New Spanish party - Podemos

[RedWorker]

Podemos ("We Can") is a left-wing party which had existed for only about four months and obtained 8% of the vote in the European elections of 2014, despite being funded exclusively by donations and having virtually no visibility in the media. Traditionally the main two Spanish parties (PP = right-wing, PSOE = centre-left) have together obtained about 90% of the vote - in this election, they obtained 49%. According to some, this marks "the fall of the two-party system".

According to an opinion poll performed in June 2014, just one month after the European elections, Podemos is now the #1 answer to "who would you vote?", placing better than any other party, including the main traditional ones.

It was founded by Pablo Iglesias Turrion, who claims to be a "communist". He was the host of his own TV show which was broadcast through Internet and a common guest to talk shows, including some conservative talk shows.

The party uses primary elections to elect every member of the party list and wants to maximize internal party democracy. It refuses the traditional party model, and everyone, whether a "member" or not (in fact, there is no such thing as being a "member" yet), can take part in its votes and internal issues.

They are as transparent as possible and give away all data related to the economy of their party (which payments they receive, to whom they pay, etc...)

Their representatives have intentionally limited their wage to the minimum wage (currently about 600 euros/month) multiplied by 3.

In their program for the European elections, which has been elaborated collectively, they have included demands for:


a income given to every citizen no matter what (Unconditional Basic Income or minimum income? it's unclear yet, but the writing of the program suggests the former)
maximum income
35-hour work week
retirement at age 60
ending austerity politics, ending neoliberalism
ending corruption
ending tax evasion
"democratization" of the economy
nationalization of key sectors of the economy
"audit" of public debt. refusing to pay "illegitimate" debt.
"guaranteeing everyone's right to a home", considering "electricity", "water" and "heating" basic rights
right to privacy
right to self-determination
defending rights for women, LGBT, disabled people and other oppressed groups
defending non-human animals' rights
non-interventionism, leaving NATO
repealing the Treaty of Lisboa
participative/direct democracy; citizens' initiatives which lead to referendums
environmentalism/green

Some people suggested that the party has very similar politics to the United Left (IU) party, which is really a cover name for the Marxist (non-Leninist) Communist Party of Spain (PCE), the third biggest party in the country, which never achieved much more than 10% of the vote. The massive popularity of Podemos in comparison to IU has been explained by that their marketing is much better and they do not use standard left-wing symbology, but rather appeal to "the people".

They will support GUE/NGL in the European Parliament.

[Q]

This is looking like an interesting alternative! Is there a Marxist current active in it, fighting for a fully fledged democratic-republican programme? The points you list contain quite a few kernels of such a programme, though it remains short of actually calling for working class power and ending capitalism on a European level.

And about that, what is its vision on Europe? Does it retreat to the same nationalist drab so many in the left suffer from? Or does it actually maintain a continental view?

[RedWorker]

This is looking like an interesting alternative! Is there a Marxist current active in it, fighting for a fully fledged democratic-republican programme? The points you list contain quite a few kernels of such a programme, though it remains short of actually calling for working class power and ending capitalism on a European level.

There seems to be no currents of any sort yet, though there are both local and interest-group "circles" which can be formed by anyone and are involved in internal party democracy. Podemos supports Republic.


And about that, what is its vision on Europe? Does it retreat to the same nationalist drab so many in the left suffer from? Or does it actually maintain a continental view?

Podemos claims that the European Union has been used as a device to force states to accept politics which harm people. Meanwhile Podemos supports international cooperation, I believe.

[MarxSchmarx]

How are they different/better than the IU?

[RedWorker]

How are they different/better than the IU?

Not much other than the amazing marketing success (done by people, the party faced a complete media blackout) and using what they claim is a more transparent and participative party model. Basically it promotes nearly the same policies as IU but without plastering the hammer and sickle everywhere.

Anyway, Podemos (which is now the #1 party people would vote for according to opinion polls) is now being attacked on every media nearly every single time politics are mentioned at all. With 99% of attacks consisting of "they are associated with Venezuela and the terrorist group ETA".

Rosa Diez, the leader of the UPyD ("centrist" liberals) party - 5th most supported, literally said: "Pablo Iglesias supports ETA.", referencing a video of the leader of Podemos giving a talk to supporters of the Basque left.

[Q]

Anyway, Podemos (which is now the #1 party people would vote for according to opinion polls) ...
Really? That is pretty amazing and a sign of the times. I do wonder what makes the situation so different that they, out of "nowhere", get so much attention, while most other groups remain in an obscure niche? What is or are the "X factor(s)"?

That being said, fame comes and goes. What is the party's prospect for the future? Does it actually want to be a membership party? Does it have a real programme (that is, does it have more than a 'wishlist' of demands, with a strategic aim)? If not, that is where the Marxists should come in and wage a campaign for a pro-party and pro-programme road of development.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The party uses primary elections to elect every member of the party list and wants to maximize internal party democracy. It refuses the traditional party model, and everyone, whether a "member" or not (in fact, there is no such thing as being a "member" yet), can take part in its votes and internal issues.

Sorry, but for all the superior marketing ("agitation" and "public relations"), Podemos is no model at all for internal party democracy. Primary elections? Any free-rider of a self-declared "member" can "raid" a primary from an opposing political viewpoint, and this happens in the US all the time! I posted this criticism of a Left Unity article praising Podemos.

The American model for "parties" yields no political parties at all, but well-oiled electoral machines with so-called "political action committees" at the core.

[RedWorker]

Really? That is pretty amazing and a sign of the times.

The "direct intention of vote", meaning no estimations are applied at all, only asking the people which party they would vote for and then doing no weird math on it, was calculated by the survey company GESOP at 16.7%, higher than any other party. As a comparison, the PSOE, the socialdemocrats, one of the "main two big parties", was struggling at a 8.3%.


I do wonder what makes the situation so different that they, out of "nowhere", get so much attention, while most other groups remain in an obscure niche? What is or are the "X factor(s)"?

To be honest, I have no idea. I wish I understood. The only visible head of Podemos is Pablo Iglesias Turrion - who often showed up in political talk shows in TV (including conservative ones). Everyone else in the party is completely unknown to anyone at all.

Podemos used Pablo Iglesias' face as a logo which people saw when picking which party to vote for, arguing that while Podemos is not known (because of the complete media blackout which it suffered), Iglesias is known to many Spanish people, from the talk shows and from other things, and thus would bring in more votes.

IU represents the "old left". It is selling an old product. It is selling workers' demonstrations while flying flags with the hammer and sickle on them. It is selling "burgeoisie vs. proletariat". It is selling "democratic socialism". It is speaking about Marx in the 21th century. It is seen as an old party, a "traditional party", a party which has become "part of the elite", "part of the main parties", one which cannot solve things, in a time in which people want "something new". It is seen as an internally undemocratic party, controlled by a bureaucracy at the Communist Party of Spain. IU are communists, they said. IU, therefore, are STALIN! IU is STALIN!

Meanwhile, Podemos does not clearly position itself anywhere. It avoids any traditional labels. It unequivocally rejects anything associated with the "old", and associates with anything seen as "modern". It avoids excluding any group of people. It appeals to everyone. It does not talk about Marx. It speaks about "returning the power to the people". It speaks of "ending with the elite". It speaks of "gaming the system and bringing a decent life to everyone who needs it". It mentions "the elite", but it does not talk of the working class.

Many people, which usually have low knowledge of politics, and are in line with the politics of IU, would not have voted IU. However, they voted for Podemos.

The Spanish protests which started in 2011 involved at least 8.5 millions of people... according to the official discourse by the government.

One of the common phrases use in these protests was "Do not vote for them" (referring to PP and PSOE). The people wanted an ALTERNATIVE, but did not see an alternative anywhere. IU, for them, was an old party. A "traditional" party, which is completely out of touch with "modern people" and cannot provide a new solution, only continue in the "old system". Perhaps they did not even know what IU was, or what it meant.

Many people therefore said, "screw politics!". They would only abstain from voting. But that did not come with a increase of support of the radical left. That did not come with a increase of support for socialism. It was simply useless, completely useless. It was people who just completely refused to care about politics in any way, because "every politician and party just wants to screw you over, anyway".

IU, under the leadership of Cayo Lara, grew much in support. It grew and grew. But the growth was not enough. It was stagnating. It stagnated. It seemed that it reached its limit, both for the kind of public image it gave itself, and because it was never given attention, anywhere, because it suffered COMPLETE, ABSOLUTE silence from the media, despite being the 3rd biggest party. People, at most, would have known their external image, and had no idea about any of their politics. And nobody really liked the external image of IU.

So there came Podemos. Podemos, completely new and unknown party. Podemos, identifying with the protests. Identifying with the people against an "unjust situation", perhaps against this "unjust system", even though people may not have realized what the "unjust system" was; they just were aware that there was one.

And, who the hell is Podemos? Who knows? The only known person is Pablo Iglesias. That guy who was saying on TV against some conservative fuckers that "everyone deserves education, everyone deserves a house, everyone deserves healthcare". That guy who was arguing with a conservative who supported the Francoist dictatorship, and called him out on his bullshit. That guy who opposed the "unjust system" in every intervention he gave.

What the hell is politics? What does left mean? What does socialism mean? Who knows? Who likes the "old left", who likes a tired-out discourse? But Pablo Iglesias is a good guy. He has good intentions. Everyone knows that.

So Podemos was spread in social media, and people donated money for its campaign.

And that was it.


That being said, fame comes and goes. What is the party's prospect for the future?

No idea.


Does it actually want to be a membership party?

It does not seem so - it seems that the case is either "everyone is a member", or "nobody is a member".


Does it have a real programme (that is, does it have more than a 'wishlist' of demands, with a strategic aim)?

Depends on how you define a "real programme".


If not, that is where the Marxists should come in and wage a campaign for a pro-party and pro-programme road of development.

Elaborate.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

IU represents the "old left". It is selling an old product. It is selling workers' demonstration while flying flags with the hammer and sickle on it. It is selling "burgeoisie vs. proletariat". It is selling "democratic socialism". It is speaking about Marx in the 21th century. It is seen as an old party, a "traditional party", a party which has become "part of the elite", "part of the main parties", one which cannot solve things, in a time which people want "something new". It is seen as an internally undemocratic party, controlled by a bureaucracy at the Communist Party of Spain.

Meanwhile, Podemos does not clearly position itself anywhere. It avoids any traditional labels. It unequivocally rejects anything associated with the "old", and associates with anything seen as "modern". It avoids excluding any group of people. It appeals to everyone. It does not talk about Marx. It speaks about "returning the power to the people". It speaks of "ending with the elite". It speaks of "gaming the system and bringing a decent life to everyone who needs it". It mentions "the elite", but it does not talk of the working class.

And that is precisely why it will never do anything that could possibly be interesting or relevant to revolutionary socialists. Class consciousness is not something you sell, and if you replace scientific discussion about classes with vague bullshit about "the elites", you've placed yourself to the right of most of the old-style social-democratic sellouts.

[RedWorker]

Why?

People do not oppose capitalism out of discourse from a left party which seeks elections.
They do not oppose capitalism from Marxism.
They do not oppose capitalism from any socialist theory or discourse.

They oppose capitalism out of reality.
They oppose capitalism because it fucks you over, because it doesn't give you a roof to live under, because it takes food away from you.

If anybody wanted to oppose capitalism, reality and populist-style discourse would be a much better device than anything else.

The aims of Podemos are directly opposite to that of the bourgeoisie.
The aims of Podemos advance the immediate interests of the proletariat.

Nobody pretended that Podemos is a revolutionary communist party.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Why?

People do not oppose capitalism out of discourse from a left party which seeks elections.
They do not oppose capitalism from Marxism.
They do not oppose capitalism from any socialist theory or discourse.

They oppose capitalism out of reality.
They oppose capitalism because it fucks you over, because it doesn't give you a roof to live under, because it takes food away from you.

If anybody wanted to oppose capitalism, reality and populist-style discourse would be a much better device than anything else.

The aims of Podemos are directly opposite to that of the bourgeoisie.
The aims of Podemos advance the immediate interests of the proletariat.

Nobody pretended that Podemos is a revolutionary communist party.

"People" do not - can not - oppose capitalism, proletarians do, and in order for the proletariat to oppose capitalism it needs to be conscious of its interests and its world-historic mission of ending class society. Parties like Podemos aren't helping; in fact their lowest-common-denominator anti-"elite" populism just makes things worse by tying one section of the proletariat to the petite bourgeoisie and the lower strata of the haute bourgeoisie.

[QueerVanguard]

Just the usual run of the mill populist rhetoric the idealistic "Left" swarms to like flies on donkey shit. My .02 Marxist cents - this little craze surrounding this party will up and vanish like a fart in the wind within a few months, just like the Ross Perrot and Ron Paul craze did over here.

[Geiseric]

Sounds kind of reminiscent of the mensheviks. Open membership, and lack of a clear revolutionary program.

[FSL]

Why?

People do not oppose capitalism out of discourse from a left party which seeks elections.
They do not oppose capitalism from Marxism.
They do not oppose capitalism from any socialist theory or discourse.

They oppose capitalism out of reality.
They oppose capitalism because it fucks you over, because it doesn't give you a roof to live under, because it takes food away from you.

If anybody wanted to oppose capitalism, reality and populist-style discourse would be a much better device than anything else.

The aims of Podemos are directly opposite to that of the bourgeoisie.
The aims of Podemos advance the immediate interests of the proletariat.

Nobody pretended that Podemos is a revolutionary communist party.

So now next to the new left of IU we have the newer left of Podemos and I'm guessing if they were ever to get into government they would transform into the newest left, remarkably similar to the old right.

Podemos doesn't speak of capitalism as you yourself said. It speaks of elites, of corruption, it probably speaks of Merkel. So people are "instictively" against the elite, against corruption and against Merkel and Podemos capitalizes on that.

But it is capitalism that fucks them over and it will keep doing so until they learn to call it by its name. Because any party like Podemos can say whatever it damn wants but profit margins make the world go round, as boring as they may be, and the even more boring bourgeoisie would still be out to get them.

[FSL]

Nobody pretended that Podemos is a revolutionary communist party.
This is the common rallying call of the people who support social democratic parties which have -after centuries- allegedly found out how to make capitalism nice for everyone.
"Hey, I never said they were revolutionary!"

No but you have at some point probably claimed you are.

[Geiseric]

Ending austerity. Ending neoliberalism. The spanish know how to be dramatic.

[Geiseric]

Just the usual run of the mill populist rhetoric the idealistic "Left" swarms to like flies on donkey shit. My .02 Marxist cents - this little craze surrounding this party will up and vanish like a fart in the wind within a few months, just like the Ross Perrot and Ron Paul craze did over here.

Except ross perot and ron paul are libertarians wheras these people are socialist?

[QueerVanguard]

Except ross perot and ron paul are libertarians wheras these people are socialist?

It's the same result whether from the Right or Left, pitch as huge a tent as possible and try to get as many people from different classes uniting under it as you can. It's horseshit and these Pokemon Podemos whatever are about as "Socialist" as any other centre-left party out there.

[RedWorker]

Actually, it seems that I have an answer for Q. The #2 and #7 candidates of Podemos' party list are (or were?) members of the Marxist "Izquierda Anticapitalista" (Anticapitalist Left) party (certain sources call them "Trotskyist", not sure if they define themselves as that). That party now supports Podemos and called people to vote for it. #2 got elected to the European parliament, #7 didn't.

In fact there seems to be some kind of conspiracy theory (seemingly widely circulated by certain sectors associated with the radical left, and ignored in the mainstream) that Podemos is a creation of "Anticapitalist Left", or that the latter is trying to overtake the former, though I cannot determine to what degree this is true.

[RedWorker]

Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Žižek sign letter in support of Podemos (http://podemos.info/in-support-of-podemos/).

[RedWorker]

Pablo Iglesias Turrion (Podemos leader) elected GUE/NGL candidate for the presidency of the European Parliament (http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/gue-ngl-news/pablo-iglesias-elected-candidate-for-the-presidency-of-the-european-parliam).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Žižek sign letter in support of Podemos (http://podemos.info/in-support-of-podemos/).


Pablo Iglesias Turrion (Podemos leader) elected GUE/NGL candidate for the presidency of the European Parliament (http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/gue-ngl-news/pablo-iglesias-elected-candidate-for-the-presidency-of-the-european-parliam).

Well, aren't you proud. About the only thing missing for the complete reformist experience is an endorsement from Tsipras.

[QueerVanguard]

Noam Chomsky and Slavoj Žižek sign letter in support of Podemos (http://podemos.info/in-support-of-podemos/).

How precious.... The two big name left liberals who don't agree on anything can set aside their differences long enough to sign some pathetic letter of support for a party that wants to make a kinder, gentler capitalism. How heart warming.... The correct line for actual Communists on this letter is simple: use it as toilet paper then set it on fire. But I shouldn't even need to be pointing this out on a forum that prides itself on it's revolutionary content, should I?

[RedWorker]

Podemos membership now exists and is open to anyone, who can sign up in 5 minutes from Internet. Internal party decisions and primary elections will be involved with Internet voting. There are no requirements such as a fee.

Podemos confirmed as tied for number 1 party spot (by a margin of <1%) by opinion polls reporting direct intention of vote, with no extrapolation.

