Membership dues

[Rafiq]

Though I do recognize their necessity, I can see quite well how they appear completely off putting to potential members of parties that demand a monthly fee. In this completely and absolutely commercialized world, it inspires feelings of cynicism and dishonesty. In a time where the Left can very well be called dead, do parties have any right whatsoever to demand membership dues, at this point? Should parties be looking for other sources of income?

Or, alternatively, request membership fees only after a certain amount of time you are active within the party.

[motion denied]

If parties do not demand a monthly fee, how will it sustain itself?

Selling papers, t-shirts, books etc are not sufficient.

However, at least here, parties receive some money from the government (talk about autonomy) and some just steal from the unions.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think there can be a second function of dues that can be really important (though, obviously, it doesn't always work out this way in practice). I think an organization financed through dues (rather than grants, patrons, or sales) has a greater incentive to remain accountable to its membership (since, obviously, its capacity is directly linked to the membership's thinking that capacity is worth ponying up for).
I think there's an interesting example in looking to the transformation of North American unions, in the way that closed-shop dues check-off schemes have made unions unresponsive to their rank and file. Unions that actually need to keep members active (and not just "paper") have been, historically, more militant, etc. (weird reactionary "we don't believe in closed shops" Christian pseudo-unions aside).

[PhoenixAsh]

Most organizations of the revleft in Holland have a membership due based on income. Members who can not afford any dues do not have to pay them and members who have a stable income can afford dues.

This system is not really checked....and is based on honesty of members. But it seems to work.

Although I do think there is a lot to say for TGDU's argument as well.

Strike supporting organizations also need strike cash in order to support members....

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I imagine the cynicism comes around when a well-meaning but not formally involved member of a left organisation (i.e someone who goes to a few meetings, volunteers at some stalls/events/paper selling) pays dues to a party that is run essentially by a small cabal of semi-permanent (bar the odd purge) full-timers through the auspices of 'democratic centralism'.

I have felt this cynicism too and it is very off-putting. I imagine that an organic grouping, of whatever size, that arose out of genuine modern-day struggle, that had relevancy and was not ruled by essentially a mini-dictatorship would inspire less cynicism when it comes to the time to talk about money.

If people can actually see, almost physically, the benefits of handing over their hard-earned wages to an institution, then I imagine not only are they more likely to do so, but they are more likely to view it as a positive experience and it may even encourage further direct political involvement.

[Remus Bleys]

I know this doesn't directly relate to the OP, but I really like this piece (http://www.sinistra.net/lib/upt/comlef/cotu/cotugdiboe.html). The point of it is that one always has to remember that a Party, Organization, whatever is a voluntary thing at its core. At the same time, one must consider that this organization exists for a specific purpose and that the membership are members solely for the benefit of achieving this goal. Communist organization shouldn't be a "career" but rather a "vocation."
The organization will need funding to operate as an organization, just as it needs a strong leadership as well as a powerful base at its core. The two need to act in a certain harmony, the center needing to understand that the base can leave at any time, that they are a voluntary group and that therefore the center must truly serve the goals of the organization. Simultaneously, the base can't lord over the center, the base has to act in a way that recognizes the leadership of the center - a clear, organized and unified action and theory that if an organization lacks will render it moot.
I do not think that membership fees are in any way a good or smart way of achieving this harmony. This is because that bases the organization off of a business, a sort of career where the base highers the center instead of it being a voluntary organization that accepts the Center's legitimacy. To turn this organization into a business is to turn it into a force that doesn't work for the good of the class nor for its goal, making it completely useless, instead it works to make that quick buck. It would put itself over the class.
All of this is recognized with the fact that money is a necessity in capitalism. So, I am inclined to agree with the sentiment that new members (which could be slowly introduced) or poor members are "exempt" from this.
Its a hard question, and the solution I think is the same solution to "how do you insure communist discipline without bureaucratism? How do you ensure that money is accounted for and factored in, without creating careerism?" Its not as simple as "transparency" or making the funding that the money goes to "open."

[The Idler]

If you're asking should membership dues be gotten rid of, then no.
Nor should some members have more of a say than others about where these dues go, it reeks of leaders.
An organised group does not need leaders, it does need transparency and openness and no internal bulletins, secret meetings etc.

[Prometeo liberado]

As much as there is an abundance of total nonsense within the PSL they do manage to deftly handle the dues issue quite well. Members were spoken to on an individual basis letting the cadre determine what they could pay. At least whilst I was there.

[Art Vandelay]

My experience within the CWI has bean great so far, as far as this is concerned. Due to the job I have (which I enjoy, but doesn't pay well), our section has been very understanding of the fact that I can only pay dues from time to time. That being said, when I do pay dues, I try to send out a decent sized sum, to make up for the months that I didn't pay anything. Or we find creative ways of me paying dues, as in funding my own trip to the states for example. I have also never been looked down upon or anything, since everyone in the organization is understanding of my situation. Not to mention that if anything, the organization has always been extremely generous, as far as funding trips to the international event in Belgium and things like that. Last year, despite never having paid dues, I received a 500$ cheque from the organization (which I ended up ripping up since I couldn't go) but would of covered some of my flight. I also think that if you know where the dues are going (ie: here in Canada we are working towards being able to fund a newspaper, we give money to the international, the south african and american section, etc) then you are more likely to want to contribute.

[The Idler]

The SPGB abolished dues not so long ago.

[Quail]

The dues I pay are on a sliding scale so I don't really pay a lot. I try to buy t-shirts every now and again and publications.

[Devrim]

Rafiq, have you ever been a member of a political organisation? They need money to operate, and short of growing a money tree, dues is where it comes from.

Quail, I think changing your name was a mistake.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

Rafiq, have you ever been a member of a political organisation? They need money to operate, and short of growing a money tree, dues is where it comes from.

Quail, I think changing your name was a mistake.

Devrim

I don't believe I posted anything that would allow you to infer that I do not know this. Of course they need money to operate, of course membership dues are at the moment the only form of sustainable income, I simply am talking about prescisely how they ask for them. When you want to join an organisation and you''re immediatly hit with what looks like a cheap subscription model for some weight loss program, it can be very off puting. Recognizing the honest intentions myself, for a worker who is only remotely class conscious this could induce a very cynical attitude about the whole thing.

[Rafiq]

Though how romantic it would be if circumstances allowed parties to obtain revenue through more creative means, as the Bolsheviks did around the time of their formation

[Iakovsko]

The operating costs of most parties, which are often also registered Non-Profit organizations, are dependent on dues. Take CPUSA for instance: Dues are as low as $2 per month, and as high as however much you'd like to donate. This money goes to help with national assemblies, classes, literature, education, running the website, etc. Do I think that people need to be members a certain amount of time before they are asked to pay? No, not really. Again, using CPUSA (as it's the group I'm currently affiliated with), there are 6 people paying $5 a month in dues in my state. I am the only active member, so our funds are handeled by our next nearest group, which is in California. They go to paying for Party leaders to come visit and speak (we usually draw some people, but no one sticks around), for sending me materials to hand out, etc. Personally, I think they should do away with a required amount and make it 100% donation driven. Just my two cents.

Solidarity,

Iakovsko

[Devrim]

I don't believe I posted anything that would allow you to infer that I do not know this.

Well yes, virtually everything you write leads me to infer that you don't know this.


I simply am talking about prescisely how they ask for them. When you want to join an organisation and you''re immediatly hit with what looks like a cheap subscription model for some weight loss program, it can be very off puting. Recognizing the honest intentions myself, for a worker who is only remotely class conscious this could induce a very cynical attitude about the whole thing.

