The Vanguard Party [Archive]

redstar2000

15th December 2005, 14:48

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
When advanced sections of the working class seek to organise in order to provide leadership for the rest of the working class, is this not a positive and vital step in the revolutionary process?

We don't know since it's never happened.

The leadership in the 20th century Leninist parties nearly all came from the middle and even upper classes. There might be a "token worker" here and there...but that was about it!

Then you have the problem of what it means to organize in order "to provide leadership".

How does it promote or develop proletarian initiative to say, in effect, follow me and I'll set you free!?

That's what all the vanguard parties say; the masses "must follow the party's leadership" or successful revolution "is impossible".

The problem with "leadership" is that it generates "followership"...in other words, servility.

Even if successful, what can such a relationship create but a new form of despotism?

I have to constantly repeat Marx's "dictum" -- you are what you do!

If you're a "leader", you come to think that "nothing worthwhile" can happen unless you personally oversee it. If you're a "follower", then you come to think that "it's better to wait and see what the leader wants me to do" rather than take any initiative yourself.

This whole "mode" of behavior is a fundamental characteristic of class society.

And bourgeois pseudo-science -- like "evolutionary biology" -- even argues that this behavior is "in our genes"...that we humans are "pack animals" (like wolves or baboons) and literally "cannot" do anything on an egalitarian basis. We "have" to have "leaders"...otherwise we are "paralyzed" and "cannot act".

Ok, do you think that's true?

Most Leninists do think that it's true...or at least assume that it's true without bothering to think about it.

One Leninist -- Bob Avakian -- actually did think about it. According to the RCP's "living Marx", this leadership/followership relationship is "not genetic" but rather a product of existing class society. But he quickly goes on to add that it will take "generations of party leadership" to "train the masses" to "stop behaving like servile followers".

He does not address the contradiction inherent in such an approach. How do you "train people not to be servile" when your first lesson is follow the party's leadership?

Perhaps it's a "dialectical mystery". :lol:

Today, we live in a period where the working class is depoliticised and disorganised - perhaps to a previously unprecedented level. Working class politics plays a very diminished role in society. At the same time, there is a consensus in society that there is no alternative to capitalism. Capitalist ideas reign supreme and are now undisputed. How will we confront this?

This is a "period of reaction"...no question about it!

But I think your picture is a little "too grim".

For one thing, the "capitalist consensus" is a bit ragged "around the edges". "Globalization" does not have a lot of "fans" these days. Imperialist wars and occupations are somewhat less popular than they used to be. Bourgeois politics are increasingly regarded as a cesspool of corruption. Class "mobility" is declining.

And one could go on.

I think a new revolutionary movement will emerge in this century. Politically, I expect it will involve a new synthesis of the best Marxist and anarchist ideas.

Most importantly, it will be overtly egalitarian as a matter of principle!

We, the workers of all the advanced capitalist countries, will simply no longer tolerate any pretense of despotism...not even from those who claim to be "enlightened" and "well-meaning".

Indeed, that conviction is an absolute prerequisite for a revolution that leads to communism.

Nothing less will do.

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

barista.marxista

15th December 2005, 15:41

We must also distinguish between different vanguards -- between a party that proclaims itself to be the vanguard, and between a party that becomes a vanguard through experience. For example, the RCP proclaims itself to be the vanguard, and hasn't earned it; they run around worshiping Avakian and setting up front groups. But how about the Black Panther Party? They didn't begin as a vanguardist group -- they began by feeding children free breakfasts. But through this bottom-up growth, from experience, they became the closest thing to an efficient and authentically Marxist vanguard group that the US has seen. The leadership there wasn't self-assigned, it was earned. Fred Hampton, Mumia Abu-Jamal, Huey P. Newton -- they became leaders through their actions, not through declaring themselves as leaders. If a vanguard party was such, as the BPP, becoming vanguardist through experience and through popular support, if that was able to be continued, could it be efficiently revolutionary, and capable to build socialism? It combines centralized efficiency with the bottom-up structure of Marxism.

This has been something I've been thinking about a lot lately. Glad to see it here.

redstar2000

15th December 2005, 16:21

Originally posted by barista.marxista
But how about the Black Panther Party? They didn't begin as a vanguardist group -- they began by feeding children free breakfasts. But through this bottom-up growth, from experience, they became the closest thing to an efficient and authentically Marxist vanguard group that the US has seen. The leadership there wasn't self-assigned, it was earned.

I cannot, of course, comment on the proposition that the "road to the vanguard" is social work.

But the leadership of the Black Panther Party was always self-assigned...the BPP never held even one convention of its membership.

Instead, it operated like a "franchise". The national leadership would send someone to a locality to organize a chapter. Orders came down from the top and were carried out locally. If controversies arose among the leadership, they were resolved by expulsion.

The ordinary BPP member was a "soldier"...that's all. It was neither expected nor desired that he (and it was almost always "he") should learn to think politically.

This is indeed typical of "vanguard parties"...but I think, if anything, even worse than the average "track record" of such groups.

I once actually attempted to have a political conversation with two local BPP "soldiers"...and not only were they "not interested" but actually became hostile.

To this day, I don't know if it was simply because I was a white guy...who was "just supposed to shut up and be supportive". Or if it reflected the general tone of "political" life in the BPP -- everyone is supposed to shut up and follow the leadership!

In any event, I think your evaluation of the BPP is far more favorable than their actual practices justify.

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

enigma2517

15th December 2005, 16:37

Organization is certainly one thing but the character it takes on can vary quite a bit.

Political parties are and always will be a tool of the bourgeosie.

Its not wrong to say that we should have "centers" for developing communist thought for instance.

The best organization can come from raising class consciousness. Many of the people on this board have come to very similar conclusions about the necessity to get rid of capitalism, and most of us aren't in any sort of "party".

Of course theres always going to be more advanced sectors of the working class. If their ideas are in fact correct ones it would reflect on society and become observable, empircal data. People would voluntarily organize to reflect those ideas. "Leadership" would be an earned position. People listen to you because they have thought about what you have said and it makes sense.

Theres nothing wrong with having a revolutionary group of say students and workers that are a radical core and serve the purpose of agitating everybody else. However, such a group can only operate and organize on horizontal/libertarian methods.

The means definetely determine the ends.

anomaly

15th December 2005, 22:41

The age of the vanguard party is over. And every vanguard party of the past failed. Our brave leaders, they failed us! Oh, how could this be true? They were, after all, very deserving of their status and oh so wise!

Well, were they? And are any leaders of the quality neccesary to actually lead a revolution? I think not. Leninists, a century ago, actually did think this, as Redstar pointed out. But it turns out they were wrong. Now it seems a perfect time to move on, and get away from such vertical, refressive political structures. Indeed, no leadership, really, is needed.

However, Engma makes a rather good point. A group of radicals completely committed to the cause and serving the role of 'catalyst' is perfectly fine. The trouble comes when we give them any real, tangible power. No leader who has attained such power has ever been one to simply give it up at any point in time. This, I think, severely damages the Leninist argument of a need of leadership, so long as this leadership is 'morally good' and 'perfectly willing' to 'give up' its power when the time comes. This will not happen. It never has happened in the past.

But, indeed, there must be some sort of catalyst. I am simply not so faithful as to believe the revolution will spring up overnight spontaneously. And, also true, this catalyst need not even be man; it could simply be an act. But something must 'ignite' the revolutionary cause, so to speak.

Jimmie Higgins

15th December 2005, 23:21

But, indeed, there must be some sort of catalyst. I am simply not so faithful as to believe the revolution will spring up overnight spontaneously. And, also true, this catalyst need not even be man; it could simply be an act. But something must 'ignite' the revolutionary cause, so to speak.Because workers are just drones all wound up all the time and waiting for someone to stand on a box and say, ok, I decided the revolution should start now?

The Twin Towers attack should have dispelled any illusions in the "propaganda of the deed". The towers came down and made a shock much bigger than all the actions of the Weathermen Underground and the black bloc combined. So what was the responce to this cataclysmic event? Did people draw revolutionary conclusions that the actions of the US government and imperialism can come back and destroy the lives of workers who had no role in policy making and so on in a very real and direct way?

No, the response was reaction. The response was initially solidarity with new yorkers just as the initial response to the Katrina and Tsunami disasters were. But the absense of any real visable left opposition led to cynacism and to "pratical" responses like doing what the Democrat and Republican politicians want so they can "protect us".

People draw radical conclusions all the time but in the absence of any organization, these ideas float into nothingness and cynasim. This is why I think organization is important for us.

Vangaurdism in the sense meaning we need to build a party to replace the capitalist assholes at the top (weather this means electorially, or through gurella struggle, or coup) is always a bad idea because we would simply be substituting one set of leaders for another. Is vangaurdism in the sense of creating organizations of radicals with the intent of grassroots struggle and real workers power a bad idea? I think it is an essential idea.

Let's look at this from a class perspective. Do capitalist parties take power from the capitalist ruling class? THey have no need to nor do they have the ability to. If a revolution by workers happens and workers really take over factories and workplaces, then no party can take power away from us.

anomaly

15th December 2005, 23:39

Yes, I largely agree, but do you honestly think workers will spontaneously revolt? Again, there must be some sort of catalyst. Look at the riots in Paris recently. The catalyst was the supposed killing of the boy by the police. It set off events. I don't know whether such 'organizations' will prove neccesary. Workers may simply look upon one and all as allies and capitalists as the enemy. This is, however, a very decentralized idea, and so I would not oppose it, probably. But that is the idea: if we must have some sort of official organizations, then they should be as decentralized as possible.

YKTMX

15th December 2005, 23:41

How exciting, another thread about this. Full of people regurgitating sub-Chomsky "knowledge" about Lenin and the Bolsheviks.

Oh well, the struggle continues! :lol: Firstly, Red:

The leadership in the 20th century Leninist parties nearly all came from the middle and even upper classes. There might be a "token worker" here and there...but that was about it!

As I've said before, this is a natural and inevitable outcome resulting from the division of labour and the neccessity of politics.

It's like saying, 'many capitalists have noted that a high number of the people on their shopfloor come from the working classes'.

Totally meaningless.

like "evolutionary biology" -- even argues that this behavior is "in our genes"...that we humans are "pack animals" (like wolves or baboons) and literally "cannot" do anything on an egalitarian basis. We "have" to have "leaders"...otherwise we are "paralyzed" and "cannot act".

Ok, do you think that's true?

Given your belief that the propensity to rape lies in the genes, the important question is do you?

One Leninist -- Bob Avakian -- actually did think about it.

Avakian is not representative at all. His is not even a Leninist, he's a Maoist - which anyone who's serious knows is a diffirent thing altogether.

Marmot

Most of your post was crap, but this in particular

The concept of a vanguard heavily relies on individuals, therefore if the individuals fucks up, everybody is fucked.
Not that I was ever a fan of Lenin, but this proves my point about vanguards.

History doesn't work anything remotely like that. It's not the case that if 'somebody else' had taken over in the Soviet Union, everything would have been great. It's not even the case that if Soviet Power had been magically fully restored and the bureaucrats defeated, it would have been better either. The Soviet Union was engulfed in counterrevolution because of events outwith the control of any Russian.

And yes, I know Stalin was Georgian. He was also a fucking peasant, now what does that tell you.

Indeed, no leadership, really, is needed.

I agree. Why don't we all go an mass-flower sniffing singalong and then we can try and persuade the people in the pentagon to 'give up their guns'. Surely they'll see how nice and democratic we are with our 'horizontal' political structures, and quickly cede power to the waiting masses.

Lovely.

Jimmie Higgins

16th December 2005, 00:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:39 PM
Yes, I largely agree, but do you honestly think workers will spontaneously revolt? Again, there must be some sort of catalyst. Look at the riots in Paris recently. The catalyst was the supposed killing of the boy by the police. It set off events. I don't know whether such 'organizations' will prove neccesary. Workers may simply look upon one and all as allies and capitalists as the enemy. This is, however, a very decentralized idea, and so I would not oppose it, probably. But that is the idea: if we must have some sort of official organizations, then they should be as decentralized as possible.
THe riots in Paris is a perfect example of what I was talking about. If people had been organizing around this building anger, then they could have been much more effective and been able to create a sustained struggle rather than a momentary (although impressive and an extrodinarily long moment) burst of class anger which then fizzled out.

I have a comrade who was a member of a gang in LA when the 92 uprising happened and he said he became a radical because he thought how could the system have withstood such an uprising and how can the cops still get away with exacuting kids on the street after that? Additionally I have met several people who were in LA at that time and were in some way involved in the uprising and they all thought, why didn't we riot in Beverly Hills or take the riot downtown to the country jail and government buildings.

Why didn't this happen? In my opinion it is because spontinaity is both a strength and a weakness. It's strength is showing other workers that regular people can attempt change. It's weakness is that it has no way of implementing change.

I don't think we need groups to go around telling us how bad things are, we already know that. What we need parties for is giving an organized presence to the anger that is already there.

"Leaders" arn't bad, followers are bad. We don't need any so-called leaders that want a bunch of followers. What we need is a whole generation all of leaders.

I also agree that we should be wary of any self-proclamed vangaurd party. If there is one vangaurd at the time of the revolution (personally I think with all the political history since the Russian Revolution there will be several major organizations both marxist and anarchists at the forefront... i.e. the vangaurd), then it will be the workers who decide this by deciding that the parties tactics and politics are worthy enough to be acted apon.

black magick hustla

16th December 2005, 03:42

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:41 PM

History doesn't work anything remotely like that. It's not the case that if 'somebody else' had taken over in the Soviet Union, everything would have been great.

And yes, I know Stalin was Georgian. He was also a fucking peasant, now what does that tell you.

Lovely.
What?

I never said that if another person would have taken the role of Stalin, the URSS could have become socialist, that is mostly impossible-

I was just using one of ML's argument as an example, thats all.

It's not even the case that if Soviet Power had been magically fully restored and the bureaucrats defeated, it would have been better either. The Soviet Union was engulfed in counterrevolution because of events outwith the control of any Russian.

It is not about the control of "any russian". I am not a fucking authoritarian, nor a vanguardist. Sorry if you misunderstood my post.

If the mayority of the russians really had possesion over the means of production, and really wanted socialism, no movement of "counter revolution" would have crushed them. I don't think russian workers who really had control over factories or their land would have just given their possesions away.

Remember we are talking about the Russian Revolution, where at that time, there weren't methods of killing as efficient as lets say, in Spain in the 1936. Their weren't lots of planes or lots of automatic weapons. An angry mob at that time was much more dangerous than today.

Who the fuck cares if stalin came from peasantry. He became a bureacrat later, leaving his "peasantry" lable.

red_che

16th December 2005, 04:02

I have to constantly repeat Marx's "dictum" -- you are what you do!

But Marx did not limit it to that.

It is true that being determines consciousness. But, it is always probable and possible to make changes. That is why, after all, there is a revolutionary movement in order to make a change, and a radical, revolutionary change at that.

Now, in the contradiction between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, there is always the need for an organization for either side. The bourgeoisie, having the political power and machinery of the state, is on the upper hand, so far.

The proletariat, on the other hand, is on the lower side of this contradiction, also so far. But having with us a well-organized, disciplined organization, i.e., political party, we can win the struggle.

Now, as the law of uneven development dictates, there is always a section of the proletariat that will arise as more advanced, more class-consciouss and more determined. This section have the upper hand in understanding the course of the struggle of the entire proletarian class. They shall constitute the advanced, vanguard section of the proletarian party.

Of course, again, redstar, you may say this is idealist. You can always say it again and again until your face gets blue, but I will insist that in understanding material conditions of society, there is always an advanced section of it that would arise, that is a material fact.

redstar2000

16th December 2005, 04:26

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX+--> (YouKnowTheyMurderedX)As I've said before, this is a natural and inevitable outcome resulting from the division of labour and the necessity of politics.[/b]

Bob Avakian says the same thing.

So do, in effect, all Leninists.

It "just so happens" that the "division of labor" supposedly "requires" that the self-anointed "leaders" of the working class are not workers themselves.

How convenient for those in the middle and upper classes perceptive enough to see "the writing on the wall" and "switch sides" before the flames of revolution devour their class.

They may not get to acquire as much wealth as they would have under capitalism, but at least they get to retain and even enhance their social status.

If they rise to the very highest ranks in the Vanguard Party, they even get to see their own pictures plastered on the walls.

It "beats the hell" out of actually working at a real job! :lol:

Given your belief that the propensity to rape lies in the genes...

Lie! :angry:

[Avakian] is not even a Leninist, he's a Maoist - which anyone who's serious knows is a different thing altogether.

Yes, in your "private universe", the only "real" Leninists are Trotskyists...and not even all of them. :lol:

In the real world, Maoists are just as much Leninists as all the other versions, including all the versions of Trotskyism.

As noted above, you and Avakian both agree on the "necessity" of non-workers "leading workers".

And you both have the same excuse: the "division of labor requires it".

Both of you should wear Adam Smith t-shirts when you go out in public. :lol:

Gravedigger
What we need is a whole generation all of leaders.

This would be regarded as a "utopian expectation" by all of the variants of Leninism.

It was, however, something of a "spontaneous" idea in the old Students for a Democratic Society (SDS)...when the media first began asking to speak with "our leaders", the response was "we're all leaders here".

I don't mean to imply that SDS was "perfectly egalitarian" or anything like that. But equality among people in the movement was a "core value" and even an integral part of our "core message".

We were not really sophisticated enough to develop this insight into a well-rounded revolutionary theory back then. The best we had were rather fuzzy notions of "participatory democracy" and a slogan: "Let the People Decide!"

Well, that happens. We were "ahead of our time" by a wide margin.

But I think that in this century, things will be different.

One reason is that the Leninists have lost their main strength. They used to be able to boast: "our way really works!" Now such a claim is met with scornful laughter.

How we will organize ourselves as a revolutionary proletariat still remains to be determined...there are a lot of complex variables that must be considered in order to "get it right".

But those who come to this board with faded xerox copies of old Leninist formulas are simply "farting in the wind".

No different, really, than if someone came here and suggested a revolutionary organization based on the principles of a "renaissance faire". :lol:

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

red_che

16th December 2005, 04:38

C'mon redstar. You are not refuting any argument. You are just an arrogant, name-dropping, character assassinating, idealist, retrogressive man. You are not making any progressive comment.

Raisa

16th December 2005, 06:14

I dont compeletely attest to the idea of "a" vanguard, but shit isnt never gonna be as simple as 1917 again and we got to accept it. We in a new era. It aint gonna be easy as winning cuba, it aint gonna be nothing you ever seen before. The struggle is so complicated, demonstrations newspapers and even good ole fashioned guerilla tactics and all this old shit just isnt cutting it.

Living in the past the future shows up like an expected party guest

redstar2000

16th December 2005, 08:42

Originally posted by red_che
It is true that being determines consciousness. But, it is always probable and possible to make changes.

It would be more accurate to say that consciousness changes as a consequence of the changes that take place in "being".

The "being" of the working class changes as capitalism becomes more and more a "high tech" society that actually depends more and more on proletarian initiative to remain functional.

The worker as "mindless robot" is no longer "enough" to make a "high-tech" society work.

Accordingly, the working class will come to realize that it is they who "make things run"...and will come to perceive the capitalist class as an obstacle to further economic development.