However, with extrapolations it was like this:

extrapolation over state polling CIS by La Vanguardia - PP 23.6%, PSOE 21.4%, Podemos 19.2%, IU 10.4%
Sigma-2 - PP 30.1%, PSOE 22.3%, Podemos 21.2%, IU 4.1%

PP = standard right-wing conservatives, ties with Francoist dictatorship
PSOE = standard centre-left socialdemocrats
IU = group of Communist Party of Spain (PCE; formerly Stalinist, now "revolutionary Marxist" according to themselves) + others

Note: I'm reporting news about politics in a certain state and giving information about a political party here, which some forum members may simply find interesting. I never claimed that it was a communist or socialist party, so the random "socialdemocrats!" is getting boring. I never even wrote any opinion. Elaboration and debate is welcome - the same stuff we hear all the time and criticisms in the basis of posts which anybody would already have known letter-for-letter before clicking on the thread is not.

Do note, however, that Podemos is very related to - in fact, was virtually created by, according to certain sources - political party "Izquierda Anticapitalista" (Anticapitalist Left), which is a section of the Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International (USFI) - whatever your opinion about this International is, which this isn't the thread for.

In expansion of my reply to Q about Podemos and the European Union: it seems to me that the thinking behind Podemos' ideas about the EU is similar to that of the CPGB(PCC) on the same topic. There is no nationalist criticism of it nor classical Euroscepticism. It is not claimed that the "national sovereignty" has to be expanded, but rather that the less well-off people of the EU should unite against the imperialists. On the topic of nationalism, the de facto party leader has stated that the concept of "patriotism" has been taken over by exploiters, and that in a rightful interpretation it has nothing to do with state but rather supporting the interests of the majority. Neither he nor Podemos engage in any sort of nationalism, and there are no references to the "Spanish country", "Spanish people", nor related concepts; however, the right to self-determination has been supported.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think internet membership is a pretty bad idea, although granted it is at least an attempt to be creative and re-invent the wheel, which is more than can be said for many of the parties on the existing left who wish to see new parties like Podemos fail out of nothing other than bitterness and jealousy.

[FSL]

I think internet membership is a pretty bad idea, although granted it is at least an attempt to be creative and re-invent the wheel, which is more than can be said for many of the parties on the existing left who wish to see new parties like Podemos fail out of nothing other than bitterness and jealousy.

Another attempt to be creative is to promote business interests in the name of the people. No one ever thought of that before and those old leftists are mad at the brilliance of this idea, hence why they'd like to see it fail.





Note: I'm reporting news about politics in a certain state and giving information about a political party here, which some forum members may simply find interesting. I never claimed that it was a communist or socialist party, so the random "socialdemocrats!" is getting boring. I never even wrote any opinion.
Not as boring as agnosticism and repeating "No one ever said they were revolutionaries guys!"

[bropasaran]

Really? That is pretty amazing and a sign of the times. I do wonder what makes the situation so different that they, out of "nowhere", get so much attention, while most other groups remain in an obscure niche? What is or are the "X factor(s)"?
To be honest, I have no idea. I wish I understood. The only visible head of Podemos is Pablo Iglesias Turrion - who often showed up in political talk shows in TV (including conservative ones). Everyone else in the party is completely unknown to anyone at all.
They are a continuance and an articulation of the indignados / the 15-M movement.

This could be great, this is exactly the type of thing that people who are interested in the emancipation of the working people should be involved in, to participate and strive to steer the movement more and more in the libertarian direction by their activism.

[RedWorker]

Pablo Iglesias Turrión (de facto leader of Podemos) and Teresa Rodríguez, (MEP, elected by Podemos, syndicalist and member of the Anticapitalist Left party - section of the Unified Secretariat of the Fourth International) have come back from a visit to Palestine and Israel, along with other MEPs of the GUE/NGL group, in order to examine the situation there. After the visit, Teresa Rodríguez stated that a system of "apartheid" and "genocide" exists.

After coming back, Pablo Iglesias Turrión gave an interview to Nueva Tribuna. There, he defined himself as a Marxist. He said that the policy proposals of Podemos are "what any social democratic party would have supported 30 or 40 years ago". He also said that the end of the Cold War has transformed social democratic parties into neoliberal, and "parties of the communist tradition" into social democratic. He said that "being a communist is something to be defined through political practice and in this field very few actually match the criteria". He has stated that the "military escalation" of the USA is putting European citizens at risk. He has stated that Podemos is not an Eurosceptic party, but rather the opposite, stating that it is in fact the other parties who are against Europe, adding that "the image of Europe cannot be that of the police shooting immigrants running away from the poverty in Africa". He seems to have avoided commenting the status of Anticapitalist Left within Podemos, replying to the direct question only that there are several people of different ideas within Podemos, adding that he does not want Podemos to turn into "a left which has commited an uncountable amount of errors".

[Fausto Coppi]

There's been a fabulous amount of mass media crap going on around Podemos. They've said everything and in every sense.

I would like to say 3 things:

1) This recent interview brings some light (I tried to link it but I'm not allowed... you can find it searching Google with "Pablo Iglesias Nueva Tribuna Entrevista" and if you understand Spanish you can read it). Let me please translate one of his answers:

"I think we (the revolutionary left) LOST. Our culture is nowadays impotent to bring some political change. It may be an exciting corpse, and I still feel excited with that culture and feelings. But it's a huge mistake to believe that with that we can win the battle. Those values are still on our nightstands, our libraries and our background. But we can't form majorities with that. We have to be conscious that we are few and fewer. But if we are less classists and respect more our people, the Spanish people that has no problem at all with the Spanish flag, the Spanish people that loves the football National team, the Spanish people that doesn't get excited with the Republican flag neither with the Civil War memories... If we respect them, we can win. And yet that very same people is against corruption and with the social rights. That people wasn't built as a colectivity with the revolutionary left ideas. Do I like that? No, I don't. But that's the reality".

2) It's essential to know that Podemos is one thing and their leaders another. Because if you have followed their leaders in the past (they've been doing things for a long time now) you will notice that they have solid background. In fact, conservative mass-media are digging up all that background in order to call them "chavists" and "communists" (which they are, no doubt about it).

3) Let's face it. Until Podemos appeared, here in Spain our best possible scenario (and I mean best like FUCKING EXCELLENT results) was a government coalition between PSOE as major party and IU like saying "please, please, give me two ministries". As you perfectly know, PSOE is socialdemocracy in its worst version, meaning for instance that they're 100% neolib economics, 100% against abolishing the monarchy and so on... PSOE's only fight is to preserve themselves as people in power. IU is the "brand" for the Communist Party, but including now a ton of reformists (green, yellow, pink and every possible colour). We were hoping that IU maybe (just maybe) would get 15% of the votes. And that was like heaven (remember that 6 years ago we were at 3,77% :ohmy:)

This said, I must admit that I have big problems with the Spanish flag, I don't love the football national team and I still get excited with the Republican flag and the Civil War memories :grin:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think PODEMOS's "success" points in some interesting directions - though, obviously, I think it also has some clear limitations.

It leads me, at least, to wonder about the posibility of a different form of revolutionary party. Are the forms suggested by the indignados / 15-M / Occupy / etc. inherently limited to a middling social-democratic reformism? How do these forms compare to, for example, CLASSE/ASSÉ - formal structures which are none the less federative and make decisions at the general assembly level? Are forms irrelevant to / a distraction from politics proper?

As to Pablo Iglesias's quote above, how do we acknowledge this reality (most people are not communists) without resigning ourselves to reformism? Is the only answer minority activity, or is some sort of mass formation possible/desirable?

[Fausto Coppi]

I feel the same "philosophical inquietude" that you mention. But at this point (things may change really fast) my worries around Podemos are not so much about its possible reformist bias. It may happen... but it's still the best option available (and the most revolutionary by far).

Let's face it: to find an undoubtedly Spanish revolutionary movement nowadays means to dig for some party that gets (at best) 40.000 votes in a country with 46 million people... and that's not revolutionary at all.

So my hopes around Podemos are more like Trojan Horse strategy. Something like this: we're and we've always been revolutionary... but for better sell the idea let's make it up with some 15M/indignados marketing and they will buy it. And then... then we will be as revolutionary as we've always been. As far as I know Pablo Iglesias, this is his bet. Another question is if the bases of the movement will allow him to do this. In my opinion, in this case more "internal democracy" doesn't mean more revolution but the opposite.

[RedWorker]

In October, all members of Podemos (meaning everyone who can fill an Internet form which takes 5 minutes) will get to vote on which party documents and resolutions get adopted, with anyone being able to submit such documents for voting. How should the left act here?

[Fausto Coppi]

More about internal democracy and the so-called "círculos" (=circles, assambleary meetings across Spain supporting Podemos):

-In Valencia there's a circle that organized a rally with the Fascist Party to protest for the construction of a drug-rehabilitation center in the neighbourhood.

-In Estepona (Málaga) there's a circle leaded leaded by Manuel Vallejo, former fascist activist.

-There's even a "Nudist Circle" that when Pablo Iglesias visited Palestina asked him formally to establish contact with palestinian nudist associations.

Let's think again about internal democracy?? :laugh:

[RedWorker]

It's worth mentioning that anyone can be a member of such a circle, and technically there should be maximum internal democracy, no "omnipotent leader".
Which "Fascist party"? The Falange? If so which of them? If not, maybe DN or MSR? Or do you mean PP? ;)
Any more details about it?
Nothing wrong with the nudist circle. :grin:

[Fausto Coppi]

The rally was FE de las JONS+Podemos circle of Benicalap (Valencia).

Manuel Vallejo claims his passion for traditional Falange beliefs, but before joining Estepona circle was a Ciudadanos militant.

Yes, of course to join one of these circles is enough to go to the meetings and thats it. But lot of internal critics to Pablo Iglesias referred to the fact that these circles got no power at all in the end (untill now it's like the circles propose... but the leaders are indeed doing the politics and, more important, talking to the media in their own way).

Some say this is going to change now with the "national congress" but I don't think so (and I don't want to).

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

In October, all members of Podemos (meaning everyone who can fill an Internet form which takes 5 minutes) will get to vote on which party documents and resolutions get adopted, with anyone being able to submit such documents for voting. How should the left act here?

Denounce all social-democratic movements as inveterate enemies of the workers and oppressed? It's not rocket science exactly.

[RevoTO]

"People" do not - can not - oppose capitalism, proletarians do, and in order for the proletariat to oppose capitalism it needs to be conscious of its interests and its world-historic mission of ending class society. Parties like Podemos aren't helping; in fact their lowest-common-denominator anti-"elite" populism just makes things worse by tying one section of the proletariat to the petite bourgeoisie and the lower strata of the haute bourgeoisie.


Foolish workers, how misguided of you to join the ranks of a party such as Podemos. It's a phenomenon you see time and time again around the world. When will the proletariat learn! When will they find their rightful place among the ranks of International Communist League!

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Foolish workers, how misguided of you to join the ranks of a party such as Podemos. It's a phenomenon you see time and time again around the world. When will the proletariat learn! When will they find their rightful place among the ranks of International Communist League!

Did you people get tired of tailing the IU already? Or are you just one of those people who isn't even aware of the policies of "their" organisation? And yes, being a communist means coming into contradiction with the spontaneous consciousness of the working masses from time to time - which is why you wouldn't find Bolsheviks in Menshevik-led "labour congresses", the Provisional Government and so on.

[RevoTO]

Being a communist means understanding the developing consciousness of the masses, and bringing the finished Marxist program to the unfinished consciousness of the masses. If we understand that the workers most quickly developing socialist consciousness are found within parties like Podemos, then it is our job to go to where the workers are and wing them over to revolutionary politics.

[RevoTO]

Lets discuss the approach of the Spartacist league, tabling at University of Toronto (at least a few years ago) with the slogan of "Defense to the North Korean Nuclear program!". I wonder if that what Trotsky was talking about with his transitional program. That's the best way to the win over the radical students, I mean.. if someone's turned off by that they probably aren't serious anyways. :laugh:

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Being a communist means understanding the developing consciousness of the masses, and bringing the finished Marxist program to the unfinished consciousness of the masses. If we understand that the workers most quickly developing socialist consciousness are found within parties like Podemos, then it is our job to go to where the workers are and wing them over to revolutionary politics.

And that's the chief problem with the IMT, you never made a serious study of the French Turn, and since you rely on the parody of entryism due to Pablo and others, you've never been able to replicate the successes of the Fourth International in France (the same goes for Healy, although to the old bastard's credit he did figure out he wasn't going anywhere).



Lets discuss the approach of the Spartacist league, tabling at University of Toronto (at least a few years ago) with the slogan of "Defense to the North Korean Nuclear program!". I wonder if that what Trotsky was talking about with his transitional program. That's the best way to the win over the radical students, I mean.. if someone's turned off by that they probably aren't serious anyways. :laugh:

So, are you familiar with Trotsky's position on the Soviet war against Finland, or the one against Poland, and his attitude to the Shachtman-Burnham opposition?

[RevoTO]

That is quite a leap, i'm impressed. Trotsky fighting against the petit-bourgeois opposition which had developed as a force within the SWP, specifically their political prejudices to the dominant ideas in society/on the campuses equates abandoning the Marxist praxis and putting obscure positions front and center. I mean why talk about the capitalist crisis when we can talk about the importance of defending the North Korean Nuclear program.

[RevoTO]

I think there's something to be said for attracting the best class conscious students and workers and through a process of discussions, reading groups etc, help develop their ideas. But of course no one's going to be interested in a bunch of nuts who for some odd reason talk about NAMBLA and North Korea as often as issues that people are actually facing day to day.

[RevoTO]

you've never been able to replicate the successes of the Fourth International in France (the same goes for Healy, although to the old bastard's credit he did figure out he wasn't going anywhere).


If only we could replicate the growth of the sparts :)

[Art Vandelay]

NAMBLA

I think someone should start keeping track of how long it takes someone to bring up NAMBLA after the ICL gets mentioned in a thread. 3 posts this time around. Why bother arguing with the groups politics, or discussing the fact that their position on age of consent is the same as the Bolsheviks was, when you can mention NAMBLA, call them nutjobs and toss in something about the DPRK for good measure.

Reductio ad NAMBLA.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

If only we could replicate the growth of the sparts :)

The Spartacist group originated in the mid-sixties. Since that period, the global proletariat has come close to a pre-revolutionary situation in two instances - the late sixties and the nineties. The Spartacists grew in both periods. In the first period, they were able to win over a lot of people from the SDS - they probably could have done more if Ellens and Turner hadn't split. They merged with the Red Flag Union and made the first international contacts (and bear in mind that, in the early years, they saw themselves as being in programmatic agreement with the SLL, something which hampered them quite a bit). In the nineties, the German section in particular was able to grow (where was the IMT then? fighting for capitalist unification of Germany of course).

In the intervening period and today, of course, their growth was far from impressive - but that's how it is in reactionary periods, and if you ask anyone from the ICL, they will tell you the same thing. But the IMT rejects this perspective - they practice entryism in the long term (one might say they practice it deeply), they don't draw the connection between entryist practice and periods of heightened class consciousness (as Trotsky did during the French Turn). So, having been buried in the Labour Party for goodness knows how long, what do you have to show for it? And if you did attract a lot of cadre, are they quality cadre there for the long term, or will they pass through your organisation as if through a "revolving door"?



That is quite a leap, i'm impressed. Trotsky fighting against the petit-bourgeois opposition which had developed as a force within the SWP, specifically their political prejudices to the dominant ideas in society/on the campuses equates abandoning the Marxist praxis and putting obscure positions front and center. I mean why talk about the capitalist crisis when we can talk about the importance of defending the North Korean Nuclear program.

Except, of course, the SL/ICL-FI do talk about the capitalist crisis, although they do call it what is is - a capitalist crisis - and they do not blame the bogey of "neoliberalism" as those who are wedded to "old" Labour or "old" social-democracy in general do. I mentioned Trotsky's struggle against Shachtman and Burnham precisely because these gentlemen lost nerve in the face of liberal pressures - recall that it wasn't until later that Shachtman accepted the fantastic theory of "bureaucratic collectivism" fully - and flinched in their defense of the USSR. And - you are doing the same.

[RevoTO]

I think someone should start keeping track of how long it takes someone to bring up NAMBLA after the ICL gets mentioned in a thread. 3 posts this time around. Why bother arguing with the groups politics, or discussing the fact that their position on age of consent is the same as the Bolsheviks was, when you can mention NAMBLA, call them nutjobs and toss in something about the DPRK for good measure.

Reductio ad NAMBLA.

My point wasn't even really about NAMBLA. You realize you've just reduced my point to something that wasn't even my point. I was commenting on the way the ICL approaches the working class and students in general, which of course is tied to the slogans they put forward.

[RevoTO]

The Spartacist group originated in the mid-sixties. Since that period, the global proletariat has come close to a pre-revolutionary situation in two instances - the late sixties and the nineties. The Spartacists grew in both periods. In the first period, they were able to win over a lot of people from the SDS - they probably could have done more if Ellens and Turner hadn't split. They merged with the Red Flag Union and made the first international contacts (and bear in mind that, in the early years, they saw themselves as being in programmatic agreement with the SLL, something which hampered them quite a bit). In the nineties, the German section in particular was able to grow (where was the IMT then? fighting for capitalist unification of Germany of course).

In the intervening period and today, of course, their growth was far from impressive - but that's how it is in reactionary periods, and if you ask anyone from the ICL, they will tell you the same thing. But the IMT rejects this perspective - they practice entryism in the long term (one might say they practice it deeply), they don't draw the connection between entryist practice and periods of heightened class consciousness (as Trotsky did during the French Turn). So, having been buried in the Labour Party for goodness knows how long, what do you have to show for it? And if you did attract a lot of cadre, are they quality cadre there for the long term, or will they pass through your organisation as if through a "revolving door"?


:laugh:
Are we still in a reactionary period? How does one explain your lack of growth since the capitalist crisis, does Canada need to enter a pre-revolutionary period before you guys grow from 3 to 6?

