What's the best strategy for advancing communism?

[Tim Cornelis]

What's the best strategy for advancing communism when examining practical examples and experience?
I'm looking for strategical models that could be applied today.
Mentioning pre-WW1 SDP is not allowed since we are all familiar with this. I'm more looking for contemporary examples, altough historic examples are also fine (for example, if you can explain how the CNT in Spain got up to 500,000 members, please do).

How did the SAC in Sweden get 7,500 members (small in comparison to periods of high class consciousness but quite large today)?
How did Abahlali baseMjondolo surge? Were the conditions right? Can it be applied in (Western) Europe?

Are there other such examples of successful far-left organisations and what can we learn from them?

[Let's Get Free]

If we are to advance communism, then it should be organized along the proper framework. The structure of this framework is determined by the need to survive the repressive efforts of the bourgeoisie and by the necessity that the revolutionary organs serve as the nucleus for the future socialist system. A workers council system should be based on decentralization and widespread support and participation.

Communism depends on two factors--the existence of revolutionary conditions and the existence of a working class organization which is prepared to seize the moment and act in those conditions. We can do little to hasten the time when these conditions will re-appear, but we can do everything to build up the organization that these conditions will require. We must prepare a developed international network of worker's councils and an armed movement which is capable of defending this network. These are the tasks of the socialist movement.

I think we can learn a lot from autonomous movements like Abahlali baseMjondolo. Another modern day example I would like to cite is the 2006 rebellion in the southern Mexican state of Oaxaca, when people took over Oaxaca City and much of the state. The population of Oaxaca is over half indigenous, and the struggles there against colonialism and capitalism go back five hundred years. In June 2006, 70,000 striking teachers gathered in Oaxaca de Juarez, the capital, to press their demands for a living wage and better facilities for the students. On June 14, the police attacked the teacher’s encampment, but the teachers fought back, forcing the police out of the center of the city, taking over government buildings and evicting politicians, and setting up barricades to keep them out. Oaxaca City was self-organized and autonomous for five months, until federal troops were sent in. After they forced the police out of the capital city, the striking teachers were joined by students and other workers, and together they formed the Asamblea Popular de los Pueblos de Oaxaca (Popular Assembly of the Peoples of Oaxaca). The APPO became a coordinating body for the social movements of Oaxaca, effectively organizing social life and popular resistance for several months in the vacuum created by the collapse of state control. It brought together delegates from unions, non-governmental organizations, social organizations, and cooperatives across the state, seeking to make decisions in the practice of consensus — although most assemblies made decisions with a majority vote. Among other efforts, they had managed to defeat the plan to construct a Coca Cola plant which would have consumed much of the available drinking water.

[The Idler]

The democratic vote.

[Raúl Duke]

How did Abahlali baseMjondolo surge? Were the conditions right? Can it be applied in (Western) Europe?I think conditions have a lot to do with things...

But looking into the abahlali basemjondolo, one thing has to do that their praxis is probably very "down-to-earth" (they call it people's politics and such) and perhaps it's the delivery of the message (and the composition of the movement) that plays a role, plus they have a very particular goal (housing) that they could accomplish in a near-immediate fashion (i.e. land occupation, mutual aid activities, fight evictions) rather than many radical movements who in their practice focus mostly protests/demos and a goal-focus on revolution.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Notably, AbM, like CLASSE and Occupy (recognizing, especially, the serious limits of the latter) have all had specific, attainable-seeming goals (housing, free education, end to political corruption) that they located within a broader project articulated as some variation on directly democratic community control. In this way, I think all three were able to overcome the implicit and explicit limits of single-issue campaigns, without seeming like inapproachable idealism. By providing a space for experimenting with tactics and strategy toward a transformative social vision, they made that transformation seem possible through lived experience.
I can't speak to AbM, which I have, basically, a wikiknowledge of, but in the cases of CLASSE and Occupy, I think that a lot of tensions within this, a certain lack of or limit to discussion, lead to a dead end. In both cases, those concerned primarily with short-term "possible" goals were able to ditch the "means" of autonomy, direct-democracy, solidarity, etc. and link up with "MoveOn", or the Parti Quebecois, or whatever opportunists, leaving "radicals" to clean up the mess, suffer the repression, and so on.
The upside is that huge numbers of previously inexperienced people were given tastes of popular power, experience with everything from autonomous organization to street fighting, etc. The downside is . . . well, in Quebec we got a PQ government instead of a revolution. Hell, we didn't even get as close as 1972 . . .