Or, as Marx put it, the "relations of production" have become "fetters" on the further development of the "means of production".

This is all terra incognito to Maoists, of course. To them, consciousness is something that you can "manufacture" according to your own "specifications".

I will tell people that they should behave like "new socialist people" and they'll do that...because I'm "the red sun in their hearts". :lol:

Now, as the law of uneven development dictates, there is always a section of the proletariat that will arise as more advanced, more class-consciouss and more determined.

No doubt. But it beats me why you think that's going to help you.

Leninists always measure "advancement" as "willingness to join our party or at least follow it".

The lot of the "western" Maoist is "not a happy one"...and there's worse in store.

C'mon redstar. You are not refuting any argument. You are just an arrogant, name-dropping, character assassinating, idealist, retrogressive man. You are not making any progressive comment.

Since I was unfortunately not granted the genius of Marx, I do at least have one thing in common with that mighty thinker: the abuse of ignoramuses. :lol:

That's not so bad. :P

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

infidel

16th December 2005, 10:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 12:00 PM

Firstly: How do we define a vanguard party?
why do we attach negative connotations to the concept of leadership? Does a vanguard party mean that the working class will be led by a handful of individuals? Or can it, in fact, refer to a section of the working class itself? When advanced sections of the working class seek to organise in order to provide leadership for the rest of the working class, is this not a positive and vital step in the revolutionary process?

why do we say that the vanguard can play no role in 21st century society?

A vanguard party has been defined in many ways in near and long past, but ultimately no one worked. Everyone of them has been converted in to a bullish machinery supporting the state capitalism and dictatorship of the rogue instead of dictatorship of the proletariet.

Leadership based on representation and transformed into the form of establishment is always negative, as it is in all the stratified social system. And it is so in the socialist structure too, as it undermines the mass initiative and thereby encouraging individual authoritarianism.

Ya, you are right. A vanguard party means that the workingclass would be led by a handful of individual. And that's why you should resist any move like that in anywhere in this world with your might

Well revolutionary process has two distinctive stages. The pre and post.In the prerevolutionary process the so called advance section (Elite working class!!!) reamins revolutionary no doubt but after the pre revolutionary period(thogh it is not actually the post revolutionary period as mere transfer of power in the hand of the working class doesn't signify the end of the revolution. The socialist restructuring is also a part of it.) this section becomes the main nightmare of the rest of the working class. In this poor earth this section of the working class is the main culprit for whom all the efforts to construct the socialism has gone wrong ever since.

We say that - the vanguard can play no role in 21st century- because we simply dont want to do the same mistake again. Atleast now we have a history of wrong doings from what we can learn.

YKTMX

16th December 2005, 15:01

Bob Avakian says the same thing.

Avakian would agree with you on lots of things, what's your point?

It "just so happens" that the "division of labor" supposedly "requires" that the self-anointed "leaders" of the working class are not workers themselves.

OK, I'll explain this one more time for those who aren't, don't wish to, pay attention.

Any political movement, whether it be bourgeois, Leninist, capitulationist or whatever, requires full time members. These members will write and print leaflets, organise meetings, organise agitation, create the literature etc. If any party (or whatever phrase you like) is serious about wanting to overthrow the capitalist state, it needs to organise its forces to that end, yes?

These 'professional revolutionaries' will therefore not be workers - because they are not involved in the process of capitalist production. Really, this is Marxist economics 101, and people of intelligence can't grasp it, I have to think they don't wish to. Unless it's RedStar's plan to create more hours in the day. Astrophysics is a Leninist invention! :lol:

Now, someone who has been raised working class may take these positions, sure. It is more likely, however, that workers will not - they have to contend with things like paying the bills and providing food. It is therefore likely, not for certain, that these positions will be filled by a certain class of people - the intellegentsia. I believe that in the case of this strata, subjective factors (ideology) can 'balance out' objective factors (class).

That is, even if a person is nominally not proletarian, they can immerse themselves to such a degree in the workers struggle, that they become 'of the movement'. The anti-capitalist intellegentsia is not, I don't believe, involved in capitalist production. They are not 'wedded to the system' like the petty-bourgeoisie or the technocrats.

Example? Marx and Engels.

Completely bourgeois characters. Did their 'being' determine their 'consciousness'? Not, not totally, thank god. Their consciousness was determined by, yes, their class, but also by their subjective rational scientific enquiry (their Marxism). If 'being' determines consciousness at all times, and totally, then as soon as Engels found out Marx was writing Capital, he would have had him shot - since the end of capitalism contradicted Engels' (as a capitalist) 'class interests'. But, we know this is not the case, because it's simply not reasonable to say that for individuals, they cannot 'overcome' their class backgrounds.

Now, is RedStar, or any other capitulationist willing to refute this, or are you just content with making glib gestures about 'party despotism'?

I suspect not. Any serious answer would reveal that his 'ideas' (prejudiced ramblings) are based not on reality but his own inventions'.

In the real world, Maoists are just as much Leninists as all the other versions, including all the versions of Trotskyism

OK, you're taking anti-rational, post-modern position here. Everybody is anything they say there are. There are no 'truths' (except when you say there is, of course). I don't want to rehash the arguments about whether Stalin and Mao were 'Leninist' - just to say that if they were, then they were also Marxist. And if they were also Marxist, then Marxism is a stinking corpse and we may as well all go home right now.

redstar2000

16th December 2005, 20:39

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Any political movement, whether it be bourgeois, Leninist, capitulationist or whatever, requires full time members....

These 'professional revolutionaries' will therefore not be workers - because they are not involved in the process of capitalist production....

Now, someone who has been raised working class may take these positions, sure. It is more likely, however, that workers will not - they have to contend with things like paying the bills and providing food. It is therefore likely, not for certain, that these positions will be filled by a certain class of people - the intelligentsia. I believe that in the case of this strata, subjective factors (ideology) can 'balance out' objective factors (class).

This is a succinct and, I think, accurate summary of the Leninist "case" for a Party despotism.

I think every Leninist would agree with this.

You see, proletarian revolution is a matter for experts...only people who've spent their lives as part of a political apparatus really "know what to do".

Having a "regular job" would just "interfere" with the acquisition of this "expertise"...so they must be paid a salary to devote all their energies to "building the Party".

"When the Party wins power", it is these "full-timers" who will move into all the traditional seats of government -- which will all be preserved in form if not necessarily in name.

It all sounds so "reasonable", doesn't it? Just a simple extension of what we already have now.

The working class works and the middle and upper class professionals manage.

And note carefully the crucial idealist assumption at the heart of Leninism: consciousness must determine being for these professional "managers" of revolution and post-revolutionary society.

Otherwise, everything turns to shit. :(

Leninists, if challenged on this, will retort that "if Marx and Engels could do it, why can't our whole Party do it?".

That is, they take two unique individuals and "predict" that a successful Leninist Party -- which may have millions of members -- can replicate that on a massive scale.

Just as contemporary bourgeois ideologues solemnly assure us that anybody could be the next "Bill Gates" or "Sam Walton"...if they just tried hard enough!.

If Marx was right, then the Leninist scenario is flatly impossible.

The Leninists, whose "legitimacy" is based on Marx's borrowed reputation, must make it clear that Marx was "wrong" without actually saying so.

But a careful reading of Lenin and all his heirs makes it clear that they do think Marx was wrong.

Well, was he? Can consciousness really "determine" being? On a measurable scale in the course of history?

Obviously "being" does not operate with "100% efficiency" in determining "consciousness". There are lots of "micro-causes" in the histories of any given individual that affect, to one extent or another, their "overall" outlook on life.

Individual genius, for example, can be one of those "micro-causes"...allowing some rare individuals to see somewhat "beyond" their own class/national/ethnic/cultural horizons.

The perceptible decay of their own class can be another such "micro-cause". A few of the French aristocrats of the "enlightenment" period were aware that "things could not go on like this"...and began to formulate a "proto-bourgeois" ideology without any idea that that was what they were actually doing.

In our era, only fascist ideology has openly proclaimed the idea that "consciousness determines being" on a grand scale. Given sufficient will, anything may be accomplished!

But this is a "thread" that runs through all forms of bourgeois ideology...including Leninism.

Leninism itself was a product of the "Russian enlightenment"...the cultural ferment among dissident members of the Russian aristocracy during the last half of the 19th century. The "westernizers" fought a fierce "war of ideas" against the "asiatics" -- reactionary defenders of Czarist despotism and Eastern Orthodoxy. Lenin himself "grew up" in this atmosphere and his older brother was actually hanged by the Czar.

Lenin read from this dissident literature as a youth...literature that emphasized the power of the revolutionary will. The "revolutionary virtues" were self-sacrifice, dedication, single-mindedness, absolute discipline, secrecy, etc.

Lenin turned towards revolutionary politics as a direct consequence of the murder of his brother by the old regime. What more natural than the fact that he brought with him all that he had already learned?

In time he learned to "westernize" his language -- from law school (a "hotbed" of "westernizers") and then from a few of the earliest Russian Marxists and their German "mentors".

But beneath the "language of Marxism" was always a proto-bourgeois "mind-set" that envisioned future society as an "enlightened despotism" by a small group of "wise men".

Being did determine consciousness, in Lenin's case as well as that of nearly all of his heirs.

So where does that leave us? Is it possible that ordinary working people with ordinary jobs and all the cares and stresses of ordinary life can nevertheless develop revolutionary consciousness and nevertheless effectively organize themselves and nevertheless overthrow the capitalist class and nevertheless proceed immediately to the construction of a working communist society?

All the "Wisdom of the Ages" says no. All the "Great Philosophers" say no. All the bourgeois "social scientists" say no.

And all the Leninists -- the "Revolutionary Experts" -- join in the chorus: NO!

The voice of Marx is nearly drowned out in all the thunderous denials. He was the very first to suggest that a different answer to this question was not only "possible" but historically inevitable.

And "maybe" he was wrong...perhaps despotism and servility really are "in our genes".

But I don't think so. I think Marx was right...and history will vindicate him before this century is over.

We'll see what happens. :)

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

More Fire for the People

16th December 2005, 22:17

How do we define a vanguard party?
A vanguard is the group that carries out the beginning of change. A vanguard party would be a political party that brings about a significant political change through militant measures.

Why do we attach negative connotations to the concept of leadership?
To an extent, leadership is natural but leadership doesn't entail hierarchy. A leader inspires and is a teacher — like a Neanderthal learning to fish shoes his other tribe members, he leads but doesn't not possess authority. We however are accustomed to leadership in dual existence with authority, and the way society has evolved leadership will posses authority. The vanguard-leadership however must enact leadership in a popular manner. All leaders must be directly elected and be recallable by the electors.

Does a vanguard party mean that the working class will be led by a handful of individuals?Or can it, in fact, refer to a section of the working class itself?
No. A vanguard is composed of as many workers as possible. A mass movement is impossible but a centralised Blanquist-style vanguard can only result in a capitalism that is "not capitalism".

When advanced sections of the working class seek to organise in order to provide leadership for the rest of the working class, is this not a positive and vital step in the revolutionary process?
It is, the vanguard party organizes the masses into a revolutionary group it is creating a positive environment.

Finally: why do we say that the vanguard can play no role in 21st century society?
Because we think vanguard = Leninism. We think of vanguards as organized under democratic centralism. In my opinion, if we are to save socialism we must abandon democratic centralism — we cannot permit the Leninst mistake again!

red_che

17th December 2005, 05:42

It would be more accurate to say that consciousness changes as a consequence of the changes that take place in "being".

Uh huh...

The "being" of the working class changes as capitalism becomes more and more a "high tech" society that actually depends more and more on proletarian initiative to remain functional.

Okay...

The worker as "mindless robot" is no longer "enough" to make a "high-tech" society work.

That's true...

Accordingly, the working class will come to realize that it is they who "make things run"...and will come to perceive the capitalist class as an obstacle to further economic development.

Then, when would that consciousness be finally realized by the proletariat? When they're becoming extinct because more and more of them are dying due to hunger and misery? When they're already replaced by those automated robotic machines? So, you mean to say that we shall wait for that condition before we say "that now it is time for us to act"?

Definitely not!!

I say, now is the time for the proletariat to act. The degree of exploitation and misery of the proletariat today is at levels incomparably far and worse from, let's say 1789, or the start of 20th century. We can't wait 'till millions of proletariat would die from hunger before we should act. In fact, millions already had died due to this.

It is the duty of the vanguard section of the proletariat to arouse that proletarian consciousness. That class consciousness of breaking the chains of exploitation and oppression and overthrow of the bourgeoisie.

Now going back to the role of the vanguard party.

The vanguard party's role is to arouse the consciousness of the proletariat, to organize the entire proletarian class and to mobilize them to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism.

Vanguard1917

17th December 2005, 07:05

And note carefully the crucial idealist assumption at the heart of Leninism: consciousness must determine being for these professional "managers" of revolution and post-revolutionary society.

Lenin did not believe that consciousness determines being. That was not the basis of his belief in the necessity of the vanguard party. On the contary, his belief in the necessity of the vanguard was based precisely on the fact that working class consciousness is, in capitalist society, heavily influenced by capitalist conditions. He recognised that in capitalist society the working class necessarily acts with false consciousness.

If the consciousness of the working class is mechanistically determined by their being as a class, then the working class would be automatically revolutionary, especially in times of capitalist economic crises. But, as history has shown, this is simply not the case. Capitalism has survived major crises, and such crises have often given way to reaction rather than revolution. In order for capitalist society to be overthrown, subjective forces are crucial - i.e. the revolutionary party.

Inter-war Germany is a very good example. The working class was defeated through the defeat of its parties. The SPD 'sold-out' and the communists (the Spartacists) were crushed. German Communism was, after 1923, led by Stalinist reactionaries. Right-wing reaction spread under such conditions. Capitalist decay, which should have given way to workers' revolution, gave way to petit-bourgeois reaction in the form of the Nazis.

These are all subjective factors, and they proved to be crucial. Objective conditions gave way to conflicting subjective forces in society. It gave way to conflicting political forces. And, as Marx and Engels state, 'every class struggle is a political struggle'. The working class must be highly organised and politicised in order to be a revolutionary class. This will not come about spontaneously in capitalist society - history has shown that it doesn't. A revolutionary party is needed.

As YKTMX explained, this revolutionary party will most likely be led by the members of the intellegentsia. The intellegentsia should not be seen as forming a seperate social 'class'. Members of the intellengtsia (as i think Gramsci pointed out) allign themselves with certain social forces. In bourgeois society, ideas are largely produced by members of the bourgeoisie. These ideas can be reactionary or they can be revolutionary, or somewhere in between. But the important thing for us is not the class to which an intellectual belongs to; the most important thing is to which class the intellectual expresses ideas in defence of.

This can also be said of revolutionary party leaders. We should judge such leaders by their political policies, not by their class backgrounds. If their policies express bourgeois interests, then they are not revolutionaries and we must struggle against them. But if a leader is supporting policies that are expressions of working class interests, then that leader has alligned him or herself with the working class. That's the important thing.

YKTMX also pointed out that there are material constraints on working class people, which affect their ability to possess revolutionary consciousness spontaneously. This is, i think, true. But i think that this is only half of it. Working class people are also ideologically constrained - they are subjected to the ideas of the ruling class. Due to their position in capitalist society, they are unable to see beyond capitalist society spontaneously. They are only able to spontaneously organise within the confines of capitalist society - e.g. trade unions. This is very important to understand for those of us that want revolutionary change. How is the working class going to achieve a revolutionary class consciousness? How is this going to come about? Who are the agents of revolutionary working class consciousness?

Obviously "being" does not operate with "100% efficiency" in determining "consciousness". There are lots of "micro-causes" in the histories of any given individual that affect, to one extent or another, their "overall" outlook on life.

Being does determine consciousness, but not in a mechanistic way. There is mediation involved. The being of the working class compells it, historically, to possess revolutionary consciousness. But as we well know, this does not come about automatically or spontaneously. If the being of the working class automatically determined its consciousness, the working class would have long overthrown capitalist society. Because the being of the working class is, in essense, and objectively, revolutionary. However, the working class is, on the whole, not conscious of its being - i.e. it does not possess revolutionary class consciousness. This is a subjective problem. The revolutionary party intervenes into objective circumstances, with the aim of bringing in revolutionary class consciousness into the working class.

Is it possible that ordinary working people with ordinary jobs and all the cares and stresses of ordinary life can nevertheless develop revolutionary consciousness and nevertheless effectively organize themselves and nevertheless overthrow the capitalist class and nevertheless proceed immediately to the construction of a working communist society?

Not in the absense of a revolutionary party. Without high forms of political organisation, the working class is nothing. Again, 'every class struggle is a political struggle'.

redstar2000

17th December 2005, 10:10

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)Then, when would that consciousness be finally realized by the proletariat?[/b]

Alas, we do not know. :(

And that's hard for people to "accept"...no question about it.

The transition from slavery/despotism to feudalism took centuries. The transition from feudalism to capitalism took centuries.

Why should it take markedly less time to make the transition from capitalism to communism?

It's true that capitalism itself operates at a "faster pace" than those older forms of class society.

But the human brain doesn't operate any faster; it "plods along" at the same rate that it did 25,000 years ago.

The development of revolutionary consciousness is painfully slow.

Until, of course, capitalism encounters a serious crisis...and people are compelled to critically re-examine their basic assumptions about social reality.

The last such crisis was that of the "great depression" of the 1930s...which saw an explosive growth in revolutionary consciousness in all of the capitalist countries.

The capitalist ideologues now assure us that "it can't happen ever again" and, if they've had a few drinks, that "we're all going to get richer and richer forever". :lol:

Marx, as you know, had a different opinion.

So, in a sense, the matter reduces itself to a simple question: was Marx right about the inevitability of a terminal capitalist crisis OR can the bourgeois "experts" keep capitalism "working" no matter what?

Right now, capitalism in the advanced capitalist countries is working for the working class as a whole...and has been working for the last six decades or so. Most people presently alive in the advanced capitalist countries cannot imagine a "great depression"...much less a total collapse of capitalism.

Of course, capitalism does not work "perfectly"...especially over the last two or three decades. There have been some "losers"...and some rather sharp complaints.

We may be approaching some "interesting times".

Meanwhile, of course, the middle classes -- in decay as Marx predicted -- continue to generate a small number of people who try, in their limited ways, to construct "revolutionary perspectives".

They try to "speak" for those who "have no voice". In the "west", they mostly speak "for" the "third world" peasantry.

Thus our period of "infatuation" with "third world revolutions".

And, since some of those revolutions freely used the rhetoric and even some of the practices of Leninism, it was not surprising that Leninism itself enjoyed a "last hurrah" among those mostly middle-class "western" youth.

That is pretty much "all over with" now. None of those celebrated "third world" revolutions ever "built socialism" (much less communism) and the middle-class "left" is now mostly reformist and vaguely "anti-capitalist".

Leninist parties have declined to the level of "cargo cults" -- repeating their favorite formulas as "incantations" in the hopes that their "glory years" can be restored by just using "the right words". Only when they openly embrace reformism do they amount to anything at all...and even that is very little as reformism itself has become largely discredited among the "western" proletariat.

To imagine how the "western" proletariat will "become revolutionary" (much less when) is beyond my abilities at this time. From history, I think it will begin with outbreaks of spontaneous resistance..."riots", "wildcat" strikes and workplace occupations, protests that "turn violent", and so on. I anticipate the emergence of small groups of working class radicals...with at least some tenuous acquaintance with the ideas of Marx and perhaps of the anarchist tradition as well. They will "add pepper to the stew".

And then...

Well, I won't live long enough to see, but you might. :)

I say, now is the time for the proletariat to act.

You may say whatever you wish.

Until the proletariat is ready to listen, your words are "dust in the wind".

It is the duty of the vanguard section of the proletariat to arouse that proletarian consciousness.

They're not "proletarian" and revolutionary class consciousness is not a "spirit" to be "conjured up" by "correct ritual".

Something that you will learn in time, I think.

Vanguard1917
On the contrary, [Lenin's] belief in the necessity of the vanguard was based precisely on the fact that working class consciousness is, in capitalist society, heavily influenced by capitalist conditions. He recognised that in capitalist society the working class necessarily acts with false consciousness.

You raise an interesting point here. Although the hypothesis of "false consciousness" enjoys wide-spread acceptance among lefties, I wonder if, strictly speaking, such a thing can exist within the constraints of the Marxist paradigm.

If the life experience of a worker "convinces her" that her own class interests are "identical with" the class interests of her ruling class, is it "false" that she "thinks that"?

After all, we cannot think of class consciousness as something that exists "up in the air" somewhere, completely independent of what people actually think, can we?

Isn't it real life experience that shows us what is really in our interests and what isn't?

For example, in my own youth it was clearly contrary to my own interests to risk getting my ass killed in Vietnam...or anyplace else that the American army might invade. So I acted in my own interest and successfully avoided conscription.

What of those who allowed themselves to be drafted or even voluntarily enlisted? For many, it was perceived as "a road out" of the ghetto, the rural south and midwest, or even perhaps a personal life that was simply "going nowhere".

And, when one is young, it's very difficult to imagine one's own death in a serious way.

Thus their being "determined" their consciousness...and for most, things probably "worked out ok" (they didn't get killed or crippled or psychologically traumatized).

When things "work out ok" in your life, is it truly "false consciousness" to prefer "things as they are"?

Contrary to Lenin, Marx hypothesized that things would not "work out ok" for the whole working class as capitalism stumbled from crisis to crisis towards the end of its viability.

And, "necessarily", a revolutionary class consciousness would spontaneously emerge.

Not because communists simply told workers that capitalism was "against their class interests" but because the life experiences of the workers had taught them that lesson first-hand.

Being would, again, determine consciousness.

To be sure, if the Leninists had ever simply confined themselves to "spreading revolutionary class consciousness", few would find much to criticize them for.

But you are well aware that such was never the case. Lenin saw political power in a bourgeois sense -- a political party forms a government which runs a state apparatus.

Thus the conceit that the Party runs things in the "real" class interests of the proletariat...a Platonic concept that has no connection with what any particular worker or group of workers might perceive as their actual class interests.

The "proles" can never be "trusted" to "get it right". They must be watched over, like "small children", and carefully "guided" for "their own good".

Should you disagree with the Party, it's because you suffer from "false consciousness". You just "don't know what's good for you!" :lol:

If the consciousness of the working class is mechanistically determined by their being as a class, then the working class would be automatically revolutionary, especially in times of capitalist economic crises.

Well, if we look back, we can see a marked correlation between economic crisis and increased revolutionary consciousness.

And, occasionally, even increases during periods in which there was no major crisis.

Your "mechanical" link between being and consciousness is one you made yourself. As I noted above, reality is fluid...and consciousness changes to fit real life experiences.

German Communism was, after 1923, led by Stalinist reactionaries. Right-wing reaction spread under such conditions. Capitalist decay, which should have given way to workers' revolution, gave way to petit-bourgeois reaction in the form of the Nazis.

This illustrates the idealist character of Leninism that I have emphasized throughout this thread.

You imagine, for example, that if the "Trotskyists" had "taken over" the KPD, that they would have made a proletarian revolution (in 1933?) and "prevented" the victory of Nazism.

And if space aliens from a powerful interstellar civilization had landed in Berlin in 1936, they would have rounded up all the Nazis, cooked and eaten them. :lol:

Like all idealists, you regard objective reality as infinitely malleable...like a soft metal that must simple be properly pounded to assume whatever shape you desire.

Ideas -- which you label "subjective forces" in order to obscure your meaning -- "determine" the outcome of history.

If you have the "correct ideas", then you can "make" history do "whatever you please".

This is a conceit shared by Stalinists, Trotskyists, Maoists...all Leninists.

They all imagine themselves standing "outside" and "above" history, cleverly pulling here and pounding there to "make" things "come out" according to "plan".

However plausible that conceit looked during the last century, it is now as credible as a dummyvision weight-loss commercial.

The intelligentsia should not be seen as forming a separate social 'class'.

What is their relationship to the means of production? That, in the Marxist paradigm, determines their class (no quotation marks required).

But the important thing for us is not the class to which an intellectual belongs to; the most important thing is to which class the intellectual expresses ideas in defense of.

Note again: the primacy of ideas is what is really important to Leninism (that's the "us" that is being referred to in the above quote).

This can also be said of revolutionary party leaders. We should judge such leaders by their political policies, not by their class backgrounds. If their policies express bourgeois interests, then they are not revolutionaries and we must struggle against them. But if a leader is supporting policies that are expressions of working class interests, then that leader has aligned him or herself with the working class. That's the important thing.

Maoists use slightly different terminology to express the same idea. To them, a "personality cult" may be "good" or "bad"...depending on the ideas expressed by the "personality".

The empirically observed reality that so-called "revolutionary leaders" over time come to express ideas that represent their own "class" interests completely escapes the Leninist...usually.

True, Trotsky did observe that Stalin represented the "class interests" of a "bureaucratic caste" in the old USSR. But he carefully neglected his own role in creating that "caste" as well as maintaining the fiction that the USSR was "still" a "workers' state".

The idea was "more decisive" than the material reality.

Due to their position in capitalist society, they are unable to see beyond capitalist society spontaneously.

Yeah. Those dummies better hurry up and follow the Party's leadership or they're really going to get fucked. :lol:

Without high forms of political organisation, the working class is nothing.

Well, there you have it...the real Leninist view of the working class in blunt and unmistakable language.

Without the Leninists, we "are nothing."

You know, capitalists say the same thing about us. They also claim that "without a boss, the workers are nothing".

Coincidence?

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

The Feral Underclass

17th December 2005, 13:16

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 16 2005, 11:17 PM
How do we define a vanguard party?
A vanguard is the group that carries out the beginning of change. A vanguard party would be a political party that brings about a significant political change through militant measures.
Political parties always attempt to “carry out political change", in fact isn't that what all political parties attempt to do on a daily basis. Look how far they've got.

Political parties can exist, they can organise themselves, sell papers have a party line, but although this propagates a political ideal, usually to a small audience, it is not the catalyst in which fundamental change can begin.

It's the material condition of society that "carries out the beginning of change" and as history has often shown us, these political parties usually are unable to catch up and even when they are capable of pushing for radical change, they push for the wrong thing.

The vanguard-leadership however must enact leadership in a popular manner. All leaders must be directly elected and be recallable by the electors.

If the sole purpose of having a leader is to "inspire" and to "teach" why is it necessary to institutionalise that position by creating an office in which they're elected?

Inspiration and teaching are factors necessary to moving along a revolution, but there are more equitable ways in achieving that.

It is, the vanguard party organizes the masses into a revolutionary group it is creating a positive environment.

Committee's of organisation will be created out of the spontaneous need for organisation, regardless of what political party you belong to. The organisation of the working class can only be the work of the working class.

A vanguard is a group of people who have class-consciousness, but when this group of people with class-consciousness forge for themselves political authority or the task of organising people, that's when the trouble begins.

YKTMX

17th December 2005, 20:13

That is, they take two unique individuals and "predict" that a successful Leninist Party -- which may have millions of members -- can replicate that on a massive scale.

Fantasy.

What is this word 'unique'? And you accuse me of 'religious devotion'?

Here, Marx and Engels are not human beings, with class backgrounds, they are 'genius unique individuals', almost abstract of history, prophets somehow seperate from the laws they explained to everyone else - where have I heard that before?

The Leninists, whose "legitimacy" is based on Marx's borrowed reputation, must make it clear that Marx was "wrong" without actually saying so.

When Marx said that 'being determines consciousness', he wasn't saying that every single 'indiviual' would hold class specific notions - we know this isn't true, if it was we would have had the revolution by now.

What he meant was that classes, as broad social groupings, are prone to certain ideas about the world - that is all. So, in the French Revolution, you don't have one homogenous bourgeois consciousness. You have various levels, some bourgeois democratic, some vulgar 'socialism'. In the Russian Revolution, you have a broad mass of the people, initially, wedded to reform (like yourself), but you also have class conscious Bolsheviks who want to fulfil the revolution.

What more natural than the fact that he brought with him all that he had already learned?

I don't know if you're intentionally misleading here.

Lenin spent almost his entire early political career criticising the things you accuse him of - particuarly the tactics of people like his brother and the Blanquists.

Is it possible that ordinary working people with ordinary jobs and all the cares and stresses of ordinary life can nevertheless develop revolutionary consciousness and nevertheless effectively organize themselves and nevertheless overthrow the capitalist class and nevertheless proceed immediately to the construction of a working communist society?

All the "Wisdom of the Ages" says no. All the "Great Philosophers" say no. All the bourgeois "social scientists" say no.

And all the Leninists -- the "Revolutionary Experts" -- join in the chorus: NO!

Where did I mention the revolutionary consciousness of the workers? I didn't. I didn't say workers weren't sufficiently class conscious than the 'leaders' of the party - of course they are, the most advanced workers are more class conscious than anyone.

Once again, I was talking about politics, economics and astrophysics. If you wish to debunk any of these, you're welcome to try.

And "maybe" he was wrong...perhaps despotism and servility really are "in our genes

Marx spent his whole life being a 'professional revolutionary'. Dealing with splits, factional disputes, isolation, Internationals. He was the first Leninist. :)

redstar2000

17th December 2005, 20:58

Your "response" is so weak that I conclude that you've "given up".

But I like this one...

Marx was the first Leninist.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

If you repeat that often enough, you may actually start to believe it...and possibly turn up a few suckers who will do likewise.

Like the popes who claim that "Jesus was the first Catholic". :lol:

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

Amusing Scrotum

17th December 2005, 21:22

There has been something that I have been wondering about for quite a while and this thread seems a good place to bring it up.

Why do Leninists (and Trots and Maoists) set up political parties in the imperialist countries. Surely if Lenin's "theory of imperialism" is correct, then setting up "workers parties" in places where the workers have been "bourgoisified" is a totally pointless activity.

Could someone comment on why there are vanguard parties in places where there is no one to lead?

ComradeOm

17th December 2005, 22:36

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 17 2005, 09:22 PM
Why do Leninists (and Trots and Maoists) set up political parties in the imperialist countries. Surely if Lenin's "theory of imperialism" is correct, then setting up "workers parties" in places where the workers have been "bourgoisified" is a totally pointless activity.
Becuase there's feck all else to do ;)

On a slightly more serious notes, its inevitable that leftist political parties will arise under the capitalist state. Local issues, heightened class conscious and countless other factors, they all combine to form parties of protest. The vast majority of the time these parties are bourgeois, no matter what they say, but some do maintain a revolutionary focus. They know that nothing’s going to happen anytime soon but they agitate to pass the time.

And to tie in with my first line, these parties serve as lodestones to those discontented workers and youths. Between the Leninists and anarchists there are no other groups with the organisation and revolutionary ideals.

red_che

18th December 2005, 05:55

Alas, we do not know.

That's what I have been waiting for you to say. That you do not know when to act. All you know is merely interpret (without any assurance that you are correct). That is the flaw of your thoughts.

You know, an architect can make a design out of the materials that he has. And, as always, the outcome of his works are almost exactly the same with what he designed. That's because, out of the materials that he has, he can know the skeletal structure or foundation of his work. He can know what is the outcome of his work.

A scientist, likewise, when doing an experiment, he always makes a hypothesis as to what would be the result of his experiment. And, the outcome was almost the same as that of his hypothesis. When something went wrong out of his experiment, he will not just abandon it. He will not hesitate to assess it and look where he went wrong, and then do the same experiment, minus the errors he made in his previous experiment. And he will do it again and again until he perfects his experiment, or at least he gets a substantial result.

You know, these people have a more materialist outlook than you, redstar, or most of those in this board who say that the proletariat are not ready yet. And that the conditions are not yet ripe. And that thwey don't know what would be the picture of the future societies.

The truth is, the conditions are already overwhelming for a socialist revolution. It is just a matter of how to do it. And who shall make the first step.

Vanguard1917

18th December 2005, 09:08

From history, I think it will begin with outbreaks of spontaneous resistance..."riots", "wildcat" strikes and workplace occupations, protests that "turn violent", and so on. I anticipate the emergence of small groups of working class radicals...with at least some tenuous acquaintance with the ideas of Marx and perhaps of the anarchist tradition as well.

Riots (though not in all cases), strikes and other forms of industrial action are certainly a step forward. They show that working class people will no longer conform to capitalist society and its arrangements. But being against something is not necessarily the same as being for something else. (The 'anti-capitalist' and 'anti-globalisation' protests of fairly recent times are good examples of this. They claimed to be against capitalist society but they were very vague when it came to what they were for.)

Workers may show that they are against current capitalist conditions, but we cannot assume that this means that they will necessarily be for communism. From historical experience, spontaneous working class demands have, on the whole, been based around reforming capitalist society. This is due to the fact that the working class is unable to look beyond the confines of capitalist arrangements spontaneously: they are unable to become conscious of their being as a class - a being which is objectively revolutionary - spontaneously. Riots and strikes may show that the working class recognises that current capitalist conditions are not in their favour - but it doesn't necessarily show that the working class has become conscious of itself as a revolutionary class.

For example, in my own youth it was clearly contrary to my own interests to risk getting my ass killed in Vietnam...or anyplace else that the American army might invade. So I acted in my own interest and successfully avoided conscription.

This is a good example of what i was saying. People who avoided conscription did so because they recognised that the US war in Vietnam was not in their interests. Protests against the war were widespread. But this widespread non-conformism was not enough to give way to widespread revolutionary consciousness.

After all, we cannot think of class consciousness as something that exists "up in the air" somewhere, completely independent of what people actually think, can we?

Isn't it real life experience that shows us what is really in our interests and what isn't?

Human perceptions of objective reality, of real life, have often been wrong. People once looked at the land and thought that the earth was flat. When people once looked up at the night sky and saw stars, they thought that they were seeing holes into heaven. Feudal serfs once looked at their lords and saw people appointed by god. When a worker wakes up at six in the morning today to do a ten hour shift on a scaffolding in some building site, he looks around himself and sees a 'fair society' to which there is no alternative.

The point is that the working class has to become conscious of objective reality. We Marxists believe that capitalism is, objectively, merely an epoch in the process of historical development. We believe that the working class is essentially a revolutionary class. In periods of class conflict, if the working class becomes conscious of its role in history it will overthrow capitalism with the aim of building a communist society. If it does not, and if it continues to act with false consciousness, then historical progress will again be delayed.

And, "necessarily", a revolutionary class consciousness would spontaneously emerge.

You imply that this is what Marx believed. Where does Marx ever argue that revolutionary class conscious emerges spontaneously?

You imagine, for example, that if the "Trotskyists" had "taken over" the KPD, that they would have made a proletarian revolution (in 1933?) and "prevented" the victory of Nazism.

I know with a good amount of certainty that if reactionary political currents within the German working class movement had been defeated before 1923, Bolshevik Russia would have had an important ally and the Stalinist reactionary theory of 'socialism in one country' would not have had scope to develop - it would have been laughed at and denounced, rather than been taken seriously as a way of rationalising Soviet isolation.

But it wasn't: the revolutionary elements within the German workers' movement were defeated. With the failure of the German revolution conservative currents developed within the Soviet Union. In such conditions Stalinist ideas were given scope to triumph. And such reactionary ideas were exported to working class parties abroad - including Germany. In this sense, yes: Stalinism played a very significant role in the Nazis coming to power.

Like all idealists, you regard objective reality as infinitely malleable...like a soft metal that must simple be properly pounded to assume whatever shape you desire.

Ideas -- which you label "subjective forces" in order to obscure your meaning -- "determine" the outcome of history.

Objective circumstances are created and affected by human beings. They are not somehow created supernaturally. Like Marx argued, the old materialist conception that men are products of their circumstances 'forgets that circumstances are changed by men'. The working class, once it becomes conscious of its historical role in the process of class struggle, changes its circumstances. And what is the working class if not a subject of history.

Vanguard1917

18th December 2005, 09:52

Trotsky did observe that Stalin represented the "class interests" of a "bureaucratic caste" in the old USSR. But he carefully neglected his own role in creating that "caste" as well as maintaining the fiction that the USSR was "still" a "workers' state".

I think Trotky's analysis of the nature of the USSR was wrong. He argued that the USSR was an example of a deformed workers' state that would not survive the Second World War. Well, through its alliances with capitalist countries, the USSR did survive WW2 and, in fact, emerged as a world superpower second only to the US. Yet, this didn't stop Trotskyists still clinging to the idea that the USSR is essentially a society that is based on workers' dictatorship. (Post-WW2, one dogmatic Trotskyist, whose name i can't remember, even went as far as to say that the fact that the USSR survived the war meant that the war couldn't be over because Trotsky said that the USSR will not survive the war.) According to them, all that was needed was a 'political revolution' to get rid of the bureaucracy. In fact, a social revolution was needed in the Soviet Union - which many Trotskyists, dogmatically following Trotsky's analyses while in exile, denied.

But Trotsky's analytical mistakes were due to a genuine misinterpretation of Soviet society. Before Stalin came to power, Trotsky was a key opponent of the rise of the bureaucracy. For the rest of his life, he called for a political revolution that would overthrow the bureaucrats. Although he was mistaken - the Soviet Union's problems went a lot deeper than he thought - his position on the bureaucracy at least showed that he had no affection for the 'caste' that, according to you, he had a 'role in creating'.

But back to the subject...

Without high forms of political organisation, the working class is nothing.

Well, there you have it...the real Leninist view of the working class in blunt and unmistakable language.

Without the Leninists, we "are nothing."

You know, capitalists say the same thing about us. They also claim that "without a boss, the workers are nothing".

Coincidence?

If the working class is not organised into a revolutionary political party the working class cannot be conscious of itself as a revolutionary class and, as a result, cannot act as a revolutionary class. It is, therefore, nothing. It provides no threat to capitalist society.

That you compare this fact with the relations that a capitalist boss has with his workers is, i'm afraid, childish.

Amusing Scrotum

18th December 2005, 14:56

Originally posted by red che
The truth is, the conditions are already overwhelming for a socialist revolution. It is just a matter of how to do it. And who shall make the first step.

Your optimism is somewhat strange. We are in a period where labour activity is incredibly passive, perhaps as passive as it has ever been. If the conditions are there, then they must be hiding.

You seem to like the idea that we should make predictions. Well here is mine: I hypothesise that if I leave my house at today and take to the streets calling for the proletariat to rise, I will be laughed at. People will probably equate me with a religious crackpot because at this point in time the idea of proletarian revolution, never mind the possibility, is absolutely absurd. People are not even receptive to the idea at this point in time.

