is outdated, while resulting of course in lower output per hour worked, will not result in lower income for them (as it would in a co-op market society).


Access to that part of the social product that is distributed “according to labour” is determined by the individual labour contribution of each person in the totality of social labour, without distinguishing between complex and simple, manual labour or otherwise.This leaves out how arduous the work is. Or do they want the arduous/non-arduous mix equalized for everybody?


The measure of individual contribution is the labour time, which the plan determines based on the total needs of social production...This sounds a bit vague, and could be interpreted like this: I am rewarded based on how long I work, which is something I have absolutely no control over. I guess what is meant is rather something like: While the sectoral distribution of working hour aggregates is based on the total needs of social production, the measure of individual contribution is that individual's working hours... (Again, it's not said whether arduous work is compensated or equalized). To determine that several hundred people do non-skilled work in factory X for 25 hours a week on average can be planned on a higher level than whether it's everybody there working 25 hours or half working 20 and half working 30 or some other apportionment, which can be done on the level of those folks themselves.


We are continuing the investigation of all the factors which contributed to [opportunist erosion in the USSR and China].One of the problems they mention is having cadre of petit-bourgeois or even bourgeois origin, and changes in the party's class composition in that direction. Makes sense. I don't know much about the structure of the KKE. Does the KKE have formal rules to minimize this problem in relation to itself (like that certain positions are not available at all for somebody who is a boss or landlord or who has such a parent)?


On the basis of socialization, every form of private-business activity in the areas of health, welfare, social security, education, culture and sports should be immediately abolished.

Social ownership and Central Planning will create the possibility for the disappearance of unemployment.
(...)
In Transport priority will be given to mass rather than individual transport, to rail transport on the mainland of the country.
(...)
A part of the social product will be distributed according to need, fulfilling in an equal fashion public and free services- healthcare, education, social security, leisure, protection of children and the aged, cheap (and in some cases free) transport, telecommunications services, energy and water supply for popular consumption, etc.

A state social infrastructure will be created which will provide high quality social services in order to meet needs which are being tackled today by the individual or family households (e.g. restaurants in the workplace, in schools).
(...)
Central Planning aims, in the medium and long term, to develop, in a generalized way, the ability to perform specialised labour, as well as shifts in the technical division of labour, to achieve the all-round development of labour productivity and the reduction of labour time, in the perspective of eliminating the differences between executive and administrative labour, between manual and intellectual labour.I agree.

[Die Neue Zeit]

One of the problems they mention is having cadre of petit-bourgeois or even bourgeois origin, and changes in the party's class composition in that direction. Makes sense. I don't know much about the structure of the KKE. Does the KKE have formal rules to minimize this problem in relation to itself (like that certain positions are not available at all for somebody who is a boss or landlord or who has such a parent)?

The KKE does not have the most radical precaution of all: a workers-only voting membership policy.

[Conscript]

The KKE does not have the most radical precaution of all: a workers-only voting membership policy.

But even Marx acknowledged some parts of the bourgeoisie and other classes might come over to the workers' side.

What's wrong with it if they denounce their class and support proletarian interests?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Because even Marx himself advocated a workers-only voting membership policy, planning to phase himself out of the IWMA even if it had succeeded more. Engels himself also advocated such, which was why he wasn't an SPD member late in his life.

[Ostrinski]

Proposing a worker only voting policy does not equate to the complete rejection of those symapthetic elements of other classes.

[Conscript]

Does a 'worker only' policy include the students?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ It depends on more aspects of their class background, but we definitely wish to avoid perpetuating the Student Left phenomenon.

[Ostrinski]

Definitely. It's not to say that students can't play their role or be revolutionary, but their place is not at the head of the movement or as a deciding element of the trajectory of the movement. A worker's movement can only be carried out by the workers, of the workers, and for the workers.

[A Marxist Historian]

Because even Marx himself advocated a workers-only voting membership policy, planning to phase himself out of the IWMA even if it had succeeded more. Engels himself also advocated such, which was why he wasn't an SPD member late in his life.

Marx ended up deciding that the IWMA was a bad idea, which is pretty much the way Engels had always felt. So he, the "outside intellectual," effectively dissolved it, maneuvering to get its headquarters moved to New York City of all places, over the objections of some of its worker members. There's a worker only voting membership policy for you!

As for the Second International, given the state of the SI in the 1890s, for Engels to advocate that was quite understandable, though not necessarily correct.

-M.H.-

[Positivist]

^^^ It depends on more aspects of their class background, but we definitely wish to avoid perpetuating the Student Left phenomenon.

While I agree that we need to move beyond the student worker sympathizer clubs that parties have morphed into today, I still believe that the working, and soon to he working youth will be the driving force of a workers revolution. I believe this because youth (which I use to include students, and just about any able, non-family bonded individuals) tend to be more enthusiastic and optimistic making them more susceptible to real for-change movements, and generally are not as restrained by responsibility, better suiting them for intensive activism. Furthermore, I do not know about everybody else, but the aged workers I know and interact with are a lot more accepting of their lot in life, and a lot of them hold white reactionary views. This is not to say that having a family or passing a defined age threshold automatically disqualifies someone from being active, and on the contrary in times of high class struggle it should be expected that the bulk of workers who aren't "youthful" will carry the conflict, but long term activism is something which I expect will primarily be a youth based affair.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx ended up deciding that the IWMA was a bad idea, which is pretty much the way Engels had always felt. So he, the "outside intellectual," effectively dissolved it, maneuvering to get its headquarters moved to New York City of all places, over the objections of some of its worker members. There's a worker only voting membership policy for you!

That was a strategic mistake on Marx's part. Again, his understanding of partyism was primordial in comparison with the refined and "institutional" understanding of the original Socialist International.


As for the Second International, given the state of the SI in the 1890s, for Engels to advocate that was quite understandable, though not necessarily correct.

Even Kautsky the Marxist and the renegade Kautsky upheld this principle, unlike one who became a lesser renegade by suggesting that peasants flood the party!


While I agree that we need to move beyond the student worker sympathizer clubs that parties have morphed into today, I still believe that the working, and soon to he working youth will be the driving force of a workers revolution. I believe this because youth (which I use to include students, and just about any able, non-family bonded individuals) tend to be more enthusiastic and optimistic making them more susceptible to real for-change movements, and generally are not as restrained by responsibility, better suiting them for intensive activism. Furthermore, I do not know about everybody else, but the aged workers I know and interact with are a lot more accepting of their lot in life, and a lot of them hold white reactionary views. This is not to say that having a family or passing a defined age threshold automatically disqualifies someone from being active, and on the contrary in times of high class struggle it should be expected that the bulk of workers who aren't "youthful" will carry the conflict, but long term activism is something which I expect will primarily be a youth based affair.

That, unfortunately, is the big drawback of student culture: the emphasis on "activism," which then leads to burnouts.

[Positivist]

That, unfortunately, is the big drawback of student culture: the emphasis on "activism," which then leads to burnouts.

Well if by activism is meant random marches in the streets by a bunch of students then yes, as the only march really worth its salt must be composed primarily by the actual workers, but if you look at activism in a revolutionary context, as defense of seized political power and expropriated property, then the youth is the best segment of the proletariat to carry out that defense.

My reasoning for this is pretty much the same as the reasoning behind nearly every military being predominantly composed of men between 18-24. They are the most physically capable of carrying out these acts. Furthermore the organization of these youth will not spontaneously occur in a revolutionary situation, thus why it is important to build the youth movement as an essential part of the workers movement.

[citizen of industry]

The KKE does not have the most radical precaution of all: a workers-only voting membership policy.

How do you define "worker"? Is it someone who directly creates surplus value? That includes anyone from the guy on the assembly line to a professer. It also excludes faux frais trades like cashiers, call center employees and students. Or do you mean wage laborers? Which includes soldiers, civil servants and cops? Or do you mean the union membership criteria, which excludes those with the power to hire and fire, which therefore includes middle management?

Pretty sure I can vote, I make substinance wages and directly produce surplus value. How 'bout you DNZ? How do you define "worker"? If you are going only for relationship to the means of production you are excluding a lot of wage laborers and running into third worldism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well if by activism is meant random marches in the streets by a bunch of students then yes, as the only march really worth its salt must be composed primarily by the actual workers, but if you look at activism in a revolutionary context, as defense of seized political power and expropriated property, then the youth is the best segment of the proletariat to carry out that defense.

