Is one-party state the only way towards communism?

[Kitskits]

Sorry for the super-amateur question, I haven't read much but this hasn't become clear in my mind.

The question is this: Marxism exclusively supports one-party system? The constitution must accept one party - the communist party only, just like done in Cuba, North Korea, China etc? Is this an authoritarian distortion of Marxism or is this the original Marxism?

Thank you very much for your help.

[lvleph]

Maybe I am ignorant too, but I thought that was a Leninist idea?

[Dros]

Yes and no. Yes, there needs to be a government dominated by one party to build socialism. I think it is pretty intuitive why that is-(strong leadership etc...)

No it won't be totalitarian. The U.S. has a multiparty (well really a two party) system but it is totally bankrupt of political diversity. Similarly, certain parties have a wide variety of doctrines represented. I think that political diversity and dissent are crucial to the Vanguard and to socialist society in general.

[Orange Juche]

Any centralized government, no matter what the party claims to support, is counter-revolutionary.

[The Douche]

Communism has no parties, because communism is stateless.

Socialism, in some schools of thought also has no state. Marxist-Leninists will argue yes, a one party state is desireable (with exception of some Trotskyists), and other communists will militantly be opposed to such an idea, usually in favor of no state.

[mikelepore]

All of the repressive measures -- outlawing opposition parties, censorship of the press, secret police spying on citizens, etc. -- NONE of them have any basis in the writings of Marx or Engels.

I believe that actors of the 1917 Russian upheaval got their idea of what a revolution is supposed to be from Robespierre and Marat and the French revolution, more than from anything Marx and Engels ever said. The Russian system seemed to assume that the revolutionariness is measured by the violent oppression that gets committed in its name. Then that Marat-ism, covered with a frosting of Marxian proverbs, is what got exported to China and several other countries.

[Faux Real]

Is one-party state the only way towards communism?
"States" as in centralized governments are not the only nor correct way to go.

As for an international party that's decentralized, I believe that's fine if the workers within those respective parties are in control of it.

Otherwise, multi-parties within a specific locale don't seem negative (other than the members could all work together in the same party if they wanted to) as long as they don't splinter enough to foment counter-revolution.

It depends on the class character and the amount of control the proletariat as a whole have on it.

Don't know what Marx specifically believed about party systems.

[Lenin II]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 08:45 pm
Any centralized government, no matter what the party claims to support, is counter-revolutionary.
The typical parliament, though some of the parties present have absorbed the philosophy of Marxism, in reality is guided by the most shallow maneuvers, bourgeois prejudices, and parliamentary reformism. Representitive "democracy" teaches the proletariat not to believe in itself, but to believe in its reflection in the crooked mirror of "democracy" which has been shattered by the jack-boot of militarism into a thousand fragments.

The sole form of power for the proletariat is not a socialist majority in a democratic parliament, but the political autocracy of the proletariat, its dictatorship. And it is quite clear that, if our problem is the abolition of private property in the means of production, the only road to its solution lies through the concentration of State power in its entirety in the hands of the proletariat, and the setting up for the transitional period of an exceptional regime – a regime in which the ruling class is guided, not by general principles calculated for a prolonged period, but by considerations of revolutionary policy. The dictatorship of the proletariat does not exclude, of course, either separate agreements, or considerable concessions, especially in connection with the lower middle class and the peasantry. But the proletariat can only conclude these agreements after having gained possession of the apparatus of power, and having guaranteed to itself the possibility of independently deciding on which points to yield and on which to stand firm, in the interests of the general Communist task.

[Lamanov]

Marx called for the whole proletariat, the whole working class, to "constitute itself" as a "political party", meaning that working class must come out swinging not only with economic, but with political programme as well, both unified in a revolutionary practice. Under no pretext Marx called for "one-party" system.

Lenin, in contrast, saw the only possible way to achieve socialist construction was through a "vanguard party", a formal and full-fledged political party, nominally shaped though "democratic centralism", but in reality centralistic, hierarchical and with military relations inside of it. If mass class assemblies such as workers' councils existed, the task of the Communist parties (as formulated on the first congress of Comintern) is to win majority by all means and to keep it at by all costs. If revolutionary situation was non-existent, Communist parties are to take part in everyday political life though "representative structures", parliaments and unions.

Non-leninist communists, at least most of them, are militantly opposed to this concept, calling for mass direct democracy of the class, for and by itself. Leninists, in order to achieve their goals, must at first destroy everything that could jeopardize party dominance, including projects erected by self-activity and creativity of the working masses -- as it already happened in Russia, 1917-8, etc.

Answer is: not only that "one party state" is not the way, it is completely opposed to socialism as a system of working class social self-liberation.

[R_P_A_S]

aren't parties irrelevant? I mean once we are organized and have the same economic system?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:46 pm
aren't parties irrelevant? I mean once we are organized and have the same economic system?

Ideally, yes. But revolution jumps out of conditions that are not ideal. Parties, in any revolutionary movement so far, played such a role that in the end - concerning the problem of "representation" - they made a mess that either derailed the movement, or suffocated it all together.

[Dr Mindbender]

the whole point and theory behind communism is that it would eradicate the social conditions that create a purpose behind 'electing' a different political school every 5 years. However i dont see why pluralist democracy cant exist post-revolution, i just dont think it'll be in the same context as capitalist parliamentaryism. For example, the private media will no longer be able to use it influence to wangle mass propaganda via television and newspapers for it's political allies.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by DJ-[email protected] 20, 2007 04:24 pm
Marx called for the whole proletariat, the whole working class, to "constitute itself" as a "political party", meaning that working class must come out swinging not only with economic, but with political programme as well, both unified in a revolutionary practice. Under no pretext Marx called for "one-party" system.

Lenin, in contrast, saw the only possible way to achieve socialist construction was through a "vanguard party", a formal and full-fledged political party, nominally shaped though "democratic centralism", but in reality centralistic, hierarchical and with military relations inside of it. If mass class assemblies such as workers' councils existed, the task of the Communist parties (as formulated on the first congress of Comintern) is to win majority by all means and to keep it at by all costs. If revolutionary situation was non-existent, Communist parties are to take part in everyday political life though "representative structures", parliaments and unions.

Non-leninist communists, at least most of them, are militantly opposed to this concept, calling for mass direct democracy of the class, for and by itself. Leninists, in order to achieve their goals, must at first destroy everything that could jeopardize party dominance, including projects erected by self-activity and creativity of the working masses -- as it already happened in Russia, 1917-8, etc.

Answer is: not only that "one party state" is not the way, it is completely opposed to socialism as a system of working class social self-liberation.
Are you really a left-communist, or are you an "autonomous Marxist" with left-communist sympathies? <_<

I&#39;m tempted right now to start a big rant against the idea of "spontaneity," which unites anarchists, "autonomous Marxists" (as opposed to proper left communism), and even revisionists (that capitalism can "spontaneously" evolve into socialism).

