Political Parties

[DaCuBaN]

For as long as humans have kept records, they have always felt the pressing desire to adhere; to belong to a certain grouping; to associate with like minds; to band together irregardless of who we may be associating with. This has led in modern times to the corruption of 'Labour' into a neo-conservative party, and their position toward the left being consolidated by many smaller factions, such as RESPECT amongst others. The question I wish to discuss is this:

Do political organisations have any place in modern bourgious politics?

To which I say NO!

Whilst most members would advocate the destruction of the current state and all it's trimmings, we are not in a position where a revolt would be succesful. As such, we are forced into participating in the sham that is (in this case UK) electoral politics. With this in mind, I feel it paramount that we attempt to improve that which we are lumped with to best suit our goals. To me, this would be best achieved through abolishment of all forms of political organisation.

Under the current system, when a politician stands for a seat in Westminster he must propose some form of manifesto to outline to the voters what their intentions in the parliament are. There is nothing to keep them to this of course, but that is not relevant here. With political parties, the manifesto used is a generic one, written so it is ambigious as possible and is not likely to 'trip up' those who use it at a later date. When we appoint these people into parliament, the only thing we can be sure of is that the ideas they have stood for are not necessarily their own.

Even once in parliament, these politicians have very little real power. The parties employ 'whips' to ensure that members keep in line, and members are frequently ostracised when they show tendencies of dissent, or individual thoughs.

Or even if they just listen to their voters!

With independant politicians, there is no generic manifesto to hide behind; no party whips; no 'old boys club'. So where are the drawbacks?

I say there are none.

So let us throw away the old 'party' model as the rubbish that it is.

[monkeydust]

Hmm....interesting.....



This has led in modern times to the corruption of 'Labour' into a neo-conservative party, and their position toward the left being consolidated by many smaller factions, such as RESPECT amongst others. The question I wish to discuss is this:


If you're suggesting that Labour has become the "New Conservative party" then you're kind of missing the point. New Labour's always been about embracing the free market, but harnessing its potential to achieve social justice. New Labour mixes both left and right, its always been a "third way"; that was partially a reason for its early mass appeal.

Though I admit that, arguably, such a "third way" could be merely a pretence in order to introduce rightist policies with a wide base of support.



Whilst most members would advocate the destruction of the current state and all it's trimmings, we are not in a position where a revolt would be succesful. As such, we are forced into participating in the sham that is (in this case UK) electoral politics. With this in mind, I feel it paramount that we attempt to improve that which we are lumped with to best suit our goals.

That's understandable, I suppose.



and members are frequently ostracised when they show tendencies of dissent, or individual thoughs.


Frequently ostracized?!?!

I disagree, in fact the last time I remember a party in power "withdrawing the whip" for policy reasons was during John Major's government, over the issue of Maastricht.

Take the instace of top-up fees, a huge number of Labour back-benchers (especially when one considers that over 100 Labour MPs are ministers) either abstained or voted against the government, despite it being a "three whip bill", and yet no-one was punished.

And remember that the "whipping system" is a two-way process. Party commitees are formed in order to convey the feelings of the back-benchers to the cabinet and the prime minister, via whips. Moreover, via select committes, backbenchers (and the opposition) do get their say.

Though I do agree with your general point, that the executive arm of political parties (especially the conservative party) has far too much power.



With independant politicians, there is no generic manifesto to hide behind; no party whips; no 'old boys club'. So where are the drawbacks?

Firstly, it would be very hard to form any "working government" at all, because there'd be no "party" to get a majority.

As such, all bills proposed in parliament would effectively be private members' bills. I see it likely that factions will inevitably emerge as a result of Mps trying to gain support in commons for their own proposals. Either that or little will get done.

Don't forget that until the the mid 19th century, political parties were nothing more than clubs for Mps anyway, their current state arose organically, and could again.

[Kez]

yes, next thing we know, we dont need trade unions either, because its better to fight individually than on a collective basis is it? what nonsense.

How can 20 socialists in an assembly possibly co-ordinate when there is no party to put them together?

This is a non-question, parties arise from the need of a collective force, its ridiculous to suggest an assembly can work without such a party.

Even worse is the fact that a "socialist" can work without the party system. How do you propose to organise the masses against an organised structure that is the state?

[James]

When the opposition is using a party, you are at a severe disadvantage not to do likewise (to be a credible force). Otherwise the opposition will have considerable significant advantage(s) over you.

[DaCuBaN]

Firstly, it would be very hard to form any "working government" at all, because there'd be no "party" to get a majority

Indeed - this is in fact fundamental to my belief of how the UK parliament could function.... I want division. I want to hear what every member thinks, I do not wish to hear the 'party line'.


Frequently ostracized?!?!

Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway, both old fashioned socialists (though both flawed in their ways of course) would both apply here... The latter was an unfortunate circumstance... but he certainly was ostracised.


Take the instace of top-up fees, a huge number of Labour back-benchers (especially when one considers that over 100 Labour MPs are ministers) either abstained or voted against the government, despite it being a "three whip bill", and yet no-one was punished

Noone has yet been punished openly, but your point is valid.


Party commitees are formed in order to convey the feelings of the back-benchers to the cabinet and the prime minister, via whips

So again, the 'old boys' club comes into play... instead of having every issue being openly debated on the floor, as this system was intended, we have private commitees discussing everything behind closed doors...

As if having the cabinet isn't bad enough!


As such, all bills proposed in parliament would effectively be private members' bills. I see it likely that factions will inevitably emerge as a result of Mps trying to gain support in commons for their own proposals. Either that or little will get done.

Don't forget that until the the mid 19th century, political parties were nothing more than clubs for Mps anyway, their current state arose organically, and could again

Indeed 'alliances' may arise... but if the private commitee and cabinet branches of the parliament were outlawed along with official political parties (forcing each member to write and carry their own manifesto) not only would we get (probably) better politicians but everything could be dropped onto the commons floor with mandatory 8 hr days, 5 days a week (for example)

As things stand, attendance is shocking. These people are currently being paid to run our country, and we're throwing our money away at them.

----------------------------


yes, next thing we know, we dont need trade unions either, because its better to fight individually than on a collective basis is it? what nonsense.

Way to scream rape Kez... I'm not fanatical about trade unions myself, but I understand the necessity for them, and I wouldn't dream of taking away your play-thing :P :lol:

Seriously though, trade unions are a necessity. Imagine if the trade unions were allowed to continue without political alliances such as they have now?

They'd be quite powerful, don't you think?

Incidentally, the FBU have just officially withdrawn their support for Labour. Finally seeing sense: They have been betrayed.


How can 20 socialists in an assembly possibly co-ordinate when there is no party to put them together?

You fail to understand what I'm trying to say, I wish to avoid this coordination from every side of the spectrum (with some form of watchdog - elected of course) if necessary to help promote debate. As things stand, the most common phrase in westminster is doubtless 'here here' as yet another member holds the line with their fellow 'party' members.

This to me, seems like false democracy when we have a system that could allow us something better!


Even worse is the fact that a "socialist" can work without the party system. How do you propose to organise the masses against an organised structure that is the state?

Kez, if revolt doesn't happen of it's own accord: I'm not interested. I'm sure I've made that abundantly clear - it should not be 'driven' as this will only lead to counter-revolution. Besides, we're talking about improving the system we have right now, not destroying it. I agree the latter needs done, but it's not relevant here.


When the opposition is using a party, you are at a severe disadvantage not to do likewise (to be a credible force). Otherwise the opposition will have considerable significant advantage(s) over you

I agree, and this is a problem. The only solution I can think of is as I outlined above: some form of watchdog.

Suffice to say I think no good has ever or will ever come out of 'party politics', and I'm yet to actually see someone show a 'plus point' of it. Refutals yes, but not positives of this method.

[Kez]

I give up,

Ive got a new policy of ignroing ignorany members of che-lives, ive joined another forum where political discussion isnt based on bollocks.

The revolution needs a party to organise, the "movement" will not simultaneously come to the same decision, and it will be a weak force, and the fact u even doubt trade unions...waste of my time.

[DaCuBaN]

Keep repeating the same tired old shit Kez, it helps loads.


Ive got a new policy of ignroing ignorany members of che-lives

Nothing new there... you've never listened to what these same members said before - even if just to attempt a counter argument.


I've joined another forum where political discussion isnt based on bollocks

Enjoy - Stop wasting my time with your 'disbelief' at my ability to argue from the devils advocate; to see what the other guy is trying to say; to make good what we have already

You still since the first day I posted here haven't realised that revolution and revision are not mutually exclusive. I suspect you never will.


The revolution needs a party to organise

Indeed, and we can 'organise' without these political entities; a social grouping would perform the same task equally well.

On another note, surely forcing division in parliament would be beneficial to a revolution? A weak government is far easier to overthrow.


the fact u even doubt trade unions...waste of my time

You've also plainly lost the ability to read... I dislike trade unions on the basis that they tend to be filled with pompous idiots, but the necessity is there - after the revolution these unions are who we should entrust to run their respective industry, no?

If this is a waste of your time Kez, good riddance. You hold strong convictions, and for this I respect you. By discounting something like this without debate you've lost [B]all that. Though I expect you shant be worried.

[Kez]

you might have delusions about individuals in parliament, but why the fuck would the ruling class give up the party basis?

Surely an organised force to beat down the working class is stronger for them?

And if theyre organised, we must be organised.

You wanna know of movements without an organised leadership?
Just this year
-Bolivia
-Peru

both had general strikes, but without co-ordination and marxist leadership, came to nothing, except for deaths of activists. Do you want this?

[DaCuBaN]

Take those damned blinkers off Kez!


Surely an organised force to beat down the working class is stronger for them?

YES! Which is just why whilst pushing for a complete overturn of the system, we should be running a concurrent campaing for reform of the current parliament. Would you care to put any reasons forward as to why this wouldn't be of benefit?

Indeed the 'ruling class' isn't going to want to let go of their power base, but we do have electoral politics in the UK, and independant politicans have a generally good reputation, if a low success rate. I say that this lack of success can be attributed to to the party system, and if we campaing for each parliament member to be admitted only once their own views have been explored through debate prior to elections, rather than having them defending the 'party line' we would both get a 'better' government, and we'd be one step closer to achieving socialism, and inevitably revolt.


if theyre organised, we must be organised

No shit sherlock: so let's hypothesise what would happen if we instituted a body to enforce that there could be no official groupings within the parliament.

Suddenly, the ruling class loses any power it previously had... This pseudo-democracy we live in actually starts to function as it was intended


[Bolivia and Peru both] had general strikes, but without co-ordination and marxist leadership, came to nothing, except for deaths of activists. Do you want this?

The USSR had marxist leaders... it went down the wrong path too. Cuba isn't exactly perfect either - this goes both ways. Again, I'm not suggesting disbandment of the unions, simply the reorganisation of bourgious politics to be more 'palatable'; to actually show some form of representation of the people, rather than us being in a position where there are some politicians we can identify with, and others we do not all taking the same party line

To me, this is unacceptable.

Ideally i would prefer (if we must have a government) something resembling jury service: people getting called up for six months in government for example, with only the technocrats and administration in 'permenant' positions, and with no power whatsoever.

That is idealistic though, and highly unlikely.

[Kez]

Take those damned blinkers off Kez!
Stop smoking that damned crack!


Which is just why whilst pushing for a complete overturn of the system, we should be running a concurrent campaing for reform of the current parliament. Would you care to put any reasons forward as to why this wouldn't be of benefit?
Because it makes us weaker


The USSR had marxist leaders... it went down the wrong path too.
Yeah, just so happened the leadership won the Bolshevik Revolution


Ideally i would prefer (if we must have a government) something resembling jury service: people getting called up for six months in government for example, with only the technocrats and administration in 'permenant' positions, and with no power whatsoever.

Yes, after which we drink tea with the mad hatter then smoke some more crack.


That is idealistic though, and highly unlikely.
and utterly naive

i would like to know what experience you have of working with the unions and the movement in general which u think gives u authority to talk such bullshit

[DaCuBaN]

hmmm <_<

&#39;That which we don&#39;t understand, we must attack&#33;&#39;


Stop smoking that damned crack&#33;
:blink:
Pot, if you please ;)


Because it makes us weaker

Reforms specifically designed to diminish the power of the ruling class make us weaker ? You may find bourgious politics abhorent, but rather than ignoring them and simply thinking that Labour are some amazing revolutionary force who will bring our emancipation that has been hijacked and can be saved, why not try and combat the problem: The party system.

You still haven&#39;t produced a counter argument - I suspect you do not have one, as per my inital quote.


Yeah, just so happened the leadership won the Bolshevik Revolution

Expand: I fail to see any relevance


Yes, after which we drink tea with the mad hatter then smoke some more crack

Pot damnit&#33; :lol:

I did say that is what I would ideally like to see, and that it was unrealistic. Do you actually have any thoughts on the subject at hand, or have you resigned yourself to being a troll because you&#39;ve &#39;found a better board than CL&#39;


i would like to know what experience you have of working with the unions and the movement in general which u think gives u authority to talk such bullshit

AUTHORITY&#33;?&#33;?

Now I understand... :lol: Because I&#39;m not a hardened &#39;marxist&#39;; because I can hold two concurrent thoughts in my head my views are &#39;irrelevant&#39;

Fuck off.

[Kez]

nah, im saying your talking out of your arse, if you had any experience with the workers movement other than browsing the internet, you would that what your saying is not in accordance with how the working class operates and thinks.

"The party system" is not our main problem, and is a pointless battle to pour our limited resources into, and is not even something we want. In anycase, how do you plan to do this, ban parties?

You still havent answered who will co-orindate and organise, and educate the movement without a party.

So, what experience DO you have with the workers movement? You a union member? Or anything else?

[DaCuBaN]

Considering your inability, or perhaps unwillingness - you haven&#39;t even made that clear - to address my issues, I am loathe to answer any questions you pose me.

However...


i would like to know what experience you have of working with the unions and the movement in general

I have no idea how old you are, but until I was out at work, this is a field that really didn&#39;t affect me. Since then (as you know I&#39;m not a protester - I am yet to see in my lifetime any gains made in this way) I&#39;ve been doing what any socialist can do - go out and try to spread the word. I work approximately 70 hours a week, so I don&#39;t get a lot of time to go &#39;out and about&#39;, but you&#39;ll find me outside the Trinity Centre in Aberdeen trying to talk to people about socialism.

We&#39;re a long way from moving in that direction, so a lot of what I try to bring people isn&#39;t received: I&#39;m sure you understand this.

As for unions, There is no union for me.

Connect (http://www.connectuk.org) are the closest I&#39;ve found, but I&#39;m actually beneath the &#39;wage bracket&#39; for which they accomodate - so until I can attain higher wages I can&#39;t actually afford the membership fee&#33;

Catch 22 man ;)

If you can find a suitable one (http://www.tuc.org.uk/tuc/unions_main.cfm) then you&#39;re a better man than I.

Would you care to address the multitude of points I&#39;ve already posted? Or would you like to continue your personal attack <_<

[James]

Can&#39;t we all get along? Lets all hug and make up&#33;
:D

[Kez]

gimme all the points to answer

and what industry u in comrade?

i gtg work, irony? :D

[DaCuBaN]

what your saying is not in accordance with how the working class operates and thinks

Christ Kez, what the hell am I? a bourgious martian? Or does being articulate instantly exclude you from the &#39;working class&#39; in your eyes: that they all need &#39;driven&#39; and have no independant thought

You&#39;re speaking to a &#39;worker&#39; and telling me what I think: Perhaps labour hasn&#39;t changed after all :rolleyes:


"The party system" is not our main problem, and is a pointless battle to pour our limited resources into, and is not even something we want. In anycase, how do you plan to do this, ban parties?

Environmentalism isn&#39;t our &#39;main&#39; problem either; neither are animal rights or the multitude of other small concerns that people get caught up on. This does not invalidate them in any way, and your dismissal of them merely serves to degrade yourself.


You still havent answered who will co-orindate and organise, and educate the movement without a party

Educate? EVERYONE&#33; co-ordinate? well why would we need a party for that? All that is required is for people to discuss - just as we are now. Or at least like we are trying to. You actually serve as pretty good evidence against my claims now I come to look at it <_<

I&#39;m still waiting for you to address anything I&#39;ve covered.


Can&#39;t we all get along? Lets all hug and make up&#33;

Shut it, tory boy :P :lol: kidding

I raise a point, kez refutes it with &#39;That&#39;s crap, shut up&#39; (or at least that&#39;s how it appears). I received good responses initially from yourself and the other member (who&#39;s name I can&#39;t see on this page anymore - it&#39;s dropped off the bottom) but Kez has contributed nothing

Hence,

&#39;That which we do not understand, we must attack&#33;&#39;

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;m a junior IT tech in the meteorology industry.

[h&s]

No political parties within Parliament, well that would mean that the MPs would have to take into account the interests of their constituants that they are there to represent....

[redstar2000]

As such, we are forced into participating in the sham that is (in this case UK) electoral politics.

Why? Who is "forcing" you? Didn&#39;t you just have local elections in the U.K. with a turnout of barely over 40% of the eligible voters? Nearly 60% of the people in your country didn&#39;t feel "forced" to participate in the sham? Why do you?


Don&#39;t forget that until the the mid 19th century, political parties were nothing more than clubs for MPs anyway, their current state arose organically, and could again.

Quite right; that&#39;s exactly what would happen.


Ideally I would prefer (if we must have a government) something resembling jury service: people getting called up for six months in government for example, with only the technocrats and administration in &#39;permanent&#39; positions, and with no power whatsoever.

This is similar to the idea of Demarchy (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083335872&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&). But I see demarchy as a possible method for running communist society, not for making bourgeois "democracy" more "democratic".

Indeed, I think that&#39;s the fundamental flaw in your outlook; that there&#39;s "something" that "could" be done to "improve" bourgeois "democracy" as a "step towards socialism".

There isn&#39;t.


I&#39;ve joined another forum where political discussion isn&#39;t based on bollocks.

Tell us, Kez&#33; Post that url, baby&#33; :D

"Bollocks supplied for all occasions&#33;" :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[DaCuBaN]

As usual I cannot insert a wedge anywhere in your post, but life wouldn&#39;t be fun if I didn&#39;t try... :D


Why? Who is "forcing" you? Didn&#39;t you just have local elections in the U.K. with a turnout of barely over 40% of the eligible voters? Nearly 60% of the people in your country didn&#39;t feel "forced" to participate in the sham? Why do you?

Perhaps my choice of words was poor... Noone is holding a gun to my head to tell me to vote, but then last time I checked noone was handing out rifles for the revolution either. If we want to see change, we either have to go through bourgious politics, through violence, or through protest.

I say do the lot, though in my opinion the latter two have wielded less results than the former (in the UK).

Did 1 million people not march on London against the war in Iraq? Were they not totally ignored?

Have the IRA not attacked UK interests for the last 40 years... where has this got them?


Don&#39;t forget that until the the mid 19th century, political parties were nothing more than clubs for MPs anyway, their current state arose organically, and could again

You are most certainly correct: The same thing will happen again and again, which is all the more reason for us to try and think of a better way. For example, if we did away with the traditional parliament building, and made all MP&#39;s video conference, the whole &#39;group&#39; feeling that many use to harness support would be diminished, meaning more division in parliament - and division is what we need&#33;

How long have people moaned and whined in the US about the two party system? Well, the UK was there once too... 100 years later we broke free of it, and now we are descending back into it. I for one refuse to allow us to go backwards


This is similar to the idea of Demarchy. But I see demarchy as a possible method for running communist society, not for making bourgeois "democracy" more "democratic".


You misunderstand me: That is how I would like to see a communist state run. I don&#39;t think it applies to modern politics at all.


Indeed, I think that&#39;s the fundamental flaw in your outlook; that there&#39;s "something" that "could" be done to "improve" bourgeois "democracy" as a "step towards socialism".


I&#39;m not looking at this strictly from a revolutionary standpoint, but from there it does follow that to create division is to weaken, which would only work in the benefit of libertarian socialism.

This is not my reasoning though: I simply wish to see the current aparatus improved - To do this I believe we need to abolish the political party - ALL political parties. Everything else is just icing.

[Kez]

dear dear me...

DaCub,
i jkust asked you to gimme all your questions for me to answer, obviously you thought it would be more fun to continue ranting...

No1 ever said "lets have political parties" as has been mentioned before, they come organically, therefore to speak of having no parties, and then somehow getting rid of parties (&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;) will simply result in parties being formed again in an assembly

as for the other site, although their theory is in my opinion incorrect, at least they arent newbs like on here...so id rather not say what the site is

[DaCuBaN]

I thought you were &#39;working&#39; Kez ;)
Anyway, everything you could cover is in this thread. All you have to do is dissect the information. I&#39;ve asked you at least twice in this thread to cover the points - as every other poster has done to a lesser or greater extent, but I&#39;ll try and summarize as you make it apparent that you feel you deserve &#39;special treatment&#39;

Do political organisations have any place in modern politics?

What are the drawbacks of independant politics?

Neither do I say we should just abandon political parties: I say they should be banned. In the UK we have the nanny state telling us what to do, so why should this be any different?


at least they arent newbs like on here

&#39;Eliteist&#39; too now <_<

[Kez]

nah, just dont have time to explain basics to people like u

EDIT: I was working, it was only a delivery shift

[Invader Zim]

nah, just dont have time to explain basics to people like u

Ohh the irony.

I&#39;ve joined another forum where political discussion isn&#39;t based on bollocks.


Bye.

[DaCuBaN]

No political parties within Parliament, well that would mean that the MPs would have to take into account the interests of their constituants that they are there to represent....

:D
Crazy idea, huh?


nah, just dont have time to explain basics to people like [you]

And you don&#39;t consider yourself eliteist? "I know something you don&#39;t know"

Well kez, if it&#39;s not too much trouble I&#39;m sure all the &#39;newbie&#39; members of this board would appreciate your &#39;wisdom&#39; on the matter.

[James]

Shut it, tory boy kidding

I raise a point, kez refutes it with &#39;That&#39;s crap, shut up&#39; (or at least that&#39;s how it appears). I received good responses initially from yourself and the other member (who&#39;s name I can&#39;t see on this page anymore - it&#39;s dropped off the bottom) but Kez has contributed nothing

Hence,

&#39;That which we do not understand, we must attack&#33;&#39;



Better a tory boy than an newb like you :P

And to think - this (kamo&#39;s style) is what got me kicked from CC :rolleyes:

[Kez]

what got u kicked was being a tory

what got me kicked was not taking shit off a load of bellends

[monkeydust]

DaCuban



Tommy Sheridan and George Galloway, both old fashioned socialists (though both flawed in their ways of course) would both apply here... The latter was an unfortunate circumstance... but he certainly was ostracised.


True, though the whip&#39;s hardly withdrawn on a frequent basis.


Indeed - this is in fact fundamental to my belief of how the UK parliament could function.... I want division. I want to hear what every member thinks, I do not wish to hear the &#39;party line&#39;.


If that&#39;s the case then you are presented with a series of options.

A:Nothing gets done due to the difficulty in gaining majority support in a divided parliament.

B:Allegiances and parties organically arise out of mutual interest for proposals.

C: You go with &#39;A&#39;, but abolish majority voting, possibly allowing acceptance of proposals with 30% support, for example.


So again, the &#39;old boys&#39; club comes into play... instead of having every issue being openly debated on the floor, as this system was intended, we have private commitees discussing everything behind closed doors...

To be fair, such things as select committees are primarily a result of a lack of time, rather than a desire to hold debate &#39;behind closed doors&#39;.



I say do the lot, though in my opinion the latter two have wielded less results than the former (in the UK).



It&#39;s true and it&#39;s a shame.

Britian&#39;s always been a country of slow change, I&#39;ve always felt that British society is far too conservative.


--------------------------------


Kez



as for the other site, although their theory is in my opinion incorrect, at least they arent newbs like on here...so id rather not say what the site is

Ernesto-guevara.com?........Just kidding. :P

I reckon it&#39;s probably The Politics Forum (http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/index.php) which is actually not a bad site if you can ignore the of liberals and British nationalists.

[Kez]

not newbs sorry, i mean total wankers, who are happy to sit around and talk bollocks while the working class continues to get fucked over, ie the liberals and petit bourgeoise on the site.

back to the issue at hand

"Do political organisations have any place in modern politics?"

Of course in terms of bourgeois, parties provide:
-Nomination of candidates
-Educational Role
-Role of mobilisation of votes
-Finance of campaigns
-Provision of policy

-Filling of offices
-Organisation of legislature

What are the drawbacks of independant politics?
-The fact that it cannot exist, and will simply turn back to parties (in other name if u ban it, such as "camps" "groups" "blocks")
-The fact that it cannot fill the role of most of the roles of parties named above
-In a socialist sense (remember we are socialists :rolleyes: ) the an organised party is needed against an organised state structure

Hows that?

[redstar2000]

Did 1 million people not march on London against the war in Iraq? Were they not totally ignored?

Indeed they were; you have to do it a lot more to get results. Towards the end of the regime in East Germany, I believe there were massive protests in East Berlin and other East German cities on a daily basis.

In the closing years of the Vietnam war, there were small and medium-sized protests every day in several locations.

Protest is not a "magic key" that opens "the gates of Heaven"...but, if done on a sufficient scale, it will work. That is, it will compel a serious (if temporary) change in government policy.

In Petrograd in February 1917, it made a revolution.


Have the IRA not attacked UK interests for the last 40 years... where has this got them?

Revolutionary violence is also not "a magic key" -- but it worked pretty well (temporarily) for both the Cubans and the Vietnamese. Again, scale and persistence are the roots of success.

Without the support of millions of working people, nothing is going to be successful.

Without a struggle that is protracted and intransigent, nothing is going to be successful.

If you ask people to do one or both of those things and they ignore you, you&#39;re fucked. The only thing left for you to do is attempt to persuade them that one or both of those things needs to be done and hope that at some point in the future they will be receptive to your message.

These two options hold out a slim chance of success; the option of bourgeois electoral politics holds out none&#33;

Fifty years ago, you might have argued otherwise. The post-war Labour government in the U.K. appeared to be very receptive to working class demands for serious reforms. Some large corporations were nationalized; some major colonial holdings were abandoned; national health was introduced, etc.

That&#39;s all changed now, very much for the worse.

Nor can I imagine any scenario that would alter that outcome; as far as I can tell, the "era of great reforms" under capitalism is over.

It doesn&#39;t matter whether people vote for a "center-left" or a "center-right" party; the policies will be more or less the same. Increasingly, in fact, even the rhetoric is the same.

Kez&#39;s fantasy of making the "Labour" party into a real "workers&#39; party" notwithstanding, I cannot see what you or anyone can reasonably hope to gain with any conceivable strategy based on bourgeois electoral politics.

You will end up spending your time and energy not on something that has poor prospects for success but something that has no chance of ever winning anything.

It just makes no sense to me at all&#33;

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Guerrilla22]

I really don&#39;t see how we can accomplish anything without some sort of political orginization, hence political parties. I agree most of the major politcal parties, especially in the US, are corrupt and have basically sold their souls to special interest, but it just is impossible to accomplish something, without the help of others that share your cause.

[fuerzasocialista]

What I will say is the following: In an unstable country where there much corruption and dissention within the ranks, political parties only serve to divide and confuse the people especially when the education of said country is not that well developed (ie some countries in Latin America). However, in a more stabilized and educated environment, it is necessary that the citizenry provide their points of view and dialogue through some means. Political parties though still leave me on edge though.

[DaCuBaN]

the whip&#39;s hardly withdrawn on a frequent basis

Yes this is certainly true, and I&#39;m rather glad of it in all honesty: we&#39;d have a much worse government if they played this card as frequently as they could. However, they are most likely aware that this is somewhere they must be careful... Too much pressure from above may lead to party dissent, and on a wider spectrum public revolt.


If that&#39;s the case then you are presented with a series of options.

A:Nothing gets done due to the difficulty in gaining majority support in a divided parliament.


This is my intention: slow down political progress through bourgious politics, essentially levelling the playing field and pushing up political awareness. If the politicians appear apathetic, I firmly believe that public awareness would improve.



B:Allegiances and parties organically arise out of mutual interest for proposals.


I have no problem with people standing shoulder to shoulder on an issue, it&#39;s permenant alliance, that would be faced with ostracisation that I object to. If there was a watchdog to ensure that MP&#39;s weren&#39;t being unscrupulous and planning to sway any given vote one way or another then there is no reason why these &#39;organic&#39; unions should not be.

I simply wish to see an end to the &#39;party&#39; - what exactly can they offer us? Certainly in the case of Labour, they&#39;ve shown that the entire party can be taken off course by one man. To me, this is unnacceptable.


C: You go with &#39;A&#39;, but abolish majority voting, possibly allowing acceptance of proposals with 30% support, for example.

This is more drastic than I intended, but yes I would reduce the majority required to pass a bill from the current &#39;majority&#39; to 40%. I don&#39;t believe this unreasonable. Combine this with total reform of the House of Lords into a &#39;Union House&#39; (representatives from all major industries) and I believe we could have a remarkably strong parliament from which to build a platform for socialism.


not newbs sorry, i mean total wankers, who are happy to sit around and talk bollocks while the working class continues to get fucked over, ie the liberals and petit bourgeoise on the site.


Kez, are you thick? You seem to have a deluded sense of who the &#39;working class&#39; in this country are: In other words, not me and by your choice of words I would think you don&#39;t consider yourself amongst us.

I mean christ kez, I only earn 10,000 nett...


Of course in terms of bourgeois, parties provide:
-Nomination of candidates

All you need to stand is political views, £500 and ten friends. What do the &#39;party&#39; actually do

-Educational Role

I&#39;ll admit this: they can perform amazing feats of indoctrination - most religions would be proud&#33;


-Role of mobilisation of votes

Yes indeed... now do you mean from the perspective of the average citizen or within the parliament themselves? I&#39;ll admit that a &#39;party&#39; appeals to this desire many hold to conform, and hence would be of great assistance in allying the weak to your particular political flavour, but within the parliament this would actually harm open debate. Please confirm.


-Finance of campaigns

I would ban campaing spending too... You only need a manifesto.


-Provision of policy

Rather than having to actually think up something of your own, eh? I agree that most people are sheep, but we should be trying to educate them otherwise, not subjegate them.


-Filling of offices

As I&#39;ve already stated, there should be powerless &#39;administration&#39;


-Organisation of legislature

I fail to see this one at all... please expand? As far as I see it independant politics wouldn&#39;t change this in any way...


What are the drawbacks of independant politics?
-The fact that it cannot exist, and will simply turn back to parties (in other name if u ban it, such as "camps" "groups" "blocks")

My reference to members such as Claire Short shows that people are willing to discard the party when it&#39;s goals no longer coincide with the majority. The only difference independant politics would make is that there could be no permenant alliances - that one day you could be agreeing with a &#39;commie&#39; and the next a &#39;fascist&#39;.


-The fact that it cannot fill the role of most of the roles of parties named above

I think you are wrong here, please provide reasoning.


-In a socialist sense (remember we are socialists) the an organised party is needed against an organised state structure

Kez, blinkers again :rolleyes: . We&#39;re talking reform, not revolt. It&#39;s not about smashing the structure in this thread, but about changing it. What I&#39;m suggesting is reform to remove the organised state structure and replace it with a far far weaker, but more democratic system. This would benefit all who both wish to use the parliament and those who overthrow it, whilst holding back those who would abuse it.


These two options hold out a slim chance of success; the option of bourgeois electoral politics holds out none&#33;

Most of your post redstar, I can understand and accept. This point however I do not see how you can argue this. The difference between UK and US government is starling (based on both geographical and demographical concerns) and muist be taken into account here: we don&#39;t have a 2-horse race over here, but three: the conditions for division are almost there...

I just want to give it a little shove in the right direction.

To take the whole thing from a different perspective, The &#39;slim chance&#39; that mass protest and violent revolt hold would be improved within the reformed government I propose due to the indecision....


it just is impossible to accomplish something, without the help of others that share your cause

Exactly&#33; This does not mean that you have to sell your soul to get into electoral politics however: What I suggest is in fact removing the official allegiances - I cannot stop people agreeing with one another, even if this does seem a rare thing :rolleyes: :D ;)

[Kez]

"I mean christ kez, I only earn 10,000 nett..."

doesnt stop u having petit bourgeoise or liberal views/values...such as this thread, utter bollocks, why are we discussing something that cannot be achieved...

"All you need to stand is political views, £500 and ten friends. What do the &#39;party&#39; actually do"
-But surely you want to have your views natioanlly, hence you need a party to put people of the same view to organise nomination of people from your party to all the seats available

"I&#39;ll admit this: they can perform amazing feats of indoctrination - most religions would be proud&#33;"
So you disagree that the party can write articles and analysises?
You expect your average workers to read Das Kapital when he comes back from home to his family??
Many people simply want change, they dont study marxist philosophy, economics and politics, because they dont have enough time
The party provides the explaination needed.
Also, if there is a strike in Liverpool how will this individual nonsense work to allow London readers to learn about how its going?

Mobilisation is for the people, the party does leafleting, meetings etc to vote/occupy factories etc.

"I would ban campaing spending too... You only need a manifesto."
So how do you propose to keep up with the bourgeoise who will advertise on tv, on newspapers, billboards etc
Do you propose to ban tv or something?
And dont say you&#39;ll ban political advertisements
We shouldnt be scaredd of bourgeoise advertisement, we should compete and beat them at it.

"Rather than having to actually think up something of your own, eh? I agree that most people are sheep, but we should be trying to educate them otherwise, not subjegate them."
-Oh so now you agree we should educate? I thought u said "I&#39;ll admit this: they can perform amazing feats of indoctrination - most religions would be proud&#33;", zig zag zig zag....
Provision of policy means having the group of people debating issues and coming out with a solution, with an individual he/she may be wrong and nothing would stop them making mistakes.

"I fail to see this one at all... please expand? As far as I see it independant politics wouldn&#39;t change this in any way..."
Party would tell all members to vote in one way or another, not allowing a split, and therefore win the argument

"As I&#39;ve already stated, there should be powerless &#39;administration&#39;"
-hows this work then?

You failed to reply to the fact that groups come naturally together when its in their own interests.

"Kez, blinkers again . We&#39;re talking reform, not revolt"
We want revolt, not simply reform, we are not parliamentary cretins, we only use parliament as a platform and as a path for putting in a transitional programme,this is not the end all.

[DaCuBaN]

*setting a lighter to Kez&#39;s blinkers*


doesnt stop u having petit bourgeoise or liberal views/values

In your expert opinion of course. However I will submit.. you are of course the authority on this I&#39;m sure.


why are we discussing something that cannot be achieved...

The critique given to &#39;utopian&#39; commies throughout history. I can&#39;t believe you are seriously peddling this as an argument.


surely you want to have your views natioanlly, hence you need a party to put people of the same view to organise nomination of people from your party to all the seats available


This is very much the point I&#39;m trying to make: westminster is geared up so that MP&#39;s represent certain regions yet with our party political system they don&#39;t: they represent the party for which they stand.

This makes parliament unrepresentative: I believe if it was more representative we would see more favourable changes within.


So you disagree that the party can write articles and analysises?

the &#39;party&#39; doing this is spoon-feeding people what a particular individual believes, rather than an indiviudal trying to get his own views explored by others - much like this thread.


You expect your average workers to read Das Kapital when he comes back from home to his family??

I wish more would <_< But you&#39;re right, this isn&#39;t likely.


Many people simply want change, they dont study marxist philosophy, economics and politics, because they dont have enough time
The party provides the explaination needed.

Indeed many people are too self-absorbed to look at the bigger picture, and this is a grave shame. With only a 40% turnout in the last euro elections though, despite it being an &#39;important&#39; one kind of shows the apathy some have - irregardless of the party system.

I would expect that independant politics would indeed ostracise some members of the community, but for the vast majority it would force them into doing more research - as there is no &#39;generic&#39; manifesto for them to assume all members will follow and vote accordingly.

This swings both ways: the members of various parties often don&#39;t even follow this manifesto, meaning that more people become disheartend by it (and rightly so&#33;) and hence voter turnout falls.


if there is a strike in Liverpool how will this individual nonsense work to allow London readers to learn about how its going?

By the distinct lack of goods coming out of the factory? A strike that has no economic effects is pretty pointless, don&#39;t you think?


Mobilisation is for the people, the party does leafleting, meetings etc to vote/occupy factories etc.

...and hands out the song sheets too I&#39;ll bet. Party politics is just another religion.. the similarites are striking: communal meeting; trying to persuade others that they have the &#39;true&#39; path; dogmatism...

...It&#39;s all there. :D


how do you propose to keep up with the bourgeoise who will advertise on tv, on newspapers, billboards etc

A complete ban on political advertising, without exception. Hell, if I could I would ban TV broadcasting and all advertising... I think that&#39;s quite an unpopular proposition though :lol:


And dont say you&#39;ll ban political advertisements
We shouldnt be scaredd of bourgeoise advertisement, we should compete and beat them at it.

Propoganda is one of the biggest scurges we have to fight: I&#39;ll fight the left AND the right, no matter who is trying to peddle the crap. Its lies with a fancy name.


Oh so now you agree we should educate? [...] zig zag zig zag....


Struggling to keep up? ;)

Educate and indoctrinate are two very different things. If you disagree, then you evidently subscribe to the latter.

To educate someone you merely provide them with as much information as you possibly can, and allow them to decipher it as best as possible. Indoctrination is wher you only show one side of the story - the one you want them to have.

This to me is immoral, subjective as that may be.


Provision of policy means having the group of people debating issues and coming out with a solution, with an individual he/she may be wrong and nothing would stop them making mistakes.

So you disagree with the private members bill system?

If so, I can finally understand your vehemont objection to my thoughts. I however see this as a better way to make parliament more representative and democratic.


Party would tell all members to vote in one way or another, not allowing a split, and therefore win the argument


Against who? There&#39;s no oppostion party either. I&#39;m not trying to ban your beloved labour - I want the tories the faux-socialists and the whigs all gone&#33; They can of course sit again, but without these archaic pseudo-political ties

So you see, there would be no purpose in trying to make others follow your line in this manner... and besides my &#39;government watchdog&#39; would not permit such corruption.


there should be powerless &#39;administration&#39;

As redstar mentioned, my ideas are similar to those of Demarchy. These &#39;administrators&#39; would essentially perform no differently as most administration staff do within public bodies. Walk into a school; hospital or any other public industry... you&#39;ll see exactly how it would operate.


You failed to reply to the fact that groups come naturally together when its in their own interests

I did, I said that they will only when it suits them and then fragment again because they disagree on various other issues.

here....


I have no problem with people standing shoulder to shoulder on an issue, it&#39;s permenant alliance, that would be faced with ostracisation that I object to. If there was a watchdog to ensure that MP&#39;s weren&#39;t being unscrupulous and planning to sway any given vote one way or another then there is no reason why these &#39;organic&#39; unions should not be.

I simply wish to see an end to the &#39;party&#39; - what exactly can they offer us? Certainly in the case of Labour, they&#39;ve shown that the entire party can be taken off course by one man. To me, this is unnacceptable.



We want revolt, not simply reform, we are not parliamentary cretins, we only use parliament as a platform and as a path for putting in a transitional programme,this is not the end all

Indeed you are correct. It is not the end all, but this doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t try

A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, remember? This is change that could happen now&#33;

[Kez]

If you want representation you fight for socialism and direct democracy, not some tripe your offering, why have the crumbs when u can have the whole fucking cake&#33;

"the &#39;party&#39; doing this is spoon-feeding people what a particular individual believes, rather than an indiviudal trying to get his own views explored by others - much like this thread."
But then you agree that people dont have time to read many books, how do you expect people to come up with the correct view if they have nothing to base it on???
This really isnt thought well through.

"I would expect that independant politics would indeed ostracise some members of the community, but for the vast majority it would force them into doing more research - as there is no &#39;generic&#39; manifesto for them to assume all members will follow and vote accordingly."
What you base your ideas on?
Surely they would just fuck it off? Especially if your plans include banning advertisement, then it makes it harder,again you contradict yourself...

"By the distinct lack of goods coming out of the factory? A strike that has no economic effects is pretty pointless, don&#39;t you think?"
-Nope, it raises class consiousness, which is important.
-In anycase, if they read aboutLiverpool strike, London strikers can learn the mistakes of the scouse brothers, surely thats a good thing. Maybe you propose hard lessons to be learnt on individual basis, no collective learning. Idiotic.

"Mobilisation is for the people, the party does leafleting, meetings etc to vote/occupy factories etc."
-you failed to answer this, if your not gonna answer points im wasting my time. How can individuals do this task the party performs?

"A complete ban on political advertising, without exception. Hell, if I could I would ban TV broadcasting and all advertising... I think that&#39;s quite an unpopular proposition though"
-Sieg&#33;

"Propoganda is one of the biggest scurges we have to fight: I&#39;ll fight the left AND the right, no matter who is trying to peddle the crap. Its lies with a fancy name."
This is bollocks, i suggest you start reading books on history mate. Without propaganda how do you expect to win the people over? Propaganda isnt lies, its explaining the facts.

provision of policy i was talking within a socialist party.

"Struggling to keep up?"
yes, its hard when you answer one thing, then realise your wrong then change your opinion, Stalin also did this, your in good company Koba&#33;

"there should be powerless &#39;administration&#39;"
if this is that lottery election bullshit, then fuck that, im not even gonna start on how ludicrus this is.

"I did, I said that they will only when it suits them and then fragment again because they disagree on various other issues."
Here we see your complete lack of grasp of politics, people come together when they are like minded, however within these parties are factions.
You assume there are no factions, this is due to ignorance no doubt, i say this only so that you read before you make threads such as this.
Most people in a party hold same view as their fellow party members, unless there is a big rift between leadership, eg Todays Labour.

"Indeed you are correct. It is not the end all, but this doesn&#39;t mean we shouldn&#39;t try"
Yes it does, we have bigger aims.
If your in football, andyour in the penalty box, u dont wait for someone to foul u to "gain" a penalty, u blast it in the back of the net&#33;

[DaCuBaN]

If you want representation you fight for socialism and direct democracy

Again, stop thinking in this linear fashion: We can effect different strategies to achieve our common goal.


you agree that people dont have time to read many books, how do you expect people to come up with the correct view if they have nothing to base it on?

&#39;Correct&#39; is entirely subjective: You believe you are right. I merely want parliament to work as it&#39;s name intended: A talkshop where the views of each region that is represented can be explored.

There is scope in our system for more representation than we currently have, so why not fight for it concurrent to pushing for revolt?


if they read about Liverpool strike, London strikers can learn the mistakes of the scouse brothers, surely thats a good thing. Maybe you propose hard lessons to be learnt on individual basis, no collective learning

I propose no such thing: Although I believe mass-media should be abolished, I do not push this view as I can see the purpose they serve. In this case, we can use them to help raise class consciousness in this manner. Frankly, anything that comes from a political party instantly loses credit in my eyes - and you can&#39;t seriously believe I&#39;m alone there.


What you base your ideas on?
Surely they would just fuck it off? Especially if your plans include banning advertisement, then it makes it harder,again you contradict yourself...

Our system is not a national one: we all vote based on the region of the country we live in, and as such it becomes far less of a problem to find the necessary information prior to an election.

I don&#39;t agree that we need a &#39;prime minister&#39; in any form of government we use, and as far as I can see this is the only purpose a party truly serves.

I see no contradiction, nor deviance from my original statement.


How can individuals do this task the party performs?

You&#39;ll have to expand further on this point, as I&#39;m still unsure as to what you are trying to intimate. I&#39;ll have a stab though...

I&#39;ve already mentioned the role I feel trade unions should have: a full representation in the &#39;second house&#39; of UK politics. As such they can cover both disputes and politics in one fell sweep, with a direct relation to the industry they represent.


Sieg&#33;

:lol:

I did say it would be unpopular :P

Still, i put myself out of context here. You may or may not be aware of Wireless Networking technology. Currently it broadcasts on the 1.5ghz mark, whereas television if I remember correctly is at about 500-600mhz. If we switch off the TV signal, we could use the existing transmitters without having to perform much in the way of amendments and give universal digital information streaming - including television - through this technology.

It&#39;s unlikely, but I really do wish it would happen.


