The Role of the Party

[MKS]

A Leftist party should act not as a leader of the people, like many Leninist, Maoist, and other Communist parties promote themselves as, rather they should act as an educator of the people and a servant of the people.

A Party should disseminate information, help organize protests and meetings and help their fellow workers with the struggle. There should be no hierarchy or centralized power structure. Power should be shared with the membership and the membership should never act for the people, only with the people.

What are your opinions and thoughts on a non-hierarchical Leftist Party? Is it possible to create and organization that acts with the people and not for the people, or above the people?


The key role of a Party should be the education and advancement of the movement.

[novemba]

party shchmarty.

unions or collections/affinity groups/organizations (etc) are the only way to go.

party infers leaders. leaders = eventual betreyal of the revolution.

[RASH chris]

Groups like that allready exist.

[Reds]

There should never be one party "in charge" but a broad movement of left partys as we see in venezula.

[MKS]

unions or collections/affinity groups/organizations (etc) are the only way to go

Whats the difference between a non-hierarchical Party and a Collection, or Union.
Also what si some people arent in unions or Collectives, shouldnt there be an organization for them?


There should never be one party "in charge" but a broad movement of left partys as we see in venezula.

No one proposed one party in charge. Anyways an amalgamation of parties will fail, because eventually they would end up fighting each other for power.

I am against most Leftist Parties, however I am a member of SPUSA, a Party I believe is one of the finest for dedicated Socialist/Leftists, as they are non-hierarchical and active.

[Reds]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:49 PM


No one proposed one party in charge. Anyways an amalgamation of parties will fail, because eventually they would end up fighting each other for power.

I am against most Leftist Parties, however I am a member of SPUSA, a Party I believe is one of the finest for dedicated Socialist/Leftists, as they are non-hierarchical and active.
spusa the democrats with less votes.

[RASH chris]

You're an SP-USA member? And you're talking about this stuff? Haven't you heard of the Direct Action Tendency. It is what you describe, it is a collection of anarchists and non-leninists within the SP.

[MKS]

And you're talking about this stuff? Haven't you heard of the Direct Action Tendency. It is what you describe, it is a collection of anarchists and non-leninists within the SP.

Im very aware of the Direct Action Tendancy.

However the ideal of a non-hierarchical Party or Organization in my opinion should be adopted by all Leftists who are serious about liberation, justice and equality.


spusa the democrats with less votes

Oh please, come up with something original. THe SPUSA is a great organization devoted to radical Democracy, social change and the destruction of Capitalism.

[RASH chris]

However the ideal of a non-hierarchical Party or Organization in my opinion should be adopted by all Leftists who are serious about liberation, justice and equality.

Such ideals are their own form of political ideology. If you believe such things then you are a council communist/autonomist marxist or something similar.

Are you in the DAT?

[MKS]

If you believe such things then you are a council communist/autonomist marxist or something similar

I am none of those things. Dont worry so much about titles. The fore mentioned ideals should be adopted by all Leftists who are serious about their objectives of an equal society.


Are you in the DAT?

I am not. Unfortunately my work schedule does not give me the freedom to be more active with the party. I attend meetings and other events.

[Reds]

my views tend to go more towrd the party for socialism and liberation than spusa when
it comes to political parties
http://socialismandliberation.org/PSLsite/


I agree that the point of the party is to educate rater than rule.

[RASH chris]

The fore mentioned ideals should be adopted by all Leftists who are serious about their objectives of an equal society.

Wow, thats a pretty heavy statement to make man. I mean, you're telling every Leninist, that they are completely and totally wrong. I think a diversity of ideas is healthy, we need lots of opinions so that we can struggle with them and try different things to see what works best. We shouldn't just shoot down every single idea but one. I mean, what happens if it fails?

[MKS]

I mean, what happens if it fails?

Leninism is a proven failure.


I think a diversity of ideas is healthy, we need lots of opinions so that we can struggle with them and try different things to see what works best

I agree. However we must guard against the establishment of new tyrannies that seek to replace the old ones. Like Leninism did in Russia, and Maosim in China.


I mean, you're telling every Leninist, that they are completely and totally wrong.

They (Leninists) are wrong.

[Led Zeppelin]

Leninism is a proven failure.


And what are you again? Orthodox Marxist?

Orthodox Marxism is a proven failure.

[YKTMX]

How many of you have actually read anything Lenin or Trotsky ever wrote? I'd guess fairly few.

I know if I reccomended something online or a book you would probably ignore it, so instead I'll try and lay out the basics, so that we can try and dispense the nonsensical anarchist truisms about the Leninist party:

First, Marx said that the ruling ideas of any society are the ideas of the ruling class. This is fundamental. Most workers most of the time accept these ideas - some may sway left or right, some have a "collection" of disparate or contrary views, but basically they accept these ideas almost without thinking.

The Leninist conception of the party is a response to this basic fact. What it says is that for those minority of workers who have broken with capitalism, not neccessarily completely towards Marxism, but who have nevertheless, in the course of the class struggle, come to reject ruling ideology, a party is needed. That is the starting point of the socialist party - a place were the class conscious workers can discuss and "solidify" their views - or, to use the jargon, become "cadreised".

The party runs along the lines of democratic centralism. Now, there is probably more bollocks written about democratic centralism than any other Marxist theory - some even blaming it for Stalinism!

The practice of democratic centralism basically says that everything in the political and economic world should be fully discussed within the party. When the party comes to its decision, the "line" taken is the "party line", which means that even those members who argued against the position taken need to publicly accept it. Now, this doesn't mean these people will be victimised or "brainwashed" to support that view, it just means they need to sumbit the will of the majority of their comrades. Obviously if they cannot then they are entitled to leave the party.

This is not a "totalitarian" blueprint. Think about the practice of unions, and particuarly strike action. If 66% of the union membership votes to withdraw its labour, then that motion is passed. Now, does the 33% who voted against strike action not have to strike as well? Of course they do, or the the strike would be completely ineffectual. This is "democratic centralism". Nothing more, nothing less.

You can accept this: or can read some anarchist fairytale about the "omnipotent" leader who terrorizes his genteel membership into accepting some ludicrous policy.

Secondly, Marx said that the emacipation of the working class is the act of the working class. The Leninist party, by organizing the most class conscious workers, along with other groups such as student, intellectuals etc, aims to give the class struggle focus - a revolutionary focus. This party should be the focus of the struggle, pushing it forward in times of vaccillation or compromise, always arguing that the revolution has to the act of the masses, not a dedicated few. This is revolutionary socialism.

We here much liberal nonsense about how there should be a "plurality" of views, or that imposing one's line is "dictatorial" - rubbish.

Our class has objective interests - that is, they are not subjective. When I say one thing and TAT says another, we're not both right. One of us is wrong.

Now, I'm not saying just because I've read Lenin that I have all the answers. But what I do think is that if you seriously want to change the world, then you have to adapt your thinking - think with clarity, conscious of what "their" ideas and interests are, and what "ours" are.

That is why we have the Leninist party.

[Vanguard1917]

Nicely summarised, YouKnowTheyMurderedX. Pay attention, people...

[Reds]

The problem with the vanguard is that the party becomes the new upper class I also think russia was the wrong place to test socialism so it my have been the fact of were lenin was rather than lenins ideas.

[MKS]

And what are you again? Orthodox Marxist?

Orthodox Marxism is a proven failure

No I am not an Orthodox Marxist. And I do agree Orthodox Marxism is a proven failure. However Leninism has been called a perversion of Marxism, and a hinderance on real Socialist idealogy.

Leninism/Bolshevism created a new oligarchy, a power structre which was responsible for the repression of revolutionary principles and theories during the early stages of the Russian Revolution. They fought against other Leftists in order to secure their power over the Russian people. This power structre morphed or evolved into the "Party" and thanks to Stalin exacted horrible atrocities upon the Russian people. Leninism, and the Communist Party acted against the people.

Any organization or party should act for the people and most importantly with the people. They should not sperate themselves from the masses, they should not promote leaders, but promote the advancement of the movement and aid in the liberation of the workers.