What is Impossibilism?

[Remus Bleys]

I've heard this term used to describe everything from anti-reformists to people who think the Dictatorship of the Proletariat can come via Parliament.

So, what is it?

[DDR]

Imposibilist are those who think that parlamentary action cannot bring socialism.

[Remus Bleys]

Imposibilist are those who think that parlamentary action cannot bring socialism.Then what seperates them from regular communists?

[Popular Front of Judea]

Then what seperates them from regular communists?

http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/how-spgb-different

[Blake's Baby]

Imposibilist are those who think that parlamentary action cannot bring socialism.


No they aren't.

Impossiblists think that agitation for reforms will not bring socialism. The SPGB - one of the main Impossiblist organisations of the last 100 years, and after the slow death of the SLP in the US, the only one I know of that is still in existence - actually expects to use parliament to enact the abolition of capitalism. But they don't expect the socialist deputies in parliament to 'manage capitalism'.

[The Idler]

Leaving policies like higher wages, "fairer redistribution of wealth", "fair days pay for a fair days work", "worker co-ops" etc. to liberals.

At the Paris Congress of the Second International, in 1900, Jules Guesde was accused of impossibilism for refusing to participate in parliament.

We have a group here on revleft for more in depth articles on impossibilism
http://www.revleft.com/vb/group.php?groupid=1032

There is an article here
http://mailstrom.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/impossiblism-by-steve-coleman.html

There is a good book on the subject here
http://www.lulu.com/shop/steve-coleman/the-origin-and-meaning-of-the-political-theory-of-impossibilism/paperback/product-21110348.html

[Hit The North]

Leaving policies like higher wages, "fairer redistribution of wealth", "fair days pay for a fair days work", "worker co-ops" etc. to liberals.


In fact, shying away from any kind of struggle. Unable to see that the struggle for higher wages and more equal distribution of the surplus strengthens working class organisation and self-confidence; how the call for a "fair days pay for a fair days work" is a revolutionary demand as, pushed to its logical conclusion, it calls for the abolition of profit; or how workers co-ops prefigure the socialist relations of production, demonstrating that production could be organised under workers democracy and the surplus used for mutual benefit.

[synthesis]

Since those are "transitional demands," and therefore not considered possible in capitalism, why not just call for revolution and skip the electoralism?

[Hit The North]

It's not about electoralism and it's not about "calling for revolution", it's about struggle.

[synthesis]

It's not about electoralism and it's not about "calling for revolution", it's about struggle.

How wonderfully vague.

[Hit The North]

How wonderfully vague.

How wonderfully evasive.

But if you think that between electoralism and abstract calls for revolution there is nothing but vagueness then you'd be right at home in the SPGB.

Meanwhile, I can direct you to some dictionary definitions of "struggle" so that you have the mental tools that will enable you to come up with a more informed response :rolleyes:

[The Idler]

How wonderfully evasive.

But if you think that between electoralism and abstract calls for revolution there is nothing but vagueness then you'd be right at home in the SPGB.

Meanwhile, I can direct you to some dictionary definitions of "struggle" so that you have the mental tools that will enable you to come up with a more informed response :rolleyes:
Perhaps you can tell us if the biggest labor dispute in Canadian history counts as struggle? Or shying away from any kind of struggle?

[Blake's Baby]

Hmmm. You're on dodgy ground there, Idler. The SPC was, as far as I can tell, notably absent from 'the biggest labour dispute in Canadian history'. I know the SPC refers to it now, but if you go here: http://www.worldsocialism.org/canada/ and specifically to this section (p29-31):

