The "Revolutionary Marxist" group.

[Zoroaster]

What does the "Revolutionary Marxist" group here on RevLeft stand for? And are left communists like me allowed to join?

[Q]

Not sure if this is really a question for /learning, but ok. The RM group is relatively broad, in that tries to unite Marxists of all strands who, as the group description puts it, "[...] acknowledge the need to bring about "the merger of [Marxism] and the worker movement" (Kautsky) and solve the crises of theory".

If you have useful commentary to make, or want to learn or discuss, then I'm sure you'll fit right in.

[VivalaCuarta]

It's a subgroup for social democratic dilettantes.

[Tower of Bebel]

Many in the Revolutionary Marxists group feel they don't fit under any of the other Marxist lables (Maoist, Trotskyist, ...), while "Marxists" is too broad a lable to identify with on this forum. The group is there for those who'd like to know more about and discuss in a comradely fashion the center strategy.

[Zukunftsmusik]

while "Marxists" is to broad a lable to identify with on this forum.

But to throw in a completely mundane "revolutionary" makes it less broad how?

[Tower of Bebel]

But to throw in a completely mundane "revolutionary" makes it less broad how?
yes, but it is not only the name. It's the group's description as well, as explained by Q. The Marxists are a group for "all those who not only trace their Marxism back to Marx (and Engels), but subscribe wholeheartedly to the political, economic and social writings of Marx (and Engels)". The Revolutionary Marxists are "those with 50 posts or more who acknowledge the need to bring about 'the merger of [Marxism] and the worker movement' (Kautsky) and solve the crises of theory". They discuss a certain politicial conclusion derived from the writings of Marx (notably the Communist Manifesto). The Orthodox Marxists group, which forms part of the Revolutionary Marxists group, elaborate on an even more specific topic: "popularising the ideas of revolutionary Social-Democracy of the late 19th and early 20th century". It's a bit freakish, I know.

[Zoroaster]

To Q:

Oh, sorry about the placement.

[Remus Bleys]

It's for kautskyists basically. Why anyone wants to be a centrist is beyond me.

[The Idler]

Anyone can join any group but the group called 'Revolutionary Marxists' represents a particular trend which might be described as orientated around Weekly Worker and Lars T. Lih. Other users such as Q in particular know more about it than me.

[Brutus]

It's for kautskyists basically. Why anyone wants to be a centrist is beyond me.

It's for those who acknowledge that the communists must merge with struggles on the shop floor, so to speak, in order to establish the working class as a class-for-itself which can crush the rule of Capital, rather than fighting local and isolated economic struggles like we have today.

[Zukunftsmusik]

It's for those who acknowledge that the communists must merge with struggles on the shop floor, so to speak, in order to establish the working class as a class-for-itself which can crush the rule of Capital, rather than fighting local and isolated economic struggles like we have today.

I don't think any communist would deny that this is necessary.

[Tower of Bebel]

... a particular trend which might be described as orientated around Weekly Worker and Lars T. Lih.This is only partially true, some members of the RM group are not influenced that much by the WW. There are different sources of information which lead to an understanding of the common principles of the RM group.

[Tim Cornelis]

It's for kautskyists basically. Why anyone wants to be a centrist is beyond me.

Because centrist strategy has proven to be a comparatively effective instrument for movement-building (and can be tweaked for party-building), only paralleled (or exceeded) by trade unions (who, due to their capacity to organise for immediate interests and demands, can rally 'the masses'). Stalinists, Eurocommunists, 'autonomoustic communists' (Abahlali), Trotskyists (Philly Socialists) that apply centrist strategy far outgrow their fringe, sect counter-parts and ideological equals who apply a left strategy. No ultraleft group has managed to come even remotely close to building an actual party, let alone a mass party, which puts them at an immense disadvantage to bourgeois-socialist currents -- who are capable of attracting larger numbers of people -- should a potentially revolutionary situation arise.

So the strategic options that are both revolutionary and effective is limited to centrist strategy.

Left strategy: ineffective, but revolutionary.
Centrist strategy: effective and revolutionary. (though a risk of degeneration due to a mass movement becoming more representative of the general consciousness of society as a whole -- hence why I don't support the scale of the party-movement as proposed by Kautskyists)
Right strategy: effective, but reformist.
Syndicalism: economistic; effective.

[Remus Bleys]

Ooooh I'm so impressed that some Stalinists, Social Democrats, and trots got "big" and "popular." How effective for them, right? I mean these groups are well known and hold dominant political power, right?
Oh wait. They don't.
I'm not concerned with a "mass party." Nor should anyone be. In times of counterrevolution, it is the big "proletarian" parties that always display the highest amount of opportunism. The Bolsheviks, who were the most successful of all proletarian parties, were not a massively popular party until the revolution. This is a historical fact.

[Q]

The Bolsheviks, who were the most successful of all proletarian parties, were not a massively popular party until the revolution. This is a historical fact.
"Fact" doesn't mean what you think it might mean...

Fact is that the RSDLP had about 20 000 members in the Tsarist period. That is, 20 000 people risked their life to be politically active. The actual influence of the party in society was genuinely massive.

This idea that the Bolsheviks were only this small group that only became huge during 1917 is bogus and you should know this. The Bolsheviks had a huge membership at any point that the Tsarist state lessened its iron grip on society.

But hey, I understand, you need this myth. It is your 'proof' that the sect you're a member of could actually, potentially, grow to become a mass entity. If only everything went just about right... In reality of course small groups do rise during revolutionary periods, so do all formations and big, well established parties become much bigger. All boats rise during a tide.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

It's a subgroup for social democratic dilettantes.

"social democratic - A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism"

"dilettantes - a person who cultivates an area of interest [...] without real commitment or knowledge."

Wrong on both accounts. By ignorantly accusing us orthodox marxists of the latter (not having any real knowledge about or commitment to scientific socialism) you expose yourself as not having even bothered to engage with our ideas and imho quite substantially in-depth stances. That, either your just lazy, or you just enjoy lying about and pillaging genuine comrades' reputation.

[Per Levy]

its the tendency for the neo-kauts on here, even though its more centered around the politics of the cpgb and its gossip mag the weekly worker.


