The Progressive Labor Party

[emokid08]

After having read the posts, I think that I should open a thread and we should debate the idea of even implementing Socialism during or after the Revolution, if even at all. I'm a memeber of the Progressive Labor Party and I believe that Socialism,State Socialism, State Capitalism, and the like should just be skipped! Socialism is just a one way ticket back to capitalism, just look at history. Communism has never been achieved because of Socialism.Of course Dem-Soc is commendable, but it sets the workers up for a massive disaapointment, and lets them down. I AGREE WITH SENTINEL. I think this debate could be expanded, we should bring more people into it too, it never hurts to get different viewpoints or ideas.

plp.org
FIGHT FOR COMMUNISM-NOW!

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by emokid08
I'm a member of the Progressive Labor Party...

I think you might be the first one on this board.

The PLP has a rather unique understanding of "communism"...a society in which the party replaces the state apparatus.

In addition, your group is rather infamous for both its insistance that women "stay in the home" and for its homophobia.

You're probably in for some "rough treatment" here.

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

[emokid08]

the PLP has admitted that it has made errors, and is one of the only Communist Parties i know of that actually is learning from it's mistakes, i'm sure there are more tho. It's true that the PLP went through a particularly dark time, specifically during the early 70s to the early 80s. It's more recent publications, Road to Revolution 3 & 4 have clarified it's positions and made perfectly known where it stands and what it stands for ---COMMUNISM!.

I can understand why one inerpret the PLP 2 b sexist, but it is true when it points out that capitalism is the source of sexism and men aren't. I beleive that, Capitalism does breed sexism and homophobia as a way of dividing and exploiting the workers. (amonsgt other strategies of division).

And the PLP doesnt believe that The Party should replace the state. In fact, it is against Socialism and State Socialism for that very reason. Socialism just turns the state into one big CAPITALIST and the PLP is very specific when it says that no one benefits when the state assumes the role of the oppressive Capitalist. If The Party replaced the State, then it would be The USSR under Stalin all over again, and The PLP is correct in pointing out that Stalin ruined the USSR and if Trotsky had come into power. history would have been alot different! If the Party would replace the state, then the Party would become one giant capitalist, and no Communist would ever want or advocate for that.

I think the PLP gets a bad rap because of what has happened in the past. But it's different today, and it's learning from it's errors. If we're to achieve a successful Revolution, we need to learn from the errors of past failed Revolutions, and unfortunately, there's much to be studied and to learn from.
If anyone has any doubts about the PLP or wants to investigate the Party for themselves, the I urge u to visti www.PLP.og

I personally don't mind that i'm in for a rough time, I enjoy the challenge. :lol:
I appreciate the input and hope ourt discussion about my Communist Party, the Progressive Labor Party, can continue, :D

[DisIllusion]

In fact, it is against Socialism and State Socialism for that very reason. Socialism just turns the state into one big CAPITALIST and the PLP is very specific when it says that no one benefits when the state assumes the role of the oppressive Capitalist.

How does that work? I always thought that Socialism is required to reach Communism. How can you jump straight from Capitalism to Communism?


f The Party replaced the State, then it would be The USSR under Stalin all over again

Not necessarily, under later Stalinist rule, the Party was the State.

By the way, is the PLP a Swedish party or what? I've never heard of it.

[anomaly]

For our purposes, 'emokid', let us term socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the Leninist regimes of the 20th century.

With this in mind, DisIllusion's first question becomes rather relevant (I assume he had the definition I suggest in mind when asking the question).

Now, once your done with that, emokid, perhaps you can explain the basic vision of your party. What does it want (yes, communism, but what does the PLP call communism?), how will we get there?

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 11:53 PM
How does that work? I always thought that Socialism is required to reach Communism. How can you jump straight from Capitalism to Communism?

I thought you were an Anarcho-Communist? Anarchist-Communist rejects any form of state, temporary or prolonged. You call yourself something you clearly disagree with. There's no temporary socialist state in Anarcho-communism.

If everybody (a majority) fights in a Revolution for Anarchist-Communism, or something along similar lines, why do we then need to be conditioned by a state? surly the fact that we fought for an Anarchist/Communist society suggests we are capable of living in it.

There are hundreds of better arguments against the State, but being an Anarchist, im sure you know all about them..

[emokid08]

i understand the reason for the confusion and the misunderstandin of the plp.its small and relatively unknown. its a us communist party. first off socialism is not needed to make the transition to communism. just look at history and see where socialism gets the revolution. i believe that the period after the wars and revolution will be a clean up period where the workers are in control. this is just to mop up and prepare and ready society for it's new way of life. but this is not and should not be socialism, socialism turns the state into a giant capitalist. this is obviously a bad thing.

in state socialism, or state capitalism, wages are kept, private buisness exists, and socialism is just a better form of capitalism really. i know what im saying may be attacked as heresy but all socialism does is make life better for the workers. of course its better than capitalism but it doesnt let the workers develop thier full potential.socialism is the half way house between capitalism and communism. all socialism is is reformism wrapped in nationalism. reformism is not communism and is working within the perameters of capitalism, that's y socialism and reformism have always failed the workers, because it leads right back to capitalism.

of course we just cant go from capitalism to communism. the period inbetween the two is what the revolution is for. this is why i fight for communism.

in regards to the state, the plp makes no distinction between the party and the state. but what they mean is not the literal ,\meaning of a state today. here, and equation;
the state = the collectives, co-ops, communes, worker federations.
and everyone in these bodies will be the party.
the party is the people, and the people are the party.
in short the party is everyone.
one party, one class, one world
that's what the plp is about, i will elaborate further in the future
plp.org

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 15 2006, 11:00 AM
If everybody (a majority) fights in a Revolution for Anarchist-Communism, or something along similar lines, why do we then need to be conditioned by a state? surly the fact that we fought for an Anarchist/Communist society suggests we are capable of living in it.
Quick answer: because the class conflict will still exist. You might be ready to live in communism but, while a majority, the proletariat do not comprise all of society.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 03:08 PM
Quick answer: because the class conflict will still exist. You might be ready to live in communism but, while a majority, the proletariat do not comprise all of society.
They comprise a majority. And if the revolution is not lead by some Godly vanguard, but fought by all people, a majority will have to be class conscious for there to even be a sucsesful revolution.

I can't see how only a tiny elite minority could be class conscious after a massive Anarchic revolution, far more than that would have to fight for it to be won. And secondly, I can't see how forming a new privileged elite will make people class conscious. Evidently It hasn't worked.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Additives [email protected] 15 2006, 04:30 PM
They comprise a majority. And if the revolution is not lead by some Godly vanguard, but fought by all people, a majority will have to be class conscious for there to even be a sucsesful revolution.
And where you have class conflict you have the state. Hence as long as the bourgeoisie exists a state will be required to keep them in line. It does not necessarily have to be an elitist Party structure, indeed that's very unlikely to appear in Western nations, but the state will exist in one form or another.


I can't see how only a tiny elite minority could be class conscious after a massive Anarchic revolution
We're still waiting for even a small anarchic revolution ;)

But regardless, the post-revolution state, and indeed society at large, will be shaped by the material conditions of that time. What name or aim the revolution is carried out in is irrevelant. If there is a need for a state structure, and while classes exist there will be, then it will appear.

[emokid08]

In regards to my earlier post I have something to add:
Socialism is the militant reform of capitalism. While this is welcomed perhaps, it is certainly not enough to realize or achieve a truely communist society. We have to realize that socialism, and subsequently everything or label attached to socialism,is reformism.

Socialism is estentially a compromise with capitalism, we must reject compromising with capitalsim, we can't work within thier system. We can't play the game by thier rules. In fact we can't play thier game at all! There are no good comprimises and there are no good reforms!
Socialism and reformism can't transform into Communism or Revolution because it's still working within capitalism. I can't reiterate enough how we are destined to lose and fail if we advoacte Socialism. History proves this instance over and over again.

As Lenin said "Reformism (Socialism) is bourgeois deception of the workers, who, despite individual improvements, will always remain wage slaves, as long as there is the domination of capital."

Money, wages, capital, are all present under socialism, that's one of the main reasons it inevitably fails!

Communists often make the mistake of thinking that mass ideas are reform, or Socialist, ideas. But the PLP believes that mass ideas must be Communist ideas in order for thier to be any success in our revolution.

One of the major problems with Socialism is that it says to the people "Sure, we kinda sorta belive in Communism. But what we really want today is to survive and somehow make life better under Capitalism."

To me, as a Communist, this is totally unacceptable!Which is why The Progressive Labor Progressive and I fight for Communism!

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2006, 05:22 PM
In regards to my earlier post I have something to add:
Socialism is the militant reform of capitalism. While this is welcomed perhaps, it is certainly not enough to realize or achieve a truely communist society. We have to realize that socialism, and subsequently everything or label attached to socialism,is reformism.
Where exactly are you getting this notion from? Socialism is the transition stage between capitalism and communism. You know, the dictatorship of the proletariat and all that.

[viva le revolution]

Socialism is the transition proid between Capitalism and communism. The characteristic of socialism is the dictatorship of proletariat. It is not a reconciliation with capitalism, socialism is when the working class assumes power and abolishes the existing state structure(capitalism) and brings forth a new form of state. The dictatorship of the prolatraiat can assume many forms depending upon the conditions of that particular society. The entire reason for socialism is the suppression of the remanents of the bourgeoisie and eliminating the existence of antagonistic classes and their interests. ie. as long as antagonistic class interests exist, communist society cannot be introduced.
I feel that emokid08 is confusing socialism with social-democracy, or the 'socialism' of the second international under Kautsky.

[emokid08]

The PLP and I break with Marx when we discuss implementing Communism. The PLP has always been on the path of making quantitative moves to the left. The Party was born out of the breakdown of the old Communist movement. Th PLP has been compelled to explain the failure of Socialism and the sunsequent restoration of Capitalism in the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Cloc, Cuba, Venezuela, etc etc etc. The PLP breaks with nationalism. The PLP rejects the seperation of the state and Party (remember the Party is the People and the People are the Party, so in algebra, The "State" =The Party=The People. Everyone will be the "state") This struggle to expose and overcome revisionism, which is simply the eradication of Marxist fundamentals( Or in other words, SOCIALISM) has been the guiding principle for myself and the PLP.Every one of theose breaks, with nationalism, and Socialism, is another step towards Communism.

The definition of the state is not today's meaning, instead the state=the collectives, co-ops, communes, and federations.

Socialism essentially abandons the pretense of building a truely Communist society. Socialism somehow, and mistakingly blends the long term goal of a communist society with the short term practice of militant reform of Capitalism.

I understand what everyone is trying to say. But I think that terms, thier definitions, and thier usage is a problem. Modern Socialism (or State Socialism) leads back to Capitalism. But Socialism as the way Marx or Engels or Lenin used, refers to the period between communism and Capitalism, is the original term definition. The PLP and I believe that there is a period in which society evolves, that period is the Revolution. When the revolution is finished, then Communism, as a society, has been achieved.

Many beleive that the revolution will be just one big war. But this is a misconception. It's true that revolution most certainly involves war, but it does not end with the military defeat of the capitalists. The Revolution will have its ups and downs. It will be drawn out. In this period the workers take over and manage society, and they manage the transition and evolution of Society.

A WARNING!
Every compromise made by communists during the transition and revolution to capitalism ends in disaster. History proves that workers want a life free from capitalist exploitation, and that, much to the bosses' dismay, they will fight to the death for it. Workers need communist revolution, not reform. We are all learning from bitter experience that capitalism can never be reformed. It must be crushed.

To better help explain my process of thought, I am taking a section of "Road To Revolution 4". I prey that if you read any part of my post, would u plaese read this!


"Throughout the process of seizing, holding and expanding revolutionary power, workers need only one leading political force--the communist party. Before and during the revolution, tens of millions of workers, soldiers and students will join or support the communist party. Only a party with such a mass base can successfully lead a revolution. After the revolution, workers and their allies will not need a government separate from the party. Either such a government would be a rubber-stamp for the workers' mass party, or it would represent enemies of communism. Surely a rubber-stamp government is useless and deceptive. And workers must never again share power with class enemies. We propose that after the revolution, the party--composed of tens of millions of workers--lead society.