I ask again, have you ever actually been a member of a political organisation?

Surely before people join a political organisation, they should be aware of what it involves. It does involve commitment, in more than just financial terms. If you are not aware of this, and you are just hit by "what looks like a cheap subscription model for some weight loss program", it would seem to me that it is an organisation that is recruiting virtually anybody who will join without there being any need for them to understand what being in a communist organisation means.

Of course some organisations operate like this;


The operating costs of most parties, which are often also registered Non-Profit organizations, are dependent on dues. Take CPUSA for instance: Dues are as low as $2 per month, and as high as however much you'd like to donate.
...
Again, using CPUSA (as it's the group I'm currently affiliated with), there are 6 people paying $5 a month in dues in my state.

The last political organisation I was a member of, the ICC in Turkey, had dues set at 5% of the members salary (corresponding to one working day per month). This is not particularly high in Turkey. Many organisations pay more. This means that a worker on minimum wage in Turkey would pay just over $25 a month. I don't think this is excessive. In my opinion paying $5 per month in the US is a joke.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

The reason I am reluctant in talking about whether I have been in an organisation... Is because I do not feel as though such an organisation is wholly reflective of my views. I don't want to identify with them. Since you are so inclined to ask, I am a member of the Detroit branch of SPUSA, because of its historical status, it's relative neutrality which allows broad discussion with other leftists of different stripes. Needless to say I am not impressed, and have a great many qualms with almost everything about it, in a way not unique to the SPUSA but communist organisations in the 21st century as a whole... Because of how relatively broad the spusa is, I feel like these problems are less significant.

Granted, it is the only organisation I have ever been in. I don't go to rallies and mainly just attend meetings. I think the problem with most organisations today is prescisely the necessity of being an intellectual. They are incapable of being a mass movement which attracts workers not based on commitment, but on immediate material necessity. The Bolsheviks were not some club that workers joined because they were intellectuals... They joined because the Bolsheviks were a sophisticated force of class struggle with real social application. This is something I've delved much deeper in, in previous posts. In short, organisations like the ICC, countless Trotskyist parties among almost all others are DISTINCTIVELY petite bourgeois in nature, NOT in the social composition of its membership but in the social nature of the organisation itself. A radical organisation should not be constituted on sound positions with no real application, but on tenets that constitute the organisation a real social force. How pathetic it is for so much drama - splits and purges to occur over things with no relevancy to the success of a movement, over things that have no real effect on anything. This should be damn obvious had not our counterparts not been blind by interpersonal dramas and fantasy riddled mental masterbation. That's why I joined something so neutral - we need movements, organisations like this. But hey, what do I know, I don't have any experience in 'real struggles', perhaps if I acquired some I could then sit beside you on your high horse to patronize some other poor sod unconvinced of the modern left's effectiveness, all the while our historical legacy... Tradition - our essence as Marxists is defiled by those in power.

[Rafiq]

Without appealing to the general masses and only those few highly specialized class conscious workers, you dig your own grave. Nay, you are already dead.

[Turinbaar]

Jessica Mitford was party fundraiser in oakland during the war and after during McCarthyism, and she noticed a few issues in the system, such as the single-minded search by the leadership for "results" in membership count and income from dues, without thought as to how these were achieved and at what cost to principle (indeed their principles were rather unclear).

One major way of fundraising was to organize concerts with Pete Seeger and the Weevers, Lead Belly, Woodie Guthrie, and others, but Liberals have proven since (live 8, etc.) that they have cornered the market in this arena.

Of course some parties convinced themselves (or were convinced by FBI infiltrators) to sell drugs, and in a drug war the results of that are obvious non-starters.

Another concern was opportunism from those who saw the party as a potential investment when it looked strong. One businessman regularly contributed $500 at a time to Mitford and the party, and kept a stuffed drawer full of signed receipts for the contributions in hopes that this may one day impress a new world leadership.

This history suggests that the concepts of party organization must be rethought, so that a future movement does not resemble a cultish money scheme on one hand, or in the case of its sixties counterparts, a dazed and confused mess.

[Rafiq]

It's good that you mentioned cults... The same circumstances that bred the phenomena of UFO cults in the U.S. bred the New Left.

[Turinbaar]

Yes I've noticed that among some of the people where I live. They really have a thing about astrology, UFO's, chemtrails, and on occasion you get one or two talking about the Rothschilds, but they still think they're hip and left and all that. It's quite frustrating.

[The Idler]

Rafiq, have you ever been a member of a political organisation? They need money to operate, and short of growing a money tree, dues is where it comes from.

The SPGB manage alright on voluntary dues.

[Iakovsko]

The last political organisation I was a member of, the ICC in Turkey, had dues set at 5% of the members salary (corresponding to one working day per month). This is not particularly high in Turkey. Many organisations pay more. This means that a worker on minimum wage in Turkey would pay just over $25 a month. I don't think this is excessive. In my opinion paying $5 per month in the US is a joke.

Devrim

I agree completely, but most things in America are a joke. Sad state of affairs when people will give you $50 for a shirt but laugh at you when you mention societal change but it's understandable to a degree (the not being able to afford higher dues, not the excessive spending of frivolity). For instance, I know a household of 3 on the pay of 1. When it comes time to do their monthly finances, they have the option of paying more into the family or paying more into the party.

[ckaihatsu]

I imagine the cynicism comes around when a well-meaning but not formally involved member of a left organisation (i.e someone who goes to a few meetings, volunteers at some stalls/events/paper selling) pays dues to a party that is run essentially by a small cabal of semi-permanent (bar the odd purge) full-timers through the auspices of 'democratic centralism'.

I have felt this cynicism too and it is very off-putting. I imagine that an organic grouping, of whatever size, that arose out of genuine modern-day struggle, that had relevancy and was not ruled by essentially a mini-dictatorship would inspire less cynicism when it comes to the time to talk about money.

If people can actually see, almost physically, the benefits of handing over their hard-earned wages to an institution, then I imagine not only are they more likely to do so, but they are more likely to view it as a positive experience and it may even encourage further direct political involvement.


I *hear* ya, but I'll also have to say 'good luck' with that one -- I chalk it up to having to function within a capitalist reality.... Very corporate-like, I always thought....

[GiantMonkeyMan]

I wanted to write a long explanation of why I went from finding the concept of paying dues a weird and alien thing to agreeing with the process and concept but decided I'd keep it short. Suffice to say, the approach the members of my branch of the CWI in Plymouth was very accommodating and I turned up to meetings for a good six months or so before I decided to pay dues. And when I did, they took into account the status of my income (part time minimum wage work) as well as giving me an honest breakdown of where the dues would go.

[Devrim]

But hey, what do I know, I don't have any experience in 'real struggles', perhaps if I acquired some I could then sit beside you on your high horse to patronize some other poor sod unconvinced of the modern left's effectiveness,

But I say quite clearly that the modern left is completely ineffective. It is not that I am unconvinced that it is effective. On the commentary, I am convinced that it is ineffective.

Where does that take us though. To things like the following?


In short, organisations like the ICC, countless Trotskyist parties among almost all others are DISTINCTIVELY petite bourgeois in nature, NOT in the social composition of its membership but in the social nature of the organisation itself. A radical organisation should not be constituted on sound positions with no real application, but on tenets that constitute the organisation a real social force. How pathetic it is for so much drama - splits and purges to occur over things with no relevancy to the success of a movement, over things that have no real effect on anything. This should be damn obvious had not our counterparts not been blind by interpersonal dramas and fantasy riddled mental masterbation.