So the strategic options that are both revolutionary and effective is limited to centrist strategy.

Left strategy: ineffective, but revolutionary.
Centrist strategy: effective and revolutionary. (though a risk of degeneration due to a mass movement becoming more representative of the general consciousness of society as a whole -- hence why I don't support the scale of the party-movement as proposed by Kautskyists)
Right strategy: effective, but reformist.
Syndicalism: economistic; effective.



quite honestly all of the above are completly ineffective as long as there isnt a revolutiony situation. the kauts wetdream of recreating something like the spd and the second international will not happen either and we should be thankful that it wont, especially after seeing where those groups and organisations have led the working masses of the past.

[Tim Cornelis]

Ooooh I'm so impressed that some Stalinists, Social Democrats, and trots got "big" and "popular." How effective for them, right? I mean these groups are well known and hold dominant political power, right?
Oh wait. They don't.
I'm not concerned with a "mass party." Nor should anyone be. In times of counterrevolution, it is the big "proletarian" parties that always display the highest amount of opportunism. The Bolsheviks, who were the most successful of all proletarian parties, were not a massively popular party until the revolution. This is a historical fact.

:unsure:

They got comparatively bigger and more popular than their ideological equals who applied a left strategy. In order to be potent and to be able to play a leading role in a revolutionary situation, a communist party is required. A dozen people per country is not a 'party' in any meaningful sense, yet that's a fair estimate of the average membership size of left communist 'parties'. Left communists are irrelevant, unknown, ineffective, impotent, marginal and they are condemned to be this as long as they keep applying a left strategy. A left communist organisation consisting of a dozen members that is completely unknown to the working class, that is not and cannot be involved in its struggles, will not suddenly become 'massively popular' for no reason at all in a revolutionary situation. Consequently, left communism will not play any meaningful role in any revolution.

And this is really the crux: "But hey, I understand, you need this myth. It is your 'proof' that the sect you're a member of could actually, potentially, grow to become a mass entity. If only everything went just about right... In reality of course small groups do rise during revolutionary periods, so do all formations and big, well established parties become much bigger. All boats rise during a tide."

> I mean these groups are well known and hold dominant political power, right?

Some of them are infinitely well-known compared to left communist organisations. Ask a South African if they know Abahlali baseMjondolo and most of them probably will, but it will be impossible to find anyone who knows the largest left communist group. The same for the MST in Brazil; the PCP in Portugal; FCP in France, etc. All these well known political parties and movements applied a centrist strategies that enabled them to grow beyond the sects that their ideological counterparts who applied a left strategy remained.

What is required for a communist party to have a leading role is thousands of members that can, in a potentially revolutionary situation, be deployed directly in struggles to unite them, lead them, escalate them. Centrist strategy is an, again, comparatively effective instrument , that enables party-growth and party-building.

The greatest risk, I think, of mass parties is that the consciousness becomes representative of the dominant state of consciousness in society as a whole, a source of opportunism. For this reason, I do not support a party of millions, but I do a party of thousands. Just big enough to play a meaningful role in a revolutionary situation.

The formula is quite easy, no centrist strategy, no party-building, no meaningful role in the revolution.



quite honestly all of the above are completly ineffective as long as there isnt a revolutiony situation. the kauts wetdream of recreating something like the spd and the second international will not happen either and we should be thankful that it wont, especially after seeing where those groups and organisations have led the working masses of the past.

Perhaps. But I said comparatively effective. In non-revolutionary situations, they are comparatively ineffective compared to bourgeois parties, but comparatively effective in comparison to socialist parties and groups.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

quite honestly all of the above are completly ineffective as long as there isnt a revolutiony situation. the kauts wetdream of recreating something like the spd and the second international will not happen either and we should be thankful that it wont, especially after seeing where those groups and organisations have led the working masses of the past.

Do you follow the news my friend? Are you aware that the heart of global Capitalism is living through the worst crisis since WW2, with over half the youth in half a dozen countries of Europe being unemployed and those "fortunate" men and women still having paying jobs hardly making it over the rounds, effect of the cutting of wages since the global crisis 6 years ago?

Fact is, we live in times where there is a complete breakdown of legitimate authority in the existing institutions because working people are living harder lives while the 1% are richer than ever before. Oh, what a coincidence: did you hear of a mass protest movement that was centered in the USA, which 78% of American people polled supported its driving slogan "99% vs 1%"? Revolutionary crises are such only when there is an actual political force ready to act. We've had many crises, with the Iraq war protests, the economic crisis and ensuing occupy movement, among many other more local struggles of workers. The problem is that we do not have a national and revolutionary organization that can give political leadership, solidarity, material aid, advice and a sense of a greater cause to workers caught in localized crises and struggles in order to funnel those towards a greater confrontation.

I'm sure you don't believe in politics, but some of us working class radicals do. We do because we are radical egalitarians. We sense great injustice when seeing the arrogant representatives of the property owners and minority interests, unhindered and freely propagating incessant verbal garbage in the media which does not have the respect to even address the working class or dare discuss the legitimacy of existing capitalist institutions like Wall Street and places that live off Wall Street, like the United States Capitol. The working class are the numerical majority of people, yet in the United States for instance, the liberals and conservatives are not forced to even bother with the smallest of working class representative competition. Each day on television, in the news, on the talk shows, at work, in city council meetings, in our society, the proletariat has no voice, and if it does it's by some individual who will most likely suffer consequences (such as being fired or being shunned from the corporate media). The aspiration of revolutionary marxists is not only to build a mass communist party that will gain power and political leverage over the class enemy, but will accomplish that through building grassroots cultural organs that in their totality will form a solidarity movement in which workers will be free from social voicelessness and isolation.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It requires a Master's Degree in Jargon to join, I think you'll find.

You must also face Prague and pray to Karl Kautsky 5 times a day.

Only half-joking.^^

[Alexios]

"social democratic - A political theory advocating the use of democratic means to achieve a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism"

"dilettantes - a person who cultivates an area of interest [...] without real commitment or knowledge."