My reasoning for this is pretty much the same as the reasoning behind nearly every military being predominantly composed of men between 18-24. They are the most physically capable of carrying out these acts. Furthermore the organization of these youth will not spontaneously occur in a revolutionary situation, thus why it is important to build the youth movement as an essential part of the workers movement.

That's a different story then, comrade.

[Die Neue Zeit]

How do you define "worker"? Is it someone who directly creates surplus value? That includes anyone from the guy on the assembly line to a professer.

A professor doesn't directly create surplus value.


It also excludes faux frais trades like cashiers, call center employees and students.

This paper on productive labour by Paul Cockshott should be of interest to you: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf

However, full-time students tend not to be in the workforce.


Or do you mean wage laborers? Which includes soldiers, civil servants and cops?

There's another definition of productive labour to consider (in addition to the one provided above): contribution to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relationsi-t73419/index.html). Depending on what level and sector, civil servants can do this, and ditto with soldiers (from emergency relief to military products trickling over to the civilian consumer bundle), but not cops.


Or do you mean the union membership criteria, which excludes those with the power to hire and fire, which therefore includes middle management?

Not at all.


Pretty sure I can vote, I make substinance wages and directly produce surplus value. How 'bout you DNZ? How do you define "worker"? If you are going only for relationship to the means of production you are excluding a lot of wage laborers and running into third worldism.

My definition of "worker" for the purposes of voting membership policy includes disabled workers and pensioners having performed productive labour previously. As for workers in the workforce, not all wage labourers would be allowed in. Any non-managerial wage labourer who performs any of the three definitions of productive labour above would be let in. So no, this would not be a party of the stereotypical "industrial proletariat," a strata which has tended to be less politically militant than even the sans culottes of revolutionary France.

My inconclusive position is really on occupations like paralegals (as opposed to lawyers and judges). They are non-managerial wage labourers who do not meet any of the three definitions of productive labour above.

[A Marxist Historian]

That was a strategic mistake on Marx's part. Again, his understanding of partyism was primordial in comparison with the refined and "institutional" understanding of the original Socialist International.

I don't think it was a mistake at all. The IWMA had become a godawful factionalized mess factionalized on every possible wrong axis, and dissolving it and starting from scratch was a good thing. Continuing it would just have drained energies otherwise usable for building the movement into endless control squabbles, as the idea of a workers movement encompassing all political tendencies had been shown to be unworkable in practice, once the Paris Commune had brought questions of revolution to the fore.

As Engels had always believed, it was necessary to build an international revolutionary workers movement, not an all inclusive movement. Unfortunately the Second International did not turn out to be that, despite its superficial "Marxism."

-M.H.-



Even Kautsky the Marxist and the renegade Kautsky upheld this principle, unlike one who became a lesser renegade by suggesting that peasants flood the party!

That, unfortunately, is the big drawback of student culture: the emphasis on "activism," which then leads to burnouts.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Continuing it would just have drained energies otherwise usable for building the movement into endless control squabbles, as the idea of a workers movement encompassing all political tendencies had been shown to be unworkable in practice, once the Paris Commune had brought questions of revolution to the fore.

As Engels had always believed, it was necessary to build an international revolutionary workers movement, not an all inclusive movement. Unfortunately the Second International did not turn out to be that, despite its superficial "Marxism."

Oh, please! What's necessary is a class movement encompassing all class-strugglist political tendencies, not just all r-r-r-r-revolutionary ones.

[citizen of industry]

A professor doesn't directly create surplus value.

Depends on how you define it. Are you only considering commodity production? Marx gives a formula in capital for productive labour without a commodity, M-C(MP, L)...P...M'. (He takes out the commodity ...P...C'-M', e.g; bus drivers, teachers, etc.)


Marx:
On the other hand, however, our notion of productive labour becomes narrowed. Capitalist production is not merely the production of commodities, it is essentially the production of surplus-value. The labourer produces, not for himself, but for capital. It no longer suffices, therefore, that he should simply produce. He must produce surplus-value. That labourer alone is productive, who produces surplus-value for the capitalist, and thus works for the self-expansion of capital. If we may take an example from outside the sphere of production of material objects, a schoolmaster is a productive labourer when, in addition to belabouring the heads of his scholars, he works like a horse to enrich the school proprietor. That the latter has laid out his capital in a teaching factory, instead of in a sausage factory, does not alter the relation. Hence the notion of a productive labourer implies not merely a relation between work and useful effect, between labourer and product of labour, but also a specific, social relation of production, a relation that has sprung up historically and stamps the labourer as the direct means of creating surplus-value. To be a productive labourer is, therefore, not a piece of luck, but a misfortune.


