Can anyone recommend me some texts on non-Leninist party organisation?

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Recently I've been thinking about the Maoist conception of the party and I was curious if non-traditional organisational models are compatible with it or could be used to build upon it. Recently I've been thinking that the concept of the vanguard needs to be enhanced for the modern era and after studying a comparative history of China and Cambodian socialism I've concluded that the top-down model of traditional ultra-Leninist vanguards is inadequate, but that while the Maoist model is an improvement it was also not perfect and left room for improvement. So before I go to bed tonight I'm going to write down my thoughts and perhaps I'll post them here.

But in the mean time I'd be interested if you could recommend me some platformist/autonomist texts that discuss organisation, tactics, and vanguards. Anything on the subject of organisation is welcome, however dogmatic ideals about one method of organisation being more ideologically "pure" then the Leninist model aren't of much use to me. Perhaps some Hal what's his name socialism from bellow guy could be helpful.

[LordAcheron]

http://libcom.org/library/strategy-struggle-anarcho-syndicalism-21st-century

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Lenin would be a start.

[Dazdra Flynn]

I think that the Leninist organization of the vanguard party is at least as applicable now in modern times as it has ever been. Many Marxists seem to have a problem with centralization, but political administration, to say nothing of capital, is highly centralized. It only follows that we would approach the material world on its own terms.

[svenne]

In the first chapter of The philosophy of Antonio Negri - Resistance in practice (there's a .pdf floating around on the internet, PM me if you need help), Michael Hardt writes about Negris concept of the communist party, in Italy of the 1970s. It's a pretty good article, besides an unneccessary detour on Nietzsche, where the leninist party is put into context, the context then analysed, and once again used on the current terrain (by Negri, not Hardt). In short: it's both a critique of the leninist parties of today, as well as an article about a new kind of communist party, with the twists that Negri wants to do it all again. If you want to read the original texts, i guess Books for burning (by Negri) would be a good start. I've only read the first pamphlet in the collection, and it's pretty hard, but at the same time very rewarding. I guess this

Another starting point could be Rosa Luxemburg. It's been a long time since i read her, but i guess her critique of Lenins WITBD and the Mass Strike are good starting points. It may be a bit dated nowadays, however.

A third tip is the pamphlet Bordiga vs. Pannekoek, http://libcom.org/library/bordiga-versus-pannekoek , if you're interested in the left communist point of view. There's also links to two texts from the authors, but i haven't read those text (but surely someone else here has).

[The Idler]

Obsolete Communism: The Left-Wing Alternative, Daniel Cohn-Bendit is not bad.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

This is worth checking out:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htm

[Grenzer]

I recently got this book called Karl Marx, Our Contemporary: Social-Theory for a Post-Leninist World, but it hasn't arrived yet.

One could try checking out this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/martov/1919/xx/sovietism.htm) article by Martov, in which he essentially critiques Leninism as a vehicle for bourgeois revolution in the 20th century.


The mystery of the “soviet regime” is now deciphered. We see now how an organism that is supposedly created by the specific peculiarities of a labor movement corresponding to the highest development of capitalism is revealed to be, at the same time, suitable to the needs of countries knowing neither large capitalist production, nor a powerful bourgeoisie, nor a proletariat that has evolved through the experience of the class struggle.

[Comrade Jandar]

Here's text by an insurrecto theorist who seems to be advocating a vanguard.

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alfredo-m-bonanno-why-a-vanguard

[Ostrinski]

You might be interested in checking out Lenin Rediscovered by Lars Lih which challenges both traditional Leninist and traditional anti-Leninist perceptions of Lenin and his views on party organization. I agree with Choler on starting with Lenin because Leninism is at best a caricature of Lenin and at worst opportunistic misrepresentation.

[Dazdra Flynn]

You might be interested in checking out Lenin Rediscovered by Lars Lih which challenges both traditional Leninist and traditional anti-Leninist perceptions of Lenin and his views on party organization. I agree with Choler on starting with Lenin because Leninism is at best a caricature of Lenin and at worst opportunistic misrepresentation.

Because a Leninist can't just be incorrect; he has to be either stupid or evil. Good work totally not being Objectivism, the Left.

[l'Enfermé]

The Stalinist caricature of Marxist party organization is not the "Leninist" one, "ultra-" or not. Lenin's own conception of the "vanguard party", for example, was a party like the German SPD, a democratic party of socialist workers which never ends seeking to proselytize more workers to its cause and aims to instil revolutionary consciousness into the proletariat and tries to give the proletariat's conflict with capital an aim, etc. If "Leninism" contradicts almost all of Lenin's beliefs, it's not "Leninism" and only idiots would call it "Leninism". Well, idiots and liars also; liars who wish to abuse the history and memory of Lenin and Bolshevism for their own ends.

If you wish to learn more about non-"Leninist" forms of party organization, the best start would be reading Lenin's own thoughts on this matter, as nothing is more opposed to "Leninism".

Hal whats-his-name-socialism-from-below-guy? Heh, you're thinking of Hal Draper. I'm very fond of this one. He has his own sub-archive on the MIA(marxists.org) (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/index.htm), they have some interesting stuff there, though I haven't had time to read all of it yet. Unforunately, his 4-volume(is it 4? I don't remember...) Marx's Theory of Revolution is not there, which is his most valuable contribution to Marxism, is not there. He finished it just before his death.

Anyway, as far as party-organization goes, I found this interesting (http://marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/index.htm). He might have wrote but it's not on the MIA archive.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Thanks for the help so far, I'm busy this weekend but during the week I should have some time to work on all of this. Also I'd like to read a bit about the actual history of the Bolshevics and how they managed to carry out their revolution. I hear Hal Draper has a good article on this which I'll try to read despite the fact that I don't agree with his conception of socialism "from bellow".

And just for some clarification, I'm not dogmatically opposed to the vanguard, infact I do think that there needs to be a vanguard. It's just that in my country there are about 40 "leninist" cults that claim to be the vanguard and at this point, on one hand I see the need for an entirely new organisation, but on the otherhand I see that there is no need for another leninist cult.

Most of my critique of the "Leninist" conception of the party stems from my readings of Mao. He seemed to grasp that there needs to be a relationship with the party and the people that is more than just commanding them to follow in the steps of their theoretical purity, and he also realized that theory was worthless if it couldn't be a stepping stone to actual concrete practice, and that no theory of any worth can come from anything other than actually going out and doing things. Mao seemed to grasp that a party's politics should actually matter to people, but he could never formulate a concrete alternative to the form of party that he disagreed with.

And at this point in the socialist movement, we can't even use the excuse that we aren't in a revolutionary period anymore. I mean, just look out the fucking window. The time is here and the day is now. The fact that the US isn't engulfed in a revolutionary civil war means that we are clearly doing something wrong. The tried and true method isn't true and quite frankly, it doesn't look like anyone is actually trying. Yes we need a vanguard of sorts, yes we need inner party security so the party can do the nessecary clandestine activities to prepare for the revolution (you know, getting guns and money and shit, because yes we do need guns). But at the same time we need to create a party that matters to the people, a party that not only organizes rallies but gives the people the means to organize themselves. We need soviets, we need mass movements, we need counter culture, we need, more than anything else, duel power.

I don't have the answers, I don't know how we can achieve all of this, but I would like to know and maybe after finishing all of this reading I'll be able to give you an answer. But as of now, all I know is that we have no one but ourselves to blame for the failure of the socialist movement.

[GoddessCleoLover]

Mao had some interesting ideas, for example the "mass line" concept has a certain appeal. Sadly, Mao Tsetung Thought in China devolved into the "little red book" mindlessness of the Cultural Revolution, and the Cultural Revolution ended up in chaotic factional armed conflict that led to the intervention of the PLA. Odious figures such as Lin Biao and Jiang Qing typify the depths to which the Cultural Revolution sank, with the end result being the Hua Guofeng-Deng Xiaoping reaction.

[Ostrinski]

Because a Leninist can't just be incorrect; he has to be either stupid or evil. Good work totally not being Objectivism, the Left.What? I didn't say Leninists were stupid or evil. In fact there's a bit of continuity between my own views and certain Leninists.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

Mao had some interesting ideas, for example the "mass line" concept has a certain appeal. Sadly, Mao Tsetung Thought in China devolved into the "little red book" mindlessness of the Cultural Revolution, and the Cultural Revolution ended up in chaotic factional armed conflict that led to the intervention of the PLA. Odious figures such as Lin Biao and Jiang Qing typify the depths to which the Cultural Revolution sank, with the end result being the Hua Guofeng-Deng Xiaoping reaction.

For the cultural revolution I'd reccomend that you read this little piece: http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/049_049_CRpaper-Final.pdf

But in short, the great thing about the cultural revolution was that China witnessed the beginnings of the restoration of capitalism in the late 50's and early 60's, and managed to reverse it's course and re-establish socialism through the cultural revolution. Isn't this what most Trotskite's fantasize about when they think about "stalinist" Russia? Sure in the long run it failed, but it was still the most successful attempt at clutching socialism from the grasp of reaction, and because of that I think that Mao's model of maintaining class struggle under socialism is the best means of maintaining a socialist revolution that we've seen so far.

[Let's Get Free]

"Non-Leninist Marxism: Writings on the Worker's Councils"

[blake 3:17]

The best document outlining the principles for revolutionary socialists around the questions of party, class, and state is the USFI document here: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article921

The FI leadership in the early 70s made an important break with anti-democratic ideas which have dominated the Far Left, both Stalinist and Anarchist/Syndicalist. While defending soviet and direct democracy, it recognizes the need for representative democracy and a rejection of the one party state.

[GoddessCleoLover]

For the cultural revolution I'd reccomend that you read this little piece: http://www.mlmrsg.com/attachments/049_049_CRpaper-Final.pdf

But in short, the great thing about the cultural revolution was that China witnessed the beginnings of the restoration of capitalism in the late 50's and early 60's, and managed to reverse it's course and re-establish socialism through the cultural revolution. Isn't this what most Trotskite's fantasize about when they think about "stalinist" Russia? Sure in the long run it failed, but it was still the most successful attempt at clutching socialism from the grasp of reaction, and because of that I think that Mao's model of maintaining class struggle under socialism is the best means of maintaining a socialist revolution that we've seen so far.

I will read the entire article this evening, but upon first perusal there are serious problems with this work. They really give short shrift, frankly no analysis whatsoever to the course of events following the 1967 "Wuhan mutiny" and the establishment of three-in-one committees in 1968. This is likely due to the fact that during this period various Red Guard factions engaged in fratricidal conflict lacking in serious political content. Chairman Mao himself saw that this low-intensity civil war among Red Guard factions was unprincipled and threatened to destabilize China. He therefore reluctantly ordered the PLA to intervene in order to prevent the situation from going from bad to worse.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I will read the entire article this evening, but upon first perusal there are serious problems with this work. They really give short shrift, frankly no analysis whatsoever to the course of events following the 1967 "Wuhan mutiny" and the establishment of three-in-one committees in 1968. This is likely due to the fact that during this period various Red Guard factions engaged in fratricidal conflict lacking in serious political content. Chairman Mao himself saw that this low-intensity civil war among Red Guard factions was unprincipled and threatened to destabilize China. He therefore reluctantly ordered the PLA to intervene in order to prevent the situation from going from bad to worse.

That's actually a good point, I don't want to make you read a thousand papers so let me see if I can find you something better on the China Study Group's site. Still I'd say its one of the better ones.

I really ought to get to my homework so for right now I'll just leave this here for you. http://chinastudygroup.net/category/chinese-revolution/cultural-revolution-category/

I'll try to find the best one when I get a little bit done

[Q]

The FI leadership in the early 70s made an important break with anti-democratic ideas which have dominated the Far Left ... it recognizes the need for representative democracy

Eh, come again? What exactly is democratic by representative (I presume bourgeois) democracy?

[Dazdra Flynn]

The thing is, you can't get very far without hearing that Leninism is a "Stalinist" twisting of Lenin's actual intentions or something asinine like that. You typically won't find very much in the way of critical analysis of the organization of the Party post-Lenin from people who say something like that. Otherwise, you might learn something interesting about Stalin's attempts to minimize bureaucratic appointment and replace it with democratic election.