Wrong on both accounts. By ignorantly accusing us orthodox marxists of the latter (not having any real knowledge about or commitment to scientific socialism) you expose yourself as not having even bothered to engage with our ideas and imho quite substantially in-depth stances. That, either your just lazy, or you just enjoy lying about and pillaging genuine comrades' reputation.

There was never a breaking point between 'Orthodox Marxism' and the present-day social democracy of parties like the SPD. The tendency that exists today is simply the result of 19th century theory being applied to modern conditions. Ironically, DNZ is probably the most theoretically in-touch 'Orthodox Marxist' (lol) on this forum because he openly supports social democratic politics, while others attempt to separate themselves from social democracy.

[Tim Cornelis]

I have noticed a tendency amongst orthodox Marxists to sympathise with social-democratic parties. I don't know what the reason for that is though. Can someone explain why you believe this to have a causal relationship?

[L.A.P.]

what is exactly centrist strategy as opposed to the left strategy of ultra-leftists? Does the former entail participating in electoral politics and such?

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

I have noticed a tendency amongst orthodox Marxists to sympathise with social-democratic parties. I don't know what the reason for that is though. Can someone explain why you believe this to have a causal relationship?

You mean parties like DieLinke or Syriza? I wouldn't know any OM that supports them. What you might be referring to with 'social-democratic' parties are the likes of the Communist Party of Czech Republic and so on, who have successfully hijacked genuine revolutionaries' name, flag, culture and tactically speaking should be used as platforms by communists who seek to build our own mass base.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

There was never a breaking point between 'Orthodox Marxism' and the present-day social democracy of parties like the SPD. The tendency that exists today is simply the result of 19th century theory being applied to modern conditions. Ironically, DNZ is probably the most theoretically in-touch 'Orthodox Marxist' (lol) on this forum because he openly supports social democratic politics, while others attempt to separate themselves from social democracy.

Oh really? lol, this gibberish again.

[Alexios]

Grand argument mate.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So the strategic options that are both revolutionary and effective is limited to centrist strategy.

Left strategy: ineffective, but revolutionary.
Centrist strategy: effective and revolutionary. (though a risk of degeneration due to a mass movement becoming more representative of the general consciousness of society as a whole -- hence why I don't support the scale of the party-movement as proposed by Kautskyists)
Right strategy: effective, but reformist.
Syndicalism: economistic; effective.


Given this comradely discussion, I would like to add that the "right" strategy (coalitionism) has proven to be ineffective as well. The effects of its inherent tendency towards coalitionism is basically like shooting oneself in the foot.

How would you define "syndicalism"? Is that just the left variety, or does it include the right variety (i.e., Labourism) as well?

[Die Neue Zeit]

By ignorantly accusing us orthodox marxists of the latter (not having any real knowledge about or commitment to scientific socialism) you expose yourself as not having even bothered to engage with our ideas and imho quite substantially in-depth stances. That, either your just lazy, or you just enjoy lying about and pillaging genuine comrades' reputation.


It requires a Master's Degree in Jargon to join, I think you'll find.

Political education is a skills necessity. I'd be tempted to say it's that simple, but even that isn't. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/political-education-expertisei-t186939/index.html)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Grand argument mate.

Thanks, but it's all been said before. If you actually did bother to read Lih's book it becomes apparent that Lenin won over the political and organizational tradition of German social democracy for the communists in Russia. If you disagree with all the points Lih makes in his book, and don't believe that Lenin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks saw themselves as true defenders of orthodox Marxism then write a book about it.

[Devrim]

You must also face Prague and pray to Karl Kautsky 5 times a day.

Only half-joking.^^

Which way should I face?

Devrim

[Tower of Bebel]

Ironically, DNZ is probably the most theoretically in-touch 'Orthodox Marxist' (lol) on this forum because he openly supports social democratic politics, while others attempt to separate themselves from social democracy.
Some members of the group support some policies of modern-day social democratic parties, whether those are political or organisational, because the policies in question are actually 'centrist' or could be 'centrist'. Whether this would lead to an abdictation to reformism or social-liberalism is another question, and requires analysis, but the point is: there is nothing bad in imitating what is good.

what is exactly centrist strategy as opposed to the left strategy of ultra-leftists? Does the former entail participating in electoral politics and such?
Comrade, to explain the whole centrist strategy would take many posts and articles, but in short it would entail the fight for a radical-democratic and mass opposition on all levels of society that will openly express the independent interests of the working class against the organisations of the capitalist class and against the capitalist state. Note that this differs from the idea that what we need is an immediat campaign for a 'workers' government, either via the reformist route of compromise with capitalism and long-term coalitions with capitalist parties, or the 'revolutionist' route of waiting for a revolutionary crisis to come in order to be able to take power as a minority group in the midst of class struggle. Thus the centrist strategy is aimed against a quick-fix of the question how the working class as a whole could run society without the need for a bureaucracy. A workers' government of a 'revolutionary' minority or a reformist compromise with capitalism would lead to the subordination of the working class to the demands of a bureaucracy.

I know that I'm missing out things, but I leave it there.

[The Jay]

It's for those who acknowledge that the communists must merge with struggles on the shop floor, so to speak, in order to establish the working class as a class-for-itself which can crush the rule of Capital, rather than fighting local and isolated economic struggles like we have today.

This said a whole lot of nothing in the concrete. What are you saying in particular? Are you suggesting that participation in bourgeois parliamentary procedure is unifying shop-floor struggle? Are you suggesting reformism or are you suggesting something else?

[Brutus]

This said a whole lot of nothing in the concrete. What are you saying in particular? Are you suggesting that participation in bourgeois parliamentary procedure is unifying shop-floor struggle? Are you suggesting reformism or are you suggesting something else?

No, I don't see participating in bourgeois parliaments as necessary- it can be useful at times and the death of revolutionary consciousness at others. I said nothing about parliamentary participation or reformism, yet you focus on that in your questions.

