Parliament and the Mass Party

[Red Enemy]

I’ve struggled with the question of parliamentarism when I first became a part of the revolutionary left. I was confused, and didn’t know the history about it. I also liked the Mass Party idea, as it unified everyone as a whole, but I also was ignorant of its major flaws. However, as my views developed, the more I read, the more I came to understand Marxism, the less and less I liked these ideas. These are a couple of ideas that I have a real problem with now, and they seem to be common place on revleft. I wish to tackle them and critique them as dangerous ideas. I know a few will probably be super pissed, and accuse me of trolling, but I am merely setting out my opinion, and doing my best to convince people that these tactics and ideas are 100% wrong. I’ll do these by laying out the positions of those in favour, and then critiquing them. Forgive me if I come across a little incoherent at times, I am not that great with writing.
Here goes nothing, my stance on the Mass Party and parliamentarism.

On The Mass party and Parliament; what do we need?:


The notion of the mass party, as we know today, stems from the idolization of the German Social Democracy “pre-1914”. Although labeling it as the “pre-1914” SPD, is just a dishonest attempt to distant the notion from the failures of the SPD, especially their voting for war credits – which is what they reference by 1914.


What’s the mass party that is sought after today? It’s a party of proletariat ranging from reformists to Marxists. It is an organizational method that allows petty-bourgeois ideas to permeate and takeover the party. To have a bunch of people when they are fighting for different ideas, non proletarian ideas, is totally dangerous. We’ve seen how reformism took over the SPD and the German proletariat, and it resulted in the death of the German revolutionary spirit in the masses.


I want to argue that we need a revolutionary organization/party that is made up of Marxists. Those advanced proletariat who understand what socialism is, understand tactics, and can organize and guide the proletariat in its struggle. This party won’t come before the revolution, though its organization may, but the revolutionary situation will make it a necessity, and it will grow from there – provided it is out there, offering the correct tactics and analyses. The idea is: from the revolutionary masses, by the revolutionary masses, for the revolutionary masses.


What is parliamentarism? It is the tactic put forth by those who wish to control the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Those bureaucratic centrists who seek to make revolution come from a “struggle” within parliament. It’s putting the party bureaucrats at the top, in command, to vote in favour of this or that reform, to “represent” the proletariat in the bourgeois institutions. It’s the notion that what the proletariat does is not legitimate if it does not express itself a majority in approval via parliament.


Coming along with this, is applying the notion as a definite, and across the board tactic at all times. A tactic that is necessary; from a parliamentary nation, to a nation such as the USA. Whether revolution is in site or not, doesn’t matter to the parliamentary cretins. No, even if there isn’t a real mass party, they will lend their support to the class collaborationist and openly reformist parties like the SPUSA or SYRIZA.


So, why do they want to have parliament as the main means of struggle? It’s all about fear of the masses, and the need for bureaucratic control of them. They wish to make their mass party the tool of controller, not teacher. They want to subordinate the direct mass action of the proletariat to a parliamentary consensus, or majority.


Parliament may have been able to be utilized in the past, and it may be able to be utilized again, somewhere. However, it is not a be-all, end-all tactic. We shouldn’t treat it as such, and we should ALWAYS subordinate it to the direct action of the masses, to the mass strike, to the will of the proletariat.


Let me end with a quote:


"As bred-in-the bone disciples of parliamentary cretinism, these German Social-Democrats have sought to apply to revolutions the homemade wisdom of the parliamentary nursery: in order to carry out anything you must first have a majority. The same, they say, applies to revolution: first let's become a ‘majority'. The true dialectic of revolution, however, stands this wisdom of parliamentary moles on its head: not through a majority to revolutionary tactics, but through revolutionary tactics to a majority - that is the way the road runs." - Rosa Luxemburg

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

So, why do they want to have parliament as the main means of struggle? It’s all about fear of the masses, and the need for bureaucratic control of them. They wish to make their mass party the tool of controller, not teacher. They want to subordinate the direct mass action of the proletariat to a parliamentary consensus, or majority.
It is also about creating the illusion of doing something relevant in times where the working class is disorganised politically; i.e. adapting to the parliamentary fetish fostered by bourgeois society, I think.



Parliament may have been able to be utilized in the past, and it may be able to be utilized again, somewhere. However, it is not a be-all, end-all tactic. We shouldn’t treat it as such, and we should ALWAYS subordinate it to the direct action of the masses, to the mass strike, to the will of the proletariat.

I think "political struggle" shouldn´t just be regarded as a codeword for parliamentary cretinism. The class- struggle is also political and class- conscious workers are capable of organising themselves politically and not just to defend their economic interests. It just isn´t happening on any relevant scale yet. The will of the proletariat can also be expressed through organisational and organised means.

But on the mass party as such: Arent formations such as NPA (france), Syriza, Die linke etc. attempts at forming such mass parties today? Doesn´t the experience of them tell us something? Why have they all ended up as either stillborn or parliamentary- reformist swamps at best?

[Freeloader]

Thanks for the post. Although i align myself with the need for a mass party nothing is static and i welcome all criticisms of this position.

I found it interesting that you state that the mass party is dangerous because it allows non -proletarian ideas to enter i.e. petty bourgeois. It is possible for these ideas to enter and also take hold for example the british labour party always had an element of the petty bourgeois today it is overwhelmingly bourgeois in its leadership. But the real question and problem is not that these ideas were able to enter but why they took hold and influence, and the answer lies in the history of that party, bourgeois ideas are far from infectious.

Additionally on this topic, you characterize correctly the mass party as composed of proletarians who range from reformers to Marxists (and in most cases the dominant trend will be reformists). And in a fashion, which i affiliate with left communism, you suggest the need to cut off the marxists from the rest, to form an organisation/party from the vanguard the very best...the marxists. In my opinion this is what is dangerous and harmful. Marxists aim for revolution and that involves the participation not just of those who today are revolutionaries but those who today are simply disatisfied and tomorrow may be revolutionaries. My approach and reason for orientation towards the mass party is due to those party members who are not marxists but are class conscious proletariat, by which i aim to recruit to the cause of international communism.

The mass party (im thinking specifically with what im familiar with i.e. the British labor party) is a party of the workers for the workers and are from their inception not revolutionary but reformist, pushing for laws and rights for the class of working people.
At the same time Marxists; that is those who agree with the ideas of scientific socialism and fight for international communism need their own organisation . This is neccessary and fundamental, to educate and organize the existing revolutionary forces. The orientation towards the mass party is because that is an existing site of class struggle. Even today within the labour party with its bourgeois leadership there is struggle. One MP stated in a labour party meeting that she cannot sincerely go out canvassing in her constituency as there is little to nothing her party is doing which can arouse working people...so she organized a fringe meeting about how to reclaim the labour party, you also have the LRC which is a young and small movement not to mention the layer of dissatisfied trade unionists.

In the news recently labour were up over the tories in an opinion poll, was this because of all the great policies that the milliband cabinet have put together. No. It is because working people turn to labour as there political lever when pushed.

So when comes to parliament to abstain completely from it for the struggle in the workplace and the future revolution leaves the state completely in the hands of the capitalists with socialism set to TBA (to be announced). The reason why there should be participation in the current parliamentary democracy is demonstrable by the recently deceased Hugo Chavez. I.e. it can amount to the necessary baby steps prior to a successful revolution and have international consequences.

"However,[parliamentarism] it is not a be-all, end-all tactic. We shouldn’t treat it as such, and we should ALWAYS subordinate it to the direct action of the masses, to the mass strike, to the will of the proletariat."
............I Agree

[Thirsty Crow]

I think "political struggle" shouldn´t just be regarded as a codeword for parliamentary cretinism.
Indeed.
The usual line peddled by certain people is that political class struggle is parliamentary, and that amounts to nothing else than a capitulation to the bourgeois conception of the political and to bourgeois political practice.

In its more sensible form, standing for elections and sending deouties to parliament is seen as revolutionary propaganda. Though, this neglects the complexities of the problem. For instance, the idea that the parliament serves as the tribune masks the fact that this is rendered through media - and a whole new field of investigation is left out of the picture (for instance, the issue of the unbelievably low viewer statistics for broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings on national television; the issue of media ideology which severely hampers the dissemination of this revolutionary propaganda and so on).

[Red Enemy]

It is also about creating the illusion of doing something relevant in times where the working class is disorganised politically; i.e. adapting to the parliamentary fetish fostered by bourgeois society, I think. I would say that plays a part of it.


I think "political struggle" shouldn´t just be regarded as a codeword for parliamentary cretinism. The class- struggle is also political and class- conscious workers are capable of organising themselves politically and not just to defend their economic interests. It just isn´t happening on any relevant scale yet. The will of the proletariat can also be expressed through organisational and organised means.I didn't mean to equate the political struggle with parliamentarism. I was merely saying that the parliamentarists do just that.


But on the mass party as such: Arent formations such as NPA (france), Syriza, Die linke etc. attempts at forming such mass parties today? Doesn´t the experience of them tell us something? Why have they all ended up as either stillborn or parliamentary- reformist swamps at best?
Precisely. It is an afront to the failure that is the idea of the mass party.

[Art Vandelay]

The notion of the mass party, as we know today, stems from the idolization of the German Social Democracy “pre-1914”. Although labeling it as the “pre-1914” SPD, is just a dishonest attempt to distant the notion from the failures of the SPD, especially their voting for war credits – which is what they reference by 1914.

You make the claim that referencing a point in the SPD's development where one thinks it has some worth, as orthodox Marxists do, is 'dishonest.' I don't really think that is fair and I don't know why you would come to that conclusion really. Is it not possible for something to be worth supporting at one point and degenerate into something else (not worth our support)? I am assuming, given what I know about your politics, that you support the October revolution to an extent and believe that it represented a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat. At some point, due to isolation, this dictatorship of the proletariat became something else entriely, so you withdraw your support no? If we take your original argument to its logical extreme than we can see that all you are doing by withdrawing (historically) your support for the USSR, is nothing other then a 'dishonest attempt to distant the notion from the failures of the' USSR; as opposed to what it really is, a Marxist analysis which lead to a certain conclusion.

Now I'm not putting forth that argument, since I don't think its a very good one, but neither is the one you've put forth above. I would also be interested in hearing what works associated with orthodox Marxism you've read? Because there seems to be some misconceptions in your post that I will attempt to address below.


What’s the mass party that is sought after today? It’s a party of proletariat ranging from reformists to Marxists. It is an organizational method that allows petty-bourgeois ideas to permeate and takeover the party.

I am curious as to where you've heard this from? Through all of my reading of the litterature associated with the 2nd international and through all my discussions with comrades on this site, I've never seen this idea put forth once and yet I've heard this accusation before in the past, so I would really like to find out where this stems from. Only those who agree with the minimum-maximum program will be allowed into the party, a program which explicitily calls for revolution.


To have a bunch of people when they are fighting for different ideas, non proletarian ideas, is totally dangerous. We’ve seen how reformism took over the SPD and the German proletariat, and it resulted in the death of the German revolutionary spirit in the masses.

This seems at odds with the history of the Bolshevik party to me, a party which took years to form and which undoubtabley had sections within the party (mensheviks) fighting for objectively anti-working class ideas. The RSDLP was by 1905 a mass party and arguably by 1912-1913 truly became their own party, despite the rupture between the factions in 1903. I feel that the history of the Bolesheviks is important for revolutionaries to use in this day and age, regardless of whether or not you have criticisms of them (we all do), since it was the revolution (despite ultimately ending in tragic failure) that resulted in the most radical rupture with traditional property relations, that we have ever seen.


I want to argue that we need a revolutionary organization/party that is made up of Marxists. Those advanced proletariat who understand what socialism is, understand tactics, and can organize and guide the proletariat in its struggle.

This is percisely what orthodox Marxist want as well, the only big difference is what follows below:


This party won’t come before the revolution, though its organization may, but the revolutionary situation will make it a necessity, and it will grow from there – provided it is out there, offering the correct tactics and analyses. The idea is: from the revolutionary masses, by the revolutionary masses, for the revolutionary masses.

This is really the crux of the issue and where orthodox Marxists differ. We believe that it is possible to build a mass revolutionary proletarian party in pre-revolutionary situations. Will this party contain the entire class pre-revolution,? Of course not. Will it ever contain the entire class? No, since there will always be backwards sections of the proletariat, under the guise of false-consciousness; which is why a minimum-maximum program is necessary. Will there be an upsurge in membership in the revolutionary situations? Of course, just like you posit.


To win these to the idea of Socialism is an indispensable, but, under ordinary conditions, a very difficult task, that demands the greatest sacrifice and skill, and never proceeds as fast as we wish. Our recruiting ground today includes fully three-fourths of the population, probably even more; the number of votes that are given to us do not equal one-third of all the voters, and not one-fourth of all those entitled to vote. But the rate of progress increases with a leap when the revolutionary spirit is abroad. It is almost inconceivable with what rapidity the mass of the people reach a clear consciousness of their class interests at such a time. Not alone their courage and their belligerency but their political interest as well, is spurred on in the highest degree through the consciousness that the hour has at last come for them to burst out of the darkness of night into the glory of the full glare of the sun. Even the laziest becomes industrious, even the most cowardly becomes brave, and even the most narrow gains a wider view. In such times a single year will accomplish an education of the masses that would otherwise have required a generation.- Karl Kautsky.