The thing about "Leninist" party organization is that it acknowledges that the capitalist world is highly centralized both economically and politically. The idea is to approach capitalism on these terms; socialism arises out of capitalism and does not exist in a vacuum separate from it.

[l'Enfermé]

^An analysis of the organization of the Party post-Lenin reveals that most of Lenin's comrades and fellow Bolshevik leaders were isolated from power in the 1920s by a Bonopartist clique under Stalin and executed in the 1930s. And as far as party democracy goes, it's undeniable that party democracy was almost completely strangled after Stalin's rise to near-absolute power.

http://i.imgur.com/gjZQU.png

So if anything is asinine, it's being a Stalinist in the 21st century.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The thing is, you can't get very far without hearing that Leninism is a "Stalinist" twisting of Lenin's actual intentions or something asinine like that. You typically won't find very much in the way of critical analysis of the organization of the Party post-Lenin from people who say something like that. Otherwise, you might learn something interesting about Stalin's attempts to minimize bureaucratic appointment and replace it with democratic election.

The thing about "Leninist" party organization is that it acknowledges that the capitalist world is highly centralized both economically and politically. The idea is to approach capitalism on these terms; socialism arises out of capitalism and does not exist in a vacuum separate from it.

I'm not looking for dogma. Despite his flaws Stalin constructed one of the most well functioning socialist economies the earth has ever seen. So I don't really see "stalinist" as a term that has any actual meaning outside of being nothing more than a trotskite slur

[l'Enfermé]

^Well functioning socialist economy=incredibly poor populace, millions in slave-labour camps, peasantry the biggest class, mind-blowingly low productivity of labour etc, etc? What was that word Comrade Stalinian Motherfucker used? It has something to do with being like a donkey. Oh, yes, asinine! Sheer asininity, comrade!

[Let's Get Free]

I'm not looking for dogma. Despite his flaws Stalin constructed one of the most well functioning socialist economies the earth has ever seen. So I don't really see "stalinist" as a term that has any actual meaning outside of being nothing more than a trotskite slur

The Stalin regime was an extremely authoritarian state capitalist one with significant elements of serfdom and slavery (which weakened but did not disappear even after the tyrant’s death). In practice, it accomplished an industrial revolution – the accelerated accumulation of capital. To a large extent, this was primitive accumulation. We find similarities between industrialization under Stalin and the path followed by Japan from the bourgeois "Meiji revolution" to World War Two. There too, capital grew rapidly. There too, despotic methods were used to modernize the economy, create an industrial base and strengthen military might, with the state playing a major role.

[hetz]

The Stalin regime was an extremely authoritarian state capitalist one with significant elements of serfdom and slavery
Wait, what?

[GoddessCleoLover]

Gulag

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

^Well functioning socialist economy=incredibly poor populace

What are you referring to exactly? Do you think that if we just hoist the "correct" red flag on our mast that we will suddenly transform into the richest country on earth? Yes at first the Soviet Union was poor, but under Stalin it went from being a near third world country to the second largest economy on earth.


millions in slave-labour camps

Did I say that I defend the labour camps? No. What I did say is that Stalin constructed one of the most well-functioning socialist economies in the world, which is an.... objectively true statement. Can you point to a socialist economy that achieved as much as Stalin's USSR in the same amount of time? No. Did I defend any other aspect of Stalin's USSR other than it's economic model? No


Peasantry the biggest class

So? Yes I know alot of Orthodox Marxists don't believe that the peasantry are a revolutionary class, and that's all fine and dandy until someone raises the essential question: hey what happens if the working class in a peasant society overthrow capitalism? And what exactly should they do? Should they give up and return to capitalism since there are too many peasants? This is the problem with your theoretically pure situation: Theory is worthless except when it is relevant to practice. Sure you can claim a more "more theoretically pure than thou" position, but in practice your position is nothing more than social democracy in the third world since it offers nothing of content for peasant revolutionaries who want to establish socialism in their own countries.

And no, the peasantry had nothing to do with the fall of socialism. After Stalin's (misguided and foolish) forced collectivization they began to dissolve as an Independent class and I don't think anyone can argue that the peasants overthrew the Soviet Union. Heck, if socialism is incapable of modernizing a peasant country and capitalism is the only progressive force capable of eliminating feudalism, then where are the vast and backward peasantry of Russia?[/QUOTE]


mind-blowingly low productivity of labour Admittedly I don't know enough to respond to this, however most statistics from the time show a massive increase in productivity in the mineral extraction sector. I don't really know if this extends to industry.

And why on earth do you feel the need to go into rage mode? I never defended "Stalinism" I just simply disagreed with one guy who blamed the failure of the socialist movement on "Stalinism" when "Stalinism" as a theoretical current doesn't exist. I'll admit that it was wrong of me to call an accusation of "Stalinism" a trotskite slur because that is unfair to the Trots who have a legitimate hatred towards the man since their tendency was persecuted by him. What I should have said was that Stalinism is a sectarian slur. Because let's face it, Stalin is dead. He isn't sabotaging the socialist movement, socialists are sabotaging the socialist movement. So to blame any of the problems of the current Socialist movement on Stalin is nothing more than an abdication of responsibility on behalf of the left.


Sorry if I came off as a bit hostile in my post, but you have to admit that your post was nothing but a cheap shot

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

The Stalin regime was an extremely authoritarian state capitalist one with significant elements of serfdom and slavery (which weakened but did not disappear even after the tyrant’s death). In practice, it accomplished an industrial revolution – the accelerated accumulation of capital. To a large extent, this was primitive accumulation. We find similarities between industrialization under Stalin and the path followed by Japan from the bourgeois "Meiji revolution" to World War Two. There too, capital grew rapidly. There too, despotic methods were used to modernize the economy, create an industrial base and strengthen military might, with the state playing a major role.

First of all, the idea that any capitalistic elements of the Soviet Union decreased when Stalin died is provably false. If anything Stalin represented a bastion of socialism against the forces of reaction. See here: http://clogic.eserver.org/2010/Ball.pdf

Secondly, I don't agree with everything Stalin did, personally I prefer Mao's more gradualistic approach but even that had flaws (See, the unjustifiably stupid elements of the Great Leap Forward)

However, in the absence of capitalist development, the state might sometimes have to take the role of the capitalist. Yes it's not something that we should celebrate, but we need to get from point A to point B, we need to establish socialism. What do we need to establish socialism? Industry. How do we get industry? Unpleasant things. We can either choose capitalism, which most of us here oppose, "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" which will lead to capitalism, that we still oppose, or "Really fucking mean" socialism, which will might lead to socialism. Yes all of these options are horrible, but there is one that is the least horrible, and that is really fucking mean socialism. (There is also Mao's line, but this topic is already far enough off topic and sectarian enough, so can we please not start a discussion on that please)

Why is it that the moment a leader of a tendency that we don't like is mentioned we feel the need to go batshit and start ranting without any regard for factual accuracy? Yes there are problems with Stalin, yes there are problems with Mao, yes there are problems with Castro. But there are reasons why these figures have -isms attached to them, and that is because they represent a theoretical tendency that may or may not have merits. All I meant when I told that one guy to not dogmatically reject Stalin is that we shouldn't dogmatically reject Stalin, that is that anything regarding Stalin that we ought to reject should be on a solely factual basis and should have no "good v evil" dichotomy, nor should it have any reference to some abstract idea of "theoretically pure communism" that has never existed for a damn good reason. What was wrong with that one post is that he blamed the problems of the left on Stalin, and in saying that Stalin or the "ism" isn't at fault is factually correct. Calling me an evil Stalinist is not factually correct because despite the impression I might be giving off I actually don't like the guy.

[Dazdra Flynn]

So if anything is asinine, it's being a Stalinist in the 21st century.

That or just literally making up conspiracies out of thin air to legitimize some arbitrary prejudice.


^Well functioning socialist economy=incredibly poor populace, millions in slave-labour camps, peasantry the biggest class, mind-blowingly low productivity of labour etc, etc? What was that word Comrade Stalinian Motherfucker used? It has something to do with being like a donkey. Oh, yes, asinine! Sheer asininity, comrade!

The Soviet Union under Stalin experienced unprecedented economic growth that has yet to be matched. I'm also not sure how you managed to measure the peasantry as being bigger than the proletariat, but I kind of don't care. You don't really seem to be interested so much in an investigation into historical socialism as much as you seem to be interested in drawing a line between yourself and the "false" Marxists. It's petty at best.


The Stalin regime was an extremely authoritarian state capitalist one with significant elements of serfdom and slavery (which weakened but did not disappear even after the tyrant’s death). In practice, it accomplished an industrial revolution – the accelerated accumulation of capital. To a large extent, this was primitive accumulation. We find similarities between industrialization under Stalin and the path followed by Japan from the bourgeois "Meiji revolution" to World War Two. There too, capital grew rapidly. There too, despotic methods were used to modernize the economy, create an industrial base and strengthen military might, with the state playing a major role.

Once again, "state" capitalism doesn't really exist, nor did it exist in the Soviet Union under Stalin. "Serfdom and slavery" also did not exist, even if punitive labor did. If you're going to critique the Gulag system, approach it from a standpoint of objectivity and avoid using emotionally-charged language. That capital should have been accumulated quickly doesn't really tells us anything about the Soviet Union under Stalin, and your comparison to the Meiji Restoration fell flat for me.

[Ostrinski]

Stalin constructed one of the most well-functioning socialist economies in the world, which is an.... objectively true statement.It's not an objectively true statement because this is still a very large debate and divisive issue on the left with many approaches and in depth analyses that have considerable followings. To say that what you just said is an objectively true statement does more than just suppose that your view of the Soviet Union is correct, it supposes that this debate is non-existent. The debate in fact is quite existent, and unfortunately it is more divisive than it should be.

[blake 3:17]

Eh, come again? What exactly is democratic by representative (I presume bourgeois) democracy?

Representative democracy isn't the same as the rule of the bourgeoisie.

The proposal from Mandel and the USFI in favour of multi party democracy and other defences of civil rights was based on the experiences of the 20th century.

The Nicaraguan Revolution has been the only revolution thus far to allow for democratic elections and abolish the death penalty.

Neither syndicalism nor a one party state are adequate for creating a socialist society. We need to be able to express our differences and have room to negotiate.


I'd take a serious read of this document: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?rubrique91

If you were interested in an online study group I'd be game.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

It's not an objectively true statement because this is still a very large debate and divisive issue on the left with many approaches and in depth analyses that have considerable followings. To say that what you just said is an objectively true statement does more than just suppose that your view of the Soviet Union is correct, it supposes that this debate is non-existent. The debate in fact is quite existent, and unfortunately it is more divisive than it should be.

Hmm, I was unaware, can you please point me to a state that constructed socialism better than Stalin?

[Ostrinski]

Hmm, I was unaware, can you please point me to a state that constructed socialism better than Stalin?No, false premise. This is about the economic nature of the Soviet Union being socialist at all, or any state ever having a socialist economy at all, not how well it was constructed. Both of which are extremely controversial positions to take on the radical left. I'd say about half of revleft if not a little more consider the Stalinist regimes to be state capitalist, and a decent chunk of the other half contend that they were not socialist.

I'd recommend starting here (http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pr/Western-Marxism-and-the-Soviet-Union).

http://www.haymarketbooks.org/files/imagecache/product/images/west-marx.gif

[blake 3:17]

On a side note:
Venezuela was the first country in the world to abolish the death penalty for all crimes, doing so by Constitution in 1863.

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

[Flying Purple People Eater]

If you need a guy with a moustache constructing 'economically beneficial socialism' for you then you shouldn't go with this supposedly 'economically beneficial socialism' in the first place.

Honestly, 'economically beneficial' is such a repulsive, abstract and right-wing term. Mass working factories with millions of low-paid employees is 'economically beneficial' for 'China', but we don't give a fuck about 'China'; we care about what's economically beneficial for the proletariat.

And that does not include assassination of political dissidents, a police state, and continued exploitation of labour.


Honestly, why are these people not banned? They hold views more reactionary than some of the rightists living in my street.