[Tjis]

An interesting example of the center strategy (though I'm sure not everyone is going to agree with me on this) was the CNT-FAI. The anarchists in Spain realized the need to organize as anarchists (the FAI), and have a strategy in order to convince mass organizations (the CNT) to keep an anarchist line and prepare it for a revolutionary takeover. They did not simply agitate for an overthrow of the state, nor did they focus entirely on the union work of CNT itself. Instead, they worked toward a continuous merger of the CNT with a revolutionary consciousness. Long before the civil war, anarchists of the FAI were patiently educating, agitating and organizing for this purpose. This resulted in the strongest anarchist movement that has ever existed in Europe.
So the center strategy is not a purely Marxist thing, though it is within the social-democratic tradition that many of the relevant debates took place, and which therefore has generated the biggest body of thought and vocabulary around the issue.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Bolsheviks had roughly 8,500 members in 1905 and subsequently played a relatively minor role in the revolution; the Bolsheviks had roughly 23,600 members at the eve of the 1917 Revolution, and subsequently played a (more than) major role in the revolution. (In a country with 1.6 million workers).

The Left Communists simply lack the instruments, which they consciously reject, that enables party-building and for this reason will remain a sect with maybe a dozen members in a revolutionary situation. Maybe in such a situation they can absorb some disillusioned anarchists and grow, but they will not have a leading role, not even a meaningful role. They will be a small footnote in the history books. Which is unfortunate since ideologically I'm quite aligned with left communism.


Given this comradely discussion, I would like to add that the "right" strategy (coalitionism) has proven to be ineffective as well. The effects of its inherent tendency towards coalitionism is basically like shooting oneself in the foot.

A right strategy is centered around minimum demands and electoralism in the main. This has proven to be an effective means of recruiting workers to socialist organisations. Many Stalinist parties, especially in Latin America, maintain a membership in the thousands for this reason. Of course, it deprives them of revolutionary potential (besides their ideological positions).


How would you define "syndicalism"? Is that just the left variety, or does it include the right variety (i.e., Labourism) as well?

I'm not sure, that's why I categorised it separately. I suppose it is somewhat compatible with leftism, centrism, and rightism in terms of strategy.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

So, uh . . . I think Alexios made a pretty valid point that has yet to be addressed.

What was the "turning point" that led so-called "Orthodox Marxism" or the "centre" down the road to contemporary right-social democracy? What reason is there to believe that such a turn isn't an implicit consequence of such strategies?

[Tim Cornelis]

So, uh . . . I think Alexios made a pretty valid point that has yet to be addressed.

What was the "turning point" that led so-called "Orthodox Marxism" or the "centre" down the road to contemporary right-social democracy? What reason is there to believe that such a turn isn't an implicit consequence of such strategies?

My hypothesis is that a mass movement is susceptible to developing rightward politically as in a non-revolutionary situation workers are, logically, not revolutionary, and therefore a movement with a million members will assume the consciousness that is closer to the general state of consciousness in society as a whole. The remedy would be to limit the size of the movement. Personally, I suggest that the 'party-movement' should consist of clearly defined dual organisations (similar to FAI-CNT), where the party is a cadre-based minority organisation of the most theoretically advanced communists, and a movement similar to a solidarity network with a larger membership. The movement will be susceptible degeneration, in which case the party should shed from the movement and will have to start anew.

But I also asked a question which has not been addressed, what do people suggest is the causal relation between centrist strategy and orthodox Marxism and the degeneration of social-democracy? Because Alexios may have brought up a point, but has not given an argument really.

[Remus Bleys]

So what, a centrist strategy is composed of what exactly? Participation in unions (polemicizing against the bureaucracy of the unions), forming with workers and using elections as a propaganda tool?
Because the Italian Left does/did these things. Damen used election as a tool for propaganda when the PCInt was still in existence, both Damen and Bordiga were connected to the union movement (theoretically they differed but this is about strategy), and the ICT has set up factory organizations in much of Italy. For fucks sake, the Communists even submitted to the Comintetn for the sake of discipline, Damen was a deputy in 1924!
The only difference, taken from your posts, is some weird love for democratism you "centrists" have, which Dauve points out how faulty this is for any communist or workers movement, here https://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008
Furthermore the Italian left isn't the German-Dutch left. The Italian left considers itself very Leninist and as the successor of bolshevism (not to mention Lenin's criticisms of the "centrists" but I suppose modern day kauts ignore the centrists stance on the war)
So it's kinda odd you are going "the bolsheviks prove the communist left wrong" for the Italian lefts consider Lenin to be in the communist left tradition.
Anyway, how many people does, say, the cpgb have?
edit: it is interesting to note, damen ran on abstentionist "platform" yet still got 24000 votes.

[Tjis]

So, uh . . . I think Alexios made a pretty valid point that has yet to be addressed.

What was the "turning point" that led so-called "Orthodox Marxism" or the "centre" down the road to contemporary right-social democracy? What reason is there to believe that such a turn isn't an implicit consequence of such strategies?

There is no pure, right and just orthodox marxism that was later corrupted. The SPD was a mix of many ideologies from the start, some of which can be considered centrist to various degrees, and others which cannot. There was never a turning point. The tendencies that'd lead to the SPD's downfall (reformism, coalitionism) existed in various degrees from the start.

A new centrist project does not have to repeat these mistakes. Nobody in this topic is advocating a carbon copy of the second international (which again was only partly centrist).

[Tim Cornelis]

So what, a centrist strategy is composed of what exactly? Participation in unions (polemicizing against the bureaucracy of the unions), forming with workers and using elections as a propaganda tool?
Because the Italian Left does/did these things. Damen used election as a tool for propaganda when the PCInt was still in existence, both Damen and Bordiga were connected to the union movement (theoretically they differed but this is about strategy), and the ICT has set up factory organizations in much of Italy. For fucks sake, the Communists even submitted to the Comintetn for the sake of discipline, Damen was a deputy in 1924!
The only difference, taken from your posts, is some weird love for democratism you "centrists" have, which Dauve points out how faulty this is for any communist or workers movement, here https://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008
Furthermore the Italian left isn't the German-Dutch left. The Italian left considers itself very Leninist and as the successor of bolshevism (not to mention Lenin's criticisms of the "centrists" but I suppose modern day kauts ignore the centrists stance on the war)
So it's kinda odd you are going "the bolsheviks prove the communist left wrong" for the Italian lefts consider Lenin to be in the communist left tradition.
Anyway, how many people does, say, the cpgb have?

Not sure if this is addressed to me, but I'll respond anyway.

