Abandon all political organisations

[Forward Union]

These are two exeprts from an article I am writing. The thurst of it is that we ought to abandon Political organisations and instead focus exclusively on building far more inclusive mass organisations of workers. Such as Trade Unions and Community organisations. Every political movement or organisation requires a support base The fundamental support base of all Socialist/Anarchist and far left parties/ideas is the working class, such ideologies only exist because of the crisis facing mass organisations in the late 1800s. Now those organisations do not exist, and it is paramount that we rebuild and reorganise this support base.



Abandon all political organisations



For last years words belong to last years language. And next years words await another voice" - TS Elliot.

This paper will briefly cover some issues which are seldom raised within the left but cover an alternative approach to the party model. Generally being coined “Sydnicalism” (although it doesn't entirely fit with a historical description of syndicalism) it argues that the political party is not a useful tool in the current material climate, and that reconstructing the basic grassroots, open, and inclusive organs of class power, Unions, Community and residents associations, is a more immediate anhd practical goal for workers everywhere.
The question which still keeps the old guard awake at night is 'what political position must the vanguard party take?' or even in some more profound cases 'what form must it take?' . It cannot be doubted, that these were very pressing issues when the great writers and thinkers of Socialism penned the classic works, Rosa Luxemburg, Lenin, as well as even Marx and Bakunin before them, were debating immediate political and material matters which would have very real, and perhaps even brutal consequences for the people alive in their times - what concerned them was how they ought to direct the erupting forces into a political program which will win.

If one thing must be taken away from this article it's that this s not the question facing us today. The carpet has been pulled from under this approach in the form of a dramatic change in the industrial and political landscape in the west. Or to put it in a much stronger way, is it possible to read the founding program of the Fourth International; “The world political situation as a whole is chiefly characterised by a historical crisis of the leadership of the proletariat” and not immediately see how detached this is from the facts on the ground?

Trade Union density is low, as is support for Union action 2 Community organisation is in a much more dire state. If two things are to be taken away from this article, it is that we must now return to the more fundamental question of; 'how do we rebuild the basic organs of class power'. This question immediately directs the entire focus of the Socialist mind on pragmatic questions, on creating activity and strategy which works today. There is no crisis of leadership, the crisis is that there is nothing substantial to lead.

The left is slowly coming around to this fact, and examples of this approach are beginning to appear everywhere. “If we are to roll back the tide of privatisation and war" Bob Crow says, "rebuilding the grass roots of our movement is essential” . Crows abandonment of the Communist Party and dedication to militant trade unionism is a shining example of what needs to be done. And if this is a good example of what ought to be done, then the diverting of the NSSN as a tool for democratising the Union movement, into a Socialist Party lead anti-cuts campaign (to rival the SWPs), shows exactly the opposite.

The Anarchists claim (but fail) to escape the crisis of the Party model, as the Party is (in Marxist terminology) nothing more than the political organisation which directs the mass (non political) workers movements into a political program of action. In this sense the Anarchist organisations are parties, though far less effective.

[...]

We first need to ask eachother “What is it we agree on?”

This is the question that all socialists must immediately begin asking each other. This does not mean reaching conclusions on utterly irrelevant historical issues, that is to say, while it might even be possible for two Socialists to come to a complete agreement on the issue of Kronstadt, such an agreement would be utterly meaningless – and if you think that finding such common ground is even worthwhile then you need to drastically reconsider your priorities. Agreement on these kinds of issues is almost impossible but also pointless - except it should be noted, when these 'issues' are used to metaphorically describe a really existing pragmatic disagreement, which may even have historical parallels (no doubt the left uses the same historical metaphors as the result of a complete poverty of imagination)

The issue is that entire disagreements are made based on perceived pragmatic disagreements but which are in fact Tribal, ideological, or to put it in an increasingly popular term "Partyist". Partyism unites all the ideological hacks into one useless gang, which go about their business completely under the radar of all historical forces.

How can we build an organisation which practically unites the Socialists?

This question is so dry and uninspiring that it is hopefully as painful to read as to write. It immediately forces the cynics and optimists alike to imagine things as utterly depressing as broad coalitions, left alliances, umbrella organisations, or perhaps for the exceptionally Jaded activists; limited joint campaigns or cross coordination between some of the existing organisations. These have been attempted, not only are there competing Socialist and Communist organisations but competing unity projects to.

In his paper "Which road to Socialism" Keir argues that "Whilst those advocating a party-centric or balanced approach will often pay lip service to the importance of trade union and community work, the reality is that frequently it is discarded in favour of concentrating on the party" This is true, but in my experience, when these groups do come to the table of grassroots organising, they do not always bury the hatchets, and their involvement rather cynically directed toward building the party.

There is only one escape from this cycle and that is to (at least temporarily) abandon the party model alltogether. By Party model we are talking specifically about any Politically Exclusive organisation. This could be a Socialist Party or an Anarchist Federation or in some rare cases where fossils can be brought back to life as if in a laboratory, a political or "Red" Trade Union such as the IWGB.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

OK, but, say we abandon politically specific organization - what becomes of community groups and unions? Arguably, it is this very strategic blunder that is responsible for the reformist and opportunist character of existing working class organizations. Of course, further, without a "political" orientation, these organizations tend to lose their class character and become dominated by professionals.
Honestly, I think this reflects a resigned attitude vis- political possibilities more than a step forward.

[Forward Union]

OK, but, say we abandon politically specific organization - what becomes of community groups and unions? Arguably, it is this very strategic blunder that is responsible for the reformist and opportunist character of existing working class organizations. Of course, further, without a "political" orientation, these organizations tend to lose their class character and become dominated by professionals.
Honestly, I think this reflects a resigned attitude vis- political possibilities more than a step forward.

Well, actually I think you've grasped exactly what I am trying to say. You're completely right to not identify this as a step forward at all. I am still of the opinion that we will eventually need a political organisation which is completely distinct from the mass organisations (Such as most Leninists and Platformists). My gripe with these two tendencies, as well as the Anarcho-Syndicalists (which argue the mass organisations should also be the political ones) It is I suppose a step backward, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that 'if only we could out-organise' the rival Socialist organisation, finally get a definitive monopoly (be that of Ideas or of real power) then the revolutionary work can begin... it's nonsense.

Syndicalism has been described as an ideology that isn't but I don't think that's fair. I am of course being rather provocative with a title like this, and I do think that all Socialists, Anarchists, and other revolutionary anti-capitalists and fellow travellers, ought to fight to make these mass organisations Democratic, Revolutionary, and Inclusive. That means accepting people into the Union who may have opinions which are centrist or even to the right (on some issues anyway - I do agree there are some red line issues which do completely exclude people). The slogan "Organise, Educate, Agitate" is in that order for a reason.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm all on board and have been for some time. In fact, I have been long in the way of writing up something similar: specifically dealing with the question in the OP post "what do we all agree on?" I think this is the most important question - the question which will serve to be our greatest strength.

Basically, political parties are by definition divisive and sectarian. They fundamentally cannot be 'fully supportive' of others because if they were, they'd be the same party. In short, political parties are a vehicle for a specific action. They are not an end in themselves. And when you consider that they enter the political arena of the state, which is the largest and most powerful monopoly on any party system, it's not hard to see why they don't get far.

TL;DR I'm for your paper and your idea. Cheers.

[The Idler]

Sorry but the Occupy movement understood the accountability problem far better by saying "we are the 99%". They also understood the anti-substitutionism problem by asking the class "what is our one demand?" rather than a recipe book of solutions.

Parties that are only accountable to themselves are sects. If you're meaningfully accountable to serve the interests of the class outside the party, you're not a sect.

Worse still, parties that are substitutionist imagine they can represent the class so well, that they have no need for any ideas originating outside of the party (and even in other parties) at all. Hence exacerbating any division between ideas distinguishing between parties. Basically the class is then choosing a new ruling-class. Calling for unity makes illusions in subsitutionism worse.

[Paul Pott]

I think partyism is bad because partyism isn't working classism, which is the posturing that I prefer.

[l'Enfermé]

This is called economism. Exactly what the right-wing of the Russian party promoted from the late 1890s until they were defeated by the Iskra-ists...

[black magick hustla]

except trade unions and communty orgs are super political. usually they tail mainstream left wing/liberal bourgeois parties....

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

I do think there is a certain degree of merit in this idea. While I do believe in the idea of a vanguard party is important, there is an awful tendency to assign an ideological tendency to the party. I feel like this is missing the point. The purpose of the vanguard party is to serve as an organization through which the advanced layers of the working class can build it's political hegemony. While obviously the party should strive to a non-opportunist position through the use of "correct" ideology (Yes I know that term is flawed and reflects a degree of dogmatism on the left, however this isn't my point) The idea that all we need is a party with the right tendency to do battle with other tendencies subsitiutes the role of the working class with the party, which at this point is more of a sectarian club than a genuinly proletarian movement.

Though that being said, I by no means claim to be a non sectarian leftist. I believe in my tendency because I think it is the correct one, as does every other leftist believe with his tendency. A part of this is due to the bloody history of the Left. Trotskyists tend to conflate their historical persecution by other sects with those sects today, and as a result can get somewhat emotional whenever they realize that these ideologies still exists, though that is not to imply that the feeling does not have legitimacy nor does it say that their emotions are unjustified. Likewise as a Maoist I am also guilty of this. I admit that since most of the critiques against my ideology are based on New Democracy, that I tend to shut these critiques out and ignore them. This is not good politics and it is not justified in the least bit. It is merely arrogance in my behalf. Every tendency has it's own sectarian arrogance, and this arrogance should be rejected along with any attempt to justify said arrogance.

So we leftists need to disregard our tendencies once and awhile and engage in some mutual understanding exerizes along with principled criticism that is not based on sectarian dismissals. What is the "unity, criticisms , unity" model of debate.

[Forward Union]

I do think there is a certain degree of merit in this idea. While I do believe in the idea of a vanguard party is important, there is an awful tendency to assign an ideological tendency to the party. I feel like this is missing the point. The purpose of the vanguard party is to serve as an organization through which the advanced layers of the working class can build it's political hegemony. While obviously the party should strive to a non-opportunist position through the use of "correct" ideology (Yes I know that term is flawed and reflects a degree of dogmatism on the left, however this isn't my point) The idea that all we need is a party with the right tendency to do battle with other tendencies subsitiutes the role of the working class with the party, which at this point is more of a sectarian club than a genuinly proletarian movement.

This is how I would explain it to a Marxist like yourself, it may well be the case, that there is a need for a vanguard party, at a particular junction in history. If so, it ought to be the advanced layers of the working class which occupy it (actually Anarchists agree with this much but not the political program (or structure) that such a party ought to enact). At the moment, the political left is not made up of people who have progressed from Trade Union conciousness to class conciousness, and then begun participating in the formation of a political program, but the reverse. They are often people who became political for personal reasons. This is because the support base, the ladder which leads people upward is essentially broken.

So we ought to rebuild the steps. It's my view that if that's done then new political organisations which genuinely represent Lenins conception of a vanguard party, or Machnos conception of a coherent Anarchist Organisation would form organically.


Though that being said, I by no means claim to be a non sectarian leftist.

Nor do I. I have strong convictions on some issues but the wisdom to know when debating them is worthless. You and I may (or may not) disagree on aspects of Maos great leap forward - it doesn't actually matter. We are both working people, alive in the 21st century who now have the chance to begin working on the overthrow of capitalism. It's also not down to me and you to do this, it's down to the vast majority of people who right now are worrying about their job, rent, and future - these people do not now, and will never care about ever political and historical issue we do. And they don't need to. The masses of workers in Russia were not won over by the Bolsheviks critiques of even older revolutions.




So we leftists need to disregard our tendencies once and awhile and engage in some mutual understanding exerizes along with principled criticism that is not based on sectarian dismissals. What is the "unity, criticisms , unity" model of debate.

Spot on. But we also need to reduce the hypothetical, historical, and academic nature of our discourse, and focus more on pragmatism. If me and you want to enter into a debate about the role of the State in the revolution, we can go on forever. But if you and I were to work together on building a Union branch to combat pay cuts in our workplace, we would have nothing but common ground, and when political challenges came at us we would develop on the spot ideological positions.

[Forward Union]

except trade unions and communty orgs are super political. usually they tail mainstream left wing/liberal bourgeois parties....

They are political with a small 'p' as in, to join a residents association to fight against landlords pushing up rents, you don't need to agree on whether or not the USSR was a 'deformed workers state' or 'state capitalist'. Because of this, a residents association can pull thousands of workers together to combat their class enemy. This inevitably leads to empowerment and class conciousness, and strengthens the working class generally. At this point in time, this is what we need above all else.

[Sasha]

for a second i had you confused with uberhoxaist user "prairie fire" and the title and content of the thread blew my mind... :D

[black magick hustla]

They are political with a small 'p' as in, to join a residents association to fight against landlords pushing up rents, you don't need to agree on whether or not the USSR was a 'deformed workers state' or 'state capitalist'. Because of this, a residents association can pull thousands of workers together to combat their class enemy. This inevitably leads to empowerment and class conciousness, and strengthens the working class generally. At this point in time, this is what we need above all else.

i was not talking about specific doctrinaire points like "ussr is a deformed state" usually most labor unions and "community orgs" are tied to mainstream bourgeois left/labor/liberal parties.

[Forward Union]

i was not talking about specific doctrinaire points like "ussr is a deformed state" usually most labor unions and "community orgs" are tied to mainstream bourgeois left/labor/liberal parties.

Ok. I was however, explicitly arguing for unions not to be allied to any political party whatsoever. If I didn't make that clear I am now doing so.

We need to build the mass organs of class power. This involves democratising them, abolishing political affiliations and replacing ideological agendas with pragmatic ones, and not having a partnership approach. I add the last point because victories not only increase the appeal of the organisation (as well as its political and economic capital) but also improve the day to day lives of working people, and inspire them to take further action and partnerships simply don't do this*

*That does not mean the Unions cannot be diplomatic and negotiate with managers to get a better deal. There is obviously a big difference between negotiating with your boss to get a wage increase, and a general ongoing partnership.

[Thirsty Crow]

Honestly, I think this reflects a resigned attitude vis- political possibilities more than a step forward.This is very close to my own impression.

The two underlying assumptions, along with the lack of a coherent analysis of the function of unions in capitalism (treating two different forms of organization as basically the same - neighbourhood/community committees and unions - is a mistake), are faulty, and in my opinion the conclusion cannot be anything but faulty, proceeding from its premises and blind spots in a logical way.

The first is the assumption of inherent substitutionism in any kind of a political organization. While there is a need to point out the constant pressure and danger of substitutionism, this does not hold, and moreover, this danger can and should be fought against tooth and nail.

The second concerns the concrete development in working class culture, composition, and action, which supposedly renders the political organization useless. The basic point is that activists need to jump start militant struggles, which lends itself to, ironically, substitutionist interpretations. While it is true that there have been substantial transformations of the working class experience both in the political and economic sphere (separated for the purpose of facilitating analysis), this does not amount to a historical demolition of the need for a clear political vision.

[l'Enfermé]

except trade unions and communty orgs are super political. usually they tail mainstream left wing/liberal bourgeois parties....
That's politics only in the context of liberal ideology. In reality it has nothing to do with politics it's just clientalism.

[Manic Impressive]

As long as your union/s are not solely devoted just to fighting the incursions of capital and are not asking, pleading and begging the ruling class for reforms but instead organize for revolution. Then I have no objection, if not then it's already a proven failure.

[l'Enfermé]

As long as your union/s are not solely devoted just to fighting the incursions of capital and are not asking, pleading and begging the ruling class for reforms but instead organize for revolution. Then I have no objection, if not then it's already a proven failure.
Organize for revolution? *gasp* That sounds like that filth the scoundrel Kautskyists go on about! "Voluntarism" and all that drivel!!!!

[Geiseric]

Well, actually I think you've grasped exactly what I am trying to say. You're completely right to not identify this as a step forward at all. I am still of the opinion that we will eventually need a political organisation which is completely distinct from the mass organisations (Such as most Leninists and Platformists). My gripe with these two tendencies, as well as the Anarcho-Syndicalists (which argue the mass organisations should also be the political ones) It is I suppose a step backward, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that 'if only we could out-organise' the rival Socialist organisation, finally get a definitive monopoly (be that of Ideas or of real power) then the revolutionary work can begin... it's nonsense.

Syndicalism has been described as an ideology that isn't but I don't think that's fair. I am of course being rather provocative with a title like this, and I do think that all Socialists, Anarchists, and other revolutionary anti-capitalists and fellow travellers, ought to fight to make these mass organisations Democratic, Revolutionary, and Inclusive. That means accepting people into the Union who may have opinions which are centrist or even to the right (on some issues anyway - I do agree there are some red line issues which do completely exclude people). The slogan "Organise, Educate, Agitate" is in that order for a reason.

You have a really good point, as far as I can tell the communist group i'm in hardly focuses on recruiting and actually spends all of its time and effort on campaigns centered around transitional demands, as James P. Cannon observed was a necessity. We actually bite a lot of his works in our theoretical journal. However as far as I can tell the sole purpose of a communist organization is to lead in and strengthen campaigns that rise organically out of the working class, such as the immigrants, union, and right to education struggles.

This article makes some of the most sense i've seen in a while, however we can take the best of both worlds.

[Geiseric]

As long as your union/s are not solely devoted just to fighting the incursions of capital and are not asking, pleading and begging the ruling class for reforms but instead organize for revolution. Then I have no objection, if not then it's already a proven failure.

You have no idea what the point of unions is then, or why they sprout out of the ground in the first place! Earth to utopian left communists: Nobody gives a shit about revolution at this point. Unions are under threat of being dismantled as it is. Before they can have a return to militancy, the biggest task, as many militant unions leaders have told me, would be to organize more workers. Only 3% of the workforce is unionized! How great is that for class consciousness, if it seems to the working class that a basic thing like a union is impossible?

[Decolonize The Left]

This is very close to my own impression.

The two underlying assumptions, along with the lack of a coherent analysis of the function of unions in capitalism (treating two different forms of organization as basically the same - neighbourhood/community committees and unions - is a mistake), are faulty, and in my opinion the conclusion cannot be anything but faulty, proceeding from its premises and blind spots in a logical way.

The first is the assumption of inherent substitutionism in any kind of a political organization. While there is a need to point out the constant pressure and danger of substitutionism, this does not hold, and moreover, this danger can and should be fought against tooth and nail.

The second concerns the concrete development in working class culture, composition, and action, which supposedly renders the political organization useless. The basic point is that activists need to jump start militant struggles, which lends itself to, ironically, substitutionist interpretations. While it is true that there have been substantial transformations of the working class experience both in the political and economic sphere (separated for the purpose of facilitating analysis), this does not amount to a historical demolition of the need for a clear political vision.

Pardon my ignorance, as both you and FU are far more theoretically adept than myself, but is not all political party action in some form substitutionalism?

Allow me to explain. A political party is composed of a members X which is a subgroup of general group B. Let's be generous and say that the political party's members make up a third of the general group B. So when the folks from the party get up and speak in the name of group B, they are really only speaking for a third of them. What they are hoping for is that the rest come around and identify with what they're saying - and hence join the party.

In short, they are substituting the ideals of the members X for the group B. They will be forced to do so no matter what as the party has a specific and finite program to which members of general group B must either a) identify with and willingly join, or b) must make personal concessions to meet the party's standard. Surely a good party member will say: "but our goals are the goals of the group B." But this is patently false - because if they were, the party would be made up of group B and not members X.

Note how this doesn't apply to unions. In a union you are dealing with a group of people within a specific context and whereby the conditions of membership are already in play.

[l'Enfermé]

Pardon my ignorance, as both you and FU are far more theoretically adept than myself, but is not all political party action in some form substitutionalism?

Allow me to explain. A political party is composed of a members X which is a subgroup of general group B. Let's be generous and say that the political party's members make up a third of the general group B. So when the folks from the party get up and speak in the name of group B, they are really only speaking for a third of them. What they are hoping for is that the rest come around and identify with what they're saying - and hence join the party.

In short, they are substituting the ideals of the members X for the group B. They will be forced to do so no matter what as the party has a specific and finite program to which members of general group B must either a) identify with and willingly join, or b) must make personal concessions to meet the party's standard. Surely a good party member will say: "but our goals are the goals of the group B." But this is patently false - because if they were, the party would be made up of group B and not members X.

Note how this doesn't apply to unions. In a union you are dealing with a group of people within a specific context and whereby the conditions of membership are already in play.
It's basic Marxism though. Substitutionism, that is. From Chapter II of the Manifesto:


In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they[Communists] always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The goals of members X, the Communists, are the same as the goals of group B, our class, because Members X are the only ones that can clearly see through the veil of bourgeois ideology and understand what the goals of group B really are.

We have a monopoly on "truth" -- this is one of the most elementary assumptions of communism and any other political movement.

[Decolonize The Left]

It's basic Marxism though. Substitutionism, that is. From Chapter II of the Manifesto:


In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they[Communists] always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole. The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

The goals of members X, the Communists, are the same as the goals of group B, our class, because Members X are the only ones that can clearly see through the veil of bourgeois ideology and understand what the goals of group B really are.

1) That's astonishingly presumptive and arrogant.
2) It ignores the problem of conflicting interests.
Example below (using the same outline as before):

Sub-group B decides to form a party in order to represent the interests of general group X. Well, this assumes that group B actually has the same interests as group X in the first place, and in the second place that they will continue to identify with said interests. Should group B decide that they will pursue the interests of group X, but also some other interests of those within group B, the whole point of the group is lost as they no longer adhere to their original proposition.

3) This assumes that the interests of group B are steady and unchanging - and hence are able to be represented by a minority at all times.
4) But, most importantly, this assumes that the members of group X are capable of representing the interests of group B.


We have a monopoly on "truth" -- this is one of the most elementary assumptions of communism and any other political movement.

No one has a monopoly on truth. Truth is lived out by each and every person day to day.

[The Idler]

Seconded, nobody has a monopoly on truth.

[Manic Impressive]

You have no idea what the point of unions is then, or why they sprout out of the ground in the first place!
Perhaps I should have made it clear that it was more of a question to Forward Union asking him to expand on exactly what the functions of these unions would be. He talks about reconstructing trade unions, this implies a non-revolutionary organization (at least according to Marx). He then goes on to talk about "what we all agree on". Which gave me the impression that he was talking about an organization geared towards revolution. Surely that's the only thing we all agree on? (although I do wonder in some cases) So really I was asking whether he is talking about reestablishing trade unionism as a popular force in labour disputes or whether he was talking about some kind of revolutionary working class organization which may resemble a trade union but does not suffer from it's failings. Marx describes these failings as


Trades Unions work well as centers of resistance against the encroachments of capital. They fail partially from an injudicious use of their power. They fail generally from limiting themselves to a guerilla war against the effects of the existing system, instead of simultaneously trying to change it, instead of using their organized forces as a lever for the final emancipation of the working class that is to say the ultimate abolition of the wages system.

and


the working class ought not to exaggerate to themselves the ultimate working of these everyday struggles. They ought not to forget that they are fighting with effects, but not with the causes of those effects; that they are retarding the downward movement, but not changing its direction; that they are applying palliatives, not curing the malady. They ought, therefore, not to be exclusively absorbed in these unavoidable guerilla fights incessantly springing up from the never ceasing encroachments of capital or changes of the market. They ought to understand that, with all the miseries it imposes upon them, the present system simultaneously engenders the material conditions and the social forms necessary for an economical reconstruction of society. Instead of the conservative motto: “A fair day's wage for a fair day's work!” they ought to inscribe on their banner the revolutionary watchword: “Abolition of the wages system!"

Earth to utopian left communists:
Firstly I'm not a Left communist I spend a fair amount of time criticizing them, almost as much as they spend criticizing me. Secondly your use of utopian is inappropriate as it usually refers to a lack of material analysis rather than something which appears unrealistic. I would say that you are the one being utopian in this case as you are advocating the use of reforms over revolution.


Nobody gives a shit about revolution at this point.
It appears to me that you don't give a shit about revolution at this point. But lets suppose you're half right. The question we should be asking, if revolution is what we want, is why nobody gives a shit about revolution? Perhaps because nobody is advocating it? Nobody is giving it as an option. Perhaps as Marx suggests we shouldn't campaign for higher wages, better health care, women's rights, etc, etc. Perhaps for all of these things we should give people the only realistic solution to these problems the abolition of the wages system. Funnily enough anarchists are generally more Marxist on this issue than the vast majority of professed Marxists.


Unions are under threat of being dismantled as it is. Before they can have a return to militancy, the biggest task, as many militant unions leaders have told me, would be to organize more workers. Only 3% of the workforce is unionized! How great is that for class consciousness, if it seems to the working class that a basic thing like a union is impossible?
blah blah blah this brings us no closer to revolution it merely fights against the inevitable encroachments of capital. No reform is ever passed, even those which have some benefit to workers, without being tailored to the interests of capital. That is until the market changes and their usefulness ends.

[Manic Impressive]

Organize for revolution? *gasp* That sounds like that filth the scoundrel Kautskyists go on about! "Voluntarism" and all that drivel!!!!
Well I am a voluntarist to determinists and a determinist to voluntarists. To clarify my own perspective I am definitely a voluntarist but only just. :p

[l'Enfermé]

1) That's astonishingly presumptive and arrogant.
2) It ignores the problem of conflicting interests.
Example below (using the same outline as before):

Sub-group B decides to form a party in order to represent the interests of general group X. Well, this assumes that group B actually has the same interests as group X in the first place, and in the second place that they will continue to identify with said interests. Should group B decide that they will pursue the interests of group X, but also some other interests of those within group B, the whole point of the group is lost as they no longer adhere to their original proposition.

3) This assumes that the interests of group B are steady and unchanging - and hence are able to be represented by a minority at all times.
4) But, most importantly, this assumes that the members of group X are capable of representing the interests of group B.

You were addressing LinksRadikal, and LinksRadikal is a Marxist(well, almost, actually he's a Left-Com), so I'm merely outlining the Marxist position. Debating the validity of this position is a matter for an entirely different thread I think, comrade. We can't do the issue any justice with only a few lines and it would be unfair to derail Forward Union's thread.



