celticfire
24th October 2005, 12:43
In the Draft Programme (http://rwor.org/margorp/progtoc-e.htm), under the section "The Party Under Socialism, and the Transition to Communism"
The third paragraph states:
Under these circumstances, the leadership of the party will certainly be no less important than it was in the process of preparing for and then successfully waging a people’s war to seize power. But, in the new socialist society, the party will occupy the strategic positions of leadership in the government, the armed forces, the economy, and society as a whole—at the head of the proletariat in power. And further, within the party itself, there is the contradiction between leadership and the led: between the party leadership and the party members as a whole.
But, in the section "Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy and the Rights of the People" under Selection and Supervision of Leadership, it states:
In this context, elections will have a role as one means of selecting and developing leadership, and keeping it truly accountable to the masses. But the basic approach and objective will be to arrive at a consensus among the masses with regard to matters of leadership.
How will the Party ALWAYS occupy leading roles in society if there are elections - especially contested elections like Avakian has argued for? Will there just be "pre-determined" elections or what?
The third paragraph states:
Under these circumstances, the leadership of the party will certainly be no less important than it was in the process of preparing for and then successfully waging a people’s war to seize power. But, in the new socialist society, the party will occupy the strategic positions of leadership in the government, the armed forces, the economy, and society as a whole—at the head of the proletariat in power. And further, within the party itself, there is the contradiction between leadership and the led: between the party leadership and the party members as a whole.
But, in the section "Proletarian Dictatorship, Democracy and the Rights of the People" under Selection and Supervision of Leadership, it states:
In this context, elections will have a role as one means of selecting and developing leadership, and keeping it truly accountable to the masses. But the basic approach and objective will be to arrive at a consensus among the masses with regard to matters of leadership.
How will the Party ALWAYS occupy leading roles in society if there are elections - especially contested elections like Avakian has argued for? Will there just be "pre-determined" elections or what?