[Killer Enigma]

Communism has no parties, because communism is stateless.
Your statement is non sequiter. The presence of political parties or associated organs does not necessitate a state.

[Killer Enigma]

Originally posted by R_[email protected] 20, 2007 11:46 pm
aren&#39;t parties irrelevant? I mean once we are organized and have the same economic system?
Consider the following:

The Democrats and the Republicans in the United States both represent the capitalist mode of production. However, the manner in which they do so, one must concede, is radically different. They both have differing beliefs on the fundamentals of how capitalism ought to operate. We view it as "not having a choice". In a sense, the workers do have a choice: they choose the manner in which they will be oppressed. The bourgeoisie have the greatest choice of all. They get to choose how they themselves will operate.

Socialism will be no different. There will be opposing factions with differing beliefs on the best manners of achieving, maintaining, and refining socialism. Look at the sheer amount of Trotskyist groups alone currently and you can see the diversity through unity (united, that is, by a fundamental belief in worker-ownership of the means of production).

This is why the notion of having a one-party state is fundamentally-flawed. Groups need to be able to freely express their beliefs on how a system ought to be run and if the workers side with that group, that group ought to govern.

Examine even capitalist parties: Allow them to freely organize. That, of course, is the democratic way. The revolution may need to be defended for a time, but gradually capitalist parties will become an anachronism, just as loyalists to the throne gradually died out in America after the revolutionary war (liberal democratic revolution). You would be unable to find a man, much less a party, advocating the return to feudalism and absolutism now. Socialism will be much the same way if the capitalist influences are allowed to die out. This way, democracy is not undermined and the revolution lives on.

[Killer Enigma]

I&#39;m tempted right now to start a big rant against the idea of "spontaneity," which unites anarchists, "autonomous Marxists," and even revisionists (that capitalism can "spontaneously" evolve into socialism).
That is a gross misrepresentation of the left-communist ideology. Luxemburg, for instance, called for a mass strike. Such would only be "spontaneous" in that it would occur from workers, for lack of a better phrase, "finally having enough". The actions to follow the mass strike would need to be cultivated and guided by a party (as Luxemburg even acknowledged) but without betraying the grassroots origins of the movement. I encourage you to read up on Luxemburg (for your convenience, The Mass Strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm)), and to an extent, Pannekoek (though what he professed fell more in line with later anarcho-syndicalists like Rocker). Lenin&#39;s seminal work on left-communism is worth reading, but by no means should it be your only source.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 20, 2007 09:53 pm

I&#39;m tempted right now to start a big rant against the idea of "spontaneity," which unites anarchists, "autonomous Marxists," and even revisionists (that capitalism can "spontaneously" evolve into socialism).
That is a gross misrepresentation of the left-communist ideology. Luxemburg, for instance, called for a mass strike. Such would only be "spontaneous" in that it would occur from workers, for lack of a better phrase, "finally having enough". The actions to follow the mass strike would need to be cultivated and guided by a party (as Luxemburg even acknowledged) but without betraying the grassroots origins of the movement. I encourage you to read up on Luxemburg (for your convenience, The Mass Strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm)), and to an extent, Pannekoek (though what he professed fell more in line with later anarcho-syndicalists like Rocker). Lenin&#39;s seminal work on left-communism is worth reading, but by no means should it be your only source.
^^^ To clarify, I did make the distinction between "left communism" and "autonomous Marxism" (and this coming from someone with ICC sympathies). <_< The former recognizes the need for militant organization, while the latter reeks of vulgar materialism (that material conditions will spontaneously induce revolutionary action without any organization whatsoever).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 04:50 am

Any centralized government, no matter what the party claims to support, is counter-revolutionary.

So why do you have "Classical Marxist" under your avatar?

The Communist Manifesto is about as "classic" as it gets, right?

"The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State..." - The Communist Manifesto
I am not against "centralization" comrade, but quoting the communist manifesto about it is really tricky.

The manifesto is one of his first works, and certainly his viewpoint kept evolving.

Now about centralization....

The paris commune practiced "centralization". Neighborhoods throughout the city were represented by different delegates in the state, and such state having authority over the neighborhoods.

A confederation of "communes" sounds really good on paper, but what if a certain "commune" happened to be situated over an important source of oil?

The ideal thing would be an international, planned. world economy. There is nothing wrong with planned economies while they are democratic. Indeed, now with the information age, planned economies can reach incredible potentials.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by Killer [email protected] 20, 2007 10:37 pm
That is an important distinction. However, autonomous Marxism focuses not on the idea of complete spontaneity but rather that certain points of traditional Marxism ought to be abandoned because of the material conditions which arise in a certain situation. For instance, the autonomous Marxist movement puts much focus on redefining the proletariat as a class to include sections of what traditional Marxists would consider the petty-bourgeoisie. Simply because they reject the notion of a vanguard party as a means of raising class consciousness does not indicate that they reject any cultivation whatsoever.
Based on my "six classes" question in the Theory forum (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72581), what sections would those be? Coordinators/managers (Class 4)? Security guards, cops, and obsolete handicraftsmen (Class 2)? Lumpenproles (Class 1)? :huh:

[And I&#39;m in your debt, since you were the one who rebutted Companero by pointing out that I used the exact same Marxist "distinctions" in recognizing the existence of at least six classes (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=72555&view=findpost&p=1292408219).]

In addition, certain aspects of traditional Marxism can quite easily sink down into vulgar materialism (such as the reductionism of base-superstructure relations, ignoring the skeletal - organisational - framework of said superstructure, since Marx was comparing these relations to those of buildings).

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 21, 2007 05:37 am

Anyway, our job is not to base ourselves on what Marx (or anyone) thought at this or that time, but to base ourselves on what is correct.
Of course, I am a communist first, and then a "marxist".

[Kitskits]

Thanx for your answers, comrades&#33; :)

Is there something I can read on that subject? I mean what happens (should happen) after the revolution but something specific, i.e. mentioning the word parties, opposition, politics etc NOT about economics of socialism, transition to communism etc. Preferrably some book or writting that denounces extermination of all oposition and such things.

I just need hard proof to show to people when I hear the usual propaganda about how authoritarian socialism is...

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)Are you really a left-communist, or are you an "autonomous Marxist" with left-communist sympathies? I&#39;m tempted right now to start a big rant against the idea of "spontaneity," which unites anarchists, "autonomous Marxists" (as opposed to proper left communism), and even revisionists (that capitalism can "spontaneously" evolve into socialism).[/b]

Hammer
To clarify, I did make the distinction between "left communism" and "autonomous Marxism" (and this coming from someone with ICC sympathies). The former recognizes the need for militant organization, while the latter reeks of vulgar materialism (that material conditions will spontaneously induce revolutionary action without any organization whatsoever).

Hammer, I think that&#39;s a gross misinterpretation of "Autonomous Marxism". Quite the opposite, Autonomists always insisted that subjective action is the only possible challenge to capitalism. To go even further, they rejected any notion of objectified "decadence".

