A new look of democratic centralism

[Le People]

In the soviet system of democratic centralism, the Pulitboro weildled the real power. This made a small group of men create and perform laws, totally unchecked. maybe if the party congress create laws, the central commitee checked them and the politboro carryed them out, it would be more democratic. All positions are electable, except member. I'm new here. What do you guys think?

[redstar2000]

In "democratic" centralism, what happens over time is the that the party congress and even the central committee become ceremonial bodies...their only purpose is to ratify what the "politburo" (or whatever the inner circle is called) has already decreed.

This is due to the fact that delegates to the congress and members of the central committee are selected from the top. There is a vanishingly small chance that even one outspoken critic of the leadership can be elected as a delegate to the congress, much less to the central committee.

Remember that the whole intent of "democratic" centralism is to nurture "strong leadership" at the very top of the party. A "rambunctious" party congress with its own ideas would be "counter-productive" in that context.

So it's not allowed to happen.

Whips & Chains; the Meaning of "Democratic" Centralism (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083204465&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Le People]

Mr. Red Starr 200, I am sorry I am late on my response, thru your writing I can not tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. please state more clearly.

[coda]

Hello. came from the other post. Well, I am an anti-statist. soooo...I usually don't discuss this. it just doesn't appeal to me.. so I won't be supporting or fighting on it's behalf any time soon.

[Le People]

Thanks any way. Anarchist? I never did figure out how no government was suppose to work.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Le [email protected] 12 2005, 09:31 PM
Mr. Red Starr 200, I am sorry I am late on my response, thru your writing I can not tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing. please state more clearly.
I am disagreeing...there is no way that "democratic" centralism could ever be genuinely democratic.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

In "democratic" centralism, what happens over time is the that the party congress and even the central committee become ceremonial bodies...their only purpose is to ratify what the "politburo" (or whatever the inner circle is called) has already decreed.

I oppose the "politburo" system, but i do support democratic centralism.


This is due to the fact that delegates to the congress and members of the central committee are selected from the top. There is a vanishingly small chance that even one outspoken critic of the leadership can be elected as a delegate to the congress, much less to the central committee.

These "outspoken critics" you are talking about are usually---if not always--- anti-Communists, no wonder they are not elected as a delegate to the congress.

[Le People]

Look, in any democracy, the minority is always screwed. I am proposeing what Lenin wanted. The minority has to come out with the majority. My method is more democratic, that's all.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Interestingly, at its last conference, the Parti Communist du Quebec instituted some radical reforms that offered a more authenticly democratic method of organization - though I'm sure most Leninists would comdemn them as "ultra-democratic".

By instituting recallable and directly responsible delegates at all levels, the PCQ, I think, has found a means of effective organization that allows for efficient leadership, while maintaining grassroots control of the party.

Er . . . actually, I'll elaborate later.

[Le People]

I would like more info on that party's methods, please.

[Paradox]

maybe if the party congress create laws, the central commitee checked them and the politboro carryed them out, it would be more democratic.

Maybe if the people made the decisions it would be more democratic? :P


These "outspoken critics" you are talking about are usually---if not always--- anti-Communists, no wonder they are not elected as a delegate to the congress.

That&#39;s a convenient excuse. I am a Communist. However, I do not believe in democratic centralism. Therefore, I must be an "anti-Communist" and cannot be elected a delegate. Damn. <_<

[anomaly]

The &#39;one member&#39; who is not elected in democratic centralism usually wields the most power. so we see that what redstar said is quite true here, in that &#39;democratic&#39; centralism is not very democratic at all. A simple representative democracy would be much better, but still, it is not something we want.

The age of &#39;representation&#39; is over. It is high time the people represent themselves, through direct democracy. It is only with this true democracy that a commune can exist.

[Led Zeppelin]

That&#39;s a convenient excuse. I am a Communist. However, I do not believe in democratic centralism. Therefore, I must be an "anti-Communist" and cannot be elected a delegate. Damn.

Why would you want to get elected as a delegate if you oppose democratic centralism?


The age of &#39;representation&#39; is over. It is high time the people represent themselves, through direct democracy. It is only with this true democracy that a commune can exist.

We are talking about socialism, not Communism, no one said that democratic centralism should still be in place in Communism.

[Paradox]

Why would you want to get elected as a delegate if you oppose democratic centralism?

To crush the new ruling class from within, of course. :P

Anyway, the point is, it&#39;s too easy to say anyone who criticizes that system is "anti-communist" and must be excluded. democratic centralism is too centralized. A new ruling class forms, however "Communist" they are. Decentralization is the way&#33;&#33;&#33; But that&#39;s just my opinion. Workers&#39; and soldiers&#39; councils with the people deciding things on their own. That&#39;s what I believe in. But, you are entitled to your opinions.

[enigma2517]

Yeah really, I&#39;m not even going to offer any actual criticism here, democratic centralism is an old dinosaur which doesn&#39;t work in theory or in practice.

Honestly, fuck that.

Question though, is democratic centralism supposed to be a method of socialism or communism? I could at least understand the logic of socialism, it would be completely unacceptable for communism however.

[JC1]

Democratic Centralism is the method in witch a leninist party is governed. Not the State. And remember Kiddies, before you hue and cry over the election process, remeber party membership is volentary.

PS : VMC, please dont disclose internal orginization matters over the net. But Just out over Curiousity, are you with Parizieau or with the Qubec Party Congress ?

[Led Zeppelin]

Anyway, the point is, it&#39;s too easy to say anyone who criticizes that system is "anti-communist" and must be excluded.

If the party is doing everything correctly in terms of socialism, then anyone who opposes it is anti-Communist.


Question though, is democratic centralism supposed to be a method of socialism or communism?

"We are talking about socialism, not Communism, no one said that democratic centralism should still be in place in Communism."

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;[email protected] 13 2005, 11:33 PM

That&#39;s a convenient excuse. I am a Communist. However, I do not believe in democratic centralism. Therefore, I must be an "anti-Communist" and cannot be elected a delegate. Damn.

Why would you want to get elected as a delegate if you oppose democratic centralism?


The age of &#39;representation&#39; is over. It is high time the people represent themselves, through direct democracy. It is only with this true democracy that a commune can exist.

We are talking about socialism, not Communism, no one said that democratic centralism should still be in place in Communism.
I think I mentioned that for socialism I think representative democracy is far better. The thing I am lost on in socialism is political parties. Should there be a one party system? But that will inevitably lead to oppression and corruption...Should there be a multi-party system? But what if the cappies gain power once again. I suppose we could have a multi-party system with only leftist parties. For example, we could have the reformist party, socialist party, communist party, etc. And, with all the sects of socialism, why not a Maoist party, Leninist party, Orthodox Marxist party, etc. What would you socialists suggest?

[anomaly]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:09 PM
Democratic Centralism is the method in witch a leninist party is governed. Not the State. And remember Kiddies, before you hue and cry over the election process, remeber party membership is volentary.

PS : VMC, please dont disclose internal orginization matters over the net. But Just out over Curiousity, are you with Parizieau or with the Qubec Party Congress ?
If its only to govern a party, then I&#39;m fine with it. But, the USSR did use &#39;democratic&#39; centralism to govern the state, but I suppose modern socialists probably resent most aspects of the old tyrannical giant.

[Led Zeppelin]

Should there be a one party system? But that will inevitably lead to oppression and corruption...Should there be a multi-party system? But what if the cappies gain power once again. I suppose we could have a multi-party system with only leftist parties. For example, we could have the reformist party, socialist party, communist party, etc. And, with all the sects of socialism, why not a Maoist party, Leninist party, Orthodox Marxist party, etc. What would you socialists suggest?

Bad idea, why would the proletariat need more then one party to lead it to victory/Communism?

This whole concept is unpractical, if the Leninists win they will reform the entire state, if the orthodox Marxist party wins they will do the same etc.

[Paradox]

why would the proletariat need more then one party to lead it to victory/Communism?

Why would they need to be led to victory at all? If it&#39;s not the masses deciding things on their own, it&#39;s not mass participation or liberation.


Democratic Centralism is the method in witch a leninist party is governed. Not the State.

But this party becomes the vanguard. And then they run the show, and anyone opposed to their methods, screw &#39;em. Mass participation is necessary.


remeber party membership is volentary.

Yes. So? Obviously, any Leftist who is opposed to democratic centralism is not going to join, because their ideas can&#39;t be implemented through that type of system. And if the Leftists opposed to democratic centralism were to organize, they&#39;d be labeled "anti-communists," and they don&#39;t want to let go of their power, and you get the idea.

[anomaly]

I don&#39;t think the proletariat needs any party, but that&#39;s just me. But if you are going to have socialism and the customary one party state, how will you avoid such corruption as we have seen previously in one party states? Maybe just have two socialist parties which are divided on social and moral issues rather than economic ones, sort of like the two cappie parties in the USA?

So, to socialists who are in favor of one Leninist party, how will you avoid corruption?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 06:09 PM
Democratic Centralism is the method in witch a leninist party is governed. Not the State. And remember Kiddies, before you hue and cry over the election process, remeber party membership is volentary.

PS : VMC, please dont disclose internal orginization matters over the net. But Just out over Curiousity, are you with Parizieau or with the Qubec Party Congress ?
Not a private matters at all - as I recall, this part of the party convention was open to the public.

We will talk via PM, comrade.

[Clarksist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:51 AM
I don&#39;t think the proletariat needs any party, but that&#39;s just me. But if you are going to have socialism and the customary one party state, how will you avoid such corruption as we have seen previously in one party states?
In the simple answer: you can&#39;t.

What Lenin "intended", or at least what I interpret, is for Democratic Centralism to lead away from reformism and revisionism. What it ended up doing, however, was handing over the power to the higher ups.

In the end, I think that Lenin didn&#39;t intend for his system to have so much centralized power, that was just the outcome of all of his decisions of how to run the state. The problem arises when all these components go together.

[Led Zeppelin]

Why would they need to be led to victory at all?

I don&#39;t know if you&#39;ve noticed but the "masses" are not Communist, who is going to tell them that they should be Communist?

What is the vanguard? The vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat which forms a party to "convince" their comrades to become Communist, to "make" them class conscious.

The capitalists did the same when they were fighting feudalism, it worked.


But if you are going to have socialism and the customary one party state, how will you avoid such corruption as we have seen previously in one party states?

Eventual democratization of the party, disolving the party over time.

[Paradox]

I don&#39;t know if you&#39;ve noticed but the "masses" are not Communist, who is going to tell them that they should be Communist?

Of course they aren&#39;t. We&#39;re in capitalist society, right?


What is the vanguard? The vanguard is the most advanced section of the proletariat which forms a party to "convince" their comrades to become Communist, to "make" them class conscious.


More like coerce. The people must decide they want Communism on their own, not be "led" by some party of "professional revolutionaries."

Yes, we should spread the word. How else will they know what Communism really is? But they must take it as their own belief, not be forced basically, to accept it as the way things will be. Mass participation and decentralized control. That&#39;s workers&#39; liberation.

[Led Zeppelin]

Of course they aren&#39;t. We&#39;re in capitalist society, right?

Your point being?

200 years ago we lived a feudal society.


The people must decide they want Communism on their own, not be "led" by some party of "professional revolutionaries."


Why not? That is how the capitalists won over feudalism.


Yes, we should spread the word. How else will they know what Communism really is? But they must take it as their own belief, not be forced basically, to accept it as the way things will be. Mass participation and decentralized control. That&#39;s workers&#39; liberation.

How can a small group of people force a revolution? Revolutions are carried out by the masses, not by a small group of revolutionaries.

[Le People]

I see we have some in put. I am speaking strictly about party organization. Personally, I believe that Lenin didn&#39;t want a minority running the Party. The Republican party is run by born beginer facsists, which is a considerable minority. I think Lenin wanted to prevent that. One can see this clearly in his work What is to be Done in the first chapter.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism
Eventual democratization of the party, dissolving the party over time.

Well, no Leninist party in power has ever done those things.

But beyond that, why should they ever want to do those things?

Life as part of a "party elite" is "sweet" -- you have material privileges; you rarely get criticized publicly; you get to give a whole lot of orders to people and almost never have to take any yourself; people scurry to please you and fear your displeasure, etc.

Why would you want to give all that up?

I think expecting a Leninist party to "democratize itself" and eventually "dissolve itself" from "communist principles" is like expecting a capitalist to give away all his wealth "because Jesus told him to".

It&#39;s not absolutely impossible...but so close to that as makes no difference.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, no Leninist party in power has ever done those things.


I know, that is why all socialist states failed.


But beyond that, why should they ever want to do those things?


Because the party will be taken over by revisionists if they don&#39;t.


Life as part of a "party elite" is "sweet" -- you have material privileges; you rarely get criticized publicly; you get to give a whole lot of orders to people and almost never have to take any yourself; people scurry to please you and fear your displeasure, etc.

Why would you want to give all that up?


To prevent the socialist state from collapsing.


I think expecting a Leninist party to "democratize itself" and eventually "dissolve itself" from "communist principles" is like expecting a capitalist to give away all his wealth "because Jesus told him to".


Democratizing the party must happen, Lenin himself wrote this in "The State and Revolution". The reason the party was not democratized right after the revolution is because the nation was not ready for socialism economically, after the two 5 year plans it was, but Stalin didn&#39;t, or couldn&#39;t democratize the party, since WW2 happened and the country had to be rebuilt after the war. And another thing, Stalin did not know about revisionism taking over a socialist state, since it had never happened before.

Now we know, therefore we know that we must democratize the party if the state is ready for it economically, that is if the vast majority of the population are proletariat. I am merely repeating what Lenin wrote 87 years ago.

The dissolving of the party will happen after the world revolution, since the party will no longer be necessary.

Anyway, i thought these guys were supposed to be Communist? You yourself said this, so why wouldnt they do this to prevent the collapse of socialism?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism
Anyway, I thought these guys were supposed to be Communist? You yourself said this, so why wouldn&#39;t they do this to prevent the collapse of socialism?

Good question&#33;

Because communists don&#39;t stay communist if their material conditions drastically change.

If you are part of a "communist" elite, that all by itself will corrupt you. Not right away, of course. And, in some cases, not at all.

But then what about your kids...who are raised to be part of the elite as well. They are used to lives of privilege...think they&#39;re going to give up so much as a gram of caviar "to save socialism"?

And your grandkids are just going to be outright thieves who will steal any public property that&#39;s not nailed down. They will openly restore capitalism and be proud of themselves for doing so&#33; Russia is the best example of this so far...but the process is well under way in China. It&#39;s probably safe to predict that the next generation of Chinese "communists" will openly restore capitalism.

What you do ultimately determines what you are.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 06:38 AM
But this party becomes the vanguard. And then they run the show, and anyone opposed to their methods, screw &#39;em. Mass participation is necessary.
And what exactly is preventing a party from being a mass revolutionary party? A huge amount of people on this board are under the impression that a revolutionary party is a small group of people sitting around a room conspiring, it&#39;s actually possible for revolutionary parties to be mass organisations and mass participation.

I have to love this "anti-centralism" opinion without grasping the concept of centralism at all. Centralism is not equal to centralised power or a central supreme authority. Centralism is the idea of "unity in action, debate where there are differences" (I can&#39;t remember the exact quote from Lenin), that there would be rigourous democratic debate, flushing out ideas and methods but ultimately, a single course of action would be decided upon and that the entire party would adhere to the majority decision. Even if you look at the formation of workers&#39; councils and committees, there may be different delegates responsible for different aspects of the necessary work, but ultimately they all return to a "central" body that co-ordinates all the different aspects of work. Any method of organisation relies on centralism in that there has to be co-operation and co-ordination between everyone involved or would it be better if everyone could go off and do their own thing, even if it contradicts with the work of someone else or if its unnecessary work. That was the basis for democratic centralism, co-ordinated work that could decide on a central line of action. Maybe some of the anti-centralists would prefer that striking workers could break the picket line if they pleased because they weren&#39;t adhering to the centralised decision of the union workers to strike out?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BOZG
Centralism is not equal to centralised power or a central supreme authority. Centralism is the idea of "unity in action, debate where there are differences".

No, that&#39;s just putting cosmetics on an ugly idea to make it "look better".

The party leadership decides everything of substance...and you must obey or get the boot.

Even criticism is unwelcome...do too much of it and you&#39;ll also get the boot.

That&#39;s history.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Thanks for ignoring 99% of my post redstar.


Because communists don&#39;t stay communist if their material conditions drastically change.

If you are part of a "communist" elite, that all by itself will corrupt you. Not right away, of course. And, in some cases, not at all.


Emphasis added, you said that Stalin was a Communist, during Stalin&#39;s reign the USSR was ready to democratize the party (1950-1953), if he knew about revisionism he would have done so. My "theory" is that the pre-revolutionary vanguard----which is still Communist----will socialize and industrialize the economy and then democratize the party to prevent revisionism.

I have history on my side, every socialist state industrialized and socialized the economy pre-revisionism, it was done by the pre-revolutionary vanguard in the USSR and Albania. (the only two socialist nations, i call a nation socialist if it is building socialism).


But then what about your kids...who are raised to be part of the elite as well.

Stalin&#39;s kids lived normal lives, his sons were both in the army and one even died in WW2, the other was a pilot in the airforce.


Even criticism is unwelcome...do too much of it and you&#39;ll also get the boot.

Not true, Stalin&#39;s economic policies were criticized by the future revisionists, yet they stayed in the party and eventually took over after his death.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism
Emphasis added, you said that Stalin was a Communist, during Stalin&#39;s reign the USSR was ready to democratize the party (1950-1953), if he knew about revisionism he would have done so.

I have never heard of, much less seen, so much as a shred of evidence that Stalin ever intended to "democratize the party".

That sounds like a myth...almost an "urban legend".


Not true, Stalin&#39;s economic policies were criticized by the future revisionists, yet they stayed in the party and eventually took over after his death.

And that sounds to me like another myth. As far as I know, neither Stalin nor any of his ideas were publicly criticized until after Khrushchev&#39;s "secret speech" was leaked to the western media.

I do recall a rumor that Molotov offered a plan to Stalin c.1949 for beginning the "transition to communism" -- but Stalin didn&#39;t like it and that was the end of that.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

"In the soviet system of democratic centralism, the Pulitboro weildled the real power. This made a small group of men create and perform laws, totally unchecked. maybe if the party congress create laws, the central commitee checked them and the politboro carryed them out, it would be more democratic. All positions are electable, except member. I&#39;m new here. What do you guys think?"

What happened right after the Ocotber Revolution was that the reformists (Mensheviks) and the half-hearted revolutionaries (Socialist-Revolutionaries) abandoned the worker&#39;s revolution and helped throw Russia into a civil war by battling the Bolsheviks, who had easily retained majority confidence by the end of 1917. This lead to some limits on the worker&#39;s democracy and the power of the soviets, specifically limitation on military decision due to the crisis facing Russia. This is why democratic centralism arose in Russia, and after the war it was supposed to be extinquished and given up. However, this never happened, one of the reason&#39;s being the Right side of the party defeating the Left opposition, composed of traditional Leninists like Trotsky. I don&#39;t believe in such powerful centralism in a socialist society, but you must realize that neither did Lenin. If Russia was allowed peace, the Politiburo and the Central Committee would never had had such outlandish and imposing powers. Hence, naturally, socialism would be much more democratic than in the Stalinist USSR.

- HP

[Led Zeppelin]

I have never heard of, much less seen, so much as a shred of evidence that Stalin ever intended to "democratize the party".

That sounds like a myth...almost an "urban legend".


I didn&#39;t say he wanted to do that, i said he could, and the reason he didn&#39;t is because he didn&#39;t know about revisionism.


And that sounds to me like another myth. As far as I know, neither Stalin nor any of his ideas were publicly criticized until after Khrushchev&#39;s "secret speech" was leaked to the western media.


This whole work is full of counter critiques by Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm).

[Paradox]

A huge amount of people on this board are under the impression that a revolutionary party is a small group of people sitting around a room conspiring, it&#39;s actually possible for revolutionary parties to be mass organisations and mass participation.

I did not say it&#39;s not possible for parties to be mass organizations, I think that it&#39;s pretty obvious that many already are.

However, the idea of having leaders, some group of "professional revolutionaries," is a bad one in my opinion. You want to believe it&#39;s a good idea? Fine. That&#39;s your right. But to me, it makes no sense. I do not believe that the people to be "led." Or that they "don&#39;t know what they want or need," as some Leninists and Maoists have said to me. Nor do I believe a new state is necessary to "maintain order." I think that it will not "democratize itself," or "dissolve itself," as some have put it.

What I believe is that once the overwhelming majority of people have come to realize that capitalism is exploitative and corrupt, and once they have accepted Communism as their own belief, on their own, they will work together and decide things together on their own. Operating as cells, independently of one another yet linked together by some basic common principles, and in this way operating in a decentralized manner. No "leaders," but elected and immediately recallable delegates, who may propose actions or ideas based upon opinions and information received via communication links with local cells and through councils, but who cannot decide anything on their own. The people, the masses, must decide democratically what actions, etc., to take.

May sound crazy to those who say the people "need to be led," especially the avakian types, but I seriously doubt such a state, and such control, however "not-so-centralized" you say it is or will be is necessay. Sorry if we disagree on this, but we&#39;ll see how things unfold.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

I don&#39;t have a problem with a Leninist-style party, I really couldn&#39;t care less if a party wanted to be idenitified as such ... what I have a problem with is the Leninist-style state. The one-party state ruled by a vanguard. I don&#39;t see a reason that the party should be synonomous with the State, they should be entirely separate things.


If its only to govern a party, then I&#39;m fine with it. But, the USSR did use &#39;democratic&#39; centralism to govern the state

I wholeheartedly agree. The arguments against the party = the state and the state = the party are pretty clear if you look at the problems which the Marxist-Leninist states experienced during the last century.


why would the proletariat need more then one party to lead it to victory/Communism?

I believe that there is no one clear way to move towards communism, who knows if there is a right way ... but we can all be sure that there is a wrong way. An alternative (at least one but I would hope for many) must be present to give people options. If the people don&#39;t like the way one group is heading or doing things, they should have the right to bring in another one in its stead.

There are many differing opinions on how to reach communism (if indeed it is reachable period given the ambiguity of its very definition) and so there should be parties to reflect this tendency. How many parties? I don&#39;t know, but I just think the option should be there.

If someone wants to go through market, they should have the opportunity to press these ideas with other like minded individuals and have a chance to be heard. If someone wants a strong, central elite, they should also have the opportunity to be heard. The people should have the right to elect officials to their liking who reflect their views. (So, obviously I believe in some sort of elected and representative assembly ... call me old fashioned if you must.)


The thing I am lost on in socialism is political parties.

Good question. I think they are inevitable unless they are outlawed or only one takes power (in which case is there really a party or is it just the State?). Different of opinion is wide (look at this site&#33;), even within one "class." There will more than likely be a different parties to reflect this difference who will have different ways to implement their ideas of how to approach communism, or even what communism is.

Since there is no real "right" way to get there, or at least a clear path, it will be up to chance and hope. We&#39;ll have to figure it out when we get there, which is why I believe that there is the need to analyze different ideas and form some sort of path to follow, but one that also keeps other alternatives handy, bascially keeping an open mind ... not alienating the average person and their family (ie. being too radicaly ... yes, there is such a thing).


If the party is doing everything correctly in terms of socialism, then anyone who opposes it is anti-Communist.

Well, that all depends on "If" ... but if it were, these people could also just have other opinions on how to reach communism. They may be die-hard communists but with differing opinions.

Is there such a thing as a "true" communist party? Is there such a thing as a "true" communist? ... I have my doubts.

TGOW

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp+--> (Holocaustpulp)If Russia was allowed peace, the Politburo and the Central Committee would never had had such outlandish and imposing powers. Hence, naturally, socialism would be much more democratic than in the Stalinist USSR.[/b]

The sequence of events does not support this proposition.

In the period between November 1917 and, say, April 1918, the soviets had already been reduced to ceremonial bodies that simply approved whatever the Bolsheviks decreed. Any soviet in which the Bolsheviks lost their majority was (1) dissolved; (2) merged with a near-by soviet that re-established a Bolshevik majority; or (3) had additional delegates appointed in sufficient numbers to restore a Bolshevik majority.

This all happened before the civil war began.

Further, the new rules that essentially wiped out any possibility of rank-and-file control of the party itself were adopted in 1921...when the civil war was over.


Marxism&#045;Leninism
I didn&#39;t say he wanted to do that, I said he could, and the reason he didn&#39;t is because he didn&#39;t know about revisionism.

I don&#39;t understand what this sentence means...or what is to be gained in speculation about what Stalin "could" have done or "could" have "wanted" to do "if" he had only "known about revisionism".


This whole work is full of counter critiques by Stalin: Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR.

:lol: That work is like my site. Stalin quotes from documents that are "letters" to the Central Committee...just like I quote from posts on this board and then answer them.

But the entirety of my critics&#39; views are publicly available on this board -- do you imagine that those who had views differing from Stalin had their works made publicly available...even to the party membership (much less the Russian working class as a whole)?

I&#39;m not criticizing Stalin&#39;s approach here...I do it myself. I pick out the parts of posts that I think are the most interesting and reply to them.

But anyone who had views different from those of Stalin did not get published and, most likely, suffered other unpleasant consequences as well.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

I don&#39;t understand what this sentence means...or what is to be gained in speculation about what Stalin "could" have done or "could" have "wanted" to do "if" he had only "known about revisionism".

Well, there is alot to be gained from it, we learn from past experiences.

If Stalin knew about revisionism he would have democratized the party, that is my point. But you seem to disagree with that, it doesn&#39;t matter, i am a "Stalinist" that supports the democratization of the party after the industrialization and socialization of the economy.


do you imagine that those who had views differing from Stalin had their works made publicly available...even to the party membership (much less the Russian working class as a whole)?


NO&#33; Did you even read those "letters"? They support a return to capitalism, the "plans" in those "letters" were carried out under Krushchev.


But anyone who had views different from those of Stalin did not get published and, most likely, suffered other unpleasant consequences as well.


Trotsky was not published in the 20&#39;s? Bukharin was not published? Sorry, you&#39;re wrong.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism
If Stalin knew about revisionism he would have democratized the party, that is my point.

That&#39;s not a testable hypothesis. There is no way to tell what Stalin "would have done" had he "known about revisionism".


NO&#33; Did you even read those "letters"? They support a return to capitalism, the "plans" in those "letters" were carried out under Khrushchev.

There&#39;s no way for me to read those letters...even if I was fluent in Russian. They were never published by the Central Committee for ordinary party members to read...much less the general public.

Only the excerpts that Stalin chose to quote were made available.

Whether or not they were "revisionist" (proposals that would have led to the restoration of capitalism) is something that can&#39;t really be known until the full texts are available. You are probably right about some of them...but all?


Trotsky was not published in the 20&#39;s? Bukharin was not published?

Yes, there was a furious debate in the Soviet press in the 1920s over "the best way forward". If some scholars were to collect all those articles in a book and publish an English translation, it would make fascinating and probably very instructive reading.

By 1928-29, the debate was over...and never resumed again.

It was all "Joe&#33; Joe&#33; JOE&#33;" ever after...until he died.


I am a "Stalinist" that supports the democratization of the party after the industrialization and socialization of the economy.

Your "good intentions" are admirable...but even if you "stuck to them", your kids and your grandkids wouldn&#39;t. They&#39;d be happily engaged in becoming a new capitalist class and plundering every scrap of public property they could get their hands on.

Revisionism, like everything else, has material roots...it&#39;s not a product of personal villainy.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[BOZG]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 02:08 AM
No, that&#39;s just putting cosmetics on an ugly idea to make it "look better".

The party leadership decides everything of substance...and you must obey or get the boot.

Even criticism is unwelcome...do too much of it and you&#39;ll also get the boot.

That&#39;s history.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I like your wholescale proof that this is the inevitability of democratic centralism. The point of a leadership is to offer a level of clarity, experience and organisation, it doesn&#39;t necessarily have to be accepted but it generally is, otherwise such "leaders" would never have been elected in the first place. It&#39;s quite common sense. Being booted is generally only done on the basis of an open breach of party discipline and democratic centralism, an entirely acceptable position and attitude.




However, the idea of having leaders, some group of "professional revolutionaries," is a bad one in my opinion. You want to believe it&#39;s a good idea? Fine. That&#39;s your right. But to me, it makes no sense. I do not believe that the people to be "led."

People who reach revolutionary conclusions generally become "professional revolutionaries" in that their whole lives revolve around disseminating and raising revolutionary ideas, anyone who doesn&#39;t, really isn&#39;t a revolutionary ideas. It doesn&#39;t mean that someone necessarily becomes a revolutionary as a full-time job, paid from 9 to 5 nor does it mean that they&#39;re necessarily Leninists.

Neither do I, neither does any actual Leninist. The point of the vanguard is not to lead or control, but to guide the working class through revolutionary periods based on experience and the correct ideas of what is necessary to overthrow capitalism and fight for socialism. It is quite possible for the mass of people to arrive at some basic principles, of course or to arrive at the decision to take some sort of specific action but they don&#39;t come to these conclusions abstractly or independently. They reach them on the basis of discussion, of interaction and experience. They don&#39;t all come to realise the same identical decision independently of each other. If you go to a meeting or a strike or anything like that, you&#39;ll always find that maybe a single person raises the idea, or a small group and that on hearing this argument, most people might think "hey, they&#39;re right" or "that sounds like the right thing to do" and inevitability come to think about it for themselves and embrace it. That&#39;s the role of the vanguard and the "professional revolutionary", to be the one that puts forward that idea and win people over to it on the basis of respect for the idea, experiences and conclusions of that person or organisation, not to just impose it from above or outside the movement but to gain support for it within.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 05:32 PM
I like your wholescale proof that this is the inevitability of democratic centralism.
Well it has been so far, what makes you think it would be any different the next time around?


The point of a leadership is to offer a level of clarity, experience and organisation, it doesn&#39;t necessarily have to be accepted but it generally is, otherwise such "leaders" would never have been elected in the first place.

The inner circle of a political party is completely different to the working class at large.

The members of a political party who elect leaders are usually at a level of which the politics can be understood and accepted. These people are the vanguard, it is there responsibility to understand.

But who elects them to lead the revolution? The working class? Or is it still the political inner circle which is the party. The vanguard.

The working class are not offered a chance to elect a leader, they are told they need one in order to destroy capitalism and create revolutionary change.

They&#39;re sold the idea, and if they don&#39;t like the idea, their reactionaries. That&#39;s how it has always been.

Democratic centralism is not a process that empowers the working class. It is a process which enables some level of democracy within a structured political party which hopes, dreams and works to become the government of the people. Once that government exists, the workers either like it or shut up.


People who reach revolutionary conclusions generally become "professional revolutionaries" in that their whole lives revolve around disseminating and raising revolutionary ideas, anyone who doesn&#39;t, really isn&#39;t a revolutionary. It doesn&#39;t mean that someone necessarily becomes a revolutionary as a full-time job, paid from 9 to 5 nor does it mean that they&#39;re necessarily Leninists.

But there are paid full time members of political parties who organise centrally. The foot soldiers of the party do their part but a part which is controlled and organised by "professional revolutionaries."

The Central Committee members of the Socialist Part and the SWP are all paid, and in my experience as an SWP organiser, subsidised heavily.


The point of the vanguard is not to lead or control, but to guide the working class through revolutionary periods based on experience and the correct ideas of what is necessary to overthrow capitalism and fight for socialism.

That&#39;s not what Lenin thought.

The vanguard is the vehicle in which the working class achieve control. Not just to guide, but to actually assume power of a Socialist State and control the transition to Communism.

Invariably, as far as history is concerned this has failed for a multitude of reasons and its very important that we don&#39;t make the same mistakes again. We can&#39;t afford to keep making them.


It is quite possible for the mass of people to arrive at some basic principles, of course or to arrive at the decision to take some sort of specific action but they don&#39;t come to these conclusions abstractly or independently. They reach them on the basis of discussion, of interaction and experience.

And that process must encourage self-management and autonomy.

Some form of revolutionary consciousness is an inevitability, regardless of a centralised political organisation.

At a point where the working class are ready to attack capital and the state, that will be at a time when they feel most empowered. At this point fluidity and co-ordinated autonomy is crucial for the development of working class resistance.


They don&#39;t all come to realise the same identical decision independently of each other. If you go to a meeting or a strike or anything like that, you&#39;ll always find that maybe a single person raises the idea, or a small group and that on hearing this argument, most people might think "hey, they&#39;re right" or "that sounds like the right thing to do" and inevitability come to think about it for themselves and embrace it

That is not a justification for leadership, the vanguard or democratic centralism.

[Led Zeppelin]

That&#39;s not a testable hypothesis. There is no way to tell what Stalin "would have done" had he "known about revisionism".

You&#39;re right, that was silly of me.


There&#39;s no way for me to read those letters...even if I was fluent in Russian. They were never published by the Central Committee for ordinary party members to read...much less the general public.

Can you prove this? I can disprove it: The restoration of capitalism in the USSR (http://www.oneparty.co.uk/html/book/ussrmenu.html), that whole book is based on newspaper articles from the Stalin period and afterwards, it clearly states that there was criticism of Stalin&#39;s economic and political plans in the papers, available for everyone to read.


Whether or not they were "revisionist" (proposals that would have led to the restoration of capitalism) is something that can&#39;t really be known until the full texts are available. You are probably right about some of them...but all?


I don&#39;t understand you. You said that Stalin was a Communist, so isn&#39;t everyone who opposes his views anti-Communist?


By 1928-29, the debate was over...and never resumed again.

It was all "Joe&#33; Joe&#33; JOE&#33;" ever after...until he died.


If this were true, why did he write "Economic problems of socialism in the USSR" in the early 50&#39;s? How could Bukharin and his clique write criticisms of Stalin&#39;s economic and political policies in the early and mid 30&#39;s?


Your "good intentions" are admirable...but even if you "stuck to them", your kids and your grandkids wouldn&#39;t. They&#39;d be happily engaged in becoming a new capitalist class and plundering every scrap of public property they could get their hands on.

Revisionism, like everything else, has material roots...it&#39;s not a product of personal villainy.


Here is a summary of my "theory":

In the USSR and Albania (the only two socialist states seen in history) this is what happened, revolution--------&#62;industrialization and socialization of the economy--------&#62;revisionism-------&#62;capitalism. So everything was "fine" until revisionism, i want to prevent revisionism by democratizing the party, so this is what we need to do now, revolution------&#62;industrialization and socialization of the economy------&#62;democratization of the party (i call that "cultural" revolution, not to be confused with the Chinese nonsense)-------&#62;socialism. (i believe revolution in imperialist nations is unlikely, if not impossible)

Now i agree with you that eventually the party will degenerate but history has shown that this has happened only when the pre-revolutionary vanguard dies out, history has also showed us that socialist states finished the second part (industrialization and socialization of the economy) of the revolution before they were taken over by revisionists. "My theory" is based on a clear analysis of history and logic, all Marxist-Leninists ("Stalinists") must adhere to my theory, or they are doomed to fail again.

[BOZG]

Well it has been so far, what makes you think it would be any different the next time around?

I&#39;ve still yet to see you or RedStar provide proof that every single democratic centralist organisation that exists or has existed inevitability led/leads to the party leadership deciding everything of substance. Until you can, I&#39;m not going to accept your argument.



But who elects them to lead the revolution? The working class? Or is it still the political inner circle which is the party. The vanguard.

That&#39;s not what Lenin thought.

The vanguard is the vehicle in which the working class achieve control. Not just to guide, but to actually assume power of a Socialist State and control the transition to Communism.


I&#39;ve already explained on what basis the vanguard desires to "lead" in my previous post.



But there are paid full time members of political parties who organise centrally. The foot soldiers of the party do their part but a part which is controlled and organised by "professional revolutionaries."


The Central Committee members of the Socialist Part and the SWP are all paid, and in my experience as an SWP organiser, subsidised heavily.

What&#39;s your point? Of course there are paid members, any sizable organisations require a huge amount of day-to-day work and fluidity that necessitates that there be some full time party workers. I fail to see the problem in this. My point was that not every single "professional revolutionary" is a a full time member of the party and that being a "professional revolutionary" extends beyond just internal party work but also into the role of being a conscious worker in the community or workplace.



The Central Committee members of the Socialist Part and the SWP are all paid, and in my experience as an SWP organiser, subsidised heavily.

Well I&#39;ll bare that in mind if I ever hit rock bottom, then I&#39;ll join the SWP. My experience in knowing every full timer in Ireland says differently. If money is what you&#39;re after, don&#39;t become a CWI full timer.

[Paradox]

I don&#39;t understand you. You said that Stalin was a Communist, so isn&#39;t everyone who opposes his views anti-Communist?

You are again equating disagreements on methods of reaching Communism with anti-Communism. Because someone has a differing view on how to reach Communism, and they criticize Stalin&#39;s policies and methods, that means they&#39;re "anti-Communist?" Obviously, if a capitalist were to criticize Communist actions, they&#39;d be anti-Communist. But for those with differing views who&#39;d rather have a more broad-based, decentralized structure, calling them "anti-Communist" is quite ridiculous.


In the USSR and Albania (the only two socialist states seen in history) this is what happened, revolution--------&#62;industrialization and socialization of the economy--------&#62;revisionism-------&#62;capitalism. So everything was "fine" until revisionism, i want to prevent revisionism by democratizing the party, so this is what we need to do now, revolution------&#62;industrialization and socialization of the economy------&#62;democratization of the party (i call that "cultural" revolution, not to be confused with the Chinese nonsense)-------&#62;socialism.

I&#39;m not sure I understand you here. First you say the USSR and Albania were the only two "Socialist" states. Then you say they didn&#39;t reach Socialism because they didn&#39;t democratize the party. You then give your own little plan in which the party is democratized, a "cultural revolution" as you call it, and thereby Socialism is achieved. So were the USSR and Albania Socialist or not? Your statement is a bit contradictory. In any case, I don&#39;t think the USSR was Socialist. They were a heavily agricultural nation at the time of the revolution, and Lenin himself said that state capitalism would be a step in the right direction, so that they could reach Socialism more quickly. They industrialized the country, yes. But did they reach Socialism? I don&#39;t think they did.


i believe revolution in imperialist nations is unlikely, if not impossible

Why do you think a revolution is not possible in imperialist nations? How are we going to achieve Communism if the industrialized imperialist nations have no revolutions of their own?

[Led Zeppelin]

Because someone has a differing view on how to reach Communism, and they criticize Stalin&#39;s policies and methods, that means they&#39;re "anti-Communist?"

If he is doing the right thing then yes.


I&#39;m not sure I understand you here. First you say the USSR and Albania were the only two "Socialist" states. Then you say they didn&#39;t reach Socialism because they didn&#39;t democratize the party. You then give your own little plan in which the party is democratized, a "cultural revolution" as you call it, and thereby Socialism is achieved. So were the USSR and Albania Socialist or not? Your statement is a bit contradictory.

Sorry, i had to add that i refer to a nation as socialist if it is building socialism and/or has achieved it. Since the USSR and Albania were building socialism i refer to them as socialist, of course they did not reach the historical stage of socialism.


Why do you think a revolution is not possible in imperialist nations?

Historical and current experience, there is hardly a proletariat.


How are we going to achieve Communism if the industrialized imperialist nations have no revolutions of their own?

When there is no nation to exploit the parasitic economies of the imperialist nations will collapse, which will restore a majority proletariat ready for revolution. So when the majority of the exploited nations become socialist the imperialist nations will follow.

[Paradox]

Historical and current experience, there is hardly a proletariat.

Hardly a proletariat??? Do you mean a conscious proletariat? Just because they&#39;re not conscious, doesn&#39;t mean they don&#39;t exist.


When there is no nation to exploit the parasitic economies of the imperialist nations will collapse, which will restore a majority proletariat ready for revolution. So when the majority of the exploited nations become socialist the imperialist nations will follow.

Well, I disagree. I believe revolution in imperialist nations is necessary. Sure revolutions could occur, and are occuring in the "Third World." But I don&#39;t think they&#39;ll survive in a Capitalist world. They&#39;re going to have to trade with capitalist nations, so they aren&#39;t going to do much, other than industrialize their respective countries. There&#39;d need to be many simultaneous victories in the "Third World," so that those nations could work together against the capitalist nations. But even then, the threat of attack from imperialist nations is great. The united states could back a Colombian attack on Venezuela. Israel could be used against any movement in the Middle East, which they could label as "terrorist" to "justify" aggression. Britain is backing the united states in Iraq. Unless the people in these imperialist countries stand up against the people in power and overthrow them, the imperialist nations could always be in a position to sabatoge significant movement in the "Third World."

[Holocaustpulp]

RedStar: "The sequence of events does not support this proposition. In the period between November 1917 and, say, April 1918, the soviets had already been reduced to ceremonial bodies that simply approved whatever the Bolsheviks decreed. Any soviet in which the Bolsheviks lost their majority was (1) dissolved; (2) merged with a near-by soviet that re-established a Bolshevik majority; or (3) had additional delegates appointed in sufficient numbers to restore a Bolshevik majority."

I used to argue like you do on the topic of revolutionary Russian history, and I regret every monent of it. However, I learned from past arguments such as this to ignore the superficial and misleading facts and actually argue in favor of the truth.

Considering the major parties which comprised the soviets - the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, and the SRs - the latter two proved themselves counterproductive and counterrevolutionary all before the Civil War. The Right SRs are out of question: they renounced soviet democracy (worker&#39;s democracy, not Bolshevik imposition) from the outset and eventually died as a party because few approved of their terrorist tactics.

Concerning the Left SRs, who did participate in both the Soviets and the Central Committee (before the Civil War, the best allies of the Bolsheviks), they separated themselves from worker&#39;s democracy when the Brest-Litovsk treaty was signed. In July, two months after Brest-Litovsk, the Left SRs renounced the Soviet power and quit the 5th Congress in response to the treaty. Afterwards, they took up terrorist tactics, took random (some Bolshevik) hostages, and even conspired to put Russia at war with Germany by assassinating a German ambassador. As one could assume, the Left SRs died off just like their right coutnerparts.

The Mensheviks upheld the reactionary Provisional Government and, once it was dissolved, upheld the reactionary Constituent Assembly. They were never too partial of the soviets themselves, especially since the masses had, by late 1917 and early 1918, rallied around the Bolsheviks for practical reasons (i.e., their old parties abandoned them and joined the Whites).

To further prove the popularity of the Bolsheviks, I&#39;ll invoke these statistics: "In the Soviets the Bolsheviks were in an absolute majority in the September 1917 elections:
Social Revolutionaries (SRs) 54, 374
Mensheviks 15,887
Kadets 101,106
Bolsheviks 198,230"

It is also slanderous to say that immediate post-revolutionary Bolsheviks betrayed the workers such as their political party counter-parts did. In January 1918, Lenin claimed: "Very often delegations of workers and peasants come to the government and ask, for example, what to do with such-and-such a piece of land. And frequently I have felt embarrassed when I saw that they had no very definite views. And I said to them: you are the power, do all you want to do, take all you want, we shall support you&#33;"

It is a virtue of Bolshevism to support the soviets no matter what, and any sabotage in the pre-Civil War was definitely directed toward the reactionary and fake socialists. The Bolsheviks in February only had around 8,000 members, a true minority, and they still called for "all power to the soviets."

I see no base in your claims at all, and you don&#39;t even provide evidence for such an audacious statement.

"Further, the new rules that essentially wiped out any possibility of rank-and-file control of the party itself were adopted in 1921...when the civil war was over."

How so? Are you referring to the NEP? Please explain in your response.

- Holocaustpulp

[Led Zeppelin]

Hardly a proletariat??? Do you mean a conscious proletariat? Just because they&#39;re not conscious, doesn&#39;t mean they don&#39;t exist.

They are not conscious because they are unable to be conscious, they are being "bought off" by the surplus value extracted from exploited capitalist nations.

If i had two cars, a house, good education for my children and a good insurance i wouldnt want that to change, would you?


Well, I disagree. I believe revolution in imperialist nations is necessary. Sure revolutions could occur, and are occuring in the "Third World." But I don&#39;t think they&#39;ll survive in a Capitalist world. They&#39;re going to have to trade with capitalist nations, so they aren&#39;t going to do much, other than industrialize their respective countries. There&#39;d need to be many simultaneous victories in the "Third World," so that those nations could work together against the capitalist nations. But even then, the threat of attack from imperialist nations is great. The united states could back a Colombian attack on Venezuela. Israel could be used against any movement in the Middle East, which they could label as "terrorist" to "justify" aggression. Britain is backing the united states in Iraq. Unless the people in these imperialist countries stand up against the people in power and overthrow them, the imperialist nations could always be in a position to sabatoge significant movement in the "Third World."

I am not necessarily speaking of the poor capitalist countries like in Africa, Russia for example is "ripe" for revolution. But the Russian population would be alot more revolutionary if they saw the proletariat of another nation overthrowing the national bourgeois and creating a socialist state, that is the theory of socialism in one country, build socialism and "convince" other nations to join.

I am convinced that the people in the "third world" have had enough of being exploited, when they see 1 or 2 nations going socialist they will follow. Congo is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources, but in reality it is one of the poorest countries in the world, the "third world" which contains 90% of the world&#39;s population will rise and overthrow the global bourgeois.

Take the Marxist conception of class struggle within a state and use it globally, you see that the world is divided between proletarian and bourgeois nations, the proletarian nations have nothing to lose but their chains, the bourgeois nations on the other hand have a privileged lifestyle to lose.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism+--> (Marxism&#045;Leninism)The point of the vanguard is not to lead or control, but to guide the working class through revolutionary periods based on experience and the correct ideas of what is necessary to overthrow capitalism and fight for socialism. It is quite possible for the mass of people to arrive at some basic principles, of course or to arrive at the decision to take some sort of specific action but they don&#39;t come to these conclusions abstractly or independently. They reach them on the basis of discussion, of interaction and experience. They don&#39;t all come to realise the same identical decision independently of each other. If you go to a meeting or a strike or anything like that, you&#39;ll always find that maybe a single person raises the idea, or a small group and that on hearing this argument, most people might think "hey, they&#39;re right" or "that sounds like the right thing to do" and inevitability come to think about it for themselves and embrace it. That&#39;s the role of the vanguard and the "professional revolutionary", to be the one that puts forward that idea and win people over to it on the basis of respect for the idea, experiences and conclusions of that person or organisation, not to just impose it from above or outside the movement but to gain support for it within.[/b]

That&#39;s what Leninists always say...until they have state power.

Then they sing a very different tune.

The "leading role of the party" becomes sacred doctrine...like "papal infallibility". Which translates, of course, into the "leading role" of the...um, leaders and then, just the ***LEADER***.


"My theory" is based on a clear analysis of history and logic, all Marxist-Leninists ("Stalinists") must adhere to my theory, or they are doomed to fail again.

Sounds like you want to be the next "Joe".

Good luck. :lol:


Originally posted by BOZG+--> (BOZG)I&#39;ve still yet to see you or RedStar provide proof that every single democratic centralist organisation that exists or has existed inevitability led/leads to the party leadership deciding everything of substance. Until you can, I&#39;m not going to accept your argument.[/b]

Suit yourself. All the ones that I&#39;ve ever heard of ended up that way...but the detailed history of hundreds of such parties would take a lifetime to master.

I have better things to do with my time.


[email protected]
Considering the major parties which comprised the soviets - the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, and the SRs...

Yeah...that old excuse. The Bolsheviks "had" to take over the soviets because the other parties were all right-wing bastards.

Even if that "excuse" were valid, that doesn&#39;t change the material fact the the soviets became ceremonial bodies by the spring of 1918 before the civil war began.


How so?

The 10th Party Congress prohibited party members from organizing themselves on a platform of opposition to the existing party leadership. Afterwards, only the leaders of the party could argue in public about existing or future policy decisions.

This was actually a ratification of material reality; all the major decisions had been made "from the top" since the October 1917 coup.


Marxism&#045;Leninism
Take the Marxist conception of class struggle within a state and use it globally, you see that the world is divided between proletarian and bourgeois nations, the proletarian nations have nothing to lose but their chains, the bourgeois nations on the other hand have a privileged lifestyle to lose.

That is, nations "are classes."

This is indeed the borrowing of a "Marxist concept"...and the application of it in a totally un-Marxist way.

It&#39;s as if one were to say "the history of all hither-to existing societies is one of struggle between have and have-not nations".

You can find the idea in Lenin (much of Lenin&#39;s thought had little to do with Marxism).

The wackos in the Maoist Internationalist Movement also like the idea...a lot&#33;

Mickey-Maoism (http://redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083851178&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

It&#39;s a silly "idea".

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

That first quote is not mine.


Sounds like you want to be the next "Joe".

Good luck.

Not really, i just know i&#39;m right.


That is, nations "are classes."

This is indeed the borrowing of a "Marxist concept"...and the application of it in a totally un-Marxist way.


Imperialism has changed the class structure of imperialist nations from the pre-imperialist (Marx&#39;s) era, now you almost cant see the difference between a bourgeois and a normal "worker" in a imperialist nation, actually my views are very Marxist, they are straight Engels:

"The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable."

"You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.” (Engels expressed similar ideas in the press in his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, which appeared in 1892.)"

Sure there is a proletariat in imperialist nations, they are bourgeois proletariat, you could be right though, if you are saying the Engels was not a Marxist?


It&#39;s as if one were to say "the history of all hither-to existing societies is one of struggle between have and have-not nations".

You can find the idea in Lenin (much of Lenin&#39;s thought had little to do with Marxism).

The wackos in the Maoist Internationalist Movement also like the idea...a lot&#33;

Mickey-Maoism

It&#39;s a silly "idea".


Yeah i know, globalization is just a fantasy. :rolleyes:

[redstar2000]

Without diminishing the historical contributions of Engels in the least, it must nevertheless be recognized that he was a mortal man and thus made mistakes...just like all humans (including you :lol:).

Both Marx and Engels were frustrated by the seeming indifference to their ideas by the English working class (with a few notable exceptions). Lenin was similarly frustrated by the failure of the western European proletariat to come to the aid of his regime.

Naturally, all three sought a "materialist" explanation for this...and all three found it in the idea of "imperialist super-profit" and the "bribery of a labor aristocracy".

Unfortunately, while that may indeed be a "materialist" explanation...it&#39;s not a "Marxist" one.

There&#39;s no place in Marxist economics for "super-profits" except as a temporary aberration. Nor is there any place in Marxist economics for the capitalist class to ever "bribe" the working class. When "super-profits" exist, they go into the pockets of the capitalist class, period.

Consider the implications of the idea that the "northern" working class is an "aristocracy" that lives off the labor of the "southern" working class.

For one thing, it completely trashes the labor theory of value altogether. Wages depend not on the average social cost of the reproduction of labor, but on the whims of parts or all of the capitalist class and their successes or failures in the "global marketplace".

Successful imperialist ruling classes can, if they wish, pay more than their domestic workers are really worth (out of kindness or fear). "Northern" workers no longer produce surplus value at all -- they have become "bourgeoisie" or at least "petty bourgeoisie". All profits come from the "southern" working class.

You know what would happen if that were really true? The capitalists would move all of their productive operations to the "south"...the only people in the "north" who would have jobs would be executives and their servants (and a small service industry to meet their personal needs).

Eventually, even the headquarters would move...what would be the point in remaining inside the "north" and paying higher costs for stuff that&#39;s so much cheaper in the "south"?

In my opinion, there is a much more mundane explanation for the failures of the "western" working classes to develop revolutionary class consciousness up to this point: capitalism as a system is still expanding the means of production.

It is still growing; it has not yet reached (or only barely reached) its "peak".

Marx, Engels, and Lenin, impatient fellows all, thought capitalism had done as much as it was going to do in their lifetimes -- that the "final crisis" of capitalism was "at hand".

That was wrong.

I&#39;m impatient myself. It seems to me that capitalism in the "west" has "hit a wall" and that things are going to get worse for it from now on.

Even The Economist (in its latest survey of the U.S.) is concerned about widening class divisions and stratification...worrying if this will cause Americans to "give up on the American dream".

I think that is indeed going to happen...and that class consciousness in the "west" is as "low" now as it will ever be.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Holocaustpulp]

RedStar: "Yeah...that old excuse. The Bolsheviks &#39;had&#39; to take over the soviets because the other parties were all right-wing bastards. Even if that &#39;excuse&#39; were valid, that doesn&#39;t change the material fact the the soviets became ceremonial bodies by the spring of 1918 before the civil war began."

Call it what you want, but the Bolsheviks never "took over" the Soviets; rather, the other parties were ousted democratically by the Bolsheviks and their own unwillingness to participate in the worker&#39;s democracy. And I don&#39;t know what you mean by "ceremonial bodies" in the time frame of 1918 - while indeed the centralized government was busy combating the counterrevolutionaries, the Soviets still made thier domestic policies without intereference from the Kremlin and were fully democratic. Perhaps you are referring to the fact that, at that point in time, the Bolsheviks held the overwhelming majority of Soviets, which in reality is due to the peoples&#39; choice (as stated, all other parties had become reactionary), not government imposition. The Soviets only became "ceremonial bodies" and party stooges when the Bolshevik rightists (Stalin, et. al.) seized control of politics and flung the USSR into a fire.

"The 10th Party Congress prohibited party members from organizing themselves on a platform of opposition to the existing party leadership. Afterwards, only the leaders of the party could argue in public about existing or future policy decisions."

To clarify your sense of history, I invoke Ted Grant:

"At the time of Kronstadt, the relations between the Soviet state and the peasant masses reached an all-time low. The workers&#39; state did not exist in a vacuum, and was subject to the pressures of alien class forces expressing themselves through groups in the Party. It was this danger, that was heightened by the political monopoly of the Bolshevik Party, which led the 10th Party Congress in early 1921 to temporarily ban factions within the Party itself. This was a temporary measure brought in to deal with an exceptional situation, as Lenin made clear:

&#39;The banning of opposition in the Party,&#39; he said, &#39;results from the political logic of the present moment. Right now we can do without an opposition, comrades, it&#39;s not the time for it&#33; This is demanded by the objective moment, it is no use complaining. The present moment is one at which the non-party mass is subject to the kind of petty bourgeois wavering which in the present economic position of Russia is inevitable. We must remember that the internal danger is in certain respects greater than that which was threatened by Denikin and Yudenich*, and we must show unity not only of a nominal but of a deep, far-reaching kind. To create such unity we cannot do without a resolution like this.&#39; (Quoted by Roy Medvedev, On Socialist Democracy, pp. 62-3, emphasis in original.)

Moreover, Lenin favoured a flexible interpretation of this rule, and rejected all attempts to give it a wider application. When Ryazanov proposed that the elections to party congresses on the basis of factions be banned, Lenin opposed this: "I believe that comrade Ryazanov&#39;s proposal is, however unfortunate that may be, unrealisableÉ The present Congress cannot make binding decisions that would in any way affect elections to the next congress. If circumstances provoke fundamental disagreements, how can one forbid their submission to the judgement of the party as a whole? We cannot&#33;" (Ibid., p. 63, emphasis in original.)

As a matter of fact, despite the formal ban on factions, these still continued to operate in the Party after the 10th Congress. Lenin himself broke the rules, as A.I. Mikoyan recalls in his memoirs, where he recalls an incident at the time of the 10th Party Congress, when Lenin organised a strictly conspiratorial meeting of his faction for which invitation tickets were privately printed. Ironically it was Stalin who voiced the fear that the opposition might get wind of it and accuse them of factionalism, to which Lenin replied, with his customary good humour: &#39;What&#39;s this I hear from an old dyed-in-the-wool factionalist?&#39; (Ibid., note 16 on page 351.)

Lenin was afraid that, in a situation where there was only one party, the Communist Party might begin to reflect the pressures of alien classes, which could express themselves in factions and eventually a split on class lines. This would mean the overthrow of the Revolution, since, given the partial atomisation of the working class, it was only the Communist Party that guaranteed the existence of the workers&#39; state. However, under the given circumstances, this emergency measure which circumscribed the democratic rights of the Party membership increased the unhealthy bureaucratic tendencies within the Party. It was regarded as a "necessary evil" imposed upon the Party by harsh necessity. As soon as conditions eased, full democratic rights would be restored. But in fact, after Lenin&#39;s death what was intended as a temporary measure was made permanent through the manoeuvres of the triumvirate of Stalin, Kamenev and Zinoviev as part of their struggle against Trotsky. This was a violation of the whole historical tradition of Bolshevism, which was steeped in democracy."

1921 was at the end of the Civil War, and this measure wasn&#39;t even very effective nor did it really hinder government (Central and Soviet government) activity. Only after Lenin&#39;s death did the Soviets loose all hope of becoming full democratic once more.

"This was actually a ratification of material reality; all the major decisions had been made &#39;from the top&#39; since the October 1917 coup."

Actually, the Bolshevik workers had wanted to stage a revolution before Lenin and other vanguard leaders did (June strike). The choice of revolution was that of the people: they were the ones who fought off the bourgeois Kerensky regime, who established the Soviets, who caused peace and liberated land. A Leninist party only exists to promote the general worker&#39;s revolution, and is not there to dictate policy afterward. Material reality hindered the Soviets in that it the Whites caused Russia to significantly deteriorate, yet the fact that the bourgeois traitors crossed lines to side with the Tsarists and imperialists was a subjective choice.

Why do you wish to slander one of the greatest events ever performed in history?

- Holocaustpulp

[redstar2000]

The Soviets only became "ceremonial bodies" and party stooges when the Bolshevik rightists (Stalin, et. al.) seized control of politics and flung the USSR into a fire.

Yes...this is the Trotskyist "gospel" -- that everything was terrific under Lenin and Trotsky...but then Lenin had a stroke and Trotsky was outmaneuvered by the perfidious Stalin.

I do not find this to be even remotely credible.


Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)&#39;The banning of opposition in the Party,&#39; he said, &#39;results from the political logic of the present moment. Right now we can do without an opposition, comrades, it&#39;s not the time for it&#33; This is demanded by the objective moment, it is no use complaining. The present moment is one at which the non-party mass is subject to the kind of petty bourgeois wavering which in the present economic position of Russia is inevitable. We must remember that the internal danger is in certain respects greater than that which was threatened by Denikin and Yudenich*, and we must show unity not only of a nominal but of a deep, far-reaching kind. To create such unity we cannot do without a resolution like this.&#39;[/b]

Actually, the best you can do from this excerpt is infer that Lenin thought this a "temporary measure".

There&#39;s no specific time limit in those measures; nothing that says they "must" be renewed by the next party congress; no "sunset clause".

Moreover, his reasoning really sucks. How was it possible for the party to have at least some degree of internal democracy throughout the civil war itself...only to have to "stop it" when the civil war was winding down?


Originally posted by Ted [email protected]
Lenin was afraid that, in a situation where there was only one party, the Communist Party might begin to reflect the pressures of alien classes, which could express themselves in factions and eventually a split on class lines. This would mean the overthrow of the Revolution, since, given the partial atomisation of the working class, it was only the Communist Party that guaranteed the existence of the workers&#39; state.

Well, sure&#33; If only one party is allowed legal existence, then class struggle moves inside that party. Do you imagine that a set of "rules" stops that from happening or even delays it?

What was the NEP if not "the line of the peasantry" within the Communist Party? Going back to 1918, what was "one-man management" if not "the line of the bourgeoisie" within the party?

It ought to be pretty easy for people to see the Trotskyist variant of Leninism at work here: if Lenin or Trotsky did something "bad"...then it was because "objective conditions forced them" to do it, a "temporary retreat" from their "high-minded" principles.

Stalin did "bad things" because he was "just plain evil".

If you want to summon objective conditions to the defense of Lenin and Trotsky...fine. But then you can&#39;t rule such conditions "out of order" when Stalin&#39;s apologists do likewise.

I, of course, put objective conditions primary in the case of the entire history of the USSR -- no villains at all. Just a bunch of guys trying their best to preserve the political fiction of a "workers&#39; state" while making a bourgeois revolution.


Holocaustpulp
A Leninist party only exists to promote the general worker&#39;s revolution, and is not there to dictate policy afterward.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If a Trotskyist party happened to blunder into state power, you&#39;d change your tune faster than MTV.


Why do you wish to slander one of the greatest events ever performed in history?

Because, like Joe, I&#39;m "evil". http://www.websmileys.com/sm/evil/teu42.gif

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Social Greenman]

This is a good discussion on "democratic centralism." I do believe the original intent was honest and sincere of Lenin considering Russia was backwards with no indoor plumbing. I can understand why central planning was done. However, as the old saying goes...absolute power corrupts absolutely.

More to the point of my thread...One can see how children of the petite bourgeoisie can become future petite bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie generation after generation in capitalist countries. What Redstar2000 pointed out was that the children of the Russian elite vangaurd party became the stockholders of capitalist Russia due to the wealth that was procured from the working class over many years---Redstar2000 really made a good point on this. However, there was more to this considering the CPSU used a capitalist framework right from the start. An elitist party that called all the shots and a economic system that has the ability to generate profit was more than enough to reistate capitalism Kruvchev or not. When people are born into privlege they believe they have more rights than other people and one of those rights is feeling entitled to exploit profits from those they consider below them.

I do believe that Communist should abandoned "democratic centralism" for worker councils. Workers who would vote in or vote out managers. Workers in advance capitalist countries know how to process works orders and have those items delivered in a reasonable amount of time. There is no need for centralized planning. Expansion in each industry would be determined by personal and social needs of the population. In other words, the people will decide what is produced and distributed.

[BOZG]

Suit yourself. All the ones that I&#39;ve ever heard of ended up that way...but the detailed history of hundreds of such parties would take a lifetime to master.

I have better things to do with my time.

But that&#39;s my point, you don&#39;t know the internal workings of every Leninist organisation. Can you tell me anything about the internal organisation or decision making of my own organisation, the CWI? Until you can, then there&#39;s no basis to generalise on how democratic centralism inevitably develops.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BOZG
But that&#39;s my point, you don&#39;t know the internal workings of every Leninist organisation.

True, I don&#39;t. No one does.

I also don&#39;t know the internal workings of every church or every corporation or every military unit. No one else does either.

A great deal of our knowledge in social science comes, in one form or another, from sampling. We take a few examples and generalize from them.

And sometimes we get the right answer and sometimes our sample is deficient and we get the wrong answer.

But consider a Leninist party that was hypothetically "really democratic"...if such a party existed, would not its internal controversies be publicly visible?

Lenin&#39;s own party, before 1917, featured a good deal of controversy in its own press, right? And continued to do so throughout the civil war. After 1921, things began to deteriorate in that regard, right? There was still much heated debate in the Soviet press through the 1920s...but only the leaders took part. And much of it was "veiled" -- you had to be "in the know" to "read between the lines" and grasp who was really being criticized and why.

The Chinese Maoists were especially devious during the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution -- framing inter-party controversy in terms of classical figures from Chinese history.

If you look at the public press of the modern Leninist parties in the "west", do you get a sense of political life in those parties? Of struggle over "line"?

Or do they appear to be monolithic...just blocks of rock (and often pedestals as well).

The RCP in the U.S. has a message board in which they argue their line with non-RCPers...and sometimes you get "hints" of their internal life. But this is highly unusual -- most Leninist party sites are just like their press...completely opaque.

Remember that a Leninist party is supposed to be a combat organization...and combat organizations do not "discuss things" -- they carry out their orders. The "model" that Lenin was really working from in What Is To Be Done was the German General Staff...which enjoyed enormous prestige after Germany&#39;s victory over France in 1870. Lenin thought that his party should be "the general staff of the proletariat"...a highly-trained and professional officer corps of the larger revolutionary movement.

He and his heirs thought and still think that class struggle and revolution are "like" wars between nation-states and that classes are or should be organized in the same way.

That is why, I think, that Leninists are so appalled by working class spontaneity...it&#39;s so "unmilitary". Revolution is "not possible" without "iron discipline", etc.

And "good generals"...meaning themselves, of course. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[OleMarxco]

I think you got the whole "Leninist"-conspiracy wrapped up, there, don&#39;t cha&#33;? RedSta&#39;&#33; ;)

Actually, I don&#39;t think so. But perhaps close to. Even how much I loathe and hate the Leninist-model, I think we&#39;re still bein&#39; too hard on&#39;em. Weird for a "Lenin-hater" to say, huh? Y&#39;see, even how much I do not deny their strictness and militaritistics, what about their goodness? If they can be convinced to, shall we say, "loosen-up" a little, perhaps we will not be so quick to condemn them as un-revolutionaris and accept them into the fold with warmth? I think you should consider that line instead, mr. 2000. Even Lenin&#39;s have heart&#39;s, even&#39;tho they got one of cold-arse iron :wub:

[redstar2000]

Personal distaste does not really enter into my views -- some Leninists are "nice guys" and some are "iron-hearted" bastards...the latter usually found towards the top of party hierarchies.

Leninism is a paradigm...a "theory of everything" about proletarian revolution and communism.

Is it a "good" paradigm? Does it both explain things and guide one in effectively changing things?

It "looked good" for most of the last century...it "seemed" like it was "working".

And then it crashed and burned&#33;

The reason I argue so persistently with its remaining defenders is that I don&#39;t want to see them wasting their time when they might better be exploring alternatives to a failed paradigm.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Led Zeppelin]

Well, anarchism has never worked, so i don&#39;t know why you support them, the same could be said of Maoism and orthodox Marxism.

[JC1]

Personal distaste does not really enter into my views -- some Leninists are "nice guys" and some are "iron-hearted" bastards...the latter usually found towards the top of party hierarchies.

Leninism is a paradigm...a "theory of everything" about proletarian revolution and communism.

Is it a "good" paradigm? Does it both explain things and guide one in effectively changing things?

It "looked good" for most of the last century...it "seemed" like it was "working".

And then it crashed and burned&#33;

The reason I argue so persistently with its remaining defenders is that I don&#39;t want to see them wasting their time when they might better be exploring alternatives to a failed paradigm.


Then I suppose that Capital should have given up after the first repression of the european peastnryand taken a "Tryied once, Thats all she wrote." attitude ? It took Capital 1000 years to become the mode of production.

All im saying is ... give workers emancipation a chance.

[JC1]

Look at Ukrainian anarchism ( AKA Darfurism ) or Spanish Anarchism ( AKA Land Reformism ). Those padigrams "Crashed and burned" .

But you say this will; be a " Anarchist Century" ? No, I dont think so.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Marxism&#045;Leninism+--> (Marxism&#045;Leninism)Well, anarchism has never worked, so I don&#39;t know why you support them, the same could be said of Maoism and orthodox Marxism.[/b]

No, Maoism does work...once you grasp what it really is: a mobilization of the poor and middle peasantry to "clear the way" for a modern bourgeoisie in pre-capitalist or semi-capitalist colonies/neo-colonies.

The case for both anarchism and "orthodox" Marxism remains open. Anarchism did not "fail" in Spain...it was militarily crushed. Marxism did not "fail" in the Paris Commune...it was also militarily crushed.

Leninism rots from within. That&#39;s a big difference. Things are bad enough when a Leninist party is not in office; but the worst thing that can happen to a Leninist party is to be victorious and "seize state power".

A corrupt and arrogant bureaucracy emerges almost instantly. Lenin himself complained bitterly about it...to no avail.


JC1
All I&#39;m saying is ... give workers&#39; emancipation a chance.

I intend to -- the problem with Leninism is that it did not emancipate any workers.


But you say this will be an " Anarchist Century"? No, I don&#39;t think so.

I have not said this...but some anarchists do make this claim. I have an open mind on the subject...it may or may not be true.

Certainly anarchists have "the early lead" thus far...they are doing a lot more in the way of resistance to the despotism of capital than anyone else.

But there&#39;s a long way to go.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Social Greenman]

I must say I do admire Communist devotion and intelligence. I just wish that they would realise that "democratic centralism" was the rot at the root. I know that they point fingers at certain individuals in the past for the reason for the restoration of capitalism. However, the materialist conception of history would point out that others would have restored capitalism in Russia eventually over time. There was no other way around it since corruption at the top was already in full bloom. I do hope that the Communist will try new methods.