Proletariat vs. Parliamentary Democracy today

[Red_or_Dead]

A question: In todays western democracies, are there really any political parties that would REALLY represent the proletariat?

Judging from the present conditions, I would say no. Im speaking for my own country when I say that politics mainly serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. It may be same in the US, just a glance at the figures that are spend by the presidential candidates on campaigns shows (imo) that any serious politician or a political party needs to be backed up by the bourgeoisie, in order to have any chance of getting elected. And I guess its no different in parliamentary democracies (if we can call them democracies, that is).

[ComradeR]

No there are none, nor will you find one in any bourgeois controlled nation. If any were exist then they would have no chance whatsoever as the bourgeois state is designed to insure the ruling class stays in power.

[Victoire]

No there are none, nor will you find one in any bourgeois controlled nation. If any were exist then they would have no chance whatsoever as the bourgeois state is designed to insure the ruling class stays in power.

I disagree. In the Netherlands we have full proportional representation in the second chamber, provincial and municipal councils. With 0,67% of the total vote you can get elected in the second chamber. I am sure that elections in the Netherlands are fair, so the proletarians are free to vote on who they want. The problem is they don't (all) vote for a socialist party, but also vote for the social-democratic or even a liberal party. This is because of the lack of class conscience. I am not saying the Dutch electoral system is perfect, but it represents the people (and therefor the proletariat) better then any other system. It offers the openness needed to create a democracy that represents the working class. The only thing that needs to happen is to increase the level of class conscience.

[Herman]

I disagree. In the Netherlands we have full proportional representation in the second chamber, provincial and municipal councils. With 0,67% of the total vote you can get elected in the second chamber. I am sure that elections in the Netherlands are fair, so the proletarians are free to vote on who they want. The problem is they don't (all) vote for a socialist party, but also vote for the social-democratic or even a liberal party. This is because of the lack of class conscience. I am not saying the Dutch electoral system is perfect, but it represents the people (and therefor the proletariat) better then any other system. It offers the openness needed to create a democracy that represents the working class. The only thing that needs to happen is to increase the level of class conscience.

The Netherlands is an example of perhaps the most open system of representative democracy. However, this system has faults, and representative democracy is not truly "representative", where you vote for a party and then the party chooses its own candidates. It is a form of indirect democracy, which by socialist standards is unfair. Therefore, a participatory democracy must be established to truly allow every worker, farmer or person to participate in the political processess which affects us all. I say this as a member of the Socialistiche Partij as well.

[Tower of Bebel]

Parliamentary politics are in the interest of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat cannot be represented through parliament. The struggle for democracy can unite the proletariat, create class consciousness, etc. but the goal of the struggle is not representation in the parliament.

[Victoire]

I agree with your statement that this system is a form of indirect democracy. However in the Netherlands people are (almost) not restricted in establishing new political parties or participating in already exsisting parties. Every member of society above eighteen is able to participate in politics. That isn't the problem. The problem is that no party in the history of the Netherlands has been able to unite the working class. The PvdA tried it in the 50's and failed. The CPN never managed to acquire more then 10% of the vote, is successor GroenLinks turned to Green politics. De Socialistische partij has shown some potential, but currently lacks the ideological persistence to attract larger following. We should count ourselves lucky that in the Netherlands we have such low electoral thresholds, so that it is easy to get elected and to use those elected positions to get even larger support.



Parliamentary politics are in the interest of the bourgeoisie. The proletariat cannot be represented through parliament. The struggle for democracy can unite the proletariat, create class consciousness, etc. but the goal of the struggle is not representation in the parliament.


Indeed, the eventual goal is complete domination of the parliament and in fact all of the political institutions in a country. In my view this is only able through the ballot box or revolution, but in the case of the Netherlands the ballot box is the only preferable and realistic option.

[Luís Henrique]

What is the proletariat, a mass of real people in flesh and blood, or an ideological abstraction?

Luís Henrique

[commiecrusader]

In England there are no parties that really represent the working classes, particularly parties likely to actually succeed and get a seat in Parliament. The system is pretty much irreparably broken, from a workers point of view. I believe this is part of the reason for such low turnouts in UK elections, as it really makes very little difference who you vote for as even Labour are a central party with right wing tendencies now.

[RNK]

However in the Netherlands people are (almost) not restricted in establishing new political parties or participating in already exsisting parties.

Unfortunately, this shows just how deep-rooted this debauchery and falsification is in our society today. If revolutionary leftists can not recognize the complete bankruptcy of bourgeois democracy, how the hell can the proletariat?

Fact of the matter is, though political freedom is guaranteed by "law" in most western countries, in practice it is complete and utter bullshit. Party politics has ensured this fact, that political power is directly related to monetary power, that politics are dominated by groups of priviledged individuals who can collectively spend billions of dollars ensuring the survival of their system. Is there any proletarian party today that can hope to match that? No. The most any can even hope for is that their small, token existence will somehow spur the masses to reject the overwhelming domination of the bourgeoisie and vote for something that appears to be absolutely miniscule and impotent by comparison -- effectively, they are little more than ants trying to out-shout an elephant. Politics today are controlled by money. Plain and simple. And while the written law may not exempt anyone from taking part in politics, the reality is, unless you've got a deep wallet, you will not be able to make any difference. Not when the bourgeoisie and their friends control every media station, every newspaper, every everything.

This is why, in my opinion, electoral politicing is a completely useless endeavour in this stage of the revolutionary movement in the western capitalist countries. Not only is platforming a useless endeavour, it is a dangerous one; it threatens to transform otherwise revolutionary organizations into ones obsessed with polls and completely out of touch with the material conditions of class struggle. They begin to assimilate the chauvanistic attitude of politicians, and feel they are above the people, their champions, and priviledged. And slowly, as has happened time and time again, the differentiation between them and any generic liberal electoral party becomes more and more smudged until there is no discerning one from the o ther.

[Victoire]

Party politics has ensured this fact, that political power is directly related to monetary power

I agree that in order to upkeep a political party money is needed, but the billions of dollars you recall are "American" numbers. This is an extreme example and doesn't reflect reality in most countries. I agree that in th US, big wallets are needed to make a difference. Ofcourse, in all countries money plays a roll, but even revolutionary parties need money to set up their organisation. Its beyond the obvious.


They begin to assimilate the chauvanistic attitude of politicians, and feel they are above the people, their champions, and priviledged. And slowly, as has happened time and time again, the differentiation between them and any generic liberal electoral party becomes more and more smudged until there is no discerning one from the o ther.

I agree with you that it happens alot that parties transform from a revolutionary party to a less-radical form, and sometimes abandone their main principles all together to stay in power. Somthing similiar happend to my party, who had Maoist roots, but because they had those roots failed to accomplish anything. After they abandoned these main principles they managed to start developing towards broad people's party, still commited to socialism. Rethinking and reshaping your ideology is not always a bad thing.

A question for you, and others is: The main objection to participating in the current democratic elections is that it involves a lot of money and therefor it is impossible for the ordinary man to participate. But how do you think the revolution will start?, it will need alot of planning, organisation and last but not least money. The Russian Revolution was partly financed by the German empire......

[Tower of Bebel]

Uhm. A revolution is not bought. Any revolution can do without money from some imperialist dealer. You need to read Marx if you want to know how revolutions start. The bourgeoisie didn't use their fortunes back in 1789 to sponsor a revolution, they were part of the revolutionary forces which made them shape the new production relations.

To warn you (no offence), you're ideas are reformist, which might get you restricted since this forum is for all who want to chat about revolutionary socialism.

[Red_or_Dead]

I agree with RNK, political power is related to monetary. If a party wants to have any real chances, it has to have some backup, usualy in the form of the bourgeoisie.

Then there is also the state apparatus, wich complicates things even further, making it very hard to drasticly change anything.

Also, the parties themselves change. If a party would start out as a real communist party, maybe even win the elections, or at least be a part of the government, its very questionable what would become of that party in a few years, and how communist would it be after that.

Btw. A question for the regulars: how do you quote someone? You know, that white box in your comment with the quote from someone else?

[BobKKKindle$]

A major problem, particularly in the United States, is that progressive activists continue to harbor illusions about the mainstream parties, and aren't willing to break away and form their own organizations. For example, pro-abortion campaigners continue to identify as Democrats, and argue that their objectives can be secured if they work inside this party to make sure the right candidates are elected.

[Herman]

I agree with your statement that this system is a form of indirect democracy. However in the Netherlands people are (almost) not restricted in establishing new political parties or participating in already exsisting parties. Every member of society above eighteen is able to participate in politics. That isn't the problem. The problem is that no party in the history of the Netherlands has been able to unite the working class. The PvdA tried it in the 50's and failed. The CPN never managed to acquire more then 10% of the vote, is successor GroenLinks turned to Green politics. De Socialistische partij has shown some potential, but currently lacks the ideological persistence to attract larger following. We should count ourselves lucky that in the Netherlands we have such low electoral thresholds, so that it is easy to get elected and to use those elected positions to get even larger support.

The creation of new parties is meaningless. Mainstream parties dominate the political process and no one would think of voting any other minor party, such as the NCPN. Yes, you can gather 10,000 signatures and whoosh! New party, new programme, new ideas. But how can you compete with giants such as PvdA, VVD or CDA? The SP was lucky enough to make a major breakthrough in the last parliamentary elections, due to the disassifaction of the traditional leftist voters of the PvdA (which moves further to the right and always attempts to block the SP in parliament). Groenlinks isn't a serious leftist party. They're just social-democrats with an emphasis on ecological issues, that's it.

The SP currently has great support and we're doing pretty well currently. To keep this up, it is important to continue appealing to the more leftist forces with in the PvdA, rally the support from trade unions whom, although weak, can gather the support of many workers. This is the most important task right now.

[Freedom4Tooting]

In England there are no parties that really represent the working classes, particularly parties likely to actually succeed and get a seat in Parliament. The system is pretty much irreparably broken, from a workers point of view. I believe this is part of the reason for such low turnouts in UK elections, as it really makes very little difference who you vote for as even Labour are a central party with right wing tendencies now.

This is so very true, I was going to say this myself. Labour should be removed from that party's name - so should New for that matter. And the LibDems... just a joke. There does seem to be an increasing amount of people that do actually turn out at elections and 'spoil' their vote. Which is at least one way of registering disdain at the options available, but not doing anything practical towards any alternative - they're so placated and caught up in the idea of parliamentary politics being the only way.

Sorry, bit off the point there.

[Dros]

No. In capitalist countries, political parties cater to one or another section of the Bourgeoisie.

[Herman]

No. In capitalist countries, political parties cater to one or another section of the Bourgeoisie.

All political parties? Or some? The SP certainly does not, but it is close to doing so. I believe "Offensief" and the "international socialists" are doing their best to raise interest in marxism.

[Victoire]

Uhm. A revolution is not bought. Any revolution can do without money from some imperialist dealer. You need to read Marx if you want to know how revolutions start. The bourgeoisie didn't use their fortunes back in 1789 to sponsor a revolution, they were part of the revolutionary forces which made them shape the new production relations.

To warn you (no offence), you're ideas are reformist, which might get you restricted since this forum is for all who want to chat about revolutionary socialism.

I am not anti-revolution, but when I look at my country and I ask myself "How can I change the current situation to the situation I want it to be, as fast as possible?" I can only conclude that overtaking the society by democratic means is the fastest way. If tomorrow a true revolution starts I will first in line to support it, but you have to be realistic and see that isn't going to happen in the near future, atleast not in the Netherlands. I am not willing to wait, I want to change the society today.

Therefor I choose the way of a "democratic revolution". Using the current liberal democracy to gain mass support and change the society to a socialist one, just like in past Allende did and Chavez is doing right now.

But I agree that socialist brothers in other countries, with other voting systems such as the UK and the USA, may rely on other ways that lead to our common goal. I support (most) of them, especially those in the US, who live in far more hostile and anti-socialist society.

[Sleeping Dog]

Uhm. A revolution is not bought. Any revolution can do without money from some imperialist dealer. You need to read Marx if you want to know how revolutions start. The bourgeoisie didn't use their fortunes back in 1789 to sponsor a revolution, they were part of the revolutionary forces which made them shape the new production relations.

To warn you (no offence), you're ideas are reformist, which might get you restricted since this forum is for all who want to chat about revolutionary socialism.Not in the way of "warning you" fact is : Your stipulations are anal and essentially counter revolutionary. By any means necessary! is not a puristic format. :crying:

[Tower of Bebel]

I am not anti-revolution, but when I look at my country and I ask myself "How can I change the current situation to the situation I want it to be, as fast as possible?" I can only conclude that overtaking the society by democratic means is the fastest way. If tomorrow a true revolution starts I will first in line to support it, but you have to be realistic and see that isn't going to happen in the near future, atleast not in the Netherlands. I am not willing to wait, I want to change the society today.

Therefor I choose the way of a "democratic revolution". Using the current liberal democracy to gain mass support and change the society to a socialist one, just like in past Allende did and Chavez is doing right now.

But I agree that socialist brothers in other countries, with other voting systems such as the UK and the USA, may rely on other ways that lead to our common goal. I support (most) of them, especially those in the US, who live in far more hostile and anti-socialist society.

I see what you mean. I first thought you didn't support revolutionary change :).


Not in the way of "warning you" fact is : Your stipulations are anal and essentially counter revolutionary. By any means necessary! is not a puristic format. :crying:

What do you mean :confused:?

[Sleeping Dog]

Not in the way of "warning you" fact is : Your stipulations are anal and essentially counter revolutionary. By any means necessary! is not a puristic format. :crying:

What do you mean :confused:?Stop playing games. I posted in English; I don't believe (even for the slightest instance) that you are not aware that progression via established political structures or otherwise is "that exactly" progress.

You knew that.

[Red_or_Dead]

I am not anti-revolution, but when I look at my country and I ask myself "How can I change the current situation to the situation I want it to be, as fast as possible?" I can only conclude that overtaking the society by democratic means is the fastest way. If tomorrow a true revolution starts I will first in line to support it, but you have to be realistic and see that isn't going to happen in the near future, atleast not in the Netherlands. I am not willing to wait, I want to change the society today.

Therefor I choose the way of a "democratic revolution". Using the current liberal democracy to gain mass support and change the society to a socialist one, just like in past Allende did and Chavez is doing right now.

But I agree that socialist brothers in other countries, with other voting systems such as the UK and the USA, may rely on other ways that lead to our common goal. I support (most) of them, especially those in the US, who live in far more hostile and anti-socialist society.


I agree. I think that the western world today is a very long way from a revolution. I guess that things like consumerism, bourgeoisie propaganda about how we are free, improved living conditions for the majority of people (improved from the conditions in Marxs time, of course) have killed of the revolutionary spirit of the masses, to the point where most people dont want any kind of changes, even if they oppose the system. Of course, there is always a certain number of people who support the current system. The limited freedom that the bourgeoisie either gave or was forced to give to us obviously payed off to them.

[RNK]

Therefor I choose the way of a "democratic revolution".

There's no accounting for your intelligence.


Using the current liberal democracy to gain mass support and change the society to a socialist one, just like in past Allende did and Chavez is doing right now.

You mean the Bolivarian revolution, which is already turning against the worker's and peasents of Venezuela? That "social democratic" revolution has already shown that the only true way to freedom will be the destruction and overthrow of the state, not its pandering.

[Herman]

which is already turning against the worker's and peasents of Venezuela? That "social democratic" revolution has already shown that the only true way to freedom will be the destruction and overthrow of the state, not its pandering.Well thought out analysis, with facts, figures and statistics.

Of course, you probably support the tiny maoist/left-communist groupings in Venezuela, whom have no popular support nor ever will.

If you call the construction of communal councils, encouragement of taking over factories and establishing cooperatives and redistribution of land "social-democratic", then your view of socialism must be jaded somewhere.

But go ahead and try to do something similar to october 1917 in Europe. Let's see how succesful you are.

[redarmyfaction38]

A question: In todays western democracies, are there really any political parties that would REALLY represent the proletariat?

Judging from the present conditions, I would say no. Im speaking for my own country when I say that politics mainly serves the interests of the bourgeoisie. It may be same in the US, just a glance at the figures that are spend by the presidential candidates on campaigns shows (imo) that any serious politician or a political party needs to be backed up by the bourgeoisie, in order to have any chance of getting elected. And I guess its no different in parliamentary democracies (if we can call them democracies, that is).

you are absolutely correct in your analysis comrade.
in the western world and beyond not one of the parliamentary or democratic parties is capable of representing the interests of the proletariat.
where parties have been elected in "the interests of the proletariat" they have singularly failed to enable the transformation of society, instead, they have sought to "skin the tiger" without killing it first.
they have placed faITH IN JUDICIAL AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, rather tyhan allow and encourage the formation of workers control.
the world we live in is controlled by the interests of the multi national corporations, we live in a fascist state ( the corporate state, run by and contolled by the capitalist companies), this is self evident by the subsidies given to private companies to run state services, by the tax concessions that allow billionaires and their companies to avoid taxatiuoin.
fascism is upon us! we have been blinded by the nazis, the nationalists and the rest of the last resort "fascist parties" bto the truth of modern existence.
we all live in a multi national corporate state, where the intersts of the individual or the cworking class plat second fiddle to the interests of the multi national corporations.

[Victoire]

you are absolutely correct in your analysis comrade.
in the western world and beyond not one of the parliamentary or democratic parties is capable of representing the interests of the proletariat.
where parties have been elected in "the interests of the proletariat" they have singularly failed to enable the transformation of society, instead, they have sought to "skin the tiger" without killing it first.
they have placed faITH IN JUDICIAL AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, rather tyhan allow and encourage the formation of workers control.
the world we live in is controlled by the interests of the multi national corporations, we live in a fascist state ( the corporate state, run by and contolled by the capitalist companies), this is self evident by the subsidies given to private companies to run state services, by the tax concessions that allow billionaires and their companies to avoid taxatiuoin.
fascism is upon us! we have been blinded by the nazis, the nationalists and the rest of the last resort "fascist parties" bto the truth of modern existence.
we all live in a multi national corporate state, where the intersts of the individual or the cworking class plat second fiddle to the interests of the multi national corporations.

Isn't that deflation of a concept?, calling all capitalist countries fascist?. I don't know if your familiar with the fascist ideology, but it is not what I encounter in my country, or even in the rest of Europe (except Belarus maybe). In Western liberal democracies, almost, no parties are outlawed, hardly any violation of human rights, nor any other signs that lead to even the suggestion of that we are "all" living in fascist or nazi state.

Subsiding the economy is not fascist, its Keynesian economics, and that the fascists used this type of economics, doesn't mean its fascist. I object the system, but that doesn't mean its fascist. Please do not use terms like fascism and nazism lightly, it makes a good discussion impossible.

[Red_or_Dead]

you are absolutely correct in your analysis comrade.
in the western world and beyond not one of the parliamentary or democratic parties is capable of representing the interests of the proletariat.
where parties have been elected in "the interests of the proletariat" they have singularly failed to enable the transformation of society, instead, they have sought to "skin the tiger" without killing it first.
they have placed faITH IN JUDICIAL AND DEMOCRATIC PROCESS, rather tyhan allow and encourage the formation of workers control.
the world we live in is controlled by the interests of the multi national corporations, we live in a fascist state ( the corporate state, run by and contolled by the capitalist companies), this is self evident by the subsidies given to private companies to run state services, by the tax concessions that allow billionaires and their companies to avoid taxatiuoin.
fascism is upon us! we have been blinded by the nazis, the nationalists and the rest of the last resort "fascist parties" bto the truth of modern existence.
we all live in a multi national corporate state, where the intersts of the individual or the cworking class plat second fiddle to the interests of the multi national corporations.


While I agree with your statement that our world is controled by the interests of multi national corporations, Im not so sure about fascism, and I agree with Victoire here. A capitalist state is not the same as a fascist one. It can be, but I think that western Europe hasnt gone so far yet. At least not as far as Fascist Italy or Spain had gone in the last century. In a real Fascist state, I guess we wouldnt talk about parties and elections, cause there wouldnt be any.

With all that said, I have to say that comparing parliamentary democracy to fascism may reveal that fascism is really bad, BUT we shouldnt forget that PD is not that much better either. Both of the systems are in the service of the bourgeoisie, and are allowing the exploitation of the proletariat.

[Marsella]

The struggle for democracy can unite the proletariat, create class consciousness, etc.

That's an assertion.

Prove it.

[Red_or_Dead]

I thought that I could liven up this thread a bit, by giving an example of how parliamentary democracy can be used to do exactly the opposite, than what its supporters claim is its purpose, to obide the will of the people and stuff like that.


Our neighbouring country, Croatia is right now making steps to join NATO. Or better said; its politicians are. The majority of the Croatian population (last time I checked it was around 75%) are against their countries membership in the NATO, and many want a referendum, where they would decide themselves. Of course, that referendum would fail, and Croatia would not join the NATO, thats why the leaders of the parties that are supportive of the membership (most of the parties in the parliament) oppose a referendum, and are in favour of voting in the parliament itself, where the voting will of course succed, and Croatia would become a member. There is a similar situation in Finland right now, but since Im not well enough aquainted with it, ill leave it.

This to me is a typical hypocritical attitude of bourgeoisie politicians. The will of the people is only obided when it suits their own agenda.

Also, it brings to memory the time when we were deciding on membership in NATO. In the begininng, the public opinion was against the membership, though not as drasticaly as it is in Croatia at present. So, in the months prior to the referendum, our government, backed up even by many politicians from the opposition began a large scale campaign, to sway the public opinion to their side. Their large funds enabled them to outgun and outnumber any who opposed the membership, and in the end they won the referendum by a few percent.

Again, this shows that to succed in a parliamentary democracy, one needs money, and lots of it. And, in the wast majority of cases, that means to seek support in the social class that is the richest, wich of course is the bourgeoisie.

[Victoire]

I have taken the privilege to look at your profile, to see that you are from Slovenia. The German Wikipedia says that 66.1% of the Slovenian people voted "yes" in the NATO referendum in 2003 (89.1% voted yes on entering the EU!). That isn't a few procent. It seems that class conscience still has a long way to go in Slovenia

Ofcourse it is true that the party that has the most assets is able to reach the most people. I conclude therefor that a socialist party should have the largest assets in order to reach as much people as possible. Now don't call me a reformist/revisionist/puppet of the bourgoisie before I can explain this how this is possible without throwing your principles in the bin.

My party is the third "richest" party in the Netherlands. Outdoing the liberal party who is broadly supported by the larger cooperations. How this is possible?, by mass support. Our party has 50.000 members who atleast pay 20 euro's on a yearly basis. Besides that our representatives in the various councils (300+) and in the national parliament and senate (25 and 11) have to turn over between 100% and 50% of their income from their position as representative. This means the party is completely independant from cooperation or other infrictions of the socialist ideology, atleast that is wat I believe. I am curious how others think about this system.

[Red_or_Dead]

I have taken the privilege to look at your profile, to see that you are from Slovenia. The German Wikipedia says that 66.1% of the Slovenian people voted "yes" in the NATO referendum in 2003 (89.1% voted yes on entering the EU!). That isn't a few procent. It seems that class conscience still has a long way to go in Slovenia

Ofcourse it is true that the party that has the most assets is able to reach the most people. I conclude therefor that a socialist party should have the largest assets in order to reach as much people as possible. Now don't call me a reformist/revisionist/puppet of the bourgoisie before I can explain this how this is possible without throwing your principles in the bin.

My party is the third "richest" party in the Netherlands. Outdoing the liberal party who is broadly supported by the larger cooperations. How this is possible?, by mass support. Our party has 50.000 members who atleast pay 20 euro's on a yearly basis. Besides that our representatives in the various councils (300+) and in the national parliament and senate (25 and 11) have to turn over between 100% and 50% of their income from their position as representative. This means the party is completely independant from cooperation or other infrictions of the socialist ideology, atleast that is wat I believe. I am curious how others think about this system.


Yes, 66% is correct, and that isnt a few percent, I apologize, but I mixed up the info. Anyway, I remember clearly that before the campaign statistics showed, that a small majority was against.


As far as your party is concerned, 100.000 euros + the income from members that hold certain functions sounds like a pretty small number, but if its enough for the party to have such a succes, then ok. I personaly think that you have a good system, but its good for your country, since, obviously, the class concience is very high. I doubt that it would work in many other countries.

In any case, if your party happens to win the elections, whats the plan? How do you plan to transform Netherlands into a communist country?

[Victoire]

Although I might speak against party policy here, I believe the party eventually grow beyond a political party. Their will be a newspaper, a union, a television/radio station etc. etc. For everything their will be a socialist alternative. The party will have and maintain a (super)majority in the parliament and eventually in all the administrative councils. At that point, when the party (democratically) controls all aspects of the gouverment, we can start building towards a socialist society, from wich eventually we build towards a communist society. I believe this takes a long time. The Socialistische Partij exists for over thirty years, and it might take twice as much time to reach the level of political dominance and stabillity to begin building a socialist society. I personally believe I will not see a communist society in my life time.

It's all about being in control, how you acquire control is of lesser importance.

The Socialistische Partij is richer then you say it is. We at this moment have 50.000 members time twenty euro's is atleast a million euro's at a years basis. Then we also have gouverment subsidises, hand overs from various representitives (remember a Dutch MP makes about 90.000 euro's a year, and SP MP's have to hand over 50% of that) and other benefits. Because we have such large assets we are able to start up hugh campaigns, for instance in the EU constitution referendum about 83% of the parliament was in favor. Only the SP, a populist rightwing party and two small orthodox christian parties opposed. But the SP managed to reach out to the people and because of the succesful campaign the EU constitution was rejected by 63%.

[Red_or_Dead]

Although I might speak against party policy here, I believe the party eventually grow beyond a political party. Their will be a newspaper, a union, a television/radio station etc. etc. For everything their will be a socialist alternative. The party will have and maintain a (super)majority in the parliament and eventually in all the administrative councils. At that point, when the party (democratically) controls all aspects of the gouverment, we can start building towards a socialist society, from wich eventually we build towards a communist society. I believe this takes a long time. The Socialistische Partij exists for over thirty years, and it might take twice as much time to reach the level of political dominance and stabillity to begin building a socialist society. I personally believe I will not see a communist society in my life time.

It's all about being in control, how you acquire control is of lesser importance.

The Socialistische Partij is richer then you say it is. We at this moment have 50.000 members time twenty euro's is atleast a million euro's at a years basis. Then we also have gouverment subsidises, hand overs from various representitives (remember a Dutch MP makes about 90.000 euro's a year, and SP MP's have to hand over 50% of that) and other benefits. Because we have such large assets we are able to start up hugh campaigns, for instance in the EU constitution referendum about 83% of the parliament was in favor. Only the SP, a populist rightwing party and two small orthodox christian parties opposed. But the SP managed to reach out to the people and because of the succesful campaign the EU constitution was rejected by 63%.



Yes, its all about being in controll, but you have to get there, and in my opinion, reformism doesnt get you there. While those figures are impressive, the money by itself wont get you a communist society. The money can help you get to power (as any Slovenian politician could tell you), but once you get there, you have to show results. And I think that this is where reformism fails. If your party does win the elections, it will still face opposition, and that opposition will come from the non government, as well as other government parties, if you try to implement your ideas. The only way to overcome this is to get enough votes to have a majority in every matter. That is the first problem. Then there is the timeline. You said that you dont expect to see a communist society in your lifetime, but a term only lasts a few years, and you can hardly expect to stay in power for the time it would take to get to a communist society.

[redarmyfaction38]

[quote=Victoire;1065569]Isn't that deflation of a concept?, calling all capitalist countries fascist?. I don't know if your familiar with the fascist ideology, but it is not what I encounter in my country, or even in the rest of Europe (except Belarus maybe). In Western liberal democracies, almost, no parties are outlawed, hardly any violation of human rights, nor any other signs that lead to even the suggestion of that we are "all" living in fascist or nazi state.

Subsiding the economy is not fascist, its Keynesian economics, and that the fascists used this type of economics, doesn't mean its fascist. I object the system, but that doesn't mean its fascist. Please do not use terms like fascism and nazism lightly, it makes a good discussion impossible.[/quote}

30 years ago, you would have been absolutely correct in your criticism of my post.
the world has moved on however, nazism is not fascism, it is not the corporate state, the corporate state relies on its ability through financial superiority to overide the needs of nation states, it leaves "parliamentarey democracy" powerless in the face of its desire for profitability and naked ambition.
nazism and fascism were the last reosrt for capitalist ambition when faced with a "revolutionary proletariat", those conditions do not exist today, they finance "nationalist" parties like the bnp, just in case it all goes wrong for them, but the truth of the matter is, all the parliamentary pareties serve their interest, so what usev have they for the likes of the3 bnp? none!

all capitalist countries now serve the interests of international companies.
it is corporate fascism. it is not to be confused with the likes of national socialism.