And then there's the polarization of society, even among petty-bourgeoisie trades. Read an article about a new doctor hugely in debt because of student loans, working 12 hour shifts and living in a slum. But bringing in plenty of profit to the private hospital, the pharmaceutical companies, the universities and the loan companies.


Marx: The bourgeoisie has stripped of its halo every occupation hitherto honoured and looked up to with reverent awe. It has converted the physician, the lawyer, the priest, the poet, the man of science, into its paid wage labourers.


This paper on productive labour by Paul Cockshott should be of interest to you: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf (http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/%7Ewpc/reports/unprod3b.pdf)

However, full-time students tend not to be in the workforce.

It wasn't, because the label "unproductive labourer" doesn't bother me. There are millions of wage-workers in the realization sphere. Creating surplus value is only half the equation, it has to be realized.




There's another definition of productive labour to consider (in addition to the one provided above): contribution to the development of society's labour power and its capabilities (http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relationsi-t73419/index.html). Depending on what level and sector, civil servants can do this, and ditto with soldiers (from emergency relief to military products trickling over to the civilian consumer bundle), but not cops.

My definition of "worker" for the purposes of voting membership policy includes disabled workers and pensioners having performed productive labour previously. As for workers in the workforce, not all wage labourers would be allowed in. Any non-managerial wage labourer who performs any of the three definitions of productive labour above would be let in. So no, this would not be a party of the stereotypical "industrial proletariat," a strata which has tended to be less politically militant than even the sans culottes of revolutionary France.

My inconclusive position is really on occupations like paralegals (as opposed to lawyers and judges). They are non-managerial wage labourers who do not meet any of the three definitions of productive labour above.

The only paralegals I know are union activists. I would include them. But anyway, the whole point of my post was your slogan "The KKE does not have the most radical precaution of all: a workers-only voting membership policy" doesn't sound so radical anymore, if you are using Marxist definitions. You have teachers, civil servants, paralegals, soldiers, etc. Basically almost everyone except for cops, managers, and above. Is the slogan really useful, or necessary?

[Die Neue Zeit]

But the KKE has small business owners, some managers (yes), and other non-worker elements in its ranks. Tenured profs with subordinate research staff aren't workers for the sake of this discussion (a managerial role in academia).

[A Marxist Historian]

Oh, please! What's necessary is a class movement encompassing all class-strugglist political tendencies, not just all r-r-r-r-revolutionary ones.

That's been tried twice now, first with the First International, which Marx had to dissolve, and secondly with the Second International, which claimed to be that but wasn't, excluding syndicalists and anarchists who were often, as with the American IWW and many of the French syndicalists, better revolutionaries than the official Second International section.

It is a plausible notion popular here on Revleft that has always failed in practice. It is time to learn the lessons of history about that.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

That's been tried twice now, first with the First International, which Marx had to dissolve

The IWMA had the likes of Proudhonist cooperativists and raw tred-iunionisty, hardly class-strugglists by any sensible definition. Narrow economism, anyone? Sadly, it didn't have the more class-strugglist Lassalleans or their non-German equivalents.


excluding syndicalists and anarchists who were often, as with the American IWW and many of the French syndicalists, better revolutionaries than the official Second International section.

Well, those syndicalists hardly engaged in political struggle proper, so it couldn't be said that they engaged in the subset of genuine class struggle.


It is a plausible notion popular here on Revleft that has always failed in practice. It is time to learn the lessons of history about that.

It is sectarianism that has always failed in practice.

[Yuppie Grinder]

For once I agree with you, DNZ.