Winnipeg General Strike
The fright engendered by the Russian revolution gave fuel to the terror activity.
Nearly every action of an industrial or political character engaged in by workers to protect or improve their conditions of existence was seen as evidence of an overall plan to impose Bolshevism on the country. This attitude blanketed the cause and purpose of the Winnipeg strike of 1919.
There was undoubtedly an overall plan operating in the country, but it had nothing to do with Bolshevism. With the ending of the war and the return of tens of thousands of soldiers to civilian life, the employing class saw in the resulting clamor for jobs an opportunity to destroy the trade union hold established on industry during the war years. The strike started in the metal trades, the workers struggling to protect the right of collective bargaining. The general strike was a sympathy strike, the workers in other industries believing that what was happening to the metal workers would soon be happening to them. The employers used the Bolshevik bogey to weaken the workers’ position and increase official concern, actual and fraudulent. The strike, so went the pretence, was not a strike but a revolution.
The crusade was so successful that the strike was soon broken, a large number of those favoring or taking part in it being arrested, the eight “strike leaders” sent to prison on charges that included “seditious conspiracy to overthrow the state”.
At this point an interesting comparison may be noted. W. A. Pritchard, one of the “conspirators”, said at the trail:
“As I stand here before you in this court, my mind travels to the 17th of February, in the year 1600, when Giordano Bruno offered his life, bound to the stake in the flower market of Rome, because of his scientific analysis of the then known world; because he followed his intellectual master Copernicus and had declared in certain writings that the earth was not geocentric; that the earth was not the center of the solar system, but the sun. Of course, he had taken these findings and levelled them against the superstition and ignorance of his day, and because of that fact we find him bound to a stake on the 17th of February, in the year 1600, in the flower market of Rome”
( W. A. Pritchard’s Address to the Jury, Winnipeg, p. 4).
R. B. Russell (another of the “conspirators”) said:
“A torch applied to a green field may not be likely to cause a fire, yet when the grass is ripe and dry a spark may cause a conflagration. Just so, words spoken in privacy or during a quarrel, or in the heat of the moment, or in normal times, may be unlikely to have a seditious effect, and may be overlooked; yet when spoken in times of stress and in more public places, may be likely to cause such discontent, hostility and disturbance as to be seditious. If the words spoken or published are seditious, it is no defence that they are true, and evidence to prove the truth is inadmissible”
(The Winnipeg General Sympathetic Strike, Winnipeg, p. 238).
The Socialist Party was in no way involved in the strike. Yet five of the eight imprisoned were members of the Party [16] and numerous quotations from Party literature and correspondence were used in the trials to establish that the strike was the work of the devil. The onslaught against collective bargaining was not considered.
On July, 1920 the Western Clarion reported Armstrong’s election to the Manitoba legislature. Russell also ran and was eliminated on the 37th count.
As noted earlier, the Party had never been an advocate of violence. It look to the soap box in numerous elections and never mistook broken bricks for political power. In the free speech police riots before the war more police were injured falling over their own feet than from counter-attacks by their victims. The nearest the Party came in concession to violence was stated in the Manifesto:
“Political action we define as any action taken by the slave class against the master class to obtain control of the powers of state, or by the master class to retain control, using these powers to secure them in the means of life.
In one country it may be the ballot, in another the mass strike, in a third insurrection. These matters will be determined and dictated by the exigencies of time and place”
(Manifesto of the Socialist Party of Canada, p. 39, 1920 edition).
But violence was all around: the slaughter in Europe, the persecution at home, the Russian upheaval and the war against Bolshevism, all these and revolts exploding in one country and another caused many to believe a reassessment of Party views was necessary. Particularly was it felt that a parliamentary transition from capitalism to Socialism was no longer believable. The rapid road of civil war, which the Bolsheviks claimed was imminent throughout the capitalist world and which, with the proper leadership, would end in victory for the workers, appealed to them. They became converts to the Bolshevik road to revolution.
The concern of Lenin and his associates with events outside Russia was quite clear. They believed the victory in Russia could only be maintained by the rise to power of the workers of other countries and they devoted much time encouraging the workers to travel the Bolshevik road. This led to efforts by them to gain control of the workers’ movement.
Bolshevik theory and the “need” to establish a “dictatorship of the proletariat” patterned after the one in Russia, became regular fare in the Western Clarion. But the discussion was not one-sided. There were those in the Party who, though strongly sympathetic to the revolution in Russia, were not sold on the idea that a dictatorship of the proletariat was either necessary or desirable. They insisted that the course followed by the Party was still proper in a country where, they insisted, the proletariat had not reached revolutionary consciousness. In this vein J. A. McDonald wrote:
“Instead of hollering ourselves hoarse about the virtues of mass action that can do something spectacular, and not understand why we do it, let us work in the sphere in which we find ourselves and teach Socialism to others of our class” (Western Clarion, November 16, 1920).
Note
[16] G. Armstrong, R. Bray, R. J. Jones, W. A. Pritchard, R. B. Russell.

If you look at the section I emboldened, it seems that the SPC was quite clear that the strike was a pretext for the state's repression against the SPC when in fact, the SPC wasn't involved.

[The Idler]

Ok, but its wrong to say 'impossibilists' or the SPGB shy away from any kind of struggle. I seem to remember the 'International Socialist' tradition arguing the Miners Strike in 1984 was part of a downturn in class struggle whereas the SPGB were supporting it.

[Tim Cornelis]

A call for revolution does not correspond to the level of consciousness amongst the working class. Class struggle needs to correspond to exactly that. If the Seattle Solidarity Network had made calls for anarchist revolution, they would still have seven members. Now that they are pushing for minimum demands, they have 150 members and 400 additional people they can call upon. Small, but larger than seven or a dozen.

[Hit The North]

Ok, but its wrong to say 'impossibilists' or the SPGB shy away from any kind of struggle. I seem to remember the 'International Socialist' tradition arguing the Miners Strike in 1984 was part of a downturn in class struggle whereas the SPGB were supporting it.

The Miners Strike of 84 did take place during a downturn from the high-water mark of the mid 1970s - as evidenced by the lack of solidarity action from power workers and others. Nevertheless, the SWP put all its energy and much of its resources into the miners support groups and its members agitated vociferously in their own unions for the importance of solidarity action. I remember standing shoulder to shoulder with comrades from the Militant Tendency, Socialist Action, Socialist Organiser and Workers Power. I don't recall seeing anyone from the SPGB. Then again, I wasn't active in Lambeth.

[synthesis]

How wonderfully evasive.

But if you think that between electoralism and abstract calls for revolution there is nothing but vagueness then you'd be right at home in the SPGB.

Meanwhile, I can direct you to some dictionary definitions of "struggle" so that you have the mental tools that will enable you to come up with a more informed response :rolleyes:

Evasive? What point did I evade? You still haven't answered this question:


Since those are "transitional demands," and therefore not considered possible in capitalism, why not just call for revolution and skip the electoralism?

Responding by simply saying "it's about struggle" is just lazy. I'm aware of the various definitions of the word "struggle"; I'm asking for your definition.

And how is participating in bourgeois democratic elections not electoralism? That's not just a rhetorical question.

[synthesis]

A call for revolution does not correspond to the level of consciousness amongst the working class. Class struggle needs to correspond to exactly that. If the Seattle Solidarity Network had made calls for anarchist revolution, they would still have seven members. Now that they are pushing for minimum demands, they have 150 members and 400 additional people they can call upon. Small, but larger than seven or a dozen.

Great, they've gotten slightly less marginal by taking on aspects of social democracy. What was your point again?

[Blake's Baby]

Possiblism rocks, I think.

As you can tell from the last 140 yers of the socialist movement. We're so totally nearly not living capitalism now. Just one push, comrades! Just one more reform and the capitalists will finally roll over and give up!

[Tim Cornelis]

Great, they've gotten slightly less marginal by taking on aspects of social democracy. What was your point again?

That now there are 150 anarchists and people whom believe something like anarchism, as opposed to a dozen, in the Seattle area. And an additional 400 sympathisers. A workers' revolution will contain immediatist elements which gives rise to the need for a vanguard party that pushes beyond them toward communism. The precondition for a vanguard party is that it has a sufficient size to reach the masses of workers in the organs of workers' power to be, to connect to them, and for them to be elevated to the bilateral leadership of the revolution and thereby increase its chances of success. Now, SeaSol may be slightly less marginal but if we look at Abahlali baseMjondolo, advancing a "living communism", it has grown to a mass movement of tens of thousands of card carrying members and sympathisers, with great influence, because of the adoption of "aspects of social-democracy" (e.g. land and housing reform). Meanwhile, left-communists in RSA are, if I may make a wild estimate, below a dozen.
Ultra-leftism, with its refusal to adjust their methods of class struggle to the level of class consciousness and the level of class struggle by the working class at large, condemns itself to play no role whatsoever in the revolution. Which is unfortunate, because it allows bourgeois-socialists (e.g. Marxist-Leninists) to become the leadership and possibly direct the revolution in directions contrary to the actual realisation of communist society. In other words, it condemns itself to scream hysterically at the sidelines at how the revolution is being defeated from the inside without possessing the means or tools to do anything about it. Left-communism, my point is, may as well abolish itself.


Possiblism rocks, I think.

As you can tell from the last 140 yers of the socialist movement. We're so totally nearly not living capitalism now. Just one push, comrades! Just one more reform and the capitalists will finally roll over and give up!

Despite the abysmal state of the revolutionary left, left-communists are still worse off. So if you feel the need to ridicule the "possibilist" left (which is not the same as reformism as you seem to imply) then you might need to reflect on the praxis of left-communism (insofar it even warrants the name praxis).

[Blake's Baby]

Come on, Tim.

What do you think Left Comms should be doing? We don't exactly 'recruit'. The fact that we're tiny is a reflection of the state of the class struggle; the lack of the class struggle isn't a reflection of the tiny size of Left Comm groups. Selling papers doesn't make a revolution.

[synthesis]

Come on, Tim.

What do you think Left Comms should be doing? We don't exactly 'recruit'. The fact that we're tiny is a reflection of the state of the class struggle; the lack of the class struggle isn't a reflection of the tiny size of Left Comm groups. Selling papers doesn't make a revolution.

Left-communists should "abolish themselves," apparently, rather than stick to their principles.


That now there are 150 anarchists and people whom believe something like anarchism, as opposed to a dozen, in the Seattle area.

:lol:

The numbers are meaningless anyway if the group is composed of glorified social democrats. What an idealist conception of revolution - that it depends on revolutionaries having the "correct line" rather than there being the proper conditions for revolution.

[Tim Cornelis]

Come on, Tim.

What do you think Left Comms should be doing? We don't exactly 'recruit'. The fact that we're tiny is a reflection of the state of the class struggle; the lack of the class struggle isn't a reflection of the tiny size of Left Comm groups. Selling papers doesn't make a revolution.

Hence why the SeaSol example is useful. The state of class struggle in Seattle is not particularly impressive, yet SeaSol made headways. If the state of class struggle improves they may manage to exponentially grow because they already have a network to draw support from and have already made a name of sorts for themselves. The two left-communists in the Seattle area would have nothing and would not, even if the state of class struggle improves, be able to attract workers to communism. Hence, left-communism is condemned to the sidelines.
So no, the the lack of the class struggle isn't a reflection of the tiny size of left-communist groups, but that's not what I'm claiming, nor that selling papers will make revolution. What communists need to do now is prepare for the improvement of the state of class struggle, to 'capitalise' on it when it happens.

[synthesis]

Hence why the SeaSol example is useful. The state of class struggle in Seattle is not particularly impressive, yet SeaSol made headways.

Headways in what, exactly? The number of people in support of left-liberal reforms? I don't think they're exactly in short supply in Seattle.

You don't seem to recognize that when an organization takes on social democratic politics it attracts people with social democratic politics which then changes the character of the organization. Hence in the class struggle, two left-communists with working class politics are worth two thousand "anarchists" with bourgeois politics.

[Blake's Baby]

... What communists need to do now is prepare for the improvement of the state of class struggle, to 'capitalise' on it when it happens.

I agree; but they don't do that by becoming social-democrats. That's a way to neutralise themselves. You talk of the communist left functionally 'abolishing itself' through its own irrelevence or sterility or some such, but don't see that a greater danger is liquidating itself into social democracy.

I'm sorry, but I completely agree with synthsis here: what use to the working class are 150 social democrats, who think they're Anarchists?

[Q]

How wonderfully vague.
While off topic, I'll just reply to this. It's only vague because you don't understand the Trotskyist narrative.

The narrative goes something like this: The working class mainly/only learns from waging struggle. Therefore, revolutionaries need to "agitate, agitate, agitate" to radicalise workers so they go on strike and other forms of militant action. If workers strike long enough, the power question comes into play as a literal complete standstill of society is wholly unacceptable (electricity needs to keep running, hospitals need to have some sort of operational capability, etc).

This is the "sweet spot" Trotskyists want to achieve: If workers only strike long enough and universally enough, this strike opens a political vacuum in which the varying Trotskyists groups then hope to be able to jump in and form a mass revolutionary party, virtually overnight.

Workers then universalise their temporal power structures via the workers council paradigm. In the mean time the Trotskyists in power will nationalise large swats of the economy. Presto! We have socialism.

Or so the narrative goes.

In reality, things simply do not work this way. I've already explained that here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618), so I won't repeat.

[synthesis]

While off topic, I'll just reply to this. It's only vague because you don't understand the Trotskyist narrative.

I'm pretty sure I understand why Trotskyists think it's important that they participate in bourgeois elections. But if it would help things semantically, what if I rephrased the question as such:


Since those are "transitional demands," and therefore not considered possible in capitalism, why not just agitate for revolution and skip the electoralism?

Do you think that would be more conducive to a more concrete answer?

[Tim Cornelis]

Left-communists should "abolish themselves," apparently, rather than stick to their principles.

Principles are meaningless.


:lol:

The numbers are meaningless anyway if the group is composed of glorified social democrats. What an idealist conception of revolution - that it depends on revolutionaries having the "correct line" rather than there being the proper conditions for revolution.

By what account are they "glorified social-democrats"? According to one of the initiators of SeaSol the members are either anarchists or something like anarchists. And again, you are not arguing against my actual position. I don't hold that the conditions for revolution depend on adherence to any particular ideology. I argue that while the conditions for revolution are beyond our control, we should prepare for a revolutionary situation by recruiting communist militants so we can deploy them in the revolution in a vanguardist fashion (steering away from bourgeois-socialist and immediatist elements).


Headways in what, exactly? The number of people in support of left-liberal reforms? I don't think they're exactly in short supply in Seattle.

You don't seem to recognize that when an organization takes on social democratic politics it attracts people with social democratic politics which then changes the character of the organization. Hence in the class struggle, two left-communists with working class politics are worth two thousand "anarchists" with bourgeois politics.

And what are those two left-communists are going to do in a revolution? Nothing, because they have no disposal over anything useful. In contrast, an anarchist organisation of two thousand people can use organisation, agitation, and education to steer clear of damaging elements in the revolution. Your definition of "social democrats" or "left-liberals" seems to be, "anyone who does anything under capitalism involving class struggling whilst not in a revolutionary situation." In which case I don't see any use in furthering a discussion so irrelevant.


I agree; but they don't do that by becoming social-democrats. That's a way to neutralise themselves. You talk of the communist left functionally 'abolishing itself' through its own irrelevence or sterility or some such, but don't see that a greater danger is liquidating itself into social democracy.

I'm sorry, but I completely agree with synthsis here: what use to the working class are 150 social democrats, who think they're Anarchists?

How does it become social-democracy if waging struggle for immediate demands turns workers into supporters of a classless society achieved through class struggle? If doing anything involving class struggle without there being a revolutionary situation turns one social-democrat, then you do not agree, because what you propose necessarily involves sitting around nothing nothing but writing meaningless polemics against Stalinists until a revolutionary situation arises in which you can do exactly nothing but write polemics against Stalinists again because you do not possess any tools to meaningfully participate in revolution (except for you to join the two thousand anarchists).

You sideline yourself, and in doing so, you might as well abolish yourselves.

[Thirsty Crow]

You sideline yourself, and in doing so, you might as well abolish yourselves.
Just to comment briefly on this whole issue of intervention.

I think it's better to sideline yourself (the org) if 1) it is tiny, and thus incapable of meaningful intervention, b) if it is a hodgepodge of confused political ideas (political development necessary), and c) if there doesn't exist a clear conception of the kind of intervention the org wants to conduct, connected to d) the org being disconnected from the class

All of these are immense tasks. Thus, one can definitely lay blame on the existing revolutionary currents for gross errors, but it is also necessary to recognize the scope of the task at hand. But in principle, I agree that the position "carrier of the flame" is completely useless and that, ultimately, a group which doesn't tend towards its constitution as a political organization might as well bite the dust. Though, I didn't follow the discussion so I do not claim that Tim's points about left comms actually stand.

[Q]

I'm pretty sure I understand why Trotskyists think it's important that they participate in bourgeois elections. But if it would help things semantically, what if I rephrased the question as such:



Do you think that would be more conducive to a more concrete answer?
Fair enough. Parliamentary politics really just fit hand in glove with the narrative I put in my last post: Parliament gives a great platform for agitation.

Does that answer your question?

[synthesis]

Principles are meaningless.

Apparently so.


By what account are they "glorified social-democrats"? According to one of the initiators of SeaSol the members are either anarchists or something like anarchists. And again, you are not arguing against my actual position. I don't hold that the conditions for revolution depend on adherence to any particular ideology. I argue that while the conditions for revolution are beyond our control, we should prepare for a revolutionary situation by recruiting communist militants so we can deploy them in the revolution in a vanguardist fashion (steering away from bourgeois-socialist and immediatist elements).

How are you going to steer away from bourgeois-socialist elements by gaining adherents through the promotion of bourgeois-socialist politics like "minimum demands"?


And what are those two left-communists are going to do in a revolution? Nothing, because they have no disposal over anything useful. In contrast, an anarchist organisation of two thousand people can use organisation, agitation, and education to steer clear of damaging elements in the revolution.

An anarchist organization that considers "revolutionary activity" to be simply asking for "minimum demands" from the bourgeois state? Don't you realize how self-defeating this is?


How does it become social-democracy if waging struggle for immediate demands turns workers into supporters of a classless society achieved through class struggle?

By arguing for "minimum demands" you accrue the most people with minimum expectations.


If doing anything involving class struggle without there being a revolutionary situation turns one social-democrat,

Impressively disingenuous. Class struggle does not require vanguardism and never has. (The simple fact that there have been organizations ready and willing to take advantage of revolutionary conditions for their own ends is not evidence of necessity.)

[synthesis]

Fair enough. Parliamentary politics really just fit hand in glove with the narrative I put in my last post: Parliament gives a great platform for agitation.

Does that answer your question?

Well, no, not really. It doesn't justify using "transitional demands" as an excuse to participate in electoral politics rather than focusing on directly agitating within the working class.

[Thirsty Crow]

How are you going to steer away from bourgeois-socialist elements by gaining adherents through the promotion of bourgeois-socialist politics like "minimum demands"?I'm confused. What kind of minimum demands are we talking about?

The fact is that when class struggle gets rollin there indeed will be minimum demands formulated by workers themselves. Minimum from the standpoint of communism, that is. One cannot simply discard this. And I believe that this needs to be pressed on and fought for, and that when workers in struggle actually formulate these, it is impossible to talk about a bourgeois socialist minimum demands. If the organizations draws up wonderful programs and demands on its own, dissecting and speculating on what juicy minimum demands can be derived from the conditions of specific working class strata, then it's another matter. The point is to participate as communists and workers in the formation of needs, formulation of demands and the conduct of struggle.

I can see no other way to intervene actually. And by doing this, it seems to me that there are two broad options:

1) the constitution of a workers' party - contesting election, explicitly aiming to legislate (some) of these minimum demands. I'm totally opposed to this.

2) severely pressuring existing, nominally, left of center parties to legislate against their will so to speak, maybe through contacts with some party sections which would first see this as necessary. This presupposes high class militancy and escalating struggle.

[Blake's Baby]

... one can definitely lay blame on the existing revolutionary currents for gross errors, but it is also necessary to recognize the scope of the task at hand. But in principle, I agree that the position "carrier of the flame" is completely useless and that, ultimately, a group which doesn't tend towards its constitution as a political organization might as well bite the dust. Though, I didn't follow the discussion so I do not claim that Tim's points about left comms actually stand.

Tim's criticisms definitely stand. Pretty much all Left-Comm groups are very isolated from the class (BC, and possibly the ICC in France, are probably the only groups that one could say have some kind 'real' existence in the class). His solutions however, are not a recipe for anything other than a return to social democracy.

'Principles are meaningless'. Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes...

“The final goal, whatever it may be, is nothing to me: the movement is everything!”

[Thirsty Crow]

Tim's criticisms definitely stand. Pretty much all Left-Comm groups are very isolated from the class (BC, and possibly the ICC in France, are probably the only groups that one could say have some kind 'real' existence in the class). His solutions however, are not a recipe for anything other than a return to social democracy.

'Principles are meaningless'. Where have I heard that before? Ah, yes...

“The final goal, whatever it may be, is nothing to me: the movement is everything!”
I don't think you're being quite fair to Tim. It seems to me that their position is that principles are meaningless when the organization is meaningless - ergo, closed in on itself, isolated, devoted to carrying the flame of the programme. Tim's quite right in that.

[Hit The North]

Evasive? What point did I evade? You still haven't answered this question:


By constantly collapsing "struggle" into "electoralism" (which is what you have done in this thread) you are either being evasive or disingenuous.


Responding by simply saying "it's about struggle" is just lazy. I'm aware of the various definitions of the word "struggle"; I'm asking for your definition.I don't have any obligation to work hard for you, if that's what you think :grin:. If you meant to ask for my definition you should have done just that: asked me. As to what I think it is, depends on the tasks facing the class. At the moment it is working hard to mobilise against the bosses austerity program which could be anything from organising inside my union for higher wages and resisting attacks on our conditions; organising solidarity for other workers in struggle; or organising locally against evictions on the basis of the bedroom tax.


And how is participating in bourgeois democratic elections not electoralism? That's not just a rhetorical question.
Well simply electoralism is the strategic assumption that socialism can be voted in through participation in bourgeoios elections. This is different to using bourgeois elections tactically to gain a platform (which is what the SPGB do and TUSC do, etc.).

But I haven't advocated participation in bourgeois elections so I don't know why you are tasking me with providing a justification.

[Thirsty Crow]

By constantly collapsing "struggle" into "electoralism" (which is what you have done in this thread) you are either being evasive or disingenuous.
To be honest, I do think that a myriad of existing leftist orgs either actually do that or exhibit a clear tendency towards this. (that is why I put 1) in the post above). I think that the latter ("tendency towards") is already contained in the stubborn, non-reflected practice of gaining platform you speak of in the rest of your post.

[Hit The North]

To be honest, I do think that a myriad of existing leftist orgs either actually do that or exhibit a clear tendency towards this. (that is why I put 1) in the post above). I think that the latter ("tendency towards") is already contained in the stubborn, non-reflected practice of gaining platform you speak of in the rest of your post.

Sure, and, ironically, this is a tendency that comes to the fore in times of low class struggle.

[Tim Cornelis]

Apparently so.

How are you going to steer away from bourgeois-socialist elements by gaining adherents through the promotion of bourgeois-socialist politics like "minimum demands"?


An anarchist organization that considers "revolutionary activity" to be simply asking for "minimum demands" from the bourgeois state? Don't you realize how self-defeating this is?


By arguing for "minimum demands" you accrue the most people with minimum expectations.

Organisation around minimum demands + education around maximum demands + agitation for class struggle = communist militant.

Minimum demands are recruiting and retention tool, which allows for a platform for education. Additionally, one could apply a duality in the movement: a broad solidarity network of workers promoting general working class militancy on the one hand and a cadre of communist militants with a proper understanding of class struggle, etc., on the other within the same federation. Similar to CNT-FAI (though not identical).


Impressively disingenuous. Class struggle does not require vanguardism and never has. (The simple fact that there have been organizations ready and willing to take advantage of revolutionary conditions for their own ends is not evidence of necessity.)

I never said class struggle requires vanguardism, I said that vanguardism is a useful tool to curtail bourgeois and immediatist tendencies amongst the general working class population (having been brought up and conditioned by bourgeois society). Rather, the fact that there have been organisations ready and willing to take advantage of revolutionary conditions for their own ends (the bourgeois-socialist opportunists), to me, proves that we need an organisation capable of competing with the bourgeois-socialist opportunists for political hegemony in organs of workers' power -- in other words, a vanguard party steering the organs of workers' power away from bourgeois, substitutionist, and immediatist tendencies.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Imposibilist are those who think that parlamentary action cannot bring socialism.

No they aren't. The term Impossibililism usually refers to the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The party is opposed to self-described socialist parties they see as to the right of them who are not concerned with any idea of workers revolution, but they are also parliamentarians. They believe that full communism can be achieved democratically if Socialism wins a majority in parliament.
They get some things right, mainly that they are concerned with structural changes rather than individual reforms, but they also get a lot wrong in thinking that communism can be created with existing governments through parliament.
Too loosely paraphrase Marx from memory, "The experience of the Paris Commune has shown us that the proletariat cannot use the existing bourgeois states to establish socialism."

[Hit The North]

They get some things right, mainly that they are concerned with structural changes rather than individual reforms, but they also get a lot wrong in think that communism can be created with existing governments by parliamentary means.

I largely agree with your description of impossibilism but I think it is worth stressing that I don't know of any Marxist organisation which isn't concerned with structural change rather than narrow reforms, so what the SPGB gets right is what the majority of self-describing Marxist organisations get right.

[The Idler]

No they aren't. The term Impossibililism usually refers to the Socialist Party of Great Britain. The party is opposed to self-described socialist parties they see as to the right of them who are not concerned with any idea of workers revolution, but they are also parliamentarians. They believe that full communism can be achieved democratically if Socialism wins a majority in parliament.
They get some things right, mainly that they are concerned with structural changes rather than individual reforms, but they also get a lot wrong in thinking that communism can be created with existing governments through parliament.
Too loosely paraphrase Marx from memory, "The experience of the Paris Commune has shown us that the proletariat cannot use the existing bourgeois states to establish socialism."
The SPGB are not parliamentarians, the statement above sounds like the only criteria is a majority in parliament or creating communism with existing governments through parliament which is doubly wrong. The SPGB do not fetishise abstentionism and on SPGB terms, the SPGB is not left-wing either.

[synthesis]

I'm confused. What kind of minimum demands are we talking about?

I was under the impression that "minimum demands" meant something that could be just as easily achieved through social democracy. Is this wrong?

[Q]

I was under the impression that "minimum demands" meant something that could be just as easily achieved through social democracy. Is this wrong?
This is a very rightwing deviation of the original definition and a common misconception for this reason. Marx used this (for example in the programme of the Parti Ouvrier (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htm)) as demands which individually could be concretely fought for under capitalism but which would all weaken the position of the state and/or the capitalist class and strengthen the position of the working class. Engels later made the point (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1891/06/29.htm) that this part of the programme is responsible for bringing the working class to power through the democratic republic.

[Thirsty Crow]

I was under the impression that "minimum demands" meant something that could be just as easily achieved through social democracy. Is this wrong?
The point is not to counterpose minimum demands to communism, but to see how does the proletariat conduct political class struggle - political in then sense of fighting for improvements for the class (e.g. minimum wage and so on). This can only be brought about by legislation.

As I outlined the problem, I believe there are two ways of doing that. I advocate one of them.

Another problem is that the aspect of this question which is simply forgotten when this dichotomy is posed (minimum demands - communism) is the way these demands are formed in the first place, by workers in the course of generalized struggles or by political organizations with weak links with the class (weak at best).

And do not misconstrue this as endorsing what Q says of this part of the programme bringing the class to power through the "democratic republic". This is only a pipe dream and a significant deviation if there ever was an example to justify this term (or better yet, this is electoralism proper).

Basically, I repeated everything I said so far.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

They get some things right, mainly that they are concerned with structural changes rather than individual reforms, but they also get a lot wrong in thinking that communism can be created with existing governments through parliament.

To clarify, the SPGB do not think that communism can be created with existing governments through parliament. They support the use of the democratic process as a measure of support for a socialist society. Communism will be created by the people, not by a party. Indeed, government, parliament and the SPGB would cease to exist once a socialist society was achieved.

[Brotto Rühle]

To clarify, the SPGB do not think that communism can be created with existing governments through parliament. They support the use of the democratic process as a measure of support for a socialist society. Communism will be created by the people, not by a party. Indeed, government, parliament and the SPGB would cease to exist once a socialist society was achieved.
And not at 49% or 50% support. Has to be 51%+.

[AmilcarCabral]

Blake is right, the left of USA, specially the left-communists are not to blame at all for poor low-wage americans with economic problems, who are billed to death, taxed to death and stressed to death for not supporting leftist parties.

Most poor americans still have a "Do it yourself" "self service" worldview, in which poverty, wealth and every thing in their real world is caused by their own selves. That "self service" worldview is responsable for americans resorting to Garage Sales instead of resorting to political activism to get out of poverty.

Besides most US workers are very anti-union, anti-politics, and scared of politics, many workers of right-wing corporations like Wal Mart, Mcdonalds, etc. are scared of being party of any leftist organization because those right-wing corporations might fire them.

Another thing I've noticed is that in America most people put a sort of psychologic shield and wall that prevents outsiders and strangers from talking to them. And it might even be harder for communists to go around people's houses like the mormons and other protestant denomination missioners to around people's houses to talk with people about the economy and the socialist solution and alternative. So given the reality that there are many populist ultra-right wing options in America for poor americans like the libertarian organizations, and given the reality that libertarianism is very compatible with the individualist egocentric USA way of life, it might be real hard to spread socialist knowledge to the general population of the USA who are very far away ideologically from socialism





Come on, Tim.

What do you think Left Comms should be doing? We don't exactly 'recruit'. The fact that we're tiny is a reflection of the state of the class struggle; the lack of the class struggle isn't a reflection of the tiny size of Left Comm groups. Selling papers doesn't make a revolution.

[Mytan Fadeseasy]

And not at 49% or 50% support. Has to be 51%+.

I don't think that the democratic process will be the only mechanism for change. It will be a useful measure for gauging support, but I suspect that once class consciousness reaches a critical level, the current system will be swept away with or without a vote.

[TheEmancipator]

Would impossibilists actively encourage the downgrading of working class conditions in order to quicken the revolutionary process. Are they the opposite of workerism.

[AmilcarCabral]

Dear Comrade: YOU ARE 100% CORRECT about the real-world, compared to the utopian world that exists in the minds of many leftists, who believe in that socialism will come automatically, and that in the near future most US low-wage workers will automatically convert themselves to communists, to marxists. The real world in America is not like that, I think that in the brains of most american poor people, of most workers exists this idea that poverty is caused by themselves not having a college degree, and that because university professions like medical science, architecture, law, etc. are so expensive the workers coming from poor low-income families, have no solution out of their poverty, and that they have to suck up that reality, live with it, accept it. And that even though workers in USA heard of socialism have heard of The Soviet Union, have heard of Hugo Chavez, and have heard of The Cuban Revolution and have heard of Karl Marx. They are just crazy sects, and that Marx wasn't a real thinker, but a crazy lunatic like David Koresh.

And that most socialist experiments (Like USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc) are fascist nazi dictatorships with everybody driving the same car, wearing the same clothes and eating very little, concentration camps, military dictatorships, and zero freedom.

And that the only way to get out of poverty is thru college degrees, but like I said poor americans (blacks, whites, latinos, asians, american indians etc) feel ultra-negative, internalize that nihilism and that leads to all sorts of rebellious behaviour against their neighbors, against their own society in which they live. Negative behaviour patterns like anger, depression, social phobia, mysanthropy, shyness, alcoholism, drug addiction etc.

I don't wanna sound ultra-pessimist, but this is the way I analyze and see the thinking of most poor people in USA (That college degrees, or creating a small business is the only way to get out of poverty, and that Marx was a crazy lunatic cultist, and that Cuba, USSR and North Korea are dictatorships like Nazi Germany) and that we have to suck up this reality of poverty. Because Bill Gates, Donald Trump, The Rockefeller Family went to a college, worked hard and created their billions of dollars from scratch. And that we poor americans should imitate them and buy economics self-help books like "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill as the only real way to get out of poverty

Maybe an extreme hyper-inflation in USA where gasoline would rise to 25 dollars per gallon and the pound of chicken rising to 15 dollars a lb. might wake up americans from that Ayn Rand "Do it your self" "You are on your own" and "Socialism failed" negative mental viruses


.



While off topic, I'll just reply to this. It's only vague because you don't understand the Trotskyist narrative.

The narrative goes something like this: The working class mainly/only learns from waging struggle. Therefore, revolutionaries need to "agitate, agitate, agitate" to radicalise workers so they go on strike and other forms of militant action. If workers strike long enough, the power question comes into play as a literal complete standstill of society is wholly unacceptable (electricity needs to keep running, hospitals need to have some sort of operational capability, etc).

This is the "sweet spot" Trotskyists want to achieve: If workers only strike long enough and universally enough, this strike opens a political vacuum in which the varying Trotskyists groups then hope to be able to jump in and form a mass revolutionary party, virtually overnight.

Workers then universalise their temporal power structures via the workers council paradigm. In the mean time the Trotskyists in power will nationalise large swats of the economy. Presto! We have socialism.

Or so the narrative goes.

In reality, things simply do not work this way. I've already explained that here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6618), so I won't repeat.

[The Idler]

And not at 49% or 50% support. Has to be 51%+.
Will you be the 1%?

Would impossibilists actively encourage the downgrading of working class conditions in order to quicken the revolutionary process. Are they the opposite of workerism.
No, we're not stupid. It doesn't work either.

Dear Comrade: YOU ARE 100% CORRECT about the real-world, compared to the utopian world that exists in the minds of many leftists, who believe in that socialism will come automatically, and that in the near future most US low-wage workers will automatically convert themselves to communists, to marxists. The real world in America is not like that, I think that in the brains of most american poor people, of most workers exists this idea that poverty is caused by themselves not having a college degree, and that because university professions like medical science, architecture, law, etc. are so expensive the workers coming from poor low-income families, have no solution out of their poverty, and that they have to suck up that reality, live with it, accept it. And that even though workers in USA heard of socialism have heard of The Soviet Union, have heard of Hugo Chavez, and have heard of The Cuban Revolution and have heard of Karl Marx. They are just crazy sects, and that Marx wasn't a real thinker, but a crazy lunatic like David Koresh.

And that most socialist experiments (Like USSR, Cuba, North Korea etc) are fascist nazi dictatorships with everybody driving the same car, wearing the same clothes and eating very little, concentration camps, military dictatorships, and zero freedom.

And that the only way to get out of poverty is thru college degrees, but like I said poor americans (blacks, whites, latinos, asians, american indians etc) feel ultra-negative, internalize that nihilism and that leads to all sorts of rebellious behaviour against their neighbors, against their own society in which they live. Negative behaviour patterns like anger, depression, social phobia, mysanthropy, shyness, alcoholism, drug addiction etc.

I don't wanna sound ultra-pessimist, but this is the way I analyze and see the thinking of most poor people in USA (That college degrees, or creating a small business is the only way to get out of poverty, and that Marx was a crazy lunatic cultist, and that Cuba, USSR and North Korea are dictatorships like Nazi Germany) and that we have to suck up this reality of poverty. Because Bill Gates, Donald Trump, The Rockefeller Family went to a college, worked hard and created their billions of dollars from scratch. And that we poor americans should imitate them and buy economics self-help books like "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill as the only real way to get out of poverty

Maybe an extreme hyper-inflation in USA where gasoline would rise to 25 dollars per gallon and the pound of chicken rising to 15 dollars a lb. might wake up americans from that Ayn Rand "Do it your self" "You are on your own" and "Socialism failed" negative mental viruses


.
Basically you're echoing Lenin's rejection of the core Marxian principle. As Lenin stated
“If Socialism can only be realised when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not get Socialism for about 500 years”.

[Remus Bleys]

Basically you're echoing Lenin's rejection of the core Marxian principle. As Lenin stated
“If Socialism can only be realised when the intellectual development of all the people permits it, then we shall not get Socialism for about 500 years”.I fail to see how this is a rejection of a core marxian principle.