Let's OpenSource a new far-left unity party!

[argeiphontes]

Nobody likes the situation of the American left, and hey it's a slow day on RevLeft. I've come up with a provisional (think of it as a "beta version") statement of principles for a new (theoretical) communist party calling itself the Libertarian Socialist Party, and I'd like to Open Source it to the masses of RevLeft.

The party is meant to be attractive to left-leftists. Namely, anarchists, anarcho-communists, libertarian socialists, anarcho-syndicalists, council communists, left communists, etc; basically, anyone interested in a nonauthoritarian, collective, communist organization of the economy in the future.

I'm calling it the Libertarian Socialist Party, and the economic system it advocates communism. It allows people to call the system 'socialism' if they're not comfortable with 'communism', but it moves the definition of socialism closer to communism to differentiate it from welfare states, state capitalist systems, or whatever. So they should be taken synonymously. If anything, we might not want to use the word 'communism' at all. Call it collective worker democracy or something else. I like the word but I may not live in the real world ;)

The name of the party should not be changed. The name both is and is not ;) a reference to any previous libertarian socialist sect, and was selected for propaganda reasons. It is meant to be maximally inclusive among the left, but also with disaffected elements in society.

The 13th article is pretty important. It is meant to mitigate the threat of an outside group purging the ranks and then changing the character of the party. It makes it a bit more difficult, though not impossible, I suppose. The principles should be as hard to change as it is to amend the U.S. constitution.

So, with all that in mind, I'd like to transfer the text over to democratic control in the following way: Anybody who agrees with the Statement of Principles at any given point in time should thank this post. You'll be the virtual party members and will get to approve or disapprove of changes to the text, in accordance with the 13th Article below. So, if you approve of the initial proposal, you'll become the initial virtual members. If you approve of any proposed changes, you should thank that post and I'll make the edits to this post to reflect the text at any given time. ("Merging your upstream changes" in programming jargon.)

I'd like to get people from a number of far-left tendencies to participate in the discussion, and others can express why they disagree, maybe in some cases minor changes can work them in. Questions of the form "What would a member of this party say about ... ?" are cool too, I've given the whole thing a little thought.

The next step after this would be to agree on a definition of communism. The party can never take a position like "We don't know what communism is going to look like, but it won't be this." The party has to have a clear vision for a future society, though that vision is always subject to revision. It has clear objectives, and takes action to reach those objectives while accepting the world as given.

Note that the Principles do ask you to make some ideological choices that would justify a wide range of practical action, including those I agree with personally. It's not without its sinister intents, mwah hah hah hah hah hah hah ;)

I can start a Group for this if there's anybody interested.

================================================== ========
STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF THE LIBERTARIAN SOCIALIST PARTY
================================================== ========

PREAMBLE
========
The Libertarian Socialist Party is grounded on two beliefs, libertarianism and socialism. These may sound like conflicting ideologies to people who have not heard of our position, but to us the two are inseparable.

Libertarianism is the belief that all authority must be justified and that people should have authority over decisions in proportion to how much they are affected by them, not more or less.

Socialism is the belief that capitalism needs to be replaced by an economic system oriented to maximize social benefit. We call this system 'communism' because the fundamental unit of economic activity is the worker collective, a form of democratic association for the purpose of production.


STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES
=======================
1. We understand capitalism cannot be reformed into a humane and equitable system, and must be replaced by a system that can ensure the material wellbeing, the individual freedom, and the democratic participation of the human being in society.

2. We believe that the relations of workers to the means of production and the extraction of surplus labor in the form of profit are the defining characteristics of the capitalist mode of production. These relations distort human relationships and result in great suffering. It is their overthrow that is the primary meaning of revolution--socioeconomic revolution.

3. We want to replace capitalism with communism, a rationally coordinated economic system, which is typified by the organization of capital around democratically-managed worker collectives, and the absense of private property. There is no need for bossess or bourgeoisie in a modern, technologically advanced society. We believe that a just society asks from each according to ability and gives to each according to need, though it is not utopia.

4. We reject the rhetoric and dogmas of the past. Though our praxis may be informed by the past, we have no allegiance to any particular movement or tendency.

5. We acknowledge that multiple strategies may be appropriate for our goals, and we judge these strategies empirically based on their effectiveness and relevance to modern society. In light of our goals, we debate and select strategy on its own merits in the present situation we find ourselves.

6. We take no official position on any philosophy, social theory, or explanation of history, Marxist or otherwise. We do not require a belief in Marxism, historical materialism, or dialectical materialism, but we do not interfere with such beliefs. The party exists to present a positive vision and practical program for creating the future. Any viewpoint that supports the goals of the party is welcome.

7. We believe that countries like the the former Soviet Union and the DPRK are not, and never were, communist. Communism cannot coexist with dictatorship, and in the absence of worker control. The party stands for direct democracy in political, social, and economic affairs wherever possible.

8. We believe in the libertarian principle that all authority in society needs to be either justified or dismantled. We believe that everyone should have a say in decisions that affect them, a share that is equal to the proportion by which they are affected. We believe in local self-determination and the limitation of government to the smallest necessary size.

9. We have nothing to say about religion or other personal beliefs. Those who desire communism for religious, ethical, or humanist reasons are welcomed by the Party and in the revolutionary society we seek to establish.

10. We stand for socioeconomic revolution first and foremost, and steer clear of identify politics or nonrevolutionary activism. We support other strugges only insofar as they are relevant to the revolutionary economic aims of the Party.

11. We manage the party itself as close to a direct democracy as possible. Although caucuses and other representative groupings are allowed by the party, all representatives are elected and subject to recall at any time. Any person or group attempting to monopolize formal power will be ejected from the party.

12. Last but not least, we abhor violence as a means of social transformation. We are happy to employ the methods of the velvet revolutionaries, labor activists, and nonviolent protesters of the past.

13. This statement of principles may only be altered by the consent of a two-thirds majority of party members, assembled together in special session.

==================================

In case you were bored ;)

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Communists don't advocate violence but recognise it as an inevitability as the bourgeois state attacks those that threaten its existance. So saying that you 'abhor violence as a means of social transformation' isn't something I agree with because inevitably workers will have to engage in violence on occassion to beat back the forces of reaction. Also, labour activists have on many occassions utilised violent tactics to great success with the full backing of their communities (the struggle of the teachers in Mexico happening currently springs to mind). Blocking roads, stopping scabs, defending yourself from cops are all things labour activists find themselves engaging in during struggles.

Not that I necessarily disagree with all you've written, I just think that's an important point. Quite nice to read stuff like this. :)

[argeiphontes]

Communists don't advocate violence but recognise it as an inevitability as the bourgeois state attacks those that threaten its existance.

It doesn't say the party abstains from violence if absolutely necessary, or won't engage in self-defense, just that it 'abhors' violence and prefers civil disobedience... ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I despise this notion that everything must run through 'the party'.

It makes me dis-believe you when you say you reject things like the 'dogmas of the past'. The revolutionary party is the archaic vehicle of the past, it failed, and it has no place at the vanguard of any working class social movement. Parties are either broad churches (and if that is the case, then why not replace the party with a less stifling, more open and flexible structure anyway?) or in the revolutionary context are generally democratic centralist, which go even further to stifling the creativity and freedom which communists purport to want to support and unleash.

Let's go beyond this bullshit conceptual framework of the party being the main agent of revolutionary change. Start from the point that agency in social, political and economic change lies with the working class and work from there; in doing so, you'll realise that there is little need to place a political party at the head of the movement.

[Sam_b]

I'm not a huge fan of some person/poster/whatever (let's be honest here, you're not the first or the last member of Revleft to try and 'form' a party) posting a bunch of statements that they believe in and then saying "join and let's make a unity party". It's not, and never will be, as simple as that. You've just created a party line and you're the only member in said party. What ever happened to actually building a movement from communities and the grass roots? Where is the strategy and tactics for how your group would actually raise the question and methods for workers taking power? Rather, what makes your post about starting an organisation on a website anything different from the hundreds of others that regularly do this?

I honestly wish people would stop doing these things and actually does stuff that makes a bit of difference to the movement and class - community initiatives, organising mass meetings, getting involved in trade unions, and so on. I don't believe these sort of cyber-parties work when they're not rooted in the community they suppose they represent.

[argeiphontes]

I despise this notion that everything must run through 'the party'.

It makes me dis-believe you when you say you reject things like the 'dogmas of the past'.

It's a name for a political organization that takes advantage of the stature of the mainstream parties.

[Sam_b]

we have no allegiance to any particular movement or tendency


authoritarian forms of Communism and state capitalism

The idea of state capitalism actually does point to a particular movement. As does libertarian socialism. I see where you're coming from, but the whole statement of principles - let's be honest, there is no parties, they are your personal beliefs - is actually quite confused.

EDIT: Actually, I don't see how the 'left-left' people you talk about would be interested in partyism?


This statement of principles may only be altered by the consent of a two-thirds majority of party members, assembled together in special session.


To be honest this is not particularly democratic either.

[argeiphontes]

EDIT: Actually, I don't see how the 'left-left' people you talk about would be interested in partyism?


Everyone is free to disagree.

[Sam_b]

No, no they're not. Why? You said it yourself:


The principles should be as hard to change as it is to amend the U.S. constitution.

Instead of a one-line response, which could apply to anything and everything, why don't you actually tackle what other people are saying?

[argeiphontes]

No, no they're not. Why? You said it yourself:

It has to have definition. There have to be some broad principles of agreement. This party doesn't represent everybody, only the people who agree with its principles. Just like the Democratic party or PETA or the ISO or anybody else.




Instead of a one-line response, which could apply to anything and everything, why don't you actually tackle what other people are saying?You and anybody else is free to not join the party. That's what I meant.

edit: The party takes no official position on 'partyism' anyway ;)

[synthesis]

I'm calling it the Libertarian Socialist Party, and the economic system it advocates communism.


6. We take no official position on any philosophy, social theory, or explanation of history, Marxist or otherwise. We do not require a belief in Marxism, historical materialism, or dialectical materialism, but we do not interfere with such beliefs. The party exists to present a positive vision and practical program for creating the future. Any viewpoint that supports the goals of the party is welcome.

Isn't that sort of a contradiction? How are you going to have a communist party that doesn't stipulate Marxism?

[argeiphontes]

Isn't that sort of a contradiction? How are you going to have a communist party that doesn't stipulate Marxism?

By advocating for a particular future state we agree we want, called 'communism.' If somebody wants to justify their party membership by their Marxism, more power to 'em. Also note that the principles aren't unMarxist, they just don't mention him by name. We'd take no official position on Marxism, though, and anyone who agreed with the principles and goals would be welcome.

edit: You can just agree that communism is better for everybody based on its own merits, it doesn't need any external justification, though there have been many proponents of it in the past, for various reasons.

[Sam_b]

It has to have definition.

This isn't an answer sorry. So you believe that your own personal politics are so rigid that nobody in your organisation should be able to question them? Like the U.S constitution, your opinions, or 'principles' are not sacred. It's the hallmark of a good organisation in my eyes when members are able to question the operations, practice and politics of it: that's how democracy works, not some sort of notion that 2/3 of people can change something only when some sort of special meeting is formed. I'm actually in the process of writing an article for my organisation where I disagree with something another comrade wrote in the summer.


This party doesn't represent everybody. Just like the Democratic party or PETA or the ISO or anybody else.

With respect, this party represents at this moment in time nobody. What's your rationale for said party then? If you want to create a 'left-wing unity party' then surely the whole idea is to have a party that you believes represents workers and their interests?
If you think a party in the revolutionary sense is somehow related or similar to parties such as the Democrats then I'd suggest this plan is not thought through.


The party takes no official position on 'partyism' anyway

I know this is a joke and everything, but when you say 'the party' takes no official position you just mean that you don't, considering the party doesn't actually exist. It's stuff like that that would probably put people off as well, when 'party' and 'I' are interchangeable it sounds like a sort of group where you'd be wanting to exercise the majority control over.

I mean, you've laid out what you believe an organisation should be like and named them a 'statement of principles'. Rather than try to hold a meeting to discuss how to organise, or even start a debate about how workers should organise, which then leads to a group of people coming together, who then may take the step of deciding to form a group and then discussing what sort of politics should be behind it; you've just set up a document claiming you're a 'party' now, and people should join, but only if they agree to all the rules you have set out!

I'm being brutally honest here because I think sometimes it's necessary, so in that spirit I think you've gone about this in entirely the wrong way.

[Sam_b]

By advocating for a particular future state we agree we want, called 'communism.

I think this is another example of how you're completely confused by the ideology, and why your statements are riddled with contradictions. Communism is stateless - none of us want a future state, that's the point. You're trying to form a party, yet this is ridiculously basic stuff.

[argeiphontes]

This isn't an answer sorry. So you believe that your own personal politics are so rigid that nobody in your organisation should be able to question them? Like the U.S constitution, your opinions, or 'principles' are not sacred.

Uh, that's why I Open Sourced it.

(Maybe there's some confusion in that I'd like the development of the idea to proceed in a similar manner to the way the internal politics of the party would, just for educational purposes. So, when I speak "for the party" or something it's a pedagogic maneuver to get my idea across; it's how I think the party should behave. Don't take it so seriously, please.)



With respect, this party represents at this moment in time nobody. What's your rationale for said party then?


It's a theoretical exercise to develop a possible party. I'm not claiming I'm starting a real party or anything.

Don't make me bring out the big guns. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ) ;)

[argeiphontes]

Communism is stateless - none of us want a future state, that's the point. You're trying to form a party, yet this is ridiculously basic stuff.

I meant 'state' as in 'state of affairs' not 'state apparatus'.

[argeiphontes]

Rather, what makes your post about starting an organisation on a website anything different from the hundreds of others that regularly do this?

The content of the post, which should be assessed on its own merits.

[Sam_b]

Uh, that's why I Open Sourced it.

Uh, are you able to give any answer longer than two lines? This is not an answer. Just because you call something 'open source' does not mean that it is. Politics is not a computer programming code. Putting a two-word label on something (with a list of rules about how to after it) is not some sort of magical barrier that stops the process being undemocratic and frankly, contradictory and nonsensical. Politics isn't a game where you just set the rules.


(Maybe there's some confusion in that I'd like the development of the idea to proceed in a similar manner to the way the internal politics of the party would, just for educational purposes. So, when I speak "for the party" or something it's a pedagogic maneuver to get my idea across; it's how I think the party should behave. Don't take it so seriously, please.)


To be honest again I'm not taking any of this seriously at all.


It's a theoretical exercise to develop a possible party. I'm not claiming I'm starting a real party or anything.

But it isn't at all, is it? You said in OP that anyone who thanked a post would become 'virtual members'. I don't know about anyone else but in my mind that just means 'members', seeing as this group only exists (and IMO will only ever exist) on the internet.

As I said before, I think this idea is a non-starter and you've gone about it completely the wrong way. I don't know how productive it is just me going on about it, and I'm sure others will jump in, but that's my position on it anyway.

[synthesis]

I'm actually in the process of writing an article for my organisation where I disagree with something another comrade wrote in the summer.

This is not in support of the OP - the opposite, actually - but I find it kind of sad that this is something that is in any way notable.

[argeiphontes]

You said in OP that anyone who thanked a post would become 'virtual members'. I don't know about anyone else but in my mind that just means 'members', seeing as this group only exists (and IMO will only ever exist) on the internet.

Yes, for purposes of modifying some completely theoretical principles, you would become a virtual member of a theoretical proposal for a theoretical political party. Just to discuss things in a rational manner in the imagination space that is RevLeft.

I wouldn't expect anyone in the real world to give up their sectarianism just for the sake of their principles, that would make me an idealist.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If you ('the party') didn't take a position on partyism then, let's be totally honest here, you wouldn't set this 'e-thing' up as a party.

It's not a pedagogic maneuvre or, if it is, then judging by the responses so far it's an un-successful one that needs totally re-thinking.

In any case, the interests of the working class are at once the same and fluid. Always it is in the interests of workers to overthrow their exploiters, but strategies, tactics and broad principles of any organisation can and do change over time, across cultures, and according to different geo-political realities. The idea of laying out a statement of your ('the party's') principles as something that is incredibly difficult to alter is to present ideology as something ahistoric, which is not what socialism, or any revolutionary ideology, is about.

I always welcome the opportunity to discuss ideology, or potential strategies or tactics, but the idea of laying out principles of some entity that doesn't exist is actually not a useful exercise, insofar as any movement will be historically, culturally and geographically specific, whereas this seems to be an exercise in generalisations and, dare I say it, ego-satisfying behaviour.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I wouldn't expect anyone in the real world to give up their sectarianism just for the sake of their principles, that would make me an idealist.

This doesn't make any sense. Surely one of the over-riding political (i'm going to ignore the personal reasons behind left sectarianism/left cultism) reasons for sectarianism among the left is that people are very strongly wedded to their political principles which, for me, is no bad thing. I'd rather that, than some faux-revolutionary 'left unity' project that aimed to unite a certain quantity of leftists, rather than attempt to embed one's principles within the wider working class as a whole, and have the bravery to take your ideas to the rest of your fellow workers, instead of using 'left unity' as a cover to hide behind the existing left.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

As has already been mentioned, you can't claim to have no ideology and then to go on talking about "state capitalism" (a term that actually means four or five different things depending on who uses it). Also, Bordiga is spinning in his grave over the association of left communism with democracy and anti-authoritarianism.

Or not. That wouldn't be very materialist of comrade Bordiga.

[argeiphontes]

If you ('the party') didn't take a position on partyism then, let's be totally honest here, you wouldn't set this 'e-thing' up as a party.

The point is not to justify anything by referring to some *ism, but to actually assess things on their own merits. A unity party won't work because it's *ism, it'll work (or not work) based on how attractive it is to members of the working class and the left activists that would be putting in the work on the project. Other political parties work, I can see them in real life, they're dismantling the New Deal right now. Meanwhile other people are debating the true meaning of *ism.



In any case, the interests of the working class are at once the same and fluid. Always it is in the interests of workers to overthrow their exploiters, but strategies, tactics and broad principles of any organisation can and do change over time, across cultures, and according to different geo-political realities. The idea of laying out a statement of your ('the party's') principles as something that is incredibly difficult to alter is to present ideology as something ahistoric, which is not what socialism, or any revolutionary ideology, is about.

I always welcome the opportunity to discuss ideology, or potential strategies or tactics, but the idea of laying out principles of some entity that doesn't exist is actually not a useful exercise, insofar as any movement will be historically, culturally and geographically specific, whereas this seems to be an exercise in generalisations and, dare I say it, ego-satisfying behaviour.

It's not a useful exercise to try to find a minimum set of principles that most people can unify behind, for the purpose of moving forward? Part of the problem is that people are more loyal to sects based on historical figures and movements than in uniting their own principles.

Yet, these sects do have principles, even if they're only implied. It doesn't make any sense to say you're doing something without any ideology at all behind it, or you couldn't derive what to do, and no one would do anything. The list of principles is meant to be a very broad statement of what many communists agree with, that's why it's hard to change. Communists wouldn't want it to turn into a party supporting Sweden or something, because that's no longer communist.

Also note that there's nothing specific in there about any particular strategy. The reason it doesn't support 'partyism' is that *ism isn't an argument against anything. Some aspects of *ism may be great, but *ism could be wrong about a lot of things. If a strategy is taken up, it should be justified on its own merits and the objective situation, not because it is or isn't covered under *ism. Acceptance of one part of *ism doesn't justify use of any other part of *ism because nothing is ideal in its entirety. You pick and choose what strategies to follow based on whether or not they work.

As for ego, there are many reasons people do things, including personal ones. If it's sublimated into something good and beneficial, then in my opinion that's a good thing. Not everybody on the left is going to be the Dalai Lama, and since the DL is human even he is subject to the workings of ego. The point might be to harness those personal reasons for the greater good. If anything, I'm trying to make blind allegiances ego-dystonic, and that's why people would want to attack me based on their ego-syntonic beliefs. Politics is partly irrational as are many human behaviors. You can see how the principles are meant to instill the same kind of irrational attachment that the U.S. constitution gets, and in this case I'll say it's good because they're our principles, they're not pulled out of my ass, as anyone reading them would hopefully see. They're taken straight from the communist left.


reasons for sectarianism among the left is that people are very strongly wedded to their political principles which, for me, is no bad thing.

It's not. So there is probably a minimum, purposely vague set of principles that many people on the left can agree on and perhaps unite behind, because they are shared by more than one person or tendency. See the end of the paragraph above, too.



rather than attempt to embed one's principles within the wider working class as a whole, and have the bravery to take your ideas to the rest of your fellow workers

That's what I'm doing. I'm brave for even posting something like this on here ;) I had to have a few beers beforehand, honestly. The *strategy* of this party would be to spread it's principles, but principles are something else besides strategy.

The thing about not expecting people to alter their allegiances just for their principles was a joke. However, it's true. Personally, I happen to think that the destination is more important than the journey, but it appears I'm wrong.

[Red_Banner]

What do we need another party for?

There are so many of them in the USA as it is.

[argeiphontes]

It wouldn't necessarily focus on electoral activity. With enough people though, you can use multiple strategies simultaneously. Electoral activity could be good propaganda, though, but that would be discussed at the level of strategy within my fictional party, which currently has no strategy. Strategy would be something much more easily changed than the founding principles and wouldn't be tied into the party so tightly that it's an existential imperative. (i.e. it wouldn't exist in order to carry out any particular strategy, it would exist to reach the goal of communism, by whatever means the members decided).

[argeiphontes]

ego-satisfying behaviour.

The left reminds me of a decompensated personality, maybe schizoid decompensation if anything. It could use a little ego.

edit: Actually, the left is a picture of schizoid decompensation. Think of my post as a little intervention. The positive aspect of ego is its goal-orientation, maybe even its ability to sweep to the side. That's the dialectic of Anthony Weiner ;)

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The point is not to justify anything by referring to some *ism, but to actually assess things on their own merits. A unity party won't work because it's *ism, it'll work (or not work) based on how attractive it is to members of the working class and the left activists that would be putting in the work on the project. Other political parties work, I can see them in real life, they're dismantling the New Deal right now. Meanwhile other people are debating the true meaning of *ism.

My point (and, it seems, the point of others in this thread) is that this is all a bit confused. There is no need to make this thread analogous to an intra-party discussion.

I think it shows that, before we've even gotten to the content of the principles you've put in the OP, that we're discussing something totally different, and this isn't even a real party, it's an internet simulation of a hypothetical party. Let's just drop the whole party idea, virtual member thing, and constitutional crap, and talk about yours and my ideas, yes?


It's not a useful exercise to try to find a minimum set of principles that most people can unify behind, for the purpose of moving forward? Part of the problem is that people are more loyal to sects based on historical figures and movements than in uniting their own principles.

I think this is a valid point, but even without the sectional loyalty based on historical figures, people would be (and, in history, people have been) loyal to a particular current of socialism/communism based on their own ideological/political preferences.


The list of principles is meant to be a very broad statement of what many communists agree with, that's why it's hard to change.

But many communists don't agree with the idea of a party full-stop, and those that do have wildly different ideas on what its form and internal workings should be. So you're stuck before you even begin.


Besides, and I have to stress this point, it'd be more useful to argue for what you believe to be the best way forward for the working class, not try to find some lowest common denominator for existing leftists because, let's face it, if any number of existing leftists were correct in their principles, strategies and tactics, they wouldn't be the irrelevance that they are.


Communists wouldn't want it to turn into a party supporting Sweden or something, because that's no longer communist.

When was Sweden ever communist? :ohmy:


The reason it doesn't support 'partyism' is that *ism isn't an argument against anything. Some aspects of *ism may be great, but *ism could be wrong about a lot of things. If a strategy is taken up, it should be justified on its own merits and the objective situation, not because it is or isn't covered under *ism. Acceptance of one part of *ism doesn't justify use of any other part of *ism because nothing is ideal in its entirety. You pick and choose what strategies to follow based on whether or not they work.

But it does support partyism, because you're attempting to create one. It would be a logical fallacy to simultaneously be anti-party and create a party, so the only logical conclusion one can draw is that the principles will ALWAYS be pro-party, with the only alternative being that the party ceases to exist.



You can see how the principles are meant to instill the same kind of irrational attachment that the U.S. constitution gets, and in this case I'll say it's good because they're our principles, they're not pulled out of my ass, as anyone reading them would hopefully see. They're taken straight from the communist left.

You seem to be assuming a homogeneity in principles among the left that, sadly, doesn't exist, and you can't force it to.


That's what I'm doing. I'm brave for even posting something like this on here ;) I had to have a few beers beforehand, honestly. The *strategy* of this party would be to spread it's principles, but principles are something else besides strategy.

And I do applaud you, but I still hold my criticisms above.
[/QUOTE]

[argeiphontes]

My point (and, it seems, the point of others in this thread) is that this is all a bit confused. There is no need to make this thread analogous to an intra-party discussion.

I think it shows that, before we've even gotten to the content of the principles you've put in the OP, that we're discussing something totally different, and this isn't even a real party, it's an internet simulation of a hypothetical party. Let's just drop the whole party idea, virtual member thing, and constitutional crap, and talk about yours and my ideas, yes?

That was a suggested frame for the discussion to keep discussion among those interested in the idea from devolving into anarchy. I'm more than willing to drop my tyrannical demands, though.



figures, people would be (and, in history, people have been) loyal to a particular current of socialism/communism based on their own ideological/political preferences.


I'm well aware of that. But there is an undercurrent of agreement. However, I fully understand that I am asking people to suspend their certainty in some of their beliefs in order to unite behind a common goal.



When was Sweden ever communist? :ohmy:


I meant that a supposed communist party would no longer be communist if it supported Sweden. A party that supports Sweden is no longer communist, because Sweden isn't communist it's a social-democratic welfare state.



But it does support partyism, because you're attempting to create one. It would be a logical fallacy to simultaneously be anti-party and create a party, so the only logical conclusion one can draw is that the principles will ALWAYS be pro-party, with the only alternative being that the party ceases to exist.


Yes, the party itself would imply that parties are a good strategy.




You seem to be assuming a homogeneity in principles among the left that, sadly, doesn't exist, and you can't force it to.

And I do applaud you, but I still hold my criticisms above.


Thanks for your reply, but I still think my only hubris was in thinking that anyone would be interested, except maybe a few less acculturated people.

[The Idler]

I think you've nailed the idea of putting forward a party presenting a particular defined case, but not a finished product, not trying to represent existing consciousness and at the same time, the revolution not being the private property of any particular party. This kind of non-substitutionist party a lot of Leninists can't handle or possibly understand, and in fact was recently dismissed in the World Socialist Party (US) topic as the caricature of "spontaneity", so be warned.

[Tim Cornelis]

The trouble, as far as I can see, is that you are not particularly experienced with parties and their respective ideologies. What you've articulated here is, in essential reality, an anarchist statement of principles. If you want to found a movement or party you need to think like a business: what is my niche? What uniques can I offer? What is my marketing strategy? And so forth. What you have here is attempting to rally various small and marginalised ideologies under a common banner of one particular ideology (anarchism). That's not going to attract a lot of people because, there's already plenty of anarchist organisations and you offer nothing unique in that regard. Left communists will not agree with this statement of principles as they reject the notion of libertarianism, sometimes of democracy altogether, of non-violence (as do most anarchists), or that DPRK, etc., do not represent "true communism" (they do not represent communism, true or false, period).
If you join a movement to your liking and propose a merger you will find out that it's not as easy as rallying behind some common-ish sounding slogans.
In reality you are working from the top-down, producing ready-made party manifestos and then handing them down, but you should work upward from below. Gather like minded people around you, think, discuss, adjust, establish roots in working class communities as much as possible and from this will, perhaps, a viable party emerge.



Or not. That wouldn't be very materialist of comrade Bordiga.

Hehe. :grin:

[The Idler]

Sorry no, its not anarchist, I wondered how long it would be before that particular strawman came up. Founding a party is inherently un-anarchist as it aims for the capture of political power. Thinking like a business is a ridiculous notion of a foundation for a political party. Thinking like a business will only end up with appealing to the lowest common denominator, and end up with something like what Left Unity in the UK is currently at.
We are here to discern the science of society and it deserves to be approached more akin to a science not a business. A certain level of professionalism and competency certainly in terms of organisation is necessary of course.
Arguing this is a ready-made or top-down manifesto is essentially arguing any manifesto is ready-made or top-down per se. How do you think Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. How do you think William Morris wrote the Socialist Manifestos.
Working from below has a veneer of democracy but really just sounds like appealing to the masses and again lowest-common-denominator politics as a substitute for properly working out politics. Nothing authoritarian about trying to make unpopular politics into popular politics, this is only authoritarian if you force it down peoples throat or pretend you are putting forward the same politics they already support.

The idea of a party just emerging is so idealist, I'm not even sure that is your real beliefs, the party isn't the end-goal here, the goal is socialism and the party will just be a imperfect (possibly flawed) vehicle to speed up getting there. Too many leftists have fantasies about the party being all-powerful and controlling all aspects of society.

[Tim Cornelis]

Sorry no, its not anarchist, I wondered how long it would be before that particular strawman came up. Founding a party is inherently un-anarchist as it aims for the capture of political power.

You're confused because this is a strawman. A political party is simply a political organisation. An anarchist political organisation is a party, whether self-identifying as such or not. It's simply semantics. It's not inherently "un-anarchist" and if it were it would exclude anarchists, and only left-communists would remain which would also reject it because of stated reasons.

Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Anarchist_Party



Thinking like a business is a ridiculous notion of a foundation for a political party. Thinking like a business will only end up with appealing to the lowest common denominator, and end up with something like what Left Unity in the UK is currently at.

No, because you're looking for a niche. You're not trying to sell as much of anything, but as much of this particular product (revolutionary socialism). You need to offer something unique. Ask, why have previous and existing parties failed and why will I succeed? What do I offer that is appealing more so than 'competing' parties? What strategy will I apply to succeed?

Why would an anarchist join a libertarian socialist party such as this and not an already existing anarchist organisation with members, infrastructure, and experience?


We are here to discern the science of society and it deserves to be approached more akin to a science not a business. A certain level of professionalism and competency certainly in terms of organisation is necessary of course.

Call it a metaphor then. Point is, many of the questions asked by business need to likewise be asked by parties.


Arguing this is a ready-made or top-down manifesto is essentially arguing any manifesto is ready-made or top-down per se. How do you think Marx wrote the Communist Manifesto. How do you think William Morris wrote the Socialist Manifestos.
Working from below has a veneer of democracy but really just sounds like appealing to the masses and again lowest-common-denominator politics as a substitute for properly working out politics. Nothing authoritarian about trying to make unpopular politics into popular politics, this is only authoritarian if you force it down peoples throat or pretend you are putting forward the same politics they already support.