Without propaganda how do you expect to win the people over?

The point I&#39;m trying to make is we shouldn&#39;t be&#33;

We should simply be trying to stop the indoctrination from all quarters, and allowing people to come to their own decisions.


yes, its hard when you answer one thing, then realise your wrong then change your opinion

I have done no such thing.


if this is that lottery election bullshit, then fuck that, im not even gonna start on how ludicrus this is.

No, it&#39;s not. Under demarchy of course you get your name pulled from the hat, this I do not want as it would bring people into politics who have no place in it. What I suggest is no different to as things stand: I would remove the £500 stake (but keep the ten nominations), simply outlaw official political alliances and the majority of government run jobs would be by administrators - doing the real work whilst the &#39;politicians&#39; make the decisions.

It&#39;s no different really to how things stand, it&#39;s just a slight change.


people come together when they are like minded, however within these parties are factions

You&#39;re agreeing with me then - these political alliances are in fact in name alone?
Nothing is going to stop people voting together, but with the current system there is scope to cajole someone into voting one way or another, and to me this is &#39;wrong&#39;.


Most people in a party hold same view as their fellow party members, unless there is a big rift between leadership, eg Todays Labour

Wrong, they hold similar views. Again, nothing would stop them from agreeing with one another when it suited them, but it would remove any impotus(sp?) to vote one way or another, in line with the rest of the &#39;party&#39;


If your in football, andyour in the penalty box, u dont wait for someone to foul u to "gain" a penalty, u blast it in the back of the net&#33;

Agreed, yet players do this all the time - and quite often it works.

Worst case scenario, I&#39;ll get &#39;sent off&#39; for this... you have nothing to lose.

[Kez]

"Again, stop thinking in this linear fashion: We can effect different strategies to achieve our common goal"
-Nope, in terms of methods i am most flexible, however, i do not waste my time on pointless schemes.

"There is scope in our system for more representation than we currently have, so why not fight for it concurrent to pushing for revolt?"
-Because there are better methods we could employ, eg agitation among uunionists.

"Although I believe mass-media should be abolished, I do not push this view as I can see the purpose they serve."
-riiiiiight, so u want something in principle, yet you dont fight for it, you really are a confused individual...

"Frankly, anything that comes from a political party instantly loses credit in my eyes - and you can&#39;t seriously believe I&#39;m alone there."
Quite easily, credit isnt lost due to fact its from a party, but rather the party is a sham.

"Our system is not a national one: we all vote based on the region of the country we live in, and as such it becomes far less of a problem to find the necessary information prior to an election."
Where does one find information from if people dont have broadcasting, and dont have time to read many books?

"The point I&#39;m trying to make is we shouldn&#39;t be&#33;

We should simply be trying to stop the indoctrination from all quarters, and allowing people to come to their own decisions"
You really are confused, so we no longer should be patiently explaining, rather dooing a magic voodoo dance so that people come to our viewpoint, at the same time hoping the capitalists wont try to agitate.

I dont think u understand the nature of the capitalist class and how it operates.

"You&#39;re agreeing with me then - these political alliances are in fact in name alone?"
Nope. They are bound by an ideology, eg the communist party

"Wrong, they hold similar views. Again, nothing would stop them from agreeing with one another when it suited them, but it would remove any impotus(sp?) to vote one way or another, in line with the rest of the &#39;party&#39;"
-If you dont hold the same view as your party most of the time, then u leave. simple as that.

Again, i dont think you understand why parties were formed in the first place. Some people have same values, and from these same values come same views MOST OF THE TIME, these people join to be a strong collective group.

I hope your gonna read some more before you babble out some more petit bourgeoise ignorant bollocks for me to waste my time and sift thru

[apathy maybe]

I&#39;ve an idea, lets scrap the entire system of elections. I&#39;ll be appointed world-leader and you&#39;ll have to do what I tell you to.

Nah, lets instead have demarchy. Do you want a truely representitive system? Rule by the people? No party system? We can have all that and more.

And it would fit quite easily into the current system (at least here in Australia, I assume that it would work the same in the UK, New Zealand and Canada). Just replace elections with random selection. Don&#39;t even have to change the electoral boundries.

The only trouble is (and this should be easily fixed) is that many people are ignorant. So we may keep &#39;parties&#39; around as another set of lobby groups.

[DaCuBaN]

in terms of methods i am most flexible, however, i do not waste my time on pointless schemes.

You mean like trying to take Labour back to the way it was at the beginning of the 20th century?

That sure as hell is a lost cause.


Because there are better methods we could employ, eg agitation among uunionists

Again, why can you not do more than one thing&#33;


so u want something in principle, yet you dont fight for it

I dont fight battles that are a waste of time, of course not. Only if something has either material or intellectual benefit. That scheme has neither.

I may as well try to persuade the world how wonderful prawns are - it&#39;s something that is totally subjective.


Quite easily, credit isnt lost due to fact its from a party, but rather the party is a sham

Indeed - and who is to say that any particular party isn&#39;t? Labour are, Conservative are, Liberal Democrats are... in fact I could list off every party running in the UK and call them a sham - because the whole idea is absurd from my standpoint. Why can people not simply stand up and be counted?

This is why I&#39;m not keen on demarchy: so many people will not be counted in this fashion, and as such an electoral system would seem more sensible - Just no damned parties&#33;


Where does one find information from if people dont have broadcasting, and dont have time to read many books?

I&#39;ve already said, if I turned off the TV signal it would be replaced with a digital information stream that includes news, entertainment and all sorts

TV broadcasting is an old technology - we can do a lot better with the 802.11 wireless standard and a bunch of tv transmitters - information broadcast direct to your &#39;desktop&#39; within a 60 mile radius of a transmitter sounds pretty damn effective to me...

Of course, this means you need either some form of receiver - be it a TV attachment or a PC card - but then the UK government are turning off the analogue signal in favour of digital TV (still old technology - about 10-15yrs old now), so they&#39;re not squeemish on that front.


You really are confused, so we no longer should be patiently explaining, rather dooing a magic voodoo dance so that people come to our viewpoint, at the same time hoping the capitalists wont try to agitate

No... you simply lay the case down as it stands. If you can&#39;t provide enough material to backup your case to at least the majority, then your case is invalid. We can&#39;t &#39;make&#39; people become socialists - If you try what comes out will not be what you intended.


If you dont hold the same view as your party most of the time, then u leave. simple as that.


Then why are you still affiliated with labour? :lol: You are a communist, they are not. What the hell are you doing? ;)

That aside, leave to do what? join another party? Doesn&#39;t that tell you something?

All the parties are near as damnit the same&#33; The differences are unnoticable to the uneducated. With indepenant politics however, you have a choice: either don&#39;t learn about the politicians running for your locality and don&#39;t participate, or learn what they stand for and do. Simple.

With a party you see what the party stands for, vote the candidate in, then find out he doesn&#39;t &#39;fit&#39; the way you thought they would.

In short, it can be abused by the unscrupulous.


Again, i dont think you understand why parties were formed in the first place. Some people have same values, and from these same values come same views MOST OF THE TIME, these people join to be a strong collective group

I do, don&#39;t get me wrong. I believe that it is the formation of these groups that create the trouble, and leave us with an unrepresentative government. National policies are all well and good, but as a communist you surely advocate a more &#39;local&#39; form of governance (if not complete removal of state aparatus). In this light, independants seem the obvious choice.

As for this taking us a &#39;step closer&#39; my justification for that is simple: Under communism there would be no parties: only communists, right? Every other party would become defunct. So why split hairs now? Let&#39;s just get on with it.

It&#39;s eliteism, pure and simple.


I hope your gonna read some more before you babble out some more petit bourgeoise ignorant bollocks for me to waste my time and sift thru

Again, I&#39;ll reiterate my original sentiment:

fuck off

[Kez]

very good.

isnt that an insult? surely you should be given a warning point now?
im not particularly arsed, im just trying to highlight the hypocrisy of this site.

back to the question, actually no, too much time is being wasted, and you have a complete inability to read what i post, either that or your a stubborn cunnt who twists his argument everytime a fault is found

"Then why are you still affiliated with labour? You are a communist, they are not. What the hell are you doing?"
-Working with the people inside to win them over, ie the non-secterian approach

Why do i work in Trade Unions, i am a communnist they are not. your a fuckin dildo if this is how you think, take your secterian approach and fuck yourself

[DaCuBaN]

I really didn&#39;t want to bring this to a level of personal insult, hence why I only ever jested at you, and said &#39;fuck off&#39; rather than &#39;fuck you&#39;

There is a difference, although considering the intent was there, perhaps you are right that I do deserve warning... That is for the admins to decide.


Working with the people inside to win them over, ie the non-secterian approach

NON-SECTARIAN&#33;?&#33; :lol:

So what about all those people who are not in bed with labour? They don&#39;t count? You&#39;re not excluding them? Most people have nothing to do with politics, so your logic astounds me. I think you&#39;re confused &#39;comrade&#39; :rolleyes:


im just trying to highlight the hypocrisy of this site

Just as I&#39;m trying to point out to you your own hypocracy - though I expect you can&#39;t see it.


your a stubborn cunnt who twists his argument everytime a fault is found

A &#39;stubborn ****&#39; would be someone who cannot move on an issue - who is dogmatic in their approach. I agree I (as someone here put it) &#39;dance&#39; around issues, but that is simply part of my method of absorbing information. You point something I haven&#39;t noticed out to me, I think about it and respond.

It&#39;s called discussion - try it sometime :P

[cubist]

Sounds very familiar Dacuban, i believe KEZ fulfils that wisely,

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;ve been &#39;ordered&#39; back into this thread, despite the fact that the last past was mine.

I await Kez&#39;s return to point out - as I did for him - what I have neglected to refute.

[Rex_20XD6]

We need political Parties so that we dont get people in the government who dont know what there doing, running our lifes. we want to pick who we want to tax us make laws and run our life for us. (That only applies for the people in the U.S.A.)

[Daymare17]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 01:52 PM
For as long as humans have kept records, they have always felt the pressing desire to adhere; to belong to a certain grouping; to associate with like minds; to band together irregardless of who we may be associating with. This has led in modern times to the corruption of &#39;Labour&#39; into a neo-conservative party, and their position toward the left being consolidated by many smaller factions, such as RESPECT amongst others. The question I wish to discuss is this:

Do political organisations have any place in modern bourgious politics?

To which I say NO&#33;

Whilst most members would advocate the destruction of the current state and all it&#39;s trimmings, we are not in a position where a revolt would be succesful. As such, we are forced into participating in the sham that is (in this case UK) electoral politics. With this in mind, I feel it paramount that we attempt to improve that which we are lumped with to best suit our goals. To me, this would be best achieved through abolishment of all forms of political organisation.

Under the current system, when a politician stands for a seat in Westminster he must propose some form of manifesto to outline to the voters what their intentions in the parliament are. There is nothing to keep them to this of course, but that is not relevant here. With political parties, the manifesto used is a generic one, written so it is ambigious as possible and is not likely to &#39;trip up&#39; those who use it at a later date. When we appoint these people into parliament, the only thing we can be sure of is that the ideas they have stood for are not necessarily their own.

Even once in parliament, these politicians have very little real power. The parties employ &#39;whips&#39; to ensure that members keep in line, and members are frequently ostracised when they show tendencies of dissent, or individual thoughs.

Or even if they just listen to their voters&#33;

With independant politicians, there is no generic manifesto to hide behind; no party whips; no &#39;old boys club&#39;. So where are the drawbacks?

I say there are none.

So let us throw away the old &#39;party&#39; model as the rubbish that it is.
I have a suspicion that the only reason you think so is because all the parties today are either openly bourgeois or have bourgeois leaderships.

However all history shows that when the revolution comes, the masses can&#39;t take power by themselves - they need a party with a conscious leadership. Lenin&#39;s formula: To the organised and centralised power of the exploiters must be counterposed the organised and centralised power of the exploited.

The Bolshevik party of Lenin and Trotsky was an example of a political party that really represented the masses. If there had been no Bolshevik party in 1917, Kornilov would have seized Petrograd and massacred the revolutionary workers.

[redstar2000]

However all history shows that when the revolution comes, the masses can&#39;t take power by themselves - they need a party with a conscious leadership.

The Paris Communards had no party.

Although there have been hundreds and perhaps even thousands of groups that have claimed to be "a party with a conscious leadership", virtually none of them have ever even seriously threatened the ruling class.

Consider even the winners alone...

1. Lenin&#39;s party -- successfully took power in October1917...and lost it in 1992.

2. Bela Kun&#39;s party -- won and lost power in 1918.

3. The German KPD -- two unsuccessful insurrections, destroyed by the Nazis c.1938.

4. Tito&#39;s party -- won power in 1946 and lost it in the 90s.

5. Mao&#39;s party -- won power in 1949 and still in power...but began restoring capitalism around 1980 or so.

6. Ho&#39;s party -- won power in 1975 and still in power...but began restoring capitalism in the 1980s.

7. Pol Pot&#39;s party -- won power in 1975 and overthrown by the Vietnamese around 1979.

8. Kim&#39;s party -- won power in 1946 and still in power...making noises about "free economic zones" -- that is, restoring capitalism.

9. Castro&#39;s party -- came to power in 1959 before it was Leninist...now leads a "mixed economy" where the private sector is growing much faster than the public sector.

The Trotskyist record is even poorer...

POUM (Spain) -- joined with left anarchists to resist the rightist drift of the Spanish Republican government...passed into obscurity following the victory of Franco.

Ceylon -- briefly held power back in the 1970s via a parliamentary majority...did nothing to radicalize Ceylonese society.

And that&#39;s pretty much it. The French and Italian Communist parties were very large but never revolutionary...they were, in fact, social democrats. The Indonesian Communist Party was also very large...but was massacred in the Suharto coup in the 70s. The Japanese Communist Party was militantly trade-unionist but never threatened the government in a serious way. Etc., etc., etc.

The overall record of "conscious leadership" in the 20th century was uniformly disastrous.


To the organised and centralised power of the exploiters must be counterposed the organised and centralised power of the exploited.

No, I think the better formula would be: to the organized and centralized power of the exploiters must be counterposed the spontaneous and decentralized power of the exploited.


If there had been no Bolshevik party in 1917, Kornilov would have seized Petrograd and massacred the revolutionary workers.

A preposterous assertion. The Petrograd garrisons alone would have been more than sufficient to defeat Kornilov...had his "army" not melted away before he ever got close to Petrograd.

The fact is that all of the revolutionary parties united to defend Petrograd...and would have done so if the Bolsheviks had never existed.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Kez]

You use the example of the Paris Commune as an example of revolution without a party,then you say Lenins Bolshevik party failed the revolution after 75 years.

Sorry, but how long did the Paris communards last? 72 days was it? hmmmm.

When has there ever been a successful revolution which has been stable for a reasonable amount of time (and dont fuck about with symantics) without a revolutionary party?