This is essentially meaningless drivel. What does it mean to say that these organisations are "DISTINCTIVELY petite bourgeois in nature, NOT in the social composition of its membership but in the social nature of the organisation itself"? Now I agree that, as you say, they often have no application, and I would agree with you about their lack of relevance. This does not mean that they are "DISTINCTIVELY petite bourgeois...in the social nature of the organisation". What does this even mean? It is just empty phraseology.

There is obviously a huge problem with revolutionary organisations as they exist. What is the solution though? To complain about dues, and join the SPUSA. I think not.

Devrim

[Rafiq]

They are petite bourgeois because they as organisations are so politically irrelevant that they are nothing more than independent clubs with no movement or place in proletarian struggle. They are thus almost reactionary - they oppose things as they exist, but not within or from the current circumstances of life - or capitalism. They stand as spectators outside the field of struggle... As the petite bourgeois does in protecting its interests against the hordes of masses and excesses of things like finance capital. It would not surprise me at all if some resorted to merchandising to sustain themselves. what distinguished early organisations from organisations now, is that one hundred years ago there was a complete unity between these intellectuals and the workers movement.

I don't care to complain about membership dues. It's not a problem for me. I was talking about them pragmatically. If organisations require workers be as highly specialized and advanced ideologically, intellectually as a student, they should not exist. Of course leadership, direction is something else entirely, as Hegel said "philosophy (or in this case Marxism, whatever) should hope the people rise to it, but not lower itself to the people. The point is that this also addresses the immediate needs of the proletariat.

Secondly, I do not formally identify with the SPUSA. I have not yet a single person whose politics I detest, I am absolutely repulsed by "democratic socialism" and grassroots democracy. I joined because I wanted space of discussion and engagement that went beyond this website or academic settings, no matter my dissapointment. I do not vote, participate in demonstrations or anything of that nature. I can hardly be called an active member. During the early 20th century the SPUSA was a force of class struggle and Eugene Debbs himself is a celebrated hero of the proletariat. My knowledge of the organisation historically extends thus far. I was under the impression the party was multi tendency, but in my area this makes little difference.

[Thirsty Crow]

They are petite bourgeois because they as organisations are so politically irrelevant...
Care to start right from the beginning cause you're not making any sense whatsoever?
And can we have the notion of the "petite bourgeoisie" as a meaningful notion still, perhaps?

[Rafiq]

Care to start right from the beginning cause you're not making any sense whatsoever?
And can we have the notion of the "petite bourgeoisie" as a meaningful notion still, perhaps?

Before I begin - If you're not going to genuinely and honestly read through all of this thoroughly, then skip to the last segment, I suppose.

Marx recognized the petite bourgeoisie as a reactionary class, whose interests are independent from that of the bourgeois class and the proletariat. While the proletariat and bourgeoisie's interests are diametrically opposed, they oppose each other in correlation with developments in capitalism, or in correlation with the chaotic movement of capital. The petite bourgeoisie, conversely, seek solely to preserve themselves and their obvious economic interests (whilst, for example, the capitalist is willing to put much at stake in service of capital). If you are aware of the petite bourgeoisie, both in their social and ideological nature, you should know precisely about what I am talking about.

I can only be frustrated with you and how you approach to reply to my posts. What Linksradikal attempts to say, is that I mean to say they are petite bourgeoisie solely because they are politically irrelevant. He is literally taking phrases out of context and attempting to argue with them as such. It's beyond frustrating.

What I mean to say, is that if these organisations are politically irrelevant, if they do not exist as real forces of class struggle neither in the field of politics or economics (you know, unionising, whatever) then what can we categorize them as? Okay, let me rephrase myself. If these organisations were not formed in correlation with real manifestations and outbursts of proletarian struggle (or if they do not remain so), if they do not represent the interests of the proletariat that exists as such and is opposed to the ruling order of things (in other words, something akin to the labor movement of the early 20th century, several 'organic' worker's struggles and so on) then what place do they have in the social order of things? Everything has a place in capitalist social relations, even things that are marginalized and have no direct place still have a place. (Side note - I do not mean to say all organisations that did not form 'organically' were not proletarian in nature, organizations compromised of skilled Marxists still were unified with this proletarian movement and directed it, engaged it, and so on).

So we have already established that they are not relevant with regards to proletarian struggles, they are not genuine political organisations. They still do, however, generate a measurable amount of income, and they still are perhaps "owned". Now, no matter what precisely they do with this income, for all I care they could set it all ablaze. That does not change their social nature, just as it would not make a difference if a shopkeeper were to throw his profit down a well as far as his class nature is concerned. It might sound silly that radical organisations are nothing more than business schemes, and it does, I'm not trying to say that. Some - most of their leadership is compromised of honest people. But that doesn't make a difference, it is possible, after all, to be unintentionally petite bourgeois.

[Rafiq]

Maybe this is not getting off track after all - Historically revolutionary parties collected membership dues as a result of their clear existence as forces of class struggle, and now, we are told that the emergence of (said organisation) to be a force of class struggle will be a consequence of collecting membership dues. Is the difference not clear?

[Thirsty Crow]

If you are aware of the petite bourgeoisie, both in their social and ideological nature, you should know precisely about what I am talking about.
Of course, what you say up to this point is pretty much correct although you're not making explicit the basis on which the petite bourgeoisie acts: intra-capitalist competition, which means that they oscillate between 1) striving to get ahead in that competition and 2) rallying around the militant proletariat when and if the threat of proletarianization becomes too grave (and even then there's other venues, like historical fascism)


I can only be frustrated with you and how you approach to reply to my posts. I can say, as someone who's been informed about the activity of the likes of ICC for years and years now, that I'm not even frustrated with your characterization of such orgs as petite bourgeois. It's downright laughable and pathetic really, that is, if you ever really cared for how you view things - and that implies the way you talk about them.


What Linksradikal attempts to say, is that I mean to say they are petite bourgeoisie solely because they are politically irrelevant.No, the entirety of your argument is based on this idea that political irrelevancy, itself arising from, to quote you:


They stand as spectators outside the field of struggle... As the petite bourgeois does in protecting its interests against the hordes of masses and excesses of things like finance capital.
...which is problematic on so many levels, the most important of them being the silly, groundless analogy this is based on ("...as the petite bourgeois does").

Here you're comparing a political organization with a social class. That alone should make you pause and examine your thoughts more closely, but that won't happen, will it?




What I mean to say, is that if these organisations are politically irrelevant, if they do not exist as real forces of class struggle neither in the field of politics or economics (you know, unionising, whatever) then what can we categorize them as?I'll give you a clue: to label them as petite bourgeois is beyond lazy thinking and phrase mongering. It's mere bullshit.


then what place do they have in the social order of things?They don't have any place really, and that's what seems so unimaginable to you.


Everything has a place in capitalist social relationsWell, if you consider the ideas put forward, then yes these orgs place themselves in outright opposition to it all, but in effect do nothing and can do nothing which doesn't even begin to resemble anything like an activity that would be most likely to come off petite bourgeois class interest. I really can't say anything apart from what I already said, this is stupid, lazy thinking.

All of what I claim is related to this unbelievably careless and wrong idea of what constitutes and activity or an effect of an activity of the petite bourgeoisie.

,

That does not change their social nature,So let's ask this very straightforward question: what constitutes their social nature?

Is it class composition? Nowhere at all did you even bother to mention it. So, it can't be it.

Is it the direction and the ideological content of their ridiculously limited activity? Can't be it either cause as far as I know, such groups are the last to really pander to the petite bourgeoisie (mostly speaking about the ICC here). It's not that, far from it.

We come full circle and establish that the only criterion you use is political irrelevancy as manifest in being outside the field of struggle as spectators (no fucking shit Sherlock, and you might as well apply this to yourself, you as well stand outside this field as a spectator...so what should we make out of this, that you're almost reactionary? Or is it that this high minded reasoning is only applied to organizations and not enlightened individuals?)

Or shall we go with your definition of the almost-reactionary?


They are thus almost reactionary - they oppose things as they exist, but not within or from the current circumstances of life - or capitalism.Which can only mean that the folks from ICC inhabit a different dimension, a spiritual kind of a dimension but are able to see things in this world - since what the hell could "not within the current circumstances of life" ever mean? Maybe that's only the way you want to express the same idea about political irrelevancy.

Anyway, as you can see nothing here was based on taking stuff out of context. And nothing about it is personal, apart from my necessarily personal opinion that you're dead wrong and mistaken in talking about such orgs in the way you do. I think it contributes absolutely nothing and makes a bloody mess.


It might sound silly that radical organisations are nothing more than business schemesOh it doesn't seem silly at all and some of them are really such things. Remember the US SEP? Oh yeah. But you can't lump in indiscriminately every political rump here.

If you're really making the case that such formations run businesses which turn a profit, then sorry but I could not really gather that from either reading the post I responded to (nothing about that), or almost the whole post I'm responding to know except this final paragraph. But then you could've made all of this fucking mess into one paragraph saying "look David North".

From what I gathered about and through the interaction with the ICC whom you've included here, it makes no sense to level such an accusation really.

[Devrim]

So we have already established that they are not relevant with regards to proletarian struggles, they are not genuine political organisations. They still do, however, generate a measurable amount of income, and they still are perhaps "owned". Now, no matter what precisely they do with this income, for all I care they could set it all ablaze. That does not change their social nature, just as it would not make a difference if a shopkeeper were to throw his profit down a well as far as his class nature is concerned. It might sound silly that radical organisations are nothing more than business schemes, and it does, I'm not trying to say that. Some - most of their leadership is compromised of honest people. But that doesn't make a difference, it is possible, after all, to be unintentionally petite bourgeois.

You are all over the place now. You started talking about them 'being petite-bourgeois in the social nature', and now you have realised that this wont fly, you seem to have ended up talking about their organisational nature, and their financial activity.

However, in the case of left-wing organisations this doesn't work either. There may be left wing groups which are run as a profit making scheme, but it doesn't apply to the ICC at all.

When you end up talking nonsense, it is usually better to admit it, and start again from a firmer base.

Devrim

[Leftsolidarity]

I realize that there's been somewhat of a discussion into it but I really only feel like responding to the OP.

In my opinion I think having strict monthly dues would be somewhat of an obstacle to recruiting and keeping active new members. From my experience, organizations that are very strict on them tend to lose folks and also seem to view due payment as some sort of organizing in itself which is obviously problematic. It's also rather silly to try to recruit the most important fighters which are unemployed, homeless, poor, oppressed, etc. while also demanding they pay money to be involved. Seems counter-intuitive to me.

That said, dues are crucial to any organization just being able to survive let alone acquire materials, transport people, and launch campaigns. I think, particularly during the period of unending capitalist crisis and the current state of the movement, it's best to have an un-official sliding scale of due payments. Also in my experience, if you are a healthy revolutionary party your members feel involved and are committed enough to simply feel it's their responsible to give what they can. Comrades with stable employment/income should give what's appropriate routinely to maintain operations while those who are employment sporadically (like most of the working class today) should make their best effort to give when they are able. Those who are hardly ever employed and live from day-to-day should focus on staying alive and using whatever they get to make their lives more comfortable so they can better be involved in the struggle. I know I've been in that last category almost the entire time I've been involved in the groups I'm with and they've never made me feel as if I wasn't contributing enough nor has it limited their efforts to help me develop. I've recently been able to break out of that and get (hopefully) stable part-time employment. Now after I pay off what is needed for me to stay alive I feel that it's my responsibility to give as much funds as possible back. I know that most other comrades feel the same and I think that is natural when it's an organization that doesn't alienate its membership.

So I think that dues are really best kept unofficial but to have a healthy culture of respect and devotion to the organization which should have the membership understand what is needed monetarily from them so that they can operate.

[Rafiq]

Links, honest question: Are you reading my posts or skimming through them and attacking phrases, rather than the argument as a whole of which it is apart of? You're taking things out of context.



No, the entirety of your argument is based on this idea that political irrelevancy, itself arising from, to quote you:

...which is problematic on so many levels, the most important of them being the silly, groundless analogy this is based on ("...as the petite bourgeois does").

Here you're comparing a political organization with a social class. That alone should make you pause and examine your thoughts more closely, but that won't happen, will it?

Links, I agree completely that this would be wholly ridiculous. Political organizations are not social classes, they represent the interests of a class (even if their members are not composed of that class). To identify political organizations in terms of their relationship to the mode of production, as directly economic is nothing more than confused. There's absolutely no doubt about that.

So, this would lead us to either two conclusions - When we say that a great majority of the Left today is compromised of petite-bourgeois organizations. The first one, would be that they represent the interests of the petite bourgeois class as a whole. This is not what I am trying to say.

The second conclusion - the one I thought would be obvious - is that they are not political organizations at all. Oh how outrageous this really does sound, considering their vigorously sectarian nature and apparent obsession with politics, nay? Well undoubtedly, it would be ridiculous to say that these groups are not familiar with politics, or have nothing to do with it. But they aren't political organizations, if we define politics as expression of power by different interests. These organizations represent no specific class interest. Because they are not political, they then possess a specific social relationship to capitalist production - despite their irrelevancy and impotence (that leads you to say "they have no place in the social order"). This places them closer to the petite-bourgeoisie.

Now I'm trying to respond to your arguments accordingly, so don't assume that this is all I have to say and respond, as a matter of fact, don't click the quote button until you have read my entire fucking post.



I'll give you a clue: to label them as petite bourgeois is beyond lazy thinking and phrase mongering. It's mere bullshit.

They don't have any place really, and that's what seems so unimaginable to you.

Well, if you consider the ideas put forward, then yes these orgs place themselves in outright opposition to it all

I'll give you a fucking clue, you dolt, arriving at conclusions about my posts because of the connotations surrounding 'petite bourgeois' as a derogatory term among the left is beyond fucking lazy
. It's so cute to see you accuse me of laziness, and yet you're literally talking with your ass. It's not that you're close minded, it's that you literally fail to understand what I'm saying because you associate what I am saying with arguments, positions, whatever that you have seen before. I assure you here, I am wholly unique.

You're not a stupid person. Well, you might be, but you're not terribly stupid. You are capable of understanding what I'm trying to say with the knowledge that you have about the subject at hand. Of this I have no doubt. How do I arrive at this conclusion?

You said this: Well, if you consider the ideas put forward, then yes these orgs place themselves in outright opposition to it all

You managed to sum up exactly what I was trying to say, in a way that is more clear and precise. This is beyond ironic. Freudian slip? This is exactly what I mean when I say they do not operate from the current circumstances of life - they do simply stand in opposition to it all but they are not a manifestation of the interests of a class which is part of it all. The embryo of Communism is within capitalism... In other words:


the conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence


They do not result from the premises now within existence, but links, you sorry bastard, was Marx trying to say that the movement would otherwise inhabit a spiritual kind of dimension? Why the fuck would you say that? Maybe you're actually stupid, after all.

I'm not trying to confuse anyone. There's no reason to make these obscene twists about my posts, sometimes, I say things that could otherwise be said simply and plainly - the words often escape me. However, you all should know very well that I wouldn't, for example argue something as stupid as:


mean that the folks from ICC inhabit a different dimension, a spiritual kind of a dimension


Whether you're dishonest, or really just incapable of adequately responding to me, I don't know. I don't care either, go fuck yourself.


So let's ask this very straightforward question: what constitutes their social nature?

Is it class composition? Nowhere at all did you even bother to mention it. So, it can't be it.

Is it the direction and the ideological content of their ridiculously limited activity? Can't be it either cause as far as I know, such groups are the last to really pander to the petite bourgeoisie (mostly speaking about the ICC here). It's not that, far from it.


Their social nature is constituted by their social relationship to production. No matter how insignificant, no matter how little they impact the social order of things, this does not change their social nature. Are they relevant enough to actually represent the interests of the petite bourgeoisie? Of course they are not. They are petite bourgeois insofar as they exist as anti-political organizations. Lenin has a special term that might be relevant - the declassed petty bourgeoisie.

Keep in mind I mean their social nature as organizations, not their class composition. The Nazi party, for example, was primarily composed of workers. This does not mean they were proletarian in nature (I'm not arriving at the same conclusions here - I'm just saying class composition has little to do with anything - it is a confused analogy no doubt). But this isn't what we're arguing about.

Think, for example, of an business dedicated to creating historical re-enactments that charges a modest fee to participate, like American civil war battles. Sure it's membership might be constituted of proletarians, or may be not. But the organization as a whole, represents a specifically characterized relationship to the order of things, no matter how minuscule or irrelevant. I've already established that they do not 'pander' to the petite bourgeoisie and do not politically represent the petite bourgeoisie as a class. The point, Links, is that they are not political to begin with in any meaningful sense - their politics has no place in current conditions - it may very well be role-play.



and you might as well apply this to yourself, you as well stand outside this field as a spectator...so what should we make out of this, that you're almost reactionary? Or is it that this high minded reasoning is only applied to organizations and not enlightened individuals?)


Well, if someone were to characterize myself as a political organization, that surely would be ridiculous. It's funny how you attack everything without context - these are not definitive arguments, they are factors which contribute to the greater argument. I surely do not posses petite-bourgeois consciousness, as these organizations do. And before you accuse me of contradicting myself, I am not. They oppose or are withdrawn from the struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie as pseudo-political organizations.


Anyway, as you can see nothing here was based on taking stuff out of context.


This is nothing short of a lie.


Oh it doesn't seem silly at all and some of them are really such things. Remember the US SEP? Oh yeah. But you can't lump in indiscriminately every political rump here.

If you're really making the case that such formations run businesses which turn a profit, then sorry but I could not really gather that from either reading the post I responded to (nothing about that), or almost the whole post I'm responding to know except this final paragraph. But then you could've made all of this fucking mess into one paragraph saying "look David North".

From what I gathered about and through the interaction with the ICC whom you've included here, it makes no sense to level such an accusation really.

Here's especially where I want Devrim to look.


I'm not trying to say that. Some - most of their leadership is compromised of honest people. But that doesn't make a difference, it is possible, after all, to be unintentionally petite bourgeois

I literally said exactly this. Somehow, however, I expect everything of meaning and substance in this argument will be lost in the abyss of Link's interpretations, and all that will live on about my arguments is only and exactly what he wants to address and make of them. Whatever. As I've said before, they are there, everyone can see them and properly understand them.

Actually wait
You started talking about them 'being petite-bourgeois in the social nature', and now you have realised that this wont fly, you seem to have ended up talking about their organisational nature, and their financial activity.

How are these things independent of each other. Their "financial activity" has everything to do with their social nature as organizations. How can an accusation of their social relationship be established without taking all of those things into account? I'm not "all over the place", I'm explaining myself.

I have held the same position throughout this thread, that I have always held. You don't see that, then go fuck yourself.

[Rafiq]

You can go ahead and be content in delusional superiority in organizations like the ICC, the old Left has no place in the future of Communism. The movement of the damned - the heirs to the legacy of the revolutionary proletariat will establish a real superiority - legitimacy through conquest and blood. In no more than weeks of their ascension, they will already have triumphed you in every meaningful way - through arising out of today's conditions solely. It is one thing to be content within your own pathetic intellectual conditions and terms - and another to be historically content.

[synthesis]

Links, honest question: Are you reading my posts or skimming through them and attacking phrases, rather than the argument as a whole of which it is apart of? You're taking things out of context.


Now I'm trying to respond to your arguments accordingly, so don't assume that this is all I have to say and respond, as a matter of fact, don't click the quote button until you have read my entire fucking post.


I'll give you a fucking clue, you dolt, arriving at conclusions about my posts because of the connotations surrounding 'petite bourgeois' as a derogatory term among the left is beyond fucking lazy. It's so cute to see you accuse me of laziness, and yet you're literally talking with your ass. It's not that you're close minded, it's that you literally fail to understand what I'm saying because you associate what I am saying with arguments, positions, whatever that you have seen before.


Why the fuck would you say that? Maybe you're actually stupid, after all.


I'm not trying to confuse anyone. There's no reason to make these obscene twists about my posts, sometimes, I say things that could otherwise be said simply and plainly - the words often escape me. However, you all should know very well that I wouldn't, for example argue something as stupid as:


Whether you're dishonest, or really just incapable of adequately responding to me, I don't know. I don't care either, go fuck yourself.


It's funny how you attack everything without context - these are not definitive arguments, they are factors which contribute to the greater argument.


This is nothing short of a lie.


Somehow, however, I expect everything of meaning and substance in this argument will be lost in the abyss of Link's interpretations, and all that will live on about my arguments is only and exactly what he wants to address and make of them. Whatever. As I've said before, they are there, everyone can see them and properly understand them.


I have held the same position throughout this thread, that I have always held. You don't see that, then go fuck yourself.


If I were you, and I was convinced that people were completely misinterpreting my points in post after post in thread after thread, I'd have to ask myself if in fact it was my fault that I was being misunderstood and perhaps try to figure out a better way to make my ideas understood. (Not that I actually think you are being misunderstood - I think you just don't like people's analysis of your argument, and also that you're not quite sure what your argument even is, or you would've figured out an adequate way to phrase it to everyone's satisfaction - but I'm trying to see things from your point of view.) I mean, it's like you think people are purposefully misinterpreting your posts because of some agenda they have against you.

Okay, bring on the apoplexy. Come at me bro

[Rafiq]

People don't respond to my posts. They deliberately try to argue with them for the sake of arguing. This mentality of arguing because you have some kind of predisposition towards me completely skews and destroys any meaningful understanding of my posts. It's not that they are misinterpreting directly on purpose, but that they are scanning my posts vigorously and aggressively and trying to discredit them instead of trying to understand them patiently and calmly - for whatever fucking reason . How do I know this? Because there are users here who have in the past understood my posts well for what they were - even in the midst of users like Linksradikal misunderstanding them. Why are their interpretations wrong, and not Links's? I'm not going to like anyone who disagrees with me by default, that is a given. What I don't appreciate is being patronized and accused of holding positions I do not hold, of saying or meaning things I never meant. Argue with me, by all means, but understand my argument first. I will never be able to phrase anything to everyone's satisfaction because again - some have negative predispositions toward my posts - and then others will flock based on how they painted my post. It's straw man at it's purest.

My argument is that these organizations are distinctively (among previous political organizations) petite bourgeois. There is no misinterpretation there. The problem is what this actually means to everyone here.

[Rafiq]

I don't know if I've yet made this clear either, but this is not an argument for spontaneity - I firmly hold that the revolutionary proletariat cannot exist without a strong, disciplined political party compromised of specialized Marxists and revolutionary intellectuals to direct it. This I have always held. The point, is that this arises from the premises now in existence, I cannot but stress the importance to re-conceptualize on every level how the Left will conduct itself.

[Remus Bleys]

I mean, it's like you think people are purposefully misinterpreting your posts because of some agenda they have against you.
Well synthesis, as it turns out, this is exactly the case.

Rafiq, why is Die Linke or SYRIZA or SPUSA the enemy? Why aren't they "distinctively petty-bourgeoisie" (of course, assuming that pb is to you what the word "fascist" means to the typical leftist - anything you don't like).

[Rafiq]

Well synthesis, as it turns out, this is exactly the case.

Rafiq, why is Die Linke or SYRIZA or SPUSA the enemy? Why aren't they "distinctively petty-bourgeoisie" (of course, assuming that pb is to you what the word "fascist" means to the typical leftist - anything you don't like).

The SPUSA - at least the Detroit section is petite bourgeois. A lot of what I say now comes from my experience with them. This is a problem with the Left in general. What makes them unique is that they are allegedly multi-tendency, like this website. However this is far from the case in practice. There's a lot of scum here, Remus, and yet you're still here.

Nothing is ever so rigidly characterized. Do I think there are real factors which make pathologically many Left organizations petite bourgeois in their social nature? Yes. Does this affect their positions and their attitude towards the current state of things. Absolutely. Whichever came first, varies based on different circumstances.

As for Die Linke and Syriza - they are two different parties. Die Linke may be many things, but it is a political party. Not because it participates in elections, but because it is able to form real political positions that encompass all social and cultural issues in modern capitalism. This is something I believe to be significant as far as the Left goes.

Syriza right now is a bourgeois party, of that there can be no doubt. However as I have said before they potentially lay the foundations for a real proletarian party. But Syriza is also a political party whose positions, no matter how immature, soft - are again formed as a result of the current conditions of life. Don't you dare accuse me of apologia.

You all have to make up your mind. First, I am this bloodthirsty madman who at every instance wants an excuse to call for the mass murder of others, and now, I am an apologist for Die Linke and Syriza - organizations you would expect I would wholly denounce and damn to the fires of the revolution, because I have a violence fetish. And why do I spare them as such when I am so keen to denounce others? This is what you must ask yourselves.

[Rafiq]

And for the record, I don't mean to say every fucking Left organization is the enemy, merely that they are not the solution. Some lonely delusional Trots or pompous Left Communists are hardly worthy of such divine wrath - poor sods, the lot of them.

[Rafiq]

after I've in great detail attempted to summarize why they are petite bourgeois, this is what I am met with?

E tu, Remus?

[Remus Bleys]

"First, I am this bloodthirsty madman who at every instance wants an excuse to call for the mass murder of others" Rafiq honestly this is my favorite part about your posts. The revolutionary fervor and "Communist Romanticism" is such a great part of revleft tbh (its one of the reasons I'm still here even). There are people who hate your posts because they don't like you as a poster, but I don't think that Links nor Devrim nor Synthesis is one of them.
I think you could possibly be on to something with a general critique of the Left as it stands today, and many (in fact several) of the Left is objectively speaking petty-bourgeois.
The ICC is not one of them. This is not to say that the ICC is correct, Revolutionary, or Vanguard or something that one shouldn't criticize. On the contrary, I do think that one should critique the ICC's positions as being incorrect. You are correct in that an organization's class character is defined by its actions, not by its content. It is one thing to hold that SYRIZA could potentially create a "revolutionary situation" (I think this is a ridiculous sentiment but that is besides the point), but I can't see how one can reconcile this view whilst condemning the ICC for being petty-bourgeois.
In short, I think its a damn shame you've fallen for DNZ's nonsense. Even if you were just orthokaut it would be one thing, but you have called DNZ (the same man who had weird praises for russian nationalism and chavismo) something along the lines of a shining beacon of light. This view of things - from the DNZist view of things - is my criticism of you. If bringing up the things you would view under a more coherent form of thought (the context of imperialism or formal vs real domination of capital, rather than simply chalking it up to "new capitalism") the conversations would be more interesting and satisfying imo.
I think, in this thread, you fucked up somewhere along the lines, and that this is directly linked to DNZism. Cut that umbilical chord. Kill the DNZist in yr head.

[Thirsty Crow]

Links, honest question: Are you reading my posts or skimming through them and attacking phrases, rather than the argument as a whole of which it is apart of?I'm reading entire posts, but I can't find anything in some of them, like these in this thread, which isn't phrases and jagged, confused attempts at justifying them.


So, this would lead us to either two conclusions - When we say that a great majority of the Left today is compromised of petite-bourgeois organizations. The first one, would be that they represent the interests of the petite bourgeois class as a whole. This is not what I am trying to say.
Okay.



The second conclusion - the one I thought would be obvious - is that they are not political organizations at all.But orgs which aren't political organizations at all can't even begin to represent any class interest whatsoever - and this is the conclusion from the way you frame things:


Political organizations are not social classes, they represent the interests of a class (even if their members are not composed of that class).

You're well aware of that:


These organizations represent no specific class interest.

But then you completely fuck up in your process of thinking about this:


Because they are not political, they then possess a specific social relationship to capitalist production - despite their irrelevancy and impotence (that leads you to say "they have no place in the social order"). This places them closer to the petite-bourgeoisie.

And yes, I've no problem with saying that I have enormous difficulties in even understanding what it is you're trying to say; so no wonder that I really have to go by what is most straightforward in all of this.

And the most straightforward thing is this:


This places them closer to the petite-bourgeoisie.

Which is completely wrong. So, no more room for meta-debates and discussions on misunderstandings; you're simply wrong since first of all, the petite bourgeoisie occupies a very distinct place within the social order. Apart from that, you allege that these orgs "because they are not political, they then possess a specific social relationship to capitalist production" - which is a completely empty phrase as you don't even bother do specify which social relationship is it, beyond that it resembles that of the petite bourgeoisie

The last line of defence for this misguided position is this:


You said this: Well, if you consider the ideas put forward, then yes these orgs place themselves in outright opposition to it all

You managed to sum up exactly what I was trying to say, in a way that is more clear and precise. This is beyond ironic. Freudian slip? This is exactly what I mean when I say they do not operate from the current circumstances of life - they do simply stand in opposition to it all but they are not a manifestation of the interests of a class which is part of it all. The embryo of Communism is within capitalism...

And it is not at all true that the activity of these "does not result from the premises now in existence"; it's that these deal with this premises in a specific form, that of mere verbal and on sunny days theoretical criticism - which is due not to some petite bourgeois social nature, but most of all to their irrelevance, impotence ("potency" as in capability to act in a decisive, influential manner) and ineffectiveness - which itself have roots in some rather complex issues, none of which can be accounted for by a facile, edgy and oh so unique idea of their petite bourgeois social nature.



I'm not trying to confuse anyone. There's no reason to make these obscene twists about my posts, sometimes, I say things that could otherwise be said simply and plainly - the words often escape me. However, you all should know very well that I wouldn't, for example argue something as stupid as:
I'm not saying you're trying to confuse anyone; I'm saying you are confused yourself so little wonder that other people might get confused when interacting with you. I do think this is the case since you seem to be hell bent on defending that mistaken idea of the petite bourgeois social nature.

And talk about confusion, here you're introducing something completely new in this thread:


They are petite bourgeois insofar as they exist as anti-political organizations. Lenin has a special term that might be relevant - the declassed petty bourgeoisie.


So not only these aren't political organizations at all, they're also anti-political organizations.

I don't even want to ask what would anti-political here mean as that would set me up for another stream of confusions. Anyway, if we take the way Marx talked about the political struggle of the proletariat, as that of applying external pressure on the political representatives with the aims of acting on the class wide conditions of work and life, nope your assessment makes no goddamn sense as neither do Trots nor the ICC oppose this.

And no appeals to Lenin will get you anywhere; this assessment of his (although I can only reasonably speculate without context) refers to the particular issue of Russian communists' social origin or class position. Which means it is an issue of class composition of an organization - something you explicitly said you're not interested in.


Their social nature is constituted by their social relationship to production. As organizations they do not have any relationship to production whatsoever, apart from individual members' class position. How hard is it to get this.

Connected to this:

Th
e point, Links, is that they are not political to begin with in any meaningful sense - their politics has no place in current conditions - it may very well be role-play.
Even though I don't think matters are so simple, but still - make the logical conclusion and stick to the assessment of these as historical role play societies and ideological clubs, without any mistaken reference to their alleged petite bourgeois social nature.

Really, the biggest mistake you're making here is just this - turning a definite notion with its place in class analysis into an empty slur. As a matter of fact, I don't think communists ought to criticize each others' activities like this as it leads absolutely fucking nowhere. It's a dead alley. And I do think this way of arguing is a part of the tradition that managed to solidify itself within Marxism, and that is itself nothing but poison for both working class activity and communists' activity. The matter is simple for me, and these complementary points are not that important although you're making blunders as you go, especially with that anti-political stuff.

I don't even want to consider the roots of this mistake of yours, though I can't help but wonder whether


It's not that you're close minded, it's that you literally fail to understand what I'm saying because you associate what I am saying with arguments, positions, whatever that you have seen before. I assure you here, I am wholly unique. ...might indicate something. Anyway, maybe this is also of secondary importance. What is important is that you're dead wrong in being so unique. You're kinda uniquely wrong.

And of course that an organization can unintentionally act in a manner that solidifies the petite bourgeoisie or that is based on such a class interest. The point is that your case study examples cannot support this conclusions - especially in relation to the ICC. But this again is primarily tied to your metaphorical and slur like use of the notion of the petite bourgeoisie. This needs to go, as simple as that.

And one word of advice. If you have any intention of really engaging communists in some existing organization in discussion, drop the whole "look at me I'm so unique" schtick and learn to get over yourself while accepting criticism in a rational manner.

[Rafiq]

I'm not unique. All of my positions have come from understanding that of others - nothing is unique to myself solely. I am just as much a plain bastard as any man, I have never thought otherwise. But the allegation that these organizations are petite bourgeois - in the manner that I am arguing they are, is unique in that it is not an argument you can address based on presumptions you have from addressing other arguments.

It's so frustrating. I already stated they do not represent any class interest, because that would make them political, which I have said they are not. In practice and in principle they are anti-political, because they, as you have said, oppose it all. What Marx was trying to say when he said that the movement derives from premises now in existence was not that the movement addressed real, current issues. All movements do. But that they are a *result* of premises now in existence, or the contradictions of capitalism. There is a huge difference, and overlooking it is beyond lazy. Really your anti-philosophy stance has rendered you to the point of ridiculous.

As for Lenin, he EXPLICITLY stressed that the proletariat without direction from the revolutionary intelligentsia subordinates itself toward the bourgeoisie. He is not speaking about the class composition of left communists in his text, but the class nature of their views. I highly recommend you read it, now that you mention it. It's so ignorant (and this is a word I try to avoid, but I can't) - for you to say this refers to criticizing Russian communists based on their class composition. As if Lenin was ever a proletarian.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm not unique. All of my positions have come from understanding that of others - nothing is unique to myself solely. I am just as much a plain bastard as any man, I have never thought otherwise. But the allegation that these organizations are petite bourgeois - in the manner that I am arguing they are, is unique in that it is not an argument you can address based on presumptions you have from addressing other arguments.
I do it based on assumptions and points I consider outright proven which relate to the way Marxists have thought about the petite bourgeoisie as a class and the corresponding political activity to that class interest (as in unintentional or intentional). I think this is the best framework for dealing with both problems (that of social class and its entanglement with political activity), and that's about it when it comes to any presumptions from dealing with other arguments. So the matter is clear now - I do claim you're dead wrong, and that's it.

EDIT:



It's so frustrating.
I have to wonder, what exactly is so frustrating here. That people don't agree with you?


I already stated they do not represent any class interest, because that would make them political, which I have said they are not. In practice and in principle they are anti-political, because they, as you have said, oppose it all.

No, I had to make myself more clear on that point - I meant that the likes of ICC in their program and ideas oppose capitalist social relations. That's what I meant.

This also clears up why I concluded that you're making a mistake when arguing these are anti-political.


But that they are a *result* of premises now in existence, or the contradictions of capitalism. There is a huge difference, and overlooking it is beyond lazy. Really your anti-philosophy stance has rendered you to the point of ridiculous.
Yes, but well, these aren't movements at all and anyway, I don't really see any relevance here as this cannot support the idea that either they're petite bourgeois in social nature or anti-political.


He is not speaking about the class composition of left communists in his text, but the class nature of their views.What text are you referring to, What Is to Be Done?

Yeah, I know the deal with it. The point I tried to make is that when mentioning declassed petite bourgeois intelligentsia Lenin was making an issue of class composition, not any comparable argument to this idea of the petite bourgeois social nature of such orgs (since you explicitly state that it is not class composition you're referring to), among a myriad other arguments. Again, this can hardly support your claim.


I highly recommend you read it, now that you mention it. It's so ignorant (and this is a word I try to avoid, but I can't) - for you to say this refers to criticizing Russian communists based on their class composition.

I didn't at all say it was a criticism of any kind - go through that post again and see where I even imply this is any such thing. What I said is that when using this term the implicit issue is that of class composition - as this is a class marker used to refer to a specific stratum of people. This, again, is not your kind of an argument and I merely pointed that out.

[Rafiq]

The book is Lenins polemic against Left Communism, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Read it.

It's almost laughable to say that this isn't relevant. What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with their class composition. The fucking title itself reads "and the petty bourgeois *mentality*".

They are not political in nature, and 'theoretically', if we can call it that, are anti-political, the social force for which their views, positions can be validated, and utilized does not exist (anymore) they thus are incapable of forming political positions - and can only oppose politics as a whole. The ICC has produced some good articles, the problem is not so much of what they oppose (when they criticize others), but their affirmative positions, in other words their abstract, meaningless solutions (Like: the only solution is that which is beyond today's context). This is a left communist problem in general.

[Thirsty Crow]

The book is Lenins polemic against Left Communism, https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm

Read it.