I never suggested it was authoritarian. But if you do not have connections to working people or even activists it will not materialise.


The idea of a party just emerging is so idealist, I'm not even sure that is your real beliefs, the party isn't the end-goal here, the goal is socialism and the party will just be a imperfect (possibly flawed) vehicle to speed up getting there. Too many leftists have fantasies about the party being all-powerful and controlling all aspects of society.

If I look at Breakthrough (Dutch broad anticapitalist anti-authoritarian Marxist and anarchist organisation), it emerged through prolonged debate by various activists of various backgrounds and was shaped by experience and debate. It did not emerge because one person wrote a statement of principles and worked from there.

[argeiphontes]

or that DPRK, etc., do not represent "true communism" (they do not represent communism, true or false, period).

Done. I've merged this change into the main document, it's a good idea.

[argeiphontes]

they reject the notion of ... , sometimes of democracy altogether

My condolences to their relevance, then. ;)

[The Idler]

You're confused because this is a strawman. A political party is simply a political organisation. An anarchist political organisation is a party, whether self-identifying as such or not. It's simply semantics. It's not inherently "un-anarchist" and if it were it would exclude anarchists, and only left-communists would remain which would also reject it because of stated reasons.

Also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Revolutionary_Anarchist_Party


Okay then, what makes you criticise it as anarchist?


No, because you're looking for a niche. You're not trying to sell as much of anything, but as much of this particular product (revolutionary socialism). You need to offer something unique. Ask, why have previous and existing parties failed and why will I succeed? What do I offer that is appealing more so than 'competing' parties? What strategy will I apply to succeed?

Why would an anarchist join a libertarian socialist party such as this and not an already existing anarchist organisation with members, infrastructure, and experience?



Call it a metaphor then. Point is, many of the questions asked by business need to likewise be asked by parties.



Fair enough, although most currently existing anarchist organisations would have to change their members minds if they wanted to aim to capture political power.


I never suggested it was authoritarian. But if you do not have connections to working people or even activists it will not materialise.



If I look at Breakthrough (Dutch broad anticapitalist anti-authoritarian Marxist and anarchist organisation), it emerged through prolonged debate by various activists of various backgrounds and was shaped by experience and debate. It did not emerge because one person wrote a statement of principles and worked from there.Basically you can't accuse an open source approach as being ready-made. Its an oxymoron. In any case, doesn't this emerging through prolonged debate between activists contradict the business approach you advocated earlier? How can you stipulate it must "have connections to working-people and activists" (as if the two are separate!) emerging through prolonged debate between various activists, then ask why previous parties have failed (presumably including the Dutch organisation) and what strategy will I need to succeed? Well you're giving your answer to the strategy question and criticising the open source approach outlined here without reference to existing attempts at this. This sounds like an authoritarian approach to me, I'm not even sure you think a revolution is contingent on support for that revolution?

[WilliamGreen]

Communists don't advocate violence but recognise it as an inevitability as the bourgeois state attacks those that threaten its existance. So saying that you 'abhor violence as a means of social transformation' isn't something I agree with because inevitably workers will have to engage in violence on occassion to beat back the forces of reaction. Also, labour activists have on many occassions utilised violent tactics to great success with the full backing of their communities (the struggle of the teachers in Mexico happening currently springs to mind). Blocking roads, stopping scabs, defending yourself from cops are all things labour activists find themselves engaging in during struggles.

Not that I necessarily disagree with all you've written, I just think that's an important point. Quite nice to read stuff like this. :)


Couldn't agree more :)

[Sabot Cat]

I almost completely agree with your platform, but I believe that a general strike and mass protests are the best tactics for largely nonviolent revolutionary change. If we (the United States) didn't have a First Past the Post system, the fractional division inherent in electoral politics wouldn't be as big of an obstacle and there would be no need to marginalize minor parties that cohere the best with one's views. I think your best bet for this to work is to drop the appeals to reconciliation and moderation, and flatly presenting it as what it is specifically, because that seems to be what most people here are having trouble with.

[Prometeo liberado]

When I get bored I pour sand(any grade will do) into the eyes of my man servant Woodhouse. Pretty sure you may want to try this on yourself as I'm also sure you haven't a man servant because A) you need a hobby, and B) I need retribution for having allowed myself to read that............whatever you want t call that "Programme" or "Manifesto" or whatever.
When oh Lord?............