The question is not of organizing or not.

The question is: organizing how and for what purpose?

Besides. What does it mean to be in a "militant organization"? Does ICC insist on "What is to be Done?" tactics? Weren&#39;t Autonomists organized in local groups? Don&#39;t libertarian Marxists and socialists insist on self-organization of the proletariat? Isn&#39;t anarcho-syndicalism all about "Organize&#33;"? Etc.

I suggest you don&#39;t use such heavy expressions that might not be fair to people and movements you talk about, and try to be little more clear.

* * *

Let&#39;s be clear here. What does adherence to "spontaneity" mean? "Let&#39;s just all sit and wait"? Is that it? I think anyone accused of such a thing would be mortally offended, myself included.

[Marsella]

Let&#39;s be clear here. What does adherence to "spontaneity" mean? "Let&#39;s just all sit and wait"? Is that it? I think anyone accused of such a thing would be mortally offended, myself included.

Spontaneity seems to mean to Hammer, not a result of the actions of a party.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 02:45 pm

Let&#39;s be clear here. What does adherence to "spontaneity" mean? "Let&#39;s just all sit and wait"? Is that it? I think anyone accused of such a thing would be mortally offended, myself included.

Spontaneity seems to mean to Hammer, not a result of the actions of a party.

OK, let&#39;s be clear then: person who is against such "spontaneity" is not a Left Communist of any sort nor a "sympathiser" of any kind.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by Hammer+November 21, 2007 05:22 am--> (Hammer @ November 21, 2007 05:22 am)
Killer [email protected] 20, 2007 09:53 pm

I&#39;m tempted right now to start a big rant against the idea of "spontaneity," which unites anarchists, "autonomous Marxists," and even revisionists (that capitalism can "spontaneously" evolve into socialism).
That is a gross misrepresentation of the left-communist ideology. Luxemburg, for instance, called for a mass strike. Such would only be "spontaneous" in that it would occur from workers, for lack of a better phrase, "finally having enough". The actions to follow the mass strike would need to be cultivated and guided by a party (as Luxemburg even acknowledged) but without betraying the grassroots origins of the movement. I encourage you to read up on Luxemburg (for your convenience, The Mass Strike (http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/index.htm)), and to an extent, Pannekoek (though what he professed fell more in line with later anarcho-syndicalists like Rocker). Lenin&#39;s seminal work on left-communism is worth reading, but by no means should it be your only source.
^^^ To clarify, I did make the distinction between "left communism" and "autonomous Marxism" (and this coming from someone with ICC sympathies). <_< The former recognizes the need for militant organization, while the latter reeks of vulgar materialism (that material conditions will spontaneously induce revolutionary action without any organization whatsoever). [/b]
I appear to be the only Autonomist left on the board. Though I thank the comrades who have correctly deffended autonomism.

Autonomism doesn&#39;t promote the idea that the material conditions for revolution will spontaneously produce it. It maintains, like all other forms of Marxism, that the material conditions create the opportunity and need for revolution. It does, however, stand opposed to parties and unions. You interpret this opposition to mean that it opposes all forms of organisation. I know you&#39;re not stupid, I know you&#39;re aware of other forms of radical organisations. Autonomism maintains that the workers must organise into whatever kind of groups will accomplish thier goal. As long as they create, direct, and maintain the organisation themselves.

Autonomism also maintained the working class, organised, and with concentrated effort, could force change on capitalism. That&#39;s why things like the red brigades grew out of the automist movement.

[Marsella]

I appear to be the only Autonomist left on the board. Though I thank the comrades who have correctly deffended autonomism.

No I am sure there are others.


It does, however, stand opposed to parties and unions. You interpret this opposition to mean that it opposes all forms of organisation. I know you&#39;re not stupid, I know you&#39;re aware of other forms of radical organisations. Autonomism maintains that the workers must organise into whatever kind of groups will accomplish thier goal. As long as they create, direct, and maintain the organisation themselves.

And do not some unions fall into that category?

Could you, or anyone here, recommend some Autonomist communist writers?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:46 pm
Could you, or anyone here, recommend some Autonomist communist writers?

Operaismo Archive (http://www.generation-online.org/t/ppp.htm) for start... there are enough links on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autonomist_marxism).


And do not some unions fall into that category?

No.

[The Douche]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21, 2007 03:46 pm

I appear to be the only Autonomist left on the board. Though I thank the comrades who have correctly deffended autonomism.

No I am sure there are others.


It does, however, stand opposed to parties and unions. You interpret this opposition to mean that it opposes all forms of organisation. I know you&#39;re not stupid, I know you&#39;re aware of other forms of radical organisations. Autonomism maintains that the workers must organise into whatever kind of groups will accomplish thier goal. As long as they create, direct, and maintain the organisation themselves.

And do not some unions fall into that category?

Could you, or anyone here, recommend some Autonomist communist writers?
There are some unions who claim to meet that description, like the IWW. (I&#39;m in the US, I don&#39;t know about Europe, but I assume the CNT would be the equivalent, and I assume these are the unions you&#39;re referring to, syndicalst ones)

Autonomists oppose unions because they see them as tools only useful for reform. The only real revolutionary purpose that they serve is to organise the workers and to help them think as a class instead of individuals. But the workers can do the same thing in much more informal structures, which may even serve the same function as a union.

I would reccomend Malatesta&#39;s writings on syndicalism. Those are what shaped my views, and helped me shift from a dues paying member of the IWW to an autonomist RAANista.

He states that, essentially, even revolutionary unions eventually succumb to reformism and what Lenin called trade-union consciousness. Look, CNT spain even joined the provisional government, despite the wishes of the majority of its membership.

I would reccomend Harry Cleaver&#39;s "what is autonomist marxism", its a quick easy read. And "Books for Burning" by Antonio Negri, which is pretty much a collection of the documents which influenced the Italian autonomist movement (marx beyond marx is also a key book by Negri)

The autonomist movement today is pretty small and largely overlooked in the US. It still has some sway in northern Europe, where the autonomist movements were strongly involved with the squatting movement and AFA. I draw most of my inspiration from that section of the autonomist movement, which was largely influenced by Italian autonomism and early insurrectionary anarchism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+November 21, 2007 08:38 am--> (DJ&#045;TC &#064; November 21, 2007 08:38 am)
[email protected] 21, 2007 02:45 pm

Let&#39;s be clear here. What does adherence to "spontaneity" mean? "Let&#39;s just all sit and wait"? Is that it? I think anyone accused of such a thing would be mortally offended, myself included.

Spontaneity seems to mean to Hammer, not a result of the actions of a party.

OK, let&#39;s be clear then: person who is against such "spontaneity" is not a Left Communist of any sort nor a "sympathiser" of any kind. [/b]
I&#39;m too exhausted to talk at great lengths about when parties are necessary to conduct action. Sufficed to say that I know that the ICC isn&#39;t itself a party (so much for Martov the "Menshy" here <_< ), but at least they themselves acknowledge that, when the critical moment comes (closer to revolution), only a vanguard party can guide and organize workers in preparation for the socialist revolution.



Now, back to the original question in terms of the DOTP proper (because socialism is too far ahead to plan for): yes and no, especially when reading Lenin&#39;s How We Should Reorganise the Workers&#39; and Peasants&#39; Inspection and Better Fewer, But Better.

Yes, in that there should be only one proper communist party in charge of all leading organs of workers&#39; power (at the very least, if not in the local workplace committees and communal councils, then in the "chain" of soviets). (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65207&view=findpost&p=1292296528) Besides, wasn&#39;t one of the Comintern&#39;s conditions the operation of only one communist party "per country"?

All the other "factions" in said organs would represent "cooperative associations, youth organizations, sport and defense organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies." Whether said "factional deputies" would also be Party members, who knows?

And this is where a very complicated "no" comes in:

1) I don&#39;t think that every "factional deputy" representing the above organizations in quotation marks would also be Party members.

2) A "loyal organizational opposition" should be built into the Party itself and should possess full control over the "control branch" of government (by "control," I mean the checking, auditing, investigating, etc. functions), and should have its own organizational bodies, independent from Central Committee influence. Per this book (http://books.google.com/books?id=dV_Gufwx31UC&dq=%22origins+of+the+stalinist%22&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=A4dX81El8Y&sig=-n4MrmijsXfK2M_gdH-15OG7gH8#PPA84,M1), the problem with Lenin&#39;s proposal is that, while "the commissions were to be independent of party committees [...] they had to rely upon those committees for the machinery to implement their decisions. In this way their independence was compromised organizationally from the outset" (p. 83-84).

This "loyal organizational opposition" wouldn&#39;t foray into political questions, however.

3) Within the CC-directed bodies themselves, there would be factions dealing with political and/or organizational questions. Together, these factions and the bodies under their control would constitute the "party of power" within the Party.

[Lamanov]

I don&#39;t get it. You&#39;re clearly a Leninist in the sharpest sense of the term, but you&#39;re also an ICC "symphatiser"? Someone is confused here: me, you, or the whole ICC.


Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)Now, back to the original question in terms of the DOTP proper (because socialism is too far ahead to plan for): yes and no, especially when reading Lenin&#39;s How We Should Reorganise the Workers&#39; and Peasants&#39; Inspection and Better Fewer, But Better.
[/b]

Oh, and it&#39;s yours to plan?

Socialism is a "set" of concrete relations. They are a result of concrete action, "Praxis", not separate and predesposed planning, especially not on a fucking internet forum. When will the Leninist learn the fucking lesson?

Besides, do you even know how those articles came into existence and why?


Hammer
Yes, in that there should be only one proper communist party in charge of all leading organs of workers&#39; power (at the very least, if not in the local workplace committees and communal councils, then in the "chain" of soviets).

Why?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 26, 2007 03:55 pm
I don&#39;t get it. You&#39;re clearly a Leninist in the sharpest sense of the term, but you&#39;re also an ICC "symphatiser"? Someone is confused here: me, you, or the whole ICC.


Actually, some left wing communist groups are very "leninist", for example the bordigist left.

There is nothing wrong with one party rule, given that there is healthy dissent inside it.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+November 21, 2007 03:38 pm--> (DJ-TC @ November 21, 2007 03:38 pm)
[email protected] 21, 2007 02:45 pm

Let&#39;s be clear here. What does adherence to "spontaneity" mean? "Let&#39;s just all sit and wait"? Is that it? I think anyone accused of such a thing would be mortally offended, myself included.

Spontaneity seems to mean to Hammer, not a result of the actions of a party.

OK, let&#39;s be clear then: person who is against such "spontaneity" is not a Left Communist of any sort nor a "sympathiser" of any kind. [/b]
Actually, many left communists recognize the need of a vanguard to educate and agitate.

Operaismo is not the same as what were the old left communists.

[bezdomni]

There is more room for disagreement and dissent within a communist party than there is within the narrow confines of the bourgeois parties.

A variety of political parties does not imply any sort of revolutionary democracy. I think this question usually stems from a misunderstanding of what democracy is, namely from the misunderstanding that democracy is a system abstracted from class society.

Avakian answers this question well; "In a world marked by profound class divisions and social inequality, to talk about “democracy”— without talking about the class nature of that democracy and which class it serves—is meaningless, and worse. So long as society is divided into classes, there can be no “democracy for all”: one class or another will rule, and it will uphold and promote that kind of democracy which serves its interests and goals. The question is: which class will rule and whether its rule, and its system of democracy, will serve the continuation, or the eventual abolition, of class divisions and the corresponding relations of exploitation, oppression and inequality.""

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Sorry for the super-amateur question, I haven&#39;t read much but this hasn&#39;t become clear in my mind.

The question is this: Marxism exclusively supports one-party system? The constitution must accept one party - the communist party only, just like done in Cuba, North Korea, China etc? Is this an authoritarian distortion of Marxism or is this the original Marxism?

Thank you very much for your help.

No, Marxism doesn&#39;t exclusively support a one party system.

An institutional party, like the current Chinese communist party, become routes for middle classes and intelligentsia (as well as large property owners) to shape their own society.

In a revolution, Marxists should support the right of all parties that support a planned economy, to freely participate in society and stand for and contest elections.

A variety of political parties ensures that dissenting voices can be sufficiently well organized to oppose policy they disagree with.

My question is, what is the harm in allowing free elections for parties who accept the planned economy and trade unions independent of state control?

But then again, workers will form parties in their own fashion, and from past experience we will know the need to protect the right to form parties and independent trade unions lest we will end up with some fat fuck dictator and a whole load of starving people.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Marmot+--> (Marmot)There is nothing wrong with one party rule, given that there is healthy dissent inside it.[/b]

That doesn&#39;t exist.

So long as chain of command on one side and order givers slash order takers relations exist, especially if it&#39;s within a ruling party - which internal structure always projects itself on existing relations - there will be no grounds for socialism.

Of course, someone might say that "socialism is far off" so we don&#39;t "plan that far ahead" -- but if the basic relations are not "socialism friendly" socialism is not an option within such social setting.


Originally posted by [email protected]
Actually, many left communists recognize the need of a vanguard to educate and agitate.

Yes, but that&#39;s it. Lets point it out: all that a left communist group can do can be only actions and propaganda that foster: 1.) self-activity of the masses, 2.) nurturing of "direct-democratic" relations (even though allot of left communists don&#39;t use that term, for not very convincing reasons), 3.) authority of the self-governed, self-controlled and self-organized working class as such. Everything that a left communist group does must be against the separation of authority.


Marmot
Operaismo is not the same as what were the old left communists.

They were asking about the Autonomists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+November 26, 2007 08:55 am--> (DJ-TC @ November 26, 2007 08:55 am) I don&#39;t get it. You&#39;re clearly a Leninist in the sharpest sense of the term, but you&#39;re also an ICC "symphatiser"? Someone is confused here: me, you, or the whole ICC. [/b]
Probably you (given some of the ICC articles I&#39;ve read regarding (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists) Lenin (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2)).



Hammer
Yes, in that there should be only one proper communist party in charge of all leading organs of workers&#39; power (at the very least, if not in the local workplace committees and communal councils, then in the "chain" of soviets).

Why?

As a precaution against opportunism and sectarianism. When I see too many Trot (and, to a lesser extent, Maoist) parties within the same country bickering back and forth about silly historical questions from a rather non-structural perspective, and when I see the left-communist call for one global communist party (and while the ICC isn&#39;t "Bordigist," it accords the proper analysis of Bordiga&#39;s works and contributions, as well as potential errors), well it&#39;s like adding one plus one mathematically.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Hammer+November 27, 2007 12:56 am--> (Hammer @ November 27, 2007 12:56 am) Probably you (given some of the ICC articles I&#39;ve read regarding (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists) Lenin (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2)). [/b]

Wow, it&#39;s even worse than I thought.

I hold that left communist movement sprung out of merciless critique from one and new experiences of proletarian struggles from the other side. This is what you get when you detach yourself from the latter and conveniently forget the former.


[i]Originally posted by [email protected]
As a precaution against opportunism and sectarianism.

If you bothered yourself about "silly historical questions" a bit more maybe you would have realized that the only way for socialist reconstruction of society (and against "opportunism") lays in "All Power to the Councils" and an end to separation of authority.

Party organism hanging over anything the working class constructed in previous manner is precisely the opposite, and a very usual cause of "opportunism and sectarianism" to begin with, and even worse (and more important): reaction.


Hammer
When I see too many Trot (and, to a lesser extent, Maoist) parties within the same country bickering back and forth about silly historical questions from a rather non-structural perspective, and when I see the left-communist call for one global communist party (and while the ICC isn&#39;t "Bordigist," it accords the proper analysis of Bordiga&#39;s works and contributions, as well as potential errors), well it&#39;s like adding one plus one mathematically.

Okay. I call for "free ice cream Sundays".

Seriously, who gives a flying fuck about Trotskyist bickering, Maoist idiocy and certain confusions of the ICC?

When I read your reasons I kind of get the impression that the working class fits in your "programme" like it does in the existing one... the capitalist one. Just like it did in Lenin&#39;s programmes, and the ones of his followers.

Proletariat by one self but not Proletariat for itself. The Proletariat as representation, not as subject.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;TC+November 26, 2007 06:29 pm--> (DJ&#045;TC &#064; November 26, 2007 06:29 pm)
[i]Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:56 am
Probably you (given some of the ICC articles I&#39;ve read regarding (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/96/leninists) Lenin (http://en.internationalism.org/ir/97/leninists2)).

Wow, it&#39;s even worse than I thought.

I hold that left communist movement sprung out of merciless critique from one and new experiences of proletarian struggles from the other side. This is what you get when you detach yourself from the latter and conveniently forget the former. [/b]
The "Left" faction of the Communist International wasn&#39;t exactly "merciless" in its critique of the Bolsheviks. Even Luxemburg wasn&#39;t "merciless."

I suppose I&#39;ll wait till you remove that ICC link from your sig. :D



Hammer
As a precaution against opportunism and sectarianism.

If you bothered yourself about "silly historical questions" a bit more maybe you would have realized that the only way for socialist reconstruction of society (and against "opportunism") lays in "All Power to the Councils" and an end to separation of authority.

[First off, what I meant by "bickering back and forth about silly historical questions from a rather non-structural perspective" is that such is an excuse for the various groups to not work together.]

And what form should those councils take? <_< In here I propose three viable forms that exist at the same time: soviets, workplace committees (including factory committees), and communal councils like the ones in Venezuela (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=65207&view=findpost&p=1292296528).


Party organism hanging over anything the working class constructed in previous manner is precisely the opposite, and a very usual cause of "opportunism and sectarianism" to begin with, and even worse (and more important): reaction.

Like I said as a prelude to introducing those two articles, "Sufficed to say that I know that the ICC isn&#39;t itself a party [...] but at least they themselves acknowledge that, when the critical moment comes (closer to revolution), only a vanguard party can guide and organize workers in preparation for the socialist revolution."

In non-critical moments like now, party organization may or may not be needed (certainly not needed if it&#39;s on a global level like what the ICC is proposing). But, given the content of your responses, you&#39;re a "critical moment" spontaneist just like Martov (akin to the military doctrine of force concentration, wherein outgunning one&#39;s opponent only counts at a critical moment during the battle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Force_concentration)). :(


Proletariat by one self but not Proletariat for itself. The Proletariat as representation, not as subject.

You lost me there completely. :huh: :blink:

[black magick hustla]

Yes, but that&#39;s it. Lets point it out: all that a left communist group can do can be only actions and propaganda that foster: 1.) self-activity of the masses, 2.) nurturing of "direct-democratic" relations (even though allot of left communists don&#39;t use that term, for not very convincing reasons), 3.) authority of the self-governed, self-controlled and self-organized working class as such. Everything that a left communist group does must be against the separation of authority.

Yeah, about the one party bit, I was speaking for myself, not left communism.

Second, the emphasis on "workers councils" has much more to do with council communism than left communism in its totality. I think what unites "left communism" is more of an emphasis on internationalism, rejection of national liberation, rejection of trade unions, and abstentionism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:14 pm
I think what unites "left communism" is more of an emphasis on internationalism, rejection of national liberation, rejection of trade unions, and abstentionism.
I subscribe to pretty much all of those, though... :huh:

...The "national liberation" question mainly because, "historically speaking," I actually would&#39;ve preferred to see a larger, more unitary RSFSR than the creation of the federalist Soviet Union per se - ie, Stalin vs. Lenin on nationalities:

Nationalities: Soviet Union or Soviet Republic? (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=67663)

[black magick hustla]

That doesn&#39;t exist.

So long as chain of command on one side and order givers slash order takers relations exist, especially if it&#39;s within a ruling party - which internal structure always projects itself on existing relations - there will be no grounds for socialism.


First, a communist party is not the same as a party participating in bourgeois elections--its completely merged to the state. What I mean is that the state itself is a party. It has more to do with how George Washington said there shouldnt be parties and instead individual candidates than how the bourgeosie is so terrified of "one party" rule.


Now on your second point about "chain of commands" lets take as an example the Paris Commune.

The Paris Commune had centralization--it wasn&#39;t just "ad-hoc" neighborhoods. True that the delegates were accountable to neighborhoods, but by the same token, the neighborhood assemblies were subordinate to the Commune.

Now lets take Cuba as an example:

Delegates of the National Assembly are subject to recall, and in fact they have been recalled numerous times. National Assembly candidates are chosen by grassroot organizations, and 40% of the National Assembly is made of non Communist Party members.


What is so bad about this?

That Cuba holds market relations to the outer world? Cuba is not a communist country, its a socialist country. It is true that communism can&#39;t happen until there is a wordwide revolution, or at least the main bastions of capital are destroyed. However, Cuba is under workers&#39; control.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)The "Left" faction of the Communist International wasn&#39;t exactly "merciless" in its critique of the Bolsheviks. Even Luxemburg wasn&#39;t "merciless."[/b]

Luxemburg: 1) wasn’t an actual left communist, 2) she wasn&#39;t around when Comintern was established, 3) her critique was quite sufficient, even with a small amount of facts she could have use at the time, to show how gap between Bolshevism and western Marxist movement already exists - in 1918.

I wouldn&#39;t say that Gorter and Pannekoek were tapping Lenin&#39;s back. :rolleyes:

When it came to practical engagement, majority membership of the KPD were so enraged with it&#39;s pro-Bolshevik confused leadership that they left and formed a new party, KAPD, in Heidelberg, April 1920. This happened at the time of Ruhr uprising, when KPD - excuse my Russian - played a... "menshy" role.

One of the member&#39;s of the new party&#39;s Center, Otto Rühle, will eventually compare Bolshevism to Fascism. I&#39;m sorry, it&#39;s not quite "merciless" ( :rolleyes: ), but it is what it is.


Originally posted by Hammer+--> (Hammer)First off, what I meant by "bickering back and forth about silly historical questions from a rather non-structural perspective" is that such is an excuse for the various groups to not work together.][/b]


Originally posted by Hammer
I suppose I&#39;ll wait till you remove that ICC link from your sig.

It appears that you don&#39;t practice what you preach, bubba.

ICC is still, with all its confusions (with ones about Lenin as the worst), a left communist group, and I don&#39;t see why I should suddenly "renounce" them.


Originally posted by Hammer
And what form should those councils take? In here I propose three viable forms that exist at the same time: soviets, workplace committees (including factory committees), and communal councils like the ones in Venezuela.

You don&#39;t need to "propose" anything. Experience is sufficient enough, including the one from 1917-8 Russia.


Originally posted by Hammer
In non-critical moments like now, party organization may or may not be needed (certainly not needed if it&#39;s on a global level like what the ICC is proposing). But, given the content of your responses, you&#39;re a "critical moment" spontaneist just like Martov...

That&#39;s just a worst case of oversimplification. I don&#39;t subscribe to "spontaneity", but I guess there&#39;s no need for explanation, since you’re still on you constant shift from right to left. We&#39;ll talk when you discard Bolshevism. ;)


[email protected]
...(akin to the military doctrine of force concentration, wherein outgunning one&#39;s opponent only counts at a critical moment during the battle).

Chill out, Sun Tzu. :P

* * *

Marmot, those are really bad examples of "chain of command" I had in mind (and that wishful thinking about Cuba). Do you know what a "military organization" looks like?


Marmot
Second, the emphasis on "workers councils" has much more to do with council communism than left communism in its totality. I think what unites "left communism" is more of an emphasis on internationalism, rejection of national liberation, rejection of trade unions, and abstentionism.

Left Communism in Germany, Netherlands and Britain, was "Council Communism", in the sense that the cornerstone and a starting point of their theory and practice were workers&#39; councils. The three premises - internationalism, "antiunionism" and abstentionism - are tactical designations that were born out of council-orientated practice. They meant to take the movement precisely there.

(Of course, many people tend to give a misdirection about "councilist" tendencies by claiming that they were "against organization", although in some way, many later council communist organizations have not been prone to "organizing" beyond literary activity, like the French ICO.)

On the other hand, "Bordigist" - that is, Italian - section of the "Communist Left", is rather different.

Anyway, check out the programme of the KAPD (May 1920).

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:07 pm
Communism has no parties, because communism is stateless.

Socialism, in some schools of thought also has no state. Marxist-Leninists will argue yes, a one party state is desireable (with exception of some Trotskyists), and other communists will militantly be opposed to such an idea, usually in favor of no state.


Socialism= workers and state ownership of corporations + a central government, centralized state corporations it is a struggling, revolutionary troublesome stage, socialism is revolutionary, full of riots, overthrowing attempts, in socialism, the oligarchies are still alive and kicking and strong &#33;&#33; it is the transitional stage between capitalist systems and communism.



Communism= a state-less system with workers ownership of corporations, communism is the Kingdom of God on earth, it is even related to the Bible

[marxist_god]

Originally posted by Killer Enigma+November 21, 2007 04:49 am--> (Killer Enigma @ November 21, 2007 04:49 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:46 pm
aren&#39;t parties irrelevant? I mean once we are organized and have the same economic system?
Consider the following:

The Democrats and the Republicans in the United States both represent the capitalist mode of production. However, the manner in which they do so, one must concede, is radically different. They both have differing beliefs on the fundamentals of how capitalism ought to operate. We view it as "not having a choice". In a sense, the workers do have a choice: they choose the manner in which they will be oppressed. The bourgeoisie have the greatest choice of all. They get to choose how they themselves will operate.

Socialism will be no different. There will be opposing factions with differing beliefs on the best manners of achieving, maintaining, and refining socialism. Look at the sheer amount of Trotskyist groups alone currently and you can see the diversity through unity (united, that is, by a fundamental belief in worker-ownership of the means of production).

This is why the notion of having a one-party state is fundamentally-flawed. Groups need to be able to freely express their beliefs on how a system ought to be run and if the workers side with that group, that group ought to govern.

Examine even capitalist parties: Allow them to freely organize. That, of course, is the democratic way. The revolution may need to be defended for a time, but gradually capitalist parties will become an anachronism, just as loyalists to the throne gradually died out in America after the revolutionary war (liberal democratic revolution). You would be unable to find a man, much less a party, advocating the return to feudalism and absolutism now. Socialism will be much the same way if the capitalist influences are allowed to die out. This way, democracy is not undermined and the revolution lives on. [/b]


You are right, they might *talk* differently but the results are the same, the consequences of their actions are the same: A small elite earning a lot of money and the majority wage-slaves, tax payers and voters, under both parties. But USA is not God-ordained, i mean just because USA has 2 or 3 parties doesn&#39;t mean it is a role model to the world. There are no absolute truths

marxist_god

[Dros]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:07 pm
Socialism, in some schools of thought also has no state.
Not in any Marxist (read legitimate) schools of thought...

[Lenin II]

There is no such thing as "democracy"--there is only dictatorship of the proletariat and dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

[Luís Henrique]

So, if someone wants to start a second party, who is going to say no? The police?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

There is no such thing as "democracy"--there is only dictatorship of the proletariat and dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

If such absurd was true, Lenin wouldn't have called for a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry". But perhaps Lenin was a revisionist?

Luís Henrique

[kromando33]

Any centralized government, no matter what the party claims to support, is counter-revolutionary.
Lol, typical naive idealism. In reality having a completely grassroots organization would be chaos, it would have no sense of direction, no coordination, and everybody would be each others interests economically without knowing it. 'local self-management' is a recipe for the bourgeois to crush the proletarian movement because it has no centralized contact of collaboration.

[kromando33]

If such absurd was true, Lenin wouldn't have called for a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry". But perhaps Lenin was a revisionist?

Luís Henrique
That is a question of form and practicality, in reality Marxist is about the two realities of 'dictatorship', that the bourgeois class is the state or the proletariat is the state, each state wishes to uphold the interests of each class. Revolution overthrows bourgeois dictatorship and replaces it with a proletarian one, and the proletarianization of the relations of production breed communal relations. The bourgeois dictatorship is the opposite, and breeds the antithesis of communism; division and class antagonism, thus proletarianism is progressive and bourgeoisism reactionary. That's Marxism 101 comrade.

[Luís Henrique]

That is a question of form and practicality, in reality Marxist is about the two realities of 'dictatorship', that the bourgeois class is the state or the proletariat is the state, each state wishes to uphold the interests of each class. Revolution overthrows bourgeois dictatorship and replaces it with a proletarian one, and the proletarianization of the relations of production breed communal relations. The bourgeois dictatorship is the opposite, and breeds the antithesis of communism; division and class antagonism, thus proletarianism is progressive and bourgeoisism reactionary. That's Marxism 101 comrade.

Then why did Lenin call it a "democratic dictatorship"?

Luís Henrique

[kromando33]

Then why did Lenin call it a "democratic dictatorship"?

Luís Henrique
You obvious should read Marx and Lenin again, your definition of 'dictatorship' is obviously a bourgeois source, like Hitler or Mussolini etc. Dictatorship in ML simply means the authority of the state in the hands of one class or another, either proletarian or bourgeois. 'Democratic' in the case of Lenin was one of form, and simply a reference to his party setup. When Lenin says 'Democracy' he doesn't mean 'democracy' in the way your thinking, of liberal bourgeois institutions, he means democracy within the leadership of the proletariat, but centralized so that the minority cannot cause trouble if the majority in the party dislike them.

This is actually where many 'leftists' go awry in their analysis, they fail to use historical materialism and as a result develop many 'alternate' theories of countries, mostly dictated by opportunistic political reasons.

In reality true Marxists hold that the 'state' can only serve either the proletariat or the bourgeois, it cannot serve both because the interests of both classes are diametrically opposed, thus class struggle ensues until one class is in power and the power overthrown. Class struggle under socialism continues until communal relations established or counter-revolution.

[Luís Henrique]

You obvious should read Marx and Lenin again, your definition of 'dictatorship' is obviously a bourgeois source, like Hitler or Mussolini etc. Dictatorship in ML simply means the authority of the state in the hands of one class or another, either proletarian or bourgeois.

That's not in "ML"; it is in Marx, for starters. Evidently, if Lenin called his proposed government a "democratic dictatorship", it is because he has some concept of democracy, don't you think so? On the other hand, you just told us that
There is no such thing as "democracy"

See, Lenin has a different opinion from yours.


'Democratic' in the case of Lenin was one of form, and simply a reference to his party setup. When Lenin says 'Democracy' he doesn't mean 'democracy' in the way your thinking, of liberal bourgeois institutions,Please don't tell me what I am thinking, as you obviously have not the ability to read my thoughts. In no moment I talked about bourgeois institutions. When Lenin says 'Democracy', however, he is talking about something, and something that in his opinion, evidently, exists. While you tell us something "brilliant" like:

There is no such thing as "democracy"

So, perhaps it's you who should read your Lenin again?

Moreover, if "democracy", in the bourgeois sence, is defined by the existence of "liberal bourgeois institutions", what do you mean by
There is no such thing as "democracy"?

That there are no such things as "liberal bourgeois institutions"?


he means democracy within the leadership of the proletariat, but centralized so that the minority cannot cause trouble if the majority in the party dislike them.Wrong again. Because he was talking about a "democratic dictatoship of the proletariat and the peasantry", so he absolutely could not be speaking about his own party; he was speaking about a class regime, the "democratic dictatoship of the proletariat and the peasantry"; it was such dictatorship was to be democratic, not his own party. Otherwise he would speak of a dictatorship of the democratic party of the proletariat, which of course is a completely different thing.


This is actually where many 'leftists' go awry in their analysis, they fail to use historical materialism and as a result develop many 'alternate' theories of countries, mostly dictated by opportunistic political reasons.Yes, that's the problem with you; you don't understand Lenin, you disagree with him in a basic level, and you have the face to present yourself as the guardian of Leninist orthodoxy. Back to reading, you have failed your "Marxism 101" test.


In reality true Marxists hold that the 'state' can only serve either the proletariat or the bourgeois, it cannot serve both because the interests of both classes are diametrically opposed, thus class struggle ensues until one class is in power and the power overthrown.Of course; who said otherwise? What you fail to grasp is that the form of such dictatorship can vary widely, and that such variation is not irrelevant to class struggle. Thence your absurd claim,
There is no such thing as "democracy" To you, there is no difference between the Weimar Republic and the Nazi regime - both are bourgeois, both are the same, and Nazism isn't worse, because,
There is no such thing as "democracy" Which is, of course, a criminal position.


Class struggle under socialism continues until communal relations established or counter-revolution.Which evidently means that, under socialism, a bourgeoisie continues to exist, isn't it? But if they have been expropriated, and are no longer the owner of means of production, how can they still be a bourgeoisie? Or the bourgeoisie, under socialism, derives its position from something different from the ownership of means of production? Or perhaps the class struggle is no longer between bourgeoisie and proletariat? What does your "Marxist 101" course have to say about that?

Lu&#237;s Henrique

[black magick hustla]

Silly pseudo-communists like kromando minimize the communist project into mere, dry collectivism, while in reality, the communist project is also the project of the complete man. That is why they disregard the democratic project, which is central to the socialist project.

Silly people like kromando are the ones, like the capitalists, that end up preaching work-ethic and sacrifice for the ideal.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Wrong again. Because he was talking about a "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry", so he absolutely could not be speaking about his own party; he was speaking about a class regime, the "democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry"; it was such dictatorship was to be democratic, not his own party. Otherwise he would speak of a dictatorship of the democratic party of the proletariat, which of course is a completely different thing.

Furthermore, he added the word "revolutionary":

[http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1905/tactics/ch10.htm]Two Tactics of Social-Democracy in the Democratic Revolution, Chapter 10: “Revolutionary Communes” and the Revolutionary-Democratic Dictatorship of the Proletariat and the Peasantry


The time will come when the struggle against the Russian autocracy will end and the period of democratic revolution will be over in Russia; then it will be ridiculous to talk about “singleness of will” of the proletariat and the peasantry, about a democratic dictatorship, etc. When that time comes we shall attend directly to the question of the socialist dictatorship of the proletariat and deal with it at greater length. But at present the party of the advanced class cannot but strive most energetically for a decisive victory of the democratic revolution over tsarism. And a decisive victory means nothing else than the revolutionary-democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry.

[Lenin II]

Luís Henrique, you have completely misenterpreted what I stated. When i said there was no such thing as democracy, what I was saying in effect was that "democracy" is the bourgeoisie sense is not a democracy at all, but rather a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Therefore, even though imperialist nations like America discuss democracy, in reality there is no such thing. I am not denying the existence of institutions, merely denying that they fullfill their promises. Whereas, in a dictatorship of the proletariat, there is democracy, but not in the bourgeoisie sense.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Correct me if I'm wrong (both of you), but I think Lenin II may be on to something. Did Lenin suggest that the "democratic" word in the concept of the RDDOTPP is "democratic" from a bourgeois perspective?

Consider:

Universal suffrage
Secret ballot
Formal equality before the law
Etc.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

Lenin II brought up a good point [at least from what I got out of his post].

Actually, from what I recall as I am quite familiar with the points Lenin himself made- he made very clear of the distinction between democracy in DotP and bourgeois "democracy". Lenin never suggested that it was democratic in the way the bourgeoisie would define it, but rather, the opposite.

In other words, as Lenin II said, dictatorship of the proletariat refers to proletarian democracy and under the bourgeois state [dictatorship of the bourgeoisie] democracy only exists for the bourgeois ruling class and not for proletarians.

I recall in The State and Revolution, Lenin said quite a bit on this- I don't remember the exact words, however I could find it probably in a matter of seconds, but he refered to dictatorship of the proletariat as the first existence of proletarian democracy, the first time when freedom can actually be spoken of in the sense of freedom for the proletarians rather than freedom only for the bourgeoisie. So it seems very clear that "democracy" was not meant in the bourgeois sense but instead- proletarian democracy, considering how greatly Lenin stressed the importance of this distinction.

[kromando33]

Silly pseudo-communists like kromando minimize the communist project into mere, dry collectivism, while in reality, the communist project is also the project of the complete man. That is why they disregard the democratic project, which is central to the socialist project.

Silly people like kromando are the ones, like the capitalists, that end up preaching work-ethic and sacrifice for the ideal.
How is 'democracy' an innate part of our struggle, surely I agree that the proletariat needs democracy and total political power, as Marx says because we are a class that means we are also naturally a political party, with economic power comes political. So democracy within the classocracy framework, but that democracy should not extend to allowing the bourgeois and their allies in the lumpenproletariat and lower-middle classes to have political power and organize against proletarian rule.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

How is 'democracy' an innate part of our struggle, surely I agree that the proletariat needs democracy and total political power, as Marx says because we are a class that means we are also naturally a political party, with economic power comes political. So democracy within the classocracy framework, but that democracy should not extend to allowing the bourgeois and their allies in the lumpenproletariat and lower-middle classes to have political power and organize against proletarian rule.
As why the proletarian state cannot exist without the vanguard. Without central organization of the vanguard the door is open for the counterrevolutionaries. With that, oppositional movement will develop, strengthen and make its way within the proletarian state. Democracy must be exclusively- proletarian democracy- excluding the bourgeoisie- and thereby crushing it so it cannot crush the proletarian state apparatus. The bourgeois state provides only bourgeois democracy. Dictatorship of the proletariat is replace the bourgeois ruling class with that of the proletariat- so that true democracy exists. The vanguard must exist as a central apparatus to organize the working class under the red banner and exclude the bourgeoisie from the established proletarian state and state-power. If any doors are left open for oppositional movement to move in, there a threat forms, but if they are excluded, they cannot so easily develop within the proletarian apparatus and can more easily be eliminated by force, and are able to do far less damage.

[A.J.]

Sorry for the super-amateur question, I haven't read much but this hasn't become clear in my mind.

The question is this: Marxism exclusively supports one-party system? The constitution must accept one party - the communist party only, just like done in Cuba, North Korea, China etc? Is this an authoritarian distortion of Marxism or is this the original Marxism?

Thank you very much for your help.

In the DPRK there is more than one legal party, there's three. There is, aside from the Workers Party of Korea, the Chondoist Chongu Party(which is of utopian peasant origins, sort of like a Korean version of the Narodniks) and the Korean Social-Democratic Party(which originally represented the urban petty-bourgeoisie).

Anyways, in any genuine proletarian socialist state there would only be one party due to the fact that the proletariat has only one class interest(unlike the bourgeoisie which is comprised of different competing sections. Hence why parliamentarism is their favoured form of government.)

The fact that there is more than one legal political party in the DPRK for the this length of time is evidence of revisionsm and the DPRK is no longer orientated towards the building of socialism.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Yeah but if you are right that the proletariat only wants one party, because they are all united in their class interests, then surely if put to an election, than that party will receive close to 100&#37; of the vote.

Or, what you just said is bullshit, and just an excuse for an undemocratic socialism.

either way, there are no ways to justify a single party system and the banning of other parties (excluding stooge parties of course).

Also, in the DPRK, the other two parties must accept the the WPK is always the main party. That is the Law LOL. nice

[A.J.]

Yeah but if you are right that the proletariat only wants one party, because they are all united in their class interests, then surely if put to an election, than that party will receive close to 100% of the vote.

er, what about proletarians who aren't class-conscious? far less politically radicalised?

The Marxist-Leninist Party, as the advanced detachment of the working class, objectively represents the entire proletariat regardless of whether the entire proletariat is consciously aware of it or not!

There's no need for multi-party elections to somehow validate this.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

I understand you think that, but where is the evidence of this?

Why is it the Marxist-Leninist party that is able to represent the proletariat? and what if other parties also claim to represent the proletariat? Surely then, it must come down to a vote??

Also, what if you are wrong? and the Marxist-Leninist Party represent some of the proletariat but not all or even the majority.

Then you would actually be part of a counter-revolution against the proletariat!

Surely, it musty be safer for you to win an election in a vote.

[kromando33]

I support 'democracy' within the framework of the dictatorship of the proletariat, but only as long as suffrage is only given to the proletariat and revoked from the bourgeois.

[Comrade Nadezhda]

As why it is important to understand that the 'democracy' existent under DotP is proletarian democracy, which the bourgeoisie cannot be part of, as the proletarian state will regress back into bourgeois rule if they are not crushed by force. The bourgeois ruling class must be replaced by the proletarian ruling class. The transformation of society cannot occur when the bourgeoisie still has an active role in it. With that, bourgeois democracy must be eliminated. The bourgeoisie must become a suppressed class, so that they can no longer influence political/social life and arrange it for their personal benefit.