[citizen of industry]

"Political struggle proper." Define that for me, DNZ. By your account, it obviously isn't anything that interferes with the production of surplus value at the source, i.e., trade unionism, syndicalism, etc. Nor is it "sectarianism," i.e., revolutionary parties that refuse to join populous movements that must conform to lowest common denominator (the most conservative). Nor is it insurrection. Hell, you even advise students not to participate in activism because it "burns them out," even though it is students who love, organize and lead rallies and would have nothing to do with socialism if it wasn't for it.

What is your definition of "genuine class struggle"? Checker clubs and parliament. You must be honored to be the only one on this site to mock "r-r-r-revolution."

[Die Neue Zeit]

"Political struggle proper." Define that for me, DNZ. By your account, it obviously isn't anything that interferes with the production of surplus value at the source, i.e., trade unionism, syndicalism, etc.

Indeed.


Nor is it "sectarianism," i.e., revolutionary parties that refuse to join populous movements that must conform to lowest common denominator (the most conservative).

That's a strawman for the unity advocacy I'm writing about.


Nor is it insurrection.

Only in a revolutionary period for the working class would insurrectionary action be appropriately political.


Hell, you even advise students not to participate in activism because it "burns them out," even though it is students who love, organize and lead rallies and would have nothing to do with socialism if it wasn't for it.

Campus action regarding tuition fees and such is about as political as a typical strike action (translation: not really political at all).

Mass civil disobedience and other mass street opposition / protests on broader issues (a la Occupy) would be political, though.


What is your definition of "genuine class struggle"? Checker clubs and parliament. You must be honored to be the only one on this site to mock "r-r-r-revolution."

"Checker clubs," mass civil disobedience and other mass street opposition / protests, ballot spoilage campaigns (for those not inclined towards the last upcoming point), and yes, the tactic of intra-electoral opposition (both parliamentary and municipal), all count as political proper. Also as political proper are those rare mass strikes that occur because of some broader political issue, as in some broader political struggle somehow spills over into appropriate strike action (not the typical tred-iunionizm or syndicalism of growing politics out of economic disputes).

Genuine class struggle is, simply, class-based political struggle on all fronts.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

DNZ: can you give concrete examples of the mass civil disobedience you advise?

Also how would you go about starting 'mass street opposition/protests'? Surely strike action is far better, for it includes action on the streets, combined with a withdrawal of labour, which is what the Capitalists hate/fear most?

Political checker clubs. Blimey. :rolleyes:

[Paul Cockshott]

Two examples would be the polltax non payment campaign in the 90s in Britain, or the successfull campaign against water privatisation in Scotland which involved both the threat of mass non payment of water rates and a demand ( which was won ) for a referendum on the issue.

[black magick hustla]

"worker-only policies" are just a bizarre attempt at "proletarian" identity politics, like skinhead music. class is only meaningful when it becomes a social force, its not a matter of individual atomic units.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Two examples would be the polltax non payment campaign in the 90s in Britain, or the successfull campaign against water privatisation in Scotland which involved both the threat of mass non payment of water rates and a demand ( which was won ) for a referendum on the issue.

But aren't they both reactions to capitalist attacks? Essentially what DNZ is saying - whether he likes it or not - is what Rosa Luxemburg was saying nearly 100 years ago: the political struggle grows out of the economic struggle. I would actually characterise the poll tax protests - of which non-payment was a significant part - as a political struggle rather than mere civil dis-obedience.

[Die Neue Zeit]

"worker-only policies" are just a bizarre attempt at "proletarian" identity politics, like skinhead music. class is only meaningful when it becomes a social force, its not a matter of individual atomic units.

Yes, class-conscious workers should sit around and be politically idle, and do the opposite of "volunteers" Bebel and W. Liebknecht. We get you already. :rolleyes:


But aren't they both reactions to capitalist attacks? Essentially what DNZ is saying - whether he likes it or not - is what Rosa Luxemburg was saying nearly 100 years ago: the political struggle grows out of the economic struggle. I would actually characterise the poll tax protests - of which non-payment was a significant part - as a political struggle rather than mere civil dis-obedience.

The poll tax was a political act in the first place, though, not coming from typical trade union struggle. Rosa Luxemburg didn't understand the dynamic between the political and the economic. She conflated her broad economist position with the SPD's strike campaigns for universal suffrage (political struggle spilling into strike action).

Also, there's no such thing as "mere civil disobedience" when it has mass. Such action is way more political than most strike action could ever be.


