Western Communism - Democratic socialists?

[Evo2]

In my own country, the Marxist parties (Communist party of Britain and The Socialist party) seem to take a parliamentary road to socialism, via campaigning in elections etc


Also, from my (limited) research, this is the trend of all other western communist/socialist parties.

Are these parties reformist, or are the in line with Marxism?

What did Marx say about democratic socialism? Do we get there by vote, revolt or both?

[Blake's Baby]

Why just those two?

There's the Socialist Workers' Party, the Communist Party of Great Britain (Provisional Central Committee), the Communist Party of Great Britain - Marxist-Leninist, the Socialist Labour Party, the Alliance for Workers' Liberty and Workers' Power (I'm assuming you live in England or Wales so I don't need to mention the Scottish Socialist Party).

There are several splits from the Socialist Workers' Party that have happened in the last couple of years. Counterfire is the only name I remember.

There is also the Socialist Party of Great Britian (on the assumption that the Socialist Party you mentioned before is the Socialist Party of England and Wales - though if it's the other way round, please read that the other way around).

I only discuss with the Socialist Party of Great Britian out of that list, but their view is that they're following Marx who talked about the working class winning the battle for democracy, and also said that there were some countries where it may be possible for the working class to come to power through democratic means. Their assessment is that, in the years since the second half of the 19th century, the chances of this happening have increased in many places. They don't however think it's the task of socialists to administer the state (unlike all the groups I listed first) but rather use the democratic state to dismantle capitalism.

So, on one reading of Marx, it is justifiable. Though I think they're mistaken.

[Art Vandelay]

To posit that simply because many of the parties you listed don't reject parliamentary efforts, means that they attempt to take a parliamentary road to socialism, is so intellectually dishonest of you that it deserves no further response then this.

[Thirsty Crow]

Engels' was the one grandfather of contemporary communism that envisioned the possibility of the parliamentary road to socialism, due to the specifics of German social development once the anti-socialist laws were lifted. I also believe that this idea can be found in embryonic form in Marx. Anyway, what is clear is that both of these men believed that broad democratic rights, including the full right to vote for all adults (and rights of assembly, free press and so on) were integral to proletarian political struggle.

But what is the actual point in asking whether Marx and Engels had do say about "democratic socialism"? I don't think that political strategy should be built on positions advocated by great men in the deep depths of the past. In short, when talking about Marx and Engels, it is well worth the trouble to separate what they had to say about the fundamental political and social characteristics of the capitalist system - which produce invariance of program and approach - and the contingent, historical conditions which impose themselves on communists and necessitate specific tactical visions and positions.

With a lot more history of capital and wage labor in store for us than for Marx and Engels, I think it is safe to assume that class struggle - a two way road so to speak - makes a parliamentary road pretty improbable, and I would definitely neither count on it nor advocate this as an overall approach. Especially if we take into account the experience and development of parties and organizations that acted on that basis (for instance, it was "Engels'" German social democracy that ultimately came to act as a draft seargent for German imperialism in WW1, and had become "the party of order" - of capitalist order).

[Blake's Baby]

To posit that simply because many of the parties you listed don't reject parliamentary efforts, means that they attempt to take a parliamentary road to socialism, is so intellectually dishonest of you that it deserves no further response then this.

I don't appreciate being labelled as 'dishonest'. Ask Q.

So, I'd say, demonstate that I'm being 'intellectually dishonest', or withdraw that remark.

[Art Vandelay]

I don't appreciate being labelled as 'dishonest'. Ask Q.

So, I'd say, demonstate that I'm being 'intellectually dishonest', or withdraw that remark.

How about you justify it? The only reasoning you seem to back up this ludicrous statement of yours with, is that since you allude to the fact that these parties don't outright reject parliamentary means, then it means they pursue a parliamentary road to socialism. That's quite the line of argumentation, I guess we can assume that Lenin also held a parliamentary vision of socialism. As far as I'm aware, the only party you listed who standby the belief that proletarian revolution will be anything other then the open and violent expressions of class antagonisms, is the SPGB (ironically the party you've stated in the past you agree with, something like, 85% of the time). A party who engages in parliamentary efforts, in an attempt to further raise class consciousness, is not the equivalent of a party who pursues a literal parliamentary road to socialism (as in the case of the spgb). So yes your comment was either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

[cobrawolf_meiji]

I think that western communist and socialist parties use the democratic system because Democracy is the norm in Western Nations. In Russia and China, Democracy never came to them and they were ruled by strongmen. In Russia it was The Czars, in China it was the Emperors. in The West, Nations like Great Britain and The United States elected their leaders, so It is Natural for Socialist and Communist Parties the use The Democratic system.

[Blake's Baby]

How about you justify it? The only reasoning you seem to back up this ludicrous statement of yours with, is that since you allude to the fact that these parties don't outright reject parliamentary means, then it means they pursue a parliamentary road to socialism. That's quite the line of argumentation, I guess we can assume that Lenin also held a parliamentary vision of socialism. As far as I'm aware, the only party you listed who standby the belief that proletarian revolution will be anything other then the open and violent expressions of class antagonisms, is the SPGB (ironically the party you've stated in the past you agree with, something like, 85% of the time). A party who engages in parliamentary efforts, in an attempt to further raise class consciousness, is not the equivalent of a party who pursues a literal parliamentary road to socialism (as in the case of the spgb). So yes your comment was either intellectual dishonesty or ignorance.

The SPGB is the only party that I listed (as far as I'm aware, you can tell me where I'm wrong I'm sure) that has neither a 'transitional programme' nor a 'min-max programme'. In other words, a programme for the management of British state capitalism. Nothing really to do with parliament, I don't know how many of those other parties put up candidates.

The SPGB - with which I am in 85% agreement (though not, of course, on the use of parliament, that being part of the 15% that I regard as ... very mistaken) - has no such programme. It has a strange conception of revolutionary process, but no conception of capitalist 'economic management'.

So, if you can provide information about other parties that I've listed where I'm wrong, please do so, and I will happily admit that I was mistaken about them.

[synthesis]

But what is the actual point in asking whether Marx and Engels had do say about "democratic socialism"? I don't think that political strategy should be built on positions advocated by great men in the deep depths of the past. In short, when talking about Marx and Engels, it is well worth the trouble to separate what they had to say about the fundamental political and social characteristics of the capitalist system - which produce invariance of program and approach - and the contingent, historical conditions which impose themselves on communists and necessitate specific tactical visions and positions.

I think one factor is that when Marx and Engels were writing, bourgeois democracy itself was still relatively very young, and as we all know, youth presents a nearly infinite range of possibilities - illusory or otherwise - that narrow sharply as time goes on. I wonder if Marx would still claim not to be a Marxist today.

[#FF0000]

What did Marx say about democratic socialism? Do we get there by vote, revolt or both?

"Both" is the best answer, tbh. Marx and Engels pretty much said that workers have to organize to defend their interests politically. They were at odds with folks like Bakunin (who more or less believed that a new society would form out of a spontaneous mass working class insurrection) and with folks like Ferdinand Lassalle, who was a socialist who presented a sort of proto-evolutionary (read: reformist) socialism and saw the state was a neutral institution that could be used to promote working class interests and . This idea of the state is opposed to Marx's concept of the state as an instrument of class power.

So, yeah. Marx believed that a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism was necessary, but that an organized party of the working class was necessary to do this.

This is a really rough overview but yeah, hopefully it answered your question at least somewhat. There's still a lot more to talk about here, I think.

[Evo2]

"Both" is the best answer, tbh. Marx and Engels pretty much said that workers have to organize to defend their interests politically. They were at odds with folks like Bakunin (who more or less believed that a new society would form out of a spontaneous mass working class insurrection) and with folks like Ferdinand Lassalle, who was a socialist who presented a sort of proto-evolutionary (read: reformist) socialism and saw the state was a neutral institution that could be used to promote working class interests and . This idea of the state is opposed to Marx's concept of the state as an instrument of class power.

So, yeah. Marx believed that a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism was necessary, but that an organized party of the working class was necessary to do this.

This is a really rough overview but yeah, hopefully it answered your question at least somewhat. There's still a lot more to talk about here, I think.


It did thanks :)