[Die Neue Zeit]

What's the best strategy for advancing communism when examining practical examples and experience?
I'm looking for strategical models that could be applied today.
Mentioning pre-WW1 SDP is not allowed since we are all familiar with this. I'm more looking for contemporary examples, although historic examples are also fine (for example, if you can explain how the CNT in Spain got up to 500,000 members, please do).

I'll forgive you your jab and point to the genuine class struggle going on in Greece right now (despite notable criticisms). :p

[Grenzer]

I'll forgive you your jab and point to the genuine class struggle going on in Greece right now. :p

And by "genuine class struggle", naturally he's referring to Syriza, which is great if you think a program of progressive taxation and nationalization is a valid path to proletarian revolution, but I suspect that most people who have bothered reading some history will realize that this doesn't work, self-appointed experts and would-be messiahs notwithstanding.

[Die Neue Zeit]

And by "genuine class struggle", naturally he's referring to Syriza, which is great if you think a program of progressive taxation and nationalization is a valid path to proletarian revolution

The planks are way more than that, both substantively and in terms of being subject to criticism, but the on-the-ground, grassroots organizing of politically-driven solidarity networks and all that are what I was referring to in the main.

[Skyhilist]

(for example, if you can explain how the CNT in Spain got up to 500,000 members, please do)

I would actually like to know this as well. I wonder if it'd be applicable here and now.

[Q]

I would actually like to know this as well. I wonder if it'd be applicable here and now.

It's for the same reason as that party that the OP didn't want to discuss: They became more than merely a trade union. They became a politicized movement, with their own alternative culture, support networks, etc.

[l'Enfermé]

The CNT actually peaked at over 1.5 million members, right? The Anarcho-Syndicalists really had their shit together.

[Devrim]

This is a big topic and although of course there are lots of things to draw upon in historical examples, I think that it is important to recognize that we are operating in a very different period today.


Mentioning pre-WW1 SDP is not allowed since we are all familiar with this. altough historic examples are also fine (for example, if you can explain how the CNT in Spain got up to 500,000 members, please do).

I don't think that this is particularly different to how the pre-War German SPD (sorry for mentioning it) was able to build itself up. Obviously there are many many differences, but what allowed them to grow to this level was the period. I think it is a fallacy to assume if we do what those organisations did then in the current climate we will grow to the same levels. If it were that simple we would have done it.


The CNT actually peaked at over 1.5 million members, right? The Anarcho-Syndicalists really had their shit together.

Just as a point of information at the point when the CNT had a million and a half members, it was obligatory for workers to join a union. It probably had something to do with it. The figure going into the war was about half a million. Of course the intensification of class struggle would also have had a major effect, but I don't think that it accounts for all of it.


How did the SAC in Sweden get 7,500 members (small in comparison to periods of high class consciousness but quite large today)?

I don't know that much about SAC, but I think that one of the key things in this discussion is that it is actually in decline. SAC is just over a hundred years old and was an organisation built in a very different period. I think that if you look back over the last few decades it is in quite a serious decline. When I was a young IWA/AIT member, the figures given for its membership were about 17,000.

Devrim

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Devrim raises an important point above relating to material conditions changing in different time periods. This is the ultimate consideration. What it means is that, instead of looking to beg, steal and borrow from historical narratives, what we should really look to do is encourage individuals and groups to come up with their own ideas for the contemporary world, drawing on historical experience of course, but only as a sort of secondary source.

This will also hopefully avoid boring historical sectarian bickering :)

[Devrim]

It's for the same reason as that party that the OP didn't want to discuss: They became more than merely a trade union. They became a politicized movement, with their own alternative culture, support networks, etc.

This is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. You have constantly advanced on here this idea that socialist organisations need to develop this whole alternative culture thing. Of course it would be nice if we had these things. I don't think that it is right to say though that the left is small because it doesn't do these things. It is equally true to say that the left can't do these things because it is small.

If we take for example, your beloved CPGB, it has, to be generous, about two dozen members, and spends virtually all of its time and energy producing its paper. It would be completely unrealistic to think that this sort of organisation could develop these sort of activities. To look at the other extreme there are anarchist organisations who put virtually all of their effort into these sort of activities, and effectively become organisations who have no political content and who just do social work.

