United Socialist Party

[ReDSt4R]

Hi, this is my first post and I have studied Marxism and Collectivist thought in general for about two years now. I wanted to get opinions from you guys about organizing. You see I am quite optimistic for a socialist future and yet we are all so split on theoretical dogma that I haven't even bothered joining any organization. They all cling to one mind frame and proclaim their religion is the only way. We would attract more people if their was a broad unified effort of the left to educate, take part in "legitimate" government activities and agitate violent revolution all at the same time (as a organized whole).

Why the hell haven't we ever created a United Socialist organization (other than in Venezuela) were All collectivists have a voice ( not the case in Venezuela). Basically a parliamentary government organ were a united Communist party (this includes all 1 million Leninist varieties, classical Marxists and maybe even the SDs) and an organized Anarchist party (or a voluntary loose association if you dorks would prefer) can debate and unify efforts in taking action in their country.

I understand Marxisms tendency to make a party but it was also Marx him self who said that we should not create sectarian guidelines in opposition to the proletariat as a whole but simply reinforce the proletariat and ask the property question.

Would it be so absurd to unify all of us to make us more powerful? Than could we can analyze our current situation and debate on the proper approach without break offs? Can't the extent of power the state holds be up for debate or if there is a state at all? I am a Marxists but if Anarchists in my country were the majority I would not rally against them but work for/with them for a stateless revolution even though I do not believe that would be the right course. Shouldn't we have a democratic revolution?

I am a Marxist for some reason I am more attracted to Classical Marxism due to the broader view of political organization and democracy. But I don't even agree with Marx throwing Bakunin out of the First international. How can the state ever dissolve if the state is all powerful and is viewed as the sole protector of the revolution. How can the state dissolve without Anarchists? I don't understand how in a Leninist revolution this would be possible but in a Marxist scenario it would be possible.

Sorry for rambling. I really want paragraph two to be answered. Thanks in advance.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In regards to your question, I think you should read Lenin for key answers:

He talked about local circles in his day ("An Urgent Question"), which is analogous to modern "sectarianism." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/done-challenges-overcoming-t74557/index.html)
He also talked about the need for a singular revolutionary news service/organ (WITBD). (http://www.revleft.com/vb/united-social-labour-t75056/index.html)
He also spoke very highly of the German Social-Democratic model, in spite of his lack of knowledge regarding the lack of semi-autonomous organization on the part of the SPD's "revolutionary wing." (http://www.revleft.com/vb/radical-revolutionary-social-t76431/index.html)

[RHIZOMES]

I agree. I've always thought the best thing to do would be to start a revolution first, sort out our differences later.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Even before that revolution, the best thing to do is merge Marxism with the workers' movement! BTW, any outsider thoughts on the last link above?

[mykittyhasaboner]

I've always thought the best thing to do would be to start a revolution first, sort out our differences later.
Agreed, im sure after we have abolished our enemies, we could come up with a well thought out solution that everyone can agree on.

[RedFlagComrade]

But it will be much harder to create support for a revolution if we are divided, our strength will be weakened because the revolutionaries will be most likely from only one small isolated revolutionary party instead of one collossal revolutionary party with a massive,wide-ranging, diverse revolutionary support base with a far greater chance of lasting popular success.A united leftist socialist platform is essential if we want to bring about a communist revolution in our lifetime.Unite,then Fight!

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.gif

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html

That's not good.

[The Douche]

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.gif

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html

That's not good.

Uh, not accurate at all.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Am I overstating the sectarianism, or understating it? Have the respective memberships grown or shrunk? Remember, this is 2002-2003 information.

[The Douche]

^^^ Am I overstating the sectarianism, or understating it? Have the respective memberships grown or shrunk? Remember, this is 2002-2003 information.

No the secterianism is rampant, I would say probably even worse than that. Most of those memberships have probably shrunk, but a few are larger if I remember correctly. I saw the date reference for it in another thread after I made that post.

I know the IWW has at least 1500 members now. Or it did around a year and a half ago when I was a member. (nor are they anarchist)

The SLP is only a website.

DSA is only an email list I believe.

The Labor Party definitely does not have 10,000 members, and I doubt it ever did.

I doubt ISO has 800 members, we usually say ISO stands for "International Student Organization" since its membership consists only of students (college) and professors.

MIM definitely doesnt have 100 members.

And there are a number of groups that I haven't heard of or seen since I've been active in the past 5 years.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Isn't Bernie Sanders a DSA member, though?

[The Douche]

I don't think so, I read a brief interview with him right after he got elected and he said he considered himself a democratic socialist. He is registered as an "independent" and he is counted as a democrat on comittees.

To Americans he is a socialist, but in my mind he doesn't even really qualify as a democratic socialist.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ True at that. Now, care to comment on some of the recent RevMarx material regarding "radical social democracy"? ;)

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Most of the quibbles I've witnessed on the forum are no more troublesome than what you would experience on a conservative, right-libertarian, centralist, or liberal/social democrat forum.

If republicanism persists I personally believe multi/no-party elections are an adequate way of settling disputes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ So you are a Kautskyist, then? ;)

[RHIZOMES]

Most of the quibbles I've witnessed on the forum are no more troublesome than what you would experience on a conservative, right-libertarian, centralist, or liberal/social democrat forum.

If republicanism persists I personally believe multi/no-party elections are an adequate way of settling disputes.


Yes, but the system they support is already in power. Leftists shouldn't split up like this when they are in such a position.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think we've all seen the inherit problems in a system that has no/little checks and balances. If a state persists there needs to be some separation of powers. Personally I'm not much for any political party. ;)

[Dros]

^^^ Am I overstating the sectarianism, or understating it? Have the respective memberships grown or shrunk? Remember, this is 2002-2003 information.

Can't speak to other orginizations but there is NO way that you could know how many members are in the RCP.

OP:

I'm gonna go ahead and say this again even though it's rather unpopular. There is an incredible amount of sectarianism on the left. There is also this sentiment that this is a necessarily BAD thing. I disagree. While there needs to be the opportunity for cooperation around key issues, the idea of a broad coalition or a "united party" is exactly wrong for a variety of reasons. Firstly, and this can not be overstated, any revolution that does not have a correct outlook and correct line is DOOMED to failure. That is why there is such a thing as a vanguard party. There needs to be intense struggle over line and this can't just be tossed aside until after the fact. This WON'T work. Secondly, the various "sects" of leftism function better in there own groups. For instance, Trotskyists seem to like entryism (lol I don't know why!) and Maoists don't. Leninists use democratic centralism and Anarchists reject all authority. These are irresolvable contradictions in terms of practice and theory. If we choose democratic centralism, the anarchists will leave. If we reject the economist approach of Trotskyism, they'll leave. There needs to be a correct method and a correct line and that CAN'T come out of this kind of party and orginization. Thirdly, even if you could unify all the different groups into one party, you wouldn't want to. For this to work, we need an organization with the correct line and orientation. Not the broadest membership. Mass envolvement comes out of a correct and scientific line. It does not precede it. Organization should exist on the basis of the most revolutionary line. Once that has been established, mass envolvement follows independently of unity.

This does not prohibit unity on certain issues. For instance, Maoists, Trotskyists, and Anarchists can march hand in hand at anti-war rallies. This can, does, and should occur. But what we need is Unity-Struggle-Unity. The struggle is necessary for the revolution to be successful and it can not occur within the context of a "united party."

[ReDSt4R]

Alright but what will happen in the instance that, lets say (judging by the supposed inaccurate charts above) that a revolution is brewing and the dominate parties with support consist of Anarchists and Left-Communists(or forbid that the SDs in the CPUSA. gain support). Does this mean that we are doomed to waging civil war once the bourgeoisie are ousted? The point of my question was not so we can point out the obvious reasons that we do not coexist within the same party but to question the possibility of creating a peaceful diplomatic/democratic platform that would enable revolutionary Socialists with the ability of not making themselves vulnerable to external bourgeoisie forces by waging war with one another once proletariat control has been seized.

What is a correct outlook or correct line? Isn't that called an opinion? Isn't that subjective? Hasn't ever type of revolution started by every group on the map failed (regardless of it's length of survival/degeneration)? So who is correct? Why should you the Maoist not be heard during a Anarchist/Left-Communist revolution? Couldn't your insight or correct view present something healthy to the outlook of the far left? Or should they just kill you for blaspheming against their method? The history of masses following minority elitist groups are just that. If people wake up to what is really going on they aren't going to want to hand power over to another minority. No one will fall for that anymore. Once more what is the point of fighting for Marxism or Anarchism if you are going to take society from the hands of one minority and place control in the hands of another minority, whether they act as "representative" to the proletariat or not. If the Party no longer represents us, like in modern day China for instance, how does democratic-centralism guaranty a opportunity to alter party leadership so that we do not end up with the bourgeoisie on top of a workers state? How do we empower the people?

I realize many would want to leave when their fundamental approach was not selected by everyone but what a bunch of hypocrites they would be for leaving a proletariat council when the majority have spoken. Isn't it all about the people? Besides leaving would only hurt them because they would not have a voice in official government anymore. Leaving would only be justified if they were forced to or being persecuted. Surely healthy(almost killing each other :) debate will consistently happen and the possibility of compromise would be promising in certain situations, which would also hopefully take place. Or am I just to naive and should I just shut up and join a Marxist-Leninist party?

Thanks I'm still learning.

[Dros]

Fuck. I already replied to this but the board software has been skrewing around with me. Sorry for the lateness.


Alright but what will happen in the instance that, lets say (judging by the supposed inaccurate charts above) that a revolution is brewing and the dominate parties with support consist of Anarchists and Left-Communists

:lol: Left Communists and Anarchists won't have a revolution.

[sorry guys:D]


Does this mean that we are doomed to waging civil war once the bourgeoisie are ousted?

Perhaps. Although I doubt that they will have a significant enough base to wage a civil war.


The point of my question was not so we can point out the obvious reasons that we do not coexist within the same party but to question the possibility of creating a peaceful diplomatic/democratic platform that would enable revolutionary Socialists with the ability of not making themselves vulnerable to external bourgeoisie forces by waging war with one another once proletariat control has been seized.

And I'm saying such an orginization would be counter productive.


What is a correct outlook or correct line?

Marxism-Leninism-Maoism


Isn't that called an opinion? Isn't that subjective?

No. Marxism is a science. I think that Maoism s objectively more revolutionary.


Hasn't ever type of revolution started by every group on the map failed (regardless of it's length of survival/degeneration)?

The only group on the map to ever have a revolution would be the Leninists. So, while those revolutions were ultimately defeated, we should learn from and sum up those historical experiences and better Marxism-Leninism. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.


So who is correct? Why should you the Maoist not be heard during a Anarchist/Left-Communist revolution?

Since they believe in not having a state and unbridled free speech, we would be.


Couldn't your insight or correct view present something healthy to the outlook of the far left? Or should they just kill you for blaspheming against their method?

It's not about blasphemy. It's not that we don't accept criticism. Indeed, free speech, and even critical speech, will not only be allowed but encouraged under socialism. What is not acceptable is any attempt at subverting the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists oppose all states, even socialist ones. So yes. After the revolution, they will be our enemy.


The history of masses following minority elitist groups are just that. If people wake up to what is really going on they aren't going to want to hand power over to another minority. No one will fall for that anymore. Once more what is the point of fighting for Marxism or Anarchism if you are going to take society from the hands of one minority and place control in the hands of another minority, whether they act as "representative" to the proletariat or not.

Good. No one here advocates for bourgeois democracy. What's your point?


If the Party no longer represents us, like in modern day China for instance, how does democratic-centralism guaranty a opportunity to alter party leadership so that we do not end up with the bourgeoisie on top of a workers state? How do we empower the people?

Cultural revolution.


I realize many would want to leave when their fundamental approach was not selected by everyone but what a bunch of hypocrites they would be for leaving a proletariat council when the majority have spoken. Isn't it all about the people? Besides leaving would only hurt them because they would not have a voice in official government anymore. Leaving would only be justified if they were forced to or being persecuted. Surely healthy(almost killing each other :) debate will consistently happen and the possibility of compromise would be promising in certain situations, which would also hopefully take place.

What are you talking about? This isn't a bourgeois democracy.


Or am I just to naive

:D Most certainly you are.


and should I just shut up

If you did that, you wouldn't learn anything!:(


and join a Marxist-Leninist party?

Joining a Marxist-Leninist party isn't something you do on a whim. ML parties are the vanguard of the proletariat and membership in these groups of "professional revolutionaries" is something that is taken seriously. You couldn't just go and join even if you actually wanted to. However, if there is one in your area you might want to go and talk with them and maybe work with them.


Thanks I'm still learning.

So is everyone else.

[ReDSt4R]

Fuck. I already replied to this but the board software has been skrewing around with me. Sorry for the lateness.



:lol: Left Communists and Anarchists won't have a revolution.

[sorry guys:D]



Perhaps. Although I doubt that they will have a significant enough base to wage a civil war.



And I'm saying such an orginization would be counter productive.



Marxism-Leninism-Maoism



No. Marxism is a science. I think that Maoism s objectively more revolutionary.



The only group on the map to ever have a revolution would be the Leninists. So, while those revolutions were ultimately defeated, we should learn from and sum up those historical experiences and better Marxism-Leninism. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water.



Since they believe in not having a state and unbridled free speech, we would be.



It's not about blasphemy. It's not that we don't accept criticism. Indeed, free speech, and even critical speech, will not only be allowed but encouraged under socialism. What is not acceptable is any attempt at subverting the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Anarchists oppose all states, even socialist ones. So yes. After the revolution, they will be our enemy.



Good. No one here advocates for bourgeois democracy. What's your point?



Cultural revolution.



What are you talking about? This isn't a bourgeois democracy.



:D Most certainly you are.



If you did that, you wouldn't learn anything!:(



Joining a Marxist-Leninist party isn't something you do on a whim. ML parties are the vanguard of the proletariat and membership in these groups of "professional revolutionaries" is something that is taken seriously. You couldn't just go and join even if you actually wanted to. However, if there is one in your area you might want to go and talk with them and maybe work with them.



So is everyone else.

Although that may be true, from what I can see the anarchists and left-Communists out number any other groups in Western Countries. Civil war certainly would be possible. There have been conflicts between us all in the past. History repeats itself.

I'll spare you the questions getting deep into Maoism as I have to study the Marxist-Leninist line further. But how is Maoism more revolutionary? Isn't everyones aim to abolish capitalism the same. As for the state question and other organizational methods, my line of thinking was that these disputes could be dealt with using democracy. Not sure why you refer to it a bourgeoisie democracy if collectivists are debating whether or not to have a State capable of mandating policy and what policies are enacted but than again what I am advocating is a form of unified government and I'm not sure if the Anarchist would be into that either. :confused: So it's productivity would could only be weighed by it effectiveness to create dialog amongst these group to reach resolution without conflict.

I could be wrong but I don't believe the Leninist were not the only ones to have a revolution but indeed the only to have a revolution that created an international that spread world wide as a active threat to Capitalism. But the minute the U.S.S.R. fell the rest followed. How does Maoist thought fix the problem that became of the Maoist state it's self? Cultural revolution took place and was not effective in the long run. Why? Do you believe these states were democratic and people oriented until 1953,1976 etc..? And how is Maoism relevant in first world countries? Does it require me to wait around for third world countries?

I would be interested in joining a Marxist group so long as i felt that it's theoretical position was accurate and practical for the country I am living in. I also am more into the thought of direct-democracy and participatory economics and not managers of society. But both are necessary and should have lines drawn. Where do you stand on this? And how does the Maoist party intend on converting power from the hands of the state into involving people in political/economic issues? And why is compromise amongst various lines of thought in collectivist society not acceptable?

Last but not least since I've strayed from the topic already but i have your attention. Would it be also counter productive to be and follow a Marxist method of theory and political organization without adhering to Leninist ideas? I always felt that the third world was revolutionary only in a nationalist sense since in past revolutions these masses were not capable of class consciousness which is outlined by Marx in which First world revolution would take place and the material conditions to create socialism were not present. By doing the job the bourgeoisie revolution should have done we created the new red bourgeoisie in these countries. I've found the Marxist and Leninist theory create a dead lock amongst each other. It's the grand chicken or the egg question. Without first world revolution third world socialism is impossible and without third world revolution the first world proletariat will remain dormant.

Thanks for reading/replying to all this. Cause I know you will. ;):D

Sorry for straying from topic moderator people won't happen again.:o

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ IMO, the "Leninist" anti-diffusionism applies only to "lesser" imperialist countries: in his day, Russia was an imperialist power, but not in the same league as Britain, France, or Germany. In today's world, that would be Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, etc.

As much as I hate to say this, but really destitute places like much of Africa could only launch a Maoist "revolution" at best (that is, involving the always-treacherous "national bourgeoisie"), and this is because of the circulation of capital worldwide (none of these really destitute places neither want to nor are able to upset the imperialist order :( ).


and without third world revolution the first world proletariat will remain dormant

While this MAY have been the case in Lenin's time (doubtful, considering the revolutionary sentiment in Germany and Italy shortly afterwards), this is NOT true today. The decline of the USA as an economic powerhouse and the growing disparities between American proletarians (manual, clerical, and professional workers) and bourgeoisie will surely raise class consciousness on a rather diffusionist (ie, Marx, Engels, and Kautsky) basis.

[ReDSt4R]

^^^ IMO, the "Leninist" anti-diffusionism applies only to "smaller" imperialist countries: in his day, Russia was an imperialist power, but not in the same league as Britain, France, or Germany. In today's world, that would be Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Mexico, Canada, Ireland, etc.

As much as I hate to say this, but really destitute places like much of Africa could only launch a Maoist "revolution" at best (that is, involving the "national bourgeoisie"), and this is because of the circulation of capital worldwide (wouldn't and couldn't upset the imperialist order :( ).



While this MAY have been the case in Lenin's time (doubtful, considering the revolutionary sentiment in Germany and Italy shortly afterwards), this is NOT true today. The decline of the USA as an economic powerhouse and the growing disparities between American proletarians (manual, clerical, and professional workers) and bourgeoisie will surely raise class consciousness.

Agreed, which is why I find most Leninist theory to be unimportant(not that you were saying that but) other than the need for third world revolution and unification of all the working class. So i guess the real question is why fight for democratic-centralism rather than another method of organizing the class (vanguard party of all revolutionary socialists) hence me starting this silly thread. But non the less even in my country the Maoists however small their membership, are radical a fuck(arrogant but willing) and I would not like to rule out working with them. But it appears they would not be interested in working on a revolutionary level but merely as march buddies. :laugh: But if indeed Maoist Revolution is best suited for a situation than I would support it. So please Comrade drosera99 continue to enlighten me I am willing to learn. If it is the only way I am there.

[Dros]

Although that may be true, from what I can see the anarchists and left-Communists out number any other groups in Western Countries. Civil war certainly would be possible. There have been conflicts between us all in the past. History repeats itself.

Perhaps. Although, I hate to say it but a lot of the "Anarchists" that I have met aren't really anarchists. They where t-shirts and talk about how much they hate the state. Then they go to Walmart, by some Doritos and smoke a bowl. A lot of anarchists end up selling out. There are way fewer actual, committed, revolutionary anarchists, and a lot of people who want to be cool. As for Left Communists, I have NO idea where you live because I don't know of anywhere where there are a lot of left commies. Anyhow, they won't be having a revolution any time soon.


But how is Maoism more revolutionary? Isn't everyones aim to abolish capitalism the same.

Yes. We all have the same aim. However, certain methods are more effective at achieving that aim. Maoism as an historical phenomenon and as a scientific understanding of the world has led to the farthest advance of socialism in human history during the GPCR. Instead of throwing that out because it "failed", we should try and understand that failure and get beyond it.


As for the state question and other organizational methods, my line of thinking was that these disputes could be dealt with using democracy.

Nope. Let's say the concept of having the state wins. That means anarchists are out. They oppose ALL forms of authority, even popular authority. Let's say you don't have a state. That is intolerable as t will inevitably lead to the restoration of the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie in one form or another. Marxists-Leninists would create a state.


Not sure why you refer to it a bourgeoisie democracy if collectivists are debating whether or not to have a State capable of mandating policy and what policies are enacted but than again what I am advocating is a form of unified government and I'm not sure if the Anarchist would be into that either. :confused:

You're approaching this question within the framework of a bourgeois democratic system. This is not how proletarian or socialist democracy would work. The revolution will be led by a Vanguard party that will create a democratic state. We aren't all going to come together and talk about it at the end.


So it's productivity would could only be weighed by it effectiveness to create dialog amongst these group to reach resolution without conflict.

No. The state's role is not to create dialogue. The role of the state is to suppress the bourgeoisie and to develop the means of production and transform the people for Communism.


I could be wrong but I don't believe the Leninist were not the only ones to have a revolution but indeed the only to have a revolution that created an international that spread world wide as a active threat to Capitalism.

The anarchists had a brief stint in Spain that was overthrown rather quickly (look what happens without a state lol) by Fascists. If you consider that a revolution, the anarchists have one. Every other proletarian, socialist one was Leninist.


But the minute the U.S.S.R. fell the rest followed. How does Maoist thought fix the problem that became of the Maoist state it's self? Cultural revolution took place and was not effective in the long run. Why?

These are very good questions to which there are no easy or simple answers. The RCP has some very good material on how these questions should be addressed and how we should answer them.

rwor.org

In short, I think Cultural Revolution, democratic checks on the party, and increased vigilance and standards within the party would all be important parts of the process.


Do you believe these states were democratic and people oriented until 1953,1976 etc..?

Yes.


And how is Maoism relevant in first world countries?

Maoism is a revolutionary science. It is about uniting all that can be united for revolution. It does not dogmatically cling to some absurd notion of "peasent revolution" as some people insist it does. It says that the broad masses of people, led by the proletariat and its Vanguard Party, should overthrow capitalism and develop socialism. What specifically don't you think is applicable to the first world?


Does it require me to wait around for third world countries

:lol:

No that's Trotskyism.


I also am more into the thought of direct-democracy and participatory economics and not managers of society. But both are necessary and should have lines drawn. Where do you stand on this?

Errr... I'm for it?

Socialism will by necessity be an incredibly democratic time. For the first time in human history, that democracy will be democracy for the masses instead of democracy for the Bourgeoisie. Although direct democracy can't be it. There needs to be a Vanguard because of the contradiction between the proletariat's revolutionary and backward nature. Planning and bureaucracy (oh the horror) are also necessary. But the way I envision socialism, it will be far far far more democratic, with people of all strata being involved very directly in political and communal life.


And how does the Maoist party intend on converting power from the hands of the state into involving people in political/economic issues?

What exactly do you mean?


And why is compromise amongst various lines of thought in collectivist society not acceptable?

It's not that compromise is unacceptable as such. Socialism will be a period of intense struggle. There needs to be a scientific outlook and a thorough-going approach to secure the interests of the proletariat. "Compromise" could hinder that and lead to catastrophe (like on the issue of having a state).


Last but not least since I've strayed from the topic already but i have your attention. Would it be also counter productive to be and follow a Marxist method of theory and political organization without adhering to Leninist ideas?

Yes. Leninism is key to the success of revolutionary movements as a theoretical understanding and as a methodology.

Could you be more specific please?


I always felt that the third world was revolutionary only in a nationalist sense since in past revolutions these masses were not capable of class consciousness which is outlined by Marx in which First world revolution would take place and the material conditions to create socialism were not present.

Why is that? Mao's revolution, the revolution in India, Nepal, Peru, the Philipines, and elsewhere have all been thoroughly internationalist. This kind of rigid stageism is a form of dogmatism and social chauvinism I think. Could you elaborate on this a little more so I understand exacely where you're coming from here?


I've found the Marxist and Leninist theory create a dead lock amongst each other.

Lenin was a Marxist. All Leninists are Marxists. (And all real Marxists are Leninists;).)


It's the grand chicken or the egg question. Without first world revolution third world socialism is impossible and without third world revolution the first world proletariat will remain dormant.

Err..... No. Why is this true at all?


Thanks for reading/replying to all this. Cause I know you will. ;):D

:lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Agreed, which is why I find most Leninist theory to be unimportant(not that you were saying that but) other than the need for third world revolution and unification of all the working class. So i guess the real question is why fight for democratic-centralism rather than another method of organizing the class (vanguard party of all revolutionary socialists) hence me starting this silly thread.

You, comrade, are venturing into a Bordigist question (which is a good thing):

Why not an international socialist party? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-not-international-t59122/index3.html)

[ReDSt4R]

Perhaps. Although, I hate to say it but a lot of the "Anarchists" that I have met aren't really anarchists. They where t-shirts and talk about how much they hate the state. Then they go to Walmart, by some Doritos and smoke a bowl. A lot of anarchists end up selling out. There are way fewer actual, committed, revolutionary anarchists, and a lot of people who want to be cool. As for Left Communists, I have NO idea where you live because I don't know of anywhere where there are a lot of left commies. Anyhow, they won't be having a revolution any time soon.

I understand, it was just a theoretical situation in order to make the point that you should be heard even if you are a minority. I don't agree with majority rule all the time (just a majority of the time 8-B) I suppose sometimes equivalent representation to votes would be more just. But aside from all these bourgeoisie ideas of democracy I am apparently programed with i also thought it would be more fruitful to utilize everyone in an organized manner for the purpose of making revolution and rally more people to the cause. I suppose choosing one party is easier than having choose between 30 feuding parties. But I am beginning to see why this would be complete pain in the ass.


Yes. We all have the same aim. However, certain methods are more effective at achieving that aim. Maoism as an historical phenomenon and as a scientific understanding of the world has led to the farthest advance of socialism in human history during the GPCR. Instead of throwing that out because it "failed", we should try and understand that failure and get beyond it.

Well I agree throwing out good ideas prematurely is bad but isn't that what you've done with everything other than Maoism as a correction of mistakes? Can it be these countries are doing this and surviving due to Chinese support? How else would there revolutions be more successful than just a Marxist-Leninist revolution? I need to do some Maoist homework because I don't really see how Maoism continues Leninist theory. If anything I think the Maoist theory resembles the old Socialist Revolutionary party in Russia that split with the 2nd and 3rd international.


Nope. Let's say the concept of having the state wins. That means anarchists are out. They oppose ALL forms of authority, even popular authority. Let's say you don't have a state. That is intolerable as t will inevitably lead to the restoration of the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie in one form or another. Marxists-Leninists would create a state.

Ah I see. Basically it would require one group to hold it's tongue and work with the other side. Well than if what you say about anarchists in your first response is true than it would be like asking anarchists to join so they can shut up and fight for us. What of compromise like a small state of limited powers?...haha You don't have to answer that. :laugh:


You're approaching this question within the framework of a bourgeois democratic system. This is not how proletarian or socialist democracy would work. The revolution will be led by a Vanguard party that will create a democratic state. We aren't all going to come together and talk about it at the end.

Unfortunately not I suppose. How is my thinking within the system frame when we are speaking post-capitalist proletariat organization democracy? A multi-party or even a single party system with various sects holding democratic meetings and debates is inherently bourgeoisie? I understand it resembles capitalist Republic political structure but there are bound to be opposing views and hence political parties. Surely the proletariat has more than one political party that represents it's interests and ideology?


No. The state's role is not to create dialogue. The role of the state is to suppress the bourgeoisie and to develop the means of production and transform the people for Communism.

My mistake I did not mean the state I meant the imaginary U.S.P. the thread is about(obviously the state and party are separate governing organs right?). I'm aware of the need for the state I realize how I may sound but I am for the state. I am simply willing to compromise it's importance so that a unified effort could be established. But if you insist most would fall in line than I am out of words..


These are very good questions to which there are no easy or simple answers. The RCP has some very good material on how these questions should be addressed and how we should answer them.

rwor.org

As stated above I will do some homework thanks.


In short, I think Cultural Revolution, democratic checks on the party, and increased vigilance and standards within the party would all be important parts of the process.

Man, political coupes/purging and being more strict than Stalin and Mao you guys are ambitious. j/k Democratic checks meaning within the central committee right? Would their be any kind of involvement with the people deciding representatives in the party or the committee? And if you are going to say what I think you are going to say than although bourgeoisie democracy is a farce due to it's unbalanced economic playing field why would this kind of democracy not be possible in socialist society were everything is publicly owned?


Maoism is a revolutionary science. It is about uniting all that can be united for revolution. It does not dogmatically cling to some absurd notion of "peasent revolution" as some people insist it does. It says that the broad masses of people, led by the proletariat and its Vanguard Party, should overthrow capitalism and develop socialism. What specifically don't you think is applicable to the first world?

Sounds good. I read on a Maoist website that the first world has no proletariat and the rural people are the true proletariat. But I took that with a grain of salt. I know how that sectarianism screws up the correct lines and all.:laugh:


:lol:

No that's Trotskyism.

Good I don't believe I should have to wait when things are getting worse. But isn't it at least true that third world socialism is not possible without the world conforming with it. Obviously without support they be pressured out of existence. These countries can reach post-capitalist production?


Errr... I'm for it?

Socialism will by necessity be an incredibly democratic time. For the first time in human history, that democracy will be democracy for the masses instead of democracy for the Bourgeoisie. Although direct democracy can't be it. There needs to be a Vanguard because of the contradiction between the proletariat's revolutionary and backward nature. Planning and bureaucracy (oh the horror) are also necessary. But the way I envision socialism, it will be far far far more democratic, with people of all strata being involved very directly in political and communal life.

Who's/what backward nature? So the people interact with the party? But what if they fear their idea is to liberal do they not speak out of fear of the state vanguards reaction?


What exactly do you mean?

I'm sorry let me explain I have the preconceived notion that the party controls everything(the state) and thus becomes undemocratic in nature and eventually develops an anti-Marxist nature. If the party and state are designed to protect the revolution from the people because they might contaminate the revolution (due to capitalist or any anti-party line thinking) I always thought that maybe if the people were more directly involved maybe the party would not have fallen. How else, with leaders like Mao and Stalin did the party become filled with reformists?


It's not that compromise is unacceptable as such. Socialism will be a period of intense struggle. There needs to be a scientific outlook and a thorough-going approach to secure the interests of the proletariat. "Compromise" could hinder that and lead to catastrophe (like on the issue of having a state).

Ok, the proletariats interests/methods must be outlined and remain consistent got it.


Yes. Leninism is key to the success of revolutionary movements as a theoretical understanding and as a methodology.

Could you be more specific please?

My thinking is that Leninist theory may not be relevant to my country because we are not the oppressed but the oppressors. I agree with every thing I have ever read from Marx I can't say the same for Lenin (with all due respect) thus my point of view. I don't think Marx over looked or could not foresee imperialism but rather didn't see it as a threat. Like a necessary evil to put the whole world into a healthy state of class consciousness.


Why is that? Mao's revolution, the revolution in India, Nepal, Peru, the Philipines, and elsewhere have all been thoroughly internationalist. This kind of rigid stageism is a form of dogmatism and social chauvinism I think. Could you elaborate on this a little more so I understand exactly where you're coming from here?

I say that because of the class character that has filled the party (I speak mainly of Russia and China) needs to be analyzed which leads me to the question how would it be possible for these people to understand Marxism when they have not experienced capitalism and class struggle of that nature? So they may have been willing to unify with other ideological brethren but at the end of the day they were just isolated nations, which rebelled because their country was oppressed by foreign nations or their interests were sold out by their countries capitalists to oppressor nations. Also the peasant dominated conservative nature of these regions leads me to believe that these movements received acceptance because of their national character and not because the masses understood the dynamics of socialist democracy or the need for free access and public ownership. I believe this is why people so easily conformed to the Democratic-centralist party organization because most were accustomed to feudalism (Assuming the party was not democratic).In which case I agree those people needed a vanguard party but why would we?


Lenin was a Marxist. All Leninists are Marxists. (And all real Marxists are Leninists;).)

Yes he was but does his theory compliment or alter Marxist theory? He introduces ideas that Marx left out on purpose to prevent the movement from being doomed to inability of adaptation. With out evolution things die including ideas right? This was why Lenin was excepted in the first place but times are changing.


Err..... No. Why is this true at all?


Well I know once the oppressor nations are ready to change everything will change. I don't think third world revolution can impact world economy drastically enough to encourage the kind of change that nations would conform to in order to survive. So basically I'm saying it's not true but these were Lenin's point of view was it not? I mean yes Marxist-Leninist point of view fixed the theory of the 3rd needing the 1st with Socialism in one country but still isolation has made it impossible to reach the goals they easily could without such isolation.
I'm trying to say that Marx was right without Lenin.

[chegitz guevara]

I agree. I've always thought the best thing to do would be to start a revolution first, sort out our differences later.

Why do we need to sort out our differences at all? We can't we disagree? Why can we only be together in one organization if we all agree? What kind of society would such an organization create?

Fuck all that shit. There are real, serious differences and we do need to draw lines, but most of the lines we have drawn are imaginary. We need to unite around questions, not answers. How do we make the revolution? I don't care about the power struggles of dead Russians or Chinese. They don't mean shit in 2008 in the USA.

[chegitz guevara]

Firstly, and this can not be overstated, any revolution that does not have a correct outlook and correct line is DOOMED to failure.

Having the correct line is no guarantee of success and having the wrong line is no guarantee of failure. It only increases the odds. More over, and this is key, what is correct now may be incorrect tomorrow. What was correct yesterday may not be correct today. What was correct for China may not be correct for America.

We cannot create the perfect line which will lead us to the promised land. We will only, ever, have imperfect lines, which tack against the wind trying to get to the revolution. The line cannot be decided a priori and handed down from above, but must be worked out in struggle, on the ground, with real people's movements.


That is why there is such a thing as a vanguard party.

The vanguard party is not what you think it is. It is the party of the vanguard section of the working class. Lenin consistently strove, not for a narrow, prefect party with everyone in lock step agreement, but for a mass party of the working class, some of whom wouldn't even be social democrats (his term, since he wrote it before the split). He tried for a decade to get the Mensheviks to heal the split, not on the basis of accepting his ideas, but on the basis of accepting majority rule.


Secondly, the various "sects" of leftism function better in there own groups.

If that were true, we wouldn't have all been shrinking to the point that we're so irrelevant that the government doesn't even bother to spy on us anymore. Our sectarianism has been an utter disaster.


Mass envolvement comes out of a correct and scientific line. It does not precede it.

This is historically false.


Organization should exist on the basis of the most revolutionary line.

Lenin disagreed with you. So did Marx and Engels. So did most of our successful comrades.


Once that has been established, mass envolvement follows independently of unity.

Again, historically false. Hell, the Revolutionary Union was at its greatest influence before it solidified a line. Since then it has been a down hill slide.

[ReDSt4R]

Why do we need to sort out our differences at all? We can't we disagree?

We always will disagree but a plan of action amongst all of us would be in my opinion civilized.


Why can we only be together in one organization if we all agree?

Because it makes things easier for people. *blows my brains out*


What kind of society would such an organization create?

History answers that question, my trotskyist friend.


Fuck all that shit. There are real, serious differences and we do need to draw lines, but most of the lines we have drawn are imaginary. We need to unite around questions, not answers. How do we make the revolution? I don't care about the power struggles of dead Russians or Chinese. They don't mean shit in 2008 in the USA.

Exactly!! It's 08 things are getting shittier we have a prefascist government which will become even more senile or a wave of neo-liberal petty-bourgeoisie socialism conditioning people to forgive the last 8 years and crazy Libertarians are telling people that the N.W.O. wants what we want.:confused:

So when people get tired of this shit they will look at us and see a cluster of unorganized parties aiming for the same goal in absolute opposition to each other ,based on approach, so much to the point that working together while holding our own opinion is "impossible".

Fuck I wanna see the Maoists and Trotskyists start a joint effort. If that doesn't spread hope I don't know what would.:laugh:

[Dros]

Well I agree throwing out good ideas prematurely is bad but isn't that what you've done with everything other than Maoism as a correction of mistakes?

No. I'm not a dogmatist. I will follow the most revolutionary and scientific line. I don't throw out other ideas because they weren't Mao's or weren't my organizations, I throw out ideas because they are bad.


Can it be these countries are doing this and surviving due to Chinese support?

No. Maoist revolutionaries don't have the support of China because China is a capitalist state.


If anything I think the Maoist theory resembles the old Socialist Revolutionary party in Russia that split with the 2nd and 3rd international.

In what way?:confused:


Unfortunately not I suppose. How is my thinking within the system frame when we are speaking post-capitalist proletariat organization democracy?

That sentence makes no sense. Explain please?


I understand it resembles capitalist Republic political structure but there are bound to be opposing views and hence political parties.

Opposing views does not mean political parties per se.


Surely the proletariat has more than one political party that represents it's interests and ideology?

Why? The proletariat has a vanguard party that must lead the revolution and defend the interests of the proletariat. That doesn't mean every proletarian will support this party but it will be supported by and fight for the interests of the proletariat as a class.


(obviously the state and party are separate governing organs right?).

Not necessarily. The state will not consist entirely of the party but the party will be included in the state.


I'm aware of the need for the state I realize how I may sound but I am for the state. I am simply willing to compromise it's importance so that a unified effort could be established.

Without the DoP, the revolution will fail. Why risk that for unity with a section of people who will in all likelihood be pretty irrelevant?


Man, political coupes/purging and being more strict than Stalin and Mao you guys are ambitious. j/k

ummm... what?


Democratic checks meaning within the central committee right?

Not necessarily. Obviously, I can't propose a constitution as such but there would be some check on the party itself by the proletariat directly.


Would their be any kind of involvement with the people deciding representatives in the party or the committee?

The party (which consists mostly of proletarians and peasents) elects the CC and party committees.


And if you are going to say what I think you are going to say than although bourgeoisie democracy is a farce due to it's unbalanced economic playing field why would this kind of democracy not be possible in socialist society were everything is publicly owned?

Because there needs to be long term planning.


Sounds good. I read on a Maoist website that the first world has no proletariat and the rural people are the true proletariat. But I took that with a grain of salt. I know how that sectarianism screws up the correct lines and all.:laugh:

Those weren't Maoists. Those were idiot college students in need of a rebellion. Don't confuse these idiots for Maoists.


But isn't it at least true that third world socialism is not possible without the world conforming with it. Obviously without support they be pressured out of existence. These countries can reach post-capitalist production?

Yes absolutely these countries can build socialism.


Who's/what backward nature?

There is a major contradiction here that is resolved by the Vanguard party. The contradiction is this: while the proletariat is the first class capable of eliminating class entirely, there is still a lot of reactionary ideology within the proletariat. That is the main reason why the Vanguard party is necessary.


So the people interact with the party?

Of course.


But what if they fear their idea is to liberal do they not speak out of fear of the state vanguards reaction?

What are you talking about?

I didn't say we would kill everyone who disagrees! Quite the opposite! The Party will actively engage in intense struggle with other ideas. This will ensure the best practice and the most revolutionary lines and methods.


I'm sorry let me explain I have the preconceived notion that the party controls everything(the state) and thus becomes undemocratic in nature and eventually develops an anti-Marxist nature.

Well it doesn't so it won't.


If the party and state are designed to protect the revolution from the people because they might contaminate the revolution (due to capitalist or any anti-party line thinking) I always thought that maybe if the people were more directly involved maybe the party would not have fallen. How else, with leaders like Mao and Stalin did the party become filled with reformists?

Firstly, there's no reason to believe that involving the people more directly in the way you are talking about will always prevent revisionism. I think the masses need to be involved through cultural revolution, through direct democratic checks on the party within the structure of the DoP, through the party itself, and through participation directly in the state.


My thinking is that Leninist theory may not be relevant to my country because we are not the oppressed but the oppressors.

Lenin outlines a method of revolution for that country specifically. If your country is capitalist, has a state, a proletariat, and the need for socialism, Leninism is for you.


I agree with every thing I have ever read from Marx I can't say the same for Lenin (with all due respect) thus my point of view.

What don't you disagree with?


I don't think Marx over looked or could not foresee imperialism but rather didn't see it as a threat. Like a necessary evil to put the whole world into a healthy state of class consciousness.

Okay... ? Where are you going with this?


I say that because of the class character that has filled the party (I speak mainly of Russia and China) needs to be analyzed which leads me to the question how would it be possible for these people to understand Marxism when they have not experienced capitalism and class struggle of that nature?

What do you mean?


So they may have been willing to unify with other ideological brethren but at the end of the day they were just isolated nations, which rebelled because their country was oppressed by foreign nations or their interests were sold out by their countries capitalists to oppressor nations.

These revolutions were not national revolutions against the global system but proletarian revolutions against capitalism.


Also the peasant dominated conservative nature of these regions leads me to believe that these movements received acceptance because of their national character and not because the masses understood the dynamics of socialist democracy or the need for free access and public ownership.

Firstly, all the masses won't always understand Marxism. They may rebel out of some conception of "I never had a chance" or "Now it's my turn" etc.

Secondly, these revolutions were very much socialist and the masses of people did participate very directly, especially in the GPCR.


I believe this is why people so easily conformed to the Democratic-centralist party organization because most were accustomed to feudalism (Assuming the party was not democratic).

Why does Feudalism prepare one for democratic centralism?

How did people in these revolution conform to democratic centralism?

And how is the party not democratic?


In which case I agree those people needed a vanguard party but why would we?

Why wouldn't you exactly?


Yes he was but does his theory compliment or alter Marxist theory? He introduces ideas that Marx left out on purpose to prevent the movement from being doomed to inability of adaptation. With out evolution things die including ideas right? This was why Lenin was excepted in the first place but times are changing.

Complimented.

What did he introduce that Marx deliberately left out?

Why does Leninism rule out adaptation? To the contrary! Lenin laid out a method (democratic centralism) to allow for the best way to introduce new ideas and adapt while still maintaining organizational viability.


Well I know once the oppressor nations are ready to change everything will change. I don't think third world revolution can impact world economy drastically enough to encourage the kind of change that nations would conform to in order to survive.

Why is that the way the resolution is going to work? I don't think that's how it will happen. It's not that we need enough revolutions and then the capitalists will just give in. This is going to be a global revolution in the end.


So basically I'm saying it's not true but these were Lenin's point of view was it not? I mean yes Marxist-Leninist point of view fixed the theory of the 3rd needing the 1st with Socialism in one country but still isolation has made it impossible to reach the goals they easily could without such isolation.

Say what now?


I'm trying to say that Marx was right without Lenin.

Yes. But Lenin was as right as Marx and MORE!

Marxism without Leninism is like a bowl of cereal (the goal of revolution and the basis for making it) without a spoon (a means of achieving said goal).

[Dros]

Having the correct line is no guarantee of success and having the wrong line is no guarantee of failure. It only increases the odds.

If you fail, you did not have a correct line. This is (almost) always true. In these situations, it is necessary to sum up, figure out what you did right and figure out what you did wrong and then make it better.


More over, and this is key, what is correct now may be incorrect tomorrow. What was correct yesterday may not be correct today. What was correct for China may not be correct for America.

This is of course true. That is why Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is not a dogma. It is a revolutionary science. And Leninism sets up the methodology for doing this.


We cannot create the perfect line which will lead us to the promised land.

Don't be trivial and reductionistic.


We will only, ever, have imperfect lines, which tack against the wind trying to get to the revolution. The line cannot be decided a priori and handed down from above, but must be worked out in struggle, on the ground, with real people's movements.

I didn't say anything about perfect lines nor am I being a prioristic here at all. The best line is of course synthesized out of practice and out of intense struggle.


The vanguard party is not what you think it is. It is the party of the vanguard section of the working class.

Then it is what I think it is.


Lenin consistently strove, not for a narrow, prefect party with everyone in lock step agreement, but for a mass party of the working class, some of whom wouldn't even be social democrats (his term, since he wrote it before the split).

You are seriously, seriously confused. That was what Martov strove for. Lenin strove to have a party of committed, professional revolutionaries in contrast to the Menshevik notion of mass party. I know that Trots have a tendency towards economism and Menshevism but this is simply blatantly untrue.



If that were true, we wouldn't have all been shrinking to the point that we're so irrelevant that the government doesn't even bother to spy on us anymore. Our sectarianism has been an utter disaster.

Our sectarianism isn't what got us. It's the fact that we live in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie. And the government is still spying on us.


This is historically false.

:lol: Make an argument or quit trolling.


Lenin disagreed with you. So did Marx and Engels. So did most of our successful comrades.

Again. Say something substantive or shut up.


Again, historically false. Hell, the Revolutionary Union was at its greatest influence before it solidified a line. Since then it has been a down hill slide.

That is true only because of the situation out of which the RU was born: the 60s!

This has nothing to do with overall principles of organization but with historical trends within the superstructure of the US.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why do we need to sort out our differences at all? We can't we disagree? Why can we only be together in one organization if we all agree? What kind of society would such an organization create?

Fuck all that shit. There are real, serious differences and we do need to draw lines, but most of the lines we have drawn are imaginary. We need to unite around questions, not answers. How do we make the revolution? I don't care about the power struggles of dead Russians or Chinese. They don't mean shit in 2008 in the USA.

Comrade, this is quotable stuff. You may wish to check out the RevMarx thread on "radical social democracy." The idea is that, in advanced countries, only a modified version of the "Kautskyist" model of organization (along the lines of the SPD) is suitable.

"Modified" refers to both of these things ideally, but definitely to the first modification:

1) Autonomous tendency organization within the mass party (Bolsheviks, Mensheviks, Mezhraiontsy, etc.);
2) Non-parliamentarianism.

[ReDSt4R]

Well sir thank you for your responses drosera. I don't wish to further my questioning until I have studied the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line further and all other lines for that matter.

[mikelepore]

Very interesting topic... As a De Leonist myself, I can say briefly why De Leonists tend to show resistance toward such a premise to form a united socialist party.

As they did starting in the 1890s De Leonists still insist that:

* It is disasterous to propose lists of reform demands which cause the working class to get the wrong impression that the "path to socialism" is the accumulated tinkering with the surface forms of capitalism. The only path to socialism is to organize one big industrial union and to transfer control of the industries to it. The leftist tradition of proposing lists of reforms that imply the continuation of capitalism causes only confusion. To suggest that we should mend the garbage before throwing it away can only cause confusion. Revolutions can succeed only by marching straight toward their goals. The only purpose for the existence of a socialist political party, and the only plank in its program, must be: take the state away from the capitalist class, and declare the control of the means of production to be transferred to the industrial union.

* Education of the working class about socialism must consist mainly of the discussion of industrial democracy. The agenda of socialist literature and oratory should consist of such points as: we need assemblies of workers in all industries to take over the management role; that voting at every workplace will be how management will be done, from local department supervision, all the way to a central congress of workers' delegates; that we need a system in which there will be no appointees in management because all levels will be elected directly by their constituents; that we need an economic system in which all administrators will be subject to immediate recall by majority vote, etc. This is the De Leonist idea of what a socialist speech, newspaper article, or pamphlet should be about.

So the formation of a new united socialist party would be wonderful -- if the basis of that unification is that the left comes to recognize that most of its present programs and positions are distractions from the topics that urgently need to be focused on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That's just like the left-communist adoption of the maximum program only ("the minimum program is socialism"). :(

And why "one big union" (per Connolly), when soviets, workplace committees, and communal councils can do the job much better?

[mikelepore]

That's just like the left-communist adoption of the maximum program only ("the minimum program is socialism").

I believe that is right. Suppose we were living in an earlier century and the issue was chattel slavery. Should we push for the end of slavery entirely, or should we try to lessen the suffering by supporting passage of a new law that will say that a slave owner is rightfully entitled to deliver up to ten whip lashes in a given day but no more than that number? Suppose that the demand to completely abolish the institution will be harder to win, more difficult to persuade people, but it's what is needed. Suppose that the proposal for a reform to lessen the suffering would be easier to get adopted, but it also implies the recognition and continuation of slavery. The right thing to do would be to call directly for the abolition of slavery, and, though most people are repulsed by how radical the idea seems, in the long run, that strategy will make the necessary change occur sooner.


And why "one big union" (per Connolly), when soviets, workplace committees, and communal councils can do the job much better?

I'm not aware of the differences between those terms. Whatever the thing is called, to have a large network or organization of workers take control of the means of production is the right approach. To have the state nationalize the means of production is the wrong approach. The purpose of a political party of socialism is to grab the big stick, the state, away from the ruling class, while the association of workers declares itself to be the new management.

[nvm]

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.gif

http://reds.linefeed.org/groups.html

That's not good.

CAN SOMEBODY MAKE SOMETHING SIMILAR FOR CANADA?

[chegitz guevara]

As they did starting in the 1890s De Leonists still insist that:

Are the DeLeonists aware that 118 years have passed since 1890?

I don't wish to be dismissive of your politics, but perhaps it's time to join the rest of the revolutionary movement in the early 20th Century, or even some of the rest of us in the 21st? ;)

We have had multiple successful proletarian revolutions since the 1890s, and our understanding of how to organize for revolution has advanced. Unfortunately, most comrades have failed to understand we no longer live in 1917 or 1949 or 1959, etc. We live in 2008. Our revolution will not be made by slavishly following this or that pronouncement of a dead great leader, but by becoming our own great leaders, by understanding the times in which we live. We can learn from the past, but we should not be aiming to recreate it.

[chegitz guevara]

If you fail, you did not have a correct line. This is (almost) always true.

That's a circular argument, thus invalid.


You are seriously, seriously confused. That was what Martov strove for. Lenin strove to have a party of committed, professional revolutionaries in contrast to the Menshevik notion of mass party. I know that Trots have a tendency towards economism and Menshevism but this is simply blatantly untrue.Sorry Charlie.

This is what Lenin wrote about WitBD? in 1907, "The basic mistake made by those who now criticize WITBD is to treat the pamphlet apart from its connection with the concrete historical situation of a definite, and now long past, period in the development of our Party."

In One Step Forward, Two Steps Back Lenin writes, "Nor at the Second Congress did I have any intention of elevating my own formulations, as given in WITBD, to “programmatic” level, constituting special principles. On the contrary, the expression I used – and it has since been frequently quoted – was that the Economists had gone to one extreme. WITBD, I said, straightens out what had been twisted by the Economists ... [41]" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n41)

==========

The Myth of Lenin’s “Concept of The Party” (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm)


“It is obvious that here an episode in the struggle against ‘Economism’ has been confused with a discussion of the principles of a major theoretical question (the formation of an ideology). Moreover, this episode has been presented in an absolutely false light.” [7] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n7) He directly confronted the claim about subordinating the working-class movement to bourgeois intellectuals:
It is claimed that Lenin says nothing about any conflicting trends, but categorically affirms that the working-class movement invariably “tends” to succumb to bourgeois ideology. Is that so? Have I not said that the working-class movement is drawn towards the bourgeois outlook with the benevolent assistance of the Schulze-Delitzsches and others like them? And who is meant here by “others like them”? None other than the “Economists” ...
This was a further step in adding qualifications to the bare Kautsky theory, without breaking with Kautsky. He added an even more serious qualification:
Lenin takes no account whatever of the fact that the workers, too, have a share in the formation of an ideology. Is that so? Have I not said time and again that the shortage of fully class-conscious workers, worker-leaders, and worker-revolutionaries is, in fact, the greatest deficiency in our movement? Have I not said there that the training of such worker-revolutionaries must be our immediate task? Is there no mention there of the importance of developing a trade-union movement and creating a special trade-union literature? ... [8] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n8)
And to end this same speech, Lenin made the point which is among the most important to keep in mind about WITBD:
To conclude. We all know that the “Economists” have gone to one extreme. To straighten matters out somebody had to pull in the other direction, and that is what I have done. [9] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n9)----------------------
It should not be imagined that Party organizations must consist solely of professional revolutionaries. We need the most diverse organizations of all types, ranks and shades, beginning with extremely limited and secret [ones] and ending with very broad, free, [I]lose Organisationen [loose organizations]. [10] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n10)
He could not have been more explicit in correcting any false impression that might have been conveyed by his “bow-bending” in WITBD.
Lenin repeated this clarification in his second speech that day:
Comrade Trotsky completely misunderstood the main idea of my book What Is To Be Done? when he spoke about the party not being a conspiratorial organization (many others too raised this objection). He forgot that in my book I propose a number of various types of organizations, from the most secret and most exclusive to comparatively broad and “loose” organizations. [11] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n11)
---------------
Comrade Luxemburg says, for example, that my book is a clear and detailed expression of the point of view of “intransigent centralism.” Comrade Luxemburg thus supposes that I defend one system of organization against another. But actually that is not so. From the first to the last page of my book, I defend the elementary principles of any conceivable system of party organization. [12] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n12)
That is, Lenin believed that he was only working out the forms of any party that could conceivably exist under the given conditions in Russia.
Rosa Luxemburg further says that “according to his [Lenin’s] conception, the Central Committee has the right to organize all the local Party committees.” Actually that is not so ... Comrade Luxemburg says that in my view “the Central Committee is the only active nucleus of the Party.” Actually that is not so. I have never advocated any such view ... Comrade Rosa Luxemburg says ... that the whole controversy is over the degree of centralization. Actually that is not so. ... our controversy has principally been over whether the Central Committee and Central Organ should represent the trend of the majority of the Party Congress, or whether they should not. About this “ultra-centralist” and “purely Blanquist” demand the worthy comrade says not a word, she prefers to declaim against mechanical subordination of the part to the whole, against slavish submission, blind obedience, and other such bogeys. ... Comrade Luxemburg fathers on me the idea that all the conditions already exist in Russia for forming a large and extremely centralized workers’ party. Again an error of fact ... [13] (http://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1990/myth/myth.htm#n13)

[Dros]

So what? Only a few sentences of this are relevant to this discussion. Lenin criticized economism, yes. Firstly, the line you've been putting forward is precisely the economism Lenin criticized to begin with. Secondly, the only sentences that are relevant, those dealing with loose organizations, are being misread and misrepresented. Lenin very carefully differentiates the party from "party organizations" which he insists must be diverse. All that means is that the vanguard party, a party of "professional revolutionaries" must have other organizations around it. The RCP does do this and this in NO WAY contradicts my line here.

After that, I fail to see the relevance of the other quotes except that they are Lenin's elaborations on why he wrote what is to be done and a rebuttal of Trotskyist and other strains of economists objections.


That's a circular argument, thus invalid.

How is it circular? Success or failure in terms of revolution is (often but not rigidly in a deterministic sense) determined by the orientation of revolutionaries broadly. The failure of every single leftist revolution has fundamentally been grounded in the limits of the lines and theories that they were grounded in. These limitations in theory lead to limits in practice which gave rise to the acute contradictions that eventually toppled and defeated every revolutionary movement yet to exist. Certainly, this can not be taken to mean that factors external to the party did not play a huge role. It does mean that the parties did not take a correct orientation with regards to these factors.

Just as an aside, even if some argument is circular, that does not in and of itself disprove the argument. For instance, if I argue the sky is blue because blue is in the sky, that is a circular argument but the sky is still blue.

[mikelepore]

Are the DeLeonists aware that 118 years have passed since 1890?

I don't wish to be dismissive of your politics, but perhaps it's time to join the rest of the revolutionary movement in the early 20th Century, or even some of the rest of us in the 21st? ;)

First, that advice isn't specific enough. To tell someone to do the right thing which is the modern thing which is my thing, instead of doing the wrong thing which is the obsolete thing which is your thing, doesn't have any content. It's one of those decorative fillers that anyone can snap into a debate.

The strategy of incrementalism, the idea that progress for the socialist movement must occur by means of demands for improvements or ameliorations (tax the corporations, nationalize the banks, etc.) , is the strategy that has dominated the left. De Leon's suggestion that a socialist organization should focus more on the need for a new social system with particular characteristics, has not dominated the thinking of the left. Well, how have things turned out? Has class consciousness grown steadily since the Communist Manifesto? Class consciousness in the U.S. had its peak around 1910 and it has been downhill ever since, to the end that less than one person in a thousand now call themselves socialists of any variety. Surely the outcome that is seen cannot be attributed to the strategy that has NOT been followed. It's worth investigating whether the outcome might be due to the strategy that HAS been followed.


We have had multiple successful proletarian revolutions since the 1890s, and our understanding of how to organize for revolution has advanced.

Two statements that I'm afraid I must disagree with.

Until we get at least one island somewhere where the participatory democracy of the people is the administrative system, there are no successes to look at.

Please show me what we have come to understand.


Unfortunately, most comrades have failed to understand we no longer live in 1917 or 1949 or 1959, etc. We live in 2008. Our revolution will not be made by slavishly following this or that pronouncement of a dead great leader, but by becoming our own great leaders, by understanding the times in which we live. We can learn from the past, but we should not be aiming to recreate it.

I have expressed a few conclusions that I think can be drawn from historical experience. What are your conclusions that we might find to be more correct than mine? Just saying that mine are wrong is easy.

Nowhere did I say that any assertion is known to be true just because I think highly of a great leader who said it.

And it just might be the case that a statement made a long time ago is true, while a more recent statement can be false.

Come on, I would really appreciate receiving some criticism, but there has to be some body to it.

[mikelepore]

This is what I believe:

Class divided society is the major cause of all social problems. None of society's problems can be solved without a socialist reconstruction of the economic system. An unlimited number of reforms might be adopted to reduce the injury cause by class rule, but the dominance of capitalist social relations would continue unaffected. It's the duty of a socialist organization to be as clear as possible about the fact that capitalism, even with the addition of a thousand new reforms, would not be worth saving. It is necesssary to promote the greatest amount of clarity about this because the conservativism of the working class is a cognitive problem. It is a cognitive problem, in the same sense as Copernicus' heliocentric model faced a cognitive problem, because most people mistakenly believe that social problems might be solved while capitalism exists; most people do not yet understand the reasons why capitalism, no matter how drastically reformed, can never be made to operate in the interests of the majority. This clarity gets lost and confusion is amplified when a socialist platform contains reform demands, because patchwork implies keeping something and not abolishing it, just as expending effort to repair your car implies a decision to continue to use it and not to demolish it. A socialist organization must identify to the working class the demarcation between the internal framework of a society and the surface manifestations. Socialists propose the adoption of a new internal structure. The external forms, the daily and practical improvements, will follow after the skeletal structure is assembled.

[chegitz guevara]

I don't think you'll find many incrementalists here. This is RevLeft, not WishyWashyLeft. I'm a communist.

We pretty all agree capitalism needs to be overthrown, forcefully. Where we disagree is the tactics, the strategies. I'm not telling you to fire your politics and hire mine. We could definitely use a better understanding of DeLeon in our movement. I'm just saying, The Answer™ isn't there, anymore than it is in any other movement. We have to make our answers, building on what worked on the past.

[mikelepore]

Here's an example. I saved the following excerpt in 1996 from the web site of the Communist Party USA:


Put people's needs before corporate profits and greed. Full employment with decent jobs at good wages for all. Massive public works jobs programs to rebuild the country and put everyone back to work. Fund this program with drastic cuts in the military budget and a sharp increase in taxes on the corporations and the super rich. Eliminate all taxes on working people making less than $60,000 a year. A militant fight for the needs of the working class and people. Free quality universal health care for all. Massive low cost housing programs. Free universal 24 hour quality child care for working parents. Free education from preschool through college including skills, vocational and continuing adult education. Make the corporations pay to clean up the environment and put a clean safe environment above the profits of the monopoly corporations.

(I won't attach a lot of quotations, but darned if I can see any basic difference between the above approach and the approach used by the Socialist Party USA, the Workers World Party, and numerous other parties.)

The text I have quoted is compassionate and humanistic. So what could possibly be wrong with it?

That kind of text gives the reader the impression that there is a path to socialism that consists of these stepping stones. What the the reader "learns" is that socialism _means_ the accumulated result of many efforts of this kind. That is what I have called the cognitive error.

Socialism has to be entirely put together offline and then snapped into place abruptly. The workers in all of the industries and services have to form their workplace-based assemblies or unions with the intention of declaring that network to be the new management, continuing this organization process during the period in which they have no power to enforce it, until the time comes when they do have a sufficient number to enforce it. Then (and this is where De Leonists differs from the IWW), upon the signal of a takeover of the state by a socialist political party, the power of the police and the military now being diverted away from suppression of the working class, the workplace-based organization acts now. The workplace-based organization makes the conversion simultaneously everywhere, physically locking out the capitalist managers and immediately recognizing only the workers' delegates. A complete management system run by workers has to be ready to go online at that moment, with a shipment schedule for every warehouse, a route for every truck driver, every department already having voted on which worker shall be the supervisor, a congress of workers' representatives from all sectors already elected and ready to meet and direct the economy centrally, everything fully functional from the first minute.

That's the only way it can be done. To try to do it any other way would put a professional leadership in control and would not give everyone the preliminary education in the skills of industrial self-management. Using any other method we would end up with the central committee of the self-proclaimed workers' political party being the new ruling class, as in the Soviet Union.

Now, how about those reforms, the "immediate demands"?

Here is what I propose. Socialists can continue to issue short-term demands but they must be clearly labeled as not being part of the socialist program. Try the following kind of approach:

"We also support the following proposals to lessen the oppression of the working class under capitalism, because the rate of growth of the socialist movement has not made it clear that socialists will be in the majority for the next several years. Note carefully that that the following suggestions are not part of the "path" to socialism. They have nothing to do with th achievement of socialism, and are not part of the socialist program. Socialists have adopted these goals for the sake of human survival while actual socialist organization can get started." -- Now here is where we insert the equivalent of the CPUSA text that I quoted above. If there is any reformism in socialist literature, that is how it should be expressed.

[chegitz guevara]

What did I write earlier about this being REVLeft and not wishywashyleft? We ain't CP here.

There is more than one purpose in fighting for reforms if you're a revolutionary (let me make clear that by this I don't mean the Communist Party or other reformist groups). First, the fight for reforms organizes the working class. Did Marx oppose the Chartist movement? No. Did he oppose unions? No. Did he oppose the fight for suffrage? No. Why? Because by fighting for these gains, the working class took steps in creating for itself the organs it needs to contest for political power.

Also, as revolutionaries, we need to put forward goals that we feel capital cannot accommodate. This exposes the limitations of reformism, and pushes the working class towards a revolutionary confrontation with the capitalist class.

This is not incrementalism, i.e., the belief we can reform our way to socialism. You will find no one here who believes that. If that's what you wish to argue against, you won't find many takers.

[mikelepore]

That "the fight for reforms organizes the working class" it's one of those thing that seems to sound right, intuitively, except for one little problem -- that there's no empirical evidence for it being true.

First, it begins with being dishonest. It means saying, in effect, "People would be 'turned off' if we begin by letting them know right away that we want a revolution, so let's tell them instead that we're the people who are trying to win them daycare centers and college tuition freezes and a tougher clean air law." Now, what happens after we have recruited people by lying to them? They have been trained to think in terms of bumper-stickers, instead of being educated to practice daily self-management. If they have been organized, they were organized as sheep.

Most likely of all, what it organizes people to do is to become more dedicated conservatives a few years later. A demand that is subsequently unachieved makes people disillusioned with any possibility of change, and a demand that is subsequently achieved makes people conclude that "this proves that our great system really works."

The suffrage, civil liberties, and union organization don't imply the continuation of capitalism, and they will be necessary continuations even after worldwide socialism is established, so they're not the kind of steps I was talking about. They are also necessary parts of revolutionary strategy.

But demands that logically imply the continuation of capitalism, and seem to be intended mainly to attract dues payers and protest votes, are found in most "communist" and "Marxist" organizations, so I don't know what you mean when you say that I wouldn't "have any takers."

Then there are some leftist demands that would turn out not to have the anticipated effects. Even if they are won, they would fail to solve the problems which they were intended to address.

Then there are some leftist demands that would backfire on us. If they were won, life would actually get worse -- businesses would announce layoffs, important product lines would be discontinued, apartments and loan would become more unavailable, etc. That's what happens if we try to fight the act of profiteering while the system that requires profiteering for it to function at all still exists.

Then there are some leftist demands that are the pet peeves of somebody in particular, and I happen to have a different set of peeves. I don't even consider some of their demands to be even desirable.

I apologize if I have gone too far in taking this topic away from the purpose of the original poster, and I will fade it out if I'm disrupting the intended topic.

[chegitz guevara]

This isn't going to work if you keep arguing against something I'm not writing. Let me know when you're serious about debating ME and not some strawman.

[mikelepore]

That might have been that I misunderstood you, rather than my evil intentions.

You said I'd have no takers, and you reminded me that this is revleft, so I thought it relevant to respond to the entire "left" as I know it to be.

I'm an old timer from the appearance of the New Left out of the U.S. student movement to end the war in Vietnam, and I have followed the trends ever since. I have been a representative to public debates. I have some familiarity with what is usually called the "left".

[ern]

drosera99's Avatar drosera99 You ask where the left communists are? Well we certainly make no claims to being mass organisation but there are Left Communist Organisations with an international presence; The International Communist Current: the US, Mexico, Venezuela, India, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Britain.In all these countries we have the support of people outside the organisation. We have contacts with individuals and groups in Latin America, South Korea, the Philippines, Russia, Hungary, Australia. The EKS in Turkey The International Buruea for the revolutionary party has groups in Italy, France, Britain and Canada, along with people who support them in various countries. There are the various Bordigist groups in Italy, Spain, France. The internet has also had a very profound impact upon the presence of Left Communist politics and groups. What do you think of the Communist Left?