It's almost laughable to say that this isn't relevant. What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with their class composition. The fucking title itself reads "and the petty bourgeois *mentality*".

You really feel good about yourself now, don't you, sending me off like a naughty schoolboy to do my homework :lol:

It's okay. I did it already.

But people can't read your mind. It was clear that I assumed you were talking about What Is to Be Done, and of course I assumed it since you never even said what you're referring to exactly.


They are not political in nature, and 'theoretically', if we can call it that, are anti-political, the social force for which their views, positions can be validated, and utilized does not exist (anymore) they thus are incapable of forming political positions - and can only oppose politics as a whole.
So the idea is that an org is anti-political when "the social force for which their views, positions can be validated, and utilized" doesn't exist anymore and that "it cannot form political positions.

I outlined the way Marx talked about the political, and the explicit criticism Bakunin for instance, because of the anti-political stance, has absolutely nothing to do with your innovative use of the term "anti-political" here. Your problem is that this innovative use is meaningless and doesn't get anyone even an inch closer to understanding the likes of the ICC.

And what are political positions if not what is put forward by the likes of the ICC? You can characterize them any way you deem reasonable, as unrealistic, impotent, outright wrong, unfeasible, whatever - but just because you find it defective in a particular way doesn't mean you can make sense when concluding "oh that's not a political position at all" or "yeah that's anti-politics". It's not. At least, it makes no sense within the Marxist tradition where we can find much more clear and useful ideas about what is political and by extension anti-political.


Again, you're basically using a political notion as a mere empty slur, just like you did with that element of class analysis, the notion of the petite bourgeoisie. This is connected to what I mentioned, that particular strain in Marxism which is based on arguments like this one:


It's almost laughable to say that this isn't relevant. What the fuck are you talking about? This has nothing to do with their class composition. The fucking title itself reads "and the petty bourgeois *mentality*"You say this in relation to Lenin.

Now it should be very clear that this is nothing more than an argument from authority. This is a logical fallacy, and really a rotten way to reason about anything. In short, you can invoke any authority you want but that doesn't get you out of this muddle of confusion.

Apart from that, Lenin's polemic was directed at particular historical organizations. And it should be very clear that the ICC is not the target of the polemic. What this means is that it is a false move to implicitly equate the historical communist left with the ICC. After all, the social and political contexts are different. So you're left with the task to actually examine that which you criticize. But as I said, shoddy reasoning that butchers perfectly useful concepts can't be helpful here

But to ask a concrete question, which social force is that that doesn't exist no more? Specify this social force.


(Like: the only solution is that which is beyond today's context). This is a left communist problem in general.You're criticizing an org for abstract and meaningless proposals and positions; yet somehow this very sentence I quoted isn't "abstract". No, it's only a textbook example of it.

Again, I can only guess what you're specifically referring to here. So I won't.

As for me, I think there are issues with ICC more worth pointing out than supposed and alleged grand defects of the communist left in general - based on thin air as it were - like the rabid sectarianism (this doesn't relate to the way they draw the class line in terms of politics) and the intimately related concept of parasitism, the disastrous Years of Truth idea and particularly the way the org never produced a meaningful self-criticism, the alleged phase of decomposition (this had a lot to do with the way they saw prospects for European integration in early 90s - and failed miserably in predicting not events but even a very broad historical course), the organizational failures and especially in relation to political work within the class, which is probably also related to the internal structure and the way the org operates - here there's a marked presence of cliques and clanish battles as well. With the latest internal crisis it might even seem the organization is moribound.

Here any hopelessly vague generalization along the lines of "petite bourgeois social nature" "or anti-political" falls straight on its face.

To return to this idea of the anti-political. The only way I can imagine your idea having some sense would be to claim that "politics as a whole" is necessarily electoral politics. Is that what you meant?

[sirz345]

Perhaps keeping track of which members paid their dues, then sending a receipt for what their due helped to pay for, so they know we aren't just spending the money on frivolous things. (Obviously, you don't need to know where their EXACT due went towards, just tell them what some dues paid for, tell them it was their dues specifically and they'll get a sense of contribution and fulfillment from benefiting their political party.)

[sirz345]

Though how romantic it would be if circumstances allowed parties to obtain revenue through more creative means, as the Bolsheviks did around the time of their formation
Well communist have two options; legally ask for fees and donations. (Ask, do not ever demand or the party will collapse due to how off putting it will be. Regardless of how "nicely" you demand money.), or communists can participate in illegal activities. Perhaps owning businesses or opening communist businesses (What an oxymoron right?) specifically tailored to maintaining the store and sending the rest off to maintain the party, although in many capitalist countries where conservative groups are strong (The USA as a specific examples. As well as several regions of the Middle East, Asia, Europe, South America, and Africa.) there are many places where these businesses would require more money than they're making to maintain because the capitalists will order their politically conservative puppets to boycott all businesses that identify as socialist or communist to ensure a "perfect" all capitalist and conservative area to ensure their pockets grow fatter.

[Rafiq]

Perhaps owning businesses or opening communist businesses

If the proletariat were simply able to, by their own will start up businesses they would not exist as a class. Furthermore this is simply asking for the mass subversion of communist organizations into petite bourgeois ideology. Though I suspect this is already the case for many.

[Creative Destruction]

What do communist organizations typically spend their dues on?

[helot]

Perhaps keeping track of which members paid their dues, then sending a receipt for what their due helped to pay for, so they know we aren't just spending the money on frivolous things. (Obviously, you don't need to know where their EXACT due went towards, just tell them what some dues paid for, tell them it was their dues specifically and they'll get a sense of contribution and fulfillment from benefiting their political party.)


obviously this assumes that the rank and file aren't making any decisions to do with the organisation's resources.

[Lord Testicles]

What do communist organizations typically spend their dues on?

Newspapers and pamphlets that a minuscule amount of people read and the organisation struggles to distribute.

In Britain at least I've yet to see a good reason why any "leftist" organisation needs to collect dues because they mostly do fuck all and they achieve even less.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Though I do recognize their necessity, I can see quite well how they appear completely off putting to potential members of parties that demand a monthly fee. In this completely and absolutely commercialized world, it inspires feelings of cynicism and dishonesty. In a time where the Left can very well be called dead, do parties have any right whatsoever to demand membership dues, at this point? Should parties be looking for other sources of income?

Or, alternatively, request membership fees only after a certain amount of time you are active within the party.

I'm going with the traditional answer and say that party-movements have not just all the rights to demand membership dues, but more importantly all the obligations to demand them. What will fund the alternative culture, the social outreach, the solidarity networks, etc.?

It doesn't have to be a monthly fee, of course. It could happen at some other regular frequency as well.

Becoming a class for itself is, as economics would say, "no free lunch." Otherwise the illusions spread by social movement / protest "assemblies," the tails side to the heads side presented by the so-called "Democratic" and "Republican" "Parties" (and now by Podemos in Spain) would be more viable, wouldn't they?

I apologize to the following thread posters for not agreeing with them early enough:

The Garbage Disposal Unit
Vladimir Innit Lenin (ironically, given his usually anti-partyist stance on worker-class institutions and institution-building)
Leftsolidarity (I would disagree with sliding scales of due payments, suggesting instead the old comrade Miles's framework of dues and dues equivalents)

[Comrade Bugaboo]

I think the foot in the door technique would work excellently. I don't see a good alternative to membership dues but if potential members don't have to pay dues for maybe the first year, they are more likely to join. They will establish social connections within the party and will most likely not have a problem with paying dues when the time comes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk