Thoughts on Podemos [Archive]

RedWorker

25th January 2015, 06:26

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.

Read my article explaining the history of Podemos from day zero in a critical, left-wing point of view and with detail: Exposing the Podemos fraud (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=19183).

Samurai Socialist

30th January 2015, 12:01

You are taking a pretty hard view of Podemos and Iglesias, RedWorker, and I'm not sure if I agree with it all. There is certainly an argument that the party is slowly stepping away from some of the more radical proposals given in its original statements. This is suggestive of the politics of pragmatism rather than a more revolutionary left wing agenda. Iglesias himself alluded to his willingness to adapt in order to win power when he said that "The real Lenin is the Lenin of the NEP." I took this to mean that he would be prepared to make short-term sacrifices of the vision for long-term gain. But it is certainly not clear how this is going to play out in the months leading up to the election.

That said, however, it would not be wise to disregard the role of the working-class in the Podemos movement. One of the great successes of Podemos has been its ability to energise and mobilise the working-class and wider parts of the electorate, helping them to find their voice. When the consciousness of the people is awakened it will not be so easy shut down again but this then raises another fundamental point: if Podemos makes too many compromises will the people hold it to account or will it simply fall from view? My hope, and to some extent belief, is that this movement is bigger than Iglesias himself and so despite criticisms of his leadership, it is circumstances and public activism which is paramount here, not individual character and changing part policy.

I'll be on the March in Madrid with Podemos tomorrow so it will be interesting to see how things are shaping up on the streets. I will also be blogging about it at some point afterwards so feel free to have a look.

http://thesearchforsocialism.com/

RedWorker

30th January 2015, 20:41

I'll be on the March in Madrid with Podemos tomorrow so it will be interesting to see how things are shaping up on the streets. I will also be blogging about it at some point afterwards so feel free to have a look.

Good luck with the March on Rome, with the only declared goal of a "show of strength".

Samurai Socialist

31st January 2015, 12:58

A show of strength is also a show of mass support for the platform that has brought Podemos into the mainstream . It gets press coverage, builds momentum and brings more people into the movement. Its how elections are won.

RedWorker

1st February 2015, 06:13

A show of strength is also a show of mass support for the platform that has brought Podemos into the mainstream.

So mass worship?

Samurai Socialist

1st February 2015, 09:15

Mass worship for what? You seem to have a bit of an irrational hatred of Iglesias. I think its probably a bit too early to judge whether he will make compromises to win power or not but Podemos is about much more than just him. He is obviously a very skilled politician and he's been adept at opening the movement up to anyone feeling left out by the current system - its marketed more about 'insiders v outsiders' than left v right and this has been an important factor in getting mass support. But it is still a radical leftwing approach, as you can see by looking at their manifesto.

If the left want to be able to influence mainstream politics then it needs to appeal to a broader range of the electorate and this what Iglesias has been so successful in doing. I don't see any strong evidence yet that he is some sort of power hungry egomaniac and he doesn't come across that way in the Spanish media.

By creating such broadbased support for Podemos though, he has redefined the political debate in Spain. People now have a voice to articulate what they want so if Podemos try to renege on election promises they won't last long.

I think that this is a movement that has the power to stand in solidarity with Syriza and other leftwing parties across Europe and push for real change - something that will not be achieved by just criticising from the sidelines.

Have a look at my match report from yesterday's rally if you're interested http://thesearchforsocialism.com/2015/02/01/politics-of-change-in-madrid-podemos-on-the-march/

blake 3:17

1st February 2015, 09:37

Much love to them. Hoping they kick the asses of the ruling classes.

Georg Lukacs

1st February 2015, 10:23

Faux-Left--Champagne and Caviar Socialists coming to the rescue of the really disenfranchised who under Neo-liberalism have been depoliticised. Their true reformist colours will come out the nearer they come to governing. Syriza is in the same predicament. The hardline KKE in Greece refuses to compromise for this very reason. Don't know what I'd do if I were in Spain or Greece. Perhaps go along to all anti-austerity demos and wait for the revolution to kick in and then decide what party to join. History always changes in unexpected ways, and towards farcical outcomes--one must be like a tiger, and pounce unsuspected.

FSL

1st February 2015, 11:57

Iglesias himself alluded to his willingness to adapt in order to win power when he said that "The real Lenin is the Lenin of the NEP."
No words, really.

Creative Destruction

1st February 2015, 15:53

Its how elections are won.

ugh.

i was under the impression that we were revolutionary socialists. not socdems.

Samurai Socialist

1st February 2015, 16:17

ugh.

i was under the impression that we were revolutionary socialists. not socdems.

I don't think there is any implication of compromising on revolutionary principles. Its a question of trying to actually influence events rather than just critique them. There is no basis in Europe from which to launch a popular traditional leftwing revolutionary movement because politics and society have evolved to entrench capitalism's hold over the psyche. This means that unless we want to become irrelevant, socialists and the radical left have to change too.

My opinion, and the point that I'm trying to get across, is that people (in Spain at least) are not taking about left vs right, they are talking about the caste (or the establishment) vs the people. To be able to influence political and social change, socialist movements need to tap into this language and debate. The platform for radical leftwing principles and policies can remain but the left has an opportunity to broaden its support base by integrating its language and action into popular sentiments. I don't see any contradiction between being a revolutionary socialist and wanting to participate in action that undermines neoliberal capitalism.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st February 2015, 18:52

ugh.

i was under the impression that we were revolutionary socialists. not socdems.

Surely the best hope for establishing a more revolutionary consciousness amongst workers across Europe is a slew of electoral wins by left-populist parties like SYRIZA and Podemos.

Whilst it is unlikely to be allowed to happen due to the crucial geo-political position of Europe in global international relations, we should look to the Latin American model as a way of internationalising (or at least regionalising) paradigm shifts in how political and society are viewed.

Whilst that may sound 'impure', it is surely better than retaining ideological purity but also almost complete political and social irrelevance.

It is likely that this strategy will fail, but it is certain that the current strategy amongst communists will never succeed. Ergo, let's at least give critical support to genuinely left-populist parties (As opposed, for example to the Socialist Party in France and the Labour Party in Britain, as well as the Social Democrats in Germany, all of whom have clearly moved away from any genuine hint of leftism, or left-populist policies, and towards centrist politics) and see where it takes politics in general. It is unlikely (or impossible) for a genuinely communistic society to emerge from the election of SYRIZA-like parties but, as with Latin America, it could potentially lead to a left-ward paradigm shift in politics and society, which would no doubt open more doors for communists to interact with the wider working class and organs of social/political power.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

1st February 2015, 18:59

Surely the best hope for establishing a more revolutionary consciousness amongst workers across Europe is a slew of electoral wins by left-populist parties like SYRIZA and Podemos.

How would "a more revolutionary consciousness amongst workers" be established by "a slew" (I would have said "a plague") of electoral victories by parties that deceive the workers into thinking meaningful change is possible through the ballot box?

Whilst it is unlikely to be allowed to happen due to the crucial geo-political position of Europe in global international relations, we should look to the Latin American model as a way of internationalising (or at least regionalising) paradigm shifts in how political and society are viewed.

Whilst that may sound 'impure', it is surely better than retaining ideological purity but also almost complete political and social irrelevance.

It is likely that this strategy will fail, but it is certain that the current strategy amongst communists will never succeed. Ergo, let's at least give critical support to genuinely left-populist parties (As opposed, for example to the Socialist Party in France and the Labour Party in Britain, as well as the Social Democrats in Germany, all of whom have clearly moved away from any genuine hint of leftism, or left-populist policies, and towards centrist politics) and see where it takes politics in general. It is unlikely (or impossible) for a genuinely communistic society to emerge from the election of SYRIZA-like parties but, as with Latin America, it could potentially lead to a left-ward paradigm shift in politics and society, which would no doubt open more doors for communists to interact with the wider working class and organs of social/political power.

So, how are things in Latin America? Is the Caracas Soviet debating whether to nationalise the oil industry in Venezuela, have the workers driven out their employers in Brazil? No? Actually most of the continent is under brutal anti-worker regimes, some of which make some token statements about socialism even as they work to grind the workers and minorities down? (Including such stalwarts of the pro-sotsdem "leftists" as "comrade" Ortega, now an anti-abortion crusader presiding over Nicaraguan capitalism.)

Well I never.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

1st February 2015, 21:21

How would "a more revolutionary consciousness amongst workers" be established by "a slew" (I would have said "a plague") of electoral victories by parties that deceive the workers into thinking meaningful change is possible through the ballot box?

So, how are things in Latin America? Is the Caracas Soviet debating whether to nationalise the oil industry in Venezuela, have the workers driven out their employers in Brazil? No? Actually most of the continent is under brutal anti-worker regimes, some of which make some token statements about socialism even as they work to grind the workers and minorities down? (Including such stalwarts of the pro-sotsdem "leftists" as "comrade" Ortega, now an anti-abortion crusader presiding over Nicaraguan capitalism.)

Well I never.

I don't think it is necessary to admire the politics of a single leader to recognise that Latin American 'socialism' (left populism) has at least delivered some social welfare movements, and that its regional nature has entrenched it is as a preferable option for Latin American workers over right-wing capitalism.

It's quite difficult to engage with you when you're determined to use emotive language, but just a few ideas:

In Venezuela unemployment is down at 'western' levels (7.8% in 2012);
In Venezuela GDP per capita more than doubled between 2005-12;
Life expectancy in Venezuela is in the 70s, comparable with any developed country;
In Bolivia GDP has trebled between 2005-12;

And the social improvements in Cuba are well-known.

Whilst social welfare is certainly not a by-word for socialism, it is certainly preferable to sitting back and watching capital destroy the lives of the poor. I think the point about left-populism in Venezuela is that its strength is not derived from its ideology per se, but that it can re-produce itself because it has regionalised. A regional left-populism of the '21st Century Socialism' mould in Europe would certainly be a small 'battle' defeat for capital, even if it doesn't mean they will lose the 'war'.

Above all, when we are careful and critical in our support for left-populism, it can lead to some permanent/semi-permanent improvements in living standards for workers (as demonstrated over the past 10-15 years in Latin America) which, as I said previously, seems to have led to a paradigm shift in the social/political consciousness of Latin American workers, as demonstrated by the robustness of Bolivarianism in the region.

Creative Destruction

1st February 2015, 22:30

Surely the best hope for establishing a more revolutionary consciousness amongst workers across Europe is a slew of electoral wins by left-populist parties like SYRIZA and Podemos.

If Eurocommunist and socdem parties were the answer, why hasn't the revolutionary consciousness amongst workers across Europe already been established? Some of those parties have been in power for well over 20 years now. SYRIZA and Podemos don't offer a "paradigm" shift; they offer a watered down, Keynesian program for Greece and Spain that has been implemented in other parts of Europe already. What makes them special is the anti-austerity politics, but that'll only get you so far. Will the revolutionary consciousness of the Greek proletariat have been established anymore than it is now, because of SYRIZA, than any other social democratic movement did so in Europe whenever any other country was going through financial difficulties?

SYRIZA isn't articulating a socialist alternative -- not anymore, at least. They're articulating a new way to manage capital. I don't want to see Greece become the new Norway. To be sure, that's a better way to manage capitalism, but that's not what I support. I want to see the party that the Greek proletariat put their faith in actually follow a radical line and seek a transcendence to capital. Don't re-negotiate on the debt; renege on it, like the majority of Greeks want. Start changing the rules instead of trying to bend them.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd February 2015, 18:25

If Eurocommunist and socdem parties were the answer, why hasn't the revolutionary consciousness amongst workers across Europe already been established?

I understand the political left's obsession with putting everything into a pigeon hole, but the context in which we currently sit - economically, and socially - is massively different to when social democracy held political power in the post-war period. Whereas politics had shifted so far leftward in the post-war period that even the Conservative Party in the UK wouldn't dare reverse mass nationalisations, we now see a situation where politics has shifted greatly right-ward, to the extent that former social democratic parties are now firmly centrists, and have even been led by those who are arguably closer to the right than the left (Tony Blair, for example).

Some of those parties have been in power for well over 20 years now.

As I said above, it's quite clear that the former social-democratic parties lost any vestige of 'leftism' well over 20 years ago. The Labour Party started its rightward shift in 1983, and even before that there were attempts decades earlier (under Gaitskell's attempted leadership) to move the party in a centrist direction.

SYRIZA and Podemos don't offer a "paradigm" shift; they offer a watered down, Keynesian program for Greece and Spain that has been implemented in other parts of Europe already.

It's not that the parties themselves offer a paradigm shift and, in any case, I do not naturally extend an analysis of SYRIZAs success to Podemos - yet. More than their own political philosophies, which leave much to be desired, it is the prospect that having parties currently viewed as 'far left' (because politics has shifted so far rightward) could become the norm across parts of Europe, which would naturally move bourgeois politics leftward and open up a space for more genuinely revolutionary elements to enter mainstream consciousness.

The problem for so many years (since 1991, really) has been that any revolutionary movements in Europe have been viewed as Stalinist hardliners, irrelevant jokes, terrorists, or a combination of all. Having parties like SYRIZA and Podemos in power offer two fairly attractive options:

a) some short-term respite for the working class in economic (and maybe social) terms;
b) the possibility that communism is not viewed as some wacky ideology home to hippies and terrorists but as a serious political philosophy once again.

What makes them special is the anti-austerity politics, but that'll only get you so far.

I don't disagree. Like I said, the hope is not in the parties per se, but in the potential to shift politics leftward and open up a space for genuinely revolutionary ideologies to enter the mainstream.

Will the revolutionary consciousness of the Greek proletariat have been established anymore than it is now, because of SYRIZA, than any other social democratic movement did so in Europe whenever any other country was going through financial difficulties?

It is really difficult to answer this question with any certainty but, like I have said previously, the possibility of current communist formations raising revolutionary consciousness is practically zero based on current experience, so it is worth seeing where this left-populist experiment goes and giving it critical support.

SYRIZA isn't articulating a socialist alternative -- not anymore, at least.

No, but it is articulating an alternative, and more than that, people have listened, engaged, and supported that alternative. And, unlike for example UKIP in the UK, this alternative - a watered down, social democratic form of managing capital it is - is palatable if not wholly aligned with our long-term interests.

I want to see the party that the Greek proletariat put their faith in actually follow a radical line and seek a transcendence to capital.

Well, naturally. But that seems far-fetched based on current political formations, and it doesn't seem likely to change. Repeating the same strategy over and over again is not farce but total stupidity, and I think that we can retain our independence as communists whilst viewing the election of left-populist parties in European countries as a potentially positive step for our own politics.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

2nd February 2015, 18:50

I don't think it is necessary to admire the politics of a single leader to recognise that Latin American 'socialism' (left populism) has at least delivered some social welfare movements, and that its regional nature has entrenched it is as a preferable option for Latin American workers over right-wing capitalism.

That's the problem, there is no "right-wing" and "left-wing" capitalism, there is capitalism, full stop, and "right-wing" or "left-wing" governments that preside over the capitalist state. Depending on the circumstances, some of them are going to throw concessions at the workers, but only in the face of actual militancy and only as long as organised labour remains a threat, even a minor one, to bourgeois rule. And it doesn't matter if the government considers itself to be left-wing or right-wing, populist or conservative, Tweedle-Dee or Tweedle-Dum. The "socialist" Mitterand enacted a far more vicious austerity program than the "rightist" D'Estaign, while the "populist", "leftist", "let's not mention their ties to various Falange imitations" MRN in Bolivia killed miners and other workers in order to stabilise Bolivian capitalism.

It's quite difficult to engage with you when you're determined to use emotive language, but just a few ideas:

In Venezuela unemployment is down at 'western' levels (7.8% in 2012);
In Venezuela GDP per capita more than doubled between 2005-12;
Life expectancy in Venezuela is in the 70s, comparable with any developed country;

The same was true for the so-called "Saudi Venezuela" when Perez was the president. Guess what happened when the oil prices fell? In fact the same was generally true under Chalbaud and his successors, does this mean that we ought to support military juntas as well?

In Bolivia GDP has trebled between 2005-12;

Good for the plurinational bourgeoisie.

And the social improvements in Cuba are well-known.

And these date to a period when Cuba aligned itself with the Soviet Union and the regime, so blindly worshiped by much of the so-called left, was forced to implement radical measures, including the nationalisation of the economy, a monopoly on foreign trade etc. Measures that none of the "South American socialist" states have replicated.

Not to mention, can we name another "populist", "progressive", "leftist" president of Cuba? Sure we can. His name was Batista.

Above all, when we are careful and critical in our support for left-populism, it can lead to some permanent/semi-permanent improvements in living standards for workers (as demonstrated over the past 10-15 years in Latin America) which, as I said previously, seems to have led to a paradigm shift in the social/political consciousness of Latin American workers, as demonstrated by the robustness of Bolivarianism in the region.

If you think capitalism can result in permanent improvements for the workers, why be a socialist?

As for "paradigm shifts", we're materialists, we don't think history is determined by "paradigms". "Bolivarianism" is merely the latest "radical" populist ideology in the region; it's not the first and it won't be the last.

Kill all the fetuses!

2nd February 2015, 18:55

It seems to me that there is this widespread assumption that politics shifted to the rights just because. Just because there was some neoliberal bourgeois conspiracy or politicians started lacking political will or something. Which is nonsense.

Politics shifted to the right, because capitalism changed, in the broadest sense of the word. More specifically, Keynesian social-democratic policies failed, produced stagflation and didn't offer any way out. The only solution that was possible under the circumstances was austerity. There are many examples that show how social-democratic policies simply became untenable, because of the way capitalism changed and also shows how that has nothing to do with political will or some other nonsense. An a great example being Mitterrand-Communists coalition in France...

So the question of political standards can't be discussed in abstract, one can't abstract material conditions away. So then the real question becomes - what sort of a shift to the left one can have in the context where progressive social-democratic politics can't objectively exist anymore. How will Syriza create this shift of political standards to the left when it objectively can't deliver on its on promises?

All this talk about political standards and change in consciousness and whatnot seems some idealist nonsense, where policies fundamentally change simply because some politicians have "more political will" or use "radical rhetoric". Which is nonsense. In order for the change in consciousness to gain a momentum and in order to build on it, political actors must deliver on the very minimum that they promise. If they can't - which they mostly can't, objectively speaking - then that momentum can't be sustained and you have 1970-80s all over.

The only hope, the only goal is having an independent revolutionary party, which doesn't sow illusions in parliamentarianism. Remember that UK's Labour also had a radical wing within itself, but it didn't lead to any changes neither for workers, neither for the Labour itself. The Left Platform or Communist Tendency within Syriza are equally consumed by the Rightist majority and how no influence in the decisions making process anyway.

RedWorker

2nd February 2015, 18:55

And these date to a period when Cuba aligned itself with the Soviet Union and the regime, so blindly worshiped by much of the so-called left, was forced to implement radical measures, including the nationalisation of the economy, a monopoly on foreign trade etc. Measures that none of the "South American socialist" states have replicated.

Such measures have not altered the class character of the state, nor the mode of production. A workers' state, deformed or not, cannot be created by a coup.
So you're saying that making these changes within the context of the bourgeois state and capitalism resulted in good effects.

Fourth Internationalist

2nd February 2015, 19:13

Such measures have not altered the class character of the state, nor the mode of production. A workers' state, deformed or not, cannot be created by a coup.
So you're saying that making these changes within the context of the bourgeois state and capitalism resulted in good effects.

Could a a deformed workers' state be created, then, by something other than a coup?

RedWorker

2nd February 2015, 19:17

Could a a deformed workers' state be created, then, by something other than a coup?

I'm not a Trotskyist, so I don't deal with that concept. For me USSR & co. were bourgeois states. Trotskyist groups have upheld the notion of "socialism by military expansion" (by recognizing e.g. East Germany as socialist), which is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Fourth Internationalist

2nd February 2015, 19:25

Rusty Shackleford

2nd February 2015, 19:31

Good luck with the March on Rome, with the only declared goal of a "show of strength".

This is a bit... gratuitous.

Fourth Internationalist

2nd February 2015, 19:32

I'm not a Trotskyist, so I don't deal with that concept. For me USSR & co. were bourgeois states. Trotskyist groups have upheld the notion of "socialism by military expansion" (by recognizing e.g. East Germany as socialist), which is quite frankly, ridiculous.

Oh okay. I thought your statement had implied a deformed workers' state could be created by something, just not by a coup.

If I may recommend, the third link in my signature deals with the question of deformed workers' states from the perspective of Trotksy's widow, Natalia Sedova. Both she, the organization I sympathize with, and I would disagree wholly with the idea that deformed workers' states have anything to do with orthodox Trotskyism.

And, to defend unorthodox Trotksyists (those who defend deformed workers' states), they most definitely would not agree on calling East Germany socialist.

RedWorker

2nd February 2015, 19:40

ICFI, which considers itself an 'orthodox Trotskyist' organization: "From a social standpoint, the end of the GDR was not a revolution, but a counterrevolution. Along with the return of capitalism, unemployment, crass exploitation, social inequality and abject poverty returned to eastern Germany." (source (http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/11/08/wall-n08.html))

ICL(FI), which considers itself an 'orthodox Trotskyist' organization: "From the moment landlord-capitalist rule was overturned over 60 years ago, the North Korean deformed workers state has been in the gun sights of both Democratic and Republican Party administrations." (source (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/938/korea.html))

I'm not claiming these organizations accurately follow 'orthodox Trotskyism', but that's how they define themselves. What they are saying means that the capitalist mode of production had ended in these countries. They also claim that social revolution had happened and social production relations were altered. According to Marxism, progress in the mode of production can only be through a social revolution which establishes communism.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd February 2015, 19:40

The problem with this, as I see it, is that this 'alternative option' becomes a distraction to the working class movement and potential worker leaders that could come out of it. Workers begin to follow reformist capitalist parties, and it dupes the workers away from revolutionary ideas by claiming that capitalism can be made pleasant, or that a sort of socialism can be introduced by putting the reformist party in power.

I recognise this, and it is something we must struggle with. On the one hand, of course we can recognise the likes of SYRIZA are not communists and never will be, and will never themselves directly threaten the capitalist social system. On the other hand, we have to recognise that we cannot wish capitalism away, nor can we defeat capitalism with 'a thousand programmatic changes', nor splits/coups/new parties/movements. In order for capitalism to be permanently weakened, we at least need to dismantle the political and economic logic behind, and social will for, it's current dominant ideology: austerity [and by extension austerity's philosophical parent, neoliberalism].

Because of that, revolutionary socialists must always fiercely criticise such parties and movements for duping the workers. While we defend the gains that have been won in capitalism as a result of working class pressure on the ruling class, we, as communists, must continually point out that socialist revolution is the only solution. Anything that says otherwise must be fought against by us.

This just feels like banging one's head against the wall, though. I sort of agree with the independent and pure nature of the sentiment, but at the same time we cannot just repeat what we have (and people before us) have been doing, let's not forget, for the best part of a quarter of a century, without any success.

I do take on board the point that critical support for left-populists should not erase our political independence, and that we have to be careful to distance our end-goal from a current strategy, but at the same time what is really the point - aside from ideological purity and pride - of following a strategy that can only fail?

Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages

2nd February 2015, 19:58

How can crawling back to the ballot box be seen as anything other than banging our collective heads against the wall though? I would have more sympathy for this kind of politics if it didn't keep hiding what it was doing with language that acts like this is the first time around for us.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

2nd February 2015, 20:01

Such measures have not altered the class character of the state, nor the mode of production. A workers' state, deformed or not, cannot be created by a coup.

That's an odd position to say the least - it is completely at variance with history. The government of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, for example, was overthrown in an honest-to-God coup - so if you recognise that the RSFSR at the time was a workers' state, you have the bizarre situation of two states, the Russian SFSR and the Azerbaijan SSR, with the same political and economic system in place, only one of them was a workers' state, and the other, due to the original sin of its founding, was not.

If you don't think the RSFSR was a workers' state, of course, that just means we're talking past each other.

Trotskyist groups have upheld the notion of "socialism by military expansion" (by recognizing e.g. East Germany as socialist), which is quite frankly, ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is you claiming any Trotskyist group recognised Democratic Germany as socialist.

I'm not claiming these organizations accurately follow 'orthodox Trotskyism', but that's how they define themselves. What they are saying means that the capitalist mode of production had ended in these countries. They also claim that social revolution had happened and social production relations were altered. According to Marxism, progress in the mode of production can only be through a social revolution which establishes communism.

The revolution does not establish communism; communism can't be established by fiat. The revolution is the overthrow, always partial and highly reversible, of the bourgeois state. And one mode of production can not simply succeed another, as certain ultra-lefts think. During a transitional period, there are transitional relations of production, neither capitalist nor socialist (just as between feudalism and capitalism there exists a period of transitional dominant petty commodity production).

Fourth Internationalist

2nd February 2015, 20:11

RedWorker

2nd February 2015, 20:13

What is ridiculous is you claiming any Trotskyist group recognised Democratic Germany as socialist.

Would it be very surprising to you to hear that Trotskyism is very similar to and has common roots with Stalinism, despite all its ideological rambling?

The revolution does not establish communism; communism can't be established by fiat. The revolution is the overthrow, always partial and highly reversible, of the bourgeois state. And one mode of production can not simply succeed another, as certain ultra-lefts think. During a transitional period, there are transitional relations of production, neither capitalist nor socialist (just as between feudalism and capitalism there exists a period of transitional dominant petty commodity production).

The social revolution establishes workers' control of production, on which the workers' state is built. The end of the social revolution is the establishment of communism, lower-stage at first.

RedWorker

2nd February 2015, 20:14

I know you know how they define themselves. I was simply offering, for you and for everyone who will look at this thread, a perspective that is often unheard of which identifies itself as both Trotskyist and agrees with the basic foundations of Marxism that you repeat in your last part. Nothing was meant to be an argument against you in any way. Sorry for any confusion :)

But I was replying to your point:

And, to defend unorthodox Trotksyists (those who defend deformed workers' states), they most definitely would not agree on calling East Germany socialist.

By staying that many Trotskyist organizations indeed believe that the end of capitalism had taken place in Stalinist states.

Fourth Internationalist

2nd February 2015, 20:23

But I was replying to your point:

By staying that many Trotskyist organizations indeed believe that the end of capitalism had taken place in Stalinist states.

But I don't see what that has to do with what I said. They don't believe such states were socialist, they believed they were deformed workers' states with a transitional mode of production between capitalism and socialism.

FSL

2nd February 2015, 20:26

In order for capitalism to be permanently weakened, we at least need to dismantle the political and economic logic behind, and social will for, it's current dominant ideology: austerity [and by extension austerity's philosophical parent, neoliberalism].
Austerity is not the dominant ideology. In fact in countries where states Spend I'm not seeing anyone say "we should fight the dominant ideology, keynesianism".

Balanced budgets and neutral monetary policy and deficits and active monetary policy are both versions of capitalism which in reality look extremely alike. Unless someone can point to huge salary raises in the US or Japan.

Say what you will but this is right-wing opportunism. By only focusing on austerity, you're indirectly supporting keynesianism and making the claim that a different kind of management will help the workers. It won't.

FSL

2nd February 2015, 20:30

The revolution does not establish communism; communism can't be established by fiat. The revolution is the overthrow, always partial and highly reversible, of the bourgeois state. And one mode of production can not simply succeed another, as certain ultra-lefts think. During a transitional period, there are transitional relations of production, neither capitalist nor socialist (just as between feudalism and capitalism there exists a period of transitional dominant petty commodity production).
Off topic but when was petty commodity production "dominant"?

There exist periods when different modes of production can coexist, like having feudalist, capitalist and petty commodity production. Or having subsistence farming, capitalism and socialism as Russia had in its first years. But there is no transitional relations of production between capitalism and socialism. There is the revolutionary change between the two and then socialism, which is after all the lowest stage of communism with many of capitalism's ills still in place.

Fourth Internationalist

2nd February 2015, 20:53

I recognise this, and it is something we must struggle with. On the one hand, of course we can recognise the likes of SYRIZA are not communists and never will be, and will never themselves directly threaten the capitalist social system. On the other hand, we have to recognise that we cannot wish capitalism away, nor can we defeat capitalism with 'a thousand programmatic changes', nor splits/coups/new parties/movements. In order for capitalism to be permanently weakened, we at least need to dismantle the political and economic logic behind, and social will for, it's current dominant ideology: austerity [and by extension austerity's philosophical parent, neoliberalism].

Revolutionary socialism isn't "wishing away capitalism". It is the reformists who think they can wish away the ills of capitalism while still keeping capitalism. Further, I think it is odd to say we need to dismantle a fundamental part of capitalism without arguing it explicitly needs to be done by the working class and that only by the working class can it be done. Syriza cannot accomplish that, and past social democratic parties haven't either because such parties never will be able to.

This just feels like banging one's head against the wall, though. I sort of agree with the independent and pure nature of the sentiment, but at the same time we cannot just repeat what we have (and people before us) have been doing, let's not forget, for the best part of a quarter of a century, without any success.

I do take on board the point that critical support for left-populists should not erase our political independence, and that we have to be careful to distance our end-goal from a current strategy, but at the same time what is really the point - aside from ideological purity and pride - of following a strategy that can only fail?

Leninist strategy specifically goes against the pseudo-"ideological purity" that many communists and anarchists base their actions on (for example, not participating in trade unions or parliament). Leninist strategy, which necessitates telling the working class the truth that socialist revolution is the only answer to capitalism and imperialism, allows for revolutionary workers to bring the non-revolutionary workers, who can found in trade unions for example, to revolutionary conclusions. The only way principled Leninism could be considered "too pure" to work is if one does not believe socialist revolution to always be the necessary end conclusion of political work by communists. As Marx said, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"

Honestly, I don't see what is controversial about anything I am saying. I am merely repeating the basic Marxist idea that we can't be silent about the need for socialist revolution. Lenin, too, agreed with this when he argued communists need to take part in the trade unions and in parliament while always denouncing those who try to trick the working class from any conclusion other than socialist revolution.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd February 2015, 22:44

Revolutionary socialism isn't "wishing away capitalism".

Don't mis-represent me. I didn't say that. What I did say is that pursuing the same dead end strategy, that much of the existing left has done and is doing - and will continue to do! - is the equivalent of 'wishing away capitalism', since the old party-building, vanguard model is totally irrelevant and has practically zero chance of success.

It is the reformists who think they can wish away the ills of capitalism while still keeping capitalism.

Of course, but that's not hugely relevant here, since nobody is advocating social democracy as a final outcome.

Further, I think it is odd to say we need to dismantle a fundamental part of capitalism without arguing it explicitly needs to be done by the working class and that only by the working class can it be done. Syriza cannot accomplish that, and past social democratic parties haven't either because such parties never will be able to.

I don't think we have expectations of a party like SYRIZA dismantling capitalism. I don't have expectations of a party like SYRIZA, on its own, doing anything of note. Rather, the point here is that if a group of left-populists swept to power across Europe, this would put left-wing politics back on the table and give space for us, as revolutionary socialists, to challenge dominant bourgeois and left-populist perspectives. Right now, we cannot do that because we have no relevance and therefore no legitimacy amongst the wider working class.

Leninist strategy specifically goes against the pseudo-"ideological purity" that many communists and anarchists base their actions on (for example, not participating in trade unions or parliament). Leninist strategy, which necessitates telling the working class the truth that socialist revolution is the only answer to capitalism and imperialism, allows for revolutionary workers to bring the non-revolutionary workers, who can found in trade unions for example, to revolutionary conclusions. The only way principled Leninism could be considered "too pure" to work is if one does not believe socialist revolution to always be the necessary end conclusion of political work by communists. As Marx said, "The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working Men of All Countries, Unite!"

Honestly, I don't see what is controversial about anything I am saying. I am merely repeating the basic Marxist idea that we can't be silent about the need for socialist revolution. Lenin, too, agreed with this when he argued communists need to take part in the trade unions and in parliament while always denouncing those who try to trick the working class from any conclusion other than socialist revolution.

I mean, it's great that Lenin said this and Marx said that, and i'm not saying any of this is controversial. Rather the opposite - it's boring and irrelevant. Why do you think banging the same Leninist drum will bring success where it has failed for decades? I am honestly intrigued, because the Leninist party-building strategy seems to be the epitome of banging one's head against a brick wall. Failure after failure. Throwing bad after bad.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

2nd February 2015, 22:50

Austerity is not the dominant ideology. In fact in countries where states Spend I'm not seeing anyone say "we should fight the dominant ideology, keynesianism".

Exactly. In countries where populist policies are pursued, we see cries of dictatorship, communism and 'hard-left' politics, a la Venezuela, Bolivia etc., and the same 'hard-left' cries were made against SYRIZA in the immediate aftermath of their election victory. This shows that the centre of politics has swung way to the right, to the extent that even social democracy and democratic socialism are seen as far-left. It is therefore important that, in the absence of any possibility of revolutionary politics making an immediate impression upon the consciousness of the wider working class, that where there is a realistic opportunity for left-populists/social democrats/whatever you want to call them coming to power as a group (Rather than, pointlessly, in a single European country), this should be supported (critically, of course).

Say what you will but this is right-wing opportunism. By only focusing on austerity, you're indirectly supporting keynesianism and making the claim that a different kind of management will help the workers. It won't.

I think it transcends the CPUSA logic of 'vote Democrat because the Republicans are extremists', and rather than 'right-wing opportunism', it is just seeing the political reality for what it is. I don't really see why we have to confine ourselves to irrelevance just to maintain ideological purity. We know we are communists, we know what we believe and we don't have to prove that to anybody else. That doesn't - or shouldn't - mean that we have to shun left-populist parties that have a realistic chance of achieving some state power, if it can help us in our long-term aims.

Fourth Internationalist

2nd February 2015, 23:06

Don't mis-represent me. I didn't say that. What I did say is that pursuing the same dead end strategy, that much of the existing left has done and is doing - and will continue to do! - is the equivalent of 'wishing away capitalism', since the old party-building, vanguard model is totally irrelevant and has practically zero chance of success.

Of course, but that's not hugely relevant here, since nobody is advocating social democracy as a final outcome.

I don't think we have expectations of a party like SYRIZA dismantling capitalism. I don't have expectations of a party like SYRIZA, on its own, doing anything of note. Rather, the point here is that if a group of left-populists swept to power across Europe, this would put left-wing politics back on the table and give space for us, as revolutionary socialists, to challenge dominant bourgeois and left-populist perspectives. Right now, we cannot do that because we have no relevance and therefore no legitimacy amongst the wider working class.

I mean, it's great that Lenin said this and Marx said that, and i'm not saying any of this is controversial. Rather the opposite - it's boring and irrelevant. Why do you think banging the same Leninist drum will bring success where it has failed for decades? I am honestly intrigued, because the Leninist party-building strategy seems to be the epitome of banging one's head against a brick wall. Failure after failure. Throwing bad after bad.

So the idea I think I'm getting from your posts (correct me if I am wrong on anything) sounds like:

1) You believe revolutionary socialists have to help support left wing populist (which are bourgeois lead) parties get into power.

2) This will make revolutionary ideology more popular, as opposed to duping workers away from revolutionary socialism as I think.

3) While supporting those parties to get them into power, we should do away with the boring stuff Marx said about always telling the workers that socialist revolution is the answer.

4) Left populist parties in power have done more than the Leninist strategy has done/will be able to do.

5) This strategy you believe in may be contrary to some of what Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky advocated for, but their methods have proven not to be able to work.

Again, this is the impression I am getting from your post. Correct anything you think I am misreading.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

2nd February 2015, 23:39

Would it be very surprising to you to hear that Trotskyism is very similar to and has common roots with Stalinism, despite all its ideological rambling?

No, it would not surprise me at all, as that has been the refrain of the social-democrats for quite some time now. And to the extent that the similarity consists in the fact that we do not call for a "better" capitalism, that we do not postpone the revolution until the next geological aeon, and do not think that socialism can be instituted by snapping our fingers, we wouldn't have it any other way.

The social revolution establishes workers' control of production, on which the workers' state is built. The end of the social revolution is the establishment of communism, lower-stage at first.

This simply doesn't make any sense.

Workers' control is possible in capitalism; in fact there is hardly a modern capitalist economy that does not include some measure of workers' control. And the full socialisation of the means of production is impossible as long as capitalism exists as a global system.

What distinguishes the revolutionary workers' state is not workers' control, but the smashing of the bourgeois state. I understand why people who enthuse over Podemos and SYRIZA would like to downplay this - it means all your pretty parliaments, all the ministries of finance and alternate ministries of defense, all of them would have to be smashed and replaced, but there you have it.

Off topic but when was petty commodity production "dominant"?

Well, I would say it was the dominant economic activity - coexisting with feudal estates of course, as well as a nascent bourgeoisie mostly occupied with the cloth trade and some overseas ventures - for a period in England, between the end of the dominance of the great landed estates and the enclosures etc. In Japan, between the abolition of the han system and the rise of a new bourgeoisie, it was nearly the only economic activity.

There exist periods when different modes of production can coexist, like having feudalist, capitalist and petty commodity production. Or having subsistence farming, capitalism and socialism as Russia had in its first years. But there is no transitional relations of production between capitalism and socialism. There is the revolutionary change between the two and then socialism, which is after all the lowest stage of communism with many of capitalism's ills still in place.

For us, socialism is necessarily global, stateless etc. As such there can be no talk of a socialist component of an economy - at best we can talk about relations of production that would be socialist if they were generalised. (This is what Lenin meant when talking about a socialist sector of the economy, even as he derided the push for an immediate transition to socialism as a "bureaucratic utopia").

I don't think we have expectations of a party like SYRIZA dismantling capitalism. I don't have expectations of a party like SYRIZA, on its own, doing anything of note. Rather, the point here is that if a group of left-populists swept to power across Europe, this would put left-wing politics back on the table and give space for us, as revolutionary socialists, to challenge dominant bourgeois and left-populist perspectives. Right now, we cannot do that because we have no relevance and therefore no legitimacy amongst the wider working class.

Again, this is rank idealism. Class consciousness is not a matter of socialism becoming "popular" in the bourgeois "market of ideas", particularly not when that "popularity" rests on completely misrepresenting what socialism is. Class consciousness is about the willingness of the workers to fight for their own interest, which can't be helped by supposed radicals calling on workers to support the "good" bourgeoisie, those nice "populists", who are supposedly going to make such a difference, if only they're elected - and who will actually oppress the workers no less than other bourgeois parties.

It is therefore important that, in the absence of any possibility of revolutionary politics making an immediate impression upon the consciousness of the wider working class, that where there is a realistic opportunity for left-populists/social democrats/whatever you want to call them coming to power as a group (Rather than, pointlessly, in a single European country), this should be supported (critically, of course).

So, an honest question, if you don't think the revolution is possible in the foreseeable future, and if you think it is important that "left populists" be elected, why call yourself a socialist?

FSL

3rd February 2015, 00:33

Exactly. In countries where populist policies are pursued, we see cries of dictatorship, communism and 'hard-left' politics, a la Venezuela, Bolivia etc., and the same 'hard-left' cries were made against SYRIZA in the immediate aftermath of their election victory. This shows that the centre of politics has swung way to the right, to the extent that even social democracy and democratic socialism are seen as far-left. It is therefore important that, in the absence of any possibility of revolutionary politics making an immediate impression upon the consciousness of the wider working class, that where there is a realistic opportunity for left-populists/social democrats/whatever you want to call them coming to power as a group (Rather than, pointlessly, in a single European country), this should be supported (critically, of course).

I think it transcends the CPUSA logic of 'vote Democrat because the Republicans are extremists', and rather than 'right-wing opportunism', it is just seeing the political reality for what it is. I don't really see why we have to confine ourselves to irrelevance just to maintain ideological purity. We know we are communists, we know what we believe and we don't have to prove that to anybody else. That doesn't - or shouldn't - mean that we have to shun left-populist parties that have a realistic chance of achieving some state power, if it can help us in our long-term aims.

No, no one is a communist "because they know it". Communism isn't a state of mind but the daily movement towards the goal. You support keynesian frauds? You're a supporter of keynesian frauds.

People who "are communists because they know it" and who in practice rally behind the pettiest soc-dem are directly contributing to the political backwardness.
That's why they can't bring it up as an excuse for their actions.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

3rd February 2015, 20:19

So the idea I think I'm getting from your posts (correct me if I am wrong on anything) sounds like:

Thanks for the opportunity.

1) You believe revolutionary socialists have to help support left wing populist (which are bourgeois lead) parties get into power.

I'm not saying this is a matter of principle. Again, this is not a generalised belief of mine but, based on the current political context within Europe, I think that if there is a realistic chance of a swathe of left-populist parties being elected across Europe then giving them critical support would be an intelligent strategy.

2) This will make revolutionary ideology more popular, as opposed to duping workers away from revolutionary socialism as I think.

I recognise your point of view on this, which is why I think it is important to pick our battles; becoming enthralled to left-populist parties anywhere and everywhere will just take us down the road to rank reformism, but where there is a real chance of a swathe of these parties being elected in regions that view them, at least, as 'hard left' or 'far left' should be supported for reasons I have outlined in previous posts.

3) While supporting those parties to get them into power, we should do away with the boring stuff Marx said about always telling the workers that socialist revolution is the answer.

I'm not about to abandon Marxist economics, at least in some respects. Marx's criticisms of capitalist society were and are the most accurate and valid of any I have ever encountered. But, as I have already said, the problem with banging your head against a brick wall ('telling the workers that socialist revolution is the answer') is that you are just banging your head against a brick wall. I may believe in communism, and you may believe in it, but ultimately it is not our own belief or ideology that matters, but a question of how the working class, in its widest possible sense (i.e. outside of existing communist-leaning workers), can achieve class and political consciousness. To do this we need alternative ideas to reach a wider audience first.

4) Left populist parties in power have done more than the Leninist strategy has done/will be able to do.

I didn't say this. The semi-permanent/permanent social welfare improvements are obviously matched by Leninist parties of the past, Russia being a prime example. But I think it's a bit of a moot point of comparison, since we should judge socialists by a higher level than social welfare; again, understanding this point rests on an understanding that supporting left-populists regionally is a strategy, not an ideological shift.

5) This strategy you believe in may be contrary to some of what Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky advocated for, but their methods have proven not to be able to work.

Well, I would question the sanity of anybody who maintains that communism has ever existed, or that any socialist 'states' that existed were anywhere near total successes. I certainly don't think they are models to be repeated in the future.

Hope this clarifies.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

3rd February 2015, 20:24

[QUOTE=Xhar-Xhar Binks;2818845]
Again, this is rank idealism.

Far from it.

Class consciousness is not a matter of socialism becoming "popular" in the bourgeois "market of ideas",

True, but we have to achieve popularity of ideas somewhere, and right now we certainly are not.

Class consciousness is about the willingness of the workers to fight for their own interest, which can't be helped by supposed radicals calling on workers to support the "good" bourgeoisie, those nice "populists", who are supposedly going to make such a difference, if only they're elected - and who will actually oppress the workers no less than other bourgeois parties.

Again, the point is not that we merely rely on left-populist governments to do our bidding. Rather, I think that if workers can see a left-wing alternative to capitalism exists and is viable and potentially relevant, then it means we can actually start to have a serious discussion about revolution.

The issue currently is that we can talk about the Leninist line, and the programme, and these fantastic revolutionary ideas all we want, but nobody listens because it's fantasy, and if they do listen they dismiss it as fantasy all the same. Working people, i'm talking about.

So, an honest question, if you don't think the revolution is possible in the foreseeable future, and if you think it is important that "left populists" be elected, why call yourself a socialist?

I will take the honesty as implied; I don't really need to justify my own politics to satisfy your own desire for pigeon-holing.

Anglo-Saxon Philistine

3rd February 2015, 20:33

True, but we have to achieve popularity of ideas somewhere, and right now we certainly are not.

Socialist ideas will never be popular - until there is a revolutionary situation.

Of course, comparatively, socialist ideas, and I do mean socialist ideas, not the ideas of various kinds of social-democratic pond life, were immensely more popular when ostensible socialists were independent of and hostile to the parties of the bourgeoisie, than when the same parties discovered various "good" kinds of the bourgeoisie to latch onto, from the negus in Ethiopia to the Popular Front in Chile, Khomeini and similar.

Again, the point is not that we merely rely on left-populist governments to do our bidding. Rather, I think that if workers can see a left-wing alternative to capitalism exists and is viable and potentially relevant, then it means we can actually start to have a serious discussion about revolution.

I think that if workers can see a left-wing alternative to capitalism exists and is viable because some social-democrats got elected to lead the capitalist state, the workers have a huge problem.

The issue currently is that we can talk about the Leninist line, and the programme, and these fantastic revolutionary ideas all we want, but nobody listens because it's fantasy, and if they do listen they dismiss it as fantasy all the same. Working people, i'm talking about.

Yes, that's what most of this comes down to, people sadsturbating because no one listens to them. Well, selling out is a great way to change that, but then people are going to listen... to you preaching social-demonracy.

I will take the honesty as implied; I don't really need to justify my own politics to satisfy your own desire for pigeon-holing.

No, you don't need to justify your politics to me, but you should justify them to yourself, because if you view socialism like the Christian views the Kingdom of Heaven, then you're not a revolutionary socialist, sorry.

Georg Lukacs

4th February 2015, 00:53

As for "paradigm shifts", we're materialists, we don't think history is determined by "paradigms". "Bolivarianism" is merely the latest "radical" populist ideology in the region; it's not the first and it won't be the last.

This is so true. One only needs to look at Marxist social theory in Latin America to see the ultra-reformist stance of the left intelligentsia, i. e. Laclau and Mouffe, the obsession with Lacanianism and Hegelian Marxism, and new currents such as Zizekian Post-Marxism. Discourse theory and phenomenology trumps the the Marxist theory of the State and Social class, and don't mention the dirty phrase Marxist political economy. Of course there are pockets of radicalism, but popularism always appeals to the middle-classes who lack real working class consciousness born out of a life lived in extremis and real suffering through the contradictions of capital.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

4th February 2015, 20:44

Socialist ideas will never be popular - until there is a revolutionary situation.

This is preposterous. The logic here is basically 'they won't be popular until they're popular'. Ergo, you are side-stepping the question of how we move from a situation of low class consciousness and revolutionary activity, to a concrete revolutionary situation.

Of course, comparatively, socialist ideas, and I do mean socialist ideas, not the ideas of various kinds of social-democratic pond life, were immensely more popular when ostensible socialists were independent of and hostile to the parties of the bourgeoisie, than when the same parties discovered various "good" kinds of the bourgeoisie to latch onto, from the negus in Ethiopia to the Popular Front in Chile, Khomeini and similar.

When did this mythical time occur? There has always been a relationship between revolutionary communists and social democrats, from the SPD in Germany pre-war, to the Mensheviks and SRs in Russia.

I think that if workers can see a left-wing alternative to capitalism exists and is viable because some social-democrats got elected to lead the capitalist state, the workers have a huge problem.

This is an unsubstantiated statement. It means nothing. Can you explain your thinking here?

Yes, that's what most of this comes down to, people sadsturbating because no one listens to them. Well, selling out is a great way to change that, but then people are going to listen... to you preaching social-demonracy.

What do you mean by selling out? This isn't some binary choice where either one chooses between communism and capitalism. This is a question of strategy, and not one I had anticipated. But if there is a situation where several parties in a regional bloc can get elected on a left-populist manifesto, then that is an unforeseen surprise that may lead to an upturn in class and political consciousness amongst workers. It is far from a total or even partial embrace of reformist politics themselves.

No, you don't need to justify your politics to me, but you should justify them to yourself, because if you view socialism like the Christian views the Kingdom of Heaven, then you're not a revolutionary socialist, sorry.

Please don't be sorry. Like I said, i'm not bothered if I fit into a pigeon-hole and the linguistic 'ism' attached to my politics by others doesn't bother me at all. I know what I stand for.

Rafiq

5th February 2015, 13:44

This is so true. One only needs to look at Marxist social theory in Latin America to see the ultra-reformist stance of the left intelligentsia, i. e. Laclau and Mouffe, the obsession with Lacanianism and Hegelian Marxism, and new currents such as Zizekian Post-Marxism. Discourse theory and phenomenology trumps the the Marxist theory of the State and Social class, and don't mention the dirty phrase Marxist political economy. Of course there are pockets of radicalism, but popularism always appeals to the middle-classes who lack real working class consciousness born out of a life lived in extremis and real suffering through the contradictions of capital.

It takes a special kind of philistinism to create a dichotomy between "Marxist social theory" and so called "Post Marxism". Zizek, for example, already pre-supposes the Marxist (specifically, althusserian) understanding of the state and class - any idiot who bothers with him understands that it is a necessary substrate to all of his ideas. If you think this is enough without further elaboration, it is you who disregards Marxism: You fill in the gaps created by the developments of the past decades not with Marxism but by a casually perpetuated bourgeois ideological universe. How can it be otherwise? "Marxist social theory" as an explanation for today is absolutely worthless if it cannot thoroughly account for the world (which is what Zizek, among others attempt) - to abstract from it mere words and mold reality to its liking is already violently anti-Marxist. Marxism today derives from a real analysis of the world pre-supposing the foundations of a tradition which spans almost two centuries. This tradition does not amount to an empty "social theory" or formalized abstractions derived from previous conditions to which the world today conforms but a historic understanding of the social. That is not to say class no longer exists, or that the relations to production are not almost identical, but that this conclusion must be drawn through concrete analysis.

And regarding "post Marxist" populism: http://www.lacan.com/zizpopulism.htm

parallax

5th February 2015, 22:35

It's good to see that social democracy is alive and well here.

Georg Lukacs

6th February 2015, 06:35

I agree that Marxist theory must account for changes in its own historical and social horizon, but that is not what is at issue here. Politics needs strategy, but that strategy does not always agree with the understanding gained through theory. We might have a particular understanding of social class, but on the ground, the social classes shift alliances constantly (Poulantzas saw this clearly by the way, the best of the Althusserians). It is not theory we need at this conjuncture but a certain class bias, to consolidate the workers against capital. Theory might see things as they appear, but action changes the way things will turn out in the future. Whether Marxism is the perfect theory of theory and praxis, self aware and self reflexive because it is the theory of the class that counts I am not so sure. Critical Theory is right on many points in its criticism of historical materialism and the necessity to renew its conceptions (Karl Korsch and Lukacs were the first to theorise this application of historical materialism to its own fundaments). There are many really interesting things happening in Marxism today, including the Value Form theory school, New Dialectics, and re formulations of Marxian Political Economy. I myself have published and given papers on Adorno and Franfurt School theory, and as theory they explain a lot about domination and the way exchange is universalised, and its effects on culture. I am more circumspect about its contribution to political praxis, and the same criticism can be levelled at Deleuzians such as Hardt and Negri, Foucauldians, Heideggerian Marxists, and in the main the Lacanian Marxists. Zizek at least is in dialogue with every tendency, and I see his main strength to be writings where he engages the history of Marxist political thought over his reappropriations of Hegel et al. Excellent is his Afterword to Lukacs' Defence of History and Class Consciousness (Verso). I have read and utilised his more recent "Less Than Nothing", but it is interesting only in so far as it adds to the tradition of Value Form criticism, and the exegesis of a novel Hegel--but it cannot seriously serve as the foundation of class warfare as at least the works of Althusser and his generation, including the Situationists, could be. Having said that, Zizek shows a penchant for going with the flow. He has spoken at Zucotti Park and at Syriza gatherings. And his strong support of Syriza, and derogatory remarks about KKE shows his true reformist colours.