We said above that the world's workers made great advances with the revolutions in Russia and China. We also said that these revolutions, which had established socialism, were reversed, and that now Russia and China are capitalist societies with new bosses. Marx and Lenin described socialism as the early stage of communism. These great revolutionaries doubted that the working class could move immediately from capitalism to communism. They and others believed that important concessions to capitalism and capitalist ideas were necessary to win enough people to socialist revolution. They thought socialism would eventually lead to communism.

Keeping the wage system was the greatest concession to capitalism. Under socialism, every worker got a wage. Your work determined your wage. Professionals made a lot more than those who worked with their hands. Among manual workers, the so-called skilled made more than the unskilled. Does this sound familiar? The motive for these inequalities was the mistaken belief that many workers had to be bribed to produce.

Wage differences reinforced commodity production--production for sale, for profit rather than for society's use or need . Goods could never be distributed according to collective need because some workers had greater purchasing power than others.

No matter how much well-intentioned planning society does, the wage system forces each worker to think of his or her work in selfish terms. Only communism can change that. Communism will abolish the wage system. In communist society, the principle "to each according to need" will be as basic as the principle "every man for himself" is to capitalism. Children will understand this from the moment their senses awaken.

Under communism, the principle of work will be: "from each according to commitment." People will work because they want to, because their class brothers and sisters around the world need their work--even as people fight in revolutionary wars not just for themselves but for their class. They will share in decision-making, including the distribution of goods and services according to society's needs. They will share shortage along with abundance. If there is selfishness--and there must be some--the party will struggle politically to overcome it, or, if necessary, punish it. However, the day-in, day-out basis of individualism--the wage system--will have been abolished.

The immediate establishment of a communist distribution system makes possible a new kind of party and a new relationship between the party and the rest of the population.

Communist distribution eliminates the material incentive for the emergence of new bosses corrupted by all sorts of privilege. Government or party officials, special workers, or artists will no longer receive more money for work that is supposedly "more important." The measure of work will have nothing to do with what people receive. People should and will get what they need, within the limits of what everyone can produce. Measuring work to set pay directly contradicts communism. The elimination of wages causes the social basis for privileges and a new class of bosses to disappear. For the first time in history, workers will receive a fair share of society's wealth, regardless of the work they do.

Communism will abolish socially useless forms of work that exist now only for capitalist profit. Communism will not need millions of lawyers, advertisers, or salespeople. In one stroke, it will do away with layers of needless government bureaucrats, as well as the hordes of petty supervisors and administrators who oversee and manage us for the bosses. It will free everyone to perform socially useful work, which is the source of true creativity. Capitalism creates the illusion that degenerate superstars and people who have best figured out how to screw others are "creative." The anti-working class values of the profit system pervert all cultures.

The communist organization of society requires the active commitment of millions of workers. Communism will not succeed unless people understand it, agree with it, and vow to make it succeed.

Ending the wage system will reduce the problems capitalism causes inside the working class. Racism, one of capitalism's greatest evils, exploits one worker to a greater degree than another. This super-exploitation and the super-profit from it lead to increased oppression of every worker. Marx said over 100 years ago that, "the worker in white skin can never be free as long as the worker in black skin remains in chains." At all stages of the revolutionary process, the party must lead an unyielding fight against every aspect of racism. However, only an egalitarian society that ends the exploitative wage system in the context of sharp anti-racist political and ideological class struggle can crush racism once and for all.

Failure to eliminate privilege will surely show up inside the communist party. Past socialist societies retained privilege, which quickly found its way into the party. Some party members and many leaders were often better off than others. This practice made many workers cynical by perpetuating the bosses' anti-Communist lie that all power corrupts. A communist society in which millions of party leaders and members live and share the same as everyone else will produce a better communist party. Such a party will develop the healthiest relations between itself and all workers. These relations will ultimately narrow the gap in commitment and political skill between leaders, members and workers at large.

Economic privilege in previous socialist societies maintained the gaps created by capitalism between mental and manual work. The children of professionals, party leaders, and better-paid workers went on to higher education. This practice perpetuated social inequality. In a communist society, the workplace will become the center of education. Students will become workers and workers, students. Workers may have many vocations, careers, trades, certainly more than one. Everyone will work with both brain and hands.

Having rid itself of the wage system, society can also wipe out the special oppression of women and male chauvinism, which serve only capitalism. In communist society, everyone will have the opportunity, the right, and the duty to work. The capitalist exploitation of women depends on the bosses' ability to degrade them culturally. The bosses can pay women less than men or even nothing at all as in the case of housework. Only the destruction of capitalism and the collective fight by men and women workers for communism can free women from this special exploitation. The revolution needs the militant leadership of working class women.

Since its founding, the Progressive Labor Party has fought against retreats from Marxism-Leninism, especially the practice of uniting with "lesser-evil" bosses, usually known as the liberals. All bosses want to keep capitalism; therefore, all bosses, whether liberal or conservative, are class enemies."

I think this was just a big misunderstanding, I hope you read the passage above and understand what I mean by all this.

[redstar2000]

I split this thread so we can actually look at what the PLP advocates...it's very strange.
_____________________________________


Originally posted by emokid08+--> (emokid08)I appreciate the input and hope our discussion about my Communist Party, the Progressive Labor Party, can continue.[/b]

The PLP home page (http://plp.org/) is very confusing with links displayed on top of links. It needs redesigning very badly. Note also that many of its links are pdf files...so slow to download that few will bother to take the trouble.

But I was able to locate a few things...


Originally posted by [email protected]
Our Party fights for an egalitarian, communist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat....

We need communist democracy, based on democratic centralism....

Within the party at all times, and within society at large after the revolution, the role of central leadership is decisive. The working class requires a general staff that places the victory of communism above all other goals and that fights to make the party the leader of society.

After the leadership has guaranteed full and open discussion of policy, every party member and worker must develop the discipline to accept and carry out the collective decision. Even those who disagree must hold to this discipline. The effort to put party decisions into action must be united everywhere....

After the revolution, workers and their allies will not need a government separate from the party....

In communist society, everyone will have the opportunity, the right, and the duty to work....

ROAD TO REVOLUTION IV (1982) (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/rr4.html)

And then I found this...


PLP
We are saying flat out that we disagree with some of Marx's writings.....

The other side of the contradiction emphasizes the stages of human society, and implies that each succeeding stage inevitably had to follow the previous stage of history....

Communism, as broadly defined by Marx, is the best way to organize the world, and has always been the best way to organize the world....

Consider the following case. If a group of teenagers were dropped off on an uninhabited island with nothing but stone tools, what would be the best, most humane, most productive political-economic system to set up? The answer is communism!...

It is not even certain that capitalism was even "historically progressive" after 1848....

Nobody likes pain, but most people actually enjoy activity that can be physically strenuous -- if we are not alienated from that labor....

Road to Revolution IV asserts boldly that the Party would be the ultimate organizational expression of working class power, in addition to its primary role as political and ideological leader....

The real contradiction in democratic centralism is not between democracy and centralism. It is between individualism, or special-group loyalty, and collectivism, or what is good for the working class as a whole....

But during the process of winning the world's workers to communism, the party's duty is to make sure no policies are put into effect which go against the interests of the working class no matter what kind of pseudo-democratic procedures were used to arrive at those policies.

This brings up the question "Well, who appointed the PLP to speak for the working class of the world? How do you know that you are right?" Well, we're certainly going to make some mistakes, but what's the alternative?...

It is true that proclaiming ourselves "spokespeople or leaders of the world working-class movement" can be used to justify special privileges....

Centralism is the expression of the most freedom for the most people, if you believe that communism is the hope of the future, and freedom is defined by the quality and quantity of social relations. Using that definition of democracy, centralism is the best, the only, expression of democracy....

Functioning in a collective way, accepting the discipline of the party that is fighting for communism, fighting for and practicing centralism -- these are not denials of our freedom....

We will also need a professional army, people who are trained fighters, who can handle sophisticated weaponry, and are prepared to go to the assistance of the militias or to the aid of workers elsewhere....

How long will the dictatorship of the proletariat last before it finally "withers away?" I don't know. Perhaps more than 200 years and less than a million....

Dictatorship of proletariat led by party; still need laws, armies, jails...

For Communist Economics and Communist Power (1982) (http://www.plp.org/pl_magazine/commecon.html)

First, note that these two documents are nearly a quarter of a century old...one would certainly appreciate a more recent exposition of their views (in html format, please).

Secondly, note that the PLP proposes the immediate abolition of wages...a sharp departure from the Leninist "model". Approximate material equality seems to be the objective right from the beginning!

I endorse this thesis! :)

Unfortunately, as can be seen by the quotations above, things go rapidly downhill from there.

Earlier in this thread, I said that in the PLP's vision, the party replaces the state apparatus.

It's quite clear that I was completely justified in this assertion.

From the above quotations...

1. Within the party at all times, and within society at large after the revolution, the role of central leadership is decisive. The working class requires a general staff that places the victory of communism above all other goals and that fights to make the party the leader of society.

"Decisive" means that the party leadership makes all the decisions.

2. After the leadership has guaranteed full and open discussion of policy, every party member and worker must develop the discipline to accept and carry out the collective decision.

Not just party members but "every worker" must obey.

3. After the revolution, workers and their allies will not need a government separate from the party....

So there will be nothing that calls itself a state.

4. Road to Revolution IV asserts boldly that the Party would be the ultimate organizational expression of working class power, in addition to its primary role as political and ideological leader....

The party is all there is in the PLP's version of "communism". It does everything.

5. The real contradiction in democratic centralism is not between democracy and centralism. It is between individualism, or special-group loyalty, and collectivism, or what is good for the working class as a whole....

A noble "distinction"...but who decides what is "good for the working class as a whole"?

6. But during the process of winning the world's workers to communism, the party's duty is to make sure no policies are put into effect which go against the interests of the working class no matter what kind of pseudo-democratic procedures were used to arrive at those policies.

The party affirms its right to prohibit the working class or portions thereof from making any decision that is, in the party's view, "against the interests of the working class".

7. This brings up the question "Well, who appointed the PLP to speak for the working class of the world? How do you know that you are right?" Well, we're certainly going to make some mistakes, but what's the alternative?...

That is, the PLP has appointed itself to "speak for the working class".

8. Centralism is the expression of the most freedom for the most people, if you believe that communism is the hope of the future, and freedom is defined by the quality and quantity of social relations.

The stink of Hegel here...who used "dialectics" to "prove" that the "highest form" of democracy was the Prussian despotism.

The verbal "transformation" of despotism into "democracy" is nothing but a shabby rhetorical trick...no different than if the existing bosses started calling themselves "Revolutionary People's Bosses".

The material reality would not change.

9. We will also need a professional army, people who are trained fighters, who can handle sophisticated weaponry, and are prepared to go to the assistance of the militias or to the aid of workers elsewhere....

A professional army is simply a group of hired killers...and who they will kill is a matter of circumstance.

A party with a professional army at its disposal is a state...at least wherever there is no effective armed force to dispute its hegemony.

10. Dictatorship of proletariat led by party; still need laws, armies, jails...

And all the rest of a typical state apparatus comes trailing along...as a kind of footnote.

11. How long will the dictatorship of the proletariat last before it finally "withers away?" I don't know. Perhaps more than 200 years and less than a million....

Almost a million years of PLP despotism!

Now that's something to really look forward to. :lol:

It's not only evident that the PLP intends to "be" the state under "communism" (a stateless society), it's also clear that they represent yet another attempt to salvage the Leninist paradigm from last century's wreckage.

In fact, they resemble their rival, the "Revolutionary" "Communist" Party, in their attempt to "solve" the problem of peaceful counter-revolution in Russia and China.

You see, both groups reject historical materialism and must thus locate the failures of Russia and China in either personalities or techniques.

Simply blaming Khrushchev or Deng (like the Trotskyists blame Stalin) is obviously inadequate. So the Maoists look for "mistakes" in "techniques of rule".

You could call it their quest for "popular despotism".

How can the Leninist Vanguard Party hold onto power without being corrupted and/or arousing unanimous hostility?

Communists in this century will, I think, reject both that goal and even any attempt to reach it as antithetical to the whole communist project.

Communism means "All Power to the Workers" and "No Power to Any Party".

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

[Floyce White]

emokid08: "The PLP is correct in pointing out that Stalin ruined the USSR and if Trotsky had come into power, history would have been a lot different!"

That is not the position in PLP documents.

redstar2000: "The PLP has a rather unique understanding of 'communism'...a society in which the party replaces the state apparatus."

I would say it differently. "The workers' party" is an organization of the struggle of the dispossessed lower class. A "state" is an organization of the struggle of the propertied upper class. The organizational forms of workers' uprising all merge into the organizational forms of the commune. I've already written about this in my article Communism Means Communes (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A18).

anomaly: "...let us term socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the Leninist regimes of the 20th century."

Doesn't change it one iota. Marx was promoting a petty-capitalist revolt against their bigger rivals, and wanted to co-opt the workers to fight for them. Socialist DOPE and LOCO are petty-capitalist pretenders to the throne ("Dictatorship Of the ProlEtariat" and "Lower Order of COmmunism"). DOPE and LOCO are not communist, working-class methods.

Additives Free: "Anarchist-Communist rejects any form of state, temporary or prolonged."

Your information is not correct. There is no such thing as "anarchist communism," "libertarian communism," or similar ways of saying it--as I explain in my essay Whose Class Struggle? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42555&st=0&#entry1291968629).

Anarchism is a form of capitalism that has a state. You are repeating a vulgar myth completely unrelated to the actual statements of anarchist theory, and completely unrelated to the actual practice of class struggle. I explain this in the previous essay in the series, Against Anarchism--For Communism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A20).

Many anarchists also agree that the experiences of "Mahknovists" and Spanish Civil War anarchists were far from "anti-state" or "anti-nationalist." They falsely call them "errors" instead of learning that these experiences were fine examples of anarchism. How many "errors" does it take before you will abandon wishful thinking?

Communism is the one and only method of ending the state because it is the struggle of the poor against the rich.

emokid08: "Of course we just cant go from capitalism to communism. The period inbetween the two is what the revolution is for."

"But Socialism as the way Marx or Engels or Lenin used, refers to the period between communism and Capitalism, is the original term definition."

No. No. No. You say the words, but don't understand them.

We CAN go from capitalism to communism.

The period between the two is what the revolution IS.

THAT IS WHY THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A PERIOD OF SOCIALISM.

emokid08: "The PLP and I believe that there is a period in which society evolves, that period is the Revolution. When the revolution is finished, then Communism, as a society, has been achieved."

THAT is the correct way to say it.

emokid08: "In regards to the state, the PLP makes no distinction between the party and the state. But what they mean is not the literal meaning of a state today, here, and equation: the state = the collectives, co-ops, communes, worker federations.

"The definition of the state is not today's meaning, instead the state = the collectives, co-ops, communes, and federations."

No. That's a petty-bourgeois interpretation handed down from the history of domination of petty-bourgeois "leaders" over working-class communists. The PLP is just plain wrong about this and needs to correct this in some "Road to Revolution 5. The commune form is not a "state" in any meaning of the term. Marx and Engels were just plain wrong to not abandon their concept of DOPE/LOCO when faced with the reality of the Paris Commune. Instead, they tried to "save face" by falsely labeling the Paris Commune as an example of DOPE/LOCO. The Paris Commune was NOT a badly-made state. It was the workers' movement learning from the errors of separatist, utopian communes--and applying the knowledge.

ComradeOm: "...the class conflict will still exist...the proletariat do not comprise all of society."

Wrong. As soon as the upper class is dispossessed, they will no longer have the material relation of ownership that makes them a separate class from the dispossessed proletariat. The proletariat WILL comprise all of society, which means there will no longer be a proletariat either.

Additives Free: "And if the revolution is not lead by some Godly vanguard, but fought by all people, a majority will have to be class conscious for there to even be a successful revolution."

Are you paying attention, Redstar2000? Do you see why anarchism is anti-communism and NOT a movement to merge with communism?

"All the people" don't make communism. The workers do.

The capitalists are already class conscious because of their business activity. They are class conscious in an anti-communist way. Petty capitalists and big capitalists always fight against communism--whether as leftists or rightists.

ComradeOm: "And where you have class conflict you have the state. Hence as long as the bourgeoisie exists a state will be required to keep them in line."

How naive! The bourgeoisie will be "kept in line!" How are the employees and tenants of the bourgeoisie keeping their employers and landlords "in line?" What petty-bourgeois drivel!

ComradeOm: "But regardless, the post-revolution state, and indeed society at large, will be shaped by the material conditions of that time. What name or aim the revolution is carried out in is irrevelant."

Are you paying attention, Redstar2000? Every time I hear the "material conditions" line, I think of this nonsense.

Everyone else, I ask you to read my post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=45607&hl=&view=findpost&p=1292020598) in the so-called "Darwinism" thread.

emokid08: "The PLP breaks with nationalism."

Which is practically unheard of from any group coming out of the swamp of "Marxism-Leninism." Most groups just give a little condescending lip service to Rosa Luxemburg as a "woman" (although this is not the origin of PLP's anti-nationalist theory.)

emokid08: "This struggle to expose and overcome revisionism, which is simply the eradication of Marxist fundamentals (or in other words, SOCIALISM) has been the guiding principle for myself and the PLP."

Why do you care if petty-bourgeois leftists "revise" the words of some authoritative "leader" figure who was of petty-bourgeois family origins?

emokid08: "In this period the workers take over and manage society..."

This is a very distorted, syndicalist way of phrasing it.

emokid08: "I think this was just a big misunderstanding..."

The anti-communism of petty-bourgeois members of this board is not a "misunderstanding."

redstar2000: "The stink of Hegel here...who used 'dialectics' to 'prove' that the 'highest form' of democracy was the Prussian despotism.

"The verbal 'transformation' of despotism into 'democracy' is nothing but a shabby rhetorical trick...no different than if the existing bosses started calling themselves 'Revolutionary People's Bosses.'"

A PLP member whom I highly respect once said to me that within the PLP there are some sectarians, just as in any other organization. I'm not going to judge the PLP by every narrow interpretation of some of its "leadership." PLP members themselves don't want to judge communists in the old USSR and other countries solely by the disgusting acts of those states and CPs, and look for what positive contributions were made by ordinary workers. This tends to produce an undercritical and even non-critical acceptance of whatever was said and done "for communism."

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2006, 02:43 PM
After having read the posts, I think that I should open a thread and we should debate the idea of even implementing Socialism during or after the Revolution, if even at all. I'm a memeber of the Progressive Labor Party and I believe that Socialism,State Socialism, State Capitalism, and the like should just be skipped! Socialism is just a one way ticket back to capitalism, just look at history. Communism has never been achieved because of Socialism.
It's basically a utopian idea: you decide what course of history would be desirable, then think you can impose that desire on history. To actually implement a utopia, of any sort, requires a utopian sect which somehow (due to exceptional circumstances) acquires the power to forcibly cram its blueprint or doctrine down everyone else's throat.

There is, after all, a historical example of a political movement which attempted to go straight to communism, and which did immediately abolish all private property.

That didn't work out so well.

(In case anyone still hasn't caught the reference, it was the Khmer Rouge, which acquired power due to the exceptional circumstances of the Vietnam/Southeast Asia War.)

It's not accidental that this ahistorical utopian approach is advocated by the most authoritarian organization on the U.S. left, which doesn't even pretend to elect its leadership and which, in fact, still holds on to Stalin.

The Marxist approach is the opposite: to learn from and seek to facilitate the real, objective course of history.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Floyce White+--> (Floyce White)"The workers' party" is an organization of the struggle of the dispossessed lower class. A "state" is an organization of the struggle of the propertied upper class.[/b]

I don't think that helps much...unless you are using the word "party" in a very loose sense.

In PLP's vision of "communism", the party does all of the things that are normally associated with a state apparatus.

It has a professional army (and by inference professional police as well), makes laws, puts people in prison for violating them, etc.

The party becomes an organ of class rule...and the "class" that rules is obviously the leadership of the party.

I don't see any other reasonable interpretation of their own words.


Marx was promoting a petty-capitalist revolt against their bigger rivals, and wanted to co-opt the workers to fight for them.

That crafty devil! :lol:


Anarchism is a form of capitalism that has a state.

Another fascinating "insight". :lol:


Are you paying attention, Redstar2000? Do you see why anarchism is anti-communism and NOT a movement to merge with communism?

No, I don't see that at all.

It may be fair to accuse me of "not paying attention"...your ever-more-bizarre statements do not exactly compel an attentive response.


Are you paying attention, Redstar2000? Every time I hear the "material conditions" line, I think of this nonsense.

No, I've finally given up on hearing anything sensible from you about material conditions at all...there is no room for them in your perspective.


I'm not going to judge the PLP by every narrow interpretation of some of its "leadership."

The PLP IS its leadership! People like emokid08 are just foot soldiers who loyally carry out their orders.

See this post for what it's like to be an ordinary member of the PLP...

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...st&p=1292020982 (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46322&view=findpost&p=1292020982)

Some fates really are "worse than death". :o

And speaking of ignoring material conditions...


Severian
There is, after all, a historical example of a political movement which attempted to go straight to communism, and which did immediately abolish all private property....the Khmer Rouge...

Ah yes, the murderous rampage of semi-literate peasants "proves" that the immediate transition to communism is a "disastrous option".

In Floyce's view, the Khmer Rouge "should" have been able to "build communism", since objective material conditions "don't count". :lol:

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

[VukBZ2005]

*shakes head*

How to respond to this...I shall start with Floyce first.


Originally posted by Floyce White
Doesn't change it one iota. Marx was promoting a petty-capitalist revolt against their bigger rivals, and wanted to co-opt the workers to fight for them. Socialist DOPE and LOCO are petty-capitalist pretenders to the throne ("Dictatorship Of the ProlEtariat" and "Lower Order of COmmunism"). DOPE and LOCO are not communist, working-class methods.

While it is true that during the time in which Karl Marx was active, he did promote some measures that seem so social democratic to us today, I, however, do not believe that he wanted to co-opt the working class so that they would be used to fight against the Bourgeoisie and using the working class to establish a "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" which would rule over the whole of society as a "Dictatorship over the Proletariat". When I look at the things Marx wrote, I just do not see the argument you are putting out here Floyce, to have any basis at all.

If you can point me out to where he actually said and implied what you are saying, that would be much appriciated.


Anarchism is a form of capitalism that has a state. You are repeating a vulgar myth completely unrelated to the actual statements of anarchist theory, and completely unrelated to the actual practice of class struggle. I explain this in the previous essay in the series, [URL=http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A20]Against Anarchism--For Communism[URL].

Many anarchists also agree that the experiences of "Mahknovists" and Spanish Civil War anarchists were far from "anti-state" or "anti-nationalist." They falsely call them "errors" instead of learning that these experiences were fine examples of anarchism. How many "errors" does it take before you will abandon wishful thinking?

From the information I have looked upon from various sources on Anarchism, Floyce, I do not see your argument that Anarchism is a form of Capitalist society to be viable.

During the times of revolt in which Anarchism had much importance, It seems to me that there was no real influence or indication of a state apparatus in the situations in which they played a most important role. If there was a state apparatus in those situations, they were visibly crushed or ignored.

Moreover, there were significant social change occuring within those situations - which came close to destroying the dominance of Capitalism within the areas in which these situations happened.

Thus, you can not say that Anarchism is a form of capitalism, although it is too broad and allows capitalists to shroud themselves in its blankets


We CAN go from capitalism to communism.

The period between the two is what the revolution IS.

THAT IS WHY THERE DOES NOT NEED TO BE A PERIOD OF SOCIALISM.

In a way I agree with you Floyce, & in a most essential way, I do not.

When it comes to agreeing with you on these terms; it seems that you can call the transition period "Revolution" or whatever you want to call it. That does not mean it is not a period in transition and that does not mean that we are not going from Capitalism to a real Communist society.

And yes, we do not also need a period of "Socialism" - a period in which there would be a state apparatus ruling over the entire proletariat.

However, when it comes to disagreeing with you, I have to say...that the entire context in which you said those words was completely wrong. It implies that you have no real understanding of the entire situation.

You have to say it in a way that is consistent - or people are going to think or are going to start thinking that you are implying idealist views.

[Forward Union]

Your information is not correct. There is no such thing as "anarchist communism," "libertarian communism," or similar ways of saying it--as I explain in my essay Whose Class Struggle?.

Then you reject the existence of hundreds of Anarchist-Communist books, films, all kinds of media's, the entire history of the movement, and of course, the thousands of organisations. And possibly hundreds of thousands of Anarchist-Communists?, do they actually exist?

Im a member of an Anarchist-Communist organisation, with anarchist communist principals and members...

Im not going to go into detail because well, I don't need to. Your argument mocks itself, at least, it comes across as funny for anyone who has an understanding of Libertarian Communism (http://www.libcom.org/thought/ideas/libertarian-communism/)

Your arguments are sectarian, embryonic, and flat our absurd. Next you'll be telling me Santa doesn't exist.

[anomaly]

Additives free, socialism is just the dictatorship of the proletariat. Does this neccesitate the state? Hardly. As I see it, socialism could be just a time when communism is first being built. You cannot possible believe that once the revolution is over, we can have full-fledged communism, can you? A period of building is neccesary, and this period will be socialism. The proletariat must assert their authority over the ex-bourgeoisie remaining after the revolution, or, if this wording is too strong for you, the proletariat must somehow show the ex-bourgeoisie that their elitism will no longer be tolerated after the revolution. As I see it, socialism will, in essence, be the time after the revolution when the proletariat has the guns and the bourgeoisie do not.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 02:07 AM
Additives free, socialism is just the dictatorship of the proletariat.
I know


Does this neccesitate the state? Hardly.

A dictatorship is a dictatorship.


As I see it, socialism could be just a time when communism is first being built. You cannot possible believe that once the revolution is over, we can have full-fledged communism, can you? A period of building is neccesary,

That's what pretty much all socialists say... "The people aren't ready for freedom! we must dictate them to freedom". It's absurdity and I flat out reject it.



and this period will be socialism. The proletariat must assert their authority over the ex-bourgeoisie remaining after the revolution, or, if this wording is too strong for you, the proletariat must somehow show the ex-bourgeoisie that their elitism will no longer be tolerated after the revolution.

Why? the remaining capitalists will have no power, if the revolution is won, then clearly a majority of people opposed capitalism. The mechanisms of punishment will exist in an Anarchist-Communist society anyway.


As I see it, socialism will, in essence, be the time after the revolution when the proletariat has the guns and the bourgeoisie do not.

Whatever. Why do you have "Anarcho" as your title?

[Abood]

A dictatorship is a dictatorship.
hardly. a dictatorship is where one person rules. dictatorship of the proletariat is where all the proles rule ;)

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2006, 10:26 PM
For our purposes, 'emokid', let us term socialism as the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the Leninist regimes of the 20th century.

You can't do that. If I recall correctly, the PLP's old definition of socialism was that it was a mode of production between the period of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the lower phase of communism. They have since junked that anti-Marxist theory, and rightly so! What they are saying now is more in line with classical Marxism.

Miles

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Socialist [email protected] 17 2006, 12:30 PM

A dictatorship is a dictatorship.
hardly. a dictatorship is where one person rules. dictatorship of the proletariat is where all the proles rule ;)
Actually it's "Absolute or despotic control or power" So there's no difference in definition between either description of a "dictatorship"

You might think your dictatorship is 'special' or really better than all the others, but I can say with some degree of certainly, that all dictators think that.

[emokid08]

I would like to first apologize for missing out on the discussion, I was away for awhile and unable to participate.

First off, The PLP will not be a Cadre elite. It will be a mass Party with millions of workers and People swelling it's ranks. It will not be an intellectual elite "imposing" or forcing Communism on any one. The PLP will be a Party of millions before the Revolution. That's a major departure from other Revolutions. Of course, The Revolutions in Russia and China were huge, but our Revolution will be (and must be in order to truely succeed) massive.Milions have to be commited to Communism before the Revolution and seizure of power. Any Communist organization or Party, will have to be a mass Party. Capitalism will continue to tailspin, and as life gets worse, coupled with education, Communism is destined to spread like wild fire. Of course other measures will be taken to build a mass Party.

As stated previously, nor The Party or I am just advocating this magical jump from Capitalism to Communism. There has to be a period of transition and societal evolution inbetween the two. Instead of Socialism,Egalitarianism sholud be what defines this evolution and transition. One would argue that Socialism is egalitarianist, and I would agree, but only to an extremely limited extent. It's no where nearly egalitarianist enough to transform society. History proves this fact correct.Revolution, our evolution, and the societal tranistion will be full of challenging struggle, but we must remain steadfast in our commitment to Communism and its egalitarianist goals of total and full equality!

Here's a better way of understanding what I mean. I reject Socialism as an economis system, instead, We should work to fuse the political system of Socialism with the economic aspects of Communism and egalitarianism. When this happens, the politicial and economic system of Communism can both be fully achieved. The only thing we leave behind and reject is Socialism as an economic system, instead egalitarianism is favored. Definitions below:

ECONOMIC SYSTEM:Socialism
Wages system; wages given ‘according to work’; inequality accepted although this will supposedly disappear with ‘abundance’ for all, money, Capital, further divisions of not only society, but of labor as well, still in place and usually reinforced

POLITICAL SYSTEM: Socialism
Dictatorship of proletariat led by party; still need laws, armies, jails, to prevent capitalists from rebuilding capitalism

ECONOMIC SYSTEM:Communism
Wage system abolished and replaced by communist distribution – ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need’ – egalitarianism

POLITICAL SYSTEM:Communism
No more state; all human relations voluntary. All disagreements settled without having to use force because everyone wants to preserve communism as the best way of life.


egalitarianism:
everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions.

everyone ought to be considered equal under the law.

each person is of equal moral worth.

everyone ought to be equal in political power.

men and women should be given equal status in society.

everyone ought to be equal in economic and social opportunity.

plaese note: definitions are broad, basic, and unspecific.

I will talk about the role of The Party in my next post.
ONE CLASS ONE PARTY ONE WORLD

[CCCPneubauten]

From what I read this PLP seems to be Stalinistic, or at least supportive of the man....look at their papers, what a horrible party....just as bad as the RCP.

[CCCPneubauten]

"ONE CLASS ONE PARTY ONE WORLD"

Yeah...sounds a little too National Socialist now...what is their motto? Ein Mensch, Ein Volk, Ein Reich?

Something that is also amazing is that people would get sucked into this party....one look at their poorly designed website turned me off.

Their "writings" are just there to piss me off more.

[emokid08]

I thought it best for The Party to speak for itsself in this matter. I would also like to add though, that even if the documents are a quarter century old, they have only become more powerful, correct, and poignant over time. Just look at the world today, and imagine the future under capitalism. *shudders*


"SHOULD THE PARTY BE THE ULTIMATE HOLDER OF POWER?
The second major point that some people raised in opposition to Road to Revolution (lV) had to do with what form the dictatorship of the proletariat will take. Road to Revolution IV asserts boldly that the Party would be the ultimate organizational expression of working class power, in addition to its primary role as political and ideological leader. This worried some people who felt that power concentrated in the hands of the party would automatically create a situation such as happened in the USSR, where the party became a new ruling class. Questions included:

How will the party deal with dissent?
Will the party allow "freedom of expression" for people who disagree with the party?
How will the working class protect itself from the party if the party becomes corrupt? .
If the party commands a standing army, will it be easier for a corrupt party to suppress the working class?
Who will have the final say?
The heart of the question is whether the party should make the basic decisions that run society, or whether some other group should make those decisions. To clear away the smoke, the real issue is the issue of "democratic centralism:" How do we guarantee that we can have centralism -- the will of the working class being carried out by all members -- while preventing a corrupt group from using centralism in an anti-working class way? Will a group of non-party people be allowed to have ultimate power over the decisions of the party if there is a disagreement? If there is no disagreement, then this issue is never going to come to a head. But if there is disagreement, should the party be allowed to use the threat of force in order to have its decisions carried out?

There is a false argument often used in discussing the role of centralism. Some people argue that the value of centralism is in its efficiency, but that this efficiency must be balanced off against some form of protection for the majority -- hence "democratic" centralism. "Democratic centralism" is seen as a "unity of opposites" – a combination of democracy and centralism where each of them is used to prevent the other from going to the extreme. "Too much democracy would not be efficient, but too much centralism would lead to suppression of the rights of the people." This whole line of thinking is completely wrong!

It pretends to be dialectical, but is actually, in Lenin's words, "eclectic" -- another way of saying that it tries to solve a basic problem of struggle not by seeing how different forces interact and transform each other but rather by simply borrowing a little from one, a little from the other, and coming up with something that is not really accurate at all. Let us break down the two words -- "democratic" and "centralism" -- and see what is meant, or should be, by those terms.

The word "democratic" used in the context of "democratic centralism" is used in different ways. One meaning is that there should be full discussion of a proposal before a decision is made. Another meaning is that decisions should be made in the interests of the working class, and in a way that not only will benefit the working class, but also train more and more working-class people to contribute to the running of the society. A third meaning sometimes given to "democratic" is that there should be some sort of formal institutionalized process, usually some sort of voting, that should be done before a decision is finally made.

The word "centralist" means that after a decision is made, everyone should work to carry it out, whether or not they agreed with the decision. Furthermore, within the context of the party, it means that discussion and disagreement are allowed, but that it must be done in an open way, not in a secret way. Members cannot form private groups that hold private, closed meetings to discuss how to undermine a decision. Disagreements should be discussed only in the context of party meetings. Otherwise, the member is saying that his highest loyalty is not to the party, but to a small group of associates.

I personally do not like the term "democratic" here. I think that it means too many things to too many different people. I prefer the term "communist centralism" because that gives a political-economic content to centralism -- it means that all centralism is for the purpose of building a society free of privilege and exploitation, based on "from each according to his ability, to each according to need." and developing the consciousness of the people to be able to implement that. In any case, the first definition of "democratic" given above doesn't help clear the air at all. Everybody should agree with the idea that there should be full discussion as much as possible before a decision is made, so the first definition does not reveal the differences that people have on democratic centralism and how society should be run.

The second meaning is the one that I prefer. Decisions should be made that are to the benefit of the working class of the world, and that will encourage and develop greater and greater numbers of workers to take more of an active interest and participation in helping make the decisions. However, everybody who claims to be a communist, certainly all party members, would probably agree with this as well, so this definition also does not help reveal the differences.

The third meaning, that there should be some sort of voting process that is absolutely binding, and that has the final say, is where the controversy comes forward the sharpest. Road to Revolution IV says explicitly that the leadership, the party, wants to encourage direct working-class transformation of the society and direct working-class leadership of the society, but that, when push comes to shove, in an ultimate sense, the power of the society should rest in the hands of the party, rather than in the hands of a non-party group, or some sort of coalition between the party and non-communist forces.

Those who disagreed with the Road to Revolution IV formulation said that democracy is supposed to give the most freedom to the greatest number, and that the party would be going against democracy if the party carried out some policy without a vote of the masses or against the will of a vote of the masses. Other give a second, related, argument, that says the masses will need some sort of official institutional protection against the party, some sort of institutional system of checks and balances against the party becoming corrupt, since corrupt parties are what rule the USSR, etc., today, and that voting-type procedures are a way to keep a small group of people from using power in a corrupt way.

ARE DEMOCRACY AND VOTING REALLY 'DEMOCRATIC'?
The issue really boils down to: "What if there is a contradiction between the second definition of democracy (decisions made to further communism -- to each according to need, etc.) and the third definition of democracy (some sort of shared power arrangement)?" Some people have said that in that case, the party should back down, give people the opportunity to learn, to make their own mistakes if necessary, even if it might harm themselves somewhat, because the "democratic procedure" is more important than the actual outcome or decision." This sounds very nice, but what if the supposed will of those people involved in that shared power-type situation will result in serious damage to some other sections of the working class? Is the party supposed to abide by some sort of decision that might result in the oppression of some other group of workers?

A fundamental problem with these "shared power/voting, etc." formulations is that they allow for very undemocratic, anti-communist or anti-working-class oppression against some segment of the working-class, and they provide a "democratic" cover to justify it. Specifically, if the students on a campus vote to allow the CIA to recruit on campus, would that be democratic? Of course not! The oppressed working classes of El Salvador, Iran, Africa, etc. didn't get to vote! Suppose the working class, under a dictatorship of the proletariat, decides to support the oppression of workers in another country, or to disagree with a party decision to put off raising the standard of living at home in order to help the working class in another country, based on selfish or nationalist ideas. Would it be "democratic" for the party to go along with that nationalist-selfish wish? Who gets to vote? Would we let religious nuts vote -- people who may not have committed a crime like the KKK, but are clearly wrong, and thinking in a dangerous way? Would KKKers vote? If not, then who makes the decision? If the party decides who will vote, then it still boils down to the same thing.

The heart of the question: Should the Party make the basic decisions, or should some other group make them?


How will the masses understand the issues? Through the media? Who will run the media? Would these people really have the most power, and could they become a corrupt group if they have the power to describe and define the issues and/or the "candidates?" Who would you trust? Who could you trust?

The problem with "shared power/democratic procedures, etc." as the guarantee against small group power-corruption is that it is no guarantee against that sort of corruption. The main problem with anti-centralism is not that it is "inefficient, but democratic." The problem with it is that it is not particularly democratic. If the party does not assert power, and control power for the purpose of building a society based on "from each according to ability, to each according to need," communism, an end to oppression, war, and privilege, which will result in the most freedom (and the most "things") for virtually everyone, then some other group will assert power for some other purpose, namely special privilege, capitalist oppression, etc. All class society is a dictatorship. If communists, fighting for communism and all that that means, do not hold power in an ultimate sense, after all the steps are taken to ensure mass discussion, then some other group will seize power! They will certainly not play by those formalistic "fake-democratic" rules, or they will distort those rules. In any case, the class struggle will still rage, and there is no reason for the communists to refrain from fighting to win.

"Centralism" is not the opposite of "democracy" (used in the second sense of pro-communism, most freedom for the working class, etc.) One does not "balance" the other. On the contrary, without centralism, there is no such thing as "democracy! "Would it be democratic to let one town hold up the water supply to another, if the voters agree to? Of course not! The working class of the world, not some small fraction, should be the decider; and yes, the party should make those decisions in the interests of the working class of the world. Otherwise, the other so-called democratic procedures simply allow some small group to assert their will over the need of all. There's nothing democratic about that!

The real contradiction in democratic centralism is between individualism and collectivism.

The real contradiction in democratic centralism is not between democracy and centralism. It is between individualism, or special-group loyalty, and collectivism, or what is good for the working class as a whole.

The job of the communist party -- PLP -- is to grasp what is good for the working class as a whole and then to make certain that it is carried out. The party can only do that by winning millions of workers to communist ideas. If the party fails to do this, in the long run it will not understand what is in the interest of the world's working class. It will become a "special group" itself. But during the process of winning the world's workers to communism, the party's duty is to make sure no policies are put into effect which go against the interests of the working class no matter what kind of pseudo-democratic procedures were used to arrive at those policies.

This brings up the question "Well, who appointed the PLP to speak for the working class of the world? How do you know that you are right?" Well, we're certainly going to make some mistakes, but what's the alternative? To go around thinking that we're wrong? To run slowly towards the exit of a burning building because we are not quite sure that it is the right exit? To encourage what Lenin called "spontaneity," which means just letting people do "what comes naturally?" As Lenin pointed out, virtually nothing comes "naturally" except breathing; the idea of letting people "do what comes naturally" simply means letting all the other influences in their lives, developed by capitalism and capitalist culture, make up their minds. Some people who worry about "cramming communism down people's throats" don't realize that the bosses are cramming capitalism down people's throats. Our only hope is to win masses to fight voluntarily for communism. Doing that would be a prerequisite for revolution, anyhow. But should those who oppose it be allowed to exercise a dictatorship over those who are pro-communist? There's nothing wrong with those who understand the necessity for communism banding together, forming an organization to fight, with their lives, for communism. Certainly, there is a danger in claiming to speak for the working class of the world -- but that danger is not avoided by refusing to give strong leadership. In fact, the danger is compounded.

COMMUNIST CENTRALISM OR CAPITALIST CENTRALISM
There are such things as anti-communist forms of centralism, of course. All forms of centralism that do not aim at carrying out a policy in the interest of the world's working class are really capitalist. But all of the authoritarian relations in capitalist society are centralist. In fact, only in the Party do we experience real democracy, though small groups of workers often act in democratic ways among themselves.

It is true that proclaiming ourselves "spokespeople or leaders of the world working-class movement" can be used to justify special privileges. That is why the first part of this essay emphasized that the mass, public commitment to communism is the best guarantee against this sort of corruption taking place. We must be on absolute guard against corruption in the party; we must win the party rank and file, and the working class in general, to be super-sensitive and vigorous in fighting this danger of corruption. Also, we must win the most dedicated and committed workers by the millions to be the members and leaders of the party. But weakening the party is not the way to do this.

Centralism is the expression of the most freedom for the most people, if you believe that communism is the hope of the future, and freedom is defined by the quality and quantity of social relations. Using that definition of democracy, centralism is the best, the only, expression of democracy. Opposing communist centralism will simply lead to capitalist centralism. The choice is not chaos or centralism -- it is communist centralism or capitalist centralism.

There is nothing "humanistic" about asserting individual freedom in contrast to communism, or to centralism. Marx correctly pointed out that we all will have the most freedom, and live the best lives, if we dare to interlock our lives with those of other people. People are not a burden; they are a source for finding better and better solutions to the world's problems. Functioning in a collective way, accepting the discipline of the party that is fighting for communism, fighting for and practicing centralism -- these are not denials of our freedom. Our humanity comes from our ability to shape and control our destinies, and this we can best do by functioning collectively. This is what communism brings, and this is what centralism -- which is thoroughly consistent with communism -- means.

If we are fighting in the interests of the working class of the world, then centralism -- communist centralism -- is the organizational expression of the best form of human relations, and is the best organizational form for the party and for society. If the party is not fighting in the interests of the working class of the world, then this question is not important; then the important question is how to either straighten out the party or to smash it. Weak control is no protector against corruption.

So why should we lie and pretend that we are for some sort of shared power, when we, as everyone else, would resort to violence if we thought that enemies might come to power? Let's say it loud and clear: Centralism is not a "necessary evil;" it is the best expression of the most freedom for the working class of the world, and it is the best form of human relations -- making an agreement and sticking: to it.

THE QUESTION OF THE ARMY
This ties into questions that have been raised about the idea of a standing army after the revolution. A professional army has been an important tool for revisionists to control and then to use against the working class. The only ultimate protection against this is the political understanding of the masses, including the masses of soldiers. Until capitalism is destroyed throughout the world, the working class, living under the dictatorship of the proletariat, must be armed (except, of course, for right-wingers and known enemies) and organized into local militias. We will also need a professional army, people who are trained fighters, who can handle sophisticated weaponry, and are prepared to go to the assistance of the militias or to the aid of workers elsewhere. The bosses and: their agents will attempt comebacks, and workers will still be fighting for revolution in other areas. With the Red Army, as with every other aspect of post-revolutionary life, the best check against corruption is ideological training and commitment. Additionally, we might consider not having the forts out on prairies and in the woods the way the U.S. bosses do, to try to isolate the soldiers from the rest of the working class. But to say that we should not have some people whose job it is to be well-trained professional soldiers in a world where capitalists will be trying to destroy our struggle for communism would be to set ourselves up for defeat.

How long will the dictatorship of the proletariat last before it finally "withers away?" I don't know. Perhaps more than 200 years and less than a million. No one knows, and no one can really even begin to imagine what life will be like after a hundred, a thousand, ten thousand years of communist economic relations. We need to avoid predictions where we have no basis for them; all we can say is that it will be a long period."

[CCCPneubauten]

Yawn.....more PLP Stalinistic bullshit....blah blah WE AREN'T THE STATE TRUST US blah balh balh DEMOCRATIC CENTRALISM FOLLOW EVERYTHING THE PARTY SAYS blah blah blah we ARE democratic TRUST US and EVERY thing we say....

"Just look at the world today, and imagine the future under capitalism. *shudders* "

Or think about the future under the PLP....just take one look at Russia in the 1930s for this vision of your future.

[emokid08]

Call me and The Party what you will! Pragmatic, secretarian, hard line, Stalinist, revolutionary---whatever! It doesn't matter! I am a Revolutionary Communist, and I am proud of this fact.

A fellow Communist once told me that if The PLP just toned it down a little or we used different wording or if we backed down a little, then he would join right up, even though he believes in what The PLP stands for.

WHAT WE FIGHT FOR
The former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China returned to capitalism many years ago. Capitalism, not communism, is failing all over the world.

The two-stage strategy of first socialism, then communism, failed to lead to communism. It led back to capitalism. Therefore, we must fight directly for communism.

Communism means abolishing nation states, which are an expression of capitalism. One working class, one party, one world.

Communism means abolishing racism by building multi-racial unity and internationalism.

Communism means abolishing sexism.

Communism means equality. No money. No wages. People working based on their commitment to each other and to building a communist society.

Communism means the Party leads society. Millions of workers-eventually everybody-must be won to be communist organizers for this to work. We must all give and receive leadership from each other.

Communism can be won only through armed struggle by masses of workers, soldiers, students and others, to destroy the dictatorship of the capitalist class and set up a dictatorship of the working class.

Fight for Communism!

[CCCPneubauten]

WHAT WE FIGHT FOR
The former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, and China returned to capitalism many years ago. Capitalism, not communism, is failing all over the world.


Erm....they were never anything BUT capitalism...."comrade"

Doesn't take much to figure that out. IF that is what the "Party" is fighting for then I hate them even more than I thought....they really DO want a return t those primitive state-capitalist countries....


They may say something Mr Emo, but look deeper at this party...you are brainwashed though...hell man...you even said 'The Party" not "the party" how....odd.





"Communism means the Party leads society."

No it means NO party does and that people rule. not "THE Party"

Communism means NO government NO dogmatic centralism that you preach....you are no communist....just a supporter of some anti-individualistic dogmatic democratic centralism quasi fascist State.

[emokid08]

Comrade, I am not here to say that either of us are right or wrong, I'm not in that position. I am here to put forth what I believe. I don't know why the phrase "One working class, one party, one world." scares you. After all, Communism will not work if it is only practiced here in the USA, it has to be a world wide evolution and cahnge in order to work. We are all a member of the working class (or will be), so I can't see your issue with that, and we have to unite under one line, message, banner, and party if we are to succeed in revolution. I, personally, am against division. I'll have no problem uniting any under Communist orginization when the time comes. As far as I'm concerned, the Communist movement is too splinterded and as a result is particularly weak. If we all came under the banner of "Communist Party" then we would be a force to be reckoned with. While debate is healthy and I enjoy it, petty squabbling and name calling gets us no where. If, it so happens that The PLP doesn't become the Party Of The People, that's fine, no big loss. I am a Communist and will support any Communist Party any where any time. It just so happens that as of now, I am a member of the PLP, and I think that the PLP is the best vehicle to propel society towards Communism.

But it's of no matter to me comrade. Society, and the entire world is rocketing every second towards Communism. So if the PLP isn't what the workers choose to use to fight Capitalism, that's fine. As long as The Party is Communist, I support it.

Our fight is to make sure that The Dictatorship of Proletriat doesnt become a bureaucratic state capitalist system, in which the State owns everything. If one knew the true nature of Communism, then one would know that I, as a Revolutionary Communist, is fighting for just that, COMMUNISM--- not State Socialism and Government ownership of evryone and everything.

[emokid08]

Again, you choose to not acknowledge the fact that the Party won't be this dictatorial body u precieve it as. The Party will be everyone! Everyone will be The Party! I've stated before that The Party has to be massive, huge orginization in order to succeed in revolution. This means a Party of millions before the first shot is fired.

Every Communist will have to be a member of The Party---regardless of which Party that is (as long as it's Communist). Division will lead to failure and a Capitalist triumph. We have to unite. There's going to come a time when our differences are going to have to be settled so we can defeat Capitalism. We will not win if we continue to be divided as we are today. This is what the Capitalists want anyway! WE, right now, are playing right into thier hands and unless, in the end, we come together and unite for Communism, then we are destined to fail and remain opressed.

I realize that I probably am the furthest left here. That doesn't make me any less a Communist, my friend. Just because I reject compromising with the Fascists and Capitalists doesn't make me less of a Communist. I fight for an armed Revolution against those keeping us down, I fight for Communism.

Communism:A classless,moneyless society with no exploitation. No state machine used by one section of the population to oppress another section. No need for professional armies or police forces. No use of production for profit or exchange. Society runs in accord with the principle: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.

Where has communism existed?
Nowhere. Communism has never existed.

[emokid08]

"There is no other definition of communism valid for us than that of the abolition of the exploitation of man by man."
–Che Guevara

"The theory of the Communism may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property."

"From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his needs."

"Communism deprives no man of the ability to appropriate the fruits of his labour. The only thing it deprives him of is the ability to enslave others by means of such appropriations."

-Marx

[Led Zeppelin]

Quoting people out of context to prove your point is not gonna work, sorry.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by emokid08
The Party will be everyone! Everyone will be The Party!

Yes, that's understood. But the Party Leadership will not be "everyone", will it?

And they are the ones who actually get to decide what happens!

Some time ago, an ex-member of the PLP told us here that the party no longer holds even ceremonial elections for its leading positions.

The leadership is a self-perpetuating elite that's completely unaccountable to the membership.

This is the "model" that the PLP advocates for post-revolutionary society.

It's unacceptable.


I realize that I probably am the furthest left here.

Afraid not. :lol:

You may be nominally to the "left" of those who advocate "socialism"...but there are a fair number of people here who go considerably further left than you or the PLP does.


No need for professional armies or police forces.

That's true...but it's not what the PLP plans.

In fact, the Party intends to have a professional army at its disposal from the very beginning and plainly says so!

I hate to say it, but I don't think that you are really as well informed about the party you have joined as you should be.


A fellow Communist once told me that if The PLP just toned it down a little or we used different wording or if we backed down a little, then he would join right up, even though he believes in what The PLP stands for.

That isn't your problem here. We are not "afraid of words"...like so many people are.

Historically speaking, we have a damn good reason to be afraid of professional armies in the hands of an untouchable political elite!

Whenever we threaten to "get out of hand", they come out and shoot us!

Are you asking us to "trust" the PLP leadership? That they are really "nice guys" and would "never do such a thing"?

"Trust" is in short supply on this board. Modern revolutionaries would rather trust the working class as a whole than a small group of "leaders".

Things have changed. :)

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

[CCCPneubauten]

"Again, you choose to not acknowledge the fact that the Party won't be this dictatorial body u precieve it as. The Party will be everyone! Everyone will be The Party! I've stated before that The Party has to be massive, huge orginization in order to succeed in revolution. This means a Party of millions before the first shot is fired. "

I know I will no tbe apart of that Stalinist bull crap.

Now will the Royal PLP Army come and shoot me?

"I realize that I probably am the furthest left here. That doesn't make me any less a Communist, my friend. Just because I reject compromising with the Fascists and Capitalists doesn't make me less of a Communist. I fight for an armed Revolution against those keeping us down, I fight for Communism. "

Just like Redstar said...you are NOT the furthest Left here by a long shot...you are fighting for a political party to have total control over my life....I hate that.

You say ONE Party...I say NO party. Fascism at best with one party.

[anomaly]

A few things that are just plain wrong with your beloved party, emokid.

"We will also need a professional army..."---See Redstar's comments. Basically, professional armies are all fine and good...until we dissenters get out of hand and they come shoot us!!! A professional army should be opposed.

"If the party does not assert power, and control power for the purpose of building a society based on "from each according to ability, to each according to need," communism, an end to oppression, war, and privilege, which will result in the most freedom (and the most "things") for virtually everyone, then some other group will assert power for some other purpose"--This is making an argument for the party being an all-powerful entity.

"...the working class, living under the dictatorship of the proletariat..."--Why would the working class live 'under' the dictatorship of the proletariat? It may be just a problem of wording by the writer of this manifesto, but it sounds rather ominous nonetheless.

"One working class, one party, one world."--One party? If we have 'one party' ruling, we call that fascism. Not communism. We don't need any parties. Period.

[emokid08]

I will fully acknowledge that, now, yes, the PLP is a small intellectual group. But that will change dramatically as Capitalism continues to tailspin and the lives of the people continue to nosedive.

Your concerns about corruption, exploitation, and oppression are all founded and understandable. I too was unsure at first. But that's why I can't emphasize enough that mass, public commitment to Communism is the best guarentee agaisnt this sort of abuse of power from taking place. Millions must be dedicated to Communism before we gight the Capitalists.

The leaders of the Party during the Revolution will be the most dedicated and commited millions of workers that will make up the rank and file. It will not be a cadre elite, the workers and the people will be the Party.

The job of the Communist Party is to grasp what is good for the working class as a whole and then to make certain that it's carried out. The Party can only do that by winning a mass movement of workers to Communist ideas.That mass of workers will become the revolutionary body that will be tha Party. If the Party fails to be a mass popular movement, then it will fail to understand what's in the interest of the working class.

Are some of you actually questioning the idea of a mass workers Party? The party will be the tool in which the workers implement the dictatorship of the proletriat, the Party will be a natural extension of the workers. The Revolution can't and won't happen unless an able and large bodied Communist Party is built.

The Party won't be the new ruling class, in fact, one of the aims of the dicatatorship of the proletriat is to wipe away society's divisions. Something that Socialism fails to do. The time between the revolution and an actual Communist society has to be........gee I don't know........how about..........it's gonna sound crazy, I'm probably a hereitic.................COMMUNIST!!! That's why Revolution has failed in the past! Enough wasn't done to achieve Communism, it became watered down, and led to the State owning everything and everyone! The State became one big Capitalist, that's one of the things that Communist Centralism, implemented and carried out by the workers/people, will be on the forefront of fighting.

Yes, eventually, The Party will cease to serve a purpose and it will dissolve and evaporate. That's after the Dictatorship of the Proletriat, when true Communism is achieved. There will be no Party, State(will cease to exist after the Revolution), money, army, police, wages, war, capital, exploitation, class, division etc etc. After the workers have been successful in building a new society, Communism will dawn on the world for the first time in modern history.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by emokid08
Are some of you actually questioning the idea of a mass workers Party?

Yes. :D

You see, the problem with the Leninist Party is that it is bound by the constraints of "democratic" centralism.

Regardless of how many members it has, the Party Leadership still decides everything.

And if they make a mistake (no matter how "honest"), Party Discipline requires that the mistake be fully implemented...turning a small fuckup into total disaster.

I advocate a workers' movement with a lot of diversity. I think that it should be pro-communist diversity -- I have no more use for bourgeois ideologies than you do.

But I don't trust any self-perpetuating group of leaders to "always get it right". A "movement" structure allows, in principle, for errors to be quickly corrected; a "party" structure is "stuck" until the leaders themselves admit that they were wrong. Or, in the worst cases, until the old leaders die off and the younger leaders can then "clean up the mess" or try to.

Look at all that nonsense that the PLP circulated about "imminent nuclear war"...how long did it take the party's leaders to finally admit that they had their heads up their asses?

And why would anyone have any confidence in what they had to say now? Unless, of course, the leaders of the 1980s have been entirely replaced by new leaders.

Has that happened? Could it happen...considering the way the PLP is structured?

Doesn't look that way to me.


The Revolution can't and won't happen unless an able and large bodied Communist Party is built.

Leninist mythology. The "leading role of the party" is at the very core of the Leninist paradigm. But the fact that past Leninist parties became corrupt and restored capitalism has cut the ground from beneath the myth.

Today's remaining Leninists "tinker with the model"...trying to figure out "some way" to "make sure" that the Leninist Party in power doesn't do what the Russian and Chinese parties did.

I don't think that's "do-able"!

The Leninist Party is a despotism for its members. If it comes to power, it imposes despotism on everyone.

And despotisms inevitably become corrupted.


The Party won't be the new ruling class...

At first. But give it a little time...and the rot sets in.

Yes, abolishing wages is a "good step"...but Party Leaders will easily be able to appropriate "extra goodies" for themselves "for the good of the whole working class".

They'll have a "communist sounding" rationale all ready to meet any criticisms...and, after a while, they won't even bother with the rationale at all.

As in China, where the sons and daughters of Party Leaders became known as "Red Princes" and "Red Princesses". :lol:

It actually wouldn't surprise me if the PLP doesn't already have a few of those...the group has been around long enough that the children of the original leaders are old enough now to be that.

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

[Severian]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Feb 16 2006, 06:24 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Feb 16 2006, 06:24 AM)
Severian
There is, after all, a historical example of a political movement which attempted to go straight to communism, and which did immediately abolish all private property....the Khmer Rouge...

Ah yes, the murderous rampage of semi-literate peasants "proves" that the immediate transition to communism is a "disastrous option". [/b]
The Khmer Rouge were nothing of the kind. As you say of PL, the Khmer Rouge was its leadership; it was a highly disciplined authoritarian organization, not an anarchistic "rampage".

And those leaders were not "semi-literate peasants" but rather a petty-bourgeois sect whose highly-educated leaders cooked up their utopia at the Sorbonne in Paris.

Certainly peasants would never have favored the immediate expropriation of all of their property!

All my original points stand.

[Severian]

Originally posted by emokid08+Feb 17 2006, 12:04 PM--> (emokid08 @ Feb 17 2006, 12:04 PM) The two-stage strategy of first socialism, then communism, failed to lead to communism. It led back to capitalism. Therefore, we must fight directly for communism. [/b]
versus


[email protected] 17 2006, 11:30 AM
As stated previously, nor The Party or I am just advocating this magical jump from Capitalism to Communism. There has to be a period of transition and societal evolution inbetween the two. Instead of Socialism,Egalitarianism sholud be what defines this evolution and transition.

Which one is it?

In any case, still a utopian approach; you think you can decree what "should" be. In reality, the historical process of humanity's social evolution doesn't care what you think.


egalitarianism:
everyone ought to be equal with respect to material possessions.

So we still have the immediate abolition by decree of all preexisting property.

Fortunately, this utopian approach pretty much guarantees that PL will never acquire the mass following to carry out its proposals. But if it ever does, due to some unforeseen exceptional situation, the result can only be a super-authoritarian utopian horrorshow.

[emokid08]

I'm confused now, the Revolution won't be successful if the workers don't have and orginizational apparatus or a tool to combat the Capitalists. How will the workeres win new Communists to the cause? The workers won't be able to spawn a Revolution spontaneously. It would be chaos. That's the last thing the Revolution needs, is an unorganized mob of angry Communist workers wreaking havoc on all the countryside. Anarchy will not spawn The Dictatorship of The Proletriat or a Communist Society. Anarchy spawns confusion and chaos, things that will only be detrimental to the newly forming Society. Orginization is key to success.

As for the role of The Party, we will have to agree to disagree. Your arguements are understood and heeded. I know what you guys are trying to say and I agree with you, but I think that The Party is neccessary to the Revolution and vital to our transition to our new society.

When the time comes, I know that I will think for myself, and I hope everyone else will to. I will utimately place my trust in the workers.

I think that every great Revolutionary and Communist thinker has somethig to contribute to modern Communism today. Gifts to the cause, if you would.
Marx & Engels
Lenin
Trotsky
Stalin
Mao
Che
Castro
Minh
Chavez
But we have an equal amount to learn from thier mistakes. And thier mistakes are many. We can't throw the past by our wayside, we must analyze and comprehend what went wrong, why,and how with each of these men.

When the shit hits the fans, and when it boils down to it, I am a Communist. I fight for Communism, and I believe in the principles and values that Communism stands for. I'm out to change society, and ultimately to change our world. I would be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with you guys and fight for the workers, fight for the people, and fight for our cause; Communism.

I enjoyed our conversation,I learned alot, and I look forward to many more.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2006, 12:37 PM
I'm confused now, the Revolution won't be successful if the workers don't have and orginizational apparatus or a tool to combat the Capitalists.
If this is a response to Redstar, you're not the first to become confused arguing with him. He does contradict himself a fair bit.

'Course, so do you, as I showed in my last post.

[Comrade-Z]

The workers won't be able to spawn a Revolution spontaneously.

Why not? It's been done before (Petrograd in February 1917).


It would be chaos.

It is definitely not going to proceed with vanguardist "efficiency," if that is what you are getting at. So what? In Petrograd in 1917 there were probably hundreds of council-like places where millions of individuals discussed the question of "what is to be done?" I think living in such a situation would be an exhilirating experience. And I think this is exactly what needs to be done constantly from the first stages of the self-emancipation of the proletariat, and onward forever, really.


That's the last thing the Revolution needs, is an unorganized mob of angry Communist workers wreaking havoc on all the countryside.

The horrors! :lol:


Anarchy will not spawn The Dictatorship of The Proletriat or a Communist Society. Anarchy spawns confusion and chaos, things that will only be detrimental to the newly forming Society. Orginization is key to success.

I won't argue that organization can be useful in some situations, essential in others. But what kind of organization, eh? How about one where everyone meaningfully participates in the decision-making process? Or is that too "inefficient" for your tastes?

And actually you have things somewhat backwards. The dictatorship of the proletariat will "spawn" stateless communist society--what many people call "anarchy."

And surely you don't want to use the bourgeois definition of "anarchy." Please, anarchy, in short, is the absence of rulers--exactly what we are all fighting for, no? If you want to argue that anarchy automatically and in all circumstances will lead to chaos--"anomie," to use a precise definition--then argue that point. But if that's the case, then why are you a communist at all? If people are forever incapable of forging stateless communist society, why not just try for personal advancement? Wouldn't you have much better chances at personal advancement by proclaiming yourself a Christian or a patriot than proclaiming yourself to be a communist? And I must warn you, you find making the argument that anarchy=chaos tough going here.


I will utimately place my trust in the workers.

Except for those "unorganized mob[s] of angry Communist workers wreaking havoc on all the countryside," right?


I think that every great Revolutionary and Communist thinker has somethig to contribute to modern Communism today. Gifts to the cause, if you would.
Marx & Engels
Lenin
Trotsky
Stalin
Mao
Che
Castro
Minh
Chavez

Heil our Great Communist Leaders! Heil the Great Communist Fuhrers!

"Thank you, Lord God, for this our daily bread and our Great Communist Leaders, Your gifts to the Communist cause."

Why am I getting a taste of theology here?

[emokid08]

I apologize for usuing the word anarchy interchangebly with chaos. It's true that a Communist society will be the vary definition of anarchy: no rulers. That's one of the reasons I think that Communists and anarchists need to come together and unite. We want basically the same thing in the end, our means of getting there though are radically different and is what usually creates the strife between the two groups. Please, I don't need the lecture on how Marxism and Anarchism are different, and yes I'm being broad and general on purpose, for the sake of unity against the fascists.

I think that Communists have alot to learn about the past, and I think that the past has so much to offer to us, we can't ignore it or cover it up. I don't idolize or worship any past Revolutionary, I only seek to better understand what they did wrong and why so we don't make the same mistakes and fail like they did. Don't worry, I don't profess the cult personality or the idol worship of Party members. I just think that we have alot 2 learn and and alot of expirience to draw on.

What I really wish is that The Marxist-Leninist Party was still around, I've read stuff from them, read about thier members, and would definetly take them over The PLP any day.

That brings up an interesting question: Which revolutionary (other than Marx&Engels) has the most to contribute to modern Communism?
I would have to say Lenin, or Che perhaps. Kind of a two way tie I think.

[CCCPneubauten]

Lenin was no communist....he changed the ruling class from the tsars to the Party...

[emokid08]

CCCP - I find it absolutely hilarious how you knock and diss Stalin, and now Lenin, and yet you Quote Castro at the bottom of your posts. I like Castro and think he's just as important as the rest of the revolutionaries, but I live in Florida, have a large number of Cuban friends, and the majority of them think that Castro is just as brutal and tyrannical as Stalin or Lenin. I have heard the arguement that Castro was no Communist and he is just as bad as the rest of the brutal "Red Tyrants" that came to power. What is your answer to the claim that Castro is just as god-awful as say Mao or Stalin for example.

I don't need convincing, I happen to like Castro and I think he has alot to contribute to a modern Communist movement, but what do you say when people compare him to the rest " of those damn Commies" ?

By the way- I find it unfathomable that you think Lenin is not a Communist. Sure he wasn't perfect, and he was definetly brutal, but given his circumstances I think that he is probably the most important Communist thinker next to Marx&Engels. He certainly has written some brillant stuff- you should really check it out.

[Floyce White]

redstar2000: "In Floyce's view, the Khmer Rouge 'should' have been able to 'build communism,' since objective material conditions 'don't count.'"

I never said word one about the Khmer Rouge. I never said that mass murder can "build communism." Do you remember how I said that moral issues are unavoidable? Retracting a misattribution is one of those moral issues that cannot be avoided. Please retract your statement.

redstar2000: "No, I've finally given up on hearing anything sensible from you about material conditions at all...there is no room for them in your perspective."

Communist struggle in the here-and-now is the material origin of the communist society of the future. You and ComradeRed disagree. So you support the only other possibility: that capitalist struggle in the here-and-now is the origin of the communist society of the future. That's false. The other options are logically impossible. If "both" were for communism, there would be no struggle and no delay. If "neither" were for communism, "nobody" would make it--sheer nihilism.

Checkmate.

You two beat yourselves by arguing that communism is caused by something controlled by capitalists: technology. Since there's no valid argument for that, you disguise it as the vague generality of "material conditions."

[CCCPneubauten]

" He certainly has written some brillant stuff- you should really check it out. "

I have, and it sucks. He and his Party just want to be the next ruling class.

I can't help it Castro said something good....Stalin said some funny things too, but just because I enjoy a quote does that mean I enjoy the man? NO.

Lenin wasn't a communist....his idea of the country bumpkins taking power along side the industrials is backwards to Marxian ideas.

Marx and Engels both say it must come from developed West Europe conditions.

Lenin had no clue what he was talking about.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 28 2006, 03:22 AM
redstar2000...
Oh, not responding to my post then I see. :lol:

[wet blanket]

You two beat yourselves by arguing that communism is caused by something controlled by capitalists: technology. Since there's no valid argument for that, you disguise it as the vague generality of "material conditions."

Not necessarily 'technology' alone but rather something more tangible(which does include technology): The Means Of Production.

Communists do argue that the possibility of communism is born out of the development of the means of production and proletarian class consciousness created by industrial capitalism... that's pretty much what Marx spent most his adult life writing about.

[Floyce White]

wet blanket: "Not necessarily 'technology' alone but rather something more tangible (which does include technology): The Means Of Production."

I, as a worker, am a "means of production." The apartment I live in is a "means of production." A dog is a "means of production" (recreation). Dogs don't create communism, apartments don't create communism, and until I actually do something other than walking dogs and going to work, I don't create communism.

wet blanket: "Communists do argue that the possibility of communism is born out of the development of the means of production and proletarian class consciousness created by industrial capitalism...that's pretty much what Marx spent most his adult life writing about."

If "communists do argue" about this and that, it presupposes that some argue differently.

I argue differently.

Communism is NOT caused by the development of apartments, dogs, and wage labor. Communism is NOT caused by my consciousness of being a wage laborer. If that were true, all we would have to do would be to have "consciousness-raising sessions." Communism is caused by communist struggle.

I explained this in some detail in my post on another thread (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45607&st=25&#entry1292020598) that I already linked to above.

Additives Free: "Oh, not responding to my post then I see."

If you will recall:

Floyce White quoting Additives Free: "Anarchist-Communist rejects any form of state, temporary or prolonged."

Floyce White: "Your information is not correct. There is no such thing as 'anarchist communism,' 'libertarian communism,' or similar ways of saying it--as I explain in my essay Whose Class Struggle? (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=42555&st=0&#entry1291968629)"

You did not click on the link I provided and read what I wrote in that article:

"In conflict with the idea that anarchism is a form of capitalism, a few comrades counterpose the expression 'anarcho-communism.' This phrasing does not work--precisely because it defines 'anarchism' as meaning 'no state.' Along with its corollary, 'state capitalism,' these terms induce the pair of false opposites 'stateless capitalism' and 'state communism.' False opposite proves false posit. Anyone can compound words as a rhetorical device, but it does not imply any reasoning."

If you will recall, in your very next post, you used the term "anarchist communist" four times. There is no such thing as "proof by assertion." The term "anarchist communist" will continue to be meaningless rhetoric until you successfully rebut my argument.

If you will recall, in your very next post, you said:

"Then you reject the existence of hundreds of Anarchist-Communist books, films, all kinds of media, the entire history of the movement, and of course, the thousands of organisations. And possibly hundreds of thousands of Anarchist-Communists? Do they actually exist? . . . Your arguments are sectarian..."

However, in that same article (Whose Class Struggle?), I said:

"As long as there are capitalists, they will recruit working-class activists to do political labor. Many lower-class anarchists, socialists, and radical liberals struggle to raise broad anti-property demands instead of the intrigues of petty-capitalist interests. This is one form of the struggle for communism. The existence of communist struggle within the anarchist movement does not prove that 'anarchism is communism' any more than the existence of lower-class struggle within the radical-liberal movement proves that 'radical liberalism is communism.' . . .

"A few comrades make the argument that the self-aware struggle of lower-class activists within the anarchist movement is not different from or inferior to struggle that calls itself 'communist.' They correctly point out that bourgeois definitions of 'communism' are not the meanings used by lower-class activists who call themselves 'communists.' They insist that quibbling about labels is sectarian divisiveness, so they continue to call themselves 'anarchists.' No. Speaking up is honest; the refusal to discuss differences is divisive. Activists frequently work out disagreements about events, and often resolve conflicts over semantics. Words have meanings that are defined by the social and political movements of property classes--not by dictionary authors. The worldwide dispossessed class has no factions with property interests; therefore, the poor can build overwhelming unity in speech and action. It is sheer nihilism to suggest that, for the lower class, 'communism' and 'anarchism' and 'socialism' and 'liberalism' and any number of other words all have similar, overlapping meanings..."

Again, you did not bother to read what I thought of the loose accusation of "sectarianism" that is hurled against anyone who disagrees with anarchist semantics. You did not bother to read what I wrote about the matter of "do they exist?"

You made a post. I responded. Now it is your turn. If you actually want to participate in a discussion of these issues, please respond to what I actually said and linked to.

[wet blanket]

Communism is NOT caused by the development of apartments, dogs, and wage labor.
Though the development of industrial capital(factories, agriculture, healthcare, etc.) play a large role in creating the material conditions which allow for the possibility of a communist society.


Communism is NOT caused by my consciousness of being a wage laborer.
...
Communism is caused by communist struggle.
:lol: What is your definition of "communist struggle" anyway? And how can it even take place if the industrial proletariat doesn't even realize itself as a class of exploited producers(AKA: class consciousness)?

[Forward Union]

And yet, it is a clearly defined ideological position. That has played a major part in the history of class struggle.

I am of course assuming that since you refuse to accept the existance of Anarchist communism, you also assume that the Spainish Civil war didn't happen? and perhaps even that I, an Anarchist Communist don't exist?

But, Im going to put your objection to clear and obvious facts down to lack of education on the matter, Read the following extract and links. Im not going to bother arguing your essay, it's absolute trash.

"Anarchist communism was first formulated in the Italian section of the First International, by Carlo Cafiero, Errico Malatesta, Andrea Costa and other ex-Mazzinian Republicans. Out of respect for Mikhail Bakunin, they did not make their differences from Proudhon's individualist anarchism and mutualism explicit until after Bakunin's death. While both groups argued against capitalism , the anarcho-communists departed from Proudhon and Bakunin. Proudhon maintained that individuals have a right to the product of their labor and to be paid materially for it including monetarily, while the communists believe individuals should be given goods in a according to their needs without respect to how much labor they exert. Joseph Dejacque admonished Proudhon's support for individual ownership of the product of labor in a letter, saying "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." Cafeiro explains in Anarchism and Communism that private property in the product of labor will lead to unequal accumulation of capital, and therefore undesirable class distinctions: "If we preserve the individual appropriation of the products of labour, we would be forced to preserve money, leaving more or less accumulation of wealth according to more or less merit rather than need of individuals." In 1876, at the Florence Conference of the Italian Federation of the International, held in a forest outside Florence due to police activity, they declared the principles of Anarcho-communism..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism

http://flag.blackened.net/af/org/issue42/acbrit.html

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archi...whatis_toc.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/bright/berkman/comanarchism/whatis_toc.html)

http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archi...tcommunism.html (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_archives/kropotkin/revpamphlets/anarchistcommunism.html)

http://www.answers.com/topic/anarchist-communism

http://www.libcom.org/hosted/af/aims.html

http://www.libcom.org/

http://www.libcom.org/forums/

http://www.anarkismo.net/index.php

[Floyce White]

wet blanket: "Though the development of industrial capital (factories, agriculture, healthcare, etc.) play a large role in creating the material conditions which allow for the possibility of a communist society."

Merely repeating the vague generality of "material conditions" is the logical fallacy of supposed "proof by repetition."

"Industrial capital" is, like all capital, a social relation. It is the social relation of capitalism. You are asserting that "capitalism causes communism," which is false. Well, what can we expect from someone who pushes a Web site devoted to academic humanism and economic pluralism.

wet blanket: "What is your definition of 'communist struggle' anyway?"

It is just plain rude of you to pretend that you "don't know" that I wrote a series of eleven essays on this subject. The WEBSITE>> button is at the bottom of all of my posts. Or you could have taken the trouble to Find all posts by this member (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=Search&nav=au&CODE=show&searchid=6255a7338d9f668b0a5af62f5a7781d0&search_in=posts&result_type=posts).

Additives Free: "...you refuse to accept the existance...you also assume that the Spanish Civil war didn't happen? . . . lack of education on the matter...I'm not going to bother arguing your essay, it's absolute trash."

Please do not address me in that manner. You are not superior to me.

Wow! What uncomradely attitudes! They're worse than Southern Californians on a rainy day! Little wonder some participants chose to make a new discussion forum. I'd provide the link here, but it is automatically censored out.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 3 2006, 06:40 AM
Please do not address me in that manner. You are not superior to me.

Of course im not superior, but when you take a well established political theory. And argue that It' doesn't exist. You are somewhat opening yourself up to all kinds of abuse.

I've heard a lot of Criticisms of my beliefs, the historical impact they have had the Organisation im in etc...

This is the first time however, I've been told they don't exist. Im not sure whether to laugh my head of or feel concerned. All I can really do is point it out to you. Show it exists, it has followers, that it has played a big part in history and show the ideals and principals of Anarchist-Communism to you.

Please follow the links I sent you, paying close attention to Libcom.orgs forums. Post there if you really want, tell the 1000+ members their ideas don't exist etc. Look up the Spanish Civil war, the "black army" and Ukraine during the Russian Revolution. Then if after that if you refuse to believe/accept any of the above. Please see a doctor.

I would love to argue this rationally with you, but I can't. We could discuss problems with Anarchist-communist theory, or it's failures in the past, why it didn' stand up to Bolshevism etc, inefficiencies of its practices, problems with AC organisations, but that would require you to accept that all the above exists/happened, which you don't. :lol:

[wet blanket]

erely repeating the vague generality of "material conditions" is the logical fallacy of supposed "proof by repetition."
You, someone who refuses to acknowledge physical(material) reality and its conditions, are accusing me of a logical fallacy? :lol:


"Industrial capital" is, like all capital, a social relation.
No it isn't. Industrial capital is things like factories, laboratories, computers, tractors, trucks, and trains. Did you pay attention in economics class?


You are asserting that "capitalism causes communism," which is false.
The material conditions created by capitalism(i.e. the development of industry, technology, and capital) as well as the class consciousness created among the exploited workforce are what causes the potential for a communist revolution. This is what Marx meant when he said that capitalism gives birth to its own gravedigger. You disagree with this?


Well, what can we expect from someone who pushes a Web site devoted to academic humanism and economic pluralism.
Paecon? That's just a bunch of economics grad students challenging the free-market ideology that's taught in their field of study and writing essays about possible alternatives. I'm not 'pushing' it, I just find student-movements interesting.


It is just plain rude of you to pretend that you "don't know" that I wrote a series of eleven essays on this subject.
It's rude of me? I'm sorry, but you're awfully full of yourself if you actually expect someone to read every one of your essays before having a discussion with you. It was a simple question: How do you define "communist struggle"? Because you seem to reject a lot of what Marx wrote on the subject.

[Floyce White]

You humiliate yourselves by using the debaters' trick of begging the question. You humiliate yourselves with your outright contempt for my honest disagreement with clumsy rhetoric being passed off as theoretical devices.

If you can't address me with even ordinary civility, do not address me at all.

[Forward Union]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 8 2006, 04:58 AM
If you can't address me with even ordinary civility, do not address me at all.
Well now that I've successfully proven that Anarchist-Communism actually does exit. I will assume I've won. Unless you can somewhat prove that It has never existed, please feel free to do so, I need a good laugh.

[wangwei]

Additives free, socialism is just the dictatorship of the proletariat. Does this neccesitate the state? Hardly. As I see it, socialism could be just a time when communism is first being built.

I agree with this interpretation, and I view socialism as accidental to the anarchist communist social revolution. The socializing of society that takes place during the social revolution to an anarchist revolution can be seen as "socialism". For example, it took what, 50 years of anarchist building for Spain to happen?

As an aside, the most advanced revolutions took place where a peasantry was being newly proletarianized and still existed -- Mexico, Russia, Spain, and China. The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution is another more interesting revolution.

What I think that many people don't get on the left is that capitalism formed through the communes (free cities) of the middle ages. Within the communes of the middle ages, Kropotkin uses the term "state within a state" to clearly illustrate that there was a specifically different organism antithetical to the thesis of the free city's markets and hierarchical organizations. The thesis of the antithesis to the communes can be seen as the nucleus of the new world carried within the heart of the proletariat. Read The State It's Historic Role by Piotr Kropotkin (http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/state/state_toc.html) for more information.


A dictatorship is a dictatorship.


Yes, and the dictatorship of the working class will require the working class to facilitate their own interests through direct action and direct democracy, and the direct democracy will be central to their own needs. Democratic centralism understood within the praxis of anarchist communism is revolutionary, but only with the working class individually taking direct action to meet the needs of the working class. The PLP does support this with :
Communism means the workers run every aspect of society. Everyone must be a communist organizer for this to work; we must all give and receive leadership from each other.


From what I read this PLP seems to be Stalinistic, or at least supportive of the man....look at their papers, what a horrible party....just as bad as the RCP.

Look, don't EVER compare the PLP, or anybody for that matter, with the fucking Bob--ites in the RCP. I was reading MIMnotes yesterday, for a good laugh, and I saw an interesing article about how the RCP is in a new united front with the CIA. They're a bunch of fucking sheep. Fuck 'em.


Something that is also amazing is that people would get sucked into this party....one look at their poorly designed website turned me off.

Well, the PLP doesn't organize on the internet, so their website doesn't get too much attention. I guess that's a good thing, as the internet is like having a private conversation with 10,000,000 of your closest friends. :lol:


It just so happens that as of now, I am a member of the PLP, and I think that the PLP is the best vehicle to propel society towards Communism.


Then you're in The Party for all the right reasons. If you're loyal to communism and an egalitarian society, then you will fight for it. :D


The way I understand the PLP's understanding of the Party is as a vehicle for the working class to emancipate itself from capitalism to communism. The Party as a vehicle for the class to find itself and its voice to smash the capitalist state.

I'll respond more later.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15, 2006 04:09 pm
Look, don't EVER compare the PLP, or anybody for that matter, with the fucking Bob--ites in the RCP. I was reading MIMnotes yesterday, for a good laugh, and I saw an interesing article about how the RCP is in a new united front with the CIA. They're a bunch of fucking sheep. Fuck 'em.
Wait - you know how laughable MiM is, and then you believed something you read in their stuff? They accuse everyone of being agents, it's what they do.

The RCP's got huge real problems, there's no need to invent wacky slanders about 'em.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Severian+December 15, 2006 11:25 pm--> (Severian @ December 15, 2006 11:25 pm)
[email protected] 15, 2006 04:09 pm
Look, don't EVER compare the PLP, or anybody for that matter, with the fucking Bob--ites in the RCP. I was reading MIMnotes yesterday, for a good laugh, and I saw an interesing article about how the RCP is in a new united front with the CIA. They're a bunch of fucking sheep. Fuck 'em.
Wait - you know how laughable MiM is, and then you believed something you read in their stuff? They accuse everyone of being agents, it's what they do.

The RCP's got huge real problems, there's no need to invent wacky slanders about 'em. [/b]
:rolleyes: And the SWP is doing great, right?

[BobKKKindle$]

And the SWP is doing great, right?

The SWP is the leading member of the International Socialist Tendency, and an important part of the RESPECT coalition (A Parliamentary Party in the UK, that is a broad coalition of radical leftist tendencies with one seat in the House of Commons). In terms of the radical Left, it is the largest party in the United Kingdom and often hosts and provides speakers (such as Chris Harman) for the annual Marxism confrence in London. So, yes, in terms of the success of radical leftist parties worldwide, the SWP is doing very well.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

I'm talking about SWP USA, the militant which is what I assume, Severian is part of because of the links in his sig.

[DiaMat86]

From what I read this PLP seems to be Stalinistic, or at least supportive of the man....look at their papers, what a horrible party....just as bad as the RCP.

PLP does not "Support Stalin". PLP asserts that much about what is "known" about Stalin are lies. The Soviet archives prove as much. It's impossible to understand the Soviet Union without an accurate analysis of Stalin. Try explaining this to the cult of Trotsky. PLP is also not against any subset of workers, especially gay people. The Sparts made that up. PLP has and welcomes people with same gender lovers.

[chegitz guevara]

The archives prove he was bad enough. Sure, he didn't murder 10 or twenty million people, but easily four million dead can be laid at his feet, not including indirect deaths caused by bad policies which helped lead to the destruction of the Chinese Communists and the rise of Hitler.

[DiaMat86]

If Stalin murdered four million people he would have had to shoot people all day for his whole life. Obviously it more complex than that. Many of these murders Stalin knew nothing about and when he found out about they were tried then executed themselves (Ezhov). Also, where do these numbers come from? What was the mortality rate under the Czar? You should read a book or two that was written by an actual marxist that uses primary sources. Start with "Another View of Stalin" and any of Grover Furr's essays.

[Random Precision]

DiaMat, please do not resurrect threads that have been dead for two years. If you're that desperate to talk about your organization, start another thread on it.