Red Party (Norway)

[RedWorker]

Searched and found no threads about this party. Your opinion on it and its politics?

Here is its program (http://rødt.no/politikk/prinsipprogram/program-of-the-red-party/).

[Hrafn]

Bourgeois reformists.

[Tim Cornelis]

Could you elaborate on that Hrafn?

[Wonton Carter]

They are reformists who do the bourgie boogie.

[Hrafn]

Could you elaborate on that Hrafn?

I mainly know them by spoken word so to speak. Here's one example, from Wikipedia:

"One of Red's important projects is protecting the Norwegian welfare state, calling for the government to spend 30-40 billion NOKs on the public sector to counter the financial crisis. Red politician Mimir Kristjansson claimed that the "right wing parties have proved their willingness to dismantle the very foundation of our welfare state". According to him, the socialist parties, along with the Norwegian Labour Party, need to be forced into a policy which strongly protects the welfare model for the weak. The party advocates that no person should earn more than 1 500 000 kroner (about 200 000 Euros) per year and wants 100% taxation for earnings over this."

They're no better than the Social Democrats or the Socialist Left Party, in my opinion.

[Tim Cornelis]

I think it's important to stress that fighting for reforms is not synonymous with reformism. They may be bourgie boogie socialists, but I don't think advocating a maximum income is sufficient evidence for that. Certainly not if we understand it in the context of a broader minimum programme.

I read the text, and they advocate the establishment of communism through revolution. One sentence can be interpreted as reformist or as fighting for reforms as strategic approach for escalating social conflict on class basis.

Its concept of socialism is problematic, it speaks of a socialist state with political parties and elections. It upholds the Leninist concept of the development of socialism as precondition for communism, which is a red flag (in the negative sense of the word) that it is indeed bourgeois socialist. The word 'socialist state' is problematic, but ultimately semantical differences are not inherently indicative of problems with content. Bordiga, which could least of all be accused of reformism, used the word 'international communist republic'.* However, the party is certainly not as bad as Stalinism, and to the left of it.

So there may be some lingering bourgeois-socialist elements in the logic of the party and its programme, but I don't think it's worthy of immediate dismissal. I personally would work within the party to offer a more authentic communist programme, seek to develop a minority faction that challenges these lingering bourgeois elements, and break with the party entirely if they become too prominent -- which is a likely course given its electoral participation in the least of revolutionary times (which has historically nearly always resulted in tailism).

*I'm not even sure if republic is necessarily associated with a state, as Proudhon used it for anarchism and Marx, if I remember correctly, used 'Republic of Labour' to refer to socialism.

[Hrafn]

I personally believe they are reformists who cling onto the concept of Communism out of sentimentality, not that their calls for reforms are a meaningful minimum programme or some such. But I may of course be wrong.

[Creative Destruction]

http://xn--rdt-0na.no/politikk/prinsipprogram/program-of-the-red-party/


Revolution is necessary

The working class cannot rule the society in its own interests within the limits of capitalism and the right to private ownership. Therefore, a revolution must take place, where the working class makes the state a tool for basic changes of the system, and takes over the management of the banks, the big companies and society’s central institutions. This may happen as a continuation of a political stride for reforms or during a fundamental capitalistic crisis. Such a radical break with today’s economic and political system requires that the majority of the people want such a change. This presupposes large popular movements that put on the agenda the question of power over society. Historically, the rulers have used all available means to keep their privileges. A socialistic revolution will not be able to succeed without disarming the bourgeoisie and the people taking control of the armed force. The Red Party will strive for the transition of power to be peaceful and democratic.

...

The Red Party rejects the ideas that workers can be liberated from above by a socialist elite. The working class must liberate itself. Socialism is impossible without the majority of the working class struggling for revolutionary changes in society.

The purpose and task of a revolutionary party is that it must function as a tool of the working class struggle. The Red Party’s aim is to become such a party. The reason for our existence is to do away with today’s capitalistic relationship - the exploitation of the working class. In order to muster support the Red Party must make itself heard in the workplaces as a party that creates discussion, develops democracy and initiates struggles against injustice and oppression. We need a party that works throughout Norwegian society - in the elected bodies, in peoples’ movements and in the political arena. Not least, we need a party that works for, and organizes, people for the socialist upheaval that is necessary.