[Dros]

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:


drosera99's Avatar drosera99 You ask where the left communists are? Well we certainly make no claims to being mass organisation but there are Left Communist Organisations with an international presence; The International Communist Current: the US, Mexico, Venezuela, India, Italy, Switzerland, Spain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Germany, Britain.In all these countries we have the support of people outside the organisation. We have contacts with individuals and groups in Latin America, South Korea, the Philippines, Russia, Hungary, Australia. The EKS in Turkey The International Buruea for the revolutionary party has groups in Italy, France, Britain and Canada, along with people who support them in various countries. There are the various Bordigist groups in Italy, Spain, France. The internet has also had a very profound impact upon the presence of Left Communist politics and groups.

Yes. I'm aware that there are Left Communist organizations. What I am saying is that they do not now have, never have had, and never will have a mass following in any section of any people anywhere ever. Left Communism, because of it's thoroughly unscientific theories and organizational methods, will continue to be an historical relic.


What do you think of the Communist Left?

This. (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)

[chegitz guevara]

This. (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/lwc/index.htm)

Funny, I would apply that to the RCP. :p

[Dros]

Funny, I would apply that to the RCP. :p

Now would that be because you think the RCP is infantile or Left-Communist?

At any rate, I can tell that this will degenerate into a silly conversation if I allow the fire to be fed. If you're interested in discussing the RCP, let me now.

Otherwise, I don't really care about your baseless, one sentence, "opinion".

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ He is merely continuing the RCP conversation from the MLM thread.

[Dros]

This post should be post number 57. Could a mod please put it there. I don't know how this happened.



Is there any attack against the RCP you wouldn't consider "opportunistic and baseless?" Granted, I took a cheap shot. But behind that snarky comment lies a real criticism of the RCP,

Yes. What you just said is TOTALLY DIFFERENT then making a one sentence statement without any actual argument. The critical difference between the two approaches (and the difference that generally seperates baseless opportunist attacks from actual criticism) is that this statement is possible to and actually intended for engagement. That is why the Ely polemic is an attack and not a criticism. It's premised on NOT engaging with the RCP and is thus necessarily an attack and representative of an opportunistic framework. I have no problem with ACTUAL CRITICISM. I do have a problem with opportunism masquerading as principled Communist criticism.


which is that it has acted in an ultra-left, as well as dogmatic, way historically.

a.) With regards to "dogmatic" I'd refer you to my thread on sectarianism in politics and to my earlier posts in this thread. I think that is what is mistaken as dogmatism is just confidence in our line and our understanding of the Vanguard party. I would say that being an "RCP dogmatist" is necessarily impossible because the methodology of the RCP is diametrically opposed to the kind of rigid thinking that is embodied in dogmatic thought. So anyone who is dogmatic about line struggle isn't accurately reflecting the position of the RCP.

b.) What about the RCP's position has been ultra-left?


To be fair, the RCP is not acting ultra-left right now. If anything, it has swung too far in the opposite direction with it's World Can't Wait, Bring Down the Bush Regime opportunism. While I can't applaud the result, I can applaud the attempt to try something new (from the RCP's perspective).

Of course the WCW campaign did not generate the results we would have liked and that has been something we have learned from. But conceptually, why is this right-deviationist? The Bush administration has committed atrocities and devastations worse than any president since Reagan. Bush should be opposed even within the context of the bourgeois democratic government because of what he represents.

[Dros]

^^^ He is merely continuing the RCP conversation from the MLM thread.

What thread?

And where has anyone made a cogent argument for the RCP being infantile or left deviationist?


I'm really getting tired of these opportunistic and baseless attacks against the RCP.

[chegitz guevara]

Is there any attack against the RCP you wouldn't consider "opportunistic and baseless?" Granted, I took a cheap shot. But behind that snarky comment lies a real criticism of the RCP, which is that it has acted in an ultra-left, as well as dogmatic, way historically.

To be fair, the RCP is not acting ultra-left right now. If anything, it has swung too far in the opposite direction with it's World Can't Wait, Bring Down the Bush Regime opportunism. While I can't applaud the result, I can applaud the attempt to try something new (from the RCP's perspective).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, since a left-communist and d brought up "the communist left," I must admit that I'm entertaining thoughts of pulling off a Buzz Lightyear by saying, "To infantility... and beyond!"

However, to their credit, left-communists aren't theoretical infants (although their reductionist and Sabbath-sectarian ideas come across as being childish (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-communist-ultra-t76114/index.html)).

[Dros]

I'm reposting this where it belongs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chegitz guevara
Is there any attack against the RCP you wouldn't consider "opportunistic and baseless?" Granted, I took a cheap shot. But behind that snarky comment lies a real criticism of the RCP,

Yes. What you just said is TOTALLY DIFFERENT then making a one sentence statement without any actual argument. The critical difference between the two approaches (and the difference that generally seperates baseless opportunist attacks from actual criticism) is that this statement is possible to and actually intended for engagement. That is why the Ely polemic is an attack and not a criticism. It's premised on NOT engaging with the RCP and is thus necessarily an attack and representative of an opportunistic framework. I have no problem with ACTUAL CRITICISM. I do have a problem with opportunism masquerading as principled Communist criticism.

Quote:
which is that it has acted in an ultra-left, as well as dogmatic, way historically.


a.) With regards to "dogmatic" I'd refer you to my thread on sectarianism in politics and to my earlier posts in this thread. I think that is what is mistaken as dogmatism is just confidence in our line and our understanding of the Vanguard party. I would say that being an "RCP dogmatist" is necessarily impossible because the methodology of the RCP is diametrically opposed to the kind of rigid thinking that is embodied in dogmatic thought. So anyone who is dogmatic about line struggle isn't accurately reflecting the position of the RCP.

b.) What about the RCP's position has been ultra-left?

Quote:
To be fair, the RCP is not acting ultra-left right now. If anything, it has swung too far in the opposite direction with it's World Can't Wait, Bring Down the Bush Regime opportunism. While I can't applaud the result, I can applaud the attempt to try something new (from the RCP's perspective).


Of course the WCW campaign did not generate the results we would have liked and that has been something we have learned from. But conceptually, why is this right-deviationist? The Bush administration has committed atrocities and devastations worse than any president since Reagan. Bush should be opposed even within the context of the bourgeois democratic government because of what he represents.

[hekmatista]

When I was in PLP, we explicitly identified the revolutionary workers' state with Party rule. If I were still in agreement with that sentiment, I would still be in PLP or else searching for the "true" vanguard.
For now let me limit myself to the locus of power
in the d of p. If we assume that in the leadup to revolution, one
party or tendency gains enough traction within the class to have the
leading ideas, programs, and slogans of the class, then, yes, that
single organization will AT THAT JUNCTURE be the expression of the
interests of the class as a whole. Chances are it will obtain a
majority of delegates to whatever form of workers' councils or
workers' parliament (it's not a dirty word, refer to James Connolly)
arises as the instrument of direct class democracy. The likelihood
that ALL the advanced workers will belong to that single party,
however, is low. How many "vanguards" do we have right now? In
looking at the lists of self-proclaimed Leninist parties in any one
of the advanced countries, I fail to see how their cadres will put
aside historical differences between Stalinists, Hoxhaists,
Trotskyites, Maoists, Council and other Left Communists, the left
wing of social democracy (which always breaks with their right in
revolutionary situations), not to mention syndicalist, and anarchist
groupings. By the time we arrive at a revolutionary crisis there
will no doubt be far fewer organizations; most of the currently
existing ones will have long since died for lack of genuine class
roots, the better ones will have proletarianized themselves beyond
recognition, fusions, splits, etc. will have reconfigured the
ideological landscape, BUT THERE WILL STILL BE SEVERAL organizational
expressions of the will of the class. Back to the hypothetical
situation of one of these parties being dominant and having the
correct mass line at the point of crisis; what shall that party do
about the others that have a different take on what is to be done?
Obviously the c c of the dominant party will believe that they are
objectively correct and the other parties are objectively
compromising the chances of the class successfully moving forward
toward communism; just as obviously, the c c's of the various other
parties will believe the same in reverse. Keeping the assumption
that the largest, most authoritative party has won the following of
the mass workers' organizations, in their majority, but not their
unanimity, what should be the form in which that one party fights for
its line as against the lines of other workers' parties? Remember,
the other (subjectively, at least) workers' parties are the free
associations of WORKERS, just as the neo-bolshevik majority party is
a free association of workers. To believe the resolution of such
matters is merely a tactical decision of the majority party's
leadership is to believe that the locus of the proletariat's
political will is IN THAT PARTY. Historically, it may well be, AT
THAT JUNCTURE. However, to invest the one party with that power, to
identify it PERMANENTLY with the interests of the whole class,
inevitably leads (and has led) to degeneration and the
reestablishment of an alien ruling class, from within the party
itself. On the contrary, to identify the locus of the class
dictatorship with the organs of direct workers' democracy, whether
soviets or whatever forms the historical moment creates, means that
the (inevitably) temporary majority must as a matter of PRINCIPLE not
of tactics, approach the other workers' parties on a basuis of
political struggle, not suppression of the (inevitably) temporary
minority parties. The class itself will select appropriate policies
in their direct assemblies, which will at one point make one party
the dominant one, at other points another. Complete freedom of
speech and organization for all workers is essential for this to
occur, obviously. Principled parties who wish to perform a vanguard
role must needs proclaim the absolute freedom of speech, press, and
agitation of ALL workers' tendencies. Just who is the vanguard at a
given moment is not written in the stars; the working class will
decide, and what it decides, it can also change.