Now you may well say that I am not a "revolutionary leader." This is absolutely true, I am not a "leader" and neither do I wish to be. However there are plenty of Leninist, Trotskyist and Maoist parties and they are all actively practising a form of the vanguard. Yet not one of these in over 80 years has been able to rise the workers in a modern Capitalist country.

Surely if the "conditions are already overwhelming" then one of these various vanguards should have had some impact. Instead however, they are slowly sinking into political obscurity and of course electoral politics.

So I would like to know "red che" what is your evidence that the "conditions are already overwhelming?"

gilhyle

18th December 2005, 15:29

On Trotsky and opposition to bureaucracy for a moment: I think it is not true to say that Trotsky was an effective opponent of bureaucratism in 1924-26. On the contrary, he failed to take up the campaigns Lenin has asked him to lead on that issue. Furthermore, in failing to build an alliance with the Bukharinists against the Stalinists, he - in effect - prioritised the struggle against the Kulaks over the struggle against the bureaucracy. He was, as Lenin noted, inclined to fetishize administration and he failed, in 1924-26 to translate his own emerging analysis of what was happening in the USSR into an effective political rogramme.

On the issue of vanguard parties, I quite like a story about Kautsky: when the mensheviks and bolsheviks were fighting about what the best kind of party organisation would be, the mensheviks turned to their old friend Kautsky for support. Unnoticed by them, Lenin's vanguardist formulations actually derived from Kautsky's writings.

They argued to Kautsky that the kind of party organisation Lenin wanted was inconsistent with social democratic principles. Kautsky disagreed. He agreed with their conclusion that Lenin was wrong, but only because Russia was so backward. In Germany, he suggested, with its highly developed trade union movement, the kind of organisation Lenin wanted would be great. It is only wrong because the absence of a strong T.U. movement in Tsarist Russia would lead to substitutionism - the same conclusion Trotsky drew at that time.

THe point of the story is this: if the case for vanguardism is weak at the moment, that is because of the weakness of the Labour movement as a whole. Vanguardism is not the solution to a weak working class, it is the harvest to be reaped when the class is strong.

redstar2000

18th December 2005, 16:16

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)That's what I have been waiting for you to say. That you do not know when to act.[/b]

And you do?

Or at least imagine that you do?

In your subsequent paragraphs, you compare yourself, by implication, to both an architect and an experimental scientist.

I've even seen Maoists compare themselves to a team of brain surgeons. :lol:

There are few limits to self-flattery...and sometimes none at all. Naturally those most vulnerable to this vice are idealists.

Neither their pictures of the world nor of themselves can be relied upon.

Vanguard1917
But being against something is not necessarily the same as being for something else.

A truism.

From historical experience, spontaneous working class demands have, on the whole, been based around reforming capitalist society.

Quite so...because they took place in a period when reform was a credible option.

Is that still true? Are there any reasons to think that it might be true again?

In my opinion, the era of "reform" is over. In fact, I expect most of last century's "great reforms" to be dismantled in capitalism's "old age".

They have become "too expensive".

Human perceptions of objective reality, of real life, have often been wrong.

To be sure. But eventually we correct our errors, do we not?

Where does Marx ever argue that revolutionary class conscious emerges spontaneously?

I think this view is consistent with Marx's historical materialism.

Indeed, I could easily offer a "counter-challenge"? "Where does Marx ever argue" that the working class is "only capable" of "trade union consciousness"...as Lenin proposed?

Marx made a point of saying explicitly that "the emancipation of the workers must be the work of the workers themselves."

He didn't say "the most advanced workers" or "a vanguard of professional revolutionaries" or "a great leader"...much less that it "must" be the work of "people with correct ideas".

It "makes sense" to me that revolutionary class consciousness must ultimately arise from objective conditions...like every other form of consciousness.

Discourse (or argument) simply reflects those objective conditions...and has no "independent" role.

With the failure of the German revolution, conservative currents developed within the Soviet Union. In such conditions Stalinist ideas were given scope to triumph. And such reactionary ideas were exported to working class parties abroad - including Germany. In this sense, yes: Stalinism played a very significant role in the Nazis coming to power.

Note again: the primacy of ideas...in this case "reactionary" ideas but still ideas.

This kind of "explanation" of history comes up over and over again in the Leninist paradigm.

If only people "would listen" to "our correct ideas", then things would "be completely different".

Objective circumstances are created and affected by human beings.

True, but they are not "created" ex nihilo. What we "create" depends on what we have already created.

You cannot make anything out of nothing.

Except ideas.

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

Pilgrim

18th December 2005, 22:14

I have to say that my own experience of vanguard parties has been largely, if not entirely, negative.

I joined the British SWP in 2001, after attending one of their post-Genoa meetings.

I was sceptical from the start, to be honest, but I was there with as open a mind as I could manage.

I found myself attending up to four meetings a week at one point, and doing regular paper sales as well.

The more I learned about the SWP, the less I began to trust them.

Conversations with independent activists told of meetings packed with SWP members whenever a vote was being cast, and of those members all voting in one way, thereby making the wishes of the group as a whole irrelevent, Birmingham springs to mind here. On one protest I went to, at Fairford air base, I was later told that the SWP had sent an email round the peace movement stating that the protest was cancelled and we should all head up to London for the bigger protest the same day. I also heard a report of the SWP having hired a coach and filled it with people to protest outside the secret listening post at Menwith Hill. The SWP, having paid for the coach, then diverted it to London for yet another A to B march.

They also have a reputation for working badly with Stop the War Coalition partners. One of the UK's better known activists blames them for calling mass demonstrations and informing their partners only after the press releases had gone out. Other reports include packing steering committees with their members and forcing independent activists out of groups when they become too much of an obstacle. A certain Steve Godward springs to mind here.

I'm now involved in direct action with a couple of groups, but most frequently Trident Ploughshares of which I am a member. The local SWP descended upon the local anti-nuclear campaign with the intention of 'organising' it according to their ideas, and were politely but firmly told that, while their help was appreciated, the campaign would remain firmly independent of ANY political group. Groups could take part, but no one group would be allowed to have control. The local SWP then started posting abusive messages in Internet blogs, described all our efforts as 'shit', and also declared Trident Ploughshares to be a 'hostile organisation'. And all this while TP had two volunteers risk their lives by infiltrating Devonport Dockyard and actually boarding a Trident submarine. The SWP's monthly magazine (Socialist Review) was also attacking direct action as 'elitist' and claiming that direct action groups were 'trying to impose their elitism on the rest of us'.

The SWP has a catalogue of failed strategies behind it, that have brought the working class no nearer to any sort of advancement. They want to be leaders, while seemingly lacking any sort of tactical or strategic awareness. They are footsoldiers trying to be generals.

Their front groups, allegedly in the tradition of Trotsky's favoured 'united front', haven't been much of a success either. They claim that they are continuing Trotsky's tradition of the united front when they set up a front group and seek to gain recruits. The reality is that they are simply party building. They parachute into any movement or cause that looks like attracting mass appeal, recruit as many people into their front group (and, by extension, into the SWP) and then abruptly depart for the next cause, leaving behind disillusioned activists in their wake. They switch bandwagons so fast and so often that the British SWP are known to other activists by the name 'Swappies'. Their claim to be acting in the Trotskyist 'united front' tradition is, in reality, hiding the fact that if they were to campaign on issues as the SWP, at best very few people would want to work with them at all.

I would, when assessing how a vanguard party would run a country, look at how they run their own party. The SWP leadership is the Central Committee. The Central Committee decides more or less everything in the British SWP. Policy decisions are made at national level, then passed down to the membership, to be followed to the letter. Failure to follow CC policy to the letter frequently results in whispering campaigns, activists being frozen out and activists simply being expelled. There is a long list of people expelled from the British SWP especially.

There is also little or no internal democracy. Members are barred from forming internal factions, and even which email lists they may use is decided by the SWP CC. Even the national conference, at which Central Committee members are elected, is undemocratic. It is done on the slate system, and has degenerated to the point where the outgoing CC declares its slate and the slate is duly elected. Not once, as far as I am aware, has anyone proposed an alternative slate. and nor has an alternative slate ever been elected. In effect, the SWP CC elects itself, and is a self-perpetuating and (within the party) all-powerful clique.

If that is the state of a vanguard party, then I (and presumably many others) want nothing whatsoever to do with it.

redstar2000

19th December 2005, 03:46

Thank you, Pilgrim, for a most informative post.

You may find this article of interest...

Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html)

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

red_che

20th December 2005, 08:52

Your optimism is somewhat strange.

Really? Is that really what you think?

Maybe I am. Maybe my optimism is really strange for you. ;)

However, I am an "optimist" because I see that, at present, the workers' condition all over the world is something that should not just be sat into and look at while they are already dying of starvation, while they are overworked but underpaid, while they are living in misery and the bourgeoisie sleep into a bed of money.

I don't want to see that condition. This is what I am saying as the material conditions to wage a socialist revolution. Modern industry already created a very high-tech society. The problem is, the relations of production, i.e., distribution of commodities and services and the means of exchange were controlled by a very few elite. That hinders the further development of the entire capitalist system. That, I think, is why a vanguard party is needed to make the proletraiat aware of such general condition of the proletariat. Otherwise, as to redstar was suggesting, we might as well all go home and stop our useless exchanges in this board if it were not to do anything but just wait for the "conditions" to emerge, whatever that is. We all might as well go home and plant potatoes while waiting for these "material conditions".

You know, it is not enough for us to just talk and talk here of what was then the conditions. But, rather, we should talk of what must be done in order to change this pitiful condition of man today. In America, the living conditions are far different than the third world countries. And the world isn't just America. Socialist revolutions are more evident in the third world countries precisely because their conditions were far different than America. But if the American proletariat were to end the American bourgeoisie's exploitation of the peoples of the other countries, certainly, socialist revolution would be more successful.

Optimist? It's up to you.

But for me, that is the material condition and necessity. :hammer:

In your subsequent paragraphs, you compare yourself, by implication, to both an architect and an experimental scientist.

Hahaha...

I am flattered, really, when that's how you interpreted my article, that I am comparing myself with an architect and a scientist. In fact, it never went into my mind when I wrote those.

My intention really was to show you how materialists really think. But I am disappointed that you haven't had a clue as to my real intention.

What disappoints me most is that after all those years of your "studying materialism", all you can say at the end is "I don't know" or "I don't know what's next". Hah! You really aren't progressive, much less a materialist or a revolutionary.

redstar2000

20th December 2005, 16:58

Originally posted by red_che+--> (red_che)What disappoints me most is that after all those years of your "studying materialism", all you can say at the end is "I don't know" or "I don't know what's next".[/b]

All too true.

But then there's this...

Mark Twain
It ain't so much what people don't know that's the problem. It's what people know that ain't so.

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

Pilgrim

20th December 2005, 17:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2005, 03:46 AM
Thank you, Pilgrim, for a most informative post.

You may find this article of interest...

Ideological intransigence, democratic centralism and cultism: a case study from the political left (http://www.rickross.com/reference/general/general434.html)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
I found that article very interesting, and have put it up for debate on another site.

Much obliged.

gilhyle

20th December 2005, 19:38

Pilgrim's experience of the SWP is characteristic of everyone's experience of the SWP who has ever gone near them - and no less valuable (and sad) because of that.

But what they do is not in the nature of vanguard parties per se; it is of the nature of any lifestyle grouping in mature capitalist society. For example, you will find the same criticisms of Opus Dei in the Catholic Church, why ? because OPus Dei is a vanguardist movement within a weak religion, which , consequently, turns to sectish practices to cannibalise the Church it is meant to promote.

A strong, vibrant working class would blow those sectish practices away, because in such an environment they would be unnecessary.

I am not saying vanguards are unproblematic. BUt its an error, I suggest, to substitute a discussion of the principle of having a vanguard party for a discussion of the particular circumstances for such a party that currently pertain.

Vanguard1917

20th December 2005, 20:37

It "makes sense" to me that revolutionary class consciousness must ultimately arise from objective conditions...like every other form of consciousness.

It does, but not in such a mechanistic way. Ultimately, all consciousness arises from objective conditions. Afterall, our consciousness is of objective reality. My point is that, spontaneously, capitalism creates false consciousness in the working class. The working class is unable to have correct consciousness of objective reality (i.e. revolutionary class consciousness) spontaneously. Due to the nature of capitalist society, consciousness of the revolutionary role of the working class always comes from outside of the working class. Objective conditions give way to certain non-working class sections of society forming revolutionary ideas as their consciousness is affected by changing material realities (e.g. social instability, mass strikes, working clas protests, riots, etc.). This is how it has always worked. You yourself agree that spontaneous working class consciousness has never, on the whole, amounted to anything more than reformism. But you imply that this will change in the future, the working class will 'eventually correct its errors' and rid itself of false consciousness spontaneously. On what basis?

This kind of "explanation" of history comes up over and over again in the Leninist paradigm.

If only people "would listen" to "our correct ideas", then things would "be completely different".

The defeat of the revolutionary working class political movement was very important in the defeat of the the German working class movement as a whole. Are you denying this? And what is a political movement afterall? It is a process through which we win people over to certain ideas - to a certain worldview. In times of class struggle, if revolutionary political forces are unable to do this (through theoretical, ideological and organisational inadequacy or, of course, state repression) then the working class will be won over to reactionary political ideas - as was the case, to some extent, in interwar Germany.

They [the British SWP] parachute into any movement or cause that looks like attracting mass appeal

Well pointed out, Pilgrim. But surely this should make you doubt whether the SWP is a vanguard party at all.

The SWP in Britain is an opportunistic party with populist tendencies. That is precisely why they are not a vanguard party. They tail behind every bit of popular sentiment: from the poll tax riots to the recent protests against the war in Iraq. Their coalition (RESPECT) is led by demagogue George Galloway. In order to 'appeal' to Muslims, Lyndsey German (member of the SWP CC)argues that we shouldn't make 'shibboleths' out of abortion and gay rights in building 'the new movement'.

This is a tailist, opportunistic party - regardless of the Marxist-Leninist rhetoric you may hear at their annual Marxism conferences.

A strong, vibrant working class would blow those sectish practices away, because in such an environment they would be unnecessary.

Excellent point, gilhyle.

YKTMX

20th December 2005, 21:06

Great. It's good to see that the Leninists and the Capitulationists can unite behind a kneejerk criticism of the SWP - warms the heart.

They tail behind every bit of popular sentiment: from the poll tax riots to the recent protests against the war in Iraq.

The last I heard, the criticism of the SWP with regard to the anti-war movement was that it was all a front to recruit members. Still, it's good to see what the latest gossip in the ultra left cults is.

Their coalition (RESPECT) is led by demagogue George Galloway.

In what sense is he a demagogue? Are you going to back that up, or are just spouting dull ad hominems?

In order to 'appeal' to Muslims, Lyndsey German (member of the SWP CC)argues that we shouldn't make 'shibboleths' out of abortion and gay rights in building 'the new movement'.

Ahh, a nice bit of Islamaphobic Respect bashing to top it all off. Way to go, you've covered all the bases there?

Amusing Scrotum

20th December 2005, 21:23

Originally posted by YouKnowTheyMurderedX
Ahh, a nice bit of Islamaphobic Respect bashing to top it all off. Way to go, you've covered all the bases there?

Nice way to avoid the question.

Are you seriously saying that you find it acceptable that Lyndsey German "argues that we shouldn't make 'shibboleths' out of abortion and gay rights in building 'the new movement'."

Perhaps women's and gay rights aren't that important to you? ....and you think the left shouldn't support these causes?

YKTMX

20th December 2005, 21:31

Nice way to avoid the question.

I've debated the question to death in numerous threads you can search for if you wish.

argues that we shouldn't make 'shibboleths' out of abortion and gay rights in building 'the new movement'.

Source for this?

Perhaps women's and gay rights aren't that important to you?

Perhaps.

and you think the left shouldn't support these causes?

Yes, I'm a misogynist homophobe.

Happy?

Pilgrim

20th December 2005, 22:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 09:06 PM
Great. It's good to see that the Leninists and the Capitulationists can unite behind a kneejerk criticism of the SWP - warms the heart.

They tail behind every bit of popular sentiment: from the poll tax riots to the recent protests against the war in Iraq.

The last I heard, the criticism of the SWP with regard to the anti-war movement was that it was all a front to recruit members. Still, it's good to see what the latest gossip in the ultra left cults is.

Their coalition (RESPECT) is led by demagogue George Galloway.

In what sense is he a demagogue? Are you going to back that up, or are just spouting dull ad hominems?

In order to 'appeal' to Muslims, Lyndsey German (member of the SWP CC)argues that we shouldn't make 'shibboleths' out of abortion and gay rights in building 'the new movement'.

Ahh, a nice bit of Islamaphobic Respect bashing to top it all off. Way to go, you've covered all the bases there?
Personally, I'm neither a Leninist nor a Capitulationist, so I don't know where you're going with that. And my criticism is hardly kneejerk, as I was an active member of the SWP for some time.

And I wouldn't be so keen to trust Galloway, if I were you. He's a career politician, and like the vast majority of other career politicians he's out for what he can get.

And I recall the whole debate about 'shibboleths' from another board at the time. The general consensus was that basic socialist principles have been junked in favour of crass, short term electoral opportunism. And that's a consensus I happen to agree with. I din't get too right wing for the SWP, it got too right wing for me.

And there was nothing Islamophobic about the above comment. This is just another bit of dirty fighting from a Trotbot. If someone disagrees with you, label them a racist so they will back off. Been tried with me before, and it's not going to work.

YKTMX

20th December 2005, 23:06

He's a career politician, and like the vast majority of other career politicians he's out for what he can get.

Career politicians are people who forfiet their principles for personal gain. Has Galloway done this, or has he, in fact, done the exact opposite? He got kicked out of the Labour Party for failing to tow the line on Iraq.

So, now, two or three posts in, Galloway has been called a Demagogue and a 'career politician'. Anybody else want to step up with their meaningless insults?

The general consensus was that basic socialist principles have been junked in favour of crass, short term electoral opportunism.

I don't doubt it. Mainly because the internet tends to give greater credence to groupuscules and their minions than the real world affords.

I'm sure you could get enough people from the AWL or the CPGB to parrot the latest sectarian rant against the SWP to make you believe that was a 'consensus' exists anywhere but their own little world.

And there was nothing Islamophobic about the above comment. This is just another bit of dirty fighting from a Trotbot.

Oh, watch the flaming pal. Islamaphobic is a political term. Last I checked 'trotbot' was a juvenile Stalinist insult only 15 year olds use.

Vanguard1917

20th December 2005, 23:37

argues that we shouldn't make 'shibboleths' out of abortion and gay rights in building 'the new movement'.

Source for this?

You really need a source? If you're going to support a party, surely you should already know about the controversies happening within it. Type the key words into Google (e.g. Lindsey - German - abortion - shibboleth ) - i'm sure something will come up.

By the way, Galloway is openly anti-abortion. Rather than me being Islamaphobic, i think it is RESPECT that is pursuing racist logic: i.e. 'British Muslims are all a bunch of backward anti-abortion, gay-bashing reactionaries - so what a better way to appeal to them then by adopting backward, reactionary policies ourselves!' Maybe it's because of their newfound multiculturalism, which they embraced as soon as it became fashionable in mainstream politics - another product of mindless SWP opportunism.

Vanguard1917

21st December 2005, 00:03

Has Galloway done this, or has he, in fact, done the exact opposite? He got kicked out of the Labour Party for failing to tow the line on Iraq.

OK, Galloway was against the war in Iraq. But then again so were some other Labour MPs - including the then top New Labour man Robin Cook. Galloway was no radical within the Labour Party either. He took part in 893 parliamentary votes as a Labour MP and it is estimated that he rebelled in 32 of those - hardly the behaviour of a left-wing radical, agreeing with the Labour Party 861 times. :o

Pilgrim

21st December 2005, 00:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2005, 11:06 PM

He's a career politician, and like the vast majority of other career politicians he's out for what he can get.

Career politicians are people who forfiet their principles for personal gain. Has Galloway done this, or has he, in fact, done the exact opposite? He got kicked out of the Labour Party for failing to tow the line on Iraq.

So, now, two or three posts in, Galloway has been called a Demagogue and a 'career politician'. Anybody else want to step up with their meaningless insults?

The general consensus was that basic socialist principles have been junked in favour of crass, short term electoral opportunism.

I don't doubt it. Mainly because the internet tends to give greater credence to groupuscules and their minions than the real world affords.

I'm sure you could get enough people from the AWL or the CPGB to parrot the latest sectarian rant against the SWP to make you believe that was a 'consensus' exists anywhere but their own little world.

And there was nothing Islamophobic about the above comment. This is just another bit of dirty fighting from a Trotbot.

Oh, watch the flaming pal. Islamaphobic is a political term. Last I checked 'trotbot' was a juvenile Stalinist insult only 15 year olds use.
Galloway kowtowed to Saddam Hussein, and was pretty fond of Cuba if memory serves. He also said it was one of the worst days of his life when the Soviet Union collapsed.

Very principled of him, to extend support and shed tears for regimes like those.

So now you imply that I'm wrong because I don't actually get out much? That I'm a keyboard warrior?

Wrong on both counts, my friend. I'm very busy on several campaigns locally, and have had the chance to discuss RESPECT with a number of people from various groups and some from no group at all. The general consensus (outside of the SWP) has been that RESPECT is a major shift to the right and that basic socialist policies are being discarded in favour of populist vote chasing. If the SWP Central Committee want to become electoral politicians, let them. At least then they will have left the revolutionary pitch to those of us who actually mean it. If they want to keep at the revolutionary angle, fine. But they can't pretend to be both or either depneding on which audience they are speaking to. They must be lying to someone, either the voters or their own membership. So which is it?

As far a consensus existing, there is one and it does exist. And I don't even know anybody from the AWL or CPGB, so I don't know how I could have cobbled together some 'sectarian rant' with either of them. Having failed to smear me as a racist, you are now trying to accuse me of being sectarian. Another spineless attempt to avoid the issue and silence me for having the 'wrong' opinion. Oh, and by the way, aren't the CPGB supposedly part of RESPECT?

And I stand by my use of the terms 'Trotbot', 'Robotrot' and 'Swapbot'. They describe someone incapable of having a thought that doesn't originate with some Central Committee or other, and who will attack any 'sectarians' at the click of the Central Committee's fingers. I've met plenty of that type before, and they don't impress or scare in the slightest.

redstar2000

21st December 2005, 01:43

Originally posted by Vanguard1917
The working class is unable to have correct consciousness of objective reality (i.e., revolutionary class consciousness) spontaneously.

Then the "communist project" is an exercise in futility. We will eternally be subject to the whims of despots.

All the promises of Leninism reduce to the promise to be "more benevolent emperors" than all previous emperors.

Is that worth fighting for?

Why???

Save for those who aspire to "be at court", a new emperor provokes little more than a large yawn.

You yourself agree that spontaneous working class consciousness has never, on the whole, amounted to anything more than reformism. But you imply that this will change in the future, the working class will 'eventually correct its errors' and rid itself of false consciousness spontaneously. On what basis?

On the basis that humans learn from experience, of course.

Workers today do not believe the same things that workers of 50 years ago believed. They, in turn, did not believe the same things that workers 100 years ago believed.

And so on.

It seems to me that the working class is "losing interest" in reformism...as there is no point in fighting for the impossible. The ruling class in our era has made it clear that "reform" is "off the table", period.

Reforms are "too expensive". :lol:

And what is a political movement after all? It is a process through which we win people over to certain ideas - to a certain worldview.

Well, no...not really. A political movement is a reflection of ideas that material reality has already generated. It does not "win" people to its ideas but rather gathers those who already have those ideas into a unified political force.

I know that subjectively it doesn't "feel like that"...but that is nevertheless what is really happening.

For example, someone who is "doing ok" is deaf to the appeals of revolutionary ideologies. Why "fix" what "ain't broke"?

The middle classes in the "west" are classes in decay...as Marx predicted. To some of them, a "big change" is not without appeal...provided that this change would preserve their status and privileges or, better still, even increase them.

We are all aware of the appeal of Nazism to such elements back in the 1920s and 30s.

But Leninism has also successfully recruited from this "pool" in the "west". To the workers, Leninism promises a "benevolent despotism"...which has pretty much lost its appeal. But to the middle class elements of the population, Leninism promises a special role as leaders of everything.

Thus their privileges are preserved and their status is enhanced. Since the old bourgeoisie is gone, the middle classes are now indisputably "top dogs".

And the "new society"? It will be a radically reformed version of what exists now!

In fact, what I've often implied in many of my past writings should now be stated explicitly.

Leninism, properly understood, is a radical petty-bourgeois ideology.

It's real goal is the preservation of the capitalist system without big capitalists.

From a historical materialist standpoint, such a goal is quite impossible, of course. A modern class society "without big capitalists" will generate them over time...just in the normal course of its functioning.

And Leninist "consciousness" will change to "justify that" as "really progressive". :lol:

But surely this should make you doubt whether the SWP [U.K.] is a vanguard party at all.

When confronted with particularly reprehensible behavior on the part of a particular Leninist sect, other Leninists unanimously chorus: Oh, they're not real Leninists.

Leninist parties in the "west" spend a lot of time doing this...the bitterness of their organizational rivalries are legendary. :lol:

It is very reminiscent of early Christianity...which featured the most venomous "faction fights" that frequently included physical violence and occasionally murder. The "battle" for "Leninist orthodoxy" has, on occasion, become a battle without the quotation marks.

Perhaps this is a further reflection of the insecurities of the petty-bourgeoisie. The "victories" of a rival sect can only be perceived as a "distinct threat" to the future opportunities of those on "the losing side".

Solidarity has never been a "strength" of the petty-bourgeoisie. :lol:

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

YKTMX

21st December 2005, 01:44

Vanguard 1917:

You really need a source? If you're going to support a party, surely you should already know about the controversies happening within it. Type the key words into Google (e.g. Lindsey - German - abortion - shibboleth ) - i'm sure something will come up.

I was at Marxism when the CPGB brought up the whole issue the first time. It was a non-issue then, it's a non-issue now.

By the way, Galloway is openly anti-abortion.

I know. Do you have a coherent argument to make or are your just regurgitating things that are in the public domain?

Maybe it's because of their newfound multiculturalism

Maybe. Maybe it's your chauvinism? Who knows.

Pilgrim:

Galloway kowtowed to Saddam Hussein, and was pretty fond of Cuba if memory serves. He also said it was one of the worst days of his life when the Soviet Union collapsed.

He supported Saddam, supports Castro and is a Stalinist (1 of these is true).

So now you imply that I'm wrong because I don't actually get out much? That I'm a keyboard warrior?

Not at all. I'm simply responding to your mentioning that you found consensus on another message board. You're not forgetting your own posts are you?

Wrong on both counts, my friend.

Well, I never said it, but whatever makes you feel better.

If they want to keep at the revolutionary angle, fine. But they can't pretend to be both or either depneding on which audience they are speaking to. They must be lying to someone, either the voters or their own membership. So which is it?

The Respect Coalition (I suggest comrades look up this word in the nearest dictionary. It might clear up some of the confusion) is a broad electoral front to give voice to the biggest mass movement in British history.

It is not class based, it is not 'religious, it's an attempt to build a mass, left anti-imperialist opposition in the country. So that, hopefully, the bastards can't get away with it as easy the next time they try.

I know some people on the left are suspicious of any organisation that doesn't call for 'Victory to the proletariat!' in its first line, but that's their problem.

Another spineless attempt to avoid the issue and silence me for having the 'wrong' opinion.

Eh? Sorry to break into your conspiracy theory riddled world, comrade, but I'm not trying to 'silence' you. I don't particuarly care what you say.

They describe someone incapable of having a thought that doesn't originate with some Central Committee or other, and who will attack any 'sectarians' at the click of the Central Committee's fingers.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the SWP.

Better luck next time.

Pilgrim

21st December 2005, 02:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:44 AM

Galloway kowtowed to Saddam Hussein, and was pretty fond of Cuba if memory serves. He also said it was one of the worst days of his life when the Soviet Union collapsed.

He supported Saddam, supports Castro and is a Stalinist (1 of these is true).

So now you imply that I'm wrong because I don't actually get out much? That I'm a keyboard warrior?

Not at all. I'm simply responding to your mentioning that you found consensus on another message board. You're not forgetting your own posts are you?

Wrong on both counts, my friend.

Well, I never said it, but whatever makes you feel better.

If they want to keep at the revolutionary angle, fine. But they can't pretend to be both or either depneding on which audience they are speaking to. They must be lying to someone, either the voters or their own membership. So which is it?

The Respect Coalition (I suggest comrades look up this word in the nearest dictionary. It might clear up some of the confusion) is a broad electoral front to give voice to the biggest mass movement in British history.

It is not class based, it is not 'religious, it's an attempt to build a mass, left anti-imperialist opposition in the country. So that, hopefully, the bastards can't get away with it as easy the next time they try.

I know some people on the left are suspicious of any organisation that doesn't call for 'Victory to the proletariat!' in its first line, but that's their problem.

Another spineless attempt to avoid the issue and silence me for having the 'wrong' opinion.

Eh? Sorry to break into your conspiracy theory riddled world, comrade, but I'm not trying to 'silence' you. I don't particuarly care what you say.

They describe someone incapable of having a thought that doesn't originate with some Central Committee or other, and who will attack any 'sectarians' at the click of the Central Committee's fingers.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a member of the SWP.

Better luck next time.

I didn't say that Galloway supported Saddam, I said he KOWTOWED to him. I also said he was fond of Cuba, NOT that he supported Castro. I NEVER said that Galloway was a Stalinist, I said that he once described the fall of the USSR as one of the worst days of his life.

That deals with your more deliberate and frankly obvious attempts to misquote me.

I also said that I found consensus, not only from the web, but from REAL PEOPLE with whom I discussed the issue.

And your reference to the RESPECT Coalition doesn't even begin to answer my criticisms thereof. I asked whether or not the SWP CC were aiming to be reformists or revolutionaries, and stated that they couldn't be both. I also stated that in saying one thing to their membership and another to the voters, they must be lying to somebody.

And I never said you were a member of the SWP. The terms 'Trotbot' and 'Robotrot' can be applied to anyone who spouts a party-approved line to the exclusion of all else.

You wouldn't also use the nickname 'Memory Hole Catcher's Mitt' elsewhere, perchance?

YKTMX

21st December 2005, 03:13

I didn't say that Galloway supported Saddam, I said he KOWTOWED to him.

That's not true, in any case.

I also said he was fond of Cuba, NOT that he supported Castro.

He's an open and unapologetic supporter of Castro - like many socialists. I'm not one of them.

I said that he once described the fall of the USSR as one of the worst days of his life.

Yes, most people interested in the subject already know this. Why would you bother repeating it, unless you were trying to make some fatuous point?

And your reference to the RESPECT Coalition doesn't even begin to answer my criticisms thereof.

As I said, anyone who wants to discuss the orientation of the Respect Coalition can search in the RevLeft 'archives' for the numerous threads on the matter.

I asked whether or not the SWP CC were aiming to be reformists or revolutionaries, and stated that they couldn't be both.

I agree. But the confusion people get into is thinking that revolutionaries never demand reforms. As I've said before, there's a diffirence between fighting for reforms and 'reformism'. Socialists always fight for reforms (better housing, healthcare, union rights etc), but they recognise that socialism can't be 'made' through reform.

I also stated that in saying one thing to their membership and another to the voters, they must be lying to somebody.

The SWP and Respect are diffirent entities.

The terms 'Trotbot' and 'Robotrot' can be applied to anyone who spouts a party-approved line to the exclusion of all else.

'Party-approved'? How can I seek approval from a party I don't belong to? Furthermore, how can I learn the 'line' of a party I have no contact with?

You wouldn't also use the nickname 'Memory Hole Catcher's Mitt' elsewhere, perchance?

No, I use this name and, when the occasion calls for it, my Christian name followed by my surname.

Pilgrim

21st December 2005, 03:48

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 03:13 AM

I didn't say that Galloway supported Saddam, I said he KOWTOWED to him.

That's not true, in any case.

I also said he was fond of Cuba, NOT that he supported Castro.

He's an open and unapologetic supporter of Castro - like many socialists. I'm not one of them.

I said that he once described the fall of the USSR as one of the worst days of his life.

Yes, most people interested in the subject already know this. Why would you bother repeating it, unless you were trying to make some fatuous point?

And your reference to the RESPECT Coalition doesn't even begin to answer my criticisms thereof.

As I said, anyone who wants to discuss the orientation of the Respect Coalition can search in the RevLeft 'archives' for the numerous threads on the matter.

I asked whether or not the SWP CC were aiming to be reformists or revolutionaries, and stated that they couldn't be both.

I agree. But the confusion people get into is thinking that revolutionaries never demand reforms. As I've said before, there's a diffirence between fighting for reforms and 'reformism'. Socialists always fight for reforms (better housing, healthcare, union rights etc), but they recognise that socialism can't be 'made' through reform.

I also stated that in saying one thing to their membership and another to the voters, they must be lying to somebody.

The SWP and Respect are diffirent entities.

The terms 'Trotbot' and 'Robotrot' can be applied to anyone who spouts a party-approved line to the exclusion of all else.

'Party-approved'? How can I seek approval from a party I don't belong to? Furthermore, how can I learn the 'line' of a party I have no contact with?

You wouldn't also use the nickname 'Memory Hole Catcher's Mitt' elsewhere, perchance?

No, I use this name and, when the occasion calls for it, my Christian name followed by my surname.
Do I need to remind you of Galloway's now famous 'Sir, I salute your indefatigability...' speech? Sounded like kowtowing to me, and pretty blatantly at that.

And if Castro's regime is so worthy of Galloway's support, then why do so many people attempt to leave Cuba each year? And how many die trying?

And I mentioned Galloway's fondness for the USSR after you had deliberately tried to misquote me on the subject.

You still haven't properly answered my criticisms of the SWP/RESPECT. And it seems pretty clear that the SWP is the prime mover behind RESPECT, and when the SWP are prime movers behind anything they usually pull all the strings.

And the SWP/RESPECT sem to be drifting in an ever-more reformist direction, having slated other paerties for years by using the term 'reformist' almost as an insult.

And the SWP/RESPECT are merely two sides of the same coin. RESPECT is merely yet another SWP front group and nothing more. In fact, I don't think even the SWP CC will be smiling, should Galloway decide to leave them in the lurch. Which he is likely to do if it becomes politically expedient for him to do so. It'll be interesting for the SWP CC to experience having been shafted before they could inflict the same. Be a new experience for them.

In fairness to you, if you're not a Swappie, fair enough. But you tend to debate like one. I'd alter your debating style if I were you, the Urban75 Politics types would have flamed you to hell and gone by now.

YKTMX

21st December 2005, 21:00

Do I need to remind you of Galloway's now famous 'Sir, I salute your indefatigability...' speech? Sounded like kowtowing to me, and pretty blatantly at that.

Really? And when did you see this speech in full and in context?

I'm guessing never and you've simply seen that snippet on the bourgeois media and have believed exactly what you're told to believe about it.

Galloway was addressing the Iraqi people in general when he said that.

I'd suspect greater critical faculties from a supposed 'Marxist'.

And if Castro's regime is so worthy of Galloway's support, then why do so many people attempt to leave Cuba each year? And how many die trying?

Did you read my post? I DON'T SUPPORT CASTRO! One more time for clarity, I DON'T SUPPORT CASTRO. Get it?

You'll need to ask George or someone else who does those question.

As I said on two previous occasions (I'm not sure if you're even reading my responses) if you want to debate the Respect Coalition with me, go to one of the numerous threads on the matter and you can read my thoughts on tne matter.

Here, for instance:

Click (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43716&st=0&hl=)

I'd alter your debating style if I were you, the Urban75 Politics types would have flamed you to hell and gone by now.

Thanks for the advice.

I won't be taking it.

Pilgrim

22nd December 2005, 11:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 09:00 PM

Do I need to remind you of Galloway's now famous 'Sir, I salute your indefatigability...' speech? Sounded like kowtowing to me, and pretty blatantly at that.

Really? And when did you see this speech in full and in context?

I'm guessing never and you've simply seen that snippet on the bourgeois media and have believed exactly what you're told to believe about it.

Galloway was addressing the Iraqi people in general when he said that.

I'd suspect greater critical faculties from a supposed 'Marxist'.

And if Castro's regime is so worthy of Galloway's support, then why do so many people attempt to leave Cuba each year? And how many die trying?

Did you read my post? I DON'T SUPPORT CASTRO! One more time for clarity, I DON'T SUPPORT CASTRO. Get it?

You'll need to ask George or someone else who does those question.

As I said on two previous occasions (I'm not sure if you're even reading my responses) if you want to debate the Respect Coalition with me, go to one of the numerous threads on the matter and you can read my thoughts on tne matter.

Here, for instance:

Click (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=43716&st=0&hl=)

I'd alter your debating style if I were you, the Urban75 Politics types would have flamed you to hell and gone by now.

Thanks for the advice.

I won't be taking it.
I'm not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.

Vanguard1917

22nd December 2005, 12:54

A political movement is a reflection of ideas that material reality has already generated.

All this does is reduce political activity to merely a 'reflection' of already existing ideas. Working class politics has to be more than a reflection of ideas spontaneously existing in capitalist society. Material conditions in capitalist society create the scope for socialist ideas to spread. But socialist ideas do not just appear as an automatic consequence of material conditions.

It does not "win" people to its ideas but rather gathers those who already have those ideas into a unified political force.

Again, this reduces the role played by political activity. Throughout history, communist parties have had to win people over to their worldview - through organisation, agitation and confrontation. This has often meant organising the advanced sections of the working class, taking part in widespread propaganda work, and confronting the ruling class and their ideas. Confronting the ideas of the ruling class also means that we have to confront large sections of the working class itself, since they have been subjected to the ideas of the ruling class. The ruling class can keep their ideas - Marxists, unlike utopians and reformists, aren't very concerned with changing ruling class minds. Our task is to confront the reactionary ideas that exist inside the minds of the working class: workers that have been won over to ruling class ideas, won over to petit-bourgeois reformist ideas, workers crossing picket lines, workers on the scab bus, workers in reactionary rallies, workers on the fence, and so on. We have to win such people over to communist ideas.

In times of class conflict, that is what must be done. It's hard work, but it's vital.

Leninism, properly understood, is a radical petty-bourgeois ideology.

It's real goal is the preservation of the capitalist system without big capitalists.

From a historical materialist standpoint, such a goal is quite impossible, of course. A modern class society "without big capitalists" will generate them over time...just in the normal course of its functioning.

Leninism, properly understood - i.e. understood independent of counter-revolutionary Stalinism - is the single most important historic development of the revolutionary ideas of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.

When confronted with particularly reprehensible behavior on the part of a particular Leninist sect, other Leninists unanimously chorus: Oh, they're not real Leninists.

My criticisms of the SWP is based on their political tactics and policies.

It is very reminiscent of early Christianity...which featured the most venomous "faction fights" that frequently included physical violence and occasionally murder.

So if we're critical of a certain political party or individual, it must be 'very reminiscent of early Christianity'? If you argue that Leninism is not a correct understanding of Marxism, can you, with that logic, not be accused of the same thing? If i claim that Pol Pot was not representative of the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, this is 'reminiscent of early Christianity'?

Vanguard1917

22nd December 2005, 13:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 01:44 AM
Vanguard 1917:

You really need a source? If you're going to support a party, surely you should already know about the controversies happening within it. Type the key words into Google (e.g. Lindsey - German - abortion - shibboleth ) - i'm sure something will come up.

I was at Marxism when the CPGB brought up the whole issue the first time. It was a non-issue then, it's a non-issue now.

By the way, Galloway is openly anti-abortion.

I know. Do you have a coherent argument to make or are your just regurgitating things that are in the public domain?

Maybe it's because of their newfound multiculturalism

Maybe. Maybe it's your chauvinism? Who knows.

You're not very good at defending the SWP/RESPECT are you?

Major issues like women's rights are being attacked by the SWP/RESPECT, when not being reluctantly paid lip-service to. But, for you, they're 'non-issues'.

The multiculturalist policies of the government and government-sponsored organisations are having an extremely divisive and ghettoising impact on our society. I criticise the SWP/RESPECT's support for such policies, and you call me a chauvinist.

The poverty of criticism.

YKTMX

22nd December 2005, 17:02

I'm not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.

Condolences.

Major issues like women's rights are being attacked by the SWP/RESPECT, when not being reluctantly paid lip-service to. But, for you, they're 'non-issues'.

No, the SWP and Respect members will have their legitimate debates about these issues because they are important. What's a 'non-issue' is criticism from ultra left groupuscules and their minions.

I criticise the SWP/RESPECT's support for such policies, and you call me a chauvinist.

What do you mean by 'multiculturalism'?

Pilgrim

22nd December 2005, 17:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:02 PM

I'm not a Marxist, I'm an Anarchist.

Condolences.

Major issues like women's rights are being attacked by the SWP/RESPECT, when not being reluctantly paid lip-service to. But, for you, they're 'non-issues'.

No, the SWP and Respect members will have their legitimate debates about these issues because they are important. What's a 'non-issue' is criticism from ultra left groupuscules and their minions.

I criticise the SWP/RESPECT's support for such policies, and you call me a chauvinist.

What do you mean by 'multiculturalism'?
You're beginning to lose this debate, aren't you?

And I'd rather be an Anarchist than a RESPECT/SWP android any day.

YKTMX

22nd December 2005, 17:49

You're beginning to lose this debate, aren't you?

I don't think so. I've offered to debate with you thoroughly on the matter of the Respect Coalition on another thread.

Instead, you've decided to stay here and offer stupid one-liners about 'SWP androids'.

I think it's you who's desperate.

Pilgrim

22nd December 2005, 17:53

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2005, 05:49 PM

You're beginning to lose this debate, aren't you?

I don't think so. I've offered to debate with you thoroughly on the matter of the Respect Coalition on another thread.

Instead, you've decided to stay here and offer stupid one-liners about 'SWP androids'.

I think it's you who's desperate.
Considering that you offered me your 'condolences' for being an Anarchist, I think it's a little rich to complain about one liners.

ANyway, rather than indulge your tiresome and frankly childish efforts to get a rise out of me, I'm off out for a wgile.

See you later.

bezdomni

24th December 2005, 20:55

This may have been answered already, but isn't the vanguard supposed to be directly representative of the workers (ie: democratically elected with immediate recall)?

One of the few things that I haven't developed a concrete opinion on is the vanguard. I certainly believe that revolutionary leadership is necessary in the shift from capitalism to communism, but I could see a "vanguard" easily become a despotic group of tyrants.

I guess what I'm trying to ask is this:

What is the difference, if any, between elected individuals to leadership and vanguard leadership?

redstar2000

24th December 2005, 23:50

I think this is an excellent description of how "democracy" works inside the Leninist vanguard party...

Originally posted by Pilgrim
I would, when assessing how a vanguard party would run a country, look at how they run their own party. The SWP leadership is the Central Committee. The Central Committee decides more or less everything in the British SWP. Policy decisions are made at national level, then passed down to the membership, to be followed to the letter. Failure to follow CC policy to the letter frequently results in whispering campaigns, activists being frozen out and activists simply being expelled. There is a long list of people expelled from the British SWP especially.

There is also little or no internal democracy. Members are barred from forming internal factions, and even which email lists they may use is decided by the SWP CC. Even the national conference, at which Central Committee members are elected, is undemocratic. It is done on the slate system, and has degenerated to the point where the outgoing CC declares its slate and the slate is duly elected. Not once, as far as I am aware, has anyone proposed an alternative slate. and nor has an alternative slate ever been elected. In effect, the SWP CC elects itself, and is a self-perpetuating and (within the party) all-powerful clique.

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1291991639 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=44038&view=findpost&p=1291991639)

Pilgrim is speaking here of the Socialist Workers Party (U.K.)...but it parallels descriptions I've heard from ex-Leninists of all kinds.

It seems as close to universal as makes no difference.

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

YKTMX

25th December 2005, 00:52

All that is lies/factually innaccurate, in case anyone is interested.

Policy decisions are made at national level, then passed down to the membership, to be followed to the letter.

Policies are decided by delegates (i.e. those voted to go by their local branches/regions) at a national conference.

email lists they may use is decided by the SWP CC.

Anyone who believes that is just stupid.

The CC is elected because the members realise that its members work very hard for little reward. Chris Harman could be making half a million pounds a year at the London School of Economics, instead he devotes his time to the party. Anyone who wishes to join the CC can put themselves up for election. For instace, John Molyneux, a comrade who has had disagreements with the CC over the political trajectory (not dissimilar to the ultraleftists here, but unlike them, John is a committed, serious Marxist) is standing for election to the CC on a 'Cliffite' programme. I just read this in the National Conference bulletin my mum has just had delivered.

I hope he gets elected, but if he doesn't, that's fair enough, because I know the elections are fair and just.

ReD_ReBeL

25th December 2005, 00:57

just to clear this story George Galloway might have his personal views on abortion whtever they may be but he supports RESPECTS Pro-Choice view

Pilgrim

25th December 2005, 22:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 12:52 AM
All that is lies/factually innaccurate, in case anyone is interested.

Policy decisions are made at national level, then passed down to the membership, to be followed to the letter.

Policies are decided by delegates (i.e. those voted to go by their local branches/regions) at a national conference.

email lists they may use is decided by the SWP CC.

Anyone who believes that is just stupid.

The CC is elected because the members realise that its members work very hard for little reward. Chris Harman could be making half a million pounds a year at the London School of Economics, instead he devotes his time to the party. Anyone who wishes to join the CC can put themselves up for election. For instace, John Molyneux, a comrade who has had disagreements with the CC over the political trajectory (not dissimilar to the ultraleftists here, but unlike them, John is a committed, serious Marxist) is standing for election to the CC on a 'Cliffite' programme. I just read this in the National Conference bulletin my mum has just had delivered.

I hope he gets elected, but if he doesn't, that's fair enough, because I know the elections are fair and just.
So I am either a liar or a fantasist am I?

I would refer you to the fact that I was a MEMBER of the SWP and an active one at that.

So I KNOW what goes on within the party, because I have SEEN it with my own eyes and HEARD it with my own ears.

Oh, and as far as the SWP Central Committee deciding which email lists members may or may not use, anybody who believes such things being 'stupid' as you so contemptuously put it, I refer you to this SWP CC communique:

http://www.angelfire.com/journal/iso/ist.html

Enjoy...

Led Zeppelin

5th January 2006, 15:10

"The tactics of agitation in relation to some special question, or the tactics with regard to some detail of party organisation may be changed in twenty-four hours; but only people devoid of all principle are capable of changing, in twenty-four hours, or, for that matter, in twenty-four months, their view on the necessity—in general, constantly, and absolutely—of an organisation of struggle and of political agitation among the masses. It is ridiculous to plead different circumstances and a change of periods: the building of a fighting organisation and the conduct of political agitation are essential under any “drab, peaceful” circumstances, in any period, no matter how marked by a “declining revolutionary spirit”; moreover, it is precisely in such periods and under such circumstances that work of this kind is particularly necessary, since it is too late to form the organisation in times of explosion and outbursts; the party must be in a state of readiness to launch activity at a moment’s notice. “Change the tactics within twenty-four hours”! But in order to change tactics it is first necessary to have tactics; without a strong organisation skilled in waging political struggle under all circumstances and at all times, there can be no question of that systematic plan of action, illumined by firm principles and steadfastly carried out, which alone is worthy of the name of tactics." Lenin

"In order truly to give “consideration to the material elements of the movement”, one must view them critically, one must be able to point out the dangers and defects of spontaneity and to elevate it to the level of consciousness, To say, however, that ideologists (i.e., politically conscious leaders) cannot divert the movement from the path determined by the interaction of environment and elements is to ignore the simple truth that the conscious element participates in this interaction and in the determination of the path. Catholic and monarchist labour unions in Europe are also an inevitable result of the interaction of environment and elements, but it was the consciousness of priests and Zubatovs and not that of socialists that participated in this interaction. The theoretical views of the authors of this letter (like those of Rabocheye Dyelo) do not represent Marxism, but that parody of it which is nursed by our “Critics” and Bernsteinians who are unable to connect spontaneous evolution with conscious revolutionary activity." Lenin

Above you see two quotes by Lenin that I read yesterday in his Where to Begin? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm) and A Talk With Defenders of Economism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/dec/06.htm), it has become painfully obvious to me that the more I read of comrade Lenin the more "evidence" I find of the fact that people such as redstar2000 are revisionists of the first order.

Don't Change Your Name

5th January 2006, 15:25

Not anymore that the more you read Hitler the more "evidence" you get that jews are evil :rolleyes:

Led Zeppelin

5th January 2006, 15:32

I have never read anything by Hitler, nor have I ever disliked or even hated Jews as a ethnic group (I do, of course, oppose Judaism as a religion), so your semi-coherent statement is just that; a semi-coherent statement.

redstar2000

5th January 2006, 17:08

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)“Change the tactics within twenty-four hours”![/b]

Typical Lenin. The Party is like an automobile and the driver just turns the steering wheel to follow the road...making left turns and (mostly) right turns as seems "appropriate".

That is such a simple minded version of what actually happens in history that I cannot imagine that Lenin actually believed his own rhetoric here.

Originally posted by [email protected]
To say, however, that ideologists (i.e., politically conscious leaders) cannot divert the movement from the path determined by the interaction of environment and elements is to ignore the simple truth that the conscious element participates in this interaction and in the determination of the path.

This one is a little "trickier".

Everyone is "conscious" all the time. What people attempt to do depends on what they are conscious of wanting...on what they perceive is in their material class interests.

A reformist group can attempt to convince workers that A is "in their best interests" while a revolutionary group can attempt to convince workers that B is in their best interests. Some workers will choose A and some will choose B.

It is objective material conditions that will generally determine how those choices are made.

Working people will not choose the revolutionary option unless that choice makes sense...they cannot see any possible improvement coming from the "old order".

Prior to that point, they may choose reformist options or even just apathy..."nothing can be done".

Apathy is a popular choice in the advanced capitalist countries now. The system is "working" (for most people). The reformists have become increasingly discredited...they simply fail to deliver on their promises. All bourgeois "politics" is (correctly) seen as a cesspool of corruption.

That's not going to change until objective material conditions change. No amount of "revolutionary" rhetoric -- regardless of the source -- will significantly alter the general attitude of the working class until that class actually sees the system falter.

Marxism-Leninism
...it has become painfully obvious to me that the more I read of comrade Lenin the more "evidence" I find of the fact that people such as redstar2000 are revisionists of the first order.

Well, I'd hate to be "second order" or even lower. :lol:

In my opinion, I think you simply lack a grasp of historical materialism altogether. You imagine that if a Leninist Party just "says the right things" that revolutions will take place and put that Party in power.

That's an idealist conception of how history works.

For example, if your outlook was actually valid, then by your own logic there should be Trotskyist parties holding state power right now in all the countries that we now consider "advanced".

But that's not the case, is it?

Ask yourself why.

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

rebelworker

7th January 2006, 07:53

I was unfortunately a member of the International Socialists, the canadian franchise of the SWP, for a few years when i was young and not very well read(came out of a lumber camp, angry and wanted communism, but was serrously lacking in education and critical thinking skills or political experience).

I had the exact same experience as pilgrim, and to make matters worse our central comittee, undemocratic in its own right(was an active member for almost two years and still didnt know how the slates were chosen) drew all its political direction from the British CC.

even if that wasnt the case and we set our own policy it didnt matter because unless you were one of the paid 'profesional revolutionaries' that lived in Toronto(where theCC was located) you had no chance of organising yourself well enough to run an effective slate campaign in the elections(you had to pay extra to get into the meeting to vote).

Profesional reolutionaries become aclass unto themselves in a party, like Stalin, wen yu controll information you controll everything.

I do on the other hand belevie in the need for a revolutionary organisation, just not a self proclaimed vanguard that sees its goal to lead the workers and seize state power.

Having a directly democratic organization that sees its goal as working of coheirant theory, propogating revolutionary ideas and trying to win active elements of our class over to revolutionary and antiauthoritarian ideas by participating along side them in struggle are crutial if one day we wish to see a successful revolution that avoids the failures of the past(both reformism and despotism of the facist or bolshevik variety).

Uprisings in themselves dont guarantee revolution, but vanguardism will enevitably lead to a new class of intelectuals come tyrants(something that may be apealing to thoes intelectuals, but not something that working class people should be fighting for).

Led Zeppelin

7th January 2006, 14:23

And so the fabrications continue...

Typical Lenin. The Party is like an automobile and the driver just turns the steering wheel to follow the road...making left turns and (mostly) right turns as seems "appropriate".

That is such a simple minded version of what actually happens in history that I cannot imagine that Lenin actually believed his own rhetoric here.

Was that comment meant to be taken seriously? Or do you think that we are 5 year old school kids who cannot read and cannot take quotes in context?

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)“Change the tactics within twenty-four hours”! But in order to change tactics it is first necessary to have tactics; without a strong organisation skilled in waging political struggle under all circumstances and at all times, there can be no question of that systematic plan of action, illumined by firm principles and steadfastly carried out, which alone is worthy of the name of tactics.[/b]

Did you miss the quote tags Lenin placed in that sentence? Did you even bother clicking on the links I provided? Obviously not, or maybe you did and consciously tried to throw dust in the eyes of the forum members, it does not matter, since you entirely missed the point of that first quote and why I posted it, maybe on purpose, maybe not, so I will kindly repost the part that I had intended you to respond too:

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)The tactics of agitation in relation to some special question, or the tactics with regard to some detail of party organisation may be changed in twenty-four hours; but only people devoid of all principle are capable of changing, in twenty-four hours, or, for that matter, in twenty-four months, their view on the necessity—in general, constantly, and absolutely—of an organisation of struggle and of political agitation among the masses. It is ridiculous to plead different circumstances and a change of periods: the building of a fighting organisation and the conduct of political agitation are essential under any “drab, peaceful” circumstances, in any period, no matter how marked by a “declining revolutionary spirit”; moreover, it is precisely in such periods and under such circumstances that work of this kind is particularly necessary, since it is too late to form the organisation in times of explosion and outbursts; the party must be in a state of readiness to launch activity at a moment’s notice.[/b]

In other words, you are "devoid of all principle".

This one is a little "trickier".

Yes I noticed, it was so tricky that you even avoided the entire point of what Lenin said and again started ranting about something which has nothing to do with it, at all.

For example:

A reformist group can attempt to convince workers that A is "in their best interests" while a revolutionary group can attempt to convince workers that B is in their best interests. Some workers will choose A and some will choose B.

It is objective material conditions that will generally determine how those choices are made.

Working people will not choose the revolutionary option unless that choice makes sense...they cannot see any possible improvement coming from the "old order".

Prior to that point, they may choose reformist options or even just apathy..."nothing can be done".

Apathy is a popular choice in the advanced capitalist countries now. The system is "working" (for most people). The reformists have become increasingly discredited...they simply fail to deliver on their promises. All bourgeois "politics" is (correctly) seen as a cesspool of corruption.

That's not going to change until objective material conditions change. No amount of "revolutionary" rhetoric -- regardless of the source -- will significantly alter the general attitude of the working class until that class actually sees the system falter.

Who cares?

Lenin was arguing the necessity of a party, not about material conditions! Of course the material conditions should be advanced to the point of the proletariat wanting to revolt and rise up, no one is arguing that, especially not Lenin in that quote, let us review the quote once more, this time not assuming that all forum members are 5 year olds:

[email protected]
To say, however, that ideologists (i.e., politically conscious leaders) cannot divert the movement from the path determined by the interaction of environment and elements is to ignore the simple truth that the conscious element participates in this interaction and in the determination of the path.

What does Lenin mean by this? Simple, he is saying that the party, the vanguard, does have an effect on "the path of the movement determined by the interaction of environment and elements", i.e., the proletarian movement and its path, and then he proceeds to prove his claim by using historical examples (the part that you ignored):

Lenin
Catholic and monarchist labour unions in Europe are also an inevitable result of the interaction of environment and elements, but it was the consciousness of priests and Zubatovs and not that of socialists that participated in this interaction.

Who "lacks a grasp of historical materialism altogether"? Lenin or you?

Obviously you, Lenin proved his claims with the use of historical facts, i.e., historical materialism, you are unable to do as such, therefore you are wrong.

You imagine that if a Leninist Party just "says the right things" that revolutions will take place and put that Party in power.

Petty slander, I never said such a thing.

redstar2000

7th January 2006, 18:14

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism+--> (Marxism-Leninism)Or do you think that we are 5 year old school kids who cannot read and cannot take quotes in context?[/b]

When reading the posts defending Leninism on this board, it's difficult for me not to conclude that reading with comprehension is not one of your "strengths".

You make a claim, quote some "scripture", and that's pretty much it. Any kind of skeptical argument is usually met with complete incomprehension.

It's not a matter of how old you might be; it's a matter of unwillingness to actually think about this stuff instead of just mindlessly repeating "Lenin good, redstar2000 bad".

Originally posted by Lenin+--> (Lenin)...the party must be in a state of readiness to launch activity at a moment’s notice.[/b]

I repeat: Lenin could not possibly have believed his own rhetoric here.

But you believe it...because Lenin said it.

The absurdity of Lenin's claim completely escapes you.

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
Lenin was arguing the necessity of a party, not about material conditions!

Yes he was. And I was trying to illustrate why his argument was completely academic.

In vain! It just went completely "over your head".

In fact, your response was "who cares?".

You don't...and neither does Leninism as a paradigm. As I correctly summarized:

[email protected]
You imagine that if a Leninist Party just "says the right things" that revolutions will take place and put that Party in power.

Here's how you say the same thing.

Marxism-Leninism
Simple, he is saying that the party, the vanguard, does have an effect on "the path of the movement determined by the interaction of environment and elements", i.e., the proletarian movement and its path...

"Have an effect"? You mean, of course, make things happen that otherwise wouldn't.

Just as "priests and monarchists" created religious and pro-monarchy "unions" that "would not otherwise have come into existence."

And Lenin assumes that if "socialists" had been on hand, that those religious and pro-monarchy unions would likewise have been "socialist".

Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't. It doesn't "prove" anything.

The nominal ideology of early trade unions was not, as it happens, usually of much historical significance. Only in those countries where "revolutionary syndicalism" was important did "ideology" make a real "difference".

An I.W.W. in the U.S. was significant...but that was unusual. In Russia, the Czarist regime actually sponsored "religious and pro-monarchy" unions in order to combat "socialist influence" among the workers.

What is, in fact, significant was that trade unions would have spontaneously arisen even if no "conscious element" was present at all.

And the outlook of those early unions was generally pretty conservative...the proletariat was young and inexperienced and really only wanted to be treated a little better.

You (and most Leninists) think that if you have a guy in the front of the union meeting who "talks radical" that that "means" that the union membership "is radical".

No.

Objective reality prevails.

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

Led Zeppelin

10th January 2006, 23:43

When reading the posts defending Leninism on this board, it's difficult for me not to conclude that reading with comprehension is not one of your "strengths".

Luckily it's not impossible, there's still hope for you.

You make a claim, quote some "scripture", and that's pretty much it. Any kind of skeptical argument is usually met with complete incomprehension.

Utter nonsense, I've only seen one person doing this; "red_che", he's a Maoist so his views are of no importance, kinda like yours.

Quoting Lenin when quoting Lenin is required is logical, when I read Lenin and I see he proves you wrong, guess what, I quote him, sue me.

When you say that Lenin held a particular view on a certain subject while he simply did not hold such a view, guess what, I quote him to prove you wrong.

You call that "quoting scripture", I call that exposing falsifiers.

It's not a matter of how old you might be; it's a matter of unwillingness to actually think about this stuff instead of just mindlessly repeating "Lenin good, redstar2000 bad".

What if logical thinking has the conclusion; Lenin good, redstar2000 bad?

Then you're in trouble, aren't you?

I repeat: Lenin could not possibly have believed his own rhetoric here.

But you believe it...because Lenin said it.

The absurdity of Lenin's claim completely escapes you.

Why not, what is there not to believe? He says the party should be ready to launch activity at a moment’s notice, do you disagree?

"Have an effect"? You mean, of course, make things happen that otherwise wouldn't.

Just as "priests and monarchists" created religious and pro-monarchy "unions" that "would not otherwise have come into existence."

Of course, that is a historical fact, you can't deny history, well, maybe you can.

And Lenin assumes that if "socialists" had been on hand, that those religious and pro-monarchy unions would likewise have been "socialist".

Wrong, Lenin is saying that Socialists did not create the "religious and pro-monarchy unions", but priests and monarchists did it, so who is to say that Socialists (Communists) can't --or rather-- don't have to build workers unions? A workers party? A workers state?

Who is to say that it is not their task to do as such?

Exactly, history proves you wrong, every institution was created by a certain group, or the organised and most advanced section of that group, in society, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the workers state will not come into existance in that manner, in fact it contradicts historical materialism to think it will, your anti-Marxism is showing again reddie.

What is, in fact, significant was that trade unions would have spontaneously arisen even if no "conscious element" was present at all.

The above statement proves that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Connolly

11th January 2006, 01:06

"The Vanguard, are we against it?" (as Marxists)

Yes.

Some reasons

1) Marxists are progressive, we do not support reactionary bullshit.

2) Marxists, as a fundamental rule, believe socialist revolution as a democratic, built from below, mass movement controlled directly by the workers for the workers.

3) Generally, Marxists believe anything that manifests itself as a religous like, figure "headed" personality cult, must be completely irrational and rigid.

Simply, HOW CAN ONE KNOW WHETHER THE VANGUARD IS NECESSARY FOR SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, WHEN, SOCIALIST REVOLUTION REMAINS IN THE FUTURE??

Only GOD like leninists can answer this question with surety and rigidity without question.

M-L, just because a Marxist questions old "Traditional Wisdom" dosnt mean they are non-Marxist. In fact, I believe RS2K is very progressive and individualistic in his approaches and beliefs, something which the Marxist movement needs more than ever, 99% percent more than those who remain fixed to a particular Lenin or Trotsky for their mental cultivation.

Vinny Rafarino

11th January 2006, 04:32

This very question has plagued Communists from the moment of conception; it is quite simply a matter of interpretation.

For example:

Marx makes two simple distinctions when addressing revolution, he claims that during revolution the proletariat, once formed into a single class distinction will " use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Nothing unusual here. However the second distinction addresses what Lenin interpreted as a "vanguard" party:

"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.

Clearly he, like all other theoretical polititians has made a distinction between who does the "thinking" and who does the actual "revolting".

In other words, Communists present the theory yet use the people to gain the power.

How can you blame old Marxie for this? He himself knew that during times of political revolution, many people will die.

We could not "sacrifice" our great thinkers now can we?

So in turn, a "vanguard party" is not only completely "Marxist" ideology, but also a point of Communist theory that Marx felt to be irreproachable.

Considering the conditions of the modern era, my advice would be toss 90 percent of Karl's rhetoric back into the pot and make some stew "of and for the people".

An enlightened and modern Communist has no need for such rigid examples of social theory that has not been able to produce a lasting model of Socialism that can withstand the the test of operating efficiently among a global community of capitalist free market regimes.

Could this theory be applied under different conditions in the future? Perhaps it may, perhaps it won't.

Perhaps we wont even need political theory at all.

redstar2000

11th January 2006, 05:25

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
[Lenin] says the party should be ready to launch activity at a moment’s notice, do you disagree?

No, I don't "disagree"...I think it's self-evident nonsense.

In Lenin's day, how long do you think it took a letter to get from Switzerland to Russia? Don't forget, that was before the days of "air mail".

A week? A month? What's your guess?

Lenin's statement was absurd on its face. He knew from first hand experience how slow communication was between western Europe and Russia.

Oh...they didn't have much in the way of long-distance telephone service in those days either. :lol:

So when Lenin argued that the "vanguard party" should be "ready to move" in "24 hours", he was just blowing smoke out of his ass.

Like you.

Of course, that is a historical fact, you can't deny history, well, maybe you can.

It's not a matter of "denying" what happened...it's denying Lenin's spin on why it happened.

...so who is to say that Socialists (Communists) can't --or rather-- don't have to build workers unions? A workers party? A workers state?

Or a worker's theme park? :lol:

Well, Leninists have had some eight decades to show what they can do "in the west".

They have been pretty good at union organizing; credit where credit is due.

A "workers' party"? Only in those countries where they openly embraced reformism.

A "workers' state"? Zip!

So was Lenin wrong or did you guys just have a terrible run of real bad luck?

Exactly, history proves you wrong, every institution was created by a certain group, or the organised and most advanced section of that group, in society, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the workers state will not come into existence in that manner, in fact it contradicts historical materialism to think it will, your anti-Marxism is showing again reddie.

No, what's showing is your inability to see the difference between proletarian revolution and all previous revolutions.

It is observed that in previous forms of class societies that one ruling class could take power from another as the consequence of the acts of "leaders". This is because all previous ruling classes were elite minorities ...drastically simplifying the task of "changing over". It was actually something that could be and was done by very small groups.

The emergence of the proletariat "changed the rules". For the proletariat to come to power necessarily involves the initiative of millions of workers.

This complicates matters far beyond the abilities of any small elite to handle...even if they were all as smart as they think they are.

Which you're not, of course. :lol:

Lenin thought essentially that with mass proletarian support that a vanguard could "take over" from the bourgeoisie in the same way that the bourgeoisie "took over" from the old aristocracy.

But that's wrong...as Marx told him.

The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.

Not a "vanguard", not an "elite", not the "most advanced", not "the Party", not the "leader"...none of that stuff.

That stuff was all invented by Lenin and his various followers...and built on an obsolete plan.

At best, all you can argue is that it occasionally "worked" (sorta) in backward countries with weak or naive proletariats. And even then you have to contrive absurdities like "degenerate workers' states"...that just make no sense at all.

The above statement proves that you have no clue what you're talking about.

The first trade unions in the U.S. arose in the period 1830-50. No priests, no government agents, and no "socialists" were involved.

They "just happened"...because workers spontaneously saw them as in their class interests.

As depressing as you find the idea, that's how proletarian revolution is going to happen.

Not because you're "leading it" but because it's something that millions of workers will spontaneously see as in their class interests.

Sorry. :(

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

Amusing Scrotum

11th January 2006, 15:17

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)However the second distinction addresses what Lenin interpreted as a "vanguard" party:[/b]

"Interpreted" being the operative word. There are plenty of Christians who "interpret" the Bible to be a liberal and loving book, it's not.

Originally posted by Comrade RAF quoting Marx+--> (Comrade RAF quoting Marx)"The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the lines of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.[/b]

There are, as I'm sure you're aware, far better passages that provide a (very strained) link between Marx and Lenin's "interpretation" of Marx and the creation of the vanguard.

This particular passage, however, does no such thing.

Would you dispute that working class Communists today know far better than other workers where their class interests lie? ....or are you saying saying Communists shouldn't agitate and try to "radicalise" the working class?

These are the only serious criticisms you could mount of this passage.

Comrade [email protected]
In other words, Communists present the theory yet use the people to gain the power.

Tell me, what group of people did Marx spend countless afternoons educating on the theories of political economy?

Or why do you think Marx opposed people like Lassalle and Weitling?

Comrade RAF
We could not "sacrifice" our great thinkers now can we?

If that were true, then Engels would never have joined the military during the 48 (?) uprising, and Marx wouldn't have constantly annoyed Prussian authorities, nor would he have "duelled" (or threatened to duel) with countless reactionaries.

Vinny Rafarino

11th January 2006, 17:25

This particular passage, however, does no such thing.

Perhaps that is your own interpretation of the quote. If you study it long enough son, it will come to you.

Would you dispute that working class Communists today know far better than other workers where their class interests lie?

No I would not.

It's not hard to count when you only have a handful.

or are you saying saying Communists shouldn't agitate and try to "radicalise" the working class?

It is very clear what I have said, unless you're dim that is; what you are nipping at is what Marx is saying.

It hurts so good doesn't it?

If that were true, then Engels would never have joined the military during the 48 (?) uprising, and Marx wouldn't have constantly annoyed Prussian authorities, nor would he have "duelled" (or threatened to duel) with countless reactionaries.

You're confusing life with theory.

Amusing Scrotum

11th January 2006, 17:41

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)Perhaps that is your own interpretation of the quote.[/b]

"Interpretation"??? ....the content of the quote is pretty obvious, perhaps if I re-phrased it....

The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand practically, the most class conscious section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which consistently offers the most radical critiques of bourgeois society; on the other hand, theoretically, they have a greater understanding of class struggle and what it will achieve.

You evidently find something wrong with this, yet your answers to my questions seem to contradict this.

Originally posted by Comrade [email protected]
It hurts so good doesn't it?

I haven't the faintest idea of what you are going on about. I doubt the reader of this thread will have either.

Comrade RAF
You're confusing life with theory.

However, surely if their theory was to be "rotten bastards" who planned to ride to power on the backs of the working class, they would have tried this when they had the chance.

Or perhaps Marx and Engels were benevolent prophets. They came up with their theories so that one day (perhaps they "foresaw" it) Lenin could rise to power. Short of you invoking superstition and Marx as the devil, I have no real idea what you are suggesting. The first passage you quoted from Marx is, if anything, the passage which is erroneous and needs correcting, the second, is common sense.

Vinny Rafarino

11th January 2006, 17:49

You evidently find something wrong with this, yet your answers to my questions seem to contradict this.

You're confused again; there is everything wrong with the quote.

Golly gee whiz son, thanks a-bunches for "re-phrasing"such a difficult passage. What would we do without you?

The first passage you quoted from Marx is, if anything, the passage which is erroneous and needs correcting

Keep reading it. Over and over again if you must.

Amusing Scrotum

11th January 2006, 18:03

Originally posted by Comrade RAF+--> (Comrade RAF)You're confused again; there is everything wrong with the quote.[/b]

Alright, you've got me, I've read that quote at least ten times and I still don't get what's wrong with it. Can you explain it to me (and the reader)?

Comrade RAF
Keep reading it. Over and over again if you must.

Are you referring to the first quote here? ...." use its political supremacy to wrest...."

I know what my problems with that short passage would be, I just don't get what's "wrong" about the second passage you quoted.

Led Zeppelin

11th January 2006, 19:36

No, I don't "disagree"...I think it's self-evident nonsense.

In Lenin's day, how long do you think it took a letter to get from Switzerland to Russia? Don't forget, that was before the days of "air mail".

A week? A month? What's your guess?

Lenin's statement was absurd on its face. He knew from first hand experience how slow communication was between western Europe and Russia.

Oh...they didn't have much in the way of long-distance telephone service in those days either.

So when Lenin argued that the "vanguard party" should be "ready to move" in "24 hours", he was just blowing smoke out of his ass.

Like you.

Are you kidding me? Is this some kind of petty semi-coherent joke?

Do you really think that the only way for a party to take action is by direct order from the Central committee? So the entire party just waited for letters from Lenin and the leadership in exile, while doing nothing themselves?

Do you see how illogical that sounds?

Well, Leninists have had some eight decades to show what they can do "in the west".

And you had the same amount of time, what's your point?

They have been pretty good at union organizing; credit where credit is due.

A "workers' party"? Only in those countries where they openly embraced reformism.

A "workers' state"? Zip!

So was Lenin wrong or did you guys just have a terrible run of real bad luck?

And orthodox Marxism/Anarchism/Bernsteinism/redstarism has achieved, yep, zip!

So are you wrong or did you just have a terrible run of real bad luck?

Here's a tip reddie, don't attack the track record of other ideologies when your own hasn't achieved anything.

Lenin thought essentially that with mass proletarian support that a vanguard could "take over" from the bourgeoisie in the same way that the bourgeoisie "took over" from the old aristocracy.

But that's wrong...as Marx told him.

The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves.

Not a "vanguard", not an "elite", not the "most advanced", not "the Party", not the "leader"...none of that stuff.

That stuff was all invented by Lenin and his various followers...and built on an obsolete plan.

Really? I thought Engels came up with that:

Originally posted by Engels
"If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power in the form of the democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown...."

I can probably find many many more quotes by Marx and Engels on the vanguard and leaders, and I will find them as I continue to study their works, but you know, it's already obvious that you're wrong, and they were right, so I don't see the point of even discussing this matter with you, it's just you making up stuff and attributing them to certain people (in this case Lenin) and then proceeding with petty insults, please act your age.

The first trade unions in the U.S. arose in the period 1830-50. No priests, no government agents, and no "socialists" were involved.

They "just happened"...because workers spontaneously saw them as in their class interests.

And those trade unions weren't set-up by union leaders or representatives from the workers, right?

Please.

Connolly

11th January 2006, 20:17

QUOTE (Engels)

If one thing is certain it is that our party and the working class can only come to power in the form of the democratic republic. This is even the specific form for the dictatorship of the proletariat, as the Great French Revolution has already shown..."

I can probably find many many more quotes by Marx and Engels on the vanguard and leaders, and I will find them as I continue to study their works, but you know, it's already obvious that you're wrong, and they were right, so I don't see the point of even discussing this matter with you,

Sorry, but, where in this quote does Engles mention control by minority or control by "intellectual" vanguard, or, in fact that a vanguard is needed at all? I believe you are misquoting Engles. And, you can look and study all you like - but you will never find Marx or Engles supporting vanguard methods. Of course unless you like to interperate things in such a way that it suits yourself, as above, then you might find tonnes of vanguardisms - although completely oblivious and distorting actual truth.

don't attack the track record of other ideologies when your own hasn't achieved anything.

What if that ideology involves understanding, and waiting for a particular material condition (which cant simply be created conciously) to come into being, which will encourage revolutionary conciousness naturally when ready? should it have to achieve something other than historical and scientific understanding?

let me just quote you a while back on the same topic.

"The vanguard should not even be disputed"

Do you still support this view?

Also, a question which you havnt ever been able to answer -

HOW CAN ONE KNOW WHETHER THE VANGUARD IS NECESSARY FOR SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, WHEN, SOCIALIST REVOLUTION REMAINS IN THE FUTURE??

Led Zeppelin

11th January 2006, 20:30

Sorry, but, where in this quote does Engles mention control by minority or control by "intellectual" vanguard, or, in fact that a vanguard is needed at all?

When he says "our party" he is referring to the German social-democratic party, which was most certainly a vanguard party in the Leninist sense of the word.

What if that ideology involves understanding, and waiting for a particular material condition (which cant simply be created conciously) to come into being

Leninism also involves that.

let me just quote you a while back on the same topic.

"The vanguard should not even be disputed"

Do you still support this view?

Of course I do, the vanguard theory has proven to work, to dispute it is not only silly, it's anti-Marxist.

Also, a question which you havnt ever been able to answer -

HOW CAN ONE KNOW WHETHER THE VANGUARD IS NECESSARY FOR SOCIALIST REVOLUTION, WHEN, SOCIALIST REVOLUTION REMAINS IN THE FUTURE??

How can one know whether Socialist revolution is necessary when Socialist revolution remains in the future?

Exactly, you don't know, you can only analyze the past and try to make logical conclusions from the past and current material conditions, when analyzing the past we see that the transfers of power of one group in society to another group was always done by the most advanced section of that group organized in a party or organization, there is no reason to believe this will not be the case for the proletariat.

Vinny Rafarino

11th January 2006, 20:40

Alright, you've got me, I've read that quote at least ten times and I still don't get what's wrong with it. Can you explain it to me (and the reader)?

Certainly.

It exposes a very simple truth about orthodox Marxism that is completely obsolete in the modern era, in relation to how Marxs suggests revolution will transpire:

The people hold no actual capacity to understand why exactly revolution is necessary; they must simply be agitated, wether it's by the party or social conditions, to the point of massive revolution. They will then be guided to victory by those whom have the intellectual and social capacity to keep the drones from "fucking it all up".

It completely dismisses the possibility for natural "leaders" to emerge from the masses themselves; after all, the masses are simple "proletarians" aren't they?

Given the historical significance of the majority of socialist regimes, both past and present, any modern Communist that ignores this significance is simply too rigid in ideology to have the necessary political, social and moral "flexibilty" to understand theoretical modern revolution; much less "lead" portions of one.

Massive revolution will undoubtably create it's own "leaders", history shows us this, however those leaders will be created out of consequence that no one here could possibly fathom.

To think otherwise is just folly; exposing orthodox Marxism for what it is under the cloak of moral superiority:

Obsolete to modern conditions of revolution.

This of course could quite well possibly change under future conditions; I reckon we will have to wait and see.

Are you referring to the first quote here

Considering my response was to your own quote containing the words "the first passage", I would suspect it is.

If you cannot see the underlying context of the passage in, again, relation to the other then what are you gonna do? You can't fight city hall right?...or so they say! :lol:

Connolly

11th January 2006, 21:48

Leninism also involves that.

But it dosnt.

Leninism attempts to create the material conditions consciously, attempts to structure a socialist society under the guidance of a few intellectuals.

This is conscious action.

Its like a dog adapting its future pups through evolution consciously "Bark, Bark, I want my pups to have longer fangs - ill change my brain and genetic code to alter my sperm".

It just dosnt happen like this, man cannot consciously change their society, any attempt to do so is idealism.

Whats stopping lenin, or any other conscious material creater from interpreting the future different, thus, attemting to create a society were chocolate flows from taps, sex is banned and glass is food. Reality is stopping this.

It is impossible to create a socialist revolution consciously, organise and structure a socialist society consciously.

Humans are not all knowing, we have faults in our thinking (even the "mighty" lenin). Even when you get a crowd of "great thinkers" together, it would be impossible to create a perfect society, as humans are not perfect, they have faults.

Thus, it is the collective action of the huge majority, through small and individual decisions, without seeing there overall effect to the great organism which is humanity, that decides and guides our future and direction.

Not, what you seem to think, where a few intellectuals can plan and organise a socialist revolution, define its boundaries and decide from their cozy offices what decisions are made to direct humanities path.

Socialist revolution and its material conditions, will, and can only come about unconsciously, without the working proletariat knowing exactly what they aim on the greater whole.

Led Zeppelin

11th January 2006, 22:26

Leninism attempts to create the material conditions consciously, attempts to structure a socialist society under the guidance of a few intellectuals.

This is conscious action.

So you don't know what Leninism is, big surprise there.

Leninism does not want to create the material conditions for Socialism, Leninism --or any ideology for that matter-- can't (!) create material conditions.

What is this idealist nonsense, ideologies making material conditions?

The Marxist view on this subject is well-known, ideologies don't make material conditions, economic systems (also known as "social systems") do.

Leninism, as a theory based on Marxism, never said otherwise, it merely seeks to replace the current system with another one, to replace the current system it has to have been advanced to a certain level, that is, it must have created a class-composition of society which can be changed.

The class-composition which is required is very simple; majority proletariat.

But what if extra-ordinary conditions require us to "ignore" this?

Vulgar evolutionists like redstar would have preached certain doom to the small Russian proletariat: "you cannot succeed, give up! Let the imperialists install a puppet-regime, your cause is hopeless!"

Lenin did the opposite, he called on the small Russian proletariat to make an alliance with the poor peasantry and to take over power, with what aim? To create the material conditions for Socialism later on, with the aid of the Socialist system of economic production, which is superior to the Capitalist system.

But pre-revolution Leninism never calls for the changing of material conditions, because it can't, Capitalism does that.

Connolly

11th January 2006, 22:57

You have completely avoided my argument.

Leninism does not want to create the material conditions for Socialism, Leninism --or any ideology for that matter-- can't (!) create material conditions.

To say "this, this and that" is what socialism is, and act to define these lines, is to attempt to create the material conditions consciously.

Those who define these boundaries are only human, they cannot, through their flaud, imperfect nature as individuals define these boundaries and create what they invisage a socialist society. It is impossible.

This is what the leninist vanguard does. The imperfect elite tries to create a perfect society - for which they invisage is the next step for humanity.

As I have said, the conscious decisions of a few cannot structure and guide a socialist society due to their imperfections in thought. It would need GOD like powers to do this.

What is this idealist nonsense, ideologies making material conditions?

What is idealist is, that a few intellectuals who have power, can try to create a socialist society consciously - as if they know what it is, as if they can predict the future, as if they can direct humanities path through what they percieve is the future - which, as I said, could be chocolate running from taps, sex banned and glass as food.

The Marxist view on this subject is well-known, ideologies don't make material conditions, economic systems (also known as "social systems") do.

And yet you agree with a Leninist vanguard, which thinks it knows how to structure a society and thus, attempt to create the material conditions consciously. Even though, rationally, material conditions cannot be created consciously on such a large scale - with an incomprehensible amount of factors for which the unconscious decisions of billions can only direct and formulate.

Not an intellectual few

Axel1917

12th January 2006, 02:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 04:49 AM
C'mon redstar. You are not refuting any argument. You are just an arrogant, name-dropping, character assassinating, idealist, retrogressive man. You are not making any progressive comment.
This applies to a good deal of how he reacts to Marxist content of certain posts.

I will have to get to this later. I am short on time.

red_che

12th January 2006, 07:19

(Marxism-Leninism)

Utter nonsense, I've only seen one person doing this; "red_che", he's a Maoist so his views are of no importance, kinda like yours.

Oh, you kinda drageed me in you conversation with redstar huh! Okay, what are trying to point out?

Axel1917

I will have to get to this later. I am short on time.

I'll wait for your post.

Connolly

12th January 2006, 08:17

QUOTE QUOTE (Marxism-Leninism) Utter nonsense, I've only seen one person doing this; "red_che", he's a Maoist so his views are of no importance, kinda like yours. Oh, you kinda drageed me in you conversation with redstar huh! Okay, what are trying to point out?QUOTE QUOTE Axel1917 I will have to get to this later. I am short on time. I'll wait for your post. Axel1917 Posted on Jan 12 2006, 02:46 AM QUOTE (red_che @ Dec 16 2005, 04:49 AM) C'mon redstar. You are not refuting any argument. You are just an arrogant, name-dropping, character assassinating, idealist, retrogressive man. You are not making any progressive comment. This applies to a good deal of how he reacts to Marxist content of certain posts. I will have to get to this later. I am short on time.

It seems the Pro - vanguard arguments have degenerated to personal abuse.

All non Vanguardists are "Anti-Marxist" :lol: :lol:

Leave this shit behind guys. :unsure:

Led Zeppelin

13th January 2006, 15:38

To say "this, this and that" is what socialism is, and act to define these lines, is to attempt to create the material conditions consciously.

In that case every Marxist attempts to do this, including redstar himself, possibly even including you.

Those who define these boundaries are only human, they cannot, through their flaud, imperfect nature as individuals define these boundaries and create what they invisage a socialist society. It is impossible.

Idealist scientific sounding nonsense, people can analyze the world, they can make logical conclusions from analyzing the world, it is on these conclusions that their point of view is based, that is, the point of view on boundaries on what Socialism is.

According to you no individual can do this, so what is the point of calling yourself a Marxist?

That is one of the main reasons for historical materialism, to analyze the past (and present) and draw logical conclusions from it, using the tool of dialectics in the process. Marx and Engels did this with succes, they predicted the inevitable collapse of the current (Capitalist) system, and its replacement with a Socialist one.

That is not "saying that this and that is Socialism"?

This is what the leninist vanguard does. The imperfect elite tries to create a perfect society - for which they invisage is the next step for humanity.

As I have said, the conscious decisions of a few cannot structure and guide a socialist society due to their imperfections in thought.

Again you reveal your incapability to draw logical conclusions from historical facts.

"The Leninist vanguard" was, and is, an inevitable outcome of the class-struggle, the proletariat seeks to organize itself, they do this in a party, parties are not "bourgeois inventions", they are "inventions" of historical necessity. As I said before, every group/class/strata in society seeks to be represented in society as a political force, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the proletariat does not have to do this, in fact, history has proven that it does do this.

Denying history and coming up with false (and most certainly illogical) conclusions from historical materialism is one of the main theoretical errors that people like redstar make.

What is idealist is, that a few intellectuals who have power, can try to create a socialist society consciously - as if they know what it is, as if they can predict the future, as if they can direct humanities path through what they percieve is the future - which, as I said, could be chocolate running from taps, sex banned and glass as food.

Either you don't know your history, or you're just making this nonsense up on purpose to try and "fool" the members.

"a few intellectuals" is more like 10 million people, who were active in the party after the revolution, shortly before and during the revolution it was 240.000 party members, are they "a few intellectuals"?

Can you count?

And yet you agree with a Leninist vanguard, which thinks it knows how to structure a society and thus, attempt to create the material conditions consciously.

Replacing the old social system of production with a new one is possible, and it is what the proletariat does after its revolution, since the proletariat is inevitably lead by its vanguard, is it not logical that the vanguard will enact this in the name of the proletariat?

The vanguard is, in effect, the proletariat represented politically in society, as Gramsci once said, it is inevitable that the modern state (including the Socialist one) will be lead by a minority, the point is to make sure that this minority is directly elected and subject to recall at all times by the proletariat.

This is true proletarian democracy.

redstar2000

13th January 2006, 18:19

Originally posted by Marxism-Leninism
As I said before, every group/class/strata in society seeks to be represented in society as a political force, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the proletariat does not have to do this, in fact, history has proven that it does do this.

Yeah...but they haven't done it as parties.

The first trade unions were not "parties". The "soviets" of 1905 and 1917 were not "parties". The syndicalists in Spain were not "parties".

What is striking about political parties that have claimed to be "of the proletariat" is the almost complete absence of the proletariat itself...especially amongst its leading circles.

There are quite a few examples of reformist parties that enjoyed broad working class support...particularly during the "age of reform" in "western" capitalism -- say 1930-70.

That's pretty much "down the toilet" now.

The Leninist parties that claimed to be revolutionary and yet enjoyed significant working class support are extremely rare.

In fact, Lenin's own party and the German KPD are the only examples I can think of. In every other "western" country, the Leninists were either outright reformists or else tiny sects with minimal "input" from the working class.

And this is exactly what we see today, of course. For the most part, contemporary Leninists love reformism like a hog loves slop. They have "wet dreams" over someday planting their bottoms in a bourgeois parliament.

Only in a handful of "third-world" countries are the Maoist-Leninists significant in a revolutionary sense...and there, of course, they are organizing 1789 without any working class input at all.

So what's left of your "parties"? Middle-class dissidents, an occasional worker, reformist political campaigns, academic polemicizing, sectarian intrigue...anything else?

Oh, you mean well.

Ok, I'll concede that. :)

It's just that your "good intentions" are irrelevant to proletarian revolution.

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

Connolly

14th January 2006, 00:41

Idealist scientific sounding nonsense, people can analyze the world, they can make logical conclusions from analyzing the world, it is on these conclusions that their point of view is based, that is, the point of view on boundaries on what Socialism is.

Yes, we can analyze the world - but we cannot create a world based on what we "logicaly" think will happen, or what we idealy want to happen.

If we could choose our direction and create our material conditions consciously as a human organism - it would mean the proletariat would never win.

The ruling class could simply choose not to want more profit, choose to maintain society pretty much as it is today and choose to halt advancements to technology and the means of production in order to secure their survival.

Of course, as you see, that last sentence it completely idealist, as the reality of the matter is, that, it is the unconscious decisions of the ruling class as they react to their material conditions which define thier own eventual downfall.

You seem to be confused about the difference between knowingly implementing the future (which GOD like Lenin attempted to do), and predicting and coming to a theoretical conclusion as to humanities direction.

And, of course, you overestimate the logic of man - you seem to forget that man reacts to his material conditions - his mind is fogged by his senses - he comes to a logical conclusion based on what his senses tell him, what his senses tell him are not always right and naturally have faults. Therefore, it is unwise to put too much confidence in your, or anyone elses "logical" conclusions - as it is only a material reaction.

For what you and your Leninists propose, man would have to detatch himself from his material reality in order to make an unbiased logical conclusion, free from material influences. He would also need, as I have said before, GOD like powers to predict the future down to its very atomic details. He would need absolute purity in action and thought.

None of which man has. Obviously.

According to you no individual can do this, so what is the point of calling yourself a Marxist?

I call myself a Marxist because I analyze historical events and come to a vague theoretical conclusion as to mans next societal phase.

To propose what leninists believe, which is creating material conditions consciously, is madness! an impossibility!

Notice the word vague. An outline, a sketch. Nothing of imense detail as to every social, economic and political action that will occur.

Leninists, seem to know these FUTURE details somehow - down to how factories in a "socialist" society will be run, how the political organisation of the party will lead to the withering away of the state. And then attempt to act on this devine knowledge.

They cannot possibly know such future detail.

It is an idealist attempt to create what they feel a future socialist society will look like.

They cannot possibly consciously create a socialist society.

Marx and Engels did this with succes, they predicted the inevitable collapse of the current (Capitalist) system, and its replacement with a Socialist one.

Im sorry to say this, but it hasnt been a success yet. The capitalist sytem remains.

Marx and Engles were very cautious about going into detail about "future society".

That is not "saying that this and that is Socialism"?

Consciously attempting to implement socialism (creating the material conditions), is saying "this this and that" is what socialism is "and we are going to implement it".

complete idealist crap.

"The Leninist vanguard" was, and is, an inevitable outcome of the class-struggle, the proletariat seeks to organize itself, they do this in a party, parties are not "bourgeois inventions", they are "inventions" of historical necessity.

But you dont know the vanguard is of "historic necessity" until it is history. Again, you think you can create these things consciously - you cant.

"a few intellectuals" is more like 10 million people, who were active in the party after the revolution, shortly before and during the revolution it was 240.000 party members, are they "a few intellectuals"?

Those 10 million people sure as hell didnt make the laws, command the military, operate relationships with different countries, direct actions and commands.

This was centralised to an intellectual few.

As if this intellectual few could see the future and know every single action and command given results in socialism - down to the very details such as should I have a piss at this time or in another hour, - it will avoid that rebel the future warned me about waiting out side my cubicle.

As I said for the n'th time, they cannot create socialism consciously. Common sense will tell you this.

Replacing the old social system of production with a new one is possible, and it is what the proletariat does after its revolution, since the proletariat is inevitably lead by its vanguard, is it not logical that the vanguard will enact this in the name of the proletariat?

That is what Leninism is, centralised authority. Under Leninism, replacing the old system is what the proletariat do, but under the guidance of an intellectual vanguard - who, with their "devine gospel knowledge" of exact future events, can make decisions on behalf of the proletariat, thus creating material conditions consciously.

Present Leninism (actual Leninism was reactionary), quite simply, is a philosophy which claims to be Marxist - but in reality is just an idealist "intellectual" socialist experiment - "to see if we can create an ideal society from nothing"

Of course, to anyone who has any sense - complete idealist rubbish.

Its nothing less than magical mystics

And you have been brainwashed by their illusional tripe.

Axel1917

14th January 2006, 02:34

Without a party, the working class is disorganized and without leadership. This way, the workers painfully and slowly learn things, and it would take a good deal of decades to overcome all of the "it will be good like the old days once again" nonsense. A party's function is to enter traditional workers' parties and agitate and put forth propaganda amongst them, winning people over. The party members are the most advanced of the working class, and the most knowledgeable. Such leadership, backed by Marxism, will help educate the masses and prevent them from making mistakes (being tricked by reformism, resorting to individual terrorism, preferring to clash with cops all the time, in an unproductive manner, etc.).

This is not much of what I have to say; my time is short, and I have some material to dig through.

On a sidenote, I think that we can all see how slowly it takes for the working class to gain class consiousness and such without a party. There were opportunities that could have, for example, put the USA on the verge of social revoulution, such as the massive anti-war and anti-racist sentiment that was going around in the 1960's to the 1970's.

For a short and basic work on how a party should start up, what it should do, etc., one should see Lenin's artcile, Where to Begin?. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm

Pilgrim

14th January 2006, 02:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 02:45 AM
Without a party, the working class is disorganized and without leadership. This way, the workers painfully and slowly learn things, and it would take a good deal of decades to overcome all of the "it will be good like the old days once again" nonsense. A party's function is to enter traditional workers' parties and agitate and put forth propaganda amongst them, winning people over. The party members are the most advanced of the working class, and the most knowledgeable. Such leadership, backed by Marxism, will help educate the masses and prevent them from making mistakes (being tricked by reformism, resorting to individual terrorism, preferring to clash with cops all the time, in an unproductive manner, etc.).

This is not much of what I have to say; my time is short, and I have some material to dig through.

On a sidenote, I think that we can all see how slowly it takes for the working class to gain class consiousness and such without a party. There were opportunities that could have, for example, put the USA on the verge of social revoulution, such as the massive anti-war and anti-racist sentiment that was going around in the 1960's to the 1970's.

For a short and basic work on how a party should start up, what it should do, etc., one should see Lenin's artcile, Where to Begin?. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm
I don't recall the Bolsheviks being a shining example of a brand new, happy and democratically run workers state.

Come to think of it, the various Marxist Leninist parties here in the UK don't inspire any confidence either.

Most of them would have trouble leading a conga line effectively, never mind a country.

And given that the SWP seem to be the biggest (and most pernicious) of the UK's various vanguard parties, the idea of trusting that SWP Central Committee to lead a glorious coup and then trust them to govern fairly, wisely and democratically fills me with dread. I'd sooner emigrate than live in any country governed by that shower of power-seeking charlatans.

And your suggestion that the workers aren't bright enough or organised enough to run themselves is patronising and laughably inaccurate. The workers in Spain managed it perfectly well until the Leninists showed up.

Axel1917

18th January 2006, 02:38

Originally posted by Pilgrim+Jan 14 2006, 03:03 AM--> (Pilgrim @ Jan 14 2006, 03:03 AM)
[email protected] 14 2006, 02:45 AM
Without a party, the working class is disorganized and without leadership. This way, the workers painfully and slowly learn things, and it would take a good deal of decades to overcome all of the "it will be good like the old days once again" nonsense. A party's function is to enter traditional workers' parties and agitate and put forth propaganda amongst them, winning people over. The party members are the most advanced of the working class, and the most knowledgeable. Such leadership, backed by Marxism, will help educate the masses and prevent them from making mistakes (being tricked by reformism, resorting to individual terrorism, preferring to clash with cops all the time, in an unproductive manner, etc.).

This is not much of what I have to say; my time is short, and I have some material to dig through.

On a sidenote, I think that we can all see how slowly it takes for the working class to gain class consiousness and such without a party. There were opportunities that could have, for example, put the USA on the verge of social revoulution, such as the massive anti-war and anti-racist sentiment that was going around in the 1960's to the 1970's.

For a short and basic work on how a party should start up, what it should do, etc., one should see Lenin's artcile, Where to Begin?. Online at http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/may/04.htm
I don't recall the Bolsheviks being a shining example of a brand new, happy and democratically run workers state.

Come to think of it, the various Marxist Leninist parties here in the UK don't inspire any confidence either.

Most of them would have trouble leading a conga line effectively, never mind a country.

And given that the SWP seem to be the biggest (and most pernicious) of the UK's various vanguard parties, the idea of trusting that SWP Central Committee to lead a glorious coup and then trust them to govern fairly, wisely and democratically fills me with dread. I'd sooner emigrate than live in any country governed by that shower of power-seeking charlatans.

And your suggestion that the workers aren't bright enough or organised enough to run themselves is patronising and laughably inaccurate. The workers in Spain managed it perfectly well until the Leninists showed up. [/b]
I belive that the SWP is a worthless organization of sectarians, if I recall correctly.

As for Lenin, see Ted Grant's Russia, From Revolution to Counterrevolution (online at http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp ) to dispel those Bourgeois lies that are floating around in your mind.

I am going to need more time to dig up works and such.