The Red Party bases its understanding of society on Marxist theory. Our ideology and politics must develop based on this understanding and on our own experiences. Like all other theories, Marxism must be proved in practice, so that it becomes a continually better tool in the political struggle. Marxist theory must always be criticized and be developed in line with changes in society. Our knowledge of the world will always be in development. Therefore, studies involving discussions and disagreements will not be a problem, but a source of development and a basis for new understanding, something that we need in the struggle for a better world.

unless you count any participation in the bourgeois system as "reformist," then i think their program is pretty clear about where they stand on revolution.

[Zukunftsmusik]

An important thing to remember is that it comes out of the ML-tradition (its precursor being at the time the biggest maoist party in Europe compared to number of citizens), with all the reactionary package that comes with this. This would explain the "bourgeois elements", however IMO they're more than lingering. Still, they have taken a break with this tradition, but this has had the consequence that they seem to abandon revolution altogether.

Regarding programme, I'm afraid it's mere phraseaology. I haven't seen the Red Party taken a revolutionary stance on anything. I think it's fair to say they're sort of "passively radical".

[Tim Cornelis]

Yeah that is of course another option relating to their character. This usually precedes a more explicit turn to reformism (the mere paying of lip service to the programme).

In what ways is the absence of the Red Party in taking revolutionary stances noticeable? In what ways would you expect them to be present in situations where they aren't?

[RedWorker]

Its concept of socialism is problematic, it speaks of a socialist state with political parties and elections. It upholds the Leninist concept of the development of socialism as precondition for communism, which is a red flag (in the negative sense of the word) that it is indeed bourgeois socialist. The word 'socialist state' is problematic, but ultimately semantical differences are not inherently indicative of problems with content. Bordiga, which could least of all be accused of reformism, used the word 'international communist republic'.* However, the party is certainly not as bad as Stalinism, and to the left of it.

Maybe by "socialism" they mean the dictatorship of the proletariat and in which the mode of production has not been (at least fully) changed yet. Note, however, that I did not fully read the text.


An important thing to remember is that it comes out of the ML-tradition

Apparently, Marxism-Leninism is only one faction within the party now.

[Thirsty Crow]

So there may be some lingering bourgeois-socialist elements in the logic of the party and its programme, but I don't think it's worthy of immediate dismissal. I personally would work within the party to offer a more authentic communist programme, seek to develop a minority faction that challenges these lingering bourgeois elements, and break with the party entirely if they become too prominent -- which is a likely course given its electoral participation in the least of revolutionary times (which has historically nearly always resulted in tailism).What would the purpose of working within such a party be? Which expected positive effects would you consider as bases for this work (I'm assuming of course that communists ought to think about their activity primarily in terms of expected and possible effects, within a more broader framework of how we see the potential for the development of the class into a revolutionary force)?

[Zukunftsmusik]

I think it's important to stress that fighting for reforms is not synonymous with reformism. They may be bourgie boogie socialists, but I don't think advocating a maximum income is sufficient evidence for that. Certainly not if we understand it in the context of a broader minimum programme.

I don't think they understand it or promote it in the context of a minimum programme, though.


Its concept of socialism is problematic, it speaks of a socialist state with political parties and elections. It upholds the Leninist concept of the development of socialism as precondition for communism, which is a red flag (in the negative sense of the word) that it is indeed bourgeois socialist. The word 'socialist state' is problematic, but ultimately semantical differences are not inherently indicative of problems with content.

There are other problems with the programme, though. Sentiments such as wanting to take leadership of the workers movement is another red flag.

I'm also interested in your answer to Links' questions.


(the mere paying of lip service to the programme).

I think this is where they're headed, if not where they are already. It's certainly the case for the leadership and dominating tendency, and I'd dare claim the majority of the party.


In what ways is the absence of the Red Party in taking revolutionary stances noticeable? In what ways would you expect them to be present in situations where they aren't?

I'd say it's not only noticeable but pretty evident. All "extra-parliamentary" tactics are understood as such: they're subjugated to their main goal which is to get a seat in parliament in order to push for reforms. Their politics aren't put forth as a question of class unity, power and consciousness and do on, but mainly as defenses of the welfare state, the school institution as it currently exists, unconditional support to oppressed nations' right to a nation state and so on.

As an example and to give more context, there was recently a programmatic debate in the party. Two wings opposed each other: the "new" wing who led the work of writing a new programme, who wanted to include that the revolution had to be peaceful and get rid of the word communism because of what it communicated (this is where the idea of elections and a parliament in socialism etc comes from); and the "old" wing (mainly formed by the former Maoist party), who seemed to want to keep communism, references to The Bearded Men and so on out of tradition as it were (viz. Hrafn's post). What was striking was how scholastic this debate was for both parts. I think the result was a compromise between the two. In the afterwake of this debate, a former member (he didn't leave for political reasons) said in an Internet debate that he was sick of the left talking about revolutions instead of focusing on winning elections. I think this illustrates where the party is headed.

I'm not familiar first hand with their activity within class struggle, but I don't think it's difficult to imagine it's something along the lines of giving speeches, being active in trade unions and so on in order to gain support for themselves (i.e. votes).


Apparently, Marxism-Leninism is only one faction within the party now.

Yes. Until 2007 they went to elections in an electoral alliance (a la SYRIZA and the Danish Red-Green Alliance), with the Maoist party as the biggest and most well organised faction. The majority of this electoral alliance agreed to merge into a party. I think it's fair to say though that their past has left birthmarks on both programme and practice.

[Tim Cornelis]

What would the purpose of working within such a party be? Which expected positive effects would you consider as bases for this work (I'm assuming of course that communists ought to think about their activity primarily in terms of expected and possible effects, within a more broader framework of how we see the potential for the development of the class into a revolutionary force)?

The party's membership, although small, consists of people interested in moving beyond capitalism, although their concept of capitalism is flawed, and therefore interesting. By engaging them from within it is, I think, quite possible to win some over to your position, and then use that for the formation of a minority faction that agitates against bourgeois-socialist tendencies. It is likely, if the party is bureaucratic, that this will lead to expulsion. But there aren't any more productive activities to do in these periods. The only actual productive activity would be, as far as I can tell, the formation of solidarity networks and community-building as recruitment and retention tools. So you might as well experiment with working in revolutionary bourgeois-socialist parties, at least those not cemented in ideological dogma, and possibly not so bureaucratic.



There are other problems with the programme, though. Sentiments such as wanting to take leadership of the workers movement is another red flag.

Meh. Leadership by the communists of the workers' movement, what's wrong with that?



I think this is where they're headed, if not where they are already. It's certainly the case for the leadership and dominating tendency, and I'd dare claim the majority of the party.

Hmm yeah. That's where it starts, and almost everywhere. Italian Communist Party, Dutch Socialist Party, and now the Belgium Workers' Party.

[Zukunftsmusik]

Meh. Leadership by the communists of the workers' movement, what's wrong with that?

These people are probably the last "communists" I'd want to see in any leading position (then again maybe not). I think the answer to your question depends on what kind of leadership. As a "Luxemburgist" you should be aware of this.

[Tim Cornelis]

These people are probably the last "communists" I'd want to see in any leading position (then again maybe not). I think the answer to your question depends on what kind of leadership. As a "Luxemburgist" you should be aware of this.

Exactly, what kind of leadership. But the way you phrased it made it sound like leadership in general was problematic, at least I interpreted it as such.

I'm not really luxemburgist.

[Thirsty Crow]

The party's membership, although small, consists of people interested in moving beyond capitalism, although their concept of capitalism is flawed, and therefore interesting. By engaging them from within it is, I think, quite possible to win some over to your position, and then use that for the formation of a minority faction that agitates against bourgeois-socialist tendencies. It is likely, if the party is bureaucratic, that this will lead to expulsion. But there aren't any more productive activities to do in these periods. The only actual productive activity would be, as far as I can tell, the formation of solidarity networks and community-building as recruitment and retention tools. So you might as well experiment with working in revolutionary bourgeois-socialist parties, at least those not cemented in ideological dogma, and possibly not so bureaucratic.

I get it.

To be frank, it just might be that I and some of my comrades will have to face the same perspective (that of - of course - limited potential for activity as communists, with the presence of a bourgeois socialist party), with important local differences though. But I'm fairly sure that the basic situation is very similar, and that's why I ask for comrades' input on this.

The obvious question which arises from your answer would be this: why shouldn't a very small group of communists work on its own (probably as an informal group writing stuff and getting it on the internet)? Is there a significant difference here with respect to reaching out to already politicized elements (the difference between a) entering a bourgeois socialist party and b) doing stuff on our own)?