No one has a monopoly on truth. Truth is lived out by each and every person day to day.
I think communists come pretty close. I mean I wouldn't see the point in being a communist otherwise.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

You have no idea what the point of unions is then, or why they sprout out of the ground in the first place! Earth to utopian left communists: Nobody gives a shit about revolution at this point. Unions are under threat of being dismantled as it is. Before they can have a return to militancy, the biggest task, as many militant unions leaders have told me, would be to organize more workers. Only 3% of the workforce is unionized! How great is that for class consciousness, if it seems to the working class that a basic thing like a union is impossible?

Augh.
Nobody will ever give a shit about revolution if nobody is ever willing to provide any sort of revolutionary leadership (not in the sense of organizational authority, but in terms of taking risks, providing examples of revolutionary theory put in to practice, etc.). Similarly, unions will remain small and irrelevant unless they are militant - waiting for unions to get "big enough" is a sure recipe for waiting indefinitely. That argument from "militant" union leaders (pft) - "We're constrained by our membership!" - represents the absolute worst sort of condescension vis- the rank-and-file, and actually fosters the conservatism it claims to be constrained by.
If anyone is misunderstanding "the point of unions" . . .

[Thirsty Crow]

Pardon my ignorance, as both you and FU are far more theoretically adept than myself, but is not all political party action in some form substitutionalism?Not necessarily. This depends on the ways the organization conceptualizes its relation to the broader class and in turn how its practice flows from this.


Allow me to explain. A political party is composed of a members X which is a subgroup of general group B. Let's be generous and say that the political party's members make up a third of the general group B. So when the folks from the party get up and speak in the name of group B, they are really only speaking for a third of them. What they are hoping for is that the rest come around and identify with what they're saying - and hence join the party.I really can't say much since there are ambiguities here.
But I should have been more clear. The "get up and speak" part implies that you think I support parliamentary participation. But I don't in fact.

Other than that, I fail to see how a coherent analysis which points out the ways social conflict and the situation of the class develops - which necessitates research - amounts to speaking in the name of the class.

And sure, the goal is that the very notion of a possibility and desirability of non-capitalist, communist society takes hold in wider circles of the working class. But the hope for ever larger organization membership doesn't follow from that and depends again on the notion of the function of the pro-revolutionary organization. Militant and revolutionary action is possible on a mass scale even if a large part of the class is not within the organization as members, and significant contributions can be made by militant workers outside it.

And substitutionism, on the other hand, denotes the politics of, in the last instance, of substituting the rule of the class through its own bodies (soviets, for instance) for the rule of the party, and in effect for the rule of party bureaucracy concentrated in its central apparatus. I think this danger is practically ever present, but that does not mean that you can fight it by relinquishing the organization of communist workers into a political body.

That's my "almost Marxist" take on it, anyway.

And here's something that is definitely not almost Marxist. It is ignorant and totally divorced from the current it aims to portray:


It's basic Marxism though. Substitutionism, that is. From Chapter II of the Manifesto:


One would be tempted to conclude that Marx never riled against (the consequences of) the division of labour into mental and manual. And of course, it's nice to pretend that it never happened as the political implications which need to be drawn from this can be avoided while relying on the phantasm of the predetermined interest being ostensibly and objectively embodied in the busy brains of the intellectuals and the busy hands (and firearms?) of the rank-and-file.

And sure you can also cherry pick quotes. But they sing a different tune:


In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they[Communists] always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.I'd love to hear how this represents an advocacy of substitutionist practice. Or is it that you don't know what that means? Or it is maybe hard to see how this represents a bulwark against narrow trade and craft interests?




Earth to utopian left communists: Nobody gives a shit about revolution at this point. Unions are under threat of being dismantled as it is. I would love to hear an argument which would act as a foundation for this slur of utopianism.

As for your two points, yeah, obviously a very, very small part of the class gives a shit about revolution. And you get wet when you swim, and the sun is hot.

As far as the project of dismantling unions is concerned, again you fail to take into account the criticism of the unions put forward by certain currents. Do you really think that anyone would support union busting? I sure hope not since that would be a horrible thing to do.

[Geiseric]

But you can't just focus on saying "revolution now," is what i'm saying, you need to have perspective and start off where the class already is in your immediate tasks. That's something Marx laid out in the manifesto as well. Where the class is now is trying to secure minimum and union demands, not maximum demands, which would entail the destruction of capitalism.

[Decolonize The Left]

Not necessarily. This depends on the ways the organization conceptualizes its relation to the broader class and in turn how its practice flows from this.

