why join a communist party? - why don't people join other pa

[lostsoul]

please don't flame me for this question, but i have been wondering lately, why do people join the communist parties?

i personally believe true communism can not be acheived unless the whole world becomes communist, and as history has shown it is very hard(and probally not going to happen in our live time). And also when you say your a communist, people automatically act weird to you(thats what i noticed with others).

but yet, some of the smartest people i meet(doctors, professors...etc) are part(or used to be) in the communist party.

i don't understand why people just don't join the socialist parties, or something like that.

i read a bit about albert einstein and read he was a member of many different communist parties, although he knew he was being watched by the FBI. I am just trying to figure out why people go threw such hardships for the party, when it seems with another party they can get the simlair results.

sorry for the long question...hopefully you all can open my eyes to something i am sure i am not seeing clearly.

[Severian]

Because in order for the working class to take power, we need to have our own party organized in advance. The more experienced, the more tactically savvy, the larger, the more influential in the working class that party is when the revolutionary moment arrives, the more likely it is that the revolution will win rather than be drowned in blood.

And if somehow a revolution does win without a communist party, some other class, with more advantages of property, education, connections, etc., will get the power that the working class fought and bled for.

The whole history of modern revolutions has shown this over and over again.

'Course, none of that carries any weight if you're not looking to make a revolution. But you said, "why do communists" and seems to me that has to mean people who are looking to bring about a revolution. Otherwise, why call yourself a communist.

[praxis1966]

Einstien was a strange bird. He was also pretty active in the Zionist movement. So much so, that when the country was originally established, he was offered the Prime Ministership of Israel.

[lostsoul]

Quote: from Severian on 6:49 am on April 22, 2003
Because in order for the working class to take power, we need to have our own party organized in advance. The more experienced, the more tactically savvy, the larger, the more influential in the working class that party is when the revolutionary moment arrives, the more likely it is that the revolution will win rather than be drowned in blood.

And if somehow a revolution does win without a communist party, some other class, with more advantages of property, education, connections, etc., will get the power that the working class fought and bled for.

The whole history of modern revolutions has shown this over and over again.

'Course, none of that carries any weight if you're not looking to make a revolution. But you said, "why do communists" and seems to me that has to mean people who are looking to bring about a revolution. Otherwise, why call yourself a communist.


thanks comrade, i never looked at it from that view point. I was looking at it, like how Castro and Che did with cuba. they at first seemed to pretend they were not communist(surely so america wouldn't interfere), then once they got power, they showed they were communist.

I was actually thinking would it be better to join the party directly? or have the same intentions but not offically join a communist party.

do the benfits of the communist party outweight the disadvantages of it? would being label a "communist" make your job easier? or put more obstacles in your way?

with all these headaches why do people go for them, instead of doing the same thing but under a different more socially accepted banner.(then later possibly showing your true intentions...like castro)

++++++++++
praxis1966- your right about einstein, except i think it was vice-prime minster. But he did want peace in the middle east and thought that jews and muslims could get along. he seemed to be very smart and want peace, so i think that could have been a factor in him getting offered that postition.

[nz revolution]

Socialist parties tend to be the chauvintic ones, like in the years leading up to WW1 socialist parties supported their ruling classes in going to war, where the commies said "Hell no we won't go!"

Fuck what these "people" think, I give people weird looks who wear USA tshirts and hoodies, and I work in a shop, and there are a lot of them.

We called our party the "Anti-Capitalist Alliance" people aren't scared of us...

[Severian]

Quote: from lostsoul on 7:07 am on April 22, 2003
thanks comrade, i never looked at it from that view point. I was looking at it, like how Castro and Che did with cuba. they at first seemed to pretend they were not communist(surely so america wouldn't interfere), then once they got power, they showed they were communist.

OK, that's clearer.

I actually don't think Fidel or Che pretended to be anything they weren't (at the time.) Like at Fidel's trial they accused him of owning books by Lenin and he said, yeah, I've read Lenin, why shouldn't I?

Fidel did say he wasn't a communist but IMO at that time he really wasn't. He became a communist in the course of the revolution. Che considered himself a communist earlier, but really didn't make any effort to keep it a secret. There are anecdotes from during the guerilla war where people talk about Che describing himself as a communist pretty much when they first met him. Washington thought Che might be a communist too, from pretty early on.

I think Cuba's an example of how revolutionary democrats, if they're consistent about it, can become communists. Malcom X was heading down that road when he was shot, IMO. But then, they wouldn't be consistent or revolutionary if they went around hiding what they were or being afraid to say what they really thought.

I think people who do that will end up more like the official Communist Party in Cuba did - they were a lot less revolutionary than Fidel and the July 26 Movement.

[Kez]

Wasnt it trotsky who said that one of the most important things is "firstly party, secondly party, thirdly party!"?

It is important to join a communist party, but the right one, not just because it is called the communist party.
Remember how the stalinist fucks screwed up the communist parties of the world? these parties were no longer communist but instead content with helping the bourgeois eg in France and Portugal.

have a look at www.marxist.com this is the International Marxist Tendency and of which i am a member of the british section is www.socialist.net with a lot of work being done to it

workers of the world unite!

[Nic8]

I'd say that the workers tend to support the traditional worker parties, be them social-democrat, communist or whatever. These are the parties that I think you should join. If it isn't communist or Marxist, turn it into one. The workers will never join some small party that they never hear of except on the ballot, like the Communist Party and the Marxist-Leninist Party here in Canada.

I don't think it would be smart to ever conceal your views. Be open from the begining or you'll be fucked come the next election, or when you start nationalising everything and the people only thought you would raise the minimum wage or something...

[redstar2000]

There are all kinds of things that have to be considered in this matter.

For example, what is really required is not that a communist minority "lead" the working class to power but rather that communist ideas become widely understood and supported by the entire working class.

An openly communist party has always been "understood" as necessary to this process...or at least extremely useful.

It's possible that such may no longer be the case. Certainly, the "Leninist Model" (Democratic Centralism) is regarded, even among many who consider themselves communists, as bureaucratic, dictatorial, and mentally stifling...not to mention prone to gross blunders in strategy and tactics.

Part of that problem seems to be the mental habit of regarding Marxism as some kind of "crystal ball"...the "vanguard party", armed with the "only correct understanding" of Marxism, sees the future clearly and knows what to do next. :cheesy:

Since there's no such thing as predicting the future in useful detail (too many variables), the utility of a "vanguard party" is dubious...or worse.

What I personally think would be most useful would be a communist movement...a loosely-structured, democratic organization that would be capable of some unified activities but would predominately rely on local initiative by committed communists.

It would strive for a theoretical clarity about the meaning of communism but would not, in any sense, be any kind of "general staff" of the proletariat (much less the bourgeois-parliamentary "caucus" of the proletariat).

When the time for the "seizure of power" is at hand, that should be done by the mass working-class organizations themselves (soviets or whatever new forms emerge)...not by a self-designated elite.

Here is a thread that you may find of interest...

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...um=13&topic=481 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=13&topic=481)

:cool:

[Severian]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:17 pm on April 22, 2003
There are all kinds of things that have to be considered in this matter.

For example, what is really required is not that a communist minority "lead" the working class to power but rather that communist ideas become widely understood and supported by the entire working class.

An openly communist party has always been "understood" as necessary to this process...or at least extremely useful.:

Obviously wide support is a that's a precondition to having a revolution. But by itself, it doesn't guarantee victory for a revolution.

And what's up with "entire working class"? Majority support, yes, unanimity is impossible.



It's possible that such may no longer be the case. Certainly, the "Leninist Model" (Democratic Centralism) is regarded, even among many who consider themselves communists, as bureaucratic, dictatorial, and mentally stifling...not to mention prone to gross blunders in strategy and tactics.


If that's the case, I'd suggest that they don't know what a Leninist party is.



Part of that problem seems to be the mental habit of regarding Marxism as some kind of "crystal ball"...the "vanguard party", armed with the "only correct understanding" of Marxism, sees the future clearly and knows what to do next. :cheesy:


That's a misconception, yes. For one thing, the party is not the vanguard of the working class - certainly not under present conditions. The vanguard of the working class is a broader thing, including all those workers who are especially active, militant, and conscious, the kind of people who step forward and take on leadership roles, sometimes unofficially, in the course of any struggle.

But if as many of those people as possible are organized into a party, they can be more effective.



Since there's no such thing as predicting the future in useful detail (too many variables), the utility of a "vanguard party" is dubious...or worse.


Not the purpose. See above.



What I personally think would be most useful would be a communist movement...a loosely-structured, democratic organization that would be capable of some unified activities but would predominately rely on local initiative by committed communists.

It would strive for a theoretical clarity about the meaning of communism but would not, in any sense, be any kind of "general staff" of the proletariat (much less the bourgeois-parliamentary "caucus" of the proletariat).


Heh. You said earlier that Leninist parties are prone to blunders in strategy and tactics. Loose, decentralized organizations relying solely on local decision-making would eliminate that....by making all strategy impossible.

In military combat, centralized command is necessary for strategy...and for victory. The same is true for political combat...especially at a moment of revolutionary crisis.



When the time for the "seizure of power" is at hand, that should be done by the mass working-class organizations themselves (soviets or whatever new forms emerge)...not by a self-designated elite.


That's what happened in the October Revolution. The workers and soldiers took power. The Red Guards were non-party, factory-based, local-initiative organizations. The Soviets represented the whole working class.

But without the Bolshevik party, they couldn't have done it. See the February Revolution: the workers and soldiers made the revolution then, they didn't want a bourgeois government...but they got one anyway.

If revolutionaries refuse to organize a centralized party, that won't make social democrats, Stalinists, and others refuse to do so. Heck, even anarchists organize parties, as in Spain, to centralize their ability to engage in political combat. They will have the advantage of coordinated action at the crucial moment, while revolutionaries are all running in different directions thanks to "local initiative."

That has happened again, and again, and again. If there is no revolutionary party, it does not mean a leaderless revolution.

It means that non-revolutionaries take the leadership. They derail the revolution, and when they finally can't do that any more, they will benefit from it. As in China.

(Edited by Severian at 7:35 pm on April 22, 2003)

[Iepilei]

It was my impression that Fidel and Che fought only to overthrow the oppression found on Cuba - and afterwards turned to the United States for help (as the US had been Cuba's ally for ages).

When the US denied Cuba under the proposal he was communist, Fidel turned to the only other superpower around and hasn't turned back.

[redstar2000]

Severian, I've not only observed and read the accounts of Leninist parties over the last four decades, I was actually in one myself for eight years.

I can testify from personal experience as well as observation that when the "democratic centralist" party blunders, it is next to impossible to secure a forum for even discussing the problem, much less correcting it. Even the expression of doubt is severely frowned upon...the highest "merit" of a "communist" in Leninist parties is obedience.

Rather like an army, is it not? That senile Leninist metaphor of the "vanguard party" being like the officer corps or general staff of the revolutionary proletariat.

The only little problem with that is the matter of why the working class should rise up on behalf of a new set of bosses? Because they think we'll be "kinder and gentler", perhaps?

The argument that a Leninist party is "more effective" begs the question, effective for what? Yes, a small group that is tightly organized and disciplined can be very effective in attaining temporary power over a larger, disorganized population. But to what end? And for what duration?

A working class incapable of rule on its own behalf is not going to be "led" to that position at gunpoint by a small self-serving elite...no matter how many red flags they fly.

The whole idea of using military combat as some kind of handy formula for discussing class struggle is, when you get right down to it, anti-Marxist. I know Engels was guilty of that on occasion and Marx himself probably did it too...but it's still wrong.

It's not a matter of "who has the most guns" or "who has the best strategy"---the outcome of class struggle is really based on the development of material conditions and the reflection of those conditions in the consciousness of the protagonists.

If the working class itself decides to seize power and the old bourgeoisie are utterly demoralized...neither an army nor a "vanguard general staff" are necessary.

Your example of the February 1917 revolution in Russia is instructive in that regard...the aristocracy was demoralized, the workers and peasants outraged, and the bourgeoisie reluctantly shoved into power. The material conditions supported a bourgeois revolution in Russia...and that's what happened. No parties were required.

In October, Lenin and the Bolsheviks decided they could "force" the next step. They were wrong. Once the Bolsheviks secured an effective majority in the major urban soviets (August-September 1917), they initiated a coup in the name of the soviets. But I would dispute that the soviets ever had much in the way of real decision-making power...some early on, almost zero after 1921. There was no mass uprising like that of February 1917. In Petrograd, it was very much like a change of ministers in a capitalist regime...except for the week or so of drinking sprees that followed. There was some armed conflict in Moscow where about 500 Bolsheviks were killed. The real struggle was the Russian "civil war"...which, in turn, was really a war against foreign imperialist invasion.

Lenin's "New Economic Policy" was nothing but a frank admission that the Bolsheviks had simply made a bourgeois revolution. Granted that Stalin's policies of forced industrialization and forced collectivization gave the "appearance" of socialism, with Khrushchev and his successors, history came back "on track" and Russia now is probably just about where it would have been had there never been an October Revolution. Material reality always prevails.

What does this say about real communist revolution...except that it must happen in the same way that February 1917 happened? The capitalist system itself breaks down, is stagnant or in depression, is plagued with interminable wars...and the working class itself rises to overthrow it.

No one is "in charge" of "strategy", no "trained leaders" are required to give orders or directions...real revolution is about as orderly and disciplined as a hurricane. Anyone who struts about pretending they are in "command" of a real revolution is, at best, a pompous idiot.

Of course, there will be people who attempt to take over the revolution "in the name of the revolution" for personal advantage. But I disagree that their tight organizational discipline gives them some kind of special advantage over the class as a whole, provided that the class itself understands this phenomenon and is prepared to squash such insolent insects as required.

What then do communists do? I think Marx put it rather well when he used the phrase "represent the future of the movement in the present." We do whatever we can to raise the hatred of the working class for capitalism to the highest possible level, to spread discontent and outrage with class society wherever we can, to convince people intellectually and emotionally that wage-slavery is intolerable!

Real communists do not teach obedience, not to bosses and not to ourselves; we teach rebellion. We do not want workers to "follow us"...we want them to follow their own real class interests.

We do not want to be new bosses; we want to be free.

:cool:

[Severian]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 4:14 am on April 23, 2003
Severian, I've not only observed and read the accounts of Leninist parties over the last four decades, I was actually in one myself for eight years.:

I would question whether it bore any actual resemblance to the Bolshevik party. Few organizations in history have. And after the rest of your post, I stand by my statement that you don't know the first thing about Leninism. In fact, I'd say you know less than nothing, as unlearning is harder than learning.



Your example of the February 1917 revolution in Russia is instructive in that regard...the aristocracy was demoralized, the workers and peasants outraged, and the bourgeoisie reluctantly shoved into power. The material conditions supported a bourgeois revolution in Russia...and that's what happened. No parties were required.


That is, to call it by its right name, a Menshevik theory.

The bourgeoisie did not lead the February revolution, and the Provisional Government did not follow a bourgeois-revolutionary policy.

The only revolutionary force in Russia then, or anywhere in the world today, is the working class. Contrary to the "revolution by stages" theory of the Mensheviks and Stalinists.

Scratch an ultraleftist, find a reformist. Old story.



In October, Lenin and the Bolsheviks decided they could "force" the next step. They were wrong. Once the Bolsheviks secured an effective majority in the major urban soviets (August-September 1917), they initiated a coup in the name of the soviets. But I would dispute that the soviets ever had much in the way of real decision-making power...some early on, almost zero after 1921. There was no mass uprising like that of February 1917.


Yup, spouting the wholly unfactual bourgeois version of history here.

It was not a coup, and the reason there was so little fighting in Petrograd was precisely because the mass support for the revolution was so solid among the workers and soldiers. The Provisional Government had literally nobody willing to fight for it.

There were no mass demonstrations...during the insurrection itself. But there were immediately preceding it, even larger than anything during the February Revolution. And the armed forces that carried it out were not Bolshevik Party armed forces, but factory-based armed units of workers, and the rank-and-file of the old army. (Acting on their own account, in contrast to a coup where they are ordered by their officers.)


What does this say about real communist revolution...except that it must happen in the same way that February 1917 happened?

Has this ever, anywhere, anytime, led to anything but a capitalist government? Has there ever been any kind of socialist revolution without a centralized revolutionary leadership?

But I think it's pretty clear you don't really want that, but rather a replay the February revolution. From that standpoint, opposition to building a bolshevik party is wholly logical.

[redstar2000]

"You don't know the first thing about Leninism." -- Severian

Indeed? And what gnostic secrets do you have to reveal on the subject? Is there a hidden mystery that only initiates like yourself are privy to? Are the works of Lenin himself, which I have read, written in code?

"That is, to call it by its right name, a Menshevik theory".

Oh my, truly I have been put in my place! Thing is, what fucking difference does it make who said something if they were right?

If the mensheviks said that Russia had to pass through capitalism before it could have socialism, they were simply echoing Marx and Engels. Were Marx & Engels "mensheviks"? And, of course, Lenin's NEP makes him a "menshevik" too, doesn't it?

I did not say that the bourgeoisie "led" the February 1917 revolution; my point was that there was no centralized leadership at all.

Nor did I argue that the bourgeois Provisional Government was a classical bourgeois-revolutionary regime...though its weakness permitted many bourgeois-revolutionary changes to take place; the peasantry implemented land-reform and the aristocrats were dispossessed without anyone bothering to telephone Petrograd and ask for permission.

(I draw my knowledge of the two Russian Revolutions mainly from E.H. Carr's classic work on the subject; want to argue that he was bourgeois?)

"Scratch an ultra-leftist, find a reformist."

Do that, Severian. Find one of my more than 1700 posts on this board where you can make a convincing argument for my "reformism". Let me know what your search turns up. :cheesy:

"Has there ever been any kind of socialist revolution without a centralized revolutionary leadership?"

Ever hear of the Paris Commune? Go read and learn what a real working class revolution looks like.

Try not to get scared.

:cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 7:34 am on April 26, 2003)

[Som]

It seems a common claim that there was no other way besides the bolshevik party in the russian revolution.

but in the Ukraine, in 1917, the peasants and workers found an entirely different way, without a centralization of power, without a vanguard, and even without a state.
Nester Makhno and his movement in the Ukraine showed a clear alternative to the Bolshevik method of authoritarian organization, and it was very effective.
They organized a democratic army, workers councils and tryed to put the power as much as possible in the hands of the soviets.

This society was far from weak and ineffective, and the Makhnovist workers militia even saved the Bolshevik revolution from white advances on several occasions. It was the burgiouse that crushed this workers revolution, forced the power from the soviets, and destroyed the communes, it was trotsky and the red army.

The Makhnovist movement shows a clear alternative to the Leninist model of the revolution and socialist organization, even under the same conditions.

[CopperGoat]

Albert Einstein was NOT a Zionist. He even said a quote that goes like...

"I would rather have a peaceful agreement with the Arabs, than to create a seperate Jewish State".