[RevoTO]

In the intervening period and today, of course, their growth was far from impressive - but that's how it is in reactionary periods, and if you ask anyone from the ICL, they will tell you the same thing. But the IMT rejects this perspective - they practice entryism in the long term (one might say they practice it deeply), they don't draw the connection between entryist practice and periods of heightened class consciousness (as Trotsky did during the French Turn). So, having been buried in the Labour Party for goodness knows how long, what do you have to show for it? And if you did attract a lot of cadre, are they quality cadre there for the long term, or will they pass through your organisation as if through a "revolving door"?



How deeply does the IMT practice entryism :confused:

[n0b0dy]

Apart from the indignados Podemos seems to be inspired by Laclau & Mouffe and the left in latin america (especially Venezuela). One of the best articles in english I found so far:
left-flank.org/2014/11/14/understanding-podemos-23-radical-populism/

Pablo Iglesias explaines why Podemos is avoiding traditional terms such as "class struggle", "bourgeois", "proletariat"... (must see!)
youtube.com/watch?v=6-T5ye_z5i0

I like that Pablo Iglesias doesn't talks about winning a few seats, 20% of the vote or something like this. Instead he wants the Left to win.
It's obvious that you don't become majority with advocating a planned economy, but you do if you talk about radicalizing democracy (spread to the economy etc.). The consequence is in fact the same, but this will only be realized in the revolutionary process itself.

[RedWorker]

Pablo Iglesias explaines why Podemos is avoiding traditional terms such as "class struggle", "bourgeois", "proletariat"... (must see!)
youtube.com/watch?v=6-T5ye_z5i0

Yes, such a strategy is perfect for taking a social democratic party to power, but it has already been proven to fail a thousand times. "Why don't we try the PSOE again?" He is wrong when he is talking about who 'they' fear, in fact the opposite is true: they certainly don't fear Podemos, whose government would not be much dissimilar from the PSOE's. They do, however, fear Marxism like there was no tomorrow.


I like that Pablo Iglesias doesn't talks about winning a few seats, 20% of the vote or something like this. Instead he wants the Left to win.

Social-democratic parties calling for an absolute majority; nothing new.


It's obvious that you don't become majority with advocating a planned economy

Do revolutionary parties talk about that?


but you do if you talk about radicalizing democracy (spread to the economy etc.). The consequence is in fact the same, but this will only be realized in the revolutionary process itself.

The same consequence? Not at all. Podemos will only change parameters within the current system.

[FSL]

Pablo Iglesias explaines why Podemos is avoiding traditional terms such as "class struggle", "bourgeois", "proletariat"... (must see!)
youtube.com/watch?v=6-T5ye_z5i0

I like that Pablo Iglesias doesn't talks about winning a few seats, 20% of the vote or something like this. Instead he wants the Left to win.
It's obvious that you don't become majority with advocating a planned economy, but you do if you talk about radicalizing democracy (spread to the economy etc.). The consequence is in fact the same, but this will only be realized in the revolutionary process itself.

Because these terms mean something unlike "true democracy".

The suggestion that you need to-or even can- trick people into rebelling, as if it's a question of a successful marketing ploy, is disgusting.
Podemos talks about a fairy capitalism with money for everyone that doesn't exist and can't exist. Period. People vote for that because the rulling idea is that a fairy capitalism can exist. Nothing remarkable in taking advantage of centuries of lies to reap political gain, anyone can do it.

[RedWorker]

Pablo Iglesias just praised the Pope. Literally. Every day that goes on, this becomes more ridiculous... http://www.publico.es/actualidad/558209/iglesias-elogia-al-papa-y-dice-que-seria-un-honor-reunirse-con-el (http://www.publico.es/actualidad/558209/iglesias-elogia-al-papa-y-dice-que-seria-un-honor-reunirse-con-el)

Meanwhile, United Left (IU) abandoned the European Parliament while the Pope gave his speech there: http://www.publico.es/politica/558222/la-izquierda-plural-abandona-el-hemiciclo-durante-el-discurso-del-papa

[Chomskyan]

How precious.... The two big name left liberals who don't agree on anything can set aside their differences long enough to sign some pathetic letter of support for a party that wants to make a kinder, gentler capitalism. How heart warming.... The correct line for actual Communists on this letter is simple: use it as toilet paper then set it on fire. But I shouldn't even need to be pointing this out on a forum that prides itself on it's revolutionary content, should I?

Kinder, gentler capitalism in the short term, not the long term. Or would you rather have cold, cruel, violent and terroristic capitalism in the long term? Capitalism is at an impasse, it's either Socialism or barbarism. Do we wait "someday" for some vague conception of violent revolution or do we do what little we can to transition into a future socialist society? I think the answer is obvious, I don't know what's with the uncompromising dogmatism. I'm a religious person, and it makes me sleepy. But it's 1 am here so maybe that's why.

[motion denied]

Interesting interview by Platypus with Eduardo Maura, professor and spokesman of Podemos. Bonus points if you can keep track of how many times he says " [real, true, etc] democracy".

http://platypus1917.org/2014/12/06/mas-alla-de-la-izquierda-y-la-derecha/

My favourite bit is when he says that capitalism has shaped our identities so much that being a worker has been deemed impossible. "We still go to work (we can even spend 40 years working 12 hours a day), but that doesn’t make us working class anymore. If we organize ourselves, we don’t necessarily do so as 'working class' anymore", says the fucking hack.

[Dodo]

Why?

People do not oppose capitalism out of discourse from a left party which seeks elections.
They do not oppose capitalism from Marxism.
They do not oppose capitalism from any socialist theory or discourse.

They oppose capitalism out of reality.
They oppose capitalism because it fucks you over, because it doesn't give you a roof to live under, because it takes food away from you.

If anybody wanted to oppose capitalism, reality and populist-style discourse would be a much better device than anything else.

The aims of Podemos are directly opposite to that of the bourgeoisie.
The aims of Podemos advance the immediate interests of the proletariat.

Nobody pretended that Podemos is a revolutionary communist party.

Watch as those who oppose this movement does not bring anything to table and critique things as not "enough revolutionary" based on the ancient rhetoric. Let them keep their alternative universe.
There is a PROBLEM, Podemos is the current face of the REACTION.
There is nothing set in stone, it is a movement in the making as world changes constantly...and yet "marxists" here are not satisfied with the way it is because they want the exact same words coming out as official party program....
I am personally very happy with this.
Up-to-date marxists measuring the climate and keeping their politics dynamics to adapt to dynamics conditions and gain more support and build the future.
All our fossils can do is destructive critique.


Apart from the indignados Podemos seems to be inspired by Laclau & Mouffe and the left in latin america (especially Venezuela). One of the best articles in english I found so far:
left-flank.org/2014/11/14/understanding-podemos-23-radical-populism/

Pablo Iglesias explaines why Podemos is avoiding traditional terms such as "class struggle", "bourgeois", "proletariat"... (must see!)
youtube.com/watch?v=6-T5ye_z5i0

I like that Pablo Iglesias doesn't talks about winning a few seats, 20% of the vote or something like this. Instead he wants the Left to win.
It's obvious that you don't become majority with advocating a planned economy, but you do if you talk about radicalizing democracy (spread to the economy etc.). The consequence is in fact the same, but this will only be realized in the revolutionary process itself.
Finally someone who is up-to-date and sees whats going on.
Also, people, DO WATCH THE VIDEO please;
youtube.com/watch?v=6-T5ye_z5i0


As Lenin would say;
Concrete analysis of concrete situation

The rhetoric between "class antagonism" and "bread and peace".

[motion denied]

This video originally posted by n0b0dy is very bad. First because aside from the usual vague rhetoric, it says the obvious, those things even the "Old" (the horror) left has known for ages. Only really craze University students think going to a picket line and talking about how Marx crushed Bruno Bauer is something other than useless. He does say, however, that this was the first time they talked to normal people. That's what too many University and too little actual praxis gets you.

Maura knows, Iglesias knows, everybody knows workers are workers - yet to talk about it is "old". Let's buy the conservative rhetoric that there are no workers anymore, that there are too many identities, the subject is decentered, innit? Capitalism is out of the picture, exploitation is out of the picture: the "crisis of establishment" is the problem. The solution? Accountability, democracy (which is a process, built by everyone everyday).

[Dodo]

I don't think thats the context he spoke in...the context is more about the accusations coming from more classical rhetoric. He says people wants to hear abolish private property, and class antagonism...etcetc. As he points out, masses are alien to this rhetoric and view it even in negative light. Politics is about doing politics, its not an intellectual arena.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Having read the Eduardo Maura interview with Platypus, Podemos seems very shallow. Or, for all of the talk of a "new" politics, it seems to ape the worst of existing bourgeois politics - ie, rooting its legitimacy in "the people" and a "diffuse" amorphous body which doesn't unite around a common project.
The idea that a "popular" legitimacy rooted in votes from large numbers of people who are disenchanted - but may not actually be feminist, anti-racist, anti-capitalist, or even base-line not terrible motherfuckers - is precisely the "old" politics; the politics in which an autonomous common project is off the table.

I dunno. If I seemed "interested" in my first post in this thread, that interest has rapidly waned. I'm not a Spaniard, so I can't claim to have my finger on the pulse of their country, but I suspect any "popular" enthusiasm for Podemos may go a similar way.

[FSL]

Watch as those who oppose this movement does not bring anything to table and critique things as not "enough revolutionary" based on the ancient rhetoric. Let them keep their alternative universe.
There is a PROBLEM, Podemos is the current face of the REACTION.
There is nothing set in stone, it is a movement in the making as world changes constantly...and yet "marxists" here are not satisfied with the way it is because they want the exact same words coming out as official party program....
I am personally very happy with this.
Up-to-date marxists measuring the climate and keeping their politics dynamics to adapt to dynamics conditions and gain more support and build the future.
All our fossils can do is destructive critique.


As Lenin would say;
Concrete analysis of concrete situation

The rhetoric between "class antagonism" and "bread and peace".

You're forgetting other slogans like "all power to the soviets" and "down with the capitalists in the government".
But I guess they've lost their meaning with time.
Other slogans like Kautsky's "true democracy" however seem to never get old for some reason.

There is a problem, it's the capitalist mode of production and Podemos likes it and wants more of it, therefore it's part of the problem. If you try to hide the problem behind overused rhetoric about "democracy", "corruption" and "accountability" guess, you're the fossil. These things, I dare not call them ideas, have been around for many centuries.

[Dodo]

I don't believe in a one-day revolution and think that Podemos -can be- the start of a new era.(not talking in reformist terms)
That workers will suddenly unite one day and take over the government mechanisms to top-down transform the society into what constitutes socialism is not happening. If it was happening, I won't have any problem with it, don't get me wrong, but in the meantime, this is what we got.

Elitistly disregarding and not liking their rhetoric and local context for the sake of classical rhetoric caused many Marxists to grow awesome mustaches and beards throughout decades while nothing happened. You are free to be one of those, I believe politics is made in its context with long-term visions and no clear-cut party programs as to how things should EXACTLY be in order to adapt to momentarily issues.

That being said, I have not even looked into Podemos in detail. You see, my whole allegiance is based on the fact that its the face of mass opposition as radical as it can get, meaning, with a positive attitude to radical discourse while not being elitistly lost in 200 people Marxist conference gatherings. People are out there to change things with some kind of a vision, lucky for us, based on Marxist understanding of the world.....oh, they did not put this or that, didn't mention this and that is not constructive.
Do better if you can, no ones stopping you. I'll follow if thats the case....I just did not see many other alternatives and of course many so-called marxists will love to criticize whatever movement appears with no constructive look at things. I don't mind the critique, if it is based on a detailed look to the context presenting all the arguments...but I just cannot take teenage level Marxist rhetoric "oh look they are very bourgeoisie and love private property" kind of shallow look.

[FSL]

I don't believe in a one-day revolution and think that Podemos -can be- the start of a new era.(not talking in reformist terms)
That workers will suddenly unite one day and take over the government mechanisms to top-down transform the society into what constitutes socialism is not happening. If it was happening, I won't have any problem with it, don't get me wrong, but in the meantime, this is what we got.

Elitistly disregarding and not liking their rhetoric and local context for the sake of classical rhetoric caused many Marxists to grow awesome mustaches and beards throughout decades while nothing happened. You are free to be one of those, I believe politics is made in its context with long-term visions and no clear-cut party programs as to how things should EXACTLY be in order to adapt to momentarily issues.

That being said, I have not even looked into Podemos in detail. You see, my whole allegiance is based on the fact that its the face of mass opposition as radical as it can get, meaning, with a positive attitude to radical discourse while not being elitistly lost in 200 people Marxist conference gatherings. People are out there to change things with some kind of a vision, lucky for us, based on Marxist understanding of the world.....oh, they did not put this or that, didn't mention this and that is not constructive.
Do better if you can, no ones stopping you. I'll follow if thats the case....I just did not see many other alternatives and of course many so-called marxists will love to criticize whatever movement appears with no constructive look at things. I don't mind the critique, if it is based on a detailed look to the context presenting all the arguments...but I just cannot take teenage level Marxist rhetoric "oh look they are very bourgeoisie and love private property" kind of shallow look.

What's the "local context"? Do you understand why Spain is in crisis and why people are losing their homes?

You don't mind the critique as long as it takes for granted that every problem can be solved in capitalism, which is nonsense. So you do actually mind all relevant criticism.

Look at your words even, "if people suddenly rebeled I would follow, until then this is all we got".
No, people will never "suddenly" rebel and you "following" offers nothing to anyone. Is this the brave new world podemos will help build?


This however opens up a more interesting discussion imo, with these so called leftist parties close to governing. What will be the result all over Europe when Podemos or Syriza bring absolutely nothing different? What would be your reaction in this let's say hypothetical situation?
Would you simply move over to anyone who made the same promises while placing even more importance to "accountability" and "participation" or would you actually reconsider your stance?

[Dodo]

What's the "local context"? Do you understand why Spain is in crisis and why people are losing their homes?
Local context is the local feelings, emotions, ideology, issues that dominate people's minds.


You don't mind the critique as long as it takes for granted that every problem can be solved in capitalism, which is nonsense. So you do actually mind all relevant criticism.
Ermm....thats what you think regarding what my opinion is, and of course, you get that impression even though I had not said anything of the sort. Why does someone always has to bring dishonesty?


Look at your words even, "if people suddenly rebeled I would follow, until then this is all we got".
No, people will never "suddenly" rebel and you "following" offers nothing to anyone. Is this the brave new world podemos will help build?
My point is that, IF there was a tradition sort of opposition where unionized workers united in a strike that choked the country and took over the means of production, I'd have no problem with it.
However, as I myself experienced one of the biggest mass left movements of the 21st century on the streets of İstanbul, what I realized was that
*nope, no massive worker movement
*those who were out there protesting everything had to go to their job the next day to survive

Thus, we need a new strategy, something of the sort in Latin America, something beyond classical theories and rhetoric. I look at the post-Marxist discourse, modernity critique and dialectics interpretation of Latin American academics.
That being said, if there was a unionized worker movement actually doing something, I would not have problems with it. I support that too.



This however opens up a more interesting discussion imo, with these so called leftist parties close to governing. What will be the result all over Europe when Podemos or Syriza bring absolutely nothing different? What would be your reaction in this let's say hypothetical situation?
Being completely honest here, I am no partizan. I believe Marxism to be a constant critique and social transformation to be a non-stop phenomena. Every moment of our lives can be a revolution, revolution does not have to be something we do in a day in a given time, it is a process that critiques all the chains we face.
So in an hypothetical scenario where Syriza or Podemos would lose their revolutionary dynamic, I don't mind a struggle to bring them down.

[FSL]

Local context is the local feelings, emotions, ideology, issues that dominate people's minds.
They don't differ substantially from any other country.




Ermm....thats what you think regarding what my opinion is, and of course, you get that impression even though I had not said anything of the sort. Why does someone always has to bring dishonesty?
You said exactly this:
I just cannot take teenage level Marxist rhetoric "oh look they are very bourgeoisie and love private property" kind of shallow look
What's shallow about commenting on whether someone is for or against private property? If capitalism is responsible for the people's problems, then this is the first thing we need to look at to see if the solution offered is a viable. And yet this is the thing you say you cannot stand.



My point is that, IF there was a tradition sort of opposition where unionized workers united in a strike that choked the country and took over the means of production, I'd have no problem with it.
However, as I myself experienced one of the biggest mass left movements of the 21st century on the streets of İstanbul, what I realized was that
*nope, no massive worker movement
*those who were out there protesting everything had to go to their job the next day to survive

Thus, we need a new strategy, something of the sort in Latin America, something beyond classical theories and rhetoric. I look at the post-Marxist discourse, modernity critique and dialectics interpretation of Latin American academics.
That being said, if there was a unionized worker movement actually doing something, I would not have problems with it. I support that too.



Being completely honest here, I am no partizan. I believe Marxism to be a constant critique and social transformation to be a non-stop phenomena. Every moment of our lives can be a revolution, revolution does not have to be something we do in a day in a given time, it is a process that critiques all the chains we face.
So in an hypothetical scenario where Syriza or Podemos would lose their revolutionary dynamic, I don't mind a struggle to bring them down.
Every moment of our lives can be a revolution except those we spend actually building the revolutionary movement. Those moments go down the drain and are all in vain.
Saying you'd support a workers' movement if there was one is meaningless. It's not god given, it's made. By choosing not to assist in building one, you're essentially not supporting it.

And the question wasn't whether you'd distance yourself from Syriza or Podemos specifically but from that type of parties in general.
It was whether you'd continue looking for "revolutionary dynamic" in people speaking of mild reforms.

[Dodo]

What's shallow about commenting on whether someone is for or against private property? If capitalism is responsible for the people's problems, then this is the first thing we need to look at to see if the solution offered is a viable. And yet this is the thing you say you cannot stand.

What makes you say this?


Every moment of our lives can be a revolution except those we spend actually building the revolutionary movement. Those moments go down the drain and are all in vain.
Saying you'd support a workers' movement if there was one is meaningless. It's not god given, it's made. By choosing not to assist in building one, you're essentially not supporting it.
What makes you say I don't assist that either?
I am all for building proletarian consciousness even though I do not believe that change would come the way in 1848 or 1871 or early 20th century communist manifesto style. Unionized workers movements and the negation of capitalism through that has weakened greatly. And social classes have gained new dimensions.
In addition to support of workers movements, I am for consideration of additional dimensions and new system of politics to fit the context.

[FSL]

What makes you say this?


What makes you say I don't assist that either?
I am all for building proletarian consciousness even though I do not believe that change would come the way in 1848 or 1871 or early 20th century communist manifesto style. Unionized workers movements and the negation of capitalism through that has weakened greatly. And social classes have gained new dimensions.
In addition to support of workers movements, I am for consideration of additional dimensions and new system of politics to fit the context.

Your exact words quoted above make me say that.

And you say you are all for "building proletarian consciousness" when you're supporting a party that has -correctly according to you- moved past that ancient class rhetoric and when you yourself say in the same sentence that "social classes have gained new dimensions", whatever that means.

Not to mention that you didn't answer my question again.
When parties like Syriza or Podemos do govern and they do manage capitalism the only way it can be managed, will you just move on to praising every other petty reformer with good pr? That's the only thing that I want you to tell me, even though I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.

[RedWorker]

Podemos is a centre-left party which has given up nearly all demands, with a new programme not much different from the PSOE's. Podemos, slipping from the hands of the USFI section which created it, is now a dictatorship under the rule of Pablo Iglesias and his personal friends, who have dynamited the party model and betrayed all their own principles in a matter of weeks. As soon as the possibility of power opened up to them, they showed their true faces.

Pablo Iglesias opened up the party to a massive infiltration by centrist and liberal elements in order to assure his own power, allowing anyone to sign up from the Internet within 30 seconds, without any fee, and vote on whether he should be the leader and his party model should be followed. This was done because Podemos' real membership would not have blindly followed. This tactic was infamously used by Stalin in order to seize the CPSU, who started letting in a wave of members to support him.

Now, the party is united by a weak reformist platform with a programme hard to differentiate from the average social-democratic party. Podemos now makes nationalist and even militaristic appeals, and has openly adopted the language of the right-wing. The party and its key leaders, including Pablo Iglesias, have even openly declared: "We are neither left-wing nor right-wing". Note that this is a literal quote.

Among other things, Pablo Iglesias called for "a strong European army to face the United States", "being a patriot and putting the interests of the country beyond the individual", and has literally applauded to and praised the Pope, branding him as a progressive. He is an ego-maniac who puts his own interests beyond that of everyone else, puts his personal friends in key positions everywhere, makes use of pseudo-democratic structures to legitimatize his own power, and is always portraying himself as an "enlightened leader who will save the dumb masses". He has even openly declared that his personal friend Juan Carlos Monedero, who has not been elected or approved by anyone at all, and has no connection to Podemos at all other than being Pablo Iglesias' personal friend, and despite that has become one of the key leaders of the party, will be the next mayor of Madrid under Podemos.

Nearly everyone in key positions in Podemos are, in fact, Pablo Iglesias' personal friends, most of them from his workplace. Although the old Podemos programme was collaboratively elaborated, the new programme was merely written by a commitee appointed by Pablo Iglesias and approved by nobody, which felt that the old programme, about half a year old, was too "utopian". It has given up key demands such as unconditional basic income, nationalization of key sections of the economy, and has upped the calls for a retirement age from 60 to 65. Under the pseudo-democratic elections, 100% of the seats in Podemos' ruling council are held by Pablo Iglesias' faction. Pablo Iglesias has not only suppressed but in fact openly illegalized the only visible opposition, enacting new party rules which make it impossible for them to run for a position.

Pablo Iglesias is closer to Putin than anyone else, and his populist project is a fraud. He has contradicted everything he ever claimed to stand for and has become completely delusional. His political career has eaten up his personality, and he is completely devoted to his own personal power, and additionally a massive ego-maniac who wants everyone to worship him. Podemos has even started building a cult of personality around him.

.

[Dodo]

@FSL
Did I not answer that? I am not a partizan. I just know that the old style-left had been smashed into pieces. Left had been dead for approximately 3 decades.
The movements has to be rebuilt and most old rhetoric marginalize masses. Thats my whole point.

What I say does not refer to rejection of old concepts but their expansion and perception in a more fitting context. That is, politics has to be popularized to build mass movements.
Majority of the world's working class do not respect old Marxist-Leninist originating left...in mass movements, revolutionaries become marginals. Revolutionaries need to get a grip on mass politics.

[FSL]

Did I not answer that? I am not a partizan. I just know that the old style-left had been smashed into pieces. Left had been dead for approximately 3 decades.
The movements has to be rebuilt and most old rhetoric marginalize masses. Thats my whole point.

What I say does not refer to rejection of old concepts but their expansion and perception in a more fitting context. That is, politics has to be popularized to build mass movements.
Majority of the world's working class do not respect old Marxist-Leninist originating left...in mass movements, revolutionaries become marginals. Revolutionaries need to get a grip on mass politics.

The masses are marginalized by people preaching the virtues of capitalism. By people saying class struggle is antiquated and unnecessary and by people saying a capitalism where we can all live in peace is possible. These are the words that put the masses to sleep.


Podemos isn't part of any mass movement, nor can any party like that ever be. Voters don't make a movement and even if they did a movement for the improvement of capitalism is a lost cause from day 1. The old marxist leninist left didn't become marginalized by clinging to its ancient rhetoric but by adopting all this ancient capitalist nonsense, the same social democrats were always parroting.

What you want to do is agree with the masses on something that is wrong and hurtful to them. Of course it's very easy and it doesn't presuppose the slighest amount of ability or work on your behalf. Capitalism has them convinced already. And some reformers will make careers on those lies, become government members etc What does that get you though? What do the masses win? You want the masses next to you, even if you're all heading nowhere?

[Dodo]

for god's sake, did I declare that I am a reformist or something? This is exactly the ancient rhetoric I am talking about...what was said 100 years ago has to be parroted as if everything is exactly the same.

I am not a Podemos member or anything, I have heard good things about it and where its influences come from. Other than that, Podemos is an active political party that makes decisions everyday. We'll see where it gets...I don't understand the joy you take from Podemos's bad moves if you are not going to be able to put an alternative....typical of "revolutionaries" who just sit and critique all day literally every move.

Nobody says class struggle is antiquated, but you cannot build a pure class politics anymore. Be my guest if you can....or show me an example where its succeeding. Even where it succeed in taking leadership, it failed in its context.

If you keep trying to put words into my mouth I did not say I am not going further comment. Now I am pro-capitalism apparently.....this is exactly why old rhetoric has to be smashed into pieces within left just as they are smashed into pieces in praxis throughout 20th century. Everything you say, the language you use, the conceptions and perceptions, the political reactions are all predictable BS that does not change at all...somebody supports podemos, freaking reformist pro-capitalist traitor that is lying to workers......such shallow world-view makes me sick.
You cannot even take a step out of the borders of the established rhetoric. I have been there myself, thats why I relate so well too.

[FSL]

for god's sake, did I declare that I am a reformist or something? This is exactly the ancient rhetoric I am talking about...what was said 100 years ago has to be parroted as if everything is exactly the same.

I am not a Podemos member or anything, I have heard good things about it and where its influences come from. Other than that, Podemos is an active political party that makes decisions everyday. We'll see where it gets...I don't understand the joy you take from Podemos's bad moves if you are not going to be able to put an alternative....typical of "revolutionaries" who just sit and critique all day literally every move.

Nobody says class struggle is antiquated, but you cannot build a pure class politics anymore. Be my guest if you can....or show me an example where its succeeding. Even where it succeed in taking leadership, it failed in its context.

If you keep trying to put words into my mouth I did not say I am not going further comment. Now I am pro-capitalism apparently.....this is exactly why old rhetoric has to be smashed into pieces within left just as they are smashed into pieces in praxis throughout 20th century. Everything you say, the language you use, the conceptions and perceptions, the political reactions are all predictable BS that does not change at all...somebody supports podemos, freaking reformist pro-capitalist traitor that is lying to workers......such shallow world-view makes me sick.
You cannot even take a step out of the borders of the established rhetoric. I have been there myself, thats why I relate so well too.
It's amazing that you feel you have the right to support a pro-capitalism party and at the same time believe that you as well as that party can escape any critisism. You believe you have the right to be considered an anticapitalist even though you're propagating in favour of a party that isn't. That's a stance I'll never understand. You are supporting a party that's in favour of capitalism and private property so you can't think these things are too bad. Why would you feel so bad if someone were to call you a reformist? Podemos are reformists and you like them. It might be a curseword to me but you seem to think it's just fine, right?


Of course there is an alternative to podemos' ancient ramblings of a just capitalism. It's called socialism and it's the alternative socialists put forward.
And of course I enjoy podemos' "bad moves" as they support capitalism, making that party a class enemy. I'll enjoy watching it crash and burn (like the social democracy it aims to replace) and hope that by doing so, it'll help some people move past their deceptions. Whether you'd be among them, you refused to tell.

But please stop deluding yourself that communists are the ones that are predictable when you or podemos are saying something new and are being pioneers. This just shows you ignore the past. You can see a bunch of utopian socialists or Kautsky or eurocommunists (and the list is endless) say the exact same super modern things you are saying today. Communists are predictably in favour of workers and people who whitewash capitalism are -equally predictably- against them. Your words, your choices, your lack of direct answers, all those things are extremely predictable and banal even.

[Dodo]

so where exactly did I propagate for capitalism or social democracy?(I know I could have but in this debate I know I did not)

And, what do you even think my argument is? Can you tell me what I am arguing here for?

Your answers to these 2 questions are my priority.

Each time I read your posts, I go back and read what I wrote to see what exactly you are referring to....your automated classical answers however still appears to put me on a soc-dem category which shows your predictable line of thought(if does not talk of immediate destruction of capitalism must be a social democrat or reformist).
The alternative is socialism? Which socialism?! Each fraction will give you a different socialism and a different path.....its a dead end, its too ambiguous. Socialism does not come through mere "socialist politics"....like I said, don't worry, if it did, I'll support it. Any socialist movement that finds mass support among workers has mine as well and I'll propagate for it, but when there is no spark for it I will not put my whole eggs in that basket(that does not mean I do not propagate for class antagonisms in my daily life or that without a fundamental change in production relations we'll come to the same point again and again). MY POINT IS THAT THERE IS MORE TO DO THAN THAT.

be honest next time please

[FSL]

so where exactly did I propagate for capitalism or social democracy?(I know I could have but in this debate I know I did not)

And, what do you even think my argument is? Can you tell me what I am arguing here for?

Your answers to these 2 questions are my priority.

Each time I read your posts, I go back and read what I wrote to see what exactly you are referring to....your automated classical answers however still appears to put me on a soc-dem category which shows your predictable line of thought(if does not talk of immediate destruction of capitalism must be a social democrat or reformist).
The alternative is socialism? Which socialism?! Each fraction will give you a different socialism and a different path.....its a dead end, its too ambiguous. Socialism does not come through mere "socialist politics"....like I said, don't worry, if it did, I'll support it. Any socialist movement that finds mass support among workers has mine as well and I'll propagate for it, but when there is no spark for it I will not put my whole eggs in that basket(that does not mean I do not propagate for class antagonisms in my daily life or that without a fundamental change in production relations we'll come to the same point again and again). MY POINT IS THAT THERE IS MORE TO DO THAN THAT.

be honest next time please
Your arguments go like this:
1) Socialism is too ambiguous
No, it isn't. It is very easy to define, it involves the social ownership of the means of production. Podemos is in favour of the private ownership of the means of production and you support them. Anyone looking to make a valid criticism of that party should start there. I

2) If a socialist movement had massive support, you would support it as well
If a socialist movement had massive support already, no one would care what you would do.
And your claim that you would support any socialist movement that had mass support isn't true. You support podemos when it isn't a socialist movement. Therefore, you seem to want to support just about anyone that has "mass support".

3) where exactly did you propagate for capitalism or social democracy
You propagate for capitalism and social democracy when you propagate for a pro-capitalism social democratic party like Podemos. You think someone might be able to praise Merkel and then go into a fit if people suggest he's a christian-democrat?
People propose things. If to you the "destruction of capitalism" is something that would be nice to happen at some point in the future, it is not what you are proposing. What you are proposing is electoral support to podemos so they can come and try do the impossible, make capitalism humane.
Theoretically you could be the most anti-capitalist person alive (you aren't) but it means nothing when you completely push that away and propose a social-democratic plan of capitalism management that leads nowhere.


I've answered your questions but I'd like to remind you you haven't answered mine:

This however opens up a more interesting discussion imo, with these so called leftist parties close to governing. What will be the result all over Europe when Podemos or Syriza bring absolutely nothing different? What would be your reaction in this let's say hypothetical situation?
Would you simply move over to anyone who made the same promises while placing even more importance to "accountability" and "participation" or would you actually reconsider your stance?

[Dodo]

Your arguments go like this:
1) Socialism is too ambiguous
No, it isn't. It is very easy to define, it involves the social ownership of the means of production. Podemos is in favour of the private ownership of the means of production and you support them. Anyone looking to make a valid criticism of that party should start there. I

Alright, this is indeed an argument I hold. For instance, I believe Rojava revolution has the potential of a socialism but people accuse it of not being clear enough. To that, I claim that rarely today we will come across crystal clear movements where each worker identifies him/herself solely as a member of a class. And that class conciousness is not something that spreads to masses in a day, its a process that is built. The revolution takes time both in physical world and in the minds.

Social ownership of means of production is also ambigious. Lets say tomorrow there is going to be a revolution and the whole way we live is going to change in one day and this is going to function efficiently in sophisticated large societies....how do you go about explaining how this works? Who will run what? You cannot just say "workers" to every question...you(not just you individually, even if it is a social decision) have to put solid methods and take solid DECISIONs on how things will work. Thats why thats an ambiguous definition when it comes to political context....its more of a definition of a "state of nature" than it is a clearly defined system. Shittons of stuff can refer to socialism....if we go by 20th century interpretations we come across even state ownership as "social ownership".....thats why I say it is ambiguous. It is something which no one has a consensus on...you disagree with this?

Furthermore, I was not aware that Podemos is an active supporter of private property. It matters to me whether they support it in a political-strategy context or support it fundamentally as part of their ideological make-up. I am genuinely interested in this actually. I want to see some sources on their support for private property, P.Iglesias's words would in fact be awesome.


2) If a socialist movement had massive support, you would support it as well
If a socialist movement had massive support already, no one would care what you would do.
And your claim that you would support any socialist movement that had mass support isn't true. You support podemos when it isn't a socialist movement. Therefore, you seem to want to support just about anyone that has "mass support".

You seem to misjudge my position. You see, I am sick of ambiguity. I support rojava revolution and I am declared as a nationalist...so in this marxist circle there are way to many interpreters. So I make a position in-it for myself.
One of the major deals with dividing over shittons of matter among left is the method...no? And everyone claims that the ones that are not like them in their method are heretics....you see, I am sick of that shit. I need results, I have noticed in my life that those people who are so ambiguous honestly they themselves do not know what they are doing...no matter how old they are.

Thats why I don't give you clear things you want to hear from me....but if its going to make you happy, I have actively written on class conflict, why capitalism fundamentally has a tendency to produce shit and that revolution(though ambiguously) is a necessity. But like I said, I can use these terms all I want...when it comes to actual movements, ALL THESE CONCEPTS have different interpretations despite their clear definitions depending on the context.

I don't support anyone that has mass support. I thought(and maybe they are) Podemos to have a different strategy based on Pablo's words...and it sounded pretty good to me. If you bring in front of me their devotion to capitalism and or social democracy for that matter...I am not even going to defend them.



3) where exactly did you propagate for capitalism or social democracy
You propagate for capitalism and social democracy when you propagate for a pro-capitalism social democratic party like Podemos. You think someone might be able to praise Merkel and then go into a fit if people suggest he's a christian-democrat?
People propose things. If to you the "destruction of capitalism" is something that would be nice to happen at some point in the future, it is not what you are proposing. What you are proposing is electoral support to podemos so they can come and try do the impossible, make capitalism humane.
Theoretically you could be the most anti-capitalist person alive (you aren't) but it means nothing when you completely push that away and propose a social-democratic plan of capitalism management that leads nowhere.

I think my above sentences clear your question here. I do not support Podemos because they are soc-dems but because I believe they have a different strategy for revolutionary change. If they are not, I am not even going to argue to defend them.



I've answered your questions but I'd like to remind you you haven't answered mine:
Again, by now I guess my position should be clear.

So the simple answer to your question would be -yes, I would stop my support for Podemos if that would have been the case and support the party that makes claims to further progressive demands.
I guess you've forged your argument and question in your debates with Greeks over Syriza and view me as a typical Syriza supporter?
I say again, I am no partizan...I am for people self-decision making processes and I am all for organizing these. I'd take active part in this...but the world does not end when we do not do this...and context changes everything.