A centrist strategy is based on patience, and building a movement or party or party-movement through deploying various instruments, which I think should include: workplace organising, housing struggles (similar to the Seattle Solidarity Network); and social services (for instance, education and healthcare or whatever is feasible, such as soup kitchens); and a range of other activities such as sports and culture. These are recruitment and retention tools that allow for a platform for political education.

Is participation in trade unions or political parties or electoralism an inherent feature of centrist strategy? Not in my opinion, and I'm skeptical of these. I do not reject parliamentarianism as principle (it can be used as platform and tactically) but unless the state of the movement is (beyond) dire I advocate abstentionism.

I also personally reject the notion of a 'democratic republic' and think it should just be a workers' republic. Creep says he agrees with Bordiga's critique of democratism, but rejects his conclusions of 'anti-democracy' so maybe he can give some arguments (on why orthodox Marxist is not 'democratism').

The Italian Left may consider itself "very Leninist" or the "successor of Bolshevism" but so do Stalinists and Trotskyists and Kautskyists, so I'm not sure why you think self-reported 'allegiance' to Leninism is in any way significant.

The CPGB is a marginal sect, and this is because they write a lot about centrist activity, but they don't walk the walk. I'm not sure what it is they're trying to achieve, maybe by writing polemics they hope to get others on their side and then kickstart the centrist strategy. I've mentioned the Seattle Solidarity Network and Philly Socialists, a combination of these strategies is I think the most effective in Western Europe and North America; not the CPGB-one.

EDIT:

Just looked at Philly Socialists facebook, they have recently started a solidarity network under their name.

[Alexios]

Some members of the group support some policies of modern-day social democratic parties, whether those are political or organisational, because the policies in question are actually 'centrist' or could be 'centrist'. Whether this would lead to an abdictation to reformism or social-liberalism is another question, and requires analysis, but the point is: there is nothing bad in imitating what is good.

So in other words, there might be a chain linking social democratic tactics to social democratic politics, but you're not going to bother recognizing that chain.

[Remus Bleys]

God tim, no one has ever heard of these things: how did you find out about them, how many members are there, are effective are they really?
The allegiance is important because of the fact that the Italian Left actually follows the marxist doctrine which was restored by Lenin (not Lenin all by himself of course) and to emphasize the fact that the Italian Left had involved actually followed the tactics to be derived from the correct revolutionary theory.
And not involving oneself in housing struggles is what makes the Leftcoms irrelevant? Obviously you do not keep up on the Italian Left and don't know the first things about them, despite "ideologically agreeing" with them. I know a couple "comrades" (to use their term) who organized events for the sole purpose of dealing with housing struggles! I've already mentioned workplace struggles. (Edit: this wasnt some charity thing like the "philly socialists" would do though)
And as a whole, taken as a political totality, who is relevant? The Seattle solidarity? The philly socialists? The left communists? Yeah sure, on a local level they may be popular, but none of these tactics have produced anything that is really relevant.
The "centrist" movement appears to be a new thing invented or some kautskyist nonsense, I'll admit I don't know that much about it. But the so called benefits outlined in which leftcoms refuse to do that makes them irrelevant, well, ate things that the left has either historically done or is currently doing. So it makes no sense for you or anyone else from stating these things (workplace struggle, housing struggle, etc) as being the reason that the communist left is irrelevant.
Once more Tim shows he doesn't really understand what left communism is.

edit: the concert wasnt organized for housing it was organized for a strike that was going to occur (a strike by immigrants who didn't have much). Though the guy I was talking to (who left the ict to form a new org) about this did say they had a voice as workers would ask them for help, they don't have enough force to be effective. So it's not because of little housing struggles that causes a lack of force, but rather a lack of force that causes little housing struggles.

[Tim Cornelis]

God tim, no one has ever heard of these things: how did you find out about them, how many members are there, are effective are they really?
The allegiance is important because of the fact that the Italian Left actually follows the marxist doctrine which was restored by Lenin (not Lenin all by himself of course) and to emphasize the fact that the Italian Left had involved actually followed the tactics to be derived from the correct revolutionary theory.
And not involving oneself in housing struggles is what makes the Leftcoms irrelevant? Obviously you do not keep up on the Italian Left and don't know the first things about them, despite "ideologically agreeing" with them. I know a couple "comrades" (to use their term) who organized events for the sole purpose of dealing with housing struggles! I've already mentioned workplace struggles. (Edit: this wasnt some charity thing like the "philly socialists" would do though)
And as a whole, taken as a political totality, who is relevant? The Seattle solidarity? The philly socialists? The left communists? Yeah sure, on a local level they may be popular, but none of these tactics have produced anything that is really relevant.
The "centrist" movement appears to be a new thing invented or some kautskyist nonsense, I'll admit I don't know that much about it. But the so called benefits outlined in which leftcoms refuse to do that makes them irrelevant, well, ate things that the left has either historically done or is currently doing. So it makes no sense for you or anyone else from stating these things (workplace struggle, housing struggle, etc) as being the reason that the communist left is irrelevant.
Once more Tim shows he doesn't really understand what left communism is.

It's about how effective they are, but how effective centrist strategy is in recruitment and retention. Which they prove is far more effective than leftist strategy. Centrist strategy is not 'just' housing struggles and workplace organising. I mentioned these in concert with other instruments and tactics. You pick and choose one thing and then throw your hands up about how ridiculous it is to suggest that his one element is why left communism is irrelevant, as if that one aspect of a component (one tactic) is synonymous with the strategy as a whole.

I've mentioned the MST before as example of a centrist strategy.


A recent article (Wolford, 2003b) argues that the MST capacity to maintain high levels of participation is due to its ability to create an “imagined community” organized around ideas, practices, symbols, slogans and rituals; and, more importantly, to its ability to remain an effective mediator between the state and settlers. Although these factors lead to high levels of participation within the MST, I argue that this participation also derives from the maintenance of an organizational structure that encourages participation and creates not only an “imagined community” but real concrete “autonomous rural communities”, which are easier to mobilize than the membership of other organizations

(THE EXPERIENCE OF THE LANDLESS WORKERS MOVEMENT AND THE LULA GOVERNMENT)

This is what we need to translate to the conditions of the society we live in, in our case Western society, to which the Philly Socialists are till now the closest approximation. Now, how many members do they have? Judging by their photos, they are many times larger than the largest sects in the Netherlands per city. Are they relevant? Much more relevant to ordinary workers than any leftist sect.