Well let's look at this in terms of basics. We have a class, the working class, who's interests are spread far and wide. The only common interest is that of the class itself - namely, an interest to change the context of the class and that is that it is oppressed and exploited by the capitalist class. So the only interest that is actually shared by everyone within the class is the liberation from the chains of capitalism.

And that's it. Any addition to this platform would be, in some form, substitutionalism. Would it not?

[blake 3:17]

That argument from "militant" union leaders (pft) - "We're constrained by our membership!" - represents the absolute worst sort of condescension vis- the rank-and-file, and actually fosters the conservatism it claims to be constrained by.

It really depends. Unions are constrained by their membership, they also constrain their membership. A lot of us here would be glad to strike any day and all the time, but in reality, most people want to go to work, and be treated decently, and get paid, and be able to support dependents.

In certain industries, the union tops have pushed for both particular and broad reforms, and ones that any socialist should support, but the membership has rejected it. The most obvious example I can think of is opposition to overtime in Canadian Auto Workers. The central leadership opposed regular overtime, a big base of its members were stuck on it, and the leaderships of the main locals were for it.

[Geiseric]

It really depends. Unions are constrained by their membership, they also constrain their membership. A lot of us here would be glad to strike any day and all the time, but in reality, most people want to go to work, and be treated decently, and get paid, and be able to support dependents.

In certain industries, the union tops have pushed for both particular and broad reforms, and ones that any socialist should support, but the membership has rejected it. The most obvious example I can think of is opposition to overtime in Canadian Auto Workers. The central leadership opposed regular overtime, a big base of its members were stuck on it, and the leaderships of the main locals were for it.

The opposite happens with struggles like Wisconsin, and more or less every major working class event in the past 10 years, with greece specifically included.

[Thirsty Crow]

But you can't just focus on saying "revolution now," is what i'm saying, you need to have perspective and start off where the class already is in your immediate tasks. That's something Marx laid out in the manifesto as well. Where the class is now is trying to secure minimum and union demands, not maximum demands, which would entail the destruction of capitalism.
Enlightening. Though I distinctly recall that this saying "revolution now" is a fantasy and it is attributed to the communist left either in bad faith or through mere ignorance and stupidity.

[LeonJWilliams]

So we leftists need to disregard our tendencies once and awhile and engage in some mutual understanding exerizes along with principled criticism that is not based on sectarian dismissals. What is the "unity, criticisms , unity" model of debate.

Completely agree and much more needs to be done to find common ground throughout the progressive left.

The left is often too much like the 'Judean people's front' etc

[skitty]

How far would the IWW go towards solving your problem? Do workers councils have a place at the table?

[black magick hustla]

Augh.
Nobody will ever give a shit about revolution if nobody is ever willing to provide any sort of revolutionary leadership (not in the sense of organizational authority, but in terms of taking risks, providing examples of revolutionary theory put in to practice, etc.).

this is called "propaganda of the deed". one would think that tired corpse is somewhere buried in a 1900s catacomb, but apparently isn't.

[black magick hustla]

talking about the more general topic of the thread, this strategy is nothing new really. it's pretty common around activist circles that someone complainz about pragmatic demands and action as opposed to lofty theory or whatever. however i don't think you can have "independent organs" of class power in a non revolutionary situation. what either happens is that, you end up absorbed by mainstream organizations or you end up tiny and kinda irrelevant (iww, barring some specific sectors for example). the day to day pragmatic issues are better handled by ngos and mainstream unions/organizations anyway. they have more money, more experience, more manpower etc. "class organs" are not built by primitive accumulation of cadre IMHO

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

this is called "propaganda of the deed". one would think that tired corpse is somewhere buried in a 1900s catacomb, but apparently isn't.

It's called "propaganda of the deed" when you're taking potshots at figureheads. It's generally not called that when you're working to build combative community organizations, creating autonomous media, organizing campaigns of workplace sabotage, etc.

C'mon, I'm not an insurrecto!

[Ravachol]

It's called "propaganda of the deed" when you're taking potshots at figureheads. It's generally not called that when you're working to build combative community organizations, creating autonomous media, organizing campaigns of workplace sabotage, etc.

C'mon, I'm not an insurrecto!

Since when do insurrecto's (exclusively) advocate taking potshots at figureheads?

[Ele'ill]

this is called "propaganda of the deed". one would think that tired corpse is somewhere buried in a 1900s catacomb, but apparently isn't.

It's escalation not propaganda of the deed