Starting a political party

[lithium]

Hey,

As a somewhat active-minded socialist I've toyed with idea of setting up some sort of leftist organisation. The Socialist Party here in Ireland has recently announced that Ireland is in need of another left-wing political party, and that they would support any move to form such a party - maybe it's a sign :rolleyes:

Anyways, is anybody here a part of a political party? How would one go about setting up such a party? How should it be run? How would it be funded? Etc etc..

Any info greatly appreciated!

Conor

[redflag32]

Is this conor from CCWDF?Pm me mate if it is we can talk about your new party.

[Aurora]

In Ireland the non-vanguardist Marxists have very little choice in political parties seeing as The Socialist Party are Trotskyist and The Communist Party are Leninist :rolleyes:

[RedAnarchist]

The world doesn't need more political parties to justify bourgoisie politics.

[apathy maybe]

Agreed.

Do not bother to start another political party to contest elections.

If you want to start an organisation to do other stuff (fire bomb police, shoot lennies, graph, protest) then that is a different matter.

Firstly, what is your organisation for? How many people are there around that you know are going to want to join? Is there already a group that want the same things? For the same reasons?

Get a day and a time and a place (at least a month from now). Advertise that there is going to be a meeting of a group of like minded people who are going to form a group for whatever.

Take it from there.

[Faceless]

In Ireland the non-vanguardist Marxists have very little choice in political parties seeing as The Socialist Party are Trotskyist and The Communist Party are Leninist
Lol, I think the concept of a "non-vanguardist" Marxist is an oxymoron. The marxist conception of the vanguard is simply the most class consciouss, resolute and capable element of the working class which must become organised. The mass involved in a revolution on the other hand is that remainder of the class which is generally not as comitted as the vanguard and only acts at the decisive moment when it is compelled by its class position to do so. Every revolutionary movement takes that form, there is no other form which it could take. The revolution will not take place when the vanguard slowly expands over time to form some majority, it will be a great rush of a large mass with little or no knowledge of marxism.


The world doesn't need more political parties to justify bourgoisie politics.
I would agree that the world doesnt necessarily need more parties, on the grounds of my anti-sectarianism though.
"justification" for bourgeois politics is a very interesting choice of words. Of course, we both know why it exists, it is easier at some times for the bourgeoisie to govern using bourgeois democracy. That the bourgeoisie is ruling and that should the proletariat use parliamentary power it would soon be taken away from them is self-evident to any marxist. It is also interesting to note that the bourgeoisie is secure in its ability to rule using bourgeois democracy at the moment in most parts of the world and has no need to resort to fascism YET, and inspite of this many ultra-left sects are spreading scare stories about the resurgence of fascism represented by the vote which occasionally goes the way of miniscule far-right parties. However, fascism is a form of rule of the bourgeoisie and will not be achieved by the forceful bigotry of a few racist shop-keepers but will be chosen sober-mindedly by a large section of the bourgeoisie when they see it to be necessary, by which time the proletariat will no doubt have had a number of opportunities to take political power for themselves.

Anyway, sorry about my little diversion. The point I should have made is that I acknowledge all this and yet I would be prepared to enter into parliamentary politics (knowing I have little hope of achieving political power this way) because it can be a tool for putting yourself in actual contact with workers. To say, "we do not work in parliament because we will not justify it", is to refuse to work with the majority of workers. Quite simply, who will you tell it to? No one will listen.

[anomaly]

Starting a political party

Is a waste of time.

Sorry, I was just pointing out that you didn't complete the thread title.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Dude there are plenty organizations around here who would love a recruit.

[LoneRed]

and on top of that, there are some quite good ones out there as well.

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 10:56 PM

In Ireland the non-vanguardist Marxists have very little choice in political parties seeing as The Socialist Party are Trotskyist and The Communist Party are Leninist
Lol, I think the concept of a "non-vanguardist" Marxist is an oxymoron.
It's a Leninist conception, not a Marxist one.


The marxist conception of the vanguard is simply the most class consciouss,

That's a Leninist concept.

[Faceless]

That's a Leninist concept.

Riight, if you say so. Of course whether or not it was marx or lenin who first suggested it is irrelevent. Since Anarion used the term "leninist" and "trotskyist" to describe what he perceived to be two different currents, it leaves the question of what exactly you and he are referring to as "leninism" in some confusion, since "trots" would also not be afraid to describe the nature of the revolutionary vanguard in such terms.

I can only guess that by "leninist" you are using a value charged word which is more of a slur against marxists who use such words as vanguard. More of an accusation of rampant authoritarianism I'm guessing, with a desire to claim some of Marx's legacy to for your own political sect, whatever that may be.

What you quoted of me was

The marxist conception of the vanguard is simply the most class consciouss...

which continued

...resolute and capable element of the working class...

If this is a "leninist concept", then so be it. The fact is that this element exists. There IS a vanguard in the progressive movement. How this element organises and forms, how it proceeds to develop, and how it must interact with that mass of the working class which remains passive may well be up to debate (although I would question even this since much work has already been dedicated to correct revolutionary principle). The fact that it exists is undisputable, and if you do wish to dispute it then please explain how the working class exists as a homogeneous mass with the same activity, understanding and consciousness. I am sure you see yourself as politically active, class consciouss and would differentiate your level of understanding from the large majority of the working class.

I expect you meant to dismiss the next line of my post:

...which must become organised

[The Feral Underclass]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:13 PM

That's a Leninist concept.

Riight, if you say so. Of course whether or not it was marx or lenin who first suggested it is irrelevent. Since Anarion used the term "leninist" and "trotskyist" to describe what he perceived to be two different currents
I'm not interested in the purpose of this thread, I was only interested in correcting your revision of political history.

It's not me who "says so" it's fact and I would say, when people start claiming Marx invented the concept of the vanguard refuting it is very relevant.

[Faceless]

Not only the writings of marx are considered "marxist" though. I was not putting words into marx's mouth and I therefore made no historical revision, you needn't have corrected me

[emma_goldman]

On a local level, political parties can be pretty effective. Higher than that, fucken forget it. I'm registered to vote Socialist here in Florida (well, when my voting card comes in next year when I'm 18... :P ) Their website is www.sp-usa.org

As for starting a political party, organize a good amount of people. You have to go through a petitioning process to get and stay on the ballot in your area. Look for this. Keep aware of local issues and be well informed of how government works in general. Set up a website. Pass out pamphlets.

Overall I'm a direct action kind of person and this is certainly a PASSIVE form of restructuring society and maybe even a futile one. As Emma Goldman said, "If voting changed anything it would be made illegal." However I support your efforts to do so. Just remember, REAL CHANGE will NEVER be voted in. :D

[OneBrickOneVoice]

No don't start a party. Wanna know why Evolutionary Socialism fails? because there's about 15 communist parties in every 1st world country that are just a millimeter different, and are all Authoritan. 'Cept SPUSA here in the USA but they're really just Social democrats. I wish all the communist/ far left parties here in America would come together under one banner.

[YSR]

But until the RCP stops being fucking insane (unlikely to happen) that ain't gonna happen, LeftyHenry.

Plus I'm pretty sure that those of us who are leftists but who don't have parties (ie anarchists and assorted libretarian Marxists) would be excluded from this group. And even if we're not excluded, I would never join something that advocates vanguardism. So, fat chance with success with that kind of organization.

[Fawkes]

Don't start a political party. Start an action group or something, but the last thing anyone needs is another stupid leninist party.

[Zero]

Theres a really great way to set up a political party.

Don't.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 09:20 PM
Theres a really great way to set up a political party.

Don't.
But...but that doesn't make sense!

[Fawkes]

He's saying that political parties are a bad thing, which they are. Try to find one that is not in some way corrupt.

[farleft]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 06:52 PM
The world doesn't need more political parties to justify bourgoisie politics.
Definately.

If you are a revolutionary then stay away from this rubbish. Setting up a group is ok but like ThisAnarchistkillsNazis said bourgoisie parties participate in bourgoisie elections.

Fight for revolution not reformism.

[Whitten]

Am I the only here who realises that the purpose of a political party isnt necessarily to stand in elections? There are many parties that refuse to take part in bourgeois elections.

[Fawkes]

And what might I ask do those parties accomplish that an action group can not?

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by Young Stupid [email protected] 12 2006, 04:33 AM
But until the RCP stops being fucking insane (unlikely to happen) that ain't gonna happen, LeftyHenry.

Plus I'm pretty sure that those of us who are leftists but who don't have parties (ie anarchists and assorted libretarian Marxists) would be excluded from this group. And even if we're not excluded, I would never join something that advocates vanguardism. So, fat chance with success with that kind of organization.
I made a mistake. If you look at them, most of them aren't really authoritan. THe RCP and that other stalinist ones are the only authoritan ones but some are pretty shady. I for some reason dislike the CPUSA. THey seem pretty shady to me but they are the largest here.

WHat I'd at least like to see as a selfish trot, is a merger between all the little trotskyist parties which just change the second word of their organization.

[Faceless]

And what might I ask do those parties accomplish that an action group can not?
Care to explain what an action group is?

Don't start a political party. Start an action group or something, but the last thing anyone needs is another stupid leninist party.




The fact is they do NOTHING. Participation in bourgeois elections is necessary. The fact is that the working class is not all as advanced as those who realise that bourgeois elections don't deliver socialism. Those who are that advanced and correctly intervene in the labour movement are what Lenin would no doubt term the Vanguard.

Why don't you "libertarian marxists" ( an ironic term since liberty is a historical phenomenon to the marxists ) or anarchists add some meat to this bone of an argument? Are you that insecure in the truth of the concept that you have to parrot it so often?

Bourgeois elections in no way mean that a party who participates in them becomes bourgeois (any more than the Bolsheviks anyway). This is a means by which to intervene in the Labour movement. Only by practical experience and a leadership informed by marxist theory can the proletariat come to the understanding that bourgeois elections do not work.

[Fawkes]

Sorry for the late response.

Question 1: A group of like-minded individuals that partake in direct action against their enemies.

Comment 2: Any change that can be made through a bourgeois election is not enough. We need to destroy the current system, not reform it. You cannot destroy it by partaking in elections by it.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Maybe you could open a Ireland chapter of the PAB

[Fawkes]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2006 08:31 pm
Maybe you could open a Ireland chapter of the PAB
Genius, pure genius!

[RNK]

A Party does not necessarily imply an electoral party engaged in parliamentarism.

[YSR]

LeftyHenry, I like this thread because it was back when you were a Trot. And now you rail against them.