"on a local level they may be popular, but none of these tactics have produced anything that is really relevant."

The point is to have enough manpower in a (potentially) revolutionary situation to be able to perform a leading role in it. That they are somewhat popular on a local level provides them with a source for manpower later on.

[Noa Rodman]

So, uh . . . I think Alexios made a pretty valid point that has yet to be addressed.

What was the "turning point" that led so-called "Orthodox Marxism" or the "centre" down the road to contemporary right-social democracy? What reason is there to believe that such a turn isn't an implicit consequence of such strategies?

A partial answer is found on these threads;
http://www.revleft.com/vb/did-lenin-break-t177243/index.html?t=177243

and here (my post 85):
http://www.revleft.com/vb/there-something-valuable-t170683/index5.html

The main turning point is the willingness for coalition policy I think. The reasoning of Kautsky and Bernstein in the 20s became identical on this point. It was a change, but they didn't believe that it would have been opposed by Marx/Engels. The question of opportunism for Kautsky/Bernstein then became what it is for every party, i.e. about your party joining a government coalition in which it would have to give up too much of its programmatic demands in return for too little concrete policy. Or put another way, forgetting the final goal for meager daily practical advantages.

[Five Year Plan]

God tim, no one has ever heard of these things: how did you find out about them, how many members are there, are effective are they really?
The allegiance is important because of the fact that the Italian Left actually follows the marxist doctrine which was restored by Lenin (not Lenin all by himself of course) and to emphasize the fact that the Italian Left had involved actually followed the tactics to be derived from the correct revolutionary theory.
And not involving oneself in housing struggles is what makes the Leftcoms irrelevant? Obviously you do not keep up on the Italian Left and don't know the first things about them, despite "ideologically agreeing" with them. I know a couple "comrades" (to use their term) who organized events for the sole purpose of dealing with housing struggles! I've already mentioned workplace struggles. (Edit: this wasnt some charity thing like the "philly socialists" would do though)
And as a whole, taken as a political totality, who is relevant? The Seattle solidarity? The philly socialists? The left communists? Yeah sure, on a local level they may be popular, but none of these tactics have produced anything that is really relevant.
The "centrist" movement appears to be a new thing invented or some kautskyist nonsense, I'll admit I don't know that much about it. But the so called benefits outlined in which leftcoms refuse to do that makes them irrelevant, well, ate things that the left has either historically done or is currently doing. So it makes no sense for you or anyone else from stating these things (workplace struggle, housing struggle, etc) as being the reason that the communist left is irrelevant.
Once more Tim shows he doesn't really understand what left communism is.

edit: the concert wasnt organized for housing it was organized for a strike that was going to occur (a strike by immigrants who didn't have much). Though the guy I was talking to (who left the ict to form a new org) about this did day they had a voice as workers would ask them for help, they don't have enough force to be effective. So it's not because of little housing struggles that causes a lack of force, but rather a lack of force that causes little housing struggles.

Centrism is a term that has a long history behind it in revolutionary leftist politics, but of course (as seems to be a habit with the CPGB crowd), they appropriate the term and give it an entirely new definition that has very little or no basis in the history.

As for the line from Kautsky to modern-day social democracy, well, consider the fact that I have seen at least one poster here say that the SPD didn't betray Marxism until after the second world war. Apparently the Great Betrayal wasn't really a betrayal after all.

[Rafiq]

So, uh . . . I think Alexios made a pretty valid point that has yet to be addressed.

What was the "turning point" that led so-called "Orthodox Marxism" or the "centre" down the road to contemporary right-social democracy? What reason is there to believe that such a turn isn't an implicit consequence of such strategies?

I don't think there was a single definitive moment, but this was something made clear during the beginning of the first world war. The necessity of the revolutionary spirit - the necessity of will and action was forgotten by the social democrats. It's not a matter of strategy, but of ideology. It was a matter of where the likes of kautsky stood when choice was imperative. The Bolsheviks and the zimmerwald left had truly inherited the legacy of Orthodox Marxism by breaking with it - just as the Protestant movement inherited western Christianity by breaking with it.

The point is that the necessary foundations which made the October revolution POSSIBLE was forgotten and dismissed.

[Tower of Bebel]

The CPGB is a marginal sect, and this is because they write a lot about centrist activity, but they don't walk the walk.You're probably correct about them not walking the walk. Worse, I think writing about the center strategy is not even a particular trait of the CPGB, but that of some members. The CPGB as a whole probabaly has no center strategy and its 'draft' programme is not a genuine programme. Their main concern seems to me to keep the history of the old CPGB alive in some form, i.e. their paper.


What was the "turning point" that led so-called "Orthodox Marxism" or the "centre" down the road to contemporary right-social democracy? What reason is there to believe that such a turn isn't an implicit consequence of such strategies?
I'm not an expert on the history of the SPD. But there's one remark I'd like to make in the context of this question and two factors that could lead to an answer.

One factor is this: the right wing was (already) strong in many industrial countries outside Germany years before the center tendency of the SPD became marginalized. (Though the right wing copied much from the Germans.) In my own country for example, the right wing has always been the leading current in social democracy from its inception in the period between 1885 and 1893. This resulted in the marginalization of the Belgian left and that of the new-born Communist Party of 1921 as well.

The other factor was a fear of a split in the party in times of war and militarization. Many of the tactical mistakes of the German center were made in the advent of the World War. August Bebel for example feared the war so much, he always sought for trade union support when the party was on the verge of a split due to the right wing ignoring the congress resolutions. But the trade unions were a bulwark, mainly, of the right wing. The Bolsheviks did not fear the effects of war as much because they were already an underground organization. In the final years of his life, Bebel was moving centrist leaders from one post to the other like pawns on a chess board. Instead of fighting the right wing politically, he confined himself to defending posts. Many of these 'pawns' were dubious characters such as Ebert. Thoug I'm exaggerating a bit.

My remark is this: we don't know enough about the rise of the right wing and about its strategy. Though the center made tactical mistakes, such mistakes wouldn't have resulted in the downfall of the center unless there was an opponent with a succesfull strategy waiting for the moment to oust the leadership.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Which way should I face?

Devrim

West, comrade, to the glorious German nation. After all, we must humbly heed the fact that Kautsky gave up his career for it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

A right strategy is centered around minimum demands and electoralism in the main. This has proven to be an effective means of recruiting workers to socialist organisations. Many Stalinist parties, especially in Latin America, maintain a membership in the thousands for this reason. Of course, it deprives them of revolutionary potential (besides their ideological positions).

I made my earlier statement based on the observation of social-liberalized parties in the more developed countries. They can grab votes at the ballot box, but their membership bases are still declining. Worse (speaking from a politically neutral perspective for a moment), how they define "membership" is becoming more and more suspect.


The remedy would be to limit the size of the movement. Personally, I suggest that the 'party-movement' should consist of clearly defined dual organisations (similar to FAI-CNT), where the party is a cadre-based minority organisation of the most theoretically advanced communists, and a movement similar to a solidarity network with a larger membership. The movement will be susceptible degeneration, in which case the party should shed from the movement and will have to start anew.

There's a problem with that thinking, I think. It will be very easy for many outsiders to see the "movement" as a front for the "party" (the PAME and KKE, for example), and there will always be those in the "movement" that aren't chummy about "party" influence.

I'm all for principled mass membership, but "principled" also includes a definition of a party-movement "citizen" that is neither "activist"-biased nor pay-your-dues-and-do-nothing-else-biased.


But I also asked a question which has not been addressed, what do people suggest is the causal relation between centrist strategy and orthodox Marxism and the degeneration of social-democracy? Because Alexios may have brought up a point, but has not given an argument really.

I believe it is the whole issue of bureaucracy. It was never said openly back then, but I stated time and again that bureaucracy is a process workers must master in order to rule effectively and durably. "I love bureaucracy just as Winston loved Big Brother" is emotionally packed, but there are points to be made.


West, comrade, to the glorious German nation. After all, we must humbly heed the fact that Kautsky gave up his career for it.

If comradely jests are in order, then all should be facing Eisenach, Gotha, and Erfurt in their secular political reflections (not religious "prayers"). :D

[Noa Rodman]

The issue of the "turning point" in social democracy is exactly put on the table. Yes, it can seem like the group is blurring the lines between Kautsky and Lenin (eg how Lar Lih suggests that still the April Theses were inspired by a Kautsky article) and taking people like Martov way too serious (eg translating the Halle congress debate with Zinoviev). But it's an encouragement to engage deeper with the main opponents of the communists, instead of easy moralist condemnation.


Can we tolerate that even such people as Mehring and Zetkin keep away from Kautsky more “morally” (if one may put it so) than theoretically.... Kautsky has found nothing better to do now than to write against the Bolsheviks, they say.

Is that an argument? Can one really so weaken one’s own position? Why, that is only putting a weapon into Kautsky’s hands!! https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/sep/20x.htm

And I would add such critique should be made of later Social Democracy as well. For some individuals also until after WWII. I don't say Tony Benn, but a person eg like Pierre Rimbert with serious understanding of marxism (and who from the left inside SD could criticize Leon Blum).
Another example of a serious theoretical Social Democrat would be Rodolfo Mondolfo.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't think there was a single definitive moment, but this was something made clear during the beginning of the first world war. The necessity of the revolutionary spirit - the necessity of will and action was forgotten by the social democrats. It's not a matter of strategy, but of ideology.

So you're saying that all that is needed for this 'centrism' to move into later-day Tony Blair-ism is a loss of willpower and some forgetfulness?

Sounds like shaky foundations.

Revolutionary socialism is not a discrete ideology, anyway. It is a by-product of a Marxian social scientific analysis of social systems that exist and have existed in the world.

[Tim Cornelis]

Centrism is a term that has a long history behind it in revolutionary leftist politics, but of course (as seems to be a habit with the CPGB crowd), they appropriate the term and give it an entirely new definition that has very little or no basis in the history.

In what way do they differ?

[Tower of Bebel]

Most members of the group don't (re)claim the word centrism. They speak of a center strategy or the strategy of the center, or of the Marxist Center, which goes back to the 'best practices' of the Kautsky-Bebel leadership of the SPD, even earlier. Some of us differentiate between these policies and centrism, a current of political leaders who compromise due to the fact that different layers of the working class develop in different ways and at different times.

I prefer to place the word 'centrist' between quotation marks, unless it's a bout classic examples of centrism. DNZ does a partial reclaim of the word centrism through the use of the term "vulgar centrism" for those who are "giving cover to frontist and coalitionist tendencies by using r-r-r-revolutionary rhetoric". Despite this, however, within the Revolutionary Marxists group the word centrism is mostly used in the sense of the definition given by the Comintern.

[Tim Cornelis]

I made my earlier statement based on the observation of social-liberalized parties in the more developed countries. They can grab votes at the ballot box, but their membership bases are still declining. Worse (speaking from a politically neutral perspective for a moment), how they define "membership" is becoming more and more suspect.

And don't see that as relevant. Trotskyist parties that use a rightist strategy (Sawant campaign in Seattle, Trotskyists in Algeria and Sri Lanka or Ireland) are actual political parties as opposed to sects that use a leftist strategy. So yes, I do consider it to be effective.


There's a problem with that thinking, I think. It will be very easy for many outsiders to see the "movement" as a front for the "party" (the PAME and KKE, for example), and there will always be those in the "movement" that aren't chummy about "party" influence.

Well it would and should be a 'front'. Essentially it would be a federation of two groups, the party and movement.

[Q]

And don't see that as relevant. Trotskyist parties that use a rightist strategy (Sawant campaign in Seattle, Trotskyists in Algeria and Sri Lanka or Ireland) are actual political parties as opposed to sects that use a leftist strategy. So yes, I do consider it to be effective.
That depends on what you consider to be 'effective'. If you mean 'effective' in the terms of the right, that is, joining coalitions, 'making a difference' and that realpolitik rubbish, then yes, these rightists can be very successful.

In achieving the goals of the minimum programme, that is, working class political hegemony, it is utterly failing.



Well it would and should be a 'front'. Essentially it would be a federation of two groups, the party and movement.The problem with how 'fronts' are often setup (and perceived) is that they're undemocratic entities, not in control by their participants, but by a small group 'behind the scenes'. I think we should avoid such a setup. On the contrary, we should aim for a movement that facilitates working class self-emancipation.

[Tim Cornelis]

That depends on what you consider to be 'effective'. If you mean 'effective' in the terms of the right, that is, joining coalitions, 'making a difference' and that realpolitik rubbish, then yes, these rightists can be very successful.

In achieving the goals of the minimum programme, that is, working class political hegemony, it is utterly failing.


The problem with how 'fronts' are often setup (and perceived) is that they're undemocratic entities, not in control by their participants, but by a small group 'behind the scenes'. I think we should avoid such a setup. On the contrary, we should aim for a movement that facilitates working class self-emancipation.

Effective, as in popularity, membership. I've never claimed rightist strategy is effective in terms of advancing socialism.

What I advocate is a sort of federation. The party is a member of the federation; the movement is too.

[Die Neue Zeit]

DNZ does a partial reclaim of the word centrism through the use of the term "vulgar centrism" for those who are "giving cover to frontist and coalitionist tendencies by using r-r-r-revolutionary rhetoric". Despite this, however, within the Revolutionary Marxists group the word centrism is mostly used in the sense of the definition given by the Comintern.

Don't forget my contrasting of "vulgar centrism" with revolutionary centrism, comrade. It is that second term which should be noted.


And don't see that as relevant. Trotskyist parties that use a rightist strategy (Sawant campaign in Seattle, Trotskyists in Algeria and Sri Lanka or Ireland) are actual political parties as opposed to sects that use a leftist strategy. So yes, I do consider it to be effective.

Who do you think declining membership is irrelevant? It is relevant because it undeniably keeps the majority of supporters to the role of passive supporters at best, showing up only at the ballot box or at the leadership primary (the latter for a "membership" fee or for free "membership"). I believe the French SP is moving to this civically ineffective model, if it hasn't done so already.

[Rafiq]

It is not surprising that the most fervent opponents of a new Communism and a disciplined Marxist foundation come from Left Communists, at least on this site. Sure, Bordigists know precisely what to oppose and in many ways they know what is wrong with the left. They do not cower from the necessities of violence, they are wholly and completely adamant in their espousal of the necessity of real force and struggle, in opposing social democratic scum and all aspects of reformism. The problem comes, of course, when we realize that these exist in a world of fantasy, in an abstract vacuum, divorced from their safe, comfortable world. I think some bordigists truly are horrified at the prospect of a Communism that exists presently in the land of the living, a real movement by which such fantasies of real struggle are actually realized.

[Devrim]

It is not surprising that the most fervent opponents of a new Communism and a disciplined Marxist foundation come from Left Communists, at least on this site.

No, the reason that the objections to these absurd ideas come from left communists on this site is because the left communists on this site tend to be older than the general membership, have some experience of the class struggle itself, and are not impressed by an absurd rehashing of a mishmash of ideas wrapped up in a great deal of verbal masturbation.

Devrim

[Tim Cornelis]

Who do you think declining membership is irrelevant? It is relevant because it undeniably keeps the majority of supporters to the role of passive supporters at best, showing up only at the ballot box or at the leadership primary (the latter for a "membership" fee or for free "membership"). I believe the French SP is moving to this civically ineffective model, if it hasn't done so already.

Because in the grande scheme of things a declining membership rate is not really a big deal. I'm comparing far-left groups with leftist, centrist, rightist strategies, and rightist strategy is certainly effective, even if there's a modest trend of falling membership (which I doubt is as universal as you suggest).

And the French SP? How's that even relevant?

[Rafiq]

No, the reason that the objections to these absurd ideas come from left communists on this site is because the left communists on this site tend to be older than the general membership, have some experience of the class struggle itself, and are not impressed by an absurd rehashing of a mishmash of ideas wrapped up in a great deal of verbal masturbation.

Devrim

There are a great many left communists who are quite young here, actually. That aside, it's undeniable that Left communists take advantage of the comfort from knowing there is no real application of their ideas in the world, they can espouse things that may come across as radical in complete safety knowing these are things that have no place in the world today.

[Rafiq]

This isn't even a question of DNZ and what he posits. I don't even think that these "neo Kautskyans" everyone likes to prattle of even exist. This is about a new Communism, it's about acknowledging our legacy, and at the same time putting to rest methods, rhetoric, and even bankrupt traditions of the past. Seeking the merger of a worker's movement and Marxism is not some kind of subliminal "DNZist" message that has other implications, it is EXACTLY what it means.

Those of us who are not bound by positions and quarrels of the past - I mean for fuck's sake, how could someone be a Bordigist in the 21st century? Sure, you may respect Bordiga, hold his works with high regard, but Bordigism, even Left Communism itself as a phenomena is something that was exclusive to circumstances, feuds, and struggles that don't exist anymore. It has no place in the world today. Marxism, however, is eternal, not to say there is nothing we can learn from the past, on the contrary, it is necessary to understand completely what happened, but our positions and identification shouldn't be based on how we view things that happened in the past. In other words, there is no reason Marxists shouldn't identify with each other, there is no reason Marxists shouldn't unify because they have a different take on the nature of the USSR, or whatever. Today is what's important, sure positions on past feuds is sometimes reflective on current positions, but not always. Isn't there Trotskyist groups that exist, that have split solely due to disagreements about history? I'm sure there's an infinite amount of things I disagree with DNZ, and everyone else. There is no "club" or "following" here, not that I'm aware of.

You want to oppose DNZ's take on things? Fine, but even if it's complete bullshit at least it is derived from the land of the living - the world today.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rafiq, the left-com poster you're responding to isn't a Bordigist, just so you know.

Also, I do hope that two comradely anarchists don't mind my quoting them as my new sig. Center strategy goes to show anti-sectarian but principled *and strategic* unity.