Parties

[JC1]

Do we need political parties ?

Using the definition of political party's givin' by LSD;


A political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power.

I think the party is nessecary. This is becuase every new type of political orginization for the last 200 years has been a party. The CNT was a party, and the only alternative to orginizing as a party is to orginize along pre-capitalist line of Familial-political orginization.

The party is an institution of the capitalist era, but it is not by defualt a bourgoise institution.

And if anyone wants to whine about party's being politicaly oppresive, its becuase they are. To members of other classes.

Hence the CL is "opprersive" to the petit-bourgoise, and "RAAN" is oppresive to workers.

[Dean]

The problem with a party that oppresses a certain strata is that when it succeeds in oppressing that strata, it still needs to have justification for its own existance, and will thusly find a new enemy, much like the Muslims have become the communists of the post - soviet era.

[Nachie]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:48 PM
Hence the CL is "opprersive" to the petit-bourgoise, and "RAAN" is oppresive to workers.
Oh shut up you stupid fucking Leninist, I don't even think you know what you're talking about.

If you had even taken the time to learn anything about RAAN, you would probably have breezed through our Defining the Red & Anarchist Action Network (http://raan.fightcapitalism.net/www.redanarchist.org/definition/index.html) introduction, which contains the following:

The communists might prefer to identify RAAN with the Marxist concept of the (organic, non-"vanguard") party, which Antonio Negri describes in Domination and Sabotage as "A contradiction which we must live and control within the overall development of the process of proletarian self-valorization [which aims to] destroy the reality of power as the obverse of the capitalist state-form ... power is to be dissolved into a network of powers, and the independence of the class is to be constructed via the autonomy of individual revolutionary movements [that reduce] the party to a revolutionary army, to an unwavering executor of the proletarian will."

Likewise, if you look at our founding document the Principles & Direction (http://raan.fightcapitalism.net/www.redanarchist.org/texts/p&d.html), in the section on Marxism we quote some Italian comrades as follows:

though we are not a political party, we deem it impossible to achieve a social change without the future development of a revolutionary party: not any party, but the one expected in the Communist Manifesto. Such an organization cannot be 'established' or 'built', but it will spring from the clash of great forces pushed by the contradictions of capitalism itself. Deep economical and social upheavals, or even a general warfare, will make these enormous potentialities rise.

"The term 'party' does not mean a mere political structure, but the absolute antithesis of any organizing form so far expressed by class societies. According to Marx, the revolutionary concept of organization has to be consistent with the future of mankind, and not take old organizations as a model, even those which were actually revolutionary in the past." - The n+1 group

So what on earth was the point of this thread other than to take a cheap shot at RAAN based on rigidly authoritarian interpretations of organizational methodology? There isn't even any content to your post! The "Party" as envisioned by Leninists and enshrined in the bourgeois political structure is OBVIOUSLY a bourgeois institution! The "communist party" as "expected" by Marx is a completely different entity and probably not even worth identifying in similar terms unless one can be sure that there are no authoritarians listening in, which of course in the revleft cesspool is totally impossible due largely to the divisive actions and attitudes of those very same authoritarians.

[LSD]

Do we need political parties ?

No.

Parties, by their nature, centralize authority into the hands of the most "theoretically advanced". This is beneficial when the objective is to promote some ideological line. But working class revolution is not about ideology, it's about liberation.

The revolutionary process needs to be an emancipatory one. Workers need to learn to manage themselves and their work without "supervision" from anyone. Party-based action does not promote this.

On the contrary, while any worker can join a "revolutionary" party, very few will ever be anything more than rank-and-file card carriers. The leadership will be composed of those who have the time and energy to play the bullshit bureaucratic game nescessary to rise through the ranks.

Someone working an 8 hour shift in a automotive factory does not have the time to sit on a "central committee" or "politburo". For most of us, party politics is a decidedly spectator sport.

Now, for bourgeois parties this isn't a problem. Their fundamental purpose is to promote some political line. An inactive membership is irrelevent so long as the party stays ideologically on message.

When a bourgeois party takes power it aims to make changes, surely, but those changes are top-down in nature. Training average workers to be self-empowered is the last thing the bourgeoisie wants.

Political parties work for bourgeois changes to the bourgeois system. They do not work as an insurrectionary tool against the system itself. The proletariat []cannot[/b] look to the "capitalist example" when attacking the foundations of capitalism itself.

A proletarian revolution is the only kind of revolution in history that seeks to enfranchise the masses. Accordingly, no historical revolutionary "models" can possibly apply.


I think the party is nessecary. This is becuase every new type of political orginization for the last 200 years has been a party.

Every "political organization for the last 200 years" has also failed to achieve worker liberation.

Maybe that's because we've been going at this from the wrong direction, trying to apply bourgeois models to the proletarian struggle. I think at this point it's become eminently clear that while capitalist organizing principles work for capitalists, they don't work for us.

People cannot be "forced to be free" and oppressive institutions cannot bring emancipation.

Worker liberation must be part and parcel of the revolution, not some fucking political promise.


The party is an institution of the capitalist era, but it is not by defualt a bourgoise institution.

I think you missed my point, JC.

I don't object to the political party because it's a "part of the capitalist era", I object to it because it is intrinsically bourgeois.

All the other "products of the capitalist era", computers, military techniques, etc... they were invented under the bourgeoisie, but they were not designed to serve bourgeois political needs.

The political party, however, specifically evolved out of capitalist political tendencies.

The bourgeoise is fundamentally rooted in systems of oppression and exploitation, accordingly, all of their various political institutions are organized on hierarchical and anti-democratic lines. "Co-opting" those institutions to "serve" proletarian insterests can only lead to disaster.

Just like the bourgoisie could not utilize feudalist methods of government in pursuing economic primacy, we cannot utize bourgeois methods to pursue their dismantlement.

As workers, the political party is wholly alien to us. We do not have the time in our lives to go about politics as a businessman or aristocrat would. Our political institutions must come out of our work and out of our living class struggle.

Workers can join a "vanguard" party, but they will very rarely lead it. Most workers simply don't have the time to go through the hassle of rising throught the bureacratic ranks.

That's why it's nearly always petty-bourgeois academic types who end up "speaking for" the proletariat.

I know that recently some Marxist groups have begun establishing "worker only" membership rules and that's certainly a step in the right direction. But I don't think that it goes far enough in eliminating the fundmental inequality that is at the heart of the bourgeois "party".

Victorious revolutionary organizations will inevitably shape the structure of post-revolutionary society. You can try and seperate "pre" and "post" revolution as if they're divorced from eac other, but the reality is that once the old order falls, something needs to take its place.

In those situations, the leading proletarian organization is usually the only thing with enough support to fill the vacuum.

Accordingly, if that organization is structured along hiearchical anti-democratic lines, so will the emergent post-revolutionary society. That's what happened in Russia, that's what happened in China, that's what happened in Cuba.

Besides, there's something very odd about self-described "Leninists" establishing party rules that would have excluded Lenin. If petty-bourgeois theoreticians should not lead "vanguard parties" then wasn't Lenin's most fundamental belief, namely his own fitness to rule, completely in error?

How then can we take anything that he "theorized" without a great deal of skepticism?

It seems to me that its time for the proletariat to approach the question of its liberatoin from a proletarian perspective. We're not bourgeois politicians trying to push a "policy", we're the exploited masses of the world trying to gain our freedom.

It's time we started acting like it!

[KC]

So you're opposing workers organizing, LSD?

[LSD]

No, I'm opposing political parties. Workers need to organize, but they cannot use oppressive bourgeois structures to do it.

Again, a political party is built to take political power and execute its ideology. That's the whole reason for its existance.

But communism and workers' liberation isn't just a matter of "seizing" power. The revolutionary process cannot be treated as just another political process, because when it is, the results bear nothing in common with communism.

"Vanguard parties" promise liberation once they've been placed in power; we are expected to "trust" that when they become the bosses, things will "get better".

The problem with this equation, however, is that it ignores the material basis of class relations. Once the "leadership" of a party is firmly in control, that leadership becomes the new ruling class.

Not the class that it supposedly "represents", but the party elite itself.

That's why every Leninist revolution has failed so spectacularly, that's why despite the dedication and best wishes of Communist leaders throughout history, the workers have yet to actually gain power anywhere.

For a proletarian revolution to actually succeed, it must be a liberating process in itself. It must begin and end with the workers on the ground and it must be predicated on worker self-managment and motility.

"Iron discipline" or "centralization" is fundamentally antithetical to this aim and so any revolution predicated on those principles cannot help but fail. "Military-like" party organization may prove useful at overthrowing weak governments, but if coup d'états were our aim, we'd all be social-democrats.

Communism is about more than a change in government, it's about a change in governance; it's about replacing top-down coercion with participatory democracy.

Syndicalism is therefore the only means pursuing a revolutionary proletarian agenda while remaining true to the actual proletariat. Political parties, no matter how they are organized, exist to service an ideology. Workers' syndicates, however, exist to service workers. In my judgment, revolution must come from the latter direction rather than the former.

We cannot succede the bourgeois by doing exactly what they do "with a red flag". Exploitation is at the heart of what the bourgeoisie is and so it is at the heart of their political model as well.

The bourgeois political process is what it is; it cannot be "made" to be proletarian.

[KC]

No, I'm opposing political parties.

Well, sure, but look at your definition of political party:


A political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology and seeks to attain political power.

That would include any organization. Any workers' organization is a political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology (communism) and seeks to attain political power (dictatorship of the proletariat). So I'm guessing that you're mistaken when you say you're against political parties (because the other option - actually opposing them - is much worse and would warrant a restriction :( ).



"Vanguard parties" promise liberation once they've been placed in power; we are expected to "trust" that when they become the bosses, things will "get better".

Ah! Here is where you show what your true problem with political parties. So-called "vanguard parties". So you don't have a problem with political parties in general; you just have a problem with these so-called "vanguard parties". Next time you should say that.

[LSD]

Any workers' organization is a political organization that subscribes to a certain ideology (communism)

For genuine proletarian organizations, ideology is a tool, a resource used to serve working class interests. For a political party, however, ideology is the raison d'être, the foundational core of the organization.

I have no problem with revolutionary theory in and of itself, but when that theory becomes more important than actually serving the workers, an organization ceases to be "proletarian" in any meaningful sense.

The nature of political parties, however, is that they are structurally predicated on ideology rather than practical class war. Because they are bourgeois political inventions, they innately subscribe to bourgeois political rules.

Proletarian organizations can subscribe to theory, but that subscription must always be secondary to practical working class interests.


and seeks to attain political power (dictatorship of the proletariat).

Any worker orgnanizations seek the attainment of political power by the working class, but not nescessarily by that organization itself.

The difference between a political party and, say, a revolutionary workers' syndicate is that while both are ostenibly fighting for the liberation of the proletariat, the political party sees itself as the means to achieve it.

It's the "seeking political power" part that bothers me, you see. Revolution cannot be "lead" by anyone, especially not some elitist club of self-righeous ideologues. Revolution must be an inately liberating process and that cannot happen in the revolution is co-opted by institutions who's sole purpose is to attain personal power.

I have no problem with revolutionary organizations, I have no problem with worker solidarity, my only problem is with bodies who seek to "represent" or "lead" the working class.

The only group that I want to see attain power is the working class in its entirety. Political parties are not able to achieve this because, by their nature, they tend to centralize authority.

As I said, party politics work for the bourgeoisie because their aim is political reform.

As revolutionaries, however, our interest is not "ideology" or "political change", it's wide-spread liberation. That can only happen if we organize based on participatory democratic principles.

I don't have all the answers to how we do that, but one thing which I do know is that political parties are not the way. A century and a half of failed party politics should at the very least teach us that!


Ah! Here is where you show what your true problem with political parties. So-called "vanguard parties". So you don't have a problem with political parties in general; you just have a problem with these so-called "vanguard parties".

I think that "vanguard parties" have been among the worst political parties in history and often magnify the negative aspects of political parties, but those negative aspects are present in all parties, not just so-called "vanguard" ones.

Look, if the word "vanguard" is confusing you, feel free to go back through my post and delete the word "vanguard" everywhere it appears. I will still stand by everything I wrote.

My opposition is to parties, full stop.


because the other option - actually opposing them - is much worse and would warrant a restriction

:rolleyes:

I oppose political parties.

If you want to start a poll for restriction, you're welcome to try.

[KC]

The nature of political parties, however, is that they are structurally predicated on ideology rather than practical class war.

I don't see how you could say this about all political parties; perhaps most, but certainly not all. And I would disagree with you on why these political parties are failures. It isn't because of their dominance of ideology over action; it is because of petit-bourgeois corruption within these parties that causes the dominance of theory over action.



My opposition is to parties, full stop.

Then your in opposition to workers organizing. How are you not?

[afrikaNOW]

LSD correct me if im wrong,

but Communque, i think LSD is trying to say is that he is not opposed to workers organizing themselves, he is however against the use of political parties as a means for proleterian revolution.

"it is because of petit-bourgeois corruption within these parties that causes the dominance of theory over action."

and i think from LSD's perspective it is the nature of the political party that makes itself vulnerable to petit bourgeois corruption...which can cause dominance of theory over action.

[LSD]

afrikaNOW is entirely correct.


I don't see how you could say this about all political parties; perhaps most, but certainly not all.

I can say it because in the definition of political party is subscription to ideology. The purpose of a political party, again, is to move an ideology into power. That's why the bourgeoisie invented it and that's what it's good at.

If our purpose as workers' activists was to promote ideology, then political parties would be usefull to us, but because our aim is widespread emancipation, we must reject "tools" that are intrinsically coercive.


Then your in opposition to workers organizing. How are you not?

Because political parties are not the only means of working organization!

Indeed, as I've already outlined, they are in fact one of the worst.

Again,

Originally posted by me
Parties, by their nature, centralize authority into the hands of the most "theoretically advanced". This is beneficial when the objective is to promote some ideological line. But working class revolution is not about ideology, it's about liberation.

The revolutionary process needs to be an emancipatory one. Workers need to learn to manage themselves and their work without "supervision" from anyone. Party-based action does not promote this.

On the contrary, while any worker can join a "revolutionary" party, very few will ever be anything more than rank-and-file card carriers. The leadership will be composed of those who have the time and energy to play the bullshit bureaucratic game nescessary to rise through the ranks.

Someone working an 8 hour shift in a automotive factory does not have the time to sit on a "central committee" or "politburo". For most of us, party politics is a decidedly spectator sport.

Now, for bourgeois parties this isn't a problem. Their fundamental purpose is to promote some political line. An inactive membership is irrelevent so long as the party stays ideologically on message.

When a bourgeois party takes power it aims to make changes, surely, but those changes are top-down in nature. Training average workers to be self-empowered is the last thing the bourgeoisie wants.

Political parties work for bourgeois changes to the bourgeois system. They do not work as an insurrectionary tool against the system itself. The proletariat cannot look to the "capitalist example" when attacking the foundations of capitalism itself.

A proletarian revolution is the only kind of revolution in history that seeks to enfranchise the masses. Accordingly, no historical revolutionary "models" can possibly apply.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 03:20 PM
On the contrary, while any worker can join a "revolutionary" party, very few will ever be anything more than rank-and-file card carriers. The leadership will be composed of those who have the time and energy to play the bullshit bureaucratic game nescessary to rise through the ranks.

Someone working an 8 hour shift in a automotive factory does not have the time to sit on a "central committee" or "politburo". For most of us, party politics is a decidedly spectator sport.

I call bullshit! It is possible, if the organization makes it possible -- that is, if the organization functions in such a way to aid members of our class to participate in those bodies. We do this in the League, and have since we were founded. Our C.C. members work both part-time and full-time (and, sometimes, more-than-full-time) jobs. We provide the structure to give them the time and energy; that's the whole point of building the "culture of liberation".

If we want our class to liberate itself, then these kinds of structures need to be built in order to make that possible. That requires organization ... and a demonstration that it is a viable approach, in the form of applying it within our political organization and in the organizations we help to create, helps too.

Miles

[Entrails Konfetti]

LSD you act like the bourgeoisie woke up one day and said " hey lets make a party", you can't can't claim that political parties historically were created by one class, if you look at Ancient Rome you'll see the Plebeians and Patricians organized by principals and agendas for their own classes.

Parties, organizations ect. are a result of class society, they started as individuals from social classes with agenda in opposition against the rule of heredity. Again, social-classes not just one social-class.

Now since you say that social-organizations shouldn't be organized around seizing political power, they infact shouldn't act like political parties which are social and classs-organizations. A class can't overthrow class society if it isn't organized like a class.

[Comrade-Z]

Why can't syndicalism destroy the bourgeois state and facilitate the creation of a new social order, with the various coercive mechanisms that that implies? Are workers operating with a syndicalist framework unable to concentrate attacks against capitalists?

Actually, I'm approaching a line of thought more and more that says that the precise form of proletarian organization doesn't matter so much, as proletarian attitudes towards various things, such as authority, leadership, confidence, assertiveness, clarity of goals, etc. I think I am coming to the point of being perfectly fine with an "executive committee of the ruling class" during a revolution. What needs to happen, though, is that the proletariat must maintain control over the means of production--that is, must keep it out of the hands of the executive committee at all costs. This is the most important thing! This is how the capitalist class enforces the loyalty of its own executive committee and armed forces. Furthermore, the proletariat must be unified ideologically so that it can react with swiftness and decisiveness if its own executive committee betrays the proletariat. Just as the capitalist class knows how to engage in media sabotage, capital flight, and the funding of private armies in order to fight a treacherous state, the proletariat must know what measures to enact in the event that its own executive committee is treacherous. The proletariat must have a clear vision of its goals so that it knows when it is being betrayed by the state. And finally, proletarian ideology must be ubiquitous among the armed forces. And the armed forces must share the revolutionary sophistication of the proletariat, so that it may recognize when the proletariat is being attacked and disobey orders to execute anti-proletarian actions. Furthermore, the revolutionary proletariat as a whole must be armed to provide a further check on the armed forces. If you have all of these factors, an "executive committee" or "state" system might be feasible.

[LoneRed]

Originally posted by CommunistLeague+Aug 12 2006, 03:41 AM--> (CommunistLeague @ Aug 12 2006, 03:41 AM)
[email protected] 11 2006, 03:20 PM
On the contrary, while any worker can join a "revolutionary" party, very few will ever be anything more than rank-and-file card carriers. The leadership will be composed of those who have the time and energy to play the bullshit bureaucratic game nescessary to rise through the ranks.

Someone working an 8 hour shift in a automotive factory does not have the time to sit on a "central committee" or "politburo". For most of us, party politics is a decidedly spectator sport.

I call bullshit! It is possible, if the organization makes it possible -- that is, if the organization functions in such a way to aid members of our class to participate in those bodies. We do this in the League, and have since we were founded. Our C.C. members work both part-time and full-time (and, sometimes, more-than-full-time) jobs. We provide the structure to give them the time and energy; that's the whole point of building the "culture of liberation".

If we want our class to liberate itself, then these kinds of structures need to be built in order to make that possible. That requires organization ... and a demonstration that it is a viable approach, in the form of applying it within our political organization and in the organizations we help to create, helps too.

Miles [/b]
very few will ever be more than rank-and-file card carriers?

are you meaning to say in all political party/organizations the working class can not achieve higher consciousness, and is too "stupid" to rise up and make his own liberation,

or are you saying that the party wont let that happen.


I see that it goes both ways, usually with one following the other. If the party is set up in a way that lets only the petty-bourgeois rule and make the principles and such things, the view that the worker is too "stupid" consequently arises.

It may be that way for you, as you are calling it a "spectator sport" but for many working class members it is not, I am seeing working class comrades, defining their own liberation, I am seeing them not letting the upper classes define their existence. I notice that in the SP, there are many "card carrying members because the party is soo medled up with petty-bourgeois ideology and influence, and does not make a good enough attempt to help the workers help themselves, instead it sits apart from the workers, it leaves them no opportunity.

On the other hand I believe that the League, which is a worker only organization has the door open, in fact makes it open, gives the avenue in which workers can learn to fight for their own liberation.

I agree with KC on what he said about the petty-bourgeois influence and with Miles, that it is necessary to build a viable organization that can be the vehicle to working class liberation


Rick

[Hiero]

I advise everyone not to listen to LSD, he has no proof for his accusations. He has never clearly worked with a legitimate Communist Party. Anyone who has worked with a a Communist Party, will find that it is true there are many middle class, intellectuals, civil workers, artists etc. Though what one will find is that the majority, of members and many in the Central Committee are workers and unionists. You only have to research someone of Communist Parties that hold power or have in the past holded power, and find that most leaders are from poor peasant and working class backgrounds.

LSD distances his self from the working class by his ignorance. Many working class Communist would be very embarresed that LSD tries to act in the interest of the working class, while not supporting working class organisations.

[Entrails Konfetti]

When a Communist organization runs in elections and becomes a party pretty much all they do is use the opportunity to propagandize, gain a base, and educate.
It's doubtful that elected Communist candidates can take their seat, and even if they do they just act in opposition, and tell everyone whats really going on from the inside, because it's not like they can really implement many measures under the capitalist state machine.

[KC]

Oh shut up you stupid fucking Leninist

Ya u evil LENINIST!! :lol:


The "communist party" as "expected" by Marx is a completely different entity and probably not even worth identifying in similar terms unless one can be sure that there are no authoritarians listening in

Hint: Marx was authoritarian. ;)



but Communque, i think LSD is trying to say is that he is not opposed to workers organizing themselves, he is however against the use of political parties as a means for proleterian revolution.


That's fine, but the problem I have with this is that his definition of "political party" encompasses all working class organizations. When you define "political party" as working class organizations, and say you're against political parties, then you're against working class organizations.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2006, 04:48 PM
The CNT was a party...

No, the CNT was a union. FAI, its political extension, was a party.