At the moment revolutionary organisations are so tiny that it is not possible to develop these things. Indeed I think that they will develop as a result of growth. Of course both things feedback into each other, but that doesn't mean that a handful of people now today can rebuild the whole socialist culture thing that existed before the First World War.

Devrim

[TheGodlessUtopian]

The struggle to build new foundations for revolution is a precious task. It involves critiquing and understanding the previous communist movements, knowing where those ones went wrong, and learning from their defeats to energize the next movement with zesty direction willing to be un-dogmatic.

Many manners of mass work have been synthesized: from selling newspapers/propaganda, trade union work, to the more recent in finding the fault-lines, those places where the struggle is most intense and agitating among the working class there using a flexible mass-line. It is all about re-conceiving and regrouping (http://kasamaproject.org/polemics/); finding those advanced elements, building successful tactics for engaging the proletariat, and adapting to the changing times.

I believe this route is important because the coming revolution is not going to be lead by any single tendency. It is going to be a quagmire of a movement where many revolutionaries from varied traditions will be required to work together in order to reach a common goal. It means overcoming sectarianism, trusting in the movement and taking risks. Above all it means formulating new roads of mass work with what you have available and what you are willing to do.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

At the moment revolutionary organisations are so tiny that it is not possible to develop these things.
This is very true, and as long as this is true, there are certain things that will be beyond these organisations no matter how well-meaning they may be.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't think that this is particularly different to how the pre-War German SPD (sorry for mentioning it) was able to build itself up. Obviously there are many many differences, but what allowed them to grow to this level was the period. I think it is a fallacy to assume if we do what those organisations did then in the current climate we will grow to the same levels. If it were that simple we would have done it.

Devrim raises an important point above relating to material conditions changing in different time periods. This is the ultimate consideration. What it means is that, instead of looking to beg, steal and borrow from historical narratives, what we should really look to do is encourage individuals and groups to come up with their own ideas for the contemporary world, drawing on historical experience of course, but only as a sort of secondary source.

This will also hopefully avoid boring historical sectarian bickering :)

No he hasn't.

The point is "voluntarily" adapting revolutionary strategy to contemporary circumstances. Also, "the period" wasn't quite revolutionary in the 1880s and 1890s.

That's why I mentioned SYRIZA's mass organizing. What I didn't ask is why neither Antarsya nor the KKE, despite sufficient logistics, participated in a way such that the solidarity networks became a sort of joint work and not just SYRIZA's.

[bricolage]

regarding abahlali.

abahlali built on pre-existing networks that had been around in the struggle against apartheid, when the ANC cemented its rule and its neoliberal shift (epitomised by GEAR and NEPAD but existing long before this) it tried to sideline and neutralise these networks and essentially co-opt what remained of the mass base that propelled it to power into propping up the state it (and SACP and COSATU) had created. one of the biggest promises of post-apartheid south africa had been housing for all, mandela called it a human right and it was cemented in the constitution, but these clearly did not happen and the number of informal settlements actually rose. this was combined with additional increases in lack of access to water/electricity/sanitation and so forth.

abahlali as such came into play in a situation where there was a) a history and culture of bottom up organising b) a real sense of abandonment by the state and c) a clear goal that had been promised and that had not been fulfilled. the difference comes about in that they (and numerous other south african social movements) decided to fight for these goals making use of participatory forms of organising and hence built the sort of horizontal stuff that western anarchos get excited about into their struggle for a clear goal (housing/toilets/and so forth).

this is the bit that the western anarchos leave out, that essentially there is a large degree of what would often be dismissed as 'reformism' in abahlali - demands/use of legal system, furthermore it can't be dismissed the degree to which the anc is still a dominant force even in places like kennedy road and lots of people see no problem with being a member of both the anc and of abahlali. even the 'no house, no land, not vote' slogan carries the idea that if there were houses and land then there would be votes. but anyway, abahlali has also been well involved in re-connecting electricity, organising marches (with burning tires an all that) against unemployment, telling western NGOs to go fuck themselves and so forth.

it is perhaps the most promising movement of this century but there are a number of problems in trying to simply replicate it in europe or america (where most people on this forum are from); 1. the informal settlements that exist there don't exist here and 2. abahlali are not a working class organisation, lets be honest here, those that work are in very informal sectors (through no fault of their own obviously) and their praxis is towards 'the poor' and not 'the working class' (although they do overlap such as this (http://libcom.org/news/wildcat-strike-pinetown-south-africa-25012010) and here (http://libcom.org/news/solidarity-mine-workers-marikana-platinum-17082012)).

