A NEW TYPE OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATION - What Would It Look Li

[redstar2000]

If Leninism and all its variants is no longer a useful method of communist organization, what, then (to coin a phrase), is to be done?

Not being Lenin, I don't have a fully-developed theory of revolutionary communist organization to put forward. Nevertheless, I think there are minimum standards that MUST be met if we are to have reasonable hopes for future success.

1. The organization must first of all BE communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the PRIMARY goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society. New members are admitted on the recommendation of some small number of existing members, who shall vouch for the new member's understanding of Marxism.

2. The communist organization MUST be ultra-democratic. All substantive decision-making power MUST be in the hands of the membership at large. Should the organization establish representative organs, these organs serve at the pleasure of the membership and may be modified or abolished at ANY time for ANY reason by a simple majority vote of the membership.

3. Freedom of dissent is an ABSOLUTE requirement for a vital and effective communist organization. ANY policy and/or ANY particular member may be criticized privately (within the organization) or publicly by any other member.

4. Communist leadership shall consist of guidance, advice, consultation, teaching, etc., but shall NEVER under ANY circumstances be construed or articulated as the power of command.

5. ALL official positions in the organization are to be filled by secret-ballot elections. No person holding an official position in the organization shall EVER receive compensation in excess of the median wage for ordinary workers. Any person that holds an official position in the organization may be removed from that position at ANY time for ANY reason by a simple majority vote of the membership.

6. No member of the organization shall EVER be compelled to articulate or defend a policy or position with which that member disagrees; nor shall any member EVER be required to implement a policy or project with which that member disagrees.

7. Any member may be expelled from the organization at ANY time for ANY reason by a 2/3rds majority vote of the membership.

8. The media that the organization may establish shall be open on a reasonable basis to the views of every member of the organization.

Some have referred to this discussion as "the party of the future", but I frankly think we should junk the term "party" altogether. It has numerous unsavory connotations and no advantages that I can think of. I would prefer terms like "league", "association", or "movement". I would also like to work the word "neo" (new) into the name in some way--to distinguish us from all that has gone before under the name of "communism".

I fully understand that all of the Leninists will regard the above as "unserious", "chaotic", "inefficient", and even "unmilitary", blah, blah, blah. Who cares? I'm REALLY interested in what pro-communist individuals who are NOT in any group at this point think. If such a group existed, would YOU feel comfortable joining it? And if not, why not?

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:34 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:37 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)

[Len]

I'm in. Sounds like a great idea.

[buteo]

redstar

one issue thats on my mind right now is the presence of money.

I've been bent on getting rid of the idea all together and feel it leads to greed.... I like the idea of bartering better...

Another essential item is the care of the environment... it should always be protected over profits or land use. And so I think it would be a good idea to include it in the minimum standards.

Otherwise, it sounds like a good basis...though Im sure there's lots more missing.

And one other question, How will the geographical barriers between people and groups change the course of development of this new organization?

[Blackberry]

Quote: from buteo on 10:40 pm on Nov. 22, 2002
redstar

one issue thats on my mind right now is the presence of money.

I've been bent on getting rid of the idea all together and feel it leads to greed.... I like the idea of bartering better...


An extract from "Marx On Economics":

In the case of socialised production, the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labour-power and means of production to the different lines of occupation. The producers may eventually receive paper checks, by means of which they withdraw from the social supply of means of consumption a share corresponding to their labour-time. These checks are not money. They do not circulate.

=====
That is perhaps a solution you may like?

[RGacky3]

I think its a great Idea
BUT
before we complain about what the organisations "theory"
is, you have to start the organisation, thats the important thing.

[man in the red suit]

Quote: from RGacky3 on 2:22 am on Nov. 23, 2002
I think its a great Idea
BUT
before we complain about what the organisations "theory"
is, you have to start the organisation, thats the important thing.

yes, a community union socialist organization at that.

[redstar2000]

To be honest, I haven't given much thought to how to "start" such a new communist organization, yet. I'm more interested, right now, in what pro-communist individuals think of the general outline. But I'm willing to try and see if I can think of some practical steps---it may be too soon to really think in those terms (starting) until perhaps a few hundred people are really serious about the idea.

Buteo raises one practical question: what to do about the fact that we live in different cities, different countries, etc. My INSTINCT is to say: fuck boundaries! "The workers have no country" (Marx & Engels)...why should we? But even if that's true, there are obvious practical difficulties that would have to be overcome.

It's a BIG job. It's complicated. Not to sound pompous, but we're talking about a 5th (or 6th, I've lost track of the numbers) International. It might take 20 or 30 or more years before such a formation would have serious political significance. NOT a task for the faint of heart!

But something NEEDS to be done; a new beginning for communism NEEDS to happen. And when it does, I think the outline I put forward--or something very much like it--will be the best basis on which to move forward.

[Jaha]

I salute the neo-communist movement.

this is a quality basis. i say, let the future members figure out the details.

and the issue of money: how do paper checks differ from money? if i write a check out to frank and he writes a check to bob, that is the same as me giving money to frank and he gives money to bob.

the ONLY difference is that you need to write out each check when bills and coins are already complete. oh, and i suppose it discourages theft, but it still supports capitalist ideals.

in a communist nation, economic value cannot exist. not in bill, coin, check or credit.

everyone has earned what they need merely by being alive. everyone is obligated to guarantee that everyone else gets what they need. those who fail should not be doomed to die. the commune rises and falls together. together.

[Kehoe]

That old famous quote states,"The love of money is the root of all evil" ... not money ... but the love of money ... to view everything on the basis of monetary value.As for the idea of a new type of communist organization ... I think that most professing socialists should consider becoming novelists ... they and their ideas are confined to the mystical world of dreams. - Karo

[redstar2000]

Comrade Kehoe, I'll take that as a NO. :D

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 1:31 am on Nov. 23, 2002
If Leninism and all its variants is no longer a useful method of communist organization, what, then (to coin a phrase), is to be done?

Not being Lenin, I don't have a fully-developed theory of revolutionary communist organization to put forward. Nevertheless, I think there are minimum standards that MUST be met if we are to have reasonable hopes for future success.

1. The organization must first of all BE communist. Every member must have an understanding of basic Marxist concepts--especially the PRIMARY goal of abolishing the capitalist ruling class and building a communist, classless society. New members are admitted on the recommendation of some small number of existing members, who shall vouch for the new member's understanding of Marxism.

2. The communist organization MUST be ultra-democratic. All substantive decision-making power MUST be in the hands of the membership at large. Should the organization establish representative organs, these organs serve at the pleasure of the membership and may be modified or abolished at ANY time for ANY reason by a simple majority vote of the membership.

3. Freedom of dissent is an ABSOLUTE requirement for a vital and effective communist organization. ANY policy and/or ANY particular member may be criticized privately (within the organization) or publicly by any other member.

4. Communist leadership shall consist of guidance, advice, consultation, teaching, etc., but shall NEVER under ANY circumstances be construed or articulated as the power of command.

5. ALL official positions in the organization are to be filled by secret-ballot elections. No person holding an official position in the organization shall EVER receive compensation in excess of the median wage for ordinary workers. Any person that holds an official position in the organization may be removed from that position at ANY time for ANY reason by a simple majority vote of the membership.

6. No member of the organization shall EVER be compelled to articulate or defend a policy or position with which that member disagrees; nor shall any member EVER be required to implement a policy or project with which that member disagrees.

7. Any member may be expelled from the organization at ANY time for ANY reason by a 2/3rds majority vote of the membership.

8. The media that the organization may establish shall be open on a reasonable basis to the views of every member of the organization.

Some have referred to this discussion as "the party of the future", but I frankly think we should junk the term "party" altogether. It has numerous unsavory connotations and no advantages that I can think of. I would prefer terms like "league", "association", or "movement". I would also like to work the word "neo" (new) into the name in some way--to distinguish us from all that has gone before under the name of "communism".

I fully understand that all of the Leninists will regard the above as "unserious", "chaotic", "inefficient", and even "unmilitary", blah, blah, blah. Who cares? I'm REALLY interested in what pro-communist individuals who are NOT in any group at this point think. If such a group existed, would YOU feel comfortable joining it? And if not, why not?

(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:34 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)


(Edited by redstar2000 at 8:37 pm on Nov. 22, 2002)



Quote:” If Leninism and all its variants is no longer a useful method of communist organization, what, then (to coin a phrase), is to be done?”

LOL.
Communist Party, based on Lenin’s principles is the best form of the political organization of the working class. Read the thread, started by me in “Politics”: “Party, as the leader of the people.” Hopefully, you will understand Lenin’s point.


Quote:” 1. The organization must first of all BE communist”

Do you call yourself COMMUNIST, after saying that Leninist party of a new type, is not something you would like to support?

Quote:” 2. The communist organization MUST be ultra-democratic.”

Communist party must be democratic. BUT, no factions inside the party structure must be presented and all members must agree with the party’s platform. If one disagrees then this person must be expelled.

Quote:” I fully understand that all of the Leninists will regard the above as "unserious", "chaotic", "inefficient", and even "unmilitary", blah, blah, blah. Who cares? “

Ignorant people really don’t care. You, redstar, mislead comrades.
I want to know the strategy and tactics of your “organization”. It is apparent, that your “organization “ can’t be called Marxist-Leninist, as you negate Lenin’s teaching, therefore your imaginary “organization, deserves to be called OPPORTUNISTIC organization of the POLITICALLY UNEDUCATED PEOPLE!

[redstar2000]

I'm crushed! :cheesy:

[Ian]

I think any political organization 'neo-communist' or otherwise must adhere to Lenin's revolutionary militancy ie. assuming state power ASAP, or it may become ultra-leftist and quite inactive, something we definately do not need.
Proclaiming the 'neo-communist' party 'the most advanced form of marxism' or some other cliché that is always spat out by the followers of a sub-ideology is counter-productive, people will not give a shit, just present policiespeople they can relate to, explain the struggle and why we must build a revolutionary party, because capitalism is essentially the same as it was in Marx's days.
I do not believe parties should be formed, unities like the Socialist Alliance in Australia should be forged and campaigning should continue under the banner of the alliance, not under the seperate parties banners, eventually I think parties should dissolve into the alliance and become minor tendencies (like what was proposed by the DSP, probably the most modern marxist party in Australia).
All Cadres should be well versed in marxism, their should be provisional periods (3-9 months) in place so comrades can figure out whether or not the new members are the right material for a revolutionary marxist party, and whether the new member wants to continue as a member at the end of it all. At the end of the provisional period members should be allowed to vote and stand for all positions offered in the party.

anyway that was my rant

[redstar2000]

"assuming state power as soon as possible"--I'm not sure what that means in this context.

I'm not familiar with the Socialist Alliance in Australia--is that an umbrella group formed to campaign in parliamentary elections or is it more of a "direct action" group? I believe there is an English group of the same name which does run candidates for parliament.

In the kind of organization I propose, the membership would DECIDE if they wanted to followi that strategy or a different strategy; and it would be fairly easy to CHANGE a strategy that wasn't working out. One of the built-in disadvantages of the old Leninist model was that once the leadership decided on a policy (with usually only formal consultation of the membership), there was little that a member of the organization could do except WAIT for the leadership to come to their senses, realize they had blundered, and THEN the bad strategy would be changed...but as often as not for ANOTHER bad strategy.

Redstar's Law: THE FEWER THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN MAKING A POLITICAL DECISION, THE WORSE THAT DECISION IS LIKELY TO BE AND THE HARDER IT WILL BE TO CORRECT IT.

"ultra-left and inactive"--that's always a danger, of course. But consider the alternative, which is FAR more likely and FAR more dangerous: VERY active and NOT left at all.

I share Ian's distaste for "parties"--in fact, you'll note that I suggested we dump the word altogether. It was once a useful term--now, at least in left circles, it just suggests another small self-appointed "vanguard" with an itch for power that they expect us to scratch. No.

The idea of a probationary period for new members is a good one; I agree.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 11:21 pm on Dec. 5, 2002
"assuming state power as soon as possible"--I'm not sure what that means in this context.

I'm not familiar with the Socialist Alliance in Australia--is that an umbrella group formed to campaign in parliamentary elections or is it more of a "direct action" group? I believe there is an English group of the same name which does run candidates for parliament.

In the kind of organization I propose, the membership would DECIDE if they wanted to followi that strategy or a different strategy; and it would be fairly easy to CHANGE a strategy that wasn't working out. One of the built-in disadvantages of the old Leninist model was that once the leadership decided on a policy (with usually only formal consultation of the membership), there was little that a member of the organization could do except WAIT for the leadership to come to their senses, realize they had blundered, and THEN the bad strategy would be changed...but as often as not for ANOTHER bad strategy.

Redstar's Law: THE FEWER THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN MAKING A POLITICAL DECISION, THE WORSE THAT DECISION IS LIKELY TO BE AND THE HARDER IT WILL BE TO CORRECT IT.

"ultra-left and inactive"--that's always a danger, of course. But consider the alternative, which is FAR more likely and FAR more dangerous: VERY active and NOT left at all.

I share Ian's distaste for "parties"--in fact, you'll note that I suggested we dump the word altogether. It was once a useful term--now, at least in left circles, it just suggests another small self-appointed "vanguard" with an itch for power that they expect us to scratch. No.

The idea of a probationary period for new members is a good one; I agree.



Quote: “In the kind of organization I propose, the membership would DECIDE if they wanted to followi that strategy or a different strategy; and it would be fairly easy to CHANGE a strategy that wasn't working out”

The party must be united in order to be strong. Do you know why there was a split on Bolsheviks and Mensheviks in the Russian socialistic movement at the beginning of the 20th century? One group (which turned into Mensheviks) disagreed with the strategy and tactics of the true Marxists (Bolsheviks).
The strategy of the party must be based on the scientific theory, which is Marxism – Leninism (or if you are anti- Marxist you can chose different theory, but still the members have to be the followers of the COMMON ideology). In this case serious disagreements wouldn’t take place.
Party creates the platform, according to the ideology it presents. For example: if it is Marxist- Leninist party, then the platform should be based on the theoretical teachings of Marx and Lenin, therefore all members, who share one ideology will agree with the platform.
But, redstar, would your organization consist of the people who don’t share the common principles? If your answer is YES, then you are doomed on failure.


Quote: “One of the built-in disadvantages of the old Leninist model was that once the leadership decided on a policy (with usually only formal consultation of the membership), there was little that a member of the organization could do except WAIT for the leadership to come to their senses, realize they had blundered, and THEN the bad strategy would be changed...but as often as not for ANOTHER bad strategy.”

My previous words have partly answered on yours.
It is clear that you don’t know anything about the Leninist Communist Party. A platform of such kind of party is discussed by the members and it is possible to make some corrections while discussions go, but these corrections must not contradict to the Marxist-Leninist principles.
Also, the strategy of Marxist- Leninist Party never contains any mistakes. This is Communist Party, all said….We fight for the interests of the working class and use the methods we consider appropriate to use in the modern historical moment.

Quote: “THE FEWER THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE INVOLVED IN MAKING A POLITICAL DECISION, THE WORSE THAT DECISION IS LIKELY TO BE AND THE HARDER IT WILL BE TO CORRECT IT.”


All the decisions are made by the Central Committee of the Communist Party. The Central Committee can consist of 200 people or even more. Is it OK with you?

Quote:” It was once a useful term--now, at least in left circles, it just suggests another small self-appointed "vanguard" with an itch for power that they expect us to scratch.”

VERY SUBJECTIVE!
MARXIST-LENINIST PARTY SERVES TO THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKING CLASS, IT DEFENDS THE INTERESTS OF ALL WORKING PEOPLE. THE PARTY NEEDS TO GET TO THE POWER IN ORDER TO BUILD SOCIALISM, COMMUNISM.
THE PARTY CONSISTS NOT ONLY OF AN INETELECTUALS OF INTELLIGENTSIA, BUT OF THE WORKERS AND PEASANTS, WHO FORM THE MAJORITY OF PARTY’S MEMBERSHIP. THAT IS WHY, you , redstar. CAN BE SURE THAT IT WOULDN’T GO AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE WORKING PEOPLE!

[redstar2000]

"Also the strategy of the Marxist-Leninist Party never contains any mistakes."

DAMN! Why didn't I think of that!! :cool:

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 9:16 am on Dec. 6, 2002
"Also the strategy of the Marxist-Leninist Party never contains any mistakes."

DAMN! Why didn't I think of that!! :cool:


Is it all you have to say? See, you can’t argue against Marxist-Leninist theory.

I meant the modern struggle for socialism in the capitalistic states.
Each Marxist- Leninist party perfectly knows the theory of Marx and Lenin and is able to use it considering the modern conditions. The true Marxist-Leninists will never make any strategic mistakes on the stage of the political struggle for the interests of the working people.

[redstar2000]

"The true Marxist-Leninists will never make any strategic mistakes"

WHY can't I REMEMBER that? :cheesy: