which is more important seizing power or seizing popularity.

[campesino]

There is an idea that the masses' ideology reflect the ideology of the ruling class.

So would it be a bad idea of a Bordigist type party seized power, and the masses started supporting it.

example:
Bordigist take power and claim to represent the poor, workers, occupy wall street, and create a popular socialist system.

If a party subscribe to the idea of seeking mass support, before seizing power, does it not subscribe to the idea of spontaneity. That when the material conditions are right the proletariat will all of a sudden start to like the PSL or ISO or any other group in huge numbers. kind of like the idea that the proletariat will organize itself into a class based mass party.

I don't know of any great change arising from the masses. christianity was not spread by missionaries, but by an emperor constantine converting to christianity and forcing his subjects to do the same, many colonial indigenous people weren't persuaded by missionaries to abandon their traditional beliefs, but by colonist forcing them to adopt christianity.
don't all movements have vanguards?

If there ever was a true movement originating from the masses, it certainly won't happen in these times, since mass independent action as at an all time low, and submission to master's at an all time high. in an era of submissiveness would it not be beneficial to take power.

if it is true that the ideology of the masses is a reflection of the ideology of the ruling class, is it not pointless to try to get people to join the anti-ruling class movement? since they cannot comprehend outside of the ruling class' blinders.

[Let's Get Free]

Popular support and understanding for socialism is incredibly important. When a "socialist party" captures power in advance of majority of workers becoming socialists this can only mean one thing - you are stuck with capitalism. Whether you like it or not you are obliged to administer capitalism since there is no way you can yet introduce socialism.
This is where the problem arises. In administering capitalism you are compelled by the very nature of the system itself to promote the interests of capital against those of wage labor. That's how capitalism works - through the exploitation of wage labor by capital.

I would say that where a "vanguard party" has tried to seize power before the population desiring and understanding, and striving to bring about socialism, they have only created state capitalism, with a veneer of social welfare as a substitute for social justice.

[citizen of industry]

I think historically the masses lose confidence in the ruling class pretty quickly in times of crisis if the ruling class shows itself incapable of getting itself out of the crisis, same for war. Just crisis itself isn't enough. Crisis combined with ruling class impotence. Revolutions have happened in history, so obviously there are times when mass ideology runs contrary to ruling class ideology.

Anyway, in this day and age, how would you sieze power without mass support? Look at the tremendous power of the military. You'd have to have the support of the enlisted troops, mass strikes in war industries, infrastructure, transportation, etc. A group of guerillas is not going to seize power against a modern military in an urban environment.

[Regicollis]

And what would such a "socialist" government do? Order the workers to be free?

[mist]

Anyway, in this day and age, how would you sieze power without mass support? Look at the tremendous power of the military. You'd have to have the support of the enlisted troops, mass strikes in war industries, infrastructure, transportation, etc. A group of guerillas is not going to seize power against a modern military in an urban environment.

Agreed. As the ruling elite has the armed forces on their side, it would be almost impossible for a small group of people to seize power. Though, this might depend on the country. For example, Ireland has a relatively small and weak army, and I don't think they would be much of a help to the government if a group of people DID try to take power forcibly. On the other hand, if a group of Americans tried the same thing, they'd be quickly torn asunder. The American armed forces are the best in the world.

But even the best armed forces would be overwhelmed if the masses of people supported change.

[campesino]

@mist there can be a revolutionary coup, in the U.S.A there are around 314 million people, if only more than a million were active revolutionaries, that would be enough to take over the regional centers of power.

@Regicollis if you can order the workers to slave away and work themselves to the bone, you can certainly order them to be free.

@citizen of industry, what will a massively submissive population do if they lose confidence, restart the impotent occupy wall street movement. If the new rulers claim to represent the worker's and create a socialist system, why would it be unpopular. democracy is not always a requirement for legitimacy/

[KnowledgeThroughLeninism]

Absolutely! The only way to seize power is through the people!


there can be a revolutionary coup, in the U.S.A there are around 314 million people, if only more than a million were active revolutionaries, that would be enough to take over the regional centers of power.

Errr sort of true more like 10 million die hard people.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

If popularity is not on your side people will drop your ass "like it's hot".
Just look at the american elections. Everytime something happens the "other" party wins next elections.

War lost? Party-switch!
Affair? Party-switch!
Terrorist act? Party-switch!
President gets blown by intern? Wow...re-elected!!!

You see? Popularity!

[citizen of industry]

@mist there can be a revolutionary coup, in the U.S.A there are around 314 million people, if only more than a million were active revolutionaries, that would be enough to take over the regional centers of power.

No it wouldn't. Taking over regional centers of power means going up against the military. Regional centers of power are urban and depend on infrastructure. If your water, food, electricty is cut off and the city is surrounded by superior forces it becomes a Paris commune. Numbers don't mean a whole lot, firepower does.




@citizen of industry, what will a massively submissive population do if they lose confidence, restart the impotent occupy wall street movement. If the new rulers claim to represent the worker's and create a socialist system, why would it be unpopular. democracy is not always a requirement for legitimacy/

The ruling class has not shown itself to be impotent after the 2008 crisis. It has implemented mass austerity and military measures, broke some strikes and granted concessions to others, and bailed out the monopolies. For the majority of people, it doesn't seem impotent, but in control.

[campesino]

popularity comes after seizing power.

@ Utopist M

do you think there will be bourgeois elections and bourgeois candidate in the post revolutionary world.

the socialist power holders will become popular after it seizes power, because the people will acquiesce to the socialist proletarian power. the masses are not capable of spontaneous independent action and theory/thought.

[cyu]

if it is true that the ideology of the masses is a reflection of the ideology of the ruling class, is it not pointless to try to get people to join the anti-ruling class movement? since they cannot comprehend outside of the ruling class' blinders.


Just had a similar discussion on FB of all places...

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_Assembly_of_the_Peoples_of_Oaxaca

"Different corporate radio and television stations had been taken by members of the APPO and they had refused to return the stations to their official owners. The radio stations operated by APPO members were sites of frequent violent attacks by PRI supporters, state, local and federal police (PFP)."

From http://www.nowpublic.com/world/greek-protesters-occupy-tv-station-athens

"Protesters occupy Greek TV station Last night a group of 20 students occupied the state run NET TV channel in Athens in protest against the killing of 15 year old Alexandros Grigoropoulos by a police officer eleven days ago. Holding up a banner which said, 'Stop Watching. Everyone on the Streets' they interrupted the stations broadcast of prime minister, Kostas Karamanlis's speech in parliament"

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

popularity comes after seizing power.

@ Utopist M

do you think there will be bourgeois elections and bourgeois candidate in the post revolutionary world.

the socialist power holders will become popular after it seizes power, because the people will acquiesce to the socialist proletarian power. the masses are not capable of spontaneous independent action and theory/thought.

No, there won't be bourgious elections, for there will be no bourgiousie.
But do you really think that seizing power makes you popular?
Did America make themselves popular upon seizing power in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Did the European countries make themselves popular in Africa after colonizing and enslaving African countries?
Are not African and midle-eastern countries fighting for independance?

Tell me again HOW seizing power makes you popular!? (cause i'm gonna beat the shit out of my boss then!)

[Let's Get Free]

@mist there can be a revolutionary coup, in the U.S.A there are around 314 million people, if only more than a million were active revolutionaries, that would be enough to take over the regional centers of power./
But a Coup d'état is not a revolution. Actually, its a tailor made recipe for "substitutionism" and this is what is truly dangerous about this idea for our class. It presents the very clear possiblility of a so-called revolutionary coup taking power, reputedly in the name of the working class, only to emerge in the light of a day as yet another ruling class - a dictatorship over the proletariat rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat. And even if this coup were successful in fighting the armed wing of the state, the society it would have brought about would not have been one worth fighting for. Also, people who come to power through coups very often tend to be on the receiving end of one down the line.

@Regicollis if you can order the workers to slave away and work themselves to the bone, you can certainly order them to be free./
You most certainly cannot.


@citizen of industry, what will a massively submissive population do if they lose confidence, restart the impotent occupy wall street movement. If the new rulers claim to represent the worker's and create a socialist system, why would it be unpopular. democracy is not always a requirement for legitimacy/
This should be made crystal clear- you cannot secure power on behalf of the workers. Its simply not possible. Only the workers can secure their self emancipation. This is basic Marxism. Anyone who strives to secure power on behalf of the workers will INEVITABLY end up on the side of capital against the interests of workers.

[campesino]

@Utopist M

when you seize power, you have control and when you have control you can bend the population to your will, and if you make yourself popular and claim you represent the workers and oppressed and actually raise their living conditions you can build a popular base for your regime.

power remains as long as there is a popular base that power is playing to. If we seize power and create a popular base we will be popular.

the pinochet coup stood, even though it was an unpopular democratic action taken by the bourgeoisie. Its base of power was the bourgeoisie class. The same could be said for the Gadhaffi coup, although his base of support was different. The nasser coup, the Baath coup in 1963 syria. of the Portuguese carnation revolution. many coups are later on called revolutions. look at the french revolution.

Almost all revolutions stem from a group standing up for the masses or claiming to represent them.

than look at the other side of the coin look at the 1960's turmoil and strikes, all being oppressed and ended.

[campesino]

It presents the very clear possiblility of a so-called revolutionary coup taking power, reputedly in the name of the working class, only to emerge in the light of a day as yet another ruling class - a dictatorship over the proletariat rather than a dictatorship of the proletariat. And even if this coup were successful in fighting the armed wing of the state, the society it would have brought about would not have been one worth fighting for.

This should be made crystal clear- you cannot secure power on behalf of the workers. Its simply not possible. Only the workers can secure their self emancipation. This is basic Marxism. Anyone who strives to secure power on behalf of the workers will INEVITABLY end up on the side of capital against the interests of workers.

the first half is liberal propaganda that says only democracy and election can legitimize power. It also goes along the line that "power corrupts."

are you saying
If a working class group made up of Marxist took power, somehow they would lose all interest in creating a socialist society and become bourgeoisified and abandon the working class just because they have power.

@Utopist M

if there is a large segment of your co-worker's who hate your boss, but would not dare stand up to him, and you were to one day punch him in the face and give the workers raises, tell me how you be unpopular. Just because the workers didn't vote for you to punch him or because the worker's didn't collectively punch him.

[Let's Get Free]

the first half is liberal propaganda that says only democracy and election can legitimize power. It also goes along the line that "power corrupts."


Why are you looking for wavering liberalism in what I just said when it is not there? What I'm saying is no party, or political or ideological group, even if it sincerely desires to do so, will ever succeed in emancipating the working masses by placing itself above or outside them in order to 'govern' or 'guide' them toward socialism. True emancipation can only be brought about by the direct action by the workers themselves, through their own class organizations (production syndicates, factory committees, cooperatives, etc.) and not under the banner of any political party or ideological body, or a "revolutionary coup."



If a working class group made up of Marxist took power, somehow they would lose all interest in creating a socialist society and become bourgeoisified and abandon the working class just because they have power.


Precisely. The minority having taken over the administration of capitalism are necessarily going to be drawn into running a capitalist system. They are necessarily going to have to put profit above human needs. They are necessarily going to have to seek ways of speeding up the accumulation of capitalism out of surplus value. They are necessarily going to have to compel workers to tighten their belts in order to make industry leaner and more competitive in their global market. And so on and so forth.

[campesino]

Why are you looking for wavering liberalism in what I just said when it is not there? What I'm saying is no party, or political or ideological group, even if it sincerely desires to do so, will ever succeed in emancipating the working masses by placing itself above or outside them in order to 'govern' or 'guide' them toward socialism. True emancipation can only be brought about by the direct action by the workers themselves, through their own class organizations (production syndicates, factory committees, cooperatives, etc.) and not under the banner of any political party or ideological body, or a "revolutionary coup."




Precisely. The minority having taken over the administration of capitalism are necessarily going to be drawn into running a capitalist system. They are necessarily going to have to put profit above human needs. They are necessarily going to have to seek ways of speeding up the accumulation of capitalism out of surplus value. They are necessarily going to have to compel workers to tighten their belts in order to make industry leaner and more competitive in their global market. And so on and so forth.

the working class party, is a working class party

the definition of party


2.
a group gathered for a special purpose or task: a fishing party; a search party.
3.
a detachment, squad, or detail of troops assigned to perform some particular mission or service.

etymology
late 13c., "part, portion, side," from O.Fr. partie "side, part; portion, share; separation, division"

the party, that has taken power, is part of the working class.

what you are saying about a revolutionary group taking power, having to administer capital is ridiculous. Is it impossible for the people in power to collective and socialize the means of production and expand power into the working class so it is the working class that decides what to produce, and its distribution. For some reason it is impossible to organize the worker's into committees that decide on goals for the socialized production system to achieve, Such as universal healthcare, more dams, more railroads, more solar energy plants, more efficient mass transit systems for the cities, or whatever it is they decide to do.

If you are saying the working class is not ready for power. It is the same garbage, that says middle-easterner's are not ready for power and need to be ruled by despots, or that colonial africans are too uncivilized to manage their own affairs and need colonialism to survive, or the same ass-holes here in the USA who say the common man is too stupid to vote, and only people with jobs/college degrees/incomes over $1000,000 should be allowed to vote.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

@Utopist M

when you seize power, you have control and when you have control you can bend the population to your will, and if you make yourself popular and claim you represent the workers and oppressed and actually raise their living conditions you can build a popular base for your regime.

power remains as long as there is a popular base that power is playing to. If we seize power and create a popular base we will be popular.

the pinochet coup stood, even though it was an unpopular democratic action taken by the bourgeoisie. Its base of power was the bourgeoisie class. The same could be said for the Gadhaffi coup, although his base of support was different. The nasser coup, the Baath coup in 1963 syria. of the Portuguese carnation revolution. many coups are later on called revolutions. look at the french revolution.

Almost all revolutions stem from a group standing up for the masses or claiming to represent them.

than look at the other side of the coin look at the 1960's turmoil and strikes, all being oppressed and ended.

That is not popularity, that is terror! You'd scare everyone in "liking" you!
If you do not like me, DIE! (something like that)
In your reasoning Hitler would have been popular with every German...oh and the jews, the blacks, the gay, etc. (he certainly seized power, so he must have been popular afterwards, not beforehand)


if there is a large segment of your co-worker's who hate your boss, but would not dare stand up to him, and you were to one day punch him in the face and give the workers raises, tell me how you be unpopular. Just because the workers didn't vote for you to punch him or because the worker's didn't collectively punch him.

Hmmm...that would actually mean that i'd be popular already. Or else i'd punch him in the face so that a popular person could gain control instead of me.
Popularity gained in such a way would only be temporarily.

[Let's Get Free]

what you are saying about a revolutionary group taking power, having to administer capital is ridiculous. Is it impossible for the people in power to collective and socialize the means of production and expand power into the working class so it is the working class that decides what to produce, and its distribution. For some reason it is impossible to organize the worker's into committees that decide on goals for the socialized production system to achieve, Such as universal healthcare, more dams, more railroads, more solar energy plants, more efficient mass transit systems for the cities, or whatever it is they decide to do.

What I am saying is that if you try to seize power in advance of the mass of workers becoming socialist and fighting to bring about socialism, you are stuck with the status quo, in other words-capitalism! You cannot impose socialism from above on a population that does not want or understand socialism. And may I add that armed struggle against the most powerful, most well-equipped state in human history would be suicidal folly?


If you are saying the working class is not ready for power. It is the same garbage, that says middle-easterner's are not ready for power and need to be ruled by despots, or that colonial africans are too uncivilized to manage their own affairs and need colonialism to survive, or the same ass-holes here in the USA who say the common man is too stupid to vote, and only people with jobs/college degrees/incomes over $1000,000 should be allowed to vote.

I am not saying that the working class is not ready for power. I am saying that socialism cannot be imposed from above. Your "revolutionary coup" would seem to suggest minority action and as such rules out the possibility of change to a socialist society.