now this is fundamentally due to continual growth in the informal sector and the further shutting out of those in slums/informal settlements from 'regular capitalism' and it's something that has to be dealt with. but this is not (at least currently) the case in europe/usa and so needs to be thought of a bit differently. but sure there is lots to be learnt from abahlali and perhaps they've been most successful in twisting the narrative that the rest of the world needs to learn from the struggles in the west but like the zapatistas they attract a lot of attention because they look cool and do cool things and people don't really think about the actual material realities of it all.

[LeonJWilliams]

If we agree that conditions are the most important factor for communism or at least to say communist ideas to flourish then to 'advance communism' we need to help create the conditions.

One effective method is propaganda.

If we take as an example the current 'democratic' process we can see that when a party wants to do something it raises the issue, their own perspective, lambaste the oppositions policy on the issue, then the media gets involved creating a storm and then finally the public start screaming at something they previously didn't give a toss about.

[Die Neue Zeit]

abahlali as such came into play in a situation where there was a) a history and culture of bottom up organising b) a real sense of abandonment by the state and c) a clear goal that had been promised and that had not been fulfilled. the difference comes about in that they (and numerous other south african social movements) decided to fight for these goals making use of participatory forms of organising and hence built the sort of horizontal stuff that western anarchos get excited about into their struggle for a clear goal (housing/toilets/and so forth).

this is the bit that the western anarchos leave out, that essentially there is a large degree of what would often be dismissed as 'reformism' in abahlali - demands/use of legal system [...] abahlali has also been well involved in re-connecting electricity, organising marches (with burning tires an all that) against unemployment, telling western NGOs to go fuck themselves and so forth.

[...]

abahlali are not a working class organisation, lets be honest here, those that work are in very informal sectors (through no fault of their own obviously) and their praxis is towards 'the poor' and not 'the working class' (although they do overlap such as this (http://libcom.org/news/wildcat-strike-pinetown-south-africa-25012010) and here (http://libcom.org/news/solidarity-mine-workers-marikana-platinum-17082012))

[...]

but sure there is lots to be learnt from abahlali and perhaps they've been most successful in twisting the narrative that the rest of the world needs to learn from the struggles in the west but like the zapatistas they attract a lot of attention because they look cool and do cool things and people don't really think about the actual material realities of it all.

That's an interesting South African perspective on politicized social work.

[Sea]

The democratic vote.As a now semi-class conscious worker who now realizes communism might be a good thing, this means an idle-minded vote for the CPUSA and from there back to my daily routine, and I'd logically blame communism for the lack of improvement. After all, I voted for it and it didn't do anything!


Democracy does not solve problems, it merely enables the masses to give their opinion on how to solve the problem. This isn't exactly ideal in a society which has been thoroughly poisoned with bourgeois ideology.

[Desy]

Look up Michael Hardt. He has some good ideas for 21 century communism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Here is my conclusion from the input you gave:

Question 1: What is the source of success of far-left movements?

From what I can gather so far is that anticapitalist movements especially flourish when they are built around concrete political questions with a historical background.

Zapatista Army of National Liberation. The right to land serves as the concrete political aim from which they launched a comprehensive political movement against capitalism. The question of land, of course, goes back to the Mexican revolution, it was thus easier to construct a movement around that aim.

Abahlali baseMjondolo. The right to housing (as explained by bricolage) is a concrete aim and has a historical background.

PKK/PJAK (Kurdistan nationalism): less concrete, but definitely a historical background of oppression of the Kurdish identity. Eventually this political question was somewhat successfully integrated into a democratic, post-capitalistic alternative.

Of course it's not surprising that workers join organisations or movements that struggle for concrete aims and immediate interests. Noble but idealist notions of an "exploitationless world" are unappealing as they are too far detached from the real world experience of workers. It is completely logical then that left-wing trade unions are far more sizable in terms of membership and mobilisation than left-wing political parties. If we look at Italy we see far-left parties such as the communists (combined: see PRC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_Refoundation_Party) and PdCI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_of_Italian_Communists)) and Left Ecology Freedom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Ecology_Freedom) have circa 50,000 members each, compared to the left-wing trade union CGIL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_General_Confederation_of_Labour) which has 5,000,000 members (both the political and trade union "far-left" are highly reformist though). Similarly, we see that the few anarchist mass movements have always been trade unions.