What is parliamentarism? It is the tactic put forth by those who wish to control the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Those bureaucratic centrists who seek to make revolution come from a “struggle” within parliament. It’s putting the party bureaucrats at the top, in command, to vote in favour of this or that reform, to “represent” the proletariat in the bourgeois institutions.

No one wants to control the proletariat, after all the emancipation of the proleteriat must be the work of the proletariat themselves. No one, as far as orthodox Marxists go, wants the struggle to be strictly parliamentarian either, merely a facet of the struggle. To use parliament for dissemenation purposes and to fight for the minimum program. No orthodox Marxists posit that the revolution will be parliamentarian in nature.


Parliamentarianism is of course "politically obsolete" to the Communists in Germany; but—and that is the whole point—we must not regard what is obsolete to us as something obsolete to a class, to the masses. Here again we find that the "Lefts" do not know how to reason, do not know how to act as the party of a class, as the party of the masses. You must not sink to the level of the masses, to the level of the backward strata of the class. That is incontestable. You must tell them the bitter truth. You are in duty bound to call their bourgeois-democratic and parliamentary prejudices what they are—prejudices. But at the same time you must soberly follow the actual state of the class-consciousness and preparedness of the entire class (not only of its communist vanguard), and of all the working people (not only of their advanced elements). - Lenin.


It’s the notion that what the proletariat does is not legitimate if it does not express itself a majority in approval via parliament.

I almost feel like your talking about the SPGB when you raise some of the criticisms that you are. SPGB fall in line with the tradition known as impossibilism, as opposed to orthodox Marxism, and are the only people who call for socialism through a majoirty parliamentarian vote.


No, even if there isn’t a real mass party, they will lend their support to the class collaborationist and openly reformist parties like the SPUSA or SYRIZA.

I feel like I would need to know more about SYRIZA to be able to comment, as I still haven't figured out exactly where I stand on the matter, but for the sake of the argument I guess the Bolsheviks were also reformists as well, mingling in their party with segments of the membership holding objectively anti-working class convictions.

I guess what I would like to know from you, is why it is impossible for a revolutionary proletarian party to emerge from the revolutionary wing of a party like SYRIZA?


So, why do they want to have parliament as the main means of struggle?

Orthodox Marxists don't.


It’s all about fear of the masses, and the need for bureaucratic control of them. They wish to make their mass party the tool of controller, not teacher.

All orthodox Marxists want is for the Mass revolutionary party to become the armed wing of the proletariat (acting for itself as a class) which then gives them the capability to seize state power.


They want to subordinate the direct mass action of the proletariat to a parliamentary consensus, or majority.

Again, are you thinking about the SPGB?


Parliament may have been able to be utilized in the past, and it may be able to be utilized again, somewhere. However, it is not a be-all, end-all tactic. We shouldn’t treat it as such, and we should ALWAYS subordinate it to the direct action of the masses, to the mass strike, to the will of the proletariat.

The mass strike is a tactic which is useful in certain situations, however I think it has proven itself as being a historical failure as a tactic which can successfully seize state power. Be it in the failed German Revolution of 1918-1919, the situation in France in 1968, or the situaiton in Greece today (how many general strikes have they had in the last decade). The mass strike cannot successfully pose a legitimate threat to state power, because what is needed is a Revolutionary Marxist party to seize state power. Another big issue with the mass strike, is that it ultimately is a method of attempting to con the working class into power. Comrade Q's old blog post on this comes to mind:


While I agree that striking in itself is no solution or strategy towards anything, I disagree that we therefore need to go even further and adopt a slogan like "all out, stay out" (like the SWP in the UK does for example). This amounts to nothing more than revolutionary phrase-mongering.

The underlying point here is that the strength of the working class lies in its position of running society and that therefore withholding our work strengthens our position. On the contrary, the strength of the working class lies in its alienation from the means of production and the necessary collective action that flows from this position in relation to our society. Said differently, we have to form ourselves as a class before we can pose positive alternatives on society and a strike can help in this process.

Secondly, an actual indefinite general strike is wholly unacceptable as society would cease to function meaning no emergency services, no food in the supermarkets, no water from the tap. So what will actually happen is that a general strike committee must be formed which takes over the tasks of coordinating basic social functions. Of course this point is well understood by the "general strikist" left and it is in fact their intention to reach such strike committees. So, say after three months of a general strike, with social power firmly under control of the general strike committee, the left can go around to the working class and say: "oh by the way, we took over power from the capitalists, long live the revolution!". Or that is the plan in a nutshell.
This however has a major problem: It doesn't work this way. In any historical situation of a prolonged general strike situation or a situation of political melt down of the old order, the working class movement won't just spontaniously conclude to seize power for themselves, but instead will look to alternative but already established authorities. The social-democrats in Portugal in 1974 come to mind as a clear example of this. At another level the Iranian revolution of 1979 is another example. We cannot trick the working class into power.

The strategy then is to build our own alternative authority: that of a self-conscious working class wanting to take power as a class. This is why I think a partyist strategy is needed: A mass politicised working class movement that patiently works to educate, agitate and organise the working class independently and in its own interests on a radical democratic and global level. The left can be a positive triggering point for such a party-movement by uniting on this basis and for a Marxist programme.

Within this framework then a general strike is one available tactic in building our class.

[Red Enemy]

You make the claim that referencing a point in the SPD's development where one thinks it has some worth, as orthodox Marxists do, is 'dishonest.' I don't really think that is fair and I don't know why you would come to that conclusion really. Is it not possible for something to be worth supporting at one point and degenerate into something else (not worth our support)? I am assuming, given what I know about your politics, that you support the October revolution to an extent and believe that it represented a genuine dictatorship of the proletariat. At some point, due to isolation, this dictatorship of the proletariat became something else entriely, so you withdraw your support no? If we take your original argument to its logical extreme than we can see that all you are doing by withdrawing (historically) your support for the USSR, is nothing other then a 'dishonest attempt to distant the notion from the failures of the' USSR; as opposed to what it really is, a Marxist analysis which lead to a certain conclusion. No, the problem is that you're comparing apples to oranges. We understand that the concept of the DOTP isn't a failure in and of itself, because we understand the specific material conditions leading to what happened.

As for the mass party, as I describe, and as we can tell from the SPD, we see the rise of reformism and revisionism from the bureaucrats, the Kautskyites and the Bernsteinites. Was this avoidable somehow? I say no, not in terms of a mass party. We know the whole minimum-maximum dichotomy is part and partial of what leads to reformist ideas. It is flawed from the beginning. It is a flawed thing, regardless of outside material forces.


Now I'm not putting forth that argument, since I don't think its a very good one, but neither is the one you've put forth above. I would also be interested in hearing what works associated with orthodox Marxism you've read? Because there seems to be some misconceptions in your post that I will attempt to address below.Stuff by Lukacs. He was an Orthodox Marxist who I find very agreeable.


I am curious as to where you've heard this from? Through all of my reading of the litterature associated with the 2nd international and through all my discussions with comrades on this site, I've never seen this idea put forth once and yet I've heard this accusation before in the past, so I would really like to find out where this stems from. Only those who agree with the minimum-maximum program will be allowed into the party, a program which explicitily calls for revolution. Again, I've read in posts that many of you RM's agree that reformists should be allowed in the party.

Regardless, I emphasize that the who minimum programme idea leads to reformism.


This seems at odds with the history of the Bolshevik party to me, a party which took years to form and which undoubtabley had sections within the party (mensheviks) fighting for objectively anti-working class ideas. The RSDLP was by 1905 a mass party and arguably by 1912-1913 truly became their own party, despite the rupture between the factions in 1903. I feel that the history of the Bolesheviks is important for revolutionaries to use in this day and age, regardless of whether or not you have criticisms of them (we all do), since it was the revolution (despite ultimately ending in tragic failure) that resulted in the most radical rupture with traditional property relations, that we have ever seen. It's funny... ignore when the Bolsheviks broke from the RSDLP. Don't mind that little tid bit of info!



This is percisely what orthodox Marxist want as well, the only big difference is what follows below:
It's precisely what Kautskyites want. Kautskyites, the RM tendency, are not Orthodox Marxists.


This is really the crux of the issue and where orthodox Marxists differ. We believe that it is possible to build a mass revolutionary proletarian party in pre-revolutionary situations. Will this party contain the entire class pre-revolution,? Of course not. Will it ever contain the entire class? No, since there will always be backwards sections of the proletariat, under the guise of false-consciousness; which is why a minimum-maximum program is necessary. Will there be an upsurge in membership in the revolutionary situations? Of course, just like you posit.See points above.


No one wants to control the proletariat, after all the emancipation of the proleteriat must be the work of the proletariat themselves. No one, as far as orthodox Marxists go, wants the struggle to be strictly parliamentarian either, merely a facet of the struggle. To use parliament for dissemenation purposes and to fight for the minimum program. No orthodox Marxists posit that the revolution will be parliamentarian in nature.Reformism is what the minimum programme surmounts to.


I almost feel like your talking about the SPGB when you raise some of the criticisms that you are. SPGB fall in line with the tradition known as impossibilism, as opposed to orthodox Marxism, and are the only people who call for socialism through a majoirty parliamentarian vote. Stop referring to yourself as an Orthodox Marxist.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/orthodox.htm


I feel like I would need to know more about SYRIZA to be able to comment, as I still haven't figured out exactly where I stand on the matter, but for the sake of the argument I guess the Bolsheviks were also reformists as well, mingling in their party with segments of the membership holding objectively anti-working class convictions.Mingling... christ you're fucking thick.

Did the Bolsheviks have a party that was openly reformist? With not "maximum programme" for socialism? Did the bolsheviks allow members of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie amongst them (apart from any intelligentsia)?

SYRIZA is not a revolutionary, or a marxist party. They are a reformist party. Capitalist. Social Democratic. Reactionary. Counter-revolutionary party.


I guess what I would like to know from you, is why it is impossible for a revolutionary proletarian party to emerge from the revolutionary wing of a party like SYRIZA?It's working so well for the revolutionary wing of the SPUSA.

However, the point is that there is no revolutionary wing. There won't be a revolutionary wing. The support for SYRIZA is opportunist, because it's based on numbers. I'm no supporter of ANTARSYA, but it is a clear cut more revolutionary than SYRIZA, yet we hear nothing from you Ortho-Kauts.


Orthodox Marxists don't.Again, see Lukacs.


All orthodox Marxists want is for the Mass revolutionary party to become the armed wing of the proletariat (acting for itself as a class) which then gives them the capability to seize state power.How does it do that?


Again, are you thinking about the SPGB?No.


The mass strike is a tactic which is useful in certain situations, however I think it has proven itself as being a historical failure as a tactic which can successfully seize state power. Be it in the failed German Revolution of 1918-1919, the situation in France in 1968, or the situaiton in Greece today (how many general strikes have they had in the last decade). The mass strike cannot successfully pose a legitimate threat to state power, because what is needed is a Revolutionary Marxist party to seize state power. Another big issue with the mass strike, is that it ultimately is a method of attempting to con the working class into power. Comrade Q's old blog post on this comes to mind:You've clearly never read Luxemburg's "The Mass Strike", or her polemic against Kautsky's theory of the mass strike in 1910, have you?

[Art Vandelay]

No, the problem is that you're comparing apples to oranges. We understand that the concept of the DOTP isn't a failure in and of itself, because we understand the specific material conditions leading to what happened.

Precisely, you understand what lead to the degeneration of the DOTP and I would state that the same type of analysis must be done when analyzing the SPD. You can't just flippantly chalk it up to the min-max program; well I mean you can, that just doesn't strike me as much of a Marxist analysis.


As for the mass party, as I describe, and as we can tell from the SPD, we see the rise of reformism and revisionism from the bureaucrats, the Kautskyites and the Bernsteinites. Was this avoidable somehow? I say no, not in terms of a mass party. We know the whole minimum-maximum dichotomy is part and partial of what leads to reformist ideas. It is flawed from the beginning. It is a flawed thing, regardless of outside material forces.

Perhaps you could elaborate on this somewhat?


Stuff by Lukacs. He was an Orthodox Marxist who I find very agreeable.


It's precisely what Kautskyites want. Kautskyites, the RM tendency, are not Orthodox Marxists.



Stop referring to yourself as an Orthodox Marxist.


Again, see Lukacs.

I'm not sure if you are unaware, but the term "orthodox Marxist" carries with it certain connotations, that being the politics associated with the 2nd international. Lukacs wasn't even a Marxist until 1918 and it appears he was a left-communist. Now the word orthodox in this sense, isn't some claim to uphold the legacy of Marx and Engels best (in that sense every tendency claims to be orthodox Marxists), but rather denotes a specific development in Marxism after the death of Marx and Engels and associated with the 2nd international. You claim Lukacs is an orthodox Marxist, so either you don't understand the historical context of the term, or you simply see him as a proper continuation of Marx and Engels (which again, every tendency sees themselves as); how this man was an orthodox Marxist when he only became a communist in 1918, meanwhile 'orthodox Marxism' refers to the politics associated with the 2nd up until 1914, is beyond me.


Again, I've read in posts that many of you RM's agree that reformists should be allowed in the party.

Then it shouldn't be hard to find some and quote them then. I mean normally I wouldn't care, its just that I have never ever seen this and you simply repeating it over and over, in some sort of attempt to enact Goebbels old truism, isn't going to make that a fact.


Regardless, I emphasize that the who minimum programme idea leads to reformism.



Reformism is what the minimum programme surmounts to.


How exactly? You keep repeating this, but you're not actually putting forth any arguments. Your whole post is lacking in substance.


It's funny... ignore when the Bolsheviks broke from the RSDLP. Don't mind that little tid bit of info!

I don't ignore it, I just think actual historical research is better then simply regurgitating the common historical narrative. The lines were drawn in 1903 and the factions clear but there wasn't an actual split. It wasn't until 1913 that the first Bolshevik only congress was held and even during the revolution many branches had common organization.


Mingling... christ you're fucking thick.

There is no need to be rude. Look its clear you don't like my politics, I'm fine with that, I don't really care, but I'm trying to have a rational discussion with you, since you clearly have some questions and raise some points, but you've been continually (in this thread and in the past) antagonistic.


Did the Bolsheviks have a party that was openly reformist? With not "maximum programme" for socialism? Did the bolsheviks allow members of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie amongst them (apart from any intelligentsia)?

Show me where I said they did? All I said was that they had factions which represented objectively class alien interests.


SYRIZA is not a revolutionary, or a marxist party. They are a reformist party. Capitalist. Social Democratic. Reactionary. Counter-revolutionary party.

I never said anything that contradicts what you've just said. I've openly stated that I haven't made up my mind about SYRIZA.


However, the point is that there is no revolutionary wing. There won't be a revolutionary wing. The support for SYRIZA is opportunist, because it's based on numbers. I'm no supporter of ANTARSYA, but it is a clear cut more revolutionary than SYRIZA, yet we hear nothing from you Ortho-Kauts.

Perhaps cause were not some monolithic entity, we all have differing opinions on particular parties for example.


You've clearly never read Luxemburg's "The Mass Strike", or her polemic against Kautsky's theory of the mass strike in 1910, have you?

To the second, no I have not, to the former I have actually. Although its been some time. I was extremely interested in Luxembourg when I first started reading Marxist theory.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think "political struggle" shouldn´t just be regarded as a codeword for parliamentary cretinism. The class- struggle is also political and class- conscious workers are capable of organising themselves politically and not just to defend their economic interests. It just isn´t happening on any relevant scale yet. The will of the proletariat can also be expressed through organisational and organised means.

But on the mass party as such: Arent formations such as NPA (france), Syriza, Die linke etc. attempts at forming such mass parties today? Doesn´t the experience of them tell us something? Why have they all ended up as either stillborn or parliamentary- reformist swamps at best?

Who here said that political struggle is synonymous with parliamentary cretinism? I wrote before of ballot spoilage and mass spoilage campaigns, political Occupations, and other means. :rolleyes:

I hate to bring in polit-sci jargon, but isn't "political struggle" really short-hand these days for public policymaking struggle? At the end of the day, a key reason why the notion that "the economic is political" can be nonsense is because the actions taken are not aimed at affecting public policymaking. Genuine class struggle is thus class-based public policymaking struggle.

On your last question, to what extent have they created class institutions to connect with the broader class? Mere electoral machines don't count.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Precisely, you understand what lead to the degeneration of the DOTP and I would state that the same type of analysis must be done when analyzing the SPD. You can't just flippantly chalk it up to the min-max program; well I mean you can, that just doesn't strike me as much of a Marxist analysis.

To some extent, comrade, it might be, but that depends on the changing definition of "minimum program" over time.


Perhaps you could elaborate on this somewhat?

I will spill and not spill myself: I have written before and again about Proletarian/Proletocratic-Not-Necessarily-Communist party-movements, "deep entryism" into such formations, and so on. These workers-only organizations are united by the Marx-Engels interpretation of the minimum program (http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?do=discuss&gmid=32024) (to quote their perceived aims of a "proletarian party"), but have differing tendencies with their own maximum programs.

The Marx-Engels interpretation, combined politically revolutionary but purely political measures with socially and economically less revolutionary ones (http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-democracy-t112390/index.html). Contrast average skilled workers' wages and recallability of all public officials, on the one hand, with living wage and related cost-of-living adjustment statutes, on the other. Contrast enabling workers militias, on the one hand, with land value taxation replacing consumption taxes and lower income tax brackets, on the other.

What I said above is why I actually oppose the united front in all its interpretations, because demands-wise it's bankrupt and organizationally it's not strong enough on unity.

Meanwhile, today's vulgarized understanding of a "minimum program" does away with those combined political measures that yield the political DOTP.

[Le Socialiste]

I am certainly in agreement with some of the sentiments expressed here in the OP; there remains some areas of disagreement, however, and I hope I'll be able to voice them as concisely and clearly as I'm able. I'll also try and address some of the responses here, if relevant.

The relationship between party and class is a dialectical one. Each feeds into and nourishes the other. The role of the party is agitational, through education and the testing or application of theory and 'policy' via praxis. There also exists amongst layers of the proletariat and petite-bourgeoisie an unevenness in the realm of conscious development, a disparate awareness of one's relationship to the processes of private capital. It would make little sense to seek a mass party along such lines, as it must in turn reflect this disparity in consciousness. In turn, an array of differing - and often conflicting - views present within its ranks compels the core to assert its own ideological and programmatic leadership, often (but not always!) at the expense of genuinely organic involvement on the part of the rank-and-file.

In such situations the leaders are truly leading the blind and uninitiated, as the party base passively trails behind its leadership. Few attempts are made to raise the theoretical knowledge of the rank-and-file to the level of its more experienced members, or to build up and refine new cadre. Under such conditions the theoretical and practical experience of the organization falters before withering completely; the general lethargy and inactivity of the rank-and-file finds logical expression in the calcification of its leadership (and vice versa) - and with it the whole of the organizational framework.

Does this in essence reject the notion of building towards a mass party? Not totally, no. In order to be a mass party in anything besides name, it must always be prepared to realize and undertake the following:

1) Attract the most 'class conscious' elements that arise out of the 'spontaneous' developments of the class. A party comprised of a strong, solid base educated and experienced in the dialectical relationship(s) between Marxist theory and the general movement of class society will have the necessary clarity and hardness needed for disciplined debate, complemented with an understanding of the relevance of its own activity.

2) The involvement of ever wider masses to share in party affairs. This should be self-explanatory - how else are we to elevate the practical and theoretical activity of the organized membership? The party must be prepared to involve an ever-widening circle of workers and activists willing to critically engage and assess both their own activity and that of the organization.

3) The struggle of the party within the institution of the workers' state for its principles. Rather than the party becoming the state, it must work to fight and propagandize for the principles of the DOTP through critical, scientific assessments and scrutiny. It must avoid substituting itself for the embryonic organs of direct class rule, but instead attempt to persuade and make the case for its leadership.

The means by which we scrutinize the organizations of our side must - of necessity - be on a case by case basis. As such, I strongly disagree with the stance of some on here who disavow parties like SYRIZA as being wholly and irreversibly divorced from these criteria. There does exist a sizable revolutionary contingent within the coalition that is currently striving to combat efforts to moderate the organization's goals and dilute its rhetoric. This opposition has given a direct voice to the necessity of working and coordinating closely with groups like ANTARSYA and the Communists while reaching out to affiliated and unaffiliated members alike in building up the rank-and-file. The party's membership has swelled in recent years, the majority being those unaffiliated with any of the subgroups that make up SYRIZA. We must readily acknowledge and openly criticize its flaws, but also recognize its pivotal importance in the ongoing struggle in Greece.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Who here said that political struggle is synonymous with parliamentary cretinism? I wrote before of ballot spoilage and mass spoilage campaigns, political Occupations, and other means. :rolleyes:
No one has said so explicitly. There is however a tendency to dismiss and mistake talk of political struggle as narrow parliamentarism, on behalf of some ultra- lefts and opportunists. I used to do so myself. I was just stating that genuine political struggle is something else and more.


I hate to bring in polit-sci jargon, but isn't "political struggle" really short-hand these days for public policymaking struggle? At the end of the day, a key reason why the notion that "the economic is political" can be nonsense is because the actions taken are not aimed at affecting public policymaking. Genuine class struggle is thus class-based public policymaking struggle.
Essentially I agree with you here, that is what political class- struggle is, aside from a direct struggle for power.


On your last question, to what extent have they created class institutions to connect with the broader class? Mere electoral machines don't count.
They haven´t done that and I don´t even think any of them is attempting anything of that sorts. So I guess from your viewpoint they are not attempts at creating mass- parties, or?

[Zukunftsmusik]

You make the claim that referencing a point in the SPD's development where one thinks it has some worth, as orthodox Marxists do, is 'dishonest.' I don't really think that is fair and I don't know why you would come to that conclusion really. Is it not possible for something to be worth supporting at one point and degenerate into something else (not worth our support)?

I have a question regarding this which I think is relevant to the thread. Don't you and the other Kautskyists/orthodox marxists/whatever you like think SPD's development post-1914 is a result, a conclusion of its tactics, organization etc pre-1914? I mean, the fact that SPD became blatantly counter-revolutionary must have its roots in its own development, it can't come out of thin air.

[Q]

I have a question regarding this which I think is relevant to the thread. Don't you and the other Kautskyists/orthodox marxists/whatever you like think SPD's development post-1914 is a result, a conclusion of its tactics, organization etc pre-1914? I mean, the fact that SPD became blatantly counter-revolutionary must have its roots in its own development, it can't come out of thin air.

Good question. It is not like the SPD should be considered as a blueprint. It had its shortcomings. The most important ones were two-fold: It prioritised unity over everything too much, effectively giving the rightwing a veto because they were very much willing to walk out. Secondly, the issue of the state was never programmatically dealt with (I'm unsure on Kautsky's work on this, as the translation is still not done yet): Either take over the existing state or overthrow it.

The Bolsheviks had on these crucial questions a much clearer position, which won out in the end. Sadly they were a minority in the Second International as became clear in the aftermath of 1914.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Good question. It is not like the SPD should be considered as a blueprint. It had its shortcomings. The most important ones were two-fold: It prioritised unity over everything too much, effectively giving the rightwing a veto because they were very much willing to walk out. Secondly, the issue of the state was never programmatically dealt with (I'm unsure on Kautsky's work on this, as the translation is still not done yet): Either take over the existing state or overthrow it.

The Bolsheviks had on these crucial questions a much clearer position, which won out in the end. Sadly they were a minority in the Second International as became clear in the aftermath of 1914.

Thanks for answering, as it's something I've thought about for a while. The orthodox marxists on this board continually say that "you can support something until a certain date/year/event", but this is to avoid the question too easily IMO. Marxists should be the first to know that events don't just happen, they're part of a development.

I'm also sure it's a question which can be dealt with in a more detailed manner.

[Q]

Thanks for answering, as it's something I've thought about for a while. The orthodox marxists on this board continually say that "you can support something until a certain date/year/event", but this is to avoid the question too easily IMO. Marxists should be the first to know that events don't just happen, they're part of a development.

I'm also sure it's a question which can be dealt with in a more detailed manner.

Well, the point that is made is that much of the left uses the Bolsheviks as a model. As recent historical research shows, much of these ideas are based on myths and misconceptions that flow from not understanding that the Bolsheviks themselves were modelled after the SPD, but implemented under Russian conditions.

The point then is that to understand the Bolsheviks we need to look at its roots: The SPD. Learn from its shortcomings, extend on what was good. Point for point the underlying organisational model of the SPD is much easier to understand since it was already implemented in a much freer society than that of Russian Tsarism.

This is then often abbreviated as "look at the SPD before 1914".

[Old Bolshie]

Well, the point that is made is that much of the left uses the Bolsheviks as a model.

Strange thing that all the left parties in Europe like the communists and Syriza for instance are much more alike the SPD than the Bolshevik party itself.


As recent historical research shows, much of these ideas are based on myths and misconceptions that flow from not understanding that the Bolsheviks themselves were modelled after the SPD, but implemented under Russian conditions.

If the Bolsheviks had been modeled after the SPD the October Revolution would have never occurred. Once again, the Bolshevik party was not built to capture the state through electoral means but rather through revolutionary ones. The reduced membership of the Bolsheviks in 1917 mirrors this option.


The point then is that to understand the Bolsheviks we need to look at its roots: The SPD.

Lenin broke with the SPD model in 1903. And rightfully so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

No one has said so explicitly. There is however a tendency to dismiss and mistake talk of political struggle as narrow parliamentarism, on behalf of some ultra- lefts and opportunists. I used to do so myself. I was just stating that genuine political struggle is something else and more.

However, my caution to you (since your primary tendency is still set to Left-Communist) is that public policymaking struggle, however broader than parliamentarism it may be, does not encompass the likes of strike fetishes in the hopes of "growing" political matters out of mere economic ones.


They haven´t done that and I don´t even think any of them is attempting anything of that sorts. So I guess from your viewpoint they are not attempts at creating mass- parties, or?

SYRIZA is trying, with solidarity networks. However, the ortho-Marxist/RM position here is that real parties are real movements and vice versa. To go this far is to emulate and adapt the SPD's Alternative Culture model to modern circumstances. That means embracing bureaucracy as process (as inherent in the structure of even the most grassroots of institutions). That means revolutionary careerism (full-timers employed not on the cheap, but whose employment interests are aligned with the class-for-itself). That means so much more. No ifs, no buts, no ands.

[Thirsty Crow]

Good question. It is not like the SPD should be considered as a blueprint. It had its shortcomings.Shortcomings? I don't think that word gives off an accurate impression when you take into account the fact that first socialdemocracy provided the ideological cover for the single bloodiest imperialist stand off in history - and actively participated in sending workers off to the front - and then that it crushed the embryonic development of social revolution.

These aren't coincidences or matters of bad leadership. So not only that it is totally ridiculous to consider this model as even viable, but it also signals an alarming and profound lack of willingness to deal with the real history.

And then you've got bureaucracy as process, revolutionary careerism, so called alternative culture modelled or not on past experiences, the rule of te party-movement (whatever that may be). In short, pathetic attempts at latching onto a historically bankrupt model in a clearly substitutionist manner.

[Q]

Shortcomings? I don't think that word gives off an accurate impression when you take into account the fact that first socialdemocracy provided the ideological cover for the single bloodiest imperialist stand off in history - and actively participated in sending workers off to the front - and then that it crushed the embryonic development of social revolution.

Oh? Where and when did the Bolsheviks (the Russian Social-Democracy) did such a thing?

[Blake's Baby]

Is that sarcasm, or have you really totally misunderstood what LinksRadikal was saying?

[Thirsty Crow]

Oh? Where and when did the Bolsheviks (the Russian Social-Democracy) did such a thing?
Really, a word play masquerading as an argument? You know damn well what I'm talking about. How about trying to address that? You know, that awkward fact of the flagship of international socialdemocracy - and with it almost the whole of the sister parties, excluding Serbian and Russian ones - acting in the way I briefly described in the previous post?


Is that sarcasm, or have you really totally misunderstood what LinksRadikal was saying? No, it's a sad way of attempting to revive a corpse - by alluding to the interpretation of the sound revolutionary politics of the Bolsheviks as the direct result of the party being modelled on SPD. Or some other claptrap.

[l'Enfermé]

Is that sarcasm, or have you really totally misunderstood what LinksRadikal was saying?
No, he has clearly understood LinksRadikal. That's not the issue. The issue is that LinksRadikal lacks in historical knowledge when it comes to the German working-class movement and shouldn't make pretences to being an authority on it.

There are several falsehood in what LinksRadikal wrote in post #19. He says that Social-Democratic "provided an ideological cover for the single bloodiest imperialist stand off in history". It's not even worth mentioning that the first World War was not the "single bloodiest imperialist stand off in history" - the first World War had a sequel, and it was much bloodier. But this doesn't matter, I'm sure he knows about WWII, his country suffered much in it, so whatever. The real issue with that quote is the "ideological cover" part. It's a complete distortion of the facts. The ideological cover for the first World War in Germany was nationalism, monarchism, defend the fatherland, etc., etc.. The SPD didn't provide this cover. Its crime was in buying the cover during the opening acts of the war.

Another thing is this "and then that it crushed the embryonic development of social revolution". That never happened either. The Social-Democracy and Independent Social-Democracy made up the bulk of the German Revolution's forces, though. The Communist Party(not the Luxemburg-Liebknecht sect)was basically founded by the USPD in 1920.

And so on.

[l'Enfermé]

Nice try, mate, but no. It's amazing how many lies you've managed to stuff into that ridiculous OP of yours.



The notion of the mass party, as we know today, stems from the idolization of the German Social Democracy “pre-1914”. Although labeling it as the “pre-1914” SPD, is just a dishonest attempt to distant the notion from the failures of the SPD, especially their voting for war credits – which is what they reference by 1914.
No, that's a lie. There is no attempt to distant the notion from the failures of the SPD. Actually, the opposite. The Orthodox Marxists of RevLeft are the only users on this forum that provide a genuine critique of the SPD and its failures, not strawmen critiques of SPDcaricatures.



What’s the mass party that is sought after today? It’s a party of proletariat ranging from reformists to Marxists. It is an organizational method that allows petty-bourgeois ideas to permeate and takeover the party. To have a bunch of people when they are fighting for different ideas, non proletarian ideas, is totally dangerous. We’ve seen how reformism took over the SPD and the German proletariat, and it resulted in the death of the German revolutionary spirit in the masses.

More lies based on nothing. Ranging from reformists to Marxists? What reformists? We are very clear that the absolute minimum membership prerequisite should be acceptance of the Marx-Engels minimum-maximum party programme. This would, by definition, exclude any reformists.


I want to argue that we need a revolutionary organization/party that is made up of Marxists. Those advanced proletariat who understand what socialism is, understand tactics, and can organize and guide the proletariat in its struggle.
That is exactly our argument.


This party won’t come before the revolution, though its organization may, but the revolutionary situation will make it a necessity, and it will grow from there – provided it is out there, offering the correct tactics and analyses.
Ok we will all sit on our asses doing nothing until God summons a "revolutionary situation" and all of our problems will be solved as if through magic.


The idea is: from the revolutionary masses, by the revolutionary masses, for the revolutionary masses.
That is our idea also.


What is parliamentarism? It is the tactic put forth by those who wish to control the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat. Those bureaucratic centrists who seek to make revolution come from a “struggle” within parliament. It’s putting the party bureaucrats at the top, in command, to vote in favour of this or that reform, to “represent” the proletariat in the bourgeois institutions. It’s the notion that what the proletariat does is not legitimate if it does not express itself a majority in approval via parliament.
This view is restrictable on RevLeft, why are you whining about it? No one holds it here.



So, why do they want to have parliament as the main means of struggle? It’s all about fear of the masses, and the need for bureaucratic control of them. They wish to make their mass party the tool of controller, not teacher. They want to subordinate the direct mass action of the proletariat to a parliamentary consensus, or majority.
Who wants to have parliament as the main means of struggle? There isn't a single unrestricted person on RevLeft who holds this view.



Parliament may have been able to be utilized in the past, and it may be able to be utilized again, somewhere. However, it is not a be-all, end-all tactic. We shouldn’t treat it as such, and we should ALWAYS subordinate it to the direct action of the masses, to the mass strike, to the will of the proletariat.
No one is arguing that parliament is a "be-all, end-all tactic", as you imply.

Strawmen, strawmen, strawmen. Fucking hell.

[Drosophila]

No, that's a lie. There is no attempt to distant the notion from the failures of the SPD. Actually, the opposite. The Orthodox Marxists of RevLeft are the only users on this forum that provide a genuine critique of the SPD and its failures, not strawmen critiques of SPDcaricatures.

Stop elevating yourselves - you aren't the only ones who critique the SPD. Everyone recognizes the post-1914 SPD to be reformist, but other see it as rotten from the beginning.


More lies based on nothing. Ranging from reformists to Marxists? What reformists? We are very clear that the absolute minimum membership prerequisite should be acceptance of the Marx-Engels minimum-maximum party programme. This would, by definition, exclude any reformists.I've seen DNZ, Q, and others argue for diplomatic relations with reformists and even their allowance into the imaginary "mass-party."


That is exactly our argument.Yet you expect it to contain a significant portion of the class, which is what most see as laughably wishful thinking.


Ok we will all sit on our asses doing nothing until God summons a "revolutionary situation" and all of our problems will be solved as if through magic.
Sounds about as likely as individual militants sparking a revolution through pan-leftism and make-believe "mass" parties.


That is our idea also.No it isn't. All of you think that the working class is some uneducated lump of useless shit in a sea of false-consciousness that needs to be waken up by you great and noble Marxists. We've all seen the idiotic ramblings you've made regarding the failures of past attempts at revolution. "They didn't follow X rule" or "they relied too much on X strategy and not Y strategy" "we need to use language that CONNECTS with the workers" yadddayaddayadda. Don't try to hide the fact that you hold an elitist view of the working class.


This view is restrictable on RevLeft, why are you whining about it? No one holds it here.
Who wants to have parliament as the main means of struggle? There isn't a single unrestricted person on RevLeft who holds this view. No one is arguing that parliament is a "be-all, end-all tactic", as you imply. With all of you always whining about the importance of "political (parliamentary) struggle," it's not surprising why people think you are parliamentarists.

[l'Enfermé]

Stop elevating yourselves - you aren't the only ones who critique the SPD. Everyone recognizes the post-1914 SPD to be reformist, but other see it as rotten from the beginning.
They fail to find the actual faults of the SPD prior to its degeneration or diagnose the actual causes of the degeneration, so no. Others might see it as rotten from the beginning and they are welcome to do that, we, however, seek to uphold the Marxist tradition and as such, we can't but help siding with what Engels called "our party".


I've seen DNZ, Q, and others argue for diplomatic relations with reformists and even their allowance into the imaginary "mass-party."Reformists are welcome into the party of the class if they accept the Marxist programme and thus drop their reformism, yes.


Yet you expect it to contain a significant portion of the class, which is what most see as laughably wishful thinking. The party of the class should contain as much of the class as possible? What a stupid, laughable position!


Sounds about as likely as individual militants sparking a revolution through pan-leftism and make-believe "mass" parties. Revolutions are made by individuals in cooperation with each other, yes. Quite the revelation we have made.


No it isn't. All of you think that the working class is some uneducated lump of useless shit in a sea of false-consciousness that needs to be waken up by you great and noble Marxists. We've all seen the idiotic ramblings you've made regarding the failures of past attempts at revolution. "They didn't follow X rule" or "they relied too much on X strategy and not Y strategy" "we need to use language that CONNECTS with the workers" yadddayaddayadda. Don't try to hide the fact that you hold an elitist view of the working class. Those are very heavy accusations. You will either have to prove them or I will assume you are simply lying(which would be quite in-character for you and your friends).

But do you not see the irony? First you proclaim that it is impossible for a significant part of the proletariat to organise itself into a communist party, which means that communism, for the time being, has to remain domain of well-wishing intellectuals and a few radical students. Then you go and accuse me of looking down on my fellow workers and considering the working class a lump of useless shit, even though you are the one saying that workers have no capability to organise themselves into a communist party. I have nothing but the highest opinion of the proletariat, to the point where I idealise it; my confidence in my class is what leads me to assume that we are capable of building a communist movement. So fuck off with your lies and bullshit, Dros. I will determine my own views, not you or Grenzy.



With all of you always whining about the importance of "political (parliamentary) struggle," it's not surprising why people think you are parliamentarists.Marx and Engels must have been parliamentarian reformists too, right?

[l'Enfermé]

Indeed.
The usual line peddled by certain people is that political class struggle is parliamentary, and that amounts to nothing else than a capitulation to the bourgeois conception of the political and to bourgeois political practice.

In its more sensible form, standing for elections and sending deouties to parliament is seen as revolutionary propaganda. Though, this neglects the complexities of the problem. For instance, the idea that the parliament serves as the tribune masks the fact that this is rendered through media - and a whole new field of investigation is left out of the picture (for instance, the issue of the unbelievably low viewer statistics for broadcasts of parliamentary proceedings on national television; the issue of media ideology which severely hampers the dissemination of this revolutionary propaganda and so on).
Who peddles the line that political class struggle is only parliamentary struggle? This is a reformist and restrictable position. I know of comrades on this forum that consider parliamentary struggle a compotenent of the political class struggle(and I'm one of them), but that's an entirely different thing.

[Art Vandelay]

Yet you expect it to contain a significant portion of the class, which is what most see as laughably wishful thinking.

I find it ironic that you posit that the proletariat, as a class, cannot develop class consciousness to the point of being able to constitute itself into a mass party and then follow it up with the gem below; what's truly humorous about it, is that it would appear that you're incapable of seeing the irony.

Regardless this small section of left-coms who seem to despise orthodox Marxists so much is really getting tiring; what's truly funny is that this whole camp of left-coms consists of people who considered themselves orthodox Marxists not long ago.


All of you think that the working class is some uneducated lump of useless shit in a sea of false-consciousness that needs to be waken up by you great and noble Marxists.

[blake 3:17]

I hate to bring in polit-sci jargon, but isn't "political struggle" really short-hand these days for public policymaking struggle? At the end of the day, a key reason why the notion that "the economic is political" can be nonsense is because the actions taken are not aimed at affecting public policymaking. Genuine class struggle is thus class-based public policymaking struggle.



Exactly.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Regardless this small section of left-coms who seem to despise orthodox Marxists so much is really getting tiring; what's truly funny is that this whole camp of left-coms consists of people who considered themselves orthodox Marxists not long ago.

Comrade, they simply moved towards tendencies that had more non-programmatic "theory" to latch onto. I mean, look at so many of their kinds of discussions, and it's the very opposite of Marx's dictum on philosophy and changing the world.

[Drosophila]

Comrade, they simply moved towards tendencies that had more non-programmatic "theory" to latch onto. I mean, look at so many of their kinds of discussions, and it's the very opposite of Marx's dictum on philosophy and changing the world.

Or: it was realized that Kautskyism is just rehashed social democracy wrapped in pan-leftism, voluntarism, parliamentarism, and mass party fetishism. Not to mention your own personal bizarre brand of Maoism, Stalinism, Third Positionism, liberalism, and whatever else can be thrown in there to make up something new.