Two examples would be the polltax non payment campaign in the 90s in Britain, or the successfull campaign against water privatisation in Scotland which involved both the threat of mass non payment of water rates and a demand ( which was won ) for a referendum on the issue.

Re. the poll tax, comrade, was this non-payment campaign supplemented by strike action? If so, then this would be an example for The Boss of political struggle spilling into strike action, not economism (neither narrow nor broad).

[Paul Cockshott]

I agree they were a political struggle

[Paul Cockshott]

Re. the poll tax, comrade, was this non-payment campaign supplemented by strike action? If so, then this would be an example for The Boss of political struggle spilling into strike action, not economism (neither narrow nor broad).

No it was not supplemented by strikes, that would not have been good strategy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

DNZ - why are you separating strike action from political struggle?

Strike action can form both part of economic struggle (e.g. limited one day strikes by public sector workers protesting attacks on pay, working conditions and job) and political struggle (extended strikes, 'winters of discontent', wildcat and secondary strikes where political demands are brought up). In that way, Luxemburg perfectly understood the dynamic between the economic and political struggles: the political is the 'higher' form of struggle, but there is a dialectic relationship between the two whereby the political flows out of the economic, and the economic also out of the political. Importantly, she didn't make the mistake of subjugating strike action to the mere role of 'economic struggle' that you do.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No it was not supplemented by strikes, that would not have been good strategy.

I suppose one has to be careful about the political ramifications of certain strike actions.

[A Marxist Historian]

The IWMA had the likes of Proudhonist cooperativists and raw tred-iunionisty, hardly class-strugglists by any sensible definition. Narrow economism, anyone? Sadly, it didn't have the more class-strugglist Lassalleans or their non-German equivalents.

Well, those syndicalists hardly engaged in political struggle proper, so it couldn't be said that they engaged in the subset of genuine class struggle.

It is sectarianism that has always failed in practice.

As far as Marx and Engels were concerned, that the reformist Lassalleans were not part of the First International was one of the best things about it. The Proudhonists, as bad as they were, were a major force in the Paris Commune (unfortunately) so it is a good thing they were in there as part of the unsuccessful "party of the whole class" experiment."

But your contemptuous attitude to syndicalists like the IWW and the French CGT shows that it is you who are the true sectarian.

And this is a very good marker of the distance between your approach and that of Lenin and Trotsky, and why you prefer Kautsky, despite criticising his rightward evolution during and after WWI.

It was always the opinion of Lenin and Trotsky that it was necessary to win over the best of the revolutionary syndicalists and anarchists if the Third International were to genuinely be the revolutionary vanguard of the working class.

And this was done, even in America, where former IWW cadre James P. Cannon turned out to be the best party leader. In the CPUSA before its Stalinist degeneration, the left wing led by Cannon and Foster was based on the former trade unionists, Wobblies and syndicalists in the party, whereas Ruthenberg and Lovestone's right wing was solidly based in the former Socialists in the party.

-M.H.-

[Die Neue Zeit]

It was always the opinion of Lenin and Trotsky that it was necessary to win over the best of the revolutionary syndicalists and anarchists if the Third International were to genuinely be the revolutionary vanguard of the working class.

The syndicalists refused to establish political parties of their own, though, and continue to do so to this day. If they did change their attitude towards political activity (though they'd become Platformists by any other name), then comrades should be more than welcome to work with them!


As far as Marx and Engels were concerned, that the reformist Lassalleans were not part of the First International was one of the best things about it.

You'll have to explain your case, just as I explained mine.

[Paul Cockshott]

The syndicalists refused to establish political parties of their own, though, and continue to do so to this day. If they did change their attitude towards political activity (though they'd become Platformists by any other name), then comrades should be more than welcome to work with them!
The SLP were syndicalist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The SLP were syndicalist.

Comrade, the SLP supplemented its activity with syndicalism programmatically and organizationally. I'm referring to the likes of the IWW here, which even up until now hasn't set up its own exclusive political party (i.e., one would have to be a member of the IWW first to be a member of such party).

Occupy provided a great opportunity for the IWW to set up a party for the "99%" or a party for the "precarious," but those "beautiful losers" (http://www.revleft.com/vb/iww-organization-beautiful-t161903/index.html) never did so.