Concrete aims and struggling for immediate interests must thus serve as a catalyst for class-based political action centred around working class self-organisation and anticapitalist political demands. There is thus a fundamental question of fighting for reforms without becoming reformists. Additionally, we must seek to dismantle trade union influence by organising workplaces without becoming trade unions ourselves. Workplace organising must be integrated into a broad network of (from my political perspective) libertarian communist political action, not syndicalism.

Any challenges or input?

Question 2: How do we concretely put in practice the above?

I'm still unsettled exactly how. If I'm looking specifically what needs to be changed here in the Netherlands I'd say:

- we need an explicitly communist anarchist political organisation.
- we need close coordination between libertarian- and left-communist organisations that fulfill different roles.*
- construction of a solidarity network
- linking multiple individual struggles to collective struggle and class struggle.
- making the movement more representative of the population (particularly women and ethnic minorities). Presently, the movement consists of "professional activists."
- (related to the previous), reaching out to various other organisations, such as, for example, Kurdish Federation (related: social insertion).
Introvertism is the problem with the anarchist movement, in my view.

Many of these things will not be relevant in countries where the movement is more advanced than in the Netherlands.

* elaboration:
1) A minority organisation, a "vanguard" if you will, of people that explicitly identify as communists or anarchists.
2) An aspiring extra-parliamentary anticapitalist mass movement that doesn't necessarily define itself as either Marxist or anarchist to lower the barrier to participation (ideologies bring boring theoretical baggage). Perhaps this organisation will house the solidarity network.
3) Solidarity network of self-organised committees in innumerable fields: workplaces, communities, housing, migration rights, student activities, etc. Perhaps an explicit anti-capitalist wing within this solidarity network so as to lower the barrier to entry for those not yet explicitly anti-capitalist.

Question 3: How do we connect individual struggles to collective struggles?

I read somewhere that an Italian group managed to do this successfully. It was organised in different fields, but when the students completed their campaign they didn't go home but rather assisted others in other fields (say, hospital workers, just a random guess). It was not explained how, and I have no idea myself.

This is a fundamental question: how do we keep the struggle ongoing?

[Tim Cornelis]

I proposed the creation of a solidarity network, as I said here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/international-aid-association-t177643/index.html?p=2560537), and there was mixed feedback. I think I made a pretty coherent case for this particular strategy, but there were some valid criticisms, some I already posted above:

1) After a certain goal is met or an immediate interest achieved, those involved will leave.

To prevent this we need to politicise the involved, but even this is no guarantee.

The same applies as in my above comment:

I read somewhere that an Italian group managed to do this successfully. It was organised in different fields, but when the students completed their campaign they didn't go home but rather assisted others in other fields (say, hospital workers, just a random guess). It was not explained how, and I have no idea myself.

This is a fundamental question: how do we keep the struggle ongoing?

2) It involves a lot of energy, and, especially at the beginning, it may be disillusioning when positive results are scarce.

Any replies to these criticisms?

[Manic Impressive]

the premise of this thread is based on a fallacy

[Tim Cornelis]

the premise of this thread is based on a fallacy

How so? Just stating it is doesn't really convince me.

[human strike]

What's the best strategy for advancing communism when examining practical examples and experience?
I'm looking for strategical models that could be applied today.
Mentioning pre-WW1 SDP is not allowed since we are all familiar with this. I'm more looking for contemporary examples, altough historic examples are also fine (for example, if you can explain how the CNT in Spain got up to 500,000 members, please do).

How did the SAC in Sweden get 7,500 members (small in comparison to periods of high class consciousness but quite large today)?
How did Abahlali baseMjondolo surge? Were the conditions right? Can it be applied in (Western) Europe?

Are there other such examples of successful far-left organisations and what can we learn from them?

You're assuming the best way of advancing communism is to advance an organisation, or that these are somehow synonymous; why? The best way of advancing communism has always been communisation.

[Thirsty Crow]

You're assuming the best way of advancing communism is to advance an organisation, or that these are somehow synonymous; why? The best way of advancing communism has always been communisation.
How does communisation work? Can you point out some historical examples and aspects of communisation and maybe some contemporary ones?