First world Leninists [Archive]

Vargha Poralli

2nd January 2007, 05:08

Probably because workers are generally indifferent to socialism in first world.I don't know exactly how to put it so i quote MIM's analysis from wikipedia

(Wiki)
It is through MIM's unique analysis of the labor aristocracy that MIM differentiates itself from other leftist parties in what it terms the imperialist countries. The labor aristocracy today, MIM argues, is that class of workers in imperialist countries that receive more than the value of their labor by sharing in the superprofits extracted from the Third World. MIM sees the principal contradiction in society to be that between imperialism and the oppressed nations and upholds the right to self-determination for oppressed nations. Although it allows that there are "scattered" white proletarians, MIM considers most white workers in the U.S. to be members of a labor aristocracy, meaning that that they benefit so much from the system of imperialism that they are bought off, thus having no revolutionary potential. MIM developed this analysis in part from the book Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat by J. Sakai. MIM thus believes that revolution is impossible in the U.S. without external help of oppressed nations. This causes many other communist groups to question the point of MIM's existence as a U.S.-based revolutionary organization if they don't believe that a working class with revolutionary potential exists within the U.S.

Rawthentic

2nd January 2007, 05:43

The reason why a "Leninist" party is a useless heap is because the in the industrialized, 1st world nations, there is an advanced urban proletariat capable of autonomous action.

In the 3rd world, a vanguard Party was seen as necessary because of the underdeveloped conditions, so then the Party could accelerate these conditions and "lead" the proletariat.

Vargha Poralli

2nd January 2007, 05:55

The reason why a "Leninist" party is a useless heap is because the in the industrialized, 1st world nations, there is an advanced urban proletariat capable of autonomous action.

What "AUTONOMOUS ACTION" is taken by urban proletariat in the INDUSTRIALIZED first world for more than a century ? I don't find any revolution that had changed anything in the first world.

Did you ever analysed the MIM's theory i have posted. I tend to agree with it.

Rawthentic

2nd January 2007, 06:03

Material conditions, thats all I need to say.

Plus, all of the workers strikes and uprisings in the 1st world have been autonomous, proletarian led movements. Namely, Paris '68, the Paris Commune, Hungary '56, and countless others. In your face.

Vargha Poralli

2nd January 2007, 06:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 11:33 am
Material conditions, thats all I need to say.

Plus, all of the workers strikes and uprisings in the 1st world have been autonomous, proletarian led movements. Namely, Paris '68, the Paris Commune, Hungary '56, and countless others. In your face.

Plus, all of the workers strikes and uprisings in the 1st world have been autonomous, proletarian led movements. Namely, Paris '68, the Paris Commune, Hungary '56, and countless others. In your face.

What did they accomplish being broken by Bourgeoisie(Commune),Deformed beaucracy(Hungary) and did Degaulle lose his power after Paris '68 ?

What according your analysis is the reason for their failure ?

RGacky3

2nd January 2007, 06:29

Most of them failed because they were taken down by force, Hungary is the most striking example because it was taken down by a so-called "peoples army" ironic huh? A anarcho-communist (worker controlled) movement was taken out by a communist party, the irony kills me, and many Hungarians in the 50's and 60s.

2nd January 2007, 07:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:15 am
What according your analysis is the reason for their failure ?
The compromised political voice of the working class. Every time the working class is fed up with the cuts in wages and whatnot the union leaderships and political leaderships betrays the working class. After the fall of stalinism and the moving to the right of the social-democratic parties all over the western world, the working class is now finally seeking (although a bit cautiously) for alternatives. Examples of this are the SP in the Netherlands, the WASG in Germany and the initiative for a new workers party in Belgium. These parties will/may fail, but it is trough these experiences that the class learns and will reinvent the structures that are needed to fight.

I largely agree with the MIM analysis, with one main exception: it is not the working class that has betrayed the revolutionary cause, it is its leadership.

Springmeester

2nd January 2007, 07:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:29 am
Most of them failed because they were taken down by force, Hungary is the most striking example because it was taken down by a so-called "peoples army" ironic huh? A anarcho-communist (worker controlled) movement was taken out by a communist party, the irony kills me, and many Hungarians in the 50's and 60s.
Of course it is taken down by force... that's why we call it class STRUGGLE.
Leninism is the principle of organisation. If you can't organize you are unfit to rule, as long as the working class stays divided is stays weak, if the working class organize and unify then they will be the emancipated class of the future. THAT'S leninism.

More Fire for the People

2nd January 2007, 18:07

Leninism is neither relevant for 'first' or 'third' world revolutionaries. It is a backwards model that was a failure in its own time. However, the proper scientific approach to loosening the reigns of Leninism is the critical analysis of where it came from and why it did what it did.

Leninism is the principle of organisation. If you can't organize you are unfit to rule, as long as the working class stays divided is stays weak, if the working class organize and unify then they will be the emancipated class of the future.
Hungary '56 — several hundred thousand, May 1968 — two-thirds of the working class, etc. These struggles were not led by a vanguard party they were led by the working class. Hell, even the Russian Revolution (the first one) was led by the working class and not a vanguard party. So go take your Stalinist hullabaloo elsewhere.

Wanted Man

2nd January 2007, 18:24

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 06:29 am
Most of them failed because they were taken down by force, Hungary is the most striking example because it was taken down by a so-called "peoples army" ironic huh? A anarcho-communist (worker controlled) movement was taken out by a communist party, the irony kills me, and many Hungarians in the 50's and 60s.
Why bring Hungary into this? I thought we were talking about the first world? But hey, if you want to believe that it was an anarcho-communist revolution, be my guest. :)

Springmeester

2nd January 2007, 18:43

Originally posted by Hopscotch [email protected] 02, 2007 06:07 pm
Leninism is neither relevant for 'first' or 'third' world revolutionaries. It is a backwards model that was a failure in its own time. However, the proper scientific approach to loosening the reigns of Leninism is the critical analysis of where it came from and why it did what it did.

Leninism is the principle of organisation. If you can't organize you are unfit to rule, as long as the working class stays divided is stays weak, if the working class organize and unify then they will be the emancipated class of the future.
Hungary '56 — several hundred thousand, May 1968 — two-thirds of the working class, etc. These struggles were not led by a vanguard party they were led by the working class. Hell, even the Russian Revolution (the first one) was led by the working class and not a vanguard party. So go take your Stalinist hullabaloo elsewhere.
That's why they failed.

More Fire for the People

2nd January 2007, 18:47

Originally posted by Shift+January 02, 2007 12:43 pm--> (Shift @ January 02, 2007 12:43 pm)
Hopscotch [email protected] 02, 2007 06:07 pm
Leninism is neither relevant for 'first' or 'third' world revolutionaries. It is a backwards model that was a failure in its own time. However, the proper scientific approach to loosening the reigns of Leninism is the critical analysis of where it came from and why it did what it did.

Leninism is the principle of organisation. If you can't organize you are unfit to rule, as long as the working class stays divided is stays weak, if the working class organize and unify then they will be the emancipated class of the future.
Hungary '56 — several hundred thousand, May 1968 — two-thirds of the working class, etc. These struggles were not led by a vanguard party they were led by the working class. Hell, even the Russian Revolution (the first one) was led by the working class and not a vanguard party. So go take your Stalinist hullabaloo elsewhere.
That's why they failed. [/b]
Really? Because I thought in the case of France it was the whole Leninist parties cancelling the revolution because the Soviets didn't want it. Or how about those Soviet tanks in '56? But I'll play the devil's advocate, let's suppose a vanguard party is necessary. But then how come every vanguardist revolution has created a state-capitalist society?

Springmeester

2nd January 2007, 19:02

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+January 02, 2007 06:47 pm--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ January 02, 2007 06:47 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 12:43 pm

Hopscotch [email protected] 02, 2007 06:07 pm
Leninism is neither relevant for 'first' or 'third' world revolutionaries. It is a backwards model that was a failure in its own time. However, the proper scientific approach to loosening the reigns of Leninism is the critical analysis of where it came from and why it did what it did.

Leninism is the principle of organisation. If you can't organize you are unfit to rule, as long as the working class stays divided is stays weak, if the working class organize and unify then they will be the emancipated class of the future.
Hungary '56 — several hundred thousand, May 1968 — two-thirds of the working class, etc. These struggles were not led by a vanguard party they were led by the working class. Hell, even the Russian Revolution (the first one) was led by the working class and not a vanguard party. So go take your Stalinist hullabaloo elsewhere.
That's why they failed.
Really? Because I thought in the case of France it was the whole Leninist parties cancelling the revolution because the Soviets didn't want it. Or how about those Soviet tanks in '56? But I'll play the devil's advocate, let's suppose a vanguard party is necessary. But then how come every vanguardist revolution has created a state-capitalist society? [/b]
I'm not going to take responsibility for what some party's did back then. The principle of organization is imperitive for the working class to become a rulling class. Leninism is the source of this theory and I stand by it not because I would like it to be so but because it is logical.

More Fire for the People

2nd January 2007, 19:14

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:02 pm
I'm not going to take responsibility for what some party's did back then. The principle of organization is imperitive for the working class to become a rulling class. Leninism is the source of this theory and I stand by it not because I would like it to be so but because it is logical.
Do you even know what Lenin's theory of class consciousness is? Do you even know where it comes from and what it implies? Lenin's 'democracy of the strike' is the dictatorship of petty-bourgeois intellectuals. I suggest you read at least the first section of Leninism or Marxism? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm)

Springmeester

2nd January 2007, 19:41

Originally posted by Hopscotch Anthill+January 02, 2007 07:14 pm--> (Hopscotch Anthill @ January 02, 2007 07:14 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2007 01:02 pm
I'm not going to take responsibility for what some party's did back then. The principle of organization is imperitive for the working class to become a rulling class. Leninism is the source of this theory and I stand by it not because I would like it to be so but because it is logical.
Do you even know what Lenin's theory of class consciousness is? Do you even know where it comes from and what it implies? Lenin's 'democracy of the strike' is the dictatorship of petty-bourgeois intellectuals. I suggest you read at least the first section of Leninism or Marxism? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1904/questions-rsd/index.htm) [/b]
Don't try to play smart. I am willing to discuss the issue with you and I am familiar with Luxembourg and Pannekoek. However if you're objective is not to discuss the issue but to demonstrate your own intellect I suggest you tell me now so I can concentrate my efforts somewhere else. All I am trying to say is that organization and leadership are nessecary for the proletariat to become the dominant class. The capitalists have the state power, we the workers, only have one weapon: organization. If you can't admit that then you don't understand communism and you don't understand class struggle.

More Fire for the People

2nd January 2007, 20:45

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2007 01:41 pm
Don't try to play smart. I am willing to discuss the issue with you and I am familiar with Luxembourg and Pannekoek. However if you're objective is not to discuss the issue but to demonstrate your own intellect I suggest you tell me now so I can concentrate my efforts somewhere else. All I am trying to say is that organization and leadership are nessecary for the proletariat to become the dominant class. The capitalists have the state power, we the workers, only have one weapon: organization. If you can't admit that then you don't understand communism and you don't understand class struggle.
The question isn't 'organization' — which I support — the question is what is the internal dynamic of organization and how does organization relate to the autonomous actions of the working class? Lenin's concept of working class organisation is top-down military hierarchy of with party intellectuals at the top and working class peons at the bottom. What is needed is a political organisation of, not above, the working class organized in a way that is both effective but also non-contradictatory to the aims of the organisation — one based on freedom of discussion, voluntary discipline, and consensus decision-making.

JC1

2nd January 2007, 21:15

If the Leninist model is truly one that is inaplicable to tha first world, how come its always that us first world working revloutionarys subscribe to it as opposed to the idea's of anarchists? How come there are massive Leninist party's in tha present day and in the past all across tha first world (heres 2 examples, The Panthers and Communist Refoundation in Italy), but never mass Anarchist Federations in 1st world states?

How come the only world event that Anarchists had involvement with in the real world, in the first world, is the 1968 Student Rebelion in france, witch will be a footmark in history, and failed BECUASE STUDENTS ALIENATED THE WORKERS!

Indeed, it is Anarchism that is a 3rd world phenomonom. Anarchism in its greatest hours was never suppourted by that many of us workers. In the Ukraine, it was suppourted exclsily by peaseants who had no problem breaking Soviets and Workers Concils for Mahkno. In Spain (witch contrary to Anarchist Beleif, was not a first world country in the 30's), most Anarchists were Peaseants, or Small buisnnis people (E.g. The Barbers In "Homage to Cantalonia"). They only enjoyed moderate working class suppourt, becuase of Social Democratic Tactics like joining the goverment, and suppourting economism. Spanish Anarchist failed expropraite the National Bourgoise in Republican territories.

More Fire for the People

2nd January 2007, 21:24

What was the point of bringing up anarchism? I'm not an anarchist. In case you haven't noticed, revolutionary communism isn't simply split up into Leninist and anarcho-communist branches.

Rawthentic

3rd January 2007, 00:57

JC, what exactly are you trying to prove by that whole "anarchist" thing? The organizational structure of vanguard Parties along with the underdeveloped conditions in nations that underwent "Leninist" revolution contributed to the rise of a dictatorship above the proletariat.

The Grey Blur

3rd January 2007, 02:09

A anarcho-communist
Wrong, Hungary 56 was a workers uprising against the bureaucracy - the leaders quoted Lenin and demanaded a restoration of 'Socialist Democracy'. In fact the reason it failed is for the very reason you are praising it - it's disorganisation.

I think the argument that Leninism is suited only to third world countries ridiculous - look at how they have garnered the support of the working class in England, in America, in France, in Germany, in Spain...

bcbm

3rd January 2007, 10:05

Any ideology that seeks to manage and control the rage of the under-classes is ultimately counter-revolutionary and will only serve to drag us all in to yet another defeat, whether its "anarchism," "leninism" or whatever other stupid -ism you want to call it. Autonomous self-organization of the oppressed is the only thing that will ever push forward the destruction of the old world. There's no need for dipshits with bureaucratic aspirations disguised as a need for "organization," nor for sectarian ideology pimping disguised as "raising class consciousness."

Springmeester

3rd January 2007, 11:57

The leninist party isn't something that's seperate from the proletariat, it is the very fist of the proletariat in its class-struggle. For instance; many trotskyst and anarchist groups are now screaming that Chavez isn't moving fast enough towards revolution in Venezuela. While Chavez is working hard on the creation of a revolutionary venezuelan party some of these oppositionists scream about 'power to the independent workers councils'. However, these 'councils' don't even exist. I think it is clear that we are talking about leftist oppurtunism in this case and the same goes for the whole discussion here. Leftists are always talking about the revolution like it's a pure thing following clear schematics of how it should go and what it would look like and because reality doens't follow or obey to these ideal schematics they condemn every revolutionary potential, hell they'll even fight it if it contradicts there theories.

gilhyle

3rd January 2007, 12:25

While I dont take any of this MIM stuff at all seriously, the question of the lenninist form of organisation is a very difficult issue. It was justified initially by Lenin because of the backward conditions of Russia and subsequently generalised because of the post WW1 world crisis. The continued reliance on the vanguard model of the party when capitalism in its imperialist form has gone through periods of significant stability is surely questionable.

The basic balance is surely between a) how best to organise a militant vanguard to set out a clear programe and undertake disciplined interventions, versus b) the desirabilityf for revolutionaries of accessing the widest layers of the class.

On the face of it, a period in which revolutionaries are extreemly isolated and incapable of any significant disciplined intervention would suggest that the stick should be bent in the latter direction. This would be particularly true in the 'first world', the imperialist centres, where there are significant material benefits available to many workers and where trade union organisation has reached such a low point.

But the main alternative to the vanguard party model is the model pursued by Marx and Engels in the First and Second Internationals where they operated as a linked correspondence circle of convinced communists influencing wider layers within a nominally revolutionary social democratic party. This option is not available.

There are of course many other failed alternatives - organising around a paper or a particular political campaign or trying to build a somewhat looser alternative to a revolutionary party, without falling into mainstream reformism. The hsitory of these is a sorry one.

Answers have I none; puzzled I am.

Springmeester

3rd January 2007, 12:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 12:25 pm
On the face of it, a period in which revolutionaries are extreemly isolated and incapable of any significant disciplined intervention would suggest that the stick should be bent in the latter direction. This would be particularly true in the 'first world', the imperialist centres, where there are significant material benefits available to many workers and where trade union organisation has reached such a low point.
I don't understand what you are saying here. Because of the material benefits of the working class in imperialist countries there is no need for party-organization?

gilhyle

3rd January 2007, 14:41

Im not saying there is no need for party organisation, what I am saying is that there is a problem with the FORM of organisation - ie. with the VANGUARD party. The vanguard party is a very particular type of organisation, one bound by internal discipline, high levels of agreement to a very broad range of programmatic positions and material commitments in terms of amount of time, money etc a recruit is willing to give. It emerged in a very particular environment of police persecution and became widespread in a period of international crisis. it was continued by Stalinism as a method of controlling the international workers movement and continued by Trotskyism in the belief that significant international crisis was immanent.

Springmeester

3rd January 2007, 15:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 02:41 pm
Im not saying there is no need for party organisation, what I am saying is that there is a problem with the FORM of organisation - ie. with the VANGUARD party. The vanguard party is a very particular type of organisation, one bound by internal discipline, high levels of agreement to a very broad range of programmatic positions and material commitments in terms of amount of time, money etc a recruit is willing to give. It emerged in a very particular environment of police persecution and became widespread in a period of international crisis. it was continued by Stalinism as a method of controlling the international workers movement and continued by Trotskyism in the belief that significant international crisis was immanent.
Alright, gilhyle. But you would have to agree that when economic crisis strips the working class of all it's means for survival there will be an unavoidable stuggle between the working class and the bourgeoisie. When this struggle becomes reality the bourgeoisie will not hesitate to use the state repression apparatus on the working class to protect their privilige. Because economic crisis in unavoidable, because this will result in unavoidable class strugle and because it is unavoidable that the bourgeoisie will use the army, the police and secret services against the working class, it is unavoidable that a revolutionary party is created in wich all the collective revolutionary experience of the working class is concentrated. In this sense, that party will form the vanguard of the working class in the class struggle.

Rawthentic

3rd January 2007, 18:15

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 03, 2007 02:05 am
Any ideology that seeks to manage and control the rage of the under-classes is ultimately counter-revolutionary and will only serve to drag us all in to yet another defeat, whether its "anarchism," "leninism" or whatever other stupid -ism you want to call it. Autonomous self-organization of the oppressed is the only thing that will ever push forward the destruction of the old world. There's no need for dipshits with bureaucratic aspirations disguised as a need for "organization," nor for sectarian ideology pimping disguised as "raising class consciousness."
I dig what you're saying comrade. Thats why I believe in autonomous self-action as well.

bcbm

3rd January 2007, 18:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 09:33 am
When this struggle becomes reality the bourgeoisie will not hesitate to use the state repression apparatus on the working class to protect their privilige. Because economic crisis in unavoidable, because this will result in unavoidable class strugle and because it is unavoidable that the bourgeoisie will use the army, the police and secret services against the working class, it is unavoidable that a revolutionary party is created in wich all the collective revolutionary experience of the working class is concentrated. In this sense, that party will form the vanguard of the working class in the class struggle.
The creation of a party, or rather the attempted co-opting of revolutionary ambitions by an already existing party, is certainly inevitable, but whether or not the people in revolt will give a shit is certainly up for debate. Judging by a number of recent incidents, people moved to insurrection seem much more content to follow their own desires and organize themselves, ignoring the traditional parties (who always want to stand in the way) and so I hope that should a serious revolutionary situation ever arise, this trend will continue and all of the leftist parties will be given the shaft. Their involvement has, historically, always meant betrayal of the under-classes in exchange for more power. Fuck 'em.

Springmeester

3rd January 2007, 20:05

Originally posted by black banner black gun+January 03, 2007 06:40 pm--> (black banner black gun @ January 03, 2007 06:40 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 09:33 am
When this struggle becomes reality the bourgeoisie will not hesitate to use the state repression apparatus on the working class to protect their privilige. Because economic crisis in unavoidable, because this will result in unavoidable class strugle and because it is unavoidable that the bourgeoisie will use the army, the police and secret services against the working class, it is unavoidable that a revolutionary party is created in wich all the collective revolutionary experience of the working class is concentrated. In this sense, that party will form the vanguard of the working class in the class struggle.
The creation of a party, or rather the attempted co-opting of revolutionary ambitions by an already existing party, is certainly inevitable, but whether or not the people in revolt will give a shit is certainly up for debate. Judging by a number of recent incidents, people moved to insurrection seem much more content to follow their own desires and organize themselves, ignoring the traditional parties (who always want to stand in the way) and so I hope that should a serious revolutionary situation ever arise, this trend will continue and all of the leftist parties will be given the shaft. Their involvement has, historically, always meant betrayal of the under-classes in exchange for more power. Fuck 'em. [/b]
Very scientific... really. <_<

bcbm

3rd January 2007, 23:15

Do you have a real response, or do you want to come off like a snotty fuck?

black magick hustla

3rd January 2007, 23:33

Unless your sole desire is to destroy (which is a fun endeavour). it is imperative that there exists some type of organization.

4th January 2007, 00:50

Originally posted by black banner black [email protected] 03, 2007 06:40 pm
The creation of a party, or rather the attempted co-opting of revolutionary ambitions by an already existing party, is certainly inevitable, but whether or not the people in revolt will give a shit is certainly up for debate. Judging by a number of recent incidents, people moved to insurrection seem much more content to follow their own desires and organize themselves, ignoring the traditional parties (who always want to stand in the way) and so I hope that should a serious revolutionary situation ever arise, this trend will continue and all of the leftist parties will be given the shaft. Their involvement has, historically, always meant betrayal of the under-classes in exchange for more power. Fuck 'em.
"Organising themselves" is a little abstract to say the least. If you're referring to spontanious action and grassroots, it has been shown time and again that revolutions will never ever work this way. An important example of this was France of May '68, which was largely carried by spontanious action, but eventually, when the workers seeked for guidance for the next step, the political leadership betrayed the movement.
So, shouldn't we organise? Is the vanguard party an undemocratic principle by definition?

What you seem to forget is that the vanguard party of the Bolsheviks under Lenin was a party according to democratic centralism, summarised in Lenin's words as "complete freedom of discussion, unity in action". So, you debated about stuff, amended it, and finally vote about it. Then the decission was carried by all the party members. But these members could ofcourse still fight against the decission and continued the debate. So undemocratic? My ass.

Organising a party that voices the interests of the working class and puts forward an alternative to the current situation is of vital importance if you want to get anything done. Why are unions so much more effective then single strikers, even if its leadership is corrupt? Because together you stand strong.

Have fun with your sectarian effords though.

bcbm

4th January 2007, 07:04

"Organising themselves" is a little abstract to say the least.

Not really. It has been undertaken by almost every group or people who opted to fight against society. History is littered with examples of autonomous self-organization. More to the point, the formation of councils has been a prime factor. This can be seen in recent years in uprisings from Albania to Argentina to Algeria.

when the workers seeked for guidance for the next step, the political leadership betrayed the movement.

Hmm. So since, historically, when people have organized and acted autonomously and without parties, they have been betrayed by said parties, we should organize parties? :wacko: This speaks to me of a need for political "leaders" (bureaucrats and managers of revolution) to be given a long walk off a short pier.

So, shouldn't we organise?

Uh, I don't think anyone is saying we shouldn't organize... just that organizing in certain forms has been proven a more or less worthless endeavor, given the tendency of some formal organizations to time and time again sell-out those they profess to be wanting to help in order to keep whatever power they have, or gain a little more from the bourgeoisie.

Is the vanguard party an undemocratic principle by definition?

Who gives a fuck? Its long history of sell-outs, betrayals, power grabs, infighting, splitting, purging and other things detrimental to the under-classes is more than enough to warrant it being completely brushed aside during insurrectionary and revolutionary situations. The under-classes are more than capable of organizing themselves and ousting the rulers; they do not need would-be managers to hold their hand.

So undemocratic? My ass.

Sadly, I never voiced such a criticism, but thanks for the straw man.

Organising a party that voices the interests of the working class and puts forward an alternative to the current situation is of vital importance if you want to get anything done.

I doubt much of anything will "get done" until the situation becomes a whole lot more dire. The various (and ever-increasing, sigh) number of parties won't amount to jackshit in the meantime, and will probably amount to even less when shit actually goes down, at least if the under-classes expect to fare any better in destroying society. Organizing a bunch of self-serving twits with an eye for political power doesn't help anybody.

Why are unions so much more effective then single strikers, even if its leadership is corrupt? Because together you stand strong.

One doesn't need a party to stand together. And most parties have been better at dividing than uniting anyway. Indeed, you more or less say it yourself (I added emphasis)- we're better off without the bureaucrats!

Have fun with your sectarian effords though.

Sectarian efforts? What a load of horseshit. My point has been pretty clear this entire time- any "sect" that wants to act as managers of revolution and harness it for their own ends, getting in the way of destroying society, should be given the fucking boot. If that's sectarian, your definition is fucked.

The Grey Blur

4th January 2007, 22:21

BBBG can I just say your politics are totally nuts.

You seem to be opposed to anyone attempting to organise the working class on any issue...

Rawthentic

5th January 2007, 00:25

BBBG, you do agree that there does need to be a degree of organization though correct? I'm not talking about a top-down Leninist Party but autonomous worker organs. Yeah?

Nusocialist

5th January 2007, 00:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 10:33 pm
What (if any) relevancy does Leninism (a set of Marxist-derived theories and programs developed for a backwards, feudal, third-world nation) have in developed and industrialized nations? Why do Leninist parties spring up in these first-world nations?

Certainly the material conditions existing in said industrial nations cannot facilitate the conditions of a Leninist vanguard or its party rule? Putting a square peg into a round hole, in the social-economic context, would be a very bad thing.

EDIT: Typo.
Leninism ends in far right dictatorships,it has no relevancy to anything,except perhaps to the cappies if capitalism becomes untenable.

bezdomni

5th January 2007, 00:31

Leninism ends in far right dictatorships,it has no relevancy to anything,except perhaps to the cappies if capitalism becomes untenable.

Far-right dictatorships? Where did you pull that one out of?

Nusocialist

5th January 2007, 00:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:31 am

Leninism ends in far right dictatorships,it has no relevancy to anything,except perhaps to the cappies if capitalism becomes untenable.

Far-right dictatorships? Where did you pull that one out of?
The USSR,China,Cuba,the eastern bloc,Cambodia,Veitnam,in fact just about everywhere Leninism was tried it ended up in a dictatorship.

bezdomni

5th January 2007, 00:42

Originally posted by Nusocialist+January 05, 2007 12:33 am--> (Nusocialist @ January 05, 2007 12:33 am)
[email protected] 05, 2007 12:31 am

Leninism ends in far right dictatorships,it has no relevancy to anything,except perhaps to the cappies if capitalism becomes untenable.

Far-right dictatorships? Where did you pull that one out of?
The USSR,China,Cuba,the eastern bloc,Cambodia,Veitnam,in fact just about everywhere Leninism was tried it ended up in a dictatorship. [/b]
What is "far-right" about any of those countries?

The Grey Blur

5th January 2007, 00:51

Nusocialist

5th January 2007, 00:55

Originally posted by SovietPants+January 05, 2007 12:42 am--> (SovietPants @ January 05, 2007 12:42 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:33 am

[email protected] 05, 2007 12:31 am

Leninism ends in far right dictatorships,it has no relevancy to anything,except perhaps to the cappies if capitalism becomes untenable.

Far-right dictatorships? Where did you pull that one out of?
The USSR,China,Cuba,the eastern bloc,Cambodia,Veitnam,in fact just about everywhere Leninism was tried it ended up in a dictatorship.
What is "far-right" about any of those countries? [/b]
They were class dictatorships,where the ruling classes, the nomenklatura (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura) ruled the people and extracted surplus value from the workers.
They are far-right because they go beyond capitalism to a pre-capitalist kind of exploitation focusing mainly on the extra-economic means of exploitation.

Nusocialist

5th January 2007, 00:57

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+January 05, 2007 12:51 am--> (Permanent Revolution @ January 05, 2007 12:51 am)
Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:33 am

[email protected] 05, 2007 12:31 am

Leninism ends in far right dictatorships,it has no relevancy to anything,except perhaps to the cappies if capitalism becomes untenable.

Far-right dictatorships? Where did you pull that one out of?
The USSR,China,Cuba,the eastern bloc,Cambodia,Veitnam,in fact just about everywhere Leninism was tried it ended up in a dictatorship.
So because the eventual result was a dictatorship the anti-Capitalist movements were futile? Or even better, they were inherently going to turn out that way?
[/b]
When did I say that? My gripe is with leninism and other authoritarian types of "socialism".

bezdomni

5th January 2007, 01:12

They were class dictatorships,where the ruling classes, the nomenklatura ruled the people and extracted surplus value from the workers.

Okay, first thing first:

Cambodia had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, and Vietnam had very little to do with it.

The USSR was a worker's state that eventually was taken back over by elements of the bourgeoisie in the communist party. The same thing happened in China.

Cuba is a worker's state.

My gripe is with leninism and other authoritarian types of "socialism".

Marxism-Leninism is not "authoritarian", at least no more so than any other revolutionary ideology. Revolution is an authoritarian act, but the ultimate goal is the liberation of humanity. A revolution that does not intend to liberate hunaity is not a communist revolution of any sort, and a revolution that does not meet its intention of liberating humanity is a defeated revolution.

They are far-right because they go beyond capitalism to a pre-capitalist kind of exploitation focusing mainly on the extra-economic means of exploitation.

That is a completely unfounded statement. I challenge you to prove it.

Nusocialist

5th January 2007, 01:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 01:12 am

Okay, first thing first:

Cambodia had nothing to do with Marxism-Leninism, and Vietnam had very little to do with it.
They were influenced by both MLism and the maoist off shoot of it.

Marxism-Leninism is not "authoritarian",
Of course it is,the vanguard of the party crap,the party itself.
Marxism itself has a very authoritarian stripe.

at least no more so than any other revolutionary ideology.
You mean like anarchism?

Revolution is an authoritarian act, but the ultimate goal is the liberation of humanity. A revolution that does not intend to liberate hunaity is not a communist revolution of any sort, and a revolution that does not meet its intention of liberating humanity is a defeated revolution.
The authoritarianess of MLism makes it doomed from the start,it is just waiting to be taken over by those at the top.
It is an anti-socialist doctrine and should be abandoned.

That is a completely unfounded statement. I challenge you to prove it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomenklatura
Those at the top lived lives of luxury,because they extracted surplus value from the workers,this is well known among those who don't have rose tinted classes towards anything that calls itself socialist.

bezdomni

5th January 2007, 01:28

They were influenced by both MLism and the maoist off shoot of it.

There was nothing communist about the Khmer Rouge. Plain and simple.

I think anti-imperialist vietnam, revolutionary USSR, China and Cuba should all be defended by bourgeois attacks. Times have changed though, and the only worthwhile place among the countries that you listed is Cuba.

Marxism-Leninism is not "authoritarian",

Of course it is,the vanguard of the party crap,the party itself.
Marxism itself has a very authoritarian stripe.

No, it doesn't. You have a very poor understanding of what Marxism-Leninism is and what "authoritarianism" means.

at least no more so than any other revolutionary ideology.

You mean like anarchism?

Indeed like anarchism. How do you suppose anarchists intend to destroy capitalism and smash the state? Defeating their enemies with flowers and puppies?

Anarchists are incredibly authoritarian.

Those at the top lived lives of luxury,because they extracted surplus value from the workers,this is well known among those who don't have rose tinted classes towards anything that calls itself socialist.

Right, but this occured because not enough was done to fight the bourgeoisie that energed within the party. Communist revolution continues after socialism has been established.

Nusocialist

5th January 2007, 01:36

There was nothing communist about the Khmer Rouge. Plain and simple.
Duh. Nor was there about the bolsheviks.

I think anti-imperialist vietnam, revolutionary USSR, China and Cuba should all be defended by bourgeois attacks.
Times have changed though, and the only worthwhile place among the countries that you listed is Cuba.
Cuba is much the same as the others although perhaps more benign.

No, it doesn't. You have a very poor understanding of what Marxism-Leninism is and what "authoritarianism" means.
I know exactly what MLism is and of course I know what authoritarianism is,I'm an anarchist.

Indeed like anarchism. How do you suppose anarchists intend to destroy capitalism and smash the state? Defeating their enemies with flowers and puppies?
Actually it depends on the anarchist,some are non-violent,the rest believe in grass-roots,popular uprisings,there is nothing authoritarian about it.

Anarchists are incredibly authoritarian.
And you were lecturing me on what authoritarianism meant,the whole point of anarchism is to challenge authoirty.

Right, but this occured because not enough was done to fight the bourgeoisie that energed within the party. Communist revolution continues after socialism has been established.You don't understand that the authoritarian and centralising nature of MLism naturally leads to this.

Nusocialist

5th January 2007, 01:51

Ahh he said anyone organising the working class,not the working class organising.

bezdomni

5th January 2007, 02:10

And you were lecturing me on what authoritarianism meant,the whole point of anarchism is to challenge authoirty.

The whole point of Maoism is to challenge authority too. Where do you think the phrase "It's right to rebel" originated?

Duh. Nor was there about the bolsheviks.

Aside from their manner of organizing the proletariat to overthrow the bourgeoisie and abolish the class system.

Cuba is much the same as the others although perhaps more benign.

In what manner?

I know exactly what MLism is and of course I know what authoritarianism is,I'm an anarchist.

So the only prerequesite for knowing what Marxism-Leninism and authoritarianism mean is being an anarchist? :blink:

Actually it depends on the anarchist,some are non-violent,the rest believe in grass-roots,popular uprisings,there is nothing authoritarian about it.

Pacifism isn't revolutionary. It is passive submission to the ruling class, and thus contrary to the actual interests of the working class.

Popular grassroots uprisings are authoritarian. The moment an anarchist or communist shoots a bullet into a reactionary agent of the bourgeoisie - they become authoritarian. Revolution is an authoritarian act - there is no getting around it.

You don't understand that the authoritarian and centralising nature of MLism naturally leads to this.
Of course I do, I am a Marxist-Leninist.

The funny thing is, you nearly paraphrased Ronald Reagan's "You can tell a communist as a person who reads Marx and Lenin, you can't tell an anti-communist by a person who understands Marx and Lenin."

bcbm

5th January 2007, 03:38

Originally posted by Permanent Revolution+January 04, 2007 04:21 pm--> (Permanent Revolution @ January 04, 2007 04:21 pm) BBBG can I just say your politics are totally nuts.

You seem to be opposed to anyone attempting to organise the working class on any issue... [/b]
The under-classes can and will organize themselves when they need to, and get about to overthrowing this whole fucking mess. I have absolutely no problem with this autonomous self-organization, now or in the future, but I find almost all unions and parties to be entirely detrimental to the cause of liberation and feel that the under-classes would be better off without a bunch of self-serving ****ish bureaucrats.

I'm opposed to bureaucrats, managers, bosses and all others who seek power and control over the people's rage, not the people. I don't think that is especially nuts and if it is, sanity sounds fucking miserable.

CDL
And that is ultra-leftism in a nutshell.

Meh, most "ultra-leftists" are just as bad as the other ideology pimps on the left and your stupid and snide remarks don't make you look much better. I doubt "the workers" give a fuck about your ideological bickering.

5th January 2007, 03:45

The under-classes can and will organize themselves when they need to, and get about to overthrowing this whole fucking mess. I have absolutely no problem with this autonomous self-organization, now or in the future, but I find almost all unions and parties to be entirely detrimental to the cause of liberation and feel that the under-classes would be better off without a bunch of self-serving ****ish bureaucrats.

So the working class can't organize itself into a party?

Labor Shall Rule

5th January 2007, 03:59

Originally posted by black banner black gun+January 05, 2007 03:38 am--> (black banner black gun @ January 05, 2007 03:38 am) The under-classes can and will organize themselves when they need to, and get about to overthrowing this whole fucking mess. I have absolutely no problem with this autonomous self-organization, now or in the future, but I find almost all unions and parties to be entirely detrimental to the cause of liberation and feel that the under-classes would be better off without a bunch of self-serving ****ish bureaucrats.

I'm opposed to bureaucrats, managers, bosses and all others who seek power and control over the people's rage, not the people. I don't think that is especially nuts and if it is, sanity sounds fucking miserable.

CDL
And that is ultra-leftism in a nutshell.

Meh, most "ultra-leftists" are just as bad as the other ideology pimps on the left and your stupid and snide remarks don't make you look much better. I doubt "the workers" give a fuck about your ideological bickering. [/b]
Participation in unions and parties inevitably arises out of revolutionary situations. Though they are historically proven to be detrimental to the cause of the workers, they have served as organizational bodies that have encouraged both intellectual and political development. They, in other words, have served as vehicles that have advanced class struggle further. You can be against these "bureaucrats, managers, bosses, and all others who seek power and control over the people's rage", while also recognizing that it is absolutely necessary for us to work within these reactionary structures in order to ultimately achieve our goals. It would be more favorable if we could construct "Autonomous Self-Organization", in which cooridination is established between individuals freely and from bellow, but it's obvious that we can't really expect such structures to exist on a wide-scale with the ability to sustain itself under revolutionary occurances.

bcbm

5th January 2007, 07:05

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 04, 2007 09:45 pm
So the working class can't organize itself into a party?
They can do whatever the fuck they damn well please, I'm just pointing out that historically parties have not been self-organized by the working class and have usually sold-out the workers, not to mention everyone else, in their desire for power and control. I generally view a party as necessarily containing managers, which spells trouble for anyone interested in liberation.

Participation in unions and parties inevitably arises out of revolutionary situations.

Unions and parties inevitably try to insert themselves in to revolutionary situations, but that doesn't mean people will always cling to that method in said situations. They often don't, preferring to ignore the unions and parties and organize themselves.

Though they are historically proven to be detrimental to the cause of the workers, they have served as organizational bodies that have encouraged both intellectual and political development. They, in other words, have served as vehicles that have advanced class struggle further.

Until it got a little too far (when the workers stopped listening to them), and they quickly pulled it back in... hardly good reasons to sign up. I think the class struggle will be furthered more by actual conditions than by any "revolutionary" or workerist group.

You can be against these "bureaucrats, managers, bosses, and all others who seek power and control over the people's rage", while also recognizing that it is absolutely necessary for us to work within these reactionary structures in order to ultimately achieve our goals.

I don't see any reason to compromise and work within the structures of a bunch of fuckers when we can do it much better on our own.

It would be more favorable if we could construct "Autonomous Self-Organization", in which cooridination is established between individuals freely and from bellow, but it's obvious that we can't really expect such structures to exist on a wide-scale with the ability to sustain itself under revolutionary occurances.

Why the hell not? We're not going to ever successfully destroy this society unless autonomous self-organization exists. And like I said, its a pretty well-proven historical model, it just needs the proper conditions to reach wide enough to unmake everything.

5th January 2007, 13:14

They can do whatever the fuck they damn well please, I'm just pointing out that historically parties have not been self-organized by the working class and have usually sold-out the workers, not to mention everyone else, in their desire for power and control. I generally view a party as necessarily containing managers, which spells trouble for anyone interested in liberation.

Well, you're wrong. Quit *****ing about how "parties are evil" or whatever such bullshit you believe, because it's wrong, as is your conception of "vanguard" and "vanguard party".

RevMARKSman

5th January 2007, 13:27

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 06:57 am
The leninist party isn't something that's seperate from the proletariat, it is the very fist of the proletariat in its class-struggle. For instance; many trotskyst and anarchist groups are now screaming that Chavez isn't moving fast enough towards revolution in Venezuela. While Chavez is working hard on the creation of a revolutionary venezuelan party some of these oppositionists scream about 'power to the independent workers councils'. However, these 'councils' don't even exist. I think it is clear that we are talking about leftist oppurtunism in this case and the same goes for the whole discussion here. Leftists are always talking about the revolution like it's a pure thing following clear schematics of how it should go and what it would look like and because reality doens't follow or obey to these ideal schematics they condemn every revolutionary potential, hell they'll even fight it if it contradicts there theories.
Wait...revolution in Venezuela?

Where are the guns? Where is the spontaneous proletarian uprising against oppressors? Where is the ABOLITION OF THE PRICE SYSTEM? of WAGE SLAVERY? Hell, where's the violence? Where's the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus? Last thing I heard, Chavez was elected under the bourgeois-"democratic" system.

Oops. He's a reformist.

...it's one of those "revolutions."

Vargha Poralli

5th January 2007, 15:03

Originally posted by MonicaTTmed+January 05, 2007 06:57 pm--> (MonicaTTmed @ January 05, 2007 06:57 pm)
[email protected] 03, 2007 06:57 am
The leninist party isn't something that's seperate from the proletariat, it is the very fist of the proletariat in its class-struggle. For instance; many trotskyst and anarchist groups are now screaming that Chavez isn't moving fast enough towards revolution in Venezuela. While Chavez is working hard on the creation of a revolutionary venezuelan party some of these oppositionists scream about 'power to the independent workers councils'. However, these 'councils' don't even exist. I think it is clear that we are talking about leftist oppurtunism in this case and the same goes for the whole discussion here. Leftists are always talking about the revolution like it's a pure thing following clear schematics of how it should go and what it would look like and because reality doens't follow or obey to these ideal schematics they condemn every revolutionary potential, hell they'll even fight it if it contradicts there theories.
Wait...revolution in Venezuela?

Where are the guns? Where is the spontaneous proletarian uprising against oppressors? Where is the ABOLITION OF THE PRICE SYSTEM? of WAGE SLAVERY? Hell, where's the violence? Where's the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus? Last thing I heard, Chavez was elected under the bourgeois-"democratic" system.

Oops. He's a reformist.

...it's one of those "revolutions." [/b]
Its easy to denounce everything in this board.Have you ever visited a third world country.Its very much difficult to do any thing progressive here.The way i see it Chavez is no way near to a socialist but what he does inspite of it should be welcomed. Trust me generally politicians in the third world never care for people except in the time of elections.And if Chavez is not supported by his people he will never have won any elections and if you don't support whom the people support will you think they will listen to you ?

gilhyle

5th January 2007, 15:03

I have to say I have never understood this idea of spontaneous self-organisation except as the idea that noone with any political experience is allowed to be involved in militant action, particularly if he/she has some comrades who keep in touch and coordinate together...... the fear of bureacuracy is entirely reasonable but the refusal to organise political parties is surely cutting off your nose to spite your face.

That said, I cant take seriously, either, the idea that a small vanguard party that can just sit there, perfectly healthy, waiting for a devastating economic crisis and then popping out of nowhere to provide effective leadership for the class.

None of this works.

RevMARKSman

5th January 2007, 15:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:03 am

Wait...revolution in Venezuela?

Where are the guns? Where is the spontaneous proletarian uprising against oppressors? Where is the ABOLITION OF THE PRICE SYSTEM? of WAGE SLAVERY? Hell, where's the violence? Where's the destruction of the bourgeois state apparatus? Last thing I heard, Chavez was elected under the bourgeois-"democratic" system.

Oops. He's a reformist.

...it's one of those "revolutions."
Its easy to denounce everything in this board.Have you ever visited a third world country.Its very much difficult to do any thing progressive here.The way i see it Chavez is no way near to a socialist but what he does inspite of it should be welcomed. Trust me generally politicians in the third world never care for people except in the time of elections.And if Chavez is not supported by his people he will never have won any elections and if you don't support whom the people support will you think they will listen to you ?
It may be difficult to do anything progressive, but does that mean we should settle for less? What Chavez does effectively pacifies the working class: "Forget an actual revolution, we're fine under Chavez!" It simply makes people settle for bourgeois reformism instead of real liberation. Venezuela is state-capitalist.

Great, people support Chavez now. But is that what we as communists want? The majority of workers in the U.S. are conservative. Does that mean we must change our politics if we want to gain majority support?

NO! We do not assimilate into a period of reaction. We do not do theoretical action X simply because "the majority of workers do it." We are a political group with specific theories, not "worker groupies" who follow what the majority of the working class thinks at any given place, any given time. We try to make other workers realize that they're being screwed over by capitalism. That's why we print magazines and newspapers, post flyers, graffiti, form organizations of our own instead of trying to "fit in."

Workers are not correct "simply because they're workers."

The Grey Blur

5th January 2007, 19:20

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 05, 2007 01:47 am

You seem to be opposed to anyone attempting to organise the working class on any issue...

And that is ultra-leftism in a nutshell.
But BBBG isn't an ultra-leftist, since he is advocating organic working-class action. My beef was his rejection of all 'organisers' as inherently worthless or elitist.

Experience, dedication, organisation and leadership are all essential to a revolutionary working-class movement and these come through a highly motivated nuclei of Socialists working within the working class and side by side with workers on their issues.

...it's one of those "revolutions."
The revolutionary movement in Venezuala is an inspiration to the oppressed of the world, Chavez's government has instituted social schemes which have massive popularity with the poor, the workers are becoming more and more radicalised (which in turn is forcing the radicalistion of the leadership), Chavez's populist anti-imperialist stance is helping make Socialism relevant again.

Workers are not correct "simply because they're workers."
No, but we, as Socialists, support the working class in it's struggles against the ill effects of Capitalism while providing critiscism and an independent analysis - you can sit on the sidelines and sneer but it won't make much difference.

bcbm

5th January 2007, 19:26

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 05, 2007 07:14 am
Well, you're wrong. Quit *****ing about how "parties are evil" or whatever such bullshit you believe, because it's wrong, as is your conception of "vanguard" and "vanguard party".
Don't tell me what to do you fucking ****. The point of a discussion board is to have a discussion, not just yell "You're wrong, you're wrong!" at people like a spoiled brat. I've already stated my views, and have a great deal of history to back them up. If you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, otherwise fuck off.

5th January 2007, 20:18

Originally posted by black banner black gun+January 05, 2007 07:26 pm--> (black banner black gun @ January 05, 2007 07:26 pm)
Zampanò@January 05, 2007 07:14 am
Well, you're wrong. Quit *****ing about how "parties are evil" or whatever such bullshit you believe, because it's wrong, as is your conception of "vanguard" and "vanguard party".
Don't tell me what to do you fucking ****. The point of a discussion board is to have a discussion, not just yell "You're wrong, you're wrong!" at people like a spoiled brat. I've already stated my views, and have a great deal of history to back them up. If you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, otherwise fuck off. [/b]
Another point of a discussion board is to treat people with respect. A concept you don't seem to grasp at all.

5th January 2007, 20:32

Don't tell me what to do you fucking ****. The point of a discussion board is to have a discussion, not just yell "You're wrong, you're wrong!" at people like a spoiled brat. I've already stated my views, and have a great deal of history to back them up. If you want to talk about it, let's talk about it, otherwise fuck off.

Listen, you said that you "generally view a party as necessarily containing managers" which isn't true. You're wrong. Deal with it.

RevMARKSman

5th January 2007, 21:06

No, but we, as Socialists, support the working class in it's struggles against the ill effects of Capitalism while providing critiscism and an independent analysis - you can sit on the sidelines and sneer but it won't make much difference.

Then where's the criticism?

I don't see anyone saying, "Chavez's reforms are okay but they're not going far enough in the working class interest!"

It's just "Support Chavez in the working class struggle against imperialism!"

If you guys really support the working class, support their self-governance instead of someone telling them that X is what they want!

The revolutionary movement in Venezuala is an inspiration to the oppressed of the world

Where's the revolution? I see laws and red banners but you know--the workers are not governing themselves.

Chavez's government has instituted social schemes which have massive popularity with the poor, the workers are becoming more and more radicalised (which in turn is forcing the radicalistion of the leadership), Chavez's populist anti-imperialist stance is helping make Socialism relevant again.

They have massive popularity with the poor. So what? Today charity programs and food banks have "massive popularity with the poor" but do they accomplish anything in the long run? The exploitative system still exists--or are you telling me there's no private property in Venezuela?

And about the workers becomign "more radicalised"--What kind of radicals are they? The communist radicals who demand that Chavez stop speaking for them, or the religious radicals who think they need a leader to rally around?

By the way, with radicals who are groupies to a leader, he only needs to change his rhetoric to progress with the opinions of the people. The actual laws don't matter, as long as he keeps up the message that he is "an ally of the people."

Okay, Chavez is a populist and anti-imperialist. But is that all we want to achieve? We communists want to achieve more...although that would explain your use of the word "Socialist" in your posts instead of "communist." We want to overthrow all "benevolent leaders", demolish all personality cults, demolish religion.

The Grey Blur

5th January 2007, 21:30

Then where's the criticism?

"This election once again revealed the massive divide between the social classes, which has widened since Chávez was first elected in 1998. In the tin-roofed shanty towns on the hills around Caracas the votes went overwhelmingly to Chávez. In the wealthy middle class district of Altamira the overwhelming majority went to Manuel Rosales.

However, this welcome victory has also revealed the continued threat and dangers facing the working class and poor masses in Venezuela.

Although Chávez scored an impressive victory it was evident in the campaign that the right-wing forces around Rosales have managed to re-group and have begun to rebuild the confidence of his supporters. During the campaign the largest opposition rally for years took place. The right was also able to present a united front around one single candidate and they increased their support.

These developments are a warning that the threat of counter-revolution remains and can gain ground in the coming period if the revolution is not taken forward by the working class. The reason for this, is that although Chávez has declared that the revolution in Venezuela is now "socialist" and that it is proceeding to build "socialism in the 21st century," it has not yet overthrown capitalism.

Only a handful of bankrupt companies have been nationalised and state intervention has been limited to the introduction of price controls on some food items and petrol with limits placed on the buying of foreign currency and caps on lending rates.

At the same time, some of the oil revenues have been used to finance social welfare programmes especially for health, education and food. These have been combined with the building of some prestige projects and infrastructure like the building of new bridges and developing the metro system.

Welcome as many of these reforms are, winning massive support amongst the poor and most downtrodden, the continued existence of capitalism has resulted in a growing gap between the rich and the poor."

I don't see anyone saying, "Chavez's reforms are okay but they're not going far enough in the working class interest!"

"Workers need to act independently

The ongoing debate on ‘socialism in the 21st century’ is of extreme significance for Venezuela, as it is for the international working class. The steps taken by the Chávez government in refusing to be part of the worldwide neo-liberal conspiracy and its insistence that another world is possible if it is socialist are a pointer to the movements which will develop as the working class takes action to defend its interests against capitalist exploitation. We are now at a crossroads, in the run-up to the next presidential election in December. The most likely scenario is that Chávez will win. The election campaign in and of itself can provide a new impulse for the movement and push Chávez and the government further to the left.

In this process the workers need to build organisations – trade unions and political parties – that allow them to work out their own politics. To learn in practice which measures are necessary to defend their class interests, to gain experience in the art of class struggle and prepare the overthrow of capitalism. No Marxist would deny how certain outstanding personalities can have an above average influence on developments under the right conditions. The need for the working class as a whole to possess its own instruments of struggle is a question independent of the talents, strengths or weaknesses of one individual. In this sense, the challenge lying ahead for the Venezuelan working class and poor is the choice between revolution and counter-revolution. This is not the same as a personal loyalty test to the individual Chávez. The key question is programmatic. It is a question of the development of fighting organisations for the defence and deepening of the revolution connected with the working out of a correct programme for the establishment of socialism in Venezuela as a first step towards a socialist federation of Latin America and the world."

If you guys really support the working class, support their self-governance instead of someone telling them that X is what they want!
If you really support the working class, in this case the working class of Venezuala, you should support their popularily elected representatives as well as defend their revolutionary gains in the face of growing counter-revolutionary forces. Yes Chavez alone cannot bring Socialism to Venezuala - this is why we push for further revolutionary actions by the working class & poor such as the nationalisation of factories, the organising of workers councils and the propagation of Socialism as an alternative.

bcbm

6th January 2007, 01:16

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 05, 2007 02:18 pm
Another point of a discussion board is to treat people with respect. A concept you don't seem to grasp at all.
I don't think somebody telling me "You're wrong, quit *****ing" constitutes respect at all. Why should I give it to those who give me none?

Listen, you said that you "generally view a party as necessarily containing managers" which isn't true. You're wrong. Deal with it.

Prove me wrong, dipshit, don't just say so. What parties haven't contained managers (or bureaucrats, etc) in one form or another?

And I take it you then agree that parties do have a long and colorful history of selling out, and actively working against, revolutionaries? <_<

6th January 2007, 06:31

Prove me wrong, dipshit, don't just say so. What parties haven't contained managers (or bureaucrats, etc) in one form or another?

There's a bunch, but I could tell you firsthand that the League is one.

Oh, and you can stop with the flaming.

And I take it you then agree that parties do have a long and colorful history of selling out, and actively working against, revolutionaries?

In a sense. However, I recognize the fact that it isn't political parties themselves that are the problem, but who is in control of them. Obviously, a party dominated by petty-bourgeois bureaucrats is going to serve the interests of the petty-bourgeoisie. A party dominated by the working class won't have this problem, since the working class isn't going to "sell out" or "work against" itself. So I'm not sure exactly why you have a problem with the idea of a "party"; either you're saying that parties inherently have this attribute, in which case you're wrong, or I'm misinterpreting you.

bcbm

6th January 2007, 07:24

Originally posted by Zampanò@January 06, 2007 12:31 am
There's a bunch, but I could tell you firsthand that the League is one.
How is it organized? Just curious, not insinuating anything.

Oh, and you can stop with the flaming.

Oh darling, I don't mean to be crass but your disposition in previous posts drove me to harsh words. My apologies.

A party dominated by the working class won't have this problem, since the working class isn't going to "sell out" or "work against" itself.

Oh? I don't think that one stands up very well to history either. Sometimes the working class is more than willing to sell out and work against its own interests, even in parties. Bureaucracies especially breed this sort of thing.

So I'm not sure exactly why you have a problem with the idea of a "party"; either you're saying that parties inherently have this attribute, in which case you're wrong, or I'm misinterpreting you.

I'm just going off of history and historically, most parties have been detrimental to the liberation of the under-classes. If the under-classes want to organize themselves into such a unit and can operate it in a way that does not get in the way of liberation, great, but until I